“Many of the natives of India,” continues Professor Müller, “confess that their feelings revolt against the impurities attributed to the gods by what they call their sacred writings; yet there are honest Brahmans who will maintain that these stories have a deeper meaning; that immorality being incompatible with a divine being, a mystery must be supposed to be concealed in these time-hallowed fables, a mystery which an inquiring and reverent mind may hope to fathom.”

This is precisely what the Christian clergy maintain in attempting to explain the indecencies and incongruities of the Old Testament. Only, instead of allowing the interpretation to those who have the key to these seeming incongruities, they have assumed to themselves the office and right, by divine proxy, to interpret these in their own way. They have not only done that but have gradually deprived the Hebrew clergy of the means to interpret their Scriptures as their fathers did; so that to find among the Rabbis in the present century a well-versed kabalist, is quite rare. The Jews have themselves forgotten the key! How could they help it? Where are the original manuscripts? The oldest Hebrew manuscript in existence is said to be the Bodleian Codex, which is not older than between eight and nine hundred years.[837] The break between Ezra and this Codex is thus fifteen centuries. In 1490 the Inquisition caused all the Hebrew Bibles to be burned; and Torquemada alone destroyed 6,000 volumes at Salamanca. Except a few manuscripts of the Tora Ketubim and Nebiim, used in the synagogues, and which are of quite a recent date, we do not think there is one old manuscript in existence which is not punctuated, hence—completely misinterpreted and altered by the Masorets. Were it not for this timely invention of the Masorah, no copy of the Old Testament could possibly be tolerated in our century. It is well known that the Masorets while transcribing the oldest manuscripts put themselves to task to take out, except in a few places which they have probably overlooked, all the immodest words and put in places sentences of their own, often changing completely the sense of the verse. “It is clear,” says Donaldson, “that the Masoretic school at Tiberias were engaged in settling or unsettling the Hebrew text until the final publication of the Masorah itself.” Therefore, had we but the original texts—judging by the present copies of the Bible in our possession—it would be really edifying to compare the Old Testament with the Vedas and even with the Brahmanical books. We verily believe that no faith, however blind, could stand before such an avalanche of crude impurities and fables. If the latter are not only accepted but enforced upon millions of civilized persons who find it respectable and edifying to believe in them as divine revelation, why should we wonder that Brahmans believe their books to be equally a Sruti, a revelation?

Let us thank the Masorets by all means, but let us study at the same time both sides of the medal.

Legends, myths, allegories, symbols, if they but belong to the Hindu, Chaldean, or Egyptian tradition, are thrown into the same heap of fiction. Hardly are they honored with a superficial search into their possible relations to astronomy or sexual emblems. The same myths—when and because mutilated—are accepted as Sacred Scriptures, more—the Word of God! Is this impartial history? Is this justice to either the past, the present, or the future? “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon,” said the Reformer, nineteen centuries ago. “Ye cannot serve truth and public prejudice,” would be more applicable to our own age. Yet our authorities pretend they serve the former.

There are few myths in any religious system but have an historical as well as a scientific foundation. Myths, as Pococke ably expresses it, “are now proved to be fables, just in proportion as we misunderstand them; truths, in proportion as they were once understood. Our ignorance it is which has made a myth of history; and our ignorance is an Hellenic inheritance, much of it the result of Hellenic vanity.”[838]

Bunsen and Champollion have already shown that the Egyptian sacred books are by far older than the oldest parts of the Book of Genesis. And now a more careful research seems to warrant the suspicion—which with us amounts to a certainty, that the laws of Moses are copies from the code of the Brahmanic Manu. Thus, according to every probability, Egypt owes her civilization, her civil institutions, and her arts, to India. But against the latter assumption we have a whole army of “authorities” arrayed, and what matters if the latter do deny the fact at present? Sooner or later they will have to accept it, whether they belong to the German or French school. Among, but not of those who so readily compromise between interest and conscience, there are some fearless scholars, who may bring out to light incontrovertible facts. Some twenty years since, Max Müller, in a letter to the Editor of the London Times, April, 1857, maintained most vehemently that Nirvana meant annihilation, in the fullest sense of the word. (See Chips, etc., vol. i., p. 287, on the meaning of Nirvana.) But in 1869, in a lecture before the general meeting of the Association of German Philologists at Kiel, “he distinctly declares his belief that the nihilism attributed to Buddha’s teaching forms no part of his doctrine, and that it is wholly wrong to suppose that Nirvana means annihilation.” (Trübner’s American and Oriental Literary Record, Oct. 16, 1869; also Inman’s Ancient Faiths and Modern, p. 128.) Yet if we mistake not, Professor Müller was as much of an authority in 1857 as in 1869.

“It will be difficult to settle,” says (now) this great scholar, “whether the Vedas is the oldest of books, and whether some of the portions of the Old Testament may not be traced back to the same or even an earlier date than the oldest hymns of the Veda.”[839] But his retraction about the Nirvana allows us a hope that he may yet change his opinion on the question of Genesis likewise, so that the public may have simultaneously the benefit of truth, and the sanction of one of Europe’s greatest authorities.

It is well known how little the Orientalists have come to anything like an agreement about the age of Zoroaster, and until this question is settled, it would be safer perhaps to trust implicitly in the Brahmanical calculations by the Zodiac, than to the opinions of scientists. Leaving the profane horde of unrecognized scholars, those we mean who yet wait their turn to be chosen for public worship as idols symbolical of scientific leadership, where can we find, among the sanctioned authorities of the day, two that agree as to this age? There’s Bunsen, who places Zoroaster at Baktra, and the emigration of Baktrians to the Indus at 3784 B.C.,[840] and the birth of Moses at 1392.[841] Now it is rather difficult to place Zoroaster anterior to the Vedas, considering that the whole of his doctrine is that of the earlier Vedas. True, he remained in Afghanistan for a period more or less problematical before crossing into the Punjâb; but the Vedas were begun in the latter country. They indicate the progress of the Hindus, as the Avesta that of the Iranians. And there is Haug who assigns to the Aitareya Brahmanam—a Brahmanical speculation and commentary upon the Rig-Veda of a far later date than the Veda itself—between 1400 and 1200 B.C., while the Vedas are placed by him between 2,000 and 2,400 years B.C. Max Müller cautiously suggests certain difficulties in this chronological computation, but still does not altogether deny it.[842] Let it, however, be as it may, and supposing that the Pentateuch was written by Moses himself—notwithstanding that he would thereby be made to twice record his own death—still, if Moses was born, as Bunsen finds, in 1392 B.C., the Pentateuch could not have been written, before the Vedas. Especially if Zoroaster was born 3784 B.C. If, as Dr. Haug[843] tells us, some of the hymns of the Rig-Veda were written before Zoroaster accomplished his schism, something like thirty-seven centuries B.C., and Max Müller says himself that “the Zoroastrians and their ancestors started from India during the Vaidic period,” how can some of the portions of the Old Testament be traced back to the same or even “an earlier date than the oldest hymns of the Veda?”

It has generally been agreed among Orientalists that the Aryans, 3,000 years B.C., were still in the steppes east of the Caspian, and united. Rawlinson conjectures that they “flowed east” from Armenia as a common centre; while two kindred streams began to flow, one northward over the Caucasus, and the other westward over Asia Minor and Europe. He finds the Aryans, at a period anterior to the fifteenth century before our era, “settled in the territory watered by the Upper Indus.” Thence Vedic Aryans migrated to the Punjâb, and Zendic Aryans westward, establishing the historical countries. But this, like the rest, is a hypothesis, and only given as such.

Again, Rawlinson, evidently following Max Müller, says: “The early history of the Aryans is for many ages an absolute blank.” But many learned Brahmans, however, have declared that they found trace of the existence of the Vedas as early as 2100 B.C.; and Sir William Jones, taking for his guide the astronomical data, places the Yagur-Veda 1580 B.C. This would be still “before Moses.”

It is upon the supposition that the Aryans did not leave Afghanistan for the Punjâb prior to 1500 B.C. that Max Müller and other Oxford savants have supposed that portions of the Old Testament may be traced back to the same or even an earlier date than the oldest hymns of the Veda. Therefore, until the Orientalists can show us the correct date at which Zoroaster flourished, no authority can be regarded as better for the ages of the Vedas than the Brahmans themselves.

As it is a recognized fact that the Jews borrowed most of their laws from the Egyptians, let us examine who were the Egyptians. In our opinion—which is but a poor authority, of course—they were the ancient Indians, and in our first volume we have quoted passages from the historian Collouca-Batta that support such a theory. What we mean by ancient India is the following:

No region on the map—except it be the ancient Scythia—is more uncertainly defined than that which bore the designation of India. Æthiopia is perhaps the only parallel. It was the home of the Cushite or Hamitic races, and lay to the east of Babylonia. It was once the name of Hindustan, when the dark races, worshippers of Bala-Mahadeva and Bhavani-Mahidevi, were supreme in that country. The India of the early sages appears to have been the region at the sources of the Oxus and Jaxartes. Apollonius of Tyana crossed the Caucasus, or Hindu Kush, where he met with a king who directed him to the abode of the sages—perhaps the descendants of those whom Ammianus terms the “Brahmans of Upper India,” and whom Hystaspes, the father of Darius (or more probably Darius Hystaspes himself) visited; and, having been instructed by them, infused their rites and ideas into the Magian observances. This narrative about Apollonius seems to indicate Kashmere as the country which he visited, and the Nagas—after their conversion to Buddhism—as his teachers. At this time Aryan India did not extend beyond the Punjâb.

To our notion, the most baffling impediment in the way of ethnological progress has always been the triple progeny of Noah. In the attempt to reconcile postdiluvian races with a genealogical descent from Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the Christianesque Orientalists have set themselves a task impossible of accomplishment. The biblical Noachian ark has been a Procrustean bed to which they had to make everything fit. Attention has therefore been diverted from veritable sources of information as to the origin of man, and a purely local allegory mistaken for a historical record emanating from an inspired source. Strange and unfortunate choice! Out of all the sacred writings of all the branch nations, sprung from the primitive stock of mankind, Christianity must choose for its guidance the national records and scriptures of a people perhaps the least spiritual of the human family—the Semitic. A branch that has never been able to develop out of its numerous tongues a language capable of embodying ideas of a moral and intellectual world; whose form of expression and drift of thought could never soar higher than the purely sensual and terrestrial figures of speech; whose literature has left nothing original, nothing that was not borrowed from the Aryan thought; and whose science and philosophy are utterly wanting in those noble features which characterize the highly spiritual and metaphysical systems of the Indo-European (Japetic) races.

Bunsen shows Khamism (the language of Egypt) as a very ancient deposit from Western Asia, containing the germs of the Semitic, and thus bearing “witness to the primitive cognate unity of the Semitic and Aryan races.” We must remember, in this connection, that the peoples of Southwestern and Western Asia, including the Medes, were all Aryans. It is yet far from being proved who were the original and primitive masters of India. That this period is now beyond the reach of documentary history, does not preclude the probability of our theory that it was the mighty race of builders, whether we call them Eastern Æthiopians, or dark-skinned Aryans (the word meaning simply “noble warrior,” a “brave”). They ruled supreme at one time over the whole of ancient India, enumerated later by Manu as the possession of those whom our scientists term the Sanscrit-speaking people.

These Hindus are supposed to have entered the country from the northwest; they are conjectured by some to have brought with them the Brahmanical religion, and the language of the conquerors was probably the Sanscrit. On these three meagre data our philologists have worked ever since the Hindustani and its immense Sanscrit literature was forcibly brought into notice by Sir William Jones—all the time with the three sons of Noah clinging around their necks. This is exact science, free from religious prejudices! Verily, ethnology would have been the gainer if this Noachian trio had been washed overboard and drowned before the ark reached land!

The Æthiopians are generally classed in the Semitic group; but we have to see how far they have a claim to such a classification. We will also consider how much they might have had to do with the Egyptian civilization, which, as a writer expresses it, seems referable in the same perfection to the earliest dates, and not to have had a rise and progress, as was the case with that of other peoples. For reasons that we will now adduce, we are prepared to maintain that Egypt owes her civilization, commonwealth and arts—especially the art of building, to pre-Vedic India, and that it was a colony of the dark-skinned Aryans, or those whom Homer and Herodotus term the eastern Æthiopians, i.e., the inhabitants of Southern India, who brought to it their ready-made civilization in the ante-chronological ages, of what Bunsen calls the pre-Menite, but nevertheless epochal history.

In Pococke’s India in Greece, we find the following suggestive paragraph: “The plain account of the wars carried on between the solar chiefs, Oosras (Osiris) the prince of the Guelas, and ‘Tu-phoo’ is the simple historical fact of the wars of the Apians, or Sun-tribes of Oude, with the people of ‘Tu-phoo’ or Thibet, who were, in fact, the lunar race, mostly Buddhists[844] and opposed by Rama and the ‘Aityo-Pias’ or people of Oude, subsequently the Aith-io-pians of Africa.”[845]

We would remind the reader in this connection, that Ravan, the giant, who, in the Ramayana, wages such a war with Rama Chandra, is shown as King of Lanka, which was the ancient name for Ceylon; and that Ceylon, in those days, perhaps formed part of the main-land of Southern India, and was peopled by the “Eastern Æthiopians.” Conquered by Rama, the son of Dasarata, the Solar King of ancient Oude, a colony of these emigrated to Northern Africa. If, as many suspect, Homer’s Iliad and much of his account of the Trojan war is plagiarized from the Ramayana, then the traditions which served as a basis for the latter must date from a tremendous antiquity. Ample margin is thus left in pre-chronological history for a period, during which the “Eastern Æthiopians” might have established the hypothetical Mizraic colony, with their high Indian civilization and arts.

Science is still in the dark about cuneiform inscriptions. Until these are completely deciphered, especially those cut in rocks found in such abundance within the boundaries of the old Iran, who can tell the secrets they may yet reveal? There are no Sanscrit monumental inscriptions older than Chandragupta (315 B.C.), and the Persepolitan inscriptions are found 220 years older. There are even now some manuscripts in characters utterly unknown to philologists and palæographists, and one of them is, or was, some time since in the library of Cambridge, England. Linguistic writers class the Semitic with the Indo-European language, generally including the Æthiopian and the ancient Egyptian in the classification. But if some of the dialects of the modern Northern Africa, and even the modern Gheez or Æthiopian, are now so degenerated and corrupted as to admit of false conclusions as to the genetical relationship between them and the other Semitic tongues, we are not at all sure that the latter have any claim to such a classification, except in the case of the old Coptic and the ancient Gheez.

That there is more consanguinity between the Æthiopians and the Aryan, dark-skinned races, and between the latter and the Egyptians, is something which yet may be proved. It has been lately found that the ancient Egyptians were of the Caucasian type of mankind, and the shape of their skulls is purely Asiatic.[846] If they were less copper-colored than the Æthiopians of our modern day, the Æthiopians themselves might have had a lighter complexion in days of old. The fact that, with the Æthiopian kings, the order of succession gave the crown to the nephew of the king, the son of his sister, and not to his own son, is extremely suggestive. It is an old custom which prevails until now in Southern India. The Rajah is not succeeded by his own sons, but by his sister’s sons.[847]

Of all the dialects and tongues alleged to be Semitic, the Æthiopian alone is written from left to right like the Sanscrit and the Indo-Aryan people.[848]

Thus, against the origin of the Egyptians being attributed to an ancient Indian colony, there is no graver impediment than Noah’s disrespectful son—Ham—himself a myth. But the earliest form of Egyptian religious worship and government, theocratic and sacerdotal, and her habits and customs all bespeak an Indian origin.

The earliest legends of the history of India mention two dynasties now lost in the night of time; the first was the dynasty of kings, of “the race of the sun,” who reigned in Ayodhia (now Oude); the second that of the “race of the moon,” who reigned in Pruyag (Allahabad). Let him who desires information on the religious worship of these early kings read the Book of the Dead, of the Egyptians, and all the peculiarities attending this sun-worship and the sun-gods. Neither Osiris nor Horus are ever mentioned without being connected with the sun. They are the “Sons of the Sun;” “the Lord and Adorer of the Sun” is his name. “The sun is the creator of the body, the engenderer of the gods who are the successors of the Son.” Pococke, in his most ingenious work, strongly advocates the same idea, and endeavors to establish still more firmly the identity of the Egyptian, Greek, and Indian mythology. He shows the head of the Rajpoot Solar race—in fact the great Cuclo-pos (Cyclop or builder)—called “The great sun,” in the earliest Hindu tradition. This Gok-la Prince, the patriarch of the vast bands of Inachienses, he says, “this Great Sun was deified at his death, and according to the Indian doctrine of the metempsychosis, his Soul was supposed to have transmigrated into the bull ‘Apis,’ the Sera-pis of the Greeks, and the Soora-pas, or ‘Sun-Chief’ of the Egyptians.... Osiris, properly Oosras, signifies both a ‘a bull,’ and ‘a ray of light.’ Soora-pas (Serapis) the sun chief,” for the Sun in Sanscrit is Sûrya. Champollion’s Manifestation to the Light, reminds in every chapter of the two Dynasties of the Kings of the Sun and the Moon. Later, these kings became all deified and transformed after death into solar and lunar deities. Their worship was the earliest corruption of the great primitive faith which justly considered the sun and its fiery life-giving rays as the most appropriate symbol to remind us of the universal invisible presence of Him who is master of Life and Death. And now it can be traced all around the globe. It was the religion of the earliest Vedic Brahmans, who call, in the oldest hymns of the Rig-Veda, Sûrya (the sun) and Agni (fire) “the ruler of the universe,” “the lord of men,” and the “wise king.” It was the worship of the Magians, the Zoroastrians, the Egyptians and Greeks, whether they called him Mithra, or Ahura-Mazda, or Osiris, or Zeus, keeping in honor of his next of kin, Vesta, the pure celestial fire. And this religion is found again in the Peruvian solar-worship; in the Sabianism and heliolatry of the Chaldees, in the Mosaic “burning bush,” the hanging of the heads or chiefs of the people toward the Lord, the “Sun,” and even in the Abrahamic building of fire-altars and the sacrifices of the monotheistic Jews, to Astarté the Queen of Heaven.

To the present moment, with all the controversies and researches, History and Science remain as much as ever in the dark as to the origin of the Jews. They may as well be the exiled Tchandalas, or Pariahs, of old India, the “bricklayers” mentioned by Vina-Svati, Veda-Vyasa and Manu, as the Phœnicians of Herodotus, or the Hyk-sos of Josephus, or descendants of Pali shepherds, or a mixture of all these. The Bible names the Tyrians as a kindred people, and claims dominion over them.[849]

There is more than one important character in the Bible, whose biography proves him a mythical hero. Samuel is indicated as the personage of the Hebrew Commonwealth. He is the doppel of Samson, of the Book of Judges, as will be seen—being the son of Anna and El-Kaina, as Samson was of Manua or Manoah. Both were fictitious characters, as now represented in the revealed book; one was the Hebrew Hercules, and the other Ganesa. Samuel is credited with establishing the republic, as putting down the Canaanite worship of Baal and Astarté, or Adonis and Venus, and setting up that of Jehovah. Then the people demanded a king, and he anointed Saul, and after him David of Bethlehem.

David is the Israelitish King Arthur. He did great achievements and established a government in all Syria and Idumea. His dominion extended from Armenia and Assyria on the north and northeast, the Syrian Desert and Persian Gulf on the East, Arabia on the south, and Egypt and the Levant on the west. Only Phœnicia was excepted.

His friendship with Hiram seems to indicate that he made his first expedition from that country into Judea; and his long residence at Hebron, the city of the Kabeiri (Arba or four), would seem likewise to imply that he established a new religion in the country.

After David came Solomon, powerful and luxurious, who sought to consolidate the dominion which David had won. As David was a Jehovah-worshipper, a temple of Jehovah (Tukt Suleima) was built in Jerusalem, while shrines of Moloch-Hercules, Khemosh, and Astarté were erected on Mount Olivet. These shrines remained till Josiah.

There were conspiracies formed. Revolts took place in Idumea and Damascus; and Ahijah the prophet led the popular movement which resulted in deposing the house of David and making Jeroboam king. Ever after the prophets dominated in Israel, where the calf-worship prevailed; the priests ruled over the weak dynasty of David, and the lascivious local worship existed over the whole country. After the destruction of the house of Ahab, and the failure of Jehu and his descendants to unite the country under one head, the endeavor was made in Judah. Isaiah had terminated the direct line in the person of Ahaz (Isaiah vii. 9), and placed on the throne a prince from Bethlehem (Micah v. 2, 5). This was Hezekiah. On ascending the throne, he invited the chiefs of Israel to unite in alliance with him against Assyria (2 Chronicles, xxx. 1, 21; xxxi. 1, 5; 2 Kings, xviii. 7). He seems to have established a sacred college (Proverbs xxv. 1), and to have utterly changed the worship. Aye, even unto breaking into pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made.

This makes the story of Samuel and David and Solomon mythical. Most of the prophets who were literate seem to have begun about this time to write.

The country was finally overthrown by the Assyrians, who found the same people and institutions as in the Phœnician and other countries.

Hezekiah was not the lineal, but the titular son of Ahaz. Isaiah, the prophet, belonged to the royal family, and Hezekiah was reputed his son-in-law. Ahaz refused to ally himself with the prophet and his party, saying: “I will not tempt (depend on) the Lord” (Isaiah vii. 12). The prophet had declared: “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established”—foreshadowing the deposition of his direct language. “Ye weary my God,” replied the prophet, and predicted the birth of a child by an alma, or temple-woman, and that before it should attain full age (Hebrews v. 14; Isaiah vii. 16; viii. 4), the king of Assyria should overcome Syria and Israel. This is the prophecy which Irenæus took such pains to connect with Mary and Jesus, and made the reason why the mother of the Nazarene prophet is represented as belonging to the temple, and consecrated to God from her infancy.

In a second song, Isaiah celebrated the new chief, to sit on the throne of David (ix. 6, 7; xi. 1), who should restore to their homes the Jews whom the confederacy had led captive (Isaiah viii. 2-12; Joel iii. 1-7; Obadiah 7, 11, 14). Micah—his contemporary—also announced the same event (iv. 7-13; v. 1-7). The Redeemer was to come out of Bethlehem; in other words, was of the house of David; and was to resist Assyria to whom Ahaz had sworn allegiance, and also to reform religion (2 Kings, xviii. 4-8). This Hezekiah did. He was grandson of Zechariah the seer (2 Chronicles, xxix. 1; xxvi. 5), the counsellor of Uzziah; and as soon as he ascended the throne he restored the religion of David, and destroyed the last vestiges of that of Moses, i.e., the esoteric doctrine, declaring “our fathers have trespassed” (2 Chron., xxix. 6-9). He next attempted a reunion with the northern monarchy, there being an interregnum in Israel (2 Chron., xxx. 1, 2, 6; xxxi. 1, 6, 7). It was successful, but resulted in an invasion by the king of Assyria. But it was a new régime; and all this shows the course of two parallel streams in the religious worship of the Israelites; one belonging to the state religion and adopted to fit political exigencies; the other pure idolatry, resulting from ignorance of the true esoteric doctrine preached by Moses. For the first time since Solomon built them “the high places were taken away.”

It was Hezekiah who was the expected Messiah of the exoteric state-religion. He was the scion from the stem of Jesse, who should recall the Jews from a deplorable captivity, about which the Hebrew historians seem to be very silent, carefully avoiding all mention of this particular fact, but which the irascible prophets imprudently disclose. If Hezekiah crushed the exoteric Baal-worship, he also tore violently away the people of Israel from the religion of their fathers, and the secret rites instituted by Moses.

It was Darius Hystaspes who was the first to establish a Persian colony in Judea, Zoro-Babel was perhaps the leader. “The name Zoro-babel means ‘the seed or son of Babylon’—as Zoro-aster צרו־אשתר is the seed, son, or prince of Ishtar.”[850] The new colonists were doubtless Judæi. This is a designation from the East. Even Siam is called Judia, and there was an Ayodia in India. The temples of Solom or Peace were numerous. Throughout Persia and Afghanistan the names of Saul and David are very common. The “Law” is ascribed in turn to Hezekiah, Ezra, Simon the Just, and the Asmonean period. Nothing definite; everywhere contradictions. When the Asmonean period began, the chief supporters of the Law were called Asideans or Khasdim (Chaldeans), and afterward Pharisees or Pharsi (Parsis). This indicates that Persian colonies were established in Judea and ruled the country; while all the people that are mentioned in the books of Genesis and Joshua lived there as a commonalty (see Ezra ix. 1).

There is no real history in the Old Testament, and the little historical information one can glean is only found in the indiscreet revelations of the prophets. The book, as a whole, must have been written at various times, or rather invented as an authorization of some subsequent worship, the origin of which may be very easily traced partially to the Orphic Mysteries, and partially to the ancient Egyptian rites in familiarity with which Moses was brought up from his infancy.

Since the last century the Church has been gradually forced into concessions of usurped biblical territory to those to whom it of right belonged. Inch by inch has been yielded, and one personage after another been proved mythical and Pagan. But now, after the recent discovery of George Smith, the much-regretted Assyriologist, one of the securest props of the Bible has been pulled down. Sargon and his tablets are about demonstrated to be older than Moses. Like the account of Exodus, the birth and story of the lawgiver seem to have been “borrowed” from the Assyrians, as the “jewels of gold and jewels of silver” were said to be from the Egyptians.

On page 224 of Assyrian Discoveries, Mr. George Smith says: “In the palace of Sennacherib at Kouyunjik, I found another fragment of the curious history of Sargon, a translation of which I published in the Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, vol. i., part i., page 46. This text relates that Sargon, an early Babylonian monarch, was born of royal parents, but concealed by his mother, who placed him on the Euphrates in an ark of rushes, coated with bitumen, like that in which the mother of Moses hid her child (see Exodus ii.). Sargon was discovered by a man named Akki, a water-carrier, who adopted him as his son; and he afterward became King of Babylonia. The capital of Sargon was the great city of Agadi—called by the Semites Akkad—mentioned in Genesis as a capital of Nimrod (Genesis x. 10), and here he reigned for forty five years.[851] Akkad lay near the city of Sippara,[852] on the Euphrates and north of Babylon. “The date of Sargon, who may be termed the Babylonian Moses, was in the sixteenth century and perhaps earlier.”

G. Smith adds in his Chaldean Account that Sargon I. was a Babylonian monarch who reigned in the city of Akkad about 1600 B.C. The name of Sargon signifies the right, true, or legitimate king. This curious story is found on fragments of tablets from Kouyunjik, and reads as follows:

1. Sargona, the powerful king, the king of Akkad am I.

2. My mother was a princess, my father I did not know, a brother of my father ruled over the country.

3. In the city of Azupirana, which is by the side of the river Euphrates,

4. My mother, the princess, conceived me; in difficulty she brought me forth.

5. She placed me in an ark of rushes, with bitumen my exit she sealed up.

6. She launched me in the river which did not drown me.

7. The river carried me to Akki, the water-carrier it brought me.

8. Akki, the water-carrier, in tenderness of bowels, lifted me, etc., etc.

And now Exodus (ii.): “And when she (Moses’ mother) could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein, and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.”

The story, says Mr. G. Smith, “is supposed to have happened about 1600 B.C., rather earlier than the supposed age of Moses[853] as we know that the fame of Sargon reached Egypt, it is quite likely that this account had a connection with the event related in Exodus ii., for every action, when once performed, has a tendency to be repeated.”

The “ages” of the Hindus differ but little from those of the Greeks, Romans, and even the Jews. We include the Mosaic computation advisedly, and with intent to prove our position. The chronology which separates Moses from the creation of the world by only four generations seems ridiculous, merely because the Christian clergy would enforce it upon the world literally.[854] The kabalists know that these generations stand for ages of the world. The allegories which, in the Hindu calculations, embrace the whole stupendous sweep of the four ages, are cunningly made in the Mosaic books, through the obliging help of the Masorah, to cram into the small period of two millenniums and a half (2513)!

The exoteric plan of the Bible was made to answer also to four ages. Thus, they reckon the Golden Age from Adam to Abraham; the silver, from Abraham to David; copper, from David to the Captivity; thenceforward, the iron. But the secret computation is quite different, and does not vary at all from the zodiacal calculations of the Brahmans. We are in the Iron Age, or Kali-Yug, but it began with Noah, the mythical ancestor of our race.

Noah, or Nuah, like all the euhemerized manifestations of the Unrevealed One—Swayambhuva (or Swayambhu), was androgyne. Thus, in some instances, he belonged to the purely feminine triad of the Chaldeans, known as “Nuah, the universal Mother.” We have shown, in another chapter, that every male triad had its feminine counterpart, one in three, like the former. It was the passive complement of the active principle, its reflection. In India, the male trimurty is reproduced in the Sakti-trimurti, the feminine; and in Chaldea, Ana, Belita and Davkina answered to Anu, Bel, Nuah. The former three resumed in one—Belita, were called:

“Sovereign goddess, lady of the nether abyss, mother of gods, queen of the earth, queen of fecundity.”

As the primordial humidity, whence proceeded all, Belita is Tamti, or the sea, the mother of the city of Erech (the great Chaldean necropolis), therefore, an infernal goddess. In the world of stars and planets she is known as Istar or Astoreth. Hence, she is identical with Venus, and every other queen of heaven, to whom cakes and buns were offered in sacrifice,[855] and, as all the archæologists know, with Eve, the mother of all that live, and with Mary.

The Ark, in which are preserved the germs of all living things necessary to repeople the earth, represents the survival of life, and the supremacy of spirit over matter, through the conflict of the opposing powers of nature. In the Astro-Theosophic chart of the Western Rite, the Ark corresponds with the navel, and is placed at the sinister side, the side of the woman (the moon), one of whose symbols is the left pillar of Solomon’s temple—Boaz. The umbilicus is connected with the receptacle in which are fructified the germs of the race.[856] The Ark is the sacred Argha of the Hindus, and thus, the relation in which it stands to Noah’s ark may be easily inferred, when we learn that the Argha was an oblong vessel, used by the high priests as a sacrificial chalice in the worship of Isis, Astartè, and Venus-Aphroditè, all of whom were goddesses of the generative powers of nature, or of matter—hence, representing symbolically the Ark containing the germs of all living things.

We admit that Pagans had and now have—as in India—strange symbols, which, to the eyes of the hypocrite and Puritan, seem scandalously immoral. But did not the ancient Jews copy most of these symbols? We have described elsewhere the identity of the lingham with Jacob’s pillar, and we could give a number of instances from the present Christian rites, bearing the same origin, did but space permit, and were not all these noticed fully by Inman and others (See Inman’s Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names).

Describing the worship of the Egyptians, Mrs. Lydia Maria Child says: “This reverence for the production of life, introduced into the worship of Osiris, the sexual emblems so common in Hindustan. A colossal image of this kind was presented to his temple in Alexandria, by King Ptolemy Philadelphus.... Reverence for the mystery of organized life led to the recognition of a masculine and feminine principle in all things, spiritual or material.... The sexual emblems, everywhere conspicuous in the sculptures of their temples, would seem impure in description, but no clean and thoughtful mind could so regard them while witnessing the obvious simplicity and solemnity with which the subject is treated.”[857]

Thus speaks this respected lady and admirable writer, and no truly pure man or woman would ever think of blaming her for it. But such a perversion of the ancient thought is but natural in an age of cant and prudery like our own.

The water of the flood when standing in the allegory for the symbolic “sea,” Tamti, typifies the turbulent chaos, or matter, called “the great dragon.” According to the Gnostic and Rosicrucian mediæval doctrine, the creation of woman was not originally intended. She is the offspring of man’s own impure fancy, and, as the Hermetists say, “an obtrusion.” Created by an unclean thought she sprang into existence at the evil “seventh hour,” when the “supernatural” real worlds had passed away and the “natural” or delusive worlds began evolving along the “descending Microcosmos,” or the arc of the great cycle, in plainer phraseology. First “Virgo,” the Celestial Virgin of the Zodiac, she became “Virgo-Scorpio.” But in evolving his second companion, man had unwittingly endowed her with his own share of Spirituality; and the new being whom his “imagination” had called into life became his “Saviour” from the snares of Eve-Lilith, the first Eve, who had a greater share of matter in her composition than the primitive “spiritual” man.[858]

Thus woman stands in the cosmogony in relation to “matter” or the great deep, as the “Virgin of the Sea,” who crushes the “Dragon” under her foot. The “Flood” is also very often shown, in symbolical phraseology, as the “great Dragon.” For one acquainted with these tenets it becomes more than suggestive to learn that with the Catholics the Virgin Mary is not only the accepted patroness of Christian sailors, but also the “Virgin of the Sea.” So was Dido the patroness of the Phœnician mariners;[859] and together with Venus and other lunar goddesses—the moon having such a strong influence over the tides—was the “Virgin of the Sea.” Mar, the Sea, is the root of the name Mary. The blue color, which was with the ancients symbolical of the “Great Deep” or the material world, hence—of evil, is made sacred to our “Blessed Lady.” It is the color of “Notre Dame de Paris.” On account of its relation to the symbolical serpent this color is held in the deepest aversion by the ex-Nazarenes, disciples of John the Baptist, now the Mendæans of Basra.

Among the beautiful plates of Maurice, there is one representing Christna crushing the head of the Serpent. A three-peaked mitre is on his head (typifying the trinity), and the body and tail of the conquered serpent encircles the figure of the Hindu god. This plate shows whence proceeded the inspiration for the “make up” of a later story extracted from an alleged prophecy. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

The Egyptian Orante is also shown with his arms extended as on a crucifix, and treading upon the “Serpent;” and Horus (the Logos) is represented piercing the head of the dragon, Typhon or Aphophis. All this gives us a clew to the biblical allegory of Cain and Abel. Cain was held as the ancestor of the Hivites, the Serpents, and the twins of Adam are an evident copy from the fable of Osiris and Typhon. Apart from the external form of the allegory, however, it embodied the philosophical conception of the eternal struggle of good and evil.

But how strangely elastic, how adaptable to any and every thing this mystical philosophy proved after the Christian era! When were ever facts, irrefutable, irrefragable, and beyond denial, less potential for the reëstablishment of truth than in our century of casuistry and Christian cunning? Is Christna proved to have been known as the “Good Shepherd” ages before the year A.D. 1, to have crushed the Serpent Kalinaga, and to have been crucified—all this was but a prophetic foreshadowing of the future! Are the Scandinavian Thor, who bruised the head of the Serpent with his cruciform mace, and Apollo, who killed Python, likewise shown to present the most striking similarities with the heroes of the Christian fables; they become but original conceptions of “heathen” minds, “working upon the old Patriarchal prophecies respecting the Christ, as they were contained in the one universal and primeval Revelation!”[860]

The flood, then, is the “Old Serpent” or the great deep of matter, Isaiah’s “dragon in the sea” (xxvii.1), over which the ark safely crosses on its way to the mount of Salvation. But, if we have heard of the ark and Noah, and the Bible at all, it is because the mythology of the Egyptians was ready at hand for Moses (if Moses ever wrote any of the Bible), and that he was acquainted with the story of Horus, standing on his boat of a serpentine form, and killing the Serpent with his spear; and with the hidden meaning of these fables, and their real origin. This is also why we find in Leviticus, and other parts of his books, whole pages of laws identical with those of Manu.

The animals shut up in the ark are the human passions. They typify certain ordeals of initiation, and the mysteries which were instituted among many nations in commemoration of this allegory. Noah’s ark rested on the seventeenth of the seventh month. Here we have again the number; as also in the “clean beasts” that he took by sevens into the ark. Speaking of the water-mysteries of Byblos, Lucian says: “On the top of one of the two pillars which Bacchus set up, a man remains seven days.”[861] He supposes this was done to honor Deukalion. Elijah, when praying on the top of Mount Carmel, sends his servant to look for a cloud toward the sea, and repeats, “go again seven times. And it came to pass at the seventh time, behold there arose a little cloud out of the sea like a man’s hand.”[862]

“Noah is a revolutio of Adam, as Moses is a revolutio of Abel and Seth,” says the Kabala; that is to say, a repetition or another version of the same story. The greatest proof of it is the distribution of the characters in the Bible. For instance, beginning with Cain, the first murderer, every fifth man in his line of descent is a murderer. Thus there come Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methuselah, and the fifth is Lamech, the second murderer, and he is Noah’s father. By drawing the five-pointed star of Lucifer (which has its crown-point downward) and writing the name of Cain beneath the lowest point, and those of his descendants successively at each of the other points, it will be found that each fifth name—which would be written beneath that of Cain—is that of a murderer. In the Talmud this genealogy is given complete, and thirteen murderers range themselves in line below the name of Cain. This is no coincidence. Siva is the Destroyer, but he is also the Regenerator. Cain is a murderer, but he is also the creator of nations, and an inventor. This star of Lucifer is the same one that John sees falling down to earth in his Apocalypse.

In Thebes, or Theba, which means ark—TH-ABA being synonymous with Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens and Urbs or Rome, and meaning also the city—are found the same foliations as described on the pillars of the temple of Solomon. The bi-colored leaf of the olive, the three-lobed fig-leaf, and the lanceolate-shaped laurel-leaf, had all esoteric as well as popular or vulgar meanings with the ancients.

The researches of Egyptologists present another corroboration of the identity of the Bible-allegories with those of the lands of the Pharaohs and Chaldeans. The dynastic chronology of the Egyptians, recorded by Herodotus, Manetho, Eratosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, and accepted by our antiquarians, divided the period of Egyptian history under four general heads: the dominion of gods, demi-gods, heroes, and mortal men. By combining the demi-gods and heroes into one class, Bunsen reduces the periods to three: the ruling gods, the demi-gods or heroes—sons of gods, but born of mortal mothers—and the Manes, who were the ancestors of individual tribes. These subdivisions, as any one may perceive, correspond perfectly with the biblical Elohim, sons of God, giants, and mortal Noachian men.

Diodorus of Sicily and Berosus give us the names of the twelve great gods who presided over the twelve months of the year and the twelve signs of the zodiac. These names, which include Nuah,[863] are too well known to require repetition. The double-faced Janus was also at the head of twelve gods, and in his representations of him he is made to hold the keys to the celestial domains. All these having served as models for the biblical patriarchs, have done still further service—especially Janus—by furnishing copy to St. Peter and his twelve apostles, the former also double-faced in his denial, and also represented as holding the keys of Paradise.

This statement that the story of Noah is but another version in its hidden meaning of the story of Adam and his three sons, gathers proof on every page of the book of Genesis. Adam is the prototype of Noah. Adam falls because he eats of the forbidden fruit of celestial knowledge; Noah, because he tastes of the terrestrial fruit: the juice of the grape representing the abuse of knowledge in an unbalanced mind. Adam gets stripped of his spiritual envelope; Noah of his terrestrial clothing; and the nakedness of both makes them feel ashamed. The wickedness of Cain is repeated in Ham. But the descendants of both are shown as the wisest of races on earth; and they are called on this account “snakes,” and the “sons of snakes,” meaning the sons of wisdom, and not of Satan, as some divines would be pleased to have the world understand the term. Enmity has been placed between the “snake” and the “woman” only in this mortal phenomenal “world of man” as “born of woman.” Before the carnal fall, the “snake” was Ophis, the divine wisdom, which needed no matter to procreate men, humanity being utterly spiritual. Hence the war between the snake and the woman, or between spirit and matter. If, in its material aspect, the “old serpent” is matter, and represents Ophiomorphos, in its spiritual meaning it becomes Ophis-Christos. In the magic of the old Syro-Chaldeans both are conjoint in the zodiacal sign of the androgyne of Virgo-Scorpio, and may be divided or separated whenever needed. Thus as the origin of “good and evil,” the meaning of the S.S. and Z.Z. has always been interchangeable; and if upon some occasions the S.S. on sigils and talismans are suggestive of serpentine evil influence and denote a design of black magic upon others, the double S.S. are found on the sacramental cups of the Church and mean the presence of the Holy Ghost, or pure wisdom.

The Midianites were known as the wise men, or sons of snakes, as well as Canaanites and Hamites; and such was the renown of the Midianites, that we find Moses, the prophet, led on, and inspired by “the Lord,” humbling himself before Hobab, the son of Raguel, the Midianite, and beseeching him to remain with the people of Israel: “Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp IN THE WILDERNESS, thou mayest be to us instead of eyes.”[864] Further, when Moses sends spies to search out the land of Canaan, they bring as a proof of the wisdom (kabalistically speaking) and goodness of the land, a branch with one cluster of grapes, which they are compelled to bear between two men on a staff. Moreover, they add: “we saw the children of Anak there.” They are the giants, the sons of Anak, “which come of the giants,”[865] and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”[866]

Anak is Enoch, the patriarch, who dies not, and who is the first possessor of the “mirific name,” according to the Kabala, and the ritual of Freemasonry.

Comparing the biblical patriarchs with the descendants of Vaiswasvata, the Hindu Noah, and the old Sanscrit traditions about the deluge in the Brahmanical Mahâbhârata, we find them mirrored in the Vaidic patriarchs who are the primitive types upon which all the others were modelled. But before comparison is possible, the Hindu myths must be comprehended in their true significance. Each of these mythical personages bears, besides an astronomical significance, a spiritual or moral, and an anthropological or physical meaning. The patriarchs are not only euhemerized gods—the prediluvian answering to the twelve great gods of Berosus, and to the ten Pradjâpati, and the postdiluvian to the seven gods of the famous tablet in the Ninivian Library, but they stand also as the symbols of the Greek Æons, the kabalistic Sephiroth, and the zodiacal signs, as types of a series of human races.[867] This variation from ten to twelve will be accounted for presently, and proved on the very authority of the Bible. Only, they are not the first gods described by Cicero,[868] which belong to a hierarchy of higher powers, the Elohim—but appertain rather to the second class of the “twelve gods,” the Dii minores, and who are the terrestrial reflections of the first, among whom Herodotus places Hercules.[869] Alone, out of the group of twelve, Noah, by reason of his position at the transitional point, belongs to the highest Babylonian triad, Noah, the spirit of the waters. The rest are identical with the inferior gods of Assyria and Babylonia, who represented the lower order of emanations, introduced around Bel, the Demiurge, and help him in his work, as the patriarchs are shown to assist Jehovah—the “Lord God.”

Besides these, many of which were local gods, the protecting deities of rivers and cities, there were the four classes of genius, we see Ezekiel making them support the throne of Jehovah in his vision. A fact which, if it identifies the Jewish “Lord God” with one of the Babylonian trinity, connects, at the same time, the present Christian God with the same triad, inasmuch as it is these four cherubs, if the reader will remember, on which Irenæus makes Jesus ride, and which are shown as the companions of the evangelists.

The Hindu kabalistic derivation of the books of Ezekiel and Revelation are shown in nothing more plainly than in this description of the four beasts, which typify the four elementary kingdoms—earth, air, fire, and water. As is well known, they are the Assyrian sphinxes, but these figures are also carved on the walls of nearly every Hindu pagoda.

The author of the Revelation copies faithfully in his text (see chap. iv., verse 17) the Pythagorean pentacle, of which Levi’s admirable sketch is reproduced on page 452.

The Hindu goddess Adanari (or as it might be more properly written, Adonari, since the second a is pronounced almost like the English o) is represented as surrounded by the same figures. It fits exactly Ezekiel’s “wheel of the Adonai,” known as “the Cherub of Jeheskiel,” and indicates, beyond question, the source from which the Hebrew seer drew his allegories. For convenience of comparison we have placed the figure in the pentacle. (See page 453.)

Above these beasts were the angels or spirits, divided in two groups: the Igili, or celestial beings, and the Am-anaki, or terrestrial spirits, the giants, children of Anak, of whom the spies complained to Moses.