Chapter XXIV: Introduction (1)

The readers of the curious article which follows are requested to remember that the writers of signed papers in LUCIFER, and not the editors, are responsible for their contents. Captain Serjeant’s views excite much interest among a large number of earnest people, who use Biblical forms and phraseology to picture to themselves the hidden things of nature and of spirit—things which we, the editors, and also the large majority of Theosophists, believe to be more clearly conveyed under the symbolism of the ancient Wisdom-Religion of the East, and better expressed in its terminology. The article is an attempt to explain the significance of a very curious cloud formation observed by many persons in Scotland, on the 16th of September last, a sketch of which appeared in the _St. Stephens Review_ on the 24th of the same month. In the centre of the sketch appears a side view of the British Lion rampant, with his paw on the head of a bearded man, who bears a considerable likeness to Mr. Parnell; to the right of the Lion is an excellent likeness of Her Majesty, crowned, as in the Jubilee coinage, and smiling very naturally; and to the left of the picture is an Irish harp. The appearance, by the testimony of many witnesses, must have been remarkably perfect and striking. Cloud-forms of a similar kind have been recorded many times in history, and they are usually connected in the public mind with some important political event. The Cross of Constantine will, no doubt, recur to the readers’ mind, but the sword and reversed crescent, which everyone saw in the sky when the Turks were driven out of Vienna, may be less generally known; as also the reversed thistles, with the outline of a Scotchman, armed with claymore and targe, and falling backward, which was observed in the clouds by the King and Court at Windsor on the night before the battle of Culloden.

The question of what interpretation is to be put upon remarkable cloud appearances, is of little interest to anyone who believes that such phenomena are merely accidental arrangements of the watery vapours of the atmosphere driven by currents of air. Apart, however, from the obvious consideration that this way of regarding the phenomenon only raises the further question of what causes the currents of air to run in these particular ways, it may be safely said that the chances are millions of millions of millions to one, against the appearance in the clouds of any such perfect and complete picture of well-known persons and emblems, as were seen in Scotland on the 16th of September. Of course it may be argued, on the other hand, that the clouds are for ever forming and re-forming in millions of millions of millions different ways, and that the mathematical chances are that one of these ways will occasionally represent an earth scene. But even if the infinite number of continual permutations and transformations of cloud substance be held to account for the occasional appearance of some graphic picture of human things, it does not in any way explain why these rare pictures, when they do occur, should be perfect and appropriate symbols; neither does it account for their appearance at the particular moment when the extraordinary events, to which they are appropriate, are occurring, or about to occur.

The phenomenon of vapours and fumes taking the shape of persons and things, is one of the oldest and best accredited facts in magic, and these cloud appearances, if they be viewed as having any significance, are merely instances of a similar action on a large scale produced by some conscious or unconscious force in nature.

If it be allowed, however, that the occasional assumption by vapours of the shapes and likenesses of terrestrial things is not a “fortuitous concourse of atoms,” but occurs in accordance with some obscure law of Nature that in itself is the result of the mutual interaction and interdependence of everything in the Universe, the important question still remains—whether these appearances, when they do occur, are “intended” as warnings or omens? Should the lion, the harp, her Majesty, and Mr. Parnell, of the Scottish cloud-picture, be taken as having any more significance in the affairs of the nation, or of the world at large, than chemical phenomena can be supposed to presage disturbances or rejoicings in the world of nature? To answer this question would involve considerations which only an advanced Occultist would be able to comprehend; so we shall merely say, that although there are natural symbols which carry in them a definite meaning for those who can read that secret language, still symbols are generally significant in proportion as people themselves put a significance into them.

A triangle or a cube is nothing but a triangle or a cube to a yokel, but to an Occultist they contain the philosophy of the Universe. Even so, Captain Serjeant, “the New Dispensationist,” and Theosophist, can put the meaning he likes into this or any other symbolical representation. We do not quite agree with either his methods or his results in the case before us, but the conclusions he draws are the same that are now being reached by many minds pursuing very different paths; and these conclusions may be summed up by saying that great changes are approaching, both in the temporal and in the spiritual life of humanity, and that these changes will eventuate in better things and nobler ideas.

---

AN INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION, BY SERJEANT.

(The New Dispensationist.)

Thus may be interpreted the symbolical appearance represented and described in the _St. Stephen’s Review_ of 24th September 1887. The lion[66] of the house of Judah[67] arises with Victoria[68] the female principle of the victor[69] of this world of ignorance, error, sin, crime and misery. The lion represents that wisdom which is the only true and lasting power on earth. He shall crush out the anarchy and confusion now so manifest in _the world_ which is the state of ignorance existing on this earth. Without a miracle shall all this be accomplished?

-----

Footnote 66:

It is somewhat difficult to follow the argument of this passage,
unless the meaning of the words is explained. The Lion of the
House of Judah is equivalent to “the Lord” and to “the Victor”
mentioned below. In the writer’s phraseology “Victor is the symbol
of the Trinity of Wisdom, Love, Truth.” Now the Lion is symbolical
of Wisdom; but, as it is impossible to sever one element of the
Trinity from another, it is necessary to remember that whenever
the word wisdom is used it carries with it the other two as well.
The above sentence would then seem to mean the conjunction of the
male and female principles to effect the purpose of the
manifestation of the Trinity above mentioned; by which
manifestation all ignorance is dispelled. [ED.]

Footnote 67:

Judah means _praised_; the true idea being _the Lord be praised_.
Too much attention cannot be paid to the meanings of the words
used in the sacred writings of all nations and peoples.

Footnote 68:

_i.e._ the Queen, on whose lands _the Sun never sets_; it must be
remembered that—“neither is the woman without the man, nor the man
without the woman in the Lord.”—(1 Corinthians xi, 11.)

Footnote 69:

“And no man can say _Jesus is Lord_ (_i.e._ Victor), but in the
Holy Spirit.”—(1 Corinthians xii., 3, Revised Version.) It is
especially necessary to remember that whenever allusion is made to
Victoria, it is not Her Most Gracious Majesty who is meant but the
unseen Victoria whose outward manifestation the Queen is alleged
to be. It is as though the Queen is the mouth-piece of the
intelligence behind, as the Foreign Secretary may be the
mouth-piece of the Foreign policy of the Government. The language
used is purely symbolical and by using words as symbols an
esoteric meaning is attached to the most commonplace events in
life. It is a truly occult argument, but one which matter-of-fact
people will regard as nonsensical. [ED.]

-----

As insidious doubt has crept into the hearts of the children of men, so shall insidious truth creep in to dispel all doubt; ignorance developed into wisdom shall be the destruction of the world.[70] Ignorance is the former or lower expression of knowledge, and knowledge is the former or lower expression of wisdom—ignorance[71] is the cross—wisdom is the crown. Ignorance regarded in a true light is really an incentive to knowledge, for no man would try to attain to knowledge were he not ignorant. And no man would strive to attain to wisdom, did he not possess the knowledge which ever silently proclaims to him its crowning happiness. Wisdom is not only the celestial crown which every embodied soul is ultimately destined to possess, but it is also that particular state of Heaven called the “New Jerusalem” which shall descend from the Spirit (_i.e._ God, see John iv., 24.) to earth in these latter days (see Revelation xxi.)

-----

Footnote 70:

According to the explanations of the writer (_v. supra_), _The
World_ signifies a state of ignorance and darkness. Taken in this
sense the above sentence becomes a truism. [ED.]

Footnote 71:

Ignorance is the equivalent of the Body, which is the Cross. By
this light the Wisdom means the life of the Spirit. [ED.]

-----

Man was created[72] an ignorant being for a great purpose, which he will ultimately realise and know. Were there no ignorance, there could be no error, without error there could be no sin. Were there no ignorance, no sin, there could be no crime, no unhappiness, no misery existing on the earth. When, therefore, general ignorance shall succumb to the disintegrating power of universal intelligence so rapidly developing in these latter days[73] (see Daniel xii., 4), and which is the quickening of the Spirit of God in man; then the very conditions responsible for evolving error, sin, crime, unhappiness, and misery will be entirely done away with, and thus the consummation of the age—or, as the old translation of the Bible has it, the end of the world—will be brought about as a necessary consequence of purification by the Fire of the Spirit, _Truth_, which is the Divine Son of the Supreme Spirit, or God. “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He shall guide you into all the Truth”; then shall the princes of the House of David[74] arise from amongst the people to rule the nations in equity and justice, in prosperity and peace, and the reign of the One Almighty Spirit of Wisdom, Love, and Truth shall begin on earth—for the Lion (or wisdom) shall lie down with the Lamb (or innocence), and a little child (or truth, see Rev. xii., the coming man-child) shall lead them.

-----

Footnote 72:

To say that Man was created ignorant for a great purpose would
argue the idea of a creator, according to orthodox ideas. But the
writer is known to repudiate this idea entirely. It is difficult,
therefore, to see what he means, unless it is that the man of
flesh was ushered into existence by an evolution which he has not
yet completed—ignorant, to acquire knowledge gradually. [ED.]

Footnote 73:

This is a _very_ optimistic view of the case, and we can only hope
to see it realised. The article “Signs of the Times” agrees with
the views of the writer of this article. There is a development
going on, but the forces against which it has to contend are too
dense for an early realisation of this dreamlike Golden Age. It is
too good to be true; but that it is possible to help it is also
true. The Kingdom of Heaven may be taken by violence, and an
entrance effected in an instant, but the process of attaining the
position whence the attack may be delivered, is one extending over
years. No student of occultism needs to be told this. [ED.]

Footnote 74:

David means _beloved_; he was the first King of Israel, chosen of
the Spirit. Israel means _one who strives with God_—_i.e._ one who
strives against ignorance in order that he may be blessed together
with his posterity. It was a name given to Jacob when he wrestled
with the Angel (Genesis xxxii., 28), and applies _to all_ who
contend on the side of the Deity.

-----

The soul-stirring and elevating harp of the sweet and trusting daughters of Judah[75] is hushed—no crown surmounts it; and angels weep and mourn over the discord now prevailing in the world. Where are the harmonious chords which, through their inherent, soft, loving and sympathetic notes once rendered powerless that enemy of man—the serpent? Lost, through the ignorance and sin of the puny earth-worms of this world! Yet Ireland, in common with the whole earth, shall be freed ere long from the yoke of ignorance which is so sorely oppressing all God’s creatures, for the crowned female head symbolically represents the “Sign in Heaven” _which has appeared_, of the Victoria or the woman[76] clothed with the Sun, the Divine Mother from whom will proceed the Child of Wisdom, Love and Truth, who shall rule all nations with a rod of iron,[77] and who shall be caught up unto God and unto His Throne.[78]

-----

Footnote 75:

In the writer’s phraseology, Judah is the equivalent of Erin in
this case. It becomes exceedingly difficult to follow his meaning,
for as everything is the equivalent of everything else, we are
landed in a hopeless maze of paradox. On the principle that there
is no truth without a paradox, there must be a great truth in this
article (as there is), but its disentanglement is a matter of much
labour and thought. The line of argument is the Judah meaning “be
praised”—certain people who praised or followed the Lord (or
Wisdom) were “oppressed and laid aside _their harps_.” There are
people unjustly oppressed in Ireland, not by the outer troubles,
but by the causes of the undoubted misery which prevails there.
Consequently, the daughters of Judah and Erin are equivalent terms
and interchangeable as symbols. The fact is that the author uses a
peculiar cryptogram, as he himself states. [ED.]

Footnote 76:

See “The Mother, the woman clothed with the Sun,” Vols. I. and
II.; and also the celebrated picture of “The Woman clothed with
the Sun,” by Carl Müller.

Footnote 77:

_i.e._, The Sceptre that endureth.

Footnote 78:

_Revelation_, xii.

-----

The following quotation from one of the replies to two leading articles, which appeared in the _Manchester Courier_ of May 4th and 13th, may also tend to throw some light on the vision of the crowned female head: “The present year heralds the jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, on whose glorious Empire the sun never sets. It shall also proclaim the jubilee of another Queen Victoria, well known to the ancients as the Bride of God who awaits the arrival of the Bridegroom. This Queen is She of Sheba[79]—the female principle of the one who is the Victor[80] of this world of ignorance and darkness, sin and crime; and He is the Solomon,[81] or Man of Light, Truth and Life Eternal. On her glorious empire the golden rays of Love and Peace shall shine forth from the Living Sun which nevermore shall set. She is the woman clothed with the Sun, and from her will proceed the promised man-child who shall rule all nations with a rod of iron, and shall be caught up unto God and unto His Throne. Were the English nation but to realise the mighty import of the grand and everlasting truths which I now proclaim, it would, to a man, support us in that work in which we, the New Dispensationists, daily and hourly labour in the interests of a suffering humanity now being slowly ground to powder in the stern mill of social ignorance and degradation. The time has come for the promise to be made known of the fulfilment of the “Saving health of all nations”; the prophecies of the ancients relating to the ultimatum of the written Word of Truth clearly point to the present age; and the Eternal Fiat has gone forth from the Universal King: “Write, for these words are faithful and true”—“Behold, I make all things new.” (Revelation xxi, 5.)

-----

Footnote 79:

The Queen of the South or Zenith (_i.e._ the most supreme point of
the Heavens) who shall rise in judgment with this generation (see
Matthew xii, 42), She’ba represents two Hebrew words (_Shebhā_ and
_Shebhȧ_). The first of these is an obscure term, compared by
Gesenius with the Ethiopic for “man”; the second signifies an oath
or covenant.

Footnote 80:

_i.e._, The Christ, the Messiah.

Footnote 81:

_i.e._, The man of “Sol” or the Sun. Hence, Christians worship on
Sunday instead of on the Sabbath or on Saturday, as the Jews
worship.

-----

It is fashionable in the world to covertly sneer at the things of the Spirit, and to regard the Living God in Heaven as a Being either unable or unwilling to manifest His Almighty Power and Presence to the world in this orthodox nineteenth century. To all who may be inclined to ignorantly hold what I have here written to be the outcome of a disordered imagination I would say, in the words of Paul, an apostle: “not of men, neither by men.”—“We speak wisdom among the full-grown, yet a wisdom, not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, _which are coming to nought_: but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory, _which none of the Rulers of this world knoweth_.”[82] “Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually examined. But he that is spiritual examineth all things and is himself examined of no man.” (See 1 Corinthians, ii.)

-----

Footnote 82:

_i.e._, Theosophy, or the hidden outcome of the hidden wisdom of
the ages.

-----

The year 1887 heralds the spiritual activity which will eventually culminate in the glorious consummation of the age.

W. ELDON SERJEANT.

AN INFANT GENIUS.

The idea of re-incarnation, that is to say of a succession of earth-lives passed through by each individual monad, seems so new and so daring to the Western World, that we are always being asked, “Where are your proofs? Are we to take such a startling hypothesis as this simply on your _ipse dixit_, or on the authority of some ancient Oriental book or ‘problematical’ Mahatma?”

To such a question the reply cannot be given in two or three words; for, while maintaining that there is at least as much reliance to be placed upon the Sacred Books of the East as on those of any other religion, and while holding firm to the belief that there _are_ beings of a higher order of intelligence living upon this earth, and mixing even in its great life-currents, we cannot expect that merely because we say “Man does not leave this earth for good and all at Death,” we therefore shall gain credence. Before the world of Science our position would have to be that of a Young with his undulatory hypothesis of light, or a Dalton with his atomic theory. We cannot bring proof positive to those who desire an Euclidic demonstration; we can only offer to them a hypothesis, and bid them treat it calmly and dispassionately, not flying straightway into a fury of abuse at our great impudence in daring to suggest a heresy, but weighing it with care, and trying whether or no it will explain some of the dark riddles of existence.

To ourselves, merely as a working hypothesis, the doctrine of reincarnation seems to throw so much long-sought-for light upon the bewildering enigmas of life, and the strange vagaries of a fickle fortune, that we could not, even if we would, lay aside so fluent an interpreter of the utterances of the Sphinx—Existence. The seeming injustices in the lot of man fall into line as units of the great battalion of cause and effect; “What a man sows that must he also reap.” How else account for all the misery that cries aloud on every hand, the starving multitudes, the good man persecuted, the charlatan triumphant? In the small purview of a life summed up in three-score years and ten, where is the indication of a Divine intelligence that metes to each his due?

But if this brief existence be not the only one that man incarnate must pass through, if it be, as we are assured, but one short link in a chain that spans a fathomless expanse of myriad years, then does the eternity of justice proclaim itself, handed on from birth to birth in the dark fuel of the torch of life.

Our purpose now, however, is not to strive to catalogue the countless instances where destiny appears to cry aloud, into the deaf ears of man, that life is fraught with dire responsibility for future life, but to point to a case where she, in kindlier mood, has shown the gracious aspect of her face.

For the last few months London has been taken by storm by the marvellous musical talent of a child whose life, in this incarnation at least, is barely ten years old. We allude, of course, to Josef Hofmann. None of our readers who have heard this boy but must have wondered whence this phenomenal skill could have been derived. Other children have come before the public, and roused its listlessness a little with exhibitions of infantile precocity. But this young Josef has taken at once front rank among the stars of the musical world, and won a place only to be compared to that of the fairy-child Mozart.

Whence comes this breadth of feeling, this grasp of musical expression? It is certain that it comes not from his teacher; for his father alone has filled that capacity, and it does not show itself in _his_ performance; and again, the only unsatisfactory part of the boy’s playing is clearly the result of mannerisms such as the second-rate conductor of a provincial orchestra would, without fail, extol and inculcate. No; it is clear that the swing of rhythm, the determination of attack, the delicacy of sentiment, must come from a man’s heart beating within that boyish frame, and a man’s mind shining through that childish head. Could one forget the name of the performer for one instant, and shut from one’s eyes his physical presence, it were a _man_ that was revealing to us the secrets of the notes. The rife experience of years must needs precede such rendering of musical thought; an experience earned in many a fight with varying fortune, in sympathy with many a tale of woe, in rejoicing over many a glimpse of Love and Brotherhood.

Yet ten short years are all his tale! What magician could crowd into that tiny space the parti-coloured pictures of a fevered life of energy? No, it must be that the child has lived upon this earth before, has borne his lance in the thickest of the fray, has achieved distinction in some great branch of art and garnered up a store of thought and feeling, into the inheritance of which his heir, himself, has entered. He may squander it again; alas, so many have before; but there it is, for him to use aright or wrongly, and serious is the charge imposed upon his guardians that they shall lay the lesson to heart that to whom much is given, from him shall much be expected. But with that aspect of the case it is not for us here to deal. We have only adduced this boy’s genius as one of the indications that life is in its succession a far more complex problem than the materialists or the orthodox religionists would lead us to believe. There are countless other suggestive little facts of early talent that must have come within the circle of the daily life of each of us; but without the thread of Karma whereon to string them, we pass them by; and it is only when some remarkable phenomenon, such as that of Josef Hofmann, bursts upon the world, that men fall to wondering. Yet it is by the accumulation of small details that a philosopher like Darwin worked out his scheme of natural evolution; and it is by the testing of such a theory as that of re-incarnation by many a little hitherto unexplained incident that we shall find its worth. Nor is it merely as a curious prying into mysteries that we should regard such research; for, once let a man convince himself that though “Art is long,” yet Life, in its recurrence, is longer, he will find in the thought that he is really laying up treasure in heaven (the _lives_ to come), encouragement, despite all temporary failure, to do whatsoever his hand findeth to do with all his might.

W. ASHTON ELLIS.

FEAR.

Why fearest thou the darksome shades
That creep across the path of life?
Why tremble at the thought of strife
That oftentimes the soul invades?

Why sicken at the thought of ills?
The horrors that invade thy dreams,
The shadowland of forms, that seems
Dark terror to the soul it fills?

Why weary of the onward way,
Or dread the roughness of the road?
Why fear to struggle ’gainst the load,
The heavy burthen of life’s clay?

Hast thou not seen?—when gone the night
And stilled the dropping of the shower,
The weary drooping wayside flower
Drink in new life from sunbeams bright.

Hast thou not loved, at dawn, to feast,
The longing of thy mortal eyes
With vivid colours of the skies,
Burst free from floodgates of the East?

And hast thou never tried, in thought,
To gain a clearer, truer view?
A mystic glimpse, a vision new,
That shows the darkness as it ought?

A phantom of material fear
Unworthy of a moment’s dread;
For darkness would itself be dead,
Unless its mother light were near!

Then learn to grasp the purer light,
And learn to know the holier creed—
The brighter glow—the greater need,
The nearer day—the murkier night.

P. H. D.

THE ESOTERIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS.

(_Continued._)

II.

The word Chréstos existed ages before Christianity was heard of. It is found used, from the fifth century B.C., by Herodotus, by Æschylus and other classical Greek writers, the meaning of it being applied to both things and persons.

Thus in Æschylus (Cho. 901) we read of Μαντεύματα πυθόχρηστα (_pythochrésta_) the “oracles delivered by a Pythian God” (_Greek-Eng. Lex._) through a pythoness; and _Pythochréstos_ is the nominative singular of an adjective derived from _chrao_ χράω (Eurip. _Ion_, 1, 218). The later meanings coined freely from this primitive application, are numerous and varied. Pagan classics expressed more than one idea by the verb χράομαι “consulting an oracle”; for it also means “fated,” _doomed_ by an oracle, in the sense of a _sacrificial victim to its decree_, or—“to the WORD”; as _chrésterion_ is not only “the seat of an oracle” but also “an offering to, or for, the oracle.”[83] _Chrestés_ χρήστης is one who expounds or explains oracles, “a _prophet_, a _soothsayer_;”[84] and _chrésterios_ χρηστὴριος is one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a “Master”;[85] this Canon Farrar’s efforts notwithstanding.[86]

-----

Footnote 83:

The word χρεών is explained by Herodotus (7. 11. 7.) as that which
an oracle declares, and τὸ χρεών is given by Plutarch (Nic. 14.)
as “fate,” “necessity.” _Vide_ Herod, 7. 215; 5. 108; and
Sophocles, Phil. 437.

Footnote 84:

See Liddell and Scott’s Greek-Engl. Lex.

Footnote 85:

Hence of a _Guru_, “a teacher,” and _chela_, a “disciple,” in
their mutual relations.

Footnote 86:

In his recent work—“The Early Days of Christianity,” Canon Farrar
remarks:—“Some have supposed a pleasant play of words founded on
it, as ... between _Chréstos_ (‘sweet’ Ps. xxx., iv., 8) and
Christos (Christ)” (I. p. 158, _foot-note_). But there is nothing
to suppose, since it began by a “play of words,” indeed. The name
_Christus_ was _not_ “distorted into Chrestus,” as the learned
author would make his readers believe (p. 19), but it was the
adjective and noun _Chréstos_ which became distorted into
_Christus_, and applied to Jesus. In a foot-note on the word
“Chrestian,” occurring in the First Epistle of Peter (chap. iv.,
16), in which in the _revised_ later MSS. the word was changed
into _Christian_, Canon Farrar remarks again, “Perhaps we should
read the ignorant heathen distortion, _Chréstian_.” Most decidedly
we should; for the eloquent writer should remember his Master’s
command to render unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s. His dislike
notwithstanding, Mr. Farrar is obliged to admit that the name
_Christian_ was first INVENTED, by the sneering, mocking
Antiochians, as early as A.D. 44, but had not come into general
use before the persecution by Nero. “Tacitus,” he says, “uses the
word Christians with something of apology. It is well known that
in the N. T. it only occurs three times, and always involves a
hostile sense (_Acts_ xi. 26, xxvi. 28, as it does in iv. 16).” It
was not Claudius alone who looked with alarm and suspicion on the
Christians, so nicknamed in derision for their carnalizing a
subjective principle or attribute, but all the pagan nations. For
Tacitus, speaking of those whom the masses called “Christians,”
describes them as a set of men _detested for their enormities_ and
crimes. No wonder, for history repeats itself. There are, no
doubt, thousands of noble, sincere, and virtuous _Christian-born_
men and women now. But we have only to look at the viciousness of
Christian “heathen” converts; at the _morality_ of those
proselytes in India, whom the missionaries themselves decline to
take into their service, to draw a parallel between the converts
of 1,800 years ago, and the modern heathens “touched _by grace_.”

-----

All this is evidence that the terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally _Chrést_ and _Chréstians_ χρηστιανοὶ[87] were directly borrowed from the Temple terminology of the Pagans, and meant the same thing. The God of the Jews was now substituted for the Oracle and the other gods; the generic designation “Chréstos” became a noun applied to one special personage; and new terms such as _Chréstianoï_ and _Chréstodoulos_ “a follower or servant of Chrestos”—were coined out of the old material. This is shown by Philo Judæus, a monotheist, assuredly, using already the same term for monotheistic purposes. For he speaks of θεόχρηστος (_théochréstos_) “God-declared,” or one who is declared by god, and of λόγια θεόχρηστα (_logia théochrésta_) “sayings delivered by God”—which proves that he wrote at a time (between the first century B.C., and the first A.D.) when neither Christians nor Chrestians were yet known under these names, but still called themselves the Nazarenes. The notable difference between the two words χράω—“consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle” (χρεω being the Ionic earlier form of it), and χριω (_chrio_) “to rub, to anoint” (from which the name Christos), have not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coinage from Philo’s expression θεόχρηστος of that other term θεόχριστος “anointed by God.” Thus the quiet substitution of the letter ι for η for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way, as we now see.

-----

Footnote 87:

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, Clemens Alexandrinus, and
others spelt it in this way.

-----

The secular meaning of _Chréstos_ runs throughout the classical Greek literature _pari passu_ with that given to it in the mysteries. Demosthenes’ saying ω χρηστέ (330, 27), means by it simply “you nice fellow”; Plato (in Phaed. 264 B) has χρηστός ει ὅτι ἣγεῖ—“you are an excellent fellow to think....” But in the esoteric phraseology of the temples “chrestos,”[88] a word which, like the participle _chréstheis_, is formed under the same rule, and conveys the same sense—from the verb χράομαι(“to consult a god”)—answers to what we would call an adept, also a high _chela_, a disciple. It is in this sense that it is used by Euripides (Ion. 1320) and by Æschylus (1 C). This qualification was applied to those whom the god, oracle, or any superior had proclaimed this, that, or anything else. An instance may be given in this case.

-----

Footnote 88:

_Vide_ Liddell and Scott’s Greek and English Lexicon. _Chréstos_
is really one who is continually warned, advised, guided, whether
by oracle or prophet. Mr. G. Massey is not correct in saying that
“... The Gnostic form of the name Chrest, or Chrestos, denotes the
_Good God_, not a human original,” for it denoted the latter,
_i.e._, a good, holy man; but he is quite right when he adds that
“_Chrestianus_ signifies ... ‘Sweetness and Light.’” “The
_Chrestoi_, as the _Good People_, were pre-extant. Numerous Greek
inscriptions show that the departed, the hero, the saintly
one—that is, the ‘Good’—was styled _Chrestos_, or the Christ; and
from this meaning of the ‘Good’ does Justin, the primal apologist,
derive the Christian name. This identifies it with the Gnostic
source, and with the ‘Good God’ who revealed himself according to
Marcion—that is, the Un-Nefer or Good-opener of the Egyptian
theology.”—(_Agnostic Annual._)

-----

The words χρῆσεν οικιστῆρα used by Pindar (p. 4-10) mean “the oracle _proclaimed_ him the coloniser.” In this case the genius of the Greek language permits that the man so proclaimed should be called χρήστος (_Chréstos_). Hence this term was applied to every Disciple recognised by a Master, as also to every good man. Now, the Greek language affords strange etymologies. Christian theology has chosen and decreed that the name Christos should be taken as derived from χρίΩ, χρίσω (Chriso), “anointed with scented unguents or oil.” But this word has several significances. It is used by Homer, certainly, as applied to the rubbing with oil of the body after bathing (_Il._ 23, 186; also in _Od._ 4, 252) as other ancient writers do. Yet the word χρίστης (_Christes_) means rather a _white-washer_, while the word Chrestes (χρήστης) means priest and prophet, a term far more applicable to Jesus, than that of the “Anointed,” since, as Nork shows on the authority of the Gospels, he never was anointed, either as king or priest. In short, there is a deep mystery underlying all this scheme, which, as I maintain, only a thorough knowledge of the Pagan mysteries is capable of unveiling.[89] It is not what the early Fathers, who had an object to achieve, may affirm or deny, that is the important point, but rather what is now the evidence for the real significance given to the two terms _Chréstos_ and _Christos_ by the ancients in the pre-Christian ages. For the latter had no object to achieve, therefore nothing to conceal or disfigure, and their evidence is naturally the more reliable of the two. This evidence can be obtained by first studying the meaning given to these words by the classics, and then their correct significance searched for in mystic symbology.

-----

Footnote 89:

Again I must bring forward what Mr. G. Massey says (whom I quote
repeatedly because he has studied this subject so thoroughly and
so conscientiously).

“My contention, or rather explanation,” he says, “is that the
author of the Christian name is the Mummy-Christ of Egypt, called
the _Karest_, which was a type of the immortal spirit in man, the
Christ within (as Paul has it), the divine offspring incarnated,
the Logos, the Word of Truth, the _Makheru_ of Egypt. It did not
originate as a mere type! The preserved mummy was the _dead body
of any one_ that was _Karest_, or mummified, to be kept by the
living; and, through constant repetition, this became a type of
the resurrection from (not of!) the dead.” See the explanation of
this further on.

-----

Now _Chrestos_, as already said, is a term applied in various senses. It qualifies both Deity and Man. It is used in the former sense in the Gospels, and in Luke (vi., 35), where it means “kind,” and “merciful.” “χρηστός ἑστιν επι τους,” in 1 Peter (ii, 3), where it is said, “Kind is the Lord,” χρηστός ὁ κύριος. On the other hand, it is explained by Clemens Alexandrinus as simply meaning a good man; _i.e._ “All who believe in _Chrést_ (a good man) both _are_, and _are called Chréstians_, that is good men.” (Strom. lib. ii.) The reticence of Clemens, whose Christianity, as King truly remarks in his “_Gnostics_,” was no more than a graft upon the congenial stock of his original Platonism, is quite natural. He was an Initiate, a new Platonist, before he became a Christian, which fact, however much he may have fallen off from his earlier views, could not exonerate him from his pledge of secrecy. And as a Theosophist and a _Gnostic_, one who _knew_, Clemens must have known that _Christos_ was “the WAY,” while _Chréstos_ was the lonely traveller journeying on to reach the ultimate goal through that “Path,” which goal was _Christos_, the glorified Spirit of “TRUTH,” the reunion with which makes the soul (the Son) ONE with the (Father) Spirit. That Paul knew it, is certain, for his own expressions prove it. For what do the words πάλιν ὠδίνω, ἅχρις οὕ μορφωθῆ χριστὸς ἐνὺμῖν, or, as given in the authorised translations, “I am again in travail until _Christ be formed in you_” mean, but what we give in its esoteric rendering, _i.e._ “until you find _the_ Christos within yourselves as your only ‘way.’” (_vide_ Galatians iv., 19 and 20.)

Thus Jesus, whether of Nazareth or Lüd,[90] was a Chréstos, as undeniably as that he never was entitled to the appellation of _Christos_, during his life-time and before his last trial. It may have been as Higgins thinks, who surmises that the first name of Jesus was, perhaps, χρεισος the second χρησος, and the third χρισος. “The word χρεισος was in use before the H (cap. _eta_) was in the language.” But Taylor (in his answer to Pye Smith, p. 113) is quoted saying “The complimentary epithet Chrest ... signified nothing more than a good man.”

-----

Footnote 90:

Or Lydda. Reference is made here to the Rabbinical tradition in
the Babylonian Gemara, called _Sepher Toledoth Jeshu_, about Jesus
being the son of one named Pandira, and having lived a century
earlier than the era called Christian, namely, during the reign of
the Jewish king Alexander Jannæus and his wife Salome, who reigned
from the year 106 to 79 B.C. Accused by the Jews of having learned
the magic art in Egypt, and of having stolen from the Holy of
Holies the Incommunicable Name, Jehoshua (Jesus) was put to death
by the Sanhedrin at Lud. He was stoned and then crucified on a
tree, on the eve of Passover. The narrative is ascribed to the
Talmudistic authors of “Sota” and “Sanhedrin,” p. 19, Book of
Zechiel. See “Isis Unveiled,” II. 201; Arnobius; Elephas Levi’s
“_Science des Esprits_,” and “The Historical Jesus and Mythical
Christ,” a lecture by G. Massey.

-----

Here again a number of ancient writers may be brought forward to testify that _Christos_ (or _Chreistos_, rather) was, along with χρησος = Hrésos, an adjective applied to Gentiles before the Christian era. In _Philopatris_ it is said ει τυχοι χρηστος και εν εθνεσιν, _i.e._ “if chrestos chance to be even among the Gentiles,” etc.

Tertullian denounces in the 3rd chapter of his _Apologia_ the word “_Christianus_” as derived by “crafty interpretation;”[91] Dr. Jones, on the other hand, letting out the information, corroborated by good sources, that _Hrésos_ χρησός was the name given to Christ by the Gnostics, and even by unbelievers,” assures us that the real name ought to be χρισος or Chrisos—thus repeating and supporting the original “pious fraud” of the early Fathers, a fraud which led to the carnalizing of the whole Christian system.[92] But I propose to show as much of the real meaning of all these terms as lies within my humble powers and knowledge. Christos, or the “Christ-condition,” was ever the synonym of the “Mahatmic-condition,” _i.e._, the union of the man with the divine principle in him. As Paul says (Ephes. iii. 17) “κατοικησαι τον χριστον δια της πιστεως εν ταις καρδιαις ὑμωι.” “That you may find Christos in your _inner_ man through _knowledge_” not faith, as translated; for _Pistis_ is “knowledge,” as will be shown further on.

-----

Footnote 91:

“Christianus quantum interpretatione de unctione deducitas. Sed ut
cum perferam Chrestianus pronunciatus a vobis (nam nec nominis
certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benignitate
compositum est.” Canon Farrar makes a great effort to show such
_lapsus calami_ by various Fathers as the results of disgust and
fear. “There can be little doubt,” he says (in _The Early Days of
Christianity_) “that the ... name Christian ... was a nick-name
due to the wit of the Antiochians.... It is clear that the sacred
writers avoided the name (Christians) because it was employed by
their enemies (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). It only became familiar when the
virtues of Christians had shed lustre upon it....” This is a very
lame excuse, and a poor explanation to give for so eminent a
thinker as Canon Farrar. As to the “virtues of Christians” ever
shedding _lustre_ upon the name, let us hope that the writer had
in his mind’s eye neither Bishop Cyril, of Alexandria, nor
Eusebius, nor the Emperor Constantine, of murderous fame, nor yet
the Popes Borgia and the Holy Inquisition.

Footnote 92:

Quoted by G. Higgins. (See Vol. I., pp. 569-573.)

-----

There is still another and far more weighty proof that the name _Christos_ is pre-Christian. The evidence for it is found in the prophecy of the Erythrean Sybil. We read in it ἹΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΕΙΣΤΟΣΘΕΟΝ ὙΙΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ. Read esoterically, this string of meaningless detached nouns, which has no sense to the profane, contains a real prophecy—only not referring to Jesus—and a verse from the mystic catechism of the Initiate. The prophecy relates to the coming down upon the Earth of the Spirit of Truth (Christos), after which advent—that has once more nought to do with Jesus—will begin the Golden Age; the verse refers to the necessity before reaching that blessed condition of inner (or subjective) theophany and theopneusty, to pass through the crucifixion of flesh or matter. Read exoterically, the words “_Iesous Chreistos theou yios soter stauros_,” meaning literally “Iesus, Christos, God, Son, Saviour, Cross,” are most excellent handles to hang a Christian prophecy on, but they are _pagan_, not Christian.

If called upon to explain the names IESOUS CHREISTOS, the answer is: study mythology, the so-called “fictions” of the ancients, and they will give you the key. Ponder over Apollo, the solar god, and the “Healer,” and the allegory about his son Janus (or Ion), his priest at Delphos, through whom alone could prayers reach the immortal gods, and his other son Asclepios, called the _Soter_, or Saviour. Here is a leaflet from esoteric history written in symbolical phraseology by the old Grecian poets.

The city of Chrisa[93] (now spelt Crisa), was built in memory of Kreusa (or Creusa), daughter of King Erechtheus and mother of Janus (or Ion) by Apollo, in memory of the danger which Janus escaped.[94] We learn that Janus, abandoned by his mother in a grotto “to hide the shame of the virgin who bore a son,” was found by Hermes, who brought the infant to Delphi, nurtured him by his father’s sanctuary and oracle, where, under the name of Chresis (χρησις) Janus became first a _Chrestis_ (a priest, soothsayer, or Initiate), and then very nearly a _Chresterion_, “a sacrificial victim,”[95] ready to be poisoned by his own mother, who knew him not, and who, in her jealousy, mistook him, on the hazy intimation of the oracle, for a son of her husband. He pursued her to the very altar with the intention of killing her—when she was saved through the pythoness, who divulged to both the secret of their relationship. In memory of this narrow escape, Creusa, the mother, built the city of Chrisa, or Krisa. Such is the allegory, and it symbolizes simply the trials of Initiation.[96]

-----

Footnote 93:

In the days of Homer, we find this city, once celebrated for its
mysteries, the chief seat of Initiation, and the name of
_Chrestos_ used as a title during the mysteries. It is mentioned
in the _Iliad_, ii., 520 as “Chrisa” (χρῖσα). Dr. Clarke suspected
its ruins under the present site of _Krestona_, a small town, or
village rather, in Phocis, near the Crissæan Bay. (See E. D.
Clarke, 4th ed. Vol. viii. p. 239, “Delphi.”)

Footnote 94:

The root of χρητός (_Chretos_) and χρηστος (_Chrestos_) is one and
the same; χράω which means “consulting the oracle,” in one sense,
but in another one “consecrated,” _set apart_, belonging to some
temple, or oracle, or devoted to oracular services. On the other
hand, the word χρε (χρεω) means “obligation,” a “bond, duty,” or
one who is under the obligation of pledges, or vows taken.

Footnote 95:

The adjective χρηστὸς was also used as an adjective before proper
names as a compliment, as in Plat. Theact. p. 166A, “Ὁυτος ὁ
Σωκράτης ὁ χρηστός;” (here Socrates is the _Chréstos_), and also
as a surname, as shown by Plutarch (V. Phocion), who wonders how
such a rough and dull fellow as Phocion could be surnamed
_Chréstos_.

Footnote 96:

There are strange features, quite suggestive, for an Occultist, in
the myth (if one) of Janus. Some make of him the personification
of _Kosmos_, others, of _Cælus_ (heaven), hence he is “two-faced”
because of his two characters of spirit and matter; and he is not
only “Janus _Bifrons_” (two-faced), but also _Quadrifrons_—the
perfect square, the emblem of the Kabbalistic Deity. His temples
were built with _four_ equal sides, with a door and _three_
windows on each side. Mythologists explain it as an emblem of the
_four_ seasons of the year, and _three_ months in each season, and
in all of the twelve months of the year. During the mysteries of
Initiation, however, he became the Day-Sun and the Night-Sun.
Hence he is often represented with the number 300 in one hand, and
in the other 65, or the number of days of the Solar year. Now
_Chanoch_ (Kanoch and _Enosh_ in the Bible) is, as may be shown on
Kabalistic authority, whether son of Cain, son of Seth, or the son
of Methuselah, one and the same personage. As _Chanoch_ (according
to Fuerst), he is the _Initiator_, _Instructor_—of the
astronomical circle and solar year,” as son of Methuselah, who is
said to have lived 365 years and been taken to heaven alive, as
the representative of the Sun (or god). (See Book of Enoch.) This
patriarch has many features in common with Janus, who,
exoterically, is Ion but IAO cabalistically, or Jehovah, the “Lord
God of Generations,” the mysterious Yodh, or ONE (a phallic
number). For Janus or Ion is also _Consivius, a conserendo_,
because he presided over generations. He is shown giving
hospitality to Saturn (_Chronos_ “time”), and is the _Initiator_
of the year, or time divided into 365.

-----

Finding then that Janus, the solar God, and son of Apollo, the Sun, means the “Initiator” and the “Opener of the Gate of Light,” or secret wisdom of the mysteries; that he is born from Krisa (esoterically _Chris_), and that he was a _Chrestos_ through whom spoke the God; that he was finally Ion, the father of the Ionians, and, some say, an _aspect_ of Asclepios, another son of Apollo, it is easy to get hold of the thread of Ariadne in this labyrinth of allegories. It is not the place here to prove side issues in mythology, however. It suffices to show the connection between the mythical characters of hoary antiquity and the later fables that marked the beginning of our era of civilization. Asclepios (Esculapius) was the divine physician, the “Healer,” the “Saviour,” Σωτηρ as he was called, a title also given to Janus of Delphi; and IASO, the daughter of Asclepios was the goddess of healing, under whose patronage were all the candidates for initiation in her father’s temple, the novices or _chrestoi_, called “the sons of Iaso.” (_Vide_ for name, “Plutus,” by Aristoph. 701).

Now, if we remember, firstly, that the names of IESUS in their different forms, such as Iasius, Iasion, Jason and Iasus, were very common in ancient Greece, especially among the descendants of Jasius (the Jasides), as also the number of the “sons of Iaso,” the _Mystoï_ and future Epoptai (Initiates), why should not the enigmatical words in the Sibylline Book be read in their legitimate light, one that had nought to do with a Christian prophecy? The secret doctrine teaches that the first two words ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΕΙΣΤΟΣ mean simply “son of Iaso, a Chrestos,” or servant of the oracular God. Indeed IASO (Ιασω) _is in the Ionic dialect IESO_ (Ἱησὼ), and the expression Ιησους (_Iesous_)—in its archaic form, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ—simply means “the son of Iaso or _Ieso_, the healer,” _i.e._ ο Ιησοῦς (υῖος). No objection, assuredly, can be taken to such rendering, or to the name being written _Ieso_ instead of _Iaso_, since the first form is _attic_, therefore incorrect, for the name is _Ionic_. “Ieso” from which “O’ Iesous” (son of Ieso)—_i.e._ a genitive, not a nominative—_is Ionic and cannot_ be anything else, if the age of the Sibylline book is taken into consideration. Nor could the Sibyl of Erythrea have spelt it originally otherwise, as Erythrea, her very residence, was a town in Ionia (from Ion or Janus) opposite Chios; and that the _Ionic_ preceded the _attic_ form.

Leaving aside in this case the mystical signification of the now famous Sibylline sentence, and giving its literal interpretation only, on the authority of all that has been said, the hitherto mysterious words would stand; “Son of IASO, CHRESTOS (the priest or servant) (of the) SON of (the) GOD (Apollo) the SAVIOUR from the CROSS”—(of flesh or matter).[97] Truly, Christianity can never hope to be understood until every trace of dogmatism is swept away from it, and the dead letter sacrificed to the eternal Spirit of Truth, which is Horus, which is Crishna, which is Buddha, as much as it is the Gnostic Christos and the true Christ of Paul.

In the _Travels_ of Dr. Clarke, the author describes a heathen monument found by him.

-----

Footnote 97:

_Stauros_ became the cross, the instrument of crucifixion, far
later, when it began to be represented as a Christian symbol and
with the Greek letter T, the Tau. (Luc. Jud. Voc.) Its primitive
meaning was phallic, a symbol for the male and female elements;
the great serpent of temptation, the body which had to be killed
or subdued by the dragon of wisdom, the seven-vowelled solar
chnouphis or Spirit of Christos of the Gnostics, or, again, Apollo
killing Python.

-----

“Within the sanctuary, behind the altar, we saw the fragments of a
_marble cathedra_, upon the back of which we found the following
inscription, exactly as it is here written, no part of it having
been injured or obliterated, affording perhaps the only instance
known of a sepulchral inscription upon a monument of this
remarkable form.”

The inscription ran thus: ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΥ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΣ ΛΑΡΙΣΣΑΙΟΣ ΠΕΛΑΣΓΙΟΤΗΣ ΕΤΩΝ ΙΗ or, “Chrestos, the first, a Thessalonian from Larissa, Pelasgiot 18 years old Hero,” Chrestos the _first_ (_protoo_), why? Read literally the inscription has little sense; interpreted esoterically, it is pregnant with meaning. As Dr. Clarke shows, the word Chrestos is found on the epitaphs of almost all the ancient Larissians; but it is preceded always by a proper name. Had the adjective Chrestos stood after a name, it would only mean “a good man,” a posthumous compliment paid to the defunct, the same being often found on our own modern tumular epitaphs. But the word Chrestos, standing alone and the other word, “protoo,” following it, gives it quite another meaning, especially when the deceased is specified as a “hero.” To the mind of an Occultist, the defunct was a neophyte, who had died in his 18th year _of neophytism_,[98] and stood in the first or highest class of discipleship, having passed his preliminary trials as a “hero;” but had died before the last mystery, which would have made of him a “Christos,” an _anointed_, one with the spirit of Christos or Truth in him. He had not reached the end of the “Way,” though he had heroically conquered the horrors of the preliminary theurgic trials.

-----

Footnote 98:

Even to this day in India, the candidate loses his name and, as
also in Masonry, his age (monks and nuns also changing their
Christian names at their taking the order or veil), and begins
counting his years from the day he is accepted a chela and enters
upon the cycle of initiations. Thus Saul was “a child of one
year,” when he began to reign, though a grown-up adult. See 1
Samuel ch. xiii. 1, and Hebrew scrolls, about his initiation by
Samuel.

-----