# Isis Unveiled, Volume 2 - Theology *Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.* --- > ISIS UNVEILED: > > A MASTER-KEY > > TO THE > > MYSTERIES OF ANCIENT AND MODERN > > SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY. > > BY > > H. P. BLAVATSKY, > CORRESPONDING SECRETARY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. > > “Cecy est un livre de bonne Foy.”--MONTAIGNE. > > VOL. II.--_THEOLOGY._ > > FOURTH EDITION. > > NEW YORK: > J. W. BOUTON, 706 BROADWAY. > LONDON: BERNARD QUARITCH. > 1878. > > COPYRIGHT, BY > J. W. BOUTON. > 1877. > > TROW’S > PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING CO., > PRINTERS AND BOOKBINDERS, > _205-213 East 12th St._, > NEW YORK. > > TABLE OF CONTENTS. > > PAGE > > PREFACE iv > Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson and Baroness Burdett-Coutts. > > Volume Second. > > _THE “INFALLIBILITY” OF RELIGION._ > > CHAPTER I. > > THE CHURCH: WHERE IS IT? > > Church statistics 1 > Catholic “miracles” and spiritualistic “phenomena” 4 > Christian and Pagan beliefs compared 10 > Magic and sorcery practised by Christian clergy 20 > Comparative theology a new science 25 > Eastern traditions as to Alexandrian Library 27 > Roman pontiffs imitators of the Hindu Brahm-âtma 30 > Christian dogmas derived from heathen philosophy 33 > Doctrine of the Trinity of Pagan origin 45 > Disputes between Gnostics and Church Fathers 51 > Bloody records of Christianity 53 > > CHAPTER II. > > CHRISTIAN CRIMES AND HEATHEN VIRTUES. > > Sorceries of Catherine of Medicis 55 > Occult arts practised by the clergy 59 > Witch-burnings and auto-da-fé of little children 62 > Lying Catholic saints 74 > Pretensions of missionaries in India and China 79 > Sacrilegious tricks of Catholic clergy 82 > Paul a kabalist 91 > Peter not the founder of Roman church 91 > Strict lives of Pagan hierophants 98 > High character of ancient “mysteries” 101 > Jacolliot’s account of Hindu fakirs 103 > Christian symbolism derived from Phallic worship 109 > Hindu doctrine of the Pitris 114 > Brahminic spirit-communion 115 > Dangers of _untrained_ mediumship 117 > > CHAPTER III. > > DIVISIONS AMONGST THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. > > Resemblance between early Christianity and Buddhism 123 > Peter never in Rome 124 > Meanings of “Nazar” and “Nazarene” 129 > Baptism a derived right 134 > Is Zoroaster a generic name? 141 > Pythagorean teachings of Jesus 147 > The Apocalypse kabalistic 147 > Jesus considered an adept by some Pagan philosophers > and early Christians 150 > Doctrine of permutation 152 > The meaning of God-Incarnate 153 > Dogmas of the Gnostics 155 > Ideas of Marcion, the “heresiarch” 159 > Precepts of Manu 163 > Jehovah identical with Bacchus 165 > > CHAPTER IV. > > ORIENTAL COSMOGONIES AND BIBLE RECORDS. > > Discrepancies in the Pentateuch 167 > Indian, Chaldean and Ophite systems compared 170 > Who were the first Christians? 178 > Christos and Sophia-Achamoth 183 > Secret doctrine taught by Jesus 191 > Jesus never claimed to be God 193 > New Testament narratives and Hindu legends 199 > Antiquity of the “Logos” and “Christ” 205 > Comparative Virgin-worship 209 > > CHAPTER V. > > MYSTERIES OF THE KABALA. > > En-Soph and the Sephiroth 212 > The primitive wisdom-religion 216 > The book of Genesis a compilation of Old World legends 217 > The Trinity of the Kabala 222 > Gnostic and Nazarene systems contrasted with Hindu myths 225 > Kabalism in the book of Ezekiel 232 > Story of the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter found > in the history of Christna 241 > Untrustworthy teachings of the early Fathers 248 > Their persecuting spirit 249 > > CHAPTER VI. > > ESOTERIC DOCTRINES OF BUDDHISM PARODIED IN CHRISTIANITY. > > Decisions of Nicean Council, how arrived at 251 > Murder of Hypatia 252 > Origin of the fish-symbol of Vishnu 256 > Kabalistic doctrine of the Cosmogony 264 > Diagrams of Hindu and Chaldeo-Jewish systems 265 > Ten mythical Avatars of Vishnu 274 > Trinity of man taught by Paul 281 > Socrates and Plato on soul and spirit 283 > True Buddhism, what it is 288 > > CHAPTER VII. > > EARLY CHRISTIAN HERESIES AND SECRET SOCIETIES. > > Nazareans, Ophites, and modern Druzes 291 > Etymology of IAO 298 > “Hermetic Brothers” of Egypt 307 > True meaning of Nirvana 319 > The Jaïna sect 321 > Christians and Chrestians 323 > The Gnostics and their detractors 325 > Buddha, Jesus, and Apollonius of Tyana 341 > > CHAPTER VIII. > > JESUITRY AND MASONRY. > > The _Sohar_ and Rabbi Simeon 348 > The Order of Jesuits and its relation to some of the > Masonic orders 352 > Crimes permitted to its members 355 > Principles of Jesuitry compared with those of Pagan > moralists 364 > Trinity of man in Egyptian _Book of the Dead_ 367 > Freemasonry no longer esoteric 372 > Persecution of Templars by the Church 381 > Secret Masonic ciphers 395 > Jehovah not the “Ineffable Name” 398 > > CHAPTER IX. > > THE VEDAS AND THE BIBLE. > > Nearly every myth based on some great truth 405 > Whence the Christian Sabbath 406 > Antiquity of the Vedas 410 > Pythagorean doctrine of the potentialities of numbers 417 > “Days” of _Genesis_ and “Days” of Brahma 422 > Fall of man and the Deluge in the Hindu books 425 > Antiquity of the Mahâbhârata 429 > Were the ancient Egyptians of the Aryan race? 434 > Samuel, David, and Solomon mythical personages 439 > Symbolism of Noah’s Ark 447 > The Patriarchs identical with zodiacal signs 459 > All Bible legends belong to universal history 469 > > CHAPTER X. > > THE DEVIL-MYTH. > > The devil officially recognized by the Church 477 > Satan the mainstay of sacerdotalism 480 > Identity of Satan with the Egyptian Typhon 483 > His relation to serpent-worship 489 > The Book of Job and the Book of the Dead 493 > The Hindu devil a metaphysical abstraction 501 > Satan and the Prince of Hell in the Gospel of Nicodemus 515 > > CHAPTER XI. > > COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY. > > The age of philosophy produced no atheists 530 > The legends of three Saviours 537 > Christian doctrine of the Atonement illogical 542 > Cause of the failure of missionaries to convert > Buddhists and Brahmanists 553 > Neither Buddha nor Jesus left written records 559 > The grandest mysteries of religion in the Bagaved-gita 562 > The meaning of regeneration explained in the > Satapa-Brâhmana 565 > The sacrifice of blood interpreted 566 > Demoralization of British India by Christian > missionaries 573 > The Bible less authenticated than any other sacred book 577 > Knowledge of chemistry and physics displayed by Indian > jugglers 583 > > CHAPTER XII. > > CONCLUSIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. > > Recapitulation of fundamental propositions 587 > Seership of the soul and of the spirit 590 > The phenomenon of the so-called spirit-hand 594 > Difference between mediums and adepts 595 > Interview of an English ambassador with a reïncarnated > Buddha 598 > Flight of a lama’s astral body related by Abbé Huc 604 > Schools of magic in Buddhist lamaseries 609 > The unknown race of Hindu Todas 613 > Will-power of fakirs and yogis 617 > Taming of wild beasts by fakirs 622 > Evocation of a living spirit by a Shaman, witnessed > by the writer 626 > Sorcery by the breath of a Jesuit Father 633 > Why the study of magic is almost impracticable in > Europe 635 > Conclusion 635 > > PREFACE TO PART II. > > Were it possible, we would keep this work out of the hands of many > Christians whom its perusal would not benefit, and for whom it was not > written. We allude to those whose faith in their respective churches > is pure and sincere, and those whose sinless lives reflect the > glorious example of that Prophet of Nazareth, by whose mouth the > spirit of truth spake loudly to humanity. Such there have been at all > times. History preserves the names of many as heroes, philosophers, > philanthropists, martyrs, and holy men and women; but how many more > have lived and died, unknown but to their intimate acquaintance, > unblessed but by their humble beneficiaries! These have ennobled > Christianity, but would have shed the same lustre upon any other faith > they might have professed--for they were higher than their creed. The > benevolence of Peter Cooper and Elizabeth Thompson, of America, who > are not orthodox Christians, is no less Christ-like than that of the > Baroness Angela Burdett-Coutts, of England, who is one. And yet, in > comparison with the millions who have been accounted Christians, such > have always formed a small minority. They are to be found at this day, > in pulpit and pew, in palace and cottage; but the increasing > materialism, worldliness and hypocrisy are fast diminishing their > proportionate number. Their charity, and simple, child-like faith in > the infallibility of their Bible, their dogmas, and their clergy, > bring into full activity all the virtues that are implanted in our > common nature. We have personally known such God-fearing priests and > clergymen, and we have always avoided debate with them, lest we might > be guilty of the cruelty of hurting their feelings; nor would we rob a > single layman of his blind confidence, if it alone made possible for > him holy living and serene dying. > > An analysis of religious beliefs in general, this volume is in > particular directed against theological Christianity, the chief > opponent of free thought. It contains not one word against the pure > teachings of Jesus, but unsparingly denounces their debasement into > pernicious ecclesiastical systems that are ruinous to man’s faith in > his immortality and his God, and subversive of all moral restraint. > > We cast our gauntlet at the dogmatic theologians who would enslave > both history and science; and especially at the Vatican, whose > despotic pretensions have become hateful to the greater portion of > enlightened Christendom. The clergy apart, none but the logician, the > investigator, the dauntless explorer should meddle with books like > this. Such delvers after truth have the courage of their opinions. > > ISIS UNVEILED. > > _PART TWO.--RELIGION._ > > CHAPTER I. > > “Yea, the time cometh, that whomsoever killeth you, will > think that he doeth God service.”--_Gospel according to > John_, xvi., 2. > > “Let him be ANATHEMA ... who shall say that human Sciences > ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one > may be allowed to hold as true their assertions even when > opposed to revealed doctrines.”--_Œcumenical Council of > 1870._ > > “GLOUC.--The Church! Where is it?”--_King Henry VI._, Act > i., Sc. 1. > > In the United States of America, sixty thousand (60,428) men are > paid salaries to teach the Science of God and His relations to His > creatures. > > These men contract to impart to us the knowledge which treats of the > existence, character, and attributes of our Creator; His laws and > government; the doctrines we are to believe and the duties we are > to practice. Five thousand (5,141) of them,[1] with the prospect of > 1273 theological students to help them in time, teach this science > according to a formula prescribed by the Bishop of Rome, to five > million people. Fifty-five thousand (55,287) local and travelling > ministers, representing fifteen different denominations,[2] each > contradicting the other upon more or less vital theological > questions, instruct, in their respective doctrines, thirty-three > million (33,500,000) other persons. Many of these teach according > to the canons of the cis-Atlantic branch of an establishment which > acknowledges a daughter of the late Duke of Kent as its spiritual > head. There are many hundred thousand Jews; some thousands of > Orientals of all kinds; and a very few who belong to the Greek > Church. A man at Salt Lake City, with nineteen wives and more than > one hundred children and grandchildren, is the supreme spiritual > ruler over ninety thousand people, who believe that he is in frequent > intercourse with the gods--for the Mormons are Polytheists as well as > Polygamists, and their chief god is represented as living in a planet > they call Colob. > > The God of the Unitarians is a bachelor; the Deity of the > Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, and the other orthodox > Protestant sects a spouseless Father with one Son, who is identical > with Himself. In the attempt to outvie each other in the erection > of their sixty-two thousand and odd churches, prayer-houses, and > meeting-halls, in which to teach these conflicting theological > doctrines, $354,485,581 have been spent. The value of the Protestant > parsonages alone, in which are sheltered the disputants and their > families, is roughly calculated to approximate $54,115,297. Sixteen > million (16,179,387) dollars, are, morever, contributed every year > for current expenses of the Protestant denominations only. One > Presbyterian church in New York cost a round million; a Catholic > altar alone, one-fourth as much! > > We will not mention the multitude of smaller sects, communities, and > extravagantly original little heresies in this country which spring > up one year to die out the next, like so many spores of fungi after a > rainy day. We will not even stop to consider the alleged millions of > Spiritualists; for the majority lack the courage to break away from > their respective religious denominations. These are the back-door > Nicodemuses. > > And now, with Pilate, let us inquire, What is truth? Where is it to > be searched for amid this multitude of warring sects? Each claims to > be based upon divine revelation, and each to have the keys of the > celestial gates. Is either in possession of this rare truth? Or, must > we exclaim with the Buddhist philosopher, “There is but one truth on > earth, and it is unchangeable: and this is--that there is _no_ truth > on it!” > > Though we have no disposition whatever to trench upon the ground that > has been so exhaustively gleaned by those learned scholars who have > shown that every Christian dogma has its origin in a heathen rite, > still the facts which they have exhumed, since the enfranchisement > of science, will lose nothing by repetition. Besides, we propose to > examine these facts from a different and perhaps rather novel point > of view: that of the old philosophies as esoterically understood. > These we have barely glanced at in our first volume. We will use them > as the standard by which to compare Christian dogmas and miracles > with the doctrines and phenomena of ancient magic, and the modern > “New Dispensation,” as Spiritualism is called by its votaries. Since > the materialists deny the phenomena without investigation, and since > the theologians in admitting them offer us the poor choice of two > palpable absurdities--the Devil and miracles--we can lose little by > applying to the theurgists, and they may actually help us to throw a > great light upon a very dark subject. > > Professor A. Butlerof, of the Imperial University of St. Petersburg, > remarks in a recent pamphlet, entitled _Mediumistic Manifestations_, > as follows: “Let the facts (of modern spiritualism) belong if you > will to the number of those which were more or less known by the > ancients; let them be identical with those which in the dark ages > gave importance to the office of Egyptian priest or Roman augur; let > them even furnish the basis of the sorcery of our Siberian Shaman; > ... let them be all these, and, if they are _real facts_, it is > no business of ours. All the facts in nature _belong to science_, > and every addition to the store of science enriches instead of > impoverishing her. If humanity has once admitted a truth, and then in > the blindness of self-conceit denied it, to return to its realization > is a step forward and not backward.” > > Since the day that modern science gave what may be considered the > death-blow to dogmatic theology, by assuming the ground that religion > was full of mystery, and mystery is unscientific, the mental state > of the educated class has presented a curious aspect. Society seems > from that time to have been ever balancing itself upon one leg, on > an unseen tight-rope stretched from our visible universe into the > invisible one; uncertain whether the end hooked on faith in the > latter might not suddenly break, and hurl it into final annihilation. > > The great body of nominal Christians may be divided into three > unequal portions: materialists, spiritualists, and Christians proper. > The materialists and spiritualists make common cause against the > hierarchical pretensions of the clergy; who, in retaliation, denounce > both with equal acerbity. The materialists are as little in harmony > as the Christian sects themselves--the Comtists, or, as they call > themselves, the positivists, being despised and hated to the last > degree by the schools of thinkers, one of which Maudsley honorably > represents in England. Positivism, be it remembered, is that > “religion” of the future about whose founder even Huxley has made > himself wrathful in his famous lecture, _The Physical Basis of Life_; > and Maudsley felt obliged, in behalf of, to express himself thus: “It > is no wonder that scientific men should be anxious to disclaim Comte > as their law-giver, and to protest against such a king being set up > to reign over them. Not conscious of any personal obligation to his > writings--conscious how much, in some respects, he has misrepresented > the spirit and pretensions of science--they repudiate the allegiance > which his enthusiastic disciples would force upon them, and which > popular opinion is fast coming to think a natural one. They do > well in thus making a timely assertion of independence; for if it > be not done soon, it will soon be too late to be done well.”[3] > When a materialistic doctrine is repudiated so strongly by two such > materialists as Huxley and Maudsley, then we must think indeed that > it is absurdity itself. > > Among Christians there is nothing but dissension. Their various > churches represent every degree of religious belief, from the > omnivorous credulity of blind faith to a condescending and high-toned > deference to the Deity which thinly masks an evident conviction of > their own deific wisdom. All these sects believe more or less in the > immortality of the soul. Some admit the intercourse between the two > worlds as a fact; some entertain the opinion as a sentiment; some > positively deny it; and only a few maintain an attitude of attention > and expectancy. > > Impatient of restraint, longing for the return of the dark ages, > the Romish Church frowns at the _diabolical_ manifestations, and > indicates what she would do to their champions had she but the power > of old. Were it not for the self-evident fact that she herself is > placed by science on trial, and that she is handcuffed, she would > be ready at a moment’s notice to repeat in the nineteenth century > the revolting scenes of former days. As to the Protestant clergy, so > furious is their common hatred toward spiritualism, that as a secular > paper very truly remarks: “They seem willing to undermine the public > faith in all the spiritual phenomena of the past, as recorded in the > _Bible_, if they can only see the pestilent modern heresy stabbed to > the heart.”[4] > > Summoning back the long-forgotten memories of the Mosaic laws, the > Romish Church claims the monopoly of miracles, and of the right > to sit in judgment over them, as being the sole heir thereto by > direct inheritance. The _Old Testament_, exiled by Colenso, his > predecessors and contemporaries, is recalled from its banishment. The > prophets, whom his Holiness the Pope condescends at last to place, > if not on the same level with himself, at least at a less respectful > distance,[5] are dusted and cleaned. The memory of all the diabolical > abracadabra is evoked anew. The blasphemous _horrors_ perpetrated > by Paganism, its phallic worship, thaumaturgical wonders wrought > by Satan, human sacrifices, incantations, witchcraft, magic, and > sorcery are recalled and DEMONISM is confronted with _spiritualism_ > for mutual recognition and identification. Our modern demonologists > conveniently overlook a few insignificant details, among which is the > undeniable presence of heathen phallism in the Christian symbols. A > strong spiritual element of this worship may be easily demonstrated > in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of > God; and a physical element equally proved in the fetish-worship of > the holy _limbs_ of Sts. Cosmo and Damiano, at Isernia, near Naples; > a successful traffic in which _ex-voto_ in wax was carried on by the > clergy, annually, until barely a half century ago.[6] > > We find it rather unwise on the part of Catholic writers to > pour out their vials of wrath in such sentences as these: “In a > multitude of pagodas, the phallic stone, ever and always assuming, > like the Grecian _batylos_, the brutally indecent form of the > _lingham_ ... the Maha Deva.”[7] Before casting slurs on a symbol > whose profound metaphysical meaning is too much for the modern > champions of that religion of sensualism _par excellence_, Roman > Catholicism, to grasp, they are in duty bound to destroy their > oldest churches, and change the form of the cupolas of their own > temples. The Mahody of Elephanta, the Round Tower of Bhangulpore, > the minarets of Islam--either rounded or pointed--are the originals > of the _Campanile_ column of San Marco, at Venice, of the Rochester > Cathedral, and of the modern Duomo of Milan. All of these steeples, > turrets, domes, and Christian temples, are the reproductions of the > primitive idea of the _lithos_, the upright phallus. “The western > tower of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London,” says the author of _The > Rosicrucians_, “is one of the double _lithoi_ placed always in > front of every temple, Christian as well as heathen.”[8] Moreover, > in all Christian Churches, “particularly in Protestant churches, > where they figure most conspicuously, the two tables of stone of the > Mosaic Dispensation are placed over the altar, side by side, as a > united stone, the tops of which are rounded.... The right stone is > _masculine_, the left _feminine_.” Therefore neither Catholics nor > Protestants have a right to talk of the “indecent forms” of heathen > monuments so long as they ornament their own churches with the > symbols of the Lingham and Yoni, and even write the laws of their God > upon them. > > Another detail not redounding very particularly to the honor of the > Christian clergy might be recalled in the word Inquisition. The > torrents of human blood shed by this _Christian_ institution, and > the number of its human sacrifices, are unparalleled in the annals of > Paganism. Another still more prominent feature in which the clergy > surpassed their masters, the “heathen,” is _sorcery_. Certainly in > no Pagan temple was black magic, in its real and true sense, more > practiced than in the Vatican. While strongly supporting exorcism as > an important source of revenue, they neglected magic as little as > the ancient heathen. It is easy to prove that the _sortilegium_, or > sorcery, was widely practiced among the clergy and monks so late as > the last century, and is practiced occasionally even now. > > Anathematizing every manifestation of occult nature outside the > precincts of the Church, the clergy--notwithstanding proofs to the > contrary--call it “the work of Satan,” “the snares of the fallen > angels,” who “rush in and out from the bottomless pit,” mentioned by > John in his kabalistic _Revelation_, “from whence arises a smoke as > the smoke of a great furnace.” “_Intoxicated by its fumes, around > this pit are daily gathering millions of Spiritualists, to worship at > “the Abyss of Baal._”[9] > > More than ever arrogant, stubborn, and despotic, now that she has > been nearly upset by modern research, not daring to interfere with > the powerful champions of science, the Latin Church revenges herself > upon the unpopular phenomena. A despot without a victim, is a word > void of sense; a power which neglects to assert itself through > outward, well-calculated effects, risks being doubted in the end. > The Church has no intention to fall into the oblivion of the ancient > myths, or to suffer her authority to be too closely questioned. Hence > she pursues, as well as the times permit, her traditional policy. > Lamenting the enforced extinction of her ally, the Holy Inquisition, > she makes a virtue of necessity. The only victims now within reach > are the Spiritists of France. Recent events have shown that the meek > spouse of Christ never disdains to retaliate on helpless victims. > > Having successfully performed her part of _Deus-ex-Machina_ from > behind the French Bench, which has not scrupled to disgrace itself > for her, the Church of Rome sets to work and shows in the year > 1876 what she can do. From the whirling tables and dancing pencils > of profane Spiritualism, the Christian world is warned to turn to > the divine “miracles” of Lourdes. Meanwhile, the ecclesiastical > authorities utilize their time in arranging for other more easy > triumphs, calculated to scare the superstitious out of their senses. > So, acting under orders, the clergy hurl dramatic, if not very > impressive anathemas from every Catholic diocese; threaten right > and left; excommunicate and curse. Perceiving, finally, that her > thunderbolts directed even against crowned heads fall about as > harmlessly as the Jupiterean lightnings of Offenbach’s _Calchas_, > Rome turns about in powerless fury against the victimized _protégés_ > of the Emperor of Russia--the unfortunate Bulgarians and Servians. > Undisturbed by evidence and sarcasm, unbaffled by proof, “the > lamb of the Vatican” impartially divides his wrath between the > liberals of Italy, “the impious whose breath has the stench of the > sepulchre,”[10] the “schismatic Russian _Sarmates_,” and the heretics > and spiritualists, “who worship at the bottomless pit where the great > Dragon lies in wait.” > > Mr. Gladstone went to the trouble of making a catalogue of what he > terms the “flowers of speech,” disseminated through these Papal > discourses. Let us cull a few of the chosen terms used by this > vicegerent of Him who said that, “whosoever shall say _Thou fool_, > shall be in danger of hell-fire.” They are selected from authentic > discourses. Those who oppose the Pope are “wolves, Pharisees, > thieves, liars, hypocrites, dropsical children of Satan, sons of > perdition, of sin, and corruption, satellites of Satan in human > flesh, monsters of hell, demons incarnate, stinking corpses, men > issued from the pits of hell, traitors and Judases led by the spirit > of hell; children of the deepest pits of hell,” etc., etc.; the > whole piously collected and published by Don Pasquale di Franciscis, > whom Gladstone has, with perfect propriety, termed, “an accomplished > professor of _flunkeyism_ in things spiritual.”[11] > > Since his Holiness the Pope has such a rich vocabulary of > invectives at his command, why wonder that the Bishop of Toulouse > did not scruple to utter the most undignified falsehoods about the > Protestants and Spiritualists of America--people doubly odious to a > Catholic--in his address to his diocese: “Nothing,” he remarks, “is > more common in an era of unbelief than to see a _false revelation > substitute itself for the true one_, and minds neglect the teachings > of the Holy Church, to devote themselves to the study of divination > and the occult sciences.” With a fine episcopal contempt for > statistics, and strangely confounding in his memory the audiences > of the revivalists, Moody and Sankey, and the patrons of darkened > seance-rooms, he utters the unwarranted and fallacious assertion > that “it has been proven that Spiritualism, in the United States, > has caused one-sixth of all the cases of suicide and insanity.” > He says that it is not possible that the spirits “teach either an > exact science, because they are lying demons, or a useful science, > because the character of the word of Satan, like Satan himself, is > sterile.” He warns his dear _collaborateurs_, that “the writings in > favor of Spiritualism are under the ban;” and he advises them to let > it be known that “to frequent spiritual circles with the intention > of accepting the doctrine, is to apostatize from the Holy Church, > and assume the risk of excommunication;” finally, says he, “Publish > the fact that the teaching of no spirit should prevail against that > of the pulpit of Peter, which is the teaching of the Spirit of God > Himself!!” > > Aware of the many false teachings attributed by the Roman Church to > the Creator, we prefer disbelieving the latter assertion. The famous > Catholic theologian, Tillemont, assures us in his work that “all the > illustrious Pagans are condemned to the eternal torments of hell, > _because_ they lived before the time of Jesus, and, therefore, could > not be benefited by the redemption!!” He also assures us that the > Virgin Mary personally testified to this truth over her own signature > in a letter to a saint. Therefore, this is also a revelation--“the > Spirit of God Himself” teaching such charitable doctrines. > > We have also read with great advantage the topographical descriptions > of _Hell and Purgatory_ in the celebrated treatise under that name > by a Jesuit, the Cardinal Bellarmin. A critic found that the author, > who gives the description from a _divine_ vision with which he was > favored, “appears to possess all the knowledge of a land-measurer” > about the secret tracts and formidable divisions of the “bottomless > pit.” Justin Martyr having actually committed to paper the heretical > thought that after all Socrates might not be altogether fixed in > hell, his Benedictine editor criticises this too benevolent father > very severely. Whoever doubts the Christian charity of the Church > of Rome in this direction is invited to peruse the _Censure_ of > the Sorbonne, on Marmontel’s _Belisarius_. The _odium theologicum_ > blazes in it on the dark sky of orthodox theology like an aurora > borealis--the precursor of God’s wrath, according to the teaching of > certain mediæval divines. > > We have attempted in the first part of this work to show, by > historical examples, how completely men of science have deserved > the stinging sarcasm of the late Professor de Morgan, who remarked > of them that “they wear the priest’s cast-off garb, dyed to escape > detection.” The Christian clergy are, in like manner, attired in the > cast-off garb of the _heathen_ priesthood; acting diametrically in > opposition to their _God’s_ moral precepts, but nevertheless, sitting > in judgment over the whole world. > > When dying on the cross, the martyred Man of Sorrows forgave his > enemies. His last words were a prayer in their behalf. He taught his > disciples to curse not, but to bless, even their foes. But the heirs > of St. Peter, the self constituted representatives on earth of that > same meek Jesus, unhesitatingly curse whoever resists their despotic > will. Besides, was not the “Son” long since crowded by them into the > background? They make their obeisance only to the Dowager Mother, > for--according to their teaching--again through “the direct Spirit > of God,” she alone acts as a mediatrix. The Œcumenical Council of > 1870 embodied the teaching into a dogma, to disbelieve which is to > be doomed forever to the ‘bottomless pit.’ The work of Don Pasquale > di Franciscis is positive on that point; for he tells us that, as > the Queen of Heaven owes to the present Pope “the finest gem in her > coronet,” since he has conferred on her the unexpected honor of > becoming suddenly immaculate, there is nothing she cannot obtain from > her Son for “her Church.”[12] > > Some years ago, certain travellers saw in Barri, Italy, a statue > of the Madonna, arrayed in a flounced pink skirt over a swelling > _crinoline_! Pious pilgrims who may be anxious to examine the > regulation wardrobe of their God’s mother may do so by going to > Southern Italy, Spain, and Catholic North and South America. The > Madonna of Barri must still be there--between two vineyards and a > _locanda_ (gin-shop). When last seen, a half-successful attempt had > been made to clothe the infant Jesus; they had covered his legs with > a pair of dirty, scollop-edged pantaloons. An English traveller > having presented the “Mediatrix” with a green silk parasol, the > grateful population of the _contadini_, accompanied by the village > priest, went in procession to the spot. They managed to stick the > sunshade, opened, between the infant’s back and the arm of the > Virgin which embraced him. The scene and ceremony were both solemn > and highly refreshing to our religious feelings. For there stood > the image of the goddess in its niche, surrounded with a row of > ever-burning lamps, the flames of which, flickering in the breeze, > infect God’s pure air with an offensive smell of olive oil. The > Mother and Son truly represent the two most conspicuous idols of > _Monotheistic_ Christianity! > > For a companion to the idol of the poor _contadini_ of Barri, go > to the rich city of Rio Janeiro. In the Church of the Duomo del > Candelaria, in a long hall running along one side of the church, > there might be seen, a few years ago, another Madonna. Along the > walls of the hall there is a line of saints, each standing on a > contribution-box, which thus forms a fit pedestal. In the centre > of this line, under a gorgeously rich canopy of blue silk, is > exhibited the Virgin Mary leaning on the arm of Christ. “Our Lady” is > arrayed in a very _décolleté_ blue satin dress with short sleeves, > showing, to great advantage, a snow-white, exquisitely-moulded > neck, shoulders, and arms. The skirt equally of blue satin with > an overskirt of rich lace and gauze puffs, is as short as that of > a ballet-dancer; hardly reaching the knee, it exhibits a pair of > finely-shaped legs covered with flesh colored silk tights, and blue > satin French boots with very high red heels! The blonde hair of this > “Mother of God” is arranged in the latest fashion, with a voluminous > _chignon_ and curls. As she leans on her Son’s arm, her face is > lovingly turned toward her Only-Begotten, whose dress and attitude > are equally worthy of admiration. Christ wears an evening dress-coat, > with swallow-tail, black trousers, and low cut white vest; varnished > boots, and white kid gloves, _over one of which_ sparkles a rich > diamond ring, worth many thousands we must suppose--a precious > Brazilian jewel. Above this body of a modern Portuguese dandy, is a > head with the hair parted in the middle; a sad and solemn face, and > eyes whose patient look seems to reflect all the bitterness of this > last insult flung at the majesty of the Crucified.[13] > > The Egyptian Isis was also represented as a Virgin Mother by her > devotees, and as holding her infant son, Horus, in her arms. In some > statues and _basso-relievos_, when she appears alone she is either > completely nude or veiled from head to foot. But in the Mysteries, > in common with nearly every other goddess, she is entirely veiled > from head to foot, as a symbol of a mother’s chastity. It would > not do us any harm were we to borrow from the ancients some of the > poetic sentiment in their religions, and the innate veneration they > entertained for _their_ symbols. > > It is but fair to say at once that the last of the _true_ Christians > died with the last of the direct apostles. Max Müller forcibly asks: > “How can a missionary in such circumstances meet the surprise and > questions of his pupils, unless he may point to that seed,[14] and > tell them what Christianity was meant to be? unless he may show that, > like all other religions, Christianity too, has had its history; that > the Christianity of the nineteenth century is not the Christianity > of the middle ages, and that the Christianity of the middle ages was > not that of the early Councils; that the Christianity of the early > Councils was not that of the Apostles, and that what has been said by > Christ, that alone was well said?”[15] > > Thus we may infer that the only characteristic difference between > modern Christianity and the old heathen faiths is the belief of the > former in a personal devil and in hell. “The Aryan nations had no > devil,” says Max Müller. “Pluto, though of a sombre character, was a > very respectable personage; and Loki (the Scandinavian), though a > mischievous person, was not a fiend. The German Goddess, Hell, too, > like Proserpine, had once seen better days. Thus, when the Germans > were indoctrinated with the idea of a real devil, the Semitic Seth, > Satan or Diabolus, they treated him in the most good-humored way.” > > The same may be said of hell. Hades was quite a different place > from our region of eternal damnation, and might be termed rather an > intermediate state of purification. Neither does the Scandinavian > _Hel_ or Hela, imply either a state or a place of punishment; > for when Frigga, the grief-stricken mother of Bal-dur, the white > god, who died and found himself in the dark abodes of the shadows > (Hades) sent Hermod, a son of Thor, in quest of her beloved child, > the messenger found him in the inexorable region--alas! but still > comfortably seated on a rock, and reading a book.[16] The Norse > kingdom of the dead is moreover situated in the higher latitudes of > the Polar regions; it is a cold and cheerless abode, and neither the > gelid halls of Hela, nor the occupation of Baldur present the least > similitude to the blazing hell of eternal fire and the miserable > “damned” sinners with which the Church so generously peoples it. > No more is it the Egyptian Amenthes, the region of judgment and > purification; nor the Onderâh--the abyss of darkness of the Hindus; > for even the fallen angels hurled into it by Siva, are allowed > by Parabrahma to consider it as an intermediate state, in which > an opportunity is afforded them to prepare for higher degrees of > purification and redemption from their wretched condition. The > Gehenna of the _New Testament_ was a locality outside the walls of > Jerusalem; and in mentioning it, Jesus used but an ordinary metaphor. > Whence then came the dreary dogma of hell, that Archimedean lever > of Christian theology, with which they have succeeded to hold in > subjection the numberless millions of Christians for nineteen > centuries? Assuredly not from the Jewish Scriptures, and we appeal > for corroboration to any well-informed Hebrew scholar. > > The only designation of something approaching hell in the _Bible_ > is _Gehenna_ or Hinnom, a valley near Jerusalem, where was situated > Tophet, a place where a fire was perpetually kept for sanitary > purposes. The prophet Jeremiah informs us that the Israelites used > to sacrifice their children to Moloch-Hercules on that spot; and > later we find Christians quietly replacing this divinity by their > god of _mercy_, whose wrath will not be appeased, unless the Church > sacrifices to him her unbaptized children and sinning sons on the > altar of “eternal damnation!” > > Whence then did the divine learn so well the conditions of hell, as > to actually divide its torments into two kinds, the _pæna damni_ and > pænæ sensus, the former being the privation of the beatific vision; > the latter the _eternal_ pains _in a lake of fire and brimstone_? > If they answer us that it is in the _Apocalypse_ (xx. 10), we are > prepared to demonstrate whence the theologist John himself derived > the idea, “And _the devil_ that deceived them was cast into the lake > of fire and brimstone, where _the beast_ and the false prophet are > and shall be tormented for ever and ever,” he says. Laying aside the > esoteric interpretation that the “devil” or tempting demon meant > our own earthly body, which after death will surely dissolve in the > _fiery_ or ethereal elements,[17] the word “eternal” by which our > theologians interpret the words “for ever and ever” does not exist in > the Hebrew language, either as a word or meaning. There is no Hebrew > word which properly expresses _eternity_; עולם _oulam_, according to > Le Clerc, only imports a time whose beginning or end is not known. > While showing that this word does not mean _infinite_ duration, and > that in the _Old Testament_ the word _forever_ only signifies a long > time, Archbishop Tillotson has completely perverted its sense with > respect to the idea of hell-torments. According to his doctrine, when > Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering “eternal fire,” we must > understand it only in the sense of that fire not being extinguished > till both cities were entirely consumed. But, as to hell-fire the > words must be understood in the strictest sense of infinite duration. > Such is the decree of the learned divine. For the duration of the > punishment of the wicked must be proportionate to the eternal > happiness of the righteous. So he says, “These (speaking of the > wicked) “shall go away εις κόλασιν αιῶνιον into _eternal_ punishment; > but the righteous εις ζωην αιωνιον into life eternal.” > > The Reverend T. Surnden,[18] commenting on the speculations of his > predecessors, fills a whole volume with unanswerable arguments, > tending to show that the locality _of Hell is in the sun_. We suspect > that the reverend speculator had read the _Apocalypse_ in bed, > and had the nightmare in consequence. There are two verses in the > _Revelation of John_ reading thus: “And the fourth angel poured out > his vial upon the sun, and power was given him to scorch men with > fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name > of God.”[19] This is simply Pythagorean and kabalistic allegory. The > idea is new neither with the above-mentioned author nor with John. > Pythagoras placed the “sphere of purification in the sun,” which > sun, with its sphere, he moreover locates in the middle of the > universe,[20] the allegory having a double meaning: 1. Symbolically, > the central, spiritual sun, the Supreme Deity. Arrived at this region > every soul becomes purified of its sins, and unites itself forever > with its spirit, having previously suffered throughout all the lower > spheres. 2. By placing the sphere of _visible_ fire in the middle > of the universe, he simply taught the heliocentric system which > appertained to the Mysteries, and was imparted only in the higher > degree of initiation. John gives to his Word a purely kabalistic > significance, which no “Fathers,” except those who had belonged to > the Neo-platonic school, were able to comprehend. Origen understood > it well, having been a pupil of Ammonius Saccas; therefore we see him > bravely denying the perpetuity of hell-torments. He maintains that > not only men, but even devils (by which term he meant disembodied > human sinners), after a certain duration of punishment shall be > pardoned and finally restored to heaven.[21] In consequence of this > and other such heresies Origen was, as a matter of course, exiled. > > Many have been the learned and truly-inspired speculations as to the > locality of hell. The most popular were those which placed it in the > centre of the earth. At a certain time, however, skeptical doubts > which disturbed the placidity of faith in this highly-refreshing > doctrine arose in consequence of the meddling scientists of those > days. As a Mr. Swinden in our own century observes, the theory was > inadmissible because of two objections: 1st, that a fund of fuel > or sulphur sufficient to maintain so furious and constant a fire > could not be there supposed; and, 2d, that it must want the nitrous > particles in the air to sustain and keep it alive. “And how,” says > he, “can a fire be eternal, when, by degrees, the whole substance of > the earth must be consumed thereby?”[22] > > The skeptical gentleman had evidently forgotten that centuries ago > St. Augustine solved the difficulty. Have we not the word of this > learned divine that hell, nevertheless, _is_ in the centre of the > earth, for “God supplies the central fire with air _by a miracle_?” > The argument is unanswerable, and so we will not seek to upset it. > > The Christians were the first to make the existence of Satan a dogma > of the Church. And once that she had established it, she had to > struggle for over 1,700 years for the repression of a mysterious > force which it was her policy to make appear of diabolical origin. > Unfortunately, in manifesting itself, this force invariably tends > to upset such a belief by the ridiculous discrepancy it presents > between the alleged cause and the effects. If the clergy have not > over-estimated the real power of the “Arch-Enemy of God,” it must be > confessed that he takes mighty precautions against being recognized > as the “Prince of Darkness” who aims at our souls. If modern > “spirits” are devils at all, as preached by the clergy, then they can > only be those “poor” or “stupid devils” whom Max Müller describes as > appearing so often in the German and Norwegian tales. > > Notwithstanding this, the clergy fear above all to be forced to > relinquish this hold on humanity. They are not willing to let us > judge of the tree by its fruits, for that might sometimes force > them into dangerous dilemmas. They refuse, likewise, to admit, > with unprejudiced people, that the phenomena of Spiritualism has > unquestionably spiritualized and reclaimed from evil courses many an > indomitable atheist and skeptic. But, as they confess themselves, > what is the use in a Pope, if there is no Devil? > > And so Rome sends her ablest advocates and preachers to the rescue > of those perishing in “the bottomless pit.” Rome employs her > cleverest writers for this purpose--albeit they all indignantly > deny the accusation--and in the preface to every book put forth by > the prolific des Mousseaux, the French Tertullian of our century, > we find undeniable proofs of the fact. Among other certificates of > ecclesiastical approval, every volume is ornamented with the text > of a certain original letter addressed to the very pious author by > the world-known Father Ventura de Raulica, of Rome. Few are those > who have not heard this famous name. It is the name of one of the > chief pillars of the Latin Church, the ex-General of the Order of the > Theatins, Consultor of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Examiner of > Bishops, and of the Roman Clergy, etc., etc., etc. This strikingly > characteristic document will remain to astonish future generations by > its spirit of unsophisticated demonolatry and unblushing sincerity. > We translate a fragment verbatim, and by thus helping its circulation > hope to merit the blessings of Mother Church:[23] > > “MONSIEUR AND EXCELLENT FRIEND: > > “The greatest victory of Satan was gained on that day when > he succeeded in making himself denied. > > “To demonstrate the existence of Satan, is to reëstablish > _one of the fundamental dogmas of the Church_, which serve > as a basis for Christianity, and, without which, Satan would > be but a name.... > > “Magic, mesmerism, magnetism, somnambulism, spiritualism, > spiritism, hypnotism ... are only other names for SATANISM. > > “To bring out such a truth and show it in its proper light, > is to unmask the enemy; it is to unveil the immense danger > of certain practices, _reputed innocent_; it is to deserve > well in the eyes of humanity and of religion. > > “FATHER VENTURA DE RAULICA.” > > A-men! > > This is an unexpected honor indeed, for our American “controls” in > general, and the innocent “Indian guides” in particular. To be thus > introduced in Rome as princes of the Empire of Eblis, is more than > they could ever hope for in other lands. > > Without in the least suspecting that she was working for the future > welfare of her enemies--the spiritualists and spiritists--the Church, > some twenty years since, in tolerating des Mousseaux and de Mirville > as the biographers of the Devil, and giving her approbation thereto, > tacitly confessed the literary copartnership. > > M. the Chevalier Gougenot des Mousseaux, and his friend and > collaborateur, the Marquis Eudes de Mirville, to judge by their long > titles, must be aristocrats _pur sang_, and they are, moreover, > writers of no small erudition and talent. Were they to show > themselves a little more parsimonious of double points of exclamation > following every vituperation, and invective against Satan and his > worshippers, their style would be faultless. As it is, the crusade > against the enemy of mankind was fierce, and lasted for over twenty > years. > > What with the Catholics piling up their psychological phenomena to > prove the existence of a personal devil, and the Count de Gasparin, > an ancient minister of Louis Philippe, collecting volumes of other > facts to prove the contrary, the spiritists of France have contracted > an everlasting debt of gratitude toward the disputants. The existence > of an unseen spiritual universe peopled with invisible beings has now > been demonstrated beyond question. Ransacking the oldest libraries, > they have distilled from the historical records the quintessence > of evidence. All epochs, from the Homeric ages down to the present > day, have supplied their choicest materials to these indefatigable > authors. In trying to prove the authenticity of the miracles wrought > by Satan in the days preceding the Christian era, as well as > throughout the middle ages, they have simply laid a firm foundation > for a study of the phenomena in our modern times. > > Though an ardent, uncompromising enthusiast, des Mousseaux unwittingly > transforms himself into the tempting demon, or--as he is fond of > calling the Devil--the “serpent of _Genesis_.” In his desire to > demonstrate in every manifestation the presence of the Evil One, he > only succeeds in demonstrating that Spiritualism and magic are no new > things in the world, but very ancient twin-brothers, whose origin must > be sought for in the earliest infancy of ancient India, Chaldea, > Babylonia, Egypt, Persia, and Greece. > > He proves the existence of “spirits,” whether these be angels or > devils, with such a clearness of argument and logic, and such > an amount of evidence, historical, irrefutable, and strictly > authenticated, that little is left for spiritualist authors who may > come after him. How unfortunate that the scientists, who believe > neither in devil nor spirit, are more than likely to ridicule M. des > Mousseaux’s books without reading them, for they really contain so > many facts of profound scientific interest! > > But what can we expect in our own age of unbelief, when we find > Plato, over twenty-two centuries ago, complaining of the same? “Me, > too,” says he, in his _Euthyphron_, “when I say anything in the > public assembly concerning divine things, _and predict to them_ what > is going to happen, they ridicule as mad; and although _nothing that > I have predicted has proved untrue_, yet they envy all such men as we > are. However, we ought not to heed, but pursue our own way.” > > The literary resources of the Vatican and other Catholic repositories > of learning must have been freely placed at the disposal of these > modern authors. When one has such treasures at hand--original > manuscripts, papyri, and books pillaged from the richest heathen > libraries; old treatises on magic and alchemy; and records of all the > trials for witchcraft, and sentences for the same to rack, stake, and > torture, it is mighty easy to write volumes of accusations against > the Devil. We affirm on good grounds that there are hundreds of the > most valuable works on the occult sciences, which are sentenced to > eternal concealment from the public, but are attentively read and > studied by the privileged who have access to the Vatican Library. > The laws of nature are the same for heathen sorcerer as for Catholic > saint; and a “miracle” may be produced as well by one as by the > other, without the slightest intervention of God or devil. > > Hardly had the manifestations begun to attract attention in Europe, > than the clergy commenced their outcry that their traditional enemy > had reappeared under another name, and “divine miracles” also began > to be heard of in isolated instances. First they were confined to > humble individuals, some of whom claimed to have them produced > through the intervention of the Virgin Mary, saints and angels; > others--according to the clergy--began to suffer from _obsession_ > and _possession_; for the Devil must have his share of fame as > well as the Deity. Finding that, notwithstanding the warning, the > _independent_, or so-called spiritual phenomena went on increasing > and multiplying, and that these manifestations threatened to > upset the carefully-constructed dogmas of the Church, the world > was suddenly startled by extraordinary intelligence. In 1864, a > whole community became possessed of the Devil. Morzine, and the > awful stories of its demoniacs; Valleyres, and the narratives of > its well-authenticated exhibitions of sorcery; and those of the > Presbytere de Cideville curdled the blood in Catholic veins. > > Strange to say, the question has been asked over and over again, > why the “divine” miracles and most of the obsessions are so strictly > confined to Roman Catholic dioceses and countries? Why is it that > since the Reformation there has been scarcely one single divine > “miracle” in a Protestant land? Of course, the answer we must expect > from Catholics is, that the latter are peopled by _heretics_, and > abandoned by God. Then why are there no more Church-miracles in > Russia, a country whose religion differs from the Roman Catholic > faith but in external forms of rites, its fundamental dogmas being > identically the same, except as to the emanation of the Holy > Ghost? Russia has her accepted saints and thaumaturgical relics, > and miracle-working images. The St. Mitrophaniy of Voroneg is an > authenticated miracle-worker, but his miracles are limited to > healing; and though hundreds upon hundreds have been healed _through > faith_, and though the old cathedral is full of magnetic effluvia, > and whole generations will go on _believing_ in his power, and some > persons will always be healed, still no such miracles are heard of > in Russia as the Madonna-walking, and Madonna letter-writing, and > statue-talking of Catholic countries. Why is this so? Simply because > the emperors have strictly forbidden that sort of thing. The Czar, > Peter the Great, stopped every spurious “divine” miracle with one > frown of his mighty brow. He declared he would have _no false_ > miracles played by the holy _icones_ (images of saints), and they > disappeared forever.[24] > > There are cases on record of isolated and independent phenomena > exhibited by certain images in the last century; the latest was the > bleeding of the cheek of an image of the Virgin, when a soldier of > Napoleon cut her face in two. This miracle, alleged to have happened > in 1812, in the days of the invasion by the “grand army,” was the > final farewell.[25] But since then, although the three successive > emperors have been pious men, their will has been respected, and > the images and saints have remained quiet, and hardly been spoken > of except as connected with religious worship. In Poland, a land of > furious ultramontanism, there were, at different times, desperate > attempts at miracle-doing. They died at birth, however, for the > argus-eyed police were there; a Catholic miracle in Poland, made > public by the priests, generally meaning political revolution, > bloodshed, and war. > > Is it then, not permissible to at least suspect that if, in one > country divine miracles may be arrested by civil and military law, > and in another they _never occur_, we must search for the explanation > of the two facts in some natural cause, instead of attributing them > to either god or devil? In our opinion--if it is worth anything--the > whole secret may be accounted for as follows. In Russia, the clergy > know better than to bewilder their parishes, whose piety is sincere > and faith strong without miracles; they know that nothing is better > calculated than the latter to sow seeds of distrust, doubt, and > finally of skepticism which leads directly to atheism. Moreover > the climate is less propitious, and the magnetism of the average > population too positive, _too healthy_, to call forth _independent_ > phenomena; and fraud would not answer. On the other hand, neither in > Protestant Germany, nor England, nor yet in America, since the days > of the Reformation, has the clergy had access to any of the Vatican > secret libraries. Hence they are all but poor hands at the magic of > Albertus Magnus. > > As for America being overflowed with sensitives and mediums, the > reason for it is partially attributable to climatic influence > and especially to the physiological condition of the population. > Since the days of the Salem witchcraft, 200 years ago, when the > comparatively few settlers had pure and unadulterated blood in their > veins, nothing much had been heard of “spirits” or “mediums” until > 1840.[26] The phenomena then first appeared among the ascetic and > exalted Shakers, whose religious aspirations, peculiar mode of life, > moral purity, and physical chastity all led to the production of > independent phenomena of a psychological as well as physical nature. > Hundreds of thousands, and even millions of men from various climates > and of different constitutions and habits, have, since 1692, invaded > North America, and by intermarrying have substantially changed the > physical type of the inhabitants. Of what country in the world do the > women’s constitutions bear comparison with the delicate, nervous, and > sensitive constitutions of the feminine portion of the population of > the United States? We were struck on our arrival in the country with > the semi-transparent delicacy of skin of the natives of both sexes. > Compare a hard-working Irish factory girl or boy, with one from a > genuine American family. Look at their hands. One works as hard as > the other; they are of equal age, and both seemingly healthy; and > still, while the hands of the one, after an hour’s soaping, will show > a skin little softer than that of a young alligator, those of the > other, notwithstanding constant use, will allow you to observe the > circulation of the blood under the thin and delicate epidermis. No > wonder, then, that while America is the conservatory of sensitives > the majority of its clergy, unable to produce divine or any other > miracles, stoutly deny the possibility of any phenomena except those > produced by tricks and juggling. And no wonder also that the Catholic > priesthood, who are practically aware of the existence of magic > and spiritual phenomena, and believe in them while dreading their > consequences, try to attribute the whole to the agency of the Devil. > > Let us adduce one more argument, if only for the sake of > circumstantial evidence. In what countries have “divine miracles” > flourished most, been most frequent and most stupendous? Catholic > Spain, and Pontifical Italy, beyond question. And which more than > these two, has had access to ancient literature? Spain was famous for > her libraries; the Moors were celebrated for their profound learning > in alchemy and other sciences. The Vatican is the storehouse of an > immense number of ancient manuscripts. During the long interval of > nearly 1,500 years they have been accumulating, from trial after > trial, books and manuscripts confiscated from their sentenced > victims, to their own profit. The Catholics may plead that the books > were generally committed to the flames; that the treatises of famous > sorcerers and enchanters perished with their accursed authors. But > the Vatican, if it could speak, could tell a different story. It > knows too well of the existence of certain closets and rooms, access > to which is had but by the very few. It knows that the entrances to > these secret hiding-places are so cleverly concealed from sight in > the carved frame-work and under the profuse ornamentation of the > library-walls, that there have even been Popes who lived and died > within the precincts of the palace without ever suspecting their > existence. But these Popes were neither Sylvester II., Benedict IX., > John XX., nor the VIth and VIIth Gregory; nor yet the famous Borgia > of toxicological memory. Neither were those who remained ignorant of > the hidden lore friends of the sons of Loyola. > > Where, in the records of European Magic, can we find cleverer > enchanters than in the mysterious solitudes of the cloister? Albert > Magnus, the famous Bishop and conjurer of Ratisbon, was never > surpassed in his art. Roger Bacon was a monk, and Thomas Aquinas one > of the most learned pupils of Albertus. Trithemius, Abbot of the > Spanheim Benedictines, was the teacher, friend, and confidant of > Cornelius Agrippa; and while the confederations of the Theosophists > were scattered broadcast about Germany, where they first originated, > assisting one another, and struggling for years for the acquirement > of esoteric knowledge, any person who knew how to become the favored > pupil of certain monks, might very soon be proficient in all the > important branches of occult learning. > > This is all in history and cannot be easily denied. Magic, in all its > aspects, was widely and nearly openly practiced by the clergy till > the Reformation. And even he who was once called the “Father of the > Reformation,” the famous John Reuchlin,[27] author of the _Mirific > Word_ and friend of Pico di Mirandola, the teacher and instructor of > Erasmus, Luther, and Melancthon, was a kabalist and occultist. > > The ancient _Sortilegium_, or divination by means of _Sortes_ > or lots--an art and practice now decried by the clergy as an > abomination, designated by _Stat. 10 Jac._ as felony,[28] and by > _Stat. 12 Carolus II._ excepted out of the general pardons, on the > ground of being _sorcery_--was widely practiced by the clergy and > monks. Nay, it was sanctioned by St. Augustine himself, who does > not “disapprove of this method of learning futurity, provided it be > not used for worldly purposes.” More than that, he confesses having > practiced it himself.[29] > > Aye; but the clergy called it _Sortes Sanctorum_, when it was > they who practiced it; while the _Sortes Prænestinæ_, succeeded > by the _Sortes Homericæ_ and _Sortes Virgilianæ_, were abominable > _heathenism_, the worship of the Devil, when used by any one else. > > Gregory de Tours informs us that when the clergy resorted to the > _Sortes_ their custom was to lay the _Bible_ on the altar, and to > pray the Lord that He would discover His will, and disclose to them > futurity in one of the verses of the book. Gilbert de Nogent writes > that in his days (about the twelfth century) the custom was, at > the consecration of bishops, to consult the _Sortes Sanctorum_, to > thereby learn the success and fate of the episcopate. On the other > hand, we are told that the _Sortes Sanctorum_ were condemned by the > Council of Agda, in 506. In this case again we are left to inquire, > in which instance has the infallibility of the Church failed? Was it > when she prohibited that which was practiced by her greatest saint > and patron, Augustine, or in the twelfth century, when it was openly > and with the sanction of the same Church practiced by the clergy for > the benefit of the bishop’s elections? Or, must we still believe that > in both of these contradictory cases the Vatican was inspired by the > direct “spirit of God?” > > If any doubt that Gregory of Tours approved of a practice that > prevails to this day, more or less, even among strict Protestants, > let them read this: “Lendastus, Earl of Tours, who was for ruining > me with Queen Fredegonde, coming to Tours, big with evil designs > against me, I withdrew to my oratory under a deep concern, where I > took the _Psalms_.... My heart revived within me when I cast my eyes > on this of the seventy-seventh _Psalm_: ‘He caused them to go on with > confidence, whilst the sea swallowed up their enemies.’ Accordingly, > the count spoke not a word to my prejudice; and leaving Tours that > very day, the boat in which he was, sunk in a storm, but his skill in > swimming saved him.” > > The sainted bishop simply confesses here to having practiced a bit of > sorcery. _Every mesmerizer knows the power of will during an intense > desire bent on any particular subject._ Whether in consequence of > “co-incidents” or otherwise, the opened verse suggested to his mind > revenge by drowning. Passing the remainder of the day in “deep > concern,” and possessed by this all-absorbing thought, the saint--it > may be unconsciously--exercises his will on the subject; and thus > while imagining in the accident the hand of God, he simply becomes > a sorcerer exercising his magnetic will which reacts on the person > feared; and the count barely escapes with his life. Were the accident > decreed by God, the culprit would have been drowned; for a simple > bath could not have altered his malevolent resolution against St. > Gregory had he been very intent on it. > > Furthermore, we find anathemas fulminated against this lottery of > fate, at the council of Varres, which forbids “all ecclesiastics, > under pain of excommunication, to perform that kind of divination, > or to pry into futurity, by looking into any book, or writing, > whatsoever.” The same prohibition is pronounced at the councils of > Agda in 506, of Orleans, in 511, of Auxerre in 595, and finally at > the council of Aenham in 1110; the latter condemning “sorcerers, > witches, diviners, such as occasioned death by magical operations, > and who practiced fortune-telling by the holy-book lots;” and the > complaint of the joint clergy against de Garlande, their bishop at > Orleans, and addressed to Pope Alexander III., concludes in this > manner: “Let your apostolical hands put on strength to _strip naked_ > the iniquity of this man, that the curse prognosticated on the day of > his consecration may overtake him; for the gospels being opened on > the altar _according to custom_, the first words were: _and the young > man, leaving his linen cloth, fled from them naked_.”[30] > > Why then roast the lay-magicians and consulters of books, and > canonize the ecclesiastics? Simply because the mediæval as well as > the modern phenomena, manifested through laymen, whether produced > through occult knowledge or happening independently, upset the claims > of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches to divine miracles. > In the face of reiterated and unimpeachable evidence it became > impossible for the former to maintain successfully the assertion > that seemingly miraculous manifestations by the “good angels” and > God’s direct intervention could be produced exclusively by her chosen > ministers and holy saints. Neither could the Protestant well maintain > on the same ground that miracles had ended with the apostolic ages. > For, whether of the same nature or not, the modern phenomena claimed > close kinship with the biblical ones. The magnetists and healers of > our century came into direct and open competition with the apostles. > The Zouave Jacob, of France, had outrivalled the prophet Elijah in > recalling to life persons who were seemingly dead; and Alexis, the > somnambulist, mentioned by Mr. Wallace in his work,[31] was, by his > lucidity, putting to shame apostles, prophets, and the Sibyls of old. > Since the burning of the last witch, the great Revolution of France, > so elaborately prepared by the league of the secret societies and > their clever emissaries, had blown over Europe and awakened terror > in the bosom of the clergy. It had, like a destroying hurricane, > swept away in its course those best allies of the Church, the Roman > Catholic aristocracy. A sure foundation was now laid for the right of > individual opinion. The world was freed from ecclesiastical tyranny > by opening an unobstructed path to Napoleon the Great, who had given > the deathblow to the Inquisition. This great slaughter-house of the > Christian Church--wherein she butchered, in the name of the Lamb, all > the sheep arbitrarily declared scurvy--was in ruins, and she found > herself left to her own responsibility and resources. > > So long as the phenomena had appeared only sporadically, she had > always felt herself powerful enough to repress the consequences. > Superstition and belief in the Devil were as strong as ever, and > Science had not yet dared to publicly measure her forces with those > of supernatural Religion. Meanwhile the enemy had slowly but surely > gained ground. All at once it broke out with an unexpected violence. > “Miracles” began to appear in full daylight, and passed from their > mystic seclusion into the domain of natural law, where the profane > hand of Science was ready to strip off their sacerdotal mask. Still, > for a time, the Church held her position, and with the powerful help > of superstitious fear checked the progress of the intruding force. > But, when in succession appeared mesmerists and somnambulists, > reproducing the physical and mental phenomenon of ecstasy, hitherto > believed to be the special gift of saints; when the passion for > the turning tables had reached in France and elsewhere its climax > of fury; when the psychography--alleged spiritual--from a simple > curiosity had developed itself and settled into an unabated interest, > and finally ebbed into religious mysticism; when the echoes aroused > by the first raps of Rochester, crossing the oceans, spread until > they were re-percussed from nearly every corner of the world--then, > and only then, the Latin Church was fully awakened to a sense of > danger. Wonder after wonder was reported to have occurred in the > spiritual circles and the lecture-rooms of the mesmerists; the sick > were healed, the blind made to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to > hear. J. R. Newton in America, and Du Potet in France, were healing > the multitude without the slightest claim to divine intervention. The > great discovery of Mesmer, which reveals to the earnest inquirer the > mechanism of nature, mastered, as if by magical power, organic and > inorganic bodies. > > But this was not the worst. A more direful calamity for the Church > occurred in the evocation from the upper and nether worlds of a > multitude of “spirits,” whose private bearing and conversation gave > the direct lie to the most cherished and profitable dogmas of the > Church. These “spirits” claimed to be the identical entities, in a > disembodied state, of fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, friends > and acquaintances of the persons viewing the weird phenomena. The > Devil seemed to have no objective existence, and this struck at the > very foundation upon which the chair of St. Peter rested.[32] Not a > spirit except the mocking mannikins of Planchette would confess to > the most distant relationship with the Satanic majesty, or accredit > him with the governorship of a single inch of territory. The clergy > felt their prestige growing weaker every day, as they saw the people > impatiently shaking off, in the broad daylight of truth, the dark > veils with which they had been blindfolded for so many centuries. > Then finally, fortune, which previously had been on their side in the > long-waged conflict between theology and science, deserted to their > adversary. The help of the latter to the study of the occult side of > nature was truly precious and timely, and science has unwittingly > widened the once narrow path of the phenomena into a broad highway. > Had not this conflict culminated at the nick of time, we might have > seen, reproduced on a miniature scale the disgraceful scenes of the > episodes of Salem witchcraft and the Nuns of Loudun. As it was, the > clergy were muzzled. > > But if science has unintentionally helped the progress of the occult > phenomena, the latter have reciprocally aided science herself. Until > the days when newly-reincarnated philosophy boldly claimed its place > in the world, there had been but few scholars who had undertaken > the difficult task of studying comparative theology. This science > occupies a domain heretofore penetrated by few explorers. The > necessity which it involved of being well acquainted with the dead > languages, necessarily limited the number of students. Besides, there > was less popular need for it so long as people could not replace the > Christian orthodoxy by something more tangible. It is one of the most > undeniable facts of psychology, that the average man can as little > exist out of a religious element of some kind, as a fish out of the > water. The voice of truth, “a voice stronger than the voice of the > mightiest thunder,” speaks to the inner man in the nineteenth century > of the Christian era, as it spoke in the corresponding century B.C. > It is a useless and unprofitable task to offer to humanity the > choice between a future life and annihilation. The only chance that > remains for those friends of human progress who seek to establish > for the good of mankind a faith, henceforth stripped entirely of > superstition and dogmatic fetters is to address them in the words > of Joshua: “Choose ye this day whom you will serve; whether the gods > which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, > or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell.”[33] > > “The science of religion,” wrote Max Müller in 1860, “is only just > beginning.... During the last fifty years the authentic documents > of the most important religions in the world _have been recovered > in a most unexpected and almost miraculous manner_.[34] We have now > before us the Canonical books of Buddhism; the _Zend-Avesta_ of > Zoroaster is no longer a sealed book; and the hymns of the _Rig-Veda_ > have revealed a state of religions anterior to the first beginnings > of that mythology which in Homer and Hesiod stands before us as a > mouldering ruin.”[35] > > In their insatiable desire to extend the dominion of blind faith, the > early architects of Christian theology had been forced to conceal, as > much as it was possible, the true sources of the same. To this end > they are said to have burned or otherwise destroyed all the original > manuscripts on the _Kabala_, magic, and occult sciences upon which > they could lay their hands. They ignorantly supposed that the most > dangerous writings of this class had perished with the last Gnostic; > but some day they may discover their mistake. Other authentic and as > important documents will perhaps reäppear in a “most unexpected and > almost miraculous manner.” > > There are strange traditions current in various parts of the East--on > Mount Athos and in the Desert of Nitria, for instance--among certain > monks, and with learned Rabbis in Palestine, who pass their lives in > commenting upon the _Talmud_. They say that not all the rolls and > manuscripts, reported in history to have been burned by Cæsar, by > the Christian mob, in 389, and by the Arab General Amru, perished as > it is commonly believed; and the story they tell is the following: > At the time of the contest for the throne, in 51 B.C., between > Cleopatra and her brother Dionysius Ptolemy, the Bruckion, which > contained over seven hundred thousand rolls, all bound in wood and > _fire-proof_ parchment, was undergoing repairs, and a great portion > of the original manuscripts, considered among the most precious, > and which were not duplicated, were stored away in the house of one > of the librarians. As the fire which consumed the rest was but the > result of accident, no precautions had been taken at the time. But > they add, that several hours passed between the burning of the fleet, > set on fire by Cæsar’s order, and the moment when the first buildings > situated near the harbor caught fire in their turn; and that all the > librarians, aided by several hundred slaves attached to the museum, > succeeded in saving the most precious of the rolls. So perfect and > solid was the fabric of the parchment, that while in some rolls the > inner pages and the wood-binding were reduced to ashes, of others > the parchment binding remained unscorched. These particulars were > all written out in Greek, Latin, and the Chaldeo-Syriac dialect, by > a learned youth named Theodas, one of the scribes employed in the > museum. One of these manuscripts is alleged to be preserved till > now in a Greek convent; and the person who narrated the tradition > to us had seen it himself. He said that many more will see it > and learn where to look for important documents, when a certain > prophecy will be fulfilled; adding, that most of these works could > be found in Tartary and India.[36] The monk showed us a copy of the > original, which, of course, we could read but poorly, as we claim > but little erudition in the matter of dead languages. But we were > so particularly struck by the vivid and picturesque translation of > the holy father, that we perfectly remember some curious paragraphs, > which run, as far as we can recall them, as follows:--“When the Queen > of the Sun (Cleopatra) was brought back to the half-ruined city, > after the fire had devoured the _Glory of the World_; and when she > saw the mountains of books--or rolls--covering the half-consumed > steps of the _estrada_; and when she perceived that the inside was > gone and the indestructible covers alone remained, she wept in rage > and fury, and cursed the meanness of her fathers who had grudged the > cost of the real Pergamos for the inside as well as the outside of > the precious rolls.” Further, our author, Theodas, indulges in a joke > at the expense of the queen for believing that nearly all the library > was burned; when, in fact, hundreds and thousands of the choicest > books were safely stored in his own house and those of other scribes, > librarians, students, and philosophers. > > No more do sundry very learned Copts scattered all over the East in > Asia Minor, Egypt, and Palestine believe in the total destruction > of the subsequent libraries. For instance, they say that out of > the library of Attalus III. of Pergamus, presented by Antony to > Cleopatra, not a volume was destroyed. At that time, according to > their assertions, from the moment that the Christians began to > gain power in Alexandria--about the end of the fourth century--and > Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, began to insult the national gods, the > Pagan philosophers and learned theurgists adopted effective measures > to preserve the repositories of their sacred learning. Theophilus, > a bishop, who left behind him the reputation of a most rascally and > mercenary villain, was accused by one named Antoninus, a famous > theurgist and eminent scholar of occult science of Alexandria, with > bribing the slaves of the Serapion to steal books which he sold to > foreigners at great prices. History tells us how Theophilus had > the best of the philosophers, in A.D. 389; and how his successor > and nephew, the no less infamous Cyril, butchered Hypatia. Suidas > gives us some details about Antoninus, whom he calls Antonius, and > his eloquent friend Olympus, the defender of the Serapion. But > history is far from being complete in the miserable remnants of > books, which, crossing so many ages, have reached our own learned > century; it fails to give the facts relating to the first five > centuries of Christianity which are preserved in the numerous > traditions current in the East. Unauthenticated as these may appear, > there is unquestionably in the heap of chaff much good grain. That > these traditions are not oftener communicated to Europeans is not > strange, when we consider how apt our travellers are to render > themselves antagonistic to the natives by their skeptical bearing > and, occasionally, dogmatic intolerance. When exceptional men like > some archæologists, who knew how to win the confidence and even > friendship of certain Arabs, are favored with precious documents, > it is declared simply a “coincidence.” And yet there are widespread > traditions of the existence of certain subterranean, and immense > galleries, in the neighborhood of Ishmonia--the “petrified City,” > in which are stored numberless manuscripts and rolls. For no amount > of money would the Arabs go near it. At night, they say, from the > crevices of the desolate ruins, sunk deep in the unwatered sands of > the desert, stream the rays from lights carried to and fro in the > galleries by no human hands. The Afrites study the literature of the > antediluvian ages, according to their belief, and the Djin learns > from the magic rolls the lesson of the following day. > > The _Encyclopedia Britannica_, in its article on Alexandria, says: > “When the temple of Serapis was demolished ... the valuable library > was _pillaged_ or destroyed; and _twenty_ years afterwards[37] the > _empty shelves_ excited the regret ... etc.” But it does not state > the subsequent fate of the _pillaged_ books. > > In rivalry of the fierce Mary-worshippers of the fourth century, > the modern clerical persecutors of liberalism and “heresy” would > willingly shut up all the heretics and their books in some modern > Serapion and burn them alive.[38] The cause of this hatred is > natural. Modern research has more than ever unveiled the secret. “Is > not the worship of saints and angels now,” said Bishop Newton, years > ago, “in all respects the same that the worship of demons was in > former times? The name only is different, the thing is identically > the same ... the very same temples, the very same images, which were > once consecrated to Jupiter and the other demons, are now consecrated > to the Virgin Mary and other saints ... the whole of Paganism is > converted and applied _to Popery_.” > > Why not be impartial and add that “a good portion of it was adopted > by Protestant religions also?” > > The very apostolic designation _Peter_ is from the Mysteries. The > hierophant or supreme pontiff bore the Chaldean title פתר, _peter_, > or interpreter. The names Phtah, Peth’r, the residence of Balaam, > Patara, and Patras, the names of oracle-cities, _pateres_ or > _pateras_ and, perhaps, Buddha,[39] all come from the same root. > Jesus says: “Upon this _petra_ I will build my Church, and the > gates, or rulers of Hades, shall not prevail against it;” meaning by > _petra_ the rock-temple, and by metaphor, the Christian Mysteries; > the adversaries to which were the old mystery-gods of the underworld, > who were worshipped in the rites of Isis, Adonis, Atys, Sabazius, > Dionysus, and the Eleusinia. No _apostle_ Peter was ever at Rome; but > the Pope, seizing the sceptre of the _Pontifex Maximus_, the keys of > Janus and Kubelé, and adorning his Christian head with the cap of > the _Magna Mater_, copied from that of the tiara of Brahmâtma, the > Supreme Pontiff of the Initiates of old India, became the successor > of the Pagan high priest, the real Peter-Roma, or _Petroma_.[40] > > The Roman Catholic Church has two far mightier enemies than the > “heretics” and the “infidels;” and these are--Comparative Mythology > and Philology. When such eminent divines as the Rev. James Freeman > Clarke go so much out of their way to prove to their readers that > “Critical Theology from the time of Origen and Jerome ... and the > Controversial Theology during fifteen centuries, has not consisted in > accepting on authority the opinions of other people,” but has shown, > on the contrary, much “acute and comprehensive reasoning,” we can but > regret that so much scholarship should have been wasted in attempting > to prove that which a fair survey of the history of theology upsets > at every step. In these “controversies” and critical treatment of the > doctrines of the Church one can certainly find any amount of “acute > reasoning,” but far more of a still acuter sophistry. > > Recently the mass of cumulative evidence has been re-inforced to an > extent which leaves little, if any, room for further controversy. A > conclusive opinion is furnished by too many scholars to doubt the > fact that India was the _Alma-Mater_, not only of the civilization, > arts, and sciences, but also of all the great religions of antiquity; > Judaism, and hence Christianity, included. Herder places the cradle > of humanity in India, and shows Moses as a clever and relatively > _modern_ compiler of the ancient Brahmanical traditions: “The river > which encircles the country (India) is the sacred Ganges, which > all Asia considers as the paradisaical river. There, also, is the > biblical Gihon, which is none else but the Indus. The Arabs call it > so unto this day, and the names of the countries watered by it are > yet existing among the Hindus.” Jacolliot claims to have translated > every ancient palm-leaf manuscript which he had the fortune of > being allowed by the Brahmans of the pagodas to see. In one of his > translations, we found passages which reveal to us the _undoubted > origin of the keys_ of St. Peter, and account for the subsequent > adoption of the symbol by their Holinesses, the Popes of Rome. > > He shows us, on the testimony of the _Agrouchada Parikshai_, which he > freely translates as “the _Book of Spirits_” (Pitris), that centuries > before our era the _initiates_ of the temple chose a Superior > Council, presided over by the Brahm-âtma or supreme chief of all > these _Initiates_. That this pontificate, which could be exercised > only by a Brahman who had reached the age of eighty years;[41] that > the Brahm-âtma was sole guardian of the mystic formula, _résumé_ of > every science, contained in the three mysterious letters, > > =A= > > =U= =M= > > which signify _creation_, _conservation_, and _transformation_. He > alone could expound its meaning in the presence of the initiates > of the third and supreme degree. Whomsoever among these initiates > revealed to a profane a single one of the truths, even the smallest > of the secrets entrusted to his care, was put to death. He who > received the confidence had to share his fate. > > “Finally, to crown this able system,” says Jacolliot, “there existed > a word still more superior to the mysterious monosyllable--A U M, and > which rendered him who came into the possession of its key nearly the > equal of Brahma himself. The Brahm-âtma alone possessed this key, and > transmitted it in a sealed casket to his successor. > > “This unknown word, of which no human power could, even to-day, when > the Brahmanical authority has been crushed under the Mongolian and > European invasions, to-day, when each pagoda has its Brahm-âtma,[42] > _force the disclosure_, was engraved in a golden triangle and > preserved in a sanctuary of the temple of Asgartha, whose Brahm-âtma > alone held the keys. He also bore upon his tiara _two crossed keys_ > supported by two kneeling Brahmans, symbol of the precious deposit > of which he had the keeping.... This word and this triangle were > engraved upon the tablet of the ring that this religious chief wore > as one of the signs of his dignity; it was also framed in a golden > sun on the altar, where every morning the Supreme Pontiff offered > the sacrifice of the sarvameda, or sacrifice to all the forces of > nature.”[43] > > Is this clear enough? And will the Catholics still maintain that it > was the Brahmans of 4,000 years ago who copied the ritual, symbols, > and dress of the Roman Pontiffs? We would not feel in the least > surprised. > > Without going very far back into antiquity for comparisons, if we > only stop at the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and contrast > the so-called “heathenism” of the third Neo-platonic Eclectic School > with the growing Christianity, the result may not be favorable to > the latter. Even at that early period, when the new religion had > hardly outlined its contradictory dogmas; when the champions of the > bloodthirsty Cyril knew not themselves whether Mary was to become > “the Mother of God,” or rank as a “demon” in company with Isis; when > the memory of the meek and lowly Jesus still lingered lovingly in > every Christian heart, and his words of mercy and charity vibrated > still in the air, even then the Christians were outdoing the Pagans > in every kind of ferocity and religious intolerance. > > And if we look still farther back, and seek for examples of true > _Christism_, in ages when Buddhism had hardly superseded Brahmanism > in India, and the name of Jesus was only to be pronounced three > centuries later, what do we find? Which of the holy pillars of the > Church has ever elevated himself to the level of religious tolerance > and noble simplicity of character of some heathen? Compare, for > instance, the Hindu Asoka, who lived 300 B.C., and the Carthaginian > St. Augustine, who flourished three centuries after Christ. According > to Max Müller, this is what is found engraved on the rocks of Girnar, > Dhauli, and Kapurdigiri: > > “Piyadasi, the king beloved of the gods, desires that the ascetics > _of all creeds_ might reside in all places. All these ascetics > profess alike the command which people should exercise over > themselves, and the purity of the soul. _But people have different > opinions and different inclinations._” > > And here is what Augustine wrote after his baptism: “Wondrous depth > of thy words! whose surface, behold! is before us, inviting to > little ones; yet are they a wondrous depth, O my God, a wondrous > depth! It is awful to look therein; yes ... an awfulness of honor, > and a trembling of love. Thy enemies [read Pagans] thereof I _hate_ > vehemently; Oh, _that thou wouldst slay them_ with thy two-edged > sword, that they might no longer be enemies to it; for _so do I love > to have them slain_.”[44] > > Wonderful spirit of Christianity; and that from a Manichean converted > to the religion of one who even on his cross prayed for his enemies! > > Who the enemies of the “Lord” were, according to the Christians, is > not difficult to surmise; the few inside the Augustinian fold were > His new children and favorites, who had supplanted in His affections > the sons of Israel, His “chosen people.” The rest of mankind were > His natural foes. The teeming multitudes of heathendom were proper > food for the flames of hell; the handful within the Church communion, > “heirs of salvation.” > > But if such a proscriptive policy was just, and its enforcement was > “sweet savor” in the nostrils of the “Lord,” why not scorn also > the Pagan rites and philosophy? Why draw so deep from the wells of > wisdom, dug and filled up to brim by the same heathen? Or did the > fathers, in their desire to imitate the chosen people whose time-worn > shoes they were trying to fit upon their feet, contemplate the > reënaction of the spoliation-scene of the _Exodus_? Did they propose, > in fleeing from heathendom as the Jews did from Egypt, to carry off > the valuables of its religious allegories, as the “chosen ones” did > the gold and silver ornaments? > > It certainly does seem as if the events of the first centuries of > Christianity were but the reflection of the images thrown upon > the mirror of the future at the time of the Exodus. During the > stormy days of Irenæus, the Platonic philosophy, with its mystical > submersion into Deity, was not so obnoxious after all to the new > doctrine as to prevent the Christians from helping themselves to its > abstruse metaphysics in every way and manner. Allying themselves with > the ascetical theurapeutæ--forefathers and models of the Christian > monks and hermits, it was in Alexandria, let it be remembered, that > they laid the first foundations of the purely Platonic trinitarian > doctrine. It became the Plato-Philonean doctrine later, and such as > we find it now. Plato considered the divine nature under a three-fold > modification of the _First Cause_, the reason or _Logos_, and the > soul or spirit of the universe. “The three archial or original > principles,” says Gibbon,[45] “were represented in the Platonic > system as three gods, united with each other by a mysterious and > ineffable generation.” Blending this transcendental idea with the > more hypostatic figure of the _Logos_ of Philo, whose doctrine was > that of the oldest Kabala, and who viewed the King Messiah, as the > metatron, or “the angel of the Lord,” the _Legatus_ descended in > flesh, but not the _Ancient of Days_ Himself;[46] the Christians > clothed with this mythical representation of the Mediator for the > fallen race of Adam, Jesus, the son of Mary. Under this unexpected > garb his personality was all but lost. In the modern Jesus of the > Christian Church, we find the ideal of the imaginative Irenæus, not > the adept of the Essenes, the obscure reformer from Galilee. We see > him under the disfigured Plato-Philonean mask, not as the disciples > heard him on the mount. > > So far then the heathen philosophy had helped them in the building > of the principal dogma. But when the theurgists of the third > Neo-platonic school, deprived of their ancient Mysteries, strove > to blend the doctrines of Plato with those of Aristotle, and by > combining the two philosophies added to their theosophy the primeval > doctrines of the Oriental _Kabala_, then the Christians from rivals > became persecutors. Once that the metaphysical allegories of Plato > were being prepared to be discussed in public in the form of Grecian > dialectics, all the elaborate system of the Christian trinity would > be unravelled and the divine prestige completely upset. The eclectic > school, reversing the order, had adopted the inductive method; and > this method became its death-knell. Of all things on earth, logic and > reasonable explanations were the most hateful to the new religion of > mystery; for they threatened to unveil the whole ground-work of the > trinitarian conception; to apprise the multitude of the doctrine of > emanations, and thus destroy the unity of the whole. It could not be > permitted, and it was not. History records the _Christ_-like means > that were resorted to. > > The universal doctrine of emanations, adopted from time immemorial > by the greatest schools which taught the kabalistic, Alexandrian, > and Oriental philosophers, gives the key to that panic among the > Christian fathers. That spirit of Jesuitism and clerical craft, which > prompted Parkhurst, many centuries later, to suppress in his _Hebrew > Lexicon_ the true meaning of the first word of _Genesis_, originated > in those days of war against the expiring Neo-platonic and eclectic > school. The fathers had decided to pervert the meaning of the word > “_daimon_,”[47] and they dreaded above all to have the esoteric and > true meaning of the word _Rasit_ unveiled to the multitudes; for if > once the true sense of this sentence, as well as that of the Hebrew > word _asdt_ (translated in the Septuagint “_angels_,” while it > means emanations),[48] were understood rightly, the mystery of the > Christian trinity would have crumbled, carrying in its downfall the > new religion into the same heap of ruins with the ancient Mysteries. > This is the true reason why dialecticians, as well as Aristotle > himself, the “prying philosopher,” were ever obnoxious to Christian > theology. Even Luther, while on his work of reform, feeling the > ground insecure under his feet, notwithstanding that the dogmas had > been reduced by him to their simplest expression, gave full vent to > his fear and hatred for Aristotle. The amount of abuse he heaped > upon the memory of the great logician can only be equalled--never > surpassed--by the Pope’s anathemas and invectives against the > liberals of the Italian government. Compiled together, they might > easily fill a copy of a new encyclopædia with models for monkish > diatribes. > > Of course the Christian clergy can never get reconciled with a > doctrine based on the application of strict logic to discursive > reasoning. The number of those who have abandoned theology on this > account has never been made known. They have asked questions and > been forbidden to ask them; hence, separation, disgust, and often a > despairing plunge into the abyss of atheism. The Orphean views of > ether as chief _medium between_ God and created matter were likewise > denounced. The Orphic Æther recalled too vividly the _Archeus_, > the Soul of the World, and the latter was in its metaphysical > sense as closely related to the emanations, being the first > manifestation--Sephira, or Divine Light. And when could the latter be > more feared than at that critical moment? > > Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Chalcidius, Methodius, and Maimonides, > on the authority of the _Targum_ of Jerusalem, the orthodox and > greatest authority of the Jews, held that the first two words in > the book of _Genesis_--B-RASIT, mean _Wisdom_, or the _Principle_. > And that the idea of these words meaning “_in the beginning_” was > never shared but by the profane, who were not allowed to penetrate > any deeper into the esoteric sense of the sentence. Beausobre, > and after him Godfrey Higgins, have demonstrated the fact. “All > things,” says the _Kabala_, “are derived from one great Principle, > and this principle is the _unknown_ and _invisible_ God. From Him a > substantial power immediately proceeds, which is the _image of God_, > and the source of all subsequent emanations. This second principle > sends forth, by the _energy_ (or _will_ and _force_) of emanation, > other natures, which are more or less perfect, according to their > different degrees of distance, in the scale of emanation, from the > First Source of existence, and which constitute different worlds, > or orders of being, all united to the eternal power from which they > proceed. _Matter is nothing more than the most remote effect of the > emanative energy_ of the Deity. The material world receives its form > from the immediate agency of powers far beneath the First Source of > Being[49].... Beausobre[50] makes St. Augustine the Manichean say > thus: ‘And if by _Rasit_ we understand the _active Principle_ of the > creation, instead of its _beginning_, in such a case we will clearly > perceive that Moses never meant to say that heaven and earth were > the first works of God. He only said that God created heaven and > earth _through the Principle_, who is His Son. It is not the _time_ > he points to, but to the immediate author of the creation.’ Angels, > according to Augustine, were created _before_ the firmament, and > according to the esoteric interpretation, the heaven and earth were > created after that, evolving from the _second_ Principle or the > Logos--the creative Deity. “The word _principle_,” says Beausobre, > “does not mean that the heaven and earth were created before > anything else, for, to begin with, the _angels_ were created before > that; but that God did everything through His Wisdom, which is His > _Verbum_, and which the Christian _Bible_ named the _Beginning_,” > thus adopting the exoteric meaning of the word abandoned to the > multitudes. The _Kabala_--the Oriental as well as the Jewish--shows > that a number of _emanations_ (the Jewish Sephiroth) issued from the > _First_ Principle, the chief of which was _Wisdom_. This Wisdom is > the Logos of Philo, and Michael, the chief of the Gnostic Eons; it > is the Ormazd of the Persians; _Minerva_, goddess of wisdom, of the > Greeks, who emanated from the head of Jupiter; and the second Person > of the Christian Trinity. The early Fathers of the Church had not > much to exert their imagination; they found a ready-made doctrine > that had existed in every theogony for thousands of years before > the Christian era. Their trinity is but the trio of Sephiroth, the > first three kabalistic _lights_ of which Moses Nachmanides says, that > “_they have never been seen by any one_; there is not any defect in > them, nor any disunion.” The first eternal number is the Father, or > the Chaldean primeval, invisible, and incomprehensible _chaos_, out > of which proceeded the _Intelligible_ one. The Egyptian Phtah, or > “the _Principle of Light_--not the light itself, and the Principle > of Life, though himself _no_ life.” The _Wisdom_ by which the Father > created the heavens is the _Son_, or the kabalistic androgynous > Adam Kadmon. The Son is at once the male _Ra_, or Light of Wisdom, > Prudence or _Intelligence_, Sephira, the female part of Himself; > while from this dual being proceeds the third emanation, the Binah or > Reason, the second Intelligence--the Holy Ghost of the Christians. > Therefore, strictly speaking, there is a TETRAKTIS or quaternary, > consisting of the Unintelligible First monad, and its triple > emanation, which properly constitute our Trinity. > > How then avoid perceiving at once, that had not the Christians > purposely disfigured in their interpretation and translation the > Mosaic _Genesis_ to fit their own views, their religion, with its > present dogmas, would have been impossible? The word Rasit, once > taught in its new sense of the _Principle_ and not the _Beginning_, > and the anathematized doctrine of emanations accepted, the position > of the second trinitarian personage becomes untenable. For, if the > angels are the _first_ divine emanations from the Divine Substance, > and were in existence _before_ the Second Principle, then the > anthropomorphized _Son_ is at best an emanation like themselves, > and cannot be God _hypostatically_ any more than our visible works > are ourselves. That these metaphysical subtleties never entered > into the head of the honest-minded, sincere Paul, is evident; as > it is furthermore evident, that like all learned Jews he was well > acquainted with the doctrine of emanations and never thought of > corrupting it. How can any one imagine that Paul identified the _Son_ > with the _Father_, when he tells us that God made Jesus “a _little > lower_ than the angels” (_Hebrews_ ii. 9), and a _little higher_ than > Moses! “For this MAN was counted worthy of more glory than Moses” > (_Hebrews_ iii. 3). Of whatever, or how many forgeries, interlined > later in the _Acts_, the Fathers are guilty we know not; but that > Paul never considered Christ more than a man “full of the Spirit of > God” is but too evident: “In the _arche_ was the _Logos_, and the > Logos was adnate to the Theos.” > > _Wisdom_, the first emanation of En-Soph; the Protogonos, the > Hypostasis; the Adam Kadmon of the kabalist, the Brahma of the Hindu; > the Logos of Plato, and the “_Beginning_” of St. John--is the > Rasit--ראשית, of the _Book of Genesis_. If rightly interpreted it > overturns, as we have remarked, the whole elaborate system of > Christian theology, for it proves that behind the _creative_ Deity, > there was a HIGHER god; a planner, an architect; and that the former > was but His executive agent--a simple POWER! > > They persecuted the Gnostics, murdered the philosophers, and > burned the kabalists and the masons; and when the day of the great > reckoning arrives, and the light shines in darkness, what will they > have to offer in the place of the departed, expired religion? What > will they answer, these pretended monotheists, these worshippers > and _pseudo_-servants of the one living God, to their Creator? How > will they account for this long persecution of them who were the > true followers of the grand Megalistor, the supreme great master > of the Rosicrucians, the FIRST of masons. “For he is the Builder > and Architect of the Temple of the universe; He is the _Verbum > Sapienti_.”[51] > > “Every one knows,” wrote the great Manichean of the third century, > Fauste, “that the Evangeliums were written neither by Jesus Christ, > nor his apostles, but long after their time by some unknown persons, > who, judging well that they would hardly be believed when telling of > things they had not seen themselves, headed their narratives with > the names of the apostles or of disciples contemporaneous with the > latter.” > > Commenting upon the subject, A. Franck, the learned Hebrew scholar > of the Institute and translator of the _Kabala_, expresses the same > idea. “Are we not authorized,” he asks, “to view the _Kabala_ as > a precious remnant of religious philosophy of the Orient, which, > transported into Alexandria, got mixed to the doctrine of Plato, and > under the usurped name of Dionysius the Areopagite, bishop of Athens, > converted and consecrated by St. Paul, was thus enabled to penetrate > into the mysticism of the mediæval ages?”[52] > > Says Jacolliot: “What is then this religious philosophy of > the Orient, which has penetrated into the mystic symbolism of > Christianity? We answer: This philosophy, the traces of which we find > among the Magians, the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Hebrew kabalists > and the Christians, is none other than that of the Hindu Brahmans, > the sectarians of the _pitris_, or the spirits of the invisible > worlds which surround us.”[53] > > But if the Gnostics were destroyed, the _Gnosis_, based on the > secret science of sciences, still lives. It is the earth which > helps the woman, and which is destined to open her mouth to swallow > up mediæval Christianity, the usurper and assassin of the great > master’s doctrine. The ancient _Kabala_, the Gnosis, or traditional > _secret_ knowledge, was never without its representatives in any age > or country. The trinities of initiates, whether passed into history > or concealed under the impenetrable veil of mystery, are preserved > and impressed throughout the ages. They are known as Moses, Aholiab, > and Bezaleel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, as Plato, Philo, and > Pythagoras, etc. At the Transfiguration we see them as Jesus, Moses, > and Elias, the three Trismegisti; and three kabalists, Peter, James, > and John--whose _revelation_ is the key to all wisdom. We found them > in the twilight of Jewish history as Zoroaster, Abraham, and Terah, > and later as Henoch, Ezekiel, and Daniel. > > Who, of those who ever studied the ancient philosophies, who > understand intuitionally the grandeur of their conceptions, the > boundless sublimity of their views of the Unknown Deity, can hesitate > for a moment to give the preference to their doctrines over the > incomprehensible dogmatic and contradictory theology of the hundreds > of Christian sects? Who that ever read Plato and fathomed his Το Ὀν, > “_whom no person has seen except the Son_,” can doubt that Jesus was a > disciple of the same secret doctrine which had instructed the great > philosopher? For, as we have shown before now, Plato never claimed to > be the inventor of all that he wrote, but gave credit for it to > Pythagoras, who, in his turn, pointed to the remote East as the source > whence he derived his information and his philosophy. Colebrooke shows > that Plato confesses it in his epistles, and says that he has taken > his teachings from ancient and sacred doctrines![54] Moreover, it is > undeniable that the theologies of all the great nations dovetail > together and show that each is a part of “one stupendous whole.” Like > the rest of the initiates we see Plato taking great pains to conceal > the true meaning of his allegories. Every time the subject touches the > greater secrets of the Oriental _Kabala_, secret of the true cosmogony > of the universe and of the _ideal_, preëxisting world, Plato shrouds > his philosophy in the profoundest darkness. His _Timæus_ is so > confused that no one but an _initiate_ can understand the secret > meaning. And Mosheim thinks that Philo has filled his works with > passages directly contradicting each other for the sole purpose of > concealing the true doctrine. For once we see a critic on the right > track. > > And this very trinitarian idea, as well as the so bitterly denounced > doctrine of emanations, whence their remotest origin? The answer is > easy, and every proof is now at hand. In the sublime and profoundest > of all philosophies, that of the universal “Wisdom-Religion,” the > first traces of which, historical research now finds in the old > pre-Vedic religion of India. As the much-abused Jacolliot well > remarks, “It is not in the religious works of antiquity, such as the > _Vedas_, the _Zend Avesta_, the _Bible_, that we have to search for > the exact expression of the ennobling and sublime beliefs of those > epochs.”[55] > > “The holy primitive syllable, composed of the three letters A--U--M., > in which is contained the Vedic Trimurti (Trinity), must be kept > secret, like another triple Veda,” says Manu, in book xi., sloka 265. > > Swayambhouva is the unrevealed Deity; it is the Being existent > through and of itself; he is the central and immortal germ of > all that exists in the universe. Three trinities emanate and are > confounded in him, forming a Supreme _unity_. These trinities, or the > triple _Trimurti_, are: the Nara, Nari, and Viradyi--the _initial_ > triad; the Agni, Vaya, and Sourya--the _manifested_ triad; Brahma, > Vishnu, and Siva, the _creative_ triad. Each of these triads becomes > less metaphysical and more adapted to the vulgar intelligence as > it descends. Thus the last becomes but the symbol in its concrete > expression; the necessarianism of a purely metaphysical conception. > Together with Swayambhouva, they are the ten _Sephiroth_ of the > Hebrew kabalists, the ten Hindu Pragâpatis--the En-Soph of the > former, answering to the great _Unknown_, expressed by the mystic A U > M of the latter. > > Says Franck, the translator of the _Kabala_: > > “The ten Sephiroth are divided into _three classes_, each of them > presenting to us the divinity _under a different aspect_, the whole > still remaining an _indivisible Trinity_. > > “The first three Sephiroth are purely intellectual in metaphysics, > they express the absolute identity of existence and thought, and form > what the modern kabalists called the intelligible world--which is the > first manifestation of God. > > “The three that follow, make us conceive God in one of their aspects, > as the identity of goodness and wisdom; in the other they show to us, > in the Supreme good, the origin of beauty and magnificence (in the > creation). Therefore, they are named the _virtues_, or the _sensible > world_. > > “Finally, we learn, by the last three Sephiroth, that the Universal > Providence, that the Supreme artist is also _absolute Force_, the > all-powerful cause, and that, at the same time, this cause _is the > generative element of all that is_. It is these last Sephiroth that > constitute the _natural world_, or nature in its essence and in its > _active_ principle, _Natura naturans._”[56] > > This kabalistic conception is thus proved identical with that of the > Hindu philosophy. Whoever reads Plato and his _Dialogue_ Timæus, will > find these ideas as faithfully re-echoed by the Greek philosopher. > Moreover, the injunction of secrecy was as strict with the kabalists, > as with the initiates of the Adyta and the Hindu Yogis. > > “Close thy mouth, lest thou shouldst speak of _this_ (the mystery), > and thy heart, lest thou shouldst think aloud; and if thy heart has > escaped thee, bring it back to its place, for such is the object of > our alliance” (_Sepher Jezireh_, _Book of Creation_). > > “This is a secret which gives death: close thy mouth lest thou > shouldst reveal to the vulgar; compress thy brain lest something > should escape from it and fall outside” (_Agrouchada-Parikshai_). > > Truly the fate of many a future generation hung on a gossamer > thread, in the days of the third and fourth centuries. Had not the > Emperor sent in 389 to Alexandria a rescript--which was forced from > him by the Christians--for the destruction of every idol, our own > century would never have had a Christian mythological Pantheon of > its own. Never did the Neo-platonic school reach such a height of > philosophy as when nearest its end. Uniting the mystic theosophy > of old Egypt with the refined philosophy of the Greeks; nearer to > the ancient Mysteries of Thebes and Memphis than they had been for > centuries; versed in the science of soothsaying and divination, > as in the art of the Therapeutists; friendly with the acutest men > of the Jewish nation, who were deeply imbued with the Zoroastrian > ideas, the Neo-platonists tended to amalgamate the old wisdom of the > Oriental _Kabala_ with the more refined conceptions of the Occidental > Theosophists. Notwithstanding the treason of the Christians, who > saw fit, for political reasons, after the days of Constantine, to > repudiate their tutors, the influence of the new Platonic philosophy > is conspicuous in the subsequent adoption of dogmas, the origin > of which can be traced but too easily to that remarkable school. > Though mutilated and disfigured, they still preserve a strong family > likeness, which nothing can obliterate. > > But, if the knowledge of the occult powers of nature opens the > spiritual sight of man, enlarges his intellectual faculties, and > leads him unerringly to a profounder veneration for the Creator, > on the other hand ignorance, dogmatic narrow-mindedness, and a > childish fear of looking to the bottom of things, invariably leads to > fetish-worship and superstition. > > When Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, had openly embraced the cause > of Isis, the Egyptian goddess, and had anthropomorphized her into > Mary, the mother of God; and the trinitarian controversy had taken > place; from that moment the Egyptian doctrine of the emanation of > the creative God out of Emepht began to be tortured in a thousand > ways, until the Councils had agreed upon the adoption of it as it > now stands--the disfigured Ternary of the kabalistic Solomon and > Philo! But as its origin was yet too evident, the _Word_ was no > longer called the “Heavenly man,” the _primal_ Adam Kadmon, but > became the Logos--Christ, and was made as old as the “Ancient of the > Ancient,” his father. The _concealed_ WISDOM became identical with > its emanation, the DIVINE THOUGHT, and made to be regarded coëqual > and coëternal with its first manifestation. > > If we now stop to consider another of the fundamental dogmas of > Christianity, the doctrine of atonement, we may trace it as easily > back to heathendom. This corner-stone of a Church which had believed > herself built on a firm rock for long centuries, is now excavated > by science and proved to come from the Gnostics. Professor Draper > shows it as hardly known in the days of Tertullian, and as having > “_originated_ among the Gnostic heretics.”[57] We will not permit > ourselves to contradict such a learned authority, farther than to > state that it _originated_ among them no more than their “anointed” > Christos and Sophia. The former they modelled on the original of > the “King Messiah,” the male principle of wisdom, and the latter on > the third Sephiroth, from the Chaldean _Kabala_,[58] and even from > the Hindu Brahma and Sara-âsvati,[59] and the Pagan Dionysus and > Demeter. And here we are on firm ground, if it were only because it > is now proved that the _New Testament_ never appeared in its complete > form, such as we find it now, till 300 years after the period of > apostles,[60] and the _Sohar_ and other kabalistic books are found to > belong to the first century before our era, if not to be far older > still. > > The Gnostics entertained many of the Essenean ideas; and the > Essenes had their “greater” and “minor” Mysteries at least two > centuries before our era. They were the _Isarim_ or _Initiates_, > the descendants of the Egyptian hierophants, in whose country they > had been settled for several centuries before they were converted > to Buddhistic monasticism by the missionaries of King Asoka, and > amalgamated later with the earliest Christians; and they existed, > probably, before the old Egyptian temples were desecrated and ruined > in the incessant invasions of Persians, Greeks, and other conquering > hordes. The hierophants had their _atonement_ enacted in the Mystery > of Initiation ages before the Gnostics, or even the Essenes, had > appeared. It was known among hierophants as the BAPTISM OF BLOOD, and > was considered not as an atonement for the “fall of man” in Eden, > but simply as an expiation for the past, present, and future sins of > ignorant but nevertheless polluted mankind. The hierophant had the > option of either offering his pure and sinless life as a sacrifice > for his race to the gods whom he hoped to rejoin, or an animal > victim. The former depended entirely on their own will. At the last > moment of the solemn “new birth,” the initiator passed “the word” to > the initiated, and immediately after that the latter had a weapon > placed in his right hand, and was ordered _to strike_.[61] This is > the true origin of the Christian dogma of atonement. > > Verily the “Christs” of the pre-Christian ages were many. But they > died unknown to the world, and disappeared as silently and as > mysteriously from the sight of man as Moses from the top of Pisgah, > the mountain of Nebo (oracular wisdom), after he had laid his hands > upon Joshua, who thus became “full of the spirit of wisdom” (_i.e._, > _initiated_). > > Nor does the Mystery of the Eucharist pertain to Christians alone. > Godfrey Higgins proves that it was instituted many hundreds of > years before the “Paschal Supper,” and says that “the sacrifice of > bread and wine was common to many ancient nations.”[62] Cicero > mentions it in his works, and wonders at the strangeness of the rite. > There had been an esoteric meaning attached to it from the first > establishment of the Mysteries, and the Eucharistia is one of the > oldest rites of antiquity. With the hierophants it had nearly the > same significance as with the Christians. Ceres was _bread_, and > Bacchus was _wine_; the former meaning regeneration of life from the > seed, and the latter--the grape--the emblem of wisdom and knowledge; > the accumulation of the spirit of things, and the fermentation > and subsequent strength of that esoteric knowledge being justly > symbolized by wine. The mystery related to the drama of Eden; it is > said to have been first taught by Janus, who was also the first to > introduce in the temples the sacrifices of “bread” and “wine” in > commemoration of the “fall into generation” as the symbol of the > “seed.” “I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman,” says Jesus, > alluding to the secret knowledge that could be imparted by him. “I > will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I > drink it new in the kingdom of God.” > > The festival of the Eleusinian Mysteries began in the month of > Boëdromion, which corresponds with the month of September, the time > of grape-gathering, and lasted from the 15th to the 22d of the month, > _seven_ days.[63] The Hebrew festival of the Feast of Tabernacles > began on the 15th and ended on the 22d of the month of Ethanim, which > Dunlap shows as derived from Adonim, Adonia, Attenim, Ethanim;[64] > and this feast is named in _Exodus_ (xxiii. 16) the feast of > _ingatherings_. “All the men of Israel assembled unto King Solomon at > the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the _seventh_.”[65] > > Plutarch thinks the feast of the booths to be the Bacchic rites, not > the Eleusinian. Thus “Bacchus was directly called upon,” he says. > The _Sabazian_ worship was _Sabbatic_; the names Evius, or Hevius, > and Luaios are identical with _Hivite_ and _Levite_. The French name > Louis is the Hebrew _Levi_; Iacchus again is Iao or Jehovah; and Baal > or Adon, like Bacchus, was a phallic god. “Who shall ascend into the > hill (the high place) of the Lord?” asks the holy king David, “who > shall stand in the place of his _Kadushu_ קדשו”? (_Psalms_ xxiv. 3). > Kadesh may mean in one sense to _devote, hallow, sanctify_, and even > to initiate or to set apart; but it also means the ministers of > lascivious rites (the Venus-worship) and the true interpretation of > the word Kadesh is bluntly rendered in _Deuteronomy_ xxiii. 17; > _Hosea_ iv. 14; and _Genesis_ xxxviii., from verses 15 to 22. The > “holy” Kadeshuth of the _Bible_ were identical as to the duties of > their office with the Nautch-girls of the later Hindu pagodas. The > Hebrew _Kadeshim_ or galli lived “by the house of the Lord, where the > women wove hangings for the grove,” or bust of Venus-Astartè, says > verse the seventh in the twenty-third chapter of 2 Kings. > > The dance performed by David round the ark was the “circle-dance” > said to have been prescribed by the Amazons for the Mysteries. Such > was the dance of the daughters of Shiloh (_Judges_ xxi. 21, 23 _et > passim_), and the leaping of the prophets of Baal (_1 Kings_ xviii. > 26). It was simply a characteristic of the Sabean worship, for it > denoted the motion of the planets round the sun. That the dance was a > Bacchic frenzy is apparent. Sistra were used on the occasion, and the > taunt of Michael and the king’s reply are very expressive. “The king > of Israel uncovered himself before his maid-servants as one of the > _vain_ (or debauched) fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself.” And he > retorts: “I will play (act wantonly) before יהוה, and I will be yet > more vile than this, and I will be base in my own sight.” When we > remember that David had sojourned among the Tyrians and Philistines, > where their rites were common; and that indeed he had conquered that > land away from the house of Saul, by the aid of mercenaries from their > country, the countenancing and even, perhaps, the introduction of such > a Pagan-like worship by the weak “psalmist” seems very natural. David > knew nothing of Moses, it seems, and if he introduced the > Jehovah-worship it was not in its monotheistic character, but simply > as that of one of the many gods of the neighboring nations--a tutelary > deity to whom he had given the preference, and chosen among “all other > gods.” > > Following the Christian dogmas seriatim, if we concentrate our > attention upon one which provoked the fiercest battles until its > recognition, that of the Trinity, what do we find? We meet it, as > we have shown, northeast of the Indus; and tracing it to Asia Minor > and Europe, recognize it among every people who had anything like > an established religion. It was taught in the oldest Chaldean, > Egyptian, and Mithraïtic schools. The Chaldean Sun-god, Mithra, was > called “Triple,” and the trinitarian idea of the Chaldeans was a > doctrine of the Akkadians, who, themselves, belonged to a race which > was the first to conceive a metaphysical trinity. The Chaldeans > are a tribe of the Akkadians, according to Rawlinson, who lived in > Babylonia from the earliest times. They were Turanians, according > to others, and instructed the Babylonians into the first notions of > religion. But these same Akkadians, who were they? Those scientists > who would ascribe to them a Turanian origin, make of them the > inventors of the cuneiform characters; others call them Sumerians; > others again, respectively, make their language, of which (for > very good reasons) no traces whatever remain--Kasdean, Chaldaic, > Proto-Chaldean, Kasdo-Scythic, and so on. The only tradition worthy > of credence is that these Akkadians instructed the Babylonians in > the Mysteries, and taught them the sacerdotal or _Mystery_-language. > These Akkadians were then simply a tribe of the Hindu-Brahmans, now > called Aryans--their vernacular language, the Sanscrit[66] of the > Vedas; and the sacred or Mystery-language, that which, even in our > own age, is used by the Hindu fakirs and initiated Brahmans in their > magical evocations.[67] It has been, from time immemorial, and still > is employed by the initiates of all countries, and the Thibetan lamas > claim that it is in this tongue that appear the mysterious characters > on the leaves and bark of the sacred Koumboum. > > Jacolliot, who took such pains to penetrate the mysteries of the > Brahmanical initiation in translating and commenting upon the > _Agrouchada-Parikshai_, confesses the following: > > “It is pretended also, without our being able to verify the > assertion, that the magical evocations were pronounced in a > particular language, and that it was forbidden, under pain of death, > to translate them into vulgar dialects. The rare expressions that > we have been able to catch like--_L’rhom_, _h’hom_, _sh’hrum_, > _sho’rhim_, are in fact most curious, and do not seem to belong to > any known idiom.”[68] > > Those who have seen a fakir or a lama reciting his mantras and > conjurations, know that he never pronounces the words audibly when > preparing for a phenomenon. His lips move, and none will ever hear > the terrible formula pronounced, except in the interior of the > temples, and then in a cautious whisper. This, then, was the language > now respectively baptized by every scientist, and, according to his > imaginative and philological propensities, Kasdeo-Semitic, Scythic, > Proto-Chaldean, and the like. > > Scarcely two of even the most learned Sanscrit philologists are > agreed as to the true interpretation of Vedic words. Let one put > forth an essay, a lecture, a treatise, a translation, a dictionary, > and straightway all the others fall to quarrelling with each other > and with him as to his sins of omission and commission. Professor > Whitney, greatest of American Orientalists, says that Professor > Müller’s notes on the _Rig Veda Sânhita_ “are far from showing that > sound and thoughtful judgment, that moderation and economy which > are among the most precious qualities of an exegete.” Professor > Müller angrily retorts upon his critics that “not only is the joy > embittered which is the inherent reward of all _bona fide_ work, but > selfishness, malignity, aye, _even untruthfulness_, gain the upper > hand, and the healthy growth of science is stunted.” He differs “in > many cases from the explanations of Vedic words given by Professor > Roth” in his _Sanscrit Dictionary_, and Professor Whitney shampooes > both their heads by saying that there are, unquestionably, words and > phrases “as to which both alike will hereafter be set right.” > > In volume i. of his _Chips_, Professor Müller stigmatizes all > the _Vedas_ except the _Rik_, the _Atharva-Veda_ included, as > “theological twaddle,” while Professor Whitney regards the latter > as “the most comprehensive and valuable of the four collections, > next after the _Rik_.” To return to the case of Jacolliot. Professor > Whitney brands him as a “bungler and a humbug,” and, as we remarked > above, this is the very general verdict. But when the _Bible dans > l’Inde_ appeared, the Société Académique de Saint Quentin requested > M. Textor de Ravisi, a learned Indianist, ten years Governor of > Karikal, India, to report upon its merits. He was an ardent Catholic, > and bitterly opposed Jacolliot’s conclusions where they discredited > the Mosaic and Catholic revelations; but he was forced to say: > “Written with good faith, in an easy, vigorous, and passionate style, > of an easy and varied argumentation, the work of M. Jacolliot is > of absorbing interest ... a learned work on known facts and with > familiar arguments.” > > Enough. Let Jacolliot have the benefit of the doubt when such very > imposing authorities are doing their best to show up each other as > incompetents and literary journeymen. We quite agree with Professor > Whitney that “the truism, that [for European critics?] it is far > easier to pull to pieces than to build up, is nowhere truer than in > matters affecting the archæology and history of India.”[69] > > Babylonia happened to be situated on the way of the great stream > of the earliest Hindu emigration, and the Babylonians were one of > the first peoples benefited thereby.[70] These Khaldi were the > worshippers of the Moon-god, Deus Lunus, from which fact we may > infer that the Akkadians--if such must be their name--belonged to > the race of the Kings of the Moon, whom tradition shows as having > reigned in Pruyay--now Allahabad. With them the trinity of Deus Lunus > was manifested in the three lunar phases, completing the quaternary > with the fourth, and typifying the death of the Moon-god in its > gradual waning and final disappearance. This death was allegorized > by them, and attributed to the triumph of the genius of evil over > the light-giving deity; as the later nations allegorized the death > of their Sun-gods, Osiris and Apollo, at the hands of Typhon and the > great Dragon Python, when the sun entered the winter solstice. Babel, > Arach, and Akkad are names of the sun. The _Zoroastrian Oracles_ are > full and explicit upon the subject of the Divine Triad. “A triad of > Deity shines forth throughout the whole world, of which a Monad is > the head,” admits the Reverend Dr. Maurice. > > “For from this Triad, in the bosoms, are all things governed,” says > a Chaldean oracle. The Phos, Pur, and Phlox, of Sanchoniathon,[71] > are Light, Fire, and Flame, three manifestations of the Sun who is > _one_. Bel-Saturn, Jupiter-Bel, and Bel or Baal-Chom are the Chaldean > trinity;[72] The Babylonian Bel was regarded in the Triune aspect > of Belitan, Zeus-Belus (the mediator) and Baal-Chom who is Apollo > Chomæus. This was the Triune aspect of the ‘Highest God,’ who is, > according to Berosus, either El (the Hebrew), Bel, Belitan, Mithra, > or Zervana, and has the name πατηρ, “the Father.”[73] The Brahma, > Vishnu, and Siva,[74] corresponding to Power, Wisdom, and Justice, > which answer in their turn to Spirit, Matter, Time, and the Past, > Present, and Future, can be found in the temple of Gharipuri; > thousands of dogmatic Brahmans worship these attributes of the Vedic > Deity, while the severe monks and nuns of Buddhistic Thibet recognize > but the sacred trinity of the three cardinal virtues: _Poverty_, > _Chastity_, and _Obedience_, professed by the Christians, practiced by > the Buddhists and some Hindus alone. > > The Persian triplicate Deity also consists of three persons, Ormazd, > Mithra, and Ahriman. “That is that principle,” says Porphyry,[75] > “which the author of the _Chaldaic Summary_ saith, ‘_They conceive > there is one principle of all things, and declare that is one and > good._’” The Chinese idol Sanpao, consists of three equal in all > respects;[76] and the Peruvians “supposed their Tanga-tanga to be one > in three, and three in one,” says Faber.[77] The Egyptians have their > Emepht, Eicton, and Phta; and the triple god seated on the Lotos can > be seen in the St. Petersburg Museum, on a medal of the Northern > Tartars. > > Among the Church dogmas which have most seriously suffered of late > at the hands of the Orientalists, the last in question stands > conspicuous. The reputation of each of the three personages of the > anthropomorphic godhead as an original revelation to the Christians > through Divine will, has been badly compromised by inquiry into its > predecessors and origin. Orientalists have published more about the > similarity between Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Christianity than was > strictly agreeable to the Vatican. Draper’s assertion that “Paganism > was modified by Christianity, Christianity by Paganism,”[78] is being > daily verified. “Olympus was restored but the divinities passed under > other names,” he says, treating of the Constantine period. “The more > powerful provinces insisted on the adoption of their time-honored > conceptions. Views of the trinity in accordance with the Egyptian > traditions were established. Not only was the adoration of Isis under > a new name restored, but even her image, standing on the crescent > moon, reappeared. The well-known effigy of that goddess with the > infant Horus in her arms has descended to our days, in the beautiful > artistic creations of the Madonna and child.” > > But a still earlier origin than the Egyptian and Chaldean can be > assigned to the Virgin “Mother of God,” Queen of Heaven. Though Isis > is also by right the Queen of Heaven, and is generally represented > carrying in her hand the Crux Ansata composed of the mundane cross, > and of the Stauros of the Gnostics, she is a great deal younger > than the celestial virgin, Neith. In one of the tombs of the > Pharaohs--Rhameses, in the valley of Biban-el-Molouk, in Thebes, > Champollion, Junior, discovered a picture, according to his opinion > the most ancient ever yet found. It represents the heavens symbolized > by the figure of a woman bedecked with stars. The birth of the Sun is > figured by the form of a little child, issuing from the bosom of its > “Divine Mother.” > > In the _Book of Hermes_, “Pimander” is enunciated in distinct and > unequivocal sentences, the whole trinitarian dogma accepted by the > Christians. “The light is me,” says Pimander, the DIVINE THOUGHT. “I > am the _nous_ or intelligence, and I am thy god, and I am far older > than the human principle which escapes from the shadow. I am the > germ of thought, the resplendent WORD, the SON of God. Think that > what thus sees and hears in thee, is the _Verbum_ of the Master, it > is the Thought, which is God the Father.... The celestial ocean, the > ÆTHER, which flows from east to west, is the Breath of the Father, > the life-giving Principle, the HOLY GHOST!” “For they are not at all > separated and their union is LIFE.” > > Ancient as may be the origin of Hermes, lost in the unknown days of > Egyptian colonization, there is yet a far older prophecy, directly > relating to the Hindu Christna, according to the Brahmans. It is, > to say the least, strange that the Christians claim to base their > religion upon a prophecy of the _Bible_, which exists nowhere in > that book. In what chapter or verse does Jehovah, the “Lord God,” > promise Adam and Eve to send them a Redeemer who will save humanity? > “I will put enmity between thee and the woman,” says the Lord God to > the serpent, “and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy > head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” > > In these words there is not the slightest allusion to a Redeemer, > and the subtilest of intellects could not extract from them, as they > stand in the third chapter of _Genesis_, anything like that which > the Christians have contrived to find. On the other hand, in the > traditions and _Manu_, Brahma promises directly to the first couple > to send them a Saviour who will teach them the way to salvation. > > “It is from the lips of a messenger of Brahma, who will be born > in Kuroukshetra, Matsya, and the land of Pantchola, also called > Kanya-Cubja (mountain of the Virgin), that all men on earth will > learn their duty,” says _Manu_ (book ii., slokas 19 and 20). > > The Mexicans call the Father of their Trinity Yzona, the Son Bacab, > and the Holy Ghost Echvah, “and say they received it (the doctrine) > from their ancestors.”[79] Among the Semitic nations we can trace the > trinity to the prehistorical days of the fabled Sesostris, who is > identified by more than one critic with Nimrod, “the mighty hunter.” > Manetho makes the oracle rebuke the king, when the latter asks, “Tell > me, O thou strong in fire, who before me could subjugate all things? > and who shall after me?” And the oracle saith thus: “First God, then > the Word, and then ‘the Spirit.’”[80] > > In the foregoing lies the foundation of the fierce hatred of the > Christians toward the “Pagans” and the theurgists. Too much had > been _borrowed_; the ancient religions and the Neo-platonists > had been laid by them under contribution sufficiently to perplex > the world for several thousand years. Had not the ancient creeds > been speedily obliterated, it would have been found impossible to > preach the Christian religion as a New Dispensation, or the direct > Revelation from God the Father, through God the Son, and under the > influence of God the Holy Ghost. As a political exigence the Fathers > had--to gratify the wishes of their rich converts--instituted even > the festivals of Pan. They went so far as to accept the ceremonies > hitherto celebrated by the Pagan world in honor of the _God of the > gardens_, in all their primitive _sincerity_.[81] It was time to > sever the connection. Either the Pagan worship and the Neo-platonic > theurgy, with all ceremonial of magic, must be crushed out forever, > or the Christians become Neo-platonists. > > The fierce polemics and single-handed battles between Irenæus and the > Gnostics are too well known to need repetition. They were carried on > for over two centuries after the unscrupulous Bishop of Lyons had > uttered his last religious paradox. Celsus, the Neo-platonist, and a > disciple of the school of Ammonius Saccas, had thrown the Christians > into perturbation, and even had arrested for a time the progress of > proselytism by successfully proving that the original and purer forms > of the most important dogmas of Christianity were to be found only in > the teachings of Plato. Celsus accused them of accepting the worst > superstitions of Paganism, and of interpolating passages from the > books of the Sybils, without rightly understanding their meaning. The > accusations were so plausible, and the facts so patent, that for a > long time no Christian writer had ventured to answer the challenge. > Origen, at the fervent request of his friend, Ambrosius, was the > first to take the defense in hand, for, having belonged to the same > Platonic school of Ammonius, he was considered the most competent > man to refute the well-founded charges. But his eloquence failed, > and the only remedy that could be found was to destroy the writings > of Celsus themselves.[82] This could be achieved only in the fifth > century, when copies had been taken from this work, and many were > those who had read and studied them. If no copy of it has descended > to our present generation of scientists, it is not because there is > none extant at present, but for the simple reason that the monks of a > certain Oriental church on Mount Athos will neither show nor confess > they have one in their possession.[83] Perhaps they do not even know > themselves the value of the contents of their manuscripts, on account > of their great ignorance. > > The dispersion of the Eclectic school had become the fondest hope of > the Christians. It had been looked for and contemplated with intense > anxiety. It was finally achieved. The members were scattered by the > hand of the monsters Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and his nephew > Cyril--the murderer of the young, the learned, and the innocent > Hypatia![84] > > With the death of the martyred daughter of Theon, the mathematician, > there remained no possibility for the Neo-platonists to continue > their school at Alexandria. During the life-time of the youthful > Hypatia her friendship and influence with Orestes, the governor > of the city, had assured the philosophers security and protection > against their murderous enemies. With her death they had lost their > strongest friend. How much she was revered by all who knew her for > her erudition, noble virtues, and character, we can infer from the > letters addressed to her by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, fragments > of which have reached us. “My heart yearns for the presence of your > divine spirit,” he wrote in 413 A. D., “which more than anything else > could alleviate the bitterness of my fortunes.” At another time he > says: “Oh, my mother, my sister, my teacher, my benefactor! My soul > is very sad. The recollection of my children I have lost is killing > me.... When I have news of you and learn, as I hope, that you are > more fortunate than myself, I am at least only half-unhappy.” > > What would have been the feelings of this most noble and worthy > of Christian bishops, who had surrendered family and children and > happiness for the faith into which he had been attracted, had a > prophetic vision disclosed to him that the only friend that had been > left to him, his “mother, sister, benefactor,” would soon become an > unrecognizable mass of flesh and blood, pounded to jelly under the > blows of the club of Peter the Reader--that her youthful, innocent > body would be cut to pieces, “the flesh scraped from the bones,” by > oyster-shells and the rest of her cast into the fire, by order of the > same Bishop Cyril he knew so well--Cyril, the CANONIZED Saint!![85] > > There has never been a religion in the annals of the world with > such a bloody record as Christianity. All the rest, including the > traditional fierce fights of the “chosen people” with their next > of kin, the idolatrous tribes of Israel, pale before the murderous > fanaticism of the alleged followers of Christ! Even the rapid > spread of Mahometanism before the conquering sword of the Islam > prophet, is a direct consequence of the bloody riots and fights > among Christians. It was the intestine war between the Nestorians > and Cyrilians that engendered Islamism; and it is in the convent of > Bozrah that the prolific seed was first sown by Bahira, the Nestorian > monk. Freely watered by rivers of blood, the tree of Mecca has grown > till we find it in the present century overshadowing nearly two > hundred millions of people. The recent Bulgarian atrocities are but > the natural outgrowth of the triumph of Cyril and the Mariolaters. > > The cruel, crafty politician, the plotting monk, glorified by > ecclesiastical history with the aureole of a martyred saint. The > despoiled philosophers, the Neo-platonists, and the Gnostics, > daily anathematized by the Church all over the world for long and > dreary centuries. The curse of the unconcerned Deity hourly invoked > on the magian rites and theurgic practice, and the Christian > clergy themselves using _sorcery_ for ages. Hypatia, the glorious > maiden-philosopher, torn to pieces by the Christian mob. And such > as Catherine de Medici, Lucrezia Borgia, Joanna of Naples, and the > Isabellas of Spain, presented to the world as the faithful daughters > of the Church--some even decorated by the Pope with the order of the > “Immaculate Rose,” the highest emblem of womanly purity and virtue, > a symbol sacred to the Virgin-mother of God! Such are the examples > of human justice! How far less blasphemous appears a total rejection > of Mary as an immaculate goddess, than an idolatrous worship of her, > accompanied by such practices. > > In the next chapter we will present a few illustrations of sorcery, > as practiced under the patronage of the Roman Church. > > CHAPTER II. > > “They undertake by scales of miles to tell > The bounds, dimensions, and extent of hell; > * * * * * > Where bloated souls in smoky durance hung > Like a Westphalia gammon or neat’s tongue, > To be redeemed with masses and a song.” > --OLDHAM: _Satires upon the Jesuits_. > > “_York._--But you are more inhuman, more inexorable-- > O, ten times more--than tigers of Hyrcania.” > --_King Henry VI._, Part Third, Act i., Scene iv. > > “_War._--And hark ye, Sirs; because she is a maid > Spare for no faggots, let there be enough; > Place barrels of pitch upon the fatal stake.” > --_King Henry VI._, Part First, Act v., Scene iv. > > In that famous work of Bodin, on sorcery,[86] a frightful story is > told about Catherine of Medicis. The author was a learned publicist, > who, during twenty years of his life, collected authentic documents > from the archives of nearly every important city of France, to make > up a complete work on sorcery, magic, and the power of various > “demons.” To use an expression of Eliphas Levi, his book offers a > most remarkable collection of “bloody and hideous facts; acts of > revolting superstition, arrests, and executions of stupid ferocity.” > “Burn every body!” the Inquisition seemed to say--God will easily > sort out His own! Poor fools, hysterical women, and idiots were > roasted alive, without mercy, for the crime of “magic.” But, “at the > same time, how many great culprits escaped this unjust and sanguinary > _justice_! This is what Bodin makes us fully appreciate.” > > Catherine, the pious Christian--who has so well deserved in the eyes > of the Church of Christ for the atrocious and never-to-be-forgotten > massacre of St. Bartholomew--the Queen Catherine, kept in her > service an apostate Jacobin priest. Well versed in the “black art,” > so fully patronized by the Medici family, he had won the gratitude > and protection of his pious mistress, by his unparalleled skill in > killing people at a distance, by torturing with various incantations > their wax simulacra. The process has been described over and over > again, and we scarcely need repeat it. > > Charles was lying sick of an incurable disease. The queen-mother who > had everything to lose in case of his death, resorted to necromancy, > and consulted the oracle of the “bleeding head.” This infernal > operation required the decapitation of a child who must be possessed > of great beauty and purity. He had been prepared in secret for his > first communion, by _the chaplain_ of the palace, who was apprised > of the plot, and at midnight of the appointed day, in the chamber > of the sick man, and in presence only of Catherine and a few of her > confederates, the “devil’s mass” was celebrated. Let us give the > rest of the story as we find it in one of Levi’s works: “At this > mass, celebrated before the image of the demon, having under his feet > a reversed cross, the sorcerer consecrated two wafers, one black > and one white. The white was given to the child, whom they brought > clothed as for baptism, and who was murdered upon the very steps of > the altar, immediately after his communion. His head, separated from > the trunk by a single blow, was placed, all palpitating, upon the > great black wafer which covered the bottom of the paten, then placed > upon a table where some mysterious lamps were burning. The exorcism > then began, and the demon was charged to pronounce an oracle, and > reply by the mouth of this head to a secret question that the king > dared not speak aloud, and that had been confided to no one. Then a > feeble voice, a strange voice, which had nothing of human character > about it, made itself audible in this poor little martyr’s head.” The > sorcery availed nothing; the king died, and--Catherine remained the > faithful daughter of Rome! > > How strange, that des Mousseaux, who makes such free use of > Bodin’s materials to construct his formidable indictment against > Spiritualists and other sorcerers, should have overlooked this > interesting episode! > > It is a well-attested fact that Pope Sylvester II. was publicly > accused by Cardinal Benno with being a sorcerer and an enchanter. > The brazen “oracular head” made by his Holiness was of the same kind > as the one fabricated by Albertus Magnus. The latter was smashed to > pieces by Thomas Aquinas, not because it was the work of or inhabited > by a “demon,” but because the spook who was fixed inside, by mesmeric > power, talked incessantly, and his verbiage prevented the eloquent > saint from working out his mathematical problems. These heads and > other talking statues, trophies of the magical skill of monks and > bishops, were fac-similes of the “animated” gods of the ancient > temples. The accusation against the Pope was proved at the time. It > was also demonstrated that he was constantly attended by “demons” > or spirits. In the preceding chapter we have mentioned Benedict > IX., John XX., and the VIth and VIIth Gregory, who were all known > as magicians. The latter Pope, moreover, was the famous Hildebrand, > who was said to have been so expert at “shaking lightning out of > his sleeve.” An expression which makes the venerable spiritualistic > writer, Mr. Howitt, think that “it was the origin of the celebrated > thunder of the Vatican.” > > The magical achievements of the Bishop of Ratisbon and those of > the “angelic doctor,” Thomas Aquinas, are too well known to need > repetition; but we may explain farther how the “illusions” of the > former were produced. If the Catholic bishop was so clever in making > people believe on a bitter winter night that they were enjoying the > delights of a splendid summer day, and cause the icicles hanging from > the boughs of the trees in the garden to seem like so many tropical > fruits, the Hindu magicians also practice such biological powers unto > this very day, and claim the assistance of neither god nor devil. > Such “miracles” are all produced by the same human power that is > inherent in every man, if he only knew how to develop it. > > About the time of the Reformation, the study of alchemy and magic > had become so prevalent among the clergy as to produce great > scandal. Cardinal Wolsey was openly accused before the court and the > privy-council of confederacy with a man named Wood, a sorcerer, who > said that “_My Lord Cardinale had suche a rynge that whatsomevere he > askyd of the Kynges grace that he hadd yt_;” adding that “_Master > Cromwell, when he ... was servaunt in my lord cardynales housse ... > rede many bokes and specyally the boke of Salamon ... and studied > mettells and what vertues they had after the canon of Salamon_.” This > case, with several others equally curious, is to be found among the > Cromwell papers in the Record Office of the Rolls House. > > A priest named William Stapleton was arrested as a conjurer, during > the reign of Henry VIII., and an account of his adventures is still > preserved in the Rolls House records. The Sicilian priest whom > Benvenuto Cellini calls a necromancer, became famous through his > successful conjurations, and was never molested. The remarkable > adventure of Cellini with him in the Colosseum, where the priest > conjured up a whole host of devils, is well known to the reading > public. The subsequent meeting of Cellini with his mistress, as > predicted and brought about by the conjurer, at the precise time > fixed by him, is to be considered, as a matter of course, a “curious > coincidence.” In the latter part of the sixteenth century there > was hardly a parish to be found in which the priests did not study > magic and alchemy. The practice of exorcism to cast out devils “in > imitation of Christ,” who by the way never used exorcism at all, > led the clergy to devote themselves openly to “sacred” magic in > contradistinction to black art, of which latter crime were accused > all those who were neither priests nor monks. > > The occult knowledge gleaned by the Roman Church from the once fat > fields of theurgy she sedulously guarded for her own use, and sent to > the stake only those practitioners who “poached” on her lands of the > _Scientia Scientiarum_, and those whose sins could not be concealed > by the friar’s frock. The proof of it lies in the records of history. > “In the course only of fifteen years, between 1580 to 1595, and only > in the single province of Lorraine, the President Remigius burned > 900 witches,” says Thomas Wright, in his _Sorcery and Magic_. It was > during these days, prolific in ecclesiastical murder and unrivalled > for cruelty and ferocity, that Jean Bodin wrote. > > While the orthodox clergy called forth whole legions of “demons” > through magical incantations, unmolested by the authorities, provided > they held fast to the established dogmas and taught no heresy, on the > other hand, acts of unparalleled atrocity were perpetrated on poor, > unfortunate fools. Gabriel Malagrida, an old man of eighty, was burnt > by these evangelical Jack Ketches in 1761. In the Amsterdam library > there is a copy of the report of his famous trial, translated from > the Lisbon edition. He was accused of sorcery and illicit intercourse > with the Devil, who had “disclosed to him _futurity_.” (?) The > prophecy imparted by the Arch-Enemy to the poor visionary Jesuit is > reported in the following terms: “The culprit hath confessed that the > demon, under the form of the blessed Virgin, having commanded him to > write the life of Antichrist (?), told him that he, Malagrida, was > a second John, but more clear than John the Evangelist; that there > were to be three Antichrists, and that the last should be born at > Milan, of a monk and a nun, in the year 1920; that he would marry > Proserpine, one of the infernal furies,” etc. > > The prophecy is to be verified forty-three years hence. Even were > all the children born of monks and nuns really to become antichrists > if allowed to grow up to maturity, the fact would seem far less > deplorable than the discoveries made in so many convents when the > foundations have been removed for some reason. If the assertion of > Luther is to be disbelieved on account of his hatred for popery, then > we may name discoveries of the same character made quite recently in > Austrian and Russian Poland. Luther speaks of a fish-pond at Rome, > situated near a convent of nuns, which, having been cleared out by > order of Pope Gregory, disclosed, at the bottom, over six thousand > infant skulls; and of a nunnery at Neinburg, in Austria, whose > foundations, when searched, disclosed the same relics of celibacy and > chastity! > > “_Ecclesia non novit Sanguinem!_” meekly repeated the scarlet-robed > cardinals. And to avoid the spilling of blood which horrified them, > they instituted the Holy Inquisition. If, as the occultists maintain, > and science half confirms, our most trifling acts and thoughts are > indelibly impressed upon the eternal mirror of the astral ether, > there must be somewhere, in the boundless realm of the unseen > universe, the imprint of a curious picture. It is that of a gorgeous > standard waving in the heavenly breeze at the foot of the great > “white throne” of the Almighty. On its crimson damask face a cross, > symbol of “the Son of God who died for mankind,” with an _olive_ > branch on one side, and a sword, stained to the hilt with human > gore, on the other. A legend selected from the _Psalms_ emblazoned > in golden letters, reading thus: “_Exurge, Domine, et judica causam > meam._” For such appears the standard of the Inquisition, on a > photograph in our possession, from an original procured at the > Escurial of Madrid. > > Under this Christian standard, in the brief space of fourteen years, > Tomas de Torquemada, the confessor of Queen Isabella, burned over > ten thousand persons, and sentenced to the torture eighty thousand > more. Orobio, the well-known writer, who was detained so long in > prison, and who hardly escaped the flames of the Inquisition, > immortalized this institution in his works when once at liberty in > Holland. He found no better argument against the Holy Church than to > embrace the Judaic faith and submit even to circumcision. “In the > cathedral of Saragossa,” says a writer on the Inquisition, “is the > tomb of a famous inquisitor. Six pillars surround the tomb; _to each > is chained a Moor_, as preparatory to being burned.” On this St. > Foix ingenuously observes: “If ever the Jack Ketch of any country > should be rich enough to have a splendid tomb, this might serve as > an excellent model!” To make it complete, however, the builders of > the tomb ought not to have omitted a bas-relief of the famous horse > which was burnt for sorcery and witchcraft. Granger tells the story, > describing it as having occurred in his time. The poor animal “had > been taught to tell the spots upon cards, and the hour of the day by > the watch. Horse and owner were both indicted by the sacred office > for dealing with the Devil, and both were burned, with a great > ceremony of _auto-da-fé_, at Lisbon, in 1601, as wizards!” > > This immortal institution of Christianity did not remain without > its Dante to sing its praise. “Macedo, a Portuguese Jesuit,” says > the author of _Demonologia_, “has discovered the origin of the > Inquisition, in the terrestrial Paradise, and presumes to allege that > God was the first who began the functions of an inquisitor over Cain > and the workmen of Babel!” > > Nowhere, during the middle ages, were the arts of magic and sorcery > more practiced by the clergy than in Spain and Portugal. The Moors > were profoundly versed in the occult sciences, and at Toledo, > Seville, and Salamanca, were, once upon a time, the great schools > of magic. The kabalists of the latter town were skilled in all the > abstruse sciences; they knew the virtues of precious stones and > other minerals, and had extracted from alchemy its most profound > secrets. > > The authentic documents pertaining to the great trial of the > Marechale d’Ancre, during the regency of Marie de Medicis, disclose > that the unfortunate woman perished through the fault of the > priests with whom, like a true Italian, she surrounded herself. > She was accused by the people of Paris of sorcery, because it had > been asserted that she had used, after the ceremony of exorcism, > newly-killed white cocks. Believing herself constantly bewitched, > and being in very delicate health, the Marechale had the ceremony of > exorcism publicly applied to herself in the Church of the Augustins; > as to the birds, she used them as an application to the forehead on > account of dreadful pains in the head, and had been advised to do so > by Montalto, the Jew physician of the queen, and the Italian priests. > > In the sixteenth century, the Curé de Barjota, of the diocese of > Callahora, Spain, became the world’s wonder for his magical powers. > His most extraordinary feat consisted, it was said, in transporting > himself to any distant country, witnessing political and other > events, and then returning home to predict them in his own country. > He had a familiar demon, who served him faithfully for long years, > says the _Chronicle_, but the curé turned ungrateful and cheated him. > Having been apprised by his demon of a conspiracy against the Pope’s > life, in consequence of an intrigue of the latter with a fair lady, > the curé transported himself to Rome (in his double, of course) and > thus saved his Holiness’ life. After which he repented, confessed his > sins to the gallant Pope, and _got absolution_. “On his return he was > delivered, as a matter of form, into the custody of the inquisitors > of Logroño, but was acquitted and restored to his liberty very soon.” > > Friar Pietro, a Dominican monk of the fourteenth century--the > magician who presented the famous Dr. Eugenio Torralva, a physician > attached to the house of the admiral of Castile, with a _demon_ named > Zequiel--won his fame through the subsequent trial of Torralva. The > procedure and circumstances attendant upon the extraordinary trial > are described in the original papers preserved in the Archives of > the Inquisition. The Cardinal of Volterra, and the Cardinal of Santa > Cruz, both saw and communicated with Zequiel, who proved, during the > whole of Torralva’s life, to be a pure, kind, elemental spirit, doing > many beneficent actions, and remaining faithful to the physician to > the last hour of his life. Even the Inquisition acquitted Torralva, > on that account; and, although an immortality of fame was insured > to him by the satire of Cervantes, neither Torralva nor the monk > Pietro are fictitious heroes, but historical personages, recorded in > ecclesiastical documents of Rome and Cuença, in which town the trial > of the physician took place, January the 29th 1530. > > The book of Dr. W. G. Soldan, of Stuttgart, has become as famous in > Germany, as Bodin’s book on _Demonomania_ in France. It is the most > complete German treatise on witchcraft of the sixteenth century. One > interested to learn the secret machinery underlying these thousands > of legal murders, perpetrated by a clergy who pretended to believe > in the Devil, and succeeded in making others believe in him, will > find it divulged in the above-mentioned work.[87] The true origin of > the daily accusations and death-sentences for sorcery are cleverly > traced to personal and political enmities, and, above all, to the > hatred of the Catholics toward the Protestants. The crafty work of > the Jesuits is seen at every page of the bloody tragedies; and it > is in Bamberg and Würzburg, where these worthy sons of Loyola were > most powerful at that time, that the cases of witchcraft were most > numerous. On the next page we give a curious list of some victims, > many of whom were children between the ages of seven and eight > years, and Protestants. “Of the multitudes of persons who perished > at the stake in Germany during the first half of the seventeenth > century for sorcery, the crime of many was their attachment to the > religion of Luther,” says T. Wright, “... and the petty princes > were not unwilling to seize upon any pretense to fill their coffers > ... the persons most persecuted being those whose property was a > matter of consideration.... At Bamberg, as well as at Würzburg, the > bishop was a sovereign prince in his dominions. The Prince-Bishop, > John George II., who ruled Bamberg ... after several unsuccessful > attempts to root out Lutheranism, distinguished his reign by a > series of sanguinary witch-trials, which disgrace the annals of that > city.... We may form some notion of the proceedings of his worthy > agent,[88] from the statement of the most authentic historians, that > between 1625 and 1630, not less than 900 trials took place in the > two courts of Bamberg and Zeil; and a pamphlet published at Bamberg > by authority, in 1659, states the number of persons whom Bishop John > George had caused to be burned for sorcery, to have been 600.”[89] > > Regretting that space should prevent our giving one of the most > curious lists in the world of burned witches, we will nevertheless > make a few extracts from the original record as printed in Hauber’s > _Bibliotheca Magica_. One glance at this horrible catalogue of > murders in Christ’s name, is sufficient to discover that out of > 162 persons burned, more than one-half of them are designated as > _strangers_ (_i.e._, Protestants) in this hospitable town; and of > the other half we find _thirty-four children_, the oldest of whom > was fourteen, the youngest _an infant_ child of Dr. Schütz. To make > the catalogue shorter we will present of each of the twenty-nine > _burnings_, but the most remarkable.[90] > > IN THE FIRST BURNING, FOUR PERSONS. > > Old Ancker’s widow. > The wife of Liebler. > The wife of Gutbrodt. > The wife of Höcker. > > IN THE SECOND BURNING, FOUR PERSONS. > > Two strange women (names unknown). > The old wife of Beutler. > > IN THE THIRD BURNING, FIVE PERSONS. > > Tungersleber, a minstrel. > Four wives of citizens. > > IN THE FOURTH BURNING, FIVE PERSONS. > > A strange man. > > IN THE FIFTH BURNING, NINE PERSONS. > > Lutz, an eminent shop-keeper. > The wife of Baunach, a senator. > > IN THE SIXTH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > The fat tailor’s wife. > A strange man. > A strange woman. > > IN THE SEVENTH BURNING, SEVEN PERSONS. > > A strange girl of twelve years old. > A strange man, a strange woman. > A strange bailiff (Schultheiss). > Three strange women. > > IN THE EIGHTH BURNING, SEVEN PERSONS. > > Baunach, a senator, the fattest citizen in Würzburg. > A strange man. > Two strange women. > > IN THE NINTH BURNING, FIVE PERSONS. > > A strange man. > A mother and daughter. > > IN THE TENTH BURNING, THREE PERSONS. > > Steinacher, a very rich man. > A strange man, a strange woman. > > IN THE ELEVENTH BURNING, FOUR PERSONS. > > Two women and two men. > > IN THE TWELFTH BURNING, TWO PERSONS. > > Two strange women. > > IN THE THIRTEENTH BURNING, FOUR PERSONS. > > A little girl nine or ten years old. > A younger girl, her little sister. > > IN THE FOURTEENTH BURNING, TWO PERSONS. > > The mother of the two little girls before mentioned. > A girl twenty-four years old. > > IN THE FIFTEENTH BURNING, TWO PERSONS. > > A boy twelve years of age, in the first school. > A woman. > > IN THE SIXTEENTH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > A boy of ten years of age. > > IN THE SEVENTEENTH BURNING, FOUR PERSONS. > > A boy eleven years old. > A mother and daughter. > > IN THE EIGHTEENTH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > Two boys, twelve years old. > The daughter of Dr. Junge. > A girl of fifteen years of age. > A strange woman. > > IN THE NINETEENTH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > A boy of ten years of age. > Another boy, twelve years old. > > IN THE TWENTIETH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > Göbel’s child, the most beautiful girl in Würzburg. > Two boys, each twelve years old. > Stepper’s little daughter. > > IN THE TWENTY-FIRST BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > A boy fourteen years old. > The little son of Senator Stolzenberger. > Two alumni. > > IN THE TWENTY-SECOND BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > Stürman, a rich cooper. > A strange boy. > > IN THE TWENTY-THIRD BURNING, NINE PERSONS. > > David Croten’s boy, nine years old. > The two sons of the prince’s cook, one fourteen, the other ten > years old. > > IN THE TWENTY-FOURTH BURNING, SEVEN PERSONS. > > Two boys in the hospital. > A rich cooper. > > IN THE TWENTY-FIFTH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > A strange boy. > > IN THE TWENTY-SIXTH BURNING, SEVEN PERSONS. > > Weydenbush, a senator. > The little daughter of Valkenberger. > The little son of the town council bailiff. > > IN THE TWENTY-SEVENTH BURNING, SEVEN PERSONS. > > A strange boy. > A strange woman. > Another boy. > > IN THE TWENTY-EIGHTH BURNING, SIX PERSONS. > > The infant daughter of Dr. Schütz. > A blind girl. > > IN THE TWENTY-NINTH BURNING, SEVEN PERSONS. > > The fat noble lady (Edelfrau). > A doctor of divinity. > > _Item._ > > ⎧ “Strange” men and women, _i.e._, > ⎪ _Protestants_, 28 > ⎪ Citizens, apparently all WEALTHY people, 100 > _Summary_: ⎨ Boys, girls, and little children, 34 > ⎪ --- > ⎩ In nineteen months, 162 persons. > > “There were,” says Wright, “little girls of from seven to ten years > of age among the witches, and _seven and twenty_ of them were > convicted and burnt,” at some of the other _brände_, or burnings. > “The numbers brought to trial in these terrible proceedings were so > great, and they were treated with so little consideration, that it > was usual not even to take the trouble of setting down their names, > but they were cited as the accused No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and so > on.[91] The Jesuits took their confessions in private.” > > What room is there in a theology which exacts such holocausts > as these to appease the bloody appetites of its priests for the > following gentle words: > > “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for > of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” “Even so it is not the will of > your Father ... that one of these little ones should perish.” “But > whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it > _were better for him that a millstone were hanged_ about his neck and > that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” > > We sincerely hope that the above words have proved no vain threat to > these child-burners. > > Did this butchery in the name of their Moloch-god prevent these > treasure-hunters from resorting to the black art themselves? Not in > the least; for in no class were such consulters of “familiar” spirits > more numerous than among the clergy during the fifteenth, sixteenth, > and seventeenth centuries. True, there were some Catholic priests > among the victims, but though these were generally accused of having > “been led into practices too dreadful to be described,” it was not > so. In the twenty-nine burnings above catalogued we find the names of > _twelve vicars_, _four_ canons, and two doctors of divinity _burnt > alive_. But we have only to turn to such works as were published at > the time to assure ourselves that each popish priest executed was > accused of “damnable heresy,” _i.e._, a tendency to reformation--a > crime more heinous far than sorcery. > > We refer those who would learn how the Catholic clergy united > duty with pleasure in the matter of exorcisms, revenge, and > treasure-hunting, to volume II., chapter i., of W. Howitt’s _History > of the Supernatural_. “In the book called _Pneumatologia Occulta et > Vera_, all the forms of adjuration and conjuration were laid down,” > says this veteran writer. He then proceeds to give a long description > of the favorite _modus operandi_. The _Dogme et Rituel de la Haute > Magie_ of the late Eliphas Levi, treated with so much abuse and > contempt by des Mousseaux, tells nothing of the weird ceremonies > and practices but what was practiced legally and with the tacit if > not open consent of the Church, by the priests of the middle ages. > The exorcist-priest entered a circle at midnight; he was clad in > a new surplice, and had a consecrated band hanging from the neck, > covered with sacred characters. He wore on the head a tall pointed > cap, on the front of which was written in Hebrew the holy word, > Tetragrammaton--the ineffable name. It was written with a new pen > dipped in the blood of a white dove. What the exorcists most yearned > after, was to release miserable spirits _which haunt spots where > hidden treasures lie_. The exorcist sprinkles the circle with the > blood of a black lamb and a white pigeon. The priest had to adjure > the evil spirits of hell--Acheront, Magoth, Asmodei, Beelzebub, > Belial, and all the damned souls, in the mighty names of Jehovah, > Adonay, Elohah, and Sabaioth, which latter was the God of Abraham, > Isaac, and Jacob, who dwelt in the Urim and Thummim. When the damned > souls flung in the face of the exorcist that he was a sinner, and > could not get the treasure from them, the priest-sorcerer had to > reply that “all his sins were washed out in the blood of Christ,[92] > and he bid them depart as cursed ghosts and damned flies.” When the > exorcist dislodged them at last, the poor soul was “comforted in the > name of the Saviour, and _consigned to the care of good angels_,” > who were less powerful, we must think, than the exorcising Catholic > worthies, “and the rescued treasure, of course, was secured for the > Church.” > > “Certain days,” adds Howitt, “are laid down in the calendar of the > Church as most favorable for the practice of exorcism; and, if the > devils are difficult to drive, a fume of sulphur, assafœtida, bear’s > gall, and rue is recommended, which, it was presumed, would outstench > even devils.” > > This is the Church, and this the priesthood, which, in the nineteenth > century, pays 5,000 priests to teach the people of the United States > the infidelity of science and the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome! > > We have already noticed the confession of an eminent prelate that the > elimination of Satan from theology would be fatal to the perpetuity > of the Church. But this is only partially true. The Prince of Sin > would be gone, but sin itself would survive. If the Devil were > annihilated, the _Articles of Faith_ and the _Bible_ would remain. > In short there would still be a pretended divine revelation, and the > necessity for self-assumed inspired interpreters. We must, therefore, > consider the authenticity of the _Bible_ itself. We must study its > pages, and see if they, indeed, contain the commands of the Deity, > or but a compendium of ancient traditions and hoary myths. We must > try to interpret them for ourselves--if possible. As to its pretended > interpreters, the only possible assimilation we can find for them in > the _Bible_ is to compare them with the man described by the wise > King Solomon in his _Proverbs_, with the perpetrator of these “six > things ... yea _seven_ ... which doth the Lord hate,” and which are > an abomination unto Him, to wit: “A _proud_ look, a _lying_ tongue, > and hands that shed _innocent blood_; an heart _that deviseth wicked > imaginations_, feet that be swift in running to mischief; a _false > witness_ that speaketh lies, and _he that soweth discord among > brethren_” (_Proverbs_ vi. 16, 17, 18, 19). > > Of which of these accusations are the long line of men who have left > the imprint of their feet in the Vatican guiltless? > > “When the demons,” says Augustine, “_insinuate_ themselves in the > creatures, they begin by conforming themselves _to the will of every > one_.... In order to attract men, they begin by seducing them, by > simulating obedience.... _How could one know, had he not been taught > by the demons themselves_, what they like or what they hate; _the > name which attracts, or that which forces them into obedience_; > all this art, in short, of _magic_, the whole science of the > magicians?”[93] > > To this impressive dissertation of the “saint,” we will add that > no magician has ever denied that he had learned the _art_ from > “spirits,” whether, being a medium, they acted independently on him, > or he had been initiated into the science of “evocation” by his > fathers who knew it before himself. But who was it then that taught > the exorcist? The priest who clothes himself with an authority not > only over the magician, but even over all these “spirits,” whom he > calls demons and _devils_ as soon as he finds them obeying any one > but himself? He must have learned somewhere from some one that power > which he pretends to possess. For, “... _how could one know had he > not been taught by the demons themselves ... the name which attracts, > or that which forces them into obedience?_” asks Augustine. > > Useless to remark that we know the answer beforehand: “Revelation > ... _divine_ gift ... the Son of God; nay, God Himself, through His > direct Spirit, who descended on the apostles as the Pentecostal fire, > and who is now alleged to overshadow every priest who sees fit to > exorcise for either glory or a gift. Are we then to believe that > the recent scandal of public exorcism, performed about the 14th of > October, 1876, by the senior priest of the Church of the Holy Spirit, > at Barcelona, Spain, was also done under the direct superintendence > of the Holy Ghost?[94] It will be urged that the “bishop was not > cognizant of this freak of the clergy;” but even if he were, how > could he have protested against a rite considered since the days of > the apostles, one of the most holy prerogatives of the Church of > Rome? So late as in 1852, only twenty-five years ago, these rites > received a public and solemn sanction from the Vatican, and a new > _Ritual of Exorcism_ was published in Rome, Paris, and other Catholic > capitals. Des Mousseaux, writing under the immediate patronage of > Father Ventura, the General of the Theatines of Rome, even favors > us with lengthy extracts from this famous ritual, and explains the > reason _why_ it was enforced again. It was in consequence of the > revival of Magic under the name of Modern Spiritualism. The bull of > Pope Innocent VIII. is exhumed, and translated for the benefit of > des Mousseaux’s readers. “We have heard,” exclaims the Sovereign > Pontiff, “that a great number of persons of both sexes have feared > not to enter into relations with the spirits of hell; and that, by > their practice of sorcery ... they strike with sterility the conjugal > bed, destroy the germs of humanity in the bosom of the mother, and > throw spells on them, and set a barrier to the multiplication of > animals ... etc., etc.;” then follow curses and anathemas against the > practice. > > This belief of the Sovereign Pontiffs of an enlightened Christian > country is a direct inheritance by the most ignorant multitudes > from the southern Hindu rabble--the “heathen.” The diabolical arts > of certain kangalins (witches) and jadūgar (sorcerers) are firmly > believed in by these people. The following are among their most > dreaded powers: to inspire love and hatred at will; to send a devil > to take possession of a person and torture him; to expel him; to > cause sudden death or an incurable disease; to either strike cattle > with or protect them from epidemics; to compose philtres that will > either strike with sterility or provoke unbounded passions in men and > women, etc., etc. The sight alone of a man said to be such a sorcerer > excites in a Hindu profound terror. > > And now we will quote in this connection the truthful remark of > a writer who passed years in India in the study of the origin of > such superstitions: “Vulgar magic in India, like a degenerated > infiltration, goes hand-in-hand with the most ennobling beliefs > of the sectarians of the _Pitris_. It was the _work of the lowest > clergy_, and designed to hold the populace in a perpetual state of > fear. It is thus that in all ages and under every latitude, side by > side with philosophical speculations of the highest character, one > always finds _the religion of the rabble_.”[95] In India it was the > work of the _lowest clergy_; in Rome, that of the _highest Pontiffs_. > But then, have they not as authority their greatest saint, Augustine, > who declares that “whoever believes not in the evil spirits, refuses > to believe in Holy Writ?”[96] > > Therefore, in the second half of the nineteenth century, we find the > counsel for the Sacred Congregation of Rites (exorcism of demons > included), Father Ventura de Raulica, writing thus, in a letter > published by des Mousseaux, in 1865: > > “We are in full magic! and under false names; the Spirit > of lies and impudicity goes on perpetrating his horrible > deprecations.... The most grievous feature in this is that > among the most serious persons they do not attach the > importance to the strange phenomena which they deserve, > these manifestations that we witness, and which become with > every day more weird, striking, as well as most fatal. > > “I cannot sufficiently admire and praise, from this > standpoint, the zeal and courage displayed by you in your > work. The facts which you have collected are calculated to > throw light and conviction into the most skeptical minds; > and after reading this remarkable work, written with so > much learnedness and consciousness, blindness is no longer > possible. > > “If anything could surprise us, it would be the > indifference with which these phenomena have been treated > by _false_ Science, endeavoring, as she has, to turn into > ridicule so grave a subject; the childish simplicity > exhibited by her in the desire to explain the facts by > absurd and contradictory hypotheses....[97] > > [Signed] “_The Father Ventura de Raulica_, etc., etc.” > > Thus encouraged by the greatest authorities of the Church of Rome, > ancient and modern, the Chevalier argues the necessity and the > efficacy of exorcism by the priests. He tries to demonstrate--_on > faith_, as usual-- that the power of the spirits of hell is closely > related to certain rites, words, and formal signs. “In the diabolical > Catholicism,” he says “as well as in the _divine_ Catholicism, > potential grace is _bound_ (_liée_) to certain signs.” While the > power of the Catholic priest proceeds from God, that of the Pagan > priest proceeds from the Devil. The Devil, he adds, “is forced to > submission” before the holy minister of God--“_he dares not_ LIE.”[98] > > We beg the reader to note well the underlined sentence, as we mean > to test its truth impartially. We are prepared to adduce proofs, > undeniable and undenied even by the Popish Church--forced, as she > was, into the confession--proofs of hundreds of cases in relation > to the most solemn of her dogmas, wherein the “spirits” lied from > beginning to end. How about certain holy relics authenticated by > visions of the blessed Virgin, and a host of saints? We have at hand > a treatise by a pious Catholic, Jilbert de Nogen, on the relics of > saints. With honest despair he acknowledges the “great number of > false relics, as well as false legends,” and severely censures the > inventors of these lying miracles. “It was on the occasion _of one > of our Saviour’s teeth_,” writes the author of _Demonologia_, “that > de Nogen took up his pen on this subject, by which the monks of St. > Medard de Soissons pretended to work miracles; a pretension which he > asserted to be as chimerical as that of several persons who believed > they possessed the navel, and other parts less comely, of the body of > Christ.”[99] > > “A monk of St. Antony,” says Stephens,[100] “having been at > Jerusalem, saw there several relics, among which was a bit of _the > finger of the Holy Ghost_, as sound and entire as it had ever been; > the snout of the seraph that appeared to St. Francis; one of the > nails of a cherub; one of the ribs of the _Verbum caro factum_ (the > Word made flesh); some rays of the star that appeared to the three > kings of the East; a phial of St. Michael’s sweat, that exuded when > he was fighting against the Devil, etc. ‘All which things,’ observes > the monkish treasurer of relics, ‘I have brought with me home very > devoutly.’” > > And if the foregoing is set aside as the invention of a Protestant > enemy, may we not be allowed to refer the reader to the History > of England and authentic documents which state the existence of a > relic not less extraordinary than the best of the others? Henry III. > received from the Grand Master of the Templars a phial containing > a small portion of the sacred blood of Christ which he had shed > upon the cross. It was attested to be genuine by the seals of the > Patriarch of Jerusalem, and others. The procession bearing the > sacred phial from St. Paul’s to Westminster Abbey is described by the > historian: “Two monks received the phial, and deposited it in the > Abbey ... which made all England shine with glory, dedicating it to > God and St. Edward.” > > The story of the Prince Radzivil is well known. It was the undeniable > deception of the monks and nuns surrounding him and his own confessor > which made the Polish nobleman become a Lutheran. He felt at first so > indignant at the “heresy” of the Reformation spreading in Lithuania, > that he travelled all the way to Rome to pay his homage of sympathy > and veneration to the Pope. The latter presented him with a precious > box of relics. On his return home, his confessor saw the Virgin, who > descended from her glorious abode for the sole purpose of blessing > these relics and authenticating them. The superior of the neighboring > convent and the mother-abbess of a nunnery both saw the same vision, > with a reënforcement of several saints and martyrs; they prophesied > and “felt the Holy Ghost” ascending from the box of relics and > overshadowing the prince. A demoniac provided for the purpose by the > clergy was exorcised in full ceremony, and upon being touched by the > box immediately recovered, and rendered thanks on the spot to the > Pope and the Holy Ghost. After the ceremony was over the guardian > of the treasury in which the relics were kept, threw himself at the > feet of the prince, and confessed that on their way back from Rome he > had lost the box of relics. Dreading the wrath of his master, he had > procured a similar box, “which he had filled with the small bones of > dogs and cats;” but seeing how the prince was deceived, he preferred > confessing his guilt to such blasphemous tricks. The prince said > nothing, but continued for some time testing--not the relics, but his > confessor and the vision-seers. Their mock raptures made him discover > so thoroughly the gross impositions of the monks and nuns that he > joined the Reformed Church. > > This is history. Bayle shows that when the Roman Church is no longer > able to deny that there have been false relics, she resorts to > sophistry, and replies that if false relics have wrought miracles > it is “because of the good intentions of the believers, who thus > obtained from God a reward of their good faith!” The same Bayle > shows, by numerous instances, that whenever it was proved that > several bodies of the same saint, or three heads of him, or three > arms (as in the case of Augustine) were said to exist in different > places, and that they could not well be all authentic, the cool and > invariable answer of the Church was that they were all genuine; > for “God had multiplied and miraculously reproduced them for the > greater glory of His Holy Church!” In other words they would have > the faithful believe that the body of a deceased saint may, through > divine miracle, acquire the physiological peculiarities of a > crawfish! > > We fancy that it would be hard to demonstrate to satisfaction that > the visions of Catholic saints, are, in any one particular instance, > better or more trustworthy than the average visions and prophecies of > our modern “mediums.” The visions of Andrew Jackson Davis--however > our critics may sneer at them--are by long odds more philosophical > and more compatible with modern science than the Augustinian > speculations. Whenever the visions of Swedenborg, the greatest among > the modern seers, run astray from philosophy and scientific truth, it > is when they most run parallel with theology. Nor are these visions > any more useless to either science or humanity than those of the > great orthodox saints. In the life of St. Bernard it is narrated > that as he was once in church, upon a Christmas eve, he prayed that > the very hour in which Christ was born might be revealed to him; and > when the “true and correct hour came, he saw the divine babe appear > in his manger.” What a pity that the divine babe did not embrace > so favorable an opportunity to fix the correct day and year of his > death, and thereby reconcile the controversies of his putative > historians. The Tischendorfs, Lardners, and Colensos, as well as > many a Catholic divine, who have vainly squeezed the marrow out of > historical records and their own brains, in the useless search, would > at least have had something for which to thank the saint. > > As it is, we are hopelessly left to infer that most of the beatific > and divine visions of the _Golden Legend_, and those to be found in > the more complete biographies of the most important “saints,” as well > as most of the visions of our own persecuted seers and seeresses, > were produced by ignorant and undeveloped “spirits” passionately > fond of personating great historical characters. We are quite ready > to agree with the Chevalier des Mousseaux, and other unrelenting > persecutors of magic and spiritualism in the name of the Church, that > modern spirits are often “lying spirits;” that they are ever on hand > to humor the respective hobbies of the persons who communicate with > them at “circles;” that they _deceive_ them and, therefore, are not > _always_ good “spirits.” > > But, having conceded so much, we will now ask of any impartial > person: is it possible to believe at the same time that the _power_ > given to the exorcist-priest, that supreme and _divine_ power of > which he boasts, has been given to him by God for the purpose of > deceiving people? That the prayer pronounced by him _in the name of > Christ_, and which, forcing the _demon_ into submission, makes him > reveal himself, is calculated at the same time to make the devil > confess _not the truth_, but that only which it is the _interest of > the church to which the exorcist belongs_, should _pass for truth_? > And this is what invariably happens. Compare, for instance, the > responses given by the demon to Luther, with those obtained from the > devils by St. Dominick. The one argues against the private mass, > and upbraids Luther with placing the Virgin Mary and saints before > Christ, and thus dishonoring the Son of God;[101] while the demons > exorcised by St. Dominick, upon seeing the Virgin whom the holy > father had also evoked to help him, roar out: “Oh! our enemy! oh! > our damner! ... why didst thou descend from heaven to torment us? > Why art thou so powerful an intercessor for sinners! Oh! _thou most > certain and secure way to heaven_ ... thou commandest us _and we are > forced to confess_ that nobody is damned who only perseveres in thy > holy worship, etc., etc.”[102] Luther’s “Saint Satan” assures him > that while believing in the transubstantiation of Christ’s body and > blood he had been worshipping merely bread and wine; and the _devils_ > of all the Catholic saints promise _eternal damnation_ to whomsoever > disbelieves or even so much as doubts the dogma! > > Before leaving the subject, let us give one or two more instances > from the _Chronicles of the Lives of the Saints_, selected from such > narratives as are fully accepted by the Church. We might fill volumes > with proofs of undeniable confederacy between the exorcisers and the > demons. Their very nature betrays them. Instead of being independent, > crafty entities, bent on the destruction of men’s souls and spirits, > the majority of them are simply the elementals of the kabalists; > creatures with no intellect of their own, but faithful mirrors of > the WILL which evokes, controls, and guides them. We will not waste > our time in drawing the reader’s attention to doubtful or obscure > thaumaturgists and exorcisers, but take as our standard one of the > greatest saints of Catholicism, and select a bouquet from that same > prolific conservatory of pious lies, _The Golden Legend_, of James de > Veragine.[103] > > St. Dominick, the founder of the famous order of that name, is one of > the mightiest saints on the calendar. His order was the first that > received a solemn confirmation from the Pope,[104] and he is well > known in history as the associate and counsellor of the infamous > Simon de Montford, the papal general, whom he helped to butcher the > unfortunate Albigenses in and near Toulouse. The story goes that > this saint and the Church after him, claim that he received from the > Virgin, _in propriâ personâ_, a rosary, whose virtues produced such > stupendous miracles that they throw entirely into the shade those of > the apostles, and even of Jesus himself. A man, says the biographer, > an abandoned sinner, was bold enough to doubt the virtue of the > Dominican rosary; and for this unparalleled blasphemy was punished > on the spot by having 15,000 devils take possession of him. Seeing > the great suffering of the tortured demoniac, St. Dominick forgot the > insult and called the devils to account. > > Following is the colloquy between the “blessed exorcist” and the > demons: > > _Question._--How did you take possession of this man, and how many > are you? > > _Answer of the Devils._--We came into him for having spoken > disrespectfully of the rosary. We are 15,000. > > _Question._--Why did so many as 15,000 enter him? > > _Answer._--Because there are fifteen decades in the rosary which he > derided, etc. > > _Dominick._--Is not all true I have said of the virtues of the rosary? > > _Devils._--Yes! Yes! (_they emit flames through the nostrils of the > demoniac_). Know all ye Christians that Dominick never said one word > concerning the rosary that is not most true; and know ye further, > that if you do not believe him, great calamities will befall you. > > _Dominick._--Who is the man in the world the Devil hates the most? > > _Devils._--(_In chorus._) Thou art the very man (_here follow verbose > compliments_). > > _Dominick._--Of which state of Christians are there the most damned? > > _Devils._--In hell we have merchants, pawnbrokers, fraudulent > bankers, grocers, Jews, apothecaries, etc., etc. > > _Dominick._--Are there any priests or monks in hell? > > _Devils._--There are a great number of priests, but _no monks_, with > the exception of such as have transgressed the rule of their order. > > _Dominick._--Have you any Dominicans? > > _Devils._--Alas! alas! we have not one yet, but we expect a great > number of them after their devotion is a little cooled. > > We do not pretend to give the questions and answers literally, for > they occupy twenty-three pages; but the substance is here, as may > be seen by any one who cares to read the _Golden Legend_. The full > description of the hideous bellowings of the demons, their enforced > glorification of the saint, and so on, is too long for this chapter. > Suffice it to say that as we read the numerous questions offered by > Dominick and the answers of the demons, we become fully convinced > that they corroborate in every detail the unwarranted assertions and > support the interests of the Church. The narrative is suggestive. > The legend graphically describes the battle of the exorcist with the > legion from the bottomless pit. The sulphurous flames which burst > forth from the nose, mouth, eyes, and ears, of the demoniac; the > sudden appearance of over a hundred angels, clad in golden armor; > and, finally, the descent of the blessed Virgin herself, in person, > bearing a golden rod, with which she administers a sound thrashing > to the demoniac, to force the devils to confess that of herself > which we scarcely need repeat. The whole catalogue of theological > truths uttered by Dominick’s devils were embodied in so many articles > of faith by his Holiness, the present Pope, in 1870, at the last > Œcumenical Council. > > From the foregoing it is easy to see that the only substantial > difference between infidel “mediums” and orthodox saints lies in the > relative usefulness of the _demons_, if demons we must call them. > While the Devil faithfully supports the Christian exorcist in his > _orthodox_ (?) views, the modern spook generally leaves his medium > in the lurch. For, by lying, he acts _against_ his or her interests > rather than otherwise, and thereby too often casts foul suspicion on > the genuineness of the mediumship. Were modern “spirits” _devils_, > they would evidently display a little more discrimination and cunning > than they do. They would act as the _demons_ of the saint which, > compelled by the ecclesiastical magician and by the power of “the > name ... which forces them into submission,” _lie in accordance with > the direct interest_ of the exorcist and his church. The moral of the > parallel we leave to the sagacity of the reader. > > “Observe well,” exclaims des Mousseaux, “that there are _demons_ > which sometimes will speak the truth.” “The exorcist,” he adds, > quoting the _Ritual_, “must command the demon to tell him whether he > is detained in the body of the demoniac through some magic art, or by > _signs_, or any objects which usually serve for this evil practice. > In case the exorcised person has swallowed the latter, he must vomit > them back; and if they are not in his body, the demon must indicate > the proper place where they are to be found; and having found them > they must be burned.”[105] Thus some demons reveal the existence of > the bewitchment, tell who is its author, and indicate the means to > destroy the _malefice_. But beware to ever resort, in such a case, > to magicians, sorcerers, or mediums. You must call to help you but > the minister of your Church! “The Church believes in magic, as you > well see,” he adds, “since she expresses it so formally. And those > who _disbelieve in magic_, can they still hope to share the faith of > their own Church? And who can teach them better? To whom did Christ > say: ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... and lo, I am with > you always, even to the end of the world?’”[106] > > Are we to believe that he said this but to those who wear these > black or scarlet liveries of Rome? Must we then credit the story > that this power was given by Christ to Simon Stylites, the saint who > sanctified himself by perching on a pillar (_stylos_) sixty feet > high, for thirty-six years of his life, without ever descending > from it, in order that, among other miracles stated in the _Golden > Legend_, he might cure a _dragon_ of a sore eye? “Near Simon’s pillar > was the dwelling of a dragon, so very venomous that the stench was > spread for miles round his cave.” This ophidian-hermit met with an > accident; he got a thorn in his eye, and, becoming blind, crept to > the saint’s pillar, and pressed his eye against it for three days, > without touching any one. Then the blessed saint, from his aërial > seat, “_three feet in diameter_,” ordered earth and water to be > placed on the dragon’s eye, out of which suddenly emerged a thorn > (or stake), a cubit in length; when the people saw the “miracle” > they glorified the Creator. As to the grateful dragon, he arose and, > “having adored God for two hours, returned to his cave”[107]--a > half-converted ophidian, we must suppose. > > And what are we to think of that other narrative, to disbelieve > in which is “_to risk one’s salvation_,” as we were informed by a > Pope’s missionary, of the Order of the Franciscans? When St. Francis > preached a sermon in the wilderness, the birds assembled from the > four cardinal points of the world. They warbled and applauded every > sentence; they sang a holy mass in chorus; finally they dispersed > to carry the glad tidings all over the universe. A grasshopper, > profiting by the absence of the Holy Virgin, who generally kept > company with the saint, remained perched on the head of the “blessed > one” for a whole week. Attacked by a ferocious wolf, the saint, who > had no other weapon but the sign of the cross which he made upon > himself, instead of running away from his rabid assailant, began > arguing with the beast. Having imparted to him the benefit to be > derived from the holy religion, St. Francis never ceased talking > until the wolf became as meek as a lamb, and even shed tears of > repentance over his past sins. Finally, he “stretched his paws in the > hands of the saint, followed him like a dog through all the towns > in which he preached, and became half a Christian!”[108] Wonders > of zoölogy! a horse turned sorcerer, a wolf and a dragon turned > Christians! > > These two anecdotes, chosen at random from among hundreds, if > rivalled are not surpassed by the wildest romances of the Pagan > thaumaturgists, magicians, and spiritualists! And yet, when > Pythagoras is said to have subdued animals, even wild beasts, merely > through a powerful mesmeric influence, he is pronounced by one-half > of the Catholics a bare-faced impostor, and by the rest a sorcerer, > who worked magic in confederacy with the Devil! Neither the she-bear, > nor the eagle, nor yet the bull that Pythagoras is said to have > persuaded to give up eating beans, were alleged to have answered with > human voices; while St. Benedict’s “black raven,” whom he called > “brother,” argues with him, and croaks his answers like a born > casuist. When the saint offers him one-half of a poisoned loaf, the > raven grows indignant and reproaches him in Latin as though he had > just graduated at the Propaganda! > > If it be objected that the _Golden Legend_ is now but half supported > by the Church; and that it is known to have been compiled by the > writer from a collection of the lives of the saints, for the most > part unauthenticated, we can show that, at least in one instance, > the biography is no legendary compilation, but the history of one > man, by another one who was his contemporary. Jortin and Gibbons > demonstrated years ago, that the early fathers used to select > narratives, wherewith to ornament the lives of their apocryphal > saints, from Ovid, Homer, Livy, and even from the unwritten popular > legends of Pagan nations. But such is not the case in the above > instances. St. Bernard lived in the twelfth century, and St. Dominick > was nearly contemporaneous with the author of the _Golden Legend_. > De Veragine died in 1298, and Dominick, whose exorcisms and life he > describes so minutely, instituted his order in the first quarter > of the thirteenth century. Moreover, de Veragine was Vicar-General > of the Dominicans himself, in the middle of the same century, and > therefore described the miracles wrought by his hero and patron but a > few years after they were alleged to have happened. He wrote them in > the same convent; and while narrating these wonders he had probably > fifty persons at hand who had been eye-witnesses to the saint’s mode > of living. What must we think, in such a case, of a biographer who > seriously describes the following: One day, as the blessed saint was > occupied in his study, the Devil began pestering him, in the shape of > a flea. He frisked and jumped about the pages of his book until the > harassed saint, unwilling as he was to act unkindly, even toward a > devil, felt compelled to punish him by fixing the troublesome devil > on the very sentence on which he stopped, by clasping the book. At > another time the same devil appeared under the shape of a monkey. > He grinned so horribly that Dominick, in order to get rid of him, > ordered the devil-monkey to take the candle and hold it for him > until he had done reading. The poor imp did so, and held it until it > was consumed to the very end of the wick; and, notwithstanding his > pitiful cries for mercy, the saint compelled him to hold it till his > fingers were burned to the bones! > > Enough! The approbation with which this book was received by the > Church, and the peculiar sanctity attributed to it, is sufficient to > show the estimation in which veracity was held by its patrons. We > may add, in conclusion, that the finest quintessence of Boccaccio’s > _Decameron_ appears prudery itself by comparison with the filthy > realism of the _Golden Legend_. > > We cannot regard with too much astonishment the pretensions of > the Catholic Church in seeking to convert Hindus and Buddhists to > Christianity. While the “heathen” keeps to the faith of his fathers, > he has at least the one redeeming quality--that of not having > apostatized for the mere pleasure of exchanging one set of idols > for another. There may be for him some novelty in his embracing > Protestantism; for in that he gains the advantage, at least, of > limiting his religious views to their simplest expression. But when > a Buddhist has been enticed into exchanging his Shoe Dagoon for the > Slipper of the Vatican, or the eight hairs from the head of Gautama > and Buddha’s tooth, which work miracles, for the locks of a Christian > saint, and a tooth of Jesus, which work far less clever miracles, he > has no cause to boast of his choice. In his address to the Literary > Society of Java, Sir T. S. Raffles is said to have narrated the > following characteristic anecdote: “On visiting the great temple > on the hills of Nangasaki, the English commissioner was received > with marked regard and respect by the venerable patriarch of the > northern provinces, a man eighty years of age, who entertained him > most sumptuously. On showing him round the courts of the temple, one > of the English officers present heedlessly exclaimed, in surprise, > ‘Jesus Christus!’ The patriarch turning half round, with a placid > smile, bowed significantly, with the expression: ‘We know your Jasus > Christus! Well, don’t obtrude him upon us in our temples, and we > remain friends.’ And so, with a hearty shake of the hands, these two > opposites parted.”[109] > > There is scarcely a report sent by the missionaries from India, > Thibet, and China, but laments the diabolical “obscenity” of the > heathen rites, their lamentable impudicity; all of which “are so > strongly suggestive of devil-worship,” as des Mousseaux tells us. We > can scarcely be assured that the morality of the Pagans would be in > the least improved were they allowed a free inquiry into the life > of say the psalmist-king, the author of those sweet _Psalms_ which > are so rapturously repeated by Christians. The difference between > David performing a phallic dance before the holy ark--emblem of the > female principle--and a Hindu Vishnavite bearing the same emblem on > his forehead, favors the former only in the eyes of those who have > studied neither the ancient faith nor their own. When a religion > which compelled David to cut off and deliver two hundred foreskins of > his enemies before he could become the king’s son-in-law (_1 Sam._ > xviii.) is accepted as a standard by Christians, they would do well > not to cast into the teeth of heathen the impudicities of their > faiths. Remembering the suggestive parable of Jesus, they ought to > cast the beam out of their own eye before plucking at the mote in > their neighbor’s. The sexual element is as marked in Christianity > as in any one of the “heathen religions.” Certainly, nowhere in > the _Vedas_ can be found the coarseness and downright immodesty of > language, that Hebraists now discover throughout the Mosaic _Bible_. > > It would profit little were we to dwell much upon subjects which > have been disposed of in such a masterly way by an anonymous author > whose work electrified England and Germany last year;[110] while as > regards the particular topic under notice, we cannot do better than > recommend the scholarly writings of Dr. Inman. Albeit one-sided, and > in many instances unjust to the ancient heathen, Pagan, and Jewish > religions, the _facts_ treated in the _Ancient and Pagan Christian > Symbolism_, are unimpeachable. Neither can we agree with some English > critics who charge him with an intent to destroy Christianity. If > by _Christianity_ is meant the external religious forms of worship, > then he certainly seeks to destroy it, for in his eyes, as well as in > those of every truly religious man, who has studied ancient exoteric > faiths, and their symbology, Christianity is pure heathenism, and > Catholicism, with its fetish-worshipping, is far worse and more > pernicious than Hinduism in its most idolatrous aspect. But while > denouncing the exoteric forms and unmasking the symbols, it is not > the religion of Christ that the author attacks, but the artificial > system of theology. We will allow him to illustrate the position in > his own language, and quote from his preface: > > “When vampires were discovered by the acumen of any observer,” he > says, “they were, we are told, ignominiously killed, by a stake being > driven through the body; but experience showed them to have such > tenacity of life that they rose, again and again, notwithstanding > renewed impalement, and were not ultimately laid to rest till wholly > burned. In like manner, the regenerated heathendom, which dominates > over the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, has risen again and again, > after being transfixed. Still cherished by the many, it is denounced > by the few. Amongst other accusers, I raise my voice against the > Paganism which exists so extensively in ecclesiastical Christianity, > and will do my utmost to expose the imposture.... In a vampire story > told in _Thalaba_, by Southey, the resuscitated being takes the form > of a dearly-beloved maiden, and the hero is obliged to kill her with > his own hand. He does so; but, whilst he strikes the form of the > loved one, he feels sure that he slays only a demon. In like manner, > when I endeavor to destroy the current heathenism, which has assumed > the garb of Christianity, _I do not attack real religion_.[111] Few > would accuse a workman of malignancy, who cleanses from filth the > surface of a noble statue. There may be some who are too nice to > touch a nasty subject, yet even they will rejoice when some one else > removes the dirt. Such a scavenger is wanted.”[112] > > But is it merely Pagans and heathen that the Catholics persecute, > and about whom, like Augustine, they cry to the Deity, “Oh, my God! > _so do I wish Thy enemies to be slain?_” Oh, no! their aspirations > are more Mosaic and Cain-like than that. It is against their next of > kin in faith, against their schismatic brothers that they are now > intriguing within the walls which sheltered the murderous Borgias. > The _larvæ_ of the infanticidal, parricidal, and fratricidal Popes > have proved themselves fit counsellors for the Cains of Castelfidardo > and Mentana. It is now the turn of the Slavonian Christians, the > Oriental Schismatics--the Philistines of the Greek Church! > > His Holiness the Pope, after exhausting, in a metaphor of > self-laudation, every point of assimilation between the great > biblical prophets and himself, has finally and truly compared himself > with the Patriarch Jacob “wrestling against his God.” He now crowns > the edifice of Catholic piety by openly sympathizing with the Turks! > The vicegerent of God inaugurates his infallibility by encouraging, > in a true Christian spirit, the acts of that Moslem David, the > modern Bashi Bazuk; and it seems as if nothing would more please his > Holiness than to be presented by the latter with several thousands of > the Bulgarian or Servian “foreskins.” True to her policy to be all > things to all men to promote her own interests, the Romish Church > is, at this writing (1876), benevolently viewing the Bulgarian and > Servian atrocities, and, probably, manœuvring with Turkey against > Russia. Better Islam, and the hitherto-hated Crescent over the > sepulchre of the Christian god, than the Greek Church established > at Constantinople and Jerusalem as the state religion. Like a > decrepit and toothless ex-tyrant in exile, the Vatican is eager for > any alliance that promises, if not a restoration of its own power, > at least the weakening of its rival. The axe its inquisitors once > swung, it now toys with in secret, feeling its edge, and waiting, > and hoping against hope. In her time, the Popish Church has lain with > strange bedfellows, but never before now sunk to the degradation of > giving her moral support to those who for over 1200 years spat in her > face, called her adherents “infidel dogs,” repudiated her teachings, > and denied godhood to her God! > > The press of even Catholic France is fairly aroused at this > indignity, and openly accuses the Ultramontane portion of the > Catholic Church and the Vatican of siding, during the present Eastern > struggle, with the Mahometan against the Christian. “When the > Minister of Foreign Affairs in the French Legislature spoke some mild > words in favor of the Greek Christians, he was only applauded by the > liberal Catholics, and received coldly by the Ultramontane party,” > says the French correspondent of a New York paper. > > “So pronounced was this, that M. Lemoinne, the well-known editor of > the great liberal Catholic journal, the _Débats_, was moved to say > that the Roman Church felt more sympathy for the Moslem than the > schismatic, just as they preferred an infidel to the Protestant. > ‘There is at bottom,’ says this writer, ‘a great affinity between > the _Syllabus_ and the _Koran_, and between the two heads of the > faithful. The two systems are of the same nature, and are united on > the common ground of a one and unchangeable theory.’ In Italy, in > like manner, the King and Liberal Catholics are in warm sympathy with > the unfortunate Christians, while the Pope and Ultramontane faction > are believed to be inclining to the Mahometans.” > > The civilized world may yet expect the apparition of the materialized > Virgin Mary within the walls of the Vatican. The so often-repeated > “miracle” of the Immaculate Visitor in the mediæval ages has recently > been enacted at Lourdes, and why not once more, as a _coup de grâce_ > to all heretics, schismatics, and infidels? The miraculous wax taper > is yet seen at Arras, the chief city of Artois; and at every new > calamity threatening her beloved Church, the “Blessed Lady” appears > personally, and lights it with her own fair hands, in view of a whole > “biologized” congregation. This sort of “miracle,” says E. Worsley, > wrought by the Roman Catholic Church, “being most certain, and never > doubted of by any.”[113] Neither has the private correspondence with > which the most “Gracious Lady” honors her friends been doubted. There > are two precious missives from her in the archives of the Church. The > first purports to be a letter in answer to one addressed to her by > Ignatius. She confirms all things learned by her correspondent from > “her friend”--meaning the Apostle John. She bids him hold fast to > his vows, and adds as an inducement: “_I and John will come together > and pay you a visit._”[114] > > Nothing was known of this unblushing fraud till the letters were > published at Paris, in 1495. By a curious accident it appeared > at a time when threatening inquiries began to be made as to the > genuineness of the fourth Synoptic. Who could doubt, after such > a confirmation from headquarters! But the climax of effrontery > was capped in 1534, when another letter was received from the > “Mediatrix,” which sounds more like the report of a lobby-agent to a > brother-politician. It was written in excellent Latin, and was found > in the Cathedral of Messina, together with the image to which it > alludes. Its contents run as follows: > > “Mary Virgin, Mother of the Redeemer of the world, to the > Bishop, Clergy, and the other faithful of Messina, sendeth > health and benediction from _herself_ and son:[115] > > “Whereas ye have been mindful of establishing the worship > of me; now this is to let you know that by so doing ye > have found great favor in my sight. I have a long time > reflected with pain upon your city, which is exposed to > much danger from its contiguity to the fire of Etna, and I > have often had words about it with my son, for he was vexed > with you because of your guilty neglect of my worship, > so that he would not care a pin about my intercession. > Now, however, that you have come to your senses, and have > happily begun to worship me, he has conferred upon me the > right to become your everlasting protectress; but, at the > same time, I warn you to mind what you are about, and give > me no cause of repenting of my kindness to you. The prayers > and festivals instituted in my honor please me tremendously > (_vehementer_), and if you faithfully persevere in these > things, and provided you oppose to the utmost of your > power, the heretics which now-a-days are spreading through > the world, by which both my worship and that of the other > saints, male and female, are so endangered, you shall enjoy > my perpetual protection. > > “In sign of this compact, I send you down from Heaven the > image of myself, cast by celestial hands, and if ye hold > it in the honor to which it is entitled, it will be an > evidence to me of your obedience and your faith. Farewell. > Dated in Heaven, whilst sitting near the throne of my son, > in the month of December, of the 1534th year from his > incarnation. > > “MARY VIRGIN.” > > The reader should understand that this document is no anti-Catholic > forgery. The author from whom it is taken,[116] says that the > authenticity of the missive “is attested by the Bishop himself, his > Vicar-General, Secretary, and six Canons of the Cathedral Church of > Messina, all of whom have signed that attestation with their names, > and confirmed it upon oath. > > “Both the epistle and image were found upon the high altar, where > they had been placed by angels from heaven.” > > A Church must have reached the last stages of degradation, when such > sacrilegious trickery as this could be resorted to by its clergy, and > accepted with or without question by the people. > > No! far from the man who feels the workings of an immortal spirit > within him, be such a religion! There never was nor ever will be > a truly philosophical mind, whether of Pagan, heathen, Jew, or > Christian, but has followed the same path of thought. Gautama-Buddha > is mirrored in the precepts of Christ; Paul and Philo Judæus are > faithful echoes of Plato; and Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus won their > immortal fame by combining the teachings of all these grand masters > of true philosophy. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” > ought to be the motto of all brothers on earth. Not so is it with > the interpreters of the _Bible_. The seed of the Reformation was > sown on the day that the second chapter of _The Catholic Epistle of > James_, jostled the eleventh chapter of the _Epistle to the Hebrews_ > in the same _New Testament_. One who believes in Paul cannot believe > in James, Peter, and John. The Paulists, to remain Christians with > their apostle, must withstand Peter “to the face;” and if Peter > “was to be blamed” and _was wrong_, then he was not infallible. > How then can his successor (?) boast of his infallibility? Every > kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every > house divided against itself must fall. A plurality of masters has > proved as fatal in religions as in politics. What Paul preached, was > preached by every other mystic philosopher. “Stand _fast therefore > in the liberty_ wherewith Christ hath made us free, and _be not > entangled again with the yoke of bondage_!” exclaims the honest > apostle-philosopher; and adds, as if prophetically inspired: “But if > ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one > of another.” > > That the Neo-platonists were not always despised or accused of > demonolatry is evidenced in the adoption by the Roman Church of their > very rites and theurgy. The identical evocations and incantations > of the Pagan and Jewish Kabalist, are now repeated by the Christian > exorcist, and the theurgy of Iamblichus was adopted word for word. > “Distinct as were the Platonists and Pauline Christians of the > earlier centuries,” writes Professor A. Wilder, “many of the more > distinguished teachers of the new faith were deeply tinctured with > the philosophical leaven. Synesius, the Bishop of Cyrene, was > the disciple of Hypatia. _St. Anthony reiterated the theurgy of > Iamblichus._ The _Logos_, or word of the _Gospel according to John_, > was a Gnostic personification. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and > others of the fathers drank deeply from the fountains of philosophy. > The ascetic idea which carried away the Church was like that which > was practiced by Plotinus ... all through the middle ages there rose > up men who accepted the interior doctrines which were promulgated by > the renowned teacher of the Academy.”[117] > > To substantiate our accusation that the Latin Church first despoiled > the kabalists and theurgists of their magical rites and ceremonies, > before hurling anathemas upon their devoted heads, we will now > translate for the reader fragments from the forms of _exorcism_ > employed by kabalists and Christians. The identity in phraseology, > may, perhaps, disclose one of the reasons why the Romish Church has > always desired to keep the faithful in ignorance of the meaning of > her Latin prayers and ritual. Only those directly interested in > the deception have had the opportunity to compare the rituals of > the Church and the magicians. The best Latin scholars were, until > a comparatively recent date, either churchmen, or dependent upon > the Church. Common people could not read Latin, and even if they > could, the reading of the books on magic was prohibited, under > the penalty of anathema and excommunication. The cunning device > of the confessional made it almost impossible to consult, even > surreptitiously, what the priests call a _grimoire_ (a devil’s > scrawl), or _Ritual of Magic_. To make assurance doubly sure, the > Church began destroying or concealing everything of the kind she > could lay her hands upon. > > The following are translated from the _Kabalistic Ritual_, and that > generally known as the _Roman Ritual_. The latter was promulgated in > 1851 and 1852, under the sanction of Cardinal Engelbert, Archbishop > of Malines, and of the Archbishop of Paris. Speaking of it, the > demonologist des Mousseaux says: “It is the ritual of Paul V., > revised by the most learned of modern Popes, by the contemporary of > Voltaire, Benedict XIV.”[118] > > KABALISTIC. ROMAN CATHOLIC. > (Jewish and Pagan.) > > _Exorcism of Salt._ _Exorcism of Salt._[119] > > The Priest-Magician blesses The Priest blesses the > the Salt, and says: _Salt_ and says: “_Creature > “_Creature of Salt_,[120] in of Salt_, I exorcise thee in > thee may remain the the name of the living God > WISDOM (of God); ... _become the health of > and may it preserve from all the soul and of the body_! > corruption _our minds and_ Everywhere where thou art > _bodies_. Through Hochmael (חכמאל thrown _may the unclean > God of wisdom), and the spirit be put to flight_.... > power of _Ruach_ Hochmael _Amen._” > (Spirit of the Holy Ghost) > may the Spirits of matter > (bad spirits) before it > recede.... _Amen._” > > _Exorcism of Water Exorcism of Water._ > (and Ashes)._ > > “Creature of the Water, I “Creature of the water, in > exorcise thee ... by _the the name of the Almighty > three names_ which are God, the Father, the Son, > Netsah, Hod, and Jerod and the Holy Ghost ... _be > (kabalistic trinity), in the exorcised_.... I adjure thee > beginning and in the end, by in the name of the Lamb ... > Alpha and Omega, which are (the magician says _bull_ or > in the Spirit Azoth (Holy ox--_per alas Tauri_) of the > Ghost, or the ‘_Universal Lamb that trod upon the > Soul_’), I exorcise and basilisk and the aspic, and > adjure thee.... Wandering who crushes under his foot > eagle, may the Lord command the lion and the dragon.” > thee by the _wings of the > bull and his flaming > sword_.” (The cherub placed > at the east gate of Eden.) > > _Exorcism of an _Exorcism of the Devil._ > Elemental Spirit._ > > “Serpent, in the name of the * * * * * > Tetragrammaton, the Lord; He “O Lord, let him who carries > commands thee, by the angel along with him the terror, > and the lion. flee, struck in his turn by > terror and defeated. O thou, > “Angel of darkness, obey, who art the Ancient Serpent > and run away with this holy ... tremble before the hand > (exorcised) water. Eagle in of him who, having triumphed > chains, obey this sign, and of the tortures of hell (?) > retreat before the breath. _devictis gemitibus and > Moving serpent, crawl at my inferni_, recalled the souls > feet, or be tortured by to light.... The more whilst > _this sacred fire_, thou decay, the more > evaporate before this holy terrible will be thy torture > incense. Let water return to ... by Him who reigns over > water (the elemental spirit the living and the dead ... > of water); let the fire and who will judge the > burn, and the air circulate; century by fire, _sæculum > let the earth return to per ignem_, etc. In the name > earth by the virtue of the of the Father, Son, and the > Pentagram, which is the Holy Ghost. _Amen._”[121] > Morning Star, and in the > name of the tetragrammaton > which is traced in the > centre of _the Cross of > Light_. _Amen._” > > It is unnecessary to try the patience of the reader any longer, > although we might multiply examples. It must not be forgotten that we > have quoted from the latest revision of the _Ritual_, that of 1851-2. > If we were to go back to the former one we would find a far more > striking identity, not merely of phraseology but of ceremonial form. > For the purpose of comparison we have not even availed ourselves > of the ritual of ceremonial magic of the _Christian_ kabalists of > the middle ages, wherein the language modelled upon a belief in the > divinity of Christ is, with the exception of a stray expression here > and there, identical with the Catholic Ritual.[122] The latter, > however, makes one improvement, for the originality of which the > Church should be allowed all credit. Certainly nothing so fantastical > could be found in a ritual of magic. “Give place,” apostrophizing > the “Demon,” it says, “give place to Jesus Christ ... thou _filthy, > stinking, and ferocious beast_ ... dost thou rebel? Listen and > tremble, Satan; enemy of the faith, enemy of the human race, > introducer of death ... root of all evil, promoter of vice, soul > of envy, origin of avarice, cause of discord, prince of homicide, > whom God curses; author of incest and sacrilege, inventor of all > obscenity, _professor_ of the most detestable actions, _and Grand > Master of Heretics_ (_!!_) (_Doctor Hæreticorum!_) What! ... dost > thou still stand? Dost dare to resist, and thou knowest that Christ, > our Lord, is coming?... Give place to Jesus Christ, give place to > the Holy Ghost, which, by His blessed Apostle Peter, has flung thee > down before the public, in the person of Simon the Magician” (_te > manifeste stravit in Simone mago_).[123] > > After such a shower of abuse, no devil having the slightest feeling > of self-respect could remain in such company; unless, indeed, he > should chance to be an Italian Liberal, or King Victor Emmanuel > himself; both of whom, thanks to Pius IX., have become anathema-proof. > > It really seems too bad to strip Rome of all her symbols at once; > but justice must be done to the despoiled hierophants. Long before > the sign of the Cross was adopted as a Christian symbol, it was > employed as a secret sign of recognition among neophytes and adepts. > Says Levi: “The sign of the Cross adopted by the Christians does not > belong exclusively to them. It is kabalistic, and represents the > oppositions and quaternary equilibrium of the elements. We see by > the occult verse of the _Pater_, to which we have called attention > in another work, that there were originally two ways of making it, > or, at least, two very different formulas to express its meaning--one > reserved for priests and initiates; the other given to neophytes > and the profane. Thus, for example, the _initiate_, carrying his > hand to his forehead, said: _To thee_; then he added, _belong_; and > continued, while carrying his hand to the breast--_the kingdom_; > then, to the left shoulder--_justice_; to the right shoulder--_and > mercy_. Then he joined the two hands, adding: _throughout the > generating cycles: ‘Tibi sunt Malchut, et Geburah et Chassed per > Æonas’_--a sign of the Cross, _absolutely_ and magnificently > kabalistic, which the profanations of Gnosticism made the militant > and official Church completely _lose_.”[124] > > How fantastical, therefore, is the assertion of Father Ventura, > that, while Augustine was a Manichean, a philosopher, ignorant of > and refusing to humble himself before the sublimity of the “grand > Christian revelation,” he knew nothing, understood naught of God, > man, or universe; “... he remained poor, small, obscure, sterile, > and wrote nothing, did nothing really grand or useful.” But, hardly > had he become a Christian “... when his reasoning powers and > intellect, enlightened at the _luminary of faith_, elevated him to > the most sublime heights of philosophy and theology.” And his other > proposition that Augustine’s genius, as a consequence, “developed > itself in all its grandeur and prodigious fecundity ... his intellect > radiated with that immense splendor which, reflecting itself in his > immortal writings, has never ceased for one moment during fourteen > centuries to illuminate the Church and the world!”[125] > > Whatever Augustine was as a Manichean, we leave Father Ventura to > discover; but that his accession to Christianity established an > everlasting enmity between theology and science is beyond doubt. > While forced to confess that “the Gentiles had possibly something > _divine_ and true in their doctrines,” he, nevertheless, declared > that for their superstition, idolatry, and pride, they had “to > be detested, and, unless they improved, to be punished by divine > judgment.” This furnishes the clew to the subsequent policy of the > Christian Church, even to our day. If the Gentiles did not choose > to come into the Church, all that was divine in their philosophy > should go for naught, and the divine wrath of God should be visited > upon their heads. What effect this produced is succinctly stated > by Draper: “No one did more than this Father to bring science and > religion into antagonism; it was mainly he who diverted the _Bible_ > from its true office--a guide to purity of life--and placed it in > the perilous position of being the arbiter of human knowledge, an > audacious tyranny over the mind of man. The example once set, there > was no want of followers; the works of the Greek philosophers were > stigmatized as profane; the transcendently glorious achievements > of the Museum of Alexandria were hidden from sight by a cloud of > ignorance, mysticism, and unintelligible jargon, out of which there > too often flashed the destroying lightnings of ecclesiastical > vengeance.”[126] > > Augustine and Cyprian[127] admit that Hermes and Hostanes believed in > one true god; the first two maintaining, as well as the two Pagans, > that he is invisible and incomprehensible, except spiritually. > Moreover we invite any man of intelligence--provided he be not a > religious fanatic--after reading fragments chosen at random from the > works of Hermes and Augustine on the Deity, to decide which of the > two gives a more philosophical definition of the “unseen Father.” We > have at least one writer of fame who is of our opinion. Draper calls > the Augustinian productions a “rhapsodical conversation” with God; an > “incoherent dream.”[128] > > Father Ventura depicts the saint as attitudinizing before an > astonished world upon “the most sublime heights of philosophy.” But > here steps in again the same unprejudiced critic, who passes the > following remarks on this colossus of Patristic philosophy. “Was it > for this preposterous scheme,” he asks, “this product of ignorance > and audacity, that the works of the Greek philosophers were to be > given up? It was none too soon that the great critics who appeared > at the Reformation, by comparing the works of these writers with one > another, brought them to their proper level, and taught us to look > upon them all with contempt.”[129] > > For such men as Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Apollonius, and even > Simon Magus, to be accused of having formed a pact with the Devil, > whether the latter personage exist or not, is so absurd as to need > but little refutation. If Simon Magus--the most problematical of all > in an historical sense--ever existed otherwise than in the overheated > fancy of Peter and the other apostles, he was evidently no worse than > any of his adversaries. A difference in religious views, however > great, is insufficient _per se_ to send one person to heaven and the > other to hell. Such uncharitable and peremptory doctrines might have > been taught in the middle ages; but it is too late now for even the > Church to put forward this traditional scarecrow. Research begins to > suggest that which, if ever verified, will bring eternal disgrace on > the Church of the Apostle Peter, whose very imposition of herself > upon that disciple must be regarded as the most unverified and > unverifiable of the assumptions of the Catholic clergy. > > The erudite author of _Supernatural Religion_ assiduously endeavors > to prove that by _Simon Magus_ we must understand the apostle Paul, > whose Epistles were secretly as well as openly calumniated by Peter, > and charged with containing “_dysnoëtic_ learning.” The Apostle of > the Gentiles was brave, outspoken, sincere, and very learned; the > Apostle of Circumcision, cowardly, cautious, _insincere_, and very > ignorant. That Paul had been, partially, at least, if not completely, > initiated into the theurgic mysteries, admits of little doubt. His > language, the phraseology so peculiar to the Greek philosophers, > certain expressions used but by the initiates, are so many sure > ear-marks to that supposition. Our suspicion has been strengthened by > an able article in one of the New York periodicals, entitled _Paul > and Plato_,[130] in which the author puts forward one remarkable > and, for us, very precious observation. In his _Epistles to the > Corinthians_ he shows Paul abounding with “expressions suggested > by the initiations of Sabazius and Eleusis, and the lectures > of the (Greek) philosophers. He (Paul) designates himself an > _idiotes_--a person unskilful in the Word, but not in the _gnosis_ > or philosophical learning. ‘We speak wisdom among the perfect or > initiated,’ he writes; ‘not the wisdom of this world, nor of the > archons of this world, but divine wisdom in a mystery, secret--which > _none of the Archons of this world knew_.’”[131] > > What else can the apostle mean by these unequivocal words, but > that he himself, as belonging to the _mystæ_ (initiated), spoke of > things shown and explained only in the Mysteries? The “divine wisdom > in a mystery which none of the _archons of this world knew_,” has > evidently some direct reference to the _basileus_ of the Eleusinian > initiation who _did know_. The _basileus_ belonged to the staff of > the great hierophant, and was an _archon_ of Athens; and as such was > one of the chief _mystæ_, belonging to the _interior_ Mysteries, to > which a very select and small number obtained an entrance.[132] The > magistrates supervising the Eleusinians were called archons. > > Another proof that Paul belonged to the circle of the “Initiates” > lies in the following fact. The apostle had his head shorn at > Cenchrea (where Lucius, _Apuleius_, was initiated) because “he > had a vow.” The _nazars_--or set apart--as we see in the Jewish > Scriptures, had to cut their hair which they wore long, and which “no > razor touched” at any other time, and sacrifice it on the altar of > initiation. And the nazars were a class of Chaldean theurgists. We > will show further that Jesus belonged to this class. > > Paul declares that: “According to the grace of God which is given > unto me, as a wise _master-builder_, I have laid the foundation.”[133] > > This expression, master-builder, used only _once_ in the whole > _Bible_, and by Paul, may be considered as a whole revelation. In the > Mysteries, the third part of the sacred rites was called _Epopteia_, > or revelation, reception into the secrets. In substance it means that > stage of divine clairvoyance when everything pertaining to this earth > disappears, and earthly sight is paralyzed, and the soul is united > free and pure with its Spirit, or God. But the real significance of > the word is “overseeing,” from οπτομαι--_I see myself_. In Sanscrit > the word _evâpto_ has the same meaning, as well as _to obtain_.[134] > The word _epopteia_ is a compound one, from Επι--upon, and οπτομαι--to > look, or an overseer, an inspector--also used for a master-builder. > The title of master-mason, in Freemasonry, is derived from this, in > the sense used in the Mysteries. Therefore, when Paul entitles himself > a “master-builder,” he is using a word pre-eminently kabalistic, > theurgic, and masonic, and one which no other apostle uses. He thus > declares himself an _adept_, having the right to _initiate_ others. > > If we search in this direction, with those sure guides, the Grecian > Mysteries and the _Kabala_, before us, it will be easy to find the > secret reason why Paul was so persecuted and hated by Peter, John, > and James. The author of the _Revelation_ was a Jewish kabalist _pur > sang_, with all the hatred inherited by him from his forefathers > toward the Mysteries.[135] His jealousy during the life of Jesus > extended even to Peter; and it is but after the death of their > common master that we see the two apostles--the former of whom > wore the Mitre and the Petaloon of the Jewish Rabbis--preach so > zealously the rite of circumcision. In the eyes of Peter, Paul, who > had humiliated him, and whom he felt so much his superior in “Greek > learning” and philosophy, must have naturally appeared as a magician, > a man polluted with the “_Gnosis_,” with the “wisdom” of the Greek > Mysteries--hence, perhaps, “Simon[136] the Magician.” > > As to Peter, biblical criticism has shown before now that he had > probably no more to do with the foundation of the Latin Church at > Rome, than to furnish the pretext so readily seized upon by the > cunning Irenæus to benefit this Church with the new name of the > apostle--_Petra_ or _Kiffa_, a name which allowed so readily, by an > easy play upon words, to connect it with _Petroma_, the double set > of stone tablets used by the hierophant at the initiations, during > the final Mystery. In this, perhaps, lies concealed the whole secret > of the claims of the Vatican. As Professor Wilder happily suggests: > “In the Oriental countries the designation פתר, Peter (in Phœnician > and Chaldaic, an interpreter) appears to have been the title of this > personage (the hierophant).... There is in these facts some reminder > of the peculiar circumstances of the Mosaic Law ... and also of the > claim of the Pope to be the successor of Peter, the hierophant or > interpreter of the Christian religion.”[137] > > As such, we must concede to him, to some extent, the right to be such > an interpreter. The Latin Church has faithfully preserved in symbols, > rites, ceremonies, architecture, and even in the very dress of her > clergy, the tradition of the Pagan worship--of the public or exoteric > ceremonies, we should add; otherwise her dogmas would embody more > sense and contain less blasphemy against the majesty of the Supreme > and Invisible God. > > An inscription found on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept, of the > eleventh dynasty (2250 B.C.), now proved to have been transcribed > from the seventeenth chapter of the _Book of the Dead_ (dating not > later than 4500 B.C.), is more than suggestive. This monumental text > contains a group of hieroglyphics, which, when interpreted, read thus: > > =PTR.= =RF.= =SU.= > Peter- ref- su. > > Baron Bunsen shows this sacred formulary mixed up with a whole > series of glosses and various interpretations on a monument forty > centuries old. “This is identical with saying that the record (the > true interpretation) was at that time no longer intelligible.... We > beg our readers to understand,” he adds, “that a sacred text, a hymn, > containing the words of a departed spirit, existed in such a state > about 4,000 years ago ... as to be all but unintelligible to royal > scribes.”[138] > > That it was unintelligible to the uninitiated among the latter is as > well proved by the confused and contradictory glossaries, as that it > was a “mystery”-word, known to the hierophants of the sanctuaries, > and, moreover, a word chosen by Jesus, to designate the office > assigned by him to one of his apostles. This word, PTR, was partially > interpreted, owing to another word similarly written in another group > of hieroglyphics, on a stele, the sign used for it being an opened > eye.[139] Bunsen mentions as another explanation of PTR--“to show.” > “It appears to me,” he remarks, “that our PTR is literally the old > Aramaic and Hebrew ‘Patar’, which occurs in the history of Joseph as > the specific word for _interpreting_; whence also _Pitrum_ is the > term for interpretation of a text, a dream.”[140] In a manuscript of > the first century, a combination of the Demotic and Greek texts,[141] > and most probably one of the few which miraculously escaped the > Christian vandalism of the second and third centuries, when all such > precious manuscripts were burned as magical, we find occurring in > several places a phrase, which, perhaps, may throw some light upon > this question. One of the principal heroes of the manuscript, who > is constantly referred to as “the Judean Illuminator” or Initiate, > Τελειωτὴς, is made to communicate but with his _Patar_; the latter > being written in Chaldaic characters. Once the latter word is coupled > with the name _Shimeon_. Several times, the “Illuminator,” who rarely > breaks his contemplative solitude, is shown inhabiting a Κρύπτη > (cave), and teaching the multitudes of eager scholars standing > outside, not orally, but through this _Patar_. The latter receives the > words of wisdom by applying his ear to a circular hole in a partition > which conceals the teacher from the listeners, and then conveys them, > with explanations and glossaries, to the crowd. This, with a slight > change, was the method used by Pythagoras, who, as we know, never > allowed his neophytes to see him during the years of probation, but > instructed them from behind a curtain in his cave. > > But, whether the “Illuminator” of the Græco-Demotic manuscript is > identical with Jesus or not, the fact remains, that we find him > selecting a “mystery”-appellation for one who is made to appear later > by the Catholic Church as the janitor of the Kingdom of Heaven and > the interpreter of Christ’s will. The word Patar or Peter locates > both master and disciple in the circle of initiation, and connects > them with the “Secret Doctrine.” The great hierophant of the ancient > Mysteries never allowed the candidates to see or hear him personally. > He was the Deus-ex-Machina, the presiding but invisible Deity, > uttering his will and instructions through a second party; and > 2,000 years later, we discover that the Dalaï-Lamas of Thibet had > been following for centuries the same traditional programme during > the most important religious mysteries of lamaism. If Jesus knew > the secret meaning of the title bestowed by him on Simon, then he > must have been initiated; otherwise he could not have learned it; > and if he was an initiate of either the Pythagorean Essenes, the > Chaldean Magi, or the Egyptian Priests, then the doctrine taught by > him was but a portion of the “Secret Doctrine” taught by the Pagan > hierophants to the few select adepts admitted within the sacred adyta. > > But we will discuss this question further on. For the present we > will endeavor to briefly indicate the extraordinary similarity--or > rather identity, we should say--of rites and ceremonial dress of > the Christian clergy with that of the old Babylonians, Assyrians, > Phœnicians, Egyptians, and other Pagans of the hoary antiquity. > > If we would find the model of the Papal tiara, we must search the > annals of the ancient Assyrian tablets. We invite the reader to give > his attention to Dr. Inman’s illustrated work, _Ancient Pagan and > Modern Christian Symbolism_. On page sixty-four, he will readily > recognize the head-gear of the successor of St. Peter in the coiffure > worn by gods or angels in ancient Assyria, “where it appears crowned > by an emblem of the _male_ trinity” (the Christian Cross). “We may > mention, in passing,” adds Dr. Inman, “that, as the Romanists adopted > the mitre and the tiara from ‘the cursed brood of Ham,’ so they > adopted the Episcopalian crook from the augurs of Etruria, and the > artistic form with which they clothe their angels from the painters > and urn-makers of Magna Grecia and Central Italy.” > > Would we push our inquiries farther, and seek to ascertain as much > in relation to the nimbus and the tonsure of the Catholic priest > and monk?[142] We shall find undeniable proofs that they are solar > emblems. Knight, in his _Old England Pictorially Illustrated_, gives > a drawing by St. Augustine, representing an ancient Christian bishop, > in a dress probably identical with that worn by the great “saint” > himself. The _pallium_, or the ancient stole of the bishop, is the > feminine sign when worn by a priest in worship. On St. Augustine’s > picture it is bedecked with Buddhistic crosses, and in its whole > appearance it is a representation of the Egyptian =T= (tau), assuming > slightly the figure of the letter =Y=. “Its lower end is the mark of > the masculine triad,” says Inman; “the right hand (of the figure) has > the forefinger extended, like the Assyrian priests while doing homage > _to the grove_.... When a male dons the pallium in worship, he becomes > the representative of the trinity in the unity, the _arba_, or mystic > four.”[143] > > “Immaculate is our Lady Isis,” is the legend around an engraving > of Serapis and Isis, described by King, in _The Gnostics and their > Remains_, Ἡ ΚΥΡΙΑ ΙϹΙϹ ΑΓΝΗ “... the very terms applied afterwards to > that personage (the Virgin Mary) who succeeded to her form, titles, > symbols, rites, and ceremonies.... Thus, her devotees carried into the > new priesthood the former badges of their profession, the obligation > to celibacy, the tonsure, and the surplice, omitting, unfortunately, > the frequent ablutions prescribed by the ancient creed.” “The ‘Black > Virgins,’ so highly reverenced in certain French cathedrals ... > proved, when at last critically examined, basalt figures of > Isis!”[144] > > Before the shrine of Jupiter Ammon were suspended tinkling bells, > from the sound of whose chiming the priests gathered the auguries; “A > golden bell and a pomegranate ... round about the hem of the robe,” > was the result with the Mosaic Jews. But in the Buddhistic system, > during the religious services, the gods of the Deva Loka are always > invoked, and invited to descend upon the altars by the ringing of > bells suspended in the pagodas. The bell of the sacred table of Siva > at Kuhama is described in Kailasa, and every Buddhist vihara and > lamasery has its bells. > > We thus see that the bells used by Christians come to them directly > from the Buddhist Thibetans and Chinese. The beads and rosaries > have the same origin, and have been used by Buddhist monks for over > 2,300 years. The _Linghams_ in the Hindu temples are ornamented upon > certain days with large berries, from a tree sacred to Mahadeva, > which are strung into rosaries. The title of “nun” is an Egyptian > word, and had with them the actual meaning; the Christians did not > even take the trouble of translating the word _Nonna_. The aureole > of the saints was used by the antediluvian artists of Babylonia, > whenever they desired to honor or deify a mortal’s head. In a > celebrated picture in Moore’s _Hindoo Pantheon_, entitled, “Christna > nursed by Devaki, from a highly-finished picture,” the Hindu Virgin > is represented as seated on a lounge and nursing Christna. The hair > brushed back, the long veil, and the golden aureole around the > Virgin’s head, as well as around that of the Hindu Saviour, are > striking. No Catholic, well versed as he might be in the mysterious > symbolism of iconology, would hesitate for a moment to worship at > that shrine the Virgin Mary, the mother of his God![145] In Indur > Subba, the south entrance of the Caves of Ellora, may be seen to this > day the figure of Indra’s wife, Indranee, sitting with her infant > son-god, pointing the finger to heaven with the same gesture as the > Italian Madonna and child. In _Pagan and Christian Symbolism_, the > author gives a figure from a mediæval woodcut--the like of which we > have seen by dozens in old psalters--in which the Virgin Mary, with > her infant, is represented as the Queen of Heaven, on the crescent > moon, emblem of virginity. “Being before the sun, she almost eclipses > its light. Than this, nothing could more completely identify the > Christian mother and child with Isis and Horus, Ishtar, Venus, Juno, > and a host of other Pagan goddesses, who have been called ‘Queen of > Heaven,’ ‘Queen of the Universe,’ ‘Mother of God,’ ‘Spouse of God,’ > ‘the Celestial Virgin,’ ‘the Heavenly Peace-Maker,’ etc.”[146] > > Such pictures are not purely astronomical. They represent the male > god and the female goddess, as the sun and moon in conjunction, “the > union of the triad with the unit.” The horns of the cow on the head > of Isis have the same significance. > > And so above, below, outside, and inside, the Christian Church, in > the priestly garments, and the religious rites, we recognize the > stamp of exoteric heathenism. On no subject within the wide range of > human knowledge, has the world been more blinded or deceived with > such persistent misrepresentation as on that of antiquity. Its hoary > past and its religious faiths have been misrepresented and trampled > under the feet of its successors. Its hierophants and prophets, mystæ > and epoptæ,[147] of the once sacred adyta of the temple shown as > demoniacs and devil-worshippers. Donned in the despoiled garments > of the victim, the Christian priest now anathematizes the latter > with rites and ceremonies which he has learned from the theurgists > themselves. The Mosaic _Bible_ is used as a weapon against the people > who furnished it. The heathen philosopher is cursed under the very > roof which has witnessed his initiation; and the “monkey of God” > (_i.e._, the devil of Tertullian), “the originator and founder of > magical theurgy, the science of illusions and lies, whose father > and author is the demon,” is exorcised with holy water by the hand > which holds the identical _lituus_[148] with which the ancient > augur, after a solemn prayer, used to determine the regions of > heaven, and evoke, in the name of the HIGHEST, the minor god (now > termed the Devil), who unveiled to his eyes futurity, and enabled > him to prophesy! On the part of the Christians and the clergy it is > nothing but shameful ignorance, prejudice, and that contemptible > pride so boldly denounced by one of their own reverend ministers, T. > Gross,[149] which rails against all investigation “as a useless or > a criminal labor, when it must be feared that they will result in > the overthrow of preëstablished systems of faith.” On the part of > the scholars it is the same apprehension of the possible necessity > of having to modify some of their erroneously-established theories > of science. “Nothing but such pitiable prejudice,” says Gross, > “can have thus misrepresented the theology of heathenism, and > distorted--nay, caricatured--its forms of religious worship. It is > time that posterity should raise its voice in vindication of violated > truth, and that the present age should learn a little of that common > sense of which it boasts with as much self-complacency as if the > prerogative of reason was the birthright only of modern times.” > > All this gives a sure clew to the real cause of the hatred felt by the > early and mediæval Christian toward his Pagan brother and dangerous > rival. We hate but what we fear. The Christian thaumaturgist once > having broken all association with the Mysteries of the temples and > with “these schools so renowned for magic,” described by St. > Hilarion,[150] could certainly expect but little to rival the Pagan > wonder-workers. No apostle, with the exception perhaps of healing by > mesmeric power, has ever equalled Apollonius of Tyana; and the scandal > created among the apostles by the miracle-doing Simon Magus, is too > notorious to be repeated here again. “How is it,” asks Justin Martyr, > in evident dismay, “how is it that the talismans of Apollonius (the > τελεσματα) have power in certain members of creation, for they > prevent, _as we see_, the fury of the waves, and the violence of the > winds, and the attacks of wild beasts; and whilst our Lord’s miracles > are preserved by tradition alone, those of Apollonius _are most > numerous_, and actually manifested in present facts, so as to lead > astray all beholders?”[151] This perplexed martyr solves the problem > by attributing very correctly the efficacy and potency of the charms > used by Apollonius to his profound knowledge of the sympathies and > antipathies (or repugnances) of nature. > > Unable to deny the evident superiority of their enemies’ powers, the > fathers had recourse to the old but ever successful method--that > of slander. They honored the theurgists with the same insinuating > calumny that had been resorted to by the Pharisees against Jesus. > “Thou hast a dæmon,” the elders of the Jewish Synagogue had said to > him. “Thou hast the Devil,” repeated the cunning fathers, with equal > truth, addressing the Pagan thaumaturgist; and the widely-bruited > charge, erected later into an article of faith, won the day. > > But the modern heirs of these ecclesiastical falsifiers, who charge > magic, spiritualism, and even magnetism with being produced by a > demon, forget or perhaps never read the classics. None of our bigots > has ever looked with more scorn on the _abuses_ of magic than did the > true initiate of old. No modern or even mediæval law could be more > severe than that of the hierophant. True, he had more discrimination, > charity, and justice, than the Christian clergy; for while banishing > the “unconscious” sorcerer, the person troubled with a demon, from > within the sacred precincts of the adyta, the priests, instead of > mercilessly burning him, took care of the unfortunate “possessed > one.” Having hospitals expressly for that purpose in the neighborhood > of temples, the ancient “medium,” if obsessed, was taken care of and > restored to health. But with one who had, by conscious _witchcraft_, > acquired powers dangerous to his fellow-creatures, the priests of > old were as severe as justice herself. “Any person _accidentally_ > guilty of homicide, or of any crime, or convicted of _witchcraft_, > was excluded from the Eleusinian Mysteries.”[152] And so were they > from all others. This law, mentioned by all writers on the ancient > initiation, speaks for itself. The claim of Augustine, that all the > explanations given by the Neo-platonists were invented by themselves > is absurd. For nearly every ceremony in their true and successive > order is given by Plato himself, in a more or less covered way. > The Mysteries are as old as the world, and one well versed in the > esoteric mythologies of various nations can trace them back to the > days of the ante-Vedic period in India. A condition of the strictest > virtue and purity is required from the _Vatou_, or candidate in India > before he can become an initiate, whether he aims to be a simple > fakir, a _Purohita_ (public priest) or a _Sannyâsi_, a saint of the > second degree of initiation, the most holy as the most revered of > them all. After having conquered, in the terrible trials preliminary > to admittance to the inner temple in the subterranean crypts of his > pagoda, the sannyâsi passes the rest of his life in the temple, > practicing the eighty-four rules and ten virtues prescribed to the > Yogis. > > “No one who has not practiced, during his whole life, the ten virtues > which the divine Manu makes incumbent as a duty, can be initiated > into the Mysteries of the council,” say the Hindu books of initiation. > > These virtues are: “Resignation; the act of rendering good for > evil; temperance; probity; purity; chastity; repression of the > physical senses; the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; that of > the _Superior_ soul (spirit); worship of truth; abstinence from > anger.” These virtues must alone direct the life of a true Yogi. “No > unworthy adept ought to defile the ranks of the holy initiates by > his presence for twenty-four hours.” The adept becomes guilty after > having once broken any one of these vows. Surely the exercise of such > virtues is inconsistent with the idea one has of _devil_-worship and > lasciviousness of purpose! > > And now we will try to give a clear insight into one of the chief > objects of this work. What we desire to prove is, that underlying > every ancient popular religion was the same ancient wisdom-doctrine, > one and identical, professed and practiced by the initiates of every > country, who alone were aware of its existence and importance. To > ascertain its origin, and the precise age in which it was matured, is > now beyond human possibility. A single glance, however, is enough to > assure one that it could not have attained the marvellous perfection > in which we find it pictured to us in the relics of the various > esoteric systems, except after a succession of ages. A philosophy > so profound, a moral code so ennobling, and practical results so > conclusive and so uniformly demonstrable is not the growth of a > generation, or even a single epoch. Fact must have been piled upon > fact, deduction upon deduction, science have begotten science, and > myriads of the brightest human intellects have reflected upon the > laws of nature, before this ancient doctrine had taken concrete > shape. The proofs of this identity of fundamental doctrine in the > old religions are found in the prevalence of a system of initiation; > in the secret sacerdotal castes who had the guardianship of mystical > words of power, and a public display of a phenomenal control over > natural forces, indicating association with preterhuman beings. Every > approach to the Mysteries of all these nations was guarded with the > same jealous care, and in all, the penalty of death was inflicted > upon initiates of any degree who divulged the secrets entrusted > to them. We have seen that such was the case in the Eleusinian > and Bacchic Mysteries, among the Chaldean Magi, and the Egyptian > hierophants; while with the Hindus, from whom they were all derived, > the same rule has prevailed from time immemorial. We are left in no > doubt upon this point; for the _Agrushada Parikshai_ says explicitly, > “Every initiate, to whatever degree he may belong, who reveals the > great sacred formula, must be put to death.” > > Naturally enough, this same extreme penalty was prescribed in all the > multifarious sects and brotherhoods which at different periods have > sprung from the ancient stock. We find it with the early Essenes, > Gnostics, theurgic Neo-platonists, and mediæval philosophers; > and in our day, even the Masons perpetuate the memory of the old > obligations in the penalties of throat-cutting, dismemberment, > and disemboweling, with which the candidate is threatened. As the > Masonic “master’s word” is communicated only at “low breath,” so the > selfsame precaution is prescribed in the Chaldean _Book of Numbers_ > and the Jewish _Mercaba_. When initiated, the neophyte was led by > an _ancient_ to a secluded spot, and there the latter whispered _in > his ear_ the great secret.[153] The Mason swears, under the most > frightful penalties, that he will not communicate the secrets of any > degree “to a brother of an _inferior degree_;” and the _Agrushada > Parikshai_ says: “Any initiate of the third degree who reveals before > the prescribed time, to the initiates of the second degree, the > superior truths, must be put to death.” Again, the Masonic apprentice > consents to have his “tongue torn out by the roots” if he divulge > anything to a profane; and in the Hindu books of initiation, the same > _Agrushada Parikshai_, we find that any initiate of the first degree > (the lowest) who betrays the secrets of his initiation, to members of > other castes, for whom the science should be a closed book, must have > “his _tongue cut out_,” and suffer other mutilations. > > As we proceed, we will point out the evidences of this identity of > vows, formulas, rites, and doctrines, between the ancient faiths. > We will also show that not only their memory is still preserved in > India, but also that the Secret Association is still alive and as > active as ever. That, after reading what we have to say, it may be > inferred that the chief pontiff and hierophant, the _Brahmâtma_, is > still accessible to those “who know,” though perhaps recognized by > another name; and that the ramifications of his influence extend > throughout the world. But we will now return again to the early > Christian period. > > As though he were not aware that there was any esoteric significance > to the exoteric symbols, and that the Mysteries themselves were > composed of two parts, the lesser at Agræ, and the higher ones at > Eleusinia, Clemens Alexandrinus, with a rancorous bigotry that > one might expect from a renegade Neo-platonist, but is astonished > to find in this generally honest and learned Father, stigmatized > the Mysteries as indecent and diabolical. Whatever were the rites > enacted among the neophytes before they passed to a higher form of > instruction; however misunderstood were the trials of _Katharsis_ > or purification, during which they were submitted to every kind of > probation; and however much the immaterial or physical aspect might > have led to calumny, it is but wicked prejudice which can compel a > person to say that under this external meaning there was not a far > deeper and spiritual significance. > > It is positively absurd to judge the ancients from our own standpoint > of propriety and virtue. And most assuredly it is not for the > Church--which now stands accused by all the modern symbologists of > having adopted precisely these same emblems in their coarsest aspect, > and feels herself powerless to refute the accusations--to throw the > stone at those who were her models. When men like Pythagoras, Plato, > and Iamblichus, renowned for their severe morality, took part in the > Mysteries, and spoke of them with veneration, it ill behooves our > modern critics to judge them so rashly upon their merely external > aspect. Iamblichus explains the worst; and his explanation, for an > unprejudiced mind, ought to be perfectly plausible. “Exhibitions of > this kind,” he says, “in the Mysteries were designed to free us from > licentious passions, by gratifying the sight, and at the same time > vanquishing all evil thought, through _the awful sanctity_ with which > these rites were accompanied.”[154] “The wisest and best men in the > Pagan world,” adds Dr. Warburton, “are unanimous in this, that the > Mysteries were instituted pure, and proposed the noblest ends by the > worthiest means.”[155] > > In these celebrated rites, although persons of both sexes and all > classes were allowed to take a part, and a participation in them > was even obligatory, very few indeed attained the higher and final > initiation. The gradation of the Mysteries is given us by Proclus > in the fourth book of his _Theology of Plato_. “The perfective rite > τελετη, precedes in order the initiation--_Muesis_--and the initiation, > _Epopteia_, or the final apocalypse (revelation).” Theon of Smyrna, in > _Mathematica_, also divides the mystic rites into five parts: “the > first of which is the previous purification; for _neither are the > Mysteries communicated to all_ who are willing to receive them; ... > there are certain persons who are prevented by the voice of the crier > (κηρυξ) ... since it is necessary that such as are not expelled from > the Mysteries should first be refined by certain purifications which > the reception of the sacred rites succeeds. The third part is > denominated _epopteia_ or reception. And the fourth, which is the end > and design of the revelation, is _the binding of the head and fixing > of the crowns_[156] ... whether after this he (the initiated person) > becomes ... an hierophant or sustains some other part of the > sacerdotal office. But the fifth, which is produced from all these, > _is friendship and interior communion with God_.” And this was the > last and most awful of all the Mysteries. > > There are writers who have often wondered at the meaning of this > claim to a “friendship and interior communion with God.” Christian > authors have denied the pretensions of the “Pagans” to such > “communion,” affirming that only Christian saints were and are > capable of enjoying it; materialistic skeptics have altogether > scoffed at the idea of both. After long ages of religious materialism > and spiritual stagnation, it has most certainly become difficult > if not altogether impossible to substantiate the claims of either > party. The old Greeks, who had once crowded around the Agora of > Athens, with its altar to the “Unknown God,” are no more; and their > descendants firmly believe that they have found the “Unknown” in the > Jewish Jehova. The divine ecstasies of the early Christians have made > room for visions of a more modern character, in perfect keeping with > progress and civilization. The “Son of man” appearing to the rapt > vision of the ancient Christian as coming from the seventh heaven, in > a cloud of glory, and surrounded with angels and winged seraphim, has > made room for a more prosaic and at the same time more business-like > Jesus. The latter is now shown as making morning calls upon Mary and > Martha in Bethany; as seating himself on “the _ottoman_” with the > younger sister, a lover of “ethics,” while Martha goes off to the > kitchen to cook. Anon the heated fancy of a blasphemous Brooklyn > preacher and harlequin, the Reverend Dr. Talmage, makes us see her > rushing back “with besweated brow, a pitcher in one hand and the > tongs in the other ... into the presence of Christ,” and blowing him > up for not caring that her sister hath left her “to serve alone.”[157] > > From the birth of the solemn and majestic conception of the > unrevealed Deity of the ancient adepts to such caricatured > descriptions of him who died on the Cross for his philanthropic > devotion to humanity, long centuries have intervened, and their > heavy tread seems to have almost entirely obliterated all sense of > a spiritual religion from the hearts of his professed followers. No > wonder then, that the sentence of Proclus is no longer understood by > the Christians, and is rejected as a “vagary” by the materialists, > who, in their negation, are less blasphemous and atheistical than > many of the reverends and members of the churches. But, although the > Greek _epoptai_ are no more, we have now, in our own age, a people > far more ancient than the oldest Hellenes, who practice the so-called > “preterhuman” gifts to the same extent as did their ancestors far > earlier than the days of Troy. It is to this people that we draw the > attention of the psychologist and philosopher. > > One need not go very deep into the literature of the Orientalists to > become convinced that in most cases they do not even suspect that > in the arcane philosophy of India there are depths which they have > not sounded, and _cannot_ sound, for they pass on without perceiving > them. There is a pervading tone of conscious superiority, a ring > of contempt in the treatment of Hindu metaphysics, as though the > European mind is alone enlightened enough to polish the rough diamond > of the old Sanscrit writers, and separate right from wrong for the > benefit of their descendants. We see them disputing over the external > forms of expression without a conception of the great vital truths > these hide from the profane view. > > “As a rule, the Brahmans,” says Jacolliot, “rarely go beyond the > class of _grihesta_ [priests of the vulgar castes] and _purohita_ > [exorcisers, divines, prophets, and evocators of spirits]. And > yet, we shall see ... once that we have touched upon the question > and study of manifestations and phenomena, that these initiates > of the _first_ degree (the lowest) attribute to themselves, and > in appearance possess faculties developed to a degree which has > never been equalled in Europe. As to the initiates of the second > and especially of the third category, they pretend to be enabled to > ignore time, space, and to command life and death.”[158] > > Such initiates as these M. Jacolliot _did not meet_; for, as he says > himself, they only appear on the most solemn occasions, and when the > faith of the multitudes has to be strengthened by phenomena of a > superior order. “They are never seen, either in the neighborhood of, > or even inside the temples, except at the grand quinquennial festival > of the fire. On that occasion, they appear about the middle of the > night, on a platform erected in the centre of the sacred lake, like > so many phantoms, and by their conjurations they illumine the space. > A fiery column of light ascends from around them, rushing from earth > to heaven. Unfamiliar sounds vibrate through the air, and five or > six hundred thousand Hindus, gathered from every part of India to > contemplate these demigods, throw themselves with their faces buried > in the dust, invoking the souls of their ancestors.”[159] > > Let any impartial person read the _Spiritisme dans le Monde_, and > he cannot believe that this “implacable rationalist,” as Jacolliot > takes pride in terming himself, said one word more than is warranted > by what he had seen. His statements support and are corroborated by > those of other skeptics. As a rule, the missionaries, even after > passing half a lifetime in the country of “devil-worship,” as they > call India, either disingenuously _deny_ altogether what they cannot > help knowing to be true, or ridiculously attribute phenomena to this > power of the Devil, that outrival the “miracles” of the apostolic > ages. And what do we see this French author, notwithstanding his > incorrigible rationalism, forced to admit, after having narrated the > greatest wonders? Watch the fakirs as he would, he is compelled to > bear the strongest testimony to their perfect honesty in the matter > of their miraculous phenomena. “Never,” he says, “have we succeeded > in detecting a single one in the act of deceit.” One fact should be > noted by all who, without having been in India, still fancy they > are clever enough to expose the fraud of _pretended_ magicians. > This skilled and cool observer, this redoubtable materialist, after > his long sojourn in India, affirms, “We unhesitatingly avow that we > have not met, either in India or in Ceylon, a single European, even > among the oldest residents, who has been able to indicate the means > employed by these devotees for the production of these phenomena!” > > And how should they? Does not this zealous Orientalist confess to us > that even he, who had every available means at hand to learn many > of their rites and doctrines at first hand, failed in his attempts > to make the Brahmans explain to him their secrets. “All that our > most diligent inquiries of the Pourohitas could elicit from them > respecting the acts of their superiors (the invisible initiates of > the temples), amounts to very little.” And again, speaking of one of > the books, he confesses that, while purporting to reveal all that > is desirable to know, it “falls back into mysterious formulas, in > combinations of magical and occult letters, the secret of which it > has been impossible for us to penetrate,” etc. > > The fakirs, although they can never reach beyond the first degree of > initiation, are, notwithstanding, the only agents between the living > world and the “silent brothers,” or those initiates who never cross > the thresholds of their sacred dwellings. The Fūkara-Yogis belong > to the temples, and who knows but these cenobites of the sanctuary > have far more to do with the psychological phenomena which attend the > fakirs, and have been so graphically described by Jacolliot, than the > _Pitris_ themselves? Who can tell but that the fluidic spectre of the > ancient Brahman seen by Jacolliot was the Scin-lecca, the spiritual > _double_, of one of these mysterious sannyâsi? > > Although the story has been translated and commented upon by > Professor Perty, of Geneva, still we will venture to give it in > Jacolliot’s own words: “A moment after the disappearance of the > hands, the fakir continuing his evocations (_mantras_) more earnestly > than ever, a cloud like the first, but more opalescent and more > opaque, began to hover near the small brasier, which, by request of > the Hindu, I had constantly fed with live coals. Little by little it > assumed a form entire human, and I distinguished the spectre--for I > cannot call it otherwise--of an old Brahman sacrificator, kneeling > near the little brasier. > > “He bore on his forehead the signs sacred to Vishnu, and around his > body the triple cord, sign of the initiates of the priestly caste. He > joined his hands above his head, as during the sacrifices, and his > lips moved as if they were reciting prayers. At a given moment, he > took a pinch of perfumed powder, and threw it upon the coals; it must > have been a strong compound, for a thick smoke arose on the instant, > and filled the two chambers. > > “When it was dissipated, I perceived the spectre, which, two steps > from me, was extending to me its fleshless hand; I took it in mine, > making a salutation, and I was astonished to find it, although bony > and hard, warm and living. > > “‘Art thou, indeed,’ said I at this moment, in a loud voice, ‘an > ancient inhabitant of the earth?’ > > “I had not finished the question, when the word AM (yes) appeared > and then disappeared in letters of fire, on the breast of the old > Brahman, with an effect much like that which the word would produce > if written in the dark with a stick of phosphorus. > > “‘Will you leave me nothing in token of your visit?’ I continued. > > “The spirit broke the triple cord, composed of three strands of > cotton, which begirt his loins, gave it to me, and vanished at my > feet.”[160] > > “Oh Brahma! what is this mystery which takes place every night?... > When lying on the matting, with eyes closed, the body is lost > sight of, and the soul escapes to enter into conversation with the > Pitris.... Watch over it, O Brahma, when, forsaking the resting body, > it goes away to hover over the waters, to wander in the immensity > of heaven, and penetrate into the dark and mysterious nooks of the > valleys and grand forests of the Hymavat!” (_Agroushada Parikshai._) > > The fakirs, when belonging to some particular temple, never act but > under orders. Not one of them, unless he has reached a degree of > extraordinary sanctity, is freed from the influence and guidance of > his guru, his teacher, who first initiated and instructed him in > the mysteries of the _occult_ sciences. Like the _subject_ of the > European mesmerizer, the average fakir can never rid himself entirely > of the psychological influence exercised on him by his guru. Having > passed two or three hours in the silence and solitude of the inner > temple in prayer and meditation, the fakir, when he emerges thence, > is mesmerically strengthened and prepared; he produces wonders far > more varied and powerful than before he entered. The “master” has > _laid his hands upon him_, and the fakir feels strong. > > It may be shown, on the authority of many Brahmanical and Buddhist > sacred books, that there has ever existed a great difference between > adepts of the higher order, and purely psychological subjects--like > many of these fakirs, who are mediums in a certain qualified sense. > True, the fakir is ever talking of Pitris, and this is natural; for > they are his protecting deities. But are the Pitris _disembodied > human beings of our race_? This is the question, and we will discuss > it in a moment. > > We say that the fakir may be regarded in a degree as a medium; for he > is--what is not generally known--under the direct mesmeric influence > of a living adept, his sannyâsi or guru. When the latter dies, the > power of the former, unless he has received the last transfer of > spiritual forces, wanes and often even disappears. Why, if it were > otherwise, should the fakirs have been excluded from the right of > advancing to the second and third degree? The lives of many of them > exemplify a degree of self-sacrifice and sanctity unknown and utterly > incomprehensible to Europeans, who shudder at the bare thought of > such self-inflicted tortures. But however shielded from control by > vulgar and earth-bound spirits, however wide the chasm between a > debasing influence and their self-controlled souls; and however well > protected by the seven-knotted magical bamboo rod which he receives > from the guru, still the fakir lives in the outer world of sin and > matter, and it is possible that his soul may be tainted, perchance, > by the magnetic emanations from profane objects and persons, and > thereby open an access to strange spirits and _gods_. To admit one > so situated, one not under any and all circumstances sure of the > mastery over himself, to a knowledge of the awful mysteries and > priceless secrets of initiation, would be impracticable. It would > not only imperil the security of that which must, at all hazards, > be guarded from profanation, but it would be consenting to admit > behind the veil a fellow being, whose mediumistic irresponsibility > might at any moment cause him to lose his life through an involuntary > indiscretion. The same law which prevailed in the Eleusinian > Mysteries before our era, holds good now in India. > > Not only must the adept have mastery over himself, but he must > be able to control the inferior grades of spiritual beings, > nature-spirits, and earthbound souls, in short the very ones by whom, > if by any, the fakir is liable to be affected. > > For the objector to affirm that the Brahman-adepts and the fakirs > admit that of themselves they are powerless, and can only act with > the help of disembodied human spirits, is to state that these Hindus > are unacquainted with the laws of their sacred books and even the > meaning of the word _Pitris_. The _Laws of Manu_, the _Atharva-Veda_, > and other books, prove what we now say. “All that exists,” says the > _Atharva-Veda_, “is in the power of the gods. The gods are under the > power of magical conjurations. The magical conjurations are under > the control of the Brahmans. Hence the gods are in the power of the > Brahmans.” This is logical, albeit seemingly paradoxical, and it is > the fact. And this fact will explain to those who have not hitherto > had the clew (among whom Jacolliot must be numbered, as will appear > on reading his works), why the fakir should be confined to the first, > or lowest degree of that course of initiation whose highest adepts, > or hierophants, are the _sannyâsis_, or members of the ancient > Supreme Council of Seventy. > > Moreover, in Book I., of the Hindu _Genesis_, or _Book of Creation_ > of _Manu_, the _Pitris_ are called the _lunar_ ancestors of the human > race. They belong to a race of beings different from ourselves, and > cannot properly be called “human spirits” in the sense in which the > spiritualists use this term. This is what is said of them: > > “Then they (the gods) created the Jackshas, the Rakshasas, the > Pisatshas,[161] the Gandarbas[162] and the Apsaras, and the Asuras, > the Nagas, the Sarpas and the Suparnas,[163] and the Pitris--_lunar > ancestors of the human race_” (See _Institutes of Manu_, Book I., > sloka 37, where the Pitris are termed “progenitors of mankind”). > > The Pitris are a distinct race of spirits belonging to the > mythological hierarchy or rather to the kabalistical nomenclature, > and must be included with the good genii, the dæmons of the Greeks, > or the inferior gods of the invisible world; and when a fakir > attributes his phenomena to the Pitris, he means only what the > ancient philosophers and theurgists meant when they maintained > that all the “miracles” were obtained through the intervention of > the gods, or the good and bad dæmons, who control the powers of > nature, the _elementals_, who are subordinate to the power of him > “who knows.” A ghost or human phantom would be termed by a fakir > _palīt_, or _chutnā_, as that of a female human spirit _pichhalpāi_, > not _pitris_. True, _pitara_ means (plural) fathers, ancestors; and > pitrā-i is a kinsman; but these words are used in quite a different > sense from that of the Pitris invoked in the mantras. > > To maintain before a devout Brahman or a fakir that any one can > converse with the spirits of the dead, would be to shock him with > what would appear to him blasphemy. Does not the concluding verse of > the _Bagavat_ state that this supreme felicity is alone reserved to > the holy sannyâsis, the gurus, and yogis? > > “Long before they finally rid themselves of their mortal envelopes, > the souls who have practiced only good, such as those of the > sannyâsis and the vanaprasthas, acquire the faculty of conversing > with the souls which preceded them to the swarga.” > > In this case the Pitris instead of genii are the spirits, or rather > souls, of the departed ones. But they will freely communicate only > with those whose atmosphere is as pure as their own, and to whose > prayerful _kalassa_ (invocation) they can respond without the risk of > defiling their own celestial purity. When the soul of the invocator > has reached the _Sayadyam_, or perfect identity of essence with the > Universal Soul, when matter is utterly conquered, then the adept > can freely enter into daily and hourly communion with those who, > though unburdened with their corporeal forms, are still themselves > progressing through the endless series of transformations included in > the gradual approach to the Paramâtma, or the grand Universal Soul. > > Bearing in mind that the Christian fathers have always claimed for > themselves and their saints the name of “friends of God,” and knowing > that they borrowed this expression, with many others, from the > technology of the Pagan temples, it is but natural to expect them > to show an evil temper whenever alluding to these rites. Ignorant, > as a rule, and having had biographers as ignorant as themselves, we > could not well expect them to find in the accounts of their beatific > visions a descriptive beauty such as we find in the Pagan classics. > Whether the visions and objective phenomena claimed by both the > fathers of the desert and the hierophants of the sanctuary are to > be discredited, or accepted as facts, the splendid imagery employed > by Proclus and Apuleius in narrating the small portion of the final > initiation that they dared reveal, throws completely into the shade > the plagiaristic tales of the Christian ascetics, faithful _copies_ > though they were intended to be. The story of the temptation of St. > Anthony in the desert by the female demon, is a parody upon the > preliminary trials of the neophyte during the _Mikra_, or minor > Mysteries of Agræ--those rites at the thought of which Clemens railed > so bitterly, and which represented the bereaved Demeter in search of > her child, and her good-natured hostess Baubo.[164] > > Without entering again into a demonstration that in Christian, and > especially Irish Roman Catholic, churches[165] the same apparently > indecent customs as the above prevailed until the end of the last > century, we will recur to the untiring labors of that honest and > brave defender of the ancient faith, Thomas Taylor, and his works. > However much dogmatic Greek scholarship may have found to say > against his “mistranslations,” his memory must be dear to every > true Platonist, who seeks rather to learn the inner thought of the > great philosopher than enjoy the mere external mechanism of his > writings. Better classical translators may have rendered us, in more > correct phraseology, Plato’s _words_, but Taylor shows us Plato’s > _meaning_, and this is more than can be said of Zeller, Jowett, and > their predecessors. Yet, as writes Professor A. Wilder, “Taylor’s > works have met with favor at the hands of men capable of profound > and recondite thinking; and it must be conceded that he was endowed > with a superior qualification--that of an intuitive perception of the > interior meaning of the subjects which he considered. Others may have > known more Greek, but he knew more Plato.”[166] > > Taylor devoted his whole useful life to the search after such > old manuscripts as would enable him to have his own speculations > concerning several obscure rites in the Mysteries corroborated by > writers who had been initiated themselves. It is with full confidence > in the assertions of various classical writers that we say that > ridiculous, perhaps licentious in some cases, as may appear ancient > worship to the modern critic, it ought not to have so appeared to the > Christians. During the mediæval ages, and even later, they accepted > pretty nearly the same without understanding the secret import of > its rites, and quite satisfied with the obscure and rather fantastic > interpretations of their clergy, who accepted the exterior form > and distorted the inner meaning. We are ready to concede, in full > justice, that centuries have passed since the great majority of the > Christian clergy, who _are not allowed to pry into God’s mysteries > nor seek to explain_ that which the Church has once accepted and > established, have had the remotest idea of their symbolism, whether > in its exoteric or esoteric meaning. Not so with the head of the > Church and its highest dignitaries. And if we fully agree with > Inman that it is “difficult to believe that the ecclesiastics who > sanctioned the publication of such prints[167] could have been as > ignorant as modern ritualists,” we are not at all prepared to believe > with the same author “that the latter, if they knew the real meaning > of the symbols commonly used by the Roman Church, would _not_ have > adopted them.” > > To eliminate what is plainly derived from the sex and nature worship > of the ancient heathens, would be equivalent to pulling down the > whole Roman Catholic image-worship--the _Madonna_ element--and > reforming the faith to Protestantism. The enforcement of the late > dogma of the Immaculation was prompted by this very secret reason. > The science of symbology was making too rapid progress. Blind > faith in the Pope’s infallibility and in the immaculate nature > of the Virgin and _of her ancestral female lineage to a certain > remove_ could alone save the Church from the indiscreet revelations > of science. It was a clever stroke of policy on the part of the > vicegerent of God. What matters it if, by “conferring upon her such > an honor,” as Don Pascale de Franciscis naïvely expresses it, he has > made a goddess of the Virgin Mary, an Olympian Deity, who, having > been by her very nature placed in the impossibility of sinning, > can claim no virtue, no personal merit for her purity, precisely > for which, as we were taught to believe in our younger days, she > was chosen among all other women. If his Holiness has deprived her > of this, perhaps, on the other hand, he thinks that he has endowed > her with at least one physical attribute not shared by the other > virgin-goddesses. But even this new dogma, which, in company with the > new claim to _infallibility_, has quasi-revolutionized the Christian > world, is not original with the Church of Rome. It is but a return to > a hardly-remembered _heresy_ of the early Christian ages, that of the > Collyridians, so called from their _sacrificing cakes_ to the Virgin, > whom they claimed to _be Virgin-born_.[168] The new sentence, “O, > Virgin Mary, _conceived without sin_,” is simply a tardy acceptance > of that which was at first deemed a “_blasphemous heresie_” by the > orthodox fathers. > > To think for one moment that any of the popes, cardinals, or other > high dignitaries “were not aware” from the first to the last of the > external meanings of their symbols, is to do injustice to their > great learning and their spirit of Machiavellism. It is to forget > that the emissaries of Rome will never be stopped by any difficulty > which can be skirted by the employment of Jesuitical artifice. > The policy of complaisant conformity was never carried to greater > lengths than by the missionaries in Ceylon, who, according to the > Abbé Dubois--certainly a learned and competent authority--“conducted > the images of the Virgin and Saviour on triumphal cars, imitated > from the orgies of Juggernauth, and introduced the dancers from the > Brahminical rites into the ceremonial of the church.”[169] Let us at > least thank these black-frocked politicians for their consistency in > employing the car of Juggernauth, upon which the “wicked heathen” > convey the _lingham_ of Siva. To have used _this_ car to carry in its > turn the Romish representative of the female principle in nature, > is to show discrimination and a thorough knowledge of the oldest > mythological conceptions. They have blended the two deities, and thus > represented, in a Christian procession, the “heathen” Brahma, or Nara > (the father), Nari (the mother), and Viradj (the son). > > Says Manu: “The Sovereign Master who exists through himself, divides > his body into two halves, male and female, and from the union of > these two principles is born Viradj, the Son.”[170] > > There was not a Christian Father who could have been ignorant of > these symbols in their physical meaning; for it is in this latter > aspect that they were abandoned to the ignorant rabble. Moreover, > they all had as good reasons to suspect the occult symbolism > contained in these images; although as none of them--Paul excepted, > perhaps--had been initiated they could know nothing whatever about > the nature of the final rites. Any person revealing these mysteries > was put to death, regardless of sex, nationality, or creed. A > Christian father would no more be proof against _an accident_ than a > Pagan _Mysta_ or the Μύστης. > > If during the _Aporreta_ or preliminary arcanes, there were some > practices which might have shocked the pudicity of a Christian > convert--though we doubt the sincerity of such statements--their > mystical symbolism was all sufficient to relieve the performance > of any charge of licentiousness. Even the episode of the Matron > Baubo--whose rather eccentric method of consolation was immortalized > in the minor Mysteries--is explained by impartial mystagogues quite > naturally. Ceres-Demeter and her earthly wanderings in search of > her daughter are the euhemerized descriptions of one of the most > metaphysico-psychological subjects ever treated of by human mind. > It is a mask for the transcendent narrative of the initiated seers; > the celestial vision of the freed soul of the initiate of the last > hour describing the process by which the soul that has not yet been > incarnated descends for the first time into matter, “Blessed is he > who hath seen those _common concerns_ of the underworld; he knows > both the end of life and its divine origin from Jupiter,” says > Pindar. Taylor shows, on the authority of more than one initiate, > that the “dramatic performances of the Lesser Mysteries were > designed by their founders, to signify _occultly_ the condition of > the unpurified soul invested with an earthly body, and enveloped > in a material and physical nature ... that the soul, indeed, till > purified by philosophy, suffers death through its union with the > body.” > > The body is the sepulchre, the prison of the soul, and many Christian > Fathers held with Plato that the soul is _punished_ through its union > with the body. Such is the fundamental doctrine of the Buddhists and > of many Brahmanists too. When Plotinus remarks that “when the soul > has descended into generation (from its _half_-divine condition) > she partakes of evil, and is carried a great way into a state the > opposite of her first purity and integrity, to be entirely merged > in which is nothing more than to fall into dark mire;”[171] he only > repeats the teachings of Gautama-Buddha. If we have to believe the > ancient initiates at all, we must accept their interpretation of the > symbols. And if, moreover, we find them perfectly coinciding with > the teachings of the greatest philosophers and that which we know > symbolizes the same meaning in the modern Mysteries in the East, we > must believe them to be right. > > If Demeter was considered the intellectual soul, or rather the > _Astral_ soul, half emanation from the spirit and half tainted with > matter through a succession of spiritual evolutions--we may readily > understand what is meant by the Matron Baubo, the Enchantress, who > before she succeeds in reconciling the soul--Demeter, to its new > position, finds herself obliged to assume the sexual forms of an > infant. Baubo is _matter_, the physical body; and the intellectual, > as yet pure astral soul can be ensnared into its new terrestrial > prison but by the display of innocent babyhood. Until then, doomed to > her fate, Demeter, or _Magna-mater_, the Soul, wonders and hesitates > and suffers; but once having partaken of the magic potion prepared > by Baubo, she forgets her sorrows; for a certain time she parts with > that consciousness of higher intellect that she was possessed of > before entering the body of a child. Thenceforth she must seek to > rejoin it again; and when the age of reason arrives for the child, > the struggle--forgotten for a few years of infancy--begins again. The > astral soul is placed between matter (body) and the highest intellect > (its immortal spirit or _nous_). Which of those two will conquer? The > result of the battle of life lies between the triad. It is a question > of a few years of physical enjoyment on earth and--if it has begotten > abuse--of the dissolution of the earthly body being followed by death > of the astral body, which thus is prevented from being united with > the highest spirit of the triad, which alone confers on us individual > immortality; or, on the other hand, of becoming immortal mystæ; > initiated before death of the body into the divine truths of the > after life. Demi-gods below, and GODS above. > > Such was the chief object of the Mysteries represented as diabolical > by theology, and ridiculed by modern symbologists. To disbelieve that > there exist in man certain arcane powers, which, by psychological > study he can develop in himself to the highest degree, become an > hierophant and then impart to others under the same conditions of > earthly discipline, is to cast an imputation of falsehood and lunacy > upon a number of the best, purest, and most learned men of antiquity > and of the middle ages. What the hierophant was allowed to see at the > last hour is hardly hinted at by them. And yet Pythagoras, Plato, > Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, and many others knew and affirmed > their reality. > > Whether in the “inner temple,” or through the study of theurgy > carried on privately, or by the sole exertion of a whole life of > spiritual labor, they all obtained the practical proof of such divine > possibilities for man fighting his battle with life on earth to win a > life in the eternity. What the last _epopteia_ was is alluded to by > Plato in _Phædrus_ (64); “... being initiated in those _Mysteries_, > which it is lawful to call the most blessed of all mysteries ... we > were freed from the molestations of evils which otherwise await us > in a future period of time. Likewise, in consequence of this divine > _initiation_, we became _spectators_ of entire, simple, immovable, > and _blessed visions_, resident in a pure light.” This sentence shows > that they saw _visions_, gods, spirits. As Taylor correctly observes, > from all such passages in the works of the initiates it may be > inferred, “that the most sublime part of the _epopteia_ ... consisted > in beholding the gods themselves invested with a resplendent light,” > or highest planetary spirits. The statement of Proclus upon this > subject is unequivocal: “In all the initiations and mysteries, the > gods exhibit many forms of themselves, and appear in _a variety of > shapes_, and sometimes, indeed, a formless light of themselves is > held forth to the view; sometimes this light is according _to a human > form_, and sometimes it proceeds into a different shape.”[172] > > “Whatever is _on earth is the resemblance and_ SHADOW _of something > that is in the sphere_, while that resplendent thing (the prototype > of the soul-spirit) remaineth in _unchangeable_ condition, it is well > also with its shadow. But when the _resplendent one_ removeth far > from its shadow life removeth from the latter to a distance. And yet, > that very light is the shadow of something still more resplendent > than itself.” Thus speaks _Desatir_, the Persian _Book of Shet_,[173] > thereby showing its identity of esoteric doctrines with those of the > Greek philosophers. > > The second statement of Plato confirms our belief that the Mysteries > of the ancients were identical with the Initiations, as practiced > now among the Buddhists and the Hindu adepts. The highest visions, > the most _truthful_, are produced, not through _natural_ ecstatics > or “mediums,” as it is sometimes erroneously asserted, but through > a regular discipline of gradual initiations and development of > psychical powers. The Mystæ were brought into close union with > those whom Proclus calls “mystical natures,” “resplendent gods,” > because, as Plato says, “we were ourselves pure and immaculate, being > liberated from this _surrounding vestment_, which we denominate body, > and to which we are now bound like an oyster to its shell.”[174] > > So the doctrine of planetary and terrestrial Pitris was revealed > _entirely_ in ancient India, as well as now, only at the last moment > of initiation, and to the adepts of superior degrees. Many are the > fakirs, who, though pure, and honest, and self-devoted, have yet > never seen the astral form of a purely _human pitar_ (an ancestor or > father), otherwise than at the solemn moment of their first and last > initiation. It is in the presence of his instructor, the guru, and > just before the _vatou_-fakir is dispatched into the world of the > living, with his seven-knotted bamboo wand for all protection, that > he is suddenly placed face to face with the unknown PRESENCE. He sees > it, and falls prostrate at the feet of the evanescent form, but is > not entrusted with the great secret of its evocation; for it is the > supreme mystery of the holy syllable. The AUM contains the evocation > of the Vedic triad, the _Trimurti_ Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, say the > Orientalists;[175] it contains the evocation of _something more real > and objective than this triune abstraction_--we say, respectfully > contradicting the eminent scientists. It is the trinity of man > himself, on his way to become immortal through the solemn union of > his inner triune SELF--the exterior, gross body, the husk not even > being taken in consideration in this human trinity.[176] It is, > when this trinity, in anticipation of the final triumphant reunion > beyond the gates of corporeal death became for a few seconds a UNITY, > that the candidate is allowed, at the moment of the initiation, to > behold his future self. Thus we read in the Persian _Desatir_, of > the “Resplendent one;” in the Greek philosopher-initiates, of the > Augoeides--the self-shining “blessed vision resident in the pure > light;” in Porphyry, that Plotinus was united to his “god” six times > during his lifetime; and so on. > > “In ancient India, the mystery of the triad, known but to the > initiates, could not, under the penalty of death, be revealed to the > vulgar,” says Vrihaspati. > > Neither could it in the ancient Grecian and Samothracian Mysteries. > _Nor can it be now._ It is in the hands of the adepts, and must > remain a mystery to the world so long as the materialistic savant > regards it as an undemonstrated fallacy, an insane hallucination, and > the dogmatic theologian, a snare of the Evil One. > > _Subjective_ communication with the human, god-like spirits of those > who have preceded us to the silent land of bliss, is in India divided > into three categories. Under the spiritual training of a guru or > sannyâsi, the vatou (disciple or neophyte) begins _to feel_ them. > Were he not under the immediate guidance of an adept, he would be > controlled by the invisibles, and utterly at their mercy, for among > these subjective influences he is unable to discern the good from the > bad. Happy the sensitive who is sure of the purity of his spiritual > atmosphere! > > To this subjective consciousness, which is the _first_ degree, is, > after a time, added that of clairaudience. This is the _second_ > degree or stage of development. The sensitive--when not naturally > made so by psychological training--now audibly hears, but is still > unable to discern; and is incapable of verifying his impressions, and > one who is unprotected the tricky powers of the air but too often > delude with semblances of voices and speech. But the guru’s influence > is there; it is the most powerful shield against the intrusion of the > _bhutná_ into the atmosphere of the vatou, consecrated to the pure, > human, and celestial Pitris. > > The _third_ degree is that when the fakir or any other candidate > both feels, hears, and sees; and when he can at will produce the > _reflections_ of the Pitris on the mirror of astral light. All > depends upon his psychological and mesmeric powers, which are always > proportionate to the intensity of his _will_. But the fakir will > never control the Akasa, the spiritual life-principle, the omnipotent > agent of every phenomenon, in the same degree as an adept of the > third and highest initiation. And the phenomena produced by the > will of the latter do not generally run the market-places for the > satisfaction of open-mouthed investigators. > > The unity of God, the immortality of the spirit, belief in salvation > only through our works, merit and demerit; such are the principal > articles of faith of the Wisdom-religion, and the ground work of > Vedaism, Buddhism, Parsism, and such we find to have been even that > of the ancient Osirism, when we, after abandoning the popular sun-god > to the materialism of the rabble, confine our attention to the _Books > of Hermes_, the thrice-great. > > “The THOUGHT concealed as yet the world in silence and darkness.... > Then the Lord who exists through Himself, and _who is not to be > divulged to the external senses of man_; dissipated darkness, and > manifested the perceptible world.” > > “He that can be perceived only by the spirit, that escapes the > organs of sense, who is without visible parts, eternal, the soul of > all beings, that none can comprehend, displayed His own splendor” > (_Manu_, book i., slokas, 6-7). > > Such is the ideal of the Supreme in the mind of every Hindu > philosopher. > > “Of all the duties, the principal one is to acquire the knowledge of > the supreme soul (the spirit); it is the first of all sciences, _for > it alone confers on man immortality_” (_Manu_, book xii., sloka 85). > > And our scientists talk of the Nirvana of Buddha and the Moksha of > Brahma as of a complete annihilation! It is thus that the following > verse is interpreted by some materialists. > > “The man who recognizes the _Supreme Soul_, in his own soul, as well > as in that of all creatures, and who is equally just to all (whether > man or animals) obtains the happiest of all fates, that to be finally > _absorbed_ in the bosom of Brahma” (_Manu_, book xii., sloka 125). > > The doctrine of the Moksha and the Nirvana, as understood by the > school of Max Müller, can never bear confronting with numerous > texts that can be found, if required, as a final refutation. There > are sculptures in many pagodas which contradict, point-blank, the > imputation. Ask a Brahman to explain Moksha, address yourself to > an educated Buddhist and pray him to define for you the meaning of > Nirvana. Both will answer you that in every one of these religions > Nirvana represents the dogma of the spirit’s immortality. That, > to reach the Nirvana means absorption into the great universal > soul, the latter representing a _state_, not an individual being > or an anthropomorphic god, as some understand the great EXISTENCE. > That a spirit reaching such a state becomes a _part_ of the > integral _whole_, but never loses its individuality for all that. > Henceforth, the spirit lives spiritually, without any fear of further > modifications of form; for form pertains to matter, and the state of > _Nirvana_ implies a complete purification or a final riddance from > even the most sublimated particle of matter. > > This word, _absorbed_, when it is proved that the Hindus and > Buddhists believe in the _immortality_ of the spirit, must > necessarily mean intimate union, not annihilation. Let Christians > call them idolaters, if they still dare do so, in the face of science > and the latest translations of the sacred Sanscrit books; they have > no right to present the speculative philosophy of ancient sages as > an inconsistency and the philosophers themselves as illogical fools. > With far better reason we can accuse the ancient Jews of utter > _nihilism_. There is not a word contained in the Books of Moses--or > the prophets either--which, taken literally, implies the spirit’s > immortality. Yet every devout Jew hopes as well to be “gathered into > the bosom of A-Braham.” > > The hierophants and some Brahmans are accused of having administered > to their epoptai strong drinks or anæsthetics to produce visions > which shall be taken by the latter as realities. They did and do use > sacred beverages which, like the Soma-drink, possess the faculty > of freeing the astral form from the bonds of matter; but in those > visions there is as little to be attributed to hallucination as > in the glimpses which the scientist, by the help of his optical > instrument, gets into the microscopic world. A man cannot perceive, > touch, and converse with pure spirit through any of his bodily > senses. Only spirit alone can talk to and see spirit; and even our > astral soul, the _Doppelganger_, is too gross, too much tainted > yet with earthly matter to trust entirely to its perceptions and > insinuations. > > How dangerous may often become _untrained_ mediumship, and how > thoroughly it was understood and provided against by the ancient > sages, is perfectly exemplified in the case of Socrates. The old > Grecian philosopher was a “medium;” hence, he had never been > initiated into the Mysteries; for such was the rigorous law. But he > had his “familiar spirit” as they call it, his _daimonion_; and this > invisible counsellor became the cause of his death. It is generally > believed that if he was not initiated into the Mysteries it was > because he himself neglected to become so. But the _Secret Records_ > teach us that it was because he could not be admitted to participate > in the sacred rites, and precisely, as we state, on account of his > mediumship. There was a law against the admission not only of such > as were convicted of deliberate _witchcraft_[177] but even of those > who were known to have “a familiar spirit.” The law was just and > logical, because a genuine medium is more or less irresponsible; > and the eccentricities of Socrates are thus accounted for in some > degree. A medium must be _passive_; and if a firm believer in his > “spirit-guide” he will allow himself to be ruled by the latter, > not by the rules of the sanctuary. A _medium_ of olden times, like > the modern “medium” was subject to be _entranced_ at the will and > pleasure of the “power” which _controlled_ him; therefore, he could > not well have been entrusted with the awful secrets of the final > initiation, “never to be revealed under the penalty of death.” The > old sage, in unguarded moments of “spiritual inspiration,” revealed > that which he had never learned; and was therefore put to death as an > atheist. > > How then, with such an instance as that of Socrates, in relation > to the visions and spiritual wonders at the epoptai, of the Inner > Temple, can any one assert that these seers, theurgists, and > thaumaturgists were all “spirit-mediums?” Neither Pythagoras, > Plato, nor any of the later more important Neo-platonists; neither > Iamblichus, Longinus, Proclus, nor Apollonius of Tyana, were ever > mediums; for in such case they would not have been admitted to > the Mysteries at all. As Taylor proves--“This assertion of divine > visions in the Mysteries is clearly confirmed by Plotinus. And in > short, that magical evocation formed a part of the sacerdotal office > in them, and that this was universally believed by all antiquity > long before the era of the later Platonists,” shows that apart from > natural “mediumship,” there has existed, from the beginning of time, > a mysterious science, discussed by many, but known only to a few. > > The use of it is a longing toward our only true and real home--the > after-life, and a desire to cling more closely to our parent spirit; > abuse of it is sorcery, witchcraft, _black_ magic. Between the two is > placed natural “mediumship;” a soul clothed with imperfect matter, a > ready agent for either the one or the other, and utterly dependent > on its surroundings of life, constitutional heredity--physical as > well as mental--and on the nature of the “spirits” it attracts around > itself. A blessing or a curse, as fate will have it, unless the > medium is purified of earthly dross. > > The reason why in every age so little has been generally known of > the mysteries of initiation, is twofold. The first has already been > explained by more than one author, and lies in the terrible penalty > following the least indiscretion. The second, is the superhuman > difficulties and even dangers which the daring candidate of old > had to encounter, and either conquer, or die in the attempt, when, > what is still worse, he did not lose his reason. There was no real > danger to him whose mind had become thoroughly spiritualized, and > so prepared for every terrific sight. He who fully recognized the > power of his immortal spirit, and never doubted for one moment its > omnipotent protection, had naught to fear. But woe to the candidate > in whom the slightest physical fear--sickly child of matter--made > him lose sight and faith in his own invulnerability. He who was not > wholly confident of his moral fitness to accept the burden of these > tremendous secrets was doomed. > > The _Talmud_ gives the story of the four Tanaïm, who are made, in > allegorical terms, to enter into _the garden of delights_; _i.e._, to > be initiated into the occult and final science. > > “According to the teaching of our holy masters the names of the four > who entered the garden of delight, are: Ben Asai, Ben Zoma, Acher, > and Rabbi Akiba.... > > “Ben Asai looked and--lost his sight. > > “Ben Zoma looked and--lost his reason. > > “Acher made depredations in the plantation” (mixed up the whole and > failed). “But Akiba, who had entered in peace, came out of it in > peace, for the saint whose name be blessed had said, ‘This old man is > worthy of serving us with glory.’” > > “The learned commentators of the _Talmud_, the Rabbis of the > synagogue, explain that the _garden of delight_, in which those > four personages are made to enter, is but that mysterious science, > the most terrible of sciences _for weak intellects, which it leads > directly to insanity_,” says A. Franck, in his _Kabbala_. It is not > the pure at heart and he who studies but with a view to perfecting > himself and so more easily acquiring the promised immortality, > who need have any fear; but rather he who makes of the science of > sciences a sinful pretext for worldly motives, who should tremble. > _The latter will never withstand the kabalistic evocations of the > supreme initiation._ > > The licentious performances of the thousand and one early Christian > sects, may be criticised by partial commentators as well as the > ancient Eleusinian and other rites. But why should they incur the > blame of the theologians, the Christians, when their own “Mysteries” > of “the divine incarnation with Joseph, Mary, and the angel” in > a sacred _trilogue_ used to be enacted in more than one country, > and were famous at one time in Spain and Southern France? Later, > they fell like many other once secret rites into the hands of the > populace. It is but a few years since, during every Christmas week, > Punch-and-Judy-boxes, containing the above named personages, an > additional display of the infant Jesus in his manger, were carried > about the country in Poland and Southern Russia. They were called > _Kaliadovki_, a word the correct etymology of which we are unable > to give unless it is from the verb _Kaliadovât_, a word that we as > willingly abandon to learned philologists. We have seen this show in > our days of childhood. We remember the three king-Magi represented > by three dolls in powdered wigs and colored tights; and it is from > recollecting the simple, profound veneration depicted on the faces > of the pious audience, that we can the more readily appreciate the > honest and just remark by the editor, in the introduction to the > _Eleusinian Mysteries_, who says: “It is ignorance which leads to > profanation. Men ridicule what they do not properly understand.... > The undercurrent of this world is set toward one goal; and inside of > human credulity--call it human weakness, if you please--is a power > almost infinite, a holy faith capable of apprehending the supremest > truths of all existence.” > > If that abstract sentiment called _Christian charity_ prevailed in > the Church, we would be well content to leave all this unsaid. We > have no quarrel with Christians whose faith is sincere and whose > practice coincides with their profession. But with an arrogant, > dogmatic, and dishonest clergy, we have nothing to do except to see > the ancient philosophy--antagonized by modern theology in its puny > offspring--Spiritualism--defended and righted so far as we are able, > so that its grandeur and sufficiency may be thoroughly displayed. It > is not alone for the esoteric philosophy that we fight; nor for any > modern system of moral philosophy, but for the inalienable right of > private judgment, and especially for the ennobling idea of a future > life of activity and accountability. > > We eagerly applaud such commentators as Godfrey Higgins, Inman, Payne > Knight, King, Dunlap, and Dr. Newton, however much they disagree > with our own mystical views, for their diligence is constantly being > rewarded by fresh discoveries of the Pagan paternity of Christian > symbols. But otherwise, all these learned works are useless. Their > researches only cover half the ground. Lacking the true key of > interpretation they see the symbols only in a physical aspect. They > have no password to cause the gates of mystery to swing open; and > ancient spiritual philosophy is to them a closed book. Diametrically > opposed though they be to the clergy in their ideas respecting it, in > the way of interpretation they do little more than their opponents > for a questioning public. Their labors tend to strengthen materialism > as those of the clergy, especially the Romish clergy, do to cultivate > belief in diabolism. > > If the study of Hermetic philosophy held out no other hope of reward, > it would be more than enough to know that by it we may learn with > what perfection of justice the world is governed. A sermon upon this > text is preached by every page of history. Among all there is not > one that conveys a deeper moral than the case of the Roman Church. > The divine law of compensation was never more strikingly exemplified > than in the fact that by her own act she has deprived herself of > the only possible key to her own religious mysteries. The assumption > of Godfrey Higgins that there are two doctrines maintained in the > Roman Church, one for the masses and the other--the esoteric--for the > “perfect,” or the initiates, as in the ancient Mysteries, appears > to us unwarranted and rather fantastic. They have lost the key, we > repeat; otherwise no terrestrial power could have prostrated her, and > except a superficial knowledge of the means of producing “miracles,” > her clergy can in no way be compared in their wisdom with the > hierophants of old. > > In burning the works of the theurgists; in proscribing those who > affect their study; in affixing the stigma of demonolatry to magic > in general, Rome has left her exoteric worship and _Bible_ to be > helplessly riddled by every free-thinker, her sexual emblems to be > identified with coarseness, and her priests to unwittingly turn > magicians and even sorcerers in their exorcisms, which are but > necromantic evocations. Thus retribution, by the exquisite adjustment > of divine law, is made to overtake this scheme of cruelty, injustice, > and bigotry, through her own suicidal acts. > > True philosophy and divine truth are convertible terms. A religion > which dreads the light cannot be a religion based on either truth > or philosophy--hence, it must be false. The ancient Mysteries were > mysteries to the profane only, whom the hierophant never sought nor > would accept as proselytes; to the initiates the Mysteries became > explained as soon as the final veil was withdrawn. No mind like > that of Pythagoras or Plato would have contented itself with an > unfathomable and incomprehensible mystery, like that of the Christian > dogma. There can be but one truth, for two small truths on the same > subject can but constitute one great error. Among thousands of > exoteric or popular conflicting religions which have been propagated > since the days when the first men were enabled to interchange their > ideas, not a nation, not a people, nor the most abject tribe, but > after their own fashion has believed in an Unseen God, the First > Cause of unerring and immutable laws, and in the immortality of our > spirit. No creed, no false philosophy, no religious exaggerations, > could ever destroy that feeling. It must, therefore, be based upon > an absolute truth. On the other hand, every one of the numberless > religions and religious sects views the Deity after its own fashion; > and, fathering on the unknown its own speculations, it enforces these > purely human outgrowths of overheated imagination on the ignorant > masses, and calls them “revelation.” As the dogmas of every religion > and sect often differ radically, they cannot be _true_. And if > untrue, what are they? > > “The greatest curse to a nation,” remarks Dr. Inman, “is not _a bad > religion_, but a form of faith which prevents manly inquiry. I know > of no nation of old that was priest-ridden which did not fall under > the swords of those who did not care for hierarchs.... The greatest > danger is to be feared from those ecclesiastics who wink at vice, > and encourage it as a means whereby they can gain power over their > votaries. So long as every man does to other men as he would that > they should do to him, and _allows no one to interfere between him > and his Maker_, all will go well with the world.”[178] > > CHAPTER III. > > “KING.--Let us from point to point this story know.” > --_All’s Well That Ends Well._--Act v., Scene 3. > > “He is the One, self-proceeding; and from Him all things proceed. > And in them He Himself exerts His activity; no mortal > BEHOLDS HIM, but HE beholds all!”--_Orphic Hymn._ > > “And Athens, O Athena, is thy own! > Great Goddess hear! and on my darkened mind > Pour thy pure light in measure unconfined; > That sacred light, O all-proceeding Queen, > Which beams eternal from thy face serene. > My soul, while wand’ring on the earth, inspire > With thy own blessed and impulsive fire!” > --PROCLUS; TAYLOR: _To Minerva_. > > “Now _faith_ is the substance of things.... By faith the harlot > Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had > _received the spies in peace_.”--_Hebrews_ xi. 1, 31. > > “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man hath faith, and have > not works? _Can_ FAITH _save him_?... Likewise also was not Rahab > the harlot _justified by works_, when she had received the > messengers, and had sent them out another way?”--_James_ ii. 14, 25. > > Clement describes Basilides, the Gnostic, as “a philosopher devoted > to the contemplation of divine things.” This very appropriate > expression may be applied to many of the founders of the more > important sects which later were all engulfed in one--that stupendous > compound of unintelligible dogmas enforced by Irenæus, Tertullian, > and others, which is now termed Christianity. _If these must be > called heresies, then early Christianity itself must be included > in the number._ Basilides and Valentinus preceded Irenæus and > Tertullian; and the two latter Fathers had less facts than the > two former Gnostics to show that their _heresy_ was plausible. > Neither divine right nor truth brought about the triumph of their > Christianity; fate alone was propitious. We can assert, with entire > plausibility, that there is not one of all these sects--Kabalism, > Judaism, and our present Christianity included--but sprung from > the two main branches of that one mother-trunk, the once universal > religion, which antedated the Vedaic ages--we speak of that > prehistoric Buddhism which merged later into Brahmanism. > > The religion which the primitive teaching of the early few apostles > most resembled--a religion preached by Jesus himself--is the elder of > these two, Buddhism. The latter as taught in its primitive purity, > and carried to perfection by the last of the Buddhas, Gautama, based > its moral ethics on three fundamental principles. It alleged that > 1, every thing existing, exists from natural causes; 2, that virtue > brings its own reward, and vice and sin their own punishment; and, > 3, that the state of man in this world is probationary. We might > add that on these three principles rested the universal foundation > of every religious creed; God, and individual immortality for > every man--if he could but win it. However puzzling the subsequent > theological tenets; however seemingly incomprehensible the > metaphysical abstractions which have convulsed the theology of every > one of the great religions of mankind as soon as it was placed on a > sure footing, the above is found to be the essence of every religious > philosophy, with the exception of later Christianity. It was that > of Zoroaster, of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Jesus, and even of Moses, > albeit the teachings of the Jewish law-giver have been so piously > tampered with. > > We will devote the present chapter mainly to a brief survey of the > numerous sects which have recognized themselves as Christians; that > is to say, that have believed in a _Christos_, or an ANOINTED ONE. > We will also endeavor to explain the latter appellation from the > kabalistic standpoint, and show it reappearing in every religious > system. It might be profitable, at the same time, to see how much the > earliest apostles--Paul and Peter, agreed in their preaching of the > new Dispensation. We will begin with Peter. > > We must once more return to that greatest of all the Patristic > frauds; the one which has undeniably helped the Roman Catholic Church > to its unmerited supremacy, viz.: the barefaced assertion, in the > teeth of historical evidence, that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. > It is but too natural that the Latin clergy should cling to it, for, > with the exposure of the fraudulent nature of this pretext, the dogma > of apostolic succession must fall to the ground. > > There have been many able works of late, in refutation of this > preposterous claim. Among others we note Mr. G. Reber’s, _The Christ > of Paul_, which overthrows it quite ingeniously. The author proves, > 1, that there was no church established at Rome, until the reign > of Antoninus Pius; 2, that as Eusebius and Irenæus both agree that > Linus was the second Bishop of Rome, into whose hands “the blessed > apostles” Peter and Paul committed the church after building it, > it could not have been at any other time than between A.D. 64 and > 68; 3, that this interval of years happens during the reign of > Nero, for Eusebius states that Linus held this office twelve years > (_Ecclesiastical History_, book iii., c. 13), entering upon it A.D. > 69, one year after the death of Nero, and dying himself in 81. After > that the author maintains, on very solid grounds, that Peter could > not be in Rome A.D. 64, for he was then in Babylon; wherefrom he > wrote his first Epistle, the date of which is fixed by Dr. Lardner > and other critics at precisely this year. But we believe that his > best argument is in proving that it was not in the character of the > cowardly Peter to risk himself in such close neighborhood with Nero, > who “was feeding the wild beasts of the Amphitheatre with the flesh > and bones of Christians”[179] at that time. > > Perhaps the Church of Rome was but consistent in choosing as her > titular founder the apostle who thrice denied his master at the > moment of danger; and the only one, moreover, except Judas, who > provoked Christ in such a way as to be addressed as the “Enemy.” > “Get thee behind me, SATAN!” exclaims Jesus, rebuking the taunting > apostle.[180] > > There is a tradition in the Greek Church which has never found favor > at the Vatican. The former traces its origin to one of the Gnostic > leaders--Basilides, perhaps, who lived under Trajan and Adrian, at > the end of the first and the beginning of the second century. With > regard to this particular tradition, if the Gnostic is Basilides, > then he must be accepted as a sufficient authority, having claimed > to have been a disciple of the Apostle Matthew, and to have had for > master Glaucias, a disciple of St. Peter himself. Were the narrative > attributed to him authenticated, the London Committee for the > Revision of the Bible would have to add a new verse to _Matthew_, > _Mark_, and _John_, who tell the story of Peter’s denial of Christ. > > This tradition, then, of which we have been speaking, affirms that, > when frightened at the accusation of the servant of the high priest, > the apostle had thrice denied his master, and the cock had crowed, > Jesus, who was then passing through the hall in custody of the > soldiers, turned, and, looking at Peter, said: “Verily, I say unto > thee, Peter, thou shalt deny me throughout the coming ages, and never > stop until thou shalt be old, and shalt stretch forth thy hands, and > another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldst not.” The > latter part of this sentence, say the Greeks, relates to the Church > of Rome, and prophesies her constant apostasy from Christ, under the > mask of false religion. Later, it was inserted in the twenty-first > chapter of _John_, but the whole of this chapter had been pronounced > a forgery, even before it was found that this _Gospel_ was never > written by John the Apostle at all. > > The anonymous author of _Supernatural Religion_, a work which in > two years passed through several editions, and which is alleged to > have been written by an eminent theologian, proves conclusively > the spuriousness of the four gospels, or at least their complete > transformation in the hands of the too-zealous Irenæus and his > champions. The fourth gospel is completely upset by this able author; > the extraordinary forgeries of the Fathers of the early centuries > are plainly demonstrated, and the relative value of the synoptics > is discussed with an unprecedented power of logic. The work carries > conviction in its every line. From it we quote the following: “We > gain infinitely more than we lose in abandoning belief in the > reality of Divine Revelation. Whilst we retain, pure and unimpaired, > the treasure of Christian morality, we relinquish nothing but the > debasing elements added to it by human superstition. We are no > longer bound to believe a theology which outrages reason and moral > sense. We are freed from base anthropomorphic views of God and His > government of the Universe, and from Jewish Mythology we rise to > higher conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being, hidden > from our finite minds, it is true, in the impenetrable glory of > Divinity, but whose laws of wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection > we ever perceive in operation around us.... The argument so often > employed by theologians, that Divine revelation is necessary for man, > and that certain views contained in that revelation are required for > our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary, and derived from the > revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing absolutely > necessary for man is TRUTH, and to that, and that alone, must our > moral consciousness adapt itself.”[181] > > We will consider farther in what light was regarded the Divine > revelation of the Jewish _Bible_ by the Gnostics, who yet believed > in Christ in their own way, a far better and less blasphemous one > than the Roman Catholic. The Fathers have forced on the believers > in Christ a _Bible_, the laws prescribed in which he was the first > to break; the teachings of which he utterly rejected; and for which > crimes he was finally crucified. Of whatever else the Christian world > can boast, it can hardly claim logic and consistency as its chief > virtues. > > The fact alone that Peter remained to the last an “apostle of the > circumcision,” speaks for itself. _Whosoever else might have built > the Church of Rome it was not Peter._ If such were the case, the > successors of this apostle would have to submit themselves to > circumcision, if it were but for the sake of consistency, and to > show that the claims of the popes are not utterly groundless, Dr. > Inman asserts that report says that “in our Christian times popes > have to be privately perfect,”[182] but we do not know whether it is > carried to the extent of the Levitical Jewish law. The first fifteen > Christian bishops of Jerusalem, commencing with James and including > Judas, were all circumcised Jews.[183] > > In the _Sepher Toldos Jeshu_,[184] a Hebrew manuscript of great > antiquity, the version about Peter is different. Simon Peter, it > says, was one of their own brethren, though he had somewhat departed > from the laws, and the Jewish hatred and persecution of the apostle > seems to have existed but in the fecund imagination of the fathers. > The author speaks of him with great respect and fairness, calling > him “a faithful servant of the living God,” who passed his life in > austerity and meditation, “living in Babylon at the summit of a > tower,” composing hymns, and preaching charity. He adds that Peter > always recommended to the Christians not to molest the Jews, but > as soon as he was dead, behold another preacher went to Rome and > pretended that Simon Peter had altered the teachings of his master. > He invented a burning hell and threatened every one with it; promised > miracles, but worked none. > > How much there is in the above of fiction and how much of truth, it > is for others to decide; but it certainly bears more the evidence > of sincerity and fact on its face, than the fables concocted by the > fathers to answer their end. > > We may the more readily credit this friendship between Peter and > his late co-religionists as we find in _Theodoret_ the following > assertion: “The Nazarenes are Jews, honoring the ANOINTED (Jesus) as > a _just man_ and using the _Evangel_ according to Peter.”[185] Peter > was a Nazarene, according to the _Talmud_. He belonged to the sect of > the later Nazarenes, which dissented from the followers of John the > Baptist, and became a rival sect; and which--as tradition goes--was > instituted by Jesus himself. > > History finds the first Christian sects to have been either Nazarenes > like John the Baptist; or Ebionites, among whom were many of the > relatives of Jesus; or Essenes (Iessaens) the Therapeutæ, healers, > of which the Nazaria were a branch. All these sects, which only in > the days of Irenæus began to be considered heretical, were more or > less kabalistic. They believed in the expulsion of demons by magical > incantations, and practiced this method; Jervis terms the Nabatheans > and other such sects “wandering Jewish exorcists,”[186] the Arabic > word _Nabæ_, meaning to wander, and the Hebrew נבא naba, to > prophesy. The _Talmud_ indiscriminately calls all the Christians > _Nozari_.[187] All the Gnostic sects equally believed in magic. > Irenæus, in describing the followers of Basilides, says, “They use > images, invocations, incantations, and all other things pertaining > unto magic.” Dunlap, on the authority of Lightfoot, shows that Jesus > was called _Nazaraios_, in reference to his humble and mean external > condition; “for Nazaraios means separation, alienation from other > men.”[188] > > The real meaning of the word nazar נזר signifies to vow or consecrate > one’s self to the service of God. As a noun it is a _diadem_ or emblem > of such consecration, a head so consecrated.[189] Joseph was styled a > _nazar_.[190] “The head of Joseph, the vertex of the nazar among his > brethren.” Samson and Samuel (שמו־אל שצשון Semes-on and Semva-el) are > described alike as _nazars_. Porphyry, treating of Pythagoras, says > that he was purified and initiated at Babylon by Zar-adas, the head of > the sacred college. May it not be surmised, therefore, that the > Zoro-Aster was the _nazar_ of Ishtar, Zar-adas or Na-Zar-Ad,[191] > being the same with change of idiom? Ezra, or עזרא, was a priest and > scribe, a hierophant; and the first Hebrew colonizer of Judea > was זרובבל Zeru-Babel or the Zoro or nazar of Babylon. > > The Jewish Scriptures indicate two distinct worships and religions > among the Israelites; that of Bacchus-worship under the mask of > Jehovah, and that of the Chaldean initiates to whom belonged some > of the _nazars_, the theurgists, and a few of the prophets. The > headquarters of these were always at Babylon and Chaldea, where two > rival schools of Magians can be distinctly shown. Those who would > doubt the statement will have in such a case to account for the > discrepancy between history and Plato, who of all men of his day > was certainly one of the best informed. Speaking of the Magians, he > shows them as instructing the Persian kings of Zoroaster, as the > son or priest of Oromasdes; and yet Darius, in the inscription at > Bihistun, boasts of having restored the cultus of Ormazd and put down > the Magian rites! Evidently there were two distinct and antagonistic > Magian schools. The oldest and the most esoteric of the two being > that which, satisfied with its unassailable knowledge and secret > power, was content to apparently relinquish her exoteric popularity, > and concede her supremacy into the hands of the reforming Darius. > The later Gnostics showed the same prudent policy by accommodating > themselves in every country to the prevailing religious forms, still > secretly adhering to their own essential doctrines. > > There is another hypothesis possible, which is that Zero-Ishtar > was the high priest of the Chaldean worship, or Magian hierophant. > When the Aryans of Persia, under Darius Hystaspes, overthrew the > Magian Gomates, and _restored_ the Masdean worship, there ensued an > amalgamation by which the Magian Zoro-astar became the Zara-tushra > of the _Vendidad_. This was not acceptable to the other Aryans, who > adopted the Vedic religion as distinguished from that of _Avesta_. > But this is but an hypothesis. > > And whatever Moses is now believed to have been, we will demonstrate > that he was an initiate. The Mosaic religion was at best a > sun-and-serpent worship, diluted, perhaps, with some slight > monotheistic notions before the latter were forcibly crammed into the > so-called “inspired Scriptures” by Ezra, at the time he was alleged to > have _re_written the Mosaic books. At all events the _Book of Numbers_ > was a later book; and there the sun-and-serpent worship is as plainly > traceable as in any Pagan story. The tale of the fiery serpents is an > allegory in more than one sense. The “serpents” were the _Levites_ or > _Ophites_, who were Moses’ bodyguard (see _Exodus_ xxxii. 26); and the > command of the “Lord” to Moses to hang the heads of the people “before > the Lord against the sun,” which is the emblem of this Lord, is > unequivocal. > > The nazars or prophets, as well as the Nazarenes, were an > anti-Bacchus caste, in so far that, in common with all the initiated > prophets, they held to the spirit of the symbolical religions and > offered a strong opposition to the idolatrous and exoteric practices > of the dead letter. Hence, the frequent stoning of the prophets by > the populace and under the leadership of those priests who made a > profitable living out of the popular superstitions. Otfried Müller > shows how much the Orphic Mysteries differed from the _popular_ > rites of Bacchus,[192] although the _Orphikoi_ are known to have > followed the worship of Bacchus. The system of the purest morality > and of a severe asceticism promulgated in the teachings of Orpheus, > and so strictly adhered to by his votaries, are incompatible with > the lasciviousness and gross immorality of the popular rites. The > fable of Aristæus pursuing Eurydiké into the woods where a serpent > occasions her death, is a very plain allegory, which was in part > explained at the earliest times. Aristæus is _brutal power_, pursuing > Eurydiké, the esoteric doctrine, into the woods where the serpent > (emblem of every sun-god, and worshipped under its grosser aspect > even by the Jews) kills her; _i.e._, forces truth to become still > more esoteric, and seek shelter in the Underworld, which is not > the hell of our theologians. Moreover, the fate of Orpheus, torn > to pieces by the Bacchantes, is another allegory to show that the > gross and popular rites are always more welcome than divine but > simple truth, and proves the great difference that must have existed > between the esoteric and the popular worship. As the poems of both > Orpheus and Musæus were said to have been lost since the earliest > ages, so that neither Plato nor Aristotle recognized anything > authentic in the poems extant in their time, it is difficult to say > with precision what constituted their peculiar rites. Still we have > the oral tradition, and every inference to draw therefrom; and this > tradition points to Orpheus as having brought his doctrines from > India. As one whose religion was that of the oldest Magians--hence, > that to which belonged the initiates of all countries, beginning with > Moses, the “sons of the Prophets,” and the ascetic _nazars_ (who > must not be confounded with those against whom thundered Hosea and > other prophets) to the Essenes. This latter sect were Pythagoreans > before they rather degenerated, than became perfected in their > system by the Buddhist missionaries, whom Pliny tells us established > themselves on the shores of the Dead Sea, ages before his time, “_per > sæculorum millia_.” But if, on the one hand, these Buddhist monks > were the first to establish monastic communities and inculcate the > strict observance of dogmatic conventual rule, on the other they > were also the first to enforce and popularize those stern virtues so > exemplified by Sakya-muni, and which were previously exercised only > in isolated cases of well-known philosophers and their followers; > virtues preached two or three centuries later by Jesus, practiced by > a few Christian ascetics, and gradually abandoned, and even entirely > forgotten by the Christian Church. > > The _initiated_ nazars had ever held to this rule, which had to be > followed before them by the adepts of every age; and the disciples > of John were but a dissenting branch of the Essenes. Therefore, > we cannot well confound them with all the nazars spoken of in the > _Old Testament_, and who are accused by Hosea with having separated > or consecrated themselves to _Bosheth_ בשת (see Hebrew text); which > implied the greatest possible abomination. To infer, as some critics > and theologians do, that it means to separate one’s self to _chastity_ > or continence, is either to advisedly pervert the true meaning, or to > be totally ignorant of the Hebrew language. The eleventh verse of the > first chapter of Micah half explains the word in its veiled > translation: “Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, etc.,” and in > the original text the word is _Bosheth_. Certainly neither Baal, nor > Iahoh Kadosh, with his _Kadeshim_, was a god of ascetic virtue, albeit > the _Septuaginta_ terms them, as well as the _galli_--the perfected > priests--τετελεσμένους, the _initiated_ and the _consecrated_.[193] > The great _Sod_ of the _Kadeshim_, translated in _Psalm_ lxxxix. 7, by > “assembly of the saints,” was anything but a mystery of the > “_sanctified_” in the sense given to the latter word by Webster. > > The Nazireate sect existed long before the laws of Moses, and > originated among people most inimical to the “chosen” ones of > Israel, viz., the people of Galilee, the ancient _olla-podrida_ of > idolatrous nations, where was built Nazara, the present Nazareth. > It is in Nazara that the ancient Nazorïa or Nazireates held their > “Mysteries of Life” or “assemblies,” as the word now stands in > the translation,[194] which were but the secret mysteries of > initiation,[195] utterly distinct in their practical form from the > popular Mysteries which were held at Byblus in honor of Adonis. While > the true _initiates_ of the ostracised Galilee were worshipping the > true God and enjoying transcendent visions, what were the “chosen” > ones about? Ezekiel tells it to us (chap. viii) when, in describing > what he saw, he says that the _form_ of a hand took him by a lock of > his head and transported him from Chaldea unto Jerusalem. “And there > stood seventy men of the senators of the house of Israel.... ‘Son of > man, hast thou seen what the ancients ... do in the dark?’” inquires > the “Lord.” “At the door of the house of the Lord ... behold there > sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Adonis). We really cannot suppose > that the Pagans have ever surpassed the “chosen” people in certain > shameful _abominations_ of which their own prophets accuse them so > profusely. To admit this truth, one hardly needs even to be a Hebrew > scholar; let him read the _Bible_ in English and meditate over the > language of the “holy” prophets. > > This accounts for the hatred of the later Nazarenes for the orthodox > Jews--followers of the _exoteric_ Mosaic Law--who are ever taunted > by this sect with being the worshippers of Iurbo-Adunai, or Lord > Bacchus. Passing under the disguise of _Adoni-Iachoh_ (original > text, _Isaiah_ lxi. 1), Iahoh and Lord Sabaoth, the Baal-Adonis, or > Bacchus, worshipped in the groves and _public sods_ or Mysteries, > under the polishing hand of Ezra becomes finally the later-vowelled > Adonai of the Massorah--the One and Supreme God of the Christians! > > “Thou shalt not worship the Sun who is named Adunai, says the _Codex_ > of the Nazarenes; whose name is also _Kadush_[196] and El-El. This > Adunai will elect to himself a nation and congregate _in crowds_ (his > worship will be exoteric) ... Jerusalem will become the refuge and > city of the _Abortive_, who shall perfect themselves (circumcise) > with a sword ... and shall adore Adunai.”[197] > > The oldest Nazarenes, who were the descendants of the Scripture > _nazars_, and whose last prominent leader was John the Baptist, > although never very orthodox in the sight of the scribes and > Pharisees of Jerusalem were, nevertheless, respected and left > unmolested. Even Herod “feared the multitude” because they regarded > John as a prophet (_Matthew_ xiv. 5). But the followers of Jesus > evidently adhered to a sect which became a still more exasperating > thorn in their side. It appeared as a heresy _within_ another > heresy; for while the nazars of the olden times, the “Sons of the > Prophets,” were Chaldean kabalists, the adepts of the new dissenting > sect showed themselves reformers and innovators from the first. > The great similitude traced by some critics between the rites and > observances of the earliest Christians and those of the Essenes may > be accounted for without the slightest difficulty. The Essenes, as we > remarked just now, were the converts of Buddhist missionaries who had > overrun Egypt, Greece, and even Judea at one time, since the reign > of Asoka the zealous propagandist; and while it is evidently to the > Essenes that belongs the honor of having had the Nazarene reformer, > Jesus, as a pupil, still the latter is found disagreeing with his > early teachers on several questions of formal observance. He cannot > strictly be called an Essene, for reasons which we will indicate > further on, neither was he a nazar, or Nazaria of the older sect. > What Jesus _was_, may be found in the _Codex Nazaræus_, in the unjust > accusations of the Bardesanian Gnostics. > > “Jesu is _Nebu_, the false Messiah, the destroyer of the old orthodox > religion,” says the _Codex_.[198] He is the founder of the sect of > the new nazars, and, as the words clearly imply, a follower of the > Buddhist doctrine. In Hebrew the word _naba_ נבא means to speak of > inspiration; and נבו is _nebo_, a god of wisdom. But Nebo is also > _Mercury_, and _Mercury is Buddha_ in the Hindu monogram of planets. > Moreover, we find the Talmudists holding that Jesus was inspired by > the genius of Mercury.[199] > > The Nazarene reformer had undoubtedly belonged to one of these > sects; though, perhaps, it would be next to impossible to decide > absolutely which. But what is self-evident is that he preached the > philosophy of Buddha-Sakyamûni. Denounced by the later prophets, > cursed by the Sanhedrim, the nazars--they were confounded with others > of that name “who separated themselves unto that shame,”[200] they > were secretly, if not openly persecuted by the orthodox synagogue. > It becomes clear why Jesus was treated with such contempt from > the first, and deprecatingly called “the Galilean.” Nathaniel > inquires--“Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (_John_ > i. 46) at the very beginning of his career; and merely because he > knows him to be a _nazar_. Does not this clearly hint, that even the > older nazars were not really Hebrew religionists, but rather a class > of Chaldean theurgists? Besides, as the _New Testament_ is noted > for its mistranslations and transparent falsifications of texts, > we may justly suspect that the word Nazareth was substituted for > that of _nasaria_, or nozari. That it originally read “Can any good > thing come from a nozari, or Nazarene;” a follower of St. John the > Baptist, with whom we see him associating from his first appearance > on the stage of action, after having been lost sight of for a period > of nearly twenty years. The blunders of the _Old Testament_ are as > nothing to those of the _gospels_. Nothing shows better than these > self-evident contradictions the system of pious fraud upon which > the superstructure of the Messiahship rests. “This _is Elias_ which > was for to come,” says Matthew of John the Baptist, thus forcing an > ancient kabalistic tradition into the frame of evidence (xi. 14). But > when addressing the Baptist himself, they ask him (_John_ i. 16), > “Art thou Elias?” “And he saith _I am not_!” Which knew best--John or > his biographer? And which is divine revelation? > > The motive of Jesus was evidently like that of Gautama-Buddha, to > benefit humanity at large by producing a religious reform which > should give it a religion of pure ethics; the true knowledge of God > and nature having remained until then solely in the hands of the > esoteric sects, and their adepts. As Jesus used _oil_ and the Essenes > never used aught but pure water,[201] he cannot be called a strict > Essene. On the other hand, the Essenes were also “set apart;” they > were healers (_assaya_) and dwelt in the desert as all ascetics did. > > But although he did not abstain from wine he could have remained a > Nazarene all the same. For in chapter vi. of _Numbers_, we see that > after the priest has waved a part of the hair of a Nazorite for a > wave-offering before the Lord, “after that a Nazarene may drink > wine” (v. 20). The bitter denunciation by the reformer of the people > who would be satisfied with nothing is worded in the following > exclamation: “John came neither eating nor drinking and they say: ‘He > hath a devil.’... The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they > say: ‘Behold a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber.’” And yet he was > an Essene and Nazarene, for we not only find him sending a message > to Herod, to say that he was one of those who cast out demons, and > who performed cures, but actually calling himself a prophet and > declaring himself equal to the other prophets.[202] > > The author of _Sod_ shows Matthew trying to connect the appellation > of Nazarene with a prophecy,[203] and inquires “Why then does > Matthew state that the prophet said he should be called _Nazaria_?” > Simply “because he belonged to that sect, and a prophecy would > confirm his claims to the Messiahship.... Now it does not appear > that the prophets anywhere state that the Messiah will be called a > _Nazarene_.”[204] The fact alone that Matthew tries in the last verse > of chapter ii. to strengthen his claim that Jesus dwelt in Nazareth > _merely to fulfil a prophecy_, does more than weaken the argument, it > upsets it entirely; for the first two chapters have sufficiently been > proved later forgeries. > > Baptism is one of the oldest rites and was practiced by all the > nations in their Mysteries, as sacred ablutions. Dunlap seems to > derive the name of the _nazars_ from nazah, sprinkling; Bahak-Zivo > is the genius who called the world into existence[205] out of > the “dark water,” say the Nazarenes; and Richardson’s _Persian, > Arabic, and English Lexicon_ asserts that the word _Bahak_ means > “raining.” But the Bahak-Zivo of the Nazarenes cannot be traced > so easily to Bacchus, who “was the rain-god,” for the nazars were > the greatest opponents of Bacchus-worship. “Bacchus is brought up > by the Hyades, the rain-nymphs,” says Preller;[206] who shows, > furthermore, that[207] at the conclusion of the religious Mysteries, > the priests baptized (washed) their monuments and anointed them > with oil. All this is but a very indirect proof. The Jordan baptism > need not be shown a substitution for the _exoteric_ Bacchic rites > and the libations in honor of Adonis or Adoni--whom the Nazarenes > abhorred--in order to prove it to have been a sect sprung from the > “Mysteries” of the “Secret Doctrine;” and their rites can by no means > be confounded with those of the Pagan populace, who had simply fallen > into the idolatrous and unreasoning faith of all plebeian multitudes. > John was the prophet of these Nazarenes, and in Galilee he was termed > “the Saviour,” but he was not the founder of that sect which derived > its tradition from the remotest Chaldeo-Akkadian theurgy. > > “The early plebeian Israelites were Canaanites and Phœnicians, > with the same worship of the Phallic gods--Bacchus, Baal or Adon, > Iacchos--Iao or Jehovah;” but even among them there had always > been a class of _initiated_ adepts. Later, the character of this > plebe was modified by Assyrian conquests; and, finally, the Persian > colonizations superimposed the Pharisean and Eastern ideas and > usages, from which the _Old Testament_ and the Mosaic institutes > were derived. The Asmonean priest-kings promulgated the canon of the > _Old Testament_ in contradistinction to the _Apocrypha_ or Secret > Books of the Alexandrian Jews--kabalists.[208] Till John Hyrcanus > they were Asideans (Chasidim) and Pharisees (Parsees), but then > they became Sadducees or Zadokites--asserters of sacerdotal rule as > contradistinguished from rabbinical. The Pharisees were lenient and > intellectual, the Sadducees, bigoted and cruel. > > Says the _Codex_: “John, son of the Aba-Saba-Zacharia, conceived > by his mother _Anasabet_ in her hundredth year, had baptized for > _forty-two years_[209] when Jesu Messias came to the Jordan to > be baptized with John’s baptism.... But he will _pervert John’s > doctrine_, changing the baptism of the Jordan, and perverting the > sayings of justice.”[210] > > The baptism was changed from _water_ to that of the Holy Ghost, > undoubtedly in consequence of the ever-dominant idea of the Fathers > to institute a reform, and make the Christians distinct from St. > John’s Nazarenes, the Nabatheans and Ebionites, in order to make > room for new dogmas. Not only do the Synoptics tell us that Jesus > was baptizing the same as John, but John’s own disciples complained > of it, though surely Jesus cannot be accused of following a purely > Bacchic rite. The parenthesis in verse 2d of John iv., “... though > Jesus himself baptized not,” is so clumsy as to show upon its face > that it is an interpolation. Matthew makes John say that he that > should come after him would not baptize them with water “but with > _the Holy Ghost_ and fire.” Mark, Luke, and John corroborate these > words. Water, fire, and spirit, or Holy Ghost, have all their origin > in India, as we will show. > > Now there is one very strange peculiarity about this sentence. It > is flatly denied in _Acts_ xix. 2-5. Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, > belonged to the sect of St. John’s disciples; he had been baptized, > and instructed others in the doctrines of the Baptist. And yet when > Paul, cleverly profiting by his absence at Corinth, finds certain > disciples of Apollos’ at Ephesus, and asks them whether they received > _the Holy Ghost_, he is naïvely answered, “We have not so much as > heard whether there be any Holy Ghost!” “Unto what then were you > baptized?” he inquires. “_Unto John’s baptism_,” they say. Then Paul > is made to repeat the words attributed to John by the Synoptics; and > these men “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” exhibiting, > moreover, at the same instant, the usual polyglot gift which > accompanies the descent of the Holy Ghost. > > How then? St. John the Baptist, who is called the “precursor,” that > “the prophecy might be fulfilled,” the great prophet and martyr, > whose words ought to have had such an importance in the eyes of his > disciples, announces the “Holy Ghost” to his listeners; causes crowds > to assemble on the shores of the Jordan, where, at the great ceremony > of Christ’s baptism, the promised “Holy Ghost” appears within the > opened heavens, and the multitude hears the voice, and yet there are > disciples of St. John who have “never so much as _heard_ whether > there be any Holy Ghost!” > > Verily the disciples who wrote the _Codex Nazaræus_ were right. > Only it is not Jesus himself, but those who came after him, and who > concocted the _Bible_ to suit themselves, that “_perverted_ John’s > doctrine, _changed_ the baptism of the Jordan, and perverted the > sayings of justice.” > > It is useless to object that the present _Codex_ was written > centuries after the direct apostles of John preached. So were our > _Gospels_. When this astounding interview of Paul with the “Baptists” > took place, Bardesanes had not yet appeared among them, and the sect > was not considered a “heresy.” Moreover, we are enabled to judge how > little St. John’s promise of the “Holy Ghost,” and the appearance of > the “Ghost” himself, had affected his disciples, by the displeasure > shown by them toward the disciples of Jesus, and the kind of rivalry > manifested from the first. Nay, so little is John himself sure of the > identity of Jesus with the expected Messiah, that after the famous > scene of the baptism at the Jordan, and the oral assurance by the > _Holy Ghost_ Himself that “_This is my beloved Son_” (_Matthew_ iii. > 17), we find “the Precursor,” in _Matthew_ xi., sending two of his > disciples from his prison to inquire of Jesus: “Art thou _he_ that > should come, or do we look _for another_!!” > > This flagrant contradiction alone ought to have long ago satisfied > reasonable minds as to the putative divine inspiration of the _New > Testament_. But we may offer another question: If baptism is the > sign of regeneration, and an ordinance instituted by Jesus, why do > not Christians now baptize as Jesus is here represented as doing, > “with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” instead of following the custom > of the Nazarenes? In making these palpable interpolations, what > possible motive could Irenæus have had except to cause people to > believe that the appellation of Nazarene, which Jesus bore, came only > from his father’s residence at Nazareth, and not from his affiliation > with the sect of _Nazaria_, the healers? > > This expedient of Irenæus was a most unfortunate one, for from time > immemorial the prophets of old had been thundering against the > baptism of fire as practiced by their neighbors, which imparted the > “spirit of prophecy,” or the Holy Ghost. But the case was desperate; > the Christians were universally called Nazoræns and Iessaens > (according to Epiphanius), and Christ simply ranked as a Jewish > prophet and healer--so self-styled, so accepted by his own disciples, > and so regarded by their followers. In such a state of things there > was no room for either a new hierarchy or a new God-head; and since > Irenæus had undertaken the business of manufacturing both, he had to > put together such materials as were available, and fill the gaps with > his own fertile inventions. > > To assure ourselves that Jesus was a true Nazarene--albeit with ideas > of a new reform--we must not search for the proof in the translated > _Gospels_, but in such original versions as are accessible. > Tischendorf, in his translation from the Greek of _Luke_ iv. 34, > has it “Iesou Nazarene;” and in the Syriac it reads “Iasoua, thou > _Nazaria_.” Thus, if we take in account all that is puzzling and > incomprehensible in the four _Gospels_, revised and corrected as they > now stand, we shall easily see for ourselves that the true, original > Christianity, such as was preached by Jesus, is to be found only in > the so-called Syrian heresies. Only from them can we extract any > clear notions about what was primitive Christianity. Such was the > faith of Paul, when Tertullus the orator accused the apostle before > the governor Felix. What he complained of was that they had found > “that man a mover of sedition ... a ringleader of _the sect of the > Nazarenes_;”[211] and, while Paul denies every other accusation, he > confesses that “after the way which they call heresy, _so worship I > the God of my fathers_.”[212] This confession is a whole revelation. > It shows: 1, that Paul admitted belonging to the sect of the > Nazarenes; 2, that he worshipped the _God of his fathers_, not the > trinitarian Christian God, of whom he knows nothing, and who was not > invented until after his death; and, 3, that this unlucky confession > satisfactorily explains why the treatise, _Acts of the Apostles_, > together with John’s _Revelation_, which at one period was utterly > rejected, were kept out of the canon of the _New Testament_ for such > a length of time. > > At Byblos, the neophytes as well as the hierophants were, after > participating in the Mysteries, obliged to fast and remain in > solitude for some time. There was strict fasting and preparation > before as well as after the Bacchic, Adonian, and Eleusinian orgies; > and Herodotus hints, with fear and veneration about the LAKE of > Bacchus, in which “they (the priests) made at night exhibitions of > his life and sufferings.”[213] In the Mithraic sacrifices, during > the initiation, a preliminary scene of death was simulated by the > neophyte, and it preceded the scene showing him himself “being born > again by the rite _of baptism_.” A portion of this ceremony is still > enacted in the present day by the Masons, when the neophyte, as the > Grand Master Hiram Abiff, lies dead, and is raised by the strong grip > of the lion’s paw. > > The priests were circumcised. The neophyte could not be initiated > without having been present at the solemn Mysteries of the LAKE. The > Nazarenes were baptized in the Jordan; and could not be baptized > elsewhere; they were also circumcised, and had to fast before as well > as after the purification by baptism. Jesus is said to have fasted > in the wilderness for forty days, immediately after his baptism. To > the present day, there is outside every temple in India, a lake, > stream, or a reservoir full of holy water, in which the Brahmans and > the Hindu devotees bathe daily. Such places of consecrated water are > necessary to every temple. The bathing festivals, or _baptismal_ > rites, occur twice every year; in October and April. Each lasts ten > days; and, as in ancient Egypt and Greece, the statues of their > gods, goddesses, and idols are immersed in water by the priests; the > object of the ceremony being to wash away from them the sins of their > worshippers which they have taken upon themselves, and which pollute > them, until washed off by holy water. During the Arâtty, the bathing > ceremony, the principal god of every temple is carried in solemn > procession to be baptized in the sea. The Brahman priests, carrying > the sacred images, are followed generally by the Maharajah--barefoot, > and nearly naked. _Three times_ the priests enter the sea; the third > time they carry with them the whole of the images. Holding them up > with prayers repeated by the whole congregation, the Chief Priest > plunges the statues of the gods _thrice_ in the name of the _mystic > trinity_, into the water; after which they are purified.[214] The > Orphic hymn calls _water_ the greatest purifier of men and gods. > > Our Nazarene sect is known to have existed some 150 years B.C., and > to have lived on the banks of the Jordan, and on the eastern shore > of the Dead Sea, according to Pliny and Josephus.[215] But in King’s > _Gnostics_, we find quoted another statement by Josephus from verse > 13, which says that the Essenes had been established on the shores of > the Dead Sea “for thousands of ages” before Pliny’s time.[216] > > According to Munk the term “Galilean” is nearly synonymous with that > of “Nazarene;” furthermore, he shows the relations of the former with > the Gentiles as very intimate. The populace had probably gradually > adopted, in their constant intercourse, certain rites and modes > of worship of the Pagans; and the scorn with which the Galileans > were regarded by the orthodox Jews is attributed by him to the same > cause. Their friendly relations had certainly led them, at a later > period, to adopt the “Adonia,” or the sacred rites over the body > of the lamented Adonis, as we find Jerome fairly lamenting this > circumstance. “Over Bethlehem,” he says, “the grove of Thammuz, > that is of Adonis, was casting its shadow! And in the GROTTO where > formerly the infant Jesus cried, the lover of Venus was being > mourned.”[217] > > It was after the rebellion of Bar Cochba, that the Roman Emperor > established the Mysteries of Adonis at the Sacred Cave in Bethlehem; > and who knows but this was the _petra_ or rock-temple on which the > church was built? The Boar of Adonis was placed above the gate of > Jerusalem which looked toward Bethlehem. > > Munk says that the “Nazireate was an institution established before > the laws of Musah.”[218] This is evident; as we find this sect not > only mentioned but minutely described in _Numbers_ (chap. vi.). In > the commandment given in this chapter to Moses by the “Lord,” it is > easy to recognize the rites and laws of the Priests of Adonis.[219] > The abstinence and purity strictly prescribed in both sects are > identical. Both allowed their hair _to grow long_[220] as the Hindu > cœnobites and fakirs do to this day, while other castes shave their > hair and abstain on certain days from wine. The prophet Elijah, a > Nazarene, is described in _2 Kings_, and by Josephus as “a hairy man > girt with a girdle of leather.”[221] And John the Baptist and Jesus > are both represented as wearing very long hair.[222] John is “clothed > with camel’s hair” and wearing a girdle of hide, and Jesus in a long > garment “without any seams” ... “and very white, like snow,” says > Mark; the very dress worn by the Nazarene Priests and the Pythagorean > and Buddhist Essenes, as described by Josephus. > > If we carefully trace the terms _nazar_, and _nazaret_, throughout > the best known works of ancient writers, we will meet them in > connection with “Pagan” as well as Jewish adepts. Thus, Alexander > Polyhistor says of Pythagoras that he was a disciple of the Assyrian > _Nazaret_, whom some suppose to be Ezekiel. Diogenes Laërtius states > most positively that Pythagoras, after being initiated into all > the Mysteries of the Greeks and barbarians, “went into Egypt and > afterward visited the Chaldeans and Magi;” and Apuleius maintains > that it was Zoroaster who instructed Pythagoras. > > Were we to suggest that the Hebrew _nazars_, the railing prophets of > the “Lord,” had been initiated into the so-called Pagan mysteries, > and belonged (or at least a majority of them) to the same Lodge > or circle of adepts as those who were considered idolaters; that > their “circle of prophets” was but a collateral branch of a secret > association, which we may well term “international,” what a > visitation of Christian wrath would we not incur! And still, the case > looks strangely suspicious. > > Let us first recall to our mind that which Ammianus Marcellinus, and > other historians relate of Darius Hystaspes. The latter, penetrating > into Upper India (Bactriana), learned pure rites, and stellar and > cosmical sciences from Brachmans, and communicated them to the > Magi. Now Hystaspes is shown in history to have crushed the Magi; > and introduced--or rather forced upon them--the pure religion of > Zoroaster, that of Ormazd. How is it, then, that an inscription > is found on the tomb of Darius, stating that he was “teacher and > hierophant of magic, or magianism?” Evidently there must be some > historical mistake, and history confesses it. In this imbroglio of > names, Zoroaster, the teacher and instructor of Pythagoras, can be > neither the Zoroaster nor Zarathustra who instituted sun-worship > among the Parsees; nor he who appeared at the court of Gushtasp > (Hystaspes) the alleged father of Darius; nor, again, the Zoroaster > who placed his magi above the kings themselves. The oldest > Zoroastrian scripture--the _Avesta_--does not betray the slightest > traces of the reformer having ever been acquainted with any of the > nations that subsequently adopted his mode of worship. He seems > utterly ignorant of the neighbors of Western Iran, the Medes, the > Assyrians, the Persians, and others. If we had no other evidences of > the great antiquity of the Zoroastrian religion than the discovery > of the blunder committed by some scholars in our own century, who > regarded King Vistaspa (Gushtasp) as identical with the father of > Darius, whereas the Persian tradition points directly to Vistaspa as > to the last of the line of Kaianian princes who ruled in Bactriana, > it ought to be enough, for the Assyrian conquest of Bactriana took > place 1,200 years B.C.[223] > > Therefore, it is but natural that we should see in the appellation > of Zoroaster not a name but a generic term, whose significance must > be left to philologists to agree upon. _Guru_, in Sanscrit, is a > spiritual teacher; and as Zuruastara means in the same language he > who worships the sun, why is it impossible, that by some natural > change of language, due to the great number of different nations > which were converted to the sun worship, the word _guru-astara_, the > spiritual teacher of sun-worship, so closely resembling the name of > the founder of this religion, became gradually transformed in its > primal form of Zuryastara or Zoroaster? The opinion of the kabalists > is that there was but one Zarathustra and many _guruastars_ or > spiritual teachers, and that one such _guru_, or rather _huru_aster, > as he is called in the old manuscripts, was the instructor of > Pythagoras. To philology and our readers we leave the explanation > for what it is worth. Personally we believe in it, as we credit on > this subject kabalistic tradition far more than the explanation of > scientists, no two of whom have been able to agree up to the present > year. > > Aristotle states that Zoroaster lived 6,000 years before Christ; > Hermippus of Alexandria, who is said to have read the genuine books > of the Zoroastrians, although Alexander the Great is accused of > having destroyed them, shows Zoroaster as the pupil of Azonak > (Azon-ach, or the Azon-God) and as having lived 5,000 years before > the fall of Troy. Er or Eros, whose vision is related by Plato in the > _Republic_, is declared by Clement to have been Zordusth. While the > Magus who dethroned Cambyses was a Mede, and Darius proclaims that he > put down the Magian rites to establish those of Ormazd, Xanthus of > Lydia declares Zoroaster to have been the chief of the Magi! > > Which of them is wrong? or are they all right, and only the modern > interpreters fail to explain the difference between the Reformer > and his apostles and followers? This blundering of our commentators > reminds us of that of Suetonius, who mistook the Christians for one > Christos, or _Crestos_, as he spells it, and assured his readers that > Claudius banished him for the disturbance he made among the Jews. > > Finally, and to return again to the _nazars_, Zaratus is mentioned > by Pliny in the following words: “He was Zoroaster and _Nazaret_.” > As Zoroaster is called _princeps_ of the Magi, and _nazar_ signifies > separated or consecrated, is it not a Hebrew rendering of _mag_? > Volney believes so. The Persian word _Na-zaruan_ means millions of > years, and refers to the Chaldean “Ancient of Days.” Hence the name > of the Nazars or Nazarenes, who were consecrated to the service of > the Supreme one God, the kabalistic En-Soph, or the Ancient of Days, > the “Aged of the aged.” > > But the word _nazar_ may also be found in India. In Hindustani > _nazar_ is sight, internal or _supernatural_ vision; _nazar band-ī_ > means fascination, a mesmeric or magical spell; and _nazarān_ is the > word for sightseeing or vision. > > Professor Wilder thinks that as the word _Zeruana_ is nowhere to > be found in the _Avesta_, but only in the later Parsi books, it > came from the Magians, who composed the Persian sacred caste in > the Sassan period, but were originally Assyrians. “Turan, of the > poets,” he says, “I consider to be Aturia, or Assyria; and that Zohak > (Az-dahaka, Dei-okes, or Astyages), the Serpent-king, was Assyrian, > Median, and Babylonian--when those countries were united.” > > This opinion does not, however, in the least implicate our statement > that the secret doctrines of the Magi, of the pre-Vedic Buddhists, of > the hierophants of the Egyptian Thoth or Hermes, and of the adepts > of whatever age and nationality, including the Chaldean kabalists > and the Jewish _nazars_, were _identical_ from the beginning. When > we use the term _Buddhists_, we do not mean to imply by it either > the exoteric Buddhism instituted by the followers of Gautama-Buddha, > nor the modern Buddhistic religion, but the secret philosophy of > Sakyamuni, which in its essence is certainly identical with the > ancient wisdom-religion of the sanctuary, the pre-Vedic Brahmanism. > The “schism” of Zoroaster, as it is called, is a direct proof > of it. For it was no _schism_, strictly speaking, but merely a > partially-public exposition of strictly monotheistic religious > truths, hitherto taught only in the sanctuaries, and that he had > learned from the Brahmans. Zoroaster, the primeval institutor of > sun-worship, cannot be called the founder of the dualistic system; > neither was he the first to teach the unity of God, for he taught but > what he had learned himself with the Brahmans. And that Zarathustra > and his followers, the Zoroastrians, “had been settled in India > before they immigrated into Persia,” is also proved by Max Müller. > “That the Zoroastrians and their ancestors started from India,” he > says, “during the Vaidik period, can be proved as distinctly as that > the inhabitants of Massilia started from Greece.... Many of the gods > of the Zoroastrians come out ... as mere reflections and deflections > of the primitive and authentic gods of the _Veda_.”[224] > > If, now, we can prove--and we can do so on the evidence of the > _Kabala_ and the oldest traditions of the wisdom-religion, the > philosophy of the old sanctuaries--that all these gods, whether of > the Zoroastrians or of the _Veda_, are but so many personated _occult > powers_ of nature, the faithful servants of the adepts of secret > wisdom--Magic--we are on secure ground. > > Thus, whether we say that Kabalism and Gnosticism proceeded from > Masdeanism or Zoroastrianism, it is all the same, unless we meant > the _exoteric_ worship--which we do not. Likewise, and in this > sense, we may echo King, the author of the _Gnostics_, and several > other archæologists, and maintain that both the former proceeded > from _Buddhism_, at once the simplest and most satisfying of > philosophies, and which resulted in one of the purest religions of > the world. It is only a matter of chronology to decide which of these > religions, differing but in external form, is the oldest, therefore > the least adulterated. But even this bears but very indirectly, if > at all, on the subject we treat of. Already some time before our > era, the adepts, except in India, had ceased to congregate in large > communities; but whether among the Essenes, or the Neo-platonists, > or, again, among the innumerable struggling sects born but to die, > the same doctrines, identical in substance and spirit, if not always > in form, are encountered. By _Buddhism_, therefore, we mean that > religion signifying literally the doctrine of wisdom, and which > by many ages antedates the metaphysical philosophy of Siddhârtha > Sakyamuni. > > After nineteen centuries of enforced eliminations from the canonical > books of every sentence which might put the investigator on the true > path, it has become very difficult to show, to the satisfaction > of exact science, that the “Pagan” worshippers of Adonis, their > neighbors, the Nazarenes, and the Pythagorean Essenes, the healing > Therapeutes,[225] the Ebionites, and other sects, were all, with very > slight differences, followers of the ancient theurgic Mysteries. And > yet by analogy and a close study of the _hidden_ sense of their rites > and customs, we can trace their kinship. > > It was given to a contemporary of Jesus to become the means of > pointing out to posterity, by his interpretation of the oldest > literature of Israel, how deeply the kabalistic philosophy agreed > in its esoterism with that of the profoundest Greek thinkers. This > contemporary, an ardent disciple of Plato and Aristotle, was Philo > Judæus. While explaining the Mosaic books according to a purely > kabalistic method, he is the famous Hebrew writer whom Kingsley calls > the Father of New Platonism. > > It is evident that Philo’s Therapeutes are a branch of the Essenes. > Their name indicates it--Ἐσσαῖοι, _Asaya_, physician. Hence, the > contradictions, forgeries, and other desperate expedients to reconcile > the prophecies of the Jewish canon with the Galilean nativity and > godship. > > Luke, who was a physician, is designated in the Syriac texts as > _Asaia_, the Essaian or Essene. Josephus and Philo Judæus have > sufficiently described this sect to leave no doubt in our mind that > the Nazarene Reformer, after having received his education in their > dwellings in the desert, and been duly initiated in the Mysteries, > preferred the free and independent life of a wandering _Nazaria_, and > so separated or _inazarenized_ himself from them, thus becoming a > travelling Therapeute, a Nazaria, a healer. Every Therapeute, before > quitting his community, had to do the same. Both Jesus and St. John > the Baptist preached the end of the Age;[226] which proves their > knowledge of the secret computation of the priests and kabalists, who > with the chiefs of the Essene communities alone had the secret of the > duration of the cycles. The latter were kabalists and theurgists; > “they had their _mystic_ books, and predicted future events,” says > Munk.[227] > > Dunlap, whose personal researches seem to have been quite successful > in that direction, traces the Essenes, Nazarenes, Dositheans, and > some other sects as having all existed before Christ: “They rejected > pleasures, _despised riches_, _loved one another_, and more than > other sects, neglected wedlock, deeming the conquest of the passions > to be virtuous,”[228] he says. > > These are all virtues preached by Jesus; and if we are to take the > gospels as a standard of truth, Christ was a metempsychosist “or > _re-incarnationist_--again like these same Essenes, whom we see were > Pythagoreans in all their doctrines and habits. Iamblichus asserts > that the Samian philosopher spent a certain time at Carmel with > them.[229] In his discourses and sermons, Jesus always spoke in > parables and used metaphors with his audience. This habit was again > that of the Essenians and the Nazarenes; the Galileans who dwelt > in cities and villages were never known to use such allegorical > language. Indeed, some of his disciples being Galileans as well as > himself, felt even surprised to find him using with the people such a > form of expression. “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?”[230] > they often inquired. “Because, it is given unto you to know the > Mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given,” > was the reply, which was that of an initiate. “Therefore, I speak > unto them in parables; because, they seeing, see not, and hearing, > they hear not, neither do they understand.” Moreover, we find Jesus > expressing his thoughts still clearer--and in sentences which are > purely Pythagorean--when, during the _Sermon on the Mount_, he says: > > “Give ye not that which is sacred to the dogs, > Neither cast ye your pearls before swine; > For the swine will tread them under their feet > And the dogs will turn and rend you.” > > Professor A. Wilder, the editor of Taylor’s _Eleusinian Mysteries_, > observes “a like disposition on the part of Jesus and Paul to > classify their doctrines as esoteric and exoteric, the Mysteries > of the Kingdom of God ‘for the apostles,’ and ‘parables’ for the > multitude. ‘We speak wisdom,’ says Paul, ‘among them that _are > perfect_’ (or initiated).”[231] > > In the Eleusinian and other Mysteries the participants were always > divided into two classes, the _neophytes_ and the _perfect_. The > former were sometimes admitted to the preliminary initiation: the > dramatic performance of Ceres, or the soul, descending to Hades.[232] > But it was given only to the “_perfect_” to enjoy and learn the > Mysteries of the divine _Elysium_, the celestial abode of the > blessed; this Elysium being unquestionably the same as the “Kingdom > of Heaven.” To contradict or reject the above, would be merely to > shut one’s eyes to the truth. > > The narrative of the Apostle Paul, in his second _Epistle to > the Corinthians_ (xii. 3, 4), has struck several scholars, well > versed in the descriptions of the mystical rites of the initiation > given by some classics, as alluding most undoubtedly to the final > _Epopteia_.[233] “I knew a certain man--_whether in body or outside > of body_, I know not: God knoweth--who was rapt into Paradise, and > heard things ineffable αρρητα ρηματα, _which it is not lawful for a > man to repeat_.” These words have rarely, so far as we know, been > regarded by commentators as an allusion to the beatific visions of an > “_initiated_” seer. But the phraseology is unequivocal. These things > “_which it is not lawful to repeat_,” are hinted at in the same words, > and the reason for it assigned, is the same as that which we find > repeatedly expressed by Plato, Proclus, Iamblichus, Herodotus, and > other classics. “We speak WISDOM only among them who are PERFECT,” > says Paul; the plain and undeniable translation of the sentence being: > “We speak of the profounder (or final) esoteric doctrines of the > Mysteries (which were denominated _wisdom_) only among them who are > _initiated_.”[234] So in relation to the “man who was rapt into > Paradise”--and who was evidently Paul himself[235]--the Christian word > Paradise having replaced that of Elysium. To complete the proof, we > might recall the words of Plato, given elsewhere, which show that > before an initiate could see the gods in their purest light, he had to > become _liberated_ from his body; _i.e._, to separate his astral soul > from it.[236] Apuleius also describes his initiation into the > Mysteries in the same way: “I approached the confines of death; and, > having trodden on the threshold of Proserpina, returned, having been > carried through all the elements. In the depths of midnight I saw the > sun glittering with a splendid light, together with _the infernal and > supernal gods_, and to these divinities approaching, I paid the > tribute of devout adoration.”[237] > > Thus, in common with Pythagoras and other hierophant reformers, > Jesus divided his teachings into exoteric and esoteric. Following > faithfully the Pythagoreo-Essenean ways, he never sat at a meal > without saying “grace.” “The priest prays before his meal,” says > Josephus, describing the Essenes. Jesus also divided his followers > into “neophytes,” “brethren,” and the “perfect,” if we may judge by > the difference he made between them. But his career at least as a > public Rabbi, was of a too short duration to allow him to establish > a regular school of his own; and with the exception, perhaps, of > John, it does not seem that he had initiated any other apostle. > The Gnostic amulets and talismans are mostly the emblems of the > apocalyptic allegories. The “seven vowels” are closely related to > the “seven seals;” and the mystic title Abraxas, partakes as much of > the compositian of _Shem Hamphirosh_, “the holy word” or ineffable > name, as the name called: The word of God, that “_no man knew but he > himself_,”[238] as John expresses it. > > It would be difficult to escape from the well-adduced proofs that the > _Apocalypse_ is the production of an initiated kabalist, when this > _Revelation_ presents whole passages taken from the _Books of Enoch_ > and _Daniel_, which latter is in itself an abridged imitation of the > former; and when, furthermore, we ascertain that the Ophite Gnostics > who rejected the _Old Testament_ entirely, as “emanating from an > inferior being (Jehovah),” accepted the most ancient prophets, such > as Enoch, and deduced the strongest support from this book for > their religious tenets, the demonstration becomes evident. We will > show further how closely related are all these doctrines. Besides, > there is the history of Domitian’s persecutions of magicians and > philosophers, which affords as good a proof as any that John was > generally considered a kabalist. As the apostle was included among > the number, and, moreover, conspicuous, the imperial edict banished > him not only from Rome, but even from the continent. It was not the > Christians whom--confounding them with the Jews, as some historians > will have it--the emperor persecuted, but the astrologers and > kabalists.[239] > > The accusations against Jesus of practicing the magic of Egypt were > numerous, and at one time universal, in the towns where he was known. > The Pharisees, as claimed in the _Bible_, had been the first to > fling it in his face, although Rabbi Wise considers Jesus himself a > Pharisee. The _Talmud_ certainly points to James the Just as one of > that sect.[240] But these partisans are known to have always stoned > every prophet who denounced their evil ways, and it is not on this > fact that we base our assertion. These accused him of sorcery, and of > driving out devils by Beelzebub, their prince, with as much justice > as later the Catholic clergy had to accuse of the same more than one > innocent martyr. But Justin Martyr states on better authority that > the men of his time _who were not Jews_ asserted that the miracles > of Jesus were performed by magical art--μαγικὴ φαντασία--the very > expression used by the skeptics of those days to designate the feats > of thaumaturgy accomplished in the Pagan temples. “They even ventured > to call him a magician and a deceiver of the people,” complains the > martyr.[241] In the _Gospel of Nicodemus_ (the _Acta Pilate_), the > Jews bring the same accusation before Pilate. “Did we not tell thee he > was a magician?”[242] Celsus speaks of the same charge, and as a > Neo-platonist believes in it.[243] The Talmudic literature is full of > the most minute particulars, and their greatest accusation is that > “Jesus could fly as easily in the air as others could walk.”[244] St. > Austin asserted that it was generally believed that he had been > initiated in Egypt, and that he wrote books concerning magic, which he > delivered to John.[245] There was a work called _Magia Jesu Christi_, > which was attributed to Jesus[246] himself. In the _Clementine > Recognitions_ the charge is brought against Jesus that he did not > perform his miracles as a Jewish prophet, but as a magician, _i.e._, > an initiate of the “heathen” temples.[247] > > It was usual then, as it is now, among the intolerant clergy of > opposing religions, as well as among the lower classes of society, > and even among those patricians who, for various reasons had been > excluded from any participation of the Mysteries, to accuse, > sometimes, the highest hierophants and adepts of sorcery and black > magic. So Apuleius, who had been initiated, was likewise accused of > witchcraft, and of carrying about him the figure of a skeleton--a > potent agent, as it is asserted, in the operations of the black art. > But one of the best and most unquestionable proofs of our assertion > may be found in the so-called _Museo Gregoriano_. On the sarcophagus, > which is panelled with bas-reliefs representing the miracles of > Christ,[248] may be seen the full figure of Jesus, who, in the > resurrection of Lazarus, appears beardless “and equipped with a wand > in the received guise of a _necromancer_ (_?_) whilst the corpse of > Lazarus is swathed in bandages exactly as an Egyptian mummy.” > > Had posterity been enabled to have several such representations > executed during the first century when the figure, dress, and > every-day habits of the Reformer were still fresh in the memory > of his contemporaries, perhaps the Christian world would be more > Christ-like; the dozens of contradictory, groundless, and utterly > meaningless speculations about the “Son of Man” would have been > impossible; and humanity would now have but one religion and one > God. It is this absence of all proof, the lack of the least positive > clew about him whom Christianity has deified, that has caused the > present state of perplexity. No pictures of Christ were possible > until after the days of Constantine, when the Jewish element was > nearly eliminated among the followers of the new religion. The Jews, > apostles, and disciples, whom the Zoroastrians and the Parsees had > inoculated with a holy horror of any form of images, would have > considered it a sacrilegious blasphemy to represent in any way or > shape their master. The only authorized image of Jesus, even in the > days of Tertullian, was an allegorical representation of the “Good > Shepherd,”[249] which was no portrait, but the figure of a man with a > jackal-head, like Anubis.[250] On this gem, as seen in the collection > of Gnostic amulets, the Good Shepherd bears upon his shoulders the > lost lamb. He seems to have a human head upon his neck; but, as King > correctly observes, “it only _seems so_ to the uninitiated eye.” On > closer inspection, he becomes the double-headed Anubis, having one > head human, the other a jackal’s, whilst his girdle assumes the form > of a serpent rearing aloft its crested head. “This figure,” adds the > author of the _Gnostics_, etc., “had two meanings--one obvious for > the vulgar; the other mystical, and recognizable by the _initiated > alone_. It was perhaps the signet of some chief teacher or > apostle.”[251] This affords a fresh proof that the Gnostics and early > _orthodox_ (?) Christians were not so wide apart in their _secret > doctrine_. King deduces from a quotation from _Epiphanius_, that even > as late as 400 A.D. it was considered an atrocious sin to attempt to > represent the bodily appearance of Christ. Epiphanius[252] brings it > as an idolatrous charge against the Carpocratians that “they kept > painted portraits, and _even gold and silver images_, and _in other > materials_, which they pretended to be portraits of Jesus, and made > by Pilate after the likeness of Christ.... These they keep in secret, > along with Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, and setting them all > up together, they worship and offer sacrifices unto them _after the > Gentiles’ fashion_.” > > What would the pious Epiphanius say were he to resuscitate and > step into St. Peter’s Cathedral at Rome! Ambrosius seems also very > desperate at the idea--that some persons fully credited the statement > of Lampridius that Alexander Severus had in his private chapel an > image of Christ among other great philosophers. “That the Pagans > should have preserved the likeness of Christ,” he exclaims, “but the > disciples have neglected to do so, is a notion the mind shudders to > entertain, much less to believe.” > > All this points undeniably to the fact, that except a handful > of self-styled Christians who subsequently won the day, all the > civilized portion of the Pagans who knew of Jesus honored him as > a philosopher, an _adept_ whom they placed on the same level with > Pythagoras and Apollonius. Whence such a veneration on their part > for a man, were he simply, as represented by the Synoptics, a poor, > unknown Jewish carpenter from Nazareth? As an incarnated God there > is no single record of him on this earth capable of withstanding the > critical examination of science; as one of the greatest reformers, > an inveterate enemy of every theological dogmatism, a persecutor > of bigotry, a teacher of one of the most sublime codes of ethics, > Jesus is one of the grandest and most clearly-defined figures on the > panorama of human history. His age may, with every day, be receding > farther and farther back into the gloomy and hazy mists of the past; > and his theology--based on human fancy and supported by untenable > dogmas may, nay, must with every day lose more of its unmerited > prestige; alone the grand figure of the philosopher and moral > reformer instead of growing paler will become with every century > more pronounced and more clearly defined. It will reign supreme and > universal only on that day when the whole of humanity recognizes but > one father--the UNKNOWN ONE above--and one brother--the whole of > mankind below. > > In a pretended letter of Lentulus, a senator and a distinguished > historian, to the Roman senate, there is a description of the > personal appearance of Jesus. The letter itself, written in horrid > Latin, is pronounced a bare-faced forgery; but we find therein an > expression which suggests many thoughts. Albeit a forgery it is > evident that whosoever invented it has nevertheless tried to follow > tradition as closely as possible. The hair of Jesus is represented > in it as “wavy and curling ... flowing down upon his shoulders,” and > as “_having a parting in the middle of the head after the fashion of > the Nazarenes_.” This last sentence shows: 1. That there was such a > tradition, based on the biblical description of John the Baptist, > the _Nazaria_, and the custom of this sect. 2. Had Lentulus been > the author of this letter, it is difficult to believe that Paul > should never have heard of it; and had he known its contents, he > would never have pronounced it a _shame_ for men to wear their hair > long,[253] thus shaming his Lord and Christ-God. 3. If Jesus did > wear his hair long and parted in the middle of the forehead, after > the fashion of the Nazarenes (as well as John, the only one of his > apostles who followed it), then we have one good reason more to say > that Jesus must have belonged to the sect of the Nazarenes, and been > called NASARIA for this reason and not because he was an inhabitant > of Nazareth; for they never wore their hair long. The Nazarite, who > _separated_ himself unto the Lord, allowed “no razor to come upon his > head.” “He shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his > head grow,” says _Numbers_ (vi. 5). Samson was a Nazarite, _i.e._, > vowed to the service of God, and in his hair was his strength. > “No razor shall come upon his head; the child shall be a Nazarite > unto God from the womb” (_Judges_ xiii. 5). But the final and most > reasonable conclusion to be inferred from this is that Jesus, who was > so opposed to all the orthodox Jewish practices, would _not_ have > allowed his hair to grow had he not belonged to this sect, which > in the days of John the Baptist had already become a heresy in the > eyes of the Sanhedrim. The _Talmud_, speaking of the Nazaria, or the > Nazarenes (who had abandoned the world like Hindu yogis or hermits) > calls them a sect of physicians, of wandering exorcists; as also does > Jervis. “They went about the country, living on alms and performing > cures.”[254] Epiphanius says that the Nazarenes come next in heresy > to the Corinthians whether having existed “before them or after them, > nevertheless _synchronous_,” and then adds that “all Christians at > that time were equally called _Nazarenes_!”[255] > > In the very first remark made by Jesus about John the Baptist, we > find him stating that he is “Elias, which was for to come.” This > assertion, if it is not a later interpolation for the sake of having > a prophecy fulfilled, means again that Jesus was a kabalist; unless > indeed we have to adopt the doctrine of the French spiritists and > suspect him of believing in reïncarnation. Except the kabalistic > sects of the Essenes, the Nazarenes, the disciples of Simeon Ben > Iochaï, and Hillel, neither the orthodox Jews, nor the Galileans, > believed or knew anything about the doctrine of _permutation_. And > the Sadducees rejected even that of the resurrection. > > “But the author of this _restitutionis_ was Mosah, our master, upon > whom be peace! Who was the _revolutio_ (transmigration) of Seth and > Hebel, that he might cover the nudity of his Father Adam--_Primus_,” > says the _Kabala_.[256] Thus, Jesus hinting that John was the > _revolutio_, or transmigration of Elias, seems to prove beyond any > doubt the school to which he belonged. > > Until the present day uninitiated Kabalists and Masons believe > permutation to be synonymous with transmigration and metempsychosis. > But they are as much mistaken in regard to the doctrine of the true > Kabalists as to that of the Buddhists. True, the _Sohar_ says in one > place, “All souls are subject to transmigration ... men do not know > the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He; they do not know that they > are brought before the tribunal, both before they enter this world > and after they quit it,” and the Pharisees also held this doctrine, > as Josephus shows (_Antiquities_, xviii. 13). Also the doctrine of > Gilgul, held to the strange theory of the “Whirling of the Soul,” > which taught that the bodies of Jews buried far away from the Holy > Land, still preserve a particle of soul which can neither rest nor > quit them, until it reaches the soil of the “Promised Land.” And this > “whirling” process was thought to be accomplished by the soul being > conveyed back through an actual evolution of species; transmigrating > from the minutest insect up to the largest animal. But this was an > _exoteric_ doctrine. We refer the reader to the _Kabbala Denudata_ > of Henry Khunrath; his language, however obscure, may yet throw some > light upon the subject. > > But this doctrine of permutation, or _revolutio_, must not be > understood as a belief in reïncarnation. That Moses was considered > the transmigration of Abel and Seth, does not imply that the > kabalists--those who were _initiated_ at least--believed that > the identical spirit of either of Adam’s sons reappeared under > the corporeal form of Moses. It only shows what was the mode of > expression they used when hinting at one of the profoundest mysteries > of the Oriental Gnosis, one of the most majestic articles of faith > of the Secret Wisdom. It was purposely veiled so as to half conceal > and half reveal the truth. It implied that Moses, like certain > other god-like men, was believed to have reached the highest of all > states on earth:--the rarest of all psychological phenomena, the > perfect union of the immortal spirit with the terrestrial _duad_ had > occurred. The trinity was complete. A _god_ was incarnate. But how > rare such incarnations! > > That expression, “Ye are gods,” which, to our biblical students, > is a mere abstraction, has for the kabalists a vital significance. > Each immortal spirit that sheds its radiance upon a human being is > a god--the Microcosmos of the Macrocosmos, part and parcel of the > Unknown God, the First Cause of which it is a direct emanation. It > is possessed of all the attributes of its parent source. Among these > attributes are omniscience and omnipotence. Endowed with these, > but yet unable to fully manifest them while in the body, during > which time they are obscured, veiled, limited by the capabilities > of physical nature, the thus divinely-inhabited man may tower far > above his kind, evince a god-like wisdom, and display deific powers; > for while the rest of mortals around him are but _overshadowed_ by > their divine SELF, with every chance given to them to become immortal > hereafter, but no other security than their personal efforts to > win the kingdom of heaven, the so chosen man has already become an > immortal while yet on earth. His prize is secured. Henceforth he will > live forever in eternal life. Not only he may have “dominion”[257] > over all the works of creation by employing the “excellence” of the > NAME (the ineffable one) but be higher in this life, not, as Paul is > made to say, “a little lower than the angels.”[258] > > The ancients never entertained the sacrilegious thought that such > perfected entities were incarnations of the One Supreme and for ever > invisible God. No such profanation of the awful Majesty entered into > their conceptions. Moses and his antitypes and types were to them > but complete men, gods on earth, for their _gods_ (divine spirits) > had entered unto their hallowed tabernacles, the purified physical > bodies. The disembodied spirits of the heroes and sages were termed > gods by the ancients. Hence, the accusation of polytheism and > idolatry on the part of those who were the first to anthropomorphize > the holiest and purest abstractions of their forefathers. > > The real and hidden sense of this doctrine was known to all the > initiates. The Tanaïm imparted it to their elect ones, the Isarim, in > the solemn solitudes of crypts and deserted places. It was one of the > most esoteric and jealously guarded, for human nature was the same > then as it is now, and the sacerdotal caste as confident as now in > the supremacy of its knowledge, and ambitious of ascendency over the > weaker masses; with the difference perhaps that its hierophants could > prove the legitimacy of their claims and the plausibility of their > doctrines, whereas now, _believers_ must be content with blind faith. > > While the kabalists called this mysterious and rare occurrence of the > union of spirit with the mortal charge entrusted to its care, the > “descent of the Angel Gabriel” (the latter being a kind of generic > name for it), the _Messenger of Life_, and the angel Metatron; and > while the Nazarenes termed the same Abel-Zivo,[259] the _Delegatus_ > sent by the Lord of Celsitude, it was universally known as the > “Anointed Spirit.” > > Thus it is the acceptation of this doctrine which caused the Gnostics > to maintain that Jesus was a man overshadowed by the Christos or > Messenger of Life, and that his despairing cry from the cross “Eloi, > Eloi, Lama Sabachthani,” was wrung from him at the instant when he > felt that this inspiring Presence had finally abandoned him, for--as > some affirmed--his faith _had_ also abandoned him when on the cross. > > The early Nazarenes, who must be numbered among the Gnostic sects, > believing that Jesus was a prophet, held, nevertheless, in relation > to him the same doctrine of the divine “overshadowing,” of certain > “men of God,” sent for the salvation of nations, and to recall them > to the path of righteousness. “The Divine mind is eternal,” says the > _Codex_,[260] “And it is pure light, and poured out through splendid > _and immense space_ (pleroma). It is Genetrix of the Æons. But one > of them went to matter (chaos) stirring up confused (turbulentos) > movements; and by a certain portion of _heavenly_ light fashioned > it, properly constituted for use and appearance, but the beginning > of every evil. The Demiurg (of matter) claimed divine honor.[261] > Therefore Christus (“the anointed”), the prince of the Æons (powers), > was sent (expeditus), who _taking on the person_ of a most devout > Jew, Iesu, _was to conquer him_; but who having _laid it_ (the body) > _aside_, departed on high.” We will explain further on the full > significance of the name Christos and its mystic meaning. > > And now, in order to make such passages as the above more > intelligible, we will endeavor to define, as briefly as possible, > the dogmas in which, with very trifling differences, nearly all the > Gnostic sects believed. It is in Ephesus that flourished in those > days the greatest college, wherein the abstruse Oriental speculations > and the Platonic philosophy were taught in conjunction. It was a > focus of the universal “secret” doctrines; the weird laboratory > whence, fashioned in elegant Grecian phraseology, sprang the > quintessence of Buddhistic, Zoroastrian, and Chaldean philosophy. > Artemis, the gigantic concrete symbol of theosophico-pantheistic > abstractions, the great mother Multimamma, androgyne and patroness > of the “Ephesian writings,” was conquered by Paul; but although the > zealous converts of the apostles pretended to burn all their books on > “curious arts,” τα περιεργα, enough of these remained for them to > study when their first zeal had cooled off. It is from Ephesus that > spread nearly all the _Gnosis_ which antagonized so fiercely with the > Irenæan dogmas; and still it was Ephesus, with her numerous collateral > branches of the great college of the Essenes, which proved to be the > hot-bed of all the kabalistic speculations brought by the Tanaïm from > the captivity. “In Ephesus,” says Matter, “the notions of the > Jewish-Egyptian school, and the semi-Persian speculations of the > kabalists had then recently come to swell the vast conflux of Grecian > and Asiatic doctrines, so there is no wonder that teachers should have > sprung up there who strove to combine the religion newly preached by > the apostle with the ideas there so long established.” > > Had not the Christians burdened themselves with the _Revelations_ > of a little nation, and accepted the Jehovah of Moses, the Gnostic > ideas would never have been termed _heresies_; once relieved of their > dogmatic exaggerations the world would have had a religious system > based on pure Platonic philosophy, and surely something would then > have been gained. > > Now let us see what are the greatest _heresies_ of the Gnostics. We > will select Basilides as the standard for our comparisons, for all > the founders of other Gnostic sects group round him, like a cluster > of stars borrowing light from their sun. > > Basilides maintained that he had had all his doctrines from the > Apostle Matthew, and from Peter through Glaucus, the disciple of the > latter.[262] According to Eusebius,[263] he published twenty-four > volumes of _Interpretations upon the Gospels_,[264] all of which > were burned, a fact which makes us suppose that they contained > more truthful matter than the school of Irenæus was prepared to > deny. He asserted that the unknown, eternal, and uncreated Father > having first brought forth _Nous_, or Mind, the latter emanated > from itself--the _Logos_. The Logos (the Word of John) emanated > in its turn _Phronesis_, or the Intelligences (Divine-human > spirits). From Phronesis sprung _Sophia_, or feminine wisdom, and > _Dynamis_--strength. These were the personified attributes of the > Mysterious godhead, the Gnostic quinternion, typifying the five > spiritual, but intelligible substances, personal virtues or beings > external to the unknown godhead. This is preëminently a kabalistic > idea. It is still more Buddhistic. The earliest system of the > Buddhistic philosophy--which preceded by far Gautama-Buddha--is based > upon the uncreated substance of the “Unknown,” the A’di Buddha.[265] > This eternal, infinite Monad possesses, as proper to his own essence, > five acts of wisdom. From these it, by five separate acts of Dhyân, > emitted five Dhyani Buddhas; these, like A’di Buddha, are quiescent > in their system (passive). Neither A’di, nor either of the five > Dhyani Buddhas, were ever incarnated, but seven of their emanations > became Avatars, _i.e._, were incarnated on this earth. > > Describing the Basilidean system, Irenæus, quoting the Gnostics, > declares as follows: > > “When the uncreated, _unnamed_ Father saw the corruption of mankind, > he sent his first-born _Nous_, into the world, in the form of Christ, > for the redemption of all who believe in him, out of the power of > those who fabricated the world (the Demiurgus, and his six sons, the > planetary genii). He appeared amongst men as the man, Jesus, and > wrought miracles. This Christ did _not die_ in person, but Simon > the Cyrenian suffered in his stead, _to whom he lent his bodily > form_; for the Divine Power, the Nous of the Eternal Father, _is not > corporeal_, and _cannot die_. Whoso, therefore, maintains that Christ > has died, is still the bondsman of ignorance; whoso denies the same, > he is free, and hath understood the purpose of the Father.”[266] > > So far, and taken in its abstract sense, we do not see anything > blasphemous in this system. It may be a _heresy_ against the theology > of Irenæus and Tertullian,[267] but there is certainly nothing > sacrilegious against the religious idea itself, and it will seem to > every impartial thinker far more consistent with divine reverence > than the anthropomorphism of actual Christianity. The Gnostics were > called by the orthodox Christians, _Docetæ_, or Illusionists, for > believing that Christ did not, nor could, suffer death actually--in > physical body. The later Brahmanical books contain, likewise, > much that is repugnant to the reverential feeling and idea of the > Divinity; and as well as the Gnostics, the Brahmans explain such > legends as may shock the divine dignity of the Spiritual beings > called gods by attributing them to _Maya_ or illusion. > > A people brought up and nurtured for countless ages among all the > psychological phenomena of which the civilized (!) nations read, > but reject as incredible and worthless, cannot well expect to have > its religious system even understood--let alone appreciated. The > profoundest and most transcendental speculations of the ancient > metaphysicians of India and other countries, are all based on that > great Buddhistic and Brahmanical principle underlying the whole of > their religious metaphysics--_illusion_ of the senses. Everything > that is finite is illusion, all that which is eternal and infinite is > reality. Form, color, that which we hear and feel, or see with our > mortal eyes, exists only so far as it can be conveyed to each of us > through our senses. The universe for a man born blind does not exist > in either form or color, but it exists in its _privation_ (in the > Aristotelean sense), and is a reality for the spiritual senses of > the blind man. We all live under the powerful dominion of phantasy. > Alone the highest and invisible _originals_ emanated from the thought > of the Unknown are real and permanent beings, forms, and ideas; on > earth, we see but their reflections; more or less correct, and ever > dependent on the physical and mental organization of the person who > beholds them. > > Ages untold before our era, the Hindu Mystic Kapila, who is > considered by many scientists as a skeptic, because they judge him > with their habitual superficiality, magnificently expressed this idea > in the following terms: > > “Man (physical man) counts for so little, that hardly anything can > demonstrate to him his proper existence and that of nature. Perhaps, > that which we regard as the universe, and the divers beings which > seem to compose it, have nothing real, and are but the product of > continued illusion--_maya_--of our senses.” > > And the modern Schopenhauer, repeating this philosophical idea, > 10,000 years old now, says: “Nature is non-existent, _per se_.... > Nature is the infinite illusion of our senses.” Kant, Schelling, and > other metaphysicians have said the same, and their school maintains > the idea. The objects of sense being ever delusive and fluctuating, > cannot be a reality. Spirit alone is unchangeable, hence--alone > is no illusion. This is pure Buddhist doctrine. The religion of > the _Gnosis_ (knowledge), the most evident offshoot of Buddhism, > was utterly based on this metaphysical tenet. Christos suffered > _spiritually_ for us, and far more acutely than did the illusionary > Jesus while his body was being tortured on the Cross. > > In the ideas of the Christians, Christ is but another name for Jesus. > The philosophy of the Gnostics, the initiates, and hierophants > understood it otherwise. The word Christos, Χριστος, like all Greek > words, must be sought in its philological origin--the Sanscrit. In > this latter language _Kris_ means sacred,[268] and the Hindu deity was > named Chris-na (the pure or the sacred) from that. On the other hand, > the Greek _Christos_ bears several meanings, as anointed (pure oil, > _chrism_) and others. In all languages, though the synonym of the word > means pure or sacred essence, it is the first emanation of the > invisible Godhead, manifesting itself tangibly in spirit. The Greek > Logos, the Hebrew Messiah, the Latin Verbum, and the Hindu Viradj (the > son) are identically the same; they represent an idea of collective > entities--of flames detached from the one eternal centre of light. > > “The man who accomplishes pious but interested acts (with the sole > object of his salvation) may reach the ranks of the _devas_ > (saints);[269] but he who accomplishes, disinterestedly, the same > pious acts, finds himself ridden forever of the five elements” (of > matter). “Perceiving the Supreme Soul in all beings and all beings in > the Supreme Soul, in offering his own soul in sacrifice, he identifies > himself with the Being who shines in his own splendor” (_Manu_, book > xii., slokas 90, 91). > > Thus, Christos, as a unity, is but an abstraction: a general idea > representing the collective aggregation of the numberless > spirit-entities, which are the direct emanations of the infinite, > invisible, incomprehensible FIRST CAUSE--the individual spirits of > men, erroneously called the souls. They are the divine sons of God, of > which some only overshadow mortal men--but this the majority--some > remain forever planetary spirits, and some--the smaller and rare > minority--unite themselves during life with some men. Such God-like > beings as Gautama-Buddha, Jesus, Tissoo, Christna, and a few others > had united themselves with their spirits permanently--hence, they > became gods on earth. Others, such as Moses, Pythagoras, Apollonius, > Plotinus, Confucius, Plato, Iamblichus, and some Christian saints, > having at intervals been so united, have taken rank in history as > demi-gods and leaders of mankind. When unburthened of their > terrestrial tabernacles, their freed souls, henceforth united forever > with their spirits, rejoin the whole shining host, which is bound > together in one spiritual solidarity of thought and deed, and called > “the anointed.” Hence, the meaning of the Gnostics, who, by saying > that “Christos” suffered spiritually for humanity, implied that his > Divine Spirit suffered mostly. > > Such, and far more elevating were the ideas of Marcion, the great > “Heresiarch” of the second century, as he is termed by his opponents. > He came to Rome toward the latter part of the half-century, from A.D. > 139-142, according to Tertullian, Irenæus, Clemens, and most of his > modern commentators, such as Bunsen, Tischendorf, Westcott, and many > others. Credner and Schleiermacher[270] agree as to his high and > irreproachable personal character, his pure religious aspirations and > elevated views. His influence must have been powerful, as we find > Epiphanius writing more than two centuries later that in his time the > followers of Marcion were to be found throughout the whole world.[271] > > The danger must have been pressing and great indeed, if we are to > judge it to have been proportioned with the opprobrious epithets > and vituperation heaped upon Marcion by the “Great African,” that > Patristic Cerberus, whom we find ever barking at the door of the > Irenæan dogmas.[272] We have but to open his celebrated refutation of > Marcion’s _Antitheses_, to acquaint ourselves with the _fine-fleur_ > of monkish abuse of the Christian school; an abuse so faithfully > carried through the middle ages, to be renewed again in our present > day--at the Vatican. “Now, then, ye hounds, yelping at the God of > Truth, whom the apostles cast out, to all your questions. These are > the bones of contention which ye gnaw,” etc.[273] “The poverty of > the Great African’s arguments keeps pace with his abuse,” remarks > the author of _Supernatural Religion_.[274] “Their (the Father’s) > religious controversy bristles with misstatements, and is turbid with > pious abuse. Tertullian was a master of his style, and the vehement > vituperation with which he opens and often interlards his work > against ‘the impious and sacrilegious Marcion,’ offers anything but a > guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism.” > > How firm these two Fathers--Tertullian and Epiphanius--were on their > theological ground, may be inferred from the curious fact that they > intemperately both vehemently reproach “the beast” (Marcion) “with > erasing passages from the _Gospel of Luke_ which never were in _Luke_ > at all.”[275] “The lightness and inaccuracy,” adds the critic, “with > which Tertullian proceeds, are all the better illustrated by the > fact that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but _he actually > defines the motives_ for which he expunged a passage _which never > existed_; in the same chapter he also similarly accuses Marcion of > erasing (from _Luke_) the saying that Christ had not come to destroy > the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, and he actually > repeats the charge on two other occasions.[276] Epiphanius also > commits the mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from _Luke_ > what is only found in _Matthew_.”[277] > > Having so far shown the amount of reliance to be placed in the > Patristic literature, and it being unanimously conceded by the > great majority of biblical critics that what the Fathers fought > for was not _truth_, but their own interpretations and unwarranted > assertions,[278] we will now proceed to state what were the views > of Marcion, whom Tertullian desired to annihilate as the most > dangerous _heretic_ of his day. If we are to believe Hilgenfeld, one > of the greatest German biblical critics, then “From the critical > standing-point one must ... consider the statements of the Fathers > of the Church only as expressions of their _subjective view_, which > itself requires proof.”[279] > > We can do no better nor make a more correct statement of facts > concerning Marcion than by quoting what our space permits from > _Supernatural Religion_, the author of which bases his assertions > on the evidence of the greatest critics, as well as on his own > researches. He shows in the days of Marcion “two broad parties in the > primitive Church”--one considering Christianity “a mere continuation > of the law, and dwarfing it into an Israelitish institution, a narrow > sect of Judaism;” the other representing the glad tidings “as the > introduction of a new system, applicable to all, and supplanting the > Mosaic dispensation of the law by a universal dispensation of grace.” > These two parties, he adds, “were popularly represented in the early > Church, by the two apostles Peter and Paul, and their antagonism is > faintly revealed in the _Epistle to the Galatians_.”[280] > > Marcion, who recognized no other _Gospels_ than a few _Epistles > of Paul_, who rejected totally the anthropomorphism of the _Old > Testament_, and drew a distinct line of demarcation between the old > Judaism and Christianity, viewed Jesus neither as a King, Messiah > of the Jews, nor the son of David, who was in any way connected > with the law or prophets, “but a divine being sent to reveal to man > a spiritual religion, wholly new, and a God of goodness and grace > hitherto unknown.” The “Lord God” of the Jews in his eyes, the > Creator (Demiurgos), was totally different and distinct from the > Deity who sent Jesus to reveal the divine truth and preach the glad > tidings, to bring reconciliation and salvation to all. The mission of > Jesus--according to Marcion--was to abrogate the Jewish “Lord,” who > “was opposed to the God and Father of Jesus Christ as _matter is to > spirit, impurity to purity_.” > > Was Marcion so far wrong? Was it blasphemy, or was it intuition, > divine inspiration in him to express that which every honest heart > yearning for truth, more or less feels and acknowledges? If in his > sincere desire to establish a purely spiritual religion, a universal > faith based on unadulterated truth, he found it necessary to make > of Christianity an entirely new and separate system from that of > Judaism, did not Marcion have the very words of Christ for his > authority? “No man putteth a piece of new cloth into an old garment > ... for the rent is made worse.... Neither do men put new wine into > old bottles, else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and > the bottles perish; but _they put new wine into new bottles_, and > both are preserved.” In what particular does the jealous, wrathful, > revengeful God of Israel resemble the unknown deity, the God of mercy > preached by Jesus;--_his_ Father who is in Heaven, and the Father > of all humanity? This Father alone is the God of spirit and purity, > and, to compare Him with the subordinate and capricious Sinaitic > Deity is an error. Did Jesus ever pronounce the name of Jehovah? Did > he ever place _his_ Father in contrast with this severe and cruel > Judge; his God of mercy, love, and justice, with the Jewish genius > of retaliation? Never! From that memorable day when he preached his > Sermon on the Mount, an immeasurable void opened between his God > and that other deity who fulminated his commands from that other > mount--Sinai. The language of Jesus is unequivocal; it implies not > only rebellion but defiance of the Mosaic “Lord God.” “Ye have > heard,” he tells us, “that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and > a tooth for a tooth: but _I say_ unto you, That ye resist not evil: > but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the > other also. Ye have heard that it hath been said [by the same “Lord > God” on Sinai]: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. > But _I say_ unto you; Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, > do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully > use you, and persecute you” (_Matthew_ v.). > > And now, open _Manu_ and read: > > “Resignation, _the action of rendering good for evil_, temperance, > probity, purity, repression of the senses, the knowledge of the > _Sastras_ (the holy books), that of the supreme soul, truthfulness > and abstinence from anger, such are the ten virtues in which consists > duty.... Those who study these ten precepts of duty, and after > having studied them conform their lives thereto, will reach to the > supreme condition” (_Manu_, book vi., sloka 92). > > If _Manu_ did not trace these words many thousands of years before > the era of Christianity, at least no voice in the whole world will > dare deny them a less antiquity than several centuries B.C. The same > in the case of the precepts of Buddhism. > > If we turn to the _Prâtimoksha Sûtra_ and other religious tracts of > the Buddhists, we read the ten following commandments: > > 1. Thou shalt not kill any living creature. > 2. Thou shalt not steal. > 3. Thou shalt not break thy vow of chastity. > 4. Thou shalt not lie. > 5. Thou shalt not betray the secrets of others. > 6. Thou shalt not wish for the death of thy enemies. > 7. Thou shalt not desire the wealth of others. > 8. Thou shalt not pronounce injurious and foul words. > 9. Thou shalt not indulge in luxury (sleep on soft beds or be lazy). > 10. Thou shalt not accept gold or silver.[281] > > “Good master, what shall I do that I may have eternal life?” asks a > man of Jesus. “Keep the commandments.” “Which?” “Thou shalt do no > murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou > shalt not bear false witness,”[282] is the answer. > > “What shall I do to obtain possession of Bhodi? (knowledge of eternal > truth)” asks a disciple of his Buddhist master. “What way is there to > become an Upasaka?” “Keep the commandments.” “What are they?” “Thou > shalt abstain all thy life from murder, theft, adultery, and lying,” > answers the master.[283] > > Identical injunctions are they not? Divine injunctions, the living up > to which would purify and exalt humanity. But are they more divine > when uttered through one mouth than another? If it is god-like to > return good for evil, does the enunciation of the precept by a > Nazarene give it any greater force than its enunciation by an Indian, > or Thibetan philosopher? We see that the Golden Rule was not original > with Jesus; that its birth-place was India. Do what we may, we cannot > deny Sakya-Muni Buddha a less remote antiquity than several centuries > before the birth of Jesus. In seeking a model for his system of > ethics why should Jesus have gone to the foot of the Himalayas rather > than to the foot of Sinai, but that the doctrines of Manu and > Gautama harmonized exactly with his own philosophy, while those of > Jehovah were to him abhorrent and terrifying? The Hindus taught to > return _good for evil_, but the Jehovistic command was: “An eye for > an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth.” > > Would Christians still maintain the identity of the “Father” of > Jesus and Jehovah, if evidence sufficiently clear could be adduced > that the “Lord God” was no other than the Pagan Bacchus, Dionysos? > Well, this identity of the Jehovah at Mount Sinai with the god > Bacchus is hardly disputable. The name יהוה is Yava or Iao, > according to Theodoret, which is the _secret_ name of the Phœnician > Mystery-god;[284] and it was actually adopted from the Chaldeans with > whom it also was the secret name of the creator. Wherever Bacchus > was worshipped there was a tradition of Nysa and a cave where he was > reared. Beth-San or Scythopolis in Palestine had that designation; > so had a spot on Mount Parnassus. But Diodorus declares that Nysa > was between Phœnicia and Egypt; Euripides states that Dionysos came > to Greece from India; and Diodorus adds his testimony: “Osiris was > brought up in Nysa, in Arabia the Happy; he was the son of Zeus, and > was named from his father (nominative Zeus, genitive _Dios_) and the > place Dio-Nysos”--the Zeus or Jove of Nysa. This identity of name > or title is very significant. In Greece Dionysos was second only to > Zeus, and Pindar says: > > “So Father Zeus governs all things, and Bacchus he governs also.” > > But outside of Greece Bacchus was the all-powerful “Zagreus, the > highest of gods.” Moses seems to have worshipped him personally > and together with the populace at Mount Sinai; unless we admit > that he was an _initiated_ priest, an adept, who knew how to lift > the veil which hangs behind all such exoteric worship, but kept > the secret. “_And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it > Jehovah_-NISSI!” or _Iao-Nisi_. What better evidence is required to > show that the Sinaitic god was indifferently Bacchus, Osiris, and > Jehovah? Mr. Sharpe appends also his testimony that the place where > Osiris was born “was Mount Sinai, called by the Egyptians Mount > Nissa.” The Brazen Serpent was a _nis_, נחש, and the month of > the Jewish Passover _nisan_. > > If the Mosaic “Lord God” was the only living God, and Jesus His only > Son, how account for the rebellious language of the latter? Without > hesitation or qualification he sweeps away the Jewish _lex talionis_ > and substitutes for it the law of charity and self-denial. If the > _Old Testament_ is a divine revelation, how can the _New Testament_ > be? Are we required to believe and worship a Deity who contradicts > himself every few hundred years? Was Moses inspired, or was Jesus > _not_ the son of God? This is a dilemma from which the theologians > are bound to rescue us. It is from this very dilemma that the > Gnostics endeavored to snatch the budding Christianity. > > Justice has been waiting nineteen centuries for intelligent > commentators to appreciate this difference between the orthodox > Tertullian and the Gnostic Marcion. The brutal violence, unfairness, > and bigotry of the “great African” repulse all who accept his > Christianity. “How can a god,” inquired Marcion, “break his own > commandments? How could he consistently prohibit idolatry and > image-worship, and still cause Moses to set up the brazen serpent? > How command: Thou shalt not steal, and then order the Israelites to > _spoil_ the Egyptians of their gold and silver?” Anticipating the > results of modern criticism, Marcion denies the applicability to > Jesus of the so-called Messianic prophecies. Writes the author of > _Supernatural Religion_:[285] “The Emmanuel of Isaiah is not Christ; > the ‘Virgin,’ his mother, is simply a ‘young woman,’ an alma of the > temple; and the sufferings of the servant of God (_Isaiah_ lii. > 13-liii. 3) are not predictions of the death of Jesus.”[286] > > CHAPTER IV. > > “Nothing better than those MYSTERIES, by which, from a > rough and fierce life, we are polished to gentleness > (humanity, kindness), and softened.”--CICERO: _de Legibus_, > ii., 14. > > “Descend, O Soma, with that stream with which thou lightest > up the Sun.... Soma, a Life Ocean spread through All, thou > fillest creative the Sun with beams.”--_Rig-Veda_, ii., 143. > > “... the beautiful Virgin ascends, with long hair, and > she holds two ears in her hand, and sits on a seat and > feeds a BOY as yet little, and suckles him and gives him > food.”--AVENAR. > > It is alleged that the _Pentateuch_ was written by Moses, and yet > it contains the account of his own death (_Deuteronomy_ xxxiv. 6); > and in _Genesis_ (xiv. 14), the name Dan is given to a city, which > _Judges_ (xviii. 29), tells us was only called by that name at that > late day, it having previously been known as Laish. Well might Josiah > have rent his clothes when he had heard the words of the Book of the > Law; for there was no more of Moses in it than there is of Jesus in > the _Gospel according to John_. > > We have one fair alternative to offer our theologians, leaving them > to choose for themselves, and promising to abide by their decision. > Only they will have to admit, either that Moses was an impostor, > or that his books are forgeries, written at different times and > by different persons; or, again, that they are full of fraudulent > interpolations. In either case the work loses all claims to be > considered divine _Revelation_. Here is the problem, which we quote > from the _Bible_--the word of the God of Truth: > > “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name > of God Almighty, but by my name of JEHOVAH was I not known to them” > (_Exodus_ vi. 3), spake God unto Moses. > > A very startling bit of information that, when, before arriving > at the book of _Exodus_, we are told in _Genesis_ (xxii. 14) that > “Abraham called the name of that place”--where the patriarch > had been preparing to cut the throat of his only-begotten > son--“JEHOVAH-jireh!” (Jehovah sees.) Which is the inspired > text?--both cannot be--which the forgery? > > Now, if both Abraham and Moses had not belonged to the same holy > group, we might, perhaps, help theologians by suggesting to them > a convenient means of escape out of this dilemma. They ought to > call the reverend Jesuit Fathers--especially those who have been > missionaries in India--to their rescue. The latter would not be for > a moment disconcerted. They would coolly tell us that beyond doubt > Abraham had heard the name of Jehovah and _borrowed_ it from Moses. > Do they not maintain that it was they who invented the _Sanscrit_, > edited _Manu_, and composed the greater portion of the _Vedas?_ > > Marcion maintained, with the other Gnostics, the fallaciousness of > the idea of an incarnate God, and therefore denied the corporeal > reality of the living body of Christ. His entity was a mere > _illusion_; it was not made of human flesh and blood, neither was it > born of a human mother, for his divine nature could not be polluted > with any contact with sinful flesh.[287] He accepted Paul as the > only apostle preaching the pure gospel of truth, and accused the > other disciples of “depraving the pure form of the gospel doctrines > delivered to them by Jesus, mixing up matters of the Law with the > words of the Saviour.”[288] > > Finally we may add that modern biblical criticism, which > unfortunately became really active and serious only toward the end > of the last century, now generally admits that Marcion’s text of the > only gospel he knew anything about--that of Luke, is far superior and > by far more correct than that of our present Synoptics. We find in > _Supernatural Religion_ the following (for every Christian) startling > sentence: “We are, therefore, _indebted to Marcion for the correct > version even of ‘the Lords Prayer_.’”[289] > > If, leaving for the present the prominent founders of Christian > sects, we now turn to that of the Ophites, which assumed a definite > form about the time of Marcion and the Basilideans, we may find > in it the reason for the _heresies_ of all others. Like all other > Gnostics, they rejected the Mosaic _Bible_ entirely. Nevertheless, > their philosophy, apart from some deductions original with several > of the most important founders of the various branches of Gnosticism > was not new. Passing through the Chaldean kabalistic tradition, > it gathered its materials in the Hermetic books, and pursuing its > flight still farther back for its metaphysical speculations, we > find it floundering among the tenets of Manu, and the earliest > Hindu ante-sacerdotal genesis. Many of our eminent antiquarians > trace the Gnostic philosophies right back to Buddhism, which does > not impair in the least either their or our arguments. We repeat > again, _Buddhism is but the primitive source of Brahmanism_. It > is not against the primitive _Vedas_ that Gautama protests. It is > against the sacerdotal and official state religion of his country; > and the Brahmans, who in order to make room for and give authority > to the castes, at a later period crammed the ancient manuscripts > with interpolated slokas, intended to prove that the castes were > predetermined by the Creator by the very fact that each class of men > was issued from a more or less noble limb of Brahma. Gautama-Buddha’s > philosophy was that taught from the beginning of time in the > impenetrable secresy of the inner sanctuaries of the pagodas. We need > not be surprised, therefore, to find again, in all the fundamental > dogmas of the Gnostics, the metaphysical tenets of both Brahmanism > and Buddhism. They held that the _Old Testament_ was the revelation > of an inferior being, a subordinate divinity, and did not contain a > single sentence of their _Sophia_, the Divine Wisdom. As to the _New > Testament_, it had lost its purity when the compilers became guilty > of interpolations. The revelation of divine truth was sacrificed by > them to promote selfish ends and maintain quarrels. The accusation > does not seem so very improbable to one who is well aware of the > constant strife between the champions of circumcision and the “Law,” > and the apostles who had given up Judaism. > > The Gnostic Ophites taught the doctrine of Emanations, so hateful > to the defenders of the unity in the trinity, and _vice versa_. The > Unknown Deity with them had _no name_; but his first female emanation > was called Bythos or Depth.[290] It answered to the Shekinah of the > kabalists, the “Veil” which conceals the “Wisdom” in the _cranium_ > of the highest of the _three_ heads. As the Pythagorean Monad, this > _nameless_ Wisdom was the _Source_ of Light, and _Ennoia_ or Mind, > is Light itself. The latter was also called the “Primitive Man,” > like the Adam Kadmon, or ancient Adam of the _Kabala_. Indeed, if > man was created after his likeness and in the image of God, then > this God was like his creature in shape and figure--hence, he is the > “Primitive man.” The first Manu, the one evolved from Swayambhuva, > “he who exists unrevealed in his own glory,” is also, in one sense, > the primitive man, with the Hindus. > > Thus the “nameless and the unrevealed,” Bythos, his female > reflection, and Ennoia, the revealed Mind proceeding from both, or > their Son are the counterparts of the Chaldean first triad as well as > those of the Brahmanic Trimurti. We will compare: in all the three > systems we see > > THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE as the ONE, the primordial germ, the unrevealed > and grand ALL, existing through himself. In the > > INDIAN PANTHEON. > Brahma-Zyaus. > > THE CHALDEAN. > Ilu, Kabalistic En-Soph. > > IN THE OPHITE. > The Nameless, or Secret Name. > > Whenever the Eternal awakes from its slumber and desires to manifest > itself, it divides itself into male and female. It then becomes in > every system > > THE DOUBLE-SEXED DEITY, The universal Father and Mother. > > IN INDIA. > Brahma. > Nara (male), Nari (female). > > IN CHALDEA. > Eikon or En-Soph. > Anu (male), Anata (female). > > IN THE OPHITE SYSTEM. > Nameless Spirit. > Abrasax (male), Bythos (female). > > From the union of the two emanates a third, or creative Principle--the > SON, or the manifested Logos, the product of the Divine Mind. > > IN INDIA. > Viradj, the Son. > > IN CHALDEA. > Bel, the Son. > > OPHITE SYSTEM. > Ophis (another name for Ennoia), the Son. > > Moreover, each of these systems has a triple male trinity, each > proceeding separately through itself from one female Deity. So, for > instance: > > IN INDIA. > The Trinity--Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, are blended into ONE, who > is _Brahmä_, (neuter gender), creating and being created > through the Virgin Nari (the mother of perpetual fecundity). > > IN CHALDEA. > The trinity--Anu, Bel, Hoa (or Sin, Samas, Bin), blend into > ONE who is Anu (double-sexed) through the Virgin Mylitta. > > IN THE OPHITE SYSTEM. > The trinity consisted of the Mystery named Sigè, Bythos, > Ennoia. These become ONE who is _Abrasax_, from the Virgin > _Sophia_ (or _Pneuma_), who herself is an emanation of Bythos > and the Mystery-god and emanates through them, Christos. > > To place it still clearer, the Babylonian System recognizes first--the > ONE (Ad, or Ad-ad), who is never named, but only acknowledged in > thought as the Hindu Swayambhuva. From this he becomes manifest as Anu > or Ana--the one above all--Monas. Next comes the Demiurge called Bel > or Elu, who is the active power of the Godhead. The third is the > principle of Wisdom, Hea or Hoa, who also rules the sea and the > underworld. Each of these has his divine consort, giving us Anata, > Belta, and Davkina. These, however, are only like the _Saktis_, and > not especially remarked by theologists. But the female principle is > denoted by Mylitta, the Great Mother, called also Ishtar. So with the > three male gods, we have the Triad or Trimurti, and with Mylitta > added, the _Arba_ or Four (Tetraktys of Pythagoras), which perfects > and potentializes all. Hence, the above-given modes of expression. The > following Chaldean diagram may serve as an illustration for all > others: > > ⎧ Anu, ⎫ Mylitta--Arba-il, > Triad ⎨ Bel, ⎬ or > ⎩ Hoa, ⎭ Four-fold God, > > become, with the Christians, > > ⎧God the Father, ⎫ Mary, or mother of these three Gods > Trinity ⎨God the Son, ⎬ since they are one, > ⎩God the Holy Ghost,⎭ or, the Christian Heavenly Tetraktys. > > Hence, Hebron, the city of the Kabeiri was called Kirjath-Arba, city > of the Four. The Kabeiri were Axieros--the noble Eros, Axiokersos, > the worthy horned one, Axiokersa, Demeter and Kadmiel, Hoa, etc. > > The Pythagorean ten denoted the Arba-Il or Divine Four, emblematized > by the Hindu Lingham: Anu, 1; Bel, 2; Hoa, 3, which makes 6. The > triad and Mylitta as 4 make the ten. > > Though he is termed the “Primitive Man,” Ennoia, who is like the > Egyptian Pimander, the “Power of the Thought Divine,” the first > intelligible manifestation of the Divine Spirit in material form, > he is like the “Only-Begotten” Son of the “Unknown Father,” of all > other nations. He is the emblem of the first appearance of the divine > Presence in his own works of creation, tangible and visible, and > therefore comprehensible. The mystery-God, or the ever-unrevealed > Deity fecundates through His will Bythos, the unfathomable and > infinite depth that exists in silence (Sigè) and darkness (for our > intellect), and that represents the abstract idea of all nature, the > ever-producing Cosmos. As neither the male nor female principle, > blended into the idea of a double-sexed Deity in ancient conceptions, > could be comprehended by an ordinary human intellect, the theology of > every people had to create for its religion a Logos, or manifested > word, in some shape or other. With the Ophites and other Gnostics > who took their models direct from more ancient originals, the > unrevealed Bythos and her male counterpart produce Ennoia, and > the three in their turn produce Sophia,[291] thus completing the > Tetraktys, which will emanate Christos, the very essence of the > Father Spirit. As the unrevealed One, or concealed Logos in its > latent state, he has existed from all eternity in the Arba-Il, the > metaphysical abstraction; therefore, he is ONE with all others as a > unity, the latter (including all) being indifferently termed Ennoia, > Sigè (silence), Bythos, etc. As the revealed one, he is Androgyne, > Christos, and Sophia (Divine Wisdom), who descend into the man Jesus. > Both Father and Son are shown by Irenæus to have loved the beauty > (_formam_) of the primitive woman,[292] who is Bythos--Depth--as > well as Sophia, and as having produced conjointly Ophis and Sophia > (double-sexed unity again), male and female wisdom, one being > considered as the unrevealed Holy Spirit, or elder Sophia--the > _Pneuma_--the intellectual “Mother of all things;” the other the > revealed one, or _Ophis_, typifying divine wisdom fallen into matter, > or God-man--Jesus, whom the Gnostic Ophites represented by the > serpent (Ophis). > > Fecundated by the Divine Light of the Father and Son, the highest > spirit and Ennoia, Sophia produces in her turn two other emanations-- > one perfect Christos, the second imperfect Sophia-Achamoth,[293] > from חכמות hakhamoth (simple wisdom), who becomes the mediatrix > between the intellectual and material worlds. > > Christos was the mediator and guide between God (the Higher), and > everything spiritual in man; Achamoth--the younger Sophia--held the > same duty between the “Primitive man,” Ennoia and matter. What was > mysteriously meant by the general term, _Christos_, we have just > explained. > > Delivering a sermon on the “Month of Mary,” we find the Rev. > Dr. Preston, of New York City, expressing the Christian idea > of the female principle of the trinity better and more clearly > than we could, and substantially in the spirit of an ancient > “heathen” philosopher. He says that the “plan of the redemption > made it necessary that a mother should be found, and Mary stands > pre-eminently alone as the only instance when a creature was > necessary to the consummation of God’s work.” We will beg the right > to contradict the reverend gentleman. As shown above, thousands of > years before our era it was found necessary by all the “heathen” > theogonies to find a female principle, a “mother” for the triune > male principle. Hence, Christianity does not present the “only > instance” of such a consummation of God’s work--albeit, as this > work shows, there was more philosophy and less materialism, or > rather anthropomorphism, in it. But hear the reverend Doctor express > “heathen” thought in Christian ideas. “He” (God), he says, “prepared > her (Mary’s) virginal and celestial purity, for a mother defiled > could not become the mother of the Most High. The holy virgin, > even in her childhood, was more pleasing than all the Cherubim and > Seraphim, and from infancy to the maturing maidenhood and womanhood > she grew more and more pure. By her very sanctity she reigned over > the heart of God. _When the hour came, the whole court of heaven was > hushed, and the trinity listened for the answer of Mary, for without > her consent the world could not have been redeemed._” > > Does it not seem as if we were reading Irenæus explaining the Gnostic > “_Heresy_, which taught that the Father and Son loved the beauty > (_formam_) of the celestial Virgin?” or the Egyptian system, of > Isis being both wife, sister, and mother of Osiris--Horus? With the > Gnostic philosophy there were but _two_, but the Christians have > improved and perfected the system by making it completely “heathen,” > for it is the Chaldean Anu--Bel--Hoa, merging into Mylitta. “Then > while this month (of Mary),” adds Dr. Preston, “begins in the > paschal season--the month when nature decks herself with fruits and > flowers, the harbingers of a bright harvest--let us, too, begin for > a golden harvest. In this month the dead comes up out of the earth, > figuring the resurrection; so, when we are kneeling before the altar > of the holy and immaculate Mary, let us remember that there should > come forth from us the bud of promise, the flower of hope, and the > imperishable fruit of sanctity.” > > This is precisely the substratum of the Pagan thought, which, among > other meanings, emblematized by the rites of the resurrection > of Osiris, Adonis, Bacchus, and other slaughtered sun-gods, the > resurrection of all nature in spring, the germination of seeds that > had been dead and sleeping during winter, and so were allegorically > said to be kept in the underworld (Hades). They are typified by the > three days passed in hell before his resurrection by Hercules, by > Christ, and others. > > This derivation, or rather _heresy_, as it is called in Christianity, > is simply the Brahmanic doctrine in all its archaic purity. Vishnu, > the second personage of the Hindu trinity, is also the Logos, for > he is made subsequently to incarnate himself in Christna. And > Lakmy (or Lakshmy) who, as in the case of Osiris, and Isis, of > En-Soph and Sephira, and of Bythos and Ennoia, is both his wife, > sister, and daughter, through this endless correlation of male > and female creative powers in the abstruse metaphysics of the > ancient philosophies--is Sophia-Achamoth. Christna is the mediator > promised by Brahma to mankind, and represents the same idea as > the Gnostic Christos. And Lakmy, Vishnu’s spiritual half, is the > emblem of physical nature, the universal mother of all the material > and revealed forms; the mediatrix and protector of nature, like > Sophia-Achamoth, who is made by the Gnostics the mediatrix between > the Great Cause and Matter, as Christos is the mediator between him > and spiritual humanity. > > This Brahmano-Gnostic tenet is more logical, and more consistent with > the allegory of _Genesis_ and the fall of man. When God curses the > first couple, He is made to curse also the earth and everything that > is on it. The _New Testament_ gives us a Redeemer for the first sin > of mankind, which was punished for having sinned; but there is not a > word said about a Saviour who would take off the unmerited curse from > the earth and the animals, which had never sinned at all. Thus the > Gnostic allegory shows a greater sense of both justice and logic than > the Christian. > > In the Ophite system, Sophia, the Androgyne Wisdom, is also the > female spirit, or the Hindu female Nari (Narayana), moving on the > face of the waters--chaos, or future matter. She vivifies it from > afar, but not touching the abyss of darkness. She is unable to do > so, for Wisdom is purely intellectual, and cannot act directly on > matter. Therefore, Sophia is obliged to address herself to her > Supreme Parent; but although life proceeds primally from the Unseen > Cause, and his Ennoia, neither of them can, any more than herself, > have anything to do with the lower chaos in which matter assumes its > definite shape. Thus, Sophia is obliged to employ on the task her > _imperfect_ emanation, Sophia-Achamoth, the latter being of a mixed > nature, half spiritual and half material. > > The only difference between the Ophite cosmogony and that of > the St. John Nazarenes is a change of names. We find equally an > identical system in the _Kabala_, the _Book of Mystery_ (_Liber > Mysterii_).[294] All the three systems, especially that of the > kabalists and the Nazarenes, which were the _models_ for the Ophite > Cosmogony, belong to the pure Oriental Gnosticism. The _Codex > Nazaræus_ opens with: “The Supreme King of Light, Mano, the great > first one,”[295] etc., the latter being the emanation of Ferho--the > unknown, formless LIFE. He is the chief of the Æons, from whom > proceed (or shoot forth) five refulgent rays of Divine light. Mano is > _Rex Lucis_, the Bythos-Ennoia of the Ophites. “_Unus est Rex Lucis > in suo regno, nec ullus qui eo altior, nullus qui ejus similitudinem > retulerit, nullus qui sublatis oculis, viderit Coronam quæ in ejus > capite est._” He is the Manifested Light around the highest of the > three kabalistic heads, the concealed wisdom; from him emanate > the three _Lives_. Æbel Zivo is the revealed Logos, Christos the > “Apostle Gabriel,” and the first Legate or messenger of light. If > Bythos and Ennoia are the Nazarene Mano, then the dual-natured, the > semi-spiritual, semi-material Achamoth must be Fetahil when viewed > from her spiritual aspect; and if regarded in her grosser nature, she > is the Nazarene “Spiritus.” > > Fetahil,[296] who is the reflection of his father, Lord Abatur, the > _third_ life--as the elder Sophia is also the third emanation--is > the “newest-man.” Perceiving his fruitless attempts to create a > perfect material world, the “Spiritus” calls to one of her progeny, > the Karabtanos--Ilda-Baoth--who is without sense or judgment (“blind > matter”), to unite himself with her to create something definite out > of this confused (_turbulentos_) matter, which task she is enabled to > achieve only after having produced from this union with Karabtanos > the seven stellars. Like the six sons or genii of the Gnostic > Ilda-Baoth, they then frame the material world. The same story is > repeated over again in Sophia-Achamoth. Delegated by her purely > spiritual parent, the elder Sophia, to create the world of _visible > forms_, she descended into chaos, and, overpowered by the emanation > of matter, lost her way. Still ambitious to create a world of matter > of her own, she busied herself hovering to and fro about the dark > abyss, and imparted life and motion to the inert elements, until she > became so hopelessly entangled in matter that, like Fetahil, she is > represented sitting immersed in mud, and unable to extricate herself > from it; until, by the contact of matter itself, she produces the > _Creator_ of the material world. He is the Demiurgus, called by the > Ophites Ilda-Baoth, and, as we will directly show, the parent of the > Jewish God in the opinion of some sects, and held by others to be the > “Lord God” Himself. It is at this point of the kabalistic-gnostic > cosmogony that begins the Mosaic _Bible_. Having accepted the Jewish > _Old Testament_ as their standard, no wonder that the Christians were > forced by the exceptional position in which they were placed through > their own ignorance, to make the best of it. > > The first groups of Christians, whom Renan shows numbering but from > seven to twelve men in _each church_, belonged unquestionably to the > poorest and most ignorant classes. They had and could have no idea of > the highly philosophical doctrines of the Platonists and Gnostics, > and evidently knew as little about their own newly-made-up religion. > To these, who if Jews, had been crushed under the tyrannical dominion > of the “law,” as enforced by the elders of the synagogues, and if > Pagans had been always excluded, as the lower castes are until now > in India, from the religious mysteries, the God of the Jews and > the “Father” preached by Jesus were all one. The contention which > reigned from the first years following the death of Jesus, between > the two parties, the Pauline and the Petrine--were deplorable. What > one did, the other deemed a sacred duty to undo. If the _Homilies_ > are considered apocryphal, and cannot very well be accepted as an > infallible standard by which to measure the animosity which raged > between the two apostles, we have the _Bible_, and the proofs > afforded therein are plentiful. > > So hopelessly entangled seems Irenæus in his fruitless endeavors to > describe, to all outward appearance at least, the true doctrines of > the many Gnostic sects of which he treats and to present them at the > same time as abominable “heresies,” that he either deliberately, > or through ignorance, confounds all of them in such a way that > few metaphysicians would be able to disentangle them, without the > _Kabala_ and the _Codex_ as the true keys. Thus, for instance, he > cannot even tell the difference between the Sethianites and the > Ophites, and tells us that they called the “God of all,” “_Hominem_,” > a MAN, and his mind the SECOND man, or the “_Son of man_.” So does > Theodoret, who lived more than two centuries after Irenæus, and who > makes a sad mess of the chronological order in which the various > sects succeeded each other.[297] Neither the Sethianites, (a branch > of the Jewish Nazarenes) nor the Ophites, a purely Greek sect, have > ever held anything of the kind. Irenæus contradicts his own words by > describing in another place the doctrines of Cerinthus, the direct > disciple of Simon Magus. He says that Cerinthus taught that the world > was not created by the FIRST GOD, but by a virtue (virtus) or power, > an Æon so distant from the First Cause that he was even ignorant of > HIM who _is above all things_. This Æon subjected Jesus, he begot him > physically through Joseph from one who was not a virgin, but simply > the wife of that Joseph, and Jesus was born like all other men. > Viewed from this physical aspect of his nature, Jesus was called the > “son of man.” It is only after his _baptism_, that _Christos_, the > anointed, descended from the Princeliness of above, in the figure of > a dove, and then announced the UNKNOWN Father through Jesus.[298] > > If, therefore, Jesus was physically considered as a son of man, and > spiritually as the Christos, who overshadowed him, how then could > the “GOD OF ALL,” the “_Unknown_ Father,” be called by the Gnostics > _Homo_, a MAN, and his Mind, Ennoia, the SECOND man, or _Son of > man_? Neither in the Oriental _Kabala_, nor in Gnosticism, was the > “God of all” ever anthropomorphized. It is but the first, or rather > the second emanations, for Shekinah, Sephira, Depth, and other > first-manifested female virtues are also emanations, that are termed > “primitive men.” Thus Adam Kadmon, Ennoia (or Sigè), the _logoi_ in > short, are the “only-begotten” ones but not the _Sons_ of man, which > appellation properly belongs to Christos the son of Sophia (the > elder) and of the primitive man who produces him through his own > vivifying light, which emanates from the source or _cause_ of all, > hence the _cause_ of his light also, the “Unknown Father.” There > is a great difference made in the Gnostic metaphysics between the > first unrevealed Logos and the “anointed,” who is Christos. Ennoia > may be termed, as Philo understands it, the _Second_ God, but he > alone is the “Primitive and First man,” and by no means the Second > one, as Theodoret and Irenæus have it. It is but the inveterate > desire of the latter to connect Jesus in every possible way, even in > the _Hæresies_, with the _Highest_ God, that led him into so many > falsifications. > > Such an identification with the _Unknown_ God, even of Christos, > the anointed--the Æon who overshadowed him--let alone of the man > Jesus, never entered the head of the Gnostics nor even of the direct > apostles and of Paul, whatever later forgeries may have added. > > How daring and desperate were many such deliberate falsifications was > shown in the first attempts to compare the original manuscripts with > later ones. In Bishop Horseley’s edition of Sir Isaac Newton’s works, > several manuscripts on theological subjects were cautiously withheld > from publication. The article known as _Christ’s Descent into Hell_, > which is found in the later Apostles’ Creed, is not to be found in > the manuscripts of either the fourth or sixth centuries. It was an > evident interpolation copied from the fables of Bacchus and Hercules > and enforced upon Christendom as an article of faith. Concerning it > the author of the preface to the _Catalogue of the Manuscripts of > the King’s Library_ (preface, p. xxi.) remarks: “I wish that the > insertion of the article of _Christ’s Descent into Hell_ into the > Apostles’ Creed could be as well accounted for as the _insertion_ of > the _said_ verse” (_First Epistle of John_, v. 7).[299] > > Now, this verse reads: “For there are three that bear record in > Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are > one.” This verse, which has been “appointed to be read in churches,” > is now known to be spurious. It is not to be found in any Greek > manuscript, save one at Berlin, which was transcribed from some > interpolated paraphrase between the lines. In the first and second > editions of Erasmus, printed in 1516 and 1519, this allusion to > these three heavenly witnesses is _omitted_; and the text is not > contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the > fifteenth century.[300] It was not mentioned by either of the Greek > ecclesiastical writers nor by the early Latin fathers, so anxious to > get at every proof in support of their trinity; and it was omitted > by Luther in his German version. Edward Gibbon was early in pointing > out its spurious character. Archbishop Newcome rejected it, and the > Bishop of Lincoln expresses his conviction that it is spurious.[301] > There are twenty-eight Greek authors--Irenæus, Clemens, and > Athanasius included, who neither quote nor mention it; and seventeen > Latin writers, numbering among them Augustine, Jerome, Ambrosius, > Cyprian, and Pope Eusebius, who appear utterly ignorant of it. “It > is evident that if the text of the heavenly witnesses had been known > from the beginning of Christianity the ancients would have eagerly > seized it, inserted it in their creeds, quoted it repeatedly against > the heretics, and selected it for the brightest ornament of every > book that they wrote upon the subject of the Trinity.”[302] > > Thus falls to the ground the strongest trinitarian pillar. Another > not less obvious forgery is quoted from Sir Isaac Newton’s words by > the editor of the _Apocryphal New Testament_. Newton observes “that > what the Latins have done to this text (_First Epistle of John_, v.), > the Greeks have done to that of St. Paul (_Timothy_ iii. 16).” For, > by changing ΟΣ into ΘΣ, the abbreviation of Θεος (God), in the > Alexandrian manuscript, from which their subsequent copies were made, > they now read, “_Great is the mystery of godliness_, GOD _manifested > in the flesh_;” whereas all the churches, for the first four or five > centuries, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome, as > well as the rest, read: “Great is the mystery of godliness WHICH WAS > _manifested in the flesh_.” Newton adds, that now that the disputes > over this forgery are over, they that read GOD made manifest in the > flesh, instead of the _godliness which was_ manifested in the flesh, > think this passage “one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for > the business.” > > And now we ask again the question: Who were the first Christians? > Those who were readily converted by the eloquent simplicity of Paul, > who promised them, with the name of Jesus, _freedom_ from the narrow > bonds of ecclesiasticism. They understood but one thing; they were > the “children of promise” (_Galatians_ iv. 28). The “allegory” of > the Mosaic _Bible_ was unveiled to them; the covenant “from the > Mount Sinai which gendereth _to bondage_” was Agar (Ibid., 24), the > old Jewish synagogue, and she was “in bondage with her children” > to Jerusalem, the new and the free, “the mother of us all.” On the > one hand the synagogue and the law which persecuted every one who > dared to step across the narrow path of bigotry and dogmatism; > on the other, Paganism[303] with its grand philosophical truths > concealed from sight; unveiling itself but to the few, and leaving > the masses hopelessly seeking to discover who was _the_ god, among > this overcrowded pantheon of deities and sub-deities. To others, > the apostle of circumcision, supported by all his followers, was > promising, if they obeyed the “law,” a life hereafter, and a > resurrection of which they had no previous idea. At the same time > he never lost an occasion to contradict Paul without naming him, > but indicating him so clearly that it is next to impossible to > doubt whom Peter meant. While he may have converted some men, who > whether they had believed in the Mosaic resurrection promised by > the Pharisees, or had fallen into the nihilistic doctrines of the > Sadducees, or had belonged to the polytheistic heathenism of the > Pagan rabble, had no future after death, nothing but a mournful > blank, we do not think that the work of contradiction, carried on > so systematically by the two apostles, had helped much their work > of proselytism. With the educated thinking classes they succeeded > very little, as ecclesiastical history clearly shows. Where was > the truth; where the inspired word of God? On the one hand, as we > have seen, they heard the apostle Paul explaining that of the two > covenants, “which things are an allegory,” the old one from Mount > Sinai, “which gendereth unto bondage,” was _Agar_ the bondwoman; and > Mount Sinai itself answered to “Jerusalem,” which now is “in bondage” > with her circumcised children; and the new covenant meant Jesus > Christ--the “Jerusalem which is above and free;” and on the other > Peter, who was contradicting and even abusing him. Paul vehemently > exclaims, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son” (the old _law_ and the > synagogue). “The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son > of the freewoman.” “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith > Christ hath made us free; be not entangled again with the yoke of > bondage.... Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, > Christ shall profit you nothing!” (_Gal._ v. 2). What do we find > Peter writing? Whom does he mean by saying, “These who speak great > swelling words of vanity.... While they promise them _liberty_, they > themselves are servants of corruption, for of whom a man is overcome, > of the same is he brought in bondage.... For if _they have escaped_ > the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and > Saviour, they are again entangled therein, and overcome ... it had > _been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness_, > than after they have known it to turn from the holy _commandment > delivered unto them_” (_Second Epistle_). > > Peter certainly cannot have meant the Gnostics, for they had never > seen “the holy commandment delivered unto them;” Paul had. They > never promised any one “liberty” from bondage, but Paul had done so > repeatedly. Moreover the latter rejects the “old covenant,” Agar the > bondwoman; and Peter holds fast to it. Paul warns the people against > the _powers_ and _dignities_ (the lower angels of the kabalists); and > Peter, as will be shown further, respects them and _denounces those > who do not_. Peter preaches circumcision, and Paul forbids it. > > Later, when all these extraordinary blunders, contradictions, > dissensions and inventions were forcibly crammed into a frame > elaborately executed by the episcopal caste of the new religion, > and called Christianity; and the chaotic picture itself cunningly > preserved from too close scrutiny by a whole array of formidable > Church penances and anathemas, which kept the curious back under the > false pretense of sacrilege and profanation of divine mysteries; > and millions of people had been butchered in the name of the God of > mercy--then came the Reformation. It certainly deserves its name in > its fullest paradoxical sense. It abandoned Peter and alleges to > have chosen Paul for its only leader. And the apostle who thundered > against the old law of bondage; who left full liberty to Christians > to either observe the Sabbath or set it aside; who rejects everything > anterior to John the Baptist, is now the professed standard-bearer > of Protestantism, which holds to the _old_ law more than the Jews, > imprisons those who view the Sabbath as Jesus and Paul did, and > outvies the synagogue of the first century in dogmatic intolerance! > > But who then _were_ the first Christians, may still be asked? > Doubtless the Ebionites; and in this we follow the authority of > the best critics. “There can be little doubt that the author (of > the _Clementine Homilies_) was a representative of Ebionitic > Gnosticism, which _had once been the purest form of primitive > Christianity_....”[304] And who were the Ebionites? The pupils > and followers of the early Nazarenes, the kabalistic Gnostics. In > the preface to the _Codex Nazaræus_, the translator says: “That > also the Nazarenes did not reject ... the Æons is natural. For of > the Ebionites who acknowledged them (the Æons), these were the > instructors.”[305] > > We find, moreover, Epiphanius, the Christian Homer of _The Heresies_, > telling us that “Ebion had the opinion of the Nazarenes, the form > of the Cerinthians (who fable that the world was put together by > angels), and the appellation of Christians.”[306] An appellation > certainly more correctly applied to them than to the orthodox > (so-called) Christians of the school of Irenæus and the later > Vatican. Renan shows the Ebionites numbering among their sect all > the surviving relatives of Jesus. John the Baptist, his cousin and > _precursor_, was the accepted Saviour of the Nazarenes, and their > prophet. His disciples dwelt on the other side of the Jordan, and > the scene of the baptism of the Jordan is clearly and beyond any > question proved by the author of _Sod, the Son of the Man_, to have > been the site of the Adonis-worship.[307] “Over the Jordan and beyond > the lake dwelt the Nazarenes, a sect said to have existed already at > the birth of Jesus, and to have counted him among its number. They > must have extended along the east of the Jordan, and southeasterly > among the Arabians (_Galat._ i. 17, 21; ii. 11), and Sabæans in the > direction of Bosra; and again, they must have gone far north over the > Lebanon to Antioch, also to the northeast to the Nazarian settlement > in Berœa, where St. Jerome found them. In the desert the Mysteries > of Adonis may have still prevailed; in the mountains Aiai Adonai was > still a cry.”[308] > > “Having been united (conjunctus) to the Nazarenes, each (Ebionite) > imparted to the other out of his own wickedness, and decided that > Christ _was of the seed of a man_,” writes Epiphanius. > > And if they did, we must suppose they knew more about their > contemporary prophet than Epiphanius 400 years later. Theodoret, > as shown elsewhere, describes the Nazarenes as Jews who “honor the > Anointed as a just man,” and use the _evangel_ called “_According to > Peter_.” Jerome finds the authentic and original _evangel_, written > in Hebrew, by Matthew the apostle-publican, in the library collected > at Cæsarea, by the martyr Pamphilius. “_I received permission from > the Nazaræans_, who at Berœa of Syria used this (gospel) to translate > it,” he writes toward the end of the fourth century.[309] “In the > _evangel_ which the _Nazarenes_ and _Ebionites_ use,” adds Jerome, > “which recently I translated from Hebrew into Greek,[310] and which > is called by most persons the _genuine Gospel of Matthew_,” etc. > > That the apostles had received a “secret doctrine” from Jesus, and > that he himself taught one, is evident from the following words of > Jerome, who confessed it in an unguarded moment. Writing to the > Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, he complains that “a difficult > work is enjoined, since this translation has been commanded me > by your Felicities, which _St. Matthew himself, the Apostle and > Evangelist_, DID NOT WISH TO BE OPENLY WRITTEN. For if it had not > been SECRET, he (Matthew) would have added to the _evangel_ that > which he gave forth was his; but he made up this book sealed up in > the Hebrew characters, which he put forth _even in such a way_ that > the book, written in Hebrew letters and _by the hand of himself_, > might be possessed _by the men most religious_, who also, in the > course of time, received it from those who preceded them. But this > very book they never gave to any one to be transcribed, and its > _text_ they related some one way and some another.”[311] And he adds > further on the same page: “And it happened that this book, having > been published by a disciple of Manichæus, named Seleucus, who also > wrote falsely _The Acts of the Apostles_, exhibited matter not for > edification, but for destruction; and that this book was approved > in a synod which the ears of the Church properly refused to listen > to.”[312] > > He admits, himself, that the book which he authenticates as being > written “_by the hand of Matthew_;” a book which, notwithstanding > that he translated it twice, was nearly unintelligible to him, for > it was arcane or _a secret_. Nevertheless, Jerome coolly sets down > every commentary upon it, except his own, as _heretical_. More than > that, Jerome knew that this _original Gospel of Matthew_ was the > expounder of the only true doctrine of Christ; and that it was the > work of an evangelist who had been the friend and companion of Jesus. > He knew that if of the two _Gospels_, the Hebrew in question and the > Greek belonging to our present Scripture, one was spurious, hence > heretical, it was not that of the Nazarenes; and yet, knowing all > this, Jerome becomes more zealous than ever in his persecutions of > the “Hæretics.” Why? Because to accept it was equivalent to reading > the death-sentence of the established Church. The _Gospel according > to the Hebrews_ was but too well known to have been the only one > accepted for four centuries by the Jewish Christians, the Nazarenes > and the Ebionites. And neither of the latter accepted the _divinity_ > of Christ. > > If the commentaries of Jerome on the Prophets, his famous _Vulgate_, > and numerous polemical treatises are all as trustworthy as this > version of the _Gospel according to Matthew_, then we have a divine > revelation indeed. > > Why wonder at the unfathomable mysteries of the Christian religion, > since it is perfectly _human_? Have we not a letter written by one > of the most respected Fathers of the Church to this same Jerome, > which shows better than whole volumes their traditionary policy? > This is what _Saint_ Gregory of Nazianzen wrote to his friend and > confidant _Saint_ Jerome: “Nothing can impose better on a people > than _verbiage_; the less they understand the more they admire. Our > fathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what > circumstances and necessity forced them to.” > > But to return to our Sophia-Achamoth and the belief of the genuine, > primitive Christians. > > After having produced Ilda-Baoth, Ilda from ילד, a child, and Baoth > from בויץ, the egg, or בהות, _Baoth_, a waste, a desolation, > Sophia-Achamoth suffered so much from the contact with matter, > that after extraordinary struggles she escapes at last out of the > muddy chaos. Although unacquainted with the pleroma, the region > of her mother, she reached the middle space and succeeded in > shaking off the material parts which have stuck to her spiritual > nature; after which she immediately built a strong barrier > between the world of intelligences (spirits) and the world of > matter. Ilda-Baoth, is thus the “son of darkness,” the creator of > our sinful world (the physical portion of it). He follows the > example of Bythos and produces from himself six stellar spirits > (sons). They are all in his own image, and reflections one of the > other, which become darker as they successively recede from their > father. With the latter, they all inhabit seven regions disposed > like a ladder, beginning under the middle space, the region of > their mother, Sophia-Achamoth, and ending with our earth, the > _seventh_ region. Thus they are the genii of the seven planetary > spheres of which the lowest is the region of our earth (the > sphere which surrounds it, our æther). The respective names of > these genii of the spheres are _Iòve_ (Jehovah), _Sabaoth_, > _Adonai_, _Eloi_, _Ouraios_, _Astaphaios_.[313] The first four, > as every one knows, are the mystic names of the Jewish “Lord > God,”[314] he being, as C. W. King expresses it, “thus degraded > by the Ophites into the appellations of the subordinates of the > Creator; “the two last names are those of the genii of fire and > water.” > > Ilda-Baoth, whom several sects regarded as the God of Moses, was > not a pure spirit; he was ambitious and proud, and rejecting the > spiritual light of the middle space offered him by his mother > Sophia-Achamoth, he set himself to create a world of his own. Aided > by his sons, the six planetary genii, he fabricated man, but this one > proved a failure. It was a monster; soulless, ignorant, and crawling > on all fours on the ground like a material beast. Ilda-Baoth was > forced to implore the help of his spiritual mother. She communicated > to him a ray of her divine light, and so animated man and endowed him > with a soul. And now began the animosity of Ilda-Baoth toward his > own creature. Following the impulse of the divine light, man soared > higher and higher in his aspirations; very soon he began presenting > not the image of his Creator Ilda-Baoth but rather that of the > Supreme Being, the “primitive man,” Ennoia. Then the Demiurgus was > filled with rage and envy; and fixing his jealous eye on the abyss of > matter, his looks envenomed with passion were suddenly reflected in > it as in a mirror; the reflection became animate, and there arose out > of the abyss Satan, serpent, Ophiomorphos--“the embodiment of envy > and of cunning. He is the union of all that is most base in matter, > with the hate, envy, and craft of a spiritual intelligence.”[315] > > After that, always in spite at the perfection of man, Ilda-Baoth > created the three kingdoms of nature, the mineral, vegetable, > and animal, with all evil instincts and properties. Impotent to > annihilate the Tree of Knowledge, which grows in his sphere as in > every one of the planetary regions, but bent upon detaching “man” > from his spiritual protectress, Ilda-Baoth forbade him to eat of its > fruit, for fear it should reveal to mankind the mysteries of the > superior world. But Sophia-Achamoth, who loved and protected the man > whom she had animated, sent her own genius Ophis, in the form of a > serpent to induce man to transgress the selfish and unjust command. > And “man” suddenly became capable of comprehending the mysteries of > creation. > > Ilda-Baoth revenged himself by punishing the first pair, for man, > through his _knowledge_, had already provided for himself a companion > out of his spiritual and material half. He imprisoned man and woman > in a dungeon of matter, in the body so unworthy of his nature, > wherein man is still enthralled. But Achamoth protected him still. > She established between her celestial region and “man,” a current of > divine light, and kept constantly supplying him with this _spiritual_ > illumination. > > Then follow allegories embodying the idea of dualism, or the > struggle between good and evil, spirit and matter, which is found in > every cosmogony, and the source of which is again to be sought in > India. The types and antitypes represent the heroes of this Gnostic > Pantheon, borrowed from the most ancient mythopœic ages. But, in > these personages, Ophis and Ophiomorphos, Sophia and Sophia-Achamoth, > Adam-Kadmon, and Adam, the planetary genii and the divine Æons, we > can also recognize very easily the models of our biblical copies--the > euhemerized patriarchs. The archangels, angels, virtues and powers, > are all found, under other names, in the _Vedas_ and the Buddhistic > system. The Avestic Supreme Being, Zero-ana, or “Boundless Time,” is > the type of all these Gnostic and kabalistic “Depths,” “Crowns,” and > even of the Chaldean En-Soph. The six Amshaspands, created through > the “Word” of Ormazd, the “First-Born,” have their reflections in > Bythos and his emanations, and the antitype of Ormazd--Ahriman and > his devs also enter into the composition of Ilda-Baoth and his six > _material_, though not wholly evil, planetary genii. > > Achamoth, afflicted with the evils which befall humanity, > notwithstanding her protection, beseeches the celestial mother > Sophia--her antitype--to prevail on the unknown DEPTH to send down > Christos (the son and emanation of the “Celestial Virgin”) to the > help of perishing humanity. Ilda-Baoth and his six sons of matter > are shutting out the divine light from mankind. Man must be saved. > Ilda-Baoth had already sent his own agent, John the Baptist, from the > race of Seth, whom he protects--as a prophet to his people; but only > a small portion listened to him--the Nazarenes, the opponents of the > Jews, on account of their worshipping Iurbo-Adunai.[316] Achamoth > had assured her son, Ilda-Baoth, that the reign of Christos would > be only temporal, and thus induced him to send the forerunner, or > precursor. Besides that, she made _him cause_ the birth of the _man_ > Jesus from the Virgin Mary, her own type on earth, “for the creation > of a material personage could only be the work of the Demiurgus, not > falling within the province of a higher power. As soon as Jesus was > born, Christos, the perfect, uniting himself with Sophia (wisdom > and spirituality), descended through the seven planetary regions, > assuming in each an analogous form, and concealing his true nature > from their genii, while he attracted into himself the sparks of > divine light which they retained in their essence. Thus, Christos > entered into the _man_ Jesus at the moment of his baptism in the > Jordan. From that time Jesus began to work miracles; before that, he > had been completely ignorant of his mission.”[317] > > Ilda-Baoth, discovering that Christos was bringing to an end his own > kingdom of matter, stirred up the Jews against him, and Jesus was put > to death.[318] When on the Cross, Christos and Sophia left his body > and returned to their own sphere. The material body of the man Jesus > was abandoned to the earth, but he himself was given a body made > up of _æther_ (astral soul). “Thenceforward he consisted of merely > _soul_ and _spirit_,” which was the reason why the disciples did not > recognize him after the resurrection. In this spiritual state of a > _simulacrum_, Jesus remained on earth for eighteen months after he > had risen. During this last sojourn, “he received from Sophia that > perfect knowledge, that true Gnosis, _which he communicated to the > very few among the apostles_ who were capable of receiving the same.” > > “Thence, ascending up into the middle space, he sits on the right > hand of Ilda-Baoth, but unperceived by him, and there collects all > the souls which shall have been purified by the knowledge of Christ. > When he has collected all the spiritual light that exists in matter, > out of Ilda-Baoth’s empire, the redemption will be accomplished and > the world will be destroyed. Such is the meaning of the re-absorption > of all the spiritual light into the pleroma or fulness, whence it > originally descended.” > > The foregoing is from the description given by Theodoret and adopted > by King in his _Gnostics_, with additions from Epiphanius and > Irenæus. But the former gives a very imperfect version, concocted > partly from the descriptions of Irenæus, and partly from his own > knowledge of the later Ophites, who, toward the end of the third > century, had blended already with several other sects. Irenæus also > confounds them very frequently, and the real theogony of the Ophites > is given by none of them correctly. With the exception of a change > in names, the above-given theogony is that of all the Gnostics, and > also of the Nazarenes. Ophis is but the successor of the Egyptian > _Chnuphis_, the Good Serpent with a lion’s radiating head, and was > held from days of the highest antiquity as an emblem of wisdom, or > Thauth, the instructor and Saviour of humanity, the “Son of God.” “Oh > men, live soberly ... win your immortality!” exclaims Hermes, the > thrice-great Trismegistus. “Instructor and guide of humanity, I will > lead you on to salvation.” Thus the oldest sectarians regarded Ophis, > the Agathodæmon, as identical with Christos; the serpent being the > emblem of celestial wisdom and eternity, and, in the present case, > the antitype of the Egyptian Chnuphis-serpent. These Gnostics, the > earliest of our Christian era, held: “That the supreme Æon, having > emitted other Æons out of himself, one of them, a female, _Prunnikos_ > (concupiscence), descended into the chaos, whence, unable to escape, > she remained suspended in the mid-space, being too clogged by matter > to return above, and not falling lower where there was nothing in > affinity with her nature. She then produced her son Ilda-Baoth, > the God of the Jews, who, in his turn, produced seven Æons, or > angels,[319] who created the seven heavens.” > > In this plurality of heavens the Christians believed from the first, > for we find Paul teaching of their existence, and speaking of a man > “caught up to the _third_ heaven” (_2 Corin._, xiii.). From these > seven angels Ilda-Baoth shut up all that was above him, lest they > should know of anything superior to himself.[320] They then created > man in the image of their Father,[321] but prone and crawling on > the earth like a worm. But the heavenly mother, Prunnikos, wishing > to deprive Ilda-Baoth of the power with which she had unwittingly > endowed him, infused into man a celestial spark--the spirit. > Immediately man rose upon his feet, soared in mind beyond the limits > of the seven spheres, and glorified the Supreme Father, _Him that is > above Ilda-Baoth_. Hence, the latter, full of jealousy, cast down > his eyes upon the lowest stratum of matter, and begot a potency in > the form of a serpent, whom they (the Ophites) call his son. Eve, > obeying him as the son of God, was persuaded to eat of the Tree of > Knowledge.[322] > > It is a self-evident fact that the serpent of the _Genesis_, who > appears suddenly and without any preliminary introduction, must > have been the antitype of the Persian Arch-Devs, whose head is > Ash-Mogh, the “two-footed serpent of lies.” If the _Bible_-serpent > had been deprived of his limbs before he had tempted woman unto sin, > why should God specify as a punishment that he should go “upon his > belly?” Nobody supposes that he walked upon the extremity of his tail. > > This controversy about the supremacy of Jehovah, between the > Presbyters and Fathers on the one hand, and the Gnostics, the > Nazarenes, and all the sects declared heterodox, as a last resort, on > the other, lasted till the days of Constantine, and later. That the > peculiar ideas of the Gnostics about the _genealogy_ of Jehovah, or > the proper place that had to be assigned, in the Christian-Gnostic > Pantheon, to the God of the Jews, were at first deemed neither > blasphemous nor heterodox is evident in the difference of opinions > held on this question by Clemens of Alexandria, for instance, and > Tertullian. The former, who seems to have known of Basilides better > than anybody else, saw nothing heterodox or blamable in the mystical > and transcendental views of the new Reformer. “In his eyes,” remarks > the author of _The Gnostics_, speaking of Clemens, “Basilides was > not a heretic, _i.e._, an innovator as regards the doctrines of the > Christian Church, but a mere theosophic philosopher, who sought to > express _ancient truths_ under new forms, and perhaps to combine > them with the new faith, the truth of which he could admit without > necessarily renouncing the old, exactly as is the case with the > learned Hindus of our day.”[323] > > Not so with Irenæus and Tertullian.[324] The principal works of the > latter _against the Heretics_, were written after his separation > from the Catholic Church, when he had ranged himself among the > zealous followers of Montanus; and teem with unfairness and bigoted > prejudice.[325] He has exaggerated every Gnostic opinion to a > monstrous absurdity, and his arguments are not based on coercive > reasoning but simply on the blind stubbornness of a partisan fanatic. > Discussing Basilides, the “pious, god-like, theosophic philosopher,” > as Clemens of Alexandria thought him, Tertullian exclaims: “After > this, Basilides, the _heretic_, broke loose.[326] He asserted that > there is a Supreme God, by name Abraxas, by whom Mind was created, > whom the Greeks call _Nous_. From her emanated the Word; from the > Word, Providence; from Providence, Virtue and Wisdom; from these > two again, Virtues, _Principalities,[327] and Powers_ were made; > thence infinite productions and emissions of angels. Among the lowest > angels, indeed, and those that made this world, he sets _last of all_ > the god of the Jews, whom he denies to be God himself, affirming that > he is but one of the angels.”[328] > > It would be equally useless to refer to the direct apostles of > Christ, and show them as holding in their controversies that Jesus > never made any difference between his “Father” and the “Lord-God” of > Moses. For the _Clementine Homilies_, in which occur the greatest > argumentations upon the subject, as shown in the disputations alleged > to have taken place between Peter and Simon the Magician, are now > also proved to have been falsely attributed to Clement the Roman. > This work, if written by an Ebionite--as the author of _Supernatural > Religion_ declares in common with some other commentators[329]--must > have been written either far later than the Pauline period, > generally assigned to it, or the dispute about the identity of > Jehovah with God, the “Father of Jesus,” have been distorted by > later interpolations. This disputation is in its very essence > antagonistic to the early doctrines of the Ebionites. The latter, as > demonstrated by Epiphanius and Theodoret, were the direct followers > of the Nazarene sect[330] (the Sabians), the “Disciples of John.” > He says, unequivocally, that the Ebionites believed in the _Æons_ > (emanations), that the Nazarenes were _their instructors_, and that > “each imparted to the other out of his own wickedness.” Therefore, > holding the same beliefs as the Nazarenes did, an Ebionite would not > have given even so much chance to the doctrine supported by Peter in > the _Homilies_. The old Nazarenes, as well as the later ones, whose > views are embodied in the _Codex Nazaræus_, never called Jehovah > otherwise than _Adonai_, _Iurbo_, the God of the _Abortive_[331] > (the orthodox Jews). They kept their beliefs and religious tenets > so _secret_ that even Epiphanius, writing as early as the end of > the fourth century,[332] confesses his ignorance as to their real > doctrine. “Dropping the name of Jesus,” says the Bishop of Salamis, > “they neither call themselves _Iessaens_, nor continue to hold the > name of the Jews, nor name themselves Christians, but _Nazarenes_.... > The resurrection of the dead is confessed by them ... but concerning > Christ, _I cannot say_ whether they think him a _mere man_, or as the > _truth is_, confess that he was born through the _Holy Pneuma_ from > the Virgin.”[333] > > While Simon Magus argues in the _Homilies_ from the standpoint of > every Gnostic (Nazarenes and Ebionites included), Peter, as a true > apostle of circumcision, holds to the old Law and, as a matter of > course, seeks to blend his belief in the divinity of Christ with his > old Faith in the “Lord God” and ex-protector of the “chosen people.” > As the author of _Supernatural Religion_ shows, the Epitome,[334] > “a blending of the other two, probably intended to purge them from > heretical doctrine”[335] and, together with a great majority of > critics, assigns to the _Homilies_, a date not earlier than the end > of the third century, we may well infer that they must differ widely > with their original, if there ever was one. Simon the Magician proves > throughout the whole work that the Demiurgus, the Architect of the > World, is not the highest Deity; and he bases his assertions upon > the words of Jesus himself, who states repeatedly that “no man knew > the Father.” Peter is made in the _Homilies_ to repudiate, with a > great show of indignation, the assertion that the Patriarchs were > not deemed worthy to know the Father; to which Simon objects again > by quoting the words of Jesus, who thanks the “Lord of Heaven and > earth that what was concealed from the wise” he has “revealed to > babes,” proving very logically that according to these very words the > Patriarchs could not have known the “Father.” Then Peter argues, in > his turn, that the expression, “what is _concealed_ from the wise,” > etc., referred to the concealed _mysteries_ of the creation.[336] > > This argumentation of Peter, therefore, had it even emanated from > the apostle himself, instead of being a “religious romance,” as the > author of _Supernatural Religion_ calls it, would prove nothing > whatever in favor of the identity of the God of the Jews, with the > “Father” of Jesus. At best it would only demonstrate that Peter had > remained from first to last “an apostle of circumcision,” a Jew > faithful to his old law, and a defender of the _Old Testament_. This > conversation proves, moreover, the weakness of the cause he defends, > for we see in the apostle a man who, although in most intimate > relations with Jesus, can furnish us nothing in the way of direct > proof that he ever thought of teaching that the all-wise and all-good > Paternity he preached was the morose and revengeful thunderer of > Mount Sinai. But what the _Homilies_ do prove, is again our assertion > that there was a secret doctrine preached by Jesus to the few who > were deemed worthy to become its recipients and custodians. “And > Peter said: ‘We remember that our Lord and teacher, as commanding, > said to us, guard the mysteries for me, and the sons of my house. > Wherefore also he explained to his disciples, _privately_, the > _mysteries of the kingdoms of the heavens_.’”[337] > > If we now recall the fact that a portion of the Mysteries of the > “Pagans” consisted of the απορῥήτα, _aporrheta_, or secret discourses; > that the secret _Logia_ or discourses of Jesus contained in the > original _Gospel according to Matthew_, the meaning and interpretation > of which St. Jerome confessed to be “a difficult task” for him to > achieve, were of the same nature; and if we remember, further, that to > some of the interior or final Mysteries only a very select few were > admitted; and that finally it was from the number of the latter that > were taken all the ministers of the holy “Pagan” rites, we will then > clearly understand this expression of Jesus quoted by Peter: “Guard > _the Mysteries for me and the sons of my house_,” _i.e._, of my > doctrine. And, if we understand it rightly, we cannot avoid thinking > that this “secret” doctrine of Jesus, even the technical expressions > of which are but so many duplications of the Gnostic and Neo-platonic > mystic phraseology--that this doctrine, we say, was based on the same > transcendental philosophy of Oriental _Gnosis_ as the rest of the > religions of those and earliest days. That none of the later Christian > sects, despite their boasting, were the inheritors of it, is evident > from the contradictions, blunders, and clumsy repatching of the > mistakes of every preceding century by the discoveries of the > succeeding one. These mistakes, in a number of manuscripts claimed to > be authentic, are sometimes so ridiculous as to bear on their face the > evidence of being pious forgeries. Thus, for instance, the utter > ignorance of some patristic champions of the very gospels they claimed > to defend. We have mentioned the accusation against Marcion by > Tertullian and Epiphanius of mutilating the _Gospel_ ascribed to Luke, > and erasing from it that which is now proved to have never been in > that Gospel at all. Finally, the method adopted by Jesus of speaking > in parables, in which he only followed the example of his sect, is > attributed in the _Homilies_ to a prophecy of _Isaiah_! Peter is made > to remark: “For Isaiah said: ‘I will open my mouth in parables, and I > will utter things that have been kept secret from the foundation of > the world.’” This erroneous reference to Isaiah of a sentence given in > _Psalms_ lxxviii. 2, is found not only in the apocryphal _Homilies_, > but also in the Sinaitic _Codex_. Commenting on the fact in the > _Supernatural Religion_, the author states that “Porphyry, in the > third century, twitted Christians with this erroneous ascription by > their inspired evangelist to Isaiah of a passage from a _Psalm_, and > reduced the Fathers to great straits.”[338] Eusebius and Jerome tried > to get out of the difficulty by ascribing the mistake to an “ignorant > scribe;” and Jerome even went to the length of asserting that the name > of Isaiah never stood after the above sentence in any of the old > codices, but that the name of Asaph was found in its place, only > “_ignorant_ men had removed it.”[339] To this, the author again > observes that “the fact is that the reading ‘Asaph’ for ‘Isaiah’ is > not found in any manuscript extant; and, although ‘Isaiah’ has > _disappeared_ from all but a few obscure codices, it cannot be denied > that the name anciently stood in the text. In the Sinaitic _Codex_, > which is probably the earliest manuscript extant ... and which is > assigned to the fourth century,” he adds, “the prophet _Isaiah_ stands > in the text by the first hand, _but is erased_ by the second.”[340] > > It is a most suggestive fact that there is not a word in the so-called > sacred _Scriptures_ to show that Jesus was actually regarded as a God > by his disciples. Neither before nor after his death did they pay him > divine honors. Their relation to him was only that of disciples and > “master;” by which name they addressed him, as the followers of > Pythagoras and Plato addressed their respective masters before them. > Whatever words may have been put into the mouths of Jesus, Peter, > John, Paul, and others, there is not a single act of adoration > recorded on their part, nor did Jesus himself ever declare his > identity with _his Father_. He accused the Pharisees of _stoning_ > their prophets, not of deicide. He termed himself the son of God, but > took care to assert repeatedly that they were all the children of God, > who was the Heavenly Father of all. In preaching this, he but repeated > a doctrine taught ages earlier by Hermes, Plato, and other > philosophers. Strange contradiction! Jesus, whom we are asked to > worship as the one living God, is found, immediately after his > Resurrection, saying to Mary Magdalene: “I am not yet ascended _to my > Father_; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto _my > Father_ and _your_ Father, and to _my_ God and _your_ God!” (_John_ > xx. 17.) > > Does this look like identifying himself with his Father? “_My_ > Father and _your_ Father, _my_ God and _your_ God,” implies, on > his part, a desire to be considered on a perfect equality with his > brethren--nothing more. Theodoret writes: “The hæretics agree with > us respecting the beginning of all things.... But they say there is > not one Christ (God), but one above, and the other below. And this > last _formerly dwelt in many_; but _the Jesus_, they at one time say > is _from_ God, at another they call him a SPIRIT.”[341] This spirit > is the Christos, the _messenger_ of life, who is sometimes called > the Angel _Gabriel_ (in Hebrew, the mighty one of God), and who took > with the Gnostics the place of the Logos, while the Holy Spirit was > considered _Life_.[342] With the sect of the Nazarenes, though, > the Spiritus, or Holy Ghost, had less honor. While nearly every > Gnostic sect considered it a Female Power, whether they called it > _Binah_, נינה, _Sophia_, the Divine Intellect, with the Nazarene sect > it was the _Female Spiritus_, the astral light, the genetrix of all > things of _matter_, the chaos in its evil aspect, made _turbido_ by > the Demiurge. At the creation of man, “it was light on the side of > the FATHER, and it was light (material light) on the side of the > MOTHER. And this is the ‘_two-fold_ man,’”[343] says the _Sohar_. > “That day (the last one) will perish the seven badly-disposed > stellars, also the sons of man, who have confessed the _Spiritus_, > the Messias (false), the Deus, and the MOTHER of the SPIRITUS shall > perish.”[344] > > Jesus enforced and illustrated his doctrines with signs and > wonders; and if we lay aside the claims advanced on his behalf by > his deifiers, he did but what other kabalists did; and only _they_ > at that epoch, when, for two centuries the sources of prophecy > had been completely dried up, and from this stagnation of public > “miracles” had originated the skepticism of the unbelieving sect of > the Sadducees. Describing the “heresies” of those days, Theodoret, > who has no idea of the hidden meaning of the word Christos, the > _anointed_ messenger, complains that they (the Gnostics) assert > _that this Messenger or Delegatus changes his body from time to > time_, “_and goes into other bodies, and at each time is differently > manifested_. And these (the overshadowed prophets) use incantations > and invocations of various demons and baptisms in the confession > of their principles.... They embrace astrology and magic, and the > mathematical error,” (?) he says.[345] > > This “mathematical error,” of which the pious writer complains, > led subsequently to the rediscovery of the heliocentric system, > erroneous as it may still be, and forgotten since the days of > another “magician” who taught it--Pythagoras. Thus, the wonders of > healing and the thaums of Jesus, which he imparted to his followers, > show that they were learning, in their daily communication with > him, the theory and practice of the new ethics, day by day, and in > the familiar intercourse of intimate friendship. Their faith was > progressively developed, like that of all neophytes, simultaneously > with the increase of knowledge. We must bear in mind that Josephus, > who certainly must have been well informed on the subject, calls > the skill of expelling demons “a science.” This growth of faith is > conspicuously shown in the case of Peter, who, from having lacked > enough faith to support him while he could walk on the water from the > boat to his Master, at last became so expert a thaumaturgist, that > Simon Magus is said to have offered him money to teach him the secret > of healing, and other wonders. And Philip is shown to have become an > Æthrobat as good as Abaris of Pythagorean memory, but less expert > than Simon Magus. > > Neither in the _Homilies_ nor any other early work of the apostles, > is there anything to show that either of his friends and followers > regarded Jesus as anything more than a prophet. The idea is as > clearly established in the _Clementines_. Except that too much room > is afforded to Peter to establish the identity of the Mosaic God > with the Father of Jesus, the whole work is devoted to Monotheism. > The author seems as bitter against Polytheism as against the claim > to the divinity of Christ.[346] He seems to be utterly ignorant of > the Logos, and his speculation is confined to Sophia, the Gnostic > wisdom. There is no trace in it of a hypostatic trinity, but the > same overshadowing of the Gnostic “wisdom (Christos and Sophia) is > attributed in the case of Jesus as it is in those of Adam, Enoch, > Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.[347] These personages are > all placed on one level, and called ‘true prophets,’ and the seven > pillars of the world.” More than that, Peter vehemently denies the > fall of Adam, and with him, the doctrine of atonement, as taught by > Christian theology, utterly falls to the ground, _for he combats it > as a blasphemy_.[348] Peter’s theory of sin is that of the Jewish > kabalists, and even, in a certain way, Platonic. Adam not only never > sinned, but, “as a true prophet, possessed of the Spirit of God, > which afterwards was in Jesus, _could not_ sin.”[349] In short, the > whole of the work exhibits the belief of the author in the kabalistic > doctrine of permutation. The _Kabala_ teaches the doctrine of > transmigration of the spirit.[350] “Mosah is the _revolutio_ of Seth > and Hebel.”[351] > > “Tell me who it is who brings about the _re-birth_ (the revolutio)?” > is asked of the wise Hermes. “God’s Son, the _only man_, through the > will of God,” is the answer of the “heathen.”[352] > > “God’s son” is the immortal spirit assigned to every human being. It > is this divine entity which is the “_only man_,” for the casket which > contains our soul, and the soul itself, are but half-entities, and > without its overshadowing both body and astral soul, the two are but > an animal _duad_. It requires a trinity to form the complete “man,” > and allow him to remain immortal at every “re-birth,” or _revolutio_, > throughout the subsequent and ascending spheres, every one of which > brings him nearer to the refulgent realm of eternal and _absolute_ > light. > > “God’s FIRST-BORN, who is the ‘holy Veil,’ the ‘Light of Lights,’ it > is he who sends the revolutio of the Delegatus, for he is the _First > Power_,” says the kabalist.[353] > > “The pneuma (spirit) and the dunamis (power), which is from the God, > it is right to consider nothing else than the _Logos_, who is _also_ > (?) First-begotten to the God,” argues a Christian.[354] > > “Angels and powers are in heaven!” says Justin, thus bringing forth > a purely kabalistic doctrine. The Christians adopted it from the > _Sohar_ and the hæretical sects, and if Jesus mentioned them, it > was not in the official synagogues that he learned the theory, > but directly in the kabalistic teachings. In the Mosaic books, > very little mention is made of them, and Moses, who holds direct > communications with the “Lord God,” troubles himself very little > about them. The doctrine was a secret one, and deemed by the orthodox > synagogue heretical. Josephus calls the Essenes heretics, saying: > “Those admitted among the Essenes must swear to communicate their > doctrines to no one any otherwise _than as he received them himself_, > and equally to preserve the books _belonging to their sect_, and the > _names of the angels_.”[355] The Sadducees did not believe in angels, > neither did the uninitiated Gentiles, who limited their Olympus to > gods and demi-gods, or “spirits.” Alone, the kabalists and theurgists > hold to that doctrine from time immemorial, and, as a consequence, > Plato, and Philo Judæus after him, followed first by the Gnostics, > and then by the Christians. > > Thus, if Josephus never wrote the famous interpolation forged by > Eusebius, concerning Jesus, on the other hand, he has described in > the Essenes all the principal features that we find prominent in > the Nazarene. When praying, they sought solitude.[356] “When thou > prayest, enter into thy closet ... and pray to thy Father which is in > secret” (_Matthew_ vi. 6). “Everything spoken by them (Essenes) is > stronger than an oath. Swearing is shunned by them” (_Josephus_ II., > viii., 6). “But I say unto you, swear not at all ... but let your > communication be yea, yea; nay, nay” (_Matthew_ v. 34-37). > > The Nazarenes, as well as the Essenes and the Therapeutæ, believed > more in their own interpretations of the “hidden sense” of the more > ancient Scriptures, than in the later laws of Moses. Jesus, as we > have shown before, felt but little veneration for the commandments of > his predecessor, with whom Irenæus is so anxious to connect him. > > The Essenes “enter into the houses of _those whom they never saw > previously_, as if they were their intimate friends” (_Josephus_ II., > viii., 4). Such was undeniably the custom of Jesus and his disciples. > > Epiphanius, who places the Ebionite “heresy” on one level with that > of the Nazarenes, also remarks that the Nazaraioi come next to the > Cerinthians,[357] so much vituperated against by Irenæus.[358] > > Munk, in his work on _Palestine_, affirms that there were 4,000 > Essenes living in the desert; that they had their mystical books, > and predicted the future.[359] The Nabatheans, with very little > difference indeed, adhered to the same belief as the Nazarenes and > the Sabeans, and all of them honored John the Baptist more than > his successor Jesus. The Persian Iezidi say that they originally > came to Syria from Busrah. They use baptism, and believe in seven > archangels, though paying at the same time reverence to Satan. Their > prophet Iezed, who flourished long prior to Mahomet,[360] taught that > God will send a messenger, and that the latter would reveal to him > a book which is already written in heaven from the eternity.[361] > The Nabatheans inhabited the Lebanon, as their descendants do to > the present day, and their religion was from its origin purely > kabalistic. Maimonides speaks of them as if he identified them with > the Sabeans. “I will mention to thee the writings ... respecting > the belief and institutions of the _Sabeans_,” he says. “The most > famous is the book _The Agriculture of the Nabathæans_, which has > been translated by Ibn Wahohijah. This book is full of heathenish > foolishness.... It speaks of the preparations of TALISMANS, the > drawing down of the powers of the SPIRITS, MAGIC, DEMONS, and ghouls, > which make their abode in the desert.”[362] > > There are traditions among the tribes living scattered about _beyond_ > the Jordan, as there are many such also among the descendants of the > Samaritans at Damascus, Gaza, and at Naplosa (the ancient Shechem). > Many of these tribes have, notwithstanding the persecutions of > eighteen centuries, retained the faith of their fathers in its > primitive simplicity. It is there that we have to go for traditions > based on _historical_ truths, however disfigured by exaggeration > and inaccuracy, and compare them with the religious legends of the > Fathers, which they call revelation. Eusebius states that before > the siege of Jerusalem the small Christian community--comprising > members of whom many, if not all, knew Jesus and his apostles > personally--took refuge in the little town of Pella, on the opposite > shore of the Jordan. Surely these simple people, separated for > centuries from the rest of the world, ought to have preserved their > traditions fresher than any other nations! It is in Palestine that > we have to search for the _clearest_ waters of Christianity, let > alone its source. The first Christians, after the death of Jesus, all > joined together for a time, whether they were Ebionites, Nazarenes, > Gnostics, or others. They had no Christian dogmas in those days, and > their Christianity consisted in believing Jesus to be a prophet, > this belief varying from seeing in him simply a “just man,”[363] or > a holy, inspired prophet, a vehicle used by Christos and Sophia to > manifest themselves through. These all united together in opposition > to the synagogue and the tyrannical technicalities of the Pharisees, > until the primitive group separated in two distinct branches--which, > we may correctly term the Christian kabalists of the Jewish Tanaïm > school, and the Christian kabalists of the Platonic Gnosis.[364] The > former were represented by the party composed of the followers of > Peter, and John, the author of the _Apocalypse_; the latter ranged > with the Pauline Christianity, blending itself, at the end of the > second century, with the Platonic philosophy, and engulfing, still > later, the Gnostic sects, whose symbols and misunderstood mysticism > overflowed the Church of Rome. > > Amid this jumble of contradictions, what Christian is secure in > confessing himself such? In the old Syriac _Gospel according to Luke_ > (iii. 22), the Holy Spirit is said to have descended in the likeness > of a dove. “Jesua, full of the sacred Spirit, returned from Jordan, > and the Spirit led him into the desert” (old Syriac, _Luke_ iv. 1, > _Tremellius_). “The difficulty,” says Dunlap, “was that the Gospels > declared that John the Baptist saw the Spirit (the Power of God) > descend upon Jesus after he had reached manhood, and if the Spirit > then first descended upon him, there was some ground for the opinion > of the Ebionites and Nazarenes who denied his _preceding_ existence, > and refused him the attributes of the LOGOS. The Gnostics, on the > other hand, objected to the flesh, but conceded the Logos.”[365] > > John’s _Apocalypsis_, and the explanations of sincere Christian > bishops, like Synesius, who, to the last, adhered to the Platonic > doctrines, make us think that the wisest and safest way is to hold > to that sincere primitive faith which seems to have actuated the > above-named bishop. This best, sincerest, and most unfortunate of > Christians, addressing the “Unknown,” exclaims: “Oh Father of the > Worlds ... Father of the Æons ... _Artificer of the Gods_, it is holy > to praise!” But Synesius had Hypatia for instructor, and this is why > we find him confessing in all sincerity his opinions and profession > of faith. “The rabble desires nothing better than to be deceived.... > As regards myself, therefore, _I will always be a philosopher with > myself_, but I _must be priest_ with the people.” > > “Holy is God the Father of all being, holy is God, whose wisdom is > carried out into execution by his own Powers!... Holy art Thou, who > through the Word had created all! Therefore, I believe in Thee, and > bear testimony, and go into the LIFE and LIGHT.”[366] Thus speaks > Hermes Trismegistus, the heathen divine. What Christian bishop could > have said better than that? > > The apparent discrepancy of the four gospels as a whole, does not > prevent every narrative given in the _New Testament_--however much > disfigured--having a ground-work of truth. To this, are cunningly > adapted details made to fit the later exigencies of the Church. So, > propped up partially by indirect evidence, still more by blind faith, > they have become, with time, articles of faith. Even the fictitious > massacre of the “Innocents” by King Herod has a certain foundation > to it, in its allegorical sense. Apart from the now-discovered fact > that the whole story of such a massacre of the Innocents is bodily > taken from the Hindu _Bagaved-gitta_, and Brahmanical traditions, the > legend refers, moreover, allegorically, to an historical fact. King > Herod is the type of Kansa, the tyrant of Madura, the maternal uncle > of Christna, to whom astrologers predicted that a son of his niece > Devaki would deprive him of his throne. Therefore he gives orders to > kill the male child that is born to her; but Christna escapes his > fury through the protection of Mahadeva (the great God) who causes > the child to be carried away to another city, out of Kansa’s reach. > After that, in order to be sure and kill the right boy, on whom he > failed to lay his murderous hands, Kansa has all the male newborn > infants within his kingdom killed. Christna is also worshipped by the > gopas (the shepherds) of the land. > > Though this ancient Indian legend bears a very suspicious resemblance > to the more modern biblical romance, Gaffarel and others attribute > the origin of the latter to the persecutions during the Herodian > reign of the kabalists and the _Wise men_, who had not remained > strictly orthodox. The latter, as well as the prophets, were > nicknamed the “Innocents,” and the “Babes,” on account of their > holiness. As in the case of certain degrees of modern Masonry, the > adepts reckoned their grade of initiation by a _symbolic_ age. Thus > Saul who, when chosen king, was “a choice and goodly man,” and “from > his shoulders upward was higher than any of the people,” is described > in Catholic versions, as “child of _one year_ when he began to > reign,” which, in its literal sense, is a palpable absurdity. But in > _1 Samuel_ x., his anointing by Samuel and initiation are described; > and at verse 6th, Samuel uses this significant language: “... the > Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee and thou shalt prophesy with > them, _and shalt be turned into another man_.” The phrase above > quoted is thus made plain--he had received one degree of initiation > and was symbolically described as “a child one year old.” The > Catholic _Bible_, from which the text is quoted, with charming candor > says in a foot-note: “It is extremely difficult to explain” (meaning > that Saul was a child of one year). But undaunted by any difficulty > the Editor, nevertheless, does take upon himself to explain it, and > adds: “_A child of one year._ That is, _he was good and like an > innocent child_.” An interpretation as ingenious as it is pious; and > which if it does no good can certainly do no harm.[367] > > If the explanation of the kabalists is rejected, then the whole > subject falls into confusion; worse still--for it becomes a direct > plagiarism from the Hindu legend. All the commentators have agreed > that a litteral massacre of young children is nowhere mentioned in > history; and that, moreover, an occurrence like that would have made > such a bloody page in Roman annals that the record of it would have > been preserved for us by every author of the day. Herod himself was > subject to the Roman law; and undoubtedly he would have paid the > penalty of such a monstrous crime, with his own life. But if, on the > one hand, we have not the slightest trace of this fable in history, > on the other, we find in the official complaints of the Synagogue > abundant evidence of the persecution of the initiates. The _Talmud_ > also corroborates it. > > The Jewish version of the birth of Jesus is recorded in the > _Sepher-Toldos Jeshu_ in the following words: > > “Mary having become the mother of a Son, named Jehosuah, and the boy > growing up, she entrusted him to the care of the Rabbi Elhanan, and > the child progressed in knowledge, for he was well gifted with spirit > and understanding. > > “Rabbi Jehosuah, son of Perachiah, continued the education of > Jehosuah (Jesus) after Elhanan, and _initiated_ him in the _secret_ > knowledge;” but the King, Janneus, having given orders to slay all > the initiates, Jehosuah Ben Perachiah, fled to Alexandria, in Egypt, > taking the boy with him. > > While in Alexandria, continues the story, they were received in the > house of a rich and learned lady (personified Egypt). Young Jesus > found her beautiful, notwithstanding “_a defect in her eyes_,” and > declared so to his master. Upon hearing this, the latter became so > angry that his pupil should find in the land of bondage anything > good, that “he cursed him and drove the young man from his presence.” > Then follow a series of adventures told in allegorical language, > which show that Jesus supplemented his initiation in the Jewish > _Kabala_ with an additional acquisition of the secret wisdom of > Egypt. When the persecution ceased, they both returned to Judea.[368] > > The real grievances against Jesus are stated by the learned author of > _Tela Ignea Satanæ_ (the fiery darts of Satan) to be two in number: > 1st, that he had discovered the great Mysteries of their Temple, by > having been initiated in Egypt; and 2d, that he had profaned them by > exposing them to the vulgar, who misunderstood and disfigured them. > This is what they say:[369] > > “There exists, in the sanctuary of the living God, a cubical stone, > on which are sculptured the holy characters, the combination of > which gives the explanation of the attributes and powers of the > incommunicable name. This explanation is the secret key of all the > occult sciences and forces in nature. It is what the Hebrews call the > _Scham hamphorash_. This stone is watched by two lions of gold, who > roar as soon as it is approached.[370] The gates of the temple were > never lost sight of, and the door of the sanctuary opened but once > a year, to admit the High Priest alone. But Jesus, who had learned > in Egypt the ‘great secrets’ at the initiation, forged for himself > invisible keys, and thus was enabled to penetrate into the sanctuary > unseen.... He copied the characters on the cubical stone, and hid > them in his thigh;[371] after which, emerging from the temple, he > went abroad and began astounding people with his miracles. The dead > were raised at his command, the leprous and the obsessed were healed. > He forced the stones which lay buried for ages at the bottom of > the sea to rise to the surface until they formed a mountain, from > the top of which he preached.” The _Sepher Toldos_ states further > that, _unable to displace_ the cubical stone of the sanctuary, Jesus > fabricated one of clay, which he showed to the nations and passed it > off for the true cubical stone of Israel. > > This allegory, like the rest of them in such books, is written > “_inside and outside_”--it has its secret meaning, and ought to be > read two ways. The kabalistic books explain its mystical meaning. > Further, the same Talmudist says, in substance, the following: Jesus > was thrown in prison,[372] and kept there forty days; then flogged > as a seditious rebel; then stoned as a blasphemer in a place called > Lud, and finally allowed to expire upon a cross. “All this,” explains > Levi, “because he revealed to the people the truths which they > (the Pharisees) wished to bury for their own use. He had divined > the occult theology of Israel, had compared it with the wisdom > of Egypt, and found thereby the reason for a universal religious > synthesis.”[373] > > However cautious one ought to be in accepting anything about Jesus > from Jewish sources, it must be confessed that in some things they > seem to be more correct in their statements (whenever their direct > interest in stating facts is not concerned) than our good but too > jealous Fathers. One thing is certain, James, the “Brother of the > Lord,” is silent about the _resurrection_. He terms Jesus nowhere > “Son of God,” nor even Christ-God. Once only, speaking of Jesus, he > calls him the “Lord of Glory,” but so do the Nazarenes when writing > about their prophet _Iohanan bar Zacharia_, or John, son of Zacharias > (St. John Baptist). Their favorite expressions about their prophet > are the same as those used by James when speaking of Jesus. A man “of > the seed of a man,” “Messenger of Life,” of light, “my Lord Apostle,” > “King sprung of Light,” and so on. “Have not the faith of our _Lord_ > JESUS Christ, _the Lord of Glory_” etc., says James in his epistle > (ii. 1), presumably addressing Christ as GOD. “Peace to thee, my > _Lord_, JOHN Abo Sabo, Lord of Glory!” says the _Codex Nazaræus_ > (ii., 19), known to address but a prophet. “Ye have condemned and > killed the _Just_,” says James (v. 6). “Iohanan (John) is the _Just_ > one, he comes in the way of _justice_,” says Matthew (xxi. 32, Syriac > text). > > James does not even call Jesus _Messiah_, in the sense given to > the title by the Christians, but alludes to the kabalistic “King > Messiah,” who is Lord of Sabaoth[374] (v. 4), and repeats several > times that the “Lord” will come, but identifies the latter nowhere > with Jesus. “Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the > Lord ... be patient, for the coming of the Lord _draweth nigh_” (v. > 7, 8). And he adds: “Take, my brethren, the prophet (Jesus) _who > has spoken in the name of the Lord_ for an example of suffering, > affliction, and of patience.” Though in the present version the > word “prophet” stands in the plural, yet this is a deliberate > falsification of the original, the purpose of which is too evident. > James, immediately after having cited the “prophets” as an example, > adds: “Behold ... ye have _heard_ of the patience of Job, and _have > seen the end_ of the Lord”--thus combining the examples of these two > admirable characters, and placing them on a perfect equality. But we > have more to adduce in support of our argument. Did not Jesus himself > glorify the prophet of the Jordan? “What went ye out for to see? A > prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.... Verily, > I say unto you, among them that are born _of women_ there hath not > risen a greater than John the Baptist.” > > And of whom was he who spoke thus born? It is but the Roman Catholics > who have changed Mary, the mother of Jesus, into a _goddess_. In the > eyes of all other Christians she was a woman, whether his own birth > was immaculate or otherwise. According to strict logic, then, Jesus > confessed John _greater_ than himself. Note how completely this > matter is disposed of by the language employed by the Angel Gabriel > when addressing Mary: “Blessed art thou among _women_.” These words > are unequivocal. He does not adore her as the Mother of God, nor does > he call her _goddess_; he does not even address her as “Virgin,” but > he calls her _woman_, and only distinguishes her above other women as > having had better fortune, through her purity. > > The Nazarenes were known as Baptists, Sabians, and John’s Christians. > Their belief was that the Messiah was not the Son of God, but simply > a prophet who would follow John. “Johanan, the Son of the Abo > Sabo Zachariah, shall say to himself, ‘Whoever will believe in my > _justice_ and my BAPTISM shall be joined to my association; he shall > share with me the seat which is the abode of life, of the supreme > Mano, and of living fire” (_Codex Nazaræus_, ii., p. 115). Origen > remarks “there are some who said of John (the Baptist) that he was > the _anointed_ (Christus).[375] The Angel Rasiel of the kabalists > is the Angel _Gabriel_ of the Nazarenes, and it is the latter who > is chosen of all the celestial hierarchy by the Christians to > become the messenger of the ‘annunciation.’ The genius sent by the > ‘Lord of Celsitude’ is Æbel Zivo, whose name is also called GABRIEL > Legatus.”[376] Paul must have had the sect of the Nazarenes in mind > when he said: “And last of all he (Jesus) was seen of me also, as _of > one born out of due time_” (_1 Corinth._, xv. 8), thus reminding his > listeners of the expression usual to the Nazarenes, who termed the > Jews “the abortions, or born out of time.” Paul prides himself of > belonging to a hæresy.[377] > > When the metaphysical conceptions of the Gnostics, who saw in Jesus > the Logos and the anointed, began to gain ground, the earliest > Christians separated from the Nazarenes, who accused Jesus of > perverting the doctrines of John, and changing the baptism of the > Jordan.[378] “Directly,” says Milman, “as it (the Gospel) got > _beyond_ the borders of Palestine, and the name of ‘Christ’ had > acquired sanctity and veneration in the Eastern cities, he became > a kind of _metaphysical impersonation_, while the religion lost > its purely moral cast and assumed the character of a _speculative > theogony_.”[379] The only half-original document that has reached us > from the primitive apostolic days, is the _Logia_ of Matthew. The > real, genuine doctrine has remained in the hands of the Nazarenes, > in this _Gospel of Matthew_ containing the “secret doctrine,” the > “Sayings of Jesus,” mentioned by Papias. These sayings were, no > doubt, of the same nature as the small manuscripts placed in the > hands of the neophytes, who were candidates for the Initiations into > the Mysteries, and which contained the _Aporrheta_, the revelations > of some important rites and symbols. For why should Matthew take such > precautions to make them “_secret_” were it otherwise? > > Primitive Christianity had its grip, pass-words, and degrees of > initiation. The innumerable Gnostic gems and amulets are weighty > proofs of it. It is a whole symbolical science. The kabalists were > the first to embellish the universal Logos,[380] with such terms > as “Light of Light,” the Messenger of LIFE and LIGHT,[381] and we > find these expressions adopted _in toto_ by the Christians, with the > addition of nearly all the Gnostic terms such as Pleroma (fulness), > Archons, Æons, etc. As to the “First-Born,” the First, and the > “Only-Begotten,” these are as old as the world. Origen shows the > word “Logos” as existing among the Brachmanes. “The _Brachmanes_ say > that the God is _Light_, not such as one sees, nor such as the sun > and fire; but they have the _God_ LOGOS, not the articulate, the > Logos of the Gnosis, through whom the highest MYSTERIES of the Gnosis > are seen by the wise.”[382] The _Acts_ and the fourth _Gospel_ teem > with Gnostic expressions. The kabalistic: “God’s first-born emanated > from the Most High,” together with _that which is the “Spirit of > the Anointing;”_ and again “they called him the anointed of the > Highest,”[383] are reproduced in Spirit and substance by the author > of the _Gospel according to John_. “That was _the true light_,” and > “the light shineth in darkness.” “And the WORD _was made flesh_.” > “And his _fulness_ (pleroma) have all we received,” etc. (_John_ i. > et seq.). > > The “Christ,” then, and the “Logos” existed ages before Christianity; > the Oriental Gnosis was studied long before the days of Moses, and we > have to seek for the origin of all these in the archaic periods of > the primeval Asiatic philosophy. Peter’s second _Epistle_ and Jude’s > fragment, preserved in the _New Testament_, show by their phraseology > that they belong to the kabalistic Oriental Gnosis, for they use > the same expressions as did the Christian Gnostics who built a part > of their system from the Oriental _Kabala_. “Presumptuous are they > (the Ophites), self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of > DIGNITIES,” says Peter (2d Epistle ii. 10), the original model for > the later abusive Tertullian and Irenæus.[384] “Likewise (even as > Sodom and Gomorrah) also these _filthy_ dreamers defile the flesh, > despise DOMINION and speak evil of DIGNITIES,” says Jude, repeating > the very words of Peter, and thereby expressions consecrated in the > _Kabala_. _Dominion_ is the “Empire,” the _tenth_ of the kabalistic > sephiroth.[385] The _Powers_ and Dignities are the subordinate genii > of the Archangels and Angels of the _Sohar_.[386] These emanations > are the very life and soul of the _Kabala_ and Zoroastranism; and > the _Talmud_ itself, in its present state, is all borrowed from the > _Zend-avesta_. Therefore, by adopting the views of Peter, Jude, and > other Jewish apostles, the Christians have become but a dissenting > sect of the Persians, for they do not even interpret the meaning > of all such _Powers_ as the true kabalists do. Paul’s warning his > converts against the worshipping of angels, shows how well he > appreciated, even so early as his period, the dangers of borrowing > from a metaphysical doctrine the philosophy of which could be rightly > interpreted but by its well-learned adherents, the Magi and the > Jewish Tanaïm. “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary > humility and _worshipping of angels_, intruding into those things > which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”[387] > is a sentence laid right at the door of Peter and his champions. In > the _Talmud_, Michael is Prince of Water, who has _seven_ inferior > spirits subordinate to him. He is the patron, the guardian angel of > the Jews, as Daniel informs us (v. 21), and the Greek Ophites, who > identified him with their Ophiomorphos, the personified creation > of the envy and malice of Ilda-Baoth, the Demiurgus (Creator of > the _material_ world), and undertook to prove that he was also > Samuel, the Hebrew prince of the evil spirits, or Persian devs, were > naturally regarded by the Jews as blasphemers. But did Jesus ever > sanction this belief in angels except in so far as hinting that they > were the messengers and subordinates of God? And here the origin of > the later splits between Christian beliefs is directly traceable to > these two early contradictory views. > > Paul, believing in all such occult powers in the world “unseen,” > but ever “present,” says: “Ye walked according to the ÆON of this > world, according to the _Archon_ (Ilda-Baoth, the _Demiurg_) that > has the domination of the air,” and “We wrestle not against flesh > and blood, but against the _dominations_, the _powers_; the lords of > darkness, the mischievousness of spirits in the upper regions.” This > sentence, “Ye were dead in sin and error,” for “ye walked according > to the _Archon_,” or Ilda-Baoth, the God and creator of matter of > the Ophites, shows unequivocally that: 1st, Paul, notwithstanding > some dissensions with the more important doctrines of the Gnostics, > shared more or less their cosmogonical views on the emanations; and > 2d, that he was fully aware that this Demiurge, whose Jewish name > was Jehovah, was _not_ the God preached by Jesus. And now, if we > compare the doctrine of Paul with the religious views of Peter and > Jude, we find that, not only did they worship Michael, the Archangel, > but that also they _reverenced_ SATAN, because the latter was also, > before his fall, an angel! This they do quite openly, and abuse > the Gnostics[388] for speaking “evil” of him. No one can deny the > following: Peter, when denouncing those who are not afraid to speak > evil of “_dignities_,” adds immediately, “Whereas angels, which > are greater in power and might, _bring not railing accusations_ > against them (the dignities) before the Lord” (ii. 11). Who are the > dignities? Jude, in his general epistle, makes the word as clear as > day. The _dignities_ are the DEVILS!! Complaining of the disrespect > shown by the Gnostics to the _powers_ and _dominions_, Jude argues > in the very words of Peter: “And yet, Michael, the Archangel, when > contending _with the devil_, he disputed about the body of Moses, > _durst not bring against him a railing accusation_, but said, The > Lord rebuke thee” (i. 9). Is this plain enough? If not, then we have > the _Kabala_ to prove who were the _dignities_. > > Considering that _Deuteronomy_ tells us that the “_Lord_” Himself > buried Moses in a valley of Moab (xxxiv. 6), “and no man knoweth of > his sepulchre unto this day,” this biblical _lapsus linguæ_ of Jude > gives a strong coloring to the assertions of some of the Gnostics. > They claimed but what was secretly taught by the Jewish kabalists > themselves; to wit: that the highest supreme God was unknown and > invisible; “the King of Light is a closed eye;” that Ilda-Baoth, the > Jewish second Adam, was the real Demiurge; and that Iao, Adonai, > Sabaoth, and Eloi were the quaternary emanation which formed the > unity of the God of the Hebrews--Jehovah. Moreover, the latter was > also called Michael and Samael by them, and regarded but as an angel, > several removes from the Godhead. In holding to such a belief, the > Gnostics countenanced the teachings of the greatest of the Jewish > doctors, Hillel, and other Babylonian divines. Josephus shows the > great deference of the official Synagogue in Jerusalem to the wisdom > of the schools of Central Asia. The colleges of Sora, Pumbiditha, and > Nahaidea were considered the headquarters of esoteric and theological > learning by all the schools of Palestine. The Chaldean version of > the _Pentateuch_, made by the well-known Babylonian divine, Onkelos, > was regarded as the most authoritative of all; and it is according > to this learned Rabbi that Hillel and other Tanaïm after him held > that the Being who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, on Mount > Sinai, and who finally buried him, was the _angel_ of the Lord, > Memro, and not the Lord Himself; and that he whom the Hebrews of > the _Old Testament_ mistook for _Iahoh_ was but His messenger, one > of His sons, or emanations. All this establishes but one logical > conclusion--namely, that the Gnostics were by far the superiors > of the disciples, in point of education and general information; > even in a knowledge of the religious tenets of the Jews themselves. > While they were perfectly well-versed in the Chaldean wisdom, the > well-meaning, pious, but fanatical as well as ignorant disciples, > unable to fully understand or grasp the religious spirit of their own > system, were driven in their disputations to such convincing logic > as the use of “brute beasts,” “sows,” “dogs,” and other epithets so > freely bestowed by Peter. > > Since then, the epidemic has reached the apex of the sacerdotal > hierarchy. From the day when the founder of Christianity uttered the > warning, that he who shall say to his brother, “Thou fool, shall > be in danger of hell-fire,” all who have passed as its leaders, > beginning with the ragged fishermen of Galilee, and ending with > the jewelled pontiffs, have seemed to vie with each other in the > invention of opprobrious epithets for their opponents. So we find > Luther passing a final sentence on the Catholics, and exclaiming > that “The Papists are all asses, put them in whatever form you like; > whether they are boiled, roasted, baked, fried, skinned, hashed, > they will be always the same asses.” Calvin called the victims he > persecuted, and occasionally burned, “malicious barking dogs, full of > bestiality and insolence, base corrupters of the sacred writings,” > etc. Dr. Warburton terms the Popish religion “an impious farce,” and > Monseigneur Dupanloup asserts that the Protestant Sabbath service is > the “Devil’s mass,” and all clergymen are “thieves and ministers of > the Devil.” > > The same spirit of incomplete inquiry and ignorance has led the > Christian Church to bestow on its most holy apostles, titles assumed > by their most desperate opponents, the “Hæretics” and Gnostics. > So we find, for instance, Paul termed the vase of election “_Vas > Electionis_,” a title chosen by _Manes_,[389] the greatest heretic of > his day in the eyes of the Church, Manes meaning, in the Babylonian > language, the chosen vessel or receptacle.[390] > > So with the Virgin Mary. They were so little gifted with originality, > that they copied from the Egyptian and Hindu religions their several > apostrophes to their respective Virgin-mothers. The juxtaposition of > a few examples will make this clear. > > HINDU. > _Litany of our Lady Nari: Virgin._ (_Also Devanaki._) > > 1. Holy Nari--Mariāma, Mother of perpetual fecundity. > 2. Mother of an incarnated God--Vishnu (Devanaki). > 3. Mother of Christna. > 4. Eternal Virginity--Kanyabâva. > 5. Mother--Pure Essence, Akasa. > 6. Virgin most chaste--Kanya. > 7. Mother Taumatra, of the _five_ virtues or elements. > 8. Virgin Trigana (of the three elements, power or richness, > love, and mercy). > 9. Mirror of Supreme Conscience--Ahancara. > 10. Wise Mother--Saraswati. > 11. Virgin of the white Lotos, Pedma or Kamala. > 12. Womb of Gold--Hyrania. > 13. Celestial Light--Lakshmi. > 14. Ditto. > 15. Queen of Heaven, and of the universe--Sakti. > 16. Mother soul of all beings--Paramatma. > 17. Devanaki is conceived without sin, and immaculate > herself. (According to the Brahmanic fancy.) > > EGYPTIAN. > _Litany of our Lady Isis: Virgin._ > > 1. Holy Isis, universal mother--Muth. > 2. Mother of Gods--Athyr. > 3. Mother of Horus. > 4. Virgo generatrix--Neith. > 5. Mother-soul of the universe--Anouké. > 6. Virgin sacred earth--Isis. > 7. Mother of all the virtues--Thmei, with the same > qualities. > 8. Illustrious Isis, most powerful, merciful, just. (_Book > of the Dead._) > 9. Mirror of Justice and Truth--Thmei. > 10. Mysterious mother of the world--_Buto_ (secret wisdom). > 11. Sacred Lotos. > 12. Sistrum of Gold. > 13. Astarté (Syrian), Astaroth (Jewish). > 14. Argua of the Moon. > 15. Queen of Heaven, and of the universe--Sati. > 16. Model of all mothers--Athor. > 17. Isis is a Virgin Mother. > > ROMAN CATHOLIC. > _Litany of our Lady of Loretto: Virgin._ > > 1. Holy Mary, mother of divine grace. > 2. Mother of God. > 3. Mother of Christ. > 4. Virgin of Virgins. > 5. Mother of Divine Grace. > 6. Virgin most chaste. > 7. Mother most pure. > Mother undefiled. > Mother inviolate. > Mother most amiable. > Mother most admirable. > 8. Virgin most powerful. > Virgin most merciful. > Virgin most faithful. > 9. Mirror of Justice. > 10. Seat of Wisdom. > 11. Mystical Rose. > 12. House of Gold. > 13. Morning Star. > 14. Ark of the Covenant. > 15. Queen of Heaven. > 16. Mater Dolorosa. > 17. Mary conceived without sin. (In accordance with later > orders.) > > If the Virgin Mary has her nuns, who are consecrated to her and bound > to live in chastity, so had Isis her nuns in Egypt, as Vesta had hers > at Rome, and the Hindu Nari, “mother of the world hers.” The virgins > consecrated to her cultus--the Devadasi of the temples, who were the > nuns of the days of old--lived in great chastity, and were objects of > the most extraordinary veneration, as the holy women of the goddess. > Would the missionaries and some travellers reproachfully point to the > modern Devadasis, or Nautch-girls? For all response, we would beg > them to consult the official reports of the last quarter century, > cited in chapter II., as to certain discoveries made at the razing > of convents, in Austria and Italy. Thousands of infants’ skulls were > exhumed from ponds, subterranean vaults, and gardens of convents. > Nothing to match _this_ was ever found in heathen lands. > > Christian theology, getting the doctrine of the archangels and angels > directly from the Oriental _Kabala_, of which the Mosaic _Bible_ is > but an allegorical screen, ought at least to remember the hierarchy > invented by the former for these personified emanations. The hosts of > the Cherubim and Seraphim, with which we generally see the Catholic > Madonnas surrounded in their pictures, belong, together with the > Elohim and Beni Elohim of the Hebrews, to the _third_ kabalistic > world, _Jezirah_. This world is but one remove higher than _Asiah_, > the fourth and lowest world, in which dwell the grossest and most > material beings--the _klippoth_, who delight in evil and mischief, > and whose chief is _Belial_! > > Explaining, in his way, of course, the various “heresies” of the > first two centuries, Irenæus says: “Our Hæretics hold ... that > PROPATOR is known but to the _only-begotten_ son, that is to the > _mind_” (the nous). It was the Valentinians, the followers of the > “profoundest doctor of the Gnosis,” Valentinus, who held that “there > was a perfect AIÔN, who existed before Bythos, or Buthon (the Depth), > called Propator.” This is again kabalistic, for in the _Sohar_ of > Simon Ben Iochaï, we read the following: “_Senior occultatus est > et absconditus; Microprosopus manifestus est, et non manifestus_” > (Rosenroth: _The Sohar Liber Mysteries_, iv., 1). > > In the religious metaphysics of the Hebrews, the Highest One is an > abstraction; he is “without form or being,” “with no likeness with > anything else.”[391] And even Philo calls the Creator, the _Logos_ > who stands next God, “the SECOND God.” “The _second_ God who is his > WISDOM.”[392] God is NOTHING, he is nameless, and therefore called > _Ain-Soph_--the word _Ain_ meaning _nothing_.[393] But if, according > to the older Jews, Jehovah is _the_ God, and He manifested Himself > several times to Moses and the prophets, and the Christian Church > anathematized the Gnostics who denied the fact--how comes it, then, > that we read in the fourth gospel that “_No man hath seen God_ AT ANY > TIME, but the _only-begotten_ Son ... he hath declared him?” The very > words of the Gnostics, in spirit and substance. This sentence of St. > John--or rather whoever wrote the gospel now bearing his name--floors > all the Petrine arguments against Simon Magus, without appeal. The > words are repeated and emphasized in chapter vi.: “_Not that any > man hath seen the Father_, save he which is of God, he (Jesus) hath > seen the Father” (46)--the very objection brought forward by Simon > in the _Homilies_. These words prove that either the author of the > fourth evangel had no idea of the existence of the _Homilies_, or > that he was _not_ John, the friend and companion of Peter, whom he > contradicts point-blank with this emphatic assertion. Be it as it > may, this sentence, like many more that might be profitably cited, > blends Christianity completely with the Oriental Gnosis, and hence > with the KABALA. > > While the doctrines, ethical code, and observances of the Christian > religion were all appropriated from Brahmanism and Buddhism, its > ceremonials, vestments, and pageantry were taken bodily from Lamaism. > The Romish monastery and nunnery are almost servile copies of similar > religious houses in Thibet and Mongolia, and interested explorers > of Buddhist lands, when obliged to mention the unwelcome fact, > have had no other alternative left them but, with an anachronism > unsurpassed in recklessness, to charge the offense of plagiarism upon > the religious system their own mother Church had despoiled. This > makeshift has served its purpose and had its day. The time has at > last come when this page of history must be written. > > CHAPTER V. > > “Learn to know all, but keep thyself unknown.”--GNOSTIC MAXIM. > > “There is one God supreme over all gods, diviner than mortals, > Whose form is not like unto man’s, and as unlike his nature; > But vain mortals imagine that gods _like themselves are begotten_ > With human sensations, and voice, and corporeal members.” > --XENOPHANES: _Clem. Al. Strom._, v. 14, § 110. > > “TYCHIADES.--Can you tell me the reason, Philocles, why most > men desire to lye, and delight not only to speak fictions > themselves, but give busie attention to others who do? > “PHILOCLES.--There be many reasons, Tychiades, which compell > some to speak lyes, because they see ’tis profitable.”--_A > Dialogue of Lucian._ > > “SPARTAN.--Is it to thee, or to God, that I must confess? > “PRIEST.--To God. > “SPARTAN.--Then, MAN, stand back!”--PLUTARCH: _Remarkable > Lacedemonian Sayings_. > > We will now give attention to some of the most important Mysteries of > the _Kabala_, and trace their relations to the philosophical myths of > various nations. > > In the oldest Oriental _Kabala_, the Deity is represented as three > circles in one, shrouded in a certain smoke or chaotic exhalation. > In the preface to the _Sohar_, which transforms the three primordial > circles into THREE HEADS, over these is described an exhalation or > smoke, neither black nor white, but colorless, and circumscribed > within a circle. This is the unknown Essence.[394] The origin of > the Jewish image may, perhaps, be traced to Hermes’ _Pimander_, the > Egyptian _Logos_, who appears within a cloud of a humid nature, with > a smoke escaping from it.[395] In the _Sohar_ the highest God is, as > we have shown in the preceding chapter, and as in the case of the > Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, a pure abstraction, whose objective > existence is denied by the latter. It is Hakama, the “SUPREME WISDOM, > that cannot be understood by reflection,” and that lies within and > without the CRANIUM of LONG FACE[396] (Sephira), the uppermost of the > three “Heads.” It is the “boundless and the infinite En-Soph,” the > No-Thing. > > The “three Heads,” superposed above each other, are evidently taken > from the three mystic triangles of the Hindus, which also superpose > each other. The highest “head” contains the _Trinity in Chaos_, out > of which springs the manifested trinity. En-Soph, the unrevealed > forever, who is boundless and unconditioned, cannot create, and > therefore it seems to us a great error to attribute to him a > “creative thought,” as is commonly done by the interpreters. In every > cosmogony this supreme Essence is _passive_; if boundless, infinite, > and unconditioned, it can have no _thought_ nor _idea_. It acts not > as the result of volition, but in obedience to its own nature, > and _according to the fatality of the law of which it is itself > the embodiment_. Thus, with the Hebrew kabalists, En-Soph is > non-existent עַיִן, for it is incomprehensible to our finite intellects, > and therefore cannot exist to our minds. Its first emanation was > Sephira, the crown כתר. When the time for an active period had > come, then was produced a natural expansion of this Divine > essence from within outwardly, obedient to eternal and immutable > law; and from this eternal and infinite light (which to us is > darkness) was emitted a spiritual substance.[397] This was the > First Sephiroth, containing in herself the other nine ספירות Sephiroth, > or intelligences. In their totality and unity they represent the > archetypal man, Adam Kadmon, the πρωτόγονος, who in his individuality > or unity is yet dual, or bisexual, the Greek _Didumos_, for he is the > prototype of all humanity. Thus we obtain three trinities, each > contained in a “head.” In the first head, or face (the three-faced > Hindu Trimurti), we find _Sephira_, the first androgyne, at the apex > of the upper triangle, emitting _Hackama_, or Wisdom, a masculine and > active potency--also called Jah, יה--and _Binah_, בינה, or Intelligence, > a female and passive potency, also represented by the name Jehovah יהוה. > These three form the first trinity or “face” of the Sephiroth. This > triad emanated _Hesed_, חסד, or Mercy, a masculine active potency, > also called _El_, from which emanated _Geburah_ דין, or Justice, also > called Eloha, a feminine passive potency; from the union of these > two was produced Tiphereth תפארת, Beauty, Clemency, the Spiritual > Sun, known by the divine name _Elohim_; and the second triad, “face,” > or “head,” was formed. These emanating, in their turn, the masculine > potency _Netzah_, נצח, Firmness, or Jehovah Sabaoth, who issued the > feminine passive potency _Hod_, הוד, Splendor, or Elohim Sabaoth; the > two produced _Jesod_, יסוד, Foundation, who is the mighty living one > _El-Chai_, thus yielding the third trinity or “head.” The tenth > Sephiroth is rather a duad, and is represented on the diagrams as the > lowest circle. It is Malchuth or Kingdom, מלכות, and Shekinah שכינה, > also called Adonai, and _Cherubim_ among the angelic hosts. The first > “Head” is called the Intellectual world; the second “Head” is the > Sensuous, or the world of Perception, and the third is the Material or > Physical world. > > “Before he gave any shape to the universe,” says the _Kabala_, > “before he produced any form, he was alone without any form and > resemblance to anything else. Who, then, can comprehend him, how > he was before the creation, since he was formless? Hence, it is > forbidden to represent him by any form, similitude, or even by his > sacred name, by a single letter, or a single point.... The Aged of > the Aged, the Unknown of the Unknown, has a form, and yet no form. He > has a form whereby the universe is preserved, and yet has no form, > because he cannot be comprehended. When he first assumed a form (in > Sephira, his first emanation), he caused nine splendid lights to > emanate from it.”[398] > > And now we will turn to the Hindu esoteric Cosmogony and definition > of “Him who is, and yet is not.” > > “From him who is,[399] from this immortal Principle which exists in > our minds but cannot be perceived by the senses, is born Purusha, the > Divine male and female, who became _Narayana_, or the Divine Spirit > moving on the water.” > > Swayambhuva, the unknown essence of the Brahmans, is identical with > En-Soph, the unknown essence of the kabalists. As with the latter, > the ineffable name could not be pronounced by the Hindus, under the > penalty of death. In the ancient primitive trinity of India, that > which may be certainly considered as pre-Vedic, the _germ_ which > fecundates the _mother-principle_, the mundane egg, or the universal > womb, is called _Nara_, the Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, which > emanates from the primordial essence. It is like Sephira, the oldest > emanation, called the _primordial point_, and the _White Head_, for > it is the point of divine light appearing from within the fathomless > and boundless darkness. In _Manu_ it is “NARA, or the Spirit of God, > which moves on Ayana (Chaos, or place of motion), and is called > NARAYANA, or moving on the waters.”[400] In Hermes, the Egyptian, we > read: “In the beginning of the time there was naught in the chaos.” > But when the “_verbum_,” issuing from the void like a “colorless > smoke,” makes its appearance, then “this verbum moved on the humid > principle.”[401] And in _Genesis_ we find: “And darkness was upon > the face of the deep (chaos). And the Spirit of God moved upon the > face of the waters.” In the _Kabala_, the emanation of the primordial > passive principle (Sephira), by dividing itself into two parts, > active and passive, emits Chochma-Wisdom and Binah-Jehovah, and in > conjunction with these two acolytes, which complete the trinity, > becomes the Creator of the abstract Universe; the physical world > being the production of later and still more material powers.[402] In > the Hindu Cosmogony, Swayambhuva emits Nara and Nari, its bisexual > emanation, and dividing its parts into two halves, male and female, > these fecundate the mundane egg, within which develops Brahma, or > rather Viradj, the Creator. “The starting-point of the Egyptian > mythology,” says Champollion, “is a triad ... namely, Kneph, Neith, > and Phtah; and Ammon, the male, the father; Muth, the female and > mother; and Khons, the son.” > > The ten Sephiroth are copies taken from the ten Prâdjapatis created > by Viradj, called the “Lords of all beings,” and answering to the > biblical Patriarchs. > > Justin Martyr explains some of the “heresies” of the day, but in a > very unsatisfactory manner. _He shows, however, the identity of all > the world-religions at their starting-points._ The first _beginning_ > opens invariably with the _unknown_ and passive deity, producing > from himself a certain active power or virtue, “Rational,” which is > sometimes called WISDOM, sometimes the SON, very often God, Angel, > Lord, and LOGOS.[403] The latter is sometimes applied to the very > first emanation, but in several systems it proceeds from the first > androgyne or double ray produced at the beginning by the unseen. > Philo depicts this wisdom as male and female. But though its first > manifestation had a beginning, for it proceeded from _Oulom_[404] > (Aiôn, time), the highest of the Æons, when emitted from the Fathers, > it had remained with him _before all creations_, for it is part of > him.[405] Therefore, Philo Judæus calls Adam Kadmon “_mind_” (the > Ennoia of _Bythos_ in the Gnostic system). “The mind, let it be named > Adam.”[406] > > Strictly speaking, it is difficult to view the Jewish _Book of > Genesis_ otherwise than as a chip from the trunk of the mundane tree > of universal Cosmogony, rendered in Oriental allegories. As cycle > succeeded cycle, and one nation after another came upon the world’s > stage to play its brief part in the majestic drama of human life, > each new people evolved from ancestral traditions its own religion, > giving it a local color, and stamping it with its individual > characteristics. While each of these religions had its distinguishing > traits, by which, were there no other archaic vestiges, the physical > and psychological status of its creators could be estimated, all > preserved a common likeness to one prototype. This parent cult was > none other than the primitive “wisdom-religion.” The Israelitish > _Scriptures_ are no exception. Their national history--if they can > claim any autonomy before the return from Babylon, and were anything > more than migratory septs of Hindu pariahs, cannot be carried back > a day beyond Moses; and if this ex-Egyptian priest must, from > theological necessity, be transformed into a Hebrew patriarch, we > must insist that the Jewish nation was lifted with that smiling > infant out of the bulrushes of Lake Moeris. Abraham, their alleged > father, belongs to the universal mythology. Most likely he is but one > of the numerous aliases of _Zeruan_ (Saturn), the king of the golden > age, who is also called the old man (emblem of time).[407] > > It is now demonstrated by Assyriologists that in the old Chaldean > books Abraham is called Zeru-an, or Zerb-an--meaning one very rich in > gold and silver, and a mighty prince.[408] He is also called Zarouan > and Zarman--a decrepit old man.[409] > > The ancient Babylonian legend is that Xisuthrus (Hasisadra of the > Tablets, or Xisuthrus) sailed with his ark to Armenia, and his son > Sim became supreme king. Pliny says that Sim was called Zeruan; and > Sim is Shem. In Hebrew, his name writes שם, _Shem_--a sign. Assyria > is held by the ethnologists to be the land of Shem, and Egypt called > that of Ham. Shem, in the tenth chapter of _Genesis_ is made the > father of all the children of Eber, of Elam (Oulam or Eilam), and > Ashur (Assur or Assyria). The “_nephelim_,” or fallen men, _Gebers_, > mighty men spoken of in _Genesis_ (vi. 4), come from _Oulam_, “men of > _Shem_.” Even Ophir, which is evidently to be sought for in the India > of the days of Hiram, is made a descendant of Shem. The records are > purposely mixed up to make them fit into the frame of the Mosaic > _Bible_. But _Genesis_, from its first verse down to the last, has > naught to do with the “chosen people;” it belongs to the world’s > history. Its appropriation by the Jewish authors in the days of the > so-called _restoration_ of the destroyed books of the Israelites, by > Ezra, proves nothing, and, until now, has been self-propped on an > alleged divine revelation. It is simply a compilation of the universal > legends of the universal humanity. Bunsen says that in the “Chaldean > tribe immediately connected with Abraham, we find reminiscences of > dates disfigured and misunderstood, as genealogies of single men, or > indications of epochs. The Abrahamic recollections go back at least > three millenia beyond the grandfather of Jacob.”[410] > > Alexander Polyhistor says that Abraham was born at Kamarina or > _Uria_, a city of soothsayers, and _invented astronomy_. Josephus > claims the same for Terah, Abraham’s father. The tower of Babel was > built as much by the direct descendants of Shem as by those of the > “accursed” Ham and Canaan, for the people in those days were “one,” > and the “whole earth was of one language;” and Babel was simply an > astrological tower, and its builders were astrologers and adepts > of the primitive Wisdom-Religion, or, again, what we term Secret > Doctrine. > > The Berosian Sybil says: Before the Tower, Zeru-an, Titan, and > Yapetosthe governed the earth, Zeru-an wished to be supreme, but his > two brothers resisted, when their sister, Astlik, intervened and > appeased them. It was agreed that Zeru-an should rule, but his male > children should be put to death; and strong Titans were appointed to > carry this into effect. > > Sar (circle, saros) is the Babylonian god of the sky. He is also > Assaros or Asshur (the son of Shem), and Zero--Zero-ana, the > chakkra, or wheel, boundless time. Hence, as the first step taken by > Zoroaster, while founding his new religion, was to change the most > sacred deities of the Sanscrit _Veda_ into names of evil spirits, in > his Zend _Scriptures_, and even to reject a number of them, we find > no traces in the _Avesta_ of Chakkra--the symbolic circle of the sky. > > Elam, another of the sons of Shem, is _Oulam_ עולם, and refers to an > order or cycle of events. In _Ecclesiastes_ iii. 11, it is termed > “world.” In _Ezekiel_ xxvi. 20, “of old time.” In _Genesis_ iii. 22, > the word stands as “forever;” and in chapter ix. 16, “eternal.” > Finally, the term is completely defined in _Genesis_ vi. 4, in the > following words: “There were _nephelim_ (giants, fallen men, or > Titans) on the earth.” The word is synonymous with Æon, αιων. In > _Proverbs_ viii. 23, it reads: “I was effused from _Oulam_, from > _Ras_” (wisdom). By this sentence, the wise king-kabalist refers to > one of the mysteries of the human spirit--the immortal crown of the > man-trinity. While it ought to read as above, and be interpreted > kabalistically to mean that the _I_ (or my eternal, immortal _Ego_), > the spiritual entity, was effused from the boundless and nameless > eternity, through the creative wisdom of the unknown God, it reads in > the canonical translation: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of > his way, before his works of old!” which is unintelligible nonsense, > without the kabalistic interpretation. When Solomon is made to say > that _I_ was “from the beginning ... while, as yet, he (the Supreme > Deity) had not made the earth nor the highest part of the dust of the > world ... I was there,” and “when he appointed the foundations of the > earth ... then I was by him, _as one brought up with him_,” what can > the kabalist mean by the “_I_,” but his own divine spirit, a drop > effused from that eternal fountain of light and wisdom--the universal > spirit of the Deity? > > The thread of glory emitted by En-Soph from the highest of the > three kabalistic heads, through which “all things shine with > light,” the thread which makes its exit through Adam _Primus_, is > the individual spirit of every man. “I was daily his (En-Soph’s) > delight, rejoicing always before him ... and my delights were > _with the sons of men_,” adds Solomon, in the same chapter of the > _Proverbs_. The immortal spirit delights in the _sons of men_, who, > without this spirit, are but dualities (physical body and astral > soul, or that _life-principle_ which animates even the lowest of the > animal kingdom). But, we have seen that the doctrine teaches that > this spirit cannot unite itself with that man in whom matter and the > grossest propensities of his animal soul will be ever crowding it > out. Therefore, Solomon, who is made to speak under the inspiration > of his own spirit, that possesses him for the time being, utters > the following words of wisdom: “Hearken unto me, my son” (the dual > man), “blessed are they who keep my ways.... Blessed is the man that > heareth me, watching daily at my gates.... For whoso _findeth me, > findeth life_, and shall obtain favor of the Lord.... But he that > sinneth _against me_ wrongeth his _own soul_ ... and loves _death_” > (_Proverbs_ vii. 1-36). > > This chapter, as interpreted, is made by some theologians, like > everything else, to apply to Christ, the “Son of God,” who states > repeatedly, that he who follows him obtains eternal life, and > conquers death. But even in its distorted translation it can be > demonstrated that it referred to anything but to the alleged Saviour. > Were we to accept it in this sense, then, the Christian theology > would have to return, _nolens volens_, to Averroism and Buddhism; > to the doctrine of emanation, in short; for Solomon says: “I was > effused” from Oulam and Rasit, both of which are a part of the > Deity; and thus Christ would not be as their doctrine claims, God > himself, but only an _emanation_ of Him, like the Christos of the > Gnostics. Hence, the meaning of the personified Gnostic Æon, the word > signifying cycles or determined periods in the eternity and at the > same time, representing a hierarchy of celestial beings--spirits. > Thus Christ is sometimes termed the “Eternal Æon.” But the word > “eternal” is erroneous in relation to the Æons. Eternal is that which > has neither beginning nor end; but the “Emanations” or Æons, although > having lived as absorbed in the divine essence from the eternity, > when once individually emanated, must be said to have a beginning. > They may be therefore _endless_ in this spiritual life, never eternal. > > These endless emanations of the one First Cause, all of which were > gradually transformed by the popular fancy into distinct gods, > spirits, angels, and demons, were so little considered immortal, > that all were assigned a limited existence. And this belief, common > to all the peoples of antiquity, to the Chaldean Magi as well as > to the Egyptians, and even in our day held by the Brahmanists > and Buddhists, most triumphantly evidences the monotheism of the > ancient religious systems. This doctrine calls the life-period of > all the inferior divinities, “one day of Parabrahma.” After a cycle > of fourteen milliards, three hundred and twenty-millions of human > years--the tradition says--the trinity itself, with all the lesser > divinities, will be annihilated, together with the universe, and > cease to exist. Then another universe will gradually emerge from the > pralaya (dissolution), and men on earth will be enabled to comprehend > SWAYAMBHUVA as he is. Alone, this primal cause will exist forever, in > all his glory, filling the infinite space. What better proof could > be adduced of the deep reverential feeling with which the “heathen” > regard the one Supreme eternal cause of all things visible and > invisible. > > This is again the source from which the ancient kabalists derived > identical doctrines. If the Christians understood _Genesis_ in > their own way, and, if accepting the texts literally, they enforced > upon the uneducated masses the belief in a creation of our world > out of nothing; and moreover assigned to it a _beginning_, it is > surely not the Tanaïm, the sole expounders of the hidden meaning > contained in the _Bible_, who are to be blamed. No more than any > other philosophers had they ever believed either in spontaneous, > limited, or _ex nihilo_ creations. The _Kabala_ has survived to > show that their philosophy was precisely that of the modern Nepäl > Buddhists, the Svâbhâvikas. They believed _in the eternity and the > indestructibility of matter_, and hence in many prior creations and > destructions of worlds, before our own. “There were old worlds which > perished.”[411] “From this we see that the Holy One, blessed be His > name, had successively created and destroyed sundry worlds, before > he created the present world; and when he created this world he > said: ‘This pleases me; the previous ones did not please me.’”[412] > Moreover, they believed, again like the Svâbhâvikas, now termed > Atheists, that every thing proceeds (is created) from its own nature > and that once that the first impulse is given by that Creative Force > inherent in the “Self-created substance,” or Sephira, everything > evolves out of itself, following its pattern, the more spiritual > prototype which precedes it in the scale of infinite creation. “The > indivisible point which has no limit, and cannot be comprehended > (for it is absolute), expanded from within, and formed a brightness > which served as a garment (a veil) to the indivisible points.... > It, too, expanded from within.... Thus, _everything originated > through_ a constant upheaving agitation, and thus finally the world > originated.”[413] > > In the later Zoroastrian books, after that Darius had restored both > the worship of Ormazd and added to it the purer magianism of the > primitive _Secret Wisdom_--חכמות־נסתרה, of which, as the inscription > tells us, he was himself a hierophant, we see again reappearing the > Zeru-ana, or boundless time, represented by the Brahmans in the > _chakkra_, or a circle; that we see figuring on the uplifted finger of > the principal deities. Further on, we will show the relation in which > it stands to the Pythagorean, mystical numbers--the first and the > last--which is a _zero_ (0), and to the greatest of the Mystery-Gods > IAO. The identity of this symbol alone, in all the old religions, is > sufficient to show their common descent from one primitive Faith.[414] > This term of “boundless time,” which can be applied but to the ONE who > has neither beginning nor end, is called by the Zoroastrians > Zeruana-Akarene, because he has always existed. “His glory,” they say, > is too exalted, his light too resplendent for either human intellect > or mortal eyes to grasp and see. His primal emanation is eternal light > which, from having been previously concealed in darkness, was called > out to manifest itself, and thus was formed Ormazd, “the King of > Life.” He is the first-born of boundless time, but like his own > antitype, or preëxisting spiritual idea, has lived within primitive > darkness from all eternity. His _Logos_ created the pure intellectual > world. After the lapse of three grand cycles[415] he created the > material world in six periods. The six Amshaspands, or _primitive_ > spiritual men, whom Ormazd created in his own image, are the mediators > between this world and himself. Mithras is an emanation of the Logos > and the chief of the twenty-eight _izeds_, who are the tutelary angels > over the spiritual portion of mankind--the souls of men. The > _Ferouers_ are infinite in number. They are the ideas or rather the > ideal conceptions of things which formed themselves in the mind of > Ormazd or Ahuramazda before he willed them to assume a concrete form. > They are what Aristotle terms “privations” of forms and substances. > The religion of Zarathustra, as he is always called in the _Avesta_, > is one from which the ancient Jews have the most borrowed. In one of > the Yashts, Ahuramazda, the Supreme, gives to the seer as one of his > sacred names, _Ahmi_, “I am;” and in another place, _ahmi yat ahmi_, > “I am that I am,” as Jehovah is alleged to have given it to Moses. > > This Cosmogony, adopted with a change of names in the Rabbinical > _Kabala_, found its way, later, with some additional speculations > of Manes, the half-Magus, half-Platonist, into the great body of > Gnosticism. The real doctrines of the Basilideans, Valentinians, and > the Marcionites cannot be correctly ascertained in the prejudiced > and calumnious writings of the Fathers of the Church; but rather > in what remains of the works of the Bardesanesians, known as the > Nazarenes. It is next to impossible, now that all their manuscripts > and books are destroyed, to assign to any of these sects its due part > in dissenting views. But there are a few men still living who have > preserved books and direct traditions about the Ophites, although > they care little to impart them to the world. Among the unknown sects > of Mount Lebanon and Palestine the truth has been concealed for more > than a thousand years. And their _diagram_ of the Ophite scheme > differs with the description of it given by Origen and hence with the > _diagram_ of Matter.[416] > > The kabalistic trinity is one of the models of the Christian one. > “The ANCIENT whose name be sanctified, is with three heads, but > which make only one.”[417] _Tria capita exsculpa sunt, unum intra > alterum, et alterum supra alterum._ Three heads are inserted in one > another, and one over the other. The first head is the Concealed > Wisdom (_Sapientia Abscondita_). Under this head is the ANCIENT > (Pythagorean _Monad_), the most hidden of mysteries; a head which is > no head (_caput quod non est caput_); no one can know what that is > in this head. No intellect is able to comprehend this wisdom.[418] > This _Senior Sanctissimus_ is surrounded by the three heads. He is > the eternal LIGHT of the wisdom; and the wisdom is the source from > which all the manifestations have begun. These three heads, included > in ONE HEAD (which is no head); and these three are bent down > (overshadow) SHORT-FACE (the son) and through them all things shine > with light.[419] “En-Soph emits a thread from El or _Al_ (the highest > God of the Trinity), and the light follows the thread and enters, and > passing through makes its exit through Adam _Primus_ (Kadmon), who is > _concealed_ until the plan for arranging (_statum dispositionis_) is > ready; it threads through him from his head to his feet; and in him > (in the concealed Adam) is the figure of A MAN.”[420] > > “Whoso wishes to have an insight into the sacred unity, let him > consider a flame rising from a burning coal or a burning lamp. He > will see first a two-fold light--a bright white, and a black or blue > light; the white light is _above_, and ascends in a direct light, > while the blue, or dark light, is _below_, and seems as the chair of > the former, yet both are so intimately connected together that they > constitute only one flame. The seat, however, formed by the blue > or dark light, is again connected with the burning matter which is > _under_ it again. The white light never changes its color, it always > remains white; but various shades are observed in the lower light, > whilst the lowest light, moreover, takes two directions; _above_, > it is connected with the white light, and _below_ with the burning > matter. Now, this is constantly consuming itself, and perpetually > ascends to the upper light, and thus everything merges into a single > unity.”[421] > > Such were the ancient ideas of the trinity in the unity, as an > abstraction. Man, who is the microcosmos of the macrocosmos, or of > the archetypal heavenly man, Adam Kadmon, is likewise a trinity; for > he is _body_, _soul_, and _spirit_. > > “All that is created by the ‘Ancient of the Ancients’ can live > and exist only by a male and a female,” says the Sohar.[422] He > alone, to whom no one can say, “Thou,” for he is the spirit of the > WHITE-HEAD in whom the “THREE HEADS” are united, is uncreated. > Out of the subtile fire, on one side of the White Head, and of > the “subtile air,” on the other, emanates Shekinah, his veil (the > femininized Holy Ghost). “This air,” says Idra Rabba, “is the most > occult (occultissimus) attribute of the Ancient of the Days.[423] The > Ancienter of the Ancienter is the _Concealed_ of the Concealed.[424] > All things are Himself, and Himself is concealed on every way.[425] > The _cranium_ of the WHITE-HEAD has no beginning, but its end has a > shining reflection and a _roundness_ which is our universe.” > > “They regard,” says Klenker, “the first-born as man and wife, in > so far as his light includes in itself all other lights, and in so > far as his spirit of life or breath of life includes all other life > spirits in itself.”[426] The kabalistic Shekinah answers to the > Ophite Sophia. Properly speaking, Adam Kadmon is the Bythos, but in > this emanation-system, where everything is calculated to perplex > and place an obstacle to inquiry, he is the _Source_ of Light, the > first “primitive man,” and at the same time _Ennoia_, the Thought of > Bythos, the Depth, for he is Pimander. > > The Gnostics, as well as the Nazarenes, allegorizing on the > personification, said that the _First_ and _Second_ man loved the > beauty of Sophia, (Sephira) the first woman, and thus the Father > and the Son fecundated the heavenly “Woman” and, from primal > darkness procreated the visible light (Sephira is the Invisible, or > Spiritual Light), “whom they called the ANOINTED CHRISTUM, or King > Messiah.”[427] This Christus is the _Adam of Dust_ before his fall, > with the spirit of the Adonai, his Father, and Shekinah Adonai, > his mother, upon him; for Adam Primus is Adon, Adonai, or Adonis. > The primal existence manifests itself by its wisdom, and produces > the _Intelligible_ LOGOS (all visible creation). This wisdom was > venerated by the Ophites under the form of a serpent. So far we see > that the first and second life are the two Adams, or the first and > the second man. In the former lies _Eva_, or the yet unborn spiritual > Eve, and she is within Adam _Primus_, for she is a part of himself, > who is androgyne. The Eva of dust, she who will be called in > _Genesis_ “the mother of all that live,” is _within_ Adam the Second. > And now, from the moment of its first manifestation, the LORD MANO, > the Unintelligible Wisdom, disappears from the scene of action. It > will manifest itself only as Shekinah, the GRACE; for the CORONA is > “the innermost Light of all Lights,” and hence it is darkness’s own > substance.[428] > > In the _Kabala_, Shekinah is the ninth emanation of Sephira, which > contains the whole of the ten Sephiroth within herself. She belongs > to the third triad and is produced together with _Malchuth_ or > “Kingdom,” of which she is the female counterpart. Otherwise she is > held to be higher than any of these; for she is the “Divine Glory,” > the “veil,” or “garment,” of En-Soph. The Jews, whenever she is > mentioned in the _Targum_, say that she is the glory of Jehovah, > which dwelt in the tabernacle, manifesting herself like a visible > cloud; the “Glory” rested over the Mercy-Seat in the _Sanctum > Sanctorum_. > > In the Nazarene or Bardesanian System, which may be termed the Kabala > within the Kabala, the Ancient of Days--_Antiquus Altus_, who is the > Father of the Demiurgus of the universe, is called the _Third_ Life, > or _Abatur_; and he is the Father of Fetahil, who is the architect > of the visible universe, which he calls into existence by the powers > of his genii, at the order of the “Greatest;” the Abatur answering > to the “Father” of Jesus in the later Christian theology. These two > superior _Lives_ then, are the crown within which dwells the greatest > _Ferho_. “Before any creature came into existence the Lord Ferho > existed.”[429] This one is the First Life, formless and invisible; > in whom the living Spirit of LIFE exists, the Highest GRACE. The two > are ONE from eternity, for they are the Light and the CAUSE of the > Light. Therefore, they answer to the kabalistic concealed _wisdom_, > and to the concealed Shekinah--the Holy Ghost. “This light, which > is manifested, is the garment of the Heavenly Concealed,” says Idra > Suta. And the “heavenly man” is the superior Adam. “No one knows his > paths except _Macroprosopus_” (Long-face)--the Superior _active_ > god.[430] “Not as I am _written_ will I be read; in this world my > name will be written Jehovah and read Adonai,”[431] say the Rabbins, > very correctly. Adonai is the Adam Kadmon; he is FATHER and MOTHER > both. By this double mediatorship the Spirit of the “Ancient of the > Ancient” descends upon the _Microprosopus_ (Short-face) or the Adam > of Eden. And the “Lord God breathes into his nostrils the breath of > life.” > > When the woman separates herself from her androgyne, and becomes a > distinct individuality, the first story is repeated over again. Both > the Father and Son, the two Adams, love her beauty; and then follows > the allegory of the temptation and fall. It is in the _Kabala_, as > in the Ophite system, in which both the Ophis and the Ophiomorphos > are emanations emblematized as serpents, the former representing > Eternity, Wisdom, and Spirit (as in the Chaldean Magism of > Aspic-worship and Wisdom-Doctrine in the olden times), and the latter > Cunning, Envy, and Matter. Both spirit and matter are serpents; and > Adam Kadmon becomes the Ophis who tempts himself--man and woman--to > taste of the “Tree of Good and Evil,” in order to teach them the > mysteries of spiritual wisdom. Light tempts Darkness, and Darkness > attracts Light, for Darkness is _matter_, and “the _Highest_ Light > shines not in its _Tenebræ_.” With knowledge comes the temptation > of the Ophiomorphos, and he prevails. The dualism of every existing > religion is shown forth by the fall. “I have gotten a man from _the > Lord_,” exclaims Eve, when the Dualism, Cain and Abel--evil and > good--is born. “And the Adam knew Hua, his woman (_astu_), and she > became pregnant and bore _Kin_, and she said: קינתי איש את־יהוה: _Kiniti > ais_ Yava.--I have gained or obtained a husband, even _Yava_--Is, > Ais--man.” “_Cum arbore peccati Deus creavit seculum._” > > And now we will compare this system with that of the Jewish > Gnostics--the Nazarenes, as well as with other philosophies. > > The ISH AMON, the pleroma, or the boundless circle within which lie > “all forms,” is the THOUGHT of the power divine; it works in SILENCE, > and suddenly light is begotten by darkness; it is called the SECOND > life; and this one produces, or generates the THIRD. This third light > is “the FATHER of all things that live,” as EUA is the “mother of > all that live.” He is the Creator who calls inert matter into life, > through his vivifying spirit, and, therefore, is called the ancient > of the world. Abatur is the Father who creates the first Adam, who > creates in his turn the second. Abatur opens a gate and walks to the > dark water (chaos), and looking down into it, the darkness reflects > the image of Himself ... and lo! a SON is formed--the Logos or > Demiurge; Fetahil, who is the builder of the _material_ world, is > called into existence. According to the Gnostic dogma, this was the > _Metatron_, the Archangel Gabriel, or messenger of life; or, as the > biblical allegory has it, the androgynous Adam-Kadmon again, the SON, > who, with his Father’s spirit, produces the ANOINTED, or Adam before > his fall. > > When Swayambhuva, the “Lord who exists through himself,” feels > impelled to manifest himself, he is thus described in the Hindu > sacred books. > > Having been impelled to produce various beings from his own divine > substance, he first manifested the waters which developed within > themselves a productive seed. > > The seed became a germ bright as gold, blazing like the luminary with > a thousand beams; and in that egg he was born himself, in the form > of BRAHMA, the great principle of all the beings (_Manu_, book i., > slokas 8, 9). > > The Egyptian Kneph, or Chnuphis, Divine Wisdom, represented by a > serpent, produces an egg from his mouth, from which issues Phtha. In > this case Phtha represents the universal germ, as well as Brahmä, > who is of the neuter gender, when the final _a_ has a diaresis on > it;[432] otherwise it becomes simply one of the names of the Deity. > The former was the model of the THREE LIVES of the Nazarenes, as > that of the kabalistic “Faces,” PHARAZUPHA, which, in its turn, > furnished the model for the Christian Trinity of Irenæus and his > followers. The egg was the primitive matter which served as a > material for the building of the visible universe; it contained, > as well as the Gnostic Pleroma, the kabalistic Shekinah, the man > and wife, the spirit and life, “whose light includes all other > lights” or life-spirits. This first manifestation was symbolized > by a serpent, which is at first _divine_ wisdom, but, _falling > into generation_, becomes polluted. Phtha is the heavenly man, the > Egyptian Adam-Kadmon, or Christ, who, in conjunction with the female > Holy Ghost, the ZOE, produces the five elements, air, water, fire, > earth, and ether; the latter being a servile copy from the Buddhist > A’d, and his five Dhyana Buddhas, as we have shown in the preceding > chapter. The Hindu Swayambhuva-Nara, develops from himself the > _mother-principle_, enclosed within his own divine essence--Nari, > the immortal Virgin, who, when impregnated by his spirit, becomes > Taumâtra, the mother of the five elements--air, water, fire, earth, > and ether. Thus may be shown how from the Hindu cosmogony all others > proceed. > > Knorr von Rosenroth, busying himself with the interpretation of the > _Kabala_, argues that, “In this first state (of secret wisdom), > the infinite God Himself can be understood as ‘Father’ (of the new > covenant). But the _Light_ being let down by the Infinite through > a canal into the ‘primal Adam,’ or _Messiah_, and joined with him, > can be applied to the name SON. And the influx emitted down from > him (the Son) to the lower parts (of the universe), can be applied > to the character of the Holy Ghost.”[433] Sophia-Achamoth, the > half-spiritual, half-material LIFE, which vivifies the inert matter > in the depths of chaos, is the Holy Ghost of the Gnostics, and the > _Spiritus_ (female) of the Nazarenes. She is--be it remembered--the > _sister_ of _Christos_, the perfect emanation, and both are children > or emanations of Sophia, the purely spiritual and intellectual > daughter of Bythos, the Depth. For the elder Sophia is Shekinah, the > Face of God, “God’s Shekinah, which is his image.”[434] > > “The _Son_ Zeus-Belus, or Sol-Mithra is an image of the Father, an > emanation from the _Supreme Light_,” says Movers. “He passed for > Creator.”[435] > > “Philosophers say the first air is _anima mundi_. But the garment > (Shekinah) is higher than the first air, since it is joined closer > to the En-Soph, the Boundless.”[436] Thus _Sophia_ is Shekinah, and > Sophia-Achamoth the _anima mundi_, the astral light of the kabalists, > which contains the spiritual and material germs of all _that is_. For > the Sophia-Achamoth, like _Eve_, of whom she is the prototype, is > “the mother of all that live.” > > There are three trinities in the Nazarene system as well as in the > Hindu philosophy of the ante and early Vedic period. While we see > the few translators of the _Kabala_, the Nazarene _Codex_, and other > abstruse works, hopelessly floundering amid the interminable pantheon > of names, unable to agree as to a system in which to classify them, > for the one hypothesis contradicts and overturns the other, we can > but wonder at all this trouble, which could be so easily overcome. > But even now, when the translation, and even the perusal of the > ancient Sanscrit has become so easy as a point of comparison, > they would never think it possible that every philosophy--whether > Semitic, Hamitic, or Turanian, as they call it, has its key in the > Hindu sacred works. Still facts are there, and facts are not easily > destroyed. Thus, while we find the Hindu trimurti triply manifested as > > Nara (or Para-Pouroucha), Agni, Brahma, the Father, > Nari (Mariama), Vaya, Vishnu, the Mother, > Viradj (Brahmä), Surya, Siva, the Son, > > and the Egyptian trinity as follows: > > Kneph (or Amon), Osiris, Ra (Horus), the Father, > Maut (or Mut), Isis, Isis, the Mother, > Khons, Horus, Malouli, the Son;[437] > > the Nazarene System runs, > > Ferho (Ish-Amon), Mano, Abatur, the Father, > Chaos (dark water), Spiritus (female), Netubto, the Mother, > Fetahil, Ledhaio, Lord Jordan, the Son. > > The first is the concealed or non-manifested trinity--a pure > abstraction. The other the active or the one revealed in the results > of creation, proceeding out of the former--its spiritual prototype. > The third is the mutilated image of both the others, crystallized in > the form of human dogmas, which vary according to the exuberance of > the national materialistic fancy. > > The Supreme Lord of splendor and of light, luminous and refulgent, > before which no other existed, is called Corona (the crown); Lord > Ferho, the unrevealed life which existed in the former from eternity; > and Lord Jordan--the spirit, the living water of grace.[438] He is > the one through whom alone we can be saved; and thus he answers > to the Shekinah, the spiritual garment of En-Soph, or the Holy > Ghost. These three constitute the trinity in _abscondito_. The > second trinity is composed of the three lives. The first is the > similitude of Lord Ferho, through whom he has proceeded forth; > and the second Ferho is the King of Light--MANO (_Rex Lucis_). He > is the heavenly life and light, and older than the Architect of > heaven and earth.[439] The second life is _Ish Amon_ (Pleroma), the > vase of election, containing the visible thought of the _Iordanus > Maximus_--the _type_ (or its intelligible reflection), the prototype > of the living water, who is the “spiritual Jordan.”[440] Third life, > which is produced by the other two, is ABATUR (_Ab_, the Parent or > Father). This is the mysterious and decrepit “Aged of the Aged,” the > “Ancient _Senem sui obtegentem et grandævum mundi_.” This latter > third Life is the Father of the Demiurge Fetahil, the Creator of > the world, whom the Ophites call Ilda-Baoth,[441] though Fetahil is > the _only-begotten one_, the reflection of the Father, Abatur, who > begets him by looking into the “dark water;”[442] but the Lord Mano, > “the Lord of loftiness, the Lord of all genii,” is higher than the > Father, in this kabalistic _Codex_--one is purely spiritual, the > other material. So, for instance, while Abatur’s “only begotten” one > is the genius Fetahil, the Creator of the physical world, Lord Mano, > the “Lord of Celsitude,” who is the son of Him, who is “the Father > of all who preach the Gospel,” produces also an “only-begotten” one, > the Lord Lehdaio, “a just Lord.” He is the Christos, the anointed, > who pours out the “grace” of the Invisible Jordan, the Spirit of the > _Highest Crown_. > > In the Arcanum, “in the assembly of splendor, lighted by MANO, to > whom the scintillas of splendor owe their origin,” the genii who > live in light “rose, they went to the visible Jordan, and flowing > water ... they assembled for a counsel ... and called forth the > Only-Begotten Son of an imperishable image, and who cannot be > conceived by reflection, Lehdaio, the just Lord, and sprung from > Lehdaio, the just lord, whom the life had produced by his word.”[443] > > Mano is the chief of the seven Æons, who are Mano (_Rex Lucis_) > Aiar Zivo, Ignis Vivus, Lux, Vita, Aqua Viva (the living water of > baptism, the genius of the Jordan), and Ipsa Vita, the chief of the > six genii, which form with him the mystic _seven_. The Nazarene Mano > is simply the copy of the Hindu first Manu--the emanation of Manu > Swayambhuva--from whom evolve in succession the six other Manus, > types of the subsequent races of men. We find them all represented by > the apostle-kabalist John in the “seven lamps of fire” burning before > the throne, which are the seven spirits of God,[444] and in the seven > angels bearing the seven vials. Again in Fetahil we recognize the > original of the Christian doctrine. > > In the _Revelation_ of Joannes Theologos it is said: “I turned and > saw in the midst of the _seven_ candlesticks one like unto the Son > of man ... his head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as > snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire ... and his feet like unto > fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace” (i. 13, 14, 15). _John_ > here repeats, as is well known, the words of Daniel and Ezekiel. > “The Ancient of Days ... whose hair was white as pure wool ... etc.” > And “the appearance of a _man_ ... above the throne ... and the > appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.”[445] The > fire being “the glory of the Lord.” Fetahil is son of the man, the > Third Life, and his upper part is represented as white as snow, while > standing near the throne of the living fire he has the appearance of > a flame. > > All these “apocalyptic” visions are based on the description of > the “white head” of the Sohar, in whom the kabalistic trinity is > united. The white head, “which conceals in its cranium the spirit,” > and which is environed by subtile fire. The “appearance of a man” > is that of Adam Kadmon, through which passes the thread of light > represented by the fire. Fetahil is the _Vir Novissimis_ (the newest > man), the son of Abatur,[446] the latter being the “man,” or the > _third_ life,[447] now the third personage of the trinity. _John_ > sees “one like unto the son of man,” holding in his right hand seven > stars, and standing between “seven golden candlesticks” (_Revelation_ > i.). Fetahil takes his “stand on high,” according to the will of > his father, “the highest Æon who has seven sceptres,” and seven > genii, who astronomically represent the seven planets or stars. He > stands “shining in the garment of the Lord’s, resplendent by the > agency of the genii.”[448] He is the Son of his Father, Life, and > his mother, Spirit, or Light.[449] The Logos is represented in the > _Gospel according to John_ as one in whom was “_Life_, and the life > was the _light_ of men” (i. 4). Fetahil is the Demiurge, and his > father created the visible universe of matter through him.[450] In > the _Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians_ (iii. 9), God is said to have > “_created all things_ by Jesus.” In the _Codex_ the Parent-LIFE says: > “Arise, go, our son first-begotten, ordained for all creatures.”[451] > “As the living father hath sent me,” says Christ, “God sent his > only-begotten son that we might live.”[452] Finally, having > performed his work on earth, Fetahil reascends to his father Abatur. > “_Et qui, relicto quem procreavit mundo, ad Abatur suum patrem > contendit._”[453] “My father sent me ... I go to the Father,” repeats > Jesus. > > Laying aside the theological disputes of Christianity which try to > blend together the Jewish Creator of the first chapter of _Genesis_ > with the “Father” of the _New Testament_, Jesus states repeatedly > of his Father that “He is _in secret_.” Surely he would not have so > termed the ever-present “Lord God” of the Mosaic books, who showed > Himself to Moses and the Patriarchs, and finally allowed all the > elders of Israel to look on Himself.[454] When Jesus is made to > speak of the temple at Jerusalem as of his “Father’s house,” he does > not mean the physical building, which he maintains he can destroy > and then again rebuild in three days, but of the temple of Solomon; > the wise kabalist, who indicates in his _Proverbs_ that every man > is the temple of God, or of his own divine spirit. This term of the > “Father who is in secret,” we find used as much in the _Kabala_ as > in the _Codex Nazaræus_, and elsewhere. No one has ever seen the > wisdom concealed in the “Cranium,” and no one has beheld the “Depth” > (Bythos). Simon, the _Magician_, preached “one Father unknown to > all.”[455] > > We can trace this appellation of a “secret” God still farther back. > In the _Kabala_ the “Son” of the _concealed_ Father who dwells in > light and glory, is the “Anointed,” the _Seir-Anpin_, who unites in > himself all the Sephiroth, he is Christos, or the Heavenly man. It > is through Christ that the Pneuma, or the Holy Ghost, creates “all > things” (_Ephesians_ iii. 9), and produces the four elements, air, > water, fire, and earth. This assertion is unquestionable, for we find > Irenæus basing on this fact his best argument for the necessity of > there being four gospels. There can be neither more nor fewer than > four--he argues. “For as there are four quarters of the world, and > four general winds (καθολικὰ πνεύματα) ... it is right that she (the > Church) should have four pillars. From which it is manifest that the > Word, _the maker of all_, he _who sitteth upon the Cherubim_ ... as > David says, supplicating his advent, ‘Thou that sittest between the > Cherubim, shine forth!’ For the Cherubim also are _four-faced_ and > their faces are symbols of the working of the Son of God.”[456] > > We will not stop to discuss at length the special holiness of the > four-faced Cherubim, although we might, perhaps, show their origin > in all the ancient pagodas of India, in the _vehans_ (or vehicles) > of their chief gods; as likewise we might easily attribute the > respect paid to them to the kabalistic wisdom, which, nevertheless, > the Church rejects with great horror. But, we cannot resist the > temptation to remind the reader that he may easily ascertain the > several significances attributed to these Cherubs by reading the > _Kabala_. “When the souls are to leave their abode,” says the > _Sohar_, holding to the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls in the > world of emanations, “each soul separately appears before the Holy > King, dressed in a sublime form, with the features in which it is to > appear in this world. It is from this sublime form that the image > proceeds” (_Sohar_, iii., p. 104 ab). Then it goes on to say that the > types or forms of these faces are four in number--those of the angel > or man, of the lion, the bull, and the eagle. Furthermore, we may > well express our wonder that Irenæus should not have re-enforced his > argument for the four gospels--by citing the whole Pantheon of the > four-armed Hindu gods? > > Ezekiel in representing his four animals, now called Cherubim, > as types of the four symbolical beings, which, in his visions > support the throne of Jehovah, had not far to go for his models. > The Chaldeo-Babylonian protecting genii were familiar to him; the > Sed, Alap or _Kirub_ (Cherubim), the bull, with the human face; the > Nirgal, human-headed lion; Oustour the Sphinx-man; and the Nathga, > with its eagle’s head. The religion of the masters--the idolatrous > Babylonians and Assyrians--was transferred almost bodily into the > revealed Scripture of the Captives, and from thence came into > Christianity. > > Already, we find Ezekiel addressed by the likeness of the glory of > the Lord, “as Son of man.” This peculiar title is used repeatedly > throughout the whole book of this prophet, which is as kabalistic > as the “roll of a book” which the “Glory” causes him to eat. It is > written _within_ and _without_; and its real meaning is identical > with that of the _Apocalypse_. It appears strange that so much stress > should be laid on this peculiar appellation, said to have been > applied by Jesus to himself, when, in the symbolical or kabalistic > language, a prophet is so addressed. It is as extraordinary to > see Irenæus indulging in such graphic descriptions of Jesus as > to show him, “the maker of all, sitting upon a Cherubim,” unless > he identifies him with Shekinah, whose usual place was among the > Charoubs of the Mercy Seat. We also know that the Cherubim and > Seraphim are titles of the “Old Serpent” (the orthodox Devil) the > Seraphs being the burning or fiery serpents, in kabalistic symbolism. > The ten emanations of Adam Kadmon, called the Sephiroth, have all > emblems and titles corresponding to each. So, for instance, the last > two are Victory, or Jehovah-Sabaoth, whose symbol is the right column > of Solomon, the Pillar _Jachin_; while GLORY is the left Pillar, > or Boaz, and its name is “the Old Serpent,” and also “Seraphim and > Cherubim.”[457] > > The “Son of man” is an appellation which could not be assumed > by any one but a kabalist. Except, as shown above, in the _Old > Testament_, it is used but by one prophet--Ezekiel, the kabalist. > In their mysterious and mutual relations, the Æons or Sephiroth > are represented in the _Kabala_ by a great number of circles, and > sometimes by the figure of a MAN, which is symbolically formed out of > such circles. This man is Seir-Anpin, and the 243 numbers of which > his figure consists relate to the different orders of the celestial > hierarchy. The original idea of this figure, or rather the model, > may have been taken from the Hindu Brahma, and the various castes > typified by the several parts of his body, as King suggests in his > _Gnostics_. In one of the grandest and most beautiful cave-temples > at Ellora, Nasak, dedicated to Vishvakarma, son of Brahma, is a > representation of this God and his attributes. To one acquainted with > Ezekiel’s description of the “likeness of four living creatures,” > every one of which had four faces and the hands of a man under > its wings, etc.,[458] this figure at Ellora must certainly appear > absolutely _biblical_. Brahma is called the father of “man,” as well > as Jupiter and other highest gods. > > It is in the Buddhistic representations of Mount Meru, called by > the Burmese _Myé-nmo_, and by the Siamese _Sineru_, that we find > one of the originals of the Adam Kadmon, Seir-Anpin, the “heavenly > man,” and of all the Æons, Sephiroth, Powers, Dominions, Thrones, > Virtues, and Dignities of the _Kabala_. Between two pillars, which > are connected by an arch, the key-stone of the latter is represented > by a _crescent_. This is the domain in which dwells the Supreme > Wisdom of A’di Buddha, the Supreme and invisible Deity. Beneath this > highest central point comes the circle of the direct emanation of > the Unknown--the circle of Brahma with some Hindus, of the first > _avatar_ of Buddha, according to others. This answers to Adam Kadmon > and the ten Sephiroth. Nine of the emanations are encircled by the > tenth, and occasionally represented by pagodas, each of which bears > a name which expresses one of the chief attributes of the manifested > Deity. Then below come the seven stages, or heavenly spheres, each > sphere being encircled by a sea. These are the celestial mansions > of the _devatas_, or gods, each losing somewhat in holiness and > purity as it approaches the earth. Then comes Meru itself, formed of > numberless circles within three large ones, typifying the trinity of > man; and for one acquainted with the numerical value of the letters > in biblical names, like that of the “Great Beast,” or that of Mithra > μειθρας αβραξας, and others, it is an easy matter to establish the > identity of the Meru-gods with the emanations or Sephiroth of the > kabalists. Also the genii of the Nazarenes, with their special > missions, are all found on this most ancient mythos, a most perfect > representation of the symbolism of the “secret doctrine,” as taught in > archaic ages. > > King gives a few hints--though doubtless too insufficient to teach > anything important, for they are based upon the calculations of > Bishop Newton[459]--as to this mode of finding out mysteries in the > value of letters. However, we find this great archæologist, who > has devoted so much time and labor to the study of Gnostic gems, > corroborating our assertion. He shows that the entire theory is > Hindu, and points out that the durga, or female counterpart of each > Asiatic god, is what the kabalists term active _Virtue_[460] in the > celestial hierarchy, a term which the Christian Fathers adopted and > repeated, without fully appreciating, and the meaning of which the > later theology has utterly disfigured. But to return to Meru. > > The whole is surrounded by the Maha Samut, or the great sea--the > astral light and ether of the kabalists and scientists; and within > the central circles appears “the likeness of a man.” He is the > Achadoth of the Nazarenes, the twofold unity, or the androgyne man; > the heavenly incarnation, and a perfect representation of Seir-Anpin > (short-face), the son of _Arich Anpin_ (long-face).[461] This > likeness is now represented in many lamaseries by Gautama-Buddha, > the last of the incarnated avatars. Still lower, under the Meru, > is the dwelling of the great Naga, who is called _Rajah Naga_, the > king-serpent--the serpent of _Genesis_, the Gnostic Ophis--and the > goddess of the earth, Bhumây Nari, or Yâma, who waits upon the great > dragon, for she is Eve, “the mother of all that live.” Still lower > is the eighth sphere, the infernal regions. The uppermost regions > of Brahma are surrounded by the sun, moon, and planets, the seven > stellars of the Nazarenes, and just as they are described in the > _Codex_. > > “The seven impostor-Dæmons who deceive the sons of Adam. The name of > one is _Sol_; of another _Spiritus Venereus_, Astro; of the third > _Nebu_, Mercurius _a false Messiah_; ... the name of a fourth is > Sin _Luna_; the fifth is _Kiun_, Saturnus; the sixth, Bel-Zeus; > the seventh, Nerig-_Mars_.”[462] Then there are “_Seven Lives_ > procreated,” seven good Stellars, “which are from Cabar Zio, and > are those bright ones who shine in their own form and splendor > that pours from on high.... At the gate of the HOUSE OF LIFE the > throne is fitly placed for the Lord of Splendor, and there are THREE > habitations.”[463] The habitations of the _Trimurti_, the Hindu > trinity, are placed beneath the key-stone--the golden crescent, in > the representation of Meru. “And there was under his feet (of the God > of Israel) as it were a paved work of a sapphire-stone” (_Exodus_ > xxiv. 10). Under the crescent is the heaven of Brahma, all paved with > sapphires. The paradise of Indra is resplendent with a thousand suns; > that of Siva (Saturn), is in the northeast; his throne is formed of > lapis-lazuli and the floor of heaven is of fervid gold. “When he sits > on the throne he blazes with fire up to _the loins_.” At Hurdwar, > during the fair, in which he is more than ever Mahadeva, the highest > god, the attributes and emblems sacred to the Jewish “Lord God,” may > be recognized one by one in those of Siva. The Binlang stone,[464] > sacred to this Hindu deity, is an unhewn stone like the Beth-el, > consecrated by the Patriarch Jacob, and set up by him “for a pillar,” > and like the latter Binlang is _anointed_. We need hardly remind the > student that the _linga_, the emblem sacred to Siva and whose temples > are modelled after this form, is identical in shape, meaning, and > purpose with the “pillars” set up by the several patriarchs to mark > their adoration of the Lord God. In fact, one of these patriarchal > lithoï might even now be carried in the Sivaitic processions of > Calcutta, without its Hebrew derivation being suspected. The four > arms of Siva are often represented with appendages like wings; he has > _three_ eyes and a _fourth_ in the crescent, obtained by him at the > churning of the ocean, as Pâncha Mukhti Siva has four heads. > > In this god we recognize the description given by Ezekiel, in the > first chapter of his book, of his vision, in which he beholds the > “likeness of a man” in the four living creatures, who had “four > faces, four wings,” who had one pair of “straight feet ... which > sparkled like the color _of burnished_ brass ... and their rings were > full of eyes round about them four.” It is the throne and heaven of > Siva that the prophet describes in saying “... and there was the > likeness of a throne as the appearance of a sapphire stone ... and > I saw as the color of amber (gold) as the appearance of fire around > about ... from his loins even upward, and from the appearance of > his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire” > (_Ezekiel_ i. 27). “And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they > burned in a furnace” (_Revelation_ i. 15). “As for their faces ... > one had the face of a cherub, and the face of a lion ... they also > had the face of _an ox_ and the face of an eagle” (_Ezekiel_ i. > 10, x. 14). This _fourfold_ appearance which we find in the two > _cherubims_ of gold on the two ends of the ark; these symbolic four > _faces_ being adopted, moreover, later, one by each evangelist, as > may be easily ascertained from the pictures of Matthew, Mark, Luke, > and John,[465] prefixed to their respective gospels in the Roman > Vulgate and Greek _Bibles_. > > “Taaut, the great god of the Phœnicians,” says Sanchoniathon, “to > express the character of Saturn or Kronos, made his image having four > eyes ... two before, two behind, open and closed, and four wings, two > expanded, two folded. The eyes denote that the god sees in sleep, and > sleeps in waking; the position of the wings that he flies in rest, > and rests in flying.” > > The identity of Saturn with Siva is corroborated still more when > we consider the emblem of the latter, the _damara_, which is an > hour-glass, to show the progress of time, represented by this god in > his capacity of a destroyer. The bull Nardi, the _vehan_ of Siva and > the most sacred emblem of this god, is reproduced in the Egyptian > Apis; and in the bull created by Ormazd and killed by Ahriman. The > religion of Zoroaster, all based upon the “secret doctrine,” is found > held by the people of Eritene; it was the religion of the Persians > when they conquered the Assyrians. From thence it is easy to trace > the introduction of this emblem of LIFE represented by the Bull, in > every religious system. The college of the Magians had accepted it > with the change of dynasty;[466] Daniel is described as a Rabbi, the > chief of the Babylonian astrologers and Magi;[467] therefore we see > the Assyrian little bulls and the attributes of Siva reappearing > under a hardly modified form in the cherubs of the Talmudistic Jews, > as we have traced the bull Apis in the sphinxes or cherubs of the > Mosaic Ark; and as we find it several thousand years later in the > company of one of the Christian evangelists, Luke. > > Whoever has lived in India long enough to acquaint himself even > superficially with the native deities, must detect the similarity > between Jehovah and other gods besides Siva. As Saturn, the latter > was always held in great respect by the Talmudists. He was held in > reverence by the Alexandrian kabalists as the direct inspirer of the > law and the prophets; one of the names of Saturn was Israel, and we > will show, in time, his identity in a certain way with Abram, which > Movers and others hinted at long since. Thus it cannot be wondered at > if Valentinus, Basilides, and the Ophite Gnostics placed the dwelling > of their Ilda-Baoth, also a destroyer as well as a creator, in the > planet Saturn; for it was he who gave the law in the wilderness and > spoke through the prophets. If more proof should be required we > will show it in the testimony of the canonical _Bible_ itself. In > _Amos_ the “Lord” pours vials of wrath upon the people of Israel. He > rejects their burnt-offerings and will not listen to their prayers, > but inquires of Amos, “have ye offered unto _me_ sacrifices and > offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?” “But ye > have borne the tabernacles of your Moloch and _Chiun_ your images, > the _star of your god_” (v. 25, 26). Who are Moloch and _Chiun_ but > Baal--Saturn--Siva, and _Chiun_, Kivan, the same Saturn whose star > the Israelites had made to themselves? There seems no escape in this > case; all these deities are identical. > > The same in the case of the numerous Logoï. While the Zoroastrian > Sosiosh is framed on that of the tenth Brahmanical Avatar, and > the fifth Buddha of the followers of Gautama; and we find the > former, after having passed part and parcel into the kabalistic > system of king Messiah, reflected in the Apostle Gabriel of the > Nazarenes, and Æbel-Zivo, the Legatus, sent on earth by the Lord of > Celsitude and Light; all of these--Hindu and Persian, Buddhist and > Jewish, the Christos of the Gnostics and the Philonean Logos--are > found combined in “the Word made flesh” of the fourth _Gospel_. > Christianity includes all these systems, patched and arranged to meet > the occasion. Do we take up the _Avesta_--we find there the dual > system so prevalent in the Christian scheme. The struggle between > Ahriman,[468] Darkness, and Ormazd, Light, has been going on in the > world continually since the beginning of time. When the worst arrives > and Ahriman will seem to have conquered the world and corrupted all > mankind, _then will appear the Saviour_ of mankind, Sosiosh. He > will come seated upon a white horse and followed by an army of good > genii equally mounted on milk-white steeds.[469] And this we find > faithfully copied in the _Revelation_: “I saw heaven opened, and > beheld a _white horse_; and he that sat upon him was called faithful > and true.... And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon > white horses” (_Revelation_ xix. 11, 14). Sosiosh himself is but a > later Persian _permutation_ of the Hindu Vishnu. The figure of this > god may be found unto this day representing him as the Saviour, the > “Preserver” (the preserving spirit of God), in the temple of Rama. > The picture shows him in his tenth incarnation--the _Kalki avatar_, > which is yet to come--as an armed warrior mounted upon a white > horse. Waving over his head the sword destruction, he holds in his > other hand a discus, made up of rings encircled in one another, an > emblem of the revolving cycles or great ages,[470] for Vishnu will > thus appear but at the end of the _Kaliyug_, answering to the end of > the world expected by our Adventists. “And out of his mouth goeth > a sharp sword ... on his head were many crowns” (_Revelation_ xix. > 12). Vishnu is often represented with several crowns superposed on > his head. “And I saw an angel standing on the Sun” (17). The _white > horse is the horse of the Sun_.[471] Sosiosh, the Persian Saviour, is > also born of a virgin,[472] and at the end of days he will come as > a Redeemer to regenerate the world, but he will be preceded by two > prophets, who will come to announce him.[473] Hence the Jews who had > Moses and Elias, are now waiting for the Messiah. “Then comes the > general _resurrection_, when the good will immediately enter into > this happy abode--the regenerated earth; and Ahriman and his angels > (the devils),[474] and the wicked, be purified by immersion in a > lake of molten metal.... Henceforward, all will enjoy unchangeable > happiness, and, headed by Sosiosh, ever sing the praises of the > Eternal One.”[475] The above is a perfect repetition of Vishnu > in his tenth avatar, for he will then throw the wicked into the > infernal abodes in which, after purifying themselves, they will be > pardoned--even those devils which rebelled against Brahma, and were > hurled into the bottomless pit by Siva,[476] as also the “blessed > ones” will go to dwell with the gods, over the Mount Meru. > > Having thus traced the similarity of views respecting the Logos, > Metatron, and Mediator, as found in the _Kabala_ and the _Codex_ > of the Christian Nazarenes and Gnostics, the reader is prepared to > appreciate the audacity of the Patristic scheme to reduce a purely > metaphysical figure into concrete form, and make it appear as if > the finger of prophecy had from time immemorial been pointing down > the vista of ages to Jesus as the coming Messiah. A theomythos > intended to symbolize the coming day, near the close of the great > cycle, when the “glad tidings” from heaven should proclaim the > universal brotherhood and common faith of humanity, the day of > regeneration--was violently distorted into an accomplished fact. > > “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but _one, that is > God_,” says Jesus. Is this the language of a God? of the second > person in the Trinity, who is identical with the First? And if this > Messiah, or Holy Ghost of the Gnostic and Pagan Trinities, had come > in his person, what did he mean by distinguishing between himself > the “Son of man,” and the Holy Ghost? “And whosoever shall speak a > word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but unto him > that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven,” > he says.[477] And how account for the marvellous identity of this > very language, with the precepts enunciated, centuries before, by > the Kabalists and the “Pagan” initiates? The following are a few > instances out of many. > > “No one of the gods, no man or Lord, can be good, but _only God > alone_,” says Hermes.[478] > > “To be a good man is impossible, God alone possesses this privilege,” > repeats Plato, with a slight variation.[479] > > Six centuries before Christ, the Chinese philosopher Confucius said > that his doctrine was simple and easy to comprehend (_Lûn-yù_, chap. > 5, § 15). To which one of his disciples added: “The doctrine of our > Master consists in having an invariable correctness of heart, and in > doing toward others as we would that they should do to us.”[480] > > “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles,”[481] > exclaims Peter, long after the scene of Calvary. “There was a _man_ > sent from God, whose name was John,”[482] says the fourth _Gospel_, > thus placing the Baptist on an equality with Jesus. John the Baptist, > in one of the most solemn acts of his life, that of baptizing Christ, > thinks not that he is going to baptize _a God_, but uses the word man. > “This is he of whom I said, after me cometh _a man_.”[483] Speaking of > himself, Jesus says, “You seek to kill _me, a man_ that hath told you > the truth, which _I have heard of God_.”[484] Even the blind man of > Jerusalem, healed by the great thaumaturgist, full of gratitude and > admiration for his benefactor, in narrating the miracle does not call > Jesus God, but simply says, “... _a man_ that is called Jesus, made > clay.”[485] > > We do not close the list for lack of other instances and proofs, but > simply because what we now say has been repeated and demonstrated by > others, many times before us. But there is no more incurable evil > than blind and unreasoning fanaticism. Few are the men who, like Dr. > Priestley, have the courage to write, “We find nothing like divinity > ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr (A.D. 141), who, from being a > philosopher, became a Christian.”[486] > > Mahomet appeared nearly six hundred years[487] after the presumed > deicide. The Græco-Roman world was still convulsed with religious > dissensions, withstanding all the past imperial edicts and forcible > Christianization. While the Council of Trent was disputing about the > _Vulgate_, the unity of God quietly superseded the trinity, and soon > the Mahometans outnumbered the Christians. Why? Because their prophet > never sought to identify himself with Allah. Otherwise, it is safe to > say, he would not have lived to see his religion flourish. Till the > present day Mahometanism has made and is now making more proselytes > than Christianity. Buddha Siddhârtha came as a simple mortal, > centuries before Christ. The religious ethics of this faith are now > found to far exceed in moral beauty anything ever dreamed of by the > Tertullians and Augustines. > > The true spirit of Christianity can alone be fully found in Buddhism; > partially, it shows itself in other “heathen” religions. Buddha > never made of himself a god, nor was he deified by his followers. > The Buddhists are now known to far outnumber Christians; they are > enumerated at nearly 500,000,000. While cases of conversion among > Buddhists, Brahmanists, Mahometans, and Jews become so rare as to > show how sterile are the attempts of our missionaries, atheism and > materialism spread their gangrenous ulcers and gnaw every day deeper > at the very heart of Christianity. There are no atheists among > heathen populations, and those few among the Buddhists and Brahmans > who have become infected with materialism may always be found to > belong to large cities densely thronged with Europeans, and only > among educated classes. Truly says Bishop Kidder: “Were a wise man to > choose his religion from those who profess it, perhaps Christianity > would be the last religion he would choose!” > > In an able little pamphlet from the pen of the popular lecturer, J. > M. Peebles, M.D., the author quotes, from the London _Athenæum_, an > article in which are described the welfare and civilization of the > inhabitants of Yarkand and Kashgar, “who seem virtuous and happy.” > “Gracious Heavens!” fervently exclaims the honest author, who > himself was once a Universalist clergyman, “Grant to keep Christian > missionaries _away_ from ‘happy’ and heathen Tartary!”[488] > > From the earliest days of Christianity, when Paul upbraided the > _Church_ of Corinth for a crime “as is not so much as named among > the Gentiles--that one should have his father’s wife;” and for their > making a pretext of the “Lord’s Supper” for _debauch_ and drunkenness > (_1 Corinthians_, v. 1), the profession of the name of Christ has > ever been more a pretext than the evidence of holy feeling. However, > a correct form of this verse is: “Everywhere the lewd practice among > you is heard about, such a lewd practice as is nowhere among the > heathen nations--even the having or marrying of the father’s wife.” > The Persian influence would seem to be indicated in this language. > The practice existed “nowhere among the nations,” except in Persia, > where it was esteemed especially meritorious. Hence, too, the Jewish > stories of Abraham marrying his sister, Nahor, his niece, Amram his > father’s sister, and Judah his son’s widow, whose children appear to > have been legitimate. The Aryan tribes esteemed endogamic marriages, > while the Tartars and all barbarous nations required all alliances to > be exagamous. > > There was but one apostle of Jesus worthy of that name, and that was > Paul. However disfigured were his _Epistles_ by dogmatic hands before > being admitted into the Canon, his conception of the great and divine > figure of the philosopher who died for his idea can still be traced > in his addresses to the various Gentile nations. Only, he who would > understand him better yet must study the Philonean _Logos_ reflecting > now and then the Hindu _Sabda_ (logos) of the Mimansa school. > > As to the other apostles, those whose names are prefixed to the > _Gospels_--we cannot well believe in their veracity when we find them > attributing to their Master miracles surrounded by circumstances, > recorded, if not in the oldest books of India, at least in such > as antedated Christianity, and in the very phraseology of the > traditions. Who, in his days of simple and blind credulity, but > marvelled at the touching narrative given in the _Gospels according > to Mark_ and _Luke_ of the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus? > Who has ever doubted its originality? And yet the story is copied > entirely from the _Hari-Purana_, and is recorded among the miracles > attributed to Christna. We translate it from the French version: > > “The King Angashuna caused the betrothal of his daughter, the > beautiful Kalavatti, with the young son of Vamadeva, the powerful > King of Antarvédi, named Govinda, to be celebrated with great pomp. > > “But as Kalavatti was amusing herself in the groves with her > companions, she was stung by a serpent and died. Angashuna tore his > clothes, covered himself with ashes, and cursed the day when he was > born. > > “Suddenly, a great rumor spread through the palace, and the following > cries were heard, a thousand times repeated: ‘_Pacya pitaram; pacya > gurum!_’ ‘The Father, the Master!’ Then Christna approached, smiling, > leaning on the arm of Ardjuna.... ‘Master!’ cried Angashuna, casting > himself at his feet, and sprinkling them with his tears, ‘See my poor > daughter!’ and he showed him the body of Kalavatti, stretched upon a > mat.... > > “‘Why do you weep?’ replied Christna, in a gentle voice. ‘_Do you not > see that she is sleeping?_ Listen to the sound of her breathing, like > the sigh of the night wind which rustles the leaves of the trees. > See, her cheeks resuming their color, her eyes, whose lids tremble as > if they were about to open; her lips quiver as if about to speak; she > is sleeping, I tell you; and hold! see, she moves, _Kalavatti! Rise > and walk!_’ > > “Hardly had Christna spoken, when the breathing, warmth, movement, > and life returned little by little, into the corpse, and the young > girl, obeying the injunction of the demi-god, rose from her couch > and rejoined her companions. But the crowd marvelled and cried out: > ‘This is a god, since death is no more for him than sleep?’”[489] > > All such parables are enforced upon Christians, with the addition of > dogmas which, in their extraordinary character, leave far behind them > the wildest conceptions of heathenism. The Christians, in order to > believe in a Deity, have found it necessary to kill their God, that > they themselves should live! > > And now, the Supreme, unknown one, the Father of grace and mercy, > and his celestial hierarchy are managed by the Church as though they > were so many theatrical stars and supernumeraries under salary! Six > centuries before the Christian era, Xenophones had disposed of such > anthropomorphism by an immortal satire, recorded and preserved by > Clement of Alexandria: > > “There is one God Supreme ... > Whose form is not like unto man’s, and as unlike his nature; > But vain mortals imagine that gods like themselves are begotten > With human sensations, and voice, and corporeal members; > So if oxen or lions had hands and could work in man’s fashion, > And trace out with chisel or brush their conception of Godhead > Then would horses depict gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, > Each kind the Divine with its own form and nature endowing.”[490] > > And hear Vyasa--the poet-pantheist of India, who, for all the > scientists can prove, may have lived, as Jacolliot has it, some > fifteen thousand years ago--discoursing on Maya, the illusion of the > senses: > > “All religious dogmas only serve to obscure the intelligence of > man.... Worship of divinities, under the allegories of which is > hidden respect for natural laws, drives away truth to the profit of > the basest superstitions” (_Vyasa Maya_). > > It was given to Christianity to paint us God Almighty after the > model of the kabalistic abstraction of the “Ancient of Days.” From > old frescos on cathedral ceilings; Catholic missals, and other icons > and images, we now find him depicted by the poetic brush of Gustave > Doré. The awful, unknown majesty of Him, whom no “heathen” dared to > reproduce in concrete form, is figuring in our own century in _Doré’s > Illustrated Bible_. Treading upon clouds that float in mid-air, > darkness and chaos behind him and the world beneath his feet, a > majestic old man stands, his left hand gathering his flowing robes > about him, and his right raised in the gesture of command. He has > spoken the Word, and from his towering person streams an effulgence > of Light--the Shekinah. As a poetic conception, the composition does > honor to the artist, but does it honor God? Better, the chaos behind > Him, than the figure itself; for there, at least, we have a solemn > mystery. For our part, we prefer the silence of the ancient heathens. > With such a gross, anthropomorphic, and, as we conceive, blasphemous > representation of the First Cause, who can feel surprised at any > iconographic extravagance in the representation of the Christian > Christ, the apostles, and the putative Saints? With the Catholics St. > Peter becomes quite naturally the janitor of Heaven, and sits at the > door of the celestial kingdom--a ticket-taker to the Trinity! > > In a religious disturbance which recently occurred in one of the > Spanish-American provinces, there were found upon the bodies of some > of the killed, passports signed by the Bishop of the Diocese and > addressed to St. Peter; bidding him “_admit the bearer as a true son > of the Church_.” It was subsequently ascertained that these unique > documents were issued by the Catholic prelate just before his deluded > parishioners went into the fight at the instigation of their priests. > > In their immoderate desire to find evidence for the authenticity of > the _New Testament_, the best men, the most erudite scholars even > among Protestant divines, but too often fall into deplorable traps. > We cannot believe that such a learned commentator as Canon Westcott > could have left himself in ignorance as to Talmudistic and purely > kabalistic writings. How then is it that we find him quoting, with > such serene assurance as presenting “striking analogies to the > _Gospel of St. John_,” passages from the work of _The Pastor of > Hermas_, which are complete sentences from the kabalistic literature? > “The view which Hermas gives of Christ’s nature and work is no less > harmonious with apostolic doctrine, and it offers striking analogies > to the _Gospel of St. John_.... He (Jesus) is a rock higher than the > mountains, able to hold the whole world, ancient, and yet having a > new gate!... He is older than creation, so that he took counsel with > the Father about the creation which he made.... No one shall enter in > unto him otherwise than by his Son.”[491] > > Now while--as the author of _Supernatural Religion_ well > proves--there is nothing in this which looks like a corroboration > of the doctrine taught in the fourth gospel, he omits to state that > nearly everything expressed by the pseudo-Hermas in relation to his > parabolic conversation with the “Lord” is a plain quotation, with > repeated variations, from the _Sohar_ and other kabalistic books. We > may as well compare, so as to leave the reader in no difficulty to > judge for himself. > > “God,” says Hermas, “planted the vineyard, that is, He created the > people and gave them to His Son; and the Son ... himself cleansed > their sins, etc.;” _i.e._, the Son washed them in his blood, in > commemoration of which Christians drink wine at the communion. In the > _Kabala_ it is shown that the Aged of the Aged, or “_Long-Face_,” > plants a vineyard, the latter typifying mankind; and a vine, meaning > Life. The Spirit of “_King_ Messiah” is, therefore, shown as washing > his garments in _the wine_ from above, from the creation of the > world.[492] Adam, or A-Dam is “blood.” The life of the flesh is in > the blood (nephesh--soul), _Leviticus_ xvii. And Adam-Kadmon is > the Only-Begotten. Noah also plants a vineyard--the allegorical > hot-bed of future humanity. As a consequence of the adoption of the > same allegory, we find it reproduced in the Nazarene _Codex_. Seven > vines are procreated, which spring from Iukabar Ziva, and Ferho (or > Parcha) Raba waters them.[493] When the blessed will ascend among the > creatures of Light, they shall see Iavar-Zivo, _Lord of_ LIFE, and > the First VINE![494] These kabalistic metaphora are thus naturally > repeated in the _Gospel according to John_ (xv. 1): “I am the true > vine, and my Father is the husbandman.” In _Genesis_ (xlix.), the > dying Jacob is made to say, “The sceptre shall not depart from > Judah (the lion’s whelp), nor a lawgiver from between his feet, > until Shiloh (Siloh) comes.... Binding his colt unto _the vine_, > and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine, he washed his garments _in > wine_, and his clothes _in the blood of grapes_.” Shiloh is “King > Messiah,” as well as the Shiloh in Ephraim, which was to be made the > capital and the place of the sanctuary. In _The Targum of Onkelos_, > the Babylonian, the words of Jacob read: “Until the _King Messiah_ > shall come.” The prophecy has failed in the Christian as well as in > the kabalistico-Jewish sense. The sceptre has departed from Judah, > whether the Messiah has already or will come, unless we believe, with > the kabalists, that Moses was the first Messiah, who transferred his > soul to Joshua--Jesus.[495] > > Says Hermas: “And, in the middle of the plain, he showed me a great > _white_ rock, which had risen out of the plain, and the rock was > higher than the mountains, rectangular, so as to be able to hold > the whole world; but that rock was old, having a gate hewn out of > it, and the hewing out of the gate seemed to me to be recent.” In > the _Sohar_, we find: “To 40,000 superior worlds the _white_ of the > skull of His Head (of the most Sacred Ancient _in absconditus_) is > extended.[496]... When _Seir_ (the first reflection and image of > his Father, the Ancient of the Ancient) will, through the mystery > of the seventy names of Metatron, descend into Iezirah (the third > world), he will open a new gate.... The Spiritus Decisorius will cut > and divide the garment (Shekinah) into two parts.[497]... At the > coming of King Messiah, from the sacred cubical stone of the Temple > a _white light_ will be arising during forty days. This will expand, > until _it encloses the whole world_.... At that time King Messiah > will allow himself to be revealed, and will be seen coming out of > the gate of the garden of Odan (Eden). ‘He will be revealed in the > land Galil.’[498]... When ‘he has made satisfaction for the sins of > Israel, he will lead them on through a _new gate_ to the seat of > judgment.’[499] At the _Gate of the House of Life_, the throne is > prepared for the Lord of Splendor.”[500] > > Further on, the commentator introduces the following quotation: > “This _rock_ and this _gate_ are the Son of God. ‘How, Lord,’ I > said, ‘is the rock old and the gate new?’ ‘Listen,’ He said, ‘and > understand, thou ignorant man. The _Son of God is older than all of > his creation_, so that he was a Councillor with the Father in His > works of creation; and for this is he old.’”[501] > > Now, these two assertions are not only purely kabalistic, without > even so much as a change of expression, but Brahmanical and Pagan > likewise. “_Vidi virum excellentem cœli terræque conditore natu > majorem._... I have seen the most excellent (superior) MAN, who > is older by birth than the maker of heaven and earth,” says the > kabalistic _Codex_.[502] The Eleusinian Dionysus, whose particular > name was _Iacchos_ (Iaccho, Iahoh)[503]--the God from whom the > liberation of souls was expected--was considered older than the > Demiurge. At the mysteries of the Anthesteria at the lakes (the > Limnæ), after the usual baptism by purification of water, the > _Mystæ_ were made to pass through to another door (gate), and > one particularly for that purpose, which was called “the gate of > Dionysus,” and that of “the _purified_.” > > In the _Sohar_, the kabalists are told that the work-master, the > Demiurge, said to the Lord: “Let us make man after our image.”[504] > In the original texts of the first chapter of _Genesis_, it stands: > “And the _Elohim_ (translated as the Supreme God), who are the > highest gods or powers, said: Let us make man in _our_ (?) image, > after _our_ likeness.” In the _Vedas_, Brahma holds counsel with > Parabrahma, as to the best mode to proceed to create the world. > > Canon Westcott, quoting Hermas, shows him asking: “And why is the > gate _new_, Lord? I said. ‘Because,’ he replied, ‘he was manifested > at the last of the days of the dispensation; for this cause the gate > was made new, in order that they who shall be saved might enter by it > into the Kingdom of God.’”[505] There are two peculiarities worthy > of note in this passage. To begin with, it attributes to “the Lord” > a false statement of the same character as that so emphasized by the > Apostle John; and which brought, at a later period, the whole of > the orthodox Christians, who accepted the apostolic allegories as > literal, to such inconvenient straits. Jesus, as Messiah, was _not_ > manifested at the last of the days; for the latter are yet to come, > notwithstanding a number of divinely-inspired prophecies, followed > by disappointed hopes, as a result, to testify to his immediate > coming. The belief that the “last times” had come, was natural, when > once the coming of King Messiah had been acknowledged. The second > peculiarity is found in the fact that the _prophecy_ could have been > accepted at all, when even its approximate determination is a direct > contradiction of Mark, who makes Jesus distinctly state that neither > the angels, nor the Son himself, know of that day or that hour.[506] > We might add that, as the belief undeniably originated with the > _Apocalypse_, it ought to be a self-evident proof that it belonged to > the calculations peculiar to the kabalists and the Pagan sanctuaries. > It was the secret computation of a cycle, which, according to their > reckoning, was ending toward the latter part of the first century. It > may also be held as a corroborative proof, that the _Gospel according > to Mark_, as well as that ascribed to _John_, and the _Apocalypse_, > were written by men, of whom neither was sufficiently acquainted > with the other. The Logos was first definitely called _petra_ (rock) > by Philo; the word, moreover, as we have shown elsewhere, means, > in Chaldaic and Phœnician, “interpreter.” Justin Martyr calls him, > throughout his works, “angel,” and makes a clear distinction between > the Logos and God the Creator. “The Word of God is His Son ... > and he is also called Angel and Apostle, for he declares whatever > we ought to know (interprets), and is sent to declare whatever is > disclosed.”[507] > > “Adan Inferior is distributed into its own paths, into thirty-two > sides of paths, yet it is not known to any one but _Seir_. But no one > knows the SUPERIOR ADAN nor His paths, except that Long Face”--the > Supreme God.[508] Seir is the Nazarene “genius,” who is called Æbel > Zivo; and Gabriel Legatus--also “Apostle Gabriel.”[509] The Nazarenes > held with the kabalists that even the Messiah who was to come did > not know the “_Superior_ Adan,” the concealed Deity; no one except > the _Supreme_ God; thus showing that above the Supreme Intelligible > Deity, there is one still more secret and unrevealed. Seir-Anpin > is the third God, while “Logos,” according to Philo Judæus, is > the second one.[510] This is distinctly shown in the _Codex_. The > false Messiah shall say: “I am Deus, son of Deus; my Father sent me > here.... I am the first _Legate_, I am Æbel Zivo, I am come from on > high! But distrust him; for he will not be Æbel Zivo. Æbel Zivo will > not permit himself to be seen in this age.”[511] Hence the belief > of some Gnostics that it was not Æbel Zivo (Archangel Gabriel) who > “_overshadowed_” Mary, but Ilda-Baoth, who formed the _material body_ > of Jesus; _Christos_ uniting himself with him only at the moment of > baptism in the Jordan. > > Can we doubt Nork’s assertion that “the Bereshith Rabba, the oldest > part of the Midrash Rabboth, _was known to the Church Fathers in a > Greek translation_?”[512] > > But if, on the one hand, they were sufficiently acquainted with the > different religious systems of their neighbors to have enabled them > to build a new religion alleged to be distinct from all others, > their ignorance of the _Old Testament_ itself, let alone the more > complicated questions of Grecian metaphysics, is now found to have > been deplorable. “So, for instance, in _Matthew_ xxvii. 9 f., the > passage from _Zechariah_ xi. 12, 13, is attributed to Jeremiah,” says > the author of _Supernatural Religion_. “In _Mark_ i. 2, a quotation > from _Malachi_ iii. 1, is ascribed to Isaiah. In _1 Corinthians_, > ii. 9, a passage is quoted as _Holy Scripture_, which is not found in > the _Old Testament_ at all, but which is taken, as Origen and Jerome > state, from an apocryphal work, _The Revelation of Elias_ (Origen: > _Tract._ xxxv.), and the passage is similarly quoted by the so-called > _Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians_ (xxxiv.)”. How reliable are > the pious Fathers in their explanations of divers heresies may be > illustrated in the case of Epiphanius, who mistook the Pythagorean > sacred Tetrad, called in the Valentinian _Gnosis_, Kol-Arbas, for > a _heretic leader_.[513] What with the involuntary blunders, and > deliberate falsifications of the teachings of those who differed in > views with them; the canonization of the mythological Aura Placida > (gentle breeze), into a pair of Christian martyrs--St. Aura and St. > Placida;[514] the deification of a _spear_ and a _cloak_, under > the names of SS. Longimus and Amphibolus;[515] and the Patristic > quotations from prophets, of what was never in those prophets at all; > one may well ask in blank amazement whether the so-called religion of > Christ has ever been other than an incoherent dream, since the death > of the Great Master. > > So malicious do we find the holy Fathers in their unrelenting > persecution of pretended “_hæresies_,”[516] that we see them telling, > without hesitation the most preposterous untruths, and inventing > entire narratives, the better to impress their own otherwise > unsupported arguments upon ignorance. If the mistake in relation to > the tetrad had at first originated as a simple consequence of an > unpremeditated blunder of Hippolytus, the explanations of Epiphanius > and others who fell into the same absurd error[517] have a less > innocent look. When Hippolytus gravely denounces the great heresy of > the Tetrad, Kol-Arbas, and states that the imaginary Gnostic leader > is, “Kalorbasus, who endeavors to explain religion by measures > and numbers,”[518] we may simply smile. But when Epiphanius, with > abundant indignation, elaborates upon the theme, “which is Heresy > XV.,” and pretending to be thoroughly acquainted with the subject, > adds: “A certain Heracleon follows after Colorbasus, which is Heresy > XVI.,”[519] then he lays himself open to the charge of deliberate > falsification. > > If this zealous _Christian_ can boast so unblushingly of having > caused “_by his information_ seventy women, even of rank, to be > sent into exile, _through the seductions of some_ in whose number > he had himself been drawn into joining their sect,” he has left us > a fair standard by which to judge him. C. W. King remarks, very > aptly, on this point, that “it may reasonably be suspected that this > worthy renegade had in this case saved himself from the fate of his > fellow-religionists by turning evidence against them, on the opening > of the persecution.”[520] > > And thus, one by one, perished the Gnostics, the only heirs to whose > share had fallen a few stray crumbs of the unadulterated truth of > primitive Christianity. All was confusion and turmoil during these > first centuries, till the moment when all these contradictory dogmas > were finally forced upon the Christian world, and examination was > forbidden. For long ages it was made a sacrilege, punishable with > severe penalties, often death, to seek to comprehend that which the > Church had so conveniently elevated to the rank of _divine_ mystery. > But since biblical critics have taken upon themselves to “set the > house in order,” the cases have become reversed. Pagan creditors now > come from every part of the globe to claim their own, and Christian > theology begins to be suspected of complete bankruptcy. Such is the > sad result of the fanaticism of the “orthodox” sects, who, to borrow > an expression of the author of “The Decline and Fall of the Roman > Empire,” never were, like the Gnostics, “the most polite, the most > learned, and most wealthy of the Christian name.” And, if not all > of them “smelt garlic,” as Renan will have it, on the other hand, > none of these Christian saints have ever shrunk from spilling their > neighbor’s blood, if the views of the latter did not agree with their > own. > > And so all our philosophers were swept away by the ignorant and > superstitious masses. The Philaletheians, the lovers of truth, > and their eclectic school, perished; and there, where the young > Hypatia had taught the highest philosophical doctrines; and where > Ammonius Saccas had explained that “the _whole which Christ had in > view_ was to reinstate and restore to its primitive integrity the > wisdom of the ancients--to reduce within bounds the universally > prevailing dominion of superstition ... and to exterminate the > various errors that had found their way into the different popular > religions”[521]--there, we say, freely raved the οι πολλοι of > Christianity. No more precepts from the mouth of the “God-taught > philosopher,” but others expounded by the incarnation of a most cruel, > fiendish superstition. > > “If thy father,” wrote St. Jerome, “lies down across thy threshold, > if thy mother uncovers to thine eyes the bosom which suckled thee, > trample on thy father’s lifeless body, trample on thy mother’s bosom, > and, with eyes unmoistened and dry, fly to the Lord who calleth > thee!!” > > This sentence is equalled, if not outrivalled, by this other, > pronounced in a like spirit. It emanates from another father of > the early Church, the eloquent Tertullian, who hopes to see all > the “philosophers” in the gehenna fire of Hell. “What shall be the > magnitude of that scene!... How shall I laugh! How shall I rejoice! > How shall I triumph when I see so many illustrious kings who were > said to have mounted into heaven, groaning with Jupiter, their god, > in the lowest darkness of hell! Then shall the soldiers who have > persecuted the name of Christ burn in more cruel fire than any they > had kindled for the saints!”[522] > > These murderous expressions illustrate the spirit of Christianity > till this day. But do they illustrate the teachings of Christ? By > no means. As Eliphas Levi says, “The God in the name of whom we > would trample on our mother’s bosom we must see in the hereafter, a > hell gaping widely at his feet, and an exterminating sword in his > hand.... Moloch burned children but a few seconds; it was reserved > to the disciples of a god who is alleged to have died to redeem > humanity on the cross, to create a new Moloch whose burning stake is > eternal!”[523] > > That this spirit of true Christian love has safely crossed nineteen > centuries and rages now in America, is fully instanced in the case > of the rabid Moody, the revivalist, who exclaims: “I have a son, and > no one but God knows how I love him; but I would see those beautiful > eyes dug out of his head to-night, rather than see him grow up to > manhood and go down to the grave without Christ and without hope!!” > > To this an American paper, of Chicago, very justly responds: “This is > the spirit of the inquisition, which we are told is dead. If Moody > in his zeal would ‘dig out’ the eyes of his darling son, to what > lengths may he not go with the sons of others, whom he may love less? > It is the spirit of Loyola, gibbering in the nineteenth century, > and prevented from lighting the fagot flame and heating red-hot the > instruments of torture only by the arm of law.” > > CHAPTER VI. > > “The curtains of Yesterday drop down, the curtains of > To-morrow roll up; but Yesterday and To-morrow both > _are_.”--_Sartor Resartus_: Natural Supernaturalism. > > “May we not then be permitted to examine the authenticity > of the Bible? which since the second century has been put > forth as the criterion of scientific truth? To maintain > itself in a position so exalted, it must challenge human > criticism.”--_Conflict between Religion and Science._ > > “One kiss of Nara upon the lips of Nari and all Nature > wakes.”--VINA SNATI (A Hindu Poet). > > We must not forget that the Christian Church owes its present > canonical _Gospels_, and hence its whole religious dogmatism, to > the _Sortes Sanctorum_. Unable to agree as to which were the most > divinely-inspired of the numerous gospels extant in its time, the > mysterious Council of Nicea concluded to leave the decision of the > puzzling question to miraculous intervention. This Nicean Council > may well be called mysterious. There was a mystery, first, in the > mystical number of its 318 bishops, on which Barnabas (viii. 11, > 12, 13) lays such a stress; added to this, there is no agreement > among ancient writers as to the time and place of its assembly, > nor even as to the bishop who presided. Notwithstanding the > grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine,[524] Sabinus, the Bishop > of Heraclea, affirms that “except Constantine, the emperor, and > Eusebius Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of _illiterate, > simple_ creatures, that understood nothing;” which is equivalent > to saying that they were a set of fools. Such was apparently the > opinion entertained of them by Pappus, who tells us of the bit of > magic resorted to to decide which were the _true_ gospels. In his > _Synodicon_ to that Council Pappus says, having “promiscuously put > all the books that were referred to the Council for determination > under a communion-table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the > Lord that the _inspired_ writings might get upon the table, while the > spurious ones remained underneath, and _it happened accordingly_.” > But we are not told who kept the keys of the council chamber over > night! > > On the authority of ecclesiastical eye-witnesses, therefore, we > are at liberty to say that the Christian world owes its “Word of > God” to a method of divination, for resorting to which the Church > subsequently condemned unfortunate victims as conjurers, enchanters, > magicians, witches, and vaticinators, and burnt them by thousands! > In treating of this truly divine phenomenon of the self-sorting > manuscripts, the Fathers of the Church say that God himself presides > over the _Sortes_. As we have shown elsewhere, Augustine confesses > that he himself used this sort of divination. But opinions, like > revealed religions, are liable to change. That which for nearly > fifteen hundred years was imposed on Christendom as a book, of which > every word was written under the direct supervision of the Holy > Ghost; of which not a syllable, nor a comma could be changed without > sacrilege, is now being retranslated, revised, corrected, and clipped > of whole verses, in some cases of entire chapters. And yet, as soon > as the new edition is out, its doctors would have us accept it as > a new “Revelation” of the nineteenth century, with the alternative > of being held as an infidel. Thus, we see that, no more _within_ > than _without_ its precincts, is the infallible Church to be trusted > more than would be reasonably convenient. The forefathers of our > modern divines found authority for the _Sortes_ in the verse where > it is said: “The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing > thereof is of the Lord;”[525] and now, their direct heirs hold > that “the whole disposing thereof is of the Devil.” Perhaps, they > are unconsciously beginning to endorse the doctrine of the Syrian > Bardesanes, that the actions of God, as well as of man, _are subject > to necessity_? > > It was no doubt, also, according to strict “necessity” that the > Neo-platonists were so summarily dealt with by the Christian mob. In > those days, the doctrines of the Hindu naturalists and antediluvian > Pyrrhonists were forgotten, if they ever had been known at all, > to any but a few philosophers; and Mr. Darwin, with his modern > _discoveries_, had not even been mentioned in the prophecies. In > this case the law of the survival of the fittest was reversed; the > _Neo-platonists were doomed to destruction from the day when they > openly sided with Aristotle_. > > At the beginning of the fourth century crowds began gathering at > the door of the academy where the learned and unfortunate Hypatia > expounded the doctrines of the divine Plato and Plotinus, and thereby > impeded the progress of Christian proselytism. She too successfully > dispelled the mist hanging over the religious “mysteries” invented by > the Fathers, not to be considered dangerous. This alone would have > been sufficient to imperil both herself and her followers. It was > precisely the teachings of this Pagan philosopher, which had been so > freely borrowed by the Christians to give a finishing touch to their > otherwise incomprehensible scheme, that had seduced so many into > joining the new religion; and now the Platonic light began shining > so inconveniently bright upon the pious patchwork, as to allow every > one to see whence the “revealed” doctrines were derived. But there > was a still greater peril. Hypatia had studied under Plutarch, the > head of the Athenian school, and had learned all the secrets of > theurgy. While she lived to instruct the multitude, no _divine_ > miracles could be produced before one who could divulge the natural > causes by which they took place. Her doom was sealed by Cyril, whose > eloquence she eclipsed, and whose authority, built on degrading > superstitions, had to yield before hers, which was erected on the > rock of immutable natural law. It is more than curious that Cave, the > author of the _Lives of the Fathers_, should find it incredible that > Cyril sanctioned her murder on account of his “general character.” A > saint who will sell the gold and silver vessels of his church, and > then, after spending the money, lie at his trial, as he did, may > well be suspected of anything. Besides, in this case, the Church > had to fight for her life, to say nothing of her future supremacy. > Alone, the hated and erudite Pagan scholars, and the no less learned > Gnostics, held in their doctrines the hitherto concealed wires of all > these theological marionettes. Once the curtain should be lifted, > the connection between the old Pagan and the new Christian religions > would be exposed; and then, what would have become of the Mysteries > into which it is sin and blasphemy to pry? With such a coincidence > of the astronomical allegories of various Pagan myths with the > dates adopted by Christianity for the nativity, crucifixion, and > resurrection, and such an identity of rites and ceremonies, what > would have been the fate of the new religion, had not the Church, > under the pretext of serving Christ, got rid of the too-well-informed > philosophers? To guess what, if the _coup d’état_ had then failed, > might have been the prevailing religion in our own century would > indeed, be a hard task. But, in all probability, the state of things > which made of the middle ages a period of intellectual darkness, > which degraded the nations of the Occident, and lowered the European > of those days almost to the level of a Papuan savage--could not have > occurred. > > The fears of the Christians were but too well founded, and their > pious zeal and prophetic insight was rewarded from the very first. > In the demolition of the Serapeum, after the bloody riot between > the Christian mob and the Pagan worshippers had ended with the > interference of the emperor, a Latin cross, of a perfect Christian > shape, was discovered hewn upon the granite slabs of the adytum. > This was a lucky discovery, indeed; and the monks did not fail to > claim that the cross had been hallowed by the Pagans in a “spirit > of prophecy.” At least, Sozomen, with an air of triumph, records > the fact.[526] But, archæology and symbolism, those tireless and > implacable enemies of clerical false pretences, have found in the > hieroglyphics of the legend running around the design, at least a > partial interpretation of its meaning. > > According to King and other numismatists and archæologists, the > cross was placed there as the symbol of eternal life. Such a Tau, or > Egyptian cross, was used in the Bacchic and Eleusinian Mysteries. > Symbol of the dual generative power, it was laid upon the breast of > the initiate, after his “new birth” was accomplished, and the Mystæ > had returned from their baptism in the sea. It was a mystic sign > that his spiritual birth had regenerated and united his astral soul > with his divine spirit, and that he was ready to ascend in spirit > to the blessed abodes of light and glory--the Eleusinia. The Tau > was a magic talisman at the same time as a religious emblem. It > was adopted by the Christians through the Gnostics and kabalists, > who used it largely, as their numerous gems testify, and who had > the Tau (or handled cross) from the Egyptians, and the Latin cross > from the Buddhist missionaries, who brought it from India, where it > can be found until now, two or three centuries B.C. The Assyrians, > Egyptians, ancient Americans, Hindus, and Romans had it in various, > but very slight modifications of shape. Till very late in the > mediæval ages, it was considered a potent spell against epilepsy and > demoniacal possession; and the “signet of the living God,” brought > down in St. John’s vision by the angel ascending from the east to > “seal the servants of our God in their foreheads,” was but the same > mystic Tau--the Egyptian cross. In the painted glass of St. Dionysus > (France), this angel is represented as stamping this sign on the > forehead of the elect; the legend reads, SIGNVM ΤΑΥ. In King’s > _Gnostics_, the author reminds us that “this mark is commonly born > by St. Anthony, an _Egyptian_ recluse.”[527] What the real meaning > of the Tau was, is explained to us by the Christian St. John, the > Egyptian Hermes, and the Hindu Brahmans. It is but too evident > that, with the apostle, at least, it meant the “Ineffable Name,” as > he calls this “signet of the living God,” a few chapters further > on,[528] the “_Father’s name written in their foreheads_.” > > The Brahmâtma, the chief of the Hindu initiates, had on his head-gear > two keys, symbol of the revealed mystery of life and death, placed > cross-like; and, in some Buddhist pagodas of Tartary and Mongolia, > the entrance of a chamber within the temple, generally containing the > staircase which leads to the inner daghôba,[529] and the porticos > of some _Prachida_[530] are ornamented with a cross formed of two > fishes, and as found on some of the zodiacs of the Buddhists. We > should not wonder at all at learning that the sacred device in the > tombs in the Catacombs, at Rome, the “Vesica piscis,” was derived > from the said Buddhist zodiacal sign. How general must have been > that geometrical figure in the world-symbols, may be inferred from > the fact that there is a Masonic tradition that Solomon’s temple > was built on three foundations, forming the “triple Tau,” or three > crosses. > > In its mystical sense, the Egyptian cross owes its origin, as > an emblem, to the realization by the earliest philosophy of an > androgynous dualism of every manifestation in nature, which proceeds > from the abstract ideal of a likewise androgynous deity, while > the Christian emblem is simply due to chance. Had the Mosaic law > prevailed, Jesus should have been lapidated.[531] The crucifix was > an instrument of torture, and utterly common among Romans as it was > unknown among Semitic nations. It was called the “Tree of Infamy.” It > is but later that it was adopted as a Christian symbol; but, during > the first two decades, the apostles looked upon it with horror.[532] > It is certainly not the Christian Cross that John had in mind when > speaking of the “signet of the living God,” but the _mystic_ Tau--the > Tetragrammaton, or mighty name, which, on the most ancient kabalistic > talismans, was represented by the four Hebrew letters composing the > Holy Word. > > The famous Lady Ellenborough, known among the Arabs of Damascus, and > in the desert, after her last marriage, as _Hanoum Medjouyé_, had a > talisman in her possession, presented to her by a Druze from Mount > Lebanon. It was recognized by a certain sign on its left corner, > to belong to that class of gems which is known in Palestine as a > “_Messianic_” amulet, of the second or third century, B.C. It is a > green stone of a pentagonal form; at the bottom is engraved a fish; > higher, Solomon’s seal;[533] and still higher, the four Chaldaic > letters----Jod, He, Vau, He, IAHO, which form the name of the Deity. > These are arranged in quite an unusual way, running from below > upward, in reversed order, and forming the Egyptian Tau. Around these > there is a legend which, as the gem is not our property, we are not > at liberty to give. The Tau, in its mystical sense, as well as the > _crux ansata_, is the _Tree of Life_. > > [Illustration] > > It is well known, that the earliest Christian emblems--before it was > ever attempted to represent the bodily appearance of Jesus--were > the Lamb, the Good Shepherd, and _the Fish_. The origin of the > latter emblem, which has so puzzled the archæologists, thus becomes > comprehensible. The whole secret lies in the easily-ascertained > fact that, while in the _Kabala_, the King Messiah is called > “Interpreter,” or Revealer of the mystery, and shown to be the > _fifth_ emanation, in the _Talmud_--for reasons we will now > explain--the Messiah is very often designated as “DAG,” or the > Fish. This is an inheritance from the Chaldees, and relates--as the > very name indicates--to the Babylonian Dagon, the man-fish, who was > the instructor and interpreter of the people, to whom he appeared. > Abarbanel explains the name, by stating that the sign of his > (Messiah’s) coming “is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the > sign _Pisces_.”[534] Therefore, as the Christians were intent upon > identifying their Christos with the Messiah of the _Old Testament_, > they adopted it so readily as to forget that its true origin might > be traced still farther back than the Babylonian Dagon. How eagerly > and closely the ideal of Jesus was united, by the early Christians, > with every imaginable kabalistic and Pagan tenet, may be inferred > from the language of Clemens, of Alexandria, addressed to his brother > co-religionists. > > When they were debating upon the choice of the most appropriate > symbol to remind them of Jesus, Clemens advised them in the following > words: “Let the engraving upon the gem of your ring be either _a > dove_, or _a ship running before the wind_ (the Argha), or _a fish_.” > Was the good father, when writing this sentence, laboring under the > recollection of Joshua, son of Nun (called _Jesus_ in the Greek and > Slavonian versions); or had he forgotten the real interpretation of > these Pagan symbols? Joshua, son of Nun, or Nave (_Navis_), could > have with perfect propriety adopted the image of a _ship_, or even > of a fish, for Joshua means Jesus, son of the fish-god; but it was > really too hazardous to connect the emblems of Venus, Astarte, and > all the Hindu goddesses--the _argha_, _dove_, and _fish_--with the > “immaculate” birth of their god! This looks very much as if in the > early days of Christianity but little difference was made between > Christ, Bacchus, Apollo, and the Hindu Christna, the incarnation of > Vishnu, with whose first avatar this symbol of the fish originated. > > In the _Hari-purana_, in the _Bagaved-gitta_, as well as in several > other books, the god Vishnu is shown as having assumed the form of a > fish with a human head, in order to reclaim the _Vedas_ lost during > the deluge. Having enabled Visvamitra to escape with all his tribe > in the ark, Vishnu, pitying weak and ignorant humanity, remained > with them for some time. It was this god who taught them to build > houses, cultivate the land, and to thank the unknown Deity whom he > represented, by building temples and instituting a regular worship; > and, as he remained half-fish, half-man, all the time, at every > sunset he used to return to the ocean, wherein he passed the night. > > “It is he,” says the sacred book, “who taught men, after the > diluvium, all that was necessary for their happiness. > > “One day he plunged into the water and returned no more, for the > earth had covered itself again with vegetation, fruit, and cattle. > > “But he had taught the Brahmas the secret of all things” > (_Hari-purana_). > > So far, we see in this narrative the _double_ of the story given by > the Babylonian Berosus about Oannes, the fish-man, who is no other > than Vishnu--unless, indeed, we have to believe that it was Chaldea > which civilized India! > > We say again, we desire to give nothing on our sole authority. > Therefore we cite Jacolliot, who, however criticised and contradicted > on other points, and however loose he may be in the matter of > chronology (though even in this he is nearer right than those > scientists who would have all Hindu books written since the Council > of Nicea), at least cannot be denied the reputation of a good > Sanscrit scholar. And he says, while analyzing the word _Oan_, > or Oannes, that _O_ in Sanscrit is an interjection expressing an > invocation, as O, Swayambhuva! O, God! etc; and _An_ is a radical, > signifying in Sanscrit a spirit, a being; and, we presume, what the > Greeks meant by the word _Dæmon_, a semi-god. > > “What an extraordinary antiquity,” he remarks, “this fable of Vishnu, > disguised as a fish, gives to the sacred books of the Hindus; > especially in presence of the fact that the _Vedas_ and _Manu_ reckon > more _than twenty-five thousand years of existence_, as proved by the > most serious as the most authentic documents. Few peoples, says the > learned Halhed, have their annals more authentic or serious than the > Hindus.”[535] > > We may, perhaps, throw additional light upon the puzzling question of > the fish-symbol by reminding the reader that according to _Genesis_ > the first created of living beings, the first type of animal life, > was the fish. “And the Elohim said: ‘Let the waters bring forth > abundantly the moving creature that _hath life_’ ... and God created > great whales ... and the morning and the evening were the _fifth > day_.” Jonah is swallowed by a big fish, and is cast out again three > days later. This the Christians regard as a premonition of the three > days’ sepulture of Jesus which preceded his resurrection--though > the statement of the three days is as fanciful as much of the rest, > and adopted to fit the well-known threat to destroy the temple and > rebuild it again in _three_ days. Between his burial and alleged > resurrection there intervened but _one day_--the Jewish Sabbath--as > he was buried on Friday evening and rose to life at dawn on Sunday. > However, whatever other circumstance may be regarded as a prophecy, > the story of Jonah cannot be made to answer the purpose. > > “Big Fish” is Cetus, the latinized form of Keto-κητω and keto is > Dagon, Poseidon, the female gender of it being Keton Atar-gatis--the > Syrian goddess, and Venus, of Askalon. The figure or bust of Der-Keto > or Astarte was generally represented on the prow of the ships. Jonah > (the Greek Iona, or _dove_ sacred to Venus) fled to Jaffa, where the > god Dagon, the man-fish, was worshipped, and dared not go to Níneveh, > _where the dove was revered_. Hence, some commentators believe that > when Jonah was thrown overboard and was swallowed by a fish, we > must understand that he was picked up by one of these vessels, on > the prow of which was the figure of _Keto_. But the kabalists have > another legend, to this effect: They say that Jonah was a run-away > priest from the temple of the goddess where the dove was worshipped, > and desired to abolish idolatry and institute monotheistic worship. > That, caught near Jaffa, he was held prisoner by the devotees of > Dagon in one of the prison-cells of the temple, and that it is the > strange form of the cell which gave rise to the allegory. In the > collection of Mose de Garcia, a Portuguese kabalist, there is a > drawing representing the interior of the temple of Dagon. In the > middle stands an immense idol, the upper portion of whose body is > human, and the lower fish-like. Between the belly and the tail is an > aperture which can be closed like the door of a closet. In it the > transgressors against the local deity were shut up until further > disposal. The drawing in question was made from an old tablet covered > with curious drawings and inscriptions in old Phœnician characters, > describing this Venetian _oubliette_ of biblical days. The tablet > itself was found in an excavation a few miles from Jaffa. Considering > the extraordinary tendency of Oriental nations for puns and > allegories, is it not barely possible that the “big fish” by which > Jonah was swallowed was simply the cell within the belly of Dagon? > > It is significant that this double appellation of “Messiah” and > “Dag” (fish), of the Talmudists, should so well apply to the Hindu > Vishnu, the “Preserving” Spirit, and the second personage of the > Brahmanic trinity. This deity, having already manifested itself, is > still regarded as the future Saviour of humanity, and is the selected > Redeemer, who will appear at its tenth incarnation or _avatar_, like > the Messiah of the Jews, to lead the blessed onward, and restore to > them the primitive _Vedas_. At his first avatar, Vishnu is alleged > to have appeared to humanity, in form like a fish. In the temple of > Rama, there is a representation of this god which answers perfectly > to that of Dagon, as given by Berosus. He has the body of a man > issuing from the mouth of a fish, and holds in his hands the lost > _Veda_. Vishnu, moreover, is the water-god, in one sense, the Logos > of the Parabrahm, for as the three persons of the manifested god-head > constantly interchange their attributes, we see him in the same > temple represented as reclining on the seven-headed serpent, Ananta > (eternity), and moving, like the _Spirit_ of God, on the face of the > primeval waters. > > Vishnu is evidently the Adam Kadmon of the kabalists, for Adam is the > Logos or the first Anointed, as Adam Second is the King Messiah. > > Lakmy, or Lakshmi, the passive or feminine counterpart of Vishnu, > the creator and the preserver, is also called Ada Maya. She is the > “Mother of the World,” Damatri, the Venus Aphrodite of the Greeks; > also Isis and Eve. While Venus is born from the sea-foam, Lakmy > springs out from the water at the churning of the sea; when born, she > is so beautiful that all the gods fall in love with her. The Jews, > borrowing their types wherever they could get them, made their first > woman after the pattern of Lakmy. It is curious that Viracocha, the > Supreme Being in Peru, means, literally translated, “foam of the sea.” > > Eugene Burnouf, the great authority of the French school, announces > his opinion in the same spirit: “We must learn one day,” he observes, > “that all ancient traditions disfigured by emigration and legend, > belong to the history of India.” Such is the opinion of Colebrooke, > Inman, King, Jacolliot, and many other Orientalists. > > We have said above, that, according to the secret computation > peculiar to the students of the hidden science, Messiah is the > fifth emanation, or potency. In the Jewish _Kabala_, where the ten > Sephiroth emanate from Adam Kadmon (placed below the crown), he comes > fifth. So in the Gnostic system; so in the Buddhistic, in which the > fifth Buddha--Maitree, will appear at his last advent to save mankind > before the final destruction of the world. If Vishnu is represented > in his forthcoming and last appearance as the _tenth_ avatar or > incarnation, it is only because every unit held as an androgyne > manifests itself doubly. The Buddhists who reject this dual-sexed > incarnation reckon but five. Thus, while Vishnu is to make his last > appearance in his tenth, Buddha is said to do the same in his fifth > incarnation.[536] > > The better to illustrate the idea, and show how completely the real > meaning of the avatars, known only to the students of the secret > doctrine was misunderstood by the ignorant masses, we elsewhere > give the diagrams of the Hindu and Chaldeo-Kabalistic avatars and > emanations.[537] This basic and true fundamental stone of the > secret cycles, shows on its very face, that far from taking their > revealed _Vedas_ and _Bible_ literally, the Brahman-pundits, and > the Tanaïm--the scientists and philosophers of the pre-Christian > epochs--speculated on the creation and development of the world quite > in a Darwinian way, both anticipating him and his school in the > natural selection of species, gradual development, and transformation. > > We advise every one tempted to enter an indignant protest against > this affirmation to read more carefully the books of Manu, even in > the incomplete translation of Sir William Jones, and the more or less > careless one of Jacolliot. If we compare the Sanchoniathon Phœnician > Cosmogony, and the record of Berosus with the _Bhagavatta_ and > _Manu_, we will find enunciated exactly the same principles as those > now offered as the latest developments of modern science. We have > quoted from the Chaldean and Phœnician records in our first volume; > we will now glance at the Hindu books. > > “When this world had issued out of darkness, the subtile elementary > principles produced the vegetal seed which animated first the plants; > from the plants, life passed into fastastical bodies which were born > _in the ilus of the waters_; then, through a series of forms and > various animals, it reached MAN.”[538] > > “He (man, before becoming such) will pass successively through > plants, worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, cattle, and wild > animals; such is the inferior degree.” > > “Such, from Brahma down to the vegetables, are declared the > transmigrations which take place in this world.”[539] > > In the Sanchoniathonian Cosmogony, men are also evolved out of the > ilus of the chaos,[540] and the same evolution and transformation of > species are shown. > > And now we will leave the rostrum to Mr. Darwin: “I believe > that animals have descended from at most only four or five > progenitors.”[541] > > Again: “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic > beings which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from > some one primordial form.[542]... I view all beings, not as special > creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which > lived long _before the first bed of the Silurian system was > deposited_.”[543] > > In short, they lived in the Sanchoniathonian chaos, and in the _ilus_ > of Manu. Vyasa and Kapila go still farther than Darwin and Manu. > “They see in Brahma but the name of the universal germ; _they deny > the existence of a First Cause_; and pretend that everything in > nature found itself developed only in consequence of material and > fatal forces,” says Jacolliot.[544] > > Correct as may be this latter quotation from Kapila, it demands a > few words of explanation. Jacolliot repeatedly compares Kapila and > Veda Vyasa with Pyrrho and Littré. We have nothing against such a > comparison with the Greek philosopher, but we must decidedly object > to any with the French Comtist; we find it an unmerited fling at > the memory of the great Aryan sage. Nowhere does this prolific > writer state the repudiation by either ancient or modern Brahmans of > God--the “unknown,” universal Spirit; nor does any other Orientalist > accuse the Hindus of the same, however perverted the general > deductions of our savants about Buddhistic atheism. On the contrary, > Jacolliot states more than once that the learned Pundits and educated > Brahmans have never shared the popular superstitions; and affirms > their unshaken belief in the unity of God and the soul’s immortality, > although most assuredly neither Kapila, nor the initiated Brahmans, > nor the followers of the Vedanta school would ever admit the > existence of an anthropomorphic creator, a “First Cause” in the > Christian sense. Jacolliot, in his _Indo-European and African > Traditions_, is the first to make an onslaught on Professor Müller, > for remarking that the Hindu gods were “masks without actors ... > names without being, and not beings without names.”[545] Quoting, in > support of his argument, numerous verses from the sacred Hindu books, > he adds: “Is it possible to refuse to the author of these stanzas a > definite and clear conception of the divine force, of the Unique > Being, master and Sovereign of the Universe?... Were the altars then > built to a metaphor?”[546] > > The latter argument is perfectly just, so far as Max Müller’s > negation is concerned. But we doubt whether the French rationalist > understands Kapila’s and Vyasa’s philosophy better than the German > philologist does the “theological twaddle,” as the latter terms the > _Atharva-Veda_. Professor Müller and Jacolliot may have ever so great > claims to erudition, and be ever so familiar with Sanscrit and other > ancient Oriental languages, but both lack the key to the thousand > and one mysteries of the old secret doctrine and its philosophy. > Only, while the German philologist does not even take the trouble to > look into this magical and “theological twaddle,” we find the French > Indianist never losing an opportunity to investigate. Moreover, > he honestly admits his incompetency to ever fathom this ocean of > mystical learning. In its existence he not only firmly believes, but > throughout his works he incessantly calls the attention of science > to its unmistakable traces at every step in India. Still, though the > learned Pundits and Brahmans--his “revered masters” of the pagodas > of Villenoor and Chélambrum in the Carnatic,[547] as it seems, > positively refused to reveal to him the mysteries of the magical part > of the _Agrouchada-Parikshaï_,[548] and of Brahmâtma’s triangle,[549] > he persists in the honest declaration that everything is possible in > Hindu metaphysics, even to the Kapila and Vyasa systems having been > hitherto misunderstood. > > M. Jacolliot weakens his assertion immediately afterward with the > following contradiction: > > “We were one day inquiring of a Brahman of the pagoda of Chélambrum, > who belonged to the _skeptical school of the naturalists of Vyasa_, > whether he believed in the existence of God. He answered us, smiling: > ‘_Aham eva param Brahma_’--I am myself a god. > > “‘What do you mean by that?’ > > “‘I mean that every being on earth, however humble, is an immortal > portion of the immortal matter.’”[550] > > The answer is one which would suggest itself to every ancient > philosopher, Kabalist and Gnostic, of the early days. It contains the > very spirit of the delphic and kabalistic commandment, for esoteric > philosophy solved, ages ago, the problem of what man was, is, and > will be. If persons believing the _Bible_ verse which teaches that > the “Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed > into his nostrils the breath of life,” reject at the same time the > idea that every atom of this dust, as every particle of this “living > soul,” contains “God” within itself, then we pity the logic of that > Christian. He forgets the verses which precede the one in question. > God blesses equally every beast of the field and every living > creature, in the water as in the air, and He endows them all with > _life_, which is a breath of His own Spirit, and the _soul_ of the > animal. Humanity is the Adam Kadmon of the “Unknown,” His microcosm, > and His only representative on earth, and every man is a god on earth. > > We would ask this French scholar, who seems so familiar with every > sloka of the books of Manu, and other Vedic writers, the meaning of > this sentence so well known to him: > > “Plants and vegetation reveal a multitude of forms because of > their precedent actions; they are surrounded by darkness, but are > nevertheless endowed with an interior soul, and feel equally pleasure > and pain” (_Manu_, book i.). > > If the Hindu philosophy teach the presence of a degree of _soul_ in > the lowest forms of vegetable life, and even in every atom in space, > how is it possible that it should deny the same immortal principle > to man? And if it once admit the immortal spirit in man, how can it > logically deny the existence of the parent source--I will not say the > first, but the eternal Cause? Neither rationalists nor sensualists, > who do not comprehend Indian metaphysics, should estimate the > ignorance of Hindu metaphysicians by their own. > > The grand cycle, as we have heretofore remarked, includes the > progress of mankind from its germ in the primordial man of spiritual > form to the deepest depth of degradation he can reach--each > successive step in the descent being accompanied by a greater > strength and grossness of the physical form than its precursor--and > ends with the Flood. But while the grand cycle, or age, is running > its course, seven minor cycles are passed, each marking the evolution > of a new race out of the preceding one, on a new world. And each of > these races, or grand types of humanity, breaks up into subdivisions > of families, and they again into nations and tribes, as we see the > earth’s inhabitants subdivided to-day into Mongols, Caucasians, > Indians, etc. > > Before proceeding to show by diagrams the close resemblance > between the esoteric philosophies of all the ancient peoples, > however geographically remote from each other, it will be useful > to briefly explain the real ideas which underlie all those symbols > and allegorical representations and have hitherto so puzzled the > uninitiated commentators. Better than anything, it may show that > religion and science were closer knit than twins in days of old; > that they were one in two and two in one from the very moment of > their conception. With mutually convertible attributes, science > was spiritual and religion was scientific. Like the androgyne man > of the first chapter of _Genesis_--“male and female,” passive and > active; created in the image of the Elohim. Omniscience developed > omnipotency, the latter called for the exercise of the former, and > thus the giant had dominion given him over all the four kingdoms of > the world. But, like the second Adam, these androgynes were doomed to > “fall and lose their powers” as soon as the two halves of the duality > separated. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge gives death without the > fruit of the Tree of Life. Man must know _himself_ before he can hope > to know the ultimate genesis even of beings and powers less developed > in their inner nature than himself. So with religion and science; > united two in one they were infallible, for the spiritual intuition > was there to supply the limitations of physical senses. Separated, > exact science rejects the help of the inner voice, while religion > becomes merely dogmatic theology--each is but a corpse without a > soul. > > [Illustration] > > [Illustration] > > The esoteric doctrine, then, teaches, like Buddhism and Brahmanism, > and even the persecuted _Kabala_, that the one infinite and unknown > Essence exists from all eternity, and in regular and harmonious > successions is either passive or active. In the poetical phraseology > of Manu these conditions are called the “day” and the “night” of > Brahma. The latter is either “awake” or “asleep.” The Svâbhâvikas, or > philosophers of the oldest school of Buddhism (which still exists in > Nepaul), speculate but upon the active condition of this “Essence,” > which they call Svabhâvât, and deem it foolish to theorize upon the > abstract and “unknowable” power in its passive condition. Hence they > are called atheists by both Christian theology and modern scientists; > for neither of the two are able to understand the profound logic of > their philosophy. The former will allow of no other God than the > personified _secondary_ powers which have blindly worked out the > visible universe, and which became with them the anthropomorphic God > of the Christians--the Jehovah, roaring amid thunder and lightning. > In its turn, rationalistic science greets the Buddhists and the > Svâbhâvikas as the “positivists” of the archaic ages. If we take a > one-sided view of the philosophy of the latter, our materialists > may be right in their own way. The Buddhists maintain that there > is _no_ Creator but an infinitude of _creative powers_, which > collectively form the one eternal substance, the _essence_ of which > is inscrutable--hence not a subject for speculation for any true > philosopher. Socrates invariably refused to argue upon the mystery > of universal being, yet no one would ever have thought of charging > him with atheism, except those who were bent upon his destruction. > Upon inaugurating an active period, says the _Secret Doctrine_, an > expansion of this Divine essence, _from within outwardly_, occurs > in obedience to eternal and immutable law, and the phenomenal or > visible universe is the ultimate result of the long chain of cosmical > forces thus progressively set in motion. In like manner, when the > passive condition is resumed, a contraction of the Divine essence > takes place, and the previous work of creation is gradually and > progressively undone. The visible universe becomes disintegrated, its > material dispersed; and “darkness,” solitary and alone, broods once > more over the face of the “deep.” To use a metaphor which will convey > the idea still more clearly, an outbreathing of the “unknown essence” > produces the world; and an inhalation causes it to disappear. _This > process has been going on from all eternity, and our present universe > is but one of an infinite series which had no beginning and will have > no end._ > > Thus we are enabled to build our theories solely on the visible > manifestations of the Deity, on its objective natural phenomena. > To apply to these creative principles the term God is puerile and > absurd. One might as well call by the name of Benvenuto Cellini the > fire which fuses the metal, or the air that cools it when it is run > in the mould. If the inner and ever-concealed spiritual, and to our > minds abstract, Essence within these forces can ever be connected > with the creation of the physical universe, it is but in the sense > given to it by Plato. IT may be termed, at best, the framer of the > abstract universe which developed gradually in the Divine Thought > within which it had lain dormant. > > In Chapter VIII. we will attempt to show the esoteric meaning of > _Genesis_, and its complete agreement with the ideas of other > nations. The six days of creation will be found to have a meaning > little suspected by the multitude of commentators, who have exercised > their abilities to the full extent in attempting to reconcile them by > turns with Christian theology and un-Christian geology. Disfigured as > the _Old Testament_ is, yet in its symbolism are preserved enough of > the original in its principal features to show the family likeness to > the cosmogonies of older nations than the Jews. > > We here give the diagrams of the Hindu and the Chaldeo-Jewish > cosmogonies. The antiquity of the diagram of the former may be > inferred from the fact that many of the Brahmanical pagodas are > designed and built on this figure, called the “Sri-Iantara.”[551] > And yet we find the highest honors paid to it by the Jewish and > mediæval kabalists, who call it “Solomon’s seal.” It will be quite an > easy matter to trace it to its origin, once we are reminded of the > history of the king-kabalist and his transactions with King Hiram and > Ophir--the country of peacocks, gold, and ivory--for which land we > have to search in old India. > > EXPLANATION OF THE TWO DIAGRAMS > > REPRESENTING THE > > CHAOTIC AND THE FORMATIVE PERIODS, BEFORE AND AFTER > OUR UNIVERSE BEGAN TO BE EVOLVED. > > FROM THE ESOTERIC BRAHMANICAL, BUDDHISTIC, AND CHALDEAN > STANDPOINTS, WHICH AGREE IN EVERY RESPECT WITH THE EVOLUTIONARY > THEORY OF MODERN SCIENCE. > > THE HINDU DOCTRINE. THE CHALDEAN DOCTRINE. > _The Upper Triangle_ _The Upper Triangle_ > > Contains the Ineffable Name. Contains the Ineffable Name. > It is the AUM--to be It is En-Soph, the > pronounced only mentally, Boundless, the Infinite, > under penalty of death. The whose name is known to no > Unrevealed Para-Brahma, the one but the initiated, and > Passive-Principle; absolute could not be pronounced > and unconditioned “mukta,” aloud under the penalty of > which cannot enter into the death. > condition of a Creator, as > the latter, in order to No more than Para-Brahma can > _think_, _will_, and _plan_, En-Soph create, for he is in > must be bound and the same condition of > conditioned (baddha); hence, non-being as the former; he > in one sense, be a finite is עין non-existent so long > being. “THIS (Para-Brahma) as he lies in his latent or > was absorbed in the passive state within _Oulom_ > non-being, imperceptible, (the boundless and termless > without any distinct time); as such he is not the > attribute, non-existent for Creator of the visible > our senses. He was absorbed universe, neither is he the > in his (to us) eternal (to _Aur_ (Light). He will > himself) periodical, sleep,” become the latter when the > for it was one of the period of creation shall > “Nights of Brahma.” have compelled him to expand > Therefore he is not the the Force within himself, > _First_ but the Eternal according to the Law of > Cause. He is the Soul of which he is the embodiment > Souls, whom no being can and essence. > comprehend in this state. > But “he who studies the “Whosoever acquaints himself > secret Mantras and with ה״ד the Mercaba and the > comprehends the _Vâch_” (the _lahgash_ (secret speech or > Spirit or hidden voice of incantation),[552] will > the Mantras, the active learn the secret of > manifestation of the latent secrets.” > Force) will learn to > understand him in his > “revealed” aspect. > > Both “THIS” and En-Soph, in their first manifestation of Light, > emerging from within Darkness, may be summarized in the Svabhâvât, > the Eternal and the uncreated Self-existing Substance which produces > all; while everything which is of its essence produces itself out of > its own nature. > > _The Space Around the _The Space Around the > Upper Triangle._ Upper Triangle._ > > When the “Night of Brahma” When the active period had > was ended, and the time came arrived, En-Soph sent forth > for the Self-Existent to from within his own eternal > manifest _Itself_ by essence, Sephira, the active > revelation, it made its Power, called the Primordial > glory visible by sending Point, and the Crown, > forth from its Essence an _Keter_. It is only through > active Power, which, female her that the “Un-bounded > at first, subsequently Wisdom” could give a > becomes androgyne. It is concrete form to his > Aditi, the “Infinite,”[553] abstract Thought. Two sides > the Boundless, or rather the of the upper triangle, the > “Un-bounded.” Aditi is the right side and the base, are > “mother” of all the gods, composed of unbroken lines; > and Aditi is the Father and the third, the left side, is > the Son.[554] “Who will give dotted. It is through the > us back to the great Aditi, latter that emerges Sephira. > that I may see father and Spreading in every > mother?”[555] It is in direction, she finally > conjunction with the latter encompasses the whole > female, Force, that the triangle. In this emanation > Divine but latent Thought of the female active > produces the great principle from the left side > “Deep”--water. “Water is of the mystic triangle, is > born from a transformation foreshadowed the creation of > of light ... and from a Eve from Adam’s left rib. > _modification_ of the water Adam is the Microcosm of the > is born the earth,” says Macrocosm, and is created in > Manu (book i.). the image of the Elohim. In > the Tree of Life עצחיום the > “Ye are born of Aditi from triple triad is disposed in > the water, you who are born such a manner that the three > of the earth, hear ye all my male Sephiroth are on the > call.”[556] right, the three female on > the left, and the four > In this water (or primeval uniting principles in the > chaos) the “Infinite” centre. From the Invisible > androgyne, which, with the Dew falling from the Higher > Eternal Cause, forms the “Head” Sephira creates > first abstract Triad, primeval water, or chaos > rendered by AUM, deposited taking shape. It is the > the germ of universal life. first step toward the > It is the Mundane Egg, in solidification of Spirit, > which took place the which through various > gestation of Pūrūsha, or the modifications will produce > manifested Brahma. The germ earth.[557] “_It requires > which fecundated the earth and water to make a > _Mother_ Principle (the living soul_,” says Moses. > water) is called Nara, the > Divine Spirit or Holy When Sephira emerges like an > Ghost,[558] and the waters active power from within the > themselves, are an emanation latent Deity, she is female; > of the former, Nari, while when she assumes the office > the Spirit which brooded of a creator, she becomes a > over it is called male; hence, she is > Narayana.[559] androgyne. She is the > “Father and Mother Aditi,” > “In that egg, the great of the Hindu Cosmogony. > Power sat inactive a whole After brooding over the > _year of the Creator_, at “Deep,” the “Spirit of God” > the close of which, by his produces its own image in > thought alone, he caused the the water, the Universal > egg to divide itself.”[560] Womb, symbolized in _Manu_ > The upper half became by the Golden Egg. In the > heaven, the lower, the earth kabalistic Cosmogony, Heaven > (both yet in their ideal, and Earth are personified by > not their manifested form). Adam Kadmon and the second > Adam. The first Ineffable > Thus, this second triad, Triad, contained in the > only another name for the abstract idea of the “Three > first one (never pronounced Heads,” was a “mystery > aloud), and which is the name.” It was composed of > real pre-Vedic and En-Soph, Sephira, and Adam > primordial _secret_ Kadmon, the Protogonos, the > Trimurti, consisted of latter being identical with > the former, when > Nara, Father-Heaven, bisexual.[561] In every > Nari, Mother-Earth, triad there is a male, a > Viradj, the Son--or Universe. female, and an androgyne. > Adam-Sephira is the Crown > The Trimurti, comprising (Keter). It sets itself to > Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the work of creation, by > the Preserver, and Siva, the first producing Chochmah, > Destroyer and Regenerator, Male Wisdom, a masculine > belongs to a later period. active potency, represented > It is an anthropomorphic by חה, jah, or the Wheels of > afterthought, invented for Creation, אפּוַים, from which > the more popular proceeds Binah, Intelligence, > comprehension of the female and passive potency, > uninitiated masses. The which is _Jehovah_, יהוה, > _Dikshita_, the initiate, whom we find in the _Bible_ > knew better. Thus, also, the figuring as the Supreme. But > profound allegory under the this Jehovah is not the > colors of a ridiculous kabalistic Jodcheva. The > fable, given in the _binary_ is the fundamental > _Aytareya Brahmana_,[562] corner-stone of _Gnosis_. As > which resulted in the the binary is the Unity > representations in some multiplying itself and > temples of Brahm-Nara, self-creating, the kabalists > assuming the form of a bull, show the “Unknown” passive > and his daughter, En-Soph, as emanating from > Aditi-Nari, that of a himself, Sephira, which, > heifer, contains the same becoming visible light, is > metaphysical idea as the said to produce Adam Kadmon. > “fall of man,” or that of But, in the hidden sense, > the Spirit into Sephira and Adam are one and > generation--matter. The the same light, only latent > All-pervading Divine Spirit and active, invisible and > embodied under the symbols visible. The second Adam, as > of Heaven, the Sun, and Heat the human tetragram, > (fire)--the correlation of produces in his turn Eve, > cosmic forces--fecundates out of his side. It is this > Matter or Nature, the second triad, with which the > daughter of Spirit. And kabalists have hitherto > Para-Brahma himself has to dealt, hardly hinting at the > submit to and bear the Supreme and Ineffable One, > penance of the curses of the and never committing > other gods (Elohim) for such anything to writing. All > an incest. (See knowledge concerning the > corresponding column.) latter was imparted orally. > According to the immutable, It is the _second_ Adam, > and, therefore, fatal law, then, who is the unity > both Nara and Nari are represented by _Jod_, emblem > mutually Father and Mother, of the kabalistic male > as well as Father and principle, and, at the same > Daughter.[563] Matter, time, he is Chochmah, > through infinite _Wisdom_, while _Binah_ or > transformation, is the Jehovah is Eve; the first > gradual product of Spirit. Chochmah issuing from Keter, > The unification of one or the androgyne, Adam > Eternal Supreme Cause Kadmon, and the second, > required such a correlation; Binah, from Chochmah. If we > and if nature be the product combine with _Jod_ the three > or effect of that Cause, in letters which form the name > its turn it has to be of Eve, we will have the > fecundated by the same divine tetragram pronounced > divine Ray which produced IEVO-HEVAH, Adam and Eve, יחוה, > nature itself. The most Jehovah, male and female, or > absurd cosmogonical the idealization of humanity > allegories, if analyzed embodied in the first man. > without prejudice, will be Thus is it that we can prove > found built on strict and that, while the Jewish > logical necessarianism. kabalists, in common with > their initiated masters, the > “Being was born from Chaldeans and the Hindus, > not-being,” says a verse in adored the Supreme and > the _Rig-Veda_.[564] The Unknown God, in the sacred > first being had to become silence of their > androgyne and finite, by the sanctuaries, the ignorant > very fact of its creation as masses of every nation were > a being. And thus even the left to adore something > sacred Trimurti, containing which was certainly less > Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva than the Eternal Substance > will have an end when the of the Buddhists, the > “night” of Para-Brahma so-called Atheists. As > succeeds the present “day,” Brahma, the deity manifested > or period of universal in the mythical _Manu_, or > activity. the first man (born of > Swayambhuva, or the > The second, or rather the Self-existent), is finite, > first, triad---as the so Jehovah, embodied in Adam > highest one is a pure and Eve, is but a _human_ > abstraction--is the god. He is the symbol of > intellectual world. The Vâch humanity, a mixture of good > which surrounds it is a more with a portion of > definite transformation of unavoidable evil; of spirit > Aditi. Besides its occult fallen into matter. In > significance in the secret worshipping Jehovah, we > Mantrâm, Vâch is personified simply worship nature, as > as the active power of embodied in man, > Brahma proceeding from him. half-spiritual and > In the _Vedas_ she is made half-material, at best: we > to speak of herself as the are Pantheists, when not > supreme and universal soul. fetich worshippers, like the > “I bore the Father on the idolatrous Jews, who > head of the universal mind, sacrificed on high places, > and _my origin is in the in groves, to the > midst of the ocean_; and personified male and female > therefore do I pervade all principle, ignorant of IAO, > beings.... Originating all the Supreme “Secret Name” of > beings, I pass like the the Mysteries. > breeze (Holy Ghost). I am > above this heaven, beyond Shekinah is the Hindu Vâch, > this earth; and _what is the and praised in the same > Great One that am I_.”[565] terms as the latter. Though > Literally, Vâch is speech, shown in the kabalistic Tree > the power of awakening, of Life as proceeding from > through the metrical the ninth Sephiroth, yet > arrangement contained in Shekinah is the “veil” of > the number and syllables En-Soph, and the “garment” > of the Mantras,[566] of Jehovah. The “veil,” for > corresponding powers in it succeeded for long ages > the invisible world. In in concealing the real > the sacrificial Mysteries supreme God, the universal > Vâch stirs up the Brahma Spirit, and masking Jehovah, > (_Brahma jinvati_), or the exoteric deity, made the > the power lying latent at Christians accept him as the > the bottom of every magical “father” of the initiated > operation. It existed from Jesus. Yet the kabalists, > eternity as the Yajna (its as well as the Hindu > latent form), lying dormant _Dikshita_, know the power > in Brahma from of the Shekinah or Vâch, > “no-beginning,” and and call it the “secret > proceeded forth from him as wisdom,” חכמח־נסהדח. > Vâch (the active power). It > is the key to the The triangle played a > “Traividyâ,” the thrice prominent part in the > sacred science which teaches religious symbolism of every > the Yajus (the sacrificial great nation; for everywhere > Mysteries).[567] it represented the three > great principles--spirit, > Having done with the force, and matter; or the > unrevealed triad, and the active (male), passive > first triad of the (female), and the dual or > Sephiroth, called the correlative principle which > “intellectual world,” little partakes of both and binds > remains to be said. In the the two together. It was the > great geometrical figure _Arba_ or mystic “four,”[568] > which has the double the mystery-gods, the Kabeiri, > triangle in it, the central summarized in the unity of > circle represents the world one supreme Deity. It is > within the universe. The found in the Egyptian > double triangle belongs to pyramids, whose equal sides > one of the most important, tower up until lost in one > if it is not in itself the crowning point. In the > most important, of the kabalistic diagram the > mystic figures in India. It central circle of the > is the emblem of the Brahmanical figure is > Trimurti three in one. The replaced by the cross; the > triangle with its apex celestial perpendicular and > upward indicates the male the terrestrial horizontal > principle, downward the base line.[569] But the idea > female; the two typifying, is the same: Adam Kadmon is > at the same time, spirit and the type of humanity as a > matter. This world within collective totality within > the infinite universe is the the unity of the creative > microcosm within the God and the universal > macrocosm, as in the Jewish spirit. > _Kabala_. It is the symbol > of the womb of the universe, “Of him who is formless, the > the terrestrial egg, whose non-existent (also the > archetype is the golden eternal, but _not_ First > mundane egg. It is from Cause), is born the heavenly > within this spiritual bosom man.” But after he created > of mother nature that the form of the heavenly > proceed all the great man אדמעלאה, he “used it as > saviours of the a vehicle wherein to > universe--the avatars of the descend,” says the _Kabala_. > invisible Deity. Thus Adam Kadmon is the > avatar of the concealed > “Of him who is and yet is power. After that the > not, from the not-being, heavenly Adam creates or > Eternal Cause, is born the engenders by the combined > being Pouroucha,” says Manu, power of the Sephiroth, the > the legislator. Pouroucha is earthly Adam. The work of > the “divine male,” the creation is also begun by > _second_ god, and the Sephira in the creation of > avatar, or the Logos of the ten Sephiroth (who are > Para-Brahma and his divine the Pradjapatis of the > son, who in his turn _Kabala_, for they are > produced Viradj, the son, or likewise the Lords of all > the ideal type of the beings). > universe. “Viradj begins the > work of creation by The _Sohar_ asserts the > producing the ten same. According to the > Pradjapati, ‘the lords of kabalistic doctrine there > all beings.’” were old worlds (see Idra > Suta: _Sohar_, iii., p. 292 > According to the doctrine of b). Everything will return > Manu, the universe is some day to that from which > subjected to a periodical it first proceeded. “All > and never-ending succession things of which this world > of creations and consists, spirit as well as > dissolutions, which periods body, will return to their > of creation are named principal, and the roots > Manvântara. from which they proceeded” > (_Sohar_, ii., 218 b). The > “It is the germ (which the kabalists also maintain the > Divine Spirit produced from indestructibility of matter, > its own substance) which albeit their doctrine is > never perishes in the being, shrouded still more > for it becomes the soul of carefully than that of the > Being, and at the period of Hindus. The creation is > _pralaya_ (dissolution) it eternal, and the universe is > returns to absorb itself the “garment,” or “the veil > again _into the Divine_ of God”--Shekinah; and the > Spirit, _which itself_ rests latter is immortal and > from all eternity within eternal as Him within whom > Swayambhuva, the it has ever existed. Every > ‘Self-Existent’” world is made after the > (_Institutes of Manu_, pattern of its predecessor, > book i.). and each more gross and > material than the preceding > As we have shown, neither one. In the _Kabala_ all > the Svâbhâvikas, Buddhist were called sparks. Finally, > philosophers--nor the our present grossly > Brahmans believe in a materialistic world was > creation of the universe _ex formed. > nihilo_, but both believe in > the _Prakriti_, the In the Chaldean account of > indestructibility of matter. the period which preceded > the Genesis of our world, > The evolution of species, Berosus speaks of a time > and the successive when there existed nothing > appearance of various new but darkness, and an abyss > types is very distinctly of waters, filled with > shown in _Manu_. hideous monsters, “produced > of a two-fold principle .... > “From earth, heat, and These were creatures in > water, are born all which were combined the > creatures, whether animate limbs of every species of > or inanimate, produced by animals. In addition to > the germ which the Divine these fishes, reptiles, > Spirit drew from its own serpents, with other > substance. Thus has Brahma monstrous animals, which > established the series of assumed each other’s shape > transformations from the and countenance.”[571] > plant up to man, and from > man up to the primordial > essence.... Among them each > succeeding being (or > element) acquires the > quality of the preceding; > and in as many degrees as > each of them is advanced, > with so many properties is > it said to be endowed” > (_Manu_, book i., sloka > 20).[570] > > This, we believe, is the > veritable theory of the > modern evolutionists. > > In the first book of Manu, we read: “Know that the sum of 1,000 > divine ages, composes the totality of one day of Brahma; and that one > night is equal to that day.” One thousand divine ages is equal to > 4,320,000,000 of human years, in the Brahmanical calculations. > > “At the expiration of each night, Brahma, who has been asleep, > awakes, and through the sole energy of the motion causes to emanate > from himself the spirit, which in its essence _is_, and yet is not.” > > “Prompted by the desire to create, the Spirit (first of the > emanations) operates the creation and gives birth to ether, which the > sages consider as having the faculty of transmitting sound. > > “Ether begets air whose property is tangible, and which is necessary > to life. > > “Through a transformation of the air, light is produced. > > “From air and light, which begets heat, water is formed, and the > water is the womb of all the living germs.” > > Throughout the whole immense period of progressive creation, > covering 4,320,000,000 years, ether, air, water and fire (heat), are > constantly forming matter under the never-ceasing impulse of the > Spirit, or the _unrevealed_ God who fills up the whole creation, > for he is in all, and all is in him. This computation, which was > secret and which is hardly hinted at even now, led Higgins into the > error of dividing every ten ages into 6,000 years. Had he added a > few more ciphers to his sums he might have come nearer to a correct > explanation of the neroses, or secret cycles.[572] > > In the _Sepher Jezireh_, the kabalistic Book of Creation, the author > has evidently repeated the words of Manu. In it, the Divine Substance > is represented as having alone existed from the eternity, boundless > and absolute; and emitted from itself the Spirit. “One is the Spirit > of the living God, blessed be His Name, who liveth for ever! Voice, > Spirit, and Word, this is the Holy Spirit;”[573] and this is the > kabalistic abstract Trinity, so unceremoniously anthropomorphized > by the Fathers. From this triple ONE emanated the whole Cosmos. > First from ONE emanated number TWO, or Air, the creative element; > and then number THREE, _Water_, proceeded from the air; _Ether_ > or _Fire_ complete the mystic four, the Arba-il.[574] “When the > Concealed of the Concealed wanted to reveal Himself, he first made a > point (primordial point, or the first Sephira, air or Holy Ghost), > shaped it into a sacred form (the ten Sephiroth, or the Heavenly > man), and covered it with a rich and splendid garment, _that is the > world_.”[575] “He maketh the wind His messengers, flaming Fire his > servants,” says the _Jezireh_, showing the cosmical character of the > later euhemerized angels,[576] and that the Spirit permeates every > minutest atom of the Cosmos.[577] > > When the cycle of creation is run down, the energy of the manifested > word is weakening. He alone, the Unconceivable, is unchangeable (ever > latent), but the Creative Force, though also eternal, as it has been > in the former from “no beginning,” yet must be subject to periodical > cycles of activity and rest; as it had a _beginning_ in one of its > aspects, when it first emanated, therefore must also have an end. > Thus, the evening succeeds the day, and the night of the deity > approaches. Brahma is gradually falling asleep. In one of the books > of _Sohar_, we read the following: > > “As Moses was keeping a vigil on Mount Sinai, in company with the > Deity, who was concealed from his sight by a cloud, he felt a great > fear overcome him and suddenly asked: ‘Lord, where art Thou ... > sleepest thou, O Lord?’ And the _Spirit_ answered him: ‘I never > sleep; were I to fall asleep for a moment _before my time_, all > the Creation would crumble into dissolution in one instant.’” And > Vamadeva-Modēly describes the “Night of Brahma,” or the second period > of the Divine Unknown existence, thus: > > “Strange noises are heard, proceeding from every point.... These are > the precursors of the Night of Brahma; _dusk rises at the horizon_ > and the Sun passes away behind the thirtieth degree of Macara (sign > of the zodiac), and will reach no more the sign of the _Minas_ > (zodiacal _pisces_, or fish). The gurus of the pagodas appointed > to watch the rās-chakr (Zodiac), may now break their circle and > instruments, for they are henceforth useless. > > “Gradually light pales, heat diminishes, uninhabitable spots multiply > on the earth, the air becomes more and more rarefied; the springs of > waters dry up, the great rivers see their waves exhausted, the ocean > shows its sandy bottom, and plants die. Men and animals decrease in > size daily. Life and motion lose their force, planets can hardly > gravitate in space; they are extinguished one by one, like a lamp > which the hand of the chokra (servant) neglects to replenish. Sourya > (the Sun) flickers and goes out, matter falls into dissolution > (pralaya), and Brahma merges back into Dyäus, the Unrevealed God, and > his task being accomplished, he falls asleep. Another day is passed, > night sets in and continues until the future dawn. > > “And now again re-enter into the golden egg of His Thought, the germs > of all that exist, as the divine Manu tells us. During His peaceful > rest, the animated beings, endowed with the principles of action, > cease their functions, and all feeling (manas) becomes dormant. When > they are all absorbed in the SUPREME SOUL, this Soul of all the > beings sleeps in complete repose, till the day when it resumes its > form, and awakes again from its primitive darkness.”[578] > > If we now examine the ten mythical avatars of Vishnu, we find them > recorded in the following progression: > > 1. Matsya-Avatar: as a fish. It will also be his tenth and last > avatar, at the end of the Kali-yug. > > 2. Kurm-Avatar: as a tortoise. > > 3. Varaha: as a boar. > > 4. Nara-Sing: as a _man-lion_; last animal stage. > > 5. Vamuna: as a dwarf; first step toward the human form. > > 6. Parasu-Rama: as a hero, but yet an imperfect man. > > 7. Rama-Chandra: as the hero of Ramayâna. Physically a perfect man; > his next of kin, friend and ally Hanoumā, the monkey-god. _The monkey > endowed with speech._[579] > > 8. Christna-Avatar: the Son of the Virgin Devanaguy (or Devaki) one > formed by God, or rather by the manifested Deity Vishnu, who is > identical with Adam Kadmon.[580] Christna is also called Kaneya, the > Son of the Virgin. > > 9. Gautama-Buddha, Siddhârtha, or Sakya-muni. (The Buddhists reject > this doctrine of their Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu.) > > 10. This avatar has not yet occurred. It is expected in the future, > like the Christian Advent, the idea of which was undoubtedly copied > from the Hindu. When Vishnu appears for the last time he will come > as a “Saviour.” According to the opinion of some Brahmans he will > appear himself under the form of the horse Kalki. Others maintain > that he will be mounting it. This horse is the envelope of the > spirit of evil, and Vishnu will mount it, invisible to all, till he > has conquered it for the last time. The “Kalki-Avataram,” or the > last incarnation, divides Brahmanism into two sects. That of the > Vaïhnâva refuses to recognize the incarnations of their god Vishnu in > animal forms literally. They claim that these must be understood as > allegorical. > > In this diagram of avatars we see traced the gradual evolution and > transformation of all species out of the ante-Silurian mud of Darwin > and the _ilus_ of Sanchoniathon and Berosus. Beginning with the > Azoic time, corresponding to the _ilus_ in which Brahma implants > the creative germ, we pass through the Palæozoic and Mesozoic > times, covered by the first and second incarnations as the fish and > tortoise; and the Cenozoic, which is embraced by the incarnations > in the animal and semi-human forms of the boar and man-lion; and we > come to the fifth and crowning geological period, designated as the > “era of mind, or age of man,” whose symbol in the Hindu mythology is > the dwarf--the first attempt of nature at the creation of man. In > this diagram we should follow the main-idea, not judge the degree of > knowledge of the ancient philosophers by the literal acceptance of > the popular form in which it is presented to us in the grand epical > poem of _Maha-Bharata_ and its chapter the _Bagaved-gitta_. > > Even the four ages of the Hindu chronology contain a far more > philosophical idea than appears on the surface. It defines them > according to both the psychological or mental and the physical states > of man during their period. Crita-yug, the golden age, the “age of > joy,” or spiritual innocence of man; Treta-yug, the age of silver, > or that of fire--the period of supremacy of man and of giants and of > the sons of God; Dwapara-yug, the age of bronze--a mixture already > of purity and impurity (spirit and matter), the age of doubt; and at > last our own, the Kali-yug, or age of iron, of darkness, misery, and > sorrow. In this age, Vishnu had to incarnate himself in Christna, > in order to save humanity from the goddess Kali, consort of Siva, > the all-annihilating--the goddess of death, destruction, and human > misery. Kali is the best emblem to represent the “fall of man;” > the falling of spirit into the degradation of matter, with all its > terrific results. We have to rid ourselves of Kali before we can ever > reach “Moksha,” or Nirvana, the abode of blessed Peace and Spirit. > > With the Buddhists the last incarnation is the fifth. When > Maitree-Buddha comes, then our present world will be destroyed; and > a new and a better one will replace it. The four arms of every Hindu > Deity are the emblems of the four preceding manifestations of our > earth from its invisible state, while its head typifies the fifth and > last _Kalki_-Avatar, when this would be destroyed, and the power of > Budh--Wisdom (with the Hindus, of Brahma), will be again called into > requisition to manifest itself--as a _Logos_--to create the future > world. > > In this diagram, the male gods typify Spirit in its deific > attributes, while their female counterparts--the _Sakti_, represent > the active energies of these attributes. The _Durga_ (active virtue), > is a subtile, invisible force, which answers to Shekinah--the garment > of En-Soph. She is the Sakti through which the passive “Eternal” > calls forth the visible universe from its first ideal conception. > Every one of the three personages of the exoteric Trimurti are shown > as using their _Sakti_ as a _Vehan_ (vehicle). Each of them is for > the time being the form which sits upon the mysterious wagon of > Ezekiel. > > Nor do we see less clearly carried out in this succession of avatars, > the truly philosophical idea of a simultaneous spiritual and physical > evolution of creatures and man. From a fish the progress of this dual > transformation carries on the physical form through the shape of a > tortoise, a boar, and a man-lion; and then, appearing in the dwarf of > humanity, it shows Parasu Rama physically, a perfect, spiritually, > an undeveloped entity, until it carries mankind personified by one > god-like man, to the apex of physical and spiritual perfection--a god > on earth. In Christna and the other Saviours of the world we see the > philosophical idea of the progressive dual development understood > and as clearly expressed in the _Sohar_. The “Heavenly man,” who is > the Protogonos, Tikkun, the first-born of God, or the universal Form > and Idea, engenders Adam. Hence the latter is god-born in humanity, > and endowed with the attributes of all the ten Sephiroth. These are: > Wisdom, Intelligence, Justice, Love, Beauty, Splendor, Firmness, > etc. They make him the Foundation or basis, “_the mighty living > one_,” אלחי, and the crown of creation, thus placing him as the > Alpha and Omega to reign over the “kingdom”--Malchuth. “Man is both > the import and the highest degree of creation,” says the _Sohar_. “As > soon as man was created, everything was complete, including the upper > and nether worlds, for everything is comprised in man. He unites in > himself all forms” (iii., p. 48 a). > > But this does not relate to our degenerated mankind; it is only > occasionally that men are born who are the types of what man should > be, and yet is not. The first races of men were spiritual, and their > protoplastic bodies were not composed of the gross and material > substances of which we see them composed now-a-day. The first men > were created with all the faculties of the Deity, and powers far > transcending those of the angelic host; for they were the direct > emanations of Adam Kadmon, the primitive man, the Macrocosm; while > the present humanity is several degrees removed even from the earthly > Adam, who was the Microcosm, or “the little world.” Seir Anpin, > the mystical figure of the Man, consists of 243 numbers, and we > see in the circles which follow each other that it is the angels > which emanated from the “Primitive Man,” not the Sephiroth from > angels. Hence, man was intended from the first to be a being of > both a progressive and retrogressive nature. Beginning at the apex > of the divine cycle, he gradually began receding from the centre of > Light, acquiring at every new and lower sphere of being (worlds each > inhabited by a different race of human beings) a more solid physical > form and losing a portion of his _divine_ faculties. > > In the “fall of Adam” we must see, not the personal transgression of > man, but simply the law of the dual evolution. Adam, or “Man,” begins > his career of existences by dwelling in the garden of Eden “dressed > in the celestial garment, which _is a garment of heavenly light_” > (_Sohar_, ii., 229 b); but when expelled he is “clothed” by God, or > the eternal law of Evolution or necessarianism, with coats of skin. > But even on this earth of material degradation--in which the divine > spark (Soul, a corruscation of the Spirit) was to begin its physical > progression in a series of imprisonments from a stone up to a man’s > body--if he but exercise his WILL and call his deity to his help, man > can transcend the powers of the angel. “Know ye not that we shall > judge angels?” asks Paul (_1 Corinthians_, vi. 3). The real man is > the Soul (Spirit), teaches the _Sohar_. “The mystery of the earthly > man is after the mystery of the heavenly man ... the wise can read > the mysteries in the human face” (ii., 76 a). > > This is still another of the many sentences by which Paul must be > recognized as an initiate. For reasons fully explained, we give far > more credit for genuineness to certain Epistles of the apostles, now > dismissed as apocryphal, than to many suspicious portions of the > _Acts_. And we find corroboration of this view in the _Epistle of > Paul to Seneca_. In this message Paul styles Seneca “my respected > master,” while Seneca terms the apostle simply “brother.” > > No more than the true religion of Judaic philosophy can be judged > by the absurdities of the exoteric _Bible_, have we any right to > form an opinion of Brahmanism and Buddhism by their nonsensical and > sometimes disgusting popular forms. If we only search for the true > essence of the philosophy of both _Manu_ and the _Kabala_, we will > find that Vishnu is, as well as Adam Kadmon, the expression of the > universe itself; and that his incarnations are but concrete and > various embodiments of the manifestations of this “Stupendous Whole.” > “I am the Soul, O, Arjuna. I am the Soul which exists in the heart of > all beings; and I am the beginning and the middle, and also the end > of existing things,” says Vishnu to his disciple, in _Bagaved-gitta_ > (ch. x., p. 71). > > “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.... I am the first > and the last,” says Jesus to John (_Rev._ i. 6, 17). > > Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are a trinity in a unity, and, like the > Christian trinity, they are mutually convertible. In the esoteric > doctrine they are one and the same manifestation of him “whose name > is too sacred to be pronounced, and whose power is too majestic and > infinite to be imagined.” Thus by describing the avatars of one, all > others are included in the allegory, with a change of form but not of > substance. It is out of such manifestations that emanated the many > worlds that were, and that will emanate the one--which is to come. > > Coleman, followed in it by other Orientalists, presents the seventh > avatar of Vishnu in the most caricatured way.[581] Apart from the > fact that the _Ramayana_ is one of the grandest epic poems in the > world--the source and origin of Homer’s inspiration--this avatar > conceals one of the most scientific problems of our modern day. > The learned Brahmans of India never understood the allegory of the > famous war between men, giants, and monkeys, otherwise than in the > light of the transformation of species. It is our firm belief that > were European academicians to seek for information from some learned > native Brahmans, instead of unanimously and incontinently rejecting > their authority, and were they, like Jacolliot--against whom they > have nearly all arrayed themselves--to seek for light in the oldest > documents scattered about the country in pagodas, they might > learn strange but not useless lessons. Let any one inquire of an > _educated_ Brahman the reason for the respect shown to monkeys--the > origin of which feeling is indicated in the story of the valorous > feats of Hanoumā, the generalissimo and faithful ally of the hero > of Ramayana,[582] and he would soon be disabused of the erroneous > idea that the Hindus accord deific honors to a monkey-_god_. He > would, perhaps, learn--were the Brahman to judge him worthy of an > explanation--that the Hindu sees in the ape but what Manu desired he > should: the transformation of species most directly connected with > that of the human family--a bastard branch engrafted on their own > stock before the final perfection of the latter.[583] He might learn, > further, that in the eyes of the educated “heathen” the spiritual > or _inner_ man is one thing, and his terrestrial, physical casket > another. That _physical_ nature, the great combination of physical > correlations of forces ever creeping on toward perfection, has to > avail herself of the material at hand; she models and remodels as she > proceeds, and finishing her crowning work in man, presents him alone > as a fit tabernacle for the overshadowing of the Divine spirit. But > the latter circumstance does not give man the right of life and death > over the animals lower than himself in the scale of _nature_, or > the right to torture them. Quite the reverse. Besides being endowed > with a soul--of which every animal, and even plant, is more or less > possessed--man has his immortal _rational_ soul, or _nous_, which > ought to make him at least equal in magnanimity to the elephant, > who treads so carefully, lest he should crush weaker creatures than > himself. It is this feeling which prompts Brahman and Buddhist alike > to construct hospitals for sick animals, and even insects, and to > prepare refuges wherein they may finish their days. It is this same > feeling, again, which causes the Jaïn sectarian to sacrifice one-half > of his life-time to brushing away from his path the helpless, > crawling insects, rather than recklessly deprive the smallest of > life; and it is again from this sense of highest benevolence and > charity toward the weaker, however abject the creature may be, > that they honor one of the natural modifications of their own dual > nature, and that later the popular belief in metempsychosis arose. > No trace of the latter is to be found in the _Vedas_; and the true > interpretation of the doctrine, discussed at length in _Manu_ and > the Buddhistic sacred books, having been confined from the first to > the learned sacerdotal castes, the false and foolish popular ideas > concerning it need occasion no surprise. > > Upon those who, in the remains of antiquity, see evidence that modern > times can lay small claim to originality, it is common to charge a > disposition to exaggerate and distort facts. But the candid reader > will scarcely aver that the above is an example in point. There were > evolutionists before the day when the mythical Noah is made, in the > _Bible_, to float in his ark; and the ancient scientists were better > informed, and had their theories more logically defined than the > modern evolutionists. > > Plato, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, the Eleatic schools of Greece, as well > as the old Chaldean sacerdotal colleges, all taught the doctrine of > the dual evolution; the doctrine of the transmigration of souls > referring only to the progress of man from world to world, after > death here. Every philosophy worthy of the name, taught that the > _spirit_ of man, if not the _soul_, was preëxistent. “The Essenes,” > says Josephus, “believed that the souls were immortal, and that they > descended from the ethereal spaces to be chained to bodies.”[584] In > his turn, Philo Judæus says, the “air is full of them (of souls); > those which are nearest the earth, descending to be tied to mortal > bodies, παλινδρομοῦσι αὖθις, return to other bodies, being desirous to > live in them.”[585] In the _Sohar_, the soul is made to plead her > freedom before God: “Lord of the Universe! I am happy in this world, > and do not wish to go into another world, where I shall be a handmaid, > and be exposed to all kinds of pollutions.”[586] The doctrine of fatal > necessity, the everlasting immutable Law, is asserted in the answer of > the Deity: “Against thy will thou becomest an embryo, and against thy > will thou art born.”[587] Light would be incomprehensible without > darkness, to make it manifest by contrast; good would be no good > without evil, to show the priceless nature of the boon; and so, > personal virtue could claim no merit, unless it had passed through the > furnace of temptation. Nothing is eternal and unchangeable, save the > Concealed Deity. Nothing that is finite--whether because it had a > beginning, or must have an end--can remain stationary. It must either > progress or recede; and a soul which thirsts after a reünion with its > spirit, which alone confers upon it immortality, must purify itself > through cyclic transmigrations, onward toward the only Land of Bliss and > Eternal Rest, called in the _Sohar_, “The Palace of Love,” היבל אהבת; > in the Hindu religion, “Moksha;” among the Gnostics, the “Pleroma of > eternal Light;” and by the Buddhists, Nirvana. The Christian calls it > the “Kingdom of Heaven,” and claims to have alone found the truth, > whereas he has but invented a new name for a doctrine which is coëval > with man. > > The proof that the transmigration of the soul does not relate to > man’s condition on this earth _after_ death, is found in the _Sohar_, > notwithstanding the many incorrect renderings of its translators. > “All souls which have alienated themselves in heaven from the Holy > One--blessed be His Name--have thrown themselves into an abyss at > their very existence, and have anticipated the time when they are > to descend on earth.[588]... Come and see when the soul reaches > the abode of Love.... The soul could not bear this light, but for > the luminous mantle which she puts on. For, just as the soul, when > sent to this earth, puts on an earthly garment to preserve herself > here, so she receives above a shining garment, in order to be able > to look without injury into the mirror, whose light proceeds from > the Lord of Light.”[589] Moreover, the _Sohar_ teaches that the soul > cannot reach the abode of bliss, unless she has received the “holy > kiss,” or the re-union of the soul _with the substance from which > she emanated_--spirit. All souls are dual, and, while the latter > is a feminine principle, the spirit is masculine. While imprisoned > in body, man is a trinity, unless his pollution is such as to have > caused his divorce from the spirit. “Woe to the soul which prefers to > her divine husband (spirit), the earthly wedlock with her terrestrial > body,” records a text of the _Book of the Keys_.[590] > > These ideas on the transmigrations and the trinity of man, were > held by many of the early Christian Fathers. It is the jumble made > by the translators of the _New Testament_ and ancient philosophical > treatises between soul and spirit, that has occasioned the many > misunderstandings. It is also one of the many reasons why Buddha, > Plotinus, and so many other initiates are now accused of having > longed for the total extinction of their souls--“absorption unto the > Deity,” or “reunion with the universal soul,” meaning, according > to modern ideas, annihilation. The animal soul must, of course, be > disintegrated of its particles, before it is able to link its purer > essence forever with the immortal spirit. But the translators of > both the _Acts_ and the _Epistles_, who laid the foundation of the > _Kingdom of Heaven_, and the modern commentators on the Buddhist > _Sutra of the Foundation of the Kingdom of Righteousness_, have > muddled the sense of the great apostle of Christianity, as of the > great reformer of India. The former have smothered the word φυχικος, > so that no reader imagines it to have any relation with _soul_; and > with this confusion of _soul_ and _spirit_ together, _Bible_ readers > get only a perverted sense of anything on the subject; and the > interpreters of the latter have failed to understand the meaning and > object of the Buddhist four degrees of Dhyâna. > > In the writings of Paul, the entity of man is divided into a > trine--flesh, psychical existence or _soul_, and the overshadowing > and at the same time interior entity or SPIRIT. His phraseology is > very definite, when he teaches the _anastasis_, or the continuation > of life of those who have died. He maintains that there is a > _psychical_ body which is sown in the corruptible, and a spiritual > body that is raised in incorruptible substance. “The first man is > of the earth earthy, the second man from heaven.” Even James (iii. > 15) identifies the soul by saying that its “wisdom descendeth not > from the above but is terrestrial, _psychical_, _demoniacal_” (see > Greek text). Plato, speaking of the Soul (_psuché_), observes that > “when she allies herself to the _nous_ (divine substance, a god, as > psuché is a goddess), she does everything aright and felicitously; > but the case is otherwise when she attaches herself to _Annoia_.” > What Plato calls _nous_, Paul terms the _Spirit_; and Jesus makes > the _heart_ what Paul says of the _flesh_. The natural condition of > mankind was called in Greek αποστασια; the new condition αναστασις. In > Adam came the former (death), in Christ the latter (resurrection), for > it is he who first publicly taught mankind the “Noble Path” to Eternal > life, as Gautama pointed the same Path to Nirvana. To accomplish both > ends there was but one way, according to the teachings of both. > “Poverty, chastity, contemplation or inner prayer; contempt for wealth > and the illusive joys of this world.” > > “Enter on this Path and put an end to sorrow; verily the Path has > been preached by me, who have found out how to quench the darts of > grief. You yourselves must make the effort; _the Buddhas are only > preachers_. The thoughtful who enter the Path are freed from the > bondage of the Deceiver (Marâ).[591] > > “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad > is the way that leadeth to destruction.... Follow me.... Every one > that heareth these sayings and doeth them not, shall be likened > unto a foolish man” (_Matthew_ vii. and viii.). “_I can of mine own > self do nothing_” (_John_ v. 30). “The care of this world, and the > deceitfulness of riches, choke the word” (_Matthew_ xiii. 22), say > the Christians; and it is only by shaking off all delusions that the > Buddhist enters on the “Path” which will lead him “away from the > restless tossing waves of the ocean of life,” and take him “to the > calm City of Peace, to the real joy and rest of Nirvana.” > > The Greek philosophers are alike made misty instead of mystic by their > too learned translators. The Egyptians revered the Divine Spirit, the > One-Only One, as NOUT. It is most evident that it is from that word > that Anaxagoras borrowed his denominative _nous_, or, as he calls it, > Νοῦς αυτοκρατης--the Mind or Spirit self-potent, the αρχητης κινησεως. > “All things,” says he, “were in chaos; then came Νοῦς and introduced > order.” He also denominated this Νοῦς the One that ruled the many. In > his idea Νοῦς was God; and the _Logos_ was man, the emanation of the > former. The external powers perceived _phenomena_; the _nous_ alone > recognized _noumena_ or subjective things. This is purely Buddhistic > and esoteric. > > Here Socrates took his clew and followed it, and Plato after > him, with the whole world of interior knowledge. Where the old > Ionico-Italian world culminated in Anaxagoras, the new world began > with Socrates and Plato. Pythagoras made the _Soul_ a self-moving > unit, with three elements, the _nous_, the _phren_ and the _thumos_; > the latter two, shared with the brutes; the former only, being his > essential _self_. So the charge that he taught transmigration is > refuted; he taught no more than Gautama-Buddha ever did, whatever the > popular superstition of the Hindu rabble made of it after his death. > Whether Pythagoras borrowed from Buddha, or Buddha from somebody > else, matters not; the esoteric doctrine is the same. > > The Platonic School is even more distinct in enunciating all this. > > The real selfhood was at the basis of all. Socrates therefore taught > that he had a δαιμόνιον (_daimonion_), a spiritual something which put > him in the road to wisdom. He himself knew nothing, but this put him > in the way to learn all. > > Plato followed him with a full investigation of the principles of > being. There was an _Agathon_, Supreme God, who produced in his own > mind a _paradeigma_ of all things. > > He taught that in man was “the immortal principle of the soul,” a > mortal body, and a “separate mortal kind of soul,” which was placed > in a separate receptacle of the body from the other; the immortal > part was in the head (_Timæus_ xix., xx.) the other in the trunk > (xliv.). > > Nothing is plainer than that Plato regarded the interior man as > constituted of two parts--one always the same, formed of the same > entity as Deity, and one mortal and corruptible. > > “Plato and Pythagoras,” says Plutarch, “distribute the soul into two > parts, the rational (noëtic) and irrational (_agnoia_); that that > part of the soul of man which is rational, is eternal; for though it > be not God, yet it is the product of an eternal deity, but that part > of the soul which is divested of reason (_agnoia_) dies.” > > “Man,” says Plutarch, “is compound; and they are mistaken who think > him to be compounded of two parts only. For they imagine that the > understanding is a part of the soul, but they err in this no less > than those who make the soul to be a part of the body, for the > understanding (_nous_) as far exceeds the soul, as the soul is better > and diviner than the body. Now this composition of the soul (φυχη) > with the understanding (νοῦς) makes reason; and with the body, > passion; of which the one is the beginning or principle of pleasure > and pain, and the other of virtue and vice. Of these three parts > conjoined and compacted together, the earth has given the body, the > moon the soul, and the sun the understanding to the generation of man. > > “Now of the deaths we die, _the one makes man two of three_, and the > other, _one_ of (out of) two. The former is in the region and > jurisdiction of Demeter, whence the name given to the Mysteries τελειν > resembled that given to death, τελευταν. The Athenians also heretofore > called the deceased sacred to Demeter. As for the _other death_ it is > in the moon or region of Persophoné. And as with the one the > terrestrial, so with the other the celestial Hermes doth dwell. This > suddenly and with violence plucks the soul from the body; but > Proserpina mildly and in a long time disjoins the understanding from > the soul. For this reason she is called _Monogenes_, _only-begotten_, > or rather _begetting one alone_; for the better part of man becomes > alone when it is separated by her. Now both the one and the other > happens thus according to nature. It is ordained by Faith that every > soul, whether with or without understanding (νοῦς), when gone out of > the body, should wander for a time, though not all for the same, in > the region lying between the earth and moon. For those that have been > unjust and dissolute suffer there the punishment due to their > offences; but the good and virtuous are there detained till they are > purified, and have, by expiation, purged out of them all the > infections they might have contracted from the contagion of the body, > as if from foul health, living in the mildest part of the air, called > the Meadows of Hades, where they must remain for a certain prefixed > and appointed time. And then, as if they were returning from a > wandering pilgrimage or long exile into their country, they have a > taste of joy, such as they principally receive who are initiated into > Sacred Mysteries, mixed with trouble, admiration, and each one’s > proper and peculiar hope.” > > The _dæmonium_ of Socrates was this νοῦς, mind, spirit, or > understanding of the divine in it. “The νοῦς of Socrates,” says > Plutarch, “was pure and mixed itself with the body no more than > necessity required.... Every soul hath some portion of νοῦς, reason, a > man cannot be a man without it; but as much of each soul as is mixed > with flesh and appetite is changed and through pain or pleasure > becomes irrational. Every soul doth not mix herself after one sort; > some plunge themselves into the body, and so, in this life their whole > frame is corrupted by appetite and passion; others are mixed as to > some part, but the purer part [nous] still remains _without the body_. > It is not drawn down into the body, but it swims above and touches > (overshadows) the extremest part of the man’s head; it is like a cord > to hold up and direct the subsiding part of the soul, as long as it > proves obedient and is not overcome by the appetites of the flesh. The > part that is plunged into the body is called _soul_. But the > incorruptible part is called the _nous_ and _the vulgar think it is > within them_, as they likewise imagine the image reflected from a > glass to be in that glass. But the more intelligent, who know it to be > without, call it a Daëmon” (a god, a spirit). > > “The soul, like to a dream, flies quick away, which it does not > immediately, as soon as it is separated from the body, but afterward, > when it is alone and divided from the understanding (_nous_).... > The soul being moulded and formed by the understanding (_nous_), > and itself moulding and forming the body, by embracing it on every > side, receives from it an impression and form; so that although it be > separated both from the understanding and the body, it nevertheless > so retains still its figure and resemblance for a long time, that it > may, with good right, be called its image. > > “And of these souls the moon is the element, because souls resolve > into her, as the bodies of the deceased do into earth. Those, indeed, > who have been virtuous and honest, living a quiet and philosophical > life, without embroiling themselves in troublesome affairs, are > quickly resolved; because, being left by the nous, understanding, and > no longer using the corporeal passions, they incontinently vanish > away.” > > We find even Irenæus, that untiring and mortal enemy of every Grecian > and “heathen” heresy, explain his belief in the trinity of man. The > perfect man, according to his views, consists of _flesh_, _soul_, > and _spirit_. “... carne, anima, spiritu, altero quidem figurante, > spiritu, altero quod formatur, carne. Id vero quod inter haec est > duo, est anima, quae aliquando subsequens spiritum elevatur ab eo, > aliquando autem consentient carni in terrenas concupiscentias” > (_Irenæus_ v., 1). > > And Origen, in his _Sixth Epistle to the Romans_, says: “There is a > threefold partition of man, the body or flesh, the lowest part of our > nature, on which the old serpent by original sin inscribed the law > of sin, and by which we are tempted to vile things, and as oft as we > are overcome by temptations are joined fast to the Devil; the spirit, > in or by which we express the likeness of the divine nature in which > the very Best Creator, from the archetype of his own mind, engraved > with his finger (that is, his spirit), the eternal law of honesty; by > this we are joined (conglutinated) to God and made one with God. In > the third, the soul mediates between these, which, as in a factious > republic, cannot but join with one party or the other, is solicited > this way and that and is at liberty to choose the side to which it > will adhere. If, renouncing the flesh, it betakes itself to the party > of the spirit it will itself become spiritual, but if it cast itself > down to the cupidities of the flesh it will degenerate itself into > body.” > > Plato (in _Laws_ x.) defines _soul_ as “the motion that is able > to move itself.” “Soul is the most ancient of all things, and the > commencement of motion.” “Soul was generated prior to body, and body > is posterior and secondary, as being, according to nature, ruled over > by the ruling soul.” “The soul which administers all things that are > moved in every way, administers likewise the heavens.” > > “Soul then leads everything in heaven, and on earth, and in the sea, > by its movements--the names of which are, to will, to consider, to > take care of, to consult, to form opinions true and false, to be in > a state of joy, sorrow, confidence, fear, hate, love, together with > all such primary movements as are allied to these ... being a goddess > herself, she ever takes as an ally NOUS, a god, and disciplines all > things correctly and happily; but when with _Annoia_--not _nous_--it > works out everything the contrary.” > > In this language, as in the Buddhist texts, the negative is treated > as essential existence. _Annihilation_ comes under a similar > exegesis. The positive state, is essential being but no manifestation > as such. When the spirit, in Buddhistic parlance, entered _nirvana_, > it lost objective existence but retained subjective. To objective > minds this is becoming absolute nothing; to subjective, NO-thing, > nothing to be displayed to sense. > > These rather lengthy quotations are necessary for our purpose. > Better than anything else, they show the agreement between the > oldest “Pagan” philosophies--not “assisted by the light of divine > revelation,” to use the curious expression of Laboulaye in relation > to Buddha--and the early Christianity of some Fathers. Both Pagan > philosophy and Christianity, however, owe their elevated ideas on > the soul and spirit of man and the unknown Deity to Buddhism and the > Hindu Manu. No wonder that the Manicheans maintained that Jesus was > a permutation of Gautama; that Buddha, Christ, and Mani were one > and the same person,[592] for the teachings of the former two were > identical. It was the doctrine of old India that Jesus held to when > preaching the complete renunciation of the world and its vanities in > order to reach the kingdom of Heaven, Nirvana, where “men neither > marry nor are given in marriage, but live like the angels.” > > It is the philosophy of Siddhârtha-Buddha again that Pythagoras > expounded, when asserting that the _ego_ (νοῦς) was eternal with God, > and that the soul only passed through various stages (Hindu > _Rupa-locas_) to arrive at the divine excellence; meanwhile the > _thumos_ returned to the earth, and even the _phren_ was eliminated. > Thus the _metempsychosis_ was only a succession of disciplines through > refuge-heavens (called by the Buddhists _Zion_),[593] to work off the > exterior mind, to rid the _nous_ of the _phren_, or soul, the Buddhist > “Winyanaskandaya,” _that principle that lives_ from _Karma_ and the > Skandhas (groups). It is the latter, the metaphysical personations of > the “deeds” of man, whether good or bad, which, after the death of his > body, incarnate themselves, so to say, and form their many invisible > but never-dying compounds into a new body, or rather into an ethereal > being, the _double_ of what man was _morally_. It is the astral body > of the kabalist and the “incarnated deeds” which form the new sentient > self as his _Ahancara_ (the ego, self-consciousness), given to him by > the sovereign Master (the breath of God) can never perish, for it is > immortal _per se_ as a spirit; hence the sufferings of the newly-born > _self_ till he rids himself of every earthly thought, desire, and > passion. > > We now see that the “four mysteries” of the Buddhist doctrine have > been as little understood and appreciated as the “wisdom” hinted at > by Paul, and spoken “among them that are _perfect_” (initiated), > the “mystery-wisdom” which “none of the _Archons_ of this world > knew.”[594] The fourth degree of the Buddhist Dhyâna, the fruit of > Samâdhi, which leads to the utmost perfection, to _Viconddham_, a > term correctly rendered by Burnouf in the verb “_perfected_,”[595] is > wholly misunderstood by others, as well as in himself. Defining the > condition of Dhyâna, St. Hilaire argues thus: > > “Finally, having attained the fourth degree, the ascetic possesses > no more this feeling of beatitude, however obscure it may be ... > he has also lost all memory ... he has reached impassibility, as > near a neighbor of Nirvana as can be.... However, this absolute > impassibility does not hinder the ascetic from acquiring, at > this very moment, _omniscience and the magical power; a flagrant > contradiction, about which the Buddhists_ no more disturb themselves > than about so many others.”[596] > > And why should they, when these contradictions are, in fact, no > contradictions at all? It ill behooves us to speak of contradictions > in other peoples’ religions, when those of our own have bred, besides > the three great conflicting bodies of Romanism, Protestantism, and > the Eastern Church, a thousand and one most curious smaller sects. > However it may be, we have here a term applied to one and the same > thing by the Buddhist holy “mendicants” and Paul, the Apostle. When > the latter says: “If so be that I might attain the _resurrection_ > from among the dead [the Nirvana], not as though I had already > attained, or were already _perfect_” (initiated),[597] he uses an > expression common among the initiated Buddhists. When a Buddhist > ascetic has reached the “fourth degree,” he is considered a rahat. > He produces every kind of phenomena by the sole power of his freed > spirit. A _rahat_, say the Buddhists, is one who has acquired the > power of flying in the air, becoming invisible, commanding the > elements, and working all manner of wonders, commonly, and as > erroneously, called _meipo_ (miracles). He is a _perfect_ man, a > demi-god. A god he will become when he reaches Nirvana; for, like the > initiates of both Testaments, the worshippers of Buddha know that > they “are gods.” > > “Genuine Buddhism, overleaping the barrier between finite and > infinite mind, urges its followers to aspire, _by their own efforts_, > to that divine perfectibility of which it teaches that man is > capable, and by attaining which man becomes _a god_,” says Brian > Houghton Hodgson.[598] > > Dreary and sad were the ways, and blood-covered the tortuous paths by > which the world of the Christians was driven to embrace the Irenæan > and Eusebian Christianity. And yet, unless we accept the views of > the ancient Pagans, what claim has our generation to having solved > any of the mysteries of the “kingdom of heaven?” What more does the > most pious and learned of Christians know of the future destiny and > progress of our immortal spirits than the heathen philosopher of old, > or the modern “Pagan” beyond the Himalaya? Can he even boast that > he knows as much, although he works in the full blaze of “divine” > revelation? We have seen a Buddhist holding to the religion of his > fathers, both in theory and practice; and, however blind may be > his faith, however absurd his notions on some particular doctrinal > points, later engraftings of an ambitious clergy, yet in practical > works his Buddhism is far more Christ-like in deed and spirit than > the average life of our Christian priests and ministers. The fact > alone that his religion commands him to “honor his own faith, but > never slander that of other people,”[599] is sufficient. It places > the Buddhist lama immeasurably higher than any priest or clergyman > who deems it his sacred duty to curse the “heathen” to his face, and > sentence him and his religion to “eternal damnation.” Christianity > becomes every day more a religion of pure emotionalism. The doctrine > of Buddha is entirely based on practical works. A general love of all > beings, human and animal, is its nucleus. A man who knows that unless > he toils for himself he has to starve, and understands that he has > no scapegoat to carry the burden of his iniquities for him, is ten > times as likely to become a better man than one who is taught that > murder, theft, and profligacy can be washed in one instant as white > as snow, if he but believes in a God who, to borrow an expression of > Volney, “once took food upon earth, and is now himself the food of > his people.” > > CHAPTER VII. > > “Of the tenets of the Druzes, nothing authentic has ever > come to light; the popular belief amongst their neighbors > is, that they adore an idol in the form of a calf.”--KING: > _The Gnostics and their Remains_. > > “O ye Lords of Truth without fault, who are forever cycling > for eternity ... save me from the annihilation of this > Region of the _Two Truths_.”--_Egyptian Ritual of the Dead._ > > “Pythagoras correctly regarded the “Ineffable Name” > of God ... as the Key to the Mysteries of the > universe.”--PANCOAST: _Blue and Red Light_. > > In the next two chapters we shall notice the most important of the > Christian secret sects--the so-called “Heresies” which sprang into > existence between the first and fourth centuries of our era. > > Glancing rapidly at the Ophites and Nazareans, we shall pass to their > scions which yet exist in Syria and Palestine, under the name of > Druzes of Mount Lebanon; and near Basra or Bassorah, in Persia, under > that of Mendæans, or Disciples of St. John. All these sects have an > immediate connection with our subject, for they are of kabalistic > parentage and have once held to the secret “Wisdom Religion,” > recognizing as the One Supreme, the Mystery-God of the _Ineffable > Name_. Noticing these numerous secret societies of the past, we > will bring them into direct comparison with several of the modern. > We will conclude with a brief survey of the Jesuits, and of that > venerable nightmare of the Roman Catholic Church--modern Freemasonry. > All of these modern as well as ancient fraternities--present > Freemasonry excepted--were and are more or less connected with > magic--practically, as well as theoretically; and, every one of > them--Freemasonry _not_ excepted--was and still is accused of > demonolatry, blasphemy, and licentiousness. > > Our object is not to write the history of either of them; but only > to compare these sorely-abused communities with the Christian sects, > past and present, and then, taking historical facts for our guidance, > to defend the secret science as well as the men who are its students > and champions against any unjust imputation. > > One by one the tide of time engulfed the sects of the early > centuries, until of the whole number only one survived in its > primitive integrity. That one still exists, still teaches the > doctrine of its founder, still exemplifies its faith in works of > power. The quicksands which swallowed up every other outgrowth of > the religious agitation of the times of Jesus, with its records, > relics, and traditions, proved firm ground for this. Driven from > their native land, its members found refuge in Persia, and to day the > anxious traveller may converse with the direct descendants of the > “Disciples of John,” who listened, on the Jordan’s shore, to the “man > sent from God,” and were baptized and believed. This curious people, > numbering 30,000 or more, are miscalled “Christians of St. John,” but > in fact should be known by their old name of Nazareans, or their new > one of Mendæans. > > To term them Christians, is wholly unwarranted. They neither believe > in Jesus as Christ, nor accept his atonement, nor adhere to his > Church, nor revere its “Holy Scriptures.” Neither do they worship > the Jehovah-God of the Jews and Christians, a circumstance which of > course proves that their founder, John the Baptist, did not worship > him either. And if not, what right has he to a place in the _Bible_, > or in the portrait-gallery of Christian saints? Still further, if > Ferho was his God, and he was “a man sent by God,” he must have been > sent by Lord Ferho, and in his name baptized and preached? Now, if > Jesus was baptized by John, the inference is that he was baptized > according to his own faith; therefore, Jesus too, was a believer in > Ferho, or Faho, as they call him; a conclusion that seems the more > warranted by his silence as to the name of his “Father.” And why > should the hypothesis that _Faho_ is but one of the many corruptions > of Fho or Fo, as the Thibetans and Chinese call Buddha, appear > ridiculous? In the North of Nepaul, Buddha is more often called _Fo_ > than _Buddha_. The Book of _Mahawānsa_ shows how early the work of > Buddhistic proselytism began in Nepaul; and history teaches that > Buddhist monks crowded into Syria[600] and Babylon in the century > preceding our era, and that Buddhasp (Bodhisatva) the alleged > Chaldean, was the founder of Sabism or _baptism_.[601] > > What the actual Baptists, _el-Mogtasila_, or Nazareans, do believe, > is fully set forth in other places, for they are the very Nazarenes > of whom we have spoken so much, and from whose _Codex_ we have > quoted. Persecuted and threatened with annihilation, they took refuge > in the Nestorian body, and so allowed themselves to be arbitrarily > classed as Christians, but as soon as opportunity offered, they > separated, and now, for several centuries have not even nominally > deserved the appellation. That they are, nevertheless, so called by > ecclesiastical writers, is perhaps not very difficult to comprehend. > They know too much of early Christianity to be left outside the > pale, to bear witness against it with their traditions, without the > stigma of heresy and backsliding being fastened upon them to weaken > confidence in what they might say. > > But where else can science find so good a field for biblical research > as among this too neglected people? No doubt of their inheritance of > the Baptist’s doctrine; their traditions are without a break. What > they teach now, their forefathers taught at every epoch where they > appear in history. They are the disciples of that John who is said > to have foretold the advent of Jesus, baptized him, and declared > that the latchet of his shoe he (John) was not worthy to unloose. As > they two--the Messenger and the Messiah--stood in the Jordan, and > the elder was consecrating the younger--his own cousin, too, humanly > speaking--the heavens opened and God Himself, in the shape of a dove, > descended in a glory upon his “Beloved Son!” How then, if this tale > be true, can we account for the strange infidelity which we find > among these surviving Nazareans? So far from believing Jesus the Only > Begotten Son of God, they actually told the Persian missionaries, > who, in the seventeenth century, first discovered them to Europeans, > that the Christ of the _New Testament_ was “a false teacher,” and > that the Jewish system, as well as that of Jesus (?), came from > the realm of darkness! Who knows better than they? Where can more > competent living witnesses be found? Christian ecclesiastics would > force upon us an anointed Saviour heralded by John, and the disciples > of this very Baptist, from the earliest centuries, have stigmatized > this ideal personage as an impostor, and his putative Father, > Jehovah, “a spurious God,” the Ilda-Baoth of the Ophites! Unlucky > for Christianity will be the day when some fearless and honest > scholar shall persuade their elders to let him translate the contents > of their secret books and compile their hoary traditions! It is a > strange delusion that makes some writers think that the Nazareans > have no other sacred literature, no other literary relics than four > doctrinal works, and that curious volume full of astrology and magic > which they are bound to peruse at the sunset hour, on every Sol’s day > (Sunday). > > This search after truth leads us, indeed, into devious ways. Many > are the obstacles that ecclesiastical cunning has placed in the way > of our finding the primal source of religious ideas. Christianity is > on trial, and has been, ever since science felt strong enough to act > as Public Prosecutor. A portion of the case we are drafting in this > book. What of truth is there in this Theology? Through what sects has > it been transmitted? _Whence was it primarily derived?_ To answer, > we must trace the history of the World Religion, alike through the > secret Christian sects as through those of other great religious > subdivisions of the race; _for the Secret Doctrine is the Truth_, > and that religion is nearest divine that has contained it with least > adulteration. > > Our search takes us hither and thither, but never aimlessly do we > bring sects widely separated in chronological order, into critical > juxtaposition. There is one purpose in our work to be kept constantly > in view--the analysis of religious beliefs, and the definition of > their descent from the past to the present. What has most blocked the > way is Roman Catholicism; and not until the secret principles of this > religion are uncovered can we comprehend the iron staff upon which it > leans to steady its now tottering steps. > > We will begin with the Ophites, Nazareans, and the modern Druzes. > The personal views of the author, as they will be presented in the > diagrams, will be most decidedly at variance with the prejudiced > speculations of Irenæus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius (the sainted > renegade, who sold his brethren), inasmuch as they will reflect the > ideas of certain kabalists in close relations with the mysterious > Druzes of Mount Lebanon. The Syrian _okhals_, or Spiritualists, as > they are sometimes termed, are in possession of a great many ancient > manuscripts and gems, bearing upon our present subject. > > The first _scheme_--that of the Ophites--from the very start, as > we have shown, varies from the description given by the Fathers, > inasmuch as it makes Bythos or depth, a female emanation, and assigns > her a place answering to that of Pleroma, only in a far superior > region; whereas, the Fathers assure us that the Gnostics gave the > name of Bythos to the First Cause. As in the kabalistic system, it > represents the boundless and infinite void within which is concealed > in darkness the Unknown Primal motor of all. It envelops HIM like > a veil: in short we recognize again the “Shekinah” of the En-Soph. > Alone, the name of ΙΑΩ, Iao, marks the upper centre, or rather the > presumed spot where the Unknown One may be supposed to dwell. Around > the Iao, runs the legend, ϹΕΜΕϹ ΕΙΛΑΜ ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ. “The eternal > Sun-Abrasax” (the Central Spiritual Sun of all the kabalists, > represented in some diagrams of the latter by the circle of > Tiphereth). > > From this region of unfathomable Depth, issues forth a circle formed > of spirals; which, in the language of symbolism, means a grand cycle, > κυκλος, composed of smaller ones. Coiled within, so as to follow the > spirals, lies the serpent--emblem of wisdom and eternity--the Dual > Androgyne: the cycle representing _Ennoia_ or the Divine mind, and the > Serpent--the Agathodaimon, Ophis--the Shadow of the Light. Both were > the Logoï of the Ophites; or the unity as Logos manifesting itself as > a double principle of good and evil; for, according to their views, > these two principles are immutable, and existed from all eternity, as > they will ever continue to exist. > > This symbol accounts for the adoration by this sect of the Serpent, > as the Saviour, coiled either around the Sacramental loaf or a Tau. > As a unity, Ennoia and Ophis are the Logos; when separated, one > is the Tree of Life (Spiritual); the other, the Tree of Knowledge > of Good and Evil. Therefore, we find Ophis urging the first human > couple--the material production of Ilda-Baoth, but which owed its > spiritual principle to Sophia-Achamoth--to eat of the forbidden > fruit, although Ophis represents Divine Wisdom. > > The Serpent, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree > of Life, are all symbols transplanted from the soil of India. The > Arasa-Maram, the banyan tree, so sacred with the Hindus, since > Vishnu, during one of his incarnations, reposed under its mighty > shade, and there taught humanity philosophy and sciences, is called > the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. Under the protective > umbrage of this king of the forests, the Gurus teach their pupils > their first lessons on immortality and initiate them in the mysteries > of life and death. The _Java_-ALEIM of the Sacerdotal College are > said, in the Chaldean tradition, to have taught the sons of men > to become like one of them. To the present day Foh-tchou,[602] > who lives in his Foh-Maëyu, or temple of Buddha, on the top of > “Kouin-long-sang,”[603] the great mountain, produces his greatest > religious miracles under a tree called in Chinese Sung-Ming-Shŭ, or > the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, for ignorance is death, > and knowledge alone gives immortality. This marvellous display > takes place every three years, when an immense concourse of Chinese > Buddhists assemble in pilgrimage at the holy place. > > Ilda-Baoth, the “Son of Darkness,” and the creator of the material > world, was made to inhabit the planet Saturn, which identifies him > still more with the Jewish Jehovah, who was Saturn himself, according > to the Ophites, and is by them denied his Sinaitic name. From > Ilda-Baoth emanate six spirits, who respectively dwell with their > father in the seven planets. These are Saba--or Mars; Adonai--Sol, > or the Sun;[604] Ievo--the Moon; Eloi--Jupiter; Astaphoi--Mercury > (spirit of water); and Ouraïos--Venus, spirit of fire.[605] > > In their functions and description as given, these seven planets > are identical with the Hindu _Sapta-Loca_, the seven places or > spheres, or the superior and inferior worlds; for they represent the > kabalistic seven spheres. With the Ophites, they belong to the lower > spheres. The monograms of these Gnostic planets are also Buddhistic, > the latter differing, albeit slightly, from those of the usual > astrological “houses.” In the explanatory notes which accompany the > diagram, the names of Cirenthius (the disciple of Simon Magus), of > Menander, and of certain other Gnostics, whose names are not to be > met with in the Patristic writings, are often mentioned; such as > Parcha (Ferho), for instance.[606] > > The author of the diagram claims, moreover, for his sect, the > greatest antiquity, bringing forward, as a proof, that their > “forefathers” were the builders of all the “Dracontia” temples, > even of those beyond “the great waters.” He asserts that the “Just > One,” who was the mouthpiece of the Eternal Æon (Christos), himself > sent his disciples into the world, placing them under the double > protection of Sige (Silence, the Logos), and Ophis, the Agathodæmon. > The author alludes, no doubt, to the favorite expression of Jesus, > “be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” On the diagram, Ophis > is represented as the Egyptian Cnuphis or Kneph, called Dracontiæ. He > appears as a serpent standing erect on its tail, with a lion’s head, > crowned and radiated, and bearing on the point of each ray one of > the seven Greek vowels--symbol of the seven celestial spheres. This > figure is quite familiar to those who are acquainted with the Gnostic > gems,[607] and is borrowed from the Egyptian _Hermetic books_. The > description given in the _Revelation_, of one “like unto the Son of > Man,” with his seven stars, and who is the Logos, is another form of > Ophis. > > The Nazarene diagram, except in a change of names, is identical > with that of the Gnostics, who evidently borrowed their ideas from > it, adding a few appellations from the Basiledean and Valentinian > systems. To avoid repetition, we will now simply present the two in > parallel. > > Thus, we find that, in the Nazarene Cosmogony, the names of their > powers and genii stand in the following relations to those of the > Gnostics: > > NAZARENE. GNOSTIC-OPHITE. > > _First Trinity._ _First Unity in a Trinity._ > > Lord FERHO--the Life which IAO--the Ineffable Name of > is no Life--the Supreme God. the Unknown Deity--Abraxas, > The _Cause_ which produces and the “Eternal Spiritual > the Light, or the Logos _in Sun.” Unity enclosed within > abscondito_. The water of the Depth, Bythos, feminine > Jordanus Maximus--the water principle--the boundless > of Life, or Ajar, the circle, within which lie all > feminine principle. Unity in ideal forms. From this Unity > a Trinity, enclosed within emanates > the ISH AMON. > > _Second Trinity._ _Second Trinity._ > > (The manifestation (Idem.) > of the first.) > > 1. Lord MANO--the King of 1. Ennoia--mind. > Life and Light--_Rex Lucis_. > First LIFE, or the primitive > man. > > 2. Lord Jordan--manifestation 2. Ophis, the Agathodæmon. > or emanation of Jordan > Maximus--the waters of > grace. Second LIFE. > > 3. The Superior Father-- 3. Sophia Androgyne--wisdom; > Abatur. Third LIFE. who, in her turn--fecundated > with the Divine Light--produces > > This Trinity produces also a Christos and Sophia-Achamoth > duad--Lord Ledhoio, and (one perfect, the other > Fetahil, the genius (the imperfect), as an emanation. > former, a perfect emanation, > the latter, imperfect). > > Lord Jordan--“the Lord of Sophia-Achamoth emanates > all Jordans,” manifests Ilda-Baoth--the Demiurge, > NETUBTO (Faith _without_ who produces material and > Works).[608] soulless creation. “Works > _without_ Faith” (or > grace).[608] > > Moreover, the Ophite seven planetary genii, who emanated one from the > other, are found again in the Nazarene religion, under the name of > the “seven impostor-dæmons,” or stellars, who “will deceive all the > sons of Adam.” These are _Sol_; _Spiritus Venereus_ (Holy Spirit, in > her material aspect),[609] the mother of the “seven badly-disposed > stellars,” answering to the Gnostic Achamoth; _Nebu_, or Mercury, “a > false Messiah, who will deprave the ancient worship of God;”[610] SIN > (or Luna, or Shuril); KIUN (Kivan, or Saturn); Bel-Jupiter; and the > seventh, _Nerig_, Mars (_Codex Nazaræus_, p. 57). > > The Christos of the Gnostics is the chief of the seven Æons, > St. John’s seven spirits of God; the Nazarenes have also their > seven genii or good Æons, whose chief is _Rex Lucis_, MANO, their > Christos. The _Sapta Rishis_, the seven sages of India, inhabit the > _Sapta-Poura_, or the seven celestial cities. > > What less or more do we find in the Universal Ecclesia, until the > days of the Reformation, and in the Roman Popish Church after > the separation? We have compared the relative value of the Hindu > Cosmogony; the Chaldeo, Zoroastrian, Jewish _Kabala_; and that of > the so-termed Hæretics. A correct diagram of the Judaico-CHRISTIAN > religion, to enforce which on the heathen who have furnished it, > are expended such great sums every year, would still better prove > the identity of the two; but we lack space and are also spared the > necessity of proving what is already thoroughly demonstrated. > > In the Ophite gems of King (_Gnostics_), we find the name of Iao > repeated, and often confounded with that of Ievo, while the latter > simply represents one of the genii antagonistic to Abraxas. In order > that these names may not be taken as identical with the name of > the Jewish Jehovah we will at once explain this word. It seems to > us surpassingly strange that so many learned archæologists should > have so little insisted that there was more than one Jehovah, and > disclaimed that the name originated with Moses. Iao is certainly a > title of the Supreme Being, and belongs _partially_ to the Ineffable > Name; but it neither originated with nor was it the sole property of > the Jews. Even if it had pleased Moses to bestow the name upon the > tutelar “Spirit,” the alleged protector and national deity of the > “Chosen people of Israel,” there is yet no possible reason why other > nationalities should receive Him as the Highest and One-living God. > But we deny the assumption altogether. Besides, there is the fact that > Yaho or Iao was a “mystery name” from the beginning, יהוה and יה never > came into use before King David. Anterior to his time, few or no > proper names were compounded with _iah_ or jah. It looks rather as > though David, being a sojourner among the Tyrians and Philistines > (_2 Samuel_), brought thence the name of Jehovah. He made Zadok > high-priest, from whom came the Zadokites or Sadducees. He lived and > ruled first at Hebron חברון, Habir-on or Kabeir-town, where the rites > of the four (mystery-gods) were celebrated. Neither David nor Solomon > recognized either Moses or the law of Moses. They aspired to build a > temple to יהוה, like the structures erected by Hiram to Hercules and > Venus, Adon and Astarte. > > Says Fürst: “The very ancient name of God, Yâho, written in the Greek > Ιαω, appears, apart _from its derivation_, to have been an old mystic > name of the Supreme deity of the Shemites. (Hence it was told to Moses > when initiated at HOR-EB--the _cave_, under the direction of Jethro, > the Kenite or Cainite priest of Midian.) In an old religion of the > Chaldeans, whose remains are to be found amongst the Neo-platonists, > the highest divinity enthroned above the seven heavens, representing > the Spiritual Light-Principle (_nous_)[611] and also conceived as > Demiurgus,[612] was called Ιαω יחד, who was, like the Hebrew Yâho, > mysterious and unmentionable, and whose name was communicated to > the initiated. The Phœnicians had a Supreme God whose name was > trilateral and _secret_, and he was Ιαω.”[613] > > But while Fürst insists that the name has a Semitic origin, there > are other scholars who trace it farther than he does, and look back > beyond the classification of the Caucasians. > > In Sanscrit we have Jah and Jaya, or Jaa and Ja-ga, and this throws > light on the origin of the famous festival of the car of Jaga-nath, > commonly called Jaggernâth. Javhe means “he who is,” and Dr. Spiegel > traces even the Persian name of God, “Ahura,” to the root _ah_,[614] > which in Sanscrit is pronounced _as_, to breathe, and _asu_, > became, therefore, in time, synonymous with “Spirit.”[615] Rawlinson > strongly supports the opinion of an Aryan or Vedic influence on the > early Babylonian mythology. We have given, a few pages back, the > strongest possible proofs of the identity of Vishnu with Dag-on. > The same may be adduced for the title of Ιαω, and its Sanscrit root > traced in every country. JU or _Jovis_ is the oldest Latin name for > God. “As male he is Ju-_piter_, or _Ju_, the father, pitär being > Sanscrit for father; as feminine, Ju-_no_ or Ju, the comforter--דוח > being the Phœnician word for rest and comfort.”[616] Professor Max > Müller shows that although “Dyaus,” sky, does not occur as a masculine > in the ordinary Sanscrit, yet it does occur in the _Veda_, “and thus > bears witness to the early Aryan worship of Dyaus, the Greek Zeus” > (_The Veda_). > > To grasp the real and primitive sense of the term ΙΑΩ, and the reason > of its becoming the designation for the most mysterious of all > deities, we must search for its origin in the figurative phraseology > of all the primitive people. We must first of all go to the most > ancient sources for our information. In one of the _Books of Hermes_, > for instance, we find him saying that the number TEN is the mother of > the soul, and that the _life_ and _light_ are therein united. For “the > number 1 (one) is born from the spirit, and the number 10 (ten) from > matter;”[617] “the unity has made the TEN, the TEN the unity.”[618] > > The kabalistic _gemantria_--one of the methods for extracting the > hidden meaning from letters, words, and sentences--is arithmetical. > It consists in applying to the letters of a word the sense they bear > as numbers, in _outward_ shape as well as in their individual sense. > Moreover, by the _Themura_ (another method used by the kabalists) any > word could be made to yield its mystery out of its anagram. Thus, > we find the author of _Sepher Jezira_ saying, one or two centuries > before our era:[619] “ONE, the spirit of the _Alahim_ of Lives.”[620] > So again, in the oldest kabalistic diagrams, the _ten_ Sephiroth are > represented as wheels or circles, and Adam Kadmon, the primitive man, > as an _upright_ pillar. “Wheels and seraphim and the holy creatures” > (chioth), says Rabbi Akiba.[621] In another system of the same branch > of the symbolical _Kabala_, called Athbach--which arranges the > letters of the alphabet by pairs in three rows--all the couples in > the first row bear the numerical value _ten_; and in the system of > Simeon Ben-Shetah,[622] the uppermost couple--the most sacred of all, > is preceded by the Pythagorean cipher, one and a nought, or zero--10. > > If we can once appreciate the fact that, among all the peoples of the > highest antiquity, the most natural conception of the First Cause > manifesting itself in its creatures, and that to this they could not > but ascribe the creation of all, was that of an androgyne deity; that > the male principle was considered the vivifying invisible spirit, > and the female, mother nature; we shall be enabled to understand > how that mysterious cause came at first to be represented (in the > picture-writings, perhaps) as the combination of the Alpha and Omega > of numbers, a decimal, then as IAO, a trilateral name, containing in > itself a deep allegory. > > _IAO_, in such a case, would--etymologically considered--mean the > “Breath of Life,” generated or springing forth between an upright > male and an egg-shaped female principle of nature; for, in Sanscrit, > _as_ means “to be,” “to live or exist;” and originally it meant “to > breathe.” “From it,” says Max Müller, “in its original sense of > breathing, the Hindus formed ‘asu,’ breath, and ‘asura,’ the name of > God, whether it meant the breathing one or the giver of breath.”[623] > It certainly meant the latter. In Hebrew, “Ah” and “Iah” mean life. > Cornelius Agrippa, in his treatise on the _Preëminence of Woman_, > shows that “the word Eve suggests comparison with the mystic symbols > of the kabalists, the name of the woman having affinity with the > ineffable Tetragrammaton, the most sacred name of the divinity.” > Ancient names were always consonant with the things they represented. > In relation to the mysterious name of the Deity in question, the > hitherto inexplicable hint of the kabalists as to the efficacy of the > letter H, “which Abram took away from his wife Sarah” and “put _into > the middle of his own name_,” becomes clear. > > It may perhaps be argued, by way of objection, that it is not > ascertained as yet at what period of antiquity the _nought_ occurs > for the first time in Indian manuscripts or inscriptions. Be > that as it may, the case presents circumstantial evidence of too > strong a character not to carry a conviction of probability with > it. According to Max Müller “the two words ‘cipher’ and ‘zero,’ > which are in reality but one ... are sufficient to prove that our > figures are borrowed from the Arabs.”[624] Cipher is the Arabic > “cifron,” and means _empty_, a translation of the Sanscrit name > of the nought “synya,” he says. The Arabs had their figures from > Hindustan, and never claimed the discovery for themselves.[625] As > to the Pythagoreans, we need but turn to the ancient manuscripts > of Boëthius’s _Geometry_, composed in the sixth century, to find > in the Pythagorean numerals[626] the 1 and the _nought_, as > the first and final cipher. And Porphyry, who quotes from the > Pythagorean _Moderatus_,[627] says that the numerals of Pythagoras > were “hieroglyphical symbols, by means whereof he explained ideas > concerning the nature of things.” > > Now, if the most ancient Indian manuscripts show as yet no trace of > decimal notation in them, Max Müller states very clearly that until > now he has found but nine letters (the initials of the Sanscrit > numerals) in them--on the other hand we have records as ancient to > supply the wanted proof. We speak of the sculptures and the sacred > imagery in the most ancient temples of the far East. Pythagoras > derived his knowledge from India; and we find Professor Max Müller > corroborating this statement, at least so far as allowing the > _Neo_-Pythagoreans to have been the first teachers of “ciphering” > among the Greeks and Romans; that “they, at Alexandria, or in Syria, > became acquainted with the Indian figures, and adapted them to the > Pythagorean abacus” (our figures). This cautious allowance implies > that Pythagoras himself was acquainted with but _nine_ figures. So > that we might reasonably answer that although we possess no certain > proof that the decimal notation was known to Pythagoras, who lived > on the very close of the archaic ages,[628] we yet have sufficient > evidence to show that the full numbers, as given by Boëthius, were > known to the Pythagoreans, even before Alexandria was built.[629] > This evidence we find in Aristotle, who says that “some philosophers > hold that ideas and numbers are of the same nature, and amount to > TEN in all.”[630] This, we believe, will be sufficient to show that > the decimal notation was known among them at least as early as four > centuries B.C., for Aristotle does not seem to treat the question as > an innovation of the “Neo-Pythagoreans.” > > Besides, as we have remarked above, the representations of the > archaic deities, on the walls of the temples, are of themselves quite > suggestive enough. So, for instance, Vishnu is represented in the > Kurmavatara (his second avatar) as a tortoise sustaining a circular > pillar, on which the semblance of himself (Maya, or the illusion) > sits with all his attributes. While one hand holds a flower, another > a club, the third a shell, the fourth, generally the upper one, or > at the right--holds on his forefinger, extended as the cipher 1, > the _chakra_, or discus, which resembles a ring, or a wheel, and > might be taken for the nought. In his first avatar, the Matsyavatam, > when emerging from the fish’s mouth, he is represented in the same > position.[631] The ten-armed Durga of Bengal; the ten-headed Ravana, > the giant; Parvati--as Durga, Indra, and Indrani, are found with this > attribute, which is a perfect representation of the May-pole.[632] > > The holiest of the temples among the Hindus, are those of Jaggarnâth. > This deity is worshipped equally by all the sects of India, and > _Jagg_arnâth is named “The Lord of the World.” He is the god of the > Mysteries, and his temples, which are most numerous in Bengal, are > all of a pyramidal form. > > There is no other deity which affords such a variety of etymologies > as Iaho, nor a name which can be so variously pronounced. It is only > by associating it with the Masoretic points that the later Rabbins > succeeded in making Jehovah read “Adonaï”--or Lord. Philo Byblus > spells it in Greek letters ΙΕΥΩ--IEOV. Theodoret says that the > Samaritans pronounced it _Iabè_ (_Yahva_) and the Jews Yaho; which > would make it as we have shown I-ah-O. Diodorus states that “among the > Jews they relate that Moses called the God Ιαω.” It is on the > authority of the _Bible_ itself, therefore, that we maintain that > before his initiation by Jethro, his father-in-law, Moses had never > known the word Iaho. The future Deity of the sons of Israel calls out > from the burning bush and gives His name as “I am that I am,” and > specifies carefully that He is the “Lord God of the Hebrews” (_Exod._ > iii. 18), not of the other nations. Judging him by his own acts, > throughout the Jewish records, we doubt whether Christ himself, had he > appeared in the days of the _Exodus_, would have been welcomed by the > irascible Sinaitic Deity. However, “The Lord God,” who becomes, on His > own confession, Jehovah only in the 6th chapter of _Exodus_ (verse 3) > finds his veracity put to a startling test in _Genesis_ xxii. 14, in > which _revealed_ passage Abraham builds an altar to _Jehovah-jireh_. > > It would seem, therefore, but natural to make a difference between > the mystery-God Ιαω, adopted from the highest antiquity by all who > participated in the esoteric knowledge of the priests, and his > phonetic counterparts, whom we find treated with so little reverence > by the Ophites and other Gnostics. Once having burdened themselves > like the Azazel of the wilderness with the sins and iniquities of the > Jewish nation, it now appears hard for the Christians to have to > confess that those whom they thought fit to consider the “chosen > people” of God--their sole predecessors in monotheism--were, till a > very late period, as idolatrous and polytheistic as their neighbors. > The shrewd Talmudists have escaped the accusation for long centuries > by screening themselves behind the Masoretic invention. But, as in > everything else, truth was at last brought to light. We know now that > Ihoh יהוה must be read Iahoh and Iah, not Jehovah. Iah of the Hebrews > is plainly the Iacchos (Bacchus) of the Mysteries; the God “from whom > the liberation of souls was expected--Dionysus, Iacchos, Iahoh, > Iah.”[633] Aristotle then was right when he said: “Jon יהוה was > Oromasdes and Ahriman Pluto, for the God of heaven, Ahura-mazda, rides > on a chariot which the _Horse of the Sun_ follows.”[634] And Dunlap > quotes _Psalm_ lxviii. 4, which reads: > > “Praise him by his name Iach (יה), > Who rides upon the heavens, as on a horse,” > > and then shows that “the Arabs represented Iauk (Iach) by a horse. > The Horse of the Sun (Dionysus).”[635] Iah is a softening of Iach, > “he explains.” ח _ch_ and ה _h_ interchange; so _s_ softens to _h_. > The Hebrews express the idea of LIFE both by a _ch_ and an _h_; as > chiach, to be, hiah, to be; Iach, God of Life, Iah, “I _am_.”[636] > Well then may we repeat these lines of Ausonius: > > “Ogugiâ calls me Bacchus; Egypt thinks me Osiris; > The Musians name me Ph’anax; the Indi consider me Dionysus; > The Roman Mysteries call me Liber; the Arabian race Adonis!” > > And the chosen people Adoni and Jehovah--we may add. > > How little the philosophy of the old secret doctrine was understood, > is illustrated in the atrocious persecutions of the Templars by the > Church, and in the accusation of their worshipping the Devil under > the shape of the goat--Baphomet! Without going into the old Masonic > mysteries, there is not a Mason--of those we mean who _do know > something_--but has an idea of the true relation that Baphomet bore > to Azâzêl, the scapegoat of the wilderness,[637] whose character > and meaning are entirely perverted in the Christian translations. > “This terrible and venerable name of God,” says Lanci,[638] librarian > to the Vatican, “through the pen of biblical glossers, has been a > _devil_, a mountain, a _wilderness_, and a _he-goat_.” In Mackenzie’s > _Royal Masonic Cyclopædia_, the author very correctly remarks that > “this word should be divided into Azaz and El,” for “it signifies > God of Victory, but is here used in the sense of _author of Death_, > in contrast to Jehovah, the _author of Life_; the latter received > a dead goat as an offering.”[639] The Hindu Trinity is composed of > three personages, which are convertible into one. The _Trimurti_ > is one, and in its abstraction indivisible, and yet we see a > metaphysical division taking place from the first, and while Brahma, > though collectively representing the three, remains behind the > scenes, Vishnu is the Life-Giver, the Creator, and the Preserver, > and Siva is the _Destroyer_, and the _Death-giving_ deity. “Death > to the _Life-Giver_, life to the _Death-dealer_. The symbolical > antithesis is grand and beautiful,” says Gliddon.[640] “_Deus est > Dæmon inversus_” of the kabalists now becomes clear. It is but the > intense and cruel desire to crush out the last vestige of the old > philosophies by perverting their meaning, for fear that their own > dogmas should not be rightly fathered on them, which impels the > Catholic Church to carry on such a systematic persecution in regard > to Gnostics, Kabalists, and even the comparatively innocent Masons. > > Alas, alas! How little has the divine seed, scattered broadcast by > the hand of the meek Judean philosopher, thrived or brought forth > fruit. He, who himself had shunned hypocrisy, warned against public > prayer, showing such contempt for any useless exhibition of the same, > could he but cast his sorrowful glance on the earth, from the regions > of eternal bliss, would see that this seed fell neither on sterile > rock nor by the way-side. Nay, it took deep root in the most prolific > soil; one enriched even to plethora with lies and human gore! > > “For, if the truth of God hath more abounded, _through my lie_ unto > his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” naïvely inquires > Paul, the best and sincerest of all the apostles. And he then adds: > “_Let us do evil_, that good may come!” (_Romans_ iii. 7, 8). This > is a confession which we are asked to believe as having been a > direct inspiration from God! It explains, if it does not excuse, the > maxim adopted later by the Church that “it is an act of virtue to > deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of _the Church_ > might be promoted.”[641] A maxim applied in its fullest sense by > that accomplished professor in forgery, the Armenian Eusebius; or > yet, that innocent-looking bible-kaleidoscopist--Irenæus. And these > men were followed by a whole army of pious assassins, who, in the > meanwhile, had improved upon the system of deceit, by proclaiming > that it was lawful even to kill, when by murder they could enforce > the new religion. Theophilus, “that perpetual enemy of peace and > virtue,” as the famous bishop was called; Cyril, Athanasius, the > murderer of Arius, and a host of other canonized “Saints,” were all > but too worthy successors of _Saint_ Constantine, who drowned his > wife in boiling water; butchered his little nephew; murdered, with > his own pious hand, two of his brothers-in-law; killed his own son > Crispus, bled to death several men and women, and smothered in a well > an old monk. However, we are told by Eusebius that this Christian > Emperor was rewarded by a _vision_ of Christ himself, bearing his > cross, who instructed him to march to other triumphs, inasmuch as he > would always protect him! > > It is under the shade of the Imperial standard, with its famous sign, > “_In hoc signo vinces_,” that “_visionary_” Christianity, which > had crept on since the days of Irenæus, arrogantly proclaimed its > rights in the full blaze of the sun. The Labarum had most probably > furnished the model for the _true_ cross, which was “miraculously,” > and agreeably to the Imperial will, found a few years later. Nothing > short of such a remarkable vision, impiously doubted by some severe > critics--Dr. Lardner for one--and a fresh miracle to match, could > have resulted in the finding of a cross where there had never > before been one. Still, we have either to believe the phenomenon > or dispute it at the risk of being treated as infidels; and this, > notwithstanding that upon a careful computation we would find that > the fragments of the “true Cross” had multiplied themselves even > more miraculously than the five loaves in the invisible bakery, and > the two fishes. In all cases like this, where miracles can be so > conveniently called in, there is no room for dull fact. History must > step out that fiction may step in. > > If the alleged founder of the Christian religion is now, after the > lapse of nineteen centuries, preached--more or less unsuccessfully > however--in every corner of the globe, we are at liberty to think > that the doctrines attributed to him would astonish and dismay him > more than any one else. A system of deliberate falsification was > adopted from the first. How determined Irenæus was to crush truth > and build up a Church of his own on the mangled remains of the seven > primitive churches mentioned in the _Revelation_, may be inferred > from his quarrel with Ptolemæus. And this is again a case of evidence > against which no blind faith can prevail. Ecclesiastical history > assures us that Christ’s ministry was but of three years’ duration. > There is a decided discrepancy on this point between the first three > synoptics and the fourth gospel; but it was left for Irenæus to show > to Christian posterity that so early as A.D. 180--the probable time > when this Father wrote his works against heresies--even such pillars > of the Church as himself either knew nothing certain about it, or > deliberately lied and falsified dates to support their own views. > So anxious was the worthy Father to meet every possible objection > against his plans, that no falsehood, no sophistry, was too much for > him. How are we to understand the following; and who is the falsifier > in this case? The argument of Ptolemæus was that Jesus was too young > to have taught anything of much importance; adding that “Christ > preached for _one year only_, and then suffered in the twelfth > month.” In this Ptolemæus was very little at variance with the > gospels. But Irenæus, carried by his object far beyond the limits of > prudence, from a mere discrepancy between one and three years, makes > it _ten_ and even twenty years! “Destroying his (Christ’s) whole > work, and _robbing him of that age_ which is _both necessary_ and > more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during > which also, as a teacher, he excelled all others.” And then, having > no certain data to furnish, he throws himself back on _tradition_, > and claims that Christ had preached for over TEN years! (book ii., c. > 22, pp. 4, 5). In another place he makes Jesus fifty years old. > > But we must proceed in our work of showing the various origins of > Christianity, as also the sources from which Jesus derived his own > ideas of God and humanity. > > The Koinobi lived in Egypt, where Jesus passed his early youth. They > were usually confounded with the Therapeutæ, who were a branch of > this widely-spread society. Such is the opinion of Godfrey Higgins > and De Rebold. After the downfall of the principal sanctuaries, > which had already begun in the days of Plato, the many different > sects, such as the Gymnosophists and the Magi--from whom Clearchus > very erroneously derives the former--the Pythagoreans, the Sufis, > and the Reshees of Kashmere, instituted a kind of international > and universal Freemasonry, among their esoteric societies. “These > Rashees,” says Higgins, “are the Essenians, Carmelites, or Nazarites > of the temple.”[642] “That occult science known by ancient priests > under the name of _regenerating fire_,” says father Rebold, “... a > science that for more than 3,000 years was the peculiar possession of > the Indian and Egyptian priesthood, into the knowledge of which Moses > was initiated at Heliopolis, where he was educated; and Jesus among > the Essenian priests of Egypt or Judea; and by which these two great > reformers, _particularly the latter_, wrought many of the miracles > mentioned in the _Scriptures_.”[643] > > Plato states that the mystic Magian religion, known under the name > of _Machagistia_, is the most uncorrupted form of worship in things > divine. Later, the Mysteries of the Chaldean sanctuaries were added > to it by one of the Zoroasters and Darius Hystaspes. The latter > completed and perfected it still more with the help of the knowledge > obtained by him from the learned ascetics of India, whose rites were > identical with those of the initiated Magi.[644] Ammian, in his > history of Julian’s Persian expedition, gives the story by stating > that one day Hystaspes, as he was boldly penetrating into the unknown > regions of Upper India, had come upon a certain wooded solitude, the > tranquil recesses of which were “occupied by those exalted sages, > the Brachmanes (or Shamans). Instructed by their teaching in the > science of _the motions of the_ world and of the heavenly bodies, > and in _pure religious rites_ ... he transfused them into the creed > of the Magi. The latter, coupling these doctrines with their _own > peculiar science of foretelling the future_, have handed down the > whole through their descendants to succeeding ages.”[645] It is from > these descendants that the Sufis, chiefly composed of Persians and > Syrians, acquired their proficient knowledge in astrology, medicine, > and the esoteric doctrine of the ages. “The Sufi doctrine,” says C. > W. King, “involved the grand idea of one universal creed which could > be secretly held under any profession of an outward faith; and, in > fact, took virtually the same view of religious systems as that in > which the ancient philosophers had regarded such matters.”[646] > The mysterious Druzes of Mount Lebanon are the descendants of all > these. Solitary Copts, earnest students scattered hither and thither > throughout the sandy solitudes of Egypt, Arabia Petræa, Palestine, > and the impenetrable forests of Abyssinia, though rarely met with, > may sometimes be seen. Many and various are the nationalities to > which belong the disciples of that mysterious school, and many the > side-shoots of that one primitive stock. The secresy preserved by > these sub-lodges, as well as by the one and supreme great lodge, has > ever been proportionate to the activity of religious persecutions; > and now, in the face of the growing materialism, their very existence > is becoming a mystery.[647] > > But it must not be inferred, on that account, that such a mysterious > brotherhood is but a fiction, not even _a name_, though it remains > unknown to this day. Whether its affiliates are called by an > Egyptian, Hindu, or Persian name, it matters not. Persons belonging > to one of these sub-brotherhoods have been met by trustworthy, and > not unknown persons, besides the present writer, who states a few > facts concerning them, by the special permission of one _who has > a right to give it_. In a recent and very valuable work on secret > societies, K. R. H. Mackenzie’s _Royal Masonic Cyclopædia_, we find > the learned author himself, an honorary member of the Canongate > Kilwinning Lodge, No. 2 (Scotland), and a Mason not likely to be > imposed upon, stating the following, under the head, _Hermetic > Brothers of Egypt_: > > “An occult fraternity, which has endured from very ancient times, > having a hierarchy of officers, secret signs, and passwords, > and a peculiar method of instruction in science, religion, and > philosophy.... If we may believe those who, at the present time, > profess to belong to it, _the philosopher’s stone_, _the elixir of > life_, _the art of invisibility_, and the power of communication > directly with the ultramundane life, are parts of the inheritance > they possess. The writer has met with only three persons who > maintained the actual existence of this body of religious > philosophers, and who hinted that they themselves were actually > members. There was no reason to doubt the good faith of these > individuals--apparently unknown to each other, and men of moderate > competence, blameless lives, austere manners, and almost ascetic in > their habits. They all appeared to be men of forty to forty-five > years of age, and evidently of vast erudition ... their knowledge of > languages not to be doubted.... They never remained long in any one > country, but passed away without creating notice.”[648] > > Another of such sub-brotherhoods is the sect of the Pitris, in > India. Known by name, now that Jacolliot has brought it into public > notice, it yet is more arcane, perhaps, than the brotherhood that Mr. > Mackenzie names the “Hermetic Brothers.” What Jacolliot learned of > it, was from fragmentary manuscripts delivered to him by Brahmans, > who had their reasons for doing so, we must believe. The _Agrouchada > Parikshai_ gives certain details about the association, as it was > in days of old, and, when explaining mystic rites and magical > incantations, explains nothing at all, so that the mystic L’om, > L’Rhum, Sh’hrum, and Sho-rim Ramaya-Namaha, remain, for the mystified > writer, as much a puzzle as ever. To do him justice, though, he fully > admits the fact, and does not enter upon useless speculations. > > Whoever desires to assure himself that there now exists a religion > which has baffled, for centuries, the impudent inquisitiveness > of missionaries, and the persevering inquiry of science, let him > violate, if he can, the seclusion of the Syrian Druzes. He will find > them numbering over 80,000 warriors, scattered from the plain east > of Damascus to the western coast. They covet no proselytes, shun > notoriety, keep friendly--as far as possible--with both Christians > and Mahometans, respect the religion of every other sect or people, > but will never disclose their own secrets. Vainly do the missionaries > stigmatize them as infidels, idolaters, brigands, and thieves. > Neither threat, bribe, nor any other consideration will induce a > Druze to become a convert to dogmatic Christianity. We have heard of > two in fifty years, and both have finished their careers in prison, > for drunkenness and theft. They proved to be “real _Druzes_,”[649] > said one of their chiefs, in discussing the subject. There never > was a case of an _initiated_ Druze becoming a Christian. As to the > uninitiated, they are never allowed to even see the sacred writings, > and none of them have the remotest idea where these are kept. There > are missionaries in Syria who boast of having in their possession > a few copies. The volumes alleged to be the correct expositions > from these secret books (such as the translation by Petis de la > Croix, in 1701, from the works presented by Nasr-Allah to the French > king), are nothing more than a compilation of “secrets,” known more > or less to every inhabitant of the southern ranges of Lebanon and > Anti-Libanus. They were the work of an apostate Dervish, who was > expelled from the sect Hanafi, for improper conduct--the embezzlement > of the money of widows and orphans. The _Exposé de la Religion des > Druzes_, in two volumes, by Sylvestre de Sacy (1828), is another > net-work of hypotheses. A copy of this work was to be found, in 1870, > on the window-sill of one of their principal _Holowey_, or place > of religious meeting. To the inquisitive question of an English > traveller, as to their rites, the _Okhal_,[650] a venerable old man, > who spoke English as well as French, opened the volume of de Sacy, > and, offering it to his interlocutor, remarked, with a benevolent > smile: “Read this instructive and truthful book; I could explain to > you neither better nor more correctly the secrets of God and our > blessed Hamsa, than it does.” The traveller understood the hint. > > Mackenzie says they settled at Lebanon about the tenth century, and > “seem to be a mixture of Kurds, Mardi-Arabs, and other semi-civilized > tribes. Their religion is compounded of Judaism, Christianity, and > Mahometanism. They have a regular order of priesthood and _a kind of > hierarchy_ ... there is a regular system of passwords and signs.... > Twelve month’s probation, to which either sex is admitted, preceded > initiation.” > > We quote the above only to show how little even persons as > trustworthy as Mr. Mackenzie really know of these mystics. > > Mosheim, who knows as much, or we should rather say as little, as any > others, is entitled to the merit of candidly admitting that “their > religion is peculiar to themselves, and is involved in some mystery.” > We should say it was--rather! > > That their religion exhibits traces of Magianism and Gnosticism is > natural, as the whole of the Ophite esoteric philosophy is at the > bottom of it. But the characteristic dogma of the Druzes is the > absolute unity of God. He is the essence of life, and although > incomprehensible and invisible, is to be known through _occasional > manifestations in human form_.[651] Like the Hindus they hold that > he was incarnated more than once on earth. Hamsa was the _precursor_ > of the last manifestation to be (the tenth _avatar_)[652] not the > inheritor of Hakem, who is yet to come. Hamsa was the personification > of the “Universal Wisdom.” Boha-eddin in his writings calls him > Messiah. The whole number of his disciples, or those who at > different ages of the world have imparted wisdom to mankind, which > the latter as invariably have forgotten and rejected in course of > time, is one hundred and sixty-four (164, the kabalistic _s d k_). > Therefore, their stages or degrees of promotion after initiation > are five; the first three degrees are typified by the “three feet > of the candlestick of the inner Sanctuary, which holds the light of > the _five_ elements;” the last two degrees, the most important and > terrifying in their solemn grandeur belonging to the highest orders; > and the whole five degrees emblematically represent the said five > mystic Elements. The “three feet are the holy _Application_, the > _Opening_, and the _Phantom_,” says one of their books; on man’s > inner and outer soul, and his body, a phantom, a passing shadow. The > body, or matter, is also called the “Rival,” for “he is the minister > of sin, the Devil ever creating dissensions between the Heavenly > Intelligence (spirit) and the soul, which he tempts incessantly.” > Their ideas on transmigration are Pythagorean and kabalistic. The > spirit, or Temeami (the divine soul), was in Elijah and John the > Baptist; and the soul of Jesus was that of H’amsa; that is to say, > of the same degree of purity and sanctity. Until their resurrection, > by which they understand the day when the spiritual bodies of men > will be absorbed into God’s own essence and being (the Nirvana of the > Hindus), the souls of men will keep their astral forms, except the > few chosen ones who, from the moment of their separation from their > bodies, begin to exist as pure spirits. The life of man they divide > into soul, body, and intelligence, or mind. It is the latter which > imparts and communicates to the soul the divine spark from its H’amsa > (Christos). > > They have seven great commandments which are imparted equally to all > the uninitiated; and yet, even these well-known articles of faith > have been so mixed up in the accounts of outside writers, that, in > one of the best Cyclopædias of America (Appleton’s), they are garbled > after the fashion that may be seen in the comparative tabulation > below; the spurious and the true order parallel: > > CORRECT VERSION OF THE GARBLED VERSION > COMMANDMENTS AS IMPARTED REPORTED BY THE > ORALLY BY THE CHRISTIAN > TEACHERS.[653] MISSIONARIES AND > given in Pretended > Expositions.[654] > > 1. _The unity of God_, or the 1. (2) “‘Truth in words,’ > infinite oneness of Deity. meaning in practice, > _only truth to the > religion and to the > initiated; it is lawful > to act and to speak > falsehood to men of > another creed_.”[655] > > 2. _The essential excellence 2. (7) “Mutual help, > of Truth._ watchfulness, and > protection.” > > 3. Toleration; right given to 3. (?) “To renounce all > all men and women to freely other religions.”[656] > express their opinions on > religious matters, and make > the latter subservient to > reason. > > 4. Respect to all men and 4. (?) “To be separate from > women according to their infidels of every kind, > character and conduct. not externally but only > in heart.”[657] > > 5. Entire submission to God’s 5. (1) “Recognize God’s > decrees. eternal unity.” > > 6. Chastity of body, mind, and 6. (5) “Satisfied with God’s > soul. acts.” > > 7. Mutual help under all 7. (5) “Resigned to God’s > conditions. will.” > > As will be seen, the only exposé in the above is that of the great > ignorance, perhaps malice, of the writers who, like Sylvestre de > Sacy, undertake to enlighten the world upon matters concerning which > they know nothing. > > “Chastity, honesty, meekness, and mercy,” are thus the four > theological virtues of all Druzes, besides several others demanded > from the initiates: “murder, theft, cruelty, covetousness, slander,” > the five sins, to which several other sins are added in the sacred > tablets, but which we must abstain from giving. The morality of > the Druzes is strict and uncompromising. Nothing can tempt one of > these Lebanon Unitarians to go astray from what he is taught to > consider his duty. _Their ritual being unknown to outsiders_, their > would-be historians have hitherto denied them one. Their “Thursday > meetings” are open to all, but no interloper has ever participated > in the rites of initiation which take place occasionally on Fridays > in the greatest secresy. Women are admitted to them as well as men, > and they play a part of great importance at the initiation of men. > The probation, unless some extraordinary exception is made, is long > and severe. Once, in a certain period of time, a solemn ceremony > takes place, during which all the elders and the initiates of the > highest two degrees start out for a pilgrimage of several days to a > certain place in the mountains. They meet within the safe precincts > of a monastery said to have been erected during the earliest times > of the Christian era. Outwardly one sees but old ruins of a once > grand edifice, used, says the legend, by some Gnostic sects as > a place of worship during the religious persecutions. The ruins > above ground, however, are but a convenient mask; the subterranean > chapel, halls, and cells, covering an area of ground far greater > than the upper building; while the richness of ornamentation, the > beauty of the ancient sculptures, and the gold and silver vessels > in this sacred resort, appear like “a dream of glory,” according to > the expression of an initiate. As the lamaseries of Mongolia and > Thibet are visited upon grand occasions by the holy shadow of “Lord > Buddha,” so here, during the ceremonial, appears the resplendent > ethereal form of Hamsa, the Blessed, which instructs the faithful. > The most extraordinary feats of what would be termed magic take place > during the several nights that the convocation lasts; and one of the > greatest mysteries--faithful copy of the past--is accomplished within > the discreet bosom of our mother earth; not an echo, nor the faintest > sound, not a glimmer of light betrays without the grand secret of the > initiates. > > Hamsa, like Jesus, was a mortal man, and yet “Hamsa” and “Christos” > are synonymous terms as to their inner and hidden meaning. Both are > symbols of the _Nous_, the divine and higher soul of man--his spirit. > The doctrine taught by the Druzes on that particular question of the > duality of spiritual man, consisting of one soul mortal, and another > immortal, is identical with that of the Gnostics, the older Greek > philosophers, and other initiates. > > Outside the East we have met one initiate (and only one), who, > for some reasons best known to himself, does not make a secret of > his initiation into the Brotherhood of Lebanon. It is the learned > traveller and artist, Professor A. L. Rawson, of New York City. This > gentleman has passed many years in the East, four times visited > Palestine, and has travelled to Mecca. It is safe to say that he > has a priceless store of facts about the beginnings of the Christian > Church, which none but one who had had free access to repositories > closed against the ordinary traveller could have collected. Professor > Rawson, with the true devotion of a man of science, noted down > every important discovery he made in the Palestinian libraries, > and every precious fact orally communicated to him by the mystics > he encountered, and some day they will see the light. He has most > obligingly sent us the following communication, which, as the reader > will perceive, fully corroborates what is above written from our > personal experience about the strange fraternity incorrectly styled > the Druzes: > > “34 BOND ST., NEW YORK, June 6, 1877. > > “... Your note, asking me to give you an account of my > initiation into a secret order among the people commonly > known as Druzes, in Mount Lebanon, was received this > morning. I took, as you are fully aware, an obligation at > that time to conceal within my own memory the greater part > of the ‘mysteries,’ with the most interesting parts of the > ‘instructions;’ so that what is left may not be of any > service to the public. Such information as I can rightfully > give, you are welcome to have and use as you may have > occasion. > > “The probation in my case was, by _special dispensation_, > made one month, during which time I was ‘shadowed’ by a > priest, who served as my cook, guide, interpreter, and > general servant, that he might be able to testify to the > fact of my having strictly conformed to the rules in diet, > ablutions, and other matters. He was also my instructor > in the text of the ritual, which we recited from time to > time for practice, in dialogue or in song, as it may have > been. Whenever we happened to be near a Druze village, on > a Thursday, we attended the ‘open’ meetings, where men > and women assembled for instruction and worship, and to > expose to the world generally their religious practices. > I was never present at a Friday ‘close’ meeting before my > initiation, nor do I believe any one else, man or woman, > ever was, except by collusion with a priest, and that is > not probable, for a false priest forfeits his life. The > practical jokers among them sometimes ‘fool’ a too curious > ‘Frank’ by a sham initiation, especially if such a one is > suspected of having some connection with the missionaries > at Beirut or elsewhere. > > “The initiates include both women and men, and the > ceremonies are of so peculiar a nature that both sexes > are required to assist in the ritual and ‘work.’ > The ‘furniture’ of the ‘prayer-house’ and of the > ‘vision-chamber’ is simple, and except for convenience may > consist of but a strip of carpet. In the ‘Gray Hall’ (the > place is never named, and is underground, _not far_ from > Bayt-ed-Deen) there are some rich decorations and valuable > pieces of ancient furniture, the work of Arab silversmiths > five or six centuries ago, inscribed and dated. The day of > initiation must be a continual fast from daylight to sunset > in winter, or six o’clock in summer, and the ceremony is > from beginning to end a series of trials and temptations, > calculated to test the endurance of the candidate under > physical and mental pressure. It is seldom that any but the > young man or woman succeeds in ‘winning’ all the ‘prizes,’ > since _nature will sometimes exert itself_ in spite of the > most stubborn will, and the neophyte fail of passing some > of the tests. In such a case the probation is extended > another year, when another trial is had. > > “Among other tests of the neophyte’s self-control are the > following: Choice pieces of cooked meat, savory soup, > pilau, and other appetizing dishes, with sherbet, coffee, > wine, and water, are set, as if accidentally, in his way, > and he is left alone for a time with the tempting things. > To a hungry and fainting soul the trial is severe. But a > more difficult ordeal is when the seven priestesses retire, > all but one, the youngest and prettiest, and the door > is closed and barred on the outside, after warning the > candidate that he will be left to his ‘reflections,’ for > half an hour. Wearied by the long-continued ceremonial, > weak with hunger, parched with thirst, and a sweet > reaction coming after the tremendous strain to keep his > animal nature in subjection, this moment of privacy and of > temptation is brimful of peril. The beautiful young vestal, > timidly approaching, and with glances which lend a double > magnetic allurement to her words, begs him in low tones to > ‘bless her.’ Woe to him if he does! A hundred eyes see him > from secret peep-holes, and only to the ignorant neophyte > is there the appearance of concealment and opportunity. > > “There is no infidelity, idolatry, or other really bad > feature in the system. They have the relics of what was > once a grand form of nature-worship, which has been > contracted under a despotism into a secret order, hidden > from the light of day, and exposed only in the smoky glare > of a few burning lamps, in some damp cave or chapel under > ground. The chief tenets of their religious teachings are > comprised in seven ‘tablets,’ which are these, to state > them in general terms: > > “1. The unity of God, or the infinite oneness of deity. > > “2. The essential excellence of truth. > > “3. The law of toleration as to all men and women in > opinion. > > “4. Respect for all men and women as to character and > conduct. > > “5. Entire submission to God’s decrees as to fate. > > “6. Chastity of body and mind and soul. > > “7. Mutual help under all conditions. > > “These tenets are not printed or written. Another set is > printed or written to mislead the unwary, but with these we > are not concerned. > > “The chief results of the initiation seemed to be a kind > of mental illusion or sleep-waking, in which the neophyte > saw, or thought he saw, the images of people who were > known to be absent, and in some cases thousands of miles > away. I thought (or perhaps it was my mind at work) I saw > friends and relatives that I knew at the time were in New > York State, while I was then in Lebanon. How these results > were produced I cannot say. They appeared in a dark room, > when the ‘guide’ was talking, the ‘company’ singing in > the next ‘chamber,’ and near the close of the day, when > I was tired out with fasting, walking, talking, singing, > robing, unrobing, seeing a great many people in various > conditions as to dress and undress, and with great mental > strain in resisting certain physical manifestations that > result from the appetites when they overcome the will, and > in paying close attention to the passing scenes, hoping > to remember them--so that I may have been unfit to judge > of any new and surprising phenomena, and more especially > of those apparently magical appearances which have always > excited my suspicion and distrust. I know the various > uses of the magic-lantern, and other apparatus, and took > care to examine the room where the ‘visions’ appeared to > me the same evening, and the next day, and several times > afterwards, and knew that, in my case, there was no use > made of any machinery or other means besides the voice of > the ‘guide and instructor.’ On several occasions afterward, > when at a great distance from the ‘chamber,’ the same > or similar visions were produced, as, for instance, in > Hornstein’s Hotel at Jerusalem. A daughter-in-law of a > well-known Jewish merchant in Jerusalem is an initiated > ‘sister,’ and can produce the visions almost at will on any > one who will live strictly according to the rules of the > Order for a few weeks, more or less, according to their > nature, as gross or refined, etc. > > “I am quite safe in saying that the initiation is so > peculiar that it could not be printed so as to instruct > one who had not been ‘worked’ through the ‘chamber.’ So it > would be even more impossible to make an exposé of them > than of the Freemasons. The real secrets are acted and not > spoken, and require several initiated persons to assist in > the work. > > “It is not necessary for me to say how some of the notions > of that people seem to perpetuate certain beliefs of the > ancient Greeks--as, for instance, the idea that a man has > two souls, and many others--for you probably were made > familiar with them in your passage through the ‘upper’ > and ‘lower chamber.’ If I am mistaken in supposing you an > ‘initiate,’ please excuse me. I am aware that the closest > friends often conceal that ‘sacred secret’ from each other; > and even husband and wife may live--as I was informed > in Dayr-el-Kamar was the fact in one family there--for > twenty years together and yet neither know anything of > the initiation of the other. You, undoubtedly, have good > reasons for keeping your own counsel. > > “Yours truly, > “A. L. RAWSON.” > > Before we close the subject we may add that if a stranger ask for > admission to a “Thursday” meeting he will never be refused. Only, if > he is a Christian, the _okhal_ will open a _Bible_ and read from it; > and if a Mahometan, he will hear a few chapters of the _Koran_, and > the ceremony will end with this. They will wait until he is gone, and > then, shutting well the doors of their convent, take to their own > rites and books, passing for this purpose into their subterranean > sanctuaries. “The Druzes remain, even more than the Jews, a peculiar > people,” says Colonel Churchill,[658] one of the few fair and > strictly impartial writers. “They marry within their own race; they > are rarely if ever converted; they adhere tenaciously to their > traditions, and they baffle all efforts to discover their cherished > secrets.... The bad name of that caliph whom they claim as their > founder is fairly compensated by the pure lives of many whom they > honor as saints, and by the heroism of their feudal leaders.” > > And yet the Druzes may be said to belong to one of the least esoteric > of secret societies. There are others far more powerful and learned, > the existence of which is not even suspected in Europe. There are > many branches belonging to the great “Mother Lodge” which, mixed > up with certain communities, may be termed secret sects within > other sects. One of them is the sect commonly known as that of > Laghana-Sastra. It reckons several thousand adepts who are scattered > about in small groups in the south of the Dekkan, India. In the > popular superstition, this sect is dreaded on account of its great > reputation for magic and sorcery. The Brahmans accuse its members of > atheism and sacrilege, for none of them will consent to recognize > the authority of either the _Vedas_ or _Manu_, except so far as > they conform to the versions in their possession, and which they > maintain are professedly the only original texts; the Laghana-Sastra > have neither temples nor priests, but, twice a month, every member > of the community has to absent himself from home for three days. > Popular rumor, originated among their women, ascribes such absences > to pilgrimages performed to their places of fortnightly resort. In > some secluded mountainous spots, unknown and inaccessible to other > sects, hidden far from sight among the luxurious vegetation of > India, they keep their bungalows, which look like small fortresses, > encircled as they are by lofty and thick walls. These, in their turn, > are surrounded by the sacred trees called _assonata_, and in Tamül > _arassa maram_. These are the “sacred groves,” the originals of those > of Egypt and Greece, whose initiates also built their temples within > such “groves” inaccessible to the profane.[659] > > It will not be found without interest to see what Mr. John > Yarker, Jr., has to say on some modern secret societies among the > Orientals. “The nearest resemblance to the Brahmanical Mysteries, > is probably found in the very ancient ‘_Paths_’ of the Dervishes, > which are usually governed by twelve officers, the oldest ‘Court’ > superintending the others by right of seniority. Here the master of > the ‘Court’ is called ‘_Sheik_,’ and has his deputies, ‘Caliphs,’ > or successors, of which there may be many (as, for instance, in > the brevet degree of a Master Mason). The order is divided into at > least four columns, pillars, or degrees. The first step is that > of ‘Humanity,’ which supposes attention to the written law, and > ‘annihilation in the _Sheik_.’ The second is that of the ‘Path,’ > in which the ‘_Murid_,’ or disciple, attains spiritual powers and > ‘self-annihilation’ into the ‘Peer’ or founder of the ‘Path.’ The > third stage is called ‘Knowledge,’ and the ‘_Murid_’ is supposed > to become inspired, called ‘annihilation into the Prophet.’ The > fourth stage leads him even to God, when he becomes a part of the > Deity and sees Him in all things. The first and second stages have > received modern subdivisions, as ‘Integrity,’ ‘Virtue,’ ‘Temperance,’ > ‘Benevolence.’ After this the Sheik confers upon him the grade of > ‘Caliph,’ or Honorary Master, for in their mystical language, ‘the > man must die before the saint can be born.’ It will be seen that this > kind of mysticism is applicable to Christ as founder of a ‘Path.’” > > To this statement, the author adds the following on the Bektash > Dervishes, who “often initiated the Janizaries. They wear _a small > marble cube spotted with blood_. Their ceremony is as follows: Before > reception a year’s probation is required, during which false secrets > are given to test the candidate; he has two godfathers _and is > divested of all metals and even clothing_; from the wool of a sheep a > cord is made for his neck, and a girdle for his loins; he is led into > the centre of a square room, presented as a slave, and seated upon > a large stone with twelve escallops; his arms are crossed upon his > breast, his body inclined forward, his right toes extended over his > left foot; after various prayers he is placed in a particular manner, > with his hand in a peculiar way in that of the Sheik, who repeats a > verse from the _Koran_: ‘Those who on giving thee their hand swear > to thee an oath, swear it to God, the hand of God is placed in > their hand; whoever violates this oath, will do so to his hurt, and > to whoever remains faithful God will give a magnificent reward.’ > Placing the hand below the chin is their sign, perhaps in memory of > their vow. All use the double triangles. The Brahmans inscribe the > angles with their trinity, and they possess also the Masonic sign of > distress as used in France.”[660] > > From the very day when the first mystic found the means of > communication between this world and the worlds of the invisible > host, between the sphere of matter and that of pure spirit, he > concluded that to abandon this mysterious science to the profanation > of the rabble was to lose it. An abuse of it might lead mankind to > speedy destruction; it was like surrounding a group of children with > explosive batteries, and furnishing them with matches. The first > self-made adept initiated but a select few, and kept silence with the > multitudes. He recognized his God and felt the great Being within > himself. The “Âtman,” the Self,[661] the mighty Lord and Protector, > once that man knew him as the “_I am_,” the “_Ego Sum_” the “_Ahmi_,” > showed his full power to him who could recognize the “_still small > voice_.” From the days of the primitive man described by the first > Vedic poet, down to our modern age, there has not been a philosopher > worthy of that name, who did not carry in the silent sanctuary of > his heart the grand and mysterious truth. If initiated, he learnt > it as a sacred science; if otherwise, then, like Socrates repeating > to himself, as well as to his fellow-men, the noble injunction, > “O man, know thyself,” he succeeded in recognizing his God within > himself. “Ye are gods,” the king-psalmist tells us, and we find > Jesus reminding the scribes that the expression, “Ye are gods,” > was addressed to other mortal men, claiming for himself the same > privilege without any blasphemy.[662] And, as a faithful echo, Paul, > while asserting that we are all “the temple of the living God,”[663] > cautiously adds, that after all these things are only for the “wise,” > and it is “unlawful” to speak of them. > > Therefore, we must accept the reminder, and simply remark that even > in the tortured and barbarous phraseology of the _Codex Nazaræus_, > we detect throughout the same idea. Like an undercurrent, rapid and > clear, it runs without mixing its crystalline purity with the muddy > and heavy waves of dogmatism. We find it in the _Codex_, as well > as in the _Vedas_, in the _Avesta_, as in the _Abhidharma_, and in > _Kapila’s Sânkhya Sûtras_ not less than in the _Fourth Gospel_. We > cannot attain the “Kingdom of Heaven,” unless we unite ourselves > indissolubly with our _Rex Lucis_, the Lord of Splendor and of > Light, our Immortal God. We must first conquer immortality and > “take the Kingdom of Heaven by violence,” offered to our material > selves. “The first man is of the earth earthy; the _second_ man _is > from heaven_.... Behold, I show you a _mystery_,” says Paul (_1 > Corinthians_, xv. 47). In the religion of Sakya-Mum, which learned > commentators have delighted so much of late to set down as purely > _nihilistic_, the doctrine of immortality is very clearly defined, > notwithstanding the European or rather Christian ideas about Nirvana. > In the sacred Jaïna books, of Patuna, the dying Gautama-Buddha is > thus addressed: “Arise into _Nirvi_ (Nirvana) from this decrepit > body into which thou hast been sent. Ascend into _thy former abode_, > O blessed Avatar!” This seems to us the very opposite of Nihilism. > If Gautama is invited to reäscend into his “former abode,” and this > abode is Nirvana, then it is incontestable that Buddhistic philosophy > does _not_ teach final annihilation. As Jesus is alleged to have > appeared to his disciples after death, so to the present day is > Gautama believed to descend from Nirvana. And if he has an existence > there, then this state cannot be a synonym for _annihilation_. > > Gautama, no less than all other great reformers, had a doctrine for > his “elect” and another for the outside masses, though the main > object of his reform consisted in initiating all, so far as it was > permissible and prudent to do, without distinction of castes or > wealth, to the great truths hitherto kept so secret by the selfish > Brahmanical class. Gautama-Buddha it was whom we see the first in > the world’s history, moved by that generous feeling which locks the > whole humanity within one embrace, inviting the “poor,” the “lame,” > and the “blind” to the King’s festival table, from which he excluded > those who had hitherto sat alone, in haughty seclusion. It was he, > who, with a bold hand, first opened the door of the sanctuary to the > pariah, the fallen one, and all those “afflicted by men” clothed in > gold and purple, often far less worthy than the outcast to whom their > finger was scornfully pointing. All this did Siddhârtha six centuries > before another reformer, as noble and as loving, though less favored > by opportunity, in another land. If both, aware of the great danger > of furnishing an uncultivated populace with the double-edged weapon > of _knowledge which gives power_, left the innermost corner of the > sanctuary in the profoundest shade, who, that is acquainted with > human nature, can blame them for it? But while one was actuated by > prudence, the other was forced into such a course. Gautama left > the esoteric and most dangerous portion of the “secret knowledge” > untouched, and lived to the ripe old age of eighty, with the > certainty of having taught the essential truths, and having converted > to them one-third of the world; Jesus promised his disciples the > knowledge which confers upon man the power _of producing far greater > miracles than he ever did himself_, and he died, leaving but a few > faithful men, only half way to knowledge, to struggle with the world > to which they could impart but what they _half_-knew themselves. > Later, their followers disfigured truth still more than they > themselves had done. > > It is not true that Gautama never taught anything concerning a > future life, or that he denied the immortality of the soul. Ask any > intelligent Buddhist his ideas on Nirvana, and he will unquestionably > express himself, as the well-known Wong-Chin-Fu, the Chinese orator, > now travelling in this country, did in a recent conversation with > us about _Niepang_ (Nirvana). “This condition,” he remarked, “we all > understand to mean a final reünion with God, coïncident with the > perfection of the human spirit by its ultimate disembarrassment of > matter. It is the very opposite of personal annihilation.” > > Nirvana means the certitude of personal immortality in _Spirit_, not > in _Soul_, which, as a finite emanation, must certainly disintegrate > its particles a compound of human sensations, passions, and yearning > for some objective kind of existence, before the immortal spirit > of the _Ego_ is quite freed, and henceforth secure against further > transmigration in any form. And how can man ever reach this state so > long as the _Upadāna_, that state of longing for _life_, more life, > does not disappear from the sentient being, from the _Ahancara_ > clothed, however, in a sublimated body? It is the “Upādana” or the > intense desire which produces WILL, and it is _will_ which develops > _force_, and the latter generates _matter_, or an object having > form. Thus the disembodied _Ego_, through this sole undying desire > in him, unconsciously furnishes the conditions of his successive > self-procreations in various forms, which depend on his mental state > and _Karma_, the good or bad deeds of his preceding existence, > commonly called “merit and demerit.” This is why the “Master” > recommended to his mendicants the cultivation of the four degrees of > Dhȳana, the noble “Path of the Four Truths,” _i.e._, that gradual > acquirement of stoical indifference for either life or death; that > state of spiritual self-contemplation during which man utterly loses > sight of his physical and dual individuality, composed of soul and > body; and uniting himself with his third and higher immortal self the > _real and heavenly man_ merges, so to say, into the divine Essence, > whence his own spirit proceeded like a spark from the common hearth. > Thus the Arhat, the holy mendicant, can reach Nirvana while yet > on earth; and his spirit, totally freed from the trammels of the > “psychical, terrestrial, _devilish_ wisdom,” as James calls it, and > being in its own nature omniscient and omnipotent, can on earth, > through the sole power of his _thought_, produce the greatest of > phenomena. > > “It is the missionaries in China and India, who first started this > falsehood about Niepang, or Nïepana (Nirvana),” says Wong-Chin-Fu. > Who can deny the truth of this accusation after reading the works of > the Abbé Dubois, for instance? A missionary who passes forty years > of his life in India, and then writes that the “Buddhists admit > of no other God but the body of man, and have no other object but > the satisfaction of their senses,” utters an untruth which can be > proved on the testimony of the laws of the Talapoins of Siam and > Birmah; laws, which prevail unto this very day and which sentence a > sahân, or _punghi_ (a learned man; from the Sanscrit _pundit_), as > well as a simple Talapoin, to death by decapitation, for the crime > of unchastity. No foreigner can be admitted into their _Kyums_, or > Viharas (monasteries); and yet there are French writers, otherwise > impartial and fair, who, speaking of the great severity of the rules > to which the Buddhist monks are subjected in these communities, and > without possessing one single fact to corroborate their skepticism, > bluntly say, that “notwithstanding the great laudations bestowed upon > them (Talapoins) by certain travellers, merely on the _strength of > appearances_, I do not believe at all in their chastity.”[664] > > Fortunately for the Buddhist talapoins, lamas, sahâns, upasampadas,[665] > and even samenaïras,[666] they have popular records and facts for > themselves, which are weightier than the unsupported personal opinion > of a Frenchman, born in Catholic lands, whom we can hardly blame for > having lost all faith in clerical virtue. When a Buddhist monk becomes > guilty (which does not happen once in a century, perhaps) of criminal > conversation, he has neither a congregation of tender-hearted members, > whom he can move to tears by an eloquent confession of his guilt, nor > a Jesus, on whose overburdened, long-suffering bosom are flung, as in > a common Christian dust-box, all the impurities of the race. No > Buddhist transgressor can comfort himself with visions of a Vatican, > within whose sin-encompassing walls black is turned into white, > murderers into sinless saints, and golden or silvery lotions can be > bought at the confessional to cleanse the tardy penitent of greater or > lesser offenses against God and man. > > Except a few impartial archæologists, who trace a direct Buddhistic > element in Gnosticism, as in all those early short-lived sects > we know of very few authors, who, in writing upon primitive > Christianity, have accorded to the question its due importance. Have > we not facts enough to, at least, suggest some interest in that > direction? Do we not learn that, as early as in the days of Plato, > there were “Brachmans”--read Buddhist, Samaneans, Saman, or Shaman > missionaries--in Greece, and that, at one time, they had overflowed > the country? Does not Pliny show them established on the shores of > the Dead Sea, for “thousands of ages?” After making every necessary > allowance for the exaggeration, we still have several centuries B.C. > left as a margin. And is it possible that their influence should > not have left deeper traces in all these sects than is generally > thought? We know that the Jaïna sect claims Buddhism as derived > from its tenets--that Buddhism existed before Siddhârtha, better > known as Gautama-Buddha. The Hindu Brahmans who, by the European > Orientalists, are denied the right of knowing anything about their > own country, or understanding their own language and records better > than those who have never been in India, on the same principle as > the Jews are forbidden, by the Christian theologians, to interpret > their own Scriptures--the Brahmans, we say, have authentic records. > And these show the incarnation from the Virgin Avany of the first > Buddha--_divine light_--as having taken place more than some > thousands of years B.C., on the island of Ceylon. The Brahmans > reject the claim that it was an avatar of Vishnu, but admit the > appearance of a reformer of Brahmanism at that time. The story of > the Virgin Avany and her divine son, Sâkya-muni, is recorded in one > of the sacred books of the Cinghalese Buddhists--the _Nirdhasa_; and > the Brahmanic chronology fixes the great Buddhistic revolution and > religious war, and the subsequent spread of Sâkya-muni’s doctrine in > Thibet, China, Japan, and other places at 4,620 years B.C.[667] > > It is clear that Gautama-Buddha, the son of the King of Kapilavastu, > and the descendant of the first Sakya, through his father, who was > of the Kshatriya, or warrior-caste, did not invent his philosophy. > Philanthropist by nature, his ideas were developed and matured while > under the tuition of Tir-thankara, the famous guru of the Jaïna sect. > The latter claim the present Buddhism as a diverging branch of their > own philosophy, and themselves, as the only followers of the first > Buddha who were allowed to remain in India, after the expulsion of > all other Buddhists, probably because they had made a compromise, > and admitted some of the Brahmanic notions. It is, to say the > least, curious, that three dissenting and inimical religions, like > Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Jaïnism, should agree so perfectly in their > traditions and chronology, as to Buddhism, and that our scientists > should give a hearing but to their own unwarranted speculations and > hypotheses. If the birth of Gautama may, with some show of reason, be > placed at about 600 B.C., then the preceding Buddhas ought to have > some place allowed them in chronology. The Buddhas are not gods, > but simply individuals overshadowed by the spirit of Buddha--the > divine ray. Or is it because, unable to extricate themselves from the > difficulty by the help of their own researches only, our Orientalists > prefer to obliterate and deny the whole, rather than accord to the > Hindus the right of knowing something of their own religion and > history? Strange way of discovering truths! > > The common argument adduced against the Jaïna claim, of having > been the source of the restoration of ancient Buddhism, that the > principal tenet of the latter religion is opposed to the belief of > the Jaïnas, is not a sound one. Buddhists, say our Orientalists, > deny the existence of a Supreme Being; the Jaïnas admit one, but > protest against the assumption that the “He” can ever interfere > in the regulation of the universe. We have shown in the preceding > chapter that the Buddhists do not deny any such thing. But if any > disinterested scholar could study carefully the Jaïna literature, > in their thousands of books preserved--or shall we say hidden--in > Rajpootana, Jusselmere, at Patun, and other places;[668] and > especially if he could but gain access to the oldest of their sacred > volumes, he would find a perfect identity of philosophical thought, > if not of popular rites, between the Jaïnas and the Buddhists. The > Adi-Buddha and Adinâtha (or Adiswara) are identical in essence and > purpose. And now, if we trace the Jaïnas back, with their claims to > the ownership of the oldest cave-temples (those superb specimens > of Indian architecture and sculpture), and their records of an > almost incredible antiquity, we can hardly refuse to view them in > the light which they claim for themselves. We must admit, that in > all probability they are the only true descendants of the primitive > owners of old India, dispossessed by those conquering and mysterious > hordes of white-skinned Brahmans whom, in the twilight of history, we > see appearing at the first as wanderers in the valleys of Jumna and > Ganges. The books of the Srawacs--the only descendants of the Arhâtas > or earliest Jaïnas, the naked forest-hermits of the days of old, > might throw some light, perhaps, on many a puzzling question. But > will our European scholars, so long as they pursue their own policy, > ever have access to the _right_ volumes? We have our doubts about > this. Ask any trustworthy Hindu how the missionaries have dealt with > those manuscripts which unluckily fell into their hands, and then see > if we can blame the natives for trying to save from desecration the > “gods of their fathers.” > > To maintain their ground Irenæus and his school had to fight hard > with the Gnostics. Such, also, was the lot of Eusebius, who found > himself hopelessly perplexed to know how the Essenes should be > disposed of. The ways and customs of Jesus and his apostles exhibited > too close a resemblance to this sect to allow the fact to pass > unexplained. Eusebius tried to make people believe that the Essenes > were the first Christians. His efforts were thwarted by Philo Judæus, > who wrote his historical account of the Essenes and described them > with the minutest care, long before there had appeared a single > Christian in Palestine. But, if there were no _Christians_, there > were Chr_e_stians long before the era of Christianity; and the > Essenes belonged to the latter as well as to all other initiated > brotherhoods, without even mentioning the Christnites of India. > Lepsius shows that the word _Nofre_ means Chrēstos, “good,” and that > one of the titles of Osiris, “Onnofre,” must be translated “the > goodness of God made manifest.”[669] “The worship of Christ was > not universal at this early date,” explains Mackenzie, “by which I > mean that Christolatry had not been introduced; but the worship of > _Chrēstos_--the Good Principle--had preceded it by many centuries, > and even survived the general adoption of Christianity, as shown on > monuments still in existence.” ... Again, we have an inscription > which is pre-Christian on an epitaphial tablet (Spon. _Misc. Erud._, > Ant., x. xviii. 2). Υακινθε Λαρισαιων Δημοσιε Ηρως Χρηστε Χαιρε, and > de Rossi (_Roma Sotteranea_, tome i., tav. xxi.) gives us another > example from the catacombs--“Ælia Chreste, in Pace.”[670] And, _Kris_, > as Jacolliot shows, means in Sanscrit “sacred.” > > The meritorious stratagems of the trustworthy Eusebius thus proved > lost labor. He was triumphantly detected by Basnage, who, says > Gibbon, “examined with the utmost critical accuracy the curious > treatise of Philo, which describes the Therapeutæ,” and found that > “by proving it was composed as early as the time of Augustus, he has > demonstrated, in spite of Eusebius and a crowd of modern Catholics, > that the Therapeutæ were neither Christians nor monks.” > > As a last word, the _Christian_ Gnostics sprang into existence > toward the beginning of the second century, and just at the time > when the Essenes most mysteriously faded away, which indicated that > they were the identical Essenes, and moreover pure _Christists_, > viz.: they believed and were those who best understood what one of > their own brethren had preached. In insisting that the letter Iota, > mentioned by Jesus in _Matthew_ (v. 18), indicated a secret doctrine > in relation to the ten æons, it is sufficient to demonstrate to a > kabalist that Jesus belonged to the Freemasonry of those days; for > Ι, which is Iota in Greek, has other names in other languages; and is, > as it was among the Gnostics of those days, a pass-word, meaning the > SCEPTRE of the FATHER, in Eastern brotherhoods which exist to this > very day. > > But in the early centuries these facts, if known, were purposely > ignored, and not only withheld from public notice as much as > possible, but vehemently denied whenever the question was forced upon > discussion. The denunciations of the Fathers were rendered bitter in > proportion to the truth of the claim which they endeavored to refute. > > “It comes to this,” writes Irenæus, complaining of the Gnostics, > “they neither consent to Scripture nor tradition.”[671] And why > should we wonder at that, when even the commentators of the > nineteenth century, with nothing but fragments of the Gnostic > manuscripts to compare with the voluminous writings of their > calumniators, have been enabled to detect fraud on nearly every > page? How much more must the polished and learned Gnostics, with all > their advantages of personal observation and knowledge of fact, have > realized the stupendous scheme of fraud that was being consummated > before their very eyes! Why should they accuse Celsus of maintaining > that their religion was all based on the speculations of Plato, with > the difference that his doctrines were far more pure and rational > than theirs, when we find Sprengel, seventeen centuries later, > writing the following?--“Not only did they (the Christians) think to > discover the dogmas of Plato in the books of Moses, but, moreover, > they fancied that, by introducing Platonism into Christianity, they > would _elevate the dignity of this religion and make it more popular > among the nations_.”[672] > > They introduced it so well, that not only was the Platonic philosophy > selected as a basis for the trinity, but even the legends and > mythical stories which had been current among the admirers of the > great philosopher--as a time-honored custom required in the eyes > of his posterity such an allegorical homage to every hero worthy > of deification--were revamped and used by the Christians. Without > going so far as India, did they not have a ready model for the > “miraculous conception,” in the legend about Periktionè, Plato’s > mother? In her case it was also maintained by popular tradition that > she had immaculately conceived him, and that the god Apollo was his > father. Even the annunciation by an angel to Joseph “in a dream,” the > Christians copied from the message of Apollo to Ariston, Periktionè’s > husband, that the child to be born from her was the offspring of that > god. So, too, Romulus was said to be the son of Mars, by the virgin > Rhea Sylvia. > > It is generally held by all the symbolical writers that the Ophites > were found guilty of practicing the most licentious rites during > their religious meetings. The same accusation was brought against the > Manichæans, the Carpocratians, the Paulicians, the Albigenses--in > short, against every Gnostic sect which had the temerity to claim > the right to think for itself. In our modern days, the 160 American > sects and the 125 sects of England are not so often troubled with > such accusations; times are changed, and even the once all-powerful > clergy have to either bridle their tongues or prove their slanderous > accusations. > > We have carefully looked over the works of such authors as Payne > Knight, C. W. King, and Olshausen, which treat of our subject; we > have reviewed the bulky volumes of Irenæus, Tertullian, Sozomen, > Theodoret; and in none but those of Epiphanius have we found any > accusation based upon direct evidence of an eye-witness. “They say;” > “_Some_ say;” “We have heard”--such are the general and indefinite > terms used by the patristic accusers. Alone Epiphanius, whose works > are invariably referred to in all such cases, seems to chuckle with > delight whenever he couches a lance. We do not mean to take upon > ourselves to defend the sects which inundated Europe at the eleventh > century, and which brought to light the most wonderful creeds; we > limit our defense merely to those Christian sects whose theories > were usually grouped under the generic name of _Gnosticism_. These > are those which appeared immediately after the alleged crucifixion, > and lasted till they were nearly exterminated under the rigorous > execution of the Constantinian law. The greatest guilt of these were > their syncretistic views, for at no other period of the world’s > history had truth a poorer prospect of triumph than in those days of > forgery, lying, and deliberate falsification of facts. > > But before we are forced to believe the accusations, may we not > be permitted to inquire into the historical characters of their > accusers? Let us begin by asking, upon what ground does the Church > of Rome build her claim of supremacy for her doctrines over those > of the Gnostics? Apostolic succession, undoubtedly. The succession > _traditionally_ instituted by the direct Apostle Peter. But what if > this prove a fiction? Clearly, the whole superstructure supported > upon this one imaginary stilt would fall in a tremendous crash. > And when we do inquire carefully, we find that we must take the > word of Irenæus _alone_ for it--of Irenæus, who did not furnish one > single valid proof of the claim which he so audaciously advanced, > and who resorted for that to endless forgeries. He gives authority > neither for his dates nor his assertions. This Smyrniote worthy > has not even the brutal but sincere faith of Tertullian, for he > contradicts himself at every step, and supports his claims solely on > acute sophistry. Though he was undoubtedly a man of the shrewdest > intellect and great learning, he fears not, in some of his assertions > and arguments, to even appear an idiot in the eyes of posterity, so > long as he can “carry the situation.” Twitted and cornered at every > step by his not less acute and learned adversaries, the Gnostics, he > boldly shields himself behind blind faith, and in answer to their > merciless logic falls upon imaginary tradition invented by himself. > Reber wittily remarks: “As we read his misapplications of words and > sentences, we would conclude that he was a lunatic if we did not know > that he was something else.”[673] > > So boldly mendacious does this “holy Father” prove himself in many > instances, that he is even contradicted by Eusebius, more cautious > if not more truthful than himself. He is driven to that necessity > in the face of unimpeachable evidence. So, for instance, Irenæus > asserts that Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, was a direct hearer of > St. John;[674] and Eusebius is compelled to show that Papias never > pretended to such a claim, but simply stated that he had received his > _doctrine from those who had known John_.[675] > > In one point, the Gnostics had the best of Irenæus. They drove > him, through mere fear of inconsistency, to the recognition of > their kabalistic doctrine of atonement; unable to grasp it in its > allegorical meaning, Irenæus presented, with Christian theology as > we find it in its present state of “original sin _versus_ Adam,” a > doctrine which would have filled Peter with pious horror if he had > been still alive. > > The next champion for the propagation of Apostolic Succession, is > Eusebius himself. Is the word of this Armenian Father any better than > that of Irenæus? Let us see what the most competent critics say of > him. And before we turn to modern critics at all, we might remind > the reader of the scurrilous terms in which Eusebius is attacked > by George Syncellus, the Vice-Patriarch of Constantinople (eighth > century), for his audacious falsification of the Egyptian Chronology. > The opinion of Socrates, an historian of the fifth century, is no > more flattering. He fearlessly charges Eusebius with perverting > historical dates, in order to please the Emperor Constantine. In his > chronographic work, before proceeding to falsify the synchronistic > tables _himself_, in order to impart to Scriptural chronology a more > trustworthy appearance, Syncellus covers Eusebius with the choicest > of monkish Billingsgate. _Baron Bunsen has verified the justness > if not justified the politeness of this abusive reprehension._ His > elaborate researches in the rectification of the _Egyptian List of > Chronology_, by Manetho, led him to confess that throughout his work, > the Bishop of Cæsarea “had undertaken, in a very _unscrupulous_ and > arbitrary spirit, to mutilate history.” “Eusebius,” he says, “is the > originator of that systematic theory of synchronisms which has so > often subsequently maimed and mutilated history in its procrustean > bed.”[676] To this the author of the _Intellectual Development of > Europe_ adds: “Among those who have been the most guilty of this > offense, the name of the celebrated Eusebius, the Bishop of Cæsarea > ... should be designated!”[677] > > It will not be amiss to remind the reader that it is the same > Eusebius who is charged with the interpolation of the famous > paragraph concerning Jesus,[678] which was so miraculously found, > in his time, in the writings of Josephus, the sentence in question > having till that time remained perfectly unknown. Renan, in his _Life > of Jesus_, expresses a contrary opinion. “I believe,” says he, “the > passage respecting Jesus to be authentic. _It is perfectly in the > style of Josephus_; and, _if_ this historian had made mention of > Jesus, it is _thus_ that he must have spoken of him.” > > Begging this eminent scholar’s pardon, we must again contradict him. > Laying aside his cautious “_if_,” we will merely show that though > the short paragraph may possibly be genuine, and “perfectly in the > style of Josephus,” its several parentheses are most palpably later > forgeries; and “_if_” Josephus had made any mention of Christ at > all, it is _not_ thus that he would “have spoken of him.” The whole > paragraph consists of but a few lines, and reads: “At this time was > _Iasous_, a ‘WISE MAN,’[679] if, at least, _it is right to call him a > man_! (ἄνδρα) for he was a doer of surprising works, and a teacher of > such men as receive “the truths” with pleasure.... _This was the_ > ANOINTED (!!). And, on an accusation by the first men among us, having > been condemned by Pilate to the cross, they did not stop loving him > who loved them. For _he appeared to them on the third day alive_, and > the divine prophets having said these and many other wonderful things > concerning him.” > > This paragraph (of sixteen lines in the original) has two unequivocal > assertions and one qualification. The latter is expressed in the > following sentence: “If, at least, it is right to call him a > man.” The unequivocal assertions are contained in “This is the > ANOINTED,” and in that Jesus “appeared to them _on the third day > alive_.” History shows us Josephus as a thorough, uncompromising, > stiff-necked, orthodox Jew, though he wrote for “the Pagans.” It is > well to observe the false position in which these sentences would > have placed a true-born Jew, if they had really emanated from him. > Their “Messiah” was then and is still expected. The Messiah is the > _Anointed_, and _vice versa_. And Josephus is made to admit that the > “first men” among them have accused and crucified _their_ Messiah and > Anointed!! No need to comment any further upon such a preposterous > incongruity,[680] even though supported by so ripe a scholar as Renan. > > As to that patristic fire-brand, Tertullian, whom des Mousseaux > apotheosizes in company with his other demi-gods, he is regarded > by Reuss, Baur, and Schweigler, in quite a different light. The > untrustworthiness of statement and inaccuracy of Tertullian, says > the author of _Supernatural Religion_, are often apparent. Reuss > characterizes his Christianism as “_âpre_, _insolent_, _brutal_, > _ferrailleur_.” It is without unction and without charity, sometimes > even _without loyalty_, when he finds himself confronted with > opposition. “If,” remarks this author, “in the second century all > parties except certain Gnostics were intolerant, Tertullian was the > most intolerant of all!” > > The work begun by the early Fathers was achieved by the sophomorical > Augustine. His supra-transcendental speculations on the Trinity; his > imaginary dialogues with the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and > the _disclosures_ and covert allusions about his ex-brethren, the > Manicheans, have led the world to load Gnosticism with opprobrium, > and have thrown into a deep shadow the insulted majesty of the one > God, worshipped in reverential silence by every “heathen.” > > _And thus is it that the whole pyramid of Roman Catholic dogmas rests > not upon proof, but upon assumption._ The Gnostics had cornered > the Fathers too cleverly, and _the only salvation of the latter > was a resort to forgery_. For nearly four centuries, the great > historians nearly cotemporary with Jesus had not taken the slightest > notice either of his life or death. Christians wondered at such an > unaccountable omission of what the Church considered the greatest > events in the world’s history. Eusebius saved the battle of the day. > Such are the men who have slandered the Gnostics. > > The first and most unimportant sect we hear of is that of the > _Nicolaïtans_, of whom John, in the _Apocalypse_, makes the > voice in his vision say that he hates their doctrine.[681] These > Nicolaïtans were the followers, however, of Nicolas of Antioch, one > of the “seven” chosen by the “twelve” to make distribution from the > common fund to the proselytes at Jerusalem (_Acts_ ii. 44, 45, vi. > 1-5), hardly more than a few weeks, or perhaps months, after the > Crucifixion;[682] and a man “of honest report, _full of the Holy > Ghost and wisdom_” (verse 3). Thus it would appear that the “Holy > Ghost and wisdom” from on high, were no more a shield against the > accusation of “hæresy” than though they had never overshadowed the > “chosen ones” of the apostles. > > It would be but too easy to detect what kind of heresy it was > that offended, even had we not other and more authentic sources > of information in the kabalistic writings. The accusation and > the precise nature of the “abomination” are stated in the second > chapter of the book of _Revelation_, verses 14, 15. The sin was > merely--_marriage_. John was a “virgin;” several of the Fathers > assert the fact on the authority of tradition. Even Paul, the most > liberal and high-minded of them all, finds it difficult to reconcile > the position of a married man with that of a faithful servant of God. > There is also “a difference between a wife and a virgin.”[683] The > latter cares “for the things of the Lord,” and the former only for > “how she may please her husband.” “If any man think that he behaveth > uncomely towards his virgin ... let them marry. Nevertheless, he that > standeth steadfast in his heart, and hath power over his own will, > and hath so decreed ... that he will keep _his virgin_, doeth well.” > So that he who marries “doeth well ... but he that giveth her not in > marriage _doeth better_.” “Art thou loosed from a wife?” he asks, > “seek not a wife” (27). And remarking that according to his judgment, > both will be happier if they do not marry, he adds, as a weighty > conclusion: “And I think also that I have the spirit of God” (40). > Far from this spirit of tolerance are the words of John. According to > his vision there are “but the hundred and forty and four thousand, > which were _redeemed_ from the earth,” and “these are they which > were not defiled with women; for _they were virgins_.”[684] This > seems conclusive; for except Paul there is not one of these primitive > _Nazari_, there “set apart” and vowed to God, who seemed to make > a great difference between “sin” within the relationship of legal > marriage, and the “abomination” of adultery. > > With such views and such narrow-mindedness, it was but natural that > these fanatics should have begun by casting this _iniquity_ as a > slur in the faces of brethren, and then “bearing on progressively” > with their accusations. As we have already shown, it is only > Epiphanius whom we find giving such minute details as to the > Masonic “grips” and other signs of recognition among the Gnostics. > He had once belonged to their number, and therefore it was easy > for him to furnish particulars. Only how far the worthy Bishop is > to be relied upon is a very grave question. One need fathom human > nature but very superficially to find that there seldom was yet a > traitor, a renegade, who, in a moment of danger turned “State’s > evidence,” who would not lie as remorselessly as he betrayed. Men > never forgive or relent toward those whom they injure. We hate our > victims in proportion to the harm we do them. This is a truth as > old as the world. On the other hand, it is preposterous to believe > that such persons as the Gnostics, who, according to Gibbon, were > the wealthiest, proudest, most polite, as well as the most learned > “of the Christian name,” were guilty of the disgusting, libidinous > actions of which Epiphanius delights to accuse them. Were they even > like that “set of tatterdemalions, almost naked, with fierce looks,” > that Lucian describes as Paul’s followers,[685] we would hesitate to > believe such an infamous story. How much less probable then that men > who were Platonists, as well as Christians, should have ever been > guilty of such preposterous rites. > > Payne Knight seems never to suspect the testimony of Epiphanius. > He argues that “if we make allowance for the willing exaggerations > of religious hatred, and consequent popular prejudice, the general > conviction that these sectarians had rites and practices of a > licentious character appears too strong to be entirely disregarded.” > If he draws an honest line of demarcation between the Gnostics of > the first three centuries and those mediæval sects whose doctrines > “rather closely resembled modern communism,” we have nothing to say. > Only, we would beg every critic to remember that if the Templars were > accused of that most “abominable crime” of applying the “holy kiss” > to the root of Baphomet’s tail,[686] St. Augustine is also suspected, > and on very good grounds, too, of having allowed his community to go > somewhat astray from the primitive way of administering the “holy > kiss” at the feast of the Eucharist. The holy Bishop seems quite too > anxious as to certain details of the ladies’ toilet for the “kiss” to > be of a strictly orthodox nature.[687] Wherever there lurks a true > and sincere religious feeling, there is no room for worldly details. > > Considering the extraordinary dislike exhibited from the first by > Christians to all manner of cleanliness, we cannot enough wonder at > such a strange solicitude on the part of the holy Bishop for his > female parishioners, unless, indeed, we have to excuse it on the > ground of a lingering reminiscence of Manichean rites! > > It would be hard, indeed, to blame any writer for entertaining such > suspicions of immorality as those above noticed, when the records > of many historians are at hand to help us to make an impartial > investigation. “Hæretics” are accused of crimes in which the Church > has more or less openly indulged even down to the beginning of our > century. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX. issued two bulls against the > Stedingers “for various _heathen_ and magical practices,”[688] > and the latter, as a matter of course, were exterminated in the > name of Christ and his Holy Mother. In 1282 a parish priest of > Inverkeithing, named John, performed rites on Easter day by far > worse than “magical.” Collecting a crowd of young girls, he forced > them to enter into “divine ecstasies” and Bacchanalian fury, dancing > the old Amazonian circle-dance around the figure of the heathen > “god of the gardens.” Notwithstanding that upon the complaint of > some of his parishioners he was cited before his bishop, he retained > his benefice because he proved that _such was the common usage of > the country_.[689] The Waldenses, those “earliest Protestants,” > were accused of the most unnatural horrors; burned, butchered, and > exterminated for calumnies heaped upon them by their accusers. > Meanwhile the latter, in open triumph, forming their heathen > processions of “Corpus Christi,” with emblems modelled on those of > Baal-Peor and “Osiris,” and every city in Southern France carrying, > in yearly processions on Easter days, loaves and cakes fashioned like > the so-much-decried emblems of the Hindu Sivites and Vishnites, as > late as 1825![690] > > Deprived of their old means for slandering Christian sects whose > religious views differ from their own, it is now the turn of the > “heathen,” Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese, to share with the ancient > religions the honor of having cast in their teeth denunciations of > their “libidinous religions.” > > Without going far for proofs of equal if not surpassing immorality, > we would remind Roman Catholic writers of certain _bas-reliefs_ on > the doors of St. Peter’s Cathedral. They are as brazen-faced as the > door itself; but less so than any author, who, knowing all this, > feigns to ignore historical facts. A long succession of Popes have > reposed their pastoral eyes upon these brazen pictures of the vilest > obscenity, through those many centuries, without ever finding the > slightest necessity for removing them. Quite the contrary; for we > might name certain Popes and Cardinals who made it a life-long study > to copy these heathen suggestions of “nature-gods,” in practice as > well as in theory. > > In Polish Podolia there was some years ago, in a Roman Catholic > Church, a statue of Christ, in black marble. It was reputed to > perform miracles on certain days, such as having its hair and beard > grow in the sight of the public, and indulging in other _less_ > innocent wonders. This show was finally prohibited by the Russian > Government. When in 1585 the Protestants took Embrun (Department of > the Upper Alps), they found in the churches of this town relics of > such a character, that, as the Chronicle expresses it, “old Huguenot > soldiers were seen to blush, several weeks after, at the bare > mention of the discovery.” In a corner of the Church of St. Fiacre, > near Monceaux, in France, there was--and it still is there, if we > mistake not--a seat called “the chair of St. Fiacre,” which had the > reputation of conferring fecundity upon barren women. A rock in the > vicinity of Athens, not far from the so-called “Tomb of Socrates,” > is said to be possessed of the same virtue. When, some twenty years > since, the Queen Amelia, perhaps in a merry moment, was said to > have tried the experiment, there was no end of most insulting abuse > heaped upon her, by a Catholic Padre, on his way through Syra to some > mission. The Queen, he declared, was a “superstitious heretic!” “an > abominable witch!” “Jezebel using magic arts.” Much more the zealous > missionary would doubtless have added, had he not found himself, > right in the middle of his vituperations, landed in a pool of mud, > outside the window. The virtuous elocutionist was forced to this > unusual transit by the strong arm of a Greek officer, who happened to > enter the room at the right moment. > > There never was a great religious reform that was not pure at the > beginning. The first followers of Buddha, as well as the disciples > of Jesus, were all men of the highest morality. The aversion felt by > the reformers of all ages to vice under any shape, is proved in the > cases of Sâkya-muni, Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus, St. Paul, Ammonius > Sakkas. The great Gnostic leaders--if less successful--were not less > virtuous in practice nor less morally pure. Marcion, Basilides,[691] > Valentinus, were renowned for their ascetic lives. The Nicolaïtans, > who, if they did not belong to the great body of the Ophites, > were numbered among the small sects which were absorbed in it at > the beginning of the second century, owe their origin, as we have > shown, to Nicolas of Antioch, “a man of honest report, full of the > Holy Ghost and wisdom.” How absurd the idea that such men would > have instituted “libidinous rites.” As well accuse Jesus of having > promoted the similar rites which we find practiced so extensively > by the mediæval _orthodox_ Christians behind the secure shelter of > monastic walls. > > If, however, we are asked to credit such an accusation against the > Gnostics, an accusation transferred with tenfold acrimony, centuries > later, to the unfortunate heads of the Templars, why should we not > believe the same of the orthodox Christians? Minucius Felix states > that “the first Christians were accused by the world of inducing, > during the ceremony of the “Perfect Passover,” each neophyte, on his > admission, to plunge a knife into an infant concealed under a heap of > flour; the body then serving for a banquet to the whole congregation. > After they had become the dominant party, they (the Christians) > transferred this charge to their own dissenters.”[692] > > The real crime of heterodoxy is plainly stated by John in his > _Epistles_ and _Gospel_. “He that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is > come in the flesh ... is a deceiver and _an antichrist_” (2 _Epistle_ > 7). In his previous _Epistle_, he teaches his flock that there are > _two_ trinities (7, 8)--in short, the Nazarene system. > > The inference to be drawn from all this is, that the made-up and > dogmatic Christianity of the Constantinian period is simply an > offspring of the numerous conflicting sects, half-castes themselves, > born of Pagan parents. Each of these could claim representatives > converted to the so-called _orthodox_ body of Christians. And, as > every newly-born dogma had to be carried out by the majority of > votes, every sect colored the main substance with its own hue, till > the moment when the emperor enforced this _revealed_ olla-podrida, > of which he evidently did not himself understand a word, upon an > unwilling world as the _religion of Christ_. Wearied in the vain > attempt to sound this fathomless bog of international speculations, > unable to appreciate a religion based on the pure spirituality of > an ideal conception, Christendom gave itself up to the adoration of > brutal force as represented by a Church backed up by Constantine. > Since then, among the thousand rites, dogmas, and ceremonies copied > from Paganism, the Church can claim but one invention as thoroughly > original with her--namely, the doctrine of eternal damnation, and one > custom, that of the anathema. The Pagans rejected both with horror. > “An execration is a fearful and grievous thing,” says Plutarch. > “Wherefore, the priestess at Athens was commended for refusing to > curse Alkibiades (for desecration of the Mysteries) when the people > required her to do it; _for_, she said, _that she was a priestess of > prayers and not of curses_.”[693] > > “Deep researches would show,” says Renan, “that nearly everything > in Christianity is mere baggage brought from the Pagan Mysteries. > The primitive Christian worship is nothing but a mystery. The whole > interior police of the Church, the degrees of initiation, the command > of silence, and a crowd of phrases in the ecclesiastical language, > have no other origin.... The revolution which overthrew Paganism > _seems_ at first glance ... an absolute rupture with the past ... but > _the popular faith saved its most familiar symbols from shipwreck_. > Christianity introduced, at first, so little change into the habits > of private and social life, that with great numbers in the fourth > and fifth centuries it remains uncertain whether they were Pagans > or Christians; many seem even to have pursued an irresolute course > between the two worships.” Speaking further of _Art_, which formed > an essential part of the ancient religion, he says that “_it had > to break with scarce one of its traditions_. Primitive Christian > art is really nothing but Pagan art in its decay, or in its lower > departments. The Good Shepherd of the catacombs in Rome is a copy > from the Aristeus, or from the Apollo Nornius, which figure in the > same posture on the Pagan sarcophagi, and still carries the flute of > Pan in the midst of the four half-naked seasons. On the Christian > tombs of the Cemetery of St. Calixtus, Orpheus charms the animals. > Elsewhere, the Christ as Jupiter-Pluto, and Mary as Proserpina, > receive the souls that Mercury, wearing the broad-brimmed hat and > carrying in his hand the rod of the soul-guide (_psychopompos_), > brings to them, in presence of the three fates. Pegasus, the symbol > of the apotheosis; Psyche, the symbol of the immortal soul; Heaven, > personified by an old man, the river Jordan; and Victory, figure on a > host of Christian monuments.” > > As we have elsewhere shown, the primitive Christian community > was composed of small groups scattered about and organized in > secret societies, with passwords, grips, and signs. To avoid the > relentless persecutions of their enemies, they were obliged to seek > safety and hold meetings in deserted catacombs, the fastnesses of > mountains, and other safe retreats. Like disabilities were naturally > encountered by each religious reform at its inception. From the > very first appearance of Jesus and his twelve disciples, we see > them congregating apart, having secure refuges in the wilderness, > and among friends in Bethany, and elsewhere. Were Christianity not > composed of “_secret communities_,” from the start, history would > have more _facts_ to record of its founder and disciples than it has. > > How little Jesus had impressed his personality upon his own century, > is calculated to astound the inquirer. Renan shows that Philo, who > died toward the year 50, and who was born many years earlier than > Jesus, living all the while in Palestine while the “glad tidings” > were being preached all over the country, according to the _Gospels_, > had never heard of him! Josephus, the historian, who was born three > or four years after the death of Jesus, mentions his execution > in a short sentence, and even those few words were altered “by a > _Christian hand_,” says the author of the _Life of Jesus_. Writing at > the close of the first century, when Paul, the learned propagandist, > is said to have founded so many churches, and Peter is alleged to > have established the apostolic succession, which the Irenæo-Eusebian > chronology shows to have already included three bishops of Rome,[694] > Josephus, the painstaking enumerator and careful historian of even > the most unimportant sects, entirely ignores the existence of a > Christian sect. Suetonius, secretary of Adrian, writing in the first > quarter of the second century, knows so little of Jesus or his > history as to say that the Emperor Claudius “banished all the Jews, > who were continually making disturbances, at the instigation of one > _Crestus_,” meaning Christ, we must suppose.[695] The Emperor Adrian > himself, writing still later, was so little impressed with the tenets > or importance of the new sect, that in a letter to Servianus he shows > that he believes the Christians to be worshippers of Serapis.[696] > “In the second century,” says C. W. King, “the syncretistic sects > that had sprung up in Alexandria, the very hot-bed of Gnosticism, > found out in Serapis a prophetic type of Christ as the Lord and > Creator of all, and Judge of the living and the dead.”[697] Thus, > while the “Pagan” philosophers had never viewed Serapis, or rather > the abstract idea which was embodied in him, as otherwise than a > representation of the Anima Mundi, the Christians anthropomorphized > the “Son of God” and his “Father,” finding no better model for him > than the idol of a Pagan myth! “There can be no doubt,” remarks the > same author, “that the head of Serapis, marked, as the face is, > by a grave and pensive majesty, supplied the first idea for the > conventional portraits of the Saviour.”[698] > > In the notes taken by a traveller--whose episode with the monks > on Mount Athos we have mentioned elsewhere--we find that, during > his early life, Jesus had frequent intercourse with the Essenes > belonging to the Pythagorean school, and known as the Koinobi. > We believe it rather hazardous on the part of Renan to assert so > dogmatically, as he does, that Jesus “ignored the very name of > Buddha, of Zoroaster, of Plato;” that he had never read a Greek nor > a Buddhistic book, “although he had more than one element in him, > which, unawares to himself, proceeded from Buddhism, Parsism, and the > Greek wisdom.”[699] This is conceding half a miracle, and allowing > as much to chance and coincidence. It is an abuse of privilege, > when an author, who claims to write historical facts, draws > convenient deductions from hypothetical premises, and then calls > it a biography--a _Life_ of Jesus. No more than any other compiler > of legends concerning the problematical history of the Nazarene > prophet, has Renan one inch of secure foothold upon which to maintain > himself; nor can any one else assert a claim to the contrary, > except on inferential evidence. And yet, while Renan has not one > solitary fact to show that Jesus had never studied the metaphysical > tenets of Buddhism and Parsism, or heard of the philosophy of > Plato, his opponents have the best reasons in the world to suspect > the contrary. When they find that--1, all his sayings are in a > Pythagorean spirit, when not _verbatim_ repetitions; 2, his code of > ethics is purely Buddhistic; 3, his mode of action and walk in life, > Essenean; and 4, his mystical mode of expression, his parables, and > his ways, those of an initiate, whether Grecian, Chaldean, or Magian > (for the “Perfect,” who spoke the _hidden_ wisdom, were of the same > school of archaic learning the world over), it is difficult to escape > from the logical conclusion that he belonged to that same body of > initiates. It is a poor compliment paid the Supreme, this forcing > upon Him four gospels, in which, contradictory as they often are, > there is not a single narrative, sentence, or peculiar expression, > whose parallel may not be found in some older doctrine or philosophy. > Surely, the Almighty--were it but to spare future generations their > present perplexity--might have brought down with Him, at His _first > and only_ incarnation on earth, something original--something > that would trace a distinct line of demarcation between Himself > and the score or so of incarnate Pagan gods, who had been born of > virgins, had all been saviours, and were either killed, or otherwise > sacrificed themselves for humanity. > > Too much has already been conceded to the emotional side of the > story. What the world needs is a less exalted, but more faithful > view of a personage, in whose favor nearly half of Christendom has > dethroned the Almighty. It is not the erudite, world-famous scholar, > whom we question for what we find in his _Vie de Jesus_, nor is > it one of his _historical_ statements. We simply challenge a few > unwarranted and untenable assertions that have found their way past > the emotional narrator, into the otherwise beautiful pages of the > work--a life built altogether on mere probabilities, and yet that > of one who, if accepted as an historical personage, has far greater > claims upon our love and veneration, fallible as he is with all his > greatness, than if we figure him as an omnipotent God. It is but in > the latter character that Jesus must be regarded by every reverential > mind as a failure. > > Notwithstanding the paucity of old philosophical works now extant, > we could find no end of instances of perfect identity between > Pythagorean, Hindu, and _New Testament_ sayings. There is no lack > of proofs upon this point. What is needed is a Christian public > that will examine what will be offered, and show common honesty in > rendering its verdict. Bigotry has had its day, and done its worst. > “We need not be frightened,” says Professor Müller, “if we discover > traces of truth, traces even of Christian truth, among the sages and > lawgivers of other nations.” > > After reading the following philosophical aphorisms, who can > believe that Jesus and Paul had never read the Grecian and Indian > philosophers? > > SENTENCES FROM SEXTUS, THE VERSES FROM THE > PYTHAGOREAN, and other NEW TESTAMENT.[700] > Heathen. > > 1. “Possess not treasures, but 1. “Lay not up for yourselves > those things which no one treasures upon earth. > can take from you.” where moth and rust doth > corrupt, and where > thieves break through and > steal” (_Matthew_ vi. 19). > > 2. “It is better for a part of 2. “And if thy hand offend > the body which contains thee, cut it off; it is > purulent matter, and better for thee to enter > threatens to infect the _unto life_ maimed, than go > whole, _to be burnt_, to hell,” etc. (_Mark_ ix. > than to continue so in 43). > _another state_ (life).” > > 3. “You have in yourself 3. “Know ye not ye are _the > something _similar to temple of God_, and that the > God_, and therefore use Spirit of God dwelleth in > yourself _as the temple you?” (_1 Corinthians_, iii. > of God_.” 16). > > 4. “The greatest honor which 4. “That ye may be the children > can be paid to God, is to of your Father, which is > know and imitate his in Heaven, be ye perfect > _perfection_.” even as your _Father is > perfect_” (_Matthew_ v. > 45-48). > > 5. “What I do not wish men to 5. “Do ye unto others as ye > do to me, I also wish not would that others should do > to do to men” (_Analects to you.” > of Confucius_, p. 76; see > Max Müller’s _The Works > of Confucius_). > > 6. “The moon shines even in 6. “He maketh his sun to rise > the house of the wicked” on the evil and on the good, > (_Manu_). and sendeth rain on the just > and on the unjust” (_Matthew_ > v. 45). > > 7. “They who give, have things 7. “Whosoever hath, to him > given to them; those who shall be given ... but > withhold, have things whosoever hath not, from him > taken from them” (Ibid.). shall be taken away” > (_Matthew_ xiii. 12). > > 8. “Purity of mind alone sees 8. “Blessed are the pure in > God” (Ibid.)--still a heart, for they shall see > popular saying in India. God” (_Matthew_ v. 8). > > Plato did not conceal the fact that he derived his best philosophical > doctrines from Pythagoras, and that himself was merely the first to > reduce them to systematic order, occasionally interweaving with them > metaphysical speculations of his own. But Pythagoras himself got his > recondite doctrines, first from the descendants of Mochus, and later, > from the Brahmans of India. He was also initiated into the Mysteries > among the hierophants of Thebes, the Persian and Chaldean Magi. Thus, > step by step do we trace the origin of most of our Christian doctrines > to Middle Asia. Drop out from Christianity the personality of Jesus, > so sublime, because of its unparalleled simplicity, and what remains? > History and comparative theology echo back the melancholy answer, “A > crumbling skeleton formed of the oldest Pagan myths!” > > While the mythical birth and life of Jesus are a faithful copy of > those of the Brahmanical Christna, his historical character of a > religious reformer in Palestine is the true type of Buddha in India. > In more than one respect their great resemblance in philanthropic and > spiritual aspirations, as well as external circumstances is truly > striking. Though the son of a king, while Jesus was but a carpenter, > Buddha was not of the high Brahmanical caste by birth. Like Jesus, he > felt dissatisfied with the dogmatic spirit of the religion of his > country, the intolerance and hypocrisy of the priesthood, their > outward show of devotion, and their useless ceremonials and prayers. > As Buddha broke violently through the traditional laws and rules of > the Brahmans, so did Jesus declare war against the Pharisees, and the > proud Sadducees. What the Nazarene did as a consequence of his humble > birth and position, Buddha did as a voluntary penance. He travelled > about as a beggar; and--again like Jesus--later in life he sought by > preference the companionship of publicans and sinners. Each aimed at a > social as well as at a religious reform; and giving a death-blow to > the old religions of his countries, each became the founder of a new > one. > > “The reform of Buddha,” says Max Müller, “had originally much more of > a social than of a religious character. The most important element of > Buddhist reform has always been its social and moral code, not its > metaphysical theories. _That moral code is one of the most perfect > which the world has ever known_ ... and he whose meditations had been > how to deliver the soul of man from misery and the fear of death, had > delivered the people of India from a degrading thraldom and from > priestly tyranny.” Further, the lecturer adds that were it otherwise, > “Buddha might have taught whatever philosophy he pleased, and we > should hardly have heard his name. The people would not have minded > him, and his system would only have been a drop in the ocean of > philosophic speculation by which India was deluged at all times.”[701] > > The same with Jesus. While Philo, whom Renan calls Jesus’s elder > brother, Hillel, Shammai, and Gamaliel, are hardly mentioned--Jesus > has become a God! And still, pure and divine as was the moral code > taught by Christ, it never could have borne comparison with that of > Buddha, but for the tragedy of Calvary. That which helped forward the > deification of Jesus was his dramatic death, the voluntary sacrifice > of his life, alleged to have been made for the sake of mankind, and > the later convenient dogma of the atonement, invented by the > Christians. In India, where life is valued as of no account, the > crucifixion would have produced little effect, if any. In a country > where--as all the Indianists are well aware--religious fanatics set > themselves to dying by inches, in penances lasting for years; where > the most fearful macerations are self-inflicted by fakirs; where young > and delicate widows, in a spirit of bravado against the government, as > much as out of religious fanaticism, mount the funeral pile with a > smile on their face; where, to quote the words of the great lecturer, > “Men in the prime of life throw themselves under the car of > Juggernâth, to be crushed to death by the idol they believe in, where > the plaintiff who cannot get redress starves himself to death at the > door of his judge; where the philosopher who thinks he has learned all > which this world can teach him, and who longs for absorption into the > Deity, quietly steps into the Ganges, in order to arrive at the other > shore of existence,”[702] in such a country even a voluntary > crucifixion would have passed unnoticed. In Judea, and even among > braver nations than the Jews--the Romans and the Greeks--where every > one clung more or less to life, and most people would have fought for > it with desperation, the tragical end of the great Reformer was > calculated to produce a profound impression. The names of even such > minor heroes as Mutius Scævola, Horatius Cocles, the mother of the > Gracchi, and others, have descended to posterity; and, during our > school-days, as well as later in life, their histories have awakened > our sympathy and commanded a reverential admiration. But, can we ever > forget the scornful smile of certain Hindus, at Benares, when an > English lady, the wife of a clergyman, tried to impress them with the > greatness of the sacrifice of Jesus, in giving _his_ life for us? > Then, for the first time the idea struck us how much the pathos of the > great drama of Calvary had to do with subsequent events in the > foundation of Christianity. Even the imaginative Renan was moved by > this feeling to write in the last chapter of his _Vie de Jesus_, a few > pages of singular and sympathetic beauty.[703] > > Apollonius, a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, was, like him, an > enthusiastic founder of a new spiritual school. Perhaps less > metaphysical and more practical than Jesus, less tender and perfect in > his nature, he nevertheless inculcated the same quintessence of > spirituality, and the same high moral truths. His great mistake was to > confine them too closely to the higher classes of society. While to > the poor and the humble Jesus preached “Peace on earth and good will > to men,” Apollonius was the friend of kings, and moved with the > aristocracy. He was born among the latter, and himself a man of > wealth, while the “Son of man,” representing the people, “had not > where to lay his head;” nevertheless, the two “miracle-workers” > exhibited striking similarity of purpose. Still earlier than > Apollonius had appeared Simon Magus, called “the great Power of God.” > His “miracles” are both more wonderful, more varied, and better > attested than those either of the apostles or of the Galilean > philosopher himself. Materialism denies the fact in both cases, but > history affirms. Apollonius followed both; and how great and renowned > were his miraculous works in comparison with those of the alleged > founder of Christianity as the kabalists claim, we have history again, > and Justin Martyr, to corroborate.[704] > > Like Buddha and Jesus, Apollonius was the uncompromising enemy > of all outward show of piety, all display of useless religious > ceremonies and hypocrisy. If, like the Christian Saviour, the sage of > Tyana had by preference sought the companionship of the poor and > humble; and if instead of dying comfortably, at over one hundred years > of age, he had been a voluntary martyr, proclaiming divine Truth from > a cross,[705] his blood might have proved as efficacious for the > subsequent dissemination of spiritual doctrines as that of the > Christian Messiah. > > The calumnies set afloat against Apollonius, were as numerous as > they were false. So late as eighteen centuries after his death he was > defamed by Bishop Douglas in his work against miracles. In this the > Right Reverend bishop crushed himself against historical facts. If we > study the question with a dispassionate mind, we will soon perceive that > the ethics of Gautama-Buddha, Plato, Apollonius, Jesus, Ammonius Sakkas, > and his disciples, were all based on the same mystic philosophy. > That all worshipped one God, whether they considered Him as the > “Father” of humanity, who lives in man as man lives in Him, or as the > Incomprehensible Creative Principle; all led God-like lives. Ammonius, > speaking of his philosophy, taught that their school dated from the days > of Hermes, who brought his wisdom from India. It was the same mystical > contemplation throughout, as that of the Yogin: the communion of the > Brahman with his own luminous Self--the “Atman.” And this Hindu > term is again kabalistic, _par excellence_. Who is “Self?” is asked in > the _Rig-Veda_; “Self is the Lord of all things ... all things are > contained in this Self; all selves are contained in this Self. Brahmân > itself is but Self,”[706] is the answer. Says Idra Rabba: “All things > are Himself, and Himself is _concealed_ on every side.”[707] The “Adam > Kadmon of the kabalists contains in himself all the souls of the > Israelites, and he is himself in every soul,” says the _Sohar_.[708] > The groundwork of the Eclectic School was thus identical with the > doctrines of the Yogin, the Hindu mystics, and the earlier Buddhism of > the disciples of Gautama. And when Jesus assured his disciples that > “the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because _it seeth > Him not_, neither knoweth Him,” dwells _with_ and _in_ them, who “are > in Him and He in them,”[709] he but expounded the same tenet that we > find running through every philosophy worthy of that name. > > Laboulaye, the learned and skeptical French savant, does not believe > a word of the miraculous portion of Buddha’s life; nevertheless, he has > the candor to speak of Gautama as being _only second to_ Christ in the > great purity of his ethics and personal morality. For both of these > opinions he is respectfully rebuked by des Mousseaux. Vexed at this > scientific contradiction of his accusations of demonolatry against > Gautama-Buddha, he assures his readers that “ce savant distingué n’a > point etudié cette question.”[710] > > “I do not hesitate to say,” remarks in his turn Barthelemy St. Hilaire, > “that, except Christ alone, there is not among the founders of > religions, a figure either more pure or more touching than that of > Buddha. His life is spotless. His constant heroism equals his > convictions.... He is the perfect model of all the virtues he > preaches; his abnegation, his charity, his unalterable sweetness of > disposition, do not fail him for one instant. He abandoned, at the age > of twenty-nine, his father’s court to become a monk and a beggar ... > and when he dies in the arms of his disciples, it is with the serenity > of a sage who practiced virtue all his life, and who dies convinced of > having found the truth.”[711] This deserved panegyric is no stronger > than the one which Laboulaye himself pronounced, and which occasioned > des Mousseaux’s wrath. “It is more than difficult,” adds the former, > “to understand how men not assisted by revelation could have soared so > high and approached so near the truth.”[712] Curious that there should > be so many lofty souls “not assisted by revelation!” > > And why should any one feel surprised that Gautama could die with > philosophical serenity? As the kabalists justly say, “Death does not > exist, and man never steps outside of universal life. Those whom we > think dead live still in us, as we live in them.... The more one lives > for his kind, the less need he fear to die.”[713] And, we might add, > that he who _lives_ for humanity does even more than him who dies for > it. > > The _Ineffable name_, in the search for which so many kabalists-- > unacquainted with any Oriental or even European adept--vainly consume > their knowledge and lives, dwells latent in the heart of every man. > This mirific name which, according to the most ancient oracles, > “rushes into the infinite worlds ακοιμητω στροφαλιγγι,” can be > obtained in a twofold way: by regular initiation, and through the > “small voice” which Elijah heard in the cave of Horeb, the mount of > God. And “when Elijah heard it he wrapped his _face in his mantle_ and > stood in the entering of the cave. And behold there came _the_ voice.” > > When Apollonius of Tyana desired to hear the “small voice,” he used > to wrap himself up entirely in a mantle of fine wool, on which he placed > both his feet, after having performed certain magnetic passes, and > pronounced not the “name” but an invocation well known to every adept. > Then he drew the mantle over his head and face, and his translucid or > astral spirit was free. On ordinary occasions he wore wool no more than > the priests of the temples. The possession of the secret combination of > the “name” gave the hierophant supreme power over every being, human > or otherwise, inferior to himself in soul-strength. Hence, when Max > Müller tells us of the Quichè “Hidden majesty which was never to be > opened by human hands,” the kabalist perfectly understands what was > meant by the expression, and is not at all surprised to hear even this > most erudite philologist exclaim: “What it was we do not know!” > > We cannot too often repeat that it is only through the doctrines of > the more ancient philosophies that the religion preached by Jesus may > be understood. It is through Pythagoras, Confucius, and Plato, that we > can comprehend the idea which underlies the term “Father” in the _New > Testament_. Plato’s ideal of the Deity, whom he terms the one > everlasting, invisible God, the Fashioner and Father of all > things,[714] is rather the “Father” of Jesus. It is this Divine Being > of whom the Grecian sage says that He can neither be envious nor the > originator of evil, for He can produce nothing but what is good and > just,[715] is certainly not the Mosaic Jehovah, the “_jealous_ God,” > but the God of Jesus, who “alone is good.” He extols His all-embracing, > divine power,[716] and His omnipotence, but at the same time intimates > that, as He is unchangeable, He can never desire to change his laws, > _i.e._, to extirpate evil from the world through a miracle.[717] He is > omniscient, and nothing escapes His watchful eye.[718] His justice, > which we find embodied in the law of compensation and retribution, > will leave no crime without punishment, no virtue without its > reward;[719] and therefore he declares that the only way to honor God > is to cultivate moral purity. He utterly rejects not only the > anthropomorphic idea that God could have a material body,[720] but > “rejects with disgust those fables which ascribe passions, quarrels, > and crimes of all sorts to the minor gods.”[721] He indignantly denies > that God allows Himself to be propitiated, or rather bribed, by > prayers and sacrifices.[722] > > The _Phædrus_ of Plato displays all that man once was, and that which > he may yet become again. “Before man’s spirit sank into sensuality and > was embodied with it through the loss of his wings, he lived among the > gods in the airy [spiritual] world where everything is true and pure.” > In the _Timæus_ he says that “there was a time when mankind did not > perpetuate itself, but lived as pure spirits.” In the future world, > says Jesus, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” but “live > as the angels of God in Heaven.” > > The researches of Laboulaye, Anquetil Duperron, Colebrooke, Barthelemy > St. Hilaire, Max Müller, Spiegel, Burnouf, Wilson, and so many > other linguists, have brought some of the truth to light. And now that > the difficulties of the Sanscrit, the Thibetan, the Singhalese, the > Zend, the Pehlevi, the Chinese, and even of the Burmese, are partially > conquered, and the _Vedas_, and the _Zend-Avesta_, the Buddhist texts, > and even Kapila’s _Sûtras_ are translated, a door is thrown wide open, > which, once passed, must close forever behind any speculative or > ignorant calumniators of the old religions. Even till the present > time, the clergy have, to use the words of Max Müller--“generally > appealed to the deviltries and orgies of heathen worship ... but they > have seldom, if ever, endeavored to discover the true and original > character of the strange forms of faith and worship which they call > the work of the devil.”[723] When we read the true history of Buddha > and Buddhism, by Müller, and the enthusiastic opinions of both > expressed by Barthelemy St. Hilaire, and Laboulaye; and when, finally, > a Popish missionary, an eye-witness, and one who least of all can be > accused of partiality to the Buddhists--the Abbé Huc, we mean--finds > occasion for nothing but admiration for the high individual character > of these “devil-worshippers;” we must consider Sakyâ-muni’s philosophy > as something more than the religion of fetishism and atheism, which > the Catholics would have us believe it. Huc was a missionary and it > was his first duty to regard Buddhism as no better than an outgrowth > of the worship of Satan. The poor Abbé was struck off the list of > missionaries at Rome,[724] after his book of travels was published. > This illustrates how little we may expect to learn the truth about the > religions of other people, through missionaries, when their accounts > are first revised by the superior ecclesiastical authorities, and the > former severely punished for telling the truth. > > When these men who have been and still are often termed “the obscene > ascetics,” the devotees of different sects of India in short, generally > termed “Yogi,” were asked by Marco Polo, “how it comes that they > are not ashamed to go stark naked as they do?” they answered the > inquirer of the thirteenth century as a missionary of the nineteenth was > answered. “We go naked,” they say, “because naked we came into > the world, and we desire to have nothing about us that is of this world. > Moreover, we have no sin of the flesh to be conscious of, and therefore, > we are not ashamed of our nakedness any more than you are to show > your hand or your face. You who are conscious of the sins of the flesh, > do well to have shame, and to cover your nakedness.”[725] > > One could make a curious list of the excuses and explanations of > the clergy to account for similarities daily discovered between Romanism > and heathen religions. Yet the summary would invariably lead to one > sweeping claim: The doctrines of Christianity were plagiarized by the > Pagans the world over! Plato and his older Academy stole the ideas > from the Christian revelation--said the Alexandrian Fathers!! The > Brahmans and Manu borrowed from the Jesuit missionaries, and the > _Bhagaved-gita_ was the production of Father Calmet, who transformed > Christ and John into Christna and Arjuna to fit the Hindu mind!! The > trifling fact that Buddhism and Platonism both antedated Christianity, > and the _Vedas_ had already degenerated into Brahmanism before the days > of Moses, makes no difference. The same with regard to Apollonius > of Tyana. Although his thaumaturgical powers could not be denied in the > face of the testimony of emperors, their courts, and the populations of > several cities; and although few of these had ever heard of the Nazarene > prophet whose “miracles” had been witnessed by a few apostles only, > whose very individualities remain to this day a problem in history, yet > Apollonius has to be accepted as the “monkey of Christ.” > > If of really pious, good, and honest men, many are yet found among > the Catholic, Greek, and Protestant clergy, whose sincere faith has > the best of their reasoning powers, and who having never been among > heathen populations, are unjust only through ignorance, it is not so > with the missionaries. The invariable subterfuge of the latter is to > attribute to demonolatry the really Christ-like life of the Hindu and > Buddhist ascetics and many of the lamas. Years of sojourn among > “heathen” nations, in China, Tartary, Thibet, and Hindustan have > furnished them with ample evidence how unjustly the so-called > idolators have been slandered. The missionaries have not even the > excuse of sincere faith to give the world that they mislead; and, with > very few exceptions, one may boldly paraphrase the remark made by > Garibaldi, and say that: “_A priest knows himself to be an impostor, > unless he be a fool, or have been taught to lie from boyhood_.” > > CHAPTER VIII. > > “Christian and Catholic sons may accuse their fathers of the > crime of heresy ... although they may know that their > parents will be burnt with fire and put to death for it.... > And not only may they refuse them food, _if they attempt to > turn them from the Catholic faith_, BUT THEY MAY ALSO JUSTLY > KILL THEM.”--_Jesuit Precept_ (F. STEPHEN FAGUNDEZ, in > _Præcepta Decalogi_. Lugduni, 1640). > > “_Most Wise._--What hour is it? > > “_Respect. K. S. Warden._--It is the first hour of the day, > the time when the veil of the temple was rent asunder, when > darkness and consternation were spread over the earth--when > the light was darkened--when the implements of Masonry were > broken--when the flaming star disappeared--when the cubic > stone was broken--when the ‘WORD’ was lost.”-- > > _Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit._ > > [Inline Illustration:]--JAH-BUH-LUN. > > The greatest of the kabalistic works of the Hebrews--the _Sohar_ זהר--was > compiled by Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iochaï. According to some critics, this > was done years before the Christian era; according to others only > after the destruction of the temple. However, it was completed only by > the son of Simeon, Rabbi Eleazar, and his secretary, Rabbi Abba; for > the work is so immense and the subjects treated so abstruse that even > the whole life of this Rabbi, called the Prince of kabalists, did not > suffice for the task. On account of its being known that he was in > possession of this knowledge, and of the _Mercaba_, which insured the > reception of the “Word,” his very life was endangered, and he had to > fly to the wilderness, where he lived in a cave for twelve years, > surrounded by faithful disciples, and finally died there amid signs > and wonders.[726] > > But voluminous as is the work, and containing as it does the main > points of the secret and oral tradition, it still does not embrace it > all. It is well known that this venerable kabalist never imparted > the most important points of his doctrine otherwise than orally, and > to a very limited number of friends and disciples, including his only > son. Therefore, without the final initiation into the _Mercaba_ the > study of the _Kabala_ will be ever incomplete, and the _Mercaba_ can > be taught only in “darkness, in a deserted place, and after many and > terrific trials.” Since the death of Simeon Ben-Iochai this hidden > doctrine has remained an inviolate secret for the outside world. > Delivered _only as a mystery_, it was communicated to the candidate > orally, “_face to face and mouth to ear_.” > > This Masonic commandment, “mouth to ear, and the word at low breath,” > is an inheritance from the Tanaïm and the old Pagan Mysteries. Its > modern use must certainly be due to the indiscretion of some renegade > kabalist, though the “word” itself is but a “substitute” for the > “lost word,” and is a comparatively modern invention, as we will > further show. The real sentence has remained forever in the sole > possession of the adepts of various countries of the Eastern and > Western hemispheres. Only a limited number among the chiefs of the > Templars, and some Rosicrucians of the seventeenth century, always in > close relations with Arabian alchemists and initiates, could really > boast of its possession. From the seventh to the fifteenth centuries > there was no one who could claim it in Europe; and although there > had been alchemists before the days of Paracelsus, he was the first > who had passed through the true initiation, that last ceremony which > conferred on the adept the power of travelling toward the “burning > bush” over the holy ground, and to “burn the golden calf in the fire, > grind it to powder, and strow it upon the water.” Verily, then, > this magic _water_, and the “lost word,” resuscitated more than one > of the pre-Mosaic Adonirams, Gedaliahs, and Hiram Abiffs. The real > word now substituted by _Mac Benac_ and Mah was used ages before > its pseudo-magical effect was tried on the “widow’s sons” of the > last two centuries. Who was, in fact, the first operative Mason of > any consequence? Elias Ashmole, _the last of the Rosicrucians and > alchemists_. Admitted to the freedom of the Operative Masons’ Company > in London, in 1646, he died in 1692. At that time Masonry was not > what it became later; it was neither a political nor a Christian > institution, but a true secret organization, which admitted into the > ties of fellowship all men anxious to obtain the priceless boon of > liberty of conscience, and avoid clerical persecution.[727] Not until > about thirty years after his death did what is now termed modern > Freemasonry see the light. It was born on the 24th day of June, 1717, > in the Apple-tree Tavern, Charles Street, Covent Garden, London. And > it was then, as we are told in Anderson’s _Constitutions_, that the > only four lodges in the south of England elected Anthony Sayer first > Grand Master of Masons. Notwithstanding its great youth, this grand > lodge has ever claimed the acknowledgment of its supremacy by the > whole body of the fraternity throughout the whole world, as the Latin > inscription on the plate put beneath the corner-stone of Freemasons’ > Hall, London, in 1775, would tell to those who could see it. But of > this more anon. > > In _Die Kabbala_, by Franck, the author, following its “esoteric > ravings,” as he expresses it, gives us, in addition to the > translations, his commentaries. Speaking of his predecessors, he says > that Simeon Ben-Iochai mentions repeatedly what the “companions” have > taught in the older works. And the author cites one “Ieba, the _old_, > and Hamnuna, the _old_.”[728] But what the two “old” ones mean, or > who they were, in fact, he tells us not, for he does not know himself. > > Among the venerable sect of the Tanaïm, or rather the Tananim, the > wise men, there were those who taught the secrets practically and > initiated some disciples into the grand and final Mystery. But the > _Mishna Hagiga_, 2d section, say that the table of contents of > the _Mercaba_ “must only be delivered to wise old ones.”[729] The > _Gemara_ is still more dogmatic. “The more important secrets of the > Mysteries were not even revealed to all priests. Alone the initiates > had them divulged.” And so we find the same great secresy prevalent > in every ancient religion. > > But, as we see, neither the _Sohar_ nor any other kabalistic volume > contains merely Jewish wisdom. The doctrine itself being the result > of whole millenniums of thought, is therefore the joint property > of adepts of every nation under the sun. Nevertheless, the _Sohar_ > teaches practical occultism more than any other work on that > subject; not as it is translated though, and commented upon by its > various critics, but with the secret signs on its margins. These > signs contain the hidden instructions, apart from the metaphysical > interpretations and apparent absurdities so fully credited by > Josephus, who was never initiated, and gave out the _dead letter_ as > he had received it.[730] > > The real practical magic contained in the _Sohar_ and other > kabalistic works, is only of use to those who read it _within_. The > Christian apostles--at least, those who are said to have produced > “miracles” _at will_[731]--had to be acquainted with this science. > It ill-behooves a Christian to look with horror or derision upon > “magic” gems, amulets, and other talismans against the “evil eye,” > which serve as charms to exercise a mysterious influence, either on > the possessor, or the person whom the magician desires to control. > There are still extant a number of such charmed amulets in public and > private collections of antiquities. Illustrations of convex gems, > with mysterious legends--the meaning of which baffles all scientific > inquiry--are given by many collectors. King shows several such in > his _Gnostics_, and he describes a white carnelian (chalcedony), > covered on both sides with interminable legends, to interpret which > would ever prove a failure; yes, in every case, perhaps, but that > of a Hermetic student or an adept. But we refer the reader to his > interesting work, and the talismans described in his plates, to > show that even the “Seer of Patmos” himself was well-versed in this > kabalistic science of talismans and gems. St. John clearly alludes > to the potent “white carnelian”--a gem well-known among adepts, > as the “_alba petra_,” or the stone of initiation, on which the > word “_prize_” is generally found engraved, as it was given to the > candidate who had successfully passed through all the preliminary > trials of a neophyte. The fact is, that no less than the _Book of > Job_, the whole _Revelation_, is simply an allegorical narrative of > the Mysteries and initiation therein of a candidate, who is John > himself. No high Mason, well versed in the different degrees, can > fail to see it. The numbers _seven_, _twelve_, and others are all > so many lights thrown over the obscurity of the work. Paracelsus > maintained the same some centuries ago. And when we find the “one > like unto the Son of man” saying (chap. ii. 17): “_To him that > overcometh_, will I give to eat of the _hidden manna_, and will > give him a WHITE STONE, and in the stone a new name written”--the > word--which _no man knoweth_ saving _he that receiveth it_, what > Master Mason can doubt but it refers to the last head-line of this > chapter? > > In the pre-Christian Mithraïc Mysteries, the candidate who > fearlessly overcame the “_twelve_ Tortures,” which preceded the > final initiation, received a small round cake or wafer of unleavened > bread, symbolizing, _in one of its meanings_, the solar disk and > known as the heavenly bread or “manna,” and having figures traced > on it. A _lamb_, or a _bull_ was killed, and with the blood the > candidate had to be sprinkled, as in the case of the Emperor Julian’s > initiation. The _seven_ rules or mysteries were then delivered to > the “newly-born” that are represented in the _Revelation_ as the > seven seals which are opened “in order” (see chap. v. and vi.). There > can be no doubt that the Seer of Patmos referred to this ceremony. > > The origin of the Roman Catholic amulets and “relics” blessed by > the Pope, is the same as that of the “Ephesian Spell,” or magical > characters engraved either on a stone or drawn on a piece of > parchment; the Jewish amulets with verses out of the Law, and called > _phylacteria_, φυλακτηρια and the Mahometan charms with verses of the > _Koran_. All these were used as protective magic spells; and worn by > the believers on their persons. Epiphanius, the worthy ex-Marcosian, > who speaks of these charms when used by the Manicheans as amulets, > that is to say, things worn round the neck (Periapta), and > “incantations and _such-like trickery_,” cannot well throw a slur upon > the “_trickery_” of the Pagans and Gnostics, without including the > Roman Catholic and Popish amulets. > > But consistency is a virtue which we fear is losing, under Jesuit > influence, the slight hold it may ever have had on the Church. That > crafty, learned, conscienceless, terrible soul of Jesuitism, within > the body of Romanism, is slowly but surely possessing itself of the > whole prestige and spiritual power that clings to it. For the better > exemplification of our theme it will be necessary to contrast the > moral principles of the ancient Tanaïm and Theurgists with those > professed by the modern Jesuits, who practically control Romanism > to-day, and are the hidden enemy that would-be reformers must > encounter and overcome. Throughout the whole of antiquity, where, > in what land, can we find anything like this Order or anything even > approaching it? We owe a place to the Jesuits in this chapter on > secret societies, for more than any other they are a secret body, > and have a far closer connection with actual Masonry--in France and > Germany at least--than people are generally aware of. The cry of an > outraged public morality was raised against this Order from its very > birth.[732] Barely fifteen years had elapsed after the bull approving > its constitution was promulgated, when its members began to be driven > away from one place to the other. Portugal and the Low Countries got > rid of them, in 1578; France in 1594; Venice in 1606; Naples in 1622. > From St. Petersburg they were expelled in 1815, and from all Russia > in 1820. > > It was a promising child from its very teens. What it grew up to be > every one knows well. The Jesuits have done more moral harm in this > world than all the fiendish armies of the mythical Satan. Whatever > extravagance may seem to be involved in this remark, will disappear > when our readers in America, who now know little about them, are > made acquainted with their principles (principio) and rules as > they appear in various works written by the Jesuits themselves. We > beg leave to remind the public that every one of the statements > which follow in quotation marks are extracted from authenticated > manuscripts, or folios printed by this distinguished body. Many > are copied from the large Quarto[733] published by the authority > of, and verified and collated by the Commissioners of the French > Parliament. The statements therein were collected and presented to > the King, in order that, as the “Arrest du Parlement du 5 Mars, > 1762,” expresses it, “the elder son of the Church might be made aware > of the perversity of this doctrine.... A doctrine authorizing Theft, > Lying, Perjury, Impurity, every Passion and Crime, teaching Homicide, > Parricide, and Regicide, overthrowing religion in order to substitute > for it superstition, by favoring _Sorcery_, Blasphemy, Irreligion, > and Idolatry ... etc.” Let us then examine the ideas on _magic_ of > the Jesuits. Writing on this subject in his secret instructions, > Anthony Escobar[734] says: > > “It is lawful ... to make use of the science acquired _through the > assistance of the Devil_, provided the preservation and use of that > knowledge do not depend upon the Devil, _for the knowledge is good > in itself, and the sin by which it was acquired has gone by_.”[735] > Hence, why should not a Jesuit cheat the Devil as well as he cheats > every layman? > > “_Astrologers and soothsayers are either bound, or are not bound, to > restore the reward of their divination, if the event does not come to > pass._ I own,” remarks the _good_ Father Escobar, “that the former > opinion does not at all please me, because, when the astrologer or > diviner has exerted all the diligence _in the diabolic art_ which is > essential to his purpose, he has fulfilled his duty, whatever may > be the result. As the physician ... is not bound to restore his fee > ... if his patient should die; so neither is the astrologer bound to > restore his charge ... except where he has used no effort, or was > ignorant of his diabolic art; because, when he has used his endeavors > he has not deceived.”[736] > > Further, we find the following on astrology: “If any one affirms, > through conjecture founded upon the influence of the stars and the > character, disposition of a man, that he will be a soldier, an > ecclesiastic, or a bishop, _this divination may be devoid of all > sin_; because the stars and the disposition of the man may have the > power of inclining the human will to a certain lot or rank, but not > of constraining it.”[737] > > Busembaum and Lacroix, in _Theologia Moralis_,[738] say, “Palmistry > may be considered lawful, if from the lines and divisions of the > hands it can ascertain the disposition of the body, and conjecture, > with probability, the propensities and affections of the soul.”[739] > > This noble fraternity, which many preachers have of late so > vehemently denied to have ever been a _secret_ one, has been > sufficiently proved as such. Their constitutions were translated > into Latin by the Jesuit Polancus, and printed in the college of > the Society at Rome, in 1558. “They were jealously kept secret, the > greater part of the Jesuits themselves knowing only extracts from > them.[740] _They were never produced to the light until 1761, when > they were published by order of the French Parliament_ in 1761, > 1762, in the famous process of Father Lavalette.” The degrees of the > Order are: I. Novices; II. Lay Brothers, or temporal Coadjutors; > III. Scholastics; IV. Spiritual Coadjutors; V. Professed of Three > Vows; VI. Professed of Five Vows. “There is also a secret class, > known only to the General and a few faithful Jesuits, which, perhaps > more than any other, contributed to the dreaded and mysterious power > of the Order,” says Niccolini. The Jesuits reckon it among the > greatest achievements of their Order that Loyola supported, by a > special memorial to the Pope, a petition for the reörganization of > that abominable and abhorred instrument of wholesale butchery--the > infamous tribunal of the Inquisition. > > This Order of Jesuits is now all-powerful in Rome. They have been > reinstalled in the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical > Affairs, in the Department of the Secretary of State, and in the > Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Pontifical Government was for > years previous to Victor Emanuel’s occupation of Rome entirely in > their hands. The Society now numbers 8,584 members. But we must > see what are their chief rules. By what is seen above, in becoming > acquainted with their mode of action, we may ascertain what the whole > Catholic body is likely to be. Says Mackenzie: “The Order has secret > signs and passwords, according to the degrees to which the members > belong, and as they wear no particular dress, it is very difficult > to recognize them, unless they reveal themselves as members of the > Order; for they may appear as Protestants or Catholics, democrats or > aristocrats, infidels or bigots, according to the special mission > with which they are entrusted. Their spies are everywhere, of all > apparent ranks of society, and they may appear learned and wise, or > simple or foolish, as their instructions run. There are Jesuits of > both sexes, and all ages, and it is a well-known fact that members of > the Order, of high family and delicate nurture, are acting as menial > servants in Protestant families, and doing other things of a similar > nature in aid of the Society’s purposes. We cannot be too much on our > guard, for the whole Society, being founded on a law of unhesitating > obedience, can bring its force on any given point with unerring and > fatal accuracy.”[741] > > The Jesuits maintain that “the Society of Jesus is not of human > invention, _but it proceeded from him whose name it bears_. For Jesus > himself described that rule of life which the Society follows, _first > by his example_, and afterwards by his words.”[742] > > Let, then, all pious Christians listen and acquaint themselves with > this alleged “rule of life” and precepts of their God, as exemplified > by the Jesuits. Peter Alagona (_St. Thomæ Aquinatis Summæ Theologiæ > Compendium_) says: “By the command of God it is lawful to kill an > innocent person, to steal, or commit ... (_Ex mandato Dei licet > occidere innocentem, furari, fornicari_); because he is the Lord of > life and death, and all things, _and it is due to him thus to fulfil > his command_” (Ex primâ secundæ, Quæst., 94). > > “A man of a religious order, who for a short time lays aside his > habit _for a sinful purpose_, is free from heinous sin, and does not > incur the penalty of excommunication” (Lib. iii., sec. 2., Probl. 44, > n. 212).[743] > > John Baptist Taberna (_Synopsis Theologiæ Practicæ_), propounds the > following question: “Is a judge bound to restore the bribe which he > has received for passing sentence?” _Answer: “If he has received the > bribe for passing an unjust sentence, it is probable that he may > keep it.... This opinion is maintained and defended by fifty-eight > doctors”_[744] (Jesuits). > > We must abstain at present from proceeding further. So disgustingly > licentious, hypocritical, and demoralizing are nearly all of these > precepts, that it was found impossible to put many of them in print, > except in the Latin language.[745] We will return to some of the more > decent as we proceed, for the sake of comparison. But what are we to > think of the future of the Catholic world, if it is to be controlled > in word and deed by this villainous society? And that it is to be so, > we can hardly doubt, as we find the Cardinal Archbishop of Cambrai > loudly proclaiming the same to all the faithful? His pastoral has > made a certain noise in France; and yet, as two centuries have > rolled away since the _exposé_ of these infamous principles, the > Jesuits have had ample time to lie so successfully in denying the > just charges, that most Catholics will never believe such a thing. > The _infallible_ Pope, Clement XIV. (Ganganelli), suppressed them on > the 23d of July, 1773, and yet they came to life again; and another > equally infallible Pope, Pius VII., reëstablished them on the 7th of > August, 1814. > > But we will hear what Monseigneur of Cambrai is swift to proclaim in > 1876. We quote from a secular paper: > > “Among other things, he maintains that _Clericalism, Ultramontanism, > and Jesuitism are one and the same thing--that is to say, > Catholicism_--and that the distinctions between them have been > created by the enemies of religion. There was a time, he says, when > a certain theological opinion was commonly professed in France > concerning the authority of the Pope. It was restricted to our > nation, and was of recent origin. The civil power during a century > and a half imposed official instruction. Those who profess these > opinions were called Gallicans, and those who protested were called > Ultramontanes, because they had their doctrinal centre beyond the > Alps, at Rome. To-day the distinction between the two schools is no > longer admissible. Theological Gallicanism can no longer exist, since > this opinion has ceased to be tolerated by the Church. _It has been > solemnly condemned, past all return, by the Œcumenical Council of the > Vatican. One cannot now be Catholic without being Ultramontane--and > Jesuit._”[746] > > This settles the question. We leave inferences for the present, and > proceed to compare some of the practices and precepts of the Jesuits, > with those of individual mystics and organized castes and societies > of the ancient time. Thus the fair-minded reader may be placed in a > position to judge between them as to the tendency of their doctrines > to benefit or degrade humanity. > > Rabbi Jehoshua Ben Chananea, who died about A.D. 72, openly declared > that he had performed “miracles” by means of the _Book of Sepher > Jezireh_, and challenged every skeptic.[747] Franck, quoting from the > Babylonian _Talmud_, names two other thaumaturgists, Rabbis Chanina > and Oshoi.[748] > > Simon Magus was doubtless a pupil of the Tanaïm of Samaria, the > reputation which he left behind, together with the title given to > him of “the Great Power of God,” testifies strongly in favor of the > ability of his teachers. The calumnies so zealously disseminated > against him by the unknown authors and compilers of the _Acts_ and > other writings, could not cripple the truth to such an extent as to > conceal the fact that no Christian could rival him in thaumaturgic > deeds. The story told about his falling during an aërial flight, > breaking both his legs, and then committing suicide, is ridiculous. > Instead of praying mentally that it should so happen, why did not > the apostles pray rather that they should be allowed to outdo Simon > in wonders and miracles, for then they might have proved their > case far more easily than they did, and so converted thousands to > Christianity. Posterity has heard but one side of the story. Were the > disciples of Simon to have a chance, we might find, perhaps, that it > was Peter who broke both his legs, had we not known that this apostle > was too prudent ever to venture himself in Rome. On the confession > of several ecclesiastical writers, no apostle ever performed such > “supernatural wonders.” Of course pious people will say this only the > more proves that it was the “Devil” who worked through Simon. > > Simon was accused of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because he > introduced it as the “Holy Spiritus, the _Mens_ (Intelligence), or > the mother of all.” But we find the same expression used in the _Book > of Enoch_, in which, in contradistinction to the “Son of Man,” he > says “Son of the Woman.” In the _Codex_ of the Nazarenes, and in > the _Sohar_, as well in the _Books of Hermes_, the expression is > usual; and even in the apocryphal _Evangelium_ of the Hebrews we read > that Jesus himself admitted the sex of the Holy Ghost by using the > expression, “_My mother, the Holy Pneuma_.” > > But what is the heresy of Simon, or what the blasphemies of all the > heretics, in comparison with that of the same Jesuits who have now > so completely mastered the Pope, ecclesiastical Rome, and the entire > Catholic world? Listen again to their profession of faith. > > “Do what your conscience tells you to be good and commanded: if, > through invincible error, you believe lying or blasphemy to be > commanded by God, _blaspheme_.”[749] > > “Omit to do what your conscience tells you is forbidden: omit the > worship of God, if you invincibly believe it to be prohibited by > God.”[750] > > “There is an implied law ... obey an invincibly erroneous dictate > of conscience. As often as you believe invincibly that a lie is > commanded--_lie_.”[751] > > “Let us suppose a Catholic to believe invincibly that the worship of > images is forbidden: in such a case our Lord Jesus Christ will be > obliged to say to him, “_Depart from me thou cursed ... because thou > hast worshipped mine image_.” So, neither, is there any absurdity in > supposing that Christ may say, “_Come thou blessed ... because thou > hast lied, believing invincibly, that in such a case I commanded the > lie_.”[752] > > Does not this--but no! words fail to do justice to the emotions that > these astonishing precepts must awaken in the breast of every honest > person. Let silence, resulting from _invincible_ disgust, be our only > adequate tribute to such unparalleled moral obliquity. > > The popular feeling in Venice (1606), when the Jesuits were driven > out from that city, expressed itself most forcibly. Great crowds > had accompanied the exiles to the sea-shore, and the farewell cry > which resounded after them over the waves, was, “_Ande in malora!_” > (Get away! and woe be to you.) “That cry was echoed throughout the > two following centuries;” says Michelet, who gives this statement, > “in Bohemia in 1618 ... in India in 1623 ... and throughout all > Christendom in 1773.” > > In what particular was then Simon Magus a blasphemer, if he only did > that which his conscience invincibly told him was true? And in what > particular were ever the “Heretics,” or even _infidels_ of the worst > kind more reprehensible than the Jesuits--those of Caen,[753] for > instance--who say the following: > > “The Christian religion is ... _evidently_ credible, but not > _evidently true_. It is evidently credible; for it is evident that > whoever embraces it is prudent. _It is not evidently true_; for it > either teaches obscurely, or the things which it teaches are obscure. > And they who affirm that the Christian religion is evidently true, > are obliged to confess that it is evidently false.” > > “Infer from hence-- > > “1. That it is _not_ evident that there is now any true religion in > the world. > > “2. That it is _not_ evident that of all religions existing upon > the earth, the Christian religion is the most true; for have you > travelled over all countries of the world, or do you know that others > have?... > > * * * * * > > “4. That it is _not_ evident that the predictions of the prophets > were given by inspiration of God; for what refutation will you bring > against me, if I deny that they were true prophecies, or assert that > they were only conjectures? > > “5. That it is _not_ evident that the miracles were real, which > are recorded to have been wrought by Christ; although no one can > prudently deny them (Position 6). > > “Neither is an avowed belief in Jesus Christ, in the Trinity, in all > the articles of Faith, and in the Decalogue, necessary to Christians. > The only explicit belief which was necessary to the former (Jews) > and is necessary to the latter (Christians) is 1, of God; 2, of a > rewarding God” (Position 8). > > Hence, it is also more than “evident” that there are moments in the > life of the greatest liar when he may utter some truths. It is in > this case so perfectly exemplified by the “good Fathers,” that we can > see more clearly than ever whence proceeded the solemn condemnations > at the Œcumenical Council of 1870, of certain “heresies,” and the > enforcement of other articles of faith in which none believed less > than those who inspired the Pope to issue them. History has yet > perhaps to learn that the octogenarian Pope, intoxicated with the > fumes of his newly-enforced infallibility, was but the faithful echo > of the Jesuits. “An old man is raised trembling upon the _pavois_ > of the Vatican;” says Michelet, “every thing becomes absorbed and > confined in him.... For fifteen centuries Christendom had submitted > to the spiritual yoke of the Church.... But that yoke was not > sufficient for them; they wanted the whole world to bend under the > hand of one master. Here my own words are too weak; I shall borrow > those of others. They (the Jesuits) wanted (this is the accusation > flung in their faces by the Bishop of Paris in the full Council of > Trent) _faire de l’épouse de Jesus Christ une prostituée aux volontés > d’un homme_.”[754] > > They have succeeded. The Church is henceforth an inert tool, and > the Pope a poor weak instrument in the hands of this Order. But for > how long? Until the end comes, well may sincere Christians remember > the prophetic lamentations of the thrice-great Trismegistus over > his own country: “Alas, alas, my son, a day will come when the > sacred hieroglyphics will become but idols. _The world will mistake > the emblems of science for gods_, and accuse grand Egypt of having > worshipped hell-monsters. But those who will calumniate us thus, will > themselves worship Death instead of Life, folly in place of wisdom; > they will denounce love and fecundity, fill their temples with dead > men’s bones, as relics, and waste their youth in solitude and tears. > Their _virgins will be widows (nuns) before being wives_, and consume > themselves in grief; because men will have despised and profaned the > sacred mysteries of Isis.”[755] > > How correct this prophecy has proved we find in the following Jesuit > precept, which again we extract from the Report of the Commissioners > to the Parliament of Paris: > > “The more true opinion is, _that all inanimate and irrational things > may be legitimately worshipped_,” says Father Gabriel Vasquez, > treating of Idolatry. “If the doctrine which we have established > be rightly understood, not only may a painted image and every holy > thing, set forth by public authority for the worship of God, be > properly adored with God as the image of Himself, but also any other > thing of this world, whether it be inanimate and irrational, or in > its nature rational.”[756] > > “Why may we not adore and worship with God, apart from danger, > anything whatsoever of this world; for God is in it according to > His essence ... [This is precisely what the Pantheist and Hindu > philosophy maintains.] and preserves it continually by His power; > and when we bow down ourselves before it and impress it with a kiss, > we present ourselves before God, the author of it, with the whole > soul, as unto the prototype of the image [follow instances of relics, > etc.].... To this we may add that, since everything of this world is > the work of God, and God is always abiding and working in it, we may > more readily conceive Him to be in it than a saint in the vesture > which belonged to him. And, therefore, _without regarding in any way > the dignity of the thing created, to direct our thoughts to God, > while we give to the creature the sign and mark of submission by a > kiss or prostration, is neither vain nor superstitious, but an act of > the purest religion_.”[757] > > A precept this, which, whether or not doing honor to the Christian > Church, may at least be profitably quoted by any Hindu, Japanese, or > other heathen when rebuked for his worship of idols. We purposely > quote it for the benefit of our respected “heathen” friends who will > see these lines. > > The prophecy of Hermes is less equivocal than either of the alleged > prophecies of Isaiah, which have furnished a pretext for saying that > the gods of all the nations were demons. Only, facts are stronger, > sometimes, than the strongest faith. All that the Jews learned, they > had from older nations than themselves. The Chaldean Magi were their > masters in the secret doctrine, and it was during the Babylonian > captivity that they learned its metaphysical as well as practical > tenets. Pliny mentions three schools of Magi: one that he shows to > have been founded at an unknown antiquity; the other established > by Osthanes and Zoroaster; the third by Moses and Jambres. And all > the knowledge possessed by these different schools, whether Magian, > Egyptian, or Jewish, was derived from India, or rather from both > sides of the Himalayas. Many a lost secret lies buried under wastes > of sand, in the Gobi Desert of Eastern Turkestan, and the wise men of > Khotan have preserved strange traditions and knowledge of alchemy. > > Baron Bunsen shows that the origin of the ancient prayers and hymns > of the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_ is _anterior_ to Menes, and > belongs, probably, to the pre-Menite Dynasty of Abydos, between 3100 > and 4500 B.C. The learned Egyptologist makes the era of Menes, or > National Empire, as not later than 3059 B.C., and demonstrates that > “the system of Osirian worship and mythology was already formed”[758] > before this era of Menes. > > We find in the hymns of this scientifically-established pre-Edenic > epoch (for Bunsen carries us back several centuries _beyond_ the > year of the creation of the world, 4004 B.C., as fixed by biblical > chronology) precise lessons of morality, identical in substance, and > nearly so in form of expression, with those preached by Jesus in > his Sermon on the Mount. We give the authority of the most eminent > Egyptologists and hierologists for our statement. “The inscriptions > of the twelfth Dynasty are filled with ritualistic formulæ,” says > Bunsen. Extracts from the Hermetic books are found on monuments > of the earliest dynasties, and “on those of the twelfth (dynasty) > portions of an _earlier_ ritual are by no means uncommon.... _To feed > the_ hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, bury the > _dead_ ... _formed the first duty of a pious man_.... The doctrine of > the immortality of the soul is as old as this period” (Tablet, _Brit. > Mus._, 562).[759] > > And far older, perhaps. It dates from the time when the soul was an > _objective_ being, hence when it could hardly be denied by _itself_; > when humanity was a spiritual race and death existed not. Toward the > decline of the cycle of life, the ethereal _man-spirit_ then fell > into the sweet slumber of temporary unconsciousness in one sphere, > only to find himself awakening in the still brighter light of a > higher one. But while the spiritual man is ever striving to ascend > higher and higher toward its source of being, passing through the > cycles and spheres of individual life, physical man had to descend > with the great cycle of universal creation until it found itself > clothed with the terrestrial garments. Thenceforth the soul was too > deeply buried under physical clothing to reässert its existence, > except in the cases of those more spiritual natures, which, with > every cycle, became more rare. And yet none of the pre-historical > nations ever thought of denying either the existence or the > immortality of the inner man, the real “self.” Only, we must bear > in mind the teachings of the old philosophies: the spirit alone is > immortal--the soul, _per se_, is neither eternal nor divine. When > linked too closely with the physical brain of its terrestrial casket, > it gradually becomes a _finite_ mind, a simple animal and sentient > life-principle, the _nephesh_ of the Hebrew _Bible_.[760] > > The doctrine of man’s _triune_ nature is as clearly defined in > the Hermetic books as it is in Plato’s system, or again in that > of the Buddhist and Brahmanical philosophies. And this is one of > the most important as well as least understood of the doctrines of > Hermetic science. The Egyptian Mysteries, so imperfectly known by > the world, and only through the few brief allusions to them in > the _Metamorphosis of Apuleius_, taught the greatest virtues. They > unveiled to the aspirant in the “higher” mysteries of initiation that > which many of our modern Hermetic students vainly search for in the > kabalistic books, and which no obscure teachings of the Church, under > the guidance of the Order of Jesuits, will ever be able to unveil. > To compare, then, the ancient secret societies of the hierophants > with the artificially-produced hallucinations of those few followers > of Loyola, who were, perchance, sincere at the beginning of their > career, is to insult the former. And yet, in justice to them, we are > compelled to do so. > > One of the most unconquerable obstacles to initiation, with the > Egyptians as with the Greeks, was any degree of murder. One of the > greatest titles to admission in the Order of Jesuits is a _murder_ > in defence of Jesuitism. “_Children may kill their parents if they > compel them to abandon the Catholic faith._” > > “Christian and Catholic sons,” says Stephen Fagundez, “may accuse > their fathers of the crime of heresy if they wish to turn them from > the faith, although they may know that their parents will be burned > with fire, and put to death for it, as Tolet teaches.... And not > only may they refuse them food ... _but they may also justly kill > them_.”[761] > > It is well known that Nero, the Emperor, _had never dared_ seek > initiation into the Mysteries on account of the murder of Agrippina! > > Under Section XIV. of the _Principles of the Jesuits_, we find on > _Homicide_ the following Christian principles inculcated by Father > Henry Henriquez, in _Summæ Theologiæ Moralis_. Tomus 1, Venetiis, > 1600 (Ed. Coll. Sion): “If an adulterer, even though he should be an > ecclesiastic ... being attacked by the husband, kills his aggressor > ... _he is not considered irregular_: _non ridetur irregularis_ (Lib. > XIV., _de Irregularitatæ_, c. 10, § 3). > > “If a father were obnoxious to the State (being in banishment), and > to the society at large, and there were no other means of averting > such an injury, then I should approve of this” (for a son to kill his > father), says Sec. XV., _on Parricide and Homicide_.[762] > > “It will be lawful for an ecclesiastic, or one of the religious > order, _to kill a calumniator_ who threatens to spread atrocious > accusations against himself or his religion,”[763] is the rule set > forth by the Jesuit Francis Amicus. > > So far, good. We are informed by the highest authorities what a man > in the Catholic communion may do that the common law and public > morality stamp as criminal, and still continue in the odor of > Jesuitical sanctity. Now suppose we again turn the medal and see what > principles were inculcated by Pagan Egyptian moralists before the > world was blessed with these modern improvements in ethics. > > In Egypt every city of importance was separated from its burial place > by a sacred lake. The same ceremony of judgment which the _Book of > the Dead_ describes as taking place in the world of Spirit, took > place on earth during the burial of the mummy. Forty-two judges or > assessors assembled on the shore and judged the departed “soul” > according to its actions when in the body, and it was only upon a > unanimous approval of this _post-mortem_ jury that the boatman, who > represented the Spirit of Death, could convey the justified defunct’s > body to its last resting-place. After that the priests returned > within the sacred precincts and instructed the neophytes upon the > probable solemn drama which was then taking place in the invisible > realm whither the soul had fled. The immortality of the spirit was > strongly inculcated by the Al-om-jah.[764] In the _Crata Nepoa_[765] > the following is described as the _seven_ degrees of the initiation. > > After a preliminary trial at Thebes, where the neophyte had to pass > through many trials, called the “Twelve Tortures,” he was commanded > to govern his passions and never lose for a moment the idea of his > God. Then as a symbol of the wanderings of the unpurified soul, > he had to ascend several ladders and wander in darkness in a cave > with many doors, all of which were locked. When he had overcome > the dreadful trials, he received the degree of _Pastophoris_, the > second and third degrees being called the _Neocoris_, and the > _Melanephoris_. Brought into a vast subterranean chamber thickly > furnished with mummies lying in state, he was placed in presence > of the coffin which contained the mutilated body of Osiris covered > with blood. This was the hall called “Gates of Death,” and it is > most certainly to this mystery that the passages in the _Book of > Job_ (xxxviii. 17) and other portions of the _Bible_ allude when > these gates are spoken of.[766] In chapter x., we give the esoteric > interpretation of the “Book of Job,” which is the poem of initiation > _par excellence_. > > “Have the gates of death been opened to thee? > Hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” > > asks the “Lord”--_i.e._, the Al-om-jah, the Initiator--of Job, > alluding to this third degree of initiation. > > When the neophyte had conquered the terrors of this trial, he was > conducted to the “Hall of Spirits,” to be judged by them. Among > the rules in which he was instructed, he was commanded “_never to > either desire or seek revenge; to be always ready to help a brother > in danger, even unto the risk of his own life; to bury every dead > body; to honor his parents above all_; respect old age and protect > those weaker than himself; and finally, to ever bear in mind the > hour of death, and that of resurrection, in a new and imperishable > body.”[767] Purity and chastity were highly recommended, and > _adultery threatened with death_. > > Then the Egyptian neophyte was made a _Kristophores_. In this degree > the mystery-name of IAO was communicated to him. The fifth degree > was that of _Balahala_, and he was instructed by Horus, in alchemy, > the “word” being _chemia_. In the sixth, the priestly dance in the > circle was taught him, in which he was instructed in astronomy, for > it represented the course of the planets. In the seventh degree, he > was initiated into the final Mysteries. After a final probation in a > building set apart for it, the _Astronomus_, as he was now called, > emerged from these sacred apartments called _Manneras_, and received > a cross--the _Tau_, which, at death, had to be laid upon his breast. > He was a hierophant. > > We have read above the rules of these holy initiates of the > _Christian_ Society of Jesus. Compare them with those enforced upon > the Pagan postulant, and Christian (!) morality with that inculcated > in those mysteries of the Pagans upon which all the thunders of an > avenging Deity are invoked by the Church. Had the latter no mysteries > of its own? Or were they in any wise purer, nobler, or more inciting > to a holy, virtuous life? Let us hear what Niccolini has to say, in > his able _History of the Jesuits_, of the _modern_ mysteries of the > Christian cloister.[768] > > “In most monasteries, and more particularly in those of the Capuchins > and reformed (reformati), there begins at Christmas a series of > feasts, which continues till Lent. All sorts of games are played, > the most splendid banquets are given, and in the small towns, above > all, the refectory of the convent is the best place of amusement for > the greater number of the inhabitants. At carnivals, two or three > very magnificent entertainments take place; the board so profusely > spread that one might imagine that Copia had here poured forth > the whole contents of her horn. It must be remembered that these > two orders live by alms.[769] The sombre silence of the cloister > is replaced by a confused sound of merrymaking, and its gloomy > vaults now echo with other songs than those of the psalmist. A ball > enlivens and terminates the feast; and, to render it still more > animated, and perhaps to show _how completely their vow of chastity > has eradicated all their carnal appetite_, some of the young monks > appear coquettishly dressed in the garb of the fair sex, and begin > the dance, along with others, transformed into gay cavaliers. _To > describe the scandalous scene which ensues would be but to disgust my > readers._ I will only say that I have myself often been a spectator > at such saturnalia.” > > The cycle is moving down, and, as it descends, the physical and > bestial nature of man develops more and more at the expense of the > Spiritual Self.[770] With what disgust may we not turn from this > religious farce called modern Christianity, to the noble faiths of > old! > > In the Egyptian _Funeral Ritual_ found among the hymns of the > _Book of the Dead_, and which is termed by Bunsen “that precious > and mysterious book,” we read an address of the deceased, in the > character of Horus, detailing all that he has done for his father > Osiris. Among other things the deity says: > > “30. I have given thee thy _Spirit_. > 31. I have given thee thy _Soul_. > 32. I have given thee thy force (body),” etc. > > In another place the entity, addressed as “Father” by the disembodied > soul, is shown to mean the “spirit” of man; for the verse says: > “I have made my soul come and speak with _his Father_,” its > _Spirit_.[771] > > The Egyptians regarded their _Ritual_ as essentially a Divine > inspiration; in short, as modern Hindus do the _Vedas_, and modern > Jews their Mosaic books. Bunsen and Lepsius show that the term > _Hermetic_ means inspired; for it is Thoth, the Deity itself, that > speaks and reveals to his elect among men the will of God and the > arcana of divine things. Portions of them are expressly stated “to > have been written by the very finger of Thoth himself;” to have been > the work and composition of the great God.[772] “At a later period > their Hermetic character is still more distinctly recognized, and > on a coffin of the 26th Dynasty, Horus announces to the deceased > that Thoth himself has brought him the books of his divine words, or > Hermetic writings.”[773] > > Since we are aware that Moses was an Egyptian priest, or at least > that he was learned in all their _wisdom_, we need not be astonished > that he should write in _Deuteronomy_ (ix. 10), “And the _Lord_ > delivered unto me two tables of stones written with the finger of > GOD;” or to find in _Exodus_ xxxi., “And he (the Lord) gave unto > Moses ... two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the > finger of God.” > > In the Egyptian notions, as in those of all other faiths founded on > philosophy, man was not merely, as with the Christians, a union of > soul and body; he was a trinity when spirit was added to it. Besides, > that doctrine made him consist of _kha_--body; _khaba_--astral form, > or shadow; _ka_--animal soul or life-principle; _ba_--the higher > soul; and _akh_--terrestrial intelligence. They had also a sixth > principle named _Sah_--or mummy; but the functions of this one > commenced only after the death of the body. After due purification, > during which the soul, separated from its body, continued to revisit > the latter in its mummified condition, this astral soul “became > a God,” for it was finally absorbed into “the Soul of the world.” > It became transformed into one of the creative deities, “the god > of Phtah,”[774] the Demiurgos, a generic name for the creators of > the world, rendered in the _Bible_ as the Elohim. In the _Ritual_ > the good or purified _soul_, “in conjunction with its higher or > _uncreated_ spirit, is more or less the victim of the dark influence > of the dragon Apophis. If it has attained the final knowledge of the > heavenly and the infernal mysteries--the _gnosis_, _i.e._, complete > reünion with the spirit, it will triumph over its enemies; if not > the soul could not escape its _second death_. It is ‘the lake that > burneth with fire and brimstone’ (elements), into which those that > are cast undergo a ‘second death’”[775] (_Apocalypse_). This death is > the gradual dissolution of the astral form into its primal elements, > alluded to several times already in the course of this work. But > this awful fate can be avoided by the knowledge of the “Mysterious > Name”--the “Word,”[776] say the kabalists. > > And what then was the penalty attached to the neglect of it? When a > man leads a naturally pure, virtuous life, there is none whatever; > except a delay in the world of spirits, until he finds himself > sufficiently purified to receive it from his Spiritual “Lord,” one > of the mighty Host. But if otherwise, the “soul,” as a half animal > principle, becomes paralyzed, and grows unconscious of its subjective > half--the Lord--and in proportion to the sensuous development of > the brain and nerves, sooner or later, it finally loses sight of > its divine mission on earth. Like the _Vourdalak_, or Vampire, of > the Servian tale, the brain feeds and lives and grows in strength > and power at the expense of its spiritual parent. Then the already > half-unconscious soul, now fully intoxicated by the fumes of earthly > life, becomes senseless, beyond hope of redemption. It is powerless > to discern the splendor of its higher spirit, to hear the warning > voice of its “guardian Angel,” and its “God.” It aims but at the > development and fuller comprehension of natural, earthly life; and > thus, can discover but the mysteries of physical nature. Its grief > and fear, hope and joy, are all closely blended with its terrestrial > existence. It ignores all that cannot be demonstrated by either its > organs of action, or sensation. It begins by becoming virtually dead; > it dies at last completely. It is _annihilated_. Such a catastrophe > may often happen long years before the final separation of the > _life_-principle from the body. When death arrives, its iron and > clammy grasp finds work with _life_ as usual; but there is no more a > soul to liberate. The whole essence of the latter has been already > absorbed by the vital system of the physical man. Grim death frees > but a spiritual corpse; at best an idiot. Unable either to soar > higher or awaken from lethargy, it is soon dissolved in the elements > of the terrestrial atmosphere. > > Seers, righteous men, who had attained to the highest science of the > inner man and the knowledge of truth, have, like Marcus Antoninus, > received instructions “from the gods,” in sleep and otherwise. > Helped by the purer spirits, those that dwell in “regions of eternal > bliss,” they have watched the process and warned mankind repeatedly. > Skepticism may sneer; _faith_, based on _knowledge_ and spiritual > science, believes and affirms. > > Our present cycle is preëminently one of such soul-deaths. We elbow > soulless men and women at every step in life. Neither can we wonder, > in the present state of things, at the gigantic failure of Hegel’s > and Schelling’s last efforts at some metaphysical construction of > a system. When facts, palpable and tangible facts of phenomenal > Spiritualism happen daily and hourly, and yet are denied by the > majority of “civilized” nations, little chance is there for the > acceptance of purely abstract metaphysics by the ever-growing crowd > of materialists. > > In the book called by Champollion _Le Manifestation à la Lumière_, > there is a chapter on the _Ritual_ which is full of mysterious > dialogues, with addresses to various “Powers” by the soul. Among > these dialogues there is one which is more than expressive of the > potentiality of the “Word.” The scene is laid in the “Hall of the Two > Truths.” The “Door,” the “Hall of Truth,” and even the various parts > of the gate, address the soul which presents itself for admission. > They all forbid it entrance unless it tells them their mystery, > or mystic names. What student of the Secret Doctrines can fail to > recognize in these names an identity of meaning and purpose with > those to be met with in the _Vedas_, the later works of the Brahmans, > and the _Kabala_? > > Magicians, Kabalists, Mystics, Neo-platonists and Theurgists of > Alexandria, who so surpassed the Christians in their achievements > in the secret science; Brahmans or Samaneans (Shamans) of old; and > modern Brahmans, Buddhists, and Lamaists, have all claimed that a > certain power attaches to these various names, pertaining to one > ineffable Word. We have shown from personal experience how deeply > the belief is rooted to this day in the popular mind all over > Russia,[777] that the Word works “miracles” and is at the bottom of > every magical feat. Kabalists mysteriously connect _Faith_ with it. > So did the apostles, basing their assertions on the words of Jesus, > who is made to say: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed > ... nothing shall be impossible unto you,” and Paul, repeating the > words of Moses, tells that “the WORD is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, > and in thy heart; that is, the _word of faith_” (_Romans_ x. 8). > But who, except the initiates, can boast of comprehending its full > significance? > > In our days it is as it was in olden times, to believe in the > biblical “miracles” requires _faith_; but to be enabled to produce > them one’s self demands a knowledge of the esoteric meaning of the > “word.” “If Christ,” say Dr. Farrar and Canon Westcott, “wrought no > miracles, then the _gospels_ are untrustworthy.” But even supposing > that he did work them, would that prove that gospels written by > others than himself are any more trustworthy? And if not, to what > purpose is the argument? Besides, such a line of reasoning would > warrant the analogy that miracles performed by other religionists > than Christians ought to make _their_ gospels trustworthy. Does not > this imply at least an equality between the Christian Scriptures and > the Buddhist sacred books? For these equally abound with phenomena > of the most astounding character. Moreover, the Christians have > no longer _genuine_ miracles produced through their priests, for > they have _lost the Word_. But many a Buddhist Lama or Siamese > Talapoin--unless all travellers have conspired to lie--has been and > now is able to duplicate every phenomenon described in the _New > Testament_, and even do more, without any pretence of suspension of > natural law or divine intervention either. In fact, Christianity > proves that it is as dead in faith as it is dead in works, while > Buddhism is full of vitality and supported by practical proofs. > > The best argument in favor of the genuineness of Buddhist “miracles” > lies in the fact that Catholic missionaries, instead of denying them > or treating them as simple jugglery--as some Protestant missionaries > do have often found themselves in such straits as to be forced to > adopt the forlorn alternative of laying the whole on the back of > the Devil. And so belittled do the Jesuits feel themselves in the > presence of these genuine servants of God, that with an unparalleled > cunning, they concluded to act in the case of the Talapoins and > Buddhists as Mahomet is said to have acted with the mountain. “And > seeing that it would not move toward him, the Prophet moved himself > toward the mountain.” Finding that they could not catch the Siamese > with the birdlime of their pernicious doctrines in Christian garb, > they disguised themselves, and for centuries appeared among the poor, > ignorant people as Talapoins, until exposed. They have even voted and > adopted a resolution forthwith, which has now all the force of an > ancient article of faith. “Naaman, the Syrian,” say the Jesuits of > Caen, “did not dissemble his faith when he bowed the knee with the > king in the house of Rimmon; _neither do the Fathers of the Society > of Jesus dissemble, when they adopt the institute and the habit of > the Talapoins of Siam_” (nec dissimulant Patres S. J. Talapoinorum > Siamensium institutum vestemque affectantes.--_Position_ 9, 30 Jan., > 1693). > > The potency contained in the _Mantras_ and the _Vâch_ of the Brahmans > is as much believed in at this day as it was in the early Vedic > period. The “Ineffable Name” of every country and religion relates > to that which the Masons affirm to be the mysterious characters > emblematic of the nine names or attributes by which the Deity was > known to the initiates. The Omnific Word traced by Enoch on the two > deltas of purest gold, on which he engraved two of the mysterious > characters, is perhaps better known to the poor, uneducated “heathen” > than to the highly accomplished Grand High Priests and Grand Z.’s of > the Supreme Chapters of Europe and America. Only why the companions > of the Royal Arch should so bitterly and constantly lament its loss, > is more than we can understand. This word of M. M. is, as they will > tell themselves, entirely composed of consonants. Hence, we doubt > whether any of them could ever have mastered its pronunciation, had > it even been “brought to light from the secret vault,” instead of its > several corruptions. However, it is to the land of Mizraim that the > grandson of Ham is credited with having carried the sacred delta of > the Patriarch Enoch. Therefore, it is in Egypt, and in the East alone > that the mysterious “Word” must be sought. > > But now that so many of the most important secrets of Masonry have > been divulged by friend and foe, may we not say, without suspicion > of malice or ill-feeling, that since the sad catastrophe of the > Templars, no “Lodge” in Europe, still less in America, has ever known > anything worth concealing. Reluctant to be misunderstood, we say _no_ > Lodge, leaving a few _chosen_ brethren entirely out of question. The > frantic denunciations of the Craft by Catholic and Protestant writers > appear simply ridiculous, as also the affirmation of the Abbé Barruel > that everything “betrays our Freemasons as the descendants of those > proscribed Knights” Templars of 1314. The _Memoirs of Jacobinism_ by > this Abbé, an eye-witness to the horrors of the first Revolution, > is devoted in great measure to the Rosicrucians and other Masonic > fraternities. The fact alone that he traces the modern Masons to > the Templars, and points them out as secret assassins, trained to > political murder, shows how little he knew of them, but how ardently > he desired, at the same time, to find in these societies convenient > scape-goats for the crimes and sins of another secret society which, > since its existence, has harbored more than one dangerous political > assassin--the Society of Jesus. > > The accusations against Masons have been mostly half guess-work, > half-unquenchable malice and predetermined vilification. Nothing > conclusive and certain of a criminal character has been directly > proven against them. Even their abduction of Morgan has remained a > matter of conjecture. The case was used at the time as a political > convenience by huckstering politicians. When an unrecognizable corpse > was found in Niagara River, one of the chiefs of this unscrupulous > class, being informed that the identity was exceedingly questionable, > unguardedly exposed the whole plot by saying: “Well, no matter, _he’s > a good enough Morgan until after the election_!” On the other hand, > we find the Order of the Jesuits not only permitting, in certain > cases, but actually _teaching and inciting to “High treason and > Regicide.”_[778] > > A series of _Lectures_ upon Freemasonry and its dangers, as delivered > in 1862, by James Burton Robertson, Professor of Modern History in > the Dublin University, are lying before us. In them the lecturer > quotes profusely as his authorities the said Abbé (Barruel, a natural > enemy of the Masons, _who cannot be caught at the confessional_), > and Robison, a well-known apostate-Mason of 1798. As usual with > every party, whether belonging to the Masonic or anti-Masonic side, > the traitor from the opposing camp is welcomed with praise and > encouragement, and great care is taken to whitewash him. However > convenient for certain political reasons the celebrated Committee > of the Anti-Masonic Convention of 1830 (U. S. of America) may have > found it to adopt this most Jesuitical proposition of Puffendorf that > “oaths oblige not when they are absurd and impertinent,” and that > other which teaches that “an oath obliges not if God does not accept > it,”[779] yet no truly honest man would accept such sophistry. We > sincerely believe that the better portion of humanity will ever bear > in mind that there exists a moral code of honor far more binding than > an oath, whether on the _Bible_, _Koran_, or _Veda_. The Essenes > never swore on anything at all, but their “ayes” and “nays” were as > good and far better than an oath. Besides, it seems surpassingly > strange to find nations that call themselves Christian instituting > customs in civil and ecclesiastical courts diametrically opposed to > the command of their God,[780] who distinctly forbids any swearing at > all, “neither by heaven ... nor by the earth ... nor by the head.” > It seems to us that to maintain that “an oath obliges not if God does > not accept it,” besides being an absurdity--as no man living, whether > he be fallible or infallible, can learn anything of God’s secret > thoughts--is _anti-Christian_ in the full sense of the word.[781] The > argument is brought forward only because it is convenient and answers > the object. Oaths will never be binding till each man will fully > understand that humanity is the highest manifestation on earth of the > Unseen Supreme Deity, and each man an incarnation of his God; and > when the sense of _personal_ responsibility will be so developed in > him that he will consider forswearing the greatest possible insult to > himself, as well as to humanity. No oath is now binding, unless taken > by one who, without any oath at all, would solemnly keep his simple > promise of honor. Therefore, to bring forward as authorities such > men as Barruel or Robison is simply obtaining the public confidence > under false pretenses. It is not the “spirit of _Masonic malice_ > whose heart coins slanders like a mint,” but far more that of the > Catholic clergy and their champions; and a man who would reconcile > the two ideas of honor and perjury, in any case whatever, is not to > be trusted himself. > > Loud is the claim of the nineteenth century to preëminence in > civilization over the ancients, and still more clamorous that of > the churches and their sycophants that Christianity has redeemed > the world from barbarism and idolatry. How little both are > warranted, we have tried to prove in these two volumes. The light > of Christianity has only served to show how much more hypocrisy and > vice its teachings have begotten in the world since its advent, and > how immensely superior were the ancients over us in every point of > honor.[782] The clergy, by teaching the helplessness of man, his > utter dependence on Providence, and the doctrine of atonement, have > crushed in their faithful followers every atom of self-reliance and > self-respect. So true is this, that it is becoming an axiom that the > most honorable men are to be found among atheists and the so-called > “infidels.” We hear from Hipparchus that in the days of _heathenism_ > “the shame and disgrace that justly attended the violation of his > oath threw the poor wretch into a fit of madness and despair, so > that he cut his throat and perished by his own hands, and his memory > was so abhorred after his death that his body lay upon the shore of > the island of Samos, and had no other burial than the sands of the > sea.”[783] But in our own century we find ninety-six delegates to > the United States Anti-Masonic Convention, every one doubtless a > member of some Protestant Church, and claiming the respect due to > men of honor and gentlemen, offering the most Jesuitical arguments > against the validity of a Masonic oath. The Committee, pretending > to quote the authority of “the most distinguished guides in the > philosophy of morals, and claiming the most ample support of _the > inspired_[784] ... who wrote before Freemasonry existed,” resolved > that, as an oath was “a transaction between man on one part and the > Almighty Judge on the other,” and the Masons were all infidels and > “unfit for civil trust,” therefore their oaths had to be considered > illegal and not binding.[785] > > But we will return to these _Lectures_ of Robertson and his charges > against Masonry. The greatest accusation brought against the latter > is that Masons reject a _personal_ God (this on the authority of > Barruel and Robison), and that they claim to be in possession of a > “secret to make men better and happier than Christ, his apostles and > his Church have made them.” Were the latter accusation but half true, > it might yet allow the consoling hope that they had really found > that secret by breaking off entirely from the mythical Christ of the > Church and the official Jehovah. But both the accusations are simply > as malicious as they are absurd and untrue; as we shall presently see. > > Let it not be imagined that we are influenced by personal feeling > in any of our reflections upon Masonry. So far from this being the > case we unhesitatingly proclaim our highest respect for the original > purposes of the Order and some of our most valued friends are within > its membership. We say naught against Masonry as it should be, but > denounce it as, thanks to the intriguing clergy, both Catholic and > Protestant, it now begins to be. Professedly the most absolute of > democracies, it is practically the appanage of aristocracy, wealth, > and personal ambition. Professedly the teacher of true ethics, it is > debased into a propaganda of anthropomorphic theology. The half-naked > apprentice, brought before the master during the initiation of the > first degree, is taught that at the door of the lodge every social > distinction is laid aside, and the poorest brother is the peer of > every other, though a reigning sovereign or an imperial prince. In > practice, the Craft turns lickspittle in every monarchical country, > to any regal scion who may deign, for the sake of using it as a > political tool, to put on the once symbolical lambskin. > > How far gone is the Masonic Fraternity in this direction, we can > judge from the words of one of its highest authorities. John Yarker, > Junior, of England; Past Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Greece; > Grand Master of the Rite of Swedenborg; also Grand Master of the > Ancient and Primitive Rite of Masonry, and Heaven only knows what > else,[786] says that Masonry could lose nothing by “the adoption of > a higher (not pecuniary) standard of membership and morality, with > exclusion from the ‘purple’ of all who _inculcate frauds, sham, > historical degrees, and other immoral abuses_” (page 158). And again, > on page 157: “As the Masonic Fraternity is now governed, the Craft is > fast becoming the paradise of the _bon vivant_; of the ‘charitable’ > hypocrite, who forgets the version of St. Paul, and decorates his > breast with the ‘charity jewel’ (having by this judicious expenditure > obtained the ‘purple’ he metes out judgment to other brethren of > greater ability and morality but less means); the manufacturer > of paltry Masonic tinsel; the rascally merchant who swindles in > hundreds, and even thousands, by appealing to the tender consciences > of those few who do regard their O. B.’s; and the Masonic ‘Emperors’ > and other charlatans who make power or money out of the aristocratic > pretensions which they have tacked on to our institution--_ad > captandum vulgus_.” > > We have no wish to make a pretence of exposing secrets long since > hawked about the world by perjured Masons. Everything vital, whether > in symbolical representations, rites, or passwords, as used in modern > Freemasonry, is known in the Eastern fraternities; though there > seems to be no intercourse or connection between them. If Medea is > described by Ovid as having “arm, breast, and knee made bare, left > foot slipshod;” and Virgil, speaking of Dido, shows this “Queen > herself ... now resolute on death, having one foot bare, etc.,”[787] > why doubt that there are in the East _real_ “Patriarchs of the > sacred Vedas,” explaining the esotericism of pure Hindu theology and > Brahmanism quite as thoroughly as European “Patriarchs?” > > But, if there are a few Masons who, from study of kabalistic > and other rare works, and coming in personal communication with > “Brothers” from the far-away East, have learned something of > _esoteric_ Masonry, it is not the case with the hundreds of > American Lodges. While engaged on this chapter, we have received > most unexpectedly, through the kindness of a friend, a copy of Mr. > Yarker’s volume, from which passages are quoted above. It is brimful > of learning and, what is more, of _knowledge_, as it seems to us. It > is especially valuable at this moment, since it corroborates, in many > particulars, what we have said in this work. Thus, we read in it the > following: > > “We think we have sufficiently established the fact of the connection > of Freemasonry with other speculative rites of antiquity, as well as > the antiquity and purity of the old English Templar-Rite of _seven > degrees_, and the spurious derivation of many of the other rites > therefrom.”[788] > > Such high Masons need not be told, though Craftsmen in general > do, that the time has come to remodel Masonry, and restore those > ancient landmarks, borrowed from the early sodalities, which the > eighteenth century founders of speculative Freemasonry meant to have > incorporated in the fraternity. There are no longer any secrets left > unpublished; the Order is degenerating into a convenience for selfish > men to use, and bad men to debase. > > It is but recently that a majority of the Supreme Councils of the > Ancient and Accepted Rite assembled at Lausanne, justly revolting > against such a blasphemous belief as that in a personal Deity, > invested with all human attributes, pronounced the following words: > “Freemasonry proclaims, as it has proclaimed from its origin, the > existence of a _creative principle_, under the name of the great > Architect of the universe.” Against this, a small minority has > protested, urging that “belief in a _creative principle_ is not _the > belief in God, which Freemasonry requires of every candidate_ before > he can pass its very threshold.” > > This confession does not sound like the rejection of a personal God. > Could we have had the slightest doubt upon the subject, it would > be thoroughly dispelled by the words of General Albert Pike,[789] > perhaps the greatest authority of the day, among American Masons, who > raises himself most violently against this innovation. We cannot do > better than quote his words: > > “This _Principe Createur_ is no new phrase--it is but an old term > revived. _Our adversaries, numerous and formidable_, will say, and > will have the right to say, that our _Principe Createur_ is identical > with the _Principe Generateur_ of the Indians and Egyptians, and > may fitly be symbolized as it was symbolized anciently, by the > Lingæ.... To accept this, in lieu of a personal God, is TO ABANDON > CHRISTIANITY, and _the worship of Jehovah_, and return to wallow in > the styes of Paganism.” > > And are those of _Jesuitism_, then, so much cleaner? “Our > adversaries, numerous and formidable.” That sentence says all. Who > these so formidable enemies are, is useless to inquire. They are the > Roman Catholics, and some of the Reformed Presbyterians. To read what > the two factions respectively write, we may well ask which adversary > is the more afraid of the other. But, what shall it profit any one > to organize against a fraternity that does not even dare to have > a belief of its own for fear of giving offense? And pray, how, if > Masonic oaths mean anything, and Masonic penalties are regarded as > more than burlesque, can any adversaries, numerous or few, feeble > or strong, know what goes on inside the lodge, or penetrate beyond > that “brother terrible, or the tiler, who guards, with a drawn sword, > the portals of the lodge?” Is, then, this “brother terrible” no more > formidable than Offenbach’s _General Boum_, with his smoking pistol, > jingling spurs, and towering _panache_? Of what use the millions > of men that make up this great fraternity, the world over, if they > cannot be so cemented together as to bid defiance to all adversaries? > Can it be that the “mystic tie” is but a rope of sand, and Masonry > but a toy to feed the vanity of a few leaders who rejoice in ribbons > and regalia? Is its authority as false as its antiquity? It seems so, > indeed; and yet, as “even the fleas have smaller fleas to bite ’em,” > there are Catholic alarmists, even here, who pretend to fear Masonry! > > And yet, these same Catholics, in all the serenity of their > traditional impudence, publicly threaten America, with its 500,000 > Masons, and 34,000,000 Protestants, with a union of Church and > State under the direction of Rome! The danger which threatens the > free institutions of this republic, we are told, will come from > “the principles of Protestantism logically developed.” The present > Secretary of the Navy--the Hon. R. W. Thompson, of Indiana, having > actually dared, in his own free Protestant country, to publish a book > recently on _Papacy and the Civil Power_, in which his language is as > moderate as it is gentlemanly and fair, a Roman Catholic priest, at > Washington, D. C.--the very seat of Government--denounces him with > violence. What is better, a representative member of the Society > of Jesus, Father F. X. Weninger, D.D., pours upon his devoted head > a vial of wrath that seems to have been brought direct from the > Vatican cellars. “The assertions,” he says, “which Mr. Thompson > makes on the necessary antagonism between the Catholic Church and > free institutions, are characterized by pitiful ignorance and blind > audacity. He is reckless of logic, of history, of common sense, > of charity; and presents himself before the loyal American people > as a narrow-minded bigot. No scholar would venture to repeat the > stale calumnies which have so often been refuted.... In answer to > his accusations against the Church as the enemy of liberty, I tell > him that, if ever this country should become a Catholic country, > that is, if Catholics should ever be in the majority, and _have the > control of political power_, then he would see the principles of our > Constitution carried out to the fullest extent; he would see that > these States would be in very deed _United_. He would behold a people > living in peace and harmony; joined in the bonds of one faith, their > hearts beating in unison with love of their fatherland, with charity > and forbearance toward all, and respecting the rights and consciences > even of their slanderers.” > > In behalf of this “Society of Jesus,” he advises Mr. Thompson to > send his book to the Czar, Alexander II., and to Frederick William, > Emperor of Germany. He may expect from them, as a token of their > sympathy, the orders of St. Andrew and of the Black Eagle. “From > clear-minded, self-thinking, patriotic Americans, he cannot expect > anything but the _decoration_ of their contempt. As long as American > hearts _will_ beat in American bosoms, and the blood of their fathers > _shall_ flow in their veins, such efforts as Thompson’s _shall_ not > succeed. True, genuine Americans will protect the Catholic Church in > this country and _will finally join it_.” After that, having thus, > as he seems to think, left the corpse of his impious antagonist > upon the field, he marches off emptying the dregs of his exhausted > bottle after the following fashion: “We leave the volume, whose > argument we have killed, as a carcass to be devoured by those Texan > buzzards--those stinking birds--we mean that kind of men who love to > feed on corruption, calumnies, and lies, and are attracted by the > stench of them.” > > This last sentence is worthy to be added as an appendix to the > _Discorsi del Somma Pontifice Pio IX._, by Don Pasquale di > Franciscis, immortalized in the contempt of Mr. Gladstone.--_Tel > maître tel Valet!_ > > Moral: This will teach fair-minded, sober, and gentlemanly writers > that even so well-bred an antagonist as Mr. Thompson has shown > himself in his book, cannot hope to escape the only available weapon > in the Catholic armory--Billingsgate. The whole argument of the > author shows that while forcible, he intends to be fair; but he > might as well have attacked with a Tertullianistic violence, for his > treatment would not have been worse. It will doubtless afford him > some consolation to be placed in the same category with schismatic > and infidel emperors and kings. > > While Americans, including Masons, are now warned to prepare > themselves to join the Holy Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church, > we are glad to know that there are some as loyal and respected as > any in Masonry who support our views. Conspicuous among them is our > venerable friend, Mr. Leon Hyneman, P. M., and a member of the Grand > Lodge of Pennsylvania. For eight or nine years he was editor of > the _Masonic Mirror and Keystone_, and is an author of repute. He > assures us personally that for over thirty years he has combated the > design to erect into a Masonic dogma, belief in a _personal_ God. In > his work, _Ancient York and London Grand Lodges_, he says (p. 169): > “Masonry, instead of unfolding professionally with the intellectual > advancement of scientific knowledge and general intelligence, has > departed from the original aims of the fraternity, and is apparently > inclining towards a sectarian society. That is plainly to be seen > ... in the persistent determination not to expunge the sectarian > innovations interpolated in the Ritual.... It would appear that the > Masonic fraternity of this country are as indifferent to ancient > landmarks and usages of Masonry, as the Masons of the past century, > under the London Grand Lodge were.” It was this conviction which > prompted him, in 1856, when Jacques Etienne Marconis de Nègre, Grand > Hierophant of the Rite of Memphis, came to America and tendered > him the Grand Mastership of the Rite in the United States, and the > Ancient and Accepted Rite offered him an Honorary 33d--to refuse both. > > The Temple was the last European secret organization which, as a > body, had in its possession some of the mysteries of the East. True, > there were in the past century (and perhaps still are) isolated > “Brothers” faithfully and secretly working under the direction of > Eastern Brotherhoods. But these, when they did belong to European > societies, invariably joined them for objects unknown to the > Fraternity, though at the same time for the benefit of the latter. It > is through them that modern Masons have all they know of importance; > and the similarity now found between the Speculative Rites of > antiquity, the mysteries of the Essenes, Gnostics, and the Hindus, > and the highest and oldest of the Masonic degrees well prove the > fact. If these mysterious brothers became possessed of the secrets of > the societies, they could never reciprocate the confidence, though in > their hands these secrets were safer, perhaps, than in the keeping > of European Masons. When certain of the latter were found worthy of > becoming affiliates of the Orient, they were secretly instructed and > initiated, but the others were none the wiser for that. > > No one could ever lay hands on the Rosicrucians, and notwithstanding > the alleged discoveries of “secret chambers,” _vellums_ called > “T,” and of fossil knights with ever-burning lamps, this ancient > association and its true aims are to this day a mystery. Pretended > Templars and sham Rose-Croix, with a few genuine kabalists, were > occasionally burned, and some unlucky Theosophists and alchemists > sought and put to the torture; delusive confessions even were wrung > from them by the most ferocious means, but yet, the true Society > remains to-day as it has ever been, unknown to all, especially to its > cruelest enemy--the Church. > > As to the modern Knights Templar and those Masonic Lodges which now > claim a direct descent from the ancient Templars, their persecution > by the Church was a farce from the beginning. They have not, nor > have they ever had any secrets, dangerous to the Church. Quite the > contrary; for we find J. G. Findel saying that the Scottish degrees, > or the Templar system, only dates from 1735-1740, and “_following its > Catholic tendency, took up its chief residence in the Jesuit College > of Clermont, in Paris_, and hence was called the Clermont system.” > The present Swedish system has also something of the Templar element > in it, but free from Jesuits and interference with politics; however, > it asserts that it has Molay’s Testament in the original, for a > Count Beaujeu, a nephew of Molay, _never heard of elsewhere_--says > Findel--transplanted Templarism into Freemasonry, and thus procured > for his uncle’s ashes a mysterious sepulchre. It is sufficient to > prove this a Masonic fable that on this pretended monument the day > of Molay’s funeral is represented as March 11, 1313, while the day > of his death was March 19, 1313. This spurious production, which is > neither genuine Templarism, nor genuine Freemasonry, has never taken > firm root in Germany. But the case is otherwise in France. > > Writing upon this subject, we must hear what Wilcke has to say of > these pretensions: > > “The present Knight Templars of Paris will have it, that they are > direct descendants from the ancient Knights, and endeavor to prove > this by documents, interior regulations, and secret doctrines. > Foraisse says the Fraternity of Freemasons was founded in Egypt, > Moses communicating the secret teaching to the Israelites, Jesus to > the Apostles, and thence it found its way to the Knight Templars. > Such inventions are necessary ... to the assertion that the > Parisian Templars are the offspring of the ancient order. All these > asseverations, unsupported by history, were fabricated _in the > High Chapter of Clermont_ (Jesuits), and preserved by the Parisian > Templars as a legacy left them by those political revolutionists, the > Stuarts and the Jesuits.” Hence we find the Bishops Gregoire[790] and > Münter[791] supporting them. > > Connecting the modern with the ancient Templars, we can at best, > therefore, allow them an adoption of certain rites and ceremonies > of purely _ecclesiastical_ character after they had been cunningly > inoculated into that grand and antique Order by the clergy. Since > this desecration, it gradually lost its primitive and simple > character, and went fast to its final ruin. Founded in 1118 by the > Knights Hugh de Payens and Geoffrey de St. Omer, nominally for the > protection of the pilgrims, its true aim was the restoration of the > primitive secret worship. The true version of the history of Jesus, > and the early Christianity was imparted to Hugh de Payens, by the > Grand-Pontiff of the Order of the Temple (of the Nazarene or Johanite > sect), one named Theocletes, after which it was learned by some > Knights in Palestine, from the higher and more intellectual members > of the St. John sect, who were initiated into its mysteries.[792] > Freedom of intellectual thought and the restoration of one and > universal religion was their secret object. Sworn to the vow of > obedience, poverty, and chastity, they were at first the true Knights > of John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness and living on wild > honey and locusts. Such is the tradition and the true kabalistic > version. > > It is a mistake to state that the Order became only later > anti-Catholic. It was so from the beginning, and the red cross on the > white mantle, the vestment of the Order, had the same significance > as with the initiates in every other country. It pointed to the four > quarters of the compass, and was the emblem of the universe.[793] > When, later, the Brotherhood was transformed into a Lodge, the > Templars had, in order to avoid persecution, to perform their own > ceremonies in the greatest secresy, generally in the hall of the > chapter, more frequently in isolated caves or country houses built > amidst woods, while the ecclesiastical form of worship was carried on > publicly in the chapels belonging to the Order. > > Though of the accusations brought against them by order of Philip > IV., many were infamously false, the main charges were certainly > correct, from the stand-point of what is considered by the Church, > _heresy_. The present-day Templars, adhering strictly as they do to > the _Bible_, can hardly claim descent from those who did not believe > in Christ, as God-man, or as the Saviour of the world; who rejected > the miracle of his birth, and those performed by himself; who did not > believe in transubstantiation, the saints, holy relics, purgatory, > etc. The Christ Jesus was, in their opinion, a false prophet, but > the man Jesus a Brother. They regarded John the Baptist as their > patron, but never viewed him in the light in which he is presented in > the _Bible_. They reverenced the doctrines of alchemy, astrology, > magic, kabalistic talismans, and adhered to the secret teachings of > their chiefs in the East. “In the last century,” says Findel, “when > Freemasonry erroneously supposed herself the daughter of Templarism, > great pains were taken to regard the Order of Knights-Templars > as innocent.... For this purpose not only legends and unrecorded > events were fabricated, but pains were taken to repress the truth. > The Masonic admirers of the Knights-Templars bought up the whole of > the documents of the lawsuit published by Moldenwaher, because they > proved the culpability of the Order.”[794] > > This culpability consisted in their “heresy” against the Roman > Catholic Church. While the real “Brothers” died an ignominious death, > the spurious Order which tried to step into their shoes became > exclusively a branch of the Jesuits under the immediate tutelage of > the latter. True-hearted, honest Masons, ought to reject with horror > any connection, let alone descent from these. > > “The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem,” writes Commander > Gourdin,[795] “sometimes called the Knights Hospitallers, and the > Knights of Malta, were not Freemasons. On the contrary, they seem > to have been inimical to Freemasonry, for in 1740, the Grand Master > of the Order of Malta caused the Bull of Pope Clement XII. to be > published in that island, and forbade the meetings of the Freemasons. > On this occasion several Knights and many citizens left the island; > and in 1741, the Inquisition persecuted the Freemasons at Malta. The > Grand Master proscribed their assemblies under severe penalties, and > six Knights were banished from the island in perpetuity for having > assisted at a meeting. In fact, unlike the Templars, they had not > even a secret form of reception. Reghellini says that he was unable > to procure a copy of the secret Ritual of the Knights of Malta. The > reason is obvious--there was none!” > > And yet American Templarism comprises three degrees. 1, Knight of > the Red Cross; 2, Knight Templar; and 3, Knight of Malta. It was > introduced from France into the United States, in 1808, and the first > _Grand Encampment General_ was organized on June 20, 1816, with > Governor De Witt Clinton, of New York, as Grand Master. > > This inheritance of the Jesuits should hardly be boasted of. If the > Knights Templar desire to make good their claims, they must choose > between a descent from the “heretical,” anti-Christian, kabalistic, > primitive Templars, or connect themselves with the Jesuits, > and nail their tesselated carpets directly on the platform of > ultra-Catholicism! Otherwise, their claims become a mere pretense. > > So impossible does it become for the originators of the _ecclesiastical_ > pseudo-order of Templars, invented, according to Dupuy, in France, by > the adherents of the Stuarts, to avoid being considered a branch of > the Order of the Jesuits, that we are not surprised to see an > anonymous author, rightly suspected of belonging to the Jesuit Chapter > at Clermont, publishing a work in 1751, in Brussels, on the lawsuit of > the Knights Templar. In this volume, in sundry mutilated notes, > additions, and commentaries, he represents the _innocence_ of the > Templars of the accusation of “heresy,” thus robbing them of the > greatest title to respect and admiration that these early > free-thinkers and martyrs have won! > > This last pseudo-order was constituted at Paris, on the 4th of > November, 1804, by virtue of a _forged Constitution_, and ever > since it has “contaminated genuine Freemasonry,” as the highest > Masons themselves tell us. _La Charte de transmission_ (tabula aurea > Larmenii) presents the outward appearance of such extreme antiquity > “that Gregoire confesses that if all the other relics of the Parisian > treasury of the Order had not silenced his doubts as to their ancient > descent, the sight of this charter would at the very first glance > have persuaded him.”[796] The first Grand Master of this spurious > Order was a physician of Paris, Dr. Fahre-Palaprat, who assumed the > name of Bernard Raymond. > > Count Ramsay, a Jesuit, was the first to start the idea of the > Templars being joined to the Knights of Malta. Therefore, we read > from his pen the following: > > “Our forefathers (!!!), the Crusaders, assembled in the Holy Land > from all Christendom, wished to unite in a fraternity embracing > all nations, that when bound together, heart and soul, for mutual > improvement, they might, in the course of time, represent one single > intellectual people.” > > This is why the Templars are made to join the St. John’s Knights, and > the latter got into the craft of Masonry known as St. John’s Masons. > > In the _Sceau Rompu_, in 1745, we find, therefore, the following most > impudent falsehood, worthy of the Sons of Loyola: “The lodges were > dedicated to St. John, because _the Knights_-Masons had in the holy > wars in Palestine joined the Knights of St. John.” > > In 1743, the Kadosh degree was invented at Lyons (so writes Thory, > at least), and “it represents the _revenge of the Templars_.” And > here we find Findel saying that “the Order of Knights Templars had > been abolished in 1311, and to that epoch they were obliged to have > recourse when, after the banishment of several Knights from Malta, > in 1740, because they were Freemasons, it was no longer possible to > keep up a connection with the Order of St. John, or Knights of Malta, > then in the plenitude of their power _under the sovereignty of the > Pope_.” > > Turning to Clavel, one of the best Masonic authorities, we read: > “It is clear that the erection of the French Order of the Knight > Templars is not more ancient than the year 1804, and that it cannot > lay any legitimate claim to being the continuation of the so-called > society of ‘la petite Resurrection des Templiers,’ nor this latter, > either, extend back to the ancient Order of the Knights Templars.” > Therefore, we see these pseudo-Templars, under the guidance of the > worthy Father Jesuits, forging in Paris, 1806, the famous charter of > Larmenius. Twenty years later, this nefast and subterranean body, > guiding the hand of assassins, directed it toward one of the best and > greatest princes in Europe, whose mysterious death, unfortunately for > the interests of truth and justice, has never been--for political > reasons--investigated and proclaimed to the world as it ought to > have been. It is this prince, a Freemason himself, who was the last > depository of the secrets of the true Knights Templar. For long > centuries these had remained unknown and unsuspected. Holding their > meetings once every _thirteen_ years, at Malta, and their Grand > Master advising the European brothers of the place of _rendezvous_ > but a few hours in advance, these representatives of the once > mightiest and most glorious body of Knights assembled on the fixed > day, from various points of the earth. _Thirteen_ in number, in > commemoration of the year of the death of Jacques Molay (1313), the > now Eastern brothers, among whom were crowned heads, planned together > the future religious and political fate of the nations; while the > Popish Knights, their murderous and bastard successors, slept soundly > in their beds, without a dream disturbing their guilty consciences. > > “And yet,” says Rebold, “notwithstanding the confusion they had > created (1736-72), the Jesuits had accomplished but one of their > designs, viz.: _denaturalyzing and bringing into disrepute the > Masonic Institution_. Having succeeded, as they believed, in > destroying it in one form, they were determined to use it in another. > With this determination, they arranged the systems styled ‘Clerkship > of the Templars,’ an amalgamation of the different histories, events, > and characteristics of the crusades mixed with the reveries of the > alchemists. _In this combination Catholicism governed all, and the > whole fabrication moved upon wheels, representing the great object > for which the Society of Jesus was organized._”[797] > > Hence, the rites and symbols of Masonry which though “Pagan” in > origin, are all applied to and all flavor of Christianity. A Mason > has to declare his belief in a _personal_ God, Jehovah, and in the > Encampment degrees also in Christ, before he can be accepted in > the Lodge, while the Johanite Templars believed in the unknown and > invisible Principle, whence proceeded the Creative Powers misnamed > _gods_, and held to the Nazarene version of Ben-Panther being the > sinful father of Jesus, who thus proclaimed himself “the son of god > and of humanity.”[798] This also accounts for the fearful oaths of > the Masons taken _on the Bible_, and for their lectures servilely > agreeing with the Patriarcho-Biblical Chronology. In the American > Order of Rose Croix, for instance, when the neophyte approaches > the altar, the “Sir Knights are called to order, and the captain > of the guard makes his proclamation.” “To the glory of the sublime > architect of the universe (Jehovah-Binah?), under the auspices of the > Sovereign Sanctuary of _Ancient_ and _Primitive_ Freemasonry,” etc., > etc. Then the Knight Orator strikes 1 and tells the neophyte that > the antique legends of Masonry date back FORTY centuries; claiming > no greater antiquity for the oldest of them than 622 A.M., at which > time he says Noah was born. Under the circumstances this will be > regarded as a liberal concession to chronological preferences. After > that Masons[799] are apprised that it was about the year 2188 B.C., > that Mizraim led colonies into Egypt, and laid the foundation of the > Kingdom of Egypt, which kingdom lasted 1,663 years (!!!). Strange > chronology, which, if it piously conforms with that of the _Bible_, > disagrees entirely with that of history. The mythical nine names of > the Deity, imported into Egypt, according to the Masons, only in the > twenty-second century B.C., are found on monuments reckoned twice as > old by the best Egyptologists. Nevertheless we must take at the same > time into consideration, that the Masons are themselves ignorant of > these names. > > The simple truth is that modern Masonry is a sadly different thing > from what the once universal secret fraternity was in the days when > the Brahma-worshippers of the AUM, exchanged grips and passwords with > the devotees of TUM, and the adepts of every country under the sun > were “Brothers.” > > What was then that mysterious name, that mighty “word” through whose > potency the Hindu as well as the Chaldean and Egyptian initiate > performed his wonders? In chapter cxv. of the Egyptian _Funeral > Ritual_, entitled “The chapter of coming out to the Heaven ... and > of knowing the Spirits of An” (Heliopolis), Horus says: “I knew the > Spirits of An. The greatly glorious does not pass over it ... unless > the gods give me the WORD.” In another hymn the soul, transformed, > exclaims: “Make road for me to Rusta. I am the Great One, dressed > as the Great One. I have come! I have come! Delicious to me are the > kings of Osiris. I am creating the water (through the power of the > _Word_).... Have I not seen the hidden secrets ... I have given truth > to the Sun. I am clear. I am adored for my purity” (cxvii.-cxix. The > chapters of the going into and coming out from the Rusta). In another > place the mummy’s roll expresses the following: “I am the Great God > (spirit) existing of myself, the creator of _His Name_.... I know the > name of this Great God that is there.” > > Jesus is accused by his enemies of having wrought miracles, and shown > by his own apostles to have expelled _demons_ by the power of the > INEFFABLE NAME. The former firmly believed that he had stolen it > in the Sanctuary. “And he cast the spirits with his _word_ ... and > healed all that were sick” (_Matthew_ xviii. 16). When the Jewish > rulers ask Peter (_Acts_ iv. 7): “By what power, or by what _name_, > have ye done this?” Peter replies, “By the NAME of Jesus Christ of > Nazareth.” But does this mean the name of Christ, as the interpreters > would make us believe; or does it signify, “by the NAME which was > in the possession of Jesus of Nazareth,” the initiate, who was > accused by the Jews to have learned it but who had it really through > initiation? Besides, he states repeatedly that all that he does he > does in “_His Father’s Name_,” not in his own. > > But who of the modern Masons has ever heard it pronounced? In their > own _Ritual_, they confess that they never have. The “Sir Orator” > tells the “Sir Knight,” that the passwords which he received in > the preceding degrees are all “so many corruptions” of the true > name of God engraved on the triangle; and that therefore they have > adopted a “substitute” for it. Such also is the case in the Blue > Lodge, where the Master, representing King Solomon, agrees with King > Hiram that the Word * * * “shall be used as a _substitute_ for the > Master’s word, until wiser ages shall discover the true one. What > Senior Deacon, of all the thousands who have assisted in bringing > candidates from darkness to light; or what Master who has whispered > this mystic “word” into the ears of supposititious Hiram Abiffs, > while holding them on the five points of fellowship, has suspected > the real meaning of even this substitute, which they impart “at low > breath?” How few new-made Master Masons but go away imagining that > it has some occult connection with the “marrow in the bone.” What > do they know of that mystical personage known to some adepts as the > “venerable MAH,” or of the mysterious Eastern Brothers who obey him, > whose name is abbreviated in the first syllable of the three which > compose the Masonic substitute--The MAH, who lives at this very day > in a spot unknown to all but initiates, and the approaches to which > are through trackless wildernesses, untrodden by Jesuit or missionary > foot, for it is beset by dangers fit to appall the most courageous > explorers? And yet, for generations this meaningless jingle of vowels > and consonants has been repeated in noviciate ears, as though it > possessed even so much potency as would deflect from its course a > thistle-down floating in the air! Like Christianity, Freemasonry is a > corpse from which the spirit long ago fled. > > In this connection, place may well be given to a letter from Mr. > Charles Sotheran, Corresponding Secretary of the New York Liberal > Club, which was received by us on the day after the date it bears. > Mr. Sotheran is known as a writer and lecturer on antiquarian, > mystical, and other subjects. In Masonry, he has taken so many of the > degrees as to be a competent authority as regards the Craft. He is 32 > ∴ A. and P. R., 94 ∴ Memphis, K. R✠, K. Kadosh, M. M. 104, Eng., etc. > He is also an initiate of the modern English Brotherhood of the Rosie > Cross and other secret societies, and Masonic editor of the _New York > Advocate_. Following is the letter, which we place before the Masons > as we desire that they should see what one of their own number has to > say: > > “NEW YORK PRESS CLUB, January 11th, 1877. > > “In response to your letter, I willingly furnish the > information desired with respect to the antiquity and > present condition of Freemasonry. This I do the more > cheerfully since we belong to the same secret societies, > and you can thus better appreciate the necessity for the > reserve which at times I shall be obliged to exhibit. You > rightly refer to the fact that Freemasonry, no less than > the effete theologies of the day, has its fabulous history > to narrate. Clogged up as the Order has been by the rubbish > and drift of absurd biblical legends, it is no wonder > that its usefulness has been impaired and its work as a > civilizer hampered. Fortunately the great anti-Masonic > excitement that raged in the United States during a portion > of this century, forced a considerable band of workers to > delve into the true origin of the Craft, and bring about > a healthier state of things. The agitation in America > also spread to Europe and the literary efforts of Masonic > authors on both sides of the Atlantic, such as Rebold, > Findel, Hyneman, Mitchell, Mackenzie, Hughan, Yarker and > others well-known to the fraternity, is now a matter of > history. One effect of their labors has been, in a great > measure, to bring the history of Masonry into an open > daylight, where even its teachings, jurisprudence, and > ritual are no longer secret from those of the ‘profane,’ > who have the wit to read as they run. > > “You are correct in saying that the _Bible_ is the ‘great > light’ of European and American Masonry. In consequence > of this the theistic conception of God and the biblical > cosmogony have been ever considered two of its great > corner-stones. Its chronology seems also to have been based > upon the same pseudo-revelation. Thus Dr. Dalcho, in one of > his treatises asserts that the principles of the Masonic > Order were presented at and coëval with the creation. It > is therefore not astonishing that such a pundit should > go on to state that God was the first Grand Master, Adam > the second, and the last named initiated Eve into the > Great Mystery, as I suppose many a Priestess of Cybelè > and ‘Lady’ Kadosh were afterward. The Rev. Dr. Oliver, > another Masonic authority, gravely records what may be > termed the minutes of a Lodge where Moses presided as Grand > Master, Joshua as Deputy Grand Master, and Aholiab and > Bezaleel as Grand Wardens! The temple at Jerusalem, which > recent archæologists have shown to be a structure with > nothing like the pretended antiquity of its erection, and > incorrectly called after a monarch whose name proves his > mystical character, Sol-Om-On (the name of the sun in three > languages), plays, as you correctly observe, a considerable > share in Masonic mystery. Such fables as these, and the > traditional Masonic colonization of ancient Egypt, have > given the Craft the credit of an illustrious origin to > which it has no right, and before whose forty centuries > of legendary history, the mythologies of Greece and Rome > fade into insignificance. The Egyptian, Chaldean, and other > theories necessary to each fabricator of ‘high degrees’ > have also each had their short period of prominence. The > last ‘axe to grind’ has consecutively been the fruitful > mother of unproductiveness. > > “We both agree that all the ancient priesthoods had their > esoteric doctrines and secret ceremonies. From the Essenic > brotherhood, an evolution of the Hindu Gymnosophists, > doubtless proceeded the Solidarities of Greece and Rome as > described by so-called ‘Pagan’ writers. Founded on these > and copying them in the matter of ritual, signs, grips, > passwords, etc., were developed the mediæval guilds. > Like the present livery companies of London, the relics > of the English trade-guilds, the operative Masons were > but a guild of workmen with higher pretensions. From the > French name ‘Maçon,’ derived from ‘Mas,’ an old Norman > noun meaning ‘a house,’ comes our English ‘Mason,’ a house > builder. As the London companies alluded to present now > and again the Freedom of the ‘_Liveries_’ to outsiders, so > we find the trade-guilds of Masons doing the same. Thus > the founder of the Ashmolean Museum was made free of the > Masons at Warrington, in Lancashire, England, on the 16th > October, 1646. The entrance of such men as Elias Ashmole > into the Operative Fraternity paved the way for the great > ‘Masonic Revolution of 1717,’ when SPECULATIVE Masonry > came into existence. The Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, > by the Masonic impostor Anderson, were written up for the > newly-fledged and first Grand Lodge of ‘Free and Accepted > Masons’ of England, from which body all others over the > world hail to-day. > > “These bogus constitutions, written by Anderson, were > compiled about then, and in order to palm off his miserable > rubbish yclept history, on the Craft, he had the audacity > to state that nearly all the documents relating to Masonry > in England had been destroyed by the 1717 reformers. > Happily, in the British Museum, Bodleian Library, and > other public institutions, Rebold, Hughan and others > have discovered sufficient evidence in the shape of old > Operative Masonic charges to disprove this statement. > > “The same writers, I think, have conclusively upset the > tenability of two other documents palmed upon Masonry, > namely, the spurious charter of Cologne of 1535, and > the forged questions, supposed to have been written by > Leylande, the antiquary, from a MS. of King Henry VI. of > England. In the last named, Pythagoras is referred to as > having--‘formed a great lodge, at Crotona, and made many > Masons, some of whom travelled into France, and there made > many, from whence, in process of time, the art passed > into England.’ Sir Christopher Wren, architect of St. > Paul’s Cathedral, London, often called the ‘Grand Master > of Freemasons,’ was simply the Master or President of the > London Operative Masons Company. If such a tissue of fable > could interweave itself into the history of the Grand > Lodges which now have charge of the first three symbolical > degrees, it is hardly astonishing that the same fate > should befall nearly all of the High Masonic Degrees which > have been aptly termed ‘an incoherent medley of opposite > principles.’ > > “It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which > work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, > the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fessler’s > Rite, the ‘Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and > West--Sovereign Prince Masons,’ etc., etc., are nearly all > the offspring of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron > Hundt, Chevalier Ramsay, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous > others who founded the grades in these rites, worked under > instructions from the General of the Jesuits. The nest > where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite > is free from their baleful influence more or less, was the > Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris. > > “That bastard foundling of Freemasonry, the ‘Ancient and > Accepted Scottish Rite,’ which is unrecognized by the Blue > Lodges was the enunciation, primarily, of the brain of the > Jesuit Chevalier Ramsay. It was brought by him to England > in 1736-38, to aid the cause of the Catholic Stuarts. > The rite in its present form of thirty-three degrees > was reorganized at the end of the eighteenth century by > some half dozen Masonic adventurers at Charleston, South > Carolina. Two of these, Pirlet a tailor, and a dancing > master named Lacorne, were fitting predecessors for a > later resuscitation by a gentleman of the name of Gourgas, > employed in the aristocratic occupation of a ship’s > clerk, on a boat trading between New York and Liverpool. > Dr. Crucefix, _alias_ Goss, the _inventor_ of certain > patent medicines of an objectionable character, ran the > institution in England. The powers under which these > worthies acted was a document claimed to have been signed > by Frederick the Great at Berlin, on May 1st, 1786, and by > which were revised the Masonic Constitution and Status of > the High Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. This > paper was an impudent forgery and necessitated the issuing > of a protocol by the Grand Lodges of the Three Globes of > Berlin, which conclusively proved the whole arrangement to > be false in every particular. On claims supported by this > supposititious document, the Ancient and Accepted Rite > have swindled their confiding brothers in the Americas > and Europe out of thousands of dollars, to the shame and > discredit of humanity. > > “The modern Templars, whom you refer to in your letter, > are but mere magpies in peacock’s plumes. The aim of > the Masonic Templars is the sectarianization, or rather > the Christianizing of Masonry, a fraternity which is > supposed to admit the Jew, Parsee, Mahometan, Buddhist, > in fact every religionist within its portals who accepts > the doctrine of a personal god, and spirit-immortality. > According to the belief of a section, if not all the > Israelites, belonging to the Craft in America--Templarism > is Jesuitism. > > “It seems strange, now that the belief in a personal God > is becoming extinct, and that even the theologian has > transformed his deity into an indescribable nondescript, > that there are those who stand in the way of the general > acceptation of the sublime pantheism of the primeval > Orientals, of Jacob Boehme, of Spinoza. Often in the > Grand Lodge and subordinate lodges of this and other > jurisdictions, the old doxology is sung, with its ‘Praise > Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ to the disgust of Israelites > and free-thinking brethren, who are thus unnecessarily > insulted. This could never occur in India, where the great > light in a lodge may be the _Koran_, the _Zend-Avesta_, > or one of the _Vedas_. The sectarian Christian spirit > in Masonry must be put down. To-day there are German > Grand Lodges which will not allow Jews to be initiated, > or Israelites from foreign countries to be accepted as > brethren within their jurisdiction. The French Masons > have, however, revolted against this tyranny, and the > Grand Orient of France does now permit the atheist and > materialist to fellowship in the Craft. A standing rebuke > upon the claimed universality of Masonry is the fact that > the French brethren are now repudiated. > > “Notwithstanding its many faults--and speculative > Masonry is but human, and therefore fallible--there is > no institution that has done so much, and is yet capable > of such great undertakings in the future, for human, > religious, and political improvement. In the last century > the Illuminati taught, ‘peace with the cottage, war with > the palace,’ throughout the length and breadth of Europe. > In the last century the United States was freed from the > tyranny of the mother country by the action of the Secret > Societies more than is commonly imagined. Washington, > Lafayette, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, were Masons. And > in the nineteenth century it was Grand Master Garibaldi, > 33, who unified Italy, working in accordance with the > spirit of the faithful brotherhood, as the Masonic, or > rather carbonari, principles of ‘liberty, equality, > humanity, independence, unity,’ taught for years by brother > Joseph Mazzini. > > “Speculative Masonry has much, too, within its ranks to > do. One is to accept woman as a co-worker of man in the > struggle of life, as the Hungarian Masons have done lately > by initiating the Countess Haideck. Another important > thing is also to recognize practically the brotherhood of > all humanity by refusing none on account of color, race, > position, or creed. The dark-skinned should not be only > theoretically the brother of the light. The colored Masons > who have been duly and regularly raised stand at every > lodge-door in America craving admission, and they are > refused. And there is South America to be conquered to a > participation in the duties of humanity. > > “If Masonry be, as claimed, a progressive science and a > school of pure religion, it should ever be found in the > advance guard of civilization, not in the rear. If it > be but an empirical effort, a crude attempt of humanity > to solve some of the deepest problems of the race, and > no more, then it must give place to fitter successors, > perchance one of those that you and I know of, one that may > have acted the prompter at the side of the chiefs of the > Order, during its greatest triumphs, whispering to them as > the dæmon did in the ear of Socrates. > > “Yours most Sincerely, > “CHARLES SOTHERAN.” > > Thus falls to ruins the grand epic poem of Masons, sung by so many > mysterious Knights as another revealed gospel. As we see, the > Temple of Solomon is being undermined and brought to the ground by > its own chief “Master Masons,” of this century. But if, following > the ingenious exoteric description of the _Bible_, there are yet > Masons who persist in regarding it as once an actual structure, > who, of the students of the esoteric doctrine will ever consider > this mythic temple otherwise than an allegory, embodying the secret > science? Whether or not there ever was a real temple of that name, > we may well leave to archæologists to decide; but that the detailed > description thereof in _1 Kings_ is purely allegorical, no serious > scholar, proficient in the ancient as well as mediæval jargon of the > kabalists and alchemists, can doubt. The building of the Temple of > Solomon is the symbolical representation of the gradual acquirement > of the _secret_ wisdom, or magic; the erection and development of > the spiritual from the earthly; the manifestation of the power and > splendor of the spirit in the physical world, through the wisdom and > genius of the builder. The latter, when he has become an adept, is a > mightier king than Solomon himself, the emblem of the sun or _Light_ > himself--the light of the real subjective world, shining in the > darkness of the objective universe. This is the “Temple” which can be > reared _without the sound of the hammer, or any tool of iron being > heard in the house while it is “in building.”_ > > In the East, this science is called, in some places, the > “seven-storied,” in others, the “nine-storied” Temple; every story > answers allegorically to a degree of knowledge acquired. Throughout > the countries of the Orient, wherever magic and the wisdom-religion > are studied, its practitioners and students are known among their > craft as Builders--for they build the temple of knowledge, of secret > science. Those of the adepts who are active, are styled practical or > _operative_ Builders, while the students, or neophytes are classed > as _speculative_ or theoretical. The former exemplify in works their > control over the forces of inanimate as well as animate nature; the > latter are but perfecting themselves in the rudiments of the sacred > science. These terms were evidently borrowed at the beginning by the > unknown founders of the first Masonic guilds. > > In the now popular jargon, “Operative Masons” are understood to be > the bricklayers and the handicraftsmen, who composed the Craft down > to Sir Christopher Wren’s time; and “Speculative Masons,” all members > of the Order, as now understood. The sentence attributed to Jesus, > “Thou art Peter ... upon this rock I will build my church; and the > gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” disfigured, as it is, > by mistranslation and misinterpretation, plainly indicates its real > meaning. We have shown the signification of _Pater_ and _Petra_, with > the hierophants--the interpretation traced on the tables of stone > of the final initiation, was handed by the initiator to the chosen > future interpreter. Having acquainted himself with its mysterious > contents, which revealed to him the mysteries of creation, the > initiated became a _builder_ himself, for he was made acquainted > with the _dodecahedron_, or the geometrical figure on which the > universe was built. To what he had learned in previous initiations > of the use of the rule and of architectural principles, was added a > cross, the perpendicular and horizontal lines of which were supposed > to form the foundation of the spiritual temple, by placing them > across the junction, or central primordial point, the element of > all existences,[800] representing the first concrete idea of deity. > Henceforth he could, as a Master builder (see _1 Corinthians_, iii. > 10), erect a temple of wisdom on that rock of _Petra_, for himself; > and having laid a sure foundation, let “another build thereon.” > > The Egyptian hierophant was given a square head-dress, which he > had to wear always, and a square (see Mason’s marks), without > which he could never go abroad. The perfect _Tau_ formed of the > perpendicular (descending male ray, or spirit) a horizontal line > (or matter, female ray), and the mundane circle was an attribute of > Isis, and, it is but at his death that the Egyptian cross was laid > on the breast of his mummy. These square hats are worn unto this > day by the Armenian priests. The claim that the cross is purely a > Christian symbol introduced after our era, is strange indeed, when > we find Ezekiel stamping the foreheads of the men of Judah, who > feared the Lord (_Ezekiel_ ix. 4), with the _signa Thau_, as it is > translated in the Vulgate. In the ancient Hebrew this sign was formed > thus [Illustration] but in the original Egyptian hieroglyphics as a > perfect Christian cross [Illustration]. In the _Revelation_, also, > the “Alpha and Omega” (spirit and matter), the first and the last, > stamps the name of his Father in the foreheads of the _elect_. > > And if our statements are wrong, if Jesus was not an initiate, a > Master-builder, or Master-Mason as it is now called, how comes it, > that on the most ancient cathedrals we find his figure with Mason’s > marks about his person? In the Cathedral of Santa Croce, Florence, > over the main portal can be seen the figure of Christ holding a > perfect square in his hand. > > The surviving “Master-builders” of the _operative_ craft of the true > Temple, may go literally _half-naked_ and wander _slipshod_ for > ever--now not for the sake of a puerile ceremony, but because, like > the “Son of man,” they have not where to lay their heads--and yet be > the only surviving possessors of the “Word.” Their “cable-tow” is > the sacred triple cord of certain Brahman-Sannyâsi, or the string on > which certain lamas hang their _yu-stone_; but with these apparently > valueless talismans, not one of them would part for all the wealth of > Solomon and Sheba. The seven-knotted bamboo stick of the fakir can > become as powerful as the rod of Moses “which was created between > the evenings, and on which was engraven and set forth the great and > glorious NAME, with which he was to do the wonders in Mizraim.” > > But these “operative workmen” have no fear that their secrets will > be disclosed by treacherous ex-high priests of chapters, though > their generation may have received them through others than “Moses, > Solomon, and Zerubbabel.” Had Moses Michael Hayes, the Israelite > Brother who introduced Royal Arch Masonry into this country (in > December. 1778),[801] had a prophetic presentiment of future > treasons, he might have instituted more efficacious obligations than > he has. > > Truly, the grand omnific Royal Arch word, “_long lost but now > found_,” has fulfilled its prophetic promise. The password of that > degree is no more “I AM THAT I AM.” It is now simply “I was but am no > more!” > > [Illustration] > > That we may not be accused of vain boasting, we shall give the > keys to several of the secret ciphers of the most exclusive and > important of the so-called higher Masonic degrees. If we mistake > not, these have never before been revealed to the outside world > (except that of the Royal Arch Masons, in 1830), but have been most > jealously guarded within the various Orders. We are under neither > promise, obligation, nor oath, and therefore violate no confidence. > Our purpose is not to gratify an idle curiosity; we wish merely to > show Masons and the affiliates of all other Western societies--the > Company of Jesus included--that it is impossible for them to be > secure in the possession of any secrets that it is worth an Eastern > Brotherhood’s while to discover. Inferentially, it may also show them > that if the latter can lift the masks of European societies, they are > nevertheless successful in wearing their own visors; for, if any one > thing is universally acknowledged, it is that the real secrets of > not a single surviving ancient brotherhood are in possession of the > profane. > > Some of these ciphers were used by the Jesuits in their secret > correspondence at the time of the Jacobin conspiracy, and when > Masonry (the alleged successor to the Temple) was employed by the > Church for political purposes. > > Findel says (see his _History of Freemasonry_, p. 253) that in the > eighteenth century, “besides the modern Knights Templar, we see the > Jesuits ... disfiguring the fair face of Freemasonry. Many Masonic > authors, who were fully cognizant of the period, and knew exactly > all the incidents occurring, positively assert that then and still > later the Jesuits exercised a pernicious influence, or at least > endeavored to do so, upon the fraternity.” Of the Rosicrucian Order > he remarks, upon the authority of Prof. Woog, that its “aim at first > ... was nothing less than the support and advancement of Catholicism. > _When this religion manifested a determination entirely to repress > liberty of thought_ ... the Rosicrucians enlarged their designs > likewise to check, if possible, the progress of this widely-spreading > enlightenment.” > > In the _Sincerus Renatus_ (the truly converted) of S. Richter, of > Berlin (1714), we note that laws were communicated for the government > of the “Golden Rosicrucians,” which “bear unmistakable evidences of > Jesuitical intervention.” > > We will begin with the cryptographs of the “Sovereign Princes Rose > Croix,” also styled _Knights of St. Andrew, Knights of the Eagle and > Pelican, Heredom, Rosæ Crucis, Rosy Cross, Triple Cross, Perfect > Brother, Prince Mason, and so on_. The “Heredom Rosy Cross” also > claims a Templar origin, in 1314.[802] > > CIPHER OF THE > S ∴ P ∴ R ∴ C ∴ > [Illustration] > a b c d e f g h ij k l m n > [Illustration] > o p q r s t uv x y z &. > > CIPHER OF THE KNIGHT ROSE CROIX OF HEREDOM > (of Kilwining). > > _0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17_ > a b c d e f g h i j ba (or) k kb kc kd ke kf kg kh > > _600 700 800 900 1000_ > gl hl il jl m > > CIPHER OF THE KNIGHTS KADOSH. > (Also White and Black Eagle and Grand Elected Knight Templar.) > > _70 2 3 12 15 20 30 33 38 9 10 40_ > a b c d e f g h i k l m > > _60 80 81 82 83 48 85 86 90 91 94 95_ > n o p q r s t u v x y z > > The Knights Kadosh have another cipher--or rather hieroglyph--which, > in this case, is taken from the Hebrew, possibly to be the more in > keeping with the _Bible_ Kadeshim of the Temple.[803] > > [Illustration: HIEROGLYPH OF THE K ∴ KAD ∴] > > As for the Royal Arch cipher, it has been exposed before now, but we > may well present it slightly amplified. > > The cipher consists of certain combinations of right angles, with or > without points or dots. Following is the basis of its > > [Illustration: _Formation._] > > Now, the alphabet consists of twenty-six letters, and these two signs > being dissected, form thirteen distinct characters, thus: > > [Illustration: > _1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13_] > > A point placed within each gives thirteen more, thus: > > [Illustration: > _1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13_] > > Making a total of twenty-six, equal to the number of letters in the > English alphabet. > > There are two ways, at least, of combining and using these characters > for the purposes of secret correspondence. One method is to call the > first sign, [In-line illustration] a; the same, with a point, ⟓ b, > etc. Another is to apply them, in their regular course, to the first > half of the alphabet, [In-line illustration] a, ⊓ b, and so on, to m; > after which, repeat them with a dot, beginning with ⟓ n, [In-line > illustration] o, etc., to ⋖ z. > > The alphabet, according to the first method, stands thus: > > [Illustration:] > a b c d e f g h i j k l m > > [Illustration:] > n o p q r s t u v w x y z > > According to the second method, thus: > > [Illustration:] > a b c d e f g h i j k l m > > [Illustration:] > n o p q r s t u v w x y z > > Besides these signs, the French Masons, evidently under the tuition > of their accomplished masters--the Jesuits, have perfected this > cipher in all its details. So they have signs even for commas, > diphthongs, accents, dots, etc., and these are > > [Illustration:] > &c æ œ w ç ´ ` ^ - . , ; : ∴ ? > > Let this suffice. We might, if we chose, give the cipher alphabets > with their keys, of another method of the Royal Arch Masons, strongly > resembling a certain Hindu character; of the G ∴ El ∴ of the Mystic > City; of a well-known form of the Devanagari script of the (French) > Sages of the Pyramids; and of the Sublime Master of the Great Work, > and others. But we refrain; only, be it understood, for the reason > that some of these alone of all the side branches of the original > Blue Lodge Freemasonry, contain the promise of a useful future. As > for the rest, they may and will go to the ash-heap of time. High > Masons will understand what we mean. > > We must now give some proofs of what we have stated, and demonstrate > that the word Jehovah, if Masonry adheres to it, will ever remain as > a substitute, never be identical with the lost mirific name. This > is so well known to the kabalists, that in their careful etymology > of the יהוה they show it beyond doubt to be only one of the many > substitutes for the real name, and composed of the two-fold name of > the first androgyne--Adam and Eve, Jod (or Yodh), Vau and He-Va--the > female serpent as a symbol of Divine Intelligence proceeding from the > ONE-Generative or _Creative_ Spirit.[804] Thus, Jehovah is not the > sacred name at all. Had Moses given to Pharaoh the _true_ “name,” the > latter would not have answered as he did, for the Egyptian > King-Initiates knew it as well as Moses, who had learned it with them. > _The_ “name” was at that time the common property of the adepts of all > the nations in the world, and Pharaoh knew certainly the “name” of the > Highest God mentioned in the _Book of the Dead_. But instead of that, > Moses (if we accept the allegory of _Exodus_ literally), gives Pharaoh > the name of _Yeva_, the expression or form of the Divine name used by > all the _Targums_ as passed by Moses. Hence Pharaoh’s reply: “And who > is that _Yeva_[805] that I should obey his voice?” > > “Jehovah” dates only from the Masoretic innovation. When the Rabbis, > for fear that they should lose the keys to their own doctrines, then > written exclusively in consonants, began to insert their vowel-points > in their manuscripts, they were utterly ignorant of the true > pronunciation of the NAME. Hence, they gave it the sound of _Adonah_, > and made it read _Ja-ho-vah_. Thus the latter is simply a fancy, a > perversion of the Holy Name. And how could they know it? Alone, out > of all their nation the high priests had it in their possession, and > respectively passed it to their successors, as the Hindu Brahmaâtma > does before his death. Once a year only, on the day of atonement, > the high priest was allowed to pronounce it in a whisper. Passing > behind the veil into the inner chamber of the sanctuary, the Holy > of Holies, with trembling lips and downcast eyes he called upon the > dreaded NAME. The bitter persecution of the kabalists, who received > the precious syllables after deserving the favor by a whole life of > sanctity, was due to a suspicion that they misused it. At the opening > of this chapter we have told the story of Simeon Ben-Iochaï, one > of the victims to this priceless knowledge, and see how little he > deserved his cruel treatment. > > The _Book of Jasher_, a work--as we are told by a very learned Hebrew > divine, of New York--composed in Spain in the twelfth century as > “a popular tale,” and that had not “the sanction of the Rabbinical > College of Venice,” is full of kabalistical, alchemical, and magical > allegories. Admitting so much, it must still be said that there are > few popular tales but are based on historical truths. The _Norsemen > in Iceland_, by Dr. G. W. Dasent, is also a collection of popular > tales, but they contain the key to the primitive religious worship > of that people. So with the _Book of Jasher_. It contains the whole > of the _Old Testament_ in a condensed form, and as the Samaritans > held, _i.e._, the five _Books of Moses_, without the Prophets. > Although rejected by the orthodox Rabbis, we cannot help thinking > that, as in the case of the apocryphal _Gospels_, which were written > earlier than the canonical ones, the _Book of Jasher_ is the true > original from which the subsequent _Bible_ was in part composed. Both > the apocryphal _Gospels_ and _Jasher_, are a series of religious > tales, in which miracle is heaped upon miracle, and which narrate > the popular legends as they first originated, without any regard > to either chronology or dogma. Still both are corner-stones of the > Mosaic and Christian religions. That there was a _Book of Jasher_ > prior to the Mosaic _Pentateuch_ is clear, for it is mentioned in > _Joshua_, _Isaiah_, and _2 Samuel_. > > Nowhere is the difference between the Elohists and Jehovists so > clearly shown as in _Jasher_. Jehovah is here spoken of as the > Ophites held him to be, a Son of Ilda-Baoth, or Saturn. In this > Book, the Egyptian Magi, when asked by Pharaoh “Who is he, of whom > Moses speaks as the _I am_?” reply that the God of Moses “we have > learned, is the Son of the Wise, the Son of ancient kings” (ch. > lxxix. 45).[806] Now, those who assert that _Jasher_ is a forgery of > the twelfth century--and we readily believe it--should nevertheless > explain the curious fact that, while the above text is _not_ to be > found in the _Bible_, the answer to it _is_, and is, moreover, > couched in unequivocal terms. At _Isaiah_ xix. 11, the “Lord God” > complains of it very wrathfully to the prophet, and says: “Surely > the princes of Zoan _are fools_, the counsel of the wise counsellors > of Pharaoh is become brutish; how say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the > Son of the Wise, the Son of ancient kings?” which is evidently a > reply to the above. At _Joshua_ x. 13, _Jasher_ is referred to in > corroboration of the outrageous assertion that the sun stood still, > and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves. “Is > not this written in the _Book of Jasher_?” says the text. And at 2 > _Samuel_, i. 19, the same book is again quoted. “Behold,” it says, > “it is written in the _Book of Jasher_.” Clearly, _Jasher_ must have > existed; it must have been regarded as authority; must have been > older than Joshua; and, since the verse in _Isaiah_ unerringly points > to the passage above quoted, we have at least as much reason to > accept the current edition of _Jasher_ as a transcription, excerpt, > or compilation of the original work, as we have to revere the > Septuagint _Pentateuch_, as the primitive Hebraic sacred records. > > At all events, Jehovah is not the ancient of the ancient, or “aged > of the aged,” of the _Sohar_; for we find him, in this book, > counselling with God the Father as to the creation of the world. “The > work-master spoke to the Lord. Let us make man after our image” > (_Sohar_ i., fol. 25). Jehovah is but the Metatron, and perhaps, not > even the highest, but only one of the Æons; for he whom Onkelos calls > _Memro_, the “Word,” is not the _exoteric_ Jehovah of the _Bible_, > nor is he Jahve יַהְוֶה the Existing One. > > It was the secresy of the early kabalists, who were anxious to > screen the real Mystery name of the “Eternal” from profanation, and > later the prudence which the mediæval alchemists and occultists were > compelled to adopt to save their lives, that caused the inextricable > confusion of divine names. This is what led the people to accept > the Jehovah of the _Bible_ as the name of the “One living God.” > Every Jewish elder, prophet, and other man of any importance knew > the difference; but as the difference lay in the vocalization of > the “name,” and its right pronunciation led to death, the common > people were ignorant of it, for no initiate would risk his life by > teaching it to them. Thus the Sinaitic deity came gradually to be > regarded as identical with “Him whose name is known but to the wise.” > When Capellus translates: “Whosoever shall pronounce the name of > Jehovah, shall suffer death,” he makes two mistakes. The first is in > adding the final letter _h_ to the name, if he wants this deity to > be considered either male or androgynous, for the letter makes the > name feminine, as it really should be, considering it is one of the > names of Binah, the third emanation; his second error is in asserting > that the word _nokeb_ means only to pronounce _distinctly_. It means > to pronounce _correctly_. Therefore, the biblical name Jehovah may > be considered simply a _substitute_, which, as belonging to one of > the “powers” got to be viewed as that of the “Eternal.” There is > an evident mistake (one of the very many), in one of the texts in > _Leviticus_, which has been corrected by Cahen, and which proves that > the interdiction did not at all concern the name of the exoteric > Jehovah, whose numerous other names could also be pronounced without > any penalty being incurred.[807] In the vicious English version, the > translation runs thus: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, > shall surely be put to death,” _Levit._ xxiv. 16. Cahen renders it > far more correctly, thus: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the > _Eternal_ shall die,” etc. The “Eternal” being something higher than > the exoteric and personal “Lord.”[808] > > As with the Gentile nations, the symbols of the Israelites were ever > bearing, directly or indirectly, upon sun-worship. The exoteric > Jehovah of the _Bible_ is a _dual_ god, like all the other gods; > and the fact that David--who is entirely ignorant of Moses--praises > his “Lord,” and assures him that the “Lord _is_ a great God, and a > great King above all gods,” may be of a very great importance to the > descendants of Jacob and David, but their national God concerns us in > no wise. We are quite ready to show the “Lord God” of Israel the same > respect as we do to Brahma, Zeus, or any other secondary deity. But > we decline, most emphatically, to recognize in him either the Deity > worshipped by Moses, or the “Father” of Jesus, or yet the “Ineffable > Name” of the kabalists. Jehovah is, perhaps, one of the _Elohim_, > who was concerned in the _formation_ (which is not creation) of the > universe, one of the architects who built from pre-existing matter, > but he never was the “Unknowable” Cause that created “bara,” in the > night of the Eternity. These Elohim first form and bless; then they > _curse_ and _destroy_; as one of these Powers, Jehovah is therefore > by turns beneficent and malevolent; at one moment he punishes and > then repents. He is the antitype of several of the patriarchs--of > Esau and of Jacob, the allegorical twins, emblems of the ever > manifest dual principle in nature. So Jacob, who is Israel, is the > left pillar--the feminine principle of Esau, who is the right pillar > and the male principle. When he wrestles with Malach-Iho, the Lord, > it is the latter who becomes the _right_ pillar, and Jacob-Israel > names God; although the _Bible_-interpreters have endeavored to > transform him into a mere “angel of the Lord” (_Genesis_ xxxii.), > Jacob conquers him--as matter will but too often conquer spirit--but > his _thigh_ is put out of joint in the fight. > > The name of Israel has its derivation from Isaral or Asar, the > Sun-God, who is known as Suryal, Surya, and Sur. Isra-el means > “striving with God.” The “sun rising upon Jacob-Israel,” is the > _Sun_-God Isaral, fecundating _matter_ or earth, represented by the > _female_-Jacob. As usual, the allegory has more than one hidden > meaning in the _Kabala_. Esau, Æsaou, Asu, is also the sun. Like the > “Lord,” Esau fights with Jacob and prevails not. The God-_Sun_ first > strives against, and then rises on him in covenant. > > “And as he passed over Penuel, _the sun rose upon him_, and he > (Jacob) _halted upon his thigh_” (Genesis xxxii. 31). _Israel_ Jacob, > opposed by his brother Esau, is _Samael_, and “the names of Samael > are Azazel and _Satan_” (the opposer). > > If it will be argued that Moses was unacquainted with the Hindu > philosophy and, therefore, could not have taken Siva, the regenerator > and the destroyer, as his model for Jehovah, then we must admit that > there was some miraculous international intuition which prompted > every nation to choose for its exoteric national deity the dual > type we find in the “Lord God” of Israel. All these fables speak > for themselves. Siva, Jehovah, Osiris, are all the symbols of the > active principle in nature _par excellence_. They are the forces > which preside at the formation or _regeneration_ of matter and its > destruction. They are the types of Life and Death, ever fecundating > and decomposing under the never-ceasing influx of the _anima mundi_, > the Universal intellectual Soul, the invisible but ever-present > spirit which is behind the correlation of the blind forces. This > spirit alone is immutable, and therefore the forces of the universe, > cause and effect, are ever in perfect harmony with this one great > Immutable Law. Spiritual Life is the one primordial principle > _above_; Physical Life is the primordial principle _below_, but > they are one under their dual aspect. When the Spirit is completely > untrammelled from the fetters of correlation, and its essence has > become so purified as to be re-united with its CAUSE, it may--and yet > who can tell whether it really will--have a glimpse of the Eternal > Truth. Till then, let us not build ourselves idols in our own image, > and accept the shadows for the Eternal Light. > > The greatest mistake of the age was to attempt a comparison of the > relative merits of all the ancient religions, and scoff at the > doctrines of the _Kabala_ and other superstitions. > > But truth is stranger than fiction; and this world-old adage finds > its application in the case in hand. The “wisdom” of the archaic > ages or the “secret doctrine” embodied in the _Oriental Kabala_, of > which, as we have said, the Rabbinical is but an abridgment, did > not die out with the Philoletheans of the last Eclectic school. > The _Gnosis_ lingers still on earth, and its votaries are many, > albeit unknown. Such secret brotherhoods have been mentioned before > Mackenzie’s time, by more than one great author. If they have been > regarded as mere fictions of the novelist, that fact has only helped > the “brother-adepts” to keep their incognito the more easily. We > have personally known several of them who, to their great merriment > had had the story of their lodges, the communities in which they > lived, and the wondrous powers which they had exercised for many > long years, laughed at and denied by unsuspecting skeptics to their > very faces. Some of these brothers belong to the small groups of > “travellers.” Until the close of the happy Louis-Philippian reign, > they were pompously termed by the Parisian garçon and trader, the > _nobles étrangers_, and as innocently believed to be “Boyards,” > Valachian “Gospodars,” Indian “Nabobs,” and Hungarian “Margraves,” > who had gathered at the capital of the civilized world to admire > its monuments and partake of its dissipations. There are, however, > some _insane_ enough to connect the presence of certain of these > mysterious guests in Paris with the great political events that > subsequently took place. Such recall at least as very remarkable > coincidences, the breaking out of the Revolution of ‘93, and the > earlier explosion of the South Sea Bubble, soon after the appearance > of “noble foreigners,” who had convulsed all Paris for more or less > longer periods, by either their mystical doctrines or “supernatural > gifts.” The St. Germains and Cagliostros of this century, having > learned bitter lessons from the vilifications and persecutions of the > past, pursue different tactics now-a-days. > > But there are numbers of these mystic brotherhoods which have > naught to do with “civilized” countries; and it is in their unknown > communities that are concealed the skeletons of the past. These > “adepts” could, if they chose, lay claim to strange ancestry, and > exhibit verifiable documents that would explain many a mysterious > page in both sacred and profane history. Had the keys to the hieratic > writings and the secret of Egyptian and Hindu symbolism been known to > the Christian Fathers, they would not have allowed a single monument > of old to stand unmutilated. And yet, if we are well informed--and > we think we are--there was not one such in all Egypt, but the secret > records of its hieroglyphics were carefully registered by the > sacerdotal caste. These records still exist, though “not extant” for > the general public, though perhaps the monuments may have passed away > for ever out of human sight. > > Of forty-seven tombs of the kings, near Gornore, recorded by the > Egyptian priests on their sacred registers, only seventeen were known > to the public, according to Diodorus Siculus, who visited the place > about sixty years B.C. Notwithstanding this _historical_ evidence, > we assert that the whole number exist to this day, and the royal > tomb discovered by Belzoni among the sandstone mountains of Biban > el-Melook (Melech?) is but a feeble specimen of the rest. We will > add, furthermore, that the Arab-Christians, the monks, scattered > around in their poor, desolate convents on the borderland of the > great Lybian Desert, know of the existence of such unbetrayed relics. > But they are Copts, sole remnants of the true Egyptian race, and the > Copt predominating over the Christian monk in their natures, they > keep silent; for what reason it is not for us to tell. There are some > who believe that their monkish attire is but a blind, and that they > have chosen these desolate homes among arid deserts and surrounded > by Mahometan tribes, for some ulterior purposes of their own. Be > it as it may, they are held in great esteem by the Greek monks of > Palestine; and there is a rumor current among the Christian pilgrims > of Jerusalem, who throng the Holy Sepulchre at every Easter, that > the holy fire from heaven will never descend so _miraculously_ as > when these monks of the desert are present to draw it down by their > prayers.[809] > > “The kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it > by force.” Many are the candidates at the doors of those who are > supposed to know the path that leads to the secret brotherhoods. > The great majority are refused admittance, and these turn away > interpreting the refusal as an evidence of the non-existence of > any such secret society. Of the minority accepted, more than > two-thirds fail upon trial. The seventh rule of the ancient > Rosicrucian brotherhoods, which is universal among all true secret > societies: “the Rosy-Crux becomes and is not _made_,” is more than > the generality of men can bear to have applied to them. But let no > one suppose that of the candidates who fail, any will divulge to > the world even the trifle they may have learned, as some Masons do. > None know better than themselves how unlikely it is that a neophyte > should ever talk of what was imparted to him. Thus these societies > will go on and hear themselves denied without uttering a word until > the day shall come for them to throw off their reserve and show how > completely they are masters of the situation. > > CHAPTER IX. > > “All things are governed in the bosom of this triad.”--LYDUS: > _De Mensibus_, 20. > > “Thrice let the heaven be turned on its perpetual axis.”-- > OVID: _Fast_ iv. > > “And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here _seven_ altars, > and prepare me here _seven_ oxen and _seven_ rams.”-- > _Numbers_ xxiii. 1, 2. > > “In _seven_ days all creatures who have offended me shall > be destroyed by a deluge, but thou shalt be secured in a > vessel miraculously formed; take, therefore ... and with > _seven_ holy men, your respective wives, and pairs of > all animals, enter the ark without fear; then shalt thou > know God face to face, and all thy questions shall be > answered.”--_Bagavedgitta._ > > “And the Lord said, I will destroy man ... from the face > of the earth.... But with thee will I establish my > covenant.... Come thou and all thy house into the ark.... > For yet _seven_ days and I will cause it to rain upon the > earth.”--_Genesis_ vi., vii. > > “The Tetraktys was not only principally honored because all > symphonies are found to exist within it, but also because > it appears to contain the nature of all things.”--THEOS. OF > SMYRNA: _Mathem._, p. 147. > > Our task will have been ill-performed if the preceding chapters have > not demonstrated that Judaism, earlier and later Gnosticism, > Christianity, and even Christian Masonry, have all been erected upon > identical cosmical myths, symbols, and allegories, whose full > comprehension is possible only to those who have inherited the key > from their inventors. > > In the following pages we will endeavor to show how much these have > been misinterpreted by the widely-different, yet intimately-related > systems enumerated above, in fitting them to their individual needs. > Thus not only will a benefit be conferred upon the student, but a > long-deferred, and now much-needed act of justice will be done to > those earlier generations whose genius has laid the whole human race > under obligation. Let us begin by once more comparing the myths of the > _Bible_ with those of the sacred books of other nations, to see which > is the original, which copies. > > There are but two methods which, correctly explained, can help us to > this result. They are--the _Vedas_, Brahmanical literature and the > Jewish _Kabala_. The former has, in a most philosophical spirit, > conceived these grandiose myths; the latter borrowing them from the > Chaldeans and Persians, shaped them into a history of the Jewish > nation, in which their spirit of philosophy was buried beyond the > recognition of all but the elect, and under a far more absurd form > than the Aryan had given them. The _Bible_ of the Christian Church is > the latest receptacle of this scheme of disfigured allegories which > have been erected into an edifice of superstition, such as never > entered into the conceptions of those from whom the Church obtained > her knowledge. The abstract fictions of antiquity, which for ages had > filled the popular fancy with but flickering shadows and uncertain > images, have in Christianity assumed the shapes of real personages, > and become accomplished facts. Allegory, metamorphosed, becomes sacred > history, and Pagan myth is taught to the people as a revealed > narrative of God’s intercourse with His chosen people. > > “The myths,” says Horace in his _Ars Poetica_, “have been invented by > wise men to strengthen the laws and teach moral truths.” While Horace > endeavored to make clear the very spirit and essence of the ancient > myths, Euhemerus pretended, on the contrary, that “myths were the > legendary history of kings and heroes, transformed into gods by the > admiration of the nations.” It is the latter method which was > inferentially followed by Christians when they agreed upon the > acceptation of euhemerized patriarchs, and mistook them for men who > had really lived. > > But, in opposition to this pernicious theory, which has brought forth > such bitter fruit, we have a long series of the greatest philosophers > the world has produced: Plato, Epicharmus, Socrates, Empedocles, > Plotinus, and Porphyry, Proclus, Damascenus, Origen, and even > Aristotle. The latter plainly stated this verity, by saying that a > tradition of the highest antiquity, transmitted to posterity under the > form of various myths, teaches us that the first principles of nature > may be considered as “gods,” for the _divine_ permeates all nature. > All the rest, details and personages, were added later for the clearer > comprehension of the vulgar, and but too often with the object of > supporting laws invented in the common interest. > > Fairy tales do not exclusively belong to nurseries; all mankind--except > those few who in all ages have comprehended their hidden meaning and > tried to open the eyes of the superstitious--have listened to such > tales in one shape or the other and, after transforming them into > sacred symbols, called the product RELIGION! > > We will try to systematize our subject as much as the ever-recurring > necessity to draw parallels between the conflicting opinions that have > been based on the same myths will permit. We will begin by the book of > _Genesis_, and seek for its hidden meaning in the Brahmanical > traditions and the Chaldeo-Judaïc _Kabala_. > > The first Scripture lesson taught us in our infancy is that God > created the world in six days, and rested on the _seventh_. Hence, a > peculiar solenmity is supposed to attach to the seventh day, and the > Christians, adopting the rigid observances of the Jewish sabbath, have > enforced it upon us with the substitution of the first, instead of the > seventh day of the week. > > All systems of religious mysticism are based on numerals. With > Pythagoras, the Monas or unity, emanating the duad, and thus forming > the trinity, and the quaternary or Arba-il (the mystic _four_), > compose the number seven. The sacredness of numbers begins with the > great First--the ONE, and ends only with the nought or zero--symbol of > the infinite and boundless circle which represents the universe. All > the intervening figures, in whatever combination, or however > multiplied, represent philosophical ideas, from vague outlines down to > a definitely-established scientific axiom, relating either to a moral > or a physical fact in nature. They are a key to the ancient views on > cosmogony, in its broad sense, including man and beings, and the > evolution of the human race, spiritually as well as physically. > > The number _seven_ is the most sacred of all, and is, undoubtedly, of > Hindu origin. Everything of importance was calculated by and fitted > into this number by the Aryan philosophers--ideas as well as > localities. Thus they have the > > _Sapta-Rishi_, or seven sages, typifying the seven diluvian primitive > races (post-diluvian as some say). > > _Sapta-Loka_, the seven inferior and superior worlds, whence each of > these Rishis proceeded, and whither he returned in glory before > reaching the final bliss of Moksha.[810] > > _Sapta-Kula_, or seven castes--the Brahmans assuming to represent the > direct descendants of the highest of them.[811] > > Then, again, the Sapta-Pura (seven holy cities); Sapta-Duipa (seven > holy islands); Sapta-Samudra (the seven holy seas); Sapta-Parvata (the > seven holy mountains); Sapta-Arania (the seven deserts); Sapta-Vruksha > (the seven sacred trees); and so on. > > In the Chaldeo-Babylonian incantation, this number reappears again as > prominently as among the Hindus. The number is _dual_ in its > attributes, _i.e._, holy in one of its aspects it becomes nefast under > other conditions. Thus the following incantation we find traced on the > Assyrian tablets, now so correctly interpreted. > > “The evening of evil omen, the region of the sky, which produces > misfortune.... > > “Message of pest. > > “Deprecators of Nin-Ki-gal. > > “The seven gods of the vast sky. > > “The seven gods of the vast earth. > > “The seven gods of blazing spheres. > > “The seven gods of celestial legion. > > “The seven gods maleficent. > > “The seven phantoms--bad. > > “The seven phantoms of maleficent flames.... > > “Bad demon, bad _alal_, bad _gigim_, bad _telal_ ... bad god, bad > _maskim_. > > “Spirit of seven heavens remember.... Spirit of seven earths remember > ... etc.” > > This number reappears likewise on almost every page of _Genesis_, > and throughout the Mosaic books, and we find it conspicuous (see > following chapter) in the _Book of Job_ and the Oriental _Kabala_. > If the Hebrew Semitics adopted it so readily, we must infer that it > was not blindly, but with a thorough knowledge of its secret meaning; > hence, that they must have adopted the doctrines of their “heathen” > neighbors as well. It is but natural, therefore, that we should seek > in _heathen_ philosophy for the interpretation of this number, which > again reappeared in Christianity with its _seven_ sacraments, _seven_ > churches in Asia Minor, _seven_ capital sins, _seven_ virtues (four > cardinal and three theological), etc. > > Have the _seven_ prismatic colors of the rainbow seen by Noah no > other meaning than that of a covenant between God and man to refresh > the memory of the former? To the kabalist, at least, they have a > significance inseparable from the seven labors of magic, the seven > upper spheres, the seven notes of the musical scale, the seven > numerals of Pythagoras, the seven wonders of the world, the seven > ages, and even the seven steps of the Masons, which lead to the Holy > of Holies, after passing the flights of _three_ and _five_. > > Whence the identity then of these enigmatical, ever-recurring > numerals that are found in every page of the Jewish Scriptures, as > in every ola and sloka of Buddhistic and Brahmanical books? Whence > these numerals that are the soul of the Pythagorean and Platonic > thought, and that no unilluminated Orientalist nor biblical student > has ever been able to fathom? And yet they have a key ready in > their hand, did they but know how to use it. Nowhere is the mystical > value of human language and its effects on human action so perfectly > understood as in India, nor any better explained than by the authors > of the oldest _Brahmanas_. Ancient as their epoch is now found to > be, they only try to express, in a more concrete form, the abstract > metaphysical speculations of their own ancestors. > > Such is the respect of the Brahmans for the sacrificial mysteries, > that they hold that the world itself sprang into creation as a > consequence of a “sacrificial word” pronounced by the First Cause. > This word is the “Ineffable name” of the kabalists, fully discussed > in the last chapter. > > The secret of the _Vedas_, “Sacred Knowledge” though they may be, is > impenetrable without the help of the _Brahmanas_. Properly speaking, > the _Vedas_ (which are written in verse and comprised in four books) > constitute that portion called the _Mantra_, or magical prayer, and > the _Brahmanas_ (which are in prose) contain their key. While the > Mantra part is alone holy, the Brahmana portion contains all the > theological exegesis, and the speculations and explanations of the > sacerdotal. Our Orientalists, we repeat, will make no substantial > progress toward a comprehension of Vedic literature until they place > a proper valuation upon works now despised by them; as, for instance, > the _Aitareya_ and _Kaushîtaki Brâhmanas_, which belong to the > _Rig-Veda_. > > Zoroaster was called a _Manthran_, or speaker of Mantras, and, > according to Haug, one of the earliest names for the Sacred > Scriptures of the Parsis was _Mânthra-speñta_. The power and > significance of the Brahman who acts as the Hotri-priest at the > Soma-Sacrifice, consists in his possession and full knowledge of the > uses of the sacred word or speech--_Vâch_. The latter is personified > in Sara-isvati, the wife of Brahma, who is the goddess of the sacred > or “Secret Knowledge.” She is usually depicted as riding upon a > peacock with its tail all spread. The eyes upon the feathers of the > bird’s tail, symbolize the sleepless eyes that see all things. To one > who has the ambition of becoming an adept of the “Secret doctrines,” > they are a reminder that he must have the hundred eyes of Argus to > see and comprehend all things. > > And this is why we say that it is not possible to solve fully the > deep problems underlying the Brahmanical and Buddhistic sacred books > without having a perfect comprehension of the esoteric meaning of > the Pythagorean numerals. The greatest power of this Vâch, or Sacred > Speech, is developed according to the form which is given to the > Mantra by the officiating Hotri, and this form consists wholly in > the numbers and syllables of the sacred metre. If pronounced slowly > and in a certain rhythm, one effect is produced; if quickly and with > another rhythm, there is a different result. “Each metre,” says Haug, > “is the invisible master of something visible in this world; it is, > as it were, its exponent and ideal. This great significance of the > metrical speech is derived from the number of syllables of which it > consists, for each thing has (just as in the Pythagorean system) a > certain numerical proportion. All these things, metres (chhandas), > stomas, and prishthas, are liable to be as eternal and divine as the > words themselves they contain. The earliest Hindu divines did not > only believe in a primitive revelation of the words of the sacred > texts, but even in that of the various forms. These forms, along with > their contents, the everlasting _Veda_-words, are symbols expressive > of things of the invisible world, and in several respects comparable > to the Platonic ideas.” > > _This testimony from an unwilling witness shows again the identity > between the ancient religions as to their secret doctrine._ The > Gâyatri metre, for example, consists of _thrice eight_ syllables, and > is considered the most sacred of metres. It is the metre of Agni, > the fire-god, and becomes at times the emblem of Brahma himself, > the chief creator, and “fashioner of man” in his own image. Now > Pythagoras says that “The number eight, or the Octad, is the first > cube, that is to say, squared in all senses, as a die, proceeding > from its base two, or even number; _so is man four-square or > perfect_.” Of course few, except the Pythagoreans and kabalists, > can fully comprehend this idea; but the illustration will assist > in pointing out the close kinship of the numerals with the Vedic > _Mantras_. The chief problems of every theology lie concealed > beneath this imagery of fire and the varying rhythm of its flames. > The burning bush of the _Bible_, the Zoroastrian and other sacred > fires, Plato’s universal soul, and the Rosicrucian doctrines of both > soul and body of man being evolved out of fire, the reasoning and > immortal element which permeates all things, and which, according to > Herakleitus, Hippocrates, and Parmenides, is God, have all the same > meaning. > > Each metre in the _Brahmanas_ corresponds to a number, and as shown > by Haug, as it stands in the sacred volumes, is a prototype of some > visible form on earth, and its effects are either good or evil. The > “sacred speech” can save, but it can kill as well; its many meanings > and faculties are well known but to the _Dikshita_ (the adept), who > has been initiated into many mysteries, and whose “spiritual birth” > is completely achieved; the Vâch of the _mantra_ is a spoken power, > which awakes another corresponding and still more occult power, each > allegorically personified by some god in the world of spirits, and, > according as it is used, responded to either by the gods or the > _Rakshasas_ (bad spirits). In the Brahmanical and Buddhist ideas, > a curse, a blessing, a vow, a desire, an idle thought, can each > assume a visible shape and so manifest itself _objectively_ to the > eyes of its author, or to him that it concerns. Every sin becomes > incarnated, so to say, and like an avenging fiend persecutes its > perpetrator. > > There are words which have a destructive quality in their very > syllables, as though objective things; for every sound awakens > a corresponding one in the invisible world of spirit, and the > repercussion produces either a good or bad effect. Harmonious rhythm, > a melody vibrating softly in the atmosphere, creates a beneficent and > sweet influence around, and acts most powerfully on the psychological > as well as physical natures of every living thing on earth; it reacts > even on inanimate objects, for matter is still spirit in its essence, > invisible as it may seem to our grosser senses. > > So with the numerals. Turn wherever we will, from the Prophets to the > Apocalypse, and we will see the biblical writers constantly using the > numbers _three_, _four_, _seven_, and _twelve_. > > And yet we have known some partisans of the _Bible_ who maintained > that the _Vedas_ were copied from the Mosaic books![812] The _Vedas_, > which are written in Sanscrit, a language whose grammatical rules and > forms, as Max Müller and other scholars confess, were _completely > established_ long before the days when the great wave of emigration > bore it from Asia all over the Occident, are there to proclaim their > parentage of every philosophy, and every religious institution > developed later among Semitic peoples. And which of the numerals > most frequently occur in the Sanscrit chants, those sublime hymns to > creation, to the unity of God, and the countless manifestations of > His power? ONE, THREE, and SEVEN. Read the hymn by Dirghatamas. > > “TO HIM WHO REPRESENTS ALL THE GODS.” > > “The _God_ here present, our blessed patron, our sacrificer, has > a brother who spreads himself in mid-air. There exists a _third_ > Brother whom we sprinkle with our libations.... It is he whom I have > seen master of men and armed with _seven_ rays.”[813] > > And again: > > “_Seven_ Bridles aid in guiding a car which has but ONE wheel, and > which is drawn by a single horse that shines with _seven_ rays. The > wheel has _three_ limbs, an immortal wheel, never-wearying, whence > hang all the worlds.” > > “Sometimes _seven_ horses drag a car of _seven_ wheels, and _seven_ > personages mount it, accompanied by _seven_ fecund nymphs of the > water.” > > And the following again, in honor of the fire-god--_Agni_, who is so > clearly shown but a spirit subordinate to the ONE God. > > “Ever ONE, although having _three_ forms of double nature > (androgynous)--he rises! and the priests offer to _God_, in the act > of sacrifice, their prayers which reach the heavens, borne aloft by > Agni.” > > Is this a coincidence, or, rather, as reason tells us, the result > of the derivation of many national cults from one primitive, > universal religion? A _mystery_ for the uninitiated, the _unveiling_ > of the most sublime (because correct and true) psychological and > physiological problems for the initiate. Revelations of the personal > spirit of man which is divine because that spirit is not only the > emanation of the ONE Supreme God, but is the only God man is able, > in his weakness and helplessness, to comprehend--to feel _within_ > himself. This truth the Vedic poet clearly confesses, when saying: > > “The Lord, Master of the universe and full of wisdom, has entered > with me (into me)--weak and ignorant--and has formed me of > _himself_ in that place[814] where the spirits obtain, by the help > of _Science_, the peaceful enjoyment of the _fruit_, as sweet as > ambrosia.” > > Whether we call this fruit “an apple” from the Tree of Knowledge, or > the _pippala_ of the Hindu poet, it matters not. It is the fruit of > esoteric wisdom. Our object is to show the existence of a religious > system in India for many thousands of years before the exoteric > fables of the Garden of Eden and the Deluge had been invented. Hence > the identity of doctrines. Instructed in them, each of the initiates > of other countries became, in his turn, the founder of some great > school of philosophy in the West. > > Who of our Sanscrit scholars has ever felt interested in discovering > the real sense of the following hymns, palpable as it is: “_Pippala_, > the sweet fruit of that tree upon which come _spirits_ who love the > _science_ (?) and where _the gods produce all marvels_. This is a > mystery for him _who knows not the Father_ of the world.” > > Or this one again: > > “These stanzas bear at their head a title which announces that > they are consecrated to the _Viswadévas_ (that is to say, to all > the gods). He who knows not the Being whom I sing _in all his > manifestations_, will comprehend nothing of my verses; those who do > know HIM are not strangers to this reünion.” > > This refers to the reünion and parting of the immortal and mortal > parts of man. “The immortal Being,” says the preceding stanza, “is in > the cradle of the mortal Being. The two eternal spirits go and come > everywhere; only some men know the one without knowing the other” > (_Dirghatamas_). > > Who can give a correct idea of Him of whom the _Rig-Veda_ says: > “That which is One the wise call it in divers manners.” That One is > sung by the Vedic poets in all its manifestations in nature; and the > books considered “childish and foolish” teach how at will to call the > beings of wisdom for our instruction. They teach, as Porphyry says: > “a liberation from all terrene concerns ... a flight of the _alone_ > to the ALONE.” > > Professor Max Müller, whose every word is accepted by his school > as philological gospel, is undoubtedly right in one sense when in > determining the nature of the Hindu gods, he calls them “masks > without an actor ... names without being, not beings without > names.”[815] For he but proves thereby the monotheism of the ancient > Vedic religion. But it seems to us more than dubious whether he or > any scientist of his school needed hope to fathom the old Aryan[816] > thought, without an accurate study of those very “masks.” To the > materialist, as to the scientist, who for various reasons endeavors > to work out the difficult problem of compelling facts to agree with > either their own hobbies or those of the _Bible_, they may seem > but the empty shells of phantoms. Yet such authorities will ever > be, as in the past, the unsafest of guides, except in matters of > exact science. The _Bible_ patriarchs are as much “masks without > actors,” as the pragâpatis, and yet, if the living personage behind > these masks is but an abstract shadow there is an idea embodied in > every one of them which belongs to the philosophical and scientific > theories of ancient wisdom.[817] And who can render better service in > this work than the native Brahmans themselves, or the kabalists? > > To deny, point-blank, any sound philosophy in the later Brahmanical > speculations upon the _Rig-Veda_, is equivalent to refusing to > ever correctly understand the mother-religion itself, which gave > rise to them, and which is the expression of the inner thought of > the direct ancestors of these later authors of the _Brahmanas_. If > learned Europeans can so readily show that all the Vedic gods are > but empty masks, they must also be ready to demonstrate that the > Brahmanical authors were as incapable as themselves to discover these > “actors” anywhere. This done, not only the three other sacred books > which Max Müller says “do not deserve the name of _Vedas_,” but the > _Rig-Veda_ itself becomes a meaningless jumble of words; for what > the world-renowned and subtile intellect of the ancient Hindu sages > failed to understand, no modern scientist, however learned, can hope > to fathom. Poor Thomas Taylor was right in saying that “philology is > not philosophy.” > > It is, to say the least, illogical to admit that there is a hidden > thought in the literary work of a race perhaps ethnologically > different from our own; and then, because it is utterly unintelligible > to us whose spiritual development during the several thousand > intervening years has bifurcated into quite a contrary direction--deny > that it has any sense in it at all. But this is precisely what, with > all due respect for erudition, Professor Max Müller and his school do > in this instance, at least. First of all, we are told that, albeit > cautiously and with some effort, yet we may still walk in the > footsteps of these authors of the _Vedas_. “We shall feel that we are > brought face to face and mind to mind with men yet intelligible to us > _after we have freed ourselves from our modern conceits_. We shall not > succeed always; words, verses, nay whole hymns in the _Rig-Veda_, will > and must remain to us a dead letter.... For, with a few exceptions ... > the whole world of the Vedic ideas is so entirely beyond our own > intellectual horizon, that instead of translating, we can as yet only > guess and combine.”[818] > > And yet, to leave us in no possible doubt as to the true value of > his words, the learned scholar, in another passage, expresses his > opinion on these same Vedas (with one exception) thus: “The only > important, the only real Veda, is the _Rig-Veda_--the other so-called > _Vedas_ deserve the name of _Veda_ no more than the _Talmud_ deserves > the name of _Bible_. Professor Müller rejects them as unworthy of > the attention of any one, and, as we understand it, on the ground > that they contain chiefly “sacrificial formulas, charms, and > incantations.”[819] > > And now, a very natural question: Are any of our scholars prepared > to demonstrate that, so far, they are intimately acquainted with the > hidden sense of these perfectly absurd “sacrificial formulas, charms, > and incantations” and magic nonsense of _Atharva-Veda_? We believe > not, and our doubt is based on the confession of Professor Müller > himself, just quoted. If “the whole world of the Vedic ideas [the > _Rig-Veda_ cannot be included alone in this _world_, we suppose] is > so entirely beyond our own [the scientists’] intellectual horizon > that, instead of translating, we can as yet only guess and combine;” > and the _Yagur-Veda_, _Sama-Veda_, and _Atharva-Veda_ are “childish > and foolish;”[820] and the _Brahmanas_, the _Sûtras Yâska_, and > _Sâyana_, “though _nearest in time_ to the hymns of the _Rig-Veda_, > indulge in the most frivolous and ill-judged interpretations,” how > can either himself or any other scholar form any adequate opinion > of either of them? If, again, the authors of the _Brahmanas_, the > nearest in time to the Vedic hymns, were already incompetent to offer > anything better than “ill-judged interpretations,” then at what > period of history, where, and by whom, were written these grandiose > poems, whose mystical sense has died with their generations? Are > we, then, so wrong in affirming that if sacred texts are found in > Egypt to have become--even to the priestly scribes of 4,000 years > ago--wholly unintelligible,[821] and the _Brahmanas_ offer but > “childish and foolish” interpretations of the _Rig-Veda_, at least as > far back as that, then, 1st, both the Egyptian and Hindu religious > philosophies are of an untold antiquity, far antedating ages > cautiously assigned them by our students of comparative mythology; > and, 2d, the claims of ancient priests of Egypt and modern Brahmans, > as to their age, are, after all, correct. > > We can never admit that the three other _Vedas_ are less worthy of > their name than the Rig-hymns, or that the _Talmud_ and the _Kabala_ > are so inferior to the _Bible_. The very name of the _Vedas_ (the > literal meaning of which is _knowledge_ or _wisdom_) shows them > to belong to the literature of those men who, in every country, > language, and age, have been spoken of as “those who know.” In > Sanscrit the third person singular is _véda_ (he knows), and the > plural is _vidá_ (they know). This word is synonymous with the Greek > θεοσέβεια which Plato uses when speaking of the _wise_--the magicians; > and with the Hebrew Hakamin, חכמים (wise men). Reject the > _Talmud_ and its old predecessor the _Kabala_, and it will be simply > impossible ever to render correctly one word of that _Bible_ so much > extolled at their expense. But then it is, perhaps, just what its > partisans are working for. To banish the _Brahmanas_ is to fling away > the key that unlocks the door of the _Rig-Veda_. The _literal_ > interpretation of the _Bible_ has already borne its fruits; with the > _Vedas_ and the Sanscrit sacred books in general it will be just the > same, with this difference, that the absurd interpretation of the > _Bible_ has received a time-honored right of eminent domain in the > department of the ridiculous; and will find its supporters, against > light and against proof. As to the “heathen” literature, after a few > more years of unsuccessful attempts at interpretation, its religious > meaning will be relegated to the limbo of exploded superstitions, and > people will hear no more of it. > > We beg to be clearly understood before we are blamed and criticised > for the above remarks. The vast learning of the celebrated Oxford > professor can hardly be questioned by his very enemies, yet we > have a right to regret his precipitancy to condemn that which he > himself confesses “entirely beyond our own intellectual horizon.” > Even in what he considers a ridiculous blunder on the part of the > author of the _Brahmanas_, other more spiritually-disposed persons > may see quite the reverse. “_Who_ is the greatest of the gods? Who > shall first be praised by our songs?” says an ancient Rishi of the > _Rig-Veda_; mistaking (as Prof. M. imagines) the interrogative > pronoun “Who” for some divine name. Says the Professor: “A place > is allotted in the sacrificial invocations to a god ‘Who,’ and > hymns addressed to him are called ‘Whoish hymns.’” And is a god > “Who” less natural as a term than a god “I am?” or “Whoish” hymns > less reverential than “I-amish” psalms? And who can prove that > this is really a blunder, and not a premeditated expression? Is it > so impossible to believe that the strange term was precisely due > to a reverential awe which made the poet hesitate before giving a > name, as form to that which is justly considered as the highest > abstraction of metaphysical ideals--God? Or that the same feeling > made the commentator who came after him to pause and so leave the > work of anthropomorphizing the “Unknown,” the “WHO,” to future human > conception? “These early poets thought more for themselves--than > for others,” remarks Max Müller himself. “They sought rather, in > their language, to be true to their own thought than to please > the imagination of their hearers.”[822] Unfortunately it is this > very thought which awakes no responsive echo in the minds of our > philologists. > > Farther, we read the sound advice to students of the _Rig-Veda_ > hymns, to collect, collate, sift, and reject. “Let him study the > commentaries, the _Sûtras_, the _Brahmanas_, and even later works, > in order to exhaust all the sources from which information can be > derived. He [the scholar] _must not despise the traditions of the > Brahmans_, even where their misconceptions ... are palpable.... Not > a corner in the _Brahmanas_, the _Sûtras_, _Yâska_, and _Sâyana_, > should be left unexplored _before we propose a rendering of our > own_.... When the scholar has done his work, the poet and philosopher > must take it up and finish it.”[823] > > Poor chance for a “philosopher” to step into the shoes of a learned > philologist and presume to correct _his_ errors! We would like to > see what sort of a reception the most learned Hindu scholar in India > would have from the educated public of Europe and America, if he > should undertake to correct a savant, after he had sifted, accepted, > rejected, explained, and declared what was good, and what “absurd and > childish” in the sacred books of his forefathers. That which would > finally be declared “Brahmanic misconceptions,” by the conclave of > European and especially German savants, would be as little likely to > be reconsidered at the appeal of the most erudite pundit of Benares > or Ceylon, as the interpretation of Jewish Scripture by Maimonides > and Philo-Judæus, by Christians after the Councils of the Church > had accepted the mistranslations and explanations of Irenæus and > Eusebius. What pundit, or native philosopher of India should know his > ancestral language, religion, or philosophy as well as an Englishman > or a German? Or why should a Hindu be more suffered to expound > Brahmanism, than a Rabbinical scholar to interpret Judaism or the > Isaïan prophecies? Safer, and far more trustworthy translators can be > had nearer home. Nevertheless, let us still hope that we may find at > last, even though it be in the dim future, a European philosopher to > sift the sacred books of the wisdom-religion, and not be contradicted > by every other of his class. > > Meanwhile, unmindful of any alleged authorities, let us try to sift > for ourselves a few of these myths of old. We will search for an > explanation within the popular interpretation, and feel our way > with the help of the magic lamp of Trismegistus--the mysterious > number _seven_. There must have been some reason why this figure was > universally accepted as a mystic calculation. With every ancient > people, the Creator, or Demiurge, was placed over the seventh heaven. > “And were I to touch upon the initiation into our sacred Mysteries,” > says Emperor Julian, the kabalist, “which the Chaldean bacchised > respecting the _seven-rayed God, lifting up the souls through Him_, I > should say things unknown, and _very unknown to the rabble_, but well > known to the _blessed Theurgists_.”[824] In _Lydus_ it is said that > “The Chaldeans call the God IAO, and SABAOTH he is often called, _as > He_ who is over the seven orbits (heavens, or spheres), that is the > Demiurge.”[825] > > One must consult the Pythagoreans and Kabalists to learn the > potentiality of this number. Exoterically the seven rays of the solar > spectrum are represented concretely in the seven-rayed god Heptaktis. > These seven rays epitomized into THREE primary rays, namely, the red, > blue, and yellow, form the solar trinity, and typify respectively > spirit-matter and spirit-essence. Science has also reduced of > late the seven rays to three primary ones, thus corroborating the > scientific conception of the ancients of at least one of the visible > manifestations of the invisible deity, and the seven divided into a > quaternary and a trinity. > > The Pythagoreans called the number seven the vehicle of life, as it > contained body and soul. They explained it by saying, that the human > body consisted of four principal elements, and that the soul is > triple, comprising reason, passion, and desire. The ineffable WORD > was considered the _Seventh_ and highest of all, for there are six > minor substitutes, each belonging to a degree of initiation. The Jews > borrowed their Sabbath from the ancients, who called it _Saturn’s_ > day and deemed it unlucky, and not the latter from the Israelites > when Christianized. The people of India, Arabia, Syria, and Egypt > observed weeks of seven days; and the Romans learned the hebdomadal > method from these foreign countries when they became subject to the > Empire. Still it was not until the fourth century that the Roman > kalends, nones, and ides were abandoned, and weeks substituted in > their place; and the astronomical names of the days, such as _dies > Solis_ (day of the Sun), _dies Lunæ_ (day of the Moon), _dies Martis_ > (day of Mars); _dies Mercurii_ (day of Mercury), _dies Jovis_ (day of > Jupiter), _dies Veneris_ (day of Venus), and _dies Saturni_ (day of > Saturn), prove that it was not from the Jews that the week of seven > days was adopted. Before we examine this number kabalistically, we > propose to analyse it from the standpoint of the Judaico-Christian > Sabbath. > > When Moses instituted the _yom shaba_, or _Shebang_ (Shabbath), the > allegory of the Lord God resting from his work of creation on the > seventh day was but a _cloak_, or, as the _Sohar_ expresses it, a > screen, to hide the true meaning. > > The Jews reckoned then, as they do now, their days by number, as, day > the _first_; day the second; and so on; _yom ahad_; _yom sheni_; _yom > shelisho_; _yom rebis_; _yom shamishi_; _yom shishehi_; yom SHABA. > > “The Hebrew _seven_ שבע, consisting of three letters, S. B. O., has > more than one meaning. First of all, it means _age_ or cycle, > Shab-ang; Sabbath שבע can be translated _old age_, as well as _rest_, > and in the old Coptic, _Sabe_ means _wisdom_, learning. Modern > archæologists have found that as in Hebrew _Sab_ שב also means > _gray-headed_, and that therefore the _Saba_-day was the day on which > the “gray-headed men, or ‘aged fathers’ of a tribe, were in the habit > of assembling for councils or sacrifices.”[826] > > “Thus, the week of six days and the seventh, the _Saba_ or > _Sapta_-day period, is of the highest antiquity. The observance of > the lunar festivals in India, shows that that nation held hebdomadal > meetings as well. With every new quarter the moon brings changes in > the atmosphere, hence certain changes are also produced throughout > the whole of our universe, of which the meteorological ones are the > most insignificant. On this day of the _seventh_ and most powerful > of the prismatic days, the adepts of the “Secret Science” meet as > they met thousands of years ago, to become the agents of the occult > powers of nature (emanations of the working God), and commune with > the invisible worlds. It is in this observance of the seventh day > by the old sages--not as the resting day of the Deity, but because > they had penetrated into its occult power, that lies the profound > veneration of all the heathen philosophers for the number _seven_ > which they term the “venerable,” the sacred number. The Pythagorean > _Tetraktis_, revered by the Platonists, was the _square_ placed below > the _triangle_; the latter, or the Trinity embodying the invisible > _Monad_--the unity, and deemed too sacred to be pronounced except > within the walls of a Sanctuary. > > The ascetic observance of the Christian Sabbath by Protestants is > pure religious tyranny, and does more harm, we fear, than good. It > really dates only from the enactment (in 1678) of the 29th of Charles > II., which prohibited any “tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, > or other person,” to “do or exercise any worldly labor, etc., etc., > upon the Lord’s day.” The Puritans carried this thing to extremes, > apparently to mark their hatred of Catholicism, both Roman and > Episcopal. That it was no part of the plan of Jesus that such a day > should be set apart, is evident not only from his words but acts. It > was not observed by the early Christians. > > When Trypho, _the Jew_, reproached the Christians _for not having a > Sabbath_, what does the martyr answer him? “The new law will have > you keep a perpetual Sabbath. You, when _you have passed a day in > idleness, think you are religious_. The Lord is not pleased with > such things as these. If any be guilty of _perjury or fraud_, let > him reform; _if he be an adulterer_, let him repent; and _he will > then have kept the kind of Sabbath truly pleasing to God_.... The > elements are never idle, and keep no Sabbath. There was no need of > the observance of Sabbaths before Moses, neither now is there any > need of them after Jesus Christ.” > > The _Heptaktis_ is not the Supreme Cause, but simply an emanation > from _Him_--the first visible manifestation of the Unrevealed Power. > “His Divine _Breath_, which, violently breaking forth, condensed > itself, shining with radiance until it evolved into Light, and so > became cognizant to external sense,” says John Reuchlin.[827] This > is the emanation of the Highest, the Demiurge, a multiplicity in a > _unity_, the _Elohim_, whom we see _creating_ our world, or rather > fashioning it, in six days, and resting on the _seventh_. And who are > these _Elohim_ but the euhemerized powers of nature, the faithful > manifested servants, the laws of Him who is immutable law and harmony > Himself? > > They remain over the seventh heaven (or spiritual world), for it > is they who, according to the kabalists, formed in succession the > six material worlds, or rather, attempts at worlds, that preceded > our own, which, they say, is the _seventh_. If, in laying aside the > metaphysico-spiritual conception, we give our attention but to the > religio-scientific problem of creation in “six days,” over which > our best biblical scholars have vainly pondered so long, we might, > perchance, be on the way to the true idea underlying the allegory. > The ancients were philosophers, consistent in all things. Hence, > they taught that each of these departed worlds, having performed its > physical evolution, and reached--through birth, growth, maturity, old > age, and death--the end of its cycle, had returned to its primitive > subjective form of a _spiritual_ earth. Thereafter it had to serve > through all eternity as the dwelling of those who had lived on it > as men, and even animals, but were now spirits. This idea, were it > even as incapable of exact demonstration as that of our theologians > relating to Paradise, is, at least, a trifle more philosophical. > > As well as man, and every other living thing upon it, our planet has > had its spiritual and physical evolution. From an impalpable ideal > _thought_ under the creative Will of Him of whom we know nothing, > and but dimly conceive in imagination, this globe became fluidic and > _semi_-spiritual, then condensed itself more and more, until its > physical development--matter, the tempting demon--compelled it to try > its own creative faculty. _Matter_ defied SPIRIT, and the earth, too, > had its “Fall.” The allegorical curse under which it labors, is that > it only _procreates_, it does not _create_. Our physical planet is > but the handmaiden, or rather the maid-of-all-work, of the spirit, > its master. “Cursed be the ground ... thorns and thistles shall it > bring,” the Elohim are made to say. “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth > children.” The Elohim say this both to the ground and the woman. And > this curse will last until the minutest particle of matter on earth > shall have outlived its days, until every grain of dust has, by > gradual transformation through evolution, become a constituent part > of a “living soul,” and, until the latter shall reascend the cyclic > arc, and finally stand--its own _Metatron_, or Redeeming Spirit--at > the foot of the upper step of the spiritual worlds, as at the first > hour of its emanation. Beyond that lies the great “Deep”--A MYSTERY! > > It must be remembered that every cosmogony has a _trinity_ of workers > at its head--Father, spirit; Mother, nature, or matter; and the > manifested universe, the Son or result of the two. The universe, > also, as well as each planet which it comprehends, passes through > _four_ ages, like man himself. All have their infancy, youth, > maturity, and old age, and these four added to the other three make > the sacred seven again. > > The introductory chapters of _Genesis_ were never meant to present > even a remote allegory of the creation of _our_ earth. They embrace > (chapter i.) a metaphysical conception of some indefinite period in > the eternity, when successive attempts were being made by the law of > evolution at the formation of universes. This idea is plainly stated > in the _Sohar_: “There were old worlds, which perished as soon as > they came into existence, were formless, and were called _sparks_. > Thus, the smith, when hammering the iron, lets the sparks fly in all > directions. The sparks are the primordial worlds which could not > continue, because the _Sacred Aged_ (Sephira) had not as yet assumed > its form (of androgyne or opposite sexes) of king and queen (Sephira > and Kadmon) and the Master was not yet at his work.”[828] > > The six periods or “days” of _Genesis_ refer to the same metaphysical > belief. Five such ineffectual attempts were made by the _Elohim_, but > the sixth resulted in worlds like our own (_i.e._, all the planets > and most of the stars are worlds, and inhabited, though not like our > earth). Having formed this world at last in the sixth period, the > Elohim rested in the _seventh_. Thus the “Holy One,” when he created > the present world, said: “This pleases me; the previous ones did not > please me.”[829] And the Elohim “saw everything that he had made, and > behold _it was_ very good. And the evening and the morning were the > sixth _day_.”--_Genesis_ i. > > The reader will remember that in Chapter IV. an explanation was > given of the “day” and “night” of Brahma. The former represents a > certain period of cosmical activity, the latter an equal one of > cosmical repose. In the one, worlds are being evolved, and passing > through their allotted four ages of existence; in the latter the > “inbreathing” of Brahma reverses the tendency of the natural forces; > everything visible becomes gradually dispersed; chaos comes; and > a long night of repose reinvigorates the cosmos for its next term > of evolution. In the morning of one of these “days” the formative > processes are gradually reaching their climax of activity; in the > evening imperceptibly diminishing the same until the _pralaya_ > arrives, and with it “_night_.” One such morning and evening do, in > fact, constitute a cosmic day; and it was a “day of Brahma” that the > kabalistic author of _Genesis_ had in mind each time when he said: > “And the evening and the morning were the first (or fifth or sixth, > or any other) _day_.” Six days of gradual evolution, one of repose, > and then--evening! Since the first appearance of man on _our_ earth > there has been an eternal Sabbath or rest for the Demiurge. > > The cosmogonical speculations of the first six chapters of _Genesis_ > are shown in the races of “sons of God,” “giants,” etc., of chapter > vi. Properly speaking, the story of the formation of our earth, or > “creation,” as it is very improperly called, begins with the rescue > of Noah from the deluge. The Chaldeo-Babylonian tablets recently > translated by George Smith leave no doubt of that in the minds of > those who read the inscriptions esoterically. Ishtar, the great > goddess, speaks in column iii. of the destruction of the _sixth_ > world and the appearance of the seventh, thus: > > “SIX _days_ and _nights_ the wind, deluge, and storm overwhelmed. > > “On the _seventh_ day, in its course was calmed the storm, and all > the deluge, > > “which had destroyed like an earthquake,[830] > > “quieted. The sea he caused to dry, and the wind and deluge ended.... > > “I perceived the shore at the boundary of the sea.... > > “to the country of Nizir went the ship (argha, or the moon). > > “the mountain of Nizir stopped the ship.... > > “the _first_ day, and the _second_ day, the mountain of Nizir the > same. > > “the _fifth_ and the _sixth_, the mountain of Nizir the same. > > “on the _seventh_ day, in the course of it > > “I sent forth a dove, and it left. The dove went and turned, and ... > the raven went ... and did not return. > > “I built an altar on the peak of the mountain. > > “by _seven_ herbs I cut, at the bottom of them I placed reeds, pines, > and simgar.... > > “the gods like flies over the sacrifice gathered. > > “from of old _also the great God_ in his course. > > “the great brightness (the sun) of Anu had created.[831] When the > glory of those gods the charm round my neck would not repel,” etc. > > All this has a purely astronomical, magical, and esoteric relation. > One who reads these tablets will recognize at a glance the biblical > account; and judge, at the same time, how disfigured is the great > Babylonian poem by euhemeric personages--degraded from their exalted > positions of gods into simple patriarchs. Space prevents our entering > fully into this biblical travesty of the Chaldean allegories. We > shall therefore but remind the reader that by the confession of the > most unwilling witnesses--such as Lenormant, first the inventor and > then champion of the Akkadians--the Chaldeo-Babylonian triad placed > under Ilon, the _unrevealed_ deity, is composed of Anu, Nuah, and > Bel. Anu is the primordial chaos, the god time and world at once, > χρόνος and κόσμος, the uncreated matter issued from the one and > fundamental principle of all things. As to _Nuah_, he is, according to > the same Orientalist: > > “... the intelligence, we will willingly say the _verbum_, which > animates and fecundates matter, which penetrates the universe, > directs and makes it live; and at the same time Nuah is the king of > the _humid principle; the Spirit moving on the waters_.” > > Is not this evident? Nuah is Noah, _floating on the waters_, in his > ark; the latter being the emblem of the argha, or moon, the feminine > principle; Noah is the “spirit” falling into matter. We find him as > soon as he descends upon the earth, planting a vineyard, drinking of > the wine, and getting drunk on it; _i.e._, the pure spirit becoming > intoxicated as soon as it is finally imprisoned in matter. The > seventh chapter of _Genesis_ is but another version of the first. > Thus, while the latter reads: “... and darkness was upon the face of > the deep. And the spirit (of God) moved upon the face of the waters,” > in chapter seventh, it is said: “... and the waters prevailed ... and > the ark went (with Noah--the spirit) upon the face of the waters.” > Thus Noah, if the Chaldean Nuah, is the spirit vivifying _matter_, > chaos represented by the deep or waters of the flood. In the > Babylonian legend it is Istar (Astoreth, the moon) which is shut up > in the ark, and sends out a dove (emblem of Venus and other lunar > goddesses) in search of dry land. And whereas in the Semitic tablets > it is Xisuthrus or Hasisadra who is “translated to the company of the > gods for his piety,” in the _Bible_ it is Enoch who walks with, and > being taken up by God, “was no more.” > > The successive existence of an incalculable number of worlds before > the subsequent evolution of our own, was believed and taught by all > the ancient peoples. The punishment of the Christians for despoiling > the Jews of their records and refusing the true key to them began > from the earliest centuries. And thus is it that we find the holy > Fathers of the Church laboring through an impossible chronology and > the absurdities of literal interpretation, while the learned rabbis > were perfectly aware of the real significance of their allegories. > So not only in the _Sohar_, but also in other kabalistic works > accepted by Talmudists, such as _Midrash Berasheth_, or the universal > _Genesis_, which, with the _Merkaba_ (the chariot of Ezekiel), > composes the _Kabala_, may be found the doctrine of a whole series of > worlds evolving out of the chaos, and being destroyed in succession. > > The Hindu doctrines teach of two _Pralayas_ or dissolutions; one > universal, the Maha-Pralaya, the other partial, or the minor Pralaya. > This does not relate to the universal dissolution which occurs at the > end of every “Day of Brahma,” but to the geological cataclysms at the > end of every minor cycle of our globe. This historical and purely > local deluge of Central Asia, the traditions of which can be traced > in every country, and which, according to Bunsen, happened about the > year 10,000 B.C., had naught to do with the mythical Noah, or Nuah. > A partial cataclysm occurs at the close of every “age” of the world, > they say, which does not destroy the latter, but only changes its > general appearance. New races of men and animals and a new flora > evolve from the dissolution of the precedent ones. > > The allegories of the “fall of man” and the “deluge,” are the two > most important features of the _Pentateuch_. They are, so to say, > the Alpha and Omega, the highest and the lowest keys of the scale > of harmony on which resounds the majestic hymns of the creation > of mankind; for they discover to him who questions the _Zura_ > (figurative _Gemantria_), the process of man’s evolution from the > highest spiritual entity unto the lowest physical--the post-diluvian > man, as in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, every sign of the picture > writing which cannot be made to fit within a certain circumscribed > geometrical figure may be rejected as only intended by the sacred > hierogrammatist for a premeditated blind--so many of the details in > the _Bible_ must be treated on the same principle, that portion only > being accepted which answers to the numerical methods taught in the > _Kabala_. > > The deluge appears in the Hindu books only as a tradition. It claims > no sacred character, and we find it but in the _Mahâbhârata_, the > _Puranas_, and still earlier in the _Satapatha_, one of the latest > _Brahmanas_. It is more than probable that Moses, or whoever wrote > for him, used these accounts as the basis of his own purposely > disfigured allegory, adding to it moreover the Chaldean Berosian > narrative. In _Mahâbhârata_, we recognize Nimrod under the name of > _King Daytha_. The origin of the Grecian fable of the Titans scaling > Olympus, and the other of the builders of the Tower of Babel who > seek to reach heaven, is shown in the impious _Daytha_, who sends > imprecations against heaven’s thunder, and threatens to conquer > heaven itself with his mighty warriors, thereby bringing upon > humanity the wrath of Brahma. “The Lord then resolved,” says the > text, “to chastise his creatures with a terrible punishment which > should serve as a warning to survivors, and to their descendants.” > > _Vaivasvata_ (who in the _Bible_ becomes Noah) saves a little fish, > which turns out to be an _avatar_ of Vishnu. The fish warns that just > man that the globe is about to be submerged, that all that inhabit it > must perish, and orders him to construct a vessel in which he shall > embark, with all his family. When the ship is ready, and _Vaivasvata_ > has shut up in it with his family _the seeds of plants and pairs of > all animals_, and the rain begins to fall, a gigantic fish, armed > with a horn, places itself at the head of the ark. The holy man, > following its orders, attaches a cable to this horn, and the fish > guides the ship safely through the raging elements. In the Hindu > tradition the number of days during which the deluge lasted _agrees > exactly with that of the Mosaic account_. When the elements were > calmed, the fish landed the ark on the summit of the Himalayas. > > This fable is considered by many orthodox commentators to have been > borrowed from the Mosaic _Scriptures_.[832] But surely if such a > _universal_ cataclysm had ever taken place within man’s memory, > some of the monuments of the Egyptians, of which many are of such a > tremendous antiquity, would have recorded that occurrence, coupled > with that of the disgrace of Ham, Canaan, and Mizraim, their > alleged ancestors. But, till now, there has not been found the > remotest allusion to such a calamity, although Mizraim certainly > belongs to the first generation after the deluge, if not actually > an antediluvian himself. On the other hand the Chaldeans preserved > the tradition, as we find Berosus testifying to it, and the ancient > Hindus possess the legend as given above. Now, there is but one > explanation of the extraordinary fact that of two contemporary > and civilized nations like Egypt and Chaldea, one has preserved > no tradition of it whatever, although it was the most directly > interested in the occurrence--if we credit the _Bible_--and the other > has. The deluge noticed in the _Bible_, in one of the _Brahmanas_, > and in the Berosus _Fragment_, relates to the partial flood which, > about 10,000 years B.C., according to Bunsen, and according to the > Brahmanical computations of the Zodiac also changed the whole face > of Central Asia.[833] Thus the Babylonians and the Chaldeans might > have learned of it from their mysterious guests, christened by some > Assyriologists Akkadians, or what is still more probable they, > themselves, perhaps, were the descendants of those who had dwelt > in the submerged localities. The Jews had the tale from the latter > as they had everything else; the Brahmans may have recorded the > traditions of the lands which they first invaded, and had perhaps > inhabited before they possessed themselves of the Punjâb. But the > Egyptians, whose first settlers had evidently come from Southern > India, had less reason to record the cataclysm, since it had perhaps > never affected them except indirectly, as the flood was limited to > Central Asia. > > Burnouf, noticing the fact that the story of the deluge is found only > in one of the most modern _Brahmanas_, also thinks that it might > have been borrowed by the Hindus from the Semitic nations. Against > such an assumption are ranged all the traditions and customs of the > Hindus. The Aryans, and especially the Brahmans, never borrowed > anything at all from the Semitists, and here we are corroborated by > one of those “unwilling witnesses,” as Higgins calls the partisans of > Jehovah and _Bible_. “I have never seen anything in the history of > the Egyptians and Jews,” writes Abbé Dubois, forty years a resident > of India, “that would induce me to believe that either of these > nations, or any other on the face of the earth, have been established > earlier than the Hindus, and particularly the Brahmans; so I cannot > be induced to believe that the latter have drawn their rites from > foreign nations. On the contrary, I infer that they have drawn them > from an original source of their own. Whoever knows anything of the > spirit and character of the Brahmans, their stateliness, their pride, > and extreme vanity, their distance, and sovereign contempt for > everything that is foreign, and of which they cannot boast to have > been the inventors, will agree with me that such a people cannot have > consented to draw their customs and rules of conduct from an alien > country.”[834] > > This fable which mentions the earliest avatar--the Matsya--relates > to another yuga than our own, that of the first appearance of animal > life; perchance, who knows, to the Devonian age of our geologists? It > certainly answers better to the latter than the year 2348 B.C.! Apart > from this, the very absence of all mention of the deluge from the > oldest books of the Hindus suggests a powerful argument when we are > left utterly to inferences as in this case. “The _Vedas_ and _Manu_,” > says Jacolliot, “those monuments of the old Asiatic thought, existed > far earlier than the diluvian period; _this is an incontrovertible > fact, having all the value of an historical truth_, for, besides the > tradition which shows Vishnu himself as saving the _Vedas_ from the > deluge--a tradition which, notwithstanding its legendary form, must > certainly rest upon a real fact--it has been remarked that neither > of these sacred books mention the cataclysm, while the _Pûranas_ > and the _Mahâbhârata_, and a great number of other more recent > works, describe it with the minutest detail, _which is a proof of > the priority of the former_. The _Vedas_ certainly would never have > failed to contain a few hymns on the terrible disaster which, of all > other natural manifestations, must have struck the imagination of the > people who witnessed it.” > > “Neither would Manu, who gives us a complete narrative of the > creation, with a chronology from the divine and heroical ages, down > to the appearance of man on earth--have passed in silence an event > of such importance.” _Manu_ (book i., sloka 35), gives the names > of ten eminent saints whom he calls pradjâpatis (more correctly > _pragâpatis_), in whom the Brahman theologians see prophets, > ancestors of the human race, and the Pundits simply consider as ten > powerful kings who lived in the Krita-yug, or the age of good (the > golden age of the Greeks). > > The last of these pragâpatis is Brighou. > > “Enumerating the succession of these eminent beings who, according to > Manu, have governed the world, the old Brahmanical legislator names > as descending from Brighou: Swârotchica, Ottami, Tamasa, Raivata, the > glorious Tchâkchoucha, and the son of Vivasvat, every one of the six > having made himself worthy of the title of Manu (divine legislator), > a title which had equally belonged to the Pradjâpatis, and every > great personage of primitive India. The genealogy stops at this name. > > “Now, according to the _Pûranas_ and the _Mahâbhârata_ it was under a > descendant of this son of Vivaswata, named Vaivaswata that occurred > the great cataclysm, the remembrance of which, as will be seen, has > passed into a tradition, and been carried by emigration into all > the countries of the East and West which India has colonized since > then.... > > “The genealogy given by Manu stopping, as we have seen, at Vivaswata, > it follows that this work (of Manu) knew nothing either of Vivaswata > or the deluge.”[835] > > The argument is unanswerable; and we commend it to those official > scientists, who, to please the clergy, dispute every fact proving the > tremendous antiquity of the _Vedas_ and _Manu_. Colonel Vans Kennedy > has long since declared that Babylonia was, from her origin, the seat > of _Sanscrit_ literature and Brahman learning. And how or why should > the Brahmans have penetrated there, unless it was as the result of > intestine wars and emigration from India? The fullest account of the > deluge is found in the _Mahâbhârata_ of Vedavyasa, a poem in honor > of the astrological allegories on the wars between the Solar and the > Lunar races. One of the versions states that Vivaswata became the > father of all the nations of the earth through his own progeny, and > this is the form adopted for the Noachian story; the other states > that--like Deukalion and Pyrrha--he had but to throw pebbles into the > ilus left by the retiring waves of the flood, to produce men at will. > These two versions--one Hebrew, the other Greek--allow us no choice. > We must either believe that the Hindus borrowed from pagan Greeks as > well as from monotheistic Jews, or--what is far more probable--that > the versions of both of these nations are derived from the Vedic > literature through the Babylonians. > > History tells us of the stream of immigration across the Indus, and > later of its overflowing the Occident; and of populations of Hindu > origin passing from Asia Minor to colonize Greece. But history says > not a single word of the “chosen people,” or of Greek colonies having > penetrated India earlier than the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., when > we first find vague traditions that make some of the problematical > _lost_ tribes of Israel, take from Babylon the route to India. But > even were the story of the ten tribes to find credence, and the > tribes themselves be proved to have existed in profane as well as in > sacred history, this does not help the solution at all. Colebrooke, > Wilson, and other eminent Indianists show the _Mahâbhârata_, if not > the _Satapatha_-brâhmana, in which the story is also given, as by > far antedating the age of Cyrus, hence, the possible time of the > appearance of any of the tribes of Israel in India.[836] > > Orientalists accord the _Mahâbhârata_ an antiquity of between twelve > and fifteen hundred years B.C.; as to the Greek version it bears as > little evidence as the other, and the attempts of the Hellenists in > this direction have as signally failed. The story of the conquering > army of Alexander penetrating into Northern India, itself becomes > more doubted every day. No Hindu national record, not the slightest > historical memento, throughout the length and breadth of India offers > the slightest trace of such an invasion. > > If even such _historical facts_ are now found to have been all the > while fictions, what are we to think of narratives which bear on > their very face the stamp of invention? We cannot help sympathizing > at heart with Professor Müller when he remarks that it seems > “blasphemy to consider these fables of the heathen world as corrupted > and misinterpreted fragments of _divine_ Revelation once granted to > the whole race of mankind.” Only, can this scholar be held perfectly > impartial and fair to both parties, unless he includes in the number > of these fables those of the _Bible_? And is the language of the _Old > Testament_ more _pure_ or _moral_ than the books of the Brahmans? Or > any fables of the _heathen_ world more blasphemous and ridiculous > than Jehovah’s interview with Moses (_Exodus_ xxxiii. 23)? Are any of > the Pagan gods made to appear more fiendish than the same Jehovah in > a score of passages? If the feelings of a pious Christian are shocked > at the absurdities of Father Kronos eating his children and maiming > Uranos; or of Jupiter throwing Vulcan down from heaven and breaking > his leg; on the other hand he cannot feel hurt if a _non_-Christian > laughs at the idea of Jacob boxing with the Creator, who “when he saw > that _he prevailed not_ against him,” dislocated Jacob’s thigh, the > patriarch still holding fast to God and not allowing Him to go His > way, notwithstanding His pleading. > > Why should the story of Deukalion and Pyrrha, throwing stones behind > them, and thus creating the human race, be deemed more ridiculous > than that of Lot’s wife being changed into a pillar of salt, or of > the Almighty creating men _of clay_ and then breathing the breath of > life into them? The choice between the latter mode of creation and > that of the Egyptian ram-horned god fabricating man on a potter’s > wheel is hardly perceptible. The story of Minerva, goddess of wisdom, > ushered into existence after a certain period of gestation in her > father’s brain, is at least suggestive and poetical, as an allegory. > No ancient Greek was ever burned for not accepting it literally; and, > at all events, “heathen” fables in general are far less preposterous > and blasphemous than those imposed upon Christians, ever since the > Church accepted the _Old Testament_, and the Roman Catholic Church > opened its register of thaumaturgical saints. > > “Many of the natives of India,” continues Professor Müller, “confess > that their feelings revolt against the impurities attributed to > the gods by what they call their sacred writings; yet there are > honest Brahmans who will maintain that _these stories have a deeper > meaning_; that immorality being incompatible with a divine being, > _a mystery_ must be supposed to be concealed in these time-hallowed > fables, a mystery which an inquiring and reverent mind may hope to > fathom.” > > This is precisely what the Christian clergy maintain in attempting > to explain the indecencies and incongruities of the _Old Testament_. > Only, instead of allowing the interpretation to those who have the > key to these seeming incongruities, they have assumed to themselves > the office and right, by _divine_ proxy, to interpret these in their > own way. They have not only done that but have gradually deprived the > Hebrew clergy of the means to interpret their Scriptures as their > fathers did; so that to find among the Rabbis in the present century > a well-versed kabalist, is quite rare. The Jews have themselves > forgotten the key! How could they help it? Where are the original > manuscripts? The oldest Hebrew manuscript in existence is said to be > the _Bodleian Codex_, which is not older than between eight and nine > hundred years.[837] The break between Ezra and this _Codex_ is thus > fifteen centuries. In 1490 the Inquisition _caused all the Hebrew > Bibles to be burned_; and Torquemada alone destroyed 6,000 volumes > at Salamanca. Except a few manuscripts of the _Tora Ketubim_ and > _Nebiim_, used in the synagogues, and which are of quite a recent > date, we do not think there is one old manuscript in existence which > is not punctuated, hence--completely misinterpreted and altered by > the Masorets. Were it not for this timely invention of the _Masorah_, > no copy of the _Old Testament_ could possibly be tolerated in our > century. It is well known that the Masorets while transcribing the > oldest manuscripts put themselves to task to take out, except in a > few places which they have probably overlooked, all the _immodest_ > words and put in places sentences of their own, often changing > completely the sense of the verse. “It is clear,” says Donaldson, > “that the Masoretic school at Tiberias were engaged in settling > or unsettling the Hebrew text until the final publication of the > _Masorah_ itself.” Therefore, had we but the original texts--judging > by the present copies of the _Bible_ in our possession--it would > be really edifying to compare the _Old Testament_ with the _Vedas_ > and even with the Brahmanical books. We verily believe that no > faith, however blind, could stand before such an avalanche of crude > impurities and fables. If the latter are not only accepted but > enforced upon millions of civilized persons who find it respectable > and edifying to believe in them as _divine revelation_, why should we > wonder that Brahmans believe their books to be equally a _Sruti_, a > revelation? > > Let us thank the Masorets by all means, but let us study at the same > time both sides of the medal. > > Legends, myths, allegories, symbols, if they but belong to the Hindu, > Chaldean, or Egyptian tradition, are thrown into the same heap of > fiction. Hardly are they honored with a superficial search into > their possible relations to astronomy or sexual emblems. The same > myths--when and because mutilated--are accepted as Sacred Scriptures, > more--the Word of God! Is this impartial history? Is this justice to > either the past, the present, or the future? “Ye cannot serve God and > Mammon,” said the Reformer, nineteen centuries ago. “Ye cannot serve > truth and public prejudice,” would be more applicable to our own age. > Yet our authorities pretend they serve the former. > > There are few myths in any religious system but have an historical > as well as a scientific foundation. Myths, as Pococke ably > expresses it, “are now proved to be fables, just in proportion as > we _misunderstand_ them; truths, in proportion as they were once > _understood_. Our ignorance it is which has made a myth of history; > and our ignorance is an Hellenic inheritance, much of it the result > of Hellenic vanity.”[838] > > Bunsen and Champollion have already shown that the Egyptian sacred > books are by far older than the oldest parts of the _Book of > Genesis_. And now a more careful research seems to warrant the > suspicion--which with us amounts to a certainty, that the laws > of Moses are copies from the code of the Brahmanic _Manu_. Thus, > according to every probability, Egypt owes her civilization, her > civil institutions, and her arts, to India. But against the latter > assumption we have a whole army of “authorities” arrayed, and what > matters if the latter do deny the fact at present? Sooner or later > they will have to accept it, whether they belong to the German or > French school. Among, but not of those who so readily compromise > between interest and conscience, there are some fearless scholars, > who may bring out to light incontrovertible facts. Some twenty > years since, Max Müller, in a letter to the Editor of the London > _Times_, April, 1857, maintained most vehemently that Nirvana meant > _annihilation_, in the fullest sense of the word. (See _Chips_, > etc., vol. i., p. 287, on the meaning of Nirvana.) But in 1869, in > a lecture before the general meeting of the Association of German > Philologists at Kiel, “he distinctly declares his belief that the > nihilism attributed to Buddha’s teaching forms no part of his > doctrine, and that it is wholly wrong to suppose that Nirvana means > annihilation.” (Trübner’s _American and Oriental Literary Record_, > Oct. 16, 1869; also Inman’s _Ancient Faiths and Modern_, p. 128.) Yet > if we mistake not, Professor Müller was as much of an authority in > 1857 as in 1869. > > “It will be difficult to settle,” says (now) this great scholar, > “whether the _Vedas_ is the oldest of books, and whether some of the > portions of the _Old Testament_ may not be traced back to the same > or even an earlier date than the oldest hymns of the _Veda_.”[839] > But his retraction about the Nirvana allows us a hope that he may yet > change his opinion on the question of _Genesis_ likewise, so that the > public may have simultaneously the benefit of truth, and the sanction > of one of Europe’s greatest authorities. > > It is well known how little the Orientalists have come to anything > like an agreement about the age of Zoroaster, and until this question > is settled, it would be safer perhaps to trust implicitly in the > Brahmanical calculations by the Zodiac, than to the opinions of > scientists. Leaving the profane horde of unrecognized scholars, those > we mean who yet wait their turn to be chosen for public worship > as idols symbolical of scientific leadership, where can we find, > among the sanctioned authorities of the day, two that agree as to > this age? There’s Bunsen, who places Zoroaster at Baktra, and the > emigration of Baktrians to the Indus at 3784 B.C.,[840] and the > birth of Moses at 1392.[841] Now it is rather difficult to place > Zoroaster anterior to the _Vedas_, considering that the whole of > his doctrine is that of the earlier _Vedas_. True, he remained in > Afghanistan for a period more or less problematical before crossing > into the Punjâb; but the _Vedas_ were begun in the latter country. > They indicate the progress of the Hindus, as the _Avesta_ that > of the Iranians. And there is Haug who assigns to the _Aitareya > Brahmanam_--a Brahmanical speculation and commentary upon the > _Rig-Veda_ of a far later date than the _Veda_ itself--between 1400 > and 1200 B.C., while the _Vedas_ are placed by him between 2,000 and > 2,400 years B.C. Max Müller cautiously suggests certain difficulties > in this chronological computation, but still does not altogether > deny it.[842] Let it, however, be as it may, and supposing that the > _Pentateuch_ was written by Moses himself--notwithstanding that he > would thereby be made to twice record his own death--still, if Moses > was born, as Bunsen finds, in 1392 B.C., the _Pentateuch_ could not > have been written, _before the Vedas_. Especially if Zoroaster was > born 3784 B.C. If, as Dr. Haug[843] tells us, some of the hymns of > the _Rig-Veda_ were written before Zoroaster accomplished his schism, > something like thirty-seven centuries B.C., and Max Müller says > himself that “the Zoroastrians and their ancestors started from India > during the Vaidic period,” how can some of the portions of the _Old > Testament_ be traced back to the same or even “an earlier date than > the oldest hymns of the _Veda_?” > > It has generally been agreed among Orientalists that the Aryans, > 3,000 years B.C., were still in the steppes east of the Caspian, > and united. Rawlinson _conjectures_ that they “flowed east” from > Armenia as a common centre; while two kindred streams began to flow, > one northward over the Caucasus, and the other westward over Asia > Minor and Europe. He finds the Aryans, at a period anterior to the > fifteenth century before our era, “settled in the territory watered > by the Upper Indus.” Thence Vedic Aryans migrated to the Punjâb, and > Zendic Aryans westward, establishing the historical countries. But > this, like the rest, is a hypothesis, and only given as such. > > Again, Rawlinson, evidently following Max Müller, says: “The early > history of the Aryans is for many ages an absolute blank.” But many > learned Brahmans, however, have declared that they found trace of > the existence of the _Vedas_ as early as 2100 B.C.; and Sir William > Jones, taking for his guide the astronomical data, places the > _Yagur-Veda_ 1580 B.C. This would be still “before Moses.” > > It is upon the supposition that the Aryans did not leave Afghanistan > for the Punjâb prior to 1500 B.C. that Max Müller and other Oxford > savants have supposed that portions of the _Old Testament_ may be > traced back to the same or even an earlier date than the oldest > hymns of the _Veda_. Therefore, until the Orientalists can show us > the correct date at which Zoroaster flourished, no authority can be > regarded as better for the ages of the _Vedas_ than the Brahmans > themselves. > > As it is a recognized fact that the Jews borrowed most of their laws > from the Egyptians, let us examine who were the Egyptians. In our > opinion--which is but a poor authority, of course--they were the > ancient Indians, and in our first volume we have quoted passages from > the historian Collouca-Batta that support such a theory. What we mean > by ancient India is the following: > > No region on the map--except it be the ancient Scythia--is more > uncertainly defined than that which bore the designation of India. > Æthiopia is perhaps the only parallel. It was the home of the Cushite > or Hamitic races, and lay to the east of Babylonia. It was once the > name of Hindustan, when the dark races, worshippers of Bala-Mahadeva > and Bhavani-Mahidevi, were supreme in that country. The India of > the early sages appears to have been the region at the sources of > the Oxus and Jaxartes. Apollonius of Tyana crossed the Caucasus, or > Hindu Kush, where he met with a king who directed him to the abode of > the sages--perhaps the descendants of those whom Ammianus terms the > “Brahmans of Upper India,” and whom Hystaspes, the father of Darius > (or more probably Darius Hystaspes himself) visited; and, having > been instructed by them, infused their rites and ideas into the > Magian observances. This narrative about Apollonius seems to indicate > Kashmere as the country which he visited, and the _Nagas_--after > their conversion to Buddhism--as his teachers. At this time Aryan > India did not extend beyond the Punjâb. > > To our notion, the most baffling impediment in the way of > ethnological progress has always been the triple progeny of Noah. > In the attempt to reconcile postdiluvian races with a genealogical > descent from Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the Christianesque Orientalists > have set themselves a task impossible of accomplishment. The biblical > Noachian ark has been a Procrustean bed to which they had to make > everything fit. Attention has therefore been diverted from veritable > sources of information as to the origin of man, and a purely local > allegory mistaken for a historical record emanating from an inspired > source. Strange and unfortunate choice! Out of all the sacred > writings of all the branch nations, sprung from the primitive stock > of mankind, Christianity must choose for its guidance the national > records and scriptures of a people perhaps the least spiritual of > the human family--the Semitic. A branch that has never been able to > develop out of its numerous tongues a language capable of embodying > ideas of a moral and intellectual world; whose form of expression > and drift of thought could never soar higher than the purely sensual > and terrestrial figures of speech; whose literature has left nothing > original, nothing that was not borrowed from the Aryan thought; and > whose science and philosophy are utterly wanting in those noble > features which characterize the highly spiritual and metaphysical > systems of the Indo-European (Japetic) races. > > Bunsen shows Khamism (the language of Egypt) as a very ancient > deposit from Western Asia, containing _the germs_ of the Semitic, and > thus bearing “witness to the primitive cognate unity of the Semitic > and Aryan races.” We must remember, in this connection, that the > peoples of Southwestern and Western Asia, including the Medes, were > all Aryans. It is yet far from being proved who were the original and > primitive masters of India. That this period is now beyond the reach > of documentary history, does not preclude the probability of our > theory that it was the mighty race of builders, whether we call them > Eastern Æthiopians, or dark-skinned Aryans (the word meaning simply > “noble warrior,” a “brave”). They ruled supreme at one time over the > whole of ancient India, enumerated later by Manu as the possession of > those whom our scientists term the Sanscrit-speaking people. > > These Hindus are _supposed_ to have entered the country from the > northwest; they are _conjectured_ by some to have brought with them > the Brahmanical religion, and the language of the conquerors was > _probably_ the Sanscrit. On these three meagre data our philologists > have worked ever since the Hindustani and its immense Sanscrit > literature was forcibly brought into notice by Sir William Jones--all > the time with the three sons of Noah clinging around their necks. > This is _exact_ science, free from religious prejudices! Verily, > ethnology would have been the gainer if this Noachian trio had been > washed overboard and drowned before the ark reached land! > > The Æthiopians are generally classed in the Semitic group; but we > have to see how far they have a claim to such a classification. > We will also consider how much they might have had to do with the > Egyptian civilization, which, as a writer expresses it, seems > referable in the same perfection to the earliest dates, and not to > have had a rise and progress, as was the case with that of other > peoples. For reasons that we will now adduce, we are prepared > to maintain that Egypt owes her civilization, commonwealth and > arts--especially the art of building, to pre-Vedic India, and that > it was a colony of the dark-skinned Aryans, or those whom Homer and > Herodotus term the eastern Æthiopians, _i.e._, the inhabitants of > Southern India, who brought to it their ready-made civilization in > the ante-chronological ages, of what Bunsen calls the pre-Menite, but > nevertheless epochal history. > > In Pococke’s _India in Greece_, we find the following suggestive > paragraph: “The plain account of the wars carried on between > the solar chiefs, Oosras (Osiris) the prince of the Guelas, and > ‘TU-PHOO’ is the simple historical fact of the wars of the Apians, > or Sun-tribes of Oude, with the people of ‘TU-PHOO’ or THIBET, who > were, in fact, the lunar race, mostly Buddhists[844] and opposed > by Rama and the ‘AITYO-PIAS’ or people of Oude, subsequently the > AITH-IO-PIANS of Africa.”[845] > > We would remind the reader in this connection, that Ravan, the > giant, who, in the _Ramayana_, wages such a war with Rama Chandra, > is shown as King of Lanka, which was the ancient name for Ceylon; > and that Ceylon, in those days, perhaps formed part of the main-land > of Southern India, and was peopled by the “Eastern Æthiopians.” > Conquered by Rama, the son of Dasarata, the Solar King of ancient > Oude, a colony of these emigrated to Northern Africa. If, as many > suspect, Homer’s _Iliad_ and much of his account of the Trojan war > is plagiarized from the _Ramayana_, then the traditions which served > as a basis for the latter must date from a tremendous antiquity. > Ample margin is thus left in pre-chronological history for a period, > during which the “Eastern Æthiopians” might have established the > hypothetical Mizraic colony, with their high Indian civilization and > arts. > > Science is still in the dark about cuneiform inscriptions. Until > these are completely deciphered, especially those cut in rocks found > in such abundance within the boundaries of the old Iran, who can tell > the secrets they may yet reveal? There are no Sanscrit monumental > inscriptions older than Chandragupta (315 B.C.), and the Persepolitan > inscriptions are found 220 years older. There are even now some > manuscripts in characters utterly unknown to philologists and > palæographists, and one of them is, or was, some time since in the > library of Cambridge, England. Linguistic writers class the Semitic > with the Indo-European language, generally including the Æthiopian > and the ancient Egyptian in the classification. But if some of the > dialects of the modern Northern Africa, and even the modern Gheez or > Æthiopian, are now so degenerated and corrupted as to admit of false > conclusions as to the genetical relationship between them and the > other Semitic tongues, we are not at all sure that the latter have > any claim to such a classification, except in the case of the old > Coptic and the ancient Gheez. > > That there is more consanguinity between the Æthiopians and the > Aryan, dark-skinned races, and between the latter and the Egyptians, > is something which yet may be proved. It has been lately found that > the ancient Egyptians were of the Caucasian type of mankind, and > the shape of their skulls is purely Asiatic.[846] If they were less > copper-colored than the Æthiopians of our modern day, the Æthiopians > themselves might have had a lighter complexion in days of old. The > fact that, with the Æthiopian kings, the order of succession gave the > crown to the nephew of the king, the _son of his sister_, and not > to his own son, is extremely suggestive. It is an old custom which > prevails until now in Southern India. The Rajah is not succeeded by > his own sons, but by _his sister’s sons_.[847] > > Of all the dialects and tongues alleged to be Semitic, the Æthiopian > alone is written from left to right like the Sanscrit and the > Indo-Aryan people.[848] > > Thus, against the origin of the Egyptians being attributed to an > ancient Indian colony, there is no graver impediment than Noah’s > disrespectful son--Ham--himself a myth. But the earliest form of > Egyptian religious worship and government, theocratic and sacerdotal, > and her habits and customs all bespeak an Indian origin. > > The earliest legends of the history of India mention two dynasties > now lost in the night of time; the first was the dynasty of kings, > of “the race of the sun,” who reigned in Ayodhia (now Oude); the > second that of the “race of the moon,” who reigned in Pruyag > (Allahabad). Let him who desires information on the religious > worship of these early kings read the _Book of the Dead_, of the > Egyptians, and all the peculiarities attending this sun-worship and > the sun-gods. Neither Osiris nor Horus are ever mentioned without > being connected with the sun. They are the “Sons of the _Sun_;” “the > Lord and Adorer of the Sun” is his name. “The sun is the creator of > the body, the engenderer of the gods who are _the successors of the > Son_.” Pococke, in his most ingenious work, strongly advocates the > same idea, and endeavors to establish still more firmly the identity > of the Egyptian, Greek, and Indian mythology. He shows the head > of the Rajpoot Solar race--in fact the great Cuclo-pos (Cyclop or > builder)--called “The great sun,” in the earliest Hindu tradition. > This Gok-la Prince, the patriarch of the vast bands of Inachienses, > he says, “this _Great Sun_ was deified at his death, and according > to the Indian doctrine of the metempsychosis, his Soul was supposed > to have transmigrated into the bull ‘Apis,’ the Sera-pis of the > Greeks, and the SOORA-PAS, or ‘Sun-Chief’ of the Egyptians.... > _Osiris_, properly Oosras, signifies both a ‘a bull,’ and ‘a ray of > light.’ _Soora-pas_ (Serapis) the sun chief,” for the Sun in Sanscrit > is Sûrya. Champollion’s _Manifestation to the Light_, reminds in > every chapter of the two Dynasties of the Kings of the Sun and the > Moon. Later, these kings became all deified and transformed after > death into solar and lunar deities. Their worship was the earliest > corruption of the great primitive faith which justly considered the > sun and its fiery life-giving rays as the most appropriate symbol to > remind us of the universal invisible presence of Him who is master of > Life and Death. And now it can be traced all around the globe. It was > the religion of the earliest Vedic Brahmans, who call, in the oldest > hymns of the _Rig-Veda_, Sûrya (the sun) and Agni (fire) “the ruler > of the universe,” “the lord of men,” and the “wise king.” It was the > worship of the Magians, the Zoroastrians, the Egyptians and Greeks, > whether they called him Mithra, or Ahura-Mazda, or Osiris, or Zeus, > keeping in honor of his next of kin, Vesta, the pure celestial fire. > And this religion is found again in the Peruvian solar-worship; in > the Sabianism and heliolatry of the Chaldees, in the Mosaic “burning > bush,” the hanging of the heads or chiefs of the people toward the > Lord, the “Sun,” and even in the Abrahamic building of fire-altars > and the sacrifices of the monotheistic Jews, to Astarté the Queen of > Heaven. > > To the present moment, with all the controversies and researches, > History and Science remain as much as ever in the dark as to the > origin of the Jews. They may as well be the exiled Tchandalas, or > Pariahs, of old India, the “bricklayers” mentioned by Vina-Svati, > Veda-Vyasa and Manu, as the Phœnicians of Herodotus, or the Hyk-sos > of Josephus, or descendants of Pali shepherds, or a mixture of all > these. The _Bible_ names the Tyrians as a kindred people, and claims > dominion over them.[849] > > There is more than one important character in the _Bible_, whose > biography proves him a mythical hero. Samuel is indicated as the > personage of the Hebrew Commonwealth. He is the _doppel_ of Samson, > of the _Book of Judges_, as will be seen--being the son of Anna and > EL-KAINA, as Samson was of Manua or Manoah. Both were fictitious > characters, as now represented in the revealed book; one was the > Hebrew Hercules, and the other Ganesa. Samuel is credited with > establishing the republic, as putting down the Canaanite worship > of Baal and Astarté, or Adonis and Venus, and setting up that of > Jehovah. Then the people demanded a king, and he anointed Saul, and > after him David of Bethlehem. > > David is the Israelitish King Arthur. He did great achievements > and established a government in all Syria and Idumea. His dominion > extended from Armenia and Assyria on the north and northeast, the > Syrian Desert and Persian Gulf on the East, Arabia on the south, and > Egypt and the Levant on the west. Only Phœnicia was excepted. > > His friendship with Hiram seems to indicate that he made his first > expedition from that country into Judea; and his long residence at > Hebron, the city of the Kabeiri (_Arba_ or four), would seem likewise > to imply that he established a new religion in the country. > > After David came Solomon, powerful and luxurious, who sought to > consolidate the dominion which David had won. As David was a > Jehovah-worshipper, a temple of Jehovah (Tukt Suleima) was built in > Jerusalem, while shrines of Moloch-Hercules, Khemosh, and Astarté > were erected on Mount Olivet. These shrines remained till Josiah. > > There were conspiracies formed. Revolts took place in Idumea and > Damascus; and Ahijah the prophet led the popular movement which > resulted in deposing the house of David and making Jeroboam king. > Ever after the prophets dominated in Israel, where the calf-worship > prevailed; the priests ruled over the weak dynasty of David, and the > lascivious local worship existed over the whole country. After the > destruction of the house of Ahab, and the failure of Jehu and his > descendants to unite the country under one head, the endeavor was > made in Judah. Isaiah had terminated the direct line in the person > of Ahaz (_Isaiah_ vii. 9), and placed on the throne a prince from > Bethlehem (_Micah_ v. 2, 5). This was Hezekiah. On ascending the > throne, he invited the chiefs of Israel to unite in alliance with him > against Assyria (_2 Chronicles_, xxx. 1, 21; xxxi. 1, 5; _2 Kings_, > xviii. 7). He seems to have established a sacred college (_Proverbs_ > xxv. 1), and to have utterly changed the worship. Aye, even unto > breaking into pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made. > > This makes the story of Samuel and David and Solomon mythical. Most > of the prophets who were literate seem to have begun about this time > to write. > > The country was finally overthrown by the Assyrians, who found the > same people and institutions as in the Phœnician and other countries. > > Hezekiah was not the lineal, but the titular son of Ahaz. Isaiah, the > prophet, belonged to the royal family, and Hezekiah was reputed his > son-in-law. Ahaz refused to ally himself with the prophet and his > party, saying: “I will not _tempt_ (depend on) the Lord” (_Isaiah_ > vii. 12). The prophet had declared: “If you will not believe, surely > you shall not be established”--foreshadowing the deposition of > his direct language. “Ye weary my God,” replied the prophet, and > predicted the birth of a child by an _alma_, or temple-woman, and > that before it should attain full age (_Hebrews_ v. 14; _Isaiah_ vii. > 16; viii. 4), the king of Assyria should overcome Syria and Israel. > This is the prophecy which Irenæus took such pains to connect with > Mary and Jesus, and made the reason why the mother of the Nazarene > prophet is represented as belonging to the temple, and consecrated to > God from her infancy. > > In a second song, Isaiah celebrated the new chief, to sit on the > throne of David (ix. 6, 7; xi. 1), who should restore to their homes > the Jews whom the confederacy had led captive (_Isaiah_ viii. 2-12; > _Joel_ iii. 1-7; _Obadiah_ 7, 11, 14). Micah--his contemporary--also > announced the same event (iv. 7-13; v. 1-7). The Redeemer was to come > out of Bethlehem; in other words, was of the house of David; and > was to resist Assyria to whom Ahaz had sworn allegiance, and also > to reform religion (_2 Kings_, xviii. 4-8). This Hezekiah did. He > was grandson of Zechariah the seer (_2 Chronicles_, xxix. 1; xxvi. > 5), the counsellor of Uzziah; and as soon as he ascended the throne > he restored the religion of David, and destroyed the last vestiges > of that of Moses, _i.e._, the _esoteric_ doctrine, declaring “our > fathers have trespassed” (_2 Chron._, xxix. 6-9). He next attempted > a reunion with the northern monarchy, there being an interregnum in > Israel (_2 Chron._, xxx. 1, 2, 6; xxxi. 1, 6, 7). It was successful, > but resulted in an invasion by the king of Assyria. But it was a new > _régime_; and all this shows the course of two parallel streams in > the religious worship of the Israelites; one belonging to the state > religion and adopted to fit political exigencies; the other pure > idolatry, resulting from ignorance of the true esoteric doctrine > preached by Moses. For the first time since Solomon built them “the > high places were taken away.” > > It was Hezekiah who was the expected Messiah of the exoteric > state-religion. He was the scion from the stem of Jesse, who should > recall the Jews from a deplorable captivity, about which the Hebrew > historians seem to be very silent, carefully avoiding all mention of > this particular fact, but which the irascible prophets imprudently > disclose. If Hezekiah crushed the exoteric Baal-worship, he also > tore violently away the people of Israel from the religion of their > fathers, and the secret rites instituted by Moses. > > It was Darius Hystaspes who was the first to establish a Persian > colony in Judea, Zoro-Babel was perhaps the leader. “The name > _Zoro-babel_ means ‘the seed or son of Babylon’--as Zoro-aster צרו־אשתר > is the seed, son, or prince of Ishtar.”[850] The new colonists were > doubtless _Judæi_. This is a designation from the East. Even Siam is > called Judia, and there was an Ayodia in India. The temples of _Solom_ > or Peace were numerous. Throughout Persia and Afghanistan the names of > Saul and David are very common. The “Law” is ascribed in turn to > Hezekiah, Ezra, Simon the Just, and the Asmonean period. Nothing > definite; everywhere contradictions. When the Asmonean period began, > the chief supporters of the Law were called Asideans or Khasdim > (Chaldeans), and afterward Pharisees or Pharsi (Parsis). This > indicates that Persian colonies were established in Judea and ruled > the country; while all the people that are mentioned in the books of > _Genesis_ and _Joshua_ lived there as a commonalty (see _Ezra_ ix. 1). > > There is no real history in the _Old Testament_, and the little > historical information one can glean is only found in the indiscreet > revelations of the prophets. The book, as a whole, must have been > written at various times, or rather invented as an authorization > of some subsequent worship, the origin of which may be very easily > traced partially to the Orphic Mysteries, and partially to the > ancient Egyptian rites in familiarity with which Moses was brought up > from his infancy. > > Since the last century the Church has been gradually forced into > concessions of usurped biblical territory to those to whom it of > right belonged. Inch by inch has been yielded, and one personage > after another been proved mythical and Pagan. But now, after the > recent discovery of George Smith, the much-regretted Assyriologist, > one of the securest props of the _Bible_ has been pulled down. Sargon > and his tablets are about demonstrated to be older than Moses. Like > the account of _Exodus_, the birth and story of the lawgiver seem to > have been “borrowed” from the Assyrians, as the “jewels of gold and > jewels of silver” were said to be from the Egyptians. > > On page 224 of _Assyrian Discoveries_, Mr. George Smith says: “In > the palace of Sennacherib at Kouyunjik, I found another fragment of > the curious history of Sargon, a translation of which I published in > the _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, vol. i., > part i., page 46. This text relates that Sargon, an early Babylonian > monarch, was born of royal parents, but concealed by his mother, who > placed him on the Euphrates in an ark of rushes, coated with bitumen, > like that in which the mother of Moses hid her child (see _Exodus_ > ii.). Sargon was discovered by a man named Akki, a water-carrier, who > adopted him as his son; and he afterward became King of Babylonia. > The capital of Sargon was the great city of Agadi--called by the > Semites Akkad--mentioned in _Genesis_ as a capital of Nimrod > (_Genesis_ x. 10), and here he reigned _for forty five years_.[851] > Akkad lay near the city of _Sippara_,[852] on the Euphrates and north > of Babylon. “The date of Sargon, who may be termed the Babylonian > Moses, was in the sixteenth century and perhaps earlier.” > > G. Smith adds in his _Chaldean Account_ that Sargon I. was a > Babylonian monarch who reigned in the city of Akkad about 1600 B.C. > The name of Sargon signifies the right, true, or legitimate king. > This curious story is found on fragments of tablets from Kouyunjik, > and reads as follows: > > 1. Sargona, the powerful king, the king of Akkad am I. > > 2. My mother was a princess, my father I did not know, a brother of > my father ruled over the country. > > 3. In the city of Azupirana, which is by the side of the river > Euphrates, > > 4. My mother, the princess, conceived me; in difficulty she brought > me forth. > > 5. She placed me in an ark of rushes, with bitumen my exit she sealed > up. > > 6. She launched me in the river which did not drown me. > > 7. The river carried me to Akki, the water-carrier it brought me. > > 8. Akki, the water-carrier, in tenderness of bowels, lifted me, etc., > etc. > > And now _Exodus_ (ii.): “And when she (Moses’ mother) could not > longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it > with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein, and she laid it > in the flags by the river’s brink.” > > The story, says Mr. G. Smith, “is supposed to have happened about > 1600 B.C., rather earlier than the supposed age of Moses[853] as we > know that the fame of Sargon reached Egypt, it is quite likely that > this account had a connection with the event related in _Exodus_ ii., > for every action, when once performed, has a tendency to be repeated.” > > The “ages” of the Hindus differ but little from those of the Greeks, > Romans, and even the Jews. We include the Mosaic computation > advisedly, and with intent to prove our position. The chronology > which separates Moses from the creation of the world by _only four > generations_ seems ridiculous, merely because the Christian clergy > would enforce it upon the world literally.[854] The kabalists know > that these generations stand for ages of the world. The allegories > which, in the Hindu calculations, embrace the whole stupendous sweep > of the four ages, are cunningly made in the Mosaic books, through the > obliging help of the _Masorah_, to cram into the small period of two > millenniums and a half (2513)! > > The exoteric plan of the _Bible_ was made to answer also to four > ages. Thus, they reckon the Golden Age from Adam to Abraham; the > silver, from Abraham to David; copper, from David to the Captivity; > thenceforward, the iron. But the secret computation is quite > different, and does not vary at all from the zodiacal calculations of > the Brahmans. We are in the Iron Age, or Kali-Yug, but it began with > Noah, the mythical ancestor of our race. > > Noah, or Nuah, like all the euhemerized manifestations of the > Unrevealed One--Swayambhuva (or Swayambhu), was androgyne. Thus, > in some instances, he belonged to the purely feminine triad of the > Chaldeans, known as “Nuah, the universal Mother.” We have shown, in > another chapter, that every male triad had its feminine counterpart, > one in three, like the former. It was the passive complement of the > active principle, its _reflection_. In India, the male trimurty is > reproduced in the Sakti-trimurti, the feminine; and in Chaldea, Ana, > Belita and Davkina answered to Anu, Bel, Nuah. The former three > resumed in one--Belita, were called: > > “Sovereign goddess, lady of the nether abyss, mother of gods, queen > of the earth, queen of fecundity.” > > As the primordial humidity, whence proceeded _all_, Belita is > Tamti, or the sea, the mother of _the city of Erech_ (the great > Chaldean necropolis), therefore, an infernal goddess. In the world > of stars and planets she is known as Istar or Astoreth. Hence, she > is identical with Venus, and every other queen of heaven, to whom > cakes and buns were offered in sacrifice,[855] and, as all the > archæologists know, with _Eve_, the mother of all that live, and with > Mary. > > The Ark, in which are preserved the germs of all living things > necessary to repeople the earth, represents the survival of life, > and the supremacy of spirit over matter, through the conflict of > the opposing powers of nature. In the Astro-Theosophic chart of the > Western Rite, the Ark corresponds with the navel, and is placed at > the sinister side, the side of the woman (the moon), one of whose > symbols is the left pillar of Solomon’s temple--Boaz. The umbilicus > is connected with the receptacle in which are fructified the germs of > the race.[856] The Ark is the sacred _Argha_ of the Hindus, and thus, > the relation in which it stands to Noah’s ark may be easily inferred, > when we learn that the Argha was an oblong vessel, used by the high > priests as a sacrificial chalice in the worship of Isis, Astartè, and > Venus-Aphroditè, all of whom were goddesses of the generative powers > of nature, or of matter--hence, representing symbolically the Ark > containing the germs of all living things. > > We admit that Pagans had and now have--as in India--strange symbols, > which, to the eyes of the hypocrite and Puritan, seem scandalously > immoral. But did not the ancient Jews copy most of these symbols? We > have described elsewhere the identity of the lingham with Jacob’s > pillar, and we could give a number of instances from the present > Christian rites, bearing the same origin, did but space permit, and > were not all these noticed fully by Inman and others (See Inman’s > _Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names_). > > Describing the worship of the Egyptians, Mrs. Lydia Maria Child > says: “This reverence for the production of life, introduced into > the worship of Osiris, the sexual emblems so common in Hindustan. > A colossal image of this kind was presented to his temple in > Alexandria, by King Ptolemy Philadelphus.... Reverence for the > mystery of organized life led to the recognition of a masculine > and feminine principle in all things, spiritual or material.... > The sexual emblems, everywhere conspicuous in the sculptures of > their temples, would seem impure in description, but _no clean and > thoughtful mind_ could so regard them while witnessing the obvious > simplicity and solemnity with which the subject is treated.”[857] > > Thus speaks this respected lady and admirable writer, and no truly > pure man or woman would ever think of blaming her for it. But such a > perversion of the ancient thought is but natural in an age of cant > and prudery like our own. > > The water of the flood when standing in the allegory for the symbolic > “sea,” Tamti, typifies the turbulent chaos, or matter, called “the > great dragon.” According to the Gnostic and Rosicrucian mediæval > doctrine, the creation of woman was not originally intended. She > is the offspring of man’s own impure fancy, and, as the Hermetists > say, “an obtrusion.” Created by an unclean thought she sprang into > existence at the _evil_ “seventh hour,” when the “supernatural” real > worlds had passed away and the “natural” or _delusive_ worlds began > evolving along the “descending Microcosmos,” or the arc of the great > cycle, in plainer phraseology. First “Virgo,” the Celestial Virgin of > the Zodiac, she became “Virgo-Scorpio.” But in evolving his second > companion, man had unwittingly endowed her with his own share of > Spirituality; and the new being whom his “imagination” had called > into life became his “Saviour” from the snares of Eve-Lilith, the > first Eve, who had a greater share of matter in her composition than > the primitive “spiritual” man.[858] > > Thus woman stands in the cosmogony in relation to “matter” or the > _great deep_, as the “Virgin of the Sea,” who crushes the “Dragon” > under her foot. The “Flood” is also very often shown, in symbolical > phraseology, as the “great Dragon.” For one acquainted with these > tenets it becomes more than suggestive to learn that with the > Catholics the Virgin Mary is not only the accepted patroness of > Christian sailors, but also the “Virgin of the Sea.” So was Dido the > patroness of the Phœnician mariners;[859] and together with Venus > and other lunar goddesses--the moon having such a strong influence > over the tides--was the “Virgin of the Sea.” _Mar_, the Sea, is the > root of the name Mary. The blue color, which was with the ancients > symbolical of the “Great Deep” or the material world, hence--of evil, > is made sacred to our “Blessed Lady.” It is the color of “Notre Dame > de Paris.” On account of its relation to the symbolical serpent this > color is held in the deepest aversion by the ex-Nazarenes, disciples > of John the Baptist, now the Mendæans of Basra. > > Among the beautiful plates of Maurice, there is one representing > Christna crushing the head of the Serpent. A three-peaked mitre is > on his head (typifying the trinity), and the body and tail of the > conquered serpent encircles the figure of the Hindu god. This plate > shows whence proceeded the inspiration for the “make up” of a later > story extracted from an alleged prophecy. “I will put enmity between > thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall > bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his _heel_.” > > The Egyptian Orante is also shown with his arms extended as on a > crucifix, and treading upon the “Serpent;” and Horus (the Logos) is > represented piercing the head of the dragon, Typhon or Aphophis. All > this gives us a clew to the biblical allegory of Cain and Abel. Cain > was held as the ancestor of the Hivites, the Serpents, and the twins > of Adam are an evident copy from the fable of Osiris and Typhon. > Apart from the external form of the allegory, however, it embodied > the philosophical conception of the eternal struggle of good and evil. > > But how strangely elastic, how adaptable to any and every thing this > mystical philosophy proved after the Christian era! When were ever > facts, irrefutable, irrefragable, and beyond denial, less potential > for the reëstablishment of truth than in our century of casuistry > and Christian cunning? Is Christna proved to have been known as the > “Good Shepherd” ages before the year A.D. 1, to have crushed the > Serpent Kalinaga, and to have been crucified--all this was but a > prophetic foreshadowing of the future! Are the Scandinavian Thor, who > bruised the head of the Serpent with his cruciform mace, and Apollo, > who killed Python, likewise shown to present the most striking > similarities with the heroes of the Christian fables; they become > but original conceptions of “heathen” minds, “working upon the old > Patriarchal prophecies respecting the Christ, as they were contained > in the one universal and primeval Revelation!”[860] > > The flood, then, is the “Old Serpent” or the great deep of matter, > Isaiah’s “dragon in the sea” (xxvii. 1), over which the ark safely > crosses on its way to the mount of Salvation. But, if we have heard > of the ark and Noah, and the _Bible_ at all, it is because the > mythology of the Egyptians was ready at hand for Moses (if Moses ever > wrote any of the _Bible_), and that he was acquainted with the story > of Horus, standing on his boat of a serpentine form, and killing the > Serpent with his spear; and with the hidden meaning of these fables, > and their real origin. This is also why we find in _Leviticus_, and > other parts of his books, whole pages of laws identical with those of > _Manu_. > > The animals shut up in the ark are the human passions. They typify > certain ordeals of initiation, and the mysteries which were > instituted among many nations in commemoration of this allegory. > Noah’s ark rested on the seventeenth of the _seventh_ month. Here we > have again the number; as also in the “clean beasts” that he took by > _sevens_ into the ark. Speaking of the water-mysteries of Byblos, > Lucian says: “On the top of one of the two pillars which Bacchus set > up, a man remains _seven_ days.”[861] He supposes this was done to > honor Deukalion. Elijah, when praying on the top of Mount Carmel, > sends his servant to look for a cloud toward the sea, and repeats, > “go again _seven_ times. And it came to pass at the _seventh_ time, > behold there arose a little cloud out of the sea like a man’s > hand.”[862] > > “_Noah_ is a _revolutio_ of Adam, as Moses is a revolutio of Abel > and Seth,” says the _Kabala_; that is to say, a repetition or > another version of the same story. The greatest proof of it is > the distribution of the characters in the _Bible_. For instance, > beginning with Cain, the first murderer, every _fifth_ man in his > line of descent is a murderer. Thus there come Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, > Methuselah, and the _fifth_ is _Lamech_, the second murderer, and he > is Noah’s father. By drawing the five-pointed star of Lucifer (which > has its crown-point downward) and writing the name of Cain beneath > the lowest point, and those of his descendants successively at each > of the other points, it will be found that each fifth name--which > would be written beneath that of Cain--is that of a murderer. In the > _Talmud_ this genealogy is given complete, and thirteen murderers > range themselves in line below the name of Cain. This is _no_ > coincidence. Siva is the Destroyer, but he is also the _Regenerator_. > Cain is a murderer, but he is also the creator of nations, and an > inventor. This star of Lucifer is the same one that John sees falling > down to earth in his _Apocalypse_. > > In Thebes, or Theba, which means ark--TH-ABA being synonymous with > Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens and Urbs or Rome, and meaning also > the city--are found the same foliations as described on the pillars > of the temple of Solomon. The bi-colored leaf of the olive, the > three-lobed fig-leaf, and the lanceolate-shaped laurel-leaf, had all > esoteric as well as popular or vulgar meanings with the ancients. > > The researches of Egyptologists present another corroboration of the > identity of the _Bible_-allegories with those of the lands of the > Pharaohs and Chaldeans. The dynastic chronology of the Egyptians, > recorded by Herodotus, Manetho, Eratosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, and > accepted by our antiquarians, divided the period of Egyptian history > under four general heads: the dominion of gods, demi-gods, heroes, > and mortal men. By combining the demi-gods and heroes into one class, > Bunsen reduces the periods to three: the ruling gods, the demi-gods > or heroes--sons of gods, but born of mortal mothers--and the Manes, > who were the ancestors of individual tribes. These subdivisions, as > any one may perceive, correspond perfectly with the biblical Elohim, > sons of God, giants, and mortal Noachian men. > > Diodorus of Sicily and Berosus give us the names of the twelve great > gods who presided over the twelve months of the year and the twelve > signs of the zodiac. These names, which include Nuah,[863] are too > well known to require repetition. The double-faced Janus was also > at the head of twelve gods, and in his representations of him he is > made to hold the keys to the celestial domains. All these having > served as models for the biblical patriarchs, have done still further > service--especially Janus--by furnishing copy to St. Peter and his > twelve apostles, the former also double-faced in his denial, and > also represented as holding the keys of Paradise. > > This statement that the story of Noah is but another version in its > hidden meaning of the story of Adam and his three sons, gathers > proof on every page of the book of _Genesis_. Adam is the prototype > of Noah. Adam _falls_ because he eats of the forbidden fruit of > _celestial_ knowledge; Noah, because he tastes of the _terrestrial_ > fruit: the juice of the grape representing the abuse of knowledge in > an unbalanced mind. Adam gets stripped of his spiritual envelope; > Noah of his terrestrial clothing; and the _nakedness_ of both makes > them feel ashamed. The wickedness of Cain is repeated in Ham. But the > descendants of both are shown as the wisest of races on earth; and > they are called on this account “snakes,” and the “sons of snakes,” > meaning the _sons of wisdom_, and not of Satan, as some divines > would be pleased to have the world understand the term. Enmity has > been placed between the “snake” and the “woman” only in this mortal > phenomenal “world of man” as “born of woman.” Before the carnal fall, > the “snake” was _Ophis_, the divine wisdom, which needed no matter > to procreate men, humanity being utterly spiritual. Hence the war > between the snake and the woman, or between spirit and matter. If, > in its material aspect, the “old serpent” is matter, and represents > Ophiomorphos, in its spiritual meaning it becomes Ophis-Christos. In > the magic of the old Syro-Chaldeans both are conjoint in the zodiacal > sign of the androgyne of Virgo-Scorpio, and may be _divided_ or > separated whenever needed. Thus as the origin of “good and evil,” the > meaning of the S.S. and Z.Z. has always been interchangeable; and if > upon some occasions the S.S. on sigils and talismans are suggestive > of serpentine evil influence and denote a design of _black_ magic > upon others, the double S.S. are found on the sacramental cups of the > Church and mean the presence of the Holy Ghost, or pure wisdom. > > The Midianites were known as the _wise_ men, or sons of snakes, > as well as Canaanites and Hamites; and such was the renown of the > Midianites, that we find Moses, _the prophet, led on, and inspired > by “the Lord,”_ humbling himself before Hobab, the son of Raguel, > the _Midianite_, and beseeching him to remain with the people of > Israel: “Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch _as thou knowest how > we are to encamp_ IN THE WILDERNESS, _thou mayest be to us instead > of eyes_.”[864] Further, when Moses sends spies to search out the > land of Canaan, they bring as a proof of the wisdom (kabalistically > speaking) and goodness of the land, a branch with _one_ cluster of > _grapes_, which they are compelled to bear between two men on a > staff. Moreover, they add: “we saw the children of ANAK there.” > They are the _giants_, the sons of Anak, “_which come of the > giants_,”[865] and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so > we were in their sight.”[866] > > Anak is Enoch, the patriarch, who _dies not_, and who is the first > possessor of the “mirific name,” according to the _Kabala_, and the > ritual of Freemasonry. > > Comparing the biblical patriarchs with the descendants of > Vaiswasvata, the Hindu Noah, and the old Sanscrit traditions about > the deluge in the Brahmanical _Mahâbhârata_, we find them mirrored in > the Vaidic patriarchs who are the primitive types upon which all the > others were modelled. But before comparison is possible, the Hindu > myths must be comprehended in their true significance. Each of these > mythical personages bears, besides an astronomical significance, a > spiritual or moral, and an anthropological or physical meaning. The > patriarchs are not only euhemerized gods--the prediluvian answering > to the _twelve_ great gods of Berosus, and to the _ten_ Pradjâpati, > and the postdiluvian to the seven gods of the famous tablet in the > Ninivian Library, but they stand also as the symbols of the Greek > Æons, the kabalistic Sephiroth, and the zodiacal signs, as types of > a series of human races.[867] This variation from _ten_ to _twelve_ > will be accounted for presently, and proved on the very authority > of the _Bible_. Only, they are not the first gods described by > Cicero,[868] which belong to a hierarchy of higher powers, the > Elohim--but appertain rather to the second class of the “twelve > gods,” the _Dii minores_, and who are the terrestrial reflections > of the first, among whom Herodotus places Hercules.[869] Alone, > out of the group of twelve, Noah, by reason of his position at the > transitional point, belongs to the highest Babylonian triad, Noah, > the spirit of the waters. The rest are identical with the inferior > gods of Assyria and Babylonia, who represented the lower order of > emanations, introduced around Bel, the Demiurge, and help him in his > work, as the patriarchs are shown to assist Jehovah--the “Lord God.” > > Besides these, many of which were _local_ gods, the protecting > deities of rivers and cities, there were the four classes of genius, > we see Ezekiel making them support the throne of Jehovah in his > vision. A fact which, if it identifies the Jewish “Lord God” with one > of the Babylonian trinity, connects, at the same time, the present > Christian God with the same triad, inasmuch as it is these four > cherubs, if the reader will remember, on which Irenæus makes Jesus > ride, and which are shown as the companions of the evangelists. > > The Hindu kabalistic derivation of the books of _Ezekiel_ and > _Revelation_ are shown in nothing more plainly than in this > description of the four beasts, which typify the four elementary > kingdoms--earth, air, fire, and water. As is well known, they are the > Assyrian sphinxes, but these figures are also carved on the walls of > nearly every Hindu pagoda. > > The author of the _Revelation_ copies faithfully in his text (see > chap. iv., verse 17) the Pythagorean pentacle, of which Levi’s > admirable sketch is reproduced on page 452. > > The Hindu goddess Adanari (or as it might be more properly written, > Adonari, since the second a is pronounced almost like the English o) > is represented as surrounded by the same figures. It fits exactly > Ezekiel’s “wheel of the Adonai,” known as “the Cherub of Jeheskiel,” > and indicates, beyond question, the source from which the Hebrew seer > drew his allegories. For convenience of comparison we have placed the > figure in the pentacle. (See page 453.) > > Above these beasts were the angels or spirits, divided in two groups: > the Igili, or celestial beings, and the Am-anaki, or terrestrial > spirits, the giants, children of Anak, of whom the spies complained > to Moses. > > [Illustration: ADONAI] > > The _Kabbala Denudata_ gives to the kabalists a very clear, to the > profane a very muddled account of permutations or substitutions > of one person for another. So, for instance, it says, that “the > scintilla” (spiritual spark or soul) of Abraham was taken from > Michael, the chief of the Æons, and highest emanation of the Deity; > so high indeed that in the eyes of the Gnostics, Michael was > identical with Christ. And yet Michael and Enoch are one and the same > person. Both occupy the junction-point of the cross of the Zodiac > as “man.” The scintilla of Isaac was that of Gabriel, the chief of > the angelic host, and the scintilla of Jacob was taken from Uriel, > named “the fire of God;” the sharpest sighted spirit in all Heaven. > Adam is not the Kadmon but Adam _Primus_, the _Microprosopus_. In one > of his aspects the latter is Enoch, the terrestrial patriarch and > father of Methuselah. He that “walked with God” and “did not die” is > the spiritual Enoch, who typified humanity, eternal in spirit and as > eternal in flesh, though the latter does _die_. Death is but a new > birth, and spirit is immortal; thus humanity can never die, for the > _Destroyer_ has become the _Creator_, Enoch is the type of the dual > man, spiritual and terrestrial. Hence his place in the centre of the > astronomical cross. > > [Illustration: ADANARI] > > But was this idea original with the Hebrews? We think not. Every > nation which had an astronomical system, and especially India, held > the cross in the highest reverence, for it was the geometrical basis > of the religious symbolism of their _avatars_; the manifestation of > the Deity, or of the Creator in his creature MAN; of God in humanity > and humanity in God, as spirits. The oldest monuments of Chaldea, > Persia, and India disclose the double or eight-pointed cross. This > symbol, which very naturally is found, like every other geometrical > figure in nature, in plants as well as in the snowflakes, has led > Dr. Lundy, in his super-Christian mysticism, to name such cruciform > flowers as form an eight-pointed star by the junction of the two > crosses--“the _Prophetic Star of the Incarnation_, which joined > heaven and earth, God and man together.”[870] The latter sentence > is perfectly expressed; only, the old kabalist axiom, “as above, so > below,” answers still better, as it discloses to us the same God for > all humanity, not alone for the handful of Christians. It is the > _Mundane_ cross of Heaven repeated on earth by plants and dual man: > the physical man superseding the “spiritual,” at the junction-point > of which stands the mythical Libra-Hermes-Enoch. The gesture of one > hand pointing to Heaven, is balanced by the other pointing down to > the earth; boundless generations below, boundless regenerations > above; the visible but the manifestation of the invisible; the man of > dust abandoned to dust, the man of spirit reborn in spirit; thus it > is finite humanity which is the Son of the Infinite God. Abba--the > Father; Amona--the Mother; the Son, the Universe. This primitive > triad is repeated in all the theogonies. Adam Kadmon, Hermes, Enoch, > Osiris, Christna, Ormazd, or Christos are all one. They stand as > _Metatrons_ between body and soul--eternal spirits which redeem flesh > by the regeneration of flesh _below_, and soul by the regeneration > _above_, where humanity walks once more with God. > > We have shown elsewhere that the symbol of the cross or Egyptian > _Tau_, =T=, was by many ages earlier than the period assigned to > Abraham, the alleged forefather of the Israelites, for otherwise > Moses could not have learned it of the priests. And that the Tau was > held as sacred by the Jews as by other “Pagan” nations is proved > by a fact admitted now by Christian divines as well as by infidel > archæologists. Moses, in _Exodus_ xii. 22, orders his people to > mark their _door-posts and lintels_ with blood, lest the “Lord God” > should make a mistake and smite some of his chosen people, instead > of the doomed Egyptians.[871] And this mark is a tau! The identical > Egyptian handled _cross_, with the half of which talisman Horus > raised the dead, as is shown on a sculptured ruin at Philœ.[872] How > gratuitous is the idea that all such crosses and symbols were so many > unconscious prophecies of Christ, is fully exemplified in the case of > the Jews upon whose accusation Jesus was put to death. For instance, > the same learned author remarks in _Monumental Christianity_ that > “the Jews themselves acknowledged this sign of salvation until they > rejected Christ;” and in another place he asserts that the rod of > Moses, used in his miracles before Pharaoh, “was, no doubt, this > _crux ansata_, or something like it, _also used by the Egyptian > priests_.”[873] Thus the logical inference would be, that 1, if the > Jews worshipped the same symbols as the Pagans, then they were no > better than they; and 2, if, being so well versed as they were in the > hidden symbolism of the cross, in the face of their having waited > for centuries for the Messiah, they yet rejected both the Christian > Messiah and Christian Cross, then there must have been something > wrong about both. > > Those who “rejected” Jesus as the “Son of God,” were neither the > people ignorant of religious symbols, nor the handful of atheistical > Sadducees who put him to death; but the very men who were instructed > in the secret wisdom, who knew the origin as well as the meaning of > the cruciform symbol, and who put aside both the Christian emblem and > the Saviour suspended from it, because they could not be parties to > such a blasphemous imposition upon the common people. > > Nearly all the prophecies about Christ are credited to the patriarchs > and prophets. If a few of the latter may have existed as real > personages, every one of the former is a myth. We will endeavor > to prove it by the hidden interpretation of the Zodiac, and the > relations of its signs to these antediluvian men. > > If the reader will keep in mind the Hindu ideas of cosmogony, > as given in chapter vi., he will better understand the relation > between the biblical antediluvian patriarchs, and that puzzle of > commentators--“Ezekiel’s wheel.” Thus, be it remembered 1, that > the universe is not a spontaneous creation, but an evolution from > pre-existent matter; 2, that it is only one of an endless series of > universes; 3, that eternity is pointed off into grand cycles, in > each of which twelve transformations of our world occur, following > its partial destruction by fire and water, alternately. So that > when a new minor period sets in, the earth is so changed, even > geologically, as to be practically a new world; 4, that of these > twelve transformations, the earth after each of the first six is > grosser, and everything on it--man included--more material, than > after the preceding one: while after each of the remaining six the > contrary is true, both earth and man growing more and more refined > and spiritual with each terrestrial change; 5, that when the apex > of the cycle is reached, a gradual dissolution takes place, and > every living and objective form is destroyed. But when that point is > reached, humanity has become fitted to live subjectively as well as > objectively. And not humanity alone, but also animals, plants, and > every atom. After a time of rest, say the Buddhists, when a new world > becomes self-formed, the astral souls of animals and of all beings, > except such as have reached the highest Nirvana, will return on earth > again to end their cycles of transformations, and become men in their > turn. > > This stupendous conception, the ancients synthesized for the > instruction of the common people, into a single pictorial design--the > Zodiac, or celestial belt. Instead of the twelve signs now used, > there were originally but ten known to the general public, viz.: > Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo-Scorpio, Sagittarius, > Capricornus, Aquarius, and Pisces.[874] These were exoteric. But > in addition there were two mystical signs inserted, which none but > initiates comprehended, viz.: at the middle or junction-point where > now stands _Libra_, and at the sign now called Scorpio, which follows > Virgo. When it was found necessary to make them exoteric, these two > secret signs were added under their present appellations as blinds > to conceal the true names which gave the key to the whole secret of > creation, and divulged the origin of “good and evil.” > > The true Sabean astrological doctrine secretly taught that within > this double sign was hidden the explanation of the gradual > transformation of the world, from its spiritual and subjective, into > the “two-sexed” sublunary state. The twelve signs were therefore > divided into two groups. The first six were called the ascending, > or the line of Macrocosm (the great spiritual world); the last > six, the descending line, or the Microcosm (the little secondary > world)--the mere reflection of the former, so to say. This division > was called Ezekiel’s wheel, and was completed in the following way: > First came the ascending five signs (euphemerized into patriarchs), > Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, and the group concluded with > Virgo-Scorpio. Then came the turning-point, _Libra_. After which, the > first half of the sign Virgo-Scorpio, was duplicated and transferred > to lead the lower, or descending group of Microcosm which ran > down to _Pisces_, or Noah (deluge). To make it clearer, the sign > Virgo-Scorpio, which appeared originally thus ♍︎, became simply > _Virgo_, and the duplication, ♏︎, or Scorpio, was placed between > Libra, the _seventh_ sign (which is Enoch, or the angel Metatron, > or _Mediator_ between spirit and matter, or God and man). It now > became Scorpio (or Cain), which sign or patriarch led _mankind to > destruction_, according to exoteric theology; but, according to the > true doctrine of the wisdom-religion, it indicated _the degradation > of the whole universe in its course of evolution downward from the > subjective to the objective_. > > The sign of _Libra_ is credited as a later invention by the Greeks, > but it is not generally stated that those among them who were > initiated had only made a change of names conveying the same idea as > the secret name to those “who knew,” leaving the masses as unwise > as ever. Yet it was a beautiful idea of theirs, this Libra, or > the balance, expressing as much as could possibly be done without > unveiling the whole and ultimate truth. They intended it to imply > that when the course of evolution had taken the worlds to the > lowest point of grossness, where the earths and their products were > coarsest, and their inhabitants most brutish, the turning-point had > been reached--the forces were at an even balance. At the lowest > point, the still lingering divine spark of spirit within began > to convey the upward impulse. The scales typified that eternal > equilibrium which is the necessity of a universe of harmony, of > exact justice, of the balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, > darkness and light, spirit and matter. > > _These additional signs of the Zodiac warrant us in saying that the > Book of Genesis as we now find it, must be of later date than the > invention of Libra by the Greeks_; for we find the chapters of the > genealogies remodelled to fit the new Zodiac, instead of the latter > being made to correspond with the list of patriarchs. And it is this > addition and the necessity of concealing the true key, that led the > Rabbinical compilers to repeat the names of Enoch and Lamech twice, > as we see them now in the Kenite table. Alone, among all the books of > the _Bible_, _Genesis_ belongs to an immense antiquity. The others > are all later additions, the earliest of which appeared with Hilkiah, > who evidently concocted it with the help of Huldah, the prophetess. > > As there is more than one meaning attached to the stories of the > creation and deluge, we say, therefore, that the biblical account > cannot be comprehended apart from the Babylonian story of the same; > while neither will be thoroughly clear without the Brahmanical > esoteric interpretation of the deluge, as found in the _Mahâbhârata_ > and the _Satapatha-Brahmâna_. It is the Babylonians who were taught > the “mysteries,” the sacerdotal language, and their religion by > the problematical Akkadians who--according to Rawlinson came from > Armenia--not the former who emigrated to India. Here the evidence > becomes clear. The Babylonian Xisuthrus is shown by Movers to have > represented the “sun” in the Zodiac, in the sign of Aquarius, and > _Oannes_, the man-fish, the semi-demon, is Vishnu in his first > avatar; thus giving the key to the double source of the biblical > revelation. > > Oannes is the emblem of priestly, esoteric wisdom; he comes out from > the sea, because the “great deep,” the water, typifies, as we have > shown, the secret doctrine. For this same reason Egyptians deified > the Nile, apart from its being regarded, in consequence of its > periodical overflows, as the “Saviour” of the country. They even held > the crocodiles as sacred, from having their abode in the “deep.” The > “Hamites,” so called, have always preferred to settle near rivers and > oceans. Water was the first-created element, according to some old > cosmogonies. This name of Oannes is held in the greatest reverence, > in the Chaldean records. The Chaldean priests wore a head-gear like > a fish’s head, and a shadbelly coat, representing the body of a > fish.[875] > > “Thales,” says Cicero, “assures that _water_ is the principle of all > things; and that God is that Mind which shaped and created all things > from water.”[876] > > “In the Beginning, SPIRIT within strengthens Heaven and Earth, > The watery fields, and the lucid globe of Luna, and then-- > Titan stars; and mind infused through the limbs > Agitates the whole mass, and mixes itself with GREAT MATTER.”[877] > > Thus water represents the duality of both the Macrocosmos and the > Microcosmos, in conjunction with the vivifying SPIRIT, and the > evolution of the little world from the universal cosmos. The deluge > then, in this sense, points to that final struggle between the > conflicting elements, which brought the first great cycle of our > planet to a close. These periods gradually merged into each other, > order being brought out of chaos, or disorder, and the successive > types of organism being evolved only as the physical conditions of > nature were prepared for their appearance; for our present race could > not have breathed on earth, during that intermediate period, not > having as yet the allegorical coats of skin.[878] > > In chapters iv. and v. of _Genesis_, we find the so-called > generations of Cain and Seth. Let us glance at them in the order in > which they stand: > > LINES OF GENERATIONS. > > _Sethite._ _Kenite._ > 1. Adam. ⎫ ⎧ 1. Adam. > 2. Seth. ⎪ ⎪ 2. Cain. > 3. Enos. ⎪ ⎪ 3. Enoch. > 4. Cainan. ⎪ ⎪ 4. Irad. > 5. Mahalaleel. ⎬ Good Principle. Evil Principle. ⎨ 5. Mehujael. > 6. Jared. ⎪ ⎪ 6. Methusael. > 7. Enoch. ⎪ ⎪ 7. Lamech. > 8. Methuselah. ⎪ ⎪ 8. Jubal. ⎫ > 9. Lamech. ⎪ ⎪ 9. Jabal. ⎬ > 10. Noah. ⎭ ⎩ 10. Tubal Cain. ⎭ > > The above are the ten biblical patriarchs, identical with Hindu > Pragâpatis (Pradjâpatis), and the Sephiroth of the _Kabala_. We say > _ten_ patriarchs, not _twenty_, for the Kenite line was devised > for no other purpose than, 1, to carry out the idea of dualism, > on which is founded the philosophy of every religion; for these > two genealogical tables represent simply the opposing powers or > principles of good and evil; and 2, as a blind for the uninitiated > masses. Suppose we restore them to their primitive form, by erasing > these premeditated blinds. These are so transparent as to require but > a small amount of perspicacity to select, even though one should use > only his unaided judgment, and were not, as we are, enabled to apply > the test of the secret doctrine. > > By ridding ourselves, therefore, of the Kenite names that are mere > duplications of the Sethite, or of each other, we get rid of Adam; > of Enoch--who, in one genealogy, is shown the father of Irad, and in > the other, the son of Jared; of Lamech, son of Methusael, whereas > he, Lamech, is son of Methuselah in the Sethite line; of Irad > (Jared),[879] Jubal and Jabal, who, with Tubal-Cain, form a trinity > in one, and that one the double of Cain; of Mehujael (who is but > Mahalaleel differently spelled), and Methusael (Methuselah). This > leaves us in the Kenite genealogy of chapter iv., one only, Cain, > who--the first murderer and fratricide--is made to stand in his > line as father of Enoch, the most virtuous of men, who does not die, > but is translated alive. Turn we now to the Sethite table, and we > find that Enos, or Enoch, comes _second_ from Adam, and is father to > Cain (an). This is no accident. There was an evident reason for this > inversion of paternity; a palpable design--that of creating confusion > and baffling inquiry. > > We say, then, that the patriarchs are simply the signs of the Zodiac, > emblems, in their manifold aspects, of the spiritual and physical > evolution of human races, of ages, and of divisions of time. In > astrology, the first four of the “Houses,” in the diagrams of the > “Twelve Houses of Heaven”--namely, the first, tenth, seventh, and > fourth, or the second inner square placed with its angles upward and > downward, are termed _angles_, as being of the greatest strength > and power. They answer to Adam, Noah, Cain-an, and Enoch, Alpha, > Omega, evil and good, leading the whole. Furthermore, when divided > (including the two secret names) into four _trigons_ or triads, viz.: > fiery, airy, earthy, and watery, we find the latter corresponding to > Noah. > > Enoch and Lamech were doubled in the table of Cain, to fill out the > required number ten in both “generations” in the _Bible_, instead of > employing the “Secret Name;” and, in order that the patriarchs should > correspond with the ten kabalistic Sephiroth, and fit at the same > time the ten, and, subsequently, _twelve_ signs of the Zodiac, in a > manner comprehensible only to the kabalists. > > And now, Abel having disappeared out of that line of descent, he > is replaced by Seth, who was clearly an afterthought suggested by > the necessity of not having the human race descend entirely from a > murderer. This dilemma being apparently first noticed when the Kenite > table had been completed, Adam is made (after all the generations > had appeared) to beget this son, Seth. It is a suggestive fact that, > whereas the double-sexed Adam of chapter v. is made in the likeness > of the Elohim (see _Genesis_ chapter i. 27 and v. 1 of the same), > Seth (v. 3) is begotten in Adam’s “own likeness,” thus signifying > that there were men of different races. Also, it is most noticeable > that neither the age nor a single other particular respecting the > patriarchs in the Kenite table is given, whereas the reverse is the > case with those in the Sethite line. > > Most assuredly, no one could expect to find, in a work open to the > public, the final mysteries of that which was preserved for countless > ages as the grandest secret of the sanctuary. But, without divulging > the key to the profane, or being taxed with undue indiscretion, > we may be allowed to lift a corner of the veil which shrouds the > majestic doctrines of old. Let us then write down the patriarchs as > they ought to stand in their relation to the Zodiac, and see how they > correspond with the signs. > > The following diagram represents Ezekiel’s Wheel, as given in many > works, among others, in Hargrave Jenning’s _Rosicrucians_: > > [Illustration: EZEKIEL’S WHEEL (exoteric). > > MACROCOSMOS > (ascending). > > MICROCOSMOS > (descending).] > > These signs are (follow numbers): > > 1, Aries; 2, Taurus; 3, Gemini; 4, Cancer; 5, Leo; 6, > Virgo, or the _ascending_ line of the grand cycle of > creation. After this comes 7, _Libra_--“man,” which, though > it is found right in the middle, or the intersection point, > leads down the numbers: > > 8, Scorpio; 9, Sagittarius; 10, Capricornus; 11, Aquarius; > and 12, Pisces. > > While discussing the double sign of Virgo-Scorpio and Libra, Hargrave > Jennings observes (p. 65): > > “All this is incomprehensible, except in the strange mysticism of > the Gnostics and the kabalists; and the whole theory requires a > key of explanation to render it intelligible; which key is only > darkly referred to as possible, but refused absolutely, by these > extraordinary men, as not permissible to be disclosed.” > > The said key must be turned _seven_ times before the whole system > is divulged. We will give it but _one_ turn, and thereby allow the > profane one glimpse into the mystery. Happy he, who understands the > whole! > > [Illustration: EZEKIEL’S WHEEL (esoteric).] > > To explain the presence of Jodheva (or Yodheva), or what is generally > termed the tetragram יהוה, and of Adam and Eve, it will suffice to > remind the reader of the following verses in _Genesis_, with their > right meaning inserted in brackets. > > 1. “And God [Elohim] created man in his [their] own image > ... male and female created he them [him]”--(ch. i. 27). > > 2. “Male and female created he them [him] ... and called > _their_ [his] name ADAM”--(v. 2). > > When the ternary is taken in the beginning of the tetragram, it > expresses the divine creation _spiritually_, _i.e._, without any > carnal sin: taken at its opposite end it expresses the latter; it > is feminine. The name of Eve is composed of three letters, that of > the primitive or heavenly Adam, is written with one letter, Jod or > Yodh; therefore it must not be read Jehova but _Ieva_, or Eve. The > Adam of the first chapter is the spiritual, therefore pure androgyne, > Adam Kadmon. When woman issues from the left rib of the second > Adam (of dust), the pure _Virgo_ is separated, and falling “into > generation,” or the downward cycle, becomes _Scorpio_,[880] emblem > of sin and matter. While the ascending cycle points at the purely > spiritual races, or the ten prediluvian patriarchs (the Pradjâpatis, > and Sephiroth)[881] are led on by the creative Deity itself, who is > Adam Kadmon or Yodcheva, the lower one is that of the terrestrial > races, led on by Enoch or _Libra_, the _seventh_; who, because he > is half-divine, half-terrestrial, is said to have been taken by > God alive. Enoch, or Hermes, or Libra are one. All are the scales > of universal harmony; justice and equilibrium are placed at the > central point of the Zodiac. The grand circle of the heavens, so well > discoursed upon by Plato, in his _Timæus_, symbolizes the unknown > as a unity; and the smaller circles which form the cross, by their > division on the plane of the Zodiacal ring--typify, at the point of > their intersection, life. The centripetal and centrifugal forces, > as symbols of Good and Evil, Spirit and Matter, Life and Death, are > also those of the Creator and the Destroyer,--Adam and Eve, or God > and the Devil, as they say in common parlance. In the subjective, > as well as in the objective worlds, they are the two powers, which > through their eternal conflict keep the universe of spirit and > matter in harmony. They force the planets to pursue their paths, and > keep them in their elliptical orbits, thus tracing the astronomical > cross in their revolution through the Zodiac. In their conflict the > centripetal force, were it to prevail, would drive the planets and > living souls into the sun, type of the invisible Spiritual Sun, the > Paraâtma or great universal Soul, their parent; while the centrifugal > force would chase both planets and _souls_ into the dreary space, far > from the luminary of the objective universe, away from the spiritual > realm of salvation and eternal life, and into the chaos of final > cosmic destruction, and individual annihilation. But the _balance_ > is there, ever sensitive at the intersection point. It regulates > the action of the two combatants, and the combined effort of both, > causes planets and “living souls” to pursue a double diagonal line > in their revolution through Zodiac and Life; and thus preserving > strict harmony, in visible and invisible heaven and earth, the forced > unity of the two reconciles spirit and matter, and Enoch is said to > stand a “Metatron” before God. Reckoning from him down to Noah and > his three sons, each of these represent a new “world,” _i.e._, our > earth, which is the seventh[882] after every period of geological > transformation, gives birth to another and distinct race of men and > beings. > > Cain leads the ascending line, or Macrocosm, for he is the Son of the > “Lord,” not of Adam (_Genesis_ iv. 1). The “Lord” is Adam Kadmon, > Cain, the Son of sinful thought, not the progeny of flesh and blood, > Seth on the other hand is the leader of the races of earth, for he is > the Son of Adam, and begotten “in his own likeness, after his image” > (_Genesis_ v. 3). Cain is _Kenu_, Assyrian, and means eldest, while > the Hebrew word קין means a smith, an artificer. > > Our science shows that the globe has passed through five distinct > geological phases, each characterized by a different stratum, > and these are in reverse order, beginning with the last: 1. The > Quaternary period, in which man appears as a certainty; 2. The > Tertiary period, in which he _may have_ appeared; 3. Secondary > period, that of gigantic saurians, the megalosaurus, icthyosaurus, > and plesiosaurus--_no vestige of man_; 4. The Palæozoic period, that > of gigantic crustacea; 5 (or first). The Azoic period, during which > science asserts organic life had not yet appeared. > > And is there no possibility that there was a period, and > several periods, when man _existed_, and yet was not an organic > being--therefore could not have left any vestige of himself for exact > science? _Spirit_ leaves no skeletons or fossils behind, and yet few > are the men on earth who doubt that man can live both objectively > and subjectively. At all events, the theology of the Brahmans, hoary > with antiquity, and which divides the formative periods of the earth > into four ages, and places between each of these a lapse of 1,728,000 > years, far more agrees with official science and modern discovery > than the absurd chronological notions promulgated by the Councils of > Nice and Trent. > > The names of the patriarchs were not Hebrew, though they may have > been Hebraized later; they are evidently of Assyrian or Aryan origin. > > Thus _Adam_, for instance, stands in the explained _Kabala_ as a > convertible term, and applies nearly to every other patriarch, as > every Sephiroth to each Sephira, and _vice versa_. Adam, Cain, > and Abel form the first _triad_ of the twelve. They correspond in > the Sephiral tree to the Crown, Wisdom, and Intelligence; and in > astrology to the three trigons--the fiery, the earthy, and the airy; > which fact, were we allowed to devote more space than we have to > its elucidation, would perhaps show that astrology deserves the > name of science as well as any other. Adam (Kadmon) or Aries (ram) > is identical with the Egyptian ram-headed god Amun, fabricating > man on the potter’s wheel. His duplication, therefore--or the Adam > of dust--is also Aries, Amon, when standing at the head of his > generations, for he fabricates mortals also in “his own likeness.” > In astrology the planet Jupiter is connected with the “first house” > (Aries). The color of Jupiter, as seen in the “stages of the seven > spheres,” on the tower of Borsippa, or Birs Nimrud, was _red_;[883] > and in Hebrew Adam means אדם “red” as well as “man.” The Hindu god > Agni, who presides at the sign of Pisces, next to that of Aries in > their relation to the twelve months (February and March),[884] is > painted of a deep red color, with _two_ faces (male and female), > _three_ legs, and _seven_ arms; the whole forming the number twelve. > So, also, Noah (Pisces), who appears in the generations as the twelfth > patriarch, counting Cain and Abel, is Adam again under another name, > for he is the forefather of a new race of mankind; and with his “three > sons,” one bad, one good, and one partaking of both qualities, is the > terrestrial reflection of the super-terrestrial Adam and his three > sons. Agni is represented mounted on a ram, with a tiara surmounted by > a cross.[885] > > Kain, presiding over the Taurus (Bull) of the Zodiac, is also very > suggestive. Taurus belongs to the earthy trigon, and in connection > with this sign it will not be amiss to remind the student of an > allegory from the Persian _Avesta_. The story goes that Ormazd > produced a being--source and type of all the universal beings--called > LIFE, or Bull in the _Zend_. Ahriman (Cain) kills this being (Abel), > from the seed of which (Seth) new beings are produced. Abel, in > Assyrian, means _son_, but in Hebrew הבל it means something ephemeral, > not long-lived, _valueless_, and also a “Pagan idol,”[886] as Kain > means a _Hermaic statue_ (a pillar, the symbol of generation). > Likewise, Abel is the female counterpart of Cain (male), for they are > twins and probably androgynous; the latter answering to Wisdom, the > former to Intelligence. > > So with all other patriarchs. Enos, אנוש, is _Homo_ again--a > man, or the same Adam, and Enoch in the bargain; and קיון _Kain-an_ > is identical with Cain. Seth, שת, is Teth, or Thoth, or Hermes; and > this is the reason, no doubt, why Josephus, in his first book (ch. 3) > shows Seth so proficient in astrology, geometry, and other occult > sciences. Foreseeing the flood, he says, he engraved the fundamental > principles of his art on two pillars of brick and stone, the latter of > which “he saw himself [Josephus] _to remain in Syria in his own > time_.” Thus is it that Seth is identified also with Enoch, to whom > kabalists and Masons attribute the same feat; and, at the same time, > with Hermes, or Kadmus again, for Enoch is identical with the > former; הנוך, He-NOCH means a teacher, an initiator, or an initiate; > in Grecian mythology, Inachus. We have seen the part he is made to > play in the Zodiac. > > Mahalaleel, if we divide the word and write מהלה, _m_a-_h_a-_l_a, > means tender, merciful; and therefore is he made to correspond with > the fourth Sephira, _Love_ or _Mercy_, emanated from the first > triad.[887] _Ir_a_d_, ירד, or _I_a_r_e_d_, is (minus the > vowels) precisely the same. If from the verb ירד, it means > _descent;_ if from ארד, _ar_a_d_, it means offspring, and > thus corresponds perfectly with the kabalistic emanations. > > _L_a_m_e_ch_, למך, is not Hebrew, but Greek. Lam-ach means > Lam--the father, and Ou-Lom-Ach is the father of the age; or the > father of him (Noah) who inaugurates a new era or period of creation > after the _pralaya_ of the deluge; Noah being the symbol of a new > world, the Kingdom (Malchuth) of the Sephiroth; hence his father, > corresponding to the ninth Sephiroth, is the Foundation.[888] > Furthermore, both father and son answer to Aquarius and Pisces in the > Zodiac; and thus the former belonging to the airy and the latter to > the _watery_ trigons, they close the list of the biblical myths. > > But if, as we see, every patriarch represents, in one sense, like > each of the Pradjâpatis, a new race of antediluvian human beings; > and if, as it may as easily be proved, they are the copies of the > Babylonian _Saros_, or ages, the latter themselves copies of the > Hindu ten dynasties of the “Lords of beings,”[889] yet, however we > may regard them, they are among the profoundest allegories ever > conceived by philosophical minds. > > In the _Nuctemeron_,[890] the evolution of the universe and > its successive periods of formation, together with the gradual > development of the human races, are illustrated as fully as possible > in the twelve “hours” into which the allegory is divided. Each “hour” > typifies the evolution of a new man, and in its turn is divided > into four quarters or ages. This work shows how thoroughly was the > ancient philosophy imbued with the doctrines of the early Aryans, > who were the first to divide the life on our planet into four ages. > If one would trace this doctrine from its source in the night of > the traditional period down to the Seer of Patmos, he need not go > astray among the religious systems of all nations. The Babylonians he > would find teaching that in four different periods four Oannes (or > suns) appeared; the Hindus asserting their four Yuga; the Greeks, > Romans, and others firmly believing in the golden, silver, brazen, > and iron ages, each of the epochs being heralded by the appearance of > a saviour. The four Buddhas of the Hindus and the three prophets of > the Zoroastrians--Oshedar-Cami, Oshedar-mah, and Sosiosh--preceded by > Zarotushtra, are the types of these ages. > > In the _Bible_, the very opening tells us that _before the sons of God > saw the daughters of men_, the latter lived from 365 to 969 years. > But when the “Lord God” saw the iniquities of mankind, He concluded > to allow them at most 120 years of life (_Genesis_ vi. 3). To > account for such a violent oscillation in the human mortality-table > is only possible by tracing this decision of the “Lord God” to its > origin. Such incongruities as we meet at every step in the _Bible_ > can be only attributed to the facts that the book of _Genesis_ and > the other books of _Moses_ were tampered with and remodelled by > more than one author; and, that in their original state they were, > with the exception of the external form of the allegories, faithful > copies from the Hindu sacred books. In _Manu_, book i., we find the > following: > > “In the first age, neither sickness nor suffering were known. Men > lived four centuries.” > > This was in the Krita or Satya yug. > > “The Krita-yug is the type of justice. The _bull_ which stands firm > on its four legs is its image; man adheres to truth, and evil does > not as yet direct his actions.”[891] But in each of the following > ages primitive human life loses one-fourth of its duration, that > is to say, in Treta-yug man lives 300, in Dwapara-yug 200, and in > Kali-yug, or our own age, but 100 years generally, at the most. Noah, > son of Lamech--Oulom-_Ach_, or father of the age--is the distorted > copy of Manu, son of Swayambhu, and the six Manus or Rishis issued > from the Hindu “first man” are the originals of Terah, Abraham, > Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, the Hebrew sages, who beginning > with Terah were all alleged to have been astrologers, alchemists, > inspired prophets, and soothsayers; or in a more profane but plainer > language--magicians. > > If we consult the Talmudistic _Mishna_ we find therein the first > emanated divine couple, the androgyne Demiurge Chochmah (or Hachma > Achamoth) and Binah building themselves a house with _seven_ pillars. > They are the architects of God--Wisdom and Intelligence--and His > “compass and square.” The seven columns are the future _seven_ > worlds, or the typical _seven_ primordial “days” of creation. > > “Chochmah immolates her victims.” These victims are the numberless > forces of nature which must “die” (expend themselves) _in order that > they should live_; when one force dies out, it is but to give birth > to another force, its progeny. It dies but lives in its children, and > resuscitates at every _seventh_ generation. The servants of Chochmah, > or wisdom, are the souls of H-Adam, for in him are all the souls of > Israel. > > There are _twelve_ hours in the day, says the _Mishna_, and it is > during these hours that is accomplished the creation of man. Would > this be comprehensible, unless we had Manu to teach us that this > “day” embraces the four ages of the world and has a duration of > _twelve_ thousand divine years of the Devas? > > “The Creators (Elohim) outline in the second” hour “the shape of a > more corporeal form of man. They separate it into two and prepare the > sexes to become distinct from each other. Such is the way the Elohim > proceeded in reference to every created thing.”[892] “Every fish, > fowl, plant, beast and man was androgyne at the first hour.” > > Says the commentator, the great Rabbi Simeon: > > “O, companions, companions, man as emanation was both man and woman; > as well on the side of the FATHER as on the side of the MOTHER. And > this is the sense of the words, and Elohim spoke, Let there be Light > and it was Light!... And this is the ‘two-fold man!’”[893] > > A spiritual woman was necessary as a contrast for the spiritual > man. Harmony is the universal law. In Taylor’s translation, Plato’s > discourse upon creation is rendered so as to make him say of this > universe that “He caused it to move with circular motion.... When, > therefore, that God who is a perpetually reasoning Divinity, > cogitated about that God (man) _who was destined to subsist at some > certain period of time_, He produced his body smooth and even, and > every way even and whole from the centre, and made it perfect. This > perfect circle of the created God, _He decussated in the form of the > letter_ X.” > > The italics of both these sentences from _Timæus_ belong to Dr. > Lundy, the author of that remarkable work mentioned once before, > _Monumental Christianity_; and attention is drawn to the words of > the Greek philosopher, with the evident purpose of giving them the > prophetic character which Justin Martyr applied to the same, when > accusing Plato of having borrowed his “physiological discussion > in the _Timæus_ ... concerning the Son of God placed crosswise in > the universe,” from Moses and his serpent of brass. The learned > author seems to fully accord an unpremeditated prophecy to these > words; although he does not tell us whether he believes that like > Plato’s created god, Jesus was originally a sphere “smooth and > even, and every way even and whole from the centre.” Even if Justin > Martyr were excusable for his perversion of Plato, Dr. Lundy ought > to know that the day for that sort of casuistry is long gone by. > What the philosopher meant was _man_, who before being encased in > matter had no use for limbs, but was a pure spiritual entity. Hence > if the Deity, and his universe, and the stellar bodies are to be > conceived as spheroidal, this shape would be archetypal man’s. As > his enveloping shell grew heavier, there came the necessity for > limbs, and the limbs sprouted. If we fancy a man with arms and legs > naturally extended at the same angle, by backing him against the > circle that symbolizes his prior shape as a spirit, we would have the > very figure described by Plato--the X cross within the circle. > > All the legends of the creation, the fall of man, and the resultant > deluge, belong to universal history, and are no more the property > of the Israelites than that of any other nation. What specially > belongs to them (kabalists excepted) are the disfigured details > of every tradition. The _Genesis_ of Enoch is by far anterior to > the books of Moses,[894] and Guillaume Postel has presented it to > the world, explaining the allegories as far as he dared; but the > ground-work is still unexposed. For the Jews, the _Book of Enoch_ > is as canonical as the Mosaic books; and if the Christians accepted > the latter as an authority, we do not see why they should reject the > former as an apocrypha. No more can the age of one than that of the > other be determined with anything like certainty. At the time of > the separation, the Samaritans recognized only the books of Moses > and that of Joshua, says Dr. Jost.[895] In 168 B.C., Jerusalem had > its temple plundered, and all the sacred books were destroyed;[896] > therefore, the few MSS. that remained were to be found only among the > “teachers of tradition.” The kabalistic Tanaïm, and their initiates > and prophets had always practised its teachings in common with > the Canaanites, the Hamites, Midianites, Chaldeans, and all other > nations. The story of Daniel is a proof of it. > > There was a sort of Brotherhood, or Freemasonry among the kabalists > scattered all over the world, since the memory of man; and, like some > societies of the mediæval Masonry of Europe, they called themselves > _Companions_[897] and _Innocents_.[898] It is a belief (founded on > knowledge) among the kabalists, that no more than the Hermetic rolls > are the genuine sacred books of the seventy-two elders--books which > contained the “_Ancient Word_”--lost, but that they have all been > preserved from the remotest times among secret communities. Emanuel > Swedenborg says as much, and his words are based, he says, on the > information he had from certain _spirits_, who assured him that “they > performed their worship according to this Ancient Word.” “Seek for > it in China,” adds the great seer, “peradventure you may find it in > Great Tartary!” Other students of occult sciences have had more than > the word of “certain spirits” to rely upon in this special case--they > have seen the books. > > We must choose therefore perforce between two methods--either to > accept the _Bible_ exoterically or esoterically. Against the former > we have the following facts: That, after the first copy of the _Book > of God_ has been edited and launched on the world by Hilkiah, this > copy disappears, and Ezra has to make a _new Bible_, which Judas > Maccabeus finishes; that when it was copied from the horned letters > into square letters, it was corrupted beyond recognition; that the > _Masorah_ completed the work of destruction; that, finally, we have a > text, not 900 years old, abounding with omissions, interpolations, > and premeditated perversions; and that, consequently, as this > Masoretic Hebrew text has fossilized its mistakes, and the key > to the “Word of God” is lost, no one has a right to enforce upon > so-called “Christians” the divagations of a series of hallucinated > and, perhaps, spurious prophets, under the unwarranted and untenable > assumption that the author of it was the “Holy Ghost” in _propria > personæ_. > > Hence, we reject this pretended monotheistic Scripture, made up > just when the priests of Jerusalem found their political profit in > violently breaking off all connection with the Gentiles. It is at > this moment only that we find them persecuting kabalists, and banning > the “old wisdom” of both Pagans and Jews. _The real Hebrew Bible > was a secret volume, unknown to the masses_, and even the Samaritan > _Pentateuch_ is far more ancient than the _Septuagint_. As for the > former, the Fathers of the Church never even heard of it. We prefer > decidedly to take the word of Swedenborg that the “Ancient Word” > is _somewhere in China or the Great Tartary_. The more so, as the > Swedish seer is declared, at least by one clergymen, namely, the > Reverend Dr. R. L. Tafel, of London, to have been in a state of > “inspiration from God,” while writing his theological works. He is > given even the superiority over the penmen of the _Bible_, for, while > the latter had the words spoken to them in their ears, Swedenborg was > made to understand them rationally and was, therefore, _internally_ > and not externally illuminated. “When,” says the reverend author, “a > conscientious member of the New Church hears any charges made against > the divinity and the infallibility of either the soul or the body of > the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, he must at once place himself on > the unequivocal declaration made in those doctrines, that the Lord > has effected His second coming in and by means of those writings > which were published by Emanuel Swedenborg, as His servant, and that, > therefore, those charges are not and cannot be true.” And if it is > “the Lord” that spoke through Swedenborg, then there is a hope for > us that at least one divine will corroborate our assertions, that > the ancient “word of God” is nowhere but in the heathen countries, > especially _Buddhistic Tartary, Thibet, and China_! > > “The primitive history of Greece is the primitive history of India,” > exclaims Pococke in his _India in Greece_. In view of subsequent > fruits of critical research, we may paraphrase the sentence and say: > “The primitive history of Judea is a distortion of Indian fable > engrafted on that of Egypt. Many scientists, encountering stubborn > facts, and being reluctant to contrast the narratives of the “divine” > revelation with those of the Brahmanical books, merely present them > to the reading public. Meanwhile they limit their conclusions to > criticisms and contradictions of each other. So Max Müller opposes > the theories of Spiegel, and some one else; and Professor Whitney > those of the Oxford Orientalist; and Dr. Haug made onslaughts on > Spiegel, while Dr. Spiegel chose some other victim; and now even the > time-honored Akkadians and Turanians have had their day of glory. > The _Proto-Kasdeans_, _Kasdeo-Scyths_, _Sumirians_, and what not, > have to make room for some other fictions. Alas! for the Akkads, > Halevy, the Assyriologist attacks the Akkado-Sumirian language of old > Babylon, and Chabas, the Egyptologist, not content with dethroning > the Turanian speech, which has rendered such eminent services to > Orientalists when perplexed, calls the venerable parent of the > Akkadians--François Lenormant--himself, a charlatan. Profiting by the > learned turmoil, the Christian clergy take heart for their fantastic > theology on the ground that when the jury disagree there is a gain > of time at least for the indicted party. And thus is overlooked > the vital question whether Christendom would not be the better for > adopting Christism in place of Christianity, with its _Bible_, its > vicarious atonement and its Devil. But to so important a personage as > the latter, we could not do less than devote a special chapter. > > CHAPTER X. > > “Get thee behind me, SATAN” (Jesus to Peter).--_Matt._ xvi. 23. > > “Such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff > As puts me from my faith. I tell you what-- > He held me, last night, at least nine hours > In reckoning up the several devils’ names.”-- > _King Henry IV._, Part i., Act iii. > > “La force terrible et juste qui tue eternellement les > avortons a été nommée par les Égyptiens Typhon, par les > Hébreux Samaël; par les orientaux Satan; et par les Latins > Lucifer. Le Lucifer de la Cabale n’est pas un ange maudit > et foudroyé; c’est l’ange qui éclaire et qui _régénère_ en > tombant.”--ELIPHAS LEVI: _Dogme et Rituel_. > > “Bad as he is, the Devil may be abus’d, > Be falsely charg’d, and causelessly accus’d, > When Men, unwilling to be blam’d alone, > Shift off those Crimes on Him which are their Own.”--_Defoe_, 1726. > > Several years ago, a distinguished writer and persecuted kabalist > suggested a creed for the Protestant and Roman Catholic bodies, which > may be thus formulated: > > _Protevangelium._ > > “I believe in the Devil, the Father Almighty of Evil, the Destroyer > of all things, Perturbator of Heaven and Earth; > And in Anti-Christ, his only Son, our Persecutor, > Who was conceived of the Evil Spirit; > Born of a sacrilegious, foolish Virgin; > Was glorified by mankind, reigned over them, > And ascended to the throne of Almighty God, > From which he crowds Him aside, and from which he insults the > living and the dead; > I believe in the Spirit of Evil; > The Synagogue of Satan; > The coalition of the wicked; > The perdition of the body; > And the Death and Hell everlasting. _Amen._” > > Does this offend? Does it seem extravagant, cruel, blasphemous? > Listen. In the city of New York, on the ninth day of April, > 1877--that is to say, in the last quarter of what is proudly styled > the century of discovery and the age of illumination--the following > scandalous ideas were broached. We quote from the report in the _Sun_ > of the following morning: > > “The Baptist preachers met yesterday in the Mariners’ Chapel, in > Oliver Street. Several foreign missionaries were present. The Rev. > John W. Sarles, of Brooklyn, read an essay, in which he maintained > the proposition _that all adult heathen, dying without the knowledge > of the Gospel, are damned eternally_. Otherwise, the reverend > essayist argued, the Gospel is a curse instead of a blessing, the men > who crucified Christ served him right, and the whole structure of > revealed religion tumbles to the ground. > > “Brother Stoddard, a missionary from India, indorsed the views of the > Brooklyn pastor. The Hindus were great sinners. One day, after he had > preached in the market place, a Brahman got up and said: ‘We Hindus > beat the world in lying, but this man beats us. How can he say that > God loves us? Look at the poisonous serpents, tigers, lions, and all > kinds of dangerous animals around us. If God loves us, why doesn’t He > take them away?’ > > “The Rev. Mr. Pixley, of Hamilton, N. Y., heartily subscribed to the > doctrine of Brother Sarles’s essay, and asked for $5,000 to fit out > young men for the ministry.” > > And these men--we will not say teach the doctrine of Jesus, for that > would be to insult his memory, but--are _paid_ to teach his doctrine! > Can we wonder that intelligent persons prefer annihilation to a > faith encumbered by such a monstrous doctrine? We doubt whether any > respectable Brahman would have confessed to the vice of lying--an > art cultivated only in those portions of British India where the > most Christians are found[899] But we challenge any honest man in > the wide world to say whether he thinks the Brahman was far from the > truth in saying of the missionary Stoddard, “this man beats us all” > in lying. What else would he say, if the latter preached to them the > doctrine of _eternal damnation_, because, indeed, they had passed > their lives without reading a Jewish book of which they never heard, > or asked salvation of a Christ whose existence they never suspected! > But Baptist clergymen who need a few thousand dollars must devise > terrifying sensations to fire the congregational heart. > > We abstain, as a rule, from giving our own experience when we can > call acceptable witnesses, and so, upon reading missionary Stoddard’s > outrageous remarks, we requested our acquaintance, Mr. William L. > D. O’Grady,[901] to give a fair opinion upon the missionaries. This > gentleman’s father and grandfather were British army officers, and > he himself was born in India, and enjoyed life-long opportunities > to learn what the general opinion among the English is of these > religious propagandists. Following is his communication in reply to > our letter: > > “You ask me for my opinion of the Christian missionaries > in India. In all the years I spent there, I never spoke to > a single missionary. They were not in society, and, from > what I heard of their proceedings and could see for myself, > I don’t wonder at it. _Their influence on the natives is > bad._ Their converts are worthless, and, as a rule, of > the lowest class; _nor do they improve by conversion_. No > respectable family will employ Christian servants. They > lie, they steal, they are unclean--and dirt is certainly > not a Hindu vice; they drink--and no decent native of any > other belief ever touches intoxicating liquor; they are > outcasts from their own people and utterly despicable. > Their new teachers set them a poor example of consistency. > While holding forth to the Pariah that God makes no > distinction of persons, they boast intolerably over the > stray Brahmans, who, very much “off color,” occasionally, > at long intervals, fall into the clutches of these > hypocrites. > > “The missionaries get very small salaries, as publicly > stated in the proceedings of the societies that employ > them, but, in some unaccountable way, manage to live as > well as officials with ten times their income. When they > come home to recover their health, shattered, as they say, > by their arduous labors--which they seem to be able to > afford to do quite frequently, when supposed richer people > cannot--they tell childish stories on platforms, exhibit > idols as procured with infinite difficulty, which is quite > absurd, and give an account of their imaginary hardships > which is perfectly harrowing but untrue from beginning > to end. I lived some years in India myself, and nearly > all my blood-relations have passed or will pass the best > years of their lives there. I know hundreds of British > officials, and I never heard from one of them a single word > in favor of the missionaries. Natives of any position look > on them with the supremest contempt, although suffering > chronic exasperation from their arrogant aggressiveness; > and the British Government, which continues endowments to > Pagodas, granted by the East India Company, and which > supports unsectarian education, gives them no countenance > whatever. Protected from personal violence, they yelp and > bark at natives and Europeans alike, after the fashion of > ill-conditioned curs. Often recruited from the poorest > specimens of theological fanaticism, they are regarded on > all sides as mischievous. Their rabid, reckless, vulgar, > and offensive propagandism caused the great Mutiny of 1857. > They are noisome humbugs. > “WM. L. D. O’GRADY. > “NEW YORK, June 12, 1877.” > > The new creed therefore, with which we opened this chapter, coarse as > it may sound, embodies the very essence of the belief of the Church > as inculcated by her missionaries. It is regarded as less impious, > less infidel, to doubt the personal existence of the Holy Ghost, or > the equal Godhead of Jesus, than to question the personality of the > Devil. But a summary of Koheleth is well-nigh forgotten.[902] Who > ever quotes the golden words of the prophet Micah,[903] or seems to > care for the exposition of the Law, as given by Jesus himself?[904] > The “bull’s eye” in the target of Modern Christianity is in the > simple phrase to “fear the Devil.” > > The Catholic clergy and some of the lay champions of the Roman Church > fight still more for the existence of Satan and his imps. If Des > Mousseaux maintains the objective reality of spiritual phenomena with > such an unrelenting ardor, it is because, in his opinion, the latter > are the most direct evidence of the Devil at work. The Chevalier > is more Catholic than the Pope; and his logic and deductions from > never-to-be and non-established premises are unique, and prove once > more that the creed offered by us is the one which expresses the > Catholic belief most eloquently. > > “If magic and spiritualism,” he says, “were both but chimeras, > we would have to bid an eternal farewell to all the rebellious > angels, now troubling the world; for thus, we would have _no more > demons down here_.... And _if we lost our demons, we would_ LOSE > OUR SAVIOUR likewise. For, from whom did that Saviour come to save > us? And then, there would be no more Redeemer; for from whom or > what could that Redeemer redeem us? Hence, _there would be no more > Christianity_!!”[905] > > Oh, Holy Father of Evil; Sainted Satan! We pray thee do not abandon > such pious Christians as the Chevalier des Mousseaux and some Baptist > clergymen!! > > For our part, we would rather remember the wise words of J. C. > Colquhoun,[906] who says that “those persons who, in modern times, > adopt the doctrine of the Devil in its strictly literal and personal > application, do not appear to be aware that they are in reality > polytheists, heathens, idolaters.” > > Seeking supremacy in everything over the ancient creeds, the > Christians claim the discovery of the Devil officially recognized > by the Church. Jesus was the first to use the word “legion” when > speaking of them; and it is on this ground that M. des Mousseaux thus > defends his position in one of his demonological works. “Later,” > he says, “when the synagogue _expired_, depositing its inheritance > in the hands of Christ, were born into the world and _shone_, the > Fathers of the Church, who have been accused by certain persons of a > rare and precious ignorance, of having borrowed their ideas as to the > spirits of darkness from the theurgists.” > > Three deliberate, palpable, and easily-refuted errors--not to use > a harsher word--occur in these few lines. In the first place, the > synagogue, far from having _expired_, is flourishing at the present > day in nearly every town of Europe, America, and Asia; and of all > churches in Christian cities, it is the most firmly established, > as well as the best behaved. Further--while no one will deny that > many Christian Fathers were born into the world (always, of course, > excepting the twelve fictitious Bishops of Rome, who were never > born at all), every person who will take the trouble to read the > works of the Platonists of the old Academy, who were theurgists > before Iamblichus, will recognize therein the origin of Christian > Demonology as well as the Angelology, the allegorical meaning > of which was completely distorted by the Fathers. Then it could > hardly be admitted that the said Fathers ever _shone_, except, > perhaps, in the refulgence of their extreme ignorance. The Reverend > Dr. Shuckford, who passed the better part of his life trying to > reconcile their contradictions and absurdities, was finally driven to > abandon the whole thing in despair. The ignorance of the champions > of Plato must indeed appear rare and precious by comparison with > the fathomless profundity of Augustine, “the giant of learning and > erudition,” who scouted the sphericity of the earth, for, if true, > it would prevent the antipodes from seeing the Lord Christ when he > descended from heaven at the second advent; or, of Lactantius, who > rejects with pious horror Pliny’s identical theory, on the remarkable > ground that it would make the trees at the other side of the earth > grow and the men walk with their heads downward; or, again, of > Cosmas-Indicopleustes, whose orthodox system of geography is embalmed > in his “Christian topography;” or, finally, of Bede, who assured > the world that the heaven “is tempered with glacial waters, lest it > should be set on fire”[907]--a benign dispensation of Providence, > most likely to prevent the radiance of their learning from setting > the sky ablaze! > > Be this as it may, these resplendent Fathers certainly did borrow > their notions of the “spirits of darkness” from the Jewish kabalists > and Pagan theurgists, with the difference, however, that they > disfigured and outdid in absurdity all that the wildest fancy of the > Hindu, Greek, and Roman rabble had ever created. There is not a dev > in the Persian Pandaimonion half so preposterous, as a conception, as > des Mousseaux’s _Incubus_ revamped from Augustine. Typhon, symbolized > as an _ass_, appears a philosopher in comparison with the devil > caught by the Normandy peasant in a key-hole; and it is certainly not > Ahriman or the Hindu Vritra who would run away in rage and dismay, > when addressed as _St. Satan_, by a native Luther. > > The Devil is the patron genius of theological Christianity. So “holy > and reverend is his name” in modern conception, that it may not, > except occasionally from the pulpit, be uttered in ears polite. In > like manner, anciently, it was not lawful to speak the sacred names > or repeat the jargon of the Mysteries, except in the sacred cloister. > We hardly know the names of the Samothracian gods, but cannot tell > precisely the number of the Kabeiri. The Egyptians considered it > blasphemous to utter the title of the gods of their secret rites. > Even now, the Brahman only pronounces the syllable _Om_ in silent > thought, and the Rabbi, the Ineffable Name, יהוה. Hence, we who > exercise no such veneration, have been led into the blunders of > miscalling the names of HISIRIS and YAVA by the mispronunciations, > Osiris and Jehovah. A similar glamour bids fair, it will be perceived, > to gather round the designation of the dark personage of whom we are > treating; and in the familiar handling, we shall be very likely to > shock the peculiar sensibilities of many who will consider a free > mentioning of the Devil’s names as blasphemy--the sin of sins, that > “hath never forgiveness.”[908] > > Several years ago an acquaintance of the author wrote a newspaper > article to demonstrate that the _diabolos_ or Satan of the _New > Testament_ denoted the personification of an abstract idea, and not > a personal being. He was answered by a clergyman, who concluded the > reply with the deprecatory expression, “I fear that he has denied > his Saviour.” In his rejoinder he pleaded, “Oh, no! we only denied > the Devil.” But the clergyman failed to perceive the difference. In > his conception of the matter, the denying of the personal objective > existence of the Devil was itself “the sin against the Holy Ghost.” > > This necessary Evil, dignified by the epithet of “Father of Lies,” > was, according to the clergy, the founder of all the world-religions > of ancient time, and of the heresies, or rather heterodoxies, > of later periods, as well as the _Deus ex Machina_ of modern > Spiritualism. In the exceptions which we take to this notion, we > protest that we do not attack true religion or sincere piety. We > are only carrying on a controversy with human dogmas. Perhaps in > doing this we resemble Don Quixote, because these things are only > windmills. Nevertheless, let it be remembered that they have been > the occasion and pretext for the slaughtering of more than fifty > millions of human beings since the words were proclaimed: “LOVE YOUR > ENEMIES.”[909] > > It is a late day for us to expect the Christian clergy to undo and > amend their work. They have too much at stake. If the Christian > Church should abandon or even modify the dogma of an anthropomorphic > devil, it would be like pulling the bottom card from under a castle > of cards. The structure would fall. The clergymen to whom we have > alluded perceived that upon the relinquishing of Satan as a personal > devil, the dogma of Jesus Christ as the second deity in their trinity > must go over in the same catastrophe. Incredible, or even horrifying, > as it may seem, the Roman Church bases its doctrine of the godhood of > Christ entirely upon the satanism of the fallen archangel. We have > the testimony of Father Ventura, who proclaims the vital importance > of this dogma to the Catholics. > > The Reverend Father Ventura, the illustrious ex-general of the > Theatins, certifies that the Chevalier des Mousseaux, by his > treatise, _Mœurs et Pratiques des Démons_, has deserved well of > mankind, and still more of the most Holy Catholic and Apostolic > Church. With this voucher, the noble Chevalier, it will be perceived, > “speaks as one having authority.” He asserts explicitly, that _to the > Devil and his angels we are absolutely indebted for our Saviour_; and > that but for them _we would have no Redeemer, no Christianity_. > > Many zealous and earnest souls have revolted at the monstrous dogma > of John Calvin, the popekin of Geneva, that _sin is the necessary > cause of the greatest good_. It was bolstered up, nevertheless, > by logic like that of des Mousseaux, and illustrated by the same > dogmas. The execution of Jesus, the god-man, on the cross, was the > most prodigious crime in the universe, yet it was necessary that > mankind--those predestinated to everlasting life--might be saved. > D’Aubigné cites the quotation by Martin Luther from the canon, and > makes him exclaim, in ecstatic rapture: “_O beata culpa, qui talem > meruisti redemptorem_!” O blessed sin, which didst merit such a > Redeemer. We now perceive that the dogma which had appeared so > monstrous is, after all, the doctrine of Pope, Calvin, and Luther > alike--that the three are one. > > Mahomet and his disciples, who held Jesus in great respect as a > prophet, remarks Eliphas Levi, used to utter, when speaking of > Christians, the following remarkable words: “Jesus of Nazareth was > verily a true prophet of Allah and a grand man; but lo! his disciples > all went insane one day, and made a god of him.” > > Max Müller kindly adds: “It was a mistake of the early Fathers to > treat the heathen gods as demons or evil spirits, and we must take > care not to commit the same error with regard to the Hindu gods.”[910] > > But we have Satan presented to us as the prop and mainstay of > sacerdotism--an Atlas, holding the Christian heaven and cosmos upon > his shoulders. If he falls, then, in their conception, all is lost, > and chaos must come again. > > This dogma of the Devil and redemption seems to be based upon two > passages in the _New Testament_: “For this purpose the Son of God > was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil.”[911] > “And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against > the Dragon; and the Dragon fought, and his angels, and prevailed > not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great > Dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, > which deceiveth the whole world.” Let us, then, explore the ancient > Theogonies, in order to ascertain what was meant by these remarkable > expressions. > > The first inquiry is whether the term _Devil_, as here used, actually > represents the malignant Deity of the Christians, or an antagonistic, > blind force--the dark side of nature. By the latter we are not to > understand the manifestation of any evil principle that is _malum > in se_, but only the shadow of the Light, so to say. The theories > of the kabalists treat of it as a force which is antagonistic, but > at the same time essential to the vitality, evolving, and vigor of > the good principle. Plants would perish in their first stage of > existence, if they were kept exposed to a constant sunlight; the > night alternating with the day is essential to their healthy growth > and development. Goodness, likewise, would speedily cease to be such, > were it not alternated by its opposite. In human nature, evil denotes > the antagonism of matter to the spiritual, and each is accordingly > purified thereby. In the cosmos, the equilibrium must be preserved; > the operation of the two contraries produce harmony, like the > centripetal and centrifugal forces, and are necessary to each other. > If one is arrested, the action of the other will immediately become > destructive. > > This personification, denominated _Satan_, is to be contemplated > from three different planes: the _Old Testament_, the Christian > Fathers, and the ancient Gentile altitude. He is supposed to have > been represented by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden; nevertheless, > the epithet of Satan is nowhere in the Hebrew sacred writings applied > to that or any other variety of ophidian. The Brazen Serpent of > Moses was worshipped by the Israelites as a god;[912] being the > symbol of Esmun-Asklepius the Phœnician Iao. Indeed, the character > of Satan himself is introduced in the 1st book of _Chronicles_ in > the act of instigating King David to number the Israelitish people, > an act elsewhere declared specifically to have been moved by Jehovah > himself.[913] The inference is unavoidable that the two, Satan and > Jehovah, were regarded as identical. > > Another mention of Satan is found in the _prophecies of Zechariah_. > This book was written at a period subsequent to the Jewish > colonization of Palestine, and hence, the Asideans may fairly be > supposed to have brought the personification thither from the East. > It is well known that this body of sectaries were deeply imbued with > the Mazdean notions; and that they represented Ahriman or Anra-manyas > by the god-names of Syria. Set or Sat-an, the god of the Hittites and > Hyk-sos, and Beel-Zebub the oracle-god, afterward the Grecian Apollo. > The prophet began his labors in Judea in the second year of Darius > Hystaspes, the restorer of the Mazdean worship. He thus describes the > encounter with Satan: “He showed me Joshua the high-priest standing > before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand > to be his adversary. And the Lord said unto Satan: ‘The Lord rebuke > thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: > is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?’”[914] > > We apprehend that this passage which we have quoted is symbolical. > There are two allusions in the _New Testament_ that indicate that it > was so regarded. The _Catholic Epistle of Jude_ refers to it in this > peculiar language: “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with > the Devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, did not venture to > utter to him a reviling judgment κρῑσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν βλασφημίας, but > said, ‘The Lord rebuke thee.’”[915] The archangel Michael is thus > mentioned as identical with the יהוה Lord, or angel of the Lord, of > the preceding quotation, and thus is shown that the Hebrew Jehovah had > a twofold character, the secret and that manifested as the angel of > the Lord, or Michael the archangel. A comparison between these two > passages renders it plain that “the body of Moses” over which they > contended was Palestine, which as “the land of the Hittites”[916] was > the peculiar domain of Seth, their tutelar god.[917] Michael, as the > champion of the Jehovah-worship, contended with the Devil or > Adversary, but left judgment to his superior. > > Belial is not entitled to the distinction of either god or devil. > The term בליעל, BELIAL, is defined in the Hebrew lexicons to mean > a destroying, waste, uselessness; or the phrase איש־בליעל AIS-BELIAL > or Belial-man signifies a wasteful, useless man. If Belial must be > personified to please our religious friends, we would be obliged to > make him perfectly distinct from Satan, and to consider him as a sort > of spiritual “Diakka.” The demonographers, however, who enumerate nine > distinct orders of _daimonia_, make him chief of the third class--a > set of hobgoblins, mischievous and good-for-nothing. > > Asmodeus is no Jewish spirit at all, his origin being purely Persian. > Bréal, the author of _Hercule et Cacus_, shows that he is the Parsi > Eshem-Dev, or Aéshma-dev, the evil spirit of concupiscence, whom Max > Müller tells us “is mentioned several times in the _Avesta_ as one of > the Devs,[918] originally gods, who became evil spirits.” > > Samael is Satan; but Bryan and a good many other authorities show it > to be the name of the “Simoun”--the wind of the desert,[919] and the > Simoun is called Atabul-os or Diabolos. > > Plutarch remarks that by Typhon was understood anything violent, > unruly, and disorderly. The overflowing of the Nile was called by > the Egyptians Typhon. Lower Egypt is very flat, and any mounds built > along the river to prevent the frequent inundations, were called > Typhonian or _Taphos_; hence, the origin of Typhon. Plutarch, who > was a rigid, orthodox Greek, and never known to much compliment the > Egyptians, testifies in his _Isis and Osiris_, to the fact that, > far from worshipping the Devil (of which Christians accused them), > they despised more than they dreaded Typhon. In his symbol of the > opposing, obstinate power of nature, they believed him to be a poor, > struggling, half-dead divinity. Thus, even at that remote age, we > see the ancients already _too enlightened to believe in a personal > devil_. As Typhon was represented in one of his symbols under the > figure of an ass at the festival of the sun’s sacrifices, the > Egyptian priests exhorted the faithful worshippers not to carry gold > ornaments upon their bodies for fear of giving food to the _ass_![920] > > Three and a half centuries before Christ, Plato expressed his opinion > of evil by saying that “there is in matter a blind, refractory force, > which resists the will of the Great Artificer.” This blind force, > under Christian influx, was made to see and become responsible; it > was transformed into Satan! > > His identity with Typhon can scarcely be doubted upon reading the > account in _Job_ of his appearance with the sons of God, before the > Lord. He accuses Job of a readiness to curse the Lord to his face > upon sufficient provocation. So Typhon, in the Egyptian _Book of > the Dead_, figures as the accuser. The resemblance extends even to > the names, for one of Typhon’s appellations was _Seth_, or _Seph_; > as Sâtân, in Hebrew, means an adversary. In Arabic the word is > _Shâtana_--to be adverse, to persecute, and Manetho says he had > treacherously murdered Osiris and allied himself with the Shemites > (the Israelites). This may possibly have originated the fable told > by Plutarch, that, from the fight between Horus and Typhon, Typhon, > overcome with fright at the mischief he had caused, “fled seven days > on an ass, and escaping, begat the boys Ierosolumos and Ioudaios > (Jerusalem and Judea).” > > Referring to an invocation of Typhon-Seth, Professor Reuvens says > that the Egyptians worshipped Typhon under the form of an ass; and > according to him Seth “appears gradually among the Semites as the > background of their religious consciousness.”[921] The name of > the ass in Coptic, AO, is a phonetic of IAO, and hence the animal > became a pun-symbol. Thus Satan is a later creation, sprung from > the overheated fancy of the Fathers of the Church. By some reverse > of fortune, to which the gods are subjected in common with mortals, > Typhon-Seth tumbled down from the eminence of the deified son of > Adam Kadmon, to the degrading position of a subaltern spirit, a > mythical demon--ass. Religious schisms are as little free from the > frail pettiness and spiteful feelings of humanity as the partisan > quarrels of laymen. We find a strong instance of the above in the > case of the Zoroastrian reform, when Magianism separated from the > old faith of the Brahmans. The bright Devas of the _Veda_ became, > under the religious reform of Zoroaster, daêvas, or evil spirits, > of the _Avesta_. Even Indra, the luminous god, was thrust far back > into the dark shadow[922] in order to show off, in a brighter light, > Ahura-mazda, the Wise and Supreme Deity. > > The strange veneration in which the Ophites held the serpent which > represented Christos may become less perplexing if the students would > but remember that at all ages the serpent was the symbol of divine > wisdom, which kills in order to resurrect, destroys but to rebuild > the better. Moses is made a descendant of Levi, a serpent-tribe. > Gautama-Buddha is of a serpent-lineage, through the Naga (serpent) > race of kings who reigned in Magadha. Hermes, or the god Taaut > (Thoth), in his snake-symbol is Têt; and, according to the Ophite > legends, Jesus or Christos is born from a snake (divine wisdom, or > Holy Ghost), _i.e._, he became a Son of God through his initiation > into the “Serpent Science.” Vishnu, identical with the Egyptian > Kneph, rests on the heavenly _seven_-headed serpent. > > The red or fiery dragon of the ancient time was the military ensign > of the Assyrians. Cyrus adopted it from them when Persia became > dominant. The Romans and Byzantines next assumed it; and so the > “great red dragon,” from being the symbol of Babylon and Nineveh, > became that of Rome.[923] > > The temptation, or probation,[924] of Jesus is, however, the most > dramatic occasion in which Satan appears. As if to prove the > designation of Apollo, Æsculapius, and Bacchus, _Diobolos_, or son > of Zeus, he is also styled _Diabolos_, or accuser. The scene of the > probation was the wilderness. In the desert about the Jordan and > Dead Sea were the abodes of the “sons of the prophets,” and the > Essenes.[925] These ascetics used to subject their neophytes to > probations, analogous to the _tortures_ of the Mithraic rites; and > the temptation of Jesus was evidently a scene of this character. > Hence, in the _Gospel according to Luke_, it is stated that “the > Diabolos, having completed the probation, left him for a specific > time, αχρι καιροῦ; and Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into > Galilee.” But the διαβολος, or Devil, in this instance is evidently no > malignant principle, but one exercising discipline. In this sense the > terms Devil and Satan are repeatedly employed.[926] Thus, when Paul > was liable to undue elation by reason of the abundance of revelations > or epoptic disclosures, there was given him “a thorn in the flesh, an > angel of Satanas,” to check him.[927] > > The story of Satan in the _Book of Job_ is of a similar character. He > is introduced among the “Sons of God,” presenting themselves before > the Lord, as in a Mystic initiation. Micaiah the prophet describes a > similar scene, where he “saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all > the host of Heaven standing by Him,” with whom He took counsel, which > resulted in putting “a lying spirit into the mouth of the prophets > of Ahab.”[928] The Lord counsels with Satan, and gives him _carte > blanche_ to test the fidelity of Job. He is stripped of his wealth > and family, and smitten with a loathsome disease. In his extremity, > his wife doubts his integrity, and exhorts him to worship God, as > he is about to die. His friends all beset him with accusations, and > finally the Lord, the chief hierophant Himself, taxes him with the > uttering of words in which there is no wisdom, and with contending > with the Almighty. To this rebuke Job yielded, making this appeal: > “I will demand of thee, and thou shalt declare unto me: wherefore > do I abhor myself and mourn in dust and ashes?” Immediately he was > vindicated. “The Lord said unto Eliphaz ... ye have not spoken of > me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.” His integrity > had been asserted, and his prediction verified: “I know that my > Champion liveth, and that he will stand up for me at a later time on > the earth; and though after my skin my body itself be corroded away, > yet even then without my flesh shall I see God.” The prediction was > accomplished: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but > now mine eye seeth thee.... And the Lord turned the captivity of Job.” > > In all these scenes there is manifested no such malignant diabolism > as is supposed to characterize “the adversary of souls.” > > It is an opinion of certain writers of merit and learning, that > the Satan of the book of _Job_ is a Jewish myth, containing the > Mazdean doctrine of the Evil Principle. Dr. Haug remarks that “the > Zoroastrian religion exhibits a close affinity, or rather identity > with the Mosaic religion and Christianity, such as the personality > and attributes of the Devil, and the resurrection of the dead.”[929] > The war of the _Apocalypse_ between Michael and the Dragon, can be > traced with equal facility to one of the oldest myths of the Aryans. > In the _Avesta_ we read of war between Thrætaona and Azhi-Dahaka, the > destroying serpent. Burnouf has endeavored to show that the Vedic > myth of Ahi, or the serpent, fighting against the gods, has been > gradually euhemerized into “the battle of a pious man against the > power of evil,” in the Mazdean religion. By these interpretations > Satan would be made identical with Zohak or Azhi-Dahaka, who is a > three-headed serpent, with one of the heads a human one.[930] > > Beel-Zebub is generally distinguished from Satan. He seems, in the > _Apocryphal New Testament_, to be regarded as the potentate of the > underworld. The name is usually rendered “Baal of the Flies,” which > may be a designation of the Scarabæi or sacred beetles.[931] More > correctly it shall be read, as it is always given in the Greek text > of the _Gospels_, Beelzebul, or lord of the household, as is indeed > intimated in _Matthew_ x. 25: “If they have called the master of > the house Beelzebul, how much more shall they call them of his > household.” He was also styled the prince or archon of dæmons. > > Typhon figures in the _Book of the Dead_, as the Accuser of souls > when they appear for judgment, as Satan stood up to accuse Joshua, > the high-priest, before the angel, and as the Devil came to Jesus to > tempt or test him during his great fast in the wilderness. He was > also the deity denominated Baal-Tsephon, or god of the crypt, in the > book of _Exodus_, and _Seth_, or the pillar. During this period, the > ancient or archaic worship was more or less under the ban of the > government; in figurative language, Osiris had been treacherously > slain and cut in fourteen (twice _seven_) pieces, and coffined by his > brother Typhon, and Isis had gone to Byblos in quest of his body. > > We must not forget in this relation that Saba or Sabazios, of Phrygia > and Greece, was torn by the Titans into _seven_ pieces, and that he > was, like Heptaktis of the Chaldeans, the _seven_-rayed god. Siva, > the Hindu, is represented crowned with seven serpents, and he is the > god of war and destruction. The Hebrew Jehovah the Sabaoth is also > called the Lord of hosts, Seba or Saba, Bacchus or Dionysus Sabazios; > so that all these may easily be proved identical. > > Finally the princes of the older _régime_, the gods who had, on the > assault of the giants, taken the forms of animals and hidden in > Æthiopia, returned and expelled the shepherds. > > According to Josephus, the Hyk-sos were the ancestors of the > Israelites.[932] This is doubtless substantially true. The Hebrew > _Scriptures_, which tell a somewhat different story, were written > at a later period, and underwent several revisions, before they > were promulgated with any degree of publicity. Typhon became odious > in Egypt, and shepherds “an abomination.” “In the course of the > twentieth dynasty he was suddenly treated as an evil demon, insomuch > that his effigies and name are obliterated on all the monuments and > inscriptions that could be reached.”[933] > > In all ages the gods have been liable to be euhemerized into men. > There are tombs of Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, and Bacchus, which are > often mentioned to show that originally they were only mortals. Shem, > Ham, and Japhet, are traced in the divinities Shamas of Assyria, > Kham of Egypt, and Iapetos the Titan. Seth was god of the Hyk-sos, > Enoch, or Inachus, of the Argives; and Abraham, Isaac, and Judah have > been compared with Brahma, Ikshwaka, and Yadu of the Hindu pantheon. > Typhon tumbled down from godhead to devilship, both in his own > character as brother of Osiris, and as the Seth, or Satan of Asia. > Apollo, the god of day, became, in his older Phœnician garb, no more > Baal Zebul, the Oracle-god, but prince of demons, and finally the > lord of the underworld. The separation of Mazdeanism from Vedism, > transformed the _devas_ or gods into evil potencies. Indra, also, in > the _Vendidad_ is set forth as the subaltern of Ahriman,[934] created > by him out of the materials of darkness,[935] together with Siva > (Surya) and the two Aswins. Even Jahi is the demon of Lust--probably > identical with Indra. > > The several tribes and nations had their tutelar gods, and vilified > those of inimical peoples. The transformation of Typhon, Satan and > Beelzebub are of this character. Indeed, Tertullian speaks of Mithra, > the god of the Mysteries, as a devil. > > In the twelfth chapter of the _Apocalypse_, Michael and his angels > overcame the Dragon and his angels: “and the Great Dragon was cast > out, that Archaic Ophis, called Diabolos and Satan, that deceiveth > the whole world.” It is added: “They overcame him by the blood of the > Lamb.” The Lamb, or Christ, had to descend himself to hell, the world > of the dead, and remain there three days before he subjugated the > enemy, according to the myth. > > Michael was denominated by the kabalists and the Gnostics, “the > Saviour,” the angel of the Sun, and angel of Light. (מיכאל, probably, > from יכח to manifest and אל God.) He was the first of the Æons, and > was well-known to antiquarians as the “unknown angel” represented on > the Gnostic amulets. > > The writer of the _Apocalypse_, if not a kabalist, must have been > a Gnostic. Michael was not a personage originally exhibited to > him in his vision (epopteia) but the Saviour and Dragon-slayer. > Archæological explorations have indicated him as identical with > Anubis, whose effigy was lately discovered upon an Egyptian monument, > with a cuirass and holding a spear, like St. Michael and St. George. > He is also represented as slaying a Dragon, that has the head and > tail of a serpent.[936] > > The student of Lepsius, Champollion, and other Egyptologists will > quickly recognize Isis as the “woman with child,” “clothed with the > Sun and with the Moon under her feet,” whom the “great fiery Dragon” > persecuted, and to whom “were given two wings of the Great Eagle that > she might fly into the wilderness.” Typhon was red-skinned.[937] > > The Two Brothers, the Good and Evil Principles, appear in the Myths > of the _Bible_ as well as those of the Gentiles, and Cain and Abel, > Typhon and Osiris, Esau and Jacob, Apollo and Python, etc., Esau > or Osu, is represented, when born, as “red all over like as hairy > garment.” He is the Typhon or Satan, opposing his brother. > > From the remotest antiquity the serpent was held by every people > in the greatest veneration, as the embodiment of Divine wisdom and > the symbol of spirit, and we know from Sanchoniathon that it was > Hermes or Thoth who was the first to regard the serpent as “the > most spirit-like of all the reptiles;” and the Gnostic serpent > with the seven vowels over the head is but the copy of Ananta, the > seven-headed serpent on which rests the god Vishnu. > > We have experienced no little surprise to find upon reading the > latest European treatises upon serpent-worship, that the writers > confess that the public is “still almost in the dark as to the origin > of the superstition in question.” Mr. C. Staniland Wake, M.A.I., from > whom we now quote, says: “The student of mythology knows that certain > ideas were associated by the peoples of antiquity with the serpent, > and that it was the favorite symbol of particular deities; but why > that animal rather than any other was chosen for the purpose is yet > uncertain.”[938] > > Mr. James Fergusson, F.R.S., who has gathered together such an > abundance of material upon this ancient cult, seems to have no more > suspicion of the truth than the rest.[939] > > Our explanation of the myth may be of little value to students > of symbology, and yet we believe that the interpretation of the > primitive serpent-worship as given by the initiates is the correct > one. In Vol. i., p. 10, we quote from the serpent Mantra, in the > _Aytareya-Brahmana_, a passage which speaks of the earth as the > _Sarpa Râjni_, the Queen of the Serpents, and “the mother of all > that moves.” These expressions refer to the fact that before our > globe had become egg-shaped or round it was a long trail of cosmic > dust or fire-mist, moving and writhing like a serpent. This, say the > explanations, was the Spirit of God moving on the chaos until its > breath had incubated cosmic matter and made it assume the annular > shape of a serpent with its tail in its mouth--emblem of eternity > in its spiritual and of our world in its physical sense. According > to the notions of the oldest philosophers, as we have shown in the > preceding chapter, the earth, serpent-like, casts off its skin and > appears after every minor pralaya in a rejuvenated state, and after > the great pralaya resurrects or evolves again from its subjective > into objective existence. Like the serpent, it not only “puts off its > old age,” says Sanchoniathon, “but increases in size and strength.” > This is why not only Serapis, and later, Jesus, were represented by a > great serpent, but even why, in our own century, big snakes are kept > with sacred care in Moslem mosques; for instance, in that of Cairo. > In Upper Egypt a famous saint is said to appear under the form of > a large serpent; and in India in some children’s cradles a pair of > serpents, male and female, are reared with the infant, and snakes > are often kept in houses, as they are thought to bring (a magnetic > aura of) wisdom, health, and good luck. They are the progeny of Sarpa > Râjni, the earth, and endowed with all her virtues. > > In the Hindu mythology Vasaki, the Great Dragon, pours forth upon > Durga, from his mouth, a poisonous fluid which overspreads the > ground, but her consort Siva caused the earth to open her mouth and > swallow it. > > Thus the mystic drama of the celestial virgin pursued by the > dragon seeking to devour her child, was not only depicted in the > constellations of heaven, as has been mentioned, but was represented > in the secret worship of the temples. It was the mystery of the > god Sol, and inscribed on a black image of Isis.[940] The Divine > Boy was chased by the cruel Typhon.[941] In an Egyptian legend the > Dragon is said to pursue Thuesis (Isis) while she is endeavoring > to protect her son.[942] Ovid describes Dioné (the consort of the > original Pelasgian Zeus, and mother of Venus) as flying from Typhon > to the Euphrates,[943] thus identifying the myth as belonging to all > the countries where the Mysteries were celebrated. Virgil sings the > victory: > > “Hail, dear child of gods, great son of Jove! > Receive the honors great; the time is at hand; > The Serpent will die!”[944] > > Albertus Magnus, himself an alchemist and student of occult science, > as well as a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, in his enthusiasm > for astrology, declared that the zodiacal sign of the celestial > virgin rises above the horizon on the twenty-fifth of December, at > the moment assigned by the Church for the birth of the Saviour.[945] > > The sign and myth of the mother and child were known thousands of > years before the Christian era. The drama of the Mysteries of Demeter > represents Persephoneia, her daughter, as carried away by Pluto > or Hades into the world of the dead; and when the mother finally > discovers her there, she has been installed as queen of the realm of > Darkness. This myth was transcribed by the Church into the legend > of St. Anna[946] going in quest of her daughter Mary, who has been > conveyed by Joseph into Egypt. Persephoné is depicted with two > ears of wheat in her hand; so is Mary in the old pictures; so was > the Celestial Virgin of the constellation. Albumazar the Arabian > indicates the identity of the several myths as follows: > > “In the first decan of the Virgin rises a maid, called in Arabic > Aderenosa [Adha-nari?], that is, pure immaculate virgin,[947] > graceful in person, charming in countenance, modest in habit, with > loosened hair, holding in her hands two ears of wheat, sitting upon > an embroidered throne, nursing a boy, and rightly feeding him in the > place called Hebræa; a boy, I say, named Iessus by certain nations, > which signifies Issa, whom they also call Christ in Greek.”[948] > > At this time Grecian, Asiatic, and Egyptian ideas had undergone a > remarkable transformation. The Mysteries of Dionysus-Sabazius had > been replaced by the rites of Mithras, whose “caves” superseded > the crypts of the former god, from Babylon to Britain. Serapis, or > Sri-Apa, from Pontus, had usurped the place of Osiris. The king of > Eastern Hindustan, Asoka, had embraced the religion of Siddhârtha, > and sent missionaries clear to Greece, Asia, Syria, and Egypt, > to promulgate the evangel of wisdom. The Essenes of Judea and > Arabia, the Therapeutists[949] of Egypt, and the Pythagorists[950] > of Greece and Magna Græcia, were evidently religionists of the > new faith. The legends of Gautama superseded the myths of Horus, > Anubis, Adonis, Atys, and Bacchus. These were wrought anew into the > Mysteries and Gospels, and to them we owe the literature known as > the _Evangelists_ and the _Apocryphal New Testament_. They were kept > by the Ebionites, Nazarenes, and other sects as sacred books, which > they might “show only to the wise;” and were so preserved till the > overshadowing influence of the Roman ecclesiastical polity was able > to wrest them from those who kept them. > > At the time that the high-priest Hilkiah is said to have found the > _Book of the Law_, the Hindu _Puranas_ (Scriptures) were known to > the Assyrians. These last had for many centuries held dominion from > the Hellespont to the Indus, and probably crowded the Aryans out of > Bactriana into the Punjâb. The _Book of the Law_ seems to have been > a _purana_. “The learned Brahmans,” says Sir William Jones, “pretend > that five conditions are requisite to constitute a real _purana_: > > “1. To treat of the creation of matter in general. > > “2. To treat of _the creation or production of secondary material and > spiritual beings_. > > “3. To give a chronological abridgment of the great periods of time. > > “4. To give a genealogical abridgment of the principal families that > reigned over the country. > > “5. Lastly, to give the history of some great man in particular.” > > It is pretty certain that whoever wrote the _Pentateuch_ had this > plan before him, as well as those who wrote the _New Testament_ > had become thoroughly well acquainted with Buddhistic ritualistic > worship, legends and doctrines, through the Buddhist missionaries who > were many in those days in Palestine and Greece. > > But “no Devil, no Christ.” This is the basic dogma of the Church. We > must hunt the two together. There is a mysterious connection between > the two, more close than perhaps is suspected, amounting to identity. > If we collect together the mythical sons of God, all of whom were > regarded as “first-begotten,” they will be found dovetailing together > and blending in this dual character. Adam Kadmon bifurcates from the > spiritual conceptive wisdom into the creative one, which evolves > _matter_. The Adam made from dust is both son of God and Satan; and > the latter is also a son of God,[951] according to Job. > > Hercules was likewise “the First-Begotten.” He is also Bel, Baal, > and Bal, and therefore Siva, the Destroyer. Bacchus was styled by > Euripides, “Bacchus, the Son of God.” As a child, Bacchus, like > the Jesus of the _Apocryphal Gospels_, was greatly dreaded. He is > described as benevolent to mankind; nevertheless he was merciless > in punishing whomever failed of respect to his worship. Pentheus, > the son of Cadmus and Hermioné, was, like the son of Rabbi Hannon, > destroyed for his want of piety. > > The allegory of Job, which has been already cited, if correctly > understood, will give the key to this whole matter of the Devil, his > nature and office; and will substantiate our declarations. Let no > pious individual take exception to this designation of allegory. Myth > was the favorite and universal method of teaching in archaic times. > Paul, writing to the Corinthians, declared that the entire story of > Moses and the Israelites was typical;[952] and in his _Epistle to the > Galatians_, asserted that the whole story of Abraham, his two wives, > and their sons was an allegory.[953] Indeed, it is a theory amounting > to certitude, that the historical books of the _Old Testament_ were > of the same character. We take no extraordinary liberty with the > _Book of Job_ when we give it the same designation which Paul gave > the stories of Abraham and Moses. > > But we ought, perhaps, to explain the ancient use of allegory and > symbology. The truth in the former was left to be deduced; the symbol > expressed some abstract quality of the Deity, which the laity could > easily apprehend. Its higher sense terminated there; and it was > employed by the multitude thenceforth as an image to be employed > in idolatrous rites. But the allegory was reserved for the inner > sanctuary, when only the elect were admitted. Hence the rejoinder of > Jesus when his disciples interrogated him because he spoke to the > multitude in parables. “To you,” said he, “it is given to know the > mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. > For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more > abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even > that he hath.” In the minor Mysteries a sow was washed to typify the > purification of the neophyte; as her return to the mire indicated the > superficial nature of the work that had been accomplished. > > “The Mythus is the undisclosed thought of the soul. The characteristic > trait of the myth is to convert reflection into history (a historical > form). As in the epos, so in the myth, the historical element > predominates. Facts (external events) often constitute the basis of > the myth, and with these, religious ideas are interwoven.” > > The whole allegory of Job is an open book to him who understands > the picture-language of Egypt as it is recorded in _the Book of the > Dead_. In the Scene of Judgment, Osiris is represented sitting on > his throne, holding in one hand the symbol of life, “the hook of > attraction,” and in the other the mystic Bacchic fan. Before him > are the sons of God, the forty-two assessors of the dead. An altar > is immediately before the throne, covered with gifts and surmounted > with the sacred lotus-flower, upon which stand four spirits. By the > entrance stands the soul about to be judged, whom Thmei, the genius > of Truth, is welcoming to this conclusion of the probation. Thoth > holding a reed, makes a record of the proceedings in the Book of > Life. Horus and Anubis, standing by the scales, inspect the weight > which determines whether the heart of the deceased balances the > symbol of truth, or the latter preponderates. On a pedestal sits a > bitch--the symbol of the Accuser. > > Initiation into the Mysteries, as every intelligent person knows, was > a dramatic representation of scenes in the underworld. Such was the > allegory of Job. > > Several critics have attributed the authorship of this book to Moses. > But it is older than the _Pentateuch_. Jehovah is not mentioned in > the poem itself; and if the name occurs in the prologue, the fact > must be attributed to either an error of the translators, or the > premeditation exacted by the later necessity to transform polytheism > into a monotheistic religion. The plan adopted was the very simple > one of attributing the many names of the Elohim (gods) to a single > god. So in one of the oldest Hebrew texts of Job (in chapter xii. > 9) there stands the name of Jehovah, whereas all other manuscripts > have “Adonai.” But in the original poem Jehovah is absent. In place > of this name we find _Al_, _Aleim_, _Ale_, _Shaddai_, _Adonai_, etc. > Therefore, we must conclude that either the prologue and epilogue > were added at a later period, which is inadmissible for many reasons, > or that it has been tampered with like the rest of the manuscripts. > Then, we find in this archaic poem no mention whatever of the > Sabbatical Institution; but a great many references to the sacred > number seven, of which we will speak further, and a direct discussion > upon Sabeanism, the worship of the heavenly bodies prevailing in > those days in Arabia. Satan is called in it a “Son of God,” one of > the council which presents itself before God, and he leads him into > tempting Job’s fidelity. In this poem, clearer and plainer than > anywhere else, do we find the meaning of the appellation, Satan. It > is a term for the office or character of _public accuser_. Satan is > the Typhon of the Egyptians, barking his accusations in Amenthi; an > office quite as respectable as that of the public prosecutor, in our > own age; and if, through the ignorance of the first Christians, he > became later identical with the Devil, it is through no connivance of > his own. > > The _Book of Job_ is a complete representation of ancient initiation, > and the trials which generally precede this grandest of all > ceremonies. The neophyte perceives himself deprived of everything > he valued, and afflicted with foul disease. His wife appeals to > him to adore God and die; there was no more hope for him. Three > friends appear on the scene by mutual appointment: Eliphaz, the > learned Temanite, full of the knowledge “which wise men have told > from their fathers--to whom alone the earth was given;” Bildad, the > conservative, taking matters as they come, and judging Job to have > done wickedly, because he was afflicted; and Zophar, intelligent > and skilful with “generalities” but not interiorly wise. Job boldly > responds: “If I have erred, it is a matter with myself. You magnify > yourselves and plead against me in my reproach; but it is God who has > overthrown me. Why do you persecute me and are not satisfied with > my flesh thus wasted away? But I know that my Champion lives, and > that at a coming day he will stand for me in the earth; and though, > together with my skin, all this beneath it shall be destroyed, yet > without my flesh I shall see God.... Ye shall say: ‘Why do we molest > him?’ for the root of the matter is found in me!” > > This passage, like all others in which the faintest allusions > could be found to a “Champion,” “Deliverer,” or “Vindicator,” was > interpreted into a direct reference to the Messiah; but apart from > the fact that in the Septuagint this verse is translated: > > “For I know that He is eternal > Who is about to deliver me on earth, > To restore this skin of mine which endures these things,” etc. > > In King James’s version, as it stands translated, it has no > resemblance whatever to the original.[954] The crafty translators > have rendered it, “I know that _my Redeemer liveth_,” etc. And > yet _Septuagint_, _Vulgate_, and Hebrew original, have all to > be considered as an inspired Word of God. Job refers to his own > _immortal_ spirit which is eternal, and which, when death comes, > will deliver him from his putrid earthly body and clothe him with > a new spiritual envelope. In the _Mysteries of Eleusinia_, in > the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_, and all other works treating on > matters of initiation, this “eternal being” has a name. With the > Neo-platonists it was the _Nous_, the _Augoeides_; with the Buddhists > it is _Aggra_; and with the Persians, _Ferwer_. All of these are > called the “Deliverers,” the “Champions,” the “Metatrons,” etc. In > the Mithraic sculptures of Persia, the _ferwer_ is represented by a > winged figure hovering in the air above its “object” or body.[955] It > is the luminous Self--the Âtman of the Hindus, our immortal spirit, > who alone can redeem our soul; and will, if we follow him instead of > being dragged down by our body. Therefore, in the Chaldean texts, > the above reads, “My _deliverer_, my _restorer_,” _i.e._, the Spirit > who will restore the decayed body of man, and transform it into a > clothing of ether. And it is this _Nous_, _Augoeides_, _Ferwer_, > _Aggra_, Spirit of himself, that the triumphant Job shall see without > his flesh--_i.e._, when he has escaped from his bodily prison, and > that the translators call “God.” > > Not only is there not the slightest allusion in the poem of Job > to Christ, but it is now well proved that all those versions by > different translators, which agree with that of king James, were > written on the authority of Jerome, who has taken strange liberties > in his _Vulgate_. He was the first to cram into the text this verse > of his own fabrication: > > “_I know that my Redeemer lives_, > And at the last day _I shall arise from the earth_, > And again shall be surrounded with my skin, > And in my flesh I shall see my God.” > > All of which might have been a good reason for himself to believe > in it since _he knew it_, but for others who did _not_, and who > moreover found in the text a quite different idea, it only proves > that Jerome had decided, by one more interpolation, to enforce the > dogma of a resurrection “at the last day,” and in the identical skin > and bones which we had used on earth. This is an agreeable prospect > of “restoration” indeed. Why not the linen also, in which the body > happens to die? > > And how could the author of the _Book of Job_ know anything of the > _New Testament_, when evidently he was utterly ignorant even of > the _Old_ one? There is a total absence of allusion to any of the > patriarchs; and so evidently is it the work of an _Initiate_, that > one of the three daughters of Job is even called by a decidedly > “Pagan” mythological name. The name of _Kerenhappuch_ is rendered > in various ways by the many translators. The _Vulgate_ has “horn > of antimony;” and the LXX has the “horn of Amalthea,” the nurse > of Jupiter, and one of the constellations, emblem of the “horn of > plenty.” The presence in the _Septuagint_ of this heroine of Pagan > fable, shows the ignorance of the transcribers of its meaning as well > as the esoteric origin of the _Book of Job_. > > Instead of offering consolations, the three friends of the suffering > Job seek to make him believe that his misfortune must have come > in punishment of some extraordinary transgressions on his part. > Hurling back upon them all their imputations, Job swears that while > his breath is in him he will maintain his cause. He takes in view > the period of his prosperity “when the secret of God was upon his > tabernacles,” and he was a judge “who sat chief, and dwelt as a king > in the army, or one that comforteth the mourners,” and compares with > it the present time--when vagrant Bedouins held him in derision, > men “viler than the earth,” when he was prostrated by misfortune > and foul disease. Then he asserts his sympathy for the unfortunate, > his chastity, his integrity, his probity, his strict justice, > his charities, his moderation, his freedom from the prevalent > sun-worship, his tenderness to enemies, his hospitality to strangers, > his openness of heart, his boldness for the right, though he > encountered the multitude and the contempt of families; and invokes > the Almighty to answer him, and his adversary to write down of what > he had been guilty. > > To this there was not, and could not be, any answer. The three had > sought to crush Job by pleadings and general arguments, and he had > demanded consideration for his specific acts. Then appeared the > fourth; Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of > Ram.[956] > > Elihu is the hierophant; he begins with a rebuke, and the sophisms > of Job’s false friends are swept away like the loose sand before the > west wind. > > “And Elihu, the son of Barachel, spoke and said: ‘Great men are > not always wise ... there _is_ a spirit in man; the _spirit within > me_ constraineth me.... God speaketh once, yea twice, _yet man_ > perceiveth it not. In a dream; in a vision of the night, when deep > sleep falleth upon man, in slumberings upon the bed; then he openeth > the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction. O Job, hearken unto > me; hold thy peace, and I shall teach thee WISDOM.’” > > And Job, who to the dogmatic fallacies of his three friends in the > bitterness of his heart had exclaimed: “No doubt but ye are _the_ > people, and wisdom shall die with you.... Miserable comforters are ye > all.... Surely I would speak to the Almighty, and I desire to reason > with God. But _ye_ are forgers of lies, _ye_ are physicians of no > value!” The sore-eaten, visited Job, who in the face of the official > clergy--offering for all hope the necessarianism of damnation, had > in his despair nearly wavered in his patient faith, answered: “What > _ye_ know, _the same_ do I know also; I am not inferior unto you.... > Man cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a > shadow, _and continueth not_.... Man dieth, and wasteth away, yea, > man giveth up the ghost, and _where is he?_... If a man die shall > he _live_ again?... When a few years are come then I shall go the > way _whence_ I shall not return.... O that one might plead for a man > with God, as a man pleadeth for his neighbor!” Job finds one who > answers to his cry of agony. He listens to the wisdom of Elihu, the > hierophant, the perfected teacher, the inspired philosopher. From his > stern lips comes the just rebuke for his impiety in charging upon the > SUPREME Being the evils of humanity. “God,” says Elihu, “is excellent > in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice; HE _will not > afflict_.” > > So long as the neophyte was satisfied with his own worldly wisdom and > irreverent estimate of the Deity and His purposes; so long as he gave > ear to the pernicious sophistries of his advisers, the hierophant > kept silent. But, when this anxious mind was ready for counsel and > instruction, his voice is heard, and he speaks with the authority of > the Spirit of God that “constraineth” him: “Surely God will not hear > _vanity_, neither will the Almighty regard it.... He respecteth not > any that are wise at heart.” > > What better commentary than this upon the fashionable preacher, who > “_multiplieth_ words without knowledge!” This magnificent _prophetic_ > satire might have been written to prefigure the spirit that prevails > in all the denominations of Christians. > > Job hearkens to the words of wisdom, and then the “Lord” answers Job > “out of the whirlwind” of nature, God’s first visible manifestation: > “Stand still, O Job, stand still! and consider the wondrous works of > God; for _by them alone_ thou canst know God. ‘Behold, God is great, > and _we know him not_,’ Him who ‘maketh small the drops of water; > _but they_ pour down rain _according to the vapor thereof_;’”[957] > not according to the divine whim, but to the once established and > immutable laws. Which law “removeth the mountains and they know not; > which shaketh the earth; which commandeth the sun, and _it riseth > not_; and sealeth up the stars; ... which doeth great things _past > finding out_; yea, and _wonders without number_.... Lo, _He goeth by > me_, and I see _him not_; he passeth on also, but _I perceive him > not_!”[958] > > Then, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without > knowledge?”[959] speaks the voice of God through His mouthpiece-- > nature. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? > declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures > thereof, _if thou knowest_? When the morning stars sang together, and > all the sons of God shouted for joy?... Wast thou present when I said > to the seas, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall > thy proud waves be stayed?’... Knowest thou who hath caused it to rain > on the earth, _where no man is_; on the wilderness, wherein _there is > no man_.... Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose > the bands of Orion?... Canst thou _send lightnings_, that they may go, > and say unto thee, ‘Here we are?’”[960] > > “Then Job answered the Lord.” He understood His ways, and his eyes > were opened for the first time. The Supreme Wisdom descended upon > him; and if the reader remain puzzled before this final PETROMA of > initiation, at least Job, or the man “afflicted” in his blindness, > then realized the impossibility of catching “Leviathan by putting a > hook into his nose.” The Leviathan is OCCULT SCIENCE, on which one > can lay his hand, but “_do no more_,”[961] whose power and “comely > proportion” God wishes not to conceal. > > “Who can discover the face of his garment, or who can come to him > with his _double bridle_? Who can open the doors of his face, ‘of > him whose _scales_ are his pride, shut up together as _with a closed > seal_?’ Through whose ‘neesings a light doth shine,’ and whose eyes > are like the lids of the morning.” Who “maketh a light to _shine_ > after him,” for those who have the fearlessness to approach him. And > then they, like him, will behold “all _high_ things, for he is king > only over all the children of pride.”[962] > > Job, now in modest confidence, responded: > > “I know that thou canst do everything, > And that no thought of thine can be resisted. > Who is he that maketh a show of arcane wisdom, > Of which he knoweth nothing? > Thus have I uttered what I did not comprehend-- > Things far above me, which I did not know. > Hear! I beseech thee, and I will speak; > I will demand of thee, and do thou answer me: > I have heard thee with my ears, > And now I see thee with my eyes, > Wherefore am I loathsome, > And mourn in dust and ashes?” > > He recognized his “champion,” and was assured that the time for his > vindication had come. Immediately the Lord (“the priests and the > judges,” _Deuteronomy_ xix. 17) saith to his friends: “My wrath is > kindled against thee and against thy two friends; for ye have not > spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.” So > “the Lord turned the captivity of Job,” and “blessed the latter end > of Job more than his beginning.” > > Then in the judgment the deceased invokes four spirits who preside > over the Lake of Fire, and is purified by them. He then is conducted > to his celestial house, and is received by Athar and Isis, and > stands before _Atum_,[963] the essential God. He is now _Turu_, the > essential man, a pure spirit, and henceforth On-ati, the eye of fire, > and an associate of the gods. > > This grandiose poem of Job was well understood by the kabalists. > While many of the mediæval Hermetists were profoundly religious > men, they were, in their innermost hearts--like kabalists of every > age--the deadliest enemies of the clergy. How true the words > of Paracelsus when worried by fierce persecution and slander, > misunderstood by friends and foes, abused by clergy and laity, he > exclaimed: > > “O ye of Paris, Padua, Montpellier, Salerno, Vienna, and Leipzig! > Ye are not teachers of the truth, but confessors of lies. Your > philosophy is a lie. Would you know _what_ MAGIC _really is_, then > seek it in St. John’s _Revelation_.... As you cannot yourselves prove > your teachings from the _Bible_ and the _Revelation_, then let your > farces have an end. The _Bible is the true key and interpreter_. > John, not less than Moses, Elias, Enoch, David, Solomon, Daniel, > Jeremiah, and the rest of the prophets, was a _magician_, kabalist, > and diviner. If now, all, or even any of those I have named, were yet > living, I do not doubt that you would make an example of them in your > miserable slaughter-house, and would annihilate them there on the > spot, and _if_ it were possible, the Creator of all things too!” > > That Paracelsus had learned some mysterious and useful things out of > _Revelation_ and other _Bible_ books, as well as from the _Kabala_, > was proved by him practically; so much so, that he is called by > many the “father of magic and founder of the occult physics of the > _Kabala_ and magnetism.”[964] > > So firm was the popular belief in the supernatural powers of > Paracelsus, that to this day the tradition survives among the > simple-minded Alsatians that he is not dead, but “sleepeth in his > grave” at Strasburg.[965] And they often whisper among themselves > that the green sod heaves with every respiration of that weary > breast, and that deep groans are heard as the great fire-philosopher > awakes to the remembrance of the cruel wrongs he suffered at the > hands of his cruel slanderers for the sake of the great truth! > > It will be perceived from these extended illustrations that the Satan > of the _Old Testament_, the Diabolos or Devil of the _Gospels_ and > _Apostolic Epistles_, were but the antagonistic principle in matter, > necessarily incident to it, and not wicked in the moral sense of the > term. The Jews, coming from the Persian country, brought with them > the doctrine of _two principles_. They could not bring the _Avesta_, > for it was not written. But they--we mean the _Astdians_ and > _Pharsi_--invested Ormazd with the secret name of יהוה, and > Ahriman with the name of the gods of the land, Satan of the Hittites, > and _Diabolos_, or rather Diobolos, of the Greeks. The early Church, > at least the Pauline part of it, the Gnostics and their successors, > further refined upon their ideas; and the Catholic Church adopted and > adapted them, meanwhile putting their promulgators to the sword. > > The Protestant is a reaction from the Roman Catholic Church. It is > necessarily not coherent in its parts, but a prodigious host of > fragments beating their way round a common centre, attracting and > repelling each other. Parts are centripetally impelled towards old > Rome, or the system which enabled old Rome to exist; part still > recoil under the centrifugal impulse, and seek to rush into the broad > ethereal region beyond Roman, or even Christian influence. > > The modern Devil is their principal heritage from the Roman Cybelè, > “Babylon, the Great Mother of the idolatrous and abominable religions > of the earth.” > > But it may be argued, perhaps, that Hindu theology, both Brahmanical > and Buddhistic, is as strongly impregnated with belief in objective > devils as Christianity itself. There is a slight difference. This > very _subtlety_ of the Hindu mind is a sufficient warrant that the > well-educated people, the learned portion, at least, of the Brahman > and Buddhist divines, consider the Devil in another light. With them > the Devil is a metaphysical abstraction, an allegory of necessary > _evil_; while _with Christians the myth has become a historical > entity, the fundamental stone on which Christianity, with its dogma > of redemption, is built_. He is as necessary--as Des Mousseaux has > shown--to the Church as the beast of the seventeenth chapter of the > _Apocalypse_ was to his rider. The English-speaking Protestants, not > finding the _Bible_ explicit enough, have adopted the _Diabology_ of > Milton’s celebrated poem, _Paradise Lost_, embellishing it somewhat > from Goethe’s celebrated drama of _Faust_. John Milton, first a > Puritan and finally a Quietist and Unitarian, never put forth his > great production except as a work of fiction, but it thoroughly > dovetailed together the different parts of Scripture. The Ilda-Baoth > of the Ophites was transformed into an angel of light, and the > morning star, and made the Devil in the first act of the _Diabolic > Drama_. Then the twelfth chapter of the _Apocalypse_ was brought in > for the second act. The great red Dragon was adopted as the same > illustrious personage as _Lucifer_, and the last scene is his fall, > like that of Vulcan-Hephaistos, from Heaven into the island of > Lemnos; the fugitive hosts and their leader “coming to hard bottom” > in Pandemonium. The third act is the Garden of Eden. Satan holds a > council in a hall erected by him for his new empire, and determines > to go forth on an exploring expedition in quest of the new world. The > next acts relate to the fall of man, his career on earth, the advent > of the Logos, or Son of God, and his redemption of mankind, or the > elect portion of them, as the case may be. > > This drama of _Paradise Lost_ comprises the unformulated belief of > English-speaking “evangelical Protestant Christians.” Disbelief of > its main features is equivalent, in their view, to “denying Christ” > and “blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.” If John Milton had supposed > that his poem, instead of being regarded as a companion of Dante’s > _Divine Comedy_, would have been considered as another _Apocalypse_ > to supplement the _Bible_, and complete its demonology, it is more > than probable that he would have borne his poverty more resolutely, > and withheld it from the press. A later poet, Robert Pollok, taking > his cue from this work, wrote another, _The Course of Time_, which > bade fair for a season to take the rank of a later _Scripture_; > but the nineteenth century has fortunately received a different > inspiration, and the Scotch poet is falling into oblivion. > > We ought, perhaps, to make a brief notice of the European Devil. He > is the genius who deals in sorcery, witchcraft, and other mischief. > The Fathers taking the idea from the Jewish Pharisees, made devils of > the Pagan gods, Mithras, Serapis, and the others. The Roman Catholic > Church followed by denouncing the former worship as commerce with > the powers of darkness. The _malefecii_ and witches of the middle > ages were thus but the votaries of the proscribed worship. Magic in > all ancient times had been considered as divine science, wisdom, and > the knowledge of God. The healing art in the temples of Æsculapius, > and at the shrines of Egypt and the East, had always been magical. > Even Darius Hystaspes, who had exterminated the Median Magi, and > even driven out the Chaldean theurgists from Babylon into Asia > Minor, had also been instructed by the Brahmans of Upper Asia, and, > finally, while establishing the worship of Ormazd, was also himself > denominated the instituter of magism. All was now changed. Ignorance > was enthroned as the mother of devotion. Learning was denounced, and > savants prosecuted the sciences in peril of their lives. They were > compelled to employ a jargon to conceal their ideas from all but > their own adepts, and to accept opprobrium, calumny, and poverty. > > The votaries of the ancient worship were persecuted and put to > death on charges of witchcraft. The Albigenses, descendants of the > Gnostics, and the Waldenses, precursors of the Protestants, were > hunted and massacred under like accusations. Martin Luther himself > was accused of companionship with Satan in proper person. The whole > Protestant world still lies under the same imputation. There is no > distinction in the judgments of the Church between dissent, heresy, > and witchcraft. And except where civil authority protects, they are > alike capital offences. Religious liberty the Church regards as > intolerance. > > But the reformers were nursed with the milk of their mother. Luther > was as bloodthirsty as the Pope; Calvin more intolerant than Leo or > Urban. Thirty years of war depopulated whole districts of Germany, > Protestants and Catholics cruel alike. The new faith too opened its > batteries against witchcraft. The statute books became crimsoned > with bloody legislation in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Great > Britain, and the North American Commonwealth. Whosoever was more > liberal, more intelligent, more free-speaking than his fellows was > liable to arrest and death. The fires that were extinguished at > Smithfield were kindled anew for magicians; it was safer to rebel > against a throne than to pursue abstruse knowledge outside the > orthodox dead-line. > > In the seventeenth century Satan made a sortie in New England, New > Jersey, New York, and several of the Southern colonies of North > America, and Cotton Mather gives us the principal chronicles of > his manifestation. A few years later he visited the Parsonage of > Mora, in Sweden, and _Life in Dalecarlia_ was diversified with the > burning alive of young children, and the whipping of others at > the church-doors on Sabbath-days. The skepticism of modern times > has, however, pretty much driven the belief in witchcraft into > Coventry; and the Devil in personal anthropomorphic form, with his > Bacchus-foot, and his Pan-like goat’s horns, holds place only in > the _Encyclical Letters_, and other effusions of the Roman Catholic > Church. Protestant respectability does not allow him to be named at > all except with bated breath in a pulpit-enclosure. > > Having now set forth the biography of the Devil from his first advent > in India and Persia, his progress through Jewish, and both early > and later Christian _Theo_logy down to the latest phases of his > manifestation, we now turn back to review certain of the opinions > extant in the earlier Christian centuries. > > Avatars or incarnations were common to the old religions. India had > them reduced to a system. The Persians expected Sosiosh, and the > Jewish writers looked for a deliverer. Tacitus and Suetonius relate > that the East was full of expectation of the Great Personage about > the time of Octavius. “Thus doctrines obvious to Christians were the > highest arcana of Paganism.”[966] The Maneros of Plutarch was a child > of Palestine,[967] his mediator Mithras, the Saviour Osiris is the > Messiah. In our present “_Canonical Scriptures_” are to be traced the > vestigia of the ancient worships; and in the rites and ceremonies > of the Roman Catholic Church we find the forms of the Buddhistical > worship, its ceremonies and hierarchy. The first _Gospels_, once as > canonical as any of the present four, contain pages taken almost > entire from Buddhistical narratives, as we are prepared to show. > After the evidence furnished by Burnouf, Asoma, Korosi, Beal, Hardy, > Schmidt, and translations from the _Tripitaka_, it is impossible to > doubt that the whole Christian scheme emanated from the other. The > “Miraculous Conception” miracles and other incidents are found in > full in Hardy’s _Manual of Buddhism_. We can readily realize why the > Roman Catholic Church is anxious to keep the common people in utter > ignorance of the Hebrew _Bible_ and the Greek literature. Philology > and comparative Theology are her deadliest enemies. The deliberate > falsifications of Irenæus, Epiphanius, Eusebius and Tertullian had > become a necessity. > > The _Sibylline Books_ at that period seem to have been regarded with > extraordinary favor. One can easily perceive that they were inspired > from the same source as those of the Gentile nations. > > Here is a leaf from Gallæus: > > “New Light has arisen: > Coming from Heaven, it assumed a mortal form.... > ----Virgin, receive God in thy pure bosom-- > And the Word flew into her womb: > Becoming incarnate in Time, and animated by her body, > It was found in a mortal image, and a Boy was created > By a Virgin.... The new God-sent Star was adored by the Magi, > The infant swathed was shown in a manger.... > And Bethlehem was called “God-called country of the Word.”[968] > > This looks at first-sight like a prophecy of Jesus. But could it > not mean as well some other creative God? We have like utterances > concerning Bacchus and Mithras. > > “I, son of Deus, am come to the land of the Thebans--Bacchus, whom > formerly Semelé (the virgin), the daughter of Kadmus (the man from > the East) brings forth--being delivered by the lightning-bearing > flame; and having taken a mortal form instead of God’s, I have > arrived.”[969] > > The _Dionysiacs_, written in the fifth century, serve to render this > matter very clear, and even to show its close connection with the > Christian legend of the birth of Jesus: > > “Korè-Persephoneia[970] ... you were wived as the Dragon’s spouse, > When Zeus, very coiled, his form and countenance changed, > A Dragon-Bridegroom, coiled in love-inspiring fold.... > Glided to dark Korè’s maiden couch.... > Thus, by the alliance with the Dragon of Æther, > The womb of Persephonè became alive with fruit, > Bearing Zagreus,[971] the Horned Child.”[972] > > Here we have the secret of the Ophite worship, and the origin of > the Christian later-_revised_ fable of the immaculate conception. > The Gnostics were the earliest Christians with anything like a > regular theological system, and it is only too evident that it was > Jesus who was made to fit their theology as Christos, and not their > theology that was developed out of his sayings and doings. Their > ancestors had maintained, before the Christian era, that the Great > Serpent--Jupiter, the Dragon of Life, the Father and “Good Divinity,” > had glided into the couch of Semelé, and now, the post-Christian > Gnostics, with a very trifling change, applied the same fable to > the man Jesus, and asserted that the same “Good Divinity,” Saturn > (Ilda-Baoth), had, in the shape of the Dragon of Life, glided over > the cradle of the infant Mary.[973] In their eyes the Serpent was the > Logos--Christos, the incarnation of Divine Wisdom, through his Father > Ennoïa and Mother Sophia. > > “Now my mother, the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) took me,” Jesus is made > to say in the _Gospel of the Hebrews_,[974] thus entering upon his > part of Christos--the Son of Sophia, the Holy Spirit.[975] > > “The _Holy Ghost shall come upon thee_, and the POWER of the Highest > shall overshadow thee; therefore, that holy thing which shall be born > of thee shall be called Son of God,” says the angel (_Luke_ i. 35). > > “God ... hath at the last of these days spoken to us by a Son, whom > he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the Æons” > (Paul: _Heb._ i.).[976] > > All such expressions are so many Christian quotations from the > _Nonnus_ verse “... through the Ætherial Draconteum,” for Ether > is the Holy Ghost or third person of the Trinity--the Hawk-headed > Serpent, the Egyptian Kneph, emblem of the Divine Mind,[977] and > Plato’s universal soul. > > “I, Wisdom, came out of the mouth of the Most High, and _covered the > earth as a cloud_.”[978] > > Pimander, the Logos, issues from the Infinite Darkness, and covers > the earth with clouds which, serpentine-like, spread all over the > earth (See Champollion’s _Egypte_). The Logos is the _oldest_ image > of God, and he is the _active_ Logos, says Philo.[979] The Father is > the _Latent Thought_. > > This idea being universal, we find an identical phraseology > to express it, among Pagans, Jews, and early Christians. The > Chaldeo-Persian _Logos_ is the Only-Begotten of the Father in the > Babylonian cosmogony of Eudemus. “Hymn now, ELI, child of Deus,” > begins a Homeric hymn to the sun.[980] Sol-Mithra is an “image of the > Father,” as the kabalistic Seir-Anpin. > > That of all the various nations of antiquity, there never was one > which believed in a personal devil more than liberal Christians in > the nineteenth century, seems hardly credible, and yet such is the > sorrowful fact. Neither the Egyptians, whom Porphyry terms “the > most learned nation of the world,”[981] nor Greece, its faithful > copyist, were ever guilty of such a crowning absurdity. We may add > at once that none of them, not even the ancient Jews, believed in > hell or an eternal damnation any more than in the Devil, although our > Christian churches are so liberal in dealing it out to the heathen. > Wherever the word “hell” occurs in the translations of the Hebrew > sacred texts, it is unfortunate. The Hebrews were ignorant of such > an idea; but yet the gospels contain frequent examples of the same > misunderstanding. So, when Jesus is made to say (_Matthew_ xvi. 18) > “... and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” in the > original text it stands “the gates of _death_.” Never is the word > “hell”--as applied to the state of _damnation_, either temporary or > eternal--used in any passage of the _Old Testament_, all hellists to > the contrary, notwithstanding. “Tophet,” or “the Valley of Hinnom” > (_Isaiah_ lxvi. 24) bears no such interpretation. The Greek term > “Gehenna” has also quite a different meaning, as it has been proved > conclusively by more than one competent writer, that “Gehenna” is > identical with the Homeric Tartarus. > > In fact, we have Peter himself as authority for it. In his second > _Epistle_ (ii. 2) the Apostle, in the original text, is made to say > of the sinning angels that God “cast them down into _Tartarus_.” This > expression too inconveniently recalling the war of Jupiter and the > Titans, was altered, and now it reads, in King James’s version: “cast > them down to _hell_.” > > In the _Old Testament_ the expressions “gates of death,” and the > “chambers of death,” simply allude to the “gates of the grave,” which > are specifically mentioned in the _Psalms_ and _Proverbs_. Hell and > its sovereign are both inventions of Christianity, coëval with its > accession to power and resort to tyranny. They were hallucinations > born of the nightmares of the SS. Anthonys in the desert. Before our > era the ancient sages knew the “Father of Evil,” and treated him no > better than an ass, the chosen symbol of Typhon, “the Devil.”[982] > Sad degeneration of human brains! > > As Typhon was the dark shadow of his brother Osiris, so Python is > the evil side of Apollo, the bright god of visions, the seer and > the soothsayer. He is killed by Python, but kills him in his turn, > thus redeeming humanity from sin. It was in memory of this deed > that the priestesses of the sun-god enveloped themselves in the > snake-skin, typical of the fabulous monster. Under its exhilarating > influence--the serpent’s skin being considered magnetic--the > priestesses fell into magnetic trances, and “receiving their voice > from Apollo,” they became prophetic and delivered oracles. > > Again Apollo and Python are one and morally androgynous. The sun-god > ideas are all dual, without exception. The beneficent warmth of the > sun calls the germ into existence, but excessive heat kills the > plant. While playing on his seven-stringed planetary lyre, Apollo > produces harmony; but, as well as other sun-gods, under his dark > aspect he becomes the destroyer, Python. > > St. John is known to have travelled in Asia, a country governed by > Magi and imbued with Zoroastrian ideas, and in those days full of > Buddhist missionaries. Had he never visited those places and come > in contact with Buddhists, it is doubtful whether the _Revelation_ > would have been written. Besides his ideas of the dragon, he gives > prophetic narratives entirely unknown to the other apostles, and > which, relating to the second advent, make of Christ a faithful copy > of Vishnu. > > Thus Ophios and Ophiomorphos, Apollo and Python, Osiris and Typhon, > Christos and the Serpent, are all convertible terms. They are all > Logoi, and one is unintelligible without the other, as day could not > be known had we no night. All are regenerators and saviours, one in > a spiritual, the other in a physical sense. One insures immortality > for the Divine Spirit; the other gives it through regeneration of > the seed. The Saviour of mankind has to die, because he unveils > to humanity the great secret of the immortal ego; the serpent of > _Genesis_ is cursed because he said to _matter_, “Ye shall not die.” > In the world of Paganism the counterpart of the “serpent” is the > second Hermes, the reïncarnation of Hermes Trismegistus. > > Hermes is the constant companion and instructor of Osiris and Isis. > He is the personified wisdom; so is Cain, the son of the “Lord.” Both > build cities, civilize and instruct mankind in the arts. > > It has been repeatedly stated by the Christian missionaries in > Ceylon and India that the people are steeped in demonolatry; that > they are devil-worshippers, in the full sense of the word. Without > any exaggeration we say that they are no more so than the masses of > uneducated Christians. But even were they worshippers of (which is > more than believers in) the Devil, yet there is a great difference > between the teachings of their clergy on the subject of a personal > devil and the dogmas of Catholic preachers and many Protestant > ministers also. The Christian priests are bound to teach and impress > upon the minds of their flock the existence of the Devil, and the > opening pages of the present chapter show the reason why. But not > only will the Cingalese Oepasampala, who belong to the highest > priesthood, not confess to belief in a personal demon but even the > Samenaira, the candidates and novices, would laugh at the idea. > Everything in the external worship of the Buddhists is allegorical > and is never otherwise accepted or taught by the educated _pungis_ > (pundits). The accusation that they allow, and tacitly agree to leave > the poor people steeped in the most degrading superstitions, is not > without foundation; but that they enforce such superstitions, we > most vehemently deny. And in this they appear to advantage beside > our Christian clergy, who (at least those who have not allowed their > fanaticism to interfere with their brains), without believing a word > of it, yet preach the existence of the Devil, as the personal enemy > of a personal God, and the evil genius of mankind. > > St. George’s Dragon, which figures so promiscuously in the grandest > cathedrals of the Christians, is not a whit handsomer than the King > of Snakes, the Buddhist Nammadānam-nāraya, the great Dragon. If the > planetary Demon Rawho, is believed, in the popular superstition of > the Cingalese, to endeavor to destroy the moon by swallowing it; and > if in China and Tartary the rabble is allowed, without rebuke, to > beat gongs and make fearful noises to drive the monster away from its > prey during the eclipses, why should the Catholic clergy find fault, > or call this superstition? Do not the country clergy in Southern > France do the same, occasionally, at the appearance of comets, > eclipses, and other celestial phenomena? In 1456, when Halley’s comet > made its appearance, “so tremendous was its apparition,” writes > Draper, “that it was necessary for the Pope himself to interfere. > He exorcised and expelled it from the skies. It slunk away into the > abysses of space, terror-stricken by the maledictions of Calixtus > III., and did not venture back for seventy-five years!”[983] > > We never heard of any Christian clergyman or Pope trying to disabuse > ignorant minds of the belief that the Devil had anything to do with > eclipses and comets; but we do find a Buddhist chief priest saying to > an official who twitted him with this superstition: “Our Cingalese > religious books teach that the eclipses of the sun and moon denote an > attack of Rahu[984] (one of the nine planets) _not by a devil_.”[985] > > The origin of the “Dragon” myth so prominent in the _Apocalypse_ and > _Golden Legend_, and of the fable about Simeon Stylites converting > the Dragon, is undeniably Buddhistic and even pre-Buddhistic. It was > Gautama’s pure doctrines which reclaimed to Buddhism the Cashmerians > whose primitive worship was the Ophite or Serpent worship. > Frankincense and flowers replaced the human sacrifices and belief > in personal demons. It became the turn of Christianity to inherit > the degrading superstition about devils invested with pestilential > and murderous powers. The _Mahâvansa_, oldest of the Ceylonese > books, relates the story of King Covercapal (cobra-de-capello), the > snake-god, who was converted to Buddhism by a holy Rahat;[986] and > it is earlier, by all odds, than the _Golden Legend_ which tells the > same of Simeon the Stylite and his Dragon. > > The Logos triumphs once more over the great Dragon; Michael, the > luminous archangel, chief of the Æons, conquers Satan.[987] > > It is a fact worthy of remark, that so long as the initiate kept > silent “on what he knew,” he was perfectly safe. So was it in days > of old, and so it is now. As soon as the Christian God, emanating > forth from _Silence_, manifested himself as the _Word_ or Logos, the > latter became the cause of his death. The serpent is the symbol of > wisdom and eloquence, but it is likewise the symbol of destruction. > “To dare, to know, to will, _and be silent_,” are the cardinal axioms > of the kabalist. Like Apollo and other gods, Jesus is killed by his > _Logos_;[988] he rises again, kills him in his turn, and becomes > his master. Can it be that this old symbol has, like the rest of > ancient philosophical conceptions, more than one allegorical and > never-suspected meaning? The coincidences are too strange to be > results of mere chance. > > And now that we have shown this identity between Michael and Satan, > and the Saviours and Dragons of other people, what can be more > clear than that all these philosophical fables originated in India, > that universal hot-bed of metaphysical mysticism? “The world,” says > Ramatsariar, in his comments upon the _Vedas_, “commenced with a > contest between the Spirit of Good and the Spirit of Evil, and so > must end. After the destruction of matter evil can no longer exist, > it must return to naught.”[989] > > In the _Apologia_, Tertullian falsifies most palpably every doctrine > and belief of the Pagans as to the oracles and gods. He calls them, > indifferently, demons and devils, accusing the latter of taking > possession of even the birds of the air! What Christian would now > dare doubt such an authority? Did not the Psalmist exclaim: “All > the gods of the nations are _idols_;” and the Angel of the School, > Thomas Aquinas, explains, on his own _kabalistic_ authority, the > word _idols_ by _devils_? “They come to men,” he says, “and offer > themselves to their adoration by operating certain things which seem > miraculous.”[990] > > The Fathers were prudent as they were wise in their inventions. To > be impartial, after having created a Devil, they set to creating > apocryphal saints. We have named several in preceding chapters; > but we must not forget Baronius, who having read in a work of > Chrysostom about the holy _Xenoris_, the word meaning a _pair_, a > couple, mistook it for the name of a saint, and proceeded forthwith > to create of it a _martyr_ of Antioch, and went on to give a most > detailed and authentic biography of the “blessed martyr.” Other > theologians made of Apollyon--or rather _Apolouôn_--the anti-Christ. > Apolouôn is Plato’s “washer,” the god _who purifies_, who washes off, > and _releases_ us from sin, but he was thus transformed into him > “whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue > hath his name Apollyon”--Devil! > > Max Müller says that the serpent in Paradise is a conception which > might have sprung up among the Jews, and “seems hardly to invite > comparison with the much grander conceptions of the terrible power of > Vritra and Ahriman in the _Veda_ and _Avesta_.” With the kabalists > the Devil was always a myth--God or good reversed. That modern Magus, > Eliphas Levi, calls the Devil _l’ivresse astrale_. It is a blind > force like electricity, he says; and, speaking allegorically, as he > always did, Jesus remarked that he “beheld Satan like lightning fall > from Heaven.” > > The clergy insist that God has sent the Devil to tempt mankind; > which would be rather a singular way of showing his boundless love > to humanity! If the Supreme One is really guilty of such unfatherly > treachery, he is worthy, certainly, of the adoration only of a Church > capable of singing the _Te Deum_ over a massacre of St. Bartholomew, > and of blessing Mussulman swords drawn to slaughter Greek Christians! > > This is at once sound logic and good sound law, for is it not a maxim > of jurisprudence: “_Qui facit per alium, facit per se?_” > > The great dissimilarity which exists between the various conceptions > of the Devil is really often ludicrous. While bigots will invariably > endow him with horns, tail, and every conceivable repulsive feature, > even including an offensive _human_ smell,[991] Milton, Byron, > Goethe, Lermontoff,[992] and a host of French novelists have sung > his praise in flowing verse and thrilling prose. Milton’s Satan, > and even Goethe’s Mephistopheles, are certainly far more commanding > figures than some of the angels, as represented in the prose of > ecstatic bigots. We have but to compare two descriptions. Let us > first award the floor to the incomparably sensational des Mousseaux. > He gives us a thrilling account of an incubus, in the words of the > penitent herself: “Once,” she tells us, “during the space of a > whole half-hour, she saw _distinctly_ near her an individual with a > black, dreadful, horrid body, and whose hands, of an enormous size, > exhibited _clawed_ fingers strangely hooked. The senses of sight, > feeling, and _smell_ were confirmed by that of hearing!!”[993] > > And yet, for the space of several years, the damsel suffered herself > to be led astray by such a hero! How far above this odoriferous > gallant is the majestic figure of the Miltonic Satan! > > Let the reader then fancy, if he can, this superb chimera, this ideal > of the rebellious angel become incarnate Pride, crawling into the > skin of the most disgusting of all animals! Notwithstanding that > the Christian catechism teaches us that Satan in _propria persona_ > tempted our first mother, Eve, in a real paradise, and that in the > shape of a serpent, which of all animals was the most insinuating > and fascinating! God orders him, as a punishment, to crawl eternally > on his belly, and bite the dust. “A sentence,” remarks Levi, “which > resembles in nothing the traditional flames of hell.” The more so, > that the real zoölogical serpent, which was created before Adam and > Eve, crawled on his belly, and bit the dust likewise, before there > was any original sin. > > Apart from this, was not Ophion the Daimon, or Devil, like God > called _Dominus_?[994] The word _God_ (deity) is derived from the > Sanscrit word _Deva_, and Devil from the Persian _daëva_, which words > are substantially alike. Hercules, son of Jove and Alcmena, one of > the highest sun-gods and also Logos manifested, is nevertheless > represented under a double nature, as all others.[995] > > The Agathodæmon, the beneficent dæmon,[996] the same which we find > later among the Ophites under the appellation of the Logos, or divine > wisdom, was represented by a serpent standing erect on a _pole_, in > the Bacchanalian Mysteries. The hawk-headed serpent is among the > oldest of the Egyptian emblems, and represents the divine mind, says > Deane.[997] > > Azazel is Moloch and Samael, says Movers,[998] and we find Aaron, > the brother of the great law-giver Moses, making equal sacrifices to > Jehovah and Azazel. > > “And Aaron shall cast lots _upon the two goats_; one lot for the Lord > (_Ihoh_ in the original) and one lot for the scape-goat” (_Azazel_). > > In the _Old Testament_ Jehovah exhibits all the attributes of old > Saturn,[999] notwithstanding his metamorphoses from Adoni into Eloi, > and God of Gods, Lord of Lords.[1000] > > Jesus is tempted on the mountain by the Devil, who promises to > him kingdoms and glory if he will only fall down and worship him > (_Matthew_ iv. 8, 9). Buddha is tempted by the Demon Wasawarthi Mara, > who says to him as he is leaving his father’s palace: “Be entreated > to stay that you may possess the honors that are within your > reach; go not, go not!” And upon the refusal of Gautama to accept > his offers, gnashes his teeth with rage, and threatens him with > vengeance. Like Christ, Buddha triumphs over the Devil.[1001] > > In the Bacchic Mysteries a _consecrated cup_ was handed around after > supper, called the cup of the Agathodæmon.[1002] The Ophite rite of > the same description is evidently borrowed from these Mysteries. The > communion consisting of bread and wine was used in the worship of > nearly every important deity.[1003] > > In connection with the semi-Mithraic sacrament adopted by the > Marcosians, another Gnostic sect, utterly kabalistic and _theurgic_, > there is a strange story given by Epiphanius as an illustration of > the cleverness of the Devil. In the celebration of their Eucharist, > three large vases of the finest and clearest crystal were brought > among the congregation and filled with white wine. While the > ceremony was going on, in full view of everybody, this wine was > instantaneously changed into a blood-red, a purple, and then into an > azure-blue color. “Then the magus,” says Epiphanius, “hands one of > these vases to a woman in the congregation, and asks her to bless > it. When it is done, the magus pours out of it into another vase > of much greater capacity with the prayer: “May the grace of God, > which is above all, inconceivable, inexplicable, fill thy inner > man, and augment the knowledge of Him within thee, sowing the grain > of mustard-seed in good ground.[1004] Whereupon the liquor in the > larger vase swells and swells until it runs over the brim.”[1005] > > In connection with several of the Pagan deities which are made after > death, and before their resurrection to descend into Hell, it will > be found useful to compare the pre-Christian with the post-Christian > narratives. Orpheus made the journey,[1006] and Christ was the last > of these subterranean travellers. In the _Credo_ of the Apostles, > which is divided in twelve sentences or _articles_, each particular > article having been inserted by each particular apostle, according > to St. Austin[1007] the sentence “He descended into hell, the third > day he rose again from the dead,” is assigned to Thomas; perhaps, > as an atonement for his unbelief. Be it as it may, the sentence is > declared a forgery, and there is no evidence “that this creed was > either framed by the apostles, or indeed, that it existed as a creed > in their time.”[1008] > > It is the most important addition in the Apostle’s Creed, and dates > since the year of Christ 600.[1009] It was not known in the days of > Eusebius. Bishop Parsons says that it was not in the ancient creeds > or rules of faith.[1010] Irenæus, Origen, and Tertullian exhibit > no knowledge of this sentence.[1011] It is not mentioned in any of > the Councils before the seventh century. Theodoret, Epiphanius, and > Socrates are silent about it. It differs from the _creed_ in St. > Augustine.[1012] Ruffinus affirms that in his time it was neither in > the Roman nor in the Oriental creeds (_Exposit. in Symbol. Apost._ > § 10). But the problem is solved when we learn that ages ago Hermes > spoke thus to Prometheus, chained on the arid rocks of the Caucasian > mount: > > “To such labors look thou for no termination, UNTIL SOME GOD SHALL > APPEAR AS A SUBSTITUTE IN THY PANGS, AND SHALL BE WILLING TO GO BOTH > TO GLOOMY HADES AND TO THE MURKY DEPTHS AROUND TARTARUS!” (ÆSCHYLUS: > _Prometheus_, 1027, ff.). > > This god was Herakles, the “Only-Begotten One,” and the Saviour. > And it is he who was chosen as a model by the ingenious Fathers. > Hercules--called Alexicacos--for he brought round the wicked and > converted them to virtue; _Soter_, or Saviour, also called Neulos > Eumelos--the _Good Shepherd_; Astrochiton, the star-clothed, and > the Lord of Fire. “He sought not to subject nations by force but > by _divine wisdom_ and persuasion,” says Lucian. “Herakles spread > cultivation and a mild religion, and destroyed the _doctrine of > eternal punishment_ by dragging Kerberus (the Pagan Devil) from the > nether world.” And, as we see, it was Herakles again who liberated > Prometheus (the Adam of the pagans), by putting an end to the > torture inflicted on him for his transgressions, by descending to > the Hades, and going round the Tartarus. Like Christ he appeared > as a _substitute for the pangs of humanity_, by offering himself > in a self-sacrifice on a funereal-burning pile. “His voluntary > immolation,” says Bart, “betokened the ethereal new birth of men.... > Through the release of Prometheus, and the erection of altars, > we behold in him the mediator between the old and new faiths.... > He abolished human sacrifice wherever he found it practiced. He > descended into the sombre realm of Pluto, as a shade ... he _ascended > as a spirit to his father Zeus in Olympus_.” > > So much was antiquity impressed by the Heraklean legend, that even > the _monotheistic_ (?) Jews of those days, not to be outdone by their > contemporaries, put him to use in their manufacture of original > fables. Herakles is accused in his mythobiography of an attempted > theft of the Delphian oracle. In _Sepher Toldos Jeschu_, the Rabbins > accuse Jesus of stealing from their Sanctuary the Incommunicable Name! > > Therefore it is but natural to find his numerous adventures, worldly > and religious, mirrored so faithfully in the _Descent into Hell_. For > extraordinary daring of mendacity, and unblushing plagiarism, the > _Gospel of Nicodemus_, only _now_ proclaimed apocryphal, surpasses > anything we have read. Let the reader judge. > > At the beginning of chapter xvi., Satan and the “Prince of Hell” are > described as peacefully conversing together. All of a sudden, both > are startled by “a voice as of thunder” and the rushing of winds, > which bids them to lift up their gates for “_the King of Glory_ > shall come in.” Whereupon the Prince of Hell hearing this “begins > quarrelling with Satan for minding his duty so poorly, as not to have > taken the necessary precautions against such a visit.” The quarrel > ends with the prince casting Satan “forth from his hell,” ordering, > at the same time, his impious officers “to shut the brass gates of > cruelty, make them fast with iron bars, and fight courageously lest > we be taken captives.” > > But “when all the company of the saints ... (in Hell?) heard this, > they spoke with a loud voice of anger to the Prince of Darkness, > ‘Open thy gates, that the King of Glory may come in,’” thereby > proving that the prince needed spokesmen. > > “And the _divine_ (?) prophet David cried out, saying: ‘Did not I, > when on earth, truly prophesy?’” After this, another prophet, namely > holy Isaiah spake in like manner, “Did not I rightly prophesy?” etc. > Then the company of the saints and prophets, after boasting for > the length of a chapter, and comparing notes of their prophecies, > begin a riot, which makes the Prince of Hell remark that, “the dead > never durst before behave themselves so insolently towards us” (the > devils, xviii. 6); feigning the while to be ignorant _who_ it was > claiming admission. He then innocently asks again: “But who is the > King of Glory?” Then David tells him that he knows the voice well, > and understands its words, “because,” he adds, “I spake them by his > Spirit.” Perceiving finally that the Prince of Hell would not open > the “brass doors of iniquity,” notwithstanding the king-psalmist’s > voucher for the visitor, he, David, concludes to treat the enemy > “as a Philistine, and begins shouting: ‘And now, thou _filthy_ and > _stinking_ prince of hell, open thy gates.... I tell thee that the > King of Glory comes ... let him enter in.’” > > While he was yet quarrelling the “mighty Lord appeared in the form of > a _man_” (?) upon which “impious _Death_ and her cruel officers are > seized with fear.” Then they tremblingly begin to address Christ with > various flatteries and compliments in the shape of questions, each of > which _is an article of creed_. For instance: “And who art thou, so > powerful and so great who dost release the captives that were _held > in chains by original sin_?” asks one devil. “Perhaps, thou art that > Jesus,” submissively says another, “of whom Satan just now spoke, > that by the _death of the Cross thou wert about to receive the power > over death_?” etc. Instead of answering, the King of Glory “tramples > upon Death, seizes the Prince of Hell, and deprives him of his power.” > > Then begins a turmoil in Hell which has been graphically described > by Homer, Hesiod, and their interpreter Preller, in his account of > the Astronomical Hercules _Invictus_, and his festivals at Tyre, > Tarsus, and Sardis. Having been initiated in the Attic Eleusinia, the > Pagan god descends into Hades and “when he entered the nether world > he spread such terror among the dead that all of them fled!”[1013] > The same words are repeated in _Nicodemus_. Follows a scene of > confusion, horror, and lamenting. Perceiving that the battle is lost, > the Prince of Hell turns tail and prudently chooses to side with > the strongest. He against whom, according to Jude and Peter, even > the Archangel Michael “durst not bring a railing accusation before > the Lord,” is now shamefully treated by his ex-ally and friend, > the “Prince of Hell.” Poor Satan is abused and reviled for all his > crimes both by devils and saints; while the _Prince_ is openly > rewarded for his treachery. Addressing him, the King of Glory says > thus: “Beelzebub, the Prince of Hell, Satan the Prince shall now > be subject to thy dominion _forever, in the room of Adam_ and his > righteous sons, who are mine ... Come to me, all ye my saints, who > were _created in my image_, who _were condemned by the tree of the > forbidden fruit_, and _by the Devil and death_. Live now _by the wood > of my cross_; the Devil, the prince of this world is overcome (?) and > _Death is conquered_.” Then the Lord takes hold of Adam by his right > hand, of David by the left, and “_ascends_ from Hell, followed by all > the saints,” Enoch and Elias, and by the “_holy_ thief.”[1014] > > The pious author, perhaps through an oversight, omits to complete the > cavalcade, by bringing up the rear with the penitent dragon of Simon > Stylites and the converted wolf of St. Francis, wagging their tails > and shedding tears of joy! > > In the _Codex_ of the Nazarenes it is _Tobo_ who is “the _liberator > of the soul of Adam_,” to bear it from Orcus (Hades) to the place of > LIFE. Tobo is Tob-Adonijah, one of the twelve disciples (Levites) > sent by Jehosaphat to preach to the cities of Judah the _Book of the > Law_ (_2 Chron._ xvii.). In the kabalistic books these were “wise > men,” Magi. They drew down the rays of the sun to enlighten the > sheol (Hades) Orcus, and thus show the way out of the _Tenebræ_, > the darkness of ignorance, to the soul of Adam, which represents > collectively all the “souls of mankind.” Adam (Athamas) is Tamuz > or Adonis, and Adonis is the sun Helios. In the _Book of the Dead_ > (vi. 231) Osiris is made to say: “I shine like the sun in the > star-house at the feast of the sun.” Christ is called the “Sun of > Righteousness,” “Helios of Justice” (Euseb.: _Demons. Ev._, v. 29), > simply a revamping of the old heathen allegories; nevertheless, to > have made it serve for such a use is no less blasphemous on the > part of men who pretended to be describing a true episode of the > earth-pilgrimage of their God! > > “Herakles, who _has gone out from the chambers of earth_, > Leaving the nether house of Plouton!”[1015] > > “At THEE the Stygian lakes trembled; Thee the janitor of Orcus > Feared.... Thee not even Typhon frightened.... > Hail _true_ SON _of_ JOVE, GLORY added to the gods!”[1016] > > More than four centuries before the birth of Jesus, Aristophanes > had written his immortal parody on the _Descent into Hell_, by > Herakles.[1017] The chorus of the “blessed ones,” the initiated, the > Elysian Fields, the arrival of Bacchus (who is Iacchos--Iaho--and > _Sabaoth_) with Herakles, their reception with lighted torches, > emblems of _new life_ and RESURRECTION from darkness, death unto > light, eternal LIFE; nothing that is found in the _Gospel of > Nicodemus_ is wanting in this poem:[1018] > > “Wake, burning torches ... for thou comest > Shaking them in thy hand, Iacche, > Phosphoric star of the nightly rite!”[1019] > > But the Christians accept these _post-mortem_ adventures of their > god, concocted from those of his Pagan predecessors, and derided > by Aristophanes four centuries before our era, _literally_! The > absurdities of _Nicodemus_ were read in the churches, as well as > those of the _Shepherd of Hermas_. Irenæus quotes the latter under > the name of _Scripture_, a divinely-inspired “revelation;” Jerome and > Eusebius both insist upon its being publicly read in the churches; > and Athanasius observes that the Fathers “appointed it to be read > in _confirmation of faith and piety_.” But then comes the reverse > of this bright medal, to show once more how stable and trustworthy > were the opinions of the strongest pillars of an _infallible_ Church. > Jerome, who applauds the book in his catalogue of ecclesiastical > writers, in his later comments terms it “apocryphal and foolish!” > Tertullian, who could not find praise enough for the _Shepherd of > Hermas_ when a Catholic, “began abusing it when a Montanist.”[1020] > > Chapter xiii. begins with the narrative given by the two resuscitated > ghosts of Charinus and Lenthius, the sons of that Simeon who, > in the _Gospel according to Luke_ (ii. 25-32), takes the infant > Jesus in his arms and blesses God, saying: “Lord, now lettest > thou thy servant depart in peace ... for mine eyes have seen thy > salvation.”[1021] These two ghosts have arisen from their cold > tombs on purpose to declare “the mysteries” which they saw after > death in hell. They are enabled to do so only at the importunate > prayer of Annas and Caïaphas, Nicodemus (the author), Joseph (of > Arimathæa), and Gamaliel, who beseech them to reveal to them the > great secrets. Annas and Caïaphas, however, who bring the _ghosts_ > to the synagogue at Jerusalem, take the precaution to make the two > resuscitated men, who had been dead and buried for years, to swear > on the _Book of the Law_ “by God Adonai, and the God of Israel,” to > tell them only the truth. Therefore, after making the _sign of the > cross_ on their tongues,[1022] they ask for some paper to write their > confessions (xii. 21-25). They state how, when “in the depth of hell, > in the blackness of darkness,” they suddenly saw “a substantial, > purple-colored light illuminating the place.” Adam, with the > patriarchs and prophets, began thereupon to rejoice, and Isaiah also > immediately boasted that he had _predicted all that_. While this was > going on, Simeon, their father, arrived, declaring that “the infant > he took in his arms in the temple was now coming to liberate them.” > > After Simeon had delivered his message to the distinguished company > in hell, “there came forth one like a little hermit (?), who proved > to be John the Baptist.” The idea is suggestive and shows that even > the “Precursor” and “the Prophet of the Most High,” had not been > exempted from drying up in hell to the most diminutive proportions, > and that to the extent of affecting his brains and memory. Forgetting > that (_Matthew_ xi.) he had manifested the most evident doubts as to > the Messiahship of Jesus, the Baptist also claims his right to be > recognized as a prophet. “And I, John,” he says, “when I saw Jesus > coming to me, being moved by the Holy Ghost, I said: ‘Behold the Lamb > of God, who takes away the sins of the world’ ... And I baptized him > ... and I saw the Holy Ghost descending upon him, and saying, ‘This > is my Beloved Son,’ etc.” And to think, that his descendants and > followers, like the Mandeans of Basra, utterly reject these words! > > Then Adam, who acts as though his own veracity might be questioned > in this “impious company,” calls his son Seth, and desires him to > declare to his sons, the patriarchs and prophets, what the Archangel > Michael had told him at the gate of Paradise, when he, Adam, sent > Seth “to entreat God that he would anoint” his head when Adam was > sick (xiv. 2). And Seth tells them that when he was praying at the > gates of Paradise, Michael advised him not to entreat God for “the > oil of the tree of mercy wherewith to anoint father Adam for his > _headache_; because thou canst not by any means obtain it till the > LAST DAY and times, namely _till 5,500 years be past_.” > > This little bit of private gossip between Michael and Seth was > evidently introduced in the interests of Patristic Chronology; and > for the purpose of connecting Messiahship still closer with Jesus, > on the authority of a recognized and divinely-inspired Gospel. The > Fathers of the early centuries committed an inextricable mistake in > destroying fragile images and mortal Pagans, in preference to the > monuments of Egyptian antiquity. These have become the more precious > to archæology and modern science since it is found they prove that > King Menes and his architects flourished between four and five > thousand years before “Father Adam” and the universe, according to > the biblical chronology, were created “out of nothing.”[1023] > > “While all the saints were rejoicing, behold Satan, the prince and > captain of death,” says to the Prince of Hell: “Prepare to receive > Jesus of Nazareth himself, who boasted that he was the Son of God, > and yet was a man afraid of death, and said: ‘My soul is sorrowful > even to death’” (xv. 1, 2). > > There is a tradition among the Greek ecclesiastical writers that the > “Hæretics” (perhaps Celsus) had sorely twitted the Christians on this > delicate point. They held that if Jesus were not a simple mortal, > who was often forsaken by the Spirit of Christos, he could not have > complained in such expressions as are attributed to him; neither > would he have cried out with a loud voice: “My _god_, My _god_! why > hast thou forsaken me?” This objection is very cleverly answered in > the _Gospel of Nicodemus_, and it is the “Prince of Hell” who settles > the difficulty. > > He begins by arguing with Satan like a true metaphysician. “Who is > that so powerful prince,” he sneeringly inquires, “who is he so > powerful, and yet a man who is afraid of death?... I affirm to thee > that when, therefore, he said he was afraid of death, _he designed to > ensnare thee_, and unhappy it will be to thee for everlasting ages!” > > It is quite refreshing to see how closely the author of this _Gospel_ > sticks to his _New Testament_ text, and especially to the fourth > evangelist. How cleverly he prepares the way for seemingly “innocent” > questions and answers, corroborating the most dubious passages of > the four gospels, passages more questioned and cross-examined in > those days of subtile sophistry of the learned Gnostics than they > are now; a weighty reason why the Fathers should have been even more > anxious to burn the documents of their antagonists than to destroy > their heresy. The following is a good instance. The dialogue is still > proceeding between Satan and the metaphysical _half-converted_ Prince > of the under world. > > “Who, then, is that Jesus of Nazareth,” naïvely inquires the prince, > “that by his word hath taken away the dead from me, without prayers > to God?” (xv. 16). > > “Perhaps,” replies Satan, with the innocence of a Jesuit, “_it is the > same who took away from me_ LAZARUS, _after he had been four days > dead_, and did both stink and was rotten?... It is the very same > person, Jesus of Nazareth.... I adjure thee, by the powers which > belong to thee and me, that thou bring him not to me!” exclaims the > prince. “For when I heard of the power of his word, I trembled for > fear, and all my _impious_ company were disturbed. And we were not > able to detain Lazarus, but he gave himself _a shake_, and _with all > the signs of malice_, he immediately went away from us; and the very > earth, in which the dead body of Lazarus was lodged, presently turned > him alive.” “Yes,” thoughtfully adds the Prince of Hell, “I know > now _that he is Almighty God_, who is mighty in his dominion, and > mighty _in his human nature_, who is the Saviour of mankind. Bring > not therefore this person hither, for he will set at liberty all > those I held in prison under unbelief, and ... _will conduct them to > everlasting life_” (xv. 20). > > Here ends the _post-mortem_ evidence of the two ghosts. Charinus > (ghost No. 1) gives what he wrote to Annas, Caïaphas, and Gamaliel, > and Lenthius (ghost No. 2) his to Joseph and Nicodemus, having done > which, both change into “exceedingly white forms and were seen no > more.” > > To show furthermore that the “ghosts” had been all the time under > the strictest “test conditions,” as the modern spiritualists would > express it, the author of the _Gospel_ adds: “But what they had wrote > was _found perfectly to agree_, the one not containing one letter > more or less than the other.” > > This news spread in all the synagogues, the Gospel goes on to state, > that Pilate went to the temple as advised by Nicodemus, and assembled > the Jews together. At this historical interview, Caïaphas and Annas > are made to declare that their Scriptures testify “_that He (Jesus) > is the Son of God and the Lord and King of Israel_” (!) and close the > confession with the following memorable words: > > “And so it appears _that Jesus, whom we crucified, is Jesus Christ, > the Son of God, and true and Almighty God_. Amen.” (!) > > Notwithstanding such a crushing confession for themselves, and the > recognition of Jesus as the Almighty God himself, the “Lord God of > Israel,” neither the high priest, nor his father-in-law, nor any of > the elders, nor Pilate, who wrote those accounts, nor any of the Jews > of Jerusalem, who were at all prominent, became Christians. > > Comments are unnecessary. This _Gospel_ closes with the words: > “In the name of _the Holy Trinity_ [of which Nicodemus could know > nothing yet] _thus ends the Acts of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which > the emperor Theodosius the Great found at Jerusalem, in the hall of > Pontius Pilate among the public records_;” and which history purports > to have been written in Hebrew by Nicodemus, “_the things being acted > in the nineteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, emperor of the Romans, and > in the seventeenth year of the government of Herod, the son of Herod, > king of Galilee, on the eighth before the calends of April_, etc., > etc.” It is the most barefaced imposture that was perpetrated after > the era of pious forgeries opened with the first bishop of Rome, > whoever he may have been. The clumsy forger seems to have neither > known nor heard that the dogma of the Trinity was not propounded > until 325 years later than this pretended date. Neither the _Old_ > nor the _New Testament_ contains the word Trinity, nor anything that > affords the slightest pretext for this doctrine (see page 177 of this > volume, “Christ’s descent into Hell”). No explanation can palliate > the putting forth of this spurious gospel as a divine revelation, > for it was known from the first as a premeditated imposture. If the > gospel itself has been declared apocryphal, nevertheless every one > of the dogmas contained in it was and is still enforced upon the > Christian world. And even the fact that itself is now repudiated, is > no merit, _for the Church was shamed and forced into it_. > > And so we are perfectly warranted in repeating the amended _Credo_ of > Robert Taylor, which is substantially that of the Christians. > > I believe in Zeus, the Father Almighty, > And in his son, Iasios Christ our Lord, > Who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, > Born of the Virgin Elektra, > Smitten with a thunderbolt, > Dead and buried, > He descended into Hell, > Rose again and ascended up on high, > And will return to judge the living and the dead. > I believe in the Holy Nous, > In the Holy circle of Great Gods, > In the Community of Divinities, > In the expiation of sins, > The immortality of the Soul > And the Life Everlasting. > > The Israelites have been proved to have worshipped Baal, the Syrian > Bacchus, offered incense to the Sabazian or Æsculapian serpent, and > performed the Dionysian Mysteries. And how could it be otherwise > if Typhon was called Typhon Set,[1024] and Seth, the son of Adam, > is identical with Satan or Sat-an; and Seth was worshipped by the > Hittites? Less than two centuries B.C., we find the Jews either > reverencing or simply worshipping the “golden head of an ass” in > their temple; according to Apion, Antiochus Epiphanes carried it off > with him. And Zacharias is struck dumb by the apparition of the deity > under the shape of an ass in the temple![1025] > > El, the Sun-God of the Syrians, the Egyptians, and the Semites, is > declared by Pleytè to be no other than Set or Seth, and El is the > primeval Saturn--Israel.[1026] Siva is an Æthiopian God, the same > as the Chaldean Baal--Bel; thus he is also Saturn. Saturn, El, Seth > and Kiyun, or the biblical Chiun of Amos, are all one and the same > deity, and may be all regarded in their worst aspect as Typhon the > Destroyer. When the religious Pantheon assumed a more definite > expression, Typhon was separated from his androgyne--the _good_ > deity, and fell into degradation as a brutal _unintellectual_ power. > > Such reactions in the religious feelings of a nation were not > unfrequent. The Jews had worshipped Baal or Moloch, the Sun-God > Hercules,[1027] in their early days--if they had any days at all > earlier than the Persians or Maccabees--and then made their prophets > denounce them. On the other hand, the characteristics of the Mosaic > Jehovah exhibit more of the moral disposition of Siva than of a > benevolent, “long-suffering” God. Besides, to be identified with Siva > is no small compliment, for the latter is God of wisdom. Wilkinson > depicts him as the most intellectual of the Hindu gods. He is > _three-eyed_, and, like Jehovah, terrible in his resistless revenge > and wrath. And, although the Destroyer, “yet he is the re-creator > of all things in perfect wisdom.”[1028] He is the type of St. > Augustine’s God who “prepares _hell_ for pryers into his mysteries,” > and insists on trying human reason as well as common sense by forcing > mankind to view with equal reverence his good and evil acts. > > Notwithstanding the numerous proofs that the Israelites worshipped > a variety of gods, and even offered human sacrifices until a far > later period than their Pagan neighbors, they have contrived to blind > posterity in regard to truth. They sacrificed human life as late as > 169 B.C.,[1029] and the _Bible_ contains a number of such records. At > a time when the Pagans had long abandoned the abominable practice, > and had replaced the sacrificial man by the animal,[1030] Jephthah > is represented sacrificing his own daughter to the “Lord” for a > burnt-offering. > > The denunciations of their own prophets are the best proofs against > them. Their worship in high places is the same as that of the > “idolaters.” Their prophetesses are counterparts of the Pythiæ and > Bacchantes. Pausanias speaks of women-colleges which superintend the > worship of Bacchus, and of the sixteen matrons of Elis.[1031] The > _Bible_ says that “Deborah, a prophetess ... judged Israel at that > time;”[1032] and speaks of Huldah, another prophetess, who “dwelt > in Jerusalem, _in the college_;”[1033] and _2 Samuel_ mentions > “_wise_ women” several times,[1034] notwithstanding the injunction > of Moses not to use either divination or augury. As to the final and > conclusive identification of the “Lord God” of Israel with Moloch, > we find a very suspicious evidence of the case in the last chapter > of _Leviticus_, concerning _things devoted not to be redeemed_.... > A man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, _both of man_ > and beast.... None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be > redeemed, _but shall surely be put to death_ ... for it is _most holy > unto the Lord_.”[1035] > > The duality, if not the plurality of the gods of Israel may be > inferred from the very fact of such bitter denunciations. Their > prophets _never approved of sacrificial worship_. Samuel denied > that the Lord had any delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices (_1 > Samuel_, xv. 22). Jeremiah asserted, unequivocally, that the Lord, > Yava Sabaoth Elohe Israel, never commanded anything of the sort, but > contrariwise (vii. 21-24). > > But these prophets who opposed themselves to human sacrifices were > all _nazars_ and _initiates_. These prophets led a party in the > nation against the priests, as later the Gnostics contended against > the Christian Fathers. Hence, when the monarchy was divided, we > find the priests at Jerusalem and the prophets in the country of > Israel. Even Ahab and his sons, who introduced the Tyrian worship > of Baal-Hercules and the Syrian goddess into Israel, were aided and > encouraged by Elijah and Elisha. Few prophets appeared in Judea till > Isaiah, after the northern monarchy had been overthrown. Elisha > anointed Jehu on purpose that he should destroy the royal families of > both countries, and so unite the people into one civil polity. For > the Temple of Solomon, desecrated by the priests, no Hebrew prophet > or initiate cared a straw. Elijah never went to it, nor Elisha, > Jonah, Nahum, Amos, or any other Israelite. While the initiates were > holding to the “secret doctrine” of Moses, the people, led by their > priests, were steeped in idolatry exactly the same as that of the > Pagans. It is the popular views and interpretations of Jehovah that > the Christians have adopted. > > The question is likely to be asked: “In the view of so much evidence > to show that Christian theology is only a _pot-pourri_ of Pagan > mythologies, how can it be connected with the religion of Moses?” > The early Christians, Paul and his disciples, the Gnostics and > their successors generally, regarded Christianity and Judaism as > essentially distinct. The latter, in their view, was an antagonistic > system, and from a lower origin. “Ye received the law,” said Stephen, > “from the ministration of angels,” or æons, and not from the Most > High Himself. The Gnostics, as we have seen, taught that Jehovah, the > Deity of the Jews, was Ilda-Baoth, the son of the ancient _Bohu_, or > Chaos, the adversary of Divine Wisdom. > > The question may be more than easily answered. The _law of Moses, > and the so-called monotheism of the Jews, can hardly be said to have > been more than two or three centuries older than Christianity_. The > _Pentateuch_ itself, we are able to show, was written and revised > upon this “new departure,” at a period subsequent to the colonization > of Judea under the authority of the kings of Persia. The Christian > Fathers, in their eagerness to make their new system dovetail with > Judaism, and so avoid Paganism, unconsciously shunned Scylla only > to be caught in the whirlpool of Charybdis. Under the monotheistic > stucco of Judaism was unearthed the same familiar mythology of > Paganism. But we should not regard the Israelites with less favor for > having had a Moloch and being like the natives. Nor should we compel > the Jews to do penance for their fathers. They had their prophets and > their law, and were satisfied with them. How faithfully and nobly > they have stood by their ancestral faith under the most diabolical > persecutions, the present remains of a once-glorious people bear > witness. The Christian world has been in a state of convulsion from > the first to the present century; it has been cleft into thousands > of sects; but the Jews remain substantially united. Even their > differences of opinion do not destroy their unity. > > The Christian virtues inculcated by Jesus in the sermon on the mount > are nowhere exemplified in the Christian world. The Buddhist ascetics > and Indian fakirs seem almost the only ones that inculcate and > practice them. Meanwhile the vices which coarse-mouthed slanderers > have attributed to Paganism, are current everywhere among Christian > Fathers and Christian Churches. > > The boasted wide gap between Christianity and Judaism, that is > claimed on the authority of Paul, exists but in the imagination > of the pious. We are nought but the inheritors of the intolerant > Israelites of ancient days; not the Hebrews of the time of Herod > and the Roman dominion, who, with all their faults, kept strictly > orthodox and monotheistic, but the Jews who, under the name of > Jehovah-Nissi, worshipped Bacchus-Osiris, Dio-Nysos, the multiform > Jove of Nyssa, the Sinai of Moses. The kabalistic demons--allegories > of the profoundest meaning--were adopted as objective entities, and a > Satanic hierarchy carefully drawn by the orthodox demonologists. > > The Rosicrucian motto, “_Igne natura renovatur integra_,” which > the alchemists interpret as nature renovated by fire, or matter by > spirit, is made to be accepted to this day as _Iesus Nazarenus rex > Iudæorum_. The mocking satire of Pilate is accepted literally, and > the Jews made to unwittingly confess thereby the royalty of Christ; > whereas, if the inscription is not a forgery of the Constantinian > period, it yet is the action of Pilate, against which the Jews were > first to violently protest. I. H. S. is interpreted _Iesus Hominum > Salvator_, and _In hoc signo_, whereas ΙΗΣ is one of the most ancient > names of Bacchus. And more than ever do we begin to find out, by the > bright light of comparative theology, that the great object of Jesus, > the initiate of the inner sanctuary, was to open the eyes of the > fanatical multitude to the difference between the highest > Divinity--the mysterious and never-mentioned ΙΑΟ of the ancient > Chaldean and later Neo-platonic initiates--and the Hebrew Yahuh, or > Yaho (Jehovah). The modern Rosicrucians, so violently denounced by the > Catholics, now find brought against them, as the most important > charge, the fact that they accuse Christ of having destroyed the > worship of Jehovah. Would to Heaven he could have been allowed the > time to do so, for the world would not have found itself still > bewildered, after nineteen centuries of mutual massacres, among 300 > quarrelling sects, and with a personal Devil reigning over a > terrorized Christendom! > > True to the exclamation of David, paraphrased in _King James’ > Version_ as “all the gods of the nations are idols,” _i.e._, devils, > Bacchus or the “first-born” or the Orphic theogony, the Monogenes, or > “only-begotten” of Father Zeus and Koré, was transformed, with the > rest of the ancient myths, into a devil. By such a degradation, the > Fathers, whose pious zeal could only be surpassed by their ignorance, > have unwittingly furnished evidence against themselves. They have, > with their own hands, paved the way for many a future solution, and > greatly helped modern students of the science of religions. > > It was in the Bacchus-myth that lay concealed for long and dreary > centuries both the future vindication of the reviled “gods of the > nations,” and the last clew to the enigma of Jehovah. The strange > duality of Divine and mortal characteristics, so conspicuous in the > Sinaitic Deity, begins to yield its mystery before the untiring > inquiry of the age. One of the latest contributions we find in a > short but highly-important paper in the _Evolution_, a periodical of > New York, the closing paragraph of which throws a flood of light on > Bacchus, the Jove of Nysa, who was worshipped by the Israelites as > Jehovah of Sinai. > > “Such was the Jove of Nysa to his worshippers,” concludes the author. > “He represented to them alike the world of nature and the world > of thought. He was the ‘Sun of righteousness, with healing on his > wings,’ and he not only brought joy to mortals, but opened to them > hope beyond mortality of immortal life. Born of a human mother, > he raised her from the world of death to the supernal air, to be > revered and worshipped. At once lord of all worlds, he was in them > all alike the Saviour. > > “Such was Bacchus, the prophet-god. A change of cultus, decreed by > the Murderer-Imperial, the Emperor Theodosius, at the instance of > Ghostly-Father Ambrosius, of Milan, has changed his title to Father > of Lies. His worship, before universal, was denominated Pagan or > _local_, and his rites stigmatized as witchcraft. His orgies received > the name of _Witches’ Sabbath_, and his favorite symbolical form > with the bovine foot became the modern representative of the Devil > with the cloven hoof. The master of the house having been called > Beelzebub, they of his household were alike denounced as having > commerce with the powers of darkness. Crusades were undertaken; whole > peoples massacred. Knowledge and the higher learning were denounced > as magic and sorcery. Ignorance became the mother of devotion--such > as was then cherished. Galileo languished long years in prison for > teaching that the sun was in the centre of the solar universe. > Bruno was burned alive at Rome in 1600 for reviving the ancient > philosophy; yet, queerly enough, the Liberalia have become a festival > of the Church,[1036] Bacchus is a saint in the calendar four times > repeated, and at many a shrine he may be seen reposing in the arms > of his deified mother. The names are changed; the ideas remain as > before.”[1037] > > And now that we have shown that we must indeed “bid an eternal > farewell to all the rebellious angels,” we naturally pass to an > examination of the God Jesus, who was manufactured out of the man > Jesus to redeem us from these very mythical devils, as Father > Ventura shows us. This labor will of course necessitate once more a > comparative inquiry into the history of Gautama-Buddha, his doctrines > and his “miracles,” and those of Jesus and the predecessor of > both--Christna. > > CHAPTER XI. > > “Not to commit any sin, to do good, and to purify one’s > mind, that is the teaching of the Awakened.... > > “Better than Sovereignty over the earth, better than going > to heaven, better than lordship over all the worlds is > the reward of the first step in holiness.”--_Dhammapada_, > verses 178-183. > > Creator, where are these tribunals, where do these courts > proceed, where do these courts assemble, where do the > tribunals meet to which the man of the embodied world gives > an account for his soul?--_Persian Vendidad_, xix. 89. > > Hail to thee O Man, who art come from the transitory place > to the imperishable!--_Vendidad_, farg. vii., 136. > > To the true believer, truth, wherever it appears, is > welcome, nor will any doctrine seem the less true or the > less precious, because it was seen not only by Moses or > Christ, but likewise by Buddha or Lao-tse.--MAX MÜLLER. > > Unluckily for those who would have been glad to render justice to > the ancient and modern religious philosophies of the Orient, a fair > opportunity has hardly ever been given to them. Of late there has > been a touching accord between philologists holding high official > positions, and missionaries from heathen lands. Prudence before > truth when the latter endangers our sinecures! Besides, how easy to > compromise with conscience. A State religion is a prop of government; > all State religions are “exploded humbugs”; therefore, since one is > as good, or rather as bad, as another, _the_ State religion may as > well be supported. Such is the diplomacy of official science. > > Grote in his _History of Greece_, assimilates the Pythagoreans to > the Jesuits, and sees in their Brotherhood but an ably-disguised > object to acquire political ascendancy. On the loose testimony of > Herakleitus and some other writers, who accused Pythagoras of craft, > and described him as a man “of extensive research... but artful > for mischief and destitute of sound judgment,” some historical > biographers hastened to present him to posterity in such a character. > > How then if they must accept the Pythagoras painted by the satirical > Timon: “a juggler of solemn speech engaged in fishing for men,” can > they avoid judging of Jesus from the sketch that Celsus has embalmed > in his satire? Historical impartiality has nought to do with creeds > and personal beliefs, and exacts as much of posterity for one as > for the other. The life and doings of Jesus are far less attested > than those of Pythagoras, if, indeed, we can say that they are > attested at all by any _historical_ proof. For assuredly no one > will gainsay that as a real personage Celsus has the advantage as > regards the credibility of his testimony over Matthew, or Mark, or > Luke, or John, who never wrote a line of the _Gospels_ attributed to > them respectively. Withal Celsus is at least as good a witness as > Herakleitus. He was known as a scholar and a Neo-platonist to some > of the Fathers; whereas the very existence of the four Apostles must > be taken on blind faith. If Timon regarded the sublime Samian as “a > juggler,” so did Celsus hold Jesus, or rather those who made all the > pretenses for him. In his famous work, addressing the Nazarene, he > says: “Let us grant that the wonders were performed by you ... but > are they not common with those who have been taught by the Egyptians > to perform in the middle of the forum for a few oboli.” And we know, > on the authority of the _Gospel according to Matthew_, that the > Galilean prophet was also a man of solemn speech, and that he called > himself and offered to make his disciples “fishers of men.” > > Let it not be imagined that we bring this reproach to any who revere > Jesus as God. Whatever the faith, if the worshipper be but sincere, > it should be respected in his presence. If we do not accept Jesus as > God, we revere _him as a man_. Such a feeling honors him more than > if we were to attribute to him the powers and personality of the > Supreme, and credit him at the same time with having played a useless > comedy with mankind, as, after all, his mission proves scarcely less > than a complete failure; 2,000 years have passed, and Christians do > not reckon one-fifth part of the population of the globe, nor is > Christianity likely to progress any better in the future. No, we aim > but at strict justice, leaving all personality aside. We question > those who, adoring neither Jesus, Pythagoras, nor Apollonius, yet > recite the idle gossip of their contemporaries; those who in their > books either maintain a prudent silence, or speak of “our Saviour” > and “our Lord,” as though they believed any more in the made-up > theological Christ, than in the fabulous Fo of China. > > _There were no Atheists in those days of old; no disbelievers or > materialists, in the modern sense of the word, as there were no > bigoted detractors._ He who judges the ancient philosophies by their > external phraseology, and quotes from ancient writings sentences > _seemingly_ atheistical, is unfit to be trusted as a critic, for he > is unable to penetrate into the inner sense of their metaphysics. > The views of Pyrrho, whose rationalism has become proverbial, can be > interpreted only by the light of the oldest Hindu philosophy. From > Manu down to the latest Swâbhâvika, its leading metaphysical feature > ever was to proclaim the reality and supremacy of spirit, with a > vehemence proportionate to the denial of the objective existence of > our material world--passing phantom of temporary forms and beings. > The numerous schools begotten by Kapila, reflect his philosophy no > clearer than the doctrines left as a legacy to thinkers by Timon, > Pyrrho’s “Prophet,” as Sextus Empiricus calls him. His views on the > divine repose of the soul, his proud indifference to the opinion > of his fellow men, his contempt for sophistry, reflect in an equal > degree stray beams of the self-contemplation of the Gymnosophists > and of the Buddhist _Vaibhâshika_. Notwithstanding that he and > his followers are termed, from their state of constant suspense, > “skeptics,” “doubters,” inquirers, and ephectics, only because they > postponed their final judgment on dilemmas, with which our modern > philosophers prefer dealing, Alexander-like, by cutting the Gordian > knot, and then declaring the dilemma a superstition, such men as > Pyrrho cannot be pronounced atheists. No more can Kapila, or Giordano > Bruno, or again Spinoza, who were also treated as atheists; nor yet, > the great Hindu poet, philosopher, and dialectician, Veda-Vyasa, > whose principle that all is illusion--save the Great Unknown and His > direct essence--Pyrrho has adopted in full. > > These philosophical beliefs extended like a net-work over the > whole pre-Christian world; and, surviving persecution and > misrepresentations, form the corner-stone of every now existing > religion outside Christianity. > > Comparative theology is a two-edged weapon, and has so proved itself. > But the Christian advocates, unabashed by evidence, force comparison > in the serenest way; Christian legends and dogmas, they say, do > somewhat resemble the heathen, it is true; but see, while the one > teaches us the existence, powers, and attributes of an all-wise, > all-good Father-God, Brahmanism gives us a multitude of minor gods, > and Buddhism none whatever; one is fetishism and polytheism, the > other bald atheism. Jehovah is the one true God, and the Pope and > Martin Luther are His prophets! This is one edge of the sword, and > this the other: Despite missions, despite armies, despite enforced > commercial intercourse, the “heathen” find nothing in the teachings > of Jesus--sublime though some are--that Christna and Gautama had not > taught them before. And so, to gain over any new converts, and keep > the few already won by centuries of cunning, the Christians give > the “heathen” dogmas more absurd than their own, and cheat them by > adopting the habit of their native priests, and practicing the very > “idolatry and fetishism” which they so disparage in the “heathens.” > Comparative theology works both ways. > > In Siam and Burmah, Catholic missionaries have become perfect > Talapoins to all external appearance, _i.e._, minus their virtues; > and throughout India, especially in the south, they were denounced > by their own colleague, the Abbé Dubois.[1038] This was afterward > vehemently denied. But now we have living witnesses to the > correctness of the charge. Among others, Captain O’Grady, already > quoted, a native of Madras, writes the following on this systematic > method of deception:[1039] “The hypocritical beggars profess > total abstinence and horror of flesh to conciliate converts from > Hinduism.... I got one father, or rather, he got himself gloriously > drunk in my house, time and again, and the way he pitched into > roast beef was a caution.” Further, the author has pretty stories > to tell of “black-faced Christs,” “Virgins on wheels,” and of > Catholic processions in general. We have seen such solemn ceremonies > accompanied by the most infernal cacophony of a Cingalese orchestra, > tam-tam and gongs included, followed by a like Brahmanic procession, > which, for its picturesque coloring and _mise en scène_, looked far > more solemn and imposing than the Christian saturnalias. Speaking > of one of these, the same author remarks: “It was more devilish > than religious.... The bishops walked off Romeward,[1040] with a > mighty pile of Peter’s pence gathered in the minutest sums, with > gold ornaments, nose-rings, anklets, elbow bangles, etc., etc., in > profusion, recklessly thrown in heaps at the feet of the grotesque > copper-colored image of the Saviour, with its Dutch metal halo and > gaudily-striped cummerbund and--shade of Raphael!--blue turban.”[1041] > > As every one can see, such voluntary contributions make it quite > profitable to mimic the native Brahmans and bonzes. Between the > worshippers of Christna and Christ, or Avany and the Virgin Mary, > there is less substantial difference, in fact, than between the two > native sects, the Vishnavites and the Sivites. For the _converted_ > Hindus, Christ is a slightly modified Christna, that is all. > Missionaries carry away rich donations and Rome is satisfied. Then > comes a year of famine; but the nose-rings and gold elbow-bangles are > gone and people starve by thousands. What matters it? They die in > Christ, and Rome scatters her blessings over their corpses, of which > thousands float yearly down the sacred rivers to the ocean.[1042] So > servile are the Catholics in their imitation, and so careful not to > give offense to their parishioners, that if they happen to have a few > higher caste converts in a Church, no pariah nor any man of the lower > castes, however good a Christian he may be, can be admitted into the > same Church with them. And yet they dare call themselves the servants > of Him who sought in preference the society of the publicans and > sinners; and whose appeal--“Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, > and I will give you rest” has opened to him the hearts of millions of > the suffering and the oppressed! > > Few writers are as bold and outspoken as the late lamented Dr. Thomas > Inman, of Liverpool, England. But however small their number, these > men all agree unanimously, that the philosophy of both Buddhism > and Brahmanism must rank higher than Christian theology, and teach > neither atheism or fetishism. “To my own mind,” says Inman, “the > assertion that Sakya did not believe in God is wholly unsupported. > Nay, his whole scheme is built upon the belief that there are powers > above which are capable of punishing mankind for their sins. It is > true that these gods were not called Elohim, nor Jah, nor Jehovah, > nor Jahveh, nor Adonai, nor Ehieh, nor Baalim, nor Ashtoreth--yet, > for the son of Suddhadana, there was a Supreme Being.”[1043] > > There are four schools of Buddhist theology, in Ceylon, Thibet, and > India. One is rather pantheistical than atheistical, but the other > three are purely _theistical_. > > On the first the speculations of our philologists are based. As to > the second, third, and the fourth, their teachings vary but in the > external mode of expression. We have fully explained the spirit of it > elsewhere. > > As to practical, not theoretical views on the Nirvana, this is what > a rationalist and a skeptic says: “I have questioned at the very > doors of their temples several hundreds of Buddhists, and have not > found one but strove, fasted, and gave himself up to every kind of > austerity, to perfect himself and acquire immortality; not to attain > final annihilation. > > “There are over 300,000,000 of Buddhists who fast, pray, and toil.... > Why make of these 300,000,000 of men idiots and fools, macerating > their bodies and imposing upon themselves most fearful privations > of every nature, in order to reach a fatal annihilation which must > overtake them anyhow?”[1044] > > As well as this author we have questioned Buddhists and Brahmanists > and studied their philosophy. _Apavarg_ has wholly a different > meaning from annihilation. It is but to become more and more > like Him, of whom he is one of the refulgent sparks, that is the > aspiration of every Hindu philosopher and the hope of the most > ignorant is _never to yield up his distinct individuality_. “Else,” > as once remarked an esteemed correspondent of the author, “mundane > and separate existence would look like God’s comedy and our tragedy; > sport to Him that we work and suffer, death to us to suffer it.” > > The same with the doctrine of metempsychosis, so distorted by > European scholars. But as the work of translation and analysis > progresses, fresh religious beauties will be discovered in the old > faiths. > > Professor Whitney has in his translation of the _Vedas_ passages in > which he says, the assumed importance of the body to its old tenant > is brought out in the strongest light. These are portions of hymns > read at the funeral services, over the body of the departed one. We > quote them from Mr. Whitney’s scholarly work: > > “Start onward! bring together all thy members; > let not thy limbs be left, nor yet thy body; > Thy spirit gone before, now follow after; > Wherever it delights thee, go thou thither.” > * * * * * > Collect thy body; with its every member; > thy limbs with help of rites I fashion for thee. > * * * * * > If some one limb was left behind by Agni, > When to thy Fathers’ world he hence conveyed you, > That very one I now again supply you; > rejoice in heaven with all your limbs, ye Fathers![1045] > > The “body” here referred to is not the physical, but the _astral_ > one--a very great distinction, as may be seen. > > Again, belief in the individual existence of the immortal spirit > of man is shown in the following verses of the Hindu ceremonial of > incremation and burial. > > “They who within the sphere of earth are stationed, > or who are settled now in realms of pleasure, > The Fathers who have the earth--the atmosphere--the heaven for > their seat, > The “fore-heaven” the third heaven is styled, > and where the Fathers have their seat.”--(_Rig-Veda_, x.) > > With such majestic views as these people held of God and the > immortality of man’s spirit, it is not surprising that a comparison > between the Vedic hymns and the narrow, unspiritual Mosaic books > should result to the advantage of the former in the mind of every > unprejudiced scholar. Even the ethical code of _Manu_ is incomparably > higher than that of the _Pentateuch_ of Moses, in the literal meaning > of which all the uninitiated scholars of two worlds cannot find a > single proof that the ancient Jews believed either in a future life > or an immortal spirit in man, or that Moses himself ever taught it. > Yet, we have eminent Orientalists who begin to suspect that the “dead > letter” conceals something not apparent at first sight. So Professor > Whitney tells us that “as we look yet further into the forms of > the modern Hindu ceremonial we discover not a little of the same > discordance between creed and observance; the one is not explained by > the other,” says this great American scholar. He adds: “We are forced > to the conclusion either that India derived its system of rites from > some foreign source, and practiced them blindly, careless of their > true import, or _else that those rites are the production of another > doctrine of older date_, and have maintained themselves in popular > usage after the decay of the creed of which they were the original > expression.”[1046] > > This creed has not decayed, and its hidden philosophy, as understood > now by the initiated Hindus, is just as it was 10,000 years ago. But > can our scholars seriously hope to have it delivered unto them upon > their first demand? Or do they still expect to fathom the mysteries > of the World-Religion in its popular exoteric rites? > > No orthodox Brahmans and Buddhists would deny the Christian > incarnation; only, they understand it in their own philosophical > way, and how could they deny it? The very corner-stone of their > religious system is periodical incarnations of the Deity. Whenever > humanity is about merging into materialism and moral degradation, a > Supreme Spirit incarnates himself in his creature selected for the > purpose. The “Messenger of the Highest” links itself with the duality > of matter and soul, and the triad being thus completed by the union > of its Crown, a saviour is born, who helps restore humanity to the > path of truth and virtue. The early Christian Church, all imbued > with Asiatic philosophy, evidently shared the same belief--otherwise > _it would have neither erected into an article of faith the second > advent, nor cunningly invented the fable of Anti-Christ as a > precaution against possible future incarnations_. Neither could they > have imagined that Melchisedek was an avatar of Christ. They had only > to turn to the _Bagavedgitta_ to find Christna or Bhagaved saying to > Arjuna: “He who follows me is saved by wisdom and even by works.... > _As often as virtue declines in the world, I make myself manifest to > save it._” > > Indeed, it is more than difficult to avoid sharing this doctrine > of periodical incarnations. Has not the world witnessed, at rare > intervals, the advent of such grand characters as Christna, > Sakya-muni, and Jesus? Like the two latter personages, Christna > seems to have been a real being, deified by his school at some > time in the twilight of history, and made to fit into the frame of > the time-honored religious programme. Compare the two Redeemers, > the Hindu and the Christian, the one preceding the other by some > thousands of years; place between them Siddhârtha Buddha, reflecting > Christna and projecting into the night of the future his own luminous > shadow, out of whose collected rays were shaped the outlines of the > mythical Jesus, and from whose teachings were drawn those of the > historical Christos; and we find that under one identical garment > of poetical legend lived and breathed three real human figures. The > individual merit of each of them is rather brought out in stronger > relief than otherwise by this same mythical coloring; for no unworthy > character could have been selected for deification by the popular > instinct, so unerring and just when left untrammeled. _Vox populi, > vox Dei_ was once true, however erroneous when applied to the present > priest-ridden mob. > > Kapila, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, Basilides, Marcian, Ammonius > and Plotinus, founded schools and sowed the germs of many a noble > thought, and disappearing left behind them the refulgence of > demi-gods. But the three personalities of Christna, Gautama, and > Jesus appeared like true gods, each in his epoch, and bequeathed to > humanity three religions built on the imperishable rock of ages. > That all three, especially the Christian faith, have in time become > adulterated, and the latter almost unrecognizable, is no fault > of either of the noble Reformers. It is the priestly self-styled > husbandmen of the “vine of the Lord” who must be held to account by > future generations. Purify the three systems of the dross of human > dogmas, the pure essence remaining will be found identical. Even > Paul, the great, the honest apostle, in the glow of his enthusiasm > either unwittingly perverted the doctrines of Jesus, or else his > writings are disfigured beyond recognition. The _Talmud_, the record > of a people who, notwithstanding his apostasy from Judaism, yet > feel compelled to acknowledge Paul’s greatness as a philosopher and > religionist, says of Aher (Paul),[1047] in the _Yerushalmi_, that > “he corrupted the work of that man”--meaning Jesus.[1048] > > Meanwhile, before this smelting is completed by honest science and > future generations, let us glance at the present aspect of the > legendary three religions. > > THE LEGENDS OF THREE SAVIOURS. > > CHRISTNA. > > _Epoch_: Uncertain. European science fears to commit itself. > But the Brahmanical calculations fix it at about 6,877 > years ago. > > Christna descends of a royal family, but is brought up by > shepherds; is called the _Shepherd God_. His birth and > divine descent are kept secret from Kansa. > > An incarnation of Vishnu, the second person of the Trimurti > (Trinity), Christna was worshipped at Mathura, on the > river Jumna (See _Strabo_ and _Arrian_ and _Bampton > Lectures_, pp. 98-100. > > Christna is persecuted by Kansa, Tyrant of Madura, but > miraculously escapes. In the hope of destroying the child, > the king has thousands of male innocents slaughtered. > > Christna’s mother was Devaki, or Devanagui, an immaculate > virgin (but had given birth to eight sons before Christna). > > Christna is endowed with beauty, omniscience, and > omnipotence from birth. Produces miracles, cures the lame > and blind, and casts out demons. Washes the feet of the > Brahmans, and descending to the lowest regions (hell), > liberates the dead, and returns to _Vaicontha_--the > paradise of Vishnu. Christna was the God Vishnu himself in > human form. > > Christna creates boys out of calves, and _vice versa_ > (Maurice’s _Indian Antiquities_, vol. ii., p. 332). He > crushes the Serpent’s head. (Ibid.) > > Christna is Unitarian. He persecutes the clergy, charges > them with ambition and hypocrisy to their faces, divulges > the great secrets of the Sanctuary--the Unity of God and > immortality of our spirit. Tradition says he fell a victim > to their vengeance. His favorite disciple, Arjuna, never > deserts him to the last. There are credible traditions > that he died on the cross (a tree), nailed to it by an > arrow. The best scholars agree that the Irish Cross at > Tuam, erected long before the Christian era, is Asiatic. > (See _Round Towers_, p. 296, _et seq._, by O’Brien; also > _Religions de l’Antiquité_; Creuzer’s _Symbolik_, vol. i., > p. 208; and engraving in Dr. Lundy’s _Monumental > Christianity_, p. 160. > > Christna ascends to Swarga and becomes Nirguna. > > GAUTAMA-BUDDHA. > > _Epoch_: According to European science and the Ceylonese > calculations, 2,540 years ago. > > Gautama is the son of a king. His first disciples are > shepherds and mendicants. > > According to some, an incarnation of Vishnu; according to > others, an incarnation of one of the Buddhas, and even of > Ad’Buddha, the Highest Wisdom. > > Buddhist legends are free from this plagiarism, but the > Catholic legend that makes of him St. Josaphat, shows his > father, king of Kapilavastu, slaying innocent young > _Christians (!!)_. (See _Golden Legend_.) > > Buddha’s mother was Maya, or Mayadeva; married to her > husband (yet an immaculate virgin). > > Buddha is endowed with the same powers and qualities, and > performs similar wonders. Passes his life with mendicants. > It is claimed for Gautama that he was distinct from all > other Avatars, having the entire spirit of Buddha in him, > while all others had but a part (ansa) of the divinity in > them. > > Gautama crushes the Serpent’s head, _i.e._, abolishes the > Naga worship as fetishism; but, like Jesus, makes the > Serpent the emblem of divine wisdom. > > Buddha abolishes idolatry; divulges the Mysteries of the > Unity of God and the Nirvana, the true meaning of which > was previously known only to the priests. Persecuted and > driven out of the country, he escapes death by gathering > about him some hundreds of thousands of believers in his > Buddhaship. Finally, dies, surrounded by a host of > disciples, with Ananda, his beloved disciple and cousin, > chief among them all. O’Brien believes that the Irish > Cross at Tuam is meant for Buddha’s, but Gautama was never > crucified. He is represented in many temples, as sitting > under a cruciform tree, which is the “Tree of Life.” In > another image he is sitting on Naga the Raja of Serpents > with a cross on his breast.[1049] > > Buddha ascends to Nirvana. > > JESUS OF NAZARETH. > > _Epoch_: Supposed to be 1877 years ago. His birth and royal > descent are concealed from Herod the tyrant. > > Descends of the Royal family of David. Is worshipped by > shepherds at his birth, and is called the “Good Shepherd”. > (See _Gospel according to John_). > > An incarnation of the Holy Ghost, then the second person of > the Trinity, now the third. But the Trinity was not invented > until 325 years after his birth. Went to Mathura or Matarea, > Egypt, and produced his first miracles there. (See _Gospel > of Infancy_). > > Jesus is persecuted by Herod, King of Judæa, but escapes > into Egypt under conduct of an angel. To assure his > slaughter, Herod orders a massacre of innocents, and 40,000 > were slain. > > Jesus’ mother was Mariam, or Miriam; married to her husband, > yet an immaculate virgin, but had several children besides > Jesus. (See _Matthew_ xiii. 55, 56.) > > Jesus is similarly endowed. (See _Gospels and the Apocryphal > Testament_.) Passes his life with sinners and publicans. > Casts out demons likewise. The only notable difference > between the three is that Jesus is charged with casting out > devils by the power of Beelzebub, which the others were not. > Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, dies, descends to > hell, and ascends to heaven, after liberating the dead. > > Jesus is said to have crushed the Serpent’s head, agreeably > to original revelation in _Genesis_. He also transforms boys > into kids, and kids into boys. (_Gospel of Infancy_.) > > Jesus rebels against the old Jewish law; denounces the > Scribes, and Pharisees, and the synagogue for hypocrisy and > dogmatic intolerance. Breaks the Sabbath, and defies the > Law. Is accused by the Jews of divulging the secrets of the > Sanctuary. Is put to death on a cross (a tree). Of the > little handful of disciples whom he had converted, one > betrays him, one denies him, and the others desert him at > the last, except John--the disciple _he loved_. Jesus, > Christna, and Buddha, all three Saviours, die either on or > under _trees_, and are connected with crosses which are > symbolical of the three-fold powers of creation. > > Jesus ascends to Paradise. > > RESULT. > > About the middle of the present century, the followers of these three > religions were reckoned as follows:[1050] > > OF CHRISTNA. > Brahmans, 60,000,000. > > OF BUDDHA. > Buddhists, 450,000,000. > > OF JESUS. > Christians, 260,000,000. > > Such is the present aspect of these three great religions, of which > each is in turn reflected in its successor. Had the Christian > dogmatizers stopped there, the results would not have been so > disastrous, for it would be hard, indeed, to make a bad creed out of > the lofty teachings of Gautama, or Christna, as _Bhagaved_. But they > went farther, and added to pure primitive Christianity the fables of > Hercules, Orpheus, and Bacchus. As Mussulmans will not admit that > their _Koran_ is built on the substratum of the Jewish _Bible_, so > the Christians will not confess that they owe next to everything > to the Hindu religions. But the Hindus have chronology to prove it > to them. We see the best and most learned of our writers uselessly > striving to show that the extraordinary similarities--amounting > to identity--between Christna and Christ are due to the spurious > _Gospels of the Infancy_ and of _St. Thomas_ having “probably > circulated on the coast of Malabar, and giving color to the story > of Christna.”[1051] Why not accept truth in all sincerity, and > reversing matters, admit that St. Thomas, faithful to that policy of > proselytism which marked the earliest Christians, when he found in > Malabar the original of the mythical Christ in Christna, tried to > blend the two; and, adopting in his gospel (from which all others > were copied) the most important details of the story of the Hindu > Avatar, engrafted the Christian heresy on the primitive religion of > Christna. For any one acquainted with the spirit of Brahmanism, the > idea of Brahmans accepting anything from a stranger, especially from > a foreigner, is simply ridiculous. That they, the most fanatic people > in religious matters, who, during centuries, cannot be compelled to > adopt the most simple of European usages, should be suspected of > having introduced into their sacred books unverified legends about > a foreign God, is something so preposterously illogical, that it is > really waste of time to contradict the idea! > > We will not stop to examine the too well-known resemblances between > the external form of Buddhistic worship--especially Lamaism--and > Roman Catholicism, for noticing which poor Huc paid dear--but proceed > to compare the most vital points. Of all the original manuscripts > that have been translated from the various languages in which > Buddhism is expounded, the most extraordinary and interesting are > _Buddha’s Dhammapada_, or _Path of Virtue_, translated from the Pâli > by Colonel Rogers,[1052] and the _Wheel of the Law_, containing the > views of a Siamese Minister of State on his own and other religions, > and translated by Henry Alabaster.[1053] The reading of these two > books, and the discovery in them of similarities of thought and > doctrine often amounting to identity, prompted Dr. Inman to write > the many profoundly true passages embodied in one of his last works, > _Ancient Faith and Modern_.[1054] “I speak with sober earnestness,” > writes this kind-hearted, sincere scholar, “when I say that after > forty years’ experience among those who profess Christianity, and > those who proclaim ... more or less quietly their disagreement with > it, I have noticed more sterling virtue and morality amongst the > last than the first.... I know personally many pious, good Christian > people, whom I honor, admire, and, perhaps, would be glad to emulate > or to equal; but they deserve the eulogy thus passed on them, in > consequence of their good sense, having ignored the doctrine of > faith to a great degree, and having cultivated the practice of good > works.... In my judgment the most praiseworthy Christians whom I know > are _modified Buddhists_, though probably, not one of them ever heard > of Siddârtha.”[1055] > > Between the Lamaico-Buddhistic and Roman Catholic articles of faith > and ceremonies, there are fifty-one points presenting a perfect and > striking similarity; and four diametrically antagonistic. > > As it would be useless to enumerate the “similarities,” for the > reader may find them carefully noted in Inman’s work on _Ancient > Faith and Modern_, pp. 237-240, we will quote but the four > dissimilarities, and leave every one to draw his own deductions > therefrom: > > 1. “The Buddhists hold that 1. “The Christians will > nothing which is contradicted accept any nonsense, if > by sound reason can be a promulgated by the Church as > true doctrine of Buddha.” a matter of faith.”[1056] > > 2. “The Buddhists do not 2. “The Romanists adore the > adore the mother of Sakya,” mother of Jesus, and prayer > though they honor her as a is made to her for aid and > holy and saint-like woman, intercession.” The worship > chosen to be his mother of the Virgin has weakened > through her great virtue. that of Christ and thrown > entirely into the shadow > that of the Almighty. > > 3. “The Buddhists have no 3. “The papal followers have > sacraments.” seven.” > > 4. The Buddhists do not 4. The Christians are > believe in any pardon for promised that if they only > their sins, except after an believe in the “precious > adequate punishment for each blood of Christ,” this blood > evil deed, and a offered by Him for the > proportionate compensation expiation of the sins of the > to the parties injured. whole of mankind (read > Christians) will atone for > every mortal sin. > > Which of these theologies most commends itself to the sincere > inquirer, is a question that may safely be left to the sound judgment > of the reader. One offers light, the other darkness. > > The _Wheel of the Law_ has the following: > > “Buddhists believe that every act, word, or thought has its > consequence, which will appear sooner or later in the present or in > the future state. Evil acts will produce evil consequences,[1057] > good acts will produce good consequences: prosperity in this world, > or birth in heaven ... in some future state.”[1058] > > This is strict and impartial justice. This is the idea of a Supreme > Power which cannot fail, and therefore, can have neither wrath nor > mercy, but leaves every cause, great or small, to work out its > inevitable effects. “With what measure you mete, it shall be measured > to you again”[1059] neither by expression nor implication points to > any hope of future mercy or salvation by proxy. Cruelty and mercy > are finite feelings. The Supreme Deity is infinite, hence it can > only be JUST, and Justice must be blind. The ancient Pagans held on > this question far more philosophical views than modern Christians, > for they represented their Themis blindfold. And the Siamese author > of the work under notice, has again a more reverent conception of > the Deity than the Christians have, when he thus gives vent to his > thought: “A Buddhist might believe in the existence of a God, sublime > above all human qualities and attributes--a perfect God, above > love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quiet happiness > that nothing could disturb; and of such a God he would speak no > disparagement, not from a desire to please Him, or fear to offend > Him, but from natural veneration. But he cannot understand a God with > the attributes and qualities of men, a God who loves and hates, and > shows anger; a Deity, who, whether described to him by Christian > missionaries, or by Mahometans, or Brahmans, or Jews, falls below his > standard of even an ordinary good man.”[1060] > > We have often wondered at the extraordinary ideas of God and His > justice that seem to be honestly held by those Christians who blindly > rely upon the clergy for their religion, and never upon their own > reason. How strangely illogical is this doctrine of the Atonement. > We propose to discuss it with the Christians from the Buddhistic > stand-point, and show at once by what a series of sophistries, > directed toward the one object of tightening the ecclesiastical yoke > upon the popular neck, its acceptance as a divine command has been > finally effected; also, that it has proved one of the most pernicious > and demoralizing of doctrines. > > The clergy say: no matter how enormous our crimes against the laws > of God and of man, we have but to believe in the self-sacrifice of > Jesus for the salvation of mankind, and His blood will wash out every > stain. God’s mercy is boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible > to conceive of a human sin so damnable that the price paid in > advance for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe it out if a > thousandfold worse. And, furthermore, it is never too late to repent. > Though the offender wait until the last minute of the last hour of > the last day of his mortal life, before his blanched lips utter the > confession of faith, he may go to Paradise; the dying thief did it, > and so may all others as vile. These are the assumptions of the > Church. > > But if we step outside the little circle of creed and consider > the universe as a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment of > parts, how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering sense of > Justice revolts against this Vicarious Atonement! If the criminal > sinned only against himself, and wronged no one but himself; if by > sincere repentance he could cause the obliteration of past events, > not only from the memory of man, but also from that imperishable > record, which no deity--not even the Supremest of the Supreme--can > cause to disappear, then this dogma might not be incomprehensible. > But to maintain that one may wrong his fellow-man, kill, disturb > the equilibrium of society, and the natural order of things, and > then--through cowardice, hope, or compulsion, matters not--be > forgiven by believing that the spilling of one blood washes out the > other blood spilt--this is preposterous! Can the _results_ of a crime > be obliterated even though the crime itself should be pardoned? > The effects of a cause are never limited to the boundaries of the > cause, nor can the results of crime be confined to the offender > and his victim. Every good as well as evil action has its effects, > as palpably as the stone flung into a calm water. The simile is > trite, but it is the best ever conceived, so let us use it. The > eddying circles are greater and swifter, as the disturbing object > is greater or smaller, but the smallest pebble, nay, the tiniest > speck, makes its ripples. And this disturbance is not alone visible > and on the surface. Below, unseen, in every direction--outward and > downward--drop pushes drop until the sides and bottom are touched > by the force. More, the air above the water is agitated, and this > disturbance passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum to > stratum out into space forever and ever; an impulse has been given to > matter, and that is never lost, can never be recalled!... > > So with crime, and so with its opposite. The action may be > instantaneous, the effects are eternal. When, after the stone is once > flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand, roll back the > ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore the etheric waves to > their previous state of non-being, and wipe out every trace of the > act of throwing the missile, so that Time’s record shall not show > that it ever happened, then, _then_ we may patiently hear Christians > argue for the efficacy of this Atonement. > > The Chicago _Times_ recently printed the hangman’s record of the > first half of the present year (1877)--a long and ghastly record of > murders and hangings. Nearly every one of these murderers received > religious consolation, and many announced that they had received > God’s forgiveness through the blood of Jesus, and were going that > day to Heaven! _Their conversion was effected in prison._ See how > this ledger-balance of Christian Justice (!) stands: These red-handed > murderers, urged on by the demons of lust, revenge, cupidity, > fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst for blood, slew their victims, in > most cases, without giving them time to repent, or call on Jesus to > wash them clean with his blood. They, perhaps, died sinful, and, of > course,--consistently with theological logic--met the reward of their > greater or lesser offenses. But the murderer, overtaken by human > justice, is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed with > and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes to the > scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus! Except for the murder, he would > not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned. Clearly this man did > well to murder, for thus he gained eternal happiness? And how about > the victim, and his or her family, relatives, dependants, social > relations--has Justice no recompense for them? Must they suffer in > this world and the next, while he who wronged them sits beside the > “holy thief” of Calvary and is forever blessed? On this question the > clergy keep a prudent silence. > > Steve Anderson was one of these American criminals--convicted of > double murder, arson, and robbery. Before the hour of his death > he was “converted,” but, the record tells us that “_his clerical > attendants objected to his reprieve, on the ground that they felt > sure of his salvation should he die then, but could not answer for > it if his execution was postponed_.” We address these ministers, > and ask them to tell us on what grounds they felt sure of such a > monstrous thing. How they could feel _sure_, with the dark future > before them, and the endless results of this double murder, arson, > and robbery? They could be sure of nothing, but that their abominable > doctrine is the cause of three-fourths of the crimes of so-called > Christians; that these terrific causes must produce like monstrous > effects, which in their turn will beget other results, and so roll on > throughout eternity to an accomplishment that no man can calculate. > > Or take another crime, one of the most selfish, cruel, and heartless, > and yet the most frequent, the seduction of a young girl. Society, by > an instinct of self-preservation, pitilessly judges the victim, and > ostracizes her. She may be driven to infanticide, or self-murder, or > if too averse to die, live to plunge into a career of vice and crime. > She may become the mother of criminals, who, as in the now celebrated > Jukes, of whose appalling details Mr. Dugdale has published the > particulars, breed other generations of felons to the number of > hundreds, in fifty or sixty years. All this social disaster came > through one man’s selfish passion; shall he be forgiven by Divine > Justice until his offense is expiated, and punishment fall only upon > the wretched human scorpions begotten of his lust? > > An outcry has just been made in England over the discovery that > Anglican priests are largely introducing auricular confession and > granting absolution after enforcing penances. Inquiry shows the > same thing prevailing more or less in the United States. Put to the > ordeal of cross-examination, the clergy quote triumphantly from the > English _Book of Common Prayer_ the rubrics which clearly give them > the absolving authority, through the power of “God, the Holy Ghost,” > committed unto them by the bishop by imposition of hands at their > ordination. The bishop, questioned, points to _Matthew_ xvi., 19, for > the source of his authority to bind and loose on earth those who are > to be blessed or damned in heaven; and to the apostolic succession > for proof of its transmission from Simon Barjona to himself. The > present volumes have been written to small purpose if they have > not shown, 1, that Jesus, the Christ-God, is a myth concocted two > centuries after the real Hebrew Jesus died; 2, that, therefore, he > never had any authority to give Peter, or any one else, plenary > power; 3, that even if he had given such authority, the word Petra > (rock) referred to the revealed truths of the Petroma, not to him who > thrice denied him; and that besides, the apostolic succession is a > gross and palpable fraud; 4, that the _Gospel according to Matthew_ > is a fabrication based upon a wholly different manuscript. The whole > thing, therefore, is an imposition alike upon priest and penitent. > But putting all these points aside for the moment, it suffices to ask > these pretended agents of the three gods of the Trinity, how they > reconcile it with the most rudimental notions of equity, that if the > power to pardon sinners for sinning has been given them, _they did > not also receive the ability by miracle to obliterate the wrongs done > against person or property_. Let them restore life to the murdered; > honor to the dishonored; property to those who have been wronged, > and force the scales of human and divine justice to recover their > equilibrium. Then we may talk of their divine commission to bind and > loose. Let them say, if they can do this. Hitherto the world has > received nothing but sophistry--believed on _blind_ faith; we ask > palpable, tangible evidence of their God’s justice and mercy. But all > are silent; no answer, no reply, and still the inexorable unerring > Law of Compensation proceeds on its unswerving path. If we but > watch its progress, we will find that it ignores all creeds, shows > no preferences, but its sunlight and its thunderbolts fall alike > on heathen and Christian. No absolution can shield the latter when > guilty, no anathema hurt the former when innocent. > > Away from us such an insulting conception of divine justice as > that preached by priests on their own authority. It is fit only > for cowards and criminals! If they are backed by a whole array of > Fathers and Churchmen, we are supported by the greatest of all > authorities, an instinctive and reverential sense of the everlasting > and everpresent law of harmony and justice. > > But, besides that of reason, we have other evidence to show that such > a construction is wholly unwarranted. The _Gospels_ being “Divine > revelation,” doubtless Christians will regard their testimony as > conclusive. Do they affirm that Jesus gave himself as a voluntary > sacrifice? On the contrary, there is not a word to sustain the idea. > They make it clear that he would rather have lived to continue > what he considered his mission, and that _he died because he could > not help it, and only when betrayed_. Before, when threatened with > violence, _he had made himself invisible_ by employing the mesmeric > power over the bystanders, claimed by every Eastern adept, and > escaped. When, finally, he saw that his time had come, he succumbed > to the inevitable. But see him in the garden, on the Mount of Olives, > writhing in agony until “his sweat was, as it were, great drops > of blood,” praying with fervid supplication that the cup might be > removed from him; exhausted by his struggle to such a degree that > an angel from heaven had to come and strengthen him; and say if the > picture is that of a self-immolating hostage and martyr. To crown > all, and leave no lingering doubt in our minds, we have his own > despairing words, “NOT MY WILL, _but thine_, be done!” (_Luke_ xxii. > 42, 43.) > > Again, in the _Puranas_ it may be found that Christna was nailed > to a tree by the arrow of a hunter, who, begging the dying god to > forgive him, receives the following answer: “Go, hunter, through > my favor, to Heaven, the abode of the gods.... Then the illustrious > Christna, having united himself with his own pure, spiritual, > inexhaustible, inconceivable, unborn, undecaying, imperishable, and > universal Spirit, which is one with Vasudeva, abandoned his mortal > body, and ... he became Nirguna” (Wilson’s _Vishnu Purana_, p. 612). > Is not this the original of the story of Christ forgiving the thief > on the cross, and promising him a place in Heaven? Such examples > “challenge inquiry as to their origin and meaning _so long anterior > to Christianity_,” says Dr. Lundy in _Monumental Christianity_, and > yet to all this he adds: “The idea of Krishna as a shepherd, I take > to be older than either (the _Gospel of Infancy_ and that of _St. > John_), _and prophetic of Christ_” (p. 156). > > Facts like these, perchance, furnished later a plausible pretext > for declaring apocryphal all such works as the _Homilies_, which > proved but too clearly the utter want of any early authority for > the doctrine of atonement. The _Homilies_ clash but little with the > _Gospels_; they disagree entirely with the dogmas of the Church. > Peter knew nothing of the atonement; and his reverence for the > mythical father Adam would never have allowed him to admit that this > patriarch had sinned and was accursed. Neither do the Alexandrian > theological schools appear to have been cognizant of this doctrine, > nor Tertullian; nor was it discussed by any of the earlier Fathers. > Philo represents the story of the _Fall_ as symbolical, and Origen > regarded it the same way as Paul, as an allegory.[1061] > > Whether they will or not, the Christians have to credit the foolish > story of Eve’s temptation by a serpent. Besides, Augustine has > formally pronounced upon the subject. “God, by His arbitrary will,” > he says, “has selected beforehand certain persons, _without regard > to foreseen faith or good actions, and has irretrievably ordained > to bestow upon them eternal happiness; while He has condemned > others in the same way to eternal reprobation_!!” (_De dono > perseverantiæ_).[1062] > > Calvin promulgated views of Divine partiality and bloodthirstiness > equally abhorrent. “The human race, corrupted radically in the fall > with Adam, has upon it the guilt and impotence of original sin; > its redemption can be achieved only through an incarnation and a > propitiation; of this redemption only electing grace can make the > soul a participant, and such grace, once given, is never lost; _this > election can come only from God, and it includes only a part of the > race, the rest being left to perdition_; election and perdition (the > _horribile decretum_) are both predestinated in the Divine plan; that > plan is a decree, and this decree is eternal and unchangeable ... > justification is by _faith alone_, and _faith is the gift of God_.” > > O Divine Justice, how blasphemed has been thy name! Unfortunately for > all such speculations, belief in the propitiatory efficacy of blood > can be traced to the oldest rites. Hardly a nation remained ignorant > of it. Every people offered animal and even human sacrifices to the > gods, in the hope of averting thereby public calamity, by pacifying > the wrath of some avenging deity. There are instances of Greek and > Roman generals offering their lives simply for the success of their > army. Cæsar complains of it, and calls it a superstition of the > Gauls. “They devote themselves to death ... believing that unless > life is rendered for life the immortal gods cannot be appeased,” > he writes. “If any evil is about to befall either those who now > sacrifice, or Egypt, may it be averted on this head,” was pronounced > by the Egyptian priests when sacrificing one of their sacred animals. > And imprecations were uttered over the head of the expiatory victim, > around whose horns a piece of byblus was rolled.[1064] The animal > was generally led to some barren region, sacred to Typhon, in those > primitive ages when this fatal deity was yet held in a certain > consideration by the Egyptians. It is in this custom that lies the > origin of the “scape-goat” of the Jews, who, when the rufous ass-god > was rejected by the Egyptians, began sacrificing to another deity the > “red heifer.” > > “Let all sins that have been committed in this world fall on me that > the world may be delivered,” exclaimed Gautama, the Hindu Saviour, > centuries before our era. > > No one will pretend to assert in our own age that it was the > Egyptians who borrowed anything from the Israelites, as they now > accuse the Hindus of doing. Bunsen, Lepsius, Champollion, have long > since established the precedence of Egypt over the Israelites in age > as well as in all the religious rites that we now recognize among the > “chosen people.” Even the _New Testament_ teems with quotations and > repetitions from the _Book of the Dead_, and Jesus, if everything > attributed to him by his four biographers is true--must have been > acquainted with the Egyptian Funereal Hymns.[1065] In the Gospel > according to _Matthew_ we find whole sentences from the ancient and > sacred _Ritual_ which preceded our era by more than 4,000 years. We > will again compare.[1066] > > The “soul” under trial is brought before Osiris, the “Lord of Truth,” > who sits decorated with the Egyptian cross, emblem of eternal life, > and holding in his right hand the _Vannus_ or the flagellum of > justice.[1067] The spirit begins, in the “Hall of the Two Truths,” > an earnest appeal, and enumerates its good deeds, supported by the > responses of the forty-two assessors--_its incarnated deeds and > accusers_. If justified, it is addressed as Osiris, thus assuming the > appellation of the Deity whence its divine essence proceeded, and the > following words, full of majesty and justice, are pronounced! “Let > the _Osiris_ go; ye see he is without fault.... He lived on truth, he > has fed on truth.... _The god has welcomed him_ as he desired. _He > has given food to my hungry, drink to my thirsty ones, clothes to my > naked_.... He has made the sacred food of the gods the meat of the > spirits.” > > In the parable of _the Kingdom of Heaven_ (_Matthew_ xxv.), the _Son > of Man_ (Osiris is also called the Son) sits upon the throne of his > glory, judging the nations, and says to the justified, “Come ye > blessed of my Father (_the_ God) inherit the kingdom.... For _I was > an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink_ > ... _naked and ye clothed me_.”[1068] To complete the resemblance > (_Matthew_ iii. 12): John is made to describe Christ as Osiris, > “whose _fan_ (winnow or _vannus_) is in his hand, and who will “purge > his floor and gather his wheat into the garner.” > > The same in relation to Buddhist legends. In _Matthew_ iv. 19, Jesus > is made to say: “Follow me and I will make you _fishers_ of men,” > the whole adapted to a conversation between him and Simon Peter and > Andrew his brother. > > In Schmidt’s “_Der Weise und der Thor_,[1069] a work full of > anecdotes about Buddha and his disciples, the whole from original > texts, it is said of a new convert to the faith, that “he had been > caught by the hook of the doctrine, just as a fish, who has caught > at the bait and line is securely pulled out.” In the temples of Siam > the image of the expected Buddha, the Messiah Maitree, is represented > with a fisherman’s net in the hand, while in Thibet he holds a kind > of a trap. The explanation of it reads as follows: “He (Buddha) > disseminates upon the Ocean of birth and decay the Lotus-flower of > the excellent law as _a bait_; with the loop of devotion, never > cast out in vain, he brings living beings up like fishes, and > carries them to the other side of the river, where there is true > understanding.”[1070] > > Had the erudite Archbishop Cave, Grabe, and Dr. Parker, who so > zealously contended in their time for the admission of the _Epistles > of Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa_, into the Canon of > the _Scripture_, lived in our days of Max Müller and Sanscrit > scholarship, we doubt whether they would have acted as they did. > The first mention of these Epistles ever made, was by the famous > Eusebius. This pious bishop seems to have been self-appointed to > furnish Christianity with the most unexpected proofs to corroborate > its wildest fancies. Whether among the many accomplishments of the > Bishop of Cæsarea, we must include a knowledge of the Cingalese, > Pehlevi, Thibetan, and other languages, we know not; but he surely > transcribed the letters of Jesus and Abgarus, and the story of the > miraculous portrait of Christ taken on a piece of cloth, by the > simple wiping of his face, from the Buddhistical Canon. To be sure, > the bishop declared that he found the letter himself written in > Syriac, preserved among the registers and records of the city of > Edessa, where Abgarus reigned.[1071] We recall the words of Babrias: > “Myth, O son of King Alexander, is an ancient human invention of > Syrians, who lived in old time under Ninus and Belus.” Edessa was > one of the ancient “holy cities.” The Arabs venerate it to this day; > and the purest Arabic is there spoken. They call it still by its > ancient name Orfa, once the city _Arpha-Kasda_ (Arphaxad) the seat of > a College of Chaldeans and Magi; whose missionary, called Orpheus, > brought thence the Bacchic Mysteries to Thrace. Very naturally, > Eusebius found there the tales which he wrought over into the story > of Abgarus, and the sacred picture taken on a cloth; as that of > Bhagavat, or the blessed Tathagâta (Buddha)[1072] was obtained by > King Binsbisara.[1073] The King having brought it, Bhagavat projected > his shadow on it.[1074] This bit of “miraculous stuff,” with its > shadow, is still preserved, say the Buddhists; “only the shadow > itself is rarely seen.” > > In like manner, the Gnostic author of _the Gospel according to > John_, copied and metamorphosed the legend of Ananda who asked drink > of a Matangha woman--the antitype of the woman met by Jesus at the > well,[1075] and was reminded by her that she belongs to a low > caste, and may have nothing to do with a holy monk. “I do not ask > thee, my sister,” answers Ananda to the woman, “either thy caste or > thy family, I only ask thee for water, if thou canst give me some.” > This Matangha woman, charmed and moved to tears, repents, joins the > monastic Order of Gautama, and becomes a saint, rescued from a life > of unchastity by Sakya-muni. Many of her subsequent actions were used > by Christian forgers, to endow Mary Magdalen and other female saints > and martyrs. > > “And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a > cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto > you, he shall in no wise lose his reward,” says the Gospel (_Matthew_ > x. 42). “Whosoever, with a purely believing heart, offers nothing but > a handful of water, or presents so much to the spiritual assembly, > or gives drink therewith to the poor and needy, or to a beast of > the field; this meritorious action will not be exhausted in many > ages,”[1076] says the Buddhist _Canon_. > > At the hour of Gautama-Buddha’s birth there were 32,000 wonders > performed. The clouds stopped immovable in the sky, the waters of > the rivers ceased to flow; the flowers ceased unbudding; the birds > remained silent and full of wonder; all nature remained suspended in > her course, and was full of expectation. “There was a preternatural > light spread all over the world; animals suspended their eating; the > blind saw; and the lame and dumb were cured,” etc.[1077] > > We now quote from the _Protevangelion_: > > “At the hour of the Nativity, as Joseph looked up into the air, ‘I > saw,’ he says, ‘_the clouds astonished_, and the fowls of the air > stopping in the midst of their flight.... And I beheld the sheep > dispersed ... and _yet the sheep stood still_; and I looked into a > river, and saw the kids _with their mouths close to the water, and > touching it, but they did not drink_. > > “_Then a bright cloud overshadowed the cave._ But on a sudden > the cloud became _a great light_ in the cave, so that their eyes > could not bear it.... The hand of Salomé, which was withered, > was straightway cured.... The blind saw; the lame and dumb were > cured.”[1078] > > When sent to school, the young Gautama, without having ever studied, > completely worsted all his competitors; not only in writing, but in > arithmetic, mathematics, metaphysics, wrestling, archery, astronomy, > geometry, and finally vanquishes his own professors by giving the > definition of sixty-four kinds of writings, which were unknown to the > masters themselves.[1079] > > And this is what is said again in the _Gospel of the Infancy_: “And > when he (Jesus) was twelve years old ... a certain principal Rabbi > asked him, ‘Hast thou read books?’ and a certain astronomer asked > the Lord Jesus whether he had studied astronomy. And Lord Jesus > explained to him ... about the spheres ... about the physics and > metaphysics. Also things that reason of man had never discovered.... > The constitutions of the body, how the soul operated upon the body, > ... etc. And at this the master was so surprised that he said: “I > believe this boy was born before Noah ... he is more learned than any > master.’”[1080] > > The precepts of Hillel, who died forty years B.C., appear rather as > quotations than original expressions in the Sermon on the Mount. > Jesus taught the world nothing that had not been taught as earnestly > before by other masters. He begins his sermon with certain purely > Buddhistic precepts that had found acceptance among the Essenes, and > were generally practiced by the _Orphikoi_, and the Neo-platonists. > There were the Philhellenes, who, like Apollonius, had devoted their > lives to moral and physical purity, and who practiced asceticism. He > tries to imbue the hearts of his audience with a scorn for worldly > wealth; a fakir-like unconcern for the morrow; love for humanity, > poverty, and chastity. He blesses the poor in spirit, the meek, the > hungering and the thirsting after righteousness, the merciful and > the peace-makers, and, Buddha-like, leaves but a poor chance for > the proud castes to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Every word > of his sermon is an echo of the essential principles of monastic > Buddhism. The ten commandments of Buddha, as found in an appendix to > the _Prâtimoksha Sûtra_ (Pali-Burman text), are elaborated to their > full extent in _Matthew_. If we desire to acquaint ourselves with the > historical Jesus we have to set the mythical Christ entirely aside, > and learn all we can of the man in the first Gospel. His doctrines, > religious views, and grandest aspirations will be found concentrated > in his sermon. > > This is the principal cause of the failure of missionaries to convert > Brahmanists and Buddhists. These see that the little of really good > that is offered in the new religion is paraded only in theory, > while their own faith demands that those identical rules shall be > applied in practice. Notwithstanding the impossibility for Christian > missionaries to understand clearly the spirit of a religion wholly > based on that doctrine of emanation which is so inimical to their > own theology, the reasoning powers of some simple Buddhistical > preachers are so high, that we see a scholar like Gutzlaff,[1081] > utterly silenced and put to great straits by Buddhists. Judson, the > famous Baptist missionary in Burmah, confesses, in his _Journal_, > the difficulties to which he was often driven by them. Speaking of > a certain Ooyan, he remarks that his strong mind was capable of > grasping the most difficult subjects. “His words,” he remarks, “are > as smooth as oil, as sweet as honey, and as sharp as razors; his mode > of reasoning is soft, insinuating, and acute; and so adroitly does > he act his part, that _I with the strength of truth_, was scarcely > able to keep him down.” It appears though, that at a later period > of his mission, Mr. Judson found that he had utterly mistaken the > doctrine. “I begin to find,” he says, “that the semi-atheism, which > I had sometimes mentioned, is nothing but a refined Buddhism, having > its foundation in the Buddhistic Scriptures.” Thus he discovered > at last that while there is in Buddhism “a generic term of most > exalted perfection actually applied to numerous individuals, a Buddha > superior to the whole host of subordinate deities,” there are also > lurking in the system “the glimmerings of an _anima mundi_ anterior > to, and even superior to, Buddha.”[1082] > > This is a happy discovery, indeed! > > Even the so-slandered Chinese believe in _One_, Highest God. “The > Supreme Ruler of Heavens.” Yuh-Hwang-Shang-ti, has his name inscribed > only on the golden tablet before the altar of heaven at the great > temple at Pekin, T’Iantan. “This worship,” says Colonel Yule, “is > mentioned by the Mahometan narrator of Shah Rukh’s embassy (A.D. > 1421): ‘Every year there are some days on which the emperor eats no > animal food.... He spends his time in an apartment which contains _no > idol_, and says that _he is worshipping the God of Heaven_.”[1083] > > Speaking of Shahrastani, the great Arabian scholar, Chwolsohn says > that for him Sabaeism was not astrolatry, as many are inclined to > think. He thought “that God is too sublime and too great to occupy > Himself with the immediate management of this world; that He has, > therefore, transferred the government thereof to the gods, and > retained only the most important affairs for Himself; that further, > man is too weak to be able to apply immediately to the Highest; > that he must, therefore, address his prayers and sacrifices to the > intermediate divinities, to whom the management of the world has > been entrusted by the Highest.” Chwolsohn argues that this idea is > as old as the world, and that “in the heathen world this view was > universally shared by the cultivated.”[1084] > > Father Boori, a Portuguese missionary, who was sent to convert the > “poor heathen” of Cochin-China, as early as the sixteenth century, > “protests in despair, in his narrative, that there is not a dress, > office, or ceremony in the Church of Rome, to which the Devil has > not here provided some counterpart. Even when the Father began > inveighing against the idols, he was answered that these were the > images of departed great men, whom they worshipped exactly on the > same principle, and in the same manner, as the Catholics did the > images of the apostles and martyrs.”[1085] Moreover, these idols > have importance but in the eyes of the ignorant multitudes. The > _philosophy_ of Buddhism ignores images and fetishes. Its strongest > vitality lies in its psychological conceptions of man’s _inner_ > self. The road to the supreme state of felicity, called the Ford > of Nirvana, winds its invisible paths through the spiritual, > not physical life of a person while on this earth. The sacred > Buddhistical literature points the way by stimulating man to follow > _practically_ the example of Gautama. Therefore, the Buddhistical > writings lay a particular stress on the spiritual privileges of man, > advising him to cultivate his powers for the production of _Meipo_ > (phenomena) during life, and for the attainment of Nirvana in the > hereafter. > > But turning again from the historical to the mythical narratives, > invented alike about Christna, Buddha, and Christ, we find the > following: > > Setting a model for the Christian avatar and the archangel Gabriel > to follow, the luminous San-tusita (Bodhisat) appeared to Maha-maya > ‘like a cloud in the moonlight, coming from the north, and in his > hand holding a white lotus.’ He announced to her the birth of her > son, and circumambulating the queen’s couch thrice ... passed away > from the dewa-loka and was conceived _in the world of men_.[1086] > The resemblance will be found still more perfect upon examining the > illustrations in mediæval psalters,[1087] and the panel-paintings > of the sixteenth century (in the Church of Jouy, for instance, in > which the Virgin is represented kneeling, with her hands uplifted > toward the Holy Ghost, and the unborn child is miraculously seen > through her body), and then finding the same subject treated in > the identical way in the sculptures in certain convents in Thibet. > In the Pali-Buddhistic annals, and other religious records, it > is stated that Maha-devi and all her attendants were constantly > gratified with the sight of the infant Bodhisatva quietly developing > within his mother’s bosom, and beaming already, from his place of > gestation, upon humanity “the resplendent moonshine of his future > benevolence.”[1088] > > Ananda, the cousin and future disciple of Sakya-muni, is represented > as having been born at the same time. He appears to have been the > original for the old legends about John the Baptist. For example, the > Pali narrative relates that Maha-maya, while pregnant with the sage, > paid a visit to his mother, as Mary did to the mother of the Baptist. > Immediately, as she entered the apartment, the unborn Ananda greeted > the unborn Buddha-Siddhârtha, who also returned the salutation; and > in like manner the babe, afterward John the Baptist, leaped in the > womb of Elizabeth when Mary came in.[1089] More even than that; for > Didron describes a scene of salutation, painted on shutters at Lyons, > between Elizabeth and Mary, in which the two unborn infants, both > pictured as outside their mothers, are also saluting each other.[1090] > > If we turn now to Christna and attentively compare the prophecies > respecting him, as collected in the Ramatsariarian traditions of the > _Atharva_, the _Vedangas_, and the Vedantas,[1091] with passages in > the _Bible_ and apocryphal Gospels, of which it is pretended that > some presage the coming of Christ, we shall find very curious facts. > Following are examples: > > FROM THE HINDU BOOKS. FROM THE CHRISTIAN BOOKS. > > 1st. “He (the Redeemer) 1st. “The people of Galilee > shall come, _crowned with of the Gentiles which sat in > lights_, the pure fluid darkness saw great light” > issuing from the great soul (_Matthew_ iv. from _Isaiah_ > ... dispersing darkness” ix. 1, 2). > (_Atharva_). > > 2d. “In the _early part_ of 2d. “Behold, a virgin shall > the Kali-Yuga shall be born conceive and bear a son” > the son of the Virgin” (_Isaiah_ vii. quoted in > (_Vedanta_). _Matthew_ i. 23). > > 3d. “The Redeemer shall 3d. “Behold, now, Jesus of > come, and the accursed Nazareth, with the > _Rakhasas_ shall fly for brightness of his glorious > refuge to the deepest hell” divinity, put to flight all > (_Atharva_). the horrid powers of > darkness” (_Nicodemus_). > > 4th. “He shall come, and 4th. “And I give unto them > life will defy death ... and eternal life, and they shall > he shall revivify the blood never perish” (_John_ x. 28). > of all beings, shall > regenerate all bodies, and > purify all souls.” > > 5th. “He shall come, and all 5th. “Rejoice greatly, O > animated beings, all the daughter of Zion! shout, O > flowers, plants, men, women, daughter of Jerusalem! > the infants, the slaves ... behold, thy King cometh unto > shall together intone the thee ... he is just ... for > chant of joy, for he is the how great is his goodness, > Lord of all creatures ... he and how great is his beauty! > is infinite, for he is Corn shall make the young > power, for he is wisdom, for men cheerful, and new wine > he is beauty, for he is all the maids” (_Zechariah_ ix.). > and in all.” > > 6th. “He shall come, more 6th. “Behold the lamb of > sweet than honey and God” (_John_ i. 36). “He was > ambrosia, more pure than brought as a lamb to the > _the lamb_ without spot” slaughter” (_Isaiah_ 53). > (Ibid.). > > 7th. “Happy the blest womb 7th. “Blessed art thou among > that shall bear him” women, and blessed is the > (Ibid.). fruit of thy womb” (_Luke_ > i.); “Blessed is the womb > that bare thee” (xi. 27). > > 8th. “And God shall manifest 8th. “God manifested forth > His glory, and make His His glory” (_John_, 1st Ep.). > power resound, and shall > reconcile Himself with His “God was in Christ, > creatures” (Ibid.). reconciling the world unto > himself” (_2 Corinth._ v.). > > 9th. “It is in the bosom of 9th. “Being an unparalleled > a woman that the ray of the instance, without any > Divine splendor will receive pollution or defilement, and > human form, and she shall a virgin shall bring forth a > bring forth, being a virgin, son, and a maid shall bring > for no impure contact shall forth the Lord” (_Gospel of > have defiled her” Mary_, iii.). > (_Vedangas_). > > Let there be exaggeration or not in attributing to the _Atharva-Veda_ > and the other books such a great antiquity, the fact remains that > _these prophecies and their realization preceded Christianity_, and > Christna preceded Christ. That is all we need care to inquire. > > One is completely overwhelmed with astonishment upon reading Dr. > Lundy’s _Monumental Christianity_. It would be difficult to say > whether an admiration for the author’s erudition, or amazement at > his serene and unparalleled sophistry is stronger. He has gathered > a world of facts which prove that the religions, far more ancient > than Christianity, of Christna, Buddha, and Osiris had anticipated > even its minutest symbols. His materials come from no forged > papyri, no interpolated Gospels, but from sculptures on the walls > of ancient temples, from monuments, inscriptions, and other archaic > relics, only mutilated by the hammers of iconoclasts, the cannon > of fanatics, and the effects of time. He shows us Christna and > Apollo as good shepherds; Christna holding the cruciform _chank_ > and the _chakra_, and Christna “crucified in space,” as he calls it > (_Monumental Christianity_, fig. 72). Of this figure--borrowed by Dr. > Lundy from Moor’s _Hindu Pantheon_--it may be truly said that it is > calculated to petrify a Christian with astonishment, for it is the > crucified Christ of Romish art to the last degree of resemblance. > Not a feature is lacking; and, the author says of it himself: “This > representation I believe to be anterior to Christianity.... It looks > like a Christian crucifix in many respects.... The drawing, the > attitude, the nail-marks in hands and feet, indicate a Christian > origin, while the Parthian coronet of seven points, the absence of > the wood, and of the usual inscription, and the rays of glory above, > would seem to point to some other than a Christian origin. Can it be > the victim-man, or the priest and victim both in one, of the Hindu > Mythology, who offered himself a sacrifice before the worlds were? > Can it be Plato’s Second God who impressed himself on the universe in > the form of the cross? Or is it his divine man who would be scourged, > tormented, fettered; have his eyes burnt out; and lastly ... _would > be crucified_?” (_Republic_, c. ii., p. 52, _Spens. Trans._). It is > all that and much more; _Archaic Religious Philosophy_ was universal. > > As it is, Dr. Lundy contradicts Moor, and maintains that this figure > is that of _Wittoba_, one of the avatars of Vishnu, hence Christna, > and _anterior to Christianity_, which is a fact not very easily to be > put down. And yet although he finds it prophetic of Christianity, he > thinks it has no relation whatever to Christ! His only reason is that > “in a Christian crucifix the glory always comes from the sacred head; > here it is from above and beyond.... The Pundit’s Wittoba then, given > to Moor, would seem to be the crucified _Krishna_, the shepherd-god > of Mathura ... a _Saviour--the Lord of the Covenant, as well as Lord > of Heaven and earth--pure and impure, light and dark, good and bad, > peaceful and war like, amiable and wrathful, mild and turbulent, > forgiving and vindictive, God and a strange mixture of man_, but not > the Christ of the Gospels.” > > Now all these qualities must pertain to Jesus as well as to Christna. > The very fact that Jesus was a man upon the mother’s side--even > though he were a _God_, implies as much. His behavior toward the > fig-tree, and his self-contradictions, in _Matthew_, where at one > time he promises peace on earth, and at another the sword, etc., are > proofs in this direction. Undoubtedly this cut was never intended to > represent Jesus of Nazareth. It was Wittoba, as Moor was told, and as > moreover the Hindu _Sacred Scriptures_ state, Brahma, the sacrificer > who is “at once both sacrificer and victim;” it is “Brahma, victim > in His Son Christna, who came to die on earth for our salvation, who > Himself accomplishes the solemn sacrifice (of the Sarvameda).” And > yet, it is the man Jesus as well as the man Christna, for both were > united to their _Chrestos_. > > Thus we have either to admit periodical “incarnations,” or let > Christianity go as the greatest imposture and plagiarism of the ages! > > As to the Jewish _Scriptures_, only such men as the Jesuit de > Carrière, a convenient representative of the majority of the Catholic > clergy, can still command their followers to accept only the > chronology established by the Holy Ghost. It is on the authority of > the latter that we learn that Jacob went, with a family of seventy > persons, all told, to settle in Egypt in A.M. 2298, and that in > A.M. 2513--just 215 years afterward--these seventy persons had so > increased that they left Egypt 600,000 fighting men strong, “without > counting women and children,” which, according to the science of > statistics, should represent a total population of between two > and three millions!! Natural history affords no parallel to such > fecundity, except in red herrings. After this let the Christian > missionaries laugh, if they can, at Hindu chronology and computations. > > “Happy are those persons, but not to be envied,” exclaims Bunsen, > “who have no misgivings about making Moses march out with more than > two millions of people at the end of a popular conspiracy and rising, > in the sunny days of the eighteenth dynasty; who make the Israelites > conquer Kanaan under Joshua, during and previous to the most > formidable campaigns of conquering Pharaohs in that same country. The > Egyptian and Assyrian annals, combined with the historical criticism > of the _Bible_, prove that the exodus could only have taken place > under Menephthah, so that Joshua could not have crossed the Jordan > before Easter 1280, the last campaign of Ramses III. in Palestine > being in 1281.”[1092] > > But we must resume the thread of our narrative with Buddha. > > Neither he nor Jesus ever wrote one word of their doctrines. We > have to take the teachings of the masters on the testimony of the > disciples, and therefore it is but fair that we should be allowed > to judge both doctrines on their intrinsic value. Where the logical > preponderance lies, may be seen in the results of frequent encounters > between Christian missionaries and Buddhist theologians (_pungui_). > The latter usually, if not invariably, have the better of their > opponents. On the other hand, the “Lama of Jehovah” rarely fails > to lose his temper, to the great delight of the Lama of Buddha, > and practically demonstrates his religion of patience, mercy, and > charity, by abusing his disputant in the most uncanonical language. > This we have witnessed repeatedly. > > Despite the notable similarity of the direct teachings of Gautama > and Jesus, we yet find their respective followers starting from > two diametrically opposite points. The Buddhist divine, following > literally the ethical doctrine of his master, remains thus true to > the legacy of Gautama; while the Christian minister, distorting > the precepts recorded by the four _Gospels_ beyond recognition, > teaches, not that which Jesus taught, but the absurd, too often > pernicious, interpretations of fallible men--Popes, Luthers, and > Calvins included. The following are two instances selected from > both religions, and brought into contrast. Let the reader judge for > himself: > > “Do not believe in anything because it is rumored and spoken of by > many,” says Buddha; “do not think that is a proof of its truth. > > “Do not believe merely because the written statement of some old sage > is produced; do not be sure that the writing has ever been revised by > the said sage, or can be relied on. Do not believe in what you have > fancied, thinking that, _because an idea is extraordinary, it must > have been implanted by a Deva, or some wonderful being_. > > “Do not believe in guesses, that is, assuming something at hap-hazard > as a starting-point, and then drawing conclusions from it--reckoning > your two and your three and your four _before you have fixed your > number one_. > > “_Do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and > masters_, or believe and practice merely _because they believe and > practice_. > > “I [Buddha] tell you all, you must of yourselves know that this is > evil, this is punishable, this is censured by wise men; belief in > this will bring no advantage to any one, but will cause sorrow; and > when you know this, then eschew it.”[1093] > > It is impossible to avoid contrasting with these benevolent and > human sentiments, the fulminations of the Œcumenical Council and the > Pope, against the employment of reason, and the pursuit of science > when it clashes with revelation. The atrocious Papal benediction > of Moslem arms and cursing of the Russian and Bulgarian Christians > have roused the indignation of some of the most devoted Catholic > communities. The Catholic Czechs of Prague on the day of the recent > semi-centennial jubilee of Pius IX., and again on the 6th of July, > the day sacred to the memory of John Huss, the burned martyr, to mark > their horror of the Ultramontane policy in this respect, gathered by > thousands upon the neighboring Mount Zhishko, and with great ceremony > and denunciations, burned the Pope’s portrait, his Syllabus, and > last allocution against the Russian Czar, saying that they were good > Catholics, but better Slavs. Evidently, the memory of John Huss is > more sacred to them than the Vatican Popes. > > “The worship of words is more pernicious than the worship of images,” > remarks Robert Dale Owen. “Grammatolatry is the worst species of > idolatry. We have arrived at an era in which literalism is destroying > faith.... The letter killeth.”[1094] > > There is not a dogma in the Church to which these words can be better > applied than to the doctrine of _transubstantiation_.[1095] “Whoso > eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life,” Christ > is made to say. “This is a hard saying,” repeated his dismayed > listeners. The answer _was that of an initiate_. “Doth this offend > you? It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. > The words (_remata_, or arcane utterances) that I speak unto you, > they are Spirit and they are Life.” > > During the Mysteries wine represented Bacchus, and bread > Ceres.[1096] The hierophant-initiator presented symbolically before > the final _revelation_ wine and bread to the candidate who had to eat > and drink of both in token that the spirit was to quicken matter, > _i.e._, the divine wisdom was to enter into his body through what was > to be revealed to him. Jesus, in his Oriental phraseology, constantly > assimilated himself to the true vine (_John_ xv. 1). Furthermore, > the hierophant, the discloser of the Petroma, was called “Father.” > When Jesus says, “Drink ... this is my blood,” what else was meant, > it was simply a metaphorical assimilation of himself to the vine, > which bears the grape, whose juice is its blood--wine. It was a hint > that as he had himself been initiated by the “Father,” so he desired > to initiate others. His “Father” was the husbandman, himself the > vine, his disciples the branches. His followers being ignorant of > the terminology of the Mysteries, wondered; they even took it as an > offense, which is not surprising, considering the Mosaic injunction > against blood. > > There is quite enough in the four gospels to show what was the > secret and most fervent hope of Jesus; the hope in which he began to > teach, and in which he died. In his immense and unselfish love for > humanity, he considers it unjust to deprive the many of the results > of the knowledge acquired by the few. This result he accordingly > preaches--the unity of a spiritual God, whose temple is within > each of us, and in whom we live as He lives in us--in spirit. This > knowledge was in the hands of the Jewish adepts of the school of > Hillel and the kabalists. But the “scribes,” or lawyers, having > gradually merged into the dogmatism of the dead letter, had long > since separated themselves from the Tanaïm, the true spiritual > teachers; and the practical kabalists were more or less persecuted > by the Synagogue. Hence, we find Jesus exclaiming: “Woe unto you > lawyers! _For ye have taken away the key of knowledge_ [the Gnosis]: > ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering ye > prevented” (_Luke_ xi. 52). The meaning here is clear. They did take > the key away, and could not even profit by it themselves, for the > _Masorah_ (tradition) had become a closed book to themselves as well > as to others. > > Neither Renan nor Strauss, nor the more modern Viscount Amberley > seem to have had the remotest suspicion of the real meaning of many > of the parables of Jesus, or even of the character of the great > Galilean philosopher. Renan, as we have seen, presented him to us > as a Gallicized Rabbi, “_le plus charmant de tous_,” still but a > Rabbi; and one, moreover, who does not even come out of the school > of Hillel, or any school either, albeit he terms him repeatedly > “the charming doctor.”[1097] He shows him as a sentimental young > enthusiast, sprung out of the plebeian classes of Galilee, who > imagines the ideal kings of his parables the empurpled and jewelled > beings of whom one reads in nursery tales.[1098] > > Lord Amberley’s Jesus, on the other hand, is an “iconoclastic > idealist,” far inferior in subtilty and logic to his critics. Renan > looks over at Jesus with the one-sidedness of a Semitomaniac; > Viscount Amberley looks down upon him from the social plane of an > English lord. _Apropos_ of this marriage-feast parable, which he > considers as embodying “a curious theory of social intercourse,” > the Viscount says: “Nobody can object to charitable individuals > asking poor people or invalids _without rank_ at their houses.... > But we cannot admit that this kind action ought to be rendered > obligatory ... it is eminently desirable that we should do exactly > what Christ would forbid us doing--namely, invite our neighbors > and be invited by them as circumstances may require. The fear that > we may receive a recompense for the dinner-parties we may give, is > surely chimerical.... Jesus, in fact, overlooks entirely the more > intellectual side of society.”[1099] All of which unquestionably > shows that the “Son of God” was no master of social etiquette, nor > fit for “society;” but it is also a fair example of the prevalent > misconception of even his most suggestive parables. > > The theory of Anquetil du Perron that the _Bagaved-gita_ is an > independent work, as it is absent from several manuscripts of the > _Mahâ-Bhârata_, may be as much a plea for a still greater antiquity > as the reverse. The work is purely metaphysical and ethical, and in > a certain sense it is _anti-Vedic_; so far, at least, that it is in > opposition with many of the later Brahmanical interpretations of the > _Vedas_. How comes it, then, that instead of destroying the work, > or, at least, of sentencing it as uncanonical--an expedient to which > the Christian Church would never have failed to resort--the Brahmans > show it the greatest reverence? Perfectly _unitarian_ in its aim, it > clashes with the popular idol-worship. Still, the only precaution > taken by the Brahmans to keep its tenets from becoming too well > known, is to preserve it more secretly than any other religious book > from every caste except the sacerdotal; and, to impose upon that > even, in many cases, certain restrictions. The grandest mysteries of > the Brahmanical religion are embraced within this magnificent poem; > and even the Buddhists recognize it, explaining certain dogmatic > difficulties in their own way. “Be unselfish, subdue your senses and > passions, which obscure reason and lead to deceit,” says Christna to > his disciple Arjuna, thus enunciating a purely Buddhistic principle. > “Low men follow examples, great men give them.... The soul ought to > free itself from the bonds of action, and act absolutely according to > its divine origin. _There is but one God_, and all other devotas are > inferior, and mere forms (powers) of Brahma or of myself. _Worship by > deeds predominates over that of contemplation._”[1100] > > This doctrine coincides perfectly with that of Jesus himself.[1101] > Faith alone, unaccompanied by “works,” is reduced to naught in the > _Bagaved-gita_. As to the _Atharva-Veda_, it was and is preserved in > such secrecy by the Brahmans, that it is a matter of doubt whether > the Orientalists have a _complete_ copy of it. One who has read what > Abbé Dubois says may well doubt the fact. “Of the last species--the > Atharva--there are very few,” he says, writing of the _Vedas_, “and > many people suppose they no longer exist. But the truth is, they do > exist, though they conceal themselves with more caution than the > others, from the fear of being suspected to be initiated in the magic > mysteries and other dreaded mysteries which the work is believed to > teach.”[1102] > > There were even those among the highest _epoptæ_ of the greater > _Mysteries_ who knew nothing of their last and dreaded rite--the > voluntary transfer of life from hierophant to candidate. In > _Ghost-Land_[1103] this mystical operation of the adept’s transfer > of his spiritual entity, after the death of his body, into the > youth he loves with all the ardent love of a spiritual parent, is > superbly described. As in the case of the reïncarnation of the lamas > of Thibet, an adept of the highest order may live indefinitely. His > mortal casket wears out notwithstanding certain alchemical secrets > for prolonging the youthful vigor far beyond the usual limits, yet > the body can rarely be kept alive beyond ten or twelve score of > years. The old garment is then worn out, and the spiritual Ego forced > to leave it, selects for its habitation a new body, fresh and full of > healthy vital principle. In case the reader should feel inclined to > ridicule this assertion of the possible prolongation of human life, > we may as well refer him to the statistics of several countries. The > author of an able article in the _Westminster Review_, for October, > 1850, is responsible for the statement that in England, they have > the authentic instances of one Thomas Jenkins dying at the age of > 169, and “Old Parr” at 152; and that in Russia some of the peasants > are “known to have reached 242 years.”[1104] There are also cases > of centenarianism reported among the Peruvian Indians. We are aware > that many able writers have recently discredited these claims to an > extreme longevity, but we nevertheless affirm our belief in their > truth. > > True or false there are “superstitions” among the Eastern people such > as have never been dreamed even by an Edgar Poe or a Hoffmann. And > these beliefs run in the very blood of the nations with which they > originated. Carefully stripped of exaggeration they will be found > to embody an universal belief in those restless, wandering, astral > souls, which are called ghouls and vampires. An Armenian Bishop of > the fifth century, named Yeznik, gives a number of such narratives in > a manuscript work (Book i., §§ 20, 30), preserved some thirty years > ago in the library of the Monastery of Etchmeadzine.[1105] Among > others, there is a tradition dating from the days of heathendom, > that whenever a hero whose life is needed yet on earth falls on > the battle-field, the Aralez, the popular gods of ancient Armenia, > empowered to bring back to life those slaughtered in battle, lick > the bleeding wounds of the victim, and breathe on them until they > have imparted a new and vigorous life. After that the warrior rises, > washes off all traces of his wounds, and resumes his place in the > fray. But his immortal spirit has fled; and for the remainder of his > days he lives--a deserted temple. > > Once that an adept was initiated into the last and most solemn > mystery of the life-transfer, the awful _seventh_ rite of the great > sacerdotal operation, which is the highest theurgy, he belonged no > more to this world. His soul was free thereafter, and the _seven_ > mortal sins lying in wait to devour his heart, as the soul, liberated > by death, would be crossing the _seven_ halls and _seven_ staircases, > could hurt him no more alive or dead; he has passed the “twice seven > trials,” the _twelve_ labors of the final hour.[1106] > > The High Hierophant alone knew how to perform this solemn operation > by infusing his own vital life and astral soul into the adept, chosen > by him for his successor, who thus became endowed with a double > life.[1107] > > “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man _be born again_, > he cannot see the kingdom of God” (_John_ iii. 3). Jesus tells > Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which > is born of the spirit is spirit.” > > This allusion, so unintelligible in itself, is explained in the > _Satapa-Brâhmana_. It teaches that a man striving after spiritual > perfection must have _three_ births: 1st. Physical from his mortal > parents; 2d. _Spiritual_, through religious sacrifice (initiation); > 3d. His final birth into the world of spirit--at death. Though > it may seem strange that we should have to go to the old land of > the Punjâb and the banks of the sacred Ganges, for an interpreter > of words spoken in Jerusalem and expounded on the banks of the > Jordan, the fact is evident. This second birth, or regeneration > of spirit, after the natural birth of that which is born of the > flesh, might have astonished a Jewish ruler. Nevertheless, it had > been taught 3,000 years before the appearance of the great Galilean > prophet, not only in old India but to all the _epoptæ_ of the Pagan > initiation, who were instructed in the great mysteries of LIFE and > DEATH. This secret of secrets, that _soul_ is not knit to flesh, > was practically demonstrated in the instance of the Yogis, the > followers of Kapila. Having emancipated their souls from the fetters > of _Prakriti_, or _Mahat_ (the physical perception of the senses and > mind--in one sense, creation), they so developed their soul-power > and _will-force_, as to have actually enabled themselves, while on > earth, to communicate with the supernal worlds, and perform what is > bunglingly termed “miracles.”[1108] Men whose astral spirits have > attained on earth the _nehreyasa_, or the _mukti_, are half-gods; > disembodied spirits, they reach Moksha or _Nirvana_, and this is > their _second_ spiritual birth. > > Buddha teaches the doctrine of a new birth as plainly as Jesus > does. Desiring to break with the ancient Mysteries, to which it was > impossible to admit the ignorant masses, the Hindu reformer, though > generally silent upon more than one secret dogma, clearly states his > thought in several passages. Thus, he says: “_Some people are born > again_; evil-doers go to Hell; righteous people go to Heaven; those > who are free from all worldly desires enter Nirvana” (_Precepts of > the Dhammapada_, v., 126). Elsewhere Buddha states that “it is better > to believe in a future life, in which happiness or misery can be > felt; for if the heart believes therein, it will abandon sin and act > virtuously; and even if there is no resurrection, such a life will > bring a good name and the regard of men. _But those who believe in > extinction at death will not fail to commit any sin_ that they may > choose, because of their disbelief in a future.”[1109] > > The _Epistle to the Hebrews_ treats of the sacrifice of blood. “Where > a testament is,” says the writer, “there must be of necessity _the > death_ of the testator.... Without the shedding _of blood_ is no > remission.” Then again: “Christ glorified not himself to _be made > High Priest_; but He that said unto him: Thou art my son; TO-DAY HAVE > I BEGOTTEN THEE” (_Heb._ v. 5). This is a very clear inference, that, > 1, Jesus was considered only in the light of a high priest, like > Melchisedek--another _avatar_, or incarnation of Christ, according to > the Fathers; and, 2, that the writer thought that Jesus had become a > “Son of God” only at the moment of his initiation by water; hence, > that he was not born a god, neither was he begotten physically by > Him. Every initiate of the “last hour” became, by the very fact of > his initiation, a son of God. When Maxime, the Ephesian, initiated > the Emperor Julian into the Mithraïc Mysteries, he pronounced as the > usual formula of the rite, the following: “By this blood, I wash thee > from thy sins. The Word of the Highest has entered unto thee, and His > Spirit henceforth will rest upon the NEWLY-BORN, _the now_-begotten > of the Highest God.... Thou art the son of Mithra.” “Thou art the > ‘_Son of God_,’” repeated the disciples after Christ’s baptism. > When Paul shook off the viper into the fire without further injury > to himself, the people of Melita said “that he was _a god_” (_Acts_ > xxviii.). “He is the son of God, the Beautiful!” was the term used by > the disciples of Simon Magus, for they thought they recognized the > “great power of God” in him. > > A man can have no god that is not bounded by his own human > conceptions. The wider the sweep of his spiritual vision, the > mightier will be his deity. But where can we find a better > demonstration of Him than in man himself; in the spiritual and divine > powers lying dormant in every human being? “The very capacity to > imagine the possibility of thaumaturgical powers, is itself evidence > that they exist,” says the author of _Prophecy_. “The critic, as well > as the skeptic, is generally inferior to the person or subject that > he is reviewing, and, therefore, is hardly a competent witness. _If > there are counterfeits, somewhere there must have been a genuine_ > original.”[1110] > > Blood begets phantoms, and its emanations furnish certain spirits > with the materials required to fashion their temporary appearances. > “Blood,” says Levi, “is the first incarnation of the universal > fluid; it is the materialized _vital light_. Its birth is the most > marvellous of all nature’s marvels; it lives only by perpetually > transforming itself, for it is the universal Proteus. The blood > issues from principles where there was none of it before, and it > becomes flesh, bones, hair, nails ... tears, and perspiration. It > can be allied neither to corruption nor death; when life is gone, it > begins decomposing; if you know how to reänimate it, to infuse into > it life by a new magnetization of its globules, life will return to > it again. The universal substance, with its double motion, is the > great arcanum of being; blood is the great arcanum of life.” > > “Blood,” says the Hindu Ramatsariar, “contains all the mysterious > secrets of existence, no living being can exist without. It is > profaning the great work of the Creator to eat blood.” > > In his turn Moses, following the universal and traditional law, > forbids eating blood. > > Paracelsus writes that with the fumes of blood one is enabled to call > forth any spirit we desire to see; for with its emanations it will > build itself an appearance, a _visible_ body--only this is sorcery. > The hierophants of Baal made deep incisions all over their bodies and > produced apparitions, objective and tangible, with their own blood. > The followers of a certain sect in Persia, many of whom may be found > around the Russian settlements in Temerchan-Shoura, and Derbent, > have their religious mysteries in which they form a large ring, and > whirl round in a frantic dance. Their temples are ruined, and they > worship in large temporary buildings, securely enclosed, and with > the earthen floor deeply strewn with sand. They are all dressed in > long white robes, and their heads are bare and closely shaved. Armed > with knives, they soon reach a point of furious exaltation, and wound > themselves and others until their garments and the sand on the floor > are soaked with blood. Before the end of the “Mystery” _every man > has a companion_, who whirls round with him. Sometimes the spectral > dancers have _hair on their heads_, which makes them quite distinct > from their unconscious creators. As we have solemnly promised never > to divulge the principal details of this terrible ceremony (which we > were allowed to witness but once), we must leave the subject.[1111] > > In the days of antiquity the sorceresses of Thessaly added sometimes > to the blood of a black lamb that of an infant, and by this means > evoked the shadows. The priests were taught the art of calling up the > spirits of the dead, as well as those of the elements, but their mode > was certainly not that of Thessalian sorceresses. > > Among the Yakuts of Siberia there is a tribe dwelling on the very > confines of the Transbaïkal regions near the river Vitema (eastern > Siberia) which practices sorcery as known in the days of the > Thessalian witches. Their religious beliefs are curious as a mixture > of philosophy and superstition. They have a chief or supreme god > Aij-Taïon, who did not create, they say, but only _presides_ over > the creation of all the worlds. He lives on the _ninth_ heaven, > and it is but from the _seventh_ that the other minor gods--his > servants--can manifest themselves to their creatures. This ninth > heaven, according to the revelation of the minor deities (spirits, > we suppose), has three suns and three moons, and the ground of this > abode is formed of four lakes (the four cardinal points) of “soft > air” (ether), instead of water. While they offer no sacrifices to > the Supreme Deity, for he needs none, they do try to propitiate both > the good and bad deities, which they respectively term the “white” > and the “black” gods. They do it, because neither of the two classes > are good or bad through personal merit or demerit. As they are all > subject to the Supreme Aij-Taïon, and each has to carry on the duty > assigned to him from eternity, they are not responsible for either > the good or evil they produce in this world. The reason given by the > Yakuts for such sacrifices is very curious. Sacrifices, they say, > help each class of gods to perform their mission the better, and so > please the Supreme; and every mortal that helps either of them in > performing his duty must, therefore, please the Supreme as well, > for he will have helped justice to take place. As the “black” gods > are appointed to bring diseases, evils, and all kinds of calamities > to mankind, each of which is a punishment for some transgression, > the Yakuts offer to them “bloody” sacrifices of animals; while to > the “white” they make pure offerings, consisting generally of an > animal consecrated to some special god and taken care of with great > ceremony, as having become sacred. According to their ideas the souls > of the dead become “shadows,” and are doomed to wander on earth, till > a certain change takes place either for the better or worse, which > the Yakuts do not pretend to explain. The _light_ shadows, _i.e._, > those of good people, become the guardians and protectors of those > they loved on earth; the “dark” shadows (the wicked) always seek, on > the contrary, to hurt those they knew, by inciting them to crimes, > wicked acts, and otherwise injuring mortals. Besides these, like the > ancient Chaldees, they reckon seven divine _Sheitans_ (dæmons) or > minor gods. It is during the sacrifices of blood, which take place > at night, that the Yakuts call forth the wicked or _dark_ shadows, > to inquire of them what they can do to arrest their mischief; hence, > _blood is necessary_, for without its fumes the ghosts could not make > themselves clearly visible, and would become, according to their > ideas, but the more dangerous, for they would suck it from living > persons by their perspiration.[1112] As to the good, _light_ shadows, > they need not be called out; besides that, such an act disturbs > them; they can make their presence felt, when needed, without any > preparation and ceremonies. > > The blood-evocation is also practiced, although with a different > purpose, in several parts of Bulgaria and Moldavia, especially in > districts in the vicinity of Mussulmans. The fearful oppressions and > slavery to which these unfortunate Christians have been subjected > for centuries has rendered them a thousand-fold more impressible, > and at the same time more superstitious, than those who live in > civilized countries. On every seventh of May the inhabitants of every > Moldavo-Valachian and Bulgarian city or village, have what they term > the “feast of the dead.” After sunset, immense crowds of women and > men, each with a lighted wax taper in hand, resort to the burial > places, and pray on the tombs of their departed friends. This ancient > and solemn ceremony, called _Trizna_, is everywhere a reminiscence > of primitive Christian rites, but far more solemn yet, while in > Mussulman slavery. Every tomb is furnished with a kind of cupboard, > about half a yard high, built of four stones, and with hinged > double-doors. These closets contain what is termed the household > of the defunct: namely, a few wax tapers, some oil and an earthen > lamp, which is lighted on that day, and burns for twenty-four hours. > Wealthy people have silver lamps richly chiselled, and bejewelled > images, which are secure from thieves, for in the burial ground the > closets are even left open. Such is the dread of the population > (Mussulman and Christian) of the revenge of the dead that a thief > bold enough to commit any murder, would never dare touch the property > of a dead person. The Bulgarians have a belief that every Saturday, > and especially the eve of Easter Sunday, and until Trinity day > (about seven weeks) the souls of the dead descend on earth, some to > beg forgiveness from those living whom they had wronged; others to > protect and commune with their loved ones. Faithfully following the > traditional rites of their forefathers, the natives on each Saturday > of these seven weeks keep either lamps or tapers lighted. In addition > to that, on the _seventh_ of May they drench the tombs with grape > wine, and burn incense around them from sunset to sunrise. With > the inhabitants of towns, the ceremony is limited to these simple > observances. With some of the rustics though, the rite assumes the > proportions of a theurgic evocation. On the eve of Ascension Day, > Bulgarian women light a quantity of tapers and lamps; the pots are > placed upon tripods, and incense perfumes the atmosphere for miles > around; while thick white clouds of smoke envelope each tomb, as > though a veil had separated it from the others. During the evening, > and until a little before midnight, in memory of the deceased, > acquaintances and a certain number of mendicants are fed and treated > with wine and _raki_ (grape-whiskey), and money is distributed among > the poor according to the means of the surviving relatives. When the > feast is ended, the guests approaching the tomb and addressing the > defunct by name, thank him or her for the bounties received. When all > but the nearest relatives are gone, a woman, usually the most aged, > remains alone with the dead, and--some say--resorts to the ceremony > of invocation. > > After fervent prayers, repeated face downward on the grave-mound, > more or less drops of blood are drawn from near the left bosom, > and allowed to trickle upon the tomb. This gives strength to the > invisible spirit which hovers around, to assume for a few instants > a visible form, and whisper his instructions to the Christian > theurgist--if he has any to offer, or simply to “bless the mourner” > and then disappear again till the following year. So firmly rooted > is this belief that we have heard, in a case of family difficulty, a > Moldavian woman appeal to her sister to put off every decision till > Ascension-night, when their dead father _would be able to tell them > of his will and pleasure in person_; to which the sister consented as > simply as though their parent were in the next room. > > That there are fearful secrets in nature may well be believed > when, as we have seen in the case of the Russian _Znachar_, the > sorcerer _cannot_ die until he has passed the word to another, and > the hierophants of White Magic rarely do. It seems as if the dread > power of the “Word” could only be entrusted to one man of a certain > district or body of people at a time. When the Brahmâtma was about > to lay aside the burden of physical existence, he imparted his > secret to his successor, either orally, or by a writing placed in a > securely-fastened casket which went into the latter’s hands alone. > Moses “lays his hands” upon his neophyte, Joshua, in the solitudes of > Nebo and passes away forever. Aaron initiates Eleazar on Mount Hor, > and dies. Siddhârtha-Buddha promises his mendicants before his death > to live in him who shall deserve it, embraces his favorite disciple, > whispers in his ear, and dies; and as John’s head lies upon the bosom > of Jesus, he is told that he shall “tarry” until he shall come. Like > signal-fires of the olden times, which, lighted and extinguished by > turns upon one hill-top after another, conveyed intelligence along > a whole stretch of country, so we see a long line of “wise” men > from the beginning of history down to our own times communicating > the word of wisdom to their direct successors. Passing from seer > to seer, the “Word” flashes out like lightning, and while carrying > off the initiator from human sight forever, brings the new initiate > into view. Meanwhile, whole nations murder each other in the name of > another “Word,” an empty substitute accepted literally by each, and > misinterpreted by all! > > We have met few sects which truly practice sorcery. One such is > the Yezidis, considered by some a branch of the Koords, though we > believe erroneously. These inhabit chiefly the mountainous and > desolate regions of Asiatic Turkey, about Mosul, Armenia, and are > found even in Syria,[1113] and Mesopotamia. They are called and known > everywhere as devil-worshippers; and most certainly it is not either > through ignorance or mental obscuration that they have set up the > worship and a regular intercommunication with the lowest and the > most malicious of both elementals and elementaries. They recognize > the present wickedness of the chief of the “black powers;” but at > the same time they dread his power, and so try to conciliate to > themselves his favors. He is in an open quarrel with Allah, they > say, but a reconciliation can take place between the two at any day; > and those who have shown marks of their disrespect to the “black > one” now, may suffer for it at some future time, and thus have both > God and Devil against them. This is simply a cunning policy that > seeks to propitiate his Satanic majesty, who is no other than the > great _Tcherno-bog_ (the black god) of the Variagi-Russ, the ancient > idolatrous Russians before the days of Vladimir. > > Like Wierus, the famous demonographer of the sixteenth century (who > in his _Pseudomonarchia Dæmonum_ describes and enumerates a regular > infernal court, which has its dignitaries, princes, dukes, nobles, > and officers), the Yezidis have a whole pantheon of devils, and use > the Jakshas, aërial spirits, to convey their prayers and respects > to Satan their master, and the Afrites of the Desert. During their > prayer-meetings, they join hands, and form immense rings, with > their Sheik, or an officiating priest in the middle who claps his > hands, and intones every verse in honor of Sheitan (Satan). Then > they whirl and leap in the air. When the frenzy is at its climax, > they often wound and cut themselves with their daggers, occasionally > rendering the same service to their next neighbors. But their wounds > do not heal and cicatrize as easily as in the case of lamas and holy > men; for but too often they fall victims to these self-inflicted > wounds. While dancing and flourishing high their daggers without > unclasping hands--for this would be considered a sacrilege, and the > spell instantly broken, they coax and praise Sheitan, and entreat > him to manifest himself in his works by “miracles.” As their rites > are chiefly accomplished during night, they do not fail to obtain > manifestations of various character, the least of which are enormous > globes of fire which take the shapes of the most uncouth animals. > > Lady Hester Stanhope, whose name was for many years a power among > the masonic fraternities of the East, is said to have witnessed, > personally, several of these Yezidean ceremonies. We were told by > an _Ockhal_, of the sect of Druses, that after having been present > at one of the Yezidis’ “Devil’s masses,” as they are called, this > extraordinary lady, so noted for personal courage and daring > bravery, fainted, and notwithstanding her usual Emir’s male attire, > was recalled to life and health with the greatest difficulty. > Personally, we regret to say, all our efforts to witness one of these > performances failed. > > A recent article in a Catholic journal on Nagualism and Voodooism > charges Hayti with being the centre of secret societies, with > terrible forms of initiation and bloody rites, where _human infants > are sacrificed and devoured by the adepts_(!!) Piron, a French > traveller, is quoted at length, describing a most fearful scene > witnessed by him in Cuba, in the house of a lady whom he never > would have suspected of any connection with so monstrous a sect. “A > naked white girl acted as a voodoo priestess, wrought up to frenzy > by dances and incantations that followed the sacrifice of a white > and a black hen. A serpent, trained to its part, and acted on by the > music, coiled round the limbs of the girl, its motions studied by the > votaries dancing around or standing to watch its contortions. The > spectator fled at last in horror when the poor girl fell writhing in > an epileptic fit.” > > While deploring such a state of things in Christian countries, the > Catholic article in question explains this tenacity for ancestral > religious rites as evidence of the _natural depravity of the human > heart_, and makes a loud call for greater zeal on the part of > Catholics. Besides repeating the absurd fiction about devouring > children, the writer seems wholly insensible to the fact that a > devotion to one’s faith that centuries of the most cruel and bloody > persecution cannot quench, makes heroes and martyrs of a people, > whereas their conversion to any other faith would turn them simply > into renegades. A compulsory religion can never breed anything but > deceit. The answer received by the missionary Margil from some > Indians supports the above truism. The question being: “How is it > that you are so heathenish after having been Christians so long?” > The answer was: “What would you do, father, if enemies of your > faith entered your land? Would you not take all your books and > vestments and signs of religion and retire to the most secret caves > and mountains? This is just what our priests, and prophets, and > soothsayers, and nagualists have done to this time and are still > doing.” > > Such an answer from a Roman Catholic, questioned by a missionary of > either Greek or Protestant Church, would earn for him the crown of a > saint in the Popish martyrology. Better a “heathen” religion that can > extort from a Francis Xavier such a tribute as he pays the Japanese, > in saying that “in virtue and probity they surpassed all the nations > he had ever seen;” than a Christianity whose advance over the face > of the earth sweeps aboriginal nations out of existence as with a > hurricane of fire.[1114] Disease, drunkenness, and demoralization are > the immediate results of apostasy from the faith of their fathers, > and conversion into a religion of mere forms. > > What Christianity is doing for British India, we need go to > no inimical sources to inquire. Captain O’Grady, the British > ex-official, says: “The British government is doing a shameful > thing in turning the natives of India from a sober race to a nation > of drunkards. And for pure _greed_. Drinking is forbidden by the > religion alike of Hindus and Mussulmans. But ... drinking is daily > becoming more and more prevalent.... What the accursed opium traffic, > forced on China by British greed, has been to that unhappy country, > the government sale of liquor is likely to become to India. For it is > a government monopoly, based on almost precisely the same model as > the government monopoly of tobacco in Spain.... The outside domestics > in European families usually get to be terrible drunkards.... The > indoor servants usually detest drinking, and are a good deal more > respectable in this particular than their masters and mistresses > ... everybody drinks ... bishops, chaplains, freshly-imported > boarding-school girls, and all.” > > Yes, these are the “blessings” that the modern Christian religion > brings with its _Bibles_ and _Catechisms_ to the “poor heathen.” Rum > and bastardy to Hindustan; opium to China; rum and foul disorders > to Tahiti; and, worst of all, the example of hypocrisy in religion, > and a practical skepticism and atheism, which, since it seems to > be good enough for _civilized_ people, may well in time be thought > good enough for those whom theology has too often been holding > under a very heavy yoke. On the other hand, everything that is > noble, spiritual, elevating, in the old religion is denied, and even > deliberately falsified. > > Take Paul, read the little of original that is left of him in the > writings attributed to this brave, honest, sincere man, and see > whether any one can find a word therein to show that Paul meant by > the word Christ anything more than the abstract ideal of the personal > divinity indwelling in man. For Paul, Christ is not a person, but an > embodied idea. “If any man is in Christ he is a new creation,” _he > is reborn_, as after initiation, for the Lord is spirit--the spirit > of man. Paul was the only one of the apostles who had understood > the secret ideas underlying the teachings of Jesus, although he had > never met him. But Paul had been initiated himself; and, bent upon > inaugurating a new and broad reform, one embracing the whole of > humanity, he sincerely set his own doctrines far above the wisdom > of the ages, above the ancient Mysteries and final revelation to > the epoptæ. As Professor A. Wilder well proves in a series of able > articles, it _was not Jesus, but Paul who was the real founder > of Christianity_. “The disciples were called Christians first in > Antioch,” say the _Acts of the Apostles_. “Such men as Irenæus, > Epiphanius, and Eusebius have transmitted to posterity a reputation > for untruth and dishonest practices; and the heart sickens at the > story of the crimes of that period,” writes this author, in a recent > article.[1115] “It will be remembered,” he adds, “that when the > Moslems overran Syria and Asia Minor for the first time, they were > welcomed by the Christians of those regions as deliverers from the > intolerable oppression of the ruling authorities of the Church.” > > Mahomet never was, neither is he now, considered a god; yet under the > stimulus of his name millions of Moslems have served their God with > an ardor that can never be paralleled by Christian sectarianism. That > they have sadly degenerated since the days of their prophet, does > not alter the case in hand, but only proves the more the prevalence > of matter over spirit all over the world. Besides, they have never > degenerated more from primitive faith than Christians themselves. > Why, then, should not Jesus of Nazareth, a thousandfold higher, > nobler, and morally grander than Mahomet, be as well revered by > Christians and followed in practice, instead of being blindly adored > in fruitless faith as a god, and at the same time worshipped much > after the fashion of certain Buddhists, who turn their wheel of > prayers. That this faith has become sterile, and is no more worthy > the name of Christianity than the fetishism of Calmucks that of the > philosophy preached by Buddha, is doubted by none. “We would not be > supposed to entertain the opinion,” says Dr. Wilder, “that modern > Christianity is in any degree identical with the religion preached > by Paul. It lacks his breadth of view, his earnestness, his keen > spiritual perception. Bearing the impress of the nations by which it > is professed, it exhibits as many forms as there are races. It is > one thing in Italy and Spain, but widely differs in France, Germany, > Holland, Sweden, Great Britain, Russia, Armenia, Kurdistan, and > Abyssinia. As compared with the preceding worships, the change seems > to be more in name than in genius. Men had gone to bed Pagans and > awoke Christians. As for the _Sermon on the Mount_, its conspicuous > doctrines are more or less repudiated by every Christian community > of any considerable dimensions. Barbarism, oppression, cruel > punishments, are as common now as in the days of Paganism. > > “The Christianity of Peter exists no more; that of Paul supplanted > it, and was in its turn amalgamated with the other world religions. > When mankind are enlightened, or the barbarous races and families > are supplanted by those of nobler nature and instincts, the ideal > excellencies may become realities. > > “The ‘Christ of Paul’ has constituted an enigma which evoked the most > strenuous endeavor to solve. He was something else than the Jesus of > the _Gospels_. Paul disregarded utterly their ‘endless genealogies.’ > The author of the fourth _Gospel_, himself an Alexandrian Gnostic, > describes Jesus as what would now be termed a ‘materialized’ divine > spirit. He was the Logos, or First Emanation--the Metathron.... > The ‘mother of Jesus,’ like the Princess Maya, Danaé, or perhaps > Periktioné, had given birth, not to a love-child, but to a divine > offspring. No Jew of whatever sect, no apostle, no early believer, > ever promulgated such an idea. Paul treats of Christ as a personage > rather than as a person. The sacred lessons of the secret assemblies > often personified the divine good and the divine truth in a human > form, assailed by the passions and appetites of mankind, but superior > to them; and this doctrine, emerging from the crypt, was apprehended > by churchlings and gross-minded men as that of immaculate conception > and divine incarnation.” > > In the old book, published in 1693 and written by the Sieur de la > Loubère, French Ambassador to the King of Siam, are related many > interesting facts of the Siamese religion. The remarks of the > satirical Frenchman are so pointed that we will quote his words about > the Siamese Saviour--Sommona-Cadom. > > “How marvellous soever they pretend the birth of their Saviour has > been, they cease not to give _him a father and a mother_.[1116] His > mother, whose name is found in some of their _Balie_ (Pali?) books, > was called, as they say, _Maha_ MARIA, which seems to signify the > great Mary, for Maha signifies great. However it be, this ceases not > to give attention to the missionaries, and has perhaps given occasion > to the Siamese to believe that Jesus being the son of _Mary_, was > brother to Sommona-Cadom, and that, having been crucified, he was > that _wicked_ brother whom they give to Sommona-Cadom, under the > name of Thevetat, and whom they report to be punished in Hell, with > a punishment which participates something of a cross.... The Siamese > expect another Sommona-Cadom, I mean, another miraculous man like > him, whom they already named _Pronarote_, and whom they say was > foretold by Sommona. He made all sorts of miracles.... He had two > disciples, both standing on each hand of his idol; one on the right > hand, and the other on the left ... the first is named Pra-Magla, > and the second _Pra Scaribout_.... The father of Sommona-Cadom was, > according to this same _Balie_ Book, a King of Teve Lanca, that is > to say, a King of Ceylon. But _the Balie Books being without date > and without the author’s name, have no more authority than all the > traditions, whose origin is unknown_.”[1117] > > This last argument is as ill-considered as it is naïvely expressed. > We do not know of any book in the whole world less authenticated as > to date, authors’ names, or tradition, than our Christian _Bible_. > Under these circumstances the Siamese have as much reason to believe > in their miraculous Sommona-Cadom as the Christians in their > miraculously-born Saviour. Moreover, they have no better right to > force their religion upon the Siamese, or any other people, against > their will, and in their own country, where they go unasked, than the > so-called heathen “to compel France or England to accept Buddhism at > the point of the sword.” A Buddhist missionary, even in free-thinking > America, would daily risk being mobbed, but this does not at all > prevent missionaries from abusing the religion of the Brahmans, > Lamas, and Bonzes, publicly to their teeth; and the latter are not > always at liberty to answer them. This is termed diffusing the > beneficent light of Christianity and civilization upon the darkness > of heathenism! > > And yet we find that these pretensions--which might appear ludicrous > were they not so fatal to millions of our fellow-men, who only ask to > be left alone--were fully appreciated as early as in the seventeenth > century. We find the same witty Monsieur de la Loubère, under a > pretext of pious sympathy, giving some truly curious instructions to > the ecclesiastical authorities at home,[1118] which embody the very > soul of Jesuitism. > > “From what I have said concerning the opinions of the Orientals,” he > remarks, “it is easy to comprehend how difficult an enterprise it is > to bring them over to the Christian religion; and of what consequence > it is that the missionaries, which preach the Gospel in the East, > do perfectly understand the manners and belief of these people. > For as the apostles and first Christians, when God supported their > preaching by so many wonders, did not on a sudden discover to the > heathens all the mysteries which we adore, but a long time concealed > from them, and the Catechumens themselves, the knowledge of those > which might scandalize them; it seems very rational to me that the > missionaries, who have not the gift of miracles, ought not presently > to discover to the Orientals all the mysteries nor all the practices > of Christianity. > > “’Twould be convenient, for example, if I am not mistaken, not > to preach unto them, _without great caution_, the worshipping of > saints; and as to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, I think it would > be necessary to manage it with them, if I may so say, and _not > to speak to them of the mystery of the Incarnation_, till after > having convinced them of the existence of a God Creator. For what > probability is there, to begin with, of persuading the Siamese to > remove Sommona-Cadom, Pra Mogla, and Pra Scaribout from the altars, > to set up Jesus Christ, St. Peter, and St. Paul, in their stead? > ’Twould, perhaps, be more proper not to preach unto them Jesus > Christ crucified, till they have first comprehended that one may be > _unfortunate_ and _innocent_; and that by the rule received, even > amongst them, which is, that the innocent might load himself with > the crimes of the guilty, it was necessary _that a god should become > man_, to the end that this man-God should, by a laborious life, and > a shameful but voluntary death, satisfy for all the sins of men; but > before all things it would be necessary to give them the true idea of > a God Creator, and justly provoked against men. The Eucharist, after > this, will not scandalize the Siamese, as it formerly scandalized > the Pagans of Europe; forasmuch as the Siamese do not believe > Sommona-Cadom could give his wife and children to the Talapoins to > eat. > > “On the contrary, as the Chinese are respectful toward their parents > even to a scruple, I doubt not that if the Gospel should be presently > put into their hands, they would be scandalized at that place, where, > when some told Jesus Christ that his mother and his brethren asked > after him, he answered in such a manner, that he seems so little to > regard them, that he affected not to know them. They would _not be > less offended_ at those other mysterious words, which our divine > Saviour spoke to the young man, who desired time to go and bury his > parents: “Let the dead,” said he, “bury the dead.” Every one knows > the trouble which the Japanese expressed to St. Francis Xavier _upon > the eternity of damnation_, not being able to believe that their > dead parents should fall into so horrible a misfortune for _want of > having embraced Christianity, which they had never heard of_.... It > seems necessary, therefore, to prevent and mollify this thought, > by the means which that great apostle of the Indies used, in first > establishing the idea of an omnipotent, all-wise, and most just God, > the author of all good, to whom only everything is due, and by whose > will we owe unto kings, bishops, magistrates and to our parents the > respects which we owe them. > > “These examples are sufficient to show with what precautions it is > necessary to prepare the minds of the Orientals to think like us, > and _not to be offended with most_ of the articles of the Christian > faith.”[1119] > > And what, we ask, is left to preach? With no Saviour, no atonement, > no crucifixion for human sin, no Gospel, no eternal damnation to tell > them of, and no miracles to display, what remained for the Jesuits to > spread among the Siamese but the dust of the Pagan sanctuaries with > which to blind their eyes? The sarcasm is biting indeed. The morality > to which these poor heathen are made to adhere by their ancestral > faith is so pure, that Christianity has to be stripped of every > distinguishing mark before its priests can venture to offer it for > their examination. A religion that cannot be trusted to the scrutiny > of an unsophisticated people who are patterns of filial piety, of > honest dealing, of deep reverence for God and an instinctive horror > of profaning His majesty, must indeed be founded upon error. That it > is so, our century is discovering little by little. > > In the general spoliation of Buddhism to make up the new Christian > religion, it was not to be expected that so peerless a character as > Gautama-Buddha would be left unappropriated. It was but natural that > after taking his legendary history to fill out the blanks left in the > fictitious story of Jesus, after using what they could of Christna’s, > they should take the man Sakya-muni and put him in their calendar > under an _alias_. This they actually did, and the Hindu Saviour in > due time appeared on the list of saints as Josaphat, to keep company > with those martyrs of religion, SS. Aura and Placida, Longinus and > Amphibolus. > > In Palermo there is even a church dedicated to _Divo Josaphat_. Among > the vain attempts of subsequent ecclesiastical writers to fix the > genealogy of this mysterious saint, the most original was the making > him Joshua, the son of Nun. But these trifling difficulties being > at last surmounted, we find the history of Gautama copied _word for > word_ from Buddhist sacred books, into the _Golden Legend_. Names of > individuals are changed, the place of action, India, remains the > same--in the Christian as in the Buddhist Legends. It can be also > found in the _Speculum Historiale_ of Vincent of Beauvais, which was > written in the thirteenth century. The first discovery is due to > the historian de Couto, although Professor Müller credits the first > recognition of the identity of the two stories to M. Laboulaye, in > 1859. Colonel Yule tells us that[1120] these stories of Barlaam and > Josaphat, are recognized by Baronius, and are to be found at p. 348, > of _The Roman Martyrology_, set forth by command of Pope Gregory > XIII., and revised by the authority of Pope Urban VIII., translated > out of Latin into English by G. K. of the Society of Jesus.[1121] > > To repeat even a small portion of this ecclesiastical nonsense would > be tedious and useless. Let him who doubts and who would learn the > story read it as given by Colonel Yule. Some[1122] of the Christian > and ecclesiastical speculations seem to have embarrassed even Dominie > Valentyn. “There be some, who hold this Budhum for a fugitive Syrian > Jew,” he writes; “others who hold him for a disciple of the Apostle > Thomas; but how in that case he could have been born 622 years before > Christ I leave them to explain. Diego de Couto stands by the belief > that he was certainly _Joshua_, which is still more absurd!” > > “The religious romance called _The History of Barlaam and Josaphat_ > was, for several centuries, one of the most popular works in > Christendom,” says Col. Yule. “It was translated into all the chief > European languages, including Scandinavian and Sclavonic tongues.... > This story first appears among the works of St. John of Damascus, > a theologian of the early part of the eighth century.”[1123] Here > then lies the secret of its origin, for this St. John, before he > became a divine, held a high office at the court of the Khalif Abu > Jáfar Almansur, where he probably learned the story, and afterwards > adapted it to the new orthodox necessities of the Buddha turned into > a Christian saint. > > Having repeated the plagiarized story, Diego de Couto, who seems to > yield up with reluctance his curious notion that Gautama was Joshua, > says: “To this name (Budâo) the Gentiles throughout all India have > dedicated great and superb pagodas. With reference to this story, > we have been diligent in inquiring if the ancient Gentiles of those > parts had in their writings any knowledge of St. Josaphat who was > converted by Balaam, and who in his legend is represented as the son > of a great king of India, and who had just the same up-bringing, with > all the same particulars that we have recounted of the life of the > Budâo. And as I was travelling in the Isle of Salsette, and went to > see that rare and admirable pagoda, which we call the Canará Pagoda > (Kànhari Caves) made in a mountain, with many halls cut out of one > solid rock, and inquiring of an old man about the work, what he > thought as to who had made it, he told us that without doubt the work > was made by order of the father of St. Josaphat to bring him up in > seclusion, as the story tells. And as it informs us that he was the > son of a great king in India, it may well be, as we have just said, > that _he_ was the Budâo, of whom they relate such marvels.”[1124] > > The Christian legend is taken, moreover, in most of its details, > from the Ceylonese tradition. It is on this island that originated > the story of young Gautama rejecting his father’s throne, and the > king’s erecting a superb palace for him, in which he kept him half > prisoner, surrounded by all the temptations of life and wealth. Marco > Polo told it as he had it from the Ceylonese, and his version is now > found to be a faithful repetition of what is given in the various > Buddhist books. As Marco naïvely expresses it, Buddha led a life of > such hardship and sanctity, and kept such great abstinence, “_just as > if he had been a Christian_. Indeed,” he adds, “had he but been so, > he would have been a great saint of our Lord Jesus Christ, so good > and pure was the life he led.” To which pious apothegm his editor > very pertinently remarks that “Marco is not the only eminent person > who has expressed this view of Sakya-muni’s life in such words.” And > in his turn Prof. Max Müller says: “And whatever we may think of > the sanctity of saints, let those who doubt the right of Buddha to > a place among them, read the story of his life as it is told in the > Buddhistical canon. If he lived the life which is there described, > few saints have a better claim to the title than Buddha; and no one > either in the Greek or the Roman Church need be ashamed of having > paid to his memory the honor that was intended for St. Josaphat, the > prince, the hermit, and the saint.” > > The Roman Catholic Church has never had so good a chance to > Christianize all China, Thibet, and Tartary, as in the thirteenth > century, during the reign of Kublai-Khan. It seems strange that they > did not embrace the opportunity when Kublai was hesitating at one > time between the four religions of the world, and, perhaps through > the eloquence of Marco Polo, favored Christianity more than either > Mahometanism, Judaism, or Buddhism. Marco Polo and Ramusio, one of > his interpreters, tell us why. It seems that, unfortunately for Rome, > the embassy of Marco’s father and uncle failed, because Clement IV. > happened to die just at that very time. There was no Pope for several > months to receive the friendly overtures of Kublai-Khan; and thus > the one hundred Christian missionaries invited by him could not be > sent to Thibet and Tartary. To those who believe that there is an > intelligent Deity above who takes a certain concern in the welfare of > our miserable little world, this _contretemps_ must in itself seem a > pretty good proof that Buddhism should have the best of Christianity. > Perhaps--who knows--Pope Clement fell sick so as to save the > Buddhists from sinking into the idolatry of Roman Catholicism? > > From pure Buddhism, the religion of these districts has degenerated > into lamaism; but the latter, with all its blemishes--purely > formalistic and impairing but little the doctrine itself--is yet > far above Catholicism. The poor Abbé Huc very soon found it out > for himself. As he moved on with his caravan, he writes--“every > one repeated to us that, as we advanced toward the west, we should > find the doctrines growing more luminous and sublime. Lha-Ssa was > the great focus of light, the rays from which became weakened as > they were diffused.” One day he gave to a Thibetan lama “a brief > summary of Christian doctrine, which appeared by no means unfamiliar > to him [we do not wonder at that], and he even maintained that it > [Catholicism] did not differ much from the faith of the grand lamas > of Thibet.... These words of the Thibetan lama astonished us not a > little,” writes the missionary; “the unity of God, the mystery of the > Incarnation, the dogma of the real presence, appeared to us in his > belief.... The new light thrown on the religion of Buddha induced us > really to believe that we should find among the lamas of Thibet a > more purified system.”[1125] It is these words of praise to lamaism, > with which Huc’s book abounds, that caused his work to be placed on > the Index at Rome, and himself to be unfrocked. > > When questioned why, since he held the Christian faith to be the best > of the religions protected by him, he did not attach himself to it, > the answer given by Kublai-Khan is as suggestive as it is curious: > > “How would you have me to become a Christian? There are four prophets > worshipped and revered by all the world. The Christians say their > God is Jesus Christ; the Saracens, Mahomet; the Jews, Moses; the > idolaters, Sogomon Borkan (Sakva-muni Burkham, or Buddha), who was > the first god among the idols; and I worship and pay respect to all > four, and pray that he among them who is greatest in heaven in very > truth may aid me.” > > We may ridicule the Khan’s prudence; we cannot blame him for > trustingly leaving the decision of the puzzling dilemma to > Providence itself. One of his most unsurmountable objections to > embrace Christianity he thus specifies to Marco: “You see that the > Christians of these parts are so ignorant that they achieve nothing > and can achieve nothing, whilst you see the idolaters can do anything > they please, insomuch that when I sit at table, the cups from the > middle of the hall come to me full of wine or other liquor, without > being touched by anybody, and I drink from them. They control storms, > causing them to pass in whatever direction they please, and do many > other marvels; whilst, as you know, their idols speak, and give them > predictions on whatever subjects they choose. But if I were to turn > to the faith of Christ and become a Christian, then my barons and > others who are not converted, would say: ‘What has moved you to be > baptized?... What powers or miracles have you witnessed on the part > of Christ? You know the idolaters here say that their wonders are > performed by the sanctity and power of their idols.’ Well, I should > not know what answer to make, so they would only be confirmed in > their errors, and the idolaters, who are adepts in such surprising > arts, would easily compass my death. But now you shall go to your > Pope, and pray him on my part to send hither an hundred men skilled > in your law; and if they are capable of rebuking the practices of > idolaters to their faces, and of proving to them _that they too know > how to do such things, but will not_, because they are done by the > help of the Devil and other evil spirits; and if they so control the > idolaters that these shall have no power to perform such things in > their presence, _and when we shall witness this_, we will denounce > the idolaters and their religion, and then I will receive baptism, > and then all my barons and chiefs shall be baptized also, and thus, > in the end, there will be more Christians here than exist in your > part of the world.”[1126] > > The proposition was fair. Why did not the Christians avail themselves > of it? Moses is said to have faced such an ordeal before Pharaoh, and > come off triumphant. > > To our mind, the logic of this uneducated Mongol was unanswerable, > his intuition faultless. He saw good results in all religions, and > felt that, whether a man be Buddhist, Christian, Mahometan, or Jew, > his spiritual powers might equally be developed, his faith equally > lead him to the highest truth. All he asked before making choice of a > creed for his people, was the evidence upon which to base faith. > > To judge alone by its jugglers, India must certainly be better > acquainted with alchemy, chemistry, and physics than any European > academy. The psychological wonders produced by some fakirs of > Southern Hindustan, and by the shaberons and hobilhans of Thibet and > Mongolia, alike prove our case. The science of psychology has there > reached an acme of perfection never attained elsewhere in the annals > of the marvellous. That such powers are not alone due to study, but > are natural to every human being, is now proved in Europe and America > by the phenomena of mesmerism and what is termed “spiritualism.” If > the majority of foreign travellers, and residents in British India, > are disposed to regard the whole as clever jugglery, not so with a > few Europeans who have had the rare luck to be admitted _behind the > veil_ in the pagodas. Surely these will not deride the rites, nor > undervalue the phenomena produced in the secret lodges of India. The > _mahadthêvassthanam_ of the pagodas (usually termed _goparam_, from > the sacred pyramidal gateway by which the buildings are entered) has > been known to Europeans before now, though to a mere handful in all. > > We do not know whether the prolific Jacolliot[1127] was ever admitted > into one of these lodges. It is extremely doubtful, we should say, > if we may judge from his many fantastic tales of the immoralities of > the mystical rites among the Brahmans, the fakirs of the pagodas, > and even the Buddhists (!!) at all of which he makes himself figure > as a Joseph. Anyhow, it is evident that the Brahmans taught him no > secrets, for speaking of the fakirs and their wonders, he remarks, > “under the direction of initiated Brahmans they practice in the > seclusion of the pagodas, the _occult sciences_.... And let no one > be surprised at this word, which seems to open the door of the > supernatural; while there are in the sciences which the Brahmans call > occult, phenomena so extraordinary as to baffle all investigation, > there is not one which cannot be explained, and which is not subject > to natural law.” > > Unquestionably, any initiated Brahman could, if he would, explain > every phenomenon. But _he will not_. Meanwhile, we have yet to see an > explanation by the best of our physicists of even the most trivial > occult phenomenon produced by a fakir-pupil of a pagoda. > > Jacolliot says that it will be quite impracticable to give an account > of the marvellous facts witnessed by himself. But adds, with entire > truthfulness, “let it suffice to say, that in regard to magnetism > and spiritism, Europe has yet to stammer over the first letters > of the alphabet, and that the Brahmans have reached, in these two > departments of learning, results in the way of phenomena that are > truly stupefying. When one sees these strange manifestations, whose > power one cannot deny, without grasping the laws that the Brahmans > _keep so carefully concealed_, the mind is overwhelmed with wonder, > and one feels that he must run away and break the charm that holds > him.” > > “The only explanation that we have been able to obtain on the subject > from a learned Brahman, with whom we were on terms of the closest > intimacy, was this: ‘You have studied physical nature, and you have > obtained, through the laws of nature, marvellous results--steam, > electricity, etc.; _for twenty thousand years or more, we have > studied_ the _intellectual_ forces, we have discovered their laws, > and _we obtain, by making them act alone or in concert with matter, > phenomena still more astonishing than your own_.’” > > Jacolliot must indeed have been stupefied by wonders, for he says: > “We have seen things such as one does not describe for fear of making > his readers doubt his intelligence ... but still we have seen them. > And truly one comprehends how, in presence of such facts, the ancient > world believed ... in possessions of the Devil and in exorcism.”[1128] > > But yet this uncompromising enemy of priestcraft, monastic orders, > and the clergy of every religion and every land--including > Brahmans, lamas, and fakirs--is so struck with the contrast between > the fact-supported cults of India, and the empty pretences of > Catholicism, that after describing the terrible self-tortures of the > fakirs, in a burst of honest indignation, he thus gives vent to his > feelings: “Nevertheless, these fakirs, these mendicant Brahmans, have > still something grand about them: when they flagellate themselves, > when during the self-inflicted martyrdom the flesh is torn out by > bits, the blood pours upon the ground. But you (Catholic mendicants), > what do you do to-day? You, Gray Friars, Capuchins, Franciscans, > who play at fakirs, with your knotted cords, your flints, your hair > shirts, and your rose-water flagellations, your bare feet and your > comical mortifications--fanatics without faith, martyrs without > tortures? Has not one the right to ask you, if it is to obey the > law of God that you shut yourselves in behind thick walls, and thus > escape the law of labor which weighs so heavily upon all other > men?... Away, you are only beggars!” > > Let them pass on--we have devoted too much space to them and their > conglomerate theology, already. We have weighed both in the balance > of history, of logic, of truth, and found them wanting. Their > system breeds atheism, nihilism, despair, and crime; its priests and > preachers are unable to prove by works their reception of divine > power. If both Church and priest could but pass out of the sight of > the world as easily as their names do now from the eye of our reader, > it would be a happy day for humanity. New York and London might then > soon become as moral as a heathen city unoccupied by Christians; > Paris be cleaner than the ancient Sodom. When Catholic and Protestant > would be as fully satisfied as a Buddhist or Brahman that their every > crime would be punished, and every good deed rewarded, they might > spend upon their own _heathen_ what now goes to give missionaries > long picnics, and to make the name of Christian hated and despised by > every nation outside the boundaries of Christendom. > > * * * * * > > As occasion required, we have reinforced our argument with > descriptions of a few of the innumerable phenomena witnessed by us > in different parts of the world. The remaining space at our disposal > will be devoted to like subjects. Having laid a foundation by > elucidating the philosophy of occult phenomena, it seems opportune > to illustrate the theme with facts that have occurred under our own > eye, and that may be verified by any traveller. Primitive peoples > have disappeared, but primitive wisdom survives, and is attainable by > those who “will,” “dare,” and can “keep silent.” > > CHAPTER XII. > > “My vast and noble capital, my Daïtu, my splendidly-adorned; > And thou, my cool and delicious summer-seat, my Shangtu-Keibung. > * * * * * > Alas, for my illustrious name as the Sovereign of the World! > Alas, for my Daïtu, seat of sanctity, glorious work of the > immortal Kublaī! > All, all is rent from me!”--COL. YULE, in _Marco Polo_. > > “As for what thou hearest others say, who persuade the many > that the soul, when once freed from the body, neither > suffers ... evil nor is conscious, I know that thou art > better grounded in the doctrines received by us from our > ancestors, and in the sacred orgies of Dionysus, than to > believe them; _for the mystic symbols are well known to us > who belong to the ‘Brotherhood.’_”--PLUTARCH. > > “The problem of life is _man_. MAGIC, or rather Wisdom, is > the evolved knowledge of the potencies of man’s interior > being; which forces are Divine emanations, as intuition is > the perception of their origin, and initiation our induction > into that knowledge.... We begin with instinct; the end is > OMNISCIENCE.”--A. WILDER. > > “Power belongs to him WHO KNOWS.”--_Brahmanical Book of > Evocation._ > > It would argue small discernment on our part were we to suppose > that we had been followed thus far through this work by any but > meta-physicians, or mystics of some sort. Were it otherwise, we > should certainly advise such to spare themselves the trouble of > reading this chapter; for, although nothing is said that is not > strictly true, they would not fail to regard the least wonderful of > the narratives as absolutely false, however substantiated. > > To comprehend the principles of natural law involved in the several > phenomena hereinafter described, the reader must keep in mind the > fundamental propositions of the Oriental philosophy which we have > successively elucidated. Let us recapitulate very briefly: > > 1st. There is no miracle. Everything that happens is the result > of law--eternal, immutable, ever active. Apparent miracle is but > the operation of forces antagonistic to what Dr. W. B. Carpenter, > F.R.S.--a man of great learning but little knowledge--calls “the > well-ascertained laws of nature.” Like many of his class, Dr. > Carpenter ignores the fact that there may be laws once “known,” now > unknown to science. > > 2d. Nature is triune: there is a visible, objective nature; an > invisible, indwelling, energizing nature, the exact model of the > other, and its vital principle; and, above these two, _spirit_, > source of all forces, alone eternal, and indestructible. The lower > two constantly change; the higher third does not. > > 3d. Man is also triune: he has his objective, physical body; his > vitalizing astral body (or soul), the real man; and these two are > brooded over and illuminated by the third--the sovereign, the > immortal spirit. When the real man succeeds in merging himself with > the latter, he becomes an immortal entity. > > 4th. Magic, as a science, is the knowledge of these principles, and > of the way by which the omniscience and omnipotence of the spirit and > its control over nature’s forces may be acquired by the individual > while still in the body. Magic, as an art, is the application of this > knowledge in practice. > > 5th. Arcane knowledge misapplied, is sorcery; beneficently used, true > magic or wisdom. > > 6th. Mediumship is the opposite of adeptship; the medium is the > passive instrument of foreign influences, the adept actively controls > himself and all inferior potencies. > > 7th. All things that ever were, that are, or that will be, having > their record upon the astral light, or tablet of the unseen universe, > the initiated adept, by using the vision of his own spirit, can know > all that has been known or can be known. > > 8th. Races of men differ in spiritual gifts as in color, stature, or > any other external quality; among some peoples seership naturally > prevails, among others mediumship. Some are addicted to sorcery, and > transmit its secret rules of practice from generation to generation, > with a range of psychical phenomena, more or less wide, as the result. > > 9th. One phase of magical skill is the voluntary and conscious > withdrawal of the inner man (astral form) from the outer man > (physical body). In the cases of some mediums withdrawal occurs, but > it is unconscious and involuntary. With the latter the body is more > or less cataleptic at such times; but with the adept the absence > of the astral form would not be noticed, for the physical senses > are alert, and the individual appears only as though in a fit of > abstraction--“a brown study,” as some call it. > > To the movements of the wandering astral form neither time nor space > offer obstacles. The thaumaturgist, thoroughly skilled in occult > science, can cause himself (that is, his physical body) to _seem_ to > disappear, or to apparently take on any shape that he may choose. > He may make his astral form visible, or he may give it protean > appearances. In both cases these results will be achieved by a > mesmeric hallucination of the senses of all witnesses, simultaneously > brought on. This hallucination is so perfect that the subject of it > would stake his life that he saw a reality, when it is but a picture > in his own mind, impressed upon his consciousness by the irresistible > will of the mesmerizer. > > But, while the astral form can go anywhere, penetrate any obstacle, > and be seen at any distance from the physical body, the latter > is dependent upon ordinary methods of transportation. It may be > levitated under prescribed magnetic conditions, but not pass from one > locality to another except in the usual way. Hence we discredit all > stories of the aërial flight of mediums in body, for such would be > miracle, and miracle we repudiate. Inert matter may be, in certain > cases and under certain conditions, disintegrated, passed through > walls, and recombined, but living animal organisms cannot. > > Swedenborgians believe and arcane science teaches that the > abandonment of the living body by the soul frequently occurs, and > that we encounter every day, in every condition of life, such living > corpses. Various causes, among them overpowering fright, grief, > despair, a violent attack of sickness, or excessive sensuality may > bring this about. The vacant carcass may be entered and inhabited > by the astral form of an adept sorcerer, or an elementary (an > earth-bound disembodied human soul), or, very rarely, an elemental. > Of course, an adept of white magic has the same power, but unless > some very exceptional and great object is to be accomplished, he > will never consent to pollute himself by occupying the body of an > impure person. In insanity, the patient’s astral being is either > semi-paralyzed, bewildered, and subject to the influence of every > passing spirit of any sort, or it has departed forever, and the > body is taken possession of by some vampirish entity near its own > disintegration, and clinging desperately to earth, whose sensual > pleasures it may enjoy for a brief season longer by this expedient. > > 10th. The corner-stone of MAGIC is an intimate practical knowledge > of magnetism and electricity, their qualities, correlations, and > potencies. Especially necessary is a familiarity with their effects > in and upon the animal kingdom and man. There are occult properties > in many other minerals, equally strange with that in the lodestone, > which all practitioners of magic _must_ know, and of which so-called > exact science is wholly ignorant. Plants also have like mystical > properties in a most wonderful degree, and the secrets of the herbs > of dreams and enchantments are only lost to European science, and > useless to say, too, are unknown to it, except in a few marked > instances, such as opium and hashish. Yet, the psychical effects of > even these few upon the human system are regarded as evidences of > a temporary mental disorder. The women of Thessaly and Epirus, the > female hierophants of the rites of Sabazius, did not carry their > secrets away with the downfall of their sanctuaries. They are still > preserved, and those who are aware of the nature of Soma, know the > properties of other plants as well. > > To sum up all in a few words, MAGIC is spiritual WISDOM; nature, > the material ally, pupil and servant of the magician. One common > vital principle pervades all things, and this is controllable by the > perfected human will. The adept can stimulate the movements of the > natural forces in plants and animals in a preternatural degree. Such > experiments are not obstructions of nature, but quickenings; the > conditions of intenser vital action are given. > > The adept can control the sensations and alter the conditions of > the physical and astral bodies of other persons not adepts; he can > also govern and employ, as he chooses, the spirits of the elements. > He cannot control the immortal spirit of any human being, living or > dead, for all such spirits are alike sparks of the Divine Essence, > and not subject to any foreign domination. > > There are two kinds of seership--that of the soul and that of the > spirit. The seership of the ancient Pythoness, or of the modern > mesmerized subject, vary but in the artificial modes adopted to > induce the state of clairvoyance. But, as the visions of both depend > upon the greater or less acuteness of the senses of the astral body, > they differ very widely from the perfect, omniscient spiritual state; > for, at best, the subject can get but glimpses of truth, through > the veil which physical nature interposes. The astral principle, or > mind, called by the Hindu Yogin _fav-atma_, is the sentient soul, > inseparable from our physical brain, which it holds in subjection, > and is in its turn equally trammelled by it. This is the _ego_, the > intellectual life-principle of man, his conscious entity. While it > is yet _within_ the material body, the clearness and correctness of > its spiritual visions depend on its more or less intimate relation > with its higher Principle. When this relation is such as to allow the > most ethereal portions of the soul-essence to act independently of > its grosser particles and of the brain, it can unerringly comprehend > what it sees; then only is it the pure, rational, _super_sentient > soul. That state is known in India as the _Samâddi_; it is the > highest condition of spirituality possible to man on earth. Fakirs > try to obtain such a condition by holding their breath for hours > together during their religious exercises, and call this practice > _dam-sādhna_. The Hindu terms _Pranayama_, _Pratyahara_, and > _Dharana_, all relate to different psychological states, and show > how much more the Sanscrit, and even the modern Hindu language > are adapted to the clear elucidation of the phenomena that are > encountered by those who study this branch of psychological science, > than the tongues of modern peoples, whose experiences have not yet > necessitated the invention of such descriptive terms. > > When the body is in the state of _dharana_--a total catalepsy of the > physical frame--the soul of the clairvoyant may liberate itself, and > perceive things subjectively. And yet, as the sentient principle of > the brain is alive and active, these pictures of the past, present, > and future will be tinctured with the terrestrial perceptions of the > objective world; the physical _memory_ and _fancy_ will be in the > way of clear vision. But the seer-adept knows how to suspend the > mechanical action of the brain. His visions will be as clear as truth > itself, uncolored and undistorted, whereas, the clairvoyant, unable > to control the vibrations of the astral waves, will perceive but more > or less broken images through the medium of the brain. The seer can > never take flickering shadows for realities, for his memory being as > completely subjected to his will as the rest of the body, he receives > impressions directly from his spirit. Between his subjective and > objective selves there are no obstructive mediums. This is the real > spiritual seership, in which, according to an expression of Plato, > soul is raised above all inferior good. When we reach “that which > is supreme, which is _simple, pure, and unchangeable, without form, > color, or human qualities_: the God--_our Nous_.” > > This is the state which such seers as Plotinus and Apollonius > termed the “Union to the Deity;” which the ancient Yogins called > _Isvara_,[1129] and the modern call “Samâddi;” but this state is > as far above modern clairvoyance as the stars above glow-worms. > Plotinus, as is well known, was a clairvoyant-seer during his whole > and daily life; and yet, _he had been united to his God_ but six > times during the sixty-six years of his existence, as he himself > confessed to Porphyry. > > Ammonius Sakkas, the “God-taught,” asserts that the only power > which is directly opposed to soothsaying and looking into > futurity is _memory_; and Olympiodorus calls it _phantasy_. “The > phantasy,” he says (in _Platonis Phæd._), is an impediment to our > intellectual conceptions; and hence, when we are agitated by the > inspiring influence of the Divinity, if the phantasy intervenes, > the enthusiastic energy ceases; for enthusiasm and the ecstasy are > contrary to each other. Should it be asked whether the soul is able > to energize without the phantasy, we reply, that its perception of > universals proves that it is able. It has perceptions, therefore, > independent of the phantasy; at the same time, however, the phantasy > attends it in its energies, just as a storm pursues him who sails on > the sea.” > > A medium, moreover, needs either a foreign intelligence--whether it > be spirit or living mesmerizer--to overpower his physical and mental > parts, or some factitious means to induce trance. An adept, and even > a simple fakir requires but a few minutes of “self-contemplation.” > The brazen columns of Solomon’s temple; the golden bells and > pomegranates of Aaron; the Jupiter Capitolinus of Augustus, hung > around with harmonious bells;[1130] and the brazen bowls of the > Mysteries when the Kora was called,[1131] were all intended for such > artificial helps.[1132] So were the brazen bowls of Solomon hung > round with a double row of 200 pomegranates, which served as clappers > within the hollow columns. The priestesses of Northern Germany, under > the guidance of hierophants, could never prophesy but amidst the > roar of the tumultuous waters. Regarding fixedly the eddies formed > on the rapid course of the river they _hypnotized_ themselves. So > we read of Joseph, Jacob’s son, who sought for divine inspiration > with his silver divining-cup, which must have had a very bright > bottom to it. The priestesses of Dodona placed themselves under > the ancient oak of Zeus (the Pelasgian, not the Olympian god), and > listened intently to the rustling of the sacred leaves, while others > concentrated their attention on the soft murmur of the cold spring > gushing from underneath its roots.[1133] But the adept has no need of > any such extraneous aids--the simple exertion of his _will_-power is > all-sufficient. > > The _Atharva-Veda_ teaches that the exercise of such will-power is > the highest form of prayer and its instantaneous response. To desire > is to realize in proportion to the intensity of the aspiration; and > that, in its turn, is measured by inward purity. > > Some of these nobler Vedantic precepts on the soul and man’s mystic > powers, have recently been contributed to an English periodical > by a Hindu scholar. “The _Sankhya_,” he writes, “inculcates that > the soul (_i.e._, astral body) has the following powers: shrinking > into a minute bulk to which everything is pervious; enlarging to a > gigantic body; assuming levity (rising along a sunbeam to the solar > orb); possessing an unlimited reach of organs, as touching the moon > with the tip of a finger; irresistible will (for instance, sinking > into the earth as easily as in water); dominion over all things, > animate or inanimate; faculty of changing the course of nature; > ability to accomplish every desire.” Further, he gives their various > appellations: > > “The powers are called: 1, _Anima_; 2, _Mahima_; 3, _Laghima_; 4, > _Garima_; 5, _Prapti_; 6, _Prakamya_; 7, _Vasitwa_; 8, _Isitwa_, or > divine power. The fifth, predicting future events, understanding > unknown languages, curing diseases, divining unexpressed thoughts, > understanding the language of the heart. The sixth is the power > of converting old age into youth. The seventh is the power of > mesmerizing human beings and beasts, and making them obedient; it is > the power of restraining passions and emotions. The eighth power is > the spiritual state, and presupposes the absence of the above seven > powers, as in this state the Yogi is full of God.” > > “No writings,” he adds, “revealed or sacred, were allowed to be so > authoritative and final _as the teaching of the soul_. Some of the > Rishis appear to have laid the greatest stress on this supersensuous > source of knowledge.”[1134] > > From the remotest antiquity _mankind_ as a whole _have always been > convinced of the existence of a personal spiritual entity within the > personal physical man_. This inner entity was more or less divine, > according to its proximity to the _crown_--Chrestos. The closer the > union the more serene man’s destiny, the less dangerous the external > conditions. This belief is neither bigotry nor superstition, only > an ever-present, instinctive feeling of the proximity of another > spiritual and invisible world, which, though it be subjective to the > senses of the outward man, is perfectly objective to the inner ego. > Furthermore, they believed that _there are external and internal > conditions which affect the determination of our will upon our > actions_. They rejected fatalism, for fatalism implies a blind course > of some still blinder power. But they believed in _destiny_, which > from birth to death every man is weaving thread by thread around > himself, as a spider does his cobweb; and this destiny is guided > either by that presence termed by some the guardian angel, or our > more intimate astral inner man, who is but too often the evil genius > of the man of flesh. Both these lead on the outward man, but one > of them must prevail; and from the very beginning of the invisible > affray the stern and implacable _law of compensation_ steps in and > takes its course, following faithfully the fluctuations. When the > last strand is woven, and man is seemingly enwrapped in the net-work > of his own doing, then he finds himself completely under the empire > of this _self-made_ destiny. It then either fixes him like the inert > shell against the immovable rock, or like a feather carries him away > in a whirlwind raised by his own actions. > > The greatest philosophers of antiquity found it neither unreasonable > nor strange that “souls should come to souls, and impart to them > conceptions of future things, occasionally by letters, or by a mere > touch, or by a glance reveal to them past events or announce future > ones,” as Ammonius tells us. Moreover, Lamprias and others held > that if the _unembodied_ spirits or souls could descend on earth > and become guardians of mortal men, “we should not seek to deprive > _those souls which are still in the body_ of that power by which > the former know future events and are able to announce them. It is > not probable,” adds Lamprias, “that the soul gains a new power of > prophecy after separation from the body, and which before it did not > possess. We may rather conclude _that it possessed all these powers > during its union with the body, although in a lesser perfection_.... > For as the sun does not shine only when it passes from among the > clouds, but has always been radiant and has only appeared dim and > obscured by vapors, the soul does not only receive the power of > looking into futurity when it passes from the body as from a cloud, > but _has possessed it always_, though dimmed by connection with the > earthly.” > > A familiar example of one phase of the power of the soul or astral > body to manifest itself, is the phenomenon of the so-called > spirit-hand. In the presence of certain mediums these seemingly > detached members will gradually develop from a luminous nebula, pick > up a pencil, write messages, and then dissolve before the eyes of the > witnesses. Many such cases are recorded by perfectly competent and > trustworthy persons. These phenomena are real, and require serious > consideration. But false “phantom-hands” have sometimes been taken > for the genuine. At Dresden we once saw a hand and arm, made for the > purpose of deception, with an ingenious arrangement of springs that > would cause the machine to imitate to perfection the movements of the > natural member; while exteriorly it would require close inspection to > detect its artificial character. In using this, the dishonest medium > slips his natural arm out of his sleeve, and replaces it with the > mechanical substitute; both hands may then be made to seem resting > upon the table, while in fact one is touching the sitters, showing > itself, knocking the furniture, and making other phenomena. > > The mediums for real manifestations are least able, as a rule, > to comprehend or explain them. Among those who have written most > intelligently upon the subject of these luminous hands, may be > reckoned Dr. Francis Gerry Fairfield, author of _Ten Years among > the Mediums_, an article from whose pen appears in the _Library > Table_ for July 19, 1877. A medium himself, he is yet a strong > opponent of the spiritualistic theory. Discussing the subject of the > “phantom-hand,” he testifies that “this the writer has personally > witnessed, under conditions of test provided by himself, in his own > room, in full daylight, with the medium seated upon a sofa from six > to eight feet from the table hovering upon which the apparition (the > hand) appeared. The application of the poles of a horse-shoe magnet > to the hand caused it to waver perceptibly, and threw the medium > into violent convulsions--pretty positive evidence that _the force > concerned in the phenomenon was generated in his own nervous system_.” > > Dr. Fairfield’s deduction that the fluttering phantom-hand is an > emanation from the medium is logical, and it is correct. The test > of the horse-shoe magnet proves in a scientific way what every > kabalist would affirm upon the authority of experience, no less than > philosophy. The “force concerned in the phenomenon” is the will of > the medium, exercised unconsciously to the outer man, which for the > time is semi-paralyzed and cataleptic; the phantom-hand an extrusion > of the man’s inner or astral member. This is that real self whose > limbs the surgeon cannot amputate, but remain behind after the outer > casing is cut off, and (all theories of exposed or compressed nerve > termini to the contrary, notwithstanding) have all the sensations the > physical parts formerly experienced. This is that spiritual (astral) > body which “is raised in incorruption.” It is useless to argue that > these are _spirit_-hands; for, admitting even that at every seance > human spirits of many kinds are attracted to the medium, and that > they do guide and produce some manifestations, yet to make hands or > faces objective they are compelled to use either the astral limbs of > the medium, or the materials furnished them by the elementals, or yet > the combined aural emanations of all persons present. _Pure_ spirits > will not and _cannot_ show themselves objectively; those that do are > not pure spirits, but elementary and impure. Woe to the medium who > falls a prey to such! > > The same principle involved in the unconscious extrusion of a > phantom limb by the cataleptic medium, applies to the projection > of his entire “double” or astral body. This may be withdrawn by > the will of the medium’s own inner self, without his retaining in > his physical brain any recollection of such an intent--that is one > phase of man’s dual capacity. It may also be effected by elementary > and elemental spirits, to whom he may stand in the relation of > mesmeric subject. Dr. Fairfield is right in one position taken in > his book, viz.: mediums are usually diseased, and in many if not > most cases the children or near connections of mediums. But he > is wholly wrong in attributing all psychical phenomena to morbid > physiological conditions. The adepts of Eastern magic are uniformly > in perfect mental and bodily health, and in fact the voluntary and > independent production of phenomena is impossible to any others. We > have known many, and never a sick man among them. The adept retains > perfect consciousness; shows no change of bodily temperature, or > other sign of morbidity; requires no “conditions,” but will do his > feats anywhere and everywhere; and instead of being passive and in > subjection to a foreign influence, rules the forces with iron will. > But we have elsewhere shown that the medium and the adept are as > opposed as the poles. We will only add here that the body, soul, and > spirit of the adept are all conscious and working in harmony, and the > body of the medium is an inert clod, and even his soul may be away in > a dream while its habitation is occupied by another. > > An adept can not only project and make visible a hand, a foot, or > any other portion of his body, but the whole of it. We have seen one > do this, in full day, while his hands and feet were being held by a > skeptical friend whom he wished to surprise.[1135] Little by little > the whole astral body oozed out like a vapory cloud, until before us > stood two forms, of which the second was an exact duplicate of the > first, only slightly more shadowy. > > The medium need not exercise any _will-power_. It suffices that > she or he shall know what is expected by the investigators. The > medium’s “spiritual” entity, when not obsessed by other spirits, > will act outside the will or consciousness of the physical being, as > surely as it acts when within the body during a fit of somnambulism. > Its perceptions, external and internal, will be acuter and far > more developed, precisely as they are in the sleep-walker. And > this is why “the materialized form sometimes knows more than the > medium,”[1136] for the intellectual perception of the astral entity > is proportionately as much higher than the corporeal intelligence > of the medium in its normal state, as the spirit entity is finer > than itself. Generally the medium will be found cold, the pulse will > have visibly changed, and a state of nervous prostration succeeds > the phenomena, bunglingly and without discrimination attributed to > disembodied spirits; whereas, but one-third of them may be produced > by the latter, another third by elementals, and the rest by the > astral double of the medium himself. > > But, while it is our firm belief that most of the physical > manifestations, _i.e._, those which neither need nor show > intelligence nor great discrimination, are produced mechanically > by the _scin-lecca_ (double) of the medium, as a person in sound > sleep will when apparently awake do things of which he will retain > no remembrance. The purely subjective phenomena are but in a very > small proportion of cases due to the action of the personal astral > body. They are mostly, and according to the moral, intellectual, and > physical purity of the medium, the work of either the elementary, or > sometimes very pure human spirits. Elementals have naught to do with > subjective manifestations. In rare cases it is the _divine_ spirit of > the medium himself that guides and produces them. > > As Baboo Peary Chand Mittra says, in a letter[1137] to the President > of the National Association of Spiritualists, Mr. Alexander > Calder,[1138] “a spirit is an essence or power, and has no form.... > The very idea of form implies ‘materialism.’ The spirits [astral > souls, we should say] ... can assume forms for a time, but form is > not their permanent state. The more material is our soul, the more > material is our conception of spirits.” > > Epimenides, the Orphikos, was renowned for his “sacred and marvellous > nature,” and for the faculty his soul possessed of quitting its body > “_as long and as often as it pleased_.” The ancient philosophers who > have testified to this ability may be reckoned by dozens. Apollonius > left his body at a moment’s notice, but it must be remembered > Apollonius was an adept--a “magician.” Had he been simply a medium, > he could not have performed such feats _at will_. Empedocles of > Agrigentum, the Pythagorean thaumaturgist, required no _conditions_ > to arrest a waterspout which had broken over the city. Neither did > he need any to recall a woman to life, as he did. Apollonius used no > _darkened_ room in which to perform his æthrobatic feats. Vanishing > suddenly in the air before the eyes of Domitian and a whole crowd of > witnesses (many thousands), he appeared an hour after in the grotto > of Puteoli. But investigation would have shown that his physical > body having become invisible by the concentration of akâsa about > it, he could walk off unperceived to some secure retreat in the > neighborhood, and an hour after his astral form appear at Puteoli to > his friends, and seem to be the man himself. > > No more did Simon Magus wait to be entranced to fly off in the > air before the apostles and crowds of witnesses. “It requires no > conjuration and ceremonies; circle-making and incensing are mere > nonsense and juggling,” says Paracelsus. The human spirit “is so > great a thing that no man can express it; as God Himself is eternal > and unchangeable, so also is the mind of man. If we rightly > understood its powers, nothing would be impossible to us on earth. > The imagination is strengthened and developed through _faith in our > will_. Faith must confirm the imagination, for faith establishes the > will.” > > A singular account of the personal interview of an English ambassador > in 1783, with a reïncarnated Buddha--barely mentioned in volume > i.--an infant of eighteen months old at that time, is given in the > _Asiatic Journal_ from the narrative of an eye-witness himself, > Mr. Turner, the author of _The Embassy to Thibet_. The cautious > phraseology of a skeptic dreading public ridicule ill conceals > the amazement of the witness, who, at the same time, desires to > give facts as truthfully as possible. The infant lama received the > ambassador and his suite with a dignity and decorum so natural > and unconstrained that they remained in a perfect maze of wonder. > The behavior of this infant, says the author, was that of an old > philosopher, grave and sedate and exceedingly courteous. He contrived > to make the young pontiff understand the inconsolable grief into > which the Governor-General of Galagata (Calcutta) the City of Palaces > and the people of India were plunged when he died, and the general > rapture when they found that he had resurrected in a young and fresh > body again; at which compliment the young lama regarded him and his > suite with looks of singular complacency, and courteously treated > them to confectionery from a golden cup. “The ambassador continued to > express the Governor-General’s hope that the lama might long continue > to illumine the world with his presence, and that the friendship > which had heretofore subsisted between them might be yet more > strongly cemented, for the benefit and advantage of the intelligent > votaries of the lama ... all which made the little creature look > steadfastly at the speaker, and graciously bow and nod--and bow > and nod--as _if he_ understood and approved of every word that was > uttered.”[1139] > > As _if_ he understood! _If_ the infant behaved in the most natural > and dignified way during the reception, and “when their cups were > empty of tea became uneasy and throwing back his head and contracting > the skin of his brow, continued making a noise till they were filled > again,” why could he not understand as well what was said to him? > > Years ago, a small party of travellers were painfully journeying > from Kashmir to Leh, a city of Ladâhk (Central Thibet). Among > our guides we had a Tartar Shaman, a very mysterious personage, > who spoke Russian a little and English not at all, and yet who > managed, nevertheless, to converse with us, and proved of great > service. Having learned that some of our party were Russians, he had > imagined that our protection was all-powerful, and might enable > him to safely find his way back to his Siberian home, from which, > for reasons unknown, some twenty years before, he had fled, as he > told us, via Kiachta and the great Gobi Desert, to the land of the > Tcha-gars.[1140] With such an interested object in view, we believed > ourselves safe under his guard. To explain the situation briefly: > Our companions had formed the unwise plan of penetrating into Thibet > under various disguises, none of them speaking the language, although > one, a Mr. K----, had picked up some Kasan Tartar, and thought he > did. As we mention this only incidentally, we may as well say at once > that two of them, the brothers N----, were very politely brought back > to the frontier before they had walked sixteen miles into the weird > land of Eastern Bod; and Mr. K----, an ex-Lutheran minister, could > not even attempt to leave his miserable village near Leh, as from > the first days he found himself prostrated with fever, and had to > return to Lahore via Kashmere. But one sight seen by him was as good > as if he had witnessed the reïncarnation of Buddha itself. Having > heard of this “miracle” from some old Russian missionary in whom > he thought he could have more faith than in Abbé Huc, it had been > for years his desire to expose the “great heathen” jugglery, as he > expressed it. K---- was a positivist, and rather prided himself on > this anti-philosophical neologism. But his positivism was doomed to > receive a death-blow. > > About four days journey from Islamabad, at an insignificant mud > village, whose only redeeming feature was its magnificent lake, > we stopped for a few days’ rest. Our companions had temporarily > separated from us, and the village was to be our place of meeting. > It was there that we were apprised by our Shaman that a large party > of Lamaïc “Saints,” on pilgrimage to various shrines, had taken up > their abode in an old cave-temple and established a temporary Vihara > therein. He added that, as the “Three Honorable Ones”[1141] were said > to travel along with them, the holy Bikshu (monks) were capable of > producing the greatest miracles. Mr. K----, fired with the prospect > of exposing this humbug of the ages, proceeded at once to pay them > a visit, and from that moment the most friendly relations were > established between the two camps. > > The Vihar was in a secluded and most romantic spot secured against > all intrusion. Despite the effusive attentions, presents, and > protestations of Mr. K----, the Chief, who was Pase-Budhu (an ascetic > of great sanctity), declined to exhibit the phenomenon of the > “incarnation” until a certain talisman in possession of the writer > was exhibited.[1142] Upon seeing this, however, preparations were at > once made, and an infant of three or four months was procured from > its mother, a poor woman of the neighborhood. An oath was first of > all exacted of Mr. K----, that he would not divulge what he might > see or hear, for the space of seven years. The talisman is a simple > agate or carnelian known among the Thibetans and others as _A-yu_, > and naturally possessed, or had been endowed with very mysterious > properties. It has a triangle engraved upon it, within which are > contained a few mystical words.[1143] > > Several days passed before everything was ready; nothing of a > mysterious character occurring, meanwhile, except that, at the > bidding of a Bikshu, ghastly faces were made to peep at us out of > the glassy bosom of the lake, as we sat at the door of the Vihar, > upon its bank. One of these was the countenance of Mr. K----’s > sister, whom he had left well and happy at home, but who, as we > subsequently learned, had died some time before he had set out on > the present journey. The sight affected him at first, but he called > his skepticism to his aid, and quieted himself with theories of > cloud-shadows, reflections of tree-branches, etc., such as people of > his kind fall back upon. > > On the appointed afternoon, the baby being brought to the Vihara, > was left in the vestibule or reception-room, as K---- could go no > further into the temporary sanctuary. The child was then placed on a > bit of carpet in the middle of the floor, and every one not belonging > to the party being sent away, two “mendicants” were placed at the > entrance to keep out intruders. Then all the lamas seated themselves > on the floor, with their backs against the granite walls, so that > each was separated from the child by a space, at least, of ten feet. > The chief, having had a square piece of leather spread for him by > the _desservant_, seated himself at the farthest corner. Alone, Mr. > K---- placed himself close by the infant, and watched every movement > with intense interest. The only condition exacted of us was that > we should preserve a strict silence, and patiently await further > developments. A bright sunlight streamed through the open door. > Gradually the “Superior” fell into what seemed a state of profound > meditation, while the others, after a _sotto voce_ short invocation, > became suddenly silent, and looked as if they had been completely > petrified. It was oppressively still, and the crowing of the child > was the only sound to be heard. After we had sat there a few moments, > the movements of the infant’s limbs suddenly ceased, and his body > appeared to become rigid. K---- watched intently every motion, and > both of us, by a rapid glance, became satisfied that all present > were sitting motionless. The superior, with his gaze fixed upon the > ground, did not even look at the infant; but, pale and motionless, he > seemed rather like a bronze statue of a Talapoin in meditation than a > living being. Suddenly, to our great consternation, we saw the child, > not raise itself, but, as it were, violently jerked into a sitting > posture! A few more jerks, and then, like an automaton set in motion > by concealed wires, the four months’ baby stood upon his feet! Fancy > our consternation, and, in Mr. K----’s case, horror. Not a hand had > been outstretched, not a motion made, nor a word spoken; and yet, > here was a baby-in-arms standing erect and firm as a man! > > The rest of the story we will quote from a copy of notes written on > this subject by Mr. K----, the same evening, and given to us, in case > it should not reach its place of destination, or the writer fail to > see anything more. > > “After a minute or two of hesitation,” writes K----, “the baby turned > his head and looked at me with an expression of intelligence that > was simply awful! It sent a chill through me. I pinched my hands > and bit my lips till the blood almost came, to make sure that I did > not dream. But this was only the beginning. The miraculous creature, > making, _as I fancied_, two steps toward me, resumed his sitting > posture, and, without removing his eyes from mine, repeated, sentence > by sentence, in what I supposed to be Thibetan language, the very > words, which I had been told in advance, are commonly spoken at the > incarnations of Buddha, beginning with ‘I am Buddha; I am the old > Lama; I am his spirit in a new body,’ etc. I felt a real terror; my > hair rose upon my head, and my blood ran cold. For my life I could > not have spoken a word. There was no trickery here, no ventriloquism. > The infant lips moved, and the eyes seemed to search my very soul > with an expression that _made me think it was the face of the > Superior himself_, his eyes, his very look that I was gazing upon. It > was _as if his spirit had entered the little body, and was looking at > me through the transparent mask of the baby’s face_. I felt my brain > growing dizzy. The infant reached toward me, and laid his little hand > upon mine. I started as if I had been touched by a hot coal; and, > unable to bear the scene any longer, covered my face with my hands. > It was but for an instant; but when I removed them, the little actor > had become a crowing baby again, and a moment after, lying upon his > back, set up a fretful cry. The superior had resumed his normal > condition, and conversation ensued. > > “It was only after a series of similar experiments, extending over > ten days, that I realized the fact that I had seen the incredible, > astounding phenomenon described by certain travellers, but always > by me denounced as an imposture. Among a multitude of questions > unanswered, despite my cross-examination, the Superior let drop one > piece of information, which must be regarded as highly significant. > ‘What would have happened,’ I inquired, through the shaman, ‘if, > while the infant was speaking, in a moment of insane fright, at the > thought of its being the “Devil,” I had killed it?’ He replied that, > if the blow had not been instantly fatal, the child _alone_ would > have been killed.’ ‘But,’ I continued, ‘suppose that it had been as > swift as a lightning-flash?’ ‘In such case,’ was the answer, ‘_you > would have killed me also_.’” > > In Japan and Siam there are two orders of priests, of which > one are public, and deal with the people, the other strictly > private. The latter are never seen; their existence is known but > to very few natives, never to foreigners. Their powers are never > displayed in public, nor ever at all except on rare occasions of > the utmost importance, at which times the ceremonies are performed > in subterranean or otherwise inaccessible temples, and in the > presence of a chosen few whose heads answer for their secrecy. Among > such occasions are deaths in the Royal family, or those of high > dignitaries affiliated with the Order. One of the most weird and > impressive exhibitions of the power of these magicians is that of > the withdrawal of the astral soul from the cremated remains of human > beings, a ceremony practiced likewise in some of the most important > lamaseries of Thibet and Mongolia. > > In Siam, Japan, and Great Tartary, it is the custom to make > medallions, statuettes, and idols out of the ashes of cremated > persons;[1144] they are mixed with water into a paste, and after > being moulded into the desired shape, are baked and then gilded. The > Lamasery of Ou-Tay, in the province of Chan-Si, Mongolia, is the > most famous for that work, and rich persons send the bones of their > defunct relatives to be ground and fashioned there. When the adept > in magic proposes to facilitate the withdrawal of the astral soul > of the deceased, which otherwise they think might remain stupefied > for an indefinite period _within_ the ashes, the following process > is resorted to: The sacred dust is placed in a heap upon a metallic > plate, strongly magnetized, of the size of a man’s body. The adept > then slowly and gently fans it with the _Talapat Nang_,[1145] a fan > of a peculiar shape and inscribed with certain signs, muttering, > at the same time, a form of invocation. The ashes soon become, as > it were, imbued with life, and gently spread themselves out into a > thin layer which assumes the outline of the body before cremation. > Then there gradually arises a sort of whitish vapor which after a > time forms into an erect column, and compacting itself, is finally > transformed into the “double,” or ethereal, astral counterpart of the > dead, which in its turn dissolves away into thin air, and disappears > from mortal sight.[1146] > > The “Magicians” of Kashmir, Thibet, Mongolia, and Great Tartary are > too well known to need comments. If _jugglers_ they be, we invite the > most expert jugglers of Europe and America to match them if they can. > > If our scientists are unable to imitate the mummy-embalming of the > Egyptians, how much greater would be their surprise to see, as we > have, dead bodies preserved by alchemical art, so that after the > lapse of centuries, they seem as though the individuals were but > sleeping. The complexions were as fresh, the skin as elastic, the > eyes as natural and sparkling as though they were in the full flush > of health, and the wheels of life had been stopped but the instant > before. The bodies of certain very eminent personages are laid upon > catafalques, in rich mausoleums, sometimes overlaid with gilding or > even with plates of real gold; their favorite arms, trinkets, and > articles of daily use gathered about them, and a suite of attendants, > blooming young boys and girls, but still corpses, preserved like > their masters, stand as if ready to serve when called. In the convent > of Great Kouren, and in one situated upon the Holy Mountain (Bohté > Oula) there are said to be several such sepulchres, which have been > respected by all the conquering hordes that have swept through those > countries. Abbé Huc heard that such exist, but did not see one, > strangers of all kinds being excluded, and missionaries and European > travellers not furnished with the requisite protection, being the > last of all persons who would be permitted to approach the sacred > places. Huc’s statement that the tombs of Tartar sovereigns are > surrounded with children “who were compelled to swallow mercury until > they were suffocated,” by which means “the color and freshness of the > victims is preserved so well that they appear alive,” is one of these > idle missionary fables which impose only upon the most ignorant who > accept on hearsay. Buddhists have never immolated victims, whether > human or animal. It is utterly against the principles of their > religion, and no Lamaist was ever accused of it. When a rich man > desired to be interred in _company_, messengers were sent throughout > the country with the Lama-embalmers, and children just dead in the > natural way were selected for the purpose. Poor parents were but too > glad to preserve their departed children in this poetic way, instead > of abandoning them to decay and wild beasts. > > At the time when Abbé Huc was living in Paris, after his return > from Thibet, he related, among other unpublished wonders, to a Mr. > Arsenieff, a Russian gentleman, the following curious fact that he > had witnessed during his long sojourn at the lamasery of Kounboum. > One day while conversing with one of the lamas, the latter suddenly > stopped speaking, and assumed the attentive attitude of one who is > listening to a message being delivered to him, although he (Huc) > heard never a word. “Then, I must go;” suddenly broke forth the lama, > as if in response to the message. > > “Go where?” inquired the astonished “lama of Jehovah” (Huc). “And > with whom are you talking?” > > “To the lamasery of * * *,” was the quiet answer. “The Shaberon wants > me; it was he who summoned me.” > > Now this lamasery was many days’ journey from that of Kounboum, in > which the conversation was taking place. But what seemed to astonish > Huc the most was, that, instead of setting off on his journey, the > lama simply walked to a sort of cupola-room on the roof of the house > in which they lived, and another lama, after exchanging a few words, > followed them to the terrace by means of the ladder, and passing > between them, locked and barred his companion in. Then turning to Huc > after a few seconds of meditation, he smiled and informed the guest > that “he had gone.” > > “But how could he? Why you have locked him in, and the room has no > issue?” insisted the missionary. > > “And what good would a door be to him?” answered the custodian. “_It > is he himself who went away; his body is not needed, and so he left > it in my charge._” > > Notwithstanding the wonders which Huc had witnessed during his > perilous journey, his opinion was that both of the lamas had > mystified him. But three days later, not having seen his habitual > friend and entertainer, he inquired after him, and was informed that > he would be back in the evening. At sunset, and just as the “other > lamas” were preparing to retire, Huc heard his absent friend’s voice > calling as if from the clouds, to his companion to open the door > for him. Looking upward, he perceived the “traveller’s” outline > behind the lattice of the room where he had been locked in. When > he descended he went straight to the Grand Lama of Kounboum, and > delivered to him certain messages and “orders,” from the place which > he “pretended” he had just left. Huc could get no more information > from him as to his _aërial_ voyage. But he always thought, he > said, that this “farce” had something to do with the immediate and > extraordinary preparations for the polite expulsion of both the > missionaries, himself and Father Gabet, to Chogor-tan, a place > belonging to the Kounboum. The suspicion of the daring missionary > may have been correct, in view of his impudent inquisitiveness and > indiscretion. > > If the Abbé had been versed in Eastern philosophy, he would have > found no great difficulty in comprehending both the flight of the > lama’s astral body to the distant lamasery while his physical frame > remained behind, or the carrying on of a conversation with the > Shaberon that was inaudible to himself. The recent experiments with > the telephone in America, to which allusion was made in Chapter V. > of our first volume, but which have been greatly perfected since > those pages went to press, prove that the human voice and the > sounds of instrumental music may be conveyed along a telegraphic > wire to a great distance. The Hermetic philosophers taught, as we > have seen, that the disappearance from sight of a flame does not > imply its actual extinction. It has only passed from the visible > to the invisible world, and may be perceived by the inner sense > of vision, which is adapted to the things of that other and more > real universe. The same rule applies to sound. As the physical ear > discerns the vibrations of the atmosphere up to a certain point, > not yet definitely fixed, but varying with the individual, so the > adept whose interior hearing has been developed, can take the sound > at this vanishing-point, and hear its vibrations in the astral light > indefinitely. He needs no wires, helices, or sounding-boards; his > will-power is all-sufficient. Hearing with the spirit, time and > distance offer no impediments, and so he may converse with another > adept at the antipodes with as great ease as though they were in the > same room. > > Fortunately, we can produce numerous witnesses to corroborate our > statement, who, without being adepts at all, have, nevertheless, > heard the sound of aërial music and of the human voice, when neither > instrument nor speaker were within thousands of miles of the place > where we sat. In their case they actually heard interiorly, though > they supposed their physical organs of hearing alone were employed. > The adept had, by a simple effort of will-power, given them for the > brief moment the same perception of the spirit of sound as he himself > constantly enjoys. > > If our men of science could only be induced to test instead of > deriding the ancient philosophy of the trinity of all the natural > forces, they would go by leaps toward the dazzling truth, instead > of creeping, snail-like, as at present. Prof. Tyndall’s experiments > off the South Foreland, at Dover, in 1875, fairly upset all previous > theories of the transmission of sound, and those he has made with > sensitive flames[1147] bring him to the very threshold of arcane > science. One step further, and he would comprehend how adepts can > converse at great distances. But that step will _not_ be taken. Of > his sensitive--in truth, magical--flame, he says: “The slightest tap > on a distant anvil causes it to fall to seven inches. When a bunch > of keys is shaken, the flame is violently agitated, and emits a loud > roar. The dropping of a sixpence into a hand already containing coin, > knocks the flame down. The creaking of boots sets it in violent > commotion. The crumpling or tearing of a bit of paper, or the rustle > of a silk dress does the same. Responsive to every tick of a watch > held near it, it falls and explodes. The winding up of a watch > produces tumult. From a distance of thirty yards we may chirrup to > this flame, and cause it to fall and roar. Repeating a passage from > the _Faërie Queene_, the flame sifts and selects the manifold sounds > of my voice, noticing some by a slight nod, others by a deeper bow, > while to others it responds by violent agitation.” > > Such are the wonders of modern physical science; but at what cost of > apparatus, and carbonic acid and coal gas; of American and Canadian > whistles, trumpets, gongs, and bells! The poor heathen have none such > _impedimenta_, but--will European science believe it--nevertheless, > produce the very same phenomena. Upon one occasion, when, in a case > of exceptional importance, an “oracle” was required, we saw the > possibility of what we had previously vehemently denied--namely, a > simple mendicant cause a sensitive flame to give responsive flashes > without a particle of apparatus. A fire was kindled of branches of > the _Beal_-tree, and some sacrificial herbs were sprinkled upon it. > The mendicant sat near by, motionless, absorbed in contemplation. > During the intervals between the questions the fire burned low and > seemed ready to go out, but when the interrogatories were propounded, > the flames leaped, roaring, skyward, flickered, bowed, and sent fiery > tongues flaring toward the east, west, north, or south; each motion > having its distinct meaning in a code of signals well understood. > Between whiles it would sink to the ground, and the tongues of flame > would lick the sod in every direction, and suddenly disappear, > leaving only a bed of glowing embers. When the interview with the > flame-spirits was at an end, the Bikshu (mendicant) turned toward the > jungle where he abode, keeping up a wailing, monotonous chant, to the > rhythm of which the sensitive flame kept time, not merely like Prof. > Tyndall’s, when he read the _Faërie Queene_, by simple motions, but > by a marvellous modulation of hissing and roaring until he was out of > sight. Then, as if its very life were extinguished, it vanished, and > left a bed of ashes before the astonished spectators. > > Both in Western and Eastern Thibet, as in every other place where > Buddhism predominates, there are two distinct religions, the same > as it is in Brahmanism--the secret philosophy and the popular > religion. The former is that of the followers of the doctrine of the > sect of the Sutrântika.[1148] They closely adhere to the spirit of > Buddha’s original teachings which show the necessity of _intuitional_ > perception, and all deductions therefrom. These do not proclaim their > views, nor allow them to be made public. > > “All _compounds_ are perishable,” were the last words uttered by the > lips of the dying Gautama, when preparing under the Sâl-tree to enter > into Nirvana. “Spirit is the sole, elementary, and primordial unity, > and each of its rays is immortal, infinite, and indestructible. > Beware of the illusions of matter.” Buddhism was spread far and wide > over Asia, and even farther, by Dharm-Asôka. He was the grandson of > the miracle-worker Chandragupta, the illustrious king who rescued the > Punjâb from the Macedonians--if they ever were at Punjâb at all--and > received Megasthenes at his court in Pataliputra. Dharm-Asôka was > the greatest King of the Maûrya dynasty. From a reckless profligate > and atheist, he had become Pryâdasi, the “beloved of the gods,” and > never was the purity of his philanthropic views surpassed by any > earthly ruler. His memory has lived for ages in the hearts of the > Buddhists, and has been perpetuated in the humane edicts engraved > in several popular dialects on the columns and rocks of Allahabad, > Delhi, Guzerat, Peshawur, Orissa, and other places.[1149] His famous > grandfather had united all India under his powerful sceptre. When > the Nâgas, or serpent-worshippers of Kashmere had been converted > through the efforts of the apostles sent out by the Sthaviras of > the third councils, the religion of Gautama spread like wild-fire. > Gândhara, Cabul, and even many of the Satrapies of Alexander the > Great, accepted the new philosophy. The Buddhism of Nepâl being the > one which may be said to have diverged less than any other from the > primeval ancient faith, the Lamaism of Tartary, Mongolia, and Thibet, > which is a direct offshoot of this country, may be thus shown to be > the purest Buddhism; for we say it again, Lamaism properly is but an > external form of rites. > > The Upâsakas and Upâsakis, or male and female semi-monastics and > semi-laymen, have equally with the lama-monks themselves, to strictly > abstain from violating any of Buddha’s rules, and must study _Meipo_ > and every psychological phenomenon as much. Those who become guilty > of any of the “five sins” lose all right to congregate with the pious > community. The most important of these is _not to curse upon any > consideration, for the curse returns upon the one that utters it, and > often upon his innocent relatives who breathe the same atmosphere > with him_. To love each other, and even our bitterest enemies; to > offer our lives even for animals, to the extent of abstaining from > defensive arms; to gain the greatest of victories by conquering > one’s self; to avoid all vices; to practice all virtues, especially > humility and mildness; to be obedient to superiors, to cherish and > respect parents, old age, learning, virtuous and holy men; to provide > food, shelter, and comfort for men and animals; to plant trees on > the roads and dig wells for the comfort of travellers; such are the > moral duties of Buddhists. Every Ani or Bikshuni (nun) is subjected > to these laws. > > Numerous are the Buddhist and Lamaic saints who have been renowned > for the unsurpassed sanctity of their lives and their “miracles.” So > Tissu, the Emperor’s spiritual teacher, who consecrated Kublaï-Khan, > the Nadir Shah, was known far and wide as much for the extreme > holiness of his life as for the many wonders he wrought. But he > did not stop at fruitless miracles, but did better than that. Tissu > purified completely his religion; and from one single province > of Southern Mongolia is said to have forced Kublai to expel from > convents 500,000 monkish impostors, who made a pretext of their > profession, to live in vice and idleness. Then the Lamaists had > their great reformer, the Shaberon Son-Ka-po, who is claimed to > have been immaculately conceived by his mother, a virgin from > Koko-nor (fourteenth century), who is another wonder-worker. The > sacred tree of Kounboum, the tree of the 10,000 images, which, in > consequence of the degeneration of the true faith had ceased budding > for several centuries, now shot forth new sprouts and bloomed more > vigorously than ever from the hair of this avatar of Buddha, says the > legend. The same tradition makes him (Son-Ka-po) ascend to heaven > in 1419. Contrary to the prevailing idea, few of these saints are > _Khubilhans_, or Shaberons--reïncarnations. > > Many of the lamaseries contain schools of magic, but the most > celebrated is the collegiate monastery of the Shu-tukt, where there > are over 30,000 monks attached to it, the lamasery forming quite a > little city. Some of the female nuns possess marvellous psychological > powers. We have met some of these women on their way from Lha-Ssa > to Candi, the Rome of Buddhism, with its miraculous shrines and > Gautama’s relics. To avoid encounters with Mussulmans and other sects > they travel by night alone, unarmed, and without the least fear of > wild animals, _for these will not touch them_. At the first glimpses > of dawn, they take refuge in caves and viharas prepared for them by > their co-religionists at calculated distances; for notwithstanding > the fact that Buddhism has taken refuge in Ceylon, and nominally > there are but few of the denomination in British India, yet the > secret Byauds (Brotherhoods) and Buddhist viharas are numerous, and > every Jain feels himself obliged to help, indiscriminately, Buddhist > or Lamaist. > > Ever on the lookout for occult phenomena, hungering after sights, > one of the most interesting that we have seen was produced by one of > these poor travelling Bikshu. It was years ago, and at a time when > all such manifestations were new to the writer. We were taken to > visit the pilgrims by a Buddhist friend, a mystical gentleman born at > Kashmir, of Katchi parents, but a Buddha-Lamaist by conversion, and > who generally resides at Lha-Ssa. > > “Why carry about this bunch of dead plants?” inquired one of the > Bikshuni, an emaciated, tall and elderly woman, pointing to a large > nosegay of beautiful, fresh, and fragrant flowers in the writer’s > hands. > > “Dead?” we asked, inquiringly. “Why they just have been gathered in > the garden?” > > “And yet, they are dead,” she gravely answered. “To be born in this > world, is this not death? See, how these herbs look when alive in the > world of eternal light, in the gardens of our blessed Foh?” > > Without moving from the place where she was sitting on the ground, > the Ani took a flower from the bunch, laid it in her lap, and began > to draw together, by large handfuls as it were, invisible material > from the surrounding atmosphere. Presently a very, very faint nodule > of vapor was seen, and this slowly took shape and color, until, > poised in mid-air, appeared a copy of the bloom we had given her. > Faithful to the last tint and the last petal it was, and lying on its > side like the original, but a thousand-fold more gorgeous in hue and > exquisite in beauty, as the glorified human spirit is more beauteous > than its physical capsule. Flower after flower to the minutest herb > was thus reproduced and made to vanish, reappearing at our desire, > nay, at our simple thought. Having selected a full-blown rose we > held it at arm’s length, and in a few minutes our arm, hand, and the > flower, perfect in every detail, appeared reflected in the vacant > space, about two yards from where we sat. But while the flower seemed > immeasurably beautified and as ethereal as the other spirit flowers, > the arm and hand appeared like a mere reflection in a looking-glass, > even to a large spot on the fore arm, left on it by a piece of damp > earth which had stuck to one of the roots. Later we learned the > reason why. > > A great truth was uttered some fifty years ago by Dr. Francis Victor > Broussais, when he said: “If magnetism were true, medicine would be > an absurdity.” Magnetism _is_ true, and so we shall not contradict > the learned Frenchman as to the rest. Magnetism, as we have shown, > is the alphabet of magic. It is idle for any one to attempt to > understand either the theory or the practice of the latter until > the fundamental principle of magnetic attractions and repulsions > throughout nature is recognized. > > Many so-called popular superstitions are but evidences of an > instinctive perception of this law. An untutored people are taught > by the experience of many generations that certain phenomena occur > under fixed conditions; they give these conditions and obtain the > expected results. Ignorant of the laws, they explain the fact by > supernaturalism, for experience has been their sole teacher. > > In India, as well as in Russia and some other countries, there is an > instinctive repugnance to stepping across a man’s shadow, especially > if he have red hair; and in the former country, natives are extremely > reluctant to shake hands with persons of another race. These are > not idle fancies. Every person emits a magnetic exhalation or aura, > and a man may be in perfect physical health, but at the same time > his exhalation may have a morbific character for others, sensitive > to such subtile influences. Dr. Esdaile and other mesmerists long > since taught us that Oriental people, especially Hindus, are more > susceptible than the white-skinned races. Baron Reichenbach’s > experiments--and, in fact, the world’s entire experience--prove that > these magnetic exhalations are most intense from the extremities. > Therapeutic manipulations show this; hand-shaking is, therefore, most > calculated to communicate antipathetic magnetic conditions, and the > Hindus do wisely in keeping their ancient “superstition”--derived > from Manu--constantly in mind. > > The magnetism of a red-haired man, we have found, in almost every > nation, is instinctively dreaded. We might quote proverbs from the > Russian, Persian, Georgian, Hindustani, French, Turkish, and even > German, to show that treachery and other vices are popularly supposed > to accompany the rufous complexion. When a man stands exposed to > the sun, the magnetism of that luminary causes his emanations to > be projected toward the shadow, and the increased molecular action > develops more electricity. Hence, an individual to whom he is > antipathetic--though neither might be sensible of the fact--would > act prudently in not passing through the shadow. Careful physicians > wash their hands upon leaving each patient; why, then, should they > not be charged with superstition, as well as the Hindus? The sporules > of disease are invisible, but no less real, as European experience > demonstrates. Well, _Oriental experience for a hundred centuries has > shown that the germs of moral contagion linger about localities, and > impure magnetism can be communicated by the touch_. > > Another prevalent belief in some parts of Russia, particularly > Georgia (Caucasus), and in India, is that in case the body of a > drowned person cannot be otherwise found, if a garment of his be > thrown into the water it will float until directly over the spot, and > then sink. We have even seen the experiment successfully tried with > the sacred cord of a Brahman. It floated hither and thither, circling > about as though in search of something, until suddenly darting in a > straight line for about fifty yards, it sank, and at that exact spot > the divers brought up the body. We find this “superstition” even > in America. A Pittsburg paper, of very recent date, describes the > finding of the body of a young boy, named Reed, in the Monongahela, > by a like method. All other means having failed, it says, “a curious > superstition was employed. One of the boy’s shirts was thrown into > the river where he had gone down, and, it is said, floated on the > surface for a time, and finally settled to the bottom at a certain > place, which proved to be the resting-place of the body, and which > was then drawn out. The belief that the shirt of a drowned person > when thrown into the water will follow the body is well-spread, > absurd as it appears.” > > This phenomenon is explained by the law of the powerful attraction > existing between the human body and objects that have been long worn > upon it. The oldest garment is most effective for the experiment; a > new one is useless. > > From time immemorial, in Russia, in the month of May, on Trinity > Day, maidens from city and village have been in the habit of casting > upon the river wreaths of green leaves--which each girl has to form > for herself--and consulting their oracles. If the wreath sinks, it > is a sign that the girl will die unmarried within a short time; if > it floats, she will be married, the time depending upon the number > of verses she can repeat during the experiment. We positively affirm > that we have personal knowledge of several cases, two of them our > intimate friends, where the augury of death proved true, and the > girls _died_ within twelve months. Tried on any other day than > Trinity, the result would doubtless be the same. The sinking of the > wreath is attributable to its being impregnated with the unhealthy > magnetism of a system which contains the germs of early death; such > magnetisms having an attraction for the earth at the bottom of the > stream. As for the rest, we are willing to abandon it to the friends > of coincidence. > > The same general remark as to superstition having a scientific basis > applies to the phenomena produced by fakirs and jugglers, which > skeptics heap into the common category of trickery. And yet, to a > close observer, even to the uninitiated, an enormous difference is > presented between the _kîmiya_ (phenomenon) of a fakir, and the > _batte-bâzi_ (jugglery) of a trickster, and the necromancy of a > _jâdûgar_, or _sâhir_, so dreaded and despised by the natives. This > difference, imperceptible--nay incomprehensible--to the skeptical > European, is instinctively appreciated by every Hindu, whether of > high or low caste, educated or ignorant. The _kangâlin_, or witch, > who uses her terrible _abhi-châr_ (mesmeric powers) with intent to > injure, may expect death at any moment, for every Hindu finds it > lawful to kill her; a _bukka-baz_, or juggler, serves to amuse. A > serpent-charmer, with his _bâ-îni_ full of venomous snakes, is less > dreaded, for his powers of fascination extend but to animals and > reptiles; he is unable to charm human beings, to perform that which > is called by the natives _mantar phûnknâ_, to throw spells on men > by magic. But with the yogi, the sannyâsi, the holy men who acquire > enormous psychological powers by mental and physical training, the > question is totally different. Some of these men are regarded by the > Hindus as demi-gods. Europeans cannot judge of these powers but in > rare and exceptional cases. > > The British resident who has encountered in the _maidans_ and public > places what he regards as frightful and loathsome human beings, > sitting motionless in the self-inflicted torture of the _ûrddwa > bahu_, with arms raised above the head for months, and even years, > need not suppose they are the wonder-working fakirs. The phenomenon > of the latter are visible only through the friendly protection of > a Brahman, or under peculiarly fortuitous circumstances. Such men > are as little accessible as the real Nautch girls, of whom every > traveller talks, but very few have actually seen, since they belong > exclusively to the pagodas. > > It is surpassingly strange, that with the thousands of travellers > and the millions of European residents who have been in India, and > have traversed it in every direction, so little is yet known of that > country and the lands which surround it. It may be that some readers > will feel inclined not merely to doubt the correctness but even > openly contradict our statement? Doubtless, we will be answered that > all that it is desirable to know about India is already known? In > fact this very reply was once made to us personally. That resident > Anglo-Indians should not busy themselves with inquiries is not > strange; for, as a British officer remarked to us upon one occasion, > “society does not consider it well-bred to care about Hindus or > their affairs, or even show astonishment or desire information upon > anything they may see extraordinary in that country.” But it really > surprises us that at least travellers should not have explored > more than they have this interesting realm. Hardly fifty years > ago, in penetrating the jungles of the Blue or Neilgherry Hills in > Southern Hindustan, a strange race, perfectly distinct in appearance > and language from any other Hindu people, was discovered by two > courageous British officers who were tiger-hunting. Many surmises, > more or less absurd, were set on foot, and the missionaries, always > on the watch to connect every mortal thing with the _Bible_, even > went so far as to suggest that this people was one of the lost > tribes of Israel, supporting their ridiculous hypothesis upon their > very fair complexions and “strongly-marked Jewish features.” The > latter is perfectly erroneous, the Todas, as they are called, not > bearing the remotest likeness to the Jewish type; either in feature, > form, action, or language. They closely resemble each other, and, > as a friend of ours expresses himself, the handsomest of the Todas > resemble the statue of the Grecian Zeus in majesty and beauty of form > more than anything he had yet seen among men. > > Fifty years have passed since the discovery; but though since that > time towns have been built on these hills and the country has been > invaded by Europeans, no more has been learned of the Todas than > at the first. Among the foolish rumors current about this people, > the most erroneous are those in relation to their numbers and to > their practicing polyandry. The general opinion about them is that > on account of the latter custom their number has dwindled to a > few hundred families, and the race is fast dying out. We had the > best means of learning much about them, and therefore state most > positively that the Todas neither practice polyandry nor are they > as few in number as supposed. We are ready to show that no one > has ever seen children belonging to them. Those that may have been > seen in their company have belonged to the Badagas, a Hindu tribe > totally distinct from the Todas, in race, color, and language, and > which includes the most direct “worshippers” of this extraordinary > people. We say _worshippers_, for the Badagas clothe, feed, serve, > and positively look upon every Toda as a divinity. They are giants > in stature, white as Europeans, with tremendously long and generally > brown, wavy hair and beard, which no razor ever touched from birth. > Handsome as a statue of Pheidias or Praxiteles, the Toda sits the > whole day inactive, as some travellers who have had a glance at them > affirm. From the many conflicting opinions and statements we have > heard from the very residents of Ootakamund and other little new > places of civilization scattered about the Neilgherry Hills, we cull > the following: > > “They never use water; they are wonderfully handsome and noble > looking, but extremely unclean; unlike all other natives they despise > jewelry, and never wear anything but a large black drapery or blanket > of some woollen stuff, with a colored stripe at the bottom; they > never drink anything but pure milk; they have herds of cattle but > neither eat their flesh, nor do they make their beasts of labor > plough or work; they neither sell nor buy; the Badagas feed and > clothe them; they never use nor carry weapons, not even a simple > stick; the Todas can’t read and won’t learn. They are the despair of > the missionaries and apparently have no sort of religion, beyond the > worship of themselves as the Lords of Creation.”[1150] > > We will try to correct a few of these opinions, as far as we have > learned from a very holy personage, a Brahmanam-guru, who has our > great respect. > > Nobody has ever seen more than five or six of them at one time; they > will not talk with foreigners, nor was any traveller ever inside > their peculiar long and flat huts, which apparently are without > either windows or chimney and have but one door; nobody ever saw > the funeral of a Toda, nor very old men among them; nor are they > taken sick with cholera, while thousands die around them during such > periodical epidemics; finally, though the country all around swarms > with tigers and other wild beasts, neither tiger, serpent, nor any > other animal so ferocious in those parts, was ever known to touch > either a Toda or one of their cattle, though, as said above, they > never use even a stick. > > Furthermore the Todas do not marry at all. They seem few in number, > for no one has or ever will have a chance of numbering them; as soon > as their solitude was profaned by the avalanche of civilization--which > was, perchance, due to their own carelessness--the Todas began moving > away to other parts as unknown and more inaccessible than the > Neilgherry hills had formerly been; they are not born of Toda mothers, > nor of Toda parentage; they are the children of a certain very select > sect, and are set apart from their infancy for special religious > purposes. Recognized by a peculiarity of complexion, and certain other > signs, such a child is known as what is vulgarly termed a Toda, from > birth. Every third year, each of them must repair to a certain place > for a certain period of time, where each of them must meet; their > “dirt” is but a mask, such as a sannyâsi puts on in public in > obedience to his vow; their cattle are, for the most part, devoted to > sacred uses; and, though their places of worship have never been > trodden by a profane foot, they nevertheless exist, and perhaps rival > the most splendid pagodas--_goparams_--known to Europeans. The Badagas > are their special vassals, and--as has been truly remarked--worship > them as half-deities; for their birth and mysterious powers entitle > them to such a distinction. > > The reader may rest assured that any statements concerning them, that > clash with the little that is above given, are false. No missionary > will ever catch one with his bait, nor any Badaga betray them, though > he were cut to pieces. They are a people who fulfill a certain high > purpose, and whose secrets are inviolable. > > Furthermore, the Todas are not the only such mysterious tribe in > India. We have named several in a preceding chapter, but how many are > there besides these, that will remain unnamed, unrecognized, and yet > ever present! > > What is now generally known of Shamanism is very little; and that has > been perverted, like the rest of the non-Christian religions. It is > called the “heathenism” of Mongolia, and wholly without reason, for > it is one of the oldest religions of India. It is spirit-worship, or > belief in the immortality of the souls, and that the latter are still > the same men they were on earth, though their bodies have lost their > objective form, and man has exchanged his physical for a spiritual > nature. In its present shape, it is an offshoot of primitive theurgy, > and a practical blending of the visible with the invisible world. > Whenever a denizen of earth desires to enter into communication with > his invisible brethren, he has to assimilate himself to their nature, > _i.e._, he meets these beings half-way, and, furnished by them with a > supply of spiritual essence, endows them, in his turn, with a portion > of his physical nature, thus enabling them sometimes to appear in a > semi-objective form. It is a temporary exchange of natures, called > theurgy. Shamans are called sorcerers, because they are said to > evoke the “spirits” of the dead for purposes of necromancy. The > true Shamanism--striking features of which prevailed in India in > the days of Megasthenes (300 B.C.)--can no more be judged by its > degenerated scions among the Shamans of Siberia, than the religion > of Gautama-Buddha can be interpreted by the fetishism of some of > his followers in Siam and Burmah. It is in the chief lamaseries of > Mongolia and Thibet that it has taken refuge; and there Shamanism, if > so we must call it, is practiced to the utmost limits of intercourse > allowed between man and “spirit.” The religion of the lamas has > faithfully preserved the primitive science of _magic_, and produces > as great feats now as it did in the days of Kublaï-Khan and his > barons. The ancient mystic formula of the King Srong-ch-Tsans-Gampo, > the “Aum mani padmé houm,”[1151] effects its wonders now as well > as in the seventh century. Avalokitesvara, highest of the three > Boddhisattvas, and patron saint of Thibet, projects his shadow, full > in the view of the faithful, at the lamasery of Dga-G’Dan, founded > by him; and the luminous form of Son-Ka-pa, under the shape of a > fiery cloudlet, that separates itself from the dancing beams of > the sunlight, holds converse with a great congregation of lamas, > numbering thousands; the voice descending from above, like the > whisper of the breeze through foliage. Anon, say the Thibetans, the > beautiful appearance vanishes in the shadows of the sacred trees in > the park of the lamasery. > > At Garma-Khian (the mother-cloister) it is rumored that bad and > unprogressed spirits are made to appear on certain days, and _forced_ > to give an account of their evil deeds; they are compelled by the > lamaic adepts to redress the wrongs done by them to mortals. This > is what Huc naïvely terms “personating evil spirits,” _i.e._, > devils. Were the skeptics of various European countries permitted to > consult the accounts printed daily[1152] at Moru, and in the “City > of Spirits,” of the business-like intercourse which takes place > between the lamas and the invisible world, they would certainly feel > more interest in the phenomena described so triumphantly in the > spiritualistic journals. At Buddha-lla, or rather Foht-lla (Buddha’s > Mount), in the most important of the many thousand lamaseries of that > country, the sceptre of the Boddhisgat is seen floating, unsupported, > in the air, and its motions regulate the actions of the community. > Whenever a lama is called to account in the presence of the Superior > of the monastery, he knows beforehand it is useless for him to > tell an untruth; the “regulator of justice” (the sceptre) is there, > and its waving motion, either approbatory or otherwise, decides > instantaneously and unerringly the question of his guilt. We do not > pretend to have witnessed all this personally--we wish to make no > pretensions of any kind. Suffice it, with respect to any of these > phenomena, that what we have not seen with our own eyes has been so > substantiated to us that we indorse its genuineness. > > A number of lamas in Sikkin produce _meipo_--“miracle”--by magical > powers. The late Patriarch of Mongolia, Gegen Chutuktu, who resided > at Urga, a veritable paradise, was the sixteenth incarnation > of Gautama, therefore a Boddhisattva. He had the reputation of > possessing powers that were phenomenal, even among the thaumaturgists > of the land of miracles _par excellence_. Let no one suppose that > these powers are developed without cost. The lives of most of these > holy men, miscalled idle vagrants, cheating beggars, who are supposed > to pass their existence in preying upon the easy credulity of their > victims, are miracles in themselves. Miracles, because they show what > a determined will and perfect purity of life and purpose are able to > accomplish, and to what degree of preternatural ascetism a human body > can be subjected and yet live and reach a ripe old age. No Christian > hermit has ever dreamed of such refinement of monastic discipline; > and the aërial habitation of a Simon Stylite would appear child’s > play before the fakir’s and the Buddhist’s inventions of will-tests. > But the theoretical study of magic is one thing; the possibility > of practicing it quite another. At _Brâs-ss-Pungs_, the Mongolian > college where over three hundred magicians (_sorciers_, as the > French missionaries call them) teach about twice as many pupils from > twelve to twenty, the latter have many years to wait for their final > initiation. Not one in a hundred reaches the highest goal; and out of > the many thousand lamas occupying nearly an entire city of detached > buildings clustering around it, not more than two per cent. become > wonder-workers. One may learn by heart every line of the 108 volumes > of _Kadjur_,[1153] and still make but a poor practical magician. > There is but one thing which leads surely to it, and this particular > study is hinted at by more than one Hermetic writer. One, the Arabian > alchemist Abipili, speaks thus: “I admonish thee, whosoever thou art > that desirest to dive into the inmost parts of nature; if that thou > seekest thou findest not _within thee_, thou wilt _never find it > without thee_. If thou knowest not the excellency of thine own house, > why dost thou seek after the excellency of other things?... O MAN, > KNOW THYSELF! IN THEE IS HID THE TREASURE OF TREASURERS.” > > In another alchemic tract, _De manna Benedicto_, the author expresses > his ideas of the philosopher’s stone, in the following terms: “My > intent is for certain reasons not to prate too much of the matter, > which yet is but one only thing, already too plainly described; for > it shows and sets down such magical and natural uses of it [the > stone] as many that have had it never knew nor heard of; and such as, > when I beheld them, _made my knees to tremble and my heart to shake, > and I to stand amazed at the sight of them_!” > > Every neophyte has experienced more or less such a feeling; but once > that it is overcome, the man is an ADEPT. > > Within the cloisters of Dshashi-Lumbo and Si-Dzang, these powers, > inherent in every man, called out by so few, are cultivated to their > utmost perfection. Who, in India, has not heard of the Banda-Chan > Ramboutchi, the _Houtouktou_ of the capital of Higher Thibet? His > brotherhood of Khe-lan was famous throughout the land; and one of > the most famous “brothers” was a _Peh-ling_ (an Englishman) who had > arrived one day during the early part of this century, from the West, > a thorough Buddhist, and after a month’s preparation was admitted > among the Khe-lans. He spoke every language, including the Thibetan, > and knew every art and science, says the tradition. His sanctity and > the phenomena produced by him caused him to be proclaimed a shaberon > after a residence of but a few years. His memory lives to the present > day among the Thibetans, but his real name is a secret with the > shaberons alone. > > The greatest of the _meipo_--said to be the object of the ambition of > every Buddhist devotee--was, and yet is, the faculty of walking in > the air. The famous King of Siam, Pia Metak, the Chinese, was noted > for his devotion and learning. But he attained this “supernatural > gift” only after having placed himself under the direct tuition of > a priest of Gautama-Buddha. Crawfurd and Finlayson, during their > residence at Siam, followed with great interest the endeavors of some > Siamese nobles to acquire this faculty.[1154] > > Numerous and varied are the sects in China, Siam, Tartary, > Thibet, Kashmir, and British India, which devote their lives to > the cultivation of “supernatural powers,” so called. Discussing > one of such sects, the _Taossé_, Semedo says: “They pretend that > by means of certain exercises and meditations one shall regain > his youth, and others will attain to be _Shien-sien_, _i.e._, > ‘Terrestrial Beati,’ in whose state every desire is gratified, > whilst they have the power to transport themselves from one place > to another, _however distant_, with speed and facility.”[1155] This > faculty relates but to the _projection_ of the _astral entity_, > in a more or less corporealized form, and certainly not to bodily > transportation. This phenomenon is no more a miracle than one’s > reflection in a looking-glass. No one can detect in such an image a > particle of matter, and still there stands our double, faithfully > representing, even to each single hair on our heads. If, by this > simple law of reflection, our double can be seen in a mirror, how > much more striking a proof of its existence is afforded in the > art of photography! _It is no reason, because our physicists have > not yet found the means of taking photographs, except at a short > distance, that the acquirement should be impossible to those who > have found these means in the power of the human will itself, > freed from terrestrial concern._[1156] Our thoughts are _matter_, > says science; every energy produces more or less of a disturbance > in the atmospheric waves. Therefore, as every man--in common with > every other living, and even inert object--has an _aura_ of his own > emanations surrounding him; and, moreover, is enabled, by a trifling > effort, to transport himself in _imagination_ wherever he likes, > why is it scientifically impossible that his thought, regulated, > intensified, and guided by that powerful magician, the educated will, > may become corporealized for the time being, and appear to whom it > likes, a faithful double of the original? Is the proposition, in the > present state of science, any more unthinkable than the photograph or > telegraph were less than forty years ago, or the telephone less than > fourteen months ago? > > If the sensitized plate can so accurately seize upon the _shadow_ of > our faces, then this shadow or reflection, although we are unable to > perceive it, must be something substantial. And, if we can, with the > help of optical instruments, project our _semblances_ upon a white > wall, at several hundred feet distance, sometimes, then there is no > reason why the adepts, the alchemists, the savants of the secret art, > should not have already found out that which scientists deny to-day, > but may discover true to-morrow, _i.e._, how to project electrically > their astral bodies, in an instant, through thousands of miles of > space, leaving their material shells with a certain amount of animal > vital principle to keep the physical life going, and acting within > their spiritual, ethereal bodies as safely and intelligently as > when clothed with the covering of flesh? There is a higher form of > electricity than the physical one known to experimenters; a thousand > correlations of the latter are as yet veiled to the eye of the modern > physicist, and none can tell where end its possibilities. > > Schott explains that by _Sian_ or _Shin-Sian_ are understood in the > old Chinese conception, and particularly in that of the Tao-Kiao > (Taossé) sect, “persons who withdraw to the hills to lead the life > of anchorites, and who have attained, either through their ascetic > observances or by the power of charms and elixirs, to the possession > of miraculous gifts and of terrestrial _immortality_”[1157](?) This > is exaggerated if not altogether erroneous. What they claim, is > merely their ability to prolong human life; and they can do so, if > we have to believe human testimony. What Marco Polo testifies to in > the thirteenth century is corroborated in our own days. “There are > another class of people called _Chughi_” (Yogi), he says, “who are > indeed properly called _Abraiamans_ (Brahmans?) who are extremely > long-lived, every man of them living to 150 or 200 years. They eat > very little, rice and milk chiefly. And these people make use of a > very strange beverage, a potion of sulphur and quicksilver mixed > together, and this they drink twice every month.... This, they say, > gives them long life; and it is a potion they are used to take from > their childhood.”[1158] Burnier shows, says Colonel Yule, the Yogis > very skilful in preparing mercury “so admirably that one or two > grains taken every morning restored the body to perfect health;” > and adds that the _mercurius vitæ_ of Paracelsus was a compound in > which entered antimony and quicksilver.[1159] This is a very careless > statement, to say the least, and we will explain what we know of it. > > The longevity of some lamas and Talapoins is proverbial; and it is > generally known that they use some compound which “renews the old > blood,” as they call it. And it was equally a recognized fact with > alchemists that a judicious administration, “of _aura of silver_ does > restore health and prolongs life itself to a wonderful extent.” But > we are fully prepared to oppose the statements of both Bernier and > Col. Yule who quotes him, that it is _mercury_ or quicksilver which > the Yogis and the alchemists used. The Yogis, in the days of Marco > Polo, as well as in our modern times, _do use that which may appear > to be quicksilver, but is not_. Paracelsus, the alchemists, and other > mystics, meant by _mercurius vitæ_, the living spirit of silver, the > _aura_ of silver, not the _argent vive_; and this _aura_ is certainly > not the mercury known to our physicians and druggists. There can be > no doubt that the imputation that Paracelsus introduced mercury into > medical practice is utterly incorrect. No mercury, whether prepared > by a mediæval fire-philosopher or a modern self-styled physician, can > or ever did restore the body to perfect health. Only an unmitigated > charlatan ever will use such a drug. And it is the opinion of many > that it is just with the wicked intention of presenting Paracelsus in > the eyes of posterity as a _quack_, that his enemies have invented > such a preposterous lie. > > The Yogis of the olden times, as well as modern lamas and Talapoins, > use a certain ingredient with a minimum of sulphur, and a milky juice > which they extract from a medicinal plant. They must certainly be > possessed of some wonderful secrets, as we have seen them healing the > most rebellious wounds in a few days; restoring broken bones to good > use in as many hours as it would take days to do by means of common > surgery. A fearful fever contracted by the writer near Rangoon, after > a flood of the Irrawaddy River, was cured in a few hours by the juice > of a plant called, if we mistake not, Kukushan, though there may be > thousands of natives ignorant of its virtues who are left to die of > fever. This was in return for a trifling kindness we had done to > a _simple mendicant_; a service which can interest the reader but > little. > > We have heard of a certain water, also, called _âb-i-hayât_, which > the popular superstition thinks hidden from every mortal eye, except > that of the holy sannyâsi; the fountain itself being known as the > âb-i-haiwân-î. It is more than probable though, that the Talapoins > will decline to deliver up their secrets, even to academicians and > missionaries; as these remedies must be used for the benefit of > humanity, never for money.[1160] > > At the great festivals of Hindu pagodas, at the marriage feasts > of rich high-castes, everywhere where large crowds are gathered, > Europeans find gunî--or serpent-charmers, fakirs-mesmerizers, > thaum-working sannyâsi, and so-called “jugglers.” To deride is > easy--to explain, rather more troublesome--to science impossible. > The British residents of India and the travellers prefer the first > expedient. But let any one ask one of these Thomases how the > following results--which they cannot and do not deny--are produced? > When crowds of gunî and fakirs appear with their bodies encircled > with cobras-de-capello, their arms ornamented with bracelets of > _corallilos_--diminutive snakes inflicting certain death in a few > seconds--and their shoulders with necklaces of trigonocephali, the > most terrible enemy of naked Hindu feet, whose bite kills like a > flash of lightning, the sceptic witness smiles and gravely proceeds > to explain how these reptiles, having been thrown in cataleptic > torpor, were all deprived by the gunî of their fangs. “They are > harmless and it is ridiculous to fear them.” “Will the Saëb caress > one of my nâg?” asked once a gunî approaching our interlocutor, > who had been thus humbling his listeners with his herpetological > achievements for a full half hour. Rapidly jumping back--the brave > warrior’s feet proving no less nimble than his tongue--Captain > B----’s angry answer could hardly be immortalized by us in print. > Only the gunî’s terrible body-guard saved him from an unceremonious > thrashing. Besides, say a word, and for a half-roupee any > professional serpent-charmer will begin creeping about and summon > around in a few moments numbers of untamed serpents of the most > poisonous species, and will handle them and encircle his body with > them. On two occasions in the neighborhood of Trinkemal a serpent was > ready to strike at the writer, who had once nearly sat on its tail, > but both times, at a rapid whistle of the gunî whom we had hired to > accompany us, it stopped--hardly a few inches from our body, as if > arrested by lightning and slowly sinking its menacing head to the > ground, remained stiff and motionless as a dead branch, under the > charm of the _kīlnā_.[1161] > > Will any European juggler, tamer, or even mesmerizer, risk repeating > just once an experiment that may be daily witnessed in India, if > you know where to go to see it? There is nothing in the world more > ferocious than a royal Bengal tiger. Once the whole population of > a small village, not far from Dakka, situated on the confines of a > jungle, was thrown into a panic at the appearance of an enormous > tigress, at the dawn of the day. These wild beasts never leave their > dens but at night, when they go searching for prey and for water. > But this unusual circumstance was due to the fact that the beast was > a mother, and she had been deprived of her two cubs, which had been > carried away by a daring hunter, and she was in search of them. Two > men and a child had already become her victims, when an aged fakir, > bent on his daily round, emerging from the gate of the pagoda, saw > the situation and understood it at a glance. Chanting a mantrâm he > went straight to the beast, which with flaming eye and foaming mouth > crouched near a tree ready for a new victim. When at about ten feet > from the tigress, without interrupting his modulated prayer, the > words of which no layman comprehends, he began a regular process of > mesmerization, as we understood it; he made _passes_. A terrific > howl which struck a chill into the heart of every human being in the > place, was then heard. This long, ferocious, drawling howl gradually > subsided into a series of plaintive broken sobs, as if the bereaved > mother was uttering her complaints, and then, to the terror of the > crowd which had taken refuge on trees and in the houses, the beast > made a tremendous leap--on the holy man as they thought. They were > mistaken, she was at his feet, rolling in the dust, and writhing. A > few moments more and she remained motionless, with her enormous head > laid on her fore-paws, and her bloodshot but now mild eye riveted on > the face of the fakir. Then the holy man of prayers sat beside the > tigress and tenderly smoothed her striped skin, and patted her back, > until her groans became fainter and fainter, and half an hour later > all the village was standing around this group; the fakir’s head > lying on the tigress’s back as on a pillow, his right hand on her > head, and his left thrown on the sod under the terrible mouth, from > which the long red protruding tongue was gently licking it. > > This is the way the fakirs tame the wildest beasts in India. Can > European tamers, with their white-hot iron rods, do as much? Of > course every fakir is not endowed with such a power; comparatively > very few are. And yet the actual number is large. How they are > _trained_ to these requirements in the pagodas will remain an > eternal secret, to all except the Brahmans and the adepts in occult > mysteries. The stories, hitherto considered fables, of Christna and > Orpheus charming the wild beasts, thus receives its corroboration > in our day. There is one fact which remains undeniable. _There is > not a single European_ in India who could have, or has ever boasted > of having, penetrated into the enclosed sanctuary _within_ the > pagodas. Neither authority nor money has ever induced a Brahman to > allow an uninitiated foreigner to pass the threshold of the reserved > precinct. To use authority in such a case would be equivalent to > throwing a lighted taper into a powder magazine. The Hindus, mild, > patient, long-suffering, whose very apathy saved the British from > being driven out of the country in 1857, would raise their hundred > millions of devotees as one man, at such a profanation; regardless > of sects or castes, they would exterminate every Christian. The > East India Company knew this well and built her stronghold on the > friendship of the Brahmans, and by paying subsidy to the pagodas; > and the British Government is as prudent as its predecessor. It is > the castes, and non-interference with the prevailing religions, that > secure its comparative authority in India. But we must once more > recur to Shamanism, that strange and most despised of all surviving > religions--“Spirit-worship.” > > Its followers have neither altars nor idols, and it is upon the > authority of a Shaman priest that we state that their true rites, > which they are bound to perform only once a year, on the shortest > day of winter, cannot take place before any stranger to their faith. > Therefore, we are confident that all descriptions hitherto given in > the _Asiatic Journal_ and other European works, are but guess-work. > The Russians, who, from constant intercourse with the Shamans in > Siberia and Tartary, would be the most competent of all persons > to judge of their religion, have learned nothing except of the > personal proficiency of these men in what they are half inclined to > believe clever jugglery. Many Russian residents, though, in Siberia, > are firmly convinced of the “supernatural” powers of the Shamans. > Whenever they assemble to worship, it is always in an open space, or > a high hill, or in the hidden depths of a forest--in this reminding > us of the old Druidical rites. Their ceremonies upon the occasions > of births, deaths, and marriages are but trifling parts of their > worship. They comprise offerings, the sprinkling of the fire with > spirits and milk, and weird hymns, or rather, magical incantations, > intoned by the officiating Shaman, and concluding with a chorus of > the persons present. > > The numerous small bells of brass and iron worn by them on the > priestly robe of deerskin,[1162] or the pelt of some other animal > reputed magnetic, are used to drive away the malevolent spirits > of the air, a _superstition_ shared by all the nations of old, > including Romans, and even the Jews, whose golden bells tell the > story. They have iron staves also covered with bells, for the same > reason. When, after certain ceremonies, the desired crisis is > reached, and “the spirit has spoken,” and the priest (who may be > either male or female) feels its overpowering influence, the hand of > the Shaman is drawn by some occult power toward the top of the staff, > which is commonly covered with hieroglyphics. With his palm pressing > upon it, he is then raised to a considerable height in the air, where > he remains for some time. Sometimes he leaps to an extraordinary > height, and, according to the control--for he is often but an > irresponsible medium--pours out prophecies and describes future > events. Thus, it was that, in 1847, a Shaman in a distant part of > Siberia prophesied and accurately detailed the issue of the Crimean > war. The particulars of the prognostication being carefully noted by > those present at the time, were all verified six years after this > occurrence. Although usually ignorant of even the name of astronomy, > let alone having studied this science, they often prophesy eclipses > and other astronomical phenomena. When consulted about thefts and > murders, they invariably point out the guilty parties. > > The Shamans of Siberia are all ignorant and illiterate. Those of > Tartary and Thibet--few in number--are mostly learned men in their > own way, and will not allow themselves to fall under the control of > spirits of any kind. The former are _mediums_ in the full sense of > the word; the latter, “magicians.” It is not surprising that pious > and superstitious persons, after seeing one of such crises, should > declare the Shaman to be under demoniacal possession. As in the > instances of Corybantic and Bacchantic fury among the ancient Greeks, > the “spiritual” crisis of the Shaman exhibits itself in violent > dancing and wild gestures. Little by little the lookers-on feel the > spirit of imitation aroused in them; seized with an irresistible > impulse, they dance, and become, in their turn, ecstatics; and he who > begins by joining the chorus, gradually and unconsciously takes part > in the gesticulations, until he sinks to the ground exhausted, and > often dying. > > “O, young girl, a god possesses thee! it is either Pan, or Hekaté, or > the venerable Corybantes, or Cybelé that agitates thee!” the chorus > says, addressing Phœdra, in Euripides. This form of psychological > epidemic has been too well known from the time of the middle ages > to cite instances from it. The _Chorœa sancti Viti_ is an historical > fact, and spread throughout Germany. Paracelsus cured quite a number > of persons possessed of such a spirit of imitation. But he was a > kabalist, and therefore accused, by his enemies, of having cast out > the devils by the power of a stronger demon, which he was believed to > carry about with him in the hilt of his sword. The Christian judges > of those days of horror found a better and a surer remedy. Voltaire > states that, in the district of Jura, between 1598 and 1600, over 600 > lycanthropes were put to death by a pious judge. > > But, while the illiterate Shaman is a victim, and during his crisis > sometimes sees the persons present, under the shape of various > animals, and often makes them share his hallucination, his brother > Shaman, learned in the mysteries of the priestly colleges of Thibet, > _expels_ the elementary creature, which can produce the hallucination > as well as a living mesmerizer, not through the help of a stronger > demon, but simply through his knowledge of the nature of the > invisible enemy. Where academicians have failed, as in the cases of > the Cevennois, a Shaman or a lama would have soon put an end to the > epidemic. > > We have mentioned a kind of carnelian stone in our possession, > which had such an unexpected and favorable effect upon the Shaman’s > decision. Every Shaman has such a talisman, which he wears attached > to a string, and carries under his left arm. > > “Of what use is it to you, and what are its virtues?” was the > question we often offered to our guide. To this he never answered > directly, but evaded all explanation, promising that as soon as an > opportunity was offered, and we were alone, he would ask the stone > _to answer for himself_. With this very indefinite hope, we were left > to the resources of our own imagination. > > But the day on which the stone “spoke” came very soon. It was during > the most critical hours of our life; at a time when the vagabond > nature of a traveller had carried the writer to far-off lands, where > neither civilization is known, nor security can be guaranteed for one > hour. One afternoon, as every man and woman had left the _yourta_ > (Tartar tent), that had been our home for over two months, to witness > the ceremony of the Lamaïc exorcism of a Tshoutgour,[1163] accused > of breaking and spiriting away every bit of the poor furniture and > earthenware of a family living about two miles distant, the Shaman, > who had become our only protector in those dreary deserts, was > reminded of his promise. He sighed and hesitated; but, after a short > silence, left his place on the sheepskin, and, going outside, placed > a dried-up goat’s head with its prominent horns over a wooden peg, > and then dropping down the felt curtain of the tent, remarked that > now no living person would venture in, for the goat’s head was a sign > that he was “at work.” > > After that, placing his hand in his bosom, he drew out the little > stone, about the size of a walnut, and, carefully unwrapping it, > proceeded, as it appeared, to swallow it. In a few moments his limbs > stiffened, his body became rigid, and he fell, cold and motionless as > a corpse. But for a slight twitching of his lips at every question > asked, the scene would have been embarrassing, nay--dreadful. The > sun was setting, and were it not that dying embers flickered at the > centre of the tent, complete darkness would have been added to the > oppressive silence which reigned. We have lived in the prairies > of the West, and in the boundless steppes of Southern Russia; but > nothing can be compared with the silence at sunset on the sandy > deserts of Mongolia; not even the barren solitudes of the deserts of > Africa, though the former are partially inhabited, and the latter > utterly void of life. Yet, there was the writer alone with what > looked no better than a corpse lying on the ground. Fortunately, this > state did not last long. > > “Mahandū!” uttered a voice, which seemed to come from the bowels of > the earth, on which the Shaman was prostrated. “Peace be with you ... > what would you have me do for you?” > > Startling as the fact seemed, we were quite prepared for it, for we > had seen other Shamans pass through similar performances. “Whoever > you are,” we pronounced mentally, “go to K----, and try to bring that > person’s _thought_ here. See what that other party does, and tell * * > * what we are doing and how situated.” > > “I am there;” answered the same voice. “The old lady (kokona)[1164] > is sitting in the garden ... she is putting on her spectacles and > reading a letter.” > > “The contents of it, and hasten,” was the hurried order while > preparing note-book and pencil. The contents were given slowly, as > if, while dictating, the invisible presence desired to afford us time > to put down the words phonetically, for we recognized the Valachian > language of which we know nothing beyond the ability to recognize it. > In such a way a whole page was filled. > > “Look west ... toward the third pole of the yourta,” pronounced the > Tartar in his natural voice, though it sounded hollow, and as if > coming from afar. “Her _thought_ is here.” > > Then with a convulsive jerk, the upper portion of the Shaman’s body > seemed raised, and his head fell heavily on the writer’s feet, which > he clutched with both his hands. The position was becoming less and > less attractive, but curiosity proved a good ally to courage. In > the west corner was standing, life-like but flickering, unsteady > and mist-like, the form of a dear old friend, a Roumanian lady of > Valachia, a mystic by disposition, but a thorough disbeliever in this > kind of occult phenomena. > > “Her thought is here, but her body is lying unconscious. We could not > bring her here otherwise,” said the voice. > > We addressed and supplicated the apparition to answer, but all in > vain. The features moved, and the form gesticulated as if in fear > and agony, but no sound broke forth from the shadowy lips; only > we imagined--perchance it was a fancy--hearing as if from a long > distance the Roumanian words, “_Non se póte_” (it cannot be done). > > For over two hours, the most substantial, unequivocal proofs that the > Shaman’s astral soul was travelling at the bidding of our unspoken > wish, were given us. Ten months later, we received a letter from our > Valachian friend in response to ours, in which we had enclosed the > page from the note-book, inquiring of her what she had been doing > on that day, and describing the scene in full. She was sitting--she > wrote--in the garden on that morning[1165] prosaically occupied in > boiling some conserves; the letter sent to her was word for word the > copy of the one received by her from her brother; all at once--in > consequence of the heat, she thought--she fainted, and remembered > distinctly _dreaming_ she saw the writer in a desert place which she > accurately described, and sitting under a “gypsy’s tent,” as she > expressed it. “Henceforth,” she added, “I can doubt no longer!” > > But our experiment was proved still better. We had directed the > Shaman’s inner _ego_ to the same friend heretofore mentioned in this > chapter, the Kutchi of Lha-Ssa, who travels constantly to British > India and back. _We know_ that he was apprised of our critical > situation in the desert; for a few hours later came help, and we were > rescued by a party of twenty-five horsemen who had been directed by > their chief to find us at the place where we were, which no living > man endowed with common powers could have known. The chief of this > escort was a Shaberon, an “adept” whom we had never seen before, nor > did we after that, for he never left his _soumay_ (lamasery), and > we could have no access to it. But _he was a personal friend of the > Kutchi_. > > The above will of course provoke naught but incredulity in the > general reader. But we write for those who will believe; who, > like the writer, understand and know the illimitable powers and > possibilities of the human astral soul. In this case we willingly > believe, nay, we know, that the “spiritual double” of the Shaman did > not act alone, for he was no adept, but simply a medium. According to > a favorite expression of his, as soon as he placed the stone in his > mouth, his “father appeared, dragged him out of his skin, and took > him wherever he wanted,” and at his bidding. > > One who has only witnessed the chemical, optical, mechanical, and > sleight-of-hand performances of European prestidigitateurs, is > not prepared to see, without amazement, the open-air and off-hand > exhibitions of Hindu jugglers, to say nothing of fakirs. Of the > mere displays of deceptive dexterity we make no account, for Houdin > and others far excel them in that respect; nor do we dwell upon > feats that permit of confederacy, whether resorted to or not. It is > unquestionably true that non-expert travellers, especially if of an > imaginative turn of mind, exaggerate inordinately. But our remark is > based upon a class of phenomena not to be accounted for upon any of > the familiar hypotheses. “I have seen,” says a gentleman who resided > in India, “a man throw up into the air a number of balls numbered > in succession from one upwards. As each went up--and there was no > deception about their going up--the ball was seen clearly in the > air, getting smaller and smaller, till it disappeared altogether out > of sight. When they were all up, twenty or more, the operator would > politely ask which ball you wanted to see, and then would shout out, > ‘No. 1,’ ‘No. 15,’ and so on, as instructed by the spectators, when > the ball demanded would bound to his feet violently from some remote > distance.... These fellows have very scanty clothing, and apparently > no apparatus whatever. Then, I have seen them swallow three different > colored powders, and then, throwing back the head, wash them down > with water, drunk, in the native fashion, in a continuous stream from > a _lotah_, or brass-pot, held at arm’s length from the lips, and keep > on drinking till the swollen body could not hold another drop, and > water overflowed from the lips. Then, these fellows, after squirting > out the water in their mouths, have spat out the three powders on a > clean piece of paper, dry and unmixed.”[1166] > > In the eastern portion of Turkey and Persia, have dwelt, from time > immemorial, the warlike tribes of the Koordistan. This people > of purely Indo-European origin, and without a drop of Semitic > blood in them (though some ethnologists seem to think otherwise), > notwithstanding their brigand-like disposition, unite in themselves > the mysticism of the Hindu and the practices of the Assyrio-Chaldean > magians, vast portions of whose territory they have helped themselves > to, and will not give up, to please either Turkey or even all > Europe.[1167] Nominally, Mahometans of the sect of Omar, their > rites and doctrines are purely magical and magian. Even those who > are Christian Nestorians, are Christians but in name. The Kaldany, > numbering nearly 100,000 men, and with their two Patriarchs, are > undeniably rather Manicheans than Nestorians. Many of them are Yezids. > > One of these tribes is noted for its fire-worshipping predilections. > At sunrise and sunset, the horsemen alight and, turning towards the > sun, mutter a prayer; while at every new moon they perform mysterious > rites throughout the whole night. They have a tent set apart for > the purpose, and its thick, black, woolen fabric is decorated with > weird signs, worked in bright red and yellow. In the centre is > placed a kind of altar, encircled by three brass bands, to which > are suspended numerous rings by ropes of camel’s hair, which every > worshipper holds with his right hand during the ceremony. On the > altar burns a curious, old-fashioned silver lamp, a relic found > possibly among the ruins of Persepolis.[1168] This lamp, with three > wicks, is an oblong cup with a handle to it, and is evidently of the > class of Egyptian sepulchral lamps, once found in such profusion in > the subterranean caves of Memphis, if we may believe Kircher.[1169] > It widened from its end toward the middle, and its upper part was of > the shape of a heart; the apertures for the wicks forming a triangle, > and its centre being covered by an inverted heliotrope attached to a > gracefully-curved stalk proceeding from the handle of the lamp. This > ornament clearly bespoke its origin. It was one of the sacred vessels > used in sun-worship. The Greeks gave the _heliotrope_ its name from > its strange propensity to ever incline towards the sun. The ancient > Magi used it in their worship; and who knows but Darius had performed > the mysterious rites with its triple light illuminating the face of > the king-hierophant! > > If we mention the lamp at all, it is because there happened to be a > strange story in connection with it. What the Koords do, during their > nocturnal rites of lunar-worship, we know but from hearsay; for they > conceal it carefully, and no stranger could be admitted to witness > the ceremony. But every tribe has one old man, sometimes several, > regarded as “holy beings,” who know the past, and can divulge the > secrets of the future. These are greatly honored, and generally > resorted to for information in cases of theft, murders, or danger. > > Travelling from one tribe to the other, we passed some time in > company with these Koords. As our object is not autobiographical, > we omit all details that have no immediate bearing upon some occult > fact, and even of these, have room but for a few. We will then simply > state that a very expensive saddle, a carpet, and two Circassian > daggers, richly mounted and chiselled in gold, had been stolen from > the tent, and that the Koords, with the chief of the tribe at the > head, had come, taking Allah for their witness that the culprit could > not belong to their tribe. We believed it, for it would have been > unprecedented among these nomadic tribes of Asia, as famed for the > sacredness in which they hold their guests, as for the ease with > which they plunder and occasionally murder them, when once they have > passed the boundaries of their _aoûl_. > > A suggestion was then made by a Georgian belonging to our caravan to > have resort to the light of the _koodian_ (sorcerer) of their tribe. > This was arranged in great secrecy and solemnity, and the interview > appointed to take place at midnight, when the moon would be at its > full. At the stated hour we were conducted to the above-described > tent. > > A large hole, or square aperture, was managed in the arched roof of > the tent, and through it poured in vertically the radiant moonbeams, > mingling with the vacillating triple flame of the little lamp. > After several minutes of incantations, addressed, as it seemed to > us, to the moon, the conjurer, an old man of tremendous stature, > whose pyramidal turban touched the top of the tent, produced a > round looking-glass, of the kind known as “Persian mirrors.” Having > unscrewed its cover, he then proceeded to breathe on it, for over ten > minutes, and wipe off the moisture from the surface with a package > of herbs, muttering incantations the while _sotto voce_. After every > wiping the glass became more and more brilliant, till its crystal > seemed to radiate refulgent phosphoric rays in every direction. At > last the operation was ended; the old man, with the mirror in his > hand, remained as motionless as if he had been a statue. “Look, > Hanoum ... look steadily,” he whispered, hardly moving his lips. > Shadows and dark spots began gathering, where one moment before > nothing was reflected but the radiant face of the full moon. A few > more seconds, and there appeared the well-known saddle, carpet, and > daggers, which seemed to be rising as from a deep, clear water, and > becoming with every instant more definitely outlined. Then a still > darker shadow appeared hovering over these objects, which gradually > condensed itself, and then came out, as visibly as at the small end > of a telescope, the full figure of a man crouching over them. > > “I know him!” exclaimed the writer. “It is the Tartar who came to us > last night, offering to sell his mule!” > > The image disappeared, as if by enchantment. The old man nodded > assent, but remained motionless. Then he muttered again some > strange words, and suddenly began a song. The tune was slow and > monotonous, but after he had sung a few stanzas in the same unknown > tongue, without changing either rhythm or tune, he pronounced, > _recitative_-like, the following words, in his broken Russian: > > “Now, Hanoum, look well, whether we will catch him--the fate of the > robber--we will learn this night,” etc. > > The same shadows began gathering, and then, almost without > transition, we saw the man lying on his back, in a pool of blood, > across the saddle, and two other men galloping off at a distance. > Horror-stricken, and sick at the sight of this picture, we desired to > see no more. The old man, leaving the tent, called some of the Koords > standing outside, and seemed to give them instructions. Two minutes > later, a dozen of horsemen were galloping off at full speed down the > side of the mountain on which we were encamped. > > Early in the morning they returned with the lost objects. The saddle > was all covered with coagulated blood, and of course abandoned to > them. The story they told was, that upon coming in sight of the > fugitive, they saw disappearing over the crest of a distant hill two > horsemen, and upon riding up, the Tartar thief was found dead upon > the stolen property, exactly as we had seen him in the magical glass. > He had been murdered by the two banditti, whose evident design to rob > him was interrupted by the sudden appearance of the party sent by the > old Koodian. > > The most remarkable results are produced by the Eastern “wise men,” > by the simple act of breathing upon a person, whether with good or > evil intent. This is pure mesmerism; and among the Persian dervishes > who practice it the animal magnetism is often reinforced by that of > the elements. If a person happens to stand facing a certain wind, > there is always danger, they think; and many of the “learned ones” > in occult matters can never be prevailed upon to go at sunset in > a certain direction from whence blows the wind. We have known an > old Persian from Baku,[1170] on the Caspian Sea, who had the most > unenviable reputation for _throwing spells_ through the timely help > of this wind, which blows but too often at that town, as its Persian > name itself shows.[1171] If a victim, against whom the wrath of the > old fiend was kindled, happened to be facing this wind, he would > appear, as if by enchantment, cross the road rapidly, and breathe in > his face. From that moment, the latter would find himself afflicted > with every evil--he was under the spell of the “evil eye.” > > The employment of the human breath by the sorcerer as an adjunct > for the accomplishment of his nefarious purpose, is strikingly > illustrated in several terrible cases recorded in the French > annals--notably those of several Catholic priests. In fact, this > species of sorcery was known from the oldest times. The Emperor > Constantine (in Statute iv., _Code de Malef._, etc.) prescribed > the severest penalties against such as should employ sorcery to do > violence to chastity and excite unlawful passion. Augustine (_Cité > de Dieu_) warns against it; Jerome, Gregory, Nazianzen and many > other ecclesiastical authorities, lend their denunciation of a crime > not uncommon among the clergy. Baffet (book v., tit. 19, chap. 6) > relates the case of the curé of Peifane, who accomplished the ruin of > a highly-respected and virtuous lady parishioner, the Dame du Lieu, > by resort to sorcery, and was burned alive for it by the Parliament > of Grenoble. In 1611, a priest named Gaufridy was burned by the > Parliament of Provence for seducing a penitent at the confessional, > named Magdelaine de la Palud, _by breathing upon her_, and thus > throwing her into a delirium of sinful love for him. > > The above cases are cited in the official report of the famous case > of Father Girard, a Jesuit priest of very great influence, who, > in 1731, was tried before the Parliament of Aix, France, for the > seduction of his parishioner, Mlle. Catherine Cadière, of Toulon, > and certain revolting crimes in connection with the same. The > indictment charged that the offence was brought about by resort > to sorcery. Mlle. Cadière was a young lady noted for her beauty, > piety, and exemplary virtues. Her attention to her religious > duties was exceptionally rigorous, and that was the cause of her > perdition. Father Girard’s eye fell upon her, and he began to > manœuvre for her ruin. Gaining the confidence of the girl and her > family by his apparent great sanctity, he one day made a pretext > to blow his breath upon her. The girl became instantly affected > with a violent passion for him. She also had ecstatic visions of a > religious character, stigmata, or blood-marks of the “Passion,” and > hysterical convulsions. The long-sought opportunity of seclusion > with his penitent finally offering, the Jesuit breathed upon her > again, and before the poor girl recovered her senses, his object had > been accomplished. By sophistry and the excitation of her religious > fervor, he kept up this illicit relation for months, without her > suspecting that she had done anything wrong. Finally, however, her > eyes were opened, her parents informed, and the priest was arraigned. > Judgment was rendered October 12th, 1731. Of twenty-five judges, > twelve voted to send him to the stake. The criminal priest was > defended by all the power of the Society of Jesus, and it is said > that a million francs were spent in trying to suppress the evidence > produced at the trial. The facts, however, were printed in a work > (in 5 vols., 16mo), now rare, entitled _Recueil Général des Pièces > contenues au Procez du Père Jean-Baptiste Girard, Jesuite_, etc., > etc.[1172] > > We have noted the circumstance that, while under the sorcerous > influence of Father Girard, and in illicit relations with him, Mlle. > Cadière’s body was marked with the _stigmata_ of the _Passion_, > viz.: the bleeding wounds of thorns on her brow, of nails in her > hands and feet, and of a lance-cut in her side. It should be added > that the same marks were seen upon the bodies of six other penitents > of this priest, viz.: Mesdames Guyol, Laugier, Grodier, Allemande, > Batarelle, and Reboul. In fact, it became commonly remarked that > Father Girard’s handsome parishioners were strangely given to > ecstasies and _stigmata_! Add this to the fact that, in the case > of Father Gaufridy, above noted, the same thing was proved, upon > surgical testimony, to have happened to Mlle. de Palud, and we have > something worth the attention of all (especially spiritualists) who > imagine these _stigmata_ are produced by pure spirits. Barring the > agency of the Devil, whom we have quietly put to rest in another > chapter, Catholics would be puzzled, we fancy, despite all their > infallibility, to distinguish between the stigmata of the sorcerers > and those produced through the intervention of the Holy Ghost or the > angels. The Church records abound in instances of alleged diabolical > imitations of these signs of saintship, but, as we have remarked, the > Devil is out of court. > > By those who have followed us thus far, it will naturally be asked, > to what practical issue this book tends; much has been said about > magic and its potentiality, much of the immense antiquity of its > practice. Do we wish to affirm that the occult sciences ought to be > studied and practiced throughout the world? Would we replace modern > spiritualism with the ancient magic? Neither; the substitution could > not be made, nor the study universally prosecuted, without incurring > the risk of enormous public dangers. At this moment, a well-known > spiritualist and lecturer on mesmerism is imprisoned on the charge > of raping a subject whom he had hypnotized. A sorcerer is a public > enemy, and mesmerism may most readily be turned into the worst of > sorceries. > > We would have neither scientists, theologians, nor spiritualists turn > practical magicians, but all to realize that there was true science, > profound religion, and genuine phenomena before this modern era. We > would that all who have a voice in the education of the masses should > first know and then _teach_ that the safest guides to human happiness > and enlightenment are those writings which have descended to us from > the remotest antiquity; and that nobler spiritual aspirations and a > higher average morality prevail in the countries where the people > take their precepts as the rule of their lives. We would have all to > realize that magical, _i.e._, spiritual powers exist in every man, > and those few to practice them who feel called to teach, and are > ready to pay the price of discipline and self-conquest which their > development exacts. > > Many men have arisen who had glimpses of the truth, and fancied > they had it all. Such have failed to achieve the good they might > have done and sought to do, because vanity has made them thrust > their personality into such undue prominence as to interpose it > between their believers and the _whole_ truth that lay behind. The > world needs no sectarian church, whether of Buddha, Jesus, Mahomet, > Swedenborg, Calvin, or any other. There being but ONE Truth, man > requires but one church--the Temple of God within us, walled in by > matter but penetrable by any one who can find the way; _the pure in > heart see God_. > > _The trinity of nature is the lock of magic, the trinity of man the > key that fits it._ Within the solemn precincts of the sanctuary the > SUPREME had and has no name. It is unthinkable and unpronounceable; > and yet every man finds in himself his god. “Who art thou, O fair > being?” inquires the disembodied soul, in the _Khordah-Avesta_, at > the gates of Paradise. “I am, O Soul, _thy good and pure thoughts_, > thy works and thy _good law_ ... thy angel ... and thy god.” Then > man, or the soul, is reunited with ITSELF, for this “Son of God” is > one with him; it is his own mediator, the _god_ of his human soul and > his “Justifier.” “_God not revealing himself immediately to man, the > spirit is his interpreter_,” says Plato in the _Banquet_. > > Besides, there are many good reasons why the study of magic, except > in its broad philosophy, is nearly impracticable in Europe and > America. Magic being what it is, the most difficult of all sciences > to learn experimentally--its acquisition is practically beyond the > reach of the majority of white-skinned people; and that, whether > their effort is made at home or in the East. Probably not more than > one man in a million of European blood is fitted--either physically, > morally, or psychologically--to become a practical magician, and > not one in ten millions would be found endowed with all these three > qualifications as required for the work. Civilized nations lack > the phenomenal powers of endurance, both mental and physical, of > the Easterns; the favoring temperamental idiosyncrasies of the > Orientals are utterly wanting in them. In the Hindu, the Arabian, > the Thibetan, an intuitive perception of the possibilities of occult > natural forces in subjection to human will, comes by inheritance; > and in them, the physical senses as well as the spiritual are far > more finely developed than in the Western races. Notwithstanding the > notable difference of thickness between the skulls of a European and > a Southern Hindu, this difference, being a purely climatic result, > due to the intensity of the sun’s rays, involves no psychological > principles. Furthermore, there would be tremendous difficulties in > the way of _training_, if we can so express it. Contaminated by > centuries of dogmatic superstition, by an ineradicable--though quite > unwarranted--sense of superiority over those whom the English term > so contemptuously “niggers,” the white European would hardly submit > himself to the practical tuition of either Kopt, Brahman, or Lama. > To become a neophyte, one must be ready to devote himself heart and > soul to the study of mystic sciences. Magic--most imperative of > mistresses--brooks no rival. Unlike other sciences, a theoretical > knowledge of formulæ without mental capacities or soul powers, is > utterly useless in magic. The spirit must hold in complete subjection > the combativeness of what is loosely termed educated reason, until > facts have vanquished cold human sophistry. > > Those best prepared to appreciate occultism are the spiritualists, > although, through prejudice, until now they have been the bitterest > opponents to its introduction to public notice. Despite all foolish > negations and denunciations, their phenomena are real. Despite, also, > their own assertions they are wholly misunderstood by themselves. The > totally insufficient theory of the constant agency of disembodied > human spirits in their production has been the bane of the _Cause_. > A thousand mortifying rebuffs have failed to open their reason > or intuition to the truth. Ignoring the teachings of the past, > they have discovered no substitute. We offer them philosophical > deduction instead of unverifiable hypothesis, scientific analysis and > demonstration instead of undiscriminating faith. Occult philosophy > gives them the means of meeting the reasonable requirements of > science, and frees them from the humiliating necessity to accept the > oracular teachings of “intelligences,” which as a rule have less > intelligence than a child at school. So based and so strengthened, > modern phenomena would be in a position to command the attention > and enforce the respect of those who carry with them public > opinion. Without invoking such help, spiritualism must continue to > vegetate, equally repulsed--not without cause--both by scientists > and theologians. In its modern aspect, it is neither a science, a > religion, nor a philosophy. > > Are we unjust; does any intelligent spiritualist complain that we > have misstated the case? To what can he point us but to a confusion > of theories, a tangle of hypotheses mutually contradictory? Can he > affirm that spiritualism, even with its thirty years of phenomena, > has any defensible philosophy; nay, that there is anything like an > established method that is generally accepted and followed by its > recognized representatives? > > And yet, there are many thoughtful, scholarly, earnest writers among > the spiritualists, scattered the world over. There are men who, in > addition to a scientific mental training and a reasoned faith in > the phenomena _per se_, possess all the requisites of leaders of > the movement. How is it then, that, except throwing off an isolated > volume or so, or occasional contributions to journalism, they all > refrain from taking any active part in the formation of a system of > philosophy? This is from no lack of moral courage, as their writings > well show. Nor because of indifference, for enthusiasm abounds, > and they are sure of their facts. Nor is it from lack of capacity, > because many are men of mark, the peers of our best minds. It is > simply for the reason that, almost without exception, they are > bewildered by the contradictions they encounter, and wait for their > tentative hypotheses to be verified by further experience. Doubtless > this is the part of wisdom. It is that adopted by Newton, who, with > the heroism of an honest, unselfish heart, withheld for seventeen > years the promulgation of his theory of gravitation, only because he > had not verified it to his own satisfaction. > > Spiritualism, whose aspect is rather that of aggression than of > defense, has tended toward iconoclasm, and so far has done well. > But, in pulling down, it does not rebuild. Every really substantial > truth it erects is soon buried under an avalanche of chimeras, until > all are in one confused ruin. At every step of advance, at the > acquisition of every new vantage-ground of FACT, some cataclysm, > either in the shape of fraud and exposure, or of premeditated > treachery, occurs, and throws the spiritualists back powerless > because they _cannot_ and their invisible friends _will_ not (or > perchance can, less than themselves) make good their claims. > Their fatal weakness is that they have but _one_ theory to offer > in explanation of their challenged facts--the agency of _human > disembodied spirits_, and the medium’s complete subjection to them. > They will attack those who differ in views with them with a vehemence > only warranted by a better cause; they will regard every argument > contradicting their theory as an imputation upon their common sense > and powers of observation; and they will positively refuse even to > argue the question. > > How, then, can spiritualism be ever elevated to the distinction of a > science? This, as Professor Tyndall shows, includes three absolutely > necessary elements: observation of facts; induction of laws from > these facts; and verification of those laws by constant practical > experience. What experienced observer will maintain that spiritualism > presents either one of these three elements? The medium is not > uniformly surrounded by such test conditions that we may be sure of > the facts; the inductions from the supposed facts are unwarranted > in the absence of such verification; and, as a corollary, there has > been no sufficient verification of those hypotheses by experience. In > short, the prime element of accuracy has, as a rule, been lacking. > > That we may not be charged with desire to misrepresent the position > of spiritualism, at the date of this present writing, or accused > of withholding credit for advances actually made, we will cite a > few passages from the London _Spiritualist_ of March 2, 1877. At > the fortnightly meeting, held February 19, a debate occurred upon > the subject of “Ancient Thought and Modern Spiritualism.” Some of > the most intelligent Spiritualists of England participated. Among > these was Mr. W. Stainton Moses, M.A., who has recently given some > attention to the relation between ancient and modern phenomena. He > said: “Popular spiritualism is not scientific; it does very little in > the way of scientific verification. Moreover, exoteric spiritualism > is, to a large extent, devoted to presumed communion with personal > friends, or to the gratification of curiosity, or the mere evolution > of marvels.... The truly esoteric science of spiritualism is very > rare, and not more rare than valuable. To it we must look to the > origination of knowledge which may be developed exoterically.... > We proceed too much on the lines of the physicists; our tests are > crude, and often illusory; we know too little of the Protean power > of spirit. Here the ancients were far ahead of us, and can teach us > much. We have not introduced any certainty into the conditions--a > necessary prerequisite for true scientific experiment. This is > largely owing to the fact that our circles are constructed on no > principle.... We have not even mastered the elementary truths which > the ancients knew and acted on, _e.g._, the isolation of mediums. > We have been so occupied with wonder-hunting that we have hardly > tabulated the phenomena, or propounded one theory to account for > the production of the simplest of them.... We have never faced the > question: What is the intelligence? This is the great blot, the most > frequent source of error, and here we might learn with advantage > from the ancients. There is the strongest disinclination among > spiritualists to admit the possibility of the truth of occultism. > In this respect they are as hard to convince as is the outer world > of spiritualism. Spiritualists start with a fallacy, viz.: that all > phenomena are caused by the action of departed human spirits; _they > have not looked into the powers of the human spirit_; they do not > know the extent to which spirit acts, how far it reaches, what it > underlies.” > > Our position could not be better defined. If Spiritualism has a > future; it is in the keeping of such men as Mr. Stainton Moses. > > Our work is done--would that it were better done! But, despite our > inexperience in the art of book-making, and the serious difficulty of > writing in a foreign tongue, we hope we have succeeded in saying some > things that will remain in the minds of the thoughtful. The enemies > of truth have been all counted, and all passed in review. Modern > science, powerless to satisfy the aspirations of the race, makes the > future a void, and bereaves man of hope. In one sense, it is like the > Baital Pachisi, the Hindu vampire of popular fancy, which lives in > dead bodies, and feeds but on the rottenness of matter. The theology > of Christendom has been rubbed threadbare by the most serious minds > of the day. It is found to be, on the whole, subversive, rather than > promotive of spirituality and good morals. Instead of expounding the > rules of divine law and justice, it teaches but _itself_. In place > of an ever-living Deity, it preaches the Evil One, and makes him > indistinguishable from God Himself! “Lead us not into temptation” > is the aspiration of Christians. Who, then, is the tempter? Satan? > No; the prayer is not addressed to him. It is that tutelar genius > who hardened the heart of Pharaoh, put an evil spirit into Saul, > sent lying messengers to the prophets, and tempted David to sin; it > is--the _Bible_-God of Israel! > > Our examination of the multitudinous religious faiths that mankind, > early and late, have professed, most assuredly indicates that they > have all been derived from one primitive source. It would seem as > if they were all but different modes of expressing the yearning of > the imprisoned human soul for intercourse with supernal spheres. As > the white ray of light is decomposed by the prism into the various > colors of the solar spectrum, so the beam of divine truth, in passing > through the _three-sided_ prism of man’s nature, has been broken > up into vari-colored fragments called RELIGIONS. And, as the rays > of the spectrum, by imperceptible shadings, merge into each other, > so the great theologies that have appeared at different degrees of > divergence from the original source, have been connected by minor > schisms, schools, and off-shoots from the one side or the other. > Combined, their aggregate represents one eternal truth; separate, > they are but shades of human error and the signs of imperfection. The > worship of the Vedic _pitris_ is fast becoming the worship of the > spiritual portion of mankind. It but needs the right perception of > things objective to finally discover that the only world of reality > is the subjective. > > What has been contemptuously termed Paganism, was ancient wisdom > replete with Deity; and Judaism and its offspring, Christianity and > Islamism, derived whatever of inspiration they contained from this > ethnic parent. Pre-Vedic Brahmanism and Buddhism are the double > source from which all religions sprung; Nirvana is the ocean to which > all tend. For the purposes of a philosophical analysis, we need not > take account of the enormities which have blackened the record of > many of the world’s religions. True faith is the embodiment of divine > charity; those who minister at its altars, are but human. As we turn > the bloodstained pages of ecclesiastical history, we find that, > whoever may have been the hero, and whatever costumes the actors may > have worn, the plot of the tragedy has ever been the same. But the > Eternal Night was in and behind all, and we pass from what we see to > that which is invisible to the eye of sense. Our fervent wish has > been to show true souls how they may lift aside the curtain, and, in > the brightness of that Night made Day, look with undazzled gaze upon > the UNVEILED TRUTH. > > THE END. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [1] These figures are copied from the “Religious Statistics > of the United States for the year 1871.” > > [2] These are: The _Baptists_, _Congregationalists_, > _Episcopalians_, Northern _Methodists_, Southern > _Methodists_, Methodists _various_, Northern > _Presbyterians_, Southern _Presbyterians_, _United > Presbyterians_, _United Brethren_, _Brethren in > Christ_, _Reformed Dutch_, _Reformed German_, _Reformed > Presbyterians_, _Cumberland Presbyterians_. > > [3] H. Maudsley: “Body and Mind.” > > [4] “Boston Sunday Herald,” November 5, 1876. > > [5] See the self-glorification of the present Pope in the > work entitled, “Speeches of Pope Pius IX.” by Don > Pascale de Franciscis; and the famous pamphlet of that > name by the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone. The latter quotes > from the work named the following sentence pronounced > by the Pope: “My wish is that all governments should > know that I am speaking in this strain.... And I have > _the right_ to speak, _even more than Nathan the > prophet_ to David the king, _and a great deal more than > St. Ambrose had to Theodosius_!!” > > [6] See King’s “Gnostics,” and other works. > > [7] Des Mousseaux: “La Magie au XIXme Siècle,” chap. i. > > [8] Hargrave Jennings: “The Rosicrucians,” pp. 228-241. > > [9] Des Mousseaux: “Hauts Phénomenes de la Magie.” > > [10] Don Pasquale di Franciscis: “Discorsi del Sommo > Pontefice Pio IX.,” Part i., p. 340. > > [11] “Speeches of Pius IX.,” p. 14. Am. Edition. > > [12] Vide “Speeches of Pope Pius IX.,” by Don Pasq. di > Franciscis; Gladstone’s pamphlet on this book; Draper’s > “Conflict between Religion and Science,” and others. > > [13] The fact is given to us by an eye-witness who has visited > the church several times; a Roman Catholic, who felt > perfectly _horrified_, as he expressed it. > > [14] Referring to the seed planted by Jesus and his Apostles. > > [15] “Chips,” vol. i., p. 26, Preface. > > [16] Mallet: “Northern Antiquities.” > > [17] Ether is both _pure_ and _impure_ fire. The composition > of the latter comprises all its visible forms, such as > the “correlation of forces”--heat, flame, electricity, > etc. The former is the _Spirit_ of Fire. The difference > is purely alchemical. > > [18] See “Inquiry into the Nature and Place of Hell,” by > Rev. T. Surnden. > > [19] Revelation xvi. 8-9. > > [20] Aristotle mentions Pythagoreans who placed the sphere of > fire in the sun, and named it _Jupiter’s Prison_. See > “De Cœlo,” lib. ii. > > [21] “De Civit. Dei,” 1, xxi., c. 17. > > [22] “Demonologia and Hell,” p. 289. > > [23] “Les Hauts Phénomènes de la Magie,” p. v., Preface. > > [24] Dr. Stanley: “Lectures on the Eastern Church,” p. 407. > > [25] In the government of Tambov, a gentleman, a rich landed > proprietor, had a curious case happen in his family > during the Hungarian campaign of 1848. His only and > much-beloved nephew, whom, having no children, he had > adopted as a son, was in the Russian army. The elderly > couple had a portrait of his--a water-color painting-- > constantly, during the meals, placed on the table in > front of the young man’s usual seat. One evening as the > family, with some friends, were at their early tea, the > glass over the portrait, without any one touching it, > was shattered to atoms with a loud explosion. As the > aunt of the young soldier caught the picture in her hand > she saw the forehead and head besmeared with blood. The > guests, in order to quiet her, attributed the blood to > her having cut her fingers with the broken glass. But, > examine as they would, they could not find the vestige > of a cut on her fingers, and no one had touched the > picture but herself. Alarmed at her state of excitement > the husband, pretending to examine the portrait more > closely, cut his finger on purpose, and then tried to > assure her that it was his blood and that, in the first > excitement, he had touched the frame without any one > remarking it. All was in vain, the old lady felt sure > that Dimitry was killed. She began to have masses said > for him daily at the village church, and arrayed the > whole household in deep mourning. Several weeks later, > an official communication was received from the colonel > of the regiment, stating that their nephew was killed by > a fragment of a shell which had carried off the upper > part of his head. > > [26] Executions for witchcraft took place, not much later than > a century ago, in other of the American provinces. > Notoriously there were negroes executed in New Jersey by > burning at the stake--the penalty denounced in several > States. Even in South Carolina, in 1865, when the State > government was “reconstructed,” after the civil war, the > statutes inflicting death for witchcraft were found to > be still unrepealed. It is not a hundred years since > they have been enforced to the murderous letter of their > text. > > [27] _Vide_ the title-page on the English translation of > Mayerhoff’s “Reuchlin und Seine Zeit,” Berlin, 1830. > “The Life and Times of John Reuchlin, or Capnion, the > Father of the German Reformation,” by F. Barham, London, > 1843. > > [28] Lord Coke: 3 “Institutes,” fol. 44. > > [29] _Vide_ “The Life of St. Gregory of Tours.” > > [30] Translated from the original document in the Archives of > Orleans, France; also see “Sortes and Sortilegium;” > “Life of Peter de Blois.” > > [31] “Miracles and Modern Spiritualism.” > > [32] There were two chairs of the titular apostle at Rome. The > clergy, frightened at the uninterrupted evidence > furnished by scientific research, at last decided to > confront the enemy, and we find the “Chronique des Arts” > giving the cleverest, and at the same time most > _Jesuitical_, explanation of the fact. According to > their story, “The _increase_ in the number of the > faithful decided Peter upon making Rome henceforth the > centre of his action. The cemetery of Ostrianum was too > distant and would _not suffice for the reünions of the > Christians_. The motive which had induced the Apostle to > confer on _Linus and Cletus_ successively the episcopal > character, in order to render them capable of sharing > the solicitudes of a church whose extent was to be > without limits, led naturally to a multiplication of the > places of meeting. The particular residence of Peter was > therefore fixed at Viminal; and there was established > that mysterious Chair, the symbol of power and truth. > The august seat which was venerated at the Ostrian > Catacombs was not, however, removed. Peter still visited > this cradle of the Roman Church, and often, without > doubt, exercised his holy functions there. A _second_ > Chair, expressing the same mystery as the first, was set > up at Cornelia, and it is this which has come down to us > through the ages.” > > Now, so far from it being possible that there ever were > two genuine chairs of this kind, the majority of critics > show that Peter never was at Rome at all; the reasons > are many and unanswerable. Perhaps we had best begin by > pointing to the works of Justin Martyr. This great > champion of Christianity, writing in the early part of > the second century _in Rome_, where he fixed his abode, > eager to get hold of the least proof in favor of the > truth for which he suffered, seems _perfectly unconscious > of St. Peter’s existence_!! > > Neither does any other writer of any consequence mention > him in connection with the Church of Rome, earlier than > the days of Irenæus, when the latter set himself to > invent a new religion, drawn from the depths of his > imagination. We refer the reader anxious to learn more > to the able work of Mr. George Reber, entitled “The > Christ of Paul.” The arguments of this author are > conclusive. The above article in the “Chronique des > Arts,” speaks of the _increase_ of the faithful to such > an extent that Ostrianum could not contain the number of > Christians. Now, if Peter was at Rome at all--runs Mr. > Reber’s argument--it must have been between the years A. > D. 64 and 69; for at 64 he was at Babylon, from whence > he wrote epistles and letters to Rome, and at some time > between 64 and 68 (the reign of Nero) he either died a > martyr or in his bed, for Irenæus makes him deliver the > Church of Rome, together with Paul (!?) (whom he > persecuted and quarrelled with all his life), into the > hands of _Linus_, who became bishop in 69 (see Reber’s > “Christ of Paul,” p. 122). We will treat of it more > fully in chapter iii. > > Now, we ask, in the name of common sense, how could the > _faithful_ of Peter’s Church _increase_ at such a rate, > when Nero trapped and killed them like so many mice > during his reign? History shows the few Christians > fleeing from Rome, wherever they could, to avoid the > persecution of the emperor, and the “Chronique des Arts” > makes them increase and multiply! “Christ,” the article > goes on to say, “willed that this visible sign of the > doctrinal authority of his vicar should also have its > portion of immortality; one can follow it from age to > age in the documents of the Roman Church.” Tertullian > formally attests its existence in his book “De > Præscriptionibus.” Eager to learn everything concerning > so interesting a subject, we would like to be shown when > did _Christ_ WILL anything of the kind? However: > “Ornaments of ivory have been fitted to the front and > back of the chair, but only on those parts repaired with > acacia-wood. Those which cover the panel in front are > divided into three superimposed rows, each containing > six plaques of ivory, on which are engraved various > subjects, among others the ‘Labors of Hercules.’ Several > of the plaques were wrongly placed, and seemed to have > been affixed to the chair at a time when the remains of > antiquity were employed as ornaments, without much > regard to fitness.” This is the point. The article was > written simply as a clever answer to several facts > published during the present century. Bower, in his > “History of the Popes” (vol. ii., p. 7), narrates that > in the year 1662, while cleaning one of the chairs, “the > ‘Twelve Labors of Hercules’ unluckily appeared engraved > upon it,” after which the chair was removed and another > substituted. But in 1795, when Bonaparte’s troops > occupied Rome, the chair was again examined. This time > there was found the Mahometan confession of faith, in > Arabic letters: “There is no Deity but Allah, and > Mahomet is his Apostle.” (See appendix to “Ancient > Symbol-Worship,” by H. M. Westropp and C. Staniland > Wake.) In the appendix Prof. Alexander Wilder very > justly remarks as follows: “We presume that the Apostle > of the Circumcision, as Paul, his great rival, styles > him, was never at the Imperial City, nor had a successor > there, not even in the ghetto. The ‘Chair of Peter,’ > therefore, is _sacred_ rather than apostolical. Its > sanctity proceeded, however, from the esoteric religion > of the former times of Rome. The hierophant of the > Mysteries probably occupied it on the day of initiations, > when exhibiting to the candidates the _Petroma_ (stone > tablet containing the last revelation made by the > hierophant to the neophyte for initiation).” > > [33] Joshua xxiv. 15. > > [34] One of the most surprising facts that have come under our > observation, is that students of profound research > should not couple the frequent recurrence of these > “unexpected and almost miraculous” discoveries of > important documents, at the most opportune moments, with > a premeditated design. Is it so strange that the > custodians of “Pagan” lore, seeing that the proper > moment had arrived, should cause the needed document, > book, or relic to fall as if by accident in the right > man’s way? Geological surveyors and explorers even as > competent as Humboldt and Tschuddi, have not discovered > the hidden mines from which the Peruvian Incas dug their > treasure, although the latter confesses that the present > degenerate Indians have the secret. In 1839, Perring, > the archæologist, proposed to the sheik of an Arab > village two purses of gold, if he helped him to discover > the entrance to the hidden passage leading to the > sepulchral chambers in the North Pyramid of Doshoor. But > though his men were out of employment and half-starved, > the sheik proudly refused to “sell the secret of the > dead,” promising to show it _gratis_, when _the time > would come for it_. Is it, then, impossible that in some > other regions of the earth are guarded the remains of > that glorious literature of the past, which was the > fruit of its majestic civilization? What is there so > surprising in the idea? Who knows but that as the > Christian Church has unconsciously begotten free thought > by reaction against her own cruelty, rapacity, and > dogmatism, the public mind may be glad to follow the > lead of the Orientalists, away from Jerusalem and > towards Ellora; and that then much more will be > discovered that is now hidden? > > [35] “Chips from a German Workshop,” vol. i., p. 373; Semitic > Monotheism. > > [36] An after-thought has made us fancy that we can understand > what is meant by the following sentences of _Moses of > Chorenè_: “The ancient Asiatics,” says he, “five > centuries before our era--and especially the Hindus, the > Persians, and the Chaldeans, had in their possession a > quantity of historical and scientific books. These works > were partially borrowed, partially translated in the > Greek language, mostly since the Ptolemies had established > the Alexandrian library and encouraged the writers by > their liberalities, so that the Greek language became > the deposit of all the sciences” (“History of Armenia”). > Therefore, the greater part of the literature included > in the 700,000 volumes of the Alexandrian Library was > due to India, and her next neighbors. > > [37] Bonamy says in “Le Bibliotheque d’Alexandrie,” quoting, > we suppose, the Presbyter Orosius, who was an > eye-witness, “_thirty_ years later.” > > [38] Since the above was written, the spirit here described > has been beautifully exemplified at Barcelona, Spain, > where the Bishop Fray Joachim invited the local > spiritualists to witness a formal burning of spiritual > books. We find the account in a paper called “The > Revelation,” published at Alicante, which sensibly adds > that the performance was “a caricature of the memorable > epoch of the Inquisition.” > > [39] E. Pococke gives the variations of the name Buddha as: > Bud’ha, Buddha, Booddha, Butta, Pout, Pote, Pto, Pte, > Phte, Phtha, Phut, etc., etc. See “India in Greece,” > Note, Appendix, 397. > > [40] The tiara of the Pope is also a perfect copy of that of > the Dalaï-Lama of Thibet. > > [41] It is the traditional policy of the College of Cardinals > to elect, whenever practicable, the new Pope among the > oldest valetudinarians. The hierophant of the Eleusinia > was likewise always an old man, and unmarried. > > [42] This is not correct. > > [43] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 28. > > [44] Translated by Prof. Draper for “Conflict between Religion > and Science;” book xii. > > [45] “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” > > [46] “Sohar Comment.,” Gen. xl. 10; “Kabbal. Denud.,” i., 528. > > [47] “The beings which the philosophers of other peoples > distinguish by the name ‘Dæmons,’ Moses names ‘Angels,’” > says Philo Judæus.--“De Gigant,” i. 253. > > [48] Deuteronomy xxxiii. 2., אשדת is translated “fiery > law” in the English Bible. > > [49] See Rees’s “Encyclopædia,” art. Kabala. > > [50] “Histor. Manich.,” Liv. vi., ch. i., p. 291. > > [51] “The altogether mystical coloring of Christianity > harmonized with the Essene rules of life and opinions, > and it is not improbable that Jesus and John the Baptist > were initiated into the Essene Mysteries, to which > Christianity may be indebted for many a form of > expression; as indeed the community of Therapeutæ, an > offspring of the Essene order, soon belonged wholly to > Christianity” (“Yost,” i., 411--quoted by the author of > “Sod, the Son of the Man”). > > [52] A. Franck: “Die Kabbala.” > > [53] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde.” > > [54] “Asiàt. Trans.,” i., p. 579. > > [55] Louis Jacolliot: “The Initiates of the Ancient Temples.” > > [56] Franck: “Die Kabbala.” > > [57] See “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 224. > > [58] See “Sohar;” “Kab. Den.;” “The Book of Mystery,” the > oldest book of the kabalists; and Milman: “History of > Christianity,” pp. 212, 213-215. > > [59] Milman: “History of Christianity,” p. 280. The _Kurios_ > and _Kora_ are mentioned repeatedly in “Justin Martyr.” > See p. 97. > > [60] See Olshausen: “Biblischer Commentar über sammtliche > Schriften des Neuen Testaments,” ii. > > [61] There is a wide-spread _superstition_ (?), especially > among the Slavonians and Russians, that the _magician_ > or wizard cannot die before he has passed the “word” to > a successor. So deeply is it rooted among the popular > beliefs, that we do not imagine there is a person in > Russia who has not heard of it. It is but too easy to > trace the origin of this superstition to the old > Mysteries which had been for ages spread all over the > globe. The ancient _Variago-Rouss_ had his Mysteries in > the North as well as in the South of Russia; and there > are many relics of the by-gone faith scattered in the > lands watered by the sacred Dnieper, the baptismal > Jordan of all Russia. No _Znâchar_ (the knowing one) or > _Koldoun_ (sorcerer), male or female, can die in fact > before he has passed the mysterious word to some one. > The popular belief is that unless he does that he will > linger and suffer for weeks and months, and were he even > finally to get liberated, it would be only to wander on > earth, unable to quit its region unless he finds a > successor even after death. How far the belief may be > verified by others, we do not know, but we have seen a > case which, for its tragical and mysterious _dénoument_, > deserves to be given here as an illustration of the > subject in hand. An old man, of over one hundred years > of age, a peasant-serf in the government of S----, > having a wide reputation as a sorcerer and healer, was > said to be dying for several days, and still unable to > die. The report spread like lightning, and the poor old > fellow was shunned by even the members of his own > family, as the latter were afraid of receiving the > unwelcome inheritance. At last the public rumor in the > village was that he had sent a message to a colleague > less versed than himself in the art, and who, although > he lived in a distant district, was nevertheless coming > at the call, and would be on hand early on the following > morning. There was at that time on a visit to the > proprietor of the village a young physician who, > belonging to the famous school of _Nihilism_ of that > day, laughed outrageously at the idea. The master of the > house, being a very pious man, and but half inclined to > make so cheap of the “superstition,” smiled--as the > saying goes--but with one corner of his mouth. Meanwhile > the young skeptic, to gratify his curiosity, had made a > visit to the dying man, had found that he could not live > twenty-four hours longer, and, determined to prove the > absurdity of the “superstition,” had taken means to > detain the coming “successor” at a neighboring village. > > Early in the morning a company of four persons, > comprising the physician, the master of the place, his > daughter, and the writer of the present lines, went to > the hut in which was to be achieved the triumph of > skepticism. The dying man was expecting his liberator > every moment, and his agony at the delay became extreme. > We tried to persuade the physician to humor the patient, > were it for humanity’s sake. He only laughed. Getting > hold with one hand of the old wizard’s pulse, he took > out his watch with the other, and remarking in French > that all would be over in a few moments, remained > absorbed in his professional experiment. The scene was > solemn and appalling. Suddenly the door opened, and a > young boy entered with the intelligence, addressed to > the doctor, that the _koum_ was lying dead drunk at a > neighboring village, and, according to _his orders_, > could not be with “grandfather” till the next day. The > young doctor felt confused, and was just going to > address the old man, when, as quick as lightning, the > Znâchar snatched his hand from his grasp and raised > himself in bed. His deep-sunken eyes flashed; his > yellow-white beard and hair streaming round his livid > face made him a dreadful sight. One instant more, and > his long, sinewy arms were clasped round the physician’s > neck, as with a supernatural force he drew the doctor’s > head closer and closer to his own face, where he held > him as in a vise, while _whispering_ words inaudible to > us in his ear. The skeptic struggled to free himself, > but before he had time to make one effective motion the > work had evidently been done; the hands relaxed their > grasp, and the old sorcerer fell on his back--a corpse! > A strange and ghostly smile had settled on the stony > lips--a smile of fiendish triumph and satisfied revenge; > but the doctor looked paler and more ghastly than the > dead man himself. He stared round with an expression of > terror difficult to describe, and without answering our > inquiries rushed out wildly from the hut, in the > direction of the woods. Messengers were sent after him, > but he was nowhere to be found. About sunset a report > was heard in the forest. An hour later his body was > brought home, with a bullet through his head, for the > skeptic had blown out his brains! > > What made him commit suicide? What magic spell of > sorcery had the “word” of the dying wizard left on his > mind? Who can tell? > > [62] “Anacalypsis;” also Tertullian. > > [63] “Anthon,” art. Eleusinia. > > [64] Dunlap: “Musah, His Mysteries,” p. 71. > > [65] 1 Kings, viii. 2. > > [66] Let us remember in this connection that Col. Van Kennedy > has long ago declared his opinion that Babylonia was > once the seat of the Sanscrit language and of > Brahmanical influence. > > [67] “‘The Agrouchada-Parikshai,’ which discloses, to a certain > extent, the order of initiation, does not give the > formula of evocation,” says Jacolliot, and he adds that, > according to some Brahmans, “these formula were never > written, they were and still are imparted in a whisper > in the ear of the adepts” (“_mouth to ear, and the word > at low breath_,” say the Masons).--“Le Spiritisme dans > le Monde,” p. 108. > > [68] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 108. > > [69] W. D. Whitney: “Oriental and Linguistic Studies, The > Veda, etc.” > > [70] Jacolliot seems to have very logically demonstrated the > absurd contradictions of some philologists, anthropologists, > and Orientalists, in regard to their _Akkado and Semito_ > mania. “There is not, perhaps, much of good faith in > their negations,” he writes. “The scientists who invent > Turanian peoples know very well that in _Manu_ alone, > there is more of veritable science and philosophy than > in all that this pretended Semitism has hitherto > furnished us with; but they are the slaves of a path > which some of them are following the last fifteen, > twenty, or even thirty years.... We expect, therefore, > nothing of the present. India will owe its > reconstitution to the scientists of the next generation” > (“Le Genèse de l’Humanité,” pp. 60-61). > > [71] Cory: “Anc. Frag.” > > [72] Movers: “Phoinizer,” 263. > > [73] Dunlap: “Sp. Hist. of Man,” p. 281. > > [74] Siva is not a god of the _Vedas_, strictly speaking. When > the _Vedas_ were written, he held the rank of Maha-Deva > or Bel among the gods of aboriginal India. > > [75] “De Antro Nympharum.” > > [76] “Navarette,” book ii., c. x. > > [77] “On the Origin of Heathen Idolatry.” > > [78] Isis and Osiris are said, in the Egyptian sacred books, > to have appeared (_i.e._, been worshipped), on earth, > later than Thot, the _first_ Hermes, called Trismegistus, > who wrote all their sacred books according to the > command of God or by “divine revelation.” The companion > and instructor of Isis and Osiris was Thot, or Hermes > II., who was an incarnation of the celestial Hermes. > > [79] Lord Kingsborough: “Ant. Mex.,” p. 165. > > [80] “Ap. Malal.,” lib. i., cap. iv. > > [81] Payne Knight: “Phallic Worship.” > > [82] The Celsus above mentioned, who lived between the second > and third centuries, is not Celsus the Epicurean. The > latter wrote several works against Magic, and lived > earlier, during the reign of Hadrian. > > [83] We have the facts from a trustworthy witness, having no > interest to invent such a story. Having injured his leg > in a fall from the steamer into the boat in which he was > to land at the Mount, he was taken care of by these > monks, and during his convalescence, through gifts of > money and presents, became their greatest friend, and > finally won their entire confidence. Having asked for > the loan of some books, he was taken by the Superior to > a large cellar in which they keep their sacred vessels > and other property. Opening a great trunk, full of old > musty manuscripts and rolls, he was invited by the > Superior to “_amuse_ himself.” The gentleman was a > scholar, and well versed in Greek and Latin text. “I was > amazed,” he says, in a private letter, “and had my > breath taken away, on finding among these old parchments, > so unceremoniously treated, some of the most valuable > relics of the first centuries, hitherto believed to have > been lost.” Among others he found a half-destroyed > manuscript, which he is perfectly sure must be a copy of > the “True Doctrine,” the Λόγος ἀληθής of Celsus, out of > which Origen quoted whole pages. The traveller took as > many notes as he could on that day, but when he came to > offer to the Superior to purchase some of these writings > he found, to his great surprise, that no amount of money > would tempt the monks. They did not know what the > manuscripts contained, nor “did they care,” they said. > But the “heap of writing,” they added, was transmitted > to them from one generation to another, and there was a > tradition among them that these papers would one day > become the means of crushing the “Great Beast of the > Apocalypse,” their hereditary enemy, the Church of Rome. > They were constantly quarrelling and fighting with the > Catholic monks, and among the whole “heap” they _knew_ > that there was a “holy” relic which protected them. They > did not know _which_, and so in their doubt abstained. > It appears that the Superior, a shrewd Greek, understood > his _bevue_ and repented of his kindness, for first of > all he made the traveller give him his most sacred word > of honor, strengthened by an oath he made him take on > the image of the Holy Patroness of the Island, never to > betray their secret, and never mention, at least, the > name of their convent. And finally, when the anxious > student who had passed a fortnight in reading all sorts > of antiquated trash before he happened to stumble over > some precious manuscript, expressed the desire to have > the key, to “amuse himself” with the writings once more, > he was very _naïvely_ informed that the “key had been > lost,” and that they did not know where to look for it. > And thus he was left to the few notes he had taken. > > [84] See the historical romance of Canon Kingsley, “Hypatia,” > for a highly picturesque account of the tragical fate of > this young martyr. > > [85] We beg the reader to bear in mind that it is the same > Cyril who was accused and proved guilty of having sold > the gold and silver ornaments of his church, and spent > the money. He pleaded guilty, but tried to excuse > himself on the ground that he had used the money for the > poor, but could not give evidence of it. His duplicity > with Arius and his party is well known. Thus one of the > first Christian saints, and the founder of the Trinity, > appears on the pages of history as a murderer and a > thief! > > [86] “La Démonomanie, ou traité des Sorciers.” Paris, 1587. > > [87] Dr. W. G. Soldan: “Geschichte der Hexen processe, aus den > Quellen dargestellt.” Stuttgart, 1843. > > [88] Frederick Forner, Suffragan of Bamberg, author of a > treatise against heretics and sorcerers, under the title > of “Panoplia Armaturæ Dei.” > > [89] “Sorcery and Magic,” by T. Wright, M.A., F.S.A., etc., > Corresponding Member of the National Institute of > France, vol. ii., p. 185. > > [90] Besides these burnings in Germany, which amount to many > thousands, we find some very interesting statements in > Prof. Draper’s “Conflict between Religion and Science.” > On page 146, he says: “The families of the convicted > were plunged into irretrievable ruin. Llorente, the > historian of the Inquisition, computes that Torquemada > and his collaborators, in the course of eighteen years, > burned at the stake 10,220 persons, 6,860 in effigy, and > otherwise punished 97,321!... With unutterable disgust > and indignation, we learn that the papal government > realized much money by selling to the rich, dispensations > to secure them from the Inquisition.” > > [91] “Sorcery and Magic;” “The Burnings at Würtzburg,” p. 186. > > [92] And retinted in the blood of the millions murdered in his > name--in the no less innocent blood than his own, of the > little child-_witches_! > > [93] St. Augustine: “City of God,” I, xxi., ch. vi.; des > Mousseaux: “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons.” > > [94] A correspondent of the London “Times” describes the > Catalonian exorcist in the following lines: > > “About the 14th of October it was privately announced > that a young woman of seventeen or eighteen years of > age, of the lower class, having long been afflicted with > ‘a hatred of holy things,’ the senior priest of the > Church of the Holy Spirit would cure her of her disease. > The exhibition was to be held in a church frequented by > the best part of the community. The church was dark, but > a sickly light was shed by wax lights on the sable forms > of some eighty or a hundred persons who clustered round > the _presbyterio_, or sanctuary, in front of the altar. > Within the little enclosure or sanctuary, separated from > the crowd by a light railing, lay, on a common bench, > with a little pillow for her head to recline upon, a > poorly-clad girl, probably of the peasant or artisan > class; her brother or husband stood at her feet to > restrain her (at times) frantic kicking by holding her > legs. The door of the vestry opened; the exhibitor--I > mean the priest--came in. The poor girl, not without > just reason, ‘had an aversion to holy things,’ or, at > least, the 400 devils within her distorted body had such > an aversion, and in the confusion of the moment, > thinking that the father was ‘a holy thing,’ she doubled > up her legs, screamed out with twitching mouth, her > whole body writhing, and threw herself nearly off the > bench. The male attendant seized her legs, the women > supported her head and swept out her dishevelled hair. > The priest advanced and, mingling familiarly with the > shuddering and horror-struck crowd, said, pointing at > the suffering child, now sobbing and twitching on the > bench, ‘Promise me, my children, that you will be > prudent (_prudentes_), and of a truth, sons and > daughters mine, you shall see marvels.’ The promise was > given. The exhibitor went to procure stole and short > surplice (_estola y roquete_), and returned in a moment, > taking his stand at the side of the ‘possessed with the > devils,’ with his face toward the group of students. The > order of the day’s proceedings was a lecture to the > bystanders, and the operation of exorcising the devils. > ‘You know,’ said the priest, ‘that so great is this > girl’s aversion to holy things, myself included, that > she goes into convulsions, kicks, screams, and distorts > her body the moment she arrives at the corner of this > street, and her convulsive struggles reach their climax > when she enters the sacred house of the Most High.’ > Turning to the prostrate, shuddering, most unhappy > object of his attack, the priest commenced: ‘In the name > of God, of the saints, of the blessed Host, of every > holy sacrament of our Church, I adjure thee, Rusbel, > come out of her.’ (N. B. ‘Rusbel’ is the name of a > devil, the devil having 257 names in Catalonia.) Thus > adjured, the girl threw herself--in an agony of > convulsion, till her distorted face, foam-bespattered > lips and writhing limbs grew well-nigh stiff--at full > length upon the floor, and, in language semi-obscene, > semi-violent, screamed out, ‘I don’t choose to come out, > you thieves, scamps, robbers.’ At last, from the > quivering lips of the girl, came the words, ‘I will;’ > but the devil added, with traditional perversity, ‘I > will cast the 100 out, but by the mouth of the girl.’ > The priest objected. The exit, he said, of 100 devils > out of the small Spanish mouth of the woman would ‘leave > her suffocated.’ Then the maddened girl said she must > undress herself for the devils to escape. This petition > the holy father refused. ‘Then I will come out through > the right foot, but first’--the girl had on a hempen > sandal, she was obviously of the poorest class--‘you > must take off her sandal.’ The sandal was untied; the > foot gave a convulsive plunge; the devil and his > myrmidons (so the _cura_ said, looking round triumphantly) > had gone to their own place. And, assured of this, the > wretched dupe of a girl lay quite still. The bishop was > not cognizant of this freak of the clergy, and the > moment it came to the ears of the civil authorities, the > sharpest means were taken to prevent a repetition of the > scandal.” > > [95] Louis Jacolliot: “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 162. > > [96] St. Augustine: “City of God.” > > [97] “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons,” p. ii. > > [98] Des Mousseaux: “Table des Matières.” > > [99] “Demonologia;” London, 1827, J. Bumpus, 23 Skinner Street. > > [100] “Traité Preparatif à l’Apologie pour Herodote,” c. 39. > > [101] De Missa Privatâ et Unctione Sacerdotum. > > [102] See the “Life of St. Dominick” and the story about > the miraculous Rosary; also the “Golden Legend.” > > [103] James de Varasse, known by the Latin name of James > de Veragine, was Vicar General of the Dominicans and > Bishop of Genoa in 1290. > > [104] Thirteenth century. > > [105] “Rituale Romanum,” pp. 475-478. Parisiis, 1852. > > [106] “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons,” p. 177. > > [107] See the narrative selected from the “Golden Legend,” > by Alban Butler. > > [108] See the “Golden Legend;” “Life of St. Francis;” > “Demonologia.” > > [109] “The Mythology of the Hindus,” by Charles Coleman. > Japan. > > [110] “Supernatural Religion.” > > [111] Neither do we, if by _true religion_ the world shall > at last understand the adoration of one Supreme, > Invisible, and Unknown Deity, by works and acts, not by > the profession of vain human dogmas. But our intention > is to go farther. We desire to demonstrate that if we > exclude ceremonial and fetish worship from being > regarded as essential parts of religion, then the true > Christ-like principles have been exemplified, and true > Christianity practiced since the days of the apostles, > exclusively among Buddhists and “heathen.” > > [112] “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” p. xvi. > > [113] “Discourses of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic > Church; or a full Refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet’s > unjust Exceptions against Miracles.” Octavo, 1676, p. 64. > > [114] After this, why should the Roman Catholics object to > the claims of the Spiritualists? If, without proof, they > believe in the “materialization” of Mary and John, for > Ignatius, how can they logically deny the > materialization of Katie and John (King), when it is > attested by the careful experiments of Mr. Crookes, the > English chemist, and the cumulative testimony of a large > number of witnesses? > > [115] The “Mother of God” takes precedence therefore of God? > > [116] See the “New Era” for July, 1875. N. Y. > > [117] “Paul and Plato.” > > [118] See “La Magie au XIXme Siècle,” p. 168. > > [119] “Rom. Rit.,” edit. of 1851, pp. 291-296, etc., etc. > > [120] _Creature_ of salt, air, water, or of any object to > be _enchanted_ or _blessed_, is a technical word in > magic, adopted by the Christian clergy. > > [121] “Rom. Rit.,” pp. 421-435. > > [122] See “Art-Magic,” art. Peter d’Abano. > > [123] “Ritual,” pp. 429-433; see “La Magie au XIXme Siècle,” > pp. 171, 172. > > [124] “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie,” vol. ii., p. 88. > > [125] “Conferences,” by Le Père Ventura, vol. ii., part i., > p. lvi., Preface. > > [126] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 62. > > [127] “De Baptismo Contra Donatistas,” lib. vi., ch. xliv. > > [128] “Conflict, etc.,” p. 37. > > [129] Ibid. > > [130] “Paul and Plato,” by A. Wilder, editor of “The > Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries,” of Thomas Taylor. > > [131] “Paul and Plato.” > > [132] See Taylor’s “Eleus. and Bacchic Myst.” > > [133] 1 Corin., iii. 10. > > [134] In its most extensive meaning, the Sanscrit word has > the same literal sense as the Greek term; both imply > “revelation,” by no human agent, but through the > “receiving of the sacred drink.” In India the initiated > received the “Soma,” sacred drink, which helped to > liberate his soul from the body; and in the Eleusinian > Mysteries it was the sacred drink offered at the > Epopteia. The Grecian Mysteries are wholly derived from > the Brahmanical Vedic rites, and the latter from the > ante-vedic religious Mysteries--primitive Buddhist > philosophy. > > [135] It is needless to state that _the Gospel according to > John_ was not written by John but by a Platonist or a > Gnostic belonging to the Neo-platonic school. > > [136] The fact that Peter persecuted the “Apostle to the > Gentiles,” under that name, does not necessarily imply > that there was no Simon Magus individually distinct from > Paul. It may have become a generic name of abuse. > Theodoret and Chrysostom, the earliest and most prolific > commentators on the Gnosticism of those days, seem > actually to make of Simon a rival of Paul, and to state > that between them passed frequent messages. The former, > as a diligent propagandist of what Paul terms the > “antitheses of the Gnosis” (1st Epistle to Timothy), > must have been a sore thorn in the side of the apostle. > There are sufficient proofs of the actual existence of > Simon Magus. > > [137] “Introd. to Eleus. and Bacchic Mysteries,” p. x. Had > we not trustworthy kabalistic tradition to rely upon, we > might be, perhaps, forced to question whether the > authorship of the Revelation is to be ascribed to the > apostle of that name. He seems to be termed John the > Theologist. > > [138] Bunsen: “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., > p. 90. > > [139] See de Rougé: “Stele,” p. 44; PTAR (videus) is interpreted > on it “to appear,” with a sign of interrogation after > it--the usual mark of scientific perplexity. In Bunsen’s > fifth volume of “Egypte,” the interpretation following > is “Illuminator,” which is more correct. > > [140] Bunsen’s “Egypt,” vol. v., p. 90. > > [141] It is the property of a mystic whom we met in Syria. > > [142] The Priests of Isis were tonsured. > > [143] See “Ancient Faiths,” vol. ii., pp. 915-918. > > [144] “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 71. > > [145] See illustration in Inman’s “Ancient Pagan and Modern > Christian Symbolism,” p. 27. > > [146] Ibid., p. 76. > > [147] Initiates and seers. > > [148] The augur’s, and now bishop’s, pastoral crook. > > [149] “The Heathen Religion.” > > [150] “Pères du Desert d’Orient,” vol. ii., p. 283. > > [151] Justin Martyr: “Quæst.,” xxiv. > > [152] See Taylor’s “Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries;” > Porphyry and others. > > [153] Franck: “Die Kabbala.” > > [154] “Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians.” > > [155] “Divine Legation of Moses;” The “Eleusinian Mysteries” > as quoted by Thos. Taylor. > > [156] This expression must not be understood literally; > for as in the initiation of certain Brotherhoods it has > a secret meaning, hinted at by Pythagoras, when he > describes his feelings after the initiation and tells > that he was crowned by the gods in whose presence he had > drunk “the waters of life”--in Hindu, _â-bi-hayât_, > fount of life. > > [157] This original and very long sermon was preached in a > church at Brooklyn, N. Y., on the 15th day of April, > 1877. On the following morning, the reverend orator was > called in the “Sun” a gibbering charlatan; but this > deserved epithet will not prevent other reverend > buffoons doing the same and even worse. And this is the > religion of Christ! Far better disbelieve in him > altogether than caricature one’s God in such a manner. > We heartily applaud the “Sun” for the following views: > “And then when Talmage makes Christ say to Martha in the > tantrums: ‘Don’t worry, but sit down on this ottoman,’ > he adds the climax to a scene that the inspired writers > had nothing to say about. Talmage’s buffoonery is going > too far. If he were the worst heretic in the land, > instead of being straight in his orthodoxy, he would not > do so much evil to religion as he does by his familiar > blasphemies.” > > [158] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 68. > > [159] Ibid., pp. 78, 79. > > [160] Louis Jacolliot: “Phénomenes et Manifestations.” > > [161] Pisatshas, dæmons of the race of the gnomes, the > giants and the vampires. > > [162] Gandarbas, good dæmons, celestial seraphs, singers. > > [163] Asuras and Nagas are the Titanic spirits and the > dragon or serpent-headed spirits. > > [164] See Arnolius: “Op. Cit.,” pp. 249, 250. > > [165] See Inman’s “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian > Symbolism.” > > [166] Introduction to Taylor’s “Eleusinian and Bacchic > Mysteries,” published by J. W. Bouton. > > [167] Illustrated figures “from an ancient Rosary of the > blessed Virgin Mary, printed at Venice, 1524, with a > license from the Inquisition.” In the illustrations > given by Dr. Inman the Virgin is represented in an > Assyrian “grove,” the _abomination in the eyes of the > Lord_, according to the Bible prophets. “The book in > question,” says the author, “contains numerous figures, > all resembling closely the Mesopotamian emblem of > _Ishtar_. The presence of the woman _therein_ identifies > the two as symbolic of Isis, or _la nature_; and a man > bowing down in adoration thereof shows the same idea as > is depicted in Assyrian sculptures, where males offer to > the goddess _symbols_ of _themselves_” (See “Ancient > Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” p. 91. Second > edition. J. W. Bouton, publisher, New York). > > [168] See King’s “Gnostics,” pp. 91, 92; “The Genealogy of > the Blessed Virgin Mary,” by Faustus, Bishop of Riez. > > [169] Prinseps quotes Dubois, “Edinburgh Review,” April, 1851, > p. 411. > > [170] “Manu,” book I., sloka 32: Sir W. Jones, translating > from the Northern “Manu,” renders this _sloka_ as > follows: “Having divided his own substance, the mighty > Power became half male, half female, or _nature active > and passive_; and from that female he produced VIRAJ.” > > [171] “Enead,” i., book viii. > > [172] “Commentary upon the Republic of Plato,” p. 380. > > [173] Verses 33-41. > > [174] “Phædrus,” p. 64. > > [175] The Supreme Buddha is invoked with two of his > acolytes of the theistic triad, Dharma and Sanga. This > triad is addressed in Sanscrit in the following terms: > > _Namo Buddhâya, > Namo Dharmâya, > Namo Sangâya, > Aum!_ > > while the Thibetan Buddhists pronounce their invocations > as follows: > > _Nan-won Fo-tho-ye, > Nan-won Tha-ma-ye, > Nan-won Seng-kia-ye, > Aan!_ > > See also “Journal Asiatique,” tome vii., p. 286. > > [176] The body of man--his coat of skin--is an inert mass of > matter, _per se_; it is but the _sentient_ living body > within the man that is considered as the man’s body > proper, and it is that which, together with the fontal > soul or purely astral body, directly connected with the > immortal spirit, constitutes the trinity of man. > > [177] We really think that the word “witchcraft” ought, once > for all, to be understood in the sense which properly > belongs to it. Witchcraft may be either conscious or > unconscious. Certain wicked and dangerous results may be > obtained through the mesmeric powers of a so-called > sorcerer, who misuses his potential fluid; or again they > may be achieved through an easy access of malicious > tricky “spirits” (so much the worse if human) to the > atmosphere surrounding a medium. How many thousands of > such irresponsible innocent victims have met infamous > deaths through the tricks of those Elementaries! > > [178] “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” preface, > p. 34. > > [179] “The Christ of Paul,” p. 123. > > [180] Gospel according to Mark, viii. 33. > > [181] “Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., p. 489. > > [182] “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” p. 28. > > [183] See Eusebius, “Ex. H.,” bk. iv., ch. v.; “Sulpicius > Severus,” vol. ii., p. 31. > > [184] It appears that the Jews attribute a very high antiquity > to “Sepher Toldos Jeshu.” It was mentioned for the first > time by Martin, about the beginning of the thirteenth > century, for the Talmudists took great care to conceal > it from the Christians. Levi says that Porchetus > Salvaticus published some portions of it, which were > used by Luther (see vol. viii., Jena Ed.). The Hebrew > text, which was missing, was at last found by Münster > and Buxtorf, and published in 1681, by Christopher > Wagenseilius, in Nuremberg, and in Frankfort, in a > collection entitled “Tela Ignea Satanæ,” or The Burning > Darts of Satan (“See Levi’s Science des Esprits”). > > [185] Theodoret: “Hæretic. Fab.,” lib. ii., 11. > > [186] Jervis W. Jervis: “Genesis,” p. 324. > > [187] “Lightfoot,” 501. > > [188] Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. x. > > [189] Jeremiah vii. 29: “Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem, > and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on high > places.” > > [190] Genesis xlix. 26. > > [191] Nazareth? > > [192] Otfried Müller: “Historical Greek Literature,” pp. > 230-240. > > [193] See “Movers,” p. 683. > > [194] “Codex Nazaræus,” ii., 305. > > [195] See Lucian: “De Syria Dea.” > > [196] See Psalm lxxxix. 18. > > [197] “Codex Nazaræus,” i. 47. > > [198] Ibid.; Norberg: “Onomasticon,” 74. > > [199] Alph. de Spire: “Fortalicium Fidei,” ii., 2. > > [200] Hosea ix. 10. > > [201] “The Essenes considered oil as a defilement,” says > Josephus: “Wars,” ii., p. 7. > > [202] Luke xiii. 32. > > [203] Matthew ii. We must bear in mind that the Gospel > according to Matthew in the New Testament is not the > original Gospel of the apostle of that name. The > authentic Evangel was for centuries in the possession of > the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, as we show further on > the admission of St. Jerome himself, who confesses that > he had to _ask permission_ of the Nazarenes to translate > it. > > [204] Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man.” > > [205] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., p. 233. > > [206] Preller: vol. i., p. 415. > > [207] Ibid., vol. i., p. 490. > > [208] The word Apocrypha was very erroneously adopted as > doubtful and spurious. The word means _hidden_ and > _secret_; but that which is secret may be often more > true than that which is revealed. > > [209] The statement, if reliable, would show that Jesus was > between fifty and sixty years old when baptized; for the > Gospels make him but a few months younger than John. The > kabalists say that Jesus was over forty years old when > first appearing at the gates of Jerusalem. The present > copy of the “Codex Nazaræus” is dated in the year 1042, > but Dunlap finds in Irenæus (2d century) quotations from > and ample references to this book. “The basis of the > material common to Irenæus and the “Codex Nazaræus” must > be at least as early as the first century,” says the > author in his preface to “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. i. > > [210] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. i., p. 109; Dunlap: Ibid., xxiv. > > [211] Acts xxiv. 5. > > [212] Ibid., 14. > > [213] “Herodotus,” ii., p. 170. > > [214] The Hindu High Pontiff--the Chief of the Namburis, who > lives in the Cochin Land, is generally present during > these festivals of “Holy Water” immersions. He travels > sometimes to very great distances to preside over the > ceremony. > > [215] “Ant. Jud.,” xiii., p. 9; xv., p. 10. > > [216] King thinks it a great exaggeration and is inclined to > believe that these Essenes, who were most undoubtedly > Buddhist monks, were “merely a continuation of the > associations known as Sons of the Prophets.” “The > Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 22. > > [217] St. Jerome: “Epistles,” p. 49 (ad. Poulmam); see > Dunlap’s “Spirit-History,” p. 218. > > [218] “Munk,” p. 169. > > [219] Bacchus and Ceres--or the mystical _Wine_ and _Bread_, > used during the Mysteries, become, in the “Adonia,” > Adonis and Venus. Movers shows that “_Iao_ is Bacchus,” > p. 550; and his authority is _Lydus de Mens_ (38-74); > “Spir. Hist.,” p. 195. _Iao_ is a Sun-god and the Jewish > Jehovah; the intellectual or Central Sun of the > kabalists. See _Julian_ in _Proclus_. But this “Iao” is > not the Mystery-god. > > [220] Josephus: “Ant. Jud.,” iv., p. 4. > > [221] Ibid., ix.; 2 Kings, i. 8. > > [222] In relation to the well-known fact of Jesus wearing his > hair long, and being always so represented, it becomes > quite startling to find how little the unknown Editor of > the “Acts” knew about the Apostle Paul, since he makes > him say in 1 Corinthians xi. 14, “Doth not Nature itself > teach you, that if a _man have long hair, it is a shame > unto him_?” Certainly Paul could never have said such a > thing! Therefore, if the passage is genuine, Paul knew > nothing of the prophet whose doctrines he had embraced > and for which he died; and if false--how much more > reliable is what remains? > > [223] Max Müller has sufficiently proved the case in his > lecture on the “Zend-Avesta.” He calls Gushtasp “the > mythical pupil of Zoroaster.” Mythical, perhaps, only > because the period in which he lived and learned with > Zoroaster is too remote to allow our modern science to > speculate upon it with any certainty. > > [224] Max Müller: “Zend Avesta,” 83. > > [225] Philo: “De Vita. Contemp.” > > [226] The real meaning of the division into _ages_ is esoteric > and Buddhistic. So little did the uninitiated Christians > understand it that they accepted the words of Jesus > _literally_ and firmly believed that he meant the end of > the world. There had been many prophecies about the > forthcoming age. Virgil, in the fourth Eclogue, mentions > the Metatron--a new offspring, with whom the _iron age_ > shall end and a _golden one_ arise. > > [227] “Palestine,” p. 525, et seq. > > [228] “Sod,” vol. ii., Preface, p. xi. > > [229] “Vit. Pythag.” Munk derives the name of the _Iessæns_ > or Essenes from the Syriac _Asaya_--the healers, or > physicians, thus showing their identity with the > Egyptian Therapeutæ. “Palestine,” p. 515. > > [230] Matthew xiii. 10. > > [231] “Eleusinian Mysteries,” p. 15. > > [232] This descent to Hades signified the inevitable fate of > each soul to be united for a time with a terrestrial > body. This union, or dark prospect for the soul to find > itself imprisoned within the dark tenement of a body, > was considered by all the ancient philosophers and is > even by the modern Buddhists, as a punishment. > > [233] “Eleusinian Mysteries,” p. 49, foot-note. > > [234] “The profound or esoteric doctrines of the ancients were > denominated _wisdom_, and afterward _philosophy_, and > also the _gnosis_, or knowledge. They related to the > human soul, its divine parentage, its supposed > degradation from its high estate by becoming connected > with “generation” or the physical world, its onward > progress and restoration to God by regenerations or ... > transmigrations.” Ibid, p. 2, foot-note. > > [235] Cyril of Jerusalem asserts it. See vi. 10. > > [236] “Phædrus,” 64. > > [237] “The Golden Ass,” xi. > > [238] “Apocalypse,” xix. 12. > > [239] See Suet. in “Vita. Eutrop.,” 7. It is neither cruelty, > nor an insane indulgence in it, which shows this emperor > in history as passing his time in catching flies and > transpiercing them with a golden bodkin, but religious > superstition. The Jewish astrologers had predicted to > him that he had provoked the wrath of Beelzebub, the > “Lord of the flies,” and would perish miserably through > the revenge of the dark god of Ekron, and die like King > Ahaziah, because he persecuted the Jews. > > [240] We believe that it was the Sadducees and not the Pharisees > who crucified Jesus. They were Zadokites--partisans of > the house of Zadok, or the sacerdotal family. In the > “Acts” the apostles were said to be persecuted by the > Sadducees, but never by the Pharisees. In fact, the > latter never persecuted any one. They had the scribes, > rabbis, and learned men in their numbers, and were not, > like the Sadducees, jealous of their order. > > [241] “Dial.,” p. 69. > > [242] Fabricius: “Cod. Apoc., N. T.,” i., 243; Tischendorf: > “Evang. Ap.,” p. 214. > > [243] Origen: “Cont. Cels.,” 11. > > [244] Rabbi Iochan: “Mag.,” 51. > > [245] “Origen,” 11. > > [246] Cf. “August de Consans. Evang.,” i., 9; Fabric.: “Cod. > Ap. N. T.,” i., p. 305, ff. > > [247] “Recog.,” i. 58; cf., p. 40. > > [248] King’s “Gnostics,” p. 145; the author places this > sarcophagus among the earliest productions of that art > which inundated later the world with mosaics and > engravings, representing the events and personages of > the “New Testament.” > > [249] “De Pudicitia.” See “The Gnostics and their Remains,” > p. 144. > > [250] Ibid., plate i., p. 200. > > [251] This gem is in the collection of the author of “The > Gnostics and their Remains.” See p. 201. > > [252] “Hæresies,” xxvii. > > [253] 1 Cor. xi. 14. > > [254] See the “Israelite Indeed,” vol. ii., p. 238; “Treatise > Nazir.” > > [255] “Epiph. ed. Petar,” vol. i., p 117. > > [256] “Kabbala Denudata,” ii., 155; “Vallis Regia,” Paris > edition. > > [257] Psalms viii. > > [258] This contradiction, which is attributed to Paul in > Hebrews, by making him say of Jesus in chapter i., 4: > “Being made _so much better_ than the angels,” and then > immediately stating in chapter ii. 9, “But we see Jesus, > who was made _a little lower_ than the angels,” shows > how unscrupulously the writings of the apostles, if they > ever wrote any, were tampered with. > > [259]“Codex Nazaræus,” i. 23. > > [260] Ibid., preface, p. v., translated from Norberg. > > [261] “According to the Nazarenes and Gnostics, the Demiurg, > the creator of the material world, is not the highest > God.” (See Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man.”) > > [262] Clemens: “Al. Strom.” vii., 7, § 106. > > [263] H. E., iv. 7. > > [264] The gospels interpreted by Basilides were not our > present gospels, which, as it is proved by the greatest > authorities, were not in his days in existence. See > “Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., chap. Basilides. > > [265] The five make mystically ten. They are androgynes. > “Having divided his body in two parts, the Supreme > Wisdom became male and female” (“Manu,” book i., sloka > 32). There are many early Buddhistic ideas to be found > in Brahmanism. > > The prevalent idea that the last of the Buddhas, Gautama, > is the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, or the _ninth_ > Avatar, is disclaimed partially by the Brahmans, and > wholly rejected by the learned Buddhist theologians. The > latter insist that the worship of Buddha possesses a far > higher claim to antiquity than any of the Brahmanical > deities of the _Vedas_, which they call secular > literature. The Brahmans, they show, came from other > countries, and established their heresy on the already > accepted popular _deities_. They conquered the land by > the sword, and succeeded in burying truth, by building a > theology of their own on the ruins of the more ancient > one of Buddha, which had prevailed for ages. They admit > the divinity and spiritual existence of some of the > Vedantic gods; but as in the case of the Christian > angel-hierarchy they believe that all these deities are > greatly subordinate, even to the incarnated Buddhas. > They do not even acknowledge the creation of the > physical universe. Spiritually and _invisibly_ it has > existed from all eternity, and thus it was made merely > visible to the human senses. When it first appeared it > was called forth from the realm of the invisible into > the visible by the impulse of A’di Buddha--the “Essence.” > They reckon twenty-two such visible appearances of the > universe governed by Buddhas, and as many destructions > of it, by fire and water in regular successions. After > the last destruction by the flood, at the end of the > precedent cycle--(the exact calculation, embracing > several millions of years, is a secret cycle) the world, > during the present age of the Kali Yug--Maha Bhadda > Calpa--has been ruled successively by four Buddhas, the > last of whom was Gautama, the “Holy One.” The fifth, > Maitree-Buddha, is yet to come. This latter is the > expected kabalistic King Messiah, the Messenger of > Light, and Sosiosh, the Persian Saviour, who will come > on a _white_ horse. It is also the Christian Second > Advent. See “Apocalypse” of St. John. > > [266] “Irenæus,” i. 23. > > [267] Tertullian reversed the table himself by rejecting, > later in life, the doctrines for which he fought with > such an acerbity and by becoming a Montanist. > > [268] In his debate with Jacolliot upon the right spelling > of the Hindu Christna, Mr. Textor de Ravisi, an > ultramontane Catholic, tries to prove that the name of > Christna ought to be written Krishna, for, as the latter > means black, and the statues of this deity are generally > black, the word is derived from the color. We refer the > reader to Jacolliot’s answer in his recent work, > “Christna et le Christ,” for the conclusive evidence > that the name is not derived from the color. > > [269] There is no equivalent for the word “miracle,” in the > Christian sense, among the Brahmans or Buddhists. The > only correct translation would be _meipo_, a wonder, > something remarkable; but not a violation of natural > law. The “saints” only produce _meipo_. > > [270] “Beiträge,” vol. i., p. 40; Schleiermacher: “Sämmtl. > Werke,” viii.; “Einl., N. T.,” p. 64. > > [271] “Epiph. Hæra.,” xlii., p. 1. > > [272] Tertullian: “Adv. Marc.,” ii. 5; cf. 9. > > [273] Ibid., ii. 5. > > [274] vol. ii., p. 105. > > [275] Ibid., vol. ii., p. 100. > > [276] “Adv. Marc.,” iv., 9, 36. > > [277] “Supernatural Religion,” p. 101; Matthew v. 17. > > [278] This author, vol. ii., p. 103, remarks with great > justice of the “Heresiarch” Marcion, “whose high > personal character exerted so powerful an influence upon > his own time,” that “it was the misfortune of Marcion to > live in an age when Christianity had passed out of the > pure morality of its infancy; when, untroubled by > complicated questions of dogma, simple faith and pious > enthusiasm had been the one great bond of Christian > brotherhood, into a phase of ecclesiastical development > in which religion was fast degenerating into theology, > and complicated doctrines were rapidly assuming the > rampant attitude which led to so much bitterness, > persecution, and schism. In later times Marcion might > have been honored as a reformer, in his own he was > denounced as a heretic. Austere and ascetic in his > opinions, he aimed at superhuman purity, and, although > his clerical adversaries might scoff at his impracticable > doctrines regarding marriage and the subjugation of the > flesh, they have had their parallels amongst those whom > the Church has since most delighted to honor, and, at > least, the whole tendency of his system was markedly > towards the side of virtue.” These statements are based > upon Credner’s “Beiträge,” i., p. 40; cf. Neander: > “Allg. K. G.,” ii., p. 792, f.; Schleiermacher, Milman, > etc., etc. > > [279] Justin’s “Die Evv.,” p. 446, sup. B. > > [280] But, on the other hand, this antagonism is very _strongly_ > marked in the “Clementine Homilies,” in which Peter > unequivocally denies that Paul, whom he calls Simon the > Magician, has ever had a _vision_ of Christ, and calls > him “an enemy.” Canon Westcott says: “There can be no > doubt that St. Paul is referred to as ‘the enemy’” (“On > the Canon,” p. 252, note 2; “Supernatural Religion,” > vol. ii., p 35). But this antagonism, which rages unto > the present day, we find even in St. Paul’s “Epistles.” > What can be more energetic than such like sentences: > “Such are _false_ apostles, deceitful workers, > transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.... > I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest > apostle” (2 Corinthians, xi.). “Paul, an apostle _not of > men_, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ _and_ God the > Father, who raised him from the dead ... but there be > some that trouble you, and _would pervert_ the Gospel of > Christ ... _false brethren_.... When Peter came to > Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to > be blamed. For before that certain came from James, _he > did eat_ with the Gentiles, but when they were come he > withdrew, fearing them which were of the circumcision. > And the other Jews dissembled ... insomuch that Barnabas > also was carried away with their _dissimulation_,” etc., > etc. (Galat. i. and ii.). On the other hand, we find > Peter in the “Homilies,” indulging in various complaints > which, although alleged to be addressed to Simon Magus, > are evidently all direct answers to the above-quoted > sentences from the Pauline Epistles, and _cannot_ have > anything to do with Simon. So, for instance, Peter said: > “For some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful > preaching, and accepted certain _lawless_ and _foolish_ > teaching of the hostile men (enemy)”--Epist. of Peter to > James, § 2. He says further: “Simon (Paul) ... who came > before me to the Gentiles ... and I have followed him as > light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as > health upon disease” (“Homil.,” ii. 17). Still further, > he calls him _Death_ and a _deceiver_ (Ibid., ii. 18). > He warns the Gentiles that “our Lord and _Prophet_ (_?_) > (_Jesus_) announced that he would send from among his > followers, apostles to _deceive_. “Therefore, above > all, remember to avoid every apostle, or teacher, or > prophet, who first does not accurately compare his > teaching with that of James, called the brother of our > Lord” (see the difference between Paul and James on > _faith_, Epist. to Hebrews, xi., xii., and Epist. of > James, ii.). “Lest the Evil One should send a false > preacher ... as he has sent to us Simon (?) preaching a > counterfeit of truth in the name of our Lord, and > disseminating error” (“Hom.” xi., 35; see above > quotation from Gal. 1, 5). He then denies Paul’s > assertion, in the following words: “If, therefore, our > Jesus indeed appeared in a vision to you, it was only as > an irritated adversary.... But how can any one through > visions become wise in teaching? And if you say, ‘it is > possible,’ then I ask, wherefore did the Teacher remain > for a whole year and discourse to those who were > attentive? And how can _we believe your story that he > appeared to you_? And in what manner did he appear to > you, when you hold opinions contrary to his teaching?... > For you now set yourself up against me, who am a _firm > rock, the foundation of the Church_. If you were not an > opponent, you would not calumniate me, you would not > revile my teaching ... (circumcision?) in order that, in > declaring what I have myself heard from the Lord, I may > not be believed, as though _I were condemned_.... But if > you say that I am condemned, you blame God who revealed > Christ to me.” “This last phrase,” observes the author > of “Supernatural Religion,” “‘if you say that I am > condemned,’ is an evident allusion to Galat. ii, 11, ‘I > withstood him to the face, because he was condemned’” > (“Supernatural Religion,” p. 37). “There cannot be a > doubt,” adds the just-quoted author, “that the Apostle > Paul is attacked in this religious romance as the great > enemy of the true faith, under the hated name of Simon > the Magician, whom Peter follows everywhere for the > purpose of unmasking and confuting him” (p. 34). And if > so, then we must believe that it was St. Paul who broke > both his legs in Rome when flying in the air. > > [281] “Prâtimoksha Sûtra,” Pali Burmese copy; see also “Lotus > de la Bonne Loi,” translated by Burnouf, p. 444. > > [282] Matthew xix. 16-18. > > [283] “Pittakatayan,” book iii., Pali Version. > > [284] See Judges xiii. 18, “And the angel of the Lord said > unto him: Why askest thou after my name, seeing it is > SECRET?” > > [285] Vol. ii., p. 106. > > [286] Emmanuel was doubtless the son of the prophet himself, as > described in the sixth chapter; what was predicted, can > only be interpreted on that hypothesis. The prophet had > also announced to Ahaz the extinction of his line. “If > ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.” > Next comes the prediction of the placing of a new prince > on the throne--Hezekiah of Bethlehem, said to have been > Isaiah’s son-in-law, under whom the captives should > return from the uttermost parts of the earth. Assyria > should be humbled, and peace overspread the Israelitish > country, compare Isaiah vii. 14-16; viii. 3, 4; ix. 6, > 7; x. 12, 20, 21; xi.; Micah v., 2-7. The popular party, > the party of the prophets, always opposed to the > Zadokite priesthood, had resolved to set aside Ahaz and > his time-serving policy, which had let in Assyria upon > Palestine, and to set up Hezekiah, a man of their own, > who should rebel against Assyria and overthrow the > Assur-worship and Baalim (2 Kings xv. 11). Though only > the prophets hint this, it being cut out from the > historical books, it is noticeable that Ahaz offered his > own child to Moloch, also that he died at the age of > thirty-six, and Hezekiah took the throne at twenty-five, > in full adult age. > > [287] Tertullian: “Adv. Marci,” iii. 8 ff. > > [288] “Sup. Rel.,” vol. ii., p. 107; “Adv. Marci,” iii. 2, § 2; > cf. iii. 12, § 12. > > [289] “Sup. Relig.,” vol. ii., p. 126. > > [290] We give the systems according to an old diagram > preserved among some Kopts and the Druses of Mount > Lebanon. Irenæus had perhaps some good reasons to > disfigure their doctrines. > > [291] Sophia is the highest prototype of woman--the first > _spiritual_ Eve. In the Bible the system is reversed and > the intervening emanation being omitted, Eve is degraded > to simple humanity. > > [292] See “Irenæus,” book i., chap. 31-33. > > [293] In King’s “Gnostics,” we find the system a little > incorrect. The author tells us that he followed > Bellermann’s “Drei Programmen über die Abraxas gemmen.” > > [294] See “Idra Magna.” > > [295] “Codex Nazaræns,” part i., p. 9. > > [296] See “Codex Nazaræns,” i., 181. Fetahil, sent to frame > the world, finds himself immersed in the abyss of mud, > and soliloquizes in dismay until the _Spiritus_ > (Sophia-Achamoth) unites herself completely with matter, > and so creates the material world. > > [297] “Irenæus,” 37, and Theodoret, quoted in the same page. > > [298] Ibid., i. xxv. > > [299] See preface to the “Apocryphal New Testament,” London, > printed for W. Hone, Ludgate Hill, 1820. > > [300] “It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin > writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth > century, and by him it is suspected to have been > forged.” > > [301] “Elements of Theology,” vol. ii., p. 90, note. > > [302] Parson’s “Letters to Travis,” 8vo., p. 402. > > [303] The term “Paganism” is properly used by many modern > writers with hesitation. Professor Alexander Wilder, in > his edition of Payne Knight’s “Symbolical Language of > Ancient Art and Mythology,” says: “It (‘Paganism’) has > degenerated into slang, and is generally employed with > more or less of an opprobrious meaning. The correcter > expression would have been ‘the ancient ethnical > worships,’ but it would be hardly understood in its true > sense, and we accordingly have adopted the term in > popular use, but not disrespectfully. A religion which > can develop a Plato, an Epictetus, and an Anaxagoras, is > not gross, superficial, or totally unworthy of candid > attention. Besides, many of the rites and doctrines > included in the Christian as well as in the Jewish > Institute, appeared first in the other systems. > Zoroastrianism anticipated far more than has been > imagined. The cross, the priestly robes and symbols, the > sacraments, the Sabbath, the festivals and anniversaries, > are all anterior to the Christian era by thousands of > years. The ancient worship, after it had been excluded > from its former shrines, and from the metropolitan > towns, was maintained for a long time by the inhabitants > of humble localities. To this fact it owes its later > designation. From being kept up in the _Pagi_, or rural > districts, its votaries were denominated _Pagans_, or > provincials.” > > [304] “Super. Relig.,” vol. ii., p. 5. > > [305] Norberg: Preface to “Cod. Naz.,” p. v. > > [306] Epiph.: “Contra Ebionitas.” > > [307] See preface, from page 1 to 34. > > [308] Ibid., p. 7, preface. > > [309] Hieronymus: “De Virus.,” illust., cap. 3. “It is > remarkable that, while all church fathers say that > Matthew wrote in _Hebrew_, the whole of them use the > Greek text as the genuine apostolic writing, without > mentioning what relation the _Hebrew_ Matthew has to our > Greek one! It had many _peculiar additions_ which are > wanting in our evangel.” (Olshausen: “Nachweis der > Echtheit der sämmtlichen Schriften des Neuen Test.,” p. > 32; Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 44.) > > [310] Hieronymus: “Commen. to Matthew,” book ii., ch. xii., > 13. Jerome adds that it was written in the Chaldaic > language, but with Hebrew letters. > > [311] “St. Jerome,” v., 445; “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 46. > > [312] This accounts also for the rejection of the works of > Justin Martyr, who used only this “Gospel according to > the Hebrews,” as also did most probably Titian, his > disciple. At what late period was fully established the > _divinity_ of Christ we can judge by the mere fact that > even in the fourth century Eusebius did not denounce > this book as spurious, but only classed it with such as > the Apocalypse of John; and Credner (“Zur Gesch. Des > Kan.,” p. 120) shows Nicephorus inserting it, together > with the Revelation, in his “Stichometry,” among the > Antilegomena. The Ebionites, the _genuine_ primitive > Christians, rejecting the rest of the apostolic > writings, made use only of this Gospel (“Adv. Hær.” i., > 26), and the Ebionites, as Epiphanius declares, firmly > believed, with the Nazarenes, that Jesus was but a man > “of the seed of a man.” > > [313] See King’s “Gnostics,” p. 31. > > [314] This Iove, Iao, or Jehovah is quite distinct from the > God of the Mysteries, IAO, held sacred by all the > nations of antiquity. We will show the difference > presently. > > [315] King’s “Gnostics.” > > [316] Iurbo and Adunai, according to the Ophites, are names > of Iao-Jehovah, one of the emanations of Ilda-Baoth. > “Iurbo is called by the Abortions (the Jews) Adunai” > (“Codex Nazaræus,” vol. iii., p. 73). > > [317] King: “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 31. > > [318] In the “Gospel of Nicodemus,” Ilda-Baoth is called > _Satan_ by the pious and anonymous author;--evidently, > one of the final flings at the half-crushed enemy. “As > for me,” says Satan, excusing himself to the prince of > hell, “I tempted him (Jesus), and stirred up my old > people, the Jews, against him” (chap. xv. 9). Of all > examples of Christian ingratitude this seems almost the > most conspicuous. The poor Jews are first robbed of > their sacred books, and then, in a spurious “Gospel,” > are insulted by the representation of Satan claiming > them as his “old people.” If they were his people, and > at the same time are “God’s chosen people,” then the > name of this God must be written Satan and not Jehovah. > This is logic, but we doubt if it can be regarded as > complimentary to the “Lord God of Israel.” > > [319] This is the Nazarene system; the Spiritus, after uniting > herself with Karabtanos (_matter_, turbulent and > senseless), brings forth _seven badly-disposed stellars_, > in the Orcus; “Seven Figures,” which she bore “witless” > (“Codex Nazaræus,” i., p. 118). Justin Martyr evidently > adopts this idea, for he tells us of “the sacred > prophets, who say that one and the same _spirit_ is > divided into _seven_ spirits (pneumata). “Justin ad > Græcos;” “Sod,” vol. ii., p. 52. In the Apocalypse the > Holy Spirit is subdivided into “_seven_ spirits before > the throne,” from the Persian Mithraic mode of > classifying. > > [320] This certainly looks like the “_jealous_ God” of the > Jews. > > [321] It is the _Elohim_ (plural) who create Adam, and do not > wish man to become “as one of US.” > > [322] Theodoret: “Hæret.;” King’s “Gnostics.” > > [323] “Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 78. > > [324] Some persons hold that he was Bishop of Rome; others, > of Carthage. > > [325] His polemical work addressed against the so-called > orthodox Church--the Catholic--notwithstanding its > bitterness and usual style of vituperation, is far more > fair, considering that the “great African” is said to > have been expelled from the Church of Rome. If we > believe St. Jerome, it is but the envy and the unmerited > calumnies of the early Roman clergy against Tertullian > which forced him to renounce the Catholic Church and > become a Montanist. However, were the unlimited > admiration of St. Cyprian, who terms Tertullian “The > Master,” and his estimate of him merited, we would see > less error and paganism in the Church of Rome. The > expression of Vincent of Lerius, “that every word of > Tertullian was a sentence, and every sentence a triumph > _over error_,” does not seem very happy when we think of > the respect paid to Tertullian by the Church of Rome, > notwithstanding his partial apostasy and the _errors_ in > which the latter still abides and has even enforced upon > the world as _infallible_ dogmas. > > [326] Were not the views of the Phrygian Bishop Montanus, also > deemed a HERESY by the Church of Rome? It is quite > extraordinary to see how easily the Vatican encourages > the abuse of one _heretic_ Tertullian, against another > _heretic_ Basilides, when the abuse happens to further > her own object. > > [327] Does not Paul himself speak of “_Principalities_ and > _Powers_ in heavenly places” (Ephesians iii. 10; i. 21), > and confess that there be _gods_ many and _Lords_ many > (Kurioi)? And angels, powers (Dunameis), and > _Principalities_? (See 1 Corinthians, viii. 5; and > Epistle to Romans, viii. 38.) > > [328] Tertullian: “Præscript.” > > [329] Baur; Credner; Hilgenfeld; Kirchhofer; Lechler; Nicolas; > Ritschl; Schwegler; Westcott, and Zeller; see > “Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., p. 2. > > [330] See Epiphanius: “Contra Ebionitas.” > > [331] The Ophites, for instance, made of Adonai the third son > of Ilda-Baoth, a malignant genius, and, like his other > five brothers, a constant enemy and adversary of man, > whose divine and immortal spirit gave man the means of > becoming the rival of these genii. > > [332] The Bishop of Salamis died A.D. 403. > > [333] “Epiphanius,” i., 122, 123. > > [334] The “Clementines” are composed of three parts--to wit: > the Homilies, the Recognitions, and an Epitome. > > [335] “Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., p. 2. > > [336] “Homilies,” xviii., 1-15. > > [337] “Clementine Homilies;” “Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii. > > [338] “Supernatural Religion,” p. 11. > > [339] Hieron.: “Opp.,” vii., p. 270, ff.; “Supernatural > Religion,” p. 11. > > [340] Ibid. > > [341] Theodoret: “Hæret. Fab.,” ii., vii. > > [342] See “Irenæus,” I., xii., p. 86. > > [343] “Auszüge aus dem Sohar,” p. 12. > > [344] “Cod. Naz.,” vol. ii., p. 149. > > [345] Theodoret: “Hæret. Fab.,” ii., vii. > > [346] “Homilies,” xvi., 15 ff.; ii., 12; iii., 57-59; x., 19. > Schliemann: “Die Clementinem,” p. 134 ff., “Supernatural > Religion,” vol. ii., p. 349. > > [347] “Homilies,” iii., 20 f; ii., 16-18, etc. > > [348] Ibid., iii., 20 ff. > > [349] Schliemann: “Die Clementinem,” pp. 130-176; quoted also > in “Supernatural Religion,” p. 342. > > [350] We will speak of this doctrine further on. > > [351] “Kabbala Denudata,” vol. ii., p. 155; “Vallis Regia.” > > [352] “Hermes,” X., iv., 21-23. > > [353] Idra Magna: “Kabbala Denudata.” > > [354] Justin Martyr: “Apol.,” vol. ii., p. 74. > > [355] Josephus: “Wars,” II., chap. 8. sec. 7. > > [356] See Josephus; Philo; Munk (35). Eusebius mentions their > semneion, where they perform the mysteries of a retired > life (“Ecclesiastic History,” lib. ii., ch. 17). > > [357] “Epiphanius,” ed. Petau, i., p. 117. > > [358] Cerinthus is the same Gnostic--a contemporary of John > the Evangelist--of whom Irenæus invented the following > anecdote: “There are those who heard him (Polycarp) say > that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at > Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed forth > from the bath-house ... crying out, ‘Let us fly, lest > the bath-house fall down, Cerinthus, the enemy of the > truth, being within it’” (Irenæus: “Adv. Hær.,” iii., 3, > § 4). > > [359] Munk: “Palestine,” p. 525; “Sod, the Son of the Man.” > > [360] “Haxthausen,” p. 229. > > [361] “Shahrastâni;” Dr. D. Chwolsohn: “Die Ssabier und der > Ssabismus,” ii., p. 625. > > [362] Maimonides, quoted in Dr. D. Chwolsohn: “Die Ssabier > und der Ssabismus,” ii., p. 458. > > [363] “Ye have condemned and killed the just,” says James > in his epistle to the twelve tribes. > > [364] Porphyry makes a distinction between what he calls > “the _Antique_ or _Oriental philosophy_,” and the > properly Grecian system, that of the Neo-platonists. > King says that all these religions and systems are > branches of one antique and common religion, the Asiatic > or Buddhistic (“Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 1). > > [365] “Sod, the Son of the Man.” > > [366] “Hermes Trismegistus,” pp. 86, 87, 90. > > [367] It is the correct interpretation of the Bible allegories > that makes the Catholic clergy so wrathful with the > Protestants who freely scrutinize the Bible. How bitter > this feeling has become, we can judge by the following > words of the Reverend Father Parker of Hyde Park, New > York, who, lecturing in St. Teresa’s Catholic Church, on > the 10th of December, 1876, said: “To whom does the > Protestant Church owe its possession of the Bible, > _which they wish to place in the hands of every ignorant > person and child_? To monkish hands, that laboriously > transcribed it before the age of printing. Protestantism > has produced dissension in Church, rebellions and > outbreaks in State, unsoundness in social life, and will > never be satisfied short of the downfall of the Bible! > Protestants must admit that the Roman Church has done > more to scatter Christianity and extirpate idolatry than > all their sects. From one pulpit it is said that there > is no hell, and from another that there is immediate and > unmitigated damnation. One says that Jesus Christ was > only a man; another that you must be plunged bodily into > water to be baptized, and refuses the rites to infants. > Most of them have no prescribed form of worship, no > sacred vestments, and their doctrines are as undefined > as their service is informal. The founder of Protestantism, > Martin Luther, was the worst man in Europe. The advent > of the Reformation was the signal for civil war, and > from that time to this the world has been in a restless > state, uneasy in regard to Governments, and every day > becoming more skeptical. The ultimate tendency of > Protestantism is clearly nothing less than the > destruction of all respect for the Bible, and the > disruption of government and society.” Very plain talk > this. The Protestants might easily return the > compliment. > > [368] Eliphas Levi ascribes this narrative to the Talmudist > authors of “Sota” and “Sanhedrin,” p. 19, book of > “Jechiel.” > > [369] This fragment is translated from the original Hebrew > by Eliphas Levi in his “La Science des Esprits.” > > [370] Those who know anything of the rites of the Hebrews > must recognize in these lions the gigantic figures of > the Cherubim, whose symbolical monstrosity was well > calculated to frighten and put to flight the profane. > > [371] Arnobius tells the same story of Jesus, and narrates > how he was accused of having robbed the sanctuary of the > secret names of the Holy One, by means of which > knowledge he performed all the miracles. > > [372] This is a translation of Eliphas Levi. > > [373] “La Science des Esprits,” p. 37. > > [374] “Israelite Indeed,” vol. iii., p. 61. > > [375] “Origen,” vol. ii., p. 150. > > [376] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. i., p. 23. > > [377] “In the way these call heresy I worship” (Acts xxiv. 14). > > [378] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., p. 109. > > [379] “Milman,” p. 200. > > [380] Dunlap says in “Sod, the Son of the Man:” “Mr. Hall, of > India, informs us that he has seen Sanscrit philosophical > treatises in which the _Logos_ continually occur,” > p. 39, foot-note. > > [381] See John i. > > [382] Origen: “Philosophumena,” xxiv. > > [383] Kleuker: “Natur und Ursprung der Emanationslehre bei > den Kabbalisten,” pp. 10, 11; see “Libri Mysterii.” > > [384] “These as natural _brute beasts_.” “The dog has turned > to its own vomit again; and _the sow_ that was washed to > her wallowing in the mire” (22). > > [385] The types of the creation, or the attributes of the > Supreme Being, are through the emanations of Adam > Kadmon; these are: “The _Crown_, _Wisdom_, _Prudence_, > _Magnificence_, _Severity_, _Beauty_, _Victory_, > _Glory_, _Foundation_, _Empire_. Wisdom is called _Jeh_; > Prudence, _Jehovah_; Severity, _Elohim_; Magnificence, > _El_; Victory and Glory, SABAOTH; Empire or Dominion, > ADONAI.” Thus when the Nazarenes and other Gnostics of > the more Platonic tendency twitted the Jews as > “abortions who worship their god Iurbo, _Adunai_,” we > need not wonder at the wrath of those who had accepted > the old Mosaic system, but at that of Peter and Jude who > claim to be followers of Jesus and dissent from the > views of him who was also a Nazarene. > > [386] According to the “Kabala,” _Empire_ or _Dominion_ is > “the consuming fire, and his wife is the Temple or > the Church.” > > [387] Colossians ii. 18. > > [388] It is more likely that both abused Paul, who preached > against this belief; and that the Gnostics were only > a pretext. (See Peter’s second Epistle.) > > [389] The true name of Manes--who was a Persian by birth--was > _Cubricus_. (See Epiph. “Life of Manes,” Hæret. lxv.) He > was flayed alive at the instance of the Magi, by the > Persian King Varanes I. Plutarch says that Manes or > Manis means Masses or ANOINTED. The vessel, or vase of > election, is, therefore, the vessel full of that light > of God, which he pours on one he has selected for his > interpreter. > > [390] See King’s “Gnostics,” p. 38. > > [391] Franck: “Die Kabbala,” p. 126. > > [392] Philo: “Quæst. et Solut.” > > [393] See Franck: “Die Kabbala,” p. 153 ff. > > [394] “Kabbala Denudata;” preface to the “Sohar,” ii., p. 242. > > [395] See Champollion’s “Egypte.” > > [396] “Idra Rabba,” vi., p. 58. > > [397] Idra Suta: “Sohar,” ii. > > [398] Idra Suta: “Sohar,” iii., p. 288 a. > > [399] _Ego sum qui sum_ (see “Bible”). > > [400] See “Institutes of Manu,” translated by Sir William > Jones. > > [401] Champollion. > > [402] We are fully aware that some Christian kabalists term > En-Soph the “Crown,” identify him with Sephira; call > En-Soph “an emanation from God,” and make the ten > Sephiroth comprise “En-Soph” as a unity. They also very > erroneously reverse the first two emanations of > Sephira--Chochma and Binah. The greatest kabalists have > always held Chochma (Wisdom) as a male and active > intelligence, Jah יה, and placed it under the No. 2 on > the right side of the triangle, whose apex is the crown, > while Binah (Intelligence) or בינה, is under No. 3 on > the left hand. But the latter, being represented by its > divine name as Jehovah יהוה, very naturally showed > the God of Israel as only a third emanation, as well as > a feminine, passive principle. Hence when the time came > for the Talmudists to transform their multifarious > deities into one living God, they resorted to their > Masoretic points and combined to transform Jehovah into > Adonai, “the Lord.” This, under the persecution of the > Mediæval kabalists by the Church, also forced some of > the former to change their female Sephiroth into male, > and _vice versa_, so as to avoid being accused of > disrespect and blasphemy to Jehovah; whose name, > moreover, by mutual and secret agreement they accepted > as a _substitute_ for Jah, or the mystery name IAO. > Alone the _initiated_ knew of it, but later it gave rise > to a great confusion among the _uninitiated_. It would > be worth while--were it not for lack of space--to quote > a few of the many passages in the oldest Jewish > authorities, such as Rabbi Akiba, and the “Sohar,” which > corroborate our assertion. Chochma-Wisdom is a male > principle everywhere, and Binah-Jehovah, a female > potency. The writings of Irenæus, Theodoret, and > Epiphanius, teeming with accusations against the > Gnostics and “Hæresies,” repeatedly show Simon Magus and > Cerenthus making of Binah the feminine divine Spirit > which inspired Simon. Binah is Sophia, and the Sophia of > the Gnostics is surely not a male potency, but simply > the feminine Wisdom, or Intelligence. (See any ancient > “Arbor Kabbalistica,” or Tree of the Sephiroth.) Eliphas > Levi, in the “Rituel de la Haute Magie,” vol. i., pp. > 223 and 231, places Chochma as No. 2 and as a male > Sephiroth on the right hand of the Tree. In the “Kabala” > the three male Sephiroth--Chochma, Chesed, Netsah--are > known as the Pillar of Mercy; and the three feminine on > the left, namely, Binah, Geburah, Hod, are named the > Pillar of Judgment; while the four Sephiroth of the > centre--Kether, Tiphereth, Jesod, and Malchuth--are > called the Middle Pillar. And, as Mackenzie, in the > “Royal Masonic Cyclopædia,” shows, “there is an analogy > in these three pillars to the three Pillars of Wisdom, > Strength, and Beauty in a Craft Lodge of Masonry, while > the En-Soph forms the mysterious blazing star, or mystic > light of the East.” (p. 407). > > [403] Justin: “Cum. Trypho,” p. 284. > > [404] A division indicative of time. > > [405] Sanchoniathon calls time the oldest Æon, _Protogonos_, > the “_first-born_.” > > [406] Philo Judæus: “Cain and his Birth,” p. xvii. > > [407] Azrael, angel of death, is also Israel. _Ab-ram_ means > father of elevation, high placed father, for Saturn is > the highest or outmost planet. > > [408] See Genesis xiii. 2. > > [409] Saturn is generally represented as a very old man, with > a sickle in his hand. > > [410] Bunsen: “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., > p. 85. > > [411] Idra Suta: “Sohar,” iii., p. 292 b. > > [412] Bereshith Rabba: “Parsha,” ix. > > [413] “Sohar,” i., p. 20 a. > > [414] “The Sanscrit _s_,” says Max Müller, “is represented by > the _z_ and _h_. Thus the geographical name ‘hapta > hendu,’ which occurs in the ‘Avesta,’ becomes > intelligible, if we retranslate the _z_ and _h_ into the > Sanscrit _s_. For ‘Sapta Sindhu,’ or the seven rivers, > is the old Vaidic name for India itself” (“Chips,” vol. > i., p. 81). The “Avesta” is the spirit of the > “Vedas”--the esoteric meaning made partially known. > > [415] What is generally understood in the “Avesta” system as a > _thousand_ years, means, in the esoteric doctrine, a > cycle of a duration known but to the initiates and which > has an allegorical sense. > > [416] Matter: “Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme,” pl. x. > > [417] Idra Suta: “Sohar,” iii., p. 288. > > [418] Ibid., sect. ii. > > [419] Ibid., vii. > > [420] Jam vero quoniam hoc in loco recondita est illa plane > non utuntur, et tantum de parte lucis ejus particepant > quæ demittitur et ingreditur intra filum Ain Soph > protensum e Persona אל (_Al_-God) deorsum: intratque et > perrumpit et transit per Adam primum occultum usque in statum > dispositionis transitque per eum a capite usque ad pedes > ejus: _et in eo est figura hominis_ (“Kabbala Denudata,” > ii., p. 246). > > [421] “Sohar,” i., p. 51 a. > > [422] Book iii., p. 290. > > [423] “Idra Rabba,” §§ 541, 542. > > [424] Ibid., iii., p. 36. > > [425] Ibid., p. 171. > > [426] “Nat. und Urspr. d. Emanationslehre b. d. Kabbalisten,” > p. ii. > > [427] “Irenæus,” p. 637. > > [428] “Idra Suta,” ix.; “Kabbala Denudata;” see Pythagoras: > “Monad.” > > [429] “Codex Nazaræus,” i., p. 145. > > [430] “Idra Rabba,” viii., pp. 107-109. > > [431] “Auszüge aus dem Sohar,” p. 11. > > [432] He is the universal and spiritual _germ_ of all things. > > [433] “Ad. Kabb. Chr.,” p. 6. > > [434] “Sohar,” p. 93. > > [435] “Movers,” p. 265. > > [436] “Kabbala Denudata,” vol. ii., p. 236. > > [437] Champollion, Junior: “Lettres.” > > [438] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., pp. 47-57. > > [439] Ibid., vol. i., p. 145. > > [440] Ibid., vol. ii., p. 211. > > [441] Ibid., vol. i., p. 308. > > [442] Sophia-Achamoth also begets her son Ilda-Baoth, the > _Demiurge_, by looking into chaos or matter, and by > coming in contact with it. > > [443] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., p. 109. See “Sod, the Son > of the Man,” for translation. > > [444] Revelation iv. 5. > > [445] Ezekiel. > > [446] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., p. 127. > > [447] The first androgyne duad being considered a _unit_ in > all the secret computations, is, therefore, the Holy > Ghost. > > [448] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. iii., p. 59. > > [449] Ibid., vol. i., p. 285. > > [450] Ibid., vol. i., p. 309. > > [451] Ibid., vol. i., p. 287. See “Sod, the Son of the Man,” > p. 101. > > [452] John iv. 9. > > [453] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., p. 123. > > [454] “Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and > seventy of the elders of Israel. _And they saw the God > of Israel_,” Exodus xxiv. 9, 10. > > [455] Irenæus: “Clementine Homilies,” I., xxii., p. 118. > > [456] “Adv. Hæs.,” III., ii., 18. > > [457] See King’s “Gnostics.” > > [458] Ezekiel i.-ii. > > [459] “Gnostics and their Remains.” > > [460] “Although this science is commonly supposed to be > peculiar to the Jewish Talmudists, there is no doubt > that they borrowed the idea from a foreign source, and > that from the Chaldeans, the _founders of magic art_,” > says King, in the “Gnostics.” The titles _Iao_ and > _Abraxas_, etc., instead of being recent Gnostic > figments, were indeed holy names, borrowed from the most > ancient formulæ of the East. Pliny must allude to them > when he mentions the virtues ascribed by the Magi to > amethysts engraved with the names of the sun and moon, > names not expressed in either the Greek or Latin > tongues. In the “_Eternal Sun_,” the “_Abraxas_,” the > “_Adonai_,” of these gems, we recognize the very amulets > ridiculed by the philosophic Pliny (“Gnostics,” pp. 79, > 80); _Virtutes_ (miracles) as employed by Irenæus. > > [461] So called to distinguish the short-face, who _is > exterior_, “from the venerable sacred ancient” (the > “Idra Rabba,” iii., 36; v. 54). Seir-Anpin is the “image > of the Father.” “He that hath seen me hath seen my > Father” (John xiv. 9). > > [462] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. iii., p. 57. > > [463] Ibid., vol. iii., p. 61. > > [464] This stone, of a sponge-like surface, is found in > Narmada and seldom to be seen in other places. > > [465] John has an eagle near him; Luke, a bull; Mark, a lion; > and Matthew, an angel--the kabalistic quaternary of the > Egyptian Tarot. > > [466] See Matter, upon the subject. > > [467] Consult Book of Daniel, iv., v. > > [468] Ahriman, the production of Zoroaster, is so called in > hatred of the Arias or Aryas, the Brahmans against whose > dominion the Zoroastrians had revolted. Although an Arya > (a noble, a sage) himself, Zoroaster, as in the case of > the Devas whom he disgraced from gods to the position of > _devils_, hesitated not to designate this type of the > spirit of evil under the name of his enemies, the > Brahman-Aryas. The whole struggle of Ahura-mazd and > Ahriman is but the allegory of the great religious and > political war between Brahmanism and Zoroastrianism. > > [469] “Nork,” ii., 146. > > [470] Rev. Mr. Maurice takes it also to mean the cycles. > > [471] “Duncker,” ii., 363; Spiegel’s “Avesta,” i., 32, 34. > > [472] See the “Book of Dehesh,” 47. > > [473] See King’s translation of the “Zend Avesta,” in his > “Gnostics,” p. 9. > > [474] The dævas or devils of the Iranians contrast with the > devas or deities of India. > > [475] “Nork,” ii., 146. > > [476] The Bishop of Ephesus, 218 A.D.; Eusebius: “H. E.” iii., > 31. Origen stoutly maintained the doctrine of eternal > punishment to be erroneous. He held that at the second > advent of Christ even the devils among the damned would > be forgiven. The eternal damnation is a later > _Christian_ thought. > > [477] Luke xii. 10. > > [478] “Hermes Trismegistus,” vi. 55. > > [479] Plato Protogoras; “Cory,” p. 274. > > [480] Panthier: “La Chine,” ii., 375; “Sod, the Son of the Man,” > p. 97. > > [481] Acts ii. 22. > > [482] John i. 6. > > [483] Ibid., 30. > > [484] John viii. 40. > > [485] Ibid., ix. 11. > > [486] Priestley: “History of Early Christianity,” p. 2, > sect. 2. > > [487] Mahomet was born in 571 A.D. > > [488] J. M. Peebles: “Jesus--Man, Myth, or God?” > > [489] Translated from the “Hari-Purana,” by Jacolliot: > “Christna, et le Christ.” > > [490] Clement: “Al. Strom.,” v. 14, § 110; translation > given in “Supernatural Religion,” vol. i, p. 77. > > [491] This work, “The Pastor of Hermas,” is no longer extant, > but appears only in the “Stichometry” of Nicephorus; it > is now considered an apocrypha. But, in the days of > Irenæus, it was quoted as Holy Scripture (see “Sup. > Religion,” vol. i., p. 257) by the Fathers, held to be > divinely inspired, and publicly read in the churches > (Irenæus: “Adv. Hær.,” iv., 20). When Tertullian became > a Montanist he rejected it, after having _asserted_ its > divinity (Tertullian: “De Orat.,” p. 12). > > [492] “Sohar,” xl., p. 10. > > [493] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. iii., pp. 60, 61. > > [494] Ibid., vol. ii., p. 281; vol. iii., p. 59. > > [495] We must remind the reader, in this connection, that > Joshua and Jesus are one and the same name. In the > Slavonian Bibles Joshua reads--_Iessus_ (or Jesus), > _Navin_. > > [496] “Idra Rabba,” vol. iii., § 41; the “Sohar.” > > [497] “Kabbala Denudata,” vol. ii., p. 230; the “Book of the > Babylonian Companions,” p. 35. > > [498] “Sohar Ex.,” p. 11. > > [499] “Midrash Hashirim;” “Rabbi Akaba;” “Midrash Koheleth,” > vol. ii., p. 45. > > [500] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. iii., p. 60. > > [501] “On the Canon,” p. 178 ff. > > [502] Vol. ii., p. 57; Norberg’s “Onomasticon;” “Sod, the > Son of the Man,” p. 103. > > [503] “Preller,” vol. i., p. 484; K. O. Muller: “History of > Greek Literature,” p. 238; “Movers,” p. 553. > > [504] “Sohar,” vol. i., fol. 25. > > [505] “Simil.,” vol. ix., p. 12; “Supernatural Religion,” > vol. i., p. 257. > > [506] Mark xiii. 32. > > [507] “Apolog.,” vol. i., p. 63. > > [508] “Idra Rabba,” x., p. 177. > > [509] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. i., p. 23. > > [510] Philo says that the _Logos_ is the _interpreter_ of the > highest God, and argues, “that he must be the God of us > imperfect beings” (“Leg. Alleg.,” iii., § 73). According > to his opinion man was not made in the likeness of the > _most High_ God, the Father of all, but in that of the > _second_ God who is his word--Logos” (Philo: “Fragments,” > 1; ex. Euseb. “Præpar. Evang.,” vii., 13). > > [511] “Codex Nazaræus,” p. 57; “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 59. > > [512] “Hundert und ein Frage,” p. xvii.; Dunlap: “Sod, the > Son of the Man,” p. 87; the author, who quotes Nork, > says that parts of the “Midrashim” and the “Targum” of > Onkelos, antedate the “New Testament.” > > [513] Writing upon Ptolemæus and Heracleon, the author of > “Supernatural Religion” (vol. ii., p. 217) says that > “the inaccuracy of the Fathers keeps pace with their > want of critical judgment,” and then proceeds to > illustrate this particularly ridiculous blunder > committed by Epiphanius, in common with Hippolytus, > Tertullian, and Philostrius. “Mistaking a passage of > Irenæus, ‘Adv. Hær.,’ i., p. 14, regarding the Sacred > Tetrad (Kol-Arbas), Hippolytus supposes Irenæus to refer > to another heretic leader.” He at once treats the Tetrad > as such a leader named “Colarbasus,” and after dealing > (vi., 4) with the doctrines of Secundus, and Ptolemæus, > and Heracleon, he proposes, § 5, to show, “what are the > opinions held by Marcus and _Colarbasus_,” these two > being, according to him, the successors of the school of > Valentinus (cf. Bunsen: “Hippolytus, U. S. Zeit.,” p. 54 > f.; “Ref. Omn. Hær.,” iv., § 13). > > [514] See Godf. Higgins: “Anacalypsis.” > > [515] Inman: “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” > p. 84. > > [516] Meaning--holding up of _different views_. > > [517] “This absurd mistake,” remarks the author of “Supernatural > Religion,” vol. ii., p. 218, “shows how little these > writers knew of the Gnostics of whom they wrote, and how > the one ignorantly follows the other.” > > [518] “Ref. Omn. Hær.,” iv., § 13. > > [519] Epiph.: “Hær.,” xxxvi., § 1, p. 262 (quoted in “Supernatural > Religion”). See Volkmar’s “Die Colorabasus-gnosis” in > Niedner’s “Zeitschr. Hist. Theol.” > > [520] “Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 182 f., note 3. > > [521] Mosheim. > > [522] Tertullian: “Despectæ,” ch. xxx. > > [523] Mosheim: “Eccles. Hist.,” c. v., § 5. > > [524] Socrates: “Scol. Eccl. Hist.,” b. I., c. ix. > > [525] “Proverbs,” chap. xvi., p. 33. In ancient Egypt and > Greece, and among Israelites, small sticks and balls > called the “sacred divining lots” were used for this > kind of oracle in the temples. According to the figures > which were formed by the accidental juxtaposition of the > latter, the priest interpreted the will of the gods. > > [526] Another untrustworthy, untruthful, and ignorant writer, > and ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century. His > alleged history of the strife between the Pagans, > Neo-platonics, and the Christians of Alexandria and > Constantinople, which extends from the year 324 to 439, > dedicated by him to Theodosius, the younger, is full of > deliberate falsifications. Edition of “Reading,” Cantab, > 1720, fol. Translated. Plon frères, Paris. > > [527] “Gems of the Orthodox Christians,” vol. i., p. 135. > > [528] Revelation xiv. 1. > > [529] Daghôba is a small temple of globular form, in which > are preserved the relics of Gautama. > > [530] Prachidas are buildings of all sizes and forms, like > our mausoleums, and are sacred to votive offerings to > the dead. > > [531] The Talmudistic records claim that, after having been > hung, he was lapidated and buried under the water at the > junction of two streams. “Mishna Sanhedrin,” vol. vi., > p. 4; “Talmud,” of Babylon, same article, 43 a, 67 a. > > [532] “Coptic Legends of the Crucifixion,” MSS. xi. > > [533] The engraving represents the talisman as of twice the > natural size. We are at a loss to understand why King, > in his “Gnostic Gems,” represents Solomon’s seal as a > five-pointed star, whereas it is six-pointed, and is the > signet of Vishnu, in India. > > [534] King (“Gnostics”) gives the figure of a Christian > symbol, very common during the middle ages, of three > fishes interlaced into a triangle, and having the FIVE > letters (a most sacred Pythagorean number) Ι. Χ. ΘΥΣ > engraved on it. The number five relates to the same > kabalistic computation. > > [535] “La Genèse de l’Humanité,” p. 9. > > [536] The kabalistic Sephiroth are also ten in number, or > five pairs. > > [537] An avatar is a descent from on high upon earth of the > Deity in some manifest shape. > > [538] “Bhagavatta.” > > [539] “Manu,” books i. and xii. > > [540] See Cory’s “Ancient Fragments.” > > [541] “Origin of Species,” first edition, p. 484. > > [542] Ibid., p. 484. > > [543] Ibid., pp. 488, 489. > > [544] “La Genèse de l’Humanité,” p. 339. > > [545] “Traditions Indo-Européennes et Africaines,” p. 291. > > [546] “Traditions Indo-Européennes et Africaines,” pp. 294, > 295. > > [547] “Les Fils de Dieu,” p. 32. > > [548] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 78 and others. > > [549] “Les Fils de Dieu,” p. 272. While not at all astonished > that Brahmans should have refused to satisfy M. > Jacolliot’s curiosity, we must add that the meaning of > this sign is known to the superiors of every Buddhist > lamasery, not alone to the Brahmans. > > [550] “La Genèse de l’Humanité,” p. 339. > > [551] See “Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,” vol. xiii., > p. 79. > > [552] _Lahgash_ is nearly identical in meaning with _Vâch_, > the hidden power of the Mantras. > > [553] In “Rig-Veda Sanhita” the meaning is given by Max > Müller as the Absolute, “for it is derived from > ‘_diti_,’ bond, and the negative particle _A_.” > > [554] “Hymns to the Maruts” I., 89, 10. > > [555] Ibid., I., 24, 1. > > [556] Ibid., X., 63, 2. > > [557] George Smith gives the first verses of the Akkadian > _Genesis_ as found in the Cuneiform Texts on the > “Lateres Coctiles.” There, also, we find _Anu_, the > passive deity or En-Soph, _Bel_, the Creator, the Spirit > of God (Sephira) moving on the face of the waters, hence > water itself, and _Hea_ the Universal Soul or wisdom of > the three combined. > > The first eight verses read thus: > > 1. When above, were not raised the heavens; > 2. and below on the earth a plant had not grown up. > 3. The abyss had not broken its boundaries. > 4. The chaos (or water) Tiamat (the sea) was the > producing mother of the whole of them. (This is the > Cosmical Aditi and Sephira.) > 5. Those waters at the beginning were ordained but > 6. a tree had not grown, a flower had not unfolded. > 7. When the gods had not sprung up, any one of them; > 8. a plant had not grown, and order did not exist. > > This was the chaotic or ante-genesis period. > > [558] Thus is it that we find in all the philosophical > theogonies, the Holy Ghost female. The numerous sects of > the Gnostics had Sophia; the Jewish kabalists and > Talmudists, Shekinah (the garment of the Highest), which > descended between the two cherubim upon the Mercy Seat; > and we find even Jesus made to say, in an old text, “My > _Mother_, the Holy Ghost, took me.” > > “The waters are called _nara_, because they were the > production of Nara, the Spirit of God” (“Institutes > of Manu.” i. 10). > > [559] Narayana, or that which moves on the waters. > > [560] “Manu,” sloka 12. > > [561] When a female power, she is Sephira; when male, he is > Adam Kadmon, for, as the former contains in herself the > other nine Sephiroth, so, in their totality, the latter, > including Sephira, is embodied in the Archetypal Kadmon, > the πρωτογονος. > > [562] See Haug’s “Aytareya Brahmanam,” of the Rig-Veda. > > [563] The same transformations are found in the cosmogony of > every important nation. Thus, we see in the Egyptian > mythology, Isis and Osiris, sister and brother, man and > wife; and Horus, the Son of both, becoming the husband > of his mother, Isis, and producing a son, _Malouli_. > > [564] Mandala I., Sûkta 166, Max Müller. > > [565] “Asiatic Researches,” vol. viii., pp. 402, 403; > Colebrooke’s translation. > > [566] As in the Pythagorean numerical system every number on > earth, or the world of the effects, corresponds to its > invisible prototype in the world of causes. > > [567] See initial chap., vol. i., word Yajna. > > [568] Eve is the trinity of nature, and Adam the unity of > spirit; the former the created material principle, the > latter the ideal organ of the creative principle, or, in > other words, this androgyne is both the principle and > the Logos, for א is the male, and ב the female; and, as > Levi expresses it, this first letter of the holy > language, Aleph, represents a man pointing with one hand > toward the sky, and with the other toward the ground. It > is the macrocosm and the microcosm at the same time, and > explains the double triangle of the Masons and the > five-pointed star. While the male is active the female > principle is passive, for it is SPIRIT and MATTER, the > latter word meaning _mother_ in nearly every language. > The columns of Solomon’s temple, Jachin and Boaz, are > the emblems of the androgyne; they are also respectively > male and female, white and black, square and round; the > male a unity, the female a binary. In the later > kabalistic treatises, the active principle is pictured > by the sword זכר, the passive by the sheath נקבה. See > “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie,” vol. i. > > [569] The vertical line being the male principle, and the > horizontal the female, out of the union of the two at > the intersection point is formed the CROSS; the oldest > symbol in the Egyptian history of gods. It is the key of > Heaven in the rosy fingers of Neith, the celestial > virgin, who opens the gate at dawn for the exit of her > first-begotten, the radiant sun. It is the Stauros of > the Gnostics, and the philosophical cross of the > high-grade Masons. We find this symbol ornamenting the > _tee_ of the umbrella-shaped oldest pagodas in Thibet, > China, and India, as we find it in the hand of Isis, in > the shape of the “handled cross.” In one of the Chaitya > caves, at Ajunta, it surmounts the three umbrellas in > stone, and forms the centre of the vault. > > [570] “When this world had emerged from obscurity, the subtile > elementary principles produced the vegetable germ which > at first animated the plants; from the plants, life > passed through the fantastic organisms which were born > in the ilus (_boue_) of the waters; then through a > series of forms and different animals, it at length > reached man” (“Manu,” book i.; and “Bhagavatta”). > > Manu is a convertible type, which can by no means be > explained as a personage. Manu means sometimes humanity, > sometimes man. The Manu who emanated from the uncreated > Swayambhuva is, without doubt, the type of Adam Kadmon. > The Manu who is progenitor of the other six Manus is > evidently identical with the Rishis, or seven primeval > sages who are the forefathers of the post-diluvian > races. He is--as we shall show in Chapter VIII.--Noah, > and his six sons, or subsequent generations are the > originals of the post-diluvian and mythical patriarchs > of the Bible. > > [571] Cory’s “Ancient Fragments.” > > [572] See Vol. I., chap. i., pp. 33, 34, of this work. > > [573] “Sepher Jezireh,” chap. i., Mishna ixth. > > [574] Ibid. > > [575] “Sohar,” i., 2 a. > > [576] “Sepher Jezireh,” Mishna ix., 10. > > [577] It is interesting to recall Hebrews i. 7, in connection > with this passage. “Who maketh his angels (messengers) > spirits, and his ministers (servants, those who > minister) a flame of fire.” The resemblance is too > striking for us to avoid the conclusion that the author > of “Hebrews” was as familiar with the “Kabala” as adepts > usually are. > > [578] “The Sons of God;” “The India of the Brahmans,” p. 230. > > [579] May it not be that Hanoumā is the representative of that > link of beings half-man, half-monkeys, which, according > to the theories of Messrs. Hovelacque and Schleicher, > were arrested in their development, and fell, so to say, > into a retrogressive evolution? > > [580] The Primal or Ultimate Essence has _no name_ in India. It > is indicated sometimes as “That” and “This.” “This > (universe) was not originally anything. There was > neither heaven, nor earth, nor atmosphere. That being > non-existent resolved ‘Let me be.’” (Original Sanscrit > Text.) Dr. Muir, vol. v., p. 366. > > [581] Coleman’s “Hindu Mythology.” > > [582] The siege and subsequent surrender of Lanca (Isle of > Ceylon) to Rama is placed by the Hindu chronology--based > upon the Zodiac--at 7,500 to 8,000 years B.C., and the > following or eighth incarnation of Vishnu at 4,800 B.C. > (from the book of the Historical Zodiacs of the > Brahmans). > > [583] A Hanoverian scientist has recently published a work > entitled _Ueber die Auflösung der Arten dinck Natürliche > Jucht Wahl_, in which he shows, with great ingenuity, > that Darwin was wholly mistaken in tracing man back to > the ape. On the contrary, he maintains that it is the > ape which has evolved from man. That, in the beginning, > mankind were, morally and physically, the types and > prototypes of our present race and of human dignity, by > their beauty of form, regularity of feature, cranial > development, nobility of sentiments, heroic impulses, > and grandeur of ideal conceptions. This is a purely > Brahmanic, Buddhistic, and kabalistic philosophy. His > book is copiously illustrated with diagrams, tables, > etc. He says that the gradual debasement and degradation > of man, morally and physically, can be readily traced > throughout the ethnological transformations down to our > times. And, as one portion has already degenerated into > apes, so the civilized man of the present day will at > last, under the action of the inevitable law of > necessity, be also succeeded by like descendants. If we > may judge of the future by the actual present, it > certainly does seem possible that so unspiritual and > materialistic a body as our physical scientists should > end as _simia_ rather than as seraphs. > > [584] “De Bel. Jud.,” vol. ii., p. 12. > > [585] “De Somniio,” p. 455 d. > > [586] “Sohar,” vol. ii., p. 96. > > [587] “Mishna;” “Aboth,” vol. iv., p. 29; Mackenzie’s “Royal > Masonic Cyclopædia,” p. 413. > > [588] “Sohar,” vol. iii, p. 61 b. > > [589] Ibid., vol. i., p. 65 b. > > [590] Hermetic work. > > [591] “Dhamma-pada,” slokas 276 et seq. > > [592] Neander: “History of the Church,” vol. i., p. 817. > > [593] It is from the highest _Zion_ that Maitree-Buddha, the > Saviour to come, will descend on earth; and it is also > from Zion that comes the Christian Deliverer (see Romans > xi. 26). > > [594] 1 Corinth. ii. 6, 7, 8. > > [595] “Lotus de la Bonne Loi,” p. 806. > > [596] “Du Bouddhisme,” 95. > > [597] Philippians iii. 11-14. > > [598] “The Mahâvansa,” vol. i., Introduction. > > [599] The Five Articles of Faith. > > [600] Not only did the Buddhist missionaries make their way > to the Mesopotamian Valley, but they even went so far > west as Ireland. The Rev. Dr. Lundy, in his work on > “Monumental Christianity,” referring to an Irish Round > Tower, observes: “Henry O’Brien explains this Round > Tower Crucifixion as that of Buddha; the animals as the > elephant and the bull, sacred to Buddha, and into which > his soul entered after death; the two figures standing > beside the cross as Buddha’s virgin mother, and Kama his > favorite disciple. The whole picture bears a close > likeness to the Crucifixion, in the cemetery of Pope > Julius, except the animals, which are conclusive proof > that it cannot be Christian. It came ultimately from the > far East to Ireland, with the Phœnician colonists, who > erected the Round Towers as symbols of the life-giving > and preserving power of man and nature, and how that > universal life is produced through suffering and death.” > > When a Protestant clergyman is thus forced to confess > the pre-Christian existence of the crucifix in Ireland, > its Buddhistic character, and the penetration of the > missionaries of that faith even to that then remote > portion of the earth, we need not wonder that in the > minds of the Nazarean contemporaries of Jesus and their > descendants, he should not have been associated with > that universally known emblem in the character of a > Redeemer. > > In noticing this admission of Dr. Lundy, Mr. Charles > Sotheran remarked, in a lecture before the American > Philological Society, that both legends and > archæological remains unite in proving beyond question > “that Ireland, like every other nation, once listened to > the propagandists of Siddhârtha-Buddha.” > > [601] “The religion of multiplied baptisms, the scion of the > still existent sect named the ‘Christians of St. John,’ > or Mendæans, whom the Arabs call _el-Mogtasila_ and > Baptists. The Aramean verb _seba_, origin of the name > _Sabian_, is a synonym of βαπτιζω” (Renan: “Vie de > Jesus”). > > [602] Foh-Tchou, literally, in Chinese, meaning Buddha’s lord, > or the teacher of the doctrines of Buddha--Foh. > > [603] This mountain is situated southwest of China, almost > between China and Thibet. > > [604] SOL, being situated, on the diagram, exactly in the > centre of the solar system (of which the Ophites appear > to have been cognizant)--hence, under the direct > vertical ray of the Higher Spiritual Sun--showers his > brightness on all other planets. > > [605] Speaking of Venus, Placidus, the astrologer, always > maintained that “her bluish lustre denotes heat.” As to > Mercury, it was a strange fancy of the Ophites to > represent him as a spirit of water, when astrologically > considered he is as “a cold, dry, earthy, and melancholy > star.” > > [606] The name which Norberg translates, in his Onomasticon > to the “Codex Nazaræus,” as Ferho, stands, in the > original, _Parcha Rabba_. In the “Life of Manes,” given > by Epiphanius, in his “Hær.,” lxvi., is mentioned a > certain priest of Mithras, a friend of the great > Hæresiarch Manes, named Parchus. > > [607] Its description is found in one of the magic books of > the Egyptian King Nechepsos, and its use prescribed on > green jasper stones, as a potent amulet. Galen mentions > it in his work, “De Simp. Med.,” c. ix. > > [608] Consider those two diametrically-opposed doctrines--the > Catholic and the Protestant; the one preached by Paul, > the semi-Platonist, and the other by James, the orthodox > Talmudist. > > [609] The material, bad side of Sophia-Achamoth, who emanates > from herself Ilda-Baoth and his six sons. > > [610] See Norberg’s translation of “Codex Nazaræus,” Preface. > This proves once more the identification of Jesus with > Gautama-Buddha, in the minds of the Nazarene Gnostics, > as _Nebu_ or Mercury is the planet sacred to the > Buddhas. > > [611] Nous, the designation given by Anaxagoras to the > Supreme Deity, was taken from Egypt, where he was > styled NOUT. > > [612] By very few though, for the creators of the material > universe were always considered as subordinate > deities to the Most High God. > > [613] Lydus, 1. c., Ledrenus, 1. c. > > [614] “Erân das Land zwischen dem Indus und Tigris.” > > [615] _Asi_ means, moreover, “Thou art,” in Sanscrit, and > also “sword,” “_Asi_,” without the accent on the > first vowel. > > [616] Professor A. Wilder. > > [617] These sacred anagrams were called “Zeruph.” > > [618] “Book of Numbers, or Book of the Keys.” > > [619] The “Jezira,” or book of the creation, was written by > Rabbi Akiba, who was the teacher and instructor of > Simeon Ben Iochai, who was called the prince of the > kabalists, and wrote the “Sohar.” Franck asserts that > “Jezira” was written one century B.C. (“Die Kabbala,” > 65), but other and as competent judges make it far > older. At all events, it is now proved that Simeon Ben > Iochai lived _before_ the second destruction of the > temple. > > [620] “Jezira,” p. 8. > > [621] Ibid. See the constancy with which Ezekiel sticks in > his vision to the “_wheels_” of the “living creatures” > (ch. 1., passim). > > [622] He was an Alexandrian Neo-platonic under the first of > the Ptolemies. > > [623] “Chips,” vol. i. > > [624] See Max Müller’s “Our Figures.” > > [625] Ibid. > > [626] See King’s “Gnostics and their Remains,” plate xiii. > > [627] “Vita Pythagor.” > > [628] 608 B.C. > > [629] This city was built 332 B.C. > > [630] “Metaph.,” vii. F. > > [631] See drawings from the Temple of Rama, Coleman’s “Mythology > of the Hindus.” New York: J. W. Bouton, Publisher. > > [632] See Hargrave Jennings: “Rosicrucians,” p. 252. > > [633] K. O. Müller: “History of Greek Literature,” p. 283; > “Movers,” pp. 547-553; Dunlap: “Sod, the Mysteries of > Adoni,” p. 21. > > [634] See “Universal History,” vol. v., p. 301. > > [635] “Spirit. Hist.,” pp. 64, 67, 78. > > [636] “Sod, the Mysteries of Adoni,” p. 21. > > [637] See Leviticus xvi. 8, 10, and other verses relating to > the biblical goat in the original texts. > > [638] “Sagra Scrittura,” and “Paralipomeni.” > > [639] Article “Goat,” p. 257. > > [640] “Types of Mankind,” p. 600; “Royal Masonic Cyclopædia.” > > [641] “Ecclesiastical History,” vol. i., pp. 381, 382. Read > the whole quotations to appreciate the doctrine in full. > > [642] “Anacalypsis.” > > [643] Quoted in the “Seers of the Ages,” by J. M. Peebles. > > [644] We hold to the idea--which becomes self-evident when the > Zoroastrian imbroglio is considered--that there were, > even in the days of Darius, two distinct sacerdotal > castes of Magi: the initiated and those who were allowed > to officiate in the popular rites only. We see the same > in the Eleusinian Mysteries. Belonging to every temple > there were attached the “hierophants” of the _inner_ > sanctuary, and the secular clergy who were not even > instructed in the Mysteries. It is against the > absurdities and superstitions of the latter that Darius > revolted, and “crushed them,” for the inscription of his > tomb shows that he was a “hierophant” and a Magian > himself. It is also but the exoteric rites of this class > of Magi which descended to posterity, for the great > secresy in which were preserved the “Mysteries” of the > true Chaldean Magi was never violated, however much > guess-work may have been expended on them. > > [645] xxiii., 6. > > [646] “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 185. > > [647] These are truths which cannot fail to impress themselves > upon the minds of earnest thinkers. While the Ebionites, > Nazarites, Hemerobaptists, Lampseans, Sabians, and the > many other earliest sects which wavered later between > the varying dogmatisms suggested to them by the > _esoteric_ and misunderstood parables of the Nazarene > teacher, whom they justly regarded as a prophet, there > were men, for whose names we would vainly search > history, who preserved the secret doctrines of Jesus as > pure and unadulterated as they had been received. And > still, even all these above-mentioned and conflicting > sects were far more orthodox in their Christianity, or > rather Christism, than the Churches of Constantine and > Rome. “It was a strange fate that befell these > unfortunate people” (the Ebionites), says Lord Amberley, > “when, overwhelmed by the flood of heathenism that had > swept into the Church, they were condemned as heretics. > Yet, there is no evidence that they had ever swerved > from the doctrines of Jesus, or of the disciples who > knew him in his lifetime.... Jesus himself was > circumcised ... reverenced the temple at Jerusalem as ‘a > house of prayer for all nations.’... But the torrent of > progress swept past the Ebionites, and left them > stranded on the shore” (“An Analysis of Religious > Beliefs,” by Viscount Amberley, vol. i., p. 446). > > [648] What will, perhaps, still more astonish American readers, > is the fact that, in the United States, a mystical > fraternity now exists, which claims an intimate > relationship with one of the oldest and most powerful of > Eastern Brotherhoods. It is known as the Brotherhood of > Luxor, and its faithful members have the custody of very > important secrets of science. Its ramifications extend > widely throughout the great Republic of the West. Though > this brotherhood has been long and hard at work, the > secret of its existence has been jealously guarded. > Mackenzie describes it as having “a Rosicrucian basis, > and numbering many members” (“Royal Masonic Cyclopædia,” > p. 461). But, in this, the author is mistaken; it has no > Rosicrucian basis. The name Luxor is primarily derived > from the ancient Beloochistan city of Looksur, which > lies between Bela and Kedgee, and also gave its name to > the Egyptian city. > > [649] These people do not accept the name of Druzes, but > regard the appellation as an insult. They call themselves > the “disciples of Hamsa,” their Messiah, who came to > them, in the tenth century, from the “Land of the Word > of God,” and, together with his disciple, Mochtana > Boha-eddin, committed this _Word_ to writing, and > entrusted it to the care of a few initiates, with the > injunction of the greatest secresy. They are usually > called Unitarians. > > [650] The Okhal (from the Arabic _akl_--intelligence or wisdom) > are the initiated, or wise men of this sect. They hold, > in their mysteries, the same position as the hierophant > of old, in the Eleusinian and others. > > [651] This is the doctrine of the Gnostics who held Christos > to be the personal immortal Spirit of man. > > [652] The ten Messiahs or avatars remind again of the five > Buddhistic and ten Brahmanical avatars of Buddha and > Christna. > > [653] See, farther on, a letter from an “Initiate.” > > [654] In this column the first numbers are those given in the > article on the _Druzes_ in the “New American Cyclopædia” > (Appleton’s), vol. vi., p. 631. The numbers in > parentheses show the sequence in which the commandments > would stand were they given correctly. > > [655] This pernicious doctrine belongs to the old policy of > the Catholic Church, but is certainly false as regards > the Druzes. They maintain that it is right and lawful to > _withhold the truth_ about their own tenets, no one > outside their own sect having a right to pry into their > religion. The _okhals_ never countenance deliberate > falsehood in any form, although the laymen have many a > time got rid of the spies sent by the Christians to > discover their secrets, by deceiving them with sham > initiations. (See the letter of Prof. Rawson to the > author, p. 313.) > > [656] This commandment does not exist in the Lebanon teaching. > > [657] There is no such commandment, but the practice thereof > exists by mutual agreement, as in the days of the > Gnostic persecution. > > [658] “Mount Lebanon,” vol. 3. London, 1853. > > [659] Every temple in India is surrounded by such belts of > sacred trees. And like the Koum-boum of Kansu (Mongolia) > no one but an initiate has a right to approach them. > > [660] John Yarker, Jr.: “Notes on the Scientific and > Religious Mysteries of Antiquity,” etc. > > [661] This “Self,” which the Greek philosophers called > _Augœides_, the “Shining One,” is impressively and > beautifully described in Max Müller’s “Veda.” Showing > the “Veda” to be the first book of the Aryan nations, > the professor adds that “we have in it a period of the > intellectual life of man to which there is no parallel > in any other part of the world. In the hymns of the > “Veda” we see man left to himself to solve the riddle of > this world.... He invokes the gods around him, he > praises, he worships them. But still with all these gods > ... beneath him, and above him, the early poet seems ill > at rest within himself. There, too, in his own breast, > he has discovered a power that is never mute when he > prays, never absent when he fears and trembles. It seems > to inspire his prayers, and yet to listen to them; it > seems to live in him, and yet to support him and all > around him. The only name he can find for this > mysterious power is ‘Brahman;’ for _brahman_ meant > originally force, will, wish, and the propulsive power > of creation. But this impersonal brahman, too, as soon > as it is named, grows into something strange and divine. > It ends by being one of many gods, one of the great > triad, worshipped to the present day. And still the > thought within him has no real name; that power which is > nothing but itself, which supports the gods, the > heavens, and every living being, floats before his mind, > conceived but not expressed. At last he calls it > ‘Âtman,’ for Âtman, originally breath or spirit, comes > to mean Self, and Self alone; _Self_, whether Divine or > human; Self, whether creating or suffering; Self, > whether one or all; but always Self, independent and > free. ‘Who has seen the first-born,’ says the poet, when > he who had no bones (_i.e._, form) bore him that had > bones? Where was the life, the blood, the Self of the > world? Who went to ask this from any one who knew it?” > (“Rig-Veda,” i., 164, 4). This idea of a divine Self, > once expressed, everything else must acknowledge its > supremacy; “_Self_ is the Lord of all things, Self is > the King of all things. As all the spokes of a wheel are > contained in the nave and the circumference, all things > are contained in this Self; all Selves are contained in > this Self. Brahman itself is but Self” (Ibid., p. 478; > “Khândogya-upanishad,” viii., 3, 3, 4); “Chips from a > German Workshop,” vol. i., p. 69. > > [662] John x. 34, 35. > > [663] 2 Corinthians, vi. 16. > > [664] Jacolliot: “Voyage au Pays des Éléphants.” > > [665] Buddhist chief priests at Ceylon. > > [666] Samenaïra is one who studies to obtain the high office > of a _Oepasampala_. He is a disciple and is looked upon > as a son by the chief priest. We suspect that the > Catholic seminarist must look to the Buddhists for the > parentage of his title. > > [667] Jacolliot declares, in his “Fils de Dieu,” that he > copied these dates from the “Book of the Historical > Zodiacs,” preserved in the pagoda of Vilenur. > > [668] We were told that there were nearly 20,000 of such books. > > [669] Lepsius: “Königsbuch,” b. ii, _tal. i. dyn._ 5, h. p. > In 1 Peter ii. 3, Jesus is called “the Lord Crestos.” > > [670] Mackenzie: “Royal Masonic Cyclopædia,” p. 207. > > [671] “Adv. Hær.,” iii., 2, § 2. > > [672] Sprengel: “Histoire de la Médecine.” > > [673] “Christ of Paul,” p. 188. > > [674] “Adv. Hær.,” v. 33, § 4. > > [675] Eusebius: “Hist. Eccles.,” iii., p. 39. > > [676] Bunsen: “Egypt,” vol. i, p. 200. > > [677] “Internal Development of Europe,” p. 147. > > [678] “Antiquities,” lib. xviii., cap. 3. > > [679] Wise man always meant with the ancients a kabalist. It > means astrologer and magician. “Israelite Indeed,” > vol. iii., p. 206. Hakim is a physician. > > [680] Dr. Lardner rejects it as spurious, and gives _nine_ > reasons for rejecting it. > > [681] Revelation i. and ii. > > [682] Philip, the first martyr, was one of the seven, and > he was stoned about the year A.D. 34. > > [683] 1 Corinthians, vii. 34. > > [684] Revelation xiv. 3, 4. > > [685] Philopatris, in Taylor’s “Diegesis,” p. 376. > > [686] King’s “Gnostics and their Remains.” > > [687] “Aug. Serm.,” clii. See Payne Knight’s “Mystic Theology > of the Ancients,” p. 107. > > [688] Baronius: “Annales Ecclesiastici,” t. xxi., p. 89. > > [689] “Chron. de Lanercost,” ed. Stevenson, p. 109. > > [690] Dulaure: “Histoire Abregée des Différens Cultes,” > vol. ii., p. 285; Martezzi “Pagani é Christiani,” p. 78. > > [691] Basilides is termed by Tertullian a Platonist. > > [692] C. W. King: “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 197, > foot-note 1. > > [693] Plutarch: “Roman Questions,” p. 44. > > [694] Linus, Anacletus, and Clement. > > [695] “Life of Claudius,” sect. 25. > > [696] “Vita Saturnini Vopiscus.” > > [697] “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 68. > > [698] In Payne Knight’s “Ancient Art and Mythology,” Serapis > is represented as wearing his hair long, “formally > turned back and disposed in ringlets falling down upon > his breast and shoulders like that of women. His whole > person, too, is always enveloped in drapery reaching to > his feet.” (§ cxlv.). This is the conventional picture > of Christ. > > [699] “Vie de Jesus,” p. 405. > > [700] See “Pirke Aboth;” a Collection of Proverbs and > Sentences of the old Jewish Teachers, in which many > New Testament sayings are found. > > [701] “Buddhism,” p. 217. > > [702] Max Müller: “Christ and other Masters;” “Chips,” vol. i. > > [703] The “Life of Jesus” by Strauss, which Renan calls “_un > livre, commode, exact, spirituel et consciencieux_” (a > handy, exact, witty, and conscientious book), rude and > iconoclastic as it is, is nevertheless in many ways > preferable to the “Vie de Jesus,” of the French author. > Laying aside the intrinsic and historical value of the > two works--with which we have nothing to do, we now > simply point to Renan’s distorted outline-sketch of > Jesus. We cannot think what led Renan into such an > erroneous delineation of character. Few of those who, > while rejecting the divinity of the Nazarene prophet, > still believe that he is no myth, can read the work > without experiencing an uneasy, and even angry feeling > at such a psychological mutilation. He makes of Jesus a > sort of sentimental ninny, a theatrical simpleton, > enamored of his own poetical divagations and speeches, > wanting every one to adore him, and finally caught in > the snares of his enemies. Such was not Jesus, the > Jewish philanthropist, the adept and mystic of a school > now forgotten by the Christians and the Church--if it > ever was known to her; the hero, who preferred even to > risk death, rather than withhold some truths which he > believed would benefit humanity. We prefer Strauss who > openly names him an impostor and a pretender, > occasionally calling in doubt his very existence; but > who at least spares him that ridiculous color of > sentimentalism in which Renan paints him. > > [704] See Chap. iii., p. 97. > > [705] In a recent work, called the “World’s Sixteen Crucified > Saviors” (by Mr. Kersey Graves) which attracted our > notice by its title, we were indeed startled as we were > forewarned on the title-page we should be by _historical_ > evidences to be found neither in history nor tradition. > Apollonius, who is represented in it as one of these > sixteen “saviours,” is shown by the author as finally > “_crucified_ ... having risen from the dead ... > appearing to his disciples after his resurrection, > and”--like Christ again--“convincing a _Tommy_(?) > Didymus” by getting him to feel the print of the nails > on his hands and feet (see note, p. 268). To begin with, > neither Philostratus, the biographer of Apollonius, nor > history says any such thing. Though the precise time of > his death is unknown, no disciple of Apollonius ever > said that he was either crucified, or appeared to them. > So much for one “Saviour.” After that we are told that > Gautama-Buddha, whose life and death have been so > minutely described by several authorities, Barthelemy > St. Hilaire included--was also “_crucified_ by his > enemies near the foot of the Nepäl mountains” (see p. > 107); while the Buddhist books, history, and scientific > research tell us, through the lips of Max Müller and a > host of Orientalists, that “Gautama-Buddha (Sâkya-muni) > died near the Ganges.... He had nearly reached the city > of Kusinâgara, when his vital strength began to fail. He > halted in a forest, and while sitting under a sâl tree > he gave up the ghost” (Max Müller: “Chips from a German > Workshop,” vol. i., p. 213). The references of Mr. > Graves to Higgins and Sir W. Jones, in some of his > hazardous speculations, prove nothing. Max Müller shows > some antiquated authorities writing elaborate books “... > in order to prove that Buddha had been in reality the > Thoth of the Egyptians; that he was Mercury, or Wodan, > or Zoroaster, or Pythagoras.... Even Sir W. Jones ... > identified Buddha first with Odin and afterwards with > Shishak.” We are in the nineteenth century, not in the > eighteenth; and though to write books on the authority > of the earliest Orientalists may in one sense be viewed > as a mark of respect for old age, it is not always safe > to try the experiment in our times. Hence this highly > instructive volume lacks one important feature which > would have made it still more interesting. The author > should have added after Prometheus the “Roman,” and > Alcides the _Egyptian god_ (p. 266) a seventeenth > “crucified Saviour” to the list, “Venus, god of the > war,” introduced to an admiring world by Mr. Artemus > Ward the “showman!” > > [706] “Khandogya-upanishad,” viii., 3, 4; Max Müller: “Veda.” > > [707] “Idra Rabba,” x., 117. > > [708] Introd. in “Sohar,” pp. 305-312. > > [709] John xiv. > > [710] “Les Hauts Phénomènes de la Magie,” p. 74. > > [711] Barthelemy St. Hilaire: “Le Buddha et sa Religion,” > Paris, 1860. > > [712] “Journal des Débats,” Avril, 1853. > > [713] “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie.” > > [714] “Timæus;” “Polit.,” 269, E. > > [715] “Timæus,” 29; “Phædrus,” 182, 247; “Repub.,” ii., 379, B. > > [716] “Laws,” iv., 715, E.; x., 901, C. > > [717] “Repub.,” ii., 381; “Thæt.,” 176, A. > > [718] “Laws,” x., 901, D. > > [719] “Laws,” iv., 716, A.; “Repub.,” x., 613, A. > > [720] “Phædrus,” 246, C. > > [721] E. Zeller: “Plato and the Old Academy.” > > [722] “Laws,” x., 905, D. > > [723] Max Müller: “Buddhism,” April, 1862. > > [724] Of the Abbé Huc, Max Müller thus wrote in his “Chips > from a German Workshop,” vol. i., p. 187: “The late Abbé > Huc pointed out the similarities between the Buddhist > and Roman Catholic ceremonials with such a _naïveté_, > that, to his surprise, he found his delightful ‘Travels > in Thibet’ placed on the ‘Index.’ ‘One cannot fail being > struck,’ he writes, ‘with their great resemblance with > the Catholicism. The bishop’s crosier, the mitre, the > dalmatic, the round hat that the great lamas wear in > travel ... the mass, the double choir, the psalmody, the > exorcisms, the censer with five chains to it, opening > and shutting at will, the blessings of the lamas, who > extend their right hands over the head of the faithful > ones, the rosary, the celibacy of the clergy, the > penances and retreats, the cultus of the Saints, the > fasting, the processions, the litanies, the holy water; > such are the similarities of the Buddhists with > ourselves. He might have added tonsure, relics, and the > confessional.” > > [725] “Crawford’s Mission to Siam,” p. 182. > > [726] Many are the marvels recorded as having taken place at > his death, or we should rather say his translation; for > he did not die as others do, but having suddenly > disappeared, while a dazzling light filled the cavern > with glory, his body was again seen upon its subsidence. > When this heavenly light gave place to the habitual > semi-darkness of the gloomy cave--then only, says > Ginsburg, “the disciples of Israel perceived that the > lamp of Israel was extinguished.” His biographers tell > us that there were voices heard from Heaven during the > preparation for his funeral and at his interment. When > the coffin was lowered down into the deep cave excavated > for it, a flame broke out from it, and a voice mighty > and majestic pronounced these words in the air: “This is > he who caused the earth to quake, and the kingdoms to > shake!” > > [727] Plot: “Natural History of Staffordshire.” Published in 1666. > > [728] “Die Kabbala,” 75; “Sod,” vol. ii. > > [729] “Die Kabbala,” 47. > > [730] He relates how Rabbi Eleazar, in the presence of Vespasian > and his officers, expelled demons from several men by > merely applying to the nose of the demoniac one of the > number of roots recommended by King Solomon! The > distinguished historian assures us that the Rabbi drew > out the devils through the nostrils of the patients in > the name of Solomon and by the power of the incantations > composed by the king-kabalist. Josephus: “Antiquities,” > VIII., ii., 5. > > [731] There are _unconscious_ miracles produced sometimes, > which, like the phenomena now called “Spiritual,” are > caused through natural cosmic powers, mesmerism, > electricity, and the invisible beings who are always at > work around us, whether they be human or elementary > spirits. > > [732] It dates from 1540; and in 1555 a general outcry was > raised against them in some parts of Portugal, Spain, > and other countries. > > [733] Extracts from this “Arrêt” were compiled into a work in > 4 vols., 12mo., which appeared at Paris, in 1762, and > was known as “Extraits des Assertions, etc.” In a work > entitled “Réponse aux Assertions,” an attempt was made > by the Jesuits to throw discredit upon the facts > collected by the Commissioners of the French Parliament > in 1762, as for the most part malicious fabrications. > “To ascertain the validity of this impeachment,” says > the author of “The Principles of the Jesuits,” “the > libraries of the two universities of the British Museum > and of Sion College have been searched for the authors > cited; and in every instance where the volume was found, > the correctness of the citation established.” > > [734] “Theologiæ Moralis,” Tomus iv., Lugduni, 1663. > > [735] Tom. iv., lib. xxviii., sect. 1, de Præcept I., c. 20, > n. 184. > > [736] Ibid., sect. 2, de Præcept I., Probl. 113, n. 586. > > [737] Richard Arsdekin, “Theologia Tripartita,” Coloniæ, > 1744, Tom. ii., Pars. ii., Tr. 5, c. 1, § 2, n. 4. > > [738] “Theologia Moralis nunc pluribus partibus aucta, à R. > P. Claudio Lacroix, Societatis Jesu.” Coloniæ, 1757 > (Ed. Mus. Brit.). > > [739] Tom. ii., lib. iii., Pars. 1, Fr. 1, c. 1, dub. 2, > resol. viii. What a pity that the counsel for the > defense had not bethought them to cite this orthodox > legalization of “cheating by palmistry or otherwise,” at > the recent religio-scientific prosecution of the medium > Slade, in London. > > [740] Niccolini: “History of the Jesuits.” > > [741] “Royal Masonic Cyclopædia,” p. 369. > > [742] Imago: “Primi Sæculi Societatis Jesu,” lib. 1., c. 3., > p. 64. > > [743] Anthony Escobar: “Universæ Theologiæ Moralis receptiore, > absque lite sententiæ,” etc., Tomus i., Lugduni, 1652 > (Ed. Bibl. Acad. Cant.). “Idem sentio, e breve illud > tempus ad unius horæ spatium traho. Religiosus itaque > habitum demittens assignato hoc temporis interstitio, > non incurrit excommunicationem, _etiamsi dimittat non > solùm ex causâ, turpi, scilicet fornicandi, aut clàm > aliquid abripiendi, set etiam ut incognitus ineat > lupanar_.” Probl. 44, n. 213. > > [744] Pars. 11, Tra. 2, c. 31. > > [745] See “The Principles of the Jesuits, Developed in a > Collection of Extracts from their own Authors.” London, > 1839. > > [746] From the Pastoral of the Archbishop of Cambrai. > > [747] See “Jerusalem Talmud, Synhedrin,” c. 7, etc. > > [748] “Franck,” pp. 55, 56. > > [749] Charles Antony Casnedi: “Crisis Theologica,” > Ulyssipone, 1711. Tome i., Disp. 6, Sect. 2, § 1, n. 59. > > [750] Ibid. > > [751] Ibid., § 2, n. 78. > > [752] Ibid., Sect. 5, § 1, n. 165. > > [753] “Thesis propugnata in regio Soc. Jes. Collegio > celeberrimæ Academiæ Cadomensis, die Veneris, 30 Jan., > 1693.” Cadomi, 1693. > > [754] Michelet and Quinet of the College of France: “The > Jesuits.” > > [755] Champollion: “Hermes Trismegistus,” xxvii. > > [756] “De Cultu Adorationis Libri Tres.,” Lib. iii., Disp. i., > c. 2. > > [757] Ibid. > > [758] “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., p. 94. > > [759] Ibid., vol. v., p. 129. > > [760] “And God created ... every _nephesh_ (life) that > moveth” (Gen. i. 21), meaning animals; and (Genesis ii. > 7) it is said: “And man became a _nephesh_” (living > soul); which shows that the word _nephesh_ was > indifferently applied to _immortal_ man and to _mortal_ > beast. “And surely your blood of your _nepheshim_ > (lives) will I require; at the hand of every beast will > I require it, and at the hand of man” (Gen. ix. 5). > “Escape for _nepheshe_” (escape for thy _life_ is > translated) (Gen. xix. 17). “Let us not kill him,” reads > the English version (Gen. xxxvii. 21). “Let us not kill > his _nephesh_,” is the Hebrew text. “_Nephesh_ for > _nephesh_,” says Leviticus (xvii. 8). “He that killeth > any man shall surely be put to death.” “He that smiteth > the _nephesh_ of a man” (Levit. xxiv. 17); and from > verse 18 and following it reads: “And he that killeth a > beast (nephesh) shall make it good.... Beast for beast,” > whereas the original text has it “nephesh for nephesh.” > > 1 Kings i. 12; ii. 23; iii. 11; xix. 2, 3, all have > _nephesh_ for life and soul. “Then shall thy _nepheshah_ > for (his) _nepheshu_,” explains the prophet in 1 Kings > xx. 39. > > Truly, unless we read the “Old Testament” kabalistically > and comprehend the hidden meaning thereof, it is very > little we can learn from it as regards the soul’s > immortality. The common people among Hebrews had not the > slighest idea of soul and spirit, and made no difference > between _life_, _blood_, and _soul_, calling the latter > the “breath of life.” And King James’s translators have > made such a jumble of it that _no one but a kabalist can > restore the Bible to its original form_. > > [761] In “Præcepta Decaloga” (Edit. of Sion Library), Tom. i., > lib. iv., c. 2, n. 7, 8. > > [762] Opinion of John de Dicastille, Sect. xv., “De Justitia > et Jure,” etc., cens. pp. 319, 320. > > [763] “Cursûs Theologici,” Tomus v., Duaci, 1642, Disp. 36, > Sect. 5, n. 118. > > [764] Name of the highest Egyptian hierophants. > > [765] “Crata Nepoa, or the Mysteries of the Ancient Egyptian > Priests.” > > [766] See Matthew xvi. 18, where it is mistranslated “the > gates of Hell.” > > [767] Humberto Malhandrini: “Ritual of Initiations,” p. 105. > Venice, 1657. > > [768] Pages 43, 44, note f. Niccolini of Rome, author of > “The History of the Pontificate of Pius IX.;” “The Life > of Father Gavazzi,” etc. > > [769] And begged in the name of _Him_ who had nowhere to lay > his head! > > [770] In “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” Bunsen > gives the cycle of 21,000 years, which he adopts to > facilitate the chronological calculations for the > reconstruction of the universal history of mankind. He > shows that this cycle “for the nutation of the > ecliptic,” arrived at its apex in the year 1240 of our > era. He says: > > “The cycle divides itself into two halves of 10,500 (or > twice 5,250) years each. > > “The beginning of the first half: > > The highest point will be 19,760 B.C. > The lowest 9,260 > Consequently the middle of the descending > line (beginning of second quarter) will > be 14,510 > The middle of the ascending line > (beginning of fourth quarter) 4,010 > > “The new cycle, which began in 1240 of our era, will come > to the end of its first quarter in 4010 A.D.” > > The Baron explains that “in round numbers, the most > favorable epochs for our hemisphere since the great > catastrophe in Middle Asia (Deluge 10,000 years B.C.) > are: the 4,000 years before, and the 4,000 years after > Christ; and the beginning of the first epoch, _of which > alone we can judge_, as it alone is complete before us, > coincides exactly with the beginnings of national > history, or (what is identical) with the beginning of > _our consciousness_ of continuous existence” (“Egypt’s > Place in Universal History,” Key, p. 102). > > “Our consciousness” must mean, we suppose, the > consciousness _of scientists_, who accept nothing _on > faith_, but much on unverified hypotheses. We do not say > this with reference to the above-quoted author, earnest > scholar and noble champion that he is, of freedom in the > Christian Church, but generally. Baron Bunsen has well > found for himself that a man cannot remain an honest > scientist and please the clerical party. Even the little > concessions he made in favor of the antiquity of > mankind, brought on him, in 1859, the most insolent > denunciations, such as “We lose all faith in the > author’s judgment ... he has yet to learn the very first > principles of historical criticisms ... extravagant and > _unscientific_ exaggeration,” and so on--the pious > vituperator closing his learned denunciations by > assuring the public that Baron Bunsen “_cannot even > construct a Greek sentence_” (“Quarterly Review,” 1859; > see also “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” chap. on > Egyptological Works and English Reviews). But we do > regret that Baron Bunsen had no better opportunity to > examine the “Kabala” and the Brahmanical books of the > Zodiacs. > > [771] “The Funeral Ritual of the Deeds of Horus.” > > [772] Bunsen: “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., > p. 133. > > [773] Lepsius: “Abth.,” iii.; Bl., 276; Bunsen, 134. > > [774] In the eighty-first chapter of the “Ritual” the soul is > called _the germ of lights_ and in the seventy-ninth the > Demiurgos, or one of the creators. > > [775] “Ritual,” vi., 44; Champollion: “Manifestations to the > Light;” Lepsius: “Book of the Dead;” Bunsen: “Egypt’s > Place in Universal History.” > > [776] We cannot help quoting a remark by Baron Bunsen in > relation to the “Word” being identical with the > “Ineffable Name” of the Masons and the kabalists. While > explaining the “Ritual,” some of the details of which > “resemble rather the _enchantments of a magician than > solemn rites_, although a hidden and mystical meaning > must have been attached to them” (the honest admission > of this much, at least, is worth something), the author > observes: “The mystery of names, the knowledge of which > was a sovereign virtue, and which, at a later period, > degenerated into the _rank heresy_ (?) of the Gnostics > and the magic of enchanters, appears to have _existed > not only in Egypt but elsewhere_. Traces of it are found > in the ‘Cabala’ ... it prevailed in the Greek and > Asiatic mythology” (“Egypt’s Place, etc.,” p. 147). > > We then see the representatives of Science agreeing upon > this one point, at least. The initiates of all countries > had the same “mystery name.” And now it remains with the > scholars to prove that every adept, hierophant, > magician, or enchanter (Moses and Aaron included) as > well as every kabalist, from the institution of the > Mysteries down to the present age, has been either a > knave or a fool, for believing in the efficacy of this > name. > > [777] See Chap. I., pp. 42, 43, note, of this volume. > > [778] See “The Principles of the Jesuits, Developed in a > Collection of Extracts from their own Authors,” London: > J. G. and F. Rivington, St. Paul’s Churchyard, and > Waterloo Place, Pall Mall; H. Wix, 41 New Bridge Street, > Blackfriars; J. Leslie, Queen Street, etc., 1839. > Section xvii., “High Treason and Regicide,” containing > thirty-four extracts from the same number of authorities > (of the Society of Jesus) upon the question, among > others the opinion thereof of the famous _Robert > Bellarmine_. So Emmanuel Sa says: “The rebellion of an > ecclesiastic against a king, _is not a crime of high > treason, because he is not subject to the king_” > (“Confessarium Aphorismi Verbo Clericus,” Ed. Coloniæ, > 1615, Ed. Coll. Sion). “_The people_,” says John > Bridgewater, “_are not only permitted, but they are > required and their duty demands_, that at the mandate of > the Vicar of Christ, _who is the sovereign pastor over > all nations of the earth_, the faith which they had > previously made with such princes should not be kept” > (“Concertatio Ecclesiæ Catholicæ in Angliâ adversus > Calvino Papistas,” Resp. fol. 348). > > In “De Rege et Regis Institutione, Libri Tres,” 1640 > (Edit. Mus. Brit.), John Mariana goes even farther: “If > the circumstances will permit,” he says, “it will be > lawful to destroy with the sword the prince who is > declared a public enemy.... _I shall never consider that > man to have done wrong, who, favouring the public > wishes, should attempt to kill him_,” and “_to put them > to death is not only lawful, but a laudble and glorious > action_.” Est tamen salutaris cogitatio, ut sit > principibus persuasum si rempublicam oppresserint, si > vitiis et fæditate intolerandi erunt, _eâ conditione > vivere, ut non jure tantum, sed cum laude et gloriâ > perimi possint_” (Lib. i., c. 6, p. 61). > > But the most delicate piece of Christian teaching is > found in the precept of this Jesuit when he argues upon > the best and surest way of killing kings and statesmen. > “In my own opinion,” he says, “deleterious drugs should > not be given to an enemy, neither should a deadly poison > be mixed with his food or in his cup.... Yet _it will > indeed be lawful to use this method_ in the case in > question (that _he who should kill the tyrant would be > highly esteemed, both in favor and in praise_,” for “_it > is a glorious thing to exterminate this pestilent and > mischievous race from the community of men_), not to > constrain the person who is to be killed to take of > himself the poison which, inwardly received, would > deprive him of life, _but to cause it to be outwardly > applied by another_ without his intervention; as, when > there is so much strength in the poison, that if spread > upon a seat or on the clothes it would be sufficiently > powerful to cause death” (Ibid., lib. i., c. f., p. 67). > “It was thus that Squire attempted the life of Queen > Elizabeth, at the instigation of the Jesuit Walpole.”-- > Pasquier: “Catéchisme des Jésuites” (1677, p. 350, > etc.), and “Rapin” (fol., Lond., 1733, vol. ii., book > xvii., p. 148). > > [779] Puffendorf: “Droit de la Nat.,” book iv., ch. 1. > > [780] “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of > old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself.... But I say > unto you, swear not at all,” etc. “But let your > communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is > more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew v. 33, 34, > 37). > > [781] Barbeyrac, in his notes on Puffendorf, shows that the > Peruvians used no oath, but a simple averment before > the Inca, and were never found perjuring themselves. > > [782] We beg the reader to remember that we do not mean by > Christianity the _teachings of Christ_, but those of > his alleged servants--the clergy. > > [783] Dr. Anderson’s “Defence,” quoted by John Yarker in his > “Notes on the Scientific and Religious Mysteries of > Antiquity.” > > [784] Epiphanius included, we must think, after that, in > violation of his oath, he had sent over seventy persons > into exile, who belonged to the secret society he > betrayed. > > [785] United States Anti-Masonic Convention: “Obligation of > Masonic Oaths,” speech delivered by Mr. Hopkins, of > New York. > > [786] John Yarker, Junr.: “Notes on the Scientific and Religious > Mysteries of Antiquity; the Gnosis and Secret Schools of > the Middle Ages; Modern Rosicrucianism; and the various > Rites and Degrees of Free and Accepted Masonry.” London, > 1872. > > [787] Ibid., p. 151. > > [788] John Yarker: “Notes, etc.,” p. 150. > > [789] “Proceedings of the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand > Inspectors-General of the Thirty-third and Last Degree, > etc., etc. Held at the city of New York, August 15, > 1876,” pp. 54, 55. > > [790] “Histoire des sectes religieuses,” vol. ii., pp. 392-428. > > [791] “Notitia codicis græci evangelium Johannis variatum > continentis,” Havaniæ, 1828. > > [792] This is the reason why unto this day the fanatical and > kabalistic members of the Nazarenes of Basra (Persia), > have a tradition of the glory, wealth, and power of > their “Brothers,” agents, or _messengers_ as they term > them in Malta and Europe. There are some few remaining > yet, they say, who will sooner or later restore the > doctrine of their Prophet Iohanan (St. John), the son of > Lord Jordan, and eliminate from the hearts of humanity > every other false teaching. > > [793] The two great pagodas of Madura and Benares, are built > in the form of a cross, each wing being equal in extent > (See Mauri: “Indian Antiquities,” vol. iii., pp. > 360-376). > > [794] Findel: “History of Freemasonry,” Appendix. > > [795] “A Sketch of the Knight Templars and the Knights of > St. John of Jerusalem,” by Richard Woof, F.S.A., > Commander of the Order of Masonic Knight Templars. > > [796] Findel: “History of Freemasonry,” Appendix. > > [797] “General History of Freemasonry,” p. 218. > > [798] See Gaffarel’s version; Eliphas Levi’s “La Science des > Esprits;” Mackenzie’s “Royal Masonic Cyclopædia;” > “Sepher Toldos Jeshu;” and other kabalistical and > Rabbinical works. The story given is this. A virgin > named Mariam, betrothed to a young man of the name of > Iohanan, was outraged by another man named Ben Panther > or Joseph Panther, says “Sepher Toldos Jeshu.” “Her > betrothed, learning of her misfortune, left her, at the > same time forgiving her. The child born was Jesus, named > Joshua. Adopted by his uncle Rabbi Jehosuah, he was > initiated into the secret doctrine by Rabbi Elhanan, a > kabalist, and then by the Egyptian priests, who > consecrated him High Pontiff of the Universal Secret > Doctrine, on account of his great mystic qualities. Upon > his return into Judea his learning and powers excited > the jealousy of the Rabbis, and they publicly reproached > him with his origin and insulted his mother. Hence the > words attributed to Jesus at Cana: ‘Woman, what have I > to do with thee?’ (See John ii. 4.) His disciples having > rebuked him with his unkindness to his mother, Jesus > repented, and having learned from them the particulars > of the sad story, he declared that “My mother has not > sinned, she has not lost her innocence; she is immaculate > and yet she is a mother.... As for myself I have no > father, in this world, I am the Son of God and of > humanity!” Sublime words of confidence and trust in the > unseen Power, but how fatal to the millions upon > millions of men murdered because of these very words > being so thoroughly misunderstood! > > [799] We speak of the American Chapter of Rose Croix. > > [800] Pythagoras. > > [801] The first _Grand Chapter_ was instituted at Philadelphia, > in 1797. > > [802] See Yarker’s “Notes on the Mysteries of Antiquity,” > p. 153 > > [803] See 2 Kings, xxiii. 7, Hebrew text, and English, the > former especially. In the degree of Kadosh, a lecture is > given upon the descent of Masonry through Moses, > Solomon, the Essenes, and the Templars. Christian K. > K.’s may get some light as to the kind of “Temple” their > ancestors would, in such a genealogical descent, have > been attached to, by consulting verse 13 of the same > chapter as above quoted. > > [804] See Eliphas Levi’s “Dogme et Rituel,” vol. i. > > [805] Yeva is _Heva_, the feminine counterpart of Jehovah-Binah. > > [806] We find a very suggestive point in connection with > this appellation of Jehovah, “Son of ancient Kings,” in > the Jaïna sect of Hindustan, known as the Sauryas. They > admit that Brahma is a Devatâ, but deny his creative > power, and call him the “Son of a King.” See “Asiatic > Researches,” vol. ix., p. 279. > > [807] As, for instance, Shaddai, Elohim, Sabaoth, etc. > > [808] Cahen’s “Hebrew Bible,” iii., p. 117. > > [809] The Greek monks have this “miracle” performed for the > “faithful” every year on Easter night. Thousands of > pilgrims are there waiting with their tapers to light > them at this sacred fire, which at the precise hour and > when needed, descends from the chapel-vault and hovers > about the sepulchre in tongues of fire until every one > of the thousand pilgrims has lighted his wax taper at > it. > > [810] The _Rishi_ are identical with _Manu_. The ten Pragâpati, > sons of Viradj, called Maritchi, Atri, Angira, Pôlastya, > Poulaha, Kratu, Pratcheta, Vasishta, Brighu, and Narada, > are euhemerized _Powers_, the Hindu Sephiroth. These > emanate the seven Rishi, or Manus, the chief of whom > issued himself from the “uncreated.” He is the Adam of > earth, and signifies man. His “sons,” the following six > Manus, represent each a new race of men, and in the > total they are _humanity_ passing gradually through the > primitive seven stages of evolution. > > [811] In days of old, when the Brahmans studied more than they > do now the hidden sense of their philosophy, they > explained that each of these six distinct races which > preceded ours had disappeared. But now they pretend that > a specimen was preserved which was not destroyed with > the rest, but reached the present _seventh_ stage. Thus > they, the Brahmans are the specimens of the heavenly > Manu, and issued from the mouth of Brahma; while the > Sudra was created from his foot. > > [812] To avoid discussion we adopt the palæographical conclusions > arrived at by Martin Haug and some other cautious > scholars. Personally we credit the statements of the > Brahmans and those of Halhed, the translator of the > “Sastras.” > > [813] The god Heptaktis. > > [814] The sanctuary of the initiation. > > [815] “Comparative Mythology.” > > [816] While having no intention to enter at present upon a > discussion as to the nomadic races of the “Rhematic > period,” we reserve the right to question the full > propriety of terming that portion of the primitive > people from whose traditions the “Vedas” sprang into > existence, Aryans. Some scientists find the existence of > these Aryans not only unproved by science, but the > traditions of Hindustan protesting against such an > assumption. > > [817] Without the esoteric explanation, the “Old Testament” > becomes an absurd jumble of meaningless tales--nay, > worse than that, it must rank high with _immoral_ books. > It is curious that Professor Max Müller, such a profound > scholar in Comparative Mythology, should be found saying > of the pragâpatis and Hindu gods that they are masks > _without actors_; and of Abraham and other mythical > patriarchs that they were real living men; of Abraham > especially, we are told (see “Semitic Monotheism”) that > he “stands before us as a figure second only to one in > the whole history of the world.” > > [818] The italics are our own. “The Vedas,” lecture by Max > Müller, p. 75. > > [819] “Chips,” vol. i., p. 8. > > [820] We believe that we have elsewhere given the contrary > opinion, on the subject of “Atharva-Veda,” of Prof. > Whitney, of Yale College. > > [821] See Baron Bunsen’s “Egypt,” vol. v. > > [822] “Chips,” vol. i.; “The Vedas.” > > [823] Max Müller: Lecture on “The Vedas.” > > [824] Julian: “In Matrem,” p. 173; Julian: “Oratio,” v., 172. > > [825] Lyd.: “De Mensibus,” iv., 38-74; “Movers,” p. 550; > Dunlap: “Saba,” p. 3. > > [826] “Westminster Review:” Septenary Institutions; “Stone > Him to Death.” > > [827] “Di Verbo Mirifico.” > > [828] Idra Suta: “Sohar,” book iii., p. 292 b. The Supreme > consulting with the Architect of the world--his > Logos--about creation. > > [829] Idra Suta: “Sohar,” iii., 135 b. If the chapters of > Genesis and the other Mosaic books, as well as the > subjects, are muddled up, the fault is the compiler’s-- > not that of oral tradition. Hilkiah and Josiah had to > commune with Huldah, the prophetess, hence resort to > _magic_ to understand the word of the “Lord God of > Israel,” most conveniently found by Hilkiah (2 Kings, > xxiii.); and that it has passed still later through more > than one revision and remodelling is but too well proved > by its frequent incongruities, repetitions, and > contradictions. > > [830] This assimilation of the deluge to an earthquake on the > Assyrian tablets would go to prove that the antediluvian > nations were well acquainted with other geological > cataclysms besides the deluge, which is represented in > the Bible as the _first_ calamity which befel humanity, > and a punishment. > > [831] George Smith notes in the tablets, first the creation > of the moon, and then of the sun: “Its beauty and > perfection are extolled, and the regularity of its > orbit, which led to its being considered the type of a > judge and the regulator of the world.” Did this story of > the deluge relate simply to a cosmogonical > cataclysm--even were it universal--why should the > goddess Ishtara or Astoreth (the moon) speak of the > _creation of the sun_ after the deluge? The waters might > have reached as high as the mountain of _Nizir_ > (Chaldean version), or Jebel-Djudi (the deluge-mountains > of the Arabian legends), or yet Ararat (of the biblical > narrative), and even Himalaya of the Hindu tradition, > and yet not reach the sun--even the Bible itself stopped > short of such a miracle. It is evident that the deluge > of the people who first recorded it had another meaning, > less problematical and far more philosophical than that > of a _universal_ deluge, of which there are no > geological traces whatever. > > [832] The “dead letter that killeth,” is magnificently > illustrated in the case of the Jesuit de Carrière, > quoted in the “Bible dans l’Inde.” The following > dissertation represents the spirit of the whole Catholic > world: “So that the creation of the world,” writes this > faithful son of Loyola, explaining the biblical > chronology of Moses, “and all that is recorded in > Genesis, might have become known to Moses through > _recitals personally made to him by his fathers_. > Perhaps, even, the memories yet existed among the > Israelites, and from those recollections he may have > recorded the dates of births and deaths of the > patriarchs, the numbering of their children, and the > names of the different countries in which each became > established under the guidance _of the holy spirit, > which we must always regard as the chief author of the > sacred books_”!!! > > [833] See chapter xv. and last of Part I. > > [834] “Description, etc., of the People of India,” by the > Abbé J. A. Dubois, missionary in Mysore, vol. i., p. 186. > > [835] “Fétichisme, Polythéisme, Monothéisme,” pp. 170, 171. > > [836] Against the latter assumption derived solely from the > accounts of the Bible we have every historical fact. > 1st. There are no proofs of these twelve tribes having > ever existed; that of Levi was a priestly caste and all > the others imaginary. 2d. Herodotus, the most accurate > of historians, who was in Assyria when Ezra flourished, > never mentions the Israelites at all? Herodotus was born > in 484 B.C. > > [837] Dr. Kennicot himself, and Bruns, under his direction, > about 1780, collated 692 manuscripts of the Hebrew > “Bible.” Of all these, only _two_ were credited to the > tenth century, and three to a period as early as the > eleventh and twelfth. The others ranged between the > thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. > > In his “Introduzione alla Sacra Scrittura,” pp. 34-47, > De Rossi, of Parma, mentions 1,418 MSS. collated, and > 374 editions. The oldest manuscript “Codex,” he > asserts--that of Vienna--dates A.D. 1019; the next, > Reuchlin’s, of Carlsruhe, 1038. “There is,” he declares, > “nothing in the manuscripts of the Hebrew ‘Old > Testament’ extant of an earlier date than the eleventh > century after Christ.” > > [838] “India in Greece,” Preface, ix. > > [839] “Chips,” vol. i. > > [840] “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., p. 77. > > [841] Ibid., p. 78. > > [842] “Chips;” “Aitareya Brahmanam.” > > [843] Dr. M. Haug, Superintendent of the Sanscrit studies in > the Poona College, Bombay. > > [844] Pococke belongs to that class of Orientalists who > believe that Buddhism preceded Brahmanism, and was the > religion of the earliest Vedas, Gautama having been but > the restorer of it in its purest form, which after him > degenerated again into dogmatism. > > [845] “India in Greece,” p. 200. > > [846] The Asiatic origin of the first dwellers in the Nilotic > Valley is clearly demonstrated by concurrent and > independent testimony. Cuvier and Blumenbach affirm that > all the skulls of mummies which they had the opportunity > of examining, presented the Caucasian type. A recent > American physiologist (Dr. Morton) has also argued for > the same conclusion (“Crania Ægyptiaca.” Philadelphia, > 1844). > > [847] The late Rajah of Travancore was succeeded by the elder > son of his sister now reigning, the Maharajah _Rama > Vurmah_. The next heirs are the sons of his deceased > sister. In case the female line is interrupted by death, > the royal family is obliged to adopt the daughter of > some other Rajah, and unless daughters are born to this > Rana another girl is adopted, and so on. > > [848] There are some Orientalists who believe that this > custom was introduced only after the early Christian > settlements in Æthiopia; but as under the Romans the > population of this country was nearly all changed, the > element becoming wholly Arabic, we may, without doubting > the statement, believe that it was the predominating > Arab influence which had altered the earliest mode of > writing. Their present method is even more analogous to > the Devanāgarï, and other more ancient Indian Alphabets, > which read from left to right; and their letters show no > resemblance to the Phœnician characters. Moreover, all > the ancient authorities corroborate our assertion still > more. Philostratus makes the Brahmin Iarchus say (V. A., > iii., 6) that the Æthiopians were originally _an Indian > race_, compelled to emigrate from the mother-land for > sacrilege and regicide (see Pococke’s “India,” etc., > ii., p. 206). An Egyptian is made to remark, that he had > heard from his father, that the Indians were the wisest > of men, and that the Æthiopians, a colony of the > Indians, preserved the wisdom and usages of their > fathers, and acknowledged their ancient origin. Julius > Africanus (in Eusebius and Syncellus), makes the same > statement. And Eusebius writes: “The Æthiopians, > emigrating from the river Indus, settled in the vicinity > of Egypt” (Lemp., Barker’s edition, “Meroë”). > > [849] They might have been also, as Pococke thinks, simply the > tribes of the “Oxus,” a name derived from the “Ookshas,” > those people whose wealth lay in the “Ox,” for he shows > _Ookshan_ to be a crude form of _Ooksha_, an ox (in > Sanscrit _ox_ is as in English). He believes that it was > they, “the lords of the Oxus,” who gave their name to > the sea around which they ruled in many a country, the > _Euxine_ or Ooksh-ine. _Pali_ means a shepherd, and > _s’than_ is a land. “The warlike tribes of the Oxus > penetrated into Egypt, then swept onward to Palestine > (PALI-STAN), the land of the Palis or shepherds, and > there effected more permanent settlements” (“India in > Greece”). Yet, if even so, it would only the more > confirm our opinion that the Jews are a hybrid race, for > the “Bible” shows them freely intermarrying, not alone > with the Canaanites, but with every other nation or race > they come in contact with. > > [850] Prof. A. Wilder: “Notes.” > > [851] Moses reigned over the people of Israel in the > wilderness for over _forty_ years. > > [852] The name of the wife of Moses was Zipporah (Exodus ii.). > > [853] About 1040, the Jewish doctors removed their schools > from Babylonia to Spain, and of the four great rabbis > that flourished during the next four centuries, their > works all show different readings, and abound with > mistakes in the manuscripts. The “Masorah” made things > still worse. Many things that then existed in the > manuscripts are there no longer, and their works teem > with interpolations as well as with _lacunæ_. The oldest > Hebrew manuscript belongs to this period. Such is the > divine revelation we are to credit. > > [854] No chronology was accepted by the rabbis as authoritative > till the twelfth century. The 40 and 1,000 are not exact > numbers, but have been crammed in to answer monotheism > and the exigencies of a religion calculated to appear > different from that of the Pagans. (“Chron. Orth.,” p. > 238). One finds in the “Pentateuch” only events > occurring about two years before the fabled “Exodus” and > the last year. The rest of the chronology is nowhere, > and can be followed only through kabalistic > computations, with a key to them in the hand. > > [855] The Gnostics, called Collyridians, had transferred > from Astoreth their worship to Mary, also Queen of > Heaven. They were persecuted and put to death by the > orthodox Christians as heretics. But if these Gnostics > had established her worship by offering her sacrifices > of cakes, cracknels, or fine wafers, it was because they > imagined her to have been born of an immaculate virgin, > as Christ is alleged to have been born of his mother. > And now, the Pope’s _infallibility_ having been > recognized and accepted, its first practical > manifestation is the revival of the Collyridian belief > as an article of faith (See “Apocryphal New Testament;” > Hone: “The Gospel of Mary attributed to Matthew”). > > [856] Hargrave Jennings: “Rosicrucians.” > > [857] “Progress of Religious Ideas.” > > [858] Lilith was Adam’s _first_ wife “before he _married_ > Eve,” of whom “he begat nothing but devils;” which > strikes us as a very novel, if pious, way of explaining > a very philosophical allegory: Burton’s “Anatomy of > Melancholy.” > > [859] It is in commemoration of the Ark of the Deluge that > the Phœnicians, those bold explorers of the “deep,” > carried, fixed on the prow of their ships, the image of > the goddess Astartè, who is Elissa, Venus Erycina of > Sicily, and Dido, whose name is the feminine of David. > > [860] Dr. Lundy: “Monumental Christianity.” > > [861] Lucian, iv. 276. > > [862] 1 Kings xviii. All this is allegorical, and, what is > more, purely magical. For Elijah is bent upon an > incantation. > > [863] The Talmud books say that Noah was himself the _dove_ > (spirit), thus identifying him still more with the > Chaldean Nouah. Baal is represented with the wings of a > dove, and the Samaritans worshipped on Mount Gerizim the > image of a dove. “Talmud, Tract. Chalin.,” fol. 6, col. 1. > > [864] Numbers x. 29, 31. > > [865] The Bible contradicts itself as well as the Chaldean > account, for in chapter vii. of Genesis it shows > “every one of them” perishing in the deluge. > > [866] Numbers xiii. > > [867] We do not see why the clergy--especially the Catholic-- > should object to our statement that the patriarchs are > all signs of the zodiac, and the old gods of the > “heathen” as well. There was a time, and that less than > two centuries ago, when they themselves exhibited the > most fervent desire to relapse into sun and star > worship. This pious and curious attempt was denounced > but a few months since by Camille Flammarion, the French > astronomer. He shows two Augsburgian Jesuits, Schiller > and Bayer, who felt quite anxious to change the names of > the whole Sabean host of the starry heaven, and worship > them again under Christian names! Having anathematized > the idolatrous sun-worshippers for over fifteen > centuries, the Church now seriously proposed to continue > heliolatry--_to the letter_ this time--as their idea was > to substitute for Pagan myths biblical and (in their > ideas) real personages. They would have called the sun, > Christ; the moon, Virgin Mary; Saturn, Adam; Jupiter, > Moses (!); Mars, Joshua; Venus, John the Baptist; and > Mercury, Elias. And very proper substitutes too, showing > the great familiarity of the Catholic Church with > ancient Pagan and kabalistic learning, and its > readiness, perhaps, to at last confess the source whence > came their own myths. For is not king Messiah the sun, > the Demiurge of the heliolaters, under various names? Is > he not the Egyptian Osiris and the Grecian Apollo? And > what more appropriate name than Virgin Mary for the > Pagan Diana-Astarté, “the Queen of Heaven,” against > which Jeremiah exhausted a whole vocabulary of > imprecations? Such an adoption would have been > historically as well as religiously correct. Two large > plates were prepared, says Flammarion, in a recent > number of “La Nature,” and represented the heavens with > Christian constellations instead of Pagan. Apostles, > popes, saints, martyrs, and personages of the Old and > New Testament completed this Christian Sabeanism. “The > disciples of Loyola used every exertion to make this > plan succeed.” It is curious to find in India among the > Mussulmans the name of Terah, Abraham’s father, Azar or > Azarh, and Azur, which also means fire, and is, at the > same time, the name of the Hindu third solar month (from > June to July), during which the sun is in _Gemini_, and > the full moon near _Sagittarius_. > > [868] Cicero: “De Nat. Deo.,” i., 13. > > [869] “Herodotus,” ii., 145. > > [870] “Monumental Christianity,” p. 3. > > [871] Who but the authors of the “Pentateuch” could have invented > a Supreme God or his angel so thoroughly human as to > require a smear of blood upon the door-post to prevent > his killing one person for another! For gross > materialism this exceeds any theistical conception that > we have noticed in Pagan literature. > > [872] Denon: “Egypt,” ii., pl. 40, No. 8, p. 54. > > [873] Pages 13 and 402. > > [874] In Volney’s “Ruins of Empires” p. 360, it is remarked > that as _Aries_ was in its fifteenth degree 1447 B.C., > it follows that the first degree of “Libra” could not > have coincided with the Vernal equinox more lately than > 15,194 years B.C., to which, if you add 1790 years since > Christ, it appears that 16,984 years have elapsed since > the origin of the _Zodiac_. > > [875] See cuts in Inman’s “Ancient Faiths.” > > [876] Cicero: “De Nat. Deorum,” i., 10. > > [877] Virgil: “Æneid,” vi., 724 ff. > > [878] The term “coats of skin,” is the more suggestive when > we learn that the Hebrew word “skin” used in the > original text, means _human_ skin. The text says: “And > _Java Aleim_ made for Adam and his wife כתנות עור CHITONUT > OUR. The first Hebrew word is the same as the Greek > χιτων--chiton--coat. Parkhurst defines it as _the skin > of men_ or animals ער עור and ערה, OUR, OR, or ORA. > The same word is used at Exodus xxxiv. 30, 35, when the > _skin_ of Moses “shone” (A. Wilder). > > [879] Here, again, the “Masorah,” by converting one name > into another, has helped to falsify the little that was > left original in the primitive Scriptures. > > De Rossi, of Parma, says of the Massoretes, in his > “Compendis,” vol. iv., p. 7: “It is known with what > carefulness Esdras, the most excellent critic they have > had, had _reformed_ [the text] and _corrected_ it, and > restored it to its primary splendor. Of the many > revisions undertaken after him, none are more celebrated > than that of the Massoretes, who came after the sixth > century ... and all the most zealous adorers and > defenders of the “Masorah,” Christians and Jews ... > ingenuously accord and confess that it, such as it > exists, is _deficient_, _imperfect_, _interpolated_, > _full of errors_, and _a most unsafe guide_.” The square > letter was not invented till after the third century. > > [880] Scorpio is the astrological sign of the organs of > reproduction. > > [881] The patriarchs are all convertible in their numbers as > well as interchangeable. According to what they relate, > they become ten, five, seven, twelve, and even fourteen. > The whole system is so complicated that it is an utter > impossibility in a work like this to do more than hint > at certain matters. > > [882] See vol. I. of the present work, p. 32. Alone, the Hindu > calculation by the Zodiac, can give a key to the Hebrew > chronologies and the ages of the patriarchs. If we bear > in mind that, according to the former astronomical and > chronological calculations, out of the fourteen > manwantara (or divine ages), each of which composed of > _twelve_ thousand years of the devas, multiplied by > seventy-one, forms _one period_ of creation--not quite > _seven_ are yet passed, the Hebrew calculation will > become more clear. To help, as much as possible, those > who will be sure to get a good deal bewildered in this > calculation, we will remind the reader that the Zodiac > is divided into 360 degrees, and every sign into thirty > degrees; that in the Samaritan _Bible the age of Enoch > is fixed at 360 years_; that in “Manu,” the divisions of > time are given thus: “The day and the night are composed > of thirty _Mouhourta_. A mouhourta contains thirty > _kalâs_. A month of the mortals is of thirty days, but > it is but _one_ day of the pitris.... A year of the > mortals is one day of the Devas.” > > [883] See Rawlinson’s “Diagrams.” > > [884] In the Brahmanical Zodiac the signs are all presided > over by and dedicated to one of the twelve great gods. > So, 1. Mecha (Aries) is dedicated to Varuna; 2. Vricha > (Taurus), to Yama; 3. Mithuna (Gemini), to Pavana; 4. > Karcataca (Cancer), to Sûrya; 5. Sinha (Leo), to Soma; > 6. Kanya (Virgo), to Kartikeia; 7. Toulha (Libra), to > Kouvera; 8. Vristchica (Scorpio), to Kama; 9. Dhanous > (Sagittarius), to Ganesa; 10. Makara (Capricornus), to > Poulhar; 11. Kumbha (Aquarius), to Indra; and, 12, Minas > (Pisces), to Agni. > > [885] Moor’s “Hindu Pantheon,” pp. 295-302. > > [886] Apollo was also _Abelius_, or Bel. > > [887] Halal is a name of Apollo. The name of Ma_halal_-Eliel > would then be the autumnal sun, of July, and this > patriarch presides over _Leo_ (July) the zodiacal sign. > > [888] See description of the Sephiroth, in chapter iv. > > [889] How servile was this Chaldean _copy_ may be seen in > comparing the Hindu chronology with that of the > Babylonians. According to Manu, the antediluvian > dynasties of the Pradjâpatis reigned 4,320,000 human > years, a whole divine age of the devas in short, or that > length of time which invariably occurs between life on > earth and the dissolution of that life, or pralaya. The > Chaldeans, in their turn, give precisely the same > figures, minus _one_ cipher, to wit: they make their 120 > saros yield a total of 432,000 years. > > [890] Eliphas Levi gives it both in the Greek and Hebrew > versions, but so condensed and arbitrarily that it is > impossible for one who knows less than himself to > understand him. > > [891] See Rabbi Simeon’s dissertation on the primitive Man-Bull > and the horns, “Sohar.” > > [892] “The Nuctameron of the Hebrews;” see Eliphas Levi, > vol. i. > > [893] “Anszuge aus dem Sohar,” p. 13, 15. > > [894] Such is the opinion of the erudite Dr. Jost and > Donaldson. “The Old Testament Books, as we now find > them, seem to have been concluded about 150 years > B.C.... The Jews now sought the other books, which had > been dispersed during the wars, and brought them into > one collection” (Ghillany: “Menschenopfer der Hebraër,” > p. 1). “Sod, the Son of the Man.” Appendix. > > [895] “Jost,” vol. i., p. 51. > > [896] Burder’s “Josephus,” vol. ii., pp. 331-335. > > [897] “Die Kabbala,” p. 95. > > [898] Gaffarel: Introduction to “Book of Enoch.” > > [899] So firmly established seems to have been the reputation > of the Brahmans and Buddhists for the highest morality, > and that since time immemorial, that we find Colonel > Henry Yule, in his admirable edition of “Marco Polo,” > giving the following testimony: “The high virtues > ascribed to the Brahman and Indian merchants were, > perhaps, in part, matter of tradition ... but the eulogy > is so constant among mediæval travellers _that it must > have had a solid foundation_. In fact, it would not be > difficult to trace a chain of similar testimony from > ancient times down to our own. Arrian says no Indian was > ever accused of falsehood. Hwen T’sang ascribes to the > people of India eminent uprightness, honesty, and > disinterestedness. Friar Jordanus (_circa_ 1330) says > the people of Lesser India (Sindh and Western India) > were true in speech and eminent in justice; and we may > also refer to the high character given to the Hindus by > Abul Fazl. But _after 150 years of European trade, > indeed, we find a sad deterioration_.... Yet Pallas, in > the last century, noticing the Bamyan colony at > Astrakhan, says its members were notable for an upright > dealing that made them greatly preferable to Armenians. > And that wise and admirable public servant, the late Sir > William Sleeman, in our own time, has said that he knew > no class of men in the world more strictly honorable > than the mercantile classes of India.”[900] > > The sad examples of the rapid demoralization of _savage_ > American Indians, as soon as they are made to live in a > close proximity with _Christian_ officials and > missionaries, are familiar in our modern days. > > [900] The “Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian,” translated > by Colonel Henry Yule, vol. ii., p. 354. > > [901] At the present moment Mr. O’Grady is Editor of the > “American Builder,” of New York, and is well known for > his interesting letters, “Indian Sketches--Life in the > East,” which he contributed under the pseudonym of > _Hadji Nicka Bauker Khan_, to the Boston “Commercial > Bulletin.” > > [902] Ecclesiastes xii. 13; see Tayler Lewis’s “Metrical > Translation.” > > “The great conclusion here; > Fear God and His commandments keep, for this is all of man.” > > [903] See Micah vi., 6-8, “Noyes’s Translation.” > > [904] Matthew xvii., 37-40. > > [905] “Les Hauts Phénomenes de la Magie,” p. 12, preface. > > [906] “History of Magic, Witchcraft, and Animal Magnetism.” > > [907] See Draper’s “Conflict between Religion and Science.” > > [908] Gospel according to Mark, iii. 29: “He that shall > blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never > forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” > (αμαρτηματος, error). > > [909] Gospel according to Matthew, v. 44. > > [910] “Comparative Mythology,” April, 1856. > > [911] 1st Epistle of John, iii. 8. > > [912] 2 Kings, xviii. 4. It is probable that the fiery serpents > or _Seraphim_ mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of > the book of Numbers were the same as the Levites, or > Ophite tribe. Compare Exodus xxxii. 26-29 with Numbers > xxi. 5-9. The names Heva, חוה, _Hivi_ or Hivite, הוי, and > Levi לוי, all signify a serpent; and it is a curious fact > that the Hivites, or serpent-tribe of Palestine, like > the Levites or Ophites of Israel, were ministers to the > temples. The Gibeonites, whom Joshua assigned to the > service of the sanctuary, were Hivites. > > [913] 1 Chronicles, xxi. 1: “And Satan stood up against Israel > and moved David to number Israel.” 2d Samuel, xxiv. 1: > “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against > Israel, and he moved David against them to say: ‘Go, > number Israel and Judah.’” > > [914] Zechariah iii. 1, 2. A pun or play on words is noticeable; > “adversary” is associated with “Satan,” as if from שטן, to > oppose. > > [915] Jude 9. > > [916] In the “Assyrian Tablets,” Palestine is called “the land > of the Hittites;” and the Egyptian Papyri, declaring the > same thing, also make Seth, the “pillar-god,” their > tutelar deity. > > [917] _Seth_, _Suteh_, or Sat-an, was the god of the aboriginal > nations of Syria. Plutarch makes him the same as Typhon. > Hence he was god of Goshen and Palestine, the countries > occupied by the Israelites. > > [918] “Vendidad,” fargard x., 23: “I combat the dæva Æshma, the > very evil.” “The Yaçnas,” x. 18, speaks likewise of > Æshma-Dæva, or Khasm: “All other sciences depend upon > Æshma, the cunning.” “Serv.,” lvi. 12: “To smite the > wicked Auramanyas (Ahriman, the evil power), to smite > Æshma with the terrible weapon, to smite the Mazanian > dævas, to smite all devas.” > > In the same fargard of the “Vendidad” the Brahman > divinities are involved in the same denunciation with > Æshma-dæva: “I combat India, I combat Sauru, I combat > the Dæva Naonhaiti.” The annotator explains them to be > the Vedic gods, Indus, Gaurea, or Siva, and the two > Aswins. There must be some mistake, however, for Siva, > at the time the “Vedas” were completed, was an > aboriginal or Æthiopian God, the Bala or Bel of Western > Asia. He was not an Aryan or Vedic deity. Perhaps Sûrya > was the divinity intended. > > [919] Jacob Bryant: “Analysis of Ancient Mythology.” > > [920] Plutarch: “de Iside,” xxx., xxxi. > > [921] Wilkinson’s “Ancient Egyptians,” p. 434. > > [922] See “Vendidad,” fargand x. > > [923] Salverte: “Des Sciences Occultes,” appendix, note A. > > [924] The term πειρασμος signifies a trial, or probation. > > [925] 2 Samuel, ii. 5, 15; vi. 1-4. Pliny. > > [926] See 1 Corinthians, v. 5; 2 Corinthians, xi. 14; > 1 Timothy, i. 20. > > [927] 2d Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, xii. In > Numbers xxii. 22 the angel of the Lord is described > as acting the part of a Satan to Balaam. > > [928] 1 Kings, xxii. 19-23. > > [929] Haug: “Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and > Religion of the Parsees.” > > [930] The “Avesta” describes the serpent Dahaka, as of the > region of Bauri or Babylonia. In the Median history are > two kings of the name Deiokes or Dahaka, and Astyages or > Az-dahaka. There were children of Zohak seated on > various Eastern thrones, after Feridun. It is apparent, > therefore, that by Zohak is meant the Assyrian dynasty, > whose symbol was the _purpureum signum draconis_--the > purple sign of the Dragon. From a very remote antiquity > (Genesis xiv.) this dynasty ruled Asia, Armenia, Syria, > Arabia, Babylonia, Media, Persia, Bactria, and > Afghanistan. It was finally overthrown by Cyrus and > Darius Hystaspes, after “1,000 years’” rule. Yima and > Thrætaona, or Jemshid and Feridun, are doubtless > personifications. Zohak probably imposed the Assyrian or > Magian worship of fire upon the Persians. Darius was the > vicegerent of Ahura-Mazda. > > [931] The name in the Gospels is βεελζεβουλ, or Baal of the > Dwelling. It is pretty certain that Apollo, the Delphian > God, was not Hellenian originally, but Phœnician. He was > the Paian or physician, as well as the god of oracles. > It is no great stretch of imagination to identify him > with Baal-_Zebul_, the god of Ekron, or Acheron, > doubtless changed to _Zebub_, or flies, by the Jews in > derision. > > [932] “Against Apion,” i. 25. “The Egyptians took many > occasions to hate and envy us: in the first place > because our ancestors (the Hyk-sos, or shepherds) had > had the dominion over their country, and when they were > delivered from them and gone to their own country, they > lived there in prosperity.” > > [933] Bunsen. The name _Seth_ with the syllable _an_ from the > Chaldean _ana_ or Heaven, makes the term _Satan_. The > punners seem now to have pounced upon it, as was their > wont, and so made it _Satan_ from the verb שטן _Sitan_, > to oppose. > > [934] “Vendidad,” fargard x. The name _Vendidad_ is a > contraction of _Vidæva-data_, ordinances against the > Dævas. > > [935] _Bundahest_, “Ahriman created out of the materials of > darkness Akuman and Ander, then Sauru and Nakit.” > > [936] See Lenoir’s “Du Dragon de Metz,” in “Mémoires de > l’Académie Celtique,” i., 11, 12. > > [937] Plutarch: “Isis and Osiris.” > > [938] “The Origin of Serpent Worship,” by C. Staniland Wake, > M.A.I. New York: J. W. Bouton, 1877. > > [939] “Tree and Serpent Worship,” etc. > > [940] Godfrey Higgins: “Anacalypsis;” Dupuis: “Origines des > Cultes,” iii., 51. > > [941] Martianus Capella: “Hymn to the Sun,” i., ii.; Movers: > “Phiniza,” 266. > > [942] Plutarch: “Isis and Osiris.” > > [943] Virgil: “Eclogues,” iv. > > [944] Ovid: “Fasti,” ii., 451. > > [945] Knorring: “Terra et Cœlum,” 53. > > [946] Anna is an Oriental designation from the Chaldean _ana_, > or heaven, whence Anaïtis and Anaïtres. Durga, the > consort of Siva, is also named Anna purna, and was > doubtless the original St. Anna. The mother of the > prophet Samuel was named Anna; the father of his > counterpart, Samson, was _Manu_. > > [947] The virgins of ancient time, as will be seen, were not > maids, but simply almas, or nubile women. > > [948] Kircher: “Œdipus Ægypticus,” iii., 5. > > [949] From θεραπευω, to serve, to worship, to heal. > > [950] E. Pococke derives the name _Pythagoras_ from _Buddha_, > and _guru_, a spiritual teacher. Higgins makes it > Celtic, and says that it means an observer of the stars. > See “Celtic Druids.” If, however, we derive the word > _Pytho_ from פתה, _petah_, the name would signify an > expounder of oracles, and Buddha guru a teacher of the > doctrines of Buddha. > > [951] In the Secret Museum of Naples, there is a marble > bas-relief representing the _Fall of Man_, in which _God > the Father plays the part of the Beguiling Serpent_. > > [952] First Epistle to the Corinthians, x. 11.: “All these > things happened unto them for _types_.” > > [953] Epistle to the Galatians, iv. 24: “It is written that > Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other > by a freewoman ... which things are an allegory.” > > [954] See “Job,” by various translators, and compare the > different texts. > > [955] See Kerr Porter’s “Persia,” vol. i., plates 17, 41. > > [956] The expression “of the kindred of Ram” denotes that he > was an Aramæan or Syrian from Mesopotamia. Buz was a son > of Nahor. “Elihu son of Barachel” is susceptible of two > translations. Eli-Hu--God is, or Hoa is God; and > Barach-Al--the worshipper of God, or Bar-Rachel, the son > of Rachel, or son of the ewe. > > [957] xxxvi. 24-27. > > [958] ix. 5-11. > > [959] xxxviii. 1, _et passim_. > > [960] Job xxxviii. 35. > > [961] Ibid., xli. 8. > > [962] Ibid., xli. 34. > > [963] _Atum_, or At-ma, is the Concealed God, at once Phtha > and Amon, Father and Son, Creator and thing created, > Thought and Appearance, Father and Mother. > > [964] Molitor, Ennemoser, Henman, Pfaff, etc. > > [965] Schopheim: “Traditions,” p. 32. > > [966] W. Williams: “Primitive History;” Dunlap: “Spirit > History of Man.” > > [967] Plutarch: “Isis and Osiris,” p. 17. > > [968] “Sibylline Oracles,” 760-788. > > [969] Euripides: “Bacchæ.” > > [970] We doubt the propriety of rendering κορη, virgin. > Demeter and Persephoneia were substantially the same > divinity, as were Apollo and Esculapius. The scene of > this adventure is laid in _Krete_ or _Koureteia_, where > Zeus was chief god. It was, doubtless, _Keres_ or > Demeter that is intended. She was also named κουρα, > which is the same as κωρη. As she was the goddess of the > Mysteries, she was fittest for the place as consort of > the Serpent-God and mother of Zagreus. > > [971] Pococke considers Zeus a grand lama, or chief Jaina, > and Kore-Persephone, or Kuru-Parasu-pani. Zagreus, is > _Chakras_, the wheel, or circle, the earth, the ruler of > the world. He was killed by the Titans, or Teith-ans > (Daityas). The Horns or crescent was a badge of Lamaic > sovereignty. > > [972] Nonnus: “Dionysiacs.” > > [973] See Deane’s “Serpent Worship,” pp. 89, 90. > > [974] Creuzer: “Symbol.,” vol. i., p. 341. > > [975] The Dragon is the _sun_, the generative principle-- > Jupiter-Zeus; and Jupiter is called the “Holy Spirit” by > the Egyptians, says Plutarch, “De Iside,” xxxvi. > > [976] In the original it stands _Æons_ (emanations). In the > translation it stands _worlds_. It was not to be > expected that, after anathematizing the doctrine of > emanations, the Church would refrain from erasing the > original word, which clashed diametrically with her > newly-enforced dogma of the Trinity. > > [977] See Dean’s “Serpent Worship,” p. 145. > > [978] Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 3. > > [979] See Dunlap’s “Spirit History of Man,” the chapter on > “the Logos, the Only Begotten and the King.” > > [980] Translated by Buckley. > > [981] “Select Works on Sacrifice.” > > [982] Typhon is called by Plutarch and Sanchoniathon, > “Tuphon, the _red_-skinned.” Plutarch: “Isis and > Osiris,” xxi.-xxvi. > > [983] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 269. > > [984] Rahu and Kehetty are the two fixed stars which form > the head and tail of the constellation of the Dragon. > > [985] E. Upham: “The Mahâvansi, etc.,” p. 54, for the > answer given by the chief-priest of Mulgirs Galle > Vihari, named Sue Bandare Metankere Samanere > Samayahanse, to a Dutch Governor in 1766. > > [986] We leave it to the learned archæologists and philologists > to decide how the _Naga_ or Serpent worship could travel > from Kashmir to Mexico and become the Nargâl worship, > which is also a Serpent worship, and a doctrine of > lycanthropy. > > [987] Michael, the chief of the Æons, is also “Gabriel, the > messenger of Life,” of the Nazarenes, and the Hindu > Indra, the chief of the good Spirits, who vanquished > Vasouki, the Demon who rebelled against Brahma. > > [988] See the Gnostic amulet called the “Chnuphis-Serpent,” > in the act of raising its head crowned with the _seven > vowels_, which is the kabalistic symbol for signifying > the “gift of speech to man,” or _Logos_. > > [989] “Tamas, the Vedas.” > > [990] Thomas Aquinas: “Somma,” ii., 94 Art. 4. > > [991] See des Mousseaux; see various other Demonographers; > the different “Trials of Witches,” the depositions of > the latter exacted by torture, etc. In our humble > opinion, the Devil must have contracted this > disagreeable smell and his habits of uncleanliness in > company with mediæval monks. Many of these saints > boasted of having never washed themselves! “To strip > one’s self for the sake of _vain_ cleanliness, is to sin > in the eyes of God,” says Sprenger, in the “Witches’ > Hammer.” Hermits and monks “dreaded all cleansing as so > much defilement. There was no bathing for a thousand > years!” exclaims Michelet in his “Sorcière.” Why such an > outcry against Hindu fakirs in such a case? These, if > they keep dirty, besmear themselves only after washing, > for their religion commands them to wash every morning, > and sometimes several times a day. > > [992] Lermontoff, the great Russian poet, author of the “Demon.” > > [993] “Les Hauts Phénomenes de la Magie,” p. 379. > > [994] “Movers,” p. 109. > > [995] Hercules is of Hindu origin. > > [996] The same as the Egyptian _Kneph_, and the Gnostic Ophis. > > [997] “Serpent Worship,” p. 145. > > [998] “Movers,” p. 397. Azazel and Samael are identical. > > [999] Saturn is Bel-Moloch and even Hercules and Siva. Both > of the latter are _Harakala_, or gods of the war, of the > battle, or the “Lords of Hosts.” Jehovah is called “a > man of war” in Exodus xv. 3. “The Lord of Hosts is his > name” (Isaiah li. 15), and David blesses him for > teaching his “hands to war and his fingers to fight” > (Psalms cxliv. 1). Saturn is also the Sun, and Movers > says that “Kronos Saturn was called by the Phœnicians > _Israel_ (130). Philo says the same (in Euseb., p. 44). > > [1000] “Blessed be Iahoh, Alahim, Alahi, _Israel_” (Psalm > lxxii.). > > [1001] Hardy’s “Manual of Buddhism,” p. 60. > > [1002] Cousin: “Lect. on Mod. Phil.,” vol. i., p. 404. > > [1003] Movers, Duncker, Higgins, and others. > > [1004] “Hæres,” xxxiv; “Gnostics,” p. 53. > > [1005] Wine was first made _sacred_ in the mysteries of Bacchus. > Payne Knight believes--erroneously we think--that wine > was taken with the view to produce a false ecstasy > through intoxication. It was held _sacred_, however, and > the Christian Eucharist is certainly an imitation of the > Pagan rite. Whether Mr. Knight was right or wrong, we > regret to say that a Protestant clergyman, the Rev. > Joseph Blanchard, of New York, was found drunk in one of > the public squares on the night of Sunday, August 5, > 1877, and lodged in prison. The published report says: > “The prisoner said that he had been to church and taken > a little too much of the communion wine!” > > [1006] The initiatory rite typified a descent into the underworld. > Bacchus, Herakles, Orpheus, and Asklepius all descended > into hell and ascended thence the third day. > > [1007] King’s “Hist. Apost. Creed,” 8vo, p. 26. > > [1008] Justice Bailey’s “Common Prayer,” 1813, p. 9. > > [1009] “Apostle’s Creed;” “Apocryphal New Testament.” > > [1010] “On the Creed,” fol. 1676, p. 225. > > [1011] Lib. 1, c. 2; “Lib. de Princ.,” in “Proœm. Advers. > Praxeam,” c. ii. > > [1012] “De Fide et Symbol.” > > [1013] “Preller:” ii., p. 154. > > [1014] Nicodemus: “Apocryphal Gospel,” translated from the > Gospel published by Grynæus, “Orthodoxographa,” vol. i., > tom. ii., p. 643. > > [1015] Euripides: “Herakles,” 807. > > [1016] “Æneid,” viii., 274, ff. > > [1017] “Frogs;” see fragments given in “Sod, the Mystery of > Adonis.” > > [1018] See pages 180-187, 327. > > [1019] Aristophanes: “Frogs.” > > [1020] See Preface to “Hermas” in the Apocryphal New Testament. > > [1021] In the “Life of Buddha,” of Bkah Hgyur (Thibetan text), > we find the original of the episode given in the Gospel > according to Luke. An old and holy ascetic, Rishi Asita, > comes from afar to see the infant Buddha, instructed as > he is of his birth and mission by supernatural visions. > Having worshipped the little Gautama, the old saint > bursts into tears, and upon being questioned upon the > cause of his grief, answers: “After becoming Buddha, he > will help hundreds of thousands of millions of creatures > to pass to the other shore of the ocean of life, and > will lead them on forever to immortality. And I--I shall > not behold this pearl of Buddhas! Cured of my illness, I > shall not be freed by him from human passion! Great > King! I am too old--that is why I weep, and why, in my > sadness, I heave long sighs!” > > It does not prevent the holy man, however, from > delivering prophecies about the young Buddha, which, > with a very slight difference, are of the same substance > as those of Simeon about Jesus. While the latter calls > the young Jesus “a light for the revelation of the > Gentiles and the glory of the people of Israel,” the > Buddhist prophet promises that the young prince will > find himself clothed with the perfect and complete > _enlightenment_ or “light” of Buddha, and will turn the > wheel _of law_ as no one _ever did before him_. “Rgya > Tcher Rol Pa;” translated from the Thibetan text and > revised on the original Sanscrit, _Lalitavistara_, by P. > E. Foncaux. 1847. Vol. ii., pp. 106, 107. > > [1022] The sign of the cross--only a few days after the > resurrection, and before the cross was ever thought > of as a symbol! > > [1023] Payne Knight shows that “from the time of the first > King Menes, under whom all the country below Lake Mœris > was a bog (Herod., ii., 4), to that of the Persian > invasion, when it was the garden of the world”--between > 11,000 and 12,000 years must have elapsed. (See “Ancient > Art and Mythology;” cli., R. Payne Knight, p. 108. Edit. > by A. Wilder.) > > [1024] Seth or Sutech, “Rawlinson’s History of Herodotus,” > book ii., appendix viii., 23. > > [1025] The fact is vouchsafed for by Epiphanius. See Hone: > “Apocryphal New Testament;” “The Gospel of the Birth of > Mary.” > > In his able article “Bacchus, the Prophet-God,” > Professor A. Wilder remarks that “Tacitus was misled > into thinking that the Jews worshipped an ass, the > symbol of Typhon or Seth, the Hyk-sos God. The Egyptian > name of the ass was _eo_, the phonetic of Iao;” and > hence, probably, he adds, “a symbol from that mere > circumstance.” We can hardly agree with this learned > archæologist, for the idea that the Jews reverenced, for > some mysterious reason, Typhon under his symbolical > representation rests on more proof than one. And for one > we find a passage in the “Gospel of Mary,” is cited from > Epiphanius, which corroborates the fact. It relates to > the death of “Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, > murdered by Herod,” says the Protevangelion. Epiphanius > writes that the cause of the death of Zacharias was that > upon seeing a vision in the temple he, through surprise, > was willing to disclose it, but his mouth was stopped. > That which he saw was at the time of his offering > incense, and it was a man STANDING IN THE FORM OF AN > ASS. When he was gone out, and had a mind to speak thus > to the people, _Woe unto you, whom do ye worship?_ he > who had appeared unto him in the temple took away the > use of his speech. Afterward when he recovered it, and > was able to speak, he declared this to the Jews, and > they slew him. They (the Gnostics) add in this book, > that on this very account the high priest was commanded > by the law-giver (Moses) to carry little bells, that > whensoever he went into the temple to sacrifice, he > _whom they worshipped_, hearing the noise of the bells, > might have time enough to hide himself, and not be > caught in that ugly shape and figure” (Epiph.). > > [1026] “Phallism in Ancient Religions,” by Staniland Wake and > Westropp, p. 74. > > [1027] Hercules is also a god-fighter as well as Jacob-Israel. > > [1028] “Phallism in Ancient Religions,” p. 75. > > [1029] Antiochus Epiphanius found in 169 B.C. in the Jewish > temple, a man kept there to be sacrificed. Apion: > “Joseph, contra Apion,” ii., 8. > > [1030] The ox of Dionysus was sacrificed at the Bacchic Mysteries. > See “Anthon,” p. 365. > > [1031] “Paus.,” 5, 16. > > [1032] Judges iv. 4. > > [1033] 2 Kings, xxii. 14. > > [1034] xiv. 2; xx. 16, 17. > > [1035] xxvii. 28, 29. > > [1036] The festival denominated Liberalia occurred on the > seventeenth of March, now St. Patrick’s Day. Thus > Bacchus was also the patron saint of the Irish. > > [1037] Prof. A. Wilder: “Bacchus, the Prophet-God,” in the June > number (1877) of the “Evolution, a Review of Polities, > Religion, Science, Literature, and Art.” > > [1038] “Edinburgh Review,” April, 1851, p. 411. > > [1039] “Indian Sketches; or Life in the East,” written for the > “Commercial Bulletin,” of Boston. > > [1040] See chapter ii. of this vol., p. 110. > > [1041] It would be worth the trouble of an artist, while > travelling around the world, to make a collection of the > multitudinous varieties of Madonnas, Christs, saints, > and martyrs as they appear in various costumes in > different countries. They would furnish models for > masquerade balls in aid of church charities! > > [1042] Even as we write, there comes from Earl Salisbury, > Secretary of State for India, a report that the Madras > famine is to be followed by one probably still more > severe in Southern India, the very district where the > heaviest tribute has been exacted by the Catholic > missionaries for the expenses of the Church of Rome. The > latter, unable to retaliate otherwise, despoils British > subjects, and when famine comes as a consequence, makes > the heretical British Government pay for it. > > [1043] “Ancient Faiths and Modern,” p. 24. > > [1044] “Fétichisme, Polythéisme, Monothéisme.” > > [1045] “Oriental and Linguistic Studies,” “Vedic Doctrine of a > Future Life,” by W. Dwight Whitney, Prof. of Sanscrit > and Comparative Philology at Yale College. > > [1046] “Oriental and Linguistic Studies,” p. 48. > > [1047] In his article on “Paul, the Founder of Christianity,” > Professor A. Wilder, whose intuitions of truth are > always clear, says: “In the person of _Aher_ we > recognize the Apostle Paul. He appears to have been > known by a variety of appellations. He was named _Saul_, > evidently because of his vision of Paradise--Saul or > _Sheol_ being the Hebrew name of the other world. > _Paul_, which only means ‘the little man,’ was a species > of nickname. _Aher_, or _other_, was an epithet in the > Bible for persons outside of the Jewish polity, and was > applied to him for having extended his ministry to the > Gentiles. His real name was Elisha ben Abuiah.” > > [1048] “In the ‘Talmud’ Jesus is called AUTU H-AIS, אותו האיש, > _that man_.”--A. Wilder. > > [1049] See Moor’s plates, 75, No. 3. > > [1050] Max Müller’s estimate. > > [1051] Dr. Lundy: “Monumental Christianity,” p. 153. > > [1052] Buddhaghosa’s “Parables,” translated from the > Burmese, by Col. H. T. Rogers, R. E.; with an > introduction by M. Müller, containing “Dhammapada,” > 1870. > > [1053] Interpreter of the Consulate-General in Siam. > > [1054] “Ancient Faith and Modern,” p. 162. > > [1055] Ibid. > > [1056] The words contained within quotation marks are Inman’s. > > [1057] See vol. i. of this work, p. 319. > > [1058] p. 57. > > [1059] Matthew vii. 2. > > [1060] P. 25. > > [1061] See Draper’s “Conflict between Religion and Science,” > p. 224. > > [1062] This is the doctrine of the Supralapsarians, who > asserted that “He [God] _predestinated the fall of > Adam_, with all its pernicious consequences, from all > eternity, and that our first parents had no liberty from > the beginning.” > > It is also to this highly-moral doctrine that the > Catholic world became indebted, in the eleventh century, > for the institution of the Order known as the Carthusian > monks. Bruno, its founder, was driven to the foundation > of this monstrous Order by a circumstance well worthy of > being recorded here, as it graphically illustrates this > _divine_ predestination. A friend of Bruno, a French > physician, famed far and wide for his extraordinary > _piety_, _purity of morals_, and _charity_, died, and > his body was watched by Bruno himself. Three days after > his death, and as he was going to be buried, the pious > physician suddenly sat up in his coffin and declared, in > a loud and solemn voice, “that by the just judgment of > God he was eternally damned.” After which consoling > message from beyond the “dark river,” he fell back and > relapsed into death. > > In their turn, the Parsi theologians speak thus: “If any > of you commit sin under the belief that he shall be > saved by _somebody_, both the deceiver as well as the > deceived shall be damned to the day of Rasta Khéz.... > There is no Saviour. In the other world you shall > receive the return according to your actions.... _Your > Saviour is your deeds_ and God Himself.[1063] > > [1063] “The Modern Parsis,” lecture by Max Müller, 1862. > > [1064] “De Isid. et Osir.,” p. 380. > > [1065] Every tradition shows that Jesus was educated in Egypt > and passed his infancy and youth with the Brotherhoods > of the Essenes and other mystic communities. > > [1066] Bunsen found some records which show the language and > religious worship of the Egyptians, for instance, not > only existing at the opening of the old Empire, “but > already so fully established and fixed as to receive > _but a very slight development_ in the course of the > old, middle, and modern Empires,” and while this opening > of the old Empire is placed by him beyond the Menes > period, at least 4,000 years B.C., the origin of the > ancient Hermetic prayers and hymns of the “Book of the > Dead,” is assigned by Bunsen to the pre-Menite dynasty > of Abydos (between 4,000 and 4,500 B.C.), thus showing > that “the system of Osirian worship and mythology was > already formed 3,000 years before the days of Moses.” > > [1067] It was also called the “hook of attraction.” Virgil > terms it “Mystica vannus Iacchi,” “Georgics,” i., 166. > > [1068] In an Address to the Delegates of the Evangelical > Alliance, New York, 1874, Mr. Peter Cooper, a Unitarian, > and one of the noblest _practical_ Christians of the > age, closes it with the following memorable language: > “In that _last and final account_ it will be happy for > us if we shall then find that our influence through life > has tended to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and > soothe the sorrows of those who were sick and in > prison.” Such words from a man who has given two million > dollars in charity; educated four thousand young girls > in useful arts, by which they gain a comfortable > support; maintained a free public library, museum, and > reading-room; classes for working people; public > lectures by eminent scientists, open to all; and been > foremost in all good works, throughout a long and > blameless life, come with the noble force that marks the > utterances of all benefactors of their kind. The deeds > of Peter Cooper will cause posterity to treasure his > golden sayings in its heart. > > [1069] “_Aus dem Tibetischen übersetzt und mit dem Originaltexte > herausgegeben_,” von S. J. Schmidt. > > [1070] “Buddhism in Tibet,” by Emil Schlagintweit, 1863, p. 213. > > [1071] “Ecclesiastical History,” l. i., c. 13. > > [1072] Tathagâta is Buddha, “he who walks in the footsteps of > his predecessors;” as _Bhagavat_--he is the _Lord_. > > [1073] We have the same legend about St. Veronica--as a pendant. > > [1074] “Introduction à l’Histoire du Buddhisme Indien,” E. > Burnouf, p. 341. > > [1075] Moses was a most notable practitioner of Hermetic > Science. Bearing in mind that Moses (Asarsiph) is made > to run away to the Land of Midian, and that he “sat down > by a well” (Exod. ii.), we find the following: > > The “Well” played a prominent part in the Mysteries of > the Bacchic festivals. In the sacerdotal language of > every country, it had the same significance. A well is > “the fountain of salvation” mentioned in _Isaiah_ (xii. > 3). The water is the _male principle_ in its spiritual > sense. In its physical relation in the allegory of > creation, the water is chaos, and chaos is the female > principle vivified by the Spirit of God--the male > principle. In the “Kabala,” _Zachar_ means “male;” and > the Jordan was called Zachar (“Universal History,” vol. > ii., p. 429). It is curious that the Father of St. John > the Baptist, the Prophet of _Jordan_--Zacchar--should be > called _Zachar-ias_. One of the names of Bacchus is > _Zagreus_. The ceremony of pouring water on the shrine > was sacred in the Osirian rites as well as in the Mosaic > institutions. In the _Mishna_ it is said, “Thou shalt > dwell in Succa and _pour out water_ seven, and the pipes > six days” (“Mishna Succah,” p. 1). “Take _virgin earth_ > ... and work up the _dust_ with _living_ WATER,” > prescribes the _Sohar_ (Introduction to “Sohar;” > “Kabbala Denudata,” ii., pp. 220, 221). Only “earth and > water, according to Moses, can bring forth a _living > soul_,” quotes Cornelius Agrippa. The water of Bacchus > was considered to impart the Holy _Pneuma_ to the > initiate; and it washes off all sin by baptism through > the Holy _Ghost_, with the Christians. The “well” in the > kabalistic sense, is the mysterious emblem of the > _Secret Doctrine_. “If any man thirst, let him come > _unto me and drink_,” says Jesus (John vii.). > > Therefore, Moses the adept, is naturally enough > represented sitting by a well. He is approached by the > _seven_ daughters of the Kenite Priest of Midian coming > to fill the troughs, _to water their father’s flock_. > Here we have seven again--the mystic number. In the > present biblical allegory the daughters represent the > _seven occult powers_. “The shepherds came and drove > them (the seven daughters) away, but Moses stood up, and > helped them, and watered their flock.” The shepherds are > shown, by some kabalistic interpreters, to represent the > seven “badly-disposed Stellars” of the Nazarenes; for in > the old Samaritan text the number of these Shepherds is > also said to be seven (see kabalistic books). > > Then Moses, who had conquered the seven _evil_ Powers, > and won the friendship of the seven _occult_ and > beneficent ones, is represented as living with the Reuel > Priest of Midian, who invites “the Egyptian” to eat > bread, _i.e._, to partake of his wisdom. In the Bible > the elders of Midian are known as great soothsayers and > diviners. Finally, Reuel or Jethro, the initiator and > instructor of Moses, gives him in marriage his daughter. > This daughter is Zipporah, _i.e._, the esoteric Wisdom, > the shining light of knowledge, for Siprah means the > “shining” or “resplendent,” from the word “Sapar” to > shine. Sippara, in Chaldea, was the city of the “Sun.” > Thus Moses was initiated by the Midianite, or rather the > Kenite, and thence the biblical allegory. > > [1076] Schmidt: “Der Weise und der Thor,” p. 37. > > [1077] “Rgya Tcher Rol. Pa.,” “History of Buddha Sakya-muni” > (Sanscrit), “Lalitavistara,” vol. ii., pp. 90, 91. > > [1078] “Protevangelion” (ascribed to James), ch. xiii. and xiv. > > [1079] “Pali Buddhistical Annals,” iii., p. 28; “Manual of > Buddhism,” 142. Hardy. > > [1080] “Gospel of the Infancy,” chap. xx., xxi.; accepted by > Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, > and others. The same story, with the Hindu earmarks > rubbed off to avoid detection, is found at Luke ii., > 46, 47. > > [1081] Alabaster: “Wheel of the Law,” pp. 29, 34, 35, and 38. > > [1082] E. Upham: “The History and Doctrines of Buddhism,” > p. 135. Dr. Judson fell into this prodigious error by > reason of his fanaticism. In his zeal to “save souls,” > he refused to peruse the Burmese classics, lest his > attention should be diverted thereby. > > [1083] “Indian Antiquary,” vol. ii., p. 81; “Book of Ser Marco > Polo,” vol. i., p. 441. > > [1084] “Ssabismus,” vol. i., p. 725. > > [1085] Murray’s “History of Discoveries in Asia.” > > [1086] “Manual of Buddhism,” p. 142. > > [1087] See Inman’s “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian > Symbolism,” p. 92. > > [1088] “Rgya. Tcher. Rol. Pa.,” Bkah Hgyour (Thibetan version). > > [1089] Gospel according to Luke, i. 39-45. > > [1090] Didron: “Iconograph. Chrétienne Histoire de Dieu.” > > [1091] There are numerous works deduced immediately from the > “Vedas,” called the “Upa-Ved.” Four works are included > under this denomination, namely, the “Ayus,” > “Gandharva,” “Dhanus,” and “Sthāpatya.” The third > “Upaveda” was composed by Viswamitra for the use of the > Kshatriyas, the warrior caste. > > [1092] Bunsen’s “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v., > p. 93. > > [1093] Alabaster; “Wheel of the Law,” pp. 43-47. > > [1094] “The Debatable Land,” p. 145. > > [1095] “We divide our zeal,” says Dr. Henry More, “against so > many things that we fancy Popish, that we scarce reserve > _a just share of detestation_ against what is truly so. > Such are that gross, rank, and scandalous impossibility > _of transubstantiation_, the various modes of fulsome > idolatry and lying impostures, the uncertainty of their > loyalty to their lawful sovereigns by their > superstitious adhesion to the spiritual tyranny of the > Pope, and that _barbarous and ferine cruelty against > those_ that are not either such fools as to be persuaded > to believe such things as they would obtrude upon men, > or, are not so false to God and their own consciences, > as, knowing better, yet to profess them” (Postscript to > “Glanvill”). > > [1096] Payne Knight believes that Ceres was not a personification > of the brute matter which composed the earth, but of the > female _productive principle_ supposed to pervade it, > which, joined to the active, was held to be the cause of > the organization and animation of its substance.... She > is mentioned as the wife of the Omnipotent Father, > Æther, or Jupiter (“The Symbolical Language of Ancient > Art and Mythology,” xxxvi.). Hence the words of Christ, > “it is the Spirit that quickeneth, _flesh profiteth > nothing_,” applied in their dual meaning to both > spiritual and terrestrial things, to spirit and matter. > > Bacchus, as Dionysus, is of Indian origin. Cicero > mentions him as a son of Thyoné and Nisus. Διόνυσος > means the god Dis from Mount Nys in India. Bacchus, > crowned with ivy, or _kissos_, is Christna, one of whose > names was _Kissen_. Dionysus is preëminently the deity > on whom were centred all the hopes for future life; in > short, he was the god who was expected to _liberate the > souls of men_ from their prisons of flesh. Orpheus, the > poet-Argonaut, is also said to have come on earth to > purify the religion of its gross, and terrestrial > anthropomorphism, he abolished human sacrifice and > instituted a mystic theology based on pure spirituality. > Cicero calls Orpheus a son of Bacchus. It is strange > that both seem to have originally come from India. At > least, as Dionysus Zagreus, Bacchus is of undoubted > Hindu origin. Some writers deriving a curious analogy > between the name of Orpheus and an old Greek term, > ὀρφος, _dark or tawny-colored_, make him Hindu by > connecting the term with his dusky Hindu complexion. See > Voss, Heyne and Schneider on the Argonautis. > > [1097] “Vie de Jesus,” p. 219. > > [1098] Ibid., p. 221. > > [1099] “Analysis of Religious Belief,” vol. i., p. 467. > > [1100] See the “Gita,” translated by Charles Wilkins, in 1785; > and the “Bhagavad-Purana,” containing the history of > Christna, translated into French by Eugène Burnouf. > 1840. > > [1101] Matthew vii. 21. > > [1102] “Of the People of India,” vol. i., p. 84. > > [1103] Or “Researches into the Mysteries of Occultism;” Boston, > 1877, Edited by Mrs. E. Hardinge Britten. > > [1104] See “Stone Him to Death;” “Septenary Institutions.” > Capt. James Riley, in his “Narrative” of his enslavement > in Africa, relates like instances of great longevity on > the Sahara Desert. > > [1105] Russian Armenia; one of the most ancient Christian > convents. > > [1106] “Egyptian Book of the Dead.” The Hindus have seven > upper and seven lower heavens. The seven mortal sins of > the Christians have been borrowed from the Egyptian > Books of Hermes with which Clement of Alexandria was so > familiar. > > [1107] The atrocious custom subsequently introduced among the > people, of sacrificing human victims, is a perverted > copy of the Theurgic Mystery. The Pagan priests, who did > not belong to the class of the hierophants, carried on > for awhile this hideous rite, and it served to screen > the genuine purpose. But the Grecian Herakles is > represented as the adversary of human sacrifices and as > slaying the men and monsters who offered them. Bunsen > shows, by the very absence of any representation of > human sacrifice on the oldest monuments, that this > custom had been abolished in the old Empire, at the > close of the seventh century after Menes; therefore, > 3,000 years B.C., Iphiscrates had stopped the human > sacrifices entirely among the Carthaginians. Diphilus > ordered bulls to be substituted for human victims. > Amosis forced the priests to replace the latter by > figures of wax. On the other hand, for every stranger > offered on the shrine of Diana by the inhabitants of the > Tauric Chersonesus, the Inquisition and the Christian > clergy can boast of a dozen of heretics offered on the > altar of the “mother of God,” and her “Son.” And when > did the Christians ever think of substituting either > animals or wax-figures for living heretics, Jews, and > witches? They burned these in effigy only when, through > providential interference, the doomed victims had > escaped their clutches. > > [1108] This is why Jesus recommends prayer in the solitude of > one’s closet. This secret prayer is but the _paravidya_ > of the Vedantic philosopher: “He who knows his soul > (inner self) daily retires to the region of _Swarga_ > (the heavenly realm) in his own heart,” says the > _Brihad-Aranyaka_. The Vedantic philosopher recognizes > the Âtman, the spiritual _self_, as the sole and Supreme > God. > > [1109] “Wheel of the Law,” p. 54. > > [1110] A. Wilder: “Ancient and Modern Prophecy.” > > [1111] While at _Petrovsk_ (Dhagestan, region of the Caucasus) > we had the opportunity of witnessing another such > _mystery_. It was owing to the kindness of Prince > Melikoff, the governor-general of Dhagestan, living at > Temerchan-Shoura, and especially of Prince Shamsoudine, > the ex-reigning Shamchal of Tarchoff, a native Tartar, > that during the summer of 1865 we assisted at this > ceremonial from the safe distance of a sort of private > box, constructed under the ceiling of the temporary > building. > > [1112] Does not this afford us a point of comparison with the > so-called “materializing mediums?” > > [1113] The Yezidis must number over 200,000 men altogether. > The tribes which inhabit the Pashalik of Bagdad, and are > scattered over the Sindjar mountains are the most > dangerous, as well as the most hated for their evil > practices. Their chief Sheik lives constantly near the > tomb of their prophet and reformer Adi, but every tribe > chooses its own sheik among the most learned in the > “black art.” This Adi or Ad is a mythic ancestor of > theirs, and simply is, Adi--the God of wisdom or the > Parsi Ab-ad the first ancestor of the human race, or > again Adh-Buddha of the Hindus, anthropomorphized and > degenerated. > > [1114] Within less than four months we have collected from the > daily papers forty-seven cases of crime, ranging from > drunkenness up to murder, committed by ecclesiastics in > the United States only. By the end of the year our > correspondents in the East will have valuable facts to > offset missionary denunciations of “heathen” > misdemeanors. > > [1115] “Evolution,” art. Paul, the Founder of Christianity. > > [1116] We find in Galatians iv. 4, the following: “But when the > fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, > _made of a woman, made under the law_.” > > [1117] The date has been fully established for these Pali Books > in our own century; sufficiently so, at least, to show > that they existed in Ceylon, 316 B.C., when Mahinda, the > son of Asoka, was there (See Max Müller, “Chips, etc.,” > vol. i., on Buddhism). > > [1118] “A New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam,” by > M. de la Loubère, Envoy to Siam from France, 1687-8, > chap. xxv., London; “Diverse Observations to be Made in > Preaching the Gospel to the Orientals.” > > The Sieur de la Loubère’s report to the king was made, > as we see, in 1687-8. How thoroughly his proposition to > the Jesuits, to suppress and dissemble in preaching > Christianity to the Siamese, met their approval, is > shown in the passage elsewhere quoted from the Thesis > propounded by the Jesuits of Caen (“Thesis propugnata in > regio Soc. Jes. Collegio, celeberrimæ Academiæ > Cadoniensis, die Veneris, 30 Jan., 1693), to the > following effect: “... neither do the Fathers of the > Society of Jesus dissemble _when they adopt the > institute and the habit_ of the Talapoins of Siam.” In > five years the Ambassador’s little lump of leaven had > leavened the whole. > > [1119] In a discourse of Hermes with Thoth, the former says: > “It is impossible for thought to rightly conceive of > God.... One cannot describe, through material organs, > that which is immaterial and eternal.... One is a > perception of the spirit, the other a reality. That > which can be perceived by our senses can be described in > words; but that which is incorporeal, invisible, > immaterial, and without form cannot be realized through > our ordinary senses. I understand thus, O Thoth, I > understand that God is ineffable.” > > In the _Catechism of the Parsis_, as translated by M. > Dadabhai Naoroji, we read the following: > > “Q. What is the form of our God?” > > “A. Our God has neither face nor form, color nor shape, > nor fixed place. There is no other like Him. He is > Himself, singly such a glory that we cannot praise or > describe Him; nor our mind comprehend Him.” > > [1120] “Contemporary Review,” p. 588, July, 1870. > > [1121] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. ii., pp. 304, 306. > > [1122] Ibid. > > [1123] Ibid. > > [1124] “Dec.,” v., lib. vi., cap. 2. > > [1125] “Travels in Tartary,” etc., pp. 121, 122. > > [1126] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. ii., p. 340. > > [1127] His twenty or more volumes on Oriental subjects are > indeed a curious conglomerate of truth and fiction. They > contain a vast deal of fact about Indian traditions, > philosophy and chronology, with most just views > courageously expressed. But it seems as if the > philosopher were constantly being overlaid by the > romancist. It is as though two men were united in their > authorship--one careful, serious, erudite, scholarly, > the other a sensational and sensual French romancer, who > judges of facts not as they are but as _he_ imagines > them. His translations from _Manu_ are admirable; his > controversial ability marked; his views of priestly > morals unfair, and in the case of the Buddhists, > positively slanderous. But in all the series of volumes > there is not a line of dull reading; he has the eye of > the artist, the pen of the poet of nature. > > [1128] Les Fils de Dieu. “L’Inde Brahmanique,” p. 296. > > [1129] In its general sense, _Isvara_ means “Lord;” but the > Isvara of the mystic philosophers of India was > understood precisely as the union and communion of men > with the Deity of the Greek mystics. _Isvara-Parasada_ > means, literally, in Sanscrit, _grace_. Both of the > “Mimansas,” treating of the most abstruse questions, > explain _Karma_ as merit, or the _efficacy of works_; > Isvara-Parasada, as grace; and _Sradha_, as faith. The > “Mimansas” are the work of the two most celebrated > theologians of India. The “Pourva-Mimansa” was written > by the philosopher Djeminy, and the “Outtara-Mimansa” > (or Vedanta), by Richna Dvipayaa Vyasa, who collected > the four “Vedas” together. (See Sir William Jones, > Colebrooke, and others.) > > [1130] Suetonius: “August.” > > [1131] Plutarch. > > [1132] “Pliny,” xxx., pp. 2, 14. > > [1133] “Servius ad. Æon,” p. 71. > > [1134] Peary Chand Mittra: “The Psychology of the Aryas;” > “Human Nature,” for March, 1877. > > [1135] The Boulogne (France) correspondent of an English > journal says that he knows of a gentleman who has had an > arm amputated at the shoulder, “who is certain that he > has a spiritual arm, which he sees and actually feels > with his other hand. He can touch anything, and even > pull up things with the spiritual or phantom arm and > hand.” The party knows nothing of spiritualism. We give > this as we get it, without verification, but it merely > corroborates what we have seen in the case of an Eastern > adept. This eminent scholar and practical kabalist can > at will project his astral arm, and with the hand take > up, move, and carry objects, even at a considerable > distance from where he may be sitting or standing. We > have often seen him thus minister to the wants of a > favorite elephant. > > [1136] Answer to a question at “The National Association of > Spiritualists,” May 14th, 1877. > > [1137] “A Buddhist’s Opinions of the Spiritual States.” > > [1138] See the “London Spiritualist,” May 25, 1877, p. 246. > > [1139] See Coleman’s “Hindu Mythology.” > > [1140] Russian subjects are not allowed to cross the Tartar > territory, neither the subjects of the Emperor of > China to go to the Russian factories. > > [1141] These are the representatives of the Buddhist Trinity, > Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, or Fo, Fa, and Sengh, as > they are called in Thibet. > > [1142] A Bikshu is not allowed to accept anything directly even > from laymen of his own people, least of all from a > foreigner. The slightest contact with the body and even > dress of a person not belonging to their special > community is carefully avoided. Thus even the offerings > brought by us and which comprised pieces of red and > yellow _pou-lou_, a sort of woollen fabric the lamas > generally wear, had to pass through strange ceremonies. > They are forbidden, 1, to ask or beg for anything--even > were they starving--having to wait until it is > voluntarily offered; 2, to touch either gold or silver > with their hands; 3, to eat a morsel of food, even when > presented, unless the donor distinctly says to the > disciple, “This is for your master to _eat_.” Thereupon, > the disciple turning to the _pazen_ has to offer the > food in his turn, and when he has said, “Master, this is > allowed; take and eat,” then only can the lama take it > with the right hand, and partake of it. All our > offerings had to pass through such purifications. When > the silver pieces, and a few handfuls of annas (a coin > equal to four cents) were at different occasions offered > to the community, a disciple first wrapped his hand in a > yellow handkerchief, and receiving it on his palm, > conveyed the sum immediately into the _Badir_, called > elsewhere _Sabaït_, a sacred basin, generally wooden, > kept for offerings. > > [1143] These stones are highly venerated among Lamaists and > Buddhists; the throne and sceptre of Buddha are > ornamented with them, and the Taley Lama wears one on > the fourth finger of the right hand. They are found in > the Altai Mountains, and near the river Yarkuh. Our > talisman was a gift from the venerable high-priest, a > _Heiloung_, of a Kalmuck tribe. Though treated as > apostates from their primitive Lamaism, these nomads > maintain friendly intercourse with their brother > Kalmucks, the Chokhots of Eastern Thibet and Kokonor, > but even with the Lamaists of Lha-Ssa. The > ecclesiastical authorities however, will have no > relations with them. We have had abundant opportunities > to become acquainted with this interesting people of the > Astrakhan Steppes, having lived in their _Kibitkas_ in > our early years, and partaken of the lavish hospitality > of the Prince Tumene, their late chief, and his > Princess. In their religious ceremonies, the Kalmucks > employ trumpets made from the thigh and arm bones of > deceased rulers and high priests. > > [1144] The Buddhist Kalmucks of the Astrakhan steppes are > accustomed to make their idols out of the cremated ashes > of their princes and priests. A relative of the author > has in her collection several small pyramids composed of > the ashes of eminent Kalmucks and presented to her by > the Prince Tumene himself in 1836. > > [1145] The sacred fan used by the chief priests instead of an > umbrella. > > [1146] See vol. i., p. 476. > > [1147] See his “Lectures on Sound.” > > [1148] From the compound word sûtra, maxim or precept, and > antika, close or near. > > [1149] It sounds like injustice to Asôka to compare him with > Constantine, as is done by several Orientalists. If, in > the religious and political sense, Asôka did for India > what Constantine is alleged to have achieved for the > Western World, all similarity stops there. > > [1150] See “Indian Sketches;” Appleton’s “New Cyclopedia,” etc. > > [1151] _Aum_ (mystic Sanscrit term of the Trinity), _mani_ > (holy jewel), _padmé_ (_in_ the lotus, padma being the > name for lotus), _houm_ (be it so). The six syllables in > the sentence correspond to the six chief powers of > nature emanating from Buddha (the abstract deity, not > Gautama), who is the _seventh_, and the Alpha and Omega > of being. > > [1152] Moru (the pure) is one of the most famous lamaseries of > Lha-Ssa, directly in the centre of the city. There the > Shaberon, the Taley Lama, resides the greater portion of > the winter months; during two or three months of the > warm season his abode is at Foht-lla. At Moru is the > largest typographical establishment of the country. > > [1153] The Buddhist great canon, containing 1,083 works in > several hundred volumes, many of which treat of magic. > > [1154] “Crawfurd’s Mission to Siam,” p. 182. > > [1155] “Semedo,” vol. iii., p. 114. > > [1156] There was an anecdote current among Daguerre’s friends > between 1838 and 1840. At an evening party, Madame > Daguerre, some two months previous to the introduction > of the celebrated Daguerrean process to the _Académie > des Sciences_, by Arago (January, 1839), had an earnest > consultation with one of the medical celebrities of the > day about her husband’s mental condition. After > explaining to the physician the numerous symptoms of > what she believed to be her husband’s mental aberration, > she added, with tears in her eyes, that the greatest > proof to her of Daguerre’s insanity was his firm > conviction that he would succeed in nailing his own > shadow to the wall, or fixing it on _magical_ metallic > plates. The physician listened to the intelligence very > attentively, and answered that he had himself observed > in Daguerre lately the strongest symptoms of what, to > his mind, was an undeniable proof of madness. He closed > the conversation by firmly advising her to send her > husband quietly and without delay to Bicétre, the > well-known lunatic asylum. Two months later a profound > interest was created in the world of art and science by > the exhibition of a number of pictures taken by the new > process. The _shadows_ were fixed, after all, upon > metallic plates, and the “lunatic” proclaimed the father > of photography. > > [1157] Schott: “Über den Buddhismus,” p. 71. > > [1158] “The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. ii., p. 352. > > [1159] Ibid., vol. ii., p. 130, quoted by Col. Yule in vol. ii., > p. 353. > > [1160] No country in the world can boast of more medicinal > plants than Southern India, Cochin, Burmah, Siam, and > Ceylon. European physicians--according to time-honored > practice--settle the case of professional rivalship, by > treating the native doctors as quacks and empirics; but > this does not prevent the latter from being often > successful in cases in which eminent graduates of > British and French schools of Medicine have signally > failed. Native works on Materia Medica do not certainly > contain the secret remedies known, and successfully > applied by the native doctors (the Atibbā), from time > immemorial; and yet the best febrifuges have been > learned by British physicians from the Hindus, and where > patients, deafened and swollen by abuse of quinine, were > slowly dying of fever under the treatment of enlightened > physicians, the bark of the Margosa, and the Chiretta > herb have cured them completely, and these now occupy an > honorable place among European drugs. > > [1161] The Hindu appellation for the peculiar mantrâm or charm > which prevents the serpent from biting. > > [1162] Between the bells of the “heathen” worshippers, and the > bells and pomegranates of the Jewish worship, the > difference is this: the former, besides purifying the > soul of man with their harmonious tones, kept _evil_ > demons at a distance, “for the sound of pure bronze > breaks the enchantment,” says Tibullius (i., 8-22), and > the latter explained it by saying that the sound of the > bells “should be heard [by the Lord] when he [the > priest] goeth in unto the holy place before the Lord, > and when he goeth out, _that he die not_” (Exodus > xxviii. 33; Eccles. xiv. 9). Thus, one sound served to > keep away _evil_ spirits, and the other, the Spirit of > Jehovah. The Scandinavian traditions affirm that the > Trolls were always driven from their abodes by the bells > of the churches. A similar tradition is in existence in > relation to the fairies of Great Britain. > > [1163] An elemental dæmon, in which every native of Asia believes. > > [1164] Lady, or Madam, in Moldavian. > > [1165] The hour in Bucharest corresponded perfectly with that > of the country in which the scene had taken place. > > [1166] Capt. W. L. D. O’Grady: “Life in India.” > > [1167] Neither Russia nor England succeeded in 1849 in forcing > them to recognize and respect the Turkish from the > Persian territory. > > [1168] Persepolis is the Persian Istakhâar, northeast of > Shiraz; it stood on a plain now called Merdusht. At the > confluence of the ancient Medus and the Araxes, now > Pulwân and Bend-emir. > > [1169] “Ægyptiaci Theatrum Hierogliphicum,” p. 544. > > [1170] We have twice assisted at the strange rites of the > remnants of that sect of fire-worshippers known as the > Guebres, who assemble from time to time at Baku, on the > “field of fire.” This ancient and mysterious town is > situated near the Caspian Sea. It belongs to Russian > Georgia. About twelve miles northeast from Baku stands > the remnant of an ancient Guebre temple, consisting of > four columns, from whose empty orifices issue constantly > jets of flame, which gives it, therefore, the name of > Temple of the Perpetual Fire. The whole region is > covered with lakes and springs of naphtha. Pilgrims > assemble there from distant parts of Asia, and a > priesthood, worshipping the divine principle of fire, is > kept by some tribes, scattered hither and thither about > the country. > > [1171] Baadéy-ku-Ba--literally “a gathering of winds.” > > [1172] See also “Magic and Mesmerism,” a novel reprinted by the > Harpers, thirty years ago. > > INDEX. > > INDEX. > > Abarbanel, his explanation of the sign of the coming of the Messiah, > ii. 256 > > Abracadabra, diabolical, evoked anew, ii. 4 > > Abraham, his history, ii. 217; > belongs to the universal mythology, ii. 216; > _Zeruan_, _ib._; > Isaac, and Judah, from Brahma, Ikshwaka and Yada, ii. 488; > and his sons, the story an allegory, ii. 493 > > Abraiaman, or charmers of fishes and wild beasts in Ceylon, i. 606 > > Absolution and penance authorized in the Church of England, ii. 544 > > Absorbed, a state of intimate union, ii. 117 > > Abuses of magic denounced by the ancients, ii. 97, 99 > > Abydos, a pre-Menite dynasty, ii. 361 > > Academicians, French, i. 60; > reject theurgical magic, i. 281 > > Academy, French, indignant at the charge of Satanism, i. 101; > rejected mesmerism, i. 165, 171; > Committee of 1784, i. 171; > Committee of 1826, i. 173 > > Acari, produced by chemical experiments, i. 465 > > Accuser of Souls at the judgment, ii. 487 > > Acher (Paul) in the garden of delights, ii. 119; > “made depredations,” _ib._ > > Actions guided by spiritual beings, i. 366 > > Ad, its meaning, i. 579 > > Adah, her sons from the Euxine to Kashmere, i. 579 > > Ad-Am, only-begotten, i. 579 > > Adam (ανθροπως), Divine essence emanating from, > i. 1; > the primitive man, i. 2; > the second, i. 297; > the same as the “gods,” or Elohim, i. 299; > of dust, i. 302; > Kadmon, androgynous, i. 297; > the first man evolved, _ib._; > same as the Logos, Prometheus, Pimander, Hermes, and Herakles, i. > 298; > of Eden, eat without initiation of the Tree of Knowledge or secret > doctrine, i. 575; > invested with the _chitun_, or coat of skin, _ib._; > the fall, not personal transgression, but a law of dual evolution, > ii. 277; > conducted from Hell, ii. 517; > same as Tamuz, Adonis, and Helios, _ib._; > sends Seth on an errand to paradise, ii. 520; > Kadmon, ii. 36; > Kadmon, i. 93; > Kadmon, the first race of men his emanations, ii. 276; > Primus, the Microprosopus, ii. 452 > > Adamic Earth, i. 51 > > Adamite, the third race, produced by two races, i. 305 > > Adanari, the Hindu goddess, ii. 451, 453 > > Adar-gat, Aster’t, etc., the _Magna Mater_, i. 579 > > Adept, the first self-made, ii. 317; > of the highest order, may live indefinitely, ii. 563; > of the seventh rite, ii. 564 > > Adepts few, i. 17; > in Paris and elsewhere ii. 403; > “travellers,” _ib._ > > Adhima and Heva, created by Siva, and ancestors of the present race, > i. 590 > > A’di Buddha, the Unknown, ii. 156; > the father of the Yezidis, ii. 571 > > Adima and Heva, in the prophecies of Ramatsariar, i. 579 > > Adonai or Adamites, i. 303 > > Adonim, i. 301 > > Adonis, his rites celebrated in the grotto at Bethlehem, ii. 139 > > Adonis-worship, at the Jordan, ii. 181 > > Adrian supposed the Christians to worship Serapis, ii. 336 > > Æbel-Zivo, the Metatron, or Anointed spirit, ii. 154; ii. 236, 247; > the same as the Angel Gabriel, ii. 247 > > Æneas drives away ghosts with his sword, i. 362, 363 > > Æons, or genii, i. 300 > > Aërolites, used in the Mysteries, i. 282; > in the tower of Belos, ii. 331; > used to develop prophetic power, _ib._ > > Æther, i. 56; > in that form the Deity pervading all, i. 129; > the primordial chaos, i. 134; > the spirit of cosmic matter, i. 156; > deified, i. 158; > source whence all things come and whither they will return, i. 189; > the fifth element, i. 342; > a medium between this world and the other, _ib._; > the Breath of the Father, the Holy Ghost, ii. 50 > > Æthiopia, east of Babylonia, ii. 434 > > Æthiopians from the Indus, who settled near Egypt, probably Jews, i. > 567; > originally an Indian race, ii. 437; > law of inheritance by the mother, _ib._ > > Affinity of soul for body, i. 344; > acknowledged between the _Syllabus_ and the _Koran_, ii. 82 > > Afrasiah, the King of Assyria, i. 575 > > Africa, phantoms appearing in the desert, i. 604 > > Afrits, i. 141; > nature-spirits, Shedim, demons, i. 313; > studying antediluvian literature, ii. 29 > > Agassiz, Prof. L., unfairness of, i. 63; > his argument in favor of the immortality of all orders of living > beings, i. 420 > > Agathodaimon and Kakothodaimon, i. 133 > > Agathadæmon, the serpent on a pole, ii. 512 > > Age of paper, i. 535 > > Aged of the aged, ii. 244 > > Ages, golden, silver, copper and iron, no fiction, i. 34; > or Aions, ii. 144 > > Agni, the sun-god and fire-god, i. 270 > > Agrippa, Cornelius, i. 167, 200; > his remarks on the marvellous power of the human soul, i. 280 > > Ahab and his sons encouraged by the prophets, ii. 525 > > Ahaz, his family deposed, ii. 440 > > Ahijah the prophet instigates Jeroboam to revolt against Solomon, ii. > 439 > > Ahriman, his contest with Ormazd, ii. 237; > to be purified in the fiery lake, ii. 238 > > Aij-Taïon, the Supreme God of the Yakuts of Siberia, ii. 568 > > Ain-Soph, ii. 210 > > Ajunta, Buddhistic caverns of, i. 349 > > Akâsa, or life-principle, i. 113; > known to Hindu magicians, _ib._; > same as Archæus, i. 125; > a designation of astral and celestial lights combined, forming > the _anima mundi_, and constituting the soul and spirit of man, > i. 139; > the will, i. 144 > > Ak-Ad or Akkad, meaning suggested, i. 579 > > Akkadians, introduced the worship of Bel or Baal, i. 263; > progenitors and Aryan instructors of the Chaldeans, i. 576; > never a Turanian tribe, _ib._; > a tribe of Hindus, _ib._; > from Armenia, perhaps from Ceylon, i. 578; > invented by Lenormant, ii. 423 > > Akiba in the garden of delights, ii. 119 > > Aksakof, i. 41, 46; protests against the decision of Prof. > Mendeleyeff and commission adverse to mediumism, i. 118 > > Alba petra, or white stone of initiation, ii. 351 > > Alberico and not Amerigo, the name of Vespucius or Vespuzio, i. 591 > > Albertus Magnus, ii. 20 > > Albigenses, descendants of the Gnostics, ii. 502 > > Albumazar on the identity of the myths, ii. 489 > > Alchemical principles, i. 191 > > Alchemists, i. 66, 205 > > Alchemy, universally studied, i. 502; > old as tradition, i. 503; > books destroyed by Diocletian, the Roman Emperor, _ib._ > > Alchemy and magic prevalent among the clergy, ii. 57 > > Aleim or Eloim, gods or powers, also priests, i. 575 > > Alexander of Macedonia, his expedition into India doubtful, ii. 429 > > Alexandrian library, the most precious rolls preserved, ii. 27; > learned Copts do not believe it destroyed, ii. 28; > obtained from the Asiatics, _ib._; > school, derived the soul from the ether or world-soul, i. 316. > > Algebra, i. 536 > > Alkahest, i. 50; > the universal solvent clear water, i. 133; > overlooked by the French Academy, i. 165; > explained by Van Helmont and Paracelsus, i. 191 > > Allegory, becomes sacred history, ii. 406; > reserved for the inner sanctuary, ii. 493 > > Alligators do not disturb fakirs, i. 383 > > Allopathists in medicine enemies to psychology, i. 88; > oppose everything till stamped as regular, _ib._; > oppose discoveries, _ib._ > > All things formed after the model, i. 302 > > “Almighty, the Nebulous,” i. 129 > > Al-om-jah, an Egyptian hierophant, ii. 364 > > Alsatians believe Paracelsus to be only sleeping in his grave, ii. 500 > > Amasis, King of Egypt, sends a linen garment to Lindus, i. 536 > > Amazons, their circle-dance in Palestine, ii. 45 > > Amberley, Viscount, regards Jesus as an iconoclastic idealist, ii. > 562; > looks down upon the social plane indicated by the great Sopher, > _ib._ > > Amenthes, or Amenti, has no blazing hell, ii. 11 > > Americ, or great mountain, the name of a range in Central America > visited by Columbus, i. 592 > > America, Central, lost cities, i. 239; > not named from Vespucius, i. 591; > name found in Nicaragua, i. 592; > first applied to the continent in 1522, _ib._; > Markland, _ib._; > note of A. Wilder, _ib._; > the conservatory of spiritual sensitives, ii. 19 > > American lodges know nothing of esoteric Masonry, ii. 376; > templarism, its three degrees, ii. 383 > > Americans to join the Catholic Church, ii. 379 > > Amita or Buddha, his realm, i. 601 > > Ammonius Sakkas, i. 443; > dated his philosophy from Hermes, ii. 342 > > Amrita, the supreme soul, i. 265 > > Amulet, a soldier made proof by one against bullets, i. 378 > > Amulets and relics, spells and phylacteries, ii. 352 > > Amun, i. 262 > > An, spirits of, ii. 387 > > Anæsthesia, its discovery by Wells, i. 539; > the improvements by Morton, Simpson, and Colton, i. 540; > understood by the Egyptians and Brahmans, _ib._ > > Anahit, the earth, i. 11 > > Anathems, a custom original with Christians, ii. 334 > > Anaxagoras, belief concerning spiritual prototypes, i. 158 > > Anaximenes held the doctrine of evolution or development, i. 238 > > Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite a Jesuitical product, ii. 390 > > Ancient Philosophies, based on the doctrine of God the universal mind > diffused throughout nature, i. 289; > books written symbolically, i. 19; > of the ancient, i. 302; > Code of Manu, not in our possession, i. 585, 586; > landmarks of Masonry departed from, ii. 380; > mysteries hidden only from the profane, ii. 121; > religions, the wisdom or doctrine, their basis, ii. 99; > identical as to their secret meaning, ii. 410; > derived from one primitive worship, ii. 412; > word, note of Emanuel Swedenborg, ii. 470; > in Buddhistic Tartary, ii. 471 > > Ancients, monotheistical before Moses, i. 23; > knew certain sciences better than modern savants, i. 25; > regarded the physical sun as only an emblem, i. 270; > practiced psychometry, i. 331; > their religion that of the future, i. 613 > > Anderson, author of the Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, a Masonic > impostor, ii. 389; > Steve, his spiritual advisers anxious for his speedy execution lest > he should fall from grace, ii. 543 > > Angelo, Michel, his remarkable gem, i. 240 > > Angkor, figures purely archaic, i. 567 > > Anglican Church adopting again the Roman usages, ii. 544 > > Anima, i. 37 > > Anima Mundi, or world-soul, i. 56, 258; > same as Nirvana, i. 291; > feminine with the Gnostics and Nazarenes, i. 300; > bi-sexual, i. 301; > same as the astral light, _ib._; > an igneous, ethereal nature, i. 316, 317; > the human soul born upon leaving, i. 345 > > Animals, perhaps immortal, argument of Agassiz, i. 420, 427; > argument from natural instinct, i. 426, 427; > shut up in the ark, ii. 447 > > Animation, suspended, i. 483; > voluntarily, _ib._; > in cataleptic clairvoyance, i. 489 > > Anna, St., going in quest of her daughter Mary, ii. 491; > the origin of the name, _ib._ > > Annas and Caiaphas confess Jesus to be the Son of God, ii. 522 > > Annihilation, the meaning of the Buddhist doctrine, i. 290; > of the soul, i. 319 > > Annoia, ii. 282, 286 > > Anthesteria, the baptism and passage through the gate, ii. 245, 246 > > Anthropomorphic devil the bottom card, ii. 479 > > Anti-Christ, a fable invented as a precaution, ii. 535 > > Antichristianism, seeking to overthrow Christianity by science, i. 337 > > Anti-Masonic Convention denying the validity of an oath, ii. 373-375 > > Antipathy, its beginning, i. 309 > > Antitypes of men to be born, i. 310 > > Antiquity of human race, over 250,000 years, i. 3; > of necromancy and spiritualism, remote, i. 205; > lost natural philosophy, i. 235; > of optical instruments, gunpowder, the steam-engine, astronomical > science, i. 240, 241; > of the flood, i. 241; > opinion of Aristotle, i. 428 > > Ape, astral body, i. 327; > a degenerated man, ii. 278 > > Apis, the bull, secret book concerning his age, i. 406 > > Apocryphal Gospels first received and then discarded, ii. 518 > > Apollo made the prince of demons and lord of the under-world, ii. 488 > > Apollonius of Tyana, his journey an allegory, i. 19; > regard for stones, i. 265; > cast out devils, i. 356; > his power to witness the present and the future, i. 486; > beheld an empusa or ghûl, i. 604; > testimony of Justin Martyr respecting his powers, ii. 97; > not a “spirit-medium,” ii. 118; > his mistake, ii. 341; > his conjurations when wrapped in a woolen mantle, ii. 344; > visited Kashmere, ii. 434; > the faculty of his soul to quit the body, ii. 597; > vanished from sight and renewal elsewhere, _ib._ > > Apollyon, his various characters, ii. 511 > > Apophis, or Apap, the dragon, infests the soul, ii. 368 > > Apostles, Acts of, rejected, ii. 182; > Creed a forgery, ii. 514 > > Apostles of Buddhism, ii. 608 > > Apparitions of spirits of animals, i. 326 > > Appleton’s New American Cyclopædia misstates the date of the laws of > Manu, i. 587 > > Apuleius’ doctrine concerning birth and death of the soul, ii. 345; > on the beatific vision, ii. 145; > accused of black magic, ii. 149 > > Aquinas, Thomas, destroys the brazen oracular head of Albertus > Magnus, ii. 56 > > Arabic manuscripts, 80,000 burned at Granada, i. 511 > > Aralez, Armenian gods who revivify men, ii. 564 > > Arcane powers in Man, ii. 112; > knowledge and sorcery, ii. 583 > > Archæus, i. 14; > same as Chaos, fire, sidereal or astral light, psychic or ektenic > force, Akasa, etc., i. 125; > the principle of life, i. 400 > > Archæologists, their attacks on each other, ii. 471, 472 > > Archetypal man a spheroid, ii. 469 > > Architecture of the Egyptian temples, i. 517 > > Architectural remains in different countries, their remarkable > identity of parts, i. 572 > > Archons of this world, ii. 89, 90 > > Archytas, instructor of Plato, constructed a wooden dove, i. 543; > invented the screw and crane, _ib._ > > Arctic regions visited by the Phœnicians, i. 545 > > Argha, or ark, ii. 444 > > Arhat, i. 291; > reaches Nirvana while on earth, ii. 320 > > Arhats, free from evil desire, i. 346 > > Aristotle on the human soul and the world-soul, i. 251; > three natural principles, i. 310; > on gas from the earth, i. 200; > on form, i. 312; > on the _nous_ and _psuche_, i. 316; > on the filth element, i. 317; > believed in the nous and psuche, the reasoning and the animal soul, > i. 317; > borrowed doctrines from Pythagoras, i. 319, 320; > believed in a past eternity of human existence, i. 428; > doctrine of two-fold soul, i. 429; > taught the Buddhistic doctrine, i. 430; > believed light to be itself an energy, i. 510; > contradicted by the Neo-Platonists, i. 430; > taught that the earth was the centre of the universe, i. 408; > obnoxious to Christian theology, ii. 34; > upon Jon or יהוה, ii. 302 > > Ark, what it represents, ii. 444 > > Armenian tradition of giving life to a slain warrior, ii. 564 > > Armor, Prof., theory of malformations, i. 392 > > Arnobius, believed the soul corporeal, i. 317 > > Artesian well, used in China, i. 517 > > Articles of faith of the ancient wisdom-religions, ii. 116 > > Artificial lakes in ancient temples in Egypt, Asia, and America, i. > 572 > > Artificially fecundated woman, i. 77, 81 > > Arts in the archaic ages, i. 405, 406 > > Artufas, the temples of nagualism, i. 557 > > Aryan, Median, Persian, and Hindu, also the Gothic and Slavic > peoples, i. 576; > nations, had no devil, ii. 10; > carried bronze manufacture into Europe, i. 539; > united, 3,000 B.C., ii. 433; > in the valley of the upper Indus, _ib._; > did not borrow from the Semites, ii. 426 > > Asbestos, i. 229; > thread and oil made from it, i. 504 > > Asclepiadotus, reproduces chemically the exhalations of the sacred > oracle-grotto, i. 531 > > Asdt, אשדת (_Deut._ xxxiii. 2), signifies emanations, but > mistranslated, ii. 34 > > Asgârtha, temple in India, ii. 31 > > Ash-trees, third race of men created from, i. 558 > > Ashmole, Elias, the Rosicrucian, the first operative Mason of note, > ii. 349 > > Asia, middle belt, perhaps once a sea-bed, i. 590, 592 > > Asideans, or Khasdims, the same as Pharsi or Pharisees, ii. 441 > > Asmodeus, or Æshma-deva, ii. 482 > > Asmonean priest-kings promulgated the _Old Testament_ in opposition > to the Apocrypha, ii. 135; > first Pharisees, and then Sadducees, _ib._ > > Asoka and Augustine, ii. 32; > his missionaries, ii. 42; > the Buddhist, sent missionaries to other countries, ii. 491 > > Ass, the form of Typhon, ii. 484; > its Coptic name, AO, a phonetic of Iao, _ib._; > head found in the temple, ii. 523 > > Assyria, the land of Nimrod, or Bacchus, i. 568 > > Assyrians basso-relievos at Nagkon-Wat, i. 566; > sphinxes, ii. 451; > tablets, the flood, ii. 422 > > Assyrians, their archaic empire, ii. 486 > > Astral atmosphere, i. 314; > body or doppelganger, i. 360; > of the ape, i. 327; > fire, represented by the serpent, i. 137; > fluid can be compressed about the body, to protect it from > violence, i. 378, 380; > a bolt of it can be directed with fatal force, i. 380; > form oozing out of the body, i. 179; > bound to the corpse and infesting the living, i. 432; > light, i. 56, 156, 247; > the Ob or Python, i. 158; > currents, i. 247; > same as the anima mundi, i. 301; > dual and bi-sexual, _ib._; > Soul or Spirit, i. 12; > divided by H. More into the aërial and ætherial vehicles, i. 206; > said to linger about the body 3,000 years, i. 226; > doctrine of Epicurus, i. 250; > the perisprit, composed of matter, i. 289; > not immortal, i. 432; > virgin, i. 126 > > Astrograph, i. 385 > > Astrologers, Chaldean, i. 205 > > Astrology, i. 259 > > Astronomus, the title of the highest initiate, ii. 365 > > Astronomical calculations of Chaldeans and Egyptians, i. 21; > of Chaldeans and Aztecs, i. 11, 241; > of Chinese, i. 241 > > Aswatha, the Hindu tree of life, i. 152, 153 > > Athanor, the, the Archimedean lever, i. 506 > > Atheism, not a Buddhistical doctrine, i. 292 > > Atharva-Veda, great value, ii. 414, 415 > > Athbach, ii. 299 > > Atheists, none among heathen populations, ii. 240; > none in days of old, ii. 530 > > Athos, Mount, story of the manuscripts, ii. 52 > > Athothi, king of Egypt, writes a book on anatomy, i. 406 > > Athtor, or Mother Night, i. 91 > > Atlantis, the legend believed, i. 557 > > Atlantic ocean, once intersected by islands and a continent, i. 557, > 558; > mentioned in the _Secret Book_, i. 590; > perhaps the actual name of the great Southern continent in the > Indian Ocean, i. 591; > name not Greek, _ib._; > probable etymology of the name, _ib._; > two orders of inhabitants, i. 592, 593; > their fall, and the submersion of the island, i. 593 > > Atma, i. 346 > > Atman, the spiritual self, recognized as God, ii. 566 > > Atmospheric electricity embodied in demi-gods, i. 261 > > Atoms, doctrine taught by Demokritus, i. 249 > > Atonement, origin of the doctrine, ii. 41; > error of Prof. Draper, _ib._; > mysteries of initiation, ii. 42 > > Attraction, the great mystery, i. 338 > > Audhumla, the cow or female principle, i. 147 > > Augoeides, or part of the divine spirit, i. 12, 306, 315; > cannot be communed with by a hierophant with a touch of mortal > passion, i. 358; > self-shining vision of the future self, ii. 115; > the âtman or self, ii. 317 > > Augsburgian Jesuits desirous to change the Sabean emblems, ii. 450 > > Augustine, his accession to Christianity placed theology and science > at everlasting enmity, ii. 88; > his directions about the ladies’ toilet, ii. 331; > scouted the sphericity of the earth, ii. 477; > affirmed a predestinated state of happiness and predetermined > reprobation, ii. 546 > > A U M, meaning of the sacred letters, ii. 31; > the holy primitive syllable, ii. 39; > and Tum, ii. 387 > > Aur, i. 158 > > Aura Placida, deified into two martyrs, ii. 248 > > Aureole, from Babylonia, ii. 95 > > Auricular confession in the Anglican church, ii. 544 > > Aurora borealis, conjectures concerning it of scientists, i. 417 > > Aurumgahad, i. 349; > Buddhistic mementos, i. 349 > > Austin Friars, or Augustinians, outdone in magic by the Jesuits, i. > 445 > > Avany, the Virgin, by whom the first Buddha was incarnated, ii. 322 > > Avatar, i. 291; > the earliest, ii. 427 > > Avatars and emanations, ii. 155, 156; > of Vishnu, ii. 274; > they symbolize evolution of races, ii. 275 > > Avicenna, on chickens with hawks’ heads, i. 385 > > Azaz-El, or Siva, ii. 302, 303 > > Azoth, or creative principle, symbol, i. 462; > blunder of de Mirville, _ib._ > > Aztecs, of Mexico, their calendar, i. 11; > resembled the ancient Egyptians, i. 560 > > Baal, prophets danced the circle-dance of the Amazons, ii. 45; > Tsephon, god of the crypt, ii. 487; > how his hierophants procured apparitions, ii. 567 > > Babies speaking good French, i. 371 > > Babinet on table-turning, i. 60, 101, 104; > declares levitation impossible and is refuted, i. 105; > his story of a fire-globe resembling a cat, i. 107 > > Babylon, built by those who escaped the deluge, i. 31; > after three conquerors, i. 534; > the great mother, or Magna Mater, ii. 501 > > Babylonia, the seat of Sanscrit literature, ii. 428 > > Babylonian priests, asserted their observations to have extended back > 470,000 years, i. 533; > system defined, ii. 170 > > Bacchic fan, held by Osiris, ii. 494 > > Bacchus, a saint of the Roman calendar, i. 160; > worship among the Jews, ii. 128; > “the son of God,” ii. 492; > myth, contains the history of the gods, ii. 527; > the Prophet-God, ii. 527, 528; > a saint in the calendar, ii. 528; > or Dionysus, his Indian origin, ii. 560 > > Bacon, Roger, miracles, i. 69; > predicted the use of steam and other modern inventions, i. 413 > > Badagas, a people of Hindustan who revere and maintain the Todas, ii. > 613-615 > > Bad demons, i. 343 > > Bael-tur, sacred to Siva, i. 469 > > Baggage from the Pagan mysteries, ii. 334 > > Bahak-Zivo, i. 298; > ordered to create, i. 299; > the creator, ii. 134 > > Bahira, the Nestorian monk, ii. 54 > > Balahala, the fifth degree, ii. 365 > > Balam Acan, a Toltecan king, i. 553 > > Ban, on spiritualistic writings, ii. 8 > > Banyan, the tree of knowledge and life, ii. 293 > > Baphomet, the alleged god of the Templars, ii. 302 > > Baptism of blood, the slaughter of a hierophant or an animal, ii. 42; > a general practice, ii. 134 > > Baptismal font in Egyptian pyramids, i. 519 > > Baptist preachers’ meeting in New York, ii. 473, 474; > a warm doctrine, _ib._ > > Baptista Porta, i. 66 > > Baptists, ii. 291 > > Bardesanian system, ii. 224 > > Barjota, Curé de, his magical powers, ii. 60; > saves the Pope’s life, _ib._ > > Barlaam and Josaphat, a ridiculous romance, ii. 580 > > Barrachias-Hassan-Oglu, i. 43 > > Barri (Italy), a statue of the Madonna with crinoline, ii. 9 > > Bart, his testimony in regard to Herakles, ii. 515 > > Basic matter of gold, i. 50 > > Basileus, the archon taking charge of the Eleusinians, ii. 90 > > Basilidean system, the exposition of Irenæus, ii. 157 > > Basilides, description of Clement, ii. 123; > derived his doctrines from the Gospel according to Matthew, ii. 155; > his doctrines set forth by Tertullian, ii. 189 > > Bastian, Dr., his conception of the temple of Angkor or Nagkon-Wat, > i. 567, 568 > > Batria, the wife of Pharaoh, teacher of Moses, i. 25 > > Battle of life, ii. 112 > > Baubo, in the Mysteries, what she directed, ii. 112 > > Bayle, his testimony on spurious relics, ii. 72 > > Beads and rosaries, of Buddhistic origin, ii. 95. > > Beatific vision or epopteia, testimony of Paul and Apuleius, ii. 146 > > Beaujeu, Count, his Masonic imposture, ii. 381 > > Beaumont, Elie de, on terrestrial circulation, i. 503 > > Beausobre, on the Rasit or Principle, ii. 36 > > Beel-Zebub (more properly Beel-Zebul, the Baal of the Temple) the > same as Apollo, the Oracle-God, ii. 481; > nicknamed Beel-Zebub, a god of flies, ii. 486 > > Beer made in ancient Egypt, i. 543 > > Bel, a personification of the Hindu Siva, i. 263; > and the dragon, i. 550; > Baal, the Devil, i. 552 > > Belial, a Diakka, ii. 482 > > Believers in magic, mesmerism and spiritualism, 800,000,000, i. 512 > > Bellarmin, Cardinal, his vision about the bottomless pit, ii. 8 > > Bells before the shrine of Jupiter-Ammon, ii. 95; > in Jewish and Buddhistic rites, _ib._ > > Belus, the first Assyrian king, deified, i. 552 > > Ben Asai, in the garden of delights, ii. 119; > Zoma, in the garden of delights, ii. 119 > > Benedict, St., and his black raven, ii. 78 > > Bengal, magical seance, i. 467 > > Bengalese conjurers and jugglers, i. 457; > planting trees, etc., which grew at once, _ib._ > > Bethlehem, grotto of, temple of Adonis, ii. 139 > > Beverages to produce visions, ii. 117 > > Bhagaved-gita, opinion of du Perron, ii. 562; > reverenced by the Brahmans, _ib._; > contains the greatest mysteries of the Brahmanic religion, ii. 563; > reverenced alike by Brahmanists and Buddhists, _ib._ > > Bhagavant, the same as Parabrahma, i. 91; > endued Brahma with creative power, i. 90; > not a creator, i. 347; > enters the world-egg, _ib._ > > Bhagaved, i. 148 > > Bhangulpore, Round Tower, ii. 5 > > Bhutavan, the Spirit of Evil, created to destroy the incarnation of > the sin of Brahma, i. 265 > > Bible, antedated by Vedas, i. 91; > its allegories repeated in Talapoin and Ceylonese traditions and > manuscripts, i. 577; > used as a weapon against the people who furnished it, ii. 96; > an allegorical screen of the Kabala, ii. 210; > the great light of modern Masonry, ii. 389; > four or five times written over, ii. 470; > when made up, ii. 471; > a secret volume, _ib._; > Patriarchs only zodiacal signs, ii. 459 > > Bilocation, i. 361 > > Binlang-stone, ii. 234 > > Biographers of the Devil, ii. 15 > > Birds, sung a mass for St. Francis, ii. 77 > > Birs-Nimrud, the temple of seven stages, i. 261 > > Birth of the human soul, i. 345 > > Birth-marks, i. 384 > > Bisexual, the first man, i. 559 > > Bishops of the fourth century illiterate, ii. 251 > > Black-faced Christ in India, ii. 532 > > Black gods worshipped by the Yakuts, ii. 568, 569 > > Blackguardism of Father Weninger, ii. 379 > > Black magic practised at the Vatican, ii. 6; > sorcery and witchcraft, an abuse, ii. 118; > mirror, i. 596; > reveals to the Inca queen her husband’s death, _ib._; > virgins in French cathedrals, figures of Isis, ii. 95 > > “Bleeding Head” of a murdered child employed as an oracle, ii. 56; > image, ii. 17 > > Blessed Virgin gives a demoniac a sound thrashing, ii. 76 > > Blind Force plus intelligence, i. 199; > psychic force, _ib._ > > Blood, the baptism, ii. 42; > of Jesus Christ, a phial of it presented to Henry III. of England, > ii. 71; > eagerness of spirits for it, i. 344; > its circulation understood by the Egyptians, i. 544; > liquefied at Naples and Nargercoil, in India, i. 613; > its emanations serve spirits with material for their apparitions, > ii. 567; > the universal Proteus and arcanum of life, _ib._; > -demons, i. 353; > -evocation by the Yakuts, Bulgarians and Moldavians, ii. 569, 570 > > Bloody legislation of Protestant countries against witchcraft, ii. > 503; > rites in Hayti, ii. 572 > > Blue, held in aversion as the symbol of evil, ii. 446; > ray, i. 137, 264; > -violet, the seventh ray, most responsive of all, i. 514 > > Body, the sepulchre of the soul, ii. 112; > how long it may be kept alive, ii. 563; > of Moses, a symbol for Palestine, ii. 482; > may be obsessed by spirits during the temporary absence of the > soul, ii. 589 > > Boismont, de, Brierre, on hallucinations, i. 144 > > Boodhasp, the founder of Sabism or baptism, ii. 290, 291 > > Book of the Dead, Egyptian, i. 517, 518; > quoted in the Gospel according to Matthew, ii. 548; > older than Menes, ii. 361; > of Jasher, i. 549; > of Jasher, the _Old Testament_ condensed, ii. 399; > of Numbers, Chaldean, i. 32 > > Books lost and destroyed, i. 24; > of Hermes, i. 33; > of Hermes, attested by the Champollions, i. 625 > > Births, feast of, supposed to be Bacchic, ii. 44, 45 > > Bosheth, Israelites consecrated, ii. 130 > > Both-al, Batylos, and Beth-el, i. 550 > > Bourbourg, Brasseur de, publishes _Popol Vuh_, i. 2 > > Boussingault on table-turning, i. 60 > > Bozrah, the convent there the place where the seed of Islam was sown, > ii. 54 > > Brachmans in Greece, ii. 321 > > Brahm, i. 291 > > Brahma, a secondary deity, like Jehovah, the demiurgos, i. 91; > evolved himself, and then brought nature from himself, i. 93; > creates Lomus, i. 133; > produces spiritual beings, then daints or giants, and, finally, the > castes of men, i. 148; > the name of the universal germ, ii. 261; > night of, ii. 272, 273, 421; > manifested as twelve attributes or gods, i. 348; > day and night, ii. 421 > > Brahma-Prajapati committed the first sin, i. 265; > his repentance and the hottest tear, _ib._ > > Brahm-âtma, or chief of the initiates, had the two crossed keys, ii. > 31 > > Brahman, his astounding declaration to Jacolliot, ii. 585 > > Brahmanas, ii. 409, 410; > the key to the Rig-Veda, ii. 415 > > Brahmanical religion, stated in the doctrine of God as the Universal > mind diffused through all things, i. 289 > > Brahmanism, pre-Vedic, identical with Buddhism, ii. 142; > Buddhism its primitive source, ii. 169 > > Brahman gods, Siva, Surya, and the Aswins denounced in the _Avesta_, > ii. 482, 483 > > Brahman-Yoggins, i. 307; > story of descent from giants, i. 122; > theories of the sun and moon, i. 264; > their powers of prediction and clairvoyance, i. 446; > possess secrets of anæsthesia, i. 540; > widows burned without hurting them, _ib._; > know that the rite of widow-burning was never prescribed, i. 541; > their religion exclusive, and not to be disseminated, i. 581; > dispossessed the Jaina natives of India, ii. 323; > in Babylonia, ii. 428; > and Buddhists, their extraordinary probity, ii. 474; > how it has deteriorated by Christian association, _ib._ > > Brain, substance changed by thought and sensation, i. 249, 250; > silvery spark in, i. 329 > > Brazen serpent, the caduceus of Mercury or Asklepios, i. 556; > symbol of Esculapius or Iao, ii. 481; > worshipped by the Israelites, _ib._; > broken by Hezekiah, ii. 440 > > Bread-and-mutton protoplasms, i. 421 > > Bread and wine, a sacrifice of great antiquity, ii. 43, 44, 513 > > Breath, immortal, infusing life, i. 302 > > Brighou, the pragâpati and his patriarchal descendants, ii. 427 > > Bronze age, i. 534 > > Bronze introduced into Europe 6,000 years ago by Aryan immigrants, i. > 539 > > Brothers of the Shadow, i. 319 > > Broussard on magnetism and medicine, ii. 610 > > Bruno, why slaughtered, i. 93; > Prof. Draper misrepresents him, i. 94; > held Jesus to be a magician, _ib._; > accusation against him, i. 95; > his reply, i. 96; > declared this world a star, _ib._; > acknowledged an universal Providence, _ib._; > doubted the Trinity, i. 97; > a Pythagorean, i. 98 > > Brutal force adored by Christendom, ii. 334 > > Buchanan, Prof. J. R., criticises Agassiz, i. 63; > his bridge from physical impression to consciousness, i. 87; > theory of psychometry, i. 182; > on tendency of gestures to follow the phrenological organs, i. 500 > > Buddha, the formless Brahm, i. 291; > the monad, _ib._, 550; > incarnation, _ib._; > his lama representative, i. 437, 438; > appearing of his shadow to Hiouen-Thsang, i. 600; > never deified by his followers, ii. 240; > a social rather than a religious reformer, ii. 339; > tempted and victorious, ii. 513; > never wrote, ii. 559; > his lessons to his disciples, _ib._; > taught the new birth, ii. 566; > breaks with the old mysteries, _ib._; > or Sommona-Cadom, the Siamese Saviour, ii. 576; > changed by the Vatican into St. Josaphat, ii. 579; > “just as if he had been a Christian,” ii. 581 > > Buddha-Siddârtha, i. 34; > -Gautama, i. 92; > lived 2,540 years ago, ii. 537; > teaches how to escape reincarnation, i. 346 > > Buddhism based on the doctrine of God, the universal Mind diffused > through all things, i. 289; > prehistoric, the once universal religion, ii. 123; > preached by Jesus, ii. 123; > its ethics, ii. 124; > identical with pre-Vedic Brahmanism, ii. 142; > the primitive source of Brahmanism, ii. 169; > its groundwork the kabalistic doctrine, i. 271; > its doctrine based on works, ii. 288; > esoteric doctrines, ii. 319; > the religion of the earlier Vedas, ii. 436; > degenerated into Lamaism, ii. 582 > > Buddhist patriarch of Nangasaki, ii. 79; > system, how mastered, i. 289; > monks in Syria and Babylon, ii. 290; > went so far as Ireland, _ib._; > theories of sun and moon, i. 264; > respect for the sapphire-stone, _ib._ > > Buddhistic element in Gnosticism and missionaries in Greece, ii. 321; > theology, four schools, ii. 533 > > Bull the emblem of life everywhere, ii. 235, 236; > against the comet, ii. 509; > and syllabus burned by the Bohemians, ii. 560 > > Bull’s eye in the target of Christianity, ii. 476 > > Bullets successfully resisted by talismans, i. 378 > > Bulwer-Lytton, his description of the _vril_, or primal force, i. 64, > 125; > elementary beings, i. 285, 289; > the Vril-ya, or coming race, i. 296 > > Bunsen, testimony concerning the Origines of Egypt, i. 529; > description of the Pyramid of Cheops, i. 518; > account of the Egyptian skill in quarrying, _ib._; > on the word PTR, ii. 93; > his opinion respecting Zoroaster and the Baktrian emigration, ii. > 432; > his opinion of Khamism, ii. 435; > on the exodus of the Israelites, ii. 558 > > Bur, the offspring of Audhumla, i. 147 > > Burning men to avoid shedding their blood, i. 64; > scientists about as ready as clergy, i. 85 > > Buried cities in Hindustan, i. 350 > > Butlerof, Prof. A., on the facts of spiritualism, ii. 3 > > Cabeirians, i. 23 > > Cable-tow, the Brahmanical cord, ii. 393 > > Cadière, Mlle., her seduction by a Jesuit priest, ii. 633, 634 > > Cagliostro, an Hermetic philosopher, persecuted by the Church of > Rome, i. 200; > said to have made gold and diamonds, i. 509 > > Cain, ancestor of the Hivites, or Serpents, ii. 446; > and Siva, ii. 448; > or Kenu, the eldest, ii. 464 > > Calmeil imputes theomania of the Calvinists to hysteria and epilepsy, > i. 371; > his explanation of their extraordinary power of resistance to > blows, i. 375 > > Calmet, Dom, on vampires, i. 452 > > Calvin affirmed election, original sin, and reprobation, ii. 547 > > Carnac, the serpent’s mount, i. 554 > > Campanile Column, of St. Mark’s, in Venice, its original, ii. 5 > > Canals of Egypt, i. 516, 517 > > Canonical books, enforced eliminations, ii. 143; > selected by sortilege, ii. 251 > > Capuchins, their Christmas observances, ii. 365 > > Carpenter, W. B., lecture on Egypt, i. 440 > > Carthage more civilized than Rome, i. 520; > built long before the taking of Troy, _ib._; > not built by Dido, _ib._ > > Cataclysms, periodical, i. 31 > > Catalepsy and vampirism, i. 449, 450 > > Catherine of Medicis employed a sorcerer, ii. 55; > her resort to the charm of “the bleeding head,” ii. 56 > > Catholic ritual of pagan origin, ii. 85; > miracle in Poland means revolution, ii. 17; > must be Ultramontane and Jesuit, ii. 356; > missionaries becoming Talapoins, ii. 531 > > Catholicism more fetish-worshipping than Hinduism, ii. 80 > > Catholics persecute other Christians, ii. 81 > > Causes, Platonic division, i. 393 > > Cave-men of Les Eyzies, i. 295 > > Cave-temples of Ajunta, Buddhistic, i. 349; > of India, claimed by the Jainas, ii. 323 > > Caves of Mithras, ii. 491 > > Celestial Virgin pursued by the Dragon, a mystery and representation > in the constellations, ii. 490 > > Celsus, his accusations of the Christians, ii. 51; > not being refuted, his books burned, ii. 51, 52; > a copy probably existing at a monastery on Mount Athos, ii. 52; > his opinion of Jesus, ii. 530 > > Celebrated vase of the Genoa Cathedral, its material not known, i. > 537, 538 > > Celt, probably a hybrid of the Aryan and Iberians of Europe, i. 576 > > Cement, ancient, i. 239 > > Cenchrea, Paul shorn and Lucius initiated there, ii. 90 > > Centenarians, Parr, Jenkins, and others, ii. 564 > > Central America, her peoples to be traced to the Phœnicians and > Mosaic Israelites, i. 555; > Asia, the face of the country changed, ii. 426; > Invisible, i. 302 > > Cerebral electricity, its dependence upon the statical, i. 322 > > Ceremony of withdrawing the soul, ii. 603 > > Ceres or Demeter, the female or passive productive principle, ii. 560 > > Cerinthus, his doctrines described by Irenæus, ii. 176 > > Cevennes, prophets of, i. 221; > the Convulsionaires, miraculous occurrences, i. 370; > statement by Figuier, i. 370, 371 > > Chair of St. Fiacre and its prolificating virtue, ii. 332 > > Chaldean Arba and Christian Four, ii. 171; > oracles, i. 535; > denounce augury, _ib._ > > Chaldeans, their correct astronomical calculations, i. 11; > their magic, i. 66; > their theory of magic, i. 459; > their origin, ii. 46; > Hebrew Sanscrit, _ib._ > > Champollion declares the Egyptians monotheists, i. 24; > his description of Karnak, i. 523; > synopsis of his discoveries, i. 530 > > Chandragupta, his exploits, ii. 607, 608 > > Chaos, the Female Principle, i. 61; > Archæus, Akasa, i. 125; > the Soul of the World, i. 129; > and ether, the first two, i. 341 > > Charlatan only will ever use mercury as a medicine, ii. 621 > > Charms, the Dharani, their extraordinary powers, i. 471 > > Charmed life, i. 379 > > Charmers, their power over beasts and reptiles, i. 381 > > Charybdis, the maëlstrom, i. 545 > > Chemi, or Chem, the ancient name of Egypt, i. 541 > > Chemical vapors taking forms, i. 127 > > Chemicals keep away disagreeable physical phenomena, i. 356, 357 > > Chemist and magician compared, i. 464 > > Chemistry, ancient proficiency, i. 50; > revolution, i. 163; > Egypt its cradle, i. 541; > called alchemy, i. 542 > > Cheops, his engraved ring, i. 240; > pyramid of, its measure and weight, i. 518; > Prof. Smyth’s descriptions, i. 520 > > Cherub, one of his nails preserved as a relic, ii. 71; > of Jeheskiel, ii. 451 > > Cherubs, the vehans of deity, ii. 231 > > Chess played in Egypt and India 5,000 years ago, i. 544 > > Chevalier Ramsay, the Jesuit inventor of the Scottish Rite, ii. 390 > > Chicago murderers converted in prison, ii. 543 > > Child, Mrs. Lydia M., remarks on Hindu emblems, i. 583; ii. 445 > > Child-burning by the Jesuits, ii. 65 > > Child-medium, Sanscrit written in her presence, i. 368; > Kate Fox’s son, i. 439 > > Children, born malformed, wounded, and parts cut away, i. 386; > may kill their parents, ii. 363; > sacrificed to Moloch-Hercules, at Tophet, in the valley of Hinnom, > ii. 11 > > China, the glass, i. 537; > metal work, i. 538 > > Chinese believe in the art of overcoming mortality, i. 214; > ancient emperor puts two astronomers to death, i. 241 > > _Chitonuth our_, chitons or coats of skin, a priestly garb, i. 575; > Adam and his wife invested by יהוה אלהים, Java Aleim, _ib._ > > Chrestians before Christians, ii. 323 > > Chrestos, worshipped many centuries before Christ, ii. 324; > Christians and Jews alike united, ii. 558 > > Christ a reïncarnationist, ii. 145; > destroyed Jehovah-worship, ii. 527; > a modified Christna, ii. 532; > a personage rather than a person, ii. 576 > > Christian spiritualists, i. 54; > denominations, peculiarity of their deity, ii. 2, 354, 485, 581; > spent on their buildings, ii. 2; > the spiritualists in them, ii. 2; > hatred of spiritualism, ii. 4; > symbols, presence of phallism, ii. 5; > Church, with the rites and priestly robes of heathenism, ii. 96; > doctrines classified, ii. 145; > doctrines, their origin in Middle Asia, ii. 338; > Gnostics, ii. 324; > appeared just as the Essenes disappeared, _ib._; > Sabbath, its date, ii. 419; > theology, its origin, ii. 525 > > Christianity, early, based on the doctrine of God, the universal mind > diffused through all things, i. 285; > description of Max Müller, ii. 10; > pure heathenism, ii. 80; > primitive, had secret pass-words and rites, ii. 204; > doctrines taken from Brahmanism and Buddhism, the ceremonials and > pageantry from Lamaism, ii. 211; > its true spirit found only in Buddhism, ii. 240; > made little change from Roman paganism, ii. 334; > its doctrines plagiarized, ii. 346; > and a personal God repudiated by Freemasons at Lausanne, ii. 377; > bull’s eye in its target, ii. 476; > theological, the Devil its patron genius, ii. 478; > its symbols anticipated by the older religions, ii. 557; > Paul the real founder, ii. 574; > stripped of every feature to make it acceptable to the Siamese, ii. > 579 > > Christians, few understand Jewish theology, i. 17; > divided into three unequal parties, ii. 3; > why they quarrelled with the Pagans, ii. 51; > accepted the worship of the God of the gardens, _ib._; > Old, called Nazarenes, ii. 151; > only seven to twelve in each church, ii. 175; > Pauline and Petrine controversy, _ib._; > of St. John, or Mendæans, ii. 289, 290; > do not believe in Christ, ii. 290; > accused of child-murder at their “perfect passover,” ii. 333; > originally composed of secret societies, ii. 335; > anciently kept no Sabbaths, ii. 419; > claim the discovery of the Devil, ii. 477; > praiseworthy, modified Buddhists, ii. 540; > Russian and Bulgarian, cursed by the Pope, ii. 560 > > Christism, before Christ, ii. 32 > > Christmas festivals of Capuchins, ii. 365 > > Christna, orthography of the name, i. 586; > crushing the head of the serpent, ii. 446; > and his mother with the aureole, ii. 95; > raises the daughter of Angashuna to life, ii. 241; > the good shepherd, crushes the serpent Kalinaga, is crucified, ii. > 447; > Sakya-muni, and Jesus, three men exalted to deity, ii. 536; > lived 6,877 years ago (1877), ii. 537; > his dying words to the hunter, ii. 545, 546; > his eulogy of works rather than contemplations, ii. 563 > > Christos or Crestos, ii. 142; > his entering into the man Jesus at the Jordan, ii. 186; > the Angel Gabriel, ii. 193; > from the Sanskrit kris or sacred, ii. 158; > an aggregation of the emanations, etc., ii. 159 > > Christs of the pre-Christian ages, ii. 43 > > Church and priest, benefits if they were to pass away, ii. 586 > > Church of Rome in 1876, excommunicating and cursing, ii. 6; > her powerless fury against the Bulgarians and Servians, ii. 7; > pre-eminent in murderous propensity, i. 27; > has mightier enemies than “heretics” and “infidels,” ii. 30; > believes in magic, ii. 76; > its maxim to deceive and lie to promote its ends, ii. 303 > > Churches, their phallic symbols, ii. 5; > ancient, only seven to twelve in each, ii. 175. > > Cicero, on divine exhalations from the earth, i. 200; > concerning the gods, i. 280 > > Cipher of the S. P. R. C., the Knight Rosy Cross of Heredom, and of > the Knights Kadosh, ii. 395; > Royal Arch, ii. 396 > > Circle, perfect, decussated, ii. 469; > of necessity, i. 296; > of necessity, when completed, i. 346; > of necessity, the sacred mysteries at Thebes, i. 553; > of stones, i. 572 > > Circle-dance or chorus of the Amazons, performed by King David and > others, ii. 45; > of the Amazons around a priapic image, a common usage and > sanctioned by a Catholic priest, ii. 331, 332; > taught to initiates in the sixth degree, ii. 365 > > Circulation, terrestrial, i. 503; > of the blood, understood by the Egyptians, i. 544 > > City, the mysterious, story of, i. 547 > > Civilization, ancient, i. 239; > of the east preceded that of the west, i. 539 > > Clairvoyance, cataleptic, the subject practically dead, i. 484 > > Clearchus gives five cases of larvæ or vampires, i. 364; > story of the boy whose soul was led away from the body and returned > again, i. 365, 366 > > Clear vision obstructed by physical memory, ii. 591 > > Clemens Alexandrinus, believed in metempsychosis, i. 12; > denounces the Mysteries, ii. 100 > > Cleonymus returned after dying, i. 364 > > Cleopatra sent news by a wire, i. 127 > > Clergy, Greek, Roman and Protestant, discountenance spiritual > phenomena, i. 26; > Roman and Protestant burned and hanged mediums, _ib._; > Protestant, their hatred of spiritualism, ii. 4; > their cast-off garb worn by men of science, ii. 8; > attired in the cast-off garb of the heathen priesthood, _ib._ > > Clerkship of the Templars, ii. 385 > > Clermont system, the Scottish Rite, ii. 381 > > Clinton, De Witt, Grand Master of the first Grand Encampment General, > ii. 383 > > Clocks and dials in ancient periods, i. 536 > > Coats of skin, i. 2, 149; > explained, i. 293; > worn by the priests of Hercules, i. 575; > Adam and his wife so invested, _ib._; > _Chitonuth our_, ii. 458 > > Code of Justinian copied from Manu, i. 586 > > _Codex Nazaræus_ prohibits the worship of Adonai the Sun-god, ii. 131; > denounces Jesus, ii. 132 > > Coffin, from Egypt, dated by astronomical delineations, i. 520, 521 > > Colenso, Bishop, exiled the _Old Testament_, ii. 4 > > Colleges for teaching prophecy and occult sciences, i. 482 > > Collouca-Batta, account of the migrations of Manu-Vina from India to > Egypt, i. 627 > > Collyridians asserted Mary to be virgin-born, ii. 110; > transferred their worship from Astoreth to Mary, ii. 444 > > Colob, a planet on which the Mormon chief god lives, ii. 2 > > Colored masonry not acknowledged, ii. 391 > > Colquhoun, J. C., on the doctrine of a personal devil, ii. 477 > > Commission, Russian, to investigate spiritual phenomena, i. 117 > > Communication, subjective, with spirits, ii. 115 > > Communication, supposed, with the dead, with angels, devils, and > gods, i. 323 > > Communion with God, a pagan sentiment, ii. 470 > > Companions, or Kabalists, ii. 470 > > Compensation, the law never swerves, ii. 545 > > Comte, Auguste, i. 76; > catechism of religion of positivism, i. 78; > his feminine mystery, i. 81; > his doctrines repudiated by Huxley, i. 82; > his philosophy belonging to David Hume, _ib._; > the ventriloquist, on spiritual phenomena, i. 101 > > Comtists, or positivists, despised and hated, ii. 3 > > Conflict between the world-religions, i. 307 > > Conical monuments imputed to Hermes Trismegistus, i. 551 > > Conjurers, i. 73 > > Consciousness a quality of the soul, i. 199 > > Constitutions, secret, of the Jesuits, ii. 354 > > Continent, Atlantian, i. 591; > Lemuria, i. 592; > Great Equinoctial, i. 594; > in the Pacific, i. 594; > inhabited by the Rutas, _ib._ > > “Control,” i. 360 > > Convulsionaries cured by marriage, i. 375 > > Convulsionary, extraordinary resistance to external injury, i. 373 > > Corcoran, Catherine, malformed child, i. 392 > > Cordanus, power of leaving his body to go on errands, i. 477 > > Corinthian bride, resuscitated by Apollonius of Tyana, i. 481 > > Correspondences, Swedenborg’s doctrine that of Pythagoras and > Kabalists, i. 306 > > Corson, Prof., on science and its contests with religion, i. 403 > > Cory, exceptions to his view of Plato and Pythagoras, i. 288 > > Cosmo, St., traffic by the Italian clergy in his phallic _ex-votos_, > ii. 5 > > Cosmogonical doctrines based on one formula, i. 341 > > Counterfeit relics palmed off on Prince Radzivil, ii. 72; > they work miracles, _ib._ > > Counterfeits in thaumaturgy are proofs of an original, ii. 567 > > Covercapal, the serpent-god, converted, ii. 509 > > Cox, Sergeant, proposition concerning the physical phenomena of > spiritualism, i. 195; > his denial, i. 201 > > Creation, doctrine of Hermetists and Rosicrucians, i. 258; > cycle of, ii. 272, 273; > Plato’s discourse, ii. 469; > of mankind, Hindu legend, i. 148; > Norse legend, i. 146, 151; > of men from the tree _tzite_ and women from the reed _sibac_, i. > 558 > > Creative Principle, proclaimed at Lausanne by the supreme councils of > Freemasonry, ii. 377; > denounced by Gen. Pike, _ib._ > > Creator, not the Highest God, i. 309; > the father of matter and the bad, _ib._ > > Credo, as amended by Robert Taylor, ii. 522 > > Creed, suggested for Protestant and Catholic bodies, ii. 473 > > Crime of every kind sanctioned by Jesuit doctrine, ii. 353; > by ecclesiastics in the United States, ii. 573 > > Crimean war, i. 260 > > Crook, Episcopal, adopted from the Etrurian augurs, ii. 94 > > Crookes, Prof., begins to investigate spiritual phenomena, i. 44; > on psychic force, i. 45; > theories, i. 47; > remarks on Prof. Thury, i. 112; > his experiment with the planchette, i. 199; > acknowledges the evidence of spiritual phenomena overwhelming, i. > 202; > weighing light, i. 281 > > Cross, philosophical, i. 508; > or Tau, an ancient symbol, ii. 393; > Egyptian, found at Palenque, i. 572; > a sign of recognition, long before the Christian era, ii. 87; > found on the walls of the Serapeum, ii. 253, 254; > used in the Mysteries, _ib._; > of the Zodiac, ii. 452; > revered by every nation, ii. 453; > the geometrical basis of religious symbolism, _ib._; > acknowledged by the Jews, ii. 454 > > Crosse, Andrew, producing living insects by chemical action, i. 465 > > Crowe, Catherine, on stigmata or birth marks, i. 396 > > Crusade of des Mousseaux and de Mirville against the arch-enemy, ii. > 15 > > Cryptographs of the Sovereign Princes Rose Croix, ii. 394 > > Crypts of Thebes and Memphis, i. 553; > mysteries of the circle of necessity, _ib._ > > Cults derived from one primitive religion, ii. 412 > > Cup, consecrated in the Bacchic mysteries, ii. 513 > > Cures effected at the Egyptian temples, i. 531, 532 > > Curse inheres in matter, i. 433; > allegorical, of the earth, ii. 420 > > Cursing, a Christian, and not a pagan practice, ii. 334; > prohibited because it will return, ii. 608 > > Cusco, its temples and hieroglyphics, i. 597; > tunnel to Lima and Bolivia, _ib._ > > Cycle, at the bottom, i. 247; > doctrine demonstrated, i. 348; > the Unavoidable, the Mysteries, i. 553 > > Cycles of human existence, i. 5, 6, 247, 293; > of the universe, ii. 420 > > Cyclopeans were Phœnicians, i. 567; > were shepherds in Libya, miners and builders, and forged bolts for > Zeus, _ib._; > same as Anakim, _ib._ > > Cyclopes, or Cuclo-pos, the Rajpoot race, ii. 438 > > Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, anthropomorphized Isis as Mary, ii. 41; > his murder of Hypatia, ii. 53; > the assassin of Hypatia sold church vessels, etc., ii. 253 > > Czechs of Bohemia burn the Bull and Syllabus, ii. 560 > > Dactyls, Phrygian, i. 23 > > Daguerre declared by a physician to be insane because he declared his > discovery, ii. 619 > > Daimonion of Socrates the cause of his death, ii. 117 > > Daimonia, i. 276 > > Daityas, i. 313 > > Damiano, St., traffic in Isernia, in his limbs and _ex-voto_, ii. 5 > > Dam-Sâdhna, a practice of fakirs like the rabbinic method of > “entering paradise,” ii. 590 > > Danger, the greatest to be feared, ii. 122 > > Daniel a Babylonian Rabbi, astrologer, and magus, ii. 236 > > Dardanus received the Kabeiri gods as a dowry, i. 570; > carried their worship to Samothrace and Troy, _ib._ > > Darius Hystaspes, teacher of the Mazdean religion, ii. 140; > put down the magian rites, ii. 142; > restored the worship of Ormazd, ii. 220; > added the Brahman to the Magian doctrine, ii. 306; > the institutor of magism, ii. 502; > established a Persian colony in Judea, ii. 441 > > Dark races of Hindustan worshipped Bala-Mahadeva, ii. 434 > > Darkness and the bad, how produced, i. 302 > > Darwin, his theory, i. 14 > > Darwinian line of descent, i. 154; > theory, in book of Genesis, i. 303 > > Daughters of Shiloh, their dance, ii. 45 > > David, King, exorcised the evil spirit of God, i. 215; > how he reinforced his failing vigor, i. 217; > danced the circle-dance of the Amazons, ii. 45; > knew nothing of Moses, _ib._; > performing a phallic dance before the ark, ii. 79; > brought the name Jehovah to Palestine, ii. 297; > established the Sadducean priesthood, _ib._; > ascends out of hell, ii. 517; > the Israelitish King Arthur, ii. 439; > establishes a new religion in Palestine, _ib._ > > Davis, A. J., on Diakka, i. 218 > > Day and night of Brahma, ii. 421 > > Daytha, the Hindu Nimrod, ii. 425 > > Dead, their ashes assuming their likeness, ii. 663 > > Death, when it actually occurs, i. 482; > when resuscitation is possible, i. 485; > planetary, i. 254; > no certain signs, i. 479; > exposition, i. 480; > language of Pimander, i. 624, 625; > the penalty for divulging secrets of initiation, ii. 99; > the Gates, ii. 364; > the second, ii. 368 > > Death-symbol at the orgies, ii. 138 > > Decameron, Boccaccio’s, prudery beside the _Golden Legend_, ii. 79 > > Decimal notation unknown to Pythagoras, ii. 300; > known to the Pythagoreans, _ib._ > > Degeneracy of Christians, ii. 575 > > Degrees, the three, ii. 364 > > Deicide, never charged on the Jews by Jesus, ii. 193 > > Deity, from deva, and devil from daeva, the same etymology, ii. 512; > represented by three circles in one, ii. 212 > > Delegatus, ii. 154 > > Deluge, i. 30; > Hindu story, ii. 425 > > Demeter, the Kabeirian, her picture represented with the electrified > head, i. 234; > or Ceres, the intellectual soul, ii. 112 > > Demigod philosophers, ii. 536 > > Demigods and atmospheric electricity, i. 261 > > Demiurgic Mind, i. 55 > > Demiurgos, or architect of the world, Brahma, i. 191; > Jehovah, _ib._ > > Democritus, i. 61; > on death, i. 365; > on the soul, i. 401; > a student of the Magi, i. 512; > his belief concerning magic, _ib._ > > Demon and Martin Luther, ii. 73; > of Socrates, ii. 283, 284; > same as the _nous_, _ib._ > > Demons, the doctrine of Buddha, i. 448; > in the Western Sahara, fascinate travellers, i. 604; > sometimes speak the truth, ii. 71; > opinion of Proclus, i. 312 > > Demoniac, sulphurous flames, ii. 75; > one receives a sound thrashing from the Blessed Virgin, ii. 76 > > Demonologia, i. 89 > > Demon-worship and saint-worship substantially the same, ii. 29 > > Dendera, the temple, the female figures, i. 524 > > De Negre, Grand Hierophant of the Rite of Memphis, ii. 380 > > Denon, his description of the ruins of Karnak, i. 524 > > Dentists in ancient Egypt, i. 545 > > Denton, Prof., examples of psychometrical power, i. 183; > illustrates archæology by psychometry, i. 295 > > Dervish, their initiation, ii. 317 > > Desatir, or book of Shet, on light, ii. 113 > > Descartes believed in occult medicine, i. 71; > his system of physics, i. 206 > > Descendants, resemblance to ancestors, i. 385 > > Descent into hell, ii. 177; > to subdue the rebellious archangel, i. 299; > how explained by Kabalists, _ib._; > of spirit to matter, i. 285 > > Designations of the virgin-mothers, Hindu, Egyptian, and Catholic, > ii. 209 > > Des Mousseaux, his reply to Calmeil and Figuier in regard to > Convulsionaries, i. 375, 376; > on miracles, magic, etc., i. 614, 615; > Chevalier, his crusade against the devil, ii. 15; > proves magic and spiritualism to be twin-sciences, _ib._ > > Despres made the diamond, i. 509 > > Destiny, an influence that each man weaves round himself, ii. 593; > how guided, _ib._ > > Devas and Asuras, their battles, i. 12 > > Devs, i. 141; > nature-spirits, called also shedim, demons, and afrites, i. 313 > > Devil, memoir of, i. 102; > the chief pillar of faith, i. 103; > not an entity, but an errant force, i. 138; > and deity, words of the same etymology, ii. 512; > the Shadow of God, i. 560; > the anthropomorphic, a creation of man, i. 561; > Aryan nations had none, ii. 10; > called by des Mousseaux the Serpent of _Genesis_, ii. 15; > a whole community possessed, ii. 16; > pesters St. Dominic as a flea and as a monkey, ii. 78; > Christians claim the discovery, ii. 477; > the patron genius of theological Christianity, ii. 477; > to deny him equivalent to denying the Saviour, ii. 478; > what he is, ii. 480; > an essential antagonistic force, _ib._; > the key found in the book of Job, ii. 493; > the fundamental stone of Christianity, ii. 501; > origin of the English notions, _ib._; > the European, ii. 502; > with horns and hoof, only known in Popish Encyclicals, ii. 503; > his various delineations by authors, ii. 511 > > Devils, 15,000 in a man, ii. 75; > the Fathers made them from the pagan gods, ii. 502 > > Devil-worshippers of Travancore, i. 135; > falsely-termed, their practice, i. 446, 447 > > Dew from heaven, i. 307 > > Dewel, a demon of Ceylon, i. 448 > > Dharana, or catalepsy, ii. 590, 591 > > Dharm-Asoka, the great propagandist of Buddhism, ii. 607 > > Dhyâna or perfection, ii. 287 > > Diabolical manifestations, frowned at by the Roman Church, ii. 4 > > Diagram of the Nazarenes, ii. 295 > > Diakka, discovered by A. J. Davis, i. 218; > what Porphyry said, i. 219 > > Dialogue of David and the devils, ii. 75 > > Diamond, made by Desprez, i. 509 > > Dido, Elissa, or Astarte, the virgin of the sea, ii. 446 > > Dirghatamas’ hymns, ii. 411 > > Di Franciscis, Don Pasquale, “professor of flunkeyism in things > spiritual,” ii. 7; > pious collection of papal fishwoman’s talk, _ib._ > > Dii minores, or twelve gods, ii. 451 > > Diktamnos, i. 264 > > Diobolos (son of Zeus) changed to Diabolos, an accuser, ii. 485 > > Dionysus, his worship superseded by the rites of Mithras, ii. 491; > or Bacchus, his Hindu origin, ii. 560 > > Diploteratology or production of monsters, i. 390 > > Disbelievers in magic cannot share the faith of the church, ii. 71 > > Diocletian burned libraries of books upon the secret arts, i. 405 > > Dionysius Areopagita and the Kabala, i. 26 > > Dionè pursued by Typhon to the Euphrates, ii. 490 > > Disciples of John, ii. 289, 290; > do not believe in Christ, ii. 290 > > Dissimilarities between Buddhism and Christianity, ii. 540, 541 > > “Distractions” of adversaries of spiritualism, i. 116 > > Divination by the lot, ii. 20, 21; > prohibited by the Council of Varres, i. 21; > devoid of sin, ii. 353 > > Divine book, i. 406; > magic, i. 26 > > Djin reading magic rolls, ii. 29 > > Docetæ or illusionists, believed in the Maya, ii. 157 > > Documents sure to reappear, ii. 26 > > Dodechædron, the geometrical figure of the universe, i. 342 > > Domes, the reproductions of the lithos, ii. 5 > > Dominic and the devils, ii. 73, 75; > receives a rosary from the Virgin Mary, ii. 74; > most hated by devils, ii. 75; > and the devil flea and monkey, ii. 78 > > Dominicans, none in hell, ii. 75 > > Dodona, priestesses, prophesied by means of the oak, ii. 592 > > Doppelganger, or astral body, i. 360 > > Double cross of Chaldea, ii. 453; > existence, i. 179, 180; > life of the adept, ii. 564; > perverted into the offering of human sacrifices, ii. 565 > > Double-sexed creators, i. 156 > > Dove, represented Noah, worshipped, ii. 448 > > Dowager mother alone the mediatrix, ii. 9; > owes the present Pope for the finest gem in her coronet, _ib._ > > Dracontia, or temples to the dragon, i. 554 > > Dragon and the sun, the basis of heliolatrous religion, i. 550; > sons of, the hierophants, i. 553; > cured of a sore eye by Simeon Stylites, and adored God, ii. 77; > Apophis, his influence on the soul, ii. 368; > Horus piercing his head, ii. 446; > pursues Thuesis and her son, ii. 490; > glided over the cradle of Mary, ii. 505; > of Ceylon, Rawho, ii. 509 > > Dragons, oriental in character, i. 448 > > Drama of Job explained, ii. 494, 495 > > Draper, Prof., on pagan belief concerning the human spirit, i. 429; > asserts that Aristotle taught the Buddhistic doctrine, i. 430; > probably meant to misrepresent the Neo-platonic philosophers, i. > 431; > defines the “age of faith” and “age of decrepitude,” i. 582; > on Olympus restored by Constantine, ii. 49; > on the conflict instituted by Augustine between religion and > science, ii. 88 > > Dream produced by the inner ego of a Shaman at the author’s request, > ii. 628 > > Dress of the Christian clergy like that of ancient pagans, ii. 94 > > Druidical structures like other ancient works, i. 572 > > Druids denominated themselves snakes, i. 554 > > Drummer of Tedworth, i. 363 > > Druzes of Mount Lebanon, ii. 306; > their 80,000 warriors, ii. 308; > never became Christians, ii. 309; > their doctrines, ii. 309, 310; > believe in “two souls,” ii. 315; > their tricks with strangers, _ib._; > correct and garbled versions of their commandments, ii. 311 > > Duad or second, i. 212; > ether and chaos the first, i. 343 > > Dual evolution represented in Adam, ii. 277; > taught by Plato and others, ii. 279 > > Dudim, or mandragora, i. 465 > > Dunbar, George, endeavor to derive the Sanscrit from the Greek > language, i. 443 > > Duomo of Milan, its original, ii. 5 > > Du Potet, Baron, Grand Master of Mesmerism, i. 166; > views of sorcery, epidemics, antipathies, magic, i. 279, 333 > > Dupuis mistook ancient symbolism, i. 24 > > Durga, the active virtue, or Shekinah, ii. 276 > > Dust of the earth to become the constituent of living soul, ii. 420 > > Dynasties, two in India, ii. 437 > > Dwellers of the threshold, i. 285 > > Early Christian Church invented the doctrine of Second Advent to shut > off periodical incarnations, ii. 535; > Christianity itself a heresy, ii. 123; > its history imparted to the first Knight Templars, ii. 382 > > Earth, queen of the Serpents, i. 10; > the goddess Anahit or Venus, i. 11; > magical exhalations, i. 199, 200; > a magnet, i. 282 > > Earths germinate, i. 389 > > East, the land of knowledge, i. 89; > its civilization preceded that of the West, i. 539 > > Eastern Æthiopians an Aryan stock, ii. 435; > magic, its adepts uniformly in good health, ii. 595; > requires no “conditions” like mediums, _ib._ > > Ebers Papyrus in the Astor library, i. 3; > quoted, i. 23; > its curious contents, i. 529 > > Ebionites, ii. 127; > the first Christians, ii. 180; > the relatives of Jesus, ii. 181; > used only the Gospel according to Matthew, ii. 182; > the Nazarenes their instructors, ii. 190; > condemned as heretics, ii. 307 > > Ecbatana, her seven walls and other wonders, i. 534 > > Echo in the desert of Gobi, i. 606 > > Ecclesia non novit sanguinem, ii. 58 > > Eclectic Platonists adopt the inductive method, ii. 34; > school, its dispersion desired by Christians, ii. 52; > its groundwork, ii. 342, 343 > > Ecstasy, power of conversing with Deity, i. 121; > doctrine of Paracelsus and Van Helmont, i. 170; > defined by Plotinus, i. 486 > > Ectenic force, i. 55; > same as psychic force, i. 113; > same as the Akasa, _ib._ > > Eden, the allegory of the Book of Genesis, i. 575 > > Edison, of Newark, N. J., supposed discovery of a new force, i. 126 > > Egg, spiritual or mundane, i. 56; > evolved by Emepht, the supreme, i. 146; > Isle of Chemmis produced from it, i. 147; > Bhagavant enters and emerges as Brahma, i. 346; > and bird, which appeared first?, i. 426, 428 > > _Egkosmioi_, i. 312 > > Ego, the sentient soul, inseparable from the brain, ii. 590 > > Egypt, resort of philosophers, i. 25; > priests could communicate from temple to temple, i. 127; > doctrine of evolution taught, i. 154; > the perpetual lamp discovered there, i. 226; > taught the secret to Moses, i. 228; > Pythagoras twenty-two years in the temple, i. 284; > Hermetic brothers, ii. 307; > secret biography of its gods, i. 406; > books before Menes, _ib._; > did not learn her wisdom from her Semitic neighbors, i. 515; > akin with India, _ib._; > probably colonized by the Eastern Ethiopians, _ib._; > 20,000 years’ antiquity, i. 519; > the birthplace of chemistry, i. 541; > dentists and oculists, i. 545; > no doctor allowed to practice more than one specialty, _ib._; > trial by jury, _ib._; > received her laws from pre-Vedic India, i. 589; > colonized from India in the dynasty of Soma-Vanga, i. 627 > > Egyptian temples, architecture of, i. 517; > monuments defeat the efforts of the fathers, ii. 520; > saints reappearing as a serpent, ii. 490 > > Egyptians, civilized before the first dynasties, i. 6; > astronomical calculations, i. 21; > were monotheists, i. 23; > knowledge of engineering, i. 516; > changed the course of the Nile, _ib._; > their astronomical erudition, i. 520; > their high civilization disputed, i. 521; > arts of war, i. 531; > gods in the Grecian pantheon, i. 543; > made beer, manufactured glass and imitated gems, i. _ib._; > the best music-teachers, i. 544; > understood the circulation of the blood, _ib._; > their sacred books older than the Genesis, ii. 431; > ancient Indians, ii. 434; > the Caucasian race, ii. 436 > > Eight powers of the soul, ii. 593 > > Eight hundred million believers in magic, mesmerism, and > spiritualism, i. 512 > > Eight-pointed star or double cross, ii. 453 > > El, i. 13; > the sun-god, same as Seth, Saturn, Seth, Siva, ii. 524 > > Elcazar, Rabbi, expelled demons, ii. 350 > > Electric waves, i. 278 > > Electrical photography, i. 395 > > Electricity, personated by Thor in Norse legends, i. 160, 161; > two kinds, i. 188, 322; > occult properties anciently understood, i. 234; > represented at Samothrace by the Kabeirian Demeter, _ib._; > denoted by the Dioskuri, i. 235; > the fire on the altar, i. 283; > blind and intelligent, i. 322; > cerebral, _ib._; > developed from magnetic currents, i. 395; > used anciently to supply fire to the altars, i. 526 > > Electro-magnetism, i. 103; > employed by Paracelsus, i. 164 > > Elion, or Elon, the highest god, i. 554 > > Eliphas Levi, on resuscitation of the dead, i. 485 > > Elixir of life regarded as absurd, i. 501; > possible, i. 502; > curious accounts, i. 503 > > Elizabeth, Queen, Jesuitic attempt to murder her, ii. 373 > > Elemental demon driven away with a sword, i. 364; > spirits, i. 67, 311; > inhabit the universal ether, i. 284; > psychic embryos, i. 311; > live in the ether, _ib._; > power to assume tangible bodies, _ib._ > > Elementary spirits, i. 67; > three classes, i. 310; > called demons by Proclus, i. 312; > terrestrial spirits, i. 319; > four classes, _ib._; > peril of evoking them, i. 342; > afraid of sharp weapons, i. 362 > > Elephanta, the Mahody, ii. 5 > > Eleusinian Mysteries, ii. 44 > > Elihu, the hierophant of Job, ii. 497 > > Elisha anointed Jehu that he might unite the Israelites, ii. 525 > > Ellenborough, Lady, her talisman, ii. 255, 256 > > Elohim inhabiting an island in the ancient inland sea of Middle Asia, > i. 589, 590, 599 > > Eloim, gods or powers, priests; also Aleim, i. 575 > > Emanation of souls from divinity, doctrine of, i. 13 > > Emanations, doctrine of, ii. 34 > > Embalming in Thibet, ii. 603 > > Emanuel, not Christ, but the son of Isaiah, ii. 166; > the son of the Alma, in whose days Syria and Israel were overcome, > ii. 440 > > Embryo, stamped with a resemblance by the imagination of the mother, > i. 385; > its nucleus, i. 389 > > Emepht, the supreme, first principle, i. 146; > emanation from him of the creative God, ii. 41 > > Emigration from India to the West, ii. 428 > > Eminent men called gods, i. 24, 280 > > Emmerich, Catherine, the Tyrolese ecstatic, i. 398 > > Empedocles believed in two souls, i. 317; > restored a woman to life, i. 480; > arrested a water-spout, ii. 597 > > Empusa or ghûl, beheld by Apollonius of Tyana, i. 604 > > Enmity, everlasting, between theology and science, ii. 88 > > Ennemoser on seership, etc., in India, i. 460 > > Enoch, sacred delta of, i. 20; > Masonic legend, i. 571; > builds a subterranean structure with nine chambers, _ib._; > communicates secrets to Methuselah, _ib._; > the type of the dual man, spiritual and terrestrial, ii. 453; > and Elias ascending from hell, ii. 517 > > Enoch-Verihe, i. 560 > > En-Soph, i. 16, 67, 270, 272; > means No-Thing, _quo ad non_, the same as nirvana, i. 292; > the first principle, i. 347; > within its first emanation, ii. 37 > > Enthusiastic energy, ii. 591 > > Ephesus a focus of the universal secret doctrines, ii. 155 > > Epicurus disbelieved in God, i. 317; > believed the soul constituted of the roundest, finest atoms, _ib._; > testimony concerning the gods, i. 436 > > Epidemic in moral and physical affairs, i. 274, 276, 277; > of assassination, i. 277; > of possession in Germany, i. 374 > > Epimenides, i. 364; > power to make his soul leave his body and return, ii. 597 > > Epiphanius, a Gnostic renegade, who betrayed his associates as > state’s evidence, ii. 249; > belied the Gnostics, ii. 330 > > Episcopalian crook adopted from the augurs of Etruria, ii. 94 > > Epopt, master-builder, adept, ii. 91 > > Epoptæ, knew nothing of the last and dreaded rite, ii. 563 > > Epopteia, revelation and clairvoyance, the last stage in initiation, > ii. 90 > > Erring spirits, their re-incarnation, i. 357 > > Eslinger, Elizabeth, the apparition, i. 68 > > Esoteric catechism, i. 19; > doctrines never committed to writing, i. 271; > Masonry not known in American lodges, ii. 376 > > Essaoua or sorcerers, i. 488 > > Essenes, hermetic fraternities, i. 16; > had greater and minor mysteries, ii. 42; > had the same customs as the Apostles, ii. 196; > believed in pre-existence, ii. 280; > declared by Eusebius to have been the first Christians, ii. 323; > older than the Christians, _ib._; > never employed oaths, ii. 373; > probably Buddhists, ii. 491 > > Eternal torments of hell, why pagans are condemned to them, ii. 8; > letter of Virgin Mary on the subject, _ib._; > damnation, the only doctrine invented originally by Christians, ii. > 334; > meaning of the word, ii. 12 > > Eternity, the duad or second, i. 212; > no Hebrew word to express the idea, ii. 12 > > Ether, the universal, i. 128, 156, 284; > properties, i. 181; > directed by an intelligence, i. 199; > disturbed by planetary aspects, i. 275; > influenced by Divine thought, i. 310; > the universal world-soul, i. 316, 341; > universal, the womb of the universe, i. 389; > universal, the repository of the spiritual images of all forms and > thoughts, i. 395; > the Orphean doctrine denounced by the early Christians, ii. 35 > > Ethereal body, i. 281 > > Ethiopians, eastern, the builders, colonists of Egypt, i. 515 > > Etruscans understood electricity and employed it in worship, i. 527; > invented lightning-rods, _ib._ > > Eucharist, common to many ancient nations, ii. 43 > > Eurinus returned after dying, i. 365 > > European science, without the knowledge of the secrets of herbs of > dreams, ii. 589 > > Europeans cannot see certain colors, i. 211 > > Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, perverted chronology, i. 288; > convicted of mendacity, ii. 327 > > Evapto, or initiation, same as epopteia, ii. 90, 91 > > Eve, the name and its affinity with the Tetragrammaton, ii. 299; > her story told kabalistically, ii. 223-225 > > Every nation has believed in a God, ii. 121 > > Evil possessed space as the intelligences retired, i. 342; > essential to the evolving of the good, ii. 480; > eye, i. 380; > Pope Pio Nono said to have the gift, _ib._; > magic, i. 26 > > Evocation, of souls, objected to, i. 321; > of the dead, i. 492; > the “souls of the blessed” do not come, i. 493; > blood used for the purpose, _ib._ > > Evocations, magical, pronounced in a particular dialect, ii. 46; > a formula, _ib._ > > Evolution, taught by science, the secret doctrine and the Bible, i. > 152; > theory found in India and Assyria, i. 154; > held by Anaximenes and accepted by the Chaldeans, i. 238; > taught by Hermes, i. 257; > doctrine of Robert Fludd, i. 258; > ancient belief, i. 285, 295; > doctrine of A. R. Wallace, i. 294; > operation defined, i. 329, 330; > spiritual and physical, i. 352; > theory does not solve the ultimate mystery, i. 419; > of man out of primordial spirit-matter, i. 429; > Darwin begins his theory at the wrong end, _ib._; > as taught by the Bhagavat and Manu, ii. 260; > by Sanchoniathon and Darwin, ii. 261; > of our own planet, ii. 420; > for six days, and one of repose, ii. 422; > of the universe, ii. 467; > of man from the highest to lowest, ii. 424 > > Exorcising a girl in Catalonia, ii. 68 > > Exorcism, ii. 66; > new ritual, ii. 69 > > Exorcist-priest, ii. 66 > > Exoteric religion, its God an idol or fiction, i. 307 > > Exposures, pretended, of impostors, i. 75 > > Extinction at death, those who believe it will commit, in > consequence, any sin they choose, ii. 566 > > _Ex votos_, Phallic, traffic by the Roman clergy, ii. 5 > > Ezekiel’s wheel, a wheel of the Adonai, ii. 451; > explained, ii. 455; > exoteric, ii. 461; > esoteric, ii. 462 > > Ezra compiled the _Pentateuch_, i. 578 > > Fables, allegorical science and anthropology, i. 122; > allegorized the gods and natural phenomena, i. 261 > > Fairfield, Francis Gerry, his testimony in regard to the > phantom-hand, ii. 594, 595 > > Faith, the Devil the chief pillar, i. 103; > its power to heal disease, i. 216; > phenomena of, i. 323; > its great power, ii. 597; > of the Church, disbelievers in magic cannot share, ii. 76; > omni-perceptive, inside of human credulity, ii. 120 > > Faithful daughters of the church, ii. 54 > > Fakir buried six weeks and resuscitated, i. 477; > and his guru, ii. 105 > > Fakirs not harmed by alligators, i. 383; > use the force known as Akasa, i. 113; > raised from the ground, i. 115, 224 > > Fall of Adam, not a personal transgression, but an evolution, ii. 277 > > Fallen angels, hurled by Siva into Onderah, ii. 11 > > Familiar spirit, those having one, refused initiation, ii. 118 > > Famines follow missionaries, ii. 531 > > Faraday, i. 11; > his medium-catcher, i. 63 > > Fascination, i. 380, 381; > at a precipice, i. 501 > > Fatalism rejected by ancients, ii. 593 > > Fate, defined by Henry More, i. 206 > > “Father” of Jesus, the hierophant of the mysteries, ii. 561 > > Fathers, selected narratives for their saints, from the poets and > pagan legends, ii. 78 > > Fauste asserts that the evangeliums or gospels were not written by > Jesus or the apostles, but by unknown persons, ii. 38 > > Fav-Atma, or sentient soul, ii. 590 > > Favre, Jules, counsel for Madam Roger, i. 166 > > Feast of the dead in Moldavia and Bulgaria, ii. 569, 570 > > Felix, preacher of Notre Dame, on mystery and science, i. 337 > > Felt, George H., i. 22 > > Female trinity, ii. 444 > > Ferho, the greatest, i. 300; > first cause, i. 301; > believed in by Jesus and John, ii. 290 > > Fessler’s rite, a Jesuitical production, ii. 390 > > Fetahil, i. 298; > called to aid in creation, i. 299; > the newest man and creator, i. 300; > the “newest man,” ii. 175 > > Fiery serpents (_Numbers_, xxi.), a name given to the Levites, i. 555; > or seraphs, the Levites, or serpent-tribe, ii. 481; > the allegory explained, ii. 129 > > Fifteen thousand devils in a man, ii. 75 > > Fifth degree, ii. 365; > element, i. 317; > stage of initiation the most awful and sublime, ii. 101 > > Fifty millions slaughtered by Christians since Jesus said, “Love your > enemies,” ii. 479 > > Fifty-five thousand Protestant clergymen in the United States, ii. 1 > > Final absorption, i. 12 > > Finger of the Holy Ghost preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Fiords of Norway described in the Odyssey, i. 549 > > Fire, living, i. 129; > on the altar, electric, i. 283; > its triple potency, i. 423; > from heaven, always employed by the ancients in the temples, i. 526; > preserved by the magi, i. 528; > and brimstone, the lake, ii. 12 > > Fire-proof mediums, i. 445, 446 > > Fūkara-Yogis, ii. 164 > > First Air, or anima mundi, ii. 227; > adept, ii. 317; > begotten, constructed the world, i. 342; > cause, denied by Vyasa and Kapila, ii. 261; > Christians, the Elianites, ii. 180; > the disciples of Paul, ii. 178; > cycle, i. 301; > gods, a hierarchy of higher powers, ii. 451; > light, i. 302; > man created bi-sexual, i. 559; > races of men spiritual, ii. 276; > direct emanations of the Tikkun or Adam Kadmon, _ib._; > sin, committed by Brahma-Pragâpati and his daughter Ushas, i. 265; > the spirit of evil created to destroy its incarnation, _ib._; > trinity, i. 341. > > Fish displaying magnetic affinity, i. 210 > > Fish-charming in Ceylon, i. 606 > > Fisher (Dr. G.) on deploteratology, i. 390 > > Fishwife, talk of papal discourses, ii. 7 > > Fiske, Prof. J., i. 42; > disputes the doctrine of cycles and the high civilization of the > Egyptians, i. 521; > declares the theories of profound science in ancient Egypt and the > East utterly destroyed, i. 525 > > Five thousand Roman Catholic clergy in the United States, ii. 1 > > Flammarion the astronomer, his avowal, i. 195; > Camille, his curious revelation, ii. 450 > > Flight of the alone to the Alone, ii. 413 > > Flood, 10,000 years B.C., i. 241; > as described in the Assyrian tablets, ii. 422; > Hindu legend, ii. 428; > the old serpent, ii. 447 > > Florentine scientist witnessing a re-incarnation of a Dalai-Lama, i. > 437 > > “Flowers of Speech,” Mr. Gladstone’s catalogue, ii. 7 > > Fludd, Robert (_de Fluctibus_), on magnetism, i. 71; > on minerals as rudimentary of plants, etc., i. 258; > chief of the “philosophers by fire,” i. 309; > on the essence of gold, i. 511 > > Flute-player of Vaucanson, i. 543 > > Fœtal life, little known about it, i. 386 > > Fœtus, its sensitive surface like a collodionized plate, i. 385; > its signature, _ib._; > extinguished, i. 402 > > Foraisse, M., his story respecting Masonry, ii. 381 > > Forbidden ground, i. 418 > > Force, magnetic, body nourished by, i. 169; > produced by will, i. 285; > the supreme artist and providence, ii. 40 > > Force-correlation, i. 235; > taught in prehistoric time, i. 241, 242; > the A B C of Occultism, i. 243 > > Fore-heaven, ii. 534 > > Fall of man an allegory, and so regarded, ii. 541 > > Forever, meaning of the word, ii. 12 > > Forgery the basis of the Church, ii. 329 > > Former life, i. 347 > > Forms, images impressed on the ether, i. 395 > > Formula of an evocation, ii. 46 > > Formulas, secret, i. 66; > for inextinguishable fire, i. 229 > > Four ages or yugs, ii. 275; > ages of the Bible like those of the nations, ii. 443; > gospels, their doctrines found elsewhere, ii. 337; > kingdoms in nature, i. 329; > men not begotten by the gods, nor born of women, i. 558; > the gods afraid of them, and give them wives, i. 558; > races of men, i. 559; > Tanaïm, etc., entered the garden, ii. 119; > “Truths,” i. 290, 291 > > Fournié, Dr., declares that no physiology of the nervous system > exists, i. 407; > remarkable declaration concerning the human ovule, i. 397 > > Fourth degree, ii. 365; > race, parents of men “whose daughters were fair,” i. 559 > > Fourfold emanations, ii. 272 > > Francis, St., preached to the birds, ii. 77; > preached to a wolf till he repented, _ib._ > > Francke, A., remarks on the transmutations of Christianity, ii. 38; > the Sephiroth and Providence, ii. 40 > > Free and Accepted Masons, and the Masonic impostor, Anderson, ii. 389 > > Free-Masonry, its origin in London, ii. 349; > proclaims a creative principle as Great Architect, ii. 377 > > French Revolution, what it achieved for freedom, ii. 22 > > Fretheim, Abbé, his faculty of conversing by power of will, i. 476 > > Friar Pietro presents a demon to Dr. Torralva, ii. 60 > > Fundamental doctrine identical in all the ancient religions, ii. 99 > > Funeral ritual of the Egyptians, ii. 367 > > Future life, better to believe in it, ii. 566; > self, beheld at the moment of initiation, ii. 115; > man, primitive shape, i. 388, 389; > religion of, i. 76; > woman of, artificially fecundated, i. 77; > also offered to the incubi, i. 78 > > Gabriel, the same as Christos, ii. 193 > > Gaffarillus, on the form of a burned plant remaining in the ashes, i. > 475, 476 > > Galileo, i. 35; > anticipated, i. 159, 238 > > Gallæus, quotation from, ii. 504 > > Gan-Duniyas, an Assyrian name of Babylonia, i. 575 > > Gan-Eden, or garden of Eden, also Ganduniyas, a name of Babylonia, i. > 575 > > Ganesor, the elephant-headed god found in Central America, i. 572, 573 > > Ganges, the paradisiacal river, ii. 30 > > Gap between Christianity and Judaism, ii. 526 > > Garden of delight (Eden), the mysterious science, ii. 119; > of Eden, allegory, i. 575; > name of Babylonia, _ib._; > explanation as a sacerdotal college, _ib._ > > Garibaldi, his testimony concerning priests, ii. 347; > a Mason, ii. 391 > > Garlic, story by Hippocrates, i. 20 > > Gasparin, Count Agenor de, i. 99; > makes no differences between magnetic phenomena and will-force, i. > 109; > his labors, ii. 15 > > Gate of the House of Life, and of Dionysus, ii. 245, 246 > > Gates of Death, in the hall of initiation, ii. 364 > > Gautama-Buddha, his birth announced to Maya his mother by a vision, > i. 92; > called an atheist, i. 307; > his answer to King Prasenagit on miracles, i. 599, 600; > a disciple of a Jaina guru, ii. 322; > his legends wrought into the evangelists, ii. 491, 492; > his history copied into _The Golden Legend_, ii. 579; > his esoteric doctrines, ii. 319; > first opened the sanctuary to the pariah, _ib._ > > Gayatri, its metre, ii. 410 > > Gegen Chutuktu, late patriarch of Mongolia, an incarnation of Buddha, > ii. 617 > > Gehenna, a valley near Jerusalem, where the Israelites immolated > their children, ii. 11; > of the universe, or eighth sphere or planet, i. 328; > repentance possible, i. 352 > > Gemantria, ii. 298 > > Gemma, Cornelius, account of a child born wounded, i. 386 > > Genealogy of the gods, astronomical, i. 267 > > Generations, fall into, i. 315 > > Genesis, Book of, a reminiscence of the Babylonish captivity, i. 576; > first three chapters transcribed from other cosmogonies, the fourth > and fifth from the secret _Book of Numbers_, the _Kabala_, i. > 579; > the introductory chapters do not treat of creation, ii. 421; > the book later than the invention of the sign Libra, ii. 457 > > Genghis Khan, his tomb and promised reappearance, i. 598 > > Genii, or Æons, lord of, i. 300 > > Genius, the divine spirit, i. 277 > > Genoa cathedral, the celebrated vase, i. 537, 538 > > Geographers in pre-Mosaic days, i. 406 > > Geometers of the Alexandrian Museum, i. 7 > > Germany depopulated by the thirty years’ war, ii. 503; > priestesses, how they hypnotized themselves, ii. 592 > > Ghosts, unlike materialized spirits, i. 69; i. 345 > > Ghouls, i. 319; > or ghûls, in the deserts, i. 604; > and vampires, ii. 564 > > Giants, i. 31; > progenitors of Brahmans, i. 122; > remains of a prehistorical race, i. 303, 304 > > Gibbon, his praise of the Gnostics, ii. 249 > > Gilbert on magnetism, i. 497 > > Giles, Rev. Chauncey, on spiritual death, i. 317 > > Ginnungagap, the cup of illusion, i. 147; > the boundless abyss of the mundane pit, i. 160 > > Girard, Father, his employment of sorcery and revolting crimes, ii. > 633 > > Gladstone, Hon. W. E., “Speeches of Pius IX.,” ii. 4; > catalogue of “flowers of speech” in papal discourses, ii. 7 > > Glass that would not break, i. 50; > malleable, i. 239; > in Pompeii, China, and Genoa, i. 537 > > Glass-blowing in Egypt, i. 543 > > Gliddon, George R., description of the moving of an obelisk, i. 519; > eloquent testimony to Egyptian civilization, i. 521, 522 > > Glycerine, a compound of three hydroxyl groups, i. 505, 506 > > Gnosis, the Kabala, or secret knowledge, still existing, ii. 38 > > Gnostic, wrote _Gospel according to John_, i. 2; > serpent with the seven vowels, ii. 489 > > Gnosticism, oriental, i. 271; > Buddhistic elements, ii. 321 > > Gnostics, ii. 41; > believed in metempsychosis, i. 12; > early Christians and followers of the Essenes, i. 26; > originated many Christian doctrines, ii. 41, 42; > their greatest heresies, ii. 155, 156; > praised by Gibbon, ii. 259; > their doctrines falsified by the Christian Fathers, ii. 326; > their view of the Jewish God, ii. 526 > > Gobi desert, the seat of empire, i. 598; > jealousy of foreign intrusion, i. 599; > testimony of Marco Polo, _ib._; > believed to be inhabited by malignant beings, i. 603 > > Goblins, elementary, i. 68 > > God, personal, denied by modern scientists, i. 16; > an intelligent, omnipotent, individual will, i. 58; > his existence denied by Comte and the Positivists, i. 76; > to be sought in nature, and not outside, i. 93; > belief of Henry More, the English Platonist, i. 205, 206; > Kircher’s doctrine of the one magnet, i. 208; > the monad, i. 212; > doctrines of Voltaire and Volney, i. 268; > the central sun, i. 270; > the universal mind, the original doctrine, i. 289; > is no-thing, not a concrete or visible being like objects, i. 292; > belief of the Stoics, i. 317; > of the several Christian denominations, ii. 2; > the Father, ii. 50; > of the gardens, his rites adopted by the Fathers, ii. 51; > each immortal spirit, ii. 153; > “manifest in the flesh,” a forged text, ii. 178; > his actions subject to necessity, ii. 251; > Masonic testimony, ii. 377; > the Father, the beguiling serpent, ii. 492; > prepares hell for priers into his mysteries, ii. 524; > every man’s, bounded by his own conceptions, ii. 567 > > God-man, the first man, i. 297 > > God’s comedy and our tragedy, ii. 534 > > Godfrey Higgins in error about Roman Catholic esoterism, ii. 121 > > Gods, eminent men so called, i. 24, 280; > inferior to deities, i. 287; > supercelestial and intercosmic, i. 312; > pagan, Christian archangels, i. 316; > kind and beneficent demons, i. 332; > their names kept secret, i. 581; > not incarnations of the Supreme Being, ii. 153 > > Gogard, the Hellenic tree of life, i. 297 > > Gold, basic matter of, i. 50; > its manufacture asserted, i. 503; > testimony of Francesco Picos, i. 504; > assertion of Dr. Peisse, i. 508, 509; > made by Theodore Tiffereau, i. 509; > the deposit of light, i. 511 > > _Golden Legend_, a conservatory of pious lies, ii. 74; > choice excerpts, ii. 76-79; > beats the _Decameron_, ii. 79; > a parodized or plagiarized history of Buddha, ii. 579 > > Good demons appear, i. 333; > spirits hardly ever appear, i. 344; > enough Morgan, ii. 372; > Shepherd, a Gnostic symbol, ii. 149 > > Goodale, Miss Annie, death, i. 479 > > Goodness must be alternated by its opposite, ii. 480 > > Gorillas mentioned by Hanno, i. 412 > > Gospel according to Peter, ii. 181; > fourth, full of Gnostic expressions, ii. 205; > fourth, blends Christianity with the Gnosis and Kabala, ii. 211 > > Gospels, their authors and compilers not known, ii. 37, 38 > > Gossein, fakir, contest with a sorcerer, i. 368 > > Græco-Russian church never under the Roman Catholics, i. 27 > > Grand council of the emperors, a Jesuitical production, ii. 390; > secours, i. 374; > cycle, Orpheus, i. 294; > its character, i. 296; > cycle completed, i. 303 > > Grandville, Dr., on mummy-bandaging, i. 539 > > Gravitation, none in the Newtonian sense, i. 271 > > Gray brain-matter the god, i. 36 > > Great Dragon, crushed under the foot of the Virgin of the Sea, ii. > 446; > Vasaki, casting out a flood of poison which the earth swallows, ii. > 490; > equinoctial continent, i. 594; > Masonic revolution of 1717, ii. 389; > secret of evocation, ii. 114; > snake, worshipped by the pueblo-chiefs of Mexico, i. 557; > spirit of the Indian, the manifested Brahma, i. 560; > synagogue revised the Pentateuch, i. 578; > universal soul, absorption into it does not involve loss of > individuality, ii. 116; > year, i. 30 > > Greatest scientists inanimate corpses, i. 318 > > Greece derived its art from Egypt, i. 521 > > Gregory VII., pope, a magician, ii. 56, 57; > of Tours, exposition of sortilege, ii. 20 > > Gross, T., denounces those opposed to investigation, ii. 96 > > Grote assimilates the Pythagoreans to the Jesuits, ii. 529 > > Gunpowder, anciently used by the Chinese, i. 241 > > Guru-astara, a spiritual teacher, ii. 141 > > Gymnosophists of India, i. 90; > knew the Akâsa, i. 113 > > Half-death, i. 452 > > Half-gods, i. 323; > or mukti, men regenerate on earth, ii. 566 > > Hierophant, transfer of his life to a candidate, ii. 563 > > Hakem, the wise one of the Druzes, ii. 310 > > Haideck, Countess, a Mason, ii. 391 > > Hall of spirits, ii. 365 > > Hamites preferred to settle near rivers and oceans, ii. 458 > > Hamsa, the Messiah of the Druzes, ii. 308; > the precursor, ii. 310 > > Hanno, mention of gorillas, i. 412 > > Hanuma, or Hanuman the sacred monkey, the progenitor of the > Europeans, i. 563; > resembles the Egyptian cynocephalus, i. 564; > endowed with speech, ii. 274 > > Hare, Prof., i. 38; > views of Comte’s positive philosophy, i. 79; > mistreated by Harvard professors, i. 176, 177; > declared _non compos mentis_, i. 233; > bullied by Prof. Henry, i. 245 > > Harmony and justice analagous, i. 330 > > Hasty burial deprecated, i. 453 > > Haug, Dr., asserts the affinity of the Zoroastrian, Jewish, and > Christian religions, ii. 486 > > Haunted house, i. 69 > > Hayes, Moses Michael, introduced Royal Arch Masonry into this > country, ii. 393 > > Hayti, a centre of secret societies, where infants are immolated, ii. > 572 > > Healing art in the temples always magical, ii. 502 > > Heathen processions and priapic emblems at Easter in France, ii. 332; > priesthood, their cast-off garb worn by Christian clergy, ii. 8 > > Heavenly Man, Tikkun, Protogonos, ii. 276 > > Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible the oldest, ii. 430; > burned by the Inquisition, _ib._ > > Hebron, or Kirjath-Arba, city of the four Kabeiri, ii. 171; > Smaragdine tablet of Hermes found, i. 507 > > Heliocentric system known by Hindus 2,000 B.C., i. 9; > denied alike by scholars and the clergy, i. 84; > known by the priests of Egypt, i. 532 > > Hel, or Hela, neither a state nor place of punishment, ii. 11; > cold and cheerless, _ib._ > > Hell, a German goddess, ii. 11; > not a place of punishment in Scandinavian mythology, _ib._; > nowhere so set forth in Egyptian or Hindu mythology, nor in the > Jewish Scriptures, _ib._; > the Archimedean lever of Christian theology, _ib._; > said to be located in the sun, ii. 12; > denied by Origen, ii. 13; > hypothesis of Mr. Swinden, _ib._; > Augustine’s theory of miracles, _ib._; > eternal torments of, all pagans condemned to, ii. 8; > Virgin Mary testifying to it with her own signature, _ib._; > the damned, ii. 25; > priests there, but no monks, _ib._; > no Dominicans, _ib._; > a hallucination, ii. 507; > never means eternal torment, ii. 507; > the translation in the Bible a forgery, ii. 506; > its prince quarrelling with Satan, ii. 515 > > Hellenic figures at Nagkon-Wat, i. 568 > > Hell-torments, their perpetuity denied by Origen, ii. 13 > > Helps, artificial, to clairvoyance, ii. 592 > > Heptaktis, the seven-rayed god, ii. 417 > > Herakleitus on fighting with anger, i. 248; > the Ephesian, his philosophical doctrine of fire and flux, i. 422; > the spirit of fire, i. 423 > > Herakles, the Grecian Hercules, the Logos, i. 298; > disseminated a mild religion, ii. 515; > the only-begotten, ii. 515; > the saviour, _ib._; > ascending from the nether house of Pluto, ii. 517; > slew the sacrificers of men, ii. 565 > > Herbs of dreams and enchantments, ii. 589 > > Her-cules, the Sanscrit form of Mel-Kartha, i. 567 > > Hercules, the magnet named from him, i. 130; > not the same as the Grecian Herakles, _ib._; > creator and father, i. 131; > killed by the devil, i. 132; > and Thor, i. 261; > the first-begotten, Bel, Baal, and Siva, ii. 492; > the Titan, restores Jupiter or Zeus to his throne, i. 299; > descends to Hades, _ib._; > Invictus, his initiation into the Eleusynia and descent into hell, > ii. 516 > > Herder places the cradle of mankind in India, ii. 30 > > Heredom Rosy Cross, ii. 394 > > Heresies, early Christianity among them, ii. 123; > secret sects of the Christians, ii. 289; > one still in existence, ii. 290 > > Hermas, the pastor of, a book quoting from the _Sohar_, ii. 243, 244 > > Hermes, the counterpart of the serpent, ii. 508; > his prediction to Prometheus, ii. 514, 515; > Trismegistus, 20,000 books written before Menes, i. 406; > his _Smaragdine Tablet_ or manual of alchemy, i. 507; > reputed author of serpent-worship and heliolatry, i. 551; > an evocation of angels and demons to preside at Mysteries, i. 613; > and Hostanes believed in one God, ii. 88 > > Hermetic books on medicine, i. 3; > their antiquity, i. 37; > Brothers of Egypt, ii. 307; > doctrine accounts most reasonably for the formation of the world, > i. 341; > fraternities, i. 16; > gold, i. 511; > philosophers, i. 1 > > Hermetists’ doctrine of creation, i. 258; > why they wrote incomprehensibly, i. 627 > > Hermodorus or Hermotimus, i. 364, 476 > > Hero invented a steam-engine, i. 241 > > Herodotus mentioned a night of six months, i. 412; > testimony concerning the pyramids, i. 518, 519; > description of the labyrinth, i. 522 > > Hezekiah, the Redeemer and Messiah, ii. 440, 441; > the rod or scion from the stem of Jesse, ii. 441; > a prince from Bethlehem establishes a sacred college and a new > religion, terminating Baal and serpent-worship, ii. 440; > succeeded on the extinction of the family of Ahaz, ii. 166 > > Hiarchus and Hiram, i. 19 > > Hieroglyph of Knights Kadosh, ii. 391 > > Hieroglyphics on the stones of the Temple of Dendera, i. 524 > > Hierophant offered his own life, ii. 42; > did not allow candidates to see or hear him personally, ii. 93 > > Hierophants, Egyptian, i. 90 > > Higgins, Godfrey, i. 33; > rebuke of skeptics who accept the Bible stories, i. 284; > had not the key to the esoteric doctrine, i. 347; > on the Rasit, ii. 35 > > High Hierophant transferring his life, ii. 564 > > Highest pyrotechny, i. 306 > > Hildebrand, the seventh Pope Gregory, a magician, ii. 557 > > Hindu demigods, ii. 103; > wonderful appearance seen by Jacolliot, _ib._; > gods, masks without actors, ii. 261, 262; > populations in Greece, ii. 428; > rites belong to a religion older than the present one, ii. 535 > > Hindus, more susceptible to magnetism, ii. 610; > and Iranians, battles, i. 12; > ancient, their philosophy and science, i. 618-620; > their great probity, ii. 474; > corrupted by European associations, _ib._ > > Hindustan, once called Æthiopia, ii. 434; > dark races worshipped Maha Deva, _ib._ > > Hiouen-Thsang, his description of the magicians of Peshawer, i. 599; > his vision of the shade of Buddha, i. 600 > > Hippocrates, his views like of Herakleitos, i. 423; > identical with those of the Rosicrucians, _ib._; > his doctrine of man’s inner sense, i. 425; > praise of instinct, i. 434 > > Hiram, i. 19 > > Hiram Abiff, i. 29 > > Hitchcock, E. A., exposition of alchemy, i. 308; > Prof., on psychometric photography, i. 184 > > Hivim, or Hivites, descendants of the Serpent, i. 554; > Ophites, or serpent-tribe, Cain their ancestor, ii. 446; > of Palestine a serpent-tribe, ii. 481 > > Hobbs, Abigail, confederated with the devil, i. 361 > > Holy Ghost, the Æther, the breath of God, ii. 50; > a bit of his finger kept as a relic, ii. 71. > > Holy kiss, and toilet directions of Augustine, ii. 331; > limbs of Sts. Cosmo and Damiano, phallic symbols, ii. 5; > syllable, supreme mystery, ii. 114; > thief ascends out of hell, ii. 517 > > Homer, the Iliad probably plagiarized, ii. 436 > > Homunculi of Paracelsus, i. 465 > > Hononer, the Persian Logos, or living manifested word, i. 560 > > Horse with fingers, i. 411, 412 > > Horse-shoe magnet applied to the phantom-hand, ii. 594 > > Horus piercing the head of the serpent, ii. 446 > > Hospitals anciently established near temples, ii. 98 > > Houdin Robert, i. 73, 100; > testimony in regard to table-rapping and levitation, i. 358, 359; > suspected of magic, i. 379 > > House of David deposed by the Israelites, ii. 439 > > Howitt William, explanation of exorcism, ii. 66 > > Huc, Abbé, his testimony concerning the infant Dalai-Lama, i. 438; > his book placed on the _Index Expurgatorius_, _ib._; > his account of the marvellous tree, i. 440; > the picture of the moon, i. 441; > punishment for his candor, ii. 345, 346; > his testimony of the Lamaic doctrines, ii. 582; > his story of the children compelled to swallow mercury, ii. 604. > > Hufeland, Dr., theory of magnetic sympathy, i. 207 > > Human body once half ethereal, i. 1; > made as a prison of earlier races, i. 2; > credulity contains inside of it an omni-perceptive faith, ii. 120; > embryo, evolved, i. 302, 303; > fœtus, transient forms like those of fœtal animals, i. 388; > process of development, i. 389; > race, many before Adam, i. 2; > imprisoned in bodies, i. 2; > antiquity more than 250,000 years, i. 3; > authorities differ in regard to original barbarism, i. 4; > sacrifices, an ancient practice, ii. 547; > abolished in Egypt, Africa, and Greece, ii. 568; > offered to the Virgin Mary as heretics, _ib._; > soul an immortal god, i. 345; > is born and dies like man, _ib._; > spirit, sees all things as in the present, i. 185 > > Humanity, happy day for it, ii. 586. > > Humboldt, Alexander von, suspected intercourse between Mexicans and > Hindus, i. 548 > > Humboldt, Alexander, on presumptuous skepticism, i. 223 > > Hume, David, exalted by Prof. Huxley, i. 421; > the real founder of the positive philosophy, i. 82; > testimony in the miracles at the tomb of Abbé Paris, i. 373 > > Hunt, Prof. Sterry, on solutions, i. 192 > > Huss, John, his memory sacred in Bohemia, ii. 560 > > Huxley, physical basis of life, i. 15; > classes spiritualism outside of philosophical inquiry, i. 15; > repudiates positive philosophy as Catholicism minus Christianity, > i. 82; > defines what constitutes proof, i. 121; > confesses ignorance of matter, i. 408; > his theory formulated, i. 419 > > Hyk-sos, or shepherds of Egypt, the ancestors of the earlier > Israelites, ii. 487 > > Hymns by Dirghatamas, ii. 411 > > Hyneman, Leopold, testimony on Masonry becoming sectarian, ii. 380 > > Hypatia, her atrocious murder by order of St. Cyril, ii. 53; > letter of Synesius, _ib._; > why Cyril caused her to be murdered, ii. 253 > > Hystaspes, Gushtasp, Vistaspa, ii. 141; > visited Kashmere, ii. 434 > > Hysteria imputed to the prophets of the Cevennes, i. 371 > > I was, but am no more, ii. 393 > > I. H. S., in hoc signum, ii. 527 > > Iachus, an Egyptian physician, i. 406 > > Iaho, variety of etymologies, ii. 301; > statement of Aristotle, ii. 302 > > Iamblichus, i. 33; > raised ten cubits from the ground, i. 115; > forbids endeavors to procure phenomena, i. 219; > explanation of Pythagoras, i. 248, 284; > on manifestations of demons, etc., i. 333; > the founder of theurgy, his practice, i. 489; > his explanation of the objects of the Mysteries, ii. 101 > > Iao, the male essence of the Phœnicians, i. 61 > > Yava, יהוה, the secret name of the mystery-god, ii. 165 > > Idæic finger, i. 23 > > Identity of all ancient religions and secret fraternities between the > ancient faiths, ii. 100 > > Idiots, reborn, i. 351 > > Iessaens, ii. 190 > > Ievo, not the same as Iao, ii. 296 > > Iezedians, came from Basrah, ii. 197 > > Ignition of stars, i. 254 > > Ilda-Baoth, the son of Chaos, ii. 183; > his sons, _ib._; > creates man, ii. 184; > punishes him for transgression, ii. 185; > his abode in the planet Saturn, ii. 236; > transformed into the Devil, ii. 501 > > Illuminati and their purposes, ii. 391 > > Illusion (_Maya_), the veil of the arcana, i. 271 > > Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin, an element of old phallic > religion, ii. 5; > why promulgated, ii. 110 > > Imagination, the plastic power of the soul, i. 396; > not identical with fancy, _ib._; > a memory of preceding states, _ib._; > its power upon physical condition, i. 385; > its influence on fœtal life doubted by Magendie, i. 390 > > Immodesty of the _Vedas_ exceeded by that of the Bible, ii. 88 > > Immoral principles of the Jesuits, ii. 355 > > Immorality, sexual, said to be produced by religious instinct, i. 83 > > Ilus or Hyle, the slime or earth-matter, i. 146 > > Immortal, Chinese, Siamese, etc., believe some know the art of > becoming, i. 214; > theory of Maxwell, i. 216; > breath, i. 302; > portion of immortal matter, ii. 262 > > Immortality of the soul, the doctrine as old as the twelfth Egyptian > dynasty, ii. 361; > of the spirit, Moksha and Nirvana, ii. 116; > of all, a false idea, i. 316; > to be won, _ib._ > > Imparting the secret to the successor, ii. 671 > > Impostor-demons, seven, ii. 234 > > Incarnation explained, ii. 152, 153; > prophetic star, ii. 454; > exhibited before the author, ii. 599-602 > > Incarnations, the five of the Buddhists, ii. 275; > known in all the old world-religions, ii. 503; > of the deity, periodical, ii. 535 > > Incas, the lost treasures, i. 596; > the story of the last queen, _ib._; > their tomb, i. 597; > the tunnel, i. 598 > > Incendiarism, epidemic, i. 276 > > India, magic in, i. 89; > gymnosophists, i. 80; > of the archaic period, i. 589; > included Persia, Thibet, Mongolia, and Great Tartary, _ib._; > the alma mater of the world-religions, ii. 30; > said to be the cradle of the human race, _ib._; > derived her rites from some foreign source, ii. 535; > Southern, the law of inheritance, ii. 437 > > Indian dynasties, solar and lunar, ii. 437, 438 > > Indicator, Prof. Faraday, i. 63 > > Individual life in the future to be won, i. 316; > existence, how sustained, i. 318, 319; > existence of the spirit a Hindu doctrine, ii. 534 > > Individualization depends on the spirit, i. 315 > > Indranee and her son painted with the aureole, ii. 95 > > Induction, not the usual mode of great discoveries, i. 513 > > Ineffable name employed by Jesus, ii. 387 > > Infant, temporarily animated by the spirit of a lama, ii. 601, 602 > > Infant-girl burned as a witch, ii. 65 > > Infant-prophet in France, i. 438 > > Infants, dying, prematurely born a second time, i. 351; > unborn, how influenced, i. 395; > eaten at the sacrifices in Hayti, ii. 572 > > Initiation, the practice in every ancient religion, ii. 99; > represented the experience of the soul after death, ii. 494; > of a Druze, ii. 313 > > Injunction of secresy, ii. 40 > > Inman, Dr. Thos., defines greatest curse of a nation, ii. 121, 122; > on Christian heathenism, ii. 80, 81; > declares the Atheism imputed to Buddha Sakya not supported, ii. 533; > comparison of Christians and Buddhists, ii. 540 > > Inner Man, can withdraw from the body, ii. 588 > > Inner Sense, doctrine of Hippocrates, i. 424, 425; > of Iamblichus, i. 435 > > Innocent III., bull against magic, ii. 69 > > Innocents of Bethlehem, their massacre, a myth copied from India, ii. > 199 > > Inquisition, the slaughter-house of the church, destroyed by Napoleon > I., ii. 22; > its atrocious cruelty, ii. 55; > its bloodshed and human sacrifices unparalleled in paganism, ii. 5, > 6; > why invented, ii. 58; > its origin in Paradise, ii. 59; > burned Hebrew Bibles, ii. 430 > > Inquisitors of our days, the scientists, i. 99 > > Insanity from spiritualism in the United States, ii. 7; > the obsession by spirits, ii. 589 > > Inscription on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept, i. 92 > > Instinct, i. 425; > its miracles, i. 433 > > Integral whole, ii. 116 > > Intelligence of the electric bolt, i. 188; > ether directed, i. 199 > > Intelligent electricity, i. 322 > > Intercosmic gods, i. 312 > > Interior Man, doctrine of Socrates and Plato, ii. 283 > > Interview with a young lama re-incarnated Buddha, ii. 598 > > Intuition the guide of the seer, i. 433; > a rudiment in every one, i. 434; > doctrine of Iamblichus, i. 435 > > Investigation denounced as a criminal labor, ii. 96 > > Invisible Sun, i. 302 > > Invocation of ancestors by Moldavian Christians, ii. 570 > > Invulnerability, can be imparted, i. 379 > > Iran and Turan, their wars conflicts between Persians and Assyrians > or Aturians, i. 576 > > Irenæus, makes Christ fifty years old, ii. 305; > on the trine in man, ii. 285; > and the Gnostics, their contests, ii. 51; > believed the soul corporeal, i. 317; > attempted to establish a new doctrine on the basis of Plato, i. 289; > found guilty of falsehood, ii. 327 > > Irenæus Philaletha, explanation of the peculiar style of Hermetic > writers, i. 628 > > Ireland visited by Buddhist missionaries, ii. 290, 291 > > Iron in the sun, i. 513; > found in the Pyramid of Cheops, i. 542. > > Isaiah the prophet, his vision of seraphs, i. 358; > terminated the direct line of David, ii. 440; > celebrates the new chief, Hezekiah, _ib._ > > Isarim or Essenean initiates, ii. 42; > found the Smaragdine Tablet at Hebron, i. 507 > > Isernia, worship of the _limbs_ of Saints Cosmo and Damiano, and > traffic in phallic _ex-votos_, ii. 5 > > Ishmonia, the petrified city, traditions of books and magic > literature, ii. 29 > > Isis, the name of a medicine, i. 532; > the Virgin Mother of Egypt, ii. 10; > queen of Heaven, ii. 50; > immaculate, her titles applied to the Virgin Mary, ii. 95; > anthropomorphised into Mary, ii. 41; > the “woman clothed with the sun,” ii. 489 > > Isitwa, the divine power, ii. 593 > > Islam, the minarets, ii. 5 > > Islamism, the outgrowth of the Nestorian controversy, ii. 54 > > Island of Middle Asia, inhabited by Elohim, i. 589; > empire of the Pacific Ocean, i. 592 > > Israel, what the name means, ii. 401; > the enumeration of 12 tribes supposed to be purely mythical, i. 568 > > Israelites, intermarried perpetually with the other nations of > Palestine, i. 568; > why their language was Semitic, _ib._; > their symbols relate to sun-worship, ii. 401; > the plebeian were Canaanites and Phœnicians, ii. 134; > worshipped Baal or Bacchus and the Serpent, ii. 523; > their prophets disapproved of sacrificial worship, ii. 525; > offered human sacrifices, ii. 524; > their prophetesses, _ib._ > > Israelitish Tabernacle, elegant workmanship, i. 536 > > Istar, Astoreth, the same as Venus, Queen of Heaven, ii. 444 > > Isvara, a psychological condition, ii. 591 > > “Itself” met by the disembodied soul at the gates of Paradise, ii. 635 > > Iurbo Adonai, ii. 185, 189 > > Ixtlilxochitl, author of the Popul-Vuh, i. 548 > > Jacob, extraordinary fecundity of his family, ii. 558; > the Zouave, i. 165, 217, 218 > > Jacob’s pillar a lingham, ii. 445 > > Jacolliot, Louis, i. 139; > criticises orientalists, i. 583; > testimony in regard to theopœia, i. 616, 617; > branded as a humbug, ii. 47; > denounces the theory of Turanians and Semitism, ii. 48; > on vulgar magic in India, ii. 70; > description of Brahmanic initiations, ii. 103; > sees a living spectre, ii. 104, 105; > on Hindu metaphysics, ii. 262; > disbelieves in the chastity of Buddhistic monks, ii. 321; > knew no secrets, ii. 584 > > Jadūgar or sorcerers in India, ii. 69 > > Jaga-nath, ii. 297 > > Jah-Buh-Sun, ii. 348 > > Jaina sect claims Buddhism, ii. 321; > owners of the cave-temples, ii. 323 > > Jains, taught the existence of two ethereal bodies, i. 429 > > Jairus, resuscitation of his daughter by Jesus, i. 481 > > James the Just, never called Jesus the Son of God, ii. 202 > > Japanese, their probity, ii. 573 > > Jasher, Book of, ii. 399 > > Java Aleim, יהוה אלהים (Lord-God), head of the priest-caste of > Eden or Babylonia, i. 575; > invests man with the coat of skin, _ib._; > of the Sacerdotal College, ii. 293 > > Javanese, island empire, i. 592 > > Jehovah, his castle of fire, i. 270; > a cruel anthropomorphic deity, i. 307; > not the sacred name at all, ii. 398; > only a Masoretic invention, _ib._; > feminine, ii. 399; > resembled Siva, ii. 524 > > Jehovah-Nissi or Iao-Nisi, the same as Osiris or Bacchus the > Dio-Nysos or Jove of Nysa, ii. 165, 526 > > Jehovah-worship and Christianity abandoned by Freemasons at Lausanne, > ii. 377 > > Jeroboam made the lawful king of the Israelites, ii. 439 > > Jerome, St., mentions Jews of Lydda and Tiberias as mystic teachers, > i. 26; > procured the Gospel of Matthew from the Nazarenes, ii. 181; > his perverted text of Job, ii. 496 > > Jerusalem, the temple not so ancient as pretended, ii. 389 > > Jesuit cryptography, ii. 397 > > Jesuits, a secret society, now control the Roman Church, ii. 352; > their magic, ii. 353; > their secret constitution, ii. 354; > Mackenzie’s description, ii. 355; > their profession of faith, ii. 358; > their expulsion from Venice, _ib._; > declare Christianity not evidently true, ii. 358, 359; > sanction the murder of parents, ii. 363; > disguised as Talapoins, i. 371; > contest of magic with the Augustinians, i. 445; > two, desiring to change Sabean for Christian names, ii. 450; > adopt the institute and habit of Siamese Talapoins, ii. 577; > set aside Christian doctrines, ii. 578 > > Jesus, of Renan, Strauss and Viscount Amberley, ii. 562; > Talmudic story, ii. 201; > discovered and revealed the occult theology, ii. 202; > or Nebo, inspired by Mercury, ii. 132; > and Christna, united to their Chrestos, ii. 558; > his life a copy of Christna, his character of Buddha, ii. 339; > preached Buddhism, ii. 123; > believed in Ferho or Fo, ii. 290; > did not give any name to the Father, _ib._; > his true history imparted to the Templars, ii. 382; > regarded as a brother, _ib._; > an avatar like Melchizedek, becomes a son of God by baptism, ii. > 566; > son of Panther, a high pontiff of the universal secret doctrines, > ii. 386; > proclaims himself the Son of God and humanity, _ib._; > represented by a great serpent, ii. 490; > an Essene and Nazarene, ii. 131; > used oil and drank wine, _ib._; > of the church, the ideal of Irenæus, ii. 33; > classified his teachings, ii. 145, 147; > said to have been a Pharisee, ii. 148; > said to have been a magician, _ib._; > the materialized divine spirit, ii. 576; > deified because of his dramatic death, ii. 339; > why he died, ii. 545; > always called a _man_, ii. 239; > forgave his enemies, ii. 8; > the heirs of Peter curse theirs, ii. 9; > cast out devils by purifying the atmosphere, i. 356; > taught the _Logia_, or secret doctrines, ii. 191; > transmitted magnetic or theurgical powers, i. 130; > healed by word of command, i. 217; > his followers innovators, ii. 132; > endeavored to give the arcane truth to the many, ii. 561; > made little impression upon his own century, ii. 335; > familiar with the Koinoboi, ii. 336; > who rejected him as the Son of God, ii. 455; > said to have been hanged and stoned, ii. 255; > never pronounced the name of Jehovah, ii. 163; > his doctrines like those of Manu, ii. 164; > and Buddha never wrote, ii. 559; > unwilling to die, hence, no self-sacrificing Savior, ii. 545 > > Jewish colonists of Palestine imbued with Magdean notions, ii. 481; > people regard the Mosaic books as an allegory, i. 554, 555; > theology not understood by Christians, i. 17 > > Jews excluded from Masonic lodges, ii. 390; > their doubtful origin, ii. 438; > worshipped Baal or Hercules, ii. 524; > brought the Persian dualism to Palestine, ii. 500, 501; > named Ormazd and Ahriman, Satan, ii. 501; > an Indian sect, the Kaloni, i. 567; > probably came from Afghanistan or India, _ib._; > similar or identical with the Phœnicians, i. 566 > > Job, book of, Satan or Typhon appears, ii. 483; > the allegory explained in the Book of the Dead, ii. 493; > a representation of initiation, ii. 494; > will give the key to the whole matter of the Devil, ii. 493; > his trials and vindication, ii. 485; > seeing God, ii. 485, 486; > the neophyte, hears God in the whirlwind, ii. 498; > vindicated by his Redeemer or champion, ii. 499, 500 > > Jobard, on two kinds of electricity, i. 188 > > John, Gospel written by a Gnostic, i. 2; > travelled in Asia Minor and learned of the Mithraic rites, ii. 507; > the Baptist, his disciples Essenean dissenters, ii. 130; > disciples of, same as Nazareans or Mendæans, do not believe in > Christ, ii. 290 > > Jonah, the prophet, the allegory explained, ii. 258 > > Jones, Sir William, on the laws of Manu, i. 585; > rules for constructing a purana, ii. 492 > > Josaphat, St., a transmogrified Buddha, ii. 579 > > Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Masonry erected on the same > cosmical myths, i. 405 > > Joseph, studied in Egypt, i. 25; > became an Egyptian, i. 566 > > Josephus, interpolated, ii. 196; > his passage concerning Jesus, ii. 328 > > Joshua, fugitives, i. 545 > > Jowett, translator of Plato, exceptions to his criticism, i. 288 > > Judæans, whether they were ever in Palestine before Cyrus, a problem, > i. 568 > > Judæi, the designation of the Jews, an Indian term, ii. 441 > > Judea, its primitive history a distortion of Indian fable, ii. 471 > > Judgment of the Dead, ii. 364 > > Juggernaut, his procession imitated by missionaries in Ceylon, ii. 113 > > Jugglers of India and Egypt, i. 73; > walking from tree-top to tree-top, i. 495 > > Julian, the emperor, a son of God or Mithra by initiation, ii. 566 > > Juno, her temple covered with pointed blades of swords, i. 527; > her abandoning of Veii for Rome, i. 614 > > Jupiter and four moons discovered in Assyria, i. 261; > his mythological adventures, astronomical phenomena, i. 267, 268; > or Zeus originally the cosmic force, i. 262; > also the demiurg, _ib._; > the chief deity of the Orphic hymn, i. 263 > > Jury-trial, introduced by the Egyptians, i. 545 > > Justice and harmony analogous, i. 330 > > Justin Martyr, criticised for his heretical opinion about Socrates, > ii. 8; > his testimony concerning the talismans of Apollonius of Tyana, ii. > 97; > on the non-observance of the Sabbath by Christians, ii. 419 > > Justinian, code of, copied from the code of Manu, i. 586 > > K----, a positivist and skeptic, his experiences in Thibet, ii. > 599-602 > > Kabala, its fundamental geometrical figure the key to the problem, i. > 14; > Chaldean, not known, i. 17; > included in the Arcane doctrines, i. 205; > same as the laws of Manu, i. 271; > solves esoteric doctrines of every religion, i. 271; > never written, _ib._; > concerning _Shedim_, i. 313; > its system of Sephiroth and emanations, ii. 213; > repeated in Talapoin manuscripts, i. 577; > Oriental, or secret Book of Numbers, i. 579 > > Kabalists, Chaldean, claim science above 70,000 years old, i. 1; > explanation of the allegory of descent into hell, i. 299 > > Kabeiri, Assyrian divinities, i. 569; > differently named and numbered in different places, _ib._; > reproduced in their Samothracian postures on the walls of > Nagkon-Wat, _ib._; > had similar names east as west, _ib._; > worshipped at Hebron, the city of Beni-Anak or _anakim_, _ib._; > number hardly known, ii. 478; > their names, ii. 170 > > Kabeirian gods represented at Nagkon-Wat, i. 565, 566 > > Kadeshim, or Galli, in the Hebrew sanctuaries, ii. 45 > > Kadeshuth, or Nautch-girls in India, ii. 45 > > Kadosh degree invented at Lyons, ii. 384 > > Kalani, an Indian sect, progenitors of the Jews, i. 567 > > Kalavatti, raised from the dead by Christna, ii. 241 > > Kalmucks, described earlier human races than the present, i. 2 > > Kalpas, i. 31 > > Kali, the “fall of man,” ii. 275 > > Kali-Yug, the designation of the present third yug or age of mankind, > i. 587; > began 4,500 years ago, _ib._ > > Kaliadovki, or Christian mysteries, ii. 119 > > Kangalins, or witches in India, ii. 69 > > Kanhari caves at Salsette, the abode of St. Josaphat, ii. 580, 581 > > Kanni, or bad virgins, ii. 447 > > Kansa of Madura, commands the murder of Christna and the massacre of > the infants, ii. 199 > > Kapila, a skeptic, i. 121; i. 307; > denied a First Cause, ii. 261 > > Karabtanos, i. 300 > > Karnak, the representative of Thebes, its archeological remains, i. > 523; > lakes and mountains in its sanctuary, i. 524 > > Kasbeck, the mountain where Prometheus was punished, i. 298 > > Katie King, i. 48, 54; > soulless, i. 67 > > Kavindisami the fakir, causes a seed to grow miraculously, i. 139 > > Kebar-Zivo, i. 300 > > Kepler believed the stars to be intelligences, i. 207, 208, 253 > > Kerrenhappuch, a mystic name, ii. 496 > > Kerner, Dr., witnessing case of Elizabeth Eslinger, i. 68; > account of the encounter of the Cossack and Frenchman, i. 398 > > Keto or Cetus, the same as Dagon or Poseidon, ii. 258 > > Key to the Buddhist system, i. 289; > to the mysteries lost by the Roman Catholic Church, ii. 121; > G. Higgins mistaken, _ib._ > > Keys of St. Peter, where they originated, ii. 31; > cross and fishes, eastern symbols, ii. 255; > to Masonic ciphers, ii. 394 > > Keystone, absent at Nagkon-Wat, Santa Cruz del Quichè, Ocosingo, and > the Cyclopean structures of Greece and Italy, i. 571; > has an esoteric meaning, _ib._ > > Khaldi, worshippers of the moon-god, ii. 48 > > Khamism, an ancient deposit from Western Asia, ii. 435 > > Khansa, remarkable juggling trick, i. 473 > > Kidder, Bishop, remarkable testimony concerning the religion a wise > man would choose, ii. 240 > > King, John, i. 75 > > Kings and statesmen, Jesuit method for assassinating, ii. 373 > > Kircher, Father, taught universal magnetism, i. 208 > > Kiyun or Kivan, the same as Siva, i. 570 > > Klikoucha, i. 28 > > Klippoth, i. 141 > > Kneph, his snake-emblem, i. 133; > producing the mundane egg, ii. 226 > > Knights Kadosch, cipher, ii. 395; > hieroglyph, ii. 396; > Rose Croix, cipher, ii. 395; > Templars, i. 30; > Templars, the modern, have no secrets dangerous to the Church, ii. > 381; > Templars, French Order, ii. 384, 385; > the assassination of a Prince, ii. 385 > > Knowledge, tree of, the pippala, ii. 412; > arcane, when sorcery and when wisdom, ii. 58 > > Koheleth, the summary, ii. 476 > > Koinobi or communists of Egypt, ii. 305 > > Kol-Arbas, the Tetrad or group of four mistaken for a Gnostic leader, > ii. 248 > > Korè-Persephonè, Zeus the Dragon, and their son, ii. 505 > > Kosmos, regarded as God or comprehending God, i. 154 > > Kounboum, mystery of, i. 289; > the Sacred Tree of Thibet, i. 302; > the wonderful Tree of Thibet with letters and symbols on its > leaves, i. 440; > Sanscrit characters on the leaves and bark, ii. 46 > > Kristophores, or the fourth degree, ii. 365 > > Kronos, i. 132 > > Krupte (crypt) the abode of a _teleiotes_, ii. 93 > > Kublai-Khan, ii. 608; > why he failed to adopt Christianity, ii. 581, 582; > reverences Christ, Mahomet, Moses, and Buddha all together, ii. 582; > his testimony concerning Christians, ii. 583 > > Kuklopes or Cyclopeans, shepherds, miners, builders, metal-workers, > and Anakim, i. 567 > > Kuklos Anangkes, or Circle of Necessity, i. 553 > > Kukushan, a medicinal plant of extraordinary virtue, ii. 608 > > Kumil-Mâdan, the undine, an elemental spirit, i. 496 > > Kurds, affirmed to be Indo-European, ii. 629; > are Mahometans, magicians, Yezids, and fire-worshippers, ii. 630; > scene with a sorcerer, ii. 631 > > Kutchi of Lha-Ssa, magically apprised by a Shaman of the author’s > helpless condition in the desert, ii. 628 > > Kutti-Satan, a Tamil spirit, i. 567 > > Labyrinth, the great, description by Herodotus, i. 522 > > Lactantius on calling up souls, i. 167; > declared the heliocentric system a heretical doctrine, i. 526; > rejected the doctrine of the antipodes, ii. 477 > > Læstrygonians of the _Odyssey_ cannibal races of Norway, i. 549 > > Laghana-Sastra, a secret sect in India, ii. 315; > their sacred groves, ii. 316 > > Lake, mysteries of, ii. 138; > of fire and brimstone, ii. 12; > the devil cast in it, with the beast and false prophet, _ib._; > place of purification of the wicked, ii. 238 > > Lakes and mountains in the Sanctuary of Karnak, i. 524 > > Lakshmi or Lakmi, the Damatri Venus or Great Mother, ii. 259, 598 > > Lama infant, or reincarnated Buddha, interview with him, ii. 598 > > Lamaic saints at a cave-temple, ii. 599; > exorcism, ii. 626 > > Lamaism, the purest Buddhism, ii. 608 > > Lamas, Thibetan, use the force known as Akâsa, i. 113 > > Lamps, ever-burning, one in the tomb of Cicero’s daughter, i. 224, > 228; > in crypts of India, Thibet, and Japan, i. 225; > in Travancore, _ib._; > in Egypt, i. 226; > at Athens, Carthage, Edessa, Antioch, i. 227; > in the Appian Way and the Mosaic Tabernacle, i. 128; > mode of preparing, i. 229 > > Lamp-wicks of stone, i. 231; > of asbestos, i. 231 > > Land-measuring, known by the Egyptians, i. 531 > > Lao-tsi, or Laotsen, his figure produced by magic, i. 600 > > Lares, i. 345 > > Larmenius, charter forged, ii. 385 > > Larva, the soul, i. 344, 345 > > Larvæ, shadows of men that have once lived, i. 310; > their reincarnation, i. 357 > > Last rite, not known by the highest epoptæ, ii. 563 > > Latin Church, nearly upset by modern research, ii. 6; > despoiled the kabalists and theurgists, ii. 85; > preserves the old pagan worship, even to the dress of the clergy, > ii. 92 > > Lausanne, declaration of the Supreme Masonic Councils, ii. 377; > denounced by Gen. Pike, _ib._ > > Leaping of the prophets of Baal, ii. 45 > > Leaves, impressions made on, i. 368, 369 > > Le Comte, Prof., comparison of living and dead organism, i. 466; > on vital force, i. 313 > > Lempriere accuses Pythagoras and Porphyry, i. 431 > > Lemure, i. 345 > > Lemuria, the last continent of the Indian Ocean, perhaps the same as > Atlantis, i. 591, 592; > the Indian legend, i. 594 > > Lens found at Nineveh, i. 239 > > Lentulus, his forged letter, ii. 151 > > Leopard-skin, a sacred appendage of the mysteries, i. 568; > found sculptured in basso-relievo in Central America, i. 569; > employed by the Brahmans, _ib._ > > Lesser mysteries, their meaning and object, ii. 111 > > Lesser and greater mysteries, accused of indecency, ii. 100 > > Letter of Father Raulica on magic, ii. 70; > of Mary Virgin to the Bishop and Church of Messina, ii. 83; > from a Druze brother to the author, ii. 313 > > Letters, ii. 83; > invented in Egypt, i. 532 > > Levi, a caste rather than a tribe, i. 568 > > Levi, Eliphas, exposition of the means to acquire magical power, i. > 137; > his remark on the ancient Christian malignity, ii. 250 > > Leviathan, the occult science, ii. 499 > > Law of compensation never swerves, ii. 545 > > Levitation discussed, i. 491, 492, 494-498; > under magnetic conditions practicable, ii. 589 > > Levitations, i. 100, 225; > declared impossible, i. 105; > of Iamblichus, i. 115; > occasioned by the attraction of the _perisprit_ or astral soul, i. > 197; > disapproved by Iamblichus, i. 219 > > Levites, or serpent-tribe, the seraphs or fiery serpents, ii. 481 > > Lewis, Sir G. C., opinion adverse to the culture of the ancients, i. > 525 > > Liberalia, or St. Patrick’s day, a festival of the Church, ii. 528 > > Libyan shepherds, Cyclopeans, i. 567 > > Lichen, produced, i. 302 > > Life, a phenomenon of matter, i. 115 > > Life-principle, speculations, i. 466 > > Life-transfer, ii. 564 > > Light, chemical relations, i. 136; > undulatory theory much doubted, i. 137; > mystical, the Divine Intelligence, i. 258; > same as electricity, _ib._; > both matter and a force, i. 281; > sympathy its offspring, i. 309; > an energy, not an emanation, the view of Aristotle, i. 510; > sublimated gold, i. 511 > > Lightning, conjured down by Prometheus, i. 526; > fate of Tullius, i. 527 > > Lightning-photographs, i. 394, 395 > > Lightning-rods on ancient temples, i. 527, 528; > used in India, i. 528 > > Lilith, Adam’s “first wife,” ii. 445 > > Linen of ancient Egypt, i. 536; > fire-proof, i. 230 > > Linga, same as the pillars of the patriarchs, ii. 235 > > Lingham, or emblem of Maha Deva, ii. 5; > and Yoni in churches, ii. 5 > > Lithos or phallus, reproduced in steeples, turrets, and domes, ii. 5 > > Littré on positive philosophy, i. 78 > > Living acari by chemical experiments, i. 465; > fire, i. 301 > > Local gods, ii. 451 > > Lodestone, its power to affect a whole audience, i. 265 > > Logia, or secret doctrines taught by Jesus, ii. 191 > > Logoi, all fail and are punished, i. 298 > > Logos, i. 131; > in every mythos, i. 162 > > Λόγος Αληθής, _True Doctrine_ of Celsus, story of the > book at a convent, ii. 52 > > Long-face, the Supreme God, ii. 247 > > Long hair, worn by John the Baptist and Jesus, and denounced by > Paul, ii. 140 > > Lord of the Genii, i. 300 > > Losing one’s soul possible, i. 317 > > Lost word, where to be sought, i. 580; > and its substitute, Mac Benac, ii. 349 > > Lotus, the sacred flower of Egyptians and Hindus, i. 91; > superseded by the lilies, i. 92 > > Loubère, M. de la, on Buddha and the Buddhists, ii. 576-579 > > Lourdes, shrine of, materializations of Virgin Mary, i. 119; > the madonna, her miracles, i. 614, ii. 6; > the moving of the statue, i. 618 > > Love, its magnetism the originator of created things, i. 210 > > Lucifer, i. 299 > > Luke, the evangelist, reputed an Essene, ii. 144 > > Lunar dynasties in India, the Chandra Vensa, ii. 438 > > Lundy, Rev. Dr., what he has proved, ii. 557 > > Luther and the demon, ii. 73; > the worst man in Europe, ii. 200; > his denunciation of the Catholics, ii. 208; > intolerant, and Calvin bloodthirsty, ii. 503 > > Lycanthropes, over 600 put to death in the Jura by sentence of a > judge, ii. 626 > > Lutherans burned as sorcerers, ii. 61 > > Luxor, unfading colors, i. 239; > brotherhood of, ii. 308 > > Macaulay, his criticism of scientists and philosophers, i. 424 > > Mac Benac, ii. 349 > > Machagistia, the magic taught in Persia and Babylonia, i. 251; > the testimony of Plato, ii. 306 > > Mackenzie, his description of the Jesuits, ii. 355 > > Macrocosm, i. 62 > > Macroprosopos or macrocosm, i. 580 > > Madonna of Barri, with crinoline, ii. 9; > of Rio de Janeiro, _décolletée_, with blonde hair and chignon, ii. > 10 > > Madras famine made worse by Catholic taxation, ii. 532 > > Maëlstrom, the Charybdis of the Odyssey, i. 545. > > Magendie, remedy for consumption, i. 89; > absents himself from experiments instituted by the French Academy > in 1826, i. 175, 176; > acknowledges that little is known of fœtal life, i. 386; > opinion of malformation, i. 388, 390; > asserts influence of imagination on the fœtus, i. 394 > > Magi established magic, i. 25; > taught the birth and decadence of worlds, i. 255; > Pythagoras, their associate, i. 284; > objected to the evocation of souls, i. 321; > three schools, ii. 361; > Chaldean, the masters of the Jews, _ib._; > two schools, ii. 128, 306 > > Magic, based on natural science, i. 17; > once universally taught, i. 18, 247; > a divine science, i. 25; > originally established by Magi, and not by priests, _ib._; > very ancient, _ib._; > Moses and Joseph proficients, _ib._; > two kinds, divine and evil, i. 26; > neglected by Masons, i. 30; > spiritualism, its modern form, i. 42; > profound knowledge of simples and minerals, i. 66; > likely to be rediscovered by scientists, i. 67; > esoteric in India, i. 90; > practised by Gymnosophists, i. 90; > the _divina sapientia_, i. 94; > Salverte’s Philosophy of Magic, i. 115; > mesmerism an important branch, i. 129; > theory of Eliphas Levi, i. 137; > modern forms, i. 138; > doctrine of Paracelsus, Agrippa, and Philalethes, i. 167; > included in the arcane doctrine of Wisdom, i. 205; > the power never possessed by those addicted to vicious indulgences, > i. 218; > its basis, the occult or spiritual principle, i. 244; > testimony of Du Potet, i. 279; > theurgical, i. 281; > a sacerdotal science, i. 262; > exemplified in eastern countries of Asia, i. 320; > adepts understand the akasa or astral fluid, i. 378; > synonymous with religion and science, i. 459; > belief of Demokritus; 800,000,000 believers in, i. 512; > Votan of Ancient America, i. 545; > cultivated by Aztecs and ancient Egyptians, i. 560; > studied by the people of Pashai or Peshawer, i. 599; > seance described by Hon. J. L. O’Sullivan, i. 608-611; > the church believes in it, ii. 76; > used to select the canonical books of Holy Scripture, ii. 251; > denounced, ii. 502; > the science of man and nature, and its applications in practice, > ii. 583; > its principles, ii. 587-590; > its cornerstone, ii. 589; > black, practised at the Vatican, ii. 6; > taught in the lamaseries, ii. 609; > magnetism its alphabet, ii. 610 > > Magic arcanum, i. 506; > crystal, i. 467; > lamp of Hermes, ii. 417 > > Magical anæsthetics of the Brahmans, used in the burning of widows, > i. 540; > exhibitions of Tartary and Thibet, testimony of Col. Yule, i. 600; > moon of Thibet, i. 441; > evocation a part of the sacerdotal office, ii. 118; > evocations must be pronounced in a particular dialect, ii. 46 > > Magician, how different from a witch, i. 366; > difference from a medium, i. 367; > can summon and dismiss spirits at will, _ib._ > > Magism flourished at the Ur of the Kasdeans, i. 549 > > Magnale magnum, i. 170, 213 > > Magus, Magh, Mahaji, i. 129 > > Magnes, i. 64; > rediscovered by Mesmer, i. 71; > the living fire or spirit of light, i. 129 > > Magret, rediscovered by Paracelsus, i. 71; > the stone, i. 129; > its concealed power, i. 168; > Kircher’s doctrine of one magnet in the universe, i. 208; > the same as the spiritual Sun, or God, i. 209; > the poles signified in the Mysteries by the Dioskuri, i. 235; > the sun, i. 271 > > Magnetic currents develop into electricity, i. 395 > > Magnetization, two kinds, i. 178; > of minerals by animal magnetism, i. 209; > of a table or person, i. 322 > > Magnetism, i. 129; > animal, denied by modern science and then accepted, i. 130; > the magic power of man, i. 170; > taught by Des Cartes, i. 206; > by Naudé, Hufeland, Wirdig, and Kepler, i. 207; > and by Porta and Father Kircher, i. 209; > of love, the originator of every created thing, i. 210; > taught in the Mysteries, i. 234; > poles represented by the Dioskuri, i. 235; > the universal law, i. 244; > the alphabet of magic, ii. 610; > being true, medicine absurd, _ib._ > > Mahâbhârata, antedated the age of Cyrus the great, ii. 428 > > Maha Deva or Siva, his lingham or emblem in pagodas, ii. 5; > worshipped by the dark races of Hindustan, ii. 434 > > Mahady of Elephanta, ii. 5 > > Mahat, or Prakriti, the external sense-life, ii. 565 > > Mahomet, his testimony concerning Jews, ii. 480 > > Mahometan, confession of Faith on the Chair of Peter, ii. 25 > > Mahometanism, the outgrowth of Christian cruelty, ii. 53, 54; > making more proselytes than Christians, ii. 239 > > Maimonides, i. 17 > > Malagrida, burned for sorcery in 1761, ii. 58 > > Malays, their island empire, i. 592 > > Males suckling their young, i. 412 > > Malformations, opinion of Magendie, i. 388; > theory of Prof. Armor, i. 392 > > _Malum in se_, no such principle, ii. 480 > > Man, once communed with unseen universes, i. 2; > belief of the Kalmucks, _ib._; > “as immortal as God,” i. 13; > how influenced, i. 39; > composed of like elements as the stars, i. 168; > magnetism his magic power, i. 170; > different electric condition of persons and sexes, i. 171; > possessed of three spirits, i. 212; > a little world inside the great, _ib._; > Van Helmont’s theory, i. 213; > Plato’s theory, i. 276, 297; > androgynous, i. 497; > created in the sixth millenium, i. 342; > possesses arcane powers, ii. 113; > how he should do, ii. 122; > the fall an evolution, ii. 277; > his spirit, if not his soul, preëxistent, ii. 280; > the object of the alchemic, Hermetic, and mystic explorations, i. > 308; > the philosopher’s stone and trinity in unity, i. 309; > a microcosm, i. 323; > never steps outside of universal life, ii. 343; > the six principles, ii. 367; > first appears as a stone, i. 389; > has power to shape matter, i. 394, 395; > ante-natal maternal impressions of this character, i. 395; > seven days on the pillar, ii. 447; > the story of the fall regarded as an allegory, ii. 546; > has a natural, a spiritual, and final birth, ii. 565; > triune, body, soul, and immortal spirit, ii. 588; > how he becomes an immortal entity, _ib._ > > Man-tree, i. 297 > > Mandrakes or Mandragora, a magical plant, i. 465 > > Manes, i. 37, 345; > his fate, ii. 208 > > Manifestations, subjective and objective, i. 68; > mediumistic, in Asia, i. 320 > > Mano, ii. 228, 229, 300 > > Mantheon, a title of Zoroaster, ii. 409 > > Mantic frenzy produced by exhalations from the earth, i. 531 > > Manu, laws the same as the doctrines of the sages and Kabala, i. 271; > doctrine of the universe, _ib._; > laws of, opinion of Sir William Jones, i. 585; > the basis of the code of Justinian, i. 581; > their age, i. 586-588; > widow-burning not mentioned in them, i. 588; > on life, evolution, and transformations, i. 620, 621; > predicts the advent of the Divine One, ii. 50; > knew nothing of deluge, ii. 427, 428 > > Manus, six, progenitors of six races of men, i. 590 > > Manu-Vina or Menes, colonizes Egypt from India, i. 627 > > Manwantara, i. 32 > > Marathos or Martu, ancient city and name of Phœnicia, means _The > West_, i. 579 > > Marathon, neighing of horses and shouts of men heard 400 years after > the battle, i. 70 > > Marcion distinguished between Judaism and Christianity, ii. 162; > his doctrines, ii. 103; > accepted Paul and denied the other apostles, ii. 168; > the great hæresiarch, his influence, ii. 159, 160; > brutally assailed by Tertullian and Epiphanius, _ib._ > > Marco Polo, on veins of salamander or asbestos, i. 504; > asserts that in Kashmere images are made to speak, i. 505; > brought movable types and blocks for printing, from China, i. 513; > describes Buddha as living like a Christian, ii. 581; > on the nature-spirits of the deserts, i. 603; > would not retract his “falsehoods,” _ib._; > declaration in regard to hearing spirits talk in the desert, i. 604 > > Marcosians, their sacrament, ii. 513 > > Marechale d’Ancre, her trial for sorcery, ii. 60 > > Mariana, Jesuit, explains the best way to kill a king, ii. 372, 373 > > Markland, a possible root of name America, i. 592 > > Marriage cured the convulsionaries, i. 375 > > Marrying the father’s wife, ii. 240 > > Marses in Italy, power over serpents, i. 381 > > Martu or Marathos, the west, i. 579 > > Mary, virgin, materializing at Lourdes, i. 119; > writes a letter from heaven declaring the pagans condemned to > eternal torments, ii. 8; > the anthropomorphized Isis, ii. 41; > writes letters, ii. 82, 83; > text of one, ii. 87; > without her consent, no redemption, ii. 172, 173; > overshadowed by Ilda-Baoth and not by Æbel Zivo or Gabriel, ii. 247; > like Dido, the Virgin of the Sea, ii. 446; > is visited by the Agathodaimon serpent, ii. 505 > > Mason, Osgood, on deity and nature, i. 426 > > Masonic ciphers, the keys, ii. 394; > fraternity, its unworthy members, ii. 376; > honors offered by M. de Nègre, a grand hierophant, refused, ii. 380; > institute, brought into disrepute by the Jesuits, ii. 385; > pagan in origin, _ib._; > Templars, a creation of the Jesuits, ii. 381 > > Masonry, neglect of magic and spiritualism, i. 30; > once a true secret organization, ii. 349; > who should be excluded, ii. 376; > esoteric, not known in American lodges, _ib._; > the time to remodel it has come, ii. 377; > no secrets left unpublished, _ib._; > whether Christian or pagan, _ib._; > departing from its original aims, ii. 380; > European and American, the Bible its great light, ii. 389 > > Masons, accusations against them half guess-work, ii. 372; > reject a personal God, ii. 375; > and the impostor Anderson, ii. 389 > > Masorets changed the immodest words in the Bible, ii. 430 > > Master-builder, epopt, adept, the Apostle Paul, ii. 91 > > Master’s word, communicated only at low breath, ii. 99 > > Mas’udi, on the ghûls in the desert, i. 604 > > Materialization, what spirits practice it, i. 319; > personal, i. 321 > > Materializations recorded in the Bible, i. 493 > > “Materialized spirits,” i. 67; > witnessed by the author, i. 69; > Virgin Mary to be expected at the Vatican, ii. 82; > often comes and lights a taper at Arras, _ib._ > > Mathematical error held by the Gnostics, ii. 194 > > Mathematicians, ancient, went to Egypt to be instructed, i. 531 > > Mathematics, Pythagorean and Platonic, i. 106 > > Matsya, the earliest avatar, ii. 427 > > Matter, how produced, i. 140; > proclaimed by modern physicists sole and autocratic sovereign of > the universe, i. 235; > its indestructibility, i. 243; > origin, i. 258; > the serpent that tempted man, i. 297; > not created by Divine thought, i. 310; > indestructible and eternal, i. 328; > fructified by the Divine idea or imagination, i. 396; > the remote effect of emanative energy, ii. 35 > > Matthew, gospel of, a secret book written in Hebrew, ii. 181, 182; > quotes the Egyptian Book of the Dead, ii. 548 > > Matwanlin, on voices in the deserts, i. 604 > > Maudsley, Prof., repudiates Comte, ii. 3; > rejects the positive philosophy, i. 82 > > Mauritania Tingitana, its columns, i. 545 > > Mauritius, his nauscopite, i. 240 > > Max Müller, scouts the idea of original human brutality, i. 4; > on the meaning of Veda, i. 354; > on Sanscrit literature, i. 442; > on the four ancestors, i. 559; > on Brahmanical literature, i. 580; > on the mutations of Christianity, ii. 10; > on the science of religion, ii. 26; > his retort upon Prof. Whitney, ii. 47; > assertion on the Hindu gods, ii. 413; > on the _Vedas_, ii. 414; > his understanding of Nirvana, ii. 432 > > Maxwell, his offer to cure diseases abandoned as incurable, i. 215; > his theory of the world-soul or life-spirit, i. 215, 216 > > Maya, or illusion, i. 289 > > Mayas of Yucatan, their mysterious city, i. 547 > > Mecassipa, an enchanter, i. 355 > > Medallions from the ashes of the dead, ii. 603 > > Mediatorship, how exercised, i. 487, 488 > > Medici family patrons of the black art, ii. 55 > > Medicine, classed by Bacon as a conjectural science, i. 405; > modern, what it has gained and lost, i. 20; > occult, suggested by Descartes, i. 214 > > Medium, a conductor, i. 201; > difference from a magician, i. 367; > a passive, the adept an active instrument, ii. 588; > needs a foreign intelligence, ii. 592 > > Medium-catcher of Prof. Faraday, i. 63 > > Medium-healers, charged with vampirism, i. 490, 491 > > Mediums, their visions more trustworthy than those of Catholic > priests, ii. 73; > burned, hanged, and otherwise murdered, i. 26, 353; > in Russia, i. 27; > generally utter commonplace ideas, i. 221; > their astral limbs, ii. 595; > are usually diseased, _ib._; > the Mosaic law contemplated killing them, i. 356; > passive, i. 488; > unregulated ones persecuted, i. 489; > how cured, i. 490; > generally disordered while the ancient thaumaturgists were not, > _ib._ > > Mediumistic diathesis, i. 117; > phenomena in Asia, i. 320 > > Mediumship, physical and spiritual, i. 367; > its phases seldom altered, _ib._; > depends upon a peculiar organization, i. 367; > psychographic, i. 368; > its conditions and circumstances, i. 487; > in holy men, mediatorship, _ib._; > in these days an undesirable gift, i. 488; > natural, ii. 118; > the opposite of adeptship, ii. 588 > > Megasthenes traces the Jews to the Kalani of India, i. 567 > > Melampus, his magical cures, i. 531 > > Melanephoris, the third degree, ii. 364 > > Mementos of a long bygone civilization, i. 349 > > Memory, views of Ammonius Sakkas, ii. 591; > of God, i. 178 > > Men produced by the giant Ymir, and also by the cow Audhumla, i. > 148; > denoted by the tree of life, Yggdrasill, Zampun, Aswatha, i. 151-4; > existed at a period extremely remote, i. 155; > of the Stone Age described by Mrs. Denton, i. 295; > revivified without souls, ii. 564; > races differ in their spiritual gifts, ii. 588; > soulless, ii. 369; > of science wear the cast-off garb of priests dyed to escape > detection, ii. 8 > > Mendeleyeff, Prof., declares spiritualism a mixture of superstition, > delusion, and fraud, i. 117; > protest by Butleroff, Aksakoff, and others, i. 118 > > Menes, turned the course of the Nile, i. 516 > > Menon, the inventor of letters, i. 532 > > Mensabulism, i. 322 > > Mental photography, i. 322 > > Mentuhept, Queen, inscription on her monument, ii. 92 > > Mercaba, ii. 348; > must be first known, ii. 349; > a hidden doctrine, _ib._ > > Mercurius vitæ of Paracelsus, ii. 620 > > Mercury, water of, symbol of the soul, i. 309; > or quicksilver, never used by Yogi or alchemist, only by > charlatans, and not by Paracelsus, ii. 620, 621; > never restored a man to health, _ib._ > > Meridian, known when the first pyramid was built, i. 536 > > Meru or Meruah, sound, etc., i. 592; > and its gods, ii. 233, 234 > > Mesmer, rediscovered animal magnetism, i. 165; > his 27 propositions, i. 172; > condemned by the French Committee of 1784 > > Mesmerism, i. 23; > a rediscovery of what Paracelsus taught, i. 72; > repudiated by positivists, i. 82; > used successfully by physicians, _ib._; > an important branch of magic, i. 129, 131; > condemned in France in 1784, i. 171; > prize offered for thesis by the Prussian Government, i. 173; > taught by Descartes, i. 206 > > Message delivered at Kounboum, ii. 604 > > Messages, writing by spirits, i. 367 > > Messiah, comes in the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, in the sign > Pisces, ii. 256; > the fifth emanation, ii. 259 > > Metallic springs found in ancient war-chariots, i. 530 > > Metalline, a compound overcoming friction, i. 502 > > Metallurgy among the Egyptians and Semitic races, i. 538 > > Metals not simple bodies, i. 509 > > Metatron, or angel of the Lord, transformed into Jesus the son of > Mary, ii. 33; > seventy names, ii. 245 > > Metempsychosis, i. 8; > believed by all philosophers, early fathers and Gnostics, i. 12; > doctrine of Plato, i. 276, 277; > an allegory, not to be literally understood, and relating to > experiences of the soul, i. 289, 550; > of Buddha, i. 291; > dreaded by Hindus, i. 348; > the separation of the _thumos_ and ridding the _nous_ of the > _phren_, ii. 286 > > Methuselah helps Enoch construct nine chambers underground in the > land of Canaan, i. 571; > receives from him certain secret learning, _ib._ > > Metis, the same as Sophia of the Gnostics, and Sephira, ii. 163 > > Mexican serpent-gods, i. 572 > > Mexicans, ancient, i. 313; > their theory of lunar eclipses similar to the Hindu, i. 548 > > Mexico, serpent-worship, i. 46, 551-558 > > Michael, the unknown angel, ii. 488; > a phial of his sweat preserved as a relic, ii. 71; > the archangel, the same as Ophiomorphos, ii. 206; > and the Devil, their dispute, ii. 482; > the Dragon-slayer, ii. 488 > > Michelet, testimony in regard to the Jesuits, ii. 358, 359 > > Microcosm, i. 212 > > Microcosmos, i. 28 > > Microprosopos (little face), the microcosm, i. 580; > the Adam primos, ii. 452 > > Microscope, its brothers in the Books of Moses, i. 240 > > Middle Asia, botany and mineralogy, i. 89; > ever-burning lamps, i. 227 > > Midgard snake, i. 151 > > Midianites regarded as wise men, ii. 449 > > Milk of the Celestial Virgin, i. 64 > > Milton, John, regarded _Paradise Lost_ as a book of fiction, ii. 501 > > Mimer, the deep well of wisdom, i. 151 > > Minarets of Islam, ii. 5 > > Minerals, magnetized by man, i. 209; > the basis of evolution of vegetable organisms, _ib._; > their occult properties, ii. 589 > > Miracles, those of the Bible surpassed by those of the Vedas, i. 90; > so-called, genuine, from Moses to Cagliostro, i. 128; > none in nature, ii. 587; > at the tomb of Abbé Paris, i. 372; > among the Convulsionaires, _ib._; > none in Protestant countries, ii. 17; > in spite of the Church, ii. 22, 23 > > Miraculous Conception, a legend of Buddhism, ii. 504; > fire at the Holy Sepulchre, ii. 404 > > Mirville, De, i. 99; > refutes Babinet’s denial of levitation, i. 105; > the nebulous Almighty, i. 129 > > Mithra, a triple god, ii. 41 > > Mithraic Mysteries, ii. 351; > initiation of Julian the Emperor, ii. 566 > > Mixture to out-stench devils, ii. 67 > > Mnizurin, i. 321 > > Mochtana or Mokomna, the Druze apostle, ii. 308 > > Morals, the Buddhistic code, ii. 608 > > Model of the Universe, i. 302 > > Modern philosophers, see only the physical form of Isis, i. 16; > devil, a heritage from Cybelè, ii. 501; > Savants know less than ancients, i. 15; > science denies a Supreme Being or Personal God, i. 16; > teaches the power of human thought to affect the matter of another > universe, i. 310; > scientists hate new truths, i. 409; > spiritualism, i. 40; > the modern form of magic, i. 42 > > Mœris, the artificial lake constructed in Egypt, i. 516 > > Moisasure, the Hindu Lucifer, i. 299 > > Moksha and the Nirvana, ii. 116; > the second spiritual birth, ii. 566 > > Moldenwaher, his documents concerning the prosecution of the > Knights-Templar, bought up by Free-masons, ii. 383 > > Moloch-Hercules, children immolated to him in the valley of the > Gehenna, ii. 11 > > Moloch-God of the inquisition, ii. 65 > > Moloch-like divinity of Roman church, i. 27 > > Monad, i. 212; > Buddha, i. 291 > > Monas, ii. 347 > > Mongolians, ought to have been called Scyths, i. 576 > > Monkey of God, now exorcised with holy water, ii. 96 > > Monkeys exhibiting human intellect, i. 326; > fabled to be progenitors of western people, i. 563; > in Egyptian temples, i. 564; > in all Buddhistic temples, _ib._ > > Monkish impostors expelled from convents in Southern Mongolia, ii. 609 > > Monks, their fury for exorcising and roasting the convulsionaires of > the Cevennes, i. 370, 372; > none in hell, ii. 75 > > Monoliths, for Egyptian monuments, i. 518; > how transported, _ib._ > > Monogenes, or only-begotten, a name of Proserpina, ii. 284 > > Montesquieu, on two witnesses, i. 87 > > Montezuma, his effigy worshipped in Mexico, i. 557 > > Montgeron, writes a book on Jansenist miracles, i. 373 > > Monuments, religious, the expression of the same thoughts, i. 561; > planned and built under supervision of priests, _ib._; > alike in Asia and America, _ib._ > > Moody, the revivalist, would see his son’s eyes dug out, ii. 250; > and Sankey, confounded by a Roman bishop with spiritualists, ii. 7 > > Moon, the same as Diana, Diktynna, Artemis, Juno, etc., i. 267; > her worship in Crete, _ib._; > influence on women, _ib._; > legends of her phases, i. 265, 266; > influence on tides, persons, and vegetation, i. 273; > in middle nature, and green the middle color, i. 514 > > Moon-god, Deus Lunus, worshipped by the Khaldi, ii. 48 > > Moon-kings, or lunar dynasty, reigned at Pruyag and Allahabad, ii. 48 > > Moor, his explanation of the Wittoba, ii. 557, 558 > > Moore, Rev. Dunlop, assertion of the age of the institutes of Manu, > i. 585 > > Moors, bearded, figures at the great temple of Angkor, or Nagkon-Wat, > i. 565, 567 > > Mora in Sweden, young children burned alive as witches, ii. 503 > > More, Henry, i. 54, 74; > his belief in Pythagorean doctrines, i. 204, 205; > adversary of Eugenius Philalethes, i. 308; > demonstration of witchcraft, i. 353; > theory of birth-marks, i. 384, 385 > > Morgan, “good enough till after the election,” ii. 372 > > Moigno, Abbé, his wretched success in writing down Huxley, Tyndall, > and Raymond, i. 336 > > Mormons, polytheists, ii. 2 > > Mortal soul, i. 276, 326 > > Mosaic books, regarded by well-educated Jews allegory, i. 554, 555; > religion a sun-and-serpent worship, ii. 129 > > Moses, the pupil of the mother of Pharaoh’s daughter, i. 25; > communicated secrets to the seventy elders, i. 26; > his code required two witnesses, i. 87; > placed a perpetual lamp in the tabernacle, i. 228; > described Jehovah the anthropomorphic deity as being the highest > God, i. 307; > could not obtain his other name, i. 309; > philosophized or spoke in allegory, i. 436; > said to have had knowledge of electricity, i. 528; > chief of the Sodales or priest-colleges, i. 555; > a hierophant of Heliopolis and priest of Osiris, _ib._; > initiated, _ib._; > became an Egyptian and a priest, i. 556; > denounced the spirit of Ob, not Od, i. 594; > disputes over his body, its allegorical interpretation, ii. 482; > an initiate, ii. 129; > and the Israelites, their story typical, ii. 493; > versed in occult sciences, ii. 59; > the law not more than two or three centuries older than > Christianity, ii. 526 > > Moslem arms blessed by the Pope, ii. 560 > > Mother and child, a very ancient sign and myth, ii. 491; > -trunk, the universal religion, ii. 123; > of God the most ancient, ii. 49, 50; > the Heaven itself, ii. 50; > lodge, the great, ii. 315 > > Mountain of light, its appearance to Hiouen-Thsang, i. 600 > > Mouse-mark, produced by alarm, i. 391 > > Mousseaux, Des, i. 99; > declares the devil the chief pillar of faith, i. 103 > > Movable printing types, in China before our Era, i. 513; > used in the earliest periods of lamaism in Thibet, _ib._ > > Moyst natures or elementary spirits, i. 342, 343 > > Mukti, or half-gods, ii. 566 > > Müller, Albrecht, testimony in regard to ancient skill, i. 539 > > Mummy, bandaging, i. 20; > a symbol, i. 297; > a finger-ring at the London Exhibition of 1851, i. 531 > > Mummy-bandaging, i. 539; > 1000 yards long _ib._ > > Mundane tree, i. 297 > > Mundane cross of heaven, ii. 454; > egg or universal womb, ii. 214; > snake creeps out of the primordial _ilus_, i. 298 > > Muratori, his felt cuirasse, copied from the ancients, i. 530 > > Murder, an obstacle to ancient, but not to Jesuit initiation, ii. 363 > > Murderous language of Jerome and Tertullian, ii. 250 > > Music, power over diseases, i. 215; > effect on persons, i. 275; > its influence on reptiles, i. 382; > employed in Egyptian temples for healing of nervous disorders, i. > 544 > > Musical instruments in Egypt, i. 544; > sand, i. 605; > tones influence vegetation, i. 514 > > Mutton-protoplasm, i. 251 > > Mysteries, i. 15; > little known, i. 24; > of the Israelites, i. 26; > theurgic, i. 130; > Samothracian, i. 132; > occult properties of magnetism and electricity taught, i. 234; > representation of Demeter with the electrified head, _ib._; > the Dioskuri, i. 234-243; > Pythagoras initiated, i. 284; > their gradation, ii. 101; > ennobling in their character, _ib._; > of the ancients identical with the Hindu and Buddhist initiations, > ii. 113, 114; > divine visions beheld in them, ii. 118; > of the Christians, ii. 119; > Jesuit, not revealed to all priests, ii. 350; > Mithraïc, twelve tortures, ii. 351; > taught to the Babylonians, ii. 457 > > Mysterious city of the Mayas of Yucatan, i. 547; > science existed apart from “mediumship,” ii. 118 > > Mystery of the celestial Virgin pursued by the Dragon, ii. 490; > and science, Mr. Felix’s book, i. 337 > > Mystery-God of the Ineffable Name, ii. 289 > > Mystic doctrines not properly understood, i. 429; > legends of the Middle Ages, ii. 38 > > Mystical words of power in old religions, ii. 99; > properties in plants, ii. 589 > > Myths, fables, when misunderstood, and truths as once understood, ii. > 431 > > Nabatheans in Lebanon, ii. 197 > > Nagal, the chief sorcerer of the Mexicans, i. 556 > > Nagas, or kingly snakes, i. 448; > or serpent-tribes of Kashmere, teachers of Apollonius, ii. 434; > or serpent-worshippers of Kashmere converted to the Buddhistic > faith, ii. 608 > > Nagkon-Wat, i. 239; > description of Frank Vincent, i. 561-563; > pictures represent scenes from the _Ramayava_, i. 573; > 100,000 separate figures, _ib._; > ascribed to the lost tribes of Israel, i. 565; > suggested to have been built for Buddhaghosa, _ib._; > contains representations of Oannes or Dagon, the Kabeiri, the > monkey or Vulcan, Egyptian and Assyrian figures, _ib._ > > Nagualism and voodoo-worship, i. 556, 557; > secret worships, i. 557; ii. 572; > perpetuated by Catholic persecution, ii. 573 > > Nails of a cherub preserved as relics, ii. 71 > > Name, Ineffable, not possessed by Masons, ii. 387 > > Nandi, the Vehan of Siva, ii. 235 > > Nara, the mundane egg or universal womb, ii. 214 > > Narayana, mover of the waters, Brahma, i. 91 > > Nation, its greatest curse, ii. 121 > > _National Quarterly_, on modern scientists, i. 240, 249 > > Natural magic, no relation to sleight of hand, i. 128; > “mediumship,” ii. 118 > > Nature, four kingdoms, i. 329; > a materialization of spirit, i. 428; > triune, the visible or objective, the vital or subjective principle > and the eternal spirit, ii. 587; > the servant of the magician, ii. 590; > reveals all arts, i. 424, 425 > > Nature-spirits or shedim, i. 313; > or elementary, i. 349 > > Naudé, a defender of occult magnetism and theosophy, i. 207 > > Naus-copite, an optical instrument, i. 240 > > Navel and less comely parts of Jesus for relics, ii. 71; > symbolized by the ark, ii. 444 > > Nazarene system explained, ii. 227-229; > diagram, ii. 295 > > Nazarenes, had a gospel inscribed to Peter, ii. 127; > an anti-Bacchus caste, ii. 129; > existed before Christ, ii. 139, 181; > some as Galileans, ii. 139; > their belief of a divine overshadowing, ii. 154 > > Nazaret or Zoroaster, ii. 140 > > Nazars, Joseph, Samuel, Samson, Zoroaster, and Zorobabel, ii. 128; > wore their hair long, but cut it off at initiation, ii. 90; > Jesus belonged to them, _ib._ > > Nazireates, inimical to the Israelites, ii. 131 > > Nebelheim, the matrix of the earth, i. 147 > > Nebular theory, the ancient docrine, i. 238 > > Necessity, circle of, i. 226, 296; > men its toy, i. 276; > circle of, when completed, i. 346 > > Necho, King of Egypt, wrote on astronomy, i. 406; > canal of, i. 517; > II., sent a fleet to circumnavigate Africa, i. 542 > > Necklace, imprinted by lightning on two ladies, i. 398 > > Necromancy, a science of remote antiquity, i. 205 > > ΝΕΚΡΟΚΗΔΕΙΑ _nekrokedeia_, i. 228 > > Neoconis, the second degree, ii. 364 > > Neo-Platonic Eclectic School, ii. 32 > > Neo-Platonists, i. 262; > their time of greatest glory, ii. 41; > their doctrines and practices copied, ii. 84; > not “spirit mediums,” ii. 118; > when they were doomed, ii. 252 > > Nero, his ring, i. 240; > dared not seek initiation, ii. 363 > > Neros I., i. 31; > the Great, i. 33 > > Nervous disorders, i. 117; > disorders a specialty in ancient Egypt, i. 529; > disorders treated with music in Egyptian temples, i. 544; > exhaustion at spiritual circles, i. 343 > > Neurological telegraphy proposed, i. 324 > > Never-embodied men, i. 301 > > Neville, Francis, twice resuscitated, i. 479 > > New birth and accompanying slaughter, ii. 42; > taught by Buddha and Jesus, ii. 566 > > New Jersey, negroes burned at the stake for witchcraft, ii. 18 > > New Testament, passages compared with sentences from the > philosophers, ii. 338 > > Newton Bishop, on the transformation of paganism into popery, ii. 29; > Dr. the American healer, i. 165, 217, 218; > Isaac, believer in magnetism, i. 177 > > Niccolini, his exposure of the profligacy of monks, ii. 365, 366 > > Nicodemus, Gospel taken from the pagan authors, ii. 518 > > Nicolaitans adhered to marriage, ii. 329 > > Nicolas, a man of honest report, ii. 333 > > Night of Brahma, ii. 272, 273 > > Nimbus and Tonsure solar emblems, ii. 94 > > Nimrod, or spotted, a name of Bacchus, the wearer of the spotted > skin, i. 568 > > Nimroud, convex lens found, i. 240 > > Nin or Imus of the Tzendales the same as Ninus, i. 551; > received homage in the form of a serpent, i. 522 > > Nineveh, 47 miles in circumference, i. 241 > > Nirvana, i. 241, 290; > the world of cause, i. 346; > not nihilism nor extinction, i. 430; > complete purification from matter, ii. 117; > subjective but not objective existence, ii. 286; > a personal immortality in spirit, but not in soul, ii. 320; > or Moksha, the second spiritual birth, ii. 566; > the ocean to which all religions tend, ii. 639 > > Nirvritti or rest, i. 243 > > No devil, no Christ, ii. 492 > > Noah, or Nuah, same as Swayambhuva, ii. 448; > the universal mother, ii. 444 > > Nonnus, his legend of Korè and her son, ii. 504 > > Norns, or Parcæ, watering the roots of the tree Yggdrasill, i. 151 > > Norse kingdom of the dead, ii. 11; > contained no blazing hell, _ib._ > > NOUS, i. 55, 131; > consecrated to Mary, Isis, and Nari, ii. 210; > or rational soul, everyman endowed, ii. 279; > the spirit or reasoning soul, doctrine of Aristotle, i. 317; > the first-born, or Christ, ii. 157 > > No-Zeruan, the ancient of days, ii. 142 > > Nout, the Egyptian name of the Divine Spirit, ii. 282; > same as Nous, _ib._ > > Nuah (Hea) king of the humid principle, ii. 429 > > Nubia, its rock-temples, i. 542 > > Nucleus of the embryo, i. 389 > > Numa, King of Rome, Books of, i. 527; > understood electricity, _ib._; > opposed the use of images in worship, _ib._ > > Numbers, Hermetic Book, on cosmic changes, i. 254; > book of secret, the great Kabala, i. 579 > > Numerals of Pythagoras, hieroglyphical symbols, i. 35; > the basis of all systems of mysticism, ii. 407 > > Nun, an Egyptian designation, ii. 95 > > Nysa, Nyssa, always found where Bacchus was worshipped, ii. 165; > same as Sinai, _ib._ > > Oak, sacred, i. 297, 298 > > Oannes, i. 133; > the man fish, i. 349; > the same as Vishnu, ii. 257; > name signifies a spirit, _ib._ > > Oath taken by initiates, i. 409 > > Ob, the astral light, i. 158 > > Obeah women in Guiana charm snakes, i. 383 > > Obelisks of Egypt, i. 518; > mode of transporting them, i. 519; > imputed to Hermes Trismegistus, i. 551 > > Object of this book, ii. 98, 99 > > Obscene relics at Embrum, ii. 332 > > Obscene bas-reliefs on the doors of St. Peter’s Cathedral, _ib._ > > Obscene statue of Christ and its miracles, _ib._ > > Obscenity of heathen rites, ii. 76 > > Obsession and possession, i. 487, 488; ii. 16; > all confined to Roman Catholic countries, ii. 17 > > Obsessions, irresistible, i. 276 > > Occult properties in minerals, ii. 589; > powers by inheritance, ii. 635, 636 > > Occultism, physical, i. 19 > > Oculists in ancient Egypt, i. 545 > > Od, an agent described by Baron Reichenbach, i. 146; > astral currents vivified, i. 158; > emanations identical with flames from magnets, etc., i. 169 > > Odic Force, i. 67 > > Odin, i. 19; > breathing in man and woman, the ash and the alder, the breath > of life, i. 151; > Alfadir, _ib._ > > Oersted, on laws of nature, i. 506, 507 > > Oetinger, experiment on ashes of plants, i. 476 > > O’Grady, Wm. L. D., his letter denouncing the influence of > missionaries in India, ii. 475; > on Hindu demoralization under British rule, ii. 574; > his account of a Christian saturnalia in India, ii. 532 > > Okhal or hierophant of the Druzes, ii. 309 > > Okhals or spiritualists of Syria, ii. 292 > > Old book, one original copy only in existence, i. 1; > gods of the heathen, the same as the ancient patriarchs, ii. 450; > man and his son, remarkable resuscitation, i. 484; > Testament, exiled by Colenso and recalled, ii. 4; > Testament, no real history in it, ii. 441; > universes evolved before the present, ii. 421 > > Olympic gods, their biographies relate to physics and chemistry, i. > 261; > women climbing perpendicular walls, i. 374 > > Onderah, the Hindu abyss of darkness, only an intermediate state, ii. > 11 > > One only good, ii. 238; > in three, i. 258 > > Only-begotten sons, ii. 191 > > Operative masons, ii. 392 > > Ophiomorphos and Ophis Christos, ii. 449 > > Ophion called also Dominus, ii. 512 > > Ophiozenes in Cyprus, power over venomous reptiles, i. 381 > > Ophis, the same as Chnuphis or Kneph, ii. 187; > or the agathodaimon, ii. 293, 295 > > Ophism and heliolatry imputed to Hermes, i. 55i > > Ophite Gnostics rejected the _Old Testament_, ii. 147; > Theogony correctly given, ii. 187; > worship transmuted into Christian symbolism, ii. 505; > or serpent-worshipping Christians, their scheme, ii. 292; > seven planetary genii, ii. 296; > rejected the Mosaic writings, ii. 168; > taught the doctrine of emanations, ii. 169; > and Nazarenes compared, ii. 174; > denounced by Peter and Jude, ii. 205; > accused of licentiousness, ii. 325 > > Optical instruments of ancient times, i. 240 > > Oracle of the bleeding head consulted by Queen Catherine of Medicis, > ii. 56 > > Oracles obtained during the sacred sleep, i. 357 > > Oracular head, made by Pope Sylvester II., ii. 56; > by Albertus Magnus destroyed by Thomas Aquinas, _ib._ > > Orcus, i. 298, 299 > > Oriental philosophy, fundamental propositions, ii. 587 > > Orientals, their senses more acute, i. 211; > ascribe a human figure to the soul, i. 214; > believe certain persons have made gold and lived for ages, _ib._ > > Orientalists have shown similarities between religions, ii. 49 > > Origen, believed in metempsychosis, i. 12; > an Alexandrian Platonist, i. 25; > secret doctrines of Moses, i. 26; > believed the spirit preëxistent from eternity, i. 316; > deemed the soul corporeal, i. 317; > denied the perpetuity of hell-torments, ii. 13; > taught that devils would be pardoned, _ib._; > believed that the damned would receive pardon and bliss, ii. 238; > on the threefold partition of man, ii. 285 > > Ormazd, his worship restored, ii. 220; > his creations, ii. 221 > > Orobio exposes the inquisition, ii. 59 > > Orohippus, i. 411 > > Orpheus, alleged to be a disciple of Moses, i. 532; > on the virtues of the lodestone, i. 265 > > Orphic Mysteries not the popular Bacchic rites, ii. 129 > > Osiris, i. 93, 202; > brought up at Nysa and called Dionnysos, ii. 165; > his slaying denoted the period when his worship was under the ban > of the Hyk-sos government, ii. 487; > and Typhon, E. Pococke’s theory, ii. 435, 436 > > O’Sullivan, Hon. John L., description of a semi-magical seance, i. 608 > > Oulam does not mean infinite duration, ii. 12 > > Ovule ceases to be an integral part of the body of the mother, i. 401 > > Ovum, impregnated, its evolutionary history, i. 389 > > Oxus-tribes or bull-worshippers dominate Western Asia, ii. 439 > > Owen, Robert D., on worship of words, ii. 560 > > Pagan idols, their destruction commanded by the Roman emperor, ii. 40; > worship, the Latin church preserves its symbols, rites, > architecture and clerical dress, ii. 92 > > Paganism, true meaning of the word, ii. 179; > ancient wisdom replete with deity, ii. 639; > converted and applied to popery, ii. 29 > > Pagans condemned to the eternal torments of hell, ii. 8; > Virgin Mary writing this to a saint, _ib._ > > Palenque, keystone not found, i. 571; > the Tau and astronomical cross, i. 572 > > Pali, their manuscripts translated, i. 578; > have similar traditions as the Babylonians, _ib._; > shepherds, who emigrated west, _ib._ > > Pallium, or stole, a feminine sign, ii. 94; > that of Augustine bedecked with Buddhistic crosses, ii. 94 > > Panther, Grecian, contained Egyptian gods, i. 543; > panther, the sinful father of Jesus, ii. 386 > > Papacy, scientific, danger of, i. 403; > “and civil power,” Mr. Thompson’s book denounced, ii. 378 > > Papal tiara, the coiffure of the Assyrian gods, ii. 94; > discourses, catalogue of foul epithets on those who oppose the > pope, ii. 7 > > Paper, time-proof, i. 529 > > Papyrus, as old as Menes and the first dynasty, i. 530; > art of its preparation, _ib._ > > Parables or double-meanings in the discourses of Jesus, ii. 145 > > Parabrahma the Eternal, Bhaghavant, i. 91 > > Paracelsus, i. 20, 50; > his learning, i. 52; > discovered hydrogen, i. 52, 169; > his doctrine of faith and will, i. 57, 170; > rediscovery of the magnet, i. 71, 164, 167; > persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, i. 100; > his homunculi, i. 133, 465; > teacher of animal-magnetism and electro-magnetism, i. 164; > theory of a concealed power of the magnet, i. 168; > sidereal force, _ib._; > theory of dreams, i. 170; > on the alkahest, i. 191; > method of transposing letters in his terms, _ib._; > taught that three spirits actuate man, i. 212; > removed disease by contact of healthy persons, i. 217; > his preparation of mercury, ii. 620; > and chorœa, and was persecuted for it as a magician, ii. 565; > received the true initiation, ii. 349; > his assertion that magic was taught in the Bible, ii. 500; > Alsatians believe him not dead, _ib._ > > Paradigm of the universe, i. 212 > > Paradise Lost, the drama of Milton, ii. 501, 502; > the unformulated belief of the English, _ib._ > > Paradoxes, five, of adversaries of Spiritualism, i. 116 > > Paralysis of the soul during life, ii. 368 > > Parerga, i. 59 > > Pariahs, or Tchandales, the parents of the Jews, ii. 438 > > Paris carrying off Helen, and Ravana carrying off Sita, i. 566; > Abbé, the Jansenist, miracles at his tomb for 20 years, i. 372 > > Parker, Father, accuses the Protestants of the purpose to destroy the > Bible, ii. 200 > > Parodi, Maria Teresa, case of malformed child, i. 392 > > Parrot-headed squabs, i. 395, 396 > > Parsis deny any vicarious sacrifice, ii. 547 > > Pashai (Peshawer) or Udayna, classic land of sorcery, i. 599; > testimony of Hiouen-Thsang, _ib._ > > Pastaphoris, the first degree, ii. 364 > > Patriarchs, great gods, and pradjapatis represented signs of the > Zodiac, ii. 450 > > Paul, supposed to have been personified and assailed by Peter under > the name of Simon Magus, ii. 89; > and Plato, quoted, ii. 89, 90; > the real founder of Christianity, ii. 574; > a wise master-builder, or adept, ii. 90, 91; > why persecuted by Peter, James, and John, ii. 91; > supposed to be polluted by the Gnosis, _ib._; > the apostle, used language pertaining to initiations, ii. 90; > was initiated, _ib._; > confessed himself a Nazarene, ii. 137; > on the beatific vision, ii. 146; > his epistles alone acknowledged by Marcion, ii. 162; > differs from Peter, ii. 180; > is adopted by the Reformers, _ib._; > his reference to occult powers, ii. 206; > only worthy apostle of Jesus, ii. 241; > taught that man was a trine, ii. 281; > regarded Christianity and Judaism as entirely distinct, ii. 525; > the apostle, his descendants said to possess the power of braving > serpents, i. 381; > asserted the story of Moses and Abraham to be allegories, ii. 493 > > Pausanias on shadowy soldiers at Marathon, i. 70; > warned not to unveil the holy rites, i. 130 > > Perry Chand Mittra, his views on psychology of the Aryas, ii. 593 > > Pedactyl equus, i. 411 > > Peisse, Dr., on alchemy and making gold, i. 508, 509 > > Penalties of mutilation, ii. 99, 100 > > Pencil writing answers to questions, in Tartary, i. 600 > > Pentacle, Pythagorean, ii. 451, 452 > > Pentagram, can determine the countenance of unborn infants, i. 395 > > Pentateuch, constituted after the model of a purana, ii. 492; > not written by Moses, ii. 167; > compiled by Ezra and revised, i. 578; > revised by the Jews, ii. 526 > > Pepper, Prof., his apparatus to produce spiritual appearances, i. 359 > > Perfect circle decussated by the letter X, ii. 469 > > Perfect Passover of orthodox Christians, ii. 333 > > Periktione, mother of Plato, her miraculous conception, ii. 325 > > Perispirit, i. 197; > the astral soul, i. 289 > > Permutation, doctrine of, ii. 152 > > Perpetual motion, denied by science, i. 501; > illustrated by the universe and the atomic theory, i. 502; > proved by the telescope and microscope, _ib._ > > Persiphone or Proserpina, the same as Ceres or Demeter, ii. 505 > > Persepolis, wonders, i. 534; > the inscriptions older than any in Sanscrit, ii. 436 > > Persia, her wonders, i. 534 > > Persian Mirror, a robber detected by its use and punished, ii. 631 > > Persian colonists dominated in Judea, the Canaanites being the > proletaries, ii. 441 > > Personal devil not believed in by the ancients, ii. 483 > > Personality not to be applied to spiritual essence, i. 315 > > Persons cut to pieces and put again together good as new, i. 473, 474 > > Peru, net-work of subterranean passages, i. 595, 598; > treasures of the Incas, i. 596 > > Peruvians, still preserve their ancient traditions and sacerdotal > caste, i. 546; > magical ceremonies, _ib._ > > Peter, פתר, name taken from the Mysteries, ii. 29 > > PTR, its symbol an opened eye, ii. 92, 93; > the interpreter, ii. 392; > had nothing to do with the foundation of the Latin Church, ii. 91; > his name Petra or Kiffa, _ib._; > the whole story of his apostleship at Rome a play on the name > denoting the Hierophant or interpreter of the mysteries, ii. > 91, 92; > the pulpit of, declared to be the teachings of the spirit of God, > ii. 8; > had two chairs, ii. 23, 25; > was never at Rome, ii. 24; > his life at Babylon, ii. 127; > was a Nazarene, _ib._; > denounced Paul without naming him, ii. 179 > > Peter-ref-su, a mystery-word on a coffin, ii. 92; > Bunsen’s comments, ii. 92, 93 > > Peter the Great, stopped spurious miracles, ii. 17 > > Petra, the rock-temple of the Church, ii. 30 > > Petra, or rock, the logos, ii. 246 > > Petroma, the two tablets of stone, ii. 91 > > _Phœdrus_, i. 2 > > Phallic symbols in churches, ii. 5; > stone, batylos, or lingham, denounced by des Mousseaux, _ib._ > > Phallism, heathen, in Christian symbols, ii. 5; > in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the fetish-worship > of Isernia, _ib._ > > Phanes, the revealed god, i. 146 > > Phantasmal duplicate, i. 360 > > Phantasy, ii. 591 > > Phantom-hand, false as well as true, ii. 594; > statement of Dr. Fairfield, ii. 595; > what it really is, _ib._ > > Phantoms, the manifestations of bad demons, i. 333 > > Phases of modern Christianity, ii. 575 > > Pharisees, believed in transmigration of souls, i. 347 > > Phenomena, spiritual, discountenanced by the clergy, i. 26; > divine visions of Pius, IX., i. 27; > the Klikouchy and the Yourodevoy, i. 28; > absurd position assumed by scientists, i. 40; > Aksakof, i. 41; > Fisk, Crookes, and Wallace, i. 42; > the Dialectical Society, i. 44; > theories of Prof. Crookes, i. 47; > existed long before spiritualism, i. 53; > Prof. Faraday’s tests, i. 63; > materialization, i. 67; > a haunted house, i. 69; > physical displays seldom caused by disembodied spirits, i. 73; > opposition of the positivists, i. 75; > hostility of allopathists, i. 88; > laid at the door of Satan, i. 99; > testimony of de Gasparin, i. 101; > hostility of medical writers, i. 102; > Mr. Weekman the first investigator in America, i. 106; > reality acknowledged by Prof. Thury, i. 110; > his theory, i. 113; > E. Salverte, i. 115; > De Mirville’s five distractions or paradoxes, i. 116; > condemned by Commission of the Imperial University of St > Petersburgh, i. 117; > how produced, i. 199; > evidence adduced by Prof. Crookes overwhelming, i. 202; > given by an exterior intelligence, i. 203; > deceptions, i. 217-222; > Iamblichus forbids endeavors to procure them, i. 219 > > Pherecydes, taught that æther was heaven, i. 157 > > Philalethes, Eugenius (Thomas Vaughan), i. 51, 167; > not an adept, i. 306; > model of Swedenborg, _ib._; > anticipated modern doctrine of the earth’s beginning, i. 255 > > Phillips, Wendell, i. 211, 240 > > Philo Judæus, on spirits in the air, i. 2; > praise of magic, i. 25; > contradicted himself on purpose, ii. 39; > was the father of new platonism, ii. 144 > > Philonæa, visited her lover after death, i. 365 > > Philosophers, believed in metempsychosis, also that men have two > souls, i. 12; > their consignment to hell desired, ii. 250 > > Philosopher’s stone, sought by a king of Siam, i. 571 > > Philosophy, Oriental, its fundamental propositions, ii. 587 > > Phœnicians, circumnavigated the globe, i. 239; > the earliest navigators, i. 545; > their achievements, _ib._; > an Ethiopian race, i. 566, 567; > traced by Herodotus to the Persian Gulf, i. 567; > Phoinikes, or Ph’anakes, i. 569; > the same as the Hyk-sos or shepherds of Egypt, _ib._; > more or less identified with the Israelites, _ib._ > > Photographing in colors by will-power, i. 463 > > Photography, electrical, i. 395 > > Phtha, the active or male creative principle, i. 186 > > Physical body may be levitated, ii. 589 > > Physically spiritualized, the coming human race to be, i. 296 > > Physician declares Daguerre to be insane, ii. 619 > > Physicians wash their hands on leaving a patient, ii. 611; > problems, i. 277 > > Physicists divinify matter and overlook life, i. 235 > > Pia Metak, king of Siam, becomes able to walk in the air, ii. 618 > > Picture of a slain soldier, extraordinary phenomena, ii. 17 > > Pictures hidden from view, Prof. Draper’s description, i. 186 > > Picus, Francisco, testimony in regard to transmutation, i. 504 > > Pierart, explanation of catalepsy and vampirism, i. 449 > > Pigmies in Africa, i. 412 > > Pike, Gen. Albert, declaration against the creative principle > proclaimed at Lausanne, ii. 377 > > Pilate convokes an assembly of Jews, ii. 522 > > Pillars set up by the patriarchs, identical with the lingam of Siva, > ii. 235 > > Pimander, i. 93; > the same as the Logos Prometheus, etc., i. 298; > the nous, word, or Divine Light, ii. 50 > > Pippala, the sacred tree of knowledge, ii. 412 > > Pitar, its form seen at the moment of initiation, ii. 114 > > Pitris, the lunar ancestors of men, ii. 106, 117; > their worship fast becoming the worship of the spiritual portion of > mankind, ii. 639; > the doctrine of their existence revealed to initiates, ii. 114; > a sect in India, ii. 308 > > Pious assassins of the early church, ii. 304 > > Pius IX, excommunicates Czar Nicholas as a schismatic i. 27; > has divine visions, or rather epileptic fits, _ib._; > evil eye, i. 381; > pretends to be superior to St. Ambrose and the prophet Nathan, ii. > 14; > is the faithful echo of the Jesuits, ii. 359 > > Planchette, writing by, i. 199 > > Planet, i. 301 > > Plants are magnets, i. 281, 282 > > Plant-growing trick, i. 139, 141, 142 > > Plants, attracted by the sun, i. 209; > sympathies and antipathies, _ib._; > sympathy with human beings, i. 246; > possess mystical properties, ii. 589 > > Plato, not often read understandingly, i. 8; > echoed the teachings of Pythagoras, i. 9; > doctrine of the soul, will, or _nous_, i. 14, 55; > his symbology misunderstood, i. 37; > suggestion for physical improvement of the human race, i. 77; > doctrine of wisdom, i. 131; > on trance prophets, i. 201; > asserted to be ignorant of anatomy, i. 236; > his method, i. 237; > Prof. Jewett’s acknowledgment, _ib._; > on origin of the sun, i. 258; > taught correlation of forces, i. 261; > his doctrines the same as those of Manu, i. 271; > declares man the toy of necessity, i. 276; > doctrine of genius, i. 277; > theory of metempsychosis, i. 277; > attraction, i. 281; > his speculations on creation and cosmogony, to be taken > allegorically, i. 287; > veneration for the mysteries, _ib._; > would not admit poets into his commonwealth, i. 288; > dismisses Homer for his apparent antagonism to monotheism, _ib._; > accused of absurdities, etc., i. 307; > derived the soul from the world-soul, i. 316; > shows the deity geometrizing, i. 318; > on the future of the dead, i. 328; > learned secret science in Egypt, i. 406; > versed in the knowledge of the heliocentric system, i. 408, 409; > his “noble lie” concerning Atlantis, i. 413; > on human races, i. 428; > his esoteric doctrines the same as the Buddhistic, i. 430; > on prayer, i. 434; > on God geometrizing, i. 506; > on spiritual numerals, i. 514; > the Atlantis a possible cover of a story made arcane at initiation, > i. 591; > copies Djeminy and Vyasa, i. 621; > complains of unbelief, ii. 16; > his faculty of production, _ib._; > confessed that he derived his teachings from ancient and sacred > doctrines, ii. 39; > on divine mysteries, ii. 113; > not a “spirit-medium,” ii. 118; > and other philosophers taught dual evolution, ii. 279; > on the trine of man, ii. 282; > definition of the soul, ii. 285; > his testimony concerning the Machagistia, ii. 306; > discourse concerning the creation, ii. 469; > taught that there was in matter a blind force, ii. 483; > on exaltation of the soul above sense, ii. 591 > > Platonic philosophy adopted into the church, ii. 33 > > Platonism introduced into Christianity, ii. 325 > > Platonists, their books burned, i. 405 > > Pleroma, three degrees, i. 302 > > Pleasanton on the Blue Ray, i. 137, 264; > denies gravitation, and the existence of centripetal and > centrifugal forces, i. 271; > his theory of light, i. 272 > > Pliny mentions phantoms on the deserts of Africa, i. 604 > > Plotinus, on the descent of the soul into generated existence, ii. > 112; > six times united to his god, ii. 115; i. 292; > on human knowledge, i. 434; > on prayer, _ib._; > on ecstasy, i. 486; > impulse in the soul to return to its centre, _ib._; > on public worship of the gods, i. 489; > a clairvoyant, seer, and more, ii. 591 > > Plutarch on the oracular vapors, i. 200; > on the nature of men, ii. 283; > on the dæmon of Socrates, ii. 284 > > Pococke, E., his theory of Osiris and Typhon, ii. 435, 436 > > Poland, what a Catholic miracle in that country means, ii. 18 > > Polykritus returned after dying, i. 364 > > Polygamy openly preached by certain Positivists, i. 78 > > Pompei, the room full of glass, i. 537 > > Pope seized the scepter of the Pagan pontiff, ii. 30; > now sympathising with the Turks against Christians, ii. 81; > Calvin and Luther, their doctrine one, ii. 479, 480; > his fulminations against science, ii. 559, 560; > Calixtus III. issues a bull against Halley’s Comet, ii. 509 > > Popes known as magicians, ii. 56 > > Popol-Vuh, a manuscript of Quiché, i. 2; > leaves the antiquarian in the dark, i. 548 > > Porphyry, upon Diakka, bad demons of sorcery, i. 219; > twice united with God, i. 292; > upon the passion of spirits for putrid substances and fresh blood, > i. 344; > on freshly-spilt blood in evocation, i. 493 > > Porta, Baptista, theory of magic, world-soul, astral light, i. 208 > > Poruthû-Madân, the wrestling demon, aiding in levitation, taming > animals, etc., i. 496 > > Positivism of Littré found in Vyasa, 10,400 B.C., i. 621 > > Positivists, i. 73; > their religion without a God, i. 76; > design to uproot Spiritualism, _ib._; > preach Polygamy, i. 78; > the climax of their system, i. 80; > neglect no means to overthrow Spiritualism, i. 83; > despised and hated, ii. 3 > > Possession, epidemic in Germany, i. 375 > > Poudot, the shoemaker, his house beset by an elemental demon, i. 364 > > Power of leaving the body temporarily, i. 476, 477; > power to disappear, and to be seen in other forms, ii. 583 > > Powers in nature, as recognized by exact science, and by kabalists, > i. 466 > > Pradjapatis, the ancestors of mankind, ten in number, ii. 427 > > Prakamya, the power to change old age to youth, ii. 583 > > Pralayas or dissolutions, two, ii. 424 > > Prakriti, or Mahat, the external life, ii. 565 > > Pranayama, ii. 590 > > Prapti, the faculty of divination, healing and predicting, ii. 593 > > Pratyahara, ii. 590 > > Pravritti or active existence, i. 243 > > Prayer and its sequences, i. 434 > > Prayers, kept secret from strangers, i. 581 > > Pre-Adamite, man described, i. 295; > earth, i. 505 > > Prediction of the Russo-Turkish war, i. 260 > > Preëminence of woman, ii. 299 > > Preëxistence, apparent, i. 179 > > Preëxistent, the spirit of man, i. 316, 317; ii. 280; > law of form, i. 420 > > Pregnant woman, highly impressible and receptive, i. 394; > odic emanation and its influence on fœtus, i. 395; > under the influence of the ether or astral light, _ib._; > might influence the features of children by pentagram, _ib._ > > Prehistoric races, i. 545 > > Premature burial, i. 456 > > Presbytere de Cideville, phenomenon of thunder and images of > fantastic animals as predicted by a sorcerer, i. 106 > > Preston, Rev. Dr., his doctrine of a Mother in the plan of > redemption, ii. 172 > > Preterhuman beings, their alliance indicated in every ancient > religion, ii. 299 > > Pre-Vedic religion of India, ii. 39 > > Priest, Assyrian, always bore the name of his god, i. 554 > > Priest-ridden nations always fall, ii. 121, 122 > > Priestesses of Germany, how they prophesied, ii. 592 > > Priestley, Dr. Joseph, discovered oxygen, i. 250; > anticipated the present-day philosophers, _ib._; > on the godhood of Jesus, ii. 239 > > Priests, their cast-off garb worn by men of science, ii. 8 > > Priest-sorcerers, ii. 57 > > Primal element obtained, i. 51; > like clear water, _ib._ > > Primitive Christianity, with grip, pass-words and degrees of > initiation, ii. 204; > Christians, a community of secret societies, ii. 335; > triads, ii. 454 > > Primordial substance, i. 133 > > Prince of Hohenlohe a medium, i. 28; > of Hell sides with the strongest, and treats Satan very badly, ii. > 517 > > _Principe Createur_ identical with the _Principe Generateur_ and not > Christian, ii. 377 > > Principes, i. 300 > > Probation of Jesus, ii. 484, 485; > the Devil or Diabolos no malignant principle, ii. 485 > > Proclus, on magic and emanation, i. 243; > theory of the gods or planetary spirits, i. 311, 312; > his remarkable statements of marvels acted by dead persons, i. 364; > on second dying and the luminous form, i. 432; > his idea of divine power, i. 489; > the mystic pass-word, _ib._; > his explanation of the gradation of the Mysteries, ii. 101; > upon apparitions beheld in the Mysteries, ii. 113 > > Proctor, R. A., i. 245; > accuses the ancients of ignorance, i. 253 > > Profanation to eat blood, ii. 567 > > Projecting of the astral or spiritual body, ii. 619, 620 > > Prometheus, the Logos or Adam Kadmon, i. 298; > revealed the art of bringing down lightning, i. 526; > prediction of Hermes, ii. 514, 515 > > Prophecies from Hindu books, ii. 556; > antedate Christianity, ii. 557 > > Prophecy determined in two ways, i. 200; > gift imparted by infection, i. 217; > a power possessed by the soul both in and apart from the body, > ii. 594 > > Prophetic star of the incarnation, ii. 454 > > Prophets of Baal danced the circle-dance of the Amazons, ii. 45; > dominated in Israel, and priests in Judah, ii. 439; > of Israel never approved of sacrificial worship, ii. 525; > led a party against the priests, _ib._ > > Protection from vampires, etc., i. 460 > > Protest against ethnological distinction from the progeny of Noah, > ii. 434 > > Protestant world still under the imputation of magical commerce with > Satan, ii. 503 > > Protestantism has no rights, i. 27 > > Protestants in the United States, ii. 1; > their bloody statutes against witchcraft, ii. 503 > > Protevangelium, a parody of the Nicene creed, ii. 473 > > Protogonos, i. 341 > > Proto-hippus, i. 411 > > Protoplasm, i. 223; > taught by Seneca, etc., i. 249; > doctrine of the Swâbhâvikas, or Hindu pantheists, i. 250 > > Prunnikos, mother of Ilda-Baoth, the God of the Jews, ii. 187 > > Psyche, the animal soul, i. 317 > > Psychic embryos, i. 311; > force, i. 45-67; > same as ectenic force, i. 113; > same as the Akasa, _ib._; > known to the ancient philosophers, i. 131; > propositions of Sergeant Cox, i. 195; > a blind force, i. 199 > > Psychode force, i. 55, 113 > > Psychography, or writing of messages by spirits, i. 367 > > Psychological epidemics, ii. 625; > powers of certain nuns in Thibet, ii. 609 > > Psychology, heretofore almost unknown, i. 407; > the basis of physiology anciently, but now based by scholars upon > physiology, i. 424 > > Psychomatics of occultism, i. 344 > > Psychometry, i. 182; > Prof. Denton and wife, i. 183; i. 330; > practised by the ancients, i. 331 > > Psychophobia, i. 46 > > Psylli in Africa, serpent-charmers, i. 381 > > Pueblos of Mexico still worship the sun, moon, stars, and fire, i. 557 > > Pulpit of Peter the teaching of the Spirit of God, ii. 8 > > Punch-and-Judy boxes or Christian mysteries, ii. 119 > > Punjaub, population hybridized with Asiatic Æthiopians, i. 567 > > Purana, rules for writing one, ii. 492; > the model of the Pentateuch, _ib._ > > Purple, Tyrian, i. 239 > > Pûttâm, or imps, i. 447 > > Pyramids, their architecture and symbolism, i. 236; > of Egypt, i. 518; > their purpose, i. 519; > the baptismal font, _ib._; > the supposed manufacture of the material, _ib._; > built on the former sea-shore, i. 520 > > Pyrrho, how to be interpreted, ii. 530 > > Pythagoras, his philosophy derived from the Brahmans, i. 9; > taught the heliocentric system, i. 35, 532; > believed in an infinity of worlds, i. 96; > Bruno his disciple, i. 96, 98; > taught God as the Universal Mind, i. 131; > his esoteric system included in the arcane doctrines of wisdom, i. > 205; > Galileo a student, i. 238; > his maxim widely scattered, “Do not stir the fire with a sword,” i. > 247; > dual signification of his precepts, i. 248; > his trinity, i. 262; > regard for precious stones and their mystical virtues, i. 265; > his doctrine the same as the laws of Manu, i. 271; > alleged influence on birds and animals, i. 283; > testimony of Thomas Taylor, i. 284; > initiated in the Mysteries of Byblos, Tyre, Syria, Egypt and > Babylon, _ib._; > did not teach literal transmigration of the soul, i. 289; > taught the Buddhistic doctrines, i. 289-291; > held for a clever impostor, i. 307; > derived the soul from the world-soul, i. 316; > mathematical doctrine of the universe, i. 318; > taught the same as Buddha, i. 347; > explains imagination as memory, i. 396; > copied by Euclid, Archimedes, and Ptolemy, i. 512; > learned music in Egypt and taught it in Italy, i. 544; > placed the sphere of purification in the sun, ii. 12; > subdued wild animals, ii. 77; > persuaded a bull not to eat beans, ii. 78; > was not a “spirit-medium,” ii. 118; > his system of numerals, ii. 300; > probably did not understand decimal notation, _ib._ > > Pythagorean pentacle, ii. 451, 452 > > Pythagorists were probably Buddhists, ii. 491 > > Pytho, or Ob, i. 355 > > Pythoness, her powers of seership, ii. 590 > > Quack, a false name imposed on Paracelsus, ii. 621 > > Queen of Heaven indebted to Pius IX., ii. 9; > the Virgin Mary, Isis, Ishtar, Astarté, Queen Dido, Anna, Anaitis, > etc., ii. 96, 446-450 > > Quetzo-Cohuatl, the serpent-god of Mexican legends, i. 546; > wonders wrought by him, ii. 558; > his wand, _ib._ > > Quiché cosmogony, i. 549 > > Quicksilver and sulphur, a magical preparation to give long life, ii. > 620 > > Quotation from _Psalms_ credited by Matthew to Isaiah, ii. 172 > > Rabbinical chronology, none before the twelfth century, ii. 443 > > Races, human, many died out before Adam, i. 2; > pre-Adamite, i. 305; > of men differ in gifts, ii. 588 > > Radzivil, Prince, detects the impostures of monks, ii. 72 > > Rahat, or perfect man, ii. 287, 288 > > Railroads in Upper Egypt, i. 528 > > Ram, or Aries, the symbol of creative power, i. 262 > > Ramayana the source and origin of Homer’s inspiration, ii. 278 > > Ramsay, Count, his story of the Templars, ii. 384 > > Raspberry-mark produced by longing, i. 391 > > Rasit, its meaning suppressed, ii. 34; > wisdom, ii. 35 > > Rational soul, every man endowed, ii. 279 > > Raulica, Father Ventura de, letter on magic, ii. 70 > > Ravan and Rama, ii. 436 > > Raven and St. Benedict, ii. 78 > > Rawho, the demon of Ceylon, ii. 509 > > Rawlinson, Sir H. C., brings home an engraved stone, i. 240; > declares that the Akkadians came from Armenia, i. 263; > conjectures respecting the Aryans, ii. 433 > > Rawson, Prof. A. L., a member of the Druze Brotherhood of Lebanon, > ii. 312; > account of his initiation, ii. 313 > > Rays of the Star of Bethlehem preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Razors, superior article in Africa, i. 538 > > Realm of Amita, legend of, i. 601 > > Reason, what it is, i. 425; > developed at the expense of instinct, i. 433; > and instinct, their source, i. 432 > > Reber, G., shows that there was no apostolic church at Rome, ii. 124 > > Rebold, Dr., statement concerning the ancient colleges of Egypt, i. > 520 > > Reciprocal influences, i. 314 > > Red dragon, the Assyrian military symbol, borrowed by Persia, > Byzantium, and Rome, ii. 484 > > Redeemer not promised in the book of Genesis, but by Manu, ii. 50 > > Red-haired man, repugnance to stepping over his shadow, ii. 610; > the magnetism dreaded, ii. 611 > > Reformation had Paul for leader, ii. 180 > > Reformers as bloodthirsty as Catholics, ii. 503 > > Regazzoni, remarkable experiments, i. 142; > the mesmerist, feats, i. 283 > > Regenerated heathendom in the Christian ranks, ii. 80 > > Regeneration or spiritual birth taught in India, ii. 565 > > Regulation wardrobe of the Madonna, ii. 9 > > Reichenbach, described the Od force, i. 146; > prepared the way to understand Paracelsus, i. 167; > on odic force of pregnant women, i. 394 > > Reincarnation, its cause, i. 346; > its possibility, and impossibility, i. 351 > > Religion without a God, i. 76; > of the future, _ib._; > of the ancients the religion of the future, i. 613; > private or national property, not to be shared with foreigners, i. > 581; > taught in the oldest Mysteries, i. 567; > which dreads the light must be false, ii. 121; > of Gautama, propagandism, ii. 608 > > Religions, ancient, based on indestructibility of matter and force, > i. 243; > anciently sabaistic, i. 261; > derived from one source and tend to one end, ii. 639; > Papacy and scientific, i. 403 > > Religious customs of the Mexicans and Peruvians like those of the > Phœnicians, Babylonians, and Egyptians, i. 551; > instinct productive of immorality, i. 83; > liberty considered as intolerance, ii. 503; > reform pure at the beginning, ii. 333; > myths have an historical foundation, ii. 431; > teachers, ii. 1 > > Renan, E., described Jesus as a Gallicized rabbi, ii. 562 > > Repentance possible even in Hades or Gehenna, i. 352 > > Repercussion, i. 360 > > Rephaim, i. 133 > > Resistance, extraordinary, to blows, sharp instruments, etc., i. 375, > 376 > > Resuscitated Buddha, a babe speaking with man’s voice, i. 437 > > Resuscitations, i. 478, 479, 480; > after actual death, impossible, i. 481 > > Report of French Parliament upon the Jesuits, ii. 353 > > Resplendent one, ii. 113; > the Augoeides, or self-shining vision, ii. 115 > > Retribution on the Roman Catholic Church, ii. 121 > > Reuchlin, John, a Kabalist, ii. 20 > > Revelation, or Apocalypse, its author a Kabalist, ii. 91; > his hatred of the Mysteries made him the enemy of Paul, _ib._ > > Revenge of Ilda-Baoth for the transgression of his command, ii. 185 > > Rib of the Word made flesh preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Rig-Veda, hymns written before Zoroaster, ii. 433 > > Rio Janeiro, her Madonna with bare limbs, blond hair and chignon, > ii. 9; > her Christ in dandy evening dress, ii. 10 > > Rishi Kutsa, i. 11 > > Rishis, or sages, i. 90 > > Rite of Swedenborg, a Jesuitical production, ii. 390 > > Rites and ceremonial dress of Christian clergy like that of > Babylonians, etc., ii. 94 > > Ritual of exorcism, ii. 69; > funeral, of the Egyptians, ii. 367 > > Rituals, Kabalistic and Catholic compared, ii. 85, 86 > > Rochester Cathedral, its originals, ii. 5; > rappings, i. 36 > > Rock-temples of Ipsambul, i. 542; > works of Phœnician cities, i. 570; > similar in Egypt and America, i. 571 > > Rod of Moses, the _crux ansata_, ii. 455 > > Roger Bacon, i. 64 > > Roma, Cambodian traditions, i. 566 > > Roman Catholic Clergy murdered mediums, i. 26; > Church burned sorcerers that were not priests, ii. 58; > Church has deprived herself of the key to her own religious > mysteries, ii. 121; > Church regards dissent, heresy, and witchcraft identical, ii. 503; > considers religious liberty as intolerance, _ib._ > > Roman Catholics in the United States, ii. 1; > frown at the spiritual phenomena as diabolical, ii. 4; > pontiffs arrogate dominion over Greek and Protestant Christians, i. > 27 > > Rome, Church of, put Bruno to death for his doctrines, i. 93; > regards the spiritual phenomena as genuine, i. 100; > Church of, cursing spiritualists, ii. 6; > excommunicating the Bulgarians, Servians, Russians, and Italian > liberals, ii. 7 > > Rosaries of Buddhistic origin, ii. 95 > > Roscoe, Professor, on iron in the sun, i. 513 > > Rose, impression of one on Mme. von N., i. 398 > > Rosicrucians, persecuted and burned, i. 64; > their doctrine of creation, i. 258; > still a mystery, ii. 380; > unknown to its cruelest enemy, the Church, _ib._; > the aim to support Catholicism, ii. 394; > their doctrine of fire, i. 423 > > Rosie Cross, brothers live only in name, i. 29; > mysterious body, i. 64; > burned without mercy by the Church, _ib._ > > Round Tower of Bhangulpore, ii. 5 > > Rousseau, the savant, encounter with a toad, i. 399 > > Royal Arch word, ii. 293; > cipher, ii. 396 > > Ruc, from New Zealand, i. 603 > > Rufus of Thessalonica returned to life after dying, i. 365 > > Rules imposed upon neophytes, ii. 365 > > Russia, no church-miracles, ii. 17 > > Russian conquest of Turkey predicted, i. 260 > > S. P. R. C., the cipher, ii. 395 > > Sabazian worship Sabbatic, ii. 45 > > Sabbath, adopted by the Jews from other peoples, ii. 417; > Christian, its origin, ii. 419 > > Sabbatical institution not mentioned in Job, ii. 494 > > Sabeanism, treated of in Job, ii. 494 > > Sacerdotal caste in every ancient religion, ii. 99; > office, magical evocation, ii. 118 > > Sacred sleep, i. 357; > produced by draughts of soma-juice, _ib._; > lake, ii. 364; > writings of India have a deeper meaning, ii. 430; > books of the Jews destroyed, 158 B.C., ii. 470; > tree of Kounboum renews its budding in the time of Son-Ka-po, ii. > 609 > > Sacrifice of the hierophant or victim, ii. 42; > of blood, ii. 566 > > Sacrificial worship never approved by the Israelitish prophets, ii. > 525 > > Sacrilege to seek to understand a mystery, ii. 249 > > Sahara, perhaps once a sea-bed, i. 592 > > St. Paul’s Cathedral, its double lithoi, ii. 5; > Medard, the fanatics, i. 375; > John, Knights of, not Masons, ii. 383; > persecuted by the Inquisition, _ib._ > > Saints rescued from hell, ii. 517; > Buddhistic and Lamaistic, their great sanctity, ii. 608; > never washing themselves, ii. 511 > > Sakti, the active energy of the gods, ii. 276; > employed as a vehan, _ib._ > > Sakti-trimurti, or female trinity, ii. 444 > > Salamander or asbestos, i. 504 > > Salem, Mass., obsessions occurring there, i. 71; > witchcraft, the obeah woman, i. 361; > witchcraft, ii. 18 > > Salsette, the Kanhari caves, the abode of St. Josaphat, ii. 580, 581 > > Salt regarded as the universal menstruum and one of the chief > formative principles, i. 147 > > Salverte, his philosophy of magic, i. 115; > imputes deception to Iamblichus and others, _ib._; > his account of a soldier protected by an amulet, i. 378; > on mechanics and invention in ancient times, i. 516; > on the use of electricity, etc., by Numa and Tullus, kings of > Rome, i. 527 > > Samâddi, an exalted spiritual condition, ii. 590 > > Samael or Satan, the simoon or wind of the desert, ii. 483 > > Samaritans recognized only the books of Moses and Joshua, ii. 470 > > Samothrace, a mystery enacted there once every seven years, i. 302; > worship of the Kabeiri brought thither by Dardanus, i. 570 > > Samothracian Mysteries and new life, i. 132; > magnetism and electricity, i. 234 > > Samson, the Hebrew Herakles, a mythical character, ii. 439; > represented by the Somona of Ceylon, i. 577 > > Samuel the prophet, a mythical hero, the doppel of Samson, ii. 439; > the Hebrew Ganesa, _ib._; > his school, i. 26 > > San Marco at Venice, the original of the Campanila column, ii. 5 > > Sanchoniathon, on chaos and creation, i. 342 > > Sanctity of the chair of Peter, its source, ii. 25 > > Sankhya, the eight faculties of the soul, ii. 592, 593 > > Sanctuary of the pagodas never entered by a European [except Mr. > Ellis--see Higgins’s _Apocalypsis_--very doubtful], ii. 623 > > Sannyâsi, a saint of the second degree, ii. 98 > > Sanscrit, endeavor to show its derivation from the Greek, i. 443; > inscriptions, none older than Chandragupta, ii. 436; > the vernacular of the Akkadians, ii. 46; > appears on the leaves of the magical Koumboum, _ib._; > books written in presence of a child-medium, i. 368; > impressions by a fakir or juggler on leaves, i. 368, 369; > manuscripts translated into every Asiatic language, i. 578; > language derived from the Rutas, i. 594 > > Sapphire, sacred to the moon, i. 264; > possesses a magical power and produces somnambulic phenomena, _ib._; > Hindu legend of its first production, i. 265 > > Sar or Saros, i. 30 > > Sara-isvati, wife of Brahma, goddess of sacred knowledge, ii. 409 > > Sarcophagus, porphyry, in the pyramids, i. 519 > > Sargent, Epes, on spiritual deceptions, i. 220; > his arraignment of Tyndall for coquetting with different beliefs, > i. 419 > > Sargon, the original of the story of Moses, ii. 442 > > Sarpa Rajni, the queen of the serpents, ii. 489 > > Sarles, Rev. John W., advocates the damnation of adult heathen, ii. > 474 > > Satan, his existence first made a dogma by Christians, ii. 13; > declared fundamental, ii. 14; > Ilda-Baoth, so called, ii. 186; > identical with Jehovah, ii. 451; > the mainstay of sacerdotism, ii. 480; > to be contemplated from their planes, ii. 481; > personified as a devil by the Asideans, ii. 481; > same as Ahriman or Anramanyas, _ib._; > the name applied to a serpent in the Hebrew Scriptures, ii. 481; > the same as Seth, god of the Hittites, _ib._; > of the book of Job, ii. 483; > counsels with the Lord, ii. 485; > a son of God, ii. 492; > makes a sortie into New England and other colonies, ii. 503; > the Biblical term for public accuser, ii. 494; > the same as Typhon, _ib._; > cast forth by the prince of hell, ii. 515, 516; > is made subject to Beelzebub, prince of hell, ii. 517; > and Beelzebub hold a conversation about Jesus, ii. 520, 521 > > Satanism defined by Father Ventura de Raulica, ii. 14 > > Sati, a burned widow, i. 541 > > Sattras, imitations of the course of the sun, i. 11 > > Saturation of the medium, i. 499, 500 > > Saturn, Chaldean discovery of his rings, i. 260, 263; > the father of Zeus, i. 263; > the same as Bel, Baal, and Siva, _ib._; > his image, ii. 235; > or Kronos, offers his only-begotten son to Ouranos and circumcises > himself and family, i. 578; > the myth original in the _Maha-Bharata_, _ib._ > > Saturnalia of monks at Christmas, ii. 366 > > Saul, evil spirit exorcised, i. 215 > > Saviour, would be lost if we lose our demons, ii. 476 > > Scandinavian tradition of trolls, ii. 624 > > Scepter of the Boddhisgat seen floating in the air, ii. 610 > > Scheme of the Ophites, ii. 292 > > Schlieman, the Hellenist, finds evidence of cycles of development, i. > 6; > at Mycenæ, i. 598 > > Schmidt, I. J., statement in regard to the steppes of Turan and > desert of Gobi, i. 603 > > Scholars, ancient, believed in arcane doctrines, i. 205 > > Scholastic science knows neither beginning nor end, i. 336 > > Schools of magic in the Lamaseries, ii. 609 > > Schopenhauer, i. 55, 59; > on nature as illusion, ii. 158 > > Science, formerly arcane and taught in the sanctuary, i. 7; > its progress, i. 40; > spiritualism, i. 83; > “has no belief,” i. 278; > knows no beginning or end, i. 336; > called anti-christianism, i. 337; > mystery fatal to it, i. 338; > its parent source, the unknown, i. 339; > its dilemma, i. 340; > will never distinguish the difference between human and animal > ovules, i. 397; > invading the domain of religion, i. 403; > surrounded by a large hypothetical domain, i. 404; > her domain within the limit of the changes of matter, i. 421; > gross conception of fire, i. 423; > its dogmas concerning perpetual motion, elixir of life, > transmutation of metals and universal solvent, i. 501; > stages of its growth, i. 533; > its three necessary elements, ii. 637; > spiritism does not prevent them, _ib._; > modern, fails to satisfy the aspirations of the race; makes the > future a void and bereaves man of life, ii. 639 > > Scientific knowledge confined to the temples, i. 25; > Association, or American Association for the Advancement of > Science, on spiritualism and roosters crowing in the night, i. > 245, 246; > attainments of ancient Hindu savants, i. 618, 620 > > Scientists bound in duty to investigate, i. 5; > afraid of spiritual phenomena, i. 41; > treatment of Prof. Crookes, i. 44; > likely to rediscover magic, i. 67; > not to be credited for the increase of knowledge, i. 84; > denied Buffon, Franklin, the steam-engine, railroad, etc., i. 85; > surpassed the clergy in hostility to discovery, _ib._; > as much given to persecution, _ib._; > know little certain, i. 224; > entrapping of Slade the medium, _ib._; > put forth no new doctrines, i. 248, 249; > anticipated by Liebig and Priestly, i. 250; > many of them inanimate corpses, i. 317; > their _ultima thule_, i. 340; > curious conjectures concerning the aurora, i. 417; > their incapacity to understand the spiritual side, i. 418 > > Scin-lecca, or double, ii. 104; > makes the principal manifestations, ii. 517 > > Scintilla, the Divine, produces a monad, i. 302; > of Abraham taken from Michael, ii. 452; > Isaac from Gabriel, and Jacob from Uriel, ii. 452 > > Scottish rite, its headquarters at a Jesuit college, ii. 381 > > Screw, invented by Archytas, the instructor of Plato, i. 543 > > Scyths, probably the same as Mongolians, i. 576 > > Sea, ancient inland sea north of the Himalayas, i. 589 > > Seal, Solomon’s of Hindu origin, i. 135 > > Seance in Bengal, i. 467 > > Second Emanation condenses matter and diffuses life, i. 302; > Adam created unisexual, i. 559; > spiritual birth, ii. 566; > advent, a fable invented for a precaution, ii. 535; > death, ii. 368; > sight, i. 211 > > Secret formulæ, i. 66; > sacerdotal castes in every ancient religion, ii. 99; > doctrine, its martyrs, i. 574; > of Moses, ii. 525; > volume, the real Hebrew Bible, ii. 471; > sects of the Christians, ii. 289; > are still in existence, ii. 290; > God of the Kabala, ii. 230; > of secrets, ii. 568 > > Secrets for prolonging life, ii. 563 > > Sectarian beliefs to disappear, i. 613 > > Sects existing before Christ, ii. 144 > > Sedecla, the Obeah woman of En-Dor, i. 494 > > Seer, receives impressions directly from his spirit, ii. 591 > > Seers or epoptæ, not spirit-mediums, ii. 118 > > Seer-adept, knows how to suspend the action of the brain, ii. 591 > > Seership natural with some people, ii. 588; > two kinds, of the soul and the spirit, ii. 590; > an elevation of the soul, ii. 591 > > Self of man, inner triune, ii. 114; > the future, ii. 115 > > Self-consciousness, attained on earth, i. 368 > > Self-printed records on the sacred tree, i. 302 > > Seir-Anpin, the Christos, ii. 230; > the third god, ii. 247 > > Semitic, the least spiritual branch of the human family, ii. 434; > its germs found in Khamism, ii. 435 > > Semi-monastics, ii. 608 > > Sensitive flame obeying a man’s order, ii. 607 > > Separation, temporary, of the spirit from the body, ii. 588 > > Sephira, i. 160; > the Divine Intelligence and mother of the Sephiroth, i. 258; > the same as Metis and Sophia, i. 263; > the first emanation, i. 270; > or Sacred Aged (Maha Lakshmi), ii. 421 > > Sephiroth, i. 258; > concealed wisdom, their father, _ib._; > or emanations, ii. 36; > ten, three classes in one unit, ii. 40; > the same as the ten Pradjapatis, ii. 215; > same as the ten patriarchs, _ib._ > > Sepulchres in Thibet, extraordinary arrangement of bodies and > decorations, ii. 604 > > Seraph, his snout preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Serapis, a name of Surya, ii. 438; > an accepted type of Christ, ii. 336; > his picture adopted by the Christians, _ib._; > represented by a serpent, ii. 490; > usurped the worship of Osiris, ii. 491; > the seven vowels chanted as a hymn in his honor, i. 514 > > Serpent of Genesis, des Mousseaux’s name for the devil, i. 15; > matter, i. 297; > dwelling in the branches of the tree of life, i. 298; > symbol of wisdom and immortality, i. 553; > of the book of _Genesis_, Ash-mogh or Asmodeus, ii. 188; > persuades man to eat of the tree of knowledge, ii. 185; > Christna crushing his head, ii. 446; > the divine symbol east and west, ii. 484; > most spirit-like of all reptiles, and hence a favorite symbol, ii. > 489; > how it became the emblem of eternity and of the world, ii. 489; > universally venerated, ii. 489; > a symbol of Serapis and Jesus, ii. 490; > and Eve, ii. 512 > > Serpent-charmers, cannot fascinate human beings, ii. 612; > their powers, ii. 628 > > Serpent-charming, i. 381, 382, 470 > > Serpent-monsters, i. 393 > > Serpent-god, sons of, the hierophants, i. 553 > > Serpent-gods, Mexican, 13 in number, i. 572 > > Serpent-trail round the unformed earth, ii. 489 > > Serpent-worship, its origin not known, ii. 489 > > Serpent-worshippers of Kashmere become Buddhists, ii. 608 > > Serpent’s catacombs in Egypt, i. 553; > mysteries of the unavoidable cycle or centre of necessity, _ib._ > > Serpents, the earth their queen, i. 10; > Kneph, Agathodaimon, Kakodaimon, i. 133, 157; > Eliphas Levi’s, symbol of astral fire, i. 137; > queen of, ii. 489; > used as plaything at Hindu festivals, ii. 622 > > Servius, on the ancient practice of employing celestial fire at the > altars, i. 526 > > Sesostris, instructed by the oracle in the Trinity, ii. 51 > > Seth, the reputed son of Adam, the same as Hermes, Thoth, and Sat-an, > i. 554; > the same as Typhon, ii. 482 > > Seth, his interview with Michael at the gate of Paradise, ii. 520; > worshipped by the Hittites, ii. 523; > same as El, ii. 524 > > Sethicnites, disbelieved that Jesus was God, ii. 176 > > Seven, a sacred Hindu number, ii. 407; > among the Chaldeans, ii. 408; > potentiality of the number, ii. 417; > steps, the descent, i. 353; > degrees, old English Templar Rite, ii. 377; > vowels chanted as a hymn, i. 514; > caverns, i. 552; > spirits, i. 300, 301; > spirits of the Apocalypse, i. 461; > impostor demons, ii. 296; > Æons, _ib._; > rishis, _ib._ > > Seven-headed, serpent, ii. 489 > > Seventh degree, ii. 365; > ray and seven vowel, i. 514; > rite, the life transfer, ii. 564 > > Severus, Alexander, pillaged Egyptian temples for books, i. 406 > > Sexual element in Christianity, ii. 80; > emblems and worship, ii. 445 > > Shaberon, summoning a lama by spirit-message, ii. 604; > his wonderful summons to rescue the author from peril in Mongolia, > ii. 628 > > Shaberons, or Khubilhans, reincarnations of Buddha, ii. 609 > > Shad-belly coat first worn by Babylonian priests, ii. 458 > > Shadow, repugnance to stepping across it, ii. 610; > magnetic exhalation, ii. 611 > > Shakers, spiritual phenomena, ii. 18 > > Shaman, prophesying, ii. 624, 625; > prediction of the Crimean war, ii. 625; > extraordinary scene with the talismanic stone, ii. 626, 628; > “dragged out of his skin,” ii. 628; > priests bound to perform their “true rites” but once a year, at the > solstice, ii. 624 > > Shamanism or spirit-worship, the oldest religion of Mongolia, an > offshoot of primitive theurgy, ii. 615 > > Shamans occasionally enjoy divine powers, i. 3, 211; > of Siberia, degenerate scions of ancient Shamanism, ii. 616; > sometimes only mediums, sometimes magicians, ii. 625; > power over psychical epidemics, ii. 626; > each one has a talisman, _ib._ > > Shampooing or tschamping, a magical manipulation, i. 445 > > Shark-charmers or Kadal-katti, i. 606; > paid by the British government, i. 607 > > Shebang, the Sabbath, ii., 418 > > Shedim, nature-spirits, or Afrites, i. 313 > > Shekinah, the veil of the most ancient, ii. 223 > > Shem, Ham and Japhet, the old gods Samas, Kham and Iapetos, ii. 487 > > Shemites, Assyrians, i. 576; > probably a hybrid of Hamite and Aryan, _ib._ > > Shien-Sien, a blissful state, power of those obtaining it to > transport themselves everywhere, ii. 618, 620 > > Shiloh, daughters, their dance, ii. 45 > > Shimeon and Patar, ii. 93 > > Shoëpffer, Prof., teaches that the earth does not revolve, i. 621 > > Shoel ob, or consulter with familiar spirits, i. 355 > > Shudâla-Mâdan, the ghoul or graveyard fiend, i. 495 > > Shu-King, i. 11 > > Shûla-Mâdan, the furnace-demon, i. 496; > helps the juggler with raising trees, _ib._ > > Shu-tukt, a collegiate monastery, having in it over 30,000 monks, ii. > 609 > > Siam, a king in 1670 who sought for the philosopher’s stone, i. 571 > > Siamese, the power of monks, i. 213, 214; > study of the philosopher’s stone, i. 214; > believe that some know how to render themselves immortal, _ib._ > > Sidereal force taught by Paracelsus, i. 168 > > Signature of the fœtus, i. 385 > > Silver, its aura, the quicksilver of the yogis or alchemists, ii. > 620, 621 > > Silver and green associated in hermetic symbolism, i. 513 > > Silvery spark in the brain, i. 329 > > Simeon, the existence of such a tribe denied, i. 368; > ben Iochai, compiler of the _Zohar_, ii. 548; > rabbi, author of the _Zohar_, i. 301, 302; > his sons arise and relate what they saw in hell, ii. 519; > his prototype in India, _ib._ > > Simon ben Iochai, i. 263; > Stylites, lived 36 years atop of a pillar, ii. 77; > cured a dragon of a sore eye, _ib._ > > Simon Magus, a personification of the apostle Paul, ii. 89; > powers attributed to him, i. 471; > his journey through the air, ii. 357; > and Peter, ii. 190, 191 > > Simoun, or the wind of the desert, called Diabolos, ii. 483 > > Simulacrum of a Roumanian lady conducted by a Shaman to the tent of > the author, ii. 627, 628 > > Sin the necessary cause of the greatest good, ii. 479 > > Sinai, Mount, metals smelted there, i. 542; > story of Moses and the brass seraph, _ib._ > > Singing sands, i. 605 > > Sins, the five which divide the offender from his associates, ii. 608 > > Siphra Dzeniouta, i. 1 > > Sister’s son inheriting a crown, ii. 437 > > Sistra at the Israelitish festival, ii. 45 > > Siva, the fire-god, same as Bel and Saturn or Kronos, i. 263; > vigil-night, i. 446; > represented as sacrificing a rhinoceros instead of his son, i. 577, > 578; > identical with Baal, Moloch, Saturn and Abraham, i. 578; > created Adhima and Heva, ancestors of the present race of mankind, > i. 590; > hurls fallen angels into Onderah, ii. 11; > his paradise, ii. 234; > hurls the devils into the bottomless pit, ii. 238; > Sabazios and Sabaoth the same divinity, ii. 487; > the same as the western chief gods, ii. 524; > most intellectual of the gods, _ib._ > > Six principles of man, ii. 367; > days of evolution and one of repose, ii. 422; > sacred syllables, “aum mani padma houm,” ii. 606; > races of men mentioned in laws of Manu, i. 590; > thousand years the term of creation, i. 342; > thousand infant skulls found in a fish-pond by a convent in Rome, > ii. 58 > > Sixteenth incarnation of Buddha at Urga, ii. 617 > > Sixth degree, ii. 365 > > Sixty thousand (60,428) paid religious teachers in the United States, > ii. 1 > > Skepticism a malady, i. 115 > > Skill displayed in embalming in Thibet, ii. 603, 604 > > Skulls of infants found at nunneries, ii. 58, 210 > > Slade, the medium, pretended exposure by Prof. Lankester, i. 118, 224 > > Slavonian Christians now assailed by the Catholics, ii. 81 > > Slavonians, the mystic word, ii. 42 > > Smaragdine, tablet of Hermes, found at Hebron, i. 507 > > Smith, George, his reading of the Assyrian tablets, ii. 422; > his reading of the story of Sargon, ii. 442 > > Snake-symbol of Phanes, the mundane serpent and mundane year, i. 146, > 151, 157 > > Smyth, Prof. Piazzi, on the corn-bin, i. 519; > mathematical description of the great pyramid, i. 520 > > Snake-skin considered magnetic, ii. 507 > > Snake’s Hole, the subterranean passage terminating at the root of the > heavens, i. 553 > > Snakes kept in Moslem mosques, ii. 490; > reared with children in India, _ib._ > > Snout of a seraph preserved as a relic, ii. 71 > > Society not certain but that all ends in annihilation, ii. 3 > > “Society,” British, in India, its supercilious contempt for the > Hindus and marvels in Hindustan, ii. 613 > > Socrates, his demoniac or divine faculty and its service, i. 131; > his demon, ii. 283; > same as the _nous_ or spirit, ii. 284; > opinion of Justin Martyr about his future fate criticised, ii. 8; > a medium, and therefore not initiated, ii. 117; > why put to death as an atheist, ii. 118 > > Sod, an arcanum of Mystery, i. 301, 555; > the Mysteries of Baal, Adonis and Bacchus, _ib._; > the _secret_ of Simeon and Levi, _ib._; > great, of the Kadeshim, ii. 131 > > Sodales, or priest-colleges, Moses their chief, i. 555 > > Sodalian oath, i. 409 > > Sodom and Gomorrah, suffering eternal fire, ii. 12 > > Sohar, its compilation, ii. 348; > its theories like the Hindu, ii. 276 > > Solar trinity, red, blue and yellow, ii. 417; > dynasty in India, the Surga Vansa, ii. 437 > > Solemn ceremony of the Druzes, ii. 312 > > Solidarities of Greece and Rome, ii. 389 > > Solitary Copts, students of ancient lore, ii. 306 > > Solomon, or Sol-Om-On, ii. 389; i. 19; > obtained secret learning, i. 135; > seal of Hindu origin, _ib._; > ships to Ophir or India, i. 136; > his seven abominations, ii. 67; > learned from Votan the particulars of the products of the occident, > i. 546; > the builder of temples, ii. 439; > revolts against him, _ib._; > his temple never visited by the prophets, ii. 525; > and his temple only allegorical, ii. 391; > temple, the brazen columns and bowls to aid in entheastic power, > ii. 542 > > Soma, juice of, produces trance, i. 357 > > Somona, the Singalese Samson, i. 577 > > “Son of Man,” ii. 232 > > Son of God at one with man, ii. 635 > > Sons of the Serpent-God, i. 553 > > Son-Ka-po, the Shaberon, or avatar and great reformer, immaculately > conceived, and translated without dying into heaven, ii. 609 > > Sophia or wisdom, ii. 41; > the Holy Ghost as a female principle, i. 130; > the Gnostic principle of wisdom, the same as Sephira and Metis, i. > 263 > > Sorcerer in Africa, impervious to bullets, i. 379 > > Sorcerers, burned when not priests, ii. 58 > > Sorcery, i. 279; > misapplied arcane knowledge, ii. 581; > few facts better established, i. 366; > with blood, ii. 567, 568; > practised at the Vatican, ii. 620; > approved by Augustine, ii. 20; > employed for crime, ii. 633 > > Sortes Sanctorum, ii. 20, 21 > > Sortie of Satan into New England, ii. 503 > > Sortilegium or sorcery, practised by clergy and monks, ii. 6; > Gregory of Tours, ii. 20 > > Sosigenes, reformed the calendar for Cæsar, i. 11 > > Sosiosh, the tenth avatar and fifth Buddha, ii. 236; > a permutation of Vishnu, ii. 237 > > Sotheran, Charles, letter on Freemasonry, ii. 388 > > Soul, displays power when the body is asleep, i. 199; > the two named by Plato, i. 276; > marvellous power, i. 280; > passage through the seven planetary chambers, i. 297; > spirit wholly distinct, i. 315; > dissolves into ether, _ib._; > possible loss of its distinct being, i. 316, 317; > the garment of the spirit, i. 309; > exists as preexisting matter, i. 317; > doctrine of the Greek and Roman philosophers, i. 429; > of Aristotle, Homer, the Jains and Brahmans, _ib._; > the camera in which facts are fixed, i. 486; > escaping temporarily from the body, ii. 105; > may dwell in paradise while the body lives in this world, i. 602; > punished by union with the body, ii. 112; > the Vedic doctrine, ii. 263; > universal, when it sleeps, ii. 274; > its transmigration does not relate to man’s condition after death, > ii. 280; > its feminine, ii. 281; > a part of it mortal, ii. 283; > the doctrine of Pythagoras, ii. 283; > Plato’s definition, ii. 285, 286; > its paralysis during life, ii. 368; > not knit to flesh, ii. 565; > sentient, the Ego, inseparable from the brain, ii. 590; > raised above inferior good, ii. 591; > power to liberate itself and behold things subjectively, ii. 591; > its eight faculties, ii. 592; > its teachings authoritative, ii. 593; > possesses a power of prescience even when in the body, ii. 594; > disembodied, meets itself at the gate of Paradise, ii. 635; > of the world the archeal universal, “mind,” Sophia the Holy Ghost > as a female principle, i. 130; > doctrine of Baptista Porta, i. 208; > external, i. 276; > higher mortal, _ib._; > the great universal, union with it does not involve loss of > individuality, ii. 116 > > Soul-blind like color-blind, i. 387 > > Soul-electricity, i. 322 > > Soul-deaths, ii. 369 > > Soulless men yet living, ii. 369 > > Souls, or immortal gods emanate from the triad, i. 348; > come to souls and impart to them information, ii. 594 > > Source of the religious faiths of mankind, ii. 639; > double, of every religion, _ib._ > > South Carolina, statutes in force in 1865, imposing the death-penalty > for witchcraft, ii. 18 > > Sparks or old worlds that perished, ii. 421 > > Speaking images, i. 505 > > Specialties in medical practice in Egypt, i. 545 > > Speculative Masons, ii. 392 > > Spectre of a herdsman in Bavaria, i. 451 > > Spectroscope, confirmed doctrines of Paracelsus, i. 168, 169 > > Spell of the evil eye, ii. 633 > > Spheres, music of, i. 275 > > Spinoza, his philosophy, i. 93; > furnishes a key to the unwritten secret, i. 308 > > Spirit, its origin, i. 258; > not existing, but immortal, i. 291; > or spiritus, the soul or _anima mundi_, the mother, i. 299, 300; > progeny of, i. 301; > human, an emanation of the eternal spirit, i. 305; > never entered wholly into the body, i. 306; > is masculine, ii. 281; > of man preëxistent, ii. 280; > distinct from soul, i. 315; > individualization depends upon it, _ib._; > becomes an angel, i. 316; > its preëxistence believed, _ib._; > alone immortal, ii. 362; > leaving an old for a young body, ii. 563; > by its vision all things can be known, ii. 588; > may abandon the body for specific periods, ii. 589; > the sole original unity, ii. 607; > the interpreter of God to man, ii. 635; > its Protean powers little known by spiritualists, ii. 638 > > Spirit-ancestor, a serpent, 45, 46 > > Spirit-form, i. 197 > > Spirit-voices not articulate, i. 68; > audible, i. 220 > > Spirit-intercourse, 446,000,000 believers, i. 117 > > Spirit-flowers produced by a Bikshuni, ii. 609 > > Spiritists of France attacked by the Roman church, ii. 6 > > Spirits that control mediums, generally human, i. 67; > cannot “materialize,” _ib._; > not attracted by every body alike, i. 69; > produce few of the “physical phenomena,” i. 73; > the seven, i. 300, 301; > not possessed of the same attractions, i. 344; > or ghosts, hurt by weapons, i. 363; > heard talking in the desert of Lop, and elsewhere, i. 604; > three categories of communication, ii. 115; > may take possession of bodies in the absence of the soul, ii. 589; > bad, compelled Garma-Khian to appear and render an account, ii. 616; > city of, _ib._ > > Spiritual phenomena among the Shakers, ii. 18; > discountenanced by the clergy, i. 26; > chase the scientists, i. 41; > Iamblichus forbids the endeavor to procure them, i. 219; > sun, i. 29, 32; > the magnet of Kircher, i. 208, 209; > Gama, Ormazd, the soul of things, God, i. 270; > invisible and in the centre of space, i. 302; > the supreme deity, ii. 13; > death, its cause, i. 318; > eyes, i. 145; > sight, scientists without it, i. 318; > photography, i. 486 > > Spiritual entity, in man, an ancient doctrine, ii. 593; > transferred, ii. 563; > limbs, can be made visible, ii. 596; > world in proximity to us, ii. 593; > state, as unfolded in the Sankhya, a philosophy, ii. 593; > numerals, i. 514; > crisis of the Shaman, ii. 625; > or magical powers exist in every man, ii. 635; > circles are constructed on no principle, ii. 638; > Self the sole and Supreme God, ii. 566 > > Spiritualism, drifting, i. 53; > efforts of Positivists to uproot, i. 76, 83; > pretends only to be a science, i. 83; > pronounced a delusion in Russia, i. 118; > universally diffused from remote antiquity, i. 205; > why it must continue to vegetate, ii. 636; > is iconoclastic, not constructed, ii. 637; > not scientific, ii. 637, 638; > exoteric, too much directed to personal matters, _ib._; > esoteric, very rare, _ib._ > > Spiritualists, the majority remain in the religious denominations, > ii. 2; > take no active part in the formation of a system of philosophy, ii. > 637; > start with a fallacy, ii. 638 > > Splendor, mighty Lord of, i. 301 > > Spurious passage in the First Epistle of John, ii. 177 > > Square hat of the Hierophant, ii. 392 > > Squirrel materialized, i. 329 > > Sri-Iantara, or Solomon’s seal, ii. 265 > > Stainton, Moses, his criticisms of popular spiritualism, ii. 638 > > Stan-gyour, a work on magic, i. 580 > > Stanhope, Lady Esther, faints at a Yezidi orgy, ii. 572 > > Star of Bethlehem, rays carried home by a monk as relics, ii. 71 > > Starry heaven, worship proposed under Christian names, ii. 450 > > Stars, ignition, i. 254; > influence on fates of men, i. 259; > and man have direct affinity, i. 168, 169 > > Statues, restorative of health, i. 283; > possible to animate them, i. 485; > endowed with reason, i. 613 > > Steam-engine, invented by Hero of Alexandria, i. 241 > > Stedingers, accused and exterminated, ii. 331 > > Steel, rusts in India and Egypt, i. 211; > superior article in India, i. 538; > in Egypt, _ib._ > > Steeples, turrets, and domes, phallic symbols, ii. 5 > > Stephens, believes the key to American hieroglyphs will yet be > obtained, i. 546; > story of the unknown city of the Mayas, i. 547 > > Stewart, Prof. Balfour, his tribute to Herakleitus, i. 422; > warning to scientists, i. 424; > denies perpetual light, i. 510 > > Stigmata, or birth-marks, i. 384; > produced by sorcery of a Jesuit priest, ii. 633 > > Stone of Memphis, its potency to prevent pain, i. 540; > two tables, masculine and feminine, ii. 5; > a Shaman’s talisman, “spoke” saving the author’s life, ii. 626 > > Stonehenge, its gods recognized as the divinities of Delphos and > Babylon, i. 550; > remarkable statement of Dr. Stukely, i. 572; > Hamitic in plan, _ib._ > > Stoics, belief concerning God, i. 317 > > Stones, their secret virtues, i. 265 > > Strangers, never admitted into a caste, nor to religion, i. 581 > > Stukely, Dr., remarks concerning Stonehenge, i. 572 > > Subjective mediums, i. 311; > communication with human god-like spirits, ii. 115 > > Subsidy paid by the East India Company to maintain worship at the > pagodas, ii. 624 > > Subterranean passages in Peru, i. 595, 597 > > Subtile influence emanated from every man’s body, ii. 610 > > Suetonius knew nothing of Christians, ii. 535, 536 > > Suez Canal, i. 516, 517; > that of Necho, i. 517 > > Sufis, their idea of one universal creed, ii. 306 > > Suicide and insanity caused by Elementaries, ii. 7 > > Suicides and murderers, i. 344 > > Sulanuth, i. 325 > > Sulphur, the secret fire or spirit of the alchemists, i. 309; > and quicksilver, a preparation to promote longevity, ii. 620, 621 > > Summary of Koheleth, ii. 476 > > Sun, an emblem of the sun-god, i. 270; > only a magnet or reflector, i. 271; > has no more heat in it than the moon, _ib._; > represented under the image of a dragon, i. 552; > made the location of hell, ii. 12; > view of Pythagoras, _ib._; > increases the magnetic exhalations, ii. 611; > and serpent-worship, the religion of the Phœnicians and Mosaic > Israelites, i. 555 > > Sun-worship once contemplated by Catholics, ii. 450 > > Sun-worshippers always regarded the sun as an emblem of the spiritual > sun, i. 270 > > Sunrise and sunset as taught by the Shastras, i. 10 > > Supersentient soul, ii. 590 > > “Superstitions” in regard to drowned persons, ii. 611 > > Supreme Being denied by modern science, i. 16; > by the positivists, i. 71; > never rejected by Buddhistical philosophy, i. 292; > Essence, ii. 213, 214; > the Swayambhuva and En-Soph, ii. 218; > mystery of the holy syllable, ii. 114 > > Surgery of Yogis and Talapoins, ii. 621 > > Surnden, Rev. T., on locality of hell, ii. 12 > > Sutrantika, the sect having secret Buddhistic religion, ii. 607 > > Suttee, or burning of widows, not practised when the Code of Manu was > compiled, i. 588 > > Swâbhâvikas, Hindu pantheists, the teachers of protoplasm, i. 250; > their views of Essence, ii. 262 > > Swayambhuva, the unrevealed Deity, ii. 39; > the unity of three trinities, making with himself two prajapatis, > ii. 39, 40; > the Supreme Essence the same as En-Soph, ii. 214 > > Swearing forbidden by Jesus, ii. 273 > > Sweat of St. Michael, a phial of it preserved, ii. 71 > > Swedenborg personated by a Diakka, i. 219; > on speech of spirits, i. 220; > _Heavenly Arcana_, i. 306; > a natural-born magician, but not an adept, _ib._; > made Thomas Vaughan his model, _ib._; > doctrine of correspondences, or hermetic symbolism, _ib._; > believed in possibility of losing individual existence, i. 317; > miraculous cures by his father, i. 464; > indicates _the lost word_, i. 580; > rite of, a Jesuitical product, ii. 390 > > Swedenborgians believe in possible obliteration of the human > personality, i. 317; > believe that the soul may abandon the body for specific periods, > ii. 319 > > Swedish system of Freemasonry, ii. 381 > > Syllabus and Koran, a great affinity acknowledged, ii. 82 > > Sylvester II., Pope, a sorcerer, ii. 56; > his “oracular head,” ii. 56 > > Symbol, its use, ii. 93 > > Symbols, i. 21; > Christian, and phallism, ii. 5 > > Sympathy, mysterious, between plants and human beings, i. 246; > the offspring of light, i. 309 > > Synagogue, “deposited its inheritance in the hands of Christ,” ii. > 477; > has not expired, _ib._ > > Synesius, belief in metempsychosis, i. 12; > his quotation from the book of stone at Memphis, i. 257; > believed the spirit preëxisted from eternity as a distinct being, > i. 316; > bishop of Cyrene, his letter to Hypatia, ii. 53; > adhered to the Platonic doctrines, ii. 198 > > Systems, Indian, Chaldean and Ophite compared, ii. 170 > > Tabernacles or ingatherings, feast of, ii. 44; > regarded as Bacchic rites, _ib._ > > Table, no demons enclosed, i. 322 > > Table-turning, i. 99, 105 > > Tainting of Souls, i. 321 > > Talapoins, of Siam, power over wild beasts, i. 213; > have incombustible cloth, i. 231; > have the _Kabala_, _Bible_, and other allegories in their > manuscripts, i. 577; > Jesuits disguised as, ii. 371; > their secrets of medicine, ii. 621 > > Tale of the Two Brothers of Central America, i. 550 > > Talisman, i. 462; ii. 636 > > Talismans of Apollonius, testimony of Justin Martyr, ii. 97 > > Talmage, Rev. Dr., description of Martha, ii. 102 > > Talmud, i. 17 > > Tamil-Hindus worship Kutti-Satan, perhaps Seth or Satan, i. 567 > > Tamti, the same as Belita, ii. 444; > the sea, ii. 445 > > Tanaim, the four who entered the garden, ii. 119; > the Kabalistic, ii. 470 > > Tarchon, an Etruscan priest and his bryony-hedge, i. 527 > > Tartar robber detected by a Koordian sorcerer, ii. 631 > > Tartary, magic, i. 599; > spiritualism, i. 600; > planchette-writing, _ib._; > happy and heathen, ii. 240 > > Tau and astronomical cross of Egypt found at the palace of > Palenque, i. 572; > the handled cross, a symbol of Eternal life, ii. 254; > the signet or name of God, _ib._; > the hierophantic investiture, ii. 365 > > Taylor, Thomas, his testimony concerning Pythagoras, i. 284; > is unceremonious with the Mosaic God, i. 288 > > Taylor, Robert, his amended Credo, ii. 522 > > Tcharaka, a Hindu physician of 5,000 years ago, i. 560 > > Tcherno-Bog, or Bogy, the ancient deity of the Russians, ii. 572 > > Teaching of the soul, the highest method of knowledge, ii. 595 > > Tear of Brahma, the hottest, becoming a sapphire, i. 265 > > Telegraphy, neurological, i. 324 > > Telephone, i. 126; > some such mode of communication possessed by the Egyptian priests, > i. 127 > > Telescope in the light-house of Alexandria, i. 528 > > Templar rite, old English, of seven degrees, ii. 377 > > Templarism is Jesuitism, ii. 390 > > Templars, the founding of the ancient order, ii. 381, 382; > did not believe in Christ, ii. 382; > succeeded by the Jesuits, ii. 383; > the pseudo-order invented to obviate the imputation of Jesuitism, > ii. 384 > > Temple of the Holy Molecule, i. 413; > had possession of Eastern mysteries, ii. 380; > of the perpetual fire, ii. 632; > at Jerusalem, not so ancient as was pretended, ii. 389; > of Solomon, not esteemed by any Hebrew prophet, ii. 525 > > Temples, anciently the repositories of science, i. 25 > > Ten, the Pythagorean, ii. 171; > virtues of initiation, ii. 98 > > Teraphim, Kabeiri-gods, i. 570; > identical with Seraphim, _ib._; > serpent-images, _ib._; > received by Dardanus as a dowry and carried to Samothrace and Troy, > _ib._ > > Teratology, named by Geoffroi St. Hilaire, i. 390 > > Terrestrial elementary spirits, i. 319; > circulation, i. 503; > immortality, ii. 620 > > Tertullian, i. 46; > on devils, i. 159; > believed the soul corporeal, i. 317; > desires to see all philosophers in the Gehenna-fire, ii. 250; > his intolerance, ii. 329 > > Tetractys, i. 9; > the One, the Chaos, wisdom and reason, ii. 36; i. 507 > > Tetragram, i. 506, 507 > > Thales, believed water the primordial substance, i. 134, 189; > said to have discovered the electric properties of amber, i. 234; > his belief concerning water and the Divine Mind, ii. 458 > > Thaumaturgist, his power of becoming invisible, or appearing in two > or more forms, ii. 588 > > Thaumaturgists, use the force known as Akasa, i. 113; > declared by Salverte to be knaves, i. 115 > > Thebes, or Th-aba, ii. 448; > ancient, i. 523; > its prodigious ruins, i. 523, 524; > the Twelve Tortures, ii. 364 > > Themura, ii. 298 > > Theocletus, Grand Pontiff of the Order of the Temple, initiated the > original Knight Templars, ii. 382 > > Theology, comparative, and two-edged weapon, ii. 531; > Christian, subversive rather than promotive of spirituality and > good morals, ii. 634 > > Theologies, ancient, all agree, ii. 39 > > Theon of Smyrna, his explanation of the five grades in the Mysteries, > ii. 101 > > Theomania of the Cevennois imputed to hysteria and epilepsy, i. 371 > > Theophrastus, legatee of Aristotle, i. 320 > > Theopœa, the art of endowing figures with life, i. 615, 616; > testimony of Jacolliot, i. 616, 617 > > Theosophists, their confederations in Germany, ii. 20 > > Theosophy, disfigured by theology, i. 13 > > Therapeutæ, a branch of the Essenes, ii. 144 > > Therapeutists probably Buddhists, ii. 491 > > Thermuthis, the name of Pharaoh’s daughter and of the sacred asp, i. > 556 > > Thespesius, apparently dead for three days, i. 484 > > Thessalian sorceresses evoked shadows with blood, ii. 568 > > Theurgic Mystery, ii. 563-575 > > Theurgists, i. 205-219; > knew occult properties of magnetism and electricity, i. 234; > not “spirit-mediums,” ii. 118; > persecuted by the Christians, ii. 34 > > Theurgy, its phenomena produced by magnetic powers, i. 23; > the devil at its head, i. 161 > > Thevetat, the “Dragon” of the Atlantis, i. 593; > his seduction of the people, _ib._ > > Thing, the one, of the Smaragdine Tablet, i. 507, 508; > named by Hermetic philosophy, i. 508 > > Third emanation produces the universe of physical matter, and, > finally, “Darkness and the Bad,” i. 302; > race of men in Hesiod, i. 558; > in Popul-Vuh, _ib._; > race of men, the Nephilim, i. 559 > > Thirteen Mexican Serpent-Gods, i. 572 > > This book, its object, ii. 98, 99 > > Thomas, St., in Malabar, ii. 534; > Aquinas, ii. 20; > Taylor, an expositor of Plato’s meaning, ii. 108, 109 > > Thomson, Sir William, declares science bound to face every problem, > i. 223 > > Thompson, Hon. R. W., denounced by a Catholic priest, ii. 378 > > Thor, his electric hammer, i. 160 > > Thought affects the matter of another universe, i. 310 > > Thought-communication effected by a Shaman with his stone, ii. 627 > > Thoughts guided by spiritual being, i. 366; > human, projected upon the universal ether, i. 395; ii. 636 > > Thrætaona, the Persian Michael, contending with Zohak, ii. 486 > > Three degrees of the pleroma, i. 302; > tricks exhibited, i. 73; > degrees of communication with spirits, ii. 115; > emanations, i. 302; > kabalistic forces, _ib._; > Gods, or archial principles, First Cause, Logos, and World-soul, > ii. 33; > Saviours, ii. 536; > legends concerning them, ii. 537-539; > enumeration of their followers, ii. 539; > births of man, ii. 568; > three hundred million Buddhists seeking Nirvana, ii. 533; > mothers, i. 257 > > Three-sided prism of man’s nature, ii. 634 > > Throwing spells by aid of the wind, ii. 632 > > Thrum-stone, i. 231 > > Thummim, i. 536, 537 > > Θυμος, _thumos_, the astral soul, i. 429 > > Thury, Prof., on levitation, cited by de Gasparin, i. 99, 109; > his theory of spiritual phenomena, i. 110; > imputes them to the action of wills not human, i. 112; > psychode and ectenic force, i. 113 > > Tiara, papal, the coiffure of the Assyrian gods, ii. 94 > > Tickets to Heaven, ii. 243 > > Tiffereau, Theodore, assertion that he had made gold, i. 509 > > Tiger mesmerized, i. 467 > > Tigress, bereft of her cubs, mesmerized by a fakir, ii. 623 > > Tikkun, the first born, the Heavenly Man, ii. 276 > > Tillemont, declares all illustrious pagans condemned to the eternal > torments of hell, ii. 8 > > _Timæus_, cannot be understood except by an initiate, ii. 39 > > Time and space no obstacles to the inner man, ii. 588 > > Tir-thankara, the preceptor of Gautama, ii. 322 > > Tissu, the spiritual teacher of Kublai-Khan, his great holiness, ii. > 608; > reforms religion, ii. 609 > > To Ον, of Plato, ii. 38 > > Tobo, liberator of the soul of Adam, ii. 517 > > Todas, a strange people discovered in Southern Hindustan fifty years > ago, ii. 613; > revered and maintained by the Badagas, ii. 614; > an order and not a race, _ib._ > > Tolticas, said to be descended from the house of Israel, i. 552 > > Tooth, Navel and less comely relics of Jesus, ii. 71 > > Tophet, a place in the valley of Gehenna, where a fire was kept and > children immolated, ii. 11; > not a place of endless woe, ii. 502 > > Torquemeda, Tomas de, his prodigious cruelty, ii. 59; > burned Hebrew Bibles, ii. 430 > > Torralva and his demon Zequiel, ii. 60 > > Torturing people by means of Simulacra, ii. 55 > > Toulouse, the Bishop of, his falsehoods about Protestants and > Spiritualists of America, ii. 7 > > Townshend, Colonel, remarkable power of suspending animation, i. 483 > > Traditions, ancient, belong to India, ii. 259 > > Tragedy of Human Life, its plot ever the same, ii. 640 > > Trance-life, i. 181 > > Transformation of the ancient ideas, ii. 491 > > Transmigration, dreaded by the Hindu, i. 346; > of the soul, does not relate to man’s condition after death, ii. > 280 > > Transmural Vision, i. 145 > > Transmutation of metal, the actual fact asserted, i. 503, 504; > Dr. Wilder’s opinion, i. 505; > salt, sulpher, and mercury thrice combined in azoth, _ib._ > > Transubstantiation, an arcane utterance perverted, ii. 560 > > Travancore, perpetual lamp, i. 225 > > Tree, Yggdrasill, i. 133, 151; > Zampun, i. 152; > Aswatha, _ib._; > symbol of universal life, _ib._; > the pyramid, i. 154; > Gogard, i. 297; > serpent dwells in its branches, i. 298; > the microcosmic and macrocosmic, i. 297; > tziti, the third race of men, i. 558; > of knowledge, ii. 184; > or pippala, ii. 412 > > Triad, the Intelligible, i. 212; > from the duad, i. 348 > > Triads, or trinities, Babylonian, Phœnician and Hindu, ii. 48; > Persian and Egyptian, ii. 49 > > Tribes of Israel, what evidence before Ezra, i. 508; > no tribe of Simeon, _ib._ > > Trigonocephali, their bite kills like a flash of lighting, ii. 622 > > Trimurti, i. 92; > their habitation, ii. 234 > > Trinities, three, in one unity, making ten Sephiroth or Prajâpatis, > ii. 39, 40; > Hindu, Egyptian and Christian, ii. 227 > > Trinity, the first, i. 341; > of Egyptians, i. 160; > three Sephiroth or emanations, ii. 36; > the doctrine revealed to Sesostris, ii. 51; > the word first found in the Gospel of Nicodemus, ii. 522; > listening for the answer of Mary, ii. 173; > kabalistic, ii. 222; > of workers in the cosmogony, ii. 420; > of nature the lock of magic, ii. 635 > > Triple Trimurti, ii. 39 > > Trithemius, ii. 20 > > Trizna or feast of the dead in Moldavia, ii. 569, 570 > > Trojan war a counterpart of that of the _Ramâyana_, i. 566 > > Troy, worship of the Kabeiri brought by Dardanus, i. 570 > > True Adamic Earth, i. 51; > doctrine Λόγος Αληθής of Celsus, a copy still in > existence, ii. 52; > faith the embodiment of divine charity, ii. 640 > > Truth, religions but vari-colored fragments of its beam, ii. 639 > > Tschuddi, Dr., his story of the train of llama, and treasure, i. 546 > > Tullia, daughter of Cicero, lamp found burning in her tomb, i. 224 > > Tullus Hostilius, King of Rome, struck by lightning, i. 527 > > Tum, devotees of, ii. 387 > > Tunnel from Cusco to Lima and Bolivia, i. 597; > entrance, _ib._; > dangers of its exploration, i. 598 > > Turkey, wars with Russia and final conquest, i. 261 > > Turanian, should have been applied to the Assyrians, i. 576; > evidently applied to the nomadic Caucasian, progenitor of the > Hamite or Æthiopian, _ib._ > > Turner, his account of an interview with a young lama or reincarnated > Buddha, ii. 598 > > Turrets, the reproduction of the lithos, ii. 5 > > Tutelar genius who hardened the heart of Pharaoh, etc., ii. 639 > > Twelve houses, the fable, i. 267; > tables, a compilation, i. 588; > labors of Hercules depicted on the chair of Peter, ii. 25; > disciples sent by Jehosaphat to preach, ii. 517; > great gods, ii. 448; > minor gods, Dii minores, ii. 451; > tortures, ii. 351; > of Theban initiation, ii. 364; > thousand years employed in creation, i. 342 > > Twenty-nine witch-burnings, ii. 62 > > Two souls taught by the philosophers, i. 12, 317; > idols of monotheistic Christianity, ii. 9; > primeval principles, i. 341; > principles, the Jews brought the doctrine from Persia, ii. 500, 501; > diagrams explained, ii. 266, 271; > “old ones,” ii. 350; > brothers of the Bible, the good and evil principles, ii. 489; > religions in each old faith, ii. 607 > > Two-headed serpents, i. 393 > > Tycho-Brahe, vision of the star, i. 441, 442 > > Tyndall confesses science powerless, i. 14; > views of consciousness, i. 86; > displays forms as of living plants and animals in an experimental > tube, i. 127; > his avoidance to investigate spiritual phenomena, i. 176; > his Belfast Address, i. 314; > his judgment of cowards, i. 418; > declares spiritualism a degrading belief, _ib._; > confesses that the evolution hypothesis does not solve the last > mystery, i. 419; > his experiments on sound, ii. 606; > his definition of science, ii. 637 > > Typhon once worshipped in Egypt, and then changed to an evil demon, > ii. 487; > Plutarch’s explanation, ii. 483; > father of Ierosolumos and Ioudaios, ii. 484; > separated from his androgyne, ii. 524 > > Tyrian worship introduced into Israel by Ahab, ii. 525 > > Tyrrhenian cosmogony, i. 342 > > Udayna or Pashai (Peshawer) the classic land of sorcery, i. 599; > statement of Hiouen-Thsang, _ib._ > > Ultramontanes accused in France of siding with the Mahometans, ii. 82 > > Ulysses frightens phantoms with his sword, i. 362 > > Umbilical cord ruptured and healed, i. 386 > > Umbilicus, represented by the ark, ii. 444 > > Umbra, or shade, i. 37 > > Unavoidable cycle, Mysteries, i. 553 > > Unconscious cerebration, i. 55, 232; > ventriloquism, i. 101 > > Urdar, the fountain of life, i. 151, 162 > > Underworld, i. 37 > > Undines, i. 67 > > Union to the Deity, ii. 591 > > Unity of three trinities, ii. 39; > the Sephiroth or prajapatis, _ib._ > > Universal soul, or mind, i. 56; > the doctrine underlying all philosophies, Buddhism, Brahmanism, and > Christianity, i. 289; > relation to the reasoning and the animal soul, i. 316; > solvent, i. 50, 137, 189 > > Universals to particulars, i. 288 > > Universe, or Kosmos, the body of the invisible sun, i. 302; > doubt, i. 324; > how came it, i. 341; > the concrete image of the ideal abstraction, i. 342; > existed from eternity, _ib._; > passes through four ages, ii. 421; > a musical instrument, i. 514 > > Unknown presence, when witnessed, ii. 164; > the future self of man, ii. 165 > > Unregulated mediums punished, i. 489 > > Unrevealed God, i. 160 > > Unseen Universe, or all things there recorded, ii. 588; > spiritual universe, its existence demonstrated, ii. 15 > > Untrained mediumship illustrated by Socrates and his daimonion, ii. > 117 > > Untenable dogmas of science, i. 501 > > Upasakes and Upasakis, Buddhistic semi-monastics, ii. 608 > > Uper-Ouranoi, i. 312 > > Vach, or sacred speech, ii. 409 > > Vaivaswata, the Hindu Noah, ii. 425 > > Valachian lady, her simulacrum brought to the author in her tent in > Mongolia, ii. 627, 628 > > Vampirism, a terrible case in Russia, i. 454 > > Vampire-governor, and his widow, i. 454, 455 > > Vampires, i. 319; > shedim, etc., i. 449; > magnetic, i. 462; > ghouls and, wandering about, ii. 564 > > Van Helmont, i. 50, 57; > on magnetism and will, i. 170; > on transmutation of earth into water, i. 190; > testimony of Deleuze, i. 194; > a Pythagorean, i. 205; > theory of man, i. 213; > remarkable account of a child born headless immediately after an > execution, i. 386; > on the power of woman’s imagination, i. 399; > testimony of Dr. Fournier, i. 400; > ridiculed for his directions for production of animals, i. 414 > > Vari-colored fragments of the beam of Divine Truth, ii. 639 > > Vasitva, power of mesmerizing, also of restraining the passions, i. > 393 > > Vasaki, the great dragon, ii. 490 > > Vast inland sea of middle Asia, and its island, i. 589 > > Vatican, black magic practised there, ii. 6; > secret libraries, ii. 16, 19; > clergy, how an access, ii. 18 > > Vatou, or candidate, for initiation, ii. 98; > sensitive to spiritual influences, ii. 118 > > Vaughan, Thomas, anecdote of his attempted sale of gold, i. 504 > > Vedas, antedate the Bible, i. 91; > contain no such immodesty as the Bible, ii. 80; > older than the flood, ii. 427 > > Vedic words, the controversies of Sanscrit scholars, ii. 47; > peoples not all Aryans, ii. 413 > > Vedic Pitris, their worship fast becoming the worship of the > spiritual portion of mankind, ii. 639 > > Vegetation, influence of the moon, i. 273; > influenced by musical tones, i. 514 > > Vehicle of life, ii. 418 > > Venerable “Mah,” ii. 388 > > Ventriloquists or pythiæ, i. 355 > > Ventura de Raulica, his letter asserting the existence of Satan as a > fundamental dogma of the Church, ii. 14 > > Vesica Piscis, a Zodiacal sign, ii. 255 > > Vicarious atonement, a ridiculous idea, i. 316 > > Vicarious atonement, ii. 542; > obliterates no wrong, ii. 545; > not known by Peter, ii. 546 > > Vigil-night of Siva, i. 446 > > Vincent, Frank, his description of the ruins of Nagkon-Wat, i. 562, > 565 > > Vine, the symbol of blood and life, ii. 244; > Jesus, ii. 561; > his “Father” not God, but the hierophant, _ib._ > > Viracocha, the Peruvian deity, ii. 259 > > Viradji, the Son of God, his origin, ii. 111 > > Virgin, celestial, milk of, i. 64; > of the sea, crushes the dragon under her feet, ii. 446; > of the Zodiac, rises above the horizon, Dec. 25th, ii. 490; > Blessed, thrashing a demoniac, ii. 76; > Mary, declaring all pagans condemned to eternal torments, over her > own signature, ii. 8; > succeeded to the titles, symbols and rites of Isis, ii. 95; > on the crescent moon, like pagan goddesses, ii. 96; > queen of heaven, ii. _ib._; > mother without a husband, positivist, i. 81; > of the Avatar, Son-Ka-po, ii. 589 > > Virgin-mothers, Hindu, Egyptian, and Catholic, their epithets, ii. 209 > > Vishnu, takes the form of a fish, ii. 257; > same as Oannes, _ib._; > the Adam Kadmon of the kabalists, ii. 259; > his ten avatars, ii. 274; > symbolize evolution, ii. 275; > the expression of the whole universe, ii. 277 > > Vishnu-flower, ii. 467 > > Visible universe from Brahma-Prajapati, i. 348 > > Visions witnessed by initiates, ii. 113; > produced by sorcery, ii. 633 > > Visit to the Ladakh in Thibet, ii. 598 > > Visiting and leaving the body at home, ii. 604, 605 > > Vistaspa, a king of Bactriana, ii. 141 > > Visvamitra, his escape in the ark, ii. 257; > Egypt colonized in his reign, i. 627 > > Vital force, speculations of men of science, i. 466 > > Viti, Sancti, Chorœa, or St. Vitus’ Dance, ii. 625 > > Voices of spirits and goblins heard in the desert, i. 604 > > Volatile salts obnoxious to devils, i. 356 > > Volney, mistook ancient worship, i. 24; > his doctrine of God, i. 268 > > Voltaire, on the being of God, i. 268 > > Voluntary withdrawal of the spirit from the body, ii. 588 > > Votan, his admission to the snake’s hole as a son of the snakes, i. > 553; > supposed by de Bourbourg to be descended from Ham and Canaan, i. > 554; > the hero of the Mexicans, i. 545; > probably identical with Quetzel-coatl, _ib._; > intercourse with King Solomon, _ib._; > the navigating serpent, _ib._ > > Voodo orgy in Cuba, ii. 573 > > Vourdalak or vampires of Servia, i. 451, ii. 368 > > Vowels, the seven, chanted as a hymn to Serapis, i. 514 > > Vridda Manava, or laws of Manu, i. 585 > > Vril, Bulwer-Lytton’s designation of the one primal force, i. 64, 125 > > Vril-ya, the coming race, i. 296 > > Vulcan, Phta, or Hephaistos, represented at Nakyon-Wat, i. 565, 566 > > Vulgar magic in India, ii. 20 > > Vyasa, a positivist, i. 621; > denied a First Cause, ii. 261 > > Vyse, Col., found a piece of iron in the pyramid of Cheops, i. 542 > > Wagner, Prof. Nicholas, on heat and psychical force, i. 497; > on mediumistic phenomena, i. 499 > > Walking above the ground, i. 472; > the faculty sought by devotees, and attained by a King of Siam, ii. > 618 > > Wallace, A. R., on cycles, i. 155; > belief in spiritualism and mesmerism, i. 177; > theory of human development, i. 294 > > War of Michael and the dragon, an old myth, ii. 486 > > Warrior, slain and resuscitated, but without a soul, ii. 564 > > War-chariots, ancient, lighter than modern artillery-wagons, i. 530; > had metallic springs, _ib._ > > Water, of Phtha, i. 64; > the first principle of things, i. 133; > an universal solvent, i. 133, 189; > of mercury, the soul or psychical substance, i. 309; > the first-created element, ii. 458 > > Waters turned to blood, i. 413, 415 > > Washing of images, ii. 138 > > Wave-theory of light not accepted by Prof. Cooke, i. 137 > > Weapons, dæmons afraid of, i. 362 > > Weekman, reputed the first investigator of spirit-phenomena in > America, i. 105 > > Weeks of seven days used in the East, ii. 418 > > Weird cries of the Gobi, i. 604 > > Weninger, Father F. X., a Jesuit priest, his denunciation of > Secretary Thompson, ii. 378, 379 > > Wesermann, power to influence the dreams of others, and to appear > double, i. 477 > > White-skinned people not often able to acquire magical powers, ii. 635 > > White stone of initiation, ii. 351 > > Whitney, Prof. W. D., his criticism of Max Müller, ii. 47; > denunciation of Jacolliot, _ib._; > his translation of a Vedic hymn, ii. 534 > > Widow-burning, or _suttee_, practised 2,500 years, but not when the > Code of Manu was compiled, i. 588; > sustained by the Brahmans from a forged verse of the _Rig-Veda_, i. > 589 > > Widows burned without pain by the Brahmans, i. 540 > > Wild beasts will not attack Buddhistic nuns, ii. 609 > > Wilder, A., on possibility of transmutation, i. 505; > suggestion of another classification of the Assyrians and Mongols, > i. 575; > notes in regard to America, the Atlantic continent, Lemuria, and > the deserts of Africa and Asia, i. 592; > on skeptics, and respect for earnest convictions, i. 437; > on Paul and Plato, ii. 90; > on the designation Peter and the pretension of the Pope to be his > successor, ii. 92; > opinion of Zeruana, Turan, and Zohak, ii. 142; > description of Paul, ii. 574-6 > > Wilkinson, Sir Gardner, his testimony in regard to ancient Egyptian > civilization, i. 526; > J. J. G., declares truth temperamental, i. 234 > > Will, i. 56-61; > its potency in a state of ecstasy, i. 170; > produces force, i. 285; > an emanation of deity, _ib._; > power of, ii. 21; > enables one to wound or injure another, i. 360, 361; > generates force, and force generates matter, ii. 320 > > Will-force of the Yogis, ii. 565 > > Will-power, killing birds by it, i. 380; > photographing by, i. 463; > the most powerful of magnets, i. 472; > its exercise the highest form of prayer, ii. 592 > > Wine first sacred in the Bacchic Mysteries, ii. 514 > > Winged men of the _Phædrus_, i. 2 > > Wirdig taught that nature is ensouled, i. 207 > > Wisdom, the arcane doctrine of the ancients, i. 205, 436; > or the principle, ii. 35; > the chief, ii. 36; > first emanation of the En-Soph, ii. 37; > origin, ii. 218; > the ethnic parent of every religion, ii. 639, 640 > > Wisdom-doctrine underlay every ancient religion, ii. 99 > > Wisdom-religion, to be found in the pre-Vedic religion of India, ii. > 39; > its articles of faith, ii. 116; > explained in Code of Manu, _ib._; > the parent cult, ii. 216 > > Wise women, ii. 525 > > Witch, a knowing woman, i. 354; > or kangalin, lawful for a Hindu to kill her, ii. 612 > > Witch-burnings in Germany, ii. 61; > twenty-nine, ii. 62, 63 > > Witchcraft, execution in Salem, and other American provinces, ii. 18; > laws in force in South Carolina in 1865, _ib._; > an offence among the ancients, ii. 98; > those guilty of it not initiates, ii. 117, 118 > > Witches, pretended, dozens of thousands burned, i. 353; > of the middle ages, the votaries of the former religion, ii. 502 > > Witches’ Sabbath, the orgies of Bacchus, ii. 528 > > Withdrawal of the inner from the outer man, ii. 583 > > Withdrawing of the inner from the outer, i. 476 > > Wittoba, the crucified image of Christna anterior to Christianity, > ii. 557 > > Wizard, a wise man, i. 354 > > Wolf, converted by St. Francis, ii. 77 > > Wolsey, Cardinal, accused of sorcery, ii. 57 > > Woman, of the future, i. 77; > fecundated artificially, i. 77, 81; > must cease to be the female of the men, i. 78; > ridding her of every maternal function, _ib._; > applying a latent force, _ib._; > offered to the encubi, _ib._; > impossible, i. 81; > evolved out of men, i. 297; > highly impressible when pregnant, i. 394; > exudes akasa as an odic emanation, i. 395; > how this is projected into the astral light or ether, and > repercussing, impresses itself upon the fœtus, _ib._; > evolved out of the lusts of matter, i. 433; > clothed with the sun, the goddess Isis, ii. 489 > > Women, magnetically influenced by the moon, i. 264 > > Women-colleges, to superintend worship, ii. 524, 525 > > Wong-Ching-Fu, his explanation of Nepang or Nirvana, ii. 319, 320 > > Wonder-working fakirs seldom to be seen, ii. 612, 613 > > Word, magical, i. 445; > ineffable, and performance of miracles, ii. 370; > lost by the Christians, _ib._; > where to be sought, ii. 371, ii. 418; > “long lost but now found,” ii. 393 > > World, how called into existence, i. 341; > how all will go well with it, ii. 122; > soul of, i. 129, 208, 215, 342; > religions, startled by utterances of scientists, i. 248, 249 > > World-religions, conflict between, i. 307; > identical at their starting-point, ii. 215; > the devil their founder, ii. 479 > > World-mountains, allegorical expressions of cosmogony, i. 157 > > World-soul, the source of all souls, and ether, i. 316 > > World-tree of knowledge, i. 574 > > Worlds, an incalculable number before the present one, ii. 424 > > Worship of the sun and serpent by Phœnicians and Mosaic Israelites, > i. 555; > of words, denounced, ii. 560; > of the spiritual portion of mankind, ii. 639 > > Wounds, mortal, self-inflicted and healed, i. 224 > > Wreaths of green leaves for oracles, ii. 612 > > Wren, Sir Christopher, simply the Master of the London operative > masons, ii. 390 > > Wright, Thomas, on sorcery and magic, i. 356 > > Writings under the ban, ii. 8 > > X, decussation of the perfect circle, ii. 469 > > X., Dr. extraordinary scenes at a seance, i. 608-611 > > Xenophanes, his satire on the representations of God, ii. 242 > > Ximenes, cardinal, burned 80,000 Arabic manuscripts, i. 511 > > Xisuthrus or Hasisadra, sailed with the ark to Armenia, ii. 217; > translated to the gods, ii. 424; > Oannes and Vishnu in the first avatar, ii. 457 > > Yaho, an old Shemitic mystic name of the Supreme Being, ii. 297 > > Yadus migrating from India to Egypt, i. 444 > > Yang-kie and Mahu, dwellers in both worlds, i. 601, 602 > > Yakuts and their worship, ii. 568 > > Yarker, John jr., account of the dervishes, ii. 316; > his testimony in regard to Free-masonry, ii. 376 > > Year of blood, 1876, i. 439 > > Yezidis, or devil-worshippers genuine sorcerers, ii. 571; > their worship, ii. 572 > > Yggdrasill, i. 133; > universe springing up beneath its branches, i. 151 > > Ymir, the Norse giant, i. 147; > generates a race of depraved men, i. 148; > is slain by the sons of Bur, i. 150 > > Yogas or cycles, i. 293 > > Yogis of India, ii. 346; > their extraordinary powers, ii. 565; > regarded as demi-gods, ii. 612; > a peculiar medicine used by them composed of sulphur and juice of > a plant, ii. 621; > their longevity, ii. 620; > their medicinal preparation of sulphur and quicksilver, ii. 620 > > Yörmungand, the midgard or earth-serpent, i. 151 > > Yourodevoy, i. 28 > > Youth, the means of regaining, ii. 618 > > Yowahous, ii. 313 > > Yugas, i. 31 > > Yule, Colonel, on movable type, i. 515; > on spiritualism in Tartary, i. 600; > testimony in regard to spiritual flowers drawn by a medium in Bond > street, London, i. 601 > > Zacharias, saw an apparition in the temple, ass-formed, ii. 523 > > Zadokites, or Sadducees, made a priest-caste by David, ii. 297 > > Zampun, the Thibetan tree of life, i. 152 > > Zamzummim, the Cyclopeans, i. 567 > > Zarathustra-Spitoma, his untold antiquity, i. 12 > > Zarevna Militrissa and the serpent, i. 550 > > Zeller, criticism of the Fathers in regard to Plato, i. 288 > > Zequiel, a demon presented to Torralva, ii. 60 > > Zeno taught two eternal qualities in nature, i. 12 > > Zeru-Ishtar, a Chaldean or Magian high-priest, ii. 129 > > Zeruan, Saturn or Abraham, the legend of the Titans, ii. 217 > > Zeus, the æther, i. 187, 188 > > Zeus-Dionysus, i. 262 > > Zmeij Gorenetch, the dragon, i. 550 > > Znachar, the Russian sorcerer, ii. 571 > > Zodiac, its symbolism, ii. 456; > its origin, 16,984 years ago, _ib._ > > Zohak and Gemshid, their struggle that of the Persians and Assyrians, > i. 576; > and Feridun, the legend explained, ii. 486; > or Azhi-Dahaka, the serpent of the Avesta, ii. 486; > a personification of Assyria, _ib._ > > Zonarus traces knowledge from Chaldea to Egypt, thence to the Greeks, > i. 543 > > Zoömagnetism, or animal magnetism, i. 206; > can magnetize minerals, _ib._ > > Zoroaster, Zarathustra, Zuruastara, Zuryaster, a spiritual teacher, > ii. 141; > a reformer of Chaldean Magic, i. 191; > when he lived, ii. 141; > Baron Bunsen’s opinion, ii. 432 > > Zoroastrian religion, its affinity with Judaism and Christianity, ii. > 486 > > Zoroastrianism, no schism, ii. 142 > > Zoroastrians, migrated from India, ii. 143 > > Zoro-Babel or prince of Babylon, ii. 441 > > Zuinglius, the first reformer, his cosmopolitan doctrine of the Holy > Ghost, i. 132 > > 706 BROADWAY, > _New York, March, 1878_. > > J. W. Bouton’s Catalogue > > OF > > NEW AND RECENT PUBLICATIONS, > > _Importations and Remainders_, > > COMPRISING IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE WORKS IN THE > FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS OF LITERATURE: > > _Art, Contemporary and Ancient_, > _Art Periodicals_, > _Antiquities_, > _Archæology_, > _Ancient Religions and Worships_, > _Biography_, > _Caxton and Early Printing_, > _Costume_, > _Cruikshankiana_, > _Ceramic Art_, > _Dictionaries, Glossaries, Language, etc._ > _Dramatists, Old_, > _Etchings, Modern_, > _Free Masonry_, > _Genealogy_, > _Illustrated Works_, > _Musical Instruments_, > _Mythology_, > _Ornament, Architectural, Textile, etc._, > _Ornithology_, > _Old Poetry_, > _Phallic and Symbol Worship_, > _Shakspeariana, Etc., Etc._ > > INDEX. > > PAGE > Æsop’s Fables, illustrated, 19 > Amberley, Religious Beliefs, 6 > Anacalypsis, Higgins, 3 > Antiquities of Long Island, 15 > Archæology, Westropp’s Hand-Book, 25 > Archie Armstrong’s Jests, 29 > Avesta, Bleeck, 25 > > Behn’s Dram. Works, 15 > Bible of Humanity, 3 > Blake, Swinburne’s Essay, 23 > Blake’s Marriage of Heaven and Hell, 21 > Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, 3 > Boccaccio, Decameron, illustrated, 19 > Brome’s Dram. Works, 15 > Burns’ Complete Works, 6 > > Catalogue, Wilson Colln. of Paintings, 19 > Caxton’s Dictes and Sayinges, 5 > Statutes of Henry VIII., 30 > Centlivre’s Dram. Works, 15 > Champney, Quiet Corner of England, 25 > Chapman’s Dram. Works, 15 > Chinese Classics, 23 > Cokain’s Dram. Works, 18 > Costume, Lacroix, XVIII. Siècle, 17 > Planché, 8 > Historique, Racinet, 11 > Crowne’s Dram. Works, 18 > Cruikshank, Illustrations of Time, 24 > Phrenological Illus., 24 > > Davenant’s Dram. Works, 18 > Dekker’s Dram. Works, 15 > Diary of Am. Revolution, 24 > Dibdin’s Bibliomania, 29 > Douglas’ Poetical Works, 29 > Dramatic Works of Tourneur, 6 > Dramatists, Early English, 15 > of the Restoration, 18 > Duyckinck’s Cyclopædia of Am. Literature, 27 > > Edwards’ Founders of Brit. Museum, 23 > Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, 14 > English Rogue, 22 > Engravings, Willshire’s Guide, 31 > Erasmus’ Apophthegms, 5 > Etchings, Chapters on Painting, 12 > Contemporary Art, 4 > Examples of Modern, 11, 12 > after Frans Hals, 32 > “L’Art”, 33 > from National Gallery, 12 > The Portfolio, 34 > Unger’s Works, 32 > Wilson Catalogue, 19 > Examples of Contemporary Art, 4 > > Fine Arts, Æsop’s Fables, illus., 19 > Bible Plates, 5 > Bell’s Anatomy of Expression, 20 > Blake, Etchings, 4 > Blake, Heaven and Hell, 21 > Chapters on Painting, 12 > Contemporary Art, 4 > Costume, Racinet, 11 > Cruikshank’s “Time”, 24 > “Phrenological Illus., 24 > Dürer’s Little Passion, 19 > Etchings from National Gallery, 12 > French Artists, &c., 12 > Works of Hals, 32 > Holbein, 23 > Jeanne d’Arc, 17 > Jésus-Christ, 17 > Jones’ Alhambra, 30 > Jones’ Gram. of Ornmt., 28 > Keramic Art, Japan, 7 > Lacroix, 4 > Lacroix, XVIII. Siècle, vol. 1, 17 > “L’Art.”, 33 > Lundy, 9 > Mod. Etchings, 11, 12 > Planché, Costume, 8 > Polychromatic Ornament, 7 > The Portfolio, 34 > Quiet Corner of Eng., 25 > Textile Fabrics, 31 > Turner Gallery, 10 > Wright’s Womankind, 26 > Wilson’s Catalogue, 19 > Willshire on Prints, 31 > Works of Wm. Unger, 32 > Freemasonry, Hyneman’s Register, 27 > Mackenzie, Cyclo., 7 > Paton, Symbols, 25 > French Artists of Present Day, 12 > Furman’s Long Island, 15 > > Gesta Romanorum, 28 > Glapthorne’s Dram. Works, 15 > Grammar of Ornament, Jones, 28 > Racinet, 7 > Greville Memoirs, 29 > > Halliwell’s Hist. of Stratford on Avon, 24 > Hamerton’s Examples of Mod. Etchings, 12 > Heywood’s Dram. Works, 15 > Higgins’ Anacalypsis, 3 > Holbein, by Woltman, 23 > > Inman’s Ancient Faith embodied in Ancient > Names, 2 v., 14 > Ancient Faiths & Modern, 13 > Anc. Pagan Symbolism, 16 > Ireland, Shak. Forgeries, 26 > Isis Unveiled, 3 > > Jeanne d’Arc, Wallon, 17 > > Keramic Art of Japan, Fr., 7 > King’s Gnostics, 25 > Knight’s Ancient Art and Mythology, 13 > Worship of Priapus, 28 > > Lacroix, XVIII. Siècle, Costume, &c., 17 > XVIII. Siècle., vol. 2. Sciences, 4 > Lacy’s Dram. Works, 18 > L’Art. Art Magazine, 33 > Lee’s Life, &c., of De Foe, 26 > Legge’s Chinese Classics, 23 > Leland, Fu Sang, 16 > Littré Dictionnaire de la Langue Française, 24 > Lundy’s Monumental Christianity, 9 > > Mackay’s Lost Beauties of the English Language, 16 > Markland’s Lady de Osorio, 23 > Marmion’s Dram. Works, 18 > Masonic Register, Hyneman’s, 27 > Memoirs of Sanson Family, 25 > Mexico, Geiger, 22 > Michelet, Bible of Humanity, 3 > Moore’s Epicurean, 9 > Musical Instruments, &c., 5 > > Nares’ Glossary Early Eng., 29 > > Original Lists of Emigrants, &c., 21 > Ornamental Textile Fabrics, 31 > Owen Jones, Alhambra, 30 > > “Passio Christi.” See Dürer, 19 > Paton’s Symbolism of Masonry, 25 > Phallic Worship, Anacalypsis, 3 > Isis Unveiled, 3 > Knight, 28 > Inman, 14, 16 > Westropp and Wake, 14 > “Portfolio,” an Artistic Periodical, 34 > Prostitution. Dufour, Hist., 31 > > Rambosson, Harmonies du Son, 5 > Religions. Amberley, 6 > Avesta, 25 > Ancient Art & Mythology, 13 > Ancient Faiths & Modern, 14 > Ancient Pagan Symbols, 16 > Ancient Symbol Worship, 14 > Chinese Classics, 23 > Gnostics, etc., 25 > Higgins, Anacalypsis, 3 > Isis Unveiled, 3 > Inman, Ancient Faiths, 13 > Knight’s Priapus, 28 > Lundy, Monum. Christ’y, 9 > Michelet’s Bible of Humanity, 3 > Rosicrucians, 27 > Serpent and Siva Worship, 3 > Taylor, Eleusinian Mysteries, 14 > Wheeler’s India, 13 > Yarker’s Mysteries, 27 > Rump Songs, &c., 22 > > Serpent and Siva Worship, 3 > Shakespeare, Facsimile of 1st fol., 18 > Forgeries, Ireland, 26 > School of, 4 > Songs, &c. Museum Deliciarum, 20 > Ballads, D’Urfey’s Pills, 20 > and Ballads, The Rump, 22 > Westminster Drolleries, 22 > Story of the Stick, 21 > Symbolism. Anacalypsis, 3 > of Freemasonry, 25 > Gnostics, &c., 25 > Inman, 16 > Inman’s Anc. Faiths, &c., 14 > Knight’s Priapus, 28 > Lundy, 9 > Rosicrucians, 27 > Serpent Worship, 3 > Westropp, &c., 14 > Yarker, 27 > > Turner Gallery, 10 > Tourneur’s Plays 6 > > Unger, Frans Hals, 32 > Works, 32 > > Veuillot. Jésus-Christ, 17 > Violin and its Makers, Hart, 18 > > Walford’s County Families, 30 > Westminster Drolleries, 22 > Westropp, Handbook of Archæology, 25 > Wheeler’s History of India, 13 > Willshire on Prints, 31 > Wilson’s Dram. Works, 18 > Ornithology, 8 > Wright’s Womankind, 26 > > Yarker, Scientific and Religious Mysteries, 27 > > Isis Unveiled; > > A MASTER KEY TO THE MYSTERIES OF ANCIENT AND MODERN SCIENCE > AND THEOLOGY. BY H. P. BLAVATSKY, Corresponding Secretary of > the Theosophical Society. _2 vols. Royal 8vo, about 1,500 > pages, cloth, $7.50._ > > The recent revival of interest in Philology and Archæology, resulting > from the labors of BUNSEN, LAYARD, HIGGINS, MÜLLER, DR. SCHLIEMANN, > and others, has created a great demand for works upon Eastern topics. > > To the scholar and the specialist, to the philologist and the > archæologist, this work will be a most valuable acquisition, aiding > them in their labors and giving to them the only clue to the > labyrinth of confusion in which they are involved. To the general > reader it will be especially attractive because of its fascinating > style and pleasing arrangement, presenting a constant variety of racy > anecdote, pithy thought, sound scholarship, and vivid description. > Mme. BLAVATSKY possesses the happy gift of versatility in an eminent > degree, and her style is varied to suit her theme with a graceful > ease refreshing to the reader, who is led without weariness from > page to page. The author has accomplished her task with ability, and > has conferred upon all a precious boon, whose benefit the scientist > as well as the religionist, the specialist as well as the general > reader, will not be slow to recognize. > > Bible of Humanity; > > By JULES MICHELET, author of “The History of France,” > “Priests, Women, and Families,” “L’Amour,” etc. Translated > from the French by V. CALFA. _1 vol. 8vo, cloth, $3.00._ > > “His _Bible of Humanity_ is a large epic in prose. The artist-historian, > in the manner of inspired men and prophets, sings the evolution of > mankind. There is no doubt that he throws brilliant glimpses of light > on the long course of events and works which he unfolds; but at the > same time he carries away the reader with such rapid flight of > imagination as almost to make him giddy.”--_Larousse’s Universal > Dictionary_. > > NEW EDITION OF HIGGINS’ GREAT WORK. > > The Anacalypsis; > > An attempt to draw aside the Veil of the Saïtic Isis; > or, an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and > Religions. By GODFREY HIGGINS, Esq. Vol. I., 8vo, cloth, > $4.50. To be completed in four volumes. > > The extreme rarity, and consequent high price of the “Anacalypsis” > has hitherto placed it beyond the reach of many scholars and > students. The new edition is issued in a much more convenient form, > and sold at less than one-sixth of the price of the original. > > The powerful though rather dogmatic logic, and the profound learning > of the author, give the work a singular importance; and in a thinking > age, when many things formerly considered truths are passing away > into the shadows of tradition, the student of comparative mythology > and the origin of religion and languages will look upon Higgins’ > Anacalypsis as his guide and luminary through the darkness of dawning > science. > > Serpent and Siva Worship > > And Mythology in Central America, Africa, and Asia; and The > Origin of Serpent Worship. Two Treatises. By HYDE CLARKE and > C. STANILAND WAKE, M.A.I. Edited by Alexander Wilder, M.D. > 8vo, paper cover, 50 cents. > > “Serpent lore is the literature of the earliest times, and every > discovery in ethnical science is adding to our knowledge of this > feature of the race. These two eminent anthropologists suggest > some very interesting speculations, which seem confirmed by modern > research, and will be examined with avidity by scholars.” > > _SPLENDID NEW VOLUME OF ETCHINGS._ > > Examples of Contemporary Art. > > _Etchings from Representative Works of Living English and > Foreign Artists_, viz.:--FORTUNY, JULES BRETON, BERNIER, E. > BURNE JONES, F. LEIGHTON, GONZALEZ, MACBETH, G. F. WATTS, > ORCHARDSON, VAN MARCKE, PACZKA, CHAPLIN, etc., etc. Executed > by WALTNER, MARTIAL, CHAMPOLLION, LALAUZE, HÉDOUIN, CHAUVEL, > GREUX, etc. One large folio volume, vellum cloth, gilt, $12.00. > > “Apart from its value as a graphic account of the two great foreign > Exhibitions of Art, this elegant volume deserves special attention > from the value of its text, furnishing as it does a general record > of the artistic achievements of the past year. They are, in fact, > careful reviews of the representative Exhibitions from which subjects > of the illustrations have been chosen, and their purpose is to > supply, within moderate limits, a coherent account of the recent > progress of the Arts in England and France.” > > _INTERESTING NEW WORK ON BLAKE._ > > William Blake. > > _Etchings from his Works_, embracing many of the rarest > subjects executed by that unique Artist. By W. BELL SCOTT. > Proofs on India paper. Folio, half cloth, $8.00. > > “Such is the plan and moral part of the author’s invention; the > technical part and the execution of the artist, though to be examined > by other principles and addressed to a narrower circle, equally claim > approbation, sometimes excite our wonder, and not seldom our fears, > when we see him play on the very verge of legitimate invention; > but wildness so picturesque in itself, so often redeemed by taste, > simplicity, and elegance, what child of fancy--what artist--would > wish to discharge? The groups and single figures on their own > basis, abstracted from the general composition and considered > without attention to the plan, frequently exhibit those genuine and > unaffected attitudes--those simple graces--which nature and the heart > alone can dictate, and only an eye inspired by both discover. _Every > class of artists, in every stage of their progress or attainments, > from the student to the finished master, and from the contriver of > ornament to the painter of history, will find here materials of art > and hints of improvement._”--_Cromek._ > > _NEW VOLUME BY PAUL LACROIX._ > > XVIIIᵐᵉ Siècle. > > _Lettres, Sciences et Arts._ France (1700-1798). > Illustrated with 15 chromo-lithographs and 250 > wood-engravings, after WATTEAU, VANLOO, BOUCHER, VERNET, > EISEN, GRAVELOT, MOREAU, ST. AUBIN, COCHIN, etc. One Volume > imperial 8vo. Tastefully bound, gilt edges, $13.50. Full > polished Levant morocco, gilt edges, $22.50. > > The School of Shakspere. > > _Including “The Life and Death of Captain Thomas Stukeley,” > with a New Life of Stukeley from Unpublished Sources; “Nobody > and Somebody;” “Histriomastix;” “The Prodigal Son;” “Jack > Drum’s Entertainment;” “A Warning for Fair Women,” with > Reprints of the Accounts of the Murder; and “Faire Em.” > Edited, with Introduction and Notes, and an Account of Robert > Green and his Quarrels with Shakspere, by_ RICHARD SIMPSON. > _With an Introduction by_ F. J. FURNIVALL. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. > $6.00. > > Schnorr’s Bible Illustrations: > > La Sainte Bible, Ancien et Nouveau Testament récit et > commentaires, par M. l’Abbé Salmon du diocèse de Paris. > Handsomely printed and illustrated, with 240 beautiful > engravings on wood from the celebrated designs of Schnorr of > Carolsfeld. A handsome volume, 4to, _paper, uncut, $6.00_; or, > _full turkey morocco, extra, gilt leaves, $12.00_. > > Musical Instruments, Sound, &c. > > Les Harmonies du Son et les Instruments de Musique, par I. > Rambosson. _Most profusely illustrated with upwards of 200 > beautiful engravings on wood, and five chromo-lithographic > plates._ 1 large vol. 8vo, pp. 582, _paper uncut, $4.00; or > half red morocco, extra, gilt edges, $6.00_. > > An entirely new work, in which the subject is treated in a most > exhaustive manner. The book is divided into four general heads, > the _first_ devoted to the History of Music, and its influence on > Physique and Morals, the Influence of Music on Intelligence, on the > Sentiments, Locomotion, etc. The _second_, Acoustics, or production > and propagation of sound, including the most recent discoveries in > this branch. The _third_, on the History of Musical Instruments. The > _fourth_, on the Voice, etc. > > The Apophthegms of Erasmus. > > Translated into English by Nicholas Udall. Literally > reprinted from the scarce Edition of 1564. _Beautifully > printed on heavy laid paper, front. 8vo, new cloth, uncut._ > > Only 250 copies, each of which is numbered and attested by > autograph signature of the editor. $7.50. > > “This is a pleasant gossipy book, full of wise saws, if not of modern > instances. It may be considered one of the earliest English jest > books. The wit in it is not as startling as fireworks, but there is > a good deal of grave, pleasant humor, and many of those touches of > nature which make the whole world kin. When Nicholas Udall undertook > to translate this work he was the right man in the right place. > Probably no old English book so abounds with colloquialisms and > idiomatic expressions. It is very valuable on that account. This > reprint has been made from the second edition, that of 1562. The > reprint is literal; the only difference being that, to make it easier > for the general reader, the contractions have been filled in, and the > Greek quotations, which were exceedingly incorrect, have been, in > most cases, put right.” > > _CAXTON COMMEMORATION VOLUME._ > > The Dictes and Sayings of the Philosophers. > > The First Book printed by Caxton in England (printed at > the Almonry at Westminster in the year 1477). 1 vol., small > folio. Printed in exact facsimile of the _editio princeps_, on > paper manufactured expressly for the work, and having all the > peculiarities of the original. 1 vol., small folio. $10.00. > > The printing of this unique work has been executed by a photographic > process which reproduces infallibly all the characteristics of the > original work, and the binding is a careful reproduction of that of > Caxton’s day. > > This memorial volume is rendered still more interesting, and to the > connoisseur more valuable, by an Introduction by William Blades, > Esq., author of the Life and Typography of William Caxton, giving a > short, historical account of the book, the circumstances that led to > its publication, and its position among the works printed by Caxton. > It is believed that the publication of this work will, apart from > its value to collectors, be generally acceptable as representing the > first work issued from the press in England, and as illustrating the > state of the art of printing in its infancy. > > _To form Six Volumes, demy 8vo_ > (Vols. I.-III. Poetry; IV.-VI. Prose Works)._ > > Complete Works of Robert Burns. > > Edited by W. SCOTT DOUGLAS, with Explanatory Notes, Various > Readings and Glossary. _Containing 327 Poems and Songs, > arranged chronologically, 15 of which have not hitherto > appeared in a complete form; Nasmyth’s Two Portraits of Burns, > newly engraved on steel; The Birthplace of Burns and Tam o’ > Shanter, after Sam Bough, by W. Forrest; and the Scottish > Muse, by Clark Stanton; Four Facsimiles of Original MSS.; a > Colored Map, Wood Engravings, Music, &c._ > > ∵ Now Ready, Volumes I., II., and III., 8vo, cloth, price > $5.00 each. Also on Large Paper, _India Proof Plates_, royal > 8vo, cloth, $10.00 per volume. > > THE THIRD VOLUME contains hitherto unpublished Poems, > drawings of Ellisland and Lincluden by SAM BOUGH, engraved on > steel by Forrest, facsimiles, &c. > > OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. > > “We heartily congratulate the admirers of Burns, and of poetry, in > the prospect of having in their hands ... such a labor of love and of > knowledge.”--_W. M. Rossetti in The Academy._ > > “Promises to outshine all former editions in completeness, accuracy, > and interest.”--_Aberdeen Journal._ > > “The edition will be unquestionably the best which has yet > appeared.”--_Birmingham Gazette._ > > “Will doubtless supersede all others as library edition of > Burns.”--_Daily Review._ > > “Really an ‘exhaustive effort’ to collect the whole of the > poems.”--_Edinburgh Courant._ > > “May challenge comparison with any previous product of the Scottish > press.”--_Inverness Courier._ > > “A gratifying addition to general literature. Is of the highest order > of merit.”--_London Scottish Journal._ > > “A fine library edition of Scotland’s greatest poet.”--_Pall Mall > Gazette._ > > The Plays and Poems of Cyril Tourneur. > > _Edited, with Critical Introduction and Notes, by_ JOHN > CHURTON COLLINS. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. $6.00. _Large paper_ > (only 50 printed). $12.00. > > “So much of the dramatic fire and vigor which form the special > characteristics of the Elizabethan dramatists is discernable in Cyril > Tourneur, that it is satisfactory to see his works collected.... > If on the one hand he may claim to have enriched the drama with > characters that may compare with the best in Chapman or Marston, > he has also in realism gone beyond Webster.... Mr. Collins has > discharged completely his editorial duties, and his notes display a > considerable amount of reading.”--ATHENÆUM. > > _OFFERED AT A GREAT REDUCTION IN PRICE._ > > An Analysis of Religious Belief. > > By VISCOUNT AMBERLEY. “Ye shall know the truth, and the > truth shall make you free.” 2 large, handsomely printed vols. > demy 8vo, new cloth, uncut. $8.00 (_usual price $15.00_). > > “Let them (the readers) remember that while he assails much which > they reckon unassailable, he does so in what to him is the cause > of goodness, nobleness, love, truth, and of the mental progress of > mankind.”--_Extract front Lady Russell’s Preface._ > > “He has bequeathed to the world a collection of interesting facts > for others to make use of. It is a museum of antiquities, relics, > and curiosities. All of the religions of the world are here jostling > one another in picturesque confusion, like the figures in a > masquerade.”--_Times._ > > “This work has more than one claim on the reader’s attention. Its > intrinsic interest is considerable.”--_Spectator._ > > “No one will fail during its perusal to be deeply interested, and, what > is more, powerfully stimulated to independent thought.”--_Examiner._ > > Polychromatic Ornament. > > 100 PLATES IN GOLD, SILVER, AND COLORS, _comprising upwards > of 2,000 specimens of the styles of Ancient, Oriental, and > Mediæval Art_, and including the Renaissance, and XVIIth and > XVIIIth centuries, selected and arranged for practical use by > A. Racinet, with Explanatory Text, and a general introduction. > Folio, cloth, gilt edges. $40.00. > > Monsieur Racinet is well known, both in France and in this country, > as the author of the principal designs in those magnificent works, > “Le Moyen Age et la Renaissance” and “Les Arts Somptuaires.” He is > therefore peculiarly well fitted to grapple with the difficulties of > so intricate a subject, and it will be found that he has discharged > his task in a manner to deserve general approval and admiration. > His happy choice of subjects, all of them taken from _originals_, > his ingenious grouping of them in harmonious forms, his wonderful > accuracy in drawing, and his perfect fidelity of color are only > equalled by the profound knowledge which has enabled him to combine > so vast a collection in historical order, and yet in a classical form. > > Keramic Art of Japan. > > LA CÉRAMIQUE JAPONAISE. FRENCH EDITION, traduit par M. > P. Louiby. _Containing Sixty-three Plates_ (_Thirty-five of > which are in Gold and Colors_), and nearly 200 pages of Text, > with numerous Wood Engravings printed in Colors; the whole > being produced from original Japanese works of the greatest > beauty, and representing the entire range of Japanese Keramic > Art, Ancient and Modern. By G. A. AUDSLEY and J. L. BOWES, > of Liverpool. Containing a Comprehensive Introductory Essay > upon Japanese Art in all its various branches, illustrated > by thirteen Photo-Lithographic and Autotype Plates, and > numerous Wood Engraving, printed in colors. Also, a concise > Dissertation on Keramic Productions of Japan, from the > earliest records up to the present day; with sectional > articles on the Pottery and Porcelain of the various provinces > of the Empire in which manufactories exist, fully illustrated > by thirty-five plates, superbly printed in full colors and > gold, and fifteen plates in autotype. To be supplied in seven > parts, folio, at $10.00 each. Parts I. and II. now ready. > > N. B.--_Parts not sold separately._ > > No one who has examined the Art productions of Japan can have > failed to observe the great beauty of the Keramic Wares of the > country, and the refined and educated feeling everywhere displayed > in their decoration. Their general artistic excellence, and the > skilful rendering of natural objects they usually present, have long > commended them to the attention of the artists of Europe--long, > indeed, before they were sought after by collectors; and it is not > too much to say that many of our well-known artists have shown by > their works their appreciation of Japanese drawing and coloring. > > The Royal Masonic Cyclopædia > > Of History, Rites, Symbolism, and Biography. By KENNETH R. > H. MACKENZIE. 1 vol. demy 8vo, cloth (pp. 768), $7.00. > > The most complete and valuable work of reference that has ever been > presented to the Craft. > > “The task of the Editor has been admirably performed, and there can > be no question the work will be a valuable addition to every Masonic > library.”--_Freemason’s Chronicle._ > > “The Editor has lavished much reading and labor on his subject.”-- > _Sunday Times._ > > “A deeply-learned work for the benefit of Freemasons.”--_Publishers’ > Circular._ > > “Your new work is excellent.”--Bro. W. R. WOODMAN, M.D., G.S.B. > > “Evidences a considerable amount of hard work, alike in research and > study, ... and we can honestly and sincerely say we wish fraternally > all success to the Royal Masonic Cyclopædia.”--_Freemason._ > > Wilson’s American Ornithology: > > Or, Natural History of the Birds of the United States; with > the Continuation by PRINCE CHARLES LUCIAN BONAPARTE. NEW AND > ENLARGED EDITION, =_completed by the insertion of above One > Hundred Birds omitted in the original work_=, and illustrated > by valuable Notes and a life of the Author by Sir WILLIAM > JARDINE. Three Vols., 8vo, with a Portrait of WILSON, and > 103 Plates, exhibiting nearly Four Hundred figures of Birds, > accurately engraved and beautifully colored, cloth extra, > gilt top, $18.00. Half smooth morocco, gilt top, $20.00. Half > morocco extra, gilt top, $25.00. Full tree calf extra, gilt or > marbled edges, $30.00. > > _A few copies have been printed on_ LARGE PAPER. Imperial > 8vo size, 3 vols., half morocco, gilt top, $40.00. > > One of the cheapest books ever offered to the American public. The > old edition, not nearly so complete as the present, has always > readily brought from $50.00 to $60.00 per copy. > > “The History of American Birds, by Alexander Wilson, is equal in > elegance to the most distinguished of our own splendid works on > Ornithology.”--CUVIER. > > “With an enthusiasm never excelled, this extraordinary man penetrated > through the vast territories of the United States, undeterred by > forests or swamps, for the sole purpose of describing the native > birds.”--LORD BROUGHAM. > > “By the mere force of native genius, and of delight in nature, he > became, without knowing it a good, a great writer.”--_Blackwood’s > Magazine._ > > “All his pencil or pen has touched is established incontestably; by > the plate, description, and history he has always determined his bird > so obviously as to defy criticism, and prevent future mistake.... We > may add, without hesitation, that such a work as he has published is > still a desideratum in Europe.”--CHARLES LUCIAN BONAPARTE. > > COMPLETION OF PLANCHÉ’S GREAT WORK. > > Cyclopædia of Costume; > > Or, A Dictionary of Dress--Regal, Ecclesiastical, Civil, > and Military--from the Earliest Period in England to the reign > of George the Third, including Notices of Contemporaneous > Fashions on the Continent. By J. R. PLANCHÉ, Somerset Herald. > Profusely illustrated by fourteen full-page colored plates, > some heightened with gold, and many hundred others throughout > the text. 1 vol. 4to, white vellum cloth, blue edges, unique > style, $20.00. Green vellum cloth, gilt top, $20.00. Half > morocco, extra, gilt top, $25.00. Full morocco, extra, very > elegant, $37.50. > > “There is no subject connected with dress with which ‘Somerset > Herald’ is not as familiar as ordinary men are with the ordinary > themes of everyday life. The gathered knowledge of many years is > placed before the world in this his latest work, and there will > exist no other work on the subject half so valuable. The numerous > illustrations are all effective--for their accuracy the author is > responsible: they are well drawn and well engraved, and, while > indispensable to a proper comprehension of the text, are satisfactory > as works of art.”--_Art Journal._ > > “These numbers of a Cyclopædia of Ancient and Modern Costume give > promise that the work will be one of the most perfect works ever > published upon the subject. The illustrations are numerous and > excellent, and would, even without the letter-press, render the work > an invaluable book of reference for information as to costumes for > fancy balls and character quadrilles.... Beautifully printed and > superbly illustrated.”--_Standard._ > > “Those who know how useful is Fairholt’s brief and necessarily > imperfect glossary will be able to appreciate the much greater > advantages promised by Mr. Planché’s book.”--_Athenæum._ > > UNIFORM IN STYLE WITH LÜBKE’S AND MRS. JAMESON’S ART WORKS. > > Monumental Christianity; > > Or, the Art and Symbolism of the Primitive Church, as > Witnesses and Teachers of the one Catholic Faith and Practice. > By JOHN P. LUNDY, Presbyter. 1 vol. demy 4to. Beautifully > printed on superior paper, with over 200 illustrations > throughout the text, and numerous large folding plates. Cloth, > gilt top, $7.50. Half morocco, extra, gilt top, $10.00. Full > morocco, extra, or tree calf, $15.00. > > This is a presentation of the facts and verities of Christianity from > the earliest monuments and contemporary literature. These include > the paintings, sculptures, sarcophagi, glasses, lamps, seal-rings, > and inscriptions of the Christian Catacombs and elsewhere, as well > as the mosaics of the earliest Christian churches. Many of these > monuments are evidently of Pagan origin, as are also the symbols; and > the author has drawn largely from the ancient religions of India, > Chaldea, Persia, Egypt, Etruria, Greece, and Rome, believing that > they all contained germs of religious truths which it is the province > of Christianity to preserve, develop, and embody in a purer system. > The Apostles’ Creed is exhibited, with its parallel or counterpart, > article by article, in the different systems thus brought under > review. > > The book is profusely illustrated, and many of the monuments > presented in facsimile were studied on the spot by the author, and > several are specimens obtained in foreign travel. This is one of > the most valuable contributions to ecclesiastical and archæological > literature. The revival of Oriental learning, both in Europe and > America, has created a demand for such publications, but no one has > occupied the field which Dr. Lundy has chosen. The Expositions which > he has made of the symbols and mysteries are thorough without being > exhaustive; and he has carefully excluded a world of collateral > matter, that the attention might not be diverted from the main object > of the work. Those who may not altogether adopt his conclusions will > nevertheless find the information which he has imparted most valuable > and interesting. > > “As a contribution to Church and general history, the exhaustive and > learned work of Dr. Lundy will be welcome to students and will take a > high place.”--_Church Journal._ > > “When, indeed, we say that from beginning to end this book will > certainly be found to possess a powerful interest to the careful > student, and that its influence for good cannot fail to be > considerable, we in nowise exaggerate its intrinsic merits. It is one > of the most valuable additions to our literature which the season has > produced.”--_New York Times._ > > The Epicurean; > > A Tale, and ALCIPHRON; a Poem. By THOMAS MOORE. With > vignette illustrations on steel, by J. M. W. TURNER, R.A. 1 > vol. 12mo. Handsomely printed on toned paper. Cloth, extra, > gilt top, $2.00. Tree calf extra, gilt edges, $4.50. > > “Our sense of the beauties of this tale may be appreciated by the > acknowledgment that for insight into human nature, for poetical > thought, for grace, refinement, intellect, pathos, and sublimity, > we prize the Epicurean even above any other of the author’s works. > Indeed, although written in prose, this is a masterly poem, and will > forever rank as one of the most exquisite productions in English > literature.”--_Literary Gazette._ > > The Turner Gallery, > > A SERIES OF SIXTY ENGRAVINGS, from the Works of J. M. W. > TURNER, R.A. With Biographical Sketch and Descriptive Text by > RALPH N. WORNUM, Keeper and Secretary of the National Gallery, > London. One volume, folio, INDIA PROOFS. Elegantly bound in > half Levant morocco, extra, gilt edges, $50.00. Full Levant > morocco, extra, very elegant, $75.00. > > ---- The same. Atlas folio. LARGE PAPER. _Artists’ Proofs._ > Half morocco, extra, $110.00. Full Levant morocco, extra, > $165.00 > > THE TURNER GALLERY is already so well known to lovers of > art and to students of Turner, that, in announcing a reissue > of a limited number of copies of this important National > Work, little need be said by way of comment or introduction. > The Original Engravings have, for the first time, been > employed, instead of the electrotype plates hitherto used, > thus _securing impressions of more genuineness and brilliancy > than have yet been offered to the public_. Of the high-class > character of the Engravings themselves, and of the skill and > excellence with which they are executed, such well-known names > as JEENS, ARMYTAGE, WILLMORE, E. GOODALL, BRANDARD, WALLIS, > COUSENS, and MILLER, will be a sufficient guarantee. > > _From the London Art Journal._ > > “A series of engravings from Turner’s finest pictures, and of a size > and equality commensurate with their importance, has not till now > been offered to the public. > > “In selecting the subjects, the publisher has chosen judiciously. > Many of his grandest productions are in this series of Engravings, > and the ablest landscape engravers of the day have been employed > on the plates, among which are some that, we feel assured, Turner > himself would have been delighted to see. These _proof impressions_ > constitute a volume of exceeding beauty, which deserves to find a > place in the library of every man of taste. The number of copies > printed is too limited for a wide circulation, but, on that account, > the rarity of the publication makes it the more valuable. > > “It is not too much to affirm, that a more beautiful and worthy > tribute to the genius of the great painter does not exist, and is > not likely to exist at any future time.” > > The attention of Collectors and Connoisseurs is particularly invited > to the above exceedingly choice volume; they should speedily avail > themselves of the opportunity of securing a copy at the low price at > which it is now offered. > > _AN ENTIRELY NEW WORK ON COSTUME BY M. RACINET, > AUTHOR OF “POLYCHROMATIC ORNAMENT,” ETC._ > > Le Costume Historique. > > _Illustrated with 500 Plates_, 300 of which are in Colors, > Gold and Silver, and 200 in Tinted Lithography (Camaïeu). > Executed in the finest style of the art, by Messrs. DIDOT & > CO., of Paris. Representing Authentic Examples of the Costumes > and Ornaments of all Times, among all Nations. With numerous > choice specimens of Furniture, Ornamental Metal Work, Glass, > Tiles, Textile Fabrics, Arms and Armor, Useful Domestic > Articles, Modes of Transport, etc. With explanatory Notices > and Historical Dissertations (in French). By M. A. RACINET, > author of “Polychromatic Ornament.” To be issued in 20 parts. > Small 4to (7½ × 8½ inches), $4.50 each. Folio, large paper > (11½ × 16 inches), in cloth portfolio, $9.00 each. > > _NO ORDERS RECEIVED EXCEPT FOR THE COMPLETE WORK._ > > Each part will contain 25 plates, 15 in colors and 10 in tinted > Lithography. Parts 1, 2, and 3 are now ready for delivery. Upon > completion of the work, the price will be raised 25 per cent. > > “The Messrs. Firmin Didot & Co., of Paris, a firm that disputes > with the house of Hachette & Co. the honor of supplying France > and the world with the most beautiful books at the cheapest rates > compatible with the greatest excellence in editing and ‘making,’ > have recently published the beginning of a work which, by making > its appeal chiefly to the eye, is sure of a welcome in this > picture-loving age of ours. This is the HISTORY OF COSTUME, by A. > Racinet, well-known already to that portion of our public which is > interested in the decorative art by his illustrated work on ornament. > _L’Ornement Polychrome._--Racinet gives the word ‘costume’ almost > as wide a sweep of meaning as Viollet-le-Duc gives to furniture > in his now famous _Dictionnaire du Mobilier_. * * * * The field > surveyed consists not only of costumes proper, but of arms, armor, > drinking vessels, objects used in the service of the church, modes > of transport, harness, head-gear and modes of dressing the hair, > domestic interiors, and furniture in the ordinary acceptation of > the term. Each plate is to be accompanied with an explanatory text, > and there will be added an historical study, so that little will > be wanting to make this one of the completest encyclopædias of the > sort that has ever appeared. * * * * A charming taste has presided > over the selection of the subject, and the abundant learning that > has been brought to bear in the collection of illustrations, from so > wide a field of human action, is made to seem like play, so lightly > is it handled. * * * * No scientific arrangement is observed in the > order in which the subjects are presented. We have ancient Egypt, > Assyria, Rome, Greece, India, Europe in the middle ages, and from > the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, Japan, Turkey, Syria, > Russia, and Poland, mixed up for the present, as if the work were > an illustrated report of a fancy ball; and, to most of us, the gay > parade as it rolls along is none the less pleasant for this want of > order.”--_Scribner’s Monthly._ > > “The name of Firmin Didot & Co., of Paris, is such a guarantee of > mechanical execution in a book, that it is sufficient to state > that _Le Costume Historique_ is fully on a par with any of the > former publications of this distinguished house. In addition to > its other features, this work has numerous illustrations, giving > restorations of Roman, Greek, and Egyptian interiors. In fact the > work is conceived on a large plan, and will be found most useful to > the artist. With such a book as a reference, some of the glaring > inconsistencies we still see from time to time on the stage, > where periods as to costume, some hundreds of years apart, are > terribly mixed up, might be prevented, and the unities saved. The > publishers have had the excellent idea of reducing the size of the > illustrations, so as to bring the price of this picture-cyclopædia > of the costume of the world within the means of the most prudent > book-buyer.”--_N. Y. Daily Times._ > > “A new work on costume, most expensive to the publishers and cheap to > the subscribers. Parts I., II., and III., with twenty-five pictures > in each, are ready. We have minutely examined them, and find them > worthy of great praise, both for general excellences of execution > and for the recondite and curious sources drawn upon--the latter > characteristic making the collector master of a great many pictorial > facts and illustrations whose original sources are hard even to see > and impossible to become possessed of.”--_Nation._ > > “This work is unquestionably the best work on its subject ever > offered to the public, and it will engage very general attention. In > shapeliness and convenience, too, it leaves nothing to be desired, > which cannot be said often of cyclopædias of costume. One can enjoy > the colors and contents of these ‘parts’ while lounging in a veranda > or rocking in a boudoir. It is not necessary to adjourn to a public > library and to an immovable chair.”--_Evening Post._ > > _NEW SERIES._ > > Examples of Modern Etching. > > A series of 20 _Choice Etchings_ by QUEROY, > BRUNET-DEBAINES, HAMERTON, GEORGE, BURTON, WISE, LEGROS, LE > RAT, SEYMOUR-HADEN, etc., etc., with descriptive text by P. G. > HAMERTON, folio, cloth gilt, $12.00. > > Edited, with notes, by PHILIP GILBERT HAMERTON, Editor > of the “_Portfolio_.” Twenty Plates, by Balfourier, Bodmer, > Bracquemond, Chattock, Flameng, Feyen-Perrin, Seymour Haden, > Hamerton, Hesseltine, Laguillermie, Lalanne, Legros, Lucas, > Palmer, Rajon, Veyrassat, etc. The text beautifully printed > on heavy paper. Folio, tastefully bound in cloth, full gilt, > $10.00. > > Among the contents of this choice volume, may be mentioned “_The > Laughing Portrait of Rembrandt_,” by Flameng; _Twickenham Church_, > by Seymour Haden; _Aged Spaniard_, by Legros; _The Hare--A Misty > Morning_, by Bracquemond; _The Thames at Richmond_, by Lalanne; _The > Ferryboat_, by Veyrassat, etc. > > ∵ A set of proofs of the plates in the above volume alone are worth > in the London market £10 10s. 0d., or seventy dollars currency. > > Etchings from the National Gallery. > > A series of eighteen choice plates by Flameng, Le Rat, > Rajon, Wise, Waltner, Brunet-Debaines, Gaucherel, Richeton, > etc., after the paintings by Masaccio, Bellini, Giorgione, > Moroni, Mantegna, Velasquez, Rembrandt, Cuyp, Maes, Hobbema, > Reynolds, Gainsborough, Turner, and Landseer, with Notes by > RALPH N. WORNUM (Keeper of the National Gallery). The text > handsomely printed on heavy paper. Folio, tastefully bound in > cloth, full gilt, $10.00. > > To admirers of Etchings, the present volume offers several of the > most notable of recently executed plates, among others the _Portrait > of Rembrandt_, by Waltner; _The Parish Clerk_, after Gainsborough, > by the same etcher; _The Burial of Wilkie_, after Turner, by > Brunet-Debaines; _Portrait of a Youth_, after Masaccio, by Léopold > Flameng, etc. > > French Artists of the Present Day. > > A series of twelve fac-simile engravings, after pictures > by Gérome, Rosa Bonheur, Corot, Pierre Billet, Legros, > Ch. Jacque, Veyrassat, Hébert, Jules Breton, etc., with > Biographical Notices by René Ménard. Folio, tastefully bound > in cloth, gilt, $10.00. > > Chapters on Painting. > > By RENÉ MÉNARD (Editor of “Gazette des Beaux-Arts”). > Translated under the superintendence of Philip Gilbert > Hamerton. Illustrated with a series of forty superb etchings, > by Flameng, Coutry, Masson, Le Rat, Jacquemart, Chauvel, etc., > the text beautifully printed by Claye, of Paris. Royal 4to, > paper, uncut, $25.00. Half polished levant mor., gilt top, > $30.00. > > Ancient Art and Mythology. > > The Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology. > An Inquiry. By RICHARD PAYNE KNIGHT, author of “Worship of > Priapus.” A new edition, with Introduction, Notes translated > into English, and a new and complete Index. By ALEXANDER > WILDER, M.D. 1 vol. 8vo, cloth, handsomely printed, $3.00. > > “Not only do these explanations afford a key to the religion and > mythology of the ancients, but they also enable a more thorough > understanding of the canons and principles of art. It is well > known that the latter was closely allied to the other; so that the > symbolism of which the religious emblems and furniture consisted > likewise constituted the essentials of architectural style and > decoration, textile embellishments, as well as the arts of sculpture, > painting, and engraving. Mr. Knight has treated the subject with > rare erudition and ingenuity, and with such success that the labor > of those who come after him rather add to the results of his > investigations than replace them in important particulars. The labors > of Champollion, Bunsen, Layard, Bonomi, the Rawlinsons, and others, > comprise his deductions so remarkably as to dissipate whatever of his > assertions that appeared fanciful. Not only are the writings of Greek > and Roman authors now more easy to comprehend, but additional light > has been afforded to a correct understanding of the canon of the Holy > Scripture.”--_Extract from Editor’s Preface._ > > A SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME TO “ANCIENT FAITHS.” > > Ancient Faiths and Modern. > > A Dissertation upon Worships, Legends, and Divinities in > Central and Western Asia, Europe, and Elsewhere, before the > Christian Era. Showing their Relations to Religious Customs > as they now exist. By THOMAS INMAN, M.D., author of “Ancient > Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names,” etc., etc. 1 vol. 8vo, > cloth, $5.00. > > This work is most aptly expressed by the title, and the author, who > is one of our most learned and accomplished modern writers, has > done ample justice to his subject. He pries boldly into Bluebeard’s > closet, little recking whether he shall find a ghost, skeleton, or > a living being; and he tells us very bluntly and explicitly what > he has witnessed. Several years since he gave to the learned world > his treatise on _Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names_, in > which were disclosed the ideas underlying the old-world religions, > and the nature of hieroglyphical symbols employed in the East. The > present volume complements that work, elaborates more perfectly the > ideas there set forth, and traces their relations to the faiths, > worship, and religious dogmas of modern time. We are astonished to > find resemblances where it would be supposed that none would exist, > betraying either a similar origin or analogous modes of thinking and > reasoning among nations and peoples widely apart in race, country, > and period of history. The author is bold and often strong in his > expressions, from the intensity of his convictions, but this serves > to deepen the interest in his subject. Those who have read his former > works with advantage will greet this volume with a cordial welcome; > and all who desire to understand the original religions of mankind, > the ideas which lie back of the revelations of Holy Scripture, and > particularly, those who are not easily shocked when they come in > contact with sentiments with which they have not been familiar, will > find this book full of entertainment as well as of instruction. Dr. > Inman is working up a new mine of thought, and the lover of knowledge > will give his labor a welcome which few of our modern authors receive. > > Wheeler’s India. > > History of India. By J. TALBOYS WHEELER, Assistant > Secretary to the Government of India, in the Foreign > Department, Secretary of the Record Commission, Author of the > “Geography of Herodotus.” > > The Ramayana and the Brahmanic Period. 8vo, cloth, pp. > lxxxviii. and 680, with two maps. $6.00. > > Hindu, Buddhist, Brahmanical Revival. 8vo, cloth, pp. 484, > with two maps, cloth. $5.00. > > Under Mussulman Rule. (Vol. IV.), 8vo, $4.50. > > Dr. Inman’s Ancient Faiths. > > Embodied in Ancient Names; or, an Attempt to trace the > Religious Belief, Sacred Rites, and Holy Emblems of certain > Nations, by an Interpretation of the Names given to Children > by Priestly Authority, or assumed by Prophets, Kings, and > Hierarchs. By THOMAS INMAN, M.D. Profusely illustrated with > Engravings on Wood. 2 vols., 8vo, cloth, $20.00. > > “Dr. Inman’s present attempt to trace the religious belief, sacred > rites, and holy emblems of certain nations, has opened up to him > many hitherto unexplored fields of research, or, at least, fields > that have not been over-cultivated, and the result is a most curious > and miscellaneous harvest of facts. The ideas on priapism developed > in a former volume receive further extension in this. Dr. Inman, as > will be seen, does not fear to touch subjects usually considered > sacred in an independent manner, and some of the results at which he > has arrived are such as will undoubtedly startle, if not shock, the > orthodox. But this is what the author expects, and for this he has > thoroughly prepared himself. In illustration of his peculiar views > he has ransacked a vast variety of historical storehouses, and with > great trouble and at a considerable cost, he places the conclusions > at which he has arrived before the world. With the arguments > employed, the majority of readers will, we expect, disagree; even > when the facts adduced will remain undisputed, their application is > frequently inconsequent. In showing the absurdity of a narrative or > an event in which he disbelieves, the Doctor is powerful. No expense > has been spared on the work, which is well and fully illustrated, and > contains a good index.”--_Bookseller._ > > NEW ILLUSTRATED EDITION. > > Ancient Symbol Worship. > > Influence of the Phallic Idea in the Religions of > Antiquity. By HODDER M. WESTROPP and C. STANILAND WAKE. With > an Introduction, additional Notes, and Appendix, by ALEXANDER > WILDER, M.D. New Edition, with eleven full-page Illustrations. > 1 vol. 8vo, cloth, $3.00. > > The favor with which this treatise has been received has induced the > publisher to bring out a new edition. It makes a valuable addition > to our knowledge, enabling us to acquire a more accurate perception > of the ancient-world religions. We may now understand Phallism, not > as a subject of ribaldry and leering pruriency, but as a matter of > veneration and respect. The Biblical student, desirous to understand > the nature and character of the idolatry of the Israelites during the > Commonwealth and Monarchy, the missionary to heathen lands fitting > for his work, and the classic scholar endeavoring to comprehend > the ideas and principles which underlie Mythology, will find their > curiosity gratified; and they will be enabled at the same time to > perceive how not only many of our modern systems of religion, but our > arts and architecture, are to be traced to the same archaic source. > The books examined and quoted by the authors constitute a library > by themselves, and their writers are among the ripest scholars of > their time. Science is rending asunder the veil that conceals the > adytum of every temple, and revealing to men the sanctities revered > so confidingly during the world’s childhood. With these disclosures, > there may be somewhat of the awe removed with which we have regarded > the symbols, mysteries, and usages of that period; but the true mind > will not be vulgarized by the spectacle. > > The Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries. > > A Dissertation, by THOMAS TAYLOR, Translator of “Plato,” > “Plotinus,” “Porphyry,” “Iamblichus,” “Proclus,” “Aristotle,” > etc., etc. Third edition. Edited, with Introduction, Notes, > Emendations, and Glossary, by ALEXANDER WILDER, M.D. 1 vol. > 8vo, cloth, $3.00. > > In the Mysteries, the dramas acted at Eleusis and other sacred > places, were embodied the deeper thoughts and religious sentiment > of the archaic world. The men and women initiated into them were > believed to be thenceforth under special care of God, for this life > and the future. So holy and interior were the doctrines considered > which had been learned in the Sanctuary from the two tablets of > stone, that it was not lawful to utter them to another. What was > seen and learned elsewhere might be admirable; but the exercises of > Eleusis and Olympia had in them the something divine, and those who > observed them were “the children of God,” and imaging Him in wisdom, > intuitive discernment, and love. > > The reader desirous of getting the kernel of the doctrines of Plato, > Orpheus, Eumolpas, and their fellow-laborers, as well as of the > Alexandrian Eclectics, will obtain invaluable aid from this treatise. > > _NOW OFFERED AT GREATLY REDUCED PRICES._ > > Pearson’s Reprints of the Old Dramatists. > > Being fac-simile reprints of the entire text of each > author, without note or comment, with Life and Memoir. > Handsomely printed on ribbed paper, made expressly for the > purpose, and bound in antique boards, uncut edges, in exact > imitation of the rare originals. > > Comprising the following: > > MRS. BEHN’S PLAYS, HISTORIES AND NOVELS. 6 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ “ 6 vols. 8vo, > Large Paper. > > MRS. CENTLIVRE’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 3 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ 8vo, > Large Paper. > > RICHARD BROME’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 3 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ 8vo, > Large Paper. > > GEORGE CHAPMAN’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 3 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ 8vo, > Large Paper. > > THOMAS DEKKER’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 4 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ 8vo, > Large Paper. > > THOMAS HEYWOOD’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 6 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ 8vo, > Large Paper. > > HENRY GLAPTHORNE’S PLAYS AND POEMS. 2 vols. 12mo, > “ “ “ “ “ 8vo, > Large Paper. > > Together, 27 vols. 12mo, $54.00, or on large and thick > paper, 27 vols. 8vo, $108.00. > > The balance of the edition of these reprints having been recently > “sold off” in London, I am now enabled to offer them at the above > greatly reduced prices, for a brief period only. Several of the > authors being already out of print, the time is not far distant when > it will be impossible to procure complete sets, and collectors will > do well to secure them while they have the opportunity. > > Antiquities of Long Island. > > By GABRIEL FURMAN. With a Bibliography by Henry Onderdonk, > Jr. To which is added Notes, Geographical and Historical, > relating to the town of Brooklyn, in Kings County, on Long > Island. 1 vol. large 12mo, cloth, $3.00. > > Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism. > > By THOMAS INMAN, M.D., author of “Ancient Faiths Embodied > in Ancient Names,” etc. Second edition, revised and enlarged, > with an Essay on Baal Worship, on “the Assyrian Sacred Grove,” > and other allied symbols. By JOHN NEWTON, M.R.C.S.E., etc. > Profusely illustrated. 1 vol. cloth, $3.00. > > This book contains in a nutshell the essence of Dr. Inman’s other > publications, and for the reader of limited means is just what he > requires. The subject of symbolism is as deep as human thought and > as broad in its scope as humanity itself. The erudite thinker finds > it not only worthy of his best energies, but capable of taxing them > to the utmost. Many pens have been employed upon it, and it has > never grown old. Dr. Inman’s views are somewhat peculiar; he has > concentrated his attention to the ideas which he believes to underlie > the symbolism of the most ancient periods, and can be traced through > the autonomy of the Christian Church. He finds the relation which > exists, and the antiquarian likewise, between Asshur and Jehovah, the > Baal of Syria and the God whom Christians worship; and the mysteries > of the Sacred Grove, of which the Old Testament says so much, are > unfolded and made sensible to the common intellect. Scholars will > welcome this volume, and the religious reader will peruse its pages > with the profoundest interest. The symbols which characterize worship > constitute a study which will never lose its interest, so long as > learning and art have admirers. > > The Lost Beauties of the English Language. > > An Appeal to Authors, Poets, Clergymen, and Public > Speakers. By CHAS. MACKAY, LL.D. 1 vol. 12mo, cloth extra, > $1.75. > > Words change as well as men, sometimes from no longer meeting the new > wants of the people, but oftener from the attraction of novelty which > impels everybody to change. A dictionary of obsolete words, and terms > becoming obsolete, is a valuable reminder of the treasures which we > are parting with; not always wisely, for in them are comprised a > wealth of expression, idiom, and even history, which the new words > cannot acquire. Dr. Mackay has placed a host of such on record, > with quotations to illustrate how they were read by the classical > writers of the English language, not many centuries ago, and enables > us to read those authors more understandingly. If he could induce > us to recall some of them back to life, it would be a great boon to > literature; but hard as it might have been for Cæsar to add a new > word to his native Latin language, it would have been infinitely more > difficult to resuscitate an obsolete one, however more expressive > and desirable. Many of the terms embalmed in this treatise are not > dead as yet: and others of them belong to that prolific department of > our spoken language that does not get into dictionaries. But we all > need to know them; and they really are more homogeneous to our people > than their successors, the stilted foreign-born and alien English, > that “the Best” is laboring to naturalize into our language. The old > words, like old shoes and well-worn apparel, sit most comfortably. > > Fu-Sang; > > Or, the Discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist Priests > in the Fifth Century. Containing a Translation of Professor > Carl Neumann’s work on the subject, made under supervision of > the Author; a letter by Colonel Barclay Kennon, late of the > U. S. North Coast Pacific Survey, on the Possibility of an > Easy Passage from China to California; and a Résumé of the > Arguments of De Guigues, Klaproth, Gustave D’Eichthal, and > Dr. Bretschneider on the Narrative of Hoei-Shin, with other > Contributions and Comments, by CHARLES G. LELAND, 1 vol. 12mo, > cloth, $1.75. > > FRANCE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. > > Lacroix. > > (BIBLIOPHILE JACOB) XVIIIᵐᵉ SIÈCLE, INSTITUTIONS, USAGES, > ET COSTUMES, France, 1700-1789. Illustrated with twenty-one > large and beautifully executed chromo-lithographs, and upwards > of three hundred and fifty engravings on wood after Watteau, > Vanloo, Boucher, Lancret, Chardin, Bouchardin, Saint-Aubin, > Eisen, Moreau, etc. 1 vol. thick Imperial 8vo, half red > morocco, extra gilt leaves, $13.50. > > ----The same, full crimson Levant super-extra, $22.50. > > The title of this new work, by the indefatigable Paul Lacroix, > conveys but an indifferent idea of its contents. It is admirably > gotten up, and is illustrated in a most profuse manner, equalling, > if not excelling, the former works of the same author, giving us a > living picture of the 18th century--the king, nobility, bourgeoisie, > people, parliaments, clergy, army and navy, commerce, education, > police, etc., Paris, its pleasures, promenades, fêtes, salons, > cuisine, theatres, costumes, etc., etc. > > A NEW WORK ON CHRISTIAN ART. > > Jésus-Christ. > > Attendu, vivant, continué, dans le monde, par LOUIS > VEUILLOT, avec une étude sur l’Art Chrétien par E. CARTIER. > 16 large and beautifully executed chromo-lithographs, and 200 > engravings, etchings, and woodcuts, from the most celebrated > monuments, from the period of the Catacombs to the present > day. Thick Imp. 8vo, new half morocco extra, gilt leaves, > $13.50. > > ----The same, printed on large Holland paper. Imp. 8vo, > half polished Levant morocco, gilt top, $22.50. > > This elegant work is uniform in style and illustration with the > works of Paul Lacroix, by the same house. The illustrations (which > were prepared under the direction of M. Dumoulin), are of the most > attractive character, and present a chronological view of Christian > art. The exquisite series of chromos are from pictures by Giotto, > Ghirlandajo, Andrea del Sarto, Raphael, Fra Bartolommeo-Angelico, > Sacchi di Pavia, Flandrin, and a head of Christ from the Catacombs, > Fac-similes, by Armand, Durand, from rare etchings by Marc Antonio, > Dürer, etc., also a reduction from Prevost, plate of the wedding at > Cana, after Paul Veronese, and nearly 200 charming engravings on wood. > > UNIFORM WITH THE WORKS OF PAUL LACROIX. > > Jeanne D’Arc. > > Par H. WALLON (Secrétaire de l’Académie des Inscriptions et > Belles-Lettres). Beautifully printed on heavy vellum paper, > and illustrated with 14 CHROMO-LITHOGRAPHIC PLATES, and one > hundred and fifty fine engravings on wood after monuments of > art, fac-similes, etc., etc. 1 large volume, thick royal 8vo, > half red morocco, full gilt, gilt edges, $13.50. Full polished > morocco extra, $22.50. > > Contents: An account of the arms and military dresses of the period, > accompanied by descriptive figures taken from the seals of the > Archives; a map of feudal France, by M. Aug. Longnon, a new work > of the highest importance to the history of the 15th century; a > study of the worship shown to Joan of Arc in the French and Foreign > literatures (it is known that during the lifetime of Joan, her > wonderful mission was represented on the stage); fac-similes of > letters of Joan, etc., etc. > > Dramatists of the Restoration. > > Beautifully printed on superior paper, to range with > Pickering’s edition of Webster, Peele, Marlowe, etc. As the > text of most of these authors has, in later editions, been > either imperfectly or corruptly dealt with, the several Plays > have been presented in an unmutilated form, and carefully > collated with the earliest and best editions. > > Biographical Notices and brief Notes accompany the works of each > author. The series has been entrusted to the joint editorial care of > JAMES MAIDMENT and W. H. LOGAN. It comprises the following authors: > > SIR WILLIAM DAVENANT’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 5 vols. > JOHN CROWNE’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 4 vols. > SIR ASTON COKAIN’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 1 vol. > JOHN WILSON’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 1 vol. > JOHN LACY’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 1 vol. > SHAKERLEY MARMION’S DRAMATIC WORKS. 1 vol. > > Together, 13 vols. post 8vo, white vellum cloth, $50.00. > Large paper, 13 vols. 8vo, $75.00. Whatman’s drawing paper > (only thirty copies printed), $110.00. > > The First Edition of Shakespeare. > > Mr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S Comedies, Histories, and > Tragedies. Published according to the True Original Copies. > London. Printed by ISAAC IAGGARD and ED. BLOUNT. 1623. An > exact reproduction of the extremely rare original, in reduced > fac-simile by a photographic process, ensuring the strictest > accuracy in every detail. Post 8vo, half mor., gilt top, $3.00. > > “A complete fac-simile of the celebrated First Folio edition of 1623 > for half-a-guinea is at once a miracle of cheapness and enterprise. > Being in a reduced form, the type is necessarily rather diminutive, > but it is as distinct as in a genuine copy of the original, > and will be found to be as useful, and far more handy to the > student.”--_Athenæum._ > > The Violin. > > Its famous makers and their imitators. By GEORGE HART. In > the above-mentioned work the author treats of the Origin, > History, Development of this, the greatest of musical > instruments, and gives interesting details concerning those > ingenious makers who brought it to its present state of > perfection. > > It is illustrated by upwards of forty first-class Wood > Engravings from Photographs, which represent the exact > Outlines and Proportions of the masterpieces of ANTONIUS > STRADIUARIUS, AMATI, BERGONZI, and others, including the > celebrated violin by JOSEPH GUARNERIUS, on which PAGANINI > achieved his marvellous success. 1 vol. post 8vo, cloth, $4.00. > > The same. Large Paper. Demy 4to, cloth, $8.00. > > A SUPERB SERIES OF ETCHINGS. > > The Wilson Collection. > > Collection de M. John W. Wilson. Exposée dans la Galerie du > Cercle Artistique et Littéraire de Bruxelles, au profit des > pauvres de cette Ville. Troisième édition. Handsomely printed > on heavy paper, and illustrated with a series of 68 large and > most exquisitely executed etchings, from the most remarkable > pictures in this celebrated collection. FINE IMPRESSIONS. > Thick royal 4to, paper, uncut, $25.00; or in half morocco, > gilt tops, uncut, $30.00. > > ∵ Already out of print and scarce. > > This charming catalogue was gotten up at the expense of the generous > owner of the collection, and the money received from its sale donated > to the fund for the relief of the poor of the city. The edition > consisted of 1,000 copies. It was immediately exhausted. > > The Catalogue is a model of its kind. The notices are in most > instances accompanied with a fac-simile of the artist’s signature > to the picture; a biographical sketch of the artist; notices of the > engraved examples, if any; and critical notes on each picture. > > The graphic department is, however, the great feature of this > Catalogue, embracing, as it does, upwards of sixty examples of the > best etchers of the present day, including Greux, Chauvel, Martial, > Rajon, Gaucherel, Jacquemart, Hédouin, Lemaire, Duclos, Masson, > Flameng, Lalanne, Gilbert, etc., etc. > > Dürer’s “Little Passion.” > > Passio Christi. A complete set of the Thirty-seven > Woodcuts, by Albert Dürer. Reproduced in fac-simile. Edited by > W. C. Prime. One volume, Royal 4to (13 × 10½ inches). Printed > on heavy glazed paper, half vellum, $10.00. Morocco antique, > $15.00. > > The Little Passion of Albert Dürer, consisting of thirty-seven > woodcuts, has long been regarded as one of the most remarkable > collections of illustrations known to the world. Complete sets of > the entire series are excessively rare. The editions which have been > published in modern times in Europe are defective, lacking more or > less of the Plates, and are of an inferior and unsatisfactory class > of workmanship. > > Æsop’s Fables. > > With 56 illustrations, from designs by Henry L. Stephens. > Royal 4to, cloth extra, gilt leaves, $10.00. > > Mr. Stephens has no superior in the peculiar style of illustration > which is most effective in bringing out the spirit of Æsop’s Fables, > and in this volume he has given us fifty-six full page cartoons, > brimming with droll humor, reciting the Fables over again, and > enforcing their morals just as effectively as was done by the words > of Æsop himself. The illustrations are among the finest specimens of > art ever produced in this country, and the volume as a whole is most > creditable to American artistic skill. > > Boccaccio’s Decameron; > > Or, Ten Days’ Entertainment. Now fully translated into > English, with Introduction by THOMAS WRIGHT, Esq., M.A., > F.S.A. Illustrated by STOTHARD’S Engravings on Steel, and the > 12 unique plates from the rare Milan Edition. One volume, > thick 12mo, cloth extra, $3.50, or handsomely bound in half > polished Levant morocco, gilt top, $5.50. > > The most complete translation, containing many passages not hitherto > translated into English. > > Bell’s Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression, > > As connected with the Fine Arts. Profusely illustrated > Royal 8vo, cloth, uncut, $4.50. > > Tom D’Urfey’s “Pills to Purge Melancholy.” > > Being a collection of Merry Ballads and Songs, old and new, > fitted to all humors, having each its proper tune for voice > and instrument. An exact and beautiful reprint of this very > scarce work. Small paper, 6 vols., crown 8vo, bds., uncut, > $15.00. Large paper, 6 vols. crown 4to. Only a few printed. > Bds., uncut, $24.00. > > “But what obtained Mr. D’Urfey his greatest reputation was a > peculiarly happy knack he possessed in the writing of satires and > irregular odes. Many of these were upon temporary occasions, and were > of no little service to the party in whose cause he wrote; which, > together with his natural vivacity and good humor, obtained him > the favor of great numbers, of all ranks and conditions, monarchs > themselves not excluded. He was strongly attached to the Tory > interest, and in the latter part of Queen Anne’s reign had frequently > the honor of diverting that princess with witty catches and songs > of humor suited to the spirit of the times, written by himself, and > which he sang in a lively and entertaining manner. And the author of > the Guardian, who, in No. 67. has given a very humorous account of > Mr. D’Urfey, with a view to recommend him to the public notice for a > benefit play, tells us that he remembered King Charles II. leaning on > Tom D’Urfey’s shoulder more than once, and humming over a song with > him. > > “He appears to have been a diverting companion, and a cheerful, > honest, good-natured man; so that he was the delight of the most > polite companies in conversations, from the beginning of Charles > II.’s to the latter part of King George I.’s reign; and many an > honest gentleman got a reputation in his country by pretending to > have been in company with Tom D’Urfey.”--_Chalmers._ > > UNIFORM WITH “TOM D’URFEY’S PILLS.” > > Musarum Deliciæ; > > Or, The Muses’ Recreation, 1656; Wit Restor’d, 1658; and > Wit’s Recreation, 1640. The whole compared with the originals; > with all the Wood Engravings, Plates, Memoirs, and Notes. A > new edition, in 2 volumes, post 8vo, beautifully printed on > antique laid paper, and bound in antique boards, $4.00. > > A FEW LARGE PAPER COPIES have been prepared. 2 vols. 4to, > $7.50. > > ∵ Of the Poets of the Restoration, there are none whose works are > more rare than those of Sir John Mennis and Dr. James Smith. The > small volume entitled “Musarum Deliciæ; or, The Muses’ Recreation,” > which contains the production of these two friends, was not > accessible to Mr. Freeman when he compiled his “Kentish Poets,” and > has since become so rare that it is only found in the cabinets of the > curious. A reprint of the “Musarum Deliciæ,” together with several > other kindred pieces of the period, appeared in 1817, forming two > volumes of Facetiæ, edited by Mr. E. Dubois, author of “The Wreath,” > etc. These volumes having in turn become exceedingly scarce, the > Publishers venture to put forth the present new edition, in which, > while nothing has been omitted, no pains have been spared to render > it more complete and elegant than any that has yet appeared. The > type, plates, and woodcuts of the originals have been accurately > followed; the Notes of the editor of 1817 are considerably augmented, > and indexes have been added, together with a portrait of Sir John > Mennis, from a painting by Vandyke in Lord Clarendon’s Collection. > > The Story of the Stick > > In all Ages and all Lands. A Philosophical History and > Lively Chronicle of the Stick as the Friend and Foe of Man. > Its Uses and Abuses. As Sceptre and as Crook. As the Warrior’s > Weapon, and the Wizard’s Wand. As Stay, as Stimulus, and as > Scourge. Translated and adapted from the French of ANTONY RÉAL > (Fernand Michel). 1 vol., 12mo, extra cloth, red edges, $1.50. > > “Wrought for a Staff, wrought for a Rod.” > SWINBURNE.--_Atalanta in Calydon._ > > The above work condenses in a lively narrative form a most > astonishing mass of curious and recondite information in regard to > the subject of which it treats. From the bludgeon of Cain to the > truncheon of the Marshals of France, from the budding rod of Aaron > to the blazing cane of M. de Balzac, the stick, in all its relations > with man since first he meddled with the Tree of Knowledge of Good > and Evil, is shown here to have played a far greater part in history > than is commonly imagined. It has been the instrument of justice, > it has been the tool also of luxury. It has ministered to man, its > maker, pleasure as well as pain, and has served for his support as > well as for his subjugation. The mysteries in which it has figured > are some of them revealed and others of them hinted in these most > entertaining and instructive pages, for between the days of the > society of Assassins in the East and those of the society of the > Aphrodites in the West, the Stick has been made the pivot of many > secret associations, all of them interesting to the student of human > morals, but not all of them wisely to be treated of before the > general public. The late Mr. Buckle especially collected on this > subject some most astounding particulars of social history, which > he did not live to handle in his own inimitable way, but of which > an adequate inkling is here afforded to the serious and intelligent > reader. > > OUR EMIGRANT ANCESTORS. > > Original Lists of Persons of Quality. > > Emigrants; Religious Exiles; Political Rebels; Serving-men > Sold for a Term of Years; Apprentices; Children Stolen; > Maidens Pressed; and others who went from Great Britain to > the American Plantations, 1600-1700. With their Ages, the > Localities where they formerly Lived in the Mother Country, > Names of the Ships in which they embarked, and other > interesting particulars. From MSS. preserved in the State > Paper Department of Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, > England. Edited by JOHN CAMDEN HOTTEN. A very handsome volume, > crown 4to, 700 pages, elegantly bound in half Roxburghe > morocco, gilt top, $10.00. > > A few Large Paper copies have been printed, small folio, > $17.50. > > Blake’s (Wm.) Marriage of Heaven and Hell: > > A reproduction and facsimile of this marvelous work, > printed in colors, on paper made expressly for the work. 4to, > hf. Roxburghe morocco, uncut, $10.00. 1790 (1868). > > ∵ _A very few copies remaining._ > > “The most curious and significant, while it is certainly the most > daring in conception and gorgeous in illustration of all Blake’s > works.”--_Gilchrist’s Life of Blake._ > > A NEW AND ATTRACTIVE BOOK ON MEXICO > > A Peep at Mexico: > > Narrative of a Journey Across the Republic, from the > Pacific to the Gulf, in December, 1873, and January, 1874. By > J. L. GEIGER, F.R.G.S. Demy 8vo, pp. 368, with 4 Maps and 45 > original Photographs. Cloth, $8.50. > > The English Rogue. > > Described in the Life of MERITON LATROON, and other > Extravagants, comprehending the most Eminent Cheats of both > Sexes. By RICHARD HEAD and FRANCIS KIRKMAN. A fac-simile > reprint of the rare Original Edition (1665-1672), with > Frontispiece, Fac-similes of the 12 copper-plates, and > Portraits of the authors. In Four Volumes, post 8vo, > beautifully printed on antique laid paper, made expressly, and > bound in antique boards, $6.00, or LARGE PAPER COPIES, 4 vols. > 8vo, $10.00. > > ∵ This singularly entertaining work may be described as the first > English novel, properly so-called. The same air of reality pervades > it as that which gives such a charm to stories written by DeFoe half > a century later. The interest never flags for a moment, from the > first chapter to the last. > > As a picture of the manners of the period, two hundred years ago, > in England, among the various grades of society through which the > hero passes in the course of his extraordinary adventures, and among > gypsies, beggars, thieves, etc., the book is invaluable to students. > > The Rump; > > Or, An Exact Collection of the choicest POEMS and SONGS > relating to the late Times, and continued by the most eminent > Wits; from Anno 1639 to 1661. A Fac-simile Reprint of the > rare Original edition (London, 1662), with Frontispiece and > Engraved Title-page. In 2 vols. post 8vo, printed on antique > laid paper, and bound in antique boards, $4.00; or Large Paper > Copies, $6.00. > > ∵ A very rare and extraordinary collection of some two hundred > Popular Ballads and Cavalier Songs, on all the principal incidents > of the great Civil War, the Trial of Strafford, the Martyrdom of > King Charles, the Commonwealth, Cromwell, Pym, the Roundheads, etc. > It was from such materials that Lord Macaulay was enabled to produce > his vivid pictures of England in the sixteenth century. To historical > students and antiquaries, and to the general reader, these volumes > will be found full of interest. > > Westminster Drolleries. > > Ebsworth’s (J. Woodfall) Westminster Drolleries, with an > introduction on the Literature of the Drolleries, and Copious > Notes, Illustrations, and Emendations of Text. 2 vols. 12mo, > cloth, uncut, $8.00. Boston (Eng.), 1875. > > ∵ _Only a small_ Edition; privately printed. > > Swinburne’s William Blake; > > A Critical Essay. With Illustrations from Blake’s Designs > in Fac-simile, some colored. 8vo, cloth, $3.00. > > A valuable contribution to our knowledge of a most remarkable man, > whose originality and genius are now beginning to be generally > recognized. > > Holbein and His Times. > > By DR. ALFRED WOLTMANN, translated by F. A. BUNNETT. With > portraits and nearly 60 fine engravings from the works of this > wonderful artist. Royal 8vo, cloth extra, _gilt leaves_, $5.00. > > Memoir of the Lady Ana De Osorio, > > Countess of Chinchon, and Vice-Queen of Peru, A.D. 1629-39. > With a Plea for the Correct Spelling of the Chinchona Genus. > By CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, C.B., Member of the Imperial Academy > Naturæ Curiosorum, with the Cognomen of CHINCHON. Small 4to, > with Illustrations, $7.50. > > FOUNDERS OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. > > Lives of the Founders, Augmenters, and other Benefactors of the British > Museum. > > 1570 to 1870. Based on new researches at the Rolls House; > in the Department of MSS. of the British Museum; in the Privy > Council Office, and in other Collections, Public and Private. > By EDWARD EDWARDS. 1 vol. 8vo, large and beautiful type, > cloth, $4.00. LARGE PAPER, ROYAL 8vo (only 60 copies printed), > cloth, $10.00. > > ∵ _By a special arrangement with the English publishers, Messrs. > Trübner & Co., the above is offered at the greatly reduced price > mentioned._ > > Legge’s Chinese Classics. > > Translated into English, with Preliminary Essays and > Explanatory Notes. Vol. I., THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF > CONFUCIUS. Vol. II., THE LIFE AND WORKS OF MENCIUS. Vol. III., > THE SHE KING; OR, THE BOOK OF POETRY. Together 3 vols. 8vo, > cloth, $10.00. > > Diary of the American Revolution. > > By FRANK MOORE, from Newspapers and Original Documents. > Handsomely printed on heavy laid paper, and Illustrated with > a fine series of steel-plate portraits, INDIA PROOFS. 2 vols. > impl. 8vo, paper uncut, $8.00. New York, printed privately, > 1865. > > ∴ Large Paper. Only a Limited Impression. Published at $20.00 per copy. > > Littré’s French Dictionary. > > Dictionnaire de la Langue Française. Par E. LITTRÉ, de > l’Institut (Académie Française et Académie des Inscriptions > et Belles-Lettres). Four large vols. royal quarto, new half > morocco, $40.00. > > “No language that we have ever studied, or attempted to study, > possesses a Dictionary so rich in the history of words as this > great work which M. Littré has fortunately lived long enough to > complete.”--_Saturday Review._ > > UNIFORM WITH THE LARGE FOLIO SHAKSPEARE EDITED BY > THE SAME AUTHOR. > > Halliwell’s New Place. > > An Historical Account of the New Place, > Stratford-upon-Avon, the last residence of Shakspeare. Folio, > cloth (uniform in size with the edition of Shakspeare’s Works > edited by the Author), elegantly printed on super-fine paper, > and illustrated by upwards of sixty woodcuts, comprising > views, antiquities, fac-similes of deeds, etc. By JAMES O. > HALLIWELL, F.R.S. $10.00. > > This is a most important work for the Shakspearian student. The > great researches of the author have enabled him to bring to light > many facts hitherto unknown in reference to the “great bard.” All > the documents possessing any real claim to importance are inserted > at full length, and many of them are now printed for the first time. > With respect to the illustrations, which have been executed by J. T. > Blight, Esq., F. W. Fairholt, Esq., E. W. Ashbee, Esq., and J. H. > Rimbault, Esq., no endeavors have been spared to attain the strictest > accuracy. > > _REISSUE OF CRUIKSHANK’S ETCHINGS._ > > Cruikshank’s Illustrations of Time. > > A series of 35 Etchings. By GEORGE CRUIKSHANK. Oblong > quarto, paper, carefully printed from the original plates. > $2.00. 1874 > ----The Same. COLORED. $3.00. 1874 > > Cruikshank’s Phrenological Illustrations; > > or, An Artist’s View of the Craniological System of > Doctors Gall and Spurzheim. By GEORGE CRUIKSHANK. A series > of _33 Etchings, illustrative of the various Organs of the > Brain_. Oblong quarto, paper, $2.00. > ----The Same. COLORED. $3.00. > > ∵ This reissue, of which only a limited impression has been made, is > printed from the original coppers. > > “Have we not before us, at this very moment, a print--one of the > admirable ‘_Illustrations of Phrenology_’--which entire work was > purchased by a joint-stock company of boys--each drawing lots > afterwards for the separate prints, and taking his choice in > rotation? The writer of this, too, had the honor of drawing the first > lot, and seized immediately upon ‘Philoprogenitiveness’--a marvellous > print, indeed--full of ingenuity and fine, jovial humor.”--WM. M. > THACKERAY. > > SEVEN GENERATIONS OF EXECUTIONERS. > > Memoirs of the Sanson Family. > > Compiled from Private Documents in the possession of the > Family (1688 to 1847), by HENRI SANSON. Translated from the > French, with an Introduction by CAMILLE BARRÈRE. Two vols. > post 8vo, cloth, $5.50; or half calf, extra, $7.50. > > “A faithful translation of this curious work, which will certainly > repay perusal, not on the ground of its being full of horrors--for > the original author seems to be rather ashamed of the technical > aspect of his profession, and is commendably reticent as to its > details--but because it contains a lucid account of the most notable > _causes célèbres_ from the time of Louis XIV. to a period within the > memory of persons still living.... The memoirs, if not particularly > instructive, can scarcely fail to be extremely entertaining.”--_Daily > Telegraph._ > > “A book of great though somewhat ghastly interest.... Something much > above a mere chapter of horrors.”--_Graphic._ > > Avesta. > > THE RELIGIOUS BOOKS OF THE PARSEES. From Professor > SPIEGEL’S German Translation of the Original Manuscripts, by > A. H. BLEECK. 3 vols. in 1, 8vo, cloth, $7.50. > > English scholars who wish to become acquainted with the “Bible of the > Parsees,” now for the first time published in English, should secure > this copy. To thinkers the “Avesta” will be a most valuable work; > they will now have an opportunity to compare its TRUTHS with those of > the BIBLE, the KORAN, and the VEDAS. > > Freemasonry. > > PATON’S (CHARLES I.) FREEMASONRY, ITS SYMBOLISM, RELIGIOUS > NATURE, AND LAW OF PERFECTION. Thick 8vo, new cloth, uncut, > $3.50. > > Hand-Book of Archæology. > > Egyptian--Greek--Etruscan--Roman. By H. M. WESTROPP. > Profusely Illustrated with Engravings on Wood. 8vo, new cloth, > uncut, $3.00. > > The Gnostics > > AND THEIR REMAINS, ANCIENT AND MEDIÆVAL. By C. W. KING. > Profusely Illustrated. 8vo, new cloth, gilt, $7.50. > > ∴ The only English work on the subject. _Out of print and scarce._ > > Champneys’ Quiet Corner of England. > > Studies of Landscape and Architecture in Winchelsea, Rye, > and Romney Marsh. With thirty-one Illustrations by ALFRED > DAWSON. Imperial 8vo, cloth, gilt, gilt leaves, $5.00. > > “Mr. Champneys is an architect who takes the liberty to think for > himself--a man of much original genius and sincere culture, young, > and with an enthusiastic contempt for conventionality, which I > hope he may never outgrow.”--_New York Tribune, Letter from London > Correspondent._ > > Ireland’s Shakspeare Forgeries. > > The Confessions of William Henry Ireland, containing the > Particulars of his Fabrication of the Shakspeare Manuscripts; > together with Anecdotes and Opinions of many distinguished > Persons in the Literary, Political, and Theatrical World. A > new edition, with additional Fac-similes, and an Introduction > by RICHARD GRANT WHITE. 1 volume, 12mo, vellum cloth, uncut > edges, $2.00; or, on Large and Thick paper, 8vo, $3.50. > Edition limited to 300 copies. > > Enthusiasts are easily duped, and of all enthusiasts, excepting > the religious, those who give themselves up to the worship of some > great poet or artist are the easiest prey of the impostor. To them, > a book, a letter, the least scrap or relic which is connected > directly, or it would seem indirectly, with their idol, is an > inestimable treasure, and they are uneasy until it is in their > possession, or removed hopelessly beyond their reach. Of all these > enthusiasts the “Shakspearians” are, and for a hundred years have > been, at once the most numerous, and the most easily, because the > most willingly, deceived. To their craving and their greed we owe > the “Ireland Forgeries,” which were merely an impudent attempt to > supply a demand--an attempt made by a clever, ignorant young scamp, > who succeeded in deluding the whole body of them in England two > generations ago. His “Confessions” are the simply told story of this > stupendous imposture: and the book--long out of print and scarce--is > one the most _naïf_ and amusing of its kind in the whole history of > literature. His exhibition of the “gulls,” whom he made his victims, > is equally delightful and instructive; and chiefly so, because > of his simplicity and frankness. He conceals nothing, palliates > nothing; tells the whole story of his ridiculous iniquity, and > leaves a lasting lesson to the whole tribe of credulous collectors, > Shakspearian and others. > > “It has frequently afforded me a matter of astonishment to think > how this literary fraud could have so long duped the world, and > involved in its deceptious vortex such personages as Parr, Wharton, > and Sheridan, not omitting Jemmy Boswell, of Johnsonian renown; nor > can I ever refrain from smiling whensoever the volumes of Malone and > Chalmers, together with the pamphlets of Boaden, Waldron, Wyatt, > and Philalethes, otherwise, ---- Webb, Esq., chance to fall in my > way.”--W. H. IRELAND’S “_Chalcographimania_.” > > Womankind in Western Europe, > > From the Earliest Times to the Seventeenth Century. > _Illuminated Title_, 10 CHROMO-LITHOGRAPHIC PLATES, and > _numerous Woodcuts_. Small 4to, cloth, extra gilt, > $4.50. 1869. > > This work is something more than a drawing-room ornament. It is an > elaborate and careful summary of all that one of our most learned > antiquaries, after years of pleasant labor on a very pleasant > subject, has been able to learn as to the condition of women from the > earliest times. > > DeFoe’s Life and Works, > > Life and Newly-Discovered Writings of Daniel DeFoe. > Comprising Several Hundred Important Essays, Pamphlets, and > other Writings, now first brought to light, after many years’ > diligent search. By WILLIAM LEE, Esq. With Facsimiles and > Illustrations. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth, $6.00. Or in tree calf, > extra, $15.00. > > Vol. I.--A NEW MEMOIR OF DEFOE. Vols. II. and > III.--HITHERTO UNKNOWN WRITINGS. > > A most valuable contribution to English history and English > literature. > > For many years it has been well known in literary circles that the > gentleman to whom the public is indebted for this valuable addition > to the knowledge of DeFoe’s Life and Works has been an indefatigable > collector of everything relating to the subject, and that such > collection had reference to a more full and correct Memoir than had > yet been given to the world. > > World’s Masonic Register: > > Containing Name, Number, Location, and Time of Meeting of > every Masonic Lodge in the World, etc., also every Chapter, > Council, and Commandery in the United States and Canada, > Date of Organization, etc., and Statistics of each Masonic > Jurisdiction, etc. By Leon Hyneman. _Portrait_, thick 8vo, pp. > 566, cloth, $2.00. > > The Rosicrucians; > > Their Rites and Mysteries. With chapters on the Ancient > Fire and Serpent-Worshippers, and Explanations of the Mystic > Symbols represented in the Monuments and Talismans of the > primeval Philosophers. By HARGRAVE JENNINGS. Crown 8vo, 316 > wood engravings, $3. > > ∴ A volume of startling facts and opinions upon this very mysterious > subject. > > Scientific and Religious Mysteries of Antiquity: > > The Gnosis and Secret Schools of the Middle Ages, Modern > Rosicrucianism, and Free and Accepted Masonry. By John Yarker. > 12mo, new cloth, $2.00. > > ∴ “The sublime depths of the mysteries of antiquity have been sounded > but by few minds in the lapse of ages, and those who have leisure to > follow upon their tracks will meet with an ample reward.” > > ONLY ONE HUNDRED COPIES PRINTED. > > Duyckinck’s Cyclopædia of American Literature. > > Printed by Alvord, on a hand-press, and on tinted paper of > extra weight and finish, prepared expressly for the work. For > the convenience of persons desirous of illustrating the work, > for which purpose it is admirably adapted, it has been issued > in five parts, with separate rubricated titles, each of the > two original volumes being divided into two parts, of about > three hundred and fifty pages each, and the new Supplement > forming the fifth. A finely engraved portrait printed on India > paper is given with each part. The subjects of these portraits > are Benjamin Franklin, James Fenimore Cooper, Washington > Irving, William Hickling Prescott, and, with the Supplement, > a portrait of the late George L. Duyckinck, newly engraved in > line, by Burt, after an original painting by Duggan. 5 vols. > 4to, uncut, $25.00. Half morocco, gilt top, $50.00. > > Only thirteen sets of this edition now remain. > > Payne Knight’s Worship of Priapus. > > A discourse on the Worship of Priapus, and its connection > with the Mystic Theology of the Ancients. By RICHARD PAYNE > KNIGHT, Esq. A new edition. To which is added an essay on the > worship of the generative powers during the middle ages of > Western Europe. Illustrated with 138 engravings (many of which > are full-page), from Ancient Gems, Coins, Medals, Bronzes, > Sculpture, Egyptian Figures, Ornaments, Monuments, etc. > Printed on heavy toned paper, at the Chiswick Press, 1 vol. > 4to, half Roxburghe morocco, gilt top, $35.00. > > “R. P. Knight, the writer of the first ‘Essay,’ was a Fellow of the > Royal Society, a member of the British Parliament, and one of the > most learned antiquaries of his time. His museum of Phallic objects > is now most carefully preserved in the London British Museum. The > second ‘Essay,’ bringing our knowledge of the worship of Priapus down > to the present time, so as to include the more recent discoveries > throwing any light upon the matter, is said to be by one of the most > distinguished English antiquaries--the author of numerous works which > are held in high esteem. He was assisted it is understood, by two > prominent Fellows of the Royal Society, one of whom has recently > presented a wonderful collection of Phallic objects to the British > Museum authorities.” > > Gesta Romanorum. > > Or, Entertaining Moral Stories. Invented by the Monks as a > fireside recreation; and commonly applied to their Discourses > from the Pulpit, whence the most celebrated of our Poets and > others, from the earliest times, have extracted their Plots. > Translated from the Latin, with Preliminary Observations and > Copious Notes, by the Rev. CHARLES SWAN. New edition, with an > Introduction by THOMAS WRIGHT, Esq., M.A., F.S.A. 2 vols. 8vo, > vellum cloth, uncut, printed on large and heavy paper, $10.00. > Full calf, extra, $17.50. > > A limited edition only was printed, of which now only 14 > copies remain. > > “They” (the Monks) “might be disposed occasionally to recreate > their minds with subjects of a light and amusing nature; and what > could be more innocent or delightful than the stories of the GESTA > ROMANORUM!”--_Douce’s Illustrations to Shakespeare._ > > Jones’ (Owen) Grammar of Ornament. > > A Series of 112 exquisitely colored Plates, executed in > Chromolithography, comprising 3000 examples of the Decoration > of all Ages and Nations, with Descriptive Letterpress, > illustrated with Woodcuts. Folio, cloth, extra, gilt edges. > $30.00. > > This new edition is a reproduction of the larger work on a smaller > scale; a few of the plates which could not be reduced have been > printed on a larger scale, and the same artistic matter has been > extended from 100 to 112 plates. > > Dibdin’s Bibliomania; > > Or, Book-Madness: A Bibliographical Romance. With > numerous Illustrations. A new Edition, with a Supplement, > including a Key to the Assumed Characters in the Drama. 8vo, > half-Roxburghe, $6.00; a few Large Paper copies, Imp. 8vo, > half-Roxburghe, the edges altogether uncut, $12.00. > > “I have not yet recovered from the delightful delirium into which > your ‘Bibliomania’ has completely thrown me. Your book, to my taste, > is one of the most extraordinary gratifications I have enjoyed for > many years.”--ISAAC DISRAELI. > > Greville’s Memoirs. > > Journal of the Reign of King George IV. and King William > IV. By the late Charles C. F. Greville, Esq. Edited by Henry > Reeve. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth, $7.50. > > No equally important contribution to the political history of the > last generation has been made by any previous writer. As a man of > rank and fashion, Mr. Greville associated, on terms of equality, with > all the statesmen of his time, and his long tenure of a permanent > office immediately outside of the circle of politics compelled him to > observe a neutrality which was probably congenial to his character > and inclination.--_Saturday Review._ > > Archie Armstrong’s Banquet of Jests. > > Reprinted from the original edition, together with ARCHIE’S > DREAM (1641), handsomely printed in antique style, with red > line borders. Square 12mo, new vellum cloth, uncut, $6.50. > > The same, printed on Whatman’s paper (limited to 25 > copies). Square 12mo, new cloth, $9.00. > > ∴ The edition (of all kinds) was limited to 252 copies. It is > completely exhausted, and copies are now difficult to obtain. > > “A more amusing budget of odd stories, clever witticisms, and > laughter-moving tales, is not to be found in Jester’s Library.” > > Nares’ Glossary. > > Or, Collection of Words, Phrases, Names, and Allusions to > Customs, Proverbs, etc., which have been thought to require > Illustration in the Works of English Authors, particularly > Shakespeare and his contemporaries. NEW EDITION, with > additions, etc., by J. O. Halliwell and Thomas Wright. 2 vols. > 8vo, new cloth, $6.50. > > Gavin Douglas’ Poetical Works. > > With Memoir, Notes and Glossary, by J. Small, M.A., > F.S.A. Illustrated by specimens of the Manuscripts, and the > title-pages and woodcuts of the early editions in facsimile. > Handsomely printed in 4 vols. post 8vo, cloth. $18.00. 1874. > > ----The same, LARGE PAPER. _Fifty copies only printed._ 4 > handsome demy 8vo vols. cloth, $25.00. (Published @ £6.6.0.) > > The distinguished poets, William Dunbar, Gavin Douglas, Bishop of > Dunkeld, and Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, form a trio of whom > Scotland has every reason to be proud; but, as the Works of the > second of these have not hitherto been collected, an Edition of them > has long been a _desideratum_ in Scottish Literature. > > Walford’s County Families. > > The County Families of the United Kingdom; or, Manual of > the Titled and Untitled Aristocracy of Great Britain and > Ireland. Containing a Brief Notice of the Descent, Birth, > Marriage, Education, and Appointments of each person; his > Heir Apparent or Presumptive; as also a Record of the Offices > which he has hitherto held, with his Town Address and Country > Residence. By EDWARD WALFORD, M.A. 1 vol. thick imperial > octavo. Cloth, gilt edges. 1,200 pages, $8.00. > > Caxton’s Statutes of Henry VII., 1489. > > Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by JOHN RAE, Esq., > Fellow of the Royal Institution. The earliest known volume > of Printed Statutes, and remarkable as being in English. It > contains some very curious and primitive Legislation on Trade > and Domestic Matters. In remarkable fac-simile, from the rare > original. Small folio, half morocco, uncut, $7.50. > > Owen Jones’ Alhambra. > > Plans, Elevations, and Sections of the Alhambra, with > the elaborate details of this beautiful specimen of Moorish > Architecture, minutely displayed in 100 beautifully engraved > plates, 67 of which are highly finished in gold and colors, > from Drawings taken on the spot by JULES GOURY and OWEN JONES, > with a complete translation of the Arabic Inscriptions, and > an Historical Notice of the Kings of Granada, by PASCUAL DE > GAYANGOS. 2 vols. imperial folio (pub. at £24), elegantly half > bound morocco, gilt edges, full gilt backs. $100. > > The same work on Large Paper, 2 vols. atlas folio, 100 > plates, 67 of them in gold and colors, the engraved plates on > India paper (pub. at £36), half bound morocco, gilt edges. > $125. > > For practical purposes, to architects the small paper copies will > suffice; but gentlemen desirous of adding a noble book in its finest > appearance to their library, must have a Large Paper copy. > > “In spite of earthquakes, mines and counter-mines--spite of Spanish > convicts, French soldiers, Spanish bigotry, and Flemish barbarism > of thieves and gipsys, contrabandists and brigands, paupers, > charcoal-burners and snow-gatherers, the Alhambra still exists--one > of the most recent of European ruins. It is the most perfect in > repair and the richest in design; it has suffered less from man, > or the elements, and has fallen more gently into decay. It was not > molten like Nineveh in an hour, or buried in a day like Pompeii; it > was not smitten down at a blow like Corinth, or sapped for centuries > like Athens. Though it has been alternately a barrack, a prison, a > tea garden, and an almshouse--though its harem has been a hen-house, > its prisons pens for sheep; the Alhambra is still one of the most > wonderful productions of Eastern splendor, lingering in Europe long > after the Moslem waves have rolled back into Asia, like a golden cup > dropped on the sand, or like the last tent of some dead Arab, still > standing, when the rest of his tribe have long since taken up their > spears, untethered their camels, and sought their new homes in the > far desert.” > > Prostitution. > > DUFOUR (PIERRE). Histoire de la Prostitution chez tous > les peuples du Monde, depuis l’antiquité la plus reculée > jusqu’à nos jours. _Illustrated with numerous fine engravings > on steel._ 6 vols. in 3, 8vo, hf. cf. gilt tops. _Scarce._ > $18.00. 6 vols. 8vo, cloth, $13.50. > > ORIGINAL and ONLY GENUINE EDITION. > > In this learned work--the best that we have on the subject--many > of the chapters are devoted to dissertations on matters of general > interest to students of literature. We instance Chap. XXIV., > containing a treatise on the Obscenity of the French language, the > Jargon of Argot, its Origin, etc.; also in Chap. XXXII., a highly > interesting bibliographical account of the Aretin plates by Marc > Antonio, etc., etc. > > The author was threatened with criminal prosecution, and pledged > himself never to reproduce the work; it has now become scarce. > > _NEW AND MAGNIFICENT WORK ON TEXTILE FABRICS._ > > Ornamental Textile Fabrics > > Of all Ages and Nations. A practical Collection of > Specimens. Illustrated with Fifty Plates in Gold, Silver, and > Colors, Comprising upwards of 1,000 various styles of Ancient, > Mediæval and Modern Ornamental Designs of Textile Fabrics, > with Explanatory Description and a General Introduction. By M. > DUMONT-AUBERVILLE. 1 vol. folio, cloth, gilt, extra. $25.00. > > The Editor of this work, M. Dupont-Auberville, is known as one of the > most distinguished archæologists of modern France, and Textile Art is > the department of archæology to which he has devoted the best years > of his life. His collection of specimens of textile fabrics embraces > models taken from all ages and from all countries, and is admitted by > all artists to be unique in every respect. > > The works of ancient textile art, both in the East and the West, are > done full justice to, but at the same time the framer of “Ornamental > Textile Fabrics” has drawn more amply from the extensive stock of > models belonging to more recent periods. From his immense collection > of specimens taken from the Renaissance and the seventeenth and > eighteenth centuries, he has selected those subjects which are most > worthy of the attention both of the amateur and the manufacturer. > In this manner the work now submitted to the public is not a mere > ornamental one, but at the same time it possesses a practical > usefulness which must cause it to be valued by all who make a study > of taste in manufacturing industry in general, and the art of weaving > in particular. > > _AN ENTIRELY NEW AND REVISED EDITION._ > > Old Print Collectors’ Guide: > > An Introduction to the Study and Collection of Ancient > Prints. Frontispiece, plates of monograms, and illustrations. > By WM. H. WILLSHIRE. Handsomely printed. _2 large vols. demy_ > 8vo, half morocco, gilt top, $11.00. > > ∴ This new edition entirely supersedes the previous one, having, in > addition to much new matter, full lists of Monograms and marks of > celebrated collectors and amateurs. A work indispensable to the Print > Collector, being a concentration in one volume of all the varied > information relative to the History of Engraving and of Ancient > Prints. > > CONTENTS.--I. Engraving in Ancient Times. II. Engraving in General, > from the beginning of the 13th to the 15th Century. III. On the > Various Processes or kinds of Engraving. IV. Advice on the Study > and Collection of Prints. V. The Various Schools of Engraving. VI. > The Northern Schools to the time of Dürer. VII. Northern Schools > from Dürer to the 17th Century. VIII. The Southern Schools of Wood > Engraving. IX. The Masters of “Chiaro oscuro.” X. Metal Engraving. > Masters of 1446, etc. XI. Dutch and Flemish Schools. XII. French > and English Schools. XIII. Chief Etchers of the Northern Schools. > XIV. On Engraving in the “Dotted Manner.” XV. The Southern Schools > of Engraving on Metal. Nielli. XVI. Italian Schools. XVII. School > of Marc Antonio. XVIII. Chief Etchers of the Italian Schools. XIX. > Mezzotinto Engravings and Engravers. XX. On the Examination and > Purchase of Ancient Prints. XXI. On the Conservation and Arrangement > of Prints. Appendix.--British Museum Collection, Douce Collection, > Oxford, Polytypage, Cliché, Mezzotinto Engraving, High-priced Books, > Varia Bibliography, Monograms, indexes, etc., etc. > > The Works of William Unger. > > =_A Series of Seventy-two Etchings after the Old Masters._= > With Critical and Descriptive Notes by C. VOSMAER. Comprising > the most celebrated paintings of the following artists: > TINTORETTO, RUYSDAEL, REMBRANDT, GUIDO, POUSSIN, RUBENS, > OSTADE, JAN STEEN, VAN DYCK, WOUVERMANS, PAUL POTTER, FRANS > HALS, VERONESE, JORDAENS, VAN DER VELDE, BROUWER, etc., etc. > > Ten parts folio, 16 × 22 inches, printed on heavy Dutch > paper, $60.00. Or half morocco, extra gilt top, elegant and > substantial, $80.00. > > “No engraver who ever lived has so completely identified himself with > painters he had to interpret as Professor Unger in the seventy-two > plates which compose his ‘Works.’ He can adopt at will the most > opposite styles, and work on each with ease, a fluency such as > other men can only attain in one manner--their own--and after half > a lifetime. Indeed, one would not be going far wrong to describe > Professor Unger as an art critic of very uncommon insight, who > explains the sentiment and execution of great painters with an > etching needle instead of a pen. > > “It has been said of engraving that it is an unintellectual > occupation, because it is simply copyism; but such engraving as this > is not unintellectual, for it proves a delicacy and keenness of > understanding which are both rare among artists and critics. Unger > has not the narrowness of the ordinary artist, for he can enter into > the most opposite styles; nor has he the technical ignorance of the > ordinary critic, for he can draw--I will not say like a great master, > but like twenty different great masters. > > “Mr. Vosmaer, the now well-known Dutch critic, who writes in English > and French as well as in his own language, has much increased > the interest in Unger’s etchings by accompanying them with a > valuable biographic essay of his own, much superior to the ordinary > ‘letter-press,’ which publishers in general appear to consider as a > necessary companion to engraving. > > “The seventy-two etchings before us are, on the whole, the most > remarkable set of studies from old masters which has been issued by > the enterprise of our modern publishers, and they can hardly fail to > make fine work better appreciated both by artists and amateurs. > > “A few words of praise are due to the spirited publisher, Mr. > Sijthoff, of Leyden, for the manner in which these etchings of > Unger have been published. They are printed on fine Dutch paper, > and mounted (pasted by the upper edge only) on sufficiently good > boards in such a manner as to enter into the most carefully arranged > collections without further change. They are accompanied by a text > printed with the greatest taste, on very fine Dutch paper. This > series is printed in one class of proof only, and issued at a price > that is most reasonable, and Mr. Sijthoff deserves our thanks for > placing works of real art, thoroughly well got up, within the reach > of cultivated people who have limited incomes. > > “We recommend them strongly to all artists and lovers of art > as a valuable means of art education and a source of enduring > pleasure.”--HAMERTON in the _International Review_ for Jan., 1876. > > Etchings after Frans Hals. > > A Series of 20 beautifully executed Etchings. By WILLIAM > UNGER. With an Essay on the Life and Works of the artist, by > C. Vosmaer. Two parts, complete, royal folio. Impressions > on India paper, $25.00. Selected proofs, before letters, on > India paper, $40.00. Artist proofs on India paper, $60.00. > Or elegantly bound in half Levant morocco, extra, gilt top, > $15.00 additional to the above prices. Uniform with Unger’s > works. > > “They who know the Dutch painter Hals only through the few portraits > by him which have reached this country have but a slight comparative > acquaintance with his works. ‘A stranger to all academical lore, to > all literary co-operation,’ writes Mr. Vosmaer, ‘Frans Hals appeared > merely as a portrait-painter, like most of the modern artists of > his youth ... true to life, but also excelling by naturalness and > masterly handling. Subsequently he portrayed the joyous popular life > of the streets and the tavern; at last those phases of national > social life, which have at once their image and memorial in the > pictures of the arquebusiers and the civic governors.’”--_London Art > Journal_, Aug. 1873. > > _THE NEW FRENCH ART JOURNAL._ > > L’Art. > > Revue Hebdomadaire Illustrée. (M. Eugène Véron et Chas. > Tardieu, rédacteurs.) Handsomely printed on heavy toned paper, > and illustrated with several hundred engravings on wood from > drawings and pictures by celebrated cotemporary artists, > examples of antique and modern sculpture, objects of Art > Industry in all branches, and a series of superbly executed > etchings by the best living etchers, executed expressly for > this work; being principally from the more noticeable pictures > exhibited in the Salons of Europe, carefully printed on > Holland paper. Forming four volumes a year. Royal folio (17½ > × 12 in.) of about 500 pp. each, with nearly 200 woodcuts, > facsimiles, etc., and upwards of twenty etchings in each > volume. 4 vols., folio. Stitched, paper covers, uncut, $36.00. > In cloth, gilt top, uncut edges, $45.00. Handsomely bound > in half red morocco (Jansen style), gilt tops, uncut edges, > $65.00. > > ANOTHER EDITION, printed throughout on heavy _Holland > paper_, in the most careful manner. The etchings in two > states, _Artist proof_ on _Japan paper_, and ordinary print on > Holland paper. The edition is _strictly limited to one hundred > copies, numbered_. Forming 4 thick volumes, folio. Price, > $125.00. > > ∵ N. B.--Payments to be made on delivery of each quarterly > volume. > > OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. > > “Nowhere but in Paris could such a Review be produced every week > as _L’Art_, so magnificent in every respect, paper, typography, > illustrations, and above all, so many sided in its view of art, and > so abundant and interesting in its information. It has now been > brought to the fourth year of its life, with every sign of assured > and increasing vigor, and we are glad to learn, from the report > of the editor to the subscribers, that something more substantial > than the _succès d’estime_ has rewarded the experiment of such a > costly venture.... It is simply the cheapest and the best thing of > its kind. M. Véron seems, at any rate, to have solved the problem > of combining excellence with cheapness. We find, besides numerous > little facsimiles of sketches, and autograph letters of eminent > artists, musicians, and dramatists, no less than seventy fine > etchings by such men as Flameng, Courtry, Desbrosses, Lançon, etc., > and woodcuts of Claude’s and Turner’s pictures, with a series of > very remarkable copies of the famous tapestries at Madrid, from the > designs of Albrecht Dürer and Van Eyck, by Edmond Yon, Perrichon, and > C. Maurand, as well as singularly fine examples of wood engraving. > Supposing the reading matter of the Review were as ephemeral and > trivial in its purpose as the cheapest of the cheap instead of being, > as it is, rich and racy, with the native style of all French pens, > thoughtful and often profoundly suggestive, and generally complete, > in reference to detail, the two etchings by Flameng, from pictures by > Frans Hals and Nicholas Maas, alone would be really most valuable and > acceptable to the print-collector.... While _L’Art_ is conducted in > this style the editor may feel quite secure that France will not lose > that artistic supremacy she has long held.”--_London Times._ > > “It would be easy and pleasant to go on discoursing about the > pictures in _L’Art_, a paper which is so full of good, sober, > and just criticisms, trustworthy news about art, and designs not > otherwise to be obtained by most people.”--_Saturday Review._ > > “The new volume of _L’Art_ sufficiently manifests the success of > a very valuable and interesting publication.... There is no other > journal in existence which so happily and skilfully combines the > labors of artists and authors which does not subordinate art to > letters, or letters to art, but permits them to go ‘hand in hand, > not one before another.’... In brief, this grand folio volume of > _L’Art_ abounds in matters of interest to all readers and students of > æsthetic and cultivated taste.”--_The World_ (London). > > “There is some monotony in praising each successive portion of a > periodical as it appears with an absolutely equal cordiality; but the > evenness of merit in _L’Art_ makes this uniformity of commendation a > duty.”--_The Nation._ > > “America is so destitute of illustrated works which can at all > compare with _L’Art_ that she cannot do better than study and enjoy > this French publication. Certainly there is no other means by which > so many valuable pictures can be obtained at so small a price.”--_The > Christian Union._ > > “Sumptuous in paper and type, lavish in illustrations, and with > critical and explanatory text of singular merit; the most famous of > modern art journals.”--_N. Y. Times._ > > The Portfolio: > > An Artistic Periodical, edited by PHILIP GILBERT HAMERTON. > Illustrated with Etchings, Autotypes, Woodcuts, Facsimiles, > Engravings, Heliogravures, etc. _Published monthly._ > > Subscription reduced to TEN DOLLARS per annum. > > ∴ _Sent, Postage free, to any part of the United States, on > receipt of the Subscription price._ > > “The chief intention of ‘The Portfolio’ is to supply to its > subscribers, at a lower cost than would be possible without the > certain sale of a regular periodical circulation, Works of Art > of various kinds, but always such as are likely to interest a > cultivated public; and to accompany them with literature by writers > of proved ability, superior to mere letter-press, and more readable > than pure criticism or cataloguing.” Among the artists who have > furnished original etchings are Bracquemond, Lalanne, Rajon, Legros, > and Leopold Flameng, who has given some noble specimens of his > skill, especially in the reproduction of “The Laughing Portrait of > Rembrandt,” in his particular province as a reviver of the works of > that artist. The subjects in all cases are chosen for their worth > and rarity, and in these respects the “Portfolio” fairly rivals its > great contemporary, one of the noblest fine-art periodicals ever > issued, the Parisian “Gazette des Beaux-Arts.” It has the same finish > in execution in the minutest details of paper and print, and is in > every way a _thoroughly artistic production_, far ahead in this way > of anything of the class heretofore issued in England. > > There are numerous single illustrations in the “Portfolio,” worth the > price of the volume, suitable for framing. > > OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. > > “Of the PORTFOLIO altogether it is to be said, that not only is it > _the first periodical in the English language devoted to fine-art, > but that it leads all others by a very great distance_, whatever the > second and third of such publications may be taken to be. > > “We warmly commend it to the notice of all who would cultivate in > themselves and their families an appreciation of the beautiful in > nature and art. The illustrations are largely of sylvan scenery, > and etchings from the finest paintings are given, with letter-press > descriptions, and the best articles from the highest authorities, so > that the monthly paper itself, an illustration of what is taught, > becomes a complete magazine of the science of art. _We would regard > the introduction of such a journal into the family as a good > educator, while it will prove a source of exquisite pleasure to those > who have already a taste for the beautiful._”--_N. Y. Observer._ > > “We look for the PORTFOLIO as for the only serial published, in > which works of art of a certain kind and of peculiar merit are to > be found. Etching is not as popular, perhaps, as it should be, but > if anything is likely to bring its merits before the public, it is > such examples as are to be had here. Their effect is striking, and in > execution they are little short of perfect; at any rate they exhibit > this kind of work in the highest degree of perfection to which it has > attained.”--_N. Y. Daily Times._ > > “Mr. Hamerton’s PORTFOLIO is easily chief among English art > periodicals, and has the advantage of being written by men who > are not only familiar with the literature of art and the works of > artists, but are artists by profession, and so know the feelings, > aims, and technicalities of artists. The editor is probably better > acquainted with continental artists and their work than most of > the insular fellows, and his art theories and criticisms are > proportionately more catholic and valuable. The PORTFOLIO, instead > of being a magazine of current gossip about artists and their > doings, is a work of permanent value, apart from its excellent > illustrations, as a collection of able essays, critical, historical, > technical, and personal, very free from narrowness and professional > or national prejudice. It is the glory of the Portfolio that it > is in a way cosmopolitan, free from the prejudices of nations and > schools.”--_Atlantic Monthly._ > > “The Portfolio is very charming. An Art periodical far superior to > anything which has hitherto appeared.”--_Guardian._ > > “From the first it has stood nearly alone as really ‘an artistic > periodical.’ An hour spent over the Portfolio is one of refreshment, > encouragement, and unalloyed delight.”--_Spectator._ > > “Of the Etchings the merits are unquestionable: indeed, the work > is enriched with some of the finest examples. The literary part > is generally worthy of praise for being scholarly, graceful, and > interesting.”--_Athenæum._ > > “Dealing with artistic subjects generally, and always in a spirit of > intelligence and refinement.”--_Graphic._ > > “To the portfolio is unanimously accorded the first place as an > artistic periodical.”--_Cambridge Chronicle._ > > Back volumes for 1870, ’71, ’72, ’73, ’74, ’75, ’76, > and ’77 may still be had on application. Any volume sold > separately. Price, in _blue cloth_, _gilt leaves_, $14.00 each. > > Transcriber’s Note: > > Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like > this_. Those in bold are surrounded by equal signs, =like this=. > Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to precede the > index. Printing errors, such reversed order, or partially printed > letters, diacriticals, and punctuation, were corrected. Final stops > missing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added. > Except as noted below for Greek and Hebrew, misspelled words and > irregular use of quotation marks were not changed. Footnote 608 has > two anchors. > > Τhree-column texts in the original were reformatted as blockquotes > to improve display in handheld devices. The “pigpen” cipher is > illustrated on lines 17308 through 17340. > > In the index, punctuation was standardized and a few page number > references were adjusted to match book pages. Some entries are not > in alphabetical order; these were left as printed. Term indexed as > “spirit-ancestor” does not appear in either Volume 1 or Volume 2. > > Corrections to Greek: > > TEXT: > line 4162, from Επὶ ὸπτομαι to Επι οπτομαι > line 9998, from καθολὶκὰ πνεὺματα to καθολικὰ πνεύματα > line 12258, from παλινθρομοῡσι to παλινδρομοῦσι > line 13192, from Ιαο to Ιαω > line 14205, from Υαχινθε to Υακινθε > line 15053, from αχοιμητω σροφαλιγγι to ακοιμητω στροφαλιγγι > FOOTNOTES: > FN [561] from γρωτογονος to πρωτογονος > INDEX: > line 33587, from ανθροπος to ανθροπως > line 37599, from Λογος Αληθης to Λόγος Αληθής > line 41224, from Λογος Αληθης to Λόγος Αληθής > > Corrections to Hebrew: > > TEXT: > line 7560, from חכטות to חכמות > line 8031, from בויצ to בויץ > line 9250, from בתר to כתר > line 9269, from תפא־ת to תפארת > line 9277, from שבינה to שכינה > line 9387, from שמ to שם > line 9433, from עולמ to עולם > line 9552, from חכמות־נסתדה to חכמות־נסתרה > line 11531, from אין to עין > line 11595, from עצחיומ to עצחיום > line 11652, from אפּוַימ to אפּוַים > line 13015, from וה to יה > line 13227, from יח to יה > line 20155, from קיך to קין > line 20218, from תבל to הבל > line 20226, from קיון to קינן > line 20245, from אוד to ארד > line 20248, from לםך to למך > line 21151, from יבת to יכח > FOOTNOTES: > [878] from כחכות עור to כתנות עור > [912] from הוי to חוי > INDEX: > line 34848, from יהוה אלהימ to יהוה אלהים > > — *Isis Unveiled, Volume 2 - Theology (Public Domain (Project Gutenberg))*