And the Heaven was visible in Seven Circles and the planets
appeared with all their signs, in star‐form, and the stars were
divided and numbered with the rulers that were in them, and their
revolving course, through the agency of the divine Spirit.(580)
Here Spirit denotes Pneuma, collective Deity, manifested in its
“Builders,” or, as the Church has it, “the seven Spirits of the Presence,”
the _mediantibus angelis_ of whom Thomas Aquinas says that “God never
works but through them.”
These seven “rulers” or mediating Angels were the Kabiri Gods of the
Ancients. This was so evident, that it forced from the Church, together
with the admission of the fact, an explanation and a theory, whose
clumsiness and evident sophistry are such that it must fail to impress.
The world is asked to believe, that while the Planetary Angels of the
Church are divine Beings, the genuine “Seraphim,”(581) these very same
angels, under identical names and planets, were and are “false”—as Gods of
the ancients. They are no better than pretenders; the cunning copies of
the real Angels, produced beforehand through the craft and power of
Lucifer and of the fallen Angels. Now, what are the Kabiri?
Kabiri, as a name, is derived from Habir חבר, great, and also from Venus,
this Goddess being called to the present day Kabar, as is also her star.
The Kabiri were worshipped at Hebron, the city of the Anakim, or anakas
(kings, princes). They are the highest Planetary Spirits, the “greatest
Gods” and “the powerful.” Varro, following Orpheus, calls these Gods
εὐδυνατοί, “divine Powers.” The word Kabirim when applied to men, and the
words Heber, Gheber (with reference to Nimrod, or the “giants” of
_Genesis_, vi.) and Kabir, are all derived from the “mysterious Word”—the
Ineffable and the “Unpronounceable.” Thus it is they who represent
_tsaba_, the “host of heaven.” The Church, however, bowing before the
angel Anael (the regent of Venus),(582) connects the planet Venus with
Lucifer, the chief of the rebels under Satan—so poetically apostrophized
by the prophet Isaiah as “O Lucifer, son of the morning.”(583) All the
Mystery Gods were Kabiri. As these “seven lictors” relate directly to the
Secret Doctrine their real status is of the greatest importance.
Suidas defines the Kabiri as the Gods who command all the other dæmons
(Spirits), καβείρους δαίμονας. Macrobius introduces them as
Those Penates and tutelary deities, through whom we live and learn
and know (_Saturn_, I. iii. ch. iv.).
The teraphim through which the Hebrews consulted the oracles of the Urim
and the Thummim, were the symbolical hieroglyphics of the Kabiri.
Nevertheless, the good Fathers have made of Kibir the synonym, of devil
and of daimon (spirit) a demon.
The Mysteries of the Kabiri at Hebron (Pagan and Jewish) were presided
over by the seven Planetary Gods, among the rest by Jupiter and Saturn
under their mystery names, and they are referred to as ἀξιόχρσος and
ἀξιόχερσα, and by Euripides as ἀξιόχρεως ὁ θεὸς. Creuzer, moreover, shows
that whether in Phœnicia or in Egypt, the Kabiri were always the seven
planets as known in antiquity, who, together with their Father the
Sun—referred to elsewhere as their “elder brother”—composed a powerful
ogdoad;(584) the eight superior powers, as παρεδοὶ, or solar assessors,
danced around him the sacred circular dance, the symbol of the rotation of
the planets around the Sun. Jehovah and Saturn, moreover, are one.
It is quite natural, therefore, to find a French writer, D’Anselme,
applying the same terms of ἀξιόχερσος and ἀξιόχερσα to Jehovah and his
word, and they are correctly so applied. For if the “circle dance”
prescribed by the Amazons for the Mysteries—being the “circle dance” of
the planets, and characterised as “the motion of the divine Spirit carried
on the waves of the great Deep”—can now be called “infernal” and
“lascivious” when performed by the Pagans, then the same epithets ought to
be applied to David’s dance;(585) and to the dance of the daughters of
Shiloh,(586) and to the leaping of the prophets of Baal;(587) they were
all identical and all belonged to Sabæan worship. King David’s dance,
during which he uncovered himself before his maid‐servants in a public
thoroughfare, saying:
I will _play_ (act wantonly) before יהוה (Jehovah), and I will yet
be more vile than this,
was certainly more reprehensible than any “circle dance” during the
Mysteries, or even than the modern Râsa Mandala in India,(588) which is
the same thing. It was David who introduced Jehovistic worship into Judea,
after sojourning so long among the Tyrians and Philistines, where these
rites were common.
David knew nothing of Moses; and if he introduced the Jehovah‐
worship, it was not in its monotheistic character, but simply as
that of one of the many (_Kabirean_) gods of the neighbouring
nations, a tutelary deity of his own, יהוה to whom he had given
the preference—whom he had chosen among “all other (Kabeiri)
gods,”(589)
and who was one of the “associates,” Chabir, of the Sun. The Shakers dance
the “circle dance” to this day when turning round for the Holy Ghost to
move them. In India it is Nârâ‐yana who is “the mover on the waters;” and
Nârâyana is Vishnu in his secondary form, and Vishnu has Krishna for an
Avatâra, in whose honour the “circle dance” is still enacted by the
Nautch‐girls of the temples, he being the Sun‐God and they the planets as
symbolised by the gopis.
Let the reader turn to the works of De Mirville, a Roman Catholic writer,
or to _Monumental Christianity_, by Dr. Lundy, a Protestant divine, if he
wants to appreciate to any degree the subtlety and casuistry of their
reasonings. No one ignorant of the occult versions can fail to be
impressed with the proofs brought forward to show how cleverly and
perseveringly “Satan has worked for long millenniums to tempt a humanity”
unblessed with an infallible Church, in order to have himself recognised
as the “One living God,” and his fiends as holy Angels. The reader must be
patient, and study with attention what the author says on behalf of his
Church. To compare it the better with the version of the Occultists, a few
points may be quoted here verbatim.
St. Peter tells us: “May the divine Lucifer arise in your
hearts”(590) [Now the Sun is Christ].... “I will send my Son from
the Sun,” said the Eternal through the voice of prophetic
traditions; and prophecy having become history the Evangelists
repeated in their turn: The _Sun rising_ from on high visited
us.(591)
Now God says, through Malachi, that the Sun shall arise for those who fear
his name. What Malachi meant by “the Sun of Righteousness” the Kabalists
alone can tell; but what the Greek, and even the Protestant, theologians
understood by the term is of course Christ, referred to metaphorically.
Only, as the sentence, “I will send my Son from the Sun,” is borrowed
verbatim from a Sibylline Book, it becomes very hard to understand how it
can be attributed to, or classed with any prophecy relating to the
Christian Saviour, unless, indeed, the latter is to be identified with
Apollo. Virgil, again, says, “Here comes the Virgin’s and Apollo’s reign,”
and Apollo, or Apollyon, is to this day viewed as a form of Satan, and is
taken to mean the Antichrist. If the Sibylline promise, “He will send his
Son from the Sun” applies to Christ, then either Christ and Apollo are
one—and then why call the latter a demon?—or the prophecy had nothing to
do with the Christian Saviour, and, in such a case, why appropriate it at
all?
But De Mirville goes further. He shows us St. Denys, the Areopagite,
affirming that
The Sun is the special signification, and the statue of
God(592).... It is by the Eastern door that the glory of the Lord
penetrated into the temples [of the Jews and Christians, that
divine glory being Sun‐light.]... “We build our churches towards
the east,” says in his turn St. Ambrose, “for during the Mysteries
we begin by renouncing him who is in the west.”
“He who is in the west” is Typhon, the Egyptian god of darkness—the west
having been held by them as the “Typhonic Gate of Death.” Thus, having
borrowed Osiris from the Egyptians, the Church Fathers thought little of
helping themselves to his brother Typhon. Then again:
The prophet Baruch(593) speaks of the stars that rejoice in their
_vessels_ and _citadels_ (Chap. iii.); and _Ecclesiastes_ applies
the same terms to the sun, which is said to be “the admirable
vessel of the most High,” and the “citadel of the Lord”
φυλαχη.(594)
In every case there is no doubt about the thing, for the sacred
writer says, It is a _Spirit_ who rules the sun’s course. Hear
what he says (in _Eccles._, i. 6), “The sun also ariseth—and its
spirit lighting all in its circular path (gyrat gyrans) returneth
according to his circuits.”(595)
De Mirville seems to quote from texts either rejected by or unknown to
Protestants, in whose bible there is no forty‐third chapter of
_Ecclesiastes_; nor is the sun made to go “in circuits” in the latter, but
the wind. This is a question to be settled between the Roman and the
Protestant Churches. Our point is the strong element of Sabæanism or
Heliolatry present in Christianity.
An Œcumenical Council having authoritatively put a stop to Christian
Astrolatry by declaring that there were no sidereal Souls in sun, moon, or
planets, St. Thomas took upon himself to settle the point in dispute. The
“angelic doctor” announced that such expressions did not mean a “soul,”
but only an Intelligence, not resident in the sun or stars, but one that
assisted them, “a guiding and directing intelligence.”(596)
Thereupon the author, comforted by the explanation, quotes Clement the
Alexandrian, and reminds the reader of the opinion of that philosopher,
the inter‐relation that exists “between the seven branches of the
candlestick—the seven stars of the Revelation,” and the sun:
The six branches (says Clement) fixed to the central candlestick
have lamps, but the sun placed in the midst of the wandering ones
(πλανητῶν) pours his beams on them all; this golden candlestick
hides one more mystery: it is the sign of Christ, not only in
shape, but because he sheds his light through the ministry of the
seven spirits primarily created, and who are the Seven Eyes of the
Lord. Therefore the principal planets are to the seven primeval
spirits, according to St. Clement, that which the candlestick‐sun
is to Christ Himself, namely—their vessels, their φυλαχαὶ.
Plain enough, to be sure; though one fails to see that this explanation
even helps the situation. The seven‐branched chandelier of the Israelites,
as well as the “wanderers” of the Greeks, had a far more natural meaning,
a purely astrological one to begin with. In fact from Magi and Chaldæans
down to the much‐laughed‐at Zadkiel, every astrological work will tell its
reader that the Sun placed in the midst of the planets, with Saturn,
Jupiter and Mars on one side, and Venus, Mercury and the Moon on the
other, the planets’ line crossing through the whole Earth, has always
meant what Hermes tells us, namely, the thread of destiny, or that whose
action (influence) is called destiny.(597) But symbol for symbol we prefer
the sun to a candlestick. One can understand how the latter came to
represent the sun and planets, but no one can admire the chosen symbol.
There is poetry and grandeur in the sun when it is made to symbolize the
“Eye of Ormuzd,” or of Osiris, and is regarded as the Vâhan (vehicle) of
the highest Deity. But one must for ever fail to perceive that any
particular glory is rendered to Christ by assigning to him the trunk of a
candlestick,(598) in a Jewish synagogue, as a mystical seat of honour.
There are then positively two suns, a sun adored and a sun adoring. The
_Apocalypse_ proves it.
The Word is found in Chap. vii., in the angel who ascends with the
rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God.... While
commentators differ on the personality of this angel, St. Ambrose
and many other theologians see in him Christ himself.... He is the
_Sun adored_. But in Chap. xix. we find an angel standing _in_ the
sun, inviting all the nations to gather to the great supper of the
Lamb. This time it is literally and simply the angel of the
sun—who cannot be mistaken for the “Word,” since the prophet
distinguishes him from the Word, the King of Kings and the Lord of
Lords.... The angel _in_ the sun seems to be an adoring sun. Who
may be the latter? And who else can he be but the Morning Star,
the guardian angel of the Word, his _ferouer_, or _angel of the
face_, as the Word is the angel of the Face (presence) of his
Father, his principal attribute and strength, as his name itself
implies (Mikael), the powerful rector glorified by the Church, the
_Rector potens_ who will fell the Antichrist, the Vice‐Word, in
short, who represents his master, and seems to be _one with
him_.(599)
Yes, Mikael is the alleged conqueror of Ormuzd, Osiris, Apollo, Krishna,
Mithra, etc., of all the Solar Gods, in short, known and unknown, now
treated as demons and as “Satan.” Nevertheless, the “Conqueror” has not
disdained to don the war‐spoils of the vanquished foes—their
personalities, attributes, even their names—to become the _alter ego_ of
these demons.
Thus the Sun‐God here is _Honover_ or the Eternal. The prince is
Ormuzd, since he is the first of the seven Amshaspends [the demon
copies of the seven original angels] (_capul angelorum_); the lamb
(_hamal_), the Shepherd of the Zodiac and the antagonist of the
snake. But the Sun (the Eye of Ormuzd) has also his rector,
Korshid or the _Mitraton_, who is the _Ferouer_ of the face of
Ormuzd, his Ized, or the morning star. The Mazdeans had a triple
Sun.... For us this _Korshid‐Mitraton_ is the first of the
_psychopompian_ genii, and the guide of the sun, the immolator of
the terrestrial Bull [or lamb] whose wounds are licked by the
serpent [on the famous Mithraic monument].(600)
St. Paul, in speaking of the rulers of this world, the Cosmocratores, only
said what was said by all the primitive Philosophers of the ten centuries
before the Christian era, only he was scarcely understood, and was often
wilfully misinterpreted. Damascius repeats the teachings of the Pagan
writers when he explains that
There are seven series of cosmocratores or cosmic forces, which
are double: the higher ones commissioned to support and guide the
superior world; the lower ones, the inferior world [our own].
And he is but saying what the ancients taught. Iamblichus gives this dogma
of the duality of all the planets and celestial bodies, of gods and
daimons (spirits). He also divides the Archontes into two classes—the more
and the less spiritual; the latter more connected with and clothed with
matter, as having a _form_, while the former are bodiless (_arûpa_). But
what have Satan and his angels to do with all this? Perhaps only that the
identity of the Zoroastrian dogma with the Christian, and of Mithra,
Ormuzd, and Ahriman with the Christian Father, Son, and Devil, might be
accounted for. And when we say “Zoroastrian dogmas” we mean the exoteric
teaching. How explain the same relations between Mithra and Ormuzd as
those between the Archangel Mikael and Christ?
Ahura Mazda says to holy Zaratushta: “When I _created_ [emanated]
Mithra ... I created him that he should be invoked and adored
equally with myself.”
For the sake of necessary reforms, the Zoroastrian Âryans transformed the
Devas, the bright Gods of India, into devs or devils. It was their Karma
that in their turn the Christians should vindicate on this point the
Hindus. Now Ormuzd and Mithra have become the devs of Christ and Mikael,
the dark lining and aspect of the Saviour and Angel. The day of the Karma
of Christian theology will come in its turn. Already the Protestants have
begun the first chapter of the religion that will seek to transform the
“Seven Spirits” and the host of the Roman Catholics into demons and idols.
Every religion has its Karma, as has every individual. That which is due
to human conception and is built on the abasement of our brothers who
disagree with us, must have its day. “There is no religion higher than
truth.”
The Zoroastrians, Mazdeans, and Persians borrowed their conceptions from
India; the Jews borrowed their theory of angels from Persia; the
Christians borrowed from the Jews.
Hence the latest interpretation by Christian theology—to the great disgust
of the synagogue, forced to share the symbolical candlestick with the
hereditary enemy—that the seven‐branched candlestick represents the seven
Churches of Asia and the seven planets which are the angels of those
Churches. Hence also, the conviction that the Mosaic Jews, the inventors
of that symbol for their tabernacle, were a kind of Sabæans, who blended
their planets and the spirits thereof into one, and called them—only far
later—Jehovah. For this we have the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, St.
Hieronymus and others.
And Clement, as an Initiate of the Mysteries—at which the secret of the
heliocentric system was taught several thousands of years before Galileo
and Copernicus—proves it by explaining that
By these various symbols connected with (sidereal) phenomena the
totality of all the creatures which bind heaven with earth, are
figured.... The chandelier represented the motion of the seven
luminaries, describing their astral revolution. To the right and
the left of that candelabrum projected the six branches, each of
which had its lamp, because the Sun placed as a candelabrum in the
middle of other planets distributes light to them.(601) ... As to
the cherubs having twelve wings between the two, they represent to
us the sensuous world in the twelve zodiacal signs.(602)
And yet, in the face of all this evidence, sun, moon, planets, all are
shown as being demoniacal before, and divine only after, the appearance of
Christ. All know the Orphic verse: “It is Zeus, it is Adas, it is the Sun,
it is Bacchus,” these names having been all synonymous for classic poets
and writers. Thus for Democritus “Deity is but a soul in an orbicular
fire,” and that fire is the Sun. For Iamblichus the sun was “the image of
divine intelligence”; for Plato “an immortal living Being.” Hence the
oracle of Claros when asked to say who was the Jehovah of the Jews,
answered, “It is the Sun.” We may add the words in _Psalm_ xix. 4
In the sun hath he placed a tabernacle for himself(603) ... his
going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto
the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Jehovah then is the sun, and thence also the Christ of the Roman Church.
And now the criticism of Dupuis on that verse becomes comprehensible, as
also the despair of the Abbé Foucher. “Nothing is more favourable to
Sabæism than this text of the Vulgate!” he exclaims. And, however
disfigured may be the words and sense in the English authorised bible, the
Vulgate and the Septuagint both give the correct text of the original, and
translate the latter: “In the sun he established his abode”; while the
Vulgate regards the “heat” as coming direct from God and not from the sun
alone, since it is God who issues forth from, and dwells in the sun and
performs the circuit: _in sole posuit ... et ipse exultavit_. From these
facts it will be seen that the Protestants were right in charging St.
Justin with saying that
God has permitted us to worship the sun.
And this, notwithstanding the lame excuses that what was really meant was
that
God permitted himself to be worshipped in, or within, the sun,
which is all the same.
It will be seen from the above, that while the Pagans located in the sun
and planets only the inferior powers of Nature, the representative
Spirits, so to say, of Apollo, Bacchus, Osiris, and other solar gods, the
Christians, in their hatred of Philosophy, appropriated the sidereal
localities, and now limit them to the use of their anthropomorphic deity
and his angels—new transformations of the old, old gods. Something had to
be done in order to dispose of the ancient tenants, so they were disgraced
into “demons,” wicked devils.