{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_9071/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_9071","id":"gutenberg_9071","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9071","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Crosses"],"text":"THE NON-CHRISTIAN CROSS\n\nAn Enquiry Into The Origin And History Of\nThe Symbol Eventually Adopted As\nThat Of Our Religion\n\nBy John Denham Parsons\n\nLondon\n\n1896\n\n\n\"O Crux, Splendidior Cunctis Astris, Mundo\nCelebris, Hominibus Multum Amabilis, Sanctior\nUniversis.\"\n                               [_Breviarium Romanum,_\n       _Festival Of The Invention Of The Holy Cross._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe history of the symbol of the cross has had an attraction for the\nauthor ever since, as an enquiring youth, he found himself unable to\nobtain satisfactory answers to four questions concerning the same which\npresented themselves to his mind.\n\nThe first of those questions was why John the Baptist, who was beheaded\nbefore Jesus was executed, and so far as we are told never had anything\nto do with a cross, is represented in our religious pictures as holding\na cross.\n\nThe second question was whether this curious but perhaps in itself\neasily explained practice had in its inception any connection with the\nnon-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism; which Jesus accepted as a matter\nof course at the hands of his cousin John, and in which the sign of the\ncross has for ages been the all-important feature. And it was the\nwonder whether there was or was not some association between the facts\nthat the New Testament writers give no explanation whatever of the\norigin of baptism as an initiatory rite, that this non-Mosaic\ninitiatory rite was in use among Sun-God worshippers long before our\nera, and that the Fathers admitted that the followers of the Persian\nconception of the Sun-God marked their initiates upon the forehead like\nthe followers of the Christ, which finally induced the author to start\na systematic enquiry into the history of the cross as a symbol.\n\nThe third question was why, despite the fact that the instrument of\nexecution to which Jesus was affixed can have had but one shape, almost\nany kind of cross is accepted as a symbol of our faith.\n\nThe last of the four questions was why many varieties of the cross of\nfour equal arms, which certainly was not a representation of an\ninstrument of execution, were accepted by Christians as symbols of the\nChrist before any cross which could possibly have been a representation\nof an instrument of execution was given a place among the symbols of\nChristianity; while even nowadays one variety of the cross of four\nequal arms is the favourite symbol of the Greek Church, and both it and\nthe other varieties enter into the ornamentation of our sacred\nproperties and dispute the supremacy with the cross which has one of\nits arms longer than the other three.\n\nPursuing these matters for himself, the author eventually found that\neven before our era the cross was venerated by many as the symbol of\nLife; though our works of reference seldom mention this fact, and never\ndo it justice.\n\nHe moreover discovered that no one has ever written a complete history\nof the symbol, showing the possibility that the _stauros_ or post to\nwhich Jesus was affixed was not cross-shaped, and the certainty that,\nin any case, what eventually became the symbol of our faith owed some\nof its prestige as a Christian symbol of Victory and Life to the\nposition it occupied in pre-Christian days.\n\nThe author has therefore, in the hope of drawing attention to the\nsubject, incorporated the results of his researches in the present\nessay.\n\n14, ST. DUNSTAN'S HILL,\n\nLONDON, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nC O N T E N T S\n                                                       PAGE\n  CHAPTER I.\n    WAS THE _STAUROS_ OF JESUS CROSS-SHAPED?             13\n  CHAPTER II.\n    THE EVIDENCE OF MINUCIUS FELIX                       31\n  CHAPTER III.\n    THE EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER FATHERS3                   41\n  CHAPTER IV.\n    CURIOUS STATEMENTS OF IRENAEUS                       52\n  CHAPTER V.\n    ORIGIN OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS                    57\n  CHAPTER VI.\n    ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN CROSS                        65\n  CHAPTER VII.\n    THE ESTABLISHER OF THE CHURCH                        82\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n    CROSS AND CRESCENT8                                  92\n  CHAPTER IX.\n    THE CORONATION ORB9                                 104\n  CHAPTER X.\n    ROMAN COINS BEFORE CONSTANTINE                      119\n  CHAPTER XI.\n    THE COINS OF CONSTANTINE                            133\n  CHAPTER XII.\n    ROMAN COINS AFTER CONSTANTINE                       142\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n    THE MONOGRAM OF CHRIST                              147\n  CHAPTER XIV.\n    THE CROSS OF THE LOGOS                              163\n  CHAPTER XV.\n    THE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS IN EUROPE                   169\n  CHAPTER XVI.\n    THE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS IN ASIA                     178\n  CHAPTER XVII.\n    THE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS IN AFRICA                   183\n  CHAPTER XVIII.\n    EVIDENCE OF TROY                                    187\n  CHAPTER XIX.\n    EVIDENCE OF CYPRUS                                  193\n  CHAPTER XX.\n    MISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCE                              204\n  CHAPTER XI.\n    SUMMARY                                             214\n\n\n\n\nTHE NON-CHRISTIAN CROSS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\nWAS THE _STAUROS_ OF JESUS CROSS-SHAPED?\n\nIn the thousand and one works supplied for our information upon matters\nconnected with the history of our race, we are told that Alexander the\nGreat, Titus, and various Greek, Roman, and Oriental rulers of ancient\ndays, \"crucified\" this or that person; or that they \"crucified\" so many\nat once, or during their reign. And the instrument of execution is\ncalled a \"cross.\"\n\nThe natural result is that we imagine that all the people said to have\nbeen \"crucified\" were executed by being nailed or otherwise affixed to\na cross-shaped instrument set in the ground, like that to be seen in\nour fanciful illustrations of the execution of Jesus.\n\nThis was, however, by no means necessarily the case.\n\nFor instance, the death spoken of, death by the _stauros_, included\ntransfixion by a pointed stauros or stake, as well as affixion to an\nunpointed stauros or stake; and the latter punishment was not always\nthat referred to.\n\nIt is also probable that in most of the many cases where we have no\nclue as to which kind of stauros was used, the cause of the condemned\none's death was transfixion by a pointed stauros.\n\nMoreover, even if we could prove that this very common mode of capital\npunishment was in no case that referred to by the historians who lived\nin bygone ages, and that death was in each instance caused by affixion\nto, instead of transfixion by, a stauros, we should still have to prove\nthat each stauros had a cross-bar before we could correctly describe\nthe death caused by it as death by crucifixion.\n\nIt is also, upon the face of it, somewhat unlikely that the ancients\nwould in every instance in which they despatched a man by affixing him\nto a post set in the ground, have gone out of their way to provide the\nartistic but quite unnecessary cross-bar of our imaginations.\n\nAs it is, in any case, well known that the Romans very often despatched\nthose condemned to death by affixing them to a stake or post which had\nno cross-bar, the question arises as to what proof we have that a\ncross-bar was used in the case of Jesus.\n\nNor is the question an unimportant one. For, as we shall see in the\nchapters to come, there was a pre-Christian cross, which was, like\nours, a symbol of Life. And it must be obvious to all that if the cross\nwas a symbol of Life before our era, it is possible that it was\noriginally fixed upon as a symbol of the Christ because it was a symbol\nof Life; the assumption that it became a symbol of Life because it was\na symbol of the Christ, being in that case neither more nor less than a\nvery natural instance of putting the cart before the horse.\n\nNow the Greek word which in Latin versions of the New Testament is\ntranslated as _crux_, and in English versions is rendered as _cross,\ni.e._, the word _stauros_, seems to have, at the beginning of our era,\nno more meant a cross than the English word stick means a crutch.\n\nIt is true that a stick may be in the shape of a crutch, and that the\nstauros to which Jesus was affixed may have been in the shape of a\ncross. But just as the former is not necessarily a crutch, so the\nlatter was not necessarily a cross.\n\nWhat the ancients used to signify when they used the word _stauros_,\ncan easily be seen by referring to either the Iliad or the Odyssey.[1]\n\nIt will there be found to clearly signify an ordinary pole or stake\nwithout any cross-bar. And it is as thus signifying a single piece of\nwood that the word in question is used throughout the old Greek\nclassics.[2]\n\nThe stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1) a small pointed\npole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the\nlatter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2) a\nsimilar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the\ncondemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3) a much\nlonger and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the\nvictim, with his hands tied behind him, was lodged in such a way that\nthe point should enter his breast and the weight of the body cause\nevery movement to hasten the end; and (4) a stout unpointed pole or\nstake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by\na rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the\nposition might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was\nbound, or, as in the case of Jesus, nailed.\n\nThat this last named kind of stauros, which was admittedly that to\nwhich Jesus was affixed, had in every case a cross-bar attached, is\nuntrue; that it had in most cases, is unlikely; that it had in the case\nof Jesus, is unproven.\n\nEven as late as the Middle Ages, the word stauros seems to have\nprimarily signified a straight piece of wood without a cross-bar. For\nthe famous Greek lexicographer, Suidas, expressly states, \"Stauroi;\northa xula perpegota,\" and both Eustathius and Hesychius affirm that it\nmeant a _straight_ stake or pole.\n\nThe side light thrown upon the question by Lucian is also worth noting.\nThis writer, referring to Jesus, alludes to \"That sophist of theirs who\nwas fastened to a _skolops_;\" which word signified a single piece of\nwood, and not two pieces joined together.\n\nOnly a passing notice need be given to the fact that in some of the\nEpistles of the New Testament, which seem to have been written before\nthe Gospels, though, like the other Epistles, misleadingly placed after\nthe Gospels, Jesus is said to have been _hanged_ upon a _tree_.[3] For\nin the first place the Greek word translated \"hanged\" did not\nnecessarily refer to hanging by the neck, and simply meant suspended in\nsome way or other. And in the second place the word translated \"tree,\"\nthough that always used in referring to what is translated as the\n\"_Tree of Life_,\" signified not only \"tree\" but also \"wood.\"\n\nIt should be noted, however, that these five references of the Bible to\nthe execution of Jesus as having been carried out by his suspension\nupon either a tree or a piece of timber set in the ground, in no wise\nconvey the impression that two pieces of wood nailed together in the\nform of a cross is what is referred to.\n\nMoreover, there is not, even in the Greek text of the Gospels, a single\nintimation in the Bible to the effect that the instrument actually used\nin the case of Jesus was cross-shaped.\n\nHad there been any such intimation in the twenty-seven Greek works\nreferring to Jesus, which our Church selected out of a very large\nnumber and called the \"New Testament,\" the Greek letter _chi_, which\nwas cross-shaped, would in the ordinary course have been referred to;\nand some such term as _Kata chiasmon_, \"like a chi,\" made use of.\n\nIt should also be borne in mind that though the Christians of the first\nthree centuries certainly made use of a transient sign of the cross in\nthe non-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism and at other times, it is, as\nwill be shown in the next two chapters, admitted that they did not use\nor venerate it as a representation of the instrument of execution upon\nwhich Jesus died.\n\nMoreover, if in reply to the foregoing it should be argued that as it\nis well known that cross-shaped figures of wood, and other lasting\nrepresentations of the sign or figure of the cross, were not venerated\nby Christians until after the fateful day when Constantine set out at\nthe head of the soldiers of Gaul in his famous march against Rome; and\nthat the Christian crosses of the remainder of the fourth century were\nrepresentations of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died; a\ndozen other objections present themselves if we are honest enough to\nface the fact that we have to show that they were so from the first.\nFor the Gauls, and therefore the soldiers of Gaul, venerated as symbols\nof the Sun-God and Giver of Life and Victory the cross of four equal\narms, {image \"plus.gif\"}, or {image \"x.gif\"}, and the solar wheel,\n{image \"solarwheel1.gif\"} or {image \"solarwheel2.gif\"}; while the\nso-called cross which Constantine and his troops are said to have seen\nabove the midday sun was admittedly the monogram of Christ, {image\n\"monogram1.gif\"} or {image \"monogram2.gif\"}, which was admittedly an\nadaptation of the solar wheel, as will be shown further on; and it was\nas tokens of the conquest of Rome by his Gaulish troops, that\nConstantine, as their leader, erected one of these symbols in the\ncentre of the Eternal City, and afterwards placed upon his coins the\ncrosses {image \"solarwheel1.gif\"}, {image \"solarwheel2.gif\"}, {image\n\"monogram1.gif\"}, {image \"monogram2.gif\"}, {image \"asterisk.gif\"},\n{image \"monogram3.gif\"}, {image \"monogram4.gif\"}, the cross of four\nequal arms {image \"x.gif\"}, and several variations of that other cross\nof four equal arms, the right-angled {image \"plus.gif\"}. And it was not\ntill long after these crosses were accepted as Christian, and\nConstantine was dead and buried, that the cross with one of its arms\nlonger than the other three (or two), which alone could be a\nrepresentation of an instrument of execution, was made use of by\nChristians.\n\nAnother point to be remembered is that when Constantine, apparently\nconceiving ours, as the only non-national religion with ramifications\nthroughout his world-wide dominions, to be the only one that could weld\ntogether the many nations which acknowledged his sway, established\nChristianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, the Church to\nwhich we belong would naturally have had to accept as its own the\nsymbols which Constantine had caused to be those of the State in\nquestion. And it should be added that the cross of later days with one\nof its arms longer than the others, if not also the assumption that the\nstauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar, may have been\nmerely the outcome of a wish to associate with the story of Jesus these\nGaulish symbols of victory which had become symbols of the Roman State,\nand therefore of its State Church.\n\nAnyway, the first kind of cross venerated by Christians was not a\nrepresentation of an instrument of execution; and the fact that we hold\nsacred many different kinds of crosses, although even if we could prove\nthat the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar but one\nkind could be a representation of that instrument of execution, has to\nbe accounted for.\n\nOur only plausible explanation of the fact that we hold sacred almost\nany species of cross is that, as we do not know what kind of cross\nJesus died upon, opinions have always differed as to which was the real\ncross.\n\nThis difference of opinion among Christians as to the shape of the\ninstrument upon which Jesus was executed, has certainly existed for\nmany centuries. But as an explanation of the many different kinds of\ncrosses accepted by us as symbols of the Christ, it only lands us in a\ngreater difficulty. For if we did not know what kind of cross Jesus\ndied upon when we accepted the cross as our symbol, the chances\nobviously are that we accepted the cross as our symbol for some other\nreason than that we assert.\n\nAs a matter of fact our position regarding the whole matter is\nillogical and unsatisfactory, and we ought to alter it by honestly\nfacing the facts that we cannot satisfactorily prove that our symbol\nwas adopted as a representation of the instrument of execution to which\nJesus was affixed, and that we do not even know for certain that the\ninstrument in question was cross-shaped.\n\nIt need only be added that there is not a single sentence in any of the\nnumerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original\nGreek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used\nin the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to\nthe effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two\npieces nailed together in the form of a cross.\n\nTaking the whole of the foregoing facts into consideration, it will be\nseen that it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers\nto translate the word stauros as \"cross\" when rendering the Greek\ndocuments of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that\naction by putting \"cross\" in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros\nwithout carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary\nmeaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its\nprimary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at\nall, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it\nwas for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon\nwhich Jesus was executed had that particular shape.\n\nBut--the reader may object--how about the Greek word which in our\nBibles is translated as \"crucify\" or \"crucified?\" Does not that mean\n\"fix to a cross\" or \"fixed to a cross?\" And what is this but the\nstrongest possible corroboration of our assertion as Christians that\nJesus was executed upon a cross-shaped instrument?\n\nThe answer is that no less than four different Greek words are\ntranslated in our Bibles as meaning \"crucify\" or \"crucified,\" and that\nnot one of the four meant \"crucify\" or \"crucified.\"\n\nThe four words in question are the words _prospegnumi, anastauroo,\nsustauroo_, and _stauroo_.\n\nThe word prospegnumi, though translated in our Bibles as \"crucify\" or\n\"crucified,\" meant to \"fix\" to or upon, and meant that only. It had no\nspecial reference to the affixing of condemned persons either to a\nstake, pale, or post, or to a tree, or to a cross; and had no more\nreference to a cross than the English word \"fix\" has.\n\nThe word _anastauroo_ was never used by the old Greek writers as\nmeaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber.[4]\n\nThe word _sustauroo_ does not occur in pre-Christian writings, and only\nfive times in the Bible against the forty-four times of the word next\nto be dealt with. Being obviously derived in part from the word\nstauros, which primarily signified a stake or pale which was a single\npiece of wood and had no cross-bar, _sustauroo_ evidently meant\naffixion to such a stake or pale. Anyhow there is nothing whatever\neither in the derivation of the word, or in the context in either of\nthe five instances in which it occurs, to show that what is referred to\nis affixion to something that was cross-shaped.\n\nThe word _stauroo_ occurs, as has been said, forty-four times; and of\nthe four words in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of\nthis word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most\nsignificant to find, as we do upon due investigation, that wherever it\noccurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to\nimpalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference,\nnot to crosses, but to single pieces of wood.[5]\n\nIt therefore seems tolerably clear (1) that the sacred writings forming\nthe New Testament, to the statements of which--as translated for us--we\nbow down in reverence, do not tell us that Jesus was affixed to a\ncross-shaped instrument of execution; (2) that the balance of evidence\nis against the truth of our statements to the effect that the\ninstrument in question was cross-shaped, and our sacred symbol\noriginally a representation of the same; and (3) that we Christians\nhave in bygone days acted, and, alas! still act, anything but\ningenuously in regard to the symbol of the cross.\n\nThis is not all, however. For if the unfortunate fact that we have in\nour zeal almost manufactured evidence in favour of the theory that\n_our_ cross or crosses had its or their origin in the shape of the\ninstrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed proves anything at\nall, it proves the need for a work which, like the present one, sets in\narray the evidence available regarding both the pre-Christian cross and\nthe adoption in later times of a similar symbol as that of the catholic\nfaith.\n\nNor should it be forgotten that the triumph of Christianity was due to\nthe fact that it _was_ a \"catholic\" faith, and not, like the other\nfaiths followed by the subjects of Rome, and like what Jesus seems to\nhave intended the results of His mission to have been inasmuch as He\nsolemnly declared that he was sent to the lost sheep of the House of\nIsrael and to them alone, the monopoly of a single nation or race.\n\nFor if Paul, taking his and other visions of Jesus as the long-needed\nproofs of a future life, had not disregarded the very plain intimations\nof Jesus to the effect that His mission was to the descendants of Jacob\nor Israel, and to them alone; if Paul had not withstood Christ's\nrepresentative, Peter, to the face, and, with unsurpassed zeal, carried\nout his grand project of proclaiming a non-national and universal\nreligion founded upon appearances of the spirit-form of Jesus, what we\ncall Christianity would not have come into existence.\n\nThe fact that but for Paul there would have been no catholic faith with\nfollowers in every land ruled by Constantine when sole emperor, for\nthat astute monarch to establish as the State Religion of his loosely\nknit empire, because, on account of its catholicity, that best fitted\nto hold power as the official faith of a government with world-wide\ndominions, is worthy of a lasting place in our memory.\n\nNor is the noteworthy fact last mentioned unconnected with the symbol\nof the cross. For, as will be shown, it is clear that it was because\nConstantine caused the figure of the cross to become a recognized\nsymbol of his catholic empire, that it became recognized as a symbol of\nthe catholic faith.\n\nNot till after Constantine and his Gaulish warriors planted what\nEusebius the Bishop of Caesarea and other Christians of the century in\nquestion describe as a cross, within the walls of the Eternal City as\nthe symbol of their victory, did Christians ever set on high a\ncross-shaped trophy of any description.\n\nMoreover, but for the fact that, as it happened, the triumph of\nConstantine resulted in that of the Christian Church, we should\nprobably have deemed the cross, if to our minds a representation of the\ninstrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, as anything but the\nsymbol of Victory we now deem it.\n\nThis is evident from the fact that the so-called cross of Jesus\nadmittedly fulfilled the purpose for which it was erected at the\nrequest of those who sought the death of Jesus. And even according to\nour Gospels the darkness of defeat o'ershadowed the scene at Calvary.\n\nTo put the matter plainly, the victory of Jesus was not a victory over\nthe cross; for He did not come down from the cross. Nor was it a\nvictory over His enemies; for what they sought was to get rid of a man\nwhom they deemed an agitator, and their wish was gratified, inasmuch\nas, thanks to the cross, He troubled them no more.\n\nIn other words the victory which we ascribe to Jesus did not occur\nduring the gloom which hung like a pall over his native land at the\ntime of His execution, but upon the then approaching Sun-day of the\nVernal Equinox, at the coming of the glory of the dawn.\n\nFor the victory in question, from whatever point of view we may look at\nit, was not the avoidance of defeat, but its retrieval. And its story\nis an illustration of the old-world promise, hoary with antiquity and\nfounded upon the coming, ushered in every year by the Pass-over or\ncross-over of the equator by the sun at the Vernal Equinox, of the\nbounteous harvests of summer after the dearth of devastating winter;\nbidding us ever hope, not indeed for the avoidance of death and\ntherefore of defeat, but for such victory as may happen to lay in\nsurvival or resurrection.\n\nIt is therefore clear that even if we _could_ prove that the instrument\nof execution to which Jesus was affixed was cross-shaped, it would not\nnecessarily follow that it was as the representation of the cause of\nHis death which we now deem it, that the figure of the cross became our\nsymbol of Life and Victory.\n\nIn any case honesty demands that we should no longer translate as\n\"cross\" a word which at the time our Gospels were written did not\nnecessarily signify something cross-shaped. And it is equally incumbent\nupon us, from a moral point of view, that we should cease to render as\n\"crucify\" or \"crucified\" words which never bore any such meaning.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF MINUCIUS FELIX.\n\nThe Fathers who wrote in Latin, used the word _crux_ as a translation\nof the Greek word _stauros_. It is therefore noteworthy that even this\nLatin word \"crux,\" from which we derive our words \"cross\" and\n\"crucify,\" did not in ancient days necessarily mean something\ncross-shaped, and seems to have had quite another signification as its\noriginal meaning.\n\nA reference, for instance, to the writings of Livy, will show that in\nhis time the word crux, whatever else it may have meant, signified a\nsingle piece of wood or timber; he using it in that sense.[6]\n\nThis however is a curious rather than an important point, for even the\nassumption that the word _crux_ always and invariably meant something\ncross-shaped, would not affect the demonstration already made that the\nword _stauros_ did not.\n\nAs our Scriptures were written in Greek and were written in the first\ncentury A.C., the vital question is what the word stauros then meant,\nwhen used, as in the New Testament, without any qualifying expression\nor hint that other than an ordinary stauros was signified. What the\nFathers chose to consider the meaning of that word to be, or chose to\ngive as its Latin translation, would, even if they had written the same\ncentury, in no wise affect that issue. And, as a matter of fact, even\nthe earliest of the Fathers whose undisputed works have come down to\nus, did not write till the middle of the second century.\n\nGranting, however, as all must, that most if not all of the earlier of\nthe Fathers, and certainly all the later ones, rightly or wrongly\ninterpreted the word stauros as meaning something cross-shaped, let us,\nremembering that this does not dispose of the question whether they\nrightly or wrongly so interpreted it, in this and the next two chapters\npass in review the references to the cross made by the Fathers who\nlived before Constantine's march upon Rome at the head of his Gaulish\narmy.\n\nCommencing, on account of its importance, with the evidence of Minucius\nFelix, we find that this Father wrote\n\n     \"We assuredly see the sign of a cross naturally, in the\n     ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when\n     it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the\n     military yoke is lifted up it is the sign of a cross;\n     and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with arms\n     outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is\n     sustained by a natural reason or your own religion is\n     formed with respect to it.\"[7]\n\n\nVarious other pronouncements to a similar effect are to be found in the\nwritings of other Christian Fathers, and such passages are often quoted\nas conclusive evidence of the Christian origin of what is now our\nsymbol. In reality, however, it is somewhat doubtful if we can fairly\nclaim them as such; for the question arises whether, if the writers in\ntheir hearts believed their cross to be a representation of the\ninstrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, they would have\nomitted, as they did in every instance, to mention that as the right\nand proper and all-sufficient reason for venerating the figure of the\ncross.\n\nMoreover it is quite clear that while, as will be shown hereafter, the\nsymbol of the cross had for ages been a Pagan symbol of Life, it can,\nas already stated, scarcely be said to have become a Christian _symbol_\nbefore the days of Constantine. No cross-shaped symbol of wood or of\nany other material had any part in the Christianity of the second and\nthird centuries; and the only cross which had any part in the\nChristianity of those days was the immaterial one traced upon the\nforehead in the non-Mosaic and originally Pagan initiatory rite of\nBaptism, and at other times also according to some of the Fathers,\napparently as a charm against the machinations of evil spirits.\n\nThis \"sign\" or \"signal\" rather than \"symbol\" of the cross, referred to\nas theirs by the Christian writers of the second and third centuries,\nis said to have had a place before our era in the rites of those who\nworshipped Mithras, if not also of those who worshipped certain other\nconceptions of the Sun-God; and it should be noted that the Fathers\ninsist upon it that a similar mark is what the prophet Ezekiel referred\nto as that to be placed upon the foreheads of certain men as a sign of\nlife and salvation; the original Hebrew reading \"Set a _tau_ upon the\nforeheads of the men\" (_Ezek_. ix. 4), and the tau having been in the\ndays of the prophet in question--as we know from relics of the\npast--the figure of a cross. Nor should it be forgotten that Tertullian\nadmits that those admitted into the rites of the Sun-God Mithras were\nso marked, trying to explain this away by stating that this was done in\nimitation of the then despised Christians![8]\n\nThat it was this immaterial sign or signal, rather than any material\nsymbol of the cross, which Minucius Felix considered Christian, is\ndemonstrated by the fact that the passage already quoted is accompanied\nby the remark that\n\n\n     \"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor\n     wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood\n     venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods.\n     For your very standards, as well as your banners, and\n     flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded\n     and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate\n     the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man\n     affixed to it.\"[9]\n\nThis remarkable denunciation of the Cross as a Pagan symbol by a\nChristian Father who lived as late as the third century after Christ,\nis worthy of special attention; and can scarcely be said to bear out\nthe orthodox account of the origin of the cross as a Christian symbol.\nIt is at any rate clear that the cross was not our recognised symbol at\nthat date; and that it is more likely to have been gradually adopted by\nus from Sun-God worshippers, than by the worshippers of Mithras and\nother pre-Christian conceptions of the Sun-God from us.\n\nAs our era was six or seven centuries old before the crucifix was\nintroduced, and the earliest pictorial representation of the execution\nof Jesus still existing or referred to in any work as having existed\nwas of even later date, much stress has been laid by us upon what we\nallege to be a caricature of the crucifixion of Jesus and of much\nearlier date. The drawing in question was discovered in 1856 to be\nscrawled upon a wall of the Gelotian House under the Palatine at Rome;\nand as no Christian representations of the alleged execution upon a\ncross-shaped instrument of even a reasonably early date exist, it would\nof course be greatly to our interest to be able to quote this alleged\ncaricature, which is said to be as old as the third and perhaps even as\nold as the second century, as independent evidence of the truth of our\nstory. But can we fairly do so?\n\nThe drawing in question is a very roughly executed representation of a\nfigure with human arms, legs, and feet; but with an animal's head. The\narms are extended, and two lines, which are said to represent a cross\nbut appear in front of the figure instead of behind it, traverse the\narms and trunk. In the foreground is a man looking at this grotesque\nfigure; and an accompanying inscription is to the effect that\n\"Alexamenos adores his God.\"\n\nTertullian relates that a certain Jew \"carried about in public a\ncaricature of us with this label, _An ass of a priest_. This figure had\nan ass's ears, and was dressed in a toga with a book; having a hoof on\none of his feet.\"[10]\n\nIt is upon the strength of this passage and the two lines traversing\nthe figure, that we, ignoring the fact that the figure is standing,\nclaim this much-quoted _graffito_ as conclusive evidence of the\nhistorical accuracy of our story. But it may be pointed out that even\nif this was a caricature of the execution of Jesus made at the date\nmentioned, a caricature, made certainly not less than two hundred years\nafter the event, is not altogether trustworthy evidence as to the\ndetails.\n\nAnd, was it a caricature of the execution of Jesus? It would appear\nnot.\n\nTo commence with, the two lines or scratches--for they are little\nmore--which we call a cross, need not necessarily have formed a part of\nthe original _graffito_; and, even if they did, of themselves prove\nnothing. There is no reference to a cross in the inscription, nor is\nthere anything to show that an execution of any kind is what is\nillustrated. Moreover, the hoof upon one foot, mentioned by Tertullian,\nis not to be seen; a remark which also applies to the toga and the book\nhe mentions. And even what Tertullian referred to was not a caricature\nof the execution of Jesus.\n\nIt should also be noted that the head of the figure in this famous\ngraffito, is more like that of a jackal than that of an ass; and\nappears to have been a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis, who\nis so often to be seen upon relics of the past as a figure with a\njackal's head, with human arms extended, and with human legs and feet,\nas in this drawing.\n\nUpon all points, therefore, our claim concerning the graffito is an\nill-founded one; and it cannot be considered evidence regarding either\ncross or crucifixion.\n\nThere thus being no opposing evidence of any weight, it is quite clear\nfrom the fact that as late as the third century after Christ we find a\nChristian Father who venerated the sign or figure of the cross\ndenouncing it as a symbol, that no material representations of that\nsign or figure were recognised as Christian till an even later date.\nAnd such a conclusion is borne out by the striking fact that when\nClement of Alexandria at the beginning of the third century made out a\nlist of the symbols which Christians were permitted to use, he\nmentioned the Fish and the Dove but said nothing regarding the\nCross.[11]\n\nAs to the sign or figure of the cross referred to by the Fathers of the\nsecond and third centuries, even so high an authority as the Dean of\nCanterbury admits, as we shall see in the next chapter, that it was not\n\"mainly\" as reminding them of the death of Jesus that the Christians of\nthe second and third centuries venerated it. If, therefore, not in the\nmain, and, it would follow, not originally as a representation of the\ninstrument of execution upon which Jesus died, what more likely than\nthat the early Christians venerated the sign and figure of the cross as\nthe age-old and widely accepted symbol of Life and of the Sun-God we\nknow it to have been?\n\nAnyway Minucius Felix may be said to stand alone in denouncing the\nsymbol of the cross as non-Christian. And as even he expresses\nveneration for the figure of the cross, and must have approved of the\nsign of the cross in the initiatory rite of baptism, that denunciation\nevidently applied only to material representations of the cross.\n\nMoreover the denunciation in question was clearly due to the fear that\nsuch objects might degenerate amongst Christians, as they afterwards\ndid, into little better than idols. And if the sign or figure of the\ncross did not mainly remind the early Christians of the death of Jesus,\nit must have mainly reminded them of something else.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER FATHERS.\n\nThe works which have come down to us from the Fathers who lived before\nthe days of Constantine make up over ten thousand pages of closely\nprinted matter; and the first point which strikes those who examine\nthat mass of literature with a view to seeing what the Christians of\nthe first three centuries thought and wrote concerning the execution of\nJesus and the symbol of the cross, is that the execution of Jesus was\nhardly so much as mentioned by them, and no such thing as a\nrepresentation of the instrument of execution once referred to.\n\nAnother fact worthy of special note is that, whether the Fathers wrote\nin Greek and used the word _stauros_, or wrote in Latin and translated\nthat word as _crux_, they often seem to have had in their mind's eye a\ntree; a tree which moreover was closely connected in meaning with the\nforbidden tree of the Garden of Eden, an allegorical figure of\nundoubtedly phallic signification which had its counterpart in the Tree\nof the Hesperides, from which the Sun-God Hercules after killing the\nSerpent was fabled to have picked the Golden Apples of Love, one of\nwhich became the symbol of Venus, the Goddess of Love. Nor was this the\nonly such counterpart, for almost every race seems in days of old to\nhave had an allegorical Tree of Knowledge or Life whose fruit was Love;\nthe ancients perceiving that it was love which produced life, and that\nbut for the sexual passion and its indulgence mankind would cease to\nbe.\n\nStarting upon an examination of the early Christian writings in\nquestion, we read in the _Gospel of Nicodemus_ that when the Chief\nPriests interviewed certain men whom Jesus had raised from the dead,\nthose men made upon their faces \"the sign of the stauros.\"[12] The sign\nof the cross is presumably meant; and all that need be said is that if\nthe men whom Jesus raised from the dead were acquainted with the sign\nof the cross, it would appear that it must have been as a pre-Christian\nsign.\n\nFurther on in the same Gospel, Satan is represented as being told that\n\"All that thou hast gained through the Tree of Knowledge, all hast thou\nlost through the Tree of the Stauros.\"[13]\n\nElsewhere we read that \"The King of Glory stretched out his right hand,\nand took hold of our forefather Adam, and raised him: then, turning\nalso to the rest, he said, 'Come with me as many as have died through\nthe Tree which he touched, for behold I again raise you all up through\nthe Tree of the Stauros.'\"[14] Some see in this peculiar pronouncement a\nreference to the doctrine of re-incarnation.\n\nIn the _Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Andrew_ we are told that\nthose who executed Andrew \"lifted him up on the stauros,\" but \"did not\nsever his joints, having received this order from the pro-consul, for\nhe wished him to be in distress while hanging, and in the nighttime as\nhe was suspended to be eaten by dogs.\" There is nothing to show that\nthe stauros used was other than an ordinary stauros.\n\nIn the _Epistle of Barnabas_ are various references to the stauros;\nmixed up with various passages from the Hebrew Scriptures,\nquoted--without any justification--as referring to the initiatory rite\nof baptism; a rite, be it noted, that was admittedly of Gentile rather\nthan Israelitish origin, and not unconnected with the Sun-God worship\nof the Persians and other Orientals of non-Hebrew race.\n\nThe references in question commence with the enquiry, \"Let us further\nask whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the Water and the\nStauros?\"\n\nAfterwards we have a quotation of _Psalm_ i. 3-6--which likens the good\nman to a tree planted by the side of a river and yielding his fruit in\ndue season--and the pronouncement, \"Mark how he has described at once\nboth the Water and the Stauros. For these words imply, Blessed are they\nwho, placing their trust in the Stauros, have gone down into the\nWater.\"\n\nThis further reference to the non-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism is\nfollowed by a quotation of _Ezekiel_ xlvii. 12, which speaks of a river\nby whose side grow trees those who cat the fruit of which grow for\never.\n\nFurther on is a declaration that when Moses stretched out his hands (in\na direction not specified) that victory might rest with the forces he\ncommanded, he stretched them out in the figure of a stauros, as a\nprophecy that Jesus \"would be the author of life.\"\n\nA reference is then made to the Brazen Serpent, and to the pole upon\nwhich it was placed; and it is stated that this lifeless imitation of a\nserpent was a type of Jesus.\n\nIn the _Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians_ we read that the stauros\nof the Christ is indeed a stumbling block to those who do not believe.\nThe evidence of Irenaeus, as that of one who was through his\nacquaintance with the aged Polycarp almost in touch as it were with the\napostles, will on account of his importance as a witness be specially\ndealt with in the next chapter.\n\nJustin Martyr, arguing that the figure of the cross is impressed upon\nthe whole of nature, asks men to\n\n\n     \"Consider all things in the world, whether without this\n     form they could be administered or have any certainty.\n     For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is\n     called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is\n     not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not\n     their work except with tools which have this shape. And\n     the human form differs from that of the irrational\n     animals in nothing else than in its being erect and\n     having the hands extended and having on the face\n     extending from the forehead what is called the nose,\n     through which there is respiration for the living\n     creature; and this shows no other form than that of the\n     cross. And so it was said by the prophet _The breath\n     before our face is the Lord Christ_. And the power of\n     this form is shown by your own symbols on what are\n     called standards and trophies; with which all your\n     processions are made, using these as insignia of your\n     power and government.\"[15]\n\nElsewhere Justin Martyr declares that the Christ\n\n     \"Was symbolised both by the Tree of Life which was said\n     to have been planted in Paradise, and by those events\n     which should happen to all the just. Moses was sent with\n     a _rod_ to effect the redemption of the people; and with\n     this in his hands at the head of the people he divided\n     the sea. By this he saw the water gushing out of the\n     rock; and when he cast a _tree_ into the waters of\n     Marah, which were bitter, he made them sweet. Jacob by\n     putting _rods_ into the water troughs caused the sheep\n     of his uncle to conceive . . . . Aaron's _rod_ which\n     blossomed declared him to be the High Priest. Isaiah\n     prophesied that a rod would come forth from the root of\n     Jesse, and this was the Christ.\"[16]\n\nFurther on in the same work, Justin Martyr, alluding to the statement\nin the Israelitish Law \"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,\"\nstates that\n\n\n     \"It was not without design that the prophet Moses\n     when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this\n     form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon\n     the tree almost until evening.\"[17]\n\nTertullian writes concerning the Christ \"With the last enemy Death did\nhe fight, and through the trophy of the cross he triumphed\"[18]; and\nelsewhere tells us that \"Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree\" was\na prediction of his death.[19]\n\nThere is also in existence a long essay by Tertullian which starts by\ndiscussing the efficacy of \"the sign\" as an antidote. The sign of the\ncross as traced upon the forehead in the non-Mosaic initiatory rite of\nbaptism seems to be what is referred to; and no representation of an\ninstrument of execution, or cross-shaped symbol of wood or any\nmaterial, is once mentioned.[20]\n\nIn another of Tertullian's works we come across the passage \"In all the\nactions of daily life we trace upon the forehead the sign.\"[21]\n\nHis famous reference to the Sun-God Mithras reads as follows:--\n\n\n     \"The devil in the mystic rites of his idols competes\n     even with the essential portions of the sacraments of\n     God. He, like God, baptizes some, that is, his own\n     believing and faithful followers, and promises the putting\n     away of sins by baptism; and if I remember rightly\n     Mithras there signs his soldiers upon their foreheads,\n     celebrates the oblation of bread, introduces a representation\n     of the resurrection, and places the crown beyond\n     the sword.\"[22]\n\nElsewhere Tertullian writes:--\n\n     \"If any of you think we render superstitious adoration\n     to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us . .\n     You worship _victories_, for in your trophies the cross\n     is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the\n     Romans is all through a worship of the standards . . . I\n     praise your zeal: you would not worship crosses\n     unclothed and unadorned.\"[23]\n\nIn another of Tertullian's works we read:--\n\n\n     \"As for him who affirms that we are the priesthood of a\n     cross, we shall claim him as a co-religionist . . .\n     Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an\n     erect position is part of a cross, and indeed the\n     greater part of its mass. But an entire cross is\n     attributed to us . . . . The truth however is that\n     _your_ religion is _all_ cross . . . You are ashamed, I\n     suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.\"[24]\n\nIn the _Instructions of Commodianus_ we read \"The first law was in the\ntree, and so, too, was the second.\"[25]\n\nCyprian contends that \"By the sign of the cross, also, Amalek was\nconquered by Moses.\"[26]\n\nElsewhere Cyprian tells us that \"In this sign of the cross is salvation\nfor all people who are marked on their foreheads\"; quoting as proof of\nthis, from the Apocalypse, \"They had his name and the name of his\nFather written on their foreheads,\" and \"Blessed are they that do his\ncommandments that they may have power over the Tree of Life.\"[27]\n\nMethodius tells us that \"He overcame, as has been said, the powers that\nenslaved us by the figure of the cross; and shadowed forth man, who had\nbeen oppressed by corruption as by a tyrant power, to be free with\nunfettered hands. For the cross, if you wish to define it, is the\nconfirmation of victory.\"[28]\n\nPassing on to Origen, we find in one of his works the noteworthy\npassage:--\n\n     \"It is possible to avoid it if we do what the Apostle\n     saith 'Mortify your members which are upon earth,' and\n     if we always carry about in our bodies the death of\n     Christ. For it is certain that where the death of Christ\n     is carried about, sin cannot reign. For the power of the\n     _stauros_ of Christ is so great that if it be set before\n     a man's eyes and kept faithfully in his mind so that he\n     look with steadfast eyes of the mind upon that same\n     death of Christ, no concupiscence, no sensuality, no\n     natural passion, and no envious desire, is able to\n     overcome him.\"[29]\n\nWhether however this reference to the \"_stauros_ of Christ\" is or is\nnot a reference to the figure of the cross, is doubtful.\n\nSuch is the evidence regarding the cross, whether considered as\nimmaterial sign or material symbol, obtainable from the writings of the\nChristians who lived between the days of the Apostles and those of\nConstantine; other of course than the _Octavius_ of Minucius Felix,\nwhich was dealt with in the last chapter, and the writings of Irenaeus,\nwhich will be dealt with in the next.\n\nAmong the noteworthy features of the evidence in question prominently\nstands out the smallness of its volume.\n\nThis is but a negative point, however; and what should be carefully\nborne in mind is that the evidence as a whole leads to the conclusion\nthat the Christians of the second and third centuries made use of the\nsign and venerated the figure of the cross without, as Dean Farrar\nadmits, it \"only or even mainly,\" reminding them of the death of Jesus;\nand therefore otherwise than as a representation of the instrument of\nexecution upon which Jesus died.[30]\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nCURIOUS STATEMENTS OF IRENAEUS.\n\nThe special importance of the evidence of Irenaeus, is due to the fact\nthat of all the Fathers whose undisputed works have come down to us he\nis the only one who can be considered to have been anything like in\ntouch with the Apostles. As an acquaintance of the aged Polycarp, who\nis said to have been in his youth a pupil of the aged Evangelist and\nApostle St. John and to have met yet other Apostles, Irenaeus had\nopportunities for ascertaining facts concerning the life and death of\nJesus which the other Fathers upon whose works we rely did not possess.\n\nWhat, then, does this important witness have to say, which bears upon\nthe points at issue? As a matter of fact, very little.\n\nThere are, however, two passages in the works of Irenaeus which it\nwould not be right to altogether ignore.\n\nIn the first of these passages Irenaeus mentions that some Christians\nbelieved that Simon of Cyrene was executed instead of Jesus, owing to\nthe power of Jesus to metamorphose himself and others having been\nexercised with that object in view.[31] This power is referred to more\nthan once in our Gospels, for instance in the account of the so-called\n\"Transfiguration\" upon the Mount; the Greek word rendered in our Bibles\nas \"transfigured\" being the word which in translations of the older\nGreek classics is rendered \"metamorphosed.\"\n\nEven if we pass by this belief of certain of the early Christians that\nJesus was never executed, a question here arises which should at least\nbe stated, and that is the question how, if Jesus was metamorphosed\nupon the Mount, as the Gospels tell us, he can be said to have died as\na man at Calvary? For if upon the Mount of Transfiguration, or at any\nother time previous to the scene at Calvary, Jesus was metamorphosed,\nthe form which was the result of the process of re-metamorphosis\nnecessary to make him recognisable again cannot be said to have been\nborn of the Virgin Mary, and can have been human only in appearance.\n\nThe other passage in the writings of Irenaeus which deserves our\nnotice, is neither more nor less than an emphatic declaration, by\nIrenaeus himself, that Jesus was not executed when a little over thirty\nyears of age, but lived to be an old man. Explain it away how we will,\nthe fact remains; and it certainly ought not to be ignored.\n\nAt first sight this statement of Irenaeus would decidedly seem to\nsupport the theory advanced by some, that, as the Roman Procurator\nPontius Pilate admittedly did not want to carry out the extreme penalty\nin the case of Jesus, though he reluctantly consented to do so in order\nto pacify the Jews and allowed Jesus to be fixed to a stauros and\nsuspended in public view, he took care to manage things so that Jesus\nshould only appear to die. The idea of course is that if Pilate wished\nto preserve the life of Jesus he could easily have had him taken down\nwhile in a drugged condition, have had the farce of burial carried out\nat the earliest possible moment, and then have had him resuscitated and\nremoved to some region where he could dwell in safety.\n\nWhat Irenaeus says concerning Jesus is that\n\n\n     \"He passed through every age, becoming an infant for\n     infants. . . . So likewise he was an old man for old\n     men, that he might be a perfect Master for all, not\n     merely as regards the setting forth of the truth but\n     also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the\n     aged also and becoming an example to them likewise.\n     Then, at last, he came on to death itself. . . . From\n     the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline\n     towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still\n     fulfilled the office of a Teacher; even as the Gospel\n     and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in\n     Asia with John the disciple of the Lord affirming that\n     John conveyed to them that information. And he remained\n     among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them\n     moreover saw not only John but the other apostles also,\n     and heard the very same account from them, and bear\n     testimony as to the statement. Whom, then, should we\n     rather believe? Whether such men as these, or\n     Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles and who never\n     even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an\n     apostle?\"[32]\n\nThe reader must decide for himself or herself whether Irenaeus believed\nthat Jesus was never executed; or that he was executed but survived; or\nthat he was born when we suppose, but executed thirty years or so later\nthan we suppose; or that, though executed when we suppose, he was then\nan old man, and was born, not at the commencement or middle or end of\nthe year A.C. 1, or B.C. 4, or whenever the orthodox date is, but\nthirty years or more before what we call our era began. Anyhow he\nmentions neither cross nor execution, and here seems to assume that\nJesus died a natural death. And in any case the fact remains that,\nhowever mistaken he may have been, Irenaeus stated that Jesus lived to\nbe an old man; and stated so emphatically.\n\nEven granting that Irenaeus must have been mistaken, his evidence none\nthe less affects one of the most important points debated in this work.\nFor it is clear that if even he knew so little about the execution of\nJesus, the details of that execution cannot have been particularly well\nknown; and the affirmation that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed\nhad a transverse bar attached may have had no foundation in fact, and\nmay have arisen from a wish to connect Jesus with that well-known and\nwidely-venerated Symbol of Life, the pre-Christian cross.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nORIGIN OF THIS PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS.\n\nHaving in the foregoing chapters demonstrated that it is possible, if\nnot indeed probable, that the instrument of execution to which Jesus\nwas affixed was otherwise than cross-shaped; and having also shown that\nit was not mainly, if indeed even partially, that the early Christians\nsignified that instrument by the sign of the cross; it is now desirable\nthat, as a preliminary to an enquiry into the circumstances under which\nthe cross became the symbol of Christianity, we should enquire into the\norigin of the _pre_-Christian cross.\n\nThat there was a pre-Christian cross, and that it was, like ours, a\nSymbol of Life, is generally admitted.\n\nThe authorities upon such subjects, however, unfortunately differ as to\nthe reason why the Cross came to be selected by the ancients as the\nSymbol of Life. And not one of their suggestions seems to go to the\nroot of the matter.\n\nLet us therefore in thought go back tens of thousands of years, and\nconceive the genus Homo as a race gradually awakening to reason but as\nyet unfettered by inherited traditions and creeds. Let us imagine Man\nere he began to make gods in his own image. Let us remember that what\nwould strike him as the greatest of all marvels would of necessity be\nLife itself, and that far and away the next greatest marvel must have\nbeen the glorious Sun; the obvious source of earth life, and Lord of\nthe Hosts of Heaven.\n\nLet us bear in mind, too, that though the Nature Worship of our remote\nancestors had other striking features, the facts mentioned would lead\nto the predominance of the phallic idea, and to its association with\nSun-God worship. And as Life, the greatest marvel of all, must have had\na symbol allotted to it at a very early date, let us ask ourselves what\nthe untutored mind of Man would be most likely to select as its symbol.\n\nTo this question there is, so far as the author can see, but one\nreasonable answer:--the figure of the cross.\n\nAnd the author conceives this to be the real solution of the difficulty\nfor this reason:--because the figure of the cross is the simplest\npossible representation of that union of two bodies or two sexes or two\npowers or two principles, which alone produces life.\n\nFor the ancients cannot fail to have perceived that all life more\nimmediately proceeds from the _union_ of _two_ principles; and the\nfirst, readiest, simplest, and most natural symbol of Life, was\nconsequently one straight line superimposed upon another at such an\nangle that both could be seen; in other words, a cross of some\ndescription or other.\n\nIt is evidently probable that this was the real reason why the figure\nof the cross originally came to be adopted as the Symbol of Life. But,\nof course, whatever the original reason, as time rolled on other\nreasons for the veneration of the cross were pointed out; nothing being\nmore natural than that primitive Man should, or more certain than that\nhe did, find pleasure in connecting with other objects of his regard\nthan Life itself, that which as the Symbol of Life was pre-eminently a\nsymbol of good omen.\n\nThe most notable instance of this is the way in which, or rather the\ndifferent ways in which, the figure of the cross was connected with the\nSun-God.\n\nA good example of the last named fact, is the declaration of the\nphilosophers of ancient Greece that the figure of the cross was the\nfigure of the \"Second God\" or \"Universal Soul,\" the _Ratio_ as well as\nthe _Oratio_ of the All-Father, which they called the _Logos_ of God; a\nterm badly translated in our versions of the Gospel of St. John as the\n_Word_ of God, as if it signified the _Oratio_ only.\n\nIt was this Logos or \"Second God\" whom Philo, who was born before the\ncommencement of our era, described as the \"Intellectual Sun,\" and even\nas God's \"First Begotten\" and \"Beloved\" offspring, and the \"Light of\nthe World\"; terms afterwards made use of by the writers of our Gospels\nin describing the Christ. And, as will be shown in a chapter upon the\nsubject, the reason the philosophers, among whom was Plato, gave for\ndeclaring the cross to be the figure of the Logos, was that the Sun\ncreates this figure by crossing the Equator.\n\nAn even better illustration can be seen in the fact that in days of old\nalmost every civilised race held feasts at the time of the Vernal\nEquinox, in honour of the Passover or _Cross_-over of the Sun.\n\nThe fact that the ancients were thus at special pains to connect the\nsymbol of Life with the Sun-God, and also, as we know, spoke of him as\nthe \"Giver of Life\" and the only \"Saviour,\" was doubtless due to their\nperceiving, not only that life is the result of the union of the two\nprinciples distinguished by the titles male and female, but also that\nthe salvation of life is due to the action of the sun in preserving the\nbody from cold and in producing and ripening for its use the fruits of\nthe earth.\n\nAs the Giver of Life, the Sun-God was of course considered to be\nbi-sexual. But when the two great lights of heaven, the Sun and the\nMoon, were associated with each other, as was often and naturally the\nease, the Sun was considered to be more especially a personification of\nthe Male Principle, and the waxing and waning moon, as represented by\nthe Crescent, a personification of the Female Principle. Hence the\nworship of the God associated with the radiate sun, as of that of the\nGoddess associated with the crescent moon and called the Sun-God's\nmother or bride, was phallic in character; and their connection is\nrepeatedly symbolised upon the relics which have come down to us from\nantiquity by the sign of the crescent containing within its horns\neither a disc or what we should consider a star-like object, which\nlatter was almost as favourite a mode with the ancients of representing\nthe sun as it is with us of representing a star or planet, as will be\nshown further on.\n\nReturning, however, to the symbol of the cross, as the first and\nsimplest representation of that union of the Male and Female Principles\nwhich alone produces what we mortals call life, it is extremely curious\nthat the selection of the figure of the cross in comparatively modern\ntimes as the simplest and most natural symbol both of addition and of\nmultiplication, should have led no one to perceive that, being for\nthese very reasons also the simplest and most natural symbol of Life, a\nprobable solution of the mystery surrounding the origin of the\npre-Christian cross as a symbol of Life, as it were stared them in the\nface. As to the contention of not a few authorities, apparently founded\nupon the mistaken assumption that the _Svastika_ was the earliest form\nof cross to acquire importance as a symbol, that the pre-Christian\ncross was originally a representation of the wheel-like motion of the\nsun or a reference to the wheel of the Sun-God's chariot; it need only\nbe remarked that evidence exists to show that the cross was a symbol of\nLife from a period so early, that it is doubtful if the Sun-God had\nthen been likened to a charioteer, and not certain that either chariots\nor wheels had been invented. It is true that the Solar Wheel became a\nrecognized symbol of the Sun-God, and that additional veneration was\npaid to it because the figure of the symbol of Life was more or less\ndiscoverable in the spokes allotted to the Solar Wheel; but it is\nputting the cart before the horse to suppose that the cross became the\nsymbol of Life because its form was so discoverable.\n\nIt only remains to be added that there undoubtedly was a connection,\nhowever slight, between the pre-Christian Cross as the Symbol of Life,\nthe Solar Wheel as a symbol of the Sun-God, and the Cross as the symbol\nof the Christ. And whatever the date at which the cross was first\nadopted as a Christian symbol, or whatever the reason for that\nadoption, there is no doubt that, as will be shown further on, our\nreligion was considerably influenced by the facts that the Gaulish\nsoldiers whose victories enabled Constantine to become Sole Emperor\nvenerated the Solar Wheel, {image \"solarwheel1.gif\"} or {image\n\"solarwheel2.gif\"}, and that their leader, who was anxious to obtain\nthe support of the Christians, allowed a loop to be added to the top of\nthe vertical spoke so that the Christians might be able to interpret\nthe victorious symbol as {image \"monogram1.gif\"} or {image\n\"monogram2.gif\"}, {image \"monogram3.gif\"} or {image \"monogram4.gif\"};\n_i.e._, XP or XPI, the first two or three letters of the Greek word\nXPI{sigma}TO{sigma}, _Christos_, Christ.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN CROSS.\n\nAs has already been to some extent pointed out, it is evident that our\nbeloved Christendom more or less owes its existence to the fact that\nConstantine the Great when only ruler of Gaul, himself a Sun-God\nworshipper at the head of an army of Sun-God worshippers, seeing how\ngreatly the small but enthusiastic bodies of Christians everywhere to\nbe met with could aid him in his designs upon the attainment of supreme\npower, bid for their support. For to this politic move, its success,\nand Constantine's perception that only a non-national religion whose\nfollowers sought to convert the whole world and make their faith a\ncatholic one, could really weld together different races of men, we owe\nthe fact that when he became Sole Emperor he made Christianity the\nState Religion of the world-wide Roman Empire.\n\nThis act and its far-reaching effects, are not all we owe to\nConstantine, however. It should be remembered that even our creed was\nto some extent decided by him. For it was this Sun-God worshipper--who,\nthough he advised others to enter what he wished should become a\ncatholic and all-embracing religion, refused to do so himself till he\nwas dying--who called together our bishops, and, presiding over them in\ncouncil at Nicaea, demanded that they should determine the controversy\nin the ranks of the Christians as to whether the Christ was or was not\nGod, by subscribing to a declaration of his Deity. It is even recorded\nthat he forced the unwilling ones to sign under penalty off deprivation\nand banishment.\n\nFrom these and other incidents in his career it would appear that,\neither from policy or conviction, Constantine acted as if he thought\nthe Sun-God and the Christ were one and the same deity.\n\nThe probability of this is more or less apparent from what we are told\nconcerning the part he played in connection with what, thanks, as we\nare about to see, to him, became our recognised symbol.\n\nOur knowledge of the part played by Constantine in connection with the\nsymbol of the cross, except so far as we can gather it from a study of\nancient coins and other relics, unfortunately comes to us solely\nthrough Christian sources. And the first that famous bishop and\necclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we owe so large\na proportion of our real or supposed knowledge of the early days of\nChristianity, tells us about Constantine and the cross, is that in the\nyear A.C. 312--a quarter of a century before his admission into the\nChristian Church--Constantine and the Gaulish soldiers he was leading\nsaw at noon _over the Sun_ a cross of Light in the heavens, bearing\nupon it or having attached to it the inscription EN TOYT{omega} NIKA,\n_By this conquer_.\n\nThe words of the Bishop, who is reporting what he states the Emperor in\nquestion to have told him personally, are:--\n\n     \"He said that at mid-day when the sun was beginning to\n     decline he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross\n     of light in the heavens, above the Sun, bearing the\n     inscription EN TOYT{omega} NIKA; he himself, and his\n     whole army also, being struck with amazement at this\n     sight.\"[33]\n\nThough this marvellous cross, declared by Christian writers of that\ncentury to have been the so-called Monogram of Christ {image\n\"monogram1.gif\"} or {image \"monogram3.gif\"} or {image \"monogram2.gif\"}\nor {image \"monogram4.gif\"}, appeared to an army of Sun-God worshippers,\nConstantine himself--as can be seen from his coins--remaining one for\nmany years afterwards if not till his death, it is put before us as a\nChristian cross.\n\nIt is also noteworthy that no material representation of a cross of any\ndescription was ever held aloft by adherents of the Christian Church,\nuntil after Constantine is said to have had this more or less solar\ncross so represented as the standard of his Gaulish army.\n\nMention should therefore be made of the fact that, upon the coins he\nstruck, the symbol {image \"monogram1.gif\"} is perhaps the one which\noccurs the most frequently upon representations of the famous _Labarum_\nor Military Standard of Constantine; but that the symbol {image\n\"monogram1.gif\"}, the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"} without the circle, and the {image \"solarwheel1.gif\"}\nand {image \"asterisk.gif\"}, are also to be seen.\n\nNow the Gauls led by Constantine specially venerated the Solar Wheel.\nThis had sometimes six and sometimes four spokes, {image\n\"solarwheel1.gif\"} or {image \"solarwheel2.gif\"}, and the warriors of\ntheir native land had long been in the habit of wearing a\nrepresentation of the same upon their helmets. It is therefore not\nimprobable that even before the date of the alleged vision when\nmarching upon Rome, some such symbol formed the standard of\nConstantine's army.\n\nAnyhow, that the worthy Bishop Eusebius was, like other enthusiasts,\nliable to be at times carried by his enthusiasm beyond the limits of\nveracity, or else was the victim of imperial mendacity, is evident. For\nEusebius tells us in the _Life of Constantine_ he wrote after the death\nof his patron, that the night after this miraculous \"cross\" and motto\nwere seen in the sky above the Sun, the Christ appeared to Constantine,\nand, showing the Gaulish general the same sign that had been seen in\nthe sky, directed him to have a similar symbol made, under which his\narmy--an army, be it remembered, of Sun-God worshippers--should march\nconquering and to conquer![34]\n\nAll that is really likely to have happened is that Constantine, wishing\nto encourage his troops, bade them rally round a standard on which was\nrepresented the sacred Solar Wheel venerated by the Gauls; and that as\nwith this as a rallying point Constantine and his Gauls became masters\nof Rome, the symbol we are discussing became a Roman--and therefore,\nlater on, upon the establishment of our faith as the State Religion of\nthe Roman Empire, also a _Christian_--symbol. And a loop seems to have\nbeen sooner or later added to the top of the vertical spoke of the\nGaulish symbol, so that Christians could accept it as a Monogram of\nChrist; as has already been hinted, and as will be demonstrated further\non.\n\nA noteworthy point is that we have two accounts of Constantine's\nalleged vision of the Christ, and that they do not quite agree. The\nBishop of Caesarea's account is, that the night after the Emperor--then\nonly ruler of Gaul--and all his soldiers saw the \"cross\" and motto\nabove the meridian sun, the Christ appeared to Constantine\n\n     \"With the same sign which he had seen in the heavens,\n     and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which\n     he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard\n     in all engagements with his enemies.\"[35]\n\nBut the author of _De Mortibus Persecutorem_, a work said to have been\nwritten during the reign of Constantine, and attributed to Lactantius,\nrefers to the alleged vision as follows:--\n\n     \"Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the\n     celestial sign of God on the shields, and thus engage in\n     battle. He did as he was commanded, and marked the name\n     of the Christ on the shields by the letter X drawn\n     across them with the top circumflexed. Armed with this\n     sign his troops--\"[36]\n\nand the differences between these two accounts are greater than would\nat first sight appear.\n\nLet us however return to the story of the Bishop of Caesarea, who tells\nus that the morning after the Christ appeared to Constantine, the\nEmperor told this second marvel to his friends, and, sending for the\nworkers in gold and precious stones who are assumed to have accompanied\nthe Gaulish army, directed them to overlay with gold a long spear\n\n     \"On the top of the whole of which was fixed a wreath of\n     gold and precious stones, and within this the symbol of\n     the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of\n     the Christ by means of its initial characters, the\n     letter P being intersected with the letter X in its\n     centre.\"[37]\n\nSeveral questions naturally arise at this point of our enquiry, and it\nis not easy--nay, it is impossible--for us Christians to honestly\ndispose of all of them and yet retain our cherished opinions upon this\nmatter. Only one such question need be stated, and it is this: Is it\nlikely that the Infinite Ruler of the universe, either at mid-day or at\nmid-night, went out of his way to induce a Sun-God worshipper who would\nnot enter the Christian Church till a quarter of a century later and\nere then was to become a murderer of innocent persons like the\nboy-Caesar Licinius, to adopt a symbol which he warranted would enable\nConstantine to lead on the Gauls to victory?\n\nPursuing the narrative of Eusebius we find that he, alluding to the\nsymbol which he describes as a monogram but calls a cross, states that,\nsetting this \"victorious trophy and salutary symbol\" in front of his\nsoldiers, Constantine continued his march against Maxentius; and, with\nhis forces thus \"divinely aided,\" overthrew the Emperor just outside\nthe Imperial City, entered Rome in triumph, and thanked God that He had\nenabled him to defeat and slay its ruler and assume the purple in that\nruler's stead.[38]\n\nEusebius then tells us that Constantine, who did not dispose of all his\nrivals and become sole emperor till some twelve years later, as victor\nin the fight with Maxentius and master of Rome though not as yet of the\nwhole empire, at once\n\n     \"By loud proclamation and monumental inscriptions made\n     known to all men the salutary symbol, setting up this\n     great trophy of victory over his enemies, and expressly\n     causing it to be engraven in indelible characters that\n     the salutary symbol was the safeguard of the Roman\n     Government and entire people. Accordingly he immediately\n     ordered a lofty spear in the figure of a cross to be\n     placed beneath the hand of a statue representing himself\n     in the most frequented part of Rome, and the following\n     inscription engraven on it in the Latin tongue:--'By\n     virtue of this salutary sign which is the true test of\n     valour, I have preserved and liberated your city from\n     the yoke of tyranny, and I have also set at liberty the\n     Roman Senate and People, and have restored to them their\n     ancient distinction and splendour.'\"[39]\n\nNow, as we have already seen, what Eusebius referred to as the \"cross\"\nobserved above the mid-day sun (and accompanied by a miraculous\ninscription in, presumably, to agree with the monogram, the Greek\nlanguage; which was, well, \"Greek\" to the Gaulish soldiers) was the\nso-called Monogram of Christ {image \"monogram1.gif\"} or {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"} or {image \"monogram2.gif\"} or {image \"monogram4.gif\"}.\nThat, too, was what Eusebius tells us the Christ afterwards told the\nGaulish leader Constantine to model his military standard after. That,\ntherefore, was the \"salutary symbol\" and \"trophy of victory\" referred\nto in the above passage from the same authority.\n\nIt is therefore clear that this \"lofty spear in the figure of a cross\"\nwhich Eusebius tells us was placed under the hand of the statue of\nConstantine in the central place of honour in Rome, was referred to by\nEusebius as a \"cross\" because it was shaped like or in some way\nconnected with some form or other of the so-called Monogram of Christ.\nAnd such a conclusion is borne out by the fact that spears with\ncross-bars had been in use among both Gauls and Romans for centuries,\nwhereas this one is referred to as something out of the common.\n\nIt should also be noted that it was as a victorious military standard,\nand not as either a monogram of the Christ or a representation of the\n_stauros_ upon which Jesus was executed, that Constantine caused this\n{image \"solarwheel1.gif\"} or {image \"asterisk.gif\"}, or {image\n\"monogram1.gif\"} or {image \"monogram3.gif\"}, or {image \"monogram2.gif\"}\nor {image \"monogram4.gif\"} (all which variations occur upon the coins\nof Constantine and his successors), to become a symbol of the Roman\nEmpire.\n\nFurther on in his history of the Emperor, Eusebius tells us that\nwhenever Constantine saw his troops hard pressed, he gave orders that\nthe \"salutary trophy\" should be moved in that direction, and that\nvictory always resulted.\n\nThe Bishop of Caesarea then goes on to relate that Constantine selected\nfifty men of his bodyguard, the most distinguished for piety, valour,\nand strength, whose sole duty it was to defend this famous standard;\nand that, of the elect fifty, those who fled were always slain, and\nthose who stood their ground were always miraculously preserved.[40]\n\nOne would imagine from all this that there was only one labarum. Many\ndifferent kinds are, however, represented upon the coins of\nConstantine; as also almost every variety of ordinary cross, except,\nperhaps, such as might conceivably have been a representation of an\ninstrument of execution, like that which has since come into vogue\namong us.\n\nEusebius also tells us that Constantine caused to be erected in front\nof his palace a lofty tablet, on which was painted a representation of\nhimself with the \"salutary sign\" over his head and a dragon or serpent\nunder his feet.[41]\n\nHe also informs us that inside the palace and in the principal\napartment, on a vast tablet in the ceiling, Constantine caused \"the\nsymbol of our Saviour's passion to be fixed, composed of a variety of\nprecious stones inwrought with gold.\"[42]\n\nWhich of all the \"salutary\" signs that appear upon the coins of\nConstantine these particular crosses were, we do not know; but it is,\nat any rate, obviously unlikely that a worshipper of Apollo who refused\nto enter the Christian Church till he was dying, and on his coins\nalways attributed his victories to the Sun-God, elevated either as a\nrepresentation of an instrument of execution.\n\nAs to the alleged finding at Jerusalem, by Helena the mother of\nConstantine, of three stakes with transverse bars attached, all of\nwhich were ancient instruments of execution and one of which was shown\nby the occurrence of a miracle to have been a cross to which Jesus was\naffixed three centuries before, it is clear that this is a fairy tale.\nThe story cannot be traced further back than to St. Cyril of Jerusalem\nabout A.C. 350; and Eusebius, who gives an account of Helena's visit to\nJerusalem, does not mention any such occurrence as that in question; a\nsure sign that it was an invention of later date.\n\nThe Christian Church, however, in a weak moment vouched for the truth\nof this ridiculous story; and while what was suffered to remain in\nJerusalem of the true cross became the treasure of that city and a\ntrophy captured by its foes but afterwards secured from them and once\nmore placed in its holiest shrine, what was broken up into relics for\nthe faithful throughout Christendom multiplied into a thousand\nfragments; one of which forms the centre of the Vatican Cross, and such\nfew others of which as survive would not if examined, 'tis said, even\nprove to be all of the same kind of wood, or even limited to the two\nkinds for the presence of which a supposed cross-bar of another kind of\ntimber might be held accountable.\n\nThe same Christian Bishop to whom this fairy tale can be traced, in a\nletter to one of the Emperors that succeeded Constantine declared that\non the seventh of May A.C. 351 he and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem\nsaw a brilliant cross in the heavens, stretching from Mount Golgotha to\nthe Mount of Olives, and _shining like the Sun for several hours_.[43]\nAnd this marvellous vision is vouched for by St. Jerome, Socrates,\nMatins, and the Alexandrine Chronicle, as well as by St. Cyril; and is\nstill kept in memory by the Greek Church, a solemn festival being held\nupon anniversaries of the day in question. But which particular\n\"salutary sign\" thus shone in the sky like the Sun for hours, is\nuncertain.\n\nThese painfully obvious inventions cannot but incline broad-minded\nChristians to the belief that our Church went to great lengths in order\nto induce people to believe that the cross was essentially a\n_Christian_ symbol; which tends to show that there was a danger of\ntheir thinking otherwise.\n\nIt is also clear from the evidence already quoted concerning the\nadoption by Christians in the fourth century of a symbol they denounced\nin the third, that whether Jesus was executed upon a cross-shaped\ninstrument or not, that was not the chief reason why the phallic symbol\nof Life became recognised as the symbol of the Christ.\n\nThe striking fact that though, as will be shown, the cross of four\nequal arms (a cross which, as we have seen, preceded the Latin cross as\na Christian symbol, and one form of which is still the favourite symbol\nof the Greek Church; while even in the other two great divisions of\nChristendom its numerous variations, wheel-like and otherwise, as a\nwhole dispute the supremacy with the Latin cross) occurs many times\nupon the coins of Constantine, yet it was the so-called Monogram of\nChrist or adapted solar wheel of the Gauls which the Christians of the\nfourth century were most careful to claim as a Christian symbol, should\nalso be noted. For though the cross of four equal arms was also put by\nConstantine upon his coins as a solar symbol, yet that, being then, as\nfor ages previously, a symbol of the Sun-God of world-wide acceptation,\nand one which as we shall see had already appeared as such upon Roman\ncoins, it was not so much a Gaulish symbol as the other; and it was\nevidently because that other was the symbol followed by the triumphant\nleader of the Gauls and his victorious army, that the Christians wished\nto specially identify it with the Christ.\n\nIn any case, whether the so-called Monogram of Christ was more or less\nforced upon Christianity when Constantine made our faith the State\nReligion of his empire, or whether it was adopted by Christians of\ntheir own volition, it was a politic move (than which few possible\nmoves could have done more to secure the triumph of our faith) to\naccept as the symbol of the Christian Church what was at one and the\nsame time the symbol of Constantine, of the Roman State, and of the\nuniversally adored Sun-God.\n\nThat the more generally accepted symbol of the Sun-God, the cross of\nfour equal arms, should in time supplant the more local one, was of\ncourse only to be expected; as was the adoption of a cross with one arm\nlonger than the others, as being the only kind which could possibly be\nconnected with the story of Jesus as the Christ incarnate.\n\nAs to the possible objection that what has been dealt with in this\nchapter has been rather the origin of the Christian custom of\nmanufacturing and venerating material representations of the sign or\nfigure of the cross than the origin of the Christian cross itself, the\nanswer is obvious. And the answer is that the first cross which can\n_justly_ be called \"Christian,\" was the one which was the first to be\nconsidered, to use Dean Farrar's expressions, \"mainly,\" if not \"only,\"\na representation of an instrument of execution; which cross was\nundoubtedly not a transient sign or gesture but a material\nrepresentation of the cross with one arm longer than the others and was\nintroduced after such representations of the cross of four equal arms\nand of the so-called Monogram of Christ had come into vogue among\nChristians as a consequence of the influence of Constantine.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE ESTABLISHER OF THE CHURCH.\n\nHaving already shown not a little cause for believing that the adoption\nof the cross as our symbol is due to the fact that we Christians helped\nto secure the triumph of the ambitious ruler of the Gauls, and after\nreceiving numberless smaller favours from Constantine during the years\nhe was ruler of Rome but not as yet sole emperor eventually obtained\nfrom him the establishment of Christianity as the State Religion of the\nRoman Empire, adapting the victorious trophy of the Gauls and the\nvarious crosses venerated by them and other Sun-God worshippers to our\nfaith as best we could, it is desirable that we should pause to trace\nthe career of the man we hail as the first Christian Emperor.\n\nTo do this properly we must commence by referring to Constantine's\nfather, Constantius Chlorus; and to the favour shown to Constantius\nChlorus by his patron the Emperor Diocletian.\n\nFinding the supreme rule of the almost worldwide Roman Empire too much\nfor one man in ill-health to undertake successfully, Diocletian in the\nyear A.C. 286 made Maximian co-emperor. And in A.C. 292 Diocletian\nfollowed this up by conferring the inferior position and title of\nCaesar upon Galerius and Constantius Chlorus.\n\nIn A.C. 305 Diocletian relinquished power altogether, forcing Maximian\nto abdicate with him; Galerius and Constantius Chlorus thus obtaining\nthe coveted title of Augustus, and sharing the supreme power.\n\nGalerius now ranked first, however; for it was to the ruler of\nIllyricum and not to that of Gaul that Diocletian gave the power of\nappointing Caesars to govern Italy and the East.\n\nConstantius Chlorus died in Britain A.C. 306, the year after Diocletian\nabdicated; and Galerius, who had married a daughter of Diocletian,\nnaturally thought that under the circumstances he ought to become sole\nemperor.\n\nThe legions of Gaul, however, proclaimed the son of Constantius Chlorus\nas Augustus in his stead; and as Constantine thus became ruler of Gaul\nand a power to be reckoned with, Galerius thought it best to give way\nso far as to grant Constantine the inferior title of Caesar.\n\nSoon afterwards Galerius conferred the title of Augustus upon Severus;\nand a little while after that the Eternal City was lost to Galerius\nthrough the revolt of his son-in-law Maxentius, the son of Maximian.\n\nThe Senate of Rome then asked Maximian to re-assume the purple, and he\nand Maxentius shared the power between them, both taking the title of\nAugustus.\n\nUpon this Severus at the request of Galerius marched upon Rome. He was,\nhowever, defeated and slain.\n\nAfter being more or less expelled by his son Maxentius, Maximian in the\nyear A.C. 308 marched to Gaul and married his daughter Fausta to\nConstantine; at the same time conferring upon him the title of\nAugustus. About this time Galerius made his friend Licinius an Augustus\nin the place of Severus; whereupon Maximin, the Governor of Syria and\nEgypt, demanded and was granted that title also.\n\nThere were thus in the year A.C. 308 some half-a-dozen Roman Emperors\ninstead of one; there being Constantine and Maximian in the west,\nMaxentius at Rome, and Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin elsewhere; not\nto mention Diocletian, who was content to remain in retirement.\n\nThis decided break-up of the Roman Empire was Constantine's\nopportunity; and he was favourably placed, for he had a warlike and\nfaithful people under him.\n\nMoreover by reversing so far as lay in his power as ruler of Gaul the\ntraditional policy of Rome towards Christianity, and setting himself\nforward as a champion of a non-national religion which had been\npersecuted because it was non-national, Constantine was secure of the\nenthusiastic backing of all the Christians to be found in the dominions\nof his various rivals.\n\nIn A.C. 310 Constantine either executed his father-in-law the Emperor\nMaximian, or caused him to commit suicide; and the first of his five\nrivals was disposed of.\n\nIn A.C. 311 the Emperor Galerius died from disease, and Constantine's\nmost formidable competitor, and one who undoubtedly had a better claim\nthan himself to the position of sole emperor, thus opportunely made way\nfor the ruler of Gaul.\n\nIn A.C. 312 Constantine marched at the head of the Gauls against the\nEmperor Maxentius, defeated him near the Milvian Bridge outside Rome,\nand entered the Eternal City in triumph. Maxentius is said to have been\ndrowned in the Tiber; and the Senate decreed that Constantine should\nrank as the first of the three remaining Augusti.\n\nIn A.C. 313 the Emperor Maximin fought the Emperor Licinius; but his\nforces were defeated, and he soon afterwards died.\n\nSome ten years or so later Constantine went to war with his only\nremaining rival, Licinius, defeated him, and became sole emperor, A.C.\n324.\n\nThat despite his great qualities as a ruler the character of\nConstantine was not perfect, can be easily seen from the fact that, not\ncontent with executing the Emperor Licinius after accepting his\nsubmission, he murdered the young Licinius; a boy certainly not over\ntwelve years of age, and according to some authorities two or three\nyears younger than that. He also put his own son Crispus to death, and\nother relations as well.\n\nWe are told that Constantine was so tortured by the memory of these and\nother crimes that he applied to the priests of the Gods of Rome for\nabsolution, but that they bravely said that there was no absolution for\nsuch sins, whereupon this worshipper of the Sun-God turned to his\nfriends the Christians and they gave him what he desired.[44]\n\nThis statement seems somewhat improbable, however, as one would imagine\nthat the Pagan priests, when called upon by one who was Pontifex\nMaximus and therefore their spiritual superior as well as the supreme\nemperor, would not have scrupled to invent some purifying rite--if they\nhad none such--warranted to blot out the stain of every crime and\nthoroughly appease offended heaven.\n\nHowever this may have been, these terrible crimes of Constantine, all\ncommitted many years after his alleged conversion to our faith, show\nhow badly advised we are to so needlessly go out of our way to claim as\na Christian one who refused to enter the Christian Church till he was\ndying and possibly no longer master of himself.\n\nIt is said that this refusal of his to be baptised till he was weak and\ndying and surrounded by Church officials who would perhaps have spread\nthe report that he had been baptised even if they had not then at last\nbeen able to induce him to take the decisive step, was due, not to want\nof belief, but to excess of belief; Constantine's idea being that the\nlonger he put off the rite in question, the more crimes would it wash\nout. Or, in other words, that delay would enable him to sin with\nimpunity a little longer.\n\nThis may possibly have been the case, but it should at the same time be\nborne in mind that whether Constantine called him Apollo or Christ, it\nseems probable that it was the Sun-God to whom he referred. For\neverything tends to show that this astute emperor, who so naturally\nwished to establish and mould a religion which all his subjects of\nwhatever race or nationality might be reasonably expected to become in\ntime willing to accept, acted during his reign as supreme ruler of the\nRoman World, if not from first to last, as if the Christ were but\nanother conception of the Sun-God he was brought up to worship as\nApollo and all countries venerated under some name or other.\n\nThis point is not only demonstrated by the fact that upon his coins\nConstantine repeatedly declared that the Sun-God was his invincible\nguide and protector and the giver even of the victory foreshadowed by\nthe alleged vision of the cross or Monogram of Christ above the\nmeridian sun, but is also clearly shown by certain incidents connected\nwith the founding towards the end of his life of the new metropolis\nwhich in less than a century equalled Rome in all save antiquity.\n\nNew Rome, or, as we now call it, Constantinople, the city of\nConstantine, was built on the site of, and often called by the name of,\nByzantium. It was not designed till A.C. 324, and was not dedicated\ntill A.C. 330, or, as some think, an even later date: Constantine dying\nin the year A.C. 337.\n\nWe are told that Constantinople was dedicated to the Virgin Mother of\nGod.[45] This should remind us of the fact that long before our era,\nand right down to the time when Constantine selected Byzantium as the\nsite of a new capital, that place was considered dedicated to the\nVirgin Queen of Heaven.\n\nNow in the central place of honour in his new metropolis, one would\nnaturally expect Constantine to erect something or other to the honour\nof the God to whom he attributed his victories.\n\nWhose, then, was the statue Constantine towards the end of his life,\nand about twenty years after his alleged conversion to our faith,\nerected in the centre of the Forum of New Rome?\n\nIt was a statue of the Sun-God Apollo; or, as some explain it, a statue\nof himself adorned with the attributes of the Sun-God.\n\nIn fact, taking the career of Constantine as a whole, there is nothing\ninconsistent with the supposition that he was a Christian only in so\nfar as, out of policy or conviction, he acted as if he considered the\nChrist to be one of many conceptions of the Sun-God. For although, as\nhas been mentioned and will be shown in a later chapter, Constantine,\nupon the many varieties of coins he issued, repeatedly acclaimed the\nSun-God as his companion and the author of his triumphs, he never once,\nexcept in so far as he may have considered the God we Christians\nworship to be the Sun-God, so attributed his victories to the Christ.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCROSS AND CRESCENT.\n\nBefore passing in review the evidence regarding the symbol of the cross\nderivable from Roman coins and other relics of antiquity, a few\nintroductory remarks are necessary regarding the too often forgotten\nfact that the ancients naturally looked upon the Giver of Life as\nbi-sexual; no life being known to them which was not a result of the\nconjunction of the Male and Female Principles.\n\nThe necessarily bi-sexual character of the creator of both the Male and\nFemale Principles, was, it should be remembered, borne in mind by the\nthinkers of old all the while they accommodatingly spoke of the Sun-God\nor Giver of Life as being a personification of the Male Principle and\ngave him a Bride or Virgin Mother to represent the Female Principle.\n\nMoreover, just as the disc of the Sun, or the star-like form which the\nancients often used to signify the radiate or impregnating Sun,\nnaturally came to be recognised as the symbol of the Male Principle, so\nthe Crescent, as signifying the increasing Moon and the lesser of the\ntwo great lights of heaven, in like manner came to be adopted as the\nnatural symbol of the Female Principle.\n\nIn this connection it will not be amiss to draw attention to the symbol\nof the conquerors of the city founded by Constantine. For though\nmisleadingly called \"the Crescent,\" that symbol is, as the reader\ncannot very well fail to be aware, not a mere crescent; but one which\nhas within its horns what we consider to be a star-like form and\ntherefore call a star. And though it is possible that it was not\nknowingly adopted as such by the Moslems, this dual symbol was a\ncombination of the ancient symbols of the Male and Female Principles.\n\nAn erroneous account of the origin of this symbol as a Moslem symbol is\ngiven in all our works of reference which deal with the matter, as if\ntheir compilers copied one from another without troubling to consider\nthe evidence for themselves.\n\nThe incorrect but widely accepted explanation in question, is to the\neffect that the so-called _star_ and crescent had its origin as a\nMoslem symbol in the capture of Byzantium or Constantinople by the\nTurks in A.C. 1453; our works of reference stating that it was then\nadopted by Mahomet II., as the symbol of the famous city he had taken\nfrom the Christians.\n\nBut was the \"star and crescent\" the symbol of the City of Constantine?\nIt would appear not.\n\nAncient Byzantium was, as stated in a previous chapter, considered,\nlong before our era and right up to the days of Constantine, as\ndedicated to the Virgin Queen of Heaven; whose symbol was a crescent.\nAnd when Constantine rebuilt and renamed Byzantium, he dedicated New\nRome--or, as we now call it, Constantinople--to the Virgin Mother of\nGod and Queen of Heaven; whose symbol, as can be seen upon reference to\nboth ancient and modern representations of the Virgin Mary, is also a\ncrescent. It would therefore appear that the symbol of the city is more\nlikely to have been a simple crescent than the so-called _star_ and\ncrescent. Such a conclusion is entirely borne out by the evidence. For\nthough the so-called star and crescent can be seen upon three or four\ncoins struck at Byzantium before such a place as New Rome was thought\nof, this proves little if anything; inasmuch as the symbol in question\nwas a very common one in days of old, and occurs frequently upon coins\nstruck elsewhere.\n\nMoreover the question is what the symbol of Constantinople was at the\ntime it was captured by the Turks. And an inspection of the coins\nissued by the Christian rulers of that city during the thousand years\nand more it was in their hands, will reveal to the enquirer that though\nthe crescent with a _cross_ within its horns appears occasionally upon\nthe coins of the Emperors of the East, and in one or two instances we\nsee a cross of four equal arms with each extremity piercing a crescent,\nit is doubtful if a single example of the so-called \"_star_ and\ncrescent\" symbol can be found upon them.\n\nWe learn from other sources also that the symbol of the imperial\nChristian Metropolis captured by the Turks nearly five hundred years\nago and ever since retained by them, was a simple crescent. And there\nis no doubt whatever that the dual symbol of the Moslems was adopted by\nthem, not when they brought about the downfall of Constantinople as a\nChristian city, but centuries before, as a result of the conquest of\nPersia.\n\nIt was in the year A.C. 641 that the battle of Nehavend, ever after\ncalled by the Moslems the _Victory of Victories_, laid at the feet of\nthe followers of the Prophet the kingdom of Iran or Persia, and brought\nto an end the Sassanian Monarchy.\n\nNow the coins of the Sassanian kings then and for the previous two\ncenturies bore upon them, with scarcely an exception, the so-called\n\"_star_ and crescent\"; and it was as the symbol of this Zoroastrian\ndynasty and of the fair land of Iran, that the Moslems adopted it as\ntheir own. What the star-like object (star-like, that is, in _our_\nopinion) represented upon the coins of Iran or Persia when placed\nwithin the horns of a crescent, was, of course, the Sun. The\nsupposition of certain writers that the dual symbol represented the two\ncrescent-presenting orbs, Venus and the Moon, is entirely mistaken. For\nthough the conjunction of the two crescent-shaped and feminine lights\nof heaven, was of old, like the combination of the symbol of the\nSun--as representing the Male Principle--with that ever feminine symbol\nthe Crescent, held to signify Increase and Life, we are dealing with\nwhat was admittedly a Mithraic symbol. And not only was the star-like\nobject in question the symbol of the Sun-God Mithras, but it was, as\nany student of the coins of the Sassanian dynasty can see, substituted\nfor the disc.\n\nUpon the Sassanian coins the so-called star, in reality a\nrepresentation neither of a star nor of a planet but of the radiate\nSun, seems to have been first substituted for the round disc as a\nrepresentation of the Sun, by Perozes, about A.C. 457; the disc in the\nhorns of a crescent being the symbol on the coins of his father\nIsdigerd II. and other predecessors. But the dual symbol miscalled the\n\"star and crescent\" was one even then of great antiquity, as will be\nshown in a later chapter dealing with Phoenician relics discovered in\nCyprus and elsewhere.\n\nThe primary signification of the dual symbol in question, often\naccompanied on the Sassanian coins by a prayer that the monarch might\n\"increase,\" or flourish generally, was undoubtedly _Life_. And it is\nclear that the conjunction of the Crescent as the symbol of the Female\nPrinciple of Life with the star-like figure which represented the\nradiate, life-giving, or impregnating Sun, must have not only signified\nLife, but also the necessarily bi-sexual Giver of Life.\n\nWe are thus brought to the conclusion that the Cross and the so-called\nCrescent are more or less allied in signification.\n\nNor is this noteworthy fact to be wondered at. For only words and forms\ndivide the faiths of Mankind, and at heart the one object of our\ndesires is Life. Even those who piously lay down their lives for others\nhere, do so in the hope of being rewarded with longer life and more\nblissful life hereafter.\n\nAnother point which is too often overlooked, is that if the followers\nof the so-called Crescent have, as would appear to be the case,\nforgotten the meaning of their symbol and the fact that it alludes to\nthe bi-sexual nature of the Creator, we followers of the Cross may all\nunconsciously be in a very similar position regarding our symbol. And\nas the Cross as the recognised symbol of the Christ is not of older\ndate than the conquest of Rome by the Gauls, and more or less resulted\ntherefrom, it is clear that the same remark applies if we consider the\nMoslems to have adopted their symbol as that of the land they conquered\nfrom the Sassanian kings, rather than as one with the primal and\nnatural interpretation of which they were content.\n\nAnyway the cross as well as the \"star and crescent\" is more or less a\nbi-sexual symbol, as will be clear to those who understand how the\ncross came to be recognised ages before our era as the natural symbol\nof Life. And a good illustration of the fact in question still exists\nin the Caroccio crucifix of Milan; in which relic we see, under the\nusual inscription, an androgynous Christ upon a cross, with a man's\nhead but half the body of female form, and with, instead of a cloth or\nfig-leaf, the phallic _crux ansata_, or Egyptian cross or symbol of\nLife, placed sideways, and as if the oval represented the female organ\nof reproduction, and the _tau_ or incomplete cross that of the other\nsex.\n\nLike the Red Cross of to-day, the Carocco bi-sexual crucifix, once so\ncommon in Italy, was a symbol of Life and Salvation in two senses; it\nnot only being considered so in itself, but being also used on the\nbattlefield as a rallying point for wounded soldiers, signalling to\nthem that bandages, drugs, and surgical aid, could be obtained where it\ntowered aloft.\n\nThese references to the fact that in days of old many very naturally\ncame to the conclusion that the Creator and Giver of Life and only\nSaviour must be bi-sexual, should remind us Christians that our\nassertion that the Infinite Spirit is \"Our Father\" is not from all\npoints of view an improvement upon the ideas of the ancients. For they\nalso, and rightly, conceived what we wrongly ignore, _viz._, that the\nInfinite Author of all existence must also be \"Our Mother.\"\n\nIn this respect Protestants have if possible gone even further astray\nthan members of the Greek and Roman Churches. For in the veneration\npaid by the latter to Mary of Nazareth as the Bride of God, the Mother\nof God, the Star of the Sea, and the Queen of Heaven, can be seen a\nsurvival, however toned down or distorted, of the old idea that the\nDeity must necessarily be of both sexes.\n\nEven the plainly evident fact that, while in pre-Christian days the\nsymbol of the cross represented the two sexual powers in conjunction,\nit has in Christian times come to be considered the symbol of Life as\nbeing the symbol of the SON of God, should, moreover, lead us to note\nthat our religion scarcely does justice to the part played in the\neconomy of Nature by the fair sex. This is doubtless due to the fact\nthat the moulding of our creed and the interpretation of things hard to\nbe understood has for the most part been in the hands of the sex which,\nas the author belongs to it, may by way of contrast be called unfair.\n\nWhat, for instance, can be more unfair than the assumption that God, if\nincarnated as one of the genus Homo, must have been born a male? Yet\nthat assumption is at the very basis of modern Christianity.\n\nMoreover, even granting that the Deity was specially incarnated in\nJesus the Nazarene and therefore as a male, why should we, as if\nsupposing that a passing form could stamp its sex upon an Infinite\nSpirit, speak of \"God the Son\" yet never of \"God the Daughter?\"\n\nThe fact is that the natural disabilities and disadvantages of the\nchildbearing sex have from the first resulted in the power of the male\nsex to rule the roast, and one result of the predominance thus ensured\nto the male sex by the laws of Nature has of course been a similar\npredominance for the opinion that the Creator is of the male sex.\n\nSome enthusiastic champion of her sex, alluding to the fact that the\nopposing sex now has a monopoly of the priesthood, may even go so far\nas to ask with a special meaning, Has not Man from the beginning made\nGod in his own image?\n\nThe male sex did not always have a monopoly of the priesthood, however;\nand in few if any instances did the priests of old go so far as to\nteach that the Creator, whom out of compliment to the Deity--or\nthemselves--they naturally spoke of as belonging to the stronger sex,\nwas a male and _only_ a male. Nor did they even assume such a thing.\nThough the different gods and goddesses were spoken of as belonging to\nthis or that sex, more than one were regarded as in reality\nandrogynous; and the fact that the Creator and Giver of Life must of\nnecessity be so was very generally recognised.\n\nAs a matter of fact it is by no means certain that the Creator is not\nrepresented as being androgynous even in our Bible. For in the account\nof the Creation which the Jews brought with them from Babylon, the\nCreator is represented as saying \"Let _us_ make man in _our_ image\";\nand a race which like the Jews solemnly declared that there was but one\nGod, could only, it would seem, have accepted such a declaration as a\ndivine revelation if they conceived the God supposed to be speaking to\nbe androgynous, and addressing the other part of himself. This would\naccount for the emphasis laid upon the statement that man was created\n\"male _and_ female,\" like, or in the image of, the Creator.\n\nIn any case it is clear that if God be not female as well as male, Man\nwas _not_ created in the likeness of God.\n\nThe theory of the ancients that Man himself was created an androgynous\nbeing, capable, like the Creator, of creating life in himself, but was\nafterwards divided into halves, one of which is ever seeking to find\nthe other, need only be mentioned.\n\nSuffice it to add that it can scarcely be said to have been altogether\nprogress in the right direction, which has led us mortals to call the\nAuthor of all Life \"Our Father,\" to the utter obscuration of the\nequally important fact that the Deity in whom we live and move and have\nour being must also be \"Our Mother.\"\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE CORONATION ORB.\n\nThe fact that though we Christians fail to do the matter justice, the\nancients upon the contrary recognised that the Creator and the Giver of\nLife cannot be rightly spoken of as belonging to one sex and one alone,\nis not the only fact which those who examine relics of antiquity, such\nas the coins of the Roman Empire, with a view to ascertaining what\nevidence is derivable from them that bears upon the history of the\nsymbol of the cross, should ever bear in mind. Another point to be kept\nin view is the evolution of the Christian symbol now known as the\nCoronation Orb.\n\nThis compound symbol, which plays so prominent a part in the regalia of\na Christian Monarch, also crowns the topmost height of many a Christian\nTemple including both St. Peter's at Rome and St. Paul's at London. And\nit is noteworthy that it bears a certain resemblance to the\nrepresentation of the Apex, once worn by the Salian priests and\nafterwards by the Pontifex Maximus and the Flamens generally, which\nappears upon ancient coins of the _Fabia_ gens; the office of _Flamen\nQuirinalis_ having been hereditary in the Fabia family.\n\nUpon other coins also, what is said to be meant for the pontifical apex\noccurs as a round ball surmounted by something very like a cross, in\nthe hand of a female figure representing Rome; exactly as the so-called\nCoronation Orb is to be seen upon coins of later date in the hand of\nthis or that Christian Emperor.\n\nThe evidence as a whole, however, favours the supposition that the\nCoronation Orb, instead of having been derived from the Apex of the\nPagan priests and thus signifying the claim to priesthood or headship\nof the church so often made by monarchs, is a development of the round\nobject, frequently unsurmounted by anything, so continually to be met\nwith upon ancient coins of Rome in the hand of this or that God,\nGoddess, or Ruler.\n\nThis being the case, it is a matter of very considerable importance\nthat we should be quite sure what the round object in question used to\nsignify, and should base our assurance upon the results of personal\ninvestigation rather than upon the assumption that the popular\nexplanation is necessarily the correct one.\n\nThough the round object in question was, as stated, in days of old\noften used as a symbol by itself, it was sometimes, and, as time rolled\non, more and more frequently, surmounted by a small female figure with\nwings; which figure was a representation of Victory. This figure was,\nafter the establishment of Christianity as the State Religion of the\nRoman Empire, gradually, and only gradually, supplanted by the figure\nof the cross.\n\nAlthough several writers of note assume that the initiative in this\ndirection was taken by Constantine himself, the first step seems to\nhave been taken upon the death of Constantine, when a coin or medal was\nissued on which the deceased monarch is called a God and is represented\nas holding a round object surmounted by the so-called Monogram of\nChrist; a symbol continually referred to by Eusebius and other writers\nof the fourth century as a cross.\n\nLater on an instance occurs of the Monogram surmounting a round object\nheld by a female figure representing Rome. This is upon a coin issued\nby Nepotianus, a nephew of Constantine.\n\nPassing on to the reign of Valentinianus II., we find that that Emperor\nissued a coin upon which a round object surmounted by a cross is to be\nseen in the hand of Victory herself. This would appear to have been the\nfirst instance in which what we should call a cross, supplanted the\nrepresentation of Victory as a small female figure with wings, as a\nsymbol surmounting the round object which we are considering.\n\nA similar coin was issued by Theodosius I., surnamed the Great; the\nlast of the Emperors of Rome whose rule extended throughout the whole\nof the Roman world.\n\nThe instances named are, it will be understood, the exceptions to the\ngeneral rule during a considerable period. And upon many of the coins\nof the Emperors mentioned, as well as upon those of the intervening\nEmperors, the round object held by those rulers is surmounted by either\na Victory or a Phoenix; usually by the former, but in several instances\nby the latter.\n\nThe first ruler who caused _himself_ to be represented as holding a\nround object surmounted by an ordinary cross, was Theodosius II.,\nEmperor of the East.\n\nThe fact that for a long time the Victory, the Phoenix, and the Cross,\nwere made use of as symbols which might be substituted one for another,\nis worthy of special note. For the facts that the round object held by\nTheodosius II. is as often surmounted by a Victory as by a Cross, and\nthat a Victory instead of a Cross was often used by succeeding\nChristian Emperors, tend to show that the Victory, the Phoenix, and the\nCross were allied in signification, and equally connected with the\nround object the nature and meaning of which we are about to enquire\ninto.\n\nThe reader may possibly object that no case has been made out for such\nenquiry, inasmuch as not only did the cross in course of time entirely\nsupplant the Victory, but the round object from first to last, and\nwhether unsurmounted by anything or surmounted by a Victory or a\nPhoenix or a Cross, signified the world upon which we dwell, the round\nworld, and nothing but the world.\n\nSuch is, of course, the popular assumption; based upon what we are\ntaught in school books and in standard works of reference. But, as a\nmatter of fact, in many cases the round object admittedly signified an\napple; the Golden Apple of the Hesperides: a well known phallic symbol.\nWhenever a round object unsurmounted by anything is to be seen in the\nhand of either the Sun-God Hercules or Venus the Goddess of Love, it\nadmittedly may have been, for it admittedly often was, a\nrepresentation, not of the world, but of the Golden Apple. And not only\ndoes it so occur upon a very large number of coins, but in some\ninstances we see the Victory surmounting it; recalling to our minds the\nfact that victory, as signifying the triumph of Life over Death, had a\nphallic as well as a martial meaning, and is achieved every time that a\nman is born into the world as a result of the tasting of the fruit of\nthe Tree of Life or of the knowledge of good and evil.\n\nMoreover, though the fact is now for some reason or other ignored, the\nso-called Coronation Orb of Christian Monarchs was itself once known as\nthe Golden Apple. It is so referred to in important Latin documents of\nthe Middle Ages; for instance in the famous Bull of Charles IV.\nregarding the Imperial elections, wherein we read of the right of the\nCounts Palatine of the Rhine to carry the symbol in question at the\ncoronation of their Emperor. And to this very day the so-called\nCoronation Orb is known throughout Germany and Austria as\n_Reichsapfel_, the Imperial Apple.\n\nIt is therefore by no means certain that the round portion of the\nCoronation Orb which thus caused the name of \"the Golden Apple\" to be\ngiven to this compound Christian symbol, is not, like the cross above\nit, to some extent a phallic symbol.\n\nEvery one should know the classic story of the Golden Apple; how the\ntree which bore the Golden Apples grew up in the Garden of the\nHesperides in honour of the wedding of Hera, a goddess who more or less\npersonified the female sex; how the Golden Apples are variously said to\nhave been dedicated to the Sun (Hellos), to the Sun-God (Dionysos), and\nto the Goddess of Love (Aphrodite); how the Sun-God Hercules as one of\nthe twelve labours which represented the months, slew the Serpent which\nguarded the tree, and plucked the fruit; and how the Goddess Eris, who\nalone of all the deities was not invited to the nuptials of Peleus and\nThetis, revenged herself by throwing among the guests a Golden Apple\ninscribed \"To the fairest,\" and Paris awarded it to the Goddess of\nLove, Aphrodite or Venus.\n\nThe story of the Garden of the Hesperides is at heart one with that of\nthe Garden of Eden; for it is obvious that the same phallic meaning\nunderlies each, and that they are but different versions of the same\nallegory.\n\nIt may here be called to mind that it has this century been discovered\nfrom the cuneiform inscriptions of Western Asia, that Eden was the name\ngiven by Babylonians in days of old to the plain outside Babylon,\nwhereupon, according to the legends of that city, the creation of\nliving beings took place. Also that much evidence has accrued which,\nimpartially weighed in the balance, leads clearly to the conclusion\nthat the all-important commencement of Genesis, which forms as it were\nthe very basis of both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures, was\nborrowed by the Jews from Babylon. And that it was in reality a\n_Babylonian_ tradition or series of traditions of far older date than\nany writing of purely Jewish origin, has not only been amply proved by\nrecent discoveries, but might indeed have been guessed from its\nreference to the Tower of Babel or Babylon.\n\nNor is this all, for among the age-old relics discovered in Western\nAsia is a pictorial representation of the allegorical Temptation and\nFall.\n\nUpon this noteworthy piece of evidence the Tree of Knowledge or Life,\nwith which the figure of the cross was identified by the early\nChristians; the Serpent, which in all countries and every age has been\nmore or less identified with the sexual powers; the Man; the Woman; and\nthe Apple; are all represented. And it is important to note that,\naccording to the cuneiform inscription upon another time-worn relic in\nthe British Museum, the Babylonians of old, at a time when the\ndescendants of Jacob or Israel were without scriptures of their own,\nhad a tradition to the effect that the fate of our first parents--who,\nthanks to a wicked Serpent of Darkness, tasted of the forbidden fruit\nwhich grew in the \"Garden of the Gods\"--was placed in the hands of\n\"their Redeemer.\"\n\nIt should also be pointed out that this voice from the dim and distant\npast distinctly states that the Redeemer in question was--the Sun-God.\n\nIn ancient days the so-called forbidden fruit or apple seems to have\nborne somewhat the same symbolic meaning that the egg did. But while\nthe apple not only represented Life, but also, and primarily, that\nunion between two sexes or principles which produces life, the egg more\nor less lacked the latter meaning, and, on the other hand, signified\nExistence in a wider sense than the apple did.\n\nThe _Cosmos_ itself was an egg according to the conceptions of many of\nthe ancients; and few ideas were more widely spread, or can be traced\nfurther back, than the one that the whole visible creation emerged from\nthe original Chaos or Darkness in the shape of an egg.\n\nThe egg also, and above all, signified the Sun-God, as the acknowledged\nGiver of Life and Saviour of Life. Hence the prominent part which it\nplayed in the various religious mysteries of the ancients, and also the\nfact that the Egyptians represented the Sun-God Ra as giving forth such\nutterances as \"I am the Creative Soul of the celestial abyss. None sees\nmy nest, and none can break my egg.\" The egg referred to, was of course\nthe Sun itself.\n\nEven our Christian custom of exchanging eggs at Easter is more or less\nderived from Sun-God worship, being a survival from customs practised\nlong before our era at that particular period of the year, the time of\nthe Vernal Equinox or Pass-over of the Sun, when the Orient Light\ncrosses the Equator to rise once more in the Northern Hemisphere.\n\nNor are these the only facts connecting the egg with Sun-God worship,\nfor the Sun-God Apollo was of old represented as born from the egg of\nLeda, and the Sun-God Osiris was also said to have been born from an\negg.\n\nMoreover the Chinese believe that the first man was born from an egg,\nthe Orphic hymns speak of the \"First-Begotten One\" as \"egg-born,\" and\nthe Greeks fabled that their Sun-God Dionysos sprang from the cosmic\negg.\n\nAs to the origin of the Coronation Orb, it is noteworthy that no finer\nor more natural symbol of Power could have been fixed upon than a\nrepresentation of that ball of fire which was so frequently spoken of\nin bygone ages as \"the Orb,\" and from which all earthly life and power\nmay be said to proceed.\n\nHowever the available evidence certainly seems to show that the round\nobject we are considering is more likely to have signified the cosmic\negg than the solar orb.\n\nIn any case the object in question cannot be shown to have represented\nthe world upon which we dwell and that alone; and nothing is more\nlikely than that so famous a symbol should, like the cross which now\nadorns it, have more or less signified Life.\n\nIt should also be pointed out that this symbol of Power may have\nsignified, not so much that the Ruler who used it laid claim to\nworld-wide dominion, as that he held in his hand power over the lives\nof others; and, possibly, also that he claimed to be, as the vicegerent\nof the Sun-God and Giver of Life, the only legitimate Saviour of his\ncountry.\n\nThe facts that the symbol was used in clays of old by others than the\nEmperors whose sway extended over the whole of the Roman Empire, and is\nnowadays considered the rightful symbol of every Christian Monarch\nhowever limited the area over which his power is felt, should also be\nborne in mind; though not of much value as evidence, as even petty\nrulers have been known to boast that they held the world in their\ngrasp.\n\nIt should however be remembered that though the ancients, struck by the\ndome-like appearance of the sky and the circular movements of the\nconstellations, conceived the cosmos or universe to be spherical, and\nin some instances even constructed celestial globes upon which to\nrecord the movements of Sun, Moon, Planets, and Stars, it is doubtful\nif a single one of them considered the world upon which we dwell to be\nspherical. Also, that many a Christian Monarch has used the Coronation\nOrb as a symbol of power, and yet believed the earth to be otherwise\nthan a globe in shape.\n\nIn this connection it should be pointed out that the round object which\nthe ancients represented Atlas as supporting upon his shoulders,\nusually in the presence of Jupiter, was not as is vulgarly supposed the\nearth, but the heavens; Hesiod telling us that Atlas bore heaven with\nhis head and hands, Ovid that upon Atlas rested heaven and all the\nstars, and other writers of bygone ages that Atlas was a king who first\ntaught men that heaven had the shape of a globe.\n\nIt is of course possible that the ancients may have conceived the earth\nto be otherwise than spherical, and yet, because the horizon which\nappears to limit its extent seems to be circular, or for some other\nreason, have considered a round object to be a representation of it.\n\nEven where, however, the ball-like symbol we are considering may have\nrepresented something other than the Golden Apple, the probability is\nthat it seldom if ever represented the earth.\n\nFor as, though the ancients may have conceived and spoken of the world\nwe live upon as being \"round\" in the same sense as a circular coin is\nround, they did not think of it as being a globe, it is obvious that\nthe ball-like symbol in question is much less likely to have signified\nthe--in their belief--non-globular earth, than it is to have been a\nrepresentation of something which they did consider to be globular.\n\nSuch is the nature of the evidence which tends to show that we\nChristians may be mistaken in supposing that our famous symbol the\nCoronation Orb represents the round world upon which we dwell,\nsurmounted by the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died.\n\nAlthough, however, most points have now been touched upon, including\nthe important fact that the so-called Coronation Orb of Christian\nMonarchs used to be called, even by Christians, the Golden Apple, the\nidea that it may have been the _crux ansata_, or Egyptian symbol of\nLife (an upright oval, perhaps signifying the female principle, set\nupon the top of the _tau_, or {image \"t.gif\"} cross, and thus turning\ninto a complete cross what is really an incomplete one, and may be\nsupposed to have signified the male principle), _reversed_ (_e.g.,\nArchaeological Journal_ xlii. 164), should at least be mentioned. It\nought, however to be pointed out that the Orb is even more like the\nancient symbol of the planet sacred to Venus, the Goddess of Love,\nreversed.\n\nEven this point does not exhaust the subject in hand; for the fact that\nin days of old we used to represent the Christ as the Pagans\nrepresented the Sun-God, _viz._, as standing by the Tree of Life and\nholding a round object meant for the phallic apple, has not yet been\ndealt with in any way.\n\nIt is however desirable that before discussing the matter further we\nshould ascertain the nature of the evidence, regarding this and kindred\nsubjects, derivable from the coins of the Roman Empire.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nROMAN COINS BEFORE CONSTANTINE.\n\nBearing in mind the matters mentioned in the two last chapters, let us\nnow pass in review the coins struck by the Romans, and make a note of\nsuch features as may, directly or indirectly, bear upon the history of\nthe cross.\n\nThe first cross we meet with on the coins in question, is upon one of\nJulius Caesar; who was appointed _Flamen Dialis_ B.C. 87, _Pontiff_\nB.C. 74, Military Tribune B.C. 73, Quaestor B.C. 68, _Pontifex Maximus_\nB.C. 63, and Dictator B.C. 49.\n\nThe cross in question consists of the name _C. Cossutius Maridianus_\narranged as a cross of four equal arms. And it should be noted that it\nis admitted, even by such well-known authorities as Mr. C. W. King,\nM.A., that the name was so arranged out of compliment to the official\nin question _because his name had reference to the meridian sun_.[46]\n\nUpon a coin struck by Caesar's heir, the almost equally famous Augustus\n(Consul B.C. 43, Emperor B.C. 29--A.C. 14), about twenty years before\nour era, we see a head of the Sun-God Bacchus upon one side; and on the\nreverse a man presenting a military standard, the banner of which is\nornamented with a St. Andrew's cross.\n\nTwo other coins of the same reign and about the same date, have upon\nthem representations of military standards bearing the same symbol.\n\nUpon another coin struck by Augustus we see a crescent with a star or\nradiate sun within its horns, the ancient phallic symbol adopted by the\nfollowers of the prophet Muhammad centuries later.\n\nA similar symbol occurs upon the coins of Hadrian (A.C. 117-138).\n\nUpon two coins of Antoninus Pius (A.C. 138-161) we see the Sun-God\nHercules plucking the Golden Apple from a tree around which the\ntraditional serpent is coiled.\n\nOn another coin of the same reign the Sun-God Hercules can be seen\nholding a round object which admittedly represents the Golden Apple;\nthat symbol both of the Sun-God as (1) the bi-sexual Giver of Life and\n(2) the personification of the Male Principle, and of the Goddess who\nrepresented (1) the Love of the two sexes and (2) the Female Principle.\n\nUpon another coin Jove holds a similar looking object.\n\nMany coins issued in the name of Annia Galeria Faustina the wife of\nAntoninus Pius, and by Marcus Aurelius (A.C. 161-180), and in the name\nof his wife Annia Faustina, have upon them representations of Venus the\nGoddess of Love holding a round object which is admittedly meant for\nthe Golden Apple. The favourite legends are _Venus Victrix_, _Venus\nFelix_, and _Venus Genetrix_, and of phallic import; and in one\ninstance the Goddess of Love holds an infant wrapped in swaddling\nclothes as well as the phallic apple.\n\nOther coins of Marcus Aurelius or his wife have upon them\nrepresentations of Eternity as a female figure holding a round object.\nIn some cases the round object is surmounted by a Phoenix.\n\nUpon a coin struck by Lucius Aurelius Verus (A.C. 160-169) that ruler\nis to be seen holding a round object surmounted by a Victory.\n\nOn the coins of Commodus (A.C. 180-192) sometimes Jove and sometimes\nthe Emperor holds a small round object. A Victory in some cases\nsurmounts it.\n\nVenus holding the Golden Apple--that is, a round object which in such\ninstances is admitted to have represented the Golden Apple--is to be\nseen upon many coins issued in the name of Lucilla, the sister of\nCommodus.\n\nUpon coins issued by Caius Pescennius Niger a small round object\nsurmounted by a Victory is to be seen in the hand of Jove. On a coin\nstruck by Septimus Severus (A.C. 193-211) we see Rome represented as a\nfemale figure with a shield at her side marked with a cross.\n\nUpon another coin we see the Goddess of Love holding a round object\nadmittedly meant for the Golden Apple, while a child is stationed at\nher feet. The legend is _Venus Genetrix_. Among the coins issued in the\nname of Julia Domna, the wife of the last named Emperor, are nearly a\ndozen varieties upon which Venus is represented as holding a round\nobject. A crescent occurs upon the reverse in some instances.\n\nUpon several coins of Caracalla (A.C. 211-217) we see that Emperor\nholding a small round object surmounted by a Victory; upon others he is\nto be seen holding a Victory only.\n\nVarious coins issued in the name of Fulvia Plantilla the wife of\nCaracalla, show us the Goddess of Love holding a round object. The\nlegends are _Venus Felix_ and _Venus Victrix_.\n\nIn the reign of Elagabalus or Heliogabalus (A.C. 218-222) a coin was\nstruck on which we see the Goddess Astarte, Ashtoreth, Ishtar, or\nVenus, holding a cross.\n\nVenus holding a round object is to be seen upon many coins issued in\nthe names of Soaemias the mother of Elagabalus, his wife Julia Aquilia\nSevera, Julia Mamma the mother of Alexander Severus, and his wife\nOrbiana.\n\nOn a coin of the Emperor Decius (A.C. 249-251) struck at Maeonia, we\nmeet with the so-called \"Monogram of Christ\" upon a Roman coin in the\nform {image \"monogram3.gif\"} for the first time.\n\nUpon a coin of Trebonianus Gallus (A.C. 251-254) Eternity is\nrepresented as a female holding a small round object.\n\nOn another coin of this reign we see a Phoenix instead of a Victory\nupon the round object held by the Emperor.\n\nMany of the coins of ancient Rome acclaim the Sun-God as the Saviour,\nand upon a coin issued by Gallienus (A.C. 254-268) we see the Sun-God\nApollo holding a cross.\n\nUpon a coin issued by the younger Valerian we see the Sun-God holding a\nsmall round object.\n\nA coin struck by Tetricus (A.C. 267-264) has upon its reverse a\nrepresentation of the Sun-God holding a round object, while in the\nfield near the Sun-God is a cross.\n\nOn a coin issued by Claudius II. we see the Sun-God Hercules holding a\nround object admittedly meant for the Golden Apple.\n\nUpon a coin issued by Aurelianus we see the Sun-God holding a round\nobject surmounted by a crescent.\n\nOn a coin issued by Vabalathus we see the Sun-God Hercules holding a\nround object admittedly representing the Golden Apple.\n\nUpon a coin of Numerianus (A.C. 283-284) we see the Goddess of Love\nholding a round object surmounted by a Victory. Such instances as this\nshould be specially noted, as nothing distinguishes the round objects\nso surmounted from those held by Venus which admittedly represent the\nGolden Apple, and the present fashion of our symbol the Coronation Orb\nor Imperial Apple is due to the fact that a century later Theodosius\nII. Emperor of Constantinople started the idea of substituting a cross\nfor the Victory.\n\nUpon several coins of Carinus (A.C. 282-284) we see the Sun-God holding\na small round object.\n\nOn other coins of this reign Eternity appears as a female holding a\nsmall round object surmounted by a Phoenix.\n\nUpon the coins issued in the name of Magnia Urbica, wife of Carinus, on\nwhich we see Venus holding a small round object which admittedly\nrepresented the Golden Apple, the Crescent frequently accompanies the\nrepresentations of the Goddess of Love.\n\nOn coins issued by Diocletian (A.C. 284-305) we see both Jove and the\nSun-God holding a small round object; like the Emperor himself. A\nVictory in some cases surmounts it.\n\nThe Sun-God Hercules holding a round object which admittedly signified\nthe Golden Apple is to be seen on other coins issued during this reign.\n\nAmong the coins issued by Diocletian's co-Emperor Maximian, is one\nbearing a representation of the Sun-God Hercules in the Garden of the\nHesperides near the Tree encircled by the Serpent he slew. The Sun-God\nholds a round object representing a Golden Apple plucked from the Tree\nin question.\n\nOn the reverse of another coin bearing the names both of Jove the\nAll-Father and Hercules the Sun-God, we see the latter represented as\nholding a round object, admittedly meant for the Golden Apple.\n\nIn some cases where Hercules holds the Golden Apple-for instance, upon\na coin bearing the legend _Herculi invicto Aug_.--the Golden Apple is\nsurmounted by a Victory.\n\nA coin issued by Constantius Chlorus, the ruler of Gaul and father of\nConstantine the Great, represents the Sun-God Hercules in the act of\nplucking a Golden Apple from the famous Tree.\n\nA coin issued in the joint names of Galerius and Constantius Chlorus,\nbearing the legend _Genio Populi Romani_, has in the field on the\nreverse side a cross, which takes the place occupied upon otherwise\nsimilar coins by a star-like object not improbably representing the\nsun.\n\nSuch are the more striking features of the evidence which can be\nobtained from the Roman coins issued prior to the accession of\nConstantine to the throne of Gaul.\n\nThe reader will have seen that the symbol of the cross occurs several\ntimes upon the coins in question, and in almost if not quite every\ninstance in connection with the Sun-God.\n\nThe fact that upon a coin of Julius Caesar, and therefore before our\nera, a cross admittedly occurs as a symbol of the sun, will also have\nbeen remarked.\n\nIt will also have been noticed in how very large a number of cases the\nround symbol which was a precursor of our Coronation Orb admittedly\nsignified the Golden Apple, and therefore was of phallic import.\n\nAnother point which the reader cannot very well fail to bear in mind,\nis that where the Goddess of Love, as the representative of the sex\nwhose felicity lies in motherhood or the victorious production of life,\nis seen carrying the symbol in question, the surrounding legend is\nVenus _Genetrix_, or _Victrix_, or _Felix_, or some variation or other\nof the same; and that the said legends are obviously phallic in\nsignification.\n\nIf we also keep before us the fact that the Golden Apple whether held\nby the Sun-God or his complement the Goddess of Love, was at times\nsurmounted by the figure of Victory for which Christian Emperors\ngradually and only gradually substituted the figure of the cross, it is\ncurious to note that in early Christian representations of the Christ\nhe is often to be seen with the Apple or forbidden fruit of the Tree of\nLife or of the knowledge of good and evil.\n\nWhen the Christ is in such cases depicted as a youth, the phallic apple\nis usually to be seen lying near him; but when the Christ is\nrepresented as a man, it is placed in his hand.\n\nFor instance a good example of the Christ holding the fruit of the Tree\nof Life is reproduced for us in the well known work on the likeness of\nJesus by the late Thomas Heaphy.[47] Here we see, in a picture which\noccurs upon a glass ornament found in the Catacombs of Rome in the tomb\nof a Christian named Eutychia, an illustration of the Christ standing\nby the side of the Tree of Life. The rays of the Sun surround the head\nof the Christ, and in his hand is the phallic Apple.\n\nIt will have been remarked that the round object to be seen upon\ninnumerable Roman coins in the hand of this or that ruler or deity, and\npopularly supposed to have always represented the round world upon\nwhich we dwell although it is at the same time believed that the world\nwas not then considered to be round, frequently occurs in the hand of a\nfemale figure representing Eternity. It is self-evident that a\nrepresentation of the world we live on is less likely to have been so\nplaced than a symbol of Life.\n\nA still more striking fact, which cannot fail to have been noticed by\nthe reader of the evidence from the coins of ancient Rome quoted in the\nearlier part of this chapter, is that in several instances a Phoenix\nand not a Victory surmounts the so-called orb. For the story of the\nPhoenix was derived from the Egyptian City of the Sun.[48] And the\nfabulous bird in question was, according to Tacitus as well as\nHerodotus, specially connected with the temple of the Sun-God at\nHeliopolis.\n\nUpon this point it may be added that the famous story of the Phoenix\nseems to have been known to the writer of _Job_; the Septuagint version\nof _Job_ xxix. 18, being \"I shall die in my nest and shall multiply my\ndays as the Phoenix\" according to some of the best authorities.\n\nThe various ages allotted to this allegorical bird had reference to the\ncalendar; as indeed we learn from Pliny, who tells us that\n\n     \"The revolution of the Great Year in which the seasons\n     and stars return to their former places, agrees with the\n     life of this bird.\"[49]\n\nThis is borne out by the periods spoken of as the lifetime of the\nPhoenix; as among them are one of 600 years, the Great Year referred to\nby Josephus and others, and one of 1,461 years, which was the Sothic\nperiod of the Egyptians.\n\nIt is also clear that, like the Victory and the Golden Apple it\nsurmounted, the Phoenix and its wonderful egg were not only connected\nwith the Sun-God, but also had a phallic signification.\n\nThe problem as to whether bird or egg first existed scarcely applies to\nthe fabulous Phoenix and its equally fabulous egg, and need not be\ndiscussed here. Suffice it to say that the round object from which that\nChristian symbol the Coronation Orb is descended, though it may at\ntimes have more or less represented the world upon which we dwell,\nseems to have primarily signified, as associated with each other in\nidea, both the Golden Apple of Love and the Phoenix-like life principle\nenshrined in the Egg, both the egg-like _Cosmos_ or Universe and\nEternity; but in all, and through all, and above all, the basis of all\npower whether finite or infinite, _viz._, Life.\n\nIt is therefore not surprising to find that the monarchs of ancient\ndays claimed to rule by divine right as vice-gerents of the Sun-God, to\nwhose favouring influence all earthly life is traceable; and caused\nthemselves to be represented, upon Roman coins as receiving the Golden\nApple, and upon Egyptian monuments as receiving the Cross, from the\nSun-God, as the symbol of their authority.\n\nYet another point to be borne in mind, is that we Christians are\nexpressly taught that God the Father and God the Son are as nearly\nidentical as the ancients considered the Central Fire, which they\ndeemed the Parent of all things, and the Warmth and Light issuing\ntherefrom to be; or the Sun's disc and the emanations therefrom; the\nChrist being represented as saying \"I and My Father are one\" and \"He\nthat hath seen Me hath seen the Father.\" For though we describe ours as\na _co-equal_ Trinity, no such identity with either God the Father or\nGod the Son is affirmed of God the Holy Ghost, and it is remarkable\nthat in our ancient illustrations of the Three Persons, both the First\nand the Second are represented as holding the so-called globe and\nCross, while the Third, even where depicted as of human shape like the\nother two, is not.\n\nThe fact is that the co-equality of the Holy Spirit of a God who is\nHimself, as Jesus declared, a Spirit, is an idea which did not find\nmuch acceptance among Christians till a comparatively late date and is\nthe outcome of confused thought. And the separate personality of this\nSpirit of a Spirit being entirely a Christian conception, and without a\ncounterpart in the theology of the ancients, few if any Pagan symbols\nsuch as the so-called globe and the cross would have been associated\nwith it in any case.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE COINS OF CONSTANTINE.\n\nWe are more or less in the habit of assuming that just as Paul, the\nfounder of the catholic faith, was converted, not altogether by reason\nbut as it were by force and with the rapidity of a flash of lightning,\nunder the rays of a meridian sun (\"About _noon_ suddenly there shone\nfrom heaven a great light round about me,\" _Acts_ xxii. 6; \"At\n_mid-day_,\" _Acts_ xxvi. 13), so Constantine, the establisher of that\nfaith as the State Religion of the empire in which Paul was so proud of\nhis rights as a citizen, was in similarly rapid fashion converted by\nthe appearance of a miraculous \"cross\" of light and an accompanying\nlegend above a meridian sun (\"At _mid-day_,\" Eusebius, _Vit. Const.\nI._).\n\nBut, as has already been pointed out, this alleged vision of\nConstantine is said to have taken place during his march upon Rome in\nthe year A.C. 312; and during the remaining twenty-five years of his\nlife he acted rather as if he were converting Christianity into what he\nthought most likely to be accepted by his subjects as a catholic\nreligion, than as if he had been converted to the teachings of Jesus\nthe Nazarene.\n\nThe fact is that Constantine was favourable to our religion out of\npolicy rather than conviction; and if after refusing so long he did\nindeed, a quarter of a century after the alleged vision, consent to be\nbaptised when ill and dying, policy doubtless swayed him even then.\nAnyway, as has already been stated and will now be seen, the evidence\nof his coins conclusively shows that the God to whom Constantine from\nfirst to last attributed his victories, was--the Sun-God.\n\nUpon one coin issued by Constantine we see upon the reverse a nude\nfigure crowned with rays, with the right hand elevated toward the east,\nand a round object in the left hand. In the field is a cross widened at\nthe extremities, and the surrounding legend is a significant one, _Soli\nInvicto Comiti_. This coin was struck years after the alleged\nconversion of Constantine, and the combined reference to the Sun-God\nand use of the cross are worthy of special notice.\n\nUpon two somewhat similar coins of Constantine the cross is placed\nwithin a circular wreath of bay or laurel.\n\nOn another coin with the same legend we see the same nude figure\ncrowned with rays, representing the Sun-God and carrying a round\nobject; while in the field we see the Gaulish symbol, sometimes called\na cross, which by the addition of a loop was, as we shall see later on,\nturned into the so-called Monogram of Christ.\n\nUpon a coin with the anything but Christian legend _Marti\nConservatori_, is a cross with four equal arms.\n\nOn a somewhat similar coin with the same legend, the helmet on the\nreverse is ornamented with the so-called Monogram of Christ.\n\nUpon another coin we see Mars leaning on a shield adorned with the\nso-called Monogram of Christ, the legend being _Marti Patri\nConservator_.\n\nOn a coin issued in the name of his son Crispus during the reign of\nConstantine, we see two Victories holding a shield upon a pedestal\nmarked with a cross of four equal arms.\n\nA similar cross appears upon a coin issued during this reign in the\nname of another son of Constantine.\n\nUpon a coin bearing the inscription _Constantinus Max. Aug._ we see\nupon the reverse a cross of four equal arms.\n\nOn an otherwise similar coin a compound _tau_ cross of four equal arms,\n{image \"taucross.gif\"}, appears.\n\nUpon a well-known engraving of a coin in the _Annales Ecclesiastici_ of\nBaronius, the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} form of the so-called Monogram of\nChrist appears upon the helmet of Constantine. Some authorities,\nhowever, state that this is copied as the familiar {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"} in error; what appeared on the helmet being the\nGaulish symbol {image \"asterisk.gif\"} with a dot representing a star\nnear the top of the vertical bar. Such a dot can be seen in a similar\nplace upon two or three coins bearing the legend _Virtus Exercit_.\n\nOn another coin the legend _Gloria Exercitus_ surrounds two soldiers\nholding military standards, between which is the symbol of the cross.\n\nOn a somewhat similar coin the compound tan cross, of which we have\nalready noted an example, occurs between the standards.\n\nA cross of four equal arms appears upon a coin bearing the legend _Pax\nPublica_.\n\nA coin issued during the reign of Constantine the Great in the name of\nhis son Constantine, has upon its reverse a cross of four equal arms,\nthe extremities of which are rounded.\n\nOn an otherwise similar coin the compound tau cross appears.\n\nUpon a coin bearing the inscription _Constantinus Max. Aug._ a cross of\nfour equal arms occurs near a soldier armed with spear and shield.\n\nOn the reverse of one coin we see two soldiers holding military\nstandards, and between the standards the so-called Monogram of Christ\nappears.\n\nA coin of similar type was issued during the reign of Constantine the\nGreat in the name of his son Constantine.\n\nUpon a coin which on the obverse bears the inscription _Constantinus\nMax. Aug._, we see upon the reverse Victory carrying a palm. In the\nfield is the symbol {image \"monogram4.gif\"}. The surrounding motto is\n_Victoria constantini Aug._\n\nSeveral coins with the legend _Gloria Exercitus_ have upon the same\nside two soldiers with a labarum or military standard between them,\nupon the banner of which is the symbol {image \"monogram4.gif\"}.\n\nOn a coin with the legend _Victoria Caesar NN_ we see Victory carrying\na palm. In the field is the Gaulish symbol {image \"asterisk.gif\"}.\n\nThe reverse of another coin has the legend _Constantinus Aug._, and\nrepresents Constantine as holding a labarum or military standard\nterminating in a round object. Upon the banner is the symbol {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"}.\n\nOn a coin bearing upon its obverse the inscription _Constantinopolis_,\nwe see upon the other side a figure of Victory and a cross of four\nequal arms.\n\nOn another coin bearing the same legend we see upon the reverse Victory\nstanding upon a ship, and to the left the so-called monogram.\n\nUpon another coin we see the same symbol above the wolf and twins of\nthe city of Rome.\n\nA rare coin bears upon the obverse the inscription _Constantinus Max.\nAug._, and on the reverse, surrounded by the legend _Spes Publica_, a\nlabarum or military standard the handle or base of which transfixes a\nserpent. Upon the banner three globules are embroidered, and the symbol\n{image \"monogram3.gif\"} appears above the cross-bar from which the\nbanner hangs.\n\nUpon one medal or coin of Constantine we see the significant legend\n_Soli Invicto Aeterno Aug._ inscribed around the quadriga of the\nSun-God Phoebus.\n\nOn another piece struck by Constantine the Great, the Sun-God is given\nthe title _Comes Aug._; Companion, Guardian, or Saviour, of the\nEmperor.\n\nUpon several coins we see the legend _Comiti Aug. NN_, and, surrounded\nby the same, the Sun-God holding a small round object.\n\nOn numerous other coins also, the Sun-God is represented as holding a\nsmall round object.\n\nOther significant Sun-God legends to be met upon the coins of this\nalleged Christian Emperor, are _Comis Constantini Aug., Soli Invicto,\nSoli Comiti Augg. NN, Soli Invicto Com. D.N._ and the like.\n\nUpon a coin bearing the legend _Soli Comiti Aug. N._ we see the Sun-God\npresenting Constantine with a small round object surmounted by a\nVictory.\n\nOn a coin with the legend _Pax Augustorum_, Constantine holds a\nstandard ornamented with a cross.\n\nUpon another coin Constantine is to be seen holding what is said to be\na representation of the Zodiac.\n\nOn a coin issued in his own name, as upon others already mentioned as\nissued in the names of his sons, we see two Victories supporting a\nshield upon an altar ornamented with a cross.\n\nUpon a somewhat similar coin the altar is ornamented with the star-like\nobject which in days of old so often stood for the radiate sun.\n\nA coin with the inscription _Divo Constantino_, and on the reverse the\nlegend _Aeterna Pietas_ and a representation of Constantine holding a\nround object surmounted by the symbol {image \"monogram4.gif\"}, though\nusually included in the coins of that Emperor was evidently struck\nafter his death and deification.\n\nThe same remark applies to a somewhat similar coin, which has an\nadditional symbol in a plain cross in the field to the right of the\nEmperor-God.\n\nIt should be noted that the question here arises as to how far it is\nfair of us to claim this cross and so-called Monogram of Christ as\nChristian and at the same time denounce as Pagan the deification of\nConstantine referred to upon the same coins.\n\nAs to the coins of Constantine the Great as a whole, it need only be\nremarked once more that while upon many of the pieces struck by him\nConstantine attributed his victories to the Sun-God, not upon a single\none of them did he attribute them to the Christ; while it was ever the\nSun-God and never the Christ whom he alluded to on his coins as his\nCompanion, Partner, Guardian, or Saviour.\n\nThis being so, how can we honestly claim that the so-called Monogram of\nChrist, and other forms of the cross, were ever placed upon his coins\nby Constantine as symbols of the Christ, yet never as symbols of the\nSun-God?\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nROMAN COINS AFTER CONSTANTINE.\n\nPassing on to the Christian successors of Constantine the Great, we are\nat once met with the significant fact that Constantine the Second\nissued many different coins bearing a representation of the Sun-God\nholding a small round object; and, as the surrounding legend, _Claritas\nReipublicae_.\n\nAnother coin of this son of Constantine the Great, and one which\ndeserves special attention, has upon its reverse a Cross and a Crescent\nin juxtaposition, as if the cross signified the sun.\n\nA very similar coin has the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"} between the\nmilitary standards.\n\nUpon another coin we see on the reverse both this Christian Emperor and\nthe Sun-God; the former holding a small round object, and the latter\ncrowning him. The surrounding legend is _Soli Invicto Comiti_.\n\nThe reverse of another coin bears the same Sun-God legend, and\nrepresents the Sun-God as holding a small round object.\n\nUpon another coin we see Constantine holding a small round object\nsurmounted by a Victory. On the reverse is the symbol {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"}.\n\nConstans I., another son of Constantine the Great, issued a coin on\nwhich he is represented as holding in one hand a simply formed labarum\nor military standard consisting of a straight pole terminating at the\ntop in a crossbar, from which hangs a banner bearing the symbol {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"}; while in the other hand he holds a small round object\nsurmounted by a _Phoenix_.\n\nConstantius II., yet another son of Constantine the Great, issued a\ncoin on which is the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"} between the letters\n{alpha} and {omega} (? APX{omega}); the legend being _Salus Aug\nNostri_.\n\nOn another coin is Constantius II. as the Sun, upon one side; and upon\nthe other the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"} between the letters alpha\nand omega once again.\n\nNepotianus, a nephew of Constantine the Great who took Rome in A.C. 350\nbut was killed as an usurper the same year, issued a coin on the\nreverse of which, surrounded by the legend _Urbs Roma_, is a female\nfigure representing Rome and holding in her hand a round object\nsurmounted by the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"}.\n\nThe symbol {image \"monogram4.gif\"} frequently occurs upon the coins of\nValeus (A.C. 364-378). And upon one coin of this Emperor we see the\nletter P surmounting a cross; surrounded by the legend _Gloria\nRomanorum_.\n\nUpon a coin of Valentinianus II. we see Victory holding a round object\nsurmounted by a cross, the legend being _Victoria Augustorum_.\n\nOn the coins of Theodosius I. (A.C. 378-395) we find representations of\nthe Emperor holding a round object surmounted by a Phoenix, and of the\nEmperor holding a round object surmounted by a Victory; as also of\nVictory holding a round object surmounted by a cross.\n\nThis Emperor Theodosius I., better known as Theodosius the Great, after\nsecuring sole control of the Roman Empire brought about the final\ndisruption of the world-wide dominions of Rome by bequeathing them in\ntwo portions to his sons Arcadius and Honorius; the elder, Arcadius,\nbecoming Emperor of Constantinople and the East, while the younger,\nHonorius, became Emperor of Rome and the West: A.C. 395.\n\nLess than a century later, _viz._, between the years A.C. 475 and 480,\nthe Western Empire was finally extinguished by Odoacer; the Eastern\nEmpire surviving it nearly a thousand years, lasting as the latter did\nfrom the partition in A.C. 395 to the capture of Constantinople by\nMahomet II. in A.C. 1453.\n\nIt was, as stated in a previous chapter, upon the coins of an Emperor\nof the East, _viz._, Theodosius II., that the first example occurs of a\nrepresentation of an Emperor holding a round object surmounted by a\ncross; though, as has been noted, instances of Victory carrying an\nobject so surmounted had previously occurred. And it need only be added\nthat the symbols {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and {image \"monogram4.gif\"},\noften the centre of a circle or surrounded by a circular wreath of bay\nor laurel, continually occur upon the coins of the Eastern Empire, the\nsymbol {image \"asterisk.gif\"} frequently, and the undisguised solar\nwheel, {image \"solarwheel1.gif\"} upon the coins of Eudoxia, Theodosius\nII., Leo I., and others.\n\nThe evidence of the coins of the Roman Empire given in this and the two\npreceding chapters, coupled with the too-often forgotten fact that the\nonly form of cross which could possibly be a representation of the\ninstrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed was the very last\nform of cross to be adopted as a Christian symbol, cannot, it will be\nseen, lead the unprejudiced enquirer to any other conclusion than that\nthe cross became the symbol of Christendom because the advent of\nConstantine and his Gauls made it a prominent symbol of the Roman\nEmpire. And that the symbol in question was not altogether unconnected\nwith Sun-God worship, should be equally clear to the reader.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHE MONOGRAM OF CHRIST.\n\nThe so-called \"Monogram of Christ \"--a term which has at one time or\nanother been applied to each of the symbols {image \"solarwheel1.gif\"}\nor {image \"asterisk.gif\"}, {image \"monogram1.gif\"} or {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"}, and {image \"monogram2.gif\"} or {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"}, as but variations of one and the same\nsymbol--deserves a chapter to itself.\n\nThough not first placed upon the coins of the Roman Empire by\nConstantine any more than was the right-angled cross of four equal arms\nor the so-called St. Andrew's cross, the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"}\nwas, like the {image \"x.gif\"} cross and the many varieties of\nright-angled crosses of four equal arms, first brought into prominence\nas a Roman symbol by the Emperor in question.\n\nFrom the evidence at our disposal it would appear that Decius was the\nfirst Roman ruler to make use of this form of the so-called Monogram of\nChrist. Anyhow, as has already been remarked, this symbol {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"} occurs upon a coin of the Emperor Decius struck at\nMaeonia about A.C. 250; and therefore more than half a century before\nthe days of Constantine. And it is noteworthy that it was as a Pagan\nsymbol that the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} thus first appeared upon the\nRoman coinage.\n\nThe coin in question is a bronze one, and the \"Monogram of Christ\"\noccurs in the centre of a Greek inscription surrounding a\nrepresentation of the Sun-God Bacchus; and, apparently, as an\namalgamation or contraction of the two Greek letters equivalent to our\nR and CH, _viz._: the Greek letters P and X.[50]\n\nWhy these particular letters should have been contracted, is, however,\nuncertain; and the question arises as to whether the {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"} first arose as a contraction of such Greek letters, or\nas an amalgamation of the Roman letters P and X, or as the cross {image\n\"x.gif\"} _plus_ the Greek P (our R) as the initial letter of the Greek\nname for Rome.\n\nMoreover if it be decided that the symbol first arose as a contraction\nof certain letters, yet further questions arise; _viz._; in what order\nthose letters were first read, and what word they first represented.\n\nBefore going into such matters as these, however, it is important that\nwe should fully realise how certain it is that the so-called Monogram\nof Christ was originally a _Pagan_ symbol. For even if this be not\nconsidered demonstrated by its occurrence upon a Roman coin long\nbefore, according to our Church, the Christ caused Constantine to use\nit as the military standard of the Gauls, it is clearly shown by its\noccurrence upon many relics of pre-Christian date.\n\nThe so-called \"Monogram of Christ\" can be seen, for instance, upon a\nmonument of Isis, the Virgin Mother of the Sun-God, which dates from\nthe second century before our era.[51] Also upon the coins of\nPtolemaeus; on one of which is a head of Zeus Ammon upon one side, and\nan eagle bearing the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} in its claws upon the\nother.[52] The symbol in question also appears upon Greek money struck\nlong before the birth of Jesus; for instance upon certain varieties of\nthe Attic tetradrachma. And the {image \"monogram4.gif\"} occurs upon\nmany different coins of the first Herod, struck thirty years or more\nB.C.\n\nWhether the Pagan {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and the Pagan {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"} originally had the same signification or not, is\nuncertain.\n\nAlmost equally uncertain is the date at which we Christians first\nadopted these Pagan symbols as Christian symbols because they could be\ninterpreted as formed of the two first letters of the Greek word\nXPI{sigma}TO{sigma}, _Christos_, Christ.\n\nThe probability is that Christians had at least drawn attention to this\npossible interpretation of the symbols in question before the days of\nConstantine. But this scarcely renders less noteworthy the fact, shown\nfurther on, that the favourite symbol of the Gaulish warriors, the\nsolar wheel {image \"solarwheel1.gif\"} or {image \"solarwheel2.gif\"}, was\nsooner or later altered by their leader into {image \"monogram1.gif\"} or\n{image \"monogram2.gif\"} to please the Christians; while the symbols\n{image \"monogram3.gif\"} and {image \"monogram4.gif\"} were also made use\nof by Constantine.\n\nWhich form of solar wheel, monogram, or cross, was that actually\ncarried by the Gauls in triumph within the walls of Rome and set up by\ntheir leader in the heart of the Eternal City, is not quite certain.\nBut it is clear that as both the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and the {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"} appeared upon coins struck before our era, Constantine\ncannot very well have been ignorant of the fact that these were\noriginally Pagan symbols, when he favoured the addition of a loop to\nthe top of the vertical bar of the Gaulish solar symbols {image\n\"solarwheel1.gif\"} or {image \"asterisk.gif\"} and {image\n\"solarwheel2.gif\"} or {image \"plus.gif\"} in order that what his Gaulish\narmy venerated as triumphal tokens might be accepted as symbols of\nvictory by his Christian supporters also.\n\nThat this Gaulish monarch did so alter, and for the reason named, the\nsymbol or symbols venerated by his troops, is admitted by, amongst\nothers, that well known writer the Reverend S. Baring Gould, M.A. For,\nreferring to the solar wheel as a symbol of the Sun-God venerated by\nthe ancient Gauls, this author tells us that Constantine\n\n     \"Adopted and adapted the sign for his standards, and the\n     _Labarum_ of Constantine became a common Christian\n     symbol. That there was policy in his conduct we can\n     hardly doubt; the symbol he set up gratified the\n     Christians in his army on one side and the Gauls on the\n     other. For the former it was a sign compounded of the\n     initial letters of Christ, to the latter it was the\n     token of the favour of the solar deity.\"[53]\n\nAs the fact that both the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"} were in use as symbols before the commencement of our\nera thoroughly disposes of our contention as Christians that the\nso-called \"Monogram of Christ\" had its origin in the formation of a\nmonogram out of the two first letters of the Greek word\nXPI{sigma}TO{sigma} (_Christos_, Christ), it is clear that these\nsymbols must have had some other origin.\n\nAssuming that the symbols {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and {image\n\"monogram4.gif\"} had the same origin, and the same signification, and\nthat if the {image \"monogram4.gif\"} was a combination of two letters\nthe Greek or Latin T (instead of X) was not one of them; or rather, as\nthese would be very considerable assumptions, more or less confining\nour attention to the {image \"monogram3.gif\"} as the more likely of the\ntwo to have arisen as a combination of the Greek letters P and X; let\nus in passing briefly enquire into the origin of the so-called Monogram\nof Christ as a Pagan symbol.\n\nIf we seek for that origin as a combination of the first two letters of\nsome other Greek word than Christos, _Christ_, and for the moment\nassume the letters P and X to have occurred in the same order as in\nthat word, we see at once that the monogram may have been derived\neither from the word Chrestos, _Good_, or the word Chronos, _Time_, or\nthe word Chrusos, _Gold_.\n\nThere is, by the way, another curious connection between the three\nGreek words in question. For the name of the famous god Kronos or\nCronos was often spelt XPONO{sigma} _i.e._, Chronos.[54] And this god\nChronos--the father of Zeus; and more or less a personification of\nTime, the Old Father from whom we are all descended--was identical with\nSaturn, while the Saturnian Age was, as in Virgil's fourth eclogue,\never that spoken of as the Golden age when the ancients were referring\nto what they pictured as the good old times.\n\nIt will not do, however, to assume that if the symbol we are\nconsidering first arose as a combination of the Greek letters P and X,\nthey were of necessity taken from, and representative of, a word in\nwhich they occur in the same order as in _Christos_. And the fact that\nin the {image \"monogram4.gif\"}, if not also in the {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"}, the P is the leading feature, gives emphasis to the\npoint in question.\n\nIf we suppose that the so-called monogram arose as a combination of the\nGreek letters in question occurring in the order P X, the student of\nsuch matters can scarcely fail to note that the letters in question\noccur in that order as the centre both of the word APXH, the _Head_,\n_Chief_, or _First_; and also as the centre of the kindred word\nAPX{omega}, _to be first_, the only remaining letters of which, and\ntherefore the first and the last of this word as of the old Greek\nalphabet, are, as will be seen, Alpha and Omega, the letters so\ncontinually placed on either side of the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"}\nin Christian times.\n\nIn this connection it should be pointed out that according to some of\nthe best authorities the first {image \"monogram3.gif\"} which occurs\nupon any Roman coin, coming as it does after the letter _alpha_ in a\nGreek inscription, should be taken with that letter as forming the PX\nof APX, the latter being an abbreviation of some form or other of the\ntitle _Archon_. This title was that given to the dignitary who was at\none and the same time the chief magistrate of the state and its chief\npriest, and it may be worth remark that as Bacchus was the deity\nworshipped in Lydia, the Archon in question would therefore have been\nthe chief priest of the Sun-God.\n\nSeveral writers have, in their zeal for our religion, outrun their\ndiscretion, and gone so far as to assume that the existence of the\nso-called monogram of Christ upon this coin of the Emperor Decius is\ndue to some Christian having been employed in turning out the coin in\nquestion, and having in _his_ zeal surreptitiously introduced a symbol\nof his faith. But though gravely supported by more than one great\nauthority, this is obviously an absurd position to take up. And in any\ncase the facts remain that it was in this instance placed over a\nrepresentation of the Sun-God, and had for centuries been in use as a\nPagan symbol.\n\nPassing on, however, we have next to note that, as before hinted, even\nif the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"} arose as a combination of two\nletters, though we know that symbol to have been often used as a\ncontraction of the Greek letters P and X (our R and CH), there is no\nproof that it arose as a combination of two Greek letters; and the\nsymbol may have arisen as a combination of the Roman letters P and X.\n\nIt should therefore be pointed out that in the inscriptions which have\ncome down to us from the Gaulish Christians of the sixth, seventh, and\neighth centuries after Christ, the symbols {image \"monogram3.gif\"} and\n{image \"monogram4.gif\"} are continually used as contractions of the\nLatin word PAX, _Peace_. For though the fact that the Monogram was\noften so interpreted by Christians centuries A.C. can by no means be\nconsidered evidence that it was thus that it first arose as a Pagan\nsymbol centuries B.C., such a possibility should be kept before us.\n\nBut did the so-called Monogram of Christ first come into being as a\ncombination of two letters; Greek, Roman, or otherwise?\n\nEven this is not certain, for this pre-Christian symbol may originally\nhave been a cross, as a symbol of Life and of the Sun-God, _plus_ the\nGreek letter P as the initial character of the word \"Rome\" in what may\nbe called the court language of the time.\n\nSuch an explanation would more or less account for the variations\n{image \"monogram3.gif\"} and {image \"monogram4.gif\"}; these being\nobviously the natural ways of adding the letter P, signifying Rome, to\nthe crosses {image \"x.gif\"} and {image \"plus.gif\"} respectively.\n\nAll the foregoing references to the origin of the so-called monogram as\na Pagan symbol of pre-Christian date, are but speculations however. Its\norigin cannot be ascertained for certain.\n\nThe revival of this pre-Christian symbol, and the prominence given to\nit upon the coins of the Roman Empire, _are_, however, traceable. And,\nas has been shown, they are traceable to Constantine; who induced the\nChristians to accept as the Monogram of the Christ, and therefore as a\nChristian as well as a Gaulish symbol of victory, the Solar Wheel\nvenerated by the Gaulish conquerors of Rome.\n\nNowadays the so-called Monogram of Christ is almost always reproduced\nfor us as {image \"monogram3.gif\"} or {image \"monogram4.gif\"}; but the\nfact that Constantine sometimes so used it should not blind us to the\nfacts that it was at first usually the centre of a circle, like the\nspokes of a wheel; and that the undisguised solar wheel {image\n\"solarwheel1.gif\"} appears upon not a few of the coins issued by the\nChristian successors of Constantine, while since his reign the solar\nwheel {image \"solarwheel2.gif\"} and many an artistic variation of the\nsame have been Christian symbols, and when in our ornamentation of\necclesiastical properties we omit the circle we as often as not make\nthe cross itself wheel-like by rounding the extremities and widening\nthem till they nearly meet.\n\nMoreover it should not be forgotten that it was evidently one form or\nother of the solar wheel of the Gauls, _plus_ the politic loop to one\nof its spokes, which Constantine and his Gaulish warriors are said to\nhave seen above the meridian sun, with the divinely written legend EN\nTOYT{omega} NIKA, _By this conquer_, attached. For though that\nmiraculous symbol is referred to as a \"cross,\" the Monogram itself was\nso referred to; and Eusebius, after telling us that the Christ appeared\nto Constantine and commanded him to make a military standard for the\nSun-God worshipping Gauls, \"With the same sign which he had seen in the\nheavens,\" expressly describes this as composed of \"Two letters\nindicating the name of the Christ, the letter P being intersected with\nX at the centre.\" And on this particular Labarum of Constantine, as on\nthe majority of the Labara represented upon his coins, the {image\n\"monogram3.gif\"} was the centre of a circle or circular wreath, like\nthe spokes of a wheel.[55]\n\nIn any case the fact that the symbol {image \"monogram3.gif\"} was a\nPagan one centuries before the Christ is said to have made it a\nChristian one for the Sun-God worshipping Gauls to follow on to\nvictory, coupled with the facts that they are said to have seen it\nabove the mid-day sun, and that it was admittedly a politic adaptation\nof the Solar Wheel, show us how much Eusebius and other Christian\nchroniclers both invented and suppressed, and also how largely the\ninfluence of Sun-God worship permeated and moulded our religion.\n\nIn this connection it may be noted, as a curious fact rather than as\nevidence, that according to some authorities the so-called Monograms of\nChrist were in earlier ages Monograms of the Sun-God Osiris.[56] Also\nthat both Socrates and Sozomen tell us that when the temple of the\nSun-God Serapis at Alexandria was pulled down, the symbol of the Christ\nwas discovered upon its foundations and the Christians made many\nconverts in consequence a somewhat significant statement.\n\nMoreover we are told that upon every _Dies Solis_, or in other words\nupon that day of the week which throughout the Roman Empire was held\nsacred to the Sun-God and throughout Christendom is called Sun-day,\nConstantine made his troops, assembled under what was admittedly a\nsolar symbol, recite at a given time, which was probably dawn or\nmid-day, a prayer commencing \"We acknowledge thee to be God alone, and\nown that our victories are due to thy favour.\"[57] Who could this God\nhave been but the Sun-God, seeing that it was to the Sun-God that\nConstantine upon his coins ever attributed his victories? And what is\nmore likely than that, wishing to take a friendly view of the deity\nworshipped by their supporters the Christians, it was as conceiving the\nChrist to be but the latest addition to the many conceptions of the\nSun-God, that Constantine altered the solar symbols of his troops into\nthe so-called Monograms of Christ, and that his troops accepted the\nalterations?\n\nAnd, passing from the symbol to the deity represented, let us remember\nthat it is recorded that various Christian paintings of ancient times\nbore upon them the dedicatory words _DEO SOLI_. For this remarkable\nlegend means both \"To God alone\" and \"To the Sun-God,\" both \"To the\nSole God\" and \"To the God Sol;\" and forcibly reminds us, not only of\nthe prayer which Constantine caused his troops to repeat, but also of\nthat fine address to the \"universally adored\" Sun-God commencing\n\n     \"Latium calls thee Sol because in honour thou\n              art Solitary,\n     After the Father.\"[58]\n\nNow, as will be shown further on, a cross of some description or other\nwas in every land accepted as the symbol of the universally adored\nSun-God. And while not a single one of the many books forming the New\nTestament states that Jesus was executed upon a cross-shaped\ninstrument, and the _first_ crosses Christians used as signs or symbols\nbore every form but that which a cross-shaped instrument of execution\nwould have borne, the Christians of the fourth century, as we have\nseen, went out of their way to claim even the so-called Monogram of\nChrist as a cross; Eusebius so carefully speaking of it as such even\nwhere he relates that Constantine and his soldiers saw it above the\nmeridian sun, that one might not unreasonably imagine him to be\nclaiming it as Christian because it was more or less cruciform and\ntherefore more or less like the world-wide symbol of the Sun-God.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE CROSS OF THE LOGOS.\n\nHaving made clear the part played by Constantine in the prominence\ngiven in his lifetime to the cross as a symbol of the Roman Empire and\ntherefore of what he made its State Religion, and having also shown\nthat while the Christian chroniclers of those days are silent\nconcerning the various forms of crosses placed by Constantine upon his\ncoins they went out of their way to allude to the so-called Monogram of\nChrist as a cross, to claim it as such, and even to associate it with\nthe sun, let us now turn our attention again to the pre-Christian\ncross.\n\nSo great was the veneration in which that phallic and solar symbol the\ncross was held in the ages which preceded the birth and death of Jesus,\nthat the philosophers of those days even went so far as to declare that\nthe cross was the figure of the Life or Soul of the Universe.\n\nThough it is a matter of very considerable importance, we Christians\nfor some reason or other ignore the fact that long before our era\ncommenced philosophers thus conceived the figure of the cross to be the\nsymbol of the _Logos_ of God.\n\nNow although, following the Gospel of St. John, we have made it a main\narticle of our belief that the Logos, really the Thought _plus_ Speech,\nof God, became about the year B.C. 4 specially incarnate in the person\nof Jesus the Nazarene, we ought not to forget that, being the one Power\nby which all that ever came into existence was created and all that\nexists is sustained, the Logos in any case ever was, is, and will be,\nincarnate in every sentient being.\n\nAs the Logos of God (or, as the Authorised Version of the Bible into\nEnglish most inadequately renders it in the first chapter of St. John's\nGospel, the _Word_ of God) was by the philosophers called the\n\"Intellectual Sun\" and the \"Light of the World\",[59] being, as a\npersonification of the _Thought_ and _Speech_ of the All-Father, a\npersonification of Wisdom and Reason (which, in an even more real sense\nthan the emanations of the physical sun, form the \"Light of the World,\"\nor, as the original text of the New Testament puts it, the \"Light of\nthe _Cosmos_\"), the fact that pre-Christian philosophers affirmed that\nthe cross was the symbol of the said \"Light of the Cosmos,\" is\nobviously one which every writer concerning the cross as a Christian\nsymbol ought in common honesty to deal with.\n\nThat pre-Christian philosophers did so affirm, can be seen by turning\nto the _Timaeus_ of Plato, where, referring to the begetting of the\nUniversal Soul (whom Philo, another pre-Christian philosopher, speaks\nof as the \"Second God\"; and as God's \"Beloved Son,\" \"Image,\"\n\"Ambassador,\" \"Mediator,\" and \"First-Begotten\"), Plato says\n\n     \"Such was the whole plan of the Eternal God about the\n     God that was to be:--and in the centre he put the soul\n     which he diffused throughout the body:--and he made the\n     Universe a circle moving in a circle. Having these\n     purposes in view he created the world a blessed God:--he\n     made the soul on this wise--joined--at the centre like\n     the letter X.\"[60]\n\nConcerning this pronouncement of the great Teacher he so revered,\nProclus wrote as follows\n\n     \"Two circles will be formed, of which one is interior\n     but the other is exterior. One of these is called the\n     circle of the Same and one the circle of the Different,\n     or of the Fixed and of the Variable, or rather of the\n     Equinoctial Circle and of the Zodiac. The circle of the\n     Different revolves about the Zodiac, but the circle of\n     the Same about the Equinoctial. Hence we conceive that\n     the right lines are not to be applied to each other at\n     right angles but like the letter X, as Plato says, so as\n     to cause the angles to be equal only at the summit but\n     those on each side and the successive angles to be\n     unequal. For the Equinoctial Circle does not cut the\n     Zodiac at right angles. Such therefore in short is the\n     mathematical discussion of the figure of the (Universal)\n     Soul.\"[61]\n\nEven the Fathers of the Christian Church admitted that their ideas of\nthe Son of God and of the cross being his symbol, were more or less\nderived from pre-Christian philosophers. For we find Justin Martyr\nremarking that Plato declared that\n\n     \"The Power next to the Supreme God was figured in\n     the shape of the letter X upon the universe.\"[62]\n\nAnd in another place this famous Father states that\n\n     \"Whereas Plato, philosophising about the Son of God,\n     says God expressed him upon the universe in the shape\n     of the letter X, he evidently took the hint from Moses,\n     who took brass and made the sign of the cross and\n     placed it by the holy tabernacle, and declared that if\n     people would look upon that cross and believe they would\n     be saved.\"[63]\n\nThe value of all this evidence is so obvious that its mere parade is\nalmost sufficient.\n\nIt should however be pointed out that this cross {image \"x.gif\"}, being\navowedly adopted by the pre-Christian philosophers as the symbol of the\n\"Logos\" or \"First-begotten\" of God in preference to the {image\n\"plus.gif\"} because the zodiac or pathway of the Sun does not \"cross\"\nthe equator at right angles, was clearly a solar symbol. And it may be\nadded that though Justin Martyr is careful to claim this particular\nsolar cross as a symbol of the Christ, no one claims that Jesus was\nexecuted upon an instrument so shaped; while the story that St. Andrew\nwas affixed to an instrument of execution so shaped, is admittedly a\nworthless legend.\n\nThis claim of Justin Martyr that the solar cross of the philosophers\nwas a pre-Christian symbol of the Christ, is, when considered in\nconnection with the fact that nearly all the Fathers allude to the\nfigure of the cross, _any_ kind of cross, as a life-giving symbol from\ntime immemorial, significant of much.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS IN EUROPE.\n\nThat the symbol of the cross was widely venerated in Europe long before\nour era, is well known to archaeologists. Of Britain in those days we\nknow next to nothing, history being almost silent upon the subject and\nrelics conspicuous by their absence. The cross is however a conspicuous\nfeature upon certain funeral urns which are said to date back to the\nperiod in question. And it is noteworthy that both it and the solar\nwheel occur upon several of the earliest British coins; which whether\nissued as some say before, or as others aver after, the advent of\nJulius Caesar, were admittedly of pre-Christian date. Evidences of the\nveneration of the cross in France before our era are so numerous and\neasily ascertainable, that it will only be necessary to refer the\nreader to the _Collection Roujou_, the pages of the _Revue de\nNumismatique_, and the writings of Messieurs De la Saussaye, Lenormant,\nDe Saulcy, E. Lambert, and other French authorities.\n\nIf, continuing our journey eastwards, we pass over the border into the\nnorthern provinces of Italy, we find equally striking evidence of the\npre-Christian veneration of the symbol in question.\n\nLet us take for example the evidence furnished by the remarkable\ndiscoveries made in the pre-Christian cemetery unearthed at Gola-Secca.\nFor upon a very large proportion of the articles discovered in the\nancient tombs of the cemetery in question, a cross of some kind is the\nprominent feature.\n\nParticulars of these articles can be found recorded in the literary and\nscientific journals of France. And the conclusion arrived at by the\nauthorities upon such matters cannot be better put than in the revised\nedition in book form of an article in the _Revue Archeologque_ by\nMonsieur G. de Mortillet.\n\nAfter referring to the relics of so much of ancient Gaul as is\ncomprised in modern France, a subject he takes leave of in the words--\n\n     \"But the pre-Christian cult of the cross was not\n     confined to Savoy and the environs of Lyons. A glance at\n     the coins of ancient Gaul is sufficient to show that it\n     existed in nearly every part\"--\n\nM. de Mortillet, crossing the frontier and dealing\nwith the said tombs of Gola-Secca near Milan\nin Italy, sums up as follows\n\n     \"One sees that there can be no doubt whatever concerning\n     the use of the cross as a religious sign for a very long\n     time before Christianity. The cult of the cross was well\n     spread over Gaul before its conquest and already existed\n     in Emilia in the Bronze Age, more than a thousand years\n     before Jesus Christ.\"\n\nLet us pass on to yet another country, Switzerland. Here also we find\nunexceptional evidence of the general recognition of the cross before\nour era as a symbol which should above all others be venerated.\n\nThe Lake Dwellings of Switzerland may be said to have been brought to\nlight by the extraordinary drought experienced in the years A.C.\n1853-4; for though piles and ancient remains were found upon the shores\nof various lakes before that date, no great heed was paid to them till\nthe drought in question lowered the waters of the lake of Zurich and of\nother lakes to an unprecedented extent, and certain discoveries due\nthereto led to the matter being thoroughly investigated by\nantiquarians.\n\nThe result was that many relics of the Lake Dwellers were found. And,\nplaced upon those relics by this forgotten race of hoary antiquity as\nthe sign they venerated, was the symbol of the cross.\n\nThese relics, preserved for us by the sediment carried into the lakes\nby various rivers, cannot be less than 3,000 years old, are not\nimprobably 4,000 years old, and may quite possibly be 5,000 years old;\nsome authorities--Monsieur Morlot for instance--estimating their age at\nfrom 6,000 to 7,000 years. Suffice it to record the fact that these\nrelics are admittedly pre-Christian.\n\nUpon the articles in question, as on those discovered in the\npre-Christian tombs of Gola-Secca, the cross is stamped as a symbol of\nlife, of good omen, and of salvation. Even dies for stamping articles\nwith the cross have been discovered among the remains of the Lake\nDwellers. And the crosses are of three kinds; (1) the right-angled\ncross of four equal arms, of which so many variations, some enclosed in\ncircles and some with the extremities widened and rounded, are used as\nChristian symbols; (2) the other cross of four equal arms, known as the\nSt. Andrew's cross or _Chi_ cross; and (3) the Fylfot or Svastika\ncross.\n\nThe last named cross is a peculiar one of quite unmistakeable design;\nand there are two varieties, {image \"svastika1.gif\"}, and {image\n\"svastika2.gif\"}, of which one is obviously an impression or reverse\nview of the other.\n\nThe names _Fylfot_ and _Svastika_ are very generally applied to both\nthese symbols. The term _Svastika_, an Indian one, is however applied\nby the inhabitants of Hindostan to one only; they calling the other\n_Sauvastika_. And it is curious to note that the meanings attached to\nthese names, though, like the symbols allied in nature, are, also like\nthem, the reverse or negative or complement of each other.\n\nFor instance we are told by Sir G. Birdwood that the right handed\nSvastika signifies the Male Principle, the Sun on its daily journey\nfrom East to West, Light and Life; and that the left-handed Svastika\nsignifies the Female Principle, the Sun in Hades or the Underworld on\nits journey from West to East, Darkness and Death.[64]\n\nThis more or less official pronouncement may be taken as a fairly\naccurate one, although it is obvious that the annual as well as the\ndiurnal movement of the Sun should have been referred to; the half year\nbetween the Vernal Equinox and Autumnal Equinox representing Light and\nLife, and that between the Autumnal Equinox and Vernal Equinox Darkness\nand Death, just as clearly as do the half days between sunrise and\nsunset, sunset and sunrise. But it is to be feared that even those who\nremember how often Death and Darkness are referred to as periods of\nGestation, will have some difficulty in seeing how a sign or symbol of\nthe Female Power of Generation can have signified Death.\n\nThe fact of course is that the symbol in question represented both Life\nand Death, and represented the latter only in a minor sense and owing\nto the fact that the Female Principle of Life was regarded as the\nnecessary reverse, negative, or complement of the Male Principle; which\nlatter, having of the two the better claim to be considered the starter\nof life, was the one more particularly identified with Life and\ntherefore with the vernal Sun-God.\n\nIt would also appear that the two symbols in question to some extent\nsignified Fire and Water; Fire being of course the Male Principle, Day,\nSummer, Light, and Life; and Water the Female Principle. This still\nfurther illustrates the point dealt with above; for though Water is the\nnegative of Fire, yet Fire cannot produce Life without the aid of\nWater.\n\nReturning however to our consideration of the cross as a symbol of Life\nof pre-Christian date and origin, and having already dealt with the\nlands now known as Britain, France, Italy, and Switzerland, let us now\nconsider the evidence of Greece.\n\nAt Mycenae and elsewhere Dr. Schliemann discovered, among other relics\nof a bygone age, not only articles marked with the Svastika cross and\nthe cross of four equal arms, but even seals and dies giving\nimpressions of such crosses; thus demonstrating how large and prominent\na part the symbol of the cross played in pre-Christian times among\nthose in whose classic tongue the earliest known copies of the\nChristian Scriptures were written centuries later.\n\nIt is also remarkable that Dr. Schliemann found golden crosses in the\npreviously unopened tombs he discovered and explored at Mycenae; as\nmany as five such crosses having in some instances been placed with a\nsingle body by those who sealed up the vaults in question thousands of\nyears ago and many centuries before the commencement of our era.\n\nAs few if any unrifled tombs of so ancient a date have been discovered\nin Greece and first explored by a trustworthy investigator, and as,\nmoreover, it would only have been with the bodies of important\npersonages that crosses of so valuable a material as gold would have\nbeen buried, these discoveries, coupled with the self-evident fact that\ncrosses of more perishable material may have been buried with the\nbodies of less distinguished people, and by this time, like both the\nbodies and the tombs which enclosed them, have gone to dust, are most\nremarkable. And they entirely corroborate the testimony borne by the\ncoins of ancient Gaul, the contents of the tombs of Gola-Secca, and the\nremains of the Lake Dwellers of Switzerland, to the veneration paid\nlong before our era by the inhabitants of Europe to the cross as the\nrecognised symbol of Life. Nor as the symbol only of the life which\nends in the grave, but also of the glorious hope that as the Sun, from\nwhom we derive that life, whether considered from a daily or yearly\npoint of view sinks but to rise again, even so we who owe our brief\nlives to the Sun-God, may, like the Giver of Life and only Saviour,\nrise from one life to another.\n\nFor whether the ancients were or were not unphilosophic enough to\nbelieve in the resurrection of bodies whose constituent atoms are\ncontinually changing and in time form part of other bodies, it is\nabsurd to assume that they did not at times like ourselves conceive and\ndwell upon a hoped-for, if unexpected and improbable, Life-to-come.\n\nMoreover it is with us, as it was with them, a _hope_; and it is\ndisingenuous to label as Christian what was pre-Christian, and to claim\nas ours what has been common to the reasoning minds of suffering men\nand women of all eras.\n\nIt is equally disingenuous on the part of us Christians to keep in the\nbackground the noteworthy fact that even in pre-Christian ages the\nsymbol of that hope was--the cross.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS IN ASIA.\n\nIf, leaving Europe, we pass on into Asia, we find that not only have\nthe two varieties of Svastika crosses for thousands of years played a\nprominent part as a religious symbol in Hindostan, Thibet, and China,\nbut that other kinds of crosses also were in bygone ages venerated by\ntheir inhabitants.\n\nFor instance our Eastern Empire is strewn with the remains of ancient\ntemples built, like those of Christendom in later days, in the shape of\na cross; and we are told that the oldest of its rock-hewn caves were\nplanned after the same figure. It is also well-known that isolated\nstone crosses of pre-historic date are to be seen in various parts of\nIndia.\n\nThe evidence of Hindostan is however outweighed by that obtainable from\nthe antiquities of Western Asia, concerning some of which Sir A. H.\nLayard wrote:\n\n     \"The crux ansata, the tau or sign of life, is found in\n     the sculptures of Khorsabad, on the ivories of\n     Nimroud--which as I have shown are of the same\n     age--carried too by an Assyrian King.\"[65]\n\nWe have also to note the equally significant facts that the recognised\nsymbol of the Phoenician Goddess of Love--Astarte, Ashtoreth, or\nIshtar, the Bride of the Sun-God--was a cross; that a cross was also\nassociated with the Phoenician Baal or Sun-God; and that the circle and\ncross, now the symbol of the planet held sacred to the Goddess of Love,\nfrequently occurs upon the ancient coins of Western Asia and was not\nimprobably more or less akin in signification to the crux ansata of\nEgypt. The fact that upon very ancient remains still existing the Baal\nis represented as crowned with a wheel-like nimbus of rays should also\nbe mentioned.\n\nThe cross more especially connected with the Phoenician \"Bride of the\nSun-God\" in ancient days, was, as can easily be seen upon reference to\nancient coins, where it occurs in the hand of the goddess in question,\na long handled cross such as is frequently to be seen in our pictorial\nrepresentations of John the Baptist.\n\nAs John the Baptist was an Asiatic and to some extent a pre-Christian\nAsiatic, we can here, without wandering very far from the matter in\nhand, pause to consider the question why we Christians represent John\nthe Baptist, who had nothing to do with a cross, as holding a cross; if\nit be not that while Jesus was supposed to represent the Sun in its\nannual ascension, John was supposed to represent the Sun in its annual\ndeclension? What other rational explanation have we of the facts, (1)\nthat John is represented as saying that he baptised with water but that\nJesus would baptise with _fire_ (where the rains of winter and the heat\nof summer may be referred to); and (2) that the Christian Church in\nframing its calendar fixed upon what we call Midsummer day as the\nbirthday of John the Baptist, and upon the clay which bears the same\nrelation to the other solstice as the birthday of Christ, as if wishing\nto illustrate that other remarkable pronouncement of John, thus placed\nat the point where the days begin to shorten, concerning Jesus, thus\nplaced where the days begin to lengthen, \"He must increase but I must\ndecrease\"?\n\nThe probability that to its original signification of Life, that of\nSalvation was added to the cross as a recognition of the fact that the\nsalvation of Earth-Life in general and of Mankind in particular is due\nto the fact that at the Vernal Equinox the Sun-God \"crosses\" to save,\nsummer and the fruits of the earth and therefore salvation and increase\nbeing due to the fact that the Sun then crosses the Equator, is\nsupported by evidence from all quarters. And if we refuse to admit that\nChristianity is permeated with the ideas of Sun-God worship, we not\nonly have no rational explanation to offer of the prophecies put by the\nEvangelists in the mouth of John the Baptist to the effect that Jesus\nwould baptise with _fire_ and would _increase_, but also none to offer\nof many another prominent feature of our religion; such as, for\ninstance, the fact that while pretending to reverence all the Ten\nCommandments we deliberately make a point of breaking one of them in\norder to keep as a day of rest not the seventh day but the first, the\nday which from time immemorial was held sacred throughout the Roman\nEmpire as _Dies Solis_, the Day of the Sun. For to aver as we do that\nJesus was not made the subject of a Sun-God allegory, but purposely\nrose from the underworld on the Day of the Sun, at the time of the\nVernal Equinox, in order to annul a commandment previously laid down by\nGod and substitute a new one in silence, is only to make ourselves\nridiculous.\n\nReturning however to the matter more particularly in hand, it should be\npointed out that the crux ansata mentioned by Layard is not the only\nkind of cross to be found upon the relics of ancient Babylonia and\nAssyria. For the cross of four equal arms and the solar wheel are also\nto be met with.\n\nMoreover, as all visitors to our museums should be aware, the monarchs\nare represented as wearing in the place of honour round their neck and\non their breast, a Maltese cross. And this cross, worn by the kings\ncenturies before our era as the symbol which should above all others be\nvenerated, or as best signifying their power over the lives of their\nsubjects and their position as vice-gerents of the Sun-God, is admitted\nby all the best authorities to have been the sign and symbol of the\nSun-God.[66]\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHE PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS IN AFRICA.\n\nPassing on to Africa and a consideration of the _crux ansata_ or\nso-called 'Key of the Nile,' we find that this variety of cross had\nmuch the same significance attached to it by the ancients as had the\nmore widely accepted varieties.\n\nAs a matter of fact no one acquainted with Egyptian antiquities who\nenquires into the matter in thorough going fashion, can in the end fail\nto be convinced that the Egyptian cross was a phallic symbol having\nreference to the sexual powers of generation and to the Sun, and being\ntherefore a symbol both of Life and of the Giver of Life.\n\nThe connection between the crux ansata and the Sun-God in the minds of\nthe inhabitants of the Land of the Nile in pre-Christian days, is very\nclearly set forth by an illustration of Khuenaten in the act of\ndistributing gifts to his courtiers which faces page 40, volume I., of\nSir J. Gardner Wilkinson's \"_Manners and Customs of the Ancient\nEgyptians_.\" For this monarch--also known as Amenophis IV.--and his\nwife are both represented as receiving the crux ansata from the\nSun-God, and the Sun is marked with the crux ansata as its peculiar\nsymbol.\n\nUpon Plate IV. facing page 43 of the same famous work, we see Seti I.\nsurmounted by the Sun; two crosses adorning the latter. The crosses\nare, moreover, attached to two serpents issuing from the sun; and these\nwere in ancient days phallic signs representing the sexual powers.\n\nOn page 405 is a representation of the Egyptian god Khem, or Amen-Ra\nGenerator; the Egyptian Priapus, or god of Generation. The names of\nthis phallic deity show his connection with the Sun.\n\nIt is noteworthy that this particular conception of the Sun-God is\naccompanied by emblems of the sexual organs of reproduction, and that\nhe bears a St. Andrew's cross upon his breast.\n\nUpon page 24 of volume III. of the same work is another representation\nof Khem, or Amen-Ra Generator. In this case also he is accompanied by\nphallic and solar emblems and wears a St. Andrew's cross upon his\nbreast.\n\nOn page 26 Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson tells us that\n\n     \"Khem was considered the generating influence of the\n     sun, whence perhaps the reason of his being connected\n     with Amen-Ra: and in one of the hieroglyphic legends\n     accompanying his name he is styled the sun; that is the\n     pro-creating power of the only source of warmth, which\n     assists in the continuation of the various created\n     species.\"\n\nUpon Plate XXII., facing page 44 of volume III., are three different\ninstances of the crux ansata being attached to the sun as the symbol of\nthe Sun-God.\n\nUpon page 46 is another instance of the crux ansata being attached to\nthe solar serpent issuing from the sun's disc.\n\nOn Plate XXIII., facing page 52, is another illustration of the\nreception of the crux ansata from the Sun-God.\n\nUpon page 82 Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson rightly observes that it is\nabsurd to speak of the crux ansata or Egyptian cross as the _Key of the\nNile_, inasmuch as this cross \"is less frequently seen in the hand of\nthe God Nilus than any deity of the Egyptian pantheon.\"\n\nUpon the remarkable Plate XXXI., facing page 136, we see inscriptions\ndescribing the reigning Pharaoh as the \"Vice-gerent of the Giver of\nEternal Life\"; or, in other words, of the Sun-God. Other expressions\napplied to the Pharaoh are \"Giver of Life and Strength like the Sun\";\n\"Who gives all Life, Stability, and Health like the Sun\"; and \"Approved\nof the Sun and Giver of Life like the Sun.\"\n\nIt is thus clear that ages before our era the cross was venerated in\nEgypt as in other lands as the symbol both of Life and of the Giver of\nLife; and that the deity worshipped as the Giver of Life, and ever\nassociated with that salutary symbol the cross, was the Sun-God.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nEVIDENCE OF TROY.\n\nDr. Schliemann has told us that in his researches upon the site of Troy\nhe found that in pre-Christian if not indeed pre-historic times the\ncross was, in that classic locality as elsewhere, a phallic emblem and\nthe symbol of life; as well as a solar emblem and the symbol of the\nholy fire with which life was more or less identified. For instance on\npage 337 of his _Ilios_ (1880 edition) Dr. Schliemann describes a\nleaden idol discovered by him and of great antiquity. He tells us that\nit was female in character and had the vulva marked with the triangle,\na symbol of the Feminine Principle. And he points out that within the\ntriangle was the Svastika cross.\n\nOn page 521 Dr. Schliemann describes an ancient terra cotta vase, with\nthe characteristics of a woman upon it, and on the vulva a St. Andrew's\ncross.\n\nUpon page 523 is a reference to another vase of similar design. Here\nalso a cross appears to mark the vulva.\n\nOn page 353 Dr. Schliemann admits that the Svastika cross drawn within\nthe triangle marking the vulva, shows that this cross was a sign of\ngeneration in ancient and pre-historic times. This remark should\nevidently have been applied by him to the St. Andrew's cross as well,\nfor he shows that also to have been used as a sign of the organ of\ngeneration, as has been shown above.\n\nWe are here reminded of the fact, already noted, that the Egyptians\nrepresented their God of Generation, Khem, or Amen-Ra Generator, as\nwearing a conspicuous St. Andrew's cross. And as Khem was the Egyptian\nPriapus it ought also to be pointed out that it was in ancient times\nthe practice to erect wooden crosses to this conception of the Sun-God.\n\nAn illustration of one example of the crosses erected to Priapus can be\nseen in figure XI. of plate XXIX. of that well-known work, _Antique\nGems and Rings_.[67] And the phallic nature of such crosses cannot be\ndenied.\n\nReturning, however, to the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann upon the site\nof Troy, we find on page 350 of _Ilios_ that both varieties of the\nSvastika cross are extraordinarily common upon the articles he\ndiscovered.\n\nAs an Indian symbol the Svastika cross can only be traced back as far\nas the fourth or fifth century B.C.; and its occurrence upon these and\nother relics of earlier ages and other lands, shows us that it is\ninaccurate and misleading to speak of it as \"Indian.\"\n\nThe origin of the Svastika cross, whether the {image \"svastika1.gif\"},\nor the {image \"svastika2.gif\"}, is unknown; but Dr. Schliemann quotes\nwith approval Professor Max Muller's remarks to the effect that Mr.\nThomas our distinguished Oriental numismatist\n\n     \"Has clearly proved that on some of the Andra coins and\n     likewise on some punched coins depicted on Sir W.\n     Elliot's plate ix. _Madras Jour. Lit. and Science_, vol.\n     III., the place of the more definite figure of the sun\n     is often taken by the Svastika, and that the Svastika\n     has been inserted within the rings or normal circles\n     representing the four suns of the Ujjain pattern on\n     coins. He has also called attention to the fact that in\n     the long list of the recognised devices of the\n     twenty-four Jaina Tirthankaras the sun is absent; but\n     that while the eighth Tirthankara has the sign of the\n     half-moon the seventh Tirthankara is marked with the\n     _Svastika, i.e._, the sun. Here then, I think, we have\n     very clear indications that the Svastika, with the hands\n     pointing in the right direction, was originally a symbol\n     of the Sun, perhaps of the vernal sun as opposed to the\n     autumnal sun, the _Sauvastika_, and therefore a natural\n     symbol of light, life, health, and wealth. That in\n     ancient mythology the sun was frequently represented as\n     a wheel is well known. Grimm identifies the Old Norse\n     _hjol_ or hvel, the A.-S. _hvehol_, English 'wheel,'\n     with {kappa|upsilon with\n     tonos|kappa|lambda|omicron|rho}, Sk. Kakra, wheel; and\n     derives jol, 'yule-tide,' the time of the winter\n     solstice, from hjol, 'the (solar) wheel.'\"\n\nBoth the {image \"svastika1.gif\"} and the {image \"svastika2.gif\"} occur\nupon the famous footprints of Buddha carved upon the Amaravati Tope,\nand Dr. Schliemann remarks that we find the Svastika or Sauvastika\ncross\n\n     \"In Ezekiel ix. 4, 6, where--in the form of the old\n     Hebrew letter Tau--it is written as the sign of life on\n     the forehead, like the corresponding Indian symbol. We\n     find it twice on a large piece of ornamental leather\n     contained in the celebrated Corneto treasure preserved\n     in the Royal Museum at Berlin; also on ancient pottery\n     found at Konigsberg in the Neumark and preserved in the\n     Markisches Museum in Berlin; and on a Bowl from Yucatan\n     in the Berlin Ethnological Museum. We also see it on\n     coins of Gaza, as well as on an Imperial coin of Asido;\n     also on the drums of the Lapland priests.\"\n\nIt is noteworthy that in the neighbourhood of Troy, as in Cyprus and\nother places, a cross of four equal arms, like our sign of addition, in\ndays of old shared with the Svastika crosses the veneration of the\npeople and was evidently more or less akin to those crosses in\nsignification. Dr. Schliemann tells us that this cross of four equal\narms \"occurs innumerable times on the whorls of the three upper\npre-historic cities of Hissarlik,\" and that if, as Burnouf and others\nsuggest, the {image \"svastika2.gif\"} and {image \"svastika1.gif\"}\nrepresented primitive fire machines, this other cross \"might also claim\nthe honour of representing the two pieces of wood for producing the\nholy fire by friction.\"\n\nElsewhere in the same work Dr. Schliemann quotes with approval the\nopinion of Professor Sayce that the Svastika cross, {image\n\"svastika2.gif\"} or {image \"svastika1.gif\"}, \"was a symbol of\ngeneration.\"\n\nAs phallic worship and Sun-God worship were admittedly always closely\nconnected, it is not surprising to find that Dr. Schliemann also very\nhighly commends a dissertation on the {image \"svastika2.gif\"} and\n{image \"svastika1.gif\"} by Mr. Edward Thomas, whose conclusion is that\n\n     \"As far as I have been able to trace or connect the\n     various manifestations of this emblem, they one and all\n     resolve themselves into the primitive conception of\n     solar motion, which was intuitively associated with the\n     rolling or wheel-like projection of the sun through the\n     upper or visible arc of the heavens.\"\n\nIt may therefore be considered proven that the inhabitants of classic\nTroy like those of the Land of the Nile and other countries, recognised\na close affinity between the productive forces and the sun, and were\none in accepting a cross of some description as the natural symbol\nwhether of Life or of the Giver of Life.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nEVIDENCE OF CYPRUS.\n\nAlthough now, owing to the march of events, the island of Cyprus is out\nof the way and seldom visited, it was once otherwise. For in days of\nold it occupied a favoured position between the countries then foremost\nin the arts of civilisation.\n\nIn those days Cyprus was a centre of Phoenician enterprise. And, as we\nare told in that fine work _'Kypros, the Bible, and Homer: Oriental\nCivilisation, Art and Religion in ancient times,'_ \"The oldest extant\nPhoenician inscriptions, _themselves the earliest examples of letters\nproperly so called_, come from Cyprus.\"\n\nAs, moreover, when face to face with the relics of the Phoenicians we\nare, as Dr. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter also remarks, \"In the very midst of\nancient Canaanitish civilisation as depicted in the Old Testament,\" it\nwill be seen that a study of the antiquities of Cyprus should have a\nspecial interest for us Christians.\n\nLet us therefore see what the ancient remains found in the island in\nquestion, and others referred to in the work mentioned as illustrative\nof the same, can tell us regarding phallic worship in general and the\npre-Christian cross in particular.\n\nOne of the first points to be noted in the illustrations supplied by\nDr. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter is in a cut of an ancient Cyprian coin on\nPlate X.; upon which coin we see over a temple gateway the phallic\nsymbol since adopted by the Moslems, and commonly spoken of as the\n'_star_ and crescent' although, as already shown, it originality\nrepresented the radiate Sun or Male Principle in conjunction with the\nCrescent moon or Female Principle.\n\nUpon Plate XIX. we see several examples of the Svastika cross occurring\nupon an ancient Cyprian vase.\n\nOn Plate XXV. we are shown a gold leaf taken from an ancient grave,\nupon which the Svastika cross occurs.\n\nFigure 10 upon the same plate shows us a gold leaf discovered at\nAmathus upon which we see the Sun and Moon in conjunction, the Sun in\nthis instance being represented as a disc in the horns of the crescent.\n\nUpon Plate XXVI. we have representations of stone pillars at Atheniaon,\nupon the capitals of which are phallic emblems, including that of the\nSun as a disc within the horns of the Crescent moon.\n\nOn Plate XXX. we have in figure 7 a cut of an important cylinder now\nstored in the Berlin Museum, upon which are represented both the Sacred\nTree and the Ashera. The winged Sun-disc appears over the former and\nthe Crescent moon over the latter.\n\nFigure 11 upon the same plate shows us a Masseba representing the Male\nPrinciple, surmounted by the star-like form which represented the\nradiate Sun; and an Ashera, representing the Female Principle,\nsurmounted by the Crescent moon.\n\nJust as in modern Christianity we make a distinction without alleging\nmuch difference between the Father and the Son, even so in ancient\ntimes a distinction of a similarly vague kind was made between the\nAll-Father _Fire_ and His Image and First-begotten Son _Light_. The\ndisc of the Sun seems to have represented the former and the Sun-star\nor radiate Sun the latter where both were represented in one\nillustration, as for instance in figure 12 on the plate last mentioned.\n\nThe illustration in question is an important one. On the left is an\nAshera under a Crescent moon; in the centre is a Masseba under the\nSun-star or radiate Sun; and on the right is an altar under a sun disc.\n\nThe phallic meaning of all this is evident; and a kind of Trinity is\npresented to us, _viz._ (1) The Female Principle and perhaps the\nprimeval Darkness, needing impregnation or illumination ere the same\ncan cause aught to be; (2) the Male Principle and Light, the First-born\nSon of Fire; and (3) Fire itself, the one origin of all things and\nFather of Spirits, made manifest unto mortals by His First-born Son,\nand best symbolled, as is Light, by the Solar Orb.\n\nOn Plate XXXI. we have in figure 4 a representation of the goddess\nIshtar, the bride of the Sun-God. Over her we see the phallic symbol of\nthe radiate Sun and Crescent moon in conjunction.\n\nOn Plate XXXII. we see in figure 23 the Svastika cross under a tree, in\na representation of a scarab from Ialysos. This cross coupled with the\npresence of two bulls, one on either side of the tree, seem to show\nthat the Male Principle is referred to.\n\nOn Plate XL. we have a cut of a votive arm, holding in its hand that\nphallic symbol the apple, and obtained from the sanctuary of Apollo at\nVoni.\n\nOn Plate LVIII. in representations of the stone capitals of two votive\npillars from the shrine of Aphrodite at Idalion, we see various phallic\nemblems; including the familiar Sun disc and Crescent moon in\nconjunction.\n\nThe same remark applies to Plate LIX., where two more such pillars are\nillustrated.\n\nUpon Plate LXIX. are given no less than 134 illustrations of ancient\nreligious symbols, and the phallic character of nearly if not quite all\nis plainly apparent.\n\nIn twelve of these the presence of the Sun or the Crescent Moon as the\ncase may be, points out that in the former event the Male Principle of\nLife, and in the latter the Female Principle of Life, is referred to.\nIn six other cases the presence of the Sun and Crescent moon in\njuxtaposition shows that both those Principles are referred to. And in\nfour other examples the presence of the Sun and Crescent moon in\nconjunction shows that the union of those Principles is referred to.\n\nBesides the numerous Masseboth and Asheroth, respectively representing\nthe Male and Female Principles, we see numerous examples of the\ntriangle which represented the female _vulva_ and of the diamond shaped\nsymbol which represented the female _pudendum_.\n\nAmong the remaining symbols is the cross of four equal arms.\n\nUpon Plate LXXV. is an illustration of a vase painting in red figures\nfrom a Stamnos from Vulci Panofka. The representation is one of the\nSun-God Dionysos upon a cross.\n\nThe said cross, which like various Christian crosses of the Dark and\nMiddle Ages has projecting branches and foliage, seems to have been\nmore or less connected with the Tree worship of ancient times.\n\nOn Plate LXXVI. we are given thirteen examples of Sacred Trees\ndiscovered in the groves of Astarte-Aphrodite and Tanit-Artemis-Cybele,\nbeing clay copies of the Sacred Trees erected at the entrances to the\ntemples. As Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter states, these evidently phallic\nsymbols undoubtedly played a part in the worship of the Sun-God\nTammuz-Adonis and his bride Astarte-Aphrodite.\n\nUpon Plate LXXVII. we have a cut of an important Phoenician seal, where\nwe see (1) a man kneeling in adoration to a Divine Trinity connected\nwith the winged disc of the sun, and (2) a priest worshipping three\nsymbols. The three sacred symbols in question are (1) the Ashera or\nsymbol of the Female Life Principle; (2) the Masseba or symbol of the\nMale Life Principle; and (3) a combination of the Ashera and Masseba\nsymbols representing the two Life Principles in conjunction.\n\nOn Plate LXXIX. we have in figure 14 a representation both of the\nSacred Tree and of the combined Ashera and Masseba. Over the latter we\nnaturally see the radiate Sun and Crescent moon in conjunction.\n\nIn figure 16 on the same plate are representations of an Ashera and a\nMasseba, respectively surmounted by a Crescent moon and a radiate Sun.\n\nA similar remark applies to figure 17. A sacrificing priest can be seen\nin this and the last named instances.\n\nOn Plate LXXX. we have in figure 1 a representation of a holy pillar,\nthe volute capital of which has on it a Crescent moon within the horns\nof which is a disc plainly marked with a cross. This is taken from an\nancient cylinder of Hittite origin.\n\nOn the same plate we see in figure 7 a Sun column from Tyre, upon which\nwe see the Crescent and disc in conjunction as in the last case, but\nwithout the cross.\n\nOn Plate CXVIII. we have in figure 8 a cut of a fine vase from Melos\nornamented with a Svastika cross.\n\nUpon Plate CXXXIII. we have, in figures I to 4, representations of a\nsacred Boeotian chest or ark. On the front are seven Svastika crosses\n(some of each variety) and one ordinary cross like our sign of\naddition. On the lid we see two serpents surrounded by eight Svastika\ncrosses (some of each variety) and eight crosses formed of tau crosses,\n{image \"taucross.gif\"}; besides two other crosses.\n\nOn the back are eight Svastika crosses (some of each variety) and eight\nother crosses.\n\nIn figure 6 we have a cut of a chest from Athiaenon upon which two\nSvastika crosses will be noticed.\n\nIn figure 8 of the same plate is an illustration of one side of another\nsacred chest or ark from Athiaenon, on which two Svastika crosses of\nthe other variety can be seen.\n\nUpon Plate CLV. we have in figure 9 a cut of an important Cyprian\nGraeco-Phoenician Amphora discovered in an ancient grave at Kition and\nnow stored in the British Museum. The object represented upon it is a\nSacred Tree marked at the bottom with a St. Andrew's cross and\nsurrounded with Svastika crosses.\n\nOn Plate CLXXIII. we see in group 19 various objects discovered in\nancient graves; one bearing several ordinary crosses and also several\nSvastika crosses, one bearing a Svastika cross of the other variety,\nand a third bearing Svastika crosses of both kinds.\n\nUpon Plate CXCII. are cuts of various Cyprian coins, the phallic symbol\nof the circle and cross occurring upon Nos. 1, 9, and 10.\n\nLeaving the Book of Plates and turning to the illustrations given with\nthe Text of the valuable work we are considering, we discover upon page\n62 a cut showing the impression of a chalcedony cylinder from the\ncollection of the Due de Luynes, where the Sun is represented by a\nCross of four equal arms.\n\nUpon page 85 we have in figure 117 an illustration of an inscribed\ncylinder, now belonging to the Bibliotheque Nationale of France, in\nwhich, as Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter remarks, the priest or king\nrepresented is raising his arm\n\n     \"In adoration in the direction of the Cross suspended in\n     the air before him, a holy object we often meet on\n     Assyrian and Babylonian monuments.\"\n\nThis cross, like that last named, is more like a Greek cross than a\nMaltese cross.\n\nOn page 148 we have in figure 150 an illustration of a coloured image\nof Aphrodite or Astarte discovered in an early Graeco-Phoenician tomb\nat Kurion. This representation of the Goddess of Love and Bride of the\nSun-God is marked with several Svastika crosses, and is yet further\nevidence of the phallic and solar character of that symbol.\n\nSuch is the evidence of the phallic worship and Sun-God worship of the\nPhoenicians and their neighbours, of the close relationship between\nsuch phallic worship and Sun-God worship, and of the part played in\nconnection with the same by the pre-Christian cross, borne by a work of\nresearch so free from bias against the views of the Christian Church\nthat it has prefixed to it a letter of warm commendation from that\nveteran statesman and theologian, the author of the ultra-orthodox\n\"_Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture_.\"\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nMISCELLANEOUS EVIDENCE.\n\nThe most noteworthy features of the available evidence illustrative of\nthe real origin and history of the symbol of the cross have now been\nplaced before the reader, but a number of more or less miscellaneous\nfacts directly or indirectly throwing additional light upon the subject\nhave still to be drawn attention to.\n\nFor instance, no mention has yet been made of the _Hermae_ of bygone\nages. And although their origin may have had no connection with the\nsymbol in question, it is noteworthy that some at least of the early\nChristians discovered in the more or less cruciform outline of the\nHermae a reason or excuse for paying them homage, while very similar\nfigures are to be seen illustrated upon Christian antiquities, such as\nthe mosaic of which the great cross of the Lateran forms the principal\nfeature.\n\nThe Hermae venerated by the ancient Greeks were pillars, usually of\nstone and quadrangular, surmounted in most instances with a head of\neither Hermes or Dionysos; and with a peculiar transverse rail just\nbelow the head, much used for hanging garlands upon, which made the\nwhole look more or less like a cross.\n\nThese pillars were erected in front of temples, tombs, and houses; but\nmore especially as sign posts at cross roads; and whether the head at\nthe top was that of Hermes the Messenger of the Gods, or, as was very\noften the case, that of Dionysos the Sun-God, a phallus was always a\nprominent feature.\n\nMoreover these phallic and often solar erections called Hermae,\nundoubtedly more or less cross-shaped owing to the transverse rail,\nwere worshipped as conducive to fecundity.\n\nIt is also worthy of notice that the cross is well known to have been\nvenerated in America before even the Norsemen who preceded Columbus set\nfoot upon that afterwards rediscovered continent.\n\nFor instance a cross surrounded by a circle was in use among the\nancient Mexicans as a solar sign, another cross was a solar symbol of\nthe natives of Peru from time immemorial, and we are also told by the\nauthorities that a cross of four equal arms with a disc or circle at\nthe centre was the age-old Moqui symbol of the Sun.[68]\n\nOther noteworthy points are that the cross occurs upon Runic monuments\nin Europe long before Christianity was introduced into the regions\ncontaining them; that ancient altars to the Sun-God Mithras bearing the\nsacred symbol of the cross have been discovered even in England; and\nthat the Laplanders of old when sacrificing marked their idols with the\nsymbol of the cross, using the life blood of their victims for that\npurpose.[69]\n\nIt should also be pointed out that on a coin of Thasos bearing\nrepresentations of a phallic character connected with the worship of\nthe Thracian Bacchus, a Svastika cross is a prominent symbol; that upon\nancient vases the headgear of Bacchus is sometimes ornamented with the\ncross of four equal arms; that upon a Greek vase at Lentini, Sicily, an\nancient representation of the Sun-God Hercules is accompanied by no\nless than three different kinds of crosses as symbols; and that upon an\narchaic Greek vase in the British Museum, the Svastika cross, the St.\nAndrew's cross, and the other and right angled cross of four equal\narms, appear under the rays of the Sun. Nor should it be forgotten that\nthough the Svastika cross has almost died out as a Christian symbol and\nwas perhaps never thoroughly acclimatised as such, it often appeared\nupon Christian ecclesiastical properties of the Middle Ages, and,\neither as a Pagan or Christian symbol, continually occurs in the\ncatacombs of Rome.\n\nWe are told that circular wafers or cakes were used in the mysteries of\nthe Sun-God Bacchus, and, being marked with a cross, resembled the\ndisc-like wafers of the Christian Mass. Whether this was so or not, it\nis noteworthy that a cross is said to appear upon the representation of\na circular wafer used in the mysteries of Mithras which occurs upon an\nancient fresco at Rome.\n\nIn this connection it may be mentioned, as a series of curious\ncoincidences, that in the Zoroastrian religion long before our era the\nSun-God Mithras bore much the same relation to the All-Father that the\nChrist does in ours, and is referred to in the Zend Avesta as the\n_Incarnate Word_; that Mithras is said, like the Christ, to have been\nborn in a cave; that the Fathers admitted that the new-born Sun had\nbeen worshipped in the cave at Bethlehem to which the story of the\nbirth of Jesus referred; and that in framing its calendar our Church\nfixed upon the recognised birthday of Mithras, the _Natalis Invicti_ of\nthe Roman Brumalia, as the birthday of the Christ.\n\nIt is also noteworthy that the Christ is thus said to have been born as\nwell as to have risen again the third _or fourth_ (\"_After_ three\ndays,\" _Matt_, xxvii. 63; _after_ \"Three days and three nights,\" Matt,\nxii. 40) day. For the birthday of Mithras and afterwards of the Christ,\nknown to us as Christmas day, seems to have been fixed upon as the\nthird or fourth day after the winter solstice, and as that upon which\nthe sun's resurrection from the south was first discernible after its\napparent cessation of movement or death.\n\nIn this connection it should be added that Lucian records the fact that\nthe Sun-God referred to by the Fathers as worshipped at Bethlehem was\nlamented as dead once a year and always acclaimed as alive again the\nthird day; that in several places in the Zend Avesta we meet with\npassages which show that the Mithras worshippers of old believed that\nat the death of a man his spirit sits at the head of the corpse for\nthree days and three nights, and then, at dawn, rises free from all\nearthly attachments; and that we say that the execution of Jesus took\nplace at the time of the Passover or Vernal Equinox, while instead of\nthe prophesied \"three days and three nights in the heart of the earth\"\n(_Matt_. xii. 40) the period between the death and burial on Good\nFriday evening and the resurrection before dawn on Easter Sunday is\njust about that during which the Sun's disc is at the Vernal Equinox\ntransfixed by the Equator, _viz._, 32 2/3 hours.\n\nThe question why the Cock so often, like the Cross, surmounts the\nsteeples wherewith we adorn our Christian churches, is brought before\nus by the fact that it was in ancient days a well-known symbol both of\nthe generative powers and of the Sun-God; often appearing as such upon\nthe top of a sacred pillar in Assyrian and Babylonian representations\nof priests in the act of sacrificing or worshipping. It was probably as\nthe \"herald of the dawn\" that this bird became a symbol of the Sun-God,\nand it would seem that we place its effigy aloft with the same idea in\nview.\n\nAnother point to be noted is that in the Kunthistorisches Museum at\nVienna is an ancient vase upon which is a representation of the Sun-God\nApollo bearing upon his breast as his one ornament and symbol a\nSvastika cross.\n\nWe are reminded of the facts that we Christians were once in the habit\nof alluding to the cross as the Tree of Life, and that the ancients\ndressed up the trunks of trees and worshipped them as symbols of life\nand growth, by an Attic vase of the fifth century B.C. Upon this is a\nred coloured painting of a tree so dressed, on which is to be seen near\nthe top a head of the Sun-God Dionysos, and surrounding the trunk a\nshirt or garment covered with crosses.\n\nAs to the evidence obtained from the ruins of Herculaneum and Pompeii,\nit is said that much which is of a phallic character has been, from\nquite worthy motives, kept in the background. An important fact has\nhowever been mentioned by Mr. C. W. King, M.A., in his well known work\non the _Gnostics and, their Remains_, and this at least can be\ncommented upon. He tells us that the Cross and the Phallus were found\nplaced in juxtaposition upon the walls as meaning one and the same\nthing, and he goes on to add that\n\n     \"This cross seems to be the Egyptian Tau, that ancient\n     symbol of the generative power and therefore transferred\n     into the Bacchic mysteries.\"\n\nThe foregoing are the last of the evidences throwing light upon the\norigin and history of the symbol adopted by our religion as its own,\nwhich the author thinks it necessary to bring forward in support of his\ncontention. And however much of the evidence sought out by the author\nand in this work marshalled by him into something like order may seem\nby itself to be untrustworthy or worthless, no reader can reasonably\ndeny that it has been proved that the cross was a well known symbol of\nLife long before our era, and that as a whole the evidence tends to\nshow that it became such as a phallic symbol, and therefore as a symbol\nof the Sun-God.\n\nAnd what is the moral of the real, as distinguished from the imaginary,\nhistory of the symbol of the cross but this: that from the beginning\nnought has caused the beliefs of men to assume an appearance of radical\ndifference, save the difference in the name or dress with which this or\nthat set of men have clothed similar ideas?\n\nFor, as has already been hinted, Humanity has ever had but one God and\nbut one Religion. And as from one point of view Life is but another\nterm for the Real Presence, and Death but another term for the\nwithdrawal of Deity, it may be said that that God is Life, and that\nReligion the desire for Life, more Life, and fuller Life. Moreover, as\nhas been said before, this universal worship of Life is discernible\neven in the willingness of some to sacrifice what remains to them of\nmortal life in the hope of thus being enabled to lay hold of a life\nimmortal which is not for all.\n\nThe worship of Life is natural, and must of necessity continue. Let us\nhowever render it nobler by recognising its catholicity; and by\ncontemptuously refusing to either seek or accept a life of bliss\nhereafter which any of our brothers and sisters are, either in our\nimagination or in reality, to be debarred from sharing.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nSUMMARY.\n\nAt the commencement of this work it was shown that, as the Greek text\nof the writings forming the New Testament testifies, not one of the\nApostles or Evangelists ever stated that Jesus was executed upon a\ncross-shaped instrument of execution. The circumstances under which the\nfigure of the cross became the symbol of our religion, were then made\nclear. And, having since demonstrated the existence in pre-Christian\nages of a widespread veneration of the figure of the cross as the\nsymbol of Life and of the Sun-God, which may have given rise to the\ndesire to associate Jesus therewith, little remains for the author to\ndo save draw the notice of the reader to the admissions of other\nwriters concerning the rise of the cross as the symbol of Christianity;\nfor the sake of brevity more or less confining his attention to two\nwell known works upon the history of religious art.\n\nIt should first however be pointed out that though we Christians affirm\nthat crucifixion was a form of capital punishment made use of in days\nof old, and abolished the fourth century after Christ by Constantine\nbecause Jesus was so executed, we cannot exactly prove that the\n_staurosis_ thus abolished was crucifixion, or even that it included\ncrucifixion. For various as are the different forms of 'death by the\nstauros' of which descriptions have come down to us from pre-Christian\nages and the first three centuries of our era, no relic of that date\nbears a representation of an instrument of execution such as we cause\nto appear in our sacred pictures, and even if, regardless of the more\nexact meaning of the word stauros, we suppose the term staurosis to\nhave included every form of carrying out the extreme penalty by means\nof affixion or suspension, we meet with no description of such an\ninstrument of execution as we picture. Therefore even if we were to\nexclude from the staurosis abolished by Constantine all forms of\ntransfixion by a stauros, we could not, upon the evidence before us,\nfairly say that what that astute Emperor abolished was what is usually\nunderstood by the term crucifixion.\n\nIt will not be necessary to quote again the admission of the Reverend\nS. Baring-Gould, M.A., to the effect that the so-called Cross of\nConstantine or monogram of Christ was but the symbol of the Sun-God of\nthe Gauls with a loop added by their crafty leader to please the\nChristians, but it may be pointed out that this fact is also admitted\nin _Chambers's Encyclopaedia_; where we read that\n\n     \"The so-called cross of Constantine was not really a\n     cross but a circle containing the X P I, the first three\n     letters of the name of Christ in Greek; and was merely\n     an adaptation of a symbol of a Gaulish solar deity.\"\n\nAnd it may be added that the fact that the Monogram of Christ and the\nordinary cross so frequently used as symbols by Constantine upon his\ncoins and elsewhere, and thus made symbols of the Roman Empire in the\nfirst half of the fourth century, were at first Pagan rather than\nChristian symbols, also seems to be borne out by Dean Burgon in his\n_Letters from Rome_, where he states\n\n     \"I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian\n     monument of the first four centuries.\"[70]\n\nPassing on however to the representative works on Christian Art already\nreferred to, we first come to Mrs. Jameson's famous _History of Our\nLord as exemplified in works of art_.\n\nUpon page 315 of Volume II. the gifted authoress, after confessing that\nthe cross was venerated by the heathen as a symbol of Life before the\nperiod of Christianity and referring to St. Chrysostom, who flourished\nhalf a century after Constantine, admits that\n\n     \"It must be owned that ancient objects of Art, as\n     far as hitherto known, afford no corroboration of the use\n     of the cross in the simple transverse form familiar to\n     us at any period preceding or even closely succeeding\n     the words of St. Chrysostom.\"\n\nThat is to say, although Constantine introduced the Monogram of Christ\nand the cross of four equal arms before St. Chrysostom was born, and,\nmaking them symbols of the Roman Empire, would, whether a Sun-God\nworshipper or a Christian, in any case have imposed them upon what he\nestablished as his State Religion, it was not till after these solar\nsymbols of the Gauls were accepted as Christian that such a cross as\ncould possibly have been a representation of an instrument of execution\nwas introduced.\n\nAs to the crucifix, we are told that though this is said by some to be\nreferred to in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa--a Bishop of Tours who\nlived in the sixth century, and also in the injunctions of the often\nquoted council of Greek bishops A.C. 692 called the \"Quini-sextum\" or\n\"in Trullo,\" the evidence is\n\n     \"Insufficient to convince most modern archaeologists\n     that a crucifix in any sense now accepted was meant.\"\n\nIn other words, not only is it clear that the cross as a representation\nof the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died was not introduced\ntill after the days of Constantine, but it is also evident that the\ncrucifix, the earliest known representation of that execution, was not\nintroduced till centuries later.\n\nOther noteworthy admissions are made in the work above quoted from, but\nwe must pass on to the Dean of Canterbury's comparatively recent work\nupon the same subject.\n\nDean Farrar states upon page 11 of his _Life of Christ as represented\nin Art_ that \"Of all early Christian symbols the _Fish_ was the most\nfrequent and the favourite.\"\n\nThe Fish; and not the Cross.\n\nMoreover the Dean significantly adds upon the next page, that the Fish\n\n     \"Continued to be a common symbol down to the\n     days of Constantine.\"\n\nAnd the significance lies in the fact that the introduction by\nConstantine of the solar symbols venerated by the Gauls, may account\nfor the displacement of the symbol of the Fish from favour.\n\nUpon page 19 Dr. Farrar goes on to say that\n\n     \"Two symbols continued for ages to be especially common,\n     of which I have not yet spoken. They were not generally\n     adopted, even if they appeared at all, until after the\n     Peace of the Church at the beginning of the fourth\n     century. I mean the cross and the monogram of Christ.\"\n\nHere again, it will be seen, the Dean admits that the cross, as the\nsymbol of our religion, came in with Constantine.\n\nDirectly after the passage last quoted Dean Farrar very misleadingly\nremarks: \"It must be remembered that the cross was in itself an object\nof utter horror even to the Pagans.\" For the exact reverse is the\ntruth, inasmuch as in almost every land a cross of some description had\nbeen for ages venerated as a symbol of Life.\n\nThe fact of course is that the Dean here and elsewhere, like other\nChristian writers, does not take the trouble to distinguish between the\nsymbol of the cross and the death caused by execution upon a stauros;\nwhich instrument, by the way, was, as has been shown, not necessarily\nin the shape of a cross, and appears to have been in most cases a stake\nwithout a transverse rail. What the Pagans held in utter horror was the\nawful death caused by transfixion by or affixion to a stauros, whatever\nits shape; the symbol of the cross was, upon the contrary, an object of\nveneration among them from time immemorial.\n\nOn page 23 Dr. Farrar, alluding to the use of the transient sign of the\ncross by the Christians of early days, makes the admission\n\n     \"That it did _not_ remind them of the Crucifixion only\n     or even mainly is proved alike by their literature and\n     other relics.\"\n\nExactly so: for the non-material sign traced by them (and by us) upon\nthe forehead in the _non-Mosaic_ initiatory rite of baptism and perhaps\nalso upon the breast or in the air at other times, seems to have been\nthe survival of a Pagan and pre-Christian custom.\n\nUpon page 24 Dean Farrar admits that\n\n     \"The cross was only introduced among the Christian\n     symbols tentatively and timidly. It may be doubted\n     whether it once occurs till after the vision of\n     Constantine in 312 and his accession to the Empire of\n     the East and West in 324.\"\n\nFurther on upon the same page the Dean of Canterbury, passing without\nnotice from symbols to instruments of execution and making no\ndistinction whatever, states that\n\n     \"Crosses were of two kinds. The _Crux Simplex_, 'of\n     one single piece without transom,' was a mere stake,\n     used sometimes to impale, sometimes to hang the victim\n     by the hands.\"\n\nExactly so.\n\nBut, to bring this work to a conclusion with what is the crux of the\nwhole matter, is it not disingenuous in the extreme upon the part of\nthose of us Christians who know better, to hide the fact that it may\nhave been upon some such cross as the Dean here refers to, that is,\nupon no cross at all, that Jesus was executed? Is it not dishonest of\nus to place before the masses Bibles and Lexicons wherein we ever\ncarefully translate as \"cross\" a word which at the time the ancient\nclassics and our sacred writings were penned did not necessarily, if\nindeed ever, signify something cross-shaped? Is it not gross disloyalty\nto Truth to insist, as we do in our versions of the Christian\nScriptures, upon translating as \"crucify\" or \"crucified\" four different\nwords, not one of which referred to anything necessarily in the shape\nof a cross?\n\nAnother point which should be mentioned, though such matters cannot be\ndiscussed here, is that the questions whether Jesus did not prophesy\nthat the final Day of judgment would come before those whom he\naddressed should die, and did not solemnly declare that his mission was\nto the descendants of Jacob or Israel and to them alone, undoubtedly\naffect our story.\n\nAs to the Gospel of the Cross, have not we Christians by, in our\nimaginations, limiting its saving effects to the few who are able to\nbelieve in it, all the centuries that we have re-echoed the cry \"the\nKingdom of Heaven is at hand\" _forced_ upon the same the unutterably\nselfish meaning that the kingdom at hand for the many who simply cannot\nbelieve is that of Hell? Was _that_ what Jesus meant, and all that the\nso-called cross effected?\n\nMoreover, whether the message of Jesus which we proclaim and variously\ninterpret was or was not a gospel--that is, \"glad tidings \"--to all\nmen, and from an unselfish point of view, what possible good purpose\ncan be served by insisting upon supplementing the simple story of his\nstressful life, his magnificent love for the afflicted and suffering,\nhis equally magnificent hatred of qualities not altogether dissimilar\nfrom that which enables some of us to claim to be not only admirers but\nalso genuine followers of a Communist who declared that those who would\nfollow him must first sell all their possessions and give the proceeds\nto the poor;--what good purpose can be served by supplementing this,\nand the account of the final conflict of Jesus with the officials of\nhis native land and his subsequent execution upon a stauros or stake\nnot stated to have had a cross-bar attached, by the adoption and\nculture of a partisan and misleading fiction regarding the origin and\nhistory of the symbol of the cross?\n\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n---------------------\nFOOTNOTES\n[1] _e.g._, _Iliad_, xxiv. 453; _Odyssey_, xiv. 11\n[2] _e.g._, Thuc. iv. 90; Xen. _An._ v. 2, 21.\n[3] _Gal._ iii. 13; I _Pet._ ii. 24; _Acts_ v. 30; _Acts_ x. 39;\n    _Acts_ xiii. 29.\n[4] _e.g._, Hdt. iii. 125.\n[5] _e.g._, Thuc. vii. 25.\n[6] Livy, xxviii. 29.\n[7] Minucius Felix, _Oct._ xxix.\n[8] _De Praescrip_. xl.\n[9] _Oct._ xxix.\n[10] _Ad Nationes_, xiv.\n[11] Poed iii. II, 59.\n[12] _Nicodemus_ i.\n[13] _Nicodemus_ vii.\n[14] _Nicodemus_ viii.\n[15] _Apol_, i. 55.\n[16] _Dial. cum Trypho_, lxxxvi.\n[17] _Dial. cum Trypho_, xcvii.\n[18] _Against Marcion_, iv. 20.\n[19] _Against Marcion_, iii. 18.\n[20] _Scorpiace_, i.\n[21] _De Corolla_, iii.\n[22] _De Proescrip_, xl.\n[23] _Apologiticus_, xvi.\n[24] _Ad Nationes_, xii.\n[25] xxxvi.\n[26] _Testimonies against the Jews_, ii. 21.\n[27] _Testimonies against the Jews_, ii. 22.\n[28] _Apud Gretserum_, ii.\n[29] _Epist. ad Romanos_, Lib. vi.\n[30] _Christ in Art_, p. 23.\n[31] _Against Heresies_, i. xxiv.\n[32] _Against Heresies_, II., xxii. 4-5.\n[33] _Vit. Const. I._\n[34] _Vit. Const. I._, 28, 29, 30.\n[35] _Vit. Const. I._, 29.\n[36] _De Mart. Pers._, c. 44.\n[37] _Vit. Const. I._, 31.\n[38] _Vit. Const. I._, 37.\n[39] _Vit. Const. I._, 40.\n[40] _Vit. Const. II._ 7-9.\n[41] _Vit. Const. III._ 3.\n[42] _Vit. Const. III._ 49.\n[43] _Opera S. Cyrilli_ cura Ant. Touttee 351 Menaeum Graecum\n     ad diem 7 Maii.\n[44] zosimus ii.\n[45] Both Zonaras and Cedrenus bear testimony to this effect.\n[46] _Early Christian Numismatics_.\n[47] _The Likeness of Christ_, p. 20.\n[48] Herodotus II., 73.\n[49] Pliny, x., 2.\n[  ] 2 Tacitus, _Annal_. Vi., 28. Editorial note: There is no reference\n     in the text to this footnote #2 at the bottom of page 130\n[50] An engraving of the coin can be seen in Duruy's _Histoire\n     des Romains_, Torn. vii.\n[51] Bockh, C.I.G. n. 4713 b.\n[52] Berlin Collection 428.\n[53] _Strange Survivals_, 286.\n[54] _e.g._, Arist. _Mundi_.\n[55] Bar. _Ann_. A.C. 312.\n[56] Basnage, iii., 23.\n[57] Eusebius, _Vit. Const._ iv.\n[58] Martianus Capella.\n[59] _e.g._ Philo, _De Somniis_, i.\n[60] _Timaeus_, 34-36.\n[61] _Theol. Plat._\n[62] _Apol._\n[63] _Apol._\n[64] _Report on the Old Records of the India Office_, London,\n     1891, x., xi.\n[65] _Nineveh_, ii. 213.\n[66] _e.g._, C. W. King, M.A.  _Early Christian Numismatics_;\n     Professor Rawlinson; &c., &c.\n[67] C. W. King, M.A.\n[68] _First Annual Report U. S. Bureau of Ethnology._\n[69] Ol. Varelli, _Scandage Runic;_ Ans. Rudbeckins, _Atlant.:\n     e.g._ an altar discovered ac Rudchester, Northumberland: Sheffer,\n     _Lapponic_.\n[70] _Letters from Rome_, 1862, p. 210.\n\n------\nFor those who do not have access to the images used in the above text,\nhere are some crude representations of them.--(Editor)\n\n\n\nx.gif\n\nX           X\n  X       X\n    X   X\n      X\n    X   X\n  X       X\nX           X\n\n\n\nt.gif\n\nXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n      X\n      X\n      X\n      X\n      X\n      X\n\n\n\nplus.gif\n\n      X\n      X\n      X\nXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n      X\n      X\n      X\n\n\n\nasterisk.gif\n\nX     X     X\n  X   X   X\n    X X X\n      X\n    X X X\n  X   X   X\nX     X     X\n\n\n\nsolarwheel1.gif\n\n      o ooooo o\n   o      X      o\n o X      X      X o\no    X    X    X    o\no      X  X  X      o\no         X         o\no       X X X       o\n o    X   X   X    o\n   o      X      o\n      o ooooo o\n\n\n\nsolarwheel2.gif\n\n      o ooooo o\n   o      X      o\n o        X        o\no         X         o\no         X         o\noXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXo\no         X         o\n o        X        o\n  o       X      o\n     o ooooo o\n\n\n\nmonogram1.gif\n\n      o ooooo o\n   o      XXX    o\n o X      X  X   X o\no    X    XXX  X    o\no      X  X  X      o\no         X         o\no       X X X       o\n o    X   X   X    o\n   o      X      o\n      o ooooo o\n\n\nmonogram2.gif\n\n      o ooooo o\n   o      XXX    o\n o        X  X     o\no         XXX       o\no         X         o\noXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXo\no         X         o\n o        X        o\n   o      X      o\n      o ooooo o\n\n\nmonogram3.gif\n\n       xxx\nX      x  x   X\n  X    xxx  X\n    X  x  X\n       x\n     X x X\n   X   x   X\n X     x     X\n\n\nmonogram4.gif\n\n         XXX\n         X  X\n         XXX\n         X\n XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n         X\n         X\n         X\n\n\n\nsvastika1.gif\n\n X       XXXXXXXXXX\n X       X\n X       X\n X       X\n XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n         X        X\n         X        X\n         X        X\n XXXXXXXXX        X\n\n\n\nsvastika2.gif\n\n XXXXXXXXX        X\n         X        X\n         X        X\n         X        X\n XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n X       X\n X       X\n X       X\n X       XXXXXXXXXX\n\n\n\ntaucross.gif\n\n      XXXXXXX\n         X\n X       X        X\n X       X        X\n XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n X       X        X\n X       X        X\n         X\n      XXXXXXX","title":"The Non-Christian Cross: An Enquiry into the Origin and History of the Symbol Eventually Adopted as That of Our Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":40901}