The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors Part 24

2. Merciful justice to all men, and to avoid the wicked, and help the righteous;

3. Purity of character, which implied love of truth, hatred of falsehood, and strict observance of 'the mysteries of G.o.dliness' to outsiders--that is, 'heathen and publicans;' they endured suffering for righteousness' sake, with rejoicings, and even _sought_ it; regarding the body as a prison for the soul, they desired the time to come to escape from it; they recognized eight different stages of spiritual growth and perfection: 1. Bodily purity; 2. Celibacy; 3. Spiritual purity; 4. The suppression of anger and malice, and the cultivation of a meek, lowly spirit; 5. The attainment of true holiness; 6. Becoming fit temples for the Holy Ghost; 7. The ability to perform miraculous cures, and raise the dead; 8. Becoming forerunners of the Messiah; and finally they took a solemn vow to exercise, piety toward G.o.d and justice toward all men, to hate the wicked, a.s.sist the good to keep clear of theft and unrighteous gains, to conceal none of their 'mysteries of G.o.dliness'

from each other, or disclose them to others. 'Great is the mystery of G.o.dliness' ('See thou tell no man'); they were to walk humbly with G.o.d, shun bad society, forgive their enemies, sacrifice their pa.s.sions, and crucify the l.u.s.ts of the flesh; they disregarded bodily suffering, and even gloried in martyrdom, preaching and singing to G.o.d amid their sufferings; but in their domestic habits they were extremely filthy; they wore their clothes until they became ragged, filthy, and offensive, never changing them till they were wore out; their food consisted of bread and water, and wild roots and fruits of the palm tree; they enjoined their duty, not only of forgiving their enemies, but of seeking to benefit them, and of even blessing the destroyer who took life and property. Such was the religion, such the moral system, such the devout piety, and such the practical lives of the Essenian Jews, a religious sect which flourished in Alexandria and Judea several hundred years before the birth of Christ, and went out of history the hour Christianity came in.

Now, as the foregoing exposition shows that Essenism and Christianity are most strikingly alike in all their essential features, that the former system contains nearly every important doctrine and precept of the Christian religion, the question occurs here as one of momentous import, how is this striking resemblance, this ident.i.ty of character of the two religions, to be accounted for? Does it not go far toward proving that Christianity is an outgrowth, a legitimate offspring, of Judean Essenism? Indeed, are we not absolutely driven to such a conclusion? Let us briefly recite some of the important facts brought to light by the investigation of the character and history of these two religions, and see if those facts do not bring them together and weld them as one system--as one and the same religion.

1. Both are alike, and Essenism is much the older system.

2. Both religions are an outgrowth of Judaism.

3. Both were known and taught in Judea and in Alexandria.

4. Josephus living in Judea, and Philo in Alexandria, neither of them speaks of Christianity, or refers to any such religion by that name, and yet both describe a religion inculcating the same doctrines and moral precepts, which they call Essenism.

Is not this very nearly conclusive proof that Essenism was only another name for Christianity--that it had not yet changed its name to Christianity? That famous standard author, Mr. Gibbon, was evidently of this opinion when he said, "Whether, indeed, the first of that sect (the Essenes) took the name of Christian when the appellation of Christian had as yet been nowhere announced, it is by no means necessary to discuss." (Book II. chap. xvi.) Here is evidence that Gibbon believed that the Essenes, after having borne that name for centuries, changed the appellation to Christian. And we find still stronger language than this in the writings of the same author expressive of this opinion. In a note to chapter xv. he says, "It is probable that the Therapeuts (Essenes) changed their name to Christians, as some writers affirm, and adopted some new articles of faith." Here the position is a.s.sumed that the Christian religion is an outgrowth of Essenism, that is, merely a continuation of that religion under a change of name, with a slight modification of its creed.

5. And then we have the declaration of Christian writers, expressed in the most positive terms, that Essenism and Christianity were the same religion, the former name being used at an earlier period. Hear Eusebius, a standard ecclesiastical writer of the fourth century. He a.s.serts positively, "Those ancient Therapeuts (Essenes) were Christians, and their ancient writings were our gospels." (Eccl. Hist. p. 63.) Hark!

Hark! my good Christian reader, here is one of your own sworn witnessess testifying that the Essenes originated and established the Christian religion; i. e., the religion now known by that name. Will you then give it up? If not, we have other testimony of a similar character, rendering the proposition still stronger. Robert Taylor declares, "The learned Basnage has shown that the Essenes were really Christians centuries before Christ, and that they were actually in possession of those very writings which are now our Gospels and Epistles." (p. 81.) And then we have the declaration of the author of "Christ the Spirit" (p. no), that "the Christians were the later Essenes--that is, the Essenes of the time of Eusebius under a changed name, that name having been made at Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christian." The same writer suggests that "their sacred books are our sacred books." We will now hear Eusebius again: "It is highly probable that their (the Essenes') ancient commentaries, which Philo says the Essenes have, are the very Gospels and writings of the Apostles."

Based upon this conclusion, he calls the Essenes "the first heralds of the gospel." "I find it, therefore, most probable," says Mr. Weilting, "that Jesus and John belonged literally to the society of the Essenes."

And then the New American Encyclopedia furnishes us with the testimony of a very able English author of the last century (De Quincy), who concurs with all the writers cited above. "Mr. De Quincy (it says) identified the Essenes as being the early Christians; i. e., the early Christians were known as Essenes. Such testimony, coming from such a source, is ent.i.tled to much weight." (Vol. i. p. 157.) And to the same effect is the testimony of Bishop Marsh, who admits that our Gospels were drawn from those of the Essenes. (See his edition of Michaelis'

translation of the New Testament.)

Thus far historical _writers_. We will now lay before the reader some historical _facts_, fraught with unanswerable logical potency, and pointing to the same conclusion. It is a fact, and one of deep logical import, and tending to corroborate the conclusion of some of the writers cited above, who tell us the Christian Gospels were first composed by the Essenes; that the language in which those Gospels were originally written was Greek, the language in which the Alexandrian Essenes always wrote, while the evangelical writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, being illiterate fishermen, could have had no knowledge of any but the Jewish, their own mother-tongue,--at least it is susceptible of satisfactory proof that they never wrote in any other language. Hence the conclusion is irresistible that they were not the original authors of the Gospels.

The works of several authors are now lying at our elbow, who express the conviction unequivocally that the Gospels were copied, if not translated, from older writings. Mr. Le Clerc, one of the ablest writers of his time, maintained this position, and did it ably. Another writer, a Mr. Hatfield, was awarded a prize in 1793, by the theological faculty of Gottingen, for an essay, in which the position was ably argued that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the authors of the books which bear their names, but were mere copyists. Dr. Lessing and others concur with him in this conclusion. A circ.u.mstance confirming this verdict is found in the fact that the word _church_ occurs in our Gospels, which were written before such an inst.i.tution was established by those who were then called Christians.

"Go tell it to the church" (Matt, xviii. 17) was uttered before any steps had been taken by the then representatives of the Christian faith to organize such a body--an evidence this, that he alluded to the church of the Essenes, as there were no other churches in existence at the time; which leaves the inference patent and irresistible that he and his disciples were Essenes, perhaps then under the changed name of Christians. Centuries prior to that era the Essenes had not only churches, but their whole ecclesiastical nomenclature of bishops, deacons, elders, priests, disciples, scriptures, gospels, epistles, psalms, hymns, mystery, allegory, &c. If Christianity was re-established in the days of Christ and his apostles, they had nothing to originate, either with respect to doctrines, precepts, church polity, or ecclesiastical terms--all being established for them centuries before that era. With these facts in view, it seems impossible that the two religious orders--Essenes and Christians--could have been in existence at the same time as separate inst.i.tutions. The former must have ended when the latter commenced.

Josephus says, "the Essenes were scattered far and wide, and were in every city," being quite numerous in Judea in his time. But he makes no reference to any sect or religious order by the t.i.tle of Christian--a strong inferential evidence, upon sound priori reasoning, that Christianity as yet was sailing under another name. Josephus must have known and named the fact, had there been a Christian sect or disciple there bearing that name. Impossible otherwise. We are then (upon the logical force of these and many other facts) driven to the conclusion that Christianity began when Essenism ended, and the change was only in name. I challenge the whole Christian world to find the historical proof that Christianity commenced one hour before the termination of Essenism, or of Essenism overlapping the Christian religion so far as to survive one day beyond or after its birth. I will confront them with the logic of dates, and defy them to find any proof except their own unauthorized, unauthenticated, and fict.i.tious chronology, that a Christian was ever known in any country by that name prior to the time of Tacitus, 104 A.D., who is the first of the three hundred writers of that era that makes any mention of Christianity, Christ, or a Christian. This was long after Josephus' time, which accounts most satisfactory for his omitting any allusion to Christ or Christianity. That religion had not yet dropped the name of Essenism and adopted that of Christianity.

Now, hard indeed must distorted reason fight the ramparts of logic and history to resist the conviction, in view of the foregoing facts, that Christianity is simply an outcropping of Essenism, either direct or through Budhism. And even if it were possible to prove that the two religions never became welded together, yet it is not possible to disprove the striking ident.i.ty of their doctrines, and the spirit of their precepts, and the practical lives of their disciples. And this ident.i.ty, coupled with the fact that Essenism is the older system, is of itself most superlatively fatal to all pretension or claim to originality for the doctrines of the Christian faith.

It is a matter of no importance whether Christianity was originally known by another name, so long as it can be shown that its doctrines had all been preached and proclaimed to the world centuries prior to the date a.s.signed for its origin. And this is proved by the long list of paralellisms presented in the incipient pages of this chapter. And this proof explodes the pretensions of Christianity to an "original divine revelation," and brings it down to a level with pagan orientalism. And the fact that it sprang up in a country where its doctrine had long been taught by pagans and orientalists, must produce the conviction, deep and indelible, in all unbiased minds, that orientalism was the mother and heathenism the father of the Christian religion, even in the absence of any other proof. In fact, no other proof can be needed.

And what are the arguments, it may be well here to inquire, with which orthodox Christians attempt to meet, combat, and vanquish the overwhelming ma.s.s of historical facts and historical testimonies we have presented in preceding pages, tending to prove and demonstrate the oriental origin of their religion and its ident.i.ty with Essenism? Their whole argument is comprised in the naked postulate of the Rev. Mr.

Paideaux, D. D., that "the Essenes did not believe in the resurrection of the physical body (but believed in a spiritual resurrection), and omit from their creed the Trinity and Incarnation doctrine, and therefore they could not have been the originators of the Christian religion;" but this argument is as easily demolished as a cobweb, as the following facts will prove:--

1. We have but a fragment of the Essenian religion,--but one end of their creed,--mere sc.r.a.ps furnished us by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny. We have none of their sacred books apart from the Christian New Testament.

2. They had secret books, as we have shown, in which doctrines were taught which they regarded as _too sacred to be thrown before the public_, as "pearls before swine." And no doctrines were regarded as more sacred or secret in that age than the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Christ's injunction, "See thou tell no man," was probably their motto, which prevented the publicity of a portion of their doctrines. And as their sacred books, containing their doctrines, perished with the extinction of the sect (except those now found in the Christian New Testament), a full knowledge of their doctrines, therefore, never reached the public mind. All religious sects had secret doctrines, designated as "Mysteries of G.o.dliness," including the princ.i.p.al Jewish sects and the earliest Christian churches. It is, therefore, highly probable that if we were in possession of all their sacred books, we would be in possession of the proof that they believed and taught in their monasteries the doctrines above named. But we are not left to mere inference that the Essenes' creed did include the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divine Incarnation. We find skeletons of these doctrines scattered along the line of their history. Philo himself, an Essene teacher, most distinctly teaches the doctrine of "the Incarnation of the Divine Word or Logos." And "Son of G.o.d," "Mediator,"

"Intercessor," and "Messiah," were familiar words with him. The idea often reappears in his writings, that the "Word could become flesh;"

that the Son of G.o.d could appear as a personality, and return to the bosom of the Father. Moreover, one writer informs us that the Essenes celebrated the birth and death of a Divine Savior as a "Mystery of G.o.dliness." And they claimed in their earlier history to be "forerunners of the Messiah"--a claim which would soon bring a Messiah before the world, that is, lead them to deify and wors.h.i.+p some great man as "_The Messia_."

As for the doctrine of the Trinity, we have the authority of Eusebius that they taught this doctrine too. So that it is not true that they did not recognize these two prime articles of the Christian faith, the Incarnation and Trinity doctrines. Some modern Christians a.s.sert that the Essenes not only omitted to teach these doctrines, but that, on the other hand, they taught other doctrines not taught in the Christian New Testament. This is not improbable. For the Christian religion has been characterized by frequent changes in its doctrines in every stage of its practical history, as was also the Jewish religion which preceded it, and from which it emanated. Judaism is a perpetual series of changes. It changed even the name of its G.o.d from Elohim to Jehovah. Its leader and founder Abram was changed to Abraham, and his grandson and successor from Jacob to Israel. And we have the works of many Christian writers in our possession who prove by their own bible that the Jews made many changes in their religious polity and religious doctrines. This is more especially observable when they came in contact with nations teaching a different religion. Their whole history shows they were p.r.o.ne to imitate, and borrow, and always did borrow on such occasions, and engraft the new doctrines thus obtained into their own creed, and thus effected important changes in their religion. We have the authority of Dr. Campbell for saying the Jews never believed and taught the doctrine of future punishment (and other doctrines that might be named) till after they were brought in contact with Persians in Babylon who had long taught these doctrines. (See Dissertation VI. ) And Dr. Enfield declares their theological opinions underwent thorough changes during this period of seventy years' captivity. Even their national t.i.tle was changed at one period from Israelites to Jews. With all these changes of names, t.i.tles, and doctrines in view, it is not incredible that one of the Jewish sects should change its name from Essenes to Christians, and with this change modify some of the doctrines. And more especially as their t.i.tle, according to Dr. Ginsburg, had been changed before from Cha.s.sidim to Essenes. And Philo at one period calls them Therapeuts, while Eusebius says the Therapeuts were Christians. Put this and that together, and the question is forever settled.

Now, with all this overwhelming ma.s.s of historical evidence before us, "piled mountain high," tending to prove the truth of the proposition that Christianity is the offspring and outgrowth of ancient Judean Essenism, we feel certain that no sophistry, from interested charlatans or stereotyped creed wors.h.i.+pers, can stave off or obliterate the conviction in unprejudiced minds, that the proposition is most amply proven.

We will now collate Christianity with another ancient religious system, which we are certain it will not be disputed, after the comparison is critically examined, contains the sum total of the doctrines and teachings of Christianity in all their details.

CHAPTER x.x.xII. THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX STRIKING a.n.a.lOGIES BETWEEN CHRIST AND CHRISHNA

I. THEIR MIRACULOUS HISTORY AND LEADING PRINCIPLES.

1. The advent of each Savior was miraculously foretold by prophets.

2. The fallen and degenerate condition of the human race is taught in the religion of each.

3. A plan of restoration or salvation is provided for in each case.

4. A divine Savior is considered necessary in both cases.

5. The necessity of atoning for sin is taught in the religion of each.

6. A G.o.d, or Son of G.o.d, is selected as the victim for the atoning sacrifice in each case.

7. This G.o.d is sent down from heaven in each case in the form of a man.

8. The G.o.d or Savior in each case is the second person of the Trinity.

9. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was held to be really G.o.d incarnate.

10. The mission of each Savior is the same.

11. There is a resemblance in name-Chrishna and Christ.

12. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was incarnated and born of a woman.

13. The mother in each case was a holy virgin.

14. The same peculiarities of a miraculous conception and birth are related of each.

15. Each had an adopted earthly father.

16. The father of Chrishna, as well as that of Christ, was a carpenter.

17. G.o.d is claimed as the real father in both cases.

18. A Spirit or Ghost was the author of the conception of each.

19. There was rejoicing on earth when each Savior was born.

20. There was also joy in heaven at the birth and advent of each.

21. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was of royal descent.