I would have my reader pause upon the substance of the terms with which
the last section concluded--“Not only to live with more comfort, but to
die with better hopes!”
Have you read them? Have you digested them? And are you not ashamed of
your illiberality?
From what pulpit in Christendom will you hear better or more orthodox
truths? Where will you find the Gospel more energetically enunciated? And,
with this _testimony_ staring you in the face--in defiance of inner
light--and imperiously subjugating the allegiance of rationality--will you
still persist in limiting the benevolence of your “Father?” and in
withholding every symptom of paternal regard from his own handiwork, until
the beginning of the last two thousand years? that is, as it were, till
yesterday?
“I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the _stones_ would
immediately cry out.”[355]
“On a bank near the shore,” says Cordiner, in his _Antiquities of
Scotland_, “opposite to the ruins of a castellated house, called Sandwick
(in Ross-shire), and about three miles east from Ferns, a very splendid
obelisk is erected, surrounded at the base with large, well-cut flag
stones, formed like steps. Both sides of this column are elaborately
covered with various enrichments, in well-finished carved work. The one
face presents a sumptuous cross, with a figure of St. Andrew on each hand,
and some uncouth animals and flowerings underneath. The central division,
on the reverse, renders it a piece of antiquity well worthy of
preservation; there is exhibited on that such a variety of figures, birds,
and animals, as seemed what might prove a curious subject of
investigation; I have, therefore, given a distinct delineation of them at
the foot of the column, on a larger scale, that their shapes might be
distinctly ascertained, and the more probable conjectures formed of their
allusion.”
[Illustration]
What, on earth, business would St. Andrew have in company with “uncouth
animals?” What have “birds,” “figures,” and “flowerings” to do with
Christianity? If this “obelisk” had not been erected here, in
commemorative deification, centuries upon centuries before the era of his
Saintship’s birth, why should the “cross,” which “one face presents,” be
decorated with “enrichments” brought all the way from Egypt?
Look at these hieroglyphics: and where will you find anything congenial to
them within the empire of the Romans? Here is the _Bulbul of Iran_,[356]
the _boar_ of Vishnu, the elk, the fox, the lamb, and the dancers. All the
other configurations, without going through them in detail, are not only,
in their nature and import, essentially eastern, but are actually the
_symbols of the various animal-forms under which they contemplated the
properties of the Godhead_. As the _cross_, however, is that to which we
are more immediately directed, I shall confine myself, for the present, to
the establishment of its antiquity.
No one will question but that _Venus_ was antecedent to the days of _St.
Andrew_; and _she_ is represented with a _cross_ and a circle![357]
_Jupiter_ also, it will be admitted, was anterior to his time; and we find
him delineated with a _cross_ and a horn! _Saturn_ is said to have been
sire to the last-mentioned god, and, by the laws of primogeniture, must
have been senior to him; yet we find _him_ also pictured with a _cross_
and horn! The monogram of Osiris is a _cross_! On a medal of one of the
Ptolemies is to be seen an eagle conveying a thunderbolt with the _cross_!
In short, all through the ancient world this symbol was to be encountered,
and wherever it presented itself, it was always the harbinger of sanctity
and of peace.
Can we glean from their writings any confirmation to my development as to
the _origin_ of the rite? Plato asserts, that the form of the letter X was
imprinted upon the universe.[358] I know how this has been interpreted as
a reference to the Son of God, and the second power of the Divinity. I
will not make use of it in any such light, preferring to avoid everything
that may seem _equivocal_, yet am I well convinced that, under the
philosopher’s ratiocination, may be seen the twinkling trace of a previous
incarnation of the λογος, and a crucifixion, likewise, as an atonement for
the sins of humanity.
“Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did
esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
“But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our
iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His
stripes we are healed.”[359]
This is all in the past tense; bearing reference, irrefutably, to a
_former_ occurrence, but including also, in the sequel, the idea of a
_future_ reappearance. And if you look back at the effigy, page 296, will
it not sensitively prove him to have been “a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief?”[360]
“The deity Harì,” says an inscription at _Budda-gaya_, in India, “the lord
and possessor of all, appeared in this ocean of natural beings at the
close of the Devapara and beginning of the Cali Yug. He who is omnipresent
and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme Being, the Eternal One,
the Divinity worthy of mankind, appeared here, with a portion of His
divine nature.”[361]
There is no term so vernacular in the Irish language as that of
_Budh-gaye_. It is familiar to the _ears_ of every smatterer in _letters_;
and is in the _mouth_ of every _cowherd_, from Cape Clear to the Giants’
Causeway. Neither class has, however, had so much as a _glimpse_ of what
it means: nor did they busy themselves much in the pursuit, but acquiesced
in that example of _commendable_ resignation once practised by
Strabo--when he failed to ascertain anything about the _Cabiri_--by
declaring that “the name was mysterious!”
A great personage, however, who was not only in his habits _wise_, but was
in himself _wisdom_, has affirmed, that “there is nothing covered that
shall not be revealed; nor hid that shall not be known.”[362] And as every
sentence recorded as emanating from _His_ lips has with me a value more
than what could serve to illustrate a momentary topic, I flatter myself
that the result of the confidence, thus humbly inspired, will be
additionally verified in the instance before us.
_Budh-gaye_, then of the Irish, or _Budha-gaya_ of the Hindoos, means
_Phallus[363] telluris_, _i.e._ the _generativeness of the earth_, or _the
earth’s prolific principle_. This I have before demonstrated to have been
the object of adoration to the ancients; and have furthermore shown, that
one of the individuals, in whom this idea was personified, had suffered
crucifixion as a mediator for sin.
A new disclosure suggests itself from this. _Budh_ and _Phallus_ being
synonymous, if you add _Gaye_ to each, then _Budh-gaye_ and _Gaye-phallus_
will be identical. But as the character who embodied the _abstract virtue_
of the former had been crucified, his name came to stand, not only for
that _abstract virtue_, but also for a cross,[364] or a _crucified man_;
and of course, _Gaye-phallus_, its equivalent, represented the same ideas.
Now, as well the _primary_ as _secondary_ meaning of those two words was
liable to misconstruction; and they were sure to obtain such from
ignorance and from depravity. The _pure_ and the _sublime emotions_, which
the religiousness of the _prolific principle_ had comprehended, were
perverted by malice into _sensuality_ and _debauchery_; while the idea of
a _man crucified_, however innocent of charge, could not be separated, by
grovelling and servile dispositions, from the ordinary accompaniments of
_contempt_ and of _crime_.
Hence _Budh-gaye_ and _Gaye-phallus_, after a succession of ages, when
their _proper_ acceptation was forgotten, were remembered only in their
_perverted_ sense. And accordingly we observe, that, when a Roman Emperor
who had been brought up a priest in the East, assumed, on his being
appointed to the Roman sceptre, the title of _Helio-ga-balus_, and thereby
invested himself in all the attributes of _Gaye-phallus_, or _Budh-gaye_,
that is, in other words, as the _Vicegerent of the Sun_, the
licentiousness of his life, and the profligacy of his demeanour, having
rendered him obnoxious to his subjects, they amputated the _prefix_ of his
_Solar_ majesty, and branded him with the _scorn_ of _Ga-balus_.
The _disdain_ intended in this latter abbreviation is now, therefore,
already solved. _Gaye-phallus_, for sound sake, having been made
_Ga-phallus_, this latter was still further--by reason of the
commutability of the letters _ph_ and _b_--reduced into _Ga-balus_.
When the temple of Serapis, at Alexandria, was destroyed, we are told by
Sozomen, that the monogram of Christ was discovered beneath the
foundation. And, though neither party knew how to account for the sign,
yet was it pleaded alike by the Gentiles as by the Christians, in support
of the heavenliness of their respective religions.
The early Roman _fathers_, very pious but very illiterate men, unable to
close their eyes against the proofs of the priority of the cross to the
era of the advent, did not scruple to assign it to the malicious
foreknowledge of the prince of the lower world.[365]
But if this gentleman had been the author of the early cross, is it likely
that God would have embraced it as the signal of His protection when
dealing destruction to the objects of His divine vengeance?
“And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the
midst of Jerusalem, and put a _mark_ upon the foreheads of the men that
sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst
thereof:
“And to the others he said in my hearing, Go ye after him through the
city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity.
“Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women;
but _come not near any man upon whom is the mark_; and begin at My
sanctuary.”[366]
Now this “mark,” in the ancient Hebrew original, was the _cross_ X. St.
Jerome, the most learned by far of those “_fathers_,” has admitted the
circumstance. And if this had been the device of the enemy of man, would
the Author of all goodness so sanction _his_ imposture, as to adopt it as
the index of His saving love?
“Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”[367]
But this was not the only _invention_ which they attributed to the devil.
Tertullian gravely assures us that he was the author of _buskins_ also!
And why, good reader, would you suppose?--in sooth, for no other reason
than because that our Saviour said, in His sermon upon the mountain,
“Which of you, by taking thought, can _add one cubit unto his
stature_?”[368]
In him, also, did they find an adequate excuse for those _apertures_,
which I shall by and by notice, as excavated in rocks and mounds of clay,
calling them, with some compliment it must be admitted to his _gallantry_,
by the monopolising appellation of the Devil’s _Yonies_.[369]
But of all the _puerilities_ which sully their zeal, there is no one half
so calculated to injure _vital religion_, as the _low quibbles_ and
_dishonest quotations_ which Justin Martyr had recourse to, as _apologies_
for the _cross_!
Why, Sir, the greatest persecutor with which the Christians had ever been
cursed, namely, the Emperor Decius, had imprinted the _cross_ upon some of
his coins!
[Illustration]
Here, again, it is upon a medal found in the ruins of Citium, and proved
by Dr. Clarke in his _Travels_ to have been Phœnician! It exhibits the
_lamb_, the _cross_, and the rosary![370]
When John the Baptist first saw Jesus beyond the Jordan, in Bethabara, he
exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the
world.”[371]
This he did not apply as a _novel_ designation; but as the familiar
epithet, and the recognised denomination of the Son of God, whose
prescribed office it was, in _all the changes of past worlds_, as it was
now in this present, to redress the broken-hearted by taking away sin.
He adds: “This is He of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is
preferred before me; _for He was before me_,”[372] not only in eternity,
but on this earth.
“And I knew Him not; but that _He should be made manifest to
Israel_,”[373] as He was before to other nations,--an event which was but
the fulfilment of a prophecy ushered in many years before in these
remarkable words--
“Behold, the former things are come to pass”:[374] not that the
_predictions_ formerly delivered had taken place, but the _things_, the
_events_, the _occurrences_, which had been _enacted_ before, were now
_re_-enacted! that a _renovation_ of the world was at hand, which the
mouthpiece of the Lord commences by saying--“New things do I declare;
before they spring forth I tell you of them.”
On turning the leaf you will see another of those pillars which grace a
land of heroes, “where stones were raised on high to speak to future
times, with their grey heads of moss”;[375] and whose story, though “lost
in the mist of years,” may yet be deciphered from off themselves.
[Illustration]
This costly relic of religion, erected solely in honour of the cross, is
to be seen at Forres, in Scotland, and is thus described by Cordiner:--
“On the first division, under the Gothic ornaments at the top, are nine
horses with their riders, marching in order; in the next division is a
line of warriors on foot, brandishing their weapons, and appear to be
shouting for the battle. The import of the attitudes in the third division
very dubious, their expression indefinite.
“The figures which form a square in the middle of the column are pretty
complex, but distinct; four serjeants, with their halberts, guard a
canopy, under which are placed several human heads, which have belonged to
the dead bodies piled up at the left of the division: one appears in the
character of executioner, severing the head from another body; behind him
are three trumpeters sounding their trumpets; and before him two pair of
combatants fighting with sword and target.
“A troop of horse next appears, put to flight by infantry, whose first
line have bows and arrows; the three following, swords and targets. In the
lowermost division now visible, the horses seem to be seized by the
victorious party, their riders beheaded, and the head of their chief hung
in chains, or placed in a frame: the others being thrown together beside
the dead bodies, under an arched cover.”
With this compare the description given by Captain Head, of the devices
sculptured upon one of the Egyptian antiquities.
“It would,” says he, “far exceed the limits of this work, to attempt a
description of the ornaments of sculpture in this temple. The most
interesting are on the north wall, where there are battle-scenes, with
innumerable figures of military combatants, using their arms, consisting
of bows and arrows, spears and bucklers--of prostrate enemies, of
war-chariots and horses. The fiery action and elegant shape of the steeds
are remarkable. It would require a first-rate living genius to rival the
variety of position, the power of effect, and fidelity of execution, in
which men and horses are exhibited in the dismay of the flight, the agony
of the death-struggle, and the exultation of the triumph.”
Let us take a view, now, of the other side of this obelisk. “The greatest
part of it,” says Cordiner, “is occupied by a _sumptuous_ cross, and
covered over with an uniform figure, elaborately raised, and interwoven
with great mathematical exactness; of this, on account of its singularity,
there is given a representation at the foot of the column. Under the cross
are two august personages with some attendants, much obliterated, but
evidently in an attitude of reconciliation; and if the monument was
erected in memory of the peace concluded between _Malcolm_ and _Canute_,
upon the final retreat of the _Danes_, these larger figures may represent
the reconciled monarchs.
“On the edge, below the fretwork, are some rows of figures, joined
hand-in-hand, which may also imply the new degree of confidence and
security which took place, after the feuds were composed, which are
characterised on the front of the pillar. But to whatever particular
transaction it may allude, it can hardly be imagined, _that in so early an
age of the arts in Scotland as it must have been raised, so elaborate a
performance would have been undertaken but in consequence of an event of
the most general importance_: it is, therefore, surprising, that no
distincter traditions of it arrived at the era when letters were known.”
[Illustration]
As to “the era when letters were known,” I shall bestow upon that a
sentence or two by and by. For the present I confine myself to the
“surprise that no distincter traditions” of this _monolith_ temple[376]
has been handed down to us.
It was erected by the _Tuath-de-danaans_ on their expulsion from Ireland.
The inscriptions upon it are the irresistible evidence of their emblematic
religion. After an interval of some centuries, the Picts poured in upon
their quietude; and the barbarous habits of those marauders, being averse
as much to the _ritual_ as to the _avocations_ of the Tuath-de-danaans,
they effaced every vestige of the dominion of that people, and made them
fly for shelter to the Highlands.
In the days of _Malcolm_, therefore, and of _Canute_, the history of this
pyramid was as difficult of solution as it was in those of _Pennant_ and
of _Cordiner_. And there is no question but that the two _monarchs_
looked, with as much wonder, upon the hieroglyphics along its sides, as
did the two _antiquarians_, who would fain associate them with them.
It is to me marvellous, how persons, in the possession of common reason
could, _contrary to all the evidence of observation and history_, look
upon the Danish invasion as the epoch of all enlightenment! and the Danes,
themselves, as the heaven-sent importers of its blessings! Yet, whatever
may have been the case with _some hopeful_ scions of this order, Mr.
Cordiner, at all events, appears to have been honest, and if he missed the
direction of historical verity, it was less his fault than his misfortune.
Who can say so much for Ledwich?
The following extract will justify the tribute here paid to the
_sincerity_ of Mr. Cordiner’s investigations “These monuments,” says he,
“are all said to have been erected in memory of defeats of the Danes, but
there _does not appear any reference that the hieroglyphics on them can
have to such events_. That they have been raised on interesting occasions
there can be little doubt, perhaps in memory of the most renowned
chieftains and their exploits who first embraced Christianity.”
They who first “embraced Christianity” were no “chieftains”; or such as
were, had no “exploits” to record. But it was not so with the professors
of the _primeval_ “_cross_,” in the revelation of Budhism, the
transmigrations of which were but typically pourtrayed on this enduring
column. And in confirmation hereof, Mr. Gordon affirms that he has
“distinguished upon it several figures of a _monstrous form_, resembling
_four-footed beasts_ with human heads!”
Carnac, in Upper Egypt, retains a _monolith_ of the same symbolic
character. It is eighty feet high, composed of a single block of black
granite, presenting a beautifully polished surface on each of its four
sides. The hieroglyphics upon it represent the lifetime of _Thot_, or
_Budda_, until you at last see him enthroned in heaven, at the top.
[Illustration]
“He seems, indeed,” says Hamilton, “to have been considered either by
himself, his subjects, or his successors, as a peculiar favourite of
heaven. He is frequently on his knees, receiving from Isis and Osiris,
together with their blessing, the insignia of royalty, and even of
divinity. The hawk is always flying about him. Two priests are performing
upon him the mysterious ceremony of pouring the _cruces ansatas_, or
_crosses with rings_, over his head; at which time he wears a common dress
and close cap. Hermes and Osiris are pointing out to him a particular line
in a graduated scale, allusive it may be to the periodical inundation of
the Nile, or the administration of strict justice: or (combined with the
preceding scene) to the ceremony of ‘initiation into the religious
mysteries.’”[377]
The number of feet in the pillar corresponds too, if I mistake not, with
that of the years of his recorded pilgrimage.
Captain Head describes, in his splendid work, the avenue which leads to
the temple to which this belongs, in the following terms:--“Fragments of
sphinxes line the sides of the road at intervals of ten or twelve feet,
and usher the visitor to the magnificent granite propylon, or gateway,
whose grandeur for a time monopolises the attention, and makes him who
gazes on it at a loss to decide whether he shall remain adoring its fine
proportions, or advance and examine the carvings which embellish its
front. Is this ‘the land made waste by the hand of strangers, who destroy
the walls, and cause the images to cease?’ The fragments of desolation
that lie scattered around are identified with the predictions of the
inspired historians, by whom we are enabled to estimate the ‘palmy state’
of this once mighty kingdom, whose gigantic monuments fully verify all
that has been said or sung of its pristine splendour.”
After what has been said above, then, along with what may be added by and
by, may I not safely proclaim that M’Pherson’s prediction, that “the
history of Caledonia, before the Roman eagles were displayed beyond the
friths, must ever remain in impenetrable darkness,”[378] has now been
falsified?
“What are _ages_ and the lapse of time,
Matched against _truths_ as lasting as sublime?
Can length of years on God Himself exact?
Or make that _fiction_ which was once a _fact_?
No--marble and recording brass decay,
And like the graver’s _memory_ pass away:
The works of man inherit, as is just,
Their author’s frailty, and return to dust;
_But truth divine for ever stands secure,
Its head is guarded, as its base is sure;
Fixed in the rolling flood of endless years,
The pillar of the eternal plan appears,
The raving storm and dashing wave defies,
Built by that Architect who built the skies_.”[379]