This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
-f3'.
■=W
TO SB COMPI.ETED IN 16 PABTS.
ANACALYPSIS,
AN ATTEMI^r TO DRAW ASIDE THE VEIL OF
c]5ije ^aitic ^10;
OR
y47i I?zg^7^ci^y into the Origin of
\.k^GUAGES, JNATIpNS, AND RELIGIONS.
By OODFREY HIGGINS, Esq.,
, F.S.A., F.R.ASIAT.SOC, F.R.AST.S.,
LATE OF SKELLOW GRANGE, NE^R DONCASTER.
RES VERBIS ET VIiRBA ACCENDUNT LUMINA
LONDON :
J. BURNS, 15 SOUTHAMPTON ROW, HOLBORN, W.C.
1874.
PA.RT X.
r^^
PRICE 2s. 6cl.
n i^isBET, PRINTER, 219 GEORGE STREET, GLASGOW.
i
c\\^
\_
h:tjm:a:n^ istattjue :
A MONTHLY JOURNAL of Zoistic Science, Intelligence, and Popular Anthropology. Price 6d. Monthly ; Subscription, 7s. per Annum, post free.
Eight Annual Volumes have been already published, price 7s. 6d. each. Valuable Works are given as Premium Volumes, at Special Prices, with each Number. Part I. Anacalypsis goes with Human Nature for October, 1874, for IS. 9d.
Published at ^5. With ** Human Nature'^ for October ^ 1873, y.%^.i post freCi 4r., in handsome cloth, bevelled boards ^ yi(> pages, demy ?>vo.,
SEERS OF THE AGES.
EMBRACING SPIRITUALISM, PAST AND PRESENT, DOCTRINES STATED, AND MORAL TENDENCIES DEFINED.
By J. M. PEEBLES.
CONTENTS:
LECTURE I. Chap. J. Spirit of the Age. Chap. 2. Spiritual Ratios.
LECTURE II. — Ancient Historic Spiritualism.
Chap. 3. Indian. Chap. 6. Persian.
— 4. Egyptian. • — 7. Hebraic. -V 5. Chinese. — 8. Grecian.
^ Chap. 9. Roman.
LECTURE III.— Christian Spiritualism. Chap. 10. The Foreshadowing. Chap. 12. Theologic.
— II. Mythic. — 13. The Nazarene.
LECTURE IV. — Medieval Spiritualism. Chap. 14. Transitional. Chap. 16. Post- Apostolic.
— 15. Apostolic. — 17. Neo- Platonic.
LECTURE V. — Churchal Spiritualism. Chap. 18. Churchianic.
LECTURE VL— Segmentary Spiritualism. Chap. 19. — The Prelude.
LECTURE VII.— Modern Spiritualism. Chap. 20. Spirit Phenomena. Chap. 22. Witnesses.
— 21. Mediumship. — 23. Clerical and Literary.
LECTURE VIIL— ExEGEticAL Spiritualism.
Chap. 24. Poetic Testimony. Chap. 33. Law of Judgment.
— 25. Existence of God. — 34. Evil Spirits.
— 26. The Divine Image. — 35. Hell.
— 27. Moral Status of Jesus. — 36. Heaven.
— 28. The Holy Spirit. — 37. Histonc Immortality.
— 29. Baptism. — 38. Resurrection.
— 30. Inspiration. — 39. Prayer.
— 31. Beauty of Faith. — 40. The Freedom & Functions
— 32. Repentance. — of Love.
Chap. 41. Genius of Spiritualism.
LONDON: J. BURNS, 15 SOUTHAMPTON ROW, W.C.
By the same Author, price in wrappers, is. 6d., cloth, 2s. 6d., "Jesus: Myth, Man, or God ; or the Popular Rj^ngion and the Popular Theology Contrasted." ^
ANACALYPSIS:
OR,
AN INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN
OF
LANGUAGES, NATIONS. AND RELIGIONS,
ANACALYPSIS,
AN
ATTEMPT TO DRAW ASIDE THE VEIL
OF
Clie ®attic 31010;
OR,
AN INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGES,
NATIONS, AND RELIGIONS.
By GODFREY HIGGINS, Esq.,
F.S.A., F.R.ASIAT.SOO., F.RAST.a, LATE OF SKELLOW GRANGE, NEAR DONCASTER.
• RES yJSRBIS ET VEEBA AGCENDUNT LUMINA REBUS
VOL. I.
LONDON: J. BURNS, IS SOUTHAMPTON ROW, HOLBORN, W.C.
NEW YORK: J. W. BOUTON, 706 BROADWAY.
1878.
GLASGOW
PRINTED BY H. NISBET,
219 GEORGE STREET.
PUBLISHER'S ADVERTISEMENT.
This reprint of Higgins* Anacalypsis is a faithful reproduction of the first edition. The Publisher intends to give the work faithfully, comprising all the Text, Notes, Preliminary Remarks, Plates, and Appendices, as they originally appeared, without alteration or curtail- ment It is proposed, however, to give in the last volume such additional Notes and Remarks as may be found necessary to correct any statement in the Text, or explain points that may be left obsciu-e. The work, to be concluded in four volumes, will therefore consist of the Anacalypsis as its Author left it, with such additional matter appended as may be required.
CONTENTS.
Book I. Chapter I. p^oi
Age of the World.— Flood.— Planets and Days of the Week.— The Moon . i
Chapter II.
First God of the Ancients.— The Sun. — Double Nature of the Deity. — Metempsychosis and the Renewal of Worlds.— Moral Evil. — Eternity of Matter. — Buddha. — Genesis lO
Chapter III.
The Sun the first object of Adoration of all Nations. — The Gods not deceased Heroes. — The Chinese have only one God. — Hindoo Goddesses. — Toleration and Change in Religions 26
Chapter IV.
Two Ancient Ethiopias. — Great Black Nation in Asia. — The Buddha of India a Negro. — The Arabians were Cushites.— Memnon. — Shepherd ELings. — Hindoos and Egyptians similar. — Syria peopled from India . 39
Book II. Chapter I.
The Ancient Persians of the Religion of Abraham. — First Books of Genesis. — Disingenuous conduct in the Translators of the Bible. — Abraham acknowledged more than one God '^ • 53
Chapter II.
On the Word Albim. or Jewish Trinity. — Saddai, Adonis. — Trinity of the Rabbins. — Meaning of the words Al and El 60
Chapter III.
Esdras and the Ancient Jewish Cabala. — Emanations, what. — Meaning of the word Berasit. — Sephiroths and Emanations continued. — Origin of Time. — Planets 01 Samim. — Observations on the preceding Sections . 71
Chapter IV.
Why Cyrus restored the Temple. — Melchizedek. — Abraham, what he was. — Abraham the Father of the Persians. — Daniel — Book of Esther, Persian. — Zoroaster. — Variation between Persians and Israelites. — Sacrifices. — Religion of Zoroaster. — Religion of Zoroaster continued. — Zendavesta. — Observations on the Religions of Jews and Persians. — All Ancient Religions Astrological ... *•»-•,, ^ S6
VIU CONTENTS.
Chapter V. pace
Character of the Old Testament.— Nature of the Allegory in Genesis . .no
Book III. Chapter I.
Orphic and Mithraitic Trinity similar to that of the Christians. — Sir William Jones on the Religion of Persia.— Persian OromaSdes, Mithra, Arimanius. — Opinions of Herodotus, Porphyry, Strabo, Julian, on the above. — Hyde and Beausobre respecting Times of Pythagoras and Zoroaster. — Followers of Zoroaster, not yet extinct. — Worship Fire. — The Vedas describe the Persian Religion to have come from Upper India. — Maurice on the Hindoo Trinity . 115
Chapter IL
The word Om. — Omphe, Omphalos. — Olympus, Ammon, Delphi. — Digression concerning the word On. — Subject of Ammon renewed. — Hani the Son of Noah, and Ammon the Sun in Aries. — Niebuhr on the Ombrici of Italy: several remarkable Synonyms. — On the Spirit or Ruh, the Dove. — Priestley's opinion. — Subject of the Persian and Hindoo Trinity resumed 125
Chapter III.
Israel Worsley's Account of Ancient Trinities. — Opinion of Dr. Pritchard and others on the Trinities. — Opinion of Maurice and others on the Trini- ties.— The Christian Trinity. — Its Origin. — Macrobius on the Trinity. — Philo*s Trinity of the Jews. — Faber's Account of the Universal Belief of of the Trinity. — Observations on the Doctrine that Destruction is only Regeneration 139
Book IV. Chapter I.
Proper mode of viewing the Religion. — Life of Cristna. — Subject continued. Maturea. — Sir W. Jones's Explanation of the Circumstances, and Mr. Maurice's Admissions. — Reflections on the above. — Solemn Considerations of Mr. Maurice's in Explanation. — Digression on the Black Colour of Ancient Gods; of the Etymology of the words Nile and Osiris.— rSubject continued. — Christ Black : an Answer to a solemn Consideration. — Other solemn Considerations. — Observations on Mr. Maurice's solemn Considera- tions.— Mr. Maurice's Pamphlets. — Back Reckonings. Maturea. — Bryant and Dr. A. Clarke on this Mythos 158
Chapter II.
Crucifixion of Cristna, and Wiltoba or Baljii. — Moore's Observations refuted. — More particulars respecting the Temple of Wittoba. — Cristna, Bacchus^ Hercules, &c., Types of the Real Saviour. — Taurus and Aries, and iEra of Cristna. — Immaculate Conception, from the History of Pythagoras . 183
Book V. Chapter I.
Buddha the Sun in Taurus, as Cristna was the Sun in Aries. — Names of Buddha. — Meaning of the word Buddha, the same as that of the first word in Genesis. — TTic Ten Incarnations. — Descent of Buddha the same as Cristna's. — Buddha and Cristna the same. — Simplicity of Buddhism. — Ex-
CONTENTS. IX
PAGE
planation of Date. —Buddha a Negro. — Hierarchy. — Maia. — Samaneans of Clemens. — Incarnation. — CabuL — Buddhism extends over many Coun- tries.— Buddha before Cristna
195
Chapter II.
CassinL Loub^re. Cycles. — Isaiah's Prophecy known to the Egyptians and the Celts of Gaul. — Mystical meaning of the Letter M. — Explanation of the Oriental Astronomical Systems. — Subject continued. Mr. Bentley. Berosus. — Mosaic and Hindoo Systems. Various Prophecies. — Martianus Capella. Subject continued 21 j
Chapter III.
Subject continued. — Two Cycles. Joshua stops the Sun and Moon.— Jewish Incarnations. — Millennium. Pritchard. Plato. — ^Jewish and Christian authorities from Dr. Mede. — Plutarch and other Western Authors on the 6oo-year Cyde. — The Hindoos and different Systems. — Observations on PjTthagoras, &c — La Loub^re on the word Siam 261
Chapter IV.
Cross^ the meaning of it. — ^Justin and Tertullian on the Cross. — Monograms of Christ and Osiris. — Cross of Ezekiel and others. — Other Monograms of Christ. — Chrismon Sancti Ambrogii. — Sacred Numbers in the Temples of Britain. — Mithra.— Josephus and Vallancey on Mystic Numbers. — Indian Circles. — Lama of Tibet. — Indra crucified.— Jesuits' Account of Tibet . 293
Chapter V.
Menu. — Sir William Jones on Menu 319
Chapter VI.
Hercules and Samson the same. — Etymology of the word Samson. — Muttra, Hercules at. — Drunmiond on Hercules. The Foxes. — Wilford on Hercules at Muttra. Meaning of the word Hercules. — Hercules Black. Cristna in
Egypt 323
Chapter VII.
Mr. Bentley. — Playfair's Recantation. — Vedas. — Forgeries. — Colebrooke on the Forgeries. — Observations on a passage in the Celtic Druids. — Mr. -Bentley's Recantation to Dr. Marsham 334
ChafIER VIII.
Maturea. — Objections. — Mr. Seeley's Observations on the Serpent.— Atone- ment, Original Sin. — Black Nation of Buddhists in Asia .... 346
Chapter IX.
Baal. — Sir W. Jones and the Desatir. — Etymology ci the word BaL— Dr. Hager on Apollo. — Cufa Grass, Sacrifice of 353
Chapter X.
Yajna or Passover.- Eight Vasus . , • • • • • 359
X CONTENTi?. .
Chapter XL page
Rasit, or Wisdom, Resumed. — Secret Doctrines. — Bull-headed and Ram- headed Gods. — Date of the System. Names of Buddha, &c — Ignorance of the Brahmins and Ancients. — Creuzer, Hammer, Guignaut, &c. — Tree of Genesis at Ipsambul, and the same in Montfaucon . • . . 365
Chapter XII.
The Eagle Garuda.— Spencer, Faber, Burnet, Calmet, &c., on Genesis and its Allegory. — Faber*s Trinity of the Indians and the Hebrews . • 379
Chapter XIII.
Disputed Chapters of Matthew and Luke.— Cause of the Black Curly-head of Buddha.— General Observations on the Moral Doctrines of different Religions 394
Book VI. Chapter I.
Flood of Noah. — Learning of Genesis. — Text of Genesis. — Inland Seas of Asia. — ^Theory of a learned Canlab. — Theory of Mr. Gab. — Rennell on Egypt. — Origin of the Delta of Egypt. — Caspian Sea. ^Plato's Atlantis. — Geological Fact in Yorkshire 406
Chapter II.
Adoration of the Virgin and Child. — Carmelites attached to the Virgin. — Virgin of the Sphere. — Festival of the Virgins — German and Italian Vir- gin.— Mansions of the Moon. — Montfaucon. — Midtimammia. — Isis and the Moon. — Celestial Virgin of Dupuis. — Kircher.— Jesus Ben Panther. — Lunar Mansions . 4^5
Chapter III.
Bacchus an Imaginary Personage. — Opinions of Different Authors. — Subject continued.— Bacchus in India.— Mount Menu — Adventures similar to those of Cristna 44^
Chapter IV.
Names of Jesus and lao. — Chifflet and others on these Names. — Kircher on the Name lao. — Name lao. — Name lao known to the Gentiles. —YIIS, derivation of it. — Observations 454
Book VII. Chapter I.
lonians, Origin of. — Derivation of Ionian. — Argonauts. — Linga and Yom. — TheArgha 4^
Chapter II.
The Lotus. — Maurice on the Lotus. — Payne Knight on the Same. — Moore on the Same. — Nimrod on the Same 477
Chapter III.
The Loadstone. —Helen Athena. — ^Yavanas. — Division of the Followers of the Male and Female Principles, and their Religion , , . . 480
CONTENTS. XI
Chapter IV. rAoc
Ship of Egypt and Greece. — Dupuis on the Argonants. — Arks and Area. — Thebes, Tibet 486
Chapter V,
Janus. — Aphrodite and Diana. Ganesa. — ^ThaleSi and meaning of Proper Names. — Two Syiias. — ^Two Merus. — ^Two Moriahs.— The Greeks new- named their Conquests. Om 492
Chapter VI.
Id- Avratta, Mem, and Meroe. — Eden and its Rivers. — Whiston and Josephus on same. — Delos. — Plan of the Mystic City. — Hanging Gardens and Seven Hills. — Sdeucus of Antioch. — Greek Mythologies; Homer. — ^Tkoy. — Ilion. — Ulysses and St Patrick • • . 501
Chapter VII.
Cassandra. — Babylonian Mjrthos. — Constantine and Helena. — Astrology. — Bryant on Early History. — Native Country of the Olive and Ararat . 520
Chapter VIII.
Rome. — Images not anciently used. — Origin of the name Roma. — Labyrinth. — Observations on Proper Names. — Hero Gods accounted for. — Seleucus Nicator. — Antichrist. — General Observations. — Yavanas expelled from the Towns they built . • . . . 529
ANACALYPSIS.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
AGE OF THE WORLD. — FLOOD. — PLANETS AND DAYS OF THE WEEK. —
THE MOON.
' I. On looking back into antiquity, the circle of vision terminates in a thick and impenetrable mist No end ean be distinguished. There seems reason to believe that this is an effect of that cause, whatever it may be, which first produced and gave law to the revolving motions of the planets, or other phenomena of nature, and therefore cannot be impugned, perhaps ought not to regretted. At all events, if this obscurity be regretted, it is pretty evident that there is little hope of its being removed. But in endeavouring to stretch our eye to the imaginary end of the prospect, to the supposed termination of the hitherto to us unbounded space, it is unavoidably arrested on its way by a variety of objects, of a very surprising appearance; and it is into their nature that I propose to inquire. When I look around me, on whatever side I cast my eyes, I see the ruins of a former world — proofs innumerable of a long-extended period of time. Perhaps among all the philosophers no one has demonstrated this so clearly as Mons. Cuvier. I apprehend these assertions are so well known and established that it is unnecessary to dwell upon them.
The great age of the world must be admitted ; but the great age of man is a diflferent thing. The latter may admit of doubt, and it is man with whom, in the following treatise, I propose to concern myself, and not his habitation. On man, his folly, his weakness, and, I. am sorry I must add, his wickedness, I propose to treat; his habitation I leave to the geologists.
B
2 ANACALYPSIS.
In the most early history of mankind I find all nations endeavour- ing to indulge a contemptible vanity, by tracing their origin to the most remote periods; and, for the gratification of this vanity, invent- ing fables of every description. Of this weakness they have all, in reality, been guilty; but the inhabitants of the x>riental countries occupy rather a more prominent place than those of the western world; and I believe it will not be denied that, in the investigation of subjects connected with the first race of men, they are entitled on every account to claim a precedence. If, since the creation of man, a general deluge have taken place, their country was certainly the situation where he was preserved: therefore to the eastern climes I apply myself for his early history, and this naturally leads me into an inquiry into their ancient records and traditions.
2. All nations have a tradition of the destruction of the world by a flood,^ and of the preservation of man from its effects. Here are two questions. 0£ the affirmative of the former no person who uses his eyes can doubt. But the latter is in a different predicament A question may arise whether man existed before the flood above spoken of, or not. If the universality of a tradition of a fact of this nature would prove its truth, there would be scarcely room for doubt, and the previous creation of man would be established. But I think in the course of the following inquiry we shall find that universal tradition of a fact of this kind is not enough by itself for its establishment. It appears to me that the question of the existence of the human race previous to the flood will not much interfere with my inquiries, but will, if it be admitted, only oblige me to reason upon the idea that certain facts took place before it, and that the effects arising from them were not affected by it.
If I speak of persons or facts before the deluge, and it should be determined that the human species did not exist before that event, then the form of speech applied erroneously to the antediluvians must be held to apply to the earliest created of the post-diluvians ; and this seems to me to be the only inconvenience which can arise from it. I shall therefore admit, for the sake of argument, that an universal flood took place, and that it happened after the creation of .man.
Much difference of opinion has arisen upon the question whether the flood to which I have alluded was universal or not. The ancient records upon which Christians found their religion, as generally
^ The nature of this flood I shall discuss in a future chapter. — ^June, 1830.
WAS THE DELUGE UNIVERSAL? 3
construed, maintain the affirmative j but no one who gives even a very slight degree of consideration to the circumstances of the Americas can deny that probability leans the contrary way. It is a very difficult question, but I do not consider that it has much concern with the object of this work.
Though it be the most probable, if man were created before the last general deluge, that a portion of the human race was saved along with the animals in the new, as well as a portion in the old world, yet it is equally probable that one family, or at most only a very small number of persons, were saved in the latter.
The strongest argument against the descent of the present human race from one pair has hitherto been found in the peculiar character of the Negro. But it is now admitted, I believe, that Mr. Lawrence has removed that difficulty, and has proved that man is one genus and one species, and that those who were taken by some philosophers for different species are only varieties. I shall assume this as a fact, and reason upon it accordingly. If there were any persons saved from the deluge except those before spoken of, who were found near the Caspian Sea, they do not appear to have made any great figure in the world, or to have increased so as to form any great nations. They must, I think, soon have merged and been lost in the pre- vailing numbers of the oriental nation. But I know not in history any probable tradition or circumstance, the existence of the Negro excepted, which should lead us to suppose that there ever were such persons. If they did exist, I think they must have been situated in China. It is possible that they may have been in that country, but it is a bare possibility, unsupported by. any facts or circumstances known to us. No doubt the Chinese are entitled to what they claim — a descent from very remote antiquity. But it is acknowledged that one of their despots destroyed all their authentic and official records, in consequence of which little or no dependence can be placed upon the stories which they relate, of transactions which took place any length of time previous to that event
The cautious way in which I reason above respecting the universal nature of the flood, and the conditional style of argument which I adopt in treating the question of man's creation before or after it, no doubt will give offence to a certain class of persons who always go to another class, called priests, for permission to believe, without using their own understandings. I am sorry that I should offend these good people, but as I cannot oblige them by taking for granted the truth of alleged facts, the truth or falsity of which is, at least in
4 ANACALYPSIS.
part, the object of this work, it is clearly not fit, as it is not intended, for their perusaL
3. Of the formation of our planetary system, and particularly of our world and of man, a vast variety of accounts were given by the different philosophers of Greece and Rome, a very fair description of which may be met with in the first volume of the Universal History, and in Stanley's History of Philosophy. Many of these cosmogonists have been highly celebrated for their wisdom; and yet, unless we suppose their theories to have been in a great degree allegorical, or to have contained some secret meaning, they exhibit an inconceivable mass of nonsense. But some of them, foF instance tliat of Sanchoniathon, so largely discussed by Bishop Cumberland, are clearly allegorical: of course all such must be excepted from this condemnation.
If a person will apply his mind without prejudice to a consideration of the characters and doctrines of the ancient cosmogonists of the western part of the world, he must agree with me that they exhibit an extraordinary mixture of sense and nonsense, wisdom and folly — views of the cteation, and its cause or causes, the most profound and beautiful, mixed with the most puerile conceits — conceits and fancies below the understanding of a plough-boy. How ig this to be account- ed for? The fact cannot be denied. Of the sayings of the wise men, there was not one, probably, more wise than that of the celebrated TvwOl o-cavrov. Know thyself^ and probably there was not one to which so little regard has been paid. It is to the want of attention to this principle that I attribute most of the absurdities with which the wise and. learned, perhaps in all ages, may be reproached. Man has forgotten or been ignorant that his faculties are limited. He has failed to mark the line of demarcation, beyond which his knowledge could not extend. Instead of applying his mind to objects cognizable by his senses, he has attempted subjects abov^ the reach of the human mind, and has lost and bewildered himself in the mazes of metaphysics. He has not known or has not attended to what has been so clearly proved by Locke, that no idea can be received except through the medium of the senses. He has endeavoured to form ideas without attending to this principle, and, as might well be expected, he has run into the greatest absurdities, the necessary consequence of such imprudence. Very well the profound and learned Thomas Burnet says,^ "Sapientia prima est
* Arch. Phil. cap. vii.
CYCLE OF THE NEROS. 5
stultitia caruisse;" "primusque ad veritatem gradus prsecavere errores." Again he says, " Sapientis enim est, non tantum ea quae sciri possunt, scire: sed etiam qua sciri nan possunt^ discemere et discriminarer ^
It must not be understood from what I have said, that I wish to put a stop to all metaphysical researches; far from it But I do certainly wish to control them, to keep them within due bounds, and to mark well the point beyond which, from the nature of our organization, we cannot proceed. Perhaps it may not be possible to fix the exact point beyond which the mind of man can never go, but it may be possible to say without doubt, of some certain point, beyond this he has not yet advanced. By this cautious mode of proceeding, though we may pretend to less knowledge, we may in fact possess more.
For these various reasons I shall pass over, without notice, the different theories of the formation of the world by the sages of Greece and Rome. In general they seem to me to deserve no notice, to be below the slightest consideration of a person of common understanding. As a curious record of what some of the wise men of antiquity were, they are interesting and worthy of preservation : as a rational expos^ of the origin of things, they are nothing.
Among the subjects to which I allude as being above the reach of the human understanding are Liberty and Necessity, the Eternity of Matter, and several other similar subjects.
4. Our information of the historical transactions which it is supposed took place previous to the catastrophe,^ and its attendant flood, which destroyed the ancient world, is very small. Mons. Bailly has observed, that the famouiS cycle of the Neros, and the cycle of seven days, or the week, from their peculiar circumstances, must probably have been of antediluvian invention. No persons could have invented the Neros who had not arrived at much greater perfection in astronomy than we know was the state of the most ancient of the Assyrians, Eg3rptians, or Greeks. The earliest of these nations supposed the year to have consisted of 360 days only,
1 Arch Phil. p. 95.
' This catastrophe has been thought by many of the modems to have arisen from a change of the direction of the earth's axis, and a simultaneous; or perhaps con- sequent, change of the length of the year from 360 to 365 days. The change of the axis was believed among the ancients by Plato, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Diogenes, Leticippus, and Democritus. Vide book ii. ch. iv. vi. of Thomas Burnet's Archaologia PhUosophica,
6 ANACALYPSIS.
whea the inventors of the Neros must have known its length to within a few seconds of time — a fact observed by Mons. Bailly to be a decisive proof that science was formerly brought to perfection, and therefore, consequently, must have been afterward lost. There are indeed among the Hindoos proofs innumerable that a very profound knowledge of the sciences was brought by their ancestors from the upper countries of India, the Himraalah mountains, Thibet or Cashmir. These were, I apprehend, the first descendants of the persons who lived after the deluge. But this science has long been forgotten by their degenerate successors, the present race of Brahmins. The ancient Hindoos might be acquainted with the Neros, but I thjnk it probable that Josephus was correct in saying it is of antediluvian discovery; that is, that it was discovered previo^us to the time allotted for the deluge. And it is a curious circumstance that we receive this tradition from the people among whom we find the apparently antediluvian part of the book, or the first tract of the book, called Genesis, about which I shall have much more to observe in tlie course of this work.
The other cycle just now named, of the seven days or the week, is also supposed by Bailly to be, from its universal reception, of equal antiquity. There is no country of the old world in which it is not found, which, with the reasons which I will now proceed to state, pretty well justify Mons. Bailly in his supposition.
5. In my Preliminary Observajtions, and in my treatise on The Celtic Druids, I have pointed out the process by which the planetary bodies were called after the days of the week, or the days of the week after them. I have there stated that the septennial cycle would probably be among the earliest of what would be called the scientific discoveries which the primeval races of men would make.
Throughout all the nations of the ancient world, the planets are to be found appropriated to the days of the week. The seven-day cycle, with each day named after a planet, and universally the same day allotted to the same planet in all the nations of the world, constitute the first proof, and leave no room to doubt that one system must have prevailed over the whole. Here are the origin and the reason of all judicial astrology, as well as the foundation upon which much of the Heathen mythology was built The two were closely and intimately connected.
It is the object of this work to trace the steps by which, fi-om the earliest time and small beginnings, this system grew to a vast and
ORIGIN OF ASTROLOGY. 7
•
towering height, covering the worid with gigantic monuments and beautiful temples, enabling one part of mankind, by means of the fears and ignorance of the other part, to trample it in the dust.
Uncivilized man is by nature the most timid of animals, and in that state the most defenceless. The storm, the thunder, the light- ning, or the eclipse, fills him with terror. He is alarmed and trembles at everything which he does not understand, and that is almost everything that he sees or hears.
If a person will place himself in the situation of an early observer of the heavenly bodies, and consider how they must have appeared to him in his state of ignorance, he will at once perceive that it was scarcely possible that he could avoid mistaking them for animated or intelligent beings. To us, with our prejudices of education, it is difficult to form a correct idea of what his sensations must have been, on his first discovering the five planets to be different fi-om the other stars, and to possess a locomotive quality, apparently to him subject to no rule or order. But we know what happened ; he supposed them animated, and to this day tliey are still supposed to be so, by the greatest part of the world. Even in enlightened England judicial astrologers are to be found.
I suppose that after man first discovered the twenty-eight day cycle, and the year of 360 days, he would begin to perceive that certain stars, larger than the rest, and shining with a steady and not a scintillating light, were in perpetual motion. They would appear to him, unskilled in astronomy, to be endowed with life and great activity, and to possess a power of voluntary motion, going and coming in the expanse at pleasure. These were the planets. A long time would pass before their number could be ascertained, and a still longer before it could be discovered that their motions were periodical The different systems of the ancient philosophers of Greece and other countries, from their errors and imperfections, prove that this must have been the state of the case. During this period of ignorance and fear arose the opinion, that they influenced the lot of man, or governed this sublunary world; and very naturally arose the opinion that they were intelligent beings. And as they appeared to be constantly advancing towards and receding from the sun, the parent of life and comfort to the world, they were believed to be his ministers and messengers. As they began in some instances to be observed to return, or be visible in the same part of the heavens, they would naturally be supposed by the terrified barbarian to have duties to perform; and when the very ancient
8 ANACALYPSIS.
book of Job^ represents the mommg stars to have sung together, and all the sons of God to have shouted for joy, it probably does not mean to use merely a figurative expression, but nearly the literal purport of the language.
In contemplating the host of heaven, men could not fail soon to observe that the fixed stars were in a particular manner connected with the seasons — that certain groups of them regularly returned at the time experience taught them it was necessary to commence their seed-time or their harvest; but that the planets, though in some degree apparently connected with the seasons, were by no means so intimately and uniformly connected with them as the stars. This would be a consequence which would arise from the long periods of some of the planets — Saturn, for instance. These long periods of some of the planets would cause the shortness of the periods of others of them to be overlooked, and would, no doubt, have the effect of delaying the time when their periodical revolutions would
■
be discovered; perhaps for a very long time; and, in the interim, the opinion that they were intelligent agents would be gaining ground, and receiving the strengthening seal of superstition ; and, if a priesthood had arisen, the fiat of orthodoxy.
From these causes we find that, though in judicial astrology or magic the stars have a great influence, yet that a great distinction is made between them and the planetary bodies; and I think that, by a minute examination of the remaining astrological nonsense which exists, the distinction would be found to be justified, and the prob- ability of the history here given confirmed.
As it has been observed, though the connection between the planets and the seasons was not so intimate as between the latter and the stars, yet still there was often an apparent connexion, and some of the planets would be observed to appear when particular seasons arrived, and thus after a certain time they were thought to be beneficent or malevolent, as circumstances appeared to justify the observers' conclusions.
6. Of the different histories of the creation, that contained in the book, or collection of books, called Genesis, has been in the Western parts of the world the most celebrated, and the nonsense which has been written respecting it, may fairly vie with the nonsense, a little time ago alluded to, of the ancient learned men of Greece and Rome.
This book professes to commence with a history of the creation,
^ Chap, xxxviii. vex. 7.
WORSHIP OF THE SUN, ETC. 9
and in our vulgar translation it says, "/;? the beginning God created the heavens and the earthJ' But I conceive for the wo^d heavens the word planets ought to be substituted. The original for the word heavens is of great consequence. Parkhurst admits that it has the meaning of placers or disposers. In fact, it means the planets as distinguished from the fixed stars, and is the foundation, as I have said, and as we shall find, upon which all judicial astrology, and perhaps much of the Heathen mytholog}s was built
After man came to distinguish the planets from the stars, and had allotted them to the respective days of the week, he proceeded to give them names, and they were literally the Dewtahs of India, the Archangels of the Persians and Jews, and the most ancient of the Gods of the Greeks and Romans, among the \'ulgar of whom each planet had a name, and was allotted to, or thought to be, a God.
The following are the names of the Gods allotted to each day: Sunday to the Sun, Monday to the Moon, Tuesday to Mars, Wednesday to Mercur}', Thursday to Jupiter, Friday to Venus, and Saturday to Saturn : and it is worthy of observation, that neither Bacchus nor Hercules is among them, on which I shall have an observation, to make in a future part of this work. In almost every page we shall have to make some reference to judicial astrology, which took its rise from the planetary bodies.
The Sun, I think I shall shew, was unquestionably the first object of the worship of all nations. Contemporaneously with him or after him succeeded, for the reasons which I have given, the planets. About the time that the collection of planets became an object of adoration, the Zodiac was probably marked out from among the fixed stars, as we find it in the earliest superstitions of the astrologers. Indeed, the worship of the equinoctial sun in the sign Taurus, the remains of which are yet found in our May-day festivals, carries it back at least for 4,500 years before Christ How much further back the system may be traced, I pretend not to say.
7. After the sun and planets it seems, on first view, probable that the moon would occupy the next place in the idolatrous veneration of the different nations ; but I am inclined to think that this was not the case. Indeed, I very much doubt whether ever he or she, for it was of both genders, was an object of adoration at all in the very early periods. I think it would be discovered so soon that its motions were periodical, that there would be scarcely any time for the error to happen; for I cannot conceive it possible that it should have been
10 ANACALYPSIS.
thought to be an intelligent being after once its periodical nature was discovered.
This doctrine respecting the Moon will be thought paradoxical and absurd, and I shall be asked what I make of the goddess Isis. I reply, that it is the inconsistencies, contradictions, and manifest ignorance of the ancients respecting this goddess, which induce me to think that the Moon never was an object of worship in early times; and that it never became an object of adoration till comparatively modem times, when the knowledge of the ancient mysteries was lost, and not only the knowledge of the mysteries, but the knowledge of the religion itself, or at least of its origin and meaning, were lost. The least attention to the treatises of Plato, Phomutus, Cicero, Porph3ny, and, in short, of every one of the ancient writers on the subject of the religion, must convince any unprejudiced person that they either were all completely in the dark, or pretended to be so. After the canaille got to worshipping onions, crocodiles, &c., &c., &c., no doubt the moon came in for a share of their adoration; but all the accounts of it are full of inconsistency and contradiction : for this reason I think it was of late invention, and that Isis was not originally the moon, but the mother of the gods. Many other reasons for this opinion will be given in the course of the work, when I come to treat of Isis and the Moon.
^ CHAPTER II.
FIRST GOD OF THE ANCIENTS. — ^THE SUN. — ^DOUBLE NATURE OF THE DEITY. — METEMPSYCHOSIS AND RENEWAL OF WORLDS. — MORAL EVIL. — ETERNITY OF MATTER. — BUDDHA. — GENESIS.
I. I shall now proceed to shew, in a way which I think I may safely say cannot be refuted, that all the Gods of antiquity resolved themselves into the solar fire, sometimes itself as God, or sometimes as emblem or shekinah of that higher principle, known by the name of the creative Being or God. But first I must make a few observa- tions on his nature, as it was supposed to exist by the ancient philosophers.
On the nature of this Being or God the ancient oriental philoso- phers entertained opinions which took their rise from a very profound
MAN THE CHILD OF CIRCUMSTANCES. II
and recondite course of reasoning, (but yet, when once put in train, a very obvious one,) which arose out of the relation which man and the creation around him were observed by them to bear, to their supposed cause — opinions which, though apparently well known to the early philosophers of all nations, seem to have been little regarded or esteemed in later times, even if known to them, by the mass of mankind. But still they were opinions which, in a great degree, influenced the conduct of the world in succeeding ages; and though founded in truth or wisdom, .in their abuse they became the causes of great evils to the huriian race.
The opinions here alluded to are of so profound a nature, that they seem to bespeak a state of the human mind much superior to any thing to be met with in what we have been accustomed to consider or call ancient times. From their philosophical truth and universal reception in the world, I am strongly inclined to refer them to the authors of the Neros, or to that enlightened race, supposed by Mons. Bailly to have formerly existed, and to have been saved from a great catastrophe on the Himmalah mountains. This is confirmed by an observation which the reader will make in the sequel, that these doctrines have been like all the other doctrines of antiquity, gradually corrupted — incarnated, if I may be permitted to compose a word for the occasion.
Sublime philosophical truths or attributes have become clothed with bodies and converted into living creatures. Perhaps this might take its origin from a wish in those professing them to conceal them fiom the vulgar eye, but the cause being forgotten, all ranks in society at last came to understand them in the literal sense, their real character being lost; or perhaps this incarnation might arise from a gradual falling away of mankind from a high state of civilization, at which it must have arrived when those doctrines were discovered, into a state of ignorance, — the produce of revolutions, or perhaps merely of the great law of change which in all nature seems to be eternally in operation.
2. The human animal, like all other animals, is in his mode ot existence very much the child, of accident, circumstance, habit: as he is moulded in his youth he generally continues. This is in nothing, perhaps, better exemplified than in the use of his right hand From being carried in the right arm of his nurse, his right hand is set at liberty for action and use, while his left is at rest: the habit of using the right hand in preference to the left is thus acquired and never forgotten. A similar observation applies to the
12 ANACALYPSIS.
mind. To natural causes leading men to peculiar trains or habits of thinking or using the mind, may be traced all the recondite theories which we find among the early races of man. If to causes of this kind they are not to be ascribed, I should be glad to know where their origins are to be looked for. If they be not in these causes to be found, we must account for them by inventing a history of the adventures of some imagined human being, after the manner of the Greeks and many others, whose priests never had a difficulty, always having a fable ready for the amusement of their credulous votaries.
In opposition to this, I, perhaps, may be asked, why the inhabitants of the new world have not arrived at the high degree of civilization, — at the same results, as the inhabitants of the old? The answer is, Accident or circumstances being at first different, they have been led to a different train of acting or thinking ; and if they branched off from the parent stock in very early times, accident or circumstances being after their separation different, are quite sufficient to account for the difference of the results. It seems probable, that from their knowledge of figures and their ignorance of letters, they must have branched off in a very remote period. Although the peculiar circumstance, that few or none of the animals of the old world were found in the new one, or of the animals of the new one in the old, seems to shew a separate formation of the animal creation; yet the identity of many of the religious rites and ceremonies of the inhabitants of the two worlds, and other circumstances pointed out by Mr. Faber and different writers, seem to bespeak only one formation or creation of man.
The rise of the doctrine respecting the nature of God named above, is said to be lost in the most remote antiquity. This may be true; but perhaps a little consideration will enable us to point out the natural cause from which, as I have observed, it had its origin. Like the discovery of figures or arithmetic, the septennial cycle, &c., it probably arose among the first philosophers or searchers after wisdom, from their reflecting upon the objects which presented themselves to their observation.
3. That the sun was the first object of the adoration of mankind, I apprehend, is a fact, which I shall be able to place beyond tiie reach of reasonable doubt. An absolute proof of. this fact the circumstances of the case put it out of our power to produce; but it is supported by reason and common sense, and by the traditions of all nations, when carefully examined to their foundations. The
ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. I3
allegorical accounts or mythoses^ of different countries, the inven- tions of an advanced state of society, inasmuch as they are really only allegorical accounts or mythoses, operate nothing against this doctrine.
When, after ages of ignorance and error, man became in some degree civilized^ and he turned his mind to a close contemplation of the fountain of light and life — of the celestial fire — ^he would observe, among the earliest discoveries which he would make, that by its powerful agency all nature was called into action; that to its return in the spring season the animal and vegetable creation were indebted for their increase as well as for their existence. It is probable that for this reason chiefly the sun, in early times, was believed to be the creator, and became the first object of adoration. This seems to be only a natural effect of such a cause. After some time it v/ould be discovered that this powerful and bei^eficent agent, the solar fire, was the most potent destroyer, and hence would arise the first idea of a Creator and Destroyer united in the same person. But much time would not elapse before it must have been observed, that the destruction caused by this powerful being was destruction only in appearance, that destruction was only reproduction in another form — regeneration; that if he appeared sometimes to destroy, he constantly repaired the injury which he seemed to occasion — and that, without his light and heat, every thing would dwindle away into a cold, inert, unprolific mass.^ Thus at once, in the same being, became concentrated, the creating, the preserving, and the destroying powers, — ^the latter of the three being, at the same time, both the destroyer and regenerator. Hence, by a very natural and obvious train of reasoning, arose the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer — ^in India, Brahma^ Vishnu^ and Siva; in Persia, Oromasdes, Mithra, and Arimanius; in Egypt, Osiris^
^ This is nothing against the Mosaic account, because it is allowed by all philosophers, as well as most of the early Jews and Christian fathers, to contain a mjrthos or an allegory — ^by Philo, Josephus, Papias, Pantaenus, Irenaeus, Clemens Alex., Origen, the two Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzen, Jerome, Ambrose, Spencer de Legibus Hebrseorum, Alexander Geddes, the Romish translator of the Bible, in the Preface and Critical Remarks, p. 49. See also Marsh's Lectures, &c., &c. Of this I shall say more hereafter.
* Described in Genesis by the words \T\H\ \\\T\ tgu-u-b^t which mean a mass of matter effete, unproductive, unprolific, ungenerating, and itself devoid of the beautiful forms of the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, — the mud or \Xur of Sanchoniathon. The words of our Bible, as here used, without fomt and voidf have not any meaning.
14 ANACALYPSIS.
Neith^ and Typhon: in each case Three Persons and one God. And thus arpse the Trimurti, or the celebrated Trinity. On this Mr. Payne Knight says, "The hypostatical division and essential " unity of the Deity is one of the most remarkable parts of this " system, and the farthest removed from common sense and reason : " and yet this is perfectly reasonable and consistent, if considered " together with the rest of it, for the emanations and personifications "were only figurative abstractions of particular modes of action and "existence, of which the primary cause and original essence still "continued one arid the same. The three hj^ostases being thus " only one being, each hypostasis is occasionally taken for all, as is "the case in the passage of Apuleius before cited, where Isis "describes herself as the universal deity. "^
The sun himself, in his corporeal and visible form of a globe of fire, I do not doubt was, for a long time, the sole trinity. And it would not be till after ages of speculation and philosophizing that man would raise his mind to a more pure trinity or to a trinity of abstractions, — a trinity which would probably never have existed in his imagination if he had not first had the more gross corporeal igneous trinity, with its effects, for its prototype, to lead him to the more refined and sublime doctrine, in which the corporeal and igneous trinity gave way among philosophers to one of a more refined kind; or to a system of abstractions, or of attributes, or of emanations, from a superior being, the creator and preserver of the sun himself.
It has been said in reply to this. Then this fundamental doctrine on which, in fact, all the future religion and philosophy of the world was built, you attribute to accident ! The word accident means, by us unseen or unknown cause; but I suppose, that when an intelligent Being was establishing the present order of the universe, he must know how the unseen cause or accident which he provided would operate, — this accident or unseen cause being only a link in a chain, the first link of which begins, and the last of which ends, in God.
That the sublime doctrine of emanations, or abstractions as it was called, above alluded to, prevailed among oriental nations, cannot be doubted; but yet there may be a doubt whether they were ever entirely firee fi-om an opinion that the creative Deity consisted of a certain very refined substance, similar, if not the same, as the magnetic, galvanic, or electric fluid. This was the opinion of all the early Christian fathers, as well, I think, as of the Grecians. But
^ Knight, p. 163.
THE DOCTRINE OF EMANATIONS. 1 5
Still, I think, certain philosophers arose above this kind of material- ism, among whom must have been the Buddhists and Brahmins of India ; but of this we shall see more in the sequel We shall find this a most difficult question to decide.
4. The Trinity described above, and consisting of abstractions or emanations from the divine nature, will be found exemplified in the following work in a vast variety of ways; but in all, the first principle will be foimd at the bottom of them. I know nothing in the works of the ancient philosophers which can be brought against them except a passage or two of Plato, and one of Numenius, according to Froclus.
Plato says, "When, therefore, that God, who is a perpetually "reasoning divinity, cogitated about the god who was destined to "subsist at some certain period of time, he produced his body "smooth and equable; and every way from the middle even and "whole, and perfect from the composition of perfect bodies."^
Again Plato says, "And on all these accounts he rendered the "universe a happy God."^ Again he says, "But he fabricated the " earth, the common nourisher of our existence; which being con- " globed about the pole, extended through the universe, is the guardian and artificer of night and day, and is the first and most ancient of the gods which are generated within the heavens. But the harmonious progressions of these divinities, their concussions "with each other, the revolutions and advancing motions of their " circles, how they are situated with relation to each other in their " conjunctions and oppositions, whether direct among themselves or " retrograde, at what times and in what manner they become con- " cealed, and, again emerging to our view, cause terror, and exhibit "tokens of future events to such as are able to discover their "signification; of all this to attempt an explanation, without suspect- "ing the resemblances of these divinities, would be a fruitless " employment. But of this enough, and let this be the end, of our " discourse concerning the nature of the visible and generated gods."^
How from these passages any ingenuity can make out that Plato maintained a trinity of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth, as the Supreme God or the Creator, I do not know, and I should not have thought of noticing them if I had not seen an attempt lately made in a work not yet published, to depreciate the sublime doctrines of the ancients by deducing from these passages that consequence.
^Plato's Tim., Taylor, p. 483. *Ibid. p. 484. ^Ibid. p. 499, 500.
u it
l6 ANACALYPSIS.
The other passage is of Numenius the P)rthagorean, recorded by Proclus, who says tiiat he taught that the world was the third God, 6 yap Kocfio^ Kwr avrov 6 rpiTos €(m 0€os.^
This is evidently nothing but the hearsay of hearsay evidence, and can only show that these doctrines, like all the other mythoses, had become lost or doubtful to the Greeks. The latter quotation of this obscure author will be found undeserving of attention, when placed in opposition to the immense mass of evidence which will be pro- duced in this work. And as for the passage of Plato, I think few persons will allow it to have any weight, when in like manner every con9truction of it* is found to be directly in opposition to his other doctrines, as my reader will soon see.^
5. The doctrine as developed above by me, is said to be too refined for the first race of men. Beautifully refined it certainly is : but my reader will recollect that I do not suppose that man arrived at these results till after many generations of ignorance, and till after probably almost innumerable essays of absurdity and folly. But I think if the matter be well considered, the Pantheistic scheme (for it is a part of a pantheism) of making the earth the creator of all, will require much more refinement of mind than the doctrine of attribut- ing the creation to the sun. The first is an actual refinement run into corruption, similar to Bishop Berkley's doctrine — ^refinement, indeed, carried to a vicious excess, carried to such an excess as to return to barbarism; similar, for instance, to what took place in the latter ages of Greece and Rome in the fine arts, when the beautiful Ionic and Corinthian orders of architecture were deserted for the Composite.
We may venture, I think, to presume that adoration must first have arisen either from fear or admiration ; in fact, firom feeling. As an object of feeling, the sun instantly offers himself. The efiect
^Comment, in Tim. of Plat. II. 93.
'In the seventh chapter of the 2nd book of Arch. Phil, by Thomas Burnet, who was among the very first of modem philosophers, may be seen an elaborate and satisfactory proof that the ancient philosophers constantly^ held two doctrines, one for the learned, and one for the vulgar. He supports his proofs by an example from Jamblicus and Laertius, relative to some notions of Pythagoras, which accorded with the vulgar opinion of the Heavens, but which were contrary to his REAL opinions. He has completely justified the ancients from the attempts of certain of the modems to fix upon them their simulated opinions. The fate of Socrates fumishes an admirable example of what would happen to those who in ancient times taught true doctrines to the vulgar, or attempted to draw aside the veil of Isis.
ANDROGYNOUS CHARACTER OF THE DEITY. 1/
arising from the dafly experience of his beneficence does not seem to be of such a nature as to wear away by use, as is the case with most feelings of this kind. He obtrudes himself on our notice in every way. But what is there in the earth on which we tread, and which is nothing without the sun, which should induce the half-civilised man to suppose it an active agent — to suppose that it created itself? He would instantly see that it was, in itsdf^ to all appearance tnn teu^ *ini1 uh'eu^ an inert, dead, unprolific mass. And it must, I think, have required an exertion of metaphysical subtlety, infinitely greater than my trinity must have required, to arrive at a pantheism so completely removed from the common apprehension of the human understanding. In my oriental theory, every thing is natural and seductive; in the other, every thing is unnatural and repulsive.
My learned friend who advocates this degrading scheme of Pantheism against my sublime and intellectual theory, acknowledges what cannot be denied, that the doctrines held in these two passages of Numenius and Plato, are directly at variance with their philosophy as laid down in all their other works. Under these circumstances, I think I may safely dismiss them without further observation, as passages misunderstood, or contrivances to conceal their real opinions.
6. Of equal, or nearly equal date, and almost equally disseminated throughout the world with the doctrine of the Trinity, was that of the Hermaphroditic or Androgynous character of the Deity. Man could not help observing and meditating upon the difference of the sexes. He was conscious that he himself was the highest in rank of all creatures of which he had any knowledge, and he very properly and very naturally, as far as was in his power, made God after the being of highest rank known to him, after himself; thus it might be said, that in his own image, in idea, made he his God. But of what sex was this God? To make him neuter, supposing man to have become graip- marian enough to have invented a neuter gender, was to degrade him to the rank of a stone. To make him female was evidently more analogous to the general productive and prolific characters of the author of the visible creation. To make him masculine was still more analogous to man's own person, and to his superiority over the female, the weaker vessel; but still this was attended with many objections. From a consideration of all these circumstances, an union of the two was adopted, and he was represented as being Androgynous.
^Gen. chap. i.
1 8 ANACALYPSIS.
Notwithstanding what I have said in my last paragraph respecting the degradation of making God of the neuter gender, I am of opinion that had a neuter gender been known it would have been applied to the Deity, and for that reason would have been accounted, of the three genders, the most honourable. For this, among other reasons, if I find any very ancient language which has not a neuter gender, I shall be disposed to consider it to be probably among the very oldest of the languages of the world. This observation will be of importance hereafter.
7. Of all the different attributes of the Creator, or faculties con- ferred by him on his creature, there is no one so striking or so interesting to a reflecting person as that of the generative power. This is the most incomprehensible and mysterious of the powers of nature. When all the adjuncts or accidents of every kind so interest- ing to the passions and feelings of man are considered, it is not wonderful that this subject should be found in some way or other to have a place among the first of the human superstitions. Thus every- where we find it accompanying the triune God, called Trimurti or Trinity, just described, under the very significant form of the single obelisk or stone pillar, denominated the Lingham or Phallus,^ and the equally significant Yoni or Cteis, the female organ of generation ; sometimes single, often in conjunction. The origin of the worship of this object is discussed at large in my Cdtic Druids^ and will be found in the index by reference to the words Phallus, Linga, Lithoi.
8. The next step, after man had once convinced himself of the existence of a God, would be, I think, to discover the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Long before he arrived at this point, he must have observed, and often attempted to account for, the existence of moral evil. How to reconcile this apparent blot in the creation to the beneficence of an all-powerful Creator, would be a matter of great difficulty: he had probably recourse to the only contrivance which was open to him, a contrivance to which he seems to have been driven by a wise dispensation of Providence, the doctrine of a future state of existence, where the ills of this world would find a remedy, and the accounts of good and evil be balanced; where the good man would receive his reward, and the bad one his punishment This seems to me to be the probable result of the contemplation of the existence of evil by the profound primeval oriental philosophers, who first invented the doctrine of the Trinity.
* Religion de 1' Antique, par Cruizer, Notes, Introd. p. 525.
ORIGIN OF MORAL EVIL. 1 9
9. Other considerations would lend their assistance to produce the same result After man had discovered the doctrine of the immor- tality of the soul, the metempsychosis followed the doctrine of the reproduction or regeneration by the third person of the triune God> by a very natural process, as the doctrine of the triune God had before arisen by an easy process from the consideration, by man, of the qualities of the beings around him. Everywhere, throughout all nature, the law that destruction was reproduction appeared to prevail This, united to the natural fondness for immortality, of which every human being is conscious, led to the conclusion, that man, the dlite of the creation, could not be excepted from the general rule; that he did but die to live again, to be regenerated ; a consciousness of his own frailty gradually caused a belief that he was regenerated in some human body, or the body of some animal, as a punishment for his offences, until, by repeated penances of this kind, his soul had paid the forfeit of the crimes of its first incarnation, had become purified from all stain, and in a state finally to be absorbed into the celestial influence, or united to the substance of the Creator. As it happens in every sublunary concern, the law of change corrupted these simple principles in a variety of ways ; and we find the Destroyer made into a demon or devil, at war with the Preserver or with the Creator. Hence arose the doctrine of the two principles opposed to each other, of Oromasdes and Arimanius in perpetual war, typified by the higher and lower hemisphere of the earth, of winter and summer, of light and darkness, as we shall find developed in a variety of ways. What could be so natural as to allot to the Destroyer the lower hemisphere of cold and darkness, of winter, misery, and famine? What so natural as to allot to the beneficent Preserver the upper hemisphere of genial warmth, of summer, happiness, and plenty? Hence came the festivals of the equinoxes and of the solstices, much of the complicated machinery of the heathen mythology, and of judicial astrology.
From similar trains of reasoning arose the opinion that everything in nature, even the world itself, was subject to periodical changes, to alternate destructions and renovations — an opinion, perhaps, for sublimity not to be equalled in the history of the difterent philoso- phical systems of the world, the only doctrine which seemed, in the opinion of the ancients, to be capable of reconciling the existence of evil with the goodness of God.
10. A little time ago I said that the first philosophers could not account for the existence of moral evil without the doctrine of the
20 ANACALYPSIS.
immortality of the soul I am induced to make another observation upon this subject before I leave it. In the modem Christian system this difficulty has been overcome, as most theological difficulties usually are, among devotees, by a story, — in this case, by a story of a serpent and a fruit tree, of which I shall not here give my opinion, except that, like most of the remainder of Genesis, it was anciently held to have an allegorical meaning, and, secondly, that I cannot do Moses the injustice of supposing that he, like the modem priests, could have meant it, at least by the higher classes of his followers, to be believed literally.
Moral evil is a relative term; its correlative is moral good. With, out evil there is no good; without good there is no evil. There is no such thing known to us as good or evil per se. Here I must come to Mr. Locke's fine principle, so often quoted by me in my former book, the trath of which has been universally acknowledged, and to which, in their reasoning, all men seem to agree in forgetting to pay attention — ^that we. know nothing except through the medium of our senses, which is experience. We have no experience of moral good or of moral evil except as relative and correlative to one another; therefore, we are with respect to them as we are with respect to God. Though guided by experience, we confidently believe their existence in this qualified form, yet of their nature, independent of one another, we can know nothing. God having created man subject to one, he could not, without changing his nature, exclude the other. All this the ancients seem to have known; and, in order to account for and remove several difficulties, they availed themselves of the metempsychosis, a renewal of worlds, and the final absorption of the soul or the thinking principle into the Divine substance, from which it was supposed to have emanated, and where it was supposed to enjoy that absolute and uncorrelative beatitude, of which man can form no idea. This doctrine is very sublime, and is such as we may reasonably expect from the school where Pythagoras studied;^ but I do not mean to say that it removes all difficulties, or is itself free from difficulty. But absolute perfection can be expected only by priests who can call to their aid apples of knowledge. Philosophers must content themselves with something
^Carmel, close to the residence of Melchizedek, where was the temple of Iao, without image. See Jamblicus, chap, iii., Taylor's translation. When I formed the table of additional errata to my Celtic Druids, I had forgotten where I found the fact here named relating to the residence of Pythagoras, which caused the expression of the doubt which may be seen there respecting it.
EXISTENCE OF MATTER. 21
less. Of the great variety of sects or religions in the world, there is not one, if the priests of each may be believed, in which any serious difficulties of this kind are found
II. Modem divines, a very sensitive race, have been much shocked with the doctrine of the ancients, that nothing could be created from nothing, ex nihilo nihil Jit. This is a subject well deserving consideration. The question arises, how did the ancients acquire the knowledge of the truth of this proposition? Had they any positive experience that matter was not made from nothing? I think they had not Then how could they have any knowledge on the subject? As they had received no knowledge through the medium of the senses, that is from experience, it was rash and un- philosophical to come to any conclusion.
The ancients may have reasoned from analogy. They may have said, 0\xt experience teaches that everything which we perceive has pre-existed before the moment we perceive it, therefore it is fair to conclude that it must always have existed. A most hasty conclusion. All that they could fairly conclude, was that, for any thing which they knew to the contrary, it may have existed from eternity, not that it must have existed. But this amounts not to knowledge.
Are the modem priests any wiser than the ancient philosophers? Have they any knowledge from experience of matter having ever been created from nothing? I think they have not^ Then how can they conclude that it was created from nothing? They cannot know an3rthing about it; they are in perfect ignorance.
If matter has always existed, I think we may conclude that it will always exist. But if it has not always existed, will it always continue to exist? I think we may conclude it to be probable that it will For if it has not always existed it must have been created (as I will assume) by God God would not create anything which was not good. He will not destroy anything that is good. He is not changeable or repents what he has done; therefore he will not destroy the matter 'which he has created. From which we may con- clude, that the change of form which we see daily taking place is periodical; at least there is in favour of this what the Jesuits would call a probable opinion; and this brings us to the altemate creations and destructions of the ancients. A learned philosopher says, ''The " bold and magnificent idea of a creation from nothing was reserved "for the more vigorous faith and more enlightened minds of the
^The book of Genesis, when properly translated, says nothing pn the subject.
22 ANACALYPSIS.
" modems, who seek no authority to confirm their belief; for as that " which is self-evident admits of no proof, so that which is in itself "impossible admits of no refutation."^
This doctrine of the renewal of worlds, held by the ancient philosophers, has received a great accession of probability from the astronomical discoveries of La Place, who has demonstrated that certain motions of the planetary bodies which appeared to Newton to be irregular, and to portend at some future period the destruction of the solar system, are all periodical, and that after certain im- mensely elongated cycles are finished, everything returns again to its former situation. The ancient philosophers of the East had a knowledge of this doctrine, the general nature of which they might have acquired by reasoning similar to the above, or by the same means by which they acquired a knowledge of the Neros.
This is not inconsistent with the doctrine of a future judgment, and a state of reward and punishment in another world. Why should not the soul transmigrate, and after the day of judgment (a figure) live again in the next world in some new body? Here are all the leading doctrines of the ancients. I see nothing in them absurd — nothing contrary to the moral attributes of God — ^and no- thing contrary even to the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth. It has been thought that the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls may be found in the New Testament
Many of the early fathers of the Christians held the doctrine of the Metempsychosis, which they defended on several texts of the New Testament^ It was an opinion which had a very general circulation both in the East and in the West. It was held by the Pharisees, or Persees, as they ought to be called, among the Jews; and among the Christians by Origen,^ Chalcidius (if he were a Christian), Synesius, and by the Simonians, Basilidians, Valentiniens, Marcionites, and the iGnostics in general. It was held by the Chinese, and, among the most learned of the Greeks, by Plato and Pythagoras. Thus this doctrine was believed by nearly all the great and good of every religion, and of every nation and age; and though the present race has not the smallest information more than its ancestors on this subject, yet the doctrine has not now a single votary in the Western part of the world. The Metempsychosis was believed by the celebrated Christian apologist, Soame Jenyns, perhaps the only believer in it of the modems in the Westem parts.
^Knight, p. 131. 'Beausobre, Hist. Manich, L. vii. c. v. p. 491. ^Ib. p. 492.
(C
it
THE SOUL — DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENTS. 23
The following observations tend not only to throw light on the doctrine of the Indians, the earliest philosophers of whom we have any genuine records, but they also shew that then: doctrine is identically the same as that of certain individuals of the Western philosophers, who, recorded traditions inform us, actually travelled in very remote ages to the country of the Brahmins to learn it
"Pythagoras, returning from his Eastern travels to Greece, taught " the doctrine of the Metempsychosis, and the existence of a Supreme " Being, by whom the universe was created, and by whose providence it is preserved ; that the souls of mankind are emanations of that Being. Socrates, the wisest of the ancient philosophers, seems *'to have believed that the soul existed before the body; and "that death relieves it from those seeming contrarieties to which "it is subject, by its union with our material part Plato (in " conformity to the opinions of the learned Hindoos) asserted that " God infused into matter a portion of his divine spirit, which " animates and moves it ; that mankind have two souls of separate and different natures — the one corruptible, the other immortal ; that the latter is a portion of the divine spirit; that the mortal soul " ceases to exist wiJi the life of the body; but the divine soul, no " longer clogged b;^ its union with matter, continues its existence, " either in a state cf happiness or punishment; that the souls of the " virtuous return, ifter death, into the source whence they flowed; while the souls d the wicked, after being for a certain time confined to a place destned for their reception, are sent back to earth to animate other b)dies. Aristotle supposed the souls of mankind to be portions or emanations of the divine spirit, which at death quit the body, and like a drop of water falling into the ocean, are absorbed into the divinity. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic sect, taught that throughout nature there are two eternal qualities — the one active, tb other passive; that the former is a pure and subde "aether, the dirine spirit; and that the latter is in itself entirely inert, until uiited with the active principle. That the divine spirit, acting upon natter, produced fire, air, water, earth; that the divine spirit is the affident principle, and that all nature is moved and conducted ly it He believed also that the soul of man, being a portion of tte universal soul, returns after death to its first source. The opinio? of the soul being an emanation of the divinity, which is believed y the Hiftdoos, and was professed by Greeks, seems " likewise tohave been adopted by the early Christians. Macrobius " observes, Animarum originem emanare de coelo, inter recte
«
u it «
u
€i tt
a
« a u it
24 ANACALYPSIS.
** philosophantes indubitatse constant esse fidei. Saint Justin *^saysy the soul is incorruptible, because it emanates from God; " and his disciple Tatianus, the Assyrian, observes, that man having " received a portion of the divinity, is immortal as God is. Such was " the system of the ancient philosophers, Pythagoreans, Brachmans, " and some sects of the Christians."^
Thus from trains of reasoning similar to what I have briefly de- scribed, and from natural causes, I think arose all the ancient doctrines and mythologies.
12. The oldest philosophy or mythology of which we have any certain history, is that of the Buddha of the £astem nations, in which are to be found the various doctrixles to which I have just alluded. From the Metempsychosis arpse the repugnance among the Buddhists to the slaughter of animals — a necessary consequence of this doctrine uncorrupted and sincerely believed. From this circumstance in the first book of Genesis, or book of Wisdom, which is probably a work of the Buddhists, the sUughter of animals is prohibited or not allowed. After a time the mild doctrines of Buddha came to be changed or corrupted and superseded by those of Cristna. Hence in the second book of Genesis, or the book of the Generations, or Re-generations^ of the planttary bodies, which is, I think, a Brahmin work, they are allowed to 1^ used for sacrifice. In the third book, or the book of the Generations, or Re-generations^ of the race of man, the Adam, they are first alowed to be eaten as food
How long a time would elapse before man would arrive at the point I here contemplate — the knowledge of the doctines which I have described — must evidently depend, in a great m^ure, upon the degree of perfectioa in which he was turned out fron the hand of his Creator. On this point we are and we must remain n ignorance. I argue upon the supposition that man was created witi only sufficient information for his comfortable existence, and, thertfore, I must be considered to use merely a conditional argument If any person think it more probable that man was turned out of hisCreator's hand in a state of perfection, I have no objection to this ; mt my reason- ing does not apply to him. If he will condescend to riison with me, he must conditionally admit my premises.
^Forbes, Orient. Mem. Vol. iii. Ch. xxxiiL p. 261.
' Parkhurst, in voce, 1?^ i/d.
' These are the names which the books give to themselves.
PREVAILING SYSTEM OF CLASSICAL EDUCATION ABSURD. 25
13. It is not to be supposed that I imagine these profound philosophical results respecting the Trinity, &c., to have been arrived at by the half civilised or infant man all at once — ^in a day, a week, or a year. No, indeed! many generations, perhaps thousands of years may have elapsed before he arrived at this point; and I think the discovery of several of them in every part of the world, new as well as old, justifies the inference that they were the doctrines of a race, in a high stat^ of civilisation, either immediately succeeding or before the flood, which has so evidentiy left its traces everywhere around us. Before these profound results were airived at, innumer- able attempts must have been made to discover the origin of things. Probably every kind of absurdity imaginable may have been indulged in. All this we may readily suppose, but of its truth we cannot arrive at absolute certaint)ic At the same time, for anything we know to the contrary, man may have been created in such a state as easily to have arrived at these conclusions. It is scarcely possible for us at this day to be able to appreciate the advantages which the first races of mankind would possess, in not having their minds poisoned, and their understandings darkened, and enervated by the prejudices of education. Every part of modem education seems to be contrived for the purpose of enfeebling the mind of man. The nurse begins with hobgoblins and ghosts, which are followed up by the priests with devils and the eternal torments of hell. How few are the men who can entirely free themselves firom these and similar delusions in endless variety instilled into the infant mind !
A learned philosopher has said, "It is surprising that so few should " have perceived how destructive of intellect the prevailing classical " system of education is; or rather that so few should have had *' courage to avow their convictions respecting classical absurdity
and idolatry. Except Bacon and Hobbes, I know not that any
authors of high rank have ventured to question the importance or " utility of the learning which has so long stunned the world with the " noise of its pretensions; but surely it does not require the solid " learning or philosophic sagacity of a Bacon or a Hobbes, to per- " ceive the ignorance, nonsense, folly, and dwarffying tendency of '' the kind of learning which has been so much boasted of by brain- " less pedants."
All the doctrines which I have stated above are well known to have been those of the most ancient nations; the theory of the origin of those doctrines is my own. But I beg leave to observe, that whether the theory of their origin be thought probable or not,
it
26 ANACALYPSIS.
the fact of the existence of the doctrines will be proved beyond dis- pute in a great variety of ways ; and it is on the fact of their existence that the argument of this work is founded. The truth or falsity of the theory of their origin will not affect the argument But of such persons as shall dispute the mode above described, by which the ancients are held to have arrived at their knowledge, I request the statement of a more rational theory.
I shall now proceed to shew that the doctrines which I have here laid down were disseminated among all nations, and first that the Sun or solar fire was the sole object of the worship of all nations, either as God himself, or as emblem or shekinah of the Supreme Being.
CHAPTER III.
THE SUN THE FIRST OBJECT OF ADORATION OF ALL NATIONS. — ^THE GODS NOT DECEASED HEROES. — ^THE CHINESE HAVE .ONLY ONE GOD. — HINDOO GODDESSES. — TOLERATION AND CHANGE IN RELIGIONS.
I. On the first view of the mythological systems of the Gentiles, the multitude of their gods appears to be infinite, and the confusion inextricable. But if a person will only consider the following chap- ters carefully, and without prejudice, he will probably discover a system which, in some degree, will unravel their intricacies, will reconcile their apparent contradictions, will explain the general meaning of their mysteries, and will shew the reason why, anK)ng the various religions in later times, toleration so universally prevailed. But yet it is not intended to attempt, as some persons have done, a complete development of the minutias of the mysteries, or to exhibit a perfect system, attended with an explanation of the ceremonies and practices which the Heathens adopted in the secret recesses of their temples, which they guarded from the prying eye of the vulgar with the greatest care and the most sacred oaths; and which have long since been buried amidst the ruins of the finest buildings of antiquity — lamentable sacrifices to the zeal, bigotry, and fury of the Icono- clasts, or of the professors of Christianity.
Few persons have exhibited more learning or ingenuity on the subject of the ancient worship than Mr. Bryant and M. Dupuis; and
WORSHIP OF HEROES AS GODS. 2 J
whatever opinion people may entertain of diflferent parts of their works, or of some of their hypotheses, yet they can scarcely refuse assent to their general assertions, that all the religions of antiquity, at least in their origin, are found to centre in the worship of the Sun, either as Gk)d the Creator himself, or as the seat of, or as the emblem of Creator.
Socrates, Pythagoras, Plato, Zoroaster or Zeradust, &c., and all those initiated in the most secret, mysteries, acknowledged one supreme God, the Lord and First Cause of all And perhaps, though it can never be certainly known, those who only received the lesser mysteries,^ might confine their worship to the sun and the host of heaven \ but it was only the vulgar and ignorant who bent the knee to the stone, wood, or metal idols of the gods, perhaps only a little more numerous than the images of the Christian saints.
2. It has until lately been the general opinion that the gods of the ancients were nothing but the heroes or the benefactors of mankind, living in very illiterate and remote ages, to whom a grateful posterity paid divine honours. This appears at first sight to be probable; and as it has served the purpose of the Christian priests, to enable them to run down the religion of the ancients, and, in exposing its absurdities, to contrast it disadvantageously with their own, it has been, and continues to be, sedulously inculcated, in every public and private seminary. The generality of schoolmasters know no better; they teach what they have learned and what they believe. But, as this rank of men increase in talent and learning, this is gradually wearing away.
Although the pretended worship of Heroes appears at first sight plausible, very little depth of thought or learning is requisite to dis- cover that it has not much foundation in truth. It was not in the infant state of society that men were worshipped ; it was not, on the contrary, until they arrived at a very high and advanced state of civilisation. It was not Moses, Zoroaster, Confucius, Socrates, Solon, Lycurgus, Plato, Pythagoras, or Numa, that were objects of worship; the benefactors of mankind in all ages have been oftener persecuted than worshipped. No ; divine honours (if such they can be called) were reserved for Alexander of Macedon, the drunkard, for Augustus Caesar, the hypocrite, or Heliogabalus, the lunatic A species of civil adoration, despised by all persons of common under-
^ A* interesting account of the mysteries of the Heathens will be found in Part II. of Vol. II. of Dupuis's History of all Religions.
28 ANACALYPSIS.
Standing, and essentially different from the worship of the Supreme Being, was paid to them. It was the vice of the moment, and soon passed away. How absurd to suppose that the elegant and en- lightened Athenian philosopher could worship Hercules, because he killed a lion or cleaned a stable! Or Bacchus, because he made wine or got drunk! Besides, these deified heroes can hardly be called Gods in any sense. They were more like the Christian Saints. Thus we have Divus Augustus, and Divus Paulus, and ' Divus Petrus. Their nature has been altogether misunderstood; it will afterward be explained.
3. After a life of the most painful and laborious research, Mr. Bryant's opinion is, that all the various religions terminated in the worship of the Sun. He commences Ids work by shewing, from a great variety of etymological proofs, that all the names of the Deities were derived or compounded from some word which originally meant the Sun. Notwithstanding the ridicule which has been thrown upon etymological inquiries, in consequence of the want of fixed rules, or of the absurd length to which some persons have carried them, yet I am quite certain it must, in a great measure, be from etymology at last that we must recover the lost learning of antiquity.
Macrobius^ says, that in Thrace they worship the Sun or Solis Liber, calling him Sebadius; and from the Orphic poetry we learn that all the Gods were one:
"Eis Zcvs, in AiSi^S) CIS *H\to9 hs Aiovixrosy €ts ®€09 €v iravTto'fn?
Diodorus Siculus says, that it was the belief of the ancients that Osiris, Serapis, Dionusos, Pluto, Jupiter, and Pan were all one.*
Ausonius represents all the deities to be included under the term Dionusos.^
Sometimes Pan^ was called the God of all, sometimes Jupiter.^
Nonnus also states, that all the different Gods, whatever might be their names, Hercules, Ammon, Apollo, or Mithra, centered in the Sun.
Mr. Selden says, whether they be called Osiris, or Omphis, or Nilus, or Sins, or by any other name, they all centre in the Sun, the most ancient deity of the nations.^
Basnage* says, that Osiris, that famous God of the Egyptians, was
^Sat L. i. 18. 'Orphic Fragm. iv. p. 364, Gesner, £d.
"L. i. p. 23. *Auson. Epigram. 30; Bryant, Vol. I. p. 310^ 410.
^4 Orp. Hym. x. p. 200, Gesner. 'Euphorion.
'Selden de Diis Syriis, p. 77. ^B. iii. Ch. xvui. Sect. xxii.
THE WORSHIP OF THE SUN. 29
tne Sun, or rather the Sun was the emblem of the beneficent God Osiris.
Serapis was another name for the Sun. Remisius gives an in- scription to Jupiter the Sun, the invincible Serapis.
Mithras was likewise the Sun, or rather was but a different name, which the Persians bestowed on the Egyptian Osiris.
Harpocrates also represented the Sun. It is true, he was also the God of Silence; he put his finger upon his mouth, because the Sun was worshipped with a reverential silence, and thence came the Sigb of the Basilidians, who had their origin from Egypt^
By the Syrians the Sun and Heat were called HDH hme^ Chamha;^ and by the Persians Hama.' Thus the temple to which Alexander so madly marched in the desert, was called the temple of the Sun or Ammoa Mr. Biyant shews that Ham was esteemed the Zeus of Greece, and the Jupiter of Latium.
A/1./A8S 6 Zevs A/HsorcXci.^
A/xfiov yap Aiyvimoe icaX€8<rt tgv ^lafi
Ham, sub Jovis nomine, in Africa cultus.^
Mr. Biyant says, "The worship of Ham, or the Sun, as it was the '^ most ancient, so it was the most universal of any in the world. It " was at first the prevailing religion of Greece; and was propagated " over all the sea-coast of Europe, from whence it extended itself '' into the inland provinces. It was established in Gaul and Britain; " and was the original religion of this island, which the Druids in " after times adopted."®
This Ham was nothing but a Greek corruption of a very celebrated Indian word, formed of the three letters a u m, of which I shall have much to say hereafter.
Virgil gives the conduct of the year to Liber or Bacchus,^ though it was generally thought to be in the care of Apollo. It also appears from the Scholia in Horace,^^ that Apollo and Dionusos were the same. In fact, they were all three the same, the Sun.
'HAte vrayytvenap iravoioXe xpvcrco^eyycs.'^^
^Basnage, B. iii. Ch. xviii. 'Selden de Diis Syriis Syntag. II. C. viii. p. 247. •Gale*s Court of the Gentiles, Vol. I. Ch. xi. p. 72. *Hesychius.
■Herodotus, L. ii. C. xiii. 'Bochart, Geog.Sac. L. i, C. i. p. 5.
'Find. Pyth. Ode iv. 28. Schol. ^Bryant, Vol. I. 4to. p. 284.
"Georg. L. i. v. 6. ^®Lib. ii. Ode xix.
^^ Orphic Fragm. in. Macrob. Sat. L. L C. xxiii.
30 ANACALYPSIS.
4. It is allowed that the grand mysteries of the Grecian religion were brought by way of Thrace from Assyria, Persia, Egypt, or other Eastern parts, by a person of the name of Orpheus, or at least that it came from those parts, whoever brought it into Greece. And in the doctrines attributed to this philosopher, we may reasonably expect to find the ground-works of the religion, in fact, the religion unadulterated by the folly of the populace, and the craft of the priests. And here we shall find a pure and excellent religion.
Proclus says of the religion, Zcvs kc^oXi;, Zcvs /tco-o-a* Aios S'oc Travra rervKrai — ^Jove is the head and middle of all things; all things were made out of Jove.
According to Timotheus, in Cedrenus, Orpheus asserted the existence of an eternal, incomprehensible Being, d^rffuapyov aTravrnavy
Kox avra rs axOepo^, kcu rrairnav t(ov err avrov rov €uj9€pa, the Creator of all things, even of the aether itself, and of all things below that aether. According to him, this Arffitapyo^ is called 0122, BOYAH, ZOH, Light, Counsel, Life. And Suidas says, that these three names express one and the same power, ravra ra rpia ovofiara fuay owafitv aTTCf^iyvaTo: and Timotheus concludes his account by affirming that Orpheus, in his book, declared, 8ta rtav avrwv ovo/xarcuv ftias ©conyros ra Travra cycvero, icai avros est ra Travra: That all things were made
by one Godhead, in three names, and this God is all things. Proclus gives us the following as one of the verses of Orpheus .
Zcvv Pcurtkev^, Zcvs avro^ aTravrtav ap^iycvtOko^' '£v Kparos, cis BiUfitav yevero ficya? opxo9 aTraimuv,
Jupiter is the king, Jupiter himself is the original source of all things ; there is one power, one god, and one great ruler over alL^ But we have seen that Jupiter and all the other Gods were but names for the Sun; therefore it follows that the Sun, either as emblem or as God himself, was the object of universal adoration.
The Heathens, even in the latter days of their idolatry, were not so gross in their notions, but that they believed there was only one supreme God. They did, indeed, worship a multitude of deities, but they supposed all but one to be subordinate deities. They always had a notion of one deity superior to all the powers of heaven, and all the other deities were conceived to have different offices or ministrations under him — being appointed to preside over elements, over cities, over countries, and to dispense victory to armies, health, life, and other blessings to their favourites, if permitted by the
^Maurice, Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 704.
EGYPTIAN WORSHIP OF THE SUPREME GOD. 3 1
Supreme Power. Hesiod supposes one God to be the Father of the other deities :
, 0€(i)v Harrfp 178c kcu AvSpoiv"
and Homer, in many passages of the Iliad, represents one Supreme Deity as presiding over all the others;^ and the most celebrated of their philosophers always endeavour to assert this theology.^
5. Dr. Shuckford has shewn that the Egyptian originally worshipped the Supreme God, under the name of Cneph, affirming him to be with- out beginning or end. Philo Biblius says, that they represented him by the figure of a serpent with the head of a hawk, in the middle of a circle— certainly a very mythological emblem; but then he repre- sents them to have given to this Being all the attributes of the Supreme God the Creator, incorruptible and eternal. Porphyry calls him Tov dkTjfuapyovy the Maker or Creator of the universe.^
The opinion entertained by Torphyiy may be judged of from the following extract:
**We will sacrifice,** says he, "but in a manner that is proper, " bringing choice victims with the choicest of our faculties; burning " and offering to God, who, as a wise man observed, is above all —
nothing sensual: for nothing is joined to matter which is not
impure; and, therefore, incongruous to a nature free from the " contagion belonging to matter; for which reason, neither speech, "which is produced by the voice, nor even internal or mental " language, if it be infected with any disorder of the mind, is proper "to be offered to God; but we worship God with an unspotted " silence, and the most pure thoughts of his nature.** *
^Vide Iliad, vii. ver. 202, viii. vers. $—28, &c. See also Virgil, -^n., ii. ver. 777.
^non haec sine numine DivOm
Eveniunt : non te huic comitem asportare Crelisam Fas, aut ille sinit superi regnator Olympi.
Jupiter is here supposed to be the numen dwUm^ and his will to be the fas or fate, which no one might contradict : Fatum est, says Cicero, non id quod superstitios^ sed quod physic^ dictum causa setema rerum. De Divin. L. i. C. xxxv. Deum — interdum necessitatem appellant, quia nihil aliter possit atque ab eo constitutem sit. Id. Academ. Qusest. L. iv. C. xliv.
*Cic. in Hb. de Nat. Deorum, in Acad. Quaest. L. i. C. vii.. Ibid. C. xxxiv. ; Plato de Legib. L. x. in Phil, in Cratyl. &c. ; Aristot. L. de Mundo, C. vi. ; Plutarch de Placit. Philos. L. i. ; Id. in lib. de £. I. apud Delphos, p. 393. See Shuckford, B. ix. Vol. II. p. 394.
'Plut. de Iside and Osiride, p. 359; and Euseb. Praep. Evan. L. i. C. x. : Shuckford Con. B. v. p. 312.
*Val. CoL Vol. III. p. 466.
«
32 ANACALYPSIS.
Shuckford says, "But if we look into Italy we not only find in "general that the writers of their antiquities^ remark that their " ancient deities were of a different sort from those of Greece, but, "according to Plutarch, 2 Numa, the second King of Rome, made " express orders against the use of images in the worship of the " Deity; nay, he sa3rs further, that the first 170 years after the " building of the city, the Romans used no images, but thought the " Deity invisible, and reputed it unlawful to make representations of "him from things of an inferior nature; so that, according to his "account, Rome being built about A.M. 3256,^ the inhabitants were "not greatly corrupted in their religion, even so late as A.M. 3426, " which falls when Nebuchadnezzar was King of Babylon, and about " 169 years after the time where I am to end this work. It is " remarkable that Plutarch does not represent Numa as correcting "or refining the ancient idolatry of Italy; but expresses that this "people never had these grosser deities, either before or for the " first 170 years of their city; so that it is more than probable, that "Greece was not thus corrupted when the Pelasgi removed from "thence to Italy; and further, that the Trojans were not such " idolaters at the destruction of their city, because, according to this *• account, iEneas neither brought with him images into Italy, nor " such Gods as were worshipped by the adoration of images; and, "therefore, Pausanias,* who imagined that -^neas carried the " Palladium into Italy, was as much mistaken as the men of Argus, " who affirmed themselves to have it in their city.^ The times of "Numa are about 200 years after Homer, and very probably the "idolatry so much celebrated in his writings might by this time " begin to appear in Italy, and thereby occasion Numa to make " laws and constitutions against it"®
After the above observations, Shuckford goes on to assert, in a style rather democratical for a Doctor of Divinity, that the first corruptions of religion were begun by kings and rulers of nations ! And he produces several examples to support his assertion, which are not much in point If he had said that these corruptions had been produced by the knavery of his own order, the priests, working upon the timidity and weakness of timid and weak kings, and mak- ing them its tools, he would have been perfectly correct For this
^Dionys. Halicar., Lib. vii. 'In Numa, and Clem. Alexand. Stromat Lib. i.
' Usher's Annals. *In Corinthiacis. *Ibid.
«Shuckf(»d Con. B. v. p. 352, 8vo. Ed.
CHINESE BELIEF. 33
IS the mode by which half the miseries of mankind have been pro- duced by this pernicious order of men. And when he says that the inhabitants of Hafy were not greatly corrupted, he goes too far; he ought to have confined his observations to the Romans. But per- haps to them only he alluded.
6. The Chinese, with all their apparent idolatry, had only one God.
Speaking of the religion of the Chinese, Sir W. Jones ^ says, "Of " the religious opinions entertained by Confucius and his followers, " we may glean a general notion from the fragments of their works, " translated by Couplet: they professed a firm belief in the Supreme " God, and gave a demonstration of his being and of his providence " fi-om the exquisite beauty and perfection of the celestial bodies, ** and the wonderful order of nature in the whole fabric of the visible *' world. From this belief they deduced a system of ethics, which the philosopher sums up in a* few words at the close of the Lunyn. He (says Confucius) who shall be fully persuaded that the Lord of Heaven governs the universe, who shall in all things choose " moderation, who shall perfectly know his own species, and so act " among them, that his life and manners may conform to his know- " ledge of God and man, may be truly said to discharge all the " duties of a sage, and to be exalted above the common herd of the "human race!"
Marco Paulo ^ informs us that, in his time, the Chmese paid their adoration to a tablet fixed against the wall in their houses, upon which was inscribed the name of the high, celestial, and Supreme God, to whose honour they burnt incense, but of whom they had no image. The words, Mr. Marsden says, which were on the tablet were three, tidn, heaven, hoang-tieny supreme heaven, and Shang-tiy sovereign Lord. De Guignes tells us that the word tien stands indifierently for the visible heaven and the Supreme Deity.* Marco Paulo tells us that firom the God whose name was on the tablet the Chinese only petition for two things, sound intellect and health of body, but that they had another God, of whom they had a statue or idol called Natigai, who was the God of all terrestrial things ; in fact, God, the Cie^tor of this world (inferior or subordinate to the Supreme Being), from whom they petition for fine weather, or what- ever else they want — a sort of Mediator. Here is evidently a
^Diss. VII. p. 227. 'B. ii. Ch. xxvi. Ed. of W. Marsden, 4to.
^Tom. II. p. 350.
34 ANACALYPSIS.
Striking similarity to the doctrines of some of the early Christian heretics.
It seems pretty clear from this account that originally, and probably at this time also, like all the ancients of the West, in the midst of their degrading idolatry they yet acknowledged one Supreme God, with many subordinate agents, precisely the same as the Heathens of Greece and Rome, and modern Christians, under the names of inferior gods, angels, demons, saints, &c. In fact they were Deists.
7. In addition to the authorities which have been produced to prove that the whole of the different Gods of antiquity resolve themselves at last, when properly examined, into different names of the God Sol, it would be easy, if it were necessary, to produce as many more from every quarter of the world; but what, it may be asked, will you do with the Goddesses? The reader shall now see; and first from the learned and Rev. Mr. Maurice.
"Whoever will read the Geeta with attention will perceive in that " small tract the outlines of nearly all the various systems of theology " in Asia. That curious and ancient doctrine of the Creator being "both male and female, mentioned in a preceding page to be " designated in Indian temples by a very indecent exhibition of the " masculine and feminine organs of generation in union, occurs in the "following passages: *I am the father and mother of this world; I " plant myself upon my own nature, and create again and again this "assemblage of beings; I am generation and dissolution, the "place where all things are deposited, and the inexhaustible " seed of all nature; I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of " all things.* " In another part he more directly says, "The great " Brahme is the womb of all those various forms which are con- " ceived in every natural womb, and I am the father that soweth the " seed.* *' ^ Herodotus informs us that the Persian Mithras was the same with the Assyrian Venus Mylitta or Urania, and the Arabian Alitta.2 Mr. Cudworth shews that this must have been the Aphrodite Urania, by which was meant the creating Deity. It is well known that the Venus Aphrodite was a Phoenician Deity, worshipped particularly at Citium, and was of both the male and female gender — the Venus Genitrix.
Proclus describes Jupiter, in one of the Orphic Hymns, to be both male and female, appcvo^Xw, Hermaphroditic, And Bishop Synesius
1 Maurice Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 705. *Hyde de Rel. Pers. Cap. iii. p. 95.
THE MALE-VIRGIN OF THE ORIENTALS. 35
adopts it in a Christian hymn.^ The Priapus of the Etruscans was both male and female. (See Table LVIII. of Gorius,) He has the membrum virile, with the female breasts.
Damascius, treating of the fecundity of the Divine Nature, cites Orpheus as teaching that the Deity was at once both male and female, opcrevo^Xw avrrp^ wcsi/caro, Trpos cvSctftv toiv 7ravr(av ytwrj^ruofi Boruas, to shew the generative power by which all things were formed. Proclus, upon the Timseus of Plato, cites the following:
Z€vs apoT/v ycvero, Zevs aftjSporos CTrXero wfit^'
Jupiter is a man; Jupiter is also an immortal maid. And in the same commentary, and the same page, we read that all things were contained cv yasept Zt/vos, in the womb of Jupiter.
8. Manichaeus, according to Theodoret, said, in his allegorical language, "That a male-virgin gave light and life to Eve,*** that is, created her. And the Pseudo-Mercurius Trismegistus in Psemander said that God, being male and female {appcvoOrjkv^ (uv), because he is light and life, engendered by the word another intelligence, which was the Creator. The male-virgin, Theodoret says, was called Joel, or I0W7X, which Beausobre thinks was "El, God, and Joha, life- making, vivifying, life-giving, or the generating God." (So far my friend Beverley.) But which was probably merely the irT* feu, 7fc5 a/, or God lao, of which we shall treat hereafter. Again, Mr. Beverley says, "In Genesis it is written, 'God said. Let us create man after " our own image and likeness.* This, then, ought in strictness ot "language to be a male and female God, or else it would not be " after the likeness proposed."
"The male-virgin of the Orientals is, I know, considered the same " by Plato as his *Esta, or Vesta, whom he calls the soul of the body " of the universe. This Hestia, by the way, is in my view a Sanscrit "lady, whose name I take to have been EST, or sh^ that ts, or " exists, having the same meaning as the great name of the Jewish " Deity. Est is shewn in the Celtic Druids to be a Sanscrit word, " and I do not doubt of this her ■ derivation. The A terminal is " added by the Greek idiom to denote a female, as they hated an "indeclinable proper name, such as HEST or EST would have " been." Extract from a letter from Mackenzie Beverley, Esq.^
^Ubi sup. p. 304,
2 The A at the end of the word EST may be the Chaldee emphatic article; then Vesta would be t/ie Est or the Self-existent.
36 ANACALYPSIS.
Apuleius makes the mother of the Gods of the masculine gender, and represents her describing herself as called Minerva at Athens, Venus at Cyprus, Diana at Crete, Proserpine in Sicily, Ceres at Eleusis; in other places, Juno, Bellona, Hecate, Isis, &c.;^ and if any doubt could remain, the philosopher Porphyry, than whom probably no one was better skilled in these matters, removes it by acknowledging that Vesta, Rhea, Ceres, Themis, Priapus, Proserpine, Bacchus, Attis, Adonis, Silenus, and the Satyrs, were all the same.^
Valerius Soranus calls Jupiter the mother of the Gods :
Jupiter omnipotens, Regum Rex ipse Dedmque Progenitor, Genetrixque Deibn ; Deus et idem.
Synesius speaks of him in the same manners
2v Uarqp, ai) ^€<rcri Mrprrip,
The like character is also given to the ancient deity Mi/ns, or Divine Wisdom, by which the world was framed :
MT/ris^ep/AT/vcverae, BsXi;, ^(09, ZcooSon^p.^
And in two of the Orphic Fragments all that has been said above seems to be comprehended. This Deity, like the others, is said to be of two genders, and to be also the Sun.® .
Mr/TLs, Mr. Bryant says, is a masculine name for a feminine deity,^ and means Divine Wisdom. I suspect it was a corruption of the Maia or Mia of India.
In Cypru§, Venus is represented with a beard, and called Aphrodite.®
Calvus, the poet, calls her masculine, as does also Macrobius.®
Jupiter is called feminine, and the genetrixque Deiim,^® by Augustine.
The Orphic verses make the Moon both male and female.^^
9. The following extract from Sir. W. Jones's Dissertation on the Gods of Greece and India, will, perhaps, be of some weight with the very large class of mankind who prefer authority to reason; and
^Apuleii Metamorph. L. ii. p. 241.
'Porphyry ap. Eusebium, Evan. Praep. L. iii. C. xi.
8 Bryant, Anal. Vol. I. p. 315. * Orpheus, Eusebii Chronicon.
^ Orphic Hymn, xxxi. 10, p. 224. ^ Bryant, Vol. I. p. 204, Ed. 4to.
7 Bryant, Anal. Vol. II. p. 25.
^Hesychius Servius upon Virgil's iEneid, L. ii. 632. ^Satur. L. iii. C. viii
10 August, de Civit Dei, L. iv. C. xi. and L. vii. C. ix. "Hymn viii* 4.
TOLERATION AND CHANGE IN RELIGION. 37
may serve to justify or excuse the opinions here expressed, by shew- ing them that they are neither new nor unsupported: "We must not " be surprised at finding, on a close examination, that the characters " of all the Pagan Deities, male and female, melt into each other, " and at last into one or two ; for it seems a well founded opinion, " that the whole crowd of Gods and Goddesses in ancient Rome and " modem Vdrines, mean only the powers of nature, and principally " those of the Sun^ expressed in a variety of ways, and by a multitude " of fanciful names."
In a future part of this work I shall have much more to say of the Goddesses or the female generative power, which became divided from the male, and in consequence was the cause of great wars and miseries to the Eastern parts of the world, and of the rise of a number of sects in the Western, which have not been at all under- stood.
Thus, we see, there is in fact an end of all the multitude of the Heathen Gk>ds and Goddesses, so disguised in the Pantheons and books of various kinds, which the priests have published from time to time to instil into the minds of their pupils — that the ancient Heathen philosophers and legislators were the slaves of the most degrading superstition; that they believed such nonsense as the metamorphoses described by Ovid, or the loves of Jupiter, Venus, &c., &c. That the rabble were the victims of a degrading supersti- tion, I have no doubt This was produced by the knavery of the ancient priests, and it is in order to reproduce this effect that the modem priests have misrepresented the doctrines of their prede- cessors. By vilifying and running down the religion of the ancients, they have thought they could persuade their votaries that their new religion was necessary for the good of mankind: a religion which, in consequence of their cormptions, has been found to be in practice much worse and more injurious to the interests of society than the old one. For, from these cormptions, the Christian religion — the religion of purity and tmth when uncormpted — Ims not brought peace but a sword.
After the astrologers had parcelled out the heavens into the forms of animals, &c., and the annual path of the Sun had become divided into twelve parts, each part designated by some animal, or other figure, or known emblem, it is not surprising that they should have become the objects of adoration. This, M. Dupuis has shewn,^ was
^Ch. i. ReL Univ.
38 ANACALYPSIS.
*
the origin of the Arabian and Egyptian adoration of animals, birds, &c. Hence, in the natural progress of events, the adoration of images arose among the Heathens and Christians.
lo. The same tolerating spirit generally prevailed among the votaries of the Heathen Gods of the Western world, which we find among the Christian saints. For though in some few instances the devotees in Egypt quarrelled about their Gods, as in some few instances the natives of Christian towns have quarrelled about their Divi or tutelar saints, yet these petty wars never created much mischief.^ They were evidently no ways dangerous to the emolu- ments of the priests, and therefore they were not attended with very important consequences.
A great part of the uncertainty and apparent contradictions which we meet with in the history of the religions of antiquity, evidently arises from the inattention of the writers to the changes which long periods of time produce.
It is directly contrary to the law of nature for anything to remain stationary. The law of perpetual motion is universal; we know of no such thing as absolute rest Causes over which man has no con- trol overturn and change his wisest institutions. Monuments of folly and of wisdom, all, all crumble into dust. The Pyramids of Egypt, and the codes of the Medes or of Napoleon, all will pass away and be forgotten.
M. Dupuis, in his first chapter, has shewn that probably all nations first worshipped, as we are told the Persians did, without altars or temples, in groves and high places. After a certain number of years, in Persia, came temples and idols, ivith all their abuses; and these, in their turn, were changed or abolished, and the worship of the Sun restored, or perhaps the worship of the Sun only as emblem of the Creator. This was probably the change said to have been effected by Zoroaster.
The Israelites at the exodus had evidently run jnto the worship of Apis the Bull, or the Golden Calf of Egypt, which it was the object of Moses to abolish, and in the place thereof to substitute the worship of one God — laOy Jehovah — ^which, in fact, was only the Sun or the Solar Fire, yet not the Sun, as Creator, but as emblem of or the shekinah of the Divinity. The Canaanites, according to the Mosic account, were not idolaters in the time of Abraham; but it is
^See Mosheim, who shews that the religious wars of the Egyptians were not like those of the Christians.
GREAT BLACK NATION IN ASIA. 39
implied that they became so in the long space between the time he lived and that of Moses. The Assyrians seem to have become idolaters early, and not, as the Persians, to have had any reformer like Zoroaster or Moses, but to have continued till the Iconoclasts, Cyrus and Darius, reformed them with fire and sword; as their successor Cambyses soon afterwards did the Egyptians. The observations made on the universality of the solar worship, contain but very littie of what might be said respecting it; but yet enough is said to establish the fact If the reader wish for more, his curiosity will be amply repaid by a perusal of Mr. Bryant's Analysis of the Heathen Mythology. He may also read the fourth chapter of Cudworth's Intellectual System, which is a most masterly per- formance.
CHAPTER IV.
TWO ANCIENT ETHIOPIAS. — GREAT BLACK NATION IN ASIA. — THE BUDDHA OF INDIA A NEGRO. — ^THE ARABIANS WERE CUSHITES. — MEMNON. — SHEPHERD KINGS. — HINDOOS AND EGYPTIANS SIMILAR. — SYRIA PEOPLED FROM INDIA.
I. In taking a survey of the human inhabitants of the world, we find two classes, distinguished from each other by a clear and definite line of demarkation, the black and white colours of their skins. This distinguishing mark we discover to have existed in ages the most remote. If we suppose them all to have descended from one pair, the question arises. Was that pair black or white? If I were at present to say that I thought them black, I should be accused of a fondness for paradox, and I should find as few persons to agree with me, as the Africaii negroes do when they tell Europeans that the Devil is white, (And yet no one, except a West-India planter, will deny that the poor Africans have reason on their side.) However, I say not that they were black, but I shall, in the course of this work, produce a number of extraordinary facts, which will be quite -sufficient to prove that a black race, in very early times, had more influence over the affairs of the world than has been lately suspected; and I think I shall shew, by some very striking circumstances yet existing, that the effects of this influence have not entirely passed away.
40 ANACALYPSIS.
2. It was the opinion of Sir William yones^ that a great nation of Blacks 1 formerly possessed the dominion of Asia, and held the seat of empire at Sidon.^ These must have been the people called by Mr. Maurice Cushites or Cuthites, described in Genesis ; and the opinion that they were Blacks is corroborated by the translators of the Pentateuch, called the Seventy, constantly rendering the word Cush by Ethiopia. It is very certain that, if this opinion be well- founded, we must go for the time when this empire flourished to a period anterior to all our regular histories. It can only be known to have existed from accidental circumstances, which have escaped amidst the ruins of empires and the wrecks of time.
Of this nation we have no account; but it must have flourished after the deluge. And, as our regular chronological systems fill up the time between the flood and what is called known, imdoubted history; if it be allowed to have existed, its existence will of course prove that no dependence can be placed on the early parts of that history. It will shew that all the early chronolog}' is false; for the story of this empire is not told. It is certain that its existence can only be known from insulated circumstances, collected from various' quarters, and combining to establish the fact But if I succeed in collecting a sufficient number to carry conviction to an impartial mind, the empire must be allowed to have existed.
3. The religion of Buddha, of India, is well-known to have been very ancient. In the most ancient temples scattered throughout Asia, where his worship is yet continued, he is found black as Jet, with the flat face, thick lips, and curly hair of the Negro. Several statues of him may be met with in the Museum of the East-India Company. There are two exemplars of him brooding on the face of the deep, upon a coiled serpent To what time are we to allot this Negro? He will be proved to have been prior to the god called Cristna, He must have been prior to or contemporaneous with the black empire, supposed by Sir William Jones to have flourished at Sidon. The religion of this Negro God is found, by the ruins of his temples and other circumstances, to have been spread over an immense extent of country, even to the remotest parts of Britain, and to have been pro- fessed by devotees inconceivably numerous. I very much doubt
^ I do not use the word Negro, because they may not have been Negroes though Blacks, though it is probable that they were so ; and I wish the distinction to be remembered.
' But why should: not Babylon have been the place?
THE ARABIANS WERE CUSHITES. 4 1
whether Christianity at this day is professed by more persons than yet profess the religion of Buddha. Of this I shall say more hereafter.
4. When several cities, countries, or rivers, at great distances from each other, are found to be called by the same name, the co- incidence cannot be attributed to accident, but some specific c^use for such an effect must be looked for. Thus we have several cities called Heliopolis, or the city of the Sun; the reason for which is sufficiently obvious. Thus, again, there were several Alexandrias; and on close examination we find two Ethiopias alluded to in ancient history — one above the higher or southern part of Egypt, send the other somewhere to the east of it, and, as it has been thought, in Arabia. The people of this latter are called Cushim in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and Ethiopians by the text of the Sep- tuagint, or the Seventy. That they cannot have been the Ethiopians of Africa is evident from a single passage,^ where they are said to have invaded Judah in the days of Asa, under Zerah, their king or leader. But the Lord smote the Cushim \ and Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar; and the Ethiopians were overthrown, and they (i. e. Asa and his people) smote all the cities round about Gerar, &c. Whence it plainly follows, that the Cushim here mentioned, were such as inhabited the parts adjoining to Gerar, and consequently not any part of the African Ethiopia, but Arabia.
When it is said that Asa smote the Cushites or Ethiopians, in number a million of soldiers, as far as Gerar, and despoiled all the cities round about, it is absurd to suppose that the Gerar in the lot of the tribe of Simeon is meant. The expression all the cities and the million of men cannot apply to the little town of that tribe. Probably the city in Wilkinson's Atlas, in the Tabula Orientalis, at the side of the Persian gulf, which is called Gerra, is the city meant by the word Gerar; and that Saba was near where it is placed by Dr. Stukeley, or somewhere in the Peninsular, now called Arabia.
In 2 Chron. xxi. i6, it is said, Afui of the Arabians that were near the Ethiopians, This again shews that the Ethiopians were in the Peninsula, or bordered on it to the eastwards. They could not have lived to the west, because the whole land of Egypt lay between them, if they went by land; and the Red Sea lay between the two nations westwards.
^ 2 Chron. xiv. 9—15.
42 ANACALYPSIS.
In Habakkuk iii. 7, the words Midian and Cushan are used as synonyms: I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: the curtaifis of the . land of Midian did tremble.
It is said in Numbers xii. i, *'^And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses j because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman." TT^K^^ cusit. It appears that this Ethiopian woman was the daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian, near Horeb, in Arabia.^
5. Dr. Wells has justly observed that the Cush spoken of in Scripture is evidently Arabia, from Numbers xii. i, just cited; and that it is also certain, from Exodus ii. 15 — 21, that the wife of Moses was a Midianitish woman; and it is proved that Midian or Madian was in Arabia, from Exodus iii. i, &c.; consequently the Cush here spoken of, and called Ethiopia, must necessarily mean Arabia. He also proves from Ezek. xxix. 10, that when God says he "will make the land desolate from the tower of Syene to the borders of Ethiopia," Cush^ he cannot mean an African Cush, because he evidently means from one boundary of Egypt to the other: and as Syene is the southern boundary between the African Ethiopia and Egypt, it cannot possibly be that he speaks of the former, but of the other end of Egypt, which is Arabia.
The circumstance of the translators of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch having rendered the word Cush by the word Ethiopia, is a very decisive proof that the theory of two Ethiopias is well- founded. Let the translators have been who they may, it is totally impossible to believe that they could be so ignorant as to suppose that the African Ethiopia could border on the Eiiphrates, or that the Cushites could be African Ethiopians.
From all the accounts which modem travellers give of the country above Syene, there does not appear, either from ruins or any other circumstance, reason to believe that it was ever occupied by a nation
^ Vide Exod. ch. ii. and iii. It is not to be supposed that this great tribe of Israelites had not laws before those given on Sinai. It is perfectly dear that great numbers of those in Leviticus were only re-enactments of old laws or customs. The marriage of Moses with an Ethiopian woman, against which Miriam and Aaron spoke, was a breach of the law, and the children were illegitimate. This was the reason why Aaron succeeded to the priestly office, instead of the sons of Moses. This also furnishes an answer to what a learned author has written about the disinterested conduct of Moses proving his divine mission. The conduct of Moses, in this instance, proves nothing, and all the labour of the learned gentleman has been thrown away. But Moses had two wives, both Ethiopians— one of Meroe, called Tharbis, and the oiher of Midian, in Arabia. Josephus' Antiq. L. ii. ch. x.
ORIGIN OF THE ETHIOPIANS. 43
Strong enough to fight the battles and make the great figure in the world which we know the people called Cushites or Ethiopians did at different times. The valley of the Nile is very narrow, not capable of containing a great and powerful people. Sheba and Saba were either one or two cities of the Cushites or Ethiopians, and Pliny says that the Sabaeans extended from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf, thus giving them the whole of Arabia; one part of which, it is well- known, is called fi-om its fertility of soil and salubrity of climate, Felix, or The Happy. Dr. Wells states that the Ethiopians of Africa alone are commonly called Lubiniy both by ancient and modern writers.^
But the country east of the Euphrates was called Cush, as well as the country west of it; thus giving the capital of Persia, Susan or Susiana, which was said to be built by Memnon, to the Cushites or Ethiopians, as well as Arabia.
Mr. Frey, in his vocabulary, gives the word K^3, cus, as a word whose meaning is unknown; but the Septuagint tells us it meant black. Mr. Hyde shews that it was a common thing for the Chaldeans to substitute the Tau for the Shin, thus T\\2 cut, for Kna cus. Thus, in their dialect, the Cuthites were the same as the Cushites.
If any reader will examine all the remaining passages of the Old Testament not cited by me, where the words Ethiopia and Ethiopians are used, he will see that many of them can by no possibility relate to the African Ethiopia.
6. Eusebius^ states the Ethiopians to have come and settled in Egypt, in the time of Amenophis. According to this account, as well as to the account given by Philostratus,^ there was no such country as Ethiopia beyond Egypt until this invasion. According to Eusebius, these people came from the river Indus, and planted themselves to the south of Eg)^t, in the country called from them Ethiopia. The circumstance named by Eusebius that they came from the Indus, at all events, implies that they came from the East, and not from the South, and would induce a person to suspect them of having crossed the Red Sea from Arabia : they must either have done this, or have come round the northern end of the Red Sea by the Isthmus of Suez; but they certainly could not have come from the present Ethiopia.
But there are several passages in ancient writers which prove that
1 Wells, Vol. I. p. 200. *In Chron. ad Num. 402.
•In vita Apollon. Tyanei.
44 ANACALYPSIS.
Eusebius is right in saying, not only that they came from the East, but from a very distant or very eastern part
Herodotus^ says that there were two Ethiopian nations, one in India, the other in Egypt He derived his information from the Egyptian priests, a race of people who must have known the truth; and there seems no reason either for them or Herodotus to have mis-stated the fact
Philostratus^ says that the Gymnosophists of Ethiopia, who settled near the sources of the Nile, descended from the Brahmins of India, having been driven thence for the murder of their king.* This, Philostratus says, he learned from an ancient Brahmin called Jarchus.
Another ancient writer, Eustathius, also states that the Ethiopians came from India. These concurring accounts can scarcely be doubted; and here may be discovered the mode and time also when great numbers of ancient rites and ceremonies might be imported from India into Egypt; for that there was a most intimate relation between them in very ancient times cannot be doubted; indeed, it is not doubted. The only question has been, whether Egypt borrowed from India, or India from Egypt. All probability is clearly, for a thousand reasons, in favour of the superior antiquity of India, as Bailly and many other learned men have shewn — a probability which seems to be reduced to certainty by Herodotus, the Egyptians them- selves, and the other authors just now quoted. There is not a particle of proof, from any historical records known to the author, that any colony ever passed from Egypt to India, but there is, we see, direct, positive historical evidence of the Indians having come to Africa. No attention can be paid to the idle stories of the con- quest of India by Bacchus, who was merely an imaginary personage, in short, the God SoL
Dr. Shuckford gives an opinion that Homer and Herodotus are both right, and that there were two Ethiopias, and that the Africans came from India.*
7. The Bishop of Avranches thinks he has found three provinces of the name of Chus; Ethiopia, Arabia, and Susiana.^ There were three Ethiopias, that is, countries of Blacks, not three Chusses; and this is perfectly consistent with what M. Bochart® has maintained, that Ethiopia (of Africa) is not named Chus in any place of Scripture; and this is also consistent with what is said by both Homer and
1 L. vii. C. Ixx. • Vita Apoll. C. vi. ' Crawford, Ras. Vol. II. p. 193. * B. ix. p. 334. • Diss, on Parod. Ch. xiii. • Phaleg. L. iv. C. ii.
HOMER NOT A HISTORICAL AUTHORITY. 45
Herodotus.^ The bishop shews clearly that the ancient Susiana is the modern Chuzestan or Elam, of which Susa was the capital. The famous Memnon, probably the Sun, was said to be the son of Aurora* But Eschylus informs us that Cissiene was the mother of Memnon, and to him the foundation of Susa is attributed; and its citadel was called Memnonium, and itself the city of Memnon. This is the Memnon who was said to have been sent to the siege of Troy, and to have been slain by Achilles; and who was also said, by the ancient authors, to be an Ethiopian or a Black. It seems the Egyptians suppose that this Memnon was their king Amenophis. The Ethiopians are stated by Herodotus to have come from the Indus; according to what modem chronologers deduce from his words, about the year 1615 B.C., about four hundred years after the birth of Abraham (in 1996), and about a hundred years before Moses rebelled against the Eg)rptians, and brought the Israelites out of Egypt Palaces were shewn which belonged to this Memnon at Thebes and other places in Egypt, as well as at Susa, which from him were called in both places Memnoniums; and to him was erected the famous statue at Thebes, which is alleged to have given out a sound when first struck by the rays of the morning sun. Bishop Huet thinks (probably very correctly), that this statue was made in imitation of similiar things which the Jewish traveller Rabbi Benjamin found in the country where the descendants of Chus adore the sun; and this he shews to be the country of which we speak. It lies about Bussora, where the Sabeans are found in the greatest numbers, and who are the people of whom he speaks.
The bishop thinks this Memnon cannot have been Amenophis, because he lived very many years before the siege of Troy, in which he is said to have been an actor. It seeihs to me to be as absurd to look to Homer or Virgil for the chronology of historical facts ^ as to Shakespeare, Milton, or any other epic poet These poems may state facts, but nothing of a historical or chronological kind can be received without some collateral evidence in confirmation. It never was supposed to be incumbent on any epic poet to tie himself down to mere historical matters of fact And wherever it is evident, either from the admission of a latter historical author or from any other circumstance, that he is relating facts from the works of the poets without any other authority, he can be as little depended upon as they can.
^ Homer, Odyss. d ; Herod. Polymn. Cap. Ixix. Ixx. ; also Steph. in *0/AtiptTcu.
46 ANACALYPSIS.
The bishop has shewn that the accounts of modern authors, George Syncellus, Suidas, Pausanias, Dionysius Feriegites, &c., &c., are full of contradictions; that they are obliged to suppose two Memnons. All this arises from these persons treating the poem of Homer as a history, instead of a poem. We shall never have an ancient history worthy of the perusal of men of common smse^ till we cease treating poems as history^ and send back such personages as Hercules, Theseus, Bacchus, 6j^c., to the heavens, whence their history is taken, and whence they never descended to the earth.
It is not meant to be asserted that these epic poems may not be of great use to a historian. It is only meant to protest against their being held as authority by themselves, when opposed either to other histories or to known chronology. This case of Memnon is in point. Homer wanted a hero to fill up his poem; and, without any regard to date, or anything wrong in so doing, he accommodated the history to his poem, making use of Amenophis or Memnon, or the religious tradition whichever it was, as he thought proper. These poems may also be of great use as evidence of the customs and manners of the times, both of when they were written and previously, and very often of dry unconnected facts which may turn out to be of consequence. Thus Virgil makes Memnon black} as does also Pindar.^ That Pindar and Virgil were right, the features of the bust ot Memnon in the British Museum prove, for they are evidently those of the Negro.
8. It is probable that the Memnon here spoken of, if there ever were such a man, was the leader of the Shepherds, who are stated by Manetho and other historians to have come from the East, and to have conquered Egypt. The learned Dr. Shuckford thinks that the troubles caused in Egypt by the shepherd kings appear to have happened about the time the Jews left it under Moses. He places these events between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses.^ And he supposes that the Jews left the country in consequence of the oppressions of these shepherd kings. It is very clear that much confusion has arisen in this part of ancient history, from these eastern shepherds having been confounded with the Israelites, and also from facts relating to the one having been attributed to the other. Josephus takes the dififerent accounts to relate to the same people. This is attended with great difficulty. The shepherds are said by Manetho, after a severe struggle with the old inhabitants, to
^ ^neid, Lib. i. ' Olymp. Od. ii. ; vide Diss, of Bishop Huet, ch. xiii. p. 185. 8 Shuckford, Conn. pp. 233, 234.
THE SHEPHERD KINGS. 47
have taken refuge in a city called Avaris or Abaris,^ where they were a long time besieged, and whence at last they departed, two hundred and forty thousand in number, together with their wives and children (in consequence of a capitulation), into the deserts of Syria.
If there were two races of people who have been confounded together, one of which came from India and overran Arabia, Pales- tine, and Egypt, and brought thence its religion to the Egyptians, and was in colour black, it must have come in a very remote period. This may have been the race of shepherd kings of whom Josephus speaks when he says they oppressed the Israelites; but the assertion of Josephus can hardly have been true, for they must have been expelled long before the Israelites came. The second race were the Arabian shepherd tribe called captives, who, after being settled some time in the land of Goshen, were driven or went out into the open country of Arabia. They at last, under the command of Joshua, conquered Palestine, and finally settled there. Bishop Cumberland has proved that there was a dynasty of Phenician shepherd kings, who were driven out three hundred years before Moses. These seem to have been the black or Ethiopian, Phenician Memnonites. They may have exactly answered to this description, but to his date of three hundred years I pay no attention, further than that it was a great length of time.
Josephus says that the copies of Manetho differed, that in one the Shepherds were called Captives^ not kings^ and that he thinks this is more agreeable to ancient history; that Manetho also says, the nation called Shepherds were likewise called Captives in their sacred books ; and that after they were driven out of Egypt, they journeyed through the wilderness of Syria, and built a city in Judea, which they called Jerusalem.2
Josephus^ says that Manetho was an Egyptian by birth, but that he understood Greek, in which he wrote his histor)-, translating it from the old Eg)rptian records.
If the author understand Mr. Faber rightly in his Horae Mosaicae,*
* We read of a person coming from the Hyperboreans to Greece, in the time of Pythagoras, called Abaris or Avaris. Josephus also tells us that the city in the Saite Nomos (Seth-roite), i.e. Goshen^ where the oriental Shepherds resided, was called Avaris. Now I suspect that this man was called from the Hebrew word "insy obeTy as was also the name of the city, and that they both meant stranger or foreigner : the same as the tribe of Abraham, in Syria.
•Jos. vers. Apion, B. i. § xiv., Whiston, p. 291. ' Ut sup. § xiv.
* Ch. ii. Sect. xi. p. 23,
48 ANACALYPSIS.
he is of opinion that these Shepherd Captives were the Israelites. The accounts of these two tribes of people are confused, as may naturally be expected, but there are certainly many striking traits of resemblance between them. Mr. Shuckford, with whom in this Mr. Volney agrees, thinks there were two races of Shepherd kings, and in this he coincides with most of the ancients; but most certainly, in his treatise against Apion, Josephus only names one.^ We shall have much to say hereafter respecting these Shepherds, under the name of PallL
The only objection which occurs against Amenophis or Memnon being the leader of the Hindoo race who first came from the Indus to Egypt is that, according to our ideas of his chrofiology, he could scarcely be sufficiently early to agree with the known historical records of India. But our chronology is in so very vague and un- certain a state, that very little dependence can be placed upon it, And it will never be any better till learned men search for the truth and fairly state it, instead of sacrificing it to the idle legends or allegories of the priests, which cannot by any possible ingenuity be made consistent even with themselves.
Mr. Wilsford, in his treatise on Egypt and the Nile, in the Asiatic Researches, informs us that many very ancient statues of the God Buddha in India have crisp, curly hair, with flat noses and thick lips; and adds, "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India,"
This is confirmed by Mr. Maurice, who says, "The figures in " the Hindoo caverns are of a very different character from the "present race of Hindoos: their countenances are broad and full, " the nose flat and the lips, particularly the under lip, remarkably " thick." 2
This is again confirmed by Colonel Fitzclarence in the journal of his journey from India. And Maurice, in the first volume of his Indian Antiquities, states, that the figures in the caves in India and in the temples in Egypt, are absolutely the same as given by Bruce, Niebuhr, &c.
Justin states that the Phoenicians being obliged to leave their native country in the East, they settled first near the Assyrian Lake, which is the Persian Gulf; and Maurice says, "We find an extensive district, named Palestine, to the east of the Euphrates and Tigris.
^ Jos. vers. Apion, C. i. § xiv. B. i,
^ Maurice, Hind. Ant. Vol. II. pp. 374 — 376.
SIR W. JONES ON INDIAN AND EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE, 49
The word Palestine seems derived from Pallisthan, the seat of Pallis or Shepherds."^ Falliy in India, means Shepherd.
This confirms Sir William Jones's opinion, in a striking manner, respecting a black race having reigned at Sidon.
9. It seems to me that great numbers of circumstances are pro- ducible, and will be produced in the following work, to prove that the mythology, &c., &c, of Egypt were derived from India, but which persons who are of a different opinion endeavour to explain away as inconclusive proofs. They, however, produce few or no circumstances tending towards the proof of the contrary^ viz., that India borrowed from Egypt, to enable the friends of the superior antiquity of India, in their turn, to explain away or disprove.
It is a well-known fact that our Hindoo soldiers when they arrived in Egypt, in the late war, recognized the Gods of their country in the ancient temples, particularly their God Cristna.
The striking similarity, indeed identity, of the style of architecture and the ornaments of the ancient Egyptian and Hindoo temples, Mr. Maurice has proved ^ beyond all doubt. He says, "Travellers " who have visited Egypt, in periods far more recent than those in
which the above-cited authors journeyed thither, confirm the truth
of their relation, in regard both to the number and extent of the " excavations, the beauty of the sculptures, and their similitude to " those carved in the caverns of India. The final result, therefore, " of this extended investigation is, that in the remotest periods there " has existed a most intimate connexion between the two nations, " and that colonies emigrating from Egypt to India, or from India to "Egypt, transported their deities into the country in which they " respectively took up their abode." This testimony of the Rev. Mr. Maurice's is fully confirmed by Sir W. Jones, who says, —
"The remains of architecture and sculpture in India; which I " mention here as mere monuments of antiquity, not as specimens of " ancient art, seem to prove an early connexion between this country "and Africa: the pyramids of Egypt, the colossal statues described " by Pausanias and others, the Sphinx, and the Hermes Canis, which " last bears a great resemblance to the Vardhdvatar, or the incarnation " of Vishnou in the form of a Boar, indicate the style and m)rthology " of the same indefatigable workmen who formed the vast excava- " tions of Canara, the various temples and images of Buddha, and " the idols which are continually dug up at Gayk, or in its vicinity.
* Maurice, Hist. Vol. 11. p. 146. 'Ant. Hindostan, Vol. I. Sect, viii,
£
u
so ANACALYPSIS.
" The letters on many of those monuments appear, as I have before " intimated, partly of Indian and partly of Abyssinian or Ethiopia "origin; and all these indubitable facts may induce no ill-founded " opinion, that Ethiopia and Hindostan were peopled or colonized " by the same extraordinary race; in confirmation of which it may be " added that the mountaineers of Bengal and Bahar, can hardly be " distinguished in some of their features, particularly their lips and ** noses, from the modem Abyssinians, whom the Arabs call the " children of Cush; and the ancient Hindus, according to Strabo, '' differed in nothing from the Africans but in the straightness and "smoothness of their hair, while that of the others was crisp or " woolly, a difference proceeding chiefly, if not entirely, from the "respective humidity or dryness of their atmospheres; hence the " people who received the first light of the rising sun, according to the " limited knowledge of the ancients, are said by Apuleius to be the " Arii and Ethiopians, by which he clearly meant certain nations of " India; where we frequently see figures of Buddha with curled hair, " apparently designed for a representation of it in its natural state." ^
Again, Sir W, Jones says, "Mr. Bruce and Mr. Bryant have proved that the Greeks gave the appellation of Indians to the nations of Africa, and to the people among whom we now live."^ I shall account for this in the following work.
Mons. de Guignes maintains that the inhabitants of Egypt, in very old times, had unquestionably a common origin with the old natives of India, as is fully proved by their ancients monuments, and the affinity of their languages and institutions, both political and religious.^
Many circumstances confirming the above, particularly with respect to the language, will be pointed out hereafter.
10. It is curious to observe the ingenuity exercised by Sir W. Jones to get over obstacles which oppose themselves to his theological creed, which he has previously determined nothing shall persuade him to disbelieve. He- says, "We are told that the Phenicians, like the "Hindus, adored the Sun, and asserted water to be the first of " created things; nor can we doubt thai Syria, Samariay and Phenice, " or the long strip of land on the shore of the Mediterranean, were " anciently peopled by a branch of the Indian stock, but were afterwards "inhabited by that race which, for the present, we call Arabian."
^ Diss. III. on Hind., by Sir W. Jones, p. iii.
* Jones*s Eighth An. Diss. Asiatic Res.
' Diss. VII. of Sir W. Jones on the Chinese, p. 22a
AN EASTERN AND WESTERN ETHIOPIA. 51
Here we see he admits that the ancient Phoenicians were Hindoos; he then goes on to observe that "In all three the oldest religion was the Assyrian, as it is called by Selden, and the Samaritan letters appear to have been the same at first with those of Phenice."^ Now, with respect to which was the oldest religion, as their religions were all, at the bottom, precisely the same, viz. the i¥orship of the Sun, there is as strong a probability that the earliest occupiers of the land, the Hindoos, were the founders of the solar worship, as the contrary.
When the various circumstances and testimonies which have been detailed are taken into consideration there can be scarcely any doubt left on the mind of the reader that, by the word Ethiopia, two different countries have been meant This seems to be perfectly clear. And it is probable that by an Ethiopian a negro, correctiy speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have been the real fact, viz., that a race, either of Negroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came from India to the West, occupying or conquering and forming a kingdom on the two banks of the Euphrates, the eastern Ethiopia, alluded to in Numbers, chap, xii.; that they advanced forwards, occupying Syria, Phoenciia, Arabia, and Egypt; that they, or some tribe of them, were the Shepherd Kings of Egypt; that after a time the natives -of Egypt rose against them and expelled part of them intp Abyssinia or Ethiopia, another part of them into Idumea, or Syria, or Arabia, and another part into the African desert of Lybia, where they were called Lubim.
The time at which these people came to the West was certainly long previous to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt; but how long previous to that event must remain doubtful. No system of chronology can be admitted as evidence; every known system is attended with too many difficulties. Perhaps chronology may be allowed to instruct us in relation to facts, as to which preceded or followed, but certainly nothing more. No chronological date can be depended on previous to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus; whether we can depend upon it quite so far back seems to admit of doubt
Part of the ancient monuments of Egypt may have been executed by these people. The memnoniums found in Persia and in Egypt leave little room to doubt this. In favour of this hypothesis all ancient sacred and profane historical accounts agree; and poetical
1 Sir W. Jones's Eighth An. Diss.
$2 ANACALYPSIS.
works of imagination cannot be admittied to compete as evidence with the works of serious historians like Herodotus. This hypothesis likewise reconciles all the accounts which at first appear discordant, but which no other will do. It is also confirmed by a considerable quantity of circumstantial evidence. It is, therefore, presumed by the writer, he may safely assume in his forthcoming discussions that there were two Ethiopias, one to the East of the Red Sea, the other to the West of it; and that a very great nation of d/acks from India did rule over almost all Asia in a very remote aera, in fact beyond the reach of history or any of our records.
This, and what has been observed respecting judicial astrology, will be retained in recollection by my reader; they will both be found of great importance in our fiiture inquiries. In my Essay on The Celtic Druids, I have shewn that a great nation called Celtse, of whom the Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremity of Britain. Who these can have been but the early individuals of the black nation, of whom we have been treating I know not, and in this opinion I am not singular. The learned Maurice says, "Cuthites, i. e. Celts, built the great ten^ples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former."^ And the learned mathematician Reuben Burrow has no hesitation in pro- nouncing Stonehenge to be a temple of the black, curly-headed Buddha.
I shall leave the further consideration of this black nation for the present. I shall not detain my reader with any of the numerous systems of the Hindoos, the Persians, the Chaldeans, Eg3rptians, or other nations, except in those particular instances which immediately relate to the object of this work, — in the course of which I shall often have occasion to recur to what I have here said, and shall also have opportunities of supporting it by additional evidence.
^Maurice, Hist Hind. VoL II. p. 249.
(53)
BOOK II.
CHAPTER I.
THE ANCIENT PERSIANS OF THE RELIGION OF ABRAHAM. — FIRST BOOKS OF GENESIS. — DISINGENUOUS CONDUCT IN THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE. — ^ABRAHAM ACKNOWLEDGED MORE THAN ONE GOD.
I. The religion and ancient philosophy of the Chaldeans, by whom are meant the Assyrians, as given by Stanley,^ at first view exhibit a scene of the utmost confusion. This may be attributed in part to the circumstance, that it is not the history of their religion and philosophy at any one particular aera, but that it is extended over a space of several thousand years, during which, perhaps, they might undergo many changes. To this circumstance authors have not paid sufficient attention, so that what may have been accurately described in the time of Herodotus may have been much changed in the time of Porphyry. Thus different authors appear to write in contradiction to each other, though each may have written what was strictly true at the time of which he was writing.
Under the name of the country of the Chaldeans, several states have at different periods been included. It has been the same with respect to Persia. When an author speaks of Persia, sometimes Persia only is meant, sometimes Bactria, sometimes Media, some- times all three, and Assyria is very often included with them. Here is another source of difficulty and confusion.
After the conquest of Babylon and its dependent states, the empire founded by its conquerors, the Persians, was often called,* by writers of the Western part of the world, the Assyrian or Chaldean empire. In all these states or kingdoms the religion of the Persians prevailed, and the use of the indiscriminate terms, Persian, Assyrian, and Chaldean, by Porphyry, Plutarch, &c., when treating of that empire, has been the cause of much of the uncertainty respecting what was
1 Part XIX.
54 ANACALYPSIS.
the religion of the Persians and Assyrians. Thus, when one historian says the Chaldeans, meaning the Assyrians, worshipped the idol Moloch, and another says they worshipped fire, as the emblem of the Deity, they are probably both correct; one assertion is true before the time of Cyrus, the other afterward.
Although it may not be possible to make out a connected and complete system, yet it will be no difficult matter to shew that, at one particular time, the worship of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Babylonians, was that of one Supreme God, that the Sun was worshipped as an emblem only of the divinity, and that the religions of Abraham, of the children of Israel, and of these Eastern nations were originally the same. The Christian divines, who have observed the identity, of course maintain that the other nations copied from Moses or the natives of Palestine, />., that several great and mighty empires copied from a small and insignificant province. No doubt this is possible, whether probable or not must be left to the judgment of the reader, after he has well considered all the circumstances detailed in the following work.
2. The very interesting and ancient book of Genesis, on which the modern system of the reformed Christian religion is chiefly founded, has always been held to be the production of Moses. But it requires very litde discernment to perceive that it is a collection of treatises, probably of different nations. The first ends with the third verse of the second chapter, the second with the last verse of the fourth.
In the first verse of the first book, the Aleim, which will be proved to be the Trinity, being in the plural number, are said by Wisdom to have formed, from matter previously existing, the D'^Dfi^ smimy or planetary bodies, which were believed by tlie Magi to be the rulers or directors of the affairs of men. This opinion I shall examine by and by. From this it is evident that this is in fact a Persian or still more Eastern mythos.
The use of animals for food being clearly not allowed to man, in chap. L vers. 29, 30, is a circumstance which bespeaks the book of Buddhist origin. It is probably either the parent of the Buddhist religion or its offspring. And it is different fi'om the next book, which begins at the fourth verse of the second chapter and ends with the last verse of the fourth, because, among other reasons in it, the creation is said to have been performed by a different person from that named in the first, — ^by Jehovah Aleim instead of Aleim. Again, in the first book man and woman are created at the same time, in the second
GENESIS AND BRAHMINICAL BOOKS — ORIGIN OF EVIL. 55
they are created at different times. Again, in the first book, the fruit of ALL the trees is given to the man, in the second this is contradicted, by one tree being expressly forbidden. These are in fact two different accounts of the creation.
The beginning of the fifth chapter, or third tract, seems to be a repetition of the first, to connect it with the history of the flood. The world is described as being made by God (Aleim), and not as in the second by Jehovah or the God Jehovah or Jehovah Aleim ; and, as in the first, the man and woman are made at one time, and not, as in the second, at different times. The account of the birth of Seth, given in the twenty-fifth verse of the fourth chapter, and the repetition of the same event in the third verse of the fifth chapter, or the beginning of the third tract, are a clear proof that these tracts are by different persons ; or, at least, are separate and distinct works. The reason why the name of Seth is given heye, and not the names of any of the later of Adam's children, is evidently to connect Adam with Noah and the flood, the object of the third tract. The permission, in the third tract, to eat animals implying that it was not given before, is strictly in keeping with the denial of it in the first.
The histories of the creation, both in the first and in the second book of Genesis, in the sacred books of the Persians, and in those of the Chaldeans, are evidently different versions of the same story. The Chaldeans state the world to have been created not in six days, but in six periods of time — the lengths of the periods not being fixed. The Persians, also, divide the time into six periods.
In the second book, a very well-known account is given of the origin of evil, which is an affair most closely interwoven with every part of the Christian system, but it is in fact nothing more than an oriental mythos, which may have been taken fi'om the history of the ancient Brahmins, in whose books the principal incidents are to be found ; and, in order to put this matter out of doubt, it will only be necessary to turn to the plates, to Figs. 2, 3, 4, taken from icons in the very oldest of the caves of Hindostan, excavated, as it is universally agreed, long prior to the Christian era. The reader will find the first to be the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head; the second, the serpent biting the foot of her seed, the Hindoo God Cristna, the second person of their trinity ; and the third, the Spirit of God brooding over the face of the waters. The history in Genesis is here so closely depicted that it is impossible to doubt the identity of the two.
56 ANACALYPSIS.
Among the Persians and aU the oriental nations it has been observed, that the Creator or God was adored under a triple form — in fact in the form of a trinity. In India, this was Bramah, Cristna or Vishnu, and Siva; in Persia, it was Oromasdes, Mithra, and Arhimanius; in each case the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer.
I shall now proceed to shew that, in this particular, the religion of Abraham and the Israelites was accordant with all the others.
3. But before I proceed, I must point out an example of very blamable disingenuousness in every translation of the Bible which I have seen. In the original, God is called by a variety of names, often the same as that which the Heathens gave to their Gods. To disguise this, the translators have availed themselves of a contrivance adopted by the Jews in rendering the Hebrew into Greek, which is to render the word nin^ leue^ and several of the other names by which God is called in the Bible, by the word Krptos or Lord, which signifies one having authority, the sovereign. In this the Jews were justified by the commandment, which forbids the use of the name leue. But not so the Christians, who do not admit the true and evident meaning adopted by the Jews — Thou shalt not take the name of leue, thy God^ in vain. And, therefore, they have no right, when pretending to give a translation, to call God by any other name than that in the original, whether it be Adonis^ or le^ or leue^ or any other. This the reader will immediately see is of the first import- ance in obtaining a correct understanding of the book. The fact of the names of God being disguised in all ^ the translations tends to prove that no dependence can be placed on any of them. The fact shews very clearly the temper or state of mind with which the trans- lators have undertaken their task. God is called by seveial names. How is the reader of a translation to discover this, if he find them all rendered by one name? He is evidently deceived. It is no' justification of a translator, to say it is of little consequence. Little or great, h^ has no right to exercise any discretion of this kind. When he finds God called Adonai, he has no business to call him Jehovah or Elohim.
4, The fact that Abraham worshipped several Gods, who were, in reality, the same as those of the Persians, namely, the creator, preserver, and the destroyer, has been long asserted, and the assertion has been very unpalatable both to Jews and many Christians ; and
^ At least I have never seen an exception.
ABRAHAM ACKNOWLEDGED MORE THAN ONE GOD. 57
to obviate or disguise what they could not account for, they have had recourse, in numerous instances, to the mistranslation of the original, as will presently be shewn.
The following texts will clearly prove this assertion. The Rev. Dr. Shuckford pointed out the fact long ago ; so that this is nothing new.
In the second book of Genesis the creation is described not to have been made by Aleim, or the Aleim, but by a God of a double name — £^^*17K Tvav leue Aleim; which the priests have translated Lord God. By using the word Lord, their object evidentiy is to conceal from their readers several difficulties which arise afterward respecting the names of God and this word, and which shew clearly that the books of the Pentateuch are the writings of different persons.
Dr. Shuckford has observed, that in Genesis xiL 7, 8, Abraham did not call upon the name of the Lord as we improperly translate it; but invoked God in the name of the Lord (/. e, leue) whom he wor- shipped, and who appeared to him ; and that this was the same God to whom Jacob prayed when he vowed that the Lord should be his God.^ Again, in Gen. xxviii. 21, 22, TV^TW D^n^NP "h niiT erit Dom- inus mihi in Deum \ and he called the place DTlpN n^'S {Bit aleim\ Domus Dei. Again, Shuckford says,^ that in Gen. xxvi. 25, Isaac invoked God as Abraham did in the name of this Lord mn^ leue or Jehovah. On this he observes, " It is very evident that Abraham
and his descendants worsliipped not only the true and living God,
but they invoked him in the name of the Lord, and they worshipped " the Lord in whose name they invoked, so that two persons were " the object of their worship, God and this Lord: and the Scripture '' has distinguished these two persons from one another by this " circumstance, that God no man hath seen at any time nor can see^ " but the Lord whom Abraham and his descendants worshipped was " the person who appeared to them."*
In the above I need not remind my reader that he must insert the name of leue or yehovah for the name of Lord.
Chapter xxi. verse 33, is wrong translated: when properly rendered it represents Abraham to have invoked (in the name of yehovah) the everlasting God.*^ That is, to have invoked the
1 Shuckford, Book vii. pp. 130, 131. 'Book vii. p. 130.
' £xod. xxxiii. 20.
* Gen. xii. ii; Shuckford, Book ix. p. 378, Ed. 3, also p. 4CX). ' Shuckford, Con. Book v. p. 292.
it
58 ANACALYPSIS.
everlasting God, or to have prayed to him in the name of Jehovah — precisely as the Christians do at this day, who invoke God in the name of Jesus — who invoke the first person of the Trinity in the name of the second.
The words of this text are, ob^V ^ mn* DB?3 DB^-fcHpl et ifwocavit ibi in nomine Ieue Deum atemum.
The foregoing observations of Dr. Shuckford's are confirmed by the following texts :
Genesis xxxi 42, " Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac,'' &c.
Gen. xxxi. 53, " The Gods of Abraham, and the Gods of Nahor, the Gods of their father, judge betwixt us, DfTilK '•Pl^K. Dii patris eorum, that is, the Gods of Terah, the great-grandfather of both Jacob and Laban. It appears that they went back to the time when there could be no dispute about their Gods. They sought for Gods that should be received by them both, and these were the Gods of Terah. Laban was an idolater (or at least of a dififerent sect or religion — Rachel stole his Gods), Jacob was not; and in conse- quence of the difference in their religion, there was a difficulty in finding an oath that should be binding on both.
In Gen. xxxv. i, it is said. And (D"'n7fc5 Aleim) God said unto Jacobs Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar
unto God (7K7 Lal) thai appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. If two Gods at least, or a plurality in the Godhead, had not been acknowledged by the author of Genesis, the words would have been, and make there an altar unto me, that, &C.; or, ufito me, became /appeared, &c.
Genesis xlix. 25, ^T\y^ HB' T\\X\ Tnrjn l^K fjKD, a Deo tui patris et adjuvabit te ; et omnipotente benedicet tibi. By the God (Al) of thy father also he^ will help thee, and the Saddai (Sdi) also shall bless thee with blessings, &c.
It is worthy of observation, that there is a marked distinction between the Al of his father who will help him, and the Saddi who will bless him. Here are two evidently clear and distinct Gods, and neither of them the destroyer or the evil principle.
Even by the God (i>K A I) of thy father who shall help thee: and by the Almighty, ^K' omnipotente, who shall bless thee with blessings oj heaven above, blessings of the deep thai lieth under, blessings of the breasts and of the womb. The Sdi or Scddi are here very remark-
^ The mighty one named in the former verse, the 1^2K Abir,
THE TRINITY COMMON TO THE ANCIENTS. 59
able ; they seem to have been peculiarly Gods of the blessings of this world.
Deut vi. 4, THN Pnn* ia\ni»N mn\ This, Mr. Hales has correctly observed, ought to be rendered Jehovah our Gods is one Jehovah.
The doctrine of a plurality, shewn above in the Pentateuch, is confirmed in the later books of the Jews.
Isaiah xlviii. i6, Wn^ '•ar^B^ mn^ ^^K nnjn. Et nunc Adonai leue misit me et spiritus ejus: And now the Lord (Adonai) Jehovah, hath sent me and his spirit
Again Isaiah li. 22, loy an** yrh^ rr\iv yyiv^ lOK-m. Thus thy
Adonai Jehovah spoke, and thy Aleim reprimanded his people. Sic dixit tuus Adoni leue, et tuus Aleim litigabit suo populo.
Two persons of the Trinity are evident in these texts. The third is found in the serpent, which tempted Eve in its evil character, and in its character of regenerator, healer, or preserver, in the brazen serpent set up by Moses in the wilderness, to be adored by the Israelites, and to which they offered incense from his time through all the reigns of David and Solomon, to the time of Hezekiah, the name of which was Nehushtan.^ Numbers xxi. 8, 9 ; 2 Kings xviii. 4. The destroyer or evil spirit may also probably be found in the Aud named. Lev. xx. 27 ; Deut xviii. 11.
There are many expressions in the Pentateuch besides those already given, which cannot be accounted for without a plurality ol Gods or the Trinity, a doctrine which was not peculiar to Abraham and his descendants, but was common to all the nations of the ancient world from India to Thule, as I have before observed, under the triple title of creator, preserver, and destroyer — Brama, Vishnu and Siva, among the Hindoos; Oromasdes, Mithra, and Arhimanius, among the Persians.
We shall see in the next chapter, that the Trinity will be found in the word Aleim of the first verse of Genesis, which will tend to support what I have asserted, viz., that it is an Indian book.
This has been observed by Mr. Maurice, Hind. Ant Vol. III. p. 209.
6o ANACALYPSIS.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE WORD ALETM OR JEWISH TRINITY. — SADDAI ADONIS.— TRINITY OF THE RABBIS. — MEANING OF THE WORDS AL AND EL.
I. Perhaps there is no word in any language about which more has been written than the word Aleim; or, as modern Jews corruptly call it, Elohim.i But all its difficulties are at once removed by considering it as a representation of the united Godhead, the Trinity in Unity, the three Persons and one God. It is not very unlike the word Septuagint — of which we sometimes say, // gives a word such or such a sense, at other times they give such a sense, &c. A folio would be required to contain all that has been said respecting this word. The author believes that there is no instance in which it is not satisfactorily explained by considering it, as above suggested, as the representation of the. Trinity.
The root ^K al^ the root of the word Aleim, as a verb, or in its verbal form, means to mediate, to interpose for protection, to preserve; ^ and, as a noun, a mediator, an interposer. In its feminine it has two forms, n^K aky and ni^K altie. In its plural masculine it makes DvK alim^ in its plural feminine C^^^7M aMm. In forming its plural feminine in C3^ im^ it makes an exception to the general Hebrew rule, which makes the plural masculine in C im. But though an exception, it is by no means singular. It is like that made by CTV ozim^ she-goats, D^ai dbim^ she-bears, &c.^ In the second example in its feminine form, it drops the u or vau^ according to a common practice of the Hebrew language.
«A controversy took place about the middle of the last century between one Dr. Sharpe and several other divines upon the word Aleim. The Doctor was pretty much of my opinion. He says, " If there is no reason to doubt, as I thmk there is none, that n?^ ** ale and ni^K cUue are the same word, only the vau is suppressed in " the one and expressed in the other, why may not DNn7fc< aleim be " the plural of one as well as of the other ? If it be said it " cannot be the plural of ni^« alue^ because it is wrote without the ^^vau; I answer, that CS'lp qrbim^ Cpm rJiqim^ C3'n3:i gbrim^ " D'^ina gdlim, &c., are frequently wrote without the vau : are they
^ In the Synagogue copies it is always Aleim.
• Parkhurst in voce. " Parkhunt's Grammar, p. 8.
ANDROGYNOUS CHARACTER OF THE CREATOR. 6 1
" not, therefore, the plurals of ynp qrub^' &c. ? Again, he says, — " When, therefore, Mr. Moody tells that O^xhu. cUtim may be the "plural masculine of n^W «/<?, as D^3*7K adnim^ and ^3*1K adni^ are " also plurals of p*l&5, adun^ Lord, so may D^n?^ cUeim and ^npK aid " be plural of mi>K Alue^ God." i
In the course of the controversy it seems to be admitted by all parties, that the word has the meaning of mediator or interposer for protection, and this is very important.
I cannot quite agree with Mr. Moody, because, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, it is much more in character for D^n>K aleim^ to be the plural feminine of \b^ ale^ a feminine noun, than the plural masculine ; and for D"'7fc5 alim to be the plural mascu- line, of the masculine noun 7K cU.
But it does not seem to have ever occurred to any of those gen- tlemen, that the words in question, npK ak^ or TOfe5 alue^ and 7K «/, might b? one the masculine, and the two others the feminine, of the same word — like God and Goddess. They never seem to have thought that the God of the Hebrews could be of any sex but their own, and, therefore, never once gave a thought to the question. The observation of Mr. Moody is very just, if npK ale be a masculine noun. But it is much more according to the genius of the language that it should be feminine. If n7« ale be masculine, it is an excep- tion. I beg the reader to observe, that the Arabians, from whose language the word al properly comes, have the word for the Sun, in the feminine^ and that for the moon in the masculine gender \ and this accounts for the word being in the feminine plural. From the androgynous character of the Creator, the noun of multitude, Aleim, by which we shall now see that he was described, probably was of the common gender : that is, either of one gender or the other, as it might happen.
From the plural of this word, 7fc^ «/, was also formed a noun of multitude used in the first verse of Genesis : exactly like our word people^ in \j&Avi populotis, or our words nation, flock, and congregation. Thus it is said, D'TIPK infc<3 bara aleim, Aleim formed the earth; as we say, the nation consumes, a flock strays, or the congregation sings psalms, or a triune divinity, or a trinity blesses or forms. It is used with the emphatic article: "Their cry came up to the Gods," DWtcn e-aleim. In the same way we say, wolves got to the sheep, or THE flock, or the congregation sing or sings. Being a noun of
^ Sharpe, on Aleim, pp. 179, 188.
6a ANACALYPSIS.
multitude, according to the genius of the language, the Verb may be either in the singular or plural number.
Parkhurst says, that " the word Al means God, the Heavens, " Leaders, Assistance, Defence, and Interposition ; or, to interpose " for protection." He adds, " that ^K AUy with the i> / doubled, has the meaning, in an excessive degree, of vile^ the denouncing of a curse: nought^ " nothings res nihilV Mr. Whiter ^ says, that it has the same meaning in Arabic, and that Al Al, also means Deus optimus maximus. Thus we have the idea of creating, preserving, and destroying.
The meaning of mediator, preserver, or intervener, joined to its character of a noun of multitude, at once identifies it with the Trinity of the Gentiles. Christians will be annoyed to find their God called by the same name with that of the Heathen Gods ; but this is only what took place when he was called ^^ Sdi, Saddi, Saddim, or '•3TK adni, Adonai, or Adonis, p^K adun^ or 7^1 bolj Baal : so that there is nothing unusual in this.
The Jews have made out that God is called by upwards of thirty names in the Bible; many of them used by the Gentiles, probably before they fell into idolatry.
The word ^K al, meaning preserver; of course, when the words D^npK n mn'' ieue-^-aieim are used, they mean leue the presenter, or the self-existent preserver — ^the word leue, as we shall afterward find, meaning selt-existent
When the D'TIPK aldm is considered as a noun of multitude, all the difficulties, I think, are removed.
It seems not unlikely that by the different modes of writing the word 7K a/, a distinction of sexes should originally have been intended to be expressed. The Heathen divinities, Ashtaroth and Baal-zebub, were both called Aleim.^ And the Venus Aphrodite, Urania, &c., were of both genders. The God Mithra, the Saviour, was both male and female. Several exemplars of him, in his female character, as killing the bull, may be seen in the Townly Collection, in the British Museum. By the word Aleim the Heathen Gods were often meant, but they all resolved themselves at last into the Sun, as triune God, or as emblem of the three powers — the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer — ^three Persons but one God — he being both male and female. Without doubt Parkhurst and the divines in the controversy with Dr. Sharpe, do not give, till after
^ Etymol. Univ Vol. I. p. 512. • Sharpe, p. 224.
GOD IS OF NO GENDER. 6$
much research, as meanings of the verb 7K a/, to mediate^ to interpose^ or intervene \ and of the noun the mediator ^ interposer^ or intervener. But here we evidently have the preserver or saviour. At first it might be expected that the gender of the word Aleim and of the other forms from its root would be determined by the genders of the words which ought to agree with it: but from the extraordinaiy uncertain state of this language nothing can be deduced from them, as we find nouns feminine and plural joined to verbs masculine and singular (Gen. L 14); and nouns of multitude, though singular, having a verb plural — and, though feminine, having a verb mascu- line (Gen. xlL 57). But all this tends, I think, to strengthen an observation I shall have occasion to make hereafter, that the Hebrew language shews many marks of almost primeval rudeness or sim- plicity; and, that the Aleim, the root whence the Christian Trinity sprung, is the real Trinity of the ancients — ^the old doctrine revived. Nothing could be desired more in favour of my system than that the word Aleim should mean preserver, or intervener, or mediator.
At first it seems very extraordinary that the word 7^ al or \h^ aley the name of the beneficent Creator, should have the meaning of curse. The difficulty arises from an ill-understood connection between liie Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer — the Creator being the Destroyer, and the Destroyer the Creator. But in this my theory is beautifully supported.
2. It appears that in these old books, God is called by names which are sometimes singular, sometimes plural, sometimes masculine, and sometimes feminine. But though he be occasionally of each gender, for he must be of the masculine or feminine gender, because the old language has no neuter ; he is not called by any name which conveys the idea of Goddess or a feminine nature, as separable from himsel£ My idea is very abstruse and difficult to explain. He is, in fact, in every case Androgynous ; for in no case which I have produced is a term used exclusively belonging to one sex or the other. He is never called Baaltes, or Asteroth, or Queen of Heaven. On this subject I shall have much to say hereafter.
Many Christians, no doubt, will be much alarmed and shocked at the idea of the word ale being of the feminine gender. But why should not the Hebrew language have a feminine to the word ^M al^ as the English have a feminine to the word God, in Goddess, or the Romans in the words Deus and Dea? And why should not God be of the feminine gender as easily as of the masculine? Who knows what gender God is of ? Who at this day is so foolish as to
64 ANACALYPSIS.
fancy that God is of any gender? We have seen that all the Gods of the Gentiles were of both genders. We find God called Al^ Ale^ AluCy AitMy and Aleim — more frequently Aieim than any other name. It must be observed, that God nowhere calls himself by any of those names, as he does by the name iT* le or "^ah or miT* leucj which is the only name by which he has ever denominated himself. Dr. Shuckford, on Genesis xxvL 25, makes leue ^ mean Preserver, or Mediator.
The God Baal was both masculine and feminine, and the God of the Jews was once called Baal. The learned Kircher^ sa3rs, " Vides igitur dictas Veneris Uraniam, Nephtem, ct Momemphitam, '^ nihil aliud esse quam Isidem, quod et vaccse cultus satis superque " demonstrat proprius Isidi certe banc eandem quoque esse, quae " in historia Thobige Dea Baal dicitur qu» vacca colebatur ; sic " enim habetur, C. i. 5, E^ov T17 BaoX tq SafiaXei, Scilicet faciebant " sacra 777 BaoX juvencse seu Vaccae, quod et alio loco videlicet L. iii. " Reg. G. xix. ubi Baal legitur feminino genere ; Ovk cKa/A^av " yomra rrj BaoX — non incurvaverunt genu Baali. Hesychius " autem BrjXJ^ inquit, ^ *Hpa ^ Ai^poSin;, Belthes, Juno sive Venus, " est cuicum juvencam sacrific^rint Phcenices, veresimile est, eandem " esse cum Venere iEgyptia, seu Iside, seu Astarthe Assyriorum, " sicut enim Baal est Jupiter, sic Baalis seu Belthis est Juno seu " Venus, cui parallela sunt, Adonis seu Thamus, et Venus seu " Astaroth ; (quorum ille Baal Assyriorum hsec eorum Beltis est ;) " quibus respondent Osiris et Isis, Jupiter et Juno seu Venus iEgypt- " iorum; etemum secuti D'»DK^ 7^3 Baal samim est Jupiter Olympius, " ita D^DB^ rhv^ Baaiet samaim est Juno Olympia, scilicet, Domina " coeli seu Regina : quemadmodum Jerem. viL 44, eam vocant " Septuaginta Interpretes, quod nomen Isidi et Astarthi et Junoni " Venerive proprie convenit: uti ex variis antiquarum inscriptionum " monumentis apud Janum Gruterum videre est'* *
Parkhurst says,* " But Al or El was the very name the Heathens gave to their God Sol, their Lord or Ruler of the hosts of heaven,^^
^ Which means self-existent. Vide Celtic Druids, Ch. v. Sect. xxxviL and xxxviii.
* (Ed. iEg. Synt. iv. Cap. xiii. Vol. I. p. 319.
* Proserpine, in Greek Ili^^'i^airif, was styled by Orpheus, (in his Hymn Eii ni^tf-t^av)}!*), iMn xeu Setwr9s$ both Life and Death. He sajrs of her — ^tfut ymf ettu xeu vtavret ^tnvtig, Thou hoth. producesi and destroy est all things.
Porphyry and Eusebius say, she said of herself, '' I am called of a threefold nature, and three-headed^ Parkhurst, p. 347.
* Lex. p. 20.
THE WORD ALEIM. 65
The word Aleim Q'^n^K has been derived from the Arabic word Allah God, by many learned men ; but Mr. Bellamy says this cannot be admitted ; for the Hebrew is not the derived, but the primitive language. Thus the inquiry into the real origin or meaning of this curious and important word, and of the language altogether, is at once cut short by a dogmatical assertion. This learned Hebraist takes it for granted from his theological dogma, that the two tribes of Israel are the favourites of God, exclusive of the ten other tribes — that the language of the former must be the original of all other languages; and then he makes every thing bend to this dogma. This is the mode which learned Christians generally adopt in their inquiries ; and for this reason no dependence can be placed upon them : and this is the reason also why, in their inquiries, they seldom arrive at the truth. The Alah, articulo emphatico alalah (Calassio) of the Arabians, is evidently the ?X Al of the Chaldees or Jews ; whether one language be derived from the other I shall not give an opinion at present : but Bishop Marsh, no mean authority as all will admit, speaking of the Arabic,^ says, '' Its importance, therefore, to
the interpretation of Hebrew is apparent It serves, indeed, as a
key to that language; for it is not only allied to the Hebrew, but '^ is at the same time so copious, as to contain the roots of almost all " Ihe words in the Hebrew Bible.^' If this be true, it is evident that the Arabian language may be of the greatest use in the translating of the Scriptures; though the Arabian version of them, in conse- quence of its having been made from the Greek Septuagint or some other Greek version (if such be the fact), instead of the original, may be of no great value. And if I understand his Lordship rightly, and it be true that the Arabic contains the roots of the Hebrew, it must be a more ancient language than the Hebrew. But, after all, if the two languages be dialects of the same, it is nonsense to talk of one being derived from the other.
In the first verse of Genesis the word Aleim is found without any particle before it, and, therefore, ought to be literally translated Goos formed; but in the second chapter of Exodus and 23rd verse, the emphatic article n e is found, and therefore it ought to be translated, that " their cry came up to the Gods^' or the Aleim. In the same manner the first verse of the third chapter ought to have the moun- tain of the GodSy or of the Aleim^ even to Horeh^ instead of the mmnr tain of God. Mr. Bellamy has observed that we cannot say Gods he created, but we can say Gods or Aleim created; and the fact, as
1 Lecture XIV. p. 28. F
66
ANACALYPSIS.
we see above, of the word Aleim being sometimes preceded by the emphatic article n e shews, that where it is omitted the English article ought to be omitted, and where it is added the English article ought to be added.
Perhaps the word Septuagint may be more similar to the word Aleim. But if there be no idiom in our language, or the Latin, or the Greek, exactly similar to the Hebrew, this is no way surprising.
3. Persons who have not given much consideration to these subjects will be apt to wonder that any people should be found to offer adoration to the evil principle ; but they do not consider that, in all these recondite systems, the evil principle, or the destroyer, or Lord of Death, was at the same time the regenerator. He could not destroy but to reproduce. And it was probably not till this principle began to be forgotten, that the evil being, per se, arose ; for in some nations this effect seems to have taken place. Thus Baal-Zebub is in Ibemo Celtic, Baal Lord^ and Zab Death, Lord of Death; but he is also called Aleim, the same as the God of the Israelites ; ^ and this is right, because he was one of the Trimurti or
If I be correct respecting the word Aleim being feminine, we here see the Lord of Death of the feminine gender; but the Goddess Ashtaroth or Astarte, the Eoster of the Germans,^ was also called Aleim.^ Here again Aleim is feminine, which shews that I am right in making Aleim the ^XnxdX feminine. Thus we have distinctly found Aleim the Creator (Gen. i. i), Aleim the Preserver, and Aleim the Destroyer, and this not by inference, but literally expressed. We have also the Apis or Bull of Egypt expressly called Aleim, and its plurality admitted on authority not easily disputed. Aaron says, yrhv^ n^K ale aleiky these are thy Aleim who brought thee out of the land of Egypt^
Mr. Maurice says,^ Moses himself uses this word Elohim, with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. AUix enumerates two, among many other glaring instances, that might be brought from the Pentateuch; the former in Genesis xx. 13, Quando errare fecerunt me Deus ; the latter in Gen. xxxv. 7, Quia ibi revelati sunt ad eum Deus.; and by other writers in various parts of the Old Testament But particularly he brings in evidence the following texts: Job xxxv. 10; Josh. xxiv. 19; Psa. cxix. i.
The 26th verse of the first chapter of Genesis completely esta-
^ Sharpe, p. 224. • See Ancient Universal History, Vol. II. pp. 334 — 346. " Sharpe, p. 224. * Parkhurst, p. 81. " Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. 81.
ON THE PLURALITY OF "ALEIM." 6/
blishes the plurality of the word Aleim. And then said AUim^ we will make man in our image according to our likeness. To rebut this argument it is said, that this is nothing but a dignified form of speech adopted by all kings in speaking to their subjects, to give themselves dignity and importance, and on this account attributed to God. This is reasoning from effect to cause, instead of from cause to effect The oriental sovereigns, puffed up with pride and vanity, not only imitated the language of God in the sacred book ; but they also went farther, and made their base slaves prostrate themselves before them in the same posture as they used in address- ing their God In this argument God is made to use incorrect language in order that he may imitate and liken himself to the vainest and most contemptible of human beings. We have no knowledge that God ever imitated these wretches; we do know that they affected to imitate and liken themselves to Him. This verse proves his plurality: the neict, again, proves his unity >'. for there the word bara is used — ^whence it is apparent that the word has both a singular and plural meaning.
On the 22nd verse of the third chapter of Genesis, my worthy and excellent old friend, Dr. A. Geddes, Vicar Apostolic of the Roman See in London, says,^ "Z^/ Adam — or man — is become like one of '^ us. If there be any passage in the Old Testament which counte- '^ nances a plurality of persons in the Godhead ; or, to speak more '^ properly, a plurality of Gods, it is this passage. He does not '^ simply say, like us; but like one of us \XQIO ^nK3. This can hardly '' be explained as we have explained TWVl Let us makCy and I confess ^' it has always appeared to me to imply a plurality of Gods, in " some sense or other. It is well known that the Lord or yehdvah^ is " called in the Hebrew Scriptures, * The God of Gods.' He is also " represented as a Sovereign sitting on his throne, attended by all " the heavenly host ; " in Job called the sons of God. Again he says, ** Wherever Jehovah is present, whether on Sinai or Sion, '' there he is attended by twenty thousand angels, of the Cherubic " order. When he appeared to Jacob, at Bethel, he was attended " by angels, and again when he wrestled with the same patriarch."
The first verse of the twelfth chapter of Ecclesiastes is strongly in favour of the plurality of Aleim — Remember thy Creators, not Creator — ^T^fc^nu riK lUT. But many copies have the word 1K*)U and others n^na without the ^. " But,*' as Parkhurst observes, ** it is very easy to " account for the transcribers dropping the plural ^ I, in their copies,
^ Crit Rem. Gen. iii., pp. 48, 49.
68 ANACALYPSIS.
" though very difficult to assign a reason why any of them should " insert it, unless they found it in the originals." ^ The Trinitarian Christians have triumphed greatly over the other Christian sects and the Jews, in consequence of the plurality of the Aleim expressed in the texts cited above. It appears that they have justice on their side.
There would have been no difficulty, with the word Aleim, if some persons had not thought that the plurality of Aleim favoured the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, and others that the contrary effect was to be produced by making Aleim a noun singular. But what- ever sect it may favour or oppose, I am clearly of opinion that it conveys the idea of plurality, just as much as the phrase Populous laudavit Deum, or, in English, The Congregation sings.
4. It has already been observed that the Grod of the Jews was also called by a very remarkable name "^C^ i>K al sdu The proper name Sdi is constantly translated God Almighty?
In Gen. xlix. 25, 'HB' Sdi is put for the Almighty (as it is translated), not only without the word 7K flf/ preceding it as usual, but in opposi- tion to it
In Deut xxxii. 17, the Israelites are said to have sacrificed to D^K^ sdim and not to n^K ale — ^as it is translated in our version, " to devils and not to God," Dljn** ^ D'Ti^K eos noverunt non diis, to Gods whom they did tiot know. Here is a marked distinction between the Sadim and the Aleim. Here is Ale in the singular number, God; Aleim in the plural number, Gods: and here is Sadimy the plural number of another name of the Deity, which is both of the masculine and feminine gender.
In Gen. xiv. 3, the kings are said to have combined " in the vale of " Siddimy which is the saU sea'^ This shews that the Gods called Saddai were known and acknowledged by the Canaanites before the time of Abraham. This word Siddim is the plural of the word used, in various places, as the name of the true God — ^both by itself as Sculdi and El SaddL In Exodus vL 3, the Israelites are ordered to call God leue; but before that time he had been only known to their fathers as Al Sculdi, God Almighty.
Now, at last, what does this word Sadi, Sculdim, or Shaddai, HfiS^ Sdi, really mean ? Mr. Parkhurst tells us, it means all-bountiful — the pourer forth of blessings; among the Heathen, the Dea Multi- mammia; in fact, the Diana of Ephesus, the Urania of Persia, the
' .^^^.^^^M^^M ^^^^^^■^^^^^^^■^ ■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ^^^^^^^»^— ^^^^— .
1 Parkhurst, Lex. p. 82. ' Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xliiL 14, xlviil 3; Exod. vi. 3.
THE TRINITY OF THE JEWS. 69
yove of Greece^ called by Orpheus the mother of the Gods, each male as well as female — ^the Venus Aphrodite ; in short, the genial powers of nature.^ And I maintain, that it means also the figure which is often found in collections of ancient statues, most beauti- fully executed, and called the Hermaphrodite. See Gallery of Naples and of Paris.
The God of the Jews is also often known by the name of Adonai ■•nx Adni?' But this is nothing but the God of the Syrians, Adonis or the Sun, the worship of whom is reprobated under the name of TammuZy in Ezekiel viiL 14.
From these different examples it is evident that the God of the Jews had several names, and that these were often the names of the Heathen Gods also. All this has a strong tendency to sheW that the Jewish and Gentile systems were, at the bottom, the same.
Why we call God masculine I know not, nor do I apprehend can any good reason be given. Surely the ancients, who described him as of both genders, or of the doubtful gender, were more reasonable. Here we see that the God of the Jews is called ^^ Sdi, and that this Sdi is the Dea MuUifnammia, who is also in other places made to be the same as the ^ al or n?M aU. Therefore it seems to follow, that the Gods of the Israelites and of the Gentiles were in their originals the same. And I think by and by my reader will see evident proof, that the religion of Moses was but a sect of that of the Gentiles ; or, if he like it better, that the religion of the Gentiles was but a sect of the religion of Jehovah, leue^ or of Moses.
It may be here observed that these names of God of two genders are almost all in the old tracts, which I suppose to have been pro- ductions of the Buddhists or Brahmins of India, for which I shall give more reasons presently.
5. From what I may call the almost bigoted attachment of the modem Jews to the unity of God, it cannot for a moment be sup- posed, that they would forge any thing tending to the proof of the Trinity of the Christians; therefore, if we can believe Father Kircher, the following fact furnishes a very extraordinary addition to the proofs already given, that the Jews received a trinity like all the other oriental nations. It was the custom among them, to describe their God Jehovah or leue, by three jods and a cross in a circle, thus :
(jiv • Certainly a more striking illustration of the doctrine I have * Parkhurst, Lex pp. 720, 721. ■ Vide Parkhurst, p. 141, and p. 788.
70 ANACALYPSIS.
been teaching can scarcely be conceived: and it is very curious that it should be found accompanied with the cross, which the learned father, not understanding calls the Mazoretic Chameiz, This mistake seems to remove all suspicion of Christian forgery ; for I can hardly believe that if the Christian priests had forged this symbol, the learned father would not have availed himself of it to support the adoration of the Cross, as well as of the Trinity. The
jods were also disposed in the form of a crown, thus X 5P /» ^^
signify the mystical name of Jehovah or leue. The reader may refer to the CEdipus iEgyp. Vol II. Cap. il pp. 114, 115, where he will find the authorities at length, and where, among the reasons given by the father to prove the Christian Trinity, is proof enough of that of the Jews. He will find also an observation of Galatinus's that the three letters irp ieu were the symbol of Jehovah, an observation made by me in the Celtic Druids,^ though for a different reason, and accounted for in a different manner; but the fact is admitted. The cross here seems to be united to the Trinity — ^but more of this hereafter.
Dr. Allix, on Gen. L 10, says, that the Cabalists constantly added the letter jod, being the first letter of the word leue to the word Aleim for the sake of a mystery. The Rabbi Bechai says, it is to shew that there is a divinity in each person included in the word.^ This is, no doubt, part of the Cabala, or esoteric religion of the Jews. Maimonides says, the vulgar Jews were forbidden to read the history of the creation, [or fear it should lead them into idolatry;^ probably for fear they should worship the Trimurti of India, or tiie Trinity of Persia. The fear evidendy shews, that the fearfiil persons thought there was a plurality in Genesis.
6. It is a veiy common practice with the priests not always to translate a word, but sometimes to leave it in the original, and some- times to translate it as it may suit their purpose : sometimes one, sometimes the other. Thus they use the word Messiah or Anointed as they find it best serves their object Thus, again, it is with the word El, in numerous places. For instance, in Gen. xxviii. 19, And he celled the name of the place Beth-el, instead of he called the place The House of the Sun. The word Beth means House^ and £1
" Ai was situated between Bith-Avon (read Bith-On) and Bith-El ;
* Ch. V. Sect, xxxviii. * Maur. Ind. Ant. Vol. IV. p. ^,
' Ibid. p. 89. ^ See CEdip. Jud. p. 250.
THE ANCIENT JEWISH CABALA. 7 1
" and these were temples of the Sun, under his different titles of On
"and EL" 1 Speaking of the word Jabneel, Sir W. Drummond says, " El, in
" the composition of these Canaanite names does not signify Deus
" but Sol." 2 This confirms what I have before observed from
Parkhurst. " Thus Klabzeel, literally means The Congregation of the Sun." • " Messiah-El a manifest corruption of the word Messiah — ^The
Anointed of El, or the Sun." *
" Carmel, the Vine of El, or of the Sun." »
" Migdal-El Horem, The Station of the Burning Sun." •
" Amraphel, Ammon, or the Sun in Aries, here denominated
" Amraphel, Agnus Mirabilis."^ " El-tolad signifies the Sun, or The God of Generation." ® In all the above-named examples the word El ought to be written
AL In the original it is TK AI; and this word means the God
Mithra, the Sun, as the Preserver or Saviour.
CHAPTER III.
ESDRAS AND THE ANCIENT JEWISH CABALA. — EMANATIONS, WHAT. — MEANING OF THE WORD BERASIT. — SEPHIROTHS AND EMANA- TIONS CONTINUED. — ORIGIN OF TIME. — PLANETS OR SAMIM. — OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRECEDING SECTIONS.
1. As all the ancient Heathen nations had their mysteries or secret doctrines, which the priests carefully kept from the knowledge of the vulgar, and which they only communicated to a select number of persons whom they thought they could safely trust; and as the Jewish religion was anciently the same as the Persian, it will not be thought extraordinary, that, like the Persian, it should have its secret doctrines. So we find it had its Cabala, which, though guarded like all ancient mysteries, with the most anxious care, and the most solemn oaths, and what is still worse, almost lost amidst the con- fusion of civil brawls, cannot be entirely hidden from the prying curiosity of the Modems. In defiance of all its concealment and mischances, enough escapes to prove that it was fundamentally the
^ CEdip. Jud. p. 221. ' Ibid. p. 270. ' Ibid. p. 272. * Ibid. p. 280. » Ibid. p. 334. • Ibid. p. 338. ' Ibid. p. 76. * Ibid. p. 286.
72 ANACALYPSIS.
same as that of the Persian Magi; and thus adds one more proof of the identity of the religions of Abraham and of Zoroaster.
The doctrine here alluded to was a secret one — more perfect, the Jews maintain, than that delivered in the Pentateuch ; and they also maintain, that it was given by God, on Mount Sinai, to Moses verbally and not written, and that this is the doctrine described in the fourth book of Esdras, ch. xiv. 6, 26, and 45, thus:
Tlhese words shalt thou declare^ and these shalt thou hide.
And when thou hast done^ some things shalt thou publish^ and some things shalt thou shew secretly to the wise.
. . . the Highest spake^ saying^ The first thai thou hast written publish openly^ that the worthy and the unworthy may read it: hut keip the seventy last, that thou may est deliver them only to such as be WISE among the people. For in them is the spring of understandings the fountain of "wisdom.
Now, though the book of Esdras be no authority in argument with a Protestant Christian for any point of doctrine, it may be con- sidered authority in such a case as this. If the Jews had had no secret doctrine, the writer never would have stated such a fact, in the face of all his countrymen, who must have known its truth or falsity. No doubt, whatever might be pretended, the real reason of the Cabala being unwritten, was concealment But the Jews assert that, from the promulgation of the law on Mount Sinai, it was handed down, pure as at first delivered. In the same way they maintain, that their written law has come to us unadulterated, without a. single error One assertion may be judged of by the other. For, of the tradition delivered by memory, one question need only be asked: What became of it, when priests, kings, and people were all such idolaters, viz. before and during the early part of the reign of the good King Josiah, that the law was completely forgotten — not even known to exist in the world ? To obviate this difficulty, in part, the fourth book of Esdras was probably written.
2. The following passage may serve, at present, as an outline of what was the general nature of the Cabala :
" The similarity, or rather the coincidence, of the Cabalistic, " Alexandrian, and Oriental philosophy, will be sufficiently evinced *' by briefly stating the common tenets in which these different "systems agreed; they are as follow: All things are derived by " emanation from one principle : and this principle is God. From " him a substantial power immediately proceeds, which is the image ** of God, and the source of all subsequent emanations. This
te
THE FIRST TWO WORDS IN GENESIS. 73
" second principle sends forth, by the energy of emanation, other
" natures, which are more or less perfect, according to their diflferent
" degrees of distance, in the scale of emanation, from the First
Source of existence, and which constitute different worlds, or orders
of t>eing, all united to the eternal power from which they proceed.
*^ Matter is nothing more than the most remote effect of the emana-
" tive energy of the Deity. The material world receives its form
'' from the immediate agency of powers far beneath the First Source
^' of being. Evil is the necessary effect of the imperfection of
'^ matter. Human souls are distant emanations from Deity, and
after they are liberated from their material vehicles, will return,
through various stages of purification, to the fountain whence they
first proceeded." ^
From this extract the reader will see the nature of the oriental
doctrine of emanations, which, as here given in most, though not in
all, respects, coincides with the oriental philosophy: ^ and the honest
translation given by the Septuagint of Deut xxxiiL 2 — he shined
forth from Paran with thousands of saints^ and haxnng his angels on
his right hand? proves that the Cabala was as old or older than
Moses.
The ancient Persians believed, that the Supreme Being was sur- rounded with angels, or what they called iEons or Emanations, from the divine substance. This was also the opinion of the Manicheans, and of almost all the Gnostic sects of Christians. As might be ex- pected, in the particulars of this complicated system, among the different professors of it a great variety of opinions arose ; but all, at the bottom, evidently of the same nature. These oriental sects were very much in the habit of using figurative language, under which they concealed their metaphysical doctrines from the eyes of the vulgar. This gave their enemies the opportunity, by construing them literally, of representing them as wonderfully absurd. All these doctrines were also closely connected with judicial astrology. To the further consideration of the above-cited text I shall return by and by.
3. Perhaps in the languages of the world no two words have been of greater importance than the first two in the book of Genesis, TW^r\ 3 B-RASiT; (for they are properly two not one word;) and great difference of opinion has arisen, among learned men, respecting the meaning of them. Grotius renders them, when first; Simeon,
* Dr. Rees* Encyclopedia, art. Cabala,
*See Hist. Phil. Enfield, Vol. II. Ch. iii.; Phil. Trans. No. CCI. p. 800; Burnet's Archaeol. Lib. i. Cap. vii. • See Beausobre, Liv. ix.
74 ANACALYPSIS.
before; Tertullian, in power; Rabbi Bechai and Castalio, in order before all; Onkelos, the Septuagint, Jonathan ben Uzziel, and the modem translators, in the beginning.
But the official or accredited and admitted authority of the Jewish religion, the Jerusalem Targum, renders them by Wisdom.
It may be observed that the Targum of Jerusalem is, or was formerly, the received orthodox authority of the Jews : the other Tar- gums are only the opinions of individuals, and in this rendering, the Jewish Cabala and the doctrine of the ancient Gnostics are evident ; and, it is, as I shall now shew, to conceal this that Christians have suppressed its true meaning. To the celebrated and learned Beau- sobre I am indebted for the most important discovery of the secret doctrine contained in this word. He says, " The Jews, instead of " translating Berasit by the words, in the beginning, translate it by " the Principle (par le Principe) active and immediate of cUl things^ " God mcuUy &C., that is to say, according to the Targum of Jerusa- " lem, BY Wisdom (par la sagesse), God made, &a'* ^
Beausobre also informs us, Maimonides maintains, that this is the only LITERAL and true meaning of the word. And Maimonides is generally allowed to have been one of the most learned of modem J ews. (He lived in the twelfth century). Beausobre further says, that Chalcidius, Methodius, Origen, and Clemens Alexan- DRiNUS, a most formidable phalanx of authorities, give it this sense. The latter quotes a sentence as authority from a work of St. Peter*s now lost Beausobre gives as the expression of Clemens, " This is " what St Peter says, who has very well understood this word : " ' God has made the heaven and the earth by the Principle. (Dieu " * a fait le Ciel et la Terre dans le Principe). This principle is that " * which is called Wisdom by all the prophets.' " * Here is evidently the doctrine of the Magi or of Emanations.
1 ** II y a encore une reflexion a faire sur cette mati^re. Elle roule sur Texpli- " cation du mot Rasit, qui est k la t6te de la Gen^se, et qui, si Ton en croit ** d' anciens Interpr^tes Juifs, ne signifie pas le commencement^ mais le Principe <* actif et immediat de toutes choses. Ainsi au lieu de traduire, Au commence- " ment Dieu fit le Ciel et la Terre, ils traduisoient, Dieu fit le Cid et la Terre " Par le Principe, c*est ^-dire, selon T explication du Targum de Jerusalem, " Par la Sagesse : Maimonide soutient, que cette explication est la seule '* LITTERALE ET VERITABLE. Elle passa d'abord chez les Chretiens. On la " trouve non seulement dans Chalcidius ^ qui marque qu'elle venoit des Hebreux^ " mais dans Mithodms^ dans Ori^ne^ et dans Clement d*Alexandrie, plus ancien '* que Tun et 1' autre." Beausobre, Hist. Manich. Liv. vi. Ch. L p. 29a
s Beausobre, Hist. Manich. Liv. vi. Ch. i. p. 290.
RENDERING OF THE WORD " BERASIT." 75
Of this quotation from Peter, by Clemens, the Christian divine will perhaps say. It is spurious. I deny his right to say any such thing. He has no right to assume that Peter never wrote any letters but the two in our canon ; or that Clemens is either mistaken or guilty of fraud in this instance, without some proof.
The following passage of Beausobre^s shews that St. Augustine coincided in opinion with the other fathers whom I have cited on the meaning of the word JT»K^in Rasit: " Car si par Reschit on " entend le Principe actif de la creation, et non pas le commmcement^ " alors Moi'se n'a plus dit que le Ciel et la Terre furent les premieres " des OBuvres de Dieu. II a dit settlement, que Dim crka le ciel et la " terre par le Principe^ qui est son Fils. Ce n' est pas T ^poque, " c* est r auteur imm^diat de la creation qu' il enseigne. Je tiens " encore cette pensde de St Augustin. Les anges, dit il, ont €\.€ " faits avant le Firmament, et m^me avant ce qu* est rapportd par " Mo'ise, Dieu fit le ciel et la terre par le Principe; car ce mot de " Principe ne veut pas dire, que le ciel et la terre furent faits avant " toutes choses, puisque Dieu avoit d^jk fait les anges auparavant ;
il veut dire, que Dieu a fait toutes choses par sagesse, qui est son
VerbCy et que V Ecriture a nomm^e le Principe.'* ^
£y Wisdom, I have no doubt, was the secret, if not the avowed, meaning of the words ; and I also feel littie doubt that, in the course of this work, I shall prove that the word kpxn used by the Seventy and by Philo had the same meaning. But the fact that the LXX. give Apxn ^ ^^® rendering of Berasit, which is shewn to have the meaning of Wisdom by the authorities cited above, is of itself quite enough to justify the assertion that one of the meanings of the word Apx»7 was Wisdom, and in any common case it would be so received by all Lexicographers.
Wisdom is one of the three first of the Eight Emanations which formed the eternal and ever-happy Octoade of the oriental philoso- phers, and of