Now, waiving for a moment the latter part of this legend—every word of which, however, is still chronicled in our country, though transferred by themodernstoSt. Kevinand themonks—I return to add, that, on the above-mentioned stone, you will see a representation of theambassadors offering this caske of riches to a professor of letters seated in his “doctor’s chair”!!!
This stone itself is engraved inLedwich’s Antiquities, where in his ignorance of its meaning, as well as of everything else which formed the subjectof his libellous farrago, he perverts it into thebribingof aRoman Catholic priest!—as if the priests would so emblazon themselves!—and quotes Chaucer toprovethe fact, when he says of one them, that—
“He would suffer, for a quart of wine,A good fellow to have his concubine”!
How inconsistent is error! Elsewhere this Reverend Doctor has asserted, and, accidentally,with truth, that there was no such thing at all to be met with at this place, as “Christian symbols.” I wonder was he one of those who considerRoman Catholicsnot to beChristians?
However, again fromthishe diverges! And, when called upon to decipher thehieroglyphics upon a stone-roofed Tuath-de-danaan chapel, of the same character as that at Knockmoy, and discovered here a few years ago, beneath the Christian piles which the early missionaries had built over it, by way ofsupersedence, he throws himself, in his embarrassment, into the arms ofSt. Kevin! associateshimwith the whole! and that, too, after he had fatigued himself,until half choked with spleen, in bellowing out theidealityand utternon-existenceof such a personage!
On the front of the cathedral erected out of the fragments of the Tuath-de-danaan dilapidations, you will findBudhaembracing thesacred tree, knownin our registries, by the name ofAithair Faodha, which signifies literally thetreeofBudha.[541]
ThepomegranateofAstarte—the medicinal apple ofaffection[542]—presents itself, also, in the foliage! Themouldingsupon the arch of the western window refer likewise toher. And, to complete the union of Sabian symbolisation, theserpentmingles in the general tale! while the traditional story of the adjoininglakehaving been infested by the presence of that reptile, has a faithful parallel in one of the lakes of Syria!
Will it not be believed, therefore, that thevalleyat which Dohamsonda had alighted,after he had traversed many realms far away from his own, was that of Glendalough? And where, I ask, would he be more likely to obtain the object of his peregrination, viz. initiation intogospeltruth, than in that country which, from its pre-eminent effulgence in itsbeatitudes, was exclusively denominated theGospel-land?
This, sir, is norhetoric,—nodeclamatory exaggeration. I will reduce it for you, in its simple elements, to the perspicuity of vision.
Bana-bais one of the names of oursacred island, which, like all the rest of ourhistory, has been heretofore amysteryto literary inquirers!
The light bursts upon you!—does it not already? Need I proceed to separate for you the constituent parts of this word?
It is compounded, then, be it known, ofBana, which indicates good tidings, or gospel, andaba, land—meaning, in the aggregate, theGospel-land! And accordingly the pilgrim, when he set out upon his journey in quest of theBana, very naturally betook himself toBana-ba, or theland of the Bana, where alone it was to be found!
And you presume to say thatChristianityis a thing which only commenced last week?
“Great God! I’d rather beAPagansuckled in a creed outworn;So might I standing on this pleasant lea,Haveglimpsesthat would make meless forlorn;Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.”Wordsworth.
“They shall be astonished, and shall humble their countenances: and trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold the Son ofWomansitting upon the throne of his glory. Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth glorify him who has dominion over all things—him who wasconcealed: for, from the beginning, the Son of Man existedin secret, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, andrevealed to the elect.”[543]
So speaks one of the most extraordinary productions that has ever appeared in England, in the shape of literature! And the commentary of its translator[544]is as follows:—
“In both these passages,” says he, “thepre-existenceof the Messiah is asserted in language which admits not the slightest shade of ambiguity—nor is it such a pre-existence as the philosophical cabalists attributed to him, who believed the souls of all men, and, consequently, that of the Messiah, to have been originally created together, when the world itself was formed; but anexistence antecedentto all creation, an existence previous to the formation of the luminaries of heaven; an existence prior to all things visibleand invisible, before everything concealed.—It should likewise be remarked, that the pre-existence ascribed to him is a divine pre-existence.”[545]
As to thepre-existenceof the Messiah, in the only way in which the Archbishop affirms, I did not think that the doctrine was so obscure as to require so much stress! Everybody acquiesces, who acquiesces in Christianity—that its Founder had existence and dominion with His Father before all worlds. And, therefore, when His Grace offers this as anillustrationof our opening extract, he eitherunconsciously contradicts himself, or, else, by dealingin generalities, evadesanexposition, which he was not at liberty to communicate!
I am quite ignorant as to whether or not Dr. Lawrence belongs to the order ofFreemasons, but I confess that when first I glanced at the above remarks I fancied he did. The care with which the two words “secret” and “concealed” were distinguished by him initalics, led me to this conjecture. But theindefinite unsubstantialityinto which he afterwards wandered, made the fact of hisinitiationbecome, itself, asecret.
Let me, however, prove the abovedilemma.
His Lordship has asserted, that theuninspirationof “the author” will admit of no dispute:[546]and yetthat “author,” whom the Archbishop himself acknowledges to have written, at the very lowest,antecedentlyto theAdvent, speaks of theMessiahas the “Son of Man” and the “Son ofWoman.”[547]
Either, therefore, the author wasinspired, speakingprospectivelyof an occurrencenot then consummated! or else,uninspired, he historically transmits the record of anincarnation vouchsafed before his time.
I feel perfectly indifferent as to which horn of this alternative you may patronise. They both equally make forme. Nor do I wanteither, otherwise than to show, that else the Archbishop is already ofmy way of thinking, andrestrainedfromavowingit, orunwillinglyinvolved in acontradictory nodus, from a partial succumbing to education!
With this I leave Enoch! I have hitherto done without him! I shall continue still to do so! But while biddingadieu, I must disburthen myself ofthe sentiments which his merits have inspired, and that after avery short personal familiarity.
Thou art, then, aGOODLYand aWISEbook, Enoch, stored withmanyandrecondite truths, but “fewthey be whofind” them. Better for thee it were, however, that thou hadst slept a little longer in thytranquilretirement, than obtrude thyself,unappreciated, upon anungenialworld—a cold, a calculating, an adamantine world—who fancy they knoweverything, but who, in truth, knownothing—to meet with nothing but theirscorn! It is true, Enoch, that thy face hath been tarnished by many a blemish! And that the hand of time hath dealt with thee, as it doth with the other works of man! Yet, despite of thecurtailmentsthus sustained, and theexoticsincorporated, thy magnificent ruin still holds within it somegleams, which to theinitiatedand thesympatheticafford delight and gratification.
———“Sweet as theecstaticblissOfsoulsthat byintelligenceconverse!”
Doubtless, reader, you are acquainted with the Gospel of St. John?—and you have a heart?—and you have emotions?—and you have sensibilities?—and you have intellect? Well, then, tell me frankly, have not these all been brought into requisition, at the metaphysicalsublimityand the orientalpathosof the opening part of that production?
“He was in the world, and the world was made by Him; and the worldknew Him not. He came untoHis own, andHis ownreceived Him not.”[548]
You surely cannot suppose this said in reference to thelate incarnation! Were it so, why should theEvangelist deliver himself in terms so pointedly allusive todistant times? The interval between Christ’s disappearance and St. John’s registration was but asyesterday, and therefore the latter, when inculcating thedivinityof theformer, upon the belief of his countrymen, who were all contemporaries, as well of one as of the other, need not advertise them of an addition, of which they were themselves cognisant.
But to illustrate to you aslight, that it was not therecentmanifestation that was meant by the above text, he tells us in the sequel, when expressly narratingthislatter fact, that “theLogoswas made flesh and dweltamong us”;[549]where you perceive that “dwelling among us” is made adistinct thing from, andposterior in eventuation to “coming unto His own,”as before recorded![550]
Indeed, in the delineation, it is not only theorderoftime, but theprecisionofwords, that we see most rigidly characteristic. TheJews, it is certain, could not be called “His own,” except byadoption; and, I am free to allow, that from them, “as concerning theflesh, Christ came”; but by “His own”[551]are meant Hisreal relations!—emanations from the Godhead, such as He was Himself! beings altogether separate from flesh and blood!and whosemysteriousnesswas perceptible most clearly to St. John, as you will perceive by the Greek words from which this is rendered, viz. τα ιδια, having been put in the neuter gender!
But suppose them, for an instant, to have been the Jews!—Then we are told that, “to as many as received Him, gave He power to become sons of God.”[552]Now, the apostles were they who didimplicitlyreceiveHim: and why does not St. John refer to those, whether living or dead, as admitted to the privilege of becoming “sons of God”? I will tell you:—it was because that they did not answer to that order of beings “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”[553]
These were the persons to whomChrist came before—these were “His own,” because that,like Him, they also wereof God.[554]These were they, who having lapsed into sin,[555]and vitiated their nature, drew down the vengeance of heaven upon them; and to the descendants of these it was that “the elect” and “the concealed one,” in mercy was made manifest, with proposals of redemption to regain their lost state!!!
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and how inscrutable His ways!”[556]
Seest thou not now, therefore, the propriety of St. John’s expression, when He says, “And I knew Him not, but that He shouldbe made manifestto Israel”;[557]for when, before “He was in the world,” it was insecretandconcealed—asstill and always representedin themysteries! The latter, heasserts, as a matter ofrevelation—for the former heappeals to the experienceof his auditors, as a subject ofhistory: andboth epochs are confirmedby the “voice from heaven,” which replied to Christ’s own prayer, as thus, “I have both glorified it,” viz.at Thy former manifestation—“and will glorify it again,”[558]at this Thy present!!!
I was myself twelve years of age before ever Isaw a Testament in any language. The first I was then introduced to was the Greek. Being in favour with my tutor, he took an interest in my progress, and the consequence was, to my gratitude and his praise, that no deviation from the exactness of grammatical technicality could possibly escape my observation. Soon as I arrived at the text wherein τα ιδια occurs, its irregularity, at once, flashed across my mind. I sought for an explanation, but it was in vain; my imagination set to work, but it was equally abortive. At length, in despair, I relinquished the pursuit, and never again troubled myself with it, or its solution, until recalled by its connection with the present inquiry.
But it was not alone the peculiarity of gender that excited my circumspection, the phraseology, when translated, sounded so familiar to my ear, as to appear an old acquaintance under a new form. For, though I could then tolerably well express myself in English, the train of my reflections always ran in Irish. From infancy I spoke that tongue: it was to me vernacular. I thought in Irish, I understood in Irish, and I compared in Irish. My sentiments and my conceptions werefiltratedtherein!
As to dialectal idioms or lingual peculiarities, I had not, of course, the most remote idea. Whether, therefore, the expression coming to “His own” were properly aGreekor anEnglishelocution, I did not, then, know either sufficiently well to determine; but that it wasIrishI was perfectly satisfied; my ear and my heart, at once, told me so.
I now positively affirm that thephrase is neither Hebrew,Greek, norEnglish! And if you are notdisposed to admit the information which it conveys,[559]to be an immediate communication from the Omnipotent, I have another very adequate mode of accounting for St. John’s having acquired it, and expressed it too in a phraseology soessentially Oriental.
The three wise men—who came from the East toJerusalem, saying, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him”[560]—to a mortal certainty imparted to him the intelligence!
Here you see them withcrossesupon their crowns,[561]the religious counterparts of ourIrish shamrocs![562]And surely, as Jesus was then but an infant, those mysterious devices were commemorative of His crucifixion, when “He came to His own,”—and not to that which occurred while He “dwelt among us,” a catastrophe which had not yet taken place!
Nor is it alone this single phrase (τα ιδια) that I claim as Oriental—the five first verses of this Gospel, as at present arranged, appertain also thereto. They speak thedoctrinealike of theBudhistsand of theFree-masons; but indiction, and inpeculiarity, intone, inpoint, andessence, they are irrefragablyIrish.[563]
That St. John never wrote them is beyond all question! but having found them to his hand, existing after the circuit of centuries and ages, the composition seemed so pure, and so consonant with Christianity, nay, its very vitality and soul, he adopted it as theprefaceto hisown production, which begins only at the sixth verse, opening with, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John”!
Having asserted that the preliminary part was inalienablyIrish, I now undertake to prove aradical misconception, nay, aderogationfrom themajestyoftheMessiah, to have crept into the text, in consequence of its having been translated by persons unacquainted with that language!
The termlogos, which you renderword, means to an iota thespiritual flame—log, orlogh, being theoriginaldenomination. The Greeks, who had borrowed all their religion from the Irish, adopted this also from their vocabulary; but its form not being suited to the genius of their language, they fashioned it thereto by adding the terminationos, asloghos; and thus did it become identified in sound with the commonlogos, which they had before, and which merely expresses awordorterm!
But though thus confounded, their philosophers, for a long time, kept both expressions distinct. The former they ever considered aforeign importation, rendering it, as we did, by thespiritual flame; as is evident from Zeno making use of the expression, δια του παντος λογος, that is, the spiritualflame, which is diffused through, and vivifies everything.
Pythagoras is so explicit upon thisspiritual flame, that you would swear he was paraphrasing the first five verses of St. John.
“God,” says he, “is neither the object of sense, nor subject to passion, but invisible, only intelligible, and supremely intelligent. In His body, He is like thelight, and in His soul He resembles truth. He is the universalspiritthat pervades and diffuseth itself over all nature. All beings receive theirlifefrom Him. There is but one only God, who is not, as some are apt to imagine, seated above the world, beyond the orb of the universe; but being Himself all in all, He sees all the beings that fill His immensity, the only principle, the light of Heaven, the Father ofall. Heproduces everything, He orders and disposeseverything; He is the reason, thelife, and the motion of all being.”
Even the Latins having borrowed the idea from the Greeks, steered clear of the equivocation of the ridiculousword; and the immortal Maro, when describing the quickening influence of this ethereallogosthrough all the branches of nature, interprets it as above, literally, by thespiritual flame!
“Principio cœlum ac terras, camposque liquentes,Lucentemque globum Lunæ, Titaniaque Astra,Spiritus intusalit; totamque infusa per artusMens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.Inde hominum pecudumque genus, vitæque volantum,Et quæ marmoreo fert monstra sub æquore pontus.”[564]
Am I, therefore, presumptuous in appealing to thecommunityto reject thiswordas applied to thelogos? A meaning, it is true, has been trumped up for this, as thecommunicating vehiclebetween God and His creatures! No doubt the Saviour is all that: butlogos does not express it; and thedurationof an abuse is no reason why it should be perpetuated after itsexposure.
I have said that it degraded the dignity of the Godhead to render this expression by the form ofword. I do not retract the charge: on the contrary, Iaddthat, independently altogether of the former arguments, adduced to establish itsinaccuracy, it would berevolting to common sense, were it not even thusincorrect!
For example—“In Him waslife,” says the text, “and the life was thelightof men.”
Now, how could there belifein aword? except by the most unnatural straining of metaphor. Or,admitting that there waslife, how could there belight, except by the same? Whereas, by substituting the proper term, then all is regular and easy; for what could be more natural, than that there should belifeinspirit? and thatthis lifeshould givelightto men?
You will observe accordingly, that Jesus Himself, when describing His own character, exactly states what I here rectify, saying, “I am thelightof the world”—not thewordof the world—or any such nonsense. And He continues the idea by noting further, that “he that followeth Me shall not walk indarkness, but shall have thelightof life.”[565]Thus keeping up anuninterruptedreference tologos, or thespiritual flame!
I do, therefore, humbly, but strenuously, implore of the legislature that theyrestorethis epithet to itsdivineinterpretation! I entreat of the heads, as well of Church as of State, that they cancel the error; forerrorI unhesitatingly pronounce it to be,—aderogationfrom the Godhead, and aperversionof the attributes of the Messiah!
I will myself show the way—thus: “In the beginning was thespiritual flame: and thespiritual flamewas with God, and thespiritual flamewas God.”[566]
How beautiful! may I hope that it will never more be extinguished!
Now, there is another text in the same chapter, which, though not incorrectly translated, yetloses half its beautyas at present understood! It will startle you when I recite it! Yet here it comes. “Behold theLambof God, which taketh away the sin of the world!”[567]
Bylamb, no doubt, you mean a young sheep: but let me ask you, what connection can you perceive between ayoung sheepand thetaking away of sin? That of immolation, you answer, as typifying thegrand offering. Well, then, why add “of God”? Why say, theyoung sheep of God, if it was an ordinary animal of the mereovine speciesthat was intended?
No, sir; recollect the “Lambslain from the beginning of the world,” recorded in the Revelations, as quoted before.[568]
A deep mystery is involved in this expression, which the ingenuity of man could not evolve but through the Irish. In that languagelambhis a word havingthreesignifications. The first is ahand; the second ayoung sheep; and the third across.[569]
Let us now, in rendering the text, substitute this latter instead of the intermediate; and it will be, “Behold thecrossof God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” By which you perceive that when John the Baptist, by inspiration, pointed out Jesus Christ as the universal Saviour of the world, hisvery wordsestablish a previouscrucifixion!
You now see how it happened that ten, in numerals, came to be represented by a cross X.Thisbeing thenumberoffingersupon each person’s hands: and ahandand acrossbeing both prefigured in thesacred,that is, in theIrishlanguage,[570]by the same term,lambh, it hence occurred that in all reckoning and notation, anew scoreshould be commenced therefrom—that itssanctityshould be still further enhanced by the epithet ofdiag, orperfection, which characterises it as asubmultiple, and that themysteriousnessof thewholeshould be additionally shrouded under thecomprehensive symbolof apyramidortriangle△[571]
“Our Hibernian Druids,” says Vallancey, “always wore a key, like the doctors of law of the Jews, toshow they alone had the key of the sciences, that is, that they alone could communicate the knowledge of the doctrine they preached. The name of this key waskire, orcire; andeo, a peg or pin, being compounded with it, forms the moderneo-cire, the key of a lock. The figure of this key resembled across; those of the Lacedæmonians and Egyptians were of the same form.”
Estimable and revered Vallancey, it pains me to say anything against you! but on those subjects you were quiteat bay!It was notto “show that they alone had the key of the sciences,” that “the doctors of law of the Jews always worea key,” but because thatthey had seen it in the ceremonial of the Egyptians, from whom, like the Lacedæmonians, they had borrowed its use, withouteither of them being able to penetrate its import![572]
The origin, then, of thisbadgeappearing amongstthehabilimentsof our ancient priests, is developed by thenamewhich those priests themselves bore, viz.Luamh, which, being but a direct formative fromlambh, across,unlocksthesecretof their being itsministers.[573]
TheIdæi-Dactyli, who superintended the mysteries of Ceres, obtained their designation from the very same cause, and corresponded literally with ourLuamhs: for theIodof the Chaldeans being equivalent to thelambhorhandof the Irish, the number of fingers thereon were made religiously significant of the X, orcross! And,—what cannot fail to excite astonishment, as to theimmutabilityof a nation’scharacter,—to this very hour, the symbolical oath of the Irish peasant is a transverse placing of the forefinger of one hand over that of the other, and then uttering the words, “By the cross”!
Are not the opposers of mytruths, then, as yet satisfied? or will they still persist in saying that it was thePopethat sent over our Tuath-de-danaan crosses?[574]in the shipArgho! some thousands of years before ever Pope was born. I wonder was it His Holiness that transported emissaries also to that ancient city in America, lately discovered in ruins, near Palenque; amongst the sculptures of which we discover across! And thepriorityof which to the times ofChristianityis borne witness to by the gentleman who has published the “Description” of those ruins,[575]thoughglaringly ignorant as to what was commemorated thereby.
“Upon one point, however,” he says, “it is deemed essentially necessary to lay a stress, which is therepresentation of a Greek cross, in the largest plate illustrative of the present work, from whence thecasualobserver might be prompted to infer that the Palencian city flourished at a periodsubsequentto the Christian era; whereas it isperfectly well known to all those conversantwith the mythologyof the ancients, that the figure of acrossconstituted the leading symbol of their religious worship: for instance, the auguralstaffor wand of the Romans was an exact resemblance of across, being borne as the ensign of authority by the community of the augurs of Rome, where they were held in such high veneration that, although guilty of flagrant crimes, they could not be deposed from their offices; and with the Egyptians thestaffof Bootes or Osiris is similar to thecrosierof Catholic bishops, which terminated at the top with a cross.”
But if the Pope had so great a taste for beautifying our valleys with those costly specimens of art, whereof some are at least eighteen feet in height, composed of a single stone, and chiselled into devices of the most elaborate mysteries, is it notmarvellousthat he has not, in the plenitude of his piety, thought proper to adorn the neighbourhood of the Holy See with any similar trophies? And why has he not preserved in the archives of the Vatican anyrecordof the bequest, as he has taken care to do in the case of the fourpalls?
But, transcendently and lastly, why did he deem it necessary to depictcentaursupon thosecrosses, with snakes, serpents, dogs and other animals, such as this following one exhibits, which is that at Kells, and which has been alluded to, by promise, some pages backwards.[576]
I have now done with theappropriationof those columns; and shall justwhisperinto my adversaries’ ears—if they have but recovered from the downcrash of theirfabric—that so far from laying claim to the honour of their erection, the Pope has actually excommunicated all such as revered them! and has otherwise disowned all participation therein, by the fulminating of bulls and of anathemas![577]
Yet did the zealots of party, after the history of those crosses was forgotten, associate them individually with some favourite saint! “This notion,” says Mosheim, referring to suchdiversions, “rendered it necessary to multiply prodigiously their number, and to create daily new ones. The clergy set their invention at work, and peopled at discretion the invisible world with imaginary protectors; they invented the names and histories of saints that never existed; many chose their own patrons, either phantoms of their own creation or distracted fanatics whom they sainted.”
Here, however, the historian is asinaccurateas he issevere: for not only did the majority of thosesaints, if not all of them, exist, but the greater part also of thoseexploitsascribed to them have actually occurred!The imposition consisted in making them the heroes of events and legends belonging to former actors.[578]
I shall now give you, from the Book of Ballymote, my proof for the assertion before advanced as to theGoban Saer, whom they would fain appropriate, having been a member of the Tuath-de-danaans, viz.: “Ro gabsat sartain in Eirin Tuatha Dadann is deb ro badar na prem ealadhnaigh: Luchtand saer credne ceard: Dian ceachd liargh etan dan a hingeinsidhe: buime na filedh GoibneadhGobha lugMac Eithe Occai; ro badar na huile dana Daghadae in Righ: oghma brathair in Righ, is e ar arainic litri no Scot.” That is, The Tuath-de-danaans then ruled in Eirin. They were first in all sciences. Credne Ceard was ofthis people; and his daughterDeanCeachd, who presided over physic: she nursed the poet GohneGobha, the Free-mason (lugis the same asSaer), son of Occai Esthne. Daghdae the king was skilled in all sciences: his brother Ogmustaught the Scythians the use of letters.
Thus you see that he could not, by possibility, be on the same theatre withSt. Abham; while the popular tradition is still substantially true which connects his name with the erection of the Round Towers!
The Church festivals themselves, in our Christian calendar, are but the direct transfers from the Tuath-de-danaan ritual. Their verynamesin Irish are identically the same as those by which they were distinguished by that earlier race. If therefore, surprise has heretofore been excited at the conformity observable between our Church institutions and those of the East, let it in future subside at the explicit announcement thatChristianity, with us, was but therevivalof a religion imported amongst us, many ages before, by the Tuath-de-danaans from the East, and not from any chimerical inundation of Greek missionaries—arevivalupon which their hearts were longingly riveted, and which Fiech himself, the pupil of St. Patrick, and bishop of Sletty, unconsciously registers in the following couplet, viz.:—
“TuathaHeren, tarcaintaisDos nicfead sith laithaith nua.”[579]
That is,—
TheBudhistsof Irin prophesiedThatnewtimes ofpeacewould come.
What kind ofpeace, you ask? Is it ofdeliverancefrom theirScythianoppressors? No, but that spiritual tranquillity, such as they enjoyed before, and at which even the angels of heaven rejoiced, while announcing the tidings to man[580]—
“And sweet, and with rapture o’erflowing,Was the song from that multitude heard,Who their heav’n for a season foregoing,To second the Angel appear’d.‘All glory,’ the anthem resounding,‘To God in the highest,’ began;And the chant was re-echoed, responding,‘Peaceon earth, loving-kindness to man.’”[581]
You will remember that the Scriptures themselves record, how that thewise men of the Eastforesaw this epoch; and “Lo, the star which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”[582]
Is it therefore to be wondered at that our Tuath-de-danaans, who were their brethren, should equally anticipate it?
Yes, from the commencement of time, and through all the changes of humanity, God had always witnesses to thetruthin this nether world.
“And Melchizedec, King of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the most high God.
“And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
“And blessed be the most high God, which hathdelivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.”[583]
“Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
“For this Melchizedec, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him:
“To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all: first being, by interpretation, king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king ofpeace.
“Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God—abideth apriestcontinually.”[584]
Thus does the apostle proceed, in a strain of the closest argumentation, to point out the superiority of this king ofpeace, over Abraham and his lineage: after which Mr. Brown, in hisCommentaryupon the Bible, expresses himself as follows, viz.:—“Who this Melchizedec was, this priest of God among the Canaanites, greater than Abraham, the friend of God, who were his parents or his successors, is on purpose concealed by the Holy Ghost. And hence he is without father or mother, predecessor or successor, in his historical account, in order that he might typify the incomprehensible dignity, the amazing pedigree and unchangeable duration of Jesus Christ, our great High Priest.”
Nobody can quarrel with thepietyof this commentator: butpietyis not the only requisite for a commentator upon the Scriptures: theabsence of stupidityis an essential condition. It is not, however, as applied tothis particular passagethat I thus express myself: were this the only instance ofaccommodating oversightit should draw forth no critique from me. But the instances areinnumerable, to verify the expression that “some personssee, butperceivenot.”
Mr. Brown had no idea of anemanation! Mr. Brown did not comprehend thesons of God! Mr. Brown did not know the connection which existed between thepeaceof Christ and that which was represented by Melchizedec.[585]
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of Him that bringethgood tidings, that publishethpeace; that bringethgood tidingsof good, that publishethsalvation; that saith unto Zion, ThyGodreigneth.”[586]
“These things have I spoken unto you, that in Me ye might havepeace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”[587]
“If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day the things which belong unto thypeace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.”[588]
“PeaceI leave with you;My peaceI give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.”[589]
“Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
“Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made anHigh Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”[590]
“From our fathers to us the good tidings descend,From us to our children agen;Unrestrain’d as the sun, and as lasting, they blendAll the nations and ages of men.Good news of great joy to all people, they speakAt once to the learn’d and the rude,To barbarian and Scythian, the Jew and the Greek,Nor country nor person exclude.From the man who goes forth to his labour by day,To the woman his help-meet at home;From the child that delights in his infantine play,To the old on the brink of the tomb;From the bridal companions, the youth and the maid,To the train on the death-pomp that wait;From the rich in fine linen and purple array’d,To the beggar that lies at his gate:To all is the ensign of blessedness shown,To the dwellers in vale or on hill,Alike to the monarch who sits on his throne,And the bond-man who toils at the mill;High and low, rich and poor, young and old, one and all,Earth’s sojourners, dead and alive,Who perish’d by Adam, our forefather’s fall,Shall in Jesus the Saviour revive.Not an ear, that those tidings of welfare can meet,But toitdoth that welfare belong:Then those tidings with rapture what ear shall not greet,What tongue shall not echo the song?All hail to the Saviour! all hail to the Lord!God and Man in one person combined!The Father’s Anointed! by Angels adored!The Hope and Delight of mankind!”[591]
Theprincipleof all mysteries having been already elucidated, it only remains, that in this concluding chapter, I point out a few more instances of their practical application.
In the Gospel, then, according to St. Matthew, I find the words, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”[593]And in that according to St. John, the following, “We be notborn of fornication; we have one Father, even God.”[594]
The juxtaposition of these texts, one with another, and the comparison of them, mutually, with the explication of theserpent, given at p. 229, will not only confirm thetruthof all the foregoing developments, but satisfy you further, what I am very certain you did not before identify, viz. that the phrasesgeneration of vipers, and the beingborn of fornication, are one and the same—theviper, orserpent, being the symbol oflustfulness, making the former equivalent toye offspring of concupiscence; that is, in other words, yeborn of fornication![595]And the very stress laid upon this mode ofgeniture, implies not only thepossibilityof a different sort, but itsfrequencyalso!
“In the Purana prophecies concerning the expected Saviour,” say theAsiatic Researches, “it is said, that he was the son, or rather the incarnation, of the great serpent: and his mother was also of that tribe, and incarnate in the house of a pot-maker. She conceived, at the age of one year and a half, the great serpent gliding over her while she was asleep in the cradle: and his mother, accordingly, is represented as saying to the child, once that she brought him to a place full of serpents—‘Go and play with them,they are your relations.’”
Here it will be seen that, under the form of a serpent, is personified theDeity, or thegenerative power.
Nunez de la Vega, Bishop of Chiapa, in Mexico, when describing Nagualism, in hisConstitutions, as observed in that country, says: “The Nagualists practise it by superstitious calendars, wherein are inserted the proper names of all the Naguals, of stars, the elements, birds, beasts, fishes, and reptiles; with observations upon the months and days; in order that the children, as soon as they are born, may be dedicated to that which, in the calendar, corresponds with the day of their birth; this is preceded by some frantic ceremonies, and the express consent of parents, which is an explicit part between the infants and the Naguals that are to be given tothem. They then appoint themelpa, or place, where, after the completion of seven years, they are brought into the presence of the Nagual to ratify the engagement; for this purpose they make them renounce God and His blessed Mother, instructing them beforehand not to be alarmed, or sign themselves with the cross: they are afterwards to embrace the Nagual affectionately, which, bysome diabolical art or another, appears very tame, and fondly attached to them, although it may be a beast of a ferocious nature, as a lion, a tiger, etc.They persuade the children, by theirinfernal cunning, that this Nagual isan angel sent by Godto watch over their fortunes, to protect, assist, and accompany them; and that it must be invoked upon all occasions, business, or occurrences, in which they may require its aid!”
It is very clear, that theNagualismabove notified is but a degenerate offshoot of thatserpentworship, which is coeval with thefall: yet, degenerate as it is, it is equally indisputable, that this good man’s zeal outsteps far his judgment, the exaggerations of his fancy even committing him so far, as to make him imperceptibly contradict himself!
Surely, were it a principle of action with those unfortunate beings to make their children, on their entrance upon active life, torenounce God, they would not teach them, at the same time, toreverencea brute creature, merely as being asubordinate servant of that God!
To reconcile the Bishop, therefore, to something like truth, I will suppose him to mean by the wordGod, where it first occurs,Christ, which is evident from the context, of “His blessed Mother”: and then the prohibition against the sign of “the cross,” mustbe understood exclusively as in reference tohim; a conclusion which is confirmed by an additional reference to thatoath, which I have before mentioned, as still prevalent amongst the Irish.
By the crossis the oath, accompanied by a transverse location of the forefinger of one hand upon that of the other: and the addition alluded to isof Christ, which is never volunteered except when equivocation is suspected; and then it is exacted as a matter ofdistinctionbetweenHiscross and themore antecedentone!
But no further proof is requisite to prove the Bishop’s want of candour than hiswithholdingdocuments from the public eye, which would appear to illustrate the subject.—“Although in these tracts and papers there are,” says he, “many other things touching primitive paganism, they are not mentioned in this epitome, lest, in being brought into notice, they should be the means of confirming more strongly an idolatrous superstition.” He should have had more confidence in his own cause, and feel that—“If anything, in consequence of this scrutiny, totter and fall, it can only be theerrorwhich has attached itself to truth, encumbering and deforming it.Truthitself will remainunshaken, unsullied, fair, immortal!”
Now, in the description of the ancient city, near Palenque, quoted before, I find some words, which prove an affinity between the worship of the ancient inhabitants of America and those of Ireland, and which rescue both from the imputations of bigotry. “I amCulebra,” saysVotan, one of the early princes, I believe, of Mexico, who wrote an historical tract in the Indian idiom, “because I am Chivim.”
The man’s name, you perceive, wasVotan, but hisambition was to be consideredCulebra, or thesnake, that is, the deity so personified: the mode whereby he sought to establish it is foreign from my inquiry.
TheGadelglasof the ancient Irish was precisely similar to thisCulebraof the Americans:gadsignifying a snake, or tortuosity:el, god; andglas, green—in all, thegreen snake-god! And conformably with this import, we are assured by a man who knew very little as to thereason why, but whose testimony is here valuable in a matter ofrecord, not ofopinion; namely, that the “Milesians, from the time they first conquered Ireland, down to the reign of Ollamh Fodhla, made use of no otherarms of distinction in their bannersthan aserpent twisted round a rod, after the example of their Gadelian ancestors.”[596]
You have now theproofof “who puts the snakesupon ourancient crosses?” And, independently of such proof, the antiquity itself of all the traditions associating theserpentwith the early memoirs of our ancestors was so great as to appal even themonks! And as they could not, in their system oftransferringour history,bring downthis serpent to the era of thesaints, they resolved, at all events, to have him in their dispensation, and so madeMosesthe hero!
This they contrived by inventing the name ofGadelfor one of our forefathers, and then transplanting him to the coast of the Red Sea, just as the Legislator of the Jews was conducting them out of Egypt! They then very unsacerdotally make a serpent bite him in some part of the heel, but very graciously afterwards restore him to sanity by Moses’s interposition! with a stipulation, however, that theformersoreshould ever appearglassorgreen! And thus was he calledGadelglas, orGadel the Green!!!
In truth, it was from thisgreensnake-god, above explained, that the island obtained the designation ofEmerald; and not from theverdureof its soil, which is not greater than that of other countries.
The Arabians have a tradition, that Enoch was the first who, after Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, wrote with a pen, in the use of which he instructed his children, saying to them additionally, “O, my sons, know that ye areSabians!”
Although the substance of thereligion, couched under this designation, has been already explained, yet the origin of the name itself remains yet to be unfolded.
Then be it known, that in thesacred,i.e.Irishlanguage, the wordSabh,[597]has three significations—firstly,voluptuousness, or theyoni; secondly, asnake, or sinuosity; and, thirdly,deathor life! And in accordance with this triple import, if you roll back the leaves as far as p. 229, you will find in the plate inserted there, and which has been transcribed from the sculptures of the ancient Palencian city before alluded to, those three symbols, viz. theyoni, theserpent, anddeath, all united in design, and illustrating my development of that mysterious scene wherein—
“EvetemptingAdam by aserpentwas stung.”[598]
The sculpture itself is intended to pourtray thesituation of those progenitors of the human species in the Garden of Eden. And yet, striking as it is, would its tendency remain ever asecret, were it not for the instrumentality of theIrishlanguage!
“That the society of free and accepted Masons possess a grandsecretamong themselves is an undoubted fact. What this grand secret is, or of what unknown materials it consists, mankind in general, not dignified with the order, have made the most ridiculous suppositions. The ignorant form incoherencies, such as conferring with the devil, and many other contemptible surmises, too tedious to mention, and too dull to laugh at. While the better sort, and more polished part of mankind, puzzle themselves with reflections more refined, though equally absurd. To dispel the opinionative mist from the eye of general error is the author’s intention; and however rash the step may be thought, that he, a mere atom in the grand system, should attempt so difficult, so nice a task, yet he flatters himself that he shall not only get clear over it, but meet with the united plaudits both of the public and of his brethren. And he must beg leave to whisper to the ignorant, as well as the judicious, who thus unwarrantably give their judgment, that the truth of this grand secret is as delicately nice as the element of air; though the phenomenon continually surrounds us, yet human sensation can never feelingly touch it till constituted to the impression by the masonic art. Theprincipal, similar to the orb of light, universally warms and enlightens theprinciples, the first of which, virtue, like the moon, is heavenly chaste, attended by ten thousand star-bright qualifications. The masonic system is perfectly the emblem of the astronomic;it springs from the same God, partakes of the same originality, still flourishes in immortal youth, and but with nature will expire.”[599]
Thecontortionsof the snake were easily transferred to the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. “When the ancients,” says Boulanger, “found out the true cycle of the sun, they coined names by ajeu de mots, or words, signifying its heat, or its course, that made up the number 365, as they had done before to make up 360. The name Sabasins, that has so much perplexed antiquaries and etymologists, is no more than anumerical name, which was given to Jupiter and to Bacchus asperiodicaldeities. When the suppliant was initiated into the mysteries of Sabasins, aserpent, the symbol of revolution, was thrown upon his breast. Το ΣΑΒΟΕ, which the Greeks repeated so often in the feasts of Bacchuswithout understanding the meaning of the words, meant no more than the cycle of the year, from the ChaldeanSabb circuire vertere, etc. The ancient religion, which applied entirely to the motions of the heavens andperiodical returnof the stars, was for that reason namedSabianism, all derived from the ChaldeeSeba, arevolution”; and this, though Boulanger knew it not, from the Irish Sabh,serpent, orpith.
Sabaism, therefore, and Ophiolatreia were all one with Gadelianism; and while, apparently, purporting to be the worship of theserpentand thestars, were in reality the worship of theSabhorYoni—so that the dialogue in Genesis between Eve and theserpent, was, in truth, a parley between Eve and theYoni: and the materials for the allegory were afforded bythe fact ofserpentandyonibeing both expressed in the sacred,i.e.Irish language, by one and the same name, just as the Lingam and the Tree of Knowledge have been before identified.
The mystery, then, of our ancient escutcheon, viz. aserpenttwistedround a rod, resolves itself into theYoni embracingtheLingam.
Hence, too, it was that the portals of all the Egyptian temples were decorated with the impress of the circle and the serpent. You see also, why theseasons, at the equinoxes and solstices, should have been marked upon the circle at p. 225; and you further see the mysterious tendency of the Prophet’s injunction to his children, when he said, “Remember that ye areSabians,” to have been equivalent with—Keep constantly in view that you are the offspring ofconcupiscence, and, by the suggestion of theserpent, begotten insin, the penalty of which, as a breach of the Creator’s commandments, is inevitabledeath, from which you are only extricated through the promised Redeemer, emanating from the same source which was before instrumental in entailing your sorrow!
Every syllable of this is hieroglyphically expressed upon the plate inserted at p. 223, where you observe thecockatrice, or snake-god, placed at the bottom; over him thecrescent, or mysteriousboot,i.e.yoni, the object seduced; and, finally, thecrossin triumph over both, intimating emancipation by the vicarious passion of God’s own Son.
This, then, is my answer to V. W.’s question at p. 225, where he asks, “What relation had this with the Nehustan, or brazen serpent, to which the Israelites paid divine honours in the time of Hezekiah?”
From thisSabaism, orserpent worship, Ireland obtained the name ofTibholasorTivolas;SandTbeing commutable letters,Tibholasis the same asSibholas, and this being derived fromsibal, a circle, shows the name to have been equivalent with theland of circles or revolutions, otherwise, both to the serpent and the planets.
Those prophetic women of Etruria, designatedSybils, were named from the same cause, being priestesses of theserpent,i.e.theSabhorYoni—allegorically represented as married to Apollo, and gifted with a longevity of a thousand years. Here, again, the same conversion of letters occurred, for the place whichtheyinhabited was called from themselves,Tivola, corresponding to our Tivolas, theSandTbeing, as before explained, commutable, andborbhbeing equivalent tov.
Pythiais exactly synonymous withSybil, meaning the priestess who presided over thePith, which, like Sabhus, means as wellserpentasyoni: and the oracle which she attended was calledDelphi, fromde, divine, andphith, yoni—it being but acavein the shape of that symbol,[600]over the orifice of which the priestess used to take her seat upon a sacredtripod, or the religiously emblematic pyramid,[601]while the inspiring vapour issued from beneath through a tube similar to that exhibited at p. 460, and one end of which, passing through the aperture, held fast the tripod to which the priestess had been secured, so that she should not, in her delirium, relinquish the position.
The great Samian philosopher, known as Pythagoras,only assumed this name in deference to those rites: forPyth-agorasmeans one whoexpoundsthe mysteries of thepith, viz.deathfrom its weakness, andredemptionfrom its virtue.
“Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel,”[602]was the spiritual substance of thoseexpositions: the only difference being in thatIsaiahspoke prospectively towards a lately verified issue, whereas theinitiatedtook the promise from the moment of thefall: and of itspartialaccomplishment prior to our era, there can be no doubt, even from the writings of this prophet.
On the opposite plate are three profile likenesses of Christ, as He appeared upon earth in human form—the first is a facsimile from abrassmedal, found at Brein Owyn, in the Isle of Anglesey, and published in Rowland’sMona Antiqua. The inscription upon it has been translated as meaning, “Jesus the Mighty, this is the Christ and the Man together.”
The second, likewise of brass, and found at Friar’s Walk, near Cork, is now in the possession of a Mr. Corlett.—Inscription upon one side, “The Lord Jesus.”—Upon the other, “Christ the King came inpeace, and the light from the heaven was made life.”
You will please observe here, that he does not say theWordwas made life, but theLightwas made life.
The third is of silver, and the inscription means, “Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ—the Lord and the Man together.”
The originals of these inscriptions are all in Hebrew, and the likenesses which accompany them, although on different metals, appear almost copies one of another: whereas the cruciform figures herein already inserted, have no one feature of correspondence whatsoever with them, but prove themselves, on the contrary, in every particular, an antecedent generation.[603]
As everything else appertaining to the history of the Round Towers has already been explained, Ishall now account for the difference of appropriation noticed at p. 6. Having been all erected in honour of theBudh, they all partook of the phallic form; but as several enthusiasts personified this abstract, which, in consequence of themysteriesinvolved in the thought and the impenetrable veil which shrouded it from the vulgar, became synonymous withwisdomorwise man, it was necessary, of course, that the Towers constructed in honour of each should portray the distinctive attributes of the individuals specified. Hence the difference of apertures towards the præputial apex, the crucifixions over the doors, and the absence or presence of internal compartments.[604]
Those venerable piles vary in their elevation from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet. At some distance from the summit there springs out a sort of covering, which—accompanied as it sometimes is with a cornice, richly sculptured in foliage, in imitation, if you must have it,præputii humani, but such also was the pattern of the “nets of checker-work and wreaths of chain-work,” which graced “the chapiters which were upon the top of the two pillars belonging to Solomon’s temple”—terminates above in a sort of sugar-loaf crown, concave on the inside and convex on the outside.
Their diameter at the base is generally aboutfourteen feet through, that inside measuring about eight, which decreases gradually, but imperceptibly, to the top, where it may be considered as about six feet in the interior.
The distance of the door from the level of the ground varies from four to twenty-four feet. The higher the door the more irrefragable is the evidence of the appropriation of the structure to the purposes specified. The object was two-fold, at once to keep off profane curiosity and allow the votaries the undisturbed exercise of theirdevotions; and to save therelicsdeposited underneath from the irreverent gaze of the casual itinerant.