Chapter XII (4)

Early in the morning a company of four persons,
comprising the physician, the master of the place, his
daughter, and the writer of the present lines, went to
the hut in which was to be achieved the triumph of
skepticism. The dying man was expecting his liberator
every moment, and his agony at the delay became extreme.
We tried to persuade the physician to humor the patient,
were it for humanity’s sake. He only laughed. Getting
hold with one hand of the old wizard’s pulse, he took
out his watch with the other, and remarking in French
that all would be over in a few moments, remained
absorbed in his professional experiment. The scene was
solemn and appalling. Suddenly the door opened, and a
young boy entered with the intelligence, addressed to
the doctor, that the _koum_ was lying dead drunk at a
neighboring village, and, according to _his orders_,
could not be with “grandfather” till the next day. The
young doctor felt confused, and was just going to
address the old man, when, as quick as lightning, the
Znâchar snatched his hand from his grasp and raised
himself in bed. His deep-sunken eyes flashed; his
yellow-white beard and hair streaming round his livid
face made him a dreadful sight. One instant more, and
his long, sinewy arms were clasped round the physician’s
neck, as with a supernatural force he drew the doctor’s
head closer and closer to his own face, where he held
him as in a vise, while _whispering_ words inaudible to
us in his ear. The skeptic struggled to free himself,
but before he had time to make one effective motion the
work had evidently been done; the hands relaxed their
grasp, and the old sorcerer fell on his back--a corpse!
A strange and ghostly smile had settled on the stony
lips--a smile of fiendish triumph and satisfied revenge;
but the doctor looked paler and more ghastly than the
dead man himself. He stared round with an expression of
terror difficult to describe, and without answering our
inquiries rushed out wildly from the hut, in the
direction of the woods. Messengers were sent after him,
but he was nowhere to be found. About sunset a report
was heard in the forest. An hour later his body was
brought home, with a bullet through his head, for the
skeptic had blown out his brains!

What made him commit suicide? What magic spell of
sorcery had the “word” of the dying wizard left on his
mind? Who can tell?

[62] “Anacalypsis;” also Tertullian.

[63] “Anthon,” art. Eleusinia.

[64] Dunlap: “Musah, His Mysteries,” p. 71.

[65] 1 Kings, viii. 2.

[66] Let us remember in this connection that Col. Van Kennedy
has long ago declared his opinion that Babylonia was
once the seat of the Sanscrit language and of
Brahmanical influence.

[67] “‘The Agrouchada-Parikshai,’ which discloses, to a certain
extent, the order of initiation, does not give the
formula of evocation,” says Jacolliot, and he adds that,
according to some Brahmans, “these formula were never
written, they were and still are imparted in a whisper
in the ear of the adepts” (“_mouth to ear, and the word
at low breath_,” say the Masons).--“Le Spiritisme dans
le Monde,” p. 108.

[68] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 108.

[69] W. D. Whitney: “Oriental and Linguistic Studies, The
Veda, etc.”

[70] Jacolliot seems to have very logically demonstrated the
absurd contradictions of some philologists, anthropologists,
and Orientalists, in regard to their _Akkado and Semito_
mania. “There is not, perhaps, much of good faith in
their negations,” he writes. “The scientists who invent
Turanian peoples know very well that in _Manu_ alone,
there is more of veritable science and philosophy than
in all that this pretended Semitism has hitherto
furnished us with; but they are the slaves of a path
which some of them are following the last fifteen,
twenty, or even thirty years.... We expect, therefore,
nothing of the present. India will owe its
reconstitution to the scientists of the next generation”
(“Le Genèse de l’Humanité,” pp. 60-61).

[71] Cory: “Anc. Frag.”

[72] Movers: “Phoinizer,” 263.

[73] Dunlap: “Sp. Hist. of Man,” p. 281.

[74] Siva is not a god of the _Vedas_, strictly speaking. When
the _Vedas_ were written, he held the rank of Maha-Deva
or Bel among the gods of aboriginal India.

[75] “De Antro Nympharum.”

[76] “Navarette,” book ii., c. x.

[77] “On the Origin of Heathen Idolatry.”

[78] Isis and Osiris are said, in the Egyptian sacred books,
to have appeared (_i.e._, been worshipped), on earth,
later than Thot, the _first_ Hermes, called Trismegistus,
who wrote all their sacred books according to the
command of God or by “divine revelation.” The companion
and instructor of Isis and Osiris was Thot, or Hermes
II., who was an incarnation of the celestial Hermes.

[79] Lord Kingsborough: “Ant. Mex.,” p. 165.

[80] “Ap. Malal.,” lib. i., cap. iv.

[81] Payne Knight: “Phallic Worship.”

[82] The Celsus above mentioned, who lived between the second
and third centuries, is not Celsus the Epicurean. The
latter wrote several works against Magic, and lived
earlier, during the reign of Hadrian.

[83] We have the facts from a trustworthy witness, having no
interest to invent such a story. Having injured his leg
in a fall from the steamer into the boat in which he was
to land at the Mount, he was taken care of by these
monks, and during his convalescence, through gifts of
money and presents, became their greatest friend, and
finally won their entire confidence. Having asked for
the loan of some books, he was taken by the Superior to
a large cellar in which they keep their sacred vessels
and other property. Opening a great trunk, full of old
musty manuscripts and rolls, he was invited by the
Superior to “_amuse_ himself.” The gentleman was a
scholar, and well versed in Greek and Latin text. “I was
amazed,” he says, in a private letter, “and had my
breath taken away, on finding among these old parchments,
so unceremoniously treated, some of the most valuable
relics of the first centuries, hitherto believed to have
been lost.” Among others he found a half-destroyed
manuscript, which he is perfectly sure must be a copy of
the “True Doctrine,” the Λόγος ἀληθής of Celsus, out of
which Origen quoted whole pages. The traveller took as
many notes as he could on that day, but when he came to
offer to the Superior to purchase some of these writings
he found, to his great surprise, that no amount of money
would tempt the monks. They did not know what the
manuscripts contained, nor “did they care,” they said.
But the “heap of writing,” they added, was transmitted
to them from one generation to another, and there was a
tradition among them that these papers would one day
become the means of crushing the “Great Beast of the
Apocalypse,” their hereditary enemy, the Church of Rome.
They were constantly quarrelling and fighting with the
Catholic monks, and among the whole “heap” they _knew_
that there was a “holy” relic which protected them. They
did not know _which_, and so in their doubt abstained.
It appears that the Superior, a shrewd Greek, understood
his _bevue_ and repented of his kindness, for first of
all he made the traveller give him his most sacred word
of honor, strengthened by an oath he made him take on
the image of the Holy Patroness of the Island, never to
betray their secret, and never mention, at least, the
name of their convent. And finally, when the anxious
student who had passed a fortnight in reading all sorts
of antiquated trash before he happened to stumble over
some precious manuscript, expressed the desire to have
the key, to “amuse himself” with the writings once more,
he was very _naïvely_ informed that the “key had been
lost,” and that they did not know where to look for it.
And thus he was left to the few notes he had taken.

[84] See the historical romance of Canon Kingsley, “Hypatia,”
for a highly picturesque account of the tragical fate of
this young martyr.

[85] We beg the reader to bear in mind that it is the same
Cyril who was accused and proved guilty of having sold
the gold and silver ornaments of his church, and spent
the money. He pleaded guilty, but tried to excuse
himself on the ground that he had used the money for the
poor, but could not give evidence of it. His duplicity
with Arius and his party is well known. Thus one of the
first Christian saints, and the founder of the Trinity,
appears on the pages of history as a murderer and a
thief!

[86] “La Démonomanie, ou traité des Sorciers.” Paris, 1587.

[87] Dr. W. G. Soldan: “Geschichte der Hexen processe, aus den
Quellen dargestellt.” Stuttgart, 1843.

[88] Frederick Forner, Suffragan of Bamberg, author of a
treatise against heretics and sorcerers, under the title
of “Panoplia Armaturæ Dei.”

[89] “Sorcery and Magic,” by T. Wright, M.A., F.S.A., etc.,
Corresponding Member of the National Institute of
France, vol. ii., p. 185.

[90] Besides these burnings in Germany, which amount to many
thousands, we find some very interesting statements in
Prof. Draper’s “Conflict between Religion and Science.”
On page 146, he says: “The families of the convicted
were plunged into irretrievable ruin. Llorente, the
historian of the Inquisition, computes that Torquemada
and his collaborators, in the course of eighteen years,
burned at the stake 10,220 persons, 6,860 in effigy, and
otherwise punished 97,321!... With unutterable disgust
and indignation, we learn that the papal government
realized much money by selling to the rich, dispensations
to secure them from the Inquisition.”

[91] “Sorcery and Magic;” “The Burnings at Würtzburg,” p. 186.

[92] And retinted in the blood of the millions murdered in his
name--in the no less innocent blood than his own, of the
little child-_witches_!

[93] St. Augustine: “City of God,” I, xxi., ch. vi.; des
Mousseaux: “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons.”

[94] A correspondent of the London “Times” describes the
Catalonian exorcist in the following lines:

“About the 14th of October it was privately announced
that a young woman of seventeen or eighteen years of
age, of the lower class, having long been afflicted with
‘a hatred of holy things,’ the senior priest of the
Church of the Holy Spirit would cure her of her disease.
The exhibition was to be held in a church frequented by
the best part of the community. The church was dark, but
a sickly light was shed by wax lights on the sable forms
of some eighty or a hundred persons who clustered round
the _presbyterio_, or sanctuary, in front of the altar.
Within the little enclosure or sanctuary, separated from
the crowd by a light railing, lay, on a common bench,
with a little pillow for her head to recline upon, a
poorly-clad girl, probably of the peasant or artisan
class; her brother or husband stood at her feet to
restrain her (at times) frantic kicking by holding her
legs. The door of the vestry opened; the exhibitor--I
mean the priest--came in. The poor girl, not without
just reason, ‘had an aversion to holy things,’ or, at
least, the 400 devils within her distorted body had such
an aversion, and in the confusion of the moment,
thinking that the father was ‘a holy thing,’ she doubled
up her legs, screamed out with twitching mouth, her
whole body writhing, and threw herself nearly off the
bench. The male attendant seized her legs, the women
supported her head and swept out her dishevelled hair.
The priest advanced and, mingling familiarly with the
shuddering and horror-struck crowd, said, pointing at
the suffering child, now sobbing and twitching on the
bench, ‘Promise me, my children, that you will be
prudent (_prudentes_), and of a truth, sons and
daughters mine, you shall see marvels.’ The promise was
given. The exhibitor went to procure stole and short
surplice (_estola y roquete_), and returned in a moment,
taking his stand at the side of the ‘possessed with the
devils,’ with his face toward the group of students. The
order of the day’s proceedings was a lecture to the
bystanders, and the operation of exorcising the devils.
‘You know,’ said the priest, ‘that so great is this
girl’s aversion to holy things, myself included, that
she goes into convulsions, kicks, screams, and distorts
her body the moment she arrives at the corner of this
street, and her convulsive struggles reach their climax
when she enters the sacred house of the Most High.’
Turning to the prostrate, shuddering, most unhappy
object of his attack, the priest commenced: ‘In the name
of God, of the saints, of the blessed Host, of every
holy sacrament of our Church, I adjure thee, Rusbel,
come out of her.’ (N. B. ‘Rusbel’ is the name of a
devil, the devil having 257 names in Catalonia.) Thus
adjured, the girl threw herself--in an agony of
convulsion, till her distorted face, foam-bespattered
lips and writhing limbs grew well-nigh stiff--at full
length upon the floor, and, in language semi-obscene,
semi-violent, screamed out, ‘I don’t choose to come out,
you thieves, scamps, robbers.’ At last, from the
quivering lips of the girl, came the words, ‘I will;’
but the devil added, with traditional perversity, ‘I
will cast the 100 out, but by the mouth of the girl.’
The priest objected. The exit, he said, of 100 devils
out of the small Spanish mouth of the woman would ‘leave
her suffocated.’ Then the maddened girl said she must
undress herself for the devils to escape. This petition
the holy father refused. ‘Then I will come out through
the right foot, but first’--the girl had on a hempen
sandal, she was obviously of the poorest class--‘you
must take off her sandal.’ The sandal was untied; the
foot gave a convulsive plunge; the devil and his
myrmidons (so the _cura_ said, looking round triumphantly)
had gone to their own place. And, assured of this, the
wretched dupe of a girl lay quite still. The bishop was
not cognizant of this freak of the clergy, and the
moment it came to the ears of the civil authorities, the
sharpest means were taken to prevent a repetition of the
scandal.”

[95] Louis Jacolliot: “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 162.

[96] St. Augustine: “City of God.”

[97] “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons,” p. ii.

[98] Des Mousseaux: “Table des Matières.”

[99] “Demonologia;” London, 1827, J. Bumpus, 23 Skinner Street.

[100] “Traité Preparatif à l’Apologie pour Herodote,” c. 39.

[101] De Missa Privatâ et Unctione Sacerdotum.

[102] See the “Life of St. Dominick” and the story about
the miraculous Rosary; also the “Golden Legend.”

[103] James de Varasse, known by the Latin name of James
de Veragine, was Vicar General of the Dominicans and
Bishop of Genoa in 1290.

[104] Thirteenth century.

[105] “Rituale Romanum,” pp. 475-478. Parisiis, 1852.

[106] “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons,” p. 177.

[107] See the narrative selected from the “Golden Legend,”
by Alban Butler.

[108] See the “Golden Legend;” “Life of St. Francis;”
“Demonologia.”

[109] “The Mythology of the Hindus,” by Charles Coleman.
Japan.

[110] “Supernatural Religion.”

[111] Neither do we, if by _true religion_ the world shall
at last understand the adoration of one Supreme,
Invisible, and Unknown Deity, by works and acts, not by
the profession of vain human dogmas. But our intention
is to go farther. We desire to demonstrate that if we
exclude ceremonial and fetish worship from being
regarded as essential parts of religion, then the true
Christ-like principles have been exemplified, and true
Christianity practiced since the days of the apostles,
exclusively among Buddhists and “heathen.”

[112] “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” p. xvi.

[113] “Discourses of Miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic
Church; or a full Refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet’s
unjust Exceptions against Miracles.” Octavo, 1676, p. 64.

[114] After this, why should the Roman Catholics object to
the claims of the Spiritualists? If, without proof, they
believe in the “materialization” of Mary and John, for
Ignatius, how can they logically deny the
materialization of Katie and John (King), when it is
attested by the careful experiments of Mr. Crookes, the
English chemist, and the cumulative testimony of a large
number of witnesses?

[115] The “Mother of God” takes precedence therefore of God?

[116] See the “New Era” for July, 1875. N. Y.

[117] “Paul and Plato.”

[118] See “La Magie au XIXme Siècle,” p. 168.

[119] “Rom. Rit.,” edit. of 1851, pp. 291-296, etc., etc.

[120] _Creature_ of salt, air, water, or of any object to
be _enchanted_ or _blessed_, is a technical word in
magic, adopted by the Christian clergy.

[121] “Rom. Rit.,” pp. 421-435.

[122] See “Art-Magic,” art. Peter d’Abano.

[123] “Ritual,” pp. 429-433; see “La Magie au XIXme Siècle,”
pp. 171, 172.

[124] “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie,” vol. ii., p. 88.

[125] “Conferences,” by Le Père Ventura, vol. ii., part i.,
p. lvi., Preface.

[126] “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 62.

[127] “De Baptismo Contra Donatistas,” lib. vi., ch. xliv.

[128] “Conflict, etc.,” p. 37.

[129] Ibid.

[130] “Paul and Plato,” by A. Wilder, editor of “The
Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries,” of Thomas Taylor.

[131] “Paul and Plato.”

[132] See Taylor’s “Eleus. and Bacchic Myst.”

[133] 1 Corin., iii. 10.

[134] In its most extensive meaning, the Sanscrit word has
the same literal sense as the Greek term; both imply
“revelation,” by no human agent, but through the
“receiving of the sacred drink.” In India the initiated
received the “Soma,” sacred drink, which helped to
liberate his soul from the body; and in the Eleusinian
Mysteries it was the sacred drink offered at the
Epopteia. The Grecian Mysteries are wholly derived from
the Brahmanical Vedic rites, and the latter from the
ante-vedic religious Mysteries--primitive Buddhist
philosophy.

[135] It is needless to state that _the Gospel according to
John_ was not written by John but by a Platonist or a
Gnostic belonging to the Neo-platonic school.

[136] The fact that Peter persecuted the “Apostle to the
Gentiles,” under that name, does not necessarily imply
that there was no Simon Magus individually distinct from
Paul. It may have become a generic name of abuse.
Theodoret and Chrysostom, the earliest and most prolific
commentators on the Gnosticism of those days, seem
actually to make of Simon a rival of Paul, and to state
that between them passed frequent messages. The former,
as a diligent propagandist of what Paul terms the
“antitheses of the Gnosis” (1st Epistle to Timothy),
must have been a sore thorn in the side of the apostle.
There are sufficient proofs of the actual existence of
Simon Magus.

[137] “Introd. to Eleus. and Bacchic Mysteries,” p. x. Had
we not trustworthy kabalistic tradition to rely upon, we
might be, perhaps, forced to question whether the
authorship of the Revelation is to be ascribed to the
apostle of that name. He seems to be termed John the
Theologist.

[138] Bunsen: “Egypt’s Place in Universal History,” vol. v.,
p. 90.

[139] See de Rougé: “Stele,” p. 44; PTAR (videus) is interpreted
on it “to appear,” with a sign of interrogation after
it--the usual mark of scientific perplexity. In Bunsen’s
fifth volume of “Egypte,” the interpretation following
is “Illuminator,” which is more correct.

[140] Bunsen’s “Egypt,” vol. v., p. 90.

[141] It is the property of a mystic whom we met in Syria.

[142] The Priests of Isis were tonsured.

[143] See “Ancient Faiths,” vol. ii., pp. 915-918.

[144] “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 71.

[145] See illustration in Inman’s “Ancient Pagan and Modern
Christian Symbolism,” p. 27.

[146] Ibid., p. 76.

[147] Initiates and seers.

[148] The augur’s, and now bishop’s, pastoral crook.

[149] “The Heathen Religion.”

[150] “Pères du Desert d’Orient,” vol. ii., p. 283.

[151] Justin Martyr: “Quæst.,” xxiv.

[152] See Taylor’s “Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries;”
Porphyry and others.

[153] Franck: “Die Kabbala.”

[154] “Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians.”

[155] “Divine Legation of Moses;” The “Eleusinian Mysteries”
as quoted by Thos. Taylor.

[156] This expression must not be understood literally;
for as in the initiation of certain Brotherhoods it has
a secret meaning, hinted at by Pythagoras, when he
describes his feelings after the initiation and tells
that he was crowned by the gods in whose presence he had
drunk “the waters of life”--in Hindu, _â-bi-hayât_,
fount of life.

[157] This original and very long sermon was preached in a
church at Brooklyn, N. Y., on the 15th day of April,
1877. On the following morning, the reverend orator was
called in the “Sun” a gibbering charlatan; but this
deserved epithet will not prevent other reverend
buffoons doing the same and even worse. And this is the
religion of Christ! Far better disbelieve in him
altogether than caricature one’s God in such a manner.
We heartily applaud the “Sun” for the following views:
“And then when Talmage makes Christ say to Martha in the
tantrums: ‘Don’t worry, but sit down on this ottoman,’
he adds the climax to a scene that the inspired writers
had nothing to say about. Talmage’s buffoonery is going
too far. If he were the worst heretic in the land,
instead of being straight in his orthodoxy, he would not
do so much evil to religion as he does by his familiar
blasphemies.”

[158] “Le Spiritisme dans le Monde,” p. 68.

[159] Ibid., pp. 78, 79.

[160] Louis Jacolliot: “Phénomenes et Manifestations.”

[161] Pisatshas, dæmons of the race of the gnomes, the
giants and the vampires.

[162] Gandarbas, good dæmons, celestial seraphs, singers.

[163] Asuras and Nagas are the Titanic spirits and the
dragon or serpent-headed spirits.

[164] See Arnolius: “Op. Cit.,” pp. 249, 250.

[165] See Inman’s “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian
Symbolism.”

[166] Introduction to Taylor’s “Eleusinian and Bacchic
Mysteries,” published by J. W. Bouton.

[167] Illustrated figures “from an ancient Rosary of the
blessed Virgin Mary, printed at Venice, 1524, with a
license from the Inquisition.” In the illustrations
given by Dr. Inman the Virgin is represented in an
Assyrian “grove,” the _abomination in the eyes of the
Lord_, according to the Bible prophets. “The book in
question,” says the author, “contains numerous figures,
all resembling closely the Mesopotamian emblem of
_Ishtar_. The presence of the woman _therein_ identifies
the two as symbolic of Isis, or _la nature_; and a man
bowing down in adoration thereof shows the same idea as
is depicted in Assyrian sculptures, where males offer to
the goddess _symbols_ of _themselves_” (See “Ancient
Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” p. 91. Second
edition. J. W. Bouton, publisher, New York).

[168] See King’s “Gnostics,” pp. 91, 92; “The Genealogy of
the Blessed Virgin Mary,” by Faustus, Bishop of Riez.

[169] Prinseps quotes Dubois, “Edinburgh Review,” April, 1851,
p. 411.

[170] “Manu,” book I., sloka 32: Sir W. Jones, translating
from the Northern “Manu,” renders this _sloka_ as
follows: “Having divided his own substance, the mighty
Power became half male, half female, or _nature active
and passive_; and from that female he produced VIRAJ.”

[171] “Enead,” i., book viii.

[172] “Commentary upon the Republic of Plato,” p. 380.

[173] Verses 33-41.

[174] “Phædrus,” p. 64.

[175] The Supreme Buddha is invoked with two of his
acolytes of the theistic triad, Dharma and Sanga. This
triad is addressed in Sanscrit in the following terms:

_Namo Buddhâya,
Namo Dharmâya,
Namo Sangâya,
Aum!_

while the Thibetan Buddhists pronounce their invocations
as follows:

_Nan-won Fo-tho-ye,
Nan-won Tha-ma-ye,
Nan-won Seng-kia-ye,
Aan!_

See also “Journal Asiatique,” tome vii., p. 286.

[176] The body of man--his coat of skin--is an inert mass of
matter, _per se_; it is but the _sentient_ living body
within the man that is considered as the man’s body
proper, and it is that which, together with the fontal
soul or purely astral body, directly connected with the
immortal spirit, constitutes the trinity of man.

[177] We really think that the word “witchcraft” ought, once
for all, to be understood in the sense which properly
belongs to it. Witchcraft may be either conscious or
unconscious. Certain wicked and dangerous results may be
obtained through the mesmeric powers of a so-called
sorcerer, who misuses his potential fluid; or again they
may be achieved through an easy access of malicious
tricky “spirits” (so much the worse if human) to the
atmosphere surrounding a medium. How many thousands of
such irresponsible innocent victims have met infamous
deaths through the tricks of those Elementaries!

[178] “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” preface,
p. 34.

[179] “The Christ of Paul,” p. 123.

[180] Gospel according to Mark, viii. 33.

[181] “Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., p. 489.

[182] “Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism,” p. 28.

[183] See Eusebius, “Ex. H.,” bk. iv., ch. v.; “Sulpicius
Severus,” vol. ii., p. 31.

[184] It appears that the Jews attribute a very high antiquity
to “Sepher Toldos Jeshu.” It was mentioned for the first
time by Martin, about the beginning of the thirteenth
century, for the Talmudists took great care to conceal
it from the Christians. Levi says that Porchetus
Salvaticus published some portions of it, which were
used by Luther (see vol. viii., Jena Ed.). The Hebrew
text, which was missing, was at last found by Münster
and Buxtorf, and published in 1681, by Christopher
Wagenseilius, in Nuremberg, and in Frankfort, in a
collection entitled “Tela Ignea Satanæ,” or The Burning
Darts of Satan (“See Levi’s Science des Esprits”).

[185] Theodoret: “Hæretic. Fab.,” lib. ii., 11.

[186] Jervis W. Jervis: “Genesis,” p. 324.

[187] “Lightfoot,” 501.

[188] Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. x.

[189] Jeremiah vii. 29: “Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem,
and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on high
places.”

[190] Genesis xlix. 26.

[191] Nazareth?

[192] Otfried Müller: “Historical Greek Literature,” pp.
230-240.

[193] See “Movers,” p. 683.

[194] “Codex Nazaræus,” ii., 305.

[195] See Lucian: “De Syria Dea.”

[196] See Psalm lxxxix. 18.

[197] “Codex Nazaræus,” i. 47.

[198] Ibid.; Norberg: “Onomasticon,” 74.

[199] Alph. de Spire: “Fortalicium Fidei,” ii., 2.

[200] Hosea ix. 10.

[201] “The Essenes considered oil as a defilement,” says
Josephus: “Wars,” ii., p. 7.

[202] Luke xiii. 32.

[203] Matthew ii. We must bear in mind that the Gospel
according to Matthew in the New Testament is not the
original Gospel of the apostle of that name. The
authentic Evangel was for centuries in the possession of
the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, as we show further on
the admission of St. Jerome himself, who confesses that
he had to _ask permission_ of the Nazarenes to translate
it.

[204] Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man.”

[205] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. ii., p. 233.

[206] Preller: vol. i., p. 415.

[207] Ibid., vol. i., p. 490.

[208] The word Apocrypha was very erroneously adopted as
doubtful and spurious. The word means _hidden_ and
_secret_; but that which is secret may be often more
true than that which is revealed.

[209] The statement, if reliable, would show that Jesus was
between fifty and sixty years old when baptized; for the
Gospels make him but a few months younger than John. The
kabalists say that Jesus was over forty years old when
first appearing at the gates of Jerusalem. The present
copy of the “Codex Nazaræus” is dated in the year 1042,
but Dunlap finds in Irenæus (2d century) quotations from
and ample references to this book. “The basis of the
material common to Irenæus and the “Codex Nazaræus” must
be at least as early as the first century,” says the
author in his preface to “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. i.

[210] “Codex Nazaræus,” vol. i., p. 109; Dunlap: Ibid., xxiv.

[211] Acts xxiv. 5.

[212] Ibid., 14.

[213] “Herodotus,” ii., p. 170.

[214] The Hindu High Pontiff--the Chief of the Namburis, who
lives in the Cochin Land, is generally present during
these festivals of “Holy Water” immersions. He travels
sometimes to very great distances to preside over the
ceremony.

[215] “Ant. Jud.,” xiii., p. 9; xv., p. 10.

[216] King thinks it a great exaggeration and is inclined to
believe that these Essenes, who were most undoubtedly
Buddhist monks, were “merely a continuation of the
associations known as Sons of the Prophets.” “The
Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 22.

[217] St. Jerome: “Epistles,” p. 49 (ad. Poulmam); see
Dunlap’s “Spirit-History,” p. 218.

[218] “Munk,” p. 169.

[219] Bacchus and Ceres--or the mystical _Wine_ and _Bread_,
used during the Mysteries, become, in the “Adonia,”
Adonis and Venus. Movers shows that “_Iao_ is Bacchus,”
p. 550; and his authority is _Lydus de Mens_ (38-74);
“Spir. Hist.,” p. 195. _Iao_ is a Sun-god and the Jewish
Jehovah; the intellectual or Central Sun of the
kabalists. See _Julian_ in _Proclus_. But this “Iao” is
not the Mystery-god.

[220] Josephus: “Ant. Jud.,” iv., p. 4.

[221] Ibid., ix.; 2 Kings, i. 8.

[222] In relation to the well-known fact of Jesus wearing his
hair long, and being always so represented, it becomes
quite startling to find how little the unknown Editor of
the “Acts” knew about the Apostle Paul, since he makes
him say in 1 Corinthians xi. 14, “Doth not Nature itself
teach you, that if a _man have long hair, it is a shame
unto him_?” Certainly Paul could never have said such a
thing! Therefore, if the passage is genuine, Paul knew
nothing of the prophet whose doctrines he had embraced
and for which he died; and if false--how much more
reliable is what remains?

[223] Max Müller has sufficiently proved the case in his
lecture on the “Zend-Avesta.” He calls Gushtasp “the
mythical pupil of Zoroaster.” Mythical, perhaps, only
because the period in which he lived and learned with
Zoroaster is too remote to allow our modern science to
speculate upon it with any certainty.

[224] Max Müller: “Zend Avesta,” 83.

[225] Philo: “De Vita. Contemp.”

[226] The real meaning of the division into _ages_ is esoteric
and Buddhistic. So little did the uninitiated Christians
understand it that they accepted the words of Jesus
_literally_ and firmly believed that he meant the end of
the world. There had been many prophecies about the
forthcoming age. Virgil, in the fourth Eclogue, mentions
the Metatron--a new offspring, with whom the _iron age_
shall end and a _golden one_ arise.

[227] “Palestine,” p. 525, et seq.

[228] “Sod,” vol. ii., Preface, p. xi.

[229] “Vit. Pythag.” Munk derives the name of the _Iessæns_
or Essenes from the Syriac _Asaya_--the healers, or
physicians, thus showing their identity with the
Egyptian Therapeutæ. “Palestine,” p. 515.

[230] Matthew xiii. 10.

[231] “Eleusinian Mysteries,” p. 15.

[232] This descent to Hades signified the inevitable fate of
each soul to be united for a time with a terrestrial
body. This union, or dark prospect for the soul to find
itself imprisoned within the dark tenement of a body,
was considered by all the ancient philosophers and is
even by the modern Buddhists, as a punishment.

[233] “Eleusinian Mysteries,” p. 49, foot-note.

[234] “The profound or esoteric doctrines of the ancients were
denominated _wisdom_, and afterward _philosophy_, and
also the _gnosis_, or knowledge. They related to the
human soul, its divine parentage, its supposed
degradation from its high estate by becoming connected
with “generation” or the physical world, its onward
progress and restoration to God by regenerations or ...
transmigrations.” Ibid, p. 2, foot-note.

[235] Cyril of Jerusalem asserts it. See vi. 10.

[236] “Phædrus,” 64.

[237] “The Golden Ass,” xi.

[238] “Apocalypse,” xix. 12.

[239] See Suet. in “Vita. Eutrop.,” 7. It is neither cruelty,
nor an insane indulgence in it, which shows this emperor
in history as passing his time in catching flies and
transpiercing them with a golden bodkin, but religious
superstition. The Jewish astrologers had predicted to
him that he had provoked the wrath of Beelzebub, the
“Lord of the flies,” and would perish miserably through
the revenge of the dark god of Ekron, and die like King
Ahaziah, because he persecuted the Jews.

[240] We believe that it was the Sadducees and not the Pharisees
who crucified Jesus. They were Zadokites--partisans of
the house of Zadok, or the sacerdotal family. In the
“Acts” the apostles were said to be persecuted by the
Sadducees, but never by the Pharisees. In fact, the
latter never persecuted any one. They had the scribes,
rabbis, and learned men in their numbers, and were not,
like the Sadducees, jealous of their order.

[241] “Dial.,” p. 69.

[242] Fabricius: “Cod. Apoc., N. T.,” i., 243; Tischendorf:
“Evang. Ap.,” p. 214.

[243] Origen: “Cont. Cels.,” 11.

[244] Rabbi Iochan: “Mag.,” 51.

[245] “Origen,” 11.

[246] Cf. “August de Consans. Evang.,” i., 9; Fabric.: “Cod.
Ap. N. T.,” i., p. 305, ff.

[247] “Recog.,” i. 58; cf., p. 40.

[248] King’s “Gnostics,” p. 145; the author places this
sarcophagus among the earliest productions of that art
which inundated later the world with mosaics and
engravings, representing the events and personages of
the “New Testament.”

[249] “De Pudicitia.” See “The Gnostics and their Remains,”
p. 144.

[250] Ibid., plate i., p. 200.

[251] This gem is in the collection of the author of “The
Gnostics and their Remains.” See p. 201.

[252] “Hæresies,” xxvii.

[253] 1 Cor. xi. 14.

[254] See the “Israelite Indeed,” vol. ii., p. 238; “Treatise
Nazir.”

[255] “Epiph. ed. Petar,” vol. i., p 117.

[256] “Kabbala Denudata,” ii., 155; “Vallis Regia,” Paris
edition.

[257] Psalms viii.

[258] This contradiction, which is attributed to Paul in
Hebrews, by making him say of Jesus in chapter i., 4:
“Being made _so much better_ than the angels,” and then
immediately stating in chapter ii. 9, “But we see Jesus,
who was made _a little lower_ than the angels,” shows
how unscrupulously the writings of the apostles, if they
ever wrote any, were tampered with.

[259]“Codex Nazaræus,” i. 23.

[260] Ibid., preface, p. v., translated from Norberg.

[261] “According to the Nazarenes and Gnostics, the Demiurg,
the creator of the material world, is not the highest
God.” (See Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man.”)

[262] Clemens: “Al. Strom.” vii., 7, § 106.

[263] H. E., iv. 7.

[264] The gospels interpreted by Basilides were not our
present gospels, which, as it is proved by the greatest
authorities, were not in his days in existence. See
“Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., chap. Basilides.

[265] The five make mystically ten. They are androgynes.
“Having divided his body in two parts, the Supreme
Wisdom became male and female” (“Manu,” book i., sloka
32). There are many early Buddhistic ideas to be found
in Brahmanism.

The prevalent idea that the last of the Buddhas, Gautama,
is the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, or the _ninth_
Avatar, is disclaimed partially by the Brahmans, and
wholly rejected by the learned Buddhist theologians. The
latter insist that the worship of Buddha possesses a far
higher claim to antiquity than any of the Brahmanical
deities of the _Vedas_, which they call secular
literature. The Brahmans, they show, came from other
countries, and established their heresy on the already
accepted popular _deities_. They conquered the land by
the sword, and succeeded in burying truth, by building a
theology of their own on the ruins of the more ancient
one of Buddha, which had prevailed for ages. They admit
the divinity and spiritual existence of some of the
Vedantic gods; but as in the case of the Christian
angel-hierarchy they believe that all these deities are
greatly subordinate, even to the incarnated Buddhas.
They do not even acknowledge the creation of the
physical universe. Spiritually and _invisibly_ it has
existed from all eternity, and thus it was made merely
visible to the human senses. When it first appeared it
was called forth from the realm of the invisible into
the visible by the impulse of A’di Buddha--the “Essence.”
They reckon twenty-two such visible appearances of the
universe governed by Buddhas, and as many destructions
of it, by fire and water in regular successions. After
the last destruction by the flood, at the end of the
precedent cycle--(the exact calculation, embracing
several millions of years, is a secret cycle) the world,
during the present age of the Kali Yug--Maha Bhadda
Calpa--has been ruled successively by four Buddhas, the
last of whom was Gautama, the “Holy One.” The fifth,
Maitree-Buddha, is yet to come. This latter is the
expected kabalistic King Messiah, the Messenger of
Light, and Sosiosh, the Persian Saviour, who will come
on a _white_ horse. It is also the Christian Second
Advent. See “Apocalypse” of St. John.

[266] “Irenæus,” i. 23.

[267] Tertullian reversed the table himself by rejecting,
later in life, the doctrines for which he fought with
such an acerbity and by becoming a Montanist.

[268] In his debate with Jacolliot upon the right spelling
of the Hindu Christna, Mr. Textor de Ravisi, an
ultramontane Catholic, tries to prove that the name of
Christna ought to be written Krishna, for, as the latter
means black, and the statues of this deity are generally
black, the word is derived from the color. We refer the
reader to Jacolliot’s answer in his recent work,
“Christna et le Christ,” for the conclusive evidence
that the name is not derived from the color.

[269] There is no equivalent for the word “miracle,” in the
Christian sense, among the Brahmans or Buddhists. The
only correct translation would be _meipo_, a wonder,
something remarkable; but not a violation of natural
law. The “saints” only produce _meipo_.

[270] “Beiträge,” vol. i., p. 40; Schleiermacher: “Sämmtl.
Werke,” viii.; “Einl., N. T.,” p. 64.

[271] “Epiph. Hæra.,” xlii., p. 1.

[272] Tertullian: “Adv. Marc.,” ii. 5; cf. 9.

[273] Ibid., ii. 5.

[274] vol. ii., p. 105.

[275] Ibid., vol. ii., p. 100.

[276] “Adv. Marc.,” iv., 9, 36.

[277] “Supernatural Religion,” p. 101; Matthew v. 17.

[278] This author, vol. ii., p. 103, remarks with great
justice of the “Heresiarch” Marcion, “whose high
personal character exerted so powerful an influence upon
his own time,” that “it was the misfortune of Marcion to
live in an age when Christianity had passed out of the
pure morality of its infancy; when, untroubled by
complicated questions of dogma, simple faith and pious
enthusiasm had been the one great bond of Christian
brotherhood, into a phase of ecclesiastical development
in which religion was fast degenerating into theology,
and complicated doctrines were rapidly assuming the
rampant attitude which led to so much bitterness,
persecution, and schism. In later times Marcion might
have been honored as a reformer, in his own he was
denounced as a heretic. Austere and ascetic in his
opinions, he aimed at superhuman purity, and, although
his clerical adversaries might scoff at his impracticable
doctrines regarding marriage and the subjugation of the
flesh, they have had their parallels amongst those whom
the Church has since most delighted to honor, and, at
least, the whole tendency of his system was markedly
towards the side of virtue.” These statements are based
upon Credner’s “Beiträge,” i., p. 40; cf. Neander:
“Allg. K. G.,” ii., p. 792, f.; Schleiermacher, Milman,
etc., etc.

[279] Justin’s “Die Evv.,” p. 446, sup. B.

[280] But, on the other hand, this antagonism is very _strongly_
marked in the “Clementine Homilies,” in which Peter
unequivocally denies that Paul, whom he calls Simon the
Magician, has ever had a _vision_ of Christ, and calls
him “an enemy.” Canon Westcott says: “There can be no
doubt that St. Paul is referred to as ‘the enemy’” (“On
the Canon,” p. 252, note 2; “Supernatural Religion,”
vol. ii., p 35). But this antagonism, which rages unto
the present day, we find even in St. Paul’s “Epistles.”
What can be more energetic than such like sentences:
“Such are _false_ apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ....
I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest
apostle” (2 Corinthians, xi.). “Paul, an apostle _not of
men_, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ _and_ God the
Father, who raised him from the dead ... but there be
some that trouble you, and _would pervert_ the Gospel of
Christ ... _false brethren_.... When Peter came to
Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to
be blamed. For before that certain came from James, _he
did eat_ with the Gentiles, but when they were come he
withdrew, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled ... insomuch that Barnabas
also was carried away with their _dissimulation_,” etc.,
etc. (Galat. i. and ii.). On the other hand, we find
Peter in the “Homilies,” indulging in various complaints
which, although alleged to be addressed to Simon Magus,
are evidently all direct answers to the above-quoted
sentences from the Pauline Epistles, and _cannot_ have
anything to do with Simon. So, for instance, Peter said:
“For some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful
preaching, and accepted certain _lawless_ and _foolish_
teaching of the hostile men (enemy)”--Epist. of Peter to
James, § 2. He says further: “Simon (Paul) ... who came
before me to the Gentiles ... and I have followed him as
light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as
health upon disease” (“Homil.,” ii. 17). Still further,
he calls him _Death_ and a _deceiver_ (Ibid., ii. 18).
He warns the Gentiles that “our Lord and _Prophet_ (_?_)
(_Jesus_) announced that he would send from among his
followers, apostles to _deceive_. “Therefore, above
all, remember to avoid every apostle, or teacher, or
prophet, who first does not accurately compare his
teaching with that of James, called the brother of our
Lord” (see the difference between Paul and James on
_faith_, Epist. to Hebrews, xi., xii., and Epist. of
James, ii.). “Lest the Evil One should send a false
preacher ... as he has sent to us Simon (?) preaching a
counterfeit of truth in the name of our Lord, and
disseminating error” (“Hom.” xi., 35; see above
quotation from Gal. 1, 5). He then denies Paul’s
assertion, in the following words: “If, therefore, our
Jesus indeed appeared in a vision to you, it was only as
an irritated adversary.... But how can any one through
visions become wise in teaching? And if you say, ‘it is
possible,’ then I ask, wherefore did the Teacher remain
for a whole year and discourse to those who were
attentive? And how can _we believe your story that he
appeared to you_? And in what manner did he appear to
you, when you hold opinions contrary to his teaching?...
For you now set yourself up against me, who am a _firm
rock, the foundation of the Church_. If you were not an
opponent, you would not calumniate me, you would not
revile my teaching ... (circumcision?) in order that, in
declaring what I have myself heard from the Lord, I may
not be believed, as though _I were condemned_.... But if
you say that I am condemned, you blame God who revealed
Christ to me.” “This last phrase,” observes the author
of “Supernatural Religion,” “‘if you say that I am
condemned,’ is an evident allusion to Galat. ii, 11, ‘I
withstood him to the face, because he was condemned’”
(“Supernatural Religion,” p. 37). “There cannot be a
doubt,” adds the just-quoted author, “that the Apostle
Paul is attacked in this religious romance as the great
enemy of the true faith, under the hated name of Simon
the Magician, whom Peter follows everywhere for the
purpose of unmasking and confuting him” (p. 34). And if
so, then we must believe that it was St. Paul who broke
both his legs in Rome when flying in the air.

[281] “Prâtimoksha Sûtra,” Pali Burmese copy; see also “Lotus
de la Bonne Loi,” translated by Burnouf, p. 444.

[282] Matthew xix. 16-18.

[283] “Pittakatayan,” book iii., Pali Version.

[284] See Judges xiii. 18, “And the angel of the Lord said
unto him: Why askest thou after my name, seeing it is
SECRET?”

[285] Vol. ii., p. 106.

[286] Emmanuel was doubtless the son of the prophet himself, as
described in the sixth chapter; what was predicted, can
only be interpreted on that hypothesis. The prophet had
also announced to Ahaz the extinction of his line. “If
ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.”
Next comes the prediction of the placing of a new prince
on the throne--Hezekiah of Bethlehem, said to have been
Isaiah’s son-in-law, under whom the captives should
return from the uttermost parts of the earth. Assyria
should be humbled, and peace overspread the Israelitish
country, compare Isaiah vii. 14-16; viii. 3, 4; ix. 6,
7; x. 12, 20, 21; xi.; Micah v., 2-7. The popular party,
the party of the prophets, always opposed to the
Zadokite priesthood, had resolved to set aside Ahaz and
his time-serving policy, which had let in Assyria upon
Palestine, and to set up Hezekiah, a man of their own,
who should rebel against Assyria and overthrow the
Assur-worship and Baalim (2 Kings xv. 11). Though only
the prophets hint this, it being cut out from the
historical books, it is noticeable that Ahaz offered his
own child to Moloch, also that he died at the age of
thirty-six, and Hezekiah took the throne at twenty-five,
in full adult age.

[287] Tertullian: “Adv. Marci,” iii. 8 ff.

[288] “Sup. Rel.,” vol. ii., p. 107; “Adv. Marci,” iii. 2, § 2;
cf. iii. 12, § 12.

[289] “Sup. Relig.,” vol. ii., p. 126.

[290] We give the systems according to an old diagram
preserved among some Kopts and the Druses of Mount
Lebanon. Irenæus had perhaps some good reasons to
disfigure their doctrines.

[291] Sophia is the highest prototype of woman--the first
_spiritual_ Eve. In the Bible the system is reversed and
the intervening emanation being omitted, Eve is degraded
to simple humanity.

[292] See “Irenæus,” book i., chap. 31-33.

[293] In King’s “Gnostics,” we find the system a little
incorrect. The author tells us that he followed
Bellermann’s “Drei Programmen über die Abraxas gemmen.”

[294] See “Idra Magna.”

[295] “Codex Nazaræns,” part i., p. 9.

[296] See “Codex Nazaræns,” i., 181. Fetahil, sent to frame
the world, finds himself immersed in the abyss of mud,
and soliloquizes in dismay until the _Spiritus_
(Sophia-Achamoth) unites herself completely with matter,
and so creates the material world.

[297] “Irenæus,” 37, and Theodoret, quoted in the same page.

[298] Ibid., i. xxv.

[299] See preface to the “Apocryphal New Testament,” London,
printed for W. Hone, Ludgate Hill, 1820.

[300] “It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin
writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth
century, and by him it is suspected to have been
forged.”

[301] “Elements of Theology,” vol. ii., p. 90, note.

[302] Parson’s “Letters to Travis,” 8vo., p. 402.

[303] The term “Paganism” is properly used by many modern
writers with hesitation. Professor Alexander Wilder, in
his edition of Payne Knight’s “Symbolical Language of
Ancient Art and Mythology,” says: “It (‘Paganism’) has
degenerated into slang, and is generally employed with
more or less of an opprobrious meaning. The correcter
expression would have been ‘the ancient ethnical
worships,’ but it would be hardly understood in its true
sense, and we accordingly have adopted the term in
popular use, but not disrespectfully. A religion which
can develop a Plato, an Epictetus, and an Anaxagoras, is
not gross, superficial, or totally unworthy of candid
attention. Besides, many of the rites and doctrines
included in the Christian as well as in the Jewish
Institute, appeared first in the other systems.
Zoroastrianism anticipated far more than has been
imagined. The cross, the priestly robes and symbols, the
sacraments, the Sabbath, the festivals and anniversaries,
are all anterior to the Christian era by thousands of
years. The ancient worship, after it had been excluded
from its former shrines, and from the metropolitan
towns, was maintained for a long time by the inhabitants
of humble localities. To this fact it owes its later
designation. From being kept up in the _Pagi_, or rural
districts, its votaries were denominated _Pagans_, or
provincials.”

[304] “Super. Relig.,” vol. ii., p. 5.

[305] Norberg: Preface to “Cod. Naz.,” p. v.

[306] Epiph.: “Contra Ebionitas.”

[307] See preface, from page 1 to 34.

[308] Ibid., p. 7, preface.

[309] Hieronymus: “De Virus.,” illust., cap. 3. “It is
remarkable that, while all church fathers say that
Matthew wrote in _Hebrew_, the whole of them use the
Greek text as the genuine apostolic writing, without
mentioning what relation the _Hebrew_ Matthew has to our
Greek one! It had many _peculiar additions_ which are
wanting in our evangel.” (Olshausen: “Nachweis der
Echtheit der sämmtlichen Schriften des Neuen Test.,” p.
32; Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 44.)

[310] Hieronymus: “Commen. to Matthew,” book ii., ch. xii.,
13. Jerome adds that it was written in the Chaldaic
language, but with Hebrew letters.

[311] “St. Jerome,” v., 445; “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 46.

[312] This accounts also for the rejection of the works of
Justin Martyr, who used only this “Gospel according to
the Hebrews,” as also did most probably Titian, his
disciple. At what late period was fully established the
_divinity_ of Christ we can judge by the mere fact that
even in the fourth century Eusebius did not denounce
this book as spurious, but only classed it with such as
the Apocalypse of John; and Credner (“Zur Gesch. Des
Kan.,” p. 120) shows Nicephorus inserting it, together
with the Revelation, in his “Stichometry,” among the
Antilegomena. The Ebionites, the _genuine_ primitive
Christians, rejecting the rest of the apostolic
writings, made use only of this Gospel (“Adv. Hær.” i.,
26), and the Ebionites, as Epiphanius declares, firmly
believed, with the Nazarenes, that Jesus was but a man
“of the seed of a man.”

[313] See King’s “Gnostics,” p. 31.

[314] This Iove, Iao, or Jehovah is quite distinct from the
God of the Mysteries, IAO, held sacred by all the
nations of antiquity. We will show the difference
presently.

[315] King’s “Gnostics.”

[316] Iurbo and Adunai, according to the Ophites, are names
of Iao-Jehovah, one of the emanations of Ilda-Baoth.
“Iurbo is called by the Abortions (the Jews) Adunai”
(“Codex Nazaræus,” vol. iii., p. 73).

[317] King: “The Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 31.

[318] In the “Gospel of Nicodemus,” Ilda-Baoth is called
_Satan_ by the pious and anonymous author;--evidently,
one of the final flings at the half-crushed enemy. “As
for me,” says Satan, excusing himself to the prince of
hell, “I tempted him (Jesus), and stirred up my old
people, the Jews, against him” (chap. xv. 9). Of all
examples of Christian ingratitude this seems almost the
most conspicuous. The poor Jews are first robbed of
their sacred books, and then, in a spurious “Gospel,”
are insulted by the representation of Satan claiming
them as his “old people.” If they were his people, and
at the same time are “God’s chosen people,” then the
name of this God must be written Satan and not Jehovah.
This is logic, but we doubt if it can be regarded as
complimentary to the “Lord God of Israel.”

[319] This is the Nazarene system; the Spiritus, after uniting
herself with Karabtanos (_matter_, turbulent and
senseless), brings forth _seven badly-disposed stellars_,
in the Orcus; “Seven Figures,” which she bore “witless”
(“Codex Nazaræus,” i., p. 118). Justin Martyr evidently
adopts this idea, for he tells us of “the sacred
prophets, who say that one and the same _spirit_ is
divided into _seven_ spirits (pneumata). “Justin ad
Græcos;” “Sod,” vol. ii., p. 52. In the Apocalypse the
Holy Spirit is subdivided into “_seven_ spirits before
the throne,” from the Persian Mithraic mode of
classifying.

[320] This certainly looks like the “_jealous_ God” of the
Jews.

[321] It is the _Elohim_ (plural) who create Adam, and do not
wish man to become “as one of US.”

[322] Theodoret: “Hæret.;” King’s “Gnostics.”

[323] “Gnostics and their Remains,” p. 78.

[324] Some persons hold that he was Bishop of Rome; others,
of Carthage.

[325] His polemical work addressed against the so-called
orthodox Church--the Catholic--notwithstanding its
bitterness and usual style of vituperation, is far more
fair, considering that the “great African” is said to
have been expelled from the Church of Rome. If we
believe St. Jerome, it is but the envy and the unmerited
calumnies of the early Roman clergy against Tertullian
which forced him to renounce the Catholic Church and
become a Montanist. However, were the unlimited
admiration of St. Cyprian, who terms Tertullian “The
Master,” and his estimate of him merited, we would see
less error and paganism in the Church of Rome. The
expression of Vincent of Lerius, “that every word of
Tertullian was a sentence, and every sentence a triumph
_over error_,” does not seem very happy when we think of
the respect paid to Tertullian by the Church of Rome,
notwithstanding his partial apostasy and the _errors_ in
which the latter still abides and has even enforced upon
the world as _infallible_ dogmas.

[326] Were not the views of the Phrygian Bishop Montanus, also
deemed a HERESY by the Church of Rome? It is quite
extraordinary to see how easily the Vatican encourages
the abuse of one _heretic_ Tertullian, against another
_heretic_ Basilides, when the abuse happens to further
her own object.

[327] Does not Paul himself speak of “_Principalities_ and
_Powers_ in heavenly places” (Ephesians iii. 10; i. 21),
and confess that there be _gods_ many and _Lords_ many
(Kurioi)? And angels, powers (Dunameis), and
_Principalities_? (See 1 Corinthians, viii. 5; and
Epistle to Romans, viii. 38.)

[328] Tertullian: “Præscript.”

[329] Baur; Credner; Hilgenfeld; Kirchhofer; Lechler; Nicolas;
Ritschl; Schwegler; Westcott, and Zeller; see
“Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., p. 2.

[330] See Epiphanius: “Contra Ebionitas.”