that man was never allowed to eat of the “ Tree of Life ” (the
Phallus in all countries), and, as a fact, the birth of children did not
follow as a consequence of any act in the Garden of Eden. The
story only tells that of the Roman Catholic Church, which punished
with the cruel death of burning anyone who dared to acquire
knowledge.

In this connection, everyone ought to read the history of the
“Conflict between Science and Religion,*’ of J. W. Draper, and
also Andrew Dickson White’s History of the “ Warfare between
Science and Theology in Christendom.” These books should be
read in every school.

Thus a calm reading and discussion of the original story (not its
distorted echoes in the New Testament), shows us that death did
not come into the world through Adam’s first transgression, as Adam
was always mortal or subject to death, and the Gods took urgent
steps to retain him so, and were very angTy when they thought,
through their own oversight, there was a chance of his becoming
immortal or gaining eternal life. In their intense jealousy they de-
stroyed their beautiful garden, where Yahweh loved to walk “ in the
cool of the evening,” and gave up all the plans they originally had
for the happiness of mankind. The Garden of Eden is the old,
old story of a lost ” golden age,” which must come to an end some-
how, as it never exists within the knowledge of the historian. It
only existed in a fairy land of the past.

The whole myth is made up of fragments of three world-wide
myths. The first is the ” Golden Age ” myth. The second is a
myth, containing a homily, telling man and woman that youth is
their paradise, happy youth with no responsibility and no worries;
but that, with the advent of sexual passion (the serpent) and
marriage, the man is cursed with the labour of finding food, cloth-
ing, and shelter for the woman and her children, a constant toil,
from marriage to the grave ; and the woman with the pains of child-
birth. The third myth is the myth, common to all races, of how
near man came to gaining the secret of eternal life, and how the
jealousy of the Gods frustrated his glorious dream. This idea
appears in Prometheus and his fire from heaven, and led to prac-
tical attempts to realise it by the Alchemists in their search for
the elixir of life, and to much fine literature, such as Faust.

Genesis, therefore, yields no support to the tale that man brought
death into the world, and lost eternal life on earth by eating fruit,
a&dthat a Messiah, the Son or lah or Jehovah, by shedding his blood
appeased die blood-thirsty Yahweh of the Ale-im, and repurchased
etethaf' Kfe for man,-^-not, of course, on this earth, but in some
 182

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

far-off heaven in the skies, ruled by the Eternal Father, El Shadai,
Ancient of Days, Zu Pittar, Jehovah, Yahweh, or love or Jove.
The story of Genesis teaches us exactly the contrary. It teaches us
that man was born mortal and could only have become immortal
by eating, not fruit, but " of the Tree of Life " ; and that Yahweh
and his Council of Gods were quite determined that he never should
become immortal, but that death would always be his portion.

This determination that man should always remain mortal caused
them to abandon all their pleasant plans for the being who was the
apex of all this great work of creation, and to drive him forth from
his beautiful garden to become a wanderer, and to suffer labour and
sorrow all the days of his life,—all to prevent his gaining "life
eternal."

It was certainly not because he and she disobeyed, and ate the
fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, of good and evil, that they were
expelled. It is expressly stated that the reason was " lest he eat of
the Tree of Life and live for ever “ therefore Yahweh of the
Al£-im sent him forth from the Garden of Eden." (Genesis in.

22-23.)

It was logically argued, by the Free Church of Scotland, that,
unless the Garden of Eden story were absolutely and literally true,
the whole fabric of the Christian dogma falls to the ground, because,
without the " fall " and loss of eternal life (erroneously stated by
New Testament theologians to have occurred in Eden), there could
be no need of redemption, and the regaining of " Paradise," or
" the Garden " in another world. The Free Churchmen " were
quite right in their logical argument, rendered invalid, however, by
being founded on a false assumption, and if they had read the
account in Genesis with the care they would give to a newspaper
paragraph, they would have seen that there was no fall and no loss
of eternal life, as man was created to die, and hence there was
no need of a redemption to gain what had never been lost.

Man was commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall
in Genesis i. Now supposing that the world we're only 6000 years
old, what would happen in the 200 generations since the Creation,
if the accumulation of human beings had not been kept down by
death and decay? The accumulation would amount tQ a sphere
over two hundred million miles in diameter of living beings, absorb-
ing Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the Sun (see p. 340).

So, whether Genesis is an absolutely true story of an actual
occurrence, or only folk-lore or myth, the offering of a living
sacrifice, whether man or god, and the spilling of his actual blood,
were absolutely useless to restore a state of affairs which had never
existed.
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

183

But the Bible is not read by Christians.

They cannot read it. They can only hum it over in a deep
hollow tone ventriloquially, or “ belly-voiced ” as the ancients say,
or ” Eggastri Muthoi ” as the Greeks called their priests, and apply
to its words the meaning burnt into their minds by their early train-
ing.

And “nothing matters” to the man with “faith.” You may
destroy the basis on which he founds his creed, he goes along smiling
in serene faith, and ignores the destruction, says his creed never
depended on the truth of any earthly utterance, it is ” eternally
true,” or he makes a new basis for the old belief.

Destroy Bibles and they are quietly reproduced, burn relics and
they are back in the old shrines after a decent interval. Buddha’s
tooth ground to powder and destroyed matters nothing, the true
tooth re-appears, the Holy Coat of Treves is lost, stolen, or strayed,
but there it is again as good as ever, pieces of the true cross are
lost or destroyed by fire, but never mind, there are plenty more.
The fact is that the craving of the human mind for a proof of its
religion, through a Mirodox, will always find satisfaction by ” faith ”
in some thing, god, soul, or paradise, not visible nor capable of
proof here in this world, but seen by the “ eyes of faith ” in a world
beyond the skies.

This is what gives very religious nations their strength in war.
They don’t think their god will desert them, and so they will face
fearful odds, and consider death a pass to Paradise, as do the Turks
and Japanese. The German Kaiser appreciates this, and is never
weary of inculcating religion in his recruits, and of addressing them
in Cathedrals when they have piled their arms round an altar
(p. 240).

No other religion has a forbidden fruit of a “Tree of Know-
ledge,” it was always a “ Tree of Life,” or “ Water of Life,” or
” Bread of Life,” which played the part. The Jews seemed to hate
knowledge.

When the Old Testament was written or re-composed, the
anthropomorphic idea of God was being somewhat upset by Greek
thought. Istar was adopted by Greece, as Astarte, and was called
” Idaia Mater,” Mother of Knowledge, so the tree of knowledge
disaster may have been written by the ignorant Jews against Greek
philosophy, and to condemn knowledge. The Hebrews had no
God of Knowledge. ' No Minerva, or Pallas, or Idaia Mater, held
up the sacred lamp in Judea.

The Jews condemn woman for this ” fall,” but the woman was
not warned by the gods about the fruit. Other nations have
 CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

similar stories, but they do not degrade woman as the Jews did.

We have seen on p. 179 that Yahweh did not blame the woman
for the fall, he condemns man alone. It was the Nabis. who repre-
sented an intensely masculine cult, who created the " sinful
woman" dogma, which unfortunately the Christians adopted.

Other nations have a fall (p. 188), but sexual intercourse is openly
stated to be the cause. The Hebrew myth had the same cause, as
the eating of the fruit made Eve the " mother of all living."

That sexual intercourse is the cause of all evil, with the Phallus
as the active agent, as symbolised by the deadly serpent, is a myth
common to all nations.

We see it in the story of Attis. He was beloved of Agdistis,
but Midas gave him his daughter la, and closed the gates of Pessimus
that none might disturb the wedding. Agdistis burst in, however,
and filled the guests with madness. Attis mutilated himself, and
cast his genitals before Agdistis (as Moses* wife Zipporah cast
her son's foreskin at the feet of Yahweh, p. 218) saying, "Take
these, the cause of all evil."

Jesus approved of men becoming eunuchs for the Kingdom of
Heaven's sake, and we know that such practices were common all
over the world in ancient times. Lucian tells us, in " The Syrian
Goddess," that in the Syrian celebrations at Hieropolis (priest town),
at the vernal season, there were feasts and sacrifices of the most
extravagant description, everything being conducted on a scale of
the greatest magnitude. People came from all neighbouring coun-
tries, bringing their gods with them. Here, in their religious frenzy,
they sacrificed to their protectress, Mylitta, or Kubele, not the
symbolical, but the real Phallus. Seized with sudden religious fury,
a devotee would snatch up a sharp knife left on the altar for the
purpose, castrate himself publicly, rush off, and throw what he cut
off into any house he fancied, when the occupier must give him a
complete suit of women's clothing. Thus they not only made vows
of perpetual virginity to the goddess, but took means by this great
sacrifice to prevent themselves from breaking their vows. Kubele's
priests were eunuchs. (Herodotus, lib. /., cop. 199, p. 92.)

The Roman Catholic clergy of to-day, when they take the vows
of celibacy (the modern equivalent of castration) assume women's
clothing (frocks) just as did the devotees of Kub616 or Cyb6le in
Syria.

In Kappadokia, the goddess Ma (their Venus) had 6000 conse-
crated eunuch-priests (" made themselves eunoche for the King-
dom of Heaven's sake," Matt. six. 12), and this worship of the
Mother of Heaven, Ma, gave rise to outbursts of self-torture and
frenzied lust. (Herodotu$.\
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

185

Referring to the worship of the Great Mother .of the Gods
(Cybele) in Rome, Prof. Showerman describes the orgiastic and
frenzied worship of her devotees and eunuch-priests, and says:
“ Self emasculation sometimes accompanied the delirium of worship
of the part of the candidates for the priesthood.”   (Encyc. Brit.,

1911, Vo l. XII., p. 402, a.b.)

In Matthew xix., referring to marriage and the sexual act, Jesus
actually approves of the castration of men in order to prevent this
” fall.” He argues, in verse 12, that ” some are eunuchs from their
mother’s womb, and some are made eunuchs of men,” evidently to
gain a salaried place in the harem of the palace, ” and there be
eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of
Heaven’s sake,” like Origen, who was castrated for righteousness
sake. He evidently thinks this is one way of gaining the Kingdom
of Heaven, and approves of it. So, at least, think the poor, de-
luded Russian peasants, a sect called Skoptsi, from Skopet, to
castrate, who, basing their faith on that text, and the ” fall ” in
Genesis, mutilate themselves in hundreds at secret nocturnal meet-
ings, amid songs and Bacchanalian ” dancing,” carried on till ex-
haustion.   (Anthro. Soc. Journ., July 1870, p. 126. O’Donooan,

Mere Oasis, 1882. M. Gaster, “ Times,” 9th May, 1912, p. 5.)
So, whether the occasion is the enjoyment of the sexual act, or
that of its extinction for life, the same sort of ” Bacchanalia ”
result. The Russian Government strenuously repress this
sect, yet scores of converts are daily added to their num*
bers. This sect call their fathers and mothers fornicators, and
we can see Tolstoi in his old age leaning towards this opinion. Life
is so terribly hard in Russia that to add to their population is con-
sidered by some to be a crime. How inborn is this idea of shame
and sin in every country in the world, medical men can tell. There
are many cases of attempted mutilation of themselves by boys and
lads owing to the depression caused by sensuality. The victims
Bunk by mutilation to get rid of all this temptation and misery.

The Christians show their faith in the dogma of all evil coming
into the world through woman, by their treatment of women in all
religious ceremonies and beliefs,—a curious phase of which is the
greet horror with which ultra-protestants regard the admission of
a woman, a goddess, such as the Virgin Mary, into the inner circle
of Gods. For instance, Hislop, the ultra-Protestant, says, that the
Melchite section of the Catholic Church held that the Trinity con-
sisted of the Father, the Virgin Mary, and the Messiah their son
[frontispiece} , and exclaims, ” Is there one who would not shrink
with* horror from such a thought!” (“Two Babylons,” p. 89.)
 166

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

The word goddess is excluded from the Hebrew mythology, and is
unknown to Christians. Lecky, in his ” History of Morals,** II.,
p. 338-340, says : “ Woman was represented as the * door of hell ’
and the mother of all ills. She should be ashamed that she is a
woman, and live in continual penance on account of the curse she
had brought on the world.”

According to the Jewish view, from the first creation of the
beasts, before man’s advent, the commandment went forth ; ** be
fruitful and multiply the Hebrew god had no better or higher
message for man. The message is often repeated to man and
beast alike, and is emphatically without a trace of sentiment.

Nevertheless the Jewish ” this worldliness ” has had much better
results than the Christian ** other worldliness,” as we see from
the much stronger condition of Jewish children.

We have seen (p. 165) how Jeremiah tells us that the Hebrews
loved the worship of the Queen of Heaven above all others, in spite
of their Nabis’ constant insistence on Yahweh-worship and denun-
ciation of woman as the cause of all evil; and one is almost driven
to conclude that such worship with its sex celebrations were the
real religion of the nation (p. 262). It was constantly carried on
"under every green tree,” “at every street corner,” “on every
high hill,” in the temple, and in special temples by Solomon s
wives (p. 237). It must, therefore, have had the sanction of the
priests and civil powers, as Well as the king, and was condemned
by the Nabis alone.

We get a glimpse of how the transformation was made in read-
ing the history of neo-platonism, which has given rise to a volum-
inous literature in Germany. This was the form of faith, descended
from Plato, which was absorbed by Christianity. It was too
philosophical and mystic—a purely idealistic faith, and idealism
has never had any followers, except among scholars. The common
world of men and women knows nothing of it. So when Chris-
tianity began, the popular neo-platonism died of ansemia, and
Christianity absorbed those of its tenets which served for a
philosophic basis of its belief. Proclus, or Proklus, was the greatest
o£ the neo-platonists. “ It was reserved for Proclus,” says Zeller
(Die Philosophic der Griechen), ' 'to bring the neo-platonic to its for-
mal conclusion by the rigorous consistency of his dialect, and, keeping
in view all the modifications which it had undergone in the course
of two centuries, to give it that form in which it was transferred
to Christianity and Mohammedanism in the middle ages.” Proclus
gives us a pretty full account of the beliefs and symbolism of his
times, especially in relation to ” Soul.”

The special study of this period, as showing the shaping of the
Christian doctrine, and the compromises between the anti-feminine
Hebrew ideas, and the pro-feminine learnings of all the other coun-
tries, welded together by the Greek neo-platonism and the sturdy
Roman sun worship, csrnnot be entered upon here, u it requires a
large volume for its treatment, and should this present volume find
acceptance with readers, my next care would be to present the
results of my studies of this period.

The Assyrians and Egyptians, in deifying the elements, claimed
that the air should hold the supreme place, and they consecrated it
under the symbol of the dove, the emblem of the Queen of Heaven
(Julius Firmicus, De Err ore, Cap. 4, p. 9). Juno, the dove, was
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

169

the most pronounced Dove-Goddess, the name having run into two
generations as she was daughter of Dione, or D’lune, the dove.
As breath, or ** spirit,” she was held to permeate all things, and
her special' allotment was the air ; ” for,” said Proclus, ” air is a
symbol of soul, according to which also soul is called a spirit ”
(Pneuma). Juno was the special deity who begat or created the
souls of infants, just as their mothers created their bodies. (Proclus
lib. VI., Cap. 22, Vol. II., p. 197.)

The whole domain of spirit, air, breath, and life, was her king'
dom, as she even gave life to the gods themselves. The Hindus
said, ” without her nothing could be created.” She was the
” Spirit ” which stirred the god to action {pp. 48-49, 203).

The soul or spirit of man came, then, from the ” Spirit or Mother
of God,” Ruach ; so that it was certainly the Queen of Heaven
who created life by brooding on the waters in Genesis i., 2.

Didr on, Vol. I., p. 417, says: “Such is the dogma by which
the three persons individually are distinguished one from another,
the father would most properly possess memory, the son intelli-
gence, and the Holy Ghost love.” What is the universal symbol
of love ? Woman, or her symbol, the dove.

“ Thus,” says Hislop, “the deified Queen was adored as the
incarnation of the Holy Ghost, the spirit of peace and love. The
image of the goddess was richly habited, on her head was a golden
dove, and she was called Semeion or Zemeion, the habitation of
the Great,” or God. (Bryant, Vol. III., p. 145.) “ As mother of the
gods she was worshipped by the Persians, Syrians, and all the
kings of Europe and Asia with the most profound religious venera-
tion.” (Joannes Clericus Phil. Orient, lib. II., De Persia, Cap. 9.,
Vol. II., 340.)

Dr. Evans shows us that at Cnossus, in Crete, at 2000 to 3000 B.C.,
the principal Minoan divinity was a kind of magna mater, a great
mother, or nature goddess (see p. 70a), and that the male associate
was a mere satellite. She was the original of Aphrodite, or Venus.
Encyc. Brit., 1911, Vol. VII., pp. 422, 424.   (Compare Hercules,

p. 163.)

All religion is built on symbolism, which really means to say
one thing and to mean another, or to speak in veiled or esoteric
language,. which only the initiated can understand. Thus, the
Trinity Is represented by the father, son, and a dove, meaning the
father, son, and .mother, the latter veiled under the a-sexual name
of die Holy “ Spirit,” or in old English, ” Ghost.” However
completely the Jews* detestation of woman obliterated the feminine
from the Old Testament, the birth of Jesus again re-established
 170

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

the original pagan trinity which all the ancients adored; and to
the majority of Roman Catholics the Trinity is the father, mother,
and son, personified by Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, with the Virgin
as the worshipped member. [See Frontispiece.]

So, following up Genesis i., 2, where woman as the female
“ Spirit of God,*’ or the active and acting member of the godhead,
(as “ spirit ” is always the word used for " activity ”), this RICH
which brought forth life, is gradually being restored to her old place
as Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God, ** without whom no
creation could be made,” as the Hindus say (pp. 46 and 203), and
is now taking her place as the central figure of the Trinity.

She was the means not only of creating life ” in the beginning,”
but of obtaining ” life eternal ” for mankind in the ” unseen uni>
verse.”

The Catholics practically ignore all members of the heavenly
hierarchy, save Mary, as mediator, and one can appreciate the
poetry and joy of appealing to her of the ” sorrowful heart ” with
her little babe, to ease the burthen of the world. As King, Gnostics,
Introduction, has well said, "There is no new thing in religion.”
and this Mediatorial function of the Virgin Mary is a good example
of this, as it is a slavish copy of the function of the great Mother of
Heaven of all Western Asia,—Mellitta, whose very name means
Mediatrix. The Trinity is sometimes expressed thus:—

Heart of Jesus, I adore thee,

Heart of Mary, I implore thee.

Heart of Joseph, pure and just,

In these three hearts I put my trust.

(“ What every Christian must know and do/' Rev. J. Fumiss.
/. Daffy, Dublin.)
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

171

SECOND ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION.

The first two verses of Chapter I. of Genesis bear evidence of a
very ancient source of myths of far-off times. Chaos, “ Tohuwa
Bohu ” (hurly burley), the darkness on the face of Tehom (the
sulking dragon), and then the mother of the gods hatching life out
of the fertile abyss, all indicate that the two verses are a glimpse
of a piece of very ancient folk-lore.

Not so the second account. It is that of a priest striving to give
exhaustive treatment, as is shown by its catalogue form, and the
phrase, “ each after his kind,” repeated ten times. Research into
its language forms the other points, show that it was not written
till a very late period,—not, in fact, till the Jews had returned from
the Babylonian exile, or about 350 to 200 B.C., the time when the
Babylonian priests, Nehemiah and Ezra, reconstituted the Hebrew
Scriptures.

This is a polytheistic creation by the Ale-im, or Council of Gods
(see pp. 159-160).

It begins, ” And the Gods said. Let there be light,” without
sun, moon, or stars, and they ” divide the light from the darkness ”
as though they were substances, as, indeed, in ancient times they
were supposed to be. Then the ” evening and the morning were
the first day,” and this before the creation of a sun, and no idea
of the earth turning on its axis, and so on, quite a happy-go-lucky
catalogue—not “raisonne.” Then the gods made a firmament to
divide the ” waters from the waters.” Evidently the priest thought
that the falling of rain was a proof of a reservoir of water overhead,
and it wanted something very strong to hold it up, as the word
firmament means in the original, a construction of strength.

On the third day die Gods separated land and water and made
the grass, the herb, and " the tree yielding fruit, and the herb
seed,” but it is a puzzle to know how these things could be brought
forth by the earth and grow before there was any sun to make them
grow. Without a sun there would be universal death, as the
temperature would be somewhere about 150 degrees below zero,
and all water solid ice. Then, said the Gods, let there be lights
in the finnament of the heaven, to ” divide the day from the night,”
 172

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

a quite useless proceeding, seeing that they had already done so
in verses 4 and 5. These lights were to be for signs and for seasons
and for days and years.

To the scribe the sun and moon were equally important, both
" to give light upon the earth,” the difference is to the scribe in*
appreciable. The moon was then the time-keeper, and so, as
important as the sun.

” And the Gods made two great lights; the greater to rule the
day, the lesser to rule the night.”

Zimmern considers that these phrases about ” ruling ” point to
a system of belief in which sun and moon were something more than
mere lights in the sky; in other words, to a society in which the
worship of the heavenly bodies played an important part in a
religion primarily astral. We find the Nabis, or prophets, con-
stantly scolding the Hebrews for worshipping the Queen of Heaven,
and the sun, moon, and all the host of heaven. (Deut. io., 19, and
other passages, pp. 165 and 263, et seq.)

Then the Gods made the “ great whales,” or monsters. To an
inland people those were very marvellous. They then commanded
the fish and fowls to be fruitful and multiply,” but did not make
a similar law for “ the living creature after his kind, cattle and creep-
ing thing and beast of the earth after his kind,” which he created
on the sixth day. We may ask why ” after his kind ” ? There
must have been a model of the ” kind ” somewhere which the Gods
were merely copying or repeating. There was a great world of
men and living things outside, which served as a model on which
to build the Hebrew creation. Cain procuring a wife, from ” the
land of Nod,” clearly shows that this was only a tribal idea of
creation.

” And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image after our
likeness.” Here, again, the priest expresses no new creation, but
something already known to the Gods as ” man,” and the Gods
commune together in the plural,—” our likeness.” So the Gods
created man in their own image, in the image of Elohim (A16-im, the
Gods) created he him, male and female created he them. The
word Elohim is plural, and always translated as ” they,” ” them,”
and ” their ” in other pcurts of Scriptures. It ought to read: “ In
the image of the Elohim (the Gods) created they him, male and
female created they them ” (pp. 159-161).

Similar ly# the scribe has treated die name of the creative powei
(dural (us) in one line and singular (he) in another.

Note the Androgynous God indicated, ”in the image of God,
male and female ” created He them. This is the Universal hernia-
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

173

phroditic idea of the God having two sexes in himself, like the
Ardanari-Ishwara (on p. 47) of the Hindus, symbolised by their
Lingam-Yoni altars, the Asherals or Groves of the Babylonians and
Hebrews, the ring and dagger of the Persian, the Ankh in the hands,
the “ buckle ” in the belt and the pschent on the heads of the
Egyptian gods and kings, in fact, the Androgynous a “ double-
sexed ” idea of all Gods (pp. 30-80).

Then he says to male and female : “ Be fruitful and multiply
and replenish the earth,” which is the Elohim’s and the Yahweh’s
first command to man—and the commandment repeated most fre-
quently in the Bible. Here we have child-birth and the “fall”
(sexual intercourse) actually commanded. Child-birth was said to
have been created as a curse on the woman after the fall, but this
command to man and animals shows that procreation and succes-
sion of life by child-birth were intended from the first.

The Elohim gives them : “ Every tree in which there is fruit ”—
to you it shall be “ for meat,”—no forbidden fruit here.

We have, at this point, a very visible example of the artificial
division of the Bible into chapters carried out by the “ Masoretic ”
Monks in the Christian era, as the first or “ Elohistic ” account of
creation goes over to the end of the third verse of the second
chapter, and a totally different and new account begins at verse 4
of the second chapter. These ignorant divisions add to the already
chaotic arrangement of Holy Writ.

In the third account of creation we come to the true folk-lore of
the Hebrews as written for them by Babylonian priests, such as
Ezra. It is no longer “ the Gods ” Ale-im, but their own tribal god
Yahweh (Jehovah), or Ya Ava, given to them by the Baby-
lonians (pp. 156-157), who creates, but he is still called “Yah-
weh Ale-im,” or the Yahweh of the Gods, oak spirits, or
heavenly host, just as Jupiter was Jove of the Olympian host of
Gods, or the Babylonian, Marduck of the Heavenly Host, or Baldur
of the “ Ring.” He made the earth and the heavens just as did
the A16-im, the earth first,—no doubt standing on the earth to create
the other parts of the universe ; a belief common to all early races.
The first full account of creation is a dry catalogue, the second an
interesting piece of poetic folk-lore, pleasant to read, and taking
us back to the ideas of the childhood of a race.

The naive childishness is beautifully illustrated by the forget-
fulness of Yahweh (Jehovah), who, after making (in one day, not
six), the earth, heavens, and every plant and herb, suddenly remem-
bers that “there was not a man to till the ground.” So tilling
of the ground by man, requiring tools, was not new, but an opera-
 174

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

don well known and evidently necessary before creation* and tilling
was useless without seed from a former year.

The tale is careful to say of the creation of plants. ” every plant
of the field,” before it was in the earth, “ and every herb of the
field,” before it grew; because it is discovered that the tale had
forgotten the necessary rain, without which plants and herbs would
not grow ; and the tale goes on to explain, ” for the Jahweh of the
A16-im had not caused it to rain upon the earth. So that is
remedied, and ” there went up a mist [not rain] from the earth and
watered the whole face of the ground.” This different cause of
fertility, mist or dew instead of rain, looks as though we had here
small fragments of two different myths.

Just as the second account of creation in the first chapter is an
account of the Spring, or creation, of each year, as it occurs in the
Euphrates Valley, so the third account is a picture of the advent
of Spring (annual creation) in Palestine. The Lower Euphrates,
where the Accadians lived,—from whom the Babylonians got their
culture,—was flooded every winter, so much so that all towns had to
be built on mounds, but the Spring sun soon dried it up, and the
flowers came forth, and a new world was created every year. Mar-
duck, the specially selected creator, was the God of the Spring
sun.

In Palestine, the land, being highland, is arid in Winter; cold
winds raise dust clouds, and no green thing can live. But the
gentle Spring rains cause all the herbs to bloom, and the land is
quickly transformed from a dismal, arid desert, to a verdant garden.

The one habitat is in a land of water, the other is one where
there is no water. The priest who wrote it down says Yahweh of
Ale-im had not caused it to rain upon the earth. Now, if there was
no rain in all the earth there could be -no sea, no rivers, no lakes,
and, in consequence, there was no creation of fishes this time.

That this account is that of a people living to the west of
Babylonia is also shown by the statement that Yahweh of the
A16-im planted a garden eastward in Eden, which was at one time
the true name of the land at the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris,
and situated on the Euphrates and three other rivers accurately
describing the Babylon habitat. Why should they, the inhabitants
of Canaan, make their paradise in the land of the Babylonians who
had so often conquered them, deported them, and used them
cruelly? It^ was because of the great difference between Babylonia
and Palestine.

true words for those mistranslated in order to veil the meaning of
verse 17, and write “ setteth up,** or ** maketh to stand,'* as given
in die margin, instead of ** moveth,” and “ phallus *’ instead of
** tail," he will see the true signification. Job likens the ** tail ** to
a cedar, a tree stem universally employed as a symbol for the
Phallus (p. 17, Fig. 32, p. 61), and the setting up is described in

pp. 81-82.

This is a mutilated part of the sixth but earliest purely Hebrew
account of creation (p. 161), when religion was entirely Phallic. It
is masculine. The earliest accounts of other nations were feminine
(pp. 48, 161 et seq.).

A16 occurs 17 times as an oak or terebinth, 99 times as God, 48
times as an oath or to swear, and is the Eli to whom Jesus cried
when forsaken on the cross. " Eli, Eli, Lama Sabacthani."

A16-im, the gods, occurs many hundreds of times in the Old
Testament, and is the plural of Ale, pronounced alley, and called,
in English, Elohim.

It signifies gods, spirits, oaks, rams, strong or great ones, lords
of creation, and even kings and judges.

Alue occurs 57 times as god. He was identical with Yahweh as
the Psalmist says, “ Who is Alue but our Yahweh?"

Olium, or Oli, occurs 74 times as “ most high " or " high " ;
Oli is used 13 times as leaves or branches, and often as a burnt-
offering.

Ailan occurs six times in Daniel, as a tree stump; Alun eight
times, as oak or terebinth; and Ail nine times, as plane tree, 151
times as a ram, palm, tree stem, or post.

We can here see the Phallic nature of this god, as he is asso-
ciated with tree stumps, the symbol of the Phallus, and rams, which
were the special symbol of male fertility; in fact, Lord, God, ram,
pillar, tree stump, and Phallus were the same.

YAHWEH OR JEHOVAH.

The tribal god of the Hebrews, Yahweh, or in English erroneously
called Jehovah, also derived from the. Babylonians, has a very great
number of variations. It is a great pity that the English writers
followed the German, and used die letter J, instead of I or Y, which
are the true equivalents of the German J. By this error our pro-
nunciation of names like Jehovah, Jesus, Jah, and Joshua, is quite
wrong, they should be spelt and pronounced Yehovah, Yesus, Yah,
and Yoshua, of the Y may be replaced by I. We are die only
nation who pronounce words beginning with I, or Y, as though they
began with a soft G, or J. Yahweh should be written lah Veh, and
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

155

as there were no vowels it is Ih. Vh, Ha are mere breaths, so the
name is IV.

Taking, then, the name now called Jehovah, we find that, in
the Hebrew Bible, it was written JHVH or IHVH, and as the H’s are
mere pauses in the breath, this word could not be pronounced,—the
priest always said Adhonay ” or “ Adonai,” instead, really
Adonis “ Lord.” It was said to be ” unpronounceable ” owing
to its holiness, but it is probable that it was so, from quite another
cause. The early form of it was JAH, more correctly I AH; so if
we take out the aspirates (H) we have two symbols, !V from IHVH,
qnd 1A from 1AH, which have been used all over the world as the
symbol of life and have been handed down, probably from our
Druids, to all secret societies, such as Knights-Templar, rosicru-
cians, and our modern Freemasons.

They consisted of the upright Phallic pole or tree stem, repre-
sented by I, as the male symbol, and the triangle or delta V, or

reversed /\ , representing the female. The creator of eternal life,
or the god, was represented by a combination of the two, by placing
the 1 in the V, thus   or   This is the arrow head so much

used to indicate sovreignty, god-ship, or creative power, and it
has come down to our time as the broad arrow as a mark on all
the Sovereign’s goods, even to convicts’ clothes.

That it is not an arrow is evident from the fact that the centre
line, the stele or shaft, is not attached to the pile or head in the
early use of the symbol but is simply placed within the V.

It is the ” three in one ” of the Trinity, and the universal symbol
of reproduction or life (see pp. 24, 259).

The French Phallic symbol for king-godship is the Fleur-de-lys
(p. 24), which has the same meaning and derivation as the ” broad
arrow.”

This formed the symbol of the divine ” Logos ” of St. John (the
mysterious name used by the Christian Gnostics and the Greeks),
which was the ” God,” which was made “ flesh,” and as a symbol
of “flesh," as understood by the. Hebrews, the symbol is perfect
and unpronounceable (p. 135).

This, then, was the original symbol, and as U and V are the
same letters, it had the form 1U (the two sexes), and coupled with
the Assyrian Pittar, ” Father," gave the Romans IU Pittar, creative
father, or, as we say, Jupiter. This was equivalent to saying
” UaganvYoni father,” and we know Jupiter was a very Phallic
god, continually creating life through nymphs.

This » why the genitive of Jupiter is Jovis, or iovis, or YOV1S,—
it is *gsm IV with the genitive " is ” added. The letter O some*
 156

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

times crept in as an alternative feminine, and we have 1.0. (dart
and ring, p. 75), instead of I.V.

This god has even more variations to his name than Al, pp. 153,
154. He is called Ia, Iv, Iah, Jah, Yah, Iau, Jau, Yahu, Ya, Jahv,
Jahu, Jehu, Jeho, Ihvh, Ihbe (Samaritan form), Ya (or Ia), Ava,
IAfl, Ihve, Iaho, Aau, Yahveh, Yahweh, Yachveh, Yahueh, Jhve,
Yach, Yachoh, Jehovah, and even Jo, or Io.

Sayce writes in ” Higher Criticism ” (published by the S.P.C.K.),
p. 470, ” We have Babylonian names BAMA-YA-AVA, NATANU-YA-AVA,
SUTUNA-YA-AVA, ADABI-YA-AVA, all full forms of the name we call
Jehovah. This God was given to the Hebrews by the Baby-
lonians.’*

Mr. Pinches and the Rev. J. C. Ball agree with Sayce that
the Hebrew Jah (or Jehovah) is the Cuneiform Ya-wa, or Ia Va, or
IHVH, or, as Dr. Sayce puts it, Ya-Ava (” v ” and ” w ” are the
same). This is equivalent to IV, as the Babylonian A is equivalent
to the Hebrew H. Mr. Ball found Okab-Iah (Jacob’s Jah).

The God Iah was coupled with a host of names in the Bible,
such as Hilk-iah, Jerem-iah, Hezek-iah, Zechar-iah, Nehem-iah, the
latter being a Babylonian priest, and hence shows that Jehovah as
Iah was common in Babylon.

It is curious how some names persist. We have Larissa, com-
posed of Lars or Luz, the ” love goddess,” who gave their Lares to
the Romans and Isa or Issa, which is considered in Asia to be the
same as Jesus or God, forming a bisexual name.

As late as 1670 A.D. Mr. Pococke, who was studying under
Phatallah, and was much liked by him, tells how Phatallah doubted
not that he would meet Pococke in Paradise under the banner of
Isa or Jesus. Phatallah’s name shows he was a Mohammedan, and
worshipped Al or Allah, II or El, or the Eli, of Jesus’ cry on the
cross.

We find the name Isaiah in the Bible as a great Asiatic prophet;
but at least two writers who have quite different styles have written
under that name, and Dr. Gray in his commentary of Isaiah (1912)
says it is not only double or triple, but is a literature of 600 years’
growth. The name is a combination of Isa (Mohammedan name
for Jesus), and Iah, Isaiah, showing an identity between the two
gods, as all such names contain a tacit declaration—as ” Isa is Iah.”
The phrase Yahweh-Ale-im, so often translated ” Lord God” in
the Bible, could therefore bear a quite different appellation. IV is
double sexecf, or self-creative, or hermaphroditic, while Ale-im
would bear translation as spirits of the oak trees, like those which
uttered the oracles at Dodona. ” Jehovah Elohim” might be
translated the ” Hermaphroditic, or self-creative member of the
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

157

circle of oak spirits,” just as well as " Lord God.” Dr. T. K.
CHeyne, Litt.Doc., D.D., the masterly Oxford professor of Scrip-
ture, and creator of the Encyclopaedia Biblica, in his latest work
the ” Mines of Isaiah Re-explored ” (1912), announces the discovery
that the ” Israelites worshipped a small Divine company under a
Supreme director.” This has been quite obvious since Colenso’s
day. One has only to put ” Lord God ” back to its Hebrew form
Yahweh of the Ale-im or Elohim (plural). We know that the
Eastern conquerors passed through Greece to Rome, and so
they may have brought their Jahs, Jehovahs, and Joves, with them,
and imposed them on the ignorant Westerns. The Bible has other
gods, Tzur, Amen, El Shaddai, A1 Zedik, Kurios, Masio, Ehyeh,
Ur, and so on, derived from the Jews’ neighbours.

Spelling has always been a matter of difficulty, rendering trans-
lations uncertain. Who would, at first sight, discover Jesus on the
letters I-H-C-O-Y-C ?

An elaborate analysis of the Pentateuch is given by Carpenter
and Harford in their analytical works. Looking to the probable
ages in which the four principal writers, Elohistic, Jahvistic, Priestly
and Deuteronomic, composed the E, J, P and D (p. 264), they are
arranged by modern scholars in the order P, J, E, D, putting the
Priestly, or “ Toldhoth,” first, and the first Chapter of Genesis very
late, only before Deuteronomy.

The Elohistic and Jahvistic narrations constantly contradict
one another. They tell the same story, and are principally con-
cerned with history, but constantly differ in detail. For instance,
the Jahvist makes the commandments be given out on Mount Sinai,
while the Elohist says it was on Mount Horeb, yet both make it
a covenant between Yahweh, not Elohim and Israel, so that there
must have been some editing of names also. The origin of many
important passages is obscure. The work of the Harmonist has
been too well done.

The minute analysis given by Carpenter deals with the most com-
plicated and obscure material, and points out so many difficulties
and contradictions that even he is baffled, and one sometimes
rises from its study with the feeling that while he unsettles much,
there are many passages incapable of being settled by our present
knowledge. For instance, after long analyses and serious attempts
to separate the Sinai-Horeb muddle. Carpenter speaks of the ” per-
plexing problems connected with the present form of the Sinai-
Horeb story,” and says: ** The Sinai-Horeb sections in Exodus 19,
24, and 32-34, 28, have long been recognised as among the most in-
tricate and difficult portions of the combined documents. The pres-
 158

CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

exit form of the narrative is the result of a succession of editorial pro-
cesses, the steps of which can be very imperfectly traced,” dealing
with fragments by various writers, and he gives up the attempt to
separate the two accounts. So minute have been the analyses of
Scripture carried out by great scholars, that ramifications of the
various authors or compilers, and the editorial tamperings, have
been traced very minutely, as shown by the list Carpenter gives of
the various symbols used to distinguish these various parts of Holy
Writ.

J. Yahwist document.

E. Elohist ,,

J.E. Combination of the two by a ” harmoniser.”

D. The Deuteronomical writer.

Js. Es. Ds., or J2. E2. 02. Secondary elements in J.E.D.

P. Priestly law and history.

Pg. Ground work of P.

Ph. Priestly holiness legislation.

Pt. Earlier groups of priestly teaching.

Ps. Secondary extension of Pg.

Rje. Editorial hands which united and revised J. & E.

Rd. Editors who united J.E. and D.

Rp. „   „   „ J.E.D. and P.

Here we see the complicated web of ” recension of recensions,”
** editing of the edited,” ” tampering with the tampered,” long
before Origen's time.

And this is the Bible, for adding to, or taking away from which,
eternal torment in everlasting fire is threatened.

The whole history of the Bible, through thousands of years, has
been one of ” adding ” and ” taking away,” in which hundreds
have been, and still are, actively engaged.

The translation of the word Elohim as God in the creation story
is one of the points to which 1 have referred as showing the dis-
ingenuousness of the translators of the Hebrew Bible. We are
supposed to be monotheists, although we declare .ourselves to be
worshippers of a Trinity, or tri-theists, in a heaven with hundreds
of “ Godlets,” just as the Greeks and Romans had, but whom we
call saints (The Lord came with ten thousands of Saints, Deut.
xxxii. 2), angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, spirits of the
power of the air, Enochs, Apostles, Virgins, Melchizedeks, Elijahs,
and all the hosts who passed direct into heaven and who live for
ever, die only definition of a god or supernatural being. All
 OF ITS TEACHING AND SYMBOLISM

159

religions can, and did, claim to be monotheistic, as explained by
their best priests. They had one supreme god, and the others were
merely names for the various manifestations of that one God, as in
the case of Jupiter. Dr. Pinches Jour, Victoria Inst. XXVIII. 8-10,
published a tablet in which the chief divinities of the Babylonian
Pantheon are resolved into forms of Merodach. Enlil becomes
** the Merodach of sovereignty,” Nebo the ” Merodach of earthly
possessions,” and Nergal the “ Merodach of war.” As we, how-
ever, theoretically stood out for a kind of monotheism, it would not
do for us to take our religion from a polytheistic document, and the
translators disingenuously render the word Ale-im as “God”
(singular), whenever it refers to “ our ” or the Hebrew God, but as
** gods ” (plural), whenever it refers to the Philistines or the “ other
man’s ” Gods, with the further ” mental obliquity ” that the trans-
lators put a capital “ G ” when they translate Ale-im as a Hebrew
?“ God,” and a small ” g” when they translate the same word as
another tribe’s ” gods.” This ” grammatical inexactitude ” is not
perpetrated by the Hebrews but by the English Ecclesiastical
translators.

Now it is exactly the’ same word, used in exactly the same
sense, as Colenso proved and Dr. Cheyne now states (p. 157),
yet the translators gave it a different meaning to suit the kind of
doctrine they were teaching. The word Elohim is the plural of the
Eli or Eloi, to whom Jesus bitterly cried when He found Himself
deserted on the Cross. It is the well-known Hebrew plural,—
cherub, cherubim ; seraph, seraphim ; Eloh, Elohim. “Elohim,”
says the Rev. Dr. Duff, ” means simply Elohs.” {Hist. Old Testa-
ment Criticismp. 17.) The phrase Lord God, ” Yahweh Ale-im,”
ought to be'translated “Yahweh of the Ale-im,” or, if you like,
“the Hebrew tribal god amongst the god family,” or, poetically,
“the wrathful one of the heavenly host.” That they were names
is shown by such names as Elijah,—Eli is Jah,—” The Ale-im are
Yahweh,” which makes Yahweh plural, as it sometimes is. That
the word Elohim is plural is now admitted even by the Ecclesiastical
Or “ interior ” school of critics, and it is actually nearly always
translated so (as “ gods ”) in the authorised version, except where
its translation as a singular word is dishonestly used to support the
theory of a monotheistic religion.

For instance, in Deuteronomy xi., 16, we have: ” Serve other
Elohim (gods), and bow down to them ” (pi.); “ go after other
Elohim (gods) and serve them“ (pi.); Deuteronomy.xvii., 3, “Go
and serve other Elohim (gods) and bow down to them ” (pi.); so
tlpt, odt only was Elohim a plural word for a group or council of
 160

-CHRISTIANITY: THE SOURCES

gods; but there were other councils of Gods besides that of the
Hebrews. Each tribe had Elohim of its own.

A few of the texts, giving plural translation, may be cited.

Deut. xxix. 26 Job. xxiii. 16
,, xiii. 6-13. Ex. xxxiv. 14.
,, xi. 28.

1   Kings ix. 6.

,, ix. 9.

,, xi. 10.

2   Kings xvii. 35.

„ xvii. 15.

Ju. xi. 12.

Jer. xiii. 10. Ju. ii. 19.

,, xvi. 11, xxv. 6. Jos. xxii. 22.

,, xi. 10. Exodus xxii. 28.

,, xxii. 9. Ps. cxxxvi. 2, xcv. 3.
„ vii. 6-9. Genesis vi. 2.

,, xliv. 3. Job. ii. 1, xxxviii. 7.

16   They have windows in heaven; but they had only
one window in the Ark.—Gen. VII, n.
 246

PITCHY DARKNESS IN THE ARK

in the roof. The animals were, therefore, enveloped in
pitchy darkness. The filth of their stalls would be death-
breeding. The poor animals could not be properly fed
and cared for by three men, Shem, Ham and Japhet.

A man of Noah’s age (six hundred years) could do
but little. It would keep more than a thousand men busy,
day and night, with plenty of light and air, to look after
things.

The nights in that Ark were no darker than the days ;
for they had no lights; at least there is no mention of
them. As to food, each animal would require the grasses
and herbage of its locality. The flesh-eaters alone, in
three-hundred days, would devour all the animals in the
Ark. It will not do to say that God would feed them.
He did not agree to do so. The animals came unto Noah,
“for him to keep them alive.” 17

Nor will it do to say that, Noah probably made more
than one door for each story, and one window for the
roof. The Almighty told him just how to build that Ark;
and if he failed to follow the plans, then he disobeyed.
But, suppose the carnivora did not destroy all the cows,
and goats, and sheep, while in the Ark. They are all
turned loose, when the folks go ashore. What happens?
The lions, hyenas, wolves, etc., feed upon the cattle and
sheep and goats; and thus all this coming to Noah to
save their lives, is frustrated. Moreover, the long months
of water has killed all the grass and herbage; and the
cattle, on leaving the Ark, found the earth a great, barren,
leafless desert. There is not a seed for the birds, nor a

17   Genesis VI, 20.
 BABYLON DELUGE STORY

247

bit of pasture for the flocks. But some pious soul, with
more faith than reason, will say, “God could take care of
all that.” I can as well reply, that God could have de-
stroyed all the world, except Noah and his family, and
the elect animals, without all this trouble with the Ark.

noah's deluge is a copy.

§ 5. But is not this whole thing a copy, somewhat
extended and changed, from that old untrustworthy Baby-
lonian mythical deluge story? Genesis is a Jewish nar-
rative, and the Jews were notorious copyists and imita-
tors ; but they were also rhetoricians, and writers of high
degree.

Athenian eloquence, in the space of three hundred
years, was carried to such heights, that it has never yet
been surpassed. Thus, also, Jewish writers from the
time of Ezra, to the close of the four Gospels, a period
of about six hundred and fifty years, completed a volume
that, perhaps, for felicity of expression, and lofty
imagery, will never be excelled. But often the Pegassus
of the poet mounted beyond the cold facts.

The Babylonian deluge story was current in Babylon
centuries before Ezra was carried there as a prisoner of
war. That story had been copied by the Babylonians
from the Accadians, so that we do not get it even second
hand. The ancient world was, in fact, full of deluge
stories. The Persians, however, changed the destroying
deluge into the cold and killing frosts of winter. With
the Persians, it was not because the “earth was filled
with violence,” that mankind was to be destroyed; but
 248

THE PERSIAN VARA

because it was filled to “overflowing” with men and
animals.18

The Persian romancer, instead of an Ark, is directed
by Ahura Mazda (God) to build a great underground
vara, an abode two miles square, with streets, and foun-
tains of water; and is told that there will be a light, self-
shining, within, to make that abode as light as an eternal
day.19 The frosts came, as did the flood, and killed all
the people and animals not in the vara.

If the Genesis flood-story be true, it is a bad thing for
those who trace their genealogy to Noah; for his conduct,
later on, stamps him as a Bacchanalian. If the whole
earth is, in truth, descended from the Ark people; then
drunkenness is a strain and a stain in our blood. But
why that old man, slobbering in his cups, had the power
to curse Ham, and have that curse follow him and his
posterity all these years, I confess myself unable to un-
derstand. Is it not more charitable to think it a mistake
of the printer ?

THE RAINBOW.

But is not the whole flood-story rendered extremely
equivocal and uncertain by what is said about the rain-
bow?

Did the sun never shine while rain-drops were falling,
before the flood-time? If it did, then, just so surely a
rainbow was formed. Why then the statement, “I do

18   One thousand years or less; probably five hundred
years will again fill the world to overflowing. What
then ? Is it a flood or a vara ?

19   See my introductory chapter on Zoroaster and his
teachings, where this is fully set forth.
 RAINBOW OLDER THAN THE FLOOD

249

set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a
covenant” that all flesh shall not again be destroyed by a
flood (Genesis IX, 9 to 17). The bow had been "sef’
long before the flood; and Noah must have often admired
its beauty. When the first rain-drops fell through the
first sunshine, then the bow was “set.” It was, and is,
the result of an established law, and that law will con-
tinue unchanged, just so long as raindrops fall through
the atmosphere while the sun is shining.

Is it too much to assert, that if Manu’s fish story had
been written into Genesis, instead of that of Noah and
his Ark, many devout and unquestioning souls would
gulp it down as solid fact.

And there is not a bit of doubt that, if the Noah legend
had been transcribed into the Sacred code of Manu, the
foolish Hindoos would insist that it was an Sruti (revela-
tion) from their God, Brahma.
 CHAPTER VI.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD. THE PUNISHMENT OF
THE WICKED.

§ I. The Brahman and the Jewish Bibles both set
forth that this world will be ultimately destroyed. And
that a matter of such supreme importance may not be
overlooked and forgotten, that statement is repeated
again and again. Just where those writers obtained their
information they do not state; but if they guessed at it,
they are confirmed, some say, by modern science.

The Hindu Bible states that at the end of great periods
of time, called Kalpas, the Lord will dissolve this mate-
rial world. He does not burn it up; He simply dissolves
it; or, as it were, He pulverizes it. Peter, after declar-
ing that the world shall be burned up, falls back upon this
old Hindu word and says, “all things shall be dissolved/’
(II Peter, ch. 3.)

All souls meanwhile, according to the Hindu Bible,
lie in deep sleep until, at the Lord’s convenience, He pre-
pares another world.

If the soul be loaded with demerit, it is not flung into
a furnace of fire to broil and burn for countless Kalpas,
but is given another body and has another chance. It
may see its error; it may reform, and be born into higher
and higher grades, until perfect knowledge is reached,

250
 THE HOPE OP THE BRAHMAN

251

and final release is found in Brahma (God). The pure
in heart find peace at once.

The Brahmans believe that this process of creation,
and destruction of the world, will go on in the future,
as it has in the past; through endless Kalpas. That is,
the body of man being dust, will be resolved back to dust.
That the soul is an emanation from Brahma;1 that it was
pure before it went forth from him; and that it must be
pure before it can return to him.

The hope and the struggle of the pious Hindu was to
escape metempsychosis and become absorbed in Brahma.
For unrepentant sinners, twenty-one hells were provided,
by Yama, the Lord of Justice, where they were tossed
about, in terrors and torments, “like to that of being
bound and mangled.” 1 2 But this did not happen until
“another strong body” was given the evil doer, when,
having suffered for his faults, the soul, purged of its
stains, approached the Great One and Kshetragna (the
Knower of the Field). These two, as judges, examine
each soul that appears before them, and send it on a pil-
grimage of transmigration, according to its merit or
demerit.

Brahma, it is said, completely pervades all existences,
with three controlling qualities: goodness, activity and

1   Is not this nearly tantamount to saying that wicked
souls having forgotten that they emanated or came from
God; and that they are a part of the integer or whole, will
have to transmigrate from body to body until they re-
cover their memory.

2   Manu, ch. 4, § 87; Manu XII, § 75; Manu XII, §16
to 33. Lord of Justice, Manu, ch. 7, § 7.
 252

IS THERE PREDESTINATIONt

darkness. That when a man feels a deep calm in his soul,
he may know that the quality of goodness predominates.
But if greed of gain and sensual objects lure him, he is
marked with activity, and finds it difficult to tread the
narrow path. Darkness has the form of ignorance; leads
an evil life, and is ever covetous, unholy, and cruel.

Now if it be true that whatever the Lord first appointed
to each soul, whether gentleness or ferocity, virtue or
sin, truth or falsehood, and those qualities cling to it,
spontaneously, then is it not also true that the Lord pre-
destined some souls to tribulation and woe?3 Wicked,
marble-hearted old John Calvin would smack his lips
with pleasure if he could know of this hateful Hindu
creed. Yet, if we look about us, and confine our vision to
man’s life on earth (for that is all we know of it), we
shall find representatives of Goodness, Activity and Dark-
ness on every hand; each clinging tenaciously to its birth-
mark. Those endowed with supreme goodness have no
struggle to become pure in heart; and with ease they
reach “the state of the Gods.”

Moreover, each of the three-fold classes of transmi-
gration were further divided into three lesser grades.
The doom of the worst soul in darkness was that it should
inhabit the body of a fish, a rat, or snake, or insect. In
the next grade above this, in darkness, the soul was sent
into a barbarian, a lion or tiger; and the very highest
grade that it could obtain, in that division, was as a hypo-
crite, a panderer, a snake deity, a liar, or a demon. The
lowest of the order of Activity were drunkards, gamblers,

3   Chapter 32, Deut.
 THE AVARICIOUS

253

knaves, despicable wretches; and just above them in the
same order were the disputations and those meddlesome
tattlers, including unworthy priests and forked-tongued
women.

Those panting for gain, avaricious souls, greedy,
grasping, watching their treasures; those hell-born gob-
lins; even those made up the highest ranks of Activity.

Goodness also had its degree, reaching up to the
very throne. At the lowest round stood the hermits,
ascetics, Brahmanas, and a class of deities who traveled
in mid-air, called Vaimanikas. Next above these were
the sages, the vedic deities, and the Manes.4 Beyond
these and above these, on the very pinnacle of goodness,
without a stain, reposed Brahma, the Great One, the cre-
ator of the universe, beyond whom, nothing.

§ 2. It is certain that in this alleged final destruction
of the world, the Hebrews were imitators and copyists.
For that idea, when the book of Deuteronomy was found,
had been prevalent in India from four hundred to six
hundred years. Long enough surely for an idea, even
though slow-footed, to travel from Punjab to Jerusalem.
When then was this book of Deuteronomy found? For
in that book (chapter 33) these remarkable words are
written: “A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn
into the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her
increase, and set on fire the foundations of the moun-
tains.” This is the first distinct enunciation found in the
Bible that the earth shall be destroyed. And the word

4   These Manes were primeval deities, free from anger,
loving purity, chaste, averse to strife, and endowed with
great virtues. Manu 3:192.
 254

A REMARKABLE FIND

“hell” is here first used in the Hebrew Bible. That
awful catastrophy to the whole world is to take place,
and all mankind are to perish because some wicked He-
brews had provoked the Almighty to anger by sacrificing
unto devils and not to Him; and by their vanities and
abominations.5 This threat to consume the earth crept
into the record in the following mysterious way: About
six hundred and twenty-four years B. C., Hilkiah, the
High Priest in Jerusalem, send word to Josiah, the King,
that he had “found the book of the law (Deuteronomy)
in the house of the Lord.” It was surely the most re-
markable “find” in all history.6

Moses had been in his grave about eight hundred and
twenty-seven years; yet, during all that period, eventful
to the Jews, there was no whisper that such a book as
Deuteronomy was in existence. The reigns of David and
Solomon preceded this “find” by more than three hun-
dred years. Where was this wonderful book during all
those centuries? We have only the bare, unsupported
word of Hilkiah, the High Priest, about this matter; and
all the circumstances are against him. A book hidden
away eight hundred and twenty-seven years! the ink
would fade, and the leaves would rot. In the dryest cli-

5   Chapter 32, Deut.

6   Shakespeare agrees with the Hindus and thinks the
earth will be dissolved.

“The cloud capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great globe itself,

Yea, all which it inherits, shall dissolve,

And like this unsubstantial pageant faded,

Leave not a wreck behind.”
 AFTER 800 YEARS

255

mates and with the best of care four hundred or five hun-
dred years is the limit of the life of a book. This book
was hidden; for he found it. If hidden it must have been
put in some secret place, wrapped up; secreted; yet no
other High Priest mentions it for eight hundred and
twenty-seven years. There had been journeyings, and
wanderings, and wars, and rebellions, and battles, and
retreats, in those centuries. Deuteronomy during all this
time was not found by any one. The Ark of the Cove-
nant had been often moved; likewise the Mercy Seat, and
tabernacles; yet, in all these frequent changes, Deuter-
onomy lay undiscovered. Moses had died, and the Lord
had buried him in Moab; yet neither the Lord, nor Moses,
said a word about this hidden record. Furthermore,
after it is found, a strange thing happens. The King
(Josiah) directs Hilkiah and others to enquire of the
Lord about this newly-found wonder; and they visit
Huldah, a prophetess and fortune-teller, living in Jeru-
salem, and she reports favorably, of course, and Deu-
teronomy becomes a “thus saith the Lord.”7 Another
proof that Moses did not write this chapter in Deuter-
onomy, where the earth is threatened with destruction, is
that it is poetry (blank verse), and Moses was not a poet.
He was. a stern law-giver. Yet, some of these verses have
the rhythm of a Longfellow or an Emerson.

In that distant period, it is true that ideas traveled very
slowly. But if Ezra was the last editor of the Old Testa-

7   From a careful investigation of this matter, I think
Hilkiah wrote the book, and lied about finding it. Ezra,
probably, after the captivity, modified it somewhat. The
copyright, however, belongs to Hilkiah.
 256

PETER COPIES THE HINDU

ment, there was plenty of time for this notion about the
destruction of the earth to be carried from Persia, and
from India, to Babylon, to Jerusalem, and even west of
the Adriatic. It was an idea of such magnitude, and
terrible importance, that it was calculated to excite won-
der and discussion among all classes. This much, we
are certain, may be safely affirmed; that centuries before
Hilkiah found Deuteronomy in the House of the Lord,
the Hindoos had been teaching that the earth would be
destroyed, and again reconstructed, and that this process
would revolve continuously, like a wheel in perpetual
motion.

§ 3. We hear nothing further in the Jewish Bible
(and the New Testament was written by Jews) about
the destruction of the world, until nearly seven hundred
years after Hilkiah, when Peter declares that “the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall
melt with a fervent heat, and the earth shall be burned
up.”

Thirst came upon me when I stood in the midst of the
waters.

Have mercy, Almighty, have mercy!

Whenever we, O Lord, commit an offence before Thy
heavenly throne;

~14 Zachariah, 587 B. C., strove to cut even the names
J^X^of the idols out of the land (Zach. XIII, 2), and Malachi
threatened the wicked with fire. (Mai. IV, 2.) And Mi-
cah said, “The Jews lie in wrait for blood; even the
judges want rewards.” (Micah 7.)

15 Manu IX, 308.
 226

MOSES A UNITARIAN

Whenever we violate Thy holy law, carelessly.

Have mercy, Lord, have mercy!

Such was the prayer of a Hindoo three thousand
years ago. It sounds like a Psalm of David.

“O, Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger; neither chas-
ten me in thy hot displeasure. Have mercy upon me, O
Lord, for I am weak. O Lord, heal me, for my bones
are vexed.”16

Now, notwithstanding the fact that Moses labored so
long and diligently to establish the faith of his people
in one God only, yet the Christians, fifteen hundred years
later, as we have seen, brought forth two new Gods, one
of whom was, and is, a myth; the other a gentle, kindly-
natured man. The Jews therefore when they nailed
him on the cross were simply following the teachings of
Moses, because they disbelieved in more than one God.

Moses said, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is
one Lord”;17 and Mark tells us that when a Scribe asked
Jesus which was the first commandment of all, he re-
plied, “The first of all commandments is, ‘Hear, O
Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord/ ”18

It would seem, therefore, that Moses and Jesus were
Unitarians; and with such sponsors for a creed, it ought
to win the world to its side.

16   Psalm 6.

17   Deut., VI, 4.

18   Mark XII, 29.
 CHAPTER IV.



THE GENESIS OF THE HINDU AND HEBREW BIBLES.

§ i. Old, mystical legends, about the origin of the
world, which in process of time have become embodied
in old records, have always held man, in every part of
our globe, as if in a vice, and demanded that he shall,
without question, believe whatever is written.

The Hindus were as peremptory, dogmatic and super-
cilious as the Hebrews. But they ventured beyond the
Jews, for, being more given to theorizing and philoso-
phizing, they invented a scheme, or system of creation,
as foolish, mystifying and improbable as the dogmatism
of Genesis. ^

The laws of Manu set forth that the universe existed
in the shape of darkness; that the Divine Self-Existent
appeared, dispelling the gloom; and with a thought, cre-
ated the waters and placed his seed therein. That the
seed became a golden egg, equal in brilliancy to the sun;1
and in that egg Brahma himself was born; the progenitor
of the world. He resided in that egg one whole year;
and then, by thought, divided it into two halves;1 2 from

1   That is, equal in purity to the sun.

2   What an inconsistency is here! It is so utterly non-
sensical and foolish, that it is on a parallel with a fairy

227
 228

WILL MANAS SURVIVE?

which he formed the heavens and the earth. He then
“drew forth from himself” manas (the mind), which, it
is said, is both real and unreal. From the mind he “drew
forth egoism,” which is self-consciousness; then the
Great One (the soul), and the five organs of sensation.
Manu tells us that Brahma can only be perceived by the
“internal organ.” This “internal organ must be the
mind or soul; for with no one, nor all, of the five senses
combined, can man perceive Brahma (God). A horse
has the same number of organs of sensation as man;
but has it that “internal organ?” On the other hand,
can it be proven that it has not manas also?

THE FIVE SENSES—WILL THEY SURVIVE?

I look out of my window and see the roses. I smell
their sweet fragrance. I hear the mocking-birds sing-
ing in the trees. I feel the balmy air. I take up a rose
and chew its leaves; and yet all of these five senses will
be nailed in my coffin. Will manas, or egoism, survive?
Hindoo philosophy answers that it will. J

Moses, on this all-important question, uttered no word.
Genesis also is silent. The “it” in Manu is the “internal

tale. If Atman or Brahma was already an existent be-
ing, why did he crawl into an egg to be born ? Think of
the Creator of this world hived in an egg! The only
reason I can give is that Hindoo philosophers, after-
wards, when trying to explain the origin of things,
reached the conclusion that of all living things, there are
three origins only:   That which springs from an egg;

that which comes from a living being, and that from a
germ. Manu, chapter i; also Upanishads, Vol. i, part
i, S. B. E., p. 94.
 WHAT IS EGOISMt

229

organ.” Is “it” Egoism? And, if so, is Egoism some-
thing surpassing even the mind in excellency? Manu
says that Egoism is something Lordly;3 and if it be
drawn from the mind, what else can it be than the sub-
limated essence thereof? I shall not follow the subtili-
ties of Hindoo philosophy further, but merely add that
if the mind is in fact drawn forth from Brahma (God),
we may here find the reason that, being finally released
from metempsychosis, it becomes merged in, or goes
back to Brahma.

If this be wrong, and Egoism be greater than manas,
it may be that it is Egoism that is merged. Is not this
Hindoo doctrine the same as that taught in chapter
twelve, Ecclesiastes, where we are told that the Spirit
returns to God, who gave it? If Egoism or Manas be
the same as Spirit, then Solomon and Manu here travel
the same road.

By joining minute particles of himself with the five
organs of sensation, and the mind, Brahma, we are told,
created all beings; and “in the beginning” assigned their
several names and conditions. Whatever quality, or
course of action, the Lord first gave to man, plant, or
brute; whether virtue or vice, truth or deceit, ferocity
or falsehood, each clung to its kind, plant or animal,
just as each season, of its own accord, assumes its dis-
tinctive marks.4

3   Manu i, 14. Some Hindoo philosophers maintain
that the soul was drawn forth from Brahma before the
mind, and that Egoism is simply the Ego or I.

4   If Ezra edited the Pentateuch, then Manu precedes
 230

THE CREATION—TIME?

THE CREATION—TIME?

§ 2. The Hebrew Bible says, “In the beginning, God
created the heavens and the earth.”

In the beginning of what? If it means in the begin-
ning of the world He created it, then it is tantamount to
saying that He created it—when He created it. Of
course this would spoil the beautiful rhythm of the sen-
tence. But if it means that he created the world only
six thousand years ago, it is very evident that the writer
had never studied geology or astronomy. For the “tes-
timony of the rocks” makes the earth millions upon mil-
lions of years old. Its age is, in fact, so great that a
puny six thousand years is as a mole-hill to a mountain.
. If the Almighty Father is from everlasting to ever-
lasting, then a thousand millions of years, and ten thou-
sand times that, is only as a single grain of sand upon
the shores of myriads and myriads of oceans. Time
never had a beginning, and God did not create time.
It was, and is, coeval with Him. It was, and is, without
a beginning. Time was in this mighty universe of num-
berless worlds and suns when God was. It had no be-
ginning; it will have no ending. The angel may stand
with one foot upon the earth and the other upon the
sea, and “cry with a loud voice, that time shall be no
more,” but time will not heed the angel. (Rev. X). In-
numerable suns will continue to shine, and worlds with-
out number will continue to revolve in spite of the angel.

Ezra; but Manu, as we now have it, is a reduction of
an older work. Its present form is from 900 to 1300
years B. C. See Manu, chapter 1, sections 1 to 30.
 ASTRONOMY IS AGAINST GENESIS

231

Astronomy is also against Genesis, with its six thou-
sand years for the earth’s creation. The eccentricity of
the earth’s orbit has been calculated back to one million
years before Jesus’ day, and while it is true that the shape
of its orbit has varied somewhat, yet its mean distance
from the sun is so unvarying and constant, that it has
not changed eight seconds in six thousand years.5

Is it not about as absurd to insist that our earth is a
youngster, because Moses or Ezra, or some old Jewish
writer, of whom we know nothing, so wrote it down in
ignorance of the facts, as for some India writer to say
that Brahma housed himself a whole year in an egg?

Both of these old Bibles are full of absurdities, inac-
curacies and savagery. Both of them upheld slavery.
Moses told the Hebrews to buy their bond-men of the
heathen round about them, and the Indians, as we have
observed, reduced the Sudras to slavery. In fact, India
had several classes of slaves.6 Those Bibles were both
written in an age of idolatry and ignorance, when people
believed the earth to be flat. They were written when
polygamy was dominant, and both Bibles upheld it. In
this matter Solomon stands pre-eminent with his seven
hundred wives and three hundred concubines.7

Moses said, “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,

5   Dr. James Croll’s great work on climate and time.
R. A. Proctor’s article, Astronomy—Br. Ency., Vol. 2,
P- 795-. .

6   Leviticus XXV: 44. Manu 8: 413 to 417. The
bond-man bought of the heathen could never regain his
freedom. Neither could the Sudra.

7   I Kings, XI, 3. I do not wonder that so many wives
“turned away his heart.”
 232

A SUDRA’S PUNISHMENT

hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, stripe
for stripe.” 8

Manu said, "Whatever limb of a Sudra does hurt to a
man of three higher casts, even that limb shall be cut
off.”9 And if a Sudra struck a Brahma, he was to re-
main in hell one thousand years, but a twice-born man
might expiate his offense by supplications, fasting and
penances.

KNOWLEDGE AND THE SERPENT.

In chapter 2, Genesis, man is forbidden, under an
awful penalty, to eat of the tree of knowledge. But
without knowledge he would be as the beast of the field.
Without knowledge he would probably build a house
no better than the beaver. Now if the eating of the
forbidden fruit of that tree in Eden has given us the
mastery of nature, as we have it to-day, through the
gate of knowledge, thereby opened to us, then, instead
of vituperation and abuse, let the serpent which beguiled
Eve have a monument, and a lofty one.

As to this serpent dialogue with Eve (chapter 3), it
has heretofore been painted in colors immensely to the
disadvantage of the beguiler. Yet that serpent told the
truth, which God Himself immediately confirmed. For
the serpent said, "God doth know that in the day ye
shall eat of the forbidden fruit, your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil” (V. 5,
chapter 3). Soon thereafter, the Lord was walking10

8   Exodus XXI: 22 to 27.

9   Manu 8: 279 and 280, and Manu XI: 207.

10   He must therefore have legs, or He could not walk.
 THE LORD AND THE SERPENT

233

in the Garden, “in the cool of the day.” (The sun hav-
ing just been created, it blazed up probably too hot in
the middle of the day) and He questioned Adam about
this matter. Adam told the truth, like a man, and said,
“The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave
me of the tree, and I did eat.” The Lord thereupon
faced the woman: “What hast thou done ?” The woman
(bless her) did not flinch. “The serpent beguiled me,”
she said, “and I did eat.” (Chapter 3, v. 13). There-
upon the Lord turned upon the serpent with these bitter
words: “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed
above all cattle, and above every beast of the field. Upon
thy belly thou shalt go; dust shalt thou eat all the days
of thy life.” The serpent kept his temper and made no
reply; and if that serpent was in fact a snake, he still
crawls on his belly. But was he not on his belly before
he met Eve? Did he have legs before God cursed him?
How is this? Who created that serpent? If this whole
thing be not a finely drawn allegory, we may well ask,
as God created every creeping thing, did He not also
create that serpent? If God did not create it, who did?
The serpent surely did not create itself.

Zoroaster, the great Iranian, taught that there were
two great creative beings: Ormazd and Aharman (God
and the Devil), who created and counter-created good
spirits and bad. And that this world is one great battle-
field, where the conflict will rage until Aharman, the
God of sin, is overthrown and destroyed forever.

1

THAT SERPENT COULD TALK.

Here in this Eden story the Lord uses language that
is entirely personal. The serpent could talk also, for he
 234

DIALOGUE WITH THE SERPENT

held a conversation with Eve. Was this serpent Zoro-
aster’s Aharman; or are these chapters the inventions of
a romancer? However that may be, the Lord and the
serpent agree as to the effect of eating the forbidden
fruit. The serpent said their eyes would be opened, and
they would be as Gods, knowing good and evil; and
after they ate the fruit the Lord said, “Behold the man is
become as one of us, to know good and evil.” “Now,
lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life
and eat, and live forever, I will send him forth from Eden
to till the ground from whence he was taken.”11

The imagination of the poet is not always logical.
Adam is trusted with the tree of Life, and that tree is
in Eden (ch. 2, v. 9), and it was not forbidden to Adam,
for the Lord expressly said: “Of every tree of the Gar-
den thou mayest freely eat” (ch. 3, v. 16), except the
tree of knowledge. Suppose Adam had eaten first of the
tree of Life, would man’s body have lived forever? Or
would it have worn out and withered and died as it does
now? It would look as if the solid facts are against the
romancer.

§ 5. Another little lapse of the poet in chapter 4 is
deserving of notice. When Cain for his crime was driven
forth to wander as a fugitive and a vagabond over the
earth, the Lord set a mark upon him lest any one finding
him might slay him. “And Cain went out from the
presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod, on
the east of Eden.11 12

11   Gen., chapter 3, verses 22 and 23.

12   Chapter 4, v. 16.
 THE NODITES

235

THE NODITES.

Now, at that time there were of the human family,
according to the record, only Adam, Eve and Cain in
existence. Yet Cain settles in the land of Nod; finds
that land peopled; falls in love with one of the young
women, marries her, raises a family of children, and
builds a city, which he names after his son Enoch. How
did those Nodites get on this earth? There was no Gar-
den of Eden for them; no tree of life or tree of knowl-
edge for them. How did they get here? No dominion
over all the earth is vouchsafed to the Nodites. Yet they
did a good thing for the world, for they were not under
the general curse meted out to Adam.

There is no record against the Nodites for disloyalty
or disobedience; and it is probable that Seth, Adam’s
other son, married a Nodite girl. He certainly would
do that in preference to marrying his sister. Besides, as
Cain had so prospered with the Nodites as to get a wife
and build a city, would it not be an inducement to Seth
to try his fortune there also?
 CHAPTER V.

TWO FLOODS AND THE TRUE ARK STORY.

To illustrate: The Presbyterians have quarreled among
themselves, and with every other sect for four hundred
years over the question of infant damnation, and still do
not agree. As if the Almighty had nothing else to do but
roast babies in furnaces of fire because He had not elected
them to go to Glory. If this infernal doctrine were
found in the Hindu Bible, we would lift up our hands
in holy horror. But as it is a supposed Christian doc-
trine, we endure it; and some mental deformities profess,
in their sterner moods, to even believe it.

The Roman Catholic church is as inimical to the so-
called orthodox churches to-day as Brahmanism was to
Buddhism, when the latter was driven forth after cen-
turies of struggle. And the orthodox churches2 would,

2   The so-called orthodox churches are the Methodists,
 206

HARSH THINGS SAID OF INDIA

if they could, at once and forever wipe out and abolish
Catholicism.

Many harsh things have been most unjustly charged
against the people of India. It has been said that “no-
where in the world are luxury and licentiousness carried
so far.” 3 That is too sweeping. It is no more true than
it would be to make the same charge against the people
of France, or England, or against the people of my own
country. In India there are, especially in great cities,
black spots where lust, lewdness and debauchery prevail.
The same may be said of London, Paris, New York and
Chicago. As to luxury, the rich, and especially the ex-
travagantly rich, everywhere loll supinely and roll along
voluptuously. It is the same old story here and in India
as well. The rich man “is clothed in purple and fine
linen, and fares sumptuously every day.” 4

§ 2. While it is true that there is a class of ultra
ascetics in India who hold that the body is the great
enemy to spiritual progress, and therefore macerate
and mutilate it and cause it to sutler in many ways; yet
the masses of the people there are struggling to extract
enough from the soil to feed and nourish the bodies of all.

INDIAN ASCETICISM.

There are more than two hundred and fifty millions of

Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. But I
do not allege that the Roman Catholics are not good
people.

3   I allude to J. F. Clark’s Ten Great Religions: title,
Brahmanism. § 2.

4   Luke, 16th chapter, verse 19.
 ASCETICISM IN INDIA

207

people in India,5 and of this vast number forty millions
or more are engaged in agriculture alone. In all great
populations there will be found some who are mentally
deformed. They are possessed with hallucinations and
delusions. The fakirs of India were of this class; their
asceticism being so extreme and nonsensical that some
of them ate their food naked; some wore their hair mat-
ted; some shaved their heads and faces; others slashed
their bodies with knives; while some bored holes in their
tongues, or plucked out an eye. Possibly his eye had
offended him, and if so, Jesus copied him; for he said,
“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from
thee.” 6 Some wandered through mountains and slept,
like beasts, in gloomy caverns. Others scattered ashes on
their heads, or fasted until their bodies became withered
and wasted.

Moses, it is said, fasted forty days without even water
to drink. (Exodus 34.) Jesus also fasted forty days
(Matt. 4 and Luke 4), and John the Baptist was some-
thing of an asectic himself, for he lived “in the wilder-
ness upon locusts and wild honey.” 7

Those Brahman ascetics lived in the woods and caves
that they might escape the miseries of metempsychosis
(transmigration) and finally reach the joys of Nirvana
(heaven.) Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus were
simply copying them. Why did John the Baptist preach
and teach in the wilderness, subsisting meanwhile on

5   Of the two hundred and fifty millions, there are forty
millions of Mohammedans.

6   Matt. V, 29.

7   The best attested case of fasting is that of Dr. Tan-
 208

THE HINDU BIBLE

locusts and wild honey, unless to make sure that he might
reach the eternal camping-ground in safety?

THE RIG-VEDA.

§ 3. The Rig-Veda, the divine revelation to the Hin-
dus stands to Brahmanism about the same as the Pen-
tateuch does to the subsequent parts of our Hebrew Bible.
One difference being that the Pentateuch says that God
talked to Moses,8 while the divine revelation to the Hin-
dus is expressed by the word Sruti, “heard” or hearing.
Another difference between these two old Bibles is as to
their respective ages. The transactions in Exodus, if its
chronology be correct, took place about 1491 years B. C.
The oldest hymns of the Rig-Veda date back 2400 years
B. C.9 And prose always precedes poetry in the history
of our race.

We know that the separation of the Aryan Persians
from the Hindu Aryans took place more than 4300 years
ago. They were down there in the Punjab, or on the

ner of Chicago. He insisted that it was possible that
Jesus fasted forty days. Tanner tried it. He had
watchers and guards, and the doctors took his weight,
temperature and pulse every day. At the end of
forty days he was very weak and ready to collapse. The
angels did not come and minister to him as they did to
Jesus (Mat. 4, 11.) But a man gave Tanner a piece of
watermelon the moment the forty days had expired,
which revived him at once.

8   Exodus, chapter 33, where this amazing statement is
made,—but the Lord would only let Moses see His “back
parts.” Read the whole chapter to the last verse.

9   In this matter I follow Dr. Martin Haug. He thinks
the oldest of the Vedic hymns were composed 2400
 RIG-VEDA 4,300 YEARS OLD

209

Jumna, at about the time Noah was in his ark, some
forty-three hundred years ago. They were then compos-
ing their Bible—the Rig-Veda. The flood did not reach
them.

While there is much wonderfully beautiful prose in
Genesis, there is not a single line of poetry. And it was
not until that marvelous ( ?) passage of the Red Sea that
Miriam and the women went out with timbrels and songs
to celebrate that extraordinary event (Exodus, 15) that
we discover any poetry.

Vedic poetry was surely sung as far east as the Ganges
at least five hundred years before MirianTs day, and in
the Punjab much earlier. The Hindu Bible and the He-
brew Bible both claim to have come to man by inspiration
from God; and both Bibles teach that the favor of heaven
may be obtained by giving the Gods a meal of victuals.
But Leviticus tells us that no man who had a flat nose,
or was hunch-backed, or a dwarf, could offer God his
dinner.10.

Both Bibles speak of “the God of Gods, and the Lord
of Lords.” (Psalms, 136.)

years B. C. If this be true, it may help to answer some
puzzling questions as to the when-and-where of the hu-
man race. Respecting these dates, I am fully aware that
Max Muller fixed the chanda period at about twelve hun-
dred years B. C. But he was careful to say that most
Sanskrit scholars would think his limit too short. Fur-
ther careful investigation has found his limit is in fact
too narrow. He limited the Sutra period to six hundred
years B. C.; and the proof now is far back beyond that.
(See Goldstiicker’s Manava-Kalfra Sutra, p. 78.)

10   Leviticus, chapter 21, v. 8, 17 and 21, speaks of offer-’
ing bread to God. Laws of Manu., 3, §§ 70 to 90.
 210

SACRIFICES TO THE GODS

SACRIFICES TO THE GODS.

The Hindus offered to their deities milk, butter, boiled
rice, barley, rice cakes, etc., but they did not partake of
the “food before the Gods had eaten.”11 The Hebrews
did not treat their God with the same consideration; for
as late as three hundred years after the exodus, when
offering a sacrifice, the priest’s servant, “with a three-
pronged flesh-hook came, while the flesh was seething,
and thrust the hook into the pot, and all he could fish
up, the priest took for himself.”11 12 The priests had be-
come even more ravenous than in the time of Moses,
for Aaron and his sons only got “the remnant of the
meat-offering.”13

There is another parallel between the Hindoos and
the Hebrews; for the Hebrew Bible mentions ten patri-
archs, who each lived to a very great age before the
flood; and the Hindoos have ten great sages who lived
in the early dawn of history.14

FOUR GREAT CLASSES OR CASTS.

§ 4. With both the Hindoos and Hebrews, the priest-
hood greatly enlarged their borders. In this matter the
Hindu priests went to the most extravagant lengths.
They divided the people into four great casts or classes:

11   Satapatha-Brahmana, I Kanda, Vol. 12, S. B. E., p.

2.   But see section 5, of this chapter, where bloody sacri-
fices were abolished.

12   I Samuel, chapter 2. The word “Sacrifice” means,
in such connection, a meal offered to the Deity.

13   Leviticus, chapter 2, v. 3.

14   Laws of Manu, chapter 1, Creation. I might men-
tion that the Chinese also have a similar legend.
 THE LORDLY BRAHMAN

211

the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyas, the Vaisyas, and the
dark-skinned Sudras. At the head of these four casts
stood the privileged, lordly Brahman. For generations
and for centuries he struggled to reach this alluring, daz-
zling summit. His leadership was gained, no doubt, in
the first instance, by his intellectual superiority. He was
keen, he was alert, he was devout; he placed himself in
the van of the moving column, and the masses blindly
followed him.

The Purohitas (family priests) devoted themselves
with such assiduity that they were soon bold enough to
say to the King: “Verily, the Gods do not eat the foods
offered by the King, who is without a Purohita; where-
fore let the King, who wishes to sacrifice, place a Brah-
mana at the head. The kingdom of such a ruler is un-
disturbed. He attains to the full measure of life. A
wise Purohita is the guardian of his realm.” (Aitareya-
Brahman, 8.) In short, the Brahman priests, from the
very first glimpses we get of them, were extremely perti-
nacious in their own behalf. They said: “The very birth
of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred
law, for he is born to fulfill that law and become one with
Brahman.

“A Brahmana,” they said, “is born the highest on earth;
the lord of all created beings for the protection of the
treasury of the law. Whatever exists in the world is
the property of the Brahmana. On account of the ex-
cellence of his origin, the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to
it all. The Brahmana eats but his own food; wears but
his own apparel; bestows but his own in alms ; other mor-
tals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmana.”
It was incumbent on a Brahmana to study the sacred
 212

NEVER PROVOKE A BRAHMAN

laws and duly instruct his pupils in them.15 “He who did
this was never tainted by sins arising from thoughts,
words or deeds.” 16 Even the King was warned not to
provoke a Brahmana to anger; for when angered they
told him they could instantly destroy him and his whole
army.

The next caste, in rank and importance to the Brah-
manas, was the military order, the Kshatriya. There are
indications that there was resistance by the Kshatriyas to
the lofty and self-asserted supremacy of the Brahmans.
But how long it continued, and when and whence it com-
menced, the records, so far as known, are silent. But
that there was a clashing, at least in sentiment, it is not
hard to believe. For how could a self-respecting man
admit without a controversy, that “a Brahman boy of ten
years and a Kshatriya of one hundred years stand to each
other in the relation of father and son”; that between the
two, the Brahman was the father.17

The laws of Manu declare it to be the duty of the
Kshatriya to protect the people, offer sacrifies, study the
Veda, and to abstain from sensual pleasures. But a
Kshatriya, who came to the house of a Brahmana, was
neither called a guest nor personal friend; yet the Brah-
mana might feed him after the Brahmana himself had

15   We shall see presently that none but a “twice-born
man” was allowed to study the sacred law. The Sudras
were forever excluded.

16   Laws of Manu, chapter i. The last three words in
the above sentence sound supiciously, as if borrowed from
Zoroaster.

17   Chapter 2, Sloka, 135, Manu.
 AN IMPASSABLE GULF

213

eaten. In fact there was a deep, wide, impassable gulf
between the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas—as impassa-
ble as that in slavery times between the master and the
slave in my own country.

The next step in the descending scale was the Vaisya,
whose duty it was to tend the cattle, trade, loan money
and cultivate the land. He could also offer sacrifices and
study the Veda. But the stricken Sudra found all doors
shut and barred against him. He had, as we have
already seen, driven a weaker race from the soil; and
his own punishment was now at hand. The all-conquer-
ing Aryan had overcome him and reduced him to abject
slavery. “Such measure as ye shall meet, it shall be
measured to you again.”

SLAVES IN INDIA.

The Brahmans, having mastered the Kshatriyas and
the Vaisyas, found it easy to put into their laws that
Svayambhu (The Self-Existent) had created the Sudra
to be a slave. That even if his humane master released
the Sudra from servitude, he was still a slave to a Brah-
mana, for that was innate in him.18 And it was made
the King’s duty to compel the Vaisyas and the Sudras to
perform the work prescribed for them, lest the whole
world should fall into confusion. It is said that Svayam-
bhu (The Divine Self-Existent), for the sake of the
prosperity of the worlds, caused Brahmana to proceed
from his mouth, the Kshatriya from his arms, the Vai-
sya from his thighs, the Sudra from his feet.19

18   Laws of Manu, chapter 8, §§ 413, 414 and 415, a
slave could own no property.

19   Manu, §§ 6 and 31. Those parts of the body above
 214

ITHE SECOND OR SPIRITUAL BIRTH

THE SECOND OR SPIRITUAL BIRTH.

§ 5. Every Brahman must, between his eighth and
sixteenth years, perform the sacrament of * 20 Savitri (Ini-
tiation). Failing in this, he became an outcast, and was
so despised by the Brahmanas that they would not coun-
tenance him, even in distress. The ceremony of initiation
was a solemn, important religious event in the life of
every Aryan. It so sanctified him that thereafter he
was called a “twice-born man.” He was admonished
that the Veda was the source of the sacred, revealed law.
That Sruti (revelation) and Smriti (tradition) must
not be called in question in any matter; since on those
two the sacred law was founded. That every twice-born
man, who treats with contempt those two sources of the
law, must be cast out as an atheist and a scorner of the
Veda. But they never burned atheists, as did the Chris-
tians formerly.

The novice was instructed that in seeking knowledge
of the divine law, the supreme authority was in revela-
tion (Sruti.) After tonsure, he was invested with the
sacred cord, which was generally worn over the left
shoulder and under the right arm. He was then given
a soft, smooth girdle of munga grass, and a staff, smooth
and handsome; and further instructed that by the study

the navel the Hindus said were pure; those below, impure.
Manu, chapter 5, § 132.

20   This period was extended for the Kshatriya to 22
years; to the Vaisya, to 24 years. Beyond that period
any young man of the first three casts, who failed to per-
form the Savitri, became Vratya,—an outcast.
 BURNT OBLATIONS

215

though we ought to have been given more particulars
about it. But we are told we shall be with God, there-
fore blessed and happy. Are we not with Him now on
this old earth? We see Him here in all of His wonderful
works. Does any sane man expect to see Him face to
face? The face of the Infinite! That face! Is it a
thousand miles long, and ten thousand times that vast
reach? God is visible in the stars above, and in the
plants at our feet. Besides, is not this world good enough
for that wretched fault-finding animal, called man?

We have the most complete picture of Heaven found
in any inspired record, in Revelation, wherein John saw
a door opened in Heaven18 and beheld a throne, and God
sitting on the throne, and four and twenty elders, clothed
in white, and four beasts, with eyes in front and behind,
and those beasts, without rest, saying, “Holy, Holy, Lord
Godand when the beasts said this, the four and twenty
elders fall down before the throne and worship Him who
sits thereon. But this is not quite all they do. Those
elders “cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
‘Thou art worthy, O Lord! to receive glory, honor, and
power; for Thou hast created all things/ ”19 This is
simply a cheap copy of an earthly monarch, and his court,
exaggerated considerably by the poet’s heated imagina-
tion.

The Jew who wrote Revelation had probably read of
Zoroaster’s audience or conference with Ormazd, and

18   They have doors in Heaven, Rev., ch. 4, and win-
dows, Gen., ch. 8, v. 6.

19   Rev., ch. 4.
 186   ST. JOHN’S HEAVEN

simply surpassed the Dinkard in the extravagance of his
statements.

Is it possible to believe that the Great I Am, who has
millions of worlds to look after, can employ himself, or
be entertained by having four beasts, day and night (even
if they have power of speech), cry “Holy, Holy, Lord,
God”? Truly, such a God is not worthy of worship. Its
monotony would soon cause the whole performance to
grow tedious. A fifth-rate European King cuts a better
figure. Why belittle the Almighty with such stuff and
nonsense? If Revelation be an allegory, intending to
teach virtue and show the doom of vice, the answer is
that the ridicule of the Almighty, and His throne, is so
great that it defeats its object.

The writer of Revelation says he saw ten thousand
times ten thousand (which would be about one hundred
million), and all these were saying, with a loud voice:
“Worthy the Lamb, riches 20 and wisdom, and honor and
glory”; and “every creature in Heaven and on earth, and
under the earth”, said the same. The four beasts there-
upon said: “Amen.” 21 But this tediousness was broken
after awhile; for war always makes exciting times; and
they had war in Heaven. That Irish Archangel, Michael,
and his angels fought the dragon, and his angels; and
“that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which de-
ceiveth the whole world, was cast out into the earth, and
his angels with him.” 22 Here, again, we have Zoroas-

20   Of course a Jew mentions “riches” first. But what
does Jesus want riches in Heaven for?

21   Rev., ch. 4.

22   Rev., ch. 12, v. 7 to 9.
 DUALISM

187

ter’s dualism; and if Revelation be true, that dualism
reaches from earth to heaven. It not only invades every
part of our world, but it dashes up against the very
throne itself. It looks as if sin is in the universe to stay,
for the devil himself was only bound for one thousand
years, and then turned loose for a season.23

If this be all they do in Heaven, will it not be somewhat
tedious to the great thinkers of our race? Imagine Soc-
rates, and Aristotle, Newton and Kepler, Darwin and
Huxley, Franklin and Emerson, and multitudes of others
standing idly by and watching the daily and hourly per-
formance of the four and twenty elders, and the beasts,
before the throne. True, an eternity like that would be
much less painful than roasting in a furnace, but to quick
minds, only less in degree. Of course John really knew
nothing more about Heaven than any other wild dreamer.
How could we know about it ?

We do not believe that Zoroaster held a conference
with the Almighty, nor do we believe that John saw the
throne. Neither Jesus nor Paul gave us a glimpse of
Heaven. How could they? For they had never been
there. If, then, there be such a place as Heaven, what
then?

Reader, we make to you the following suggestion: Fol-
low the Golden Rule of Zoroaster, and Jesus, and pa-
tiently await thy summons across the river.

23   Rev., ch. 20.
 CHAPTER XXI.

CONCLUSION.

The story of Zoroaster and his religion is ended. He
brought a new doctrine into the world, or at least so in-
tensified an old one as to link his name inseparably to it
forever.

No history of religions can ever be written without
giving him many pages. That he labored sedulously for
the material and spiritual welfare of his people no one
who will read his words can gainsay. There was, it
would seem, a sharp necessity for his appearing as a
teacher and guide to the Iranians, and he came in the
fullness of time.

The morals of his people were made the better for his
coming. He did not make war on the old Aryan Gods,1
but simply passed them by. He taught that there was one
God, Ahura-Mazda, the maker of Heaven and Earth,
who would reward man for good deeds, and punish him
for bad ones. Where he got this idea, I cannot tell. It
may have been announced before him, but if so, that
feebler voice is drowned in the great ocean of Zoroaster’s
fame and name.

1   The old Aryan Gods were the sun, moon, earth, the
winds and the waters. The Jews burned incense to the
sun, the moon, and the planets. 2d Kings, ch. 23, v. 5.

188
 300 YEARS AGO

180

Truth was to him a jewel beyond price or measure.
And he so insisted and urged upon his people that they
should always, and everywhere, refrain from falsehood
and cling to the truth; that for more than two thousand
years after his death it was considered an infinite disgrace
for a Persian to tell a lie. Four hundred and fifty years
before Jesus' day the historian, Herodotus, mentions this
as a pleasing trait of the Persian character.

One hundred years ago, there were a few scholars,
who claimed that Zoroaster was only a myth; that no
such person ever lived; but that class has been over-
whelmed by proofs to the contrary. In truth, there is as
much certainty of his identity as that Moses, or Joshua,
or Plato lived. But this knowledge came to us at a late
day. Three hundred years ago Europe slumbered in
profound ignorance of a great mine of knowledge await-
ing the antiquary.

True, Aristotle,-and after him Plutarch, and others,
had written of Persia, and her religion, but during the
middle ages all interest therein died out.

We now know that the founders of the Christian re-
ligion studied Zoroaster, and drew silently, but largely,
from him, in forming their own.2 I have shown this in
the preceding pages, and if I live to write the life of
Buddha and Jesus, will exemplify that matter still further.

Belief does not change facts, as the following will
illustrate:   Captain Cook, when circumnavigating the

globe, gave some iron nails to the natives of Tahiti. The
large nails they believed to be the mothers of the little

2   Intro-Vendidad, p. 15
 190

JESUS AND ZOROASTER—MEN

ones, and they placed the little ones in the ground, believ-
ing that they would grow. By the side of them they
planted some of the mothers, in the belief that a new
generation of small nails would be bom. But their belief
did not change the facts. The nails, big and little, to their
infinite disgust and chagrin, all rusted.

I   close by saying that this book is not intended as an
attack upon any form of faith. Every man has his own
views and ideas about matters beyond the grave. I have
mine; and while I treat Jesus and Zoroaster as men, yet
I hold that the creed of Zoroaster is, in all essentials, the
Golden Rule. For if good thoughts, good words, and
good deeds will not unlock the shining Gates, then noth-
ing else will, or can.

As age creeps on, let us not doubt that beyond the
myths and delusions of man, and all his follies, there is a
power and an Intelligence somewhere, and that if it be
for man’s weal, that he shall be crowned with immortal
life, where happiness shall ever bloom, then blessed be
that power, and that Intelligence. But if that Great In-
telligence, which we call God, for reasons and purposes
known only to Himself, shall deem it best that this life
shall “be the Be all and the end all,” then without ques-
tioning, let us say: “Thy ways, O Lord! are higher and
better than man’s ways; and thy judgments are alto-
gether just and right.”

THE END.
 PART SECOND

How the Hebrews Copied from the
Hindu Bible
 
 HOW THE HEBREWS COPIED

FROM

THE HINDU BIBLE

CHAPTER I.

FOUR GREAT RELIGIONS I BRAHMANISM, BUDDHISM, CHRIS-
TIANITY, MOHAMMEDISM. WHEN INVENTED—

TWO NEW DEITIES.

§ i. The highways of human progress are lined with
the skulls of the slain, for opinion’s sake. But in Amer-
ica, and some other favored spots, the worst that can
befall a plain talker, is to impale him on a few caustic
sentences. But the days of stakes, faggots, and
thumb-screws, for him who is not with the majority,
are, it is hoped, happily past forever. Nevertheless, that
despicable thing called intolerance, still lifts its slimy
head, active in all religions. Narrow-minded bigots
are found everywhere; and the best way to treat them
is to hit them hard, as you would any other reptile, then
watch them squirm.

At present, four great religions are seeking to domi-
nate the world. In truth, they almost hold our globe
in their grasp. Strange as it may appear, not one of
these religions, except Brahmanism, was in existence
twenty-five-hundred years ago. Brahmanism is, however,

191
 192 BRAHMANISM OLDER THAN THE FLOOD

old. It is older than the Flood. Poets were composing
it, centuries before Moses was found, by his mother, in
the bulrushes.1

The next in point of age, of these four religions, and
the greatest in numbers, is Buddhism. Its founder,
Buddha, was a Hindu prince, born about 500 years be-
fore Jesus.1 2 More than thrice the number of all the
people now living on our earth, have held to the doc-
trines, and died in the faith of Buddha. And more
than three hundred millions of people, now living in
Thibet, Nepaul, China, Japan, Assam and Ceylon, yet
cling to the Buddhistic faith. But the land of its birth,
after nearly fourteen hundred years of struggle, thrust it
forth, and installed Brahmanism in its place.

The next religion is that of Christianity. Jesus, its
founder, was born about 1900 years ago. But his re-
ligion, like that of Buddha, has been driven from the
land of its birth, and the flag of the conqueror waves
victoriously over Jerusalem and Galilee. His followers
are divided into two great unfriendly, and almost warring
camps, protestants and papists; the former numbering
about seventy or seventy-five millions, the latter about
eighty-five millions. The protestants, in matters of doc-
trine or creeds, are again subdivided into numerous
jarring sects; each one insisting that the other is wrong
in its interpretation of what is called “Holy Writ.” In

1   Some writers think that Moses was the bastard child
of Pharaoh’s daughter.

2   Some people maintain that Buddha was born about
543 years B. C. His followers now number three hun-
dred to three hundred and fifty millions.
 CREED MAKERS

193

fact, creed-makers have been busy with the New Testa-
ment for the last 1800 years, and are not done yet.

Both wings of this procession, papists and protestants,
number, therefore, about one-tenth of the population of
the globe. They both believe the old traditions of Moses,
and the Hebrews, and later the Jews; and those tradi-
tions form a very large part of the Christian Bible.

TWO NEW DIETIES.

Moreover, what challenges our attention is that the
Christians brought forth, for the world to consider, two
new deities, until then unknown. Jesus, and the Holy
Ghost, had never been seen, known, or heard of until
some 1900 years ago. In fact, no one to this day has
given, nor can give a reasonable definition of what the
Holy Ghost is. If we say it is the Holy Spirit, or the
Sanctifier of Souls, is not that definition applicable to
God? Is not God a Spirit? If so, then is not the Holy
Ghost and God one and the same? If not, what then
is the Holy Ghost? Where did it live, before the book
of Matthew was written? Where was the Holy Ghost
when Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the
seventy elders, saw the God of Israel up there on the
mountain?3 There are some other questions to ask: If
the Holy Ghost is an actual existence, and was here “in
the beginning,” why did it not save Eve from the serpent
there in the Garden?4 It is said Jesus was in heaven
when the foundations of the earth were laid. If so, why

3   Exodus XXIV, 9th and 10th.

4   There are those who maintain that the Holy Ghost is
of the female gender.
 194

JEWS HAD BUT ONE GOD

did He not interpose in that Eden difficulty, and thus
save us a world of trouble? What is the use of these
new Deities ? Can not man approach his maker directly ?
Must we do business in the ante-room with the office
boy? Did the Almighty, after running the world about
four thousand years, according to the record, find him-
self incompetent; and was it necessary to call in these
new Gods, as helpers?

§ 2. At Jesus’ appearance on earth, we know thai the
Jews had but one God, and they have only one God yet.
Since Jesus’ advent we have a Trinity. But the Brahmans
had a Trinity more than a thousand years before ours.
Did we copy from them? In fact, the Brahmans, in
ignorant times, had numerous Gods. As far back as
four thousand or forty-five hundred years B. C. they
had thirty-three Gods; and divided the universe into
three regions, and assigned eleven Gods to each division.
They then added Prajapati, the thirty-fourth God, as the
Lord of all creatures. They then fell back upon a Trin-
ity; and at last dispensed with all except Brahma as the
Creator; but gave him a generous staff of dignitaries.

MOHAM MEDANISM.

The latest religion invented is that of Mohammedanism,
which is now about thirteen hundred years old. Before
Mohammed’s day, the Gods in Arabia were numerous,
but Allah was the chief.

Mohammed tells us that the Angel Gabriel came to
him one night, and, holding a silken scroll before him,
bade him read what thereon was written. On the scroll
he read, “Man walketh in delusion here, but that the
Lord, the Most High, will call him hence some day to
 MOHAMMED'S FOLLOWERS

195

give an account of himself.” Frightened at this, and
thinking the incantation, a portent of evil, he related the
mysterious occurrence to his wife, who consoled him
with the hope that the messenger was of Heaven, and
that God had a mission for him. Such was the feeble
beginning of a religion that to-day numbers from no
to 140 millions of followers; and they hold Jerusalem
and Galilee firmly against all comers. Mohammedanism
has just one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

§ 3. Moses spent all his mature years in battling
against a plurality of Gods. Is it not, therefore, startling,
that Christians, who claim to be the legatees, and benefi-
ciaries of his statutes and commandments, and wiser than
all others, should invent two new Deities? And this in
opposition to the very first commandment, leveled against
polytheism, “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have
no other Gods before me”? (Ex. 20.) Yet Jesus, we
are told, is one with God, and that man can only approach
the Almighty through him as our intercessor.

THE TRINITY.

All Christians are baptized in the name of three Gods:
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are told that these
three form the Trinity, the Triune God, the Godhead.
The Hindus, as we have seen, invented the first Trinity;
and the Hindoos preached it, believed in it; and if the
frosts of age have any claim to our reverence, let us first
bow to the three-faced God of the Ganges. The Hindoo
trinity long preceded this invention of 1900 years ago;
and it is a real pity that they could not have obtained a
patent on their trimurti, for it would have saved our
divines from many a grotesque position, many a foolish
 196