Chapter XXXI

“They shall be astonished, and shall humble their countenances: and trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold the Son of _Woman_ sitting upon the throne of his glory. Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth glorify him who has dominion over all things--him who was _concealed_: for, from the beginning, the Son of Man existed _in secret_, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, and _revealed to the elect_.”[543]

So speaks one of the most extraordinary productions that has ever appeared in England, in the shape of literature! And the commentary of its translator[544] is as follows:--

“In both these passages,” says he, “the _pre-existence_ of the Messiah is asserted in language which admits not the slightest shade of ambiguity--nor is it such a pre-existence as the philosophical cabalists attributed to him, who believed the souls of all men, and, consequently, that of the Messiah, to have been originally created together, when the world itself was formed; but an _existence antecedent_ to all creation, an existence previous to the formation of the luminaries of heaven; an existence prior to all things visible and invisible, before everything concealed.--It should likewise be remarked, that the pre-existence ascribed to him is a divine pre-existence.”[545]

As to the _pre-existence_ of the Messiah, in the only way in which the Archbishop affirms, I did not think that the doctrine was so obscure as to require so much stress! Everybody acquiesces, who acquiesces in Christianity--that its Founder had existence and dominion with His Father before all worlds. And, therefore, when His Grace offers this as an _illustration_ of our opening extract, he either _unconsciously contradicts himself_, or, else, by dealing _in generalities, evades_ an _exposition, which he was not at liberty to communicate_!

I am quite ignorant as to whether or not Dr. Lawrence belongs to the order of _Freemasons_, but I confess that when first I glanced at the above remarks I fancied he did. The care with which the two words “_secret_” and “_concealed_” were distinguished by him in _italics_, led me to this conjecture. But the _indefinite unsubstantiality_ into which he afterwards wandered, made the fact of his _initiation_ become, itself, a _secret_.

Let me, however, prove the above _dilemma_.

His Lordship has asserted, that the _uninspiration_ of “the author” will admit of no dispute:[546] and yet that “author,” whom the Archbishop himself acknowledges to have written, at the very lowest, _antecedently_ to the _Advent_, speaks of the _Messiah_ as the “_Son of Man_” and the “Son of _Woman_.”[547]

Either, therefore, the author was _inspired_, speaking _prospectively_ of an occurrence _not then consummated_! or else, _uninspired_, he historically transmits the record of an _incarnation vouchsafed before his time_.

I feel perfectly indifferent as to which horn of this alternative you may patronise. They both equally make for _me_. Nor do I want _either_, otherwise than to show, that else the Archbishop is already of _my way of thinking_, and _restrained_ from _avowing_ it, or _unwillingly_ involved in a _contradictory nodus_, from a partial succumbing to education!

With this I leave Enoch! I have hitherto done without him! I shall continue still to do so! But while bidding _adieu_, I must disburthen myself of the sentiments which his merits have inspired, and that after a _very short personal familiarity_.

Thou art, then, a GOODLY and a WISE book, Enoch, stored with _many_ and _recondite truths_, but “_few_ they be who _find_” them. Better for thee it were, however, that thou hadst slept a little longer in thy _tranquil_ retirement, than obtrude thyself, _unappreciated_, upon an _ungenial_ world--a cold, a calculating, an adamantine world--who fancy they know _everything_, but who, in truth, know _nothing_--to meet with nothing but their _scorn_! It is true, Enoch, that thy face hath been tarnished by many a blemish! And that the hand of time hath dealt with thee, as it doth with the other works of man! Yet, despite of the _curtailments_ thus sustained, and the _exotics_ incorporated, thy magnificent ruin still holds within it some _gleams_, which to the _initiated_ and the _sympathetic_ afford delight and gratification.

--------“Sweet as the _ecstatic_ bliss
Of _souls_ that by _intelligence_ converse!”

Doubtless, reader, you are acquainted with the Gospel of St. John?--and you have a heart?--and you have emotions?--and you have sensibilities?--and you have intellect? Well, then, tell me frankly, have not these all been brought into requisition, at the metaphysical _sublimity_ and the oriental _pathos_ of the opening part of that production?

“He was in the world, and the world was made by Him; and the world _knew Him not_. He came unto _His own_, and _His own_ received Him not.”[548]

You surely cannot suppose this said in reference to the _late incarnation_! Were it so, why should the Evangelist deliver himself in terms so pointedly allusive to _distant times_? The interval between Christ’s disappearance and St. John’s registration was but as _yesterday_, and therefore the latter, when inculcating the _divinity_ of the _former_, upon the belief of his countrymen, who were all contemporaries, as well of one as of the other, need not advertise them of an addition, of which they were themselves cognisant.

But to illustrate to you as _light_, that it was not the _recent_ manifestation that was meant by the above text, he tells us in the sequel, when expressly narrating _this_ latter fact, that “the _Logos_ was made flesh and dwelt _among us_”;[549] where you perceive that “_dwelling among us_” is made a _distinct thing from_, and _posterior in eventuation to “coming unto His own,”_ as before recorded![550]

Indeed, in the delineation, it is not only the _order_ of _time_, but the _precision_ of _words_, that we see most rigidly characteristic. The _Jews_, it is certain, could not be called “_His own_,” except by _adoption_; and, I am free to allow, that from them, “as concerning the _flesh_, Christ came”; but by “_His own_”[551] are meant His _real relations!--emanations from the Godhead, such as He was Himself! beings altogether separate from flesh and blood!_ and whose _mysteriousness_ was perceptible most clearly to St. John, as you will perceive by the Greek words from which this is rendered, viz. τα ιδια, having been put in the neuter gender!

But suppose them, for an instant, to have been the Jews!--Then we are told that, “to as many as received Him, gave He power to become sons of God.”[552] Now, the apostles were they who did _implicitly receive_ Him: and why does not St. John refer to those, whether living or dead, as admitted to the privilege of becoming “sons of God”? I will tell you:--it was because that they did not answer to that order of beings “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”[553]

These were the persons to whom _Christ came before_--these were “His own,” because that, _like Him_, they also were _of God_.[554] These were they, who having lapsed into sin,[555] and vitiated their nature, drew down the vengeance of heaven upon them; and to the descendants of these it was that “the elect” and “the concealed one,” in mercy was made manifest, with proposals of redemption to regain their lost state!!!

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and how inscrutable His ways!”[556]

Seest thou not now, therefore, the propriety of St. John’s expression, when He says, “And I knew Him not, but that He should _be made manifest_ to Israel”;[557] for when, before “He was in the world,” it was in _secret_ and _concealed_--as _still and always represented_ in the _mysteries_! The latter, he _asserts_, as a matter of _revelation_--for the former he _appeals to the experience_ of his auditors, as a subject of _history_: and _both epochs are confirmed_ by the “voice from heaven,” which replied to Christ’s own prayer, as thus, “I have both glorified it,” viz. _at Thy former manifestation_--“and will glorify it again,”[558] _at this Thy present_!!!

I was myself twelve years of age before ever I saw a Testament in any language. The first I was then introduced to was the Greek. Being in favour with my tutor, he took an interest in my progress, and the consequence was, to my gratitude and his praise, that no deviation from the exactness of grammatical technicality could possibly escape my observation. Soon as I arrived at the text wherein τα ιδια occurs, its irregularity, at once, flashed across my mind. I sought for an explanation, but it was in vain; my imagination set to work, but it was equally abortive. At length, in despair, I relinquished the pursuit, and never again troubled myself with it, or its solution, until recalled by its connection with the present inquiry.

But it was not alone the peculiarity of gender that excited my circumspection, the phraseology, when translated, sounded so familiar to my ear, as to appear an old acquaintance under a new form. For, though I could then tolerably well express myself in English, the train of my reflections always ran in Irish. From infancy I spoke that tongue: it was to me vernacular. I thought in Irish, I understood in Irish, and I compared in Irish. My sentiments and my conceptions were _filtrated_ therein!

As to dialectal idioms or lingual peculiarities, I had not, of course, the most remote idea. Whether, therefore, the expression coming to “His own” were properly a _Greek_ or an _English_ elocution, I did not, then, know either sufficiently well to determine; but that it was _Irish_ I was perfectly satisfied; my ear and my heart, at once, told me so.

I now positively affirm that the _phrase is neither Hebrew_, _Greek_, nor _English_! And if you are not disposed to admit the information which it conveys,[559] to be an immediate communication from the Omnipotent, I have another very adequate mode of accounting for St. John’s having acquired it, and expressed it too in a phraseology so _essentially Oriental_.

The three wise men--who came from the East to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him”[560]--to a mortal certainty imparted to him the intelligence!

Here you see them with _crosses_ upon their crowns,[561] the religious counterparts of our _Irish shamrocs_![562] And surely, as Jesus was then but an infant, those mysterious devices were commemorative of His crucifixion, when “He came to His own,”--and not to that which occurred while He “dwelt among us,” a catastrophe which had not yet taken place!

Nor is it alone this single phrase (τα ιδια) that I claim as Oriental--the five first verses of this Gospel, as at present arranged, appertain also thereto. They speak the _doctrine_ alike of the _Budhists_ and of the _Free-masons_; but in _diction_, and in _peculiarity_, in _tone_, in _point_, and _essence_, they are irrefragably _Irish_.[563]

That St. John never wrote them is beyond all question! but having found them to his hand, existing after the circuit of centuries and ages, the composition seemed so pure, and so consonant with Christianity, nay, its very vitality and soul, he adopted it as the _preface_ to his _own production_, which begins only at the sixth verse, opening with, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John”!

Having asserted that the preliminary part was inalienably _Irish_, I now undertake to prove a _radical misconception_, nay, a _derogation_ from the _majesty_ of the _Messiah_, to have crept into the text, in consequence of its having been translated by persons unacquainted with that language!

The term _logos_, which you render _word_, means to an iota the _spiritual flame_--_log_, or _logh_, being the _original_ denomination. The Greeks, who had borrowed all their religion from the Irish, adopted this also from their vocabulary; but its form not being suited to the genius of their language, they fashioned it thereto by adding the termination _os_, as _loghos_; and thus did it become identified in sound with the common _logos_, which they had before, and which merely expresses a _word_ or _term_!

But though thus confounded, their philosophers, for a long time, kept both expressions distinct. The former they ever considered a _foreign importation_, rendering it, as we did, by the _spiritual flame_; as is evident from Zeno making use of the expression, δια του παντος λογος, that is, the spiritual _flame_, which is diffused through, and vivifies everything.

Pythagoras is so explicit upon this _spiritual flame_, that you would swear he was paraphrasing the first five verses of St. John.

“God,” says he, “is neither the object of sense, nor subject to passion, but invisible, only intelligible, and supremely intelligent. In His body, He is like the _light_, and in His soul He resembles truth. He is the universal _spirit_ that pervades and diffuseth itself over all nature. All beings receive their _life_ from Him. There is but one only God, who is not, as some are apt to imagine, seated above the world, beyond the orb of the universe; but being Himself all in all, He sees all the beings that fill His immensity, the only principle, the light of Heaven, the Father of all. He _produces everything_, He orders and disposes _everything_; He is the reason, the _life_, and the motion of all being.”

Even the Latins having borrowed the idea from the Greeks, steered clear of the equivocation of the ridiculous _word_; and the immortal Maro, when describing the quickening influence of this ethereal _logos_ through all the branches of nature, interprets it as above, literally, by the _spiritual flame_!

“Principio cœlum ac terras, camposque liquentes,
Lucentemque globum Lunæ, Titaniaque Astra,
_Spiritus intus_ alit; totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.
Inde hominum pecudumque genus, vitæque volantum,
Et quæ marmoreo fert monstra sub æquore pontus.”[564]

Am I, therefore, presumptuous in appealing to the _community_ to reject this _word_ as applied to the _logos_? A meaning, it is true, has been trumped up for this, as the _communicating vehicle_ between God and His creatures! No doubt the Saviour is all that: but _logos does not express it_; and the _duration_ of an abuse is no reason why it should be perpetuated after its _exposure_.

I have said that it degraded the dignity of the Godhead to render this expression by the form of _word_. I do not retract the charge: on the contrary, I _add_ that, independently altogether of the former arguments, adduced to establish its _inaccuracy_, it would be _revolting to common sense_, were it not even thus _incorrect_!

For example--“In Him was _life_,” says the text, “and the life was the _light_ of men.”

Now, how could there be _life_ in a _word_? except by the most unnatural straining of metaphor. Or, admitting that there was _life_, how could there be _light_, except by the same? Whereas, by substituting the proper term, then all is regular and easy; for what could be more natural, than that there should be _life_ in _spirit_? and that _this life_ should give _light_ to men?

You will observe accordingly, that Jesus Himself, when describing His own character, exactly states what I here rectify, saying, “I am the _light_ of the world”--not the _word_ of the world--or any such nonsense. And He continues the idea by noting further, that “he that followeth Me shall not walk in _darkness_, but shall have the _light_ of life.”[565] Thus keeping up an _uninterrupted_ reference to _logos_, or the _spiritual flame_!

I do, therefore, humbly, but strenuously, implore of the legislature that they _restore_ this epithet to its _divine_ interpretation! I entreat of the heads, as well of Church as of State, that they cancel the error; for _error_ I unhesitatingly pronounce it to be,--a _derogation_ from the Godhead, and a _perversion_ of the attributes of the Messiah!

I will myself show the way--thus: “In the beginning was the _spiritual flame_: and the _spiritual flame_ was with God, and the _spiritual flame_ was God.”[566]

How beautiful! may I hope that it will never more be extinguished!

Now, there is another text in the same chapter, which, though not incorrectly translated, yet _loses half its beauty_ as at present understood! It will startle you when I recite it! Yet here it comes. “Behold the _Lamb_ of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!”[567]

By _lamb_, no doubt, you mean a young sheep: but let me ask you, what connection can you perceive between a _young sheep_ and the _taking away of sin_? That of immolation, you answer, as typifying the _grand offering_. Well, then, why add “of God”? Why say, the _young sheep of God_, if it was an ordinary animal of the mere _ovine species_ that was intended?

No, sir; recollect the “_Lamb_ slain from the beginning of the world,” recorded in the Revelations, as quoted before.[568]

A deep mystery is involved in this expression, which the ingenuity of man could not evolve but through the Irish. In that language _lambh_ is a word having _three_ significations. The first is a _hand_; the second a _young sheep_; and the third a _cross_.[569]

Let us now, in rendering the text, substitute this latter instead of the intermediate; and it will be, “Behold the _cross_ of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” By which you perceive that when John the Baptist, by inspiration, pointed out Jesus Christ as the universal Saviour of the world, his _very words_ establish a previous _crucifixion_!

You now see how it happened that ten, in numerals, came to be represented by a cross X. _This_ being the _number_ of _fingers_ upon each person’s hands: and a _hand_ and a _cross_ being both prefigured in the _sacred_, that is, in the _Irish_ language,[570] by the same term, _lambh_, it hence occurred that in all reckoning and notation, a _new score_ should be commenced therefrom--that its _sanctity_ should be still further enhanced by the epithet of _diag_, or _perfection_, which characterises it as a _submultiple_, and that the _mysteriousness_ of the _whole_ should be additionally shrouded under the _comprehensive symbol_ of a _pyramid_ or _triangle_ △[571]

“Our Hibernian Druids,” says Vallancey, “always wore a key, like the doctors of law of the Jews, to _show they alone had the key of the sciences_, that is, that they alone could communicate the knowledge of the doctrine they preached. The name of this key was _kire_, or _cire_; and _eo_, a peg or pin, being compounded with it, forms the modern _eo-cire_, the key of a lock. The figure of this key resembled a _cross_; those of the Lacedæmonians and Egyptians were of the same form.”

Estimable and revered Vallancey, it pains me to say anything against you! but on those subjects you were quite _at bay_! _It was not_ to “show that they alone had the key of the sciences,” that “the doctors of law of the Jews always wore _a key_,” but because that _they had seen it in the ceremonial of the Egyptians_, from whom, like the Lacedæmonians, they had borrowed its use, without _either of them being able to penetrate its import_![572]

The origin, then, of this _badge_ appearing amongst the _habiliments_ of our ancient priests, is developed by the _name_ which those priests themselves bore, viz. _Luamh_, which, being but a direct formative from _lambh_, a _cross_, _unlocks_ the _secret_ of their being its _ministers_.[573]

The _Idæi-Dactyli_, who superintended the mysteries of Ceres, obtained their designation from the very same cause, and corresponded literally with our _Luamhs_: for the _Iod_ of the Chaldeans being equivalent to the _lambh_ or _hand_ of the Irish, the number of fingers thereon were made religiously significant of the X, or _cross_! And,--what cannot fail to excite astonishment, as to the _immutability_ of a nation’s _character_,--_to this very hour, the symbolical oath of the Irish peasant is a transverse placing of the forefinger of one hand over that of the other_, and then uttering the words, “_By the cross_”!

Are not the opposers of my _truths_, then, as yet satisfied? or will they still persist in saying that it was the _Pope_ that sent over our Tuath-de-danaan crosses?[574] in the ship _Argho_! some thousands of years before ever Pope was born. I wonder was it His Holiness that transported emissaries also to that ancient city in America, lately discovered in ruins, near Palenque; amongst the sculptures of which we discover a _cross_! And the _priority_ of which to the times of _Christianity_ is borne witness to by the gentleman who has published the “Description” of those ruins,[575] though _glaringly ignorant as to what was commemorated thereby_.

“Upon one point, however,” he says, “it is deemed essentially necessary to lay a stress, which is the _representation of a Greek cross_, in the largest plate illustrative of the present work, from whence the _casual_ observer might be prompted to infer that the Palencian city flourished at a period _subsequent_ to the Christian era; whereas it is _perfectly well known to all those conversant_ with the mythology _of the ancients_, that the figure of a _cross_ constituted the leading symbol of their religious worship: for instance, the augural _staff_ or wand of the Romans was an exact resemblance of a _cross_, being borne as the ensign of authority by the community of the augurs of Rome, where they were held in such high veneration that, although guilty of flagrant crimes, they could not be deposed from their offices; and with the Egyptians the _staff_ of Bootes or Osiris is similar to the _crosier_ of Catholic bishops, which terminated at the top with a cross.”

But if the Pope had so great a taste for beautifying our valleys with those costly specimens of art, whereof some are at least eighteen feet in height, composed of a single stone, and chiselled into devices of the most elaborate mysteries, is it not _marvellous_ that he has not, in the plenitude of his piety, thought proper to adorn the neighbourhood of the Holy See with any similar trophies? And why has he not preserved in the archives of the Vatican any _record_ of the bequest, as he has taken care to do in the case of the four _palls_?

But, transcendently and lastly, why did he deem it necessary to depict _centaurs_ upon those _crosses_, with snakes, serpents, dogs and other animals, such as this following one exhibits, which is that at Kells, and which has been alluded to, by promise, some pages backwards.[576]

I have now done with the _appropriation_ of those columns; and shall just _whisper_ into my adversaries’ ears--_if they have but recovered from the downcrash of their_ fabric--that so far from laying claim to the honour of their erection, the Pope has actually excommunicated all such as revered them! and has otherwise disowned all participation therein, by the fulminating of bulls and of anathemas![577]

Yet did the zealots of party, after the history of those crosses was forgotten, associate them individually with some favourite saint! “This notion,” says Mosheim, referring to such _diversions_, “rendered it necessary to multiply prodigiously their number, and to create daily new ones. The clergy set their invention at work, and peopled at discretion the invisible world with imaginary protectors; they invented the names and histories of saints that never existed; many chose their own patrons, either phantoms of their own creation or distracted fanatics whom they sainted.”

Here, however, the historian is as _inaccurate_ as he is _severe_: for not only did the majority of those _saints_, if not all of them, exist, but the greater part also of those _exploits_ ascribed to them have actually occurred! _The imposition consisted in making them the heroes of events and legends belonging to former actors._[578]

I shall now give you, from the Book of Ballymote, my proof for the assertion before advanced as to the _Goban Saer_, whom they would fain appropriate, having been a member of the Tuath-de-danaans, viz.: “Ro gabsat sartain in Eirin Tuatha Dadann is deb ro badar na prem ealadhnaigh: Luchtand saer credne ceard: Dian ceachd liargh etan dan a hingeinsidhe: buime na filedh Goibneadh _Gobha lug_ Mac Eithe Occai; ro badar na huile dana Daghadae in Righ: oghma brathair in Righ, is e ar arainic litri no Scot.” That is, The Tuath-de-danaans then ruled in Eirin. They were first in all sciences. Credne Ceard was of this people; and his daughter _Dean_ Ceachd, who presided over physic: she nursed the poet Gohne _Gobha_, the Free-mason (_lug_ is the same as _Saer_), son of Occai Esthne. Daghdae the king was skilled in all sciences: his brother Ogmus _taught the Scythians the use of letters_.

Thus you see that he could not, by possibility, be on the same theatre with _St. Abham_; while the popular tradition is still substantially true which connects his name with the erection of the Round Towers!

The Church festivals themselves, in our Christian calendar, are but the direct transfers from the Tuath-de-danaan ritual. Their very _names_ in Irish are identically the same as those by which they were distinguished by that earlier race. If therefore, surprise has heretofore been excited at the conformity observable between our Church institutions and those of the East, let it in future subside at the explicit announcement that _Christianity_, with us, was but the _revival_ of a religion imported amongst us, many ages before, by the Tuath-de-danaans from the East, and not from any chimerical inundation of Greek missionaries--a _revival_ upon which their hearts were longingly riveted, and which Fiech himself, the pupil of St. Patrick, and bishop of Sletty, unconsciously registers in the following couplet, viz.:--

“_Tuatha_ Heren, tarcaintais
Dos nicfead sith laithaith nua.”[579]

That is,--

The _Budhists_ of Irin prophesied
That _new_ times of _peace_ would come.

What kind of _peace_, you ask? Is it of _deliverance_ from their _Scythian_ oppressors? No, but that spiritual tranquillity, such as they enjoyed before, and at which even the angels of heaven rejoiced, while announcing the tidings to man[580]--

“And sweet, and with rapture o’erflowing,
Was the song from that multitude heard,
Who their heav’n for a season foregoing,
To second the Angel appear’d.
‘All glory,’ the anthem resounding,
‘To God in the highest,’ began;
And the chant was re-echoed, responding,
‘_Peace_ on earth, loving-kindness to man.’”[581]

You will remember that the Scriptures themselves record, how that the _wise men of the East_ foresaw this epoch; and “Lo, the star which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”[582]

Is it therefore to be wondered at that our Tuath-de-danaans, who were their brethren, should equally anticipate it?

Yes, from the commencement of time, and through all the changes of humanity, God had always witnesses to the _truth_ in this nether world.

“And Melchizedec, King of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the most high God.

“And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

“And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.”[583]

“Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

“For this Melchizedec, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him:

“To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all: first being, by interpretation, king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of _peace_.

“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God--abideth a _priest_ continually.”[584]

Thus does the apostle proceed, in a strain of the closest argumentation, to point out the superiority of this king of _peace_, over Abraham and his lineage: after which Mr. Brown, in his _Commentary_ upon the Bible, expresses himself as follows, viz.:--“Who this Melchizedec was, this priest of God among the Canaanites, greater than Abraham, the friend of God, who were his parents or his successors, is on purpose concealed by the Holy Ghost. And hence he is without father or mother, predecessor or successor, in his historical account, in order that he might typify the incomprehensible dignity, the amazing pedigree and unchangeable duration of Jesus Christ, our great High Priest.”

Nobody can quarrel with the _piety_ of this commentator: but _piety_ is not the only requisite for a commentator upon the Scriptures: the _absence of stupidity_ is an essential condition. It is not, however, as applied to _this particular passage_ that I thus express myself: were this the only instance of _accommodating oversight_ it should draw forth no critique from me. But the instances are _innumerable_, to verify the expression that “some persons _see_, but _perceive_ not.”

Mr. Brown had no idea of an _emanation_! Mr. Brown did not comprehend the _sons of God_! Mr. Brown did not know the connection which existed between the _peace_ of Christ and that which was represented by Melchizedec.[585]

“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of Him that bringeth _good tidings_, that publisheth _peace_; that bringeth _good tidings_ of good, that publisheth _salvation_; that saith unto Zion, Thy _God_ reigneth.”[586]

“These things have I spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have _peace_. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”[587]

“If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day the things which belong unto thy _peace_! but now they are hid from thine eyes.”[588]

“_Peace_ I leave with you; _My peace_ I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.”[589]

“Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

“Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an _High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec_.”[590]

“From our fathers to us the good tidings descend,
From us to our children agen;
Unrestrain’d as the sun, and as lasting, they blend
All the nations and ages of men.
Good news of great joy to all people, they speak
At once to the learn’d and the rude,
To barbarian and Scythian, the Jew and the Greek,
Nor country nor person exclude.

From the man who goes forth to his labour by day,
To the woman his help-meet at home;
From the child that delights in his infantine play,
To the old on the brink of the tomb;
From the bridal companions, the youth and the maid,
To the train on the death-pomp that wait;
From the rich in fine linen and purple array’d,
To the beggar that lies at his gate:

To all is the ensign of blessedness shown,
To the dwellers in vale or on hill,
Alike to the monarch who sits on his throne,
And the bond-man who toils at the mill;
High and low, rich and poor, young and old, one and all,
Earth’s sojourners, dead and alive,
Who perish’d by Adam, our forefather’s fall,
Shall in Jesus the Saviour revive.

Not an ear, that those tidings of welfare can meet,
But to _it_ doth that welfare belong:
Then those tidings with rapture what ear shall not greet,
What tongue shall not echo the song?
All hail to the Saviour! all hail to the Lord!
God and Man in one person combined!
The Father’s Anointed! by Angels adored!
The Hope and Delight of mankind!”[591]