The Project Gutenberg eBook, Pagan Origin of Partialist Doctrines, by John Claudius Pitrat

PAGAN ORIGIN
OF
PARTIALIST DOCTRINES.

BY

REV. JOHN CLAUDIUS PITRAT,

a member of the university of france; author of "jesuits unveiled," of "paul and julia," etc., and formerly a romish priest.

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.

CINCINNATI:
LONGLEY BROTHERS, PRINTERS
168 VINE ST., ABOVE FOURTH.
1857.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1857, by
JOHN CLAUDIUS PITRAT,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

To Brother John A. Gurley.

Dear Friend Gurley,—To you, who have fed me when I was starving, sheltered me when I was a homeless exile, and befriended me when I was forlorn, and my life was sought by my persecutors, this volume I inscribe, as a feeble token of my lasting gratitude and friendship.

J. C. Pitrat.

[v]

PREFACE.

Two arguments can be brought forth to prove that the Partialist doctrines are not taught in the Scriptures: the one is drawn from the Scriptures themselves, and the other is drawn from history.

The first argument, drawn from the Scriptures, is this:

The Partialist doctrines are not taught in the Scriptures, if it can be proved by the Scriptures themselves that the Partialist doctrines are not contained therein. But it can be proved by the Scriptures themselves that the Partialist doctrines are not contained therein. Then the Partialist doctrines are not taught in the Scriptures.

The second argument, drawn from history, is this:

The Partialist doctrines are not taught in the Scriptures, if it can be proved by history, that the origin of the Partialist doctrines is Pagan. But it can be proved by history that the origin of the Partialist doctrines is Pagan. Then the Partialist doctrines are not taught in the Scriptures.

These two arguments, as he who reflects can easily perceive, not only corroborate each other, but their respective proving force is such, that, if considered separately, each one is sufficient to peremptorily prove that the Partialist doctrines are not taught in the Scriptures. The former, till now, we Universalists have exclusively[vi] used, and it has been efficacious in causing the scales of early and strong prejudices to fall from the eyes of thousands. However, it is unfortunately a fact, confirmed by daily experience, that the conclusions arrived at through scriptural controversies are striking only to minds of a particular bent and culture. On the contrary, the conclusions arrived at through historical facts present themselves to the mind of all, clear, vivid and irresistible. It is for this reason that the author, in this book, presents to the consideration of the Universalist denomination, and of the public in general, the second argument, drawn from history. The vast number of historical facts, of quotations, extracts, etc., contained in this volume, have been translated from many languages, with as much accuracy as possible.

May God bless this work, intended to confirm the Universalists in their beloved faith; and also to break the chain of prejudice which keeps millions of men in ignorance, in superstition, in perpetual fear, and thereby in spiritual bondage: "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

THE AUTHOR.

[vii]

CONTENTS.

[9]

PAGAN ORIGIN
OF
PARTIALIST DOCTRINES.

CHAPTER I.

TRUE SPIRIT OF PAGAN RELIGIONS.

It seems to be an undeniable fact, that, before the coming of Jesus Christ, nations had immemorially and universally believed, that the universe, or nature, was an uncreated but animated being, whose vast body comprised the earth, the sun, the planets and the stars, to which one great soul impressed motion and life. Also they believed that all those principal parts, or, in other words, principal members of the body of the universe, were animated by emanations or irradiations of the great soul of the universe, or nature. This Pantheistic doctrine we find recorded by the Chaldean Zoroaster, in his Zend-Avesta; by the Phœnician Sanchoniaton in his Mythological History; by the author of the Indian Vedam; and by the Chinese Confucius, in his Theology. Weighty is the testimony of those authors, who lived, Confucius perhaps excepted, at about the time of Moses. Also, the above doctrine they themselves believed [10] and taught. More, we find the same testimony, the same doctrine, and the same teaching, in nearly all the works of the celebrated poets, orators and philosophers of posterior ages.

Pliny, the historian and naturalist, writes: "The world, or what we call the heaven, which, in its vast embrace, encircles all beings, is a God eternal, immense, uncreated and immortal. To seek any thing beyond it is beyond man's reach, and is vain labor. Behold, the universe is the Being truly sacred, the Being eternal, immense, comprising all in himself: he is all in all, or rather he is himself all. He is the work of nature, and nature itself."

We read in the sixth book of Eneida, by Virgil: "Know, O my son! that the heavens and the earth, the deep, the bright globe of the moon, and all stars are moved by a principle of inly life, which perpetuates its existence; that it is a great intelligent soul, extending to all the parts of the vast body of the universe; and which, connected with all, impresses to all an eternal movement. This soul is the source of the life of man, of that of flocks, birds, and of all the monsters of the deep. The bright force that animates them emanates from that eternal fire that shines in the sky, and which, a captive in the gross matter of bodies, develops itself only as permitted by the divers mortal organizations that blunt its force and activity. At the death of each animal those germs of particular life return to their source, and to the principle of life that circulates in the starry sphere."

[11] This belief led men to the worship of the universe, or nature, and became the basis of their mythology. They adored the vast body of nature, and its great soul, under the name of Supreme Being, of Jupiter, of Vichnou, of Pan, etc. They adored the earth, the sun, the planets and the stars under other names. They erected temples, altars, statues and chapels to those deities, and worshiped them—not the wood, stone, or marble, as they are unjustly accused of, but the emanations of the great soul of the universe, which animated all those principal members of the vast body of nature, whose might and influence impressed them with wonder, terror or gratitude, and thus attracted their adoration.

The Chinese adored the heavens under the name of great Tien. The Supreme Being in the Chou-King is designated by the name of Tien, which means from heaven, and of Chang-Tien, supreme heaven. They had reared temples to the sun, to the moon, and to the stars; and also one to the great being formed of the sky, of the earth and of the elements,—being which is the universe named by them Tay-ki. They worshiped the heavens at the time of the two solstices. The Japanese adored the stars and planets which they supposed to be animated by geniuses or gods. They had a temple dedicated to the splendor of the sun. They celebrated the feast of the moon on the 7th of September, and spent the whole night in rejoicing by her light. The Chinese and the Japanese practice the same worship even in our days.

[12] The Egyptians adored the sun under the name of Osiris, and the moon under the name of Iris. To them both they ascribed the government of the world. They built, to honor Osiris, the City of the Sun, or Heliopolis, and also a splendid temple in which they placed his statue. They worshiped all the stars and planets which compose the Zodiac. The animals consecrated in the Egyptian temples, and religiously revered, represented the various functions of the supreme cause; and they referred to the sky, to the sun, to the moon, and to the constellations.

The Phœnicians worshiped the moon and the stars. They adored the sun under the name of Hercules. The Ethiopians adored the sun and the moon; and Diodorus informs us, that those of their tribes who inhabited the country above Meroe adored the sun, the moon, and the universe. They called themselves the sons of the sun: Persina was the priestess of the moon, and the king, her husband, was the priest of the sun. All the Africans who were settled along the coast of Angola, and of Congo, worshiped the sun and the moon; so the inhabitants of the island of Teneriffe did. The oldest worship of the Arabs was Sabism, the religion universally spread in the Orient: the heaven and the stars were objects of veneration. The moon was more especially adored. The Saracens called her Cabar, which means great: even now-a-days her crescent adorns the religious monuments of the Turks. Among the Arabs[13] each tribe was under the invocation or patronage of a star.

The Sabism was also the religion of the ancient Chaldeans. Even now there is at Helle, on the ruins of Babylon, a mosque named Meshed Eschams, or Mosque of the Sun. In this city was the temple of Belus, or of the sun, the great deity of the Babylonians. To this same god the Persians reared temples and consecrated images, under the name of Mithra. They also honored the heaven under the name of Jupiter, the moon and Venus, the fire, the earth, the air or wind, and water. The fire ether that circulates in the whole universe, and of which the sun is the main force, was represented in the Pyrees by the sacred fire kept incessantly burning by the wizards, or priests. At Tymbree, in Troades, the sun was adored under the name of Apollo. The island of Rhodes was consecrated to the sun, to whom the colossal statue, known under the name of the Colossus of Rhodes, was erected. The Massagetes, the Abasges, the Derbises, the Tartars, the Moscanians, the Tchouvaches, the Toungouses, the Huns, all the Scytic nations, the Iberians, the Albanians, the Colchidians, the Phrygians, and the Laodiceans, worshiped the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars, under various emblems.

Plato informs us that the ancient Greeks had no other gods than the sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, water, and fire. Orpheus considered the sun as the greatest of the gods, and adored him [14] upon mounts at his rise. Epicharmis, disciple of Pythagoras, called gods the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, water and fire. Agamemnon, in Homer, sacrificed to the sun and to the earth. The choir, in the Œdipus of Sophocles, invokes the sun as being the first among the gods, and their chief. The earth was worshiped in the island of Cos. Also the earth had a temple at Athens and at Sparta; and an altar and oracle at Olympia.

When we read Pausanias, who has described Greece and her religious monuments, we find everywhere traces of the worship of nature. We see temples, altars, and statues, consecrated to the sun, to the moon, to the earth, to the Pleiades, to the celestial auriga, to the goat, to the bear, or Calisto, to the night, to rivers, etc. The inhabitants of Megalopolis sacrificed to the wind Boreas, and had planted a grove in his honor. The Macedonians adored Estia, or fire, and prayed to Bedy, or water. Alexander, king of Macedonia, sacrificed to the sun, to the moon, and to the earth. The oracle of Dodone, in all its answers, ordered sacrifices to the Achelous river. Homer gave the epithet of sacred to the waters of the Alpheus. Nestor and the Pylians sacrificed a bull to the same river. Achilles let his hair grow in honor of Sphercius; he also invoked the wind Boreas and the Zephyrus.

Rivers were reputed as being sacred and divine, because of their utility to vegetation, to[15] animals, and to commerce; and because nations considered water as one of the first principles of nature, and one of the most efficacious agents of the universal life of the Great-Being in which they believed. In Thessalia a sacred crow was fed in honor of the sun. This bird is seen yet on the monuments of Mithra, in Persia. The temples of old Byzantium were consecrated to the sun, to the moon, and to Venus. Their idols represented them; also the star Arcture, and the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Rome and Italy had also a vast number of monuments of worship addressed to nature, and to its principal agents. Tatius, coming to Rome to share the sceptre of Romulus, erected altars and temples to the sun, to the moon, to Saturn, to light, and to fire. The undying fire, or Vesta, was the most ancient object of worship of the Romans; virgins had the care to perpetuate it in the temple of this Goddess, as the wizards did in their Pyrees. "It was," Jornandes said, "an image of the eternal lights which shine in the heavens."

In Rome there was a famous temple called Tellus, or of the earth, in which the senate often met. The earth was called mother, because it was considered as a deity as well as the manes. There was in the Latium a fountain of the sun, and, near it, two altars upon which Æneas, when landing in Italy, sacrificed. Romulus established the games of the circus to honor both the sun, who in his course measures the year, and the four [16] elements which he modifies by his mighty influence. Aurelian built at Rome the temple of the sun, and decked it with gold and precious stones. Augustus, before Aurelian, had ordered the images of the sun and of the moon to be brought from Egypt, in order to adorn his triumph over Anthony and Cleopatra. The moon had a temple on the mount Aventine.

In Sicily oxen were consecrated to the sun; and the island itself was called the Island of the Sun. The oxen which the companions of Ulysse ate when they landed, were consecrated to this god. The citizens of Assora adored the Chrysas river, that bathed their walls. At Enguyum the people revered the mother-goddesses, the same deities honored in Crete; namely, the major and minor Ursas. In Spain the people of Betic had built a temple to the morning star. The Accitans had erected to the god Sun, under the name of Mars, a statue whose head imitated the rays of the sun. At Cadix the sun was also adored, under the name of Hercules. All the nations of northern Europe, called Celtes, worshiped fire, water, the air, the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees, and the springs. The conqueror of Gaul, Cæsar, writes that the Germans immemorially adored the visible cause, and its principal agents, the sun, the moon, fire or Vulcain, and the earth, under the name of Herta. Near Narbonne, a city of Gaul, a temple was dedicated to the wind Circius which purified the atmosphere. At Toulouse there was[17] a temple of the sun. The Franks professed the same religion.

In America the Incas of Peru called themselves the sons of the sun: they dedicated temples and altars to this god, and had instituted feasts in his honor. The moon was associated to his worship, and was considered as the mother of all the sublunar productions; and as the spouse and sister of the sun. In Peru, the star Venus was adored, and also the meteors, the thunder, and Iris, or rainbow. Virgins had the care of keeping alive the perpetual fire. In Mexico the same religion existed. The inhabitants of the Isthmus of Panama, of Brazil, of Florida; the Indians of the coast of Cumana, the Floridians, Virginians, and the Canadians believed that there was a god in the heavens, and that this god was the sun, the spouse of the moon. They worshiped them as the two supreme causes which ruled the world.

The above historical facts lead us to the conclusion that the adoration of the vast body of nature, together with the great soul which was supposed to animate it; and of its principal parts or members, together with the multifarious emanations of the great soul, which was supposed to animate them, was the former and universal religion of mankind, before the coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore the heathens did not worship the idols themselves, to which they had given such and such forms to represent the objects of their adorations; but they worshiped what in[18] their mind they represented, the universe taken collectively, as in the idol of Pan; and the universe taken separately; namely, the important parts of the universe, as in their innumerable idols of the planets, stars, rivers, etc.

As we wish to leave no doubt in the minds of the reader in regard to the certainty of these two great facts, which are a key to the origin of the dogma of endless misery, and of others which we are to trace out, we will bring forth other proofs from the religious and political monuments of ancient peoples; from their celebrations, and from the opinions of their philosophers.

The famous labyrinth of Egypt was dedicated to the sun. It formed twelve palaces, representing the twelve signs of the Zodiac. There were in Heliopolis, or City of the Sun, twelve columns adorned with symbols relating to the elements, and to the twelve signs. These gigantic piles had a pyramidal shape to better represent the rays of the sun, and the form of his rising blaze. The statue of Apollo Agyeus was pyramidal. In Egypt, artists were not entrusted with determining the form of the images and statues of the gods. It was one of the prerogatives of the Hierophants, or priests, who were more familiar with astronomy. This fact explains why the number seven, which represented the number of planets, and the number twelve, which represented the number of the signs, were sacred numbers, and were reproduced under all kinds of forms. So[19] the twelve altars of Janus; the twelve works of Hercules or sun; the twelve shields of Mars; the twelve brothers Arvaux; the twelve gods Consentes; the twelve rays of light; the twelve governors in the Manichean system; the twelve adeetyas of the Indians; the twelve azes of the Scandinaves; the twelve wards of the city planned by Plato; the four tribes of Athens subdivided into three frateries according to Cecrops' division; the twelve cushions on which the creator sits, in the theogony of the Japanese; the twelve cantons of the Etruse league, and their twelve Lucumons, or chiefs of cantons; the confederation of the twelve cities of Ionia, and that of the twelve cities of Eolia; the twelve Tcheou into which Chun divided China; the twelve countries into which the Coreans divided the world; the twelve officers chosen to draw the coffin at the funeral of the King of Tunquin; the twelve horses; the twelve elephants, etc., used in that ceremony.

It was the same with the number seven representing the planets. So the seven divisions of the city of Ecbatane; the seven gates of the cavern of Mithra, or sun; the seven floors of the tower of Babylon, with another representing the heaven, and also the temple of Jupiter; the seven gates of the city of Thebes, called each one by the name of a planet; the seven piped flute placed in the hands of the god Pan who represented the universe; the seven stringed lyre of Apollo, or sun;[20] the book of fate composed of seven memorandums; the seven prophetic rings of the Brachmanes, on which the name of a planet was engraved; the seven stones dedicated to planets in Laconia; the immemorial division into seven tribes adopted by the Egyptians and the Indians; the seven idols pompously carried every year by the Bonzes into seven different temples; the seven mystical vowels which formed the sacred formula in the temples of the planets; the seven Pyrees or altars of the monument of Mithra; the seven Amshaspands, or great geniuses, invoked by the Persians; the seven Archangels of the Chaldeans; the seven sounding towers of old Byzantium; the week in all nations, or the period of seven days consecrated each one to a planet, as can be illustrated. For instance, in French, Monday is called Lundi, which is derived from the latin Luna, meaning moon. Tuesday is called Mardi, meaning Mars. Wednesday is called Mercredi, meaning Mercury. Thursday is called Jeudi, meaning Jupiter. Friday is called Vendredi, meaning Venus. Saturday is called Samedi, meaning Saturn. It could also be illustrated by other languages derived from the Latin.

The number three hundred and sixty, which is that of the days of the year, not comprising, however, the epagomenes or complementary days, was also retraced by the three hundred and sixty days comprised in the theology of Orpheus; by the three hundred and sixty cups of the water of the[21] Nile, of which one was poured every day, by the Egyptian priests, in a sacred cask, in the city of Achante; by the three hundred and sixty Eons, or geniuses of the Gnostics; by the three hundred and sixty idols placed in the palace of the Daïri in Japan; by the three hundred and sixty saints, or geniuses, who, the Papists believe, preside to each day of the year, (as seen in their almanacs,) dogma borrowed from the heathens; by the three hundred and sixty minor statues which surrounded that of Hebal, or the god sun, Belus, adored by the ancient Arabs; by the three hundred and sixty chapels built around the mosque of Balk, erected by the care of the chief of the family of the Barmecides; by the three hundred and sixty temples built on the mountain Louham, in China; by the wall of three hundred and sixty stadiums with which Semiramis encompassed the city of Belus, or of the sun, the famous Babylon. In fine, the division of the Zodiac into twenty-seven parts, which express the stations of the moon, and into thirty-six which is that of the decans, was also the object of the political and religious distributions.

Not only the divisions of the heaven, but the constellations themselves were represented in the temples, and their images consecrated among the religious monuments, and on the medals of the cities. The bright star Capella, in the constellation Auriga, had a statue of brass gilt in the city of the Phliassians. To the constellation Auriga statues and other monuments had been erected in Greece[22] under the names of Myrtile, of Hippolyte, of Spherœus, of Cillas, of Erectee, etc. There were seen, also, the statues and tombs of the Atlantides. Near Argos was seen a mound, which was said to cover the head of the famous Medusa, whose type is in the heaven, under the feet of Perseus. The moon, or Diana of Ephesus, was adorned with the figure of the Cancer, which is one of the twelve signs, and the mansion of this planet. The Ursa, adored under the name of Calisto, and the Bootes, under that of Arcas, had their tombs on Arcadia, near the altars of the sun. To the same Bootes a statue was erected at Byzantium, and also to Orion, the famous Nembrod of the Assyrians.

The Syrians had consecrated in their temples the images of Pisces, (fishes,) one of the signs. The constellations Nesra, or Eagle, Aiyuk, or Goat, Yagutho, or Pleiades, and Suwaha, or Alhouwoa, and the Serpentarius were objects of idolatry among the ancient Sabians. These names are found even now in Hyde's commentary on Ulug-Beigh. Lucian writes that the whole religious system of the Egyptians was taken from the heaven. The most of the cities were founded and built under the inspection and protection of one of the signs of the Zodiac. Their horoscope was drawn; hence the images of stars on their medals. The medals of Antioch represent the Ram, (Aries) with the crescent of the moon; those of the Mamertines the image of the Bull, (Taurus); those of the kings of Comargene, the image of the Scor[23]pion; and those of Zeugma and of Anazarba, the image of the Goat, (Capricornus). Nearly all the signs are found on the medals of the Antonines. The star Hesperus was on the national seal of the Locrians, of the Ozoles, and of the Opuntians.

Likewise we shall remark that the ancient feasts, or celebrations, were connected with the principal epochs of nature, and with the heavenly system. Everywhere the solsticial and equinoxial celebrations are found; even in our days the Catholics celebrate the beginning of each season of the year by fasting and abstaining from meat. Fohi, one of the most ancient emperors of China, ordered sacrifices to be offered to the gods at the commencement of each season. Four pavilions were erected to the moons of the four seasons. The ancient Chinese, Confucius says, established a sacrifice in honor of Chang-Ty, at the winter solstice, and one in the spring. The emperor alone has the privilege to preside at these two ceremonies, as being the son of heaven. The Greeks and the Romans did the same for like reasons.

The Persians have their Neurouz, or feast of the sun, when this king of the day passes under the Ram, or under the sign of the equinox of the spring. It is even now one of the greatest festivities in Persia. At the winter's solstice the ancient Egyptians led the sacred cow seven times around the temple; and at the equinox of the spring they solemnly celebrated the coming of the sun to once more vivify nature. The celebration of the tri[24]umph of fire and light took place in the city of the sun, in Assyria, and was called the celebration of wood-piles. The Catholic Church has borrowed this celebration from the heathen, and has fixed it on the Saturday before Easter.

The feasts celebrated by the Sabians to honor the planets, were fixed under the sign of their exaltation; sometimes under that of their mansion; so the feast of Saturn was celebrated by the Romans in December, under the Capricornus (Goat), mansion of this planet. All the celebrations of the old calendar of the Pontiffs were connected with the rise or setting of some constellation or star, as can be ascertained by reading the Fastes of Ovide. The religious genius of the Romans, and the relations of their celebrations with nature, are more especially seen in the games of the circus. The sun, the moon, the planets, the elements, the universe and its principal parts, were represented with emblems analagous to their nature. In the Hippodrome the sun was seen with steeds which imitated its course in the heavens.

The fields of Olympia were represented by a vast arena consecrated to the sun. In the middle there was a temple of this god, crowned with his image. The limits of the course of the sun, the Orient and the Occident, were traced, and marked by limits placed at the extremities of the circus. The races took place from the east to the west seven times, because of the seven planets. The sun, the moon, Jupiter and Venus, had each one[25] a chariot. The Aurigæ or drivers, wore garments representing the colors of the elements. The chariot of the sun was drawn by four steeds, and that of the moon by two. The Zodiac was represented in the circus by twelve gates; and also the revolution of the major and minor Ursas. The sea, or Neptune, the earth, or Ceres, and the other elements, were personified in actors who contended for the prize.

The phases of the moon were also celebrated, and particularly the neomeny or new-moon; for temples images and mysteries had been dedicated to the god Month, or Mensis. All the ceremonial of the procession of Isis, described in Apuleo, refers to nature and its parts. The sacred hymns of the ancients had the same object, if we may judge of them by those of Orpheus. Chun, one of the most ancient emperors of China, ordered many hymns to be composed to honor the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. All the prayers contained in the books Zends had the same objects. The poetical chants of ancient authors, who have transmitted to us the theogonies of Orpheus, of Linus, of Hesiod, etc., relate to nature and its agents. Hesiod thus addresses the Muses: "Sing the gods immortal, sons of the earth and of the starry sky; gods born from the bosom of night, and nursed by the Ocean; the bright stars, the immense vault of the firmament, and the gods sprung from them; the sea, the rivers, etc."

The songs of Iopas, in the banquet offered by[26] Dido to the Trojans, contain the lessons of the learned Atlas about the course of the sun and of the moon; about the origin of men, of animals, etc. In the Pastorals of Virgil, the old Silene sings the chaos and the organization of the world. Orpheus does the same in the Argonautics of Apollonius. The cosmogony of Sanchoniaton, or of the Phœnicians, conceals under the veil of allegories the great secrets of nature which were taught to those initiated. The philosophers who succeeded to the poets called all the parts of the universe divine. In the opinion of Pythagoras the celestial bodies were immortal and divine. The sun, the moon, and all the stars superabundantly contained heat, or principle of life. He placed the substance of the deity in the ethereal fire, of which the sun, he said, was the main focus.

Parmenides imagined a halo around the world, and called it the substance of the deity; the stars partook of the nature thereof. Alimeon of Crotona taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were the gods. Antisthenes acknowledged but one deity, nature. Plato attributed divinity to the world, to the sky, to the stars, and to the earth. Xenocrates and Heraclides admitted eight great gods, the seven planets and the heaven of the fixed stars. Theophrastes called the stars and the celestial signs first causes. Zenon said that the ether, the stars, time and its parts were gods. Cleanthes admitted the dogma of the divinity of the universe, and more especially of the ethereal fire that envel[27]ops the spheres, and penetrates them. Diogene, the Babylonian, related the whole mythology to nature. Chrysippus held that the world was God. He placed the divine substance in the ethereal fire, in the sun, in the moon, in the stars, in one word, in nature and its principal parts. Anaximandre, Anaximenes and Zenon had the same belief.

From this exposition of the religious and political monuments of ancient peoples, of their celebrations, and of the opinions of their philosophers; and also of the historical facts brought forth before, we draw these two logical and vital conclusions:—

1st. Therefore the adoration of the vast body of nature, together with the great soul which was supposed to animate it; and of its principal parts and members, together with the multifarious emanations of the great soul which was supposed to animate them, was the former and universal religion of mankind (excepting the Hebrews) before the coming of Jesus Christ.

2d. Therefore the heathens did not worship the idols themselves, to which they had given such and such forms to represent the objects of their adorations, but they worshiped what in their mind they represented, the universe taken collectively, as in the idol of Pan; and the universe taken separately, namely, the important parts of the universe, as in their innumerable idols of the planets, stars, rivers, etc.

[28]

CHAPTER II.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF MYSTERIES.

Whether the word mystery is derived from the Greek muo, I close, or from mueo, I teach, is not an important question, for the word mystery has always implied the double idea of secrecy and of instruction. Kings, emperors, and even the most liberal of the legislators, seem to have believed, from the very cradle of nations, that people ought to be governed with fables, because they are too weak minded, and too ignorant to understand and bear the truth. Of all the errors which have enshrouded the human race, none has been more injurious to progress, virtue, and happiness among men. Even in our days, of all the existing governments, there is but one, if any at all, which does not place its strength upon the erroneous basis that the people, being not able to understand and bear the truth, are more easily ruled by being kept in their ignorance and superstition. This great error gave birth to mysteries.

When men constituted themselves into national bodies, they chose men, and vested them with the power of administering their interests. Those[29] men forfeited their mandate, and became the tyrants of their constituents. In order to secure and perpetuate their sway, they associated to their personal interests hierophants, priests of all kinds, astronomers, philosophers, and poets, who composed fables, intended to have a moral bearing upon the people, and to make their masses believe them as being the truth. Those fables they called mysteries.

Egypt had her initiations, known under the name of mysteries of Osiris and Isis; from which those of Bacchus and Ceres were mostly copied. When we compare the courses and adventures of the Ceres of the Greek, with those of the Egyptian Isis, we can not but see the filiation of these two fables. The poems whose Bacchus is the hero, and the history of the Osiris, the ceremonies practiced to honor these two deities, and the identity of both acknowledged by the ancients, evidently prove that the mysteries of the latter have given birth to the former. Cybele and Atys had their initiations, and the Cabires also.

The Chinese had and still have mysteries on Foë, and Pousa; the Japanese upon Xaca and Amida; the Siamois on Sommonacodom; the Indians on Brama and Rudra; the Parsis upon Ormuzd and Ahriman. The Selles studied the mysterious words of the doves of Dodone; Persia, Ethiopia, Scythia, Gaul, and Scandinavia, had their caverns, their holy mounts, their sacred oaks, where the brahmanes, the astrologers, the gymno[30]sophists and the druids, pronounced the inexplicable oracle of the immortals. The Mahomedans have mysteries on the miracles of Mahomet.

We hope to interest and instruct the reader in translating the following extract from the Voyage of Anacharsis, a reliable work. Anacharsis is supposed to have traveled in Greece, in the fourth century before the Christian era. He thus relates the mysteries of Eleusis:

"I shall speak of the most important point of the religion of the Athenians, of those mysteries whose origin is lost in the night of ages; whose ceremonies inspire no less terror than veneration; and whose secret has never been revealed, except by a few persons who were immediately devoted to death, and to public execration; for the law not only pronounces against them the confiscation of their property and the loss of their life, but it orders that a column be erected, to perpetuate the rememberance of their crime and of their punishment.

"Of all the mysteries established in honor of the gods, none were more celebrated than those of Ceres. This goddess herself, it is said, regulated them, while she was wandering on the earth for the purpose of finding Proserpine, ravished by Pluto, she arrived in the plain of Eleusis. Pleased with the welcome extended to her by the inhabitants, she presented them with two signaled blessings, agriculture, and initiation to a sacred doctrine. It is added, that the minor mysteries[31] which are preparatory to the major, were instituted to the honor of Hercules.

"People believe, that, wherever the Athenians established the mysteries of Eleusis, the spirit of union and humanity became more general; because they free the soul from ignorance and stains; procure the particular assistance of the gods; the means of arriving at the perfection of virtue; the sweets of a holy life; the hope of a peaceable death, and of an endless bliss. Those initiated will occupy a distinguished place in the Elysian fields; they will enjoy a pure light, and they will dwell in the bosom of the Deity; whereas, those who are profane will dwell hereafter in abodes of darkness and of horror.

"In order to avoid such an alternative the Greeks flocked from everywhere to Eleusis to find the promised bliss. Though young, the Athenians are admitted to the ceremonies of the initiation; and those who never participated to them ask this favor before they die; the menaces and the pictures of the sufferings of another life, before considered as a subject of derision, cause a more vivid impression on the mind; and then terror generates weakness. However, there are enlightened men who do not believe that there is any need for them to be initiated in order to be virtuous. Socrates constantly declined joining the mysteries; and, one day, Diogenes being solicited, in my presence, to ask for initiation, answered: 'Patæcion, a famous thief, was initiated;[32] Epaminondas and Agesilas never asked for it. Can I believe that the former will go to the Elysian fields and the latter to the Tartarus.'

"All the Greeks can aspire to participate to the mysteries: an ancient law excludes the foreigners. The major mysteries are celebrated every year on the fifteenth of the month of Boedromion. The celebration of the minor mysteries is also annual, and takes place six months before. During the celebration of the major mysteries the tribunals are closed. The day following, the senate pronounces the penalty of death against those who have willfully disturbed the ceremonies. This severity is required to maintain order among the immense multitude of people. In time of war the Athenians send to their foes safe conducts to induce them to assist at the celebration.

"On the fourteenth of Boedromion, in the second year of the one hundred and ninth Olympiad, I left Athens with several of my friends. The gate through which the Athenians pass to go to Eleusis is called sacred. The space between these two cities is of about one hundred stadiums. After crossing a high hill decked with rosy laurels, we entered the territory of Eleusis; and we arrived on the banks of two small brooks consecrated, the one to Ceres, and the other to Proserpine. I mention them because the priests of the temple are the only ones who are permitted to fish in them; and because their waters are salted, and are used in the ceremonies of initiation.[33] Farther, on the bridge of a river named Cephize, we had to bear the mockeries of a numerous populace, who stand there to criticize the comers, and more especially the most distinguished men of the Republic. It is an old tradition that Ceres had been welcomed on this very spot by an old woman, called Yambe.

"At a short distance from the sea there is a high and long hill, at the eastern end of which the famous temple of Ceres and Proserpine has been reared. Further down is the small city of Eleusis. In the vicinity, and on the hill itself, there are chapels and altars, and rich country-seats. The temple, built under the care of Pericles, on the bare rock, is of pantelic marble; and is turned towards the Orient. It is so vast as magnificent; its enclosure at the south is of about three hundred and eighty-four feet, and at the east of three hundred and twenty-five. The most celebrated artists have adorned this temple with master-pieces of art.

"Among the numerous priests who officiate in the temple, there are four principal. The first is the Hierophant; his name designates the one who reveals the sacred things, and his main office is to initiate the postulants to the mysteries. He appears with a distinguished tunic; his forehead is decked with a diadem, and his hair is floating on his shoulders. His age must be mature enough to correspond with the gravity of his ministry, and his voice fine enough to be pleasing to the[34] ears. His priesthood is for life; and he is obliged to keep celibacy. The second priest carries the sacred flambeau in the ceremonies, and purifies the candidates; he has also the privilege of wearing a diadem. The two others are the sacred herald, and the assistant at the altar.

"The holiness of their ministry is rendered even more respectable by their noble birth. The Hierophant is chosen in the family of the Eumolpides, one of the most ancient of Athens; the sacred herald in that of the Ceryces, which is a collateral branch of the other; the two other priests belong also to illustrious families. These four priests have under their command other ministers, such as the interpreters, the singers, and other officers, who have the direction of the processions and other ceremonies. Also there are at Eleusis priestesses consecrated to Ceres and to Proserpine. They have the privilege of initiating certain persons on particular days, and to offer sacrifices.

"The celebrations are presided by the second of the Archontes, whose duty is to keep order, and to prevent any change or alteration in the worship. They last several days. Sometimes those initiated interrupt their sleep to continue their pious exercises: we saw them during the night crossing the enclosure, walking in silence two by two, and holding each one a lighted torch. When they reentered the sacred asylum they hastened their march; and I learned that they were going to figure[35] the courses of Ceres and of Proserpine; and that, in their rapid evolutions, they shook their torches, and handed them to each other. The light which springs out, it is said, has the virtue of purifying the souls, and becomes the symbol of the light which ought to instruct them.

"One day games were celebrated in the honor of the two goddesses. Famous champions had come from various parts of Greece, and the prize was a measure of barley, raised in the neighboring plain, whose inhabitants hold from Ceres the art of cultivating this sort of wheat. On the sixth day, the most brilliant of all, the priests of the temple, and those initiated, carried from Athens to Eleusis, the statue of Iacchus, said to be the son of Ceres or of Proserpine. The god, crowned with myrtle, held a flambeau. About thirty thousand people followed, making the air resound with the name of Iacchus. The march, led by the sound of instruments and the singing of hymns, was sometimes suspended to perform dances and sacrifices. The statue was introduced in the temple of Eleusis, and then taken back in his own, with the same splendors, and the same ceremonies.

"Many of those who composed the procession had been initiated only to the minor mysteries, annually celebrated in a small temple, situated near the Illissus. There a priest examines and prepares the candidates; he excludes them if they are guilty of enormous crimes, and particularly if they have committed murder, even without[36] purpose. He imposes upon the others frequent expiations, and teaches them the first rudiments of the sacred doctrine. This noviciate sometimes lasts several years, but generally one only. During the time of probation, the candidates assist at the celebration of the major mysteries; but they remain at the door of the temple.

"The initiation to the great mysteries had been appointed for the night following. One of the preparatory ceremonies was the offering of sacrifices, for the prosperity of the state, presided by the second of the Archontes. The novices were crowned with myrtle. Their robes seem to contract such a holiness that many of them wear them until they are worn out; others make of them swaddling-clothes for their children, or hang them in the temple. We saw them enter in the sacred hall; and, on the next morning, one of my friends, who had been newly initiated, related to me many of the ceremonies which he had witnessed.

"He told me, 'We found the ministers of the temple dressed in their pontifical robes. The Hierophant, who, in that moment, represents the author of the universe, had symbols which designated the power supreme. The flambeau-bearer and the assistant to the altar appeared with the attributes of the sun and of the moon; and the sacred herald with those of Mercury. We had just taken our seats when the herald exclaimed: 'Away from here ye profane and impious men,[37] and all those whose souls are contaminated with crimes!' The penalty of death was decreed against those who had the temerity of remaining in the temple without being entitled to it, after this admonition. The second of the priests ordered that the skins of the victims be spread beneath our feet; and he purified us anew. The rituals of initiation were loudly read, and hymns in the honor of Ceres were sung.

"Soon after a roar was heard. The earth seemed to shake. Amid lightning and thunder phantoms and spectres were seen roaming in darkness. They filled the holy hall with soul-rending groans and howlings. Sufferings, cares, diseases, poverty, and death, under hideous forms, struck our gaze. The Hierophant explained these various emblems, and his vivid pictures added to our terror. However, guided by a feeble light, we were advancing towards the regions of the Tartarus, where the souls get purified before they reach the abode of bliss. Amidst sorrowful voices we heard the bitter regrets of those who had committed suicide. They are punished, the Hierophant said, because they have deserted the posts assigned to them by the gods.

"He had scarcely pronounced these words, when brass gates were thrown open before us with a frightful roar, and then we saw the horrors of the Tartarus. It resounded with the rattle of chains, and the yells of its unfortunate inmates. Learn from us, did they say, to respect the gods,[38] and to be just and grateful. We saw the furies, armed with whips, unmercifully torturing the criminals. These frightening pictures, made more so by the sonorous and imposing voice of the Hierophant, who seemed to exercise the ministry of divine vengeance, filled our soul with terror. In fine, we were introduced in delightful thickets; in enameled meadows; fortunate abodes, image of the Elysean fields, where a pure light shone, where charming voices were heard. We passed into the sanctuary, where we saw the statue of the goddess resplendent with brightness, and dressed in the richest attire. In this sanctuary our trials ended; there our eyes saw, and our ears heard, what we are forbidden to reveal. I will simply confess that in the delirium of a holy joy we sung hymns of joy.'

"Such was the recital of the newly-initiated. Another told me a circumstance which the other omitted. One day, during the celebrations, the Hierophant uncovered the mysterious baskets, which are carried in the procession, and which are the object of the public veneration. They contained the sacred symbols, whose sight is prohibited to those uninitiated, and which are but cakes of various forms, grains of salt, and other objects, which relate to the history of Ceres, and to the dogmas taught in the mysteries. When those initiated have taken them from a basket, and put them in another, they say that they have fasted and drank the Ciceon.

[39]

"I often met with men who were not initiated, and who freely expressed their opinions about the secret doctrines taught in the mysteries. One of the disciples of Plato said: 'It seems to be certain that the Hierophant teaches the necessity of pains and rewards beyond the grave; and that he represents to the postulants the various destinies of men here below and hereafter. Also it seems to be certain that he teaches them, that, among the great number of deities adored by the multitude, the ones are pure spirits, who, ministers of the will of the god supreme, regulate under his command the motion of the universe; and the others have been simple mortals, whose tombs are kept yet in several parts of Greece. Is it not natural to think, that, in order to give a more accurate idea of the Deity, the institutors of mysteries endeavored to maintain, and to thus perpetuate a dogma, whose vestiges are more or less visible in the opinions, and ceremonies, of nearly all nations—that of a God, who is the principal and end of all things? Such is, in my opinion, the august secret revealed to those initiated.'

"No doubt political ends encouraged the institution of this religious association. Polytheism was generally spread, and was pleasing the people, but on account of the multiplicity of the gods it was dangerous to society. It was thought wiser not to destroy this belief, but to counterbalance it by a purer religion. As the people are more restrained by the laws than by abstract principles[40] of morals, the legislators contrived to harmonize the superstition of the people with purer religious and moral principles, which they should simultaneously teach. 'Thus,' the disciple of Plato added, 'you understand why the gods are represented on the theatre of Athens: the magistrates who do not believe the false doctrines of Polytheism are very careful not to repress a superstition and a license, which amuse the people, and whose repression would indispose them.

"'Also you understand how two religions, though opposed in their dogmas, conjointly exist in peace and harmony in the same cities. The reason of it is, that, though their dogmas are different, these religions use the same language, and that the truth has for the error the same tolerance, and courtesy, which the truth should obtain from the error. Externally the mysteries present but the worship adopted by the people. The hymns sung in public, and the most of the ceremonies retrace to the masses many circumstances of the rape of Proserpine, of the courses of Ceres, of her arrival and sojourn at Eleusis. The vicinity of this city is full of monuments reared in the honor of the goddess, and the priests show, as yet, the stone upon which, tradition relates, she rested when exhausted with fatigue. Thus, on one hand, the ignorant people believe appearances as if they were realities; and on another hand, those who have been initiated, having a clear sight of the spirit of the mysteries, think they are right on account of the purity of their intentions.'

[41]

"Whatever it may be of the supposition I have related, the initiation is now but a vain ceremony. Those who have been initiated are not more virtuous than the others; every day they violate their pledge of abstaining from fowl, from fish, from pomegranates, from beans, and several other kinds of fruits, and of vegetables. Several have contracted this sacred engagement through unworthy means; for, not long ago, we have seen the government permitting the sale of the privilege of participating to the mysteries; and, for a long while, women of ill fame have been admitted to initiation."

As it would require volumes to describe the ceremonies of all these Pagan mysteries, we shall only examine their general character; show forth their end; group together their common features, and glance at the means used by political and religious leaders, to give a full scope to this powerful governmental engine.

The mysteries of Eleusis, and in general of all mysteries, aimed at the amelioration of mankind, at the reformation of morals, and at taking hold of the souls of men with more power than through the means of the laws. If the means used was not lawful, we must however confess that the aim was laudable, not in the minds of kings, emperors, hierophants and other priests, but in itself. Cicero, the illustrious Roman orator, said, that the institution of mysteries was one of the most useful to humanity; at least the mysteries of Eleusis, whose[42] effects, he added, have been to civilize nations; to soften the barbarous and ferocious habits and morals of the first societies of men; and to make known the most important principles of morals, which initiate man to a sort of life that is worthy of his nature.

The same was said of Orpheus, who introduced in Greece the mysteries of Bacchus. Poets wrote of him, that he had tamed tigers and lions; and that he attracted even trees and rocks with the melodious strains of his lyre. Mysteries aimed at the establishment of the reign of justice and of religion, in the system of the rulers, who, from policy, maintained the one by the other. This double end is contained in this verse of Virgil:—"Learn from me to respect justice and the gods;" this was the great lesson given by the Hierophant when the postulants were initiated.

Those initiated learned in those profound sanctuaries, under the dark and deep veil of fables, their duties towards their fellow men; pretended duties which they were taught to the gods, and, more unfortunately yet, pretended duties towards their political and religious leaders, or rather tyrants.

Rulers used all imaginable means to give a supernatural character to their laws, and to make the people believe that they had this character. The imposing picture of the universe, and the poetry of mythological conceptions, gave to the legislators the subject of the varied and wonderful[43] scenes which were represented in the temples of Egypt, of Asia, and of Greece. All that can produce illusion, all the resources of witchcraft and of theatrical exhibitions, which were but the secret knowledge of the effects of nature, and the art of imitating them; the brilliant pomp of festivities; the variety and riches of decorations and costumes; the majesty of the ceremonial; the captivating power of music; the choirs; the chants; the dances; the electrifying sounds of cymbals, calculated to produce enthusiasm and delirium, and more favorable to religious exaltation than the calm of reason, all was brought to action to attract the people to the celebration of the mysteries; and to create in their souls a want, a desire for them.

Under the charms of pleasure, of rejoicings and of celebrations, legislators and other rulers oftentimes concealed a salutary aim; and they treated the people like a child, which can never be more efficaciously instructed, than when he thinks that his preceptor intends only to amuse him. They resorted to great institutions to shape society; to form habits; and to direct public opinion and morals.

How magnificent was the procession of those initiated advancing to the temple of Eleusis! The banners, the sacred chants, the music, the costumes, and the dances, had a rapturous effect on the masses. They thronged an immense temple; we say immense, for if we judge the number of those initiated by the number of those who assem[44]bled in the plains of Thriase, when Xerxes went to Attic, they were more than thirty thousand. The costly and glowing ornaments which decked the vast hall, the symbolic statues, which were master-pieces of sculpture, and the mysterious pictures which were symmetrically arranged in the rotunda of the sanctuary, filled the soul with amazement, and with a religious respect.

All that was seen in the temple, the decorations, costumes, ceremonies, splendor; and all that was heard, the sacred chants, the melody of instruments, the mythological teaching, the elevating poetry and the eloquence of orators, struck the spectators with wonder, produced and left in their souls the most profound impressions. Not only the universe was presented to their gaze under the emblem of an egg divided into twelve parts, representing the months of the year, but also the division of the universe into cause active and cause passive, and its division into the Principle of light, or good god, and the Principle of darkness, or bad god.

Varron informs us that the great gods adored at Samothrace were the heaven and the earth, considered, the first as the cause active, and the second as the cause passive of generation. In other mysteries the same idea was retraced by the exposition of the Phallus and of the Cteis. It is the Lingham of the Indians.

The same was done in regard to the division of the world into two Principles, the one of light, or[45] good god, and the other of darkness, or bad god. Plutarch writes, that this religious dogma had been consecrated in the initiations, and in the mysteries of all nations; and the example which he puts forth, extracted from both the theology of the Chaldeans, and from the dogma of the symbolic egg produced by these two Principles, is a proof of it. In the temple of Eleusis there were scenes of darkness and of light, which were successively presented to the eyes of the candidates to initiation: those scenes retraced the combats of the Principle of light, or good god, and of the Principle of darkness, or bad god.

In the cavern of the god Sun, or Mithra, the priests had represented, among the mysterious pictures of the initiation, the descent of the souls to the earth, and their return to the heavens through the seven planetary spheres. Also were exhibited the phantoms of invisible powers, which chained them to bodies, or freed them from their bonds. Several millions of men witnessed those various spectacles, of which they were most severely forbidden to speak before the public. However the poets, the orators, and the historians give us in their writings some idea of what were those scenes, formulas, ceremonies, fables, and morals,—as, for instance, in what they have written about the adventures of Ceres, and of her daughter. There was seen the chariot of this goddess drawn by dragons; it seemed to hover above the earth and the seas. It was a true theatrical exhibition.[46] The variety of the scenes was pleasing, and the play of machines was attractive. Grave were the actors, majestic the ceremonial, and passion-stirring the fables and representations.

The hierophants, or priests, profoundly versed in the knowledge of the genius of the people, and in the art of leading them, availed of the minutest circumstances to create in them the desire to be initiated to their mysteries. Night seems to be the mother of secrecy and the emblem of mystery; it is favorable to prestige and illusion; in consequence they celebrated their mysteries in the night. The fifth day of the celebration of the mysteries of Eleusis was renowned by the superb torchlight procession, in which those initiated, holding each one a bright torch, walked two by two wearing enigmatic emblems.

It was during the night, that the Egyptians solemnly and processionally went to the shore of a lake; they embarked, and landed in an island beautifully situated in the middle of the lake; and there they celebrated the mysteries of the passion of Osiris. At other times those celebrations took place in vast and dark grottos, or in retired and shady thickets. Even now, in France, are seen caverns where the Druids celebrated their mysteries; and forests where the Gauls assembled at midnight; hung the heads of their vanquished enemies; immolated a young virgin on the altar of Teutates; and celebrated their mysteries under the leadership of the Druids.

[47]

The ceremonial of the mysteries was ordained, particularly among the civilized and populous nations, in such a manner that it could not fail to excite the curiosity of the people, who naturally eagerly desire and seek to know what is held in secrecy. Legislators and hierophants rendered this curiosity more intense by the extremely stringent law of secrecy imposed upon those initiated. Thus the profane, namely, those uninitiated, were the more desirous to be acquainted with the mysteries, and thus they joined them in large numbers. Legislators gave to this spirit of secrecy the most specious pretext. It was proper, they said, to imitate the gods who concealed themselves from man's gaze, for the purpose of creating in his soul the desire to find them; and who have made the phenomena of nature a profound secret to them, in order to stimulate them to the study of the universe. Those initiated were not permitted to speak of the mysteries except among themselves. The penalty of death had been decreed against the one who would have revealed them, even without purpose; and also against any one who would have entered the sacred temple before having been previously initiated.

Aristoteles was accused of impiety by the hierophant Eurymedon, for having sacrificed to the manes of his wife, according to the rite practiced in the worship of Ceres. He had to flee, and to retire at Chalcis to save his life; and in order to clear his name from this stain he ordered his heirs[48] to erect a statue to Ceres. Eschyles, having been charged with having written about mysterious subjects, saved his life only by proving that he had never been initiated. The entry of the temple of Ceres, and the participation to her mysteries, were prohibited to the slaves, and to those whose birth was not legal; to women of ill fame, to the philosophers who denied a Providence, such as the Epicureans, etc. This interdiction was considered as a great deprivation, for it was generally believed among the people that initiation was the greatest blessing.

In fact, those initiated were taught that they belonged to a class of privileged beings, and were the favorites of the gods. The priests of Samothrace credited their initiation by promising favorable winds, a speedy and safe navigation to travelers who were candidates to their mysteries. Those initiated to the mysteries of Orpheus believed that they were no longer under the rule of the evil principle; that initiation made them holy, and secured to them future happiness. After the ceremonies of the initiation the candidate thus answered to the priest: "I have rejected the evil and found the good." After that he considered himself, and was considered by his fellows, wholly purified.

Those who were initiated to the mysteries of Eleusis believed that the sun shone brighter and purer to their eyes than to the sight of other men; also that the goddesses inspired and gave them[49] counsels from the heaven, as seen by the example of Pericles. Initiation was considered as freeing the soul from the darkness of error; as preventing misfortunes; and as securing happiness on earth.

One of the greatest blessings and privileges of the initiation, the hierophant and other priests taught, was to secure here below a direct communion with the gods, and more especially beyond the grave. According to Cicero, Isocrates, and the rhetor Aristides, when he who had been initiated departed from this earthly life he inhabited meadows enameled with flowers of a celestial beauty, and lighted with a sun brighter and purer than the one we see. In that charming abode he was to live centuries, and long preserve his youth. When arrived at an old age, he was to become young again. There was no labor, no sorrow, but all was rapture and delight.

In the Greek and Roman mysteries the unity and also the trinity of God were consecrated dogmas. Jupiter was adored as the father of the gods and of men, and as filling the whole universe with his power. He was the supreme monarch of nature: the names of gods ascribed to the other deities were more of an association in the title than in the nature of their power, for each one of them had a particular work to perform under the command of the supreme God. In the mysteries of the religion of the Greeks, a hymn expressing the unity of God or Jupiter was sung; and the High Priest, turning towards the worshipers, said:[50] "Admire the master of the universe; he is one; he is everywhere." It was acknowledged by Eusebius, St. Augustine, Lactance, Justin, Athenagoras, and many other Fathers of the Church, that the dogma of the unity of God was admitted by ancient philosophers, and was the basis of the religion of Orpheus, and of all the mysteries of the Greeks.

The Platonicians believed in the unity of the archetype, or model on which God formed the world; also they believed in the unity of demiourgos, or god-forming, by a consequence of the same philosophical principles, namely, from the unity itself of the universe, as can be seen in Proclus, and in the writings of the Platonician authors.

Trinity also, (see chapter fifth) was taught in the mysteries. Pythagoras, and many other philosophers, explained the unity and trinity of God by the theory of numbers. They called the monade cause, or principle. They expressed by the number one, or unit, the first cause, and they concluded to the unity of God from mathematical abstractions. Next to this unity they placed triades, which expressed faculties or powers emanated from them, and also intelligences of a second order. The triple incarnation of the god Wichnou into the body of a virgin was one of the doctrines taught in the mysteries of Mithra.

So much for the mysteries of Paganism; however, we shall, in the course of this work, refer to them several times. Let us now examine the[51] origin of the mysteries, which, the Partialists say, Jesus Christ has taught. Mysteries suppose secrecy; but Jesus Christ preached his Gospel in the open air to his apostles, to his disciples, to crowds of people, and to all who were willing to hear his doctrines. He urged upon his disciples to preach above the roofs what he taught them. When, after his death, his apostles spread his gospel, they spoke in open air, everywhere, to masses of people; Paul to the Areopagus, to thousands in Jerusalem, etc. How then can it be supposed that Jesus Christ taught mysteries? Indeed, he did not, but afterwards several Christian churches did.

The Protestant historian, Mosheim, cites in his History of the Church, several authors, who state, that, in the second century, several Christian churches imitated the mysteries of Paganism. The profound respect, they say, that the people entertained for those mysteries, and the extraordinary sacredness ascribed to them were for the Christians a motive sufficient to give a mysterious appearance to their religion, so as to command as much respect to the public as the religion of the Pagans. To this effect they called mysteries the institutions of the Gospel, particularly the Eucharist. They used in this ceremony, and in that of baptism, several words and rites consecrated in the mysteries of the Pagans. This abuse commenced in Orient, chiefly in Egypt; Clement of Alexandria, in the beginning of the third century,[52] was one of those who contributed the most to this innovation, which then spread in Occident when Adrian had introduced the mysteries in that portion of the Empire. Hence, a large portion of the service of the Church hardly differed from that of Paganism.

That the Church of Rome copied many of the ceremonies, rites, customs, and fables of Pagan mysteries is certain, for they have been perpetuated in that Church down to our days. From the Pagan mysteries the Roman Church borrowed the following:

In the initiation to the Pagan mysteries there were degrees; so in the Roman Church there are the degrees of porter or door-keeper, of acolyte, of reader and of exorcist; the latter degree confers the power of expelling the devil. The ecclesiastical ornaments in the Church of Rome, with the difference of the cross represented on them and of some trimming, are like those used in the mysteries of the Pagans, at least in Rome, and in Greece. The long floating gown, the girdle, the casula, the stola, the dalmatica, the round and pyramidal cap, the capa, and several other garments and ornaments, are alike to those used in the temples, where the mysteries of the Pagans were celebrated.

In those temples there was an altar richly decorated; so it is in the Church of Rome. In those temples there were twelve flambeaux, representing the twelve months of the year: so there are in[53] Catholic churches, upon the first degree above the altar, six chandeliers with six tapers burning during the celebration of the mysteries or mass; six others are on the second degree. The vestals kept a light constantly burning in the Pagan temples: so a lamp is kept burning, day and night, near the altar, in the Catholic churches. In the Pagan temples the disc of the sun and his beams were represented: so they are in the Catholic churches. Upon the altar, in the Pagan temples, there was an image of the god Osiris or Bacchus, and the emblems of an aries or lamb: so upon the altar, in Catholic churches, there is a tabernacle in which God is said to dwell, and the door of the tabernacle represents a bleeding lamb.

The Pagans solemnly and processionally carried the image of Osiris, or Bacchus, around the head of which there was a halo representing the rays of the sun: so in the Romish church the priests processionally and with great pomp, carry, both in the aisles of the churches and on the streets, a wafer which they call God. It is encased in a silver or gold ostenserium, whose circular centre, in which their pretended God is seen between two crystals, is shaped like the disc of the sun; and the outside, of which called halo or glory, is shaped like his rays. In the Pagan temples there was a sanctuary exclusively reserved to the high-pontiff, and to the priests: so it is in the Catholic churches. In the Pagan temples the sanctuary was turned towards the Orient: so it is in the Catholic churches.

[54]

The Pagans did not permit their candidates to initiation to assist at the celebration of the mysteries, which was always preceded by this formula, solemnly and loudly spoken by an officer, "Away from here ye profane and impious men, and all those whose soul is contaminated with crimes!" So in Catholic churches, not now, but from the first centuries down to the middle age, the deacon arose after the homily, turned toward the assistant, and ordered the catechumens to leave the church, because the celebration of the mysteries was to commence. Those mysteries are the mass, during which the priest who officiates commands Jesus Christ to descend from heaven into a wafer, which he, (priest,) holds in his hands, and to change it into his own blood, flesh, soul, and divinity. The Pagans initiated the candidates near the front door of their temples: so in the Catholic churches, the baptismal fonts where the catechumens are initiated, namely, baptized, are placed near the portal. Here we shall remark, that, for many centuries, children are baptized, (even now parents are obliged under the pain of mortal sin to have their children taken to the church to be baptized) three days after they are born. The Pagans initiated candidates chiefly on the eve of great celebrations: so, in the Romish church, catechumens are baptized chiefly on the eve of Easter, and of Pentecost.

The Pagans believed that initiation made them holy; so the Romish church holds that baptism[55] remits the original and all other sins, and makes holy. The Pagans revered in their temples the statue of Pan, in whose hands was a seven-pipe flute; also, they revered other emblems of the seven planets: so in the Romish Church holds the doctrine of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, and of the doctrine of the seven sacraments. In the month of February the Pagans celebrated the Lupercales, and the feast of Proserpine: so the Church of Rome celebrates the Candlemas-day. We cite the very words of Bergier, a Catholic priest, and an ultra Papist, who writes thus in his Theological Dictionary; article Candlemas:

"Several authors ascribe the institution of Candlemas-day to the pope Gelase, for the purpose of opposing it to the Lupercales of the Pagans, who went processionally out in the fields making exorcisms. It is the opinion of the venerable Bede. 'The Church,' he says, 'has happily changed the lustrations of the Pagans, which took place in February around the fields. She has substituted to them processions, in which the people carry in their hands burning tapers.' Others ascribe this institution to the pope Vigil, and say that it has been substituted to the feast of Proserpine, which the Pagans celebrated in the first days of February with torches.'

The Pagans worshiped Juno as the wife of the god Jupiter: so the Church of Rome worships the virgin Mary as the wife of God. The Pagans celebrated the exaltation of the virgo or virgin,[56] the sixth sign and seventh constellation in the ecliptic; so the Romish Church has established the feast of Assumption, namely, of the ascension of the virgin Mary to heaven. The Pagans made solemn processions to honor the goddess Ceres; so the Romish Church has instituted pompous processions in the honor of the virgin Mary.

Remark.—All the above institutions and doctrines of the Romish Church, and also those which we shall examine in the following chapters, date from the first centuries. All the Catholic doctors, theologians, and historians, confess it.

From the numerous and undeniable historical facts summed up in this chapter we legitimately draw the conclusions, 1st. That, in the first centuries of the Christian era, the Church of Rome established mysteries; 2d. That the Church of Rome borrowed her mysteries from the mysteries of the Pagans; and, 3d. That a law of secrecy was binding the catechumens after their initiation, though this law was not so stringent as it was among the Pagans.

When, in the sixteenth century, the Protestants shook the yoke of the Pope, they rejected many of the mysteries of the Church of Rome; however, they kept several of them, such as the mystery of Trinity, namely, of three Gods composing but one God; the mystery of incarnation, namely of God himself descending from the heavens, vesting our mortal clay in the womb of a woman for the purpose of being persecuted and slain on a cross[57] by men, thus pay to himself the debt owed to him by men who had disobeyed him, (though they did not live yet,) in the person of Adam. These, we say, and other mysteries of the Romish Church, the Protestants or Heterodox in the opinion of the Catholics, preserved and transmitted them to their sons, or Partialists, who now call the Roman Catholics heathens; call the liberal Christian Churches heterodox, and call themselves most emphatically Evangelical Churches, Orthodox Churches.

The final and strictly logical conclusion of this chapter is this:

Therefore the mysteries of the Romish Church, and those of the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, are of Pagan origin.

Corollary. Since mysteries are of Pagan origin, and since Jesus Christ and his apostles did not establish mysteries, there ought not to be mysteries in Christianity. Since Jesus Christ and his apostles preached the Gospel in open air to all, everywhere, there cannot be any mysteries in their teaching, and there cannot be any mysteries in their writings, we mean in the New Testament.

[58]

CHAPTER III.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF A PERSONAL DEVIL.

The celebrated Plutarch, historian, philosopher, and priest of Apollo, in the first century of the Christian era, thus writes: "We ought not to believe that the Principles of the universe are not animated, as Democrite and Epicure thought; nor that an inert matter be organized, and ordained by a Providence that disposes of all, as the Stoicians taught. It is impossible that one sole being, either good or bad, be the author of all, for God can cause no evil. The harmony of the world is a combination of contraries like the strings of a lyre, or like the string of a bow capable of being bent and unbent. In no case, the poet Euripedes says, good is separated from evil: there must be a mixture of the one and of the other. This opinion is of immemorial antiquity, and has been held by theologians, legislators, poets, and philosophers. Its inventor is unknown, but it is verified by the traditions of mankind; it is consecrated by mysteries and sacrifices among the Barbarians, as well as among the Greeks. They all acknowledge the dogma of two opposite Prin[59]ciples in nature, who, by their opposition, produce the mixture of good and evil.

"Therefore it may not be said, that a single dispenser draws events like a liquor from two casks to mix them together; for this mixture is found in all the phenomena of nature. We must admit two opposite causes, two contrary powers, bearing the one to the right, and the other to the left; and who thus govern our life and the whole sublunar world, which for this reason is subject to all the irregularities and vicissitudes we witness, for nothing is done without a cause. As the good cannot produce evil, then there is a principle causing evil, as one causing good."

We see by this passage of Plutarch, that the true origin of two Principles proceeds from the difficulty which men, in all times, found in explaining, by one sole cause, good and evil in nature, and in making flow from one sole spring, virtue and crime, light and darkness. "This dogma," Plutarch adds, "has been admitted by nearly all nations, and more especially by those renowned by their wisdom. They believed in two gods of different trade, if I may say so, who caused, the one good, and the other evil. They called the first God by excellence, and the second Demon."

In fact the Persians, disciples of Zoroaster admitted, and even in our days, the Parsis, their successors, admit two principles, the one called Oromaze, and the other Ahriman. Plutarch says: "The Persians believed that the first was of the[60] nature of light, and the second of that of darkness. Among the Egyptians the first was called Osiris, and the second Typhon, eternal foe to the first."

All the sacred books of the Persians, and of the Egyptians, contain the marvellous and allegorical recital of the various combats given by Ahriman and his angels to Oromaze, and by Typhon to Osiris. These fables have been rehearsed by the Greeks in the war of the Titans against the Giants, against Jupiter, or Principle of good and light; for Jupiter, Plutarch remarks, was the Oromaze of the Persians, and the Osiris of the Egyptians.

To these examples quoted by Plutarch, and which he extracted from the Theogony of the Persians, of the Egyptians, of the Greeks, and of the Chaldeans, we shall add others, which are living yet, at least the most of them. The inhabitants of the kingdom of Pegu admit two Principles; the one author of good, and the other of evil. They particularly endeavor to obtain the favor of the latter. The Indians of Java acknowledge a chief supreme of the universe, and address offerings and prayers to the evil genius lest he harm them. The Indians of the Moluc and Philippine islands do the same. The natives of the island of Formose worshiped a good god, Ishy, and demons, Chouy; they sacrifice to the latter, but seldom to the former.

The negroes of the Cote-d'or admit two Gods,[61] the one good, and the other bad; the one white, and the other black and evil. They do not adore the former often, whereas they try to appease the latter with prayers and sacrifices; the Portuguese have named him Demon. The Hottentots call the good Principle the Captain of above, and the bad principle the Captain of below. The ancients believed that the source of evil was in the underneath matter of the earth. The Giants and Typhon were sons of the Earth. The Hottentots say, that, whether the good Principle is prayed to or not he does good; whereas it is necessary to pray to the evil Principle, lest he might do harm. They call the bad god Touquoa, and represent him small, crooked, irritable, a foe to them; and they say that from him all evils flow to this world.

The natives of Madagascar believe in two Principles. They ascribe to the bad one the form and badness of a serpent, they call him Angat: they name the good one Jadhar, which means great, omnipotent God. They rear no temple to the latter because he is good. The Mingrelians more particularly honor the one of their idols, which they think to be the most cruel. The Indians of the island of Teneriffe believe in a supreme God, whom they call Achguaya-Xerax, which means the greatest, the most sublime, the preserver of all things. Also they admit an evil genius named Guyotta.

The Scandinaves have their god Locke, who wars against the gods, and particularly against[62] Thor. He is the slanderer of the gods, Edda says, the great forger of deceit. His spirit is evil; he engendered three monsters; the wolf Feuris, the serpent Midgard, and Hela, or death. He causes the earthquakes. The Tsouvaches and the Morduans recognize a supreme being, who gave men all the blessings they enjoy. They also admit evil spirits whose occupation is to injure mankind.

The Tartars of Katzchinzi adore a benevolent god, in kneeling towards the Orient; but they fear another god, Toüs, to whom they pray to disarm his wrath; and to whom, in the spring, they sacrifice a stallion. The Ostiaks and the Vogouls name that evil god Koul; the Samoyedes name him Sjoudibe; the Motores, Huala; the Kargasses, Sedkyr. The Thibetans admit evil spirits which they place in the regions above. The religion of the Bonzes supposes two Principles. The Siamoeses sacrifice to an evil spirit, whom they consider as being the cause of all the misfortunes of mankind.

The Indians have their Ganga and their Gournatha, spirits whom they try to appease with prayer, sacrifices, and processions. The inhabitants of Tolgony, India, believe that two Principles govern the universe; the one good, he is light; and the other bad, he is darkness. The ancient Assyrians, as well as the Persians, admitted two Principles; and they honored, Augustine says, two gods, the one good, and the other bad. The Chaldeans also had their good and bad stars, animated by geniuses or intelligences also good and bad.

[63]

In America the dogma of two Principles, and of good and bad spirits, is also found. The Peruvians revered Pacha-Camac as being a good god, and Cupaï as being a bad god. The Caraïbs admitted two sorts of spirits; the one benevolent, who dwell in the heaven; and the other evil, who hover over us to lead us to temptation. The former, on the contrary, invite us to do good, and each of us is guarded by one of them. Those of Terra-Firma think that there is a god in the heaven, namely, the sun. Besides they admit a bad Principle, who is the author of all evils; they present him with flowers, fruits, corn, and perfumes. The Tapayas, situated in America by about the same latitude as the Madegasses in Africa, believe also in two Principles.

The natives of Brazil believe in a bad genius: they call him Aguyan; and they have conjurors who can, they say, divert his wrath. The Indians of Florida and of Louisiana adored the sun, the moon, and the stars. They also believed in an evil spirit named Toïa. The Canadians, and the savage tribes of the Bay of Hudson, revered the sun, the moon, the stars, and the thunder; but they more particularly prayed to the evil spirits. The Esquimaux believe in a god supremely good, whom they call Ukouma, and in another, Ouikan, who is the author of all evils; who causes the tempests, and who capsizes the boats. The savages of the strait of Davis believe in beneficent and malignant spirits.

[64]

This distinction of two Principles, of a god, and of geniuses or spirits, authors of good and light; and of a god and geniuses, authors of evil and darkness, is immemorial. This opinion has been so universally adopted for the only reason, that those who observed the opposite phenomena of nature could not account for them, and could not reconcile them with the existence of a single cause. As there are good and bad men, they believed that there were good and bad gods, the ones dispensers of good, and the others authors of evil.

Such was the universal belief when Jesus Christ came to the world. The Jews themselves, since the captivity of Babylon, generally believed in those two Principles. They went so far as to immolate their own children on the altars of evil deities, in order to appease them. Jesus preached his Gospel, died, and left on earth his apostles with the trust of continuing, among men, his saving mission. As in the writings of the Evangelists the word demon, or devil, was used figuratively, meaning lust, wrong desire, etc., some of the first Christians understood the true sense of these figurative words, and others did not. In the third century the Church of Rome, which had been tending to supremacy over other churches, and which, from policy, to gain more adepts, was compromising with Paganism, understood the word demon, or devil, literally, and preserved the heathen doctrine, which, as she grew, became widely spread, and afterwards an article of faith.

[65]

The Fathers of the Church, of that age, believed that the demons, or devils, were innumerable; that their chief, Lucifer, had entrusted a demon to accompany each man through life, to tempt him to sin; that Lucifer had as many bad angels, or demons, under his command, as God had good angels; that all those demons were corporeal, and that those male committed fornication and adultery with the daughters of men; and those female with the sons of men; that they had generated the giants; and that they had incited the oppressors of the Christians to persecute them. Thus thought Justin, Tatian, Minutius-Felix, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Julius-Firmicus, Origen, Synesius, Arnobe, St. Gregory of Nazianze, Lactance, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, etc., as seen in their works in either edition of the Benedictines, or of the canon Caillot, of Migne, a priest, now editor in Paris. Even in our days the most of the superstitious practices of the Pagans, in regard to evil spirits, are preserved in the Papal Church,—conjurations, exorcisms, Agnus Dei, holy water, etc., and others which they have added, such as the sign of the cross, the expulsion of the devil from houses, barns, wells, wagons, beasts, fields, etc. These ceremonies are oftentimes performed, as a matter of course, for money.

The same took place in the Church of Rome in reference to the heathen dogma of good angels being under the command of the good spirit, or God; this dogma was generally believed even by[66] the Jews, at least since the captivity of Babylon. We say generally, because the Sadduceans did not believe it; and perhaps, also, the Samaritans and the Caraïtes, for we have but two testimonies that prove they partook of the opinion of the Samaritans on this point, namely, the testimony of Abusaïd, author of an Arabic version of the Pentateuch, and that of Aaron, in his commentaries of the same. The Papal Church holds still that the angels form three hierarchies, or choirs. The first is that of the Seraphims, Cherubims, and thrones; the second comprises the dominations, the virtues, and the powers; and the third is composed of the principalities, of the archangels, and of the angels. One of these angels, called guardian, is obliged to stand by each one of us all the days of our life. Temples, altars, prayers and sacrifices are offered to them.

Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, etc., thought that the bodies of the good angels were formed of a very thin, subtle matter. Other Fathers, Basile, Athanase, Cyrille, Gregory of Nysse, John-Chrysostomus, etc., considered them as spiritual beings; however, they believed that they may take a body when they please. The Church of Rome holds, as an article of faith, that the good angels ought to be adored.

As seen above, the Church of Rome has preserved, with a very slight modification, if any, the heathen dogma of two Principles, the one good, God; and the other bad, Lucifer, or the devil; also[67] the nomenclature of geniuses, or spirits, or angels, which are, the ones under the command of God, and the others under the command of Lucifer. When, in the sixteenth century, the Protestants parted with the Church of Rome, they cut off many branches of this dogma; but they kept its body, namely, instead of understanding the words demon, or devil, as meaning lust, abuse of free agency, wrong desire, etc., they understood them of personal beings, either material or immaterial, but existing, tempting each man to sin; and relentlessly seeking the ruin of mankind.

Therefore the doctrine of a Personal Devil is of Pagan origin.

[68]

CHAPTER IV.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN.

The Roman Catholic writers are unanimous in the opinion that it was the belief of a large number of Pagans that man had fallen from a higher state of existence. St. Augustine, more especially, lengthily and emphatically insists upon the general belief of the Pagans in original sin, when he writes against Pelage. However, we shall bring forth other testimonies, which will not leave, in the mind of the reader, any doubt that the Pagans generally believed in original sin.

Cicero, in his work De Republica, book third, after painting the grandeur of the human nature, and then contrasting its subjection to miseries, to diseases, to sorrow, to fear, and to the most degrading passions, was at a loss to define man. He called him a soul in ruins. It was for the same reason that, in Plato, Socrates reminds to his disciples that those who had established mysteries, and who, he said, were not to be despised, taught that according to their ancestors, any one who dies without having been purified is plunged into the mire of the Tartarus; whereas, he who has been[69] purified dwells with the gods. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, book third, writes, that, according to the testimony of Philolaüs, the Pythagorician, all the ancient theologians and poets said that the soul was buried in the body, as in a grave, as a punishment for some sin. It was also the doctrine of the Orphics, as can be seen in Plat., Cratyl., Opera, tome third.

In the pages 48, 50, and 51, of the treatise of Plutarch, on the Delays of Divine Justice, we read: "A State, for instance, is one same thing continued, a whole, alike to an animal which is ever the same, and the age thereof does not change the identity. The State then being one, as long as the association maintains the unity, the merit and the demerit, the reward and the punishment for all that is done in common are justly ascribed to it, as they are to a single individual. But if a State is to be considered in this point of view, it ought to be the same with a family proceeding from the same stock, from which it holds I do not know what sort of hidden strength; I do not know what sort of communication of essence and qualities, which extend to all the individuals of the race. Beings produced through the medium of generation are not similar to the productions of arts. In regard to the latter, when the work is completed it is immediately separated from the hand of the workman, and it no longer belongs to him: true it is done by him, but not from him. On the contrary, what is engendered proceeds from the substance itself of the[70] generating being; so that it holds from him something which is justly rewarded or punished in his stead, for that something is himself."

According to the doctrine of the Persians, Meshia and Meshiane, or the first man and first woman, were first pure, and submitted to Ormuzd, their maker. Ahriman saw them and envied their happiness. He approached them under the form of a serpent, presented fruits to them, and persuaded them that he was the maker of man, of animals, of plants, and of the beautiful universe in which they dwelled. They believed it; and since that Ahriman was their master. Their nature became corrupt, and this corruption infected their whole posterity. This we find in Vendidat-Sade, pages 305, and 428.

Thus sin does not originate from Ormuzd; but, Zoroaster says, from the being hidden in crime. This testimony is found in the Exposition of the Theological System of the Persians, extracted from the books Zends, Pehlvis, and Parsis, by Anquetil du Perron. The following passage, "There are stains brought by man when he comes to life," is found in the 69th tome of the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions.

We read in the Ezour-Vedam, book 1, chapter 4, tome 1, pages 201 and 202: "God never created vice. He cannot be its author; and God, who is holiness and wisdom, can be the author but of virtue. He gave us his law in which he prescribes what we ought to do. Sin is a trans[71]gression of this law by which it is prohibited. If sin reigns on the earth, we ourselves are its authors. Our perverse inclinations have induced us to transgress the law of God; hence, the first sin which has induced us to commit others." The same author in book 5, chapter 5, tome 2, acknowledges that the first man was created in a state of innocence; and that he was happy because he controlled his passions and desires.

Maurice in his Indiæ Antiquitates, vol. 6, page 53, proves that the Indians had a knowledge of the fall of the first man and of the first woman; he proves also that the dogma of original sin was taught by the Druids. Voltaire, on the seventeenth page of his work, Additions to General History, confesses that the Bramas believed that man was fallen and degenerated: "this idea," he adds, "is found among all the ancient peoples."

The Father Jesuit Bouchet, in a letter to the Bishop of Avranches, writes: "The gods," our Indians say, "tried by all means to obtain immortality. After many inquiries and trials, they conceived the idea that they could find it in the tree of life, which was in the Chorcan. In fact they succeeded; and in eating once in a while of the fruits of that tree, they kept the precious treasure they so much valued. A famous snake, named Cheiden, saw that the tree of life had been found by the gods of the second order. As probably he had been entrusted with guarding that tree, he became so angry because his vigilance had been[72] deceived, that he immediately poured out an enormous quantity of poison, which spread over the whole earth."

In the Ta-Hio, or Moral of Confucius, page 50, Confucius, after saying that reason is a gift from heaven, adds, "Concupiscence has corrupted it, and it is now mixed with many impurities. Therefore take off those impurities so that it resume its first luster, and all its former perfection." The philosopher Tchouangse taught, in conformity with the doctrine of King or sacred books of the Chinese, "that in the former state of heaven, man was inly united to the supreme reason; and that he practiced all the works of justice. The heart relished the truth. There was in man no alloy of falsity. Then the four seasons of the year were regular. Nothing was injurious to man, and man was injurious to nothing. Universal harmony reigned in all nature. But the columns of the firmament having been broken, the earth was shaken in its very foundations. Man having rebelled against the heavens the system of the universe was deranged; evils and crimes flooded the earth." This testimony is extracted from the Discourse of Ramsey on Mythology, pages 146, and 148.

M. de Humboldt, in the tome 1, pages 237 and 274, and also in the tome 2, page 198 of his Views of the Cordilleras and of the monuments of America, says, "That the mother of our flesh; the serpent Cihuacohuati, and her are famous in[73] the Mexican traditions. Those traditions represent the mother of our flesh fallen from her first state of innocence and happiness." Voltaire, in Questions on Encyclopedia, says; "The fall of man degenerated is the basis of the theology of all the ancient nations."

There were nearly among all nations expiatory rites, to purify infants when they were born. Usually this ceremony was done in the day when the child was named. Macrob informs us, in his Saturn, book 1, that "that day, among the Romans, was the ninth for the boys and the eighth for the girls. That day was called lustricus, because of the lustral water used to purify the new born child." In the Analysis of the Insc. of Rosette, page 145, we read that the Egyptians, the Persians, and the Greeks had a similar practice. In Yucatan the new born child was brought in the temple, where the priest poured on his head the waters destined to this use; and then he gave him a name. In the Canary islands the women performed this priestly function. Caril, in his American Letters, tome 1, pages 146, and 147, speaks of these ceremonies. A law prescribed these expiatory rites among the Mexicans.

M. de Humboldt, Views of the Cordilleras, and of the Monuments of America, tome 1, page 223, writes: "The midwife, in invoking the god Ometeuctly, (the god of celestial paradise,) and the goddess Omecihuatl, who live in the abode of the blessed, poured water on the forehead and on[74] the breast of the new-born child. After pronouncing several prayers, in which water was considered as the symbol of the purification of the soul, the midwife called near her the children who had been invited to give a name to the new-born child. In some provinces a fire was kindled at the same time, and they did as if really the child was passed through the flame to purify him both with water and fire. This ceremony reminds the practices whose origin, in Asia, seems to be immemorial."

Likewise, the Thibetans have similar expiatory rites: this we find in the thirty-first page of the preface of the Thibetan Alphabet. We extract the following from the Works of the Society of Calcutta: "In India, when a name is given to a child, his name is written on his forehead, and he is plunged three times into the water of the river. Then the Brama exclaims, 'O God, pure, one, invisible and perfect! to thee we offer this offspring of a holy tribe, anointed with an incorruptible oil, and purified with water.'"

In the mysteries, the Hierophant taught the doctrine that our nature had been corrupted by a first sin. The sixth book of the poem Eneida is nothing but a brilliant exposition of this doctrine; and perhaps antiquity offers nothing that proves more the power of tradition on the human mind, than the passage in which the poet, following Eneas in the abode of the dead, describes in magnificent verses the dismal spectacle which first[75] strikes his gaze. If there is any thing in the world that wakes up in our mind the idea of innocence, assuredly it is a child who has been unable neither to know nor to commit sin; and the supposition that he is subject to punishment and to suffering, is a thought which our soul abhors. However, Virgil, in the 6th book, verses 426, and 429, places the children dead when yet nursing, at the entry of the sad kingdoms, where he represents them in a state of pain, weeping and moaning—vagitus ingens. Why those tears, those cries of sufferings? Which faults do those children, to whom their mothers had not smiled, expiate? (Virgil, Ecloga 4, verse 62.) What has inspired the poet with this surprising fiction? On what does it rest? Whence does it originate, if not from the ancient belief that man was born in sin?

Therefore, the doctrine of original sin was generally believed by the Pagans.

We stated, at the commencement of this chapter, that the Roman Catholic writers are unanimous in the opinion that it was the belief of a large number of Pagans, that man had fallen from a higher state of existence. However, a small number only of the same writers are of the opinion that the Jews believed in the doctrine of original sin; and they find no other proof of the assertion than the ceremony of circumcision, which, as is familiar to all, was a mere legal and national observance, and had not the virtue of remitting[76] sin. In the first centuries of the Christian era, baptism was considered as a mere ceremony for initiating catechumens to the Christian profession.

It was only towards the end of the third century, that the belief of the transmission of Adam's sin to all his descendants was introduced in the Church of Rome, which already considered herself the mistress of the other churches. Soon afterwards the dogma that baptism had the virtue of remitting original sin was established. As proof of these two facts, we have the testimony of more than twenty-three Christian sects of the first centuries, which did not admit the dogma of original sin; and did not believe that baptism had the virtue of remitting sin. We quote a few of those sects: the Simonians, the Nicolaïtes, the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians, the Ophites, the Sethians, the Pelagians, all the Gnostic sects, etc.

Therefore, the Church of Rome borrowed the dogma of original sin from the Pagans. To this many Roman Catholic writers say: true the Pagans held this doctrine, but we did not borrow it from them; we found it in the first chapters of Genesis. We rejoin that even the fathers of the fourth century did not understand those chapters literally, and thereby as teaching the dogma of original sin. St. Augustine, in his work, City of God, avers that it was a general opinion among Christians, that the first three chapters of Genesis[77] are allegorical, and that he himself is inclined to think so. He confesses that it is impossible to take them literally without hurting piety, and ascribing to God unworthy actions. Origen says: "Where is the man of good sense, who can ever believe that there have been a first, a second, and a third days, and that those days had each an evening and morning, though there were not yet neither sun, nor moon, nor stars? Where is the man credulous enough to believe, that God was working like a gardener, and that he planted a garden in Orient; that the tree of life was a real tree, whose fruit would preserve life?"

Origen compared the temptation of Adam to that of the birth of Love, whose father was Porus, or Abundance, and whose mother was Poverty. He adds that there are in the Old Testament facts, which, if understood literally, are absurd, and which, if understood allegorically, contain valuable truths. We refer the reader for the above to the following works: See St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, liber xi, cap. 6, et liber 2, cap. xi, No. 24.—De Genesi ad Litteram, liber 4, No. 44.—De Catechis Rudibus, cap. 13. The opinion of St. Athanase can be found in his Oratio Contra Arium, No. 60.—That of Origen, in his work De Principiis, liber iv, No. 16, contra Celsum, liber 6, No. 50, 51. That of St. Ambrosius, in his Hexam, liber one, cap. 7, et Sequentia. That of Theodoret, in his Quest. in Genes. interpr. cap. v. et Sequentia, and that of St. Gregory in his Moral, in Job, liber 32, cap. 9.

[78]

The Fathers and the Christian sects named above, did not take the first three chapters of Genesis literally, because it would imply absurdity and blasphemy. The idea of God, namely, of the supreme and eternal cause, who clothes our clay for the pleasure of walking in a garden; the idea of a woman conversing with a serpent; listening to its counsels and heeding them; that of a man and a woman organized for reproduction, and yet destined to be immortal on earth, and to procreate a mathematical infinity of beings, immortal like themselves, who also will infinitely multiply, and will all find their food in the fruits of the trees of a garden where they will all dwell; a fruit culled that is to kill Adam and Eve, and to be transmitted as a hereditary crime to all their descendants, who did not participate to their disobedience, crime which will be forgiven only in as much as men will commit another crime, infinitely greater, a deicide—if such a crime might exist; the woman who since that time is condemned to bring forth with pain, as if the pains of childbirth were not natural to her organization, and were not common to her, as well as to the other animals which have not tasted the forbidden fruit; the serpent forced to crawl, as if a footless reptile could move any other way: so many absurdities and follies, heaped in those first three chapters, they could not believe and ascribe them to God.

Maimonide, one of the most learned Rabbins of the Jews, thus wrote in the twelfth century: "We[79] ought not to understand literally what is written in the books of the creation; nor entertain about the creation the opinions generally agreed. It is for this reason that our wise men urged upon us to keep their true teaching secret, and not to lift up the veil of allegory which conceals the truths they contain. If taken literally the relation of the creation gives us the most absurd and extravagant ideas of the Deity. Whoever will find out their true teaching, ought to keep it to himself; this is the earnest recommendation of our wise men, and more especially in regard to the first six days. Those who know ought to speak about it but obscurely, as I do myself, so as to let their hearers guess if they can."

The above facts and proofs lead us to the conclusion that the Church of Rome borrowed the dogma of original sin from the Pagans.

As the Protestants, who call themselves Orthodox, borrowed it in the sixteenth century from the Church of Rome, it follows that they also hold it from the Pagans.

Therefore, the doctrine of Original Sin is of Pagan origin.

[80]

CHAPTER V.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY.

The Roman Catholic writers themselves confess that the Pagans believed in Trinity; also the most of the self-called Protestant Orthodox historians and authors. The neutral authors are unanimous on this point. The following facts and proofs we shall impartially extract from those three classes of writers:

The Egyptians believed in Trinity; the Greek inscription of the great Obelisk of the major circus, at Rome, reads thus: Megas Theos, the great god, Theogentos, the begotten of god; and Pamphegges, the all-bright, (Apollo, the Spirit.) Heraclide, of Pont, and Porphyre relate a famous oracle of Serapis: Prota Theos, metepeita logos, kai pneuma soun autois. Sumphuta de tria panta, kai eis en eonta. [Translation:] All is God in the beginning; then the word and the spirit; three Gods coengendered together and united in one.

The Chaldeans had a sort of Trinity in their Metris, Oromasis, and Araminis, or Mithra, Oromase and Aramine. The Chinese had also, and[81] still have, a mysterious Trinity. The first god generates the second one, and both generate the third one. The Chinese say that the great term, or great unity, contains three, one is three, and three are one. In India Trinity was immemorially known. The Father Jesuit Calmet writes: "What I have seen mostly surprising is a text extracted from Lamaastambam, one of the books of the Indians.... It begins thus: The Lord, the good, the great God, in his mouth is the word. (The term which they use personifies the word.) Then it speaks of the Holy Spirit in these words: Ventus seu spiritus perfectus; [translation] breath or perfect spirit,—and it ends by the creation, ascribing it to God alone."

The Jesuit Calmet says, writing about the Thibetans: "I learned the following about their religion. They call God Konciosa, and they seem to have some idea of the adorable Trinity; for they call God sometimes Konsikosick, God-one, and at other times Kocioksum, God-three. They use a kind of bead on which they pronounce these words: om, ha, hum. When they are asked the explanation, they answer that om signifies the intelligence, or arm, namely power; that ha is the word; that hum is the heart or love, and that these three words signify God."

The Father Bouchet, a Roman Catholic missionary in India, wrote the following to the bishop of Avranches: "I commence by the confused idea which the Indians preserve about the adorable[82] Trinity. My Lord, I have spoken to you of the three principal deities of the Indians, Bruma, Wishnou, and Routren. The greater portion of the people say, it is true, that they are three different gods, and really separate. But several Nianigneuls, or spiritual men, assure that these three gods, apparently distinct, compose in reality but one god: that this god is called Bruma, when he creates and exercises his all-power; that he is called Wishnou, when he preserves the created beings, and does them good; and that, finally, he takes the name of Routren, when he destroys the cities, chastises the wicked, and makes men feel his just anger."

English missionaries have found at Otaïti some traces of the Trinity among the religious dogmas of the natives.

Plato refers to this doctrine in several passages of his works. "Not only," says Dacier in his translation, "it is believed that he knew about the Word, eternal Son of God; but also that he knew about the Holy Spirit, for he thus writes to the young Denis:

"'I must declare to Archedemus what is much more precious and more divine, and which you so eagerly desire to know; for you sent him to me for this express purpose. According to what he told me, you think that I have not sufficiently explained to you my opinion about the first Principle, therefore I shall write it to you, enigmatically, however, in order that, if my epistle is intercepted[83] at sea or on land, he who will read it will be unable to understand it. All things are around their king; they exist through him, and he is the only cause of good things, second for the second things, and third for the third things.'

"In the Epinomis," continues Dacier, "Plato establishes as Principle, the first good, the Word, or intelligence and the soul. The first good is God;... the Word, or intelligence, is the son of this first good, who begets him similar to himself; and the soul, which is the term between the Father and the Son, is the Holy Spirit."

Plato had borrowed this doctrine about Trinity from Timee of Locre, who held it from the Italian philosophical school. Marsile Ficin, in one of his remarks on Plato, shows from the testimonies of Jamblic, Porphyre, Plato and Maxim of Tyr, that the Pythagoricians knew also the excellence of the Ternary; Pythagoras himself indicated it in this symbol: Protima to Schema, kai Bema, kai Triobolon. The Jesuit Kirker, dissenting about the unity and trinity of the first Principle, traces vestiges of the doctrine of Trinity up to Pythagoras, and to the Egyptians.

St. Augustine himself, though the staunchest defender of the dogma of Trinity, confessed that, among all the nations of the world, a Trinity, nearly similar to the one he believed in, had been held. He added that the Pythagoricians, the Platonicians, and that a great number of Atlantes, Lybian, Egyptian, Persian, Chaldean, Scythian,[84] Gallenses, and Hibernian philosophers, held several dogmas about the unity of the God, Light, and Good, in common with the Church of Rome.

Macrobe gives us a summary of ancient or Platonician theology, which contains a true Trinity, of which that of the Papists and of the self-called Protestant Orthodox is but a copy. According to this summary, the world has been formed by the universal soul: this soul is the same as their spiritus, or spirit. They also call the Holy Spirit Creator: "Veni Creator spiritus," etc., [translation,] Come Spirit Creator, etc., (Catholic hymn.) Macrobe adds, that from this spirit or soul the intelligence, which he calls men's proceeds. Is this not the Father, the Son, or wisdom, and the Spirit that creates and vivifies all? Even is not the expression to proceed common to the ancient and to the Papist and Protestant Orthodox Churches in the filiation of the first three beings?

Macrobe goes farther. He recalls the three Principles to a primitive unit, who is the sovereign God. After resting his theory on this Trinity he adds: "You see how this unit, or original monade of the first cause, is preserved entire and indivisible up to the soul, or spirit, which animates the world." This testimony of Macrobe has so much more bearing, that he wrote in the beginning of the fifth century; that he was the first Chamberlain of the emperor Theodose, and was the most learned antiquarian of that age.

Another most important fact we shall record.[85] It is beyond any doubt that before the coming of Jesus Christ the Jews did not hold the dogma of Trinity, nor do they now. Their Rabbins, and all the Roman Catholic theologians, agree on this point.

During the first three centuries of the Christian era the dogma of Trinity was not generally believed. The Simonians, the Nicholaïtes, the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians, the Ophites, the Sethians, all the Gnostics, and many other Christian sects rejected it. It was only in the fourth century, that Arius and the above sects were condemned in the council of Nice, because they denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. This council was assembled by the order of the emperor Constantine I., who was urged to it by the Bishop of Rome, (or Pope,) whose Church held the dogma of Trinity. As a matter of course the bishops of the council had to decide according to the will of those two leaders; for Constantine threatened them with deposition and exile: in fact he banished Arius, and deposed seventeen bishops, who did not subscribe to the decision of the council.

The doctrine that Jesus Christ was not God himself was so generally spread, and so deeply rooted in the minds, that several successors of Constantine I. embraced Arianism; and it was only after centuries that Arianism, which was spread nearly all over the East, was crushed by the papal and the imperial power.

[86]

Now let us draw our conclusions. Since the Jews had no knowledge of the dogma of Trinity, the Church of Rome could not borrow it from them; since the generality of the Christian sects during the first three centuries did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Church of Rome did not find the dogma of Trinity in the Gospel; (besides, the Catholic theologians never pretended that the Scriptures teach it—they simply pretended, and still pretend, that it was a tradition.) Since the dogma of Trinity was believed by many Pagan sects, then the Roman Church borrowed it from them.

In turns, the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches borrowed this doctrine from the Church of Rome, in the sixteenth century.

Therefore the doctrine of Trinity is of Pagan origin.

[87]

CHAPTER VI.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

It will be demonstrated that the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ is of Pagan origin, if it can be proved, 1st, That the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches borrowed this doctrine, in the sixteenth century, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 2d, That the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the Pagans, in their adoration to the sun, under the names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

But it can be proved, 1st, That the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 2d, That the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the Pagans in their adoration to the sun, under the[88] names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

1st. We prove that the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

It will be evident that the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ, if, until nearly the end of the third century, the various Christian denominations, or sects, did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. But, until nearly the end of the third century, the various Christian denominations, or sects, did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

This we prove:—

We request the readers to bear in mind, in reading this chapter, that we have extracted all the proofs and statements brought forth therein, from the works of the Roman Catholic priest Bergier, which we have studied in our Catholic theological school; from the works of the Rev. Father Jesuit Feller; from the History of the Church, by Berrault-Ber-Castel, a Roman Catholic priest; and from the Ecclesiastical History, by the Roman Catholic clergyman Fleury. Those proofs and statements can be verified, in the first two writers,[89] at the articles of the sects, and of their authors, arranged in alphabetical order; and in the other authors at the dates of the centuries and years.

Bergier says: "The Cerinthians pretended that Jesus Christ was born from Joseph and Mary like other men; but that he was endowed with a superior wisdom and holiness; that when he was baptized, Christ, or the Son of God, had descended on him under the form of a dove, and had revealed to him God the Father, till then unknown, in order that he might make him known to men." The Cerinthians sprung up, according to St. Epiphane, in the middle of the first century, but according to St. Ireneus, at about the year 88.

Therefore the Cerinthians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier says: "The Carpocratians supposed the pre-existence of the souls; pretended that they had sinned in an anterior life; that as a punishment of their crimes they had been condemned to be shut up in bodies.... In their belief, the soul of Jesus Christ, before her incarnation, had been more faithful to God than the others. It is for this reason that God had endowed her with more knowledge than the souls of other men; also with more strength both to defeat the geniuses opposed to humanity, and to return to heaven against their will. God, they said, grants the same favor to those who love Jesus Christ; and who, like him, know the dignity of their souls. Thus the Carpocratians considered Jesus Christ[90] as being simply a man, though more perfect than the others; they believed that he was the son of Joseph and Mary, and confessed his miracles and sufferings. They are not accused of denying the resurrection, but of denying the general resurrection; and of holding that the soul only (not the body) of Jesus Christ, had ascended to the heavens." The sect of the Carpocratians commenced towards the end of the first century.

Therefore the Carpocratians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier writes thus about the Ebionites: "It is very probable that (although some authors say that they date from the year 72 of the first century) they commenced to be known only in the year 103, or even later, under the reign of Adrian, after the total ruin of Jerusalem, in the year 119; that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes are two different sects; it is the opinion of Mosheim, Hist. Christ., sœc. 1, par. 58, sœc. 2, par. 39.... The Ebionites considered Jesus Christ as being simply a man born from Joseph and Mary."

Consequently the Ebionites did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Christian sect of the Basilidians was founded in the beginning of the second century by Basilide of Alexandria, Feller says; he had been converted from the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato to Christianism. Bergier writes about the Basilidians: "They believed that God had sent his Son, or intelligence, under the name of Jesus[91] Christ, to liberate those who would believe in him; that Jesus Christ had really performed the miracles ascribed to him by the Christians; but that he had only a fantastical body and the appearances of a man."

Therefore the Basilidians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

The sect of the Marcionites was established, in the middle of the second century, by Marcio, the son of a bishop of Pontus. The Marcionites held that God, principle of the spirits, had given to one of them, Jesus Christ, the appearances of humanity; and had sent him to the earth to abolish the law and the prophets; to teach to men that their souls come from heaven, and that they cannot be restored to happiness except in reuniting to God.

Therefore the Marcionites did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Valentin founded the sect of Valentinians in 140. He was an Egyptian, and had been converted from philosophy to Christianism. Bergier, after lengthily exposing the doctrines of his sect, says, "Consequently the Valentinians neither admitted the eternal generation of the Word, nor his incarnation, nor the divinity of Jesus Christ, nor the redemption of mankind, in the proper sense. In their opinion, the redemption of mankind by Jesus Christ did not extend farther than this—Jesus Christ had come to the world to liberate men from the tyranny of the Eons, and had[92] given them examples and lessons of virtue, and had taught them the true means of obtaining eternal happiness."

Therefore the Valentinians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Ptolemaïtes did not believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and held that he was but the Son of God.

St. Epiphane in his work Hære. 36, and Bergier, inform us that the Heracleonites, whose chief was Heracleon, and who were widely spread, particularly in Sicily, believed that the Word divine did not create the world, but that it had been created by one of the Eons, or spirits. In their opinion, there were two worlds, the one corporeal and visible, and the other spiritual and invisible, and they only ascribed the formation of the latter to Jesus Christ, who was one of the greatest Eons, or spirits. The Heracleonites were organized as a sect in the year 140.

The Colarbasians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Sanderus and Bergier say, that the Barules professed to believe that the Son of God had but a fantastical body; that there was no original sin; that all our souls had been created before the world, and all had sinned in that former state of existence; and that Jesus Christ was not God.

The Bardesanists, thus named from their founder, Bardesanes, a Syrian, who lived in the second century, became a large sect. Beausobre[93] in his History of Manicheanism, tome 2, book 4, chap. 9, writes, that they believed in two Principles, originators of all things, the one good and the other bad. They denied that the eternal Word, or Son of God, had taken a human flesh; they said that he had taken only a celestial and aerial body. They denied the future resurrection of the body. Bergier, Feller, etc., say the same.

Then the Bardesanists did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Marcosians rejected the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, and held only that he was one of the principal Eons, or spirits. The Marcosians were founded by Marc in the second century.

The Theodotians, Bergier says, believed that Jesus Christ was not God but a man; that he was above the other men only by his miraculous birth, and by his extraordinary virtues. Theodote, a native of Bysance, founded them in the second century.

The Artemonians also denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

The Docetes held that Jesus Christ was only the Son of God, and that he had but apparently suffered humiliations, torments, and death.

The Tatianists did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. Tatian gave them his name when he organized them as a Christian denomination, in the second century. Bergier pretends that some passages of the writ[94]ings of this learned author can be understood of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, but Fauste Socin, and others, in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, in ten volumes, in folio, proves the contrary; and at the same time they prove that Clement of Alexandria and other Fathers of the second century disbelieved the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. Bergier confesses, however, that it is doubtful that Tatian had been Orthodox about the generation of the Word.

The Apellites denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. In their belief there was but one God, who sent to the world his Son, who took a body not in the womb of the virgin Mary, but from the four elements. Their sect widely spread in the East during the second century.

Bergier says, writing about the doctrines of the Ophites, a Christian sect of the second century: "In their belief, matter was eternal; the world was created against the will of God, and was governed by a multitude of spirits who govern the world. Christ united to the man Jesus to destroy the empire of the Demiourge, or creator of the world."

Therefore the Ophites did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

One of the doctrines of the Cainites was, that Jesus Christ was a spirit sent by God to save the world.

The Hermogenians, or followers of Hermogene,[95] a Stoician philosopher, converted to Christianism at the end of the second century, believed that matter was eternal; that there was but one God, who had sent a spirit, Jesus Christ, to correct the evil that was among men.

"The Hermians, or disciples of Hermias," Bergier says, "taught that matter is eternal; that God is the soul of the world; that Jesus Christ, ascending to the heavens left his body in the Sun, from whom he had taken it; that the soul of man is composed of fire and of subtle air; that the birth of children is the resurrection, and that the world is hell." Bergier adds, in another article, that they believed that there was but one God, who had sent to the world a spirit, Jesus Christ.

Therefore the Hermians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier, writing about the Sethians, says: "They said that the soul of Seth had passed to the body of Jesus Christ, and that Seth and Jesus Christ were the same person."

St. Augustine informs us that the Severians did not believe the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, and rejected the Old Testament. They did not believe that Jesus Christ was God himself.

The Encratites never held that Jesus Christ was God. Bergier says, "They did not believe that the Son of God was truly born from the virgin Mary."

The Valesians rejected the doctrine that Jesus Christ was God himself.

[96]

Bergier writes: "The Hieracites, heretics of the third century, were established by Hierax, or Hieracas, a physician by profession, born at Leontium, or Leontople, in Egypt. St. Epiphane, who relates and refutes the errors of this Sectarian, confesses that the austerity of his morals was exemplary; that he was familiar with the Greek and Egyptian sciences; that he had thoroughly studied the Scriptures, and that he was gifted with a persuasive eloquence. He denied the resurrection of the body, and admitted but a spiritual resurrection of the souls. He confessed that Jesus Christ had been generated by the Father; that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father as well as the Son; but he had dreamed that the Holy Ghost had taken a human body under the form of Melchisedek. He denied that Jesus Christ had a true human body."

Therefore the Hieracites denied the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bergier thus writes about the Samosatians: "They were disciples and followers of Paul of Samosate, bishop of Antioch, at or about the year 262. This heretic taught that there is in God one sole person, namely, the Father; that the Son and the Holy Spirit are only two attributes of God, under which he manifested himself to men: that Jesus Christ is not God, but a man to whom God has communicated his wisdom in an extraordinary manner."

Therefore the Samosatians did not believe the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

[97]

The Manicheans denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and believed that Jesus Christ had not a real body while on earth. His soul, they said, was of a nature similar to the nature of the souls of other men, though more perfect. He was the Son of God.

Therefore the Manicheans denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

All the above sects composed nearly the whole Christian body, during the first three centuries; and, as shown to the reader, every one either ignored or denied the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ.

Then it remains evident that the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Confirmatur.—As a confirmation of this last and very important consequence, we are to prove,

1st. That in the Church of Rome, herself, the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ was established only at about the year 180.

Remark.—By the Church of Rome, we mean only the church whose bishop (who after centuries assumed the title of Pope,) was at Rome, and which, then, did not extend farther than the province of Rome, and a few other occidental places.

2d. That in the council of Nice, held in 325,[98] despite the efforts of the Bishop of Rome; and despite the tyranny of the emperor Constantine I., who invoked the council at his own expense, attended, surrounded, and enforced it with military force, it was with the greatest difficulty that the Church of Rome obtained, from the bishops who composed it, a decision in favor of the doctrine she held, that Jesus Christ was God himself.

3d. That it was only long after the council of Nice that its decision, in favor of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, prevailed among the churches which depended on the Emperor of Constantinople, and on the Bishop of Rome.

4th. We will also present a succinct view of the large number of Christians, who, without the pale of the communion of Rome, preserved the former belief that Jesus Christ was not God.

1st. We prove that in the Church of Rome herself, the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ was established only at about the year 180.

Bergier himself makes the following confession: "An ancient author, who is believed to be Caïus, bishop of Rome, who had written against Artemon, and of whom Eusebe has related the words, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 22, seems to confound together the Theodotians and the Artemonians.... They maintain, he says, that their doctrine is not new; that it has been taught by[99] the apostles, and that it has been followed in the church until the pontificates of Victor and of Zephyrine his successor, but that since that time the truth has been altered."

Bergier adds, "The Theodotians believed that Jesus Christ was a man, and not God, that Jesus Christ was above the other men only by his miraculous birth, and by his extraordinary virtues." Also, Bergier says, that, although Theodote was a native of Bysance, he resided in Rome, where he preached the same doctrine as Theodote, at least in regard to Jesus Christ being a man and not God.

Therefore in the Church of Rome herself, the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ was established only at about the year 180.

2d. We prove that in the council of Nice, held in 325, despite the efforts of the Bishop of Rome; and despite the tyranny of the emperor Constantine I., who convoked the council at his own expense, attended, surrounded, and enforced it with military force, it was with the greatest difficulty that the Church of Rome obtained, from the bishops who composed it, a decision in favor of the doctrine she held, that Jesus Christ was God.

Arius, a priest of Alexandria, surprised at hearing Alexander, his bishop, teaching in an assembly of priests, that Jesus Christ was God, protested against this new doctrine. An animated controversy between him and Alexander, and[100] then between the friends of the Church of Rome, which held this doctrine, and other churches which did not, ensued. The council of Nice assembled, and there seventeen bishops boldly faced the legate of Sylvestre, the emperor Constantine and his military force; and they sided with Arius. Eusebe, bishop of Cesarea, the most learned of the bishops who composed the council, sided with Arius. He is the same Eusebe who wrote the Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, in two volumes in folio; who wrote an Ecclesiastical History, the Life of Constantine, a Chronic and a Commentary on the Psalms and on Isaiah. Constantine forced them either to yield and to acquiesce to the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, or to be expelled from their episcopal sees; and Arius, exiled, had to retire in Palestine.

Consequently, in the council of Nice, held in 325, despite the efforts of the Bishop of Rome; and despite the tyranny of the emperor Constantine I., who convoked the council at his own expense, attended, surrounded, and enforced it with military force, it was with the greatest difficulty that the Church of Rome obtained, from the bishops who composed it, a decision in favor of the doctrine she held, that Jesus Christ was God himself.

3d. We prove that it was only long after the council of Nice, that its decision in favor of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ,[101] prevailed among the churches which depended on the Emperor of Constantinople, and on the Bishop of Rome.

Bergier, despite his partiality in favor of the Church of Rome, is obliged to make the following avowal:

"The anathema pronounced against Arianism did not destroy it; the larger portion of those (bishops) who had signed the decision of the council, only for fear of being exiled, remained attached to the party of Arius. Constantine himself, influenced by an Arian priest, recommended to him by his sister Constantia, at her death bed, and who had gained his confidence, consented to the repeal of Arius from his exile, in 328. This heretic reunited to his partisans, and commenced spreading his errors with even more earnestness than before. But St. Athanase, who had succeeded to Alexander in the episcopal see of Alexandria, constantly refused to commune with him, and by this firmness displeased Constantine I.

"Since that time the Arians became a redoubtable party. They held several councils where they obtained the majority.... Arius died in a tragic manner, in the year 337. After the death of Constantine I., in 337, the party of the Arians was alternatively the stronger, in ratio of the less or greater protection extended to them or to the Orthodox by the Emperors. Under Constance, who favored them, they filled the Orient with seditions and troubles; but Constantine Junior and Con[102]stant, who reigned in Occident, prevented Arianism from spreading. In 351, Constance, who had become the master of the whole empire by the death of his two brothers, protected Arianism more openly than before. Several councils were held in Italy, in which the Arians had the majority; and others, in which the Catholics had the superiority.... Julian, who was emperor in 362, sided neither with one party nor with the other. Valens, emperor of the Orient, in 364, favored and embraced Arianism; whereas Valentinian, his brother, did all in his power to extirpate it from the Occident.

"Gratian, and afterwards Theodose, proscribed Arianism from the whole empire.... In the beginning of the fifth century, the Goths, the Burgundians, and the Vandals, spread it in Gaul and in Africa. The Visigoths introduced it in Spain, where it subsisted as long as the kings of that country were Arians themselves, until the year 660.

"Arianism was to be revived in the sixteenth century. It is probable that Arianism would have invaded the whole Orient if the Arians had been united."

Therefore, it was only long after the Council of Nice, that its decision, in favor of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, prevailed among the churches which depended on the Emperor of Constantinople, and on the Bishop of Rome.

4th. We will also present a succinct view of[103] the large number of Christians, who, without the pale of the communion of Rome, preserved the former belief that Jesus Christ was not God.

We have proved, in the course of this chapter, that the following Christian sects, or denominations, did not believe the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ: the Corinthians, the Carpocratians, the Ebionites, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Ptolemaïtes, the Heracleonites, the Colarbasians, the Barules, the Bardesanists, the Marcosians, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, the Docetes, the Tatianists, the Apellites, the Ophites, the Cainites, the Hermogenians, the Hermians, the Sethians, the Severians, the Encratites, the Valesians, the Hieracites, the Samosatians, and the Manicheans. But nearly all these Christian sects of the first three centuries outlived the Council of Nice, and preserved through centuries the doctrine that Jesus Christ was not God himself: this is the unanimous testimony of historians.

From the four heads of convincing historical proofs brought forth in this confirmatur, we draw once more the conclusion:

1st. Then the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

2d. We prove the second proposition of the argument of this chapter, namely, that the Church[104] of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the Pagans in their adoration to the sun, under the names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

Every year the Pagans celebrated with pomp the death of Bacchus. Those celebrations were called Titanical, and celebrations of the perfect night. They supposed that this god had been slain by the Giants; but that his mother, or Ceres, had reunited his bones. To retrace his death they killed a bull, whose raw flesh they ate, because Bacchus, represented with the horns of an ox, had been thus torn by the Titans. Julius-Firmicus, an orthodox author of the fourth century, who wrote about the legend of Bacchus, says that the Pagans considered those fictions as solar fables. He adds that the sun was irritated at being thus worshiped: here, in being immersed into the Nile river, under the names of Osiris and of Horus; there, in being mutilated under the names of Atys and of Adonis; and in other places, in being boiled or roasted, like Bacchus. The Bacchanals, or disorderly, noisy, tumultuous, and frantic scenes took place.

St. Athanase, St. Augustine, Theophile, Athenagoras, Minutius-Felix, Lactance, Firmicus, and other Christian writers of the first centuries, as well as more ancient authors, describe the general mourning of the Egyptians in the anniversary day of the death of Osiris. They describe the ceremo[105]nies practiced on his tomb, and the tears shed thereon during several days. The mysteries in which the representation of his death was exhibited, and which took place during the night, were called mysteries of night.

Likewise the death of Mithra was celebrated. To the usual magnificence of his temples succeeded a gloomy sight. The priests, during the night, carried his image in a tomb, and laid it on a litter, in the same manner as the Phœnicians laid the image of Adonis. This ceremony was accompanied with dismal songs, and with groans. The priests, after this feigned expression of grief, kindled a flambeau, called sacred; anointed the image of Mithra with chrisma, or with perfumes; and then one of them, in a solemn and loud voice, pronounced these words: "Cheer up, holy mourners, your god is come again to life; his sorrows and his sufferings will save you."

Julius Firmicus, who relates this, exclaims: "Why do you exhort those unfortunate to rejoice? Why do you deceive them with false promises? The death of your god is known; but his new life is not proved. There is no oracle that ascertains his resurrection; he has not appeared to men after his resurrection to prove his divinity. An idol you bury; upon an idol you mourn; an idol you lift up from the tomb, and having expressed your grief you rejoice," etc.

The Church of Rome practices alike ceremonies in celebrating the anniversary day of the death of[106] Jesus Christ. All the ornaments of each church, the statues and images of saints, etc., are clothed in black. In one of the chapels of the church a tomb is prepared, in which, on the Holy Thursday morning, Jesus Christ—namely, a wafer which has been consecrated—is laid, shut up, not in the ostensorium, but in a ciborium, as a sign of mourning. The priests perform this ceremony. During the whole day the church is thronged with people, who come to express to Jesus Christ their sympathy in his sufferings. At about eight o'clock in the evening, a gloomy procession, composed of the priests and the people, march along the streets in the dark (this procession takes place only in Catholic countries,) now and then reciting in a low and dismal tone a verse of the psalm, Miserere mei Deus, [translation,] Lord have mercy on me. When this procession has taken place, hymns of suffering and of death are sung in the church, around the tomb in which Jesus Christ lays. At eleven o'clock a priest goes to the pulpit, and in an affecting manner relates to the sobbing and weeping multitude the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ. This address is called Passion's sermon.

The people spend the whole night in the church to keep company to Jesus Christ in his sufferings, they say, and to relieve him by their sympathy. In the morning of the Holy Friday the church is yet filled with mourners. The priests, processionally, but in silence, go to the tomb where Jesus Christ lays, take him out, and[107] carry him into the tabernacle, where they shut him up, but without leaving any taper burning in the whole church. In the evening, after the recitation of the Officium Tenebrarum, [translation,] Office of Darkness, boys, men, women and all, fill the church with their yells, with the sharp sound of rattles, with the blows they strike on boards with small and large sticks, and with sounding, sonorous instruments, such as horns, etc. A few days after they eat the wafer, which they pretend to be the raw flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Pagans, in celebrating the resurrection of Bacchus, Osiris, etc., who represented the sun, lighted the lamps of their temples with a fire, which the priests obtained by striking a piece of steel with silex, and was called new fire. That day the priests were clothed in white ornaments; the lustral waters were renewed, and also the decorations of the temples: so in every church the Romish priests strike a piece of steel with silex, and obtain a fire called new fire; with it they light the lamps, and the taper called Paschal taper. They renew the holy water, which the people piously carry to their homes, and keep for protection during the storms, etc. The priests change their priestly garments, and clothe in white.

The Pagans worshiped the sun under the name of Aries, because the Aries was one of the celestial signs: so the Church of Rome worships Jesus Christ under the form of a lamb. Formerly, the Roman Catholic parents suspended on the necks[108] of their children the symbolic image of a lamb; and the women, instead of wearing a cross, as they do now, wore a lamb. This practice had been introduced by the Romish priests, who sold, as they sell now, Agnus Dei, which have been consecrated with prayers and sprinkled with holy water, as being the emblems of Jesus Christ.

A lamb was represented bleeding, and under it was a vessel in which the blood dropped. This practice was in use till the year 680, under the pontificate of the pope Agathon, and under the reign of the emperor Constantine III., surnamed Pogonat. Then it was ordered by the sixth council of Constantinople, canon 82, that a man nailed to a cross should be substituted to the ancient symbol of a lamb. However, this symbol was partly preserved in the church, as seen above. The symbol of a lamb is yet seen on the tabernacle, or small box of marble, or of wood, richly wrought upon, placed on the altar; also on the ostensorium, and on the forepart of the altars.

The Pagans placed a sunlike halo around the heads of the statues of Osiris, Bacchus, and other gods, who, in their opinion, represented the sun: likewise in the Church of Rome the priests place the wafer, which, they think, is Jesus Christ himself, in an ostensorium, which is shaped like the disc of the sun; and which represents his beams; the wafer itself is circular. This ostensorium is of silver, or of gold, and adorned with diamonds, or gems. Above the altar a large sun is generally[109] either painted, or carved, or formed with draperies. The Pagans kept in their temples a lamp burning, in the honor of the sun: so, in the Roman Catholic churches a lamp is kept burning, day and night, near the altar, in the honor of Jesus Christ.

The Pagans built their temples so that the sanctuary was turned towards the rising sun: likewise, the Roman Catholic churches are built so that the sanctuary be turned towards the rising sun.

The Pagans carried in triumph, processionally, and with the most brilliant pomp, the statues of Bacchus, Osiris, and other gods, representing the sun: likewise, on the feast day of the body of Jesus Christ, the consecrated wafer is carried in triumph, processionally, and with the most brilliant pomp. The priestly and other ornaments are of a tissue of silver, or of gold. A multitude of people follow: the various confraternities of Penitents, the ones grey, the others blue, the others white, etc., and the many confraternities of virgins, of married women, all in variegated costumes, march before the consecrated wafer. The civil, judiciary, and military authorities, regiments of soldiers with brass bands, with drums beating, with banners and flags unfurled, escort the consecrated wafer, which is carried by the first priest of the parish, under a canopy of the most costly and magnificent tissue.

The Pagans burnt flambeaux before the statues of Osiris, Bacchus, etc., to represent the planets;[110] and sometimes to represent the signs of the Zodiac: so, in the Roman Catholic churches, upon the altar, there are six chandeliers, with candles burning around the consecrated wafer, namely, Jesus Christ, who is in the middle.

From all the above facts we may legitimately draw the conclusion, that the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the Pagans in their adoration to the sun, under the names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

We now come to the general conclusions of the present chapter.

It has been proved, 1st, That the Church of Rome, from which the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches, in the sixteenth century, borrowed the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

2d. It has been proved that the Church of Rome uses, in her adoration to Jesus Christ, rites and ceremonies of a striking similarity with those used by the Pagans in their adoration to the sun, under the names of Bacchus, Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Atys, etc.

Then the Church of Rome, from which, in the sixteenth century, the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches borrowed the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ had borrowed it from the Pagans.

Therefore the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ is of Pagan origin.

[111]

CHAPTER VII.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS HELL.

ARTICLE I.

Metempsychosis, or Transmigration of the Souls.

The rulers of nations, and the authors of the initiations, had a profound knowledge of the human nature, and of the genius of the people. From the fact that an ox, unaware of his strength, yields to the leading hand of a child, so they knew that would they let the masses ignore their power, they could easily control them, mould their opinions, habits, and morals. Also aware of the terror that death impressed upon their minds, and knowing that it is an infirmity of man's nature, when uncultivated by philosophy, to fear more a distant and indefinite, but unavoidable misery beyond the grave, than the most excruciating tortures on earth, they found in those prejudices of the people a sure means to lead and rule them. Therefore they endeavored to make them believe that those who would transgress the laws, or would commit some other crimes, should be punished by the gods immortal in the future life.

[112]

They had to invent the nature of that punishment, and as there were many degrees of wickedness, they had to admit, also, various degrees in the punishment. To more easily and more surely make the people believe their invention, they thought it was wise to make the punishment, and its degrees, coincide with the then universally established religion, which was but one, though there were many systems of theology. That religion was the one we have examined in the first chapter of this work, and which consisted in the belief that nature was an uncreated but animated being, whose vast body comprised the earth, the sun, the planets, and the stars, to which one great soul impressed motion and life; and that those principal parts, or members, of the body of the universe were animated by emanations or irradiations of the great soul of the universe, or nature.

This pantheistic doctrine was materialist; for it supposed that the great soul of the universe was the purest substance of the fire ether, and thereby man's soul was of the same nature. It was the belief even of the famous philosopher Pythagoras, and of his disciples. All animals, according to Servius, the commentator of Virgil, draw their flesh from the earth, their humors from water, their breath from the air, and their soul from the breath of the Deity. Thus the bees have a small portion of the Deity. Our soul is like a drop of water which is not annihilated,[113] whether it evaporates in the air, or condenses and falls again in rain, or rolls into the sea to add its littleness to the massy waters. When we die our life melts, reenters into the great soul of the universe, and the remains of our body mix again with the elements of the air.

Virgil believed that our death is not annihilation, but that it is a separation of two sorts of matters, the one thereof remains here below, and the other reunites to the sacred fire of the stars, as soon as the matter of which our soul is composed has reacquired all the purity of the subtle matter, from which it had emanated, auræ simplicis ignem. Nothing, Servius says, is lost in the great whole, and in the pure fire which constitutes the substance of the soul. Virgil says of the souls: igneus est ollis vigor, et cœlestis origo; that they are formed of the active fire that shines in the heaven, and that they return thither when they are separated from the body by death.

The same doctrine we find in the dream of Scipio: "It is from there," he says, speaking of the regions of the fixed stars, "that the souls descended, thereto they shall return; they were emanated from those eternal fires we name stars. What ye call death is but a return to true life; the body is but a prison, in which the soul is momentarily chained. Death breaks her ties, and restores her to liberty, and to her true state of existence."

From this pantheistic doctrine, it followed that man's soul is immortal though material.

[114]

Upon this sort of immortality of our soul, the rulers built a system of punishment, called Metempsychosis, or transmigration of the souls. This system was so much the better adapted to the then received religion, that all the souls being simply different emanations from the same fire ether, the consequence was that all the souls were homogeneous, and differed only in appearance, and by the nature of the bodies to which the fire-principle, which composed their substance, united. Virgil said that the souls of all animals are an emanation of the fire ether, and that the difference of their operations on earth is to be ascribed only to the difference of vases, or organized bodies, which receive this substance; or, according to the words of Servius, the lesser or greater perfection of their operations is in ratio of the nature of the bodies.

The Indians, among whom, even in our days, the system of Metempsychosis prevails, think that man's soul is absolutely of the same nature as that of other animals. They say that man is superior to them, not in his soul but in his body, whose organization is more perfect and more apt to receive the action of the great Being, viz., of the universe, than theirs are. They ground their opinion on the example of children and of old men, whose organs being too weak yet, or having been weakened, do not permit their senses to have the same activity which is displayed in a mature age.

The soul, in the exercise of her operations, being[115] necessarily in submission to the body which she animates; and all souls flowing from the immense reservoir called universal soul, it follows that the portion of the fire ether which animates a man, might as well animate an ox, a lion, an eagle, a whale, or any other beast. Fate caused that she would animate a man, and such a man; but when the soul will be disengaged from this first body, and will return to her source, she will be able to pass into the body of another animal; and her activity will be lesser or greater, in ratio of the organization of the new body into which she will pass.

All the great work of nature being reduced to successive organizations and destructions, in which the same matter is ten thousand times used under ten thousand forms, the subtle matter of the soul, carried in that current, brings life to all the moulds which open to receive her. Thus the same water flown from a same reservoir, enters the various pipes which are opened, rolls on and empties either as a fountain, or as a cascade, according to the forms of the orifices of the pipes; then it congregates, evaporates, and forms clouds which brings it back down to the earth, to experience again an infinity of modifications. It is the same of the fluid of the soul spread in the various canals of the animal organization, flowing from the bright mass of which the ethereal substance is composed; thence being carried to the earth by the generating force distributed among the animals, continually[116] ascending and descending in the universe, and circulating within new bodies diversely organized.

Such was the basis of Metempsychosis, which became one of the most powerful political engines in the hands of the ancient rulers, legislators and mystagogues. Pythagoras brought this doctrine from the Orient to Greece, and to Italy. This philosopher, and Empedocles after him, taught that the souls of the criminals, when death separated them from the bodies they animated, passed into the bodies of beasts in order to suffer, under those divers forms the punishment of their wickedness, until they might recover, by expiation, their native purity. So this transmigration of the souls was a punishment of the gods. The Stoicians held this doctrine; and the emperor Marcus-Aurelius, in the ninth book of his Works, said: "The spiritus, or breath, which animates us, passes from one body into another."

To give the reader a general idea of what was the belief of the ancients, and of their philosophers, in regard to Metempsychosis, we take from the tenth and last book of the Republic of Plato the following lengthy but instructive extract:—

"It is not the narration of Alcinoüs (namely, a false story, such as the one of Ulysse to the Pheacians,) that I will tell you; but that of a noble man, of Her, the Armenian, a native of Pamphily. He had been killed in a battle; but when, ten days after, the dead bodies were taken away for inhumation, his, instead of being in putrefaction like[117] the others, was found natural and entire. It was carried to his house, and, on the twelfth day, when laid on the wood-pile, he came again to life; and he related to the assistants what he had seen in the other world.

"'As soon,' he says, 'as my soul left my body, I arrived, in company with a great number of souls, at a mysterious place, where were seen two openings near each other, and two others corresponding in the sky. Between these two regions were judges sitting: when they had pronounced their sentence they ordered the righteous to take the right hand side route through one of the openings of the sky, after having previously placed on their breast a mark containing the judgment rendered in their favor; also they ordered the wicked to take the left hand side route through one of the openings of the earth, carrying on their back a mark containing all their evil actions. When I was presented to the judges, they decided that I should return to the earth to inform men of what was done in the other world; and they bade me listen and observe all I was to witness.

"'First I saw the souls of those who had been judged, the ones ascending to the heavens, and the others descending below the earth through the two corresponding openings. Withal I saw, through the other opening of the earth, many souls coming out, covered with filthiness and dust; and also, through the other opening in the sky, I saw souls pure and spotless descending: they seemed to re[118]turn from a long voyage, and to stop with pleasure in the meadow, as if in a place of reunion. Those who knew each other mutually inquired what they had seen in the heaven, and in the earth. The ones related their adventures with groans and tears, caused by the recollection of the sufferings they had endured, or seen others endure, during their voyage below the earth, whose duration was of a thousand years. The others, who returned from the heaven, related the rapturous pleasures they had enjoyed, and the marvellous things they had seen.'

"It would be too long, my dear Glaucon, to relate the whole discourse of Her on this subject. It might be summed up in saying that the souls were punished ten times for each injustice they had committed while on earth; that the duration of each punishment was of one hundred years, natural length of man's life, in order that the punishment be ever tenfold for each crime. Thus those who had contaminated themselves with murder; who had betrayed States and armies, and reduced them to servitude; or who had committed similar crimes, were punished tenfold for each one of those crimes. Whereas those who had done good to their fellow men, who had been holy and virtuous, received in the same proportion the reward of their good deeds. In regard to children who die immediately, or a short time after they are born, Her gave details which it is useless to relate. According to his narration there were great recom[119]penses for those who had honored the gods, and had respected their parents; and also there were extraordinary tortures for the parricides, and for impious men.

"'I was present,' said he, 'when a soul asked another where was the great Ardiee. This Ardiee had tyrannized over a city of Pamphily a thousand years before; he had killed his father, who was an old man, and he was guilty, it was said, of many other atrocious crimes. He does not come, the soul answered, and he will never come here. We all have witnessed, in relation to him, the most dreadful spectacle. When we were about leaving the subterraneous abyss after our pains ended, we saw Ardiee, and a great number of others, the most of whom had been tyrants like himself; there were also others, who, though in a private condition, had been great criminals.

"'When those souls were about going out, the opening was closed; and whenever one of those wretched souls, whose crimes were irremissible, tried to get out of the abyss, she howled. Thereupon hideous and firelike beings came. They violently wrested away several of those criminals; then they seized Ardiee and others, tied their feet, their hands and their heads; and after throwing them on the ground and torturing them with lashes, they dragged them through bleeding thorns, telling the shadows which they met on their route the reason why they treated so those souls, and adding that they were going to throw them into[120] the Tartarus. Those souls added, that of the various fears they had on the route none was so horrible as that of hearing that howl; and that it had been an inexpressible pleasure for them not to have heard it when they were released from the abyss.

"'Behold what took place in regard to the judgments, tortures, and rewards. After each one of those souls had spent seven days in the meadow they left on the eighth, and arrived, after a march of four days, at a designated spot, wherefrom was seen a light crossing the heaven and the earth, as straight as a column, and similar to the rainbow, but brighter and purer. They reached this light in one day's march. There they saw that the extremities of the heaven meet at the middle of this light, which united them fast, and which embraced all the circumference of the heaven, in nearly the same manner as the beams which girdle the sides of galleys, and which bear their frame. At the extremities the spindle of Necessity hung, and determined the revolutions of the celestial spheres.'"

Here Her describes the spindle. This description we omit, for it does not relate to our subject.

Her continues:—

"'Near the spindle, and at equal distances, sat on thrones the three Parques, daughters of Necessity, Lachesis, Clotho, and Atropos, dressed in white, and their heads crowned with a bandelet. They united their chant to that of the Sirenes; Lachesis sung the past, Clotho the present, and[121] Atropos the future. Clotho, now and then, touched the spindle with her right hand, and made it revolve externally. Atropos, with her left hand, impressed motion to each one of the interior whirls, and Lachesis, with both hands, touched now the spindle, and then the interior whirls. When the souls arrived they appeared before Lachesis. First a Hierophant assigned a rank to each one; then taking from the lap of Lachesis the fates and the various conditions of human life, he mounted on a high stand, and spake thus:—

"'This is what the virgin Lachesis, daughter of Necessity, says: Voyaging souls you are to commence another career, and return into a mortal body. The genius will not choose for you: each one of you shall choose hers. The first one that fate will designate shall choose first, and her choice shall be irrevocable. Virtue has no master; she clings to him who honors her, and flies from him who despises her. The error of the choice shall fall on you. God is innocent.

"'Thereupon the Hierophant casting the fates, each soul picked up the one that fell before her, except myself who had been forbidden it. Each one knew then in which rank she had to choose. Then the same Hierophant placed before them callings of all kinds, whose number was greater than that of the souls who were to choose; for all the conditions of men and beasts were assembled therein. There were tyrannies, the ones were to last till death; and the others were to be suddenly[122] interrupted, and were to end by exile, poverty and indigence. Also there were seen conditions of illustrious men, the ones for beauty, for strength, for fame in the combats; and the others by their nobleness, and the great qualities of their ancestors; there were seen also obscure conditions. There were destinies of women of the same variety. But there was no regulation for the rank of the souls, because each one was necessarily to change of nature according to her choice. Besides, wealth, poverty, and diseases, were found in all conditions: here without any mixture, there in a just proportion of advantages and disadvantages.'

"But this is evidently, my dear Glaucon, the redoubtable trial for mankind.... The Hierophant added: he who chooses the last, provided he be judicious, and then be consistent in his conduct, may hope to be blessed in life. Therefore let him who is to have the first choice, be not presumptuous; and let him who has the last choice, despair not. When the Hierophant had thus spoken, he to whom the first fate had been devolved, hastily advanced, and took, without any deliberation, the greatest tyranny; but when he had considered it, and seen that his destiny was to eat his own children, and to commit other enormous crimes, he lamented; and, forgetting the recommendation of the Hierophant, charged upon the fortune and the gods, with the wretchedness of his fate. This soul was one of those who came from heaven; she had previously lived in a well[123] governed state, and had been virtuous more from temper and habit, than from philosophy.

"On the contrary, the souls who had sojourned in the subterranean region, and who had both the experience of their own sufferings, and the knowledge of the misfortunes of others, were cautious in their choice. This experience on one side, and that inexperience on the other, together with the fate which decided the rank for the choice, were the cause that the most of the souls exchanged a good condition for a bad one, and a bad one for a good one. He also said, that it was a strange spectacle to see in what manner each soul made her choice, nothing was more extraordinary, nor more pitiful; the most of them were guided in their choice by the habits they had contracted in their previous life. He had seen the soul of Orpheus choosing the condition of a swan, from hatred to women who had killed him, and from whom he did not wish to receive birth. He saw the soul of Thamyris choosing the condition of nightingale; likewise he saw a swan and several other birds choosing the human condition.

"Another soul had chosen the condition of a lion; it was that of Ajax, son of Telamon, who, remembering the offense she had received in the judgments rendered about the arms of Achilles, refused to take again a human body. Then came the soul of Agamemnon, who, from antipathy against mankind on account of her past sufferings, chose the condition of an eagle. The soul of Atalante,[124] desirous of the athletic honors, chose to be a champion. The soul of Epee, son of Panope, preferred the condition of a woman skillful in handiworks. The soul of the buffoon Thersite came one of the last, and entered the body of a monkey. There were, Her added, souls of animals which exchanged their condition against ours, and human souls which passed into bodies of beasts. The souls indistinctly passed from the bodies of animals into human bodies, and from human bodies into bodies of animals; those of the righteous into species of a higher order.

"When all the souls had chosen their new condition of existence, according to the rank determined by fate, they came to Lachesis in the same order. She gave to each one the genius of her choice, and this genius was to be her guardian during her mortal life, and was to aid her in the accomplishment of her destiny. This genius first led her to Clotho, who, with her hand, and with a revolution of the spindle confirmed the chosen destiny. When the soul had touched the spindle, the genius took her to Atropos, who rolled the thread in her fingers, to render irrevocable what had been already spun by Clotho. After that, the soul proceeded to the throne of Necessity, under which the soul and her genius, or demon, passed together. When all had passed, they went to the plain of the Lethe river, where they were oppressed by an intense heat; for there was in this plain, neither tree nor shrub. The evening[125] came and they spent the night near the river Ameles, whose water can be contained in no vessel. Every soul was obliged to drink some of its water. They fell asleep; but at about midnight the thunder roared, and all the souls suddenly waking up were dispersed, like shooting stars, towards the various places where they were to commence their new life.

"As to Her, he had been forbidden to drink of the water of the Lethe river; nevertheless, he knew not in what manner his soul had returned into his body, but having opened his eyes in the morning, he had seen that he was laying on a wood-pile.

"This tradition, my dear Glaucon, has been handed down to us; and if we believe it, it is very apt to save us; we will safely cross the Lethe river, and we will preserve our soul free from stain."

The reader has undoubtedly remarked the last sentence of this extract, which proves the antiquity of the doctrine of the transmigration of the souls. Burnet wrote, that it was so ancient and so universally spread in Egypt, Persia, India, and other countries of the Orient, that it seemed it had descended from heaven, and been believed by the first inhabitants of the earth. Herodote found it established in Egypt in the remotest ages. It was the basis of the theology of the Indians, and the subject of the celebrated Metamorphosis and incarnations of their legends. Metempsychosis has[126] been immemorially believed in Japan, where the people, even in our days, according to Kœmpsfer, abstain from meat, and live exclusively upon fruits and vegetables. In Siam, where the Talapoins or monks hold it as a sacred dogma; in China by the Tao-See; also among the Kalbouls and the Mongols, and among the Thibetans, who admit that the souls pass even into the plants, into the trees, and even into the roots. However, the Thibetans believe that it is only by uniting to human bodies, that the souls can, after successive changes, be restored to their former purity.

The aim of the doctrine of Metempsychosis was to accustom man to detach himself from the gross matter, to which he is tied here below, and to excite in him the desire of promptly returning there, wherefrom he had formerly descended. The rulers of the people frightened them with the pictures of humiliating transformations of their souls, as the Catholic priests and the Partialist preachers do among us, with their teaching of an endless hell. The people, amazed and terrified, for the masses were ignorant, believed all those politico-religious fables. They firmly believed that the souls of the wicked passed into vile bodies; that they were punished with cruel and loathesome diseases; that those who did not reform after a certain number of transmigrations were delivered up to the Furies and to the evil spirits (or devils) to be tortured; and that, after that, they were sent again to the earth, as in a new school, and were[127] obliged to run a new race. Thus we see that the whole system of Metempsychosis rested on the false supposition, that it was necessary, in order to govern the people here below, to frighten them with absurd and visionary tales of atrocious tortures beyond the grave, which were the more terrifying for the very reason of their absurdity and atrociousness.

Timee of Locre, one of the disciples of Socrates, wrote, that among the various means of governing those who are not able to reach the truth of the principles, on which nature has established justice and morals, Metempsychosis is an efficacious one. He said: "Let them be taught those dogmas which inform us that the souls of effeminate and pusillanimous men transmigrate into female bodies; those of murderers into bodies of wild beasts; those of licentious men into bodies of wild boars and hogs; those of fickle and inconstant men into bodies of birds; those of idle, ignorant and silly men into bodies of fishes. The just Nemesis regulates those pains in the future life conjointly with the gods of the earth, avengers of the crimes they have witnessed. The supreme God has entrusted them with the government of this inferior world. Let them be frightened, even, by the religious terrors conveyed to the soul by those discourses which describe the vengeance of the celestial gods, and the unavoidable torments reserved to the criminals in the Tartarus; and also by the other fictions which Homer has found in the ancient sacred[128] opinions. Sometimes the body is cured by poisonous substances; so the souls can be ruled by fables when they cannot be governed by truth."

This philosopher plainly gives us his secret, which has been, and still is, the secret of all legislators and priests. True, the belief of these fables has restrained many from vice and crime; nevertheless we firmly believe that men ought to be led to justice by the bright light of the truth, and not by the dismal light of error, and of superstition: the one elevates man, but the other keeps him in an eternal infancy and ignorance. How sad it is to see, even now-a-days, in free and enlightened America, priests, and Protestant ministers themselves, keeping down in intellectual, moral and religious bondage, millions of Christians, who, from fear of endless curse, kiss the very chains which heavily they drag through life; who believe that God will endlessly roast men—his children—in an undying fire! More surely, and more easily, could those purely minded, but unfortunate Christians, be guided to love God, if they knew that he is not worse than a tiger; that, on the contrary, he is truly good and loving; more virtuous they would be if they were taught that virtue is the source, and the only true source, of happiness. Truer fraternity would reign in our communities, if priests and pretended Protestants, who tyrannize over the souls of their misled victims, and, like the Pharisees of old, lay upon their shoulders a burden they would not be willing to touch with their [129] own fingers—yea, they lay upon their mind and heart the leaden weight of the dogma of endless misery, which they, at least the leaders of the leaders, reject—truer fraternity would exist, we say, for there would not be in our communities, a class of Christians, believing that they are the elect of God for righteousness and eternal bliss, while all the others shall be endlessly damned. Hence their indifference, or rather aversion for them; hence a spirit of Pharisaism: hence a spirit of religious aristocracy, which unfortunately ramifies into a social aristocracy!

ARTICLE II.

Tartarus.

When legislators, priests and philosophers had invented the doctrine of Metempsychosis, the mystagogues and the poets took hold of it, and endeavored to spread it among the people, in consecrating it, the ones in their chants, and the others in the celebration of their mysteries. They clothed it with the charms of poetry, and presented it with magical illusions. All united to deceive the people, under the specious pretext of bettering and governing them with a surer hand. The widest field was opened to fictions; and the genius of the poets, as well as the cunning of the priests, were inexhaustible in portraying the bliss of the righteous hereafter, and the horror of the horrible prisons wherein crime was to be punished.

[130]

Each one portrayed them according to his own fancy, and added new scenes and views to the descriptions of those unknown lands; of that world of new creation, which the imagination of poets peopled with shadows, chimeras and phantoms, for the purpose of frightening the people: for rulers wrongly thought that their minds could not rise up to the abstract notions of metaphysics and morals. The Elysium and the Tartarus were more pleasing and more vividly striking to the imagination of the people: therefore darkness and light were successively presented to the gaze of those initiated to the mysteries. To the darkest night, and to frightful spectres, succeeded a bright day, whose light shone around the statue of the Deity: one could not help feeling a mysterious terror, when entering that sanctuary, where all was disposed to represent the Tartarus and the Elysium. It was in this sanctuary that the one initiated, being finally introduced, saw the picture of charming meadows, lighted by a pure sky: there he heard harmonious voices, and the majestic chants of sacred choirs. It was then that, entirely free, and rid of all evils, he joined the multitude of those initiated; and that, a crown of flowers on his head, he celebrated the holy orgies.

Thus the ancients represented here below, in their initiations, what was, they said, to happen hereafter to the souls, when they would be disengaged from their bodies; and would be liberated from the obscure prison, wherein fate had chained[131] them by uniting them to terrestrial matter. In the mysteries of Isis, of which we hold the details from Apuleo, the candidate passed through the dark region of the empire of the dead; thence into a vast enclosure, which represented the elements; and then he was admitted into the bright region, where the brightest sun succeeded to the darkness of the night, namely, in the three worlds, the terrestrial, the elementary, and the celestial. He who had been initiated said: "I have approached the boundaries of death in treading the thresh hold of Proserpine; therefrom I have returned through the elements. Then I saw a bright light, and I found myself in the presence of the gods." This was the autopsy.

What mystagogy exhibited in the sanctuaries, poets, and even philosophers, in their fictions, publicly taught to the people: hence the descriptions of the Elysium and of the Tartarus found in Homer, Virgil and Plato, and all those given us by many systems of theology. We never had a description of the earth and of its inhabitants, a description as complete as that transmitted to us, by the ancients, about those countries of new creation, known under the names of Hell, Tartarus, and Elysium. Those men, whose geographical knowledge was so limited, have given us the minutest details of the abode of the souls beyond the grave; of the government of each one of the two empires, which form the domain of the shadows; of their habits; of their diet; of their[132] pains and pleasures; and even of the costume of the inhabitants of these two regions. The same poetical imagination which had invented that new world, arbitrarily traced out its plan and distribution.

Socrates, in the Phædo of Plato, a work intended to prove the immortality of our soul, and the necessity of practicing virtue, speaks of the place where the souls go after death. He imagines a sort of ethereal land, superior to the one we inhabit, and situated in a sunnier region. There is nothing on our earth that can compare to the beauties of this wonderful abode. There colors are brighter, the vegetation richer; the trees, flowers and fruits are infinitely superior to those of our earth. There precious stones are so bright that those of our earth are but their shadow. This ethereal land is strewed with pearls of the purest crystal; everywhere gold and silver are dazzling. There beasts are more beautiful, and more perfectly organized than ours. There the air is the sea, and ether is the air. There seasons are so harmoniously combined, that the fortunate inhabitants are not subject to infirmities and to diseases. There the temples are inhabited by the gods themselves, who familiarly converse with men. The inmates of this delightful mansion are the only ones who see the sun, the moon, and the stars, as they truly are.

To this Socrates adds, that men, who, here below, distinguish themselves for their piety and[133] exactitude in discharging their social duties, will be admitted in this abode of happiness when death destroys their mortal form. There all those whom philosophy has led to wisdom will dwell. Socrates concludes thus:

Then it is for us a strong inducement to study wisdom, and to practice virtue, while we are on earth. These expectations are high enough for us to risk the chances of this opinion, and not to break its charms.

This is a plain avowal of the motive of the fiction: such is the secret of nearly all legislators, and the deceitfulness of the most renowned philosophers.

The second part of the land of the dead, called Tartarus, the leaders of the people also minutely described. According to their description, this abode of the wicked presents the horrid view of precipices, caverns, and abysses, more frightful than those we see on earth. Those caverns communicate to each other in the profundities of the earth, through the medium of sinuosities vast and dark, and of subterraneous canals, in which waters flow; the ones cold, and the others warm: also in several of those canals flow torrents of fire, and in others the filthiest mire. The vastest of those caverns is in the center; and into it four main rivers ebb, to spring out again. The first is the Acheron, which forms beneath the earth a shoreless marsh, wherein the souls assemble. The second is the Pyriphlegeton, which rolls torrents[134] of burning sulphur. The third is the Cocyte; and the fourth is the Styx.

In this horrible abode divine justice tortures the criminals. At the gate of the Tartarus the frightful Tisiphon, whose gown is reeking with blood, watches day and night. The gate is also defended by a strong tower, backed by three walls, which are surrounded by the burning waves of the Phlegeton river, that rolls huge stones on fire. There are incessantly heard the rattle of chains dragged by wretched victims; their groans; and the strokes of lashes that tear their flesh. There is seen an hydra with a hundred heads, whose mouths are ever gaping for new victims to be devoured. There a vulture is constantly feeding on the ever re-growing entrails of a criminal. Other victims carry a heavy rock to the summit of a mountain, where they must set it; but, vain are their efforts, it rolls down to the bottom of the valley. Other criminals, tied to a wheel, relentlessly revolving, are not permitted the slightest rest in their torture. Others, placed near refreshing waters, and near trees loaded with fruit, are ever devoured with unquenchable thirst and hunger. If they stoop to drink the water flies from their mouth, and a stinking mire sticks to their lips. If they lower a limb to cull a fruit, the limb slips from their hand.

Farther, fifty female victims are forced to fill up with water a cask, whose bottom is riddled. Indeed, there is no sort of torment that was not[135] invented by legislators, mystagogues, poets, and philosophers, to frighten the people, under the false assumption of making them better; but the truth is that it was rather to keep them down in subjection. Those terrifying pictures were painted on the walls of the temple of Delphos. Those fables were repeated to infants by nurses and mothers. Thus their souls grew weak and pusillanimous, for strong and durable are the first impressions, and more especially, when the general opinion, the example of the credulity of others, the authority of philosophers, of poets, of learned Hierophants, and the sight of pompous rites, and ceremonies in the overpowering sacredness of sanctuaries; when the monuments of arts, music, statues, and pictures, in short, when all tends to insinuate in the soul, through the senses stricken with hope and terror, a great error presented as a sacred truth revealed by the gods themselves for man's bliss.

Such was the general teaching and belief of the Pagans in regard to future punishment, before the coming of Jesus Christ, and the preaching of his Gospel.

As to the Jewish nation, not the slightest vestiges of any kind of belief regarding future punishment, can be traced out, neither in the Old Testament, nor in Josephus, nor in the writings of other historians, at least before the captivity of Babylon, which took place in the year 598 before the Christian era. Afterwards the Jews divided into four sects, the Essenes, the Sadducees,[136] the Samaritans, who denied the existence of any future punishment, and the Pharisees, who, according to the testimony of Josephus, adopted the belief of Metempsychosis, or transmigration of the souls.

ARTICLE III.

Did the Christians of the First Centuries believe in Endless Hell?

We emphatically answer, no. If the Christian Fathers of the first centuries, have neither taught the dogma of endless hell, nor mentioned, in their writings, that their fellow-Christians knew or believed it, and if the same is proved by the testimony of the then existing Christian sects or denominations, it is evident that the first Christians did not believe in endless hell. But the Christian Fathers of the first centuries have neither taught the dogma of endless hell, nor mentioned, in their writings, that their fellow-Christians knew or believed it; and the same is proved by the testimony of the then existing Christian sects. These two members of the proposition we are to successively prove: 1st member: In the first century the four Gospels, and other books of the New Testament were written by the apostles, but history does not inform us of any other Christian writing, or author, in that age, except perhaps Clement, bishop of Rome, who, it is said, has left a letter to the Corinthians: critics call it Apocryphal. We have not read it. Therefore[137] in order to know whether the first Christians believed in endless hell or not, we must recur to the works of the Christian Fathers who lived and wrote in the following centuries, and particularly to those who lived and wrote during the second.

St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom at Rome, in the year 107, was the first apostolic Father of the second century. There are in the collection of the works of the holy Fathers, six letters ascribed to him by some authors; some others, Saumaise, Blondel, Daillé, etc., say that they are apocryphal. Mosheim, in his Histor. Christ., says, that it is doubtful whether they are of Ignatius or not. We have read those six letters, of which five are addressed to different Churches, and one to Polycarpus. Although they treat of the most important points of the Christian faith and duties, they are silent upon the question of endless hell. In the year 131, St. Quadratus presented to the emperor Adrian an apology of the Christian religion, which contained the principal Christian doctrines. Adrian was so pleased with this apology, that, if we must believe what Lampride says in his Life of Alexander Severus, he designed to rear a temple to Jesus Christ, and to place him among the gods of the empire. A fragment of this apology can be found in the works of Eusebe; but not a word is said about the dogma of endless hell.

St. Justin, a Platonician philosopher, was born at Naplouse, Palestine, in 103. He was converted[138] to Christianity in 133. He wrote the following works: Exhortation to Gentiles; two Apologies of the Christian religion, the one to the emperor Antonine, and the other to the emperor Marcus-Aurelius; a Dialogue with the Jew Triphon; a treatise on Monarchy, or Unity of God; and an Epistle to Diognet, in which he states the reasons why Christians left the worship of the gods, and did not adopt that of the Jews. He composed other works, but they exist no more. The main editions of his works are those of Robert Etienne in 1551 and 1771, in Greek and Latin; that of Commelin in 1593, in Greek and Latin; that of Morel in 1656, and that of Don Marand in 1742, in folio. All these editions, and afterwards that of Migne, we have compared in the voluminous library of the theological seminary of Brou, France, where we have been ordained a priest. Although there were alterations of the text, we did not find any passage referring to the dogma of endless hell. True, addressing the Romans, he says: "Come, O Romans, to find instruction! Formerly I was like you, now be what I am. The power of the Christian religion has enlightened me, and freed me from servitude to my senses and passions: it has afforded me peace and serenity. The soul thus free is sure to reunite to her Creator, because it is right that she return to him from whom she emanated." But this passage neither explicitly nor implicitly supposes that he believed, or that the first Christians believed, in endless hell; it is sim[139]ply a Platonician and Christian doctrine, in regard to the purity of our soul which is worthy of God only when unstained. However Bailly, a Catholic theologian, says that on page 74 of the first Apology there is a passage proving his belief in endless hell. We did not find it.

Meliton, bishop of Sardes, Lybia, under the reign of Marcus-Aurelius, presented to this emperor an Apology of the Christian religion, in 171. Eusebe and several other authors praise it. Only a few fragments of it are found in the Bibliotheca Patrum; in none of them is a question of the dogma of endless hell.

Athenagoras, a Platonician philosopher, was converted to the Christian religion, and presented, in 177, an Apology of the Christian doctrines to the emperors Marcus-Aurelius and Lucius-Aurelius-Commode. He justified the Christians, who were charged by the Pagans with atheism: with sacrificing and eating a child in their assemblies; and with indulging to impudicity. In this Apology he ascribed to God but a general providence; and he expressed the Platonician opinion, that angels, or spirits, had the government of this world. He admitted that there were pains and rewards in the future life. Let us not infer from this that he referred to the dogma of endless hell. No; he merely meant, by those pains and rewards, the Platonician doctrine about Metempsychosis.

Ireneus was born in Greece, in 140. He became bishop of Lyons, Gaul. He wrote several theolog[140]ical works in the Greek language. He believed in a general judgment, and in the millenium, namely, in a temporal kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth, which was to last one thousand years immediately before the general judgment. During this reign of Jesus Christ, the Christians were to enjoy a happiness which was to be a foretaste of the happiness they should enjoy after the general judgment. Not only this Father did not teach the dogma of endless hell, but according to the ultramontane Bergier, he has been charged by the pretended Orthodox divines with having expressed himself in an heterodox manner upon the divinity of the Word; upon the spirituality of the angels and of the human soul; upon free agency and the necessity of grace; and upon the state of the souls after death. He seemed to be inclined to believe Metempsychosis—this, however, is our private opinion, resting on his general views on the state of the souls after death. The Catholics invoke but one passage of his writings against this opinion. Grabe, a Protestant, published at Oxford, in 1702, an edition of his works; it is quite different from the Catholic editions.

Theophile was promoted to the episcopal see of Antioch, in 168. We have from his pen but three Books to Autolic; they have been edited by Don Prudent Marand. He is the first Father who used the word Trinity. His works are a refutation of Paganism, and an apology of Christianism. We could not find in them the dogma of endless hell;[141] he only vaguely speaks of rewards and pains hereafter.

We have seen that the above Fathers, who compose the complete list of the Fathers of the second century, neither taught the dogma of endless hell, nor have recorded that the first Christians held such a dogma. Therefore we may draw the conclusion that the first Christians did not believe the doctrine of endless hell.

We pass to the Fathers of the third century. Titus Flavius Clement, of Alexandria, a Platonician philosopher, became a Christian, and succeeded to Pantenus, a professor of the school of Alexandria, in 190; and he died in 217. Alexander of Jerusalem and the celebrated Origen were his disciples. He wrote many works, the principal thereof are: Exhortations to Pagans; his Pedagogue; his Hypotyposes; and his Stromatas, which are divided into eight books. It is said that the best edition of his works is that of Potter, published at Oxford, in 1715, in two vols. folio. I read only the Paris edition, published in 1696. In his Exhortations to Pagans, he pointed out the absurdity of idolatry, and of the fables of Paganism. In his Stromatas he compared the doctrines of the philosophers with those of Jesus Christ. In the treatise headed, Which rich man will be saved? he shows that he who will use his riches properly will obtain salvation: he does not say salvation from endless hell. His Pedagogue is a treatise of morals in which he relates how the first Christians[142] righteously lived and fervently served the Lord. In all these works it is not a question of the dogma of endless hell, either taught to the Christians or believed by them.

According to Le Clerc, Beausobre, d'Argens, Barbeyrac, Scultet, Daillé, Mosheim, Brucker, Semler, etc., this Father did not believe the spirituality of God and of man's soul.... It is a fact that, in his Stromatas, he says that God is composed of a body and of a soul, and that so is our soul. He believed in the Pagan fable that the angels had sexual intercourse with human females, and had begotten giants; he refers probably to the Giants who had fought against the Titans. All the Catholic theologians themselves admit the above, and say, that, though a Christian, he was too much of a Platonician philosopher. This is the reason why the Pope, Benedict XIV., opposed his worship, as a saint, in the Romish Church. These statements show how far this Father was from holding the dogma of endless hell.

Tertullian was one of the Fathers who wrote at the end of the second century; however, as he died in 216, we class him among the Fathers of the beginning of the third century. His works are on Prayer, on Baptism; also he wrote Exhortation to Patience; two Books to his Wife; Testimony of the Soul; treatises on Spectacles and Idolatry; treatise on Prescription; two books against the Gentiles; one against the Jews; one against Hermogenes; one against the Valentinians; one[143] against the Gnostics; one on the Crown; one to Scapula; books against Praxeas; books on Pudicity, on Persecutions, on Fast, against the Physics, on Monogamy. These works we had not the advantage to read; but we have studied the following in our theological school: his treatise on Penance; his five books against Marcion; his treatise on the Flesh of Jesus Christ; his book on the Resurrection of the Flesh; and his Apology of the Christian Religion.

In these works which, let this be cursorily said, were written in Latin, for Tertullian was the first Father who wrote in this language, we read several times the word infernus, synonimous to Tartarus, and the words ignem eternum, used in speaking of pains, which will be inflicted upon the wicked after the general judgment; but nothing positive in regard to the duration of the punishment, for he might have used the adjective æternum hyperbolically; nor anything in regard to the belief of the first Christians in regard to it, nor even of his contemporaneous Christians. If the dogma of endless hell had been generally believed by the Christians, he would have certainly mentioned it in his Apology of the Christian Religion; for one of the main charges of the Pagans against them was that they were Atheists; and thereby denied the Elysium and the Tartarus. However, in no one of the fifty arguments which compose the Apology does he say a word about endless hell, even about any punishment beyond the grave. He only, in the[144] forty-eighth argument, says, that there will be a resurrection of the flesh.

Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian historian, who wrote in the beginning of the third century, is altogether silent about the dogma of endless hell, at least in the fragments of his works which have been preserved by Eusebe.

Origen was born at Alexandria, in 185. He has been one of the most talented and learned among the Fathers. He wrote the following works: Exhortation to Martyrdom; Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. He undertook an edition of the Bible in six columns, and headed it Hexaples. The first column contained the Hebrew text in hebraic letters; the second, the same text in Greek letters; the third contained the version of Aquila; the fourth column, the version of Symmaque; the fifth, that of the Septuagint; and the sixth, that of Theodotion. He considered the version of the Septuagint as the most authentical. The Octaples contained, also, two Greek versions, which had been recently found, and whose authors were unknown. He wrote more than one thousand sermons; he wrote his celebrated work about Principles, and a treatise against Celse.

All the above works have not been transmitted to us entire, though the most of them are, as can be seen in the Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum, published in Paris, in 1826. This Catholic edition, we positively know, is not as impartial as it ought to be. So much has been written, for centuries,[145] against Origen and for his justification, that a mere summary of those writings would fill volumes. Besides, would we make this summary we might perhaps be suspected of partiality, because Origen's doctrines are favorable to the bearing of this work; therefore we shall extract from the works of Feller, a Romish priest and a Jesuit, what we have to write about his accusation and justification, and about the summary of his doctrines.

Feller says, Article Origen: "In the fourth century, the Arians invoked his authority to prove that Jesus Christ was not God. St. Athanase, St. Basile, and St. Gregory of Nazianze, defended him. Hilaire, Tite de Bostres, Didyme, Ambrosius, Eusebe of Verceil, and Gregory of Nysse have laudably spoken of his works; whereas, Theodor of Mopsueste, Apollinary, and Cesary, have disparagingly written of them. Origen was condemned in the fifth general council, held at Constantinople, in 553. The pope Vigil condemned him anew. St. Epiphane, Anastase the Sinaïte, St. John Climaque, Leonce of Byzantium, Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, and Antipater, bishop of Bostres, violently denounced his writings; the pope Pelage II. said that heretical works were not worse than Origen's writings. There are, in the acts of the sixth council, an edict of the emperor Constantine Pogonat, and a letter of the pope Leon II., in which he is counted with Didyme and Evagrius among the Theomaques, or enemies of God.

[146]

"The pope St. Martin I., anathematized him in the first council of Latran, in 649. St. Augustine, St. John of Damas, and St. Jerome, wrote against the Origenists, namely, the sect of Christians who believed the doctrines of Origen. In the same century, when a dispute arose about the orthodoxy of Origen, John of Jerusalem, and Rufin made his apology, and St. John Chrysostomus did the same. St. Pamphyle also took his part. Theotime of Tomi refused to condemn him, and Didyme tried to give an orthodox meaning to his doctrine on Trinity; others in condemning the errors contained in his books pretended that they had been added by the heretics. Theophile of Alexandria accused the monks of Nitria of Origenism, and condemned them in a council held at Alexandria; the pope Anastasius ratified the sentence. In the seventh century, the emperor Justinian declared himself hostile to the memory of Origen; wrote a letter to Memnas against his doctrine; issued an edict against him, in 640; and obtained his condemnation in a council held the same year at Constantinople, whose acts were added to those of the fifth general council."

We read in the acts of the fifth general council of Constantinople, held in 553, that Origen was condemned by the council for having taught the following doctrines: 1st, That in the dogma of Trinity the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son greater than the Holy Spirit. 2d, That human souls have been created before the bodies, [147] to which they have been chained as a punishment for sins, which they had committed in an anterior state of existence. 3d, That the soul of Jesus Christ had been united to the Word before his incarnation. 4th, That the planets and stars are animated, and contain a soul intelligent and endowed with reason. 5th, That, after the resurrection, all bodies will have a spheroidal shape. 6th, That the punishment of the wicked in a future life will not be endless; and that Jesus Christ, who has been crucified to save the world, will be crucified once more to save the devils.

According to this testimony of the Romish Church—which carries fanaticism farther than any other sect, in regard to the dogma of endless hell, for it holds as an article of faith even that the reprobates are tortured in hell, in their bodies and in their souls, though their bodies are in the grave, and though a material fire cannot burn an immortal soul—according to the above testimony of the Romish Church, we say, it is an established, an undeniable fact, that Origen taught the doctrine of Metempsychosis, or transmigration of the souls; and also the doctrine that the punishment of the wicked in a future life would not be endless.

From this testimony we draw the following argument, which we invite the reader to attentively examine, and to carefully weigh, for this argument, alone, would unanswerably prove that the Christians of the first, of the second, of the[148] third, and even of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, did not generally believe the dogma of endless hell.

Argument: In the beginning of the third century, Origen (he was born in 185) taught the doctrine of Metempsychosis, or transmigration of the souls, and the doctrine that the punishment of the wicked in a future life would not be endless; these two doctrines were condemned only in the sixth century by the fifth general council held at Constantinople, in 553, and composed of 151 bishops. But if the Christians of the first, of the second, of the third, and even of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, had generally believed the dogma of endless hell, the above two doctrines would have certainly been condemned before the sixth century. This minor proposition we prove:

By the orders of the bishop of Rome, Sylvester, and of the emperor Constantine I., an œcumenical council, composed of 381 bishops, was held at Nice, in 325, to frame a symbol of faith, and to condemn Arius.

In 381, a second general council, composed of 150 bishops, was held at Constantinople, to condemn Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; and to alter the symbol of Nice, (striking inconsistency of the Romish Church which holds as an article of faith that a general council is infallible in its decisions.)

In 431, the bishop of Rome, Celestine I., assembled a general council at Ephesus, to obtain the[149] condemnation of Nestorius, who denied that Mary was, strictly speaking, the mother of God.

In 451, a general council was held at Chalcedony, Asia Minor, for the condemnation of Eutyches, and of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who held the doctrine that there was in Jesus Christ but one nature.

From the beginning of the second century, the time when Origen taught the above two doctrines, up to the year 553, several thousand synods and principal councils were held.

Thereupon we say: The doctrine of Metempsychosis, or transmigration of the souls; and the doctrine that the punishment of the wicked in a future life will not be endless, were as important as the most of the doctrines discussed in those councils; and Origen had a weightier influence upon the Christian communities by his talents, learning, virtue, and fame, and by the diffusion of his works, than Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, Dioscorus and others put together. Therefore, if the dogma of endless hell had been generally believed by the Christians of the first, of the second, of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, the doctrine of Metempsychosis, and the doctrine that the punishment of the wicked in a future life will not be endless, held and taught by Origen, would have been called up, discussed, and condemned in the above councils. But they were called up, discussed, and condemned, only in the fifth general council, held at Constan[150]tinople, in 553. Therefore, it is an irrefutable fact that the Christians of the first, of the second, of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, did not generally believe the dogma of endless hell.

Gregory of Neocesaree, was a disciple of Origen, and was promoted to the episcopal see of Neocesaree, in 240. He wrote the following works: Thanks to Origen, Profession of Faith on the Dogma of Trinity, Canonical Epistle, and Paraphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes. In these works the spirit of the doctrines of Origen is seen at every page; and the dogma of endless hell is neither taught, nor declared to have been the belief of the first Christians, nor of the Christians of the third century. St. Cyprian, made bishop of Carthage in 248, is silent about the dogma of endless hell.

We pass to the Fathers of the fourth century.

Pamphile Eusebe obtained the bishopric of Cesarea in 313. He wrote the Panegyric, and the Life of Constantine; a Chronicle, viz: a compilation of Pagan authors, and several other works, whose fragments have remained. His principal work is his Ecclesiastical History, which we have studied in our theological school. If the dogma of endless hell had been the belief of the first Christians, and had been generally believed in his age, he would have certainly mentioned it therein: however, he has not. Therefore, the first Christians, and those of his age, did not hold the dogma of endless hell.

[151]

Athanase succeeded to Alexander on the episcopal see of Alexandria, in 326. His works are: Defense of Trinity and of Incarnation; apologies; letters; and treatises against the Arians, the Melecians, the Apollinarists, and the Macedonians. In these works there is not a word concerning the dogma of endless hell being believed by the first Christians, or by his contemporaries. The famous symbol which is headed symbol of Athanase, which the Romish priests read every Sunday in the Psalms-Breviary, is not from his composition nor from his pen; every one of the Catholic theologians and authors confesses it.

Basile, bishop of Cesarea, was born in 329. He has left several letters, homilies, treatises of morals, and sermons on the six days of the creation. We have examined the Latin edition of his works, or rather of the fragments of his works, for they are not entire, by Don Gamier and Don Prudent; but though in many passages he speaks of salvation, of eternal bliss, and of the punishment of the wicked hereafter, he does not positively declare that the punishment will be endless; and he does not say that the first Christians believed it, nor that it was a dogma of the Church in his age. Theodor of Mopsueste, who wrote in the fifth century, is charged by the Catholic writers to have taught that future punishment will not be endless.

Since that time, down to the sixth century, the question of the eternal duration of the punishment of the wicked in a place called hell, was dis[152]cussed by the ecclesiastical writers, who, nevertheless, did not assert that it was the belief of the first Christians. Ambrosius supposed that it would be infinite in duration; so Augustine, his disciple, wrote in his work, De Civitate Dei, book 21; St. Fulgence; the pope Gregorius, etc. The opinion of those leading doctors was preached, and, little by little, it became the belief of a large number of Christians. They even designated the place where hell was: some thought it was in the profundities of the earth; Augustine opposed them; then he recanted himself, and agreed that it was there. Finally, in 553, a general council was held in Constantinople, and it was decided that the dogma of endless hell shall be henceforth an article of faith. It was only many years after that this council was considered œcumenical.

We have proved by the testimony of the Fathers themselves, that the Christians of the first, of the second, of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, did not believe the dogma of endless hell; we shall now prove it by the various Christian sects, which existed, and were organized religious denominations, in those centuries.

Lest we might be suspected of partiality in the exposition of the belief of those Christian sects in regard to future punishment, we will exclusively make our extracts from the works of Bergier, Feller, and other Catholic theologians and historians.

The Cerinthians did not believe the doctrine of[153] endless hell. The Basilidians believed in Metempsychosis, or transmigration of the souls. In consequence they did not hold the dogma of endless hell. Eusebe informs us, in his Ecclesiastical History, that Basilide had written on the four Gospels twenty-four books; and that his sect was numerous. It flourished till the fourth century.

The Millenaries, who existed mainly in the second and third centuries, believed that Jesus Christ would soon come from heaven, to reign one thousand years over the righteous; that this reign would be temporal; and that it would be followed by a general judgment: but they did not hold that future punishment would be endless, for they were silent about its nature.

The Marcionites believed in a good principle, God, and in a bad one, the Devil; the latter had created our body. Jesus Christ had but an apparent flesh. Our body should not come again to life; they believed like Pythagoras, of whom Marcion was a follower, in the doctrine of Metempsychosis: such was their belief. They made so many proselytes, that, even in the fifth century, their sect was numerous in Italy, in Egypt, in Palestine, in Syria, in Arabia, in Persia, and in other oriental countries.

The Valentinians held that Jesus Christ was not God; that he had redeemed the world only from sin, by freeing men of the empire of evil Eons, or geniuses, who had the government of the universe. They believed in the doctrine of Metempsychosis,[154] or transmigration of the souls. In consequence, they neither knew nor believed the dogma of endless hell. Valentin had an immense number of disciples, and his sect spread in Asia, and in Africa; in Europe it extended as far as Gaul, where, according to the testimony of Ireneus, bishop of Lyons, the Valentinians were very numerous.

The Marcosians formed a numerous religious body towards the end of the second century. Their sect spread as far as Gaul. They believed the doctrine of Metempsychosis.

The Theodotians and the Artemonians, in the second century, professed that Jesus Christ was not God, and believed in Metempsychosis.

The Carpocratians believed in the pre-existence of the souls, and taught that they had sinned in an anterior state of existence; that, as a punishment for those crimes, they had been condemned to animate other bodies, and would pass into other bodies as long as they would not have been sufficiently purified by this expiation. They denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the belief of the resurrection of the body. Carpocrate, of Alexandria, founded this sect in the second century.

The Docetes professed the same belief as the Carpocratians, with the difference that they did not admit that Jesus Christ had a natural body. They had exactly the same belief in regard to Metempsychosis. This sect existed in the second century. The Patripassians, the Noetians, the Praxeans, and the Sabellians have been silent on the dogma of endless hell.

[155]

Tatian, one of the most prominent ecclesiastical writers of the second century, established the sect of the Tatianists, who believed that Jesus Christ had not really suffered, and that he had not redeemed the world by his blood. They also held the doctrine of Metempsychosis. Of the many works of Tatian we have only his Discourse against the Pagans, and his Diatessaron.

Apelles established a sect of his name, in 145. The Apellites denied the resurrection of the body; believed in Metempsychosis; and also that God had entrusted a spirit of fire to create the world.

In the second century, Montan, a native of Ardaban, in Mysia, established the sect of the Montanists, which split and ramified into the Artotyrites, the Ascites, Ascodrutes, etc. They all believed the doctrine of Metempsychosis.

The Ophites, a sect of the second century, professed that the world had been created, and was governed by evil Eons or geniuses, and that God had sent Jesus Christ, his Son, to oppose the evil geniuses. They held the doctrine of Metempsychosis.

In the second century the sect of the Cainites denied the resurrection of the body, and believed in Metempsychosis.

The above sects compose the large body of Christians in the second century; and yet we do not find in their doctrines anything like the dogma of endless hell. They all, except perhaps the Millenaries, believed in the doctrine of Metempsy[156]chosis. And as those extracts are from Roman Catholic authors, who had the greatest interest in disguising the true doctrines of those sects, it follows that it is an undeniable fact, that the Christians of the second century neither did believe nor knew any thing about such a dogma as endless hell.

Corollary. Since the Christians of the second century neither believed the dogma of endless hell, nor knew anything about it, therefore the Christians of the first century neither believed this dogma, nor knew anything about it; for had they believed it, or known any thing about it, the Christians of the second century would have preserved that belief, or at least would have mentioned it. Consequently, it is an undeniable fact that the Christians of the first century were not taught by the apostles the dogma of endless hell.

Let us examine, now, the doctrines of the various Christian sects, which sprung up in the third century.

Tertullian, one of the Fathers of whom we have spoken above, had joined the Montanist sect; but afterwards he disagreed with them, and he founded, at about the fifth year of the third century, another sect, called Tertullianists. This sect lived several centuries, for in the time of St. Augustine, towards the end of the fourth century, they had a denominational organization at Carthage, Africa. Probably they held the same belief as Tertullian, in regard to the dogma of endless hell.

[157]

The Hermogenians believed that the earth and the whole universe have been uncreated, and are eternal. Hermogene said: "God has either taken evil from himself, or from nothing, or from a pre-existing matter. He could not take evil from himself, for he is indivisible; and, besides, evil could not abide in a being infinitely perfect. He could not take evil from nothing, for in this case it would have been in his power not to produce it; therefore, evil is derived from a matter pre-existing, co-eternal to God, and the defects of which God could not amend." The Hermogenians believed in Metempsychosis. Their sect spread more particularly in Galatia.

Berylle, bishop of Ostres, in Arabia, established, in 207, the sect of the Arabics. They believed that the soul was born and died with the body, and that both would come again to life. Origen wrote against this belief, and converted the most of them to his opinions. As Origen thought and taught that the punishment of the wicked would not be endless, and that the souls transmigrated, we may safely conclude that the Arabics embraced his opinions.

The Novatians were organized into a sect by Novat and Novatian, priests of the Church of Carthage. We have perused the treatises on Trinity and on the Viands, written by Novatian, whose fragments are found in the works of Tertullian; but we have found no opinion expressed in regard to the dogma of endless hell. We heard[158] since that there is a complete edition of his works, published in 1728, by Jackson, at London: we have not been able to obtain it.

According to the testimony of Epiphane, the Valesians held many of the doctrines of the Gnostics. From this we may safely infer that they believed in Metempsychosis. Tillemont, in his Memoirs for the Ecclesiastical History, tome 3d, says that the Valesians sprung up in 240. St. Epiphane and Tillemont are the only authors who have referred to them in their writings.

The Samosatians, whose chief was Paul of Samosate, Patriarch of Antioch, professed that the three persons of the Trinity were not three Gods, but three attributes, under which God has manifested himself to men; that Jesus Christ was not a God, but a man to whom wisdom had been extraordinarily given. We did not find any thing in the Ecclesiastical History in regard to their doctrines about future punishment. However, as they considered Jesus Christ only as an extraordinary man, it is most probable that they kept the immemorially, and, even then, generally believed doctrine of Metempsychosis. This sect was established in 260. The famous Zenobia, who then reigned in Syria, and believed the Jewish religion, was converted to this sect.

Manes was born in Persia, in 240. He was the father of the sect of the Manicheans. We shall give a summary of their doctrines, and as their sect has been one of the most numerous, one of[159] the most widely spread, and one whose denominational organization seems to have outlived nearly all those of the first centuries, we will add a summary of their history. We will find in their doctrines, and in their history, a weighty proof that the dogma of endless hell was not generally believed by the Christians of the first five centuries, to say the least.

To remove the least shadow of doubt about our impartiality, we continue, as done before, to take our extracts from Roman Catholic authors, who had an interest to make it appear that the dogma of endless hell was co-eval to the apostles.

We extract from Cotelier, a Roman Catholic author, tome 1, of the Apostolic Fathers, page 543, and following, these doctrines of the Manicheans:

In their opinion, the souls, or spirits, are an emanation from the good spirit, whom they considered as an uncreated light; and all bodies have been formed by the bad principle, whom they called Satan, and the power of darkness. They held that there are portions of light enclosed within all the bodies of the universe, and that they give them motion and life, wherefore those souls cannot reunite to the good principle, except when they have been purified by the means of various transmigrations from one body into another. They denied the future resurrection of the body.

It is therefore evident that the Manicheans[160] either knew nothing about the dogma of endless hell, or did not believe it.

From the year 285 to the year 491, the Manicheans were persecuted. The emperors of Orient confiscated their property, and decreed the penalty of death against them. Thousands of them died in the most cruel tortures, rather than to give up their faith; we read even in our days, in the Theodosian code, the laws enacted against them. Despite those persecutions they rapidly and widely spread. In the fourth century St. Augustine was converted to their sect, but he afterwards left them, and became their most powerful opponent. They formed a large body in Africa. In 491, the mother of the emperor Anastase, who was a Manichean, obtained the suspension of the laws enacted against them. They were allowed, during twenty-seven years, to have churches, and to freely worship; but during the reign of Justin, and under his successors, they were again forbidden it. Towards the end of the seventh century, the famous Gallinice, who was a Manichean, brought up her two sons, Paul and John, in her belief, and sent them to Armenia as missionaries. Paul made so many proselytes that the new converts took the name of Paulicians.

In the beginning of the ninth century the Paulicians split; but soon after they reunited, at the persuasion of one of their most influential members, named Theodote. The aversion of the Manicheans for the worship of the virgin Mary, of[161] the cross, of the saints, and of images, pleased the Saracens, who made frequent irruptions in the empire: through their influence they obtained more credit among their opponents.

In the year 841, the empress Theodora, who had declared herself in favor of the worship of the virgin Mary, of the cross, of the saints, and of images, went so far in her fanatical zeal for this doctrine, that she resolved to exterminate the Manicheans, and their religion. By her orders more than one hundred thousand of them were arrested and put to death; nearly all expired in the most cruel tortures. Then the Manicheans sought a refuge among the Saracens; they retired in fortified towns, repelled the repeated assaults of the imperial armies, and maintained themselves during about forty years; but having been defeated in a great battle they were forced to disperse.

Some went to Bulgaria, and since took the name of Bulgarians; others went to Italy, and mainly settled in Lombardy, wherefrom they sent missionaries to France, to Germany, and to other countries. In the year 1022, under the king Robert, several canons of Orleans, who had joined the Manicheans, were burnt alive. Although the penalty of death had been decreed against the Manicheans, they established a large number of convents all over France, and particularly in the provinces of Provence, of Languedoc, and, more especially, in the diocese of Albi, where they took the name of Albigenses.

[162]

Alanus, monk of Cîteaux, and Peter, monk of Vaux-Cernay, who wrote against them, accused them, 1st, of admitting two principles or creators, the one good and the other bad; the first, creator of invisible and spiritual things, and the second, creator of bodies. 2d, Of denying the resurrection of the body. 3d, Of denying the Purgatory. 4th, Of denying the utility of prayers for the dead. 5th, Of denying the pains of hell. 6th, Of believing the transmigration of the souls into other bodies of men, or of animals, according to the degree of their guilt in an anterior state of existence, until by successive expiatory transmigrations they become purified. 7th, Of disbelieving the seven sacraments. 8th, Of rejecting the worship of the virgin Mary, of the cross, of the saints, and of images, etc.

In 1176, the council of Albi, which some authors call council of Lombez, was held against the Manicheans, who, as said above, were called Albigenses. In this council they were condemned under the calling of Good Men. Fleury, who, in the seventy-second book of his Ecclesiastical History, quotes the acts of the council, ascribes to them the above doctrines; so does the historian Rainerius; and Bossuet, in the ninth book of his History of Variations, cites other authors who confirm all these accusations. The condemnation of the Manicheans, or Albigenses, was confirmed by the general council of Latran, in 1179. A crusade was ordered against them by the Pope, Inno[163]cent III., and a strict inquisition was organized. Simon, count of Montford, was appointed, by the Pope, general-in-chief of the crusaders; then the slaughter commenced. It lasted eighteen years: the Albigenses, or Manicheans, were exterminated, a few only secretly found their way to the Alps, where they concealed themselves, and afterwards united to the Valdenses. Several hundred thousands were either burnt alive, or tortured on racks, or put to the sword; all were slain: men, old men, young men, women, children, and infants; and during those horrible ceremonies of death, the soldiers of the Pope sung the Veni Creator Spiritus, etc., a hymn of invocation to the Holy Spirit.

From the doctrines and history of the Manicheans we draw the following argument:

According to the unanimous testimony of the Roman Catholic authors themselves, from about the middle of the third century to the thirteenth, the Manicheans composed a numerous body of Christians, and did not believe the dogma of endless hell. So constant were they in this disbelief, that they persisted in it till nearly every one of them was exterminated; therefore it is an undeniable historical fact that this large denomination of Christians did not hold the dogma of hell, in the third, fourth, fifth, etc., centuries.

Let us examine the doctrine of the Christian sects, which sprung up in the fourth century, in regard to endless hell. We continue to take our extracts from Roman Catholic authors.

[164]

Priscillian, a Spaniard, was the founder of the Christian sect of Priscillianists, in the year 380. This denomination of Christians believed in the doctrine of Metempsychosis. They held that the souls passed into the bodies of other men, until they were purified, by their transmigrations, of the sins they had committed in an anterior life. They denied the resurrection of human bodies. Priscillian was condemned to death, and the penalty of death was decreed against the Priscillianists. The emperor Maxime, and the pope Leon, used fire, racks, and swords against them; they slew thousands of them, nevertheless they increased so that they were numerous yet in the sixth century in Spain and in Italy. Tillemont, in his Ecclesiastical Memoir, tome 8, refers to Sulpice-Sevère, to Ambrosius, and to St. Augustine, for the confirmation of the above, said concerning the doctrines of the Priscillianists.

The other principal sects of the fourth century were the Donatists, the Photinians, the Macedonians, the Apollinarists, the Jovinians, the Collyridians, and the Pelagians. The Nestorians, the Eutichians, and the Monothelites, sprang up in the fifth century. We have not found in their writings any passages referring to the dogma of endless hell. However we must state that we had the opportunity of perusing only about two-thirds of the numerous and voluminous, we would add tedious, works composed pro and con concerning their respective tenets.

[165]

Remark.—Let the reader bear in mind that the most of the Christian sects, whose disbelief of the dogma of endless hell we have traced out above, composed the majority of the Christian body; and also that they have existed, at least, till the middle of the sixth century, the epoch when the fifth council of Constantinople condemned the doctrine held by Origen—that of the transmigration of the souls, and of their temporary punishment.

Conclusion. Therefore the dogma of endless hell was not generally believed by the Christians of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries.

General conclusion of this third article:

1. We have proved, by the testimony of the Fathers of the second century, and by the doctrines of the numerous Christian sects of the same century, that the dogma of endless hell was even unknown to the Christians of the first and of the second centuries. Then we must conclude that not only the first Christians, namely, the Christians of the first and of the second centuries did not believe in endless hell, but even that they knew nothing about such a dogma.

2. We have proved, by the testimony of the Fathers of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, and also by the many Christian sects which existed in the third, in the fourth, and in the fifth centuries, that the Christians did not generally believe, in the said centuries, the dogma of endless hell. Therefore the Christians of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, did not generally believe in endless hell.

[166]

Therefore the proposition we were to prove in the present article, that the first Christians did not believe in the doctrine of endless hell, remains peremptorily established.

Objection.—Since the fourth century the Church of Rome obtained the condemnation of the above Christian sects in five general councils. But if the above sects had composed the majority of the body of Christians, the Church of Rome would not have obtained their condemnation. Consequently the above sects did not compose the majority of the body of Christians during the third, the fourth, and the fifth centuries.

Answer.—We deny the minor proposition of this syllogism, which is: But if the above sects had composed the majority of the body of Christians, the Church of Rome would not have obtained their condemnation—and we prove our denegation as follows:—

Supposing that the United States be constituted into an empire—God forbid!—that the emperor would have the control of Church property, would side, say with the Presbyterian Church, or any other, claiming supremacy over the other Christian denominations; and that the emperor would assemble councils conjointly with that Church, would attend and even be vice-president of those councils, would enforce them with civil and military force, and also the execution of their acts condemning another sect arrayed before those councils, without permitting the other sects to vote in those coun[167]cils, would it follow from this that all the other Christian sects do not compose the body of Christians in the United States? Certainly not.

But the case was the same with the Church of Rome. Since the end of the second century the bishop of Rome (we do not say the Pope, for it was only centuries after that he had the boldness, or rather impudence, to call himself exclusively Pope,) commenced to claim a personal supremacy over the other bishops, and also a supremacy of his church over the other Christian churches. Vain were his efforts until the beginning of the fourth century, when Sylvestre, bishop of Rome, obtained for himself and for his church the favors and protection of the emperor Constantine I., who afterwards joined it, (we will state in the last chapter of this work the reasons why this tyrant took these steps.) In behalf of the Church of Rome, he convoked the council of Arles, and the general council of Nice, and defrayed the expenses of the bishops out of his own treasure. His protection to the Church of Rome the most of his successors on the imperial throne continued; and thus the power and supremacy of this church grew in ratio of the persecutions directed against the other Christian denominations, which were debarred from voting in the councils; whose church property was oftentimes confiscated; and which many of them were prohibited to publicly worship. In consequence, it is not true to say that, if the various Christian sects spoken of before had composed[168] the majority of the body of Christians, the Church of Rome would not have obtained their condemnation. Therefore the various sects spoken of before composed the majority of the body of Christians during the third, the fourth and the fifth centuries.

APPENDIX

To the proofs that the first Christians did not believe in endless hell.

From the second to the fourth centuries many Apocryphal Gospels had been written. Some of them have been transmitted down to us, at least their fragments; and others have not been preserved except their titles.

Among those gospels are: 1st, the Gospel according to the Hebrews; 2d, according to the Nazareans; 3d, according to the Twelve Apostles; 4th, according to St. Peter. It is supposed that these four Gospels were that of Matthew, altered by the Hebrews. This circumstance has led the critics to believe, that the Hebrew or Syriac text of Matthew had been abandoned, lest it might be altered; and that the Greek version had been preserved.

5th, The Gospel according to the Egyptians; 6th, that of the birth of the virgin Mary: we have read it in Latin; 7th, the Protogospel of James, written in Greek and in Latin; 8th, the Gospel of the Infancy, in Greek and in Arabic; 9th, that of St. Thomas; 10th, the Gospel of Nicodemus, in [169] Latin; 11th, the Gospel Eternal; 12th, that of Andrew; 13th, that of Bartholomew; 14th, that of Apelles; 15th, that of Basilides; 16th, that of Cerinthus; 17th, that of the Ebionites—perhaps it was the same as that of the Hebrews; 18th, that of Tatian; 19th, that of Eve; 20th, that of the Gnostics; 21st, that of Marcion; 22d, that of St. Paul; 23d, the Gospel of the small and great interrogations of Mary; 24th, that of the birth of Jesus: probably the same as the Protogospel of James; 25th, that of John, or of the death of the virgin Mary; 26th, that of Matthias; 27th, that of Perfection; 28th, that of the Simonians; 29th, that of the Syrians; 30th, that of the Encratites: probably the same as that of Tatian; 31st, the Gospel of Thadeus, or of Jude; 32d, that of Valentine; 33d, that of Life, or of the Living God; 34th, that of Philip; 35th, that of Barnabeus; 36th, that of James, the major; 37th, that of Judas; 38th, of the Truth: probably the same as that of Valentine; 39th, the Gospels of Leucius, of Seleucus, of Lucianus, and of Hesychius.

For a more extensive information concerning the Apocryphal Gospels, we refer the reader to the Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti Collectus, Castigatus, published at Hamburg, in 3 vols. octavo, in 1719. The author was John Albert Fabricius, one of the most learned antiquarians of the 17th century.

We had the opportunity of reading, in the rich library of the theological school of Brou, France, [170] several of these Apocryphal Gospels, that of the birth of the virgin Mary, the Protogospel of James; that of the death of the virgin Mary, and that of the Twelve Apostles; but we do not recollect to have seen in these gospels anything, in regard to endless hell, more positive than what is found in the Gospel concerning the ruin of Jerusalem.

Of course this proof, drawn from the Apocryphal Gospels, has not the same weight as if it was drawn from authentical authors, (it is for this reason that we have not inserted it in the body of proofs,) however as it is certain that they have been written from the second to the fourth centuries, they at least show that their authors, and the many Christians who used them, did not believe in endless hell.

ARTICLE IV.

How the Church of Rome borrowed the doctrine of Endless Hell from the Pagans; and how, afterwards, the self-called Orthodox Protestant Churches borrowed it from the Church of Rome.

It has been proved in the foregoing article, and, we think, to demonstration, that the Christians of the first and of the second centuries, neither knew nor believed the dogma of endless hell; wherefore we may logically make this argument:

The Christians of the first and of the second centuries neither knew nor believed the dogma of endless hell: But if the dogma of endless hell had [171] been taught in the New Testament, the Christians of the first and of the second centuries would have known and believed it. This we prove:

Those of the apostles who wrote the New Testament certainly knew whether, in the New Testament they wrote, they had taught the dogma of endless hell. If they had known that, in the New Testament they wrote, they had taught the dogma of endless hell, they would have certainly informed the Christians of the first century, in their oral predications, that, in the New Testament they wrote, they had taught the dogma of endless hell, for it was one of the most important points of doctrine. If they had informed the Christians of the first century, in their oral predications, that they had taught, in the New Testament they wrote, the dogma of endless hell, the Christians of the first century would have certainly believed that they had taught, in the New Testament they wrote, the dogma of endless hell. If the Christians of the first century had believed that they had taught, in the New Testament they wrote, the dogma of endless hell, they would have certainly believed in endless hell. If the Christians of the first century had believed in endless hell, those of the beginning of the second century would have also believed it; for the apostle and evangelist John was still living at the end of the year 100; (even many authors say that he died only in 104,) and therefore if any discussion had arisen in regard to the dogma of endless hell, he would have declared whether it was [172] taught in the New Testament or not. If the Christians of the beginning of the second century had also believed the dogma of endless hell, those who would have lived in the middle and at the end of the second century would have believed it also; because learning, from the lips, or from the writings, of those who were co-eval to some of the apostles, the dogma of endless hell, no traditional alteration might have taken place towards this dogma; so much so that it would have been generally spread and believed among Christians, owing to its importance.

Therefore the minor proposition of our argument is true: But if the dogma of endless hell had been taught in the New Testament, the Christians of the first and of the second centuries would have known and believed it. Wherefore we draw this logical conclusion: Then the dogma of endless hell is not taught in the New Testament.

Moreover, if the Christians of the third, of the fourth, and of the fifth centuries, had thought that the dogma of endless hell was taught in the New Testament they would have at least generally believed it. But they did not generally believe it, as it has been proved, to demonstration, in the foregoing Article: consequently the dogma of endless hell is not taught in the New Testament.

From the fact that, according to the Christians of the first and of the second centuries themselves, the dogma of endless hell is not taught in the New Testament, we draw the conclusion that the [173] Church of Rome, which first, and successively, introduced in the body of Christians the dogma of hell and of endless hell, did not originate it from the New Testament; because there would have been a general protestation against it from all the other churches.

It has been proved, in the second Article of this chapter, that the Jews did not believe the dogma of endless hell. Therefore the Church of Rome did not originate the dogma of endless hell from the Jews, or from their Holy Writs.

Wherefrom, then, did the Church of Rome originate the dogma of endless hell?

From Paganism:—

The Church of Rome established mysteries towards the beginning of the third century. They were an imitation of the Pagan mysteries.

We refer the reader for the proofs of this proposition to the last pages of the second chapter of this work.

Thereupon we continue. It was only successively, and to make more proselytes, that the Church of Rome had established those ceremonies, rites and doctrines, to the reading thereof we have invited the reader, and which were not only unspoken of in the Scriptures, but which were a pure imitation of those of the mysteries of the Pagans. We say, to make more proselytes; for the aim of the Church of Rome was evidently to diminish the abruptness of the transition between Paganism and Christianity; to throw a bridge, if [174] we may thus illustrate our idea, over the steep, wide, and deep abyss that lies between Paganism and Christianity.

Now let us compare the hell of the Church of Rome with the Tartarus of the Pagans. The Pagans called the place where the wicked were punished, Tartarus, or Infernus; the Church of Rome called, and still calls, the same place, Tartarus, or Infernus. The Pagans believed that the Tartarus was in the profundities of the earth; the Church of Rome held, and still holds, that the Tartarus, called in English, Hell, is in the profundities of the earth.

Remark.—Before proceeding further, let us give the native signification of the words Tartarus, Infernus and Hell. Τἁρταρος, ου, dark and deep place: Τάρταρα γαίης, [in Hesiode,] abysses of the earth. The word Τἁρταρος has been adopted and kept in the Latin, though with the change of the final ος into us, Tartarus, and its native meaning preserved. The Latin word Infernus derives from the word inferior, which signifies a place under, below an other, a cavity, a profundity. The words Tartarus, Infernus, have been kept in French, Tartare, Enfer; in Spanish, Tartaro, Infierno; and also in the other languages derived from the Latin. The English word hell is the genitive case of the Anglo-Saxon word hole, [See Webster's Dictionary,] which means a cavity, a profundity. The word Tartarus has been kept from the Latin, with its native signification. In Greek Τἁρταρος[175] has a plural, as seen before. In Latin Tartarus has a plural, Tartari; so Infernus, Inferi. In French Tartare has a plural, Tartares; so, Enfer, Enfers. In Spanish Tartaro has a plural, Tartaros; so, Infierno, Infiernos.

Now we continue the comparison that we have commenced between the Infernus of the Pagans and the Infernus, or Hell, of the Church of Rome. We will use the word Hell, to express the Tartarus, or Infernus, of both the Pagans and the Church of Rome.

The Pagans believed that there was a gate to their hell; so the Church of Rome believes that there is a gate to the hell of the Christians. The Pagans believed that the frightful Tisiphon watched day and night at the gate of their hell; so the Church of Rome believes that Lucifer holds the keys of the gate of hell, as St. Peter holds the keys of Paradise.

The Pagans believed that the deepest darkness reigned in their hell; so the Church of Rome believes that the deepest darkness reigns in the hell of the Christians.

The Pagans believed that, in their hell, the Phlegeton river rolled huge stones on fire, burning the wicked without consuming them; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, [even now it is an article of faith which must be believed under the penalty of excommunication, of being a heretic, and thereby of infallibly going to hell,] that, in the hell of the Christians, the wicked are[176] plunged into a corporeal, or material, fire of sulphur, and of brimstone. St. Augustine, in his work De Civitate Dei, Liber 21, Capitulum 10, writes: "Gehenna illa, quod etiam stagnum ignis et sulphuris dictum est, corporeus ignis erit." [Translation.—"That Gehenna, which is said to be a marsh of fire and of sulphur, will be a corporeal fire."]

The Pagans believed that, in their hell, the wicked were tortured in their bodies and in their souls, although their bodies were in the grave; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes that, in the hell of the Christians, the wicked are tortured in their bodies and in their souls, although their bodies are in the grave.

The Pagans believed that, in their hell, hideous furies were armed with whips and other instruments of torture; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the hell of the Christians, the devils are hideous and armed with whips, tridents, harpoons, and other instruments of torture. We invite the reader to go to Catholic stores of images, and to see the representation of devils with tails, horns, and armed with instruments of torture.

The Pagans believed that, in their hell, the wicked were whipped and tortured in various cruel manners by the furies, though their bodies were in the grave; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the hell of the Christians, the wicked are whipped and tortured[177] in various cruel manners by the devils, though their bodies are in the grave. The Pagans believed that, in their hell, the wicked dragged heavy chains; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the hell of the Christians, the wicked drag heavy chains. The Pagans believed that, in their hell, there were two principal abodes, the one expiatory, in which the common wicked were detained and tortured, until they had expiated their faults, and been purified enough to be admitted in the Elysium; and the other, the vastest, the darkest, and the deepest cavern, where great criminals were burnt and excruciated endlessly, and without any hope of cessation or relief in their torments; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that in the hell of the Christians, there are two principal abodes, the one, Purgatory, where the common wicked, namely, those guilty of venial sins, are tortured and burnt in a material fire, until they have expiated their faults, and been purified enough to be permitted to crave St. Peter to open to them the gate of Paradise, and the other the vastest, the darkest, and the deepest profundity, where the heretics, the schismatics, those who eat meat on Friday, do not pay the tithe to the priests, or who disobey kindred laws of the Church, are plunged, bodies and souls, (though their bodies are in the grave,) into a devouring fire, and where they are excruciated endlessly, without any hope of cessation or relief in their torments.

[178]

The Pagans believed that, in the expiatory abode of their hell, there were many different degrees of tortures; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the Purgatory of the hell of the Christians, there are many different degrees of tortures. The Pagans believed that supplications could relieve and free from their tortures, the common wicked detained in the expiatory abode of their hell; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the Purgatory of the hell of the Christians, the common wicked, namely, those guilty of venial sins, can be relieved in their torments, and be freed from them by supplications; hence the incalculable sums of money paid to the priests, to say masses for the deliverance of those wicked; hence the countless splendid churches, the vast number of monasteries, convents, nunneries, abbeys, and other costly edifices, founded in behalf of those wicked.

The Pagans believed that there were an innumerable quantity of different degrees of tortures in the second principal abode of their hell; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the second principal abode of the hell of the Christians, there is an innumerable quantity of different degrees of tortures. The Pagans believed that, in their hell, the wicked condemned to endless misery, would, mingle with their yells of anguish, torment, and despair, vociferations, maledictions, and curses, against the gods, and[179] against themselves; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that, in the hell of the Christians, the wicked, condemned to endless misery, will mingle with their yells of anguish, torment, and despair, vociferations, maledictions, and curses against God, and against themselves; that they will exclaim, Montes cadite super nos!—Mountains fall upon us! The Pagans believed that, in their hell, the wicked condemned to endless misery will vainly endeavor to kill and annihilate themselves; so the Church of Rome believed, and still believes, that the wicked condemned to endless misery, will vainly attempt to put an end to their miserable existence.

Therefore there is a most striking similarity, or rather identity, between the hell of the Pagans, and the hell of the Church of Rome.

Therefore, since as proved above,

1st, The Church of Rome was the first Church which introduced the dogma of endless hell in the body of Christians;

2d, Since, as proved above, the Church of Rome did not originate the dogma of endless hell from the New Testament;

3d, Since, as proved above, the Church of Rome did not borrow from the Jews, or from their Holy Writs, the dogma of endless hell;

4th, Since, as proved above, the Church of Rome, at the imitation of the Pagans, established, towards the beginning of the third century, mysteries, many of the ceremonies, rites and doctrines[180] thereof were alike to those ceremonies, rites and doctrines, of the mysteries of the Pagans;

5th, Since, as proved above, there is a most striking similarity, or rather identity, between the hell of the Pagans, and the hell of the Church of Rome,

We legitimately draw this important conclusion:

Therefore the Church of Rome borrowed from the Pagans the dogma of endless hell.

When the Protestants, now self-called Orthodox Churches, left the Church of Rome, in the sixteenth century, they cut off many of the appendices and concomitant particularities of the dogma of endless hell; but they preserved, and even in our days profess to believe, the main features of this dogma, namely, that in hell there is sulphur, brimstone, and fire; that in hell there are devils; that in hell there are many degrees of torments; that in hell the wicked are constantly burning in fire without consuming, and are constantly tortured by the devils without any relief; that hell shall exist forever and evermore, as long as endless eternity shall endure; and that the torments of the wicked in hell shall no more end than hell itself.

That the Protestants, now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, borrowed from the Church of Rome, in the sixteenth century, the dogma of endless hell; and that they preserved the above belief in regard to endless hell, is proved by the[181] unanimous testimony of modern historians and of chroniclers. That they, now-a-days, profess the above belief in regard to endless hell, is a fact which we can daily, and particularly every Sunday, in all cities, towns, and villages of this country, and of all Protestant countries, verify with our own eyes in their writings, and with our own ears in their temples.

Now we draw our general conclusions:

1st, Therefore the Church of Rome borrowed from the Pagans the dogma of endless hell.

2d, Therefore the now self-called Orthodox Protestant, or Christian Churches, borrowed from the Church of Rome the dogma of endless hell.

Conclusion of the chapter:

Therefore the Partialist doctrine of endless hell is of Pagan origin.

[182]

CHAPTER VIII.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF A FIRST JUDGMENT, BY JESUS CHRIST, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SEPARATION OF THE SOUL FROM THE BODY.

It will be evident that the origin of the doctrine of a first judgment, by Jesus Christ, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body, is Pagan, if it can be proved, 1st, That the Pagans believed in a first judgment, by a god, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body; 2d, That the particulars of this first judgment, believed in by the Partialist Christian Churches, present a striking similarity with the particulars of the first judgment, believed in by the Pagans; and 3d, That the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches this doctrine of a first judgment, which they accepted full and entire, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ nor from the Jews.

But it can be proved, 1st, That the Pagans believed in a first judgment, by a god, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body; 2d, That the particulars of this first judgment, believed[183] in by the Partialist Christian Churches, present a striking similarity with the particulars of the first judgment, believed in by the Pagans; and 3d, that the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century transmitted to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches this doctrine of a first judgment, which they accepted full and entire, did not hold it from the Apostles of Jesus Christ nor from the Jews.

1st, It can be proved that the Pagans believed in a first judgment, by a god, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body.

We extract the following from the History of the Egyptians, by Rollin. Article—Funerals: "Before the dead were admitted in the sacred asylum of the tomb, they underwent a solemn judgment. And this circumstance of the funerals among the Egyptians, is one of the most remarkable things in the ancient history. It is a consolation to us to leave behind us, when we die, a name honored among men; and of all blessings it is the only one of which we cannot be deprived by death. But in Egypt, it was not permitted to indistinctly praise the dead; this honor was conferred only after a favorable public judgment. The assembly of the judges was held on the other side of a lake, which they crossed on a bark. He who conducted the bark was called, in the Egyptian tongue, Charon; and it is from this name that the Greeks, instructed by Orpheus, who had been in Egypt, had invented the fable of the bark of Charon.

[184]

"When a man died he was brought to judgment. The public accuser was heard. If he proved that the conduct of the dead had been wicked, his memory was stigmatized, and he was deprived of the honor of funerals. The people admired the power of the laws, which extended even beyond death; and everybody, influenced by the example of others, was afraid to dishonor his family, and his own memory. If the dead was not convicted of any crime, he was honorably buried. What was the most astonishing in this judgment of the dead was that royalty itself was not spared. The kings were not judged during their life, the public good demanded it; but they were not exempted from the after death's judgment, and several of them were deprived of honorable funerals. This custom passed among the Israelites. We read in the Old Testament that wicked kings were not buried in the tombs of their fathers. Thus kings learned, that, if their majesty places them above the judgments of men, it is so no longer when death has placed them on the same level with their fellow-men.

"When the judgment, which had been pronounced, was favorable to the dead, they proceeded to the ceremony of the burial. A panegyric was delivered in which nothing was said of his birth, because every Egyptian was considered to be a noble man. His personal virtues only were praised. Then the whole assembly supplicated the gods to welcome him in the assembly of the[185] virtuous dead, and to associate him to their eternal bliss."

This judgment gave birth to the fable of a judgment rendered by the gods, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body. Charon was represented carrying the souls of the dead on board his bark, across the Styx river, to be judged by the great judge, Minos. This became a general belief among the Pagans, not only in Egypt, but in Greece, in Italy, and in nearly all the Oriental countries; as proved by the unanimous consent of the mythological authors. This belief has been perpetuated among the Pagans of those countries. Even in our days, the Indians believe in this judgment, and call the great judge, Zomo, or according to others, Jamen. The Japanese, followers of Buda, also believe in this judgment; and they call the great judge, Zomo. Likewise the Lamas believe in this judgment, and call the great judge Erlik-kan.

Therefore the Pagans believed in a first judgment, by a god, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body.

2d. It can be proved that the particulars of this first judgment, believed in by the Partialist Christian Churches, present a striking similarity with the particulars of the first judgment, believed in by the Pagans:

The Pagans believed that their great judge, Minos, sat on a throne, to judge the souls immediately after their separation from the bodies[186] that they animated; so the Partialist Christian Churches believe that Jesus Christ sits on a throne, to judge the souls, immediately after their separation from the bodies that they animated. The Pagans believed that, near to Minos' throne, and at his right hand, good geniuses, or spirits, stood; so the Partialist Christian Churches believe that, near to Jesus Christ's throne, and at his right hand, good angels stand. The Pagans believed that, near to Minos' throne, and at his left hand, furies stood; so the Partialist Christian Churches believe that, near to Jesus Christ's throne, and at his left hand, devils stand.

The Pagans believed that the souls were driven to the redoubtable tribunal of Minos by their respective guardian angel, who had accompanied them during their whole life on earth; had watched day and night over their conduct; and had kept a record of all they had done, right or wrong; so the Church of Rome, and some other Partialist Christian Churches, believe that the souls are driven to the redoubtable tribunal of Jesus Christ by their respective guardian angel, who has accompanied them during their whole life on earth; has watched day and night over their conduct, and has kept a record of all they have done, right or wrong. The Pagans believed that Minos based his judgments on the contents of two books, the one called book of life, and the other book of death; so the Partialist Christian Churches believe that Jesus Christ bases his judgments on the[187] contents of two books; the one called book of life, and the other book of death. The Pagans believed that the souls who had obtained from Minos a favorable sentence, were led to the Elysium by their respective guardian angel; and that those who had been condemned to the Tartarus, were apprehended by the furies, and hurled into it; so the Partialist Christian Churches believe that the souls who obtain from Jesus Christ a favorable sentence, are led to Paradise by their respective guardian angel; or, [in the opinion of those of the Partialist Christian Churches, which do not believe in a guardian angel] by other angels.

Consequently the particulars of the first judgment, believed in by the Partialist Christian Churches, present a striking similarity with the particulars of the first judgment, believed in by the Pagans.

3d. It can be proved that the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches the doctrine of a first judgment, which they accepted full and entire, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ, nor from the Jews:—

The Church of Rome does not hold the doctrine of a first judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ, for this doctrine implies a blasphemy—whether Jesus Christ be considered as being God himself—and all the Partialist Christian Churches hold that he is God himself—and whether[188] Jesus Christ be considered as being only the Son of God. But the doctrine of a first judgment implies a blasphemy, whether Jesus Christ be considered as being God himself, and whether he be considered as being only the Son of God.

First, it implies a blasphemy, if Jesus Christ is considered as being God himself. Jesus Christ, being God himself, would necessarily know all the good and bad actions done by the souls, while they animate their respective bodies on earth, in consequence it is an insult to his attribute of wisdom, and thereby a blasphemy, to say that the guardian angels of the souls, as they bring them to his tribunal, inform him of their good and bad actions, which they have recorded. Even in the case of those of the Partialist Christian Churches, which reject the circumstance of the guardian angels, the doctrine of a first judgment implies an insult to the wisdom of Jesus Christ, (in their opinion God himself), and thereby a blasphemy; for a judgment supposes a trial; a trial supposes an investigation; an investigation supposes the ignorance of the deeds to be pronounced upon, and the supposition that God has not a perfect knowledge of those deeds, is an insult to his wisdom, and thereby is a blasphemy.

Second, The doctrine of a first judgment implies a blasphemy, if Jesus Christ is considered as being only the Son of God. If God had vested Jesus Christ with the power of discerning rewards and punishments to the souls after death, he would have given him a knowledge of the good and bad[189] actions of the souls. But the doctrine of a first judgment supposes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, would come to this knowledge only through the means of a trial, which supposition is an insult to the wisdom of God, and thereby a blasphemy.

Then the doctrine of a first judgment implies a blasphemy, whether Jesus Christ be considered as being God himself, and whether Jesus Christ be considered as being only the Son of God.

Therefore the Church of Rome does not hold the doctrine of a first judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

General conclusions:—

It has been proved in this chapter, 1st, That the Pagans believed in a first judgment, by a god, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body; 2d, That the particulars of this first judgment, believed in by the Partialist Christian Churches, present a striking similarity with the particulars of the first judgment, believed in by the Pagans; and, 3d, That the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches this doctrine of a first judgment, which they accepted full and entire, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ; neither did she hold it from the Jews; for not a single passage can be traced out in the Old Testament, or in Josephus, referring to a first judgment.

Therefore the origin of the doctrine of a first judgment, by Jesus Christ, immediately after the separation of the soul from the body, is Pagan.

[190]

CHAPTER IX.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.

If it is proved, 1st, That in the first centuries of the Christian era, and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans; 2d, That the Church of Rome which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted it to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it either from the apostles of Jesus Christ, or from the Jews, it will remain evident that the Church of Rome borrowed it from the Pagans, and consequently that its origin is Pagan.

But it can be proved, 1st, That in the first centuries of the Christian era, and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans; 2d, That the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted it to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 3d, That she did not hold it from the Jews.

1st. It can be proved that in the first centuries of the Christian era, and before the coming of[191] Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans:

The doctrine of the resurrection of the body had been taught by Zoroaster. All the Persians believed it; and even now the Parsis, or followers of the religion of Zoroaster, who live in Turkey and in Persia, hold it. It was also one of the dogmas of the Chaldeans, and of many other oriental countries. In India the Pagans, now-a-days, believe that their bodies will come again to life, and it is owing to this belief, the Roman Catholic priest Bergier says, that the wives throw themselves on the same wood piles on which lay the dead bodies of their husbands, to be burnt alive, and to come again to life with them. This belief and practice are immemorial in India. Interesting particulars in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection believed by ancient nations, can be read in the French work, Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, tome 69, pages 270, and following; in the work of Hyde, on the Religion of the Persians; and also in the writings of Plutarch, article Isis and Osiris.

According to the testimony of Diodore, and of Herodote, the Egyptians believed in Metempsychosis; and it was an immemorial doctrine among them. Also, many of them believed that their bodies would come again to life, after a sojourn of one thousand years in the grave. The Sybilline verses treat of the resurrection of the body. Much has been written about it by Bocchus, in Solin, chap. 8; and by Lactance, book 7, chap. 29, book [192] 4, chap. 15, 18, and 19. The Stoicians, who were the most learned philosophers of antiquity, and in the three centuries which preceded the coming of Jesus Christ, and also in the three that followed, believed in Metempsychosis; however, a portion of their school believed in the resurrection of the body. Of this we are informed by Seneca, Epist. 40; by Laerta, book 7; and by Plutarch, writing on the Resignation of the Stoicians.

Pliny, deriding Democrite, informs us that this philosopher believed in the resurrection of the body; see book 7, chap. 45, where he says: "Vain is the promise made by Democrite that we will live again." The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in these verses of Phocylides about the remains of the dead:

Translation:—"It is impious to disperse the remains of man; for the ashes and the bones of the dead will come again to light, and will become similar to the gods."

Virgil speaks of the resurrection of the body, though in an obscure manner, in the sixth book of his poem Eneida.

Therefore in the first centuries of the Christian era, and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans.

[193]

2d. It can be proved that the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted the doctrine of the resurrection of the body to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it from the apostles of Jesus Christ:—

It will be evident that the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of the resurrection of the body from the apostles of Jesus Christ, if it can be proved, 1st, That the Fathers of the first centuries did not agree on this doctrine; 2d, That nearly all the Christian denominations of the first two centuries, and the majority, to say the least, of those of the century following, disbelieved it; and, 3d, That this doctrine is irrational.

But it can be proved, 1st, That the Fathers of the first centuries did not agree about the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; 2d, That nearly all the Christian denominations of the first two centuries, and the majority, to say the least, of the century following, disbelieved it; and, 3d, That this doctrine is irrational.

1st. It can be proved that the Fathers of the first centuries did not agree about the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

Tatian believed in Metempsychosis, but not in the resurrection of the body. St. Gregory of Nysse denied that there was anything corporeal in the person of Jesus Christ, since the time he ascended to the heavens. Origen admitted the resurrection of the bodies, but not that of the flesh. Synesius, bishop of Ptolemaïda, in his Series of[194] Epistles, declares that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is a mystery, whose solution ought to be kept secret, and considered as sacred: that it is well to teach it to the people; and that he, the bishop, would publicly profess and preach this doctrine, though it is not his personal belief. If the reader desires to find lengthier particulars, about the divergency of the opinions of the Fathers concerning the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, we refer him to the work of Beausobre, headed, History of Manicheanism, tome 2, book 8, chap. 5, No. 3, and following.

Therefore the Fathers of the first centuries did not agree about the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

2d. It can be proved that nearly all the Christian sects, or denominations, of the first two centuries, and the majority, to say the least, of those of the century following, disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body:——

According to the unanimous testimony of the Roman Catholic authors themselves, Bergier, Feller, Fleury, etc., etc., the following Christian sects of the first three centuries held the dogma of Metempsychosis: The Basilidians, the Bardesanists, the Barules, the Barborians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Marcosians, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, the Carpocratians, the Docetes, the Tatianists, the Apellites, the Montanists, the Artotyrites, the Severians, the Ascites, the Ascodrutes, the Ophites, the Cainites, the Sethians, the Her[195]mogenians, the Hermians, the Valesians, the Hieracites, the Samosatians, and the Manicheans: this latter sect, Catholic authors say, were subdivided into more than sixty sects, which professed, each one of them, to believe in Metempsychosis. The same authors add, that many of the other sects named above denied the resurrection of the body. Though they do not say so of all, we may safely affirm that every one of the above named Christian sects disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This we demonstrate thus:—

According to the doctrine of Metempsychosis, when, at death, a soul separates from the body, she passes into another body to animate it; and to thus expiate, by many and successive transmigrations, the faults she has committed in an anterior existence, and so continually. But the doctrine of the resurrection of the body teaches that the same soul which animated it in its prior existence, shall animate it anew when it will come again to life. How can then this same soul animate this same body, and at the same time the thousands of other human bodies, which she had also animated in her various transmigrations? Therefore the belief of the doctrine of Metempsychosis necessarily implies a disbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Consequently, although the Roman Catholic authors do not positively state that all the above named Christian sects disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, we may safely affirm, from the fact that they held the[196] doctrine of Metempsychosis, that they disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

Therefore nearly all the Christian sects, or denominations, of the first two centuries, and the majority, to say the least, of those of the century following, disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

3d. It can be proved that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational.

All the reasons which have been brought forth by St. Cyrille, bishop of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, page 18; by St. Gregory of Nysse, in his oratio on the Resurrection of the Flesh; by St. Augustine, in his City of God, book 20; by St. Chrysostome, in his homily on the Resurrection of the Flesh; by Tertullian, in his treatise on the Resurrection of the Flesh; by St. Gregory, the Pope, in his Fourth Dialogue; by St. Ambrosius, in his sermon on the Faith of the Resurrection of the Flesh; and by St. Epiphane, Ancyrot, page 38, can be summed up as follows:—

God himself has formed with his own hands man's body; he has animated it with the breath of his own mouth, and has placed within it a soul made to his likeness. The flesh of the Christian is, in some manner, associated to all the functions of its soul, and is the instrument of all the graces of God. It is the body that is washed by baptism to purify the soul, it is the body that in order to feed the soul receives the Eucharist; it is the body that is immolated to God by mortifications, by[197] fasts, by vigils, by virginity, and by martyrdom. Thus St. Paul reminds that our bodies are the members of Jesus Christ, and the temples of the Holy Spirit. Would God leave in the grave forever the work of his own hands, the master-piece of his might, the depository of his breath, the king of the other bodies, the canal of his graces, and the victim of his worship?

If God has condemned the body to death as a punishment for sin, Jesus Christ came to save all that was lost. Without this complete reparation, we would not know how far the goodness, the mercy, and the parental tenderness of our God, extend. The flesh of man, restored by incarnation to its former dignity, ought to come again to life, as well as that of Jesus Christ. Is not he who created the flesh mighty enough to bring it again to life? Nothing entirely perishes in nature: forms change, but all renews itself, and seems to grow young again; God has stamped immortality upon all his works. Night follows the day, eclipsed stars appear anew; the spring makes us forget the winter; plants grow again, and resume their hues and perfumes; and several animals which seem to die receive a new life. Thus, by the lessons of nature, God has prepared the lessons of the revelation; and he has shown us the image of the resurrection, before showing us its reality.

God's justice demands the resurrection of our body. God ought to judge, to reward, or to pun[198]ish the whole man. The body is the instrument of the soul for good or for evil; even the thoughts of the soul are reflected on man's face. The soul cannot experience pleasure or pain without the co-participation of the body, and the principal exercise of virtue consists in the repression of the desires of the flesh. Then it is just that the soul of the wicked be tormented, by being reunited to the same body which has been the instrument of her crimes; and that the soul of the saints be rewarded, by her eternal reunion to a body which has been the instrument of her merits.

All these reasons can be generalized thus:

Man's body has been the instrument of our soul to do good or evil. Then the justice of God requires that man's body come again to life, to share, with its soul, eternal reward, or eternal punishment.

We answer: Since man's body is but the instrument of our soul to do good or evil, his body is capable neither of merit nor of demerit. But, since man's body is capable neither of merit nor of demerit, it is capable neither of reward nor of punishment. Therefore the justice of God does not require that man's body come again to life, to share, with its soul, eternal reward or eternal punishment.

More, it is irrational that the same particles of matter be, at the same time, in many places. But the doctrine of the resurrection of the body sup[199]poses that the same particles of matter will be, at the same time, in many places. This we prove:

The cannibals live upon man's flesh; and they assimilate to their own bodies the particles of flesh which compose the bodies of the men they devour. Consequently, at the resurrection of the bodies, these particles of flesh will compose the bodies of the cannibals, and, at the same time, the bodies of the men they have devoured. Therefore, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body supposes, that the same particles of matter will be, at the same time, in many places.

Besides, when, after death, man's body putrefies, the particles of flesh, of which it is composed, dissolve into gases, which the plants convert to their own nature. Those vegetables and fruits, thousands of men eat; and thus they assimilate to themselves those same particles, which formerly composed the bodies of other men. Consequently, at the resurrection of the bodies, those particles will compose a multitude of bodies. Therefore, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body supposes, that the same particles of matter will be, at the same time, in many places.

Then the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational.

Objection.—Jesus Christ came again to life with a spiritual body. Then these proofs do not demonstrate that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational.

[200]

Answer.—Jesus Christ came again to life with a spiritual body; this we concede. Then these proofs do not demonstrate that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational. This we deny; for it is an article of faith in the Church of Rome; and it is nearly unanimously believed by all the other Partialist Churches, that the bodies of the righteous alone will be spiritual bodies; and that the bodies of the wicked will be after the resurrection, as they were while on earth. Consequently, it does not follow, from the fact that Jesus Christ came again to life with a spiritual body, that the above proofs do not demonstrate that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational.

Remark.—The Partialists quote passages of the Scriptures to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. We shall not discuss the true meaning of those passages; for such a discussion does not enter in the plan of this work, which is exclusively intended to prove historically the true origin of the Partialist doctrines. However, in regard to those texts we say:

It would be a blasphemy against God to suppose that the Scriptures teach us an irrational doctrine. But, as demonstrated above, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational. Then the Scriptures do not teach it. Then those texts ought not to be understood of the resurrection of the body.

3d. It can be proved that the Church of Rome[201] did not hold the doctrine of the resurrection of the body from the Jews.

The Church of Rome did not hold from the Jews the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, if, 1st, the Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that this doctrine is taught in the Old Testament; 2d, If this doctrine was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation; and, 3d, If this tradition was not of an ancient and national origin.

But, 1st, The Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament; 2d, This doctrine was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation; and, 3d, This tradition was not of an ancient and national origin.

1st, The Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament.

The Roman Catholic theologians do not pretend that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament; they only assert that it may be that it is taught therein. Bergier, who is their organ, and whose works, written in the last century, were, and still now are, classical among the priests, writes—Article, Resurrection of the Body, page 159:—"We presume that Job, Daniel, and the seven Maccabean brothers, had some knowledge of this essential dogma." Consequently the Roman Catholic[202] theologians do not hold that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament.

2d, The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation.

Josephus states, in his Antiq. Jud., book 18, ch. 2; and in his De Bello Judaico, book 2, ch. 7, al. ch. 12, that the Sadducees were the literate portion of the Jewish people; that they held nearly all the public offices; that they were well educated, courteous, and that they avoided public discussions and controversies on the subject of religion. He states also that they disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Therefore the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation.

3d, The tradition of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was not of an ancient and national origin.

In the year 587 before the Christian era, in the second year of the reign of Sedecias, Jerusalem was besieged, taken, destroyed; Sedecias and the whole nation were led captives to Babylon. There they were detained seventy years, until Cyrus permitted them to return to their own country. During those seventy years of captivity, the Jewish people borrowed from the Pagans many religious practices, ceremonies, rites, and doctrines—this is the testimony of Josephus—and[203] among them the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which, as has been proved before, was believed by a large number of Pagans. When the people returned from Babylon to Jerusalem a portion of them preserved some of those religious practices, ceremonies, rites, and doctrines, and rejected the others. Those which they preserved they transmitted to their posterity, and among them was the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Therefore the tradition of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was not of an ancient and national origin.

We have proved, 1st, That the Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament; 2d, That this doctrine was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation; and, 3d, That this tradition was not of an ancient and national origin.

Therefore, 3d, The Church of Rome did not hold from the Jews the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

We come now to the general conclusions of this chapter.

It has been proved, 1st, that in the first centuries of the Christian era, and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans; 2d, That the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted it to the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did[204] not hold it either from the Apostles of Jesus Christ or from the Jews.

Therefore the Church of Rome borrowed from the Pagans the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

Therefore the origin of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is Pagan.

[205]

CHAPTER X.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF A GENERAL JUDGMENT AT THE END OF THE WORLD.

The Church of Rome and the other Partialist Christian Churches profess to believe that, at the end of the world, a general judgment of all the then living, and of all the dead, shall take place. When, in the sixteenth century, the great Protestant scission took place, the new Churches formed preserved this doctrine of the Church of Rome, with only accessory modifications; and since that time they have professed it; even now-a-days they cling to it. We shall prove in this chapter that the origin of this doctrine is Pagan.

The origin of the doctrine of a general judgment of all the then living and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world, is Pagan, 1st, If the Pagans held the doctrine of a general judgment of all the then living and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world; 2d, If there is a striking similarity between the particulars of the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Pagans, and the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Church of[206] Rome, and by the other Partialist Christian Churches; 3d, If the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of a general judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 4th, If the Church of Rome did not hold this doctrine from the Jews.

But, 1st, The Pagans held the doctrine of a general judgment of all the then living and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world; 2d, There is a striking similarity between the particularities of the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Pagans, and the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Church of Rome; 3d, The Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of a general judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 4th, The Church of Rome did not hold this doctrine from the Jews.

These four heads of questions we are to successively prove.

1st, We prove that the Pagans held the doctrine of a general judgment of all the then living and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world.

Plato, and other philosophers and writers of the Pagans, taught that a solemn general judgment of the dead was to decide their fate. Minos sat on a throne, and shook the fatal urn. By his side were the avenging furies, and a host of evil spirits, executioners of the sentences of Minos. Eacus, Rhadamante, and Triptolem, were his assistant judges.

[207]

Even now the Indians believe that Zomo will judge the world; so the Japanese. The Lamas ascribe this power to Erlik-kan.

At the sound of a trumpet the earth was to deliver up her dead to be judged. It was to be destroyed by fire after a great commotion of the celestial spheres, and fears of the then living mortals.

The souls, at the sound of a trumpet, assembled in a vast meadow, adorned with asphodels, where Minos sat on his throne. The dead were led to his redoubtable tribunal by their respective guardian angels, who had accompanied them during their whole life; watched over their conduct; and had kept a record of all they had done, right or wrong. This meadow, where the dead were to be judged, was called the field of truth, because there the whole truth about the past doings of the dead was made known, and no crime could escape the knowledge and justice of the great judge. The dead, once assembled, were divided into three classes. The first class was composed of those who had been virtuous on earth: they were the smallest number. The second class was composed of those who were guilty of great crimes; and the third class, of those who had been neither virtuous nor great criminals.

This triple division, which we naturally find in society, was taught by Plato in his Phædo, a work in which, writing about the judgment of the dead, he divides them as said before. This same[208] division we also find in Plutarch, treating the same subject, and disserting, in his answer to the Epicureans, about the state of the dead to be judged. Minos used three books in judging the dead; the first was called book of life, it was used for the righteous: the second was called book of death; it was used for the great criminals: the third book was used for those who had been neither righteous nor great criminals. The judge pronounced the sentence only after the severest examination of the virtues and crimes of every one of the dead; and he affixed a seal on their forehead as he judged them.

Social laws and duties were the particular subjects of his judgments. He amply rewarded social virtues, and severely punished social vices. Among the Greeks and the Romans, this great priestly fiction was intended for the maintenance of laws; for stimulating patriotism, national and social virtues by the hope of the rewards of the Elysium; and also to check crime and vice in society, by the fear of terrible sufferings in the Tartarus. Were sentenced to the Tartarus all those who had conspired against the State, or fostered a conspiration; those who had been bribed; those who had delivered up a city to the enemy; those who had provided the foes of the country with weapons, vessels, provisions, etc.; those who had contrived to enslave their fellow-citizens, or had tyrannized over them, etc. This last dogma had been added to the others by the free States.

[209]

Afterwards, philosophy turned these fictions against despotism itself, which had invented them. Plato placed in the Tartarus ferocious tyrants, such as Ardiee of Pamphylia, who had murdered his brother, his father, and had committed many other crimes. The soul preserved after death all her stains, and was sentenced accordingly. Plato represented the souls of the kings, and of other rulers, as being the most stained. Tantalus, Tityus, and Sisiphus, who had been kings, were the greatest criminals, and endured in the Tartarus the most excruciating pains. However, kings did not believe those fictions, and were not restrained from oppressing the people.

Virgil enumerates the principal crimes which divine justice punished in the Tartarus. He represents, here, a brother who from hatred has slain his brother; a son who has ill-treated his father; a man who has deceived his patrons; an avaricious man, an egotist, and a selfish man; there, are seen an adulterer, an unfaithful servant, and a citizen who either waged war against his fellow citizens, or sold his country for gold, or was bribed for the enactment of unjust laws. Farther are seen an incestuous father, and wives who have murdered their husbands.

It is to be remarked that the authors, or originators of these fictions, pronounced pains only against crimes which might have injured society, whose progress and happiness was one of the great ends of the initiation to the mysteries of Eleusis and others.

[210]

In the Tartarus Minos punished the same crimes which he would have punished on earth according to the wise laws of the Cretenses, supposing that he had in reality reigned over them. If crimes against religion were to be punished in the Tartarus, it was because religion, being considered as a duty, and as the principal bond of society, it necessarily followed that irreligion was to be one of the greatest crimes, which was to be avenged by the gods. Hence the people were taught that the great crime of many of the famous criminals, tortured in the Tartarus, was their disrespect for the mysteries of Eleusis; that the great crime of Salmone was to have tried to imitate Jove's thunder; and that the great crime of Ixion, of Orion, and of Tityus, was to have violated goddesses.

The fiction of the Elysium was directed to the same moral and political aim. Virgil places in the Elysium the heroes who laid down their lives for the defense of their country; also the inventors of arts, and all those who have been useful to their fellow men, and have a title to their gratitude. It was to strengthen this idea that apotheosis was instituted; hence it was taught in the mysteries that Hercules, Bacchus, and the Dioscores were but men, who, by their virtues and their services had obtained immortality. Afterwards the Romans placed Scipio in the Elysium. Cicero ascribed a high station in the Elysium to the true patriots; to the friends of justice; to good sons; to good parents; and to good citizens.

[211]

In the Elysium, as Plato described it, kindness and justice were rewarded: there the true patriot, the modest and just Aristides, had been admitted. To this divine recompense piety, eagerness in seeking for truth, and love to it, were the surest titles. When the dead had been judged those who had been pronounced worthy of the Elysium passed to the right hand side, and were led to the Elysium, every one by his guardian angel. Those who had been sentenced to the Tartarus passed to the left hand side, and were dragged thereto, each one by the evil genius that beguiled him while on earth. Onward they were driven, carrying on their back their sentence of condemnation, and the enumeration of all their crimes. Those whose vices were curable were to be released after due expiation and reform.

According to Plato, the dead who have been guilty of murder, sacrilege, and other enormous crimes, shall be endlessly miserable in the Tartarus. Those whose crimes have not been so great shall be detained therein for a year; and, at the expiration of this time they will be brought out, near the marsh of Acheron, by the waters of the Cocyte, and of the Pyriphlegeton rivers. Then they shall humbly beg pardon from those they have wronged; and, if they obtain it, they shall be released; if not they shall be taken back to the Tartarus on the rivers. Virgil also speaks of that state of expiation and purification of the souls of the dead.

Therefore the Pagans held the doctrine of a[212] general judgment of all the then living, and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world.

2d. We prove that there is a striking similarity between the particularities of the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Pagans, and the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Church of Rome.

The Pagans believed that, immediately before the end of the world, there would be mighty and frightful signs in the heavens; and that the then living mortals would be struck with terror: likewise the Church of Rome believes that, at the end of the world, the columns of the heavens will be shaken; that the signs on high will be so frightful that the then living men will be appalled: also there will be famine, pestilence, war and murders over the whole earth. The Pagans believed that, at the sound of a trumpet, the earth would deliver up her dead to be judged: likewise the Church of Rome believes that four angels will sound a trumpet; and that, when the four trumpets will resound over the earth, all the dead, who had been buried either in the sea or in the earth, will come again to life to be judged.

The Pagans believed that geniuses would force men to the place of judgment: likewise the Church of Rome believes that angels will gather, from the four cardinal points of the earth, the multitude of men to the place of judgment. The Pagans believed that men would be judged in[213] a meadow covered with astophels: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the general judgment will take place in the valley of Josaphat. The Pagans believed that, in the meadow, a throne would be erected, on which Minos, the great judge, would sit: likewise the Church of Rome believes that Jesus Christ, the great judge, will descend from heaven on clouds, and will sit on a throne erected in the valley of Josaphat. The Pagans believed that, near to the throne of Minos, Eacus, Rhadamante and Triptolem, his assistant judges, and good geniuses, or spirits, would stand: likewise the Church of Rome believes, that, near to the throne of Jesus Christ, good angels will stand.

The Pagans believed that, near to the throne of Minos, would stand avenging furies, and a host of evil spirits, executioners of the sentences of Minos against the wicked: likewise the Church of Rome believes that there will be, at some distance from the throne of Jesus Christ, a host of devils, executioners of the sentences of Jesus Christ against the wicked. The Pagans believed that each man was led to the redoubtable tribunal of Minos by the guardian spirit, who had accompanied him during his whole life on earth: likewise the Church of Rome believes that each man will be led to the redoubtable tribunal of Jesus Christ by the guardian angel who has accompanied him during his whole life on earth.

The Pagans believed that Minos used three[214] books in his judgments: the first called book of life, for the righteous; the second called book of death, for the great criminals; and the third for those who had been neither righteous nor great criminals: likewise the Church of Rome believes that Jesus Christ will use two books: the one called book of life, for the righteous; and the other called book of death, for the wicked.

Remark.—The Church of Rome does not hold that, at the general judgment, Jesus Christ will use the third book; but holds that, in the first judgment, he uses it for those of the dead who have been neither righteous nor great criminals, and who thereby shall be sentenced to Purgatory, which shall finish at the end of the world. Apropos of this limitation of the duration of Purgatory, we might cursorily say that this restriction has been wisely made by the far-sighted ministers of the Church; for as, after the general judgment, they would be no longer on earth, they could not say masses and other prayers, for the deliverance of the souls detained in Purgatory; and thus it would be quite useless to make the torments of Purgatory last any longer.

The Pagans believed that the guardian spirit of each man, who had accompanied him through life, and had kept a record of all his good and bad actions, would testify to Minos in his favor, or against him: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the guardian angel of each man, who has accompanied him through life, and has kept a[215] record of all his good and bad actions, will testify to Jesus Christ in his favor, or against him. The Pagans called the meadow of the general judgment, the field of the truth: likewise the Church of Rome calls the valley of Josaphat, the valley of the truth. The Pagans believed that the crimes for which Minos was to inflict the severest punishment were those against religion, against its hierophants, and against other ministers: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the crimes for which Jesus Christ is to inflict the severest punishment, are those against the Church, against its Pope, against its bishops and its priests. The Pagans believed that the neglect or omission of lustrations, and other practices and teachings of the priests, would be severely punished by Minos: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the neglect or omission of the practices, ceremonies, and other prescriptions of the priests, will be severely punished by Jesus Christ.

The Pagans believed that those found righteous would be placed at the right hand side of Minos, but the wicked at his left hand side: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the righteous will be placed at the right hand side of Jesus Christ, but the wicked at his left hand side. The Pagans believed that the righteous would be destined, by Minos, to eternal bliss in the Elysium; but that the wicked would be sentenced, by Minos, to endless misery in the Tartarus: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the righteous will be des[216]tined, by Jesus Christ, to eternal bliss in Paradise; but that the wicked will be sentenced, by Jesus Christ, to endless misery. The Pagans believed that the wicked would carry on their back their sentence of condemnation, and the enumeration of all their crimes: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the wicked will carry on their back their sentence of condemnation, and the enumeration of all their crimes.

The Pagans believed that the guardian spirits of the righteous would lead them to the Elysium: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the angels of the Lord will lead them to heaven, in a procession preceded by Jesus Christ. The Pagans believed that Furies, and other evil spirits, would drag the wicked to the Tartarus: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the devils will drive, with whips, the wicked to hell. The Pagans believed that, after the general judgment, the earth would be destroyed by fire: likewise the Church of Rome believes that the earth will be destroyed by fire, and that then will the world end.

Therefore there is a striking similarity between the particularities of the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Pagans, and the doctrine of a general judgment as held by the Church of Rome.

3d. We prove that the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of a general judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ.

The Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine[217] of a general judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ, 1st, If the Roman Catholic theologians did not understand the 24th chapter of Matthew, and the last sixteen verses of the 25th; the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th verses of the 13th chapter in Mark, and also the 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the 21st chapter in Luke, as meaning a general judgment; 2d, If nearly all the Christian sects, or denominations, of the first and of the second centuries, did not believe the doctrine of a general judgment; and, 3d, If the doctrine of a general judgment is irrational.

But, 1st, The Roman Catholic theologians did not understand the 24th chapter of Matthew, and the last sixteen verses of the 25th; the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th verses of the 13th chapter in Mark; and also the 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the 21st chapter in Luke, as meaning a general judgment; 2d, Nearly all the Christian sects, or denominations, of the first and of the second centuries, did not believe the doctrine of a general judgment; and, 3d, The doctrine of a general judgment is irrational.

1st. We prove that the Roman Catholic theologians did not understand the 24th chapter of Matthew, and the last sixteen verses of the 25th; the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th verses of the 13th chapter in Mark; and also the 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the 21st chapter in Luke, as meaning a general judgment.

Remark.—To save the reader the trouble of re[218]ferring to his Bible, we insert here the above passages of the Gospel, which the Partialists suppose to teach the doctrine of a general judgment.

Matthew, chap. 24.-1. "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple. 2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3. And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6. And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8. All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of[219] many shall wax cold. 13. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14. And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. 15. When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place; (whoso readeth, let him understand;) 16. Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: 17. Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18. Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19. And wo unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20. But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day: 21. For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25. Behold, I have told you before. 26. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even[220] unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28. For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 80. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32. Now learn a parable of the fig-tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all[221] away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left. 41. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42. Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43. But know this, that if the good man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44. Therefore be ye also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. 45. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. 47. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. 48. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49. And shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50. The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51. And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew, chapter 25.-31. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32. And before him shall be gath[222]ered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35. For I was a hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38. When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39. Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and come unto thee? 40. And the King shall answer and say unto them. Verily I say unto you. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42. For I was a hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked,[223] or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal."

Luke, chapter 21.-25. "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26. Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory. 28. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

Mark, chapter 13.-24. "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost parts of heaven."

Bergier, one of the most classical of the Roman Catholic theologians, says, in the first volume of[224] his works, article Agnoetes, that, in the sixth century, the theologians answered the Agnoetes as follows: "In these texts, it is not a question of the day of the general judgment, but of the day when Jesus Christ was to come to punish the Jewish nation by the sword of the Romans." Then the Roman Catholic theologians did not understand these texts as meaning a general judgment.

Moreover, Bergier, writing against the Millenaries, says, article World:—"The disciples of Christ, sometime before his resurrection, spake to him of the structure of the temple of Jerusalem, Matthew, ch. 24, Mark, ch. 13, Luke, ch. 21. Jesus Christ told them that it shall be destroyed; and that not one of the stones will be left upon the other. The disciples, surprised, asked him when this shall take place; what will be the signs of his coming, and of the end of the century. Then there will be, he said, wars and seditions, earthquakes, pests, and famines; ye yourselves will be persecuted and put to death; Jerusalem will be surrounded with an army; the temple will be polluted; false prophets will appear; there will be signs in the heaven; the sun and the moon will be darkened, and the stars will fall from the firmament. Then the Son of man will be seen coming in the clouds with great power and majesty; his angels will gather the elect from one end of the world to the other, etc. He announces all this as events to be witnessed by his apostles; and he[225] adds: 'Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.'

"Is it a question of the end of the world in all this? Opinions are divided on this point. Some commentators think that, in these texts, Jesus Christ simply prophesied the ruin of the religion, republic, and nation of the Jews; and that all the circumstances were verified when the Romans took and destroyed the nation; that, however, a few expressions ought not to be taken literally, such as the fall of the stars, etc.; that Jesus Christ has used the same style, and the same images used by prophets, when they prophesied other events. Consequently these commentators say that these words of Jesus Christ, 'This generation shall not pass,' etc., signify, the Jews who now live will not all be dead when these events will take place. In fact, Jerusalem was taken and ruined less than forty years after. In this opinion it is not a question in these texts of the end of the world.

"Other commentators believe that Jesus Christ has joined the signs, which were to precede the devastation of Judea, to those which will appear at the end of the world, and before the general judgment; that when he says: 'This generation shall not pass,' etc., he means that the Jewish nation will not be entirely destroyed, but will subsist till the end of the world. It cannot be denied that the word generation is used several times in this sense in the Gospel."

[226]

From this passage of Bergier we draw the following argument:

Since the Roman Catholic theologians were, and are, divided in regard to the meaning of the above texts, it follows that the Church of Rome did not rest her doctrine of a general judgment on the above text. Therefore the Church of Rome did not understand the above texts, namely, the 24th chapter of Matthew, and the last sixteen verses of the 25th:—the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th verses of the 13th chapter in Mark; and also the 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the 21st chapter in Luke, as meaning a general judgment.

2d. We prove that nearly all the Christian sects, or denominations, of the first and of the second centuries, did not believe the doctrine of a general judgment.

The Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Marcosians, the Theodotians, the Carpocratians, the Docetes, the Tatianists, the Apellites, the Montanists, the Artotyrites, the Ascites, the Ascodrutes, the Ophites, the Cainites, and the Hermogenians believed in Metempsychosis, and denied the resurrection of the body. From the fact that these sects believed in Metempsychosis, and denied the resurrection of the body, we argue:

The doctrine of a general judgment supposes the resurrection of all the dead; but the above sects denied the resurrection of the dead. Therefore they denied also the doctrine of a general judgment. Therefore nearly all the Christian[227] sects, or denominations, of the first and of the second centuries, did not believe the doctrine of a general judgment.

More, we might say all the Christian sects of the first two centuries; for, it was only at the end of the second century, that the sect of the Millenaries, who believed in a general judgment, sprung up; and, besides, history is silent about the belief of the Church of Rome (which then was confined within the boundaries of the Province of Rome,) in regard to the doctrine of a general judgment.

3d. The doctrine of a general judgment is irrational, because a first judgment, by Jesus Christ, having taken place, a second one would be useless.

4th. We prove that the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of a general judgment from the Jews.

The Roman Catholic authors never pretended, and still now do not pretend, that the Jews believed the doctrine of a general judgment.

Then the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of a general judgment from the Jews.

We draw the general conclusions of this chapter:

It has been proved, 1st, That the Pagans held the doctrine of a general judgment of all the then living, and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world; 2d, That there is a striking similarity between the particularities of the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by[228] the Pagans, and the doctrine of a general judgment, as held by the Church of Rome; 3d, That the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of a general judgment from the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 4th, That the Church of Rome did not hold this doctrine from the Jews.

Therefore the Church of Rome borrowed the doctrine of a general judgment from the Pagans.

Therefore the doctrine of a general judgment of all the then living, and of all the dead, which shall take place at the end of the world, is of Pagan origin.

[229]

CHAPTER XI.

PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

The doctrine of Vicarious Atonement supposes the dogma of a Personal Devil, the dogma of Original Sin, the dogma of Trinity, and the dogma of the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ. As in four chapters of this work we have proved that these four dogmas are of Pagan origin, we shall examine, in this chapter, the true origin of the body itself of the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement, which consists in the belief that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins through the medium of a substitute. Our historical researches will also lead us to the conclusion that it is of Pagan origin.

In the sixteenth century the Church of Rome held, and still now holds, the doctrine that Jesus Christ had washed away with his blood all the past, present and future sins of the men who would be within the pale of his only true Church, which was herself, and also that he had exempted them from the punishment of their sins. How[230]ever, they were to enjoy these two privileges only on the condition that they would obey her prescriptions. The Partialist Protestant Churches rejected nearly all the prescriptions of the Church of Rome; rejected the doctrine that she was the only true Church of Jesus Christ; but they preserved the substance of the doctrine, namely, that Jesus Christ had washed away all the sins of those who would feel the descent of the Holy Spirit in their souls; who would experience a supernatural change of heart, or, as they commonly term it, would get religion; and also that through his atonement they are exempted from the punishment of their sins.

Consequently, the Partialist Protestant Churches, as well as the Church of Rome, hold the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins through the medium of a substitute. Then if it is proved that the origin of the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute—as held by the Church of Rome—is Pagan, it will thereby be proved that the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute—as held by the Partialist Protestant Churches—is also of Pagan origin.

[231]

In this chapter we shall prove that the origin of the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins through the medium of a substitute—as held by the Church of Rome—is Pagan.

It will be evident that the origin of the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of their sins, through the medium of a substitute—as held by the Church of Rome—is Pagan, if it is proved, 1st, That there is a striking similarity between the practices required by the Church of Rome to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, and those which were, and still now are, required in the Pagan religion for the same purpose; and, 2d, That those practices were not instituted among Christians in the first two centuries. But it can be proved, 1st, That there is a striking similarity between the practices required by the Church of Rome to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute, and those which were, and still now are, required in the Pagan religion for the same purpose; and, 2d, That those practices were not instituted among Christians in the first two centuries.

1st. We prove that there is a striking similarity between the practices required by the[232] Church of Rome to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute, and those which were, and still now are, required in the Pagan religion for the same purpose.

The Pagans, publicly and privately, used lustral water, which, they thought, had the virtue of purifying the soul, and of remitting the punishment of certain impurities and sins. The Priests, in solemn religious ceremonies, aspersed the assistants with it; and the people kept and used it in their families. In the same manner, the Church of Rome believes that holy water has the virtue of purifying the soul, and of remitting the punishment of certain impurities and sins. The Roman Catholics use it publicly and privately. Every Sunday, before the celebration of the high mass, the priests asperse the people with holy water for the aforesaid end; and also pour it on the coffins of the dead at the funerals. The laymen keep and use it in their families for the same end.

These lustrations are practiced, even in our days, by many of the Pagans. The Madegasses believe that they can obtain the forgiveness of the punishment of their sins in dipping a piece of gold in a vessel full of water, and in drinking that water. The Father Jesuit Bouchet, a missionary in India, writes: "The Indians say that in bathing in certain rivers sins are entirely remitted; and that their mysterious waters wash not only the bodies, but also purify the souls in an admirable manner."

[233]

This testimony, Chateaubriand adds, is confirmed by the Memoirs of the English Society of Calcutta. The waters of the Ganges are reputed as having the greatest expiatory virtue: so the Church of Rome holds that the baptismal waters remit the original and all other sins, and exempt those baptized from punishment.

The Pagans believed that certain ceremonies, and their medals representing the gods, had an expiatory virtue: so the Church of Rome holds that genuflexions, the Agnus Dei, the beads, the medals of the saints, and of the virgin Mary, have an expiatory virtue. The Pagans believed that certain prayers remitted certain sins and their punishment; so the Church of Rome believes that Novenas, indulgences, the recitation of the first chapter of the Gospel of John, etc., remit venial sins, and their punishment. The Pagans went in pilgrimage to chapels, where the prayers of the priests, they thought, had an expiatory virtue greater than in other temples; this practice and this belief have been preserved even by the Mahomedans. Now there are at the door of the Mosque of Ali, at Mesched-Aly, dervishes, who, for money, expiate with their prayers the sins of the pilgrims: so the Church of Rome believes that the expiatory virtue of the prayers made by priests, in certain chapels of saints and of Mary, where multitudes of pilgrims resort, is greater than that of the prayers made in other temples.

In China, the invocation of Omyto is sufficient[234] to remit the punishment of the greatest crimes. It is on account of it that the followers of the sect of Fo repeat oftentimes, every day, the words, O-myto-Fo! The Indians believed, and still believe, that when a man expires in pronouncing the name of God, and in holding, at the same time, the tail of a cow, he immediately ascends to Paradise. The Bramas never failed, and even do not now, to read every morning the mysterious legend of Gosgendre-Mootsjam; because it is a dogma of the Indian religion that any one who reads this legend every morning, obtains the forgiveness of the punishment of all his sins; so the Church of Rome holds that any one who recites the Angelus when the bell rings, in the morning, at noon, and at sun down, or recites the acts of faith, of hope, and of charity, obtains the remittance of the punishment of several of his venial sins; and, also, that any one who regularly recites the prayers of Saint Brigitte, or who, when he dies, recites with great devotion the prayer Memorare o piissima, etc., will go to Paradise.

Greece was flooded with rituals, ascribed to Orpheus and to Museus, prescribing ceremonies, rites, and practices, which had the virtue of purifying the soul, and of exempting the sinners from the punishment of their sins. The priests of the Pagans persuaded entire towns, cities, and nations, that they could be purified of their crimes, and be exempted from the punishment, which the Deity would inflict upon them, through the means of[235] expiatory rites, of feasts, and of initiations. They made the people believe that this purification, and this exemption, could extend to the living and to the dead, in what they called Teletes, or mysteries; and it was as a consequence of this belief that the priests of Cybel, those of Isis, the Orpheotelestes and others, went among the people to initiate them; but on the condition that they would pay to them large sums of money. This traffic was practiced even by priestesses, and bad women. Demosthenes informs us that the mother of Eschine made a living by it, and also in prostituting her body.

Likewise, the Church of Rome is flooded with rituals prescribing ceremonies, rites, and practices, which have the virtue of purifying the soul, and of exempting the sinners from the punishment of their sins. The priests make towns, cities, and nations believe that they can be purified of their crimes, and be exempted of the punishment they deserve, by fasting, by going processionally to churches, or to chapels of saints and of the virgin Mary. The priests, the monks, the begging-friars, and even the nuns, go among the people; they pledge themselves to obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and the exemption from divine punishment, if they give them sums of money.

The priests of the Pagans offered expiatory sacrifices for the living and for the dead for money; so, in the Church of Rome, the priests offer the sacrifice of Mass for the expiation of the[236] sins of the living and of the dead, if they are well paid. The Pagans believed that the foundation of temples, their endowment, and other gifts presented to the gods and to their priests, had an expiatory virtue. Socrates portrayed the unjust man in saying, that initiation to mysteries caused them to despise the Tartarus with all its torments. He made the following remark: "The apologist of injustice says, they frighten us with the threat of the pains of the Tartarus; but who ignores that we find in the initiations a remedy to that fear? They are a great resource to us; and they inform us that there are gods who exempt us from the punishment deserved by crime. True, we have committed injustice, but injustice has been pecuniarily profitable to us. We are told that the gods are appeased by prayers, sacrifices, and offerings." Biache, one of the interlocutors in the Ezourvedam, said, that there is in the country called Magouodechan, a sacred spot, where, through some offerings, ancestors can be freed from the tortures of hell.

Likewise, the Church of Rome holds that the foundation of churches, of priest's houses, of monasteries, of convents, and of nunneries, and their endowment; or any other gift, presented to the saints, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns have a virtue so much the more expiatory for sins, as they are greater and more valuable. It is owing to this horrible doctrine, that the Church of Rome has acquired so much church property that [237] its valuation is beyond any approximate calculation. The French poet, Boileau, spoke the truth when, in his ninth satire, he said:

Translation: "If we wish to inquire for what secret mystery Alidor, at his own expense, built a monastery.... He is a man of honor, of profound piety, and who wishes to restore to God what he stole from the world."

The Pagans believed that in piously gazing upon certain statues of the gods their souls were purified; and that the punishment of their sins was remitted; so, even now, the Indians believe that in simply gazing upon the shrub Toulouschi they obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and obtain the exemption from their punishment. Likewise the Church of Rome holds, that, in gazing piously upon the cross, the Catholics obtain the forgiveness of their venial sins, and the exemption from their punishment. The ancient initiations of the Pagans had tribunals of penance, where a priest, under the name of Koës, heard from the mouth of the sinners themselves the avowal of their sins, of which their souls were to be purified, and from the punishment of which they wished to be exempted. One day the famous Lysandre, con[238]fessing his sins to one of those Koës, was asked by him impudent questions. Lysandre answered him with this question, "Do you address me those questions in your own name, or in the name of the Deity?" The Koës answered: "In the name of the Deity." "Well," Lysandre rejoined, "let me be; if God questions me, I will answer him." Likewise the Church of Rome has tribunals of penance, where priests hear from the mouth of the sinners themselves the avowal of their sins, of which their souls are to be purified, and from the punishment of which they wish to be exempted. Through the absolution of the priests the greatest sins, without any exemption, are remitted entirely, so that they not only are forgiven, but even their punishment.

Even the Church of Rome goes farther in regard to the pretended virtue of her expiatory practices, than the Pagans ever went. Indeed, it was a common thing among the Pagans to stigmatize certain crimes, and to call them irremissible—unexpiable. They excluded from the sanctuaries of Eleusis, the murderers, the traitors to their country, in a word, all those who were guilty of atrocious crimes; they were to be excluded from the Elysium forever, and to be endlessly tortured in the Tartarus. There were purifications for murder, it is true, but only for involuntary or necessary murder. When the ancient heroes had committed a murder, they resorted to expiation; after the sacrifices which were required, lustral[239] water was poured on the murderous hand; from that moment they were readmitted in society; and they prepared themselves to new deeds of bravery. Hercules resorted to expiation when he had slain the Centaurs. But those sorts of expiations did not purify the soul from all impurities and crimes.

The great criminals had to dread all their lifetime the horrors of the Tartarus, or could not expiate their crimes, except by constantly practicing virtue, and constantly doing good to their fellow men. The legal purifications were not considered as having the virtue of securing to all criminals the hope of bliss, to which the righteous were entitled. Nero did not dare present himself to the temple of Eleusis; because he was debarred from entering its sanctuary on account of his atrocious crimes.

The famous Constantine I., to whom the Church of Rome is indebted for all her past and present aggrandizement, wealth, and power; and whose name has been, is, and shall always be, accursed by nations, because of the rivers of blood, of the deluge of ignorance, of superstition, in one word, of the ocean of crimes against God, against Christ, and against mankind, which the Church of Rome, enabled by his protection, poured over the world: Constantine, we say, guilty of all sorts of crimes; his hands reeking with the blood of his own mother, whom he had slain; and with the blood of the many, whom he had murdered; and guilty[240] of many perjuries, presented himself to the Pagan priests to obtain the absolution of those atrocious crimes, and the exemption from their punishment.

Constantine was answered, that, among the various sorts of expiations, there was not one which had the virtue of purifying his soul from so many and so atrocious crimes, and of exempting him from the punishment they deserved; and that no religion had resources enough to appease the justice of the irritated gods; and, let us mark: Constantine was a mighty emperor. One of his courtiers, seeing the trouble and agitation of his soul, devoured by the restless and undying remorse, told him that his sufferings were not hopeless; that there were in the Church of Rome, purifications which had the virtue of expiating all crimes, without any exception, that this Church held, that whoever joined it, whatever may be his crimes, might hope that all his crimes will be forgiven by the Deity, and that the exemption from their punishment will be obtained.

From that time Constantine took the Church of Rome under his protection. He was a wicked man who tried to deceive himself, and to appease the remorse of his conscience. He gave then full scope to his flagitiousness; and he postponed being baptized until the hour of his death, because it was, as it is now, a dogma of the Church of Rome, that baptism purifies the soul from the original and all other sins and crimes, and that it has also the virtue of exempting those baptized[241] from the punishment of all their sins. Thus the entry of the temple of Eleusis was interdicted to Nero; and yet the Church of Rome would have admitted him within her pale; would have purified his soul; and would have exempted him from the punishment of all his monstrous crimes, if he had taken her under his protection. How abominable a Church must be, when she deals so with tyrants and monsters with a human face! What! if Nero had been a Roman Catholic and had protected the Church of Rome, she would have canonized him! Why not? Constantine, as great a criminal as he was, has been canonized. In the ninth century his name was invoked at Rome in the ceremonies of the Church, and even now he is considered as a saint.

In England several churches have been built under the invocation of this pretended Saint Constantine, who founded at Constantinople a vast and costly establishment of ill fame. Such are the saints worshiped by the Church of Rome when she obtains their protection. Christ, reason, and nature, would never have absolved Nero from his crimes, and from the punishment they deserved; and yet the Church of Rome would have done it. Sophocles, in his Ædipe, says, that all the waters of the Danube, and of the Phase, would have been insufficient to purify, from their crimes, the souls of the family of Laïus; and yet the Church of Rome would have done it. How truly the Arab poet Abu-Naovas exclaimed: "Lord, we[242] have indulged to sin and to crime, because we saw that forgiveness soon followed them."

Therefore there is a striking similarity between the practices required by the Church of Rome, to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute, and those which were required in the Pagan religion for the same purpose.

2. We prove that the practices required by the Church of Rome to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute, were not instituted among Christians in the first two centuries.

The Roman Catholic theologians do not pretend that the Christians of the first two centuries held those practices, nor that the Church of Rome herself held them; but they say that the Church of Rome established them successively, as the good of Christians required it, according to the power of government and infallibility granted to her, and to her alone, by Jesus Christ.

Consequently, the practices required by the Church of Rome, to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, were not instituted among Christians in the first two centuries.

We draw the general conclusions of this chapter:

It has been proved that there is a striking simi[243]larity between the practices required by the Church of Rome to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and to be exempted from the punishment of those sins, and those which were, and still now are, required in the Pagan religion for the same purpose; and that those practices were not instituted among Christians in the first two centuries.

Therefore the Church of Rome borrowed from the Pagans the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement, namely, that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of their sins, through the medium of a substitute.

Since, though the other Partialist Christian Churches rejected the most of the practices used by the Church of Rome to obtain the forgiveness of sins, and the exemption from the punishment of those sins, they preserved the substance of the doctrine, namely, that Jesus Christ had washed away, or, in other words, atoned for all the sins of those who would feel the descent of the Holy Spirit in their souls; who would experience a supernatural change of heart, or, as they commonly term it, would get religion; and also that through his atonement they were exempted from the punishment of their sins—the doctrine which they hold is nothing but the very doctrine, though modified in its circumstances, of the Church of Rome. Therefore its origin is the same. But it has been proved that the Church of Rome borrowed from the Pagans, the doctrine that a small number of[244] privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute—as she holds it. Therefore it is thereby proved, that the other Partialist Christian Churches truly borrowed, from the Pagans, though through the medium of the Church of Rome, the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute—as she holds it.

Therefore the doctrine that a small number of privileged Christians obtain the forgiveness of their sins, and are exempted from the punishment of those sins, through the medium of a substitute, is of Pagan origin. And as, on another hand, it has been proved, in four other chapters of this work, that the doctrine of a Personal Devil, the doctrine of Original Sin, the doctrine of Trinity, and the doctrine of the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, are of Pagan origin—then we logically draw the conclusion that all the characteristics of the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement are of Pagan origin. Since all the characteristics of the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement are of Pagan origin, then the body itself of the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement is of Pagan origin.

Therefore the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement is of Pagan origin.

[245]

CONCLUSION OF ALL THE CHAPTERS.

Therefore Partialist Doctrines are of Pagan Origin.

Corollary.—Since the Partialist doctrines are of Pagan origin they are not taught in the Scriptures, for the Scriptures do not reveal Paganism. Consequently they ought to be rejected from Christian Churches, as being Heathen doctrines.

[246]

Valedictory.

Dear Reader,—Before I drop the pen permit me to address to you a few valedictory words. If you believe the Impartialist, namely, Universalist doctrines, you are now in possession of an irrefutable historical proof corroborating your beloved faith, which is satisfactory to your mind, and sweet to your heart. If from your infancy up to this day you have been taught, and have believed, the Partialist doctrines, perhaps you say to yourself: My religious creed is now shaken to its very foundation; what then will my religious belief be, for the want of religious principles is the most earnest longing of my soul? Friend, study the Impartialist, namely, Universalist doctrines; compare them with the teaching of the Scriptures, and you will find them recorded therein. They truly are the embodiment of the teaching of the Scriptures, which are themselves embodied in these two vital maxims of Jesus Christ, written in golden letters on the Universalist banner: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.—This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.—On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Transcriber's Note:

Blank pages have been eliminated.

Greek characters have been converted to HTML entities. These characters will not be displayed if they are not included in the font used by your device.

Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the original.

A few typographical errors have been corrected.