The Eliminator; or, Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Secrets

It was a master-stroke of worldly wisdom and policy when Irenæus in the second century (who first mentioned our four Gospels) sanctioned the monstrous assumption of all ecclesiastical authority by divine right by the bishops and priests, which power soon became centralized at Rome; but it was the greatest misfortune of the ages for the cause of true religion and sound morality. It not only made the Church of Rome with its immense machinery a necessary result, but it made the not less false systems of Protestant dogmatic theology possible. There is no use in attempting to disguise the fact that the so-called scheme of redemption is in principle and substance the same in the Catholic and orthodox Protestant Churches. Many intelligent persons feel that they would as soon belong to one as the other, while they secretly regard the Romanists as logically the more consistent.

The Romanists are strong in that they place the Church first (jure divino) and make the scriptures the product of the Church, and of course subject to its interpretation. Protestants are weak in that they make the Church subject to written scriptures, which were selected by the founders of Catholicism, and then for centuries altered, forged, interpolated, and manipulated by popes and priests to strengthen their authority and secure the absolute submission of the people.

The one fatal blunder of the Protestant Reformers was to found their system of theology upon a written book of the origin of which so little is known, and yet regarding which so much is known that it is impossible for persons of a rational, judicial mind to accept it as an infallible supernatural revelation.

The conclusion is inevitable that in the absence of everything that, by even a strain of language, can be called evidence as to the genuineness and authenticity, of our Gospels we cannot safely accept them as an infallible authority in religious matters. We have a right to examine them critically, just as we would read and study any other ancient writings of uncertain authorship and date.

The Reformation was in part the substitution of a book which was pronounced infallible, but which has proved to be very fallible, for a Church which claimed infallibility, but which had shown itself not only very fallible, but exceedingly corrupt and dangerous. Infallibility belongs to neither men nor books. Infallibility in books is an absurdity. A religion founded upon a printed book must submit to examination of both the origin and character of that book, and must shoulder the imperfections and errors which the discoveries of modern research have fully exposed. The principles of true religion inherent in human nature, an ineradicable constituent of the constitution of man, as has been shown, are to-day obscured and shackled by the false position in which its professed friends have placed it. It will be shown before these papers are concluded that a religion manacled by a printed book claiming infallibility, and made to depend solely upon an historical character who, if admitted to be historical, wrote nothing himself and commissioned no one to write anything for him, and of whose verbal teachings and actual mode of life we can never be sure,—a religion thus encumbered must suffer great loss, if not total failure, as men shall progress in knowledge and science shall uncover the past and demonstrate the absurdities of the superstitious dogmas of the ancient faiths. It is impossible to compress the largest brains of the nineteenth century into the smallest skulls of the twelfth century. The true friend of religion is the fearless man who dares attempt to rescue it from the accretions and perversions of the Dark Ages, and to establish its eternal principles of truth and righteousness in the very nature of man, in the elevation of moral character, in strict agreement with the demonstrated facts of the present, as opposed to the bigoted and degrading fancies of the past. To defend religion from the follies of its mistaken champions, and show that its foundations are secure and its ultimate triumph certain, may now be denounced as treason to the Church, but in coming years it will be seen to have been the work of men of whom the Church of to-day is not worthy.

The fact is, very little is known of the New Testament, but too much is well known to receive it in evidence in a matter of so much importance. The narratives it contains would be ruled out of court in any civilized country on the globe. It is evidently a huge compilation of what was at best only traditions among the nations of the earth, and even these traditions, mixed and mangled as they are, must have another and a more rational explanation than an historical or a literal one. This book cannot be an infallible divine revelation. Let us see whether we cannot find out what was really intended to be taught by the different writers.

CHAPTER X. THE DRAMA OF THE GOSPELS

“Great is the mystery of godliness.”—1 Tim. 3:16.

“We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.”—1 Cor. 2:7.

“I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”—1 Cor. 10:15.

IN early times every prominent religious teacher had his own gospel, as Paul asserts that he had his. The books that were canonized did not by any means shape the belief of the early Christians, but, on the contrary, their beliefs shaped the character of the books. “The question of a ‘Catholic canon,’” says Professor Davidson, “was realized about the same time as the idea of a Catholic Church.” The partisanship, low trickery, and mob violence by which votes of councils were obtained to establish ecclesiastical dogmas, the canonicity of Scriptures, etc., were such as now-a-days characterize a political meeting in the slums of an American city.

While, therefore, we quote the statements of the Gospels to prepare the way for the presentation of our points of argument, we do so only for convenience. They cannot, by any rule of sound criticism, testimony of contemporary writers, or even of spiritual discernment, be accepted as historical.

The composition of the four Gospels indicates in many ways that they were originally collections of religious stories, each of which has a moral of its own, like the fables of Æsop, or, more properly, the narratives concerning Buddha given in the Dhammapada. This was a common mode of writing in early times. History and biography were hardly considered. Hence contradictions of verbal statement were not counted as of any importance. This is probably the reason why the transcribers neglected to remove the conflicts of statement and other inaccuracies that abound in the Gospels.

It is also more than probable that many parts of these works which have a narrative form were later interpolations. The first two chapters of Matthew and the first two in the Gospel according to Luke are unequivocally of this character. The style and diction are conspicuously unlike the language of the other parts of those works, as will appear on the slightest notice.

The oldest parts of the New Testament are the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, and Thessalonians. We will do well, therefore, to study them a little while by themselves, without reference to the Gospels and other documents, which were of later date. Paul asserts that he possessed and promulgated a gospel distinct and different from others, and he pronounced an anathema on the man or angel that should teach any different one. The way that he became possessed of it he sets forth as follows: He had no conference with any human being whatsoever about the matter, nor had he anything to do with those who were apostles before him, but he went into Arabia and afterward to Damascus. A hint is furnished by Josephus in his history of his own life which throws some light upon the purpose of this sojourn in Arabia. There were members of the Essenean brotherhood living there who were resorted to by individuals desiring instruction and discipline. Josephus himself went thither for that purpose. Paul evidently had a similar errand. He had been a Pharisee, but had embraced another faith.

Why did he choose the Esseneans in preference to the Judean apostles? The answer must be that he was more certain of learning their tenets without adulteration. They were famous for their devotion to religious study, their cultivation of sacred literature and the art of prophecy, for their austerity, industry, and peculiar social organization. We shall find upon comparison that this was very closely resembling what is represented of the first believers at Jerusalem. They had their episcopacy, their deacons or stewards, their Holy Scriptures, and apostles or missionaries. These were numerous in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt. As the Therapeutæ of the latter country resembled them, even to the signification of their name (healers, ministers), the probability is that the two were nearly identical. Eusebius, quoting the account of the Egyptian communes as given by Philo the Jew, has remarked the close similarity of their doctrines and customs with those of the apostolic congregations, and declared that they were Christians and their writings the Gospels.

This, however, is not tenable, at least not tenable in the way that he suggests. Unfortunately for his statement, the Essenean brothers existed, with all the peculiarities described, long before the Christian era. Josephus treats of them as flourishing as early as the time of Jonathan, the first of the Maccabeans who held the office of high priest. About that period the canon of the Old Testament was finally collected. “Judas gathered together all those things that were lost by reason of the war we had (with Antiochos Epiphanes and his successors), and they remain with us” (2 Macc. 2: 14). The Maccabees or Asmoneans were partisans of the sect known as Asideans (Chaldeans), and afterward as Pharisees or Parsees. At this very period we first learn of the Sadducees or Zadokites, who chiefly belonged to the hereditary lineage of Aaron, and likewise of the Essenean fraternity. These last had their own sacred books, and took no part in the worship and sacrifices of the temple. In short, they were regarded as a people apart. Their books, we have good reason to suppose, were different in tenor from those of the Old Testament, and it is by no means improbable that they included the scriptures written in Greek by the Alexandrians and now called the Apocrypha.

The designation Minim may mean “observers of the heavens,” and the Essenes appear to have been such. “Before sunrising,” says Josephus, “they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” This illustrates the taunt to the Pharisees, that they could discern the face of the sky in regard to the weather, but could not read there the signs or symbols of the times, which were also written there.

The Saddukim were doubtless the disciples and partisans of Judas of Galilee, or Gaulonitis beyond Jordan. This man and his colleague Sadduk began their career at the time of the census or enrolment by Cyre-nius, which took place after the displacing of Arche-laus, the son of Herod I., from the throne of Judea. There are many plausible reasons for identifying them with the apostolic congregation. They established a new religious or philosophical sect, which Josephus declares had a great many followers, and laid the foundations of the subsequent miseries of the Jews. Their tenets agreed with those of the Pharisees; but, says the historian, “they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They do not value any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.” The Jewish nation, Josephus declares, was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree. It is plain that the books interdicted in the Talmud pertained to the sect which followed these teachers, and perhaps also to the Essenes.

The Gospels show evidence of having been compiled from previous works. The one ascribed to Mark is apparently the more original, being shorter, more concise, and exhibiting fewer traces of having been tampered with. The Gospel according to Matthew is from the same original, having whole sentences in exactly the same words, but it is amplified and more diffuse. Neither of these Gospels was recognized by Paul, and indeed there is much reason to doubt whether he had ever seen them. If he recognized any evangelic compilation as genuine, it was the one ascribed to Luke; and even then the treatise must have been rewritten after his period.

There exists abundant reason for regarding the Essenean worship as more or less identical with that of Mithras, the Persian “god of heaven.” This appears to be sustained by a comparison of the cults. Thus, as has been remarked, they permitted no discourse on secular concerns before sunrise, but chanted prayers like the Gathas, as in supplication to the divinity presiding over the sky. Their personal habits exhibited a profound awe for the Sun. Their name itself was not peculiar to the fraternity of Palestine and Arabia, but was borne by the ascetic priests at Ephesus, whose manner of life was similar; and Plutarch informs us that certain osioi (another form of the name) performed mystic rites in the temple of Apollo at Delphi in commemoration of Zagreus, the sun-god of the Orphic religion, who was slain and resuscitated.

The Persian theology is evidently the basis and source of Judaism. The symbolism of the universe afforded a model for their religion. After the conquest of Pontus and the pirate empire by Pompey, about 70 b. c., the worship was introduced into the Roman empire. The verdict of Salamis was thus reversed. The defeat of Xerxes, who was a zealous propagandist, had assured the ascendency of Apollo at Delphi and Demeter at Eleusis over the religion of Ahura Mazda; but the conquest of the Mithras-worshippers by Pompey resulted in the introduction of their rites into every part of the Roman world. From the river Euphrates to the Wall of Antoninus in Britain, and into the forests of Germany, Mithraism everywhere prevailed. For four centuries it disputed the supremacy with Christianity; and even when it was proscribed and forbidden by imperial authority, it still retained its hold upon the pagani or inhabitants of the rural districts. The Templars and other secret fraternities of the Middle Ages were more or less similar in character to those of the Parsee sun-god, and the rites which we have heard denounced as magic and witchcraft were Mithraic ceremonies mingled with aboriginal customs. Although the divinity is essentially Persian, we cannot but regard the secret worship as an Assyrian institution. M. Lajard has given an account of this cultus, which so generally supplanted the mystic worship of the West.

The story of the temptation of Jesus, if read intelligently “between the lines,” will be seen to indicate the characteristics of the Mithraic initiation. “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John. And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him; and there came a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan [Anra-mainyas], and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.”

These different clauses relate to different parts of the mystic ceremony.

The sojourn of the apostle Paul in Arabia, it is apparent, was for a purpose in close analogy with that of Jesus in the wilderness, as already described. “It had pleased God,” he says, “to reveal [or unveil] his Son in me;” so, without conferring with anybody, he set forth on his holy errand, and upon his return began to preach a gospel which he declares was not according to man nor taught in lessons, but was received by the revelation. He was instructed at the fountain intuitively, and so was “not a whit behind the chiefest apostles.” Hence in the utmost intensity of feeling he proclaimed, “If we, or even an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you, let him be accursed.” He goes on to recite the history of his career to show his entire independence of Judaism and the other apostles, and dwells upon his absolute rupture with Peter at Antioch on the ground of the adherence of the latter to the discarded restrictions of that religion.

The question now becomes pertinent, What is the purport of this “faith”? In the fifteenth chapter of the First Corinthian Epistle he sets forth the chief points as follows: “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; also that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, and after that of above five hundred brethren at once; after that he was seen of James, and then of all the apostles; and, last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

It may appear strange to the common reader to be told that these matters, which the apostle sets forth with so much apparent confidence, are mystic and arcane the transcript of older theologies and constituted throughout of astrologie symbolism. The ancient faiths of the different peoples contain doctrines and dramatic narrative closely analogous with the evangelic story of Jesus. The later Persians had the legend of Saoshyas (the savior), the son of the virgin Eredatferi, who conceives him in a miraculous manner. “He will appear and restore all things, after which he will himself become subordinate, that the Creator may be supreme and all in all.”

In the Orphic drama, as it was performed by the Osians at the temple of Apollo at Delphi, the birth of Zagreus of the holy maid Persephoneia as the son of the Supreme Being, Zeus, is duly represented; then his proposed heirship of the universe, his passion and death; and finally his restoration again into life through a reincarnation as son of the virgin Semelê under the new name of Dionysos. The myth was Assyrian, Semelê being the same as Mylitta, the mystic mother, and her child, Shamas Dian-nisi, or the personified Sun, the Judge or Lord of mankind. The death, resurrection, and glorification of this Son of God were celebrated in the mystic dramas of several countries.

The legends of Atys in Asia Minor, of Adonis or Tammuz in Syria, of Osiris in Egypt, were derived from the same source. They cover the same field and have the same occult meaning. The apocalypse, or unveiling of the mystic purport of the sacred dramas to those considered worthy and competent to understand them, was the great object of initiation. The Gospels were regarded formerly as accounts of a tragedy of analogous character. The higher functionaries of the Roman Catholic Church, we have reason to believe, have this same view, which is more than hinted in several places. Paul speaks unequivocally in this way of his gospel and the preaching or heralding of Jesus Christ, “according to the revelation or unfolding of the mystery now made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” When the disciples asked of Jesus why he spoke to the common multitude in parables he makes this reply: “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the reign of God; but unto them that are without all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand.”

In these religious stories there is a very similar general outline. There is a divine parentage and a career given; then the Holy One is put to death, the corpse is brought in for burial, the tragic occurrence is mourned by women, and the ceremonial is concluded by his resuscitation and ascension. There were varied phases of the representation, but they always had an intimate relation to the seasons of the year and the analogous occurrences in the world of nature. Thus the supposed death more frequently occurred at the beginning of spring, and was mourned for a lenten period of forty days, which the vernal equinox brought to a close. Then funeral rites were performed, and after three days, in the case of Adonis, it was fabled that the god arose and ascended into the higher sky. In the Dionysia or Bacchic rite the god descended into hell, the world of death, and brought thence his virgin mother, that they might be glorified together.

The Neo-Platonists taught that these occult rites were a form of representing philosophic and religious dogmas as if in scenes of common life by living persons, and of shadowing them by ceremonies and processions. This is more than hinted by Plato himself, and is undoubtedly true. The candidates were prepared for participation by long periods of fasting and various purifications, moral and physical. The Eleusinia consisted of a drama of several days in duration, in which the abduction, or rather death, of Persephoné and the wanderings of her mother Demeter served as the veil or myesis to the doctrine of resurrection and life of eternity. The author of The Great Dionysiak Myth has ably presented the various forms of the Bacchic rites with the same basis and dénouement. Even the Hebrew Scriptures allude to the matter. The “mourning for the only one” is mentioned by Jeremiah, Amos, and Zechariah.

That the story of Jesus was in like manner a drama for religious ends, consisting of a miraculous parentage, a career of goodness, a passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, is, to say the least, no improbable solution of the question.

It has also been noticed that the events of the seasons were denoted by the mystic symbolism. The sun, stars, constellations, and earth are commemorated in regard to their annual careers by these observances; whether because they were essential to the physical well-being of man or were especially appropriate for symbology different writers have conjectured differently, according to their own mental peculiarities. Probably both are right, so far as their views extend.

It becomes us now to investigate the drama of the Gospels more carefully. The mythologic story of Mithras was probably Assyrian in detail, though Persian in first conception. It embraced the same notions as were denoted by the mysteries of the Western peoples, and hence the Mithraic worship in a very great degree superseded the arcane religions of Asia Minor and Europe. Very naturally, as may easily be perceived, the framework of the Gospel narrative is on the basis of these rites. The influence of the other ancient faiths is also conspicuously manifest. The physical, and particularly the astronomic, features are everywhere present in the external structure of Christianity. Sir Isaac Newton was quick to perceive that the festivals of the Church had been fixed and arranged upon the observed phenomena of the heavens, and gave a detailed list of correspondences. It was not prudent, however, even in his time, for a man to say all he knew, and he carefully avoided the drawing of any conclusions which might encourage further inquiry in that direction.

It has already been suggested that the gospel of Paul was at the bottom Essenean and Mithraic; and in accordance with that hypothesis the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension would be solar and astrologic events. The Essenes, as well as the other Mithras-worshippers, adored the sun and greeted his rising with invocations and sacred chants. The death and resurrection were “according to the Scriptures.” In other words, they were duly set forth after the manner of literal occurrences in the sacred books of the Essenes long before Paul was born. The adepts of that fraternity understood the matter, and the hostility which they and the other disciples always exhibited toward the great apostle was because he divulged too much. His writings contained many dysnoetic matters, Peter declared—many matters of higher knowledge improperly expressed, which they that are unlearned and unstable might wrest to their own hurt. According to the scriptures of the brotherhood, the drama of the Gospel had its dénouement in the passion and tragedy of Jesus. Paul, like a genuine adept, has accepted this narrative as the basis of his gospel; nevertheless, as though aware that it is a figurative rather than a literal occurrence, he nowhere speaks of the crucifixion as a crime.