I have stated that it was from the _Pish_-de-danaans or Yavana
philosophers of Egypt that Moses had learned the allegories of the Deluge
and of the Fall. I now add, _that it was by them also he had been
instructed in that consolatory assurance which told him_ that the “Seed of
the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.”[315]
In truth, it was this very promise made to the ancestors of those people
in _Paradise_, which is but another name for _Iran_,[316] that gave rise
to the _schism_ between them and the _Tuath_-de-danaans.
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
_conception_; in sorrow thou shalt _bring forth children_: and thy
_desire_ shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”[317]
The _nature_ of the _crime_ is here clearly denoted by the _suitableness_
of the _punishment_.[318] But the same over-ruling Judge, who, in
conformity with His justice, could not but chastise the violation of His
injunctions, yet, in mercy to man’s weakness, and seeing that “he also is
flesh,” condescended to promise that the _instrument_ of his _seduction_
should be also the _vehicle_ of his _redeeming triumph_.
“I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between
thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.”[319]
Pinning their faith upon the literal fulfilment of these terms, which told
them that the _female, as such_, would be the unaided author of a _being_,
whose healing effects would restore them to the inheritance so heedlessly
forfeited, their veneration for that _symbol_ of divine interposition
became correspondingly unbounded; and their enthusiasm for the principle
of its strict verification was what engendered the thought that in the
general procreating scheme the _yoni_ was the _vivifier_.
The _Tuath_-de-danaans or Lingajas, on the other hand, were not less
satisfied in their security; but looking upon the terms with a more
_spiritual_ interpretation, and led by the operation of ordinary _physics_
to consider the question as a _deviation_ from the _general rule_, they
erected the symbol of _male_ capability as the standard of their doctrine.
And thus, while the zeal of both parties shook the very framework of
society, yet did they _concur_ in all the _essentials_ of their respective
religions; and even the particulars of that _prospect_ by which they were
both sustained, instead of operating as an exception to the universality
of this truth, only confirm its import.
The Jews, who were but _newly_ brought forward upon the stage, and who, in
the inscrutable councils of heaven, were selected as the objects of God’s
immediate superintendence, being informed of the tenour of the
paradisaical hope, abused it more wantonly than ever did the
_Pish_-de-danaans or the _Tuath_-de-danaans.
Unable to comprehend, from their narrow mental calibre, any _agency_ in
the form of a divine _emanation_, and yet fancying, each of them, that she
would herself be the mother of the expected Redeemer, their women indulged
in all the lusts of _desire_, and, where no opportunity offered for
licensed gratification, revelled in the arms of incest.
This alone can apologise for that intensity of passion, exceeding even the
dictates of natural thirst, and unrestrained by the consideration of
decency or consanguinity, whereof we read in the Old Testament, respecting
the Israelitish daughters;[320] while it also demonstrates that the
_carnality_ of their souls did not allow them thoroughly to understand the
precise nature of the _favour_ designed.
Far otherwise the case with the _intellectual_ races, which they were now
appointed to supersede.
“In order to reclaim the vicious, to punish the incorrigible, to protect
the oppressed, to destroy the oppressor, to encourage and reward the good,
and to show all spirits the path to their ultimate happiness, God has been
pleased to manifest Himself, say the Brahmins, in a variety of ways, from
age to age, in all parts of the habitable globe. When He acts immediately,
without assuming a shape, or sending forth a new emanation, when a divine
sound is heard from the sky, that manifestation of Himself is called
_acasavani_, or an ethereal voice: when the voice proceeds from a meteor
or a flame, it is said to be _agnarupi_, or _formed of fire_; but an
_avatara_ is a descent of the Deity in the shape of a mortal; and an
_avantara_ is a similar incarnation of an inferior kind, intended to
answer some purpose of less moment. The Supreme Being, and the celestial
emanations from Him, are _niracara_, or bodiless, in which state they must
be invisible to mortals; but when they are _pratya-sha_, or obvious to
sight, they become _sacara_, or embodied, either in shapes different from
that of any mortal, and expressive of the divine attributes, as Chrishna
revealed himself to Arjun, or in a human form, _which Chrishna usually
bore, and in that mode of appearing the deities are generally supposed to
be born of women without any carnal intercourse_.”[321]
Is this repugnant to the spirit of Christianity? No; it is its
counterpart. “I know,” says Job, in the moment of inspiration, “that my
Redeemer liveth.”[322] Prophetically, you reply; and you back the opinion
by our Saviour’s own appeal that “Abraham saw his day, and was glad.”[323]
Abraham certainly believed by anticipation, but Job by retrospection. And
if you will not think my assertion decisive of the matter, I will produce
an authority to which you will more readily subscribe.
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not
written in the book of life of _the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world_.”[324]
It will be in vain for you to attempt to parry the evidence of this
startling text. No visionary _foresight_ will accomplish its defeat: no
ideal _substitutions_ will shake its validity.
“How it came to pass,” says Skelton, “that the Egyptians, Arabians, and
Indians, before Christ came among us, and the inhabitants of the extreme
northern parts of the world, ere they had so much as heard of Him, _paid a
remarkable veneration to the sign of the cross_, is to me unknown, but
_the fact itself_ is known. In some places this sign was given to men
accused of a crime, but acquitted: and _in Egypt it stood for the
signification of eternal life_.”[325]
“V. W.” has asserted something similar;[326] but neither one nor the other
has attempted to fathom its origin.
“The Druids,” adds Schedius, “seek studiously for an oak tree, large and
handsome, growing up with _two principal arms, in form of a cross_, beside
the main stem upright. If the two _horizontal arms_ are not sufficiently
adapted to the figure, they fasten a _cross_-beam to it. This tree they
consecrate in this manner. Upon the right branch, they cut in the back, in
fair characters, the word _Hesus_: upon the middle or upright stem, the
word _Taramis_: upon the left branch, _Belenus_: over this, above the
going off of the arms, they cut the name of God, _Thau_: under all, the
same repeated _Thau_.”[327]
“The form of the great temple,” observes Dr. Macculloch, “at Loch Bernera,
in the Isle of Lewis the chief isle of the Hebrides, is that of a _cross_,
containing, at the intersection, a circle with a central stone; an
additional line being superadded on one side of the longest arms, and
nearly parallel to it. Were this line absent, its proportion would be
nearly that of the Roman cross, or common crucifix.”
And then, in reply to the supposition of its having been converted by the
_Christians_ into this form, he avers that “the whole is too consistent,
and too much of one age, to admit of such; while at the same time, it
could not, under any circumstances, have been applicable to a Christian
worship. Its essential part, the circular area, and the number of similar
structures found in the vicinity, equally bespeak its ancient origin. It
must, therefore, be concluded, that the cruciform shape was given by the
original contrivers of the fabric; and it will afford an object of
speculation to antiquaries, who, if they are sometimes accused of _heaping
additional obscurity on the records of antiquity_, must also be allowed
the frequent merit of eliciting light from darkness. _To them I willingly
consign all further speculations concerning it._”[328]... “Yet it seems
_unquestionable_ that the figure of a cross was known to the Gothic
nations, and also used by them _before they were_ converted to
Christianity.”[329]
I do not know whether or not would the Doctor deem _me_ an “antiquary,” or
if he did, in _which class_ would he assign me a place. I will undertake,
notwithstanding, to solve this difficulty with as much precision as I have
the others before it.
The _existence_ of the “cross,” and its _worship_, anterior to the
Christian era, being no longer liable to dispute, it remains only that we
investigate the _cause_ which it commemorates.[330]
Our first aid in this research will be the notice of its accompaniments;
and when we find that it goes ever in the train of a particular divinity,
are we not compelled to connect that divinity with the idea of a
crucifixion?
_Taut_, amongst the Egyptians, is emblemised by _three_ crosses.[331] The
Scandinavians represent their _Teutates_ by a cross. And a cross is the
device by which the Irish _Tuath_ is perpetuated.
But these are all one and the same name, varied by the genius of the
different countries. The _centre_ from which they _diverge_, as well as
the _focus_ to which they _return_, I have shown to be _Budh_: and as this
_symbol_ of his worship is universally recognised, does not the
_crucifixion_ thus implied identify his fate with that of the “Lamb slain
from the beginning of the world”?[332]
The Pythonic _allegory_ which the Greeks have so obscured, in reality
originated in this religious transaction. For what is their fable? Is it
not that _Apollo_ slew with his _arrow_ the serpent _Python_? And as
Apollo means _son of the Sun_, is not the _substance_ of the whole, that
the _offspring of a virgin’s womb_--that is, an _emanation of the Sun_, or
_Budh_--overcame by his own _death_--typified by an _arrow_--sin and
_sensuality_, of which the _serpent_, _i.e._ _pith_, is the symbol?
We are now prepared for the reception of that chronicle, transmitted
through the Puranas, and noticed already at p. 221, viz. that a “giant,
named Sancha-mucha-naga, in the shape of a _snake_, with a _mouth_ like a
_shell_, and whose abode was in a _shell_, having _two countenances_, was
killed by Christnah.”
The _very name_ of this allegoric “giant” indicates the _mysterious
snake_--his being in the _form_ of a _snake_ is but the _personification_
of _sensuality_; his having a _mouth_ like a _shell_ alludes to the
_concha Veneris_, or the _Pith_; his having his _abode_ in that _shell_
denotes its being the _seat_ of _temptation_; his having _two
countenances_ implies the _disguise_ which _sin_ assumes; and his being
_slain_ by _Christnah_ denotes that the _Son of God_, by _mortification
and self-denial, and the most rigid abstinence from all worldly
pleasures_, verified in _His own person the promise made in Paradise_, and
for the _minor disquietudes_ which _guilt_ entails--expressed by the
“_heel_” being “_bruised_” by the “_serpent_,”--inflicted a _blow_, which
laid low his empire, and stamped the signal of _victory_ over his
“head.”[333]
“Ye search the Scriptures,” says our Saviour “for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are they which _testify_ of Me.”[334]
_Testification_ can be made only in the case of a past occurrence. It is
never used in the way of prophecy. And in conformity with its true import,
you will find, from Genesis to Revelation, the concurrent tenor of the
Sacred Volume giving proof to the fact of Christ’s former appearance upon
the earth as man!
But suppose me for a moment to descend from this position, and view those
previous manifestations as ordinary subjects of history, then hear an
outline of what is transmitted to us respecting one of them.
Chanakya, Zacha, or, as our registers have it, Macha,[335] one of the
personifications of Budh, the general appellative of those heaven-sent
devotees, was so startling a paragon of human impeccability, as to inspire
his followers with the conviction of his being an incarnation of the
Godhead.
He is stated to have been the son of one of the most powerful of eastern
kings; but, according to their preconceived notions of the future
Redeemer, born of his mother without any knowledge of the other sex.
The circumstances attendant upon his infantine education, and the
precocity of his parts, favoured an inauguration upon which their fancies
had been long riveted. After a laborious ordeal of pious austerity, not
without miraculous proofs and other intimations of Divine approval, he was
duly admitted to the honour of canonisation, and entered, accordingly,
upon his task of consigned Saviour of the world.
The encounters with which he had to contend, in this uphill work, against
flesh and blood, were those which were, afterwards, again combated by the
_admitted_ Saviour whom he had personated. The same faults he reprehended;
the same weakness he deplored; the same hypocrisy he rebuked; and the same
virtues he inculcated. The purification of the inner spirit was the object
which both professed, and the improvement of human morals in social
intercourse and relation, the evidence in practice, upon which both
equally insisted.
If Christ promised a _heaven_ to the votaries of His truths, Budha did a
_nirwana_ to his disciples and imitators: and though the former place, to
our imagination, sounds _replete with all delights_, while the latter is
merely figured as exempt from all _painfulness_, yet _both_ agree in one
particular, not a little soothing to wounded hope, in being essentially
such, as where “the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are
at rest.”
But great as was the resemblance which the personal example and the
doctrinal lessons of Macha and Christ bore to one another, it was as
nothing compared to the almost incredible similitude of their respective
departures. They both died the inglorious death of the _cross_ to
reconcile man to his offended Creator; and in confident dependence upon
the best authenticated assurance, exulted on the occasion, however galling
the process, of expiating, by their own sufferings, the accumulated sins
of humanity.
Is it to be wondered at, therefore, that the traces which they have left
behind them, in their different ages, should bear an analogy to one
another? Or would not the wonder rather be that they did not, in all
respects, harmonise?
“Let not the piety of the Catholic Christian,” says the Rev. Mr. Maurice,
“be offended at the preceding assertion, that the _cross_ was one of the
most usual symbols among the hieroglyphics of Egypt and India. Equally
honoured in the Gentile and the Christian world, this emblem of universal
nature, of that world to whose quarters its diverging radii pointed,
decorated the hands of most of the sculptured images in the former
country, and in the latter stamped its form upon the most majestic of the
shrines of their deities.”[336]
The _fact_ alone is here attested to: not a syllable is said as to the
_reason why_: and though I cannot but recognise the _scruples_ of the
_writer_, nor withhold my admiration from the _rotundity_ in which the
diction has been cast, yet the reader must have seen that, as to _actual
illustration_, it is--like the Rev. Mr. Deane’s _flourish_ about the
worship of the serpent--“_Vox et præterea nihil_!”[337]
“You do err, not knowing the Scriptures,”[338] said a Master, _without
pride_, and _who could not err_. If the remark applied in _His_ day, it is
not the less urgent in ours. So astounding did the correspondence between
the Christian and the Budhist doctrines appear to the early missionaries
to Thibet and the adjacent countries--a correspondence not limited to mere
points of _faith_ and preceptorial maxims, but exhibiting its operation in
all the outward details of _form_, the inhabitants going even so far as to
wear _crosses_ around their necks--that Thevenot, Renaudot, Lacroze, and
Andrada, have supposed in their ignorance of the cause of such affinity,
that Budhism must have been a vitiation of _Christianity_ before planted;
whereas _Budhism_ flourished thousands of years before it, or Brahminism
either; and _this cross was the symbol of Budha crucified_.
“Our second illustration,” says the _Dublin Penny Journal_, referring to
what I have here introduced, “belongs to a later period, and will give a
good idea of the usual mode of representing the _Saviour_, whether on
stone crosses, or on bronze, which prevailed from the sixth to the twelfth
century. Such remains however, are valuable, not only as memorials of the
arts, but as preserving the Celtic costume of a portion of the inhabitants
of our island in those remote ages. It will be seen that in _this_, as in
one of the shrine-figures before given, the kilt, or philibeg, is
distinctly marked, and _controverts the erroneous assertion_ of
Pinkerton, formerly noticed, that “it was always quite unknown amongst the
Welsh and Irish.”[339]
[Illustration]
How others may receive it I do not know; but for myself, I confess, I find
it no easy matter to maintain the composure of my countenance at this
affected _pomposity_ of censorial _magniloquence_. The _self-complacency_
of the _censor_ one could tolerate with ease, if the _assumption_ of the
_historian_ had aught to support it. But alas! every position in the
extract is the direct opposite of truth, with the exception of that which
asserts another person’s error; and even this is beclouded with such
egregious observations as to show, that leaving _Pinkerton_ to P----[340]
would be consigning the blind to a blinder conductor.
For, in the first place, the _philibeg_ was not a _Celtic_ costume at all,
but belonged to the De-danaan, or Iranian colony,[341] who, on their
overthrow here, took it with them to what is now called Scotland. The
Firbolgs, who were Celts, and occupied this island before the Iranians,
wore another style of dress altogether, which, on the reconquest of the
country by the Scythian swarms, B.C. 1000, became again the national
uniform. For the Firbolgs, having assisted the Scythians in dislodging the
Iranians from the throne of the kingdom, and agreeing with them
furthermore in point of worship and of garb, they did not only make _their
own habits_, as well of _religion_ as of _dress_, universal throughout the
realm, but obliterated every vestige of the _obnoxious_ costume, and
cancelled every symptom of its characteristic ceremonial, except alone
those Round Temples of adamantine strength, which defied the assailment of
all violence and batteries.
There was no remnant, therefore, of the kilt to be met with in Ireland,
either in the _sixth_ century, or in the _twelfth_, or indeed for many
centuries before the Christian era at all. This effigy,[342] therefore,
_could not have been intended for our Saviour_, wanting, besides, the I.
N. R. I.,[343] and wearing the _Iranian regal crown_ instead of the
_Jewish crown of thorns_. Therefore are we justified in ascribing it to
its owner, _Budha_, whom again we find imprinted in the same _crucified
form_, but with more _irresistibility of identification_, over the
monuments of his name--over the doors and lintels of the temples of his
worship.
[Illustration]
Mr. Gough, describing this edifice, tells us that “On the west front of
the tower (Brechin) are two arches, one within the other, in relief. On
the point of the outermost is a _crucifix_, and between both, towards the
middle, are figures of the Virgin Mary and St. John, the latter holding a
cup with a lamb. The outer arch is adorned with knobs, and within both is
a slit or loop. At bottom of the outer arch are _two beasts_ couchant. _If
one of them, by his proboscis_, was not evidently _an elephant_, I should
suppose them the supporters of the Scotch arms. Parallel with the crucifix
are two plain stones, which do not appear to have had anything upon
them.”[344]
Captain Mackenzie, in his _Antiquities of the West and South Coast of
Ceylon_, which still professes adherence to Budhism, tells us that “_at
each side of the doorway_ (of the temple at Calane), _inclosed in recesses
cut in the wall, are two large figures, the janitors of the god_
(Budh).... A large elephant’s tooth and a small _elephant of brass form
the ornament_ of a lampstead.... A female figure of the natural size,
decently and not ungracefully arrayed in the same garb, was represented
standing in another quarter, holding a lamp in the extended hand. The
gallery was entirely covered with paintings, containing an history of the
life of Boodhoo--one of these seemed to represent the birth of the divine
child. A _large white elephant_ made a conspicuous figure in most of these
assemblies.”[345]
Scotch arms, indeed! Why, Sir, those animals were recumbent there, in
deified transfiguration, before ever _Pict_ or _Scot_ had planted a
profane foot within their neighbourhood. What connection, let me ask,
could this _elephant_ and this _bull_ have with Christianity, to entitle
them to the honour of being grouped with our Saviour? Or, if any, how
happens it that we never see them enter into similar combinations, in
_churches_ or _chapels_, or _convents_ or _cathedrals_?[345]
But if they belong not to the Christian ceremonial, they do to something
else. They are the _grand, distinctive_, and _indispensable adjuncts of
Budhism_; being the _two animals_ into which, _according to its doctrine
of metempsychosis, the soul of Budha had entered after his death_.
This was the origin of the Egyptian _Apis_: and who is not familiar with
the honours lavished upon the sacred _bull_? To this day the _elephant_ is
worshipped in the Burman empire,[346] where the genius of _Budhism_ still
lingeringly tarries; and “_Lord of the White Elephant_” is the proudest
ensign of power claimed by the successors to the throne of Pegu.
The _human_ figures, then, _of course_, cannot be intended for “_St. John_
or the _Virgin Mary_.” They represent _Budha’s Virgin Mother_, along with
his _favourite disciple, Rama_. And thus does the testimony of
Artemidorus, who _flourished 104 years before Christ_, a native himself of
Ephesus, and _who did not himself understand_ the _mystery_ of that
_Virgin_ whom he historically records, receive _illustration_ from _my
proof_, while it gives _it confirmation_ in return.
His words are--“Adjacent to Britain there stands an island, where _sacred
rites_ are performed to Ceres and the _Virgin_, similar to those in
Samothrace.”
Initiation in the principles of this Samothracian ceremonial was thought
so necessary an accomplishment for every hero and every prince, that no
aspirant to those distinctions ever ventured upon his destination, without
first paying a visit to that religious rendezvous. The solemnity,
attaching to the ritual there performed, was not greater than the
veneration paid to the place itself. All fugitives found shelter within
its privileged precincts, and the name of _sacred_ was assigned it, as the
ordinary characteristic of such sanctuaries.[347]
“There are,” says the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, “two orders of
mysteries celebrated in the course of the year, in honour of Ceres and
_the Virgin_--the lesser and the greater; the former being but a sort of
purification and holy preparation for the latter.”[348]
Who the Virgin was, however, none but the _initiated_ ever presumed to
investigate, the practice observed in respect to her, being the same as
that which influenced the other ordinances of antiquity: and which made
Strabo himself declare, that “_all that can be said concerning the gods
must be by the exposition of old opinions and fables; it being the custom
of the ancients to wrap up in enigma and allegory their thoughts and
discourses concerning nature, which are, therefore, not easily
explained_.”[349]
Proclus also says: “In all initiations and mysteries, the gods exhibit
themselves under many forms, and with a frequent change of shape;
sometimes as light defined to no particular figure; sometimes in a human
form; and sometimes in that of some other creature.”[350]
With the clue, however, already afforded, we need not be deterred from
approaching her fane. The allegorical name, under which they disguised
her, was that of _Proserpine_: whom they represent “so beautiful that _the
father of the gods himself became enamoured of her, and deceived her by
changing himself into a serpent, and folding her in his wreaths_.”[351]
This was the _Greek perversion_ of the narrative. They had received it
from the Pelasgi, under the garb of a _conception_, by _serpentine
insinuation, in a virgin womb_: and, the grossness of their intellects not
allowing them to comprehend the possibility of an _emanation_, yet giving
unqualified credence to the record, they degraded altogether the
_religiousness_ of the thought, and supposed that the Almighty, to
effectuate his design, had actually assumed the _cobra di capello_ form!
So austere was the rule, by which those mysteries were protected, that
Æschylus but _barely escaped discerption within the theatre_, for an
imagined disrespect to their tendency. Nor was it but on the plea of
ignorance and _un_-initiation, that he did ultimately obtain pardon.[352]
This insuperable barrier to the curiosity of the profane, engendered in
their conduct a corresponding reaction, and, as the _fox_ did to the
_grapes_, what they could not themselves compass, they strove all they
could to vituperate!
“Virtue, however, is its own reward,” and, as the authority of Cicero,
having been himself a priest, ought to have some weight in the discussion,
it is no small impetus to the cause of truth, to hear this pre-eminent man
assign to the efficacy of the precepts, inculcated in those
mysteries,--“the knowledge of the God of nature; the first, the supreme,
the intellectual; by which men had been reclaimed from rudeness and
barbarism, to elegance and refinement; and been taught, not only to live
with more comfort, but to die with better hopes.”[353]
“Slave to no sect, who takes no private road,
But looks through Nature up to Nature’s God;
Pursues that chain which links the immense design,
Joins heaven and earth, and mortal and divine,
Sees that no being any bliss can know,
But touches some above, and some below;
Learns from this union of the rising whole,
The first, last purpose of the human soul;
And knows where faith, law, morals, all began,
All end in love of God and love of man.”[354]