CHAPTER VI.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

IT will be demonstrated that the doctrine of the supreme divinity of

Jesus Christ is of Pagan origin, if it can be proved, 1st, That the

Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches

borrowed this doctrine, in the sixteenth century, did not hold it from

the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 2d, That the Church of Rome uses, in

her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking

similarity with those used by the Pagans, in their adoration to the sun,

under the names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

But it can be proved, 1st, That the Church of Rome, from which the

self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century,

borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not

hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 2d, That the Church of

Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a

striking similarity with those used by the Pagans in their adoration to

the sun, under the names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys,

etc.

1st. We prove that the Church of Rome, from which the self-called

Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the

doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from

the apostles of Jesus Christ.

It will be evident that the Church of Rome, from which the self-called

Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the

doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from

the apostles of Jesus Christ, if, until nearly the end of the third

century, the various Christian denominations, or sects, did not believe

the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. But, until nearly

the end of the third century, the various Christian denominations, or

sects, did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus

Christ.

This we prove:--

We request the readers to bear in mind, in reading this chapter, that

we have extracted all the proofs and statements brought forth therein,

from the works of the Roman Catholic priest Bergier, which we have

studied in our Catholic theological school; from the works of

the Rev. Father Jesuit Feller; from the History of the Church,

by Berrault-Ber-Castel, a Roman Catholic priest; and from the

Ecclesiastical History, by the Roman Catholic clergyman Fleury. Those

proofs and statements can be verified, in the first two writers, at the

articles of the sects, and of their authors, arranged in alphabetical

order; and in the other authors at the dates of the centuries and years.

Bergier says: "The Cerinthians pretended that Jesus Christ was born from

Joseph and Mary like other men; but that he was endowed with a superior

wisdom and holiness; that when he was baptized, Christ, or the Son of

God, had descended on him under the form of a dove, and had revealed to

him God the Father, till then unknown, in order that he might make him

known to men." The Cerinthians sprung up, according to St. Epiphane, in

the middle of the first century, but according to St. Ireneus, at about

the year 88.

Therefore the Cerinthians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier says: "The Carpocratians supposed the pre-existence of the

souls; pretended that they had sinned in an anterior life; that as a

punishment of their crimes they had been condemned to be shut up in

bodies.... In their belief, the soul of Jesus Christ, before her

incarnation, had been more faithful to God than the others. It is for

this reason that God had endowed her with more knowledge than the souls

of other men; also with more strength both to defeat the geniuses

opposed to humanity, and to return to heaven against their will. God,

they said, grants the same favor to those who love Jesus Christ; and

who, like him, know the dignity of their souls. Thus the Carpocratians

considered Jesus Christ as being simply a man, though more perfect than

the others; they believed that he was the son of Joseph and Mary, and

confessed his miracles and sufferings. They are not accused of denying

the resurrection, but of denying the general resurrection; and of

holding that the soul only (not the body) of Jesus Christ, had ascended

to the heavens." The sect of the Carpocratians commenced towards the end

of the first century.

Therefore the Carpocratians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier writes thus about the Ebionites: "It is very probable that

(although some authors say that they date from the year 72 of the first

century) they commenced to be known only in the year 103, or even later,

under the reign of Adrian, after the total ruin of Jerusalem, in the

year 119; that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes are two different sects;

it is the opinion of Mosheim, Hist. Christ., soec. 1, par. 58, soec. 2,

par. 39.... The Ebionites considered Jesus Christ as being simply a man

born from Joseph and Mary."

Consequently the Ebionites did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Christian sect of the Basilidians was founded in the beginning of

the second century by Basilide of Alexandria, Feller says; he had been

converted from the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato to Christianism.

Bergier writes about the Basilidians: "They believed that God had sent

his Son, or intelligence, under the name of Jesus Christ, to liberate

those who would believe in him; that Jesus Christ had really performed

the miracles ascribed to him by the Christians; but that he had only a

fantastical body and the appearances of a man."

Therefore the Basilidians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

The sect of the Marcionites was established, in the middle of the second

century, by Marcio, the son of a bishop of Pontus. The Marcionites held

that God, principle of the spirits, had given to one of them, Jesus

Christ, the appearances of humanity; and had sent him to the earth to

abolish the law and the prophets; to teach to men that their souls come

from heaven, and that they cannot be restored to happiness except in

reuniting to God.

Therefore the Marcionites did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

Valentin founded the sect of Valentinians in 140. He was an Egyptian,

and had been converted from philosophy to Christianism. Bergier, after

lengthily exposing the doctrines of his sect, says, "Consequently the

Valentinians neither admitted the eternal generation of the Word, nor

his incarnation, nor the divinity of Jesus Christ, nor the redemption of

mankind, in the proper sense. In their opinion, the redemption of

mankind by Jesus Christ did not extend farther than this--Jesus Christ

had come to the world to liberate men from the tyranny of the Eons, and

had given them examples and lessons of virtue, and had taught them the

true means of obtaining eternal happiness."

Therefore the Valentinians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Ptolemaïtes did not believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and held

that he was but the Son of God.

St. Epiphane in his work Hære. 36, and Bergier, inform us that the

Heracleonites, whose chief was Heracleon, and who were widely spread,

particularly in Sicily, believed that the Word divine did not create the

world, but that it had been created by one of the Eons, or spirits. In

their opinion, there were two worlds, the one corporeal and visible, and

the other spiritual and invisible, and they only ascribed the formation

of the latter to Jesus Christ, who was one of the greatest Eons, or

spirits. The Heracleonites were organized as a sect in the year 140.

The Colarbasians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of

Jesus Christ.

Sanderus and Bergier say, that the Barules professed to believe that the

Son of God had but a fantastical body; that there was no original sin;

that all our souls had been created before the world, and all had sinned

in that former state of existence; and that Jesus Christ was not God.

The Bardesanists, thus named from their founder, Bardesanes, a Syrian,

who lived in the second century, became a large sect. Beausobre in his

History of Manicheanism, tome 2, book 4, chap. 9, writes, that they

believed in two Principles, originators of all things, the one good and

the other bad. They denied that the eternal Word, or Son of God, had

taken a human flesh; they said that he had taken only a celestial and

aerial body. They denied the future resurrection of the body. Bergier,

Feller, etc., say the same.

Then the Bardesanists did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Marcosians rejected the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus

Christ, and held only that he was one of the principal Eons, or spirits.

The Marcosians were founded by Marc in the second century.

The Theodotians, Bergier says, believed that Jesus Christ was not God

but a man; that he was above the other men only by his miraculous birth,

and by his extraordinary virtues. Theodote, a native of Bysance, founded

them in the second century.

The Artemonians also denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of

Jesus Christ.

The Docetes held that Jesus Christ was only the Son of God, and that he

had but apparently suffered humiliations, torments, and death.

The Tatianists did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of

Jesus Christ. Tatian gave them his name when he organized them as a

Christian denomination, in the second century. Bergier pretends that

some passages of the writings of this learned author can be understood

of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, but Fauste Socin, and others,

in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, in ten volumes, in folio, proves

the contrary; and at the same time they prove that Clement of Alexandria

and other Fathers of the second century disbelieved the doctrine of the

supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. Bergier confesses, however, that it is

doubtful that Tatian had been Orthodox about the generation of the Word.

The Apellites denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus

Christ. In their belief there was but one God, who sent to the world his

Son, who took a body not in the womb of the virgin Mary, but from the

four elements. Their sect widely spread in the East during the second

century.

Bergier says, writing about the doctrines of the Ophites, a Christian

sect of the second century: "In their belief, matter was eternal; the

world was created against the will of God, and was governed by a

multitude of spirits who govern the world. Christ united to the man

Jesus to destroy the empire of the Demiourge, or creator of the world."

Therefore the Ophites did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

One of the doctrines of the Cainites was, that Jesus Christ was a spirit

sent by God to save the world.

The Hermogenians, or followers of Hermogene, a Stoician philosopher,

converted to Christianism at the end of the second century, believed

that matter was eternal; that there was but one God, who had sent a

spirit, Jesus Christ, to correct the evil that was among men.

"The Hermians, or disciples of Hermias," Bergier says, "taught that

matter is eternal; that God is the soul of the world; that Jesus Christ,

ascending to the heavens left his body in the Sun, from whom he had

taken it; that the soul of man is composed of fire and of subtle air;

that the birth of children is the resurrection, and that the world is

hell." Bergier adds, in another article, that they believed that there

was but one God, who had sent to the world a spirit, Jesus Christ.

Therefore the Hermians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier, writing about the Sethians, says: "They said that the soul of

Seth had passed to the body of Jesus Christ, and that Seth and Jesus

Christ were the same person."

St. Augustine informs us that the Severians did not believe the doctrine

of the resurrection of the flesh, and rejected the Old Testament. They

did not believe that Jesus Christ was God himself.

The Encratites never held that Jesus Christ was God. Bergier says, "They

did not believe that the Son of God was truly born from the virgin

Mary."

The Valesians rejected the doctrine that Jesus Christ was God himself.

Bergier writes: "The Hieracites, heretics of the third century, were

established by Hierax, or Hieracas, a physician by profession, born at

Leontium, or Leontople, in Egypt. St. Epiphane, who relates and refutes

the errors of this Sectarian, confesses that the austerity of his morals

was exemplary; that he was familiar with the Greek and Egyptian

sciences; that he had thoroughly studied the Scriptures, and that he was

gifted with a persuasive eloquence. He denied the resurrection of the

body, and admitted but a spiritual resurrection of the souls. He

confessed that Jesus Christ had been generated by the Father; that the

Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father as well as the Son; but he had

dreamed that the Holy Ghost had taken a human body under the form of

Melchisedek. He denied that Jesus Christ had a true human body."

Therefore the Hieracites denied the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier thus writes about the Samosatians: "They were disciples and

followers of Paul of Samosate, bishop of Antioch, at or about the year

262. This heretic taught that there is in God one sole person, namely,

the Father; that the Son and the Holy Spirit are only two attributes of

God, under which he manifested himself to men: that Jesus Christ is not

God, but a man to whom God has communicated his wisdom in an

extraordinary manner."

Therefore the Samosatians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Manicheans denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and believed that

Jesus Christ had not a real body while on earth. His soul, they said,

was of a nature similar to the nature of the souls of other men, though

more perfect. He was the Son of God.

Therefore the Manicheans denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of

Jesus Christ.

All the above sects composed nearly the whole Christian body, during the

first three centuries; and, as shown to the reader, every one either

ignored or denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Then it remains evident that the Church of Rome, from which the

self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century,

borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not

hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

_Confirmatur._--As a confirmation of this last and very important

consequence, we are to prove,

1st. That in the Church of Rome, herself, the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ was established only at about the year 180.

_Remark._--By the Church of Rome, we mean only the church whose bishop

(who after centuries assumed the title of Pope,) was at Rome, and which,

then, did not extend farther than the province of Rome, and a few other

occidental places.

2d. That in the council of Nice, held in 325, despite the efforts of

the Bishop of Rome; and despite the tyranny of the emperor Constantine

I., who invoked the council at his own expense, attended, surrounded,

and enforced it with military force, it was with the greatest difficulty

that the Church of Rome obtained, from the bishops who composed it, a

decision in favor of the doctrine she held, that Jesus Christ was God

himself.

3d. That it was only long after the council of Nice that its decision,

in favor of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ,

prevailed among the churches which depended on the Emperor of

Constantinople, and on the Bishop of Rome.

4th. We will also present a succinct view of the large number of

Christians, who, without the pale of the communion of Rome, preserved

the former belief that Jesus Christ was not God.

1st. We prove that in the Church of Rome herself, the doctrine of the

supreme divinity of Jesus Christ was established only at about the year

180.

Bergier himself makes the following confession: "An ancient author, who

is believed to be Caïus, bishop of Rome, who had written against

Artemon, and of whom Eusebe has related the words, Ecclesiastical

History, book 5, chap. 22, seems to confound together the Theodotians

and the Artemonians.... They maintain, he says, that their doctrine is

not new; that it has been taught by the apostles, and that it has been

followed in the church until the pontificates of Victor and of Zephyrine

his successor, but that since that time the truth has been altered."

Bergier adds, "The Theodotians believed that Jesus Christ was a man, and

not God, that Jesus Christ was above the other men only by his

miraculous birth, and by his extraordinary virtues." Also, Bergier says,

that, although Theodote was a native of Bysance, he resided in Rome,

where he preached the same doctrine as Theodote, at least in regard to

Jesus Christ being a man and not God.

Therefore in the Church of Rome herself, the doctrine of the supreme

divinity of Jesus Christ was established only at about the year 180.

2d. We prove that in the council of Nice, held in 325, despite the

efforts of the Bishop of Rome; and despite the tyranny of the emperor

Constantine I., who convoked the council at his own expense, attended,

surrounded, and enforced it with military force, it was with the

greatest difficulty that the Church of Rome obtained, from the bishops

who composed it, a decision in favor of the doctrine she held, that

Jesus Christ was God.

Arius, a priest of Alexandria, surprised at hearing Alexander, his

bishop, teaching in an assembly of priests, that Jesus Christ was God,

protested against this new doctrine. An animated controversy between him

and Alexander, and then between the friends of the Church of Rome,

which held this doctrine, and other churches which did not, ensued. The

council of Nice assembled, and there seventeen bishops boldly faced the

legate of Sylvestre, the emperor Constantine and his military force; and

they sided with Arius. Eusebe, bishop of Cesarea, the most learned of

the bishops who composed the council, sided with Arius. He is the same

Eusebe who wrote the Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, in two

volumes in folio; who wrote an Ecclesiastical History, the Life of

Constantine, a Chronic and a Commentary on the Psalms and on Isaiah.

Constantine forced them either to yield and to acquiesce to the doctrine

of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, or to be expelled from their

episcopal sees; and Arius, exiled, had to retire in Palestine.

Consequently, in the council of Nice, held in 325, despite the efforts

of the Bishop of Rome; and despite the tyranny of the emperor

Constantine I., who convoked the council at his own expense, attended,

surrounded, and enforced it with military force, it was with the

greatest difficulty that the Church of Rome obtained, from the bishops

who composed it, a decision in favor of the doctrine she held, that

Jesus Christ was God himself.

3d. We prove that it was only long after the council of Nice, that its

decision in favor of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus

Christ, prevailed among the churches which depended on the Emperor of

Constantinople, and on the Bishop of Rome.

Bergier, despite his partiality in favor of the Church of Rome, is

obliged to make the following avowal:

"The anathema pronounced against Arianism did not destroy it; _the

larger portion of those_ (bishops) _who had signed the decision of the

council, only for fear of being exiled, remained attached to the party

of Arius_. Constantine himself, influenced by an Arian priest,

recommended to him by his sister Constantia, at her death bed, and who

had gained his confidence, consented to the repeal of Arius from his

exile, in 328. This heretic reunited to his partisans, and commenced

spreading his errors with even more earnestness than before. But St.

Athanase, who had succeeded to Alexander in the episcopal see of

Alexandria, constantly refused to commune with him, and by this firmness

displeased Constantine I.

"Since that time the Arians became a redoubtable party. They held

several councils where they obtained the majority.... Arius died in a

tragic manner, in the year 337. After the death of Constantine I., in

337, the party of the Arians was alternatively the stronger, in ratio of

the less or greater protection extended to them or to the Orthodox by

the Emperors. Under Constance, who favored them, they filled the Orient

with seditions and troubles; but Constantine Junior and Constant, who

reigned in Occident, prevented Arianism from spreading. In 351,

Constance, who had become the master of the whole empire by the death of

his two brothers, protected Arianism more openly than before. Several

councils were held in Italy, in which the Arians had the majority; and

others, in which the Catholics had the superiority.... Julian, who was

emperor in 362, sided neither with one party nor with the other. Valens,

emperor of the Orient, in 364, favored and embraced Arianism; whereas

Valentinian, his brother, did all in his power to extirpate it from the

Occident.

"Gratian, and afterwards Theodose, proscribed Arianism from the whole

empire.... In the beginning of the fifth century, the Goths, the

Burgundians, and the Vandals, spread it in Gaul and in Africa. The

Visigoths introduced it in Spain, where it subsisted as long as the

kings of that country were Arians themselves, until the year 660.

"Arianism was to be revived in the sixteenth century. It is probable

that Arianism would have invaded the whole Orient if the Arians had been

united."

Therefore, it was only long after the Council of Nice, that its

decision, in favor of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus

Christ, prevailed among the churches which depended on the Emperor of

Constantinople, and on the Bishop of Rome.

4th. We will also present a succinct view of the large number of

Christians, who, without the pale of the communion of Rome, preserved

the former belief that Jesus Christ was not God.

We have proved, in the course of this chapter, that the following

Christian sects, or denominations, did not believe the doctrine of the

divinity of Jesus Christ: the Corinthians, the Carpocratians, the

Ebionites, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Valentinians, the

Ptolemaïtes, the Heracleonites, the Colarbasians, the Barules, the

Bardesanists, the Marcosians, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, the

Docetes, the Tatianists, the Apellites, the Ophites, the Cainites, the

Hermogenians, the Hermians, the Sethians, the Severians, the Encratites,

the Valesians, the Hieracites, the Samosatians, and the Manicheans. But

nearly all these Christian sects of the first three centuries outlived

the Council of Nice, and preserved through centuries the doctrine that

Jesus Christ was not God himself: this is the unanimous testimony of

historians.

From the four heads of convincing historical proofs brought forth in

this _confirmatur_, we draw once more the conclusion:

1st. Then the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox

Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of

the divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus

Christ.

2d. We prove the second proposition of the argument of this chapter,

namely, that the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ,

rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the

Pagans in their adoration to the sun, under the names of Bacchus,

Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

Every year the Pagans celebrated with pomp the death of Bacchus. Those

celebrations were called Titanical, and celebrations of the perfect

night. They supposed that this god had been slain by the Giants; but

that his mother, or Ceres, had reunited his bones. To retrace his death

they killed a bull, whose raw flesh they ate, because Bacchus,

represented with the horns of an ox, had been thus torn by the Titans.

Julius-Firmicus, an orthodox author of the fourth century, who wrote

about the legend of Bacchus, says that the Pagans considered those

fictions as solar fables. He adds that the sun was irritated at being

thus worshiped: here, in being immersed into the Nile river, under the

names of Osiris and of Horus; there, in being mutilated under the names

of Atys and of Adonis; and in other places, in being boiled or roasted,

like Bacchus. The Bacchanals, or disorderly, noisy, tumultuous, and

frantic scenes took place.

St. Athanase, St. Augustine, Theophile, Athenagoras, Minutius-Felix,

Lactance, Firmicus, and other Christian writers of the first centuries,

as well as more ancient authors, describe the general mourning of the

Egyptians in the anniversary day of the death of Osiris. They describe

the ceremonies practiced on his tomb, and the tears shed thereon during

several days. The mysteries in which the representation of his death was

exhibited, and which took place during the night, were called mysteries

of night.

Likewise the death of Mithra was celebrated. To the usual magnificence

of his temples succeeded a gloomy sight. The priests, during the night,

carried his image in a tomb, and laid it on a litter, in the same manner

as the Phoenicians laid the image of Adonis. This ceremony was

accompanied with dismal songs, and with groans. The priests, after this

feigned expression of grief, kindled a flambeau, called sacred; anointed

the image of Mithra with chrisma, or with perfumes; and then one of

them, in a solemn and loud voice, pronounced these words: "Cheer up,

holy mourners, your god is come again to life; his sorrows and his

sufferings will save you."

Julius Firmicus, who relates this, exclaims: "Why do you exhort those

unfortunate to rejoice? Why do you deceive them with false promises? The

death of your god is known; but his new life is not proved. There is no

oracle that ascertains his resurrection; he has not appeared to men

after his resurrection to prove his divinity. An idol you bury; upon an

idol you mourn; an idol you lift up from the tomb, and having expressed

your grief you rejoice," etc.

The Church of Rome practices alike ceremonies in celebrating the

anniversary day of the death of Jesus Christ. All the ornaments of each

church, the statues and images of saints, etc., are clothed in black. In

one of the chapels of the church a tomb is prepared, in which, on the

Holy Thursday morning, Jesus Christ--namely, a wafer which has been

consecrated--is laid, shut up, not in the ostensorium, but in a

ciborium, as a sign of mourning. The priests perform this ceremony.

During the whole day the church is thronged with people, who come to

express to Jesus Christ their sympathy in his sufferings. At about eight

o'clock in the evening, a gloomy procession, composed of the priests and

the people, march along the streets in the dark (this procession takes

place only in Catholic countries,) now and then reciting in a low and

dismal tone a verse of the psalm, _Miserere mei Deus_, [translation,]

Lord have mercy on me. When this procession has taken place, hymns of

suffering and of death are sung in the church, around the tomb in which

Jesus Christ lays. At eleven o'clock a priest goes to the pulpit, and in

an affecting manner relates to the sobbing and weeping multitude the

sufferings and death of Jesus Christ. This address is called Passion's

sermon.

The people spend the whole night in the church to keep company to Jesus

Christ in his sufferings, they say, and to relieve him by their

sympathy. In the morning of the Holy Friday the church is yet filled

with mourners. The priests, processionally, but in silence, go to the

tomb where Jesus Christ lays, take him out, and carry him into the

tabernacle, where they shut him up, but without leaving any taper

burning in the whole church. In the evening, after the recitation of the

_Officium Tenebrarum_, [translation,] Office of Darkness, boys, men,

women and all, fill the church with their yells, with the sharp sound of

rattles, with the blows they strike on boards with small and large

sticks, and with sounding, sonorous instruments, such as horns, etc. A

few days after they eat the wafer, which they pretend to be the raw

flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Pagans, in celebrating the resurrection of Bacchus, Osiris, etc.,

who represented the sun, lighted the lamps of their temples with a fire,

which the priests obtained by striking a piece of steel with silex, and

was called new fire. That day the priests were clothed in white

ornaments; the lustral waters were renewed, and also the decorations of

the temples: so in every church the Romish priests strike a piece of

steel with silex, and obtain a fire called new fire; with it they light

the lamps, and the taper called Paschal taper. They renew the holy

water, which the people piously carry to their homes, and keep for

protection during the storms, etc. The priests change their priestly

garments, and clothe in white.

The Pagans worshiped the sun under the name of Aries, because the Aries

was one of the celestial signs: so the Church of Rome worships Jesus

Christ under the form of a lamb. Formerly, the Roman Catholic parents

suspended on the necks of their children the symbolic image of a lamb;

and the women, instead of wearing a cross, as they do now, wore a lamb.

This practice had been introduced by the Romish priests, who sold, as

they sell now, Agnus Dei, which have been consecrated with prayers and

sprinkled with holy water, as being the emblems of Jesus Christ.

A lamb was represented bleeding, and under it was a vessel in which the

blood dropped. This practice was in use till the year 680, under the

pontificate of the pope Agathon, and under the reign of the emperor

Constantine III., surnamed Pogonat. Then it was ordered by the sixth

council of Constantinople, canon 82, that a man nailed to a cross should

be substituted to the ancient symbol of a lamb. However, this symbol was

partly preserved in the church, as seen above. The symbol of a lamb is

yet seen on the tabernacle, or small box of marble, or of wood, richly

wrought upon, placed on the altar; also on the ostensorium, and on the

forepart of the altars.

The Pagans placed a sunlike halo around the heads of the statues of

Osiris, Bacchus, and other gods, who, in their opinion, represented the

sun: likewise in the Church of Rome the priests place the wafer, which,

they think, is Jesus Christ himself, in an ostensorium, which is shaped

like the disc of the sun; and which represents his beams; the wafer

itself is circular. This ostensorium is of silver, or of gold, and

adorned with diamonds, or gems. Above the altar a large sun is

generally either painted, or carved, or formed with draperies. The

Pagans kept in their temples a lamp burning, in the honor of the sun:

so, in the Roman Catholic churches a lamp is kept burning, day and

night, near the altar, in the honor of Jesus Christ.

The Pagans built their temples so that the sanctuary was turned towards

the rising sun: likewise, the Roman Catholic churches are built so that

the sanctuary be turned towards the rising sun.

The Pagans carried in triumph, processionally, and with the most

brilliant pomp, the statues of Bacchus, Osiris, and other gods,

representing the sun: likewise, on the feast day of the body of Jesus

Christ, the consecrated wafer is carried in triumph, processionally, and

with the most brilliant pomp. The priestly and other ornaments are of a

tissue of silver, or of gold. A multitude of people follow: the various

confraternities of Penitents, the ones grey, the others blue, the others

white, etc., and the many confraternities of virgins, of married women,

all in variegated costumes, march before the consecrated wafer. The

civil, judiciary, and military authorities, regiments of soldiers with

brass bands, with drums beating, with banners and flags unfurled, escort

the consecrated wafer, which is carried by the first priest of the

parish, under a canopy of the most costly and magnificent tissue.

The Pagans burnt flambeaux before the statues of Osiris, Bacchus, etc.,

to represent the planets; and sometimes to represent the signs of the

Zodiac: so, in the Roman Catholic churches, upon the altar, there are

six chandeliers, with candles burning around the consecrated wafer,

namely, Jesus Christ, who is in the middle.

From all the above facts we may legitimately draw the conclusion, that

the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and

ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the Pagans in

their adoration to the sun, under the names of Bacchus, Hercules,

Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

We now come to the general conclusions of the present chapter.

It has been proved, 1st, That the Church of Rome, from which the

self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century,

borrowed the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it

from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

2d. It has been proved that the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to

Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those

used by the Pagans in their adoration to the sun, under the names of

Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

Then the Church of Rome, from which, in the sixteenth century, the

self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches borrowed the doctrine of the

supreme divinity of Jesus Christ had borrowed it from the Pagans.

_Therefore the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ is of

Pagan origin._

Pagan Origin of Partialist Doctrines · 第 6 / 11 章