“Christian and Catholic sons may accuse their fathers of the
crime of heresy ... although they may know that their
parents will be burnt with fire and put to death for it....
And not only may they refuse them food, _if they attempt to
turn them from the Catholic faith_, BUT THEY MAY ALSO JUSTLY
KILL THEM.”--_Jesuit Precept_ (F. STEPHEN FAGUNDEZ, in
_Præcepta Decalogi_. Lugduni, 1640).
“_Most Wise._--What hour is it?
“_Respect. K. S. Warden._--It is the first hour of the day,
the time when the veil of the temple was rent asunder, when
darkness and consternation were spread over the earth--when
the light was darkened--when the implements of Masonry were
broken--when the flaming star disappeared--when the cubic
stone was broken--when the ‘WORD’ was lost.”--
_Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit._
[Inline Illustration:]--JAH-BUH-LUN.
The greatest of the kabalistic works of the Hebrews--the _Sohar_ זהר--was
compiled by Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iochaï. According to some critics, this
was done years before the Christian era; according to others only
after the destruction of the temple. However, it was completed only by
the son of Simeon, Rabbi Eleazar, and his secretary, Rabbi Abba; for
the work is so immense and the subjects treated so abstruse that even
the whole life of this Rabbi, called the Prince of kabalists, did not
suffice for the task. On account of its being known that he was in
possession of this knowledge, and of the _Mercaba_, which insured the
reception of the “Word,” his very life was endangered, and he had to
fly to the wilderness, where he lived in a cave for twelve years,
surrounded by faithful disciples, and finally died there amid signs
and wonders.[726]
But voluminous as is the work, and containing as it does the main
points of the secret and oral tradition, it still does not embrace it
all. It is well known that this venerable kabalist never imparted
the most important points of his doctrine otherwise than orally, and
to a very limited number of friends and disciples, including his only
son. Therefore, without the final initiation into the _Mercaba_ the
study of the _Kabala_ will be ever incomplete, and the _Mercaba_ can
be taught only in “darkness, in a deserted place, and after many and
terrific trials.” Since the death of Simeon Ben-Iochai this hidden
doctrine has remained an inviolate secret for the outside world.
Delivered _only as a mystery_, it was communicated to the candidate
orally, “_face to face and mouth to ear_.”
This Masonic commandment, “mouth to ear, and the word at low breath,”
is an inheritance from the Tanaïm and the old Pagan Mysteries. Its
modern use must certainly be due to the indiscretion of some renegade
kabalist, though the “word” itself is but a “substitute” for the
“lost word,” and is a comparatively modern invention, as we will
further show. The real sentence has remained forever in the sole
possession of the adepts of various countries of the Eastern and
Western hemispheres. Only a limited number among the chiefs of the
Templars, and some Rosicrucians of the seventeenth century, always in
close relations with Arabian alchemists and initiates, could really
boast of its possession. From the seventh to the fifteenth centuries
there was no one who could claim it in Europe; and although there
had been alchemists before the days of Paracelsus, he was the first
who had passed through the true initiation, that last ceremony which
conferred on the adept the power of travelling toward the “burning
bush” over the holy ground, and to “burn the golden calf in the fire,
grind it to powder, and strow it upon the water.” Verily, then,
this magic _water_, and the “lost word,” resuscitated more than one
of the pre-Mosaic Adonirams, Gedaliahs, and Hiram Abiffs. The real
word now substituted by _Mac Benac_ and Mah was used ages before
its pseudo-magical effect was tried on the “widow’s sons” of the
last two centuries. Who was, in fact, the first operative Mason of
any consequence? Elias Ashmole, _the last of the Rosicrucians and
alchemists_. Admitted to the freedom of the Operative Masons’ Company
in London, in 1646, he died in 1692. At that time Masonry was not
what it became later; it was neither a political nor a Christian
institution, but a true secret organization, which admitted into the
ties of fellowship all men anxious to obtain the priceless boon of
liberty of conscience, and avoid clerical persecution.[727] Not until
about thirty years after his death did what is now termed modern
Freemasonry see the light. It was born on the 24th day of June, 1717,
in the Apple-tree Tavern, Charles Street, Covent Garden, London. And
it was then, as we are told in Anderson’s _Constitutions_, that the
only four lodges in the south of England elected Anthony Sayer first
Grand Master of Masons. Notwithstanding its great youth, this grand
lodge has ever claimed the acknowledgment of its supremacy by the
whole body of the fraternity throughout the whole world, as the Latin
inscription on the plate put beneath the corner-stone of Freemasons’
Hall, London, in 1775, would tell to those who could see it. But of
this more anon.
In _Die Kabbala_, by Franck, the author, following its “esoteric
ravings,” as he expresses it, gives us, in addition to the
translations, his commentaries. Speaking of his predecessors, he says
that Simeon Ben-Iochai mentions repeatedly what the “companions” have
taught in the older works. And the author cites one “Ieba, the _old_,
and Hamnuna, the _old_.”[728] But what the two “old” ones mean, or
who they were, in fact, he tells us not, for he does not know himself.
Among the venerable sect of the Tanaïm, or rather the Tananim, the
wise men, there were those who taught the secrets practically and
initiated some disciples into the grand and final Mystery. But the
_Mishna Hagiga_, 2d section, say that the table of contents of
the _Mercaba_ “must only be delivered to wise old ones.”[729] The
_Gemara_ is still more dogmatic. “The more important secrets of the
Mysteries were not even revealed to all priests. Alone the initiates
had them divulged.” And so we find the same great secresy prevalent
in every ancient religion.
But, as we see, neither the _Sohar_ nor any other kabalistic volume
contains merely Jewish wisdom. The doctrine itself being the result
of whole millenniums of thought, is therefore the joint property
of adepts of every nation under the sun. Nevertheless, the _Sohar_
teaches practical occultism more than any other work on that
subject; not as it is translated though, and commented upon by its
various critics, but with the secret signs on its margins. These
signs contain the hidden instructions, apart from the metaphysical
interpretations and apparent absurdities so fully credited by
Josephus, who was never initiated, and gave out the _dead letter_ as
he had received it.[730]
The real practical magic contained in the _Sohar_ and other
kabalistic works, is only of use to those who read it _within_. The
Christian apostles--at least, those who are said to have produced
“miracles” _at will_[731]--had to be acquainted with this science.
It ill-behooves a Christian to look with horror or derision upon
“magic” gems, amulets, and other talismans against the “evil eye,”
which serve as charms to exercise a mysterious influence, either on
the possessor, or the person whom the magician desires to control.
There are still extant a number of such charmed amulets in public and
private collections of antiquities. Illustrations of convex gems,
with mysterious legends--the meaning of which baffles all scientific
inquiry--are given by many collectors. King shows several such in
his _Gnostics_, and he describes a white carnelian (chalcedony),
covered on both sides with interminable legends, to interpret which
would ever prove a failure; yes, in every case, perhaps, but that
of a Hermetic student or an adept. But we refer the reader to his
interesting work, and the talismans described in his plates, to
show that even the “Seer of Patmos” himself was well-versed in this
kabalistic science of talismans and gems. St. John clearly alludes
to the potent “white carnelian”--a gem well-known among adepts,
as the “_alba petra_,” or the stone of initiation, on which the
word “_prize_” is generally found engraved, as it was given to the
candidate who had successfully passed through all the preliminary
trials of a neophyte. The fact is, that no less than the _Book of
Job_, the whole _Revelation_, is simply an allegorical narrative of
the Mysteries and initiation therein of a candidate, who is John
himself. No high Mason, well versed in the different degrees, can
fail to see it. The numbers _seven_, _twelve_, and others are all
so many lights thrown over the obscurity of the work. Paracelsus
maintained the same some centuries ago. And when we find the “one
like unto the Son of man” saying (chap. ii. 17): “_To him that
overcometh_, will I give to eat of the _hidden manna_, and will
give him a WHITE STONE, and in the stone a new name written”--the
word--which _no man knoweth_ saving _he that receiveth it_, what
Master Mason can doubt but it refers to the last head-line of this
chapter?
In the pre-Christian Mithraïc Mysteries, the candidate who
fearlessly overcame the “_twelve_ Tortures,” which preceded the
final initiation, received a small round cake or wafer of unleavened
bread, symbolizing, _in one of its meanings_, the solar disk and
known as the heavenly bread or “manna,” and having figures traced
on it. A _lamb_, or a _bull_ was killed, and with the blood the
candidate had to be sprinkled, as in the case of the Emperor Julian’s
initiation. The _seven_ rules or mysteries were then delivered to
the “newly-born” that are represented in the _Revelation_ as the
seven seals which are opened “in order” (see chap. v. and vi.). There
can be no doubt that the Seer of Patmos referred to this ceremony.
The origin of the Roman Catholic amulets and “relics” blessed by
the Pope, is the same as that of the “Ephesian Spell,” or magical
characters engraved either on a stone or drawn on a piece of
parchment; the Jewish amulets with verses out of the Law, and called
_phylacteria_, φυλακτηρια and the Mahometan charms with verses of the
_Koran_. All these were used as protective magic spells; and worn by
the believers on their persons. Epiphanius, the worthy ex-Marcosian,
who speaks of these charms when used by the Manicheans as amulets,
that is to say, things worn round the neck (Periapta), and
“incantations and _such-like trickery_,” cannot well throw a slur upon
the “_trickery_” of the Pagans and Gnostics, without including the
Roman Catholic and Popish amulets.
But consistency is a virtue which we fear is losing, under Jesuit
influence, the slight hold it may ever have had on the Church. That
crafty, learned, conscienceless, terrible soul of Jesuitism, within
the body of Romanism, is slowly but surely possessing itself of the
whole prestige and spiritual power that clings to it. For the better
exemplification of our theme it will be necessary to contrast the
moral principles of the ancient Tanaïm and Theurgists with those
professed by the modern Jesuits, who practically control Romanism
to-day, and are the hidden enemy that would-be reformers must
encounter and overcome. Throughout the whole of antiquity, where,
in what land, can we find anything like this Order or anything even
approaching it? We owe a place to the Jesuits in this chapter on
secret societies, for more than any other they are a secret body,
and have a far closer connection with actual Masonry--in France and
Germany at least--than people are generally aware of. The cry of an
outraged public morality was raised against this Order from its very
birth.[732] Barely fifteen years had elapsed after the bull approving
its constitution was promulgated, when its members began to be driven
away from one place to the other. Portugal and the Low Countries got
rid of them, in 1578; France in 1594; Venice in 1606; Naples in 1622.
From St. Petersburg they were expelled in 1815, and from all Russia
in 1820.
It was a promising child from its very teens. What it grew up to be
every one knows well. The Jesuits have done more moral harm in this
world than all the fiendish armies of the mythical Satan. Whatever
extravagance may seem to be involved in this remark, will disappear
when our readers in America, who now know little about them, are
made acquainted with their principles (principio) and rules as
they appear in various works written by the Jesuits themselves. We
beg leave to remind the public that every one of the statements
which follow in quotation marks are extracted from authenticated
manuscripts, or folios printed by this distinguished body. Many
are copied from the large Quarto[733] published by the authority
of, and verified and collated by the Commissioners of the French
Parliament. The statements therein were collected and presented to
the King, in order that, as the “Arrest du Parlement du 5 Mars,
1762,” expresses it, “the elder son of the Church might be made aware
of the perversity of this doctrine.... A doctrine authorizing Theft,
Lying, Perjury, Impurity, every Passion and Crime, teaching Homicide,
Parricide, and Regicide, overthrowing religion in order to substitute
for it superstition, by favoring _Sorcery_, Blasphemy, Irreligion,
and Idolatry ... etc.” Let us then examine the ideas on _magic_ of
the Jesuits. Writing on this subject in his secret instructions,
Anthony Escobar[734] says:
“It is lawful ... to make use of the science acquired _through the
assistance of the Devil_, provided the preservation and use of that
knowledge do not depend upon the Devil, _for the knowledge is good
in itself, and the sin by which it was acquired has gone by_.”[735]
Hence, why should not a Jesuit cheat the Devil as well as he cheats
every layman?
“_Astrologers and soothsayers are either bound, or are not bound, to
restore the reward of their divination, if the event does not come to
pass._ I own,” remarks the _good_ Father Escobar, “that the former
opinion does not at all please me, because, when the astrologer or
diviner has exerted all the diligence _in the diabolic art_ which is
essential to his purpose, he has fulfilled his duty, whatever may
be the result. As the physician ... is not bound to restore his fee
... if his patient should die; so neither is the astrologer bound to
restore his charge ... except where he has used no effort, or was
ignorant of his diabolic art; because, when he has used his endeavors
he has not deceived.”[736]
Further, we find the following on astrology: “If any one affirms,
through conjecture founded upon the influence of the stars and the
character, disposition of a man, that he will be a soldier, an
ecclesiastic, or a bishop, _this divination may be devoid of all
sin_; because the stars and the disposition of the man may have the
power of inclining the human will to a certain lot or rank, but not
of constraining it.”[737]
Busembaum and Lacroix, in _Theologia Moralis_,[738] say, “Palmistry
may be considered lawful, if from the lines and divisions of the
hands it can ascertain the disposition of the body, and conjecture,
with probability, the propensities and affections of the soul.”[739]
This noble fraternity, which many preachers have of late so
vehemently denied to have ever been a _secret_ one, has been
sufficiently proved as such. Their constitutions were translated
into Latin by the Jesuit Polancus, and printed in the college of
the Society at Rome, in 1558. “They were jealously kept secret, the
greater part of the Jesuits themselves knowing only extracts from
them.[740] _They were never produced to the light until 1761, when
they were published by order of the French Parliament_ in 1761,
1762, in the famous process of Father Lavalette.” The degrees of the
Order are: I. Novices; II. Lay Brothers, or temporal Coadjutors;
III. Scholastics; IV. Spiritual Coadjutors; V. Professed of Three
Vows; VI. Professed of Five Vows. “There is also a secret class,
known only to the General and a few faithful Jesuits, which, perhaps
more than any other, contributed to the dreaded and mysterious power
of the Order,” says Niccolini. The Jesuits reckon it among the
greatest achievements of their Order that Loyola supported, by a
special memorial to the Pope, a petition for the reörganization of
that abominable and abhorred instrument of wholesale butchery--the
infamous tribunal of the Inquisition.
This Order of Jesuits is now all-powerful in Rome. They have been
reinstalled in the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical
Affairs, in the Department of the Secretary of State, and in the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Pontifical Government was for
years previous to Victor Emanuel’s occupation of Rome entirely in
their hands. The Society now numbers 8,584 members. But we must
see what are their chief rules. By what is seen above, in becoming
acquainted with their mode of action, we may ascertain what the whole
Catholic body is likely to be. Says Mackenzie: “The Order has secret
signs and passwords, according to the degrees to which the members
belong, and as they wear no particular dress, it is very difficult
to recognize them, unless they reveal themselves as members of the
Order; for they may appear as Protestants or Catholics, democrats or
aristocrats, infidels or bigots, according to the special mission
with which they are entrusted. Their spies are everywhere, of all
apparent ranks of society, and they may appear learned and wise, or
simple or foolish, as their instructions run. There are Jesuits of
both sexes, and all ages, and it is a well-known fact that members of
the Order, of high family and delicate nurture, are acting as menial
servants in Protestant families, and doing other things of a similar
nature in aid of the Society’s purposes. We cannot be too much on our
guard, for the whole Society, being founded on a law of unhesitating
obedience, can bring its force on any given point with unerring and
fatal accuracy.”[741]
The Jesuits maintain that “the Society of Jesus is not of human
invention, _but it proceeded from him whose name it bears_. For Jesus
himself described that rule of life which the Society follows, _first
by his example_, and afterwards by his words.”[742]
Let, then, all pious Christians listen and acquaint themselves with
this alleged “rule of life” and precepts of their God, as exemplified
by the Jesuits. Peter Alagona (_St. Thomæ Aquinatis Summæ Theologiæ
Compendium_) says: “By the command of God it is lawful to kill an
innocent person, to steal, or commit ... (_Ex mandato Dei licet
occidere innocentem, furari, fornicari_); because he is the Lord of
life and death, and all things, _and it is due to him thus to fulfil
his command_” (Ex primâ secundæ, Quæst., 94).
“A man of a religious order, who for a short time lays aside his
habit _for a sinful purpose_, is free from heinous sin, and does not
incur the penalty of excommunication” (Lib. iii., sec. 2., Probl. 44,
n. 212).[743]
John Baptist Taberna (_Synopsis Theologiæ Practicæ_), propounds the
following question: “Is a judge bound to restore the bribe which he
has received for passing sentence?” _Answer: “If he has received the
bribe for passing an unjust sentence, it is probable that he may
keep it.... This opinion is maintained and defended by fifty-eight
doctors”_[744] (Jesuits).
We must abstain at present from proceeding further. So disgustingly
licentious, hypocritical, and demoralizing are nearly all of these
precepts, that it was found impossible to put many of them in print,
except in the Latin language.[745] We will return to some of the more
decent as we proceed, for the sake of comparison. But what are we to
think of the future of the Catholic world, if it is to be controlled
in word and deed by this villainous society? And that it is to be so,
we can hardly doubt, as we find the Cardinal Archbishop of Cambrai
loudly proclaiming the same to all the faithful? His pastoral has
made a certain noise in France; and yet, as two centuries have
rolled away since the _exposé_ of these infamous principles, the
Jesuits have had ample time to lie so successfully in denying the
just charges, that most Catholics will never believe such a thing.
The _infallible_ Pope, Clement XIV. (Ganganelli), suppressed them on
the 23d of July, 1773, and yet they came to life again; and another
equally infallible Pope, Pius VII., reëstablished them on the 7th of
August, 1814.
But we will hear what Monseigneur of Cambrai is swift to proclaim in
1876. We quote from a secular paper:
“Among other things, he maintains that _Clericalism, Ultramontanism,
and Jesuitism are one and the same thing--that is to say,
Catholicism_--and that the distinctions between them have been
created by the enemies of religion. There was a time, he says, when
a certain theological opinion was commonly professed in France
concerning the authority of the Pope. It was restricted to our
nation, and was of recent origin. The civil power during a century
and a half imposed official instruction. Those who profess these
opinions were called Gallicans, and those who protested were called
Ultramontanes, because they had their doctrinal centre beyond the
Alps, at Rome. To-day the distinction between the two schools is no
longer admissible. Theological Gallicanism can no longer exist, since
this opinion has ceased to be tolerated by the Church. _It has been
solemnly condemned, past all return, by the Œcumenical Council of the
Vatican. One cannot now be Catholic without being Ultramontane--and
Jesuit._”[746]
This settles the question. We leave inferences for the present, and
proceed to compare some of the practices and precepts of the Jesuits,
with those of individual mystics and organized castes and societies
of the ancient time. Thus the fair-minded reader may be placed in a
position to judge between them as to the tendency of their doctrines
to benefit or degrade humanity.
Rabbi Jehoshua Ben Chananea, who died about A.D. 72, openly declared
that he had performed “miracles” by means of the _Book of Sepher
Jezireh_, and challenged every skeptic.[747] Franck, quoting from the
Babylonian _Talmud_, names two other thaumaturgists, Rabbis Chanina
and Oshoi.[748]
Simon Magus was doubtless a pupil of the Tanaïm of Samaria, the
reputation which he left behind, together with the title given to
him of “the Great Power of God,” testifies strongly in favor of the
ability of his teachers. The calumnies so zealously disseminated
against him by the unknown authors and compilers of the _Acts_ and
other writings, could not cripple the truth to such an extent as to
conceal the fact that no Christian could rival him in thaumaturgic
deeds. The story told about his falling during an aërial flight,
breaking both his legs, and then committing suicide, is ridiculous.
Instead of praying mentally that it should so happen, why did not
the apostles pray rather that they should be allowed to outdo Simon
in wonders and miracles, for then they might have proved their
case far more easily than they did, and so converted thousands to
Christianity. Posterity has heard but one side of the story. Were the
disciples of Simon to have a chance, we might find, perhaps, that it
was Peter who broke both his legs, had we not known that this apostle
was too prudent ever to venture himself in Rome. On the confession
of several ecclesiastical writers, no apostle ever performed such
“supernatural wonders.” Of course pious people will say this only the
more proves that it was the “Devil” who worked through Simon.
Simon was accused of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because he
introduced it as the “Holy Spiritus, the _Mens_ (Intelligence), or
the mother of all.” But we find the same expression used in the _Book
of Enoch_, in which, in contradistinction to the “Son of Man,” he
says “Son of the Woman.” In the _Codex_ of the Nazarenes, and in
the _Sohar_, as well in the _Books of Hermes_, the expression is
usual; and even in the apocryphal _Evangelium_ of the Hebrews we read
that Jesus himself admitted the sex of the Holy Ghost by using the
expression, “_My mother, the Holy Pneuma_.”
But what is the heresy of Simon, or what the blasphemies of all the
heretics, in comparison with that of the same Jesuits who have now
so completely mastered the Pope, ecclesiastical Rome, and the entire
Catholic world? Listen again to their profession of faith.
“Do what your conscience tells you to be good and commanded: if,
through invincible error, you believe lying or blasphemy to be
commanded by God, _blaspheme_.”[749]
“Omit to do what your conscience tells you is forbidden: omit the
worship of God, if you invincibly believe it to be prohibited by
God.”[750]
“There is an implied law ... obey an invincibly erroneous dictate
of conscience. As often as you believe invincibly that a lie is
commanded--_lie_.”[751]
“Let us suppose a Catholic to believe invincibly that the worship of
images is forbidden: in such a case our Lord Jesus Christ will be
obliged to say to him, “_Depart from me thou cursed ... because thou
hast worshipped mine image_.” So, neither, is there any absurdity in
supposing that Christ may say, “_Come thou blessed ... because thou
hast lied, believing invincibly, that in such a case I commanded the
lie_.”[752]
Does not this--but no! words fail to do justice to the emotions that
these astonishing precepts must awaken in the breast of every honest
person. Let silence, resulting from _invincible_ disgust, be our only
adequate tribute to such unparalleled moral obliquity.
The popular feeling in Venice (1606), when the Jesuits were driven
out from that city, expressed itself most forcibly. Great crowds
had accompanied the exiles to the sea-shore, and the farewell cry
which resounded after them over the waves, was, “_Ande in malora!_”
(Get away! and woe be to you.) “That cry was echoed throughout the
two following centuries;” says Michelet, who gives this statement,
“in Bohemia in 1618 ... in India in 1623 ... and throughout all
Christendom in 1773.”
In what particular was then Simon Magus a blasphemer, if he only did
that which his conscience invincibly told him was true? And in what
particular were ever the “Heretics,” or even _infidels_ of the worst
kind more reprehensible than the Jesuits--those of Caen,[753] for
instance--who say the following:
“The Christian religion is ... _evidently_ credible, but not
_evidently true_. It is evidently credible; for it is evident that
whoever embraces it is prudent. _It is not evidently true_; for it
either teaches obscurely, or the things which it teaches are obscure.
And they who affirm that the Christian religion is evidently true,
are obliged to confess that it is evidently false.”
“Infer from hence--
“1. That it is _not_ evident that there is now any true religion in
the world.
“2. That it is _not_ evident that of all religions existing upon
the earth, the Christian religion is the most true; for have you
travelled over all countries of the world, or do you know that others
have?...
* * * * *
“4. That it is _not_ evident that the predictions of the prophets
were given by inspiration of God; for what refutation will you bring
against me, if I deny that they were true prophecies, or assert that
they were only conjectures?
“5. That it is _not_ evident that the miracles were real, which
are recorded to have been wrought by Christ; although no one can
prudently deny them (Position 6).
“Neither is an avowed belief in Jesus Christ, in the Trinity, in all
the articles of Faith, and in the Decalogue, necessary to Christians.
The only explicit belief which was necessary to the former (Jews)
and is necessary to the latter (Christians) is 1, of God; 2, of a
rewarding God” (Position 8).
Hence, it is also more than “evident” that there are moments in the
life of the greatest liar when he may utter some truths. It is in
this case so perfectly exemplified by the “good Fathers,” that we can
see more clearly than ever whence proceeded the solemn condemnations
at the Œcumenical Council of 1870, of certain “heresies,” and the
enforcement of other articles of faith in which none believed less
than those who inspired the Pope to issue them. History has yet
perhaps to learn that the octogenarian Pope, intoxicated with the
fumes of his newly-enforced infallibility, was but the faithful echo
of the Jesuits. “An old man is raised trembling upon the _pavois_
of the Vatican;” says Michelet, “every thing becomes absorbed and
confined in him.... For fifteen centuries Christendom had submitted
to the spiritual yoke of the Church.... But that yoke was not
sufficient for them; they wanted the whole world to bend under the
hand of one master. Here my own words are too weak; I shall borrow
those of others. They (the Jesuits) wanted (this is the accusation
flung in their faces by the Bishop of Paris in the full Council of
Trent) _faire de l’épouse de Jesus Christ une prostituée aux volontés
d’un homme_.”[754]
They have succeeded. The Church is henceforth an inert tool, and
the Pope a poor weak instrument in the hands of this Order. But for
how long? Until the end comes, well may sincere Christians remember
the prophetic lamentations of the thrice-great Trismegistus over
his own country: “Alas, alas, my son, a day will come when the
sacred hieroglyphics will become but idols. _The world will mistake
the emblems of science for gods_, and accuse grand Egypt of having
worshipped hell-monsters. But those who will calumniate us thus, will
themselves worship Death instead of Life, folly in place of wisdom;
they will denounce love and fecundity, fill their temples with dead
men’s bones, as relics, and waste their youth in solitude and tears.
Their _virgins will be widows (nuns) before being wives_, and consume
themselves in grief; because men will have despised and profaned the
sacred mysteries of Isis.”[755]
How correct this prophecy has proved we find in the following Jesuit
precept, which again we extract from the Report of the Commissioners
to the Parliament of Paris:
“The more true opinion is, _that all inanimate and irrational things
may be legitimately worshipped_,” says Father Gabriel Vasquez,
treating of Idolatry. “If the doctrine which we have established
be rightly understood, not only may a painted image and every holy
thing, set forth by public authority for the worship of God, be
properly adored with God as the image of Himself, but also any other
thing of this world, whether it be inanimate and irrational, or in
its nature rational.”[756]
“Why may we not adore and worship with God, apart from danger,
anything whatsoever of this world; for God is in it according to
His essence ... [This is precisely what the Pantheist and Hindu
philosophy maintains.] and preserves it continually by His power;
and when we bow down ourselves before it and impress it with a kiss,
we present ourselves before God, the author of it, with the whole
soul, as unto the prototype of the image [follow instances of relics,
etc.].... To this we may add that, since everything of this world is
the work of God, and God is always abiding and working in it, we may
more readily conceive Him to be in it than a saint in the vesture
which belonged to him. And, therefore, _without regarding in any way
the dignity of the thing created, to direct our thoughts to God,
while we give to the creature the sign and mark of submission by a
kiss or prostration, is neither vain nor superstitious, but an act of
the purest religion_.”[757]
A precept this, which, whether or not doing honor to the Christian
Church, may at least be profitably quoted by any Hindu, Japanese, or
other heathen when rebuked for his worship of idols. We purposely
quote it for the benefit of our respected “heathen” friends who will
see these lines.
The prophecy of Hermes is less equivocal than either of the alleged
prophecies of Isaiah, which have furnished a pretext for saying that
the gods of all the nations were demons. Only, facts are stronger,
sometimes, than the strongest faith. All that the Jews learned, they
had from older nations than themselves. The Chaldean Magi were their
masters in the secret doctrine, and it was during the Babylonian
captivity that they learned its metaphysical as well as practical
tenets. Pliny mentions three schools of Magi: one that he shows to
have been founded at an unknown antiquity; the other established
by Osthanes and Zoroaster; the third by Moses and Jambres. And all
the knowledge possessed by these different schools, whether Magian,
Egyptian, or Jewish, was derived from India, or rather from both
sides of the Himalayas. Many a lost secret lies buried under wastes
of sand, in the Gobi Desert of Eastern Turkestan, and the wise men of
Khotan have preserved strange traditions and knowledge of alchemy.
Baron Bunsen shows that the origin of the ancient prayers and hymns
of the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_ is _anterior_ to Menes, and
belongs, probably, to the pre-Menite Dynasty of Abydos, between 3100
and 4500 B.C. The learned Egyptologist makes the era of Menes, or
National Empire, as not later than 3059 B.C., and demonstrates that
“the system of Osirian worship and mythology was already formed”[758]
before this era of Menes.
We find in the hymns of this scientifically-established pre-Edenic
epoch (for Bunsen carries us back several centuries _beyond_ the
year of the creation of the world, 4004 B.C., as fixed by biblical
chronology) precise lessons of morality, identical in substance, and
nearly so in form of expression, with those preached by Jesus in
his Sermon on the Mount. We give the authority of the most eminent
Egyptologists and hierologists for our statement. “The inscriptions
of the twelfth Dynasty are filled with ritualistic formulæ,” says
Bunsen. Extracts from the Hermetic books are found on monuments
of the earliest dynasties, and “on those of the twelfth (dynasty)
portions of an _earlier_ ritual are by no means uncommon.... _To feed
the_ hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, bury the
_dead_ ... _formed the first duty of a pious man_.... The doctrine of
the immortality of the soul is as old as this period” (Tablet, _Brit.
Mus._, 562).[759]
And far older, perhaps. It dates from the time when the soul was an
_objective_ being, hence when it could hardly be denied by _itself_;
when humanity was a spiritual race and death existed not. Toward the
decline of the cycle of life, the ethereal _man-spirit_ then fell
into the sweet slumber of temporary unconsciousness in one sphere,
only to find himself awakening in the still brighter light of a
higher one. But while the spiritual man is ever striving to ascend
higher and higher toward its source of being, passing through the
cycles and spheres of individual life, physical man had to descend
with the great cycle of universal creation until it found itself
clothed with the terrestrial garments. Thenceforth the soul was too
deeply buried under physical clothing to reässert its existence,
except in the cases of those more spiritual natures, which, with
every cycle, became more rare. And yet none of the pre-historical
nations ever thought of denying either the existence or the
immortality of the inner man, the real “self.” Only, we must bear
in mind the teachings of the old philosophies: the spirit alone is
immortal--the soul, _per se_, is neither eternal nor divine. When
linked too closely with the physical brain of its terrestrial casket,
it gradually becomes a _finite_ mind, a simple animal and sentient
life-principle, the _nephesh_ of the Hebrew _Bible_.[760]
The doctrine of man’s _triune_ nature is as clearly defined in
the Hermetic books as it is in Plato’s system, or again in that
of the Buddhist and Brahmanical philosophies. And this is one of
the most important as well as least understood of the doctrines of
Hermetic science. The Egyptian Mysteries, so imperfectly known by
the world, and only through the few brief allusions to them in
the _Metamorphosis of Apuleius_, taught the greatest virtues. They
unveiled to the aspirant in the “higher” mysteries of initiation that
which many of our modern Hermetic students vainly search for in the
kabalistic books, and which no obscure teachings of the Church, under
the guidance of the Order of Jesuits, will ever be able to unveil.
To compare, then, the ancient secret societies of the hierophants
with the artificially-produced hallucinations of those few followers
of Loyola, who were, perchance, sincere at the beginning of their
career, is to insult the former. And yet, in justice to them, we are
compelled to do so.
One of the most unconquerable obstacles to initiation, with the
Egyptians as with the Greeks, was any degree of murder. One of the
greatest titles to admission in the Order of Jesuits is a _murder_
in defence of Jesuitism. “_Children may kill their parents if they
compel them to abandon the Catholic faith._”
“Christian and Catholic sons,” says Stephen Fagundez, “may accuse
their fathers of the crime of heresy if they wish to turn them from
the faith, although they may know that their parents will be burned
with fire, and put to death for it, as Tolet teaches.... And not
only may they refuse them food ... _but they may also justly kill
them_.”[761]
It is well known that Nero, the Emperor, _had never dared_ seek
initiation into the Mysteries on account of the murder of Agrippina!
Under Section XIV. of the _Principles of the Jesuits_, we find on
_Homicide_ the following Christian principles inculcated by Father
Henry Henriquez, in _Summæ Theologiæ Moralis_. Tomus 1, Venetiis,
1600 (Ed. Coll. Sion): “If an adulterer, even though he should be an
ecclesiastic ... being attacked by the husband, kills his aggressor
... _he is not considered irregular_: _non ridetur irregularis_ (Lib.
XIV., _de Irregularitatæ_, c. 10, § 3).
“If a father were obnoxious to the State (being in banishment), and
to the society at large, and there were no other means of averting
such an injury, then I should approve of this” (for a son to kill his
father), says Sec. XV., _on Parricide and Homicide_.[762]
“It will be lawful for an ecclesiastic, or one of the religious
order, _to kill a calumniator_ who threatens to spread atrocious
accusations against himself or his religion,”[763] is the rule set
forth by the Jesuit Francis Amicus.
So far, good. We are informed by the highest authorities what a man
in the Catholic communion may do that the common law and public
morality stamp as criminal, and still continue in the odor of
Jesuitical sanctity. Now suppose we again turn the medal and see what
principles were inculcated by Pagan Egyptian moralists before the
world was blessed with these modern improvements in ethics.
In Egypt every city of importance was separated from its burial place
by a sacred lake. The same ceremony of judgment which the _Book of
the Dead_ describes as taking place in the world of Spirit, took
place on earth during the burial of the mummy. Forty-two judges or
assessors assembled on the shore and judged the departed “soul”
according to its actions when in the body, and it was only upon a
unanimous approval of this _post-mortem_ jury that the boatman, who
represented the Spirit of Death, could convey the justified defunct’s
body to its last resting-place. After that the priests returned
within the sacred precincts and instructed the neophytes upon the
probable solemn drama which was then taking place in the invisible
realm whither the soul had fled. The immortality of the spirit was
strongly inculcated by the Al-om-jah.[764] In the _Crata Nepoa_[765]
the following is described as the _seven_ degrees of the initiation.
After a preliminary trial at Thebes, where the neophyte had to pass
through many trials, called the “Twelve Tortures,” he was commanded
to govern his passions and never lose for a moment the idea of his
God. Then as a symbol of the wanderings of the unpurified soul,
he had to ascend several ladders and wander in darkness in a cave
with many doors, all of which were locked. When he had overcome
the dreadful trials, he received the degree of _Pastophoris_, the
second and third degrees being called the _Neocoris_, and the
_Melanephoris_. Brought into a vast subterranean chamber thickly
furnished with mummies lying in state, he was placed in presence
of the coffin which contained the mutilated body of Osiris covered
with blood. This was the hall called “Gates of Death,” and it is
most certainly to this mystery that the passages in the _Book of
Job_ (xxxviii. 17) and other portions of the _Bible_ allude when
these gates are spoken of.[766] In chapter x., we give the esoteric
interpretation of the “Book of Job,” which is the poem of initiation
_par excellence_.
“Have the gates of death been opened to thee?
Hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?”
asks the “Lord”--_i.e._, the Al-om-jah, the Initiator--of Job,
alluding to this third degree of initiation.
When the neophyte had conquered the terrors of this trial, he was
conducted to the “Hall of Spirits,” to be judged by them. Among
the rules in which he was instructed, he was commanded “_never to
either desire or seek revenge; to be always ready to help a brother
in danger, even unto the risk of his own life; to bury every dead
body; to honor his parents above all_; respect old age and protect
those weaker than himself; and finally, to ever bear in mind the
hour of death, and that of resurrection, in a new and imperishable
body.”[767] Purity and chastity were highly recommended, and
_adultery threatened with death_.
Then the Egyptian neophyte was made a _Kristophores_. In this degree
the mystery-name of IAO was communicated to him. The fifth degree
was that of _Balahala_, and he was instructed by Horus, in alchemy,
the “word” being _chemia_. In the sixth, the priestly dance in the
circle was taught him, in which he was instructed in astronomy, for
it represented the course of the planets. In the seventh degree, he
was initiated into the final Mysteries. After a final probation in a
building set apart for it, the _Astronomus_, as he was now called,
emerged from these sacred apartments called _Manneras_, and received
a cross--the _Tau_, which, at death, had to be laid upon his breast.
He was a hierophant.
We have read above the rules of these holy initiates of the
_Christian_ Society of Jesus. Compare them with those enforced upon
the Pagan postulant, and Christian (!) morality with that inculcated
in those mysteries of the Pagans upon which all the thunders of an
avenging Deity are invoked by the Church. Had the latter no mysteries
of its own? Or were they in any wise purer, nobler, or more inciting
to a holy, virtuous life? Let us hear what Niccolini has to say, in
his able _History of the Jesuits_, of the _modern_ mysteries of the
Christian cloister.[768]
“In most monasteries, and more particularly in those of the Capuchins
and reformed (reformati), there begins at Christmas a series of
feasts, which continues till Lent. All sorts of games are played,
the most splendid banquets are given, and in the small towns, above
all, the refectory of the convent is the best place of amusement for
the greater number of the inhabitants. At carnivals, two or three
very magnificent entertainments take place; the board so profusely
spread that one might imagine that Copia had here poured forth
the whole contents of her horn. It must be remembered that these
two orders live by alms.[769] The sombre silence of the cloister
is replaced by a confused sound of merrymaking, and its gloomy
vaults now echo with other songs than those of the psalmist. A ball
enlivens and terminates the feast; and, to render it still more
animated, and perhaps to show _how completely their vow of chastity
has eradicated all their carnal appetite_, some of the young monks
appear coquettishly dressed in the garb of the fair sex, and begin
the dance, along with others, transformed into gay cavaliers. _To
describe the scandalous scene which ensues would be but to disgust my
readers._ I will only say that I have myself often been a spectator
at such saturnalia.”
The cycle is moving down, and, as it descends, the physical and
bestial nature of man develops more and more at the expense of the
Spiritual Self.[770] With what disgust may we not turn from this
religious farce called modern Christianity, to the noble faiths of
old!
In the Egyptian _Funeral Ritual_ found among the hymns of the
_Book of the Dead_, and which is termed by Bunsen “that precious
and mysterious book,” we read an address of the deceased, in the
character of Horus, detailing all that he has done for his father
Osiris. Among other things the deity says:
“30. I have given thee thy _Spirit_.
31. I have given thee thy _Soul_.
32. I have given thee thy force (body),” etc.
In another place the entity, addressed as “Father” by the disembodied
soul, is shown to mean the “spirit” of man; for the verse says:
“I have made my soul come and speak with _his Father_,” its
_Spirit_.[771]
The Egyptians regarded their _Ritual_ as essentially a Divine
inspiration; in short, as modern Hindus do the _Vedas_, and modern
Jews their Mosaic books. Bunsen and Lepsius show that the term
_Hermetic_ means inspired; for it is Thoth, the Deity itself, that
speaks and reveals to his elect among men the will of God and the
arcana of divine things. Portions of them are expressly stated “to
have been written by the very finger of Thoth himself;” to have been
the work and composition of the great God.[772] “At a later period
their Hermetic character is still more distinctly recognized, and
on a coffin of the 26th Dynasty, Horus announces to the deceased
that Thoth himself has brought him the books of his divine words, or
Hermetic writings.”[773]
Since we are aware that Moses was an Egyptian priest, or at least
that he was learned in all their _wisdom_, we need not be astonished
that he should write in _Deuteronomy_ (ix. 10), “And the _Lord_
delivered unto me two tables of stones written with the finger of
GOD;” or to find in _Exodus_ xxxi., “And he (the Lord) gave unto
Moses ... two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the
finger of God.”
In the Egyptian notions, as in those of all other faiths founded on
philosophy, man was not merely, as with the Christians, a union of
soul and body; he was a trinity when spirit was added to it. Besides,
that doctrine made him consist of _kha_--body; _khaba_--astral form,
or shadow; _ka_--animal soul or life-principle; _ba_--the higher
soul; and _akh_--terrestrial intelligence. They had also a sixth
principle named _Sah_--or mummy; but the functions of this one
commenced only after the death of the body. After due purification,
during which the soul, separated from its body, continued to revisit
the latter in its mummified condition, this astral soul “became
a God,” for it was finally absorbed into “the Soul of the world.”
It became transformed into one of the creative deities, “the god
of Phtah,”[774] the Demiurgos, a generic name for the creators of
the world, rendered in the _Bible_ as the Elohim. In the _Ritual_
the good or purified _soul_, “in conjunction with its higher or
_uncreated_ spirit, is more or less the victim of the dark influence
of the dragon Apophis. If it has attained the final knowledge of the
heavenly and the infernal mysteries--the _gnosis_, _i.e._, complete
reünion with the spirit, it will triumph over its enemies; if not
the soul could not escape its _second death_. It is ‘the lake that
burneth with fire and brimstone’ (elements), into which those that
are cast undergo a ‘second death’”[775] (_Apocalypse_). This death is
the gradual dissolution of the astral form into its primal elements,
alluded to several times already in the course of this work. But
this awful fate can be avoided by the knowledge of the “Mysterious
Name”--the “Word,”[776] say the kabalists.
And what then was the penalty attached to the neglect of it? When a
man leads a naturally pure, virtuous life, there is none whatever;
except a delay in the world of spirits, until he finds himself
sufficiently purified to receive it from his Spiritual “Lord,” one
of the mighty Host. But if otherwise, the “soul,” as a half animal
principle, becomes paralyzed, and grows unconscious of its subjective
half--the Lord--and in proportion to the sensuous development of
the brain and nerves, sooner or later, it finally loses sight of
its divine mission on earth. Like the _Vourdalak_, or Vampire, of
the Servian tale, the brain feeds and lives and grows in strength
and power at the expense of its spiritual parent. Then the already
half-unconscious soul, now fully intoxicated by the fumes of earthly
life, becomes senseless, beyond hope of redemption. It is powerless
to discern the splendor of its higher spirit, to hear the warning
voice of its “guardian Angel,” and its “God.” It aims but at the
development and fuller comprehension of natural, earthly life; and
thus, can discover but the mysteries of physical nature. Its grief
and fear, hope and joy, are all closely blended with its terrestrial
existence. It ignores all that cannot be demonstrated by either its
organs of action, or sensation. It begins by becoming virtually dead;
it dies at last completely. It is _annihilated_. Such a catastrophe
may often happen long years before the final separation of the
_life_-principle from the body. When death arrives, its iron and
clammy grasp finds work with _life_ as usual; but there is no more a
soul to liberate. The whole essence of the latter has been already
absorbed by the vital system of the physical man. Grim death frees
but a spiritual corpse; at best an idiot. Unable either to soar
higher or awaken from lethargy, it is soon dissolved in the elements
of the terrestrial atmosphere.
Seers, righteous men, who had attained to the highest science of the
inner man and the knowledge of truth, have, like Marcus Antoninus,
received instructions “from the gods,” in sleep and otherwise.
Helped by the purer spirits, those that dwell in “regions of eternal
bliss,” they have watched the process and warned mankind repeatedly.
Skepticism may sneer; _faith_, based on _knowledge_ and spiritual
science, believes and affirms.
Our present cycle is preëminently one of such soul-deaths. We elbow
soulless men and women at every step in life. Neither can we wonder,
in the present state of things, at the gigantic failure of Hegel’s
and Schelling’s last efforts at some metaphysical construction of
a system. When facts, palpable and tangible facts of phenomenal
Spiritualism happen daily and hourly, and yet are denied by the
majority of “civilized” nations, little chance is there for the
acceptance of purely abstract metaphysics by the ever-growing crowd
of materialists.
In the book called by Champollion _Le Manifestation à la Lumière_,
there is a chapter on the _Ritual_ which is full of mysterious
dialogues, with addresses to various “Powers” by the soul. Among
these dialogues there is one which is more than expressive of the
potentiality of the “Word.” The scene is laid in the “Hall of the Two
Truths.” The “Door,” the “Hall of Truth,” and even the various parts
of the gate, address the soul which presents itself for admission.
They all forbid it entrance unless it tells them their mystery,
or mystic names. What student of the Secret Doctrines can fail to
recognize in these names an identity of meaning and purpose with
those to be met with in the _Vedas_, the later works of the Brahmans,
and the _Kabala_?
Magicians, Kabalists, Mystics, Neo-platonists and Theurgists of
Alexandria, who so surpassed the Christians in their achievements
in the secret science; Brahmans or Samaneans (Shamans) of old; and
modern Brahmans, Buddhists, and Lamaists, have all claimed that a
certain power attaches to these various names, pertaining to one
ineffable Word. We have shown from personal experience how deeply
the belief is rooted to this day in the popular mind all over
Russia,[777] that the Word works “miracles” and is at the bottom of
every magical feat. Kabalists mysteriously connect _Faith_ with it.
So did the apostles, basing their assertions on the words of Jesus,
who is made to say: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed
... nothing shall be impossible unto you,” and Paul, repeating the
words of Moses, tells that “the WORD is nigh thee, even in thy mouth,
and in thy heart; that is, the _word of faith_” (_Romans_ x. 8).
But who, except the initiates, can boast of comprehending its full
significance?
In our days it is as it was in olden times, to believe in the
biblical “miracles” requires _faith_; but to be enabled to produce
them one’s self demands a knowledge of the esoteric meaning of the
“word.” “If Christ,” say Dr. Farrar and Canon Westcott, “wrought no
miracles, then the _gospels_ are untrustworthy.” But even supposing
that he did work them, would that prove that gospels written by
others than himself are any more trustworthy? And if not, to what
purpose is the argument? Besides, such a line of reasoning would
warrant the analogy that miracles performed by other religionists
than Christians ought to make _their_ gospels trustworthy. Does not
this imply at least an equality between the Christian Scriptures and
the Buddhist sacred books? For these equally abound with phenomena
of the most astounding character. Moreover, the Christians have
no longer _genuine_ miracles produced through their priests, for
they have _lost the Word_. But many a Buddhist Lama or Siamese
Talapoin--unless all travellers have conspired to lie--has been and
now is able to duplicate every phenomenon described in the _New
Testament_, and even do more, without any pretence of suspension of
natural law or divine intervention either. In fact, Christianity
proves that it is as dead in faith as it is dead in works, while
Buddhism is full of vitality and supported by practical proofs.
The best argument in favor of the genuineness of Buddhist “miracles”
lies in the fact that Catholic missionaries, instead of denying them
or treating them as simple jugglery--as some Protestant missionaries
do have often found themselves in such straits as to be forced to
adopt the forlorn alternative of laying the whole on the back of
the Devil. And so belittled do the Jesuits feel themselves in the
presence of these genuine servants of God, that with an unparalleled
cunning, they concluded to act in the case of the Talapoins and
Buddhists as Mahomet is said to have acted with the mountain. “And
seeing that it would not move toward him, the Prophet moved himself
toward the mountain.” Finding that they could not catch the Siamese
with the birdlime of their pernicious doctrines in Christian garb,
they disguised themselves, and for centuries appeared among the poor,
ignorant people as Talapoins, until exposed. They have even voted and
adopted a resolution forthwith, which has now all the force of an
ancient article of faith. “Naaman, the Syrian,” say the Jesuits of
Caen, “did not dissemble his faith when he bowed the knee with the
king in the house of Rimmon; _neither do the Fathers of the Society
of Jesus dissemble, when they adopt the institute and the habit of
the Talapoins of Siam_” (nec dissimulant Patres S. J. Talapoinorum
Siamensium institutum vestemque affectantes.--_Position_ 9, 30 Jan.,
1693).
The potency contained in the _Mantras_ and the _Vâch_ of the Brahmans
is as much believed in at this day as it was in the early Vedic
period. The “Ineffable Name” of every country and religion relates
to that which the Masons affirm to be the mysterious characters
emblematic of the nine names or attributes by which the Deity was
known to the initiates. The Omnific Word traced by Enoch on the two
deltas of purest gold, on which he engraved two of the mysterious
characters, is perhaps better known to the poor, uneducated “heathen”
than to the highly accomplished Grand High Priests and Grand Z.’s of
the Supreme Chapters of Europe and America. Only why the companions
of the Royal Arch should so bitterly and constantly lament its loss,
is more than we can understand. This word of M. M. is, as they will
tell themselves, entirely composed of consonants. Hence, we doubt
whether any of them could ever have mastered its pronunciation, had
it even been “brought to light from the secret vault,” instead of its
several corruptions. However, it is to the land of Mizraim that the
grandson of Ham is credited with having carried the sacred delta of
the Patriarch Enoch. Therefore, it is in Egypt, and in the East alone
that the mysterious “Word” must be sought.
But now that so many of the most important secrets of Masonry have
been divulged by friend and foe, may we not say, without suspicion
of malice or ill-feeling, that since the sad catastrophe of the
Templars, no “Lodge” in Europe, still less in America, has ever known
anything worth concealing. Reluctant to be misunderstood, we say _no_
Lodge, leaving a few _chosen_ brethren entirely out of question. The
frantic denunciations of the Craft by Catholic and Protestant writers
appear simply ridiculous, as also the affirmation of the Abbé Barruel
that everything “betrays our Freemasons as the descendants of those
proscribed Knights” Templars of 1314. The _Memoirs of Jacobinism_ by
this Abbé, an eye-witness to the horrors of the first Revolution,
is devoted in great measure to the Rosicrucians and other Masonic
fraternities. The fact alone that he traces the modern Masons to
the Templars, and points them out as secret assassins, trained to
political murder, shows how little he knew of them, but how ardently
he desired, at the same time, to find in these societies convenient
scape-goats for the crimes and sins of another secret society which,
since its existence, has harbored more than one dangerous political
assassin--the Society of Jesus.
The accusations against Masons have been mostly half guess-work,
half-unquenchable malice and predetermined vilification. Nothing
conclusive and certain of a criminal character has been directly
proven against them. Even their abduction of Morgan has remained a
matter of conjecture. The case was used at the time as a political
convenience by huckstering politicians. When an unrecognizable corpse
was found in Niagara River, one of the chiefs of this unscrupulous
class, being informed that the identity was exceedingly questionable,
unguardedly exposed the whole plot by saying: “Well, no matter, _he’s
a good enough Morgan until after the election_!” On the other hand,
we find the Order of the Jesuits not only permitting, in certain
cases, but actually _teaching and inciting to “High treason and
Regicide.”_[778]
A series of _Lectures_ upon Freemasonry and its dangers, as delivered
in 1862, by James Burton Robertson, Professor of Modern History in
the Dublin University, are lying before us. In them the lecturer
quotes profusely as his authorities the said Abbé (Barruel, a natural
enemy of the Masons, _who cannot be caught at the confessional_),
and Robison, a well-known apostate-Mason of 1798. As usual with
every party, whether belonging to the Masonic or anti-Masonic side,
the traitor from the opposing camp is welcomed with praise and
encouragement, and great care is taken to whitewash him. However
convenient for certain political reasons the celebrated Committee
of the Anti-Masonic Convention of 1830 (U. S. of America) may have
found it to adopt this most Jesuitical proposition of Puffendorf that
“oaths oblige not when they are absurd and impertinent,” and that
other which teaches that “an oath obliges not if God does not accept
it,”[779] yet no truly honest man would accept such sophistry. We
sincerely believe that the better portion of humanity will ever bear
in mind that there exists a moral code of honor far more binding than
an oath, whether on the _Bible_, _Koran_, or _Veda_. The Essenes
never swore on anything at all, but their “ayes” and “nays” were as
good and far better than an oath. Besides, it seems surpassingly
strange to find nations that call themselves Christian instituting
customs in civil and ecclesiastical courts diametrically opposed to
the command of their God,[780] who distinctly forbids any swearing at
all, “neither by heaven ... nor by the earth ... nor by the head.”
It seems to us that to maintain that “an oath obliges not if God does
not accept it,” besides being an absurdity--as no man living, whether
he be fallible or infallible, can learn anything of God’s secret
thoughts--is _anti-Christian_ in the full sense of the word.[781] The
argument is brought forward only because it is convenient and answers
the object. Oaths will never be binding till each man will fully
understand that humanity is the highest manifestation on earth of the
Unseen Supreme Deity, and each man an incarnation of his God; and
when the sense of _personal_ responsibility will be so developed in
him that he will consider forswearing the greatest possible insult to
himself, as well as to humanity. No oath is now binding, unless taken
by one who, without any oath at all, would solemnly keep his simple
promise of honor. Therefore, to bring forward as authorities such
men as Barruel or Robison is simply obtaining the public confidence
under false pretenses. It is not the “spirit of _Masonic malice_
whose heart coins slanders like a mint,” but far more that of the
Catholic clergy and their champions; and a man who would reconcile
the two ideas of honor and perjury, in any case whatever, is not to
be trusted himself.
Loud is the claim of the nineteenth century to preëminence in
civilization over the ancients, and still more clamorous that of
the churches and their sycophants that Christianity has redeemed
the world from barbarism and idolatry. How little both are
warranted, we have tried to prove in these two volumes. The light
of Christianity has only served to show how much more hypocrisy and
vice its teachings have begotten in the world since its advent, and
how immensely superior were the ancients over us in every point of
honor.[782] The clergy, by teaching the helplessness of man, his
utter dependence on Providence, and the doctrine of atonement, have
crushed in their faithful followers every atom of self-reliance and
self-respect. So true is this, that it is becoming an axiom that the
most honorable men are to be found among atheists and the so-called
“infidels.” We hear from Hipparchus that in the days of _heathenism_
“the shame and disgrace that justly attended the violation of his
oath threw the poor wretch into a fit of madness and despair, so
that he cut his throat and perished by his own hands, and his memory
was so abhorred after his death that his body lay upon the shore of
the island of Samos, and had no other burial than the sands of the
sea.”[783] But in our own century we find ninety-six delegates to
the United States Anti-Masonic Convention, every one doubtless a
member of some Protestant Church, and claiming the respect due to
men of honor and gentlemen, offering the most Jesuitical arguments
against the validity of a Masonic oath. The Committee, pretending
to quote the authority of “the most distinguished guides in the
philosophy of morals, and claiming the most ample support of _the
inspired_[784] ... who wrote before Freemasonry existed,” resolved
that, as an oath was “a transaction between man on one part and the
Almighty Judge on the other,” and the Masons were all infidels and
“unfit for civil trust,” therefore their oaths had to be considered
illegal and not binding.[785]
But we will return to these _Lectures_ of Robertson and his charges
against Masonry. The greatest accusation brought against the latter
is that Masons reject a _personal_ God (this on the authority of
Barruel and Robison), and that they claim to be in possession of a
“secret to make men better and happier than Christ, his apostles and
his Church have made them.” Were the latter accusation but half true,
it might yet allow the consoling hope that they had really found
that secret by breaking off entirely from the mythical Christ of the
Church and the official Jehovah. But both the accusations are simply
as malicious as they are absurd and untrue; as we shall presently see.
Let it not be imagined that we are influenced by personal feeling
in any of our reflections upon Masonry. So far from this being the
case we unhesitatingly proclaim our highest respect for the original
purposes of the Order and some of our most valued friends are within
its membership. We say naught against Masonry as it should be, but
denounce it as, thanks to the intriguing clergy, both Catholic and
Protestant, it now begins to be. Professedly the most absolute of
democracies, it is practically the appanage of aristocracy, wealth,
and personal ambition. Professedly the teacher of true ethics, it is
debased into a propaganda of anthropomorphic theology. The half-naked
apprentice, brought before the master during the initiation of the
first degree, is taught that at the door of the lodge every social
distinction is laid aside, and the poorest brother is the peer of
every other, though a reigning sovereign or an imperial prince. In
practice, the Craft turns lickspittle in every monarchical country,
to any regal scion who may deign, for the sake of using it as a
political tool, to put on the once symbolical lambskin.
How far gone is the Masonic Fraternity in this direction, we can
judge from the words of one of its highest authorities. John Yarker,
Junior, of England; Past Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Greece;
Grand Master of the Rite of Swedenborg; also Grand Master of the
Ancient and Primitive Rite of Masonry, and Heaven only knows what
else,[786] says that Masonry could lose nothing by “the adoption of
a higher (not pecuniary) standard of membership and morality, with
exclusion from the ‘purple’ of all who _inculcate frauds, sham,
historical degrees, and other immoral abuses_” (page 158). And again,
on page 157: “As the Masonic Fraternity is now governed, the Craft is
fast becoming the paradise of the _bon vivant_; of the ‘charitable’
hypocrite, who forgets the version of St. Paul, and decorates his
breast with the ‘charity jewel’ (having by this judicious expenditure
obtained the ‘purple’ he metes out judgment to other brethren of
greater ability and morality but less means); the manufacturer
of paltry Masonic tinsel; the rascally merchant who swindles in
hundreds, and even thousands, by appealing to the tender consciences
of those few who do regard their O. B.’s; and the Masonic ‘Emperors’
and other charlatans who make power or money out of the aristocratic
pretensions which they have tacked on to our institution--_ad
captandum vulgus_.”
We have no wish to make a pretence of exposing secrets long since
hawked about the world by perjured Masons. Everything vital, whether
in symbolical representations, rites, or passwords, as used in modern
Freemasonry, is known in the Eastern fraternities; though there
seems to be no intercourse or connection between them. If Medea is
described by Ovid as having “arm, breast, and knee made bare, left
foot slipshod;” and Virgil, speaking of Dido, shows this “Queen
herself ... now resolute on death, having one foot bare, etc.,”[787]
why doubt that there are in the East _real_ “Patriarchs of the
sacred Vedas,” explaining the esotericism of pure Hindu theology and
Brahmanism quite as thoroughly as European “Patriarchs?”
But, if there are a few Masons who, from study of kabalistic
and other rare works, and coming in personal communication with
“Brothers” from the far-away East, have learned something of
_esoteric_ Masonry, it is not the case with the hundreds of
American Lodges. While engaged on this chapter, we have received
most unexpectedly, through the kindness of a friend, a copy of Mr.
Yarker’s volume, from which passages are quoted above. It is brimful
of learning and, what is more, of _knowledge_, as it seems to us. It
is especially valuable at this moment, since it corroborates, in many
particulars, what we have said in this work. Thus, we read in it the
following:
“We think we have sufficiently established the fact of the connection
of Freemasonry with other speculative rites of antiquity, as well as
the antiquity and purity of the old English Templar-Rite of _seven
degrees_, and the spurious derivation of many of the other rites
therefrom.”[788]
Such high Masons need not be told, though Craftsmen in general
do, that the time has come to remodel Masonry, and restore those
ancient landmarks, borrowed from the early sodalities, which the
eighteenth century founders of speculative Freemasonry meant to have
incorporated in the fraternity. There are no longer any secrets left
unpublished; the Order is degenerating into a convenience for selfish
men to use, and bad men to debase.
It is but recently that a majority of the Supreme Councils of the
Ancient and Accepted Rite assembled at Lausanne, justly revolting
against such a blasphemous belief as that in a personal Deity,
invested with all human attributes, pronounced the following words:
“Freemasonry proclaims, as it has proclaimed from its origin, the
existence of a _creative principle_, under the name of the great
Architect of the universe.” Against this, a small minority has
protested, urging that “belief in a _creative principle_ is not _the
belief in God, which Freemasonry requires of every candidate_ before
he can pass its very threshold.”
This confession does not sound like the rejection of a personal God.
Could we have had the slightest doubt upon the subject, it would
be thoroughly dispelled by the words of General Albert Pike,[789]
perhaps the greatest authority of the day, among American Masons, who
raises himself most violently against this innovation. We cannot do
better than quote his words:
“This _Principe Createur_ is no new phrase--it is but an old term
revived. _Our adversaries, numerous and formidable_, will say, and
will have the right to say, that our _Principe Createur_ is identical
with the _Principe Generateur_ of the Indians and Egyptians, and
may fitly be symbolized as it was symbolized anciently, by the
Lingæ.... To accept this, in lieu of a personal God, is TO ABANDON
CHRISTIANITY, and _the worship of Jehovah_, and return to wallow in
the styes of Paganism.”
And are those of _Jesuitism_, then, so much cleaner? “Our
adversaries, numerous and formidable.” That sentence says all. Who
these so formidable enemies are, is useless to inquire. They are the
Roman Catholics, and some of the Reformed Presbyterians. To read what
the two factions respectively write, we may well ask which adversary
is the more afraid of the other. But, what shall it profit any one
to organize against a fraternity that does not even dare to have
a belief of its own for fear of giving offense? And pray, how, if
Masonic oaths mean anything, and Masonic penalties are regarded as
more than burlesque, can any adversaries, numerous or few, feeble
or strong, know what goes on inside the lodge, or penetrate beyond
that “brother terrible, or the tiler, who guards, with a drawn sword,
the portals of the lodge?” Is, then, this “brother terrible” no more
formidable than Offenbach’s _General Boum_, with his smoking pistol,
jingling spurs, and towering _panache_? Of what use the millions
of men that make up this great fraternity, the world over, if they
cannot be so cemented together as to bid defiance to all adversaries?
Can it be that the “mystic tie” is but a rope of sand, and Masonry
but a toy to feed the vanity of a few leaders who rejoice in ribbons
and regalia? Is its authority as false as its antiquity? It seems so,
indeed; and yet, as “even the fleas have smaller fleas to bite ’em,”
there are Catholic alarmists, even here, who pretend to fear Masonry!