Sixteen Crucified Saviours ~ 4(Christianity Before Christ, by Kersey Graves. 1875)
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Library Index
At the feast of the Passover, Christ is represented, while distributing bread to his disciples, to have said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body’ (Matt. xxvi. 26); and while handing round the consecrated cup, he enjoined, ‘Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ (xxvi. 27). Here is a very clear and explicit endorsement of what is generally termed ‘the Eucharist or Sacrament’ And nothing can be more susceptible of proof than that this rite or ordinance is of pagan origin, and was practically recognised many centuries prior to the dawn of the Christian era. So we observe, by the text above quoted, the Christian Saviour and Lawgiver copied, or reproduced, an old pagan rite as a part of his professedly new and spiritual system, one of the most ancient and widely-extended formulas of pagandom. And stranger still, the catechisms of the Christian church represent this ordinance as having originated in the design and motive to keep the ancient Christian world in remembrance of the death and sufferings and sacrifice of Christ, while we find it existing long prior to his time, both among Jews and pagans, this being virtually admitted in the bible itself, so far as respects the pagans, thus proving that it did not originate with Christ, and therefore is not of Christian origin. For in Gen. viv. 18, we read, ‘And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the Most High God.’ Because the Melchizedek here spoken of is represented as being ‘a priest of the Most High God,’ and showed so much respect to Abraham, it is presumed and assumed, by Christian writers, that he was a Jewish priest and king; and Mr. Faber (vol. ix. 72) calls him ‘an incarnation of the son of God.’ But there is no intimation throughout the Jewish Scriptures of the Jews ever having had a king or priest by that name. And besides, Eupolemus (vol. ix. 39), tells us that the temple of Melchizedek was the temple of Jupiter, in which Pythagoras studied philosophy. Then, again, according to some writers, the name is synonymous with Moloch, the God of war among the Greeks. Strange, then, that Melchizedek should be claimed as a priest and king among the Jews. Be this as it may, the case proves that the ceremony of offering bread and wine existed long before the era of Jesus Christ. And then we have much more and much stronger proof of this fad than is here furnished. The Christian Mr. Faber virtually admits it, when he tells us, ‘The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. ‘And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra.’ (Reeves, Justin, p. 86.) Mr. Higgins observes, ‘It was instituted hundreds of years before the Lord’s death took place.’ Amongst the ancient religious orders and nations who practiced this rite, we may name the Essenes, Persians, Pythagoreans, Gnostics, Brahmins and Mexicans. For proof of its existence and antiquity among the last-named nation, we refer you to the ‘Travels’ (chap. ii.) of that Christian writer, Father Acosta. Mr. Marolles, in his Memoirs (p. 215) quotes Tibullus as saying, ‘The pagan appeased the divinity with holy bread.’ And Tibullus, in a panegyric on Marcella, wrote, ‘A little cake, a little morsel of bread, appeased the divinities.’ And here we discover the idea which originated the ceremony. It was started, like annual sacrifices, for the purpose of appeasing the wrath or propitiating the favour of the angry Gods. Tracing the conception still further in the rear of its progress, and apparently to its primary inception, Mr. Higgins observes, ‘The whole paschal supper (the Lord’s supper with the Christians) was in fact a festival of joy to celebrate the passage of the sun across the equinox of spring.’ We find one pagan writer who had intelligence enough to ridicule this senseless ceremonial custom,
called ‘the sacrament.’ Cicero, some forty years before Christ, shows up the doctrine of the sacrament, or substantiation, in its true light.
He asks, ‘How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?’ A writer quoted above says, ‘Mass, or the sacrifice of
bread and wine, was common to many ancient nations.’ (Anac. vol. ii. p. 62.) According to Alnetonae, the ancient Brahmins had a kind of
Eucharist called ‘prajadam.’ And the same writer informs us that the ancient Peruvians, ‘after sacrificing a lamb, mingled his blood with
flour, and distributed it among the people.’ Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and
that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink. Nor is there any evidence that Christ and his followers made a better use, or different use,
or a more spiritual application of the sacrament, or ceremonial offering of bread and wine, than the pagans did, though some have claimed this. It
was a species of symbolism with both, notwithstanding Mr. Glover, a Christian writer, declares, that ‘in the sacrament of the altar are the
natural body and blood of Christ, verily and indeed.’ (See Glover’s Remarks on Bishop Marsh’s Compendious Review.) It may be noted here that
the Persians, Pythagoreans, Essenes and Gnostics used water instead of wine, and that this mode of practice was less objectionable than that of
the Christians, who (as sad experience proves) have too often laid the foundation for the ruin of some poor unsuspecting devotee, by luring him to
the fatal fascination of the intoxicating bowl, by holding the sacred and ceremonial wine to his lips, while administering the sacrament or the
Lord’s supper.
The custom and ceremony of anointing with oil by way of imparting some fancied spiritual power and religious qualification seems to have been extensively practiced by the Jews and primitive Christians, and still more anciently by various oriental nations. Mark (xiv. 4), reports Jesus Christ as speaking commendingly of the practice, by which it was evident he was in favour of the superstitious custom. The apostle James not only sanctions it, but recommends it in the most specific language. ‘Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.’ (James v. 14.) The practice of greasing or smearing with oil, it may be noted here, was in vogue from other motives besides the one here indicated. We find the statement in the New American Cyclopaedia (vol. ix. 620), that anointing with perfumed oil was in common use among the Greeks and Romans as a mark of hospitality to guests. And modern travellers in the East still find it a custom for visitors to be sprinkled with rose-water, or their head, face and beard anointed with olive oil.’ ‘Anointing,’ we are also told, ‘is an ancient and still prevalent custom throughout the East, by pouring aromatic oils on persons as a token of honour. It was also employed in consecrating priests, prophets and kings, and the places and instruments appointed for worship.’ (Ibid.) Joshua anointed the ten stones he set up in Jordan, and Jacob the stone on which he slept at the time of his great vision. The early Christians were in the habit of anointing the altars, and even the walls, of the churches, in the same manner as the images, obelisks, statues, etc., had long been consecrated by the devotees of the oriental systems. Aaron, Saul, David, Solomon, and even Jesus Christ were anointed with oil in the same way. David Malcom, in his ‘Essay on the Antiquity of the Britons,’ p. 144, says, ‘The Mexican king was anointed with Holy Unction by the high priest while dancing before the Lord.’ (Vide the case of David ‘dancing before the Lord with all his might.’ Dr. Lightfoot, in his ‘Harmony of the New Testament,’ speaks of the custom among the Jews of anointing the sick on the Sabbath day (see Works, Vol. ix. 333; also Toland, Sect. Naz. p. 54), as afterwards recommended by the apostle James, as shown above. This accords exactly with the method of treating the sick in ancient India and other heathen countries several thousand years ago. For proof consult Hyde, Bryant, Tertullian and other writers. The custom of anointing the sick, accompanied with prayer and other ceremonies, was quite fashionable in the East long before the birth of either Jesus or James. One writer testifies that ‘the practice of anointing with oil, so much in vogue among the Jews, and sanctioned by Christ and his followers, was held in high esteem in nearly all the Eastern religions.’ The foregoing historical facts furnish still further proof that Christianity is the offspring of
heathenism.
It is truly surprising to observe the damaging concessions of some of the early Christian writers, ruinous to the dogmas of their own faith with respect to the divinity of Jesus Christ, placing him, as they do, on an exact level with the heathen demigods, proving that the belief in his divinity originated in the same manner the belief in theirs did, by which it is clearly shown to be a pagan derived doctrine. Several Christian writers admit the belief in earth-born Gods (called Sons of Gods), and their coming into the world by human birth was prevalent among the heathen long prior to the time of Christ. Hear the proof. We will first quote St. Justin relative to the prevalence of the belief among the ancient Greeks and Romans. Addressing them, he says, ‘The title of Son of God (As applied to Jesus Christ) is very justifiable upon the account of his wisdom, considering you have your Mercury in your worship, under the title of Word or Messenger of God.’ (Reeves Apol. p. 76.) Here is the proof that the tradition of the Son of God coming alto the world, and ‘the Word becoming flesh,’ was established amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans long prior to the era of Christianity, or the birth of Christ. And yet more than a hundred millions of Christian professors can now be found, who, in their historic ignorance, suppose St. John was the first writer who taught the doctrine of ‘the Word becoming flesh,’ and that Jesus Christ was ‘the first and only begotten Son of God’ who ever made his appearance on earth. How true it is that ‘ignorance is the mother of devotion’ to creeds. How ‘the man Christ Jesus’ came to be worshiped as a God, is pretty clearly indicated by Bishop Horne, who shows that the doctrine of the incarnation was of universal prevalence long before Jesus Christ came into the flesh. He says, ‘That God should, in some extraordinary manner, visit and dwell with man, is an idea, which, as we read the writings of the ancient heathen, meets us in a thousand different forms.’ If, then, the tradition of God being born into the world was so universally established in heathen countries before the Christian era, as here shown, why should not, and why will not, our good Christian brethren dismiss their prejudices, and tear the scales from their eyes, so as to see that this universal belief would as naturally lead to the deification and worship of ‘the man Christ Jesus’ as water flows down a descending plane? And, certainly a thousand times more reasonable is the assumption that his deification originated in this way, than that, with all his frailties and foibles, he was entitled to the appellation of a God – a conclusion strongly corroborated by the testimony of that able Christian writer, Mr. Norton, who tells us that many of the first Christians being converts from Gentileism, their imaginations were familiar with the reputed incarnation of heathen deities.’ How natural it would be for such converts to worship ‘the man Christ Jesus’ as a God on account of his superior manhood! Again, that ancient pillar of the Christian church, St. Justin, concedes that the ancient oriental heathen held all the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith relating to the incarnation long prior to the introduction and establishment of Christianity. Hear him: Addressing the pagans, he says, ‘For by declaring the Logos the first begotten Son of God, our Master, Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin without any human mixture, and to be crucified, and dead, and to have risen again into heaven, we say no more in this than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.’ (Reeves, Apol. vol. ix. 69.) Now, mark the several important admissions which are made here:
All these cardinal doctrines of Christianity are here shown to have been in existence, and to have been preached by pagan priests long anterior to the Christian era, thus entirely oversetting the common belief of Christendom that these doctrines were never known or preached in the world until heralded by the first disciples of the Christian religion. A fatal mistake, truly! This suicidal admission of St. Justin (a standard Christian writer) thus entirely uptrips all pretensions to originality in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and shows it to be a mere travesty of the more ancient heathen systems. And we have still other testimony to corroborate this conclusion. The French writer Bazin says, ‘The most ancient histories are those of Gods becoming incarnate in order to govern mankind.’ Again he says, ‘The idea sprang up everywhere from confused ideas of God, which prevailed everywhere among mankind that Gods formerly descended upon earth. The fertile imagination of the people of various nations converted men into Gods.’ And to the same effect is the declaration of Mr. Higgins, that ‘there was incarnate Gods in all religions.’ Sadly beclouded and warped indeed must be that mind which cannot see that here is set in as plain view as the cloudless sun at noonday, the origin of the deification of ‘the man Christ Jesus.’ No unbiased mind can possibly stave off the conclusion that such a universal prevalence of the practice of God-making throughout the religious world would cause such a man as Jesus Christ to be worshiped as a God – especially when we look at the various motives which promoted men to Gods, which we will now present.
The causes which led to the conception of Gods and Sons of God becoming clothed in human flesh – the manner in which the absurd idea originated of an infinite being descending from heaven, assuming the form of a man, being born of a pure and spotless virgin, and finally being killed by his own children, the subjects of his own government, are palpably plain and easily understood in the light of oriental history. And at the same time it is so shockingly absurd, that the rapid march of science and civilisation will soon inaugurate the era when the man or woman who shall still be found clinging to these childish and superstitious conceptions – the offspring of ignorance, and the relics of barbarism, and a certain proof of undeveloped or unenlightened minds – will be looked upon as deplorably ignorant and superstitious. We will proceed to enumerate some of the causes which promoted men to the dignity of Gods. 1.God must come down to suffer and sympathise with the people. The people of all ancient religious countries were so externally-minded, that they demanded a God whom they could know by virtue of his corporeity, really sympathised with their sorrows, their sufferings, their wrongs, and their oppressions, and, like Jesus Christ, ‘touched with a feeling of our infirmities’ (Heb. iv. 15) – a God so far invested with human attributes, human frailties, and human sympathies, that he could shoulder their burdens and their infirmities, and take upon himself a portion of their sufferings. Hence it is said of Christ, ‘himself took our infirmities.’ (Matt. iii. 17.) The same conception runs through the pagan systems. One writer sets forth the matter thus: ‘The Creator occasionally assumed a mortal form to assist mankind in great emergencies’ (as Jesus Christ was afterward reported as being the Creator. See Col. i. 16.) ‘And as repeated sojourners on earth in various capacities, they (the Saviours) became practically acquainted with all the sorrows and temptations of humanity, and could justly judge of its sins while they sympathised with its weaknesses and its sufferings. When they again returned to the higher regions (heaven), they remembered the lower forms they had dwelt amongst, and felt a lively interest in the world they had once inhabited. They could penetrate even the secret thoughts of mortals.’ The people then demanding a God of sympathy and suffering (as shown above), their credulous
imaginations would not be long in finding one. Let a man rise up in society endowed with an extraordinary degree of spirituality and sympathy for
human suffering; let him, like Krishna, Pythagoras, Christ, and Mohammed, spend his time in visiting the hovels of the poor, or consoling their
sorrows, labouring to mitigate their grieves, and in performing acts of charity, disinterested alms and deeds of benevolence, kindness and love,
and so certain would he sooner or later command the homage of a God. For this was always the mode adopted, in an ignorant, undeveloped, and
unenlightened age, for accounting not merely for moral greatness, but for every species of mental and physical superiority, as will be hereafter
shown. We will proceed to notice the second cause of men being invested with divine attributes. 2.The people must and would have an external God they could see, hear, and talk to. All the oriental nations, as well as Christian, taught that ‘God was a spirit,’ but no nation or class of people, not even the founders of Christianity, entertained a consistent view of the doctrine. Only a few learned philosophers saw the scientific impossibility of an infinite spirit being crowded into the human form. Hence they alone were contented to ‘worship God in spirit and in truth.’ Every religious nation went counter to the spirit of this injunction in worshiping for a God a being in the human form. Even the founders of Christianity, though making high claims to spirituality, were too gross, too sensuous in their conceptions, too externally-minded, and too idolatrous in their feelings and proclivities, to be content to ‘worship God in spirit.’ Hence their deification of the ‘Man Christ Jesus’ to answer the requisition of an external worship, by which they violated the command to ‘worship God as a spirit.’ That the practice of promoting men to the Godhead originated with minds on the external plane, and evinces a want of spiritual development, is clearly set forth by the author of ‘The Nineteenth Century’ (a Christian writer) who tells us, ‘The idea of the primitive ages were wholly sensuous, and the masses did not believe in anything except that which they could touch, see, hear and taste.’ A true description, no doubt, of the ancient pagan worshipers of demigods. But we warn the Christian not to cast anchor here, for we have at our elbow abundance of Christian testimony from the pens of the very oracles of the church to prove that the same state of things, the same state of society, the same state of mind, the same proclivity for God-making, existed with the people among whom Christ was born, and that it was owing to this sensuous, idolatrous state of mind among his disciples that he received the homage and title of a God. Hence the famous Archbishop Tillotson says, ‘Another very common notion, and rife in the heathen world, and a great source of their idolatry, was their deification of great men fit to be worshiped as Gods.’ ... ‘There was a great inclination in mankind to the worship of a visible Deity. So God was pleased to appear in our nature, that they who were fond of a visible Deity might have one, even a true and natural incarnation of God the Father, the express image of his person.’ Now, we enjoin everyone to mark this testimony well, and impress it indelibly upon their memory. According to this orthodox Christian bishop, Jesus Christ appeared on earth as a God in condescension to the wishes of a people too devoid of spirituality, and too strongly inclined to idolatry, to worship God as a spirit. For he admits the worship of a God-man or a man-God is a species of idolatry. This tells the whole story of the apotheosis of ‘the man Christ Jesus.’ We have no doubt but that here is suggested one of the true causes of his elevation to the Deityship. Again he says, ‘The world was mightily bent on addressing their requests and supplications, not to the Deity immediately, but by some Mediator between the Gods and men.’ (See Wadsworth’s Eccles. Biog. p. 172.) Here, then, we have the most conclusive proof that the belief in mediators is of pagan origin. We will now hear from another archbishop on this subject. in his ‘Caution to the Times’ (p. 71), Archbishop Whately says, ‘As the Infinite Being is an object too remote and incomprehensible for our minds to dwell upon, he has manifested himself in his Son, the man Jesus Christ.’ Precisely so! just the kind of reasoning employed to account for the worship of man-Gods among the heathen. This logic fits one case as well as the other. The Christian writer F.D. Maurice declares in like manner, ‘We accept the fact of the incarnation (of Jesus Christ), because we feel that it is impossible to know the absolute invisible God without an incarnation, as man needs to know him, and craves to know him.’ (Logical Essay, p. 79.) Here is more pagan logic – the same reasoning they employed to prove the divinity of their Saviours and demi-gods. And the Rev. Dr. Thomas Arnold declares, ‘It (the incarnation of Christ) was very necessary, especially at a time when men were so accustomed to worship their highest Gods under the form of men.’ (Sermon on Christian Life, p. 61.) Let it be attentively observed that an explicit avowal is made here – and mark well its pregnant inferences. He makes Jesus Christ come into the world in condescension to the idolatrous rivalry of the Jews to be up with the heathen nations in worshiping God in the form of man; that is, the founders of Christianity, having been Jews, disclosed the true Jewish character in running after and adopting the customs of heathen countries then so rife – that of hunting up a great man, and making him a God – which was only one case out of many of the Jews adopting some of the numerous forms of idolatry and other religious customs of their heathen neighbours. Their whole history, as set forth in the Bible, proves, as we have shown in another chapter, that they were strongly prone to such acts. It is not strange, therefore, that they should and did convert ‘the man Christ Jesus’ into a God. We will now listen to another Christian writer, the notable and noteworthy Dr. T. Chambers. ‘Whatever the falsely or superstitiously fearful imagination conjures up because of God being at a distance, can only be dispelled by God being brought nigh to us. The veil which hides the unseen God from the eyes of mortals must be somehow withdrawn.’ (Select Works, vol. iii. p. 161.) Most significant indeed is this species of reasoning. It is the same kind of logic which had led to the promotion of more than a score of great men to the God-head among the ancient heathen. ‘The veil which hides the unseen God must be removed,’ – says Dr. Chambers; and so had reasoned in soliloquy a thousand pagans long before, when determined to worship men for Gods. It is simply saying, ‘We are too carnally-minded to worship God in spirit; we must and will have a God of flesh and blood – a God who can be recognised by the external senses; he must ‘become flesh, and dwell amongst us.’ (See John i. 14.) Our author continues: ‘Now all this (removing the veil from the unseen God) has been done once, and done only once in the person of Jesus Christ.’ (Ibid.) Mistake, most fatal mistake, brother Chambers! It has been done more than a score of times in various heathen countries – a fact which proves you ignorant of oriental history. Now let it be noted that the foregoing citations are from standard Christian authors, setting forth some of the reasons which led the founders of Christianity to adopt a visible man-God in their worship in the person of Jesus Christ. Language could hardly be used to prove more conclusively that the whole thing grew out of an idolatrous proclivity to man-worship – that is, the gross, sensuous, carnally-minded propensity to worship an external, visible God – proving, with the corroborative evidence of many other facts, that they were not a whit above the heathen in spiritual development. The reason employed by the Tibetan for the worship of the Hindu Krishna as a God, tells the whole story of the worship and the deification of Jesus Christ. ‘We could not always have God behind the clouds; so we had him come down where we could see him.’ This is the same kind of reasoning made use of by the Christian writer above quoted, all of which discloses a state of mind among both heathen and Christians that would not long rest satisfied without deifying somebody, in order to have a visible God to worship. And hence Christians deified ‘the man Christ Jesus’ for this purpose. ‘The more externally minded (says Fleurbach), the greater was the determination to worship a personal God’ – God in the form of man. And as the Jewish founders of Christianity (as every chapter of their history demonstrates) were dwelling on the external plane, it was not an act of direct innovation, therefore, for them to fall into the habit of worshiping the personal Jesus as a God. It involved no serious incursion on previous thoughts or habits. And warped and blinded, indeed, must be that mind which cannot here discover the true key to the apotheosis of Jesus – one of the real causes of his being stripped of his manhood, and advanced to the Godhead. It was as naturally to be expected from the then state of the religious world, and the state of the Jewish mind concerned in the founding of Christianity, as that an autumnal crop of fruit should succeed the bloom of spring. Let it be specially noted, that all the Christian writers above cited tell us, in effect, that God sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to be worshiped as a God in condescension to the ignorance and superstitious tendencies, and we will add, idolatrous proclivities of the people. From this stand-point we challenge the world to show why God may not have sent the oriental Saviours into the world for the same reason – that is, in condescension to the prejudices of the devout worshipers under the heathen systems. Why, then, is there not as much probability that he did do so? Why would he not be as likely to accommodate their ignorance and prejudices in this way as those of the founders of the Christian system. This question we shall keep standing before the Christian world till it is answered, and we challenge them to meet it, and overthrow it if they can. 3.Men deified on account of mental and moral superiority. The ancient nations, in their entire ignorance of the philosophy of the human mind, and the laws controlling its actions, always accounted for the appearance of great men amongst them by supposing them to be Gods. Every country occasionally produced a man, who, by virtue of natural superiority, rose so high in the scale of moral and intellectual greatness as to fill the ideal of the people with respect to the characteristics of a God. So low, so limited, so narrow, so greatly circumscribed were the conceptions of deity, of the undeveloped and intellectually dwarfed minds of all religious countries in that age, that a man had to rise but a few degrees above the common level of the populace to become a God. He could ‘easily fill the bill,’ and exhibit all the qualities they assigned to the highest God in the heavens. And this is as true of the Jewish mind as that of any other nation, a portion of whom adored Jesus as a God. Or if they lacked anything in natural inclination, they made it up by imitation, a propensity which they possessed in no small degree, that is, a proneness to imitate the customs of other nations. Mr. Higgins tells us that ‘men of brilliant intellects and high moral attainments, and great healers (of which Christ was one), were almost certain to be deified.’ In like manner Archbishop Tillotson says, ‘they deified famous and eminent persons by advancing them after their death to the dignity of an inferior kind of Gods fit to be worshiped by men on earth.’ Mark the expression, ‘after their death.’ We have shown in another chapter that Jesus Christ was not generally considered a God, even by his followers, till more than three hundred years after his death, when Constantine declared him to be ‘God of very God’ – a circumstance of itself sufficient to establish the conclusion that he did not possess this character. A God would be adored as such by everybody while living, but a man’s worshipers rise up after his death, as in the case of ‘the man Christ Jesus.’ Great mental endowments, or great moral attainments, would, in most countries, bring the most ignorant down on their knees to worship such a man as a God. But it required years, and sometimes centuries, to get him fully established among the Gods. This is as true of Jesus Christ as the other human-descended deities. Whatever amount of homage Jesus might have received while living, any person who will institute a thorough, unbiased scrutiny in the case will discover that it was his great healing powers and superior mental qualities which finally deified him. His ignorant admirers knew no way of accounting for such extraordinary qualities but to suppose him to be the embodiment of infinite wisdom. Like the Chinaman who exclaimed, ‘See the God in that man,’ when an Englishman cured a young woman of partial blindness by anointing her eyes with kerosene. Such a deed would deify almost any man, in almost any country, before the dawn of letters and the recognition of the science of mind. The missionary Rev. D.O. Allen’s method of accounting for the deification of the Hindu God Krishna is so suggestive, that we here present it. He tells us that ‘as the exploits ascribed to Krishna exceed mere human power, the difficulty was removed by placing him among the incarnations of Vishnu.’ (India, Ancient and Modern, p. 26.) Exactly so! We are glad of such historic information. We hope the Christian will note the lesson it suggests. For certainly, every person, who has not had his reason shipwrecked on the shoals of a blind and dogmatic theology, can see here a key to unlock the great mystery of the Christian incarnation – the divinity of Jesus Christ. As some of the exploits of Krishna were supposed to ‘exceed mere human power,’ we are told the difficulty was explained by imagining him to be a God. How powerful the suggestion! how conclusive the explanation, not only for the Godhood of this sin-atoning Saviour, but for that of ‘our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ and all the other Lords, and Gods, and Saviours of antiquity! A single hint will sometimes explain whole volumes of obscure history, as does this of the Rev. Christian Hindu missionary D.O. Allen. And surely, most deplorably blinded by superstition must be the two hundred millions of Christ worshipers, the three hundred millions who worship Krishna, the one hundred and twenty million adorers of Confucius, the fifty millions of suppliants of Mithra the Mediator, and the one hundred and fifty millions of followers of Mohammed, who cannot see here a satisfactory solution of the deityship of all these Gods, and all the other man-Gods of antiquity. The question is sometimes asked, How could two hundred millions of people come to believe that Jesus was a God merely because of his superiority as a man? We will answer by pointing to the history of the Hindu Krishna, and by asking the same question with respect to his Godhead. How could three hundred millions of people be brought to believe in his divinity, and worship him as a God, merely because he was a superior human being? One question is as easily answered as the other, and posterity will answer both questions alike. When we observe it taught as an important and easily learned lesson of history, and one based on a thousand facts, that no man could rise to intellectual greatness or moral distinction in the era in which Christ was born without being advanced to the dignity of a God, and worshiped as such, it is really a source of humility and sorrow to every unshackled lover of truth and humanity to reflect that there are so many millions of people whose mental vision is so beclouded by a dogmatic and inexorable theology that they cannot see the logical potency of these facts – that they cannot be even moved by this great and overwhelming amount of evidence against the divinity dogma, and observe that it explodes it into a thousand fragments, but still cling to the delusion that ‘the man Christ Jesus,’ with all the human qualities and human frailties with which his own history (the Gospels) invest him, was nevertheless a God – the monstrous delusion that any being possessing a finite form could be an infinite being – a most self-evident and shocking absurdity. And we challenge all Christendom to show, or approximate one inch toward showing, that there was sufficient difference between Christ and Krishna to require us to accept one as a man and the other as a God. It cannot be done. We have shown, then, by the foregoing exposition, that one cause of the deification of men was simply an attempt to solve the problem of human greatness – an attempt to account for the moral and intellectual superiority of men which enabled them to perform deeds and otherwise exhibit a character far above the capacity of the multitude to comprehend, and which they could find no other way to account for than to suppose them to be Gods, while the low and grovelling conceptions which most religious nations, and especially the Jews, had formed of the character and essential attributes of the Infinite Deity (often investing him with the most ignoble human attributes, human passions, and human imperfections), made it perfectly easy to convert their great men by imagination into Gods. The Jews represented God not only as a coming down from heaven in propria persona, and walking, talking, wrestling, etc., as a man (on one occasion we are told he and Jacob scuffled all night), but he is often represented as acting the part of a wicked man, such as lying (see 2 Chron. v. 22), getting mad (see Detit. i. 37), swearing, sanctioning the high-handed and demoralising crimes of stealing (see Ex. iii. 2), of robbery (see Ex. xii. 36), of murder (see Deut. xiii. 2) and even fornication (see Gen. xxxi. i, and Num. xxxi) and thus they invested Deity with such mean, low, despicable attributes as to reduce his moral character to a level with the most immoral man in society. So that it was very easy, if not very natural, to elevate their great men (if it really required any elevation) to a level with their God. Men and Gods were in character and conception so nearly alike, that it was easy to bring them on a level, or to mistake one for the other. And hence it is we find an incarnated God, Saviour, Son of God, Redeemer, etc., figuring in he early history of nearly every oriental religious nation whose name and history has descended to us. Indeed, the practice of deifying men, or mistaking men for Gods, was once so common, so nearly universal, that it must require a mind very ignorant of oriental history to adore Jesus Christ as having been the only character of this kind who figured in the religious world. It was, as before suggested, deemed the most rational way of accounting for the marked superiority among men, to suppose that some men had a divine birth, and were begotten by the great Infinite Deity himself, and descended to the earth through the purest human (virgin) channel. As Mr. Higgins remarks, ‘Every person who possessed a striking superiority of mind, either for talent or goodness, was supposed anciently to have a portion of the divine mind or essence incorporated or incarnated in him.’ The Jews had a number of men whose names imply a participation in the divine nature, among which we will cite Elijah and Elisha (El-i-jah and El-i-sha), El being the Hebrew name or term for God, while Jah is Jehovah (see Ps. lxviii. 4), and Sha means a Saviour. Elijah, then, is an approximation to God-Jehovah, and Elisha is God – a Saviour. The character of men and Gods were cast in moulds so approximately similar, so nearly identical, as to make the transition, or change from one to the other, so slight and easy; either of men into Gods or Gods into men, that several nations went so far as to teach that a man might by his own natural exertions, his own voluntary powers, raise himself to a level with the Deity, and thereby become a God. Mr. Ritter in his ‘History of Ancient Philosophy’ (Chap. II.), tells us that some of the Buddhist sect held that ‘a man by freeing himself by holiness of conduct from the obstacles of nature, may deliver his fellows from the corruption of the times, and become a benefactor and redeemer of his race, and also even become a God’ – a ‘Buddha’ – that is, a Saviour and Son of God. Singular enough that the Christian should object to this doctrine as being rather blasphemous, when his own bible abundantly and explicitly teaches the same doctrine in effect! We find the same thing substantially taught over and over again in the Christian Scriptures. ‘Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect’ (Matt. v. 18), requires a man to become morally perfect as God, which is all that the Buddhist precept requires or contemplates, and no man can become perfect as God without becoming a God. But we are not left to mere inference in the matter, We have the doctrine several times expressed and unquestionably taught in the Christian bible of man’s power and prerogative to become either a God or Son of God. ‘Said I not that ye are Gods?’ (Ex. iv. 16). ‘Behold now, we are the sons of God.’ (I John i. 2.) Here is the Buddhist doctrine as explicitly stated as it can be taught. It is, then, a Christian bible doctrine as well as a pagan doctrine, that man can become a God, and that God can be born of woman, and thereby invested with all the frail and imperfect attributes of man. It cannot be considered a matter of marvel, therefore, that so many of the good, the great, and the wise men of almost every country, including ‘the man Christ Jesus,’ should be honoured and adored with the titles of Deity, and worshiped as God absolute, ‘Son of God,’ ‘Saviour,’ ‘Redeemer,’ ‘Mediator,’ etc. 4.God comes down and is incarnated to fight and conquer the devil. We will proceed to enumerate other causes and motives which conspired in various cases to invest some one or more of the great men of a nation with divine honours, and adore them as veritable Gods and Saviours ‘come down to us in the form of men.’ It was a tenant of faith with most of the ancient religions, that almost at the dawn of human existence a devil or evil principle found its way into the world, to the great discomfiture of man and the no small annoyance of the Supreme Creator himself, and that hence there must needs be a Saviour, a Redeemer, an Intercessor to combat and if possible ‘destroy the devil and his works.’ For this purpose appeared the Saviour Krishna, in India, the Saviour Osiris, in Egypt, the God or Mediator Mithra, in Persia, the Redeemer Quexalcote, in Mexico, the Saviour Jesus Christ, in Judea, etc. In the initiatory chapter on the transgression and fall of man, some of the oriental bibles graphically describe the scene of ‘the war in heaven’ – a counterpart to the story of St. John, as found in the twelfth chapter of Revelation, wherein Michael and the dragon are represented as the captains and commander-in-chief of their respective embattled hosts, and in which the former was crowned as victor in the contest, as he succeeded in vanquishing and ‘casting out the evil one.’ In the pagan military drama the scene of the war in heaven is transferred to the earth. A God, a Saviour (a Son of God), comes down to put a stop to the machinations of the ‘Evil One,’ that is, to ‘destroy the devil and his works’ as we are told Christ came for that purpose. (i John iii. 8) See the Author’s ‘Biography of Satan.’ The Egyptian story runs thus: ‘Osiris appeared on earth to benefit mankind, and after he had performed the duties of his mission, and had fallen a sacrifice to Typhon (the devil, or evil principle), which, however, he eventually overcame (‘overcame the wicked one,’ i John ii. II), by rising from the dead, after being crucified, he became the judge of mankind in a future state.’ (See Kerrick’s ‘Ancient Egypt;’ also Wilkinson’s ‘Egypt.’) The Buddhist, or Hindu, version of the story is on this wise: ‘The prince (of darkness), or evil spirit, Ravana, or Mahesa, got into a contest and a war with the divine hero Rania, in which the latter proved victorious, and put to flight the army of ‘the wicked one,’ but not till after considerable injury had been done to the human family, and the whole order of the universe subverted; to rectify which, and to achieve a final and complete triumph over Ravana (the devil) and his works, and thus save the human race from utter destruction, the gods besought Vishnu (the second person of the Trinity) to descend to the earth and take upon himself the form and flesh of man. And it was argued that as the mission appertained to man, the God Vishnu, when he descended to the earth in the capacity of a Saviour, should become half man and half God, and that the most feasible way to accomplish this end was for him to be born of a woman. And that the glory and honour of his triumph over Ravana, the devil, would be greater if achieved in this capacity than if he were to come down from heaven and conquer Ravana wholly with his attributes as a God, or wholly in his divine character – that is, as absolute God, uninvested with human nature. The suggestion was approved by Vishnu, who descended and took upon himself the form of man’ (‘the form of a servant’. Phil. ii. 7). And that his metamorphosis or earth-born life might be the purer, it was decided that he should be born of a woman wholly uncontaminated with man – that is, a virgin. And thus, far back in the midnight of mythology and fable, originated the story of divine Saviours and Gods being born of virgins – a conception now found incorporated in the religious histories of various ancient nations. And now let us observe how substantially the Christian story of a Saviour conforms to the above. Jesus,
like the Saviours of India and Egypt, was believed to be a man-God – half man and half God, and reputedly he came into the world, like them, to
‘destroy the devil and his works, or the works of the devil – that is, to put an end to the evil or malignant principle introduced into the
world by the serpent in the garden of Eden; as it is declared ‘the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head’ (Gen. iii. 15) –
which is interpreted as referring to Christ. And like these and various other pagan Saviours Jesus is assigned the highest and most ennobling
human origin – a birth from a virgin. And, as in the instances above named, Jesus had also several encounters with the devil; first in the
wilderness, then on a mountain, and finally, like them, falls a sacrifice to his insidious, malignant power acting through the agency and
mediumship of Judas Iscariot; for his betrayal is ascribed wholly to Satan, whom John called the serpent, entering into Judas and prompting the
act. (See Rev. xii. 3). And thus Christ, like the other saviours, falls a victim to the serpentine or satanic power acting through the
instrumentality of a Judas Iscariot; but finally, triumphed, like the Saviour of Egypt (Osiris), by rising from the dead – ‘the first fruits
of immortality.’ And thus the stories run parallel – the more modern Christian with the more ancient pagan.
Recent explorations in the field of oriental sacred history have revealed to the antiquarian some curious and deeply interesting facts appertaining to traditions founded on, and growing out of, astronomical phenomena and changes in the visible heavens, which throw much light on, and go far toward elucidating and furnishing a satisfactory explanation of many of the ‘mysteries’ of the Christian bible. The works which we have consulted, containing the reports and results of researches of this character, tend to elucidate and establish the following conclusions:
And this period was announced by the God’s causing a collision of the sun and moon, or some other terror-exciting phenomena in the heavens above or the earth beneath. When one of these six hundred Cycular periods was about to expire, and another commence, every remarkable phenomenon in the heavens was watched and interpreted as being connected with it. And some person born at that period, who exhibited any remarkable or extraordinary trait of character, was certain to be promoted to the Godhead, as being miraculously born and brought forth for the special occasion. He was the Avatar Saviour or Messiah for that Cycle. There were two extraordinary events to be counted for – one was the display of unusual and terror-exciting phenomena in the heavens, and the other the birth of extraordinary men on earth. And it was natural for an ignorant age to associate them together, and make one aid in accounting for the other. And as these celestial phenomena were only witnessed at intervals distant apart, the thought naturally arose, and the conclusion was easily established, that they came periodically, and for the special purpose of heralding the birth of a God. And as tradition reported that similar events were witnessed six hundred years before the conviction was fixed in the popular mind, this was the established period intervening between these great epochs. And thus the six hundred year Cycular tradition became established in India, and finally spread through all the Eastern countries. We find traces of it in Egypt, Syria, Persia, Chaldea, China, Italy, and Judea. And the proof that the deification of great men in some countries grew out of this Cycular tradition is found in the fact that many of them were born at the commencement of Cycles. The Hindus are able to recount the names of ten sin-atoning Saviours who made their appearance on earth at these regular intervals of six hundred years. The name of the first Avatar Mediator and Saviour who forsook the throne of heaven to come down and die for the people was Matsa. Tradition and the sacred books fix his birth at about six thousand years BC. The names and advent of the other sin-atoning Saviours occur in the following order:
The last named Saviour was contemporary with Jesus Christ. The God and Saviour Saki was born six hundred years BC ‘Our Lord and Saviour’ and ‘Son of God,’ Krisna, was immaculately conceived and miraculously born, according to Higgins, 1200 BC A circumstance strongly confirming the conclusion that Cycular periods had much to do with the promotion of men to the dignity of Gods is, that most of the deified personages reported in history were, according to the best authorities, born near the commencement of Cycles. Recurring back to the eighth Cycle, we observe the advent of that period of Krishna, Zoroaster 2d, Bali, Thammiiz, Atys, Osiris, and several ethers. At the commencement of the ninth Cycle. appeared Saki, Quexalcote, Zoroaster 2d, Xion, Quirinus, Prometheus, Mithra and many others. The tenth Cycle brought in Jesus Christ, Salavhana, Apollonious, and others that might be named. Mohammed succeeded Jesus Christ just six hundred years (he was born in the year 600 AD), which inaugurated another Cycle. Many facts are recorded in history proving the prevalence and sacredness of the Cycle idea in different countries, The story in Egypt of the bird called the Phoenix, being hatched, according to tradition, just 600 years BC, and living to be just six hundred years old, and having the power to renew itself every six hundred years, shows the prevalence of the Cyoular tradition in that country. We have the statement upon the records of history that when the first six hundred years after the foundation of Rome were about to expire, the people became greatly excited with the apprehension that some extraordinary event must attend the occasion. And but for the influence of the philosophers, some extraordinary man would have been hunted up and promoted to divine honour as being the God born for that Cycle. The writings of Plato, Plutarch, Ovid, Cicero, Virgil, and Aristotle, all evince a belief in Cycles, and the belief that ten Cycles, or Aetas, were the measure, for the duration of the world. According to M. Faber, a new-born Saviour was always expected to make his appearance at the commencement of one of these Cycles. Hence the deification of those personages above named, and many others that might be named. It is a remarkable circumstance that the Jewish bible should speak of Noah as being six hundred years old at the commencement of the flood, when it was a tradition amongst the ancient Egyptians that the ushering in of the six hundredth year Cycle was to be attended with a flood. And the time antecedent to Noah after creation, was the measure of three Cycles, according to the chronology of the Samaritan bible, it being 600 + 600 + 600 = 1800 years from Adam to Noah. It is an interesting fact that those enigmatical figures made use of by Daniel, as also some of those found in the Apocalypse, are susceptible of a Cycular explanation. These occult prophecies, as they are supposed to be, which have puzzled and bewildered many thousands of Christian minds and bible expounders in their attempt to evolve their signification, are susceptible of a Cycular explanation. They are of easy solution on a Cycular basis, or with the Cycular key. Take, for example, Daniel’s famous prophecy (so called) of the seventy weeks, as found in the ninth chapter, announcing the advent of a Messiah at the end of that period. We find by a calculation based on Tyson’s ‘Historical Atlas,’ and Haskell’s ‘Chronology and Universal History,’ that Daniel lived in the hundred and tenth year of the ninth Cycle, at which time the prefigure seems to have been used. Assuming this as a basis, and multiplying seventy weeks by seven, to convert it into years, as Christian essayists are accustomed to doing, and we have as the result 70 X 7 = 490, which being added to one hundred and ten, the year that gave birth to the prophesy, makes six hundred, which exactly completes the Cycle, and furnishes a simple and beautiful explanation of a mystical figure, on which many thousands of conjectures, speculations, and guesses have been founded, but on which they have failed to throw any light. The 70 X 70 = 490 years, were wanting to complete the Cycle; and when this rolled away, it brought a new Cycle, and with it a new sin-atoning Saviour was always expected in some countries (the country in which Daniel lived being one of this number); a new Messiah (or sin-atoning, Saviour), and some great man born at that time, was fixed upon and deified as being that Messiah. Hence the Jews, in imitation of their neighbours, yielding to their strong proclivities to borrow from and copy after heathen nations, selected ‘the man Christ Jesus’ as their Messiah and Saviour. The mystical era of Daniel, signified by ‘a time, times, and the dividing of time’ (Dan. vii. 25), or, as St. John has it, ‘a time, times, and a half time (see Rev. xii. 14) is explainable by the same Cycular key. Some writers have conjectured that Daniel was a Chaldean priest. If so, he must have had a knowledge of their astronomical Cycle of two thousand one hundred and sixty years, which completed the period of the precession of the equinoxes. Explained by this Cycle, his ‘time, times, and dividing of time, or half time,’ or ‘a time, another time, and a half time,’ as some writers have rendered it, would be 2160 + 2160 + 1080 = 5400; nine Cycles exactly, as 600 x 9 = 5400. Add this to the Cycle in which he lived, and we have 5400 + 600 = 6000, the great Millennial Cycle, when not only a new Saviour and Messiah was to be born, but a new world also. Both the long and short Cycle (and one was a measure of the other) were expected to expire at that time, according to a Chaldean tradition. And thus is beautifully explained another ‘deep, dark and unfathomable mystery,’ which thousands of devout minds have exhausted their ingenuity in trying to find a meaning for. Again, look at the frightful nightmare visions of Daniel and the author of the Apocalypse, in which they saw a monstrous beast with seven heads and ten horns, though Daniel mentions only the horns. The seven heads were, in all probability, the seven auspicious months of the year in which some of the nations revealed in the enjoyment of, and praised and celebrated their fruitful, bountiful blessings, the year being divided into two seasons, seven summer months and five winter months. Now, let it be noted, St. John lived near the tenth Cycle, which answers to the ten horns of the beast. Hence is most forcibly suggested that interpretation of the figure. Daniel’s ten horns should have been translated eleven horns, as he lived in the ninth Cycle, though so near the tenth, that he probably constructed his figure on the tenth. And Daniel’s prophetic declaration (so considered), found in the eighth chapter, that it would be two thousand three hundred days until the sanctuary should be closed, is explainable in the same manner. According to Mr. Irving, Mr. Frere, and other writers, there was a large fraction over the three hundred days, making it nearer four hundred, and hence might have been so rendered, which would make 2000 + 400 = 2400; the exact length of four Cycles, 600 X 4 = 2400. And their are other mystical figures, frightful visions, and occult metaphors found in the Apocalypse susceptible of a Cycnlar solution. The Cycle is the true key for unlocking many of the ancient mysteries of various religions. The Chinese have always reckoned by Cycles of sixty years, instead of by centuries. (See New Am. Encyclop. vol. v.p. 105,) We will now bestow a brief notice on the Millennial Cycle: the sacred period of 6000 years, composed of ten of the smaller Cycles, 600 X 10 = 6000. Dr. Hales says, ‘A tradition of Millennial ages prevailed throughout the east, and finally reached the west.’ (Chron. vol. ix. 44.) We are told by astronomers that if the angle which the plane of the ecliptic forms with the plane of the Equator had decreased gradually, as it was once supposed to do, the two planes would coincide in about six thousand years – a period which comprises ten of the smaller Cycles, 600 X 10 = 6000. And it was very easy and very natural for an ignorant and superstitions age to conclude that such a prodigious, astounding, and awful event as that of two stupendous orbits or planes coming in contact with each other, should be attended with some direful and calamitous event, and with a tremendous display of divine power. Nothing less than an entire revolution, if not the total destruction of the world, could comport with the majesty and magnitude of such an event. And this great crisis was to bring down the Omnipotent Divine Judge from the throne of heaven; that is, the Almighty being who caused it was to come down, or send his Son to call the nations to judgment, and drown the world, or set it on fire. The first destruction according to the tradition of the Chaldeans, Persians, Assyrians, Mexicans, and some other nations, was to be by water, and the next by fire, when the oceans, seas, and lakes were to be converted into ashes. And Christ’s apostles seemed to have cherished this tradition. Peter says, ‘whereby the world that was then, being overflowed by water, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement,’ (2 Peter iii. 6.) This was a pagan belief long prior to the era of Peter. Josephus says, ‘Adam predicted that the world would be twice destroyed, once by water, next by fire.’ A writer says, ‘A glorious, blissful future attends the destruction of the world by fire, and the reappearance of Vishnu (that is, eleventh incarnation of Vishnu) has been for several thousand years the hopeful anticipation of India.’ ‘The last coming of Vishnu in power and glory,’ says another writer, ‘to consummate the final overthrow of evil, sin, and death, is so firmly fixed in the minds of the devotees, that they have an annual festival in commemoration of their prophesy referring to it, at which they exclaim, in a loud voice, ‘When will the Divine Helper come? when will the Deliverer appear?’ At the consummation of this event, ‘a comet will roll under the moon and set the world on fire;’ so affirms their bible. And the Persian bible, the Zend-Avesta, in like manner predicts that ‘a star, with a tail in course of its revolution, will strike the earth and set it on fire.’ Seneca predicts that ‘the time will come when the world will be wrapped in flames, and the opposite powers in conflict will mutually destroy each other.’ Ovid prophesies poetically:
The Egyptians marked their houses with red, to indicate that the world would be destroyed by fire. Orpheus, 1200 BC, at the inauguration of the eighth Cycle, entertained fearful forebodings of the speedy destruction of the world by water or fire. Some nations held that the alternate destruction of the world by water and fire had already occurred, and would occur again. Theopompus informs us that some of the orientalists believed that ‘the God of light and the God of darkness reigned by turn every six thousand years (commencing with an astronomical Cycle of course), and that during this period the other was held in subjection, which finally resulted in ‘a war in heaven;’ a counterpart to St. John’s story. (See Rev. chap. xii.) This accords with Volney’s statement, that ‘it was recorded in the sacred books of the Persians and Chaldeans that the world, composed of a total revolution of twelve thousand periods, was divided into two partial revolutions of six thousand years each – one being the reign of good, and the other the reign of evil.’ (Ruins, p. 244.) This belief was disseminated through most of the nations. One of these revolutions was produced, some believed, by a concussion of worlds, which displaced the ocean and seas, and thus produced a general flood, which drowned every living thing on the earth. The next revolution will be caused by a collision of worlds, which will produce fire, and burn the earth to ashes. Now, let it be noted that all of these grand epochs were founded on Cycles, and accompanied by the tradition of a God being born upon the earth (conceived by a virgin maid), or descending in person; that is, men were promoted to the Godhead. And in this way Jesus Christ was deified. Volney explains the matter thus: ‘Now, according to the Jewish computation, six thousand years had nearly elapsed since the supposed creation of the world (according to their chronology). This coincidence produced considerable fermentation in the minds of the people. Nothing was thought of but the approaching termination. The great Mediator and Final Judge was expected, and his advent desired, that an end might be put to their calamities.’ (Ruins, p. 168). Mr. Higgins corroborates this statement, when he tells us that ‘about the time of the Caesars, there
seems to have been a general expectation that some Great One was to appear. And finally, when the Cycle had passed, the people, the
Jew-Christians, began to look about to see who that Great One was. Some fixed on Herod, some on Julius Caesar, and some on others. But finally
public opinion settled on one Jesus of Nazareth, on account of his superiority in morals and intellect, while the Hindus deified Salavahana, the
Greeks Apollonious, etc. And thus science and history join hand in hand to explain most beautifully and conclusively the greatest mystery that
ever brought two hundred millions of people daily upon their knees – the apotheosis, or deification of ‘the man Christ Jesus.’
More than twenty thousand sermons are preached in the Christian pulpits, on every recurring Sabbath, to convince the people that the religion and morality taught and practiced by Jesus Christ was of divine emanation, and was never before taught in the world – that his system of morality was without a parallel, and his practical life without a precedent – that the doctrine of self-denial, humility, unselfishness, benevolence, and charity – also devout piety, kind treatment of enemies, and love for the human race, which he preached and practiced, had never before been exemplified in the life and teachings of any individual or nation. But a thorough acquaintance with the history and moral systems of some of the oriental nations, and the practical lives of piety and self-denial exemplified in their leading men long anterior to the birth of Christ, and long before the name of Christianity was anywhere known, must convince any unprejudiced mind that such a claim is without foundation. And to prove it, we will here institute a critical comparison between Christianity and some of the older systems with respect to the essential spirit of their teachings, and observe how utterly untenable and groundless is the dogmatic assumption which claims for the Christian religion either any originality or any superiority. Of course if their is nothing new or original, there is nothing superior. We will first arrange Christianity side by side with the ancient system known as Essenism – a
religion whose origin has never been discovered, though it is known that the Essenes existed in the days of Jonathan Maccabeus, BC 150, and that
they were of Jewish origin, and constituted one of the three Jewish sects (the other two being Pharisees and Sadducees). We have but fragments of
their history as furnished by Philo, Josephus, Pliny, and their copyists, Eusebius, Dr. Ginsburg, and others, on whose authority we will proceed
to show that Alexandrian and Judean Essenism was identically the same system in spirit and essence as its successor Judean Christianity; in other
words, Judean Christianity teaches the same doctrines and moral precepts which had been previously inculcated by the disciples of the Essenian
religion.
Practical Lives of Christ and the Essenes We will condense from Philo, Josephus, and other authors.
This parallel might be extended much further, but we will proceed to present you with a general description of Essenism, as furnished us by Philo, Josephus, and some Christian writers. Philo, who was born in Alexandria 20 B.C;, and lived to 60 AD, and who was himself an Essenian Jew, in his account of them, says, ‘They do not lay up treasures of gold or silver ... but provide themselves only with the necessities of life.’ Paul afterwards, having caught the same spirit, advises the same course of life. ‘Having food and raiment, therewith be content.’ Contentment of mind they regarded as the greatest of riches. They make no instruments of war. They repudiate every inducement to covetousness, None are held as slaves, but all are free, and serve each other. They are instructed in piety and holiness, righteousness, economy, etc. They are guided by a threefold rule: love of God, love of virtue, and love of mankind. Of their love of God they give innumerable demonstrations, which is found in their constant and unalterable holiness throughout the whole of their lives, their avoidance of oaths and falsehoods, and their firm belief that God is the source of all good, but of nothing evil. ‘Of their love of virtue they give proof in their contempt for money, fame, and pleasures, their continence, easy satisfying of their wants, their simplicity, modesty,’ etc. Their love of man is proved by their benevolence and equality, and their having all things in common, which is beyond all deception. They reverence and take care of the aged, as children do their parents. (Condensed from Philo’s treatise, ‘Every Virtuous Man is Free.’) Josephus, 37 AD, and who was also at one time a member of the Essenian Brotherhood, furnishes another fragmentary account of the Essenes in his Jewish Wars,’ of which the following is the substance: ‘They love each other more than others (that is, are ‘partial to the household of faith’); they despise riches, and have all things in common, so that there is neither abjectness of poverty nor distinction of riches among them; they change neither garments nor shoes till they are worn out or become unfit for use; they neither buy nor sell among themselves; their piety is extraordinary; they never speak about worldly matters before sunrise; they are girt about with a linen apron, and have a baptism of cold water; they eat but one kind of a food at a time, and commence with a prayer, and the priest must say grace before any one eats (that is, breaks and blesses as Christ did); they also return thanks after eating, and then put off their white, garments; strangers were made welcome at their tables without money and without price; they give food to the hungry and the needy and show mercy to all; they curb their passions, restrain their anger, and claim to be ministers of peace; an oath they regard as worse than perjury; they excommunicate offenders (‘Go tell it to the churches, says Christ); they condemn finery in dress; though condemning in most solemn terms oaths, members were admitted to the secret brotherhood by an oath (‘See thou tell no man,’ said Christ); they endured pain with heroic fortitude, and regarded an honourable death as better than long life; they read and study their Holy Scriptures from youth, often prophesy, and it was very seldom they failed in their predictions.’ Dr. Ginburg’s testimony, abridged, is as follows: ‘The Essenes had a high appreciations of the inspired law of God. The highest aim of their lives was to become fit temples of the Holy Ghost (see i Cor. vi. 19); also to perform miraculous cures, and to be spiritually qualified for forerunners of the Messiah. They taught the duty of mortifying the flesh and the lusts thereof, and to become meek and lowly in spirit; they answered by yea, yea, and nay, nay (see Matt.), scrupulously avoiding oaths; they avoided impure contact with the heathen and the world’s people, and lived retired from the world, being in numbers about four thousand; they strove to be like the angels of heaven; there were no rich and poor, or masters and servants, amongst them; they lived peaceably with all men; a mysterious silence was observed while eating; a solemn oath was required on becoming a member of the secret order, which required three things:
Now, as the foregoing exposition shows that Essenism and Christianity are most strikingly alike in all their essential features, that the former system contains nearly every important doctrine and precept of the Christian religion, the question occurs here as one of momentous import, how is this striking resemblance, this identity of character of the two religions, to be accounted for? Does it not go far toward proving that Christianity is an outgrowth, a legitimate offspring, of Judean Essenism? Indeed, are we not absolutely driven to such a conclusion? Let us briefly recite some of the important facts brought to light by the investigation of the character and history of these two religions, and see if those facts do not bring them together, and weld them as one system – as one and the same religion.
Based upon this conclusion, he calls the Essenes ‘the first heralds of the gospel.’ ‘I find it, therefore, most probable,’ says Mr. Weilting, ‘that Jesus and John belonged literally to the society of the Essenes.’ And then the New American Encyclopedia furnishes us with the testimony of a very able English author of the last century (De Quincy), who concurs with all the writers cited above. ‘Mr. De Quincy (it says) identified the Essenes as being the early Christians; that is, the early Christians were known as Essenes. Such testimony, coming from such a source, is entitled to much weight.’ (vol. ix. 157.) And to the same effect is the testimony of Bishop Marsh, who admits that our Gospels were drawn from those of the Essenes. (See his edition of Michaelis’ translation of the New Testament.) Thus far historical writers. We will now lay some historical facts, which are fraught with unanswerable logical potency, and pointing to the same conclusion. It is a fact, and one of deep logical import, and tending to correlate the conclusion of some of the writers cited above, who tell us the Christian Gospels were first composed by the Essenes; that the language in which those Gospels were originally written was Greek, the language in which the Alexandrian Essenes always wrote, while the evangelical writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, being illiterate fishermen, could have had no knowledge of any but the Jewish, their own mother-tongue, – at least it is susceptible of satisfactory proof that they never wrote in any other language. Hence the conclusion is irresistible that they were not the original authors of the Gospels. The works of several authors are now lying at our elbow, who express the conviction unequivocally that the Gospels were copied, if not translated, from older writings. Mr. Le Clere, one of the ablest writers of his time, maintained this position, and did it ably. Another writer, a Mr. Hatfield, was awarded a prize in 1793, by the theological faculty of Gottingen, for an essay, in which the position was ably argued that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the authors of the books which bear their names, but were mere copyists. Dr. Lessing and others concur with him in this conclusion. A circumstance confirming this verdict is found in the fact that the word church occurs in our Gospels, which were written before such an institution was established by those who were then called Christians. ‘Go tell it to the church’ (Matt. xviii. 17) was uttered before any steps had been taken by the then representatives of the Christian faith to organise such a body – an evidence this, that he alluded to the church of the Essenes, as there were no other churches in existence at the time; which leaves the inference patent and irresistible that he and his disciples were Essenes, perhaps then under the changed name of Christians. Centuries prior to that era the Essenes had not only churches, but their whole ecclesiastical nomenclature of bishops, deacons, elders, priests, disciples, scriptures, gospels, epistles, psalms, hymns, mystery, allegory, etc. If Christianity was reestablished in the days of Christ and his apostles, they had nothing to originate, either with respect to doctrines, precepts, church polity, or ecclesiastical terms – all being established for them centuries before that era. With these facts in view, it seems impossible that the two religious orders – Essenes and Christians – could have been in existence at the same time as separate institutions. The former must have ended when the latter commenced. Josephus says, ‘the Essenes were scattered far and wide, and were in every city,’ being quite numerous in Judea in his time. But he makes no reference to any sect or religious order by the title of Christian – strong inferential evidence, upon sound priori reasoning, that Christianity as yet was sailing under another name. Josephus must have known and named the fact, had there been a Christian sect or disciple there bearing that name. Impossible otherwise. We are then (upon the logical force of these and many other facts) driven to the conclusion that Christianity began when Essenism ended, and the change was only in name. I challenge the whole Christian world to find the historical proof that Christianity commenced one hour before the termination of Essenism, or of Essenism over-lapping the Christian religion so far as to survive one day beyond or after its birth. I will confront them with the logic of dates, and defy them to find any proof except their own unauthorised, unauthenticated, and fictitious chronology, that a Christian was ever known in any country by that name prior to the time of Tacitus, 104 AD, who is the first of the three hundred writers of that era that makes any mention of Christianity, Christ, or a Christian. This was long after Josephus’ time, which accounts most satisfactory for his omitting any allusion to Christ or Christianity. That religion had not yet dropped the name of Essenism and adopted that of Christianity. Now, hard indeed must distorted reason fight the ramparts of logic and history to resist the conviction, in view of the foregoing facts, that Christianity is simply an outcropping of Essenism, either direct or through Buddhism. And even if it were possible to prove that the two religions never became welded together, yet it is not possible to disprove the striking identity of their doctrines, and the spirit of their precepts, and the practical lives of their disciples. And this identity, coupled with the fact that Essenism is the older system, is of itself most superlatively fatal to all pretension or claim to originality for the doctrines of the Christian faith. It is a matter of no importance whether Christianity was originally known by another name, so long as it can be shown that its doctrines had all been preached and proclaimed to the world centuries prior to the date assigned for its origin. And this is proved by the long list of parallelisms presented in the incipient pages of this chapter. And this proof explodes the pretensions of Christianity to an ‘original divine revelation,’ and brings it down to a level with pagan orientalism. And the fact that it sprang up in a country where its doctrine had long been taught by pagans and orientalists, must produce the conviction, deep and indelible, in all unbiased minds, that orientalism was the mother and heathenism the father of the Christian religion, even in the absence of any other proof. In fact, no other proof can be needed. And what are the arguments, it may be well here to inquire, with which orthodox Christians attempt to meet, combat, and vanquish the overwhelming mass of historical facts and historical testimonies we have presented in preceding pages, tending to prove and demonstrate the oriental origin of their religion and its identity with Essenism? Their whole argument is comprised in the naked postulate of the Rev. Mr. Paideaux, D.D., that ‘the Essenes did not believe in the resurrection of the physical body (but believed in a spiritual resurrection), and omit from their creed the Trinity and Incarnation doctrine, and therefore they could not have been the originators of the Christian religion;’ but this argument is as easily demolished as a cobweb, as the following facts will prove: 1. We have but a fragment of the Essenian religion – but one end of their creed – mere scraps furnished us by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny. We have none of their sacred books apart from the Christian New Testament. 2. They had secret books, as we have shown, in which doctrines were taught which they regarded as too sacred to be thrown before the Public, as ‘pearls before swine.’ And no doctrines were regarded as more sacred or secret in that age than the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Christ’s injunction, ‘See thou tell no man,’ was probably their motto, which prevented the publicity of a portion of their doctrines. And as their sacred books, containing their doctrines, perished with the extinction of the sect (except those now found in the Christian New Testament), a full knowledge of their doctrines, therefore, never reached the public mind. All religious sects had secret doctrines, designated as ‘Mysteries of Godliness,’ including the principal Jewish sects and the earliest Christian churches. It is, therefore, highly probable that if we were in possession of all their sacred books, we would be in possession of the proof that they believed and taught in their monasteries the doctrines above named. But we are not left to mere inference that the Essenes’ creed did include the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divine Incarnation. We find skeletons of these doctrines scattered along the line of their history. Philo himself, an Essene teacher, most distinctly teaches the doctrine of ‘the Incarnation of the Divine Word or Logos.’ And ‘Son of God,’ ‘Mediator,’ ‘Intercessor,’ and ‘Messiah,’ were familiar words with him. The idea often reappears in his writings, that the ‘Word could become flesh;’ that the Son of God could appear as a personality, and return to the bosom of the Father. Moreover, one writer informs us that the Essenes celebrated the birth and death of a Divine Saviour as a ‘Mystery of Godliness.’ And they claimed in their earlier history to be ‘forerunners of the Messiah’ – a claim which would soon bring a Messiah before the world, that is, lead them to deify and worship some great man as ‘The Messiah.’ As for the doctrine of the Trinity, we have the authority of Eusebius that they taught this doctrine too. So that it is not true that they did not recognise these two prime articles of the Christian faith, the Incarnation and Trinity doctrines. Some modern Christians assert that the Essenes not only omitted to teach these doctrines, but that, on the other hand, they taught other doctrines not taught in the Christian New Testament. This is not improbable. For the Christian religion has been characterised by frequent changes in its doctrines in every stage of its practical history, as was also the Jewish religion which preceded it, and from which it emanated. Judaism is a perpetual series of changes. It changed even the name of its God from Elohim to Jehovah. Its leader and founder Abram was changed to Abraham, and his grandson and successor from Jacob to Israel. And we have the works of many Christian writers in our possession who prove by their own bible that the Jews made many changes in their religious polity and religions doctrines. This is more especially observable when they came in contact with nations teaching a different religion. Their whole history shows they were prone to imitate, and borrow, and always did borrow on such occasions, and engraft the new doctrines thus obtained into their own creed, and thus effected important changes in their religion. We have the authority of Dr. Campbell for saying the Jews never believed and taught the doctrine of future punishment (and other doctrines that might be named) till after they were brought in contact with Persians in Babylon who had long taught these doctrines. (See Dissertation VI.) And Dr. Enfield declares their theological opinions underwent thorough changes during this period of seventy years’ captivity. Even their national title was changed at one period from Israelites to Jews. With all these changes of names, titles, and doctrines in view, it is not incredible that one of the Jewish sects should change its name from Essenes to Christians, and with this change modify some of the doctrines. And more especially as their title, according to Dr. Ginsburg, had been changed before from Chassidim to Essenes. And Philo at one period calls them Therapeuts, while Eusebins says Therapents were Christians. Put this and that together, and the question is forever settled. Now, with all this overwhelming mass of historical evidence before us, ‘piled mountain high,’ tending to prove the truth of the proposition that Christianity is the offspring and outgrowth of ancient Judean Essenism, we feel certain that no sophistry, from interested charlatans or stereotyped creed worshipers, can stave off or obliterate the conviction in unprejudiced minds, that the proposition is most amply proven. We will now collate Christianity with another ancient religions system, which we are certain it will
not be disputed, after the comparison is critically examined, contains the sum total of the doctrines and teachings of Christianity in all their
details. Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and HarmlessDesign ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
The Sacrament of 
