Changes

{{Page|149|JESUS IN THE GARB OF A MAGICIAN.}}  

{{Page|149|JESUS IN THE GARB OF A MAGICIAN.}}  

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 {{Style S-Italic|Museo Gregoriano.}} On the sarcophagus, which is panelled with bas-reliefs representing the miracles of Christ,^{[#fn1167 1167]} 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 {{Style S-Italic|necromancer}} (?) whilst the corpse of Lazarus is swathed in bandages exactly as an Egyptian mummy.”

{{Style P-No indent|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 {{Style S-Italic|Museo Gregoriano.}} On the sarcophagus, which is panelled with bas-reliefs representing the miracles of Christ,{{Footnote mark|*|fn1167}} 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 {{Style S-Italic|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,”^{[#fn1168 1168]} which was no portrait, but the figure of a man with a jackal-head, like Anubis.^{[#fn1169 1169]} 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Gnostics,}} etc., “had two meanings—one obvious for the vulgar; the other mystical, and recognizable by the {{Style S-Italic|initiated alone.}} It was perhaps the signet of some chief

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,”{{Footnote mark|†|fn1168}} which was no portrait, but the figure of a man with a jackal-head, like Anubis.{{Footnote mark|‡|fn1169}} 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Gnostics,}} etc., “had two meanings—one obvious for the vulgar; the other mystical, and recognizable by the {{Style S-Italic|initiated alone.}} It was perhaps the signet of some chief

[#fn1167anc 1167]. 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.”

{{Footnote return|*|fn1167}} 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.”

[#fn1168anc 1168]. “De Pudicitia.” See “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 144.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1168}} “De Pudicitia.” See “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 144.

[#fn1169anc 1169]. Ibid., plate i., p. 200.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn1169}} Ibid., plate i., p. 200.

150 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|150|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

teacher or apostle.”^{[#fn1170 1170]} This affords a fresh proof that the Gnostics and early {{Style S-Italic|orthodox}} (?) Christians were not so wide apart in their {{Style S-Italic|secret doctrine.}} King deduces from a quotation from {{Style S-Italic|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^{[#fn1171 1171]} brings it as an idolatrous charge against the Carpocratians that “they kept painted portraits, and {{Style S-Italic|even gold and silver images,}} and {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|after the Gentiles’ fashion.”}}

{{Style P-No indent|teacher or apostle.”{{Footnote mark|*|fn1170}} This affords a fresh proof that the Gnostics and early {{Style S-Italic|orthodox}} (?) Christians were not so wide apart in their {{Style S-Italic|secret doctrine.}} King deduces from a quotation from {{Style S-Italic|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{{Footnote mark|†|fn1171}} brings it as an idolatrous charge against the Carpocratians that “they kept painted portraits, and {{Style S-Italic|even gold and silver images,}} and {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.”

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 {{Style S-Italic|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

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 {{Style S-Italic|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

[#fn1170anc 1170]. This gem is in the collection of the author of “The Gnostics and their Remains.” See p. 201.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1170}} This gem is in the collection of the author of “The Gnostics and their Remains.” See p. 201.

[#fn1171anc 1171]. “Hœresies,” xxvii.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1171}} “Hœresies,” xxvii.

151 THE LONG-HAIRED NAZARENES.

{{Page|151|THE LONG-HAIRED NAZARENES.}}

father—the unknown one above—and one brother—the whole of mankind below.

{{Style P-No indent|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 “{{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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,^{[#fn1172 1172]} 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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” ({{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.”^{[#fn1173 1173]} Epiphanius says that the Nazarenes come next in heresy to the Corinthians whether having existed “before them or after them, nevertheless {{Style S-Italic|synchronous,”}} and then adds that “all Christians at that time were equally called {{Style S-Italic|Nazarenes”!^{[#fn1174 1174]}}}

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 “{{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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,{{Footnote mark|*|fn1172}} 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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” ({{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.”{{Footnote mark|†|fn1173}} 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!''”{{Footnote mark|‡|fn1174}}

[#fn1172anc 1172]. {{Style S-Italic|1 Cor. xi. 14.}}

{{Footnotes start}}

{{Footnote return|*|fn1172}} 1 Cor. xi. 14.

[#fn1173anc 1173]. {{Style S-Italic|See the “Israelite Indeed,” vol. ii., p. 238; “Treatise Nazir.”}}

{{Footnote return|†|fn1173}} See the “Israelite Indeed,” vol. ii., p. 238; “Treatise Nazir.”

[#fn1174anc 1174]. {{Style S-Italic|“Epiph. ed. Petar,” vol. i., p. 117.}}

{{Footnote return|‡|fn1174}} “Epiph. ed. Petar,” vol. i., p. 117.

{{Footnotes end}}

152 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|152|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

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 reincarnation. Except the kabalistic sects of the Essenes, the Nazarenes, the disciples of Simeon Ben Iochai, and Hillel, neither the orthodox Jews, nor the Galileans, believed or knew anything about the doctrine of {{Style S-Italic|permutation.}} And the Sadducees rejected even that of the resurrection.

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 reincarnation. Except the kabalistic sects of the Essenes, the Nazarenes, the disciples of Simeon Ben Iochai, and Hillel, neither the orthodox Jews, nor the Galileans, believed or knew anything about the doctrine of {{Style S-Italic|permutation.}} And the Sadducees rejected even that of the resurrection.

“But the author of this {{Style S-Italic|restitutionis}} was Mosah, our master, upon whom be peace! Who was the {{Style S-Italic|revolutio}} (transmigration) of Seth and Hebel, that he might cover the nudity of his Father Adam—{{Style S-Italic|Primus,”}} says the {{Style S-Italic|Kabala.^{[#fn1175 1175]}}} Thus, Jesus hinting that John was the {{Style S-Italic|revolutio,}} or transmigration of Elias, seems to prove beyond any doubt the school to which he belonged.

“But the author of this {{Style S-Italic|restitutionis}} was Mosah, our master, upon whom be peace! Who was the {{Style S-Italic|revolutio}} (transmigration) of Seth and Hebel, that he might cover the nudity of his Father Adam—{{Style S-Italic|Primus,”}} says the ''Kabala''.{{Footnote mark|*|fn1175}} Thus, Jesus hinting that John was the {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 ({{Style S-Italic|Antiquities,}} xviii{{Style S-Italic|.}} 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 {{Style S-Italic|exoteric}} doctrine. We refer the reader to the {{Style S-Italic|Kabbala Denudata}} of Henry Khunrath; his language, however obscure, may yet throw some light upon the subject.

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 {{Style S-Italic|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 ({{Style S-Italic|Antiquities,}} xviii{{Style S-Italic|.}} 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 {{Style S-Italic|exoteric}} doctrine. We refer the reader to the {{Style S-Italic|Kabbala Denudata}} of Henry Khunrath; his language, however obscure, may yet throw some light upon the subject.

But this doctrine of permutation, or {{Style S-Italic|revolutio,}} must not be understood as a belief in reincarnation. That Moses was considered the transmigration of Abel and Seth, does not imply that the kabalists—those who were {{Style S-Italic|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 arti-

But this doctrine of permutation, or {{Style S-Italic|revolutio,}} must not be understood as a belief in reincarnation. That Moses was considered the transmigration of Abel and Seth, does not imply that the kabalists—those who were {{Style S-Italic|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 arti-

[#fn1175anc 1175]. “Kabbala Denudata,” ii., 155; “Vallis Regia,” Paris edition.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1175}} “Kabbala Denudata,” ii., 155; “Vallis Regia,” Paris edition.

153 WHEN A “GOD” BECOMES INCARNATE.

{{Page|153|WHEN A “GOD” BECOMES INCARNATE.}}

cles 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 {{Style S-Italic|duad}} had occurred. The trinity was complete. A {{Style S-Italic|god}} was incarnate. But how rare such incarnations!

{{Style P-No indent|cles 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 {{Style S-Italic|duad}} had occurred. The trinity was complete. A {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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”^{[#fn1176 1176]} 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.”^{[#fn1177 1177]}

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 {{Style S-Italic|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”{{Footnote mark|*|fn1176}} 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.”{{Footnote mark|†|fn1177}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|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 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 {{Style S-Italic|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.

[#fn1176anc 1176]. Psalms viii.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1176}} Psalms viii.

[#fn1177anc 1177]. This contradiction, which is attributed to Paul in Hebrews, by making him say of Jesus in chapter i., 4: “Being made {{Style S-Italic|so much better}} than the angels,” and then immediately stating in chapter ii. 9, “But we see Jesus, who was made {{Style S-Italic|a little lower}} than the angels,” shows how unscrupulously the writings of the apostles, if they ever wrote any, were tampered with.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1177}} This contradiction, which is attributed to Paul in Hebrews, by making him say of Jesus in chapter i., 4: “Being made {{Style S-Italic|so much better}} than the angels,” and then immediately stating in chapter ii. 9, “But we see Jesus, who was made {{Style S-Italic|a little lower}} than the angels,” shows how unscrupulously the writings of the apostles, if they ever wrote any, were tampered with.

154 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|154|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

The real and hidden sense of this doctrine was known to all the initiates. The Tanaim 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 ascendancy 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, {{Style S-Italic|believers}} must be content with blind faith.

The real and hidden sense of this doctrine was known to all the initiates. The Tanaim 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 ascendancy 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, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Messenger of Life,}} and the angel Metatron; and while the Nazarenes termed the same Abel-Zivo,^{[#fn1178 1178]} the {{Style S-Italic|Delegatus}} sent by the Lord of Celsitude, it was universally known as the “Anointed Spirit.”

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 {{Style S-Italic|Messenger of Life,}} and the angel Metatron; and while the Nazarenes termed the same Abel-Zivo,{{Footnote mark|*|fn1178}} the {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|had}} also abandoned him when on the cross.

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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Codex,^{[#fn1179 1179]}}} “and it is pure light, and poured out through splendid {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|heavenly}} light fashioned it, properly constituted for use and appearance, but the beginning of every evil. The Demiurge (of matter) claimed divine honor.^{[#fn1180 1180]} Therefore Christus (“the anointed”), the prince of the Æons (powers), was sent (expeditus), who {{Style S-Italic|taking on the person}} of a most devout Jew, Iesu, {{Style S-Italic|was to conquer him;}} but who having {{Style S-Italic|laid it}} (the body) {{Style S-Italic|aside,}} departed on high.” We will explain further on the full significance of the name Christos and its mystic meaning.

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'',{{Footnote mark|†|fn1179}} “and it is pure light, and poured out through splendid {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|heavenly}} light fashioned it, properly constituted for use and appearance, but the beginning of every evil. The Demiurge (of matter) claimed divine honor.{{Footnote mark|‡|fn1180}} Therefore Christus (“the anointed”), the prince of the Æons (powers), was sent (expeditus), who {{Style S-Italic|taking on the person}} of a most devout Jew, Iesu, {{Style S-Italic|was to conquer him;}} but who having {{Style S-Italic|laid it}} (the body) {{Style S-Italic|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

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

[#fn1178anc 1178]. “Codex Nazaræus,” i. 23.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1178}} “Codex Nazaræus,” i. 23.

[#fn1179anc 1179]. Ibid., preface, p. v., translated from Norberg.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1179}} Ibid., preface, p. v., translated from Norberg.

[#fn1180anc 1180]. “According to the Nazarenes and Gnostics, the Demiurge, the creator of the material world, is not the highest God.” (See Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man.”)

{{Footnote return|‡|fn1180}} “According to the Nazarenes and Gnostics, the Demiurge, the creator of the material world, is not the highest God.” (See Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man.”)

155 BASILIDES, THE BRIGHT SUN OF GNOSTICISM.

{{Page|155|BASILIDES, THE BRIGHT SUN OF GNOSTICISM.}}

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,” πα 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 {{Style S-Italic|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.”

{{Style P-No indent|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,” πα 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Revelations}} of a little nation, and accepted the Jehovah of Moses, the Gnostic ideas would never have been termed {{Style S-Italic|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.

Had not the Christians burdened themselves with the {{Style S-Italic|Revelations}} of a little nation, and accepted the Jehovah of Moses, the Gnostic ideas would never have been termed {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.

Now let us see what are the greatest {{Style S-Italic|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 all his doctrines from the Apostle Matthew, and from Peter through Glaucus, the disciple of the latter.^{[#fn1181 1181]} According to Eusebius,^{[#fn1182 1182]} he published twenty-four volumes of {{Style S-Italic|Interpretations upon the Gospels,^{[#fn1183 1183]}}} 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,

Basilides maintained that he had all his doctrines from the Apostle Matthew, and from Peter through Glaucus, the disciple of the latter.{{Footnote mark|*|fn1181}} According to Eusebius,{{Footnote mark|†|fn1182}} he published twenty-four volumes of ''Interpretations upon the Gospels'',{{Footnote mark|‡|fn1183}} 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,

[#fn1181anc 1181]. Clemens: “Al. Strom.” vii., 7, § 106.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1181}} Clemens: “Al. Strom.” vii., 7, § 106.

[#fn1182anc 1182]. H. E., iv. 7.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1182}} H. E., iv. 7.

[#fn1183anc 1183]. 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.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn1183}} 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.

156 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|156|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

eternal, and uncreated Father having first brought forth {{Style S-Italic|Nous,}} or Mind, the latter emanated from itself—the {{Style S-Italic|Logos.}} The Logos (the Word of John) emanated in its turn {{Style S-Italic|Phronesis,}} or the Intelligences (Divine-human spirits). From Phronesis sprung {{Style S-Italic|Sophia,}} or feminine wisdom, and {{Style S-Italic|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.^{[#fn1184 1184]} This eternal, infinite Monad possesses, as proper to his own essence, five acts of wisdom. From these it, by five separate acts of Dhyan, 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, {{Style S-Italic|i.e.}}, were incarnated on this earth.

{{Style P-No indent|eternal, and uncreated Father having first brought forth {{Style S-Italic|Nous,}} or Mind, the latter emanated from itself—the {{Style S-Italic|Logos.}} The Logos (the Word of John) emanated in its turn {{Style S-Italic|Phronesis,}} or the Intelligences (Divine-human spirits). From Phronesis sprung {{Style S-Italic|Sophia,}} or feminine wisdom, and {{Style S-Italic|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.{{Footnote mark|*|fn1184}} This eternal, infinite Monad possesses, as proper to his own essence, five acts of wisdom. From these it, by five separate acts of Dhyan, 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, {{Style S-Italic|i.e.}}, were incarnated on this earth.}}

[#fn1184anc 1184]. 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.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1184}} 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Vedas,}} which they call secular literature. The Brahmans, they show, came from other countries, and established their heresy on the already accepted popular {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|white}} horse. It is also the Christian Second Advent. See “Apocalypse” of St. John.

The prevalent idea that the last of the Buddhas, Gautama, is the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, or the {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Vedas,}} which they call secular literature. The Brahmans, they show, came from other countries, and established their heresy on the already accepted popular {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|white}} horse. It is also the Christian Second Advent. See “Apocalypse” of St. John.

157 GNOSTICISM HIGHLY REVERENTIAL TOWARD THE DEITY.

{{Page|157|GNOSTICISM HIGHLY REVERENTIAL TOWARD THE DEITY.}}

Describing the Basilidean system, Irenæus, quoting the Gnostics, declares as follows:

Describing the Basilidean system, Irenæus, quoting the Gnostics, declares as follows:

“When the uncreated, {{Style S-Italic|unnamed}} Father saw the corruption of mankind, he sent his first-born {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|not die}} in person, but Simon the Cyrenian suffered in his stead, {{Style S-Italic|to whom he lent his bodily form;}} for the Divine Power, the Nous of the Eternal Father, {{Style S-Italic|is not corporeal,}} and {{Style S-Italic|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.”^{[#fn1185 1185]}

“When the uncreated, {{Style S-Italic|unnamed}} Father saw the corruption of mankind, he sent his first-born {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|not die}} in person, but Simon the Cyrenian suffered in his stead, {{Style S-Italic|to whom he lent his bodily form;}} for the Divine Power, the Nous of the Eternal Father, {{Style S-Italic|is not corporeal,}} and {{Style S-Italic|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.”{{Footnote mark|*|fn1185}}

So far, and taken in its abstract sense, we do not see anything blasphemous in this system. It may be a {{Style S-Italic|heresy}} against the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian,^{[#fn1186 1186]} 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, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Maya}} or illusion.

So far, and taken in its abstract sense, we do not see anything blasphemous in this system. It may be a {{Style S-Italic|heresy}} against the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian,{{Footnote mark|†|fn1186}} 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, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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—{{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|privation}} (in the Aristotelean sense), and is a reality for the spiritual senses

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—{{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|privation}} (in the Aristotelean sense), and is a reality for the spiritual senses

[#fn1185anc 1185]. “Irenæus,” i. 23.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1185}} “Irenæus,” i. 23.

[#fn1186anc 1186]. 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.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1186}} 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.

158 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|158|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

of the blind man. We all live under the powerful dominion of phantasy. Alone the highest and invisible {{Style S-Italic|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.

{{Style P-No indent|of the blind man. We all live under the powerful dominion of phantasy. Alone the highest and invisible {{Style S-Italic|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:

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:

And the modern Schopenhauer, repeating this philosophical idea, 10,000 years old now, says: “Nature is non-existent, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Gnosis}} (knowledge), the most evident offshoot of Buddhism, was utterly based on this metaphysical tenet. Christos suffered {{Style S-Italic|spiritually}} for us, and far more acutely than did the illusionary Jesus while his body was being tortured on the Cross.

And the modern Schopenhauer, repeating this philosophical idea, 10,000 years old now, says: “Nature is non-existent, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Gnosis}} (knowledge), the most evident offshoot of Buddhism, was utterly based on this metaphysical tenet. Christos suffered {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Kris}} means sacred,^{[#fn1187 1187]} and the Hindu deity was named Chris-na (the pure or the sacred) from that. On the other hand, the Greek {{Style S-Italic|Christos}} bears several meanings, as anointed (pure oil, {{Style S-Italic|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

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 {{Style S-Italic|Kris}} means sacred,{{Footnote mark|*|fn1187}} and the Hindu deity was named Chris-na (the pure or the sacred) from that. On the other hand, the Greek {{Style S-Italic|Christos}} bears several meanings, as anointed (pure oil, {{Style S-Italic|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

[#fn1187anc 1187]. 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.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1187}} 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.

159 MARCION, THE NOBLE HERESIARCH.

{{Page|159|MARCION, THE NOBLE HERESIARCH.}}

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.

{{Style P-No indent|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 {{Style S-Italic|devas}} (saints);^{[#fn1188 1188]} 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” ({{Style S-Italic|Manu}}, book xii., slokas 90, 91).

“The man who accomplishes pious but interested acts (with the sole object of his salvation) may reach the ranks of the {{Style S-Italic|devas}} (saints);{{Footnote mark|*|fn1188}} 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” ({{Style S-Italic|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.

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^{[#fn1189 1189]} 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

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{{Footnote mark|†|fn1189}} 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

[#fn1188anc 1188]. There is no equivalent for the word “miracle,” in the Christian sense, among the Brahmans or Buddhists. The only correct translation would be {{Style S-Italic|meipo,}} a wonder, something remarkable; but not a violation of natural law. The “saints” only produce {{Style S-Italic|meipo.}}

{{Footnote return|*|fn1188}} There is no equivalent for the word “miracle,” in the Christian sense, among the Brahmans or Buddhists. The only correct translation would be {{Style S-Italic|meipo,}} a wonder, something remarkable; but not a violation of natural law. The “saints” only produce {{Style S-Italic|meipo.}}

[#fn1189anc 1189]. “Beiträge,” vol. i., p. 40; Schleiermacher: “Sämmil. Werke,” viii.; “Einl. N. T.,” p. 64.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1189}} “Beiträge,” vol. i., p. 40; Schleiermacher: “Sämmil. Werke,” viii.; “Einl. N. T.,” p. 64.

160 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|160|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

Epiphanius writing more than two centuries later that in his time the followers of Marcion were to be found throughout the whole world.^{[#fn1190 1190]}

{{Style P-No indent|Epiphanius writing more than two centuries later that in his time the followers of Marcion were to be found throughout the whole world.{{Footnote mark|*|fn1190}}}}

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.^{[#fn1191 1191]} We have but to open his celebrated refutation of Marcion’s {{Style S-Italic|Antitheses,}} to acquaint ourselves with the {{Style S-Italic|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.^{[#fn1192 1192]} “The poverty of the Great African’s arguments keeps pace with his abuse,” remarks the author of {{Style S-Italic|Supernatural Religion.^{[#fn1193 1193]}}} “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.”

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.{{Footnote mark|†|fn1191}} We have but to open his celebrated refutation of Marcion’s {{Style S-Italic|Antitheses,}} to acquaint ourselves with the {{Style S-Italic|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.{{Footnote mark|‡|fn1192}} “The poverty of the Great African’s arguments keeps pace with his abuse,” remarks the author of ''Supernatural Religion''.{{Footnote mark|§|fn1193}} “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 {{Style S-Italic|Gospel of Luke}} which never were in {{Style S-Italic|Luke}} at all.”^{[#fn1194 1194]} “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 {{Style S-Italic|he actually defines the motives}} for which he expunged a passage {{Style S-Italic|which never existed;}} in the same chapter he also similarly accuses Marcion of erasing (from {{Style S-Italic|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.^{[#fn1195 1195]} Epiphanius also commits the mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from {{Style S-Italic|Luke}} what is only found in {{Style S-Italic|Matthew.”^{[#fn1196 1196]}}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|Gospel of Luke}} which never were in {{Style S-Italic|Luke}} at all.”{{Footnote mark|║|fn1194}} “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 {{Style S-Italic|he actually defines the motives}} for which he expunged a passage {{Style S-Italic|which never existed;}} in the same chapter he also similarly accuses Marcion of erasing (from {{Style S-Italic|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.{{Footnote mark|¶|fn1195}} Epiphanius also commits the mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from {{Style S-Italic|Luke}} what is only found in ''Matthew''.”{{Footnote mark|**|fn1196}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|truth,}} but their own interpretations and unwarranted assertions,^{[#fn1197 1197]} we will now

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 {{Style S-Italic|truth,}} but their own interpretations and unwarranted assertions,{{Footnote mark|††|fn1197}} we will now

[#fn1190anc 1190]. “Epiph. Hæra.,” xlii., p. 1.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1190}} “Epiph. Hæra.,” xlii., p. 1.

[#fn1191anc 1191]. Tertullian: “Adv. Marc.,” ii. 5; cf. 9.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1191}} Tertullian: “Adv. Marc.,” ii. 5; cf. 9.

[#fn1192anc 1192]. Ibid., ii. 5.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn1192}} Ibid., ii. 5.

[#fn1193anc 1193]. Vol. ii., p. 105.

{{Footnote return|§|fn1193}} Vol. ii., p. 105.

[#fn1194anc 1194]. Ibid., vol. ii., p. 100.

{{Footnote return|║|fn1194}} Ibid., vol. ii., p. 100.

[#fn1195anc 1195]. “Adv. Marc.,” iv., 9, 36.

{{Footnote return|¶|fn1195}} “Adv. Marc.,” iv., 9, 36.

[#fn1196anc 1196]. “Supernatural Religion,” p. 101; Matthew v. 17.

{{Footnote mark|**|fn1196|}} “Supernatural Religion,” p. 101; Matthew v. 17.

[#fn1197anc 1197]. 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 “Beitrage,” i., p. 40; cf. Neander: “Allg. K. G.,” ii., p. 792, f.; Schleiermacher, Milman, etc., etc.

{{Footnote return|††|fn1197}} 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 “Beitrage,” i., p. 40; cf. Neander: “Allg. K. G.,” ii., p. 792, f.; Schleiermacher, Milman, etc., etc.

161 THE TWO FACTIONS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

{{Page|161|THE TWO FACTIONS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.}}

proceed to state what were the views of Marcion, whom Tertullian desired to annihilate as the most dangerous {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|subjective view,}} which itself requires proof.”^{[#fn1198 1198]}

{{Style P-No indent|proceed to state what were the views of Marcion, whom Tertullian desired to annihilate as the most dangerous {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|subjective view,}} which itself requires proof.”{{Footnote mark|*|fn1198}}}}

We can do no better nor make a more correct statement of facts concerning Marcion than by quoting what our space permits from {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Epistle to the Galatians.”^{[#fn1199 1199]}}}

We can do no better nor make a more correct statement of facts concerning Marcion than by quoting what our space permits from {{Style S-Italic|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''.”{{Footnote mark|†|fn1199}}

[#fn1198anc 1198]. Justin’s “Die Evv.,” p. 446, sup. B.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1198}} Justin’s “Die Evv.,” p. 446, sup. B.

[#fn1199anc 1199]. But, on the other hand, this antagonism is very {{Style S-Italic|strongly}} marked in the “Clementine Homilies,” in which Peter unequivocally denies that Paul, whom he calls Simon the Magician, has ever had a {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|not of men}}, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ {{Style S-Italic|and}} God the Father, who raised him from the dead . . . but there be some that trouble you, and {{Style S-Italic|would pervert}} the Gospel of Christ . . . {{Style S-Italic|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, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|lawless}} and {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Death}} and a {{Style S-Italic|deceiver}} (Ibid., ii. 18). He warns the Gentiles that “our Lord and {{Style S-Italic|Prophet}} (?) ({{Style S-Italic|Jesus}}) announced that he would send from among his followers, apostles to {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1199}} But, on the other hand, this antagonism is very {{Style S-Italic|strongly}} marked in the “Clementine Homilies,” in which Peter unequivocally denies that Paul, whom he calls Simon the Magician, has ever had a {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|not of men}}, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ {{Style S-Italic|and}} God the Father, who raised him from the dead . . . but there be some that trouble you, and {{Style S-Italic|would pervert}} the Gospel of Christ . . . {{Style S-Italic|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, {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|lawless}} and {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Death}} and a {{Style S-Italic|deceiver}} (Ibid., ii. 18). He warns the Gentiles that “our Lord and {{Style S-Italic|Prophet}} (?) ({{Style S-Italic|Jesus}}) announced that he would send from among his followers, apostles to {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.

162 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|162|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

Marcion, who recognised no other {{Style S-Italic|Gospels}} than a few {{Style S-Italic|Epistles of Paul,}} who rejected totally the anthropomorphism of the {{Style S-Italic|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

Marcion, who recognised no other {{Style S-Italic|Gospels}} than a few {{Style S-Italic|Epistles of Paul,}} who rejected totally the anthropomorphism of the {{Style S-Italic|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

163 JESUS IGNORES JEHOVAH.

{{Page|163|JESUS IGNORES JEHOVAH.}}

“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 {{Style S-Italic|matter is to spirit, impurity to purity.”}}

{{Style P-No indent|“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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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;—{{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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” ({{Style S-Italic|Matthew}} v.) {{Style S-Italic|.}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|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;—{{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Manu}} and read:

And now, open {{Style S-Italic|Manu}} and read:

“Resignation, {{Style S-Italic|the action of rendering good for evil,}} temperance, probity, purity, repression of the senses, the knowledge of the {{Style S-Italic|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

“Resignation, {{Style S-Italic|the action of rendering good for evil,}} temperance, probity, purity, repression of the senses, the knowledge of the {{Style S-Italic|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

164 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|164|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

study these ten precepts of duty, and after having studied them conform their lives thereto, will reach to the supreme condition” ({{Style S-Italic|Manu}}, book vi., sloka 92).

{{Style P-No indent|study these ten precepts of duty, and after having studied them conform their lives thereto, will reach to the supreme condition” ({{Style S-Italic|Manu}}, book vi., sloka 92).}}

If {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|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.

9. Thou shalt not indulge in luxury (sleep on soft beds or be lazy).

9. Thou shalt not indulge in luxury (sleep on soft beds or be lazy).

10. Thou shalt not accept gold or silver.^{[#fn1200 1200]}

10. Thou shalt not accept gold or silver.{{Footnote mark|*|fn1200}}

“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,”^{[#fn1201 1201]} is the answer.

“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,”{{Footnote mark|†|fn1201}} 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.^{[#fn1202 1202]}

“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.{{Footnote mark|‡|fn1202}}

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

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

[#fn1200anc 1200]. “Prâtimoksha Sutra,” Pali Burmese copy; see also “Lotus de la Bonne Loi,” translated by Burnouf, p. 444.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1200}} “Prâtimoksha Sutra,” Pali Burmese copy; see also “Lotus de la Bonne Loi,” translated by Burnouf, p. 444.

[#fn1201anc 1201]. Matthew xix. 16-18.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1201}} Matthew xix. 16-18.

[#fn1202anc 1202]. “Pittakatayan,” book iii., Pali Version.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn1202}} “Pittakatayan,” book iii., Pali Version.

165 JEHOVAH IDENTIFIED WITH BACCHUS.

{{Page|165|JEHOVAH IDENTIFIED WITH BACCHUS.}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|good for evil,}} but the Jehovistic command was: “An eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth.”

{{Style P-No indent|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 hwhyis Yava or Iao, according to Theodoret, which is the {{Style S-Italic|secret}} name of the Phœnician Mystery-god;^{[#fn1203 1203]} 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 Phoenicia 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 {{Style S-Italic|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:

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 {{Style S-Hebrew|יהוה}} is Yava or Iao, according to Theodoret, which is the ''secret'' name of the Phœnician Mystery-god;{{Footnote mark|*|fn1203}} 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 Phoenicia 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:

{{Style P-Quote|“So Father Zeus governs all things, and Bacchus he governs also.” }}

{{Style P-Quote|“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 {{Style S-Italic|initiated}} priest, an adept, who knew how to lift the veil which hangs behind all such exoteric worship, but kept the secret. “{{Style S-Italic|And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-}}Nissi”! or {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|nis,}} נחש, and the month of the Jewish Passover {{Style S-Italic|nisan.}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|initiated}} priest, an adept, who knew how to lift the veil which hangs behind all such exoteric worship, but kept the secret. “{{Style S-Italic|And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-}}Nissi”! or {{Style S-Italic|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'', {{Style S-Hebrew|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 {{Style S-Italic|lex talionis}} and substitutes for it the law of charity and self-denial. If the {{Style S-Italic|Old Testament}}

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 {{Style S-Italic|lex talionis}} and substitutes for it the law of charity and self-denial. If the ''Old Tes''

[#fn1203anc 1203]. See Judges xiii. 18, “And the angel of the Lord said unto him: Why askest thou after my name, seeing it is secret?”

{{Footnote return|*|fn1203}} See Judges xiii. 18, “And the angel of the Lord said unto him: Why askest thou after my name, seeing it is {{Style S-Small capitals|secret}}?”

166 ISIS UNVEILED.

{{Page|166|ISIS UNVEILED.}}

is a divine revelation, how can the {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|not}} the son of God? This is a dilemma from which the theologians are bond to rescue us. It is from this very dilemma that the Gnostics endeavored to snatch the budding Christianity.

{{Style P-No indent|''tament'' is a divine revelation, how can the {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|not}} the son of God? This is a dilemma from which the theologians are bond 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 {{Style S-Italic|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 {{Style S-Italic|Supernatural Religion:^{[#fn1204 1204]}}} “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 ({{Style S-Italic|Isaiah}} lii. 13 - liii. 3) are not predictions of the death of Jesus.”^{[#fn1205 1205]}

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 {{Style S-Italic|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:''{{Footnote mark|*|fn1204}} “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 ({{Style S-Italic|Isaiah}} lii. 13 - liii. 3) are not predictions of the death of Jesus.”{{Footnote mark|†|fn1205}}

[#fn1204anc 1204]. Vol. ii., p. 106.

{{Footnote return|*|fn1204}} Vol. ii., p. 106.

[#fn1205anc 1205]. 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.

{{Footnote return|†|fn1205}} 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.