Hercules, the son of Zeus, was called "The Saviour."[193:13] The words "Hercules the Saviour" were engraven on ancient coins and monuments.[193:14] He was also called "The Only Begotten," and the "Universal Word." He was re-absorbed into God. He was said by Ovid to be the "Self-produced," the Generator and Ruler of all things, and the Father of time.[193:15]

Æsculapius was distinguished by the epithet "The Saviour."[194:1] The temple erected to his memory in the city of Athens was called: "The Temple of the Saviour."[194:2]

Apollo was distinguished by the epithet "The Saviour."[194:3] In a hymn to Apollo he is called: "The willing Saviour of distressed mankind."[194:4]

Serapis was called "The Saviour."[194:5] He was considered by Hadrian, the Roman emperor (117-138 A. D.), and the Gentiles, to be the peculiar god of the Christians.[194:6] A cross was found under the ruins of his temple in Alexandria in Egypt.[194:7] Fig. No. 11 is a representation of this Egyptian Saviour, taken from Murray's "Manual of Mythology." It certainly resembles the pictures of "the peculiar God of the Christians." It is very evident that the pictures of Christ Jesus, as we know them to-day, are simply the pictures of some of the Pagan gods, who were, for certain reasons which we shall speak of in a subsequent chapter, always represented with long yellow or red hair, and a florid complexion. If such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever lived in the flesh, he was undoubtedly a Jew, and would therefore have Jewish features; this his pictures do not betray.[194:8]

Mithras, who was "Mediator between God and man,"[194:9] was called "The Saviour." He was the peculiar god of the Persians, who believed that he had, by his sufferings, worked their salvation, and on this account he was called their Saviour.[194:10] He was also called "The Logos."[194:11]

The Persians believed that they were tainted with original sin, owing to the fall of their first parents who were tempted by the evil one in the form of a serpent.[194:12]

They considered their law-giver Zoroaster to be also a Divine Messenger, sent to redeem men from their evil ways, and they always worshiped his memory. To this day his followers mention him with the greatest reverence, calling him "The Immortal Zoroaster," "The Blessed Zoroaster," "The First-Born of the Eternal One," &c.[195:1]

"In the life of Zoroaster the common mythos is apparent. He was born in innocence, of an immaculate conception, of a ray of the Divine Reason. As soon as he was born, the glory arising from his body enlightened the room, and he laughed at his mother. He was called a Splendid Light from the Tree of Knowledge, and, in fine, he or his soul was suspensus a lingo, hung upon a tree, and this was the Tree of Knowledge."[195:2]

How much this resembles "the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints."[195:3]

Hermes was called "The Saviour." On the altar of Pepi (B. C. 3500) are to be found prayers to Hermes—"He who is the good Saviour."[195:4] He was also called "The Logos." The church fathers, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, and Plutarch (de Iside et Osir) assert that the Logos is Hermes.[195:5] The term "Logos" is Greek, and signifies literally "Word."[195:6] He was also "The Messenger of God."[195:7]

Dr. Inman says:

He also tells us that there is a very remarkable figure copied in Payne Knight's work, in which we see on a man's shoulders a cock's head, whilst on the pediment are placed the words: "The Saviour of the World."[195:9]

Besides the titles of "God's First-Born," "Only Begotten," the "Mediator," the "Shepherd," the "Advocate," the "Paraclete or Comforter," the "Son of God," the "Logos," &c.,[195:10] being applied to heathen virgin-born gods, before the time assigned for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, we have also that of Christ and Jesus.

Cyrus, King of Persia, was called the "Christ," or the "Anointed of God."[196:1] As Dr. Giles says, "Christ" is "a name having no spiritual signification, and importing nothing more than an ordinary surname."[196:2] The worshipers of Serapis were called "Christians," and those devoted to Serapis were called "Bishops of Christ."[196:3] Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, says, that the names of "Jesus" and "Christ," were both known and honored among the ancients.[196:4]

Mithras was called the "Anointed" or the "Christ;"[196:5] and Horus, Mano, Mithras, Bel-Minor, Iao, Adoni, &c., were each of them "God of Light," "Light of the World," the "Anointed," or the "Christ."[196:6]

It is said that Peter called his Master the Christ, whereupon "he straightway charged them (the disciples), and commanded them to tell no man that thing."[196:7]

The title of "Christ" or "The Anointed," was held by the kings of Israel. "Touch not my Christ and do my prophets no harm," says the Psalmist.[196:8]

The term "Christ" was applied to religious teachers, leaders of factions, necromancers or wonder-workers, &c. This is seen by the passage in Matthew, where the writer says:

The virgin-born Crishna and Buddha were incarnations of Vishnu, called Avatars. An Avatar is an Angel-Messiah, a God-man, a Christ; for the word Christ is from the Greek Christos, an Anointed One, a Messiah.

The name Jesus, which is pronounced in Hebrew Yezua, and is sometimes Grecized into Jason, was very common. After the Captivity it occurs quite frequently, and is interchanged with the name Joshua. Indeed Joshua, the successor of Moses, is called Jesus in the New Testament more than once,[196:10] though the meaning of the two names is not really quite the same. We know of a Jesus, son of Sirach, a writer of proverbs, whose collection is preserved among the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The notorious Barabbas[197:1] or son of Abbas, was himself called Jesus. Among Paul's opponents we find a magician called Elymas, the Son of Jesus. Among the early Christians a certain Jesus, also called Justus, appears. Flavius Josephus mentions more than ten distinct persons—priests, robbers, peasants, and others—who bore the name of Jesus, all of whom lived during the last century of the Jewish state.[197:2]

To return now to our theme—crucified gods before the time of Jesus of Nazareth.

The holy Father Minucius Felix, in his Octavius, written as late as A. D. 211, indignantly resents the supposition that the sign of the cross should be considered exclusively as a Christian symbol, and represents his advocate of the Christian argument as retorting on an infidel opponent. His words are:

The existence, in the writings of Minucius Felix, of this passage, is probably owing to an oversight of the destroyers of all evidences against the Christian religion that could be had. The practice of the Romans, here alluded to, of carrying a cross with a man on it, or, in other words, a crucifix, has evidently been concealed from us by the careful destruction of such of their works as alluded to it. The priests had everything their own way for centuries, and to destroy what was evidence against their claims was a very simple matter.

It is very evident that this celebrated Christian Father alludes to some Gentile mystery, of which the prudence of his successors has deprived us. When we compare this with the fact that for centuries after the time assigned for the birth of Christ Jesus, he was not represented as a man on a cross, and that the Christians did not have such a thing as a crucifix, we are inclined to think that the effigies of a black or dark-skinned crucified man, which were to be seen in many places in Italy even during the last century, may have had something to do with it.[197:4]

While speaking of "a cross with a man on it" as being carried by the Pagan Romans as a standard, we might mention the fact, related by Arrian the historian,[198:1] that the troops of Porus, in their war with Alexander the Great, carried on their standards the figure of a man.[198:2] Here is evidently the crucifix standard again.

Tertullian, a Christian Father of the second and third centuries, writing to the Pagans, says:

We have it then, on the authority of a Christian Father, as late as A. D. 211, that the Christians "neither adored crosses nor desired them," but that the Pagans "adored crosses," and not that alone, but "a cross with a man upon it." This we shall presently find to be the case. Jesus, in those days, nor for centuries after, was not represented as a man on a cross. He was represented as a lamb, and the adoration of the crucifix, by the Christians, was a later addition to their religion. But this we shall treat of in its place.

We may now ask the question, who was this crucified man whom the Pagans "adored" before and after the time of Jesus of Nazareth? Who did the crucifix represent? It was, undoubtedly, "the Saviour crucified for the salvation of mankind," long before the Christian Era, whose effigies were to be seen in many places all over Italy. These Pagan crucifixes were either destroyed, corrupted, or adopted; the latter was the case with many ancient paintings of the Bambino,[198:5] on which may be seen the words Deo Soli. Now, these two words can never apply to Christ Jesus. He was not Deus Solus, in any sense, according to the idiom of the Latin language, and the Romish faith. Whether we construe the words to "the only God," or "God alone," they are equally heretical. No priest, in any age of the Church, would have thought of putting them there, but finding them there, they tolerated them.

In the "Celtic Druids," Mr. Higgins describes a crucifix, a lamb, and an elephant, which was cut upon the "fire tower"—so-called—at Brechin, a town of Forfarshire, in Scotland. Although they appeared to be of very ancient date, he supposed, at that time, that they were modern, and belonged to Christianity, but some years afterwards, he wrote as follows:

On one of the Irish "round towers" is to be seen a crucifix of unmistakable Asiatic origin.[199:7]

If we turn to the New World, we shall find strange though it may appear, that the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians worshiped a crucified Saviour. This was the virgin-born Quetzalcoatle whose crucifixion is represented in the paintings of the "Codex Borgianus," and the "Codex Vaticanus."

These paintings illustrate the religious opinions of the ancient Mexicans, and were copied from the hieroglyphics found in Mexico. The Spaniards destroyed nearly all the books, ancient monuments and paintings which they could find; had it not been for this, much more regarding the religion of the ancient Mexicans would have been handed down to us. Many chapters were also taken—by the Spanish authorities—from the writings of the first historians who wrote on ancient Mexico. All manuscripts had to be inspected previous to being published. Anything found among these heathens resembling the religion of the Christians, was destroyed when possible.[199:8]

The first Spanish monks who went to Mexico were surprised to find the crucifix among the heathen inhabitants, and upon inquiring what it meant, were told that it was a representation of Bacob (Quetzalcoatle), the Son of God, who was put to death by Eopuco. They said that he was placed on a beam of wood, with his arms stretched out, and that he died there.[200:1]

Lord Kingsborough, from whose very learned and elaborate work we have taken the above, says:

Sometimes Quetzalcoatle or Bacob is represented as tied to the cross—just as we have seen that Attys was represented by the Phrygians—and at other times he is represented "in the attitude of a person crucified, with impressions of nail-holes in his hands and feet, but not actually upon a cross"—just as we have found the Hindoo Crishna, and as he is represented in Fig. No. 8. Beneath this representation of Quetzalcoatle crucified, is an image of Death, which an angry serpent seems threatening to devour.[200:3]

On the 73d page of the Borgian MS., he is represented crucified on a cross of the Greek form. In this print there are also impressions of nails to be seen on the feet and hands, and his body is strangely covered with suns.[200:4]

In vol. ii. plate 75, the god is crucified in a circle of nineteen figures, and a serpent is depriving him of the organs of generation.

Lord Kingsborough, commenting on these paintings, says:

His lordship further tells us that (according to the belief of the ancient Mexicans), "the death of Quetzalcoatle upon the cross" was "an atonement for the sins of mankind."[200:6]

Dr. Daniel Brinton, in his "Myths of the New World," tells us that the Aztecs had a feast which they celebrated "in the early spring," when "victims were nailed to a cross and shot with an arrow."[200:7]

Alexander Von Humboldt, in his "American Researches," also speaks of this feast, when the Mexicans crucified a man, and pierced him with an arrow.[200:8]

The author of Monumental Christianity, speaking of this, says:

This we believe; but how did this myth get there? He does not say, but we shall attempt to show, in a future chapter, how this and other myths of Eastern origin became known in the New World.[201:2]

It must not be forgotten, in connection with what we have seen concerning the Mexican crucified god being sometimes represented as black, and the feast when the crucified man was shot with an arrow, that effigies of a black crucified man were found in Italy; that Crishna, the crucified, is very often represented black; and that Crishna was shot with an arrow.

Crosses were also found in Yucatan, as well as Mexico, with a man upon them.[201:3] Cogolludo, in his "History of Yucatan," speaking of a crucifix found there, says:

He then speaks of the difficulty in accounting for this crucifix being found among the Indians of Cozumel, and ends by saying:

We shall find, in another chapter, that these virgin-born "Saviours" and "Slain Ones;" Crishna, Osiris, Horus, Attys, Adonis, Bacchus, &c.—whether torn in pieces, killed by a boar, or crucified—will all melt into ONE.

We now come to a very important fact not generally known, namely: There are no early representations of Christ Jesus suffering on the cross.

Rev. J. P. Lundy, speaking of this, says:

Mrs. Jameson, in her "History of Our Lord in Art," says:

The oldest representation of Christ Jesus was a figure of a lamb,[202:4] to which sometimes a vase was added, into which his blood flowed, and at other times couched at the foot of a cross. This custom subsisted up to the year 680, and until the pontificate of Agathon, during the reign of Constantine Pogonat. By the sixth synod of Constantinople (canon 82) it was ordained that instead of the ancient symbol, which had been the Lamb, the figure of a man fastened to a cross (such as the Pagans had adored), should be represented. All this was confirmed by Pope Adrian I.[202:5]

A simple cross, which was the symbol of eternal life, or of salvation, among the ancients, was sometimes, as we have seen, placed alongside of the Lamb. In the course of time, the Lamb was put on the cross, as the ancient Israelites had put the paschal lamb centuries before,[202:6] and then, as we have seen, they put a man upon it.

Christ Jesus is also represented in early art as the "Good Shepherd," that is, as a young man with a lamb on his shoulders.[202:7]

This is just the manner in which the Pagan Apollo, Mercury and others were represented centuries before.[203:1]

Mrs. Jameson says:

M. Renan says:

The Egyptian Saviour Horus was called the "Shepherd of the People."[203:4]

The Hindoo Saviour Crishna was called the "Royal Good Shepherd."[203:5]

We have seen, then, on the authority of a Christian writer who has made the subject a special study, that, "there seems no just grounds at present for assigning an earlier date," for the "earliest instances of the crucifixion" of Christ Jesus, represented in art, than the eighth or ninth century. Now, a few words in regard to what these crucifixes looked like. If the reader imagines that the crucifixes which are familiar to us at the present day are similar to those early ones, we would inform him that such is not the case. The earliest artists of the crucifixion represent the Christian Saviour as young and beardless, always without the crown of thorns, alive, and erect, apparently elate; no signs of bodily suffering are there.[203:6]

On page 151, plate 181, of Jameson's "History of Our Lord in Art" (vol. ii.), he is represented standing on a foot-rest on the cross, alive, and eyes open. Again, on page 330, plate 253, he is represented standing "with body upright and arms extended straight, with no nails, no wounds, no crown of thorns—frequently clothed, and with a regal crown—a God, young and beautiful, hanging, as it were, without compulsion or pain."

On page 167, plate 188, are to be seen "the thieves bound to their cross (which is simply an upright beam, without cross-bars), with the figure of the Lord standing between them." He is not bound nor nailed to a cross; no cross is there. He is simply standing erect in the form of a cross. This is a representation of what is styled, "Early crucifixion with thieves." On page 173, plate 190, we have a representation of the crucifixion, in which Jesus and the thieves are represented crucified on the Egyptian tau (see Fig. No. 12). The thieves are tied, but the man-god is nailed to the cross. A similar representation may be seen on page 189, plate 198.

On page 155, plate 183, there is a representation of what is called "Virgin and St. John at foot of cross," but this cross is simply an upright beam (as Fig. No. 13). There are no cross-bars attached. On page 167, plate 188, the thieves are tied to an upright beam (as Fig. 13), and Jesus stands between them, with arms extended in the form of a cross, as the Hindoo Crishna is to be seen in Fig. No. 8. On page 157, plate 185, Jesus is represented crucified on the Egyptian cross (as No. 12).

Some ancient crucifixes represent the Christian Saviour crucified on a cross similar in form to the Roman figure which stands for the number ten (see Fig. No. 14). Thus we see that there was no uniformity in representing the "cross of Christ," among the early Christians; even the cross which Constantine put on his "Labarum," or sacred banner, was nothing more than the monogram of the Pagan god Osiris (Fig. No. 15),[204:1] as we shall see in a subsequent chapter.

The dogma of the vicarious atonement has met with no success whatever among the Jews. The reason for this is very evident. The idea of vicarious atonement, in any form, is contrary to Jewish ethics, but it is in full accord with the Gentile. The law ordains that[205:1] "every man shall be put to death for his own sin," and not for the sin or crime committed by any other person. No ransom should protect the murderer against the arm of justice.[205:2] The principle of equal rights and equal responsibilities is fundamental in the law. If the law of God—for as such it is received—denounces the vicarious atonement, viz., to slaughter an innocent person to atone for the crimes of others, then God must abhor it. What is more, Jesus is said to have sanctioned this law, for is he not made to say: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."[205:3]

"Salvation is and can be nothing else than learning the laws of life and keeping them. There is, in the modern world, neither place nor need for any of the theological 'schemes of salvation' or theological 'Saviours.' No wrath of either God or devil stands in man's way; and therefore no 'sacrifice' is needed to get them out of the way. Jesus saves only as he helps men know and keep God's laws. Thousands of other men, in their degree, are Saviours in precisely the same way. As there has been no 'fall of man,' all the hundreds of theological devices for obviating its supposed effects are only imaginary cures for imaginary ills. What man does need is to be taught the necessary laws of life, and have brought to bear upon him adequate motives for obeying them. To know and keep God's laws is being reconciled to him. This is health; and out of health—that is, the perfect condition of the whole man, called holiness or wholeness—comes happiness, in this world and in all worlds."

FOOTNOTES: