{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39414/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39414","id":"gutenberg_39414","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39414","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Crosses","Phallicism"],"text":"E-text prepared by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n(http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by\nInternet Archive (http://archive.org)\n\n\n\nNote: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this\n      file which includes the original illustrations.\n      See 39414-h.htm or 39414-h.zip:\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/39414/pg39414-images.html)\n      or\n      (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39414/39414-h.zip)\n\n\n      Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive. See\n      http://archive.org/details/masculinecrossor00lond\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).\n\n      The original text includes Greek characters. For this\n      text version these letters have been replaced with\n      transliterations.\n\n      The original text contains two symbols that are\n      represented in this version as [symbol].\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MASCULINE CROSS.\n\n\n[Illustration: _God Indra Nailed to a Cross._]\n\n[Illustration: _Buddhist Cross._]\n\n[Illustration: _Cross Common on Ancient Assyrian Monuments._]\n\n[Illustration: _Ancient Heathen,--Mexican Cross._]\n\n\nTHE MASCULINE CROSS\n\nOr\nA History of Ancient and Modern Crosses and\nTheir Connection with the Mysteries of Sex Worship\nAlso an Account of the Kindred Phases of\nPhallic Faiths and Practices.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPrivately Printed\n1904.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                  PAGE\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n    THE CROSS                                        1\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n    THE CROSS (Continued)                           23\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n    THE DOCTRINE OF A SACRED TRIAD                  42\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n    THE DOCTRINE OF A SACRED TRIAD (Continued)      63\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n    THE GOLDEN CALF OF AARON                        79\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n    CIRCUMCISION                                    91\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n    ANDROGYNOUS DEITIES, SEX WORSHIP, &C.          100\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n\n_In the following pages certain things supposed to be of comparatively\nmodern origin have been traced back to the remotest historic ages of the\nworld; as a consequence, it follows that the modern symbolical meaning\ngiven to such things is sometimes only one acquired in subsequent times,\nand not that exactly which was originally intended,--it must not be\nsupposed, therefore, that the interpretation belonging to the epoch in\nwhich we are first enabled to trace a definite meaning is to be\nconclusively regarded as that which gave birth to the form of the symbol.\nThe original may have been--probably was--very different to what came\nafter; the starting point may have been simplicity and purity, whilst the\ndevelopments of after years were degrading and vicious. Particularly so\nwas this the case in the Lingam worship of the vast empire of India;\noriginally the adoration of an Almighty Creator of all things, it became,\nin time, the worship of the regenerative powers of material nature, and\nthen the mere indulgence in the debased passions of an abandoned and\nvoluptuous nature._\n\n_With regard to the symbol of the Cross, it may be repugnant to the\nfeelings of some to be told that their recognition of its purely Christian\norigin is a mistake, and that it was as common in Pagan as in more\nadvanced times; they may find consolation, however, in the fact that its\nreal beginning was further back still in the world's history, and that\nwith Paganism it was, as it had been with Christianity, simply an adopted\nfavourite._\n\n_Our story is taken up in the middle epoch of the history, and shews the\nrelationship of the things we deal with to prevailing phallic faiths and\npractices._\n\n\n\n\nTHE MASCULINE CROSS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n    _Universal prevalence of the Cross--Mistakes--The Cross not of\n    Christian Origin--Christian Veneration of the Cross--The Roman\n    Ritual--The Cross equally honoured by the Gentile and Christian\n    Worlds--Druidical Crosses--The Copt Oak of Charnwood Forest--Assyrian\n    Crosses in British Museum--Pectoral Crosses--Egyptian Crosses--Greek\n    Cross--St. Andrew's Cross--Planetary Signs and Crosses--Monogram of\n    Christ at Serapis--Cross in India--Pagodas in form of\n    Crosses--Mariette Bey's Discovery--Buddhist and Roman Crosses--Chinese\n    Crosses--Kampschatkan Crosses--American Crosses--Cross among the Red\n    Indians--The Royal Commentaries of Peru--Mexican Ideas relative to the\n    Cross--The Spaniards in America--Sign of the Cross--Cross as an\n    Amulet--Hot-cross Buns--Tertullian on the Use of the Cross._\n\n\nThe universal prevalence of the cross as an ornament and symbol during the\nlast eighteen centuries in the Christian church has led to some great, if\nnot grave, mistakes. It has been supposed, and for various obvious reasons\nvery naturally so, to be of exclusively Christian origin, and to represent\nmaterially no more than the instrument by which the founder of that\nreligion was put to death; and, spiritually or symbolically, faith in the\nsacrificial atoning work he then completed. There are not a few people\nabout who, having become imbued with this idea, rush to the hasty\nconclusion that wherever the cross is found, and upon whatever monuments,\nit indicates a connection with Christianity, and is therefore of\ncomparatively modern origin. History, in consequence, becomes a strange\nand unfathomable mystery, especially when it belongs to kingdoms of\nwell-known great antiquity, amongst whose symbols or ornaments the cross\nis plentiful, and the mind finds itself involved in a confusion from which\nit cannot readily extricate itself. Never was there a greater blunder\nperpetrated, or a more ignorant one, than the notion of the figure of the\ncross owing its origin to the instrument of Christ's death, and the\nChristian who finds comfort in pressing it to his lips in the hour of\ndevotion or of trouble must be reminded that the ancient Egyptian did a\nsimilar thing.\n\nThe fact is, there is great similarity between the cross worship, or\nveneration if you please, of ancient and modern times. Christians, we\nknow, are apt to repudiate the charge of rendering worship to this symbol,\nbut it is clear from what is printed in some of their books of devotion\nthat some sort of worship is actually rendered, though disguised under\nother names. As to the veneration thus offered being right or wrong, we\nhere say nothing; the fact only concerns us so far as it relates to the\nsubject we have in hand.\n\nIf we open the _Tablet_ (Roman Catholic newspaper) for the 26th of\nNovember, 1853, we read:--\"Those of our readers who have visited Rome\nwill, doubtless, have remarked, at the foot of the stairs which descend\nfrom the square of the Capitol to the square of the Campo Vaccino, under\nthe flight of steps in front of the Church of St. Joseph, and over the\ndoor of the Mamertine prison, a very ancient wooden crucifix, before which\nlamps and wax tapers are constantly burning, and surrounded on all sides\nwith exvotos and testimonies of public thanksgiving. No image of the\ncrucified Saviour is invested with greater veneration.... The worship\nyielded to the holy crucifix of Campo Vaccino is universal at Rome, and is\ntransmitted from generation to generation. The fathers teach it to the\nchildren, and in all the misfortunes and all the trials of life the first\nidea is almost always to have recourse to the holy crucifix, the object of\nsuch general veneration, and the source of so many favours. It is, above\nall, in sickness that the succour of the holy image is invoked with more\nconfidence and more eagerness.... There are few families in Rome who have\nnot to thank the holy crucifix for some favour and some benefit.... In the\ninterval of the sermons and other public exercises of devotion the holy\ncrucifix, exposed on the high altar in the midst of floods of light, saw\nincessantly prostrated before it a crowd of adorers and suppliants.... As\nsoon as the holy image of the Saviour had appeared on the Forum, the Holy\nFather advanced on the exterior flight of steps of the church to receive\nit, and when the shrine had arrived at the base of the stairs of the\nChurch of San Luca, at some paces from the flight of steps on which the\nHoly Father stood, in rochet, stole, and pallium of red velvet, he bowed\nbefore the holy crucifix and venerated it devoutly.\"\n\nIn harmony with this, the Missal supplies us with prayers and hymns in the\nservice for Good Friday, addressed directly to the cross.\n\n\"We adore Thy cross, O Lord, and we praise and glorify Thy holy\nresurrection; for by the wood of the cross the whole world is filled with\njoy.\"\n\n    \"O faithful cross, O noblest tree,\n    In all our woods there is none like thee.\n    No earthly groves, no shady bowers\n    Produce such leaves, such fruit, such flowers.\n    Sweet are the nails and sweet the wood,\n    Which bore a weight so sweet and good.\"\n\n    \"O lovely tree, whose branches bore\n    The royal purple of His gore,\n    How glorious does thy body shine,\n    Supporting members so divine.\n    Hail, cross! our hope, on thee we call\n    Who keep this paschal festival;\n    Grant to the just increase of grace,\n    And every sinner's guilt efface.\"\n\nThere is something unusually remarkable about the popularity of the cross;\nwe can hardly point to a time when, or to a part of the world where, it\nhas not been in favour. It has entered into the constitution of religions\nof the most opposite character, has been transmitted from one to another,\nand though originally belonging to the rudest form of pagan idolatry, is\nnow esteemed highly by those who profess to have adopted the loftiest\nideal of civilised worship. After mentioning the fact of its popularity in\nthe pagan world, Mr. Maurice remarks: \"Let not the piety of the Catholic\nChristian be offended at the preceding assertion, that the cross was one\nof the most usual symbols among the hieroglyphics of Egypt and India.\nEqually honoured in the Gentile and the Christian world, this emblem of\nuniversal nature--of that world to whose four quarters its diverging radii\npointed--decorated the hands of most of the sculptured images in the\nformer country, and in the latter stamped its form upon the most majestic\nshrines of their deities.\"\n\nHere we may profitably glance at a few different parts of the world and at\nsome of the past ages, in tracing out the possible origin and meaning of\nthis symbol. In Britain there have been found monuments so ancient and\nwith such surroundings that but for certain peculiar marks they would\nunhesitatingly have been put down as Druidical. They are marked with the\ncross, and in the estimation of some, as we have already pointed out, that\nis regarded as conclusive proof of Christian origin. The inference,\nhowever, is a false one, the monuments are too old for Christianity, and\nthe cruciform etchings upon them belong to another religious system\naltogether. It is known that the Druids consecrated the sacred oak by\ncutting it into the shape of a cross, and so necessary was it regarded to\nhave it in this form, that if the lateral branches were not large enough\nto construct the figure properly, two others were fixed as arms on either\nside of the trunk. The cross having been thus constructed, the Arch-Druid\nascended and wrote the name of the Deity upon the trunk at the place of\nintersection, and on the extremities of the arms.\n\nThe peculiar interest attached to this idol lies in the fact that it is\ndescribed by the best authorities as the Gallic or Celtic Tau. \"The Tau,\"\nsays Davies in his _Celtic Researches_, \"was the symbol of the Druidical\nJupiter. It consisted of a huge grand oak deprived of all its branches,\nexcept only two large ones which, though cut off and separated, were\nsuspended from the top of its trunk-like suspended arms.\" The idol, say\nothers, was in reality a cross, the same in form as the linga.\n\nA few years ago, near the hill of Bardon, in the middle of Charnwood\nforest, in the county of Leicester, there grew and perhaps still grows, a\nvery old tree called the Copt Oak. This tree, there is reason to believe,\nwas more than two thousand years old, and once formed a Celtic Tau. Forty\nyears ago, a writer who knew the tree well, said that its condition then\nsuggested very distinctly the possibility of the truthfulness of the\nstory. It was described as a vast tree, then reduced to a mere shell\nbetween two and three inches only in thickness, perforated by several\nopenings, and alive only in about one-fourth of the shell; bearing small\nbranches, but such as could not have grown when the tree was entire; then\nit must have had branches of a size not less than an oak of ordinary\ndimensions. This was evident from one of the openings in the upper part of\nthe shell of the trunk, exactly such as a decayed branch would produce.\nThe tree was evidently of gigantic size in its earlier days, as shown by\nits measurement at the date we are speaking of. The remains of the trunk\nwere twenty feet high, the height proper for the Tau, and the\ncircumference at the ground was twenty-four feet; at the height of ten\nfeet the girth was twenty, giving a diameter of nearly seven feet. This\ntree, we have said, was called the Copt Oak; the epithet copt, or copped,\nmay be derived from the Celtic _cop_--a head, and evidently indicates that\nthe tree had been headed and reduced to the state of a bare trunk. The\nidol, as already described, was formed by cutting away the branches of the\ntree, which was always a large one, and affixing a beam, forming a cross\nwith the bare trunk.[1]\n\nFrom time immemorial the Copt Oak has borne a celebrity that bears out the\ntradition of its ancient sacredness. Potter, the historian of the forest\nof Charnwood, writes that it was one of the three places at which\nSwanimotes were held, always in the open air, for the regulation of rights\nand claims on the forest; and persons have been known even in late times\nto have attended such motes. \"At this spot,\" he says, \"it may be under\nthis tree, Edric the Forester is said to have harangued his forces against\nthe Norman invasion; and here too, in the Parliamentary troubles of 1642,\nthe Earl of Stamford assembled the trained bands of the district.\" \"These\nfacts,\" says Dudley, \"mark the Copt Oak extraordinary, and show, that\nnotwithstanding the lapse of two thousand years, the trunk was at that\ndistant period a sacred structure, a Celtic idol; and that it is\nillustrative of antiquarian records.\"\n\nStill further back in history than the foregoing are we able to trace this\nsingular figure. If we visit the Assyrian galleries of the British Museum\nwe shall observe life-size effigies in stone of the kings Samsi-Rammanu,\nB.C. 825, and Assur-Nazir-Pal, B.C. 880; suspended from the necks of these\nmonarchs and resting upon their breasts are prominently sculptured Maltese\ncrosses about three inches in length and width; they are in a good state\nof preservation, and will amply repay anyone for the trouble of an\ninspection, should they be desirous of pursuing this enquiry. In the Roman\nCatholic dictionaries we find these ornaments described as pectoral\ncrosses--crosses of precious metal worn at the breast by bishops and\nabbots as a mark of their office, and sometimes also by canons, etc., who\nhave obtained the privilege from Rome. It is stated these pectorals were\nnot generally used by the Roman ecclesiastics till the middle of the\nsixteenth century; however that may be, it is a fact, as proved by the\nAssyrian sculptures, that they are nearly, if not more than, three\nthousand years old, and not the least interesting feature distinguishing\nthem is their perfect similarity of design. It is strange that we\nmoderns--the disciples of Christ--should have had supplied to us at that\nremote period the pattern of an ornament or symbol which we are accustomed\nto regard as emblematic of essential features of our religion, but it is\ntrue.\n\nLook across now to Egypt and we find monuments and tombs literally\nbedizened with the cross, and that too in a variety of shapes. Long, long\nbefore Christ, the Ibis was represented with human hands and feet, holding\nthe staff of Isis in one hand, and a globe and cross in the other. Here we\nare in one of the most ancient kingdoms of the world--a kingdom so ancient\nthat its years are lost in obscurity--yet still the cross is found.\nWhatever it may have represented in other countries, and whatever may be\nits meaning here, from the positions in which it is found and from its\nconstant association with ecclesiastical personages and offices, it was\nevidently one of the most sacred of their symbols. Two forms, among\nothers, are common, one a simple cross of four limbs of equal length, the\nother that shaped like the letter =X=; the first is generally known as the\nGreek cross, the second as that of St. Andrew, both however being of the\nsame form and owing their different appearance only to the position in\nwhich they are placed.\n\nIt is well known, probably, to most of our readers that the astronomical\nsigns of certain of the planets consist of crosses, crescents, circles,\nand in ancient Egypt these were precisely the same as those now used.\nSaturn was represented by a cross surmounting a ram's horn, Jupiter by a\ncross beneath a horn, Venus by a cross beneath a circle, the Earth by a\ncross within a circle, Mercury by a cross surmounted by a circle and\ncrescent, and Mars by a cross above a circle. These may still be seen in\nalmanacs, and on the large coloured bottles in the windows of the\ndruggist. In the hands of Isis, Osiris, and Hermes, corresponding with the\nVenus, Jupiter, and Mercury of the Greeks, are also found the above signs.\n\nWhen the temple of Serapis, at Alexandria, was destroyed by one of the\nChristian emperors, it is related by several historians, Socrates and\nSozomen, for instance, that beneath the foundation was discovered the\nmonogram of Christ; and that considerable disputing arose in consequence\nthereof, the Gentiles endeavouring to use it for their own purposes, and\nthe Christians insisting that the cross, being uneasy beneath the weight\nor dominion of the temple, overthrew it.\n\nIf we turn to India we find the cross almost as common as in Egypt and\nEurope, and not the least interesting feature of the matter is the curious\nfact that a number of the pagodas are actually cruciform in structure.\nJagannath is the name of one of the mouths of the Ganges, upon which was\nbuilt the great pagoda where the Great Brahmin or High Priest resided. We\nwere told years ago, by travellers, that the form of the choir or interior\nwas similar in proportion to all the others, which were built upon the\nsame model, in the form of a cross. The pagoda at Benares, also, was in\nthe figure of a cross, having its arms equal. After the above, in\nimportance, was the pagoda at Muttra; this likewise was cruciform. One of\nthese temples, that at Chillambrum on the Coromandel coast, is said to be\nfour miles in circumference. Here there are seven lofty walls one within\nthe other round the central quadrangle, and as many pyramidal gateways in\nthe middle of each side which form the limbs of a vast cross, consisting\naltogether of twenty-eight pyramids. There are, therefore, fourteen in a\nrow, which extend more than a mile in one continuous line.\n\nWhat has been called, and perhaps justly so, the oldest religious monument\nin the world was discovered a few years ago by Mariette Bey, near the\nGreat Pyramid. For ages it had lain there, buried in the sand--how many we\ncannot tell, but very many we know; enough to carry us back to a very\nremote past. And this, too, like the Indian temples, was in the shape of a\ncross. Renan visited it in 1865, and though he found it in many\nparticulars different from those known elsewhere, he described the\ninterior, which much recalled the chamber of the Great Pyramid, as in the\nform of =T=, the principle aisle being divided in three rows, the\ntransverse aisle in two.\n\nMr. Fergusson, the architect, also saw it, and, while admiring its simple\nand chaste grandeur of style, with some astonishment described the form of\nthe principal chamber as that of a CROSS. And this was the plan of both\ntomb and temple in the earliest ages, testifying to the great veneration\npaid to this symbol.\n\nThere is a remarkable resemblance between the Buddhist crosses of India\nand those used by the Christian Roman Church. The cross of the Buddhist is\nrepresented with leaves and flowers springing from it, and placed upon a\nCalvary as by the Roman Catholics. It is represented in various ways, but\nthe shaft with the cross-bar and the Calvary remain the same. The tree of\nlife and knowledge, or the jamba tree, in their maps of the world, is\nalways represented in the shape of a cross, eighty-four yoganas, or 423 or\n432 miles high, including the three steps of the Calvary.\n\nFrom India we naturally turn to China, and, though its use there is\ninvolved in a deal of mystery, the cross is found among their\nhieroglyphics, on the walls of their pagodas and on the lamps which they\nused to illuminate their temples.\n\nIn Kamschatka, Baron Humboldt found the cross and remains of hieroglyphics\nsimilar to those of Egypt.\n\nPassing into America, we find that what could only be described as perfect\nidolatry prevailed with respect to the veneration paid to the cross.\nThroughout Mexico and some parts of South America the emblem is constantly\nfound, and in many instances is evidently of great antiquity. Some\ntravellers have explained their presence by attributing them to the\nSpaniards, but those people found them there when they arrived, and were\ngreatly astonished at the spectacle, not knowing how to account for it. A\nlieutenant of Cortez passed over from the island of Cosumel to the\ncontinent, and coasted the peninsula of Yucatan as far as Campeachy.\nEverywhere he was struck with the evidences of a higher civilisation, and\nwas astonished at the sight of numerous large stone crosses, evidently\nobjects of worship, which he met with in various places.\n\nAt Cozuma an ancient cross is still standing. Here there is a temple of\nconsiderable size, with pyramidal towers rising several stories above the\nrest of the building, facing the cardinal points. In the centre of the\nquadrangular area within stands a high cross, constructed of stone and\nlime like the rest of the temple, and ten palms in height. The natives\nregard is as the emblem of the god of rain.\n\nThe discovery of the cross amongst the Red Indians as an object of\nworship, by the Spanish missionaries, in the fifteenth century, completely\nmystified them, and they hardly knew whether to attribute it to a good or\nan evil origin--whether it was the work of St. Thomas or of the Devil. The\nsymbol was not an occasional spectacle in odd places, as though there by\naccident, it met them on all sides; it was literally everywhere, and in\nevery variety of form. It mattered not whether the building was old or\nnew, inhabited or ruined and deserted, whether it was a temple or a\npalace, there was the cross in all shapes and of all materials--of marble,\ngypsum, wood, emerald, and jasper. What was, perhaps, still more\nremarkable was the fact that it was associated with certain other things\ncommon on the Babylonian monuments, such as the bleeding deity, the\nserpent and the sacred eagle, and that it bore the very same names by\nwhich it was known in Roman Catholic countries, \"the tree of subsistence,\"\n\"the wood of health,\" \"the emblem of life.\" In this latter appellation\nthere was a parallel to the name by which it was known in Egypt, and by\nwhich the holy Tau of the Buddhists has always been known; thus placing,\nas has been said, any supposition of accidental coincidence beyond all\nreasonable debate.\n\nIn the Royal Commentaries of Peru, we have some interesting allusions to\nthe cross and to the general sanctity with which it was surrounded. In the\ncity of Cozco, the Incas had one of white marble, which they called a\ncrystalline jasper, but how long they had had it was unknown. The Inca,\nGarcillasso de la Vega, said he left in the year 1560, in the cathedral\nchurch of that city; it was then hanging upon a nail by a list of black\nvelvet; formerly, when in the hands of the Indians, it had been suspended\nby a chain of gold and silver. The form is Greek, that is, square; being\nas broad as it was long, and about three fingers wide. It was previously\nkept in one of the royal apartments, called Huaca, which signified a\nconsecrated place. The record says that though the Indians did not adore\nit, yet they held it in great veneration, either for the beauty of it, or\nfor some other reason which they knew not to assign; and so was observed\namongst them, until the Marquess Don Francisco Pizarro entered the valley\nof Tumpiz, when by reason of some accidents which befel Pedro de Candia\nthey conceived a greater esteem and veneration for it. The historian\ncomplains that the Spaniards, after they had taken the imperial city, hung\nup this cross in the vestry of a church they built, whereas, he says, they\nought to have placed a relic of that kind upon the high altar, adorning it\nwith gold and precious stones; by which respect to a thing the Indians\nesteemed sacred, and by assimilating the ordinances of the Christian\nreligion as near as was possible with those which the law of nature had\ntaught this people, the lessons of Christianity would thereby have become\nmore easy and familiar, and not seemed so far estranged from the\nprinciples of their own Gentilism.\n\nThis cross is again mentioned in another part of the Royal Commentaries,\nand two travellers are described as being filled with admiration at seeing\ncrosses erected on the top of the high pinnacles of the temples and\npalaces; the which, it is said, were introduced from the time that Pedro\nde Candia, being in Tumpiz, charmed or tamed the wild beasts which were\nlet loose to devour him, and which, simply by virtue of the cross which he\nheld in his hand, became gentle and domestic. This was recounted with such\nadmiration by the Indians, who carried the news of the miracle to Cozco,\nthat when the inhabitants of the city understood it they went immediately\nto the sanctuary where the jasper cross already mentioned stood, and,\nhaving brought it forth, they with loud acclamations adored and worshipped\nit, conceiving that though the sign of the cross had for many ages been\nconserved by them in high esteem and veneration yet it was not entertained\nwith such devotion as it deserved, because they were not as yet acquainted\nwith its virtues. Believing that the sign of the cross had tamed and shut\nthe mouths of the wild beasts, they imagined that it had a like power to\ndeliver them out of the hands of their enemies.\n\nOn both the northern and southern continents of America the cross was\nbelieved to possess the power of restraining evil spirits, and was the\ncommon symbol of the god of rain and of health. The people prayed to it\nwhen their country needed water, and the Aztec goddess of rains held one\nin her hand. At the feast celebrated to her honour in the spring, when the\ngenial shower was needed to promote fertilisation, they were wont to\nconciliate the favour of Centeotl, the daughter of heaven and goddess of\ncorn, by nailing a boy or girl to a cross, and after they had been so\nsuspended for awhile piercing them with arrows shot from a bow. The\nMuyscas, less sanguinary than the Mexicans in sacrificing to the god of\nthe waters, extended a couple of ropes transversely over some lake or\nstream, thus forming a gigantic cross, and at the point of intersection\nthrew in their offerings of food, gems, and precious oils.\n\nQuetyalcoatl, god of the winds, bore as his sign of office a mace like the\ncross of a bishop; his robe was covered with the symbol, and its adoration\nwas connected throughout with his worship.\n\nThere is, of course, no doubt whatever that the Spaniards took the cross\nwith them to America, and scattered it about so much in such varied\ndirections that their own became so intermingled with the native ones as\nto make it difficult to distinguish one from the other; but the fact\nremains that what there was of cordiality in the reception they met with\nfrom the aborigines, was due in no small degree to their use of the same\nemblem on their standards; when this became apparent the astonishment was\nmutual. Many travellers have told us of these ancient crosses, and some of\nthem while expressing doubts as to their antiquity, have yet supplied us\nwith evidence of the same. Mr. Stephens is one of these. In his _Incidents\nof Travel in Central America_, he supplies us with some wonderful Altar\nTablets found at Palenque, the principal subject in one of which is the\ncross. It is surmounted by a strange bird, and loaded with indescribable\nornaments. There are two human figures, one on either side of the cross,\nevidently of important personages; both are looking towards the cross, and\none seems in the act of making an offering. The traveller says:--\"All\nspeculations on the subject are of course entitled to little regard, but\nperhaps it would not be wrong to ascribe to those personages a sacerdotal\ncharacter. The hieroglyphics doubtless explain all. Near them are other\nhieroglyphics which remind us of the Egyptian mode of recording the name,\nhistory, office, or character of the persons represented. This tablet of\nthe cross has given rise to more learned speculations than perhaps any\nothers found at Palenque. Dupaix and his commentators, assuming for the\nbuilding a very remote antiquity, or at least, a period long antecedent to\nthe Christian era, account for the appearance of the cross by the argument\nthat it was known and had a symbolical meaning among ancient nations long\nbefore it was established as the emblem of the Christian faith.\"\n\nNear Miztla, \"the city of the moon,\" is a cavern temple excavated from the\nsolid rock in the form of a cross, 123 feet in length and breadth, the\nlimbs being about 25 feet in width.\n\nOther relics have been found in abundance in the same part of the world,\nproving how well known this emblem was before the advent of Christianity.\nIn the Mexican Tribute Tables, we were told a few years ago by a writer in\nthe _Historical Magazine_, small pouches or bags frequently occur.\nAppendages to dress, they are tastefully formed and ornamented with fringe\nand tassels. A cross of the Maltese or more ordinary form (Greek or Latin)\nis conspicuously woven or painted on each. They appear to have been in\ngreat demand, a thousand bundles being the usual Pueblo tax.\n\nThe practice of marking the cross on their persons and wearing it in their\ngarments was once common with some if not with all the occupants of the\nSouthern Continent. The Abipones of Paraguay tatooed themselves by\npricking the skin with a thorn. They all wore the form of a cross\nimpressed on their foreheads, and two small lines at the corner of each\neye, extending towards the ears, besides four transverse lines at the root\nof the nose, between the eyebrows, as national marks. What these figures\nsignified no one was able to tell. The people only knew this, that the\ncustom had been handed down to them by their ancestors. Not only were\ncrosses marked on their foreheads, but woven in the red woollen garments\nof many of them. This was long before they knew anything of the Christian\nreligion.\n\nThe \"hot cross bun,\" eaten in this country on Good Friday, is supposed by\nmany to be exclusively Christian in its origin; whereas it is no more than\na reproduction of a cake marked with a cross which was duly offered in the\nheathen temples to such living idols as the serpent and the bull. It was\nmade of flour, honey and milk, or oil, and at certain times was eaten with\nmuch ceremony by both priests and people.\n\nThere was also used in the Pagan times the monogram of a cross upon a\nheart, the meaning of which was according to Egyptologists, \"goodness.\"\n\"This figure,\" says Sir G. Wilkinson, \"enclosed in a parallelogram, in\nwhich form it would signify 'the abode of good,' was depicted or\nsculptured upon the front of several houses in Memphis and Thebes.\"\n\nA very ancient Phoenician medal was found many years ago in the ruins of\nCitium, on which were inscribed the cross, the rosary, and the lamb. An\nengraving of this may be seen in Higgins' _Celtic Druids_ and in Dr.\nClark's _Travels_.\n\nThe connection of the cross with Paganism originally, and its ultimate\nassumption by the Christian church, is curiously and strikingly brought\nout by Tertullian in his _Apologeticus_ and _Ad Nationes_. These\ntreatises, we may observe, are so much alike that the former has sometimes\nbeen regarded as a first draft of the latter, which is nearly double the\nlength. Probably, however, they are entirely different productions, one\nbeing addressed to the general public and the other to the rulers and\nmagistrates.\n\nCharged with worshipping a cross, he says:--\"As for him who affirms that\nwe are the priesthood of a cross, we shall claim him as our\nco-religionist. A cross is in its material a sign of wood; amongst\nyourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst\nwith you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure.\nNever mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the\nsame; the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body\nof a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this\npoint, what, let me ask, is the difference between the Athenian Pallas or\nthe Pharia Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented\nby a rough stock without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of\nunformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an\nerect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its\nmass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam,\nof course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you,\nfor you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood,\nwhile others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The\ntruth however, after all, is that your religion is all cross, as I shall\nshow. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded\nfrom this hated cross. Now every image, whether carved out of wood or\nstone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material,\nmust needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well then,\nthis modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden\ncross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the\nlatent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards and\nthe back takes a straight direction and the shoulders project laterally,\nif you simply place a man with his arms and hands out-stretched, you will\nmake the general outline of a cross. Starting then from this rudimental\nform and prop, as it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually\ncompletes the limbs and forms the body, and covers the cross within with\nthe shape which he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design,\nwith the help of compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his\nimage which is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or metal, or\nwhatever the material be of which he has determined to make his god. This\nthen is the process: after the cross-shaped frame the clay; after the clay\nthe god. In a well-understood routine the cross passes into a god through\nthe clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it the\nconsecrated deity begins to derive its origin. By way of example let us\ntake the case of a tree which grows up into a system of branches and\nfoliage, and is a reproduction of its own kind, whether it springs from\nthe kernel of an olive, or the stone of a peach, or a grain of pepper\nwhich has been duly tempered under ground. Now if you transplant it or\ntake a cutting off its branches for another plant, to what will you\nattribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not be to the\ngrain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because as the third stage is\nattributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so\nthe third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the\nmean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since\nby a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its\ngrowth to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its\nprimal cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing\nproduced. Since then, in the production of your gods, you worship the\ncross which originates them, here will be the original kernel and grain\nfrom which are propagated the wooden materials of your idolatrous images.\nExamples are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious\nceremony as deities, and they are more august in proportion to the joy\nthey bring you. The frames on which you hang up your crosses--these are as\nit were the very core of your pageants. Thus in your victories the\nreligion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your\nstandards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths, your\nstandards it prefers before Jupiter himself. But all that parade of images\nand that display of pure gold, are as so many necklaces of the crosses. In\nlike manner also in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard\nwith no less sacred care, you have the streamers and vestments of your\ncrosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple\ncrosses.\"\n\nWe give this passage at length because it emphasises what we are urging in\nconnection with this subject, viz., that the cross is common to both\nChristianity and Paganism, that the latter possessed it ages before the\nformer, and is therefore more likely to have originated it. We speak with\nsome reserve on this latter point for want of proper and full evidence. It\nmay of course be possible that in a purer and more enlightened age the\ncross was known and used; we shall probably, however, find our researches\nstop short in Pagan times, in which we shall have to look for the\ngenerally recognised meaning of the symbol.\n\nIt is remarkable in the quotation just made, that Tertullian never\nattempts to refute the charge brought by the Pagans against the Christians\nof his time of worshipping the cross; he merely retaliates by asserting\nthat they did the very same thing in a somewhat different manner. \"As for\nhim,\" he says, \"who affirms that we are the priesthood of a cross, we\nshall claim him as our co-religionist.... What, let me ask, is the\ndifference between the Athenian Pallas or the Pharian Ceres, and wood\nformed into a cross?\"\n\nHe further identifies himself and his religion with the Pagans in this\nparticular by saying:--\"In all our movements, our travels, our going out\nand coming in, putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in\nlighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down: whatever employment\noccupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.\" How much\nall this reminds us of the universality of the symbol in pre-Christian\ntimes. We can scarcely point to an age or to a century in which it did not\nin some way enter into its history, its theology, its social and domestic\nlife. Again and again have monuments been discovered which put the date of\nits use further back than had been imagined, and some have been brought to\nlight which carry the story back into very remote antiquity indeed. In the\nwilds of Central India, for instance, a little over twenty years back, the\nlate Mr. Mulheran, C.E., discovered two of the oldest crosses ever met\nwith. They were granite monoliths, perfect in structure, and very much\nlike those to be found here and there in the western parts of Cornwall.\nOne was ten feet nine inches in height, and the other eight feet six\ninches; each being in the midst of a group of cairns and cromlechs or\ndolmens, which Colonel Taylor describes as similar in character to some\nwhich he formerly surveyed near the village of Rajunkolloor, within the\nPrincipality of Shorapoor, in the Deccan. Their extreme antiquity is\ninferred from the fact, as stated by the European officer who first\ndiscovered them, that the vicinity of the groups of cromlechs and crosses\nhad, at some remote period, been cultivated; that parts of the hills had\nbeen cut into terraces, and supported by large stone banks or walls; but\nthat the country for miles in every direction was, and had been for\ncenturies and centuries, entirely uninhabited, and was grown over with\ndense forests. It has been estimated that, as this elevated and\nlong-neglected region has been the possession of the low castes, or\nnon-Aryan helots, from time immemorial, we may confidently assume that the\nmonoliths in question were erected by the aboriginal population of the\nsoil--a population which was driven, not improbably three thousand years,\nat the least, before the advent of Christ, from the richer plains below by\nthe first Aryan invader who had crossed the five streams, and found a\ntemporary refuge in the nearest range of hills to the west of Chandar,\nuntil another foe--the Mogul--appeared upon the scene, and finally subdued\nboth the conqueror and his victims. \"Here then,\" says a reviewer, \"amongst\nthese now fragmentary people from the debris of a widely-spread primeval\nrace (to borrow a phrase from a recent writer on the non-Aryan languages\nof the Continent), we find the symbol of the cross, not only expressing\nthe same mystery as in all other parts of the world, but its erection,\ndoubtless, dating from one of the very earliest migrations of our\nspecies.\" It is impossible to adduce any clearer or stronger proof of its\nprimitive antiquity than this.\n\nIt has been suggested by some writers, who, for some reason or other,\nobjected to the recognition of the cross as an emblem of great antiquity,\nthat the stone structures which were erected in the British Islands by the\nDruids, Saxons, and Danes, owed their cruciform character to the\nnecessities of the situation rather than to any other cause; that the\nstones were placed across each other as a matter of mere convenience, and\nnot with the view of forming a cross, and that these monuments, which\nserved as instruments of Druidical superstition before the implanting of\nthe Gospel in Britain, were afterwards appropriated to the use of\nChristian memorials by being formed in the figure of a cross or marked\nwith this emblem. It is admitted, of course, that those cruciform\nstructures were thus appropriated, but of what use will it be to repudiate\nthe antiquity of examples whose age has been far surpassed in other parts\nof the world. The crosses of India, just alluded to, remain to be\naccounted for, and even when they have been as summarily disposed of as\nthe British ones, there are the crosses suspended from the necks of the\nAssyrian kings, whose existence cannot possibly be accounted for by the\nabove hypothesis. It was not necessity or convenience that designed a\nMaltese cross, a thousand years before the Christian era, of precisely the\nsame form as that which is worn by men and women in this nineteenth\ncentury, nor probably was it a merely ornamental taste; we are rather\ndisposed to believe that the secret lies in the symbolical meaning, which\nhas ever been attached to the form.\n\nThe universality of the cross as a religious symbol is certainly a most\nastounding fact, and the more so because it has evidently always\nrepresented the same fundamental idea in connection with the theological\nsystems, in all ages, of the Old and New Worlds. If but one of these\nmythologies possessed it, there might be little difficulty in tracing out\nthe significance of the coincidence between its existence there and in\nChristian theology, but prevailing as it does universally, and destined as\nit is to retain its connection with the religion of man, it excites\nfeelings of the most profound wonderment and surprise. Lipsius and other\nearly writers, in reference to this matter, declared their sincere belief\nthat the numerous cruciform figures to be found on the monuments of\nantiquity were of a typical character, and expressed a sentiment which\nlooked forward to the cross of Christ; a few others doubted this, and\nsuggested difficulties, while Gibbon ridiculed the whole matter, as it\nthus stood, from beginning to end. The belief, however, that the cross in\nPagan lands was in some incomprehensible manner connected with the same\nobject or idea as in the Christian church was not easily got rid of, and\nwas considerably deepened by the testimony of missionaries to the New\nWorld that amongst people of apparently different origin and of altogether\ndifferent attributes, the cross was common as an object of worship and\nveneration. So universal has the presence of this symbol and its attendant\nworship been found that it has been said to form a complete zone about the\nhabitable globe, extending as it does from Assyria into Egypt, and India,\nand Anahuac, in their ruined temples; to the pyramidal structures of East\nand West, and to those in Polynesia, especially the islands of Tonga,\nViti, and Easter; \"as it appears upon numberless vases, medals, and coins\nof the earliest known types, centuries anterior to the introduction of\nChristianity; and as its teaching is expressed in the concordant customs,\nrites, and traditions of former nations and communities, who were widely\nseparated from, and for the most part ignorant of, the existence of each\nother, and who possessed, so far as we are aware, no other emblematical\nfigure in common.\" Egypt, Assyria, Britain, India, China, Scandinavia, the\ntwo Americas--all were alike its home, and in all of them was there\nanalogy in the teaching respecting its meaning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n    _Forms of the Cross--Ancient Maltese Cross--Phallic Character of some\n    Crosses--Offensive Forms of the Cross in Etruscan and Pompeian\n    Monuments--Thor's Battle-axe--The Buddhist Cross--Indian Crosses--The\n    Fylfot or Four-footed Cross--Danish Poem of the Thors of\n    Asgard--Legend of Thor's Loss of his Golden Hammer--Original Meaning\n    of these Crosses--Reception of Christianity amongst the Britons--Plato\n    and the Cross--The Mexican Tree of Life--Rain Makers--The\n    Winds--Various Meanings attributed to the Cross--The Crux\n    Ansata--Phallic Attributes--Coins, Gaulish and Jewish--Roman\n    Coins--The Lake Dwellings--The Cross in the Patriarchal Age._\n\n\nIn studying the origin and signification of the pre-Christian cross, we,\nnaturally of course, turn our attention to the forms in which it is\ndelineated; these are both numerous and varied--so varied indeed that a\nwriter, some years ago, in the _Edinburgh Review_ stated that his\ncommonplace-book contained nearly two hundred representations, which he\nhad found combined as often as not with other emblems of a sacred\ncharacter, and which had been collected from all parts of the world. We\nmay notice a few of the principal which are really, generally speaking,\ntypes of all.\n\nMost people are familiar with the Maltese cross--that consisting of four\ntriangles meeting in a central circle, or as it is generally described,\nthe cross with the four delta-like arms conjoined to or issuing from the\nnave of a wheel or a diminutive circle. It derives its name from its\ndiscovery on the island of Malta, and from its adoption by the Knights of\nSt. John for their coat-of-arms. There is no doubt it is one of the most\nancient forms of the cross we are acquainted with, as it is found, as we\nhave already stated, on the sculptures of the Assyrian monarchs long\nbefore the Christian era, and may be seen on the sculptures in the\nBritish Museum. In some of the Nineveh monuments representing\nsubject-people bringing tribute to the king, it occurs in the form of\near-rings.\n\nIn Assyria, it is believed to have been the emblem of royalty, as it is\nfound on the breasts of the most powerful of the rulers. As it was known\noriginally in Malta, it was of a very different character to the ornament\nworn either by the Assyrian monarch or by the modern inhabitants of\ncivilised nations. It was indeed of so gross a character, that the Knights\nof St. John soon set to work to make something more decent of\nit--something which while not altogether discarding the old form, should\nyet be inoffensive to the eye of the more modest onlooker. It was made up,\nin fact, of four gigantic phalli carved out of the solid granite, similar\nto the form in which it is found in the island of Gozyo, and on some of\nthe Etruscan and Pompeian monuments.\n\nThe reason why it assumed a phallic character in the locality which gives\nit its name, is not perhaps clear, but the study of Assyrian antiquities\nhas revealed the meaning attached to it in the palmy days of Nineveh and\nBabylon; it referred to the four great gods of the Assyrian pantheon--Ra,\nand the first triad--Ana, Belus, and Hea; and when inserted in a roundlet,\nas may be seen in the British Museum, it signified Sansi, or the sun\nruling the earth as well as the heavens. It was therefore the symbol of\nroyalty and dominion, which accounts for its presence on the breasts of\nkings.\n\nOn the Etruscan and Pompeian monuments generally, this cross is as gross\nand offensive in form as in ancient Malta, but it is found in a character\nas unobjectionable as in Assyria, on the official garments of the Etruscan\npriesthood. It has been found in Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Sicily; and Dr.\nSchliemann discovered many examples of it (with other crosses) on the\nvases which he dug from the seat of ancient Troy. It was also found in\nwhat was described as a \"magnificent cruciform mosaic pavement, discovered\nabout thirty years ago in the ruins of a Gallo-Roman villa at Pont d'Oli\n(Pons Aulae), near Pau, in the Basses-Pyrenees, accompanied by several\nother varieties of the cross, including the St. George and the St. Andrew,\nall glowing in colours richly dight, and surrounding a colossal bust of\nProteus, settled in the midst of his sea monsters.\"\n\nThe cross generally regarded as the most notable type of that emblem,\nbecause it is said to have figured in the religious systems of more\npeoples than any other, is that known as \"Thor's hammer,\" or \"Thor's\nbattle-axe.\" It may, perhaps, also be set down as the most ancient of the\ncrosses--how many years back it dates we cannot say, several thousands\nevidently. It consisted of the last letter of the Samaritan alphabet, the\ntau or tav in its decussated or most primitive form, and may be described,\nas it has been sometimes, as a _cruciform hammer_.\n\nIt derived its name from being borne in the hand of Thor, as the\nall-powerful instrument by means of which his deeds recorded in the Eddas\nwere accomplished. \"It was venerated by the heroes of the north as the\nmagical sign which thwarted the power of death over those who bore it; and\nthe Scandinavian devotee placed it upon his horn of mead before raising it\nto his lips, no doubt for the purpose of imparting to it the life-giving\nvirtues.\" To this hour it is employed by the women of India and of the\nnorth-eastern parts of Africa as a mark of possession or taboo, which they\ngenerally impress upon the vessels containing their stores of grain, &c.\n\nA writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ of January, 1870, hazards the opinion\nthat this was the mark which the prophet was commanded to impress upon the\nforeheads of the faithful in Judah, as recorded in Ezekiel ix. 4. He gives\nno reason or authority for this statement, but probably derived it from\nSt. Jerome and others of his time, who said that the letter _tau_ was\nthat which was ordered to be placed on the foreheads of those mourners.\nJerome says that the Hebrew letter _tau_ was formerly written like a\ncross.\n\nAs to the name of this cross, the popular designation is clearly a\nmistake, since its origin dates back centuries before the mythology of the\nnorth was developed. In India it was known as the swastika of the\nBuddhists, and served as the monograms of Vishnu and Siva. Such are its\nassociations and uses at the present day, and, no doubt, they have been\nthe same from the very advent of the religions of these respective\ndeities. The enquirer has, however, not even here measured the limit of\nits antiquity, for in China it was known as the Leo-tsen long before the\nSakya-Buddha era, and was portrayed upon the walls of their pagodas and\nupon the lanterns used to illumine their most sacred precints. It has ever\nbeen the symbol of their heaven. In the great temple of Rameses II., at\nThebes, it is represented frequently with such associations as\nconclusively prove that its significance was the same in the land of the\nNile as in China. All over the East it is the magic symbol of the Buddhist\nheaven; the chief ornament on the sceptres and crowns of the Bompa deities\nof Thibet, who dispute the palm of antiquity with all other divinities;\nand is beautifully pressed in the Artee, or musical bell, borne by the\nfigure of Balgovina, the herald or messenger of heaven. The universality\nof the use of this symbol is proved by its prevalence as well in Europe as\nin Asia and Africa. Among the Etruscans it was used as a religious sign,\nas is shown by its appearance on urns exhumed from ancient lake-beds\nsituated between Parma and Pacenza. Those taken from the Lacustrine\ncemeteries are thought to date back to 1000 B.C. On the terra-cotta vases\nof Alba Longa the same sign is impressed, and served as the symbol of\nPersephone, the awful queen of the shades, the arbiter of mortal fate;\nwhile on the roll of the Roman soldier it was the sign of life. On the\nold Runic monuments it is ever present. Even in Scotland it is found on\nsculptured stones of unknown age. The most numerous examples of this form,\nhowever, are found in the sculptures of Khorsabad, and in the ivories from\nNimroud; here occur almost all the known varieties. It has been observed,\ntoo, in Persia; and is used to this day in Northern India to mark the jars\nof sacred water taken from the Indus and Ganges. It is especially esteemed\nby the inhabitants of Southern India as the emblem of disembodied Jaina\nsaints. Very remarkable illustrations of it, carved in the most durable\nrock, and inserted in the exterior walls of temples and other edifices of\nMexico and Central America, also occur, which may be seen in Lord\nKingsborough's _Mexican Antiquities_. It is found on innumerable coins and\nmedals of all times and of all peoples; from the rude mintages of Aegina\nand Sicily, as well as from the more skilful hands of the Bactrian and\nContinental Greeks. It is noteworthy, too, in reference to its extreme\npopularity, or superstitious veneration in which it has been almost\nuniversally held, that the cross-patee, or cruciform hammer, was one of\nthe very last of purely pagan symbols which were religiously preserved in\nEurope long after the establishment of Christianity. To the close of the\nMiddle Ages the stole, or Isian mantle, of the Cistercian monk was usually\nadorned with it; and men wore it suspended from their necklaces in\nprecisely the same manner as did the vestal-virgins of pagan Rome. It may\nbe seen upon the bells of many of our parish churches in the northern,\nmidland, and eastern counties, as at Appleby, Mexborough, Hathersage,\nWaddington, Bishop's Norton, West Barkwith, and other places, where it was\nplaced as a magical sign to subdue the vicious spirit of the tempest. It\nis said to be still used for the like purpose, during storms of wind and\nrain, by the peasantry in Iceland and in the southern parts of\nGermany.[2]\n\nThis cross is also known as the \"Fylfot,\" or \"Fytfot\" (four-footed cross),\nor \"Gammadion\"--\"the dissembled cross under the discipline of the secret.\"\nJewitt, who has written in an interesting manner upon the subject,\nsupports what we have already stated in the foregoing pages with the\nobservation that this is one of the most singular, most ancient, and most\ninteresting of the whole series of crosses. Some say it is composed of\nfour gammas, conjoined in the centre, which as numerals expressed the Holy\nTrinity, and by its rectangular form symbolised the chief corner-stone of\nthe Church. We mentioned that it was known in India as the swastika of the\nBuddhists; we note further that it is said to be formed of the two words\n\"su\" (well) and \"asti\" (it is), meaning \"it is,\" or \"it is well;\" equal to\n\"so be it,\" and implying complete resignation. \"From this the Swastikas,\nthe opponents of the Brahmins, who denied the immortality of the soul, and\naffirmed that its existence was finite and connected only with the body\nupon earth, received their name; their monogrammatic enblem, or symbol,\nbeing the mystic cross formed by the combination of two syllables, _su_ +\n_ti_ = _suti_, or swasti.\"[3]\n\nThe connection of this cross with Thor, the Thunderer, is not without its\nsignification and importance, in considering the forms and origin of these\nemblems and their transmission from the Pagan to the Christian world. Thor\nwas said to be the bravest of the sons of Odin, or Woden, and Fria, or\nFriga, the goddess of earth. (From Thor, of course, we get our Thursday;\nfrom Woden, Wednesday; and from Friga, Friday). \"He was believed to be of\nthe most marvellous power and might; yea, and that there were no people\nthroughout the whole world that were not subjected unto him, and did not\nowe him divine honour and service; and that there was no puissance\ncomparable to his. His dominion of all others most farthest extending\nitself, both in heaven and earth. That, in the aire he governed the winds\nand the clouds; and being displeased did cause lightning, thunder, and\ntempest, with excessive raine, haile, and all ill weather. But being well\npleased by the adoration, sacrifice, and service of his suppliants, he\nthen bestowed upon them most faire and seasonable weather; and caused\ncorne abundantly to grow, as all sorts of fruits, &c., and kept away the\nplague and all other evil and infectious diseases.\"\n\nThor's emblem was a hammer of gold, represented as a fylfot, and with it\nhe destroyed his enemies the Jotuns, crushed the head of the great Mitgard\nserpent, killed numbers of giants, restored the dead goats to life that\ndrew his car, and consecrated the pyre of Baldur. This hammer, boomerang\nlike, had the property, when thrown, of striking the object aimed at and\nthen returning to the thrower's hand. Mr. Jewitt thinks we have, in this,\na curious insight into the origin of the form of the emblem itself. He\nsays:--\"I have remarked that the fylfot is sometimes described as being\nformed of four gammas conjoined in the centre. When the form of the\nboomerang--a missile instrument of barbaric nations, much the shape of the\nletter =V= with a rounded instead of acute bottom, which, on being thrown,\nslowly ascends in the air, whirling round and round, till it reaches a\nconsiderable height, and then returns until it finally sweeps over the\nhead of the thrower and strikes the ground behind him--is taken into\nconsideration, and the traditional returning power of the hammer is\nremembered in connection with it, the fylfot may surely be not\ninappropriately described as a figure composed of four boomerangs,\nconjoined in the centre. This form of fylfot is not uncommon in early\nexamples, and even on a very ancient specimen of Chinese porcelain it\noccurs at the angles of the pattern--it is the ordinary fylfot, with the\nangles curved or rounded.\n\nAncient literature abounds in curious and sensational stories about the\nwonders accomplished by Thor with the assistance of this hammer. Once he\nlost his weapon, or tool, and with it his power, by stratagem however he\nregained both.\n\nThe Danish poem, called the \"Thorr of Asgard,\" as translated by De Prior,\nsays:--\n\n    \"There rode the mighty of Asgard, Thor,\n      His journey across the plain;\n    And there his hammer of gold he lost,\n      And sought so long in vain.\n\n    'Twas then the mighty of Asgard, Thor,\n      His brother his bidding told--\n    Up thou and off to the Northland Fell,\n      And seek my hammer of gold.\n\n    He spake, and Loki, the serving-man,\n      His feathers upon him drew;\n    And launching over the salty sea,\n      Away to the Northland flew.\"\n\nGreeting the Thusser king, he informed him of the cause of his visit,\nviz., that Thor had lost his golden hammer. Then the king replied that\nThor would never again see his hammer until he had given him the maiden\nFredenborg to wife. Loki took back this message to Thor, who disguised\nhimself as the maiden in woman's clothes, and was introduced to the king\nas his future bride. After expressing his astonishment at the wonderful\nappetite of the maiden, he ordered eight strong men to bring in the hammer\nand lay it across the lap of the bride. Thor immediately threw off his\ndisguise and seized the hammer, with which, after he had slain the king,\nhe returned home.\n\nThe fylfot cross is frequently found on Roman pottery in various parts of\nEngland, as for instance on the famous Colchester vase, on which is\ndepicted a gladiatorial combat, the cross being distinctly marked on the\nshields of the combatants. Another fine example is found on a Roman altar\nof Minerva at High Rochester. \"The constant use of the symbol,\" says\nJewitt, \"through so many ages, and by so many and such varied peoples,\ngives it an importance which is peculiarly striking.\"\n\nTo sum up this part of the subject then, we have amongst numerous others\nthe following chief forms of the cross common in all parts of the world.\nThe Latin, a long upright with shorter cross beam; the Greek, an upright\nand bar of equal lengths; the St. Andrews, in the form of a letter =X=;\nthe Maltese, four triangles conjoined to a circular centre; the Hammer of\nThor; and the Crux Ansata, or handled cross.\n\nThe question now arises, what was the origin or original meaning of these\ncrosses? Uninformed Christians are generally under the impression that all\nrefer to one and the same thing, viz., the instrument of the death of\nJesus Christ: historical evidence just produced, however, clearly\ndisproves that, and what we may say further will add additional weight to\nthe argument.\n\nIt has been noticed that the Britons received Christianity with remarkable\nreadiness, and this has been attributed to the following among other\ncircumstances, viz., the impression which they held in common with the\nPlatonists and Pythagoreans, that the Second Person of the Deity was\nimprinted on the universe in the form of a cross. We have already\nexplained that the Druids in their groves were accustomed to select the\nmost stately and beautiful tree as an emblem of the Deity they adored, and\nhaving cut off the side branches, affixed two of them to the highest part\nof the trunk in such a manner as that those branches, extending on each\nside like the arms of a man, together with the body, should present to the\nspectator the appearance of a huge cross, and that on the bark of the\ntree, in various places, was actually inscribed the letter =T=,--Tau.\n\n\"Some have gone so far as to suppose a Celtic origin for the word cross,\nand have derived it from _Crugh_ and _Cruach_, which signify a cross in\nthat language, though others suppose these have a much more probable\norigin in the Hebrew and Chaldee. _Chrussh_, signifies boards or pieces of\ntimber fastened together, as we should say, cross-wise; the word is so\nused in Exodus xxvii. 6. This seems a very natural and probable etymology\nfor the term, but it may also allude more to the agony suffered on such an\nerection, and then its origin perhaps may be traced to Chrutz,\n'agitation.' This word also means to be 'kneaded,' and broken to pieces\nlike clay in the hands of a potter. Chrotshi, in Chaldee, we are told by\nParkhurst, means accusations, charges, revilings, reproach, all of them\nterms applied to Jesus Christ in his sufferings. Pliny shows that the\npunishment of the cross among the Romans was as old as Tarquinus Priscus;\nhow much older it is perhaps difficult to say.\n\n\"Plato, born 430 years before Christ, had advocated the idea of a Trinity,\nand had expressed an opinion that the form of the Second Person of it was\nstamped upon the universe in the form of a cross. St. Augustine goes so\nfar as to say that it was by means of the Platonic system that he was\nenabled to understand properly the doctrine of the Trinity.\"\n\nPerhaps, originally, the cross had but one meaning, whatever its form; it\nis probable that it was so. However that may be, it is certain that as\ntime went on and its form varied, different significations were attached\nto it. It represented creative power and eternity in Egypt, Assyria, and\nBritain; it was emblematical of heaven and immortality in India, China,\nand Scandinavia; it was the sign of freedom from physical suffering in the\nAmericas; all over the world it symbolised the Divine Unity--resurrection\nand life to come.\n\n\"In the Mexican tongue it bore the significant and worthy name, 'Tree of\nour Life,' or 'Tree of our Flesh.' It represented the god of rains and of\nhealth, and this was everywhere its simple meaning. 'Those of Yucatan,'\nsay the chroniclers, 'prayed to the cross as the god of rains when they\nneeded water.' The Aztec goddess of rains bore one in her hand, and at the\nfeast celebrated to her honour in the early spring (as we have previously\nnoted) victims were nailed to a cross and shot with arrows. Quetzalcoatl,\ngod of the winds, bore as his sign of office a mace like the cross of a\nbishop; his robe was covered with them strewn like flowers, and its\nadoration was throughout connected with his worship.\"\n\nWe have mentioned that \"when the Muyscas would sacrifice to the goddess of\nwaters, they extended cords across the tranquil depths of some lake, thus\nforming a gigantic cross, and that at the point of intersection threw in\ntheir offerings of gold, emeralds and precious oils. The arms of the cross\nwere designed to point to the cardinal points, and represent the four\nwinds, the rain bringers. To confirm this explanation, let us have\nrecourse to the simpler ceremonies of the less cultivated tribes, and see\nthe transparent meaning of the symbol as they employed it.\n\n\"When the rain maker of the Lenni Lenape would exert his power, he retired\nto some secluded spot and drew upon the earth the figure of a cross,\nplaced upon it a piece of tobacco, a gourd, a bit of some red stuff, and\ncommenced to cry aloud to the spirits of the rains. The Creeks at the\nfestival of the Busk, celebrated to the four winds, and according to the\nlegends instituted by them, commenced with making the new fire. The manner\nof this was to place four logs in the centre of the square, end to end,\nforming a cross, the outer ends pointing to the cardinal points; in the\ncentre of the cross the new fire is made.\"[4]\n\n\"As the emblem of the winds which disperse the fertilising showers,\" says\nBrinton, \"it is emphatically the tree of our life, our subsistence, and\nour health. It never had any other meaning in America, and if, as has been\nsaid, the tombs of the Mexicans were cruciform, it was perhaps with\nreference to a resurrection and a future life as portrayed under this\nsymbol, indicating that the buried body would rise by the action of the\nfour spirits of the world, as the buried seed takes on a new existence\nwhen watered by the vernal showers. It frequently recurs in the ancient\nEgyptian writings, where it is interpreted _life_; doubtless, could we\ntrace the hieroglyph to its source, it would likewise prove to be derived\nfrom the four winds.\"[5]\n\nThe Buddhist cross to which allusion has been made was exactly the cross\nof the Manicheans, with leaves and flowers springing from it, and placed\nupon a Mount Calvary as among the Roman Catholics. The tree of life and\nknowledge, or the Jambu tree, in their maps of the world, is always\nrepresented in the shape of a Manichean cross 84 yojanas, or 423 miles\nhigh, including the three steps of the Calvary. This cross, putting forth\nleaves and flowers (and fruit also, Captain Wilford was informed), is\ncalled the divine tree, the tree of the gods, the tree of life and\nknowledge, and productive of whatever is good and desirable, and is placed\nin the terrestrial Paradise. Agapius, according to Photius, maintained\nthat this divine tree, in Paradise, was Christ himself. In their\ndelineation of the heavens, the globe of the earth is filled with this\ncross and its Calvary. The divines of Thibet, says Captain Wilford, place\nit to the S.W. of Meru, towards the source of the Ganges. The Manicheans\nalways represented Christ crucified upon a tree, among the foliage. The\nChristians of India, though they did not admit of images, still\nentertained the greatest veneration for the cross. They placed it on a\nCalvary in public places and at the meeting of cross roads, and even the\nheathen Hindus in these parts paid also great regard to it.\n\nCaptain Wilford was presented by a learned Buddhist with a book, called\nthe Cshetra-samasa, which contained several drawings of the cross. Some of\nthese his friend was unable to explain to him, but whatever the variations\nof the cross were in other particulars, they were declared to be\ninvariable as regards the shaft and two arms; the Calvary was sometimes\nomitted. One of these crosses seemed to puzzle the Buddhist completely, or\nhe would not say either what he thought or knew about it. It consisted of\nthe ordinary cross with shaft and cross-bar, pointed at the ends, but with\ntwo other bars intersecting the right angles formed by the shaft and\ncross-bar, thus giving six points. No one can look at this cross, and not\nat once discern its phallic character. Some writers affect to laugh at\nthis, but we have ample evidence that at times such a meaning has been\nattributed to the cross. In connection with this, Dr. Inman makes some\nremarks which we shall do well to consider, whether we receive them or\nnot; there may be nothing in them, and there may be much. He says:--\"There\ncan be no doubt, I think, in the mind of any student of antiquity, that\nthe cross is not originally a Christian emblem; nay, the very fact that\nthe cross was used as a means of executing criminals shows that its form\nwas familiar to Jews and Romans. It was used partly as an ornament, and\npartly in certain forms of religious worship. The simple cross, with\nperpendicular and transverse arms of equal length, represented the nave\nand spokes of the solar wheel, or the sun darting his rays on all sides.\nAs the wheel became fantastically developed so did the cross, and each\nlimb became so developed at the outer end as to symbolise the triad.\nSometimes the idea was very coarsely represented; and I have seen, amongst\nsome ancient Etruscan remains, a cross formed of four phalli of equal\nlength, their narrow end pointing inwards; and in the same work another\nwas portrayed, in which the phallus was made of inordinate length so as\nto support the others high up from the ground; each was in itself a triad.\nThe same form of cross was probably used by the Phoenicians, who appear to\nhave colonised Malta at a very early period of their career; for they have\nleft a form of it behind them in the shape of a cross similar to that\ndescribed above, but which has been toned down by the moderns, who could\nnot endure the idea of an union between grossness and the crucifix, and\nthe phalli became as innocent as we see them in the Maltese cross of\nto-day.\"\n\nSo many traces of the cross, as used in ancient times in all parts of the\nworld, meet us on every hand that we find it difficult within the limited\nspace at our command even to enumerate them; we have already traversed in\nour account a greater part of the known world, and still vast numbers of\ninstances remain unnoticed. Almost as varied as its principal forms are\nthe explanations offered respecting its origin and significance. We are\ntold by some that for its origin we must go to the Buddhists and to the\nLama of Thibet, who is said to take his name from the cross, called in his\nlanguage Lamh. Higgins quotes Vallence as saying that the Tartars call the\ncross Lama, from the Scythian Lamh, a hand, synonymous to the Yod of the\nChaldeans; and that it thus became the name of a cross, and of the high\npriest with the Tartars; and with the Irish, Luarn, signifying the head of\nthe church, an abbot, &c.\n\nThe last form of cross to which we shall here allude is that known as the\nCrux Ansata, or Handled Cross. Whatever may be the signification of that\ninstrument, or ornament, it is certain that no other has ever been so\nvariously explained, or has been so successful in puzzling those who have\nsought to give it a meaning. Some have said it was a Nilometer, or measure\nof the rise of the Nile; one--a bishop--thought it was a setting stick for\nplanting roots; another said it represented the Law of Gravitation. Don\nMartin said it was a winnowing fan; Herwart said it was a compass; Pococke\nsaid it represented the four elements. Others, again, suggest that it may\nbe only a key. \"It opened,\" says Borwick, \"the door of the sacred chest.\nIt revealed hidden things. It was the hope of life to come.\" And he\ncontinues, \"However well the cross fit the mathematical lock, the phallic\nlock, the gnostic lock, the philosophical lock, the religious lock, it is\nquite likely that this very ancient and almost universal symbol was at\nfirst a secret in esoteric holding, to the meaning of which, with all our\nguessing, we have no certain clue.\"\n\nThis cross has certainly a most remarkable connection with the ancient\nhistory of Egypt, being found universally represented on the monuments,\nthe tombs, the walls, and the wrapping cloths of the dead; hence,\nevidently, the idea that it is peculiarly Egyptian and its ascription of\n\"Key of the Nile.\" From Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Ruffinus, we\nlearn that it was known to the Egyptian Christians at the close of the\nfourth century as the symbol of eternal life. Later on, Dr. Max Uhlman\nwrote, \"that the handle cross means _life_, is manifest from the Rosetta\ninscription and other texts.\" Zoeckler, another German author, notices the\nopinion of Macrobius that it was the hieroglyphic sign of Osiris, or the\nsun, it being a fact that when the ancient Egyptians wished to symbolise\nOsiris, they set up a staff with an eye upon it, because in antiquity the\nsun was known as the eye of God, and then claims that the round portion\nrepresented the orb of the sun, the perpendicular bar signifying the rays\nof the high mid-day sun, and the shorter horizontal bar symbolising the\nrays of the rising or setting sun. The discovery of this emblem by M.\nMariette in a niche of the holy of holies in the ancient temple of\nDenderah, points significantly to its importance and peculiar sacredness,\nand it has been thought probable that it was the central object of\ninterest in the inner precincts of the temple.\n\nIt seems that the Egyptian priests, when asked for an explanation of this\ncross, evaded the question by replying that the Tau was a \"_divine\nmystery_.\"\n\nHowever varied the explanations offered may be, and whatever the mystery\nsaid to surround this object, the feature always remains,--its\nsymbolisation of life and regeneration. From this, its phallic character\nwas very easily inferred--its derivation from the _lingam-yoni_ symbol,\nsaid Barlow, seemed a very natural process. The junction of the yoni with\nthe cross, in Dr. Inman's judgment, sufficiently proved that it had a\nphallic or male signification; a conclusion which certain unequivocal\nEtruscan remains fully confirmed. \"We conclude, therefore,\" says this\nwriter, \"that the ancient cross was an emblem of the belief in a male\ncreator, and the method by which creation was initiated.\"\n\nNot the least remarkable exemplification of the universal prevalence of\nthe cross both as to time and country, is found amongst coins and medals:\nhere as in other things it is ever prominent. Take the ancient Gaulish\ncoins, for instance, and the fylfot and ordinary Greek cross abound; take\nthe ancient British coins of the age long prior to Christianity, and the\nsame thing occurs. \"On Scandinavian coins, as well as those of Gaul, the\nfylfot cross appears, as it also does on those of Syracuse, Corinth, and\nChalcedon. On the coins of Byblos, Astarte is represented holding a long\nstaff, surmounted by a cross, and resting her foot on the prow of a\ngalley. On the coins of Asia Minor, the cross is also to be found. It\noccurs as the reverse of a silver coin, supposed to be of Cyprus, on\nseveral Cilician coins; it is placed beneath the throne of Baal of Tarsus,\non a Phoenician coin of that time, bearing the legend 'Baal Tharz.' A\nmedal possibly of the same place, with partially obliterated Phoenician\ncharacters, has the cross occupying the entire field of the reverse side.\nSeveral, with inscriptions in unknown characters, have a ram on one side\nand the cross and ring on the other. Another has the sacred bull,\naccompanied by this symbol; others have a lion's head on obverse, and a\ncross and circle on the reverse.\"[6]\n\nStrangely enough, even Jewish money is marked with this emblem, the shekel\nbearing on one side what is usually called a triple lily or hyacinth; the\nsame forming a pretty floral cross.\n\nOn Roman coins the cross was of very frequent occurrence, and\nillustrations of good examples may be seen in the pages of the _Art\nJournal_ for the year 1874. An engraving of the _quincunx_, or piece of\nfive _unciae_, is given, bearing on one side a cross, a =V=, and five\npellets; and on the other a cross only. This is an example of the earlier\nperiods; of course when we come to the later periods the emblem is still\nmore frequent. These coins are often found in ancient graves and\nsarcophagi, and these latter again supply examples of various familiar\nforms of crosses of very remote antiquity,--not simply the adornment of\ncoffin and gravecloths, but the actual construction of the tomb or\ngrave-mound in that form. Fine specimens of these have been discovered at\nStoney-Littleton, at New Grange, at Banwell, Somerset, at Adisham, at\nHereford, at Helperthorpe, and in the Isle of Lewis.\n\n\"Before the Romans, long before the Etruscans, there lived in the plains\nof northern Italy a people to whom the cross was a religious symbol, the\nsign beneath which they laid their dead to rest; a people of whom history\ntells nothing, knowing not their name, but of whom antiquarian research\nhas learned this, that they lived in ignorance of the laws of\ncivilisation, that they dwelt in villages built on platforms over lakes,\nand that they trusted in the cross to guard, and may be to revive their\nloved ones whom they committed to the dust. Throughout Emilia are found\nremains of these people; these remains form quarries whence manure is dug\nby the peasants of the present day. These quarries go by the name of\n_terramares_. They are vast accumulations of cinders, charcoal, bones,\nfragments of pottery, and other remains of human industry. As this earth\nis very rich in phosphates it is much appreciated by agriculturists as a\ndressing for their land. In these _terramares_ there are no human bones.\nThe fragments of earthenware belong to articles of domestic use; with them\nare found querns, moulds for metal, portions of cabin floors, and great\nquantities of kitchen refuse. They are deposits analogous to those which\nhave been discovered in Denmark and Switzerland. The metal discovered in\nthe majority of these _terramares_ is bronze; the remains belong to three\ndistinct ages. In the first none of the fictile ware was turned on the\nwheel or fire-baked. Sometimes these deposits exhibit an advance of\ncivilisation. Iron came into use, and with it the potter's wheel was\ndiscovered, and the earthenware was put in the furnace. When in the same\nquarry these two epochs are found, the remains of the second age are\nalways superposed over those of the bronze age. A third period is\noccasionally met with, but only occasionally; a period when a rude art\nintroduced itself, and representatives of animals or human beings adorned\nthe pottery. Among the remains of this period is found the first trace of\nmoney, rude little bronze fragments without shape.\n\n\"Among other remains in these lake-dwellings, pottery has been in many\ncases found, and these vessels bear, on the bottom, crosses of various\nforms, as well also curious solid double cones. That which characterises\nthe cemeteries of Golasecca, says M. de Mortillet, and gives them their\nhighest interest, is this:--first, the entire absence of all organic\nrepresentations; we only found three and they were exceptional, in tombs\nnot belonging to the plateau; secondly, the almost invariable presence of\nthe cross under the vases in the tombs. When we reversed the ossuaries,\nthe saucer-lids, or the accessory vases, we saw almost always, if in good\npreservation, a cross traced thereon ... the examination of the tombs of\nGolasecca proves, in a most convincing, positive, and precise manner, that\nwhich the _terramares_ of Emilia had only indicated, but which had been\nconfirmed by the cemetery of Villanova; that above a thousand years before\nChrist, the cross was already a religious emblem of frequent\nemployment.\"[7]\n\n\"There is every reason to suppose that the cross was a symbol of more\nimport in the early patriarchal ages than is generally imagined. It was\nnot only the _first letter_, but it was also the emblem, of Taut, the\nMercury, the word, the messenger of the gods, the angel, as we may say, of\nhis presence, himself a god among the Egyptians and the Britons, whose god\nTeutates was analagous both in name and nature; a winged messenger. M. Le\nClerc, one of the ablest mythologists who ever wrote, has shown that the\nTeutates of the Gauls, the Hermes of the Greeks, the Mercury of the\nRomans, were all one and the same.\n\nThe Ethiopic letter _Taui_, or _Taw_, says Lowth, still retains the form\nof a cross, =X=; and the Samaritan =T=, which the Ethiopians are said to\nhave borrowed from the Samaritans, was in the form of a =X= cross. In\nseveral Samaritan coins, says Montfaucon, to be found in the collections\nof medallists, the letter Tau is engraved in the form of a cross, or Greek\nChi, and he gives as his authority Origen and Jerome.\n\nThe Jewish High-priest, we are informed by the Rabbis, was anointed on his\ninvestiture, while he who anointed him drew on his forehead with his\nfinger the figure of the Greek letter Chi, =X=.\"[8]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n    _Heathen Ideas of a Trinity--The Magi--Ancient Theologies--The Indian\n    Trinity--The Sculptures of Elephanta--The Sacred Zennar--Temples\n    consecrated to Indian Trinities--The Greek Trident--Attributes of\n    Brahm--The Hindu Meru--Narayana--The Trimurti--Gods of Egypt._\n\n\n\"Many of the heathens are said to have had a notion of a Trinity,\" wrote a\ncontributor to an encyclopaedia, some eighty years ago. Now that altogether\nfails to reach the truth, for heathen nations are known to scholars to\nhave had very definite ideas indeed about a sacred Triad; in fact, as\nanother writer has said, there is nothing in all theology more deeply\ngrounded, or more generally allowed by them, than the mystery of the\nTrinity. The Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans, both in their\nwritings and their oracles, acknowledged that the Supreme Being had\nbegotten another Being from all eternity, whom they sometimes called the\nSon of God, sometimes the Word, sometimes the Mind, and sometimes the\nWisdom of God, and asserted to be the Creator of all things.\n\nAmong the sayings of the Magi, the descendants of Zoroaster, was one as\nfollows:--\"The Father finished all things, and delivered them to the\nSecond Mind.\"\n\nWe learn from Dr. Cudworth that, besides the inferior gods generally\nreceived by all the Pagans (viz.: animated stars, demons, and heroes), the\nmore refined of them, who accounted not the world the Supreme Deity,\nacknowledged a Trinity of divine hypostases superior to them all. This\ndoctrine, according to Plotinus, is very ancient, and obscurely asserted\neven by Parmenides. Some have referred its origin to Pythagoreans, and\nothers to Orpheus, who adopted three principles, called Phanes, Uranus,\nand Cronus. Dr. Cudworth apprehends that Pythagoras and Orpheus derived\nthis doctrine from the theology of the Egyptian Hermes; and, as it is not\nprobable that it should have been first discovered by human reason, he\nconcurs with Proclus in affirming that it was at first a theology of\ndivine tradition, or revelation, imparted first to the Hebrews, and from\nthem communicated to the Egyptians and other nations; among whom it was\ndepraved and adulterated.\n\nPlato, also, and his followers, speak of the Trinity in such terms, that\nthe primitive fathers have actually been accused of borrowing the doctrine\nfrom the Platonic school.\n\nIn Indian theology there is no more prominent doctrine than that of a\nDivine Triad governing all things, consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.\nBy Brahma, they mean God, the Creator; by Vishnu (according to the\nSanscrit), a preserver, a comforter, a cherisher; and by Siva, a destroyer\nand avenger. To these three personages, different functions are assigned,\nin the Hindoo system of mythologic superstition, corresponding to the\ndifferent significations of their names. They are distinguished, likewise,\nbesides these general titles, in the various sastras and puranas, by an\ninfinite variety of appellations descriptive of their office.\n\nWhatever doubts may arise respecting the Indian Trinity, they will very\nspeedily be dispelled by a view of that wonderful and magnificent piece of\nsculpture which is found in the celebrated cavern of Elephanta, which has\nso often been described by travellers, and which has ever been such a\nsource of amusement to them. This, it is said, proves that from the\nremotest era, the Indian nations have adored a Triune Deity. In this\ncavern, the traveller beholds, with awe and astonishment, carved out of\nthe solid rock, in the most conspicuous part of the most ancient and\nvenerable temple in the world, a bust nearly twenty feet in breadth, and\neighteen feet in altitude, gorgeously decorated, the image of the great\npresiding Deity of that sacred temple. The bust has three heads united to\none body, and adorned with the oldest symbols of the Indian theology, is\nregarded as representing the Creator, the Preserver, and the Regenerator\nof mankind. Owing to the gross surroundings of these characters,\nrespectively denominated Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, any comparison cannot\nbe instituted with the Christian Trinity; yet the worship paid to that\ntriple divinity incontestably evinces that, on this point of faith, the\nsentiments of the Indians are congenial with those of the Chaldeans and\nPersians. Nor is it only in this great Deity with three heads that these\nsentiments are demonstrated, their veneration for that sacred number\nstrikingly displays itself in their sacred books--the three original\n_Vedas_--as if each had been delivered by one personage of the august\nTriad, being confined to that mystic number; by the regular and prescribed\noffering up of their devotions three times a day; by the immersion of\ntheir bodies, during ablution, three times in the purifying wave; and by\ntheir constantly wearing next their skin the sacred Zennar, or cord of\nthree threads, the mystic symbol of their belief in a divine all ruling\nTriad.\n\nThe sacred Zennar, just mentioned, is of consequence enough to demand a\nfuller notice. Its threads can be twisted by no other hand than that of a\nBrahmin, and he does it with the utmost solemnity and many mystic rites.\nThree threads, each measuring ninety-six hands, are first twisted\ntogether; then they are folded into three, and twisted again, making it to\nconsist of nine,--that is three times three threads; this is folded again\ninto three, but without any more twisting, and each end is then fastened\nwith a knot. Such is the Zennar, which being put upon the left shoulder,\npasses to the right side, and hangs down as low as the fingers can reach.\n\n\"The Hindoos,\" says M. Sonnerat, \"adore three principal deities, Brouma,\nChiven, and Vichenou, who are still but _One_; which kind of Trinity is\nthere called Trimourti, or Tritvamz, and signifies the reunion of three\npowers. The generality of modern Indians adore only one of these three\ndivinities, but some learned men, besides this worship, also address their\nprayers to the Three united. The representation of them is to be seen in\nmany pagodas, under that of human figures with three heads, which, on the\ncoast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama; on the Coromandel coast,\nTrimourti; and Tretratreyam, in the Sanscrit. It is affirmed by Maurice\nthat this latter term would not have been found in Sanscrit had not the\nworship of a Trinity existed in those ancient times, fully two thousand\nfive hundred years ago, when Sanscrit was the current language of India.\"\n\nThere have been found temples entirely consecrated to this kind of\nTrinity; such as that of Parpenade, in the kingdom of Travancore, where\nthe three gods are worshipped in the form of a serpent with a thousand\nheads. The feast of Anandavourdon, which the Indians celebrate to their\nhonour, on the eve of the full moon, in the month of Pretachi, or October,\nalways draws a great number of people, \"which would not be the case,\" says\nSonnerat, \"if those that came were not adorers of the Three Powers.\"\n\nMr. Forster writing, in 1785, on the Mythology of the Hindoos, says:--\"A\ncircumstance which forcibly struck my attention, was the Hindoo belief in\na Trinity. The persons are Sree Mun Narrain, the Mhah Letchimy (a\nbeautiful woman), and a Serpent, which are emblematical of strength, love,\nand wisdom. These persons, by the Hindoos, are supposed to be wholly\nindivisible. The one is three, and the three are one. In the beginning,\nthey say that the Deity created three men to whom he gave the names of\nBrimha, Vystnou, and Sheevah. To the first was committed the power of\ncreating mankind, to the second of cherishing them, and to the third that\nof restraining and correcting them.\" The sacred persons who compose this\nTrinity are very remarkable; for Sree Mun Narrain, as Mr. Forster writes\nthe word, is Narayen, the supreme God; the beautiful woman is the Imma of\nthe Hebrews; and the union of the sexes in the Divinity, is perfectly\nconsonant with that ancient doctrine maintained in the Geeta, and\npropagated by Orpheus, that the Deity is both male and female.\n\nDamascius, treating of the fecundity of the divine nature, cites Orpheus\nas teaching that the Deity was at once both male and female, to show the\ngenerative power by which all things were formed. Proclus upon the \"Timaeus\nof Plato,\" among other Orphic verses, cites the following: \"Jupiter is a\nman, Jupiter is also an immortal maid.\" In the same commentary, and in the\nsame page we read that all things were contained in the womb of Jupiter.\n\nThe serpent is the ancient and usual Egyptian symbol for the divine Logos.\n\nM. Tavernier, on his entering one of the great pagodas, observed an idol\nin the centre of the building, sitting cross-legged in the Indian fashion,\nupon whose head was placed _une triple couronne_; and from this triple\ncrown four horns extended themselves, the symbol of the rays of glory,\ndenoting the Deity to whom the four quarters of the world were under\nsubjection. According to the same author, in his account of the Benares\npagoda, the deity of India is saluted by prostrating the body three times,\nand he is not only adorned with a triple crown, and worshipped by a triple\nsalutation, but he bears in his hand a three-forked sceptre, exhibiting\nthe exact model of the trident of the Greek Neptune.\n\nNow here we must allude to some very remarkable discoveries respecting the\nTrident of Neptune and the use of a similar symbol of authority by the\nIndian gods.\n\nMr. Maurice points out that the unsatisfactory reasons given by\nmythologists for the assignment of the trident to the Grecian deity,\nexhibit very clear evidence of its being a symbol that was borrowed from\nsome more ancient mythology, and did not naturally, or originally belong\nto Neptune. Its three points, or _tines_, some of them affirm to signify\nthe different qualities of the three sorts of waters that are upon the\nearth, as the waters of the ocean, which are salt; the water of fountains,\nwhich is sweet; and the water of lakes and ponds, which, in a degree,\npartakes of the nature of both. Others, again, insist that this\nthree-pronged sceptre alludes to Neptune's threefold power over the sea,\nviz., to _agitate_, to _assuage_, and to _preserve_. These reasons are,\nall of them, in his estimation, mighty frivolous, and amount to a\nconfession of their total ignorance of its real meaning.\n\nThe trident was, in the most ancient periods, the sceptre of the Indian\ndeity, and may be seen in the hands of that deity in one of the plates\n(iv.) of M. d'Ancarville's third volume, and among the sacred symbols\nsculptured in Elephanta cavern, as pictured by Niebuhr in his engravings\nof the Elephanta antiquities. \"It was, indeed,\" says Maurice, \"highly\nproper, and strictly characteristic, that a threefold deity should wield a\ntriple sceptre, and I have now a very curious circumstance to unfold to\nthe reader, which I am enabled to do from the information of Mr. Hodges,\nrelative to this mysterious emblem. The very ancient and venerable\nedifices of Deogur, which are in the form of immense pyramids, do not\nterminate at the summit in a pyramidal point, for the apex is cut off at\nabout one seventh of what would be the entire height of the pyramid were\nit completed, and, from the centre of the top, there rises a circular\ncone, that ancient emblem of the sun. What is exceedingly singular to\nthese cones is, that they are on their summits decorated with this very\nsymbol, or usurped sceptre, of the Greek [Greek: Poseidon]. Thus was the\noutside of the building decorated and crowned, as it were, with a\nconspicuous emblem of the worship celebrated within, which from the\nantiquity of the structure, raised in the infancy of the empire after\ncavern-worship had ceased, was probably that of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva:\nfor we have seen that Elephanta is, in fact, a temple to the Indian Triad,\nevidenced in the colossal sculpture that forms the principal figure of it,\nand excavated probably ere Brahma had fallen into neglect among those who\nstill acknowledge him as the creative energy, or different sects had\nsprung up under the respective names of Vishnu and Siva. Understood with\nreference to the pure theology of India, such appears to me to be the\nmeaning of this mistaken symbol; but a system of physical theology quickly\nsucceeded to the pure; and the debased, but ingenious, progeny, who\ninvented it, knew too well how to adapt the symbols and images of the true\nand false devotion. The three sublime hypostases of the true Trinity were\ndegraded into three attributes; in physical causes the sacred mysteries of\nreligion were attempted to be explained away; its doctrines were\ncorrupted, and its emblems perverted. They went the absurd length of\ndegrading a Creator (for such Brahma, in the Hindoo creed, confessedly is)\nto the rank of a created Dewtah, which has been shewn to be a glaring\nsolecism in theology.\n\n\"The evident result then is, that, nothwithstanding all the corruption of\nthe purer theology of the Brahmins, by the base alloy of human philosophy,\nunder the perverted notion of three attributes, the Indians have\nimmemorially worshipped a threefold Divinity, who, considered apart from\ntheir physical notions, is the Creator, the Preserver, and the\nRegenerator. We must again repeat that it would be in the highest degree\nabsurd to continue to affix the name of Destroyer to the third hypostasis\nin their Triad, when it is notorious that the Brahmins deny that anything\ncan be destroyed, and insist that a change alone in the form of objects\nand their mode of existence takes place. One feature, therefore, in that\ncharacter, hostile to our system, upon strict examination vanishes; and\nthe other feature, which creates so much disgust and gives such an air of\nlicentiousness to his character, is annihilated by the consideration of\ntheir deep immersion in philosophical speculations, of their incessant\nendeavours to account for the divine operations by natural causes, and to\nexplain them by palpable and visible symbols.\"\n\nNo image of the supreme Brahma himself is ever made; but in place of it\nhis attributes are arranged, as in the temple of Gharipuri, thus:\n\n    Brahma  | Power   | Creation     | Matter | The Past    | Earth\n    Vishnu  | Wisdom  | Preservation | Spirit | The Present | Water\n    Siva    | Justice | Destruction  | Time   | The Future  | Fire\n\nCaptain Wilford in the 10th vol. of the _Asiatic Researches_ writes of\nMeru or Moriah, the hill of God, and he says:--\"Polyaenus calls Mount Meru\nor Merius, Tri-coryphus. It is true that he bestows improperly that\nepithet on Mount Meru, near Cabul, which is inadmissible. Meru, with its\nthree peaks on the summit, and its seven steps, includes and encompasses\nreally the whole world, according to the notions of the Hindus and other\nnations previously to their being acquainted with the globular shape of\nthe earth.\" Basnage, in his history of the Jews, says \"there are seven\nearths, whereof one is higher than the other; for the Holy Land is\nsituated upon the highest earth, and Mount Moriah (or Meru) is in the\nmiddle of that Holy Land. This is the hill of God so often mentioned in\nthe Old Testament, the mount of the congregation where the mighty King\nsits in the sides of the north, according to Isaiah, and there is the city\nof our God. The Meru of the Hindoos has the name of Sabha, or the\ncongregation, and the gods are seated upon it in the sides of the north.\nThere is the holy city of Brahma-puri, where resides Brahma with his court\nin the most pure and holy land of Ilavratta.\"\n\nThus Meru is the worldly temple of the Supreme Being in an embodied state,\nand of the Tri-Murtti or sacred Triad, which resides on its summit, either\nin a single or threefold temple, or rather in both: for it is all one, as\nthey are one and three. They are three, only with regard to men who have\nemerged out of it they are but one: and their threefold temple and\nmountain, with its three peaks, become one equally. Mythologists in the\nwest called the world, or Meru with his appendages, the temple of God,\naccording to Macrobius. Hence this most sacred temple of the Supreme Being\nis generally typified by a cone or pyramid, with either a single chapel on\nits summit, or with three; either with or without steps.\n\nThis worldly temple is also considered by the followers of Buddha as the\ntomb of the son of the spirit of heaven. His bones, or limbs, were\nscattered all over the face of the earth, like those of Osiris and Jupiter\nZagreus. To collect them was the first duty of his descendants and\nfollowers, and then to entomb them. Out of filial piety, the remembrance\nof this mournful search was yearly kept up by a fictitious one, with all\npossible marks of grief and sorrow, till a priest came and announced that\nthe sacred relics were at last found. This is practised to this day by\nseveral Tartarian tribes of the religion of Buddha; and the expression of\nthe bones of the son of the spirit of heaven is peculiar to the Chinese,\nand some tribes in Tartary.\n\nHindu writers represent Narayana moving, as his name implies, on the\nwaters, in the character of the first male, and the principle of all\nnature, which was wholly surrounded in the beginning by tamas, or\ndarkness, the Chaos and primordial Night of the Greek mythologists, and,\nperhaps, the Thaumaz or Thamas of the ancient Egyptians; the Chaos is\nalso called Pracriti, or crude Nature, and the male deity has the name of\nPurusha, from whom proceeded Sacti, or, the power of containing or\nconceiving; but that power in its first state was rather a tendency or\naptitude, and lay dormant and inert until it was excited by the bija, or\nvivifying principle, of the plastic Iswara. This power, or aptitude, of\nnature is represented under the symbol of the yoni, or bhaga, while the\nanimating principle is expressed by the linga: both are united by the\ncreative power, Brahma; and the yoni has been called the navel of\nVishnu--not identically, but nearly; for, though it is held in the Vedanta\nthat the divine spirit penetrates or pervades all nature, and though the\nSacti be considered as an emanation from that spirit, yet the emanation is\nnever wholly detached from its source, and the penetration is never so\nperfect as to become a total union or identity. In another point of view\nBrahma corresponds with the Chronos, or Time of the Greek mythologists:\nfor through him generations pass on successively, ages and periods are by\nhim put in motion, terminated and renewed, while he dies and springs to\nbirth alternately; his existence or energy continuing for a hundred of his\nyears, during which he produces and devours all beings of less longevity.\nVishnu represents water, or the humid principle; and Iswara fire, which\nrecreates or destroys, as it is differently applied; Prithivi, or earth,\nand Ravi, or the sun, are severally trimurtis, or forms of the three great\npowers acting jointly and separately, but with different natures and\nenergies, and by their mutual action excite and expand the rudiments of\nmaterial substances. The word murti, or form, is exactly synonymous with\n[Greek: eidola], of the supreme spirit, and Homer places the idol of\nHercules in Elysium with other deceased heroes, though the God himself was\nat the same time enjoying bliss in the heavenly mansions. Such a murti,\nsay the Hindus, can by no means affect with any sensation, either\npleasing or painful, the being from which it emanated; though it may give\npleasure or pain to collateral emanations from the same source; hence they\noffer no sacrifices to the supreme Essence, of which our own souls are\nimages, but adore Him with silent meditation; while they make frequent\nhomas or oblations to fire, and perform acts of worship to the sun, the\nstars, the earth, and the powers of nature, which they consider as murtis,\nor images, the same in kind with ourselves, but transcendently higher in\ndegree. The moon is also a great object of their adoration; for, though\nthey consider the sun and earth as the two grand agents in the system of\nthe universe, yet they know their reciprocal action to be greatly affected\nby the influence of the lunar orb according to their several aspects, and\nseem even to have an idea of attraction through the whole extent of\nnature. This system was known to the ancient Egyptians; for according to\nDiodorus, their Vulcan, or elemental fire, was the great and powerful\ndeity, whose influence contributed chiefly toward the generation and\nperfection of natural bodies; while the ocean, by which they meant water\nin a collective sense, afforded the nutriment that was necessary; and the\nearth was the vase, or capacious receptacle, in which this grand operation\nof nature was performed: hence Orpheus described the earth as the\nuniversal mother, and this is the true meaning of the Sanscrit word Amba.\n\nFurther information respecting the male and female forms of the Trimurti\nhas been gathered as follows:--\n\nAtropos (or Raudri), who is placed about the sun, is the beginning of\ngeneration; exactly like the destructive power, or Siva among the Hindus,\nand who is called the cause and the author of generation: Clotho, about\nthe celestial moon, unites and mixes: the last, or Lachesis, is contiguous\nto the earth: but is greatly under the influence of chance. For whatever\nbeing is destitute of a sensitive soul, does not exist of its own right;\nbut must submit to the affections of another principle: for the rational\nsoul is of its own right impassable, and is not obnoxious to affections\nfrom another quarter. The sensitive soul is a mediate and mixed being,\nlike the moon, which is a compound of what is above and of what is below;\nand is to the sun in the same relation as the earth is to the moon. Major\nWilford says:--\"Well Pliny might say, with great truth, the refinements of\nthe Druids were such, that one would be tempted to believe that those in\nthe east had largely borrowed from them. This certainly surpasses\neverything of the kind I have ever read or heard in India.\"\n\nThese three goddesses are obviously the Parcoe, or fates, of the western\nmythologists, which were three and one. This female tri-unity is really\nthe Tri-murtti of the Hindus, who call it the Sacti, or energy of the male\nTri-murtti, which in reality is the same thing. Though the male tri-unity\nbe oftener mentioned, and better known among the unlearned than the other;\nyet the female one is always understood with the other, because the\nTrimurtti cannot act, but through its energy, or Sacti, which is of the\nfeminine gender. The male Trimurtti was hardly known in the west, for\nJupiter, Pluto, and Neptune have no affinity with the Hindu Trimurtti,\nexcept their being three in number. The real Trimurtti of the Greeks and\nLatians consisted of Cronus, Jupiter and Mars, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. To\nthese three gods were dedicated three altars in the upper part of the\ngreat circus at Rome. These are brothers in their Calpas; and Cronus or\nBrahma, who has no Calpa of his own, produces them, and of course may be\nconsidered as their father. Thus Brahma creates in general; but Vishnu in\nhis own Calpa, assumes the character of Cronus or Brahma to create, and he\nis really Cronus or Brahma: he is then called Brahma-rupi Janardana, or\nVishnu, the devourer of souls, with the countenance of Brahma: he is the\npreserver of his own character.\n\nThese three were probably the Tripatres of the western mythologists,\ncalled also Tritopatores, Tritogeneia, Tris-Endaimon, Trisolbioi,\nTrismacaristoi, and Propatores. The ancients were not well agreed who they\nwere: some even said that they were Cottus, Briareus, and Gyges, the sons\nof Tellus and the sun. Others said that they were Amalcis, Protocles, and\nProtocless, the door-keepers and guardians of the minds. Their mystical\norigin probably belonged to the secret doctrine, which the Roman college,\nlike the Druids, never committed to writing, and were forbidden to reveal.\nAs the ancients swore by them, there can be little doubt but that they\nwere the three great deities of their religion.\n\nDisentangling the somewhat intricate and involved web of Indian mythology,\nand putting the matter as simply as possible, we may say the deities are\nonly three, whose places are the earth, the intermediate region, and\nheaven, namely Fire, Air, and the Sun. They are pronounced to be deities\nof the mysterious names severally, and (Prajapati) the lord of creatures\nis the deity of them collectively. The syllable O'ru intends every deity:\nit belongs to (Paramasht'hi) him who dwells in the supreme abode; it\npertains to (Brahma) the vast one; to (Deva) God; to (Ad'hyatma) the\nsuperintending soul. Other deities, belonging to those several regions,\nare portions of the three gods; for they are variously named and described\non account of their different operations, but there is only one deity, the\nGreat Soul (Mahanatma). He is called the Sun, for he is the soul of all\nbeings. The Sun, the soul of (jagat) what moves, and of that which is\nfixed; other deities are portions of him.\n\nThe name given by the Indians to their Supreme Deity, or Monad, is Brahm;\nand notwithstanding the appearance of materialism in all their sacred\nbooks, the Brahmins never admit that they uphold such a doctrine, but\ninvest their deities with the highest attributes. He is represented as the\nVast One, self-existing, invisible, eternal, imperceptible, the only\ndeity, the great soul, the over-ruling soul, the soul of all beings, and\nof whom all other deities are but portions. To him no sacrifices were ever\noffered; but he was adored in silent meditation. He triplicates himself\ninto three persons or powers, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, the Creator, the\nPreserver, and the Destroyer, or Reproducer; and is designated by the word\nOm or Aum by the respective letters of which sacred triliteral syllable\nare expressed the powers into which he triplicates himself.\n\nThe Metempsychosis and succession of similar worlds, alternately destroyed\nby flood and fire and reproduced, were doctrines universally received\namong the heathens: and by the Indians, the world, after the lapse of each\npredestined period of its existence, was thought to be destroyed by Siva.\nAt each appointed time of its destruction, Vishnu ceases from his\npreserving care, and sleeps beneath the waters: but after the allotted\nperiod, from his navel springs forth a lotus to the surface, bearing\nBrahma in its cup, who reorganises the world, and when he has performed\nhis work, retires, leaving to Vishnu its government and preservation; when\nall the same heroes and persons reappear, and similar events are again\ntransacted, till the time arrives for another dissolution.\n\nAfter the construction of the world by Brahma, the office of its\npreservation is assumed by Vishnu. His chief attribute is Wisdom: he is\nthe Air, Water, Humidity in general, Space, and sometimes, though rarely,\nEarth: he is Time present, and the middle: and he is the Sun in the\nevening and at night. His colour is blue or blackish; his Vahan, the Eagle\nnamed Garuda; his allotted place, the Air or intermediate region, and he\nsymbolises Unity. It is he who most commonly appears in the Avatars or\nIncarnations, of which nine in number are recorded as past: the most\ncelebrated of which are his incarnations as Mateya or the Fish Rama,\nKrishna, and Buddha: the tenth of Kalki, or the Horse, is yet to come. It\nis from him that Brahma springs when he proceeds to his office of\ncreation.\n\nThe destroying and regenerating power, Siva, Maha-deva, Iswara, or Routrem\nis regarded metaphysically as Justice, and physically as Fire or Heat, and\nsometimes Water. He is the Sun at noon: his colour is white, with a blue\nthroat, but sometimes red; his Vahan is the bull, and his place of\nresidence the heaven. As destruction in the material world is but change\nor production in another form, and was so held by almost all the heathen\nphilosophers, we find that the peculiar emblems of Siva are, as we have\nalready shown, the Trident, the symbol of destruction; and the Linga or\nPhallus, of regeneration.\n\nThe three deities were called Trimurtti, and in the caverns of Ellora they\nare united in a Triune bust. They are collectively symbolized by the\ntriangle. Vishnu, as Humidity personified, is also represented by an\ninverted triangle, and Siva by a triangle erect, as a personification of\nFire; while the Monad Brahm is represented by the circle as Eternity, and\nby a point as having neither length, nor breadth, as self-existing, and\ncontaining nothing. The Brahmans deny materialism; yet it is asserted by\nMr. Wilford, that, when closely interrogated on the title of Deva or God,\nwhich their most sacred books give to the Sun, they avoid a direct answer,\nand often contradict themselves and one another. The supreme divinity of\nthe Sun, however, is constantly asserted in their scriptures; and the\nholiest verse in the Vedas, which is called the Gayatri, is:--\"Let us\nadore the supremacy of that divine sun, the Godhead, who illuminates all,\nwho recreates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we\ninvoke to direct our understanding aright in our progress towards his holy\nseat.\"\n\nIt has been said that in India is to be found the most ancient form of\nthat Trinitarian worship which prevails in nearly every quarter of the\nknown world. Be that as it may, it is not in India where the most\nremarkable phase of the worship is to be found; for that we turn to Egypt.\nHere we meet with the strange fact that no two cities worshipped the same\ntriad. \"The one remarkable feature in nearly all these triads is that they\nare father, mother, and son; that is, male and female principles of\nnature, with their product.\"\n\nMariette Bey says:--\"According to places, the attributes by which the\nDivine Personage is surrounded are modified; but in each temple the triad\nwould appear as a symbol destined to affirm the eternity of being. In all\ntriads, the principal god gives birth to himself. Considered as a Father,\nhe remains the great god adored in temples. Considered as a Son, he\nbecomes, by a sort of doubling, the third person of the triad. But the\nFather and the Son are not less the one god, while, being double, the\nfirst is the eternal god; the second is but the living symbol destined to\naffirm the strength of the other. The father engenders himself in the womb\nof the mother, and thus becomes at once his own father and his own son.\nThereby are expressed the uncreatedness and the eternity of the being who\nhas had no beginning, and who shall have no end.\"\n\nGenerally speaking, the gods of Egypt were grouped in sets of three, each\ncity having its own Trinity. Thus in Memphis we find Ptah, Pasht and\nMonth; in Thebes, Amun-Ra, Athor and Chonso; in Ethiopia, Noum, Sate and\nAnucis; in Hermonthis, Monthra, Reto and Harphre; in Lower Egypt, Seb,\nNetphe and Osiris; in Thinnis, Osiris, Isis and Anhur; in Abousimbel and\nDerr, Ptah, Amun-Ra and Horus-Ra; in Esne, Neph, Neboo and Hake; in Dabad,\nSeb, Netpe and Mandosti; in Ambos, Savak, Athor and Khonso; in Edfou,\nHorket, Hathor and Horsenedto. The trinity common throughout the land is\nthat of Osiris, Isis and Horus.\n\nDr. Cudworth translates Jamblichus as follows, quoting from the Egyptian\nHermetic Books in defining the Egyptian Trinity:--\"Hermes places the god\nEmeph as the prince and ruler over all the celestial gods, whom he\naffirmeth to be a Mind understanding himself, and converting his\ncogitations or intellections into himself. Before which Emeph he placeth\none indivisible, whom he calleth Eicton, in which is the first\nintelligible, and which is worshipped only by silence. After which two,\nEicton and Emeph, the demiurgic mind and president of truth, as with\nwisdom it proceedeth to generations, and bringeth forth the hidden powers\nof the occult reasons with light, is called in the Egyptian language\nAmmon: as it artificially affects all things with truth, Phtha; as it is\nproductive of good, Osiris; besides other names that it hath according to\nits other powers and energies.\" Upon this, Dr. Cudworth remarks:--\"How\nwell these three divine hypostases of the Egyptians agree with the\nPythagoric or Platonic Trinity of,--first, Unity and Goodness itself;\nsecondly, Mind; and, thirdly, Soul,--I need not here declare. Only we\nshall call to mind what hath been already intimated, that Reason or\nWisdom, which was the Demiurgus of the world, and is properly the second\nof the fore-mentioned hypostases, was called also, among the Egyptians by\nanother name, Cneph; from whom was said to have been produced or begotten\nthe God Phtha, the third hypostasis of the Egyptian Trinity; so that Cneph\nand Emeph are all one. Wherefore, we have here plainly an Egyptian Trinity\nof divine hypostases subordinate, Eicton, Emeph or Cneph, and Phtha.\"\n\nMr. Sharpe, in his Egyptian Inscriptions, mentions the fact that there is\nin the British Museum a hieroglyphical inscription as early as the reign\nof Sevechus of the eighth century before the Christian Era, showing that\nthe doctrine of the Trinity in Unity already formed part of their\nreligion, and stating that in each of the two groups, Isis, Nephthis and\nOsiris, and Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the three gods made only one person.\nAlso that the sculptured figures on the lid of the sarcophagus of Rameses\nIII., now at Cambridge, show us the King, not only as one of a group of\nthree gods, but also as a Trinity in Unity in his own person. \"He stands\nbetween the goddesses, Isis and Nepthys, who embrace him as if he were the\nlost Osiris, whom they have now found again. We further know him to be in\nthe character of Osiris by the two sceptres which he holds; but at the\nsame time the horns upon his head are those of the goddess Athor, and the\nball and feathers above are the ornaments of the god Ra.\"\n\nNearly all writers describe the Egyptian Trinity as consisting of the\n_generative_, the _destructive_, and the _preserving_ powers. Isis answers\nto Siva. Iswara, or Lord, is the epithet of Siva. Osiris, or Ysiris, as\nHellanicus wrote the Egyptian name, was the God at whose birth a voice was\nheard to declare, \"that the Lord of all nature sprang forth to light.\"\n\nA peculiar feature in the ancient trinities is the way in which the\nworship of the first person is lost or absorbed in the second, few or no\ntemples being found dedicated to Brahma. Something very much like this\noften occurs among Christians; we are surrounded by churches dedicated to\nthe second and third persons in the trinity, and to saints, and to the\nMother of Christ, but none to the Father.\n\nIt has been noticed that while we find inscribed upon the monuments of\nEgypt a vast multitude of gods, as in India, the number diminishes as we\nascend. Amun Ra alone is found dedicated upon the oldest monuments, in\nthree distinct forms, into one or other of whose characters all the other\ndivinities may be resolved. Amun was the chief god, the sacred name,\ncorresponding with the Aum of the Indians, also, probably, the Egyptian\nOn. According to Mr. Wilkinson, the Egyptians held Kneph, Neph, Nef, or\nChnoubus, \"as the idea of the Spirit of God which moved upon the face of\nthe waters.\" He was the Spirit, animating and perpetuating the world, and\npenetrating all its parts; the same with the Agathodaemon of the\nPhoenicians, and like him, was symbolized by the snake, an emblem of the\nSpirit which pervades the universe. He was commonly represented with a\nRam's head; and though the colour of the Egyptian divinities is perhaps\nmore commonly green than any other, he is as frequently depicted blue. He\nwas the god of the Nile, which is indirectly confirmed by Pindar; and by\nPtolemy, who says that the Egyptians gave the name of Agathodaemon to the\nwestern, or Heracleotic branch. From his mouth proceeded the Mundane egg,\nfrom which sprung Phtah, the creative power. Mr. Wilkinson\nproceeds:--\"Having separated the Spirit from the Creator, and purposing to\nact apart and defy each attribute, which presented itself to their\nimagination, they found it necessary to form another deity from the\ncreative power, whom they call Phtah, proceeding from the former, and\nthence deemed the son of Kneph. Some difference was observed between the\npower, which created the world, and that which caused and ruled over the\ngeneration of man, and continued to promote the continuation of the human\nspecies. This latter attribute of the divinity was deified under the\nappellation Khem. Thus was the supreme deity known by the three distinct\nnames of,\n\n    Kneph,      Phthah,      Khem:\n\nto these were joined the goddesses Sate, Neith, and Buto; and the number\nof the eight deities was completed by the addition of Ra, or Amun-Ra,\"\nthis last, however, was not a distinct god, but a name common to each\nperson of the triad: and, indeed, to all the three names above the name of\nAmun was constantly prefixed.[9]\n\nPhthah corresponds with the Indian Brahma, and the Orphic Phanes, and\nappears in several other forms. In one form he is represented as an\ninfant--often as an infant Priapaean figure, and deformed.\n\nThe deity called Khem by Mr. Wilkinson, and Mendes by Champollion, is\ncommon on the monuments of Egypt, and is recognised as corresponding with\nthe Pan of the Greeks. His chief attribute is heat, which aids the\ncontinuation of the various species, and he is generally coloured red,\nthough sometimes blue, with his right arm extended upwards. His principal\nemblems are a triple-thonged Flagellum and a Phallus. He corresponds with\nSiva of the Indians, his attributes being similar, _viz._, Destroying and\nRegenerating. He is the god of generation, and, like Siva, has his Phallic\nemblem of reproduction; the triple-thonged flagellum is regarded by some\nas a variation of the trident, or of the axe of Siva. He has for a vahan\nthe Bull Mneuis, as Sivi has the Bull Nandi. The Goat Mendes was also\nconsecrated to him as an emblem of heat and generation; and it is well\nknown that this animal is constantly placed in the hands of Siva. \"In\nshort,\" says Mr. Cory, \"there is scarcely a shade of distinction between\nKhem and Siva: the Egyptians venerated the same deity as the Indians, in\nhis generative character as Khem, when they suspended the flagellum, the\ninstrument of vengeance, over his right hand; but in his destroying\ncharacter, as the ruler of the dead, as Osiris, when they placed the\nflagellum in his hands as the trident is in that character placed in the\nhand of Siva.\"\n\nIn the Chaldean oracles, so far as they have been preserved, the doctrine\nof a triad is found everywhere. Allowing for the existence of much that is\nforged amongst these oracles, as suggested by Mr. Cory and others, we may\nreasonably conclude that there still remains a deal that is ancient and\nauthentic. They teach as a fundamental tenet that a triad shines\nthroughout the whole world, over which a Monad rules. This triad is\nFather, Power, and Intellect, having probably once been Air, Fire, and\nSun.\n\nAmongst the Laplanders the Supreme God was worshipped as Jumala, and three\ngods were recognised as subordinate to him. The first was Thor of the\nEdda; the second Storjunkare, his vicegerent, the common household god;\nand the third Beywe, the Sun.\n\nWith regard to the Phoenicians and Syrians, Photius states that the Kronus\nof both was known under the names of El, Bel, and Bolathen.\n\nThe Sidonians, Eudemus said, placed before all things Chronus, Pothas, and\nOmichles, rendered by Damascius as Time, Love, and Cloudy Darkness,\nregarded by some as no other than the Khem, Phthah, and Amun Kneph of the\nEgyptians.\n\nThe Heracles or Hercules of the Greeks, known as Arcles of the Tyrians,\nwas a triple divinity, described by Hieronymus as a dragon, with the heads\nof a bull, of a lion, and of a man with wings.\n\nAmong the Philistines also we find their chief god Dragon, who is the\nOuranus of Sanchoniatho. It appears also that Baal was a triple Divinity:\nwhile Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites, and Baal Peor, of the\nMidians, seem to be the Priapaean Khem of Egypt, the god of heat and\ngeneration. The Edessenes also held the triad, and placed Monimus and\nAzizus as contemplars with the Sun.[10]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n    _The Supreme God of the Peruvians--Assumed Origin of the Trinity Idea\n    in the Patriarchal Age--Welsh Ideas--Druidical Triads--The Ancient\n    Religion of America--The Classics and Heathen Triads--The\n    Tritopatoreia--The Virgin Mary--The Virgin amongst the\n    Heathen--Universality of the Belief in a Trinity--The Dahomans._\n\n\nThe Supreme God of the Peruvians, was called Viracocha; known also as\nPachacarnac, Soul of the world, Usapu admirable, and other names.\n\nGarcilazo says, \"he was considered as the giver of life, sustainer and\nnourisher of all things, but because they did not see him, they erected no\ntemples to him nor offered sacrifices; however they worshipped him in\ntheir hearts, and esteemed him for the unknown God.\"\n\nGenerally, speaking, the sun was the great object of Peruvian idolatry\nduring the dominion of the Incas. Its worship was the most solemn, and its\ntemples the most splendid in their furniture and decorations, and the\ncommon people, no doubt, reverenced that luminary as their chief god.\n\nHerrera mentions the circumstance that at one of the festivals, they\nexhibited three statues of the sun, each of which had a particular name,\nwhich as he translated them were Father and Lord Sun, the Son Sun, and the\nBrother Sun. He also says, \"that at Chucuisaea, they worshipped an idol\ncalled Tangatanga, which they said was three and one.\"\n\nThe Spanish writers consider this doctrine to have been stolen by the\ndevil from Christianity, and imparted by him to this people. By this\nopinion they evidently declare its antiquity in Peru to have been greater\nthan the time of the Spanish conquest.\n\nThose writers and scholars who refuse to believe that the doctrine of the\nTrinity as taught in the Christian religion, was known during the\npatriarchal or judaical dispensations, and therefore will not allow that\nthe trinity of the Peruvians had any reference to the dogma of\nChristianity, contend that their trinity was founded in those early\ncorruptions of patriarchal history, in which men began to represent Adam,\nand his three sons; and Noah, and his three sons; as being triplicates of\nthe same essential person, who originally was the universal father of the\nhuman race: and secondly, being triplicated in their three sons, who also\nwere considered the fathers of mankind. They say therefore, Adam and Noah\nwere each the father of three sons; and to the persons of the latter of\nthese triads, by whose descendants the world was repeopled, the whole\nhabitable earth was assigned in a threefold division. This matter, though\nit sometimes appears in an undisguised form, was usually wrapped up in the\ncloak of the most profound mystery. Hence instead of plainly saying, that\nthe mortal who had flourished in the golden age and who was venerated as\nthe universal demon father both of gods and men, was the parent of three\nsons, they were wont to declare, that the great father had wonderfully\ntriplicated himself.\n\nPursuing this vein of mysticism, they contrived to obscure the triple\ndivision of the habitable globe among the sons of Noah, just as much as\nthe characters of the three sons themselves. A very ancient notion\nuniversally prevailed that some such triple division had once taken place;\nand the hierophants when they had elevated Noah and his three sons to the\nrank of deity, proceeded to ring a variety of corresponding changes upon\nthat celebrated threefold distribution. Noah was esteemed the universal\nsovereign of the world; but, when he branched out into three kings\n(_i.e._, triplicating himself into his three sons), that world was to be\ndivided into three kingdoms, or, as they were sometimes styled, three\nworlds. To one of these kings was assigned the empire of heaven; to\nanother, the empire of the earth, including the nether regions of\nTartarus; to a third, the empire of the ocean.\n\nSo again, when Noah became a god, the attributes of deity were inevitably\nascribed to him, otherwise, he would plainly have become incapable of\nsupporting his new character: yet even in the ascription of such\nattributes, the genuine outlines of his history were never suffered to be\nwholly forgotten. He had witnessed the destruction of one world, the new\ncreation (or regeneration) of another, and the oath of God that he would\nsurely preserve mankind from the repetition of such a calamity as the\ndeluge. Hence when he was worshipped as a hero-god, he was revered in the\ntriple character of the destroyer, the creator, and the preserver. And\nwhen he was triplicated into three cognate divinities, were produced three\ngods, different, yet fundamentally the same, one mild though awful as the\ncreator; another gentle and beneficent as the preserver; a third,\nsanguinary, ferocious, and implacable as the destroyer.[11]\n\nThe idea of a trinity was rather curiously developed amongst the Druids,\nespecially amongst the Welsh. They used a number of triplicated sentences\nas summaries of matters relating to their religion, history, and science,\nin order that these things might be the more easily committed to memory\nand handed down to future generations. The triads were these:--\n\n1. There are three primeval Unities, and more than one of each cannot\nexist:\n\n    One God;\n    One Truth;\n    One Point of Liberty, where all opposites equiponderate.\n\n2. Three things proceed from the primeval unities:\n\n    All of Life;\n    All that is Good; and\n    All Power.\n\n3. God consists necessarily of three things:\n\n    The Greatest of Life;\n    The Greatest of Knowledge; and\n    The Greatest of Power.[12]\n\nThe Druids venerated the Bull and Eagle as emblems of the god Hu, and like\nthe Jews and Indians, \"made use of a term, only known to themselves, to\nexpress the unutterable name of the Deity, and the letters =OIW= were used\nfor that purpose.\"\n\nFrom Herodotus, Aristotle, Plutarch, and others, we get information\nconcerning the triads amongst the Persians, and which were similar in many\nrespects to those recognised by other eastern nations. Oromasdes and\nArimanes were ruling principles always in opposition to each other, viz.,\n_good_ and _evil_, and springing from _light_ and _darkness_, which they\nare said to have most resembled. Eudemus says, \"they proceeded from Place\nor Time.\" Oromasdes was looked upon as the whole expanse of heaven, and\nwas considered by the Greeks as identical with Zeus. He was the Preserver;\nand Arimanes, the Destroyer. Between them, according to Plutarch was\nMithras, the Mediator, who was regarded as the Sun, as Light, as\nIntellect, and as the creator of all things. He was a triple deity and was\nsaid to have triplicated himself. The Leontine mysteries were instituted\nin his honour, the lion being consecrated to him, and the Sun was\nrepresented by the emblems of the Bull, the Lion, and the Hawk, united.\n\nIn the ancient religions of America, a species of trinity was recognised\naltogether different to that of Christianity or the Trimurti of India. In\nsome of the ancient poems a triple nature is actually ascribed to storms;\nand in the Quiche legends we read: \"The first of Hurakan is the lightning,\nthe second the track of the lightning, and the third the stroke of the\nlightning; and these three are Hurakan the Heat of the Sky.\"\n\nIn the Iroquois mythology the same thing is found. Heno was thunder, and\nthree assistants were assigned to him whose offices were similar to those\nof the companions of Hurakan.\n\nHeno was said to gather the clouds and pour out the warm rain; he was the\npatron of husbandry, and was invoked at seedtime and harvest. As the\npurveyor of nourishment, he was addressed as grandfather, and his\nworshippers styled themselves his grandchildren.\n\nAmongst the Aztecs, Tlaloc, the god of rain and water, manifested himself\nunder the three attributes of the flash, the thunderbolt, and the thunder.\n\nBut this conception of three in one, says Brinton, \"was above the\ncomprehension of the masses, and consequently these deities were also\nspoken of as fourfold in nature, three _and_ one.\" Moreover, as has\nalready been pointed out, the thunder-god was usually ruler of the winds,\nand thus another reason for his quadruplicate nature was suggested.\nHurakan, Haokah, Tlaloc, and probably Heno, are plural as well as singular\nnouns, and are used as nominatives to verbs in both numbers. Tlaloc was\nappealed to as inhabiting each of the cardinal points and every mountain\ntop. His statue rested on a square stone pedestal, facing the east, and\nhad in one hand a serpent in gold. Ribbons of silver, crossing to form\nsquares, covered the robe, and the shield was composed of feathers of four\ncolours, yellow, green, red and blue. Before it was a vase containing all\nsorts of grain; and the clouds were called his companions, the winds his\nmessengers. As elsewhere, the thunderbolts were believed to be flints,\nand thus, as the emblem of fire and the storm, this stone figures\nconspicuously in their myths. Tohil, the god who gave the Quiches fire by\nshaking his sandals, was represented by a flint-stone. He is distinctly\nsaid to be the same as Quetzelcoatl, one of whose commonest symbols was a\nflint. Such a stone, in the beginning of things, fell from heaven to\nearth, and broke into 1600 pieces, each of which sprang up a god; an\nancient legend, which shadows forth the subjection of all things to him\nwho gathers the clouds from the four corners of the earth, who thunders\nwith his voice, who satisfies with his rain the desolate and waste ground,\nand causes the tended herb to spring forth. This is the germ of the\nadoration of stones as emblems of the fecundating rains. This is why, for\nexample, the Navajos use as their charm for rain certain long round\nstones, which they think fall from the clouds when it thunders.\n\nIt is said that all over Africa, belief in a trinity of gods is found, the\nsame to-day as has prevailed at least for forty centuries, and perhaps for\nvery much longer. Chaldaea, Assyria, and the temple of Erektheus, on the\nAcropolis of Athens, honoured and sacrificed to Zeus (the Sun, Hercules,\nor Phallic idea) the Serpent and Ocean; and Africa still does so to the\nTree-Stem or Pole, the Serpent, and the Sea or Water; and this Trinity is\none god, and yet serves to divide all gods into three classes, of which\nthese are types.\n\nImportant and interesting notices relative to the nature of the deities\nworshipped by the ancients are to be found in the treatise of Julius\nFirmicus Maternus, \"De Errore Profanarum Religionum ad Constantium, et\nConstantem Angg.\" Firmicus attributes to the Persians a belief in the\nandrogynous nature of the deity [naturam ejus (jovis) ad utriusque sexus\ntransferentes]. No doubt this doctrine has always been recognised, by many\nwriters, as being held by the philosophers of India and Egypt, and that\nit constituted a part of the creed of Orpheus, but its connection with\nPersia has not been so generally acknowledged.\n\nFirmicus, after speaking of the two-fold powers of Jupiter (that is, the\ndeity being both male and female) adds, \"when they choose to give a\nvisible representation of him, they sculpture him as a female.\" Again,\nthey represent him as a female with three heads. It was a figure adorned\nwith serpents of a monstrous size. It was venerated under the symbol of\nfire. It was called Mithra. It was worshipped in secret caverns. The rites\nof Mithra were familiar to the Romans, but they worshipped them in a\nmanner different from the Persian ceremonies. Firmicus had seen Mithra\nsculptured in two different ways: in one piece of sculpture he was\nrepresented as a female with three faces, and infolded with serpents; and\nin another piece of sculpture he was represented as seizing a bull.\n\nClassic writers abound with references, not simply to a plurality of gods\namong the heathen, but to a trinity in unity and unity in trinity,\nsometimes approaching in the similarity of their broad outlines the\ndoctrine as held by orthodox religionists. Herodotus calls the deity of\nthe Pelasgians, _Gods_, and it is admitted that the passage evidently\nimplies that the expression was used by the priests of Dodona. The\nPelasgians worshipped the Cabiri, and the Cabiri were originally three in\nnumber, hence it is inferred that these Cabiri were the Pelasgian Trinity,\nand that having in ancient times no name which would have implied a\ndiversity of gods, they worshipped a trinity in unity. The worship of the\nCabiri by the Pelasgians is evident, for Herodotus says, in his second\nbook, \"that the Samothracians learnt the Cabiric mysteries from the\nPelasgians, who once inhabited that island, and afterwards settled in\nGreece, near Attica.\" Cicero testifies that the Cabiri were originally\nthree in number, and he carefully distinguishes them from the Dioscuri. A\npassage in Pausanias states that at Tritia, a city of Achaia, there is a\ntemple erected to the Dii Magni (or Cabiri); their images are a\nrepresentation of a god made of clay. \"We need not be surprised,\" said a\nwriter once, \"that Pausanias should be puzzled how to express the fact\nthat, though it was the temple of the three Cabiri, yet there was only one\nimage in it. Is not this the doctrine of a trinity in unity?\"\n\nPotter informs us that those who desired to have children were usually\nvery liberal to the gods, who were thought to preside over generation. The\nsame writer also says:--\"Who these were, or what was the origination of\ntheir name, is not easy to determine: Orpheus, as cited by Phanodemus in\nSuidas, makes their proper names to be Amaclides, Protocles, and\nProtocleon, and will have them to preside over the winds; Demo makes them\nto be the winds themselves.\" Another author tells us their names were\n\"Cottus, Briareus, and Gyges, and that they were the sons of heaven and of\nearth: Philocrus likewise makes earth their mother, but instead of heaven,\nsubstitutes the sun, or Apollo, for their father, where he seems to\naccount, as well for their being accounted the superintendents of\ngeneration, as for the name of [Greek: tritopateres]; for being\nimmediately descended from two immortal gods, themselves,\" saith he, \"were\nthought the third fathers, and therefore might well be esteemed the common\nparents of mankind, and from that opinion derive those honours, which the\nAthenians paid them as the authors and presidents of human generation.\"\n\nAgain, the Tritopatoreia was a solemnity in which it was usual to pray for\nchildren to the gods of generation, who were sometimes called\n_tritopateres_. The names of the Cabiri, as Cicero says, are Tritopatreus,\nEubuleus, and Dionysius: this fact is supposed to give us a little insight\ninto the origin of the word _tritopateres_, or _tritopatreis_. Philocrus,\nas we have seen, makes them the sons of Apollo and of the earth: this\nfact will help us to develop the truth: the two last hypostases emanated\nfrom the Creator: thus in the Egyptian Trinity of Osiris, of Isis, and of\nHorus, Isis is not only the consort, but the daughter of Osiris, and Horus\nwas the fruit of their embrace, thus in the Scandinavian Trinity of Adin,\nof Trea, and of Thor, Trea is not only the wife, but the daughter of Odin,\nand Thor was the fruit of their embrace, as Maillet observes in his\n_Northern Antiquities_ (vol. ii.), there is the Roman Trinity of Jupiter,\nof Juno, and of Minerva, Juno is the sister and the wife of Jupiter, and\nMinerva is the daughter of Jupiter: now, it is a singular fact, that in\nthe Pelasgic Trinity of the Cabirim, two of them are said to have been the\nsons of Vulcan, or the Sun, as we read in Potter (vol. i.) Hence we see,\nit has been contended, the mistake of Philocrus: there were not three\nemanations from the Sun, as he supposes, but only _two_: their name\ntritopateres, which alludes to the doctrine of the trinity, puzzled\nPhilocrus, who knew nothing of the doctrine, and he is credited with\ncoining the story, to account for this appellation: the Cabiri were, as is\nknown from Cicero, called Tritopatreus, Dionysius, and Eubuleus. Dionysius\nis Osiris, and Eubuleus and Tritopatreus are the two hypostases, which\nemanated from him: the name of the third hypostasis is generally\ncompounded of some word which signifies the third: hence Minerva derived\nher name of Tritonis, or Tritonia Virgo: hence Minerva is called by Hesiod\n(referred to in Lempriere's Classical Dictionary), Tritogenia: hence came\nthe Tritia, of which Pausanias speaks: hence came the Tritopatreus of\nCicero: hence came the Thridi of the Scandinavians. We read in the Edda\nthese remarkable words: \"He afterwards beheld three thrones raised one\nabove another, and on each throne sat a man; upon his asking which of\nthese was their king, his guide answered, 'he who sits upon the lowest\nthrone is the king, and his name is Hor, or the Lofty One: the second is\nJaenhar, that is Equal to the Lofty One; but he who sits upon the highest\nthrone is called Thridi, or the Third.'\"\n\nPausanias has a number of passages which bear upon this subject, and seem\nto prove conclusively that the Greeks recognised the doctrine of a trinity\nin unity and worshipped the same. In his second book he says: \"Beyond the\ntomb of Pelasgus is a small structure of brass, which supports the images\nof Diana, of Jupiter, and of Minerva, a work of some antiquity: Lyceas has\nin some verses recorded the fact that this is the representation of\nJupiter Machinator.\" Again, in Book I., when describing the Areopagite\ndistrict of Athens, he says:--\"Here are the images of Pluto, of Mercury,\nand of Tellus, to whom all such persons, whether citizens or strangers, as\nhave vindicated their innocence in the Court Areopagus, are required\nsacrifice.\" \"In a temple of Ceres, at the entrance of Athens, there are\nimages of the goddess herself, of her daughter, and of Bacchus, with a\ntorch in his hand.\"\n\nThat the grouping of the three deities was not accidental is evident from\nthe frequency with which they are so mentioned, and other passages show\nthat they were the three deities who were worshipped in the Eleusinian\nmysteries. Thus in Book VIII., Ch. 25:--\"The river Lado then continues its\ncourse to the temple of the Eleusinian Ceres, which is situated in\nterritories of the Thelpusians: the three statues in it are each seven\nfeet high, and all of marble: they represent Ceres, Proserpine, and\nBacchus.\" In another passage (Book II., Ch. 2) he says:--\"By a temple\ndedicated to all the gods, there were placed three statues of Jupiter in\nthe open air, of which one had no title, a second was styled the\n_Terrestrial_, and the third was styled the highest.\"\n\nThe learned say, of course, it is clear that the missing title should have\nbeen the _God of the Sea_, as the others were the _God of Heaven_, and\nthe _God of the Earth_. Another passage in Pausanias confirms this:--\"In a\ntemple of Minerva was placed a wooden image of Jupiter with three eyes;\ntwo of them were placed in the natural position, and the other was placed\non the forehead.... One may naturally suppose that Jupiter is represented\nwith three eyes as the God of the Heaven, as the God of the Earth, and as\nthe God of the Sea.\"\n\nIt has been remarked that Pausanias records the tradition that this story\nof the three-eyed Jupiter comes from Troy, and it is known that the\nTrojans acknowledged a trinity in the divine nature, and that the Dii\nPenates, or the Cabiri of the Romans, came from Troy. Quotations from the\ntranslation of the Atlas Chinesis of Montanus, by Ogilby, show that the\nthree-eyed Jupiter was an oriental emblem of the trinity:--\"The modern\nlearned, or followers of this first sect, who are overwhelmed in idolatry,\ndivide generally their idols, or false gods, into three orders, _viz._,\ncelestial, terrestrial, and infernal: in the celestial they acknowledge a\ntrinity of one godhead, which they worship and serve by the name of a\ngoddess called Pussa; which, with the Greeks, we might call Cybele, and\nwith Egyptians, Isis and Mother of the Gods. This Pussa (according to the\nChinese saying) is the governess of nature, or, to speak properly, the\nChinese Isis, or Cybele, by whose power they believe that all things are\npreserved and made fruitful, as the three inserted figures relate.\"\n\nIn the doctrine relating to the Virgin Mary as held by the Church of Rome,\nthere is a remarkable resemblance to the teaching of the ancients\nrespecting the female constantly associated with the triune male deity.\nHer names and titles are many, and though diversified, mostly pointing to\nthe same idea. Some of these are as follows:--\"The Virgin,\" conceiving and\nbringing forth from her own inherent power. The wife of Bel Nimrod; the\nwife of Asshur; the wife of Nin. She is called Multa, Mulita, or Mylitta,\nor Enuta, Bilta or Bilta Nipruta, Ishtar, Ri, Alitta, Elissa, Bettis,\nAshtoreth, Astarte, Saruha, Nana, Asurah. Amongst other names she is known\nas Athor, Dea Syria, Artemis, Aphrodite, Tanith, Tanat, Rhea, Demeter,\nCeres, Diana, Minerva, Juno, Venus, Isis, Cybele, Seneb or Seben, Venus\nUrania, Ge, Hera. \"As Anaitis she is the 'mother of the child;' reproduced\nagain as Isis and Horus; Devaki with Christna; and Aurora with Memnon.\"\nEven in ancient Mexico the mother and child were worshipped. Again she\nappears as Davkina Gula Shala, Zirbanit, Warmita Laz. In modern times she\nreappears as the Virgin Mary and her son. There were Ishtar of Nineveh and\nIshter of Arbela, just as there are now Marie de Loretto and Marie de la\nGarde.\n\nShe was the Queen of fecundity or fertility, Queen of the lands, the\nbeginning of heaven and earth, Queen of all the Gods, Goddess of war and\nbattle, the holder of the sceptre, the beginning of the beginning, the one\ngreat Queen, the Queen of the spheres, the Virgo of the Zodiac, the\nCelestial Virgin, Time, in whose womb all things are born. She is\nrepresented in various ways, and specially as a nude woman carrying an\ninfant in her arms.[13]\n\nThe name _Multa, Mulita, or Mylitta_, Inman contends is derived from some\nwords resembling the Hebrew _meal_, the \"place of entrance,\" and _ta_, \"a\nchamber.\" The whole being a place of entrance and a chamber. The cognomen\nMulta, or Malta, signifies, therefore, the spot through which life enters\ninto the chamber, _i.e._, the womb, and through which the fruit matured\nwithin enters into the world as a new being. By the association of this\nvirgin goddess with the sacred triad of deities is made up the four great\ngods, _Arba-il_.\n\nWe are here reminded of the well-known symbol of the Trinity which seems\nto have been as abundantly used in ancient times, at least in some\ncountries--Egypt for instance. This is the triangle--generally the\nequilateral--which of course symbolised both the trinity in unity and the\nequality of the three. Sometimes we get two of those triangles crossing\neach other, one with the point upwards, the other with the point\ndownwards, thus forming a six-rayed star. The first represents the phallic\ntriad, the two together shew the union of the male and female principles\nproducing a new figure, each at the same time retaining its own identity.\nThe triangle with the point downwards, by itself typifies the Mons\nVeneris, the Delta, or door through which all come into the world.\n\nThe question has arisen:--\"How comes it that a doctrine so singular, and\nso utterly at variance with all the conceptions of uninstructed reason, as\nthat of a Trinity in Unity, should have been from the beginning, the\nfundamental religious tenet of every nation upon earth?\"\n\nInman without hesitation declares \"the trinity of the ancients is\nunquestionably of phallic origin.\" Others have either preceded this writer\nor have followed suit, contending that the male symbol of generation in\ndivine creation was three in one, as the cross, &c., and that the female\nsymbol was always regarded as the Triangle, the accepted symbol of the\nTrinity. The number three, was employed with mystic solemnity, and in the\nemblematical hands which seem to have been borne on the top of a staff or\nsceptre in the Isiac processions, the thumb and two forefingers are held\nup to signify the three primary and general personifications. This form of\npriestly blessing, thumb and two fingers, is still acknowledged as a sign\nof the Trinity.\n\nThe ancients tell us plainly enough that they are derived from the\ncosmogonic elements. They are primarily the material and elementary types\nof the spiritual trinity of revelation--types established by revelation\nitself, and the only resource of materialism to preserve the original\ndoctrine. The spirit, whether physical or spiritual, is equally the\n_pneuma_; and the light, whether physical or spiritual, equally the _phos_\nof the Greek text: so that the materialist of antiquity had little\ndifficulty in preserving their analogies complete.\n\nThe Dahomans are said by Skertchley to deny the corporeal existence of the\ndeity, but to ascribe human passions to him; a singular medley. \"Their\nreligion,\" he says, \"must not be confounded with Polytheism, for they only\nworship one god, Mau, but propitiate him through the intervention of the\nfetiches. Of these, there are four principal ones, after whom come the\nsecondary deities. The most important of these is Bo, the Dahoman Mars;\nthen comes Legba, the Dahoman Priapus, whose little huts are to be met\nwith in every street. This deity is of either sex, a male and female Legba\noften residing in the same temple. A squat swish image, rudely moulded\ninto the grossest caricature on the human form, sitting with hands on\nknees, with gaping mouth, and the special attributes developed to an\nungainly size. Teeth of cowries usually fill the clown-like mouth, and\nears standing out from the head, like a bat's, are only surpassed in their\nmonstrosity by the snowshoe-shaped feet. The nose is broad, even for a\nnegro's, and altogether the deity is anything but a fascinating object.\nRound the deity is a fence of knobbed sticks, daubed with filthy slime,\nand before the god is a flat saucer of red earthenware, which contains the\nofferings. When a person wishes to increase his family, he calls in a\nLegba priest and gives him a fowl, some cankie, water, and palm oil. A\nfire is lighted, and the cankie, water, and palm oil mixed together and\nput in the saucer. The fowl is then killed by placing the head between the\ngreat and second toes of the priest, who severs it from the body by a\njerk. The head is then swung over the person of the worshipper, to allow\nthe blood to drop upon him, while the bleeding body is held over a little\ndish, which catches the blood. The fowl is then semi-roasted on a fire\nlighted near, and the priest, taking the dish of blood, smears the body of\nthe deity with it, finally taking some of the blood into his mouth and\nsputtering it over the god. The fowl is then eaten by the priest, and the\nwives of the devotees are supposed to have the children they crave for.\"\n\nThe principal Dahoman gods, described by Skertchley, are thus mentioned by\nForlong:--\n\nLegba, the Dahoman Priapus, and special patron of all who desire larger\nfamilies.\n\nZoo, the god of fire, reminding us of Zoe, life.\n\nDemen, he who presides over chastity.\n\nAkwash, he who presides over childbirth.\n\nGbwejeh, he or she who presides over hunting.\n\nAjarama, the tutelary god of foreigners, symbolised by a whitewashed stump\nunder a shed, apparently a Sivaic or white Lingam, no doubt called foreign\nbecause Ashar came from Assyria, and Esir from the still older Ethiopians.\n\nHoho, he who presides over twins.\n\nAfa, the name of the dual god of wisdom.\n\nAizan, the god who presides over roads, and travellers, and bad\ncharacters, and can be seen on all roads as a heap of clay surmounted by a\nround pot, containing kanki, palm oil, &c.\n\n\"So that we have Legba, the pure and simple phallus; Ajarama, 'the\nwhitened stump,' so well known to us in India amidst rude aboriginal\ntribes; and Ai-zan, the Hermes or Harmonia, marking the ways of life, and\nsymbolised by a mound and round pot and considering that this is the\nuniversal form of tatooing shown on every female's stomach,--Mr.\nSkertchley says, a series of arches, the meaning is also clearly the\nomphi. Mr. S. says that Afa, our African Androgynous Minerva, is very much\nrespected by mothers, and has certain days sacred to mothers, when she or\nhe is specially consulted on their special subjects, as well as on all\nmatters relating to marrying, building a house, sowing corn, and such\nlike.\"[14]\n\nSome years ago a writer, speaking of the Sacred Triads of various nations,\nsaid: \"From all quarters of the heathen world came the trinity,\" what we\nhave already revealed shows that the doctrine has been held in some form\nor other from the far east to the extreme verge of the western hemisphere.\nSome of the forms of this Triad are as follows:--India--Brahma, Vishnu,\nSiva: Egypt--Knef, Osiris as the first; Ptha, Isis as the second; Phree,\nHorus as the third: the Zoroastrians--The Father, Mind, and Fire: the\nAncient Arabs--Al-Lat, Al Uzzah, Manah: Greeks and Latins--Zeus or\nJupiter, Neptune, Pluto: the Syrians--Monimus, Azoz, Aries or Mars: the\nKaldians--The One; the Second, who dwells with the First; the Third, he\nwho shines through the universe: China--the One, the Second from the\nFirst, the Third from the Second: the Boodhists--Boodhash, the Developer;\nDarmash, the Developed; Sanghash, the Hosts Developed: Peruvians--Apomti,\nCharunti, Intiquaoqui: Scandinavia--Odin, Thor, Friga: Pythagoras--Monad,\nDuad, Triad: Plato--the Infinite, the Finite, that which is compounded of\nthe Two: Phenicia--Belus, the Sun; Urama, the Earth; Adonis, Love:\nKalmuks--Tarm, Megozan, Bourchan: Ancient Greece--Om, or On; Dionysus, or\nBacchus; Herakles: Orpheus--God, the Spirit, Kaos: South American\nIndians--Otkon. Messou, Atahanto.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n    _The Golden Calf of Aaron--Was it a Cone or an Animal?--The Prayer to\n    Priapus--Hymn to Priapus--The Complaint of Priapus._\n\n\nIn the thirty-second chapter of the Book of Exodus we have the following\nremarkable account of certain Israelitish proceedings in the time of Moses\nand Aaron:--\"When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of\nthe mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said\nunto him, up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for _as for_ this\nMoses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not\nwhat is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, break off the golden\nearrings, which _are_ in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your\ndaughters, and bring _them_ unto me. And all the people brake off the\ngolden earrings which _were_ in their ears, and brought _them_ unto Aaron;\nand he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool,\nafter he had made it a molten calf, and they said, 'These _be_ thy gods O\nIsrael, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.' And when Aaron saw\n_it_, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said,\n'To-morrow is a feast to the Lord.' And they rose up early on the morrow,\nand offered burnt offerings, and brought offerings, and brought peace\nofferings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to\nplay.\"\n\nThere is no doubt this is a most remarkable, and, for the most part,\ninexplicable transaction. That it was an act of the grossest idolatry is\nclear, but the details of the affair are not so readily disposed of, and\nsome amount of discussion has in consequence arisen, which has cast\nimputations upon the conduct of the ancient Jews not very favourably\nregarded by the moderns.\n\nThe conduct of Aaron is certainly startling, to say the least of it, for\nwhen the people presented their outrageous demand, coupled with their\ninsolent and contemptuous language about the man Moses, he makes no\nremonstrance, utters no rebuke, but apparently falls in at once with their\nproposal and prepares to carry it out. The question is, however, what was\nit that was really done? What was the character of the image or idol, he\nfashioned out of the golden ornaments which he requested them to take from\nthe ears of their wives, their sons, and their daughters?\n\nThe suggestion that anything of a phallic nature is to be attributed to\nthis transaction has been loudly ridiculed and indignantly spurned by some\nwho have had little acquaintance with that species of worship, but it is\nby no means certain that the charge can be so easily disposed of. That\nphallic practises prevailed, more or less, amongst the Jews is certain,\nand however this matter of the golden image may be explained, it will be\ndifficult to believe they were not somehow concerned in it.\n\nIt may be a new revelation to some to be told that in the opinion of some\nscholars the idol form set up by those foolish idolators was not that of a\ncalf at all, but of a cone. The Hebrew word _egel_ or _ghegel_ has been\nusually taken to mean calf, but, say these gentlemen, erroneously so, its\ntrue signification being altogether different. It is pleaded that it was\nnot at all likely that the Israelites should, so soon after their\nmiraculous deliverance from the house of bondage, have so far forgotten\nwhat was due from them in grateful remembrance of that, as to have plunged\ninto such gross and debased idolatry as the adoration of deity under the\nform of an animal. Also that it would have been inconsistent with their\nexclamation when they saw the image, \"This is thy God, O Israel, which\nbrought thee up out of the land of Egypt,\" and with Aaron's proclamation,\nafter he had built an altar before the idol for the people to sacrifice\nburnt offerings on, \"To-morrow is a feast to the Lord.\" It is urged from\nthese expressions that the only reasonable and legitimate inference is,\nthat the golden idol was intended to be the similitude or symbol of the\nEternal Himself, and not of any other God.\n\nCertainly it is, as we have said, remarkable, and presents a problem not\nat all easy of solution. Dr. Beke contends that in any case, it is\ninconceivable that the figure of a calf should have been chosen to\nrepresent the invisible God--he concludes, therefore, that the word _egel_\nhas been wrongly translated.\n\nWith regard to the etymology of the word, its root _agal_ is declared to\nbe doubtful, Fuerst taking it to mean _to run_, _to hasten_, _to leap_, and\nGesenius suggesting that its primary signification in the Ethiopic,\n\"_egel_ denoting, like golem, something _rolled_ or _wrapped together_, an\n_unformed mass_; and hence _embryo_, _foetus_, and also _the young_, as\njust born and still unshapen.\"\n\nIt is inferred from this, supposing it to be correct, that the primary\nidea of this and kindred roots, is that of roundness, so that _egel_ may\nreadily mean any rounded figure, such as a globe, cylinder, or cone.\n\"Adopting this,\" says Dr. Beke,--\"a cone, as the true meaning of the\nHebrew word in the text, the sense of the transaction recorded will be,\nthat Moses having delayed to come down from the Mount, the Israelites,\nfearing that he was lost, and looking on the Eternal as their true\ndeliverer and leader, required Aaron to make for them Elohim--that is to\nsay, a visible similitude or symbol of their God who had brought them up\nout of the land of Mitzraim. Aaron accordingly made for them a golden\n_cone_, as an image of the flame of fire seen by Moses in the burning\nbush, and of the fire in which the Eternal had descended upon Sinai, this\nbeing the only visible form in which the Almighty had been manifested. Of\nsuch a representation or symbol, a sensuous people like the Israelites\nmight without inconsistency say, 'This is thy God, O Israel, which\nbrought thee up out of the land of Mitzraim;' at the same time that Aaron,\nafter having built an altar before it, could make proclamation and say,\n'To-morrow is the feast to the Eternal,' that is to say, to the invisible\nGod, whose _eidolon_ or visible image this _egel_ was.\"\n\nIt is admitted by the advocates of this theory that there are certain\nthings in the English version which appear adverse to it. For instance, it\nis said that all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in\ntheir ears, and brought them to Aaron; and he received them at their hand,\nand fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf,\nfrom which it might be inferred, it is said, that the idol was first\nroughly moulded and cast by the founder, and then finished by the\nsculptor.\n\nIt is urged however, that it is generally admitted by scholars that the\noriginal does not warrant this rendering, the words \"after he had,\" which\nare not in the text, having been added for the purpose of making sense of\nthe passage, which, if translated literally, would read, \"He formed it\nwith a graving tool, and made it a golden calf,\" a statement, says Dr.\nBeke, which in spite of all the efforts made to explain it, is\ninconsistent with the rest of the narrative, which repeatedly says, in\nexpress terms, that the idol was a molten image.\n\nIn order to get rid of this difficulty, several learned commentators have\ninterpreted the word _hhereth_ (graving-tool) as meaning like _hharith_, a\nbag, pocket, or purse, causing the passage to read, \"He received them at\ntheir hands, and put it (the gold) into a bag, and made it a golden calf.\"\nDr. Beke thinks this untenable on the ground that as Aaron must\nnecessarily have collected the golden earrings together before casting\nthem into the fire, it is hardly likely that express mention would be made\nof so trivial a circumstance as that of his putting them into a bag merely\nfor the purpose of immediately taking them out again.\n\nThe root _hharath_, according to Gesenius, has the meaning of to cut in,\nto engrave; and one of the significations of the kindred root _pharatz_ is\nto cut to a point, to make pointed. \"Hharithim, the plural of hhereth, is\nsaid to mean purses, bags for money, so called from their long and round\nshape, perhaps like an inverted cone; whence it is that Bochart and others\nacquired their notion that Aaron put the golden earrings of the Israelites\ninto a bag.\"[15]\n\nDr. Beke remarks:--\"If the word _hhereth_ signifies a bag, on account of\nits resemblance to an inverted cone, it may equally signify any other\nsimilarly-shaped receptacle or vessel, such as a conical fire-pot or\ncrucible; and if the golden earrings were melted in such a vessel, the\nmolten metal, when cool, would of course have acquired therefrom its long\nand round form, like an inverted cone, which is precisely the shape of the\n_egel_ made by Aaron, on the assumption that this was intended to\nrepresent the flame of fire. Consequently, we may now read the passage in\nquestion literally, and without the slightest violence of construction, as\nfollows: 'And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in\ntheir ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their\nhands, and placed it (the gold) in a crucible, and made it a molten cone;'\nthis cone having taken the long and rounded form of the crucible in which\nit was melted and left to cool.\"\n\nAn argument in favour of this reading is certainly supplied by Exodus\nxxxii. 24, where Aaron is represented as saying to Moses, when trying to\nexcuse his action, \"I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them\nbreak it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there\ncame out this calf\" [or cone?]. It is contended that \"the whole tenour of\nthe narrative goes to show that the operation of making the idol for the\nchildren of Israel to worship must have been a most simple, and, at the\nsame time, a very expeditious one, such as the melting of the gold in a\ncrucible would be, but which the moulding and casting of the figure of a\ncalf, however roughly modelled and executed, could not possibly have\nbeen.\"\n\nThis cone or phallic theory met with a by no means ready reception by\nJewish scholars; it had not been broached many days before it was\nenergetically attacked and its destruction sought both by ridicule and\nargument. It has been admitted, however, that philologically there is\nsomething in it, more even, says Dr. Benisch, than its advocate Dr. Beke\nhas made out. The former goes so far as to state that its root, not only\nin Hebrew, but also in Chaldee and Arabic, primarily designates roundness;\nand secondarily, that which is the consequence of a round shape, facility\nof being rolled, speed, and conveyance; consequently, that it may\ntherefore be safely concluded that it would be in Hebrew a very suitable\ndesignation for a cone. \"Moreover, the same root in the same signification\nis also found in some of the Aryan languages. Compare the German 'kugel'\n(ball) and 'kegel' (cone).\"\n\nThe chief objection lies in the fact that there are various passages in\nthe Scriptures where the word occurs, whose contexts clearly show that the\nidea intended was that of a living creature, and that the unbroken usage\nof language, from the author of Genesis to that of Chronicles, shows that\nthe term had never changed its signification, viz.: that of calf, bullock,\nor heifer. In Levit. ix. 2, 3, 8; 1 Sam. xxviii. 26; Ps. xxix. 6; Isa. xi.\n6; Isa. xxvii. 10; Mic. vi. 6, for instance, there can be no mistake that\nthe reference is to the living animal, and a reference to the Hebrew\nconcordance shows that the term, inclusive of the feminine (heifer),\noccurs fifty-one times in the Bible, in twenty-nine cases of which the\nword indisputably means a living creature. Dr. Benisch therefore asks, \"Is\nit admissible that one and the same writer (for instance, the\nDeuteronomist) should have used four times this word in the sense of\nheifer (xxii. 4 and 6; xxi. 3), and once in that of cone (ix. 16) without\nimplying by some adjective, or some turn of language, that the word is a\nhomonyme? Or that Hosea, in x. 11, should clearly employ it in the sense\nof heifer, and, in viii. 5, in that of cone? A glance at the concordance\nwill show that, in every one of the more important books, the word in\nquestion occurs most clearly in the sense of calf, and never in a passage\nwhich should render a different translation inadmissible. On what ground,\ntherefore, can it be maintained that, in the days of the author of the\n106th Psalm, the supposed original meaning of cone had been forgotten, and\nthat of calf substituted?\"\n\nThe reply to the objection that one and the same word is not likely to\nhave been used by the same or contemporaneous writers in two different\nsenses, and that the word has a uniform traditional interpretation, is\nthat in the Hebrew, as in the English, considerable ambiguity occurs, and\nthat the same word sometimes has two meanings of the most distinct and\nirreconcilable character. As regards the second objection, says Dr. Beke,\nwhich is based on the unbroken chain of tradition for about two thousand\nyears, it can only hold good on the assumption that the originators of the\ntradition were infallible. If not, an error, whether committed\nintentionally or unintentionally in the first instance, does not become a\ntruth by dint of repetition; any more than truth can become error by being\nas persistently rejected. The Doctor contends that when the Jews became\nintimately connected with Egypt, and witnessed there the adoration of the\nsacred bull Apis, they fell into the error of regarding as a golden calf\nthe _egel_, or conical representation of the flame of fire, which their\nforefathers, and after them the Ten Tribes, had worshipped as the\nsimilitude of the Eternal, but of which they themselves, as Jews, had\nlost the signification. If this was the case, it is only natural that the\nerror should have been maintained traditionally until pointed out.\n\nSo stands the argument with regard to the theory of its being a golden\ncone, and not the figure of a calf that Aaron made out of the people's\nornaments, and the worship of which so naturally provoked the wrath of\nMoses. There is much to be said in its favour, though not enough, perhaps,\nto make it conclusive. The propounder of it expressed his regret that he\nwas under the necessity of protesting against the allegation that he had\nimputed to the Israelites what he calls the obscene phallic worship. \"Most\nexpressly,\" he says, \"did I say that the molten golden image made by Aaron\nat Mount Sinai was a plain conical figure, intended to represent the God\nwho had delivered the people from their bondage in the land of Mitzraim,\nin the form in which alone He had been manifested to them and to their\ninspired leader and legislator, namely that of the flame of fire.\" This is\nperfectly true, but those who are intimately acquainted with the phallic\nfaiths of the world will find it difficult to disassociate the conical\nform of idol from those representations of the human physical organ which\nhave been found as objects of adoration in so many parts of both the\neastern and western hemispheres.\n\nSupposing the philological argument to possess any weight--and that it\ndoes has been admitted even by those who regret the cone theory,--there\nare other circumstances which certainly may be adduced in confirmation\nthereof. For instance, the word _cheret_ translated graving-tool, may mean\nalso a mould. Again, it does not appear at all likely that the quantity of\ngold supplied by the ear-rings of the people would be sufficient to make a\nsolid calf of the size. True, it may have been manufactured of some other\nmaterial and covered with gold; but the easier solution of the difficulty\ncertainly seems that which suggests that Aaron took these ornaments and\nmelted them in a crucible of the ordinary form, afterwards turning out\ntherefrom, when cold, the golden cone to which the people rendered\nidolatrous worship.\n\nThe whole subject is surrounded with difficulty, and men of equal learning\nand ability have taken opposite sides in the discussion, supporting and\nrefuting in turn. Passing over the dispute as to whether Aaron simply\nreceived the ear-rings in a bag or whether he graved them with an\nengraving tool,--the first warmly argued by Bochart, and the latter by Le\nClerc--a dispute we can never settle owing to the remarkable ambiguity of\nthe language, we may briefly notice the question, supposing it was a calf\nmade by Aaron, what induced and determined the choice of such a figure?\nNor must it be supposed that _here_ we are upon undebatable ground; on the\ncontrary, the same divergence of opinion prevails as with respect to the\nprevious question. Fr. Moncaeus said that Aaron got his idea on the\nmountain, where he was once admitted with Moses; and on another occasion\nwith Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders. This writer and others tell\nus that God appeared exalted on a cherub which had the form of an ox.\n\nPatrick says that Aaron seems to him to have chosen an ox to be the symbol\nof the Divine presence, in hope that people would never be so sottish as\nto worship it, but only be put in mind by it of the Divine power, which\nwas hereby represented,--an ox's head being anciently an emblem of\nstrength, and horns a common sign of kingly power. He contends that the\ndesign was simply to furnish a hieroglyphic of the energy and power of\nGod.\n\nThe usual explanation is that Aaron chose a calf because that animal was\nworshipped in Egypt. That the Israelites were tainted with Egyptian\nidolatry is plain from Joshua's exhortation:--\"Now therefore, fear the\nLord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods which\nyour fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and\nserve ye the Lord\" (Josh, xxiv., 14). Also Ezekiel xx., 7 and 8:--\"They\ndid not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did\nthey forsake the idols of Egypt.\"\n\nThere is no deficiency of evidence respecting the worship of the ox in\nEgypt. Strabo says one was kept at Memphis, which was regarded as a\ndivinity. Pliny repeats the story and says that the Egyptians called this\nox Apis, and that it had two kinds of temples, the entrance to one being\nmost pleasant, to the other frightful. Herodotus says of this idol:--\"Apis\nor Epatus, is a calf from a cow which never produced but one, and this\ncould only have been by a clap of thunder. The calf denominated Apis, has\ncertain marks by which it may be known. It is all over black, excepting\none square mark; on its back is the figure of an eagle, and on its tongue\nthat of a beetle.\"\n\nIt certainly seems tolerably clear that the worship of the calf came out\nof Egypt, but so much difficulty surrounds the question of whether the\nEgyptian worship preceded or followed that of Aaron's calf, that we are\ninclined to endorse the opinion of a modern writer, and say we suspend our\njudgment respecting the precise motive which determined Aaron to set up a\ncalf as the object of Israelitish worship, and conclude that had he\noffered any other object of worship, whether some other animal, or any\nplant, or a star, or any other production of nature, the learned would\nhave asked, \"Why this rather than some other?\" Many would have been the\ndivisions of opinion on the question; each one would have found in\nantiquity, and in the nature of the case, probabilities to support his own\nsentiment, and perhaps have exalted them into demonstrations.[16]\n\nThe mention of a cone in connection with the matter now under\nconsideration, and as the form of Aaron's idol, suggests other examples of\nthe same figure which are said to have had a phallic form. The Paphian\nVenus, for instance, was represented by a conical stone: of which Tacitus\nthus speaks:--\"The statue of the goddess bears no resemblance to the human\nform. It is round throughout, broad at one end, and gradually tapering to\na narrow span at the other, like a goat; the reason of this is not\nascertained. The cause is stated by Philostratus to be symbolic.\"\n\nLajard (_Recherches sur la Cult de Venus_) says:--\"In all Cyrian coins,\nfrom Augustus to Macrinus, may be seen in the place where we should\nanticipate to find a statue of the goddess, the form of a conical stone.\nThe same is placed between two cypresses under the portico of the temple\nof Astarte, in a medal of Aelia Capitolina; but in this instance the cone\nis crowned. In another medal, struck by the elder Philip, Venus is\nrepresented between two Genii, each of whom stands upon a cone or pillar\nwith a rounded top. There is reason to believe that at Paphos images of\nthe conical stone were made and sold as largely as were effigies of Diana\nof the Ephesians.\n\n\"Medals and engraved stones demonstrate that the hieratic prescriptions\nrequired that all those hills which were consecrated to Jupiter should be\nrepresented in a conical form. At Sicony, Jupiter was adored under the\nform of a pyramid.\"\n\n\n  PRAYER TO PRIAPUS.\n\n    Delight of Bacchus, Guardian of the groves,\n    The kind restorer of decaying loves:\n    Lesbos and verdant Thasos thee implore,\n    Whose maids thy pow'r in wanton rites adore:\n    Joy of the Dryads, with propitious care,\n    Attend my wishes, and indulge my pray'r.\n    My guiltless hands with blood I never stain'd,\n    Or sacrilegiously the god's prophan'd:\n    Thus low I bow, restoring blessings send,\n    I did not thee with my whole self offend.\n    Who sins through weakness, is less guilty thought;\n    Indulge my crime, and spare a venial fault.\n    On me when fate shall smiling gifts bestow,\n    I'll (not ungrateful) to your god-head bow;\n    A sucking pig I'll offer to thy shrine,\n    And sacred bowls brimful of generous wine;\n    A destin'd goat shall on thy altar lie,\n    And the horn'd parent of my flock shall die;\n    Then thrice thy frantic vot'ries shall around\n    Thy temple dance, with smiling garlands crown'd,\n    And most devoutly drunk, thy orgies sound.--PETRONIUS.\n\n\n  HYMN TO PRIAPUS.\n\n    Bacchus and Nymphs delight O mighty God!\n    Whom Cynthia gave to rule the blooming wood.\n    Lesbos and verdant Thasos thee adore,\n    And Lydians in loose flowing dress implore,\n    And raise devoted temples to thy pow'r.\n    Thou Dryad's Joy, and Bacchus' Guardian, hear\n    My conscious prayer with attentive ear.\n    My hands with guiltless blood I never stain'd,\n    Nor yet the temples of the gods prophan'd.\n    Restore my strength, and lusty vigour send,\n    My trembling nerves like pliant oziers bend.\n    Who sins through weakness, is not guilty thought,\n    No equal power can punish such a fault.\n    A wanton goat shall on your altars die,\n    And spicy smoke in curls ascend the sky.\n    A pig thy floors with sacred blood shall stain,\n    And round the awful fire and holy flame,\n    Thrice shall thy priests, with youth and garlands crown'd,\n    In pious drunkenness thy orgies sound.--PETRONIUS.\n\n\n  A TRANSLATION OUT OF THE PRIAPEIA.\n\n  THE COMPLAINT OF PRIAPUS FOR BEING VEILED.\n\n    The Almighty's Image, of his shape afraid,\n    And hide the noblest part e'er nature made,\n    Which God alone succeeds in his creating trade.\n    The Fall this fig-leav'd modesty began,\n    To punish woman, by obscuring man;\n    Before, where'er his stately Cedar moved\n    She saw, ador'd and kiss'd the thing she loved.\n    Why do the gods their several signs disclose,\n    Almighty Jove his Thunder-bolt expose,\n    Neptune his Trident, Mars his Buckler shew,\n    Pallas her spear to each beholder's view,\n    And poor Priapus be alone confin'd\n    T'obscure the women's god, and parent of mankind?\n    Since free-born brutes their liberty obtain,\n    Long hast thou journey-worked for souls in vain,\n    Storm the Pantheon, and demand thy right,\n    For on this weapon 'tis depends the fight.--PETRONIUS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n    _Circumcision, male and female, in various countries and ages._\n\n\nCircumcision is one of the most ancient religious rites with which we are\nacquainted, and, as practised in some countries, there seems reason to\nsuppose that it was of a phallic character. \"It can scarcely be doubted,\"\nsays one writer, \"that it was a sacrifice to the awful power upon whom the\nfruit of the womb depended, and having once fixed itself in the minds of\nthe people, neither priest nor prophet could eradicate it. All that these\ncould do was to spiritualise it into a symbol of devotion to a high\nreligious ideal.\" Bonwick says: \"Though associated with sun worship by\nsome, circumcision may be accepted as a rite of sex worship.\" Ptolemy's\n_Tetrabiblos_, speaking of the neighbouring nations as far as India, says:\n\"Many of them practise divination, and devote their genitals to their\ndivinities.\"\n\nIt is not possible, perhaps, to speak with any degree of certainty about\nthe origin of this rite; the enquiry carries the student so far back in\nhistory, that the mind gets lost in the mists of the past. It is regarded\nby some as a custom essentially Jewish, but this is altogether wrong; it\nwas extensively practised in Egypt, also by the tribes inhabiting the more\nsouthern parts of Africa; in Asia, the Afghans and the Tamils had it, and\nit has been found in various parts of America, and amongst the Fijians and\nAustralians. It has been argued, and with considerable plausibility, that\nit existed long before writing was known, and from the fact of its having\nbeen employed by the New Hollanders, its great antiquity may be inferred\nwith certainty.\n\nIt has been noticed by historians that sometimes a nation will pledge\nitself to a corporal offering of such a kind, that every member shall\nconstantly bear about its mark on himself, and so make his personal\nappearance or condition a perpetual witness for the special religion whose\nvows he has undertaken. Thus several Arabian tribes living not far from\nthe Holy Land, adopted the custom, as a sign of their special religion\n(or, as Herodotus says, \"after the example of their God\"), of shaving the\nhair of their heads in an extraordinary fashion, viz., either on the crown\nof the head or towards the temples, or else of disfiguring a portion of\nthe beard. Others branded or tattooed the symbol of a particular god on\nthe skin, on the forehead, the arm, the hand. Israel, too, adopted from\nearly times a custom which attained the highest sanctity in its midst,\nwhere no jest, however trifling, could be uttered on the subject, but\nwhich was essentially of a similar nature to those we have just mentioned.\nThis was circumcision.[17] It was this special character which no doubt\ngave rise to the idea so common amongst the uninformed that it was a\nJewish rite.\n\nHerodotus and Philo Judaeus have related that it prevailed to a great\nextent among the Egyptians and Ethiopians. The former historian says it\nwas so ancient among each people that there was no determining which of\nthem borrowed it from the other. Among the Egyptians he says it was\ninstituted from the beginning. Shuckford says that by this he could not\nmean from the first rise or original of that nation, but that it was so\nearly among them that the heathen writers had no account of its origin.\nWhen anything appeared to them to be thus ancient, they pronounced it to\nbe from the beginning. Herodotus clearly meant this, because we find him\nquestioning whether the Egyptians learnt circumcision from the Ethiopians,\nor the Ethiopians from the Egyptians, and he leaves the question\nundecided, merely concluding that it was a very ancient rite. If by the\nexpression \"from the beginning,\" he had meant that it was originated by\nthe Egyptians, there would not have been this indecision: and it is known\nthat among heathen writers to say a thing was \"from the beginning,\" was\nequivalent to the other saying that it was very anciently practised.\n\nHerodotus, in another place, relates that the inhabitants of Colchis also\nused circumcision, and concludes therefrom that they were originally\nEgyptians. He adds that the Phoenicians and Syrians, who lived in\nPalestine, were likewise circumcised, but that they borrowed the practice\nfrom the Egyptians; and further, that little before the time when he\nwrote, circumcision had passed from Colchis to the people inhabiting the\ncountries near Termodon and Parthenius.\n\nDiodorus Siculus thought the Colchians and the Jews to be derived from the\nEgyptians, because they used circumcision. In another place, speaking of\nother nations, he says that they were circumcised, after the manner of the\nEgyptians. Sir J. Marsham is of opinion that the Hebrews borrowed\ncircumcision from the Egyptians, and that God was not the first author\nthereof; citing Diodorus and Herodotus as evidences on his side.\n\nCircumcision, though it is not so much as once mentioned in the Koran, is\nyet held by the Mahomedans to be an ancient divine institution, confirmed\nby the religion of Islam, and though not so absolutely necessary but that\nit may be dispensed with in some cases, yet highly proper and expedient.\nThe Arabs used this rite for many ages before Mahomet, having probably\nlearned it from Ismael, though not only his descendants, but the\nHamyarites and other tribes practised the same. The Ismaelites we are\ntold, used to circumcise their children, not on the eighth day, according\nto the custom of the Jews, but when about twelve or thirteen years old, at\nwhich age their father underwent that operation; and the Mahomedans\nimitate them so far as not to circumcise children before they are able at\nleast distinctly to pronounce that profession of their faith, \"there is no\nGod, but God, Mahomet is the apostle of God;\" but they fix on what age\nthey please for the purpose between six and sixteen. The Moslem doctors\nare generally of opinion that this precept was given originally to\nAbraham, yet some have said that Adam was taught it by the angel Gabriel,\nto satisfy an oath he had made to cut off that flesh, which, after his\nfall, had rebelled against his spirit; whence an argument has been drawn\nfor the universal obligation of circumcision.\n\nThe Mahomedans have a tradition that their prophet declared circumcision\nto be a necessary rite for men, and for women honourable. This tradition\nmakes the prophet declare it to be \"Sonna,\" which Pocock renders a\nnecessary rite, though Sonna, according to the explanation of Reland, does\nnot comprehend things absolutely necessary, but such as, though the\nobservance of them be meritorious, the neglect is not liable to\npunishment.\n\nIn Egypt circumcision has never been peculiar to the men, but the women\nalso have had to undergo a practice of a similar nature. This has been\ncalled by Bruce and Strabo \"excision.\" All the Egyptians, the Arabians,\nand natives to the south of Africa, the Abyssinians, the Gallas, the\nAgoues, the Gasats, and Gonzas, made their children undergo this\noperation--at no fixed time, but always before they were marriageable.\nBelon says the practice prevailed among the Copts; and P. Jovius and\nMunster say the same of the subjects of Prester John. Sonnini says it was\nwell known that the Egyptian women were accustomed to the practice, but\npeople were not agreed as to the motives which induced them to submit to\nthe operation. Most of those who have written on the subject of female\ncircumcision have considered it as the retrenchment of a portion of the\nnymphae, which are said to grow, in the countries where the practice\nobtains, to an extraordinary size. Others have imagined that it was\nnothing less than the amputation of the clitoris, the elongation of which\nis said to be a disgusting deformity, and to be attended with other\ninconveniences which rendered the operation necessary.\n\nBefore he had an opportunity of ascertaining the nature of the\ncircumcision of the Egyptian women, Sonnini also supposed it consisted of\nthe amputation of the excrescence of the nymphae or clitoris, according to\ncircumstances, and according as the parts were more or less elongated. He\nsays it is very probable that these operations have been performed, not\nonly in Egypt, but in several other countries in the East, where the heat\nof the climate and other causes may produce too luxuriant a growth of\nthose parts, and this, he adds, he had the more reason to think, since, on\nconsulting several Turks who had settled at Rosetta, respecting the\ncircumcision of their wives, he could obtain from them no other idea but\nthat of these painful mutilations. They likewise explained to him the\nmotives. Curious admirers as they were of smooth and polished surfaces,\nevery inequality, every protuberance, was in their eyes a disgusting\nfault. They asserted too that one of these operations abated the ardour of\nthe constitutions of their wives, and diminished their facility of\nprocuring illicit enjoyments.\n\nNiebuhr relates that Forskal and another of his fellow-travellers, having\nexpressed to a great man at Cairo, at whose country seat they were, the\ngreat desire they had to examine a girl who had been circumcised, their\nobliging host immediately ordered a country girl eighteen years of age to\nbe sent for, and allowed them to examine her at their ease. Their painter\nmade a drawing of the parts after the life, in presence of several Turkish\ndomestics; but he drew with a trembling hand, as they were apprehensive of\nthe consequences it might bring upon them from the Mahometans. A plate\nfrom this drawing was given by Professor Blumenbach, in his work _De\nGeneris humani Varietate nativa_, from which it is evident that the\ntraveller saw nothing but the amputation of the nymphae and clitoris, the\nenlargement of which is so much disliked by husbands in these countries.\n\nSonnini suspected that there must be something more in it than an excess\nof these parts, an inconvenience, which, being far from general among the\nwomen, could not have given rise to an ancient and universal practice.\nDetermining to remove his doubts on the subject, he took the resolution,\nwhich every one to whom the inhabitants of Egypt are known, he says, will\ndeem sufficiently bold, not to procure a drawing of a circumcised female,\nbut to have the operation performed under his own eyes. Mr. Fornetti,\nwhose complaisance and intelligence were so frequently of service to him,\nreadily undertook to assist him in the business; and a Turk, who acted as\nbroker to the French merchants, brought to him at Rosetta a woman, whose\ntrade it was to perform the operation, with two young girls, one of whom\nwas going to be circumcised, the other having been operated on two years\nbefore.\n\nIn the first place he examined the little girl that was to be circumcised.\nShe was about eight years old, and of the Egyptian race. He was much\nsurprised at observing a thick, flabby, fleshy excrescence, covered with\nskin, taking its rise from the labia, and hanging down it half-an-inch.\n\nThe woman who was to perform the operation sat down on the floor, made the\nlittle girl seat herself before her, and without any preparation, cut off\nthe excrescence just described with an old razor. The girl did not give\nany signs of feeling much pain. A few ashes taken up between the finger\nand thumb were the only topical application employed, though a\nconsiderable quantity of blood was discharged from the wound.\n\nThe Egyptian girls are generally freed from this inconvenient superfluity\nat the age of seven or eight. The women who are in the habit of performing\nthis operation, which is attended with little difficulty, come from Said.\nThey travel through the towns and villages, crying in the streets, \"Who\nwants a good circumciser?\" A superstitious tradition has marked the\ncommencement of the rise of the Nile as the period at which it ought to be\nperformed; and accordingly, besides the other difficulties he had to\nsurmount, Sonnini had that of finding parents who would consent to the\ncircumcision of their daughter at a season so distant from that which is\nconsidered as the most favourable, this being done in the winter; money,\nhowever, overcame this obstacle as it did the rest.\n\nFrom Dalzel's _History_ we learn that in Dahome a similar custom\nprevails with regard to the women as that in Egypt. A certain\noperation is performed upon the woman, which is thus described in a\nfoot-note:--\"Prolongatio, videlicit, artificialis labiorum pudendi,\ncapellae mamillis simillima.\" The part in question, locally called \"Tu,\"\nmust, from the earliest years, be manipulated by professional old women,\nas is the bosom among the embryo prostitutes of China. If this be\nneglected, her lady friends will deride and denigrate the mother,\ndeclaring that she has neglected her child's education; and the juniors\nwill laugh at the daughter as a coward who would not prepare herself for\nmarriage.[18]\n\n\"Circumcision was a federal rite, annexed by God as a seal to the covenant\nwhich he made with Abraham and his posterity, and was accordingly renewed\nand taken into the body of the Mosaical constitutions. It was not a mere\nmark, only to distinguish the Hebrews as the seed of Abraham from other\nnations; but by this they were made the children of the covenant, and\nentitled to the blessings of it; though if there had been no more in it\nthan this, that they who were of the same faith should have a certain\ncharacter whereby they should be known, it would have been a wise\nappointment. The mark seems to be fitly chosen for the purpose; because it\nwas a sign that no man would have made upon himself and upon his children,\nunless it were for the sake of faith and religion. It was not a brand upon\nthe arm, or an incision in the thigh, but a difficult operation in a most\ntender part, peculiarly called flesh in many places of scripture. That\nmember which is the instrument of generation was made choice of, that they\nmight be an holy seed, consecrated unto God from the beginning; and\ncircumcision was properly a token of the divine covenant made with Abraham\nand his posterity that God would multiply their seed, and make them as the\nstars of heaven.\"[19]\n\nLudolf, in his History of Ethiopa, after comparing the circumcision of the\nJews with that of the Abyssinians, says: \"This puts us in mind of the\ncircumcision of females, of which Gregory was somewhat ashamed to\ndiscourse, and we should have more willingly omitted it had not\nTzagazabus, in his rude Confession of Faith, spoken of it as a most\nremarkable custom introduced by the command of Queen Magneda; or had not\nPaulus Jovius himself, Bishop of Como, insisted in the same manner upon\nthis unseemly custom. This same ceremony was not only used by the\nHabisenes, but was also familiar among other people of Africa, the\nEgyptians, and the Arabians themselves. For they cut away from the female\ninfants something which they think to be an indecency and superfluity of\nnature. Jovius calls it Carunniculam, or a little piece of flesh; Golius,\nan oblong excrescence. The Arabians, by a particular word, called it\nBedhron, or Bedhara, besides which they have many other words to the same\npurpose. Among their women it is as great a piece of reproach to revile a\nwoman by saying to her, O Bandaron: that is, O Uncircumcised, as to call a\nman Arel, or Uncircumcised, among the Jews. The Jewish women in Germany,\nbeing acquainted by their reading with this custom, laugh at it, as\nadmiring what it should be that should require such an amputation.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n    _Androgynous Deities--Theories respecting the Dual Sex of the\n    Deity--Sacredness of the Phallus--Sex Worship--The Eastern Desire for\n    Children--Sacred Prostitution--Hindu Law of Adoption and\n    Inheritance--Hindu Need of Offspring, and especially of a\n    Son--Obsequies of the Departed._\n\n\nThe phallic idea alluded to again and again in the preceding pages as\nentering into the heathen conception of a trinity, the practice of\ncircumcision, and the use of the cross as a symbol, branches out in a\ngreat variety of directions; at some of these we must cast a brief glance\nin order that we may form a correct estimate of the subject.\n\nReference has been made to the androgynous nature ascribed to the Deity by\ndifferent nations, and here at once is opened up the whole subject of sex\nworship. It is impossible to say how far back we should have to retrace\nour footsteps in seeking for men's first ideas upon this matter; many\nages, it is certain. Forlong, speaking of a remote age and our\nforefathers, says: \"They began to see in life and all nature a God, a\nForce, a Spirit; or, I should rather say, some nameless thing which no\nlanguage of those early days, if indeed of present, can describe. They\ngave to the outward creative organs those devotional thoughts, time, and\npraise which belonged to the Creator; they figured the living spirit in\nthe cold bodily forms of stone and tree, and so worshipped it. As we read\nin early Jewish writings, their tribes, like all other early races, bowed\nbefore Ashar and Ashe'ra, as others had long before that period worshipped\nBelus and Uranus, Orus and Isis, Mahadeva, Siva, Sakti, and Parvati.\nJupiter and Yuno, or Juno, or rather the first ideas of these, must have\narisen in days long subsequent to this. All such steps in civilisation\nare very slow indeed, and here they had to penetrate the hearts of\nmillions who could neither read nor write, nor yet follow the reader or\nthe preacher; so centuries would fleet past over such rude infantile\npopulations, acting no more on the inert pulpy mass than years, or even\nmonths, now do; and if this were so after they began to realise the ideas\nof a Bel and Ouranos, how much slower before that far-back stage was won.\nTheir first symbolisation seems clearly to have been the simple line,\npillar, or a stroke, as their male god; and a cup or circle as their\nfemale; and lo! the dual and mystic =10= which early became a trinity, and\nhas stood before the world from that unknown time to this. In this mystic\nmale and female we have the first great androgynous god.\"\n\nAlluding to this subject, an anonymous writer, believed to be a Roman\nCatholic priest, some sixteen years ago, said:--\"The primitive doctrine\nthat God created man in his own image, male and female, and consequently\nthat the divine nature comprised the two sexes within itself, fulfils all\nthe conditions requisite to constitute a catholic theological dogma,\ninasmuch as it may truly be affirmed of it, that it has been held 'semper,\nubique, et ab omnibus,' being universal as the phenomenon to which it owes\nits existence.\n\n\"How essential to the consistency of the Catholic system is this doctrine\nof duality you may judge by the shortcomings of the theologies which\nreject it. Unitarianism blunders alike in regard to the Trinity and the\nDuality. Affecting to see in God a Father, it denies him the possibility\nof having either spouse or offspring. More rational than such a creed as\nthis was the primitive worship of sex, as represented by the male and\nfemale principles in nature. In no gross sense was the symbolism of such a\nsystem conceived, gross as its practice may have become, and as it would\nappear to the notions of modern conventionalism. For no religion is\nfounded upon intentional depravity. Searching back for the origin of life,\nmen stopped at the earliest point to which they could trace it, and\nexalted the reproductive organs into symbols of the Creator. The practice\nwas at least calculated to procure respect for a side of nature liable\nunder an exclusively spiritual regime to be relegated to undue contempt.\n\n\"It appears certain that the names of the Hebrew deity bear the sense I\nhave indicated; El, the root of Elhoim, the name under which God was known\nto the Israelites prior to their entry into Canaan, signifying the\nmasculine sex only; while Jahveh, or Jehovah, denotes both sexes in\ncombination. The religious rites practised by Abraham and Jacob prove\nincontestably their adherence to this, even then, ancient mode of\nsymbolising deity; and though after the entry into Canaan, the leaders and\nreformers of the Israelites strove to keep the people from exchanging the\nworship of their own divinity for that of the exclusively feminine\nprinciple worshipped by the Canaanites with unbridled licence under the\nname of Ashera, yet the indigenous religion became closely incorporated\nwith the Jewish; and even Moses himself fell back upon it when, yielding\nto a pressing emergency, he gave his sanction to the prevailing Tree and\nSerpent worship by his elevation of a brazen serpent upon a pole or cross.\nFor all portions of this structure constitute the most universally\naccepted symbols of sex in the world.\n\n\"It is to India that we must go for the earliest traces of these things.\nThe Jews originated nothing, though they were skilful appropriators and\nadapters of other men's effects. Brahma, the first person in the Hindoo\nTriad, was the original self-existent being, inappreciable by sense, who\ncommenced the work of creation by creating the waters with a thought, as\ndescribed in the Institutes of Manu. The waters, regarded as the source of\nall subsequent life, became identified with the feminine principle in\nnature--whence the origin of the mystic rite of baptism--and the\natmosphere was the divine breath or spirit. The description in Genesis of\nthe Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, indicates the\ninfluence upon the Jews of the Hindoo theogony to which they had access\nthrough Persia.\n\n\"The twofold name of Jehovah also finds a correspondence in the\nArddha-Nari, or incarnation of Brahma, who is represented in sculptures as\ncontaining in himself the male and female organisms. And the worship of\nthe implements of fecundity continues popular in India to this day. The\nsame idea underlies much of the worship of the ancient Greeks, finding\nexpression in the symbols devoted to Apollo or the sun, and in their\nandrogynous sculptures. Aryan, Scandinavian, and Semitic religions were\nalike pervaded by it, the male principle being represented by the sun, and\nthe female by the moon, which was variously personified by the virgins,\nAshtoreth or Astarte, Diana, and others, each of whom, except in the\nScandinavian mythology, where the sexes are reversed, had the moon for her\nspecial symbol. Similarly, the allegory of Eden finds one of its keys in\nthe phenomena of sex, as is demonstrated by the ancient Syrian sculptures\nof Ashera, or _the Grove_; and 'the tree of life in the midst of the\ngarden' forms the point of departure for beliefs which have lasted\nthousands of years, and which have either spread from one source over, or\nbeen independently originated in, every part of the habitable globe.\"[20]\n\nIt is evident that this worship is of the most extremely ancient character\nand that it was based originally upon ideas that had nothing gross and\ndebasing in them. It is true that it at various times assumed indelicate\nforms and was associated with much that was of the most degrading\ncharacter, but the first idea was only to use for religious purposes that\nwhich seemed the most apt emblem of creation and regeneration. \"Is it\nstrange,\" asks a lady writer, \"that they regarded with reverence the great\nmystery of human birth? Were they impure thus to regard it? Or, are we\nimpure that we do _not_ so regard it? Let us not smile at their mode of\ntracing the infinite and incomprehensible cause throughout all the\nmysteries of nature, lest by so doing we cast the shadow of our own\ngrossness on their patriarchal simplicity.\"\n\nIt became with this very much as it does with all symbolism, more or less,\nthat is to say from the worship of that which was symbolised, it\ndegenerated to the worship of the emblem itself.\n\nBut the ancient Egyptians exerted themselves considerably to restrain\nwithin certain bounds of propriety the natural tendency of this worship\nand we find them allowing it to embrace only the masculine side of\nhumanity, afterwards, as was perhaps only to be expected, the feminine was\nintroduced. Then, as particularly exhibited in the case of India, it\ngradually became nothing more or less than a vehicle for satisfying the\nlicentious desires of the most degrading of both sexes.\n\nIt is wonderful, however, the extraordinary hold these ideas attained upon\nthe human mind, whether they entered into the religious conceptions of the\npeople, or pandered to vicious desires under the mere cloak of religion.\nThe Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy (four books relative to Starry Influences),\nspeaking of the countries India, Ariana, Gedrosia, Parthia, Media, Persia,\nBabylon, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, says:--\"Many of them practise\ndivination, and devote their genitals to their divinities because the\nfamiliarity of these planets renders them very libidinous.\"\n\nNor must we forget the peculiar sacredness with which in the early Jewish\nChurch these organs were always regarded,--that is, the male organs.\nInjury of them disqualified the unfortunate victim from ministering in the\ncongregation of the Lord, and the severest punishment was meted out to the\ncriminal who should be guilty of causing such injury. Thus in the book of\nDeuteronomy, chap. xxv., 11, 12, we read:--\"When men strive together one\nwith another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her\nhusband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her\nhand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand,\nthine eye shall not pity her.\" And this was not to be an act of revenge on\nthe part of the injured man, but was to be the legal penalty duly enforced\nby the civil magistrate. It is very extraordinary, for it appears that\nsuch an injury inflicted upon an enemy--and evidently it meant the\ndisablement of the man from the act of sexual intercourse--was regarded as\neven more serious than the actual taking of life in self-defence. The\ndegradation attached to the man thus mutilated was greater than could\notherwise be visited upon him--all respect for him vanished and he was\nhenceforward regarded as an abomination.\n\nSuch mutilation has always been common in heathen nations--similarly\nregarded as amongst the Hebrews, but used as the greatest mark of\nindignity possible to inflict upon an enemy--some of the Egyptian\nbas-reliefs represent the King (Rameses II.) returning in triumph with\ncaptives, many of whom are undergoing the operation of castration, while\nin the corners of the scene are heaped up piles of the genital organs\nwhich have been cut off by the victors. Some of the North American\nIndians, particularly the Apaches of California and Arizona, have been\nnoted for their frequent use of the same barbarous practice on the\nprisoners taken in war and upon the bodies of the slain.\n\nWe get a similar instance in Israelitish history as recorded in the first\nbook of Samuel, where Saul being afraid of David, sought a favourable\nopportunity to get him slain by the Philistines. There is the story of the\nlove of Michal, Saul's daughter, for David, and the use Saul endeavoured\nto make of that fact in carrying out his evil designs. The news that\nMichal had thus fallen in love, pleased Saul, and he said, \"I will give\nhim her, that she may be a snare to him and that the hand of the\nPhilistines may be against him.\" So David was told that the King would\nmake him his son-in-law. But it was customary in those times for the\nbridegroom to _give_ a dowry instead of as at other times and in other\nplaces, to _receive_ one, and David immediately raised the objection that\nthis was out of his power as he was but a poor man. This was Saul's\nopportunity and his message was, \"the King desireth not any dowry, but an\nhundred foreskins of the Philistines. But Saul thought to make David fall\nby the hand of the Philistines.\" Of course this involved the slaughter of\na hundred of the enemy, and Saul made sure in attempting such a task,\nDavid would fall before odds so terribly against him. In commanding the\nforeskins to be brought to him Saul made sure that they would be\nPhilistines who were slain, they being almost the only uncircumcised\npeople about him. This proposal, however, it seems, did not alarm David in\nthe least, he went forth at once on his terrible mission and actually\nbrought back thrice the number of foreskins required of him by the King.\nThis is not the only case on record of such a mutilation; mention is made\nby Gill the commentator of an Asiatic writer who speaks of a people that\ncut off the genital parts of men, and gave them to their wives for a\ndowry.\n\nSo sacred was the organ in question deemed in ancient times, especially in\nIsrael, that it was used as the means of administering the most binding\nform of oath then known. It is described as putting the hand upon the\nthigh, and instances are found in Genesis xxiv., 2, and xlvii., 29. In the\nformer of these passages Abraham requires his elder servant to put his\nhand under his thigh and take an oath respecting the wife he would seek\nfor his son Isaac. In the second passage, it is Jacob requiring his son\nJoseph to perform a similar action; in each case what is meant is that the\ngenital organ, the symbol of the Creator and the object of worship among\nall ancient nations was to be touched in the act of making the promise.\n\nBut, as we have pointed out, there is another side to this matter, the\nworship of the male organ was only one part; the female organs of\ngeneration were revered as symbols of the generative power of God. They\nare usually represented emblematically by the shell, or Concha Veneris,\nwhich was therefore worn by devout persons of antiquity, as it still\ncontinues to be by pilgrims and many of the common women of Italy. The\nunion of both was expressed by the hand, mentioned in Sir William\nHamilton's letter, which, being a less explicit symbol, has escaped the\nattention of the reformers, and is still worn as well as the shell by\nwomen of Italy, though without being understood. It represented the act of\ngeneration, which was considered as a solemn sacrament in honour of the\nCreator.\n\nSome of the forms used to represent the sacti or female principle, are\nvery peculiar yet familiar to many who may not understand them. Indeed, as\nInman says, \"the moderns, who have not been initiated in the sacred\nmysteries, and only know the emblems considered sacred, have need of both\nanatomical knowledge and physiological lore ere they can see the meaning\nof many a sign.\"\n\nAs already stated, the triangle with its apex uppermost represents the\nphallic triad; with its base uppermost, the Mons Veneris, the Delta, or\nthe door by which all come into the world. Dr. Inman says:--\"As a scholar,\nI had learned that the Greek letter Delta ([symbol]) is expressive of the\nfemale organ both in shape and idea. The selection of name and symbol was\njudicious, for the word Daleth and Delta signify the door of a house and\nthe outlet of a river, while the figure reversed ([symbol]) represents\nthe fringe with which the human Delta is overshadowed\"--this Delta is\nsimply another word for the part known as Concha, a shell. This Concha or\nShank is one of the most important of the Eastern symbols, and is found\nrepeated again and again in almost everything connected with the Hindu\nPantheon. Plate vi. of Moor's elaborately illustrated work on the Indian\ndeities represents it as seen in the hands of Vishnu and his consort. The\ngod is represented like all the solar deities with four hands, and\nstanding in an arched doorway. The head-dress is of serpents; in one of\nthe right hands is the diamond form the symbol of the Creator; in one of\nthe left hands is the large Concha and in the other right hand, the great\norb of the day; the shell is winged and has a phallic top.\n\nThis shell is said to have been the first priestly bell, and it is even\nnow the Hindoo church-bell, in addition to gongs and trumpets. It comes\nspecially into use when the priest performs his ceremonies before the\nLingam; it is blown when he is about to anoint the emblem, like a bell is\nused in some Christian churches in the midst of ceremonies of particular\nimportance and solemnity.\n\nThe female principle, or sacred Sacti, is also represented by a figure\nlike that called a sistrum, a Hebrew musical instrument, sometimes\ntranslated cornet. Inman contends in spite of much opposition from his\nfriends that this represents the mother who is still _virgo intacta_. He\npoints out that in some things it embodies a somewhat different idea to\nthe Yoni, the bars across it being bent so that they cannot be taken out,\nthis showing that the door is closed.\n\nThe secret of this peculiar worship seems to lie in the fact, ever so\nprominent in all that has to do with the social and religious life of the\nEastern, of an intense desire for offspring. In harmony with this is the\nfrequent promise in the Scriptures of an abundance of children and the\ndeclaration of happiness of the man so blessed. One instance may be noted\nas recorded in Genesis xiii., 16, the promise to Abram: \"I will make thy\nseed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the\nearth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.\" None the less\nfervent--perhaps even more so--is the desire of the Indian to possess and\nleave behind him a progeny who shall not only succeed to his worldly\nacquisitions, but by religious exercises help forward his happiness in the\nregion of the departed.\n\nIt is said that in this part of the world, a constant topic of\nconversation amongst the men is their physical power to propagate their\nrace, and that upon this matter physicians are more frequently consulted\nthan upon any other. \"Not only does the man think thus, but the female has\nher thoughts directed to the same channel, and there has been a special\nbell invented by Hindoo priests for childless females.\" Some kindred\nbelief seems to be held or suggested by the practices of the Mormon\ncommunity, in which large numbers of women are united in marriage to one\nman. In Genesis xxx., Rachel seeing that she bore no children is described\nas envying her sister, and saying to Jacob, \"Give me children, or else I\ndie.\" Again 1 Samuel i., 10, 11: \"And she (Hannah) was in bitterness of\nsoul, and prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore. And she vowed a vow, and\nsaid, 'O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of\nthine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but will\ngive unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord,\n&c.'\" And so on; instances could be multiplied largely, but it is\nunnecessary.\n\nWith many of the eastern women it was a matter of the highest consequence\nthat they have children, as failing to do so it was strictly within the\nlegal rights of the husband at once to put away his wife by a summary\ndivorce, or at any rate to take a concubine into his home in order that\nhe might not go childless; the woman who proved hopelessly barren became\nan object of contempt or commiseration to all about her, and her life a\nscene of prolonged shame and misery. And so, in certain parts of the\nworld, arose sex worship, the idea being that by the worship of the organs\nof generation the misfortune of barrenness might be avoided. The priests\nwere not slow to avail themselves of a ready means of adding to their\nreputation and influence and increasing their revenues, and women, who for\nsome cause or another had hitherto been without offspring, were encouraged\nto visit the temples and make their proper offerings, and go through the\nprescribed ceremonies for curing their sterility. As willing as the women\nwere for all this, were the men, and though sometimes the defect lay in\nthemselves physically, it is said that the arrangements at the temples\nwere such as almost invariably succeeded in making the wives mothers.\n\n\"If abundance of offspring was promised as a blessing,\" says Dr. Inman,\n\"it is clear to the physiologist that the pledge implies abundance of\nvigour in the man as well as in the woman. With a husband incompetent, no\nwife could be fruitful. The condition, therefore, of the necessary organs\nwas intimately associated with the divine blessing or curse, and the\nimpotent man then would as naturally go to the priest to be cured of his\ninfirmity as we of to-day go to the physician. We have evidence that\nmasses have been said, saints invoked, and offerings presented, for curing\nthe debility we refer to, in a church in Christianised Italy during the\nlast hundred years, and in France so late as the sixteenth\ncentury,--evident relics of more ancient times.\"\n\n\"Whenever a votary applied to the oracle for help to enable him to perform\nhis duties as a prospective father, or to remove that frigidity which he\nhad been taught to believe was a proof of Divine displeasure, or an\nevidence of his being bewitched by a malignant demon, it is natural to\nbelieve that the priest would act partly as a man of sense, though chiefly\nas a minister of God. He would go through, or enjoin attendance on certain\nreligious ceremonies--would sell a charmed image, or use some holy oil,\ninvented and blessed by a god or saint, as was done at Isernia--or he\nwould do something else.\"\n\nIntimately connected with the worship of the male and female powers of\ngeneration is the sacred prostitution which was practised so generally by\nsome of the ancient nations, and of which we have details in the classics.\nThe information given by Herodotus respecting the women of Babylonia reads\nstrange indeed to those who are acquainted only with modern codes of\nmorals, and to whom the special and essential features of phallic faiths\nare unknown. This author describes it as a shameful custom, but he informs\nus of it as an indisputable fact, that every woman born in the country was\ncompelled at least once in her life to go and sit in the precinct of\nVenus, and there consort with a stranger. Rich and poor alike had to\nconform to this rule--the ugly and the beautiful, the attractive and the\nrepulsive. A peculiarity of the custom was that once having entered the\nsacred enclosure, the woman was not allowed to return home until she had\npaid the debt which the law prescribed as due from her to the state; the\nresult of this was that those who were the happy possessors of personal\ncharms seldom were detained very long, while the plain-featured and\nunattractive ones were sometimes several years before they could obtain\ntheir release. We are told that the wealthier women, too proud to\nassociate with the lower class, though obliged to undergo the same ordeal,\nwould drive to the appointed place in covered carriages with a\nconsiderable retinue of servants, there making as much display as possible\nof their rank and wealth in order to overawe the commoner class of men,\nand drive them to females of humbler rank; they sat in their carriages\nwhile crowds of poorer people sat within the holy enclosure with wreaths\nof string about their heads. The scene was at once strange and animated;\nnumbers of both sexes were coming and going; and lines of cords marked out\npaths in all directions in which the women sat, and along which the\nstrangers passed in order to make their choice. Patiently or impatiently,\nas the case may be, the female waited till some visitor, taking a fancy to\nher, fixed upon her as his chosen sacrifice by throwing a piece of silver\ninto her lap and saying, \"The goddess Mylitta prosper thee.\" (Mylitta\nbeing the Assyrian name for Venus). The coin need not be of any particular\nsize or value, but it is obligatory upon her to receive it, because when\nonce thrown it is sacred. Nor could the woman exercise any choice as to\nwhom she could go with, the first who threw the coin had a legal title to\nher, and the law compelled her submission. But having once obeyed the law,\nshe was free for the rest of her life, and nothing in the shape of a\nbribe, however extensive, would persuade her to grant further favours to\nany one.\n\nThere is an allusion to this custom in the book of Baruch (vi., 43), where\nit is said:--\"The women also with cords about them, sitting in the ways,\nburn bran for perfume; but if any of them, drawn by some that passeth by,\nlie with him, she reproaches her fellow that she was not thought worthy as\nherself, nor her cords broken.\" Strabo in his sixteenth book testifies to\nthe same effect, and he says that the custom dated from the foundation of\nthe city of Babylon. The same writer states also that both Medes and\nArmenians adopted all the sacred rites of the Persians, but that the\nArmenians paid particular reverence to Anaitis, and built temples to her\nhonour in several places, especially in Acilisene. They dedicated there to\nher service male and female slaves, and in this, Strabo says, there was\nnothing remarkable, but that it was surprising that persons of the\nhighest rank in the nation consecrated their virgin daughters to the\ngoddess. It was customary for these women, after being prostituted a long\ntime at the temple of Anaitis, to be disposed of in marriage, no one\ndisdaining a connection with such a person. He mentions what Herodotus\nsays about the Lydian women, all of whom, he adds, prostituted themselves.\nBut they treated their paramours with much kindness, entertaining them\nhospitably and frequently, making a return of more presents than they\nreceived, being amply supplied with means derived from their wealthy\nconnexions. The Lydians indeed appear to have devoted themselves with the\nmost shameless effrontery, for they not only attended the sacred fetes\noccasionally for the purpose, but practised prostitution for their own\nbenefit. A splendid monument to Alyattes, the father of Croesus, built by\nthe merchants, the artizans, and the courtesans, was chiefly paid for by\nthe contributions of the latter, which far exceeded those of the others\nput together.\n\nIt has been asserted by some writers that sacred prostitution was not\npractised in Egypt, but so much is known of the character of certain acts\nof worship in that country that the statement is regarded as of little\nworth. The worship of Osiris and Isis, which was very much like that of\nVenus and Adonis, was attended with excesses that indicate a very\nabandoned state of things. It is known that when the pilgrims were on\ntheir way to the fetes of Isis at Bubastis, the females indulged in the\nmost indecent dances as the vessels passed the riverside villages, and\nhistorians declare that those obscenities were only such as were about to\nhappen at the temple, which was visited each year by seven hundred\nthousand pilgrims, who gave themselves up to incredible excesses.\n\nIt cannot be shewn that the motive leading to what is called sacred\nprostitution was the same in all countries; in India, for example, it\nappears to have had very much to do with the desire for children which we\nhave described as common with the easterns; so common was it that the one\nobject of woman's life was marriage and a family. This, and the more rapid\ndevelopment of the female in that part of the world than in others, and\nthe impression that dying childless she would fail to fulfil her mission\nlies at the basis of the early betrothals and marriages which appear so\nrepulsive and absurd to European ideas. There is a further desire,\nhowever, than that of simply having children, especially in India; the\ndesire is for male children, and where these fail, it is common for a man\nto adopt a son, and in this his motive is a religious one. According to\nprevalent superstition, it is held that the future beatitude of the Hindu\ndepends upon the performance of his obsequies, and payment of his debts,\nby a son, as a means of redeeming him from an instant state of suffering\nafter death. The dread is of a place called Put, a place of horror, to\nwhich the manes of the childless are supposed to be doomed; there to be\ntormented with hunger and thirst, for want of those oblations of food, and\nlibations of water, at prescribed periods, which it is the pious and\nindispensable duty of a son to offer.\n\nThe \"Laws of Manu\" (Ch. ix., 138), state:--\"A son delivers his father from\nthe hell called Put, he was therefore called puttra (a deliverer from Put)\nby the Self-existent (Svayambhu) himself.\" The sage Mandagola is\nrepresented as desiring admission to a region of bliss, but repulsed by\nthe guards who watch the abode of progenitors, because he had no male\nissue. The \"Laws of Manu\" illustrate this by the special mention of heaven\nbeing attained without it as of something extraordinary. Ch. v., 159,\n\"Many thousands of Brahmanas, who were chaste from their youth, have gone\nto heaven without continuing their race.\"\n\nSir Thomas Strange, many years ago Chief Justice of Madras, wrote very\nfully concerning the Hindu law of inheritance and adoption, and we learn\nfrom this great authority that marriage failing in this, its most\nimportant object (that is to say securing male issue), in order that\nobsequies in particular might not go unperformed, and celestial bliss be\nthereby forfeited, as well for ancestors as for the deceased, dying\nwithout leaving legitimate issue begotten, the old law was provident to\nexcess, whence the different sorts of sons enumerated by different\nauthorities, all resolving themselves, with Manu, into twelve, that is the\nlegally begotten, and therefore not to be separately accounted:--all\nformerly, in their turn and order, capable of succession, for the double\npurpose of obsequies, and of inheritance. Failing a son, a Hindu's\nobsequies may be performed by his widow; or in default of her, by a whole\nbrother or other heirs; but according to the conception belonging to the\nsubject, not with the same benefit as by a son. That a son, therefore, of\nsome description is, with him, in a spiritual sense, next to indispensable\nis abundantly certain. As for obtaining one in a natural way, there is an\nexpress ceremony that takes place at the expiration of the third month of\npregnancy, marking distinctly the importance of a son born, so is the\nadopting of one as anxiously inculcated where prayers and ceremonies for\nthe desired issue have failed in their effect.\n\nThe extreme importance to the Hindu of having male offspring, and the\ndesire to get such children as the result of marriage rather than by\nadoption--a practice allowed and inculcated as a last resort, has led to\nthat extensive prevalence of Lingam worship which is such a conspicuous\nfeature in India. In nearly every part of that vast empire are to be seen\nreproductions of the emblem in an infinite variety of form, and so totally\nfree from the most remotely indecent character are they, that strangers\nare as a rule totally ignorant of their meaning. We have even known,\nwithin the last few years, specimens of the smaller emblems being put up\nfor sale in this country, of whose meaning the auctioneer professes\nhimself for the most part ignorant, volunteering no other statement than\nthat they were charms in some way connected with Hindu customs and\nworship.\n\nIt is--being a representation of the male organ--represented, of course,\nin a conical form, and is of every size, from half-an-inch to seventy\nfeet, and of all materials, such as stone, wood, clay, metal, &c. Lingas\nare seen of enormous size; in the caves of Elephanta for instance, marking\nunequivocally that the symbol in question is at any rate as ancient as the\ntemple, as they are of the same rock as the temple itself; both, as well\nas the floor, roof, pillars, pilastres, and its numerous sculptured\nfigures, having been once one undistinguished mass of granite, which\nexcavated, chiselled, and polished, produced the cavern and forms that are\nstill contemplated with so much surprise and admiration. The magnitude of\nthe cones, too, further preclude the idea of subsequent introduction, and\ntogether with gigantic statues of Siva and his consort, more frequent and\nmore colossal than those of any other deity, necessarily coeval with the\nexcavation, indicate his paramount adoration and the antiquity of his\nsect. Lingas are seen also of diminutive size for domestic adoration, or\nfor personal use; some individuals always carrying one about with them,\nand in some Brahman families, one is daily constructed in clay, placed\nafter due sanctification by appropriate ceremonies and prayers, in the\ndomestic shrine, or under a tree or shrub sacred to Siva, the Bilva more\nespecially, and honoured by the adoration of the females of the household.\n\nIt is rather singular that while many Hindus worship the deity of male and\nfemale in one, there are distinct sects which worship either the Lingam or\nthe Yoni; the first being apparently the same as the phallic emblem of\nthe Greeks, the _membrum virile_: and the latter _pudendum muliebre_.\n\nThe interesting ceremony connected with the obsequies which we have just\nsaid can be the most effectually performed by a male child, and which\ngives rise to the intense longing both on the part of husband and wife for\nsuch offspring, is called Sradha, and is of daily recurrence with\nindividuals who rigidly adhere to the ritual. It is offered in honour of\ndeceased ancestors, but not merely in honour of them, but for their\ncomfort; as the Manes, as well as the gods connected with them, enjoy,\nlike the gods of the Greeks, the incense of such offerings, which are also\nof an expiatory nature, similar, it is said, to the masses of the Church\nof Rome. Over these ceremonies of Sradhi presides Yama, in his character\nof Sradhadeva, or lord of the obsequies. It is not within our province to\ngive a detailed account of these ceremonies, but owing to their connection\nwith the subject generally of our book, a brief outline will no doubt\nprove interesting.\n\nA dying man, when no hopes of his surviving remain, should be laid upon a\nbed of cusa grass, either in the house or out of it, if he be a Sudra, but\nin the open air, if he belong to another tribe. When he is at the point of\ndeath, donations of cattle, land, gold, silver, or other things, according\nto his ability, should be made by him; or if he be too weak, by another\nperson in his name. His head should be sprinkled with water drawn from the\nGanges, and smeared with clay brought from the same river. A Salagrama\nstone ought to be placed near the dying man; holy strains from the Veda or\nfrom the sacred poems should be repeated aloud in his ears; and leaves of\nholy basil must be scattered over his head.\n\nPassing over the ceremonial more especially connected with the burning of\nthe corpse as not particularly relative to our subject, we proceed. After\nthe body has been burnt, all who have touched or followed the corpse,\nmust walk round the pile keeping their left hands towards it, and taking\ncare not to look at the fire. They then walk in procession, according to\nseniority, to a river or other running water, and after washing, and again\nputting on their apparel, they advance into the stream. They then ask the\ndeceased's brother-in-law, or some other person able to give the proper\nanswer, \"Shall we present water?\" If the deceased were a hundred years\nold, the answer must be simply, \"do so:\" but if he were not so aged, the\nreply is \"do so, but do not repeat the oblation.\" Upon this they all shift\nthe sacerdotal string to the right shoulder, and looking towards the\nsouth, and being clad in a single garment without a mantle, they stir the\nwater with the ring finger of the left hand, saying, \"waters, purify us.\"\nWith the same finger of the right hand, they throw up some water towards\nthe south, and after plunging once under the surface of the river, they\nrub themselves with their hands. An oblation of water must be next\npresented from the jointed palms of the hands, naming the deceased and the\nfamily from which he sprung, and saving \"may this oblation reach thee.\"\n\nAfter finishing the usual libations of water to satisfy the manes of the\ndeceased, they quit the river and shift their wet clothes for other\napparel; they then sip water without swallowing it, and sitting down on\nsoft turf, alleviate their sorrow by the recital of such moral sentences\nas the following, refraining at the same time from tears and\nlamentation:--\n\n1. Foolish is he, who seeks permanence in the human state, unsolid like\nthe stem of a plantain tree, transient like the foam of the sea.\n\n2. When a body, formed of fine elements to receive the rewards of deeds\ndone in its own former person, reverts to its fine original principles;\nwhat room is there for regret.\n\n3. The earth is perishable; the ocean, the Gods themselves pass away: how\nshould not that bubble, mortal man, meet destruction.\n\n4. All that is low, must finally perish; all that is elevated, must\nultimately fall; all compound bodies must end in dissolution; and life is\nconcluded with death.\n\n5. Unwillingly do the manes of the deceased taste the tears and rheum shed\nby their kinsmen: then do not wait, but diligently perform the obsequies\nof the dead.\n\nAll the kinsmen of the deceased, within the sixth degree of consanguinity,\nshould fast for three days and nights; or one at the least. However if\nthat be impracticable, they may eat a single meal at night, purchasing the\nfood ready prepared, but on no account preparing the victuals at home. So\nlong as the mourning lasts, the nearest relations of the deceased must not\nexceed the daily meal, nor eat flesh-meat, nor any food seasoned with\nfictitious salt; they must use a plate made of leaves of any tree but the\nplantain, or else take their food from the hands of some other persons;\nthey must not handle a knife or any other implement made of iron; nor\nsleep upon a bedstead; nor adorn their persons; but remain squalid, and\nrefrain from perfumes and other gratifications: they must likewise omit\nthe daily ceremonies of ablution and divine worship. On the third and\nfifth days, as also on the seventh and ninth, the kinsmen assemble, bathe\nin the open air, offer tila and water to the deceased, and take a repast\ntogether: they place lamps at cross roads, and in their own houses, and\nlikewise on the way to the cemetery; and they observe vigils in honour of\nthe deceased.\n\nOn the last day of mourning, or earlier in those countries where the\nobsequies are expedited on the second or third day, the nearest kinsman of\nthe deceased gathers his ashes after offering a sradha singly for him.\n\nIn the first place, the kinsman smears with cow-dung the spots where the\noblation is to be presented; and after washing his hands and feet, sipping\nwater and taking up cusa grass in his hand, he sits down on a cushion\npointed towards the south, and placed upon a blade of cusa grass, the tip\nof which must also point towards the south. He then places near him a\nbundle of cusa grass, consecrated by pronouncing the word namah! or else\nprepares a fire for oblations. Then lighting a lamp with clarified butter\nor with oil of sesamum, and arranging the food and other things intended\nto be offered, he must sprinkle himself with water, meditating on Vishnu,\nsurnamed the lotos-eyed, or revolving in his mind this verse, \"Whether\npure or defiled, or wherever he may have gone, he, who re-enters the being\nwhose eyes are like the lotos, shall be pure externally and internally.\"\nShifting the sacerdotal cord on his right shoulder, he takes up a brush of\ncusa grass and presents water together with tila and with blossoms, naming\nthe deceased and the family from which he sprung, and saying \"may this\nwater for ablutions be acceptable to thee.\" Then saying \"may this be\nright,\" he pronounces a vow or solemn declaration. \"This day I will offer\non a bundle of cusa grass (or, if such be the custom, 'on fire') a sradha\nfor a single person, with unboiled food, together with clarified butter\nand with water, preparatory to the gathering of the bones of such a one\ndeceased.\" The priests answering \"do so,\" he says \"namo! namah!\" while the\npriests meditate the gayatri and thrice repeat, \"Salutation to the Gods;\nto the manes of ancestors, and to mighty saints; to Swaha [goddess of\nfire]: to Swadha [the food of the manes]: salutation unto them for ever\nand ever.\"\n\nHe then presents a cushion made of cusa grass, naming the deceased and\nsaying \"may this be acceptable to thee;\" and afterwards distributes meal\nof sesamum, while the priests recite \"May the demons and fierce giants\nthat sit on this consecrated spot, be dispersed; and the bloodthirsty\nsavages that inhabit the earth; may they go to any other place, to which\ntheir inclinations may lead them.\"\n\nPlacing an oval vessel with its narrowest end towards the south, he takes\nup two blades of grass; and breaking off a span's length, throws them into\nthe vessel; and after sprinkling them with water, makes a libation while\nthe priests say, \"May divine waters be auspicious to us for accumulation,\nfor gain, and for refreshing draughts; may they listen to us, and grant\nthat we may be associated with good auspices.\" He then throws tila while\nthe priests say, \"Thou art tila, sacred to Soma; framed by the divinity,\nthou dost produce celestial bliss [for him, that makes oblations]; mixed\nwith water may thou long satisfy our ancestors with the food of the manes,\nbe this oblation efficacious.\" He afterwards silently casts into the\nvessel, perfumes, flowers, and durva grass. Then taking up the vessel with\nhis left hand, putting two blades of grass on the cushion, with their tips\npointed to the north, he must pour the water from the argha thereon. The\npriests meantime recite:--\"The waters in heaven, in the atmosphere, and on\nthe earth, have been united [by their sweetness] with milk; may those\nsilver waters, worthy of oblation, be auspicious, salutary, and\nexhilarating to us; and be happily offered: may this oblation be\nefficacious.\" He adds namah, and pours out the water, naming the deceased\nand saying, \"may this argha be acceptable unto thee.\" Then oversetting the\nvessel, and arranging in due order the unboiled rice condiments, clarified\nbutter, and the requisites, he scatters tila, while the priests recite\n\"Thrice did Vishnu step, &c.\" He next offers the rice, clarified butter,\nwater and condiments, while he touches the vessel with his left hand, and\nnames the deceased, saying, \"may this raw food, with clarified butter and\ncondiments, together with water, be acceptable unto thee.\" After the\npriests have repeated the gayatri preceded by the names of the worlds, he\npours honey or sugar upon the rice, while they recite this prayer, \"may\nthe winds blow sweet, the rivers flow sweet, and salutary herbs be sweet,\nunto us; may night be sweet, may the mornings pass sweetly; may the soil\nof the earth, and heaven parent [of all productions], be sweet unto us;\nmay [Soma] king of herbs and trees be sweet: may the sun be sweet, may\nkine be sweet unto us.\" He then says \"namo! namah!\" While the priests\nrecite \"whatever may be deficient in this food; whatever may be imperfect\nin this rite; whatever may be wanting in this form; may all that become\nfaultless.\"\n\nHe should then feed the Brahmanas, whom he has assembled, either silently\ndistributing food amongst them, or adding a respectful invitation to them\nto eat. When he has given them water to rinse their mouths, he may\nconsider the deceased as fed through their intervention. The priests again\nrecite the gayatri and the prayer \"may the winds blow sweet,\" &c., and add\nthe prescribed prayers, which should be followed by the music of\nflageolets, lutes, drums, &c.\n\nTaking in his left hand another vessel containing tila, blossoms and\nwater, and in his left hand a brush made of cusa grass, he sprinkles water\nover the grass spread on the consecrated spot, naming the deceased and\nsaying \"May this ablution be acceptable to thee:\" he afterwards takes a\ncake or ball or food mixed with clarified butter, and presents it saying,\n\"May this cake be acceptable to thee,\" and deals out the food with this\nprayer; \"Ancestors, rejoice; take your respective shares, and be strong as\nbulls.\" Then walking round by the left to the northern side of the\nconsecrated spot, and meditating, \"Ancestors, be glad; take your\nrespective shares, and be strong as bulls,\" he returns by the same road,\nand again sprinkles water on the ground to wash the oblation, saying, \"May\nthis ablution be acceptable to thee.\"\n\nNext, touching his hip with his elbow, or else his right side, and having\nsipped water, he must make six libations of water with the hollow palms of\nhis hands, saying, \"Salvation unto thee, O deceased, and unto the\nsaddening [hot] season; salvation unto thee, O deceased, and unto the\nmonth of tapas [or dewy season]; salvation unto thee, O deceased, and unto\nthat [season] which abounds with water; salvation unto thee, O deceased,\nand to the nectar [of blossoms]; salvation unto thee, O deceased, and to\nthe terrible and angry [season]; salvation unto thee, O deceased, and to\nfemale fire [or the sultry season].\"\n\nHe next offers a thread on the funeral cake, holding the wet brush in his\nhand, naming the deceased, and saying, \"May this raiment be acceptable to\nthee;\" the priests add, \"Fathers, this apparel is offered unto you.\" He\nthen silently strews perfumes, blossoms, resin, and betel leaves, as the\nfuneral cake, and places a lighted lamp on it. He sprinkles water on the\nbundle of grass, saying, \"May the waters be auspicious;\" and offers rice,\nadding, \"May the blossoms be sweet: may the rice be harmless;\" and then\npours water on it, naming the deceased and saying, \"May this food and\ndrink be acceptable unto thee.\" In the next place he strews grass over the\nfuneral cake, and sprinkles water on it, reciting this prayer: \"Waters! ye\nare the food of our progenitors; satisfy my parents, ye who convey\nnourishment, which is ambrosia, butter, milk, cattle, and distilled\nliquor.\" Lastly, he smells some of the food, and poises in his hand the\nfuneral cakes, saying, \"May this ball be wholesome food;\" and concludes,\npaying the officiating priest his fee with a formal declaration, \"I do\ngive this fee (consisting of so much money) to such a one (a priest sprung\nfrom such a family, and who uses such a veda and such a sacha of it), for\nthe purpose of fully completing the obsequies this day performed by me in\nhonour of one person singly, preparatory to the gathering of the bones of\nsuch a one deceased.\"\n\nAfter the priest has thrice said: \"Salutation to the gods, to progenitors,\nto mighty saints, &c.,\" he dismisses him; lights a lamp in honour of the\ndeceased; meditates on Heri with undiverted attention; casts the food, and\nother things used at the obsequies, into the fire; and then proceeds to\nthe cemetery for the purpose of gathering the ashes of the deceased.\n\nSo long as mourning lasts after gathering the ashes, the near relations of\nthe deceased continue to offer water with the same formalities and prayers\nas already mentioned, and to refrain from factitious salt, butter, &c. On\nthe last day of mourning, the nearest relation puts on neat apparel, and\ncauses his house and furniture to be cleaned; he then goes out of the\ntown, and after offering the tenth funeral cake, he makes ten libations of\nwater from the palms of his hands; causes the hair of his head and body to\nbe shaved, and his nails to be cut, and gives the barber the clothes which\nwere worn at the funeral of the deceased, and adds some other\nremuneration. He then anoints his head and limbs, down to his feet, with\noil of sesamum; rubs all his limbs with meal of sesamum, and his head with\nthe ground pods of white mustard; he bathes, sips water, touches and\nblesses various auspicious things, such as stones, clarified butter,\nleaves of Nimba, white mustard, Durva grass, coral, a cow, gold, curds,\nhoney, a mirror, and a couch, and also touches a bamboo staff. He now\nreturns purified to his home, and thus completes the first obsequies of\nthe deceased.\n\nThe second series of obsequies, commencing on the day after the period of\nmourning has elapsed, is opened by a lustration termed the consolatory\nceremony. The lustration consists in the consecration of four vessels of\nwater, and sprinkling therewith the house, the furniture, and the persons\nbelonging to the family. After lighting a fire, and blessing the attendant\nBrahmanas, the priest fills four vessels with water, and, putting his hand\ninto the first, meditates the gayatri, before and after reciting the\nfollowing prayers: 1.--May generous waters be auspicious to us, for gain\nand for refreshing draughts; may they approach towards us, that we may be\nassociated with good auspices. 2.--Earth afford us ease; be free from\nthorns; be habitable. Widely extended as thou art, procure us happiness.\n3.--O waters! since ye afford delight, grant us food, and the rapturous\nsight [of the Supreme Being]. 4.--Like tender mothers, make us here\npartakers of your most auspicious essence.\n\nPutting his hand into the second vessel, the priest meditates the gayatri,\nand the four prayers above quoted; adding some others, and concluding this\nsecond consecration of water by once more meditating the gayatri.\n\nThen taking a lump of sugar and a copper vessel in his left hand, biting\nthe sugar and spitting it out again, the priest sips water. Afterwards\nputting his hand into the third vessel, he meditates the gayatri and the\nfour prayers above cited, interposing this: May Indra and Varuna [the\nregents of the sky and of the ocean] accept our oblations, and grant us\nhappiness; may Indra and the cherishing sun grant us happiness in the\ndistribution of food; may Indra and the moon grant us the happiness of\nattaining the road to celestial bliss, and the association of good\nauspices.\n\nIt is customary immediately after this lustration to give away a vessel of\ntila, and also a cow, for the sake of securing the passage of the deceased\nover the Vaitarani, or river of hell: whence the cow, so given, is called\nVaitarani-dhenu. Afterwards a bed, with its furniture, is brought; and the\ngiver sits down near the Brahmana, who has been invited to receive the\npresent. After saying, \"Salutation to this bed with its furniture;\nsalutation to this priest, to whim it is given,\" he pays due honour to the\nBrahmana in the usual form of hospitality. He then pours water into his\nhand, saying, \"I give thee this bed with its furniture;\" the priest\nreplies, \"give it.\" Upon this he sprinkles it with water; and taking up\nthe cusa grass, tila, and water, delivers them to the priest, pouring the\nwater into his hand, with a formal declaration of the gift and its\npurpose; and again delivers a bit of gold with cusa grass, &c., making a\nsimilar formal declaration, 1.--This day, I, being desirous of obtaining\ncelestial bliss for such a one defunct, do give unto thee, such a one, a\nBrahmana descended from such a family, to whom due honour has been shown,\nthis bed and furniture, which has been duly honoured, and which is sacred\nto Vishnu. 2. This day I give unto thee (so and so) this gold, sacred to\nfire, as a sacerdotal fee, for the sake of confirming the donation I have\nmade of this bed and furniture. The Brahmana both times replies \"be it\nwell.\" Then lying upon the bed, and touching it with the upper part of his\nmiddle finger, he meditates the gayatri with suitable prayers, adding\n\"This bed is sacred to Vishnu.\"\n\nWith similar ceremonies and declarations he next gives away to a Brahmana,\na golden image of the deceased, or else a golden idol, or both. Afterwards\nhe distributes other presents among Brahmanas for the greater honour of\nthe deceased. Of course, all this can only be done by rich people.\n\nThe principal remaining ceremonies consist chiefly of the obsequies called\nsradhas. The first set of funeral ceremonies is adopted to effect, by\nmeans of oblations, the reimbodying of the soul of the deceased, after\nburning his corpse. The apparent scope of the second is to raise his shade\nfrom this world (where it would else, according to the notions of the\nHindus, continue to roam among demons and evil spirits), up to heaven, and\nthere deify him, as it were, among the manes of departed ancestors. For\nthis end, a sradha should regularly be offered to the deceased on the day\nafter mourning expires; twelve other sradhas singly to the deceased in\ntwelve successive months: similar obsequies at the end of the third\nfortnight, and also in the sixth month, and in the twelfth; and the\noblation called Sapindana, on the first anniversary of his decease. In\nmost provinces the periods for these sixteen ceremonies, and for the\nconcluding obsequies entitled Sapindana, are anticipated, and the whole is\ncompleted on the second or third day. After which they are again performed\nat the proper times, but in honour of the whole set of progenitors,\ninstead of the deceased singly. The obsequies intended to raise the shade\nof the deceased to heaven are thus completed. Afterwards, a sradha is\nannually offered to him on the anniversary of his decease.\n\nWhat we have just described, elaborate as it looks, is simply an\nabridgment of the long and complicated ceremonies attendant upon the\nfuneral and after obsequies of a rich man among the Hindus, but it is\nenough for our purpose. It shows the vast importance attached to those\nobsequies, and enables us to understand the desire on the part of these\nHindus to have children who will in a proper and acceptable manner carry\nout these proceedings. We have already quoted from the sacred books to\nshow that a son was regarded as better able to perform those duties than\nany other relation, and that failing such offspring in the ordinary course\nof nature, it was obligatory upon the would be father to adopt one.\n\nDulaure and some other writers describe a variety of ceremonies which were\ntaken part in by the women in order to procure the children who would\nsatisfy the cravings of their husbands. It is probable that a good deal of\nwhat took place at the shrines of heathen goddesses in other lands, arose\nfrom this anxiety, and not altogether from a merely licentious habit of\ncharacter and disposition. It has been said, as we may have already\nsuggested perhaps, that the priests connected with some of the temples\nresorted to by childless women for the cure of their misfortune, were\ncunning enough to provide for what was wanted in a more practical way than\nby the simple performance of certain ceremonies, and that where the\nfailure to produce children was due to some fault on the part of the\nhusband, means were at hand by which the woman soon found herself in the\ndesired condition. It is rather singular that something very similar was\nfound among the Jewish women in the time of Ezekiel, as we have found in\nIndia; the Indian woman sacrificed her virginity at the shrine of the\nLingam, and in the 16th chapter of the prophet's book, verse 17, we\nread:--\"Thou didst take also thy fair jewels of my gold, and didst make to\nthyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them.\" The latter,\nhowever, was evidently of a very different character to the former, being\nnothing more or less than the impure worship of Priapus as carried on in\nthe orgies of Osiris, Bacchus, and Adonis, the images of the Hebrew women\nbeing such as the Priapi used in those ceremonies; on no account must\nthose foolish and filthy practices be confounded with that act of worship\nwhich men in primitively simple condition rendered to the agents employed\nin the act of generation, which was innocently regarded as only one of the\noperations of nature.\n\nThe moral of this part of the subject, and with which for the present we\ntake leave of it, is this, that the Eastern, from his views of the future\nlife, deems it absolutely necessary that he should leave offspring, either\nreal or adopted, behind him, to carry out the obligations imposed by his\nreligion, and that in order to attain in the possession of what is to him\nsuch a blessing, he is called upon to propitiate in every possible manner\nthe physical agents and powers employed in the process,--hence the rise\nand practice of phallic worship.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] See Dudley's _Naology_.\n\n[2] _Edin. Rev._, 1870, p. 239.\n\n[3] Jewitt.\n\n[4] Hawkins' _Sketch of the Creek Country_.\n\n[5] _Myths of the New World._\n\n[6] Jewitt in _Art Journal_, 1876.\n\n[7] Quoted by Jewitt, in _Art Journal_, 1874.\n\n[8] Lysons, _Our British Ancestors_.\n\n[9] Cory, _Mytho. Inquiry_.\n\n[10] Cory, _Mytho. Inquiry_.\n\n[11] Faber, _Orig. Pag. Idol._\n\n[12] Meyrick's _Cardigan_.\n\n[13] Inman, _Anc. Faiths_. I.\n\n[14] _Rivers of Life._\n\n[15] Dr. Beke.\n\n[16] Dr. F. A. Cox.\n\n[17] Ewald, _Antiq. Israel_.\n\n[18] _Mems. Anthrop. Soc. 1._\n\n[19] Lewis. _Origines Heb._\n\n[20] _Keys of the Creeds_, V.","title":"The Masculine Cross: A History of Ancient and Modern Crosses and Their Connection with the Mysteries of Sex Worship; Also an Account of the Kindred Phases of Phallic Faiths and Practices","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":42576}