Chapter XXI

I have stated that it was from the _Pish_-de-danaans or Yavana philosophers of Egypt that Moses had learned the allegories of the Deluge and of the Fall. I now add, _that it was by them also he had been instructed in that consolatory assurance which told him_ that the “Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.”[315]

In truth, it was this very promise made to the ancestors of those people in _Paradise_, which is but another name for _Iran_,[316] that gave rise to the _schism_ between them and the _Tuath_-de-danaans.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy _conception_; in sorrow thou shalt _bring forth children_: and thy _desire_ shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”[317]

The _nature_ of the _crime_ is here clearly denoted by the _suitableness_ of the _punishment_.[318] But the same over-ruling Judge, who, in conformity with His justice, could not but chastise the violation of His injunctions, yet, in mercy to man’s weakness, and seeing that “he also is flesh,” condescended to promise that the _instrument_ of his _seduction_ should be also the _vehicle_ of his _redeeming triumph_.

“I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”[319]

Pinning their faith upon the literal fulfilment of these terms, which told them that the _female, as such_, would be the unaided author of a _being_, whose healing effects would restore them to the inheritance so heedlessly forfeited, their veneration for that _symbol_ of divine interposition became correspondingly unbounded; and their enthusiasm for the principle of its strict verification was what engendered the thought that in the general procreating scheme the _yoni_ was the _vivifier_.

The _Tuath_-de-danaans or Lingajas, on the other hand, were not less satisfied in their security; but looking upon the terms with a more _spiritual_ interpretation, and led by the operation of ordinary _physics_ to consider the question as a _deviation_ from the _general rule_, they erected the symbol of _male_ capability as the standard of their doctrine. And thus, while the zeal of both parties shook the very framework of society, yet did they _concur_ in all the _essentials_ of their respective religions; and even the particulars of that _prospect_ by which they were both sustained, instead of operating as an exception to the universality of this truth, only confirm its import.

The Jews, who were but _newly_ brought forward upon the stage, and who, in the inscrutable councils of heaven, were selected as the objects of God’s immediate superintendence, being informed of the tenour of the paradisaical hope, abused it more wantonly than ever did the _Pish_-de-danaans or the _Tuath_-de-danaans.

Unable to comprehend, from their narrow mental calibre, any _agency_ in the form of a divine _emanation_, and yet fancying, each of them, that she would herself be the mother of the expected Redeemer, their women indulged in all the lusts of _desire_, and, where no opportunity offered for licensed gratification, revelled in the arms of incest.

This alone can apologise for that intensity of passion, exceeding even the dictates of natural thirst, and unrestrained by the consideration of decency or consanguinity, whereof we read in the Old Testament, respecting the Israelitish daughters;[320] while it also demonstrates that the _carnality_ of their souls did not allow them thoroughly to understand the precise nature of the _favour_ designed.

Far otherwise the case with the _intellectual_ races, which they were now appointed to supersede.

“In order to reclaim the vicious, to punish the incorrigible, to protect the oppressed, to destroy the oppressor, to encourage and reward the good, and to show all spirits the path to their ultimate happiness, God has been pleased to manifest Himself, say the Brahmins, in a variety of ways, from age to age, in all parts of the habitable globe. When He acts immediately, without assuming a shape, or sending forth a new emanation, when a divine sound is heard from the sky, that manifestation of Himself is called _acasavani_, or an ethereal voice: when the voice proceeds from a meteor or a flame, it is said to be _agnarupi_, or _formed of fire_; but an _avatara_ is a descent of the Deity in the shape of a mortal; and an _avantara_ is a similar incarnation of an inferior kind, intended to answer some purpose of less moment. The Supreme Being, and the celestial emanations from Him, are _niracara_, or bodiless, in which state they must be invisible to mortals; but when they are _pratya-sha_, or obvious to sight, they become _sacara_, or embodied, either in shapes different from that of any mortal, and expressive of the divine attributes, as Chrishna revealed himself to Arjun, or in a human form, _which Chrishna usually bore, and in that mode of appearing the deities are generally supposed to be born of women without any carnal intercourse_.”[321]

Is this repugnant to the spirit of Christianity? No; it is its counterpart. “I know,” says Job, in the moment of inspiration, “that my Redeemer liveth.”[322] Prophetically, you reply; and you back the opinion by our Saviour’s own appeal that “Abraham saw his day, and was glad.”[323]

Abraham certainly believed by anticipation, but Job by retrospection. And if you will not think my assertion decisive of the matter, I will produce an authority to which you will more readily subscribe.

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not written in the book of life of _the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world_.”[324]

It will be in vain for you to attempt to parry the evidence of this startling text. No visionary _foresight_ will accomplish its defeat: no ideal _substitutions_ will shake its validity.

“How it came to pass,” says Skelton, “that the Egyptians, Arabians, and Indians, before Christ came among us, and the inhabitants of the extreme northern parts of the world, ere they had so much as heard of Him, _paid a remarkable veneration to the sign of the cross_, is to me unknown, but _the fact itself_ is known. In some places this sign was given to men accused of a crime, but acquitted: and _in Egypt it stood for the signification of eternal life_.”[325]

“V. W.” has asserted something similar;[326] but neither one nor the other has attempted to fathom its origin.

“The Druids,” adds Schedius, “seek studiously for an oak tree, large and handsome, growing up with _two principal arms, in form of a cross_, beside the main stem upright. If the two _horizontal arms_ are not sufficiently adapted to the figure, they fasten a _cross_-beam to it. This tree they consecrate in this manner. Upon the right branch, they cut in the back, in fair characters, the word _Hesus_: upon the middle or upright stem, the word _Taramis_: upon the left branch, _Belenus_: over this, above the going off of the arms, they cut the name of God, _Thau_: under all, the same repeated _Thau_.”[327]

“The form of the great temple,” observes Dr. Macculloch, “at Loch Bernera, in the Isle of Lewis the chief isle of the Hebrides, is that of a _cross_, containing, at the intersection, a circle with a central stone; an additional line being superadded on one side of the longest arms, and nearly parallel to it. Were this line absent, its proportion would be nearly that of the Roman cross, or common crucifix.”

And then, in reply to the supposition of its having been converted by the _Christians_ into this form, he avers that “the whole is too consistent, and too much of one age, to admit of such; while at the same time, it could not, under any circumstances, have been applicable to a Christian worship. Its essential part, the circular area, and the number of similar structures found in the vicinity, equally bespeak its ancient origin. It must, therefore, be concluded, that the cruciform shape was given by the original contrivers of the fabric; and it will afford an object of speculation to antiquaries, who, if they are sometimes accused of _heaping additional obscurity on the records of antiquity_, must also be allowed the frequent merit of eliciting light from darkness. _To them I willingly consign all further speculations concerning it._”[328]... “Yet it seems _unquestionable_ that the figure of a cross was known to the Gothic nations, and also used by them _before they were_ converted to Christianity.”[329]

I do not know whether or not would the Doctor deem _me_ an “antiquary,” or if he did, in _which class_ would he assign me a place. I will undertake, notwithstanding, to solve this difficulty with as much precision as I have the others before it.

The _existence_ of the “cross,” and its _worship_, anterior to the Christian era, being no longer liable to dispute, it remains only that we investigate the _cause_ which it commemorates.[330]

Our first aid in this research will be the notice of its accompaniments; and when we find that it goes ever in the train of a particular divinity, are we not compelled to connect that divinity with the idea of a crucifixion?

_Taut_, amongst the Egyptians, is emblemised by _three_ crosses.[331] The Scandinavians represent their _Teutates_ by a cross. And a cross is the device by which the Irish _Tuath_ is perpetuated.

But these are all one and the same name, varied by the genius of the different countries. The _centre_ from which they _diverge_, as well as the _focus_ to which they _return_, I have shown to be _Budh_: and as this _symbol_ of his worship is universally recognised, does not the _crucifixion_ thus implied identify his fate with that of the “Lamb slain from the beginning of the world”?[332]

The Pythonic _allegory_ which the Greeks have so obscured, in reality originated in this religious transaction. For what is their fable? Is it not that _Apollo_ slew with his _arrow_ the serpent _Python_? And as Apollo means _son of the Sun_, is not the _substance_ of the whole, that the _offspring of a virgin’s womb_--that is, an _emanation of the Sun_, or _Budh_--overcame by his own _death_--typified by an _arrow_--sin and _sensuality_, of which the _serpent_, _i.e._ _pith_, is the symbol?

We are now prepared for the reception of that chronicle, transmitted through the Puranas, and noticed already at p. 221, viz. that a “giant, named Sancha-mucha-naga, in the shape of a _snake_, with a _mouth_ like a _shell_, and whose abode was in a _shell_, having _two countenances_, was killed by Christnah.”

The _very name_ of this allegoric “giant” indicates the _mysterious snake_--his being in the _form_ of a _snake_ is but the _personification_ of _sensuality_; his having a _mouth_ like a _shell_ alludes to the _concha Veneris_, or the _Pith_; his having his _abode_ in that _shell_ denotes its being the _seat_ of _temptation_; his having _two countenances_ implies the _disguise_ which _sin_ assumes; and his being _slain_ by _Christnah_ denotes that the _Son of God_, by _mortification and self-denial, and the most rigid abstinence from all worldly pleasures_, verified in _His own person the promise made in Paradise_, and for the _minor disquietudes_ which _guilt_ entails--expressed by the “_heel_” being “_bruised_” by the “_serpent_,”--inflicted a _blow_, which laid low his empire, and stamped the signal of _victory_ over his “head.”[333]

“Ye search the Scriptures,” says our Saviour “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which _testify_ of Me.”[334]

_Testification_ can be made only in the case of a past occurrence. It is never used in the way of prophecy. And in conformity with its true import, you will find, from Genesis to Revelation, the concurrent tenor of the Sacred Volume giving proof to the fact of Christ’s former appearance upon the earth as man!

But suppose me for a moment to descend from this position, and view those previous manifestations as ordinary subjects of history, then hear an outline of what is transmitted to us respecting one of them.

Chanakya, Zacha, or, as our registers have it, Macha,[335] one of the personifications of Budh, the general appellative of those heaven-sent devotees, was so startling a paragon of human impeccability, as to inspire his followers with the conviction of his being an incarnation of the Godhead.

He is stated to have been the son of one of the most powerful of eastern kings; but, according to their preconceived notions of the future Redeemer, born of his mother without any knowledge of the other sex.

The circumstances attendant upon his infantine education, and the precocity of his parts, favoured an inauguration upon which their fancies had been long riveted. After a laborious ordeal of pious austerity, not without miraculous proofs and other intimations of Divine approval, he was duly admitted to the honour of canonisation, and entered, accordingly, upon his task of consigned Saviour of the world.

The encounters with which he had to contend, in this uphill work, against flesh and blood, were those which were, afterwards, again combated by the _admitted_ Saviour whom he had personated. The same faults he reprehended; the same weakness he deplored; the same hypocrisy he rebuked; and the same virtues he inculcated. The purification of the inner spirit was the object which both professed, and the improvement of human morals in social intercourse and relation, the evidence in practice, upon which both equally insisted.

If Christ promised a _heaven_ to the votaries of His truths, Budha did a _nirwana_ to his disciples and imitators: and though the former place, to our imagination, sounds _replete with all delights_, while the latter is merely figured as exempt from all _painfulness_, yet _both_ agree in one particular, not a little soothing to wounded hope, in being essentially such, as where “the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest.”

But great as was the resemblance which the personal example and the doctrinal lessons of Macha and Christ bore to one another, it was as nothing compared to the almost incredible similitude of their respective departures. They both died the inglorious death of the _cross_ to reconcile man to his offended Creator; and in confident dependence upon the best authenticated assurance, exulted on the occasion, however galling the process, of expiating, by their own sufferings, the accumulated sins of humanity.

Is it to be wondered at, therefore, that the traces which they have left behind them, in their different ages, should bear an analogy to one another? Or would not the wonder rather be that they did not, in all respects, harmonise?

“Let not the piety of the Catholic Christian,” says the Rev. Mr. Maurice, “be offended at the preceding assertion, that the _cross_ was one of the most usual symbols among the hieroglyphics of Egypt and India. Equally honoured in the Gentile and the Christian world, this emblem of universal nature, of that world to whose quarters its diverging radii pointed, decorated the hands of most of the sculptured images in the former country, and in the latter stamped its form upon the most majestic of the shrines of their deities.”[336]

The _fact_ alone is here attested to: not a syllable is said as to the _reason why_: and though I cannot but recognise the _scruples_ of the _writer_, nor withhold my admiration from the _rotundity_ in which the diction has been cast, yet the reader must have seen that, as to _actual illustration_, it is--like the Rev. Mr. Deane’s _flourish_ about the worship of the serpent--“_Vox et præterea nihil_!”[337]

“You do err, not knowing the Scriptures,”[338] said a Master, _without pride_, and _who could not err_. If the remark applied in _His_ day, it is not the less urgent in ours. So astounding did the correspondence between the Christian and the Budhist doctrines appear to the early missionaries to Thibet and the adjacent countries--a correspondence not limited to mere points of _faith_ and preceptorial maxims, but exhibiting its operation in all the outward details of _form_, the inhabitants going even so far as to wear _crosses_ around their necks--that Thevenot, Renaudot, Lacroze, and Andrada, have supposed in their ignorance of the cause of such affinity, that Budhism must have been a vitiation of _Christianity_ before planted; whereas _Budhism_ flourished thousands of years before it, or Brahminism either; and _this cross was the symbol of Budha crucified_.

“Our second illustration,” says the _Dublin Penny Journal_, referring to what I have here introduced, “belongs to a later period, and will give a good idea of the usual mode of representing the _Saviour_, whether on stone crosses, or on bronze, which prevailed from the sixth to the twelfth century. Such remains however, are valuable, not only as memorials of the arts, but as preserving the Celtic costume of a portion of the inhabitants of our island in those remote ages. It will be seen that in _this_, as in one of the shrine-figures before given, the kilt, or philibeg, is distinctly marked, and _controverts the erroneous assertion_ of Pinkerton, formerly noticed, that “it was always quite unknown amongst the Welsh and Irish.”[339]

How others may receive it I do not know; but for myself, I confess, I find it no easy matter to maintain the composure of my countenance at this affected _pomposity_ of censorial _magniloquence_. The _self-complacency_ of the _censor_ one could tolerate with ease, if the _assumption_ of the _historian_ had aught to support it. But alas! every position in the extract is the direct opposite of truth, with the exception of that which asserts another person’s error; and even this is beclouded with such egregious observations as to show, that leaving _Pinkerton_ to P----[340] would be consigning the blind to a blinder conductor.

For, in the first place, the _philibeg_ was not a _Celtic_ costume at all, but belonged to the De-danaan, or Iranian colony,[341] who, on their overthrow here, took it with them to what is now called Scotland. The Firbolgs, who were Celts, and occupied this island before the Iranians, wore another style of dress altogether, which, on the reconquest of the country by the Scythian swarms, B.C. 1000, became again the national uniform. For the Firbolgs, having assisted the Scythians in dislodging the Iranians from the throne of the kingdom, and agreeing with them furthermore in point of worship and of garb, they did not only make _their own habits_, as well of _religion_ as of _dress_, universal throughout the realm, but obliterated every vestige of the _obnoxious_ costume, and cancelled every symptom of its characteristic ceremonial, except alone those Round Temples of adamantine strength, which defied the assailment of all violence and batteries.

There was no remnant, therefore, of the kilt to be met with in Ireland, either in the _sixth_ century, or in the _twelfth_, or indeed for many centuries before the Christian era at all. This effigy,[342] therefore, _could not have been intended for our Saviour_, wanting, besides, the I. N. R. I.,[343] and wearing the _Iranian regal crown_ instead of the _Jewish crown of thorns_. Therefore are we justified in ascribing it to its owner, _Budha_, whom again we find imprinted in the same _crucified form_, but with more _irresistibility of identification_, over the monuments of his name--over the doors and lintels of the temples of his worship.

Mr. Gough, describing this edifice, tells us that “On the west front of the tower (Brechin) are two arches, one within the other, in relief. On the point of the outermost is a _crucifix_, and between both, towards the middle, are figures of the Virgin Mary and St. John, the latter holding a cup with a lamb. The outer arch is adorned with knobs, and within both is a slit or loop. At bottom of the outer arch are _two beasts_ couchant. _If one of them, by his proboscis_, was not evidently _an elephant_, I should suppose them the supporters of the Scotch arms. Parallel with the crucifix are two plain stones, which do not appear to have had anything upon them.”[344]

Captain Mackenzie, in his _Antiquities of the West and South Coast of Ceylon_, which still professes adherence to Budhism, tells us that “_at each side of the doorway_ (of the temple at Calane), _inclosed in recesses cut in the wall, are two large figures, the janitors of the god_ (Budh).... A large elephant’s tooth and a small _elephant of brass form the ornament_ of a lampstead.... A female figure of the natural size, decently and not ungracefully arrayed in the same garb, was represented standing in another quarter, holding a lamp in the extended hand. The gallery was entirely covered with paintings, containing an history of the life of Boodhoo--one of these seemed to represent the birth of the divine child. A _large white elephant_ made a conspicuous figure in most of these assemblies.”[345]

Scotch arms, indeed! Why, Sir, those animals were recumbent there, in deified transfiguration, before ever _Pict_ or _Scot_ had planted a profane foot within their neighbourhood. What connection, let me ask, could this _elephant_ and this _bull_ have with Christianity, to entitle them to the honour of being grouped with our Saviour? Or, if any, how happens it that we never see them enter into similar combinations, in _churches_ or _chapels_, or _convents_ or _cathedrals_?[345]

But if they belong not to the Christian ceremonial, they do to something else. They are the _grand, distinctive_, and _indispensable adjuncts of Budhism_; being the _two animals_ into which, _according to its doctrine of metempsychosis, the soul of Budha had entered after his death_.

This was the origin of the Egyptian _Apis_: and who is not familiar with the honours lavished upon the sacred _bull_? To this day the _elephant_ is worshipped in the Burman empire,[346] where the genius of _Budhism_ still lingeringly tarries; and “_Lord of the White Elephant_” is the proudest ensign of power claimed by the successors to the throne of Pegu.

The _human_ figures, then, _of course_, cannot be intended for “_St. John_ or the _Virgin Mary_.” They represent _Budha’s Virgin Mother_, along with his _favourite disciple, Rama_. And thus does the testimony of Artemidorus, who _flourished 104 years before Christ_, a native himself of Ephesus, and _who did not himself understand_ the _mystery_ of that _Virgin_ whom he historically records, receive _illustration_ from _my proof_, while it gives _it confirmation_ in return.

His words are--“Adjacent to Britain there stands an island, where _sacred rites_ are performed to Ceres and the _Virgin_, similar to those in Samothrace.”

Initiation in the principles of this Samothracian ceremonial was thought so necessary an accomplishment for every hero and every prince, that no aspirant to those distinctions ever ventured upon his destination, without first paying a visit to that religious rendezvous. The solemnity, attaching to the ritual there performed, was not greater than the veneration paid to the place itself. All fugitives found shelter within its privileged precincts, and the name of _sacred_ was assigned it, as the ordinary characteristic of such sanctuaries.[347]

“There are,” says the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, “two orders of mysteries celebrated in the course of the year, in honour of Ceres and _the Virgin_--the lesser and the greater; the former being but a sort of purification and holy preparation for the latter.”[348]

Who the Virgin was, however, none but the _initiated_ ever presumed to investigate, the practice observed in respect to her, being the same as that which influenced the other ordinances of antiquity: and which made Strabo himself declare, that “_all that can be said concerning the gods must be by the exposition of old opinions and fables; it being the custom of the ancients to wrap up in enigma and allegory their thoughts and discourses concerning nature, which are, therefore, not easily explained_.”[349]

Proclus also says: “In all initiations and mysteries, the gods exhibit themselves under many forms, and with a frequent change of shape; sometimes as light defined to no particular figure; sometimes in a human form; and sometimes in that of some other creature.”[350]

With the clue, however, already afforded, we need not be deterred from approaching her fane. The allegorical name, under which they disguised her, was that of _Proserpine_: whom they represent “so beautiful that _the father of the gods himself became enamoured of her, and deceived her by changing himself into a serpent, and folding her in his wreaths_.”[351]

This was the _Greek perversion_ of the narrative. They had received it from the Pelasgi, under the garb of a _conception_, by _serpentine insinuation, in a virgin womb_: and, the grossness of their intellects not allowing them to comprehend the possibility of an _emanation_, yet giving unqualified credence to the record, they degraded altogether the _religiousness_ of the thought, and supposed that the Almighty, to effectuate his design, had actually assumed the _cobra di capello_ form!

So austere was the rule, by which those mysteries were protected, that Æschylus but _barely escaped discerption within the theatre_, for an imagined disrespect to their tendency. Nor was it but on the plea of ignorance and _un_-initiation, that he did ultimately obtain pardon.[352]

This insuperable barrier to the curiosity of the profane, engendered in their conduct a corresponding reaction, and, as the _fox_ did to the _grapes_, what they could not themselves compass, they strove all they could to vituperate!

“Virtue, however, is its own reward,” and, as the authority of Cicero, having been himself a priest, ought to have some weight in the discussion, it is no small impetus to the cause of truth, to hear this pre-eminent man assign to the efficacy of the precepts, inculcated in those mysteries,--“the knowledge of the God of nature; the first, the supreme, the intellectual; by which men had been reclaimed from rudeness and barbarism, to elegance and refinement; and been taught, not only to live with more comfort, but to die with better hopes.”[353]

“Slave to no sect, who takes no private road,
But looks through Nature up to Nature’s God;
Pursues that chain which links the immense design,
Joins heaven and earth, and mortal and divine,
Sees that no being any bliss can know,
But touches some above, and some below;
Learns from this union of the rising whole,
The first, last purpose of the human soul;
And knows where faith, law, morals, all began,
All end in love of God and love of man.”[354]