|
LECTURE 1: JEHOVAH AND THE GODS OF THE NATIONS.
In last Lecture we followed the history of Israel and
Israel's religion down to the consolidation of the state
under Saul and David. Throughout the period of the
Judges, neither the nationality of Israel nor the religion of Jehovah stood on a sure footing. The tribes of
Israel were broken up into isolated fractions, and often
seemed on the point of absorption among the Canaanites; and the religion of
Jehovah in like manner, which
lost the best part of its original meaning when divorced
from the idea of national unity, threatened to disappear
in the Canaanite Baal worship before it could succeed
in adapting itself to the change from nomad to agricultural life. Both these dangers were at length surmounted, and, whatever physical and political circumstances may have conspired towards the result, [1]
it was
the faith of Jehovah that united the Hebrews to final
victory, and Jehovah who crowned His gift of the
goodly land of Canaan by bestowing on Israel a king to
reign in His name, and make it at length a real nation
instead of a loose federation of tribes. [2] And so the religion of Jehovah was not only a necessary part of the state,
but the chief cornerstone of the political edifice. To
Jehovah Israel owed, not only the blessings of life, but
national existence and all the principles of social order;
and through His priests, His prophets, but above all
His anointed king. He was the source of all authority,
and the fountain of all law and judgment in the land.
|
Conservatism developed in
Restoration England from royalism. Royalists supported absolute
monarchy, arguing that the sovereign governed by divine right.
They opposed the theory that sovereignty derived from the
people, the authority of parliament and freedom of religion.
Robert Filmers Patriarcha: or the Natural Power of Kings, which
had been written before the English Civil War became accepted as
the statement of their doctrine. Following the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, the conservatives, known as Tories, accepted
that the three estates of Crown, Lords and Commons held
sovereignty jointly. However Toryism became marginalized during
the long period of Whig Ascendency. The party, which was renamed
the Conservative Party in the 1830s returned as a major
political force after becoming home to both paternalistic
aristocrats and free market capitalists in an uneasy alliance.
--
Conservatism, by Wikipedia
|
In principle, this paramount position of Jehovah
the God of Israel was never again disputed. The
kingdom of David was torn asunder, and new dynasties
reigned in Northern Israel. But the kings of Ephraim,
not less than the house of David, reigned in Jehovah's
name, and derived their authority from Him (1 Kings
xi. 31 seq.; 2 Kings ix. 3). The sanctuaries founded
by Jeroboam were sanctuaries of the God who brought
up Israel out of the land of Egypt (1 Kings xii. 28);
and even Ahab, who provoked so bitter a religious
conflict by making room in Samaria for the Baal of his
Tyrian queen, did not give up the religion of his ancestors; for it was Jehovah's prophets whom he consulted
in time of need, and Jehovah was the God whose sustaining help and loftiness he acknowledged in giving
names to his sons. In the north not less than in the
south to forsake Jehovah was a crime against the state,
and the technical expression for treason was to abjure
God and the King (1 Kings xxi, 13).
In virtue of their common religion the Israelites of
the north and south retained a sense of essential unity
in spite of political separation and repeated wars; and
it was felt that the division of the tribes was inconsistent
with the true destiny of Jehovah's people. We shall
have repeated opportunity to observe how this feeling
asserts itself in the teaching of the prophets, but it was
a feeling in which all Israelites participated, and which
had at least as great strength in Ephraim as in Judah.
The so-called Blessing of Moses (which does not itself
claim this name, but on the contrary bears clear internal
marks of having been written in the kingdom of
Ephraim) remembers Judah with affection, and prays
that he may be strengthened against his enemies, and
again restored to union with his brethren (Deut. xxxiii. 7).
But while the religion of Jehovah had thus acquired
a fixed national character, it would be a great mistake
to suppose that it already presented itself to the mass
of the people, as it did to the later Jews, as something
altogether dissimilar in principle and in details from
the religions of the surrounding nations. The Jews
after the exile not only had a separate religion, but a
religion which made them a separate nation, distinct
from the Gentiles in all their habits of life and thought.
In old Israel it was not so. The possession of a national
God, to whom the nation owed homage, and in whose
name kings reigned and judges administered justice,
was not in itself a thing peculiar to Israel. A national
religion and sacred laws are part of the constitution of
every ancient state, and among the nations most nearly
akin to the Hebrews these ideas took a shape which,
so far as mere externals were concerned, bore a close
family likeness to the religion of Jehovah. Among the
Semitic peoples it is quite the rule that each tribe or
nation should have its tribal or national God. This of
course does not imply a monotheistic faith; the Ammonite who worshipped Milcom,
the Moabite who ascribed his prosperity to Chemosh, did not deny the
existence of other supernatural beings, who had power
to help or hurt men, and were accessible to the prayers
and offerings of their worshippers. But the national
god in each case was regarded as the divine lord, and
often as the divine father, of his nation, while other
deities were either subordinate to him, or had the seat
of their power in other lands, or, in the case of the gods
of neighbouring nations, were his rivals and the enemies
of his people. He was therefore the god to be looked
to in all national concerns; he had a right to national
homage, and, as we learn expressly, in the case of Chemosh, from the stone erected by Mesha to commemorate his victories over Israel, national misfortune
was ascribed to his wrath, national success to his
favour. [3] It was he too that was the ultimate director of
all national policy. Mesha tells us that it was Chemosh
who commanded him to assault this or that city, and
who drove out the king of Israel before him, giving
him to see his desire on all his enemies. The parallelism with the Old Testament extends, you see, not only
to the ideas but to the very words. But the parallelism
is not confined to such near cousins of the Israelites
as the Moabites. Equally striking analogies to Old
Testament thoughts and expressions are found on the
Phoenician monuments. As the kings of Israel ascribe
their sovereignty to the grant of Jehovah, so the king of Gebal on the great monument of Byblus declares that
it was the divine queen of Byblus who set him as king
over the city. As the psalmist of Ps. cxvi. says, "I take
up the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of
Jehovah," so this heathen king is figured standing
before the goddess with a cup in his hand, and exclaiming, "I call upon my lady the sovereign of Gebal, because
she hath heard my voice, and dealt graciously with me."
And just as the prayer for life and blessing to the king
of Israel in Psalm lxxii. is a prayer for a king judging
in righteousness, the Phoenician goddess is invoked to
bless Iehawmelek, king of Gebal, and give him life
and prolong his days in Gebal, because he is a just
king, and to give him favour in the eyes of gods and
men. [4]
It would not be difficult to add to these analogies
even from the scanty materials at our command, consisting mainly of a few weather-worn inscriptions hewn
by the command of ancient kings. But it is not
necessary to do so; I have quoted enough to show that
the characteristic conception of Jehovah as the national
God of Israel is reproduced with very similar features,
expressed in very similar language, in the religions of
the surrounding nations. The most important point to
carry with us is the bearing of these observations on
the current conception of the Hebrew theocracy. The
word theocracy, which has had such vogue among
Christian theologians, is the invention of Josephus, who
observes in his second book against Apion (chap, xvi.)
that, while other nations had a great variety of institutions and laws, some states being monarchies, others
oligarchies, and others again republics, Moses gave to
his nation the unique form of a theocracy, assigning all
authority and power to God, teaching the Israelites to
look to Him as the source of all blessings to the nation
or to individuals, and their help in every distress, making
all the virtues, as justice, self-command, temperance, and
civil concord, parts of piety, and subjecting the whole
order of society to a system of divine law. Nothing
gives so much currency to an idea as a happy catch-word, and so people have gone on to this day using the
word theocracy, or God-kingship, to express the difference between the constitution of Israel and all other
nations. But in reality, as we now see, the word
theocracy expresses precisely that feature in the religion
of Israel which it had in common with the faiths of the
surrounding nations. They too had each a supreme
god, whose favour or displeasure was viewed as the
cause of all success or misfortune, and whose revelations were looked to as commands directing all national
undertakings. This god was conceived as a divine king,
and was often invoked by this name. Moloch, or Milcom, for example the name of the god of the
Ammonites is simply the word king, and the Tyrian
sun-god in like manner was called Melkarth, "king of
the city." The human king reigned by the favour and
gift of his divine Lord, and, as we see from the stone of
Gebal, the exercise of kingly justice was under the special
protection of the godhead. Perhaps the most characteristic expression of the theocratic idea is the regular
payment to the sanctuary of tithe, or tribute, such as
human kings claimed from the produce of the soil (1
Sam. viii. 15, 17); for this was an act of homage
acknowledging the god as the sovereign of the land.
But the tithe is not confined to Israel. It is found
among other nations, and in Tyre was paid to the divine
king Melkarth. [5]
The religious constitution of Israel, then, as laid
down by Moses and consolidated in the institution of
the kingship, was not the entirely unique thing that it
is frequently supposed to be. Indeed, if Moses had
brought in a whole system of new and utterly revolutionary ideas he could not have carried the people with
him to any practical effect. There was a great difference
between the religion of Israel and other religions; but
that difference cannot be reduced to an abstract formula;
it lay in the personal difference, if I may so speak,
between Jehovah and the gods of the nations, and all
that lay in it only came out bit by bit in the course of
a history which was ruled by Jehovah's providence, and
shaped by Jehovah's love.
From these considerations, we are able to understand
what is often a great puzzle to Bible readers, the way,
namely, in which the Old Testament, especially in its
earlier parts, speaks of the gods of the nations.
Jehovah is not generally spoken of in the older parts of
the Hebrew literature as the absolutely one God, but
only as the one God of Israel; and it is taken to be
quite natural and a matter of course that other nations
have other gods. The prophets, indeed, teach with
increasing clearness that these other gods are, in point
of fact, no gods at all, mere idols, dead things that
cannot help their worshippers. But this point of view
was not clearly before the mind of all Israelites at all
times. Another and no doubt an older habit of thought
does not say that there is no god except Jehovah, but
only that there is none among the gods like him (Exod.
XV. 11). According to the words of Jephthah (Judges
xi. 24), the natural order of things is that Israel should
inherit the land which Jehovah has enabled them to
conquer, while the invader who attempts to encroach on
this inheritance ought to be content with the lands
which Chemosh his god has given him. And David
takes it for granted that a man who is excluded from
the commonwealth of Israel, "the inheritance of
Jehovah," must go and serve other gods (1 Sam. xxvi.
19). In truth, the great deliverance which manifested
Jehovah to the Hebrews as their king and Saviour
did not necessarily and at once compel them to deny
the existence of other superhuman beings capable of
influencing the affairs of mankind. A man might
believe firmly in Jehovah, Israel's God, and feel secure
in His strength and love, without being drawn into the
train of reflection necessary to carry the conviction that
those who were not the people of Jehovah had no
divine helper at all. It was not every one who could
rise with the prophet Amos to the thought that it was
Jehovah's supreme providence which had determined
the migrations of all nations just as much as of Israel
(Amos ix. 7). It is not therefore surprising that the
mass of the people long after the time of David held the
faith of Jehovah in a way that left it open to them to
concede a certain reality to the gods of other nations.
The ordinary unenlightened Israelite thought that
Jehovah was stronger than Chemosh, while the Moabite,
as we see from the stone of Mesha, thought that Chemosh was stronger than Jehovah; but, apart from this
difference, the two had a great many religious ideas in
common, and, but for the continued word of revelation
in the mouths of the prophets, Israel's religion might
very well have permanently remained on this level, and
so have perished with the fall of the Hebrew state.
We see, then, that it was not the idea of the theocracy
that gave to the religion of Israel its unique character.
It is well to observe that the same thing may be said
of the sacred ordinances which are so often thought of
as having been from the first what they undoubtedly
became after the time of Ezra, a permanent wall of
separation between Israel and the Gentiles. To discuss
this subject in detail it would be necessary to trace the
history of the ritual laws of the Pentateuch. This I
have done, to a certain extent, in a previous course of
lectures, and I shall not repeat what I then said. But
in general it must be observed that to the ordinary
Israelite the most prominent of the sacred observances
previous to the exile must have seemed rather to connect his worship with that of the surrounding nations
than to separate the two. Israel, like the other nations,
worshipped Jehovah at certain fixed sanctuaries, where
He was held to meet with His people face to face. The
method of worship was by altar gifts, expressive of
homage for the good things of His bestowal, and the
chief occasions of such worship were the agricultural
feasts, just as among the Canaanites. [6] The details of
the ceremonial observed were closely parallel to those
still to be read on Phoenician monuments. Even the
technical terms connected with sacrifice were in great
part identical. The vow (neder), the whole burnt-offering (kalil), the thank-offering (shelem), the meat-offering
(minhath), and a variety of other details appear on the
tablet of Marseilles and similar Phoenician documents
under their familiar Old Testament names, showing that
the Hebrew ritual was not a thing by itself, but had a
common foundation with that observed by their neighbours. [7] And no
hesitation was felt in actually copying foreign models. When Ahaz took the pattern of
a new altar from Damascus, he simply followed the
precedent set by Solomon in the building of the temple. The court with
its brazen altar [and lofty columns, Jachin and Boaz], the portico (2 Kings xxiii. 11 not
suburbs, as the Authorised Version has it), the ornaments, chased or embossed in gold, the symbolic
palm-trees, and so forth, are all described or figured on
Phoenician inscriptions and coins. [8]
|
According to the Bible, Solomon was both a master builder
and an insatiable accumulator. He drank out of golden goblets, outfitted
his soldiers with golden shields, maintained a fleet of sailing ships to
seek out exotic treasures, kept a harem of 1,000 wives and concubines,
and spent thirteen years building a palace and a richly decorated temple
to house the Ark of the Covenant. Yet not one goblet, not one brick, has
ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed.
--
False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the
Bible's Claim to History, by Daniel Lazare
|
Again the approach of the worshipper to his God in
sacrifice and offering demands, as its necessary complement, a means by which the response of the deity can
be conveyed to His people. Among the Hebrews the
answer of Jehovah to the people's supplications was
given by the priestly lot and the prophetic word. But
here again the vast difference between the revelation
of Jehovah and the oracles of the nations lies in what
Jehovah had to say, rather than in the external manner
of saying it. The holy lot is of constant occurrence in
ancient religions; [9] there were prophets of Baal as well
as prophets of Jehovah; and the official prophets, connected with the sanctuary, were, according to the testimony of Jeremiah and Micah, often not distinguishable
from sorcerers a fact quite inexplicable if there had
been a broad acknowledged difference in externals
between their functions and those of the prophets of the
heathen. In point of fact, we find Saul and his servant
going to Samuel with a trifling present, just as in other
early nations.
In every way, then, the attempt to reduce the
difference between the early religion of the Hebrews
and that of other nations to broad tangible peculiarities
that can be grasped with the hand breaks down. It
was Jehovah Himself who was different from Chemosh,
Moloch, or Melkarth; and to those who did not know
Jehovah, to use the expressive prophetic phrase, there
was no insurmountable barrier between His worship and heathenism. Even the current ideas of the
Hebrews about unseen things were mainly the common
stock of the Semitic peoples, and nothing is more certain than that neither Moses nor Samuel gave Israel
any new system of metaphysical theology. In matters
of thought as well as of practice, the new revelation of
Jehovah's power and love, given through Moses, or
rather given in actual saving deeds of Jehovah which
Moses taught the people to understand, involved no
sudden and absolute break with the past, or with the
traditions of the past common to Israel with kindred
nations. Its epoch-making importance lay in quite
another direction in the introduction into Israel's
historical life of a new personal factor of Jehovah
Himself as the God of Israel's salvation. Jehovah, as
the prophet Hosea puts it, taught Israel to walk, holding
him by the arms as a parent holds a little child; but
the divine guidance fitly characterised in these words
is something very different from such a course of lectures on dogmatics
as is often thought of as the substance of Old Testament revelation. Again to borrow
the language of Hosea, Jehovah drew Israel to Him by
human ties, by cords of love; the influence of His
revelation in forming the religious character of the
nation was a personal influence, the influence of His
gracious and holy character. It was from this personal
experience of Jehovah's character, read in the actual
history of His dealings with His people, that the great
teachers of Israel learned, but learned by slow degrees,
to lay down general propositions about divine things.
To suppose that the Old Testament history began with
a full scheme of doctrine, which the history only served
to illustrate and enforce, is to invert the most general
law of God's dealings with man, whether in the way of
nature or of grace.
Unless we keep this principle clearly before our
minds, the whole history of the divine teaching contained
in the Old Testament will be involved in hopeless confusion; and therefore it will not be amiss to devote a
few sentences to show in detail how impossible it is to
place the original peculiarity of Israel's religion in anything of the nature of abstract theological doctrine.
For
this purpose I may select two principal points, which
are always held to be cardinal features in a spiritual
theology, the doctrine of the unity and absolute spiritual
being of God, and the doctrine of the future state and
retribution in the world to come. No question has been
more discussed by writers on the Old Testament than
the monotheism of the Hebrews. Was the doctrine of
monotheism an inheritance from the patriarchs? or was
it introduced by Moses? or did it come to the front for
the first time in the days of Elijah? or was it, in fact,
not precisely formulated till the time of Jeremiah?
That these questions can be asked and seriously
argued by scholarly inquirers is, at any rate, sufficient proof
that the older parts of the Bible do not give to the abstract
doctrine of monotheism the importance that it possesses
to our minds. To the early Hebrews the question which
we view as so fundamental, and which was, in fact, felt
to he fundamental by the later prophets, seems hardly
to have presented itself at all. For the practical purposes of religion, the thesis that there is no god who can
compare with Jehovah appeared as sufficient as the more
advanced doctrine that there is no god except Him.
As long as the Israelites, with Jehovah at their head,
were absorbed in the conflict for freedom against other
nations and their gods, there was no practical interest
in the question whether the foreign deities had or had
not metaphysical existence. The practical point was
that Jehovah proved Himself stronger than they by
giving Israel victory over their worshippers. And, in
fact, it required a process of abstract thought, not at all
familiar to early times, to deny all reality to deities
which in many cases were identified with actual concrete things, with the sun, for example, or the planets.
Even in the latest stages of Biblical thought the point of
view which strictly identifies the heathen gods with the
idols that represented them, and therefore denies to them
all living reality, varies with another point of view which
regards them as evil demons (1 Cor. viii. 4 seq.; x. 20 seq.).
Nor is it at all clear that in the earliest times the
difference between Jehovah and other gods was placed
in His spiritual nature. The Old Testament word
which we translate by spirit (ruah) is the common word
for wind, including the "living breath" (ruah of life,
Gen. vi. 17), and so used of the motions of life and the
affections of the soul. Now, observation of human life
taught the Hebrews to distinguish between man's flesh,
or visible and tangible frame, and the subtile breath or
spirit which animates this frame. It was in the fleshy
body that they saw the difference between man and
God. "Hast Thou eyes of flesh," says Job, "or seest
Thou as man seeth" (Job x. 4). "The Egyptians are
men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit"
(Isa. xxxi. 3). These passages are the clearest expressions of the spirituality of the godhead which the Old
Testament contains, and you observe that they are not
directed to distinguish between the true God and false
gods, but to characterise the godhead in its difference
from human nature. It is, in fact, the divine working,
rather than the divine nature, that the Hebrew Scriptures regard as spiritual that is, as possessing a subtile
and invisible character, comparable with the mysterious
movements of the wind. The common doctrine of the
Old Testament is not that God is spirit, but that the
spirit of Jehovah, going forth from Him, works in the
world and among men. And this is no metaphysical
doctrine; it simply expresses that difference between
divine and human agency which must be recognised
wherever there is any belief in God, or at least any
belief rising above the grossest fetichism. That the
early Israelites possessed no metaphysical doctrine of
the spirituality of Jehovah, conceived as an existence out
of all relation to space and time, is plain from the fact
that the Old Testament never quite stripped off the idea
that Jehovah's contact with earth has a special relation
to special places that the operations of His sovereignty
go forth from Sinai, or from Zion, or from some other
earthly sanctuary, where He is nearer to man than on
unconsecrated ground. It is true that this conception
generally takes a poetical form, and did not to the
prophets appear irreconcilable with the thought that it
is impossible to escape from Jehovah's presence (Amos
ix. 1 seq.; Ps. cxxxix. V), that heaven and the heaven
of heavens cannot contain Him (1 Kings viii. 27); that
He sits on the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants
are as grasshoppers (Isa. xl. 22). But the figures of
early poetry express the actual thoughts of the people
who use them; and there can be no question that, by
the ordinary Israelite, the local relation of Jehovah to
the land and sanctuaries of Israel, the idea of His march
from Sinai in the thunderstorm that announces His
approach, were taken with a degree of literality that
would have been impossible if Moses had already
given to the people a metaphysical conception of the
divine being. As for the common notion that the name
Jehovah expresses the idea of absolute and unconditioned
existence, that is a mere fiction of the Alexandrian
philosophy, absurdly inconsistent with the whole language of the Old Testament, and refuted even by the
one phrase Jehovah of hosts the Jehovah of the armies
of Israel. [10] Even the principle of the second commandment, that Jehovah is not to be worshipped by images,
which is often appealed to as containing the most characteristic peculiarity of Mosaism, cannot, in the light of
history, be viewed as having had so fundamental a place
in the religion of early Israel. The state worship of
the golden calves led to no quarrel between Elisha and
the dynasty of Jehu; and this one fact is sufficient to
show that, even in a time of notable revival, the living
power of the religion was not felt to lie in the principle
that Jehovah cannot be represented by images.
It was as a living personal force, not as a metaphysical entity, that Jehovah was adored by Israel,
and so a living faith was possible in spite of much
vagueness and vacillation upon the very points in the
conception of the Godhead which, to our habit of
mind, seem most central. In truth, metaphysical speculation on the Godhead as eternal, infinite, and the like,
is not peculiar to the religion of revelation, but was
carried by the philosophers of the Gentiles much further
than is ever attempted in the Old Testament.
The other point to which I have referred, the views
of the Hebrews as to the state after death and future
retribution, may be disposed of more briefly. Apart
from the doctrine of the resurrection, of which nothing
is heard till the later books of the Old Testament, the
religion of the Hebrews has to do with this life, not
with a life to come, as, indeed, was inevitable, seeing that
the religious subject, the object of Jehovah's love, is, in
the first instance, the nation as a whole, individual
Israelites coming into relation with their God as members of the nation sharing in His dealings
with Israel
qua nation. After death man enters the shadowy realm
of Sheol, where the weak and pithless shades dwell
together, where their love, their hatred, their envy are
perished, where small and great are alike, and the servant is free from his master (Eccles. ix. 4 seq.; Job. iii.
13 seq.), where there is no more remembrance of God, and
none can praise His name or hope for His truth (Ps.
vi. 5; Isa. xxxviii. 18). There is nothing in these
conceptions which partakes of the character of revelation; they are just the same ideas as are found among
the surrounding nations. The very name of shades
(Rephaim) is common to the Old Testament with the
Phoenicians; and, when the Sidonian king Eshmunazar
engraved on his sarcophagus the prayer that those who
disturbed his tomb might "find no bed among the
shades," he used the same imagery and even the same
words as are employed in the books of Isaiah and
Ezekiel in describing the descent into Sheol of the kings
of Babylon and Egypt (Isa. xiv. 9, 18 seq.; Ezek. xxxii.
25). [11] In accordance with this view of the state of the
dead, the Hebrew doctrine of retribution is essentially
a doctrine of retribution on earth. Death is itself a
final judgment; for it removes man from the sphere
where Jehovah's grace and judgment are known. Here,
then, even more clearly than in the other case, it is
plain that the religion of the Hebrews does not rest on
a philosophy of the unseen universe. The sphere of
religion is the present life, and the truths of religion
are the truths of an everyday experience in which to
Hebrew faith Jehovah is as living and personal an actor
as men are. His agency in Israel is too real to invite
to abstract speculation; all interest turns, not on what
Jehovah is in Himself, or what He does beyond the
sphere of the present national life, but on His present
doings in the midst of His people, and the personal
character and dispositions which these doings reveal.
|
Most important, the central
doctrine of nazism, that the Jew was evil and had to be
exterminated, had its origin in the Gnostic position that there
were two worlds, one good and one evil, one dark and one light,
one materialistic and one spiritual.... The mystical teachings
of Guido von List,
Lanz von Liebenfels, and
Rudolf von
Sebottendorff were modern restatements of
Gnosticism.
When the apocalyptic promise of
Christ's resurrection was broken, the Gnostics sought to return
men to God by another route, more Oriental than Hellenist. They
devised a dualistic cosmology to set against the teachings of
the early Christian Church, which, they claimed, were only
common deceptions, unsuited for the wise. The truth was
esoteric. Only the properly initiated could appreciate it. It
belonged to a secret tradition which had come down through
certain mystery schools. The truth was, God could never become
man. There were two separate realms -- one spiritual, the other
material. The spiritual realm, created by God, was all good; the
material realm, created by the demiurge, all evil. Man needed to
be saved, not from Original Sin, but from enslavement to matter.
For this, he had to learn the mystical arts. Thus
Gnosticism became a
source for the occult tradition.
A famous medieval Gnostic sect,
the Cathars, came to identify the Old Testament god, Jehovah,
with the demiurge, the creator of the material world and
therefore the equivalent of Satan. Within
Gnosticism, then, existed
the idea that the Jewish god was really the devil, responsible
for all the evil in the world. He was opposed to the New
Testament God. The Cathars tried to eliminate the Old Testament
from Church theology and condemned Judaism as a work of Satan's,
whose aim was to tempt men away from the spirit. Jehovah, they
said, was the god of an earth "waste and void," with darkness
"upon the face of the deep." Was he not cruel and capricious?
They quoted Scripture to prove it. The New Testament God, on the
other hand, was light. He declared that "there is neither male
nor female," for everyone was united in Christ. These two gods,
obviously, had nothing in common.
The synagogue was regarded as
profane by Christians. The Cathars -- themselves considered
heretical by the Church -- castigated Catholics for refusing to
purge themselves of Jewish sources; Church members often blamed
the [Cathar] Christian heresy on Jewish mysticism, which was
considered an inspiration for
Gnostic sorcery.
But Gnostic cosmology, though
officially branded "false," pervaded the thinking of the Church.
The Jews were widely thought to be magicians. It was believed
that they could cause rain, and when there was a drought, they
were encouraged to do so. Despite the displeasure of the Roman
Popes, Christians, when they were in straitened circumstances,
practiced Jewish customs, even frequenting synagogues.
This sheds light on an
otherwise incomprehensible recurring theme within Nazi
literature, as, for example,
"The Earth-Centered Jew Lacks a Soul," by one of the chief
architects of Nazi dogma, Alfred Rosenberg, who held that
whereas other people believe in a Hereafter and in immortality,
the Jew affirms the world and will not allow it to perish. The
Gnostic secret is that
the spirit is
trapped in matter, and to free it,
the world must be rejected.
Thus, in his total lack of world-denial, the Jew is snuffing out
the inner light, and preventing the millennium:
Where the idea of the
immortal dwells, the longing for the journey or the
withdrawal from temporality must always emerge again; hence,
a denial of the world will always reappear. And this is the
meaning of the non-Jewish peoples: they are the custodians
of world-negation, of the idea of the Hereafter, even if
they maintain it in the poorest way. Hence, one or another
of them can quietly go under, but what really matters lives
on in their descendants. If, however, the Jewish people were
to perish, no nation would be left which would hold
world-affirmation in high esteem -- the end of all time
would be here.
... the Jew, the only
consistent and consequently
the only viable yea-sayer to the world, must be found
wherever other men bear in themselves ... a compulsion to
overcome the world.... On the other hand, if the Jew were
continually to stifle us, we would never be able to fulfill
our mission, which is the salvation of the world, but would,
to be frank, succumb to insanity, for pure
world-affirmation, the unrestrained will for a vain
existence, leads to no other goal. It would literally lead
to a void, to the destruction not only of
the illusory earthly world but
also of the truly existent, the spiritual. Considered in
himself the Jew represents nothing else but this blind will
for destruction, the insanity of mankind. It is known that
Jewish people are especially prone to mental disease.
"Dominated by delusions," said Schopenhauer about the Jew.
... To strip the world of
its soul, that and nothing else is what Judaism wants. This,
however, would be tantamount to the world's destruction.
This remarkable statement,
seemingly the rantings of a lunatic, expresses the Gnostic theme
that the spirit of man, essentially divine, is imprisoned in an
evil world. The way out of this world is through rejection of
it. But the Jew alone stands in the way. Behind all the talk
about "the earth-centered Jew" who "lacks a soul"; about the
demonic Jew who will despoil the Aryan maiden; about the
cabalistic work of the devil in Jewish finance; about the
sinister revolutionary Jewish plot to take over the world and
cause the decline of civilization, there is the shadow of
ancient Gnosticism.
--
Gods & Beasts -- The Nazis &
the Occult, by Dusty Sklar |
Now, to all early nations religion is an intensely
real thing. The primitive mind does not occupy itself
with things of no practical importance, and it is only in
the later stages of society that we meet with traditional
beliefs nominally accepted by every one, but practically
regarded by none, or with theological speculations
which have an interest to the curious but are not felt
to have a direct bearing on the concerns of life. In the
earliest stages of the religion of any nation we may
take it for granted that nothing is believed or practised
which is not felt to be of vital importance for the
nation's wellbeing. There is no remissness, therefore, in
religious duty, no slackness in the performance of sacred
rites. This principle holds good for ancient Israel as
well as for other ancient nations. The prophets themselves, amidst all their complaints against the people's
backsliding, bear witness that their countrymen were
assiduous in their religious service, and neglected nothing
which they deemed necessary to make sure of Jehovah's
help in every need. The Israelites, in fact, had not
reached the stage at which men begin to be indifferent
about religion, and if Jehovah had been such a god as
Baal or Chemosh, content with such service as they
exacted from their worshippers, there would have been
no ground to complain of their fidelity to His name or
their zeal for His cause.
But here we come back to the real difference
between the religion of Jehovah and the religion of
the nations, which, as we have just seen, cannot be
sought in the external forms of the Old Testament
worship, or in a system of abstract monotheistic theology. That difference lies
in the personal character of
Jehovah, and in the relations corresponding to His
character which He seeks to maintain with His people.
Properly speaking, the heathen deities have no personal
character, and no personal relations to their worshippers. They were, indeed, conceived as a kind of
persons, as capable of anger and of pleasure, as hungering and fed by
sacrifices, as showing affection to their
worshippers, who were often looked on as their sons and
daughters, and so forth. But character in the sense of
a fixed and independent habit of will was not theirs.
The attributes ascribed to them were a mere reflex of
the attributes of their worshippers, and what character
they had was nothing else than a personification of the
character of the nation that acknowledged their lordship. Heathen religions were by no means without
moral value in giving fixed expression to national character, and adding a sacred sanction to the highest
national conception of right and wrong. But they
had no effect in developing character. The god always
remained on the same ethical level with his people.
His virtues were their virtues, and their imperfections
were his also. The god and the people therefore never
parted company. It was not difficult to worship and
serve him aright, for he asked no more than popular
sentiment approved. The heathen nations, says Jeremiah, never gave up their gods, which yet are no gods
(Jer. ii. 11). In point of fact, there was no motive to
give up a religion which had no higher moral standard
and no higher aims than those of the worshippers themselves. The god and the people kept together because
they formed a natural unity, because the deity had no
independent will, and at most was conceived as being
sometimes temporarily estranged from his people for
reasons not clearly distinguishable from the caprice of
an Eastern despot.
Not so Jehovah. He approved Himself a true God
by showing throughout the history of Israel that He
had a will and purpose of His own a purpose rising
above the current ideas of His worshippers, and a will
directed with steady consistency to a moral aim.
Jehovah was not content to receive such service as it
was easy and natural for the people to perform, and to
give them such felicity as they themselves desired.
All His dealings with Israel were directed to lead the
people on to higher things than their natural character
inclined towards. To know Jehovah and to serve Him
aright involved a moral effort a frequent sacrifice of
natural inclination. It was an easy thing to acknowledge the Divine King of Israel in the day of battle
when He led His armies on to victory; and it is not
difficult to understand that in the prosperous days of
David the Hebrews could rejoice before Jehovah, and
find nothing burdensome in His service. But very
different experiences awaited the nation in the ages that
followed when Israel was divided against itself, when
its rulers were drawn into the larger stream of politics
by the forward movement of the great empire on the
Tigris, and when the old social system, based on peasant
proprietorship, began to break up and left a dangerous
gulf between the rich nobles and the landless or impoverished classes.
Every change in the old national life, every disorder in society or in the state, opened a new religious
problem a new question, that is, as to the reason why
Jehovah suffered such evils to befall His people. To
the unthinking masses these things were only a proof
that Jehovah was temporarily estranged, and did not
lead them to doubt that He could be won back to them
by greater zeal in acts of external worship which might
with advantage be made more effective and splendid
by taking hints from their heathen neighbours. But
though the sacrifices were redoubled and the feasts
thronged with eager worshippers, all this brought no
help to Israel. The nation sank continually lower, and
Jehovah still stood afar off; to the common judgment
He seemed to have forsaken His land.
Under such trials a heathen religion which was
capable of no higher hopes than were actually entertained by the mass of the Hebrews would have declined
and perished with the fall of the nation. But Jehovah
proved Himself a true God by vindicating His
sovereignty in the very events that proved fatal to the
gods of the Gentiles. Amidst the sceptical politics of
the nobles and the thoughtless superstition of the
masses He was never without a remnant that read the
facts of history in another light, and saw in them the
proof, not that Jehovah was powerless or indifferent, but
that He was engaged in a great controversy with His
people, a controversy that had moral issues unseen to
those who knew not Jehovah and neglected the only
service in which He was well pleased.
When Jehovah
seemed furthest off He was in truth nearest to Israel,
and the reverses that seemed to prove Him to have
forsaken His land were really the strokes of His hand.
He desired mercy and not sacrifice, obedience rather
than the fat of lambs. While these things were wanting
His very love to Israel could only show itself in ever-repeated chastisement, till the sinners were consumed
out of His land and His holy will established itself in
the hearts of a regenerate people. Jehovah's purpose
was supreme over all, and it must prove itself supreme
in Israel though the Hebrew state perished in hopeless
conflict with it. He who redeemed His nation from
Egypt could redeem it from a new captivity; and, if
Israel would not learn to know Jehovah in the good
land of Canaan, it must once more pass through the
desert and enter the door of hope through the valley of
tribulation. Such is the prophetic picture of the controversy of Jehovah with His people, the great issues
of which are unfolded with increasing clearness in the
successive prophetic books.
I am afraid that this long discussion has proved a
somewhat severe tax on your attention, but the results
to which it has led us are of the first importance, and
will help us through all our subsequent course. Let
me repeat them very briefly. The primary difference
between the religion of Israel and that of the surrounding nations does not lie in the idea of a theocracy, or in
a philosophy of the invisible world, or in the external
forms of religious service, but in a personal difference
between Jehovah and other gods. That difference,
again, is not of a metaphysical but of a directly practical
nature; it was not defined once for all in a theological
dogma, but made itself felt in the attitude which
Jehovah actually took up towards Israel in those historical dealings with His nation to which the word of
the prophets supplied a commentary. Everything that
befell Israel was interpreted by the prophets as a work
of Jehovah's hand, displaying His character and will
not an arbitrary character or a changeable will, but a
fixed and consistent holy purpose, which has Israel for
its object and seeks the true felicity of the nation, but
at the same time is absolutely sovereign over Israel,
and will not give way to Israel's desires or adapt itself
to Israel's convenience. No other religion can show
anything parallel to this. The gods of the nations are
always conceived either as arbitrary and changeful, or
as themselves subordinate, to blind fate, or as essentially capable of
being bent into sympathy with whatever is for the time being the chief desire of their
worshippers, or, in some more speculative forms of
faith, introduced when these simpler conceptions broke
down, as escaping these limitations only by being raised
to entire unconcern in the petty, affairs of man. In
Israel alone does Jehovah appear as a God near to man,
and yet maintaining an absolute sovereignty of will, a
consistent independence of character. And the advance
of the Old Testament religion is essentially identified
with an increasing clearness of perception of the things
which this character of the Deity involves. The name
of Jehovah becomes more and more full of meaning as
faith in His sovereignty and self-consistency is put to
successive tests in the constantly changing problems
presented by the events of history.
Now, when we speak of Jehovah as displaying a
consistent character in His sovereignty over Israel, we
necessarily imply that Israel's religion is a moral
religion, that Jehovah is a God of righteousness, whose
dealings with His people follow an ethical standard.
The ideas of right and wrong among the Hebrews are
forensic ideas; that is, the Hebrew always thinks of the
right and the wrong as if they were to be settled before
a judge. Righteousness is to the Hebrew not so much
a moral quality as a legal status. The word "righteous''
(caddik) means simply "in the right," and the word
"wicked" (rasha) means "in the wrong." "I have
sinned this time," says Pharaoh, "Jehovah is in the right
(A.V. righteous), and I and my people are in the wrong
(A.V. wicked)," Exod. ix. 27. Jehovah is always in the
right, for He is not only sovereign but self-consistent.
He is the fountain of righteousness, for from the days
of Moses He is the judge as well as the captain of His
people, giving forth law and sentence from His sanctuary. In primitive society the functions of judge and
lawgiver are not separated, and reverence for law has
its basis in personal respect for the judge. So the just
consistent will of Jehovah is the law of Israel, and it is
a law which as King of Israel He Himself is continually administering.
[12]
Now, in every ancient nation, morality and law
(including in this word traditional binding custom) are
identical, and in every nation law and custom are a
part of religion, and have a sacred authority. But in
no other nation does this conception attain the precision
and practical force which it has in the Old Testament,
because the gods themselves, the guardians of law,
do not possess a sharply-defined consistency of character such as Jehovah possesses. The heathen gods are
guardians of law, but they are something else at the
same time; they are not wholly intent on righteousness, and righteousness is not the only path to their favour, which sometimes depends on accidental partialities, or may be conciliated by acts of worship that have
nothing to do with morality. And here be it observed
that the fundamental superiority of the Hebrew religion
does not lie in the particular system of social morality
that it enforces, but in the more absolute and self-consistent righteousness of the Divine Judge. The abstract
principles of morality that is, the acknowledged laws
of social order are pretty much the same in all parts
of the world in corresponding stages of social development. Heathen nations at the same general stage of
society with the Hebrews will be found to acknowledge
all the duties of man to man laid down in the decalogue; and on the other hand
there are many things in
the social order of the Hebrews, such as polygamy,
blood revenge, slavery, the treatment of enemies, which
do not correspond with the highest ideal morality, but
belong to an imperfect social state, or, as the gospel puts
it, were tolerated for the hardness of the people's hearts.
But, with all this, the religion of Jehovah put morality
on a far sounder basis than any other religion did,
because in it the righteousness of Jehovah as a God
enforcing the known laws of morality was conceived as
absolute, and as showing itself absolute, not in a future
state, but upon earth. I do not, of course, mean that
this high view of Jehovah's character was practically
present to all His worshippers. On the contrary, a
chief complaint of the prophets is that it was not so, or,
in other words, that Israel did not know Jehovah. But
the higher view is never put forth by the prophets as a novelty; they regard it as the very foundation of the
religion of Jehovah from the days of Moses downwards,
and the people never venture to deny that they are
right. In truth they could not deny it, for the history
of the first creation of Israel, which was the fundamental evidence as to the true character of Jehovah's
relations to His people, gave no room for such mythological conceptions as operate in the heathen religions
to make a just conception of the Godhead impossible.
Heathen religions can never conceive of their gods as
perfectly righteous, because they have a natural as well
as a moral side, a physical connection with their worshippers, physical instincts and passions, and so forth.
The Old Testament brings out this point with great
force of sarcasm when Elijah taunts the prophets of
Baal, and suggests that their god may be asleep, or on a
journey, or otherwise busied with some human avocation. In fact, all this was perfectly consistent with the
nature of Baal. But the Hebrews knew Jehovah solely
as the King and Judge of Israel. He was this, and this
alone; and therefore there was no ground to ascribe to
Him less than absolute sovereignty and absolute righteousness. If the masses lost sight of those great
qualities, and assimilated His nature to that of the
Canaanite deities, the prophets were justified in reminding them that Jehovah was Israel's God before they
knew the Baalim, and that He had then showed Himself a God far different from these.
But religion cannot live on the mere memory of the
past, and the faith of Jehovah had to assert itself as the
true faith of Israel by realising a present God who still
worked in the midst of the nation as He had worked of
old. No nation can long cleave to a God whose presence and power are not actually with them in their
daily life. If Jehovah was Israel's God, He must manifest
Himself as still the King and the Judge of His people,
and these names must acquire more and more full
significance through the actual experience of deeds of
sovereignty and righteousness. Without such deeds no
memory of the days of Moses could long have saved
the God of the Hebrews from sinking to the level of the
gods of the nations, and we have now to see that such
deeds were not wanting, and not without fruit for the
progress of the Old Testament faith.
Before the time of Amos, the father of written
prophecy, the record of Israel's religious life is too
fragmentary to allow us to follow it in detail. Of the
history of religion between Solomon and Ahab we know
next to nothing. In the greater Israel of the North,
which in these ages was the chief seat of national life,
a constant succession of revolutions and civil wars
obscures all details of internal history. The accession
of the powerful dynasty of Omri, which regained in
successful war a good part of the conquests of David
it was Omri, as we know, that reduced Moab to the
tributary condition spoken of in 2 Kings iii. 4 [13] restored
the northern kingdom to fresh vigour; and it is characteristic of the close union between national life and the
religion of Jehovah which was involved in the very
principles of the Hebrew commonwealth that the
political revival was the prelude to a great religious
movement. We know from the stone of Mesha that the
war of Israel with Moab appeared to the combatants as
a war of Jehovah with Chemosh. The victory, therefore, could not fail to give a fresh impulse to the
national faith of the Hebrews. Now Omri, who imitated
the conquests of David, followed also the Davidic
policy of close union with Tyre, so obviously advantageous to the material interests of a nation which was
not itself commercial, and could find no market for its
agricultural produce except in the Phoenician ports.
The marriage of Ahab with a Tyrian princess was also
a direct imitation of the policy of Solomon's marriages;
and in building and endowing a temple of Baal for his
wife Ahab did no more than Solomon had done without
exciting much opposition on the part of his people.
But now there were men in Israel to whom every act
of homage to Baal appeared an act of disloyalty to
Jehovah, and Elijah openly raised the question whether
Jehovah or Baal was God. There was no room for two
gods in the land.
|
Definition of PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
: an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that
they are suggestive of mental disorder
-- Merriam-Webster Dictionary |
As Ahab had no intention of giving up the worship
of Jehovah when he gratified Jezebel by establishing a
service of Baal, we may be sure that to him the conflict
with Elijah did not present itself as a conflict between
Jehovah and Baal. Hitherto the enemies of Jehovah
had been the gods of hostile nations, while the Tyrian Baal was the god of a friendly state. To the king, as
to many other persecutors since his day, the whole
opposition of Elijah seems to have taken a political
aspect. The imprisonment of Micaiah shows that he
was little inclined to brook any religious interference
with the councils of state, and the prophetic opposition
to Jezebel and her Baal worship was extremely embarrassing to his political plans, in which the alliance
with Tyre was obviously a very important factor. On
his part, therefore, the severe measures taken against the
prophets and their party simply expressed a determination to be absolute
master in his own land. The previous history of the northern tribes proves that a strong
central authority was not at all popular with the nation.
Ancestral customs and privileges were obstinately maintained against the royal will, as we see in the case of Naboth; and the same case shows that the Tyrian influence encouraged the king to deal with this obstinacy
in a very high-handed way. Elijah did not at first find
any sustained popular support, but no doubt as the
struggle went on, and especially after the judicial
murder of Naboth sent a thrill of horror through the
land, it began to be felt that he was pleading the cause
of the ancient freedoms of Israel against a personal
despotism; and so we can understand the ultimate
success of the party of opposition in the revolution of
Jehu, in spite of the fact that only a small fraction of
the nation saw the religious issues at stake so clearly
as Elijah did. From the point of view of national
politics the fall of the house of Ahab was a step in the
downfall of Israel. The dynasty of Jehu was not nearly
so strong as the house of Omri; it had little fortune
in the Syrian wars till Damascus was weakened by the
progress of Assyria, and Hosea, writing in the last days
of the dynasty, certainly did not judge amiss when he
numbered the bloodshed of Jezreel among the fatal sins
of the people, a factor in the progress of that anarchy
which made a sound national life impossible (Hosea i. 4;
vii. 7). In this respect the work of Elijah foreshadows
that of the prophets of Judah, who in like manner had
no small part in breaking up the political life of the
kingdom. The prophets were never patriots of the
common stamp, to whom national interests stand higher
than the absolute claims of religion and morality.
Had Elijah been merely a patriot, to whom the state
stood above every other consideration, he would have
condoned the faults of a king who did so much for the
greatness of his nation; but the things for which Elijah
contended were of far more worth than the national
existence of Israel, and it is a higher wisdom than that
of patriotism which insists that divine truth and civil
righteousness are more than all the counsels of statecraft. Judged from
a mere political point of view
Elijah's work had no other result than to open a way
for the bloody and unscrupulous ambition of Jehu, and
lay bare the frontiers of the land to the ravages of the
ferocious Hazael; but with him the religion of Jehovah
had already reached a point where it could no longer be
judged by a merely national standard, and the truths of
which he was the champion were not the less true because the issue made it plain that
the cause of Jehovah
could not triumph without destroying the old Hebrew
state. Nay, without the destruction of the state the
religion of Israel could never have given birth to a
religion for all mankind, and it was precisely the incapacity of Israel to carry out the higher truths of
religion in national forms which brought into clearer
and clearer prominence those things in the faith of
Jehovah which are independent of every national condition, and make Jehovah the God not of Israel alone
but of all the earth. This, however, is to anticipate
what will come out more clearly as we proceed. Let
us for the present confine our attention to what Elijah
himself directly saw and taught. [14]
The ruling principle in Elijah's life was his consuming jealousy for Jehovah the God of hosts (1 Kings
xix. 14); or, to put the idea in another and equally
Biblical form, Jehovah was to him pre-eminently a
jealous God, who could endure no rival in His land or
in the affections of His people. There was nothing
novel in this idea; the novelty lay in the practical
application which gave to the idea a force and depth
which it had never shown before. To us it seems
obvious that Ahab had broken the first commandment
in giving Baal a place in his land, but to Ahab and the
mass of his contemporaries the thing could hardly be
so clear. There are controversies enough even among
modern commentators as to the exact force of the
"before me" of the first commandment; and, even if
we are to suppose that practical religious questions were
expressly referred to the words of this precept, it would
not have been difficult to interpret them in a sense that
meant only that no other god should have the preeminence over Israel's King. But
no doubt these things
were judged of less by the letter of the decalogue than
by habitual feeling and usage. Hitherto all Israel's
interest in Jehovah had had practical reference to His
contests with the gods of hostile nations, and it was one
thing to worship deities who were felt to be Jehovah's
rivals and foes, and quite another thing to allow some
recognition to the deity of an allied race. But Elijah
saw deeper into the true character of the God of Israel.
Where He was worshipped no other god could be acknowledged in any sense. This was a proposition of
tremendous practical issues. It really involved the
political isolation of the nation, for as things then stood
it was impossible to have friendship and alliance with
other peoples if their gods were proscribed in Israel's
land. It is not strange that Ahab as a politician fought
with all his might against such a view; for it contained
more than the germ of that antagonism between Israel
and all the rest of mankind which made the Jews
appear to the Roman historian as the enemies of the
human race, and brought upon them an unbroken succession of political misfortunes and the ultimate loss of
all place among the nations. It is hard to say how far
the followers of Elijah or indeed the prophet himself
perceived the full consequences of the position which
he took up. But the whole history of Elijah testifies
to the profound impression which he made. The air of
unique grandeur that surrounds the prophet of Gilead
proves how high he stood above the common level of
his time. It is Jehovah and Elijah not against Ahab
alone, but against and above the world.
The work of Elijah, in truth, was not so much that
of a great teacher as of a great hero. He did not
preach any new doctrine about Jehovah, but at a critical moment he saw what loyalty to the cause of Jehovah
demanded, and of that cause he became the champion,
not by mere words, but by his life. The recorded
words of Elijah are but few, and in many cases have
probably been handed down with the freedom that
ancient historians habitually use in such matters. His
importance lies in his personality. He stands before
us as the representative of Jehovah's personal claims
on Israel. The word of Jehovah in his mouth is not
a word of doctrine, but of kingly authority, and to him
pre-eminently applies the saying of Hosea: "I have
hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the
word of My mouth: and My judgments were as the light
that goeth forth" (Hosea vi. 5). [15]
This view of the career of Elijah, which is that
naturally derived from the Biblical narrative, is pretty
much an exact inversion of the common representation
of the function of the prophets. The traditional view
which we have from the Rabbins makes the prophets
mere interpreters of the Law, and places the originality
of their work entirely in their predictions. In that
case Elijah would be the least original of prophets,
for he gave no Messianic prediction. But in reality
Jehovah did not first give a complete theoretical knowledge of Himself and then raise up prophets to enforce
the application of the theoretical scheme in particular
circumstances. That would not have required a prophet; it would have been no more than is still done
by uninspired preachers. The place of the prophet is
in a religious crisis where the ordinary interpretation
of acknowledged principles breaks down, where it is
necessary to go back, not to received doctrine, but to
Jehovah Himself. The word of Jehovah through the
prophet is properly a declaration of what Jehovah as
the personal King of Israel commands in this particular
crisis, and it is spoken with authority, not as an inference from previous revelation, but as the direct
expression of the character and will of a personal God,
who has made Himself personally audible in the prophet's soul. General propositions about divine things
are not the basis but the outcome of such personal knowledge of Jehovah, just as in ordinary human life
a general view of a man's character must be formed by
observation of his attitude and action in a variety of
special circumstances. Elijah's whole career, and not
his words merely, contained a revelation of Jehovah to
Israel that is, made them feel that through this man
Jehovah asserted Himself as a living God in their
midst.
We had occasion to observe in the course of last
Lecture that all genuine religious belief contains a
positive element an element learned from the experience of former generations. And so it will be found
that all great religious reformations have their roots in
the past, that true reformers do not claim to be heard
on the ground of the new things they proclaim, but
rather because they alone give due weight to old truths
which the mass of their contemporaries cannot formally
deny, but practically ignore. And they do so with justice, for all genuine religious truth is personal truth, and
personal truth has always a range far transcending the
circumstances in which it was originally promulgated
and the application to which it was originally confined.
So it was with Elijah. The God whom he declared to
Israel was the God of Moses the same God, declaring
His character and will in application to new circumstances. Elijah himself is a figure of antique simplicity.
He was a man of Gilead, a native of that part of the
land of Israel which had still most affinity with the old
nomadic life of the age of Moses, and was furthest removed from the Tyrian influences to which Ahab had
yielded. It is highly characteristic for his whole standpoint that in the greatest danger of his life, when the
victory of Jehovah on Mount Carmel seemed to be all
in vain, he retired to the desert of Sinai, to the ancient
mountain of God. It was the God of the Exodus to
whom he appealed, the ancient King of Israel in the journeyings through the wilderness.
In this respect
Elijah shows his kinship to the Nazarites, a very
curious and interesting class of men, who first appear
in the time of the Philistine oppression, and who, some
generations later, are mentioned by Amos side by side
with the prophets (Amos ii. 11, 12).
CHAPTER 7.
"Of the tenets of the Druzes, nothing
authentic has ever come to light; the popular belief amongst
their neighbors is, that they adore an idol in the form of a
calf."
KING: The
Gnostics and their Remains.
"O ye Lords of Truth without fault, who are
forever cycling for eternity . . . save me from the
annihilation of this Region of the Two Truths."
Egyptian Ritual of the Dead.
"Pythagoras correctly regarded the 'Ineffable
Name' of God . . . as the Key to the Mysteries of the
universe."
PANCOAST:
Blue and Red Light.
IN
the next two chapters we shall notice the most important of the
Christian secret sects -- the so-called "Heresies" which sprang
into existence between the first and fourth centuries of our
era.
Glancing rapidly at
the Ophites and Nazareans, we shall pass to their scions which
yet exist in Syria and Palestine, under the name of Druzes of
Mount Lebanon; and near Basra or Bassorah, in Persia, under that
of Mendaeans, or Disciples of St. John. All these sects have an
immediate connection with our subject, for they are of
kabalistic parentage and have once held to the secret "Wisdom
Religion," recognizing as the One Supreme, the Mystery-God of
the Ineffable Name. Noticing these numerous
secret societies of the past, we will bring them into direct
comparison with several of the modern. We will conclude with a
brief survey of the Jesuits, and of that venerable nightmare of
the Roman Catholic Church -- modern Freemasonry. All of these
modern as well as ancient fraternities -- present Freemasonry
excepted -- were and are more or less connected with magic
-- practically, as well as theoretically; and, every one of them
-- Freemasonry not excepted -- was and still is accused
of demonolatry, blasphemy, and licentiousness.
Our object is not to
write the history of either of them; but only to compare these
sorely-abused communities with the Christian sects, past and
present, and then, taking historical facts for our guidance, to
defend the secret science as well as the men who are its
students and champions against any unjust imputation.
One by one the tide of
time engulfed the sects of the early centuries, until of the
whole number only one survived in its primitive integrity. That
one still exists, still teaches the doctrine of its founder,
still exemplifies its faith in works of power. The quicksands
which swallowed up every other outgrowth of the religious
agitation of the times of Jesus, with its records, relics, and
traditions, proved firm ground for this. Driven from their
native land, its members found refuge in Persia, and to-day
the anxious traveller may converse with the direct descendants
of the "Disciples of John," who listened, on the Jordan's shore,
to the "man sent from God," and were baptized and believed. This
curious people, numbering 30,000 or more, are miscalled
"Christians of St. John," but in fact should be known by their
old name of Nazareans, or their new one of Mendaeans.
To term them
Christians, is wholly unwarranted. They neither believe in Jesus
as Christ, nor accept his atonement, nor adhere to his Church,
nor revere its "Holy Scriptures." Neither do they worship the
Jehovah-God of the Jews and Christians, a circumstance which of
course proves that their founder, John the Baptist, did not
worship him either. And if not, what right has he to a place
in the Bible, or in the portrait-gallery of Christian
saints? Still further, if Ferho was his God, and he was "a man
sent by God," he must have been sent by Lord Ferho, and in his
name baptized and preached? Now, if Jesus was baptized by
John, the inference is that he was baptized according to his own
faith; therefore, Jesus too, was a believer in Ferho, or Faho,
as they call him; a conclusion that seems the more warranted by
his silence as to the name of his "Father." And why should the
hypothesis that Faho is but one of the many corruptions
of Fho or Fo, as the Thibetans and Chinese call Buddha, appear
ridiculous? In the North of Nepaul, Buddha is more often
called Fo than Buddha. The Book of
Mahawansa shows how early the work of Buddhistic
proselytism began in Nepaul; and history teaches that Buddhist
monks crowded into Syria [1] and Babylon in the century
preceding our era, and that Buddhasp (Bodhisatva) the alleged
Chaldean, was the founder of Sabism or baptism. [2]
What the actual
Baptists, el-Mogtasila, or Nazareans, do believe, is
fully set forth in other places, for they are the very Nazarenes
of whom we have spoken so much, and from whose Codex we
have quoted. Persecuted and threatened with annihilation,
they took refuge in the Nestorian body, and so allowed
themselves to be arbitrarily classed as Christians, but as
soon as opportunity offered, they separated, and now, for
several centuries have not even nominally deserved the
appellation. That they are, nevertheless, so called by
ecclesiastical writers, is perhaps not very difficult to
comprehend. They know too much of early Christianity to be left
outside the pale, to bear witness against it with their
traditions, without the stigma of heresy and backsliding being
fastened upon them to weaken confidence in what they might say.
But where else can
science find so good a field for biblical research as among this
too neglected people? No doubt of their inheritance of the
Baptist's doctrine; their traditions are without a break. What
they teach now, their forefathers taught at every epoch where
they appear in history. They are the disciples of that John who
is said to have foretold the advent of Jesus, baptized him, and
declared that the latchet of his shoe he (John) was not worthy
to unloose. As they two -- the Messenger and the Messiah --
stood in the Jordan, and the elder was consecrating the younger
-- his own cousin, too, humanly speaking -- the heavens opened
and God Himself, in the shape of a dove, descended in a glory
upon his "Beloved Son"! How then, if this tale be true, can we
account for the strange infidelity which we find among these
surviving Nazareans? So far from believing Jesus the Only
Begotten Son of God, they actually told the Persian
missionaries, who, in the seventeenth century, first discovered
them to Europeans, that the Christ of the New Testament
was "a false teacher," and that the Jewish system, as
well as that of Jesus (?), came from the realm of darkness! Who
knows better than they? Where can more competent living
witnesses be found? Christian ecclesiastics would force upon us
an anointed Saviour heralded by John, and the disciples of this
very Baptist, from the earliest centuries, have stigmatized this
ideal personage as an impostor, and his putative Father,
Jehovah, "a spurious God," the Ilda-Baoth of the Ophites!
Unlucky for Christianity will be the day when some fearless and
honest scholar shall persuade their elders to let him translate
the contents of their secret books and compile their hoary
traditions! It is a strange delusion that makes some writers
think that the Nazareans have no other sacred literature, no
other literary relics than four doctrinal works, and that
curious volume full of astrology and magic which they are bound
to peruse at the sunset hour, on every Sol's day (Sunday).
This search after truth
leads us, indeed, into devious ways. Many are the obstacles that
ecclesiastical cunning has placed in the way of our finding the
primal source of religious ideas. Christianity is on trial,
and has been, ever since science felt strong enough to act as
Public Prosecutor. A portion of the case we are drafting in
this book. What of truth is there in this Theology? Through what
sects has it been transmitted? Whence was it
primarily derived? To answer, we must trace the history of
the World Religion, alike through the secret Christian sects as
through those of other great religious subdivisions of the race;
for the Secret Doctrine is the Truth, and that religion
is nearest divine that has contained it with least adulteration.
Our search takes us
hither and thither, but never aimlessly do we bring sects widely
separated in chronological order, into critical juxtaposition.
There is one purpose in our work to be kept constantly in
view -- the analysis of religious beliefs, and the definition of
their descent from the past to the present. What has most
blocked the way is Roman Catholicism; and not until the secret
principles of this religion are uncovered can we comprehend the
iron staff upon which it leans to steady its now tottering
steps.
We will begin with the
Ophites, Nazareans, and the modern Druzes. The personal views
of the author, as they will be presented in the diagrams, will
be most decidedly at variance with the prejudiced speculations
of Irenaeus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius (the sainted renegade,
who sold his brethren), inasmuch as they will reflect the ideas
of certain kabalists in close relations with the mysterious
Druzes of Mount Lebanon. The Syrian okhals, or
Spiritualists, as they are sometimes termed, are in possession
of a great many ancient manuscripts and gems, bearing upon our
present subject.
The first scheme
-- that of the Ophites -- from the very start, as we have
shown, varies from the description given by the Fathers,
inasmuch as it makes Bythos or depth, a female emanation, and
assigns her a place answering to that of Pleroma, only in a far
superior region; whereas, the Fathers assure us that the
Gnostics gave the name of Bythos to the First Cause. As in the
kabalistic system, it
represents the boundless and infinite void within which is
concealed in darkness the Unknown Primal motor of all. It
envelops HIM like a veil: in short we
recognize again the "Shekinah" of the En-Soph. Alone, the name
of [[IAO]], Iao, marks the upper centre, or rather the
presumed spot where the Unknown One may be supposed to dwell.
Around the Iao, runs the legend, [[CEMEC EILAM ABRASAX]]. "The
eternal Sun-Abrasax" (the Central Spiritual Sun of all the
kabalists, represented
in some diagrams of the latter by the circle of Tiphereth).
From this region of
unfathomable Depth, issues forth a circle formed of spirals;
which, in the language of symbolism, means a grand cycle, [[kuklos]],
composed of smaller ones. Coiled within, so as to follow the
spirals, lies the serpent -- emblem of wisdom and eternity --
the Dual Androgyne: the cycle representing Ennoia or
the Divine mind, and the Serpent -- the Agathodaimon, Ophis --
the Shadow of the Light. Both were the Logoi of the Ophites; or
the unity as Logos manifesting itself as a double principle of
good and evil; for, according to their views, these two
principles are immutable, and existed from all eternity, as they
will ever continue to exist.
This symbol accounts
for the adoration by this sect of the Serpent, as the Saviour,
coiled either around the Sacramental loaf or a Tau. As a unity,
Ennoia and Ophis are the Logos; when separated, one is the Tree
of Life (Spiritual); the other, the Tree of Knowledge of Good
and Evil. Therefore, we find Ophis urging the first human
couple -- the material production of Ilda-Baoth, but which owed
its spiritual principle to Sophia-Achamoth -- to eat of the
forbidden fruit, although Ophis represents Divine Wisdom.
The Serpent, the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, are all
symbols transplanted from the soil of India. The Arasa-Maram,
the banyan tree, so sacred with the Hindus, since Vishnu, during
one of his incarnations, reposed under its mighty shade, and
there taught humanity philosophy and sciences, is called the
Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. Under the protective
umbrage of this king of the forests, the Gurus teach their
pupils their first lessons on immortality and initiate them in
the mysteries of life and death. The Java-ALEIM
of the Sacerdotal College are said, in the Chaldean tradition,
to have taught the sons of men to become like one of them. To
the present day Foh-tchou, [3] who lives in his Foh-Maeyu, or
temple of Buddha, on the top of "Kouin-long-sang," [4] the great
mountain, produces his greatest religious miracles under a tree
called in Chinese Sung-Ming-Shu, or the Tree of Knowledge and
the Tree of Life, for ignorance is death, and knowledge alone
gives immortality. This marvellous display takes place every
three years, when an immense concourse of Chinese Buddhists
assemble in pilgrimage at the holy place.
Ilda-Baoth, the "Son of
Darkness," and the creator of the material world, was made to
inhabit the planet Saturn, which identifies him still more with
the Jewish Jehovah, who was Saturn himself, according to the
Ophites, and is by them denied his Sinaitic name. From
Ilda-Baoth emanate six spirits, who respectively dwell with
their father in the seven planets. These are Saba -- or Mars;
Adonai -- Sol, or the Sun; [5] Ievo -- the Moon; Eloi --
Jupiter; Astaphoi -- Mercury (spirit of water); and Ouraios --
Venus, spirit of fire. [6]
In their functions
and description as given, these seven planets are identical with
the Hindu Sapta-Loca, the seven places or spheres, or
the superior and inferior worlds; for they represent the
kabalistic seven spheres. With the Ophites, they belong to
the lower spheres. The monograms of these Gnostic planets are
also Buddhistic, the latter differing, albeit slightly, from
those of the usual astrological "houses." In the explanatory
notes which accompany the diagram, the names of Cirenthius (the
disciple of Simon Magus), of Menander, and of certain other
Gnostics, whose names are not to be met with in the Patristic
writings, are often mentioned; such as Parcha (Ferho), for
instance. [7]
The author of the
diagram claims, moreover, for his sect, the greatest antiquity,
bringing forward, as a proof, that their "forefathers" were the
builders of all the "Dracontia" temples, even of those beyond
"the great waters." He asserts that the "Just One," who was
the mouth-piece of the Eternal AEon (Christos), himself sent his
disciples into the world, placing them under the double
protection of Sige (Silence, the Logos), and Ophis, the
Agathodaemon. The author alludes no doubt, to the favorite
expression of Jesus, "be wise as serpents, and harmless as
doves." On the diagram, Ophis is represented as the Egyptian
Cnuphis or Kneph, called Dracontiae. He appears as a serpent
standing erect on its tail, with a lion's head, crowned and
radiated, and bearing on the point of each ray one of the seven
Greek vowels -- symbol of the seven celestial spheres. This
figure is quite familiar to those who are acquainted with the
Gnostic gems, [8] and is borrowed from the Egyptian
Hermetic books.
The description given in the Revelation, of one "like
unto the Son of Man," with his seven stars, and who is the
Logos, is another form of Ophis.
The Nazarene
diagram, except in a change of names, is identical with that of
the Gnostics, who evidently borrowed their ideas from it, adding
a few appellations from the Basilidean and Valentinian systems.
To avoid repetition, we will now simply present the two in
parallel.
Thus, we find that, in
the Nazarene Cosmogony, the names of their powers and genii
stand in the following relations to those of the Gnostics:
| NAZARENE.
First
Trinity.
Lord FERHO
-- the Life which is no Life -- the Supreme
God. The Cause which produces the Light,
or the Logos in abscondito.
The water of Jordanus Maximus -- the water of Life,
or Ajar, the feminine principle. Unity in a Trinity,
enclosed within the ISH AMON.
Second
Trinity.
(The manifestation of the first.)
1. Lord
MANO -- the King of Life and Light
-- Rex Lucis. First LIFE,
or the primitive man.
2. Lord Jordan -- manifestation or
emanation of Jordan Maximus -- the waters of grace.
Second LIFE.
3. The Superior Father -- Abatur. Third
LIFE.
This
Trinity produces also a duad -- Lord Ledhoio, and
Fetahil, the genius (the former, a perfect
emanation, the latter, imperfect).
Lord Jordan
-- "the Lord of all Jordans," manifests NETUBTO
(Faith without Works). [9] |
GNOSTIC-OPHITE.
First
Unity in a Trinity.
IAO
-- the Ineffable Name of the
Unknown Deity --
Abraxas, and the "Eternal Spiritual Sun."
Unity enclosed within the Depth, Bythos,
feminine principle -- the boundless circle, within
which lie all ideal forms. From this Unity emanates
the
Second
Trinity.
(Idem.)
1. Ennoia
-- mind.
2. Ophis, the Agathodaemon.
3. Sophia Androgyne -- wisdom; who, in her turn --
fecundated with the Divine Light -- produces
Christos and
Sophia-Achamoth (one perfect, the other
imperfect), as an emanation.
Sophia-Achamoth emanates Ilda-Baoth -- the Demiurge,
who produces material and soulless creation.
"Works without Faith" (or grace). [9]
|
Moreover, the Ophite
seven planetary genii, who emanated one from the other, are
found again in the Nazarene religion, under the name of the
"seven impostor-daemons," or stellars, who "will deceive all the
sons of Adam." These are Sol; Spiritus Venereus (Holy
Spirit, in her material aspect), [10] the mother of the "seven
badly-disposed stellars," answering to the Gnostic Achamoth;
Nebu, or Mercury, "a false Messiah, who will deprave the
ancient worship of God"; [11] SIN (or
Luna, or Shuril); KIUN (Kivan, or
Saturn); Bel-Jupiter; and the seventh, Nerig, Mars
(Codex Nazaraeus, p. 57).
The Christos of the
Gnostics is the chief of the seven AEons, St. John's
seven spirits of God; the Nazarenes have also their seven genii
or good Eons, whose chief is Rex Lucis, MANO,
their Christos. The Sapta Rishis, the seven sages
of India, inhabit the Sapta-Poura, or the seven
celestial cities.
What less or more do we
find in the Universal Ecclesia, until the days of the
Reformation, and in the Roman Popish Church after the
separation? We have compared the relative value of the Hindu
Cosmogony; the Chaldeo, Zoroastrian, Jewish Kabala; and
that of the so-termed Haeretics. A correct diagram of the
Judaico-CHRISTIAN religion, to enforce which on
the heathen who have furnished it, are expended such great sums
every year, would still better prove the identity of the two;
but we lack space and are also spared the necessity of proving
what is already thoroughly demonstrated.
In the Ophite gems
of King (Gnostics), we find the name of Iao
repeated, and often confounded with that of Ievo, while the
latter simply represents one of the genii antagonistic to
Abraxas. In order that these names may not be taken as identical
with the name of the Jewish Jehovah we will at once explain this
word. It seems to us surpassingly strange that so many learned
archaeologists should have so little insisted that there was
more than one Jehovah, and disclaimed that the name originated
with Moses. Iao is certainly a title of the Supreme Being,
and belongs partially to the Ineffable Name; but it
neither originated with nor was it the sole property of the
Jews. Even if it had pleased Moses to bestow the name upon
the tutelar "Spirit," the alleged protector and national deity
of the "Chosen people of Israel," there is yet no possible
reason why other nationalities should receive Him as the Highest
and One-living God. But we deny the assumption altogether.
Besides, there is the fact that Yaho or Iao was a "mystery name"
from the beginning, and
never came into use
before King David. Anterior to his time, few or no proper names
were compounded with iah or jah. It looks rather as
though David, being a sojourner among the Tyrians and
Philistines (2 Samuel), brought thence the
name of Jehovah. He made Zadok high-priest, from whom came the
Zadokites or Sadducees. He lived and ruled first at Hebron
, Habir-on or Kabeir-town,
where the rites of the four (mystery-gods) were celebrated.
Neither David nor Solomon recognized either Moses or the law of
Moses. They aspired to build a temple to
, like the structures
erected by Hiram to Hercules and Venus, Adon and Astarte.
Says Furst: "The very
ancient name of God, Yaho, written in the Greek [[Iao]],
appears, apart from its derivation, to have been an old
mystic name of the Supreme deity of the Shemites. (Hence it was
told to Moses when initiated at HOR-EB -- the
cave, under the direction of Jethro, the Kenite or
Cainite priest of Midian.) In an old religion of the
Chaldeans, whose remains are to be found amongst the Neo-platonists,
the highest divinity enthroned above the seven heavens,
representing the Spiritual Light-Principle (nous) [12]
and also conceived as Derniurgus, [13] was called [[Iao]]
, who was, like the Hebrew
Yaho, mysterious and unmentionable, and whose name was
communicated to the initiated. The Phoenicians had a Supreme God
whose name was trilateral and secret, and he was [[Iao]]."
[14]
But while Furst insists
that the name has a Semitic origin, there are other scholars who
trace it farther than he does, and look back beyond the
classification of the Caucasians.
In Sanscrit we have Jah
and Jaya, or Jaa and Ja-ga, and this throws light on the origin
of the famous festival of the car of Jaga-nath, commonly called
Jaggernath. Javhe means "he who is," and Dr. Spiegel
traces even the Persian name of God, "Ahura," to the root ah,
[15] which in Sanscrit is pronounced as, to breathe,
and asu, became, therefore, in time, synonymous with
"Spirit." [16] Rawlinson strongly supports the opinion of an
Aryan or Vedic influence on the early Babylonian mythology. We
have given, a few pages back, the strongest possible proofs of
the identity of Vishnu with Dag-on. The same may be adduced for
the title of [[Iao]], and its Sanscrit root traced in
every country. JU or Jovis is the
oldest Latin name for God. "As male he is Ju-piter,
or Ju, the father, pitar being Sanscrit for father; as
feminine, Ju-no or Ju, the comforter --
being the Phoenician word
for rest and comfort." [17] Professor Max Muller shows that
although "Dyaus," sky, does not occur as a masculine in the
ordinary Sanscrit, yet it does occur in the Veda, "and
thus bears witness to the early Aryan worship of Dyaus, the
Greek Zeus" (The Veda).
To grasp the real and
primitive sense of the term [[IAO]], and the reason of
its becoming the designation for the most mysterious of all
deities, we must search for its origin in the figurative
phraseology of all the primitive people. We must first of all go
to the most ancient sources for our information. In one of the
Books of Hermes, for instance, we find him saying that
the number TEN is the mother of the soul, and that the
life and light are therein united. For "the number
1 (one) is born from the spirit, and the number 10 (ten) from
matter"; [18] "the unity has made the TEN, the TEN the unity."
[19]
The kabalistic
gematria -- one of the methods for extracting the hidden
meaning from letters, words, and sentences -- is arithmetical.
It consists in applying to the letters of a word the sense they
bear as numbers, in outward shape as well as in their
individual sense. Moreover, by the Themura (another
method used by the kabalists) any word could be made to yield
its mystery out of its anagram. Thus, we find the author of
Sepher Jezira saying, one or two centuries before our era:
[20] "ONE, the spirit of the Alahim of
Lives." [21] So again, in the oldest kabalistic diagrams, the
ten Sephiroth are represented as wheels or circles, and
Adam Kadmon, the primitive man, as an upright pillar.
"Wheels and seraphim and the holy creatures" (chioth), says
Rabbi Akiba. [22] In another system of the same branch of the
symbolical Kabala, called Athbach -- which arranges the
letters of the alphabet by pairs in three rows -- all the
couples in the first row bear the numerical value ten;
and in the system of Simeon Ben-Shetah, [23] the uppermost
couple -- the most sacred of all, is preceded by the Pythagorean
cipher, one and a nought, or zero -- 10.
If we can once
appreciate the fact that, among all the peoples of the
highest antiquity, the most natural conception of the First
Cause manifesting itself in its creatures, and that to this they
could not but ascribe the creation of all, was that of an
androgyne deity; that the male principle was considered the
vivifying invisible spirit, and the female, mother nature; we
shall be enabled to understand how that mysterious cause came at
first to be represented (in the picture-writings, perhaps) as
the combination of the Alpha and Omega of numbers, a decimal,
then as IAO, a trilateral name,
containing in itself a deep allegory.
IAO,
in such a case, would -- etymologically considered -- mean
the "Breath of Life," generated or springing forth between an
upright male and an egg-shaped female principle of nature;
for, in Sanscrit, as means "to be," "to live or exist";
and originally it meant "to breathe." "From it," says Max
Muller, "in its original sense of breathing, the Hindus formed 'asu,'
breath, and 'asura,' the name of God, whether it meant the
breathing one or the giver of breath." [24] It certainly meant
the latter. In Hebrew, "Ah" and "Iah" mean life. Cornelius
Agrippa, in his treatise on the Preeminence of Woman,
shows that "the word Eve suggests comparison with the mystic
symbols of the kabalists, the name of the woman having affinity
with the ineffable Tetragrammaton, the most sacred name of the
divinity." Ancient names were always consonant with the things
they represented. In relation to the mysterious name of the
Deity in question, the hitherto inexplicable hint of the
kabalists as to the efficacy of the letter H, "which Abram took
away from his wife Sarah" and "put into the middle of his
own name," becomes clear.
It may perhaps be
argued, by way of objection, that it is not ascertained as yet
at what period of antiquity the nought occurs for the
first time in Indian manuscripts or inscriptions. Be that as it
may, the case presents circumstantial evidence of too strong a
character not to carry a conviction of probability with it.
According to Max Muller "the two words 'cipher' and 'zero,'
which are in reality but one . . . are sufficient to prove that
our figures are borrowed from the Arabs." [25] Cipher is the
Arabic "cifron," and means empty, a translation of the
Sanscrit name of the nought "synya," he says. The Arabs had
their figures from Hindustan, and never claimed the discovery
for themselves. [26] As to the
Pythagoreans, we need
but turn to the ancient manuscripts of Boethius's Geometry,
composed in the sixth century, to find in the Pythagorean
numerals [27] the 1 and the nought, as the first and
final cipher. And
Porphyry, who quotes from the Pythagorean Moderatus,
[28] says that the numerals of Pythagoras were "hieroglyphical
symbols, by means whereof he explained ideas concerning the
nature of things."
Now, if the most
ancient Indian manuscripts show as yet no trace of decimal
notation in them, Max Muller states very clearly that until now
he has found but nine letters (the initials of the Sanscrit
numerals) in them -- on the other hand we have records as
ancient to supply the wanted proof. We speak of the sculptures
and the sacred imagery in the most ancient temples of the far
East. Pythagoras derived his knowledge from India; and we find
Professor Max Muller corroborating this statement, at least so
far as allowing the Neo-Pythagoreans to have been the
first teachers of "ciphering" among the Greeks and Romans; that
"they, at Alexandria, or in Syria, became acquainted with the
Indian figures, and adapted them to the Pythagorean abacus" (our
figures). This cautious allowance implies that Pythagoras
himself was acquainted with but nine figures. So that
we might reasonably answer that although we possess no certain
proof that the decimal notation was known to Pythagoras, who
lived on the very close of the archaic ages, [29] we yet have
sufficient evidence to show that the full numbers, as given by
Boethius, were known to the Pythagoreans, even before Alexandria
was built. [30] This evidence we find in Aristotle, who says
that "some philosophers hold that ideas and numbers are of the
same nature, and amount to TEN in all." [31] This, we
believe, will be sufficient to show that the decimal notation
was known among them at least as early as four centuries B.C.,
for Aristotle does not seem to treat the question as an
innovation of the "Neo-Pythagoreans."
Besides, as we have
remarked above, the representations of the archaic deities, on
the walls of the temples, are of themselves quite suggestive
enough. So, for instance, Vishnu is represented in the
Kurmavatara (his second avatar) as a tortoise sustaining a
circular pillar, on which the semblance of himself (Maya, or the
illusion) sits with all his attributes.
While one hand holds a
flower, another a club, the third a shell, the fourth, generally
the upper one, or at the right -- holds on his forefinger,
extended as the cipher 1, the chakra, or discus, which
resembles a ring, or a wheel, and might be taken for the nought.
In his first avatar, the Matsyavatam, when emerging from the
fish's mouth, he is represented in the same position. [32] The
ten-armed Durga of Bengal; the ten-headed Ravana, the giant;
Parvati -- as Durga, Indra, and Indrani, are found with this
attribute, which is a perfect representation of the May-pole.
[33]
The holiest of the
temples among the Hindus, are those of Jaggarnath. This deity is
worshipped equally by all the sects of India, and Jaggarnath
is named "The Lord of the World." He is the god of the
Mysteries, and his temples, which are most numerous in Bengal,
are all of a pyramidal form.
There is no other
deity which affords such a variety of etymologies as Iaho, nor a
name which can be so variously pronounced. It is only by
associating it with the Masoretic points that the later Rabbins
succeeded in making Jehovah read "Adonai" -- or Lord. Philo
Byblus spells it in Greek letters [[IEUO]] -- IEVO.
Theodoret says that the Samaritans pronounced it Iabe (Yahva)
and the Jews Yaho; which would make it as we have shown
I-ah-O. Diodorus states that "among the Jews they relate that
Moses called the God [[Iao]]." It is on the authority
of the Bible itself, therefore, that we maintain that
before his initiation by Jethro, his father-in-law, Moses had
never known the word Iaho. The future Deity of the sons of
Israel calls out from the burning bush and gives His name as "I
am that I am," and specifies carefully that He is the "Lord God
of the Hebrews" (Exod. iii. 18), not of the other
nations. Judging him by his own acts, throughout the Jewish
records, we doubt whether Christ himself, had he appeared in the
days of the Exodus, would have been welcomed by the
irascible Sinaitic Deity. However, "The Lord God," who
becomes, on His own confession, Jehovah only in the 6th chapter
of Exodus (verse 3) finds his veracity put
to a startling test in Genesis xxii. 14, in which
revealed passage Abraham builds an altar to Jehovah-jireh.
It would seem,
therefore, but natural to make a difference between the
mystery-God [[Iao]], adopted from the highest antiquity
by all who participated in the esoteric knowledge of the
priests, and his phonetic counterparts, whom we find treated
with so little reverence by the Ophites and other Gnostics. Once
having burdened themselves like the Azazel of the wilderness
with the sins and iniquities of the Jewish nation, it now
appears hard for the Christians to have to confess that those
whom they thought fit to consider the "chosen people" of God --
their sole predecessors in monotheism -- were, till a very late
period, as idolatrous and polytheistic as their neighbors. The
shrewd Talmudists have escaped the accusation for long centuries
by screening themselves behind the Masoretic invention. But, as
in everything else, truth was at last brought to light. We know
now that Ihoh must be
read Iahoh and Iah, not Jehovah. Iah of the Hebrews is
plainly the Iacchos (Bacchus)
of the Mysteries; the God "from whom the liberation of souls was
expected -- Dionysus, Iacchos, Iahoh, Iah." [34] Aristotle
then was right when he said: "Joh
was Oromasdes and
Ahriman Pluto, for the God of heaven, Ahura-mazda, rides on a
chariot which the Horse of the Sun follows." [35] And
Dunlap quotes Psalm lxviii. 4, which reads:
"Praise him by his
name Iach ( ),
Who rides upon the heavens, as on a horse,"
and then shows that
"the Arabs represented Iauk (Iach) by a horse. The Horse of the
Sun (Dionysus)." [36] Iah is a softening of Iach, "he explains."
ch and
h interchange;
so s softens to h. The Hebrews express the
idea of LIFE both by a ch and an h;
as chiach, to be, hiah, to be; Iach, God of Life, Iah, "I
am." [37] Well then may we repeat these lines of
Ausonius:
"Ogugia calls me
Bacchus; Egypt thinks me Osiris;
The Musians name me Ph'anax; the Indi consider me Dionysus;
The Roman Mysteries call me Liber; the Arabian race Adonis!"
And the chosen people
Adoni and Jehovah -- we may add.
How little the
philosophy of the old secret doctrine was understood, is
illustrated in the atrocious persecutions of the
Templars by the Church, and in the
accusation of their worshipping the Devil under the shape of the
goat -- Baphomet! Without going into the old Masonic
mysteries, there is not a Mason -- of those we mean who do
know something -- but has an idea of the true relation that
Baphomet bore to Azazel, the scapegoat of the wilderness, [38]
whose character and meaning are entirely perverted in the
Christian translations. "This terrible and venerable name of
God," says Lanci, [39] librarian to the Vatican, "through the
pen of biblical glossers, has been a devil, a mountain,
a wilderness, and a he-goat." In
Mackenzie's Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia, the author very
correctly remarks that "this word should be divided into Azaz
and El," for "it signifies God of Victory, but is here used
in the sense of author of Death, in contrast to
Jehovah, the author of Life; the latter received a dead
goat as an offering." [40] The Hindu Trinity is composed of
three personages, which are convertible into one. The
Trimurti is one, and in its abstraction indivisible, and
yet we see a metaphysical division taking place from the first,
and while Brahma, though collectively representing the three,
remains behind the scenes, Vishnu is the Life-Giver, the
Creator, and the Preserver, and Siva is the Destroyer,
and the Death-giving deity. "Death to the
Life-Giver, life to the Death-dealer. The
symbolical antithesis is grand and beautiful," says Gliddon.
[41] "Deus est Daemon inversus" of the
kabalists now becomes clear. It is but the intense and cruel
desire to crush out the last vestige of the old philosophies by
perverting their meaning, for fear that their own dogmas should
not be rightly fathered on them, which impels the Catholic
Church to carry on such a systematic persecution in regard to
Gnostics, Kabalists, and even the comparatively innocent Masons.
Alas, alas! How little
has the divine seed, scattered broadcast by the hand of the
meek Judean philosopher, thrived or brought forth fruit.
He, who himself had
shunned hypocrisy, warned against public prayer, showing such
contempt for any useless exhibition of the same, could he but
cast his sorrowful glance on the earth, from the regions of
eternal bliss, would see that this seed fell neither on
sterile rock nor by the way-side. Nay, it took deep root in the
most prolific soil; one enriched even to plethora with lies and
human gore!
"For, if the truth
of God hath more abounded, through my lie unto his
glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" naively inquires
Paul, the best and sincerest of all the apostles. And he then
adds: "Let us do evil, that good may come!"
(Romans iii. 7, 8). This is a confession which we
are asked to believe as having been a direct inspiration from
God! It explains, if it does not excuse, the maxim adopted
later by the Church that "it is an act of virtue to deceive and
lie, when by such means the interests of the Church
might be promoted." [42] A maxim applied in its fullest
sense by that accomplished professor in forgery, the Armenian
Eusebius; or yet, that innocent-looking bible-kaleidoscopist --
Irenaeus. And these men were followed by a whole army of pious
assassins, who, in the meanwhile, had improved upon the system
of deceit, by proclaiming that it was lawful even to kill, when
by murder they could enforce the new religion. Theophilus, "that
perpetual enemy of peace and virtue," as the famous bishop was
called; Cyril, Athanasius, the murderer of Arius, and a host
of other canonized "Saints," were all but too worthy successors
of Saint Constantine, who drowned his wife in boiling
water; butchered his little nephew; murdered, with his own pious
hand, two of his brothers-in-law; killed his own son Crispus,
bled to death several men and women, and smothered in a well an
old monk. However, we are told by Eusebius that this
Christian Emperor was rewarded by a vision of Christ
himself, bearing his cross, who instructed him to march to other
triumphs, inasmuch as he would always protect him!
It is under the
shade of the Imperial standard, with its famous sign, "In
hoc signo vinces," that "visionary"
Christianity, which had crept on since the days of
Irenaenus, arrogantly proclaimed its rights in the full blaze of
the sun. The Labarum had most probably furnished the model
for the true cross, which was "miraculously," and
agreeably to the Imperial will, found a few years later. Nothing
short of such a remarkable vision, impiously doubted by some
severe critics -- Dr. Lardner for one -- and a fresh miracle to
match, could have resulted in the finding of a cross where there
had never before been one. Still, we have either to believe the
phenomenon or dispute it at the risk of being treated as
infidels; and this, notwithstanding that upon a careful
computation we would find that the fragments of the "true Cross"
had multiplied themselves even more miraculously than the five
loaves in the invisible bakery, and the two fishes. In all cases
like this, where miracles can be so conveniently called in,
there is no room for dull fact. History must step out that
fiction may step in.
If the alleged founder
of the Christian religion is now, after the lapse of nineteen
centuries, preached -- more or less unsuccessfully however -- in
every corner of the globe, we are at liberty to think that the
doctrines attributed to him would astonish and dismay him more
than any one else. A system of deliberate falsification was
adopted from the first. How determined Irenaeus was to crush
truth and build up a Church of his own on the mangled remains of
the seven primitive churches mentioned in the Revelation,
may be inferred from his quarrel with Ptolemaeus. And
this is again a case of evidence against which no blind faith
can prevail. Ecclesiastical history assures us that Christ's
ministry was but of three years' duration. There is a decided
discrepancy on this point between the first three synoptics and
the fourth gospel; but it was left for Irenaeus to show to
Christian posterity that so early as A.D. 180 -- the probable
time when this Father wrote his works against heresies -- even
such pillars of the Church as himself either knew nothing
certain about it, or deliberately lied and falsified dates to
support their own views. So anxious was the worthy Father to
meet every possible objection against his plans, that no
falsehood, no sophistry, was too much for him. How are we to
understand the following; and who is the falsifier in this case?
The argument of Ptolemaeus was that Jesus was too young to
have taught anything of much importance; adding that "Christ
preached for one year only, and then suffered in the
twelfth month." In this Ptolemaeus was very little at variance
with the gospels. But Irenaeus, carried by his object far beyond
the limits of prudence, from a mere discrepancy between one and
three years, makes it ten and even twenty years!
"Destroying his (Christ's) whole work, and robbing him of
that age which is both necessary and more
honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during
which also, as a teacher, he excelled all others." And then,
having no certain data to furnish, he throws himself back on
tradition, and claims that Christ had preached for over TEN
years! (book ii., c. 22, pp. 4, 5). In another place he makes
Jesus fifty years old.
But we must proceed in
our work of showing the various origins of Christianity, as also
the sources from which Jesus derived his own ideas of God and
humanity.
The Koinobi lived in
Egypt, where Jesus passed his early youth. They were usually
confounded with the Therapeutae, who were a branch of this
widely-spread society. Such is the opinion of Godfrey Higgins
and De Rebold. After the downfall of the principal sanctuaries,
which had already begun in the days of Plato, the many different
sects, such as the Gymnosophists and the Magi -- from whom
Clearchus very erroneously derives the former -- the
Pythagoreans, the Sufis, and the Reshees of Kashmere, instituted
a kind of international and universal Freemasonry, among their
esoteric societies. "These Rashees," says Higgins, "are the
Essenians, Carmelites, or Nazarites of the temple." [43] "That
occult science known by ancient priests under the name of
regenerating fire," says Father Rebold, " . .
. a science that for more than 3,000 years was the peculiar
possession of the Indian and Egyptian priesthood, into the
knowledge of which Moses was initiated at Heliopolis, where he
was educated; and Jesus among the Essenian priests of Egypt or
Judea; and by which these two great reformers, particularly
the latter, wrought many of the miracles mentioned in the
Scriptures." [44]
Plato states that the
mystic Magian religion, known under the name of Machagistia,
is the most uncorrupted form of worship in things divine.
Later, the Mysteries of the Chaldean sanctuaries were added to
it by one of the Zoroasters and Darius Hystaspes. The latter
completed and perfected it still more with the help of the
knowledge obtained by him from the learned ascetics of India,
whose rites were identical with those of the initiated Magi.
[45] Ammian, in his history of Julian's Persian expedition,
gives the story by stating that one day Hystaspes, as he was
boldly penetrating into the unknown regions of Upper India, had
come upon a certain wooded solitude, the tranquil recesses of
which were "occupied by those exalted sages, the Brachmanes (or
Shamans). Instructed by their teaching in the science of the
motions of the world and of the heavenly bodies, and in
pure religious rites . . . he transfused them into the
creed of the Magi. The latter, coupling these doctrines with
their own peculiar science of foretelling the future,
have handed down the whole through their descendants to
succeeding ages." [46] It is from these descendants that the
Sufis, chiefly composed of Persians and Syrians, acquired their
proficient knowledge in astrology, medicine, and the esoteric
doctrine of the ages. "The Sufi doctrine," says C. W. King,
"involved the grand idea of one universal creed which could be
secretly held under any profession of an outward faith; and, in
fact, took virtually the same view of religious systems as that
in which the ancient philosophers had regarded such matters."
[47] The mysterious Druzes of Mount Lebanon are the descendants
of all these. Solitary Copts, earnest students scattered
hither and thither throughout the sandy solitudes of Egypt,
Arabia, Petraea, Palestine, and the impenetrable forests of
Abyssinia, though rarely met with, may sometimes be seen.
Many and various are the nationalities to which belong the
disciples of that mysterious school, and many the side-shoots of
that one primitive stock. The secresy preserved by these
sub-lodges, as well as by the one and supreme great lodge, has
ever been proportionate to the activity of religious
persecutions; and now, in the face of the growing materialism,
their very existence is becoming a mystery. [48]
But it must not be
inferred, on that account, that such a mysterious brotherhood is
but a fiction, not even a name, though it remains
unknown to this day. Whether its affiliates are called by an
Egyptian, Hindu, or Persian name, it matters not. Persons
belonging to one of these sub-brotherhoods have been met by
trustworthy, and not unknown persons, besides the present
writer, who states a few facts concerning them, by the special
permission of one who has a right to give it. In a
recent and very valuable work on secret societies, K. R. H.
Mackenzie's Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia, we find
the learned author himself, an honorary member of the Canongate
Kilwinning Lodge, No. 2 (Scotland), and a Mason not likely to be
imposed upon, stating the following, under the head,
Hermetic Brothers of Egypt:
"An occult
fraternity, which has endured from very ancient times, having a
hierarchy of officers, secret signs, and passwords, and a
peculiar method of instruction in science, religion, and
philosophy. . . . If we may believe those who, at the present
time, profess to belong to it, the philosopher's stone, the
elixir of life, the art of invisibility, and the power of
communication directly with the ultramundane life, are parts of
the inheritance they possess. The writer has met with only
three persons who maintained the actual existence of this body
of religious philosophers, and who hinted that they themselves
were actually members. There was no reason to doubt the good
faith of these individuals -- apparently unknown to each other,
and men of moderate competence, blameless lives, austere
manners, and almost ascetic in their habits.
They all appeared to be
men of forty to forty-five years of age, and evidently of vast
erudition . . . their knowledge of languages not to be doubted.
. . . They never remained long in any one country, but passed
away without creating notice." [49]
Another of such
sub-brotherhoods is the sect of the Pitris, in India. Known by
name, now that Jacolliot has brought it into public notice, it
yet is more arcane, perhaps, than the brotherhood that Mr.
Mackenzie names the "Hermetic Brothers." What Jacolliot learned
of it, was from fragmentary manuscripts delivered to him by
Brahmans, who had their reasons for doing so, we must believe.
The Agrouchada Parikshai gives certain details
about the association, as it was in days of old, and, when
explaining mystic rites and magical incantations, explains
nothing at all, so that the mystic L'om, L'Rhum, Sh'hrum, and
Sho-rim Ramaya-Namaha, remain, for the mystified writer, as much
a puzzle as ever. To do him justice, though, he fully admits the
fact, and does not enter upon useless speculations.
Whoever desires to
assure himself that there now exists a religion which has
baffled, for centuries, the impudent inquisitiveness of
missionaries, and the persevering inquiry of science, let him
violate, if he can, the seclusion of the Syrian Druzes. He will
find them numbering over 80,000 warriors, scattered from the
plain east of Damascus to the western coast. They covet no
proselytes, shun notoriety, keep friendly -- as far as possible
-- with both Christians and Mahometans, respect the religion of
every other sect or people, but will never disclose their own
secrets. Vainly do the missionaries stigmatize them as infidels,
idolaters, brigands, and thieves. Neither threat, bribe, nor
any other consideration will induce a Druze to become a convert
to dogmatic Christianity. We have heard of two in fifty
years, and both have finished their careers in prison, for
drunkenness and theft. They proved to be "real Druzes,"
[50] said one of their chiefs, in discussing the
subject. There never was a case of an initiated
Druze becoming a Christian. As to the uninitiated, they are
never allowed to even see the sacred writings, and none of them
have the remotest idea where these are kept. There are
missionaries in Syria who boast of having in their possession a
few copies. The volumes alleged to be the correct expositions
from these secret books (such as the translation by Petis de la
Croix, in 1701, from the works presented by Nasr-Allah to the
French king), are nothing more than a compilation of "secrets,"
known more or less to every inhabitant of the southern ranges of
Lebanon and Anti-Libanus. They were the work of an apostate
Dervish, who was expelled from the sect Hanafi, for improper
conduct -- the embezzlement of the money of widows and orphans.
The Expose de la Religion des Druzes, in two volumes,
by Sylvestre de Sacy (1828), is another net-work of hypotheses.
A copy of this work was to be found, in 1870, on the window-sill
of one of their principal Holowey, or place of
religious meeting. To the inquisitive question of an English
traveller, as to their rites, the Okhal, [51]
a venerable old man, who spoke English as well as French, opened
the volume of de Sacy, and, offering it to his interlocutor,
remarked, with a benevolent smile: "Read this instructive and
truthful book; I could explain to you neither better nor more
correctly the secrets of God and our blessed Hamsa, than it
does." The traveller understood the hint.
Mackenzie says they
settled at Lebanon about the tenth century, and "seem to be a
mixture of Kurds, Mardi-Arabs, and other semi-civilized tribes.
Their religion is compounded of Judaism, Christianity, and
Mahometanism. They have a regular order of priesthood and
a kind of hierarchy . . . there is a regular system of
passwords and signs. . . . Twelve month's probation, to which
either sex is admitted, preceded initiation."
We quote the above only
to show how little even persons as trustworthy as Mr. Mackenzie
really know of these mystics.
Mosheim, who knows as
much, or we should rather say as little, as any others, is
entitled to the merit of candidly admitting that "their religion
is peculiar to themselves, and is involved in some mystery." We
should say it was -- rather!
That their religion
exhibits traces of Magianism and Gnosticism is natural, as the
whole of the Ophite esoteric philosophy is at the bottom of it.
But the characteristic dogma of the Druzes is the absolute unity
of God. He is the essence of life, and although incomprehensible
and invisible, is to be known through occasional
manifestations in human form. [52] Like the
Hindus they hold that he was incarnated more than once on earth.
Hamsa was the precursor of the last manifestation to be
(the tenth avatar) [53] not the inheritor of
Hakem, who is yet to come. Hamsa was the personification of the
"Universal Wisdom." Bohaeddin in his writings calls him Messiah.
The whole number of his disciples, or those who at different
ages of the world have imparted wisdom to mankind, which the
latter as invariably have forgotten and rejected in course of
time, is one hundred and sixty-four (164, the kabalistic s d
k). Therefore, their stages or degrees of
promotion after initiation are five; the first three degrees are
typified by the "three feet of the candlestick of the inner
Sanctuary, which holds the light of the five elements";
the last two degrees, the most important and terrifying in their
solemn grandeur belonging to the highest orders; and the whole
five degrees emblematically represent the said five mystic
Elements. The "three feet are the holy Application, the
Opening, and the Phantom," says one of
their books; on man's inner and outer soul, and his body, a
phantom, a passing shadow. The body, or matter, is also called
the "Rival," for "he is the minister of sin, the Devil ever
creating dissensions between the Heavenly Intelligence (spirit)
and the soul, which he tempts incessantly." Their ideas on
transmigration are
Pythagorean and
kabalistic. The spirit, or Temeami (the divine soul), was in
Elijah and John the Baptist; and the soul of Jesus was that of
H'amsa; that is to say, of the same degree of purity and
sanctity. Until their resurrection, by which they understand the
day when the spiritual bodies of men will be absorbed into God's
own essence and being (the Nirvana of the Hindus), the souls of
men will keep their astral forms, except the few chosen ones
who, from the moment of their separation from their bodies,
begin to exist as pure spirits. The life of man they divide into
soul, body, and intelligence, or mind. It is the latter which
imparts and communicates to the soul the divine spark from its
H'amsa (Christos).
They have seven great
commandments which are imparted equally to all the uninitiated;
and yet, even these well-known articles of faith have been so
mixed up in the accounts of outside writers, that, in one of the
best Cyclopaedias of America (Appleton's), they are garbled
after the fashion that may be seen in the comparative tabulation
below; the spurious and the true order parallel:
|
CORRECT
VERSION OF THE COMMANDMENTS
AS IMPARTED ORALLY
BY THE TEACHERS. [54]
1. The
unity of God, or the infinite oneness of Deity.
2. The
essential excellence of Truth.
3. Toleration;
right given to all men and women to freely express
their opinions on religious matters, and make the
latter subservient to reason.
4. Respect to
all men and women according to their character and
conduct.
5.
Entire submission to God's decrees.
6. Chastity of
body, mind, and soul.
7. Mutual help
under all conditions.
|
GARBLED
VERSION REPORTED BY THE
CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
AND GIVEN IN PRETENDED EXPOSITIONS.
[55]
1. (2) "
'Truth in words,' meaning in practice, only
truth to the religion and to the initiated; it
is lawful to act and to speak falsehood to men of
another creed." [56]
2. (7)
"Mutual help, watchfulness, and protection."
3. (?) "To
renounce all other religions." [57]
4. (?) "To
be separate from infidels of every kind, not
externally but only in heart." [58]
5. (1)
"Recognize God's eternal unity."
6. (5)
"Satisfied with God's acts."
7. (5)
"Resigned to God's will." |
As will be seen, the
only expose in the above is that of the great ignorance, perhaps
malice, of the writers who, like Sylvestre de Sacy, undertake to
enlighten the world upon matters concerning which they know
nothing.
"Chastity, honesty,
meekness, and mercy," are thus the four theological virtues of
all Druzes, besides several others demanded from the initiates:
"murder, theft, cruelty, covetousness, slander," the five sins,
to which several other sins are added in the sacred tablets, but
which we must abstain from giving. The morality of the Druzes is
strict and uncompromising. Nothing can tempt one of these
Lebanon Unitarians to go astray from what he is taught to
consider his duty. Their ritual being unknown to
outsiders, their would-be historians have hitherto denied
them one. Their "Thursday meetings" are open to all, but no
interloper has ever participated in the rites of initiation
which take place occasionally on Fridays in the greatest secresy.
Women are admitted to them as well as men, and they play a
part of great importance at the initiation of men. The
probation, unless some extraordinary exception is made, is long
and severe. Once, in a certain period of time, a solemn ceremony
takes place, during which all the elders and the initiates of
the highest two degrees start out for a pilgrimage of several
days to a certain place in the mountains. They meet within
the safe precincts of a monastery said to have been erected
during the earliest times of the Christian era. Outwardly one
sees but old ruins of a once grand edifice, used, says the
legend, by some Gnostic sects as a place of worship during the
religious persecutions. The ruins above ground, however, are but
a convenient mask; the subterranean chapel, halls, and cells,
covering an area of ground far greater than the upper building;
while the richness of ornamentation, the beauty of the ancient
sculptures, and the gold and silver vessels in this sacred
resort, appear like "a dream of glory," according to the
expression of an initiate. As the lamaseries of Mongolia and
Thibet are visited upon grand occasions by the holy shadow of
"Lord Buddha," so here, during the ceremonial, appears the
resplendent ethereal form of Hamsa, the Blessed, which instructs
the faithful. The most extraordinary feats of what would be
termed magic take place during the several nights that the
convocation lasts; and one of the greatest mysteries --
faithful copy of the past -- is accomplished within the discreet
bosom of our mother earth; not an echo, nor the faintest sound,
not a glimmer of light betrays without the grand secret of the
initiates.
Hamsa, like Jesus, was
a mortal man, and yet "Hamsa" and "Christos" are synonymous
terms as to their inner and hidden meaning. Both are symbols of
the Nous, the divine and higher soul of man -- his
spirit. The doctrine taught by the Druzes on that particular
question of the duality of spiritual man, consisting of one soul
mortal, and another immortal, is identical with that of the
Gnostics, the older Greek philosophers, and other initiates.
Outside the East we
have met one initiate (and only one), who, for some reasons best
known to himself, does not make a secret of his initiation into
the Brotherhood of Lebanon. It is the learned traveller and
artist, Professor A.
L. [Albert Leighton] Rawson, of New York City. This
gentleman has passed many years in the East, four times visited
Palestine, and has travelled to Mecca. It is safe to say that he
has a priceless store of facts about the beginnings of the
Christian Church, which none but one who had had free access to
repositories closed against the ordinary traveller could have
collected. Professor Rawson, with the true devotion of a man of
science, noted down every important discovery he made in the
Palestinian libraries, and every precious fact orally
communicated to him by the mystics he encountered, and some day
they will see the light. He has most obligingly sent us the
following communication, which, as the reader will perceive,
fully corroborates what is above written from our personal
experience about the strange fraternity incorrectly styled the
Druzes:
"34 BOND
ST., NEW YORK,
June 6, 1877.
". . . Your note,
asking me to give you an account of my initiation into a
secret order among the people commonly known as Druzes, in
Mount Lebanon, was received this morning. I took, as you
are fully aware, an obligation at that time to conceal
within my own memory the greater part of the 'mysteries,'
with the most interesting parts of the 'instructions'; so
that what is left may not be of any service to the public.
Such information as I can rightfully give, you are
welcome to have and use as you may have occasion.
"The probation in my
case was, by special dispensation, made one month,
during which time I was 'shadowed' by a priest, who served
as my cook, guide, interpreter, and general servant, that he
might be able to testify to the fact of my having strictly
conformed to the rules in diet, ablutions, and other
matters. He was also my instructor in the text of the
ritual, which we recited from time to time for practice, in
dialogue or in song, as it may have been. Whenever we
happened to be near a Druze village, on a Thursday, we
attended the 'open' meetings, where men and women assembled
for instruction and worship, and to expose to the world
generally their religious practices. I was never present at
a Friday 'close' meeting before my initiation, nor do I
believe any one else, man or woman, ever was, except by
collusion with a priest, and that is not probable, for a
false priest forfeits his life. The practical jokers among
them sometimes 'fool' a too curious 'Frank' by a sham
initiation, especially if such a one is suspected of having
some connection with the missionaries at Beirut or
elsewhere.
"The initiates include
both women and men, and the ceremonies are of so peculiar a
nature that both sexes are required to assist in the ritual
and 'work.' The 'furniture' of the 'prayer-house' and of the
'vision-chamber' is simple, and except for convenience may
consist of but a strip of carpet. In the 'Gray Hall' (the
place is never named, and is underground, not far
from Bayt-ed-Deen) there are some rich decorations and
valuable pieces of ancient furniture, the work of Arab
silversmiths five or six centuries ago, inscribed and dated.
The day of initiation must be a continual fast from daylight
to sunset in winter, or six o'clock in summer, and the
ceremony is from beginning to end a series of trials and
temptations, calculated to test the endurance of the
candidate under physical and mental pressure. It is
seldom that any but the young man or woman succeeds in
'winning' all the 'prizes,' since nature will sometimes
exert itself in spite of the most stubborn will, and
the neophyte fail of passing some of the tests. In such a
case the probation is extended another year, when another
trial is had.
"Among other tests
of the neophyte's self-control are the following: Choice
pieces of cooked meat, savory soup, pilau, and other
appetizing dishes, with sherbet, coffee, wine, and water,
are set, as if accidentally, in his way, and he is left
alone for a time with the tempting things. To a hungry and
fainting soul the trial is severe. But a more difficult
ordeal is when the seven priestesses retire, all but one,
the youngest and prettiest, and the door is closed and
barred on the outside, after warning the candidate that he
will be left to his 'reflections,' for half an hour. Wearied
by the long-continued ceremonial, weak with hunger, parched
with thirst, and a sweet reaction coming after the
tremendous strain to keep his animal nature in subjection,
this moment of privacy and of temptation is brimful of
peril. The beautiful young vestal, timidly approaching, and
with glances which lend a double magnetic allurement to her
words, begs him in low tones to 'bless her.' Woe to him if
he does! A hundred eyes see him from secret peep-holes, and
only to the ignorant neophyte is there the appearance of
concealment and opportunity.
"There is no
infidelity, idolatry, or other really bad feature in the
system. They have the relics of what was once a grand form
of nature-worship, which has been contracted under a
despotism into a secret order, hidden from the light of day,
and exposed only in the smoky glare of a few burning lamps,
in some damp cave or chapel under ground. The chief tenets
of their religious teachings are comprised in seven
'tablets,' which are these, to state them in general terms:
"1. The unity of
God, or the infinite oneness of deity.
"2. The essential excellence of truth.
"3. The law of toleration as to all men and women
in opinion.
"4. Respect for all men and women as to character and
conduct.
"5. Entire submission to God's decrees as to fate.
"6. Chastity of body and mind and soul.
"7. Mutual help under all conditions.
"These tenets are not
printed or written. Another set is printed or written to
mislead the unwary, but with these we are not concerned.
"The chief results
of the initiation seemed to be a kind of mental illusion or
sleep-waking, in which the neophyte saw, or thought he saw,
the images of people who were known to be absent, and in
some cases thousands of miles away. I thought (or
perhaps it was my mind at work) I saw friends and relatives
that I knew at the time were in New York State, while I was
then in Lebanon. How these results were produced I cannot
say. They appeared in a dark room, when the 'guide' was
talking, the 'company' singing in the next 'chamber,' and
near the close of the day, when I was tired out with
fasting, walking, talking, singing, robing, unrobing, seeing
a great many people in various conditions as to dress and
undress, and with great mental strain in resisting certain
physical manifestations that result from the appetites when
they overcome the will, and in paying close attention to
the passing scenes, hoping to remember them -- so that I may
have been unfit to judge of any new and surprising
phenomena, and more especially of those apparently magical
appearances which have always excited my suspicion and
distrust. I know the various uses of the magic-lantern, and
other apparatus, and took care to examine the room where the
'visions' appeared to me the same evening, and the next day,
and several times afterwards, and knew that, in my case,
there was no use made of any machinery or other means
besides the voice of the 'guide and instructor.' On several
occasions afterward, when at a great distance from the
'chamber,' the same or similar visions were produced, as,
for instance, in Hornstein's Hotel at Jerusalem. A
daughter-in-law of a well-known Jewish merchant in Jerusalem
is an initiated 'sister,' and can produce the visions almost
at will on any one who will live strictly according to the
rules of the Order for a few weeks, more or less,
according to their nature, as gross or refined, etc.
"I am quite safe in
saying that the initiation is so peculiar that it could not
be printed so as to instruct one who had not been 'worked'
through the 'chamber.' So it would be even more
impossible to make an expose of them than of the Freemasons.
The real secrets are acted and not spoken, and require
several initiated persons to assist in the work.
"It is not necessary
for me to say how some of the notions of that people seem
to perpetuate certain beliefs of the ancient Greeks -- as,
for instance, the idea that a man has two souls, and
many others -- for you probably were made familiar with them
in your passage through the 'upper' and 'lower chamber.' If
I am mistaken in supposing you an 'initiate,' please excuse
me. I am aware that the closest friends often conceal that
'sacred secret' from each other; and even husband and wife
may live -- as I was informed in Dayr-el-Kamar was the fact
in one family there -- for twenty years together and yet
neither know anything of the initiation of the other. You,
undoubtedly, have good reasons for keeping your own counsel,
"Yours truly,
"A.
L. RAWSON."
Before we close the
subject we may add that if a stranger ask for admission to a
"Thursday" meeting he will never be refused. Only, if he is a
Christian, the okhal will open a Bible and
read from it; and if a Mahometan, he will hear a few chapters of
the Koran, and the ceremony will end with this. They
will wait until he is gone, and then, shutting well the doors of
their convent, take to their own rites and books, passing for
this purpose into their subterranean sanctuaries. "The Druzes
remain, even more than the Jews, a peculiar people," says
Colonel Churchill, [59] one of the few fair and strictly
impartial writers. "They marry within their own race; they are
rarely if ever converted; they adhere tenaciously to their
traditions, and they baffle all efforts to discover their
cherished secrets. . . . The bad name of that caliph whom they
claim as their founder is fairly compensated by the pure lives
of many whom they honor as saints, and by the heroism of their
feudal leaders."
And yet the Druzes may
be said to belong to one of the least esoteric of secret
societies. There are others far more powerful and learned, the
existence of which is not even suspected in Europe. There are
many branches belonging to the great "Mother Lodge" which, mixed
up with certain communities, may be termed secret sects within
other sects. One of them is the sect commonly known as that of
Laghana-Sastra. It reckons several thousand adepts who are
scattered about in small groups in the south of the Dekkan,
India. In the popular superstition, this sect is dreaded on
account of its great reputation for magic and sorcery. The
Brahmans accuse its members of atheism and sacrilege, for none
of them will consent to recognize the authority of either the
Vedas or Manu, except so far as they conform
to the versions in their possession, and which they maintain are
professedly the only original texts; the Laghana-Sastra have
neither temples nor priests, but, twice a month, every member of
the community has to absent himself from home for three days.
Popular rumor, originated among their women, ascribes such
absences to pilgrimages performed to their places of fortnightly
resort. In some secluded mountainous spots, unknown and
inaccessible to other sects, hidden far from sight among the
luxurious vegetation of India, they keep their bungalows, which
look like small fortresses, encircled as they are by lofty and
thick walls. These, in their turn, are surrounded by the sacred
trees called assonata, and in Tamul arassa maram.
These are the "sacred groves," the originals of those of
Egypt and Greece, whose initiates also built their temples
within such "groves" inaccessible to the profane. [60]
It will not be found
without interest to see what Mr. John Yarker, Jr., has to say on
some modern secret societies among the Orientals. "The
nearest resemblance to the Brahmanical Mysteries, is probably
found in the very ancient 'Paths' of the
Dervishes, which are usually governed by twelve officers, the
oldest 'Court' superintending the others by right of seniority.
Here the master of the 'Court' is called 'Sheik,'
and has his deputies, 'Caliphs,' or successors, of which
there may be many (as, for instance, in the brevet degree of a
Master Mason). The order is divided into at least four columns,
pillars, or degrees. The first step is that of 'Humanity,' which
supposes attention to the written law, and 'annihilation in
the Sheik.' The second is that of the
'Path,' in which the 'Murid,' or disciple,
attains spiritual powers and 'self-annihilation' into the
'Peer' or founder of the 'Path.' The third stage is called
'Knowledge,' and the 'Murid' is supposed to
become inspired, called 'annihilation into the Prophet.'
The fourth stage leads him even to God, when he becomes a
part of the Deity and sees Him in all things. The first and
second stages have received modern subdivisions, as 'Integrity,'
'Virtue,' 'Temperance,' 'Benevolence.' After this the Sheik
confers upon him the grade of 'Caliph,' or Honorary Master, for
in their mystical language, 'the man must die before the
saint can be born.' It will be seen that this kind of
mysticism is applicable to Christ as founder of a 'Path.' "
To this statement, the
author adds the following on the Bektash Dervishes, who "often
initiated the Janizaries. They wear a small marble cube
spotted with blood. Their ceremony is as follows: Before
reception a year's probation is required, during which false
secrets are given to test the candidate; he has two
godfathers and is divested of all metals and even
clothing; from the wool of a sheep a cord is made
for his neck, and a girdle for his loins; he is led into the
centre of a square room, presented as a slave, and seated upon a
large stone with twelve escallops; his arms are crossed upon his
breast, his body inclined forward, his right toes extended over
his left foot; after various prayers he is placed in a
particular manner, with his hand in a peculiar way in that of
the Sheik, who repeats a verse from the Koran: 'Those
who on giving thee their hand swear to thee an oath, swear it to
God, the hand of God is placed in their hand; whoever violates
this oath, will do so to his hurt, and to whoever remains
faithful God will give a magnificent reward.' Placing the hand
below the chin is their sign, perhaps in memory of their vow.
All use the double triangles. The Brahmans inscribe the
angles with their trinity, and they possess also the Masonic
sign of distress as used in France." [61]
--
Isis
Unveiled, by Helena P. Blavatsky |
The cultivation of
the vine is one of the most marked distinctions between
nomadic and sedentary life. Nomads and half-settled
tribes have often a certain amount of agricultural knowledge, raising occasional crops of corn, or at all events
of edible herbs. But the cultivation of the vine demands fixed sedentary habits, and
all Semitic nomads
view wine-growing and wine-drinking as essentially
foreign to their traditional mode of life. [16] Canaan, on
the contrary, is pre-eminently a land of the grape, and
the Canaanite worship was full of Dionysiac elements. Wine was the best gift of the Baalim, and wine-drinking
was prominent in their luxurious worship. The Nazarite
vow to abstain from wine, which in the earliest case,
that of Samson, appears as a life-long vow, was undoubtedly a religious protest against Canaanite civilisation in favour of the simple life of ancient times.
This
appears most clearly in the case of the Rechabites, who
had received from their father Jonadab the double precept never to drink wine, and never to give up their
wandering pastoral life for a residence in cities (Jer.
XXXV.). "We have no evidence that Elijah had a personal
connection with the Rechabites; but Jonadab was a
prominent partisan of Jehu, and went with him to see
his zeal for Jehovah when he put an end to Baal and
his worshippers (2 Kings x. 15 seq.). We see, therefore,
that one element, and not the least popular, in the movement against Baal was a reaction in favour of the primitive simplicity of Israel in the days
before it came into contact with Canaanite civilisation and Canaanite religion.
Another seat of the influence of the movement was the
prophetic guilds. Elijah himself, so far as we can judge, had little to
do with these guilds; but his successor Elisha, who had the chief share
in giving political effect to his ideas, found his closest followers
among the "sons of the prophets." The idea of
''schools of the prophets," which we generally connect
with this Biblical phrase, is a pure invention of commentators. According to all the laws of Semitic
speech the sons of the prophets were not disciples of a
school, but members of a guild or corporation, [17] living
together in the neighbourhood of ancient sanctuaries,
such as Gilgal and Bethel, and in all likelihood closely
connected with the priests, as was certainly the case in
Judah down to the extinction of the state (Jer. xxix.
26, cf. XX. 1, 2; Lam. ii. 20, etc.). The prophets of
Jehovah and the priests of Jehovah were presumably
associated much as were the prophets and priests of
Baal. It would be a great mistake to suppose that
wherever we hear of prophets or sons of prophets that
is, members of prophetic guilds we are to think of men
raised as high above their contemporaries as Elijah,
Amos, or Isaiah. The later prophets, in our sense of the
word, were in constant feud with the common prophets
of their day, whose profession was a trade, and whose
oracles they condemn as mere heathenish divination implying no true knowledge of Jehovah. The very name
and idea of the prophet (nabi) are common to Israel
with its heathen neighbours, as appears, not only from
the existence of prophets of Baal in connection with
Jezebel's sanctuary, but from the fact that the Assyrians
had a god Nebo, whose name is essentially identical
with the Hebrew nabi, and who figures as the spokesman of the gods, the
counterpart of the Greek Hermes. [18]
The first appearance of companies of prophets is in the
history of Samuel and Saul (1 Sam. x. 3, 10 seq.), where
they are found engaged in the worship of Jehovah
under circumstances of physical excitement closely
parallel to what is still seen among the dervishes of
the East, and occasionally among ourselves in times
of strong religious feeling. [19] Excitement of this sort
is often associated with genuine religious movements,
especially among primitive peoples. Like all physical
accompaniments of religious conviction, it is liable to
strange excesses, and may often go along with false
beliefs and self-deluding practices; but religious
earnestness is always nearer the truth than indifference, and the great movement of which Elijah was the
head found large support among the prophets of
Jehovah. Yet we must not forget that physical
enthusiasm is a dangerous ally to spiritual faith. The
revolution of Jehu, which Elisha set on foot with the
aid of the prophetic guilds, used means that were far
removed from the loftiness of Elijah's teaching, and under
the protection of Jehu's dynasty the prophetic guilds
soon sank to depths of hypocrisy and formalism with
which Amos disclaimed all fellowship (Amos vii. 14).
One feature in the teaching of Elijah still remains,
which was perhaps the most immediately important of
all. The divine denunciation of the fall of Ahab's
house had its basis, not in the worship of Baal, but in
the judicial murder of Naboth (1 Kings xxi.); and
Wellhausen has given deserved prominence to the
observation of Ewald, that this act of injustice stirred
the heart of the nation much more deeply than the
religious policy of the house of Omri (2 Kings vi. 32;
ix. 25 seq). Naboth's offence was his obstinate adhesion
to ancient custom and law, and the crime of Ahab was
no common act of violence, but an insult to the moral
sense of all Israel. In condemning it Elijah pleaded the
cause of Jehovah as the cause of civil order and righteousness; the God as whose messenger he spoke was
the God by whom kings reign and princes decree
justice. The sovereignty of Jehovah was not an empty
thought; it was the refuge of the oppressed, the support
of the weak against the mighty. Without this it would
have been nothing to declare war against the Tyrian
Baal; if Jehovah claimed Israel as His dominion, in
which no other god could find a place, He did so because
His rule was the rule of absolute righteousness.
It would have been well for the house of Jehu if
in mounting the throne of Ahab it had learned this
lesson. But the dynasty which began in treachery and
bloodshed, which profaned the great work of Elijah by
making it the instrument of a vulgar ambition, rooted
Baal out of the land without learning to know the true
character of Jehovah. The second crisis in the religion
of Israel was not without its wholesome issues. The
faith of Jehovah was never again assailed from without,
but within it grew more and more corrupt. Priests and
prophets were content to enjoy the royal favour without
remembering that Jehovah's cause was not victorious
in the mere extirpation of Baal, and the nation returned
to the service of Jehovah without learning that that
service was worthless when it produced no other fruits
than a constant succession of feasts and offerings. And
meanwhile the inner state of Israel became daily more
desperate. The unhappy Syrian wars sapped the
strength of the country, and gradually destroyed the
old peasant proprietors who were the best hope of the
nation. The gap between the many poor and the few
rich became wider and wider. The landless classes were
ground down by usury and oppression, for in that state
of society the landless man had no career in trade, and
was at the mercy of the land-holding capitalist. It was
of no avail that the Damascene enemy, lying as he did
between Israel and Assyria, was at length compelled to
leave Samaria at peace, and defend his own borders
against the forward march of the great Eastern power,
or that the last kings of the house of Jehu availed
themselves of this diversion to restore the external
greatness of their empire, not only on the Syrian
frontier, but by successful campaigns against the
Moabites. Under Jeroboam II the outward state of
Israel appeared as brilliant as in the best days of old,
and the wealth and splendour of the court seemed to
the superficial observer to promise a long career of
prosperity; but, with all these outward signs of fortune,
which the official organs of religion interpreted as sure
proofs of Jehovah's favour, the state of the nation was
rotten at the core; there was no truth or mercy or
knowledge of God in the land. A closer view of the
condition of Israel at this epoch must, however, be
reserved for our study of the prophets who have left the
record of it in their written books Amos of Tekoah
and Hosea ben Beeri.
Go to Next Page
|