CHAPTER XIII.
EXAMINATION OF SOME DOCTRINES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DERIVED FBOM THE CABALLA, THE ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, AND THE TENETS OF ZOROASTER.
I have said in the preceding chapter, that Paul was well versed in Cabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles of the Philosophy styled the Oriental; and to prove and exemplify this assertion, is the subject and intention of this chapter. None but the learned know, how much of Systematic Christianity is derived from the Cabbalism of the Jews; the Religion of the Magi of Persia; and the Philosophy of the Bramins of Indostan. I shall attempt to lay open these Theological Arcana, and make them known to those who ought to know what they have been kept in ignorance of.
Many of my readers have, no doubt, frequently puzzled themselves over these words of Pauls, Eph. v. 30:—For we are members of his (Christs) body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Because of this, a man shall leave his father, and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. This passage exemplifies the connexion between Christ and the Church, by that which subsists between a man and his wife; and this Paul calls a great mystery; and it no doubt must be a very mysterious passage to all those who are unacquainted with the cabbalistic notion to which it alludes, and refers. To illustrate the passage, and to prove that Paul raised his Cabbalism with his religion, I shall set down here the note of Dr. Whitby, the Christian Commentator, upon the text of Paul.
The learned Dr. Allix saith, The first match between Adam and Eve, was a type of that between Christ and his Church; and in this, saith he, the Apostle follows the Jewish notions. The Jews say, the mystery of Adam, is the mystery of the Messiah, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. These two persons, therefore, confirm the observation of Munster, that the creation of the woman from the rib of the man, was made by the Jews to signify the marriage of the celestial man who is blessed, or of the Messiah, with the Church; whence the Apostle applies the very words which Adam said concerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouse of Christ; saying, for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For the explanation of these words, take what follows:—The profoundest of the Jewish Divines, whom they now call Cabbalists, having such a notion as this among them, that sensible things are but an imitation of things above, conceived from thence, that there was an original pattern of love and union, which is between a man and his wife in this world. This being expressed by the kindness of Tipheret and Malchut, which are the names they give to the invisible Bridegroom and Bride in the upper world. And this Tiphiret, or the celestial Adam, is so called in opposition to the terrestrial Adam; as Malchut also (i. e., the kingdom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Israel the Congregation of Israel, who is, they say, united to the celestial Adam as Eve was to the terrestrial. So that in sum, they seem to say the same that Paul doth, when he tells us, that marriage is a great mystery, but he speaks concerning Christ and his Church. For the marriage of Tipheret and Malchuth, is the marriage of Christ, the Lord from Heaven, (the first man was of the Earth earthly, the second man is the Lord from Heaven, says Paul I Cor. xv.,) with his spouse the Church, which is the conjunction of Adam and Eve, and of all other men and women descended from them. Origen also seems to have had some notion of the relation of this passage to Adam and Eve, when he speaks thus:—If any man deride us for using the example of Adam and Eve in these words, and Adam knew his wife, when we treat of the knowledge of God, let him consider these words—This is a great mystery. Tertullian frequently alludes to the same thing, saying—This is a great sacrament, carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ, because of the spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church.
Thus far Dr. Whitby, and the intelligent reader, who is acquainted with the dogmas and philosophy of Indostan, will not fail to see through this cloud, of words the origin of this analogy of Paul. The fact is, that in India and in Egypt, the Divine creative power which produced all things and energizes in everything, was symbolized by the Phallus; and to this day, in Hindostan, the operation of Diety upon matter is symbolized by images of the same; and in the darkest recesses of their Temples, which none but the initiated were permitted to enter: the Phallus of stone is the solitary idol, before which the illuminated bowed. This symbol, though shameful and abominable, is yet looked upon in India with the profoundest veneration, and is not with them the occasion of shame or reproach. It is, however, a blasphemous abomination; and the marriage between Christ and the Church ought not to have been thus illustrated by Paul, who reproached the heathen mysteries as works of darkness, which mysteries, in fact, consisted principally in exhibiting these symbols, and similar abominations.
But, it may be asked, what is the meaning of the other clause of the verse—what could Paul mean by the strong language, We are members of his body? of his flesh, and of his bones? Why, my reader, he meant, that Christians were really part of the body of Christ and if you desire to know How he imagined this union to be effected, I request you to see the 10th ch. of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where at the 16th verse he thus writes to them:—The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation of the blood of Christ? The loaf (according to the Greek original) which we break, is it not a participation of the body of Christ? for, Because the loaf is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of that one loaf. Again, ch. xi. 19, For he that eateth, and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not distinguishing (or discovering) the Lords body; and in ch. xii. 27, he says to them, Ye are the body of Christ, and his members severally. (See the original of these passages in Griesbachs Greek Testament.) Thus you see, reader, that Paul considered Christians as members of his (Christs) body, of his flesh, and of his bones, because they partook of one loaf, which was the body of Christ. The Papists are in the right, and have been much slandered by the Protestants, for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or at least the Real Presence, is as plainly taught in the New Testament, as the doctrine of the Atonement. You have seen what Paul believed upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sense I put upon his words, by the words of Jesus, his master, and by quotations from the earliest Fathers.
Jesus says, John vi.—I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, contended among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus, therefore, said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have not life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is verily food, and my blood is verily drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, (here is an oath) so he likewise that eateth me shall live by me.
This strange doctrine was the faith of the Primitive Christians, as is well known to the learned Protestants, though they do not like to say so to their weaker brethren.
Ignatius says, There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood; and of certain heretics he says, they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Justin Martyr, in his Apology, asserts that the consecrated bread is, some how or other, the flesh of Christ.
In the dispute with Latimer about Transubstantiation, it is acknowledged by the most candid writers, that the Roman Catholics had much the advantage. It must have been so, where quotations from the Fathers were allowed as arguments. For what answer can be made to the following extracts?— What a miracle is this! He who sits above with the Father, at the same instant, is handled by the hands of men. [Chrysostom.] Again, from the same, That which is in the cup, is the same which flowed from the side of Christ. Again, Because we abhor the eating of raw flesh; therefore, it appeareth bread, though it be flesh. [Theophylact.] Or to this?—Christ was carried in his own hands, when he said this is my body. [Austin,] Or to this?—We are taught, that when this nourishing food is consecrated, it becomes the body and blood of our Saviour. [Justin Martyr.] Or, lastly, to this? [from Ambrose]— It is bread before consecration, but after that ceremony, it becomes the flesh of Christ.
Another doctrine which Paul derived from the Oriental Philosophy, and Which makes a great figure in his writings, is the notion, that moral corruption originates in the influxes of the body upon the mind.
It was one of the principal tenets of the Oriental Philosophy, that all evil resulted from matter, and its first founder appears to have argued in the following manner:—There are many evils in the world, and men seem impelled of a natural instinct to the practice of those things which reason condemns. But that eternal mind, from which all spirits derive their existence, must be inaccessible to all kinds of evil, and also of a most perfect and beneficent nature; therefore, the origin of these evils with which the world abounds, must be sought somewhere else, than in the Deity. It cannot abide in him who is all perfection, and, therefore, it must be without him. Now, there is nothing without or beyond the Deity but matter; therefore, matter is the centre and source of all evil, of all vice.
One of the consequences they drew from this hypothesis was, that since All evil resulted from matter, the depravity of mankind arose from the pollution derived to the human soul, from its connexion with the material body which it inhabits; and, therefore, the only means by which the mind could purify itself from the defilement, and liberate itself from the bondage imposed upon it by the body, was to emaciate and humble the body by frequent fasting, and to invigorate the mind to overcome and subdue it by retirement and contemplation.
The New Testament, though it does not recognise this principle of the Oriental Philosophy, that evil originates from matter, yet coincides with it in strenuously asserting that the corruption of the human mind is derived from its connexion with the human body.
To prove this proposition, I shall show that Paul calls all crimes the works of the flesh. Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, (says he, Gal. v. 19,) which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. He also describes the conflict between the flesh and the spirit, or mind, in these terms:— For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good, for to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I find not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man, but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of my sin in my members. O wretched man that I am! who will deliver me from the body of this death? (or this body of death.) And he goes on to observe, That I, the same man, with my mind serve the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin.—Rom. vii. For the flesh desireth against (or in opposition to) the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Those that are Christs (says Paul, Gal. v. 24) have crucified the flesh, with its passions and desires. And they are commanded (Rom. vi. 12 and viii. 13) to mortify, or, according to the original, put to death or kill their members; and Paul himself uses language upon this subject exceeding strong. He represents (1 Cor. ix. 27) his mind and body as engaged in combat, and says, I buffet my body, and subject it. The word here translated subject, in the original, means to carry into servitude, and is a term taken from the language of the olympic games where the boxers dragged off the arena, their conquered, disabled, and helpless antagonists like slaves, in which humbled condition the Apostle represents his body to be with respect to his mind.
From this notion of the sinfulness of the flesh, we are enabled to apprehend Pauls reasonings about the sufferings of Jesus in the flesh. Since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Christ himself also in like manner partook of them—Heb. ii. 14. For (says Paul) what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God hath done, who by having sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.—Rom. viii. 3. But now, through Christ Jesus, ye who formerly were far off, are brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our Peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished by his flesh the cause of enmity.—Ephes. ii. 16. You that were formerly aliens, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet he hath now reconciled by his fleshly body, through his death.—Col. i. 20.
Though these notions are sufficiently strange, yet they are not so very remarkable as the one I am about to consider. It is a singular, and a demonstrable fact, that the fundamental scheme of Christianity was derived from the religion of the ancient Persians, The whole of the New Testament scheme is built upon the hypothesis, that there is a powerful and malignant being, called the Devil and Satan, the chief of unknown myriads of other evil spirits; that he is, by the sufferance of God, the Prince of this world, and is the Author of sin, woe and death; the Tempter, the Tormentor of men, and the Tyrant of the Earth; that the Son of God, to deliver mankind from the vassalage of this monster, descended from heaven, and purchased their ransom of the Tyrant, at the price of his blood; for observe, my reader, that the idea of the death of Jesus being an atonement to God for the sins of men, is a modern notion; for the Primitive Christians, all of them, considered the death of Jesus as a ransom paid to the Devil, as may be proved from Origen and other Fathers. That the New Testament represents this character as the sovereign of this world, may be proved by the following passages:—All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, (said the Tempter to Jesus, when he showed him all the kingdoms of the earth,) for it is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it. Luke iv., Jesus calls him the Prince of this world; John xii., and elsewhere. In his commission to Paul, he calls embracing his religion, turning from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan to God.—. Acts xxvi. 18. Accordingly we find, that to become a Christian was considered as being freed from the tyranny of Satan. God hath given life to you, (says Paul) who were dead in offences, and sins; in which ye formerly walked, according to the course (or constitution) of this world, according to the Prince of the Power of the air.— Ephesians ii., 1. And again:—If our gospel be covered, (or hid) it is covered among those that are lost, among those unbelievers, whose minds the God of this world hath blinded, to the end that the glorious gospel of Christ should not enlighten them.—2 Cor. iv. 4. John says in his Epistle, that the whole world lieth in the power of the wicked one; and Jesus in the gospels compares him to a strong man armed, keeping his goods; and himself to one stronger than he, who strippeth him of the arms in which he trusted, and spoileth his goods. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil.—1 John iii. 8. And it is said, that he came to send forth the captive into liberty, and to heal those who were oppressed of the Devil. Men are also said to have been taken captive of the Devil, to fulfil his will.—2 Timothy ii. 26. And we find that the Christians attributed all their sufferings to the opposition of this Being. Put on (says Paul) the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. For we struggle not against flesh and blood only; but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places.—Ephesians vi. 12. Christians are also said to be delivered by God from the power of darkness, and to be translated into the kingdom of his dear son. That is, as Christians were considered as being the subjects of Jesus, and the rest of the world as being of the kingdom of Satan, when a man became a Christian he was translated from the kingdom of one, to the kingdom of the other. Jesus accused the Devil as being the author of all evil, as a liar, and the father of lies, and a murderer of men, and of women, too, as appears in the Gospel, from the account of that one, whose back the Devil had bowed down for eighteen years—Luke xiii. 10—(on what account it does not appear.) In short, the New Testament represents to him as being the source of all evil and mischief, and the promoter of it; and the whole world as being his subjects, and combined with him against all good.
But how does all this prove that these notions were derived from the religion of the ancient Persians? I answer by requesting you, my reader, to peruse, attentively, the following account of the fundamental principles of the religion of Zoroaster, the prophet of the Persians.
The doctrine of Zoroaster was, that there was one Supreme Being, independent, and self-existing from all eternity; that inferior to him, there were two Angels, one the Angel of Light, who is the Author and Director of all Good; and the other, the Angel of Darkness, who is the Author and Director of all Evil; that these two are in a perpetual struggle with each other; and that where the Angel of Light prevails, there the most is good; awl where the Angel of Darkness prevails, there the most is evil. That this struggle shall continue to the end of the world; that then there shall be a general resurrection, and a day of judgment, wherein just retribution shall be rendered to all according to their works; after which, the Angel of Darkness, and his followers, shall go into a world of their own, where they shall suffer in darkness, the punishment of their evil deeds. And the Angel of Light, and his followers, shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall receive, in everlasting light, the reward due to their good deeds.
It is impossible but that the reader must see the agreement of the doctrines of the New Testament with all this; and since it is undoubted, that these tenets of Zoroaster are far more ancient than the New Testament, and since, as we have seen, that that book is much indebted to oriental notions for many of its dogmas, there is no way of accounting for this coincidence (that I know of), besides supposing the Devil of the New Testament to be of Persian origin. It is, however, in my power to make this coincidence still more striking from the words of Jesus himself, who says, (Matthew xiii. 24), The kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy (mark the expression) his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat; but when the blade sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came near, and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence, then, hath it tares? And he saith unto them, an enemy hath done this. You know the rest of the parable. The explanation of it is as follows:—He who soweth the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and the good seed are the sons of the kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the Evil One, and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. Here you see, as far as it goes, a precise agreement with the doctrine of Zoroaster; and to complete the resemblance, you need but to recollect, that at the day of Judgment, according to the words of Jesus, the wicked go into the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels; and the righteous go into life eternal with the Son of God.
But is there not a Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, and is he not there represented as an evil and malevolent angel? I think not. This notion probably arises from the habit of interpreting the Old Testament by the New. The Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, is represented as Gods minister of punishment, and as much his faithful servant as any of his angels. The prologue to the book of Job certainly supposes that this angel of punishment, by office, appeared in the court of Heaven, nay, he is ranked among the Sons of God. This Satan is merely the supposed chief of those ministers of Gods will, whose office is to execute his ordered commands upon the guilty, and who may be sometimes, as in the case of Job, the minister of probation only, rather than of punishment; and there is no reason why he should be ashamed of his office more than the General of an army, or the Judges of the criminal courts, who, though they are not unfrequently ministers of punishment are not, therefore, excluded the royal presence; but on the contrary, their office is considered as honourable;—i. e., punishment without malevolence, does not pollute the inflictor. Consider the story of the destruction of Sodom, Genesis xix.; of Egypt; Exodus xxii.; of Sennacherib, 1 Kings xxix. 35; also Joshua v. 13. The term Satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to any angel sent upon an errand of punishment For example, Numbers xxii. 23, The Angel of the Lord stood in the way, for an adversary (literally, for a Satan) against Balaam, with his sword drawn in his hand. Curse ye Meroz, saith the Angel of the Lord, whose office is to punish. So also Psalms xxxv. 5, Let the Angel (of punishment) of the Lord chase them, (i. e., drive them before him in a military manner; pursue them:) let their way be dark and slippery, and the Angel of the Lord following them.
2 Samuel xxiv. 16:—The Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel—the angel (of punishment) stretched forth his hand and smote the people.—1 Chronicles xxi. 16:—David saw the angel (of punishment) having a drawn sword in his hand.
This notion is referred to, in the Apocryphal History of Susannah, verse 69. The Angel of the Lord waiteth with his sword that he may cut thee in two.
Thus we see, that the term Satan is in the Old Testament applied to any Angel of the Lord sent upon an errand of punishment. And the term itself is so far from being reproachful (for David is said, 1 Samuel xxix. 4, to have been a Satan to the Philistines,) that I am not sure, that if I had by me a Hebrew concordance, but I could point out places, where God himself is represented as saying, that he would be an adversary or a Satan to bad men and wicked nations. And though there is in the Old Testament a particular angel styled, by way of eminence, The Satan, it is so far from being evident that he is an evil being, that I would undertake to give good reasons to prove that this distinguished angel is the real prototype, from whence the impostor Mahomet took the idea of his Azrael, the Angel of Death; who, in the Koran, is certainly represented as being as much the faithful servant of God, as any of the Angelic Hosts.
In fine, the doctrine of the Old Testament upon this matter may be thus expressed:—These be spirits created for vengeance, which in their fury lay on sore strokes; in the time of destruction, they pour out their force, sad appease the wrath of him that made them. They shall rejoice in his (Gods) commandment, and they shall be ready upon earth, when need is: and when their time is come, they shall not transgress his word. Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 28.