SOME COLLECTED ARTICLES OF ALEXANDER WILDER

[Compiled by M.R.J.]

CONTENTS

- Hypatia: A Tragedy of Lent

- Philosophy After the Death of Hypatia
- The Eclectic Philosophy
- The Teachings of Plotinos
- The Teachings of Plato
- The Parable of Atlantis
- The Wisdom Religion of Zoroaster
- Zoroaster, The Father of Philosophy
- Iamblichos and Theurgy: The Reply to Porphyry
- Seership
- Porphyry and His Teachings
- The Children of Cain
- The Apostle Paul
- Philosophic Morality
- The Problem and Providence of Evil
- Concerning Pleasure - Philebos
- The American Socrates
- Henry Clay
- H.P.B. - A Profile of Those Days
- The Key of the Universe
- Lucky and Unlucky Days
- The New Order of the Ages

----------------

HYPATIA: A TRAGEDY OF LENT

by Alexander Wilder

"THIS was done during Lent, " says the historian Sokrates.
"There is as a woman in Alexandreia named Hypatia, a
daughter of Theon the philosopher, so learned that she surpassed all
the savants of the time. She therefore succeeded to the Chair of
Philosophy in that branch of the Platonic School which follows
Plotinos, and gave public lectures on all the doctrines of that school.
Students resorted to her from all parts, for her deep learning made
her both serious and fearless in speech, while she bore herself
composedly, even before the magistrates, and mixed among men in
public without misgiving. Her exceeding modesty was extolled and
praised by all. So, then, wrath and envy were kindled against this
woman."
Little record has been preserved of Hypatia beyond the mention
by her contemporaries of her learning, her personal beauty and her
tragic fate. That little, however, possesses a peculiar significance,
setting forth as it does, the history of the period, and the great
changes which the world was then undergoing.
Since the time of Augustus Caesar, Alexandreia had ranked as
one of the Imperial cities of the Roman world. It excelled other
capitals in the magnificence of its buildings, and in its wealth, created
and sustained by an extensive commerce. Its former rulers had been
liberal and even lavish in every expenditure that might add to its
greatness. The advantages of the place had been noted by the
Macedonian Conqueror, when on his way to the oasis of Amun, and
afterward, acting under the direction of a dream, he fixed upon it for
the site of a new city to perpetuate his own name. He personally
planned the circuit of the walls and the directions of the principal
streets, and selected sites for temples to the gods of Egypt and
Greece. The architect Deinokrates was then commissioned to
superintend the work, he had already distinguished himself as the
builder of the temple of the Great Goddess of Ephesus, whom "all
Asia and the world worshiped," and had actually offered to carve
Mount Athos into a statue of his royal master, holding a city in its right
hand. Under Ptolemy, the royal scholar, the new Capital had been
completed by him, and became the chief city of a new Egypt, the seat
of commerce between India and the West, and the intellectual
metropolis of the occidental world.
Its celebrity, however, was due, not so much to its grand
buildings or even to its magnificent lighthouse, the Pharos, justly
considered as one of the Seven Wonders of the Earth, as to its
famous School of Learning, and to its library of seven hundred
thousand scrolls, the destruction of which is still deplored by lovers of
knowledge. The temples of Memphis, Sais and Heliopolis had been
so many universities, depositories of religious, philosophic and
scientific literature, and distinguished foreigners like Solon, Thales,
Plato, Eudoxos and Pythagoras had been admitted to them; but now
they were cast into the shade by the new metropolis with its
cosmopolitan liberality. The Alexandreian School included among its
teachers and lecturers, not only Egyptian priests and learned Greeks,
but sages and philosophers from other countries.
The wall of exclusiveness that had before separated individuals
of different race and nation, was in a great measure, broken down.
Religious worship heretofore circumscribed in isolated forms to
distinctive peoples, tribes and family groups, became correspondingly
catholic and its rites accessible to all. The mystery-god of Egypt,
bearing the ineffable name of Osiris or Hyasir, was now Serapis, in
whom the personality and attributes of the other divinities of the
pantheons were merged. *
"There is but one sole God for them all," the Emperor Hadrian
wrote to his friend Servianus: "him do the Christians, him do the
Jews, him do all the Gentiles also worship."
Philosophy likewise appeared in new phases. Missionaries
from Buddhistic India,** Jaina*** sages, Magian and Chaldean
teachers and Hebrew Rabbis came

------------
* The great image of King Nebuchadnezzar, which is described
in the book of Daniel, was evidently a simulacrum of this divinity; and
the Rev. C. W. King further declares in so many words that "there can
be no doubt that the head supplied the first idea of the conventional
portraits of the Saviour." - Gnostics and their Remains.
** "The Grecian King besides, by whom the Egyptian Kings,
Ptolemaios and Antigonos (Gangakenos or Gonatos) and Magas
have been induced to allow both here and in foreign countries
everywhere, that the people may follow the doctrine of the religion of
Devananpiga, wheresoever it reacheth." - Edict of Asoka, King of
India.
*** This term is derived from the Sanskrit jna to know; and
signifies well-knowing, profoundly intelligent. The designation of the
new doctrine of that period, the Gnosis, was from this origin.
-------------

to Alexandreia and discoursed acceptably with philosophers from

Asia, Greece and Italy. From these sources there came into
existence an Eclectic philosophy, in which were combined the
metaphysic of the West and the recondite speculation of the East.
The various religious beliefs took other shapes accordingly, and
expounders of the Gnosis, or profounder esoteric knowledge
abounded alike with native Egyptians, Jews and Christians.
In the earlier years of the third century of the present era there
arose a School of philosophic speculation which brought together in
closer harmony the principal dogmas which were then current. Its
founder, Ammonios Sakkas, was, according to his own profession, a
lover and seeker for the truth. He was in no way a critic hunting for
flaws in the teaching of others, but one who believed that the genuine
knowledge might exist in a diffused form, partly here and partly there,
among the various systems. He sought accordingly to bring the parts
together by joining in harmonious union the doctrines of Plato and
Pythagoras with the Ethics of Zeno and the reasonings of Aristotle,
and perfecting it with what is sometimes termed the Wisdom of the
East. His disciples were obligated to secrecy, but the restriction was
afterward set aside. Plotinos and Porphyry extended the sphere of
his teachings, giving them more completely the character of a
religion. Iamblichos went further, adding the arcane doctrine and the
mystic worship of Egypt and Assyria.*
The Alexandreian School of Philosophy, thus established,
included within its purview the esoteric dogmas of all the Sacred
Rites in the several countries.
A new Route came into existence on the banks of the
Bosphoros, and a new religion was proclaimed for the Roman world.
The changes, however, were far from radical. The earlier Byzantine
Emperors were too sagacious politicians

------------
* Reply of Abammon to Porphyry.
------------

to permit revolutionary innovations. Religion and civil administration

were interwoven in the same web and the subversion of either would
be fatal to the other. Constantine himself was a "soldier'' or initiated
worshiper of Mithras as well as a servant of Christ.*
His successors encouraged an extensive intermingling which
should render Christianity more catholic and thus more acceptable to
all classes of the population. Meanwhile there arose other diversities
of religious belief, violent disputes in regard to ecclesiastical rank and
verbal orthodoxy, often culminating in bloody conflicts. The older
worship was finally prohibited under capital penalties.
Persecution became general. Nowhere, perhaps, was it more
cruel and vindictive than at Alexandreia. The modern city of Paris
horrified the world with its populace overawing the Government,
destroying, public buildings, desecrating cemeteries and religious
shrines, and murdering without mercy or scruple. Similar scenes
became common in the capital of the Ptolemies. The dissenters from
the later orthodoxy, followers of Clement and Origen were driven from
the city; the Catechetic School which they had maintained was
closed, the occult worship of the Cave of Mithras was forcibly
suspended, the temple of Serapis sacked, the statues broken to
pieces, the Great Library, the glory of Alexandreia, scattered and
destroyed.
With these violent procedures there came also a wonderful
transformation. The temples were consecrated anew as churches,
and the rites of the former worship were adopted, together with the
symbols and legends, under other forms, as Christian, Catholic and
orthodox. Even mummies were carried from Egypt as relics of
martyrs.
Learning, however, was still in the

------------
* Sopater, who succeeded lamblichos as head of the School at
Alexandreia, had been employed by Constantine to perform the rites
of consecration for the new capital; but the Emperor afterward
quarreled with him, and sentenced him to death.
-----------

hands of the adherents of the old religion. They continued their

labors faithfully, giving as little offense as they were able. Theon,
Pappos and Diophantos taught mathematical science at the
Serapeion; and some of their writings are yet remaining to attest the
extent of their studies and observations.
Hypatia, the daughter of Theon, was worthy of her name* and
parentage. Her father had made her from early years his pupil and
companion, and she profited richly from his teaching. She wrote
several mathematical works of great merit, which have perished with
the other literature of that period. She was also diligent in the study
of law, and became an effective and successful pleader in the courts,
for which she was admirably qualified by her learning and fascinating
eloquence. She was not content, however, with these acquirements,
but devoted herself likewise, with ardent enthusiasm, to the study of
philosophy. She was her own preceptor, and set apart to these
pursuits the entire daytime and a great part of the night. Though by
no means ascetic in her notions, she adhered persistently to the
celibate life, in order that there might be no hindrance to her
purposes. It was an ancient fashion of philosophers to travel for a
season for the sake of acquaintance with the greater world, and to
become more thorough and practical in mental attainments. Hypatia
accordingly followed this example. On coming to Athens, she
remained there and attended the lectures of the ablest instructors.
Thus she now gained a reputation for scholarship which extended as
far as the Greek language was spoken,
Upon her return to Alexandreia, the magistrates invited her to
become a lee-

-------------
* The same Hypatia [script] signifies highest, most exalted,
best. In this instance it would not be difficult to suppose that it had
been conferred posthumously, or at best as a title of distinction. This,
in fact, was an Egyptian custom, as in the case of the native kings,
and now of the Roman pontiffs.
-------------

turer on philosophy. The teachers who had preceded her had made
the school celebrated throughout the world, but their glory was
exceeded by the discourses of the daughter of Theon. She was
ambitious to reinstate the Platonic doctrines in their ancient form, in
preference to the Aristotelian dogma and the looser methods which
had become common. She was the first to introduce a rigorous
procedure into philosophic teaching. She made the exact sciences
the basis of her instructions, and applied their demonstration to the
principles of speculative knowledge. Thus she became the
recognized head of the Platonic School.
Among her disciples were many persons of distinction. Of this
number was Synesios, of Cyrene, to whom we are indebted for the
principal memorials of her that we now possess. He was of Spartan
descent, a little younger than his teacher, and deeply imbued with her
sentiments. He remained more than a year at Alexandreia, attending
her lectures on philosophy, mathematics and the art of oratory. He
afterward visited Athens, but formed a low estimate of what was to be
learned there. "I shall no longer be abashed at the erudition of those
who have been there," he writes. "It is not because they seem to
know much more than the rest of us mortals about Plato and Aristotle,
but because they have seen the places, the Akademeia, and the
Lykeion, and the Stoa where Zeno used to lecture, they behave
themselves among us like demigods among donkeys."
He could find nothing worthy of notice in Athens, except the
names of her famous localities. "It is Egypt in our day," he declares,
"that cultivates the seeds of wisdom gathered by Hypatia. Athens
was once the very hearth and home of learning; but now it is the
emporium of the trade in honey!"
Mr. Kingsley has set forth in his usual impressive style, the
teaching and character of this incomparable woman.* He depicts her
cruel fate in vivid colors. He represents her as being some twenty-
five years of age; she must have been some years older at the
period which he has indicated.
Synesios, her friend, had now been for some years the bishop
of Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. This dignity, however, he had accepted
only after much persuasion. He was of amiable disposition, versatile,
and of changeable moods. He had consented to profess the
Christian religion, and the prelate, Theophilus, persuaded him to wed
a Christian wife, perhaps to divert him from his devoted regard for his
former teacher. He refused, however, to discard his philosophic
beliefs. He had been living in retirement at his country home, when
he was chosen by acclamation, by the church in Ptolemais, to the
episcopal office. He was barely persuaded to accept upon his own
terms. He pleaded his fondness for diversion and amusement, and
refused inflexibly to put away his wife or play the part of a hypocrite in
the matter. He explained his position in a letter to his brother.
"It is difficult, I may say that it is impossible, that a truth which
has been scientifically demonstrated and once accepted by the
understanding, should ever be eradicated from the mind. Much of
what is held by the mass of men is utterly repugnant to philosophy. It
is absolutely impossible for me to believe either that the soul is
created subsequently to the body, or that this material universe will
ever perish. As for that doctrine of the Resurrection which they bruit
about, it is to me a sacred mystery, but I am far enough from sharing
the popular view..... As to preaching doctrines which I do not hold, I
call God and man to witness that this I will not do. Truth is of the
essence of God, before whom I desire to stand blameless, and the
one thing that I can not undertake is to dissimulate."

-----------
* HYPATIA, or New Foes with an Old Face
-----------

Singular and incredible as it may appear, this disavowal of

doctrines generally regarded as essential and distinctive, was not
considered an obstacle that might not be surmounted. The patriarch
of Alexandreia had been extreme and unrelenting in his violent
procedures against the ancient religion. He was, however, politic in
his action, and knew well the character of the man whose case he
had in hand. Synesios had as a layman, exhibited his ability in
diplomatic service, his efficiency in the transacting of public business,
and his utter unselfishness in matters relating to personal advantage.
Such a man in a province like Cyrenaica, was invaluable.
It would be more difficult, therefore, for a person who had been
reared and schooled in the ways of modern times to apprehend
intelligently the motives of Synesios himself. He certainly found it
almost impossible to overcome his reluctance. Seven months of
preparation were allotted to him previous to engaging in the new
duties. He prayed often for death and even thought seriously of
leaving the country. He was permitted to retain his family circle, and
to hold his philosophic beliefs, but only required to give a formal
acquiescence to what he considered mythologic fables. Under these
conditions he consented to receive baptism and consecration to the
episcopal office. Yet in an address to his new associates he
expressed the hope that by the mercy of God he might find the
priesthood a help rather than a hindrance to philosophy.
He did not, however, break off correspondence with Hypatia.
He had been in the habit of sending to her his scientific works for her
judgment, and he continued in great emergencies to write to her for
sympathy and counsel. His brief term of office was full of anxiety and
trouble. He administered his duties with energy and rare fidelity, not
shrinking from an encounter with the Roman prefect of the province.
But misfortune came and he found himself ill able to meet it. A
pestilence ravaged Libya, and his family were among the victims. He
himself succumbed to sickness. In his last letter to her whom he calls
his "sister, mother, teacher and benefactor," he describes his sad
condition of mind and body.
"My bodily infirmity comes of the sickness of my soul. The
memory of my dear children overpowers me. Synesios ought never
to have survived his good days. Like a torrent long dammed up,
calamity has burst upon me and the savor of life is gone. If you care
for me it is well; if not, this, too, I can understand."
It is supposed by historians, that his death took place not long
afterward. He was spared, then, from a terrible grief, which he might
have considered the most appalling of all. For it was not many
months after that his venerated teacher herself fell a victim, under the
most revolting circumstances, to the mob in Alexandreia.
We are told that Hypatia taught the Platonic Philosophy in a
purer form than any of her later predecessors. Her eloquence made
its abstruse features attractive, and her method of scientific
demonstration rendered these clearer to the common understanding.
Like Plotinos, she insisted strenuously upon the absolute Oneness of
the Divine Essence. From this radiates the Creative Principle, the
Divine Mind as a second energy, yet it is one with the First. In this
Mind are the forms, ideals or models of all things that exist in the
world of sense.* From it, in due order, proceeded a lesser divinity,
the Spirit of Nature, or Soul of the World, from which all things are
developed. In abstract terms these may be represented as
Goodness, Wisdom and Energy. In regard to hu-

------------
* Reply of Abammon to Porphyry, VIII, ii.
"For the Father perfected all things and delivered them to the
Second Mind, which the whole race of men denominate the First. -
Chaldean Oracles
------------

man beings it was taught that they are held fast by an environment of
material quality, from which it is the province of the philosophic
discipline to extricate them. This is substantially the same doctrine as
is propounded in the Vedanta and the Upanishads.
Plotinos tells us of a superior form of knowing, illumination
through intuition. It is possible for us, he declared, to become free
from the bondage and limitations of time and sense, and to receive
from the Divine Mind direct communication of the truth. This state of
mental exaltation was denominated ecstasy, a withdrawing of the
soul from the distractions of external objects to the contemplation of
the Divine Presence which is immanent within - the fleeing of the
spirit, the lone one, to the Alone. In the present lifetime, Plotinos
taught that this may take place at occasional periods only, and for
brief spaces of time; but in the life of the world that is beyond time
and sense, it can be permanent.*
Synesios makes a declaration of the same tenor. "The power
to do good," he writes to Aurelian, "is all that human beings possess
in common with God; and imitation is identification, and unites the
follower to him whom he follows."
Much of this philosophy, however, had been already accepted,
though perhaps in grosser form, as Christian experience. The
legends of that period, abound with descriptions of ecstatic vision and
intimate communion with Deity. The philosophers taught that the
Divinity was threefold in substance, the Triad, or Third, proceeding
from the Duad or Divine Mind, and ruled by the ineffable One.
Clement, of the Gnostic school, deduced from a letter of Plato that
the great philosopher held that there are three persons, or
personations

------------
* I sent my soul through the Invisible
Some letter of that After-Life to spell:
And by and by my soul returned to me,
And answered: "I myself am Heaven and Hell"
- Omar Khayam
------------

in the Godhead, and now in a cruder shape, it became an article of

faith. To this the Egyptian Christians added the veneration of the
Holy Mother, and various symbols and observances which belonged
to the worship that had been suppressed.
This was the state of affairs when Cyril became patriarch of
Alexandreia. Hypatia was at the height of her fame and influence.
Not only the adherents of the old religion, but Jews and even
Christians were among her disciples. The most wealthy and
influential of the inhabitants thronged her lecture-room. They came
day after day to hear her explain the literature of Greece and Asia,
the theorems of mathematicians and geometers and the doctrines of
sages and philosophers. The prefect of Egypt, himself a professed
Christian, resorted to her for counsel and instruction.
Cyril was endowed with a full measure of the ambition which
characterized the prelates of that time. He was not a man to scruple
at measures that he might rely upon to accomplish his ends. Like
Oriental monarchs, he was ready with pretexts and instruments for
the removal of all who might stand in his way. He was not willing to
divide power, whether ecclesiastic or secular. A course of
persecution was begun at once. The Novatians or Puritans, a
dissenting sect of anabaptists, were expelled from the city, their
churches closed and their property confiscated. The prefect strove in
vain to check the summary procedure; the mob at the command of
the prelate was beyond his authority. The Jews were next to suffer.
"Cyril headed the mob in their attacks upon the Jewish synagogues;
they broke them open and plundered them, and in one day drove
every Jew out of the city." The efforts of the prefect in their behalf
only served to turn the current of fanatic fury upon him. Five hundred
monks hastened from their retreats to fight for the patriarch. Meeting
the prefect in the street in his open chariot, they taunted him with
being an idolater and a Greek, and one of them hurled a stone, which
wounded him in the head. They were speedily dispersed by his
guards, and the offending monk was put to death with tortures. Cyril
at once declared the man a martyr and a saint, but the ridicule which
followed upon this proceeding, soon induced him to recall his action.
We have read the story of Haman at the court of the king of
Persia. He was advanced above all princes and received homage,
except from Mordecai the Jew. Recounting to his wife the distinction
to which he had been promoted, he said: "Yet all this availeth me
nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate."
The patriarch of Alexandreia appears to have cherished similar
sentiments. He was a prince in the Church, with power exceeding
that of any official south of the Mediterranean. He had but to give the
signal and an army of monks would hurry to his call, ready to do or
die. But all this did not avail, while the long train of chariots continued
to assemble daily before the door of Hypatia's lecture-room. Like
Haman, he resolved to put an end to his mortification. He had not
been able to close the Academy, but he could make an end of her
who was its chief attraction, and the principal obstacle to his ambition.
"The thing was done during Lent," says Sokrates. At this period
the city of Alexandreia was crowded by multitudes from other places,
desirous to participate in the religious services. Cyril had been
zealous to substitute Christian observances for similar customs of the
old worship, and this was one of them. Alexandreia was for the time
at his mercy. He was thoroughly skilled in the art of exciting the
passions, and he was surrounded by men who knew well his bent
and how to do what he wished without a suggestion from him to
involve him directly in the responsibility.
He needed only to indicate the School and its teacher as the
great obstacle to the triumph of the Church. They were then ready to
carry into effect what he purposed.
Mr. Kingsley has described the occurrence in dramatic style. "I
heard Peter (the reader) say: 'She that hindereth will hinder till she
be taken out of the way.' And when he went into the passage, I heard
him say to another: 'That thou doest, do quickly.'"
It was on the morning of the fifteenth of March, 415, - the fatal
Ides, the anniversary of the murder of the greatest of the Caesars.
Hypatia set out as usual in her chariot to drive to the lecture-room.
She had not gone far when the mob stopped the way. On every side
were men howling with all the ferocity of hungry wolves. She was
forced out of the vehicle and dragged along the ground to the nearest
church. This was the ancient Caesar's temple, which had been
dedicated anew to the worship of the Christian Trinity. Here she had
been denounced by Cyril and her doom determined by his servitors.
Her dress was now torn in shreds by their ruffianly violence. She
stood by the high altar, beneath the statue of Christ.
"She shook herself free from her tormentors," says Kingsley,
"and, springing back, rose for one moment to her full height, naked,
snow-white against the dusky mass around - shame and indignation
in those wide, clear eyes, but not a stain of fear. With one hand she
clasped her golden locks around her; the other long, white arm was
stretched upward toward the great still Christ, appealing - and who
dare say in vain? - from man to God. Her lips were open to speak;
but the words that should have come from them reached God's ear
alone; for in an instant Peter struck her down, the dark mass closed
over her again, . . . and then wail on wail, long, wild, ear-piercing,
rang along the vaulted roofs, and thrilled like the trumpet of avenging
angels through Philammon's ears."
While yet breathing, the assailants in a mad fury tore her body
like tigers, limb from limb and after that, bringing oyster-shells from
the market, they scraped the flesh from the bones. Then gathering
up the bleeding remains they ran with them through the streets to the
place of burning, and having consumed them, threw the ashes into
the sea.
"The thing was done during Lent."

(Un. Brotherhood, April, 1898)

-------------

PHILOSOPHY AFTER THE DEATH OF HYPATIA

by Alexander Wilder, M.D.

HISTORIANS seem to have regarded the murder of Hypatia as

the death-blow to Philosophy at Alexandreia. Professor Draper
characterizes it as a warning to all who would cultivate profane
knowledge. "Henceforth," he adds, "there was to be no freedom for
human thought. Every one must think as the ecclesiastical authority
bade him."
Certainly the Patriarchs at the Egyptian metropolis had spared
no endeavor, however arbitrary, to engraft their notions upon the
Roman world, and to bring about uniformity of religious belief. The
doctrine of the Trinity had been officially promulgated by the Council
at Nikaia. The orthodox Homoousians had been engaged for a
century in a mortal struggle for supremacy with the heretic
Homooisians. Men murdered one another upon the religions issue of
homoian and tauto. The nitre-fields abounded with monks as
numerous as frogs, and ready at summons to seize their weapons
and do any violence to promote the cause of the Prince of Peace.
Theodosios the Emperor had proclaimed Christianity as the religion
of the Court and Empire, and made Sunday the sacred day of the
newer faith. Egypt surpassed all other countries in religious
fanaticism, and Gregory of Nazianzen praised it as the most Christian
of all, and teaching the doctrine of the Trinity in its truest form. The
former worship was forcibly suppressed. The patriarch Theophilus
closed the Cave of Mithras, desecrated the temple of Serapis and
destroyed its magnificent library of seven hundred thousand scrolls.
The Egyptian learning was denounced and interdicted, but such
Egyptian customs and notions as had been deeply infixed in the
regard of the illiterate commonalty, were transferred with the
necessary modifications into the creed and liturgy of the church. The
attempt was made to substitute burial as a Christian usage for the
ancient practice of mummying the bodies of the dead. The goddess
Isis, the
"Great Mother" of the former faiths, became Mariam Theotokos, Mary
the Mother of God, and her worship established beside that of the
Trinity. The distinction of clergy and laity which was before unknown,
was now introduced. Such Egyptian customs were also adopted by
the priests as the shaving of the head, the celebration of Twelfth
Night, the burning of candles around the altars and robing in white
surplices. Relics of saints were exhumed with which to work
miracles. The break with "paganism" was thus made less marked.
Another dogma was hatched from the slime of the Nile. Setting
aside the spiritual conception of the Supreme Being, it was taught
that God was anthropomorphic, a person in shape like a man. The
patriarch adopted the new doctrine, and seems to have enforced its
general acceptance by the aid of an army of soldiers and monks, who
drove the other party from the country.
The Catechetic School, which had been established and
sustained by Clement, Origen and others of superior scholastic
attainment was in the way of the new form of religious progress. The
ignorance and fanaticism that reigned in Upper Egypt and Mount
Nitria, repudiated utterly the learning of the teachers at Alexandreia.
The patriarch took sides with the larger party, which was sure to be
better fitted to his purposes, the Catechetic school was closed, and
the Arian church-buildings were seized by the partisans of the
patriarch.
Cyril succeeded to Theophilus and maintained the same policy.
He had no sooner seated himself in the archi-episcopal chair than he
set himself at the suppressing of rival religious beliefs. The
Novatians were first assailed, and after that the Jews were driven
from Alexandreia. The learning of the city was now in the hands of
the adherents of the former worship, and Hypatia was teaching in the
School of Philosophy. The next step to be taken was to put her out of
the way, and her murder was the one infamous act which placed a
lasting stigma upon the reputation of the unscrupulous ecclesiastic.
His whole career was characterized by kindred enormities.
In the French Revolution of 1793, one faction had been no
sooner exterminated than another as formidable appeared in the
ranks of the victorious party. The course of affairs in Egypt at this
period was in strict analogy. The Arians who were suppressed at
Alexandreia, found protection in the camp of the army, and flourished
for many years. They dedicated a church at Babylon to their
murdered bishop, now St. George of England, and the country
abounded with pictures on the walls of the churches representing him
as slaying the Dragon of Athanasian error. About this time Eutyches,
of Constantinople, a partisan of Cyril, was excommunicated by a
Council for teaching that Jesus Christ had only one nature, that of the
Logos incarnate, aid therefore his body was not like that of other
men. The Egyptian church took up the controversy and was
condemned by the Council of Chalkedon. This separated Egypt from
the Catholic Church, and brought the religious war into geographic
lines.
While these things were going on, the Nubians overran Upper
Egypt. It had been confidently affirmed that under the forceful
measures that had been employed, the old worship had been
effectually suppressed. Now, however, it sprang up anew. Large
numbers of monks, and others who had professed Christianity, now
took part at the rites of lsis and Serapis. This was all within seventy
years after the decree of Theodosius, and less than forty years after
the death of Hypatia.
There were troublous times over the whole Roman world. The
change of religion had by no means strengthened the Empire, either
politically or morally. It had been followed instead, by incessant
rivalries of the clergy, and innumerable religious broils, all of which
tended to weaken the imperial authority. The ill-governed provinces
revolted, and the various peoples and tribes from Northern Europe
swarmed over the Southern countries, and even into Africa. After
Vandals, Goths and Allemans, came the Huns, most terrible of all.
Attila carried devastation close to the walls of Constantinople and
then into the heart of Italy. There he died in the year 453.
The School of Philosophy at Alexandreia had still continued its
work. Like the flexible reed, it had bent as the storm passed over it,
and then risen from the earth erect as ever. The extinguishing of one
luminary had not utterly darkened its sky, but only served to reveal
the presence of other stars that had not been observed before.
Severe as was the shock from the murder of the daughter of Theon,
there were others to occupy the place acceptably in the lecture-room.
Syrianus was the principal teacher. He was learned and
profound; and his lectures were frequented from all regions of
Western Asia. He was an indefatigable writer, and produced
extensive expositions and commentaries upon the doctrines of Plato
and Pythagoras. His works, however, have been left untranslated.
He wrote a commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, of which
there is a Latin version, and controverts the objections of that
philosopher. He was a zealous Platonist, and at the same time he
regarded the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry with a veneration
similar to that which he entertained for Plato himself.
Among the students who attended his lectures were Moses, of
Chorene, and two others from Armenia. Isaac, the patriarch of that
country and Mesrobes, a statesman of great learning, had planned
the forming of an Armenian alphabet after the plan of the Greek.
Heretofore, writing had been done sometimes with Greek letters,
sometimes with Persian, and sometimes with Aramaic or Chaldean.
Under such conditions a high degree of enlightenment was not easy
to maintain. The Alexandreian text of the Bible was regarded by them
as the authentic version. The translation in their possession had
been made from the Hebrew or Aramaic, and was written in Aramaic
letters. They resolved to have a new Armenian version from the text
which they regarded as the genuine original. Moses and his
companions were accordingly sent by them to Alexandreia, as being
the first school of learning in the Roman world.
The young men, of course, were Christians, and likewise
admirers of the Patriarch. They were too sagacious, however, not to
be aware that the knowledge of the Greek language in its purity was
not to be had from Cyril and his ill-taught associates. They
accordingly joined the Platonic School and became pupils of
Syrianus. Under his tuition they made remarkable proficiency in the
several departments of Greek literature. Not only were they able to
make the desired new translation of the Bible, but they extended their
labors to the writings of different classic authors. As a result of this,
Armenia became a seat of learning. It held this distinction until the
next conquest. The history of Armenia which was written by Moses of
Chorene is a monument of learning and accuracy.
Shortly after this, Syrianus left Alexandreia. The Platonic
School at Athens, at which Hypatia and Synesios had been students,
was now enjoying a fair degree of prosperity. Its conductors
extended an invitation to Syrianus to remove to that city and become
its leader. Alexandreia was fast losing its reputation as a literary
metropolis. The invitation was accepted, and from this time the later
Platonism made its home in the city of the former Akademeia.
 In the meanwhile a vigorous attempt was made to establish a
Peripatetic School of Philosophy at Alexandreia. Olympiodoros, a
native of Upper Egypt, was the founder. He possessed excellent
literary ability and composed several works; among them
commentaries upon the writings of Aristotle, a treatise upon the
Sacred Art of Alchemy, a history, and several other works that are
now lost. His endeavors to establish a new Lyceum, however, were
not very successful. It was true that after the closing of the
Catechetic School, there had been a turning of attention to the
doctrines of Aristotle; and these have since been in high favor it the
Roman Church. But there had been set up partisan lines at
Alexandreia between adherents of the old worship and the new, and
Alexandreian Christians were hardly willing to sit at the feet of a
teacher, however excellent, who did not subscribe to the formulas of
doctrine promulgated by the Council of Nikaia.
Very little of the literature of that period has been preserved to
the present time. One cause, doubtless, was the bigotry and
intolerance of Emperors and prelates, who required all books to be
destroyed which they did not approve. Another was the increasing
indifference to classic learning and literary attainment. This certainly
was the fact in Egypt. The arts in which that country had formerly
excelled were now passing utterly out of knowledge.
The skill in preparing of papyrus was almost wholly lost. There
were eight different kinds of this article. The hieratic was the best,
and was used for the sacred books at the Temples, and for the scrolls
in the Great Library. Two more kinds, equal to it in value, were
devised in the reign of the Emperor Octavianus; and there were two
cheaper kinds sold in Rome. The Saitic papyrus was of inferior
quality and was sold by weight. There were now other kinds made at
Alexandreia after what were considered improved methods, which,
nevertheless, like the cheap paper of our modern time, soon fell to
pieces. Every book written upon it has perished. No book which was
written between the third and eleventh centuries of the present era
has remained, except those which were written upon vellum or
parchment. Hence we know little more of the philosophers of Egypt.
A literature which cannot be preserved becomes speedily a dead
literature, and a people without a literature is barbarous.
There was, however, one distinguished pupil in the School of
Olympiodoros who was destined to outshine those who had gone
before him. Proklos, the son of an Asian of the city of Xanthos, in
Lykia, came to Alexandreia to pursue his studies. He omitted no
opportunity to perfect himself in liberal knowledge. Besides attending
at the lectures of Olympiodoros, he also received instruction in
mathematics from Hero, rhetoric from Leonas, general knowledge
from Orion, a native Egyptian of sacerdotal lineage, and in the Latin
language at the Roman College. He was also in familiar relations
with the principal men of learning at Alexandreia. He appears to have
been unfavorably impressed by what he witnessed of the social and
religious influences prevalent in the city. He removed to Athens, and
became the pupil of Syrianus and Asklepigenia, the daughter of
Plutarch. So broad and profound was his learning that Syrianus
named him as his own successor in the School of Philosophy.
At the age of twenty-eight he produced his masterpiece, the
Commentary on the Timaios of Plato. Only five books of this work
remain; the others are lost. He also wrote a Commentary on the
First Alkibiades, a treatise on the Platonic Theology, Theologic
Institutes, a Grammatic Chrestomathy, and Eighteen Arguments
against the Christians; also Hymns to the Sun, to the Muses, two to
Aphrodite, one to Hekate and Janus, and one to Athena.
Proklos was thoroughly proficient in the Oriental Theosophy.
He considered the Orphic Hymns and the Chaldaean Oracles as
divine revelations. He had the deepest confidence in his own sacred
calling and office. He regarded himself as the last link in the Hermaic
chain, the latest of the men set apart by Hermes, through whom, by
perpetual revelation, was preserved the occult knowledge signified in
the Mysteries.
He could not conceive of the Creation of the Universe by
arbitrary fiat, and excepted to Christianity because it was
unphilosophic in respect to this subject. He believed the utterance of
the Chaldean Oracles in the matter: That prior to all things is the
One, the Monad, immovable in ever-being. By projecting his own
essence, he manifests himself as Two - the Duad - the Active and
Passive, the Positive and Negative, the essence of Mind and the
principle of Matter. By the conjoining of these two the cosmos or
universe emanates with all things that pertain to it.
Proklos, however, did not teach that evil was of or from matter,
but consisted in an arresting or constraining of energy in its legitimate
action.
He inculcated the harmony of all truth, and endeavored
accordingly to show that there was a direct and vital connection
between every teacher, however much they might seem to differ.
There was really an agreement, he affirmed, between the Dialectic of
Plato and the Reasonings of Aristotle, between the Chaldaean
Oracles and the Western Philosophy. The following summary, made
by the writer from his treatise entitled The Later Platonists, presents a
fair delineation of his views.
"He [Proklos] elaborated the entire Theosophy and Theurgy of
his predecessors into a complete system. Like the Rabbis and
Gnostics, he cherished a profound reverence for the Abraxas, the
'Word' or 'Venerable Name,' and he believed with lamblichos in the
attaining of a divine or magic power, which, overcoming the mundane
life, rendered the individual an organ of the Divinity, speaking a
wisdom that he did not comprehend, and becoming the utterance of a
Superior Will. He even taught that there were symbols or tokens that
would enable a person to pass from one order of spiritual beings to
another, higher and higher, till he arrived at the absolute Divine.
Faith, he inculcated, would make one the possessor of this talisman.
"His Theology was like that of the others. 'There are many
inferior divinities' he reiterated from Aristotle, but only one Mover. All
that is said concerning the human shape and attributes of these
divinities is mere fiction, invented to instruct the common people and
secure their obedience to wholesome laws. The First Principle,
however, is neither Fire nor Earth, nor Water, nor anything that is the
object of sense. A spiritual substance [Mind] is the Cause of the
Universe and the source of all order and excellence, all the activity
and all the forms that are so much admired in it. All must be led up to
this Primal Substance which governs in subordination to the FIRST.
"This is the general doctrine of the Ancients, which has happily
escaped the wreck of Truth amid the rocks of popular error and poetic
fables."
"The state after death, the metempsychosis or superior life is
thus explained by him: 'After death the soul continues in the aerial till
it is entirely purified from all angry and voluptuous passions; them it
doth put off by a second dying of the aerial body, as it did of the
earthly one. Wherefore, the ancients say that there is a celestial
body always joined with the soul, which is immortal, luminous, and
star-like.'"
Perhaps no philosopher of the ancient period was more broad,
more catholic and liberal in his views, and yet so comprehensive.
Proklos comprises in a single concept, the "good law" of Zoroaster,
the dharma of India, the oracular wisdom of the Chaldean sages, the
gnosis and intuition of Western mystics. We are forcibly reminded of
the confession of the audience on the day of Pentecost, that
everyone however remote and alien in personal affiliations, heard
alike the utterance of the apostle in his own language.

(Un. Brotherhood, Aug., 1898)

--------------

THE ECLECTIC PHILOSOPHY

- Alexander Wilder

Dr. Alexander Wilder was born May 14, 1823, in Verona,

Oneida County, New York, and died in Newark, New Jersey,
September 8, 1908. Theosophists will recall H.P. Blavatsky's
reference to him and the "Eclectic Theosophical system" in her Key
to Theosophy, Chapter 1, and that he contributed to material
composing the section "Before the Veil" in Isis Unveiled. The
following are extracts from Wilder's New Platonism and Alchemy, one
of the valuable Secret Doctrine Reference Series published by
Wizards Bookshelf, Box 6600, San Diego, California. The full title
reads: "New Platonism and Alchemy: a Sketch of the Doctrines and
Principal Teachers of the Eclectic or Alexandrian School; also An
Outline of the Interior Doctrines of the Alchemists of the Middle Ages"
by Alexander Wilder, Albany, N.Y., 1869. Wizards Bookshelf also
gives a brief sketch of his life. - Eds.
----------

The name by which Ammonias Saccas, designated himself and

his disciples, was that of Philaletheians, or lovers of the truth. They
were also sometimes denominated Analogeticists, because of their
practice of interpreting all sacred legends and narratives, myths and
mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and correspondence, so
that events which were related as having occurred in the external
world were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of
the human soul. It has, however, been usual to speak of them by the
designation of Neoplatonists or New Platonists, and, indeed, by this
name they are generally known.
 Writers have generally fixed the time of the development of the
Eclectic theosophical system during the third century of the Christian
era. It appears to have had a beginning much earlier, and, indeed, is
traced by Diogenes Laertius to an Egyptian prophet or priest named
Pot-Amun,* who flourished in the earlier years of the dynasty of the
Ptolemies.

----------
* This name is Coptic, and signifies one consecrated to Amun,
the god or genius of Wisdom.
----------

The establishment of the Macedonian kingdom in Egypt had

been followed by the opening of schools of science and philosophy at
the new capitol. Alexandria soon became celebrated as the
metropolis of literature; every faith and sect had representatives
there. There had always been communication between the sages of
Bactria and upper India and the philosophers of the West. The
conquests of Alexander, Selencus and the Romans had increased the
acquaintance. The learned men now thronged Alexandria. The
Platonists seem to have been most numerous and to have held their
ground the longest. Under Philadelphus, Judaism was also planted
there, and the Hellenic teachers became rivals of the College of
Rabbis of Babylon. The Buddhistic, Vedantic and Magian systems
were expounded along with the philosophies of Greece. It was not
wonderful that thoughtful men supposed that the strife of words ought
to cease, and considered it possible to extract one harmonious
system from the various teachings....
Ammonius Saccas, the great teacher, who would seem to have
been raised up for the work of reconciling the different systems, was
a native of Alexandria, and the son of Christian parents, although
associating much with those who adhered to the established religion
of the empire. He was a man of rare learning and endowments, of
blameless life and amiable disposition. His almost superhuman ken
and many excellencies won for him the title of theodidaktos, or God-
taught; but he followed the modest example of Pythagoras, and only
assumed the title of philaletheian, or love of the truth ....
... Under the noble designation of Wisdom, the ancient
teachers, the sages of India, the magians of Persia and Babylon, the
seers and prophets of Israel, the hierophants of Egypt and Arabia,
and the philosophers of Greece and the West, included all knowledge
which they considered as essentially divine; classifying a part as
esoteric and the remainder as exterior. The Hebrew Rabbis called
the exterior and secular series the Mercavah, as being the body or
vehicle which contained the higher knowledges. Theology, worship,
vaticination, music, astronomy, the healing art, morals and
statesmanship were all thus comprised.
Thus Ammonius found his work ready to his hand. His deep
spiritual intuition, his extensive learning, his familiarity with the
Christian fathers, Pantaenus, Clement and Athenagoras, and with the
most erudite philosophers of the time, all fitted him for the labor which
he performed so thoroughly. He was successful in drawing to his
views the greatest scholars and public men of the Roman Empire,
who had little taste for wasting time in dialectic pursuits or
superstitious observances. The results of his ministration are
perceptible at the present day in every country of the Christian world;
every prominent system of doctrine now bearing the marks of his
plastic hand. Every ancient philosophy has had its votaries among
the moderns; and even Judaism, oldest of them all, has taken upon
itself changes which were suggested by the 'God-taught' Alexandrian.
Like Orpheus, Pythagoras, Confucius, Socrates, and Jesus
himself, Ammonius committed nothing to writing. Instead, he only
inculcated moral truths upon his auditors, while he communicated his
more important doctrines to persons duly instructed and disciplined,
imposing on them the obligations of secrecy, as was done before him
by Zoroaster and Pythagoras, and in the Mysteries. Except a few
treatises of his disciples, we have only the declarations of his
adversaries from which to ascertain what he actually taught.
This was, however, no exception to the common rule. The
older worship, which was preserved in a certain degree in the
Mysteries, required on oath from the neophytes or catechumens not
to divulge what they had learned. The great Pythagoras divided his
teachings into exoteric and esoteric.

(Eclectic Theosophist, No. 75)

----------------

THE TEACHINGS OF PLOTINOS

- Professor Alexander Wilder, M.D.
 Augustin, the celebrated bishop of Hippo in Northern Africa,
described Plotinos as "Plato risen from the dead." The singular
probity of his character, his profound knowledge, his intuitive
perception which often seemed like omniscience, his ecstatic vision
of Divinity, joined with extraordinary sagacity in worldly matters,
seemed to warrant such a declaration. The little that is known of his
personal history has been given by his more distinguished disciple,
Porphyry, who considered him divinely inspired.
The Platonic philosophy had been preserved by the Older
Akademe approximating somewhat toward the Pythagorean
principles and then returning to the doctrines of the great philosopher.
There were also other schools, more or less amplifying his teachings
in the way down to the close of the Macedonian period. The
establishment or the famous Museum and Library at Alexandreia was
the occasion for a new departure. The representatives of every
school of thought were invited thither, Wise Men of the Far East,
together with the Sages of the regions then known as the West.
There had occurred a great upheaval in philosophic and religious
thought, which added importance to the undertaking. Asoka, a
Piyadarsi of India, having abandoned Jainism for Buddhism, had
engaged in the most extensive work of propaganda ever known, and
sent eighty thousand missionaries, Southward, Eastward, Northward,
and even to the Greek-speaking countries. The Jews had their
Temple in Egypt, erected by their legitimate High Priest, and not
inferior to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, or its rival on Mount Gerizim.
There were also Therapeutae, and sects of philosophy not necessary
to enumerate. All were welcomed by the Ptolemies to the Lecture
Rooms at their capital, and their books were eagerly procured for the
Great Library. There was also a purpose to surpass the similar
enterprise then in active operation at Pergamos.
Under these auspices there was developed a disposition to
reconcile the conflicting sentiments, and harmonize as far as might
be, the several schools of belief. As the Platonic philosophy was
most complete of all and included the higher speculation,
metaphysical mid ethical idealism, it was best suited for the
foundation of an eclectic effort. Contiguity with the East and the
general adoption of the occult Mithraic Rites over the Roman world
operated powerfully to mitigate the hostilities incident to the various
national and tribal religions. There arose at one time and another
men of ability to prepare the way for a harmony of philosophic
systems. Phila, Appolonios of Tyana, Alexander the Aphrodisian and
others may be named in the number.
Ammonios Sakkas of Alexandreia, however is generally
accredited as the first teacher of what is distinctly recognized as Neo-
Platonism. Like other great leaders, little is recorded of him
personally. An Indian orator once addressed a missionary: "The
Great Spirit speaks: we hear his voice in the winds, in the rustling of
the trees, and the purling of the streams of water; but he does not
write!'' The great teachers seem to have been equally silent with pen
and stylus. Konfusi, Gautama, Zoroaster, Sokrates, Jesus are known
only through their professed disciples. It was more common to
publish recondite doctrines under another name as Hermes
Trismegistos, to which we may add the Sokrates of Plato's Dialogues,
Zarathustra of the Vendidad, Dionysios the Areopagite, Christian
Rosenkreutz, and others with which we are more familiar. The entire
dogmas of Pythagoras were inculcated with the prefix of "Ipse dixit";
and Plato it was affirmed, taught a doctrine orally which his disciples
promulgated in like manner, but which was not preserved in writing.
Ammonios Sakkas taught at Alexandreia in the earlier years of
the Third Century of the present era. It was his belief that true
doctrines were contained in every faith and philosophic system, and
he proposed to winnow them out for an Eclectic Scheme. The name
selected for himself and followers was that of Philaletheans, or lovers
of the truth. A Zoroastrian tendency may be perceived; the Eranian
doctrines were designated as truth; all divergent systems, as "the
Lie," He had a select body of disciples whom he obligated to secrecy,
considering that the "Wisdom of the Ancients" was too holy to be
confided to profane persons. This obligation, however, was set aside
by Hercunius after his death.
Plotinos, however, became the representative and chief apostle
of the new Eclectic Philosophy. He was a native of Lykopolis or Siut
in Upper Egypt, and was born in the year 205. He became a student
at Alexandreia in 233, but was about to leave in disappointment when
he was introduced by a friend to Ammonios Sakkas. He at once in a
transport devoted himself to the new philosophy, remaining with the
school eleven years. At this time the amiable youth Gordian (Marcus
Antoninus Pius Gordianus) had become Emperor, and now set out on
an expedition into the Parthian dominions. Plotinos accompanied the
army with the purpose "to study the philosophy of the Parthians and
the Wisdom particularly cultivated by the Indian Sages." His
expectation, however, was not realized, the Emperor being
assassinated by a rival.
He now came to Rome, where he engaged zealously in his
esoteric studies. It was his aim to restore the philosophy of Plato in
its essential character, and in short to live the life of the disembodied
while yet in the body, as is set forth in the Phaedo. He had many
disciples, many of them senators, physicians, and others of
philosophic tastes. Among them was Porphyrios, a native of Tyre,
who at his request afterward edited and revised his work. Though he
lived a celibate and carefully abstained from public affairs, he was
often made a trustee and guardian of orphan children, particularly
fatherless girls, and their estates, and also an arbiter of disputes, and
he always discharged these trusts with absolute fidelity. The Roman
Emperor Gallienus, who greatly admired him, bestowed upon him a
deserted city in Campania, to which was given the name of
Platonopolis, and he made an endeavor to establish there a Platonic
Politeia, but without success. The courtiers hindered his efforts.
In many respects he resembled the Yogis of India. He was
ascetic in his habits, abstaining from animal food, and he is described
as "ashamed that his soul was in a body." He would not let his
picture be painted, or tell the name of his parents or the race to which
he belonged, or even discourse about his native country. Though
often dyspeptic and subject to colic, he refused medical treatment, as
unfit for a man of adult years. He never bathed, but made daily use
of massage. A pestilence raged at Rome with such violence that five
thousand persons are said to have perished in a single day. Plotinos
was one of the victims. His servants had died from the epidemic,
leaving none to care for him, and he suffered terribly. His voice was
lost, his eyes blinded, and offensive ulcers covered him to his hands
and even his feet. He lingered in this condition till the year 270. In
this condition he was carried to Campania, where friends ministered
to him. Here he was visited by Eustochius from Putechi. "I have
expected you," said the dying man. "I am now endeavoring that my
divine part may return to that divine essence that pervades the
universe." He was sixty-four years old at the time of his death.
The veneration which the disciples of Plotinos entertained for
him was almost a worship. He was reputed to possess superhuman
powers. Those who became familiar with him, like those associating
with Sokrates, passed thenceforward a better life. A lady named
Khion with her daughters living in his house, lost a valuable necklace,
and Plotinos, looking among the servants, picked out the thief.
Polemo, a young man of his acquaintance, was told that he would
have a loose life, and die early. Porphyry himself construed too
literally the notion of hating the body, and was contemplating suicide.
Plotinos perceived this, and pronouncing it the effect of disease, sent
him to Sicily, where he recovered, but never saw his preceptor again.
An Egyptian priest at Rome employed a theurgic test in order to
discover the guardian demon of Plotinos. It was done in the temple
of Isis, but one of the higher order appeared. "Thou hast a God for a
guardian," he declared. On another occasion, one Olympius
attempted to bring upon him by magic art the baneful influence of the
stars, but the malignant defluxion was reflected upon himself. "Pius
endeavor was several times repeated, but always with a similar
result. The soul of Plotinos repelled every evil assault. It was always
tending to Divinity'' says Porphyry.
The oracle was consulted. and described him as blessed of the
Muses and possessing endless bliss. "By the assistance of this
Divine Light,'' says Porphyry, he had frequently raised himself by his
conceptions to the First God who is beyond, and by employing for this
purpose the Paths narrated by Plato in The Banquet, there appeared
to him the Supreme Divinity who has neither form nor ideal, but is
established above mind and everything spiritual - to whom also, I,
Porphyry, say that I was approached and was united when I was
sixty-eight years of age..... The gods frequently directed him into the
right path by benignantly extending to him abundant rays of divine
light: so that he may be said to have composed his works from the
contemplation and intuition of Divinity."
Plotinos did not readily compose books. Not till Porphyry
became his disciple did he begin, and he gave his compositions to
Porphyry to revise. He prepared some fifty-four treatises which were
comprehended in the six Enneads of nine parts each. We may
surmise his estimate of his redactor by his praise of a poem, The
Sacred Marriage, composed by the latter. "You have thus yourself at
the same time a poet, a philosopher, and an hierophant."
It was the purpose of Plotinos to combine and systematize the
various religious and philosophic theories, by exalting them to the
higher concept. He taught the fact of three hypostases or foundation
principles - the Absolute Good, Mind and Soul. "For," says Taylor,
"according to Plato, the Good is superessential; Intellect is an
impartible, immovable essence, and Soul is a self-motive essence,
and subsists as a medium between Intellect and the nature which is
distributed about bodies."
The Divine Being is accordingly designated by Plotinos, "The
Good," "The One," "The First," "The First Cause." In essence he is
absolutely one and unchangeable; but plurality and changeableness
pertain to his workings. He is the Light shining into the darkness or
chaos. The first sphere of his activity is Mind or Intellect, in which he
differentiates himself into consciousness and its objects. In this Mind
are the Ideas or idealities, which are at once the archetypes and
moving forces of the universe. From it all things proceed.
Thus, the Divine Spirit is the self-active, creating principle, and
from spirit all matter is derived. The world and the universe are the
product of spirit: as also Paul declared: "All things are out from
God.''
The most immediate product of Spirit, as Plotinos taught, is
Soul, which in its turn shapes matter into corporeal conditions.
Receiving from the Spirit the world of ideas and the image or
archetype, it forms and fashions the world of Sense.
All existence, therefore, is an emanation and projection from
the Divine One - not in time, however, but in Eternity. There is also,
he inculcated, a returning impulse attracting all again to the centre
and source. Hence he made less account of external knowledges,
but regarded the real truth as to be apprehended by an immediate
divine illumination. He held revelation to be a perception the
individual attains, by coming in touch with the Deity. This is Ecstasy -
an absence and separation of the spirit or superior intellect from the
sensation and consciousness of the body and from the external
memory, being rapt in contemplation of the Absolute Good.
Sokrates himself was frequently in this enthusiastic condition.
Alkibiades describes him in the Banquet as one day during the
Athenian expedition to Potides, standing by himself in contemplation,
from early dawn till mid-day and on through the night till next morning,
when he performed an invocation to the Sun and went away.
Xenokrates was also thus absent from the body. Paul describes a
similar rapture when he was himself in the third heaven or paradise
hearing things unspeakable. In the initiations at the ancient
mysteries, particularly at Eleusinia, it was attempted to produce or
develop an analogous condition.
Sokrates in the Phaedo describes the philosophic soul as
retiring within itself, pushing aside the body as far as possible, having
no communication with it, and so aiming at the discovery of that
which is. Plotinos also teaches that the wise one cognizes the ideal
of the Divine Good within him by withdrawing into the Sanctuary of
his own soul. Others seek to realize it, as in the Theurgic Rites, by
laborious effort of an external character. The true aim is to
concentrate and simplify. Instead of going out into the manifold, the
true way is to forsake it for the One, and so to float upward toward the
Divine fountain of being which flows in each of us.
He declares we cannot attain to this knowing of the Infinite by
the exercising of the reasoning faculty. It is the province of that
faculty to distinguish and define; and the infinite may not be thus
brought within limitations. Only by a faculty superior to the
understanding can we apprehend the Infinite; and this may be done
by entering into a state in which the individual is no longer his finite
self, and in which the Divine Essence is communicated to him. This
is Ecstasy - the liberating of the mind from the finite consciousness.
Like can only apprehend like; thus ceasing to be finite we become
one with the Infinite. In the reducing of the Soul to this simple
condition, its divine essence, this union or identity is realized.
The mind is thus illumined with divine light. The person cannot
tell whence it comes or whither it goes.* It is he, rather, who
approaches to it or withdraws. One must not pursue it, but abide
waiting for it patiently, as if looking for the sun to rise above the
ocean. The soul, blind to all beside, gazes intently on the ideal vision
of the Beautiful, and is glorified as it contemplates it.

-----------
* Jesus says to Nicodemus: "The pneuma or spirit moves
whither it will, and thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it
goeth: So is every one that is born of the Spirit."
------------

This condition, Plotinos says, is not one that endures

permanently. Our common human nature is not sufficient for it. It
may be enjoyed now and then. All that tends to purify the mind will
assist in the attainment, and facilitate the approach and recurring of
these felicitous experiences.
There are different paths to the Sublime Height. Every one may
take the one that is best suited to him. There is the love of beauty
and excellence which inspires the poet; the devotion to the Supreme
One and the pursuit of the Superior Knowledge which impel the
philosopher; the piety and love which characterize the ardent soul.
These are so many paths conducting to the heights above the actual
and the particular; and then we stand in the immediate presence of
the Infinite, who shines out as from the deeps of the soul.
It will be perceived that Plotinos extends human consciousness
from the physical and psychic, of which we all know, to a supra-
consciousness or apperception in which the higher intellect or spirit is
brought into communion with its like, and to the realization of being
one with Divinity itself. This is the acme of Neo-Platonism. The
Mysticism of later centuries which Dionysius, Eckart, Boehmen, and
Malinos inculcated, and which Sa'adi and others diffused in the
Moslem body, took from this an inspiration. The Apostle Paul himself
recognized the doctrine. He describes the entirety of man as "spirit
and soul and body," and "delights in the law of God after the inner
man." He also treats of the "psychic man" that does not receive the
things of the spirit, and ''one that is spirited, who knoweth the All, but
is not himself known by any."
lamblichos of Coelosyria mingled with these doctrines a
Theurgic Initiation after the manner of the Egyptian priests and
Theosophers and was followed by Proklos and others. But in its
simplicity as taught by Plotinos and Porphyry, there were no such
secret observances, but only a general conforming to the customs
instituted for the general public. It was enough for the philosopher to
contemplate excellence and by a pure and true life realize it in
himself. Such are they of whom the world is not worthy.

- Alexander Wilder

(Theosophy, Sept., 1897)

----------------

THE TEACHINGS OF PLATO

by Professor Alexander Wilder, M.D.

"' Eagle! why soarest thou above that tomb?

To what sublime and starry-paven home
 Floatest thou?'
'I am the image of great Plato's sprit
Ascending heaven; Athens doth inherit
His corpse below.'"

"Out of Plato" says Ralph Waldo Emerson, "come all things that
are still written and debated among men of thought." All else seems
ephemeral, perishing with the day. The science and mechanic arts of
the present time, which are prosecuted with so much assiduity, are
superficial and short-lived. When Doctor James Simpson succeeded
his distinguished uncle at the University of Edinburgh, he directed the
librarian to remove the textbooks which were more than ten years old,
as obsolete. The skilled inventions and processes in mechanism
have hardly a longer duration. Those which were exhibited at the first
World's Fair in 1851 are now generally gone out of use, and those
displayed at the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876 are fast
giving place to newer ones that serve the purposes better. All the
science which is comprised within the purview of the senses, is in like
manner, unstable and subject to transmutation. What appears today
to be fundamental fact is very certain to be found, tomorrow, to be
dependent upon something beyond. It is like the rustic's hypothesis
that the earth stands upon a rock, and that upon another rock, and so
on; there being rocks all the way down. But Philosophy, penetrating
to the profounder truth and including the Over-Knowledge in its field,
never grows old, never becomes out of date, but abides through the
ages in perennial freshness.
The style and even the tenor of the Dialogues have been
criticised, either from misapprehension of their purport or from a
desire to disparage Plato himself. There is a vanity for being
regarded as original, or as first to open the way into a new field of
thought and investigation, which is sometimes as deep-seated as a
cancer and about as difficult to eradicate. From this, however, Plato
was entirely free. His personality is everywhere veiled by his
philosophy.
At the time when Plato flourished, the Grecian world had
undergone great revolutions. The former times had passed away.
Herakles and Theseus, the heroes of the Myths, were said to have
vanquished the man-slaying monsters of the worship of Hippa and
Poseidon, or in other words supplanting the Pelasgian period by the
Hellenic and Ionian. The arcane rites of Demeter had been softened
and made to represent a drama of soul-history. The Tragedians had
also modified and popularized the worship of Dionysos at the
Theatre-Temple of Athens. Philosophy, first appearing in Ionia had
come forth into bolder view, and planted itself upon the firm
foundation of psychologic truth. Plato succeeded to all, to the
Synthetists of the Mysteries, the Dramatists of the Stage, to Sokrates
and those who had been philosophers before him.
Great as he was, he was the outcome of the best thought of his
time. In a certain sense there has been no new religion. Every
world-faith has come from older ones as the result of new inspiration,
and Philosophy has its source in religious veneration. Plato himself
recognized the archaic Wisdom-Religion as "the most unalloyed form
of worship, to the Philosophy of which, in primitive ages, Zoroaster
made many additions drawn from the Mysteries of the Chaldeans."
When the Persian influence extended into Asia Minor, there sprung
up philosophers in Ionia and Greece. The further progress of the
religion of Mazda was arrested at Salamis, but the evangel of the
Pure Thought, Pure Word, and Pure Deed was destined to permeate
the Western World during the succeeding ages. Plato gave voice to
it, and we find the marrow of the Oriental Wisdom in his dialectic. He
seems to have joined the occult lore of the East, the conceptions of
other teachers, and the under-meaning of the arcane rites, the
physical and metaphysical learning of India and Asia, and wrought
the whole into forms adapted to European comprehension.
His leading discourses, those which are most certainly genuine,
are characterized by the inductive method. He displays a multitude of
particulars for the purpose of inferring a general truth. He does not
endeavor so much to implant his own conviction as to enable the
hearer and reader to attain one intelligently, for themselves. He is in
quest of principles, and leading the argument to that goal. Some of
the Dialogues are described as after the manner of the Bacchic
dithyrambic, spoken or chanted at the Theatre; others are transcripts
of Philosophic conversations. Plato was not so much teaching as
showing others how to learn.
His aim was to set forth the nature of man and the end of his
being. The great questions of who, whence and whither, comprise
what he endeavored to illustrate. Instead of dogmatic affirmation, the
arbitrary ipse dixit of Pythagoras and his oath of secrecy, we have a
friend, one like ourselves, familiarly and patiently leading us on to
investigation as though we were doing it of our own accord.
Arrogance and pedantic assumption were out of place in the
Akademe.
The whole Platonic teaching is based upon the concept of
Absolute Goodness. Plato was vividly conscious of the immense
profundity of the subject. "To discover the Creator and Father of this
universe, as well as his operation, is indeed difficult; and when
discovered it is impossible to reveal him." In him Truth, Justice and
the Beautiful are eternally one. Hence the idea of the Good is the
highest branch of study.
There is a criterion by which to know the truth, and Plato sought
it out. The perceptions of sense fail utterly to furnish it. The law of
right for example, is not the law of the strongest, but what is always
expedient for the strongest. The criterion is therefore no less than the
conceptions innate in every human soul. These relate to that which is
true, because it is ever-abiding. What is true is always right - right
and therefore supreme; eternal and therefore always good. In its
inmost essence it is Being itself; in its form by which we are able to
contemplate it, it is justice and virtue in the concepts of essence,
power and energy.
These concepts are in every human soul and determine all
forms of our thought. We encounter them in our most common
experiences and recognize them as universal principles, infinite and
absolute. However latent and dormant they may seem, they are
ready to be aroused, and they enable us to distinguish spontaneously
the wrong from the right. They are memories, we are assured, that
belong to our inmost being, and to the eternal world. They
accompanied the soul into this region of time, of ever-becoming and
of sense. The soul, therefore, or rather its inmost spirit or intellect,* is
of and from eternity. It is not so much an inhabitant of the world of
nature as a sojourner from the eternal region. Its trend and ulterior
destination are accordingly toward the beginning from which it
originally set out.

-------------
* Plato taught that the amative or passional soul was not
immortal.
-------------

The Vision of Eros in the tenth book of the Republic suggests

the archaic conception generally entertained that human beings dying
from the earth are presently born into new forms of existence, till the
three Weird Sisters shall have finished their task and the circle of
Necessity is completed. The events of each succeeding term of life
take a direction from what has occurred before. Much may be
imputed to heredity, but not all. This is implied in the question of the
disciples to Jesus: "Which sinned, this person or his parents, that he
should be born blind." We all are conscious of some occurrence or
experience that seems to pertain to a former term of life. It appears
to us as if we had witnessed scenes before, which must be some
recollection, except it be a remembrance inherited from ancestors, or
some spiritual essence has transferred it as from a camera obscura
into our consciousness. We may account it certain, at any rate, that
we are inhabitants of eternity, and of that eternity Time is as a colonial
possession and distinct allotment.
Every thing pertaining to this world of time and sense, is
constantly changing, and whatever it discloses to us is illusive. The
laws and reasons of things must be found out elsewhere. We must
search in the world which is beyond appearances, beyond sensation
and its illusions. There are in all minds certain qualities or principles
which underlie our faculty of knowing. These principles are older
than experience, for they govern it; and while they combine more or
less with our observations, they are superior and universal, and they
are apprehended by us as infinite and absolute. They are our
memories of the life of the eternal world, and it is the province of the
philosophic discipline to call them into activity as the ideals of
goodness and truth and beauty, and thus awaken the soul to the
cognizing of God.
This doctrine of ideas or idealities lies at the foundation of the
Platonic teachings. It assumes first of all, the presence and operation
of the Supreme Intelligence, an essence which transcends and
contains the principles of goodness, truth, and order. Every form or
ideal, every relation and every principle of right must be ever present
to the Divine Thought. Creation in all its details is necessarily the
image and manifestation of these ideas. "That which imparts truth to
knowable things," says Plato, "that which gives to the knower the
power of knowing the truth, is the Idea of the Good, and you are to
conceive of this as the Source of knowledge and truth."
A cognition of the phenomena of the universe may not be
considered as a real knowing. We must perceive that which is stable
and unchanging, - that which really is. It is not enough to be able to
regard what is beautiful and contemplate right conduct. The
philosopher, the lover of wisdom, looks beyond these to the Actual
Beauty, - to righteousness itself. This is the episteme of Plato, the
superior, transcendent knowing. This knowledge is actual
participating in the eternal principles themselves - the possessing of
them as elements of our own being.
Upon this, Plato bases the doctrine of our immortality. These
principles, the ideals of truth, beauty and goodness are eternal, and
those who possess them are ever-living. The learning of them is
simply the bringing of them into conscious remembrance.*

-------------
* Professor Cocker has given a classification of the Platonic
Scheme of Ideas, of which this is an abridgment.
I. The Idea of Absolute Truth. This is developed in the human
intelligence in its relation with the phenomenal world, as 1, the Idea of
Substance; 2, the Idea of Cause; 3, the Idea of Identity; 4, the Idea
of Unity; 5, the Idea of the Infinite.
II. The Idea of Absolute Beauty or Excellence. This is
developed in the human intelligence in its relation to the organic
world, as 1, the Idea of Proportion or Symmetry; 2, the Idea of
Determinate Form; 3, the Idea of Rhythm; 4, the Idea of Fitness or
Adaptation; 5, the Idea of Perfection.
III. The Idea of Absolute Good - the first cause or reason of all
existence, the sun of the invisible world that pours upon all things the
revealing light of truth. This idea is developed in the human
intelligence in its relation to the world of moral order, as 1, the Idea of
Wisdom or prudence; 2, the Idea of Courage or Fortitude; 3, the
Idea of Self-Control or Temperance; 4, the Idea of Justice. Under the
head of justice is included equity, veracity, faithfulness, usefulness,
benevolence and holiness.
-------------
In regard to Evil, Plato did not consider it as inherent in human
nature. "Nobody is willingly evil," he declares; "but when any one
does evil it is only as the imagined means to some good end. But in
the nature of things, there must always be a something contrary to
good. It cannot have its seat with the gods, being utterly opposed to
them, and so of necessity hovers round this finite mortal nature, and
this region of time and ever-changing. Wherefore," he declares, "we
ought to fly hence." He does not mean that we ought to hasten to
die, for he taught that nobody could escape from evil or eliminate it
from himself by dying. This flight is effected by resembling God as
much as is possible; "and this resemblance consists in becoming just
and holy through wisdom." There is no divine anger or favor to be
propitiated; nothing else than a becoming like the One, absolutely
good.
When Eutyphron explained that whatever is pleasing to the
gods is holy, and that that which is hateful to them is impious,
Sokrates appealed to the statements of the Poets, that there were
angry differences between the gods, so that the things and persons
that were acceptable to some of them were hateful to the others.
Everything holy and sacred must also be just. Thus he suggested a
criterion to determine the matter, to which every god in the Pantheon
must be subject. They were subordinate beings, and as is elsewhere
taught, are younger than the Demiurgus.
No survey of the teachings of the Akademe, though only
intended to be partial, will be satisfactory which omits a mention of
the Platonic Love. Yet it is essential to regard the subject
philosophically. For various reasons our philosopher speaks much in
metaphor, and they who construe his language in literal senses will
often err. His Banquet is a symposium of thought, and in no proper
sense a drinking bout. He is always moral, and when in his discourse
he begins familiarly with things as they existed around him, it was
with a direct purpose to lead up to what they are when absolutely
right. Love, therefore, which is recognized as a complacency and
attraction between human beings, he declares to be unprolific of
higher intellect. It is his aim to exalt it to an aspiration for the higher
and better. The mania or inspiration of Love is the greatest of
Heaven's blessings, he declares, and it is given for the sake of
producing the greatest blessedness. "What is Love?" asked Sokrates
of the God-honored Mantineke. "He is a great daemon," she replies,
"and, like all daemons, is intermediate between Divinity and mortal.
He interprets between gods and men, conveying to the gods the
prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies
of the gods. He is the mediator who spans the chasm that divides
them; in him all is bound together and through him the arts of the
prophet and priest, their sacrifices and initiations and charms, and all
prophecy and incantation find their way. For God mingles not with
men, but through Love all the intercourse and speech of God with
men, whether awake or asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which
understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as that of arts or
handicrafts, is mean and vulgar. Now these spiritual essences or
intermediaries are many and diverse, and one of them is Love."
It is manifest then, that Plato emulates no mere physical
attraction, no passionless friendship, but an ardent, amorous quest of
the Soul for the Good and the True. It surpasses the former as the
sky exceeds the earth. Plato describes it in glowing terms: "We,
having been initiated and admitted to the beatific vision, journeyed
with the chorus of heaven; beholding ravishing beauties ineffable
and possessing transcendent knowledge; for we were freed from the
contamination of that earth to which we are bound here, as an oyster
to his shell."
In short, goodness was the foundation of his ethics, and a
divine intuition the core of all his doctrines.
When, however, we seek after detail and formula for a religious
or philosophic system, Plato fails us. Herein each must minister to
himself. The Akademe comprised method rather than system; how
to know the truth, what fields to explore, what tortuous paths and
pitfalls to shun. Every one is left free in heart and mind to deduce his
own conclusions. It is the Truth, and not Plato or any other teacher,
that makes us free. And we are free only in so far as we perceive the
Supernal Beauty and apprehend the Good.

- Alexander Wilder

(Theosophy, July, 1897)

----------------

THE PARABLE OF ATLANTIS

- KEITIAS-TIMAIOS
by Alexander Wilder, M.D.

THE name of Kritias, which Plato prefixed to the last of the

Dialogues, was by no means popular in Athens. Belonging to one of
the most honored families, his career had not been worthy, or of
benefit to his country. For a time Kritias had been one of the
followers of Socrates, but upon being remonstrated with for his gross
misconduct, he turned from his teacher, and even became a bitter
enemy. Taking part in some of the revolutions after the death of
Pericles, Kritias was banished from Athens. He returned, however,
some years afterward, at the time that Lysander entered the city, and
was appointed a member of the Council of Thirty, which had been
created to frame a new constitution for the city. His ascendancy was
characterized by the capital execution of several thousand
individuals. He issued an edict forbidding lectures and discourse
upon philosophy and liberal learning. At the end of four months the
Athenians regained the control of public affairs and Kritias was slain
in a partisan conflict.
Despite the apparent incongruity of representing him as
sustaining friendly relations with Socrates, whom he actually had
endeavored to involve in serious difficulty and peril, it was evidently in
the mind of Plato to leave a remembrance of him which would be
more favorable, showing characteristics of real merit, and perhaps to
relieve his name from somewhat of the obloquy resting upon it. He
was an uncle of the philosopher and had endeavored to introduce his
nephew into the public service and otherwise promote his welfare.
Possibly one of the reasons for his hostility to Socrates had been for
his influence in attracting the young man from politics to philosophy;
and it may be that Plato himself, though he had refused to enter
public life under the conditions then prevailing, nevertheless
cherished gratitude for the efforts in his behalf; and perhaps there
were also considerations of family affection, which, indeed, in those
days were regarded as of transcendent importance.
Socrates had been represented in The Republic as having
described the commonwealth as it should be constituted, how its
citizens should be reared and instructed, and what is required for the
public defense and for the permanency and welfare of the entire
community. Kritias, who has been a silent listener, is now mentioned
by him as being thoroughly informed in these matters, and begins to
tell of an Athens of many thousand years before, that had been
established on such principles, and had maintained them successfully
and alone, in a war between the peoples of Greece and Atlantis. He
gives way, however, to the philosopher Timaios, whose extended
account of the origin of the universe, the human race and other
inhabitants, has already been noticed. He then follows in his turn
with a record which had been preserved in the family of Solon, and
declared to be in every respect true. When Solon had completed the
remodeling of the government of Athens and observed the effect of
his changes, he made a journey to Egypt. The former restrictions
upon foreigners had been relaxed, and at the order of the king,
Amosis II, who lived at Sais, he was admitted to the instructions
which were given at the temple of the goddess Neith.* Endeavoring
to draw them out in relation to matters of antiquity he affected to
boast of the progenitors of the Hellenic peoples. "Ah, Solon, Solon,"
responded the oldest priest of the group, "you Greeks are nothing but
boys, and there is not a Greek of any age really mature. You have no
traditions, no learning that is of any great antiquity." Then the old
man went on to tell of many great deluges, many devastations by
catastrophe and volcanic action, remarkable changes in the
configuration of the sky and other wonderful events.

-----------
* The names, "Sais" and "Neith," are words of two syllables, the
vowels not being diphthonged, are to be pronounced separately.
-----------

Then, he adds, there was an Athens, which had been founded

nine thousand years before and a thousand years before Sais itself.
It was a model city, and its customs had been such as the Saites
themselves had been eager to copy. The goddess herself, Neith-
Athena, the tutelary alike of each of the cities, had established them.
There were the sacred class devoted to religion and learning; the
craftsmen of different kinds, who meddled with none outside their
guild; the shepherds, huntsmen and tillers of the soil. There were
also the soldiers who followed no other calling. Likewise, in regard to
the superior knowledge, the law took cognizance of it from the
beginning, not only in respect to all the universe, but even to
divination and the medical art with regard to hygiene, and hence from
these divine subjects to human affairs generally and the branches of
learning connected with them. The goddess of wisdom selected the
site of Athens because she foresaw that its wholesome climate would
favor the growth of a superior race of men, wise like herself. Then
under these auspices, and what is better, under a good government,*
there sprang up a people surpassing all others in every thing
meritorious, as became those who were the offspring and under the
tutelage of the gods.
Nine thousand years before, says the Egyptian priest, there
existed a state of war over the known world. Beyond the Pillars of
Heracles the ocean was at that time open and navigable for galleys,
and there existed fronting the continent an island larger than Libya
and Asia Minor together. There were likewise other islands which
were in alliance with it, and they were subject to a powerful
confederation of kings, who also held the western regions of Europe
and Africa under their dominion.
At that period Athens was foremost among the commonwealths
of Greece. It was distinguished for the superiority of its population in
moral stamina, in the arts, and in war. At first that city was leader of
the Greek peoples, but finally they all stood aloof, leaving Athens to
maintain alone the conflict with the kings of Atlantis. The invaders
were routed, and independence was thus preserved for the free
states, and won for all others within the pillars of Heracles.
Afterward there came a succession of violent earthquakes and
floods. In a single day and night the people of Athens were buried
beneath the earth, and the island of Atlantis was engulfed in the
waters. Hence only mud remains where that region once existed, and
the ocean where it existed formerly is neither navigable nor even
accessible.

------------
* Konfucius was journeying with his disciples through a distant
region. Meeting a woman by a well, he questioned her of her
husband, her father and other kindred. They had all been killed by a
tiger, she replied. "Why," demanded the sage, "why do you not
remove from a region that is infested by such a ferocious beast."
"Because," replied she, "we have a good government." Turning to his
disciples, the sage remarked: "See, a bad government is more
feared than a ravenous tiger."
------------

According to the ancient legends the whole earth was originally

apportioned among the gods. There was no contest among them in
order that one might seize the domain of the other. But each one
occupied the portion allotted, peopled it, and attended to the welfare
of those under his charge. The gods did not coerce their subjects
arbitrarily, but, like skillful pilots, led them by persuasions. The
domain of each was assigned according to his peculiar character. As
Hephaestos and Athena, having the same father and disposition,
were also alike in the love of wisdom and liberal art, Athens was
assigned jointly to them as being adapted naturally to superior
excellence and intelligence. Here they planted the antochthones,
natives of the soil, making the men good and orderly. Owing to the
devastations of the floods the records of these times were lost. The
survivors could not read, and hence only names were preserved.
These included women as well as men, because both sexes engaged
alike in the pursuits of war. In accordance with that usage they
dedicated a statue of the goddess armed as a soldier, in recognition
of the fact that all living beings associating together, female, as well
as male, have the natural ability common to each race to follow every
meritorious pursuit.
The dominion of Athens, as the priest declared, then extended
over all the territory of Attika. The region was much larger than in
later periods, for floods had not then washed away the earth, and the
soil was very productive. The population was composed of craftsmen
in the various callings, and of those who labored at agriculture. There
was also the noble caste of warriors, twenty thousand in number, who
had been set apart originally by the divine founders of the
Commonwealth. Its members lived apart from the others, on the
higher ground around the temples. They held their possessions in
common, eating at a common table, and sustaining no familiar
relations with the other citizens in the lower districts, except as was
necessary to procure food and other matters of necessity. From this
caste were taken the guardians of the commonwealth, the defenders
of the country, the rulers and magistrates. Such being their quality,
and their administration of affairs, both in their own community and in
the rest of Greece being just, they were distinguished over Europe
and Asia, both for personal beauty and moral excellence. Kritias
insists accordingly that the Athens of that far-off time was like the
commonwealth which had been described in the philosophical
dialogue.
When at the beginning the whole earth was apportioned among
the gods to assure their worship and sacrifices, the Atlantic island
was in the allotment of Poseidon.* Among the natives of Atlantis was
Evenor, whose daughter, Kleito, won the regard of the divine overlord.
Poseidon accordingly constructed a residence for her on the island,
surrounding it with high belts of land alternating with other zones of
sea. For at that time ships and navigation were not known. She
became the mother of ten sons, in five pairs, on whom Poseidon
bestowed dominion. The oldest was placed over his mother's home
and the region about it, which was the largest and most desirable in
the island. He was also made king over the whole territory. The
other brothers also received rich allotments and were appointed to
sovereignty in subordination to the eldest. He also gave them
names, which Kritias explains as having been translated into Greek.
The designation of the oldest brother, Atlas, may evoke some
question. Not only is it the name of a range of mountains in Africa,
but the term Atlan is also used for titles of places in America.

-----------
* Mr. Robert Brown, Jr., of Barton-on-Humber, England, has
given in his little treatise, "Poseidon," a very full account of the parts
of the globe anciently regarded as subject to this divinity and not to
Zeus. He was regarded as overlord in the countries of the
Mediterranean and Archipelago, except in Egypt and parts of Greece.
The voyages of Ulysses or Odysseus were supposed to have taken
place in the region allotted to him. Hence the defiance of
Polyphomos, the Kyklops, to the authority of Zeus. The voyages of
Aeneas were in that region, and it is noteworthy that the principal
personages and monsters which were fabled to have been slain by
Theseus and Herakles were connected with him, indicating by
allegory a change in religion as well as in civil government.
-----------

These princes and their descendants, we are told, dwelt for

many generations as rulers in the "Sea of Islands," and extended
their dominion to the Continent, including in it all Libya as far as Egypt
and Europe clear to Italy. The family of Atlas surpassed all the
others. The oldest son succeeded the father, and they all possessed
wealth beyond the power of computing. Much of this was procured
from foreign countries, but their principal riches was obtained in the
island itself. Atlantis abounded in rich ores. One of these, orichalkon,
or mountain copper, was next in value to gold itself. Kritias declares
that only the name was known; nevertheless one may ask whether
platinum was meant. There was also wood produced in abundance
suitable for building and other purposes; and also grass and other
plants for the food of animals, both wild and tame. There was even a
profusion of food for elephants, of which there were great numbers.
Nature, with the aid of human ingenuity thus supplied in plenty
whatever would excite the palate, please the sick or gratify the fancy.
The enterprise and industry of the population are glowingly
described. Atlantis abounded in temples, magnificent houses, and in
ports and docks for commerce. The belts of water with which
Poseidon had surrounded the metropolis were bridged over, thus
giving access to the royal residence. A canal was likewise
constructed, three hundred feet wide and a hundred feet deep,
extending from the ocean to the outermost zone of water. Tunnels
were also made through the belts of land so that the zone of water
became a harbor for vessels. A high wall of stone was erected at the
outermost belt of land which surrounded the metropolis, and other
walls of similar structure were built at the interior circuits. The outer
wall was covered with a coating of copper; the next wall was coated
with silver, and the innermost wall with orichalkon, which shone with a
ruddy glow.
The stone with which these walls were built had been quarried
on the central island, and there were three kinds, white, red and
black. Many of the buildings were in plain style, but in others the
three kinds of stone were ingeniously combined so as to produce an
agreeable effect.
At the beginning a magnificent building was erected as a
dwelling for the divinity and for the ancestors. Each monarch as he
came to power added to its embellishments, endeavoring to excel
those who had preceded him, till it became wonderful for size and the
beauty of the works.
Kritias proceeds now to describe the wealth and luxury of the
people of Atlantis. Inside the citadel was the temple dedicated to
Kleito and Poseidon. It was surrounded by an enclosure of gold.
There were brought to it every year contributions from the ten
principalities, and sacrifices were presented to each of the divinities.
There was also a temple to Poseidon himself, over six hundred feet
long and three hundred wide, built and adorned with Oriental
splendor. The body of the edifice was coated with silver, and the
pinnacles with gold. Inside of the building, the roof was of ivory; and
it was adorned everywhere with gold, silver and orichalkon. All the
other parts of the wall and floor were lined with orichalkon. There
were numerous statues of gold. The god himself was represented
standing upon a car attached to which were six winged horses, his
head touching the roof, as he stood. A hundred Nereids riding on
dolphins were by him, indicating that he was the tutelary of the ocean
as well as of the seismic territories. Other statutes likewise, some the
gift of private individuals and others presented from the subordinate
princedoms were placed there, part of them inside and part outside
the building. In short, the whole was of a style and magnificence
corresponding with the government and the splendor which attended
the public worship.
The principal island abounded with springs, both cold and hot,
which the inhabitants employed for their private fountains. They built
their houses around them, placing tanks in them, some for cold water
to use in summer and others for hot water in winter. The baths for the
royal family were apart from the others, and those for the women
separate from those of the men. There were also baths for the
horses and cattle, all of which were kept scrupulously clean.
The stream of water which flowed from this region, was
conducted to the Grove of Poseidon, a sacred domain, where were
trees of every kind, growing to prodigious size and height. The water
was carried thence by aqueducts to the circles outside.
On the island were many temples dedicated to different
divinities, and likewise public gardens and places of exercise, some
for men and some for horses. There was a race-course in the largest
island, over a furlong wide and extending the whole way around the
circumference for contests of speed between the horses.
There were barracks for the troops; part in the belt of land next
the citadel, and part inside, near the royal quarters. The docks were
filled with triremes and naval stores.
Such were the conditions about the royal residence. Crossing
the three harbors, one came to a wall which went completely around,
beginning from the sea and fifty furlongs from the outermost harbor
near the metropolis. This enclosed both the entrance of the canal
and the entrance to the ocean. This area was covered with buildings
densely crowded together. The canal and harbor were always full of
vessels, and thus there was an incessant din kept up day and night.
The rest of the country differed in many particulars. The whole
region had a high elevation above the level of the sea. There was an
extensive plain immediately surrounding the city, which was encircled
by a range of mountains sloping toward the sea. The country was of
oblong shape extending over three thousand stadia (or about forty
miles) and about two thousand directly across. It lay toward the
south, and so was sheltered from the north. The mountains were
numerous and beautiful, and there were many villages, rivers, lakes,
and meadows, which supplied food in abundance, and likewise wood
suitable for all kinds of work.
A deep canal extended around the plain, ten thousand furlongs
in length. It received the water from the mountains, and winding
round the plain, discharged it into the ocean. Other canals were also
constructed for transportation of wood and commercial products and
likewise for irrigation in summer.
The public defense was provided by a militia system carefully
arranged. The plain on the island was divided into sixty thousand lots
of the dimension of a stadium (or 660 feet) each way. Then it was
ordered that of the men fit for service each individual commander
should have an allotment, a hundred stadia in extent. In the
mountainous districts and the rest of the country was also a large
population, and to every man was assigned a lot by the commander.
Each of these commanders was required to furnish the sixth part of a
war-car, two horses, a two-horse car without a seat, a car-driver with
a fighting man, also two armed soldiers, two archers, two stingers,
besides light-armed men, stone-shooters and javelin-hurlers, with
four sailors so as to man twelve hundred vessels. The other nine
sovereignties had arrangements that were somewhat different.
The institutions of government continued as they had been
arranged from the beginning. Each of the ten kings ruled individually
in his own district and commonwealth. All was conducted according
to the ordinances of Poseidon.
The first kings had also recorded their ordinances on a tablet of
orichalkon which was deposited in the temple of that divinity. Every
fifth or sixth year they assembled there in council, in which each took
an equal part for the general welfare. They made investigation into
the procedures of each in his own dominion, and judged them
accordingly. In order to assure the faithful submission of each they
sacrificed a bull beside the inscribed regulations. Then was an oath
written there denouncing execrations on the disobedient. Making
each a libation of the blood of the animal, they renewed the oath to
do justice, to punish offenders rigidly, never to transgress the laws,
and never to rule or obey any ruler except according to the laws.
Then having partaken of supper together, they dressed themselves in
robes of dark blue color, and proceeded to scrutinize each other's
procedures of administration. Their decisions in each case were
inscribed on a golden tablet, which was deposited in the temple
together with their robes of office.
 The ten kings were obligated not to make war on one another,
but to give their aid in case of any movement to exterminate any royal
family. The supreme dominion over the whole was thus assigned to
the Atlantic family, but a king was not permitted to put any of them to
death without approval of half the others.
For many generations, so long as the inherited nature of the
god their ancestor remained to aid them, they continued obedient to
the laws and held in affectionate regard their kindred divine
parentage. For they were possessed of a genuine high-mindedness
and noble principles, and also combined mildness with discretion in
incidental matters and in their relations with one another. They held
everything in low esteem except it was meritorious; thought lightly of
riches, and were not intoxicated by luxury. Being thus circumspect in
conduct, they were quick to perceive that all these benefits are
increased by friendship combined with virtue; but that when too
eagerly sought after and overvalued, they became corrupt and
worthless.
To such consideration as this, and to the divine nature which
continued inherent in them, was due their great prosperity. But
eventually the divine quality which was hereditary in them was
effaced by much and frequent intermingling in nuptial union with the
mortal element; and so the moral character common to other men
became ascendant. They became unable to cope with events, and
began also to behave unbecomingly. To those who could discern,
they appeared to have parted with their most excellent qualities, and
to have become ignoble and base. Yet though they were greedy and
oppressive, they seemed to those who were unable to appreciate true
blessedness, to be in the highest degree happy and fortunate.
It was then that Zeus, the supreme God who rules by laws, and
is able to descry these things, perceived a noble race involved in
wretched conditions. He resolved to call it to account, in order that its
members might again be made watchful and return to the sense of
what is right. Accordingly he assembled all the gods in council in
their most holy habitation. This being at the centre of the universe,
commands a view of everything belonging to the region of change
below. Having collected them together he proceeded to announce
his purpose.
Here the story of Kritias abruptly concludes and a sentence is
left unfinished. There is a tradition that Plato's death took place while
engaged in writing; and as the trilogy is unfinished, it would appear
as though this was the point at which his work was interrupted.
Perhaps, however, he was in the habit of writing his composition as
he had matter and opportunity, and was awaiting the moment at
which to resume.
Modern critics are generally agreed in declaring the story a
myth. Yet it was anciently believed by many to be substantially the
record of actual fact. The present condition of the Atlantic ocean at a
distance beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, seems to indicate that the tale
of the submergence of large islands at that region is not without
plausibility. Other ancient writers have accepted the belief of a
populous country, somewhere in that direction; and Mr. J. D. Baldwin
in his treatise on "Prehistoric Nations," cites from Pere de Bourbourg,
to show the existence of a dominion in Central America greatly
resembling that of Atlantis. There may be as much unwisdom in the
ignotum pro absurdo as in ignotum pro magnifica.
Parables are not altogether fictitious narratives. Occult
symbolism often employs peculiar names, historic occurrences, and
analogous matters for its purposes, and even intermingles its
problems with them. It is not at all necessary in ascribing a figurative
character to the story of Atlantis, to doubt the genuineness of the
legend respecting it. That may be left wisely to future exploration.
In this dialogue, the former Athens is indicated as a model
government where the best of the citizens, the aristoi, managed all
the public affairs. Kritias accordingly declares it to be such a
commonwealth as had been depicted in The Republic. He
intermingles allusions incident to its history, such as the leading of the
other cities of Greece, and sometimes as fighting alone, as was the
case in the long conflict with Persia.
Atlantis is described as a confederation of kingdoms, such as
Greece may have been in the early periods. It has Poseidon for its
overlord, as did most of the Grecian states, and the monarchies
which deteriorated to corrupt and unendurable despotisms. The
overthrow of these is represented in legends by the exploits of
Theseus and Herakles; and the story of Atlantis seems to have been
brought to an analogous period of such a character.
In the rival nations, Athens and Atlantis, are likewise symbolic
representations of man in his moral and spiritual conditions. In the
Athenian commonwealth he is faultless, his tastes and talent are kept
employed and his several relations personal and social, are observed
after the most exemplary manner. For the ideal state has its
correspondent likeness in the ideal man; and the influence of that
man and the ideal extend over the whole earth.
Atlantis in like manner represents man in the other phase of
character. We have the spectacle of ten kings, sons of Poseidon, ten
being the number denoting completeness. As Poseidon ruled his
domain by arbitrary law, so the dominion is strictly arranged. All that
is needed is provided and arranged. Every want is met, every desire
anticipated. So long as the hereditary divine quality and its influence
are dominant all goes on well. But as with man when developing into
adult life, there comes admixture from without. There are lapses from
primitive integrity. As flatterers and time servers do not take notice of
this in a monarch, so the individual is apt not to be conscious of
serious dereliction in himself. Only those capable of discerning the
spirit, the divinely illuminated, perceive the fall and its
accompaniments.
There are both an Athens of unblemished fame and an
enfeebled, demoralized Atlantis in every human being. "So," says
Paul, "with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh
the law of sin."
To this point, the speaker draws our attention. What is beyond
is left for conjecture. The catastrophe of Atlantis has been told, but
only as a physical occurrence. It is also added that Zeus himself, the
supreme Arbiter, is about to take in hand the correcting of the
unrighteous conditions and restoration to primeval order.
Thus we have the problem; it is ours individually to solve.

(The Word, May, 1906)

-------------------

THE WISDOM RELIGION OF ZOROASTER

by Alexander Wilder, M.D.

"THE primeval religion of Iran," says Sir William Jones, "if we

rely on the authorities adduced by Mohsan Fani* was that which
Newton calls the oldest (and it may justly be called the noblest) of all
religions: - 'a firm belief that one Supreme God made the world by his
power and continually governed it by his providence; a pious fear,
love and adoration of him; a due reverence for parents and aged
persons; a fraternal affection for the whole human species, and a
compassionate tenderness even for the brute creation.'"
The believers in a Golden Age preceding the ruder and
unhappier periods of human history readily trace in this a confirmation
of their cherished sentiment. Those who contemplate religions as
substantially the same in their essential principles, can subscribe
heartily to the statement. Even they who ignore and repudiate the
past as solely bestial and barbarous, and place everything in the
future as a goal of effort and expectation, will not hesitate to accept
the proposition as an ultimate attainment.
Yet that which is to be must be to a large degree something that
has been,

-------------
* Mohsan who is here cited was a native of Kashmir, and a Sufi.
He insisted that there was an Eranian monarchy the oldest in the
world, and that the religion of Hushan, which is here described, was
its prevailing faith.
-------------

and a rehabilitation of the old. It must have existed in idea, or it

would not be evolved in manifested existence. Religions may have
their Apostles, but Apostles are not the first creators of religions. For
religion has its inception not from the logical reason, but in the human
heart, in the passionate desire for the better and more true, for that
which is superior to the present selfhood. It comes into existence as
an infant child, and grows gradually, taking form and shape according
to the genius of those by whom it is adopted and cherished.
When the first Zarathustra was born, Mazdaism was already
divergent not only from Turanian Shamanism but likewise from the
Aryan Deva-worship of archaic India. The pioneers of Eran were
tillers of the soil and dwellers in ceiled houses and walled villages,
while the followers of Indra and Saurva were still nomadic shepherds
and fed their flocks wherever pasture was afforded, little regardful
even of any respect for the enclosed and cultivated fields of their
brethren. Yet at that period the two had not become distinct
communities. "Hard by the believers in Ahura live the worshipers of
the devas," says Zoroaster.
Much curious speculation has been bestowed in regard to the
identity of the Great Sage and Prophet of archaic Eran. Some
modern writers have even suggested that he was simply a mythic or
ideal personage described in ancient hyperbole as a Son or Avatar of
Divinity, because of representing the religious system of which he
was the recognized expositor. Plato more rationally styles him "the
Oro-Mazdean,'' who promulgated the learning of the Magi, by which
was meant the worship of the Gods, and being true and truthful in
words and deeds through the whole of one's life. "By means of the
splendor and glory of the Frohars or guardian spirits," says the
Fravardin-Yasht, "that man obtained revelations who spoke good
words, who was the Source of Wisdom, who was born before
Gotama had such intercourse with God."
We find him accordingly set forth in the Gathas, the most
ancient literature of his people, as an historic person of the lineage of
Spitama, with a father, remoter ancestors, kinsmen, a wife, and sons
and daughters.* The Yasna, or Book of Worship, declares the
following: "Then answered me Homa the righteous: 'Pourushaspa
has prepared me as the fourth man in the corporeal world; this
blessing was bestowed upon him that thou wast born to him - thou,
the righteous Zarathustra, of the house of Pourushaspa, who
opposest the devas, who art devoted to the Ahura religion and
famous in Airyana-Vaejo, the Aryan Fatherland.'"
He seems to have begun his career as an humble student and
reciter of the chants and prayers in the presence of the Sacred Fire,
but to have been developed in maturer years into an apostle and
speaker of oracles which should impart the true wisdom to all who
heard. He gave a rational form to the religious thought of his
countrymen, elaborated

-----------
* The father of the first Zoroaster was named Pourushaspa, his
great grandfather, Haekatashaspa, his wife Hvovi, his daughters,
Freni, Thriti, Pourushist. The daughters were married according to
archaic Aryan custom to near kindrid.
------------

it into a philosophy, and began for it the preparation of a literature by

which it should be perpetuated.
Nevertheless we May not accept for him much that has been
published under the name or title by which he is commonly known.
Whether he actually wrote much we do not know. Generally, the
disciples, and not the Masters, are the ones most prolific in literary
productions. Besides, there have been many Zoroasters, or spiritual
superiors, who succeeded to the rank and honors of Zarathustra
Spitaman. All these who made contributions to the Sacred Oracles,
appear to have received acceptance like that awarded to the
Mazdean Apostle. Nor does the distinction seem to have been
confined to the Eranian country, nor even to the collections of the
Avesta. When conquest extended the Persian authority to other
regions, it was followed by religious propagandism. In this way the
Zoroastrian faith burst through the limitations of a single people and
country, and for a period of centuries appeared likely to become the
principal religion of the world. It was supreme in the Parthian
dominion clear to Kabul* or further, and it extended over the Roman
Empire as far as Germany and Scotland. As conquest removed the
lines of partition between peoples, religion and philosophy met fewer
obstacles. The "pure thought" and doctrine may have been greatly
changed by the commingling with the notions of the newer receivers,
as we observe in the Mithra-worship and the various forms of
Gnosticism. We also find men in different countries of the East who,
for their apperception and superior intelligence bore the same
honorary designation as the Sage of the Avesta, which has created
some uncertainty in later times in distinguishing the individual who
was actually first to bear the title.

-------------
* The Afghan language appears to have been derived from that
of the Avesta. Perhaps the book was written there.
-------------

The Mazdean faith has left a vivid impress upon the doctrine
and literature of other religions. The Hebrew Sacred Writings of later
periods treat of the "God of Heaven," and the "God of Truth,"* and
contain other references significant of acquaintance with the Persian
theosophy.
The New Testament is by no means free from this influence;
the Gnosis or superior wisdom is repeatedly mentioned; also
guardian angels, and various spiritual essences. The reference in the
Apocalypse to the tree of life, the second death, the white pebble
inscribed with an occult name, the procession in white robes, and the
enthronement, are taken from the Mithraic worship.
 The pioneers of the later Platonic School distinctly named
Mithras as the central divinity. He had to a great degree displaced
Apollo and Bacchus in the West, and ranked with Serapis in Egypt.
Porphyry treats of the worship of the Cave, the constructing of a Cave
by Zoroaster with figures of the planets and constellations overhead,
and declares that Mithras was born in a petra or grotto-shrine.** He
describes the Mith-

-------------
* The name Mithras signifies truth. Falsehood was regarded as
obnoxious to this divinity, and as punished with leprosy. (Kings II, v.
27.)
** That ingenious writer "Mark Twain" calls attention to the fact
that all the sacred places connected with the Holy Family in Palestine
are grottoes. "It is exceedingly strange," says he, "that these
tremendous events all happened in grottoes," and he does not
hesitate to pronounce "this grotto-stuff as important."
We may look further, however. The ancient mystic rites were
celebrated in petras, or grotto-shrines, and the temples of Mithras
bore that designation. The Semitic term PTR or peter signifies to lay
open, to interpret, and hence an interpreter, a hierophant. It was
probably applied to the officiating priests at the initiations, in the
"barbarous" or "sacred" language used on such occasions. There
was such an official at the Cave or Shrine of Mithras at Rome, till the
worship was interdicted. In the Eleusinian Rites, the hierophant read
to the candidates from the Petroma or two tablets of stone. The
servants of the Pharaoh in the book of Genesis were sad at having
dreamed when there was no peter to give a petrun or explanation.
Petra in Idumea probably was named from the profusion of its petrea
or shrines, and the country was famed for "wisdom." (Jeremiah xlix,
7). Apollo the god of oracles was called Patereus, and his priests
paterae. Places having oracles or prophets were sometimes so
named, as Pethor the abode of Balaam, Patara, Patras, etc.
-------------

ras-worship as being in touch with the Esoteric philosophy, and his

famous Letter to Anebo, the Egyptian prophet, appears to have been
called forth by the apprehension of an endeavor to qualify or
supersede it by a theurgy which was chiefly deduced from the occult
Rites of Serapis and the Assyrian theology.
 In connection with their expositions of the Later Platonism, the
various philosophic writers, as for example Synesios, Proklos, and
Damaskios, quoted selections from the Oriental literature. These
have come to us under the general name of "Chaldean Oracles," but
later redactors have styled them [greek] - the Memorable Sayings of
the Zoroaster.* They exhibit a remarkable similarity to the Neo-
Platonic teachings, and we have the assurance of a distinguished
Parsee gentlemen famous alike for his profound attainments and his
extensive liberality,** that they are genuine. He declares that there is
no reason to doubt that the Persian doctrine was based upon that of
the Chaldeans and was in close affinity with it, and he adds that the
Chaldean doctrine and philosophy may be taken as a true exposition
of the Persian.
We may remark that much of the religious symbolism employed
by the Persians was identical with that of the Assyrians, and the
explanations given by M. Lajard in his work, La Culte de Mithra,
plainly accepts rites and divinities from the Chaldean worship.
Many of the Maxims attributed to the Eranian Zarathustra, as
well as the Memorable Sayings of the Chaldean Zoroaster are replete
with suggestions in regard to

-------------
* An edition published at Paris in 1563 had the title of "The
Magical Oracles of the Magi descended from the Zoroaster." By
magical is only meant gnostic or wise.
** Sir Dhunjibhoy Jamsetjee Medhora, of the Presidency of
Bombay who has written ably on Zoroastrianism.
-------------

the true life of fraternity and neighborly charity, as well as information

upon recondite and philosophic subjects. They are inspired by a
profound veneration as well as intuition. Every family was part of a
Brotherhood, and the districts were constituted of these fraternities.
The Zoroastrian designation of the Supreme Being was Ahura
and Mazda, the Lord, the All-Wise, Mazdaism or the Mazdayasna is
therefore the Wisdom-Religion. The Divinity is also honored as the
Divine Fire or inmost energy of life - in his body resembling light; in
his essence, truth.
Mithras was the God of Truth. The Zoroastrian religion was an
apotheosis of Truth. Evil was hateful as being the lie. Trade was
discouraged as tending to make men untruthful. "The wretch who
belies Mithras," who falsifies his word, neglecting to pay his debts, it
is said, "is destructive to the whole country. Never break a promise -
neither that which was contracted with a fellow-religionist, nor with an
unbeliever."
As Ahur' Mazda is first of the seven Amshaspands, or
archangels, so Mithras is chief of the Yazatas or subordinate angels.
"I created him," says Ahur' Mazda, "to be of the same rank and honor
as myself." Mithras precedes the Sun in the morning, he protects the
Earth with unsleeping vigilance, he drives away lying and wicked
spirits, and rewards those who follow the truth.
Those who speak lies, who fail to keep their word, who love evil
better than good, he leaves to their own courses; and so they are
certain to perish. His dominion is geographically described in the
Mihir-Yasht as extending from Eastern India and the Seven Rivers to
Western India, and from the Steppes of the North to the Indian
Ocean.
Although much is said about ''dualism" and the corporeal
resurrection, it is apparent that it is principally "read into'' the
Zoroastrian writings rather than properly deduced from them.
Opportunity for this is afforded by the fact that the vocabulary of the
different languages was very limited, and single words were
necessarily used to do duty for a multitude of ideas. We notice this
fact, by comparing them, that no two translators of passages in the
Avesta give the same sense or even general tenor. We are often
obliged to form a judgment from what is apparent.
This text from Dr. Haug's translation seems explicit: "Ahura
Mazda by his holy spirit, through good thought, good word and good
deed, gives health and immortality to the world." Two ideas are
distinct: that all real good is of and from Divinity; 2, that intrinsic
goodness on the part of the individual, makes him recipient of its
benefits.
It seems plain, also, that in the mind of Zoroaster, as of other
great thinkers, life is sempersistent. The Yasna and Hadokht-Yasht,
both "older Scriptures," declare this plainly. They recite the
particulars of the journey of the soul, the real self, from the forsaken
body to the future home. It waits three days by the body, as if not
ready to depart forever. The righteous soul, then setting out,
presently meets a divine maiden, its higher law and interior selfhood,
who gives the joyful assurance: "Thou art like me even as I appear to
thee. I was beloved, beautiful, desirable and exalted; and thou, by
the good thought, good speech, and good action, hast made me
more beloved, more beautiful, more desirable, and exalted still
higher." So the righteous soul having taken these three steps, now
takes the fourth, which brings it to the Everlasting Lights.
Here is no talk about the resuscitating of anything that had
really died. There is recognized a continuing to live, and for the
worthy one, this life is eternal, or what is the same thing, divine.
For the others, there is the counterpart, a meeting with an
impure maiden figure, a falling under the sway of the Evil Mind with
the probations which this entails. Nevertheless we may not consider
this Evil Mind as sempiternal, or all-powerful; else there would be two
Intelligences in conflict for dominion over the universe, and so the
shifting scenes of human life could be only an absurd, pitiful farce. In
the nature of things, evil must exist as the correlative of good; but it
is never an essence or a principle. It is always self-destroying and
never permanent in any form. In most old copies of the Hadokht-
Yasht, we notice that no fourth step is mentioned, in the case of the
wicked soul; though far from righteousness, it is not consigned to
perpetual hell.
The primitive Mazdean doctrine was philosophic on these
subjects as well as moral, "All good has sprung from Ahur' Mazda's
holy spirit," the Yasna declares and he who in his wisdom created
both the Good and the Negative Mind, rewards those who are
obedient. In him the last cause of both minds lies hidden."
Further we are told of the real origin of devas or devils, that
those who do not perform good works actually themselves "produce
the devas by means of their pernicious thoughts."
In the end, however, the Savior is to make the whole world
immortal. Then the Truth will smite and destroy the lie, and Anhra
Manyas, the Evil Mind, will part with his rule.
By this we are not to understand any coming crisis of the
external world, but a palingenesis or restitution and regeneration in
each person individually. It was a true saying in the Gospel: "This is
the crisis or judging: that the Light comes into the world, and men
love the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil."
Both the Memorable Sayings, and the recorded utterances of
the Avesta which are still preserved, abound with philosophic and
theurgic utterances. Many of them are very recondite, others excel in
sublimity. The following selections are examples.
 "The Paternal Monad (or Divine Fire) is: It is extended and
generates the Twin. For the Dual sitteth close beside the One, and
flashes forth mental promptings which are both for the direction of all
things and the arranging of every thing that is not in order."
"The Paternal Mind commanded that all things should be
divided into Threes, all of them to be directed by Intelligence."
"In all the cosmic universe the Triad shines, which the Monad
rules."
"Understand that all things are subservient to the Three
Beginnings. The first of these is the Sacred Course; then in the
midst is the region of Air; the third, the other, is that which cherishes
the Earth with fire - the fountain of fountains and Source of all
fountains, the womb containing all; from hence at once proceeds the
genesis of matter in its many shapes."
"The Father takes himself away from sight; not shutting his
own Fire in his own spiritual power. For from the Paternal Beginning
nothing that is imperfect gyrates forth. For the Father made all things
complete and delivered them to the Second Intelligence which the
race of men call the First."
"He holds fast in the Mind the matters of mind, but sensibility he
supplies to the worlds. He holds fast in the Mind the things of mind,
but supplies soul to the worlds,"
"The Soul being a radiant fire by the power of the Father, not
only remains immortal and is absolute ruler of the life, but also holds
in possession the many perfections of the bosoms of the world; for it
becomes a copy of the Mind, but that which is born is somewhat
corporeal."
"Let the immortal depth of the soul lead and all the views
expand on high. Do not incline to the dark-gleaming world. Beneath
is always spread out a faithless deep and Hades dark all around,
perturbed, delighting in senseless phantasms, abounding with
precipices, craggy, always whirling round a miserable deep,
perpetually wedded to an ignoble, idle, spiritless body."
"Extend the fiery mind to work of piety and you will preserve
ever changing body."
"The mortal approaching the Fire will be illuminated from God. "
"Let alone the hastening of the Moon in her monthly course,
and the goings forward of stars; the moon is always moved on by the
work of necessity, and the progress of the stars was not produced for
thy sake. Neither the bold flight of birds through the ether, nor the
dissection of the entrails of sacrificed animals is a source to learn the
truth; they are all playthings, supports for gainful deceptions; fly
them all, if thou art going to open the sacred paradise of piety, where
virtue, wisdom, and justice are assembled.''
Despite all these mentions of the Father and the Paternal
Monad, no reference is made in the Avesta to God as a father.
Nevertheless he exhibits all the qualities of a parent and protector;
he gives happiness, rewards goodness, creates beneficent light and
darkness, and loves all his creation.
Many of the Avestan utterances are sublime.
"My light is hidden under all that shines," says Ahur' Mazda.
"My name is: He who may be questioned; the Gatherer of the
People; the Most Pure; He who takes account of the actions of men.
My name is Ahura, the Living One; my name is Mazda, the All-Wise.
I am the All-Beholding, the Desirer of good for my creatures, the
Protector, the Creator of all."
The Yasna abounds with expressive sayings, somewhat of the
character of proverbs.
"He first created, by means of his own fire, the multitude of
celestial bodies, and through his Intelligence, the good creatures
governed by the inborn good mind."
"When my eyes behold thee, the Essence of truth, the Creator
of life who manifests his life in his works, then I know thee to be the
Primeval Spirit, thee the All-Wise, so high in mind as to create the
world, and the Father of the Good Mind."
"I praise the Mazdayasnian religion, and the righteous
brotherhood which it establishes and defends."
In the Zoroastrian religion a man might not live for himself or
even die for himself. Individual virtue is not the gain of only the soul
that practices it, but an actual addition to the whole power of good in
the universe. The good of one is the good of all; the sin of one is a
fountain of evil to all. The aim of the Mazdean discipline is to keep
pure the thought, speech, action, memory, reason and understanding.
Zoroaster asks of Ahur' Mazda, what prayer excels everything else?
"That prayer," is the reply, "when a man renounces all evil thoughts,
words and works."
Fasting and ascetic practices are disapproved as a culpable
weakening of "the powers entrusted to a person for the service of
Ahur' Mazda." The sins of the Zoroastrian category include
everything that burdens the conscience, seeing evil and not warning
him who is doing it, lying, doubting the good, withholding alms,
afflicting a good man, denying that there is a God, - also pride,
coveting of goods, the coveting of the wife of another, speaking ill of
the dead, anger, envy, discontent with the arrangements of God,
sloth, scorn, false witness.
The soul of man is a ray from the Great Soul, by the Father of
Light.
It is matter of regret that so much of the Zoroastrian literature
has been lost. It is more to be regretted that it has not been better
translated. Yet books do not create a faith, but are only aids. Men
are infinitely more precious than books. The essence of the Wisdom-
Religion was not lost when the Nasks perished. "The Zoroastrian
ideal of Brotherhood is founded on a recognition of the Divine Unity,
and does not represent an association of men united by a common
belief or common interests." There is no distinction of class or race.
In the Zoroastrian writings the Frohars or protecting geniuses of all
good men and women are invoked and praised, as well as those of
Zoroastrians. Any one whose aspirations are spiritual and his life
beneficent, is accepted, though not professedly of the Mazdean
fellowship.
So much of the literature has an esoteric meaning that
superficial students lose sight of, that the genuine Wisdom-Religion is
not discerned. There are eyes needed that can see and apperceive.
Then the symbols which materialists blunder over will be unveiled in
their true meaning and there will be witnessed a revival of a religion
devoid of elaborate ceremony, but replete with justice, serene
peacefulness and goodwill to men.

(Un. Brotherhood, Oct., 1898)

---------------

ZOROASTER, THE FATHER OF PHILOSOPHY.

by Alexander Wilder, M. D.

SEVEN cities are named as claiming to have been the

birthplace of Homer. His great poem is the classic above other
literary productions, but the personality of the man, as well as the
period and place in which he lived, is veiled in uncertainty.
 A similar curious indefiniteness exists in regard to the great
Oriental sage and teacher of a pure faith, Zoroaster. There have
been credited to him not only the sacred compositions known as the
Venidad and Yasna, the remains of which sadly interpolated, are
preserved by the Parsis of India, but a large number of Logia or
oracular utterances which have been transmitted to us by writers
upon ancient Grecian philosophy and mythology.
Mr. Marion Crawford has presented him to us in the character
of a young Persian Prince, a pupil of the prophet Daniel, who had
been made governor of Media by Nebuchadnezzar. He is described
as learned in all the wisdom of the prophet himself, and the learning
of the wise men of Assyria. Dareios Hystaspis having become the
"Great King," Zoroaster is compelled by him to forego the warmest
wishes of his heart, and becomes an ascetic. Having retired to a
Cave, he performs the various rites of religion, and passes into
trances. His body appears as dead, but the spirit is set free, and
goes to and fro returning to its place again. Thus he attains the
intuitive comprehension of knowledge, to the understanding of natural
laws not perceptible by the corporeal senses alone, and to the
merging of the soul and higher intelligence in the one universal and
divine essence.
The late Dean Prideaux propounded somewhat of a similar
statement many years ago. He did not scruple, however, to represent
this Apostle of the Pure Law as a religious impostor and made much
account of the theory of Two Principles, as evidence of his perversion
of the true doctrine.
The conjecture that Zoroaster flourished in the reign of Dareios
Hystaspis, is chiefly based upon two ancient memorials. The Eranian
monarch Vistaspa is several times named in the Yasna and other
writings, and many identify him with the Persian King. Ammianus the
historian declares that Hystaspis, the father of Dareios, a most
learned prince, penetrating into Upper India, came upon a retreat of
the Brachmans, by whom he was instructed in physical and
astronomic science, and in pure religious rites. These he transferred
into the creed of the Magi.
Some countenance for this conjecture appears from a reading
of the famous trilingual inscription at Behistun. This place is situated
just within the border of Media on the thoroughfare from Babylon to
Ekbatana. The rock is seventeen hundred feet high, and belongs to
the Zagros* range of mountains. This was
--------------
* Occult symbolism, says Mr. Brown in Poseidon, has frequently
availed itself of two words of similar sound or of one word of manifold
meaning. We notice many examples of this in the old classics and in
the Hebrew text of the Bible. This name Zagros is strikingly like
Zagreus, the Bacchus or Dionysus of the Mysteries, and his worship
was carried from this part of Asia. In an inscription of
Nebuchadnezzar, we find the name "Shamas Diannisi," or Shamas
(the sun-god) judge of mankind. Osiris, the Egyptian Bacchus, had
also the title, apparently a translation, Ro-t-Amenti, the judge of the
West. The Kretan Rhadamanthus, doubtless here got his name.
The Zagros mountains were inhabited by the Nimri and
Kossaeans, which reminds us of the text: "And Cush begat Nimrod."
For the ancient Susiana is now called Khusistan, and was the former
Aethiopia. Assyria was called the "land of Nimrod," and Bab-el or
Babylon was his metropolis. (Genesis x - 8, 10, 11, and Micah v - 4.)
The term nimr signifies spotted, a leopard; and it is a significant fact
that in the Rites of Bacchus, the leopard skin or spotted robe was
worn.
-----------

engraved about three hundred feet from the foot, and was in three
languages, the Skythic or Median, the Persian and the Assyrian. Sir
Henry C. Rawlinson first deciphered it, and found it to be a record of
Dareios. The monarch proclaims his pure royal origin, and then
describes the conquest of Persia by Gaumata the Magian, the suicide
of Kambyses, and the recovering of the throne by himself. He
distinctly intimates that he was first to promulgate the Mazdean
religion in the Persian Empire. The Kings before him, he declares,
did not so honor Ahur'-Mazda. "I rebuilt the temples," he affirms; "I
restored the Gathas or hymns of praise, and the worship." Doctor
Oppert, who read the Medic inscription, asserted that it contains the
statement that Dareios caused the Avesta and the Zendic
Commentary to be published through the Persian dominion.
On the tomb of this king he is styled the teacher of the Magians.
In his reign the temple at Jerusalem was built and dedicated to the
worship of the "God of heaven," thus indicating the Mazdean
influence. Dareios extended his dominion over Asia Minor and into
Europe, and from this period the era of philosophy took its beginning
in Ionia and Greece.
Porphyry the philosopher also entertained the belief that
Zoroaster flourished about this period, and Apuleius mentions the
report that Pythagoras had for teachers the Persian Magi, and
especially Zoroaster, the adept in every divine mystery. So far,
therefore, the guess of Crawford and Dean Prideaux appears
plausible.
It should be remembered, however, that other writers give the
Eranian teacher a far greater antiquity. Aristotle assigns him a period
more than six thousand years before the present era. Hermippos of
Alexandreia, who had read his writings, gives him a similar period.
Berossos reduces it to two thousand years, Plutarch to seventeen
hundred, Ktesias to twelve hundred.
These dates, however, have little significance. A little
examination of ancient literature will be sufficient to show that
Zoroaster or Zarathustra was not so much the name of a man as the
title of an office. It may be that the first who bore it, had it as his own,
but like the name Caesar, it became the official designation of all who
succeeded him. Very properly, therefore, the Parsi sacred books
while recognizing a Zarathustra* in every district or province of the
Eranian dominion, place above them as noblest of all, the
Zarathustrema, or chief Zoroaster, or as the Parsis now style him in
Persian form, Dastur of dasturs. We may bear in mind accordingly
that there have been many Zoroasters, and infer safely that the
Avesta was a collection of their productions, ascribed as to one for
the sake of enhancing their authority. That fact as well as the
occurrence that the present volume is simply a transcript of sixteen
centuries ago, taken from men's memories and made sacred by
decree of a Sassanian king, indicates the need of intuitive
intelligence, to discern the really valuable matter. Zoroaster
Spitaman himself belongs to a period older than "Ancient History."
The Yasna describes him as famous in the primitive Aryan
Homestead - "Airyana-Vaejo of the good creation." Once Indians and
Eranians dwelt together as a single people. But polarity is
characteristic of all thinking. Indeed, the positive necessarily requires
the negative, or it cannot itself exist. Thus the Aryans became a
people apart

-----------
* It is not quite easy to translate this term. The name Zoroaster,
with which we are familiar, seems really to be Semitic, from zoro, the
seed or son, and Istar, or Astarte, the Assyrian Venus. Some write it
Zaratas, from nazar, to set apart. Gen. Forlong translates
Zarathustra as "golden-handed," which has a high symbolic import.
Intelligent Parsis consider it to mean elder, superior, chief.
-----------

from the Skyths and Aethiopic races, and again the agricultural and
gregarious Eranians divided from the nomadic worshipers of Indra.*
The resemblances of language and the similarities and dissimilarities
exhibited in the respective religious rites and traditions are
monuments of this schism of archaic time.** How long this division
had existed before the rise of the Great Teacher, we have no data for
guessing intelligently.
It may be here remarked that the world-religions are not really
originated by individual leaders. Buddhism was prior to Gautama,
Islam to Muhamed, and we have the declaration of Augustin of Hippo
that Christianity existed thousands of years before the present era.
There were those, however, who gave form and coherence to the
beliefs, before vague and indeterminate, and made a literature by
which to extend and perpetuate them. This was done by Zoroaster.
Hence the whole religion of the Avesta revolves round his personality.
Where he flourished, or whether the several places named
were his abodes at one time or another, or were the homes of other
Zoroasters, is by no means clear. One tradition makes him a resident
of Bakhdi or Balkh, where is now Bamyan with its thousands of
artificial caves. The Yasna seems to place him at Ragha or Rai in
Media, not far from the modern city of Tehran. We must be content,
however, to know him as the accredited Apostle of the Eranian
peoples.
Emanuel Kant affirms positively that

------------
*The name of this divinity curiously illustrates the sinuosities of
etymology. It is from the Aryan root-word id, to glow or shine, which
in Sanskrit becomes inda, from which conies indra, the burning or
shining one. The same radical becomes in another dialect aith, from
which comes aether, the supernal atmosphere, and the compounded
taame Aithiopia. It is therefore no matter of wonder that all Southern
Asia, from the Punjab to Arabia has borne that designation.
 ** Ernest de Bunsen suggests that this schism is signified by
the legend of Cain and Abel. The agriculturist roots out the shepherd.
-----------

there was not the slightest trace of a philosophic idea in the Avesta
from beginning to end. Professor William D. Whitney adds that if we
were to study the records of primeval thought and culture, to learn
religion or philosophy, we should find little in the Avesta to meet our
purpose. I am reluctant, however, to circumscribe philosophy to the
narrow definition that many schoohnen give it. I believe, instead, with
Aristotle, that God is the ground of all existence, and therefore that
theology, the wisdom and learning which relate to God and existence,
constitute philosophy in the truest sense of the term. All that really is
religion, pertains to life, and as Swedenborg aptly declares, the life of
religion is the doing of good. Measured by such standards, the
sayings of the prophet of Eran are permeated through and through
with philosophy.
Zoroaster appears to have been a priest and to have delivered
his discourses at the temple in the presence of the sacred Fire. At
least the translations by Dr. Haug so describe the matter. He styles
himself a reciter of the mantras, a duta or apostle, and a maretan or
listener and expounder of revelation. The Gathas or hymns are said
to contain all that we possess of what was revealed to him. He
learned them, we are told, from the seven Amshaspands or
archangels. His personal condition is described to us as a state of
ecstasy, with the mind exalted, the bodily senses closed, and the
mental ears open. This would be a fair representation of the visions
of Emanuel Swedenborg himself.
I have always been strongly attracted to the Zoroastrian
doctrine. It sets aside the cumbrous and often objectionable forms
with which the ceremonial religions are overloaded, puts away
entirely the sensualism characteristic of the left-hand Sakteyan and
Astartean worships, and sets forth prominently the simple veneration
for the Good, and a life of fraternalism, good neighborhood and
usefulness. "Every Mazdean was required to follow a useful calling.
The most meritorious was the subduing and tilling of the soil. The
man must marry, but only a single wife; and by preference she must
be of kindred blood. It was regarded as impious to foul a stream of
water. It was a cardinal doctrine of the Zoroastrian religion that
individual worthiness is not the gain and advantage of the person
possessing it, but an addition to the whole power and volume of
goodness in the universe.
With Zoroaster prayer was a hearty renouncing of evil and a
coming into harmony with the Divine Mind. It was in no sense a
histrionic affair, but a recognition of goodness and Supreme Power.
The Ahuna-Vairya, the prayer of prayers, delineates the most perfect
completeness of the philosophic life. The latest translation which I
have seen exemplifies this.
"As is the will of the Eternal Existence, so energy through the
harmony of the Perfect Mind is the producer of the manifestations of
the Universe, and is to Ahur' Mazda the power which gives
sustenance to the revolving systems."
With this manthra is coupled the Ashem-Vohu:
"Purity is the best good; a blessing it is - a blessing to him who
practices purity for the sake of the Highest Purity."
But for the defeat of the Persians at Salamis it is probable that
the Zoroastrian religion would have superseded the other worships of
Europe. After the conquest of Pontos and the Pirates the secret
worship of Mithras was extended over the Roman world. A
conspicuous symbolic representation was common, the slaying of the
Bull. When the vernal equinox was at the period of the sign Taurus,
the earth was joyous and became prolific. The picture represented
the period of the sun in Libra, the sign of Mithras. Then the Bull was
slain, the blighting scorpion and the reversed torch denoted winter
approaching to desolate the earth. With the ensuing spring the bull
revives, and the whole is enacted anew. It is a significant fact that
many religious legends and ceremonies are allied to this symbolic
figure. It was, however, a degradation of the Zoroastrian system.
It is a favorite notion of many that Zoroaster taught "dualism" -
that there is an eternal God and an eternal Devil contending for the
supreme control of the Universe. I do not question that the Anhra-
mainyas or Evil Mind mentioned in the Avesta was the original from
which many of the Devils of the various Creeds were shaped. The
Seth or Typhon of Egypt, the Baal Zebul of Palestine, the Diabolos
and Satan of Christendom, the Sheitan of the Yazidis and the Eblis of
the Muslim world are of this character. Yet we shall find as a general
fact that these personages were once worshiped as gods till conquest
and change of creed dethroned them. This is forcibly illustrated by
the devas, that are deities in India and devils with the Parsis.
Whether, however, the Eranian "liar from the beginning and the father
of lying," was ever regarded as a Being of Light and Truth may be
questioned. Yet there was a god Aramannu in Aethiopic Susiana
before the conquest by the Persians.
Zoroaster, nevertheless, taught pure monotheism. "I beheld
thee to be the universal cause of life in the Creation," he says in the
Yasna. The concept of a separate Evil Genius equal in power to
Ahur' Mazda is foreign to his theology. But the human mind cannot
contemplate a positive thought without a contrast. The existence of a
north pole presupposes a south pole.
Hence in the Yasna, in Dr. Haug's version we find mention of
"the more beneficent of my two spirits," which is paralleled by the
sentence in the book of Isaiah: "I make peace and create evil."
Significantly, however, the Gathas, which are the most unequivocally
Zoroastrian, never mention Auhra-mainyas as being in constant
hostility to Ahur' Mazda. Nor does Dareios in the inscriptions name
Auhra-mainyas at all. The druksh or "lie" is the odious object
denounced. But evil as a negative principle is not essentially wicked.
In this sense it is necessary, as shade to light, as night to day -
always opposing yet always succumbing. Even the body, when by
decay or disease it becomes useless and an enthraller of the soul, is
separated from it by the beneficent destroyer. "In his wisdom," says
the Yasna, "he produced the Good and the Negative Mind. . . . Thou
art he, O Mazda, in whom the last cause of these is hidden."
In his great speech before the altar, Zoroaster cries: "Let every
one, both man and woman, this day choose his faith. In the
beginning there were two - the Good and the Base in thought, word
and deed. Choose one of these two: be good, not base. You cannot
belong to both. You must choose the originator of the worst actions,
or the true holy spirit. Some may choose the worst allotment; others
adore the Most High by means of faithful action."
The religion of Zoroaster was essentially a Wisdom-Religion. It
made everything subjective and spiritual. In the early Gathas he
made no mention of personified archangels or Amshaspands, but
names them as moral endowments. "He gives us by his most holy
spirit," says he, "the good mind from which spring good thoughts,
words and deeds - also fullness, long life, prosperity and
understanding." In like manner the evil spirits or devas were chiefly
regarded as moral qualities or conditions, though mentioned as
individuated existences. Their origin was in the errant thoughts of
men. "These bad men," the Yasna declares, "produce the devas by
their pernicious thoughts." The upright, on the other hand destroy
them by good actions.
In the Zoroastrian purview, there is a spiritual and invisible
world which preceded, and remains about this material world as its
origin, prototype and upholder. Innumerable myriads of spiritual
essences are distributed through the universe. These are the
Frohars, or fravashis, the ideal forms of all living things in heaven and
earth. Through the Frohars, says the hymn, the Divine Being upholds
the sky, supports the earth, and keeps pure and vivific the waters of
preexistent life. They are the energies in all things, and each of them,
led by Mithras, is associated in its time and order with a human body.
Every being, therefore, which is created or will be created, has its
Frohar, which contains the cause and reason of its existence. They
are stationed everywhere to keep the universe in order and protect it
against evil. Thus they are allied to everything in nature; they are
ancestral spirits and guardian angels, attracting human beings to the
right and seeking to avert from them every deadly peril. They are the
immortal souls, living before our birth and surviving after death.
Truly, in the words of the hymn, the light of Ahur Mazda is
hidden under all that shines. Every world-religion seems to have
been a recipient. Grecian philosophy obtained here an inspiration.
Thales inculcated the doctrine of a Supreme Intelligence which
produced all things; Herakleitos described the Everlasting Fire as an
incorporeal soul from which all emanate and to which all return. Plato
tells Alkibiades of the magic or wisdom taught by Zoroaster, the
apostle of Oromasdes, which charges all to be just in conduct, and
true in word and deed.
Here is presented a religion that is personal and subjective,
rather than formal and histrionic. No wonder that a faith so noble has
maintained its existence through all the centuries, passing the
barriers of race and creed, to permeate the later beliefs. Though so
ancient that we only guess its antiquity, we find it comes up afresh in
modern creeds. It is found everywhere, retaining the essential flavor
of its primitive origin. It has nobly fulfilled its mission. "I march over
the countries," says the Gatha, "triumphing over the hateful and
striking down the cruel."
It has survived the torch of Alexander and the cimiter of the
Moslem. Millions upon millions have been massacred for adhering to
it, yet it survives as the wisdom which is justified by her children. The
Dialectic of Plato has been the textbook of scholars in the Western
World, and the dialogues of Zoroaster with Ahnr' Mazda constitute the
sacred literature of wise men of the far East.
"The few philosophic ideas which may be discovered in his
sayings," says Dr. Haug, "show that he was a great and deep thinker,
who stood above his contemporaries, and even above the most
enlightened men of many subsequent centuries."

(Un. Brotherhood, Sept., 1898)

------------

IAMBLICHOS AND THEURGY: THE REPLY TO

PORPHYRY
by Alexander Wilder

In the Lexicon of Suidas we find the following brief sketch of the

subject of this paper: "Iamblichos* the philosopher, a native of
Chalkis in Syria, disciple of Porphyry who was himself the pupil of
Plotinos, flourished about the time of Constantine the Emperor
(basileus) and was the author of many philosophic treatises." He
belonged to a noble family, and received the most liberal education
that could be obtained. He pursued the study of mathematics and
philosophy under Anatolios, probably the bishop of that name who
had himself delivered philosophic lectures at Alexandreia as a
follower of Aristotle.
After this Iamblichos became a disciple of Porphyry, and
succeeded to his place in the School. He is described as scholarly,
but not original in his views. His manner of life was exemplary, and
he was frugal in his habits. He lacked the eloquence of Plotinos, yet
excelled him in popularity. Students thronged from Greece and Syria
to hear him in such numbers that it was hardly possible for one man
to attend to them all. They sat with him at the table, followed him
wherever he went, and listened to him with profound veneration. It is
said that he probably resided in his native city. This may have been
the case, as the affairs of the Roman world were then greatly
disturbed. The philosophers,

-------------
* There are several persons of this name mentioned by ancient
writers. One was a king of Arabia to whom Cicero referred. A second
was a philosopher who was educated at Babylon and flourished
under the reign of the Antonines. The original term is Malech or
Moloch, signifying king. It was applied by all the various Semitic
peoples as a title of honor to their chief divinity. The subject of this
article employed simply the Greek form to his name, but Longinus
translated the designation of his own famous pupil, Porphyrios,
wearer of the purple.
-------------

however, were not circumscribed to one region, and there were

schools where they lectured in Athens, Pergamos and other places,
as well as at Alexandreia. Plotinos spent his last years at Rome and
contemplated the founding of a Platonic commune in Italy; and
Porphyry was with him there, with other pupils and associates,
afterward marrying and living in Sicily. Alypios the friend and
colleague of Iamblichos remained at Alexandreia.
Many of the works of Iamblichos are now lost. He wrote
Expositions of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, a treatise on the
Soul, and another to demonstrate the virtues and potencies existing
in the statues and symbols of the gods. Another work treated of the
Chaldean Theology. The loss of this is much to be regretted. The
religion of the Chaldaeans was largely astronomic as well as
mystical, and its creed could be read in the heavens. Late
researches indicate that the Egyptian, with all its antiquity, was
derived from it in the remote periods. The science denominated
Mathematics, including geometry and astronomy, was a part of the
system, and all problems of genesis and evolution were wrought out
by it. The philosophy of Pythagoras was modeled from it, and the
Rabbinic learning was Chaldaean in its origin. It has been repeatedly
suggested that the Mosaic book of Genesis was a compilation from
the same literature, and capable of being interpreted accordingly.
lamblichos also wrote a Life of Pythagoras which was
translated into English by the late Thomas Taylor, and published in
London in 1818. Part of a treatise on the Pythagoric Life is also yet
-------------

extant. It contains an account of the Pythagorean Sect, explanations

of the Pythagorean doctrines, the Profounder Mathematics, the
Arithmetical Science of Nikomachos, and Theological Discourses
respecting Numbers, besides other divisions which have not been
preserved.
The most celebrated work ascribed to him, however, is the
Logos, a Discourse upon the Mysteries. It is prefaced by a "Letter of
Porphyry to Anebo, the Egyptian Priest," and is itself described as
"the Reply of Abammon, the Teacher, to the Letter of Porphyry to
Anebo,, and Solutions of Questions therein contained." This work
was also translated by Mr. Taylor and published in 1821. The
translation was thorough and faithful, but unfortunately, it is difficult
for a novice to understand. He would need to know the Greek text
itself. There is a profusion of unusual terms, and the book abounds
with allusions to occurrences, and spectacles in the Initiatory Rites
which are nowhere explained, leaving the whole meaning more or
less vague and uncertain. It has been said in explanation of this that
Mr. Taylor desired the sense to be obscure, so that it would be difficult
for all general readers to understand it, as truth is only for those who
are worthy and capable.*
The genuiness of the authorship has been strenuously disputed
by Meiners, and defended with apparent conclusiveness by
Tennemann. It is certainly somewhat different in style from the other
works, and as is well-known, it was a common practice at that period,
not only for copyists to add or omit words and sentences in
manuscripts, but for authors themselves to give the name of

------------
* The writer himself prepared a translation several years ago
which was published in The Platonist. It is now undergoing revision
with a view to make the author's meaning more intelligible to the
novitiate reader, and notes are added to explain the frequent
references to scenes and phenomena witnessed in the Autopsias and
arcane ceremonies; which, however plain to the expert and initiated,
are almost hopelessly difficult for others to understand.
------------

some more distinguished person as the actual writer. But there is

said to he a scholium or annotation in several manuscripts in which
Proklos declares that this treatise on the Mysteries was written by
Iamblichos, and that he had merely disguised himself under the name
of Abammon.
Iamblichos was greatly esteemed by his contemporaries, and
those who lived in the ensuing centuries. Eunapios, his biographer,
styled him Thaumasios, or the Admirable. Proklos habitually
designated him the God-like, and others actually credited him with
powers superior to common men. Julian the Emperor considered him
as in no way second to Plato, and reverenced him as one of the
greatest among mankind.
Iamblichos made a new departure in the teaching of philosophy.
He exhibits a comparative indifference to the contemplative discipline,
and has introduced procedures which pertained to Magic Rites and
the Egyptian Theurgy.* It was natural therefore that Porphyry, his
friend and former teacher, who taught the other doctrine, should
desire to know the nature and extent of this apparent deviation from
the accepted philosophic procedures. Uncertain whether his
questions would otherwise reach the Master, perhaps then absent
front Egypt, he addressed them to Anebo, his disciple, who held the
office of prophet or interpreter in the sacerdotal order. He did not
assume to blame or even criticise, but asked as a friend what these
Theosophers and theurgic priests believed and were teaching in
respect to the several orders of superior and intelligent beings,
oracles and divination, the efficacy of sacrifices, and evocations, the
reason for employing foreign terms at the Mystic Rites, the Egyptian
belief in respect to the First Cause, concluding with enquiries and a

------------
* "Theurgy. ....The art of securing divine or supernatural
intervention in human affairs; especially the magical science
practiced by those Neo-Platonists who employed invocations,
sacrifices, diagrams, talismans, etc." ..... Standard Dictionary
------------

discussion in regard to guardian demons, the casting of nativities,

and finally asks whether there may not be after all a path to
eudaimonia, or the true felicity other than by sacrifices and the
technique of Theurgy.
The reply of Abammon is explicit and admirable, as affording a
key to the whole system. To us, perhaps, who have grown up in
another age and received a training in other modes of thinking, his
statements and descriptions may appear visionary and even absurd.
We may, however, bear in mind that they did not appear so to those
for whom he wrote; and should respect the convictions which others
reverently and conscientiously entertain.
In the work under notice, the author plainly endeavored to show
that a common idea pervaded the several ancient religions. He did
this so successfully that Samuel Sharpe did not hesitate to declare
that by the explanation given of them the outward and visible symbols
employed in the Arcane Worship became emblems of divine truth;
that the Egyptian religion becomes a part of Platonism, and the gods
are so many agents or intermediate beings only worshiped as
servants of the Divine Creator. With this conception in mind, this
work may be read with fair apprehending of the meaning of the
author.
He proposes to base the classification of Spiritual Essences
upon the doctrines of the Assyrians, but modifies it by the views
better understood by the Greeks. For example, he enumerates the
four genera of gods, demons, heroes or demigods, and souls, and
explains some of their distinctions. Before concluding he introduces
three other orders from the Assyrian category, making seven in all,
occupying distinct grades in the scale of being.
In defining their peculiarities, he begins with "the Good - both
the good that is superior to Essence and that which is with Essence,"
the Monad and Duad of the philosophers; in other words the
Essential Good and that Absolute Good that is prior to it. The gods
are supreme, the causes of things, and are circumscribed by no
specific distinction. The archangels not carefully described. This
may be because they belong to the Assyrian and not to the Egyptian
category. They are there enumerated as seven, like the
Amshaspands in the Zoroastrian system. They are very similar to the
higher gods, but are subordinate to them, and indeed seem to denote
qualities rather than personalities. After them come the angels.
These are likewise of the East, and doubtless the same as the
Yazadas of the Avesta, of whom Mithras was chief. The Seven
Kabeiri or archangels preside over the planets; the Yesdis or angels
rule over the universe in a subordinate way. The demons or
guardians carry into effect the purposes of the gods with the world
and those that are inferior to them. The heroes or demigods are
intermediate between the more exalted orders of spiritual beings and
psychic natures, and are the means of communication between them.
They impart to the latter the benign influences of those superior to
them and aid to deliver from the bondage of the lower propensities.
Another race that Abammon names is that of the archons or rulers.
These are described as of two species: the cosmocrators or rulers of
the planets, and those that rule over the material world. Souls are at
the lower step of this seven-graded scale, and make the
communication complete from the Absolute One to the inhabitants of
the world. The result of this communication is to sustain the lower
psychic nature and exalt it to union with Divinity.
This union is not effected by the superior knowledge alone, nor
by the action of the higher intellect, although these are necessary
auxiliaries. Nothing which pertains to us as human beings is thus
efficacious. There must be a more potent energy. This is explained
subsequently.
In regard to oracles and the faculty of divining, Abammon
quotes the Chaldaean sages, as teaching that the soul has a double
life, one in common with the body, and the other separate from every
thing corporeal. When we are awake we use the things pertaining to
the body, except we detach ourselves altogether from it by pure
principles in thought and understanding. In sleep, however, we are in
a manner free. The soul is cognizant beforehand of coming events,
by the reasons that precede them. Any one who overlooks primary
causes, and attributes the faculty of divining to secondary assistance,
or to causes of a psychic or physical character, or to some
correspondence of these things to one another, will go entirely wrong.
Dreams, however, which may be regarded as God-sent occur
generally when sleep is about leaving us and we are just beginning to
awake. Sometimes we have in them a brief discourse indicating
things about to take place; or it may be that during the period
between waking and complete repose, voices are heard. Sometimes,
also, a spirit, imperceptible and unbodied, encompasses the
recumbent individual in a circle, so as not to be present to the
person's sight, coming into the consciousness by joint-sensation and
keeping in line with the thought. Sometimes the sight of the eyes is
held fast by a light beaming forth bright and soft, and remains so,
when they had been wide open before. The other senses, however,
are watchful and conscious of the presence of superior beings.
These, therefore, are totally unlike the dreams which occur in
ordinary conditions. On the other hand the peculiar sleeplessness,
the holding of the sight, the catalepsy resembling lethargy, the
condition between sleep and waking, and the recent awaking or
entire wakefulness, are all divine and suitable for the receiving of the
gods as guests. Indeed, they are conditions sent from the gods, and
precede divine manifestations.
There are many forms of entheastic exaltation. Sometimes we
share the innermost power of Divinity; sometimes only the
intermediate, sometimes the first alone. Either the soul enjoys them
by itself, or it may have them in concert with the body, or the whole of
the individual, all parts alike, receive the divine inflowings. The
human understanding, when it is controlled by demons, is not
affected; it is not from them, but from the gods that inspiration
comes. This he declares to be by no means an ecstasy, or
withdrawing from one's own selfhood. It is an exaltation to the
superior condition; for ecstasy and mental alienation he affirms
indicate an overturning to the worse.
Here Abammon seems to diverge from the doctrine of Plotinos
and Porphyry. Indeed, he is often Aristotelian rather than Platonic in
his philosophy, and he exalts Theurgy above philosophic
contemplation. He explains himself accordingly.
The Soul, before she yielded herself to the body, was a hearer
of the divine harmony. Accordingly, after she came into the body and
heard such of the Choric Songs* as retain the divine traces of
harmony, she gave them a hearty welcome and by means of them
called back to her memory the divine harmony itself. Thus she is
attracted and becomes closely united to it, and in this way receives
as much of it as is possible. The Theurgic Rites, sacred melodies
and contemplation develop the entheastic condition, and enable the
soul to perceive truth as it exists in the Eternal world, the world of real
being.
Divinity, it is insisted, is not brought down into the signs and
symbols which

--------------
* The chants of the Chorus, at the Mystic Rites. The choir
danced or moved in rhythmic step around the altar facing outward
with hands joined, and chanted the Sacred Odes.
--------------

are employed in the art of divination. It is not possible for essence to

be developed from any thing which does not contain it already. The
susceptible condition is only sensible of what is going on and is now
in existence, but foreknowledge reaches even things which have not
yet begun to exist.
 Abammon explains the doctrine of "Karma" as readily as
Sakyamuni himself. This shows what King Priyadarsi declared, that
the Buddhistic teachings had been promulgated in Egypt, Syria and
Greece. "The beings that are superior to us know the whole life of
the soul and all its former lives; and if they bring a retribution by
reason of the supplication of some who pray to them, they do not
inflict it beyond what is right. On the other hand, they aim at the sins
impressed on the soul in former lives; which fact human beings not
being conscious of, deem it not just to be obliged to encounter the
vicissitudes which they suffer."
His explanation of the utility of sacrifices is ingenious, but will
hardly be appreciated by many at the present time. Some of the
gods, he explains, belong to the sphere of the material world, and
others are superior to it. If, then, a person shall desire to worship
according to theurgic rites those divinities that belong to the realm of
material things, he must employ a mode of worship which is of that
sphere. It is not because of these divinities themselves that animals
are slaughtered, and their dead bodies presented as sacrifices.
These divinities are in their constitution wholly separate from any
thing material. But the offerings are made because of the matter over
which they are rulers. Nevertheless, though they are in essence
wholly apart from matter, they are likewise present with it; and
though they take hold of it by a supra-material power they exist with
it.
But to the divinities who are above the realm of matter, the
offering of any material substance in Holy Rites, is utterly repugnant.
In regard to the efficacy of prayer, Abammon is by no means
equivocal or indefinite. He declares that it joins the Sacred Art in an
indissoluble union with the divine beings. It leads the worshiper to
direct contact and a genuine knowing of the divine nature. A bond of
harmonious fellowship is created, and as a result there come gifts
from the gods to us before a word is uttered, and our efforts are
perfected before they are distinctly cognized. In the most perfect
form of prayer the arcane union with the gods is reached, every
certainty is assured, enabling our souls to repose perfectly therein. It
attracts our habits of thought upward, and imparts to us power from
the gods. In short it makes those who make use of it the intimate
companions of the divine beings.
It is easy to perceive, therefore, says Abammon, that these two,
prayer and the other rites and offerings, are established by means of
each other, and give to each other the sacred initiating power of the
Holy Rite.
He denies the possibility of obtaining perfect foreknowledge by
means of an emotional condition. This is a blending of the higher
nature with corporeal and material quality, which results in dense
ignorance. Hence it is not proper to accept an artificial method in
divining, nor to hold any one making use of it in any great esteem.
The Theurgos commands the powers of the universe, not as one
using the faculties of a human soul, but as a person preexistent in the
order of the divine beings, and one with them.
The explanation of the use of foreign terms, not intelligible to
the hearer, is noteworthy. "The gods have made known to us that the
entire language of sacred nations, such as the Egyptians and
Assyrians, is most suitable for religious matters; and we must believe
that it behooves us to carry on our conferences with the gods in
language natural to them." Names are closely allied to the things
which they signify, and when translated they lose much of their
power.* The foreign names have great significance, greater
conciseness, and less uncertainty of meaning.
The First Cause, the God Unknowable, is indicated in graphic
language, "Before the things that really are and universal principles is
one Divine Essence, prior even to the First God and King abiding
immovable in his own absolute Oneness. For nothing thinkable is
commingled with him, nor anything whatever; but he is established
the antecedent of the God self-fathered, self-produced, sole Father,
the Truly Good. For he is the Being greatest and first, the Origin of all
things, and the foundation of the primal ideal forms which are
produced by the Higher Intellect. From this One, the Absolute God
radiated forth; hence he is the self-fathered and self-sufficient. For
this is the First Cause and God of Gods, the Unity from out of the
One, prior to Essence and the First Cause of Essence. For from him
are both the quality of essence and essence itself - for which reason
he is called the Chief Intelligence. These are therefore the oldest
principles of all things."
This is perhaps as plain and explicit as this subject can be
made. The close resemblance to the Brahman of the Indian system,
from whom proceeds Brahma the Creator, is apparent at a glance.
Abammon cites also the Tablet of Hermes, which placed Emeph or
Imopht at the head of the celestial divinities, and
-----------
* We may perhaps, see in this the ulterior reason why
Brahmans choose the obsolete Sanskrit, Jews the Hebrew and
Roman Catholics, the Latin in their religious services, saying nothing
of the "unknown tongues," the use of which in religious services was
so much deprecated by the Apostle Paul. We observe the same
notion or superstition in the attachment witnessed for the word
Jehovah, a term falsely literated in place id-the Assyrian divinity Yava
or Raman. Even the Polychrome Bible transmits this idle whim by
lettering the word as J H V H, which nobody can pronounce
intelligently.
------------

named a First Intelligence as before him and to be worshiped in

silence. The Chaldaeans and also the Magians taught a similar
doctrine.
It being established that the Supreme Mind and the Logos or
Reason subsist by themselves, it is manifest that all things existing,
are from them - beginning with the One and proceeding to the many.
There is a Trine: a pure Intelligence above and superior to the
universe, an indivisible One in the universe, and another, the
universal Life, that is divided and apportioned to all the spheres.
Matter is also introduced into the circle, being evolved from the
spiritual substance; and so, "materiality having been riven from
essentiality on its lower side, and being full of vitality, the spheres and
all living things are created and organized therefrom."
Abammon has taken a view of Fate which though in many
respects acceptable seems also to relate to the ruling of the nativity.
It is not true, he insists, that every thing is bound with the indissoluble
bonds of Necessity. The lowest natures only, which are combined
with the changeable order of the universe, and with the body, are thus
subjected. Man, however, has, so to speak, two souls: one that
participates of the First Intelligence and the power of the Creator, and
one from the astral worlds. The latter follows the motions of those
worlds, but the former is above them, and therefore is not held by fate
or allotment.
There is another principle of the soul superior to all being and
becoming to all, nature and nativity, through which we can be united
to the gods, rise above the established order of the world, and
participate in the life eternal and in the energy of the gods above the
heavens. Through this principle we are able to set ourselves free.
For when the better qualities in us are active, and the Soul is led back
again to the natures superior to itself, then it becomes entirely
separated from every thing that held it fast to the
------------

conditions of nativity, stands aloof from inferior natures, exchanges

this life for the other, abandons entirely the former order of things,
and gives itself to another."
In regard to nativities, Abammon admits that the divine oracular
art can teach us what is true in respect to the stars, but declares that
we do not stand in any need of the enumeration prescribed by the
Canons of astrology or those of the art of divining. That the
astronomic predictions are verified by results, observations prove.
But they do not relate to any recognition of the guardian demon. It is
true, he remarks, that there is the lord of the house, as
mathematicians or astrologists declare, and the demon bestowed by
him. But the demon is not assigned to us from one part of the
celestial world or from any planet. There is a personal allotment in us
individually from all the universe, the life and corporeal substances in
it, through which the soul descends into the genesis or objective
existence. The demon is placed in the paradigm or ideal form, and
the soul takes him for a leader. He immediately takes charge, filling
the soul with the qualities of physical life, and when it has descended
into the corporeal world, he acts as the guardian genius.
When, however, we come, by the sacred initiation, to know God
truly as the guardian and leader, the demon retires or surrenders his
authority, or becomes in some way subordinate to God as his
Overlord.
Evil demons have nowhere an allotment as ruling principles,
nor are they opposed to the good like one party against another, as
though of equal importance.
The "Last Word" includes a brief summary of the whole
discourse. Abammon insists that there is no path to felicity and
permanent blessedness apart from the worship of the Gods as here
set forth. Divine inspiration alone imparts to us truly the divine life.
Man, the Theotos,* endowed with perception, was thus united with
Divinity in the beforetime by the epoptic vision of the Gods; but he
entered into another kind of soul or disposition which was conformed
to the human idea of form, and through it became in bondage to
Necessity and Fate. There can be no release and freedom from
these except by the Knowledge of the Gods. For the idea or
fundamental principle of blessedness is to apperceive Goodness; as
the idea of evil exists with the forgetting of the Good and with being
deceived in respect to evil. Let it be understood, then, that this
knowledge of Good is the first and supreme path to felicity, affording
to souls a mental abundance from the Divine One. This bestowing of
felicity by the sacerdotal and theurgic ministration, is called by some
the Gate to the Creator of the Universe, and by others the Place or
Abode of the One Supremely Good. It first effects the unifying of the
soul; then the restoring of the understanding to the participation and
vision of the God, and its release from every thing of a contrary
nature; and after these, union to the Gods, the bestowers of all
benefits.
When this has been accomplished, then it leads the Soul to the
Universal Creator, gives it into his keeping and separates it from
every thing material, uniting it with the one Eternal Reason. In short,
it becomes completely established in the Godhead, endowed with its
energy, wisdom, and Creative power. This is what is meant by the
Egyptian priests when they, in the Book of the Dead, represent the
Lord as becoming identified with Osiris; and, with such modifications
as the changing forms of the various faiths have made, it may fairly
be said to be the accepted creed of the religious world.

(Un. Brotherhood, May, 1898)

* The Beholder or Candidate looking upon the spectacles

exhibited at the Initiatory Rites.
------------------

SEERSHIP
By Alexander Wilder, M.D.

Dare I say:
No spirit ever broke the band
That stays him from the native land
Where first he walked when clasped in day?
No visual shade of some one lost,
But he, the spirit himself, may come,
 Where all the nerve of sense is dumb,
Spirit to spirit, ghost to ghost.
- Tennyson

AS we become conscious of limitations there arises in us a

desire to pass beyond them. The future, the invisible region of mind
and energy, become themes of contemplation and curiosity. What
has been denominated "superstition" has gained its place with human
beings, far less from servile and abject impulse, than from incessant
aspiration to learn the mysteries of life and its relations with the
universe. We dread uncertainty more than the dangers that we
comprehend. Much of the fear of death owes its existence to the
consciousness that we must meet it individually by ourselves. Much
that is experienced by persons in low state of health is due to the
consciousness that the problem is to be realized alone with only
uncertainty in view. Hence men have lived in all periods of history,
who left in the background the ordinary considerations of personal
ambition and advantage, and sought a higher wisdom and an interior
communion with the potencies that influence the vicissitudes of life.
Whether people were cultivated or still under crude conditions, it
made little difference. In all communities alike, there have been men
laboring earnestly to discern and resolve the problems of existence
and destiny.
The eager question of the age, "whence and whither?" comes
up to anxious attention before other inquiries. Its solution has been
sought eagerly through all times. It is the problem of every
philosophy. In the multiplicity around us all that can be observed is,
the outflow of events, a stream propelled by a lifeless force without
aim, purpose, or benefit, from nowhence to nowhither. Justice,
goodness, moral excellence, in such case would be but incidents in
our own mortal existence, temporary accidents of consciousness
brought to view by the attritions of every-day experience, but having
little or no ulterior advantage. We are hurried to such a whirlpool of
unrest and uncertainty by the specious reasonings of a sciolism
which regards only apparent facts, but excludes the causes from
examination.
It has been easy to cast upon everything transcending the
common knowledge, the imputation of being visionary and
charlatanic. The fact has been overlooked that the very capacity to
imagine the possibility of superior wonder-working power, is itself an
argument, perhaps actual proof, that they exist. If there are
counterfeits of such powers, there is of necessity a genuine original
from which they were copied. The critic, as well as the skeptic, is
generally inferior to the person or subject that he reviews, and is
therefore seldom a competent witness. He may be content, like the
bat, to repudiate the existence of sunlight as beyond knowing, and
circumscribe his belief and enquiries to his own night and twilight.
True men, nevertheless, while discarding hallucinations and
morbid hankerings, and employing caution in their exploration of all
subjects within the scope of their comprehension, will always be
ready to know concerning what is beyond.
There is a faculty of the human soul, which is capable of being
roused when the exigency arises for its manifestation. It is dormant
during the period of immaturity and spiritual adolescence, and also
while the attention is absorbed by matters of the external world. It is
capable, however, of cultivation and development, till we are able to
receive normally the communication of superior wisdom, and to
perceive as by superhuman endowment what is good and true, as
well as appropriate for the time. Some may suppose this to be a
superior instinct; others, a supernatural power. Nevertheless, it may
not always be exercised at will; whatever would force its revealments
is very certain to close the perception. There is also constant need
for discipline and experience in this as in other faculties. Our powers
are limited, and it is more than possible to mistake hallucinations and
vagaries of the mind for monitions and promptings from the interior
world.
"The mind is our divinity," says the poet Maenander. "It is
placed with every individual to initiate him into the mysteries of life,
and requires him in all things to be good." In this mind, this interior
spirit in the soul, consists our power to apprehend the truth in any
immediate, direct and intuitive manner. The faculty of intuition is a
power which the mind possesses by virtue of its essential nature,
kindred with Divinity itself. In its perfect development it is the instinct
peculiar to each of us matured into unerring consciousness of right
and wrong, and a conception equally vivid of the source and
sequence of things. We may possess these powers by proper
discipline and cultivation of ourselves. Justice in what we do, wisdom
in our life, and love or unselfish charity and desire in our motives, are,
therefore, of the greatest importance. These will bring us in due time
to that higher insight and perception which seem as a child's instinct
to the possessor, but appear as an almost miraculous attainment to
others.
Inside of this faculty is everything that really pertains to the
prophetic endowment and foreknowledge. Everything of which we
conceive as past or future, is mirrored upon the tablet of the Supernal
and Infinite and so as real fact is constantly present, an ever-being
now. The individual whose perceptions are vivified to the necessary
acuteness may thus know, and be able to predict what is to take
place. Besides, there are spiritual beings - gods in a minor sense -
and exalted psychal natures, that are intermediary, capable of
knowing such matters and imparting the knowledge to individuals that
are still living on the earth. Sometimes the impressions which are
made in such ways, are reflected upon the ganglial sensorium, and
so become objective images which the seer may contemplate as
being before his eyes. This is the case sometimes when they are
associated with an individual, or some other object, at the time. The
impression may, likewise, fall upon the auditory apparatus, and so be
heard as a voice. So often did this occur in former times, that the
Pythagoreans were astonished when they heard a person declare
that he had never heard or seen a demon.
Ancient writers in every nation have recounted examples of
these manifestations. The Hebrew Scriptures abound with them.
Ancient Palestine was a country of seers. In the second book of
Kings are several accounts of wonderful seership which are amply
illustrative. They may not be historic, and it is common usage to
explain away and deny such things. Yet if there had not been
occurrences of such a character, there would have been no such
stories framed. The credulity of disbelievers is often very servile.
In the narrative as it now appears Elisha the prophet* is
described as entheastic, intuitive and clairvoyant. His peculiar faculty
of insight is said to have been brought into activity on one occasion
by the playing of a minstrel; and at other times when there were
periods of extreme exigency. When the King of Syria made several
treacherous attempts to capture and abduct the King of Israel, Elisha
on each occasion warned the latter of his peril. The Syrian king was
confounded; he had laid his plots privately and could only suppose
that there was a secret agent of the King of Israel among his officers.
One of them refuted the suspicion. "None of us," said he; "but
Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, declares to the king of Israel the
very words that thou speakest in the inner part of thy bed-chamber."
-----------
* The Hebrew term is NABIA, an entheast or inspired person,
an ecstatic. The term "prophet" more properly means, one who
speaks for another. But the term has become the appellation of the
Hebrew seers and sages, and we with reluctance employ it
accordingly.
-----------

At another time the king of Syria, Ben Hadad, was prostrated

with severe illness. Elisha chanced at this time to be in Damascus,
and the king resolved to consult him as being clairvoyant, in relation
to his prospects of recovery. Hazael, an officer of the court, was sent
with costly presents, to obtain the oracular reply. Elisha declared the
illness not mortal, but nevertheless predicted the death of the
monarch. Then gazing intently upon the messenger, he wept bitterly.
The astonished Hazael asked the reason of this. Elisha replied,
depicting the ravages which Hazael was going to inflict upon his
country and his terrible cruelty to the inhabitants. In vain did Hazael
protest that he was a mere underling, and therefore unable to do
anything of the sort. "What is thy servant, merely a dog, and not able
to do anything so monstrous." Elisha sadly replied: "The Lord hath
shown thee to me, king over Syria."
Perhaps the best explanation of this subject is given by
Apollonios, of Tyana. Like Paracelsus of later centuries, this
distinguished man has been described in terms of foulest calumny.
But his words are explicit. "I take very little food," says he; "and this
abstinence maintains my senses unimpaired, so that I can see the
present and the future as in a clear mirror. The sage has no occasion
to wait for the vapors of the earth and the corruption of the air to
develop plagues and epidemic fevers; he must know them later than
God, but earlier than common men. The gods (or superior essences)
see the future; common men see the present; sages that which is
about to take place. This mode of life produces such an acuteness of
the senses, or else it is a distinct faculty, that the greatest and most
remarkable things may be performed. I am perfectly convinced,
therefore, that God reveals his intentions, to pure and wise men."
Volumes have been filled with records of this wonderful power.
To reject them would be to discard the faith, the observations, the
experiences of every race of humankind. It would be an
unfaithfulness and infidelity to truth itself, which a truth-seeking mind
cannot afford. The universe of apparent facts cannot wholly eclipse
the cosmos of reality. If foreknowledge is possessed by the Deity,
somewhat of it may be imparted to others. To be sure, it is an interior
perceptivity, and not to be learned from textbooks, but is a something
to be discerned when the external senses are silent. But the counsel
of Sokrates to Aristodemos is pertinent and deserving of attention:
"Render thyself deserving of some of these divine secrets which may
not be penetrated by man, but which are imparted to those who
consult, who adore, who obey the Deity."
There are, and there will be, intuitions into this world of ours
from the regions beyond, and there is certain to be a sensibility to
occult forces developed which will enable the key to be used by
which to understand the whole matter.

(The Word, July, 1906)

---------------

PORPHYRY AND HIS TEACHINGS.

by Professor Alexander Wilder, M.D.

THE distinction is due to Porphyry of having been the most able

and consistent champion and exponent of the Alexandreian School.
He was a native of Tyre, of Semitic extraction, and was born in the
year 233, in the reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus. He was
placed at an early age under the tutelage of Origen, the celebrated
Christian philosopher, who had himself been a pupil of Ammonios
Sakkas. Afterward he became a student of Longinus at Athens, who
had opened a school of rhetoric, literature and philosophy. Longinus
had also been a disciple of Ammonios, and was distinguished as the
Scholar of the Age. He was often called a "Living Library," and the
"Walking School of Philosophy." He afterward became the counsellor
of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, an honor that finally cost him his life.
Longinus foresaw the promise of his pupil, and according to a custom
of the time, changed his Semitic name of Melech (king) to Porphyrios,
or wearer of the purple.
In his thirtieth year, Porphyry bade farewell to his teachers in
Greece and became a student in the school of Plotinos at Rome.
Here he remained six years. Plotinos greatly esteemed him and
often employed him to instruct the younger pupils, and to answer the
questions of objectors. On one of the occasions, when the
anniversary of Plato's Birthday was celebrated (the seventh of May),
Porphyry recited a poem entitled The Sacred Marriage. Many of the
sentiments in it were mystic and occult, which led one of the company
to declare him crazed. Plotinos, however, was of another mind, and
exclaimed in delight: "You have truly shown yourself to be at once a
Poet, a Philosopher, and a Hierophant."
That Porphyry was an enthusiast and liable to go to extremes
was to be expected. He acquired an abhorrence of the body, with its
appetites and conditions, and finally began to entertain an intention to
commit suicide. This, he says, "Plotinos wonderfully perceived, and
as I was walking alone, he stood before me and said: 'Your present
design, Porphyrios, is by no means the dictate of a sound mind, but
rather of a Soul raging with the furor of melancholia.'"
Accordingly, at his direction, Porphyry left Rome and became a
resident at Lilybaeum in Sicily. There he presently recovered a
normal state of mind and health. He never again saw his venerated
instructor. Plotinos, however, kept up a correspondence with him,
sending him manuscripts to correct and put in good form, and
encouraging him to engage in authorship on his own account.
After the death of Plotinos, he returned to Rome and became
himself a teacher. With a temperament more active and practical
than that of Plotinos, with more various ability and far more facility in
adaptation, with an erudition equal to his fidelity, blameless in his life,
preeminent in the loftiness and purity of his ethics, he was well fitted
to do all that could be done toward drawing for the doctrines he had
espoused that reputation and that wider influence to which Plotinos
was so indifferent.'' [R. A. Vaughan.] It was his aim to exalt worship to
its higher ideal, casting off superstitious notions and giving a spiritual
sense and conception to the Pantheon, the rites and the mythologic
legends. What is vulgarly denominated idolatry, paganism and
polytheism, had little countenance in his works, except as thus
expounded. He emulated Plotinos, who on being asked why he did
not go to the temple and take part in the worship of the gods, replied:
"It is for the gods to conic to me."
When he lived, the new Christian religion was gaining a
foothold, particularly among the Greek-speaking peoples, and its
teachers appear to have been intolerant even to the extreme of
bigotry. The departure from established customs was so flagrant as
to awaken in the Imperial Court vivid apprehensions of treasonable
purposes. Similar apprehensions had led the Roman Senate to
suppress the Bacchic Nocturnal Rites; and energetic measures had
also been employed in the case of the flagitious enormities in the
secret worship of the Venus of Kotytto. The nightly meetings of the
Christians were represented to be of a similar character. This led to
vigorous efforts for their suppression. Porphyry, though broad in his
liberality, was strenuous in his opposition to their doctrines, and wrote
fifteen treatises against them. These were afterward destroyed in the
proscription by Theodosios, without any attempt to answer them.
He was equally suspicious of the Theurgic doctrines and magic
rites. The sacrifice of men and animals, for sacrifice and divination,
was resolutely discountenanced as attracting evil demons. "A right
opinion of the gods and of things themselves," he declared, "is the
most acceptable sacrifice."
"Very properly," said he, "will the philosopher who is also the
priest of the God that is above all, abstain from all animal food, in
consequence of earnestly endeavoring to approach through himself
alone to the alone God, without being disturbed by anything about
him."
This was the very core of the Neo-Platonic doctrine. "This,"
says Plotinos, "this is the life of the Gods, and of divine and blessed
human beings - a liberation from earthly concerns, a life
unaccompanied by human delights, and a flight of the alone to the
Alone."
"He who is truly a philosopher," adds Porphyry, "is an observer
and skilled in many things; he understands the works of nature, is
sagacious, temperate and modest, and is in every respect the savior
and preserver of himself."
"Neither vocal language nor is internal speech adapted to the
Most High God, when it is defiled by any passion of the soul; but we
should venerate him in silence with a pure soul, and with pure
conceptions about him."
"It is only requisite to depart from evil, and to know what is most
honorable in the whole of things, and then everything in the universe
is good, friendly and in alliance with us."
"Nature, being herself a spiritual essence, initiates those
through the superior Mind (noos) who venerate her." Although
himself believing in divination and communion with spiritual
essences, Porphyry distrusted the endeavor to blend philosophic
contemplation with magic arts, or orgiastic observances. This is
manifest in his Letter to Anebo the Egyptian prophet in which he
demands full explanations respecting the arts of evoking the gods
and demons, divining by the stars and other agencies, the Egyptian
belief respecting the Supreme Being, and what was the true path to
Blessedness.
Although we read of no formal schism, there appear to have
been two distinct parties - that of the Theurgists represented by
Iamblichos, Proklos and their followers, and the disciples of Porphyry,
Hypatia, and other teachers, who inculcated that there is an intuitive
perception cognate in the soul, and that there may be a union and
communion with Divinity by ecstasy and suspension of corporeal
consciousness.
"By his conceptions,'' says Porphyry, had Plotinos, assisted by
the divine light raised himself to the First God beyond, and by
employing for this purpose the paths narrated by Plato in The
Banquet, there appeared to him the Supreme Divinity who has
neither any form nor idea, but is established above Mind and every
Spiritual Essence: to whom also, I, Porphyry, say that I once
approached, and was united when I was sixty-eight years of age. For
the end and scope with Plotinos consisted in approximating and
being united to the God who is above all. Four times he obtained this
end while I was with him (in Rome) and this by an ineffable energy
and not in capacity."
Porphyry lived till the reign of Diocletian, dying in his seventieth
year. He had given the later Platonism a well-defined form, which
was retained for centuries. Even after the change of the State
religion, the whole energy of the Imperial Government was required
to crush it. Even when Justinian arbitrarily closed the school at
Athens, and the teachers had escaped to the Persian king for safety,
there were still adherents in secret to their philosophy. Afterward, too,
they came forth in Oriental Sufism and Western Mysticism, and
retained their influence till the present time.
Among the works of Porphyry which have escaped destruction,
are his treatise on "Abstinence from Animal Food," nearly entire, the
"Cave of the Nymphs," "Auxiliaries to the Study of Intelligible
(Spiritual) Natures," "The Five Voices," "Life of Plotinos," "Letter to
Anebo," "Letter to his Wife Marcella," "The River Styx," "Homeric
Ouestions," "Commentaries on the Harmonies of Ptolemy." His other
books were destroyed by order of Theodosios.
The "Cave of the Nymphs'' is described in the Odyssey as
situate in the island of Ithaca. The term is figurative and the story
allegoric. The ancients dealt much in allegory; and the Apostle Paul
does not hesitate to declare the story of the patriarch Abraham and
his two sons allegory, and that the exodus of the Israelites through
the sea and into the Arabian desert was a narrative made up of types
or figures of speech. Caves symbolized the universe, and appear to
have been the sanctuaries of archaic time. It is said that Zoroaster
consecrated one to Mithras as the Creator; and that Kronos
concealed his children in a cave; and Plato describes this world as a
cave and prison. Demeter and her daughter Persephone, each were
worshiped in caves. Grottos once used for worship abound in
Norway. Mark Twain asserts that the "sacred places'' in Palestine
were located by the Catholics, and are all of them caves. The
initiation rites were performed in caves, or apartments representing
subterranean apartments, with "a dim religious light." Zeus and
Bacchus were nursed in such places. The Mithraic worship which
was adopted from the Persians, and carried all through the Roman
world, had its initiations in Sacred Caverns. To the caves were two
entrances, one for mortals at the north and one for divine beings at
the south. The former was for souls coming from the celestial world
to be born as human beings, and the other for their departure from
this world heavenward. An olive-tree standing above, expressed the
whole enigma. It typified the divine wisdom, and so implied that this
world was no product of chance, but the creation of wisdom and
divine purpose. The Nymphs were also agents in the same category.
Greek scholars will readily comprehend this. The nymphs presided
over trees and streams of water, which also are symbols of birth into
this world. Numphe signifies a bride, or marriageable girl;
numpheion a marriage-chamber; numpheuma an espousal. Water
was styled numphe as significant of generation. In short the Cave of
the Nymphs, with the olive-tree, typified the world with souls
descending from the celestial region to be born into it, in an order
established by Divine Wisdom itself.
Thus we may see that the ancient Rites, and Notions, now
stigmatized as idolatrous, were but eidola or visible representations of
arcane and spiritual concepts. As they were once observed with pure
reverence, it becomes us to regard them with respect. What is
accounted holy can not be altogether impure.
 The treatise on Animal Food covers a very broad field which
space forbids the traversing. The point in view is of course, that a
philosopher, a person in quest of a higher life and higher wisdom,
should live simply, circumspectly, and religiously forbear to deprive
his fellow-animals of life for his food. Even for sacrifice he regards
the immolating of men or animals repugnant to the nature of Gods,
and attractive only to lower races of spiritual beings.
He, however, leaves those engaged in laborious callings
entirely out. His discourse, he declares, "is not directed to those who
are occupied in sordid mechanical arts, nor to those engaged in
athletic exercises; neither to soldiers, nor sailors, nor rhetoricians,
nor to those who lead an active life, but I write to the man who
considers what he is, whence he came, and whither he ought to
tend."
"The end with us is to obtain the contemplation of Real Being
[the essence that really is]; the attainment of it procuring, as much as
is possible for us, a union of the person contemplating with the object
of contemplation. The re-ascent of the soul is not to anything else
than to True Being itself. Mind [noos] is truly-existing being; so that
the end is, to live a life of mind."
Hence purification and felicity (endaimonia) are not attained by
a multitude of discussions and disciplines, nor do they consist in
literary attainments but on the other hand we should divest ourselves
of everything of a mortal nature which we assumed by coming from
the eternal region into the mundane condition, and likewise of a
tenacious affection for it, and should excite and call forth our
recollection of that blessed and eternal essence from which we
issued forth.
"Animal food does not contribute to temperance and frugality, or
to the piety which especially gives completion to the contemplative
life, but is rather hostile to it." Abstinence neither diminishes our life
nor occasions living unhappily. The Pythagoreans made lenity
toward beasts to be an exercise of philanthropy and commiseration.
The Egyptian priests generally employed a slender diet, generally
abstaining from all animals, some even refusing to eat eggs, and
"they lived free from disease." So, Hesiod described the men of the
Golden Age.
The essay on Intelligible or Spiritual Natures is in the form of
aphorisms, and gives the cream of the Later Platonism. We can
select only a few of the sentiments. Every body is in place; but
things essentially incorporeal are not present with bodies by
personality and essence. They, however, impart a certain power to
bodies through verging towards them. The soul is an entity between
indivisible essence, and the essence about bodies. The mind or spirit
is indivisible, or whole. The soul is bound to the body through the
corporeal passions and is liberated by becoming impassive. Nature
bound the body to the soul; but the soul binds itself to the body.
Hence there are two forms of death: one that of the separating of
soul and body, and that of the philosopher, the liberating of the soul
from the body. This is the death which Sokrates describes in the
Phaedo.
The knowing faculties are sense, imagination, and mind or
spirit. Sense is of the body, imagination of the soul, but mind is self-
conscious and apperceptive. Soul is an essence without magnitude,
immaterial, incorruptible, possessing its existence in life, and having
life from itself.
The properties of matter are thus set forth: It is incorporeal; it
is without life, it is formless, infinite, variable and powerless; it is
always becoming and in existence; it deceives; it resembles a flying
mockery eluding all pursuit, and vanishing into non-entity. It appears
to be full, yet contains nothing.
"Of that Being that is beyond Mind many things are asserted
through intellection; but it is better surveyed by a cessation of
intellectual activity than with it. The similar is known by the similar;
because all knowledge is an assimilation to the object of knowledge."
"The bodily substance is no impediment whatever to that which
is essentially incorporeal, to prevent it from being where and in such
a way as it wishes to be." An incorporeal nature, a soul, if contained
in a body is not enclosed in it like a wild beast in a cage; nor is it
contained in it as a liquid in a receptacle. Its conjunction with body is
effected by means of an ineffable extension from the eternal region.
It is not liberated by the death of the body, but it liberates itself by
turning itself from a tenacious affection to the body.
God is present everywhere because he is nowhere; and this is
also true of Spirit and Soul. Each of these is everywhere because
each is nowhere. As all beings and non-beings are from and in God,
hence he is neither beings nor non-beings, nor does he subsist in
them. For if he was only everywhere he could be all things and in all;
but since he is likewise nowhere, all things are produced through him,
and are contained in him because he is everywhere. They are,
however, different from him, because he is nowhere. Thus, likewise,
mind or spirit being everywhere and nowhere, is the cause of souls,
and of the natures posterior to souls; yet mind is not soul, nor the
natures posterior to soul, nor does it subsist in them; because it is
not only everywhere, but also nowhere with respect to the natures
posterior to it. Soul, also, is neither body nor in body, but it is the
cause of body because being everywhere, it is also nowhere with
respect to body. In its egress from the body if it still possesses a
spirit and temper turbid from earthly exhalations, it attracts to itself a
shadow and becomes heavy. It then necessarily lives on the earth.
When, however, it earnestly endeavors to depart from nature, it
becomes a dry splendor, without a shadow, and without a cloud or
mist.
Virtues are of two kinds, political and contemplative. The
former are called political or social, as looking to an in-noxious and
beneficial association with others. They consist of prudence,
fortitude, temperance, and justice. These adorn the mortal man, and
are the precursors of purification. "But the virtues of him who
proceeds to the contemplative life, consist in a departure from
terrestrial concerns. Hence, also, they are denominated purifications,
being surveyed in the refraining from corporeal activities, and
avoiding sympathies with the body. For these are the virtues of the
soul elevating itself to true being." He who has the greater virtues
has also the less, but the contrary is not true.
When it is asserted that incorporeal being is one, and then
added that it is likewise all, it is signified that it is not some one of the
things which are cognized by the senses.
The scope of the political virtues is to give measure to the
passions in their practical operations according to nature. He who
acts or energizes according to the practical virtues is a worthy man;
he who lives according to the purifying virtues is an angelic man, or
good demon; he who follows the virtues of the mind or spirit alone is
a god; he who follows the exemplary virtues is father of gods." In
this life we may obtain the purifying virtues which free us from body
and conjoin us to the heavens. But we are addicted to the pleasures
and pains of sensible things, in conjunction with a promptitude to
them, from which disposition it is requisite to be purified. "This will be
effected by admitting necessary pleasures and the sensations of
them, merely as remedies or as a liberation from pain, in order that
the higher nature may not be impeded in its operations." In short, the
doctrines of Porphyry, like those of the older philosophers, teach that
we are originally of heaven, but temporarily become inhabitants of the
earth; and that the end of the true philosophic life, is to put off the
earthly proclivities, that we may return to our primal condition.

(Un. Brotherhood, Nov., 1897)

------------

THE CHILDREN OF CAIN

by Alexander Wilder

A GENEROUS but eccentric Scotch clergyman, when naming

the subjects of prayer for one Sunday morning, added: "And now, let
us pray for the De'il; naebody prays for the puir De'il."
The character whom we are about to consider is in like
predicament, hopelessly aliened from every one's sympathy. Cain,
the reputed first-born son* of Adam, lies under the reproach of
thousands of years as having introduced murder and rapine into the
world, and led the way in the general perverting of mankind. So
deeply rooted is this notion that many would regard the attempt to
remove the imputation as almost a sacrilege. Even to venture to
lighten the burden of obloquy which rests upon his name would be
accounted by them as preposterous. Nevertheless this would be
feeble as an excuse for neglect to take a rational, impartial and
intelligent view of the matter. There is, for candid and reasonable
persons, a wider field to occupy than the narrow domain of thinking
which is hedged about on every side by prejudice, or servile fear.
There may be good reason for some other judgment.

------------
* The Assyrian term here signifies the first-born.
------------

In fact it is hardly possible to regard the account of Cain as a

simple historic narrative setting forth events literally as they occurred.
This would raise questions for which there is no adequate satisfactory
explanation. The Supreme Being himself is described as having
characteristics not consistent with our more enlightened
apprehension. He shows only displeasure, and neither charity nor
mercy. We are forcibly reminded of the bitter sarcasm which Byron
has put in the mouth of Faliero in response to the pleading of his wife:

"Angiolina. - Heaven bids us forgive our enemies.

"Doge. - Doth Heaven forgive her own? Is Satan saved
From wrath eternal?"

Nevertheless, we are by no means disposed to consider the

story as merely an archaic legend, or some fugitive piece of folk-lore,
deserving of no further attention. These fables and mythic narratives
have a deeper meaning than the mere child or unlettered person may
apprehend. We will, therefore, examine the matter and endeavor to
learn whether it does not contain profounder knowledge. We have a
precedent for so doing in the writings of the Apostle Paul. He cites
the account of the two sons of Abraham and their respective mothers,
and declares it an allegory. He also affirms that the exodus,
adventures, and experiences of the Israelites in the Arabian Desert
were types or figures, and written for admonition. It is certainly as
rational and reasonable to interpret the story of the sons of Adam
according to the same principles. It is evidently a kind of parable,
which symbolizes in a concrete form some important period in history.
The mode of telling the story is one that seems to have been
common in ancient times. We may, therefore, consider it as a kind of
parable setting forth in an enigmatic form a particular period in
development. Thus it may represent a condition, such as is
described in the Avesta, when the region indicated in the account
was occupied by two classes of inhabitants, the one pastoral and the
other consisting of cultivators of the soil. There would inevitably be
collisions between them, and eventually, as has always been the
result, the agriculturist overcomes and destroys the shepherd. When
this has been accomplished, the way is opened for the introduction of
the arts of civilized life. This is signified by the record that Cain built a
city.
With this explanation, there is no occasion for idle and curious
questions, as in regard to the wife of Cain or where the inhabitants of
the new city were obtained. The legend is wholly isolated from such
problems. It relates to peoples and social conditions rather than to
individuals. The concept actually involved is nothing less than that of
transition from nomadic and isolated life to civic and neighborly
relations. Civilization signifies the condition of living in society, and
hence implies provident foresight, mutual dependence, refinement of
manners and mental culture. Accordingly we read of the posterity of
Cain, that one was the father or eponymic patron of herdsmen, and
another of those who handle the harp and the organ, while another is
described as "the instructor of every artificer in brass and iron."
Thus in the account of Cain and his children, it is very plain that
we have an archaic tradition of a developing civilization. It presents
analogies to the legend of Prometheus. The famous Titan, we are
told, being impelled by pity and affection, gave fire and enlightenment
to mankind, teaching to build houses, to employ the labor of cattle, to
mine and smelt the metallic ores, to make use of writing, to master
the sciences, to treat diseases, and to exercise each useful art. Like
Cain, he likewise fell under the anger of Divinity. Zeus, who had then
but recently come to supreme power in the universe, regarded these
acts as nothing less than defiance of his authority. He caused the
offender to be expelled from the inhabited earth to distant Skythic
land, there to be pinioned to a rock for ages, suffering incredible
torments, and subject to universal hatred and scorn. May we not
guess that the story of Cain and his punishment have been derived
from parallel sources?

THE KENITES.
We find repeated mentions elsewhere in the Hebrew writings of
a tribe or people whose name and characteristics are strikingly
suggestive of affiliation to the personages of the book of Genesis.
The Kenites, or Cainites, as the term correctly would read, are
represented as possessing many characteristics, like Jabal and
Jubal, of the progeny of Cain; dwelling in tents, and being endowed
with superior learning and skill. Moses, the Hebrew lawgiver is
recorded as marrying the daughter of Reuel or Jethro, a Kenite priest,
and living with him forty years prior to the exodus front Egypt. It is
further declared that Jethro visited the Israelitish encampment in the
Sinaitic peninsula, and celebrated sacrificial rites with him and with
the Elders of Israel. This indicates that there were initiations and
occult observances of a kindred nature on that occasion. It is only
stated, however, that Jethro gave counsel and that Moses "did all that
he said." But it is very evident that in this connection, and indeed in
other parts of the Bible, there is much to be "read between the lines."
The intimate association between the Kenites and Israelites
appears to have continued for several centuries. A son of Jethro is
mentioned as being the guide of the tribes while journeying in the
desert, and as residing for a season with his clan at Jericho. They
afterward removed into the Southern district of the territory of Judah.
They appear to have had a great influence upon the Mosaic
institutions. The Rechabites, or Scribes, who constituted a learned
class, belonged to them, and from their adoption of tent-life and
abstinence from wine, the Nazarites would seem to be in some way
related to that people.
A memorandum in the first book of Chronicles seems to afford
some light upon these matters. The writer enumerates the various
clans and families of Kirjath-Jearim, Bethlehem, and "Scribes which
dwelt at Jabez," and includes them in the summary: "These are the
Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab." *
We will here remark by way of digression that during the earlier
centuries of the present era the genesis and character of Cain were
themes of much curious speculation. A party in the Christian world,
now generally designated the Gnostics, held the Jewish Oracles in
low esteem, placing higher value on philosophic learning and Oriental
wisdom. One group, the "Cainites," boldly declared that Cain was a
personage superior to other men, and that he was illuminated by the
superior knowledge. They found some pretext for their belief in the
declaration of Eve that he was "a man from the Lord," while Seth,
who is represented as superseding him, was begotten after the image
and likeness of Adam only, and significantly bore the name of the
Satan or Typhon of Egypt.

------------
* This term "Rechab" is probably a title rather than the name of
a person. It is translated "chariot," and evidently denotes the
merchaba or vehicle of wisdom. It is applied by Elisha to Elijah, and
by King Joash to Elisha: "the rechab of Israel and its guide or pharisi.
In this connection it may be not amiss to notice also the term pharisi.
It would seem no strained assumption that the Pharisees derived
from it their appellation as guides or interpreters of the law. They
were students of occult rabbinical learning. The pun in the
denunciation of Jesus may be readily perceived: "Ye blind guides,
who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel."
-----------
 It is certain, as has been already shown, that the compilers of
the Hebrew Sacred Writings conceded to Cain and his descendants
all the profounder culture and proficiency in the arts. Why they so
generally represent the younger persons in a family as being superior
in moral and physical excellence, and supplanting the elder, may
have been for the sake of assigning honorable rank to their own
people, one of the latest that had appeared among the nations. They
were compelled, however, to acknowledge, however reluctantly, that
their Idumaean adversaries excelled in wisdom, and that the
Promethean gifts which had enabled the world to attain its eminence
of culture and enlightenment were derived front the sources which
they decried.

THE KAYANIAN KINGS.

It is very probable, however, that the legend of Cain came from
a different source, and that it should, in many of its particulars, have a
somewhat different interpretation. Doctor Oort declares it quite
conceivable that it is from a Persian origin. We may, in such case,
seek our clews in the farther East, for an elucidation of the problem
which shall be plausible and reasonable. The Persian records and
traditions inform us that prior to the Achaemenian dynasty, the Medes
and Persians were governed by monarchs of a race which they
denominate Kayan,** or Sacred. It was during the period of their rule
that the great Schism took place between the Eranians and their
Aryan congeners.

----------
** The probability here intimated is greatly assured by this
similarity of names. It is a common practice which has been carried
to an extreme, to add letters to Oriental words when transferring them
to a European language. In the case now before us, the term KIN
has been vocalized in the Bible as Cain; and KAYAN is the same
word in which this practice has been carried a little further.
-----------

By reference to the Avesta and other accounts it appears that

the Aryans of the "prehistoric period" were pastoral and nomadic like
the present inhabitants of Turkestan. After a time, a part of their
number, the Eranians, becoming cultivators of the soil and dwellers in
villages, formed separate communities. All evolutions in human
society are primarily religious in character. A new religious system
was accordingly developed in Eran. It appears to have attained a
matured form in the reign of Vistaspa, one of the most illustrious
monarchs of the Kayanian dynasty. Zoroaster, the first who bore the
designation, flourished at this period, and with the approval of the
king, succeeded in molding the new Mazdean religion into a concrete
body of forms and dogmas, with a well-defined form of initiation.
After a prolonged period of contention, the "Deva-worshiping"
Aryans had made their way to the Punjab, and the dominion of the
Eranians had become extended over Persia and into Media and
beyond. The first chapters of the Hebrew Scriptures appear to relate
to events of this time and it appears plausible and probable that such
was the fact. The story of the Garden of Eden is almost undeniably a
contribution from Eastern literature; and the killing of Abel seems to
represent the overthrow of the worship and worshippers of Bel by the
Eranians. The name of Cain would then be derived from the Kayan
dynasty that had given shape to the Persian nationality. It is not
necessary in propounding this hypothesis, to make the other details
harmonize literally with historic events. We must note, however, in
this connection, that such names as Silent, Nimrod and Cush, which
are found in the book of Genesis, have their counterparts in this
region, - in Khusistan the country of the Kossaians, the Nimri tribes of
Mount Zagros, and Shamas the sun-god. These verbal
resemblances can not well be considered as accidental.
It is by no means wonderful or unusual, that history and
personal reputation are often marred by vilifying writers. Books of
history and even of drama are often written with partisan ends and
calumny. Neither Macbeth nor Richard III. deserved the imputations
that have been cast upon them. With every event there is a shade
which enables misrepresentation to seem the true picture.
The Bahman-Yasht is a book of the later Parsism, and contains
a compendium of the trials and conflicts of the "true religion" from the
time of Zoroaster to the end. It delineates the sufferings endured
from the Mussulmans, who sought to exterminate the Mazdean faith
by massacre, and finally drove thousands from their country.
The writer of this Apocalypse, following in the wake of other
prophets, foretells deliverance at the last. A prince of the Kayan race
will arise, he declares, who having attained the age of thirty years, the
age of man's maturity, will take up arms against the oppressor of the
people of Ahurmazda. All India and China, he affirms, will rally to his
standard as did the Eranians when Gava raised the banner of the
blacksmith's apron against the ferocious serpent-king Zahak. Then
the Mazda-yasnian religion - "the pure thought, pure word and pure
deed" - will be triumphant, and a reign of blessedness will be
established.
Whichever theory we may accept, this legend of Cain affords us
an interesting concept of human evolution. Harsh as the necessity
appears, the process of development has always been characterized
by conflict, which was often analogous to the slaying of a brother. We
have the picture before us of Conservatism like the easy-going
shepherd with his flocks, idle but ready to slaughter its lambs for
sacrifice, and casting aspersions upon the laborious worker who
offers the fruits of his own industry, and pollutes no altar-hearth with
blood. There is no need, however, for fear that the ulterior result will
be other than right. The Divine is divine in so far as it is just.

(Un. Brotherhood, March, 1898)

----------------

THE APOSTLE PAUL

By Alexander Wilder, M.D.

WHEN we accept the historic account of the origin and early

promulgation of the Christian faith, we are required by consistency to
ascribe its early promulgation chiefly to the apostle Paul. His Epistle
to his disciples in Galatia is the oldest record which we possess of all
the booklets of the New Testament, and the statements which are
there made are positive and unequivocal. The Gospel which had
been proclaimed by him, he affirms, was not by any human
authorization. He did not receive it nor was he taught it by a man, but
only by revelation of Jesus Christ. He is very strenuous accordingly
in regard to its absolute genuineness. He will compromise nothing.
What others were teaching was not the true doctrine. They were
creating agitation and actually desiring to transform the gospel itself.
"But," says he, "if we or an angel out from heaven teach a gospel
different from what has been proclaimed to you, let him be anathema.
As we have said before I now say again. If any one proclaims to you
a gospel other than what you have already received let him be
anathema." He was not seeking to obtain the approbation of
anybody. That would be virtual apostasy. He does not, however,
claim to have been a pioneer apostle. There were those, he
acknowledges, who were apostles before him.
They, however, had made no schism or faction in the Jewish
religion.
But they assembled weekly in the synagogue, they worshiped
in the temple at Jerusalem and continued Jews in every sense of the
term. James the Just, the head of the congregation, is mentioned by
the Rabbi Eliezar ben Hyrkainus as "a man of Kephar-Sekania, one
of the pupils of Jesus of Nazareth." He and his associates believed,
as did other Israelites, in the obligatory character of the Law of Moses
and adhered tenaciously to the technical ceremonies. Indeed, it is
apparent that neither Jesus nor the apostles had ever planned to
establish a sect apart from orthodox Judaism.
The Gospels, it is true, contain many accounts of disputes
between Jesus and the Jewish teachers, "the Scribes and
Pharisees," but unless where the contrary is expressed, these
disputes are hardly conclusive evidence of ill will. They were of
frequent occurrence between rival teachers, and the presuming of
profound animosity is rather far-fetched. There is no protest
anywhere in the synoptic Gospels against Judaism itself, but an
averment that the new evangel was to "the household of Israel" in
preference to every other people. The denunciations which have
been recorded as spoken by Jesus, are made against distorted
interpretations of the precepts of the Law, and also the "traditions of
the Elders," which, it was declared, actually annulled the whole
authority of the commandment.* Hence Jesus is described as
sanctioning their instructions, but disapproving their habitual conduct.
"For they say and do not," he alleges; "they strain out the gnat and
swallow the camel." Hence he styles them hypocrites or actors, who
represent persons in a drama, but do nothing themselves which the
drama signifies.
Nevertheless, Josephus has imputed amiable characteristics to
the Pharisees, as possessing a philosophic disposition, gentle and
averse to severity in judicial administration. In all these respects they
differed from the Saddueees, who constituted the nobility, including
the priests and Levites and were domineering, arrogant, greedy of
power and cruel.**
While diligently attentive to the ceremonial forms of public
worship, they ignored belief in a future state, or the existence of
spiritual beings.
There appear to have been two quite distinct parties among the
Pharisees, the Zealots, followers of Shammai, and the disciples of
Hillel. There were those also who were held in high esteem by
Herod. It is probable that by having these distinctions in mind we will
obtain correcter views of the statements in the Gospels. While Jesus
is represented as freely criticising and even denouncing the Scribes
and Pharisees, many of the important utterances accredited to him in
the "Sermon on the Mount" and elsewhere, are to be found,
sometimes almost literally in the writings and utterances of the
Rabbis.

------------
* Mishits Sanhedrin, xi. 5: "The words of the Scribes are more
beloved than the words of the Law."
Talmud Yerushalmi, vi, 6: "The words of the Elders must be
observed more strictly than the words of the Prophets."
** Probably deriving their designation from Simeon Zadok or
Simon the Just, the high priest in the reign of the earlier Ptolemie,
who rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem, and restored public worship. See
Acts vi. 7.
------------

The Rev. Doctor T. M. Wise, in his treatise on the early history

of Christianity, states that the apostles, several years after the death
of Jesus, returned from Galilee and established a Sanhedrin among
themselves over which Peter and John, and afterward James the
Just, presided. The scholastic anarchy that prevailed among the
Jews had so weakened the authority of the existing body as to render
such action a matter of little difficulty. His authority for this statement
is not known to the writer, but he was a thorough scholar, and of
indisputable veracity.
The apostle Paul was never an agent of the disciples at
Jerusalem. His history as given by himself to the Galatians we must
consider to be the most authentic. He was originally a zealous
advocate of Judaism, and especially of its traditions. In the speeches
attributed to him, he declares that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, the son
of Hillel, and himself a Zealot and Pharisee. "I persecuted the church
of God beyond all moderation," he confesses. His change of views
was caused, he declares, by the revelation of Jesus Christ. God had
separated him from his birth, and called him. When, therefore, God
had revealed his Son in him in order that he should proclaim him
among the different peoples, he did not take a human being into
counsel over the matter, nor go up to Jerusalem to the apostles, but
went into Arabia, and came back to Damascus, thus passing three
years. Then he went to Jerusalem to communicate with Kephas,
seeing no one else but James, the brother of Jesus. After this he
spent some time in Syria and his native country in Cilicia.
It was then, we are told in the later narrative, that he was
brought by Barnabas from home to Antioch. Stephen had been put to
death at Jerusalem, by authority of the High Priest and Sanhedrin.
He had proclaimed a more liberal and exalted view of religious
matters than was allowed. Directly afterward followed a persecution
of those who cherished his sentiments, who, indeed, were of the
Greek-speaking Jews from other countries. They left Jerusalem and
hurried home where they proclaimed their new belief. In this way, it is
related, there was a large community of disciples established at
Antioch. Paul was willing to receive them without regard to nationality
or conformity to Jewish customs.
Here his disciples, we are told, first received the designation of
Christians. They were recognized as a distinct company from the
population around them. Antioch had been the metropolis of the
Asian dominion and was still a centre of influence socially and
intellectually. It was also a focus of religious influence. Barnabas
and Paul afterward became its apostles or missionaries to
promulgate the new doctrine over Asia Minor and the West.
Alexandria appears to have been a distinct field of which little
has been preserved. Its school and library had served the purposes
of a World's university, and teachers as well as pupils had resorted to
it from all regions. The Oriental Theosophy was engrafted on current
doctrinal systems, and the result was the development of composite
schools of various shades of opinion designated the Gnosis or
Superior knowledge. The Jewish influence is vividly perceptible and
we find the Wisdom literature appearing in the presentation of the
Logos under the several characteristics of Creator, Redeemer, and
the Christ; the whole being curiously interwrought in a complex
genealogy.
There are widely varying accounts of the antagonism which
existed between Paul and the leading men at Jerusalem. The
narrative of the Acts of the Apostles was evidently written at a later
period when it was desired to efface the remembrance of the matter.
It states that Paul and Barnabas had made their tour through Asia
minor, founding congregations and providing for their orderly
administration, and were engaged as before at Antioch. Here their
work was interrupted by teachers from Judea who demanded strict
conforming to the law of Moses, as was required of other converts to
Judaism. Neither Paul nor Barnabas would accede to this, and went
with a delegation to Jerusalem for a final decision. The result was a
compromise, the only requirement described by the writer being the
utter rejection of certain pagan customs and practices.
Paul describes this journey to Jerusalem as having been made
after fourteen years of missionary service. He was not without
apprehension in regard to the acceptableness of his work, and first of
all showed the leading men in a private interview the Gospel which he
had been promulgating. But this by no means exempted him from
unfriendly controversy. There were "false brethren," Pharisees, who
came stealthily to pry into the matter and subject the foreign converts
to Jewish usages. "We did not give up our ground to them by
submission or compromise, not even an hour," Paul declares.
Meanwhile, those to whom he had confided his Gospel, made no
criticism or consequence. On the contrary, observing the condition of
matters with the non-Judean believers, they simply conceded that
Paul and Barnabas might be apostles in that field, while they
themselves remained with the believers who still adhered to Judaic
usages. They only stipulated that the "poor," the Ebionites of
Jerusalem, should be remembered, which Paul was forward to
promise.
This agreement, however, he describes as only putting off the
inevitable clash. Kephas paid a visit to Antioch, and for a time
associated with the Christians there as one of their number, eating
with them without question. But others coming from James, he was
afraid and separated from them. The rest of the Jews in the
congregation also withdrew from association with their fellow-
believers, and even Barnabas was swayed by their example and
carried away by the same hypocrisy.
From that time he ceased to be a fellow-laborer in the new
movement. But Paul never regained the lost influence. Paul, thus
deserted, did not hesitate to berate Kephas before them all. "I
withstand him to the face," says he, "because he was in the wrong."
First he challenged him for his double dealing, and, he then
repudiated the Law as a means for the development of the higher life;
declaring that if righteousness could be produced by it, the ministry of
Jesus had been unnecessary.
The few writings which may be attributed to the first century
seem to accentuate this controversy. In the Apocalypse there is
repeated mention of a teaching that it was lawful to eat things
sacrificed to idols, and to take part in gross pagan rites. Those also
are alluded to, but not named, "which say that they are apostles, and
are not." Paul also on his part denounced certain individuals as
"false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the
apostles of Christ, as Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light." Perhaps in this expression he meant Apollos who had come
from the Gnostic schools of Alexandria and was distasteful to him;
but it is more probable that he referred to his antagonists at
Jerusalem. The writings of Paul and James set forth the ground of
division. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul has asserted that "a man
is justified by faith and not by the works of the Law," and James has
responded in a Catholic Epistle addressed to "The Twelve Tribes
scattered Abroad" that the Law was inviolable, "whosoever offended
in one point is guilty of all, and that a man is justified by works, and
not by faith only."
The Ebionites denounced Paul unequivocally as an imposter.
They affirmed that he had sought to marry a Jewish lady of noble
family, and that his reported conversion was entirely due to that
matter. Finding that his suit was unavailing, he turned against the
Jews and became hostile to their religious beliefs and observances.
This made him obnoxious to the members of the priesthood as well
as to others of Jewish lineage.
Paul himself based his claim of independent apostleship upon
direct authority from Jesus Christ. He describes this manifestation.
Writing to the Corinthians he says of himself: "It is not becoming to
boast, but I will pass to visions and revelations. I knew a man in
Christ, it was fourteen years ago, whether in the body I know not or
out of the body I do not know; such a one was rapt to the third
heaven. And I know that such a man, whether in the body or without
the body I do not know, God knows, that he was rapt into paradise
and heard things ineffable which it is not lawful for a man to utter
familiarly."
This reads like an account of one of the epoptic visions in the
Initiations. Dr. Wise gives an account from the Talmud, which he
seems to think relates to an occurrence of similar character. "Four
men went into Paradise, Ben Azai saw and became insane. Ben
Zioma saw and died. Aher saw and cut the scions. Akiba went in
and came out in peace."
In the person of Aher we are instructed to recognize the Apostle
Paul. He appears to have been known by a variety of appellations.
He was named Saul, as if in allusion to this vision of Paradise, Saul,
or Sheal, being the Hebrew name for the other world. Paul, which
only means "little man," seems like a species of nickname. Aher, or
"other," was an epithet for persons not of Jewish ancestry or
sympathy, and would appear to have been applied to him for having
extended his labors to non-Judean populations. His real name, the
Doctor intimates, was Elisha ben Abuah.
The "scions" which he is represented as having cut in Paradise
were doctrines from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the
words of Haya ben Sharira of the Rabbinic College of Pumpadita:
"Aher cut the scions - erred, went astray, became an apostate and
heretic." This, it would be manifest from Jewish authority, was the
"revelations" which he received as his commission of apostleship.
The Midrash explains it further. When Paul or Aher saw the vision of
Paradise he beheld the "angel of the presence" whom the Rabbis
denominate the Metathron, sitting instead of standing. At once he
took this as positive evidence that this holy being was likewise a
sovereign power, - the Son of God who ruled over all things, except
God himself.
It will be borne in mind that in all his teaching Paul declared that
he had laid Christ as the foundation for the superstructure of his
doctrine. He recognized him as having risen from the dead a spiritual
body arising from the decaying corporeal framework, as a plant from
the seed which is sown to produce it. He was a genuine apostle, he
insists accordingly, having "seen the Lord."
In the Epistles of Paul we undoubtedly have the accurate
account of his adoption of the new doctrine. Leaving Damascus, he
went southward into Arabia. This region was at that period famous
for its religious communities. The Essenes, according to Pliny, had
dwelt in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea for innumerable centuries.
John the Baptist seems like one of that people. The Ebionites and
Nazarenes from Jerusalem are said to have repaired to the Perea
when invading armies threatened Judea; and it is also stated that
Jerome obtained from them the arcane or secret work which he
rendered in new form as the Gospel according to Matthew.
The Kenites or Sacred Scribes also dwelt in Arabia. Moses is
recorded as having married into their tribe, and both he and Elijah the
prophet, we are told, had audience with God, or, in other words,
received initiation at Horeb, a cave or sanctuary in Mount Sinai.
Jesus himself is described as passing much time in Arabia, perhaps
among the Nabateans.
Paul, spending three years in this region, had opportunity to
perfect his religious studies without resorting to Jerusalem. He never
hesitated to set his claims as high as those of prophets or
hierophants. "We speak wisdom hidden in a Mystery," he writes to
the Corinthians, "which none of the rulers of this world knew" - in
other words, which was superior to the epopteia or Beholdings of the
Eleusinian, Bacchic or Mithraic revelations. "The psychic man,"
prizing only sensuous manifestations did not receive it, because it
was too fanciful and visionary, but the spiritual man cognized it all;
"for," he remarks, "we have the mind (or spiritual perception) of
Christ." Finally, as though this was not enough in the way of setting
aside the authority of Apollos and the Alexandrian Gnosis, he writes
further: "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things which I am writing to you are the
commandments of the Lord."
Paul, "as touching the Law, a Pharisee," exceeded in
conception the scope of view and action contemplated by the most
accomplished Rabbi. The Golden Maxim of Hillel, the Golden Rule of
Jesus, was with him a matter to be realized - at once a bridge
between Jew and Gentile, and from man to God. Casting aside the
exclusiveness cherished by the Zealots of Judea, and discarding the
narrow views of James and the Ebionites of Jerusalem, he marked
out his own career without respect to creed, sect or people, and
included the whole human family in his field of operation. He
contemplated what had never been attempted before him, the
demolishing of the entire fabric of Phrygian, Grecian and Roman
worship. He understood his age; he stood upon its summit and
adopted means the most available to carry out his purpose. One
God, one law of action, one destiny for all mankind, comprised the
whole of his evangel.
We have no trustworthy record of his death. Ecclesiastical
fable has made him a victim of the cruelty of Nero. The statement in
the second Epistle to Timothy has been supposed accordingly to refer
to such an event: "I am now being worn out and the time of my
dissolution is near." But no historian or annalist has told of his end.
Rabbinical records, it is said, relate that he lived to a good old age
and died in quiet. Mention is also made of his daughters, of the
desertion of his followers and of the hostility of the other apostles;
and admiration is expressed of his learning and other excellencies.
Indeed, to the present day, intelligent Jews praise the great Apostle.
It appears evident, however, that his peculiar teachings fell into
discredit about the time of his Epistles. "All they which are in Asia he
turned away from me," is recorded in the second Epistle to Timothy;
"No man stood with me, but all forsook me." He exhibits much
irritation at such unfaithfulness. He had been followed at Ephesus
and to Corinth by Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria, who seems to have
taught the Gnostic doctrines of the Logos, incorporating it with the
gospel of Paul - "showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the
Christos." As a result there sprung up factions: every one declaring
himself as of the party of Paul, or Apollos, or Kephas or Christ. "I
have begotten you through the Gospel," he declares, "be ye followers
of me." To the Galatians, he had been even more severe. "It is not
another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you," he
writes; "I would that they were made emasculate."
With him the issues were plain. The Jews required a definite
symbol or token, and Greeks demanded intelligent reasoning. They
sought after philosophic wisdom, but he promulgated rightly, meeting
both requirements: "Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of
God."
The Christ of Paul has constituted an enigma which has never
been quite easy to solve.
He was something else than the Jesus of the Gospels. Paul
disregarded utterly the "endless genealogies," which were
characteristic of the Gnostic writings. The author of the Fourth
Gospel, describes Jesus as what would now be termed a
"materialized" divine spirit. He was the Logos, or First Emanation -
"at the beginning adnate to God," divine and yet incarnated as a
human being. The "mother of Jesus," like the princess Semele had
given birth, we are told, not to a love-child, but to an offspring that
was very God. No Jew of whatever sect, no apostle, no earlier
believer of the Gospel, ever promulgated such an idea.
Nevertheless, Paul himself always seems to treat of Christ as a
personage rather than as a person. In a manner somewhat
analogous, the Sacred lessons of the Secret assemblies often
personified the divine Good and the Divine Truth in a human form,
assailed by the passions and appetites, but superior to them; and
this doctrine, emerging from the crypt, has been apprehended by
churchlings and gross-minded individuals as that of immaculate
conception and divine incarnation.
The hypothesis of the end of the world and attending judgment
which was kept in mind by the apostolic writers, must without doubt
be treated hermeneutically. It was in keeping with the doctrines of
cycles, which was part of the ancient secret learning. Its mythic
meaning is disclosed in the following passage: "If any man is in
Christ he is a new creature; old things have passed away, all things
have become new, and are all of God." It is very probable that this is
the key to all the references to judgment and the coming or becoming
present of the Lord. Paul believed that the Jesus whom he saw was
the spiritual essence apart from the body, as "flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God, nor that which is corruptible inherit
incorruption." The Lord he declares to be "spirit" and whoever was
"in him" had risen or ascended to the evolution of the spiritual nature,
faculties and conditions. He was in the anastasis, the resurrection or
future life; he was "dead and freed from sin," and so although while
as to the external and psychical nature he might abide in the world,
he had, in his interior being, passed into eternity.
The Gospel of Paul exhibits, in very many respects, a
remarkable similarity to the sublimer doctrines of Plato. Living in
different ages and with different peoples, their language and mode of
expression are somewhat diverse. But no one who is familiar with
the expositions of the philosopher concerning the nous or interior
mind, divine alike in God and man, and the agathon or Supreme
Good, which is the all of life, can long be unable to recognize the
teachings of the great apostle concerning the spirit or inner self, by
which God and man are at one, and love or charity, the justice or
righteousness which transcends all and at the same time embraces
all.
We need not care for the petty criticisms of those who have
failed to measure the great apostle. He was not a man of common
ability. He was superior to his time, and even his own people were
compelled to acknowledge his greatness. Inside his world he would
have no Jew or Greek, as such. By faith, fidelity to intelligent
conviction, both were alike children of the Light. Great, energetic and
resolute, he boldly asserted the doctrines of One God and a pure life.
Every prejudice and partition-wall in the way of their acceptance, he
beat to the ground. Plato had not scrupled to forbid the tales of
Homer in his ideal commonwealth; and Paul emulated him in
discarding every teacher, system or custom which restricted the
human mind, or tended to hide from it the sublime ideal.
The fame of the great Christian luminary arose anew in
Christendom, and his doctrines, modified by many unfortunate
adulterations, have been proclaimed through the world. It supplanted
the rival Ebionism, but in its turn amalgamated with other current
notions. Hence modern Christianity can hardly be said to be strictly
identical with the doctrine and mode of life promulgated by Paul. It
lacks his breadth of view, his earnestness, his keen spiritual
perception. Bearing the impress of the several nations professing it,
exhibiting as many forms as there are races, it may be similar in Italy
and Spain, but it differs widely in England, France, Germany, Russia,
Armenia, and Abyssinia. As compared with preceding worships, the
change from one to the other seems often to have been more in
name than in genius. Men had gone to bed at night pagans and
awoke in the morning pursuant to law, Christians. As for the Sermon
on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus, the conspicuous
doctrines are more or less repudiated by every Christian community
of any considerable dimensions. Barbarism, oppression and cruel
punishments are as common as in the days of paganism. Yet the
humanizing leaven is fermenting, and despite the usual railing against
sentimentality, which is so often launched against individuals of
conviction, we may continue to hope that when mankind shall
become enlightened, or the barbarous races and families are
supplanted by those of nobler nature and instincts, the ideal
excellencies may become realities.
"This is undeniable," says Doctor Hookyaas: "that the victory of
the Gospel over the heathen world is mainly due to the power and the
gifts of Paul, with his insignificant person, but his mighty spirit, with
his zeal and inspiration, his elasticity and perseverance, his
unconditional surrender to his work. It was he whose marvelous
power and intensity of soul and utter self-sacrifice severed
Christianity from the Synagogue when without him it would have
remained an insignificant or forgotten Jewish sect; it was he who
worked it into a new principle of life and a new system of religion, who
proclaimed and established it in two continents with a courage, an
energy, and a perseverance that have never been surpassed. In a
word, Christianity and, therefore, humanity owe an inestimable debt
to Paul: and except Jesus, we know of no human being who has won
and who still retains, after so many ages, an influence like his."

(The Word, September, 1908)

------------------

PHILOSOPHIC MORALITY
by Professor Alexander Wilder, M.D.

IN the Platonic Dialogue on true Sanctity, entitled "Euthyphron''

the concept is brought into vivid relief, that virtue or holiness must be
intrinsic and in conformity with a just principle. None are superior to it
or beyond in this world or any other. Even the partisan gods of
Olympus, some arrayed on one side and some in opposition, must
abide that test. It would not do, therefore, to set forth that as holy
which was pleasing to them, when there were two rival factions.
They must love it because it is intrinsically holy, but it is not holy
because they love it. This distinction will apply equally well to some
modern instances. There are those who approve any act if some
individual to whom they give allegiance shall do it, even though
objectionable in itself. But goodness is above every god, leader, or
favorite person, and belongs solely to the Absolute One.
Religious worship must be subjected to the same criterion. If it
is of advantage to the Divinity, and we are to derive benefit from it as
an equivalent, it is a matter of traffic - so much service and so much
payment. It may not be doubted that there is a certain utility in
worship, but it is not after this manner. True worship is a venerating
of the right. There can be nothing really learned, nothing really
known of the superior truth, except the knowledge is reverently
sought and entertained.
There is no better way to excellence, the great teacher of the
Akademeia affirms, than to endeavor to be good, rather than to seem
so. In this consists the whole of genuine ethics. Morality is the sway
of a superior aim. Everything which is founded on appearances,
which is apprehended only by observation and sensuous perception,
is transient and temporary; and it must wane and perish when the
cause which gave it existence shall cease to afford it life and vigor.
But when we seek to do that which is right we are reaching forward,
as with antenae toward the enduring, the permanent, the ever-
subsisting. The secret of the moral sense and feeling is the
presentiment of eternity. Most appropriate, therefore, was the maxim
of Kant: "Act always so that the immediate motive of thy will may
become a universal rule for all intelligent beings."
The supreme purpose of our life in this world and condition of
existence, is discipline. Every experience that we undergo, every
event that occurs, has direct relation to that end. In this matter,
likewise, each individual must minister to himself. We have, each of
us, our own lesson to learn, and cannot derive much instruction, or
even benefit from what another has done or suffered. It is hardly
more befitting to adopt for ourselves the experience of others than it
would be to wear their clothes. The ethics which should govern our
action will not be found set forth in a code. Good men, says
Emerson, will not obey the laws too well. Indeed, nothing tends more
to bring confusion and death into arts and morals, than this blind
imposing upon one period or individual soul, the experience of
another person or former age. We may, perhaps, do very well with
general notions, but certainly not with specific personal conclusions.
The snail that entered the shell of the oyster found it a wretched
dwelling, though it possessed a precious pearl; and the swallow
gathering food for the winter after the example of the provident ant
was the reverse of wise.
The right-thinking person will be the law for himself. Our varied
experiences have for their end the developing of this condition in us.
The ancient sages taught accordingly that manners or ethics are
certain qualities or principles which long habit and practice have
impressed upon what they denominate the sensuous and irrational
part of the mental nature. Moral virtue does not consist in the
uprooting or suppressing of the passions and affections. This is not
possible or even desirable. Indeed if they should really be rooted up
from our being, the understanding itself would lose its vigor, become
torpid, and perhaps even perish outright. It is their province, like that
of the fire in the furnace, to impart energy to the whole mental
machinery. Meanwhile the understanding takes note, and acting by
the inspiration of the superior intellect, directs how that energy shall
be employed. Human beings act according to their impulses, and the
true morality consists in the bringing of these into good order and the
disposing of them to laudable purposes.
Casuists have affirmed that our first sense of duty was derived
from the conception of what is due to ourselves. This is instinctive in
every living being. Even the ethics of the New Testament are
founded upon this precept: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"
it is likewise declared that "he that loves another has fulfilled all law."
We are able to define what is just to others by our apperception of
what is right for ourselves.
These premises, it will be apprehended, will establish
selfishness as the measure of moral virtue, and even as its basis.
This is by no means so unreasonable as it may seem. Selfishness in
its proper place and function is necessary and orderly. It is the first of
our natural propensities. The babe that we admire and often praise
as the emblem of innocence, is hardly less than absolutely selfish. It
regards everything around it as its own by right, and every person as
its servant. It knows no higher motive than its own enjoyment.
By no art of reasoning can we show this to be immoral. It is not
necessary for any one to plead that it is right, because the child was
born so. We can perceive it easily enough by considering it
intelligently. The highest good that a person can accomplish is to be
measured by the highest usefulness of which he is capable. In the
case of the babe, its utility, so far as others are concerned, is only
possible and in prospect. All that it can perform well is summed up in
eating and growing. This is really the state which is usually
denominated "selfish" and yet we perceive that it is necessary to the
ulterior purpose of becoming useful.
Perhaps we ought to give a philosophic definition to evil itself.
We may have been too prone to restrict our concepts of the
operations of the universe to the limits of our own backyard. What
seems like an infringing of order in our brief vision may be a perfect
harmony in the purview of the higher wisdom. In the objectifying of
the world of nature as the work or projected outcome from the Divine,
it must of necessity be distinct, imperfect, limited and inferior. We
apprehend this to be true of every created being. If it could be
otherwise, then mankind and all the universe would be, not simply
divine in origin and relative quality, but they would also be very God,
and coordinate Deity.
Hence, therefore, imperfection and evil are unavoidable in all
derived existence. Yet they are full of utility. They certainly enable us
to obtain the necessary experience and discipline for becoming more
worthy. In this way they are beneficial, and a part of the Divine
purpose. The child that never stumbled never learned to walk. The
errors of the man of business are his monitors to direct him in the way
of prosperity. Our own sins and misdoings are essential in an
analogous way to our correction and future good conduct. The
individual, however, who chooses to continue in these faults and evil
conditions, thereby thwarts their beneficial objects. His shortcomings
become turpitude. All such, turning their back to the Right, will be
certain to "eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own
devices."
The sense of individual right which is commonly designated as
selfish, will be found capable of exaltation and expansion till it shall
attain the rank and dimension of the widest benevolence. From the
consciousness of what is due or belonging to ourselves proceeds the
intelligent apprehending of what is proper and right for another. The
child, when he comes into contact with playmates will soon learn that
every one of them has personal rights with which others may not
interfere. It may be only an imperfect conception, nevertheless it is a
discipline and will exalt his view of things above the altitude of
unmixed selfishness. When in riper years the attraction of sex is
superadded, the field and opportunity are afforded for completer and
nobler development. It may be objected that the individual too
generally aspires to possess the object of regard without due
consideration of the wishes and well being of the other. In this view,
the new emotion will be but a new form of the radical selfish impulse.
Indeed, it is not possible or even desirable that the earlier
nature should be superseded. However high the head may reach
toward the sky, the feet of necessity must rest upon the earth. Even
the eagle must come down from its loftiest flights to solace its wants.
The noblest human soul has like need of earthly repose and aliment,
without which it will cease its aspirations to the higher life and
thought. Eros, the ancient sages affirm, drew forth the divine order
from chaos. The attraction of the sexes inspires a desire of pleasing,
which is in itself a tendency toward self-abnegation. In due time the
relations of household, neighborhood and society proceed from this
root and perform their office of extending individual aims to universal
ends. Selfishness must then be relegated to the background, or it will
become manifested as a monster of arrested growth and deformity.
In its primary office as impelling us to maintain ourselves in
normal health it is permissible, and in the helpless and immature it is
entirely laudable. But the person of adult years who shall remain in
this rudimentary moral condition, whether living in a wilderness or
among the most cultured, is for all that, only a savage. Civilization in
its genuine sense, is the art of living together; and it is vitally
dependent upon the just regard of every individual for the rights of the
others. Whoever promulgates and lives by the maxim that "everyone
must shift for himself," has not yet passed beyond the confines of
uncivilized life. However rich, cultured or scholarly, he has yet to
learn the simple alphabet of morality.
Perhaps we shall find the Pauline ethics, as set forth in the New
Testament, our best exposition of moral virtue. It is an indispensable
condition of a morality that is to be efficient, says Jacobi, that one
shall believe in a higher order of things of which the common and
visible is an heterogeneous part that must assimilate itself to the
higher: both to constitute but a single realm. Paul has declared all
superior virtue to consist in charity, or paternal love for the neighbor,
and utterly ignores self-seeking. "No one of us lives for himself," he
declares; "and no one dies for himself, but does so for God." Writing
to his Corinthian disciples, he extols the various spiritual attainments,
and then having included them in one summary, he avers that charity
infinitely surpasses them all. He then depicts in glowing terms its
superior quality:

"It is forbearing, it is gentle;

It is never jealous, it never boasts,
It is not swelling with pride,
It acts not indecorously,
It seeks not wealth for itself,
It is not embittered, nor imputes ill motive,
It has no delight in wrong-doing,
But rejoices in the truth."

Thus with true philosophic ken, he mentions the various

spiritual endowments as incident to the lower grades of development,
and cast into the dark by charity. "When I was a babe," he says, "I
prattled, thought and reasoned as one; but when I became man, I set
the things of babyhood aside." Whoever seeks the general good, the
best interests of others, with all his heart, making all advantage to
himself a subordinate matter, has passed the term of childhood, and
is adult man in full measure and development.
It will he perceived that philosophic morality is not a creature of
codes, books or teachers. It is always inseparable from personal
freedom. It is character and substantial worth as distinguished from
factitious reputation and artificial propriety of conduct. The person
who keeps all the precepts of the law is not complete till he yields
himself and his great possessions to his brethren. The cross of the
life eternal may not be taken and borne in the hand while one grasps
eagerly the sublunary good.
We thus trace the moral quality in our nature from its incipient
manifestation as a duty which we owe, to its culmination as a
principle by which we are to live. It fades from view as a system
enforced by rules and maxims, from being lost in the greater light of
its apotheosis as an emanation from a diviner source. We are taught
by our experience of results to shun evil and wrong-doing as certain
to involve us in peril; and now the higher illumination reveals them as
a turning aside from the right way, and sinning against the Divine.
Our highest duty is to perfect ourselves in every department of our
nature by the living of a perfect life - or as Plato expresses it,
becoming like God as far as this is possible - holy, just and wise.
Such is the aim of all philosophy, and it is attained by whomever
in earnestness and sincerity pursues the way of justice and fraternal
charity.

(Un. Brotherhood, Dec., 1897)

---------------

THE PROBLEM AND PROVIDENCE OF EVIL

By Alexander Wilder, M.D.

"The Power that always wills the bad and always works the
good." - Goethe

DEFOE, in his famous work, describes Robinson Crusoe as

instructing his man Friday upon the leading doctrines of the Christian
religion. As he endeavors to explain the problem of evil as the work
of Satan, his pupil asks, eagerly: "Why God no kill the Devil?"
Doubtless, Defoe, when writing this question, was evading personal
responsibility while thrusting before the world a problem which
threatened to sap the very foundations of the accepted theology. If
there be such a Power in the universe able to thwart the divine
beneficence and to lead human beings to ruin in wanton malignity, it
must be, as has been taught in former centuries, actual Divinity and
the rival of Deity itself. We cannot in such case attribute omnipotence
to God; but if the converse be true, that he only suffers such ruin of
souls when able to prevent it, we can hardly suppose him wise and
benevolent. This question has agitated thinking minds ever since the
dawn of history. Nevertheless, we are conscious that only Divinity,
supreme in essence and beyond essence, sustains the universe and
regulates its movements. It alone operates in harmony, adapting all
means to their proper ends. It is therefore one and absolute. Hence
evil, on the other hand, can be only a disturbing element, never
permanent and substantial in its operations, but always destructive.
Even when in any of its phases it seems to be persistent, it eventually
fails and comes to an end in any endeavor which it may seem to
prompt and inspire. From the nature of things, therefore, we may not
consider it to be any counterpart of the Supreme Right, nor the
purpose of any creative operation. We must accordingly ignore
without hesitation any concept in relation to it as being actually an
essence or individuality absolutely hostile to Divinity, or as leading
and abetting hosts of malignant demons to mar the order of the
universe and lead human beings from the Right.
In former periods, however, all objects were personified and
supposed to be endowed with soul. The physical forces were
regarded as personalities, and whatever was grievous and harmful
was considered as essentially evil. In this way, accordingly, every
tribe and people that had attained no superior culture had abundance
of evil beings ready on opportunity to lead individuals astray or to
inflict harm upon them. There were also in these modes of thinking
divinities representing all forms of mental endowment, whose aims
and influences were good. Beyond these was likewise the mystery of
Death. That existence did not end with this event was a cherished
belief. The soul was conceived as still alive and hovering around the
family abode. If it was cared for, propitiated with food and sacrifices,
it was a good angel to the kindred; but if this should be neglected it
suffered accordingly and was likely to render unfriendly offices, if not
to become inimical outright.
The personification of evil as a distinct hostile power in the
world seems, however, to have had its inception at a period
comparatively recent. There was no such personifying of wrong as
an individual potency in the writings of the earlier people of whom we
have knowledge. There was no Devil that was depicted as always
such from the beginning. The earlier demons that were represented
as malignant were not described as ranging over the whole world, but
only over specific regions. The conception of a diabolic personality
appears to have been formed from that of a tutelary god that had
been dethroned by conquest or social revolution. Thus Set or Typhon
of Egypt and the Western Semitic populations of Asia had been
honored as a god through a long succession of dynasties, but
changes occurred at a later period, which have not been fully
explained, by which he became in the newer form of worship the
Satan Adversary, always hostile to the Good.
In the religious system of ancient Persia known as Magian and
Zoroastrian this conception appeared in a more concrete form. Even
there, however, it exhibits evidences of having changed almost
radically in its long career. The Avesta, the sacred scriptures of that
faith, what little of it is still extant, contains texts implying as much.
The people of archaic Eran had broken away from their kindred Aryan
neighbors and adopted a new mode of living, as well as another form
of religious belief. Renouncing the nomadic life, they became tillers
of the soil and dwellers in permanent homes, which were very
generally grouped together into villages. It was a veritable illustration
of the story of Cain and Abel, the agriculturist rooting out the
herdsman. The enmity which arose involved also their religious
notions. The devas are still regarded as gods in India and as evil
spirits by the Parsis,* Indra; the Dyu-piter, or "father in heaven," of
the Veda, is an unfriendly power in the Avesta. But in the earlier
Zoroastrian teachings the Supreme Being is represented as One, as
it seems to be also declared in the book of Isaiah: "I am the Lord,
and there is none else; I form the Light and create Darkness; I make
peace and create evil." But the later Mazdean philosophy appears to
have reasoned from premises more easily comprehended by the
common thinking. It was recognized that in the world of nature there
is law, and also that in the same realm there is conflict. While,
therefore, profounder thinkers contemplated all things as dependent
upon the One, Zeroana the Infinite, all operations and events were
attributed to the Two, who in their separate capacities nevertheless
wrought out as though in concert the Divine purpose. But these
eventually were considered as perpetually at war, Ahura-Mazda, the
eternally Good, and Anra-manyas, the Evil Mind, always seeking to
mar everything created and every form of life as it came into
existence. Few individuals care to investigate this subject more
critically. Thus from this source came the belief in pure evil, original
sin, and also in an arch-enemy of God and man. The Evil Genius
was represented as always in conflict, always on the alert for
mischief. From him was the thorn to the rose, the shadow to the light,
the sorrow that attends on every joy. "He sowed the seeds of evil in
animal life," remarks Mrs. Robins-Pennell, "and transmitted the germs
of moral and physical disease to the universal man."

------------
* The gypsies have been described as worshiping the Devil.
The fact is overlooked, however, that they were an outcast Indian
people and that the term Deva is a Sanskrit designation signifying
Deity.
------------

In this description we observe no critical distinction between

moral evil and physical. The same potency that introduced cold in
the primitive Aryana is the one that promotes what is evil "in the
thought and word and deed."
The concept of Satan as the Evil potency appears to have been
evolved at a period comparatively modern. In the dramatic sketch
which is given in the book of Job he seems to have a place in the
assemblage of "Sons of God." There certainly is no show of enmity
or alienation. It is apparently his office to go up and down the earth to
find out how its order was maintained. He is interrogated accordingly
by the Lord in respect to the fidelity of Job, and suggests that it is
solely in return for the protection that has been afforded.
The tests are then given: first, by permitting the destruction of
wealth and family; then by the inflicting of loathsome disease, and
finally by the aggravating imputations of his three friends that his
calamities are the penalty of his own wrong-doing. The sufferer
insists positively upon his uprightness and faultless integrity,
exempting himself from the charge as he would have done before the
assessors of the dead. Nevertheless, he considers that his
calamities are from God. "The hand of the Lord has wrought this," he
declares to his inquisitorial friends. When likewise his wife, grieving
at his condition, apparently so utterly hopeless, pleads to him to
invoke God and die, he replies submissively: "Are we to receive
good at the hand of God, and are we not to receive the evil also?"
This dramatic representation in the introduction to the story of
Job has been the moral of analogous literary productions in later
centuries. Satan, now displaced from his office of Censor in the
heavenly sphere and become Prince of Darkness, is now the seducer
and destroyer of souls. Christopher Marlowe delineates the compact
of Doctor Faustus with Mephistopheles (hater of the light), which was
carried into effect by his terrible fate. Goethe followed with his
inimitable work. He also introduces Mephistopheles, "the spirit which
evermore denies" and that claims evil as his own element. Faust, the
scholar, is delivered over to the Tempter to be subjected in every form
of allurement and moral peril. He is plunged into the mire of
sensuality and selfish caprice, as well as human ambition. But amid
it all the divine element in the soul is not destroyed. He retains his
consciousness of the right, and after all his waywardness exhibits the
desire to continue in the doing of benefits to his fellow-beings. This
brings to its close his compact with the Evil One, but the same
moment it delivers him from the penalty of the bond. Thus the Dark
Spirit outwitted himself.
Milton, however, had already given in his great poem, Paradise
Lost, the setting to the story of Satan and the "Fall of Man," which has
been very generally accepted in Protestant Christendom. He has
represented the great apostate, taking for his model in this
delineation Prince Rupert, the commander of the Cavaliers in the Civil
War in England, in whom the temper and character of the aristocracy
were vividly displayed. This hero of Milton, though fallen from his
high estate, retains many of the characteristics of the distinguished
prince which win admiration. He had rebelled when the Son of God
was placed over the angelic ranks and had drawn a third of them
from their allegiance. Though having become the arch-fiend, he is
nothing less than "archangel ruined." Having now taken evil as his
good and choosing to rule in hell rather than to serve in heaven, he
now delights himself in leading human beings astray.
As if to give a finality to all this class of vagaries, Mr. Philip
James Bailey presents us with his epic poem, Festus. In the previous
dramas the faithful Job, the weary scholar and the guileless parents
of mankind had been chosen for attack. Now, the youth Festus is
delivered to Lucifer to be subjected to his arts. But, as before, evil is
not triumphant. As Job was restored to more than former prosperity,
and Faust was borne by angels and redeemed souls to the highest
bliss, so Festus, after having tasted the delights of mind and sense, is
numbered with the heavenly multitude, the whole human race
delivered, and even Lucifer himself restored, a penitent, to his former
rank.

"It suits not the eternal laws of good

That evil be immortal."

Sin, in its proper meaning, denotes a missing of the aim, a

failure to reach the right end, a being in fault rather than any profound
turpitude or wickedness. When, however, it is voluntary; when it is a
deliberate violation of the Right, then it becomes flagrant wrong-
doing, injury and crime. The whole nature is thus contaminated, and
becomes vicious and corrupt. As all human beings have erred more
or less and are subject to the infirmities incident to an imperfect
nature, they are subject to suffering in consequence;* hence they are
under the necessity of directing their careers by the wisdom which
they acquire by their experience.

-----------
* The story of the Garden of Eden in the book of Genesis
mentions the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this be regarded
as a historic account of the earth before there had been
transgression, it will also imply that evil was itself recognized as
exiating prior to the introducing of human beings upon the scene.
-----------

The ancient philosophers held that the soul is of twofold quality.

The higher faculty, the mind or spirit, was an essence akin to Divinity
itself, but the sensuous and passional constituents perish with the
body.
The earlier Christian authors exhibit considerable variations in
their concepts of evil and its personal representative. These were,
however, superior in tone to those set forth in the Avesta. The moral
view was more distinctly presented, and the evils incident to the
realm of nature, like cold and heat, pain and physical injury, were less
considered. They evidently regarded the Roman dominion as in a
certain sense identical with the kingdom of evil. Nevertheless, the
writings accredited to Clement of Rome do not appear to have
recognized any predominating evil personage. Tertullian, however,
who was more conversant with Asiatic opinion, speaks distinctly of
Satan, the Devil, and Justin Martyr also described him as leader of
the powers of darkness, the cause of transgression and physical
disaster, the ally of heretics and the inspirer of the former worship.
With the illiterate multitude these notions were cherished in their
worst aspect. The concept drifted through the Middle Ages to the
present time. We find it cropping out in common religious discourse
and in current speech.*

-----------
* The writer wrote an article in 1854 for a newspaper, insisting
that there was no such personality as the Devil. An answer was
made to it in which was the expression: "I fear he has denied his
Savior."
-----------

In the earlier centuries of the present era the Gnostic sects and
theories overlapped and were largely intermingled with those which
are now distinguished as Christian. The New Testament contains
many features and expressions which indicate their influence. Their
leading doctrines, so far as we know of them, appear to have been
developed from the older systems extant in the East and incorporated
into the newer theological structures. One of these is remarkable for
its explanation of Judaism and the traditions of the Hebrew
Scriptures. It replaces the Dark Spirit of the Persians by Ilda-Baoth
(Son of Darkness), and represents him as identical with the Jehovah
of the Jewish people. He was described as having created the world
out of chaotic matter and placing the first human beings in the
Garden of Eden, forbidding them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge.
But the Genius of Wisdom, taking the form of the serpent, persuaded
to the violating of this restriction, and mankind thereby became
capable of comprehending heavenly mysteries. This has been
followed by a continued conflict between the powers of light and
darkness. For man, in his prior psychic nature, notwithstanding his
ability to receive illumination, is nevertheless still "of the earth earthy,"
and requires to be generated anew into the divine life. This concept
appears to have originated in the belief that matter is itself the source
of evil. The corporeal nature, "the flesh, with its affections and lusts,"
it was inculcated, must therefore be subjugated and destroyed. As
whatever was natural was regarded as impure, the concept of evil
became interwoven with every form of sensuous delight. Whether
the individual was a philosopher, a Gnostic or other style of Christian,
the same notion seems to have been entertained.
Many strained and strange beliefs have sprung from this
conception. The most pronounced among these is the notion that it is
inherent as well as incident in mankind to be evil and to do wickedly.
So long as human beings exist in the world it is asserted that they will
be controlled by natural impulses and motives of action, and that,
because of this, they will be selfish, sensual and persistent in evil-
doing. Such is the belief substantially of the leading denominations in
Christendom, and likewise of various religionists that are not so
classified as Christian. Its unfortunate influence has been to develop
a feeling of despair reacting in recklessness, laxity of morals, and
also cruelty and disregard of justice between man and man. The
beastly sentiment that might, meaning physical superiority, makes
and is the all of right, finds its sanction and support in the reasoning
that this is natural to all creatures. It is certainly the moral code of
wild animals. Accordingly, we do not accuse the tiger of moral
delinquency because it preys upon helpless creatures, and by such
logic the person with tigrish nature may as well seek to be justified for
acting according to its impulses.
There has been a disposition among many thinkers to consider
the state of nature and the conditions of natural existence as far from
light, purity and goodness; and to regard the besetments of
selfishness and wrong-doing as belonging to the body. "I find a law in
my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me
into captivity," says the Apostle Paul; "for with the mind I myself
serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Jesus also is
recorded as saying that "evil thoughts and all kinds of wicked
impulses and actions come from within, from out of the heart of man,
and make him impure."
Under the influence of notions of this kind, monastic life has
been a religions characteristic in the different faiths, ancient and
modern, Christian and non-Christian. Various macerations of the
body were added. Among these were fasting, abstinence from the
bath, and studied neglect of physical comfort. It was the aim and
dream to crush out the bodily sensibility in order that the soul might
be emancipated and enabled to reach the higher beatitude.
 The philosophers, however, while they deprecated the mingling
of the soul with the corporeal nature, also acknowledged intelligently
the rightful place of the bodily organism and conditions. When
Porphyry was contemplating suicide in order to escape from the evils
and calamities incident to life, Plotinos, his preceptor, remonstrated,
declaring that this was not the suggestion of a sane intelligence, but
that it proceeded from some morbid affection of body.
Indeed, we have no sufficient reason for supposing that dying
will totally separate the soul from the entanglements incident in our
corporeal existence. The passions and desires may still inhere, and
the unhoused selfhood, thus turned adrift, finds itself more helpless
than the beggar in the street. The true separation of the soul from the
body Plotinos has explained accordingly as being a purification from
anger, evil desire, and other causes of disturbance. This may take
place while yet remaining with the body. The individual is still in the
world, while at the same time beyond and above. Hence the words of
Jesus are pertinent - "I pray not that thou shouldst take them from the
world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil."
"But it is not possible that evil shall be extirpated," says
Sokrates to Theodoros, "for it is always necessary that there should
be something opposed to goodness. Nor may they be established as
attributes in the gods, but from necessity they encompass the mortal
nature and the lower region. We ought, therefore, to endeavor to flee
hence to the gods most speedily; and this fleeing is an assimilating
to God in the greatest degree possible, and the assimilating is to be
intelligently just and holy."
The philosopher further explains that upon character, upon
faithful devotion to the right, the true excellence of each individual is
based. The knowing (gnosis) of this is wisdom and true virtue, but
the not-knowing is manifest ignorance and baseness. "Hence," he
remarks, "there are the constituents of both in the interior being of
every one in existence; one that is divine and most blessed, and one
which is without God and most wretched. They who do not discern
that such is the case, by their stupidity and lack of spirituality, become
unconsciously through unrighteous actions like the one and unlike the
other."
It was more than incidental obstacles to good that were implied.
The philosophers contemplated also a moral delinquency. They
styled it "ignorance," but it was a condition voluntary and willful. "It is
darkness," Porphyry declared, "and will fill men with all manner of
evils." The ignorant person is the reverse of spiritual and noetic. He
may be quick of intellect, eloquent, skillful in argument and in
whatever pertains to common science. But he is without love for the
beautiful and good, preferring what is base and unjust. It is the worst
ignorance, Plato declares, because it pertains to the mass of the soul,
the mortal part which feels pain and pleasure, and is opposed to
everything higher, to the superior knowledge, well-established
condition and reason.
We are thus enabled to behold evil with its concomitants, in its
proper place and character. It is the obverse side of the great world-
picture, the opposing pole on the sphere of objective existence, the
shadow, and in reality the bond-servant of the Right. In the realm of
Nature it manifests itself as the difficult thing, the obstacle that is set
for us to overcome, and in this way has its use as a discipline and
exercise by which to develop our powers. In the superior region of
mind and morals it includes those qualifies incident to our imperfect
nature and field of activity which operate to retard the higher purpose
and hold us back in the domain of crude infantile selfishness.
Nevertheless, that which may seem to our limited powers of
vision to be absolutely bad is undoubtedly good and right when
regarded upon the general plane which includes all things within its
purview. When, like a servant putting off his livery to assume the
rank and authority of the master, the lower nature is set in the
foreground as the superior principle of action, it becomes itself an
adverse condition to be fought against and brought into
subordination. It is certain to defeat itself in the end, to fail through
imbecility. All that it can actually accomplish is a design which is
beyond and superior to itself, which has been directed silently and
occultly by a Power that is overruling it for a nobler purpose. Its
proper office, it will be perceived accordingly, is to afford exercise to
the soul for the purpose of bringing its faults to plain sight, of evolving
its capacities and eliminating its deficiencies, thus making a
perfection attainable of which we might not otherwise be capable. "It
is a part of the mystery of evil," remarks Dr. Abbot, "that it evokes the
good; that when it is driven from the door good comes up the path
and enters in its place. In spite of a thousand apparent triumphs, evil
is the servant of good, and prepares the way for its approach." What,
accordingly, is accounted evil exists solely for the sake of the actual
good which awaits beyond.
The alliance of the soul to the conditions of natural existence is
necessarily attended by a certain privation of good and by exposure
to the casualties and calamities of life. It is born into the world to be
disciplined and perfected through experience. Hence from babyhood
to the completest maturity the individual is required to "forget the
things that are behind and reach forward to the things that are
before." That which was good in the earlier period of life becomes
evil when the time arrives to abandon it. The infant may be
innocently selfish, for he can know nothing beyond; but the older
person is called to a broadening charity. Dominating selfishness at
that period of life is an arrest of development, monstrous, and in itself
pernicious to the whole moral nature.
It was actually believed by the sages that prior to its
introduction into the world the soul was in a state of superior
perception, and that the first lapse began by a certain passiveness, a
susceptibility which rendered it subject to the attraction toward an
objective mode of existence. When afterward the whole spiritual
nature is submerged, and overwhelmed and eclipsed, and even
sensualized, it is, nevertheless, divine in its inmost quality. It never
purposely chooses evil for its portion, but yearns amid all its
wanderings for the truer life. Every lapse, pain or trial which it
undergoes operates to the same infinite end. The light is sure
eventually to overcome the darkness. There is none so bad but that
he may become holy and divine through goodness. The chain of
love, ending in the Infinite, is incessantly combining all below and all
above.

Yet spake yon purple mountain,

Yet said yon ancient wood,
That night or day, that love or crime
Led all souls to the good.

(The Word, October, 1906)

-------------------

CONCERNING PLEASURE - Philebos

By Alexander Wilder, M.D.

WE have a no other knowledge of Philebos than appears in this

Dialogue having his name. He is introduced to us as having been
brought to Sokrates by his pupil Protarchos,
for the purpose of discussing a peculiar sentiment. Nevertheless, as
though he was diffident or weary of the matter, he says but little, while
Protarchos, who is a pupil of Gorgias the Sophist, maintains the
argument.
He assumes that the most substantial good to all living beings
consists of joy, pleasure, delight, and whatever may be in accord with
things of that character. Sokrates, however, lays down the contrary
proposition: that to have understanding, to apperceive, to remember,
and endowments akin to these faculties, such as right sentiment and
true reasoning powers, are altogether better and more to be preferred
than pleasure by those who are able to participate in them. These
endowments, he declares, are not of advantage only to them, but
also to those who come after them. It would now devolve upon each
disputant, therefore, to indicate the permanent habit or incidental
disposition of soul which is to be regarded as capable of assuring for
every one a blessed condition of life. On the one hand, such a habit
had been set forth by Philebos as being that of rejoicing, and on the
other by Sokrates as the possessing of undertaking. But then,
Sokrates suggests, suppose some other condition should appear
which should be superior to both of these? Thus the term pleasure is
applied in diversified forms. A dissolute person is described as
having pleasure in one way and the discreet man in another. The
unwise man is pleased in being satisfied with foolish sentiments and
expectations, but the thoughtful man takes pleasure in thinking. Here
pleasures are seen to be unlike one another. Many are evil, but
others are good. Certainly also, however, the departments of
knowledge are also different, so that in the matter of diversity the two
sides are counterparts to each other. "So let us examine," says
Sokrates, "whether we ought to pronounce pleasure or intelligence
the highest good, or whether there is a third, that is superior to both.
We are not engaging in a contest to gain a victory, but ought both of
us to fight for what is the real truth."
After referring to the problem of the one and the many, which
are shown to be radically the same, Sokrates is besought by
Protarchos to point the way, if there is any, out of the common one of
viewing the matter. He explains that the men of ancient times who
lived nearer to gods, had left after them the tradition of a gift to
human beings which had come through Prometheus along with the
glowing fire. The tradition related that the beings that are described
as being eternal are from both the one and many, and thus limit and
unlimited are combined in their nature. Accordingly as things have
been so arranged, it is necessary for us in our reasoning after having
assumed one general idea concerning anything that we shall
endeavor to ascertain whether it is true. Whenever this shall have
been found out, we should look for two ideas if there are two; but
otherwise search for three or more. Then the search should be made
for the others, which pertain and are to be included with these, and
are intermediary between one and the undefined. Eventually it will be
manifest that the one at the beginning is not only one, and many, and
infinite, but likewise what it is. It should be noted that the concept of
indefiniteness is not to be brought to this intermediary many, till there
is perceived the relation of all the number from infinity the one. Thus
knowing becomes intelligence.
"The divine beings have delivered this tradition to us," says
Sokrates, "in order that we should examine matters in this way, and
learn and instruct one another. But now-a-days the wise men take up
the one or many, as it may chance, and more hurriedly or slowly than
is judicious, and they bring up the undefined immediately after the
one, letting the intermediate pass without notice."
This is illustrated in the art of writing. The voice as it issues
from the mouth is absolutely one, yet when regarded by its
modulations it is differentiated to infinity. The perceiving of it as one,
or that it is unlimited, does not meet our conception of knowing;
without such perceiving there can be no knowledge. When we
perceive the one it is necessary to follow it to the infinite, and then
must by number make our way back to the one. Thus knowing
becomes intelligence.
Upon this principle, it is recorded that Theth constructed the
system of letters. The sound of the voice was first contemplated as
being without limit; nevertheless, there are distinct sounds
distinguished by the vowels; others which are called semi-vowels;
and still others which are known as mutes or consonants, and liquids.
The number of each kind having been duly comprehended, together
with the relations existing between them, they are congregated
together in the gramatical technic.
This mode of reasoning may be applied to the question under
consideration and we are led to the suggestion that the absolute good
is neither pleasure nor intelligence, but a third something that is
different from them and superior to both. It is evident that this
condition is more perfect and sufficient, every being that knows of it
desires eagerly to possess it, and cares for nothing else, except as it
has been made complete together with such as are good.
In the life of pleasure there should be nothing of intelligence
and in the life of intelligence there should be nothing of pleasure. For
if either of them is the superior good it will need no addition from
anything else. If it required such aid it would come short of being the
chief good.
The individual possessing only the condition of pleasure must
then be considered as being without mind, memory, superior
knowledge, or upright judgment. He must be totally ignorant whether
he ever had or did not have any enjoyment, or even to think when
feeling a joy that he is actually feeling it; and having no reasoning
faculty, he could not even expect a joy to come at any future time.
This would not be living the life of a human being, but that of a certain
kind of mollusk, or some other marine substance endowed with
vitality, and having bodies like those of oysters.
On the other hand, a life of pure mentality - the possessing of
intelligence, mind, superior ken, and every recollection of every thing,
would be absolutely without the experiencing of pleasure, great or
little, or of pain, but would, instead, be a total insensibility to any thing
of the kind.
This condition, likewise is one that nobody would choose, A
third one in which mentality and pleasure are combined, is to be
preferred to a type of either the first or second alone. This concept,
however, leads beyond, and all these to a fourth subject of enquiry,
that of the cause.
Taking a survey of the whole field, all things may be
apportioned thus: as those which are limitless and so capable of
being increased or diminished; those which limit and measure; those
which are produced by the joint action of those two; and the cause of
all. Belonging to the first of these are the antagonistic qualities like
heat and cold, pleasure and pain, dryness and moisture, swiftness
and slowness. By the combining of any two of these opposites they
will limit each other according as they are interblended, thus
producing moderation, due proportion and equipoise; hence, besides
these three, the unlimited, the limiting, and the combined two, there is
a fourth to be considered. For pleasure, except it is limitless and
admits of increase and diminution, is not entirely a good. So,
likewise, pain is not wholly bad. Hence it will be perceived that
something of a different nature is required that can impart good to
pleasures.
The philosopher having established this fact, now endeavors to
indicate this additional principle. It is not to be supposed that all
things, including what we call the universe, go on by chance, and are
managed by a power destitute of rationality. On the contrary, they are
arranged and directed by mind and superior intelligence. Every thing
is disposed in perfect order. The universe, sun, moon, stars, and the
revolutions of the sky, all move in their course without break or
accident.
The constitution of the universe, (the macrocosm) is the same
as that of human beings, the microcosm. As our body is informed by
soul, so there is a soul of the universe from which it derives its
existence. The potency which bestows the soul and makes the body
its shadow, and also frames the other creations, is revered as the
perfect and manifold wisdom. In these creations was manifest a
nature superlatively beautiful and worthy of veneration. The Cause
which produced this order of things and which arranges the years and
seasons and months, is most rightly called mind and wisdom. Yet
these could not have actual existence without a soul. Hence in the
nature of Zeus, there are both a kingly soul and a kingly mind through
the power of the Supreme Cause.
Thus Plato recognizes the oversoul, the superessential, the
source of All. Having led the discourse from theme originally
proposed for consideration by a legitimate course of reasoning, to the
acknowledgement of divinity, he turns his attention back to the
problems, mind and pleasure which had been already assigned to
their true rank. Mind was shown to be akin to the supreme cause,
and pleasure to belong to the category of the limitless, having neither
beginning, middle or end.
The third factor is next to be considered, that in which pleasure
and mental action are combined. Though opposites in their nature,
pleasure and pain are in the same category, each of them
consequent to the other. Apart from pain we would not be conscious
of pleasure. When the established order of the framework of the
body is relaxed, pains are the result. The restoring of this order will
produce pleasure. Hunger, thirst, chilled condition of the body,
overheating, are pains occasioned by such relaxation; and the
supplying of food, drink, proper warmth, or lowering of bodily
temperature in such instances are sources of pleasure. Accordingly,
these conditions of pain are simply a consciousness of want and the
desire for its supply. The sensation thus produced is a mental
movement, as is likewise the desire itself. The inclination of every
living being to mitigate its sufferings shows that there is a perception
of the means of relief, which arises from remembering such means.
The philosopher accordingly brings the others to the acknowledgment
that as memory leads to the things desired, the soul is the actual
factor, and hence that the body by no means experiences hunger or
the other conditions.
Memory operating with the sensations and the conditions which
they create, writes speeches in our souls. If the impressions are true
the opinions which are formed from them will also be true, and the
speeches likewise which are produced. If they are not, true, neither
will the opinions and speeches be true. There is also an artist within
us, which makes pictures of these things in the soul. When our sight
or some other of our senses is shut off, these pictures and
representations are apparent to us. Dreams and reveries manifest
them to our view. Our opinions are founded both upon these and
also upon our hopes and fears, which are so many expeditions to the
future. T hey are thus sources of pleasure and pain from anticipation
of what may happen.
There are periods when the soul feels neither pain nor
pleasure. These are produced by the great changes about us; while
moderate and trifling changes are not noticed at all. Indeed it has
been asserted that all real pleasure was the enjoying of freedom from
pain. This however, is hardly correct. The most intense pleasures
are the bodily delights, those which are preceded by the strongest
desires. Those in fevers suffer violent thirst and are eager for drink.
The greatest delights and the extremest pains are produced when the
condition of the soul and body is one of darkness, but not when it is
normal and virtuous. Yet we would hesitate to draw the conclusion
that a disordered state of body and soul was one of greater pleasure
than a moral and healthy condition.
The passions, which are of the soul alone, as anger, fear,
desire, grief, love, emulation, envy, are so many forms of pain, yet are
fraught with boundless delights. Thus in the representations of
tragedies, individuals will weep while in the every extreme emotions
of joy. Envy, however, is a more forcible illustration. It is
unequivocally a pain of the soul; nevertheless, the envious person
feels warm delight at the calamities of others. Ignorance, too, is evil,
and so is the habit that we call silliness. Of this ignorance, our
philosopher enumerates three kinds. Some imagine themselves to
be richer than they are; others as more handsome of body; but the
third class, who are the most numerous, think themselves to be
better, to excel in virtue of soul - such not being the case. They aim
at the possessing of wisdom, when in the midst of eager rivalship and
false concepts of what wisdom really is. Those who are not able to
defend themselves are made subjects of ridicule; and they who can
sustain their own part are hated. In thus making game of the one and
hating the other, the passion of envy which is a pain of the soul is
manifested as a dream in which everything comes by snatches; but
to which are concepts and even views of what is beyond. Hence
there is a good exceeding what has been apprehended. But, as
Plato has remarked in the Republic, "it exists here only in our
reasoning, but I think has no existence upon this earth."
Thus it may be regarded as fully established, that in all things
relating to them, the body by itself without the soul, the soul by itself
without the body, and likewise the soul and body together, have their
respective delights and enjoyments in abundance, all these being
common right with pain. Sokrates referred to this close relation of the
two, when the chain was taken off his leg in the prison. That
something which was called pleasure seemed unaccountable to him
in its peculiarity and particularly so in its relation to its opposite, pain.
The two will not be present with an individual at the same time; and
yet if one should pursue and attain the one, he is compelled to
receive the other, as though they were both united together from one
head. If Esop had observed this, he would have made a fable to
explain that the Creator, desiring to reconcile the two warring
principles, and not able to do it united their heads. Hence when one
of the two visits an individual the other comes directly afterward.
Nevertheless, plausible as it may seem, especially to sufferers
of severe pain, we may not credit the assertion that the cessation
constitutes the only real pleasure. There may be seeming pleasures
which are not really such, and there are delights which appear to be
many and great, but are really combined with pains, which have
relation to perplexities of body and soul.
There are pleasures, certainly, which are truly pure and
genuine. Of this kind are those delights of sense which are
experienced from beautiful colors and figures, from agreeable odors,
from harmonious sounds, and in short, from whatever possessing
wants that are unperceived and without pain permits them to be
supplied after a manner that is both perceptible and full of enjoyment.
The pleasures that are connected with leaning, are of this character.
There is no pain at the beginning arising from hunger after
knowledge, and if afterward the learning is lost by forgetfulness, there
is no pain perceived in the forgetting. If the individual subsequently
feels pain through the want of the knowledge, it has no relation to the
forgetting when this takes place. The pleasures of learning may be
considered, therefore, as unmixed with pain, but only a few
participate in them.
Pleasures may also be distinguished as the vehement and the
moderate. Those of the intense character belong to the department
of the limitless and are borne along through the body and soul, but
the moderate delights are the more pure and genuine.
The assumption is declared by some reasoners that pleasure is
a something always beginning, but never attaining to any real
existence. Yet all beginning is for the sake of the existing afterward;
ship-building, for example, is for the sake of ships, and ships are not
for the sake of ship-building. All generating is for the sake of what is
generated.
It is manifest at the slightest consideration that pleasure,
unmixed with mentality, and mentality without pleasure, are
conditions of life in no way to be desired. Neither of the two is perfect
or good. Instead, this must consist in a proper combining of the two.
One form of pleasure, however, is purer than another; and one
department of knowledge is superior to another. There must be
accordingly an adaptation of each to the other, or else dire confusion
would ensue. Every art, every mental pursuit, must be allied to its
corresponding delight. A vehement, exciting delight is not congruous
or in harmony with mental pursuits. Maddening pleasures interpose a
thousand hindrances to mind and understanding, but enjoyments that
are pure and moderate, which are accompanied with health and
sobriety are acceptable and appreciated. "For I imagine," says
Protarchos when pressed to the conclusion, "that no one will find
anything more immoderate than pleasure and extravagant joy; not a
single thing of more moderation than mind and understanding."
The moderate and opportune are before it in the divine favor;
and these always are allied to symmetry, harmony and beauty, the
perfect and sufficient. The mind and understanding come next, and
after them the superior knowledge, the nobler arts, and right
judgment of things. These all stand in closer relations to the superior
good than to pleasure. Then, after these and transcending them are
the genuine pleasures which do not follow in the line of knowledge,
but rather the sensations of the soul.
"It is sanity," says Emerson. "to know that over my knack or
work, and a million times better than any talent, is the central
intelligence which subordinates and uses all talents; and it is only as
a door into this that any talent or the knowledge it gives is of value.
My next point is this: that in the scale of powers it is not talent but
sensibility which is best. Talent confines, but the central life puts us in
relation to all."
Sokrates now declares, as though to nail all that has been
brought to view, that, though all the swine and goats in the world were
to join in applauding the advocate for pleasure, he himself would
never be persuaded that the superior good, human happiness,
consisted in being pleased so long as mind excelled and prevailed in
all things. Yet, this is not complete. They who covet and delight in
the contemplation of the real do not become satiated. To them the
present is as a dream in which every thing comes by snatches; but to
which there are concepts and even visions of what is beyond. There
are perceptions that there is yet a superessential good beyond our
investigations - an end and consummation older than inquiry has
apprehended. But as the philosopher has remarked in the Republic,
"It exists in our discourse, but I think that it is nowhere upon this
earth."

(The Word, June, 1906)

----------------------

THE AMERICAN SOKRATES

- Alexander Wilder, M.D.

A WRITER in a recent number of a monthly periodical has

endeavored to show resemblances of Doctor Franklin to Sokrates.
He has made out a very good case, and even the most captious will
admit that the matter is well worth considering. Nevertheless, a
person who should regard it from a superficial point of view may find
the analogy not so easy to trace. The mode of life of the two men
was so unlike that the apparent resemblances may appear farfetched
and often very faint. For example, Sokrates eschewed a political life;
but Franklin, after he had accumulated what he considered a
competency, was almost constantly called upon to take part in public
affairs and was among the foremost in effort to develop and shape
the Government of the American Republic. Sokrates adhered
tenaciously to the established worship of Athens and accounted the
pursuits of physical science as an intruding into the counsels of the
gods; Franklin took delight in exploring into the secrets of the natural
world, and was a zealous advocate of religious freedom, whatever
the sect or form. Sokrates made himself disliked by his countrymen
by his persistent practice of dialectic, which often revealed to them
their own opinions as absurd; Franklin was esteemed for his useful
inventions and his prolific resources of mind, which made his public
service invaluable. He invented many articles which added to the
conveniences of housekeeping, never seeking a patent for them, and
supplemented them all by his Promethean achievement - the bringing
of lightning from the sky, so that it might be bound in harness and
made to carry messages, propel machinery and do the work of men.
No wonder that the Athenian died by the penal sentence of a court,
while the American was honored at home and in other countries.
It is probable, however, that many of these diversities may be
explained by the difference of conditions and the periods at which the
men lived. More than twenty-two centuries intervened between the
time when Sokrates walked in the streets of Athens and Franklin set
type in Philadelphia. The populations were diverse in customs, habits
of thought and mode of living. What might be wise, what would be
approved by one people, would not be tolerated by the other. We
must look deeper and form our judgment from the men themselves by
a comparing of their profounder thought and their utterances.
The maxims of "Poor Richard" have been long accepted as part
of our literature. Thomas Paine esteemed them as superior to the
"Proverbs of Solomon." They range favorably beside the sayings of
Epiktetos and Publius Syrus. True, they conform very closely to the
Silver Rule - to do according as one is done by. This method seems
to be of most service to the worldly-wise, although it is often opposed
to that diviner charity which is the loving of the neighbor and not a
supreme seeking of own advantage. We will find in Franklin's
autobiography, however, the material which will fit us for juster
judgment.
He tells at the outset of an uncle whom he resembled closely in
person and modes of thought. This uncle died some four years
before the birth of the nephew. But for this period of time intervening,
it was remarked that there might have been a transmigration of soul
from the one to the other. An Oriental pundit, or a modern believer in
reincarnation, however, would make no such account of the interval
thus occurring.
Franklin himself informs us that he had sought to acquire the
Socratic mode of dialectic. He procured a copy of the works of
Xenophon and made it his study.
He makes this remark in support of the method: "As the chief
ends of conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to
persuade, I wish that well-meaning and sensible men would not
lessen their power of doing good by a positive and assuming manner
that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition and to defeat
most of those purposes for which speech was given to us. In fact, if
you wish to instruct others, a positive, dogmatical manner in
advancing your sentiments may occasion opposition and prevent a
candid attention." *

------------
* Xenophon: Memorable Accounts, I. "Now it seemeth to me,
that whoever applieth himself to the study of wisdom in hopes of
becoming one day capable of directing his fellow-citizens, will not
indulge, but rather take pains to subdue whatever he finds in his
temper turbulent and impetuous; knowing that enmity and danger are
the attendants of force; while the path of persuasion is all security
and good will; for they who are compelled hate whomever compels
them, supposing that they have been injured; whereas we conciliate
the affection of those whom we gain by persuasion; while they
consider it as a kindness to be applied to in such a Manner. Those,
therefore, who employ force are they who possess strength without
judgment; but the well-advised have recourse to other means.
Besides, he who pretends to carry his points by force hath need of
many associates; but the man who can persuade, knows that he is of
himself sufficient for the purpose.
------------

This reminds us of a familiar practice of Sokrates. He generally

began his discourses by asking the judgment of others, on the pretext
that he was himself totally ignorant of the subject.
After Franklin had become a man of business in Philadelphia as
a printer and stationer, as well as head of a family, he conceived the
project of attaining a state of moral excellence. He had been a deist
till he perceived that those whom he had persuaded by his
reasonings were ready to wrong him without the least compunction.
This convinced him that the doctrine, however true, was not useful.
He was not ready to accept "revelation" as especially imparted from
Divinity. He was of opinion that certain actions were not bad because
they had been forbidden, or good because they were commanded.
But he surmised that the bad actions were forbidden because of
being bad for us, and good ones enjoined because they were
intrinsically beneficial. "This persuasion," he remarks, "with the kind
hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favorable
circumstances and situations, preserved me."
He devoted Sundays to study, seldom attending any public
worship. The Calvinistic dogmas of Eternal Decrees, Election,
Reprobation, etc., appeared to him unintelligible and doubtful. But,
he declares, "I never doubted the existence of a Deity; that He made
the world and governed it by His providence; that the most
acceptable worship of God was the doing good to man; that our
souls are immortal, and all crimes will be punished, and virtue
rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteemed the essentials
of every religion, and being to be found in all the religions we had in
our country, I respected them all, though with different degrees of
respect, as I found them more or less mixed with other articles,
which, without any tendency to inspire, promote or confirm morality,
seemed principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one
another."
Conscious that a mere speculative conviction that it is to our
profit to be completely virtuous is by no means sufficient to prevent us
from slipping, but that, on the contrary, ill habits must be broken and
good ones acquired and established, he devised a catalogue of the
virtues the practice of which would be the measure of rectitude. This
list included twelve which he considered as necessary and desirable.
He tabulated them, giving to each an appropriate definition. They
were arranged in the following order: 1. Temperance. 2. Silence. 3.
Order. 4. Resolution. 5. Frugality. 6. Industry. 7. Sincerity. 8.
Justice. 9. Moderation. 10. Cheerfulness. 11. Tranquillity. 12.
Chastity.
A Quaker friend informed him that he was generally regarded
as proud, and sometimes as even overbearing and rather insolent.
This led him to add Humility to his list as thirteenth, and he enforced it
by the words: "Imitate Jesus and Sokrates."
He now arranged them in a little book, and set out by devoting
a week in turn to each virtue. Day by day he made a memorandum
of how well or ill he had succeeded in the endeavor, marking the
failures. When he had made his way through the thirteen in as many
weeks he began anew and went on as before. He afterward changed
this mode of proceeding.
He remarks that his greatest trouble was in regard to Order -
that every part of his business should have its allotted time. He had
not been in earlier life accustomed to method, and, as he had an
exceedingly good memory, he had not been sensible of his faultiness.
He struggled for years to correct this, but found himself incorrigible.
"But on the whole," says he, "though I never arrived at the perfection I
had been so ambitious of attaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was, by
the endeavor, a better and happier man than I otherwise should have
been if I had not attempted it; as those who aim at perfect writing by
imitating the engraved copies, though they never reach the wished-
for excellence of those copies, their hand is mended by the endeavor
and is tolerable while it continues fair and legible."
In conformity with these views Franklin planned the compiling of
a book to be entitled "The Art of Virtue." It was designed to set forth
and enforce his cardinal doctrine: That vicious actions are not hurtful
because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful,
the nature of man alone considered." His endeavor was to convince
young men that no qualities are so likely to assure a poor man's
fortune as probity and integrity. But Franklin's time was so occupied
by public business that the book was never published.
He also projected a great association upon the basis which
comprises the essentials of every known religion. It was to be begun
and extended first among young and single men only. Each
candidate for membership was to be initiated after assenting to the
creed and an exercise of thirteen weeks in the virtues as prescribed.
The existence of the society should be kept secret, the members
looking up youths suitable for initiation. They were also pledged to
afford to each other their advice, assistance and support in promoting
one another's interest. But after having proposed the scheme to two
others, who accepted it, Franklin found himself too much engaged to
go further, till he became too old to undertake the matter.
"I am still of opinion," says he, "that it was a practicable
scheme, and might have been very useful by forming a great number
of good citizens; and I was not discouraged by the seeming
magnitude of the undertaking, as I have always thought that one man
of tolerable abilities may work great changes and accomplish great
affairs among mankind if he first forms a good plan, and, cutting off all
amusements or other employments that would divert his attention,
makes the execution of the same plan his sole study and business."
Becoming a candidate for re-election as Clerk to the General
Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania, Franklin was warmly
opposed by one of the principal members. Instead of resenting this,
he took occasion to ask of the man the loan of a rare book. This was
granted, and a warm and permanent friendship was the result. From
this occurrence he deduced the maxim: "He that has done you a
kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you
yourself have obliged."
Franklin adds: "It shows how much more profitable it is
prudently to remove than to resent and continue inimical
proceedings."
He remarks of the Rev. George Whitefield, whom he greatly
admired: "If he had never written anything, he would have left behind
him a much more numerous and important sect."
Franklin composed and published numerous maxims upon a
variety of subjects. We present a few:
"After getting the first hundred pounds it is more easy to get the
second."
"As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others,
we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention
of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
"The best public measures are seldom adopted from previous
wisdom, but forced by the occasion."
"When men are employed they are best contented."
Sokrates was beat adapted to his time, as the American sage
was to the early days of the new Republic. Xenophon describes him
as "the most sober and chaste of mankind," sustaining all vicissitudes
with equal complacency, persistent in self-control, and influencing
those familiar with him to the love of virtue. While he conformed to
the religious usages of the commonwealth of which he was a citizen,
his conceptions were lofty and philosophic. The soul, the intellectible
part of us, he declared to have come from he knows not whence, and
by it man is as a god in the midst of creation. As it governs the body,
does not the soul of the universe govern it in like manner? And does
not the providence of God extend in like manner? So, likewise, he
exhorted, to render oneself "deserving of the communication of some
of the divine secrets which may not be penetrated by man, but are
imparted to those alone who consult, who adore, who obey the Deity."
Being remonstrated with because of his plain habits and
teaching without pay, he replied: "Though I am not over-delicate in
regard to food, though I sleep but little, and do not once taste those
infamous delights in which others indulge, there may no other cause
be assigned than that I have pleasures far more choice in their
quality, which delight not only for the moment in which they are
enjoyed, but gladden with the hope of perpetual satisfaction."
"When we see a woman bartering her beauty for gold, we look
upon her as base, but when she consorts with a worthy young man
she gains our approbation and esteem. It is the same with
philosophy; he who sets it forth for public sale, to be disposed of to
the best bidder, is a public prostitute.... My pleasure is in the company
of my friends. When we are together we employ ourselves in
searching into those treasures of knowledge which the ancients have
left us; we draw from the same fountain, and, running over what
these sages have left behind them, wherever we find any thing
excellent we remark it for our own use; and when we see mutual love
begin to flourish among us we think that we have profited not a little."
Chaerokrates, being on ill terms with his brother, Sokrates
advised him to make overtures of good will. "Are you afraid of
making the first advances to your brother, lest it should lower you in
the opinion of those who hear it?" he demanded. "Surely it ought not
to be less glorious for a man ro anticipate his friends in courtesy and
kind offices, than to get the start of his enemies in injuries and
annoyances."
"It behooves us not a little," he says to Antisthenes, "to consider
of how much worth we really are to our friends, and that we are
diligent at the same time to raise our value with them as much as we
can, in order that they may not lay us aside like useless lumber."
To the young Kritobulos he gives counsel: "The shortest way to
make yourself beloved and honored is to be indeed the very man that
you wish to appear. Set yourself diligently to the attaining of every
virtue, and you will find on experience that no one of them but will
flourish and gain strength when properly exercised."
Notwithstanding what we might regard as idleness or
shiftlessness, he was as positive as Franklin in his exhortations to
thrift and industry. He counseled Eutheros to seek out some
employment which would enable him to lay up something for old age.
"Keep clear of those persons who seem to be glad to find fault,"
says he, "and seek out only such as are more candid. Which done,
pursue with steadiness and alacrity whatever you undertake, but
beware how you undertake anything beyond your power. Thus will
you find relief for your indigence, without the hazard of incurring much
blame. Certainty will take the place of a precarious subsistence and
leave you to the full enjoyment of all the peaceful pleasures of old
age."
He professed to know few that were wholly idle. The man who
spent his time at dice or in playing the buffoon to make others laugh
may be said to do something, he admitted. But such were no better
than idlers, since they might employ themselves so much more
usefully. No one would quit a good occupation for one that was
otherwise, and if he did so it would be less excusable, for he could
not plead being without employment.
Justice, together with every other virtue, he declared to be
wisdom itself. "Whatsoever is just and fair must be the result of
sound wisdom," said he; "and as nothing can be fair and just where
virtue is wanting, therefore justice and the other virtues are wisdom."
Sokrates also discoursed much with Euthedemos on matters of
duty and our relations to the Deity. "The Supreme God holds Himself
invisible," said he, "and it is only in His works that we are capable of
admiring Him. And if there is anything in man that partakes of the
divine nature it must surely be the soul which governs and directs
him; yet no one considers this as an object of his sight. Learn,
therefore, not to despise those things which you cannot see; judge of
the greatness of the power by the effects that are produced, and
reverence the Deity."
The general tone of these sayings, it will be perceived,
discloses a certain vraisemblance, and seems to indicate that the
American in many respects followed the same course of thought and
ways of reasoning as the Athenian. Both were alike in their
theological notions, and there is great similarity in their practical
methods. Their unlikenesses were incident to the different
circumstances, but in essential purpose and other characteristics they
were identical. They sought, after the manner best suited to their
times, to serve their fellowmen to the best of their ability, and it is not
for us to measure their success. Indeed, it may not be estimated
after the rule by which men commonly judge.

(The Word, September, 1906)

--------------------

HENRY CLAY
by Alexander Wilder, M .D.

THE illustration of "Henry Clay addressing Congress" exhibits,

with almost the exactness of portraits, the likeness of the prominent
members of the American Senate at that time. It is to be regretted
that a key is not given, as several of them, and these not the men of
less importance, are not at this late period easily recognized. Yet as
we look upon their faces here delineated, we feel as it we had known
them all.
Naturally our attention is first directed to the figure of the one
addressing the Senate. The United States will have to pass through
another Civil War as destructive of former memories as this one has
been, before Henry Clay can be forgotten. Making his mark upon the
history, legislation and diplomacy of the country, that mark cannot be
removed except the heart of the Nation is torn out with it.
The presiding officer we recognize as Millard Fillmore, once a
favorite son of New York, and Vice-President in 1849 and 1850; then
succeeding to the presidency at the death of General Taylor.
Growing up from poverty and his few opportunities, he became an
accomplished lawyer, a diligent legislator, and a statesman of
recognized ability. Comely of person, graceful in manner, and
generous in his impulses, he was at the time one of the most popular
men of Western New York, and continued to be till he signed the
measure that operated more than any other to estrange the citizens
of the Republic from one another - the Fugitive Slave Act of 1851.
We also observe near the speaker General Lewis Cass, then
the foremost man of the Democratic Party, whose nomination for
President in 1852 Mr. Clay desired and hoped for as most likely to
avert the crisis which he foresaw. He then lay dying, but to the last
the welfare of his Country was at his heart. But General Cass was
passed over, and the current moved with renewed force to the final
event. For years as Senator and Cabinet Minister he put forth his
energy to arrest its progress, but was compelled to give way
overpowered.
On beyond is John C. Calhoun, with head bent forward,
listening intently. His, likewise, was a career of remarkable
significance in the Nation. He had entered Congress almost at the
same time with Mr. Clay, and both in concert with Langdon Cheves
and William Lowndes, who seemed to have been elected for that
purpose, put forth their utmost efforts with success, to procure a
declaration of war with Great Britain. The measure was regarded
essential to the continuance of the Republican Party in power, and
Mr. Madison reluctantly acceded to it, regretting his compliance soon
afterward. The next turn of the wheel made Mr. Calhoun a Cabinet
Minister, and an aspirant for the presidency, for which he had the
support of Daniel Webster. Falling short of that ambition, he became
the champion of State Rights and nullification, bringing his native
commonwealth to the verge of civil war, and himself into personal
peril. Thenceforth he set about educating his people for mortal
conflict. The attempt to add new territory to this country for the
extending of the power of the Southern as against the Northern
States, had brought nearer the crisis which Mr. Clay was striving to
avert. It seems almost anachronism to place Mr. Calhoun in this
picture, for he died in 1850.
Daniel Webster, however, is the figure soonest recognized. The
artist has placed him in a row a little way behind the orator, sitting in a
thoughtful mood, but leaving us at a loss to surmise whether he is
attending to the subject under discussion, or meditating upon some
topic which he may esteem to be of profounder importance. He was
translated to the Cabinet a second time by President Fillmore, but
found himself without supporters except personal friends and
admirers, and estranged from his political associates. He quickly
followed Mr. Clay to the grave in 1852.
The other faces in the picture seem familiar and are carefully
depicted. We do not find, however, the "new men" who had already
come as precursors of the next epoch in American history. John P.
Hale and William H. Seward are left out, and we fail of finding Daniel
S. Dickinson, John Davis or Stephen A. Douglas. Those whom we do
see there were undoubtedly regarded as more notable, belonging as
they did to an era that seems to have passed almost completely into
oblivion. For it is true however discreditable as it may seem, that the
events of that time and the men of that time are almost as little
cognized by Americans of the present generation as though they had
been of the period of Magna Charta and the Conference of Barons at
Runnymede.
The war with Mexico resulting from the annexation of Texas in
1845, had effected the addition of New Mexico and California to the
jurisdiction of the United States. Legislation was required to provide
for the exigency. An issue had been introduced by the "Wilmot
Proviso," declaring that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except for crime, should exist in the new territory. This issue had
decided the election of 1848 giving the Whigs the National
Administration. The organizing of Oregon with this inhibition had
created an alarm. There were fifteen states with slavery and fifteen
without, so that each region had an equal number of Senators. This
arrangement was now imperilled. The contest was very sharp. Mr.
Clay apprehending danger to the Union, procured the appointment of
a joint Congressional Committee to devise measures of pacification.
This Committee reported what was known as the "Omnibus Bill,"
providing for the admission of California as a State, the organization
of territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, and more
effective measures for the rendition of runaway slaves.
It is apparently in support of this measure that Mr. Clay is
speaking. The prominent senators, the supporters of this legislation,
are listening. It may be well to add that it did not pass in this form,
but that the several propositions thus massed together, were
afterward enacted in separate bills.

[[portrait]]

Mr. Clay was always a conspicuous character in American

History. His marked personality, his impressive manner, his profound
sincerity, his unquestioned patriotism, his unblemished public career,
his loyal friendship, his ardent sympathy for the helpless and injured,
all combined to make him the idol of his party. He was like
Agamemnon, a "king of men." Even when defeated, he never lost
prestige, but gained in the affection of those who knew him.
Ambitious, he certainly was, for he aspired to the chief office in the
Republic, but he stubbornly refused to employ unworthy means to
secure the prize. When the place was within his grasp, and his
supporters were buoyant with assurance of success, he put it out of
his reach by exuberant frankness. Yet the disappointment never
weakened his love of country, and his last efforts were put forth to
secure harmony in our public councils and to preserve the Nation
undivided.
He was the architect of his own fortunes. His early
opportunities were limited, and he had never been able to obtain a
liberal education. His father was a Baptist preacher, at that time of no
account in Virginia, and there was no relationship with "first families."
Henry Clay was strictly of the people and a son of the people; his
blood was intensely red, without any tinge of patrician blue. Early left
an orphan he ate the bread of poverty, and at a tender age was
taught to work for a livelihood, to plough, to dig and labor in the
harvest field. He was generally known in the region as "the Mill Boy
of the Slashes." Fortunately for him when he was fourteen years of
age, his mother married a second husband, a man quick to perceive
the ability of the youth and to find him opportunity. He was placed for
a year in a retail store in Richmond, and afterward in the office of the
clerk of the High Court of Chancery.
A biographer describes him at this period as raw-boned, lank
and awkward, with a countenance by no means handsome, and
dressed in garments homemade and ill-fitting, with linen starched to
such a stiffness as to make him look peculiarly strange and
uncomfortable. As he took his place at the desk to copy papers, his
new companions tittered at his appearance, and his blushing
confusion. They soon learned to like him, however, and he was
found to be a faithful and industrious worker. He read incessantly
during his hours of leisure but unfortunately acquired a habit of
cursory perusing, a "skimming over" which he never conquered, and
which seriously interfered with thoroughness. This became afterward
to him a source of profound regret.
His diligence at work attracted the attention of the Chancellor,
George Wythe, who selected him for amanuensis to write out and
record the decisions of the Court. This was the turning point of his
career. Wythe was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and
member of the Convention that framed the Federal Constitution. He
believed in what he promulgated, emancipating his slaves and
making provision for their subsisting. Thomas Jefferson and John
Marshall had been his students. The four years thus spent there
decided Clay to become a lawyer, and he entered the office of Robert
Brooke the Attorney General as a regular student. A year later he
received the license to practice. At the age of twenty he set out for
Kentucky to seek his fortune, making his residence at Lexington then
styled "the literary and intellectual centre of the West."
He became, like all Southern men of note, a politician, and
quickly gained distinction as a speaker. In 1797 a Convention was
held to revise the Constitution of the State, and he labored
assiduously, but without success to procure the adoption of a system
of emancipation. He saved his popularity, however, by vigorously
declaring against the Alien and Sedition Laws of Congress. So much
easier is it to resent and deplore the wrongs that others commit than
to repent of those we commit ourselves.
Mr. Clay was from this time a champion of the helpless and the
wronged. It required personal as well as moral courage. There were
men in Kentucky who regarded themselves as leaders in Society and
above being held to account for unworthy and lawless acts. Colonel
Joseph Dayiess, then District Attorney of the United States and a
Federalist, perpetrated a brutal assault upon a private citizen.
Everybody feared him but Mr. Clay. He took the matter boldly up.
Dayiess warned him to desist, but was unable to frighten him even by
a challenge to a duel. With like sentiment toward a man that he
conceived to be wronged, he became a defender of Aaron Burr, but
on learning of deception he refused further friendly relations.
After a period of service in the Legislature, Mr. Clay was chosen
to fill an unexpired term in the Senate at Washington and took his
seat in December, 1806, when under thirty years of age. He seems
to have paid little heed to the unwritten law of reticence, but took
active part in speaking and legislating. He advocated the projects of
a bridge across the Potomac, and also roads and canals to facilitate
communication between the Atlantic Seaboard and the region west of
the Allegheny Mountains. A monument near Wheeling
commemorates his support of the Cumberland Road.
Political opinions then current have a curious flavor now. Many
questioned the constitutionality of such legislation. The
establishment of a Navy was opposed. The Barbary States received
tribute year by year for abstaining from piracy on American
Commerce. Great Britain, claiming to be mistress of the seas, took
some six thousand seamen from merchant vessels to serve in her
Navy, and confiscated goods that were shipped to European markets.
France, likewise, issued decrees of forfeiture; and all the defense
attempted was an embargo forbidding American vessels to leave
port. Spain pretended that her possessions in West Florida extended
to the Mississippi River, and the Federalists in Congress denounced
the action of President Madison to hold that region as being a
spoliation of a helpless and unoffending power.
Mr. Clay had just come again to the Senate. Although the
youngest member he was foremost in sustaining vigorous action. "I
have no commiseration for princes," said he; "my sympathies are
reserved for the great mass of mankind, and I own that the people of
Spain have them most sincerely."
Then he turned upon the great sensitiveness exhibited toward
Great Britain. "This phantom has too much influence on the councils
of the Nation," he declared. I most sincerely desire peace and amity
with England; I even prefer an adjustment of differences with her
before one with any other Nation. But if she persists in a denial of
justice to us, or if she avails herself of the occupation in West Florida
to commence war upon us, I trust and hope that all hearts will unite in
a bold and vigorous vindication of our rights."
Mr. Clay next appears as Speaker of the House of
Representatives in 1811. The House was more to his liking than the
Senate; it was at that time a debating body not dominated as it is
now by Committees appointed by the Presiding Officer. He was
vehement in demanding preparations for war with England, and
talked of terms of peace to be dictated at Halifax. The President was
timid, and the North and East opposed; but a declaration was made,
and Mr. Madison proposed to make Mr. Clay Commander-in-chief.
This he declined. There was a likelihood of cabals in Congress like
those which assailed General Washington in the Revolution. The
Navy saved the credit of the Nation, which the Army failed to sustain,
and with that it averted a peril of disunion.
Negotiations for peace were held at Ghent. Mr. Clay, as one of
the Commissioners, yielded a reluctant consent to the treaty. He
would not visit England till he heard of the Battle of New Orleans, but
he went to Paris.
In an interview with Madame de Stael, she spoke of the
exasperation in England and the serious intentions of sending the
Duke of Wellington to America. "I wish they had," said Clay. "Why?"
she asked. "Because," said he, "If he had beaten us we should only
have been in the condition of Europe, without disgrace. But if we had
been so fortunate as to defeat him, we should have greatly added to
the renown of our arms."
This conversation was repeated to the Duke, who at once
remarked that he would have regarded a victory over the Americans
as a greater honor than any which he had ever achieved. He also
praised the American Peace Commissioners as having shown more
ability than those of England.
Henceforth, Mr. Clay remained in his own country. Mr. Madison
tendered him the mission to Russia but he declined. He then offered
him the portfolio of the War Department. But Mr. Clay chose rather to
return to the House of Representatives and was again elected
Speaker.
He was now himself a leader; the men who had been at the
head of the Republican Party from the time of Washington, were
passing from supremacy. The war had developed new necessities
and new views of political subjects, and new men were taking hold of
public service. What had been denounced in 1810 became the policy
of 1816; the Federal party passed away, for its leaders had offended
the nation, and the new Republicans had adopted their principal
measures. We now find Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun still hand
in hand, with Daniel Webster the Union-lover and John Randolph the
Union-hater in opposition, and the President still holding the old
traditions.
The conditions of affairs in South America was the occasion of
a bill for more strict enforcing of neutrality. Mr. Clay dissented from
the measure. The ignorance and superstition imputed to the people
of the Spanish provinces, he insisted, was due to the tyranny and
oppression, hierarchic and political, under which they groaned. Their
independence was the first step toward improving their condition.
"Let them have free government if they are capable of enjoying it,"
said he; "but let them, at all events, have independence. I may be
accused of an imprudent utterance of my feelings on this occasion. I
care not. When the independence, the happiness, the liberty of a
whole people is at stake, and that people our neighbors, occupy a
portion of the same continent, imitating our example and participating
of the same sympathies with ourselves, I will boldly avow my feelings
and my wishes in their behalf, even at the hazard of such an
imputation."
He had exulted at the victory of New Orleans by a Western
General in a Western State. But when General Jackson in the
Seminole War, enlisted volunteers again without civil authority,
invaded Florida, decoyed Indian Chiefs into his camp by a flag of
truce and put them to death, besides executing two British subjects,
Mr. Clay denounced his acts as a disregard of every principle of
honor, humanity and justice. He was, however, again in advance of
popular sentiment.
The proposed admission of Missouri to the Union as a Slave
State became an issue for several years. It was a question whether
there should continue as before an equal number of Free and Slave
States, so as to assure the latter a safeguard in the Senate. It was
interest on one side and sentiment on the other. The excitement was
so intense as to threaten the Union itself. Dissolution was actually
considered. The matter was finally determined by a vote to
admit Missouri but to exclude slavery from all the region west of it and
north of its southern boundary line. In this controversy Mr. Clay acted
with the Southern Congressmen, and by his sagacity as Speaker, the
measure was made sure: the conflict, however, to be again renewed
a third of a century later, transforming the politics of a Nation.
None of Mr. Clay's speeches on this question were published.
He had been constrained by the voice of his State and fears for the
safety of the Union, but he was not willing to appear before his
countrymen and posterity in the lurid light of sustaining slavery.
The revolt in Greece enlisted the sympathy of all America.
Meetings were held to declare the prevailing sentiment. Albert
Gallatin even proposed to aid with a naval force. Mr. Webster offered
a resolution in Congress authorizing a Commissioner to be sent to
that country. Mr. Clay supported the motion in his Demosthenean
style. After portraying the situation, he added the challenge: "Go
home if you can; go home if you dare, to your constituents, and tell
them that you voted this proposition down; meet if you can, the
appalling countenances of those who sent you here, and tell them
that you shrank from the declaration of your own sentiments; that
you can not tell how, but that some unknown dread, some
indescribable apprehension, some indefinable danger, drove you
away from your purpose; that the spectres of cimiters, and crowns,
and crescents, gleamed before you and alarmed you; and that you
suppressed all the noble feelings prompted by religion, by liberty, by
national independence, and by humanity."
Mr. Clay had been already placed in the field as a candidate for
President, and this temerity astonished his supporters. He had
enemies, likewise, to take advantage of his excitable temper, to
irritate him to personal altercation.
John Randolph was conspicuous. He taunted Mr. Clay for his
defective education. "I know my deficiencies," Mr. Clay replied. "I
was born to no patrimonial estate; from my father I inherited only
infancy, ignorance and indigence. I feel my defects; but so far as my
situation in early life is concerned, I may without presumption say
they are more my misfortune than my fault."
There were no political parties in 1824; all were Republicans,
and the contest was simply between men. Mr. Clay was approached
with propositions such as would now be considered legitimate. He
refused to enter into any arrangements or make any promise or
pledge. There was no choice effected by the Electors. In the
Legislature of Louisiana, advantage was taken of the absence of
members to deprive him of the vote of that State. He was thus
deprived of the opportunity of an election by the House of
Representatives. It so happened, however, that the decision was in
his hands, and he gave his vote to John Quincy Adams. The two had
differed widely and with temper, but of Mr. Adams' superior fitness
there was no possible question. In political matters he never
rewarded a friend nor punished an adversary. He administered every
trust conscientiously. Mr. Clay became his Secretary of State. It was
an administration which the Nation would like to witness again. The
honor of the Nation was sustained; the country was prosperous
beyond former periods. What may now appear incredible, there were
twenty-four states in the Union, yet the public expenditures barely
exceeded eleven million dollars a year.
The endeavor to effect a friendly alliance with the new Spanish-
American Republics was unsuccessful. When Bolivar wrote Mr. Clay
a letter acknowledging his good offices, he replied with a gentle
remonstrance against the establishing of an arbitrary dictatorship. He
was disappointed in his hopes and expectations. Mr. Adams had
judged those men better than he. In diplomacy Mr. Clay aimed at
reciprocity in commercial matters. He advised the recognition of
Hayti likewise, as a sovereign State.
He also became one of the chief supporters of the African
Colonization Society. He believed it possible to remove a sufficient
number of free negroes to reduce sensibly the number of the colored
population, and bring about gradual emancipation. "If," said he, "I
could be instrumental in eradicating this deepest stain upon the
character of our country, and removing all cause of reproach on
account of it by foreign nations; if I could only be instrumental in
ridding of this foul blot that revered State that gave me birth, or that
not less beloved State which kindly adopted me as her son, I would
not exchange the proud satisfaction which I should enjoy for the
honor of all the triumphs ever decreed to the most successful
conqueror."
In 1828 a new administration and a newly organized political
party were chosen. Mr. Clay returned to Kentucky. But defeat never
lessened his hold upon his friends. In 1831 Daniel Webster, voicing
the sentiment of them all, wrote to him: "We need your arm in the
fight. It would be an infinite gratification to me to have your aid, or
rather your lead.''
Reluctantly he obeyed. He took his seat in the Senate more
heartily welcomed by his friends, more bitterly hated by his enemies,
than ever before. From this time he was more conservative. He was
henceforth the opposer of aggression, the pacificator for the sake of
the Union.
He was again nominated for President by the Republicans in
1832. Some years later the opposition united to form the Whig Party,
but although he was its acknowledged leader, the anti-masonic
influence gave the nomination in 1840 to Gen. Wm. H. Harrison. He
was, however, again nominated in 1844 and apparently certain of
election till a letter was published in which he spoke of the proposed
annexation of Texas in ambiguous terms which disaffected anti-
slavery voters enough to defeat him. He had retired from the Senate
two years before, but came back under the new administration. He
foresaw peril to the Republic, and now hoped to be able to stay the
tide. But it was only temporary.
His personal appearance, as represented in the picture, was
unique. He was tall and thin, though muscular; and there was an
entire absence of everything like stiffness or haughtiness. His
manner was cordial and kind, inviting rather than repelling approach.
His eyes were dark gray, small, and when excited they flashed with
striking vividness. His forehead was high and broad. His mouth was
large, but expressive of genius and energy. His voice was silvery,
deep-toned, and exquisitely modulated. When speaking, he threw his
soul into the subject, carrying along the souls of the hearers, making
them assent or dissent as he did. He spoke as the patriot warrior of a
thousand battles would speak; and despite the enmity and rancor
which pursued him with fiendish bitterness, the men opposed to him
mourned with his friends when he was no more a denizen of earth.

(Un. Brotherhood, Feb., 1899)

-------------

H.P.B. - A PROFILE OF THOSE DAYS

- Alexander Wilder, M.D.

... The study in which Madame Blavatsky lived and worked was
arranged after a quaint and primitive manner. It was a large front room, and
being on the side next to the street, was well lighted. In the midst of this
was her den, a spot fenced off on three sides by temporary partitions, writing
desk and shelves for books. She had but to reach out an arm to get a book,
paper or other article that she might desire, that was within the enclosure. In
this place Madame Blavatsky reigned supreme, gave her orders, issued her
judgments, conducted her correspondence, received her visitors and
produced the manuscript of her book.
She did not resemble in manner or figure what I had been led to
expect. She was tall, but not strapping, her countenance bore the marks and
exhibited the characteristics of one who had seen much, traveled much, and
experienced much. Her figure reminded me of the description which
Hippocrates has given to the Scyths, the race from which she was probably
descended. Her appearance was certainly impressive, but in no respect was
she coarse, awkward, or ill-bred. On the other hand she exhibited culture,
familiarity with the manners of the most courtly society and genuine
courtesy itself. She expressed her opinions with boldness and decision, but
not obtrusively. It was easy to perceive that she had not been kept within the
circumscribed limitations of a common female education; she knew a vast
variety of topics and could discourse freely upon them.
In several particulars, I presume that I never fairly or fully understood
her. Perhaps this may have extended further than I am willing to admit. I
have heard tell of her profession of super-human powers and of
extraordinary occurrences that would be termed miraculous. I, too, believe,
like Hamlet, that there are more things in heaven and earth than our wise
men of this age are willing to believe. But Madame Blavatsky never made
any such claim to me. We always discoursed on topics which were familiar
to both, as individuals on a common plane. Colonel Olcott often spoke to
me as one who enjoyed a grand opportunity, but she herself made no
affectation of superiority. Nor did I ever see or know of any such thing
occurring with anyone else.
She professed, however, to have communicated with personages
whom she called "the Brothers," and intimated that this, at times, was by the
agency, or some means analogous to what is termed "telepathy." I have
supposed that an important condition for ability to hold such intercourse was
abstinence from artificial stimulation such as comes from the use of flesh as
food, alcoholic drink and other narcotic substances. I do not attach any
specific immorality to these things, but I have conjectured that such
abstemiousness was essential in order to give the mental power full play, and
to the noetic faculty free course without impediment or contamination from
lower influence. But Madame Blavatsky displayed no such asceticism. Her
table was well furnished, but without profusion, and after a manner not
differing from that of other housekeepers. Besides, she indulged freely in
the smoking of cigarettes, which she made as she had occasion. I never saw
any evidence that these things disturbed, or in any way interfered with her
mental acuteness or activity.
She spoke the English language with the fluency of one perfectly
familiar with it, and who thought in it. It was the same to me as though
talking with any man of my acquaintance. She was ready to take the idea as
it was expressed, and uttered her own thoughts clearly, concisely
and often forcibly. Some of the words which she employed had
characteristics which indicated their source. Anything which she did not
approve or hold in respect she promptly disposed of as "flapdoodle." I have
never heard or encountered the term elsewhere. Not even the acts or
projects of Colonel Olcott escaped such scathing, and in fact he not
infrequently came under her scorching criticism. He writhed under it, but,
except for making some brief expression at the time, he did not appear to
cherish resentment.

- (Eclectic Theosophist, No. 59, reprinted from The

Theosophist, Sept. 1977)

------------------

THE KEY OF THE UNIVERSE

By Alexander Wilder, M.D.
 ONE summer afternoon, some twenty years or more ago, a
neighbor in Roseville invited me to his house, where a visitor was
showing a radiometer. Professor Sir William Crookes had devised
the toy some little time before, and the scientists were propounding
their theories of its motion. The instrument consisted of a needle-
support on which was fixed a vane with four wings. It was placed in a
vertical position, under an exhausted receiver, and suggested a
miniature water-wheel standing on end. When exposed to the light it
revolved incessantly, but stopped instantly whenever the light was
excluded.
The peculiarity of propulsion by the influence of light suggested
the analogy to the revolutions of the earth and other planetary bodies.
The radiations of actinic force from the sun are centrifugal, as in the
radiometer, and if there had been no restraining principle, would have
sent them all out into the infinite space, and perhaps into chaos
outright. But the centripetal force, as every pupil in science knows,
holds them fast in orbits and compels them to make their journey in
circles in an orderly manner, thus subserving the ends of their
existence. I have never taken pains to elaborate this concept
properly, or even to establish its correctness; but it is enough to note
that a single principle must be operative through the whole activity of
creation, while a twofold manifestation of it, in seeming conflict, is
essential and constant in the carrying onward of its works.
This principle is often explained as the "operation of law." But it
related only to a stage in the process of causation. It is the outcome
of will and intelligence, and implies that a persistent energy is its
source. The Zoroastrian system as held by the Parsees, is based on
this postulate. It ascribes personality to these superior forces, giving
them a religious as well as philosophic form. It assigns the Cause of
all to a divine being, denominated Zeruan, the Infinite. Associate and
yet subordinate are the two forces or "minds," rivals to each other,
and in conflict for superiority, one creating and bringing to perfection,
the other impeding and destructive. This conflict is manifested in the
operations of nature, and has no cessation so long as the world
endures.
Nowadays, however, we continue, though it be somewhat in the
character of sciolists, to acknowledge after some perfunctory form,
the Absolute Essence; and very many are prone to think of the
universe as being after the manner of a clock which has been wound
up and set to moving, and receives no further attention till it runs
down. We do not profit by such conjecturing. We would be no more
successful in the endeavor to define the extent and resources of the
Infinite, than in an attempt to ascertain with a gallon measure the
capacity of the ocean. We can do no better than to hold them in
profound veneration. Nevertheless, we are by no means restrained
from enquiring into the laws and modes of operation by which all
things occur with us and around us. There is an inherent curiosity in
us which prompts to such investigation, and we have a measure of
ability to comprehend why and how the various phenomena take
place and become manifest. There is no limit in this, except such as
is imposed by the imperfectness of our development, which
oftentimes occasions an obtuseness of the understanding, or an
incapacity to appreciate such knowledge. With such conviction, we
may venture to interrogate respecting some of the operations of the
universe.
The achievements of the later centuries embolden us to such
enquiry and speculation. We can hardly view the universe as a vast
lifeless machine operated by mechanic force, but rather as an
organism influenced by a vital principle. Essence is by means of
existence and not apart from it, is the declaration of that philosopher
of modern times, Emanuel Swedenborg; and the one is not possible
without the other. We find the counterpart to this statement in the
world of nature, that everything subsists by virtue of polarity. In the
magnet one pole is essential to the existence of the other, and neither
is without the other. An ingenious author* attemps to elaborate these
conceptions, setting forth that electricity is the operative force that
gives form and substance to all visible things, and that matter is but
the garment of the invisible electric forces. This concept in its
principal phases is evidently reasonable and worthy of favorable
consideration. Life and mind are behind all manifestations and the
analogous statement is made in the New Testament in the Epistle to
the Hebrews: "By faith we cognize that existing things are set in
order by the permeating (rema) of Divinity, so that the things which
are visible have not come into existence from those which are
apparent to sense."

------------
* George W. Calder: The Universe an Electric Organism.
------------
 Although we may not be quite ready to accept without
qualification all that is suggested by reputed scientists in relation to
these subjects, it appears reasonable that the universe is the product
of electric forces, and that its various operations are carried on
unceasingly through their agency. The negative something called
"matter"* cannot be intelligently comprehended except from such a
point of view. Boscovich, the eminent Italian savant affirmed that in
the last analysis, matter consisted of points of dynamic force.
Faraday regarded this as capable of being demonstrated. It is
disputed, however, by other scientists of different habits of thinking,
one of whom affirms that the atom has the power to assume form and
to create form, and that matter and force can not be transformed into
each other. This may be correct, so far as present scientific
knowledge extends, but further demonstration is to be desired. We
may, however, regard the question thus far as abstract.

-----------
* Emanuel Swedenborg describes matter as a sort of debris of
spirit, resulting from the privation of vital energy. "There are three
atmospheres, both in the spiritual and natural world," says he.
"These are separate from each other according to degrees of altitude,
and in their progress toward lower things, they decrease in activity
according to degrees of breadth. And since atmospheres in their
progress toward lower things decrease in activity it follows that they
constantly become dense and inert, and finally in outmost become so
dense and inert as to be no longer atmospheres but substances at
rest, and in the natural world fixed like those on earth that are called
matters. Such is the origin of substances and matters." - Angelic
Wisdom Concerning the Divine Love and Wisdom, Page 305.
------------

The assumptions which have been made are not to be disputed

because they are not duly demonstrated. The human mind is
capable of conceptions and intuitions that may not be scientifically
demonstrable, but nevertheless are true.
It may be presumptuous, but it does not seem wonderful that
with the later discoveries and demonstrations of electricity, it has
been imagined that in this agent the Key of the Universe has been
found. As the outcome and manifestation of the One Mind and
Energy it is logically evident that unity extends through every
department of the creation. One agency must be present accordingly
everywhere. What little is known of the nature of electricity, seems to
warrant the supposition that it is that agency. In the characteristics of
positive and negative, the duality which exists universally is strikingly
displayed. It is inferable therefore that electricity is in a peculiar
sense, the creative and governing energy of Deity. That something
which we call life, but which we cannot describe except negatively
exhibits various phenomena which we recognize as electric.
Observing these facts, and venturing to make the deductions which
are thus suggested we may not only regard the universe as an
organism, but consider electricity as its organiser and sustainer. The
negative element, matter, is evidently the product of electric force,
and all the operations of the universe are carried on by virtue of
electric propulsion, qualified and held in place and order by magnetic
attraction. So far as we know, there may be solar systems coming
into existence and others going out; or it may be, as seems more
easy to imagine and comprehend, that the universe is sempiternal
with its Author.
The phenomena of heat and light which are so essential to our
mundane existence, are attributed to the sun. Nevertheless, in the
sense by which we commonly understand things, this is an illusion.
Every ascension made by a balloon, or by the climbing of a mountain,
leaves warmth wofully behind; and the peaks capped with snow in
summer time afford irrefutable testimony to the most obtuse
understanding. It is unequivocally certain that the space occupied by
our solar system through which our earth and the other planets run
their course is absolutely cold. In such case the sun can by no
means be regarded as a central mass of fire heating up space, fed
perhaps from comets and meteorolites, and so destined to burn out at
some future period, leaving all the tributary planets and their
inhabitants hopelessly to perish from cold.
The phenomena of light is parallel with that of heat. It can
hardly be set forth as an emanation, and so far as we know all the
space between the sun, planets and other bodies in the celestial
infinity, is dark as fabled Erebus.
We learn, however, that the emanations from the sun are of
various intensity and quality. When they become intermingled with
irradiations from the earth, there are different phenomena manifested,
some known as heat, others as light, while others are not thus vividly
apparent to the sense. But the last are revealed by the photographic
plate, and it may be that they are impressing pictures upon the walls
around us of what we are saying and doing, which some future
scientific discovery may bring into plain observation. This property of
radiant energy thus develops in our atmosphere of heat, light and
chemical phenomena, and these are produced here in the
atmosphere of the earth from their joint operation. The actinic rays
coming in different degrees of intensity and directness, effect
resultant variations in the sensations, of warmth, light, and other
phenomena.
It has been shown that light coming upon an object presses
upon it with a definite degree of weight. Another discovery, far more
far-reaching and revolutionary postulates that there exist in every
atom of matter particles a thousand times smaller than matter. These
are the ions or electrons of recent scientific discovery. Each of them
is electric, and it has been conjectured that they are either electricity
itself or its carrier. These electrons constitute the fourth form of
matter which Sir William Crookes has promulgated. By their agency
every function of life is performed, every operation in the realm of
nature, every motion and revolution of the globes in the sky. The
Marconi-graph is successful by their aid, and its inventor may truly be
said to have harnessed the lightning.
The discovery of radium for a season set the scientific world
agog. It emits heat, light and actinic force and yet undergoes no
perceptible change or waste of substance; and it exhibits an energy
so powerful that Sir William Crookes estimated that a gram was
enough to lift the whole British Navy to the summit of the highest
mountain in Scotland. Lord Kelvin surmises that it will, when fully
investigated and exploited, overturn the whole doctrine of
conservation of energy and correlation of forces. "Nevertheless, the
foundation of God standeth sure."
As every existing thing is permeated by electric energy, it may
be remarked that everything is luminous. The bat and the owl see in
places that are dark to us, while the bright sun of noonday makes
objects invisible to them. Our own bodies, opaque as they are, emit
rays of light which animals can perceive in the night. Both light and
sound are relative; the eyes that can see and the ears which can
hear are accountable for the recognition of both. Pythagoras taught
that the heavenly bodies moved in their spiral courses in accordance
with the notes of music; so that, if we had ears properly attuned we
might be able to hear "when the morning stars sang together." But
what a storm of discordancies would then make life on earth
unendurable. Even the imperfections of our senses have their
compensations.
This polarity is admirably exhibited in the vegetable kingdom.
The seed is deposited in the earth, and as it germinates, the plumule
goes upward, and radicle downward. The law of positive and
negative rules. Every root and every branch of the tree is guided by
the same law; and in the coniferous trees, they come but with a
mathematical regularity, at prescribed distances apart and each in its
proper direction.
If the various celestial worlds are floating in a region of intense
cold, they are solids, and by no means composed of molten
elements. The sun, that mighty magnet that holds the planets in their
orbits while sending actinic emanations to them all, forcing them into
motion, must be itself necessarily what the philosopher Anaxagoras
declared, a stone. The earth is also of similar material. There are
doubtless electric currents running through it in various directions
heating and chilling as they go. For example in the Comstock mine in
Nevada, in one section, over two thousand feet below the surface, it
is warm and increases in warmth the lower the descent, in another
section some thirty-five hundred feet below it is very cool. Such
diversities are simply analogous to what is observed in the
atmosphere at different points.
The ancient philosophers evidently had a knowledge and
cognizance of this agent. They designated ether an igneous air, and
wrote of it as a special form of atmosphere. In their scientific fabric, a
cube at the bottom denoted the water; a globe next was the symbol
of the earth; then was the crescent to indicate air and a lozenge to
denote fire. The aether was beyond, alone and yet permeating all
these. They wrote of it sometimes as a superior form of atmosphere
impregnated with life, in which the gods and celestial powers had
their abode; yet which was so subtile and refined as to penetrate and
permeate everything in existence. It has also even been conceived
to be the divine spirit, Deity itself, the omnipotent Zeus, the ever-
present Indra, the celestial blue.
Thus the modern steadily moves on to rectify the field of the
ancient philosophers. However loudly they may decry the men and
wisdom of the past and boast of the grand discoveries and condition
of later times, it is often but a recurring of the former achievements,
the serpent with the tail in its mouth. The divine returns upon itself.
Francis Grierson remarks: "So far as we know, electricity is the
soul of form. What we call brain-waves have an analogy to electric
waves. We are being ruled by the seemingly impossible. The day is
not far distant when the science of the mind will treat material science
as a plaything, and the spiritual power of intellect will kill Mammon
like the stroke of an electric bolt, and brute power succumb to soul-
force."
"Science may yet stumble upon the soul," says Sir William
Crookes. That would be wonderful, for dissectors of the human body
do not even find its lurking place. But let us hope while "the lamp
holds out to burn."

"Who nobly does must nobly think,

The soul that soars can never sink,
And man's a strange connecting link
Between frail dust and Deity."

(The Word, July, 1906)

----------------------

LUCKY AND UNLUCKY DAYS

by Alexander Wilder, M. D.

THERE is said to be a vein of superstition in everybody's

constitution. I do not set myself against this declaration, or presume
to pass judgment upon it. I have known avowed disbelievers and
agnostics who consulted professional clairvoyants, astrologists and
fortunetellers, and shaped their action by what they were told. Yet I
would not scoff at them, for they were acting out a principle of their
being, and whether they were moving in error or wisely, they were
none the less genuine and sincere. After all, the intrinsic qualities of
the nature are to be estimated rather than the incidental
manifestations. We do well to heed the utterance of Steerforth in
David Copperfield: "Think of me at my best."
Even superstition has its excellences. It is not, and never was
wholly visionary or absurd. Its origin is in the higher department of
our being, where we reach out from matters of sense and conjectural
reasoning in quest of some higher truth which mere logic and
sensuous faculties are not capable of apprehending. When human
beings were more simple and their spiritual faculties were not overlaid
by dense coverings of grosser thinking they felt more certain of their
relations to ethereal natures. It was no marvel then, that they
conceived that they held converse with others who moved and even
existed outside of physical bodies, that they became cognizant of
facts and events known and planned in that world where thought is
action, and that they learned of periods, days and hours in which it
would be fortunate or of evil omen to undertake any enterprise. Their
faith, childish and irrational as it now may be regarded, was
nevertheless of that mountain-moving character that brought them
face to face with the things that are, and enabled them to know.
In these days when classified conjecture is honored as science,
names are applied as being actual descriptions of things. If an
opprobrious epithet is given, it passes often as deciding the whole
matter. The beam in the eye of the critic serves to aid in the survey of
the mote in the eye of the brother. To be scientific is accounted better
than to be clear-seeing, just and true.
In this way it has become a fashion to dispose of everything
outside of accepted theory by such sweeping terms as superstition.
They seem to forget when they adopted this epithet that they had
degraded it from its pure meaning in order to make it serve an
unworthy purpose. It once had a place among angels, and meant no
less than a standing above, an exaltation of the soul above things of
sense, a surviving when the external frame was dead. It was a
prophetic condition; the superstitious person could communicate with
Divinity and perceive the future.
But gods were dethroned to supply religious systems with
devils. In like manner noble words were perverted from their proper
meaning, to meet the behest of scorners. In this way superstition that
once meant the cognition of sublimer truth is now only known as
overscrupulous exactness in religious matters, false religion, and
belief in the direct agency of supernatural beings, or in singular or
extraordinary events, or in omens and prognostics. Under these
definitions every religion would be included, not even excepting the
various forms of Christianity.
Nevertheless, when any belief has been generally entertained
among the several races of human beings, and in all ages, there is
very strong presumption that it is substantially true. The mind is not
capable of thinking a thing that does not exist. We may therefore,
with reasonable assurance, accept the notions and traditions, that
have come to us from the past, as having in them a living seed of
truth, and are warranted in crediting what we hear of a like character,
which is from truthful witnesses. In so doing we may be sure of the
approval of our own conscience, and that we are moving forward in
the company of the noblest and purest minds of all ages, those who
were -

"While in, above the world."

The current notions that certain days are propitious and others
unfavorable, are doubtless generally derived from tradition and
superficial observation. Some of them originate with ancient
astrologic beliefs. That the stars were set in the firmament of the
heavens for signs or foretokens, the first chapter of the Genesis
distinctly sets forth. The ancient temples were plots of ground
marked off with religious formalities primarily for observation of the
sky, to contemplate or consider, or in other words, to consult the
stars. The vault of the heavens was mapped out in constellations,
twelve of which were in the Path of the Sun, which he took in his
yearly journey, and they were styled by the astrologists houses. They
are mentioned as such in the Assyrian Tablets: "He made the
mansions of the Great Gods on high (twelve) in number."*
It was believed anciently that these divinities of the sky took
part in conflicts between nations and between individuals. "From the
heavens they fought," the prophetess Deborah sings; "the stars from
their orbits fought against Sisera."
There were propitious and unpropitious seasons, as the months
were reckoned, and as the "lords of the houses" in their respective
turns, were in authority. Hence Hesiod advises: "Observe the
opportune time."
The month of May, for example, has been regarded from
unremembered antiquity as being inauspicious for the contracting of
marriage. This conceit has drifted down to the present time, and it is
still entertained by many. There are other notions of the same
category, but the change from Old to New Style in the computing of
time, and the growing inclination to discard such things are likely to
sweep the sentiment entirely out of existence.
The old mythopoeic theogonist of ancient Greece has given a
very complete record of the auspices of the several days in the
month, which he describes as having been fixed by the all-counseling
Supreme Zeus himself. It may be well to remark however, that in this
arrangement the month is regarded as consisting of thirty

-------------
* Lepsius says that the Great Gods of Egypt had not an
astronomic origin, but were probably distributed on an astronomic
principle when the kingdom was consolidated. It was necessary then
to preserve the divinities of the several former dominions, which was
done by including them in this way in one system.
------------

days, and that in the Grecian calendar it began about the third week
as computed by us. Whether the eleven days which have been
eliminated from the reckoning in the transition to New Style are to be
considered, is for the curious individual to determine for himself.
Whoever, therefore, is disposed to accept this classification and
arrangement of lucky and unlucky, must bide the chances of their
harmonizing with the present dates.
First of all the first, fourth and seventh days of the month were
all esteemed as holy days. The first had observances in
commemoration of the new month, the fourth was sacred to Hermes
and Aphrodite, and was considered, when the omens were propitious,
to be the most suitable for the contracting of marriage.
The fifth was unqualifiedly unlucky, a day in which quarreling
and misfortune were likely to occur. The sixth was unfortunate for
girls, both in respect to birth and marriage, but it was auspicious for
the birth of boys. In other respects, it was adverse - a day
characterized by raillery, falsehood, treacherous speaking, and
clandestine wooing by fond discourse.
The seventh day of the month was esteemed as holy beyond
other days. Upon the seventh day of the month Thargelion it was
said that Apollo was born.* This day was observed accordingly at the
oracle-temple of Delphi and other places sacred to this divinity by the
singing of hymns of praise, pious offerings, and fervent supplications.
The eighth and ninth days are suitable for the transacting of
business and the performing of necessary work. "The first ninth is
entirely free from harm and
-----------
* According to the Symposiacs ascribed to Plutarch, Socrates
was born on the sixth, and Plato on the seventh of Thargelion. The
priests of Apollo at Delos used to affirm that the goddess Artemis or
Diana was born on the sixth. Thargelion was the eleventh month of
the Attic year, and began at the middle of May.
-----------

evil omen," says Hesiod; "lucky indeed is this day for planting and for
being born, to man as well as to woman; it is never a day that is
altogether unfortunate." The tenth is a fortunate day for the birth of
boys. The eleventh and twelfth are both propitious to industry, but the
twelfth is far more so than the eleventh. It is a suitable day for
housewives to begin important work in the household.
The thirteenth is a day to hold back from beginning to sow,
though it is proper for the setting of plants. "The fourteenth is a day
sacred above all others." It is fortunate also for the birth of girls. The
sixteenth is described as "very unprofitable for plants, but auspicious
for the birth of men; yet on the other hand it is a day not propitious
for a girl either to be born or joined in wedlock." The seventeenth is a
good day for the man in the country to thresh grain or to cut timber for
implements or furniture.
The nineteenth is quaintly described as "a better day toward
evening." The twenty-fourth is emphatically pictured as "in truth a
very perfect day," and the caution is given to avoid gnawing the heart
with grief. It is best in its omens at early morning, but becomes worse
as the evening approaches.
The days which have here been indicated are those which are
significant. The others are harmless and without omen, or anything
of moment. A day is sometimes a mother and sometimes only a
keeper. One person esteems some particular day as most
auspicious, while another is as positive in belief that some different
day is better. Few, nevertheless, are able to indicate the days that
are really propitious. He is the lucky one who distinguishes the
omens and avoids the mistaking of them, who guides his conduct
intelligently with reference to what is boded and promised by the
immortal ones.
Thus far Hesiod. As poet and as the counselor of the
industrious and thrifty, he was truly wise and thoughtful. Perhaps this
is praise enough.
 The distinguishing of days and periods as sacred and profane,
as fortunate and of ill omen, is older than any record of history.
The cycle of the week appears from early dates to have been
regarded as more directly influential in human affairs. Perhaps this
has been the case because it is a matter more familiar, and more
directly within the province of the understanding. The ancient belief
assigned to each of the days a virtue of its own; to some of them
good omens, and to others auspices which were less fortunate. The
number was fixed at seven and might conform to the number of
planetary worlds and divinities. A name has been given accordingly
to every day of the week to signify the divinity or patron genius of a
planet, that was supposed to have a marked influence upon the
fortunes of individuals for that space of time. We thus have Sun-day,
Monen-day, Tuisko's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, Freyja-day,
Sathor-day. The Romans had also named the days in corresponding
order: Dies Solis, Dies Lunae, Dies Martis, Dies Mercurii, Dies Jovis,
Dies Veneris, Dies Saturni.
This is no caprice taking its rise within any time comparatively
recent. The ancient Assyrians also divided their months into weeks of
seven days each, and attached a magic significance to particular
periods. Nor is this accounted to be orginal with them but to have
been adopted from the Akkadians, a Skythic people whom they had
supplanted in the Euphratean country. The Assyrian month was
lunar, extending from the first appearing of the new moon to the
period of its utter disappearing from the sky. The seventh day of the
first week was sacred to Merodakh, the god of Light, and to his
consort, Zirat-banit*

-----------
* Merodakh, was the Amar-Utuki of the Akkadians and Khitans
of the Upper Euphrates. He appears to have been recognized and
worshipped by Cyrus as the Mithras of the Persian worship. Zirat-
banit was the Succoth-Benoth, or Suku the Mother of the Babylonian
and Akkadian pantheons. These divinities, as well as "the Sabbath or
rest-day, passed to the Semites from the Akkadians," as we are
assured by Professors Sayce and Tiele.
------------

and it was observed with a solemnity that was full of terror. It was
denominated sulum, a term which signifies dies nefastus, the unlucky
day. Upon the Sabbath the king was strictly enjoined from eating
cooked food, changing his clothes, putting on new garments, and
from performing any act of religious worship, driving in his chariot,
holding court, and from taking medicine for a bodily ailment.
There were similiar conditions for every seventh day during the
entire month. The fourteenth was regarded as sacred to Nergal and
the goddess Belat, the twenty-first to Shamas and Sin, the Sun and
Moon, and the twenty-eight to Hea or Nisrokh and Nergal. The
strictest sabbatarian of modern time was outdone by the rigid
austerity of the Akkadian and Semitic Sabbath.
The nineteenth day of the month, however, was a joyful
exception. It was accounted a "white day," a gala day, a day of good
fortune, and the beautiful goddess Gula was its patron.
The beliefs respecting fortunate days and unlucky ones have
been extended to later times, and are recognized in the records and
literature of different peoples. The days of Saturn and the Moon were
considered inauspicious beyond others. If we attached significance
to this persuasion we would be disposed to agree with it. We have
frequently, if not generally found both Monday and Saturday untoward
in the way of taking any new step, beginning a work, or transacting
business with others. We have also observed a like experience with
others. By no means, however, do we suppose that there is any
specific magic or occult influence in the matter. It seems to be due to
the fact that in the general arrangements of business incident to the
cessation of employments on Sunday, many persons are obliged to
contract their sphere of action upon the days immediately before and
after in order to accord with this practice. Their movements affect the
plans of others, creating more or less of obstruction of effort. Their
influence thus extends to a remote distance. Perhaps there are
sprites in the region almost contiguous to our physical senses that
have a hand in effecting all this; but for common purposes the
reason which has been suggested appears to be a sufficient
explanation.
Nevertheless, the general belief must be accounted for by
proofs of a more recondite nature. The thinkers of far-off times had
implicit reliance upon the decrees of fate, the utterance of the
purpose of Divinity.* The Superior Power, having determined upon
something gives oracular signs, by way of making it known to human
beings. The planets, which are dominant over the days of the week
are significant in such matters, and to be regarded. Saturn was
always regarded by the astrologers of Babylon as of malignant
aspect. The planets, it was believed, had emanated from the sun,
and Saturn being the oldest had been sent forth farthest into the outer
region of darkness. It bore the name of Khus or Cush, the son or
emanation of Ham, the sun. It was the Sun of the Underworld, in
Erebus or the remote West.**
This seems to explain the reason of the awe or terror with which
the Assyrians regarded the seventh day of the week, prohibiting every
act not absolutely necessary, lest it should entail evil upon them.

-----------
* The word fate from the Latin fatum means etymologically, that
which is spoken.
** This concept was also entertained in Egypt. The region of
the dead was denominated Amenti, or the West, and Osiris, as the
ruler, bore the title of Ra-t-Amenti (Radamanthos). He was the son of
Seb, the Siva or Kronos of Egypt, the lord of death.
-----------

The Gnostics did much to perpetuate this impression. In their

Theogony, the Demiurge or Creator was the genius of the planet
Saturn, and the Evil Potency that seeks to mislead and injure
mankind. Their influence was probably active in the religious change
by which Sunday was made the sacred day instead of Saturday.
Astrologists have generally described Saturn as the most
potent and most malignant of all the planets. Its influx is represented
as imperceptibly undermining the vitality of the bodily organism. A
vast part of suffering is thus accounted as due to its malefic action.
This does not, however, even if actually true, show conclusively why
the day of Saturn should be regarded as productive of misfortune.
We may make the same appeal in the case of Monday. We are
aware that the moon has borne an evil reputation for malignant
influence on plants, as well as on the atmosphere. Various disorders
of mind and body have their names from the baleful influence exerted
upon individuals; but they have never been imputed to the day of the
moon. We must suppose that Monday is not specially unlucky,
except as folly, misconduct or accident happens to make it so.
Modern fancy has designated Friday as the inauspicious day of
the week. So deep is this impression that sailors are unwilling to
begin a voyage on that day, but are confident when they set out on
Sunday. Others whom we would suppose were more intelligent are
equally credulous. In this case we have an example of a perverted
tradition. Friday, in olden times, was the day of good fortune above
others. It was sacred to the benign goddess, the Mother in every
ancient faith; the one who gives delight and success. The Assyrian
Kings always on the evening of the day presented an offering to the
divinities Merodakh and Istar, invoking them with the significant open
hand. It was a day propitious for every important undertaking. When,
however, the old worships were superseded, it seems to have been
considered necessary to break the charm. It was accordingly set
apart for capital punishments and inquisitorial tortures, till the odium
and accumulated terrors led men to curse the day as fraught with
direst evil. Other devices were employed in like manner to eradicate
confidence in other good omens. The result, however, has been as
might have been foreseen. There has been no increase of faith, and
the popular belief in omens and auspicious days has only been
changed. Fetishes, ceremonies, and lucky periods are as much a
matter of belief as before, but the objects have been modified. But
amid it all, it may safely be borne in mind that good fortune is
attendant on Friday as on other days.
We may hope little from the days as they are marked in the
calendar. We do not question that there may be a difference in their
serviceableness for specific purposes as there is in regard to humidity
and temperature. That is a fact, however, to aid us to shape our
action wisely, and by it we may not be overborne. There is a time
suitable for everything in its order, and they who are truly intelligent
will apperceive it. We may not count one day secular or profane
more than another. All days are alike fortunate and alike sacred.
The fortune of a month is not influenced by an accidental first
sight of the crescent moon, nor are the events of a day affected by
the casual pointing of a sharp object in a certain direction. These are
notions derived from former usage. Yet we confidently believe that
there are auxiliary agencies in the universe about us superior to our
common ken, that in one way and another impart to us conceptions of
what we should do. Yet whoever lingers unduly for opportunity to
manifest itself, and neglects to take the current that serves, is liable to
lose the object aspired for. On the other hand, the wise and the
heroic will storm the very gates of apparent misfortune, and, like
Samson, carry them off. "The kingdom of the heavens suffereth
violence," said Jesus; "and the violent take it by force " As the
purpose inspires to effort so the day is made lucky. Justice in our
action, wisdom in our thought, and charity in our motive are essential
to a true insight. The individual is his own star, his own fortune, his
own destiny.

(Un. Brotherhood, July, 1898)

---------------

THE NEW ORDER OF AGES

by Alexander Wilder

ALL human progress is in circles, and never directly in straight

lines. Such is the course of events, the order of the seasons, the
career of the stars in the sky. After all advancing there is an apparent
going backward all growth has its periods of retardation, all ascent its
descendings likewise. We find this abundantly confirmed by example
in the brief space of human activity of which we have been able to
obtain historic records. Where it has been imagined otherwise, we
can find it only apparently so. Where there is evolution and
manifestation, there has always been a prolific seed to set the
development in motion. The fragrant Nymphaea, the creamy pond-
lily, or the sacred lotus, may have sordid mud for its birthplace and
maintenance, but it began with a rudimentary plant. The like is
always engendered from its like.
We may be content, therefore, to contemplate ourselves as
having a human ancestry all the way to remote ages. We are
perfectly safe in relegating the simian races to their own, with the
assurance of the Creed - "as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever
shall be, world without end." The origin of human beings may be
counted as from the source to which their nobler aspirations tend.
The oak and the pine grow toward the sky, because the effort is
instinctive in the seed. We have good reason to presume as much in
regard to ourselves. In regard, however, to conjectures about dates
and periods we do not care to speculate. The point in the past is yet
to be found at which a memorial of human beginnings may be set.
Indeed, it is a matter entirely beyond our power of thinking. We do
well to rest content with deducing what we may from the facts at our
hand, and from the intuitions with which we are endowed.
 There is innate in us all a desire and aptitude to learn what is
beyond the scope of our present knowing. Our animal wants come
first, and are peremptory, but the gratifying of them does not set us
free from unrest. We are conscious that we are something else than
brute animals, and it is manifest in the passion to know, and possess.
The infant child will cry for the moon, explore the flame of the candle
with his fingers, and pull the doll to pieces in order to find out the
mystery of its construction. He even becomes curious about
existence. I have heard a child that had attained to vocal speech
discourse extensively and as from actual memory, of his residence
and employments in the years before he was born. When, likewise,
the phenomenon of dying is beheld, children become inquisitive
about it, eager to know what has actually occurred, whether it is all or
there is still living and being in some mode and form not plain to
them. They are not willing to admit that the person is no more.
In this eager passion for more perfect knowing, and in these
curious conjectures, are manifested the instinct of that life which is
beyond time, and scintillations of the grander truth. The mind seems
to exhibit the reflection of some concept, some memory of the
Aforetime, and to have caught with it as by refraction from the other
direction, an impression of the life continuing. From views like these
the poet Wordsworth was prompted to write his memorable verse:
"Heaven hangs about us in our infancy."
There has been in every people having as such a worship and
literature, the memory or conception of a primitive period of felicity.
"The races of men were wont to live as gods," says Hesiod. "Their
life was devoid of care, labor and trouble; no wretched old age hung
imminent over them, but with hands and feet always vigorous as in
youth they enjoyed themselves without any illness, and when at last
they died it was as though they had been overcome by sleep. They
are now benignant demons hovering about the earth, and guardian
spirits over human beings."

-------------
* Deva, which in Sanskrit signifies a divine being, here means a
devil. The ancient schism between the two great Aryan peoples is
indicated in these conflicting definitions of characteristic words. Thus
Yima, who is described in the Avesta as the ruler set by Ahurmazda
over living men in the Garden of Bliss, is changed in India into Yama,
the first man and sovereign in the region of the dead. There are
many other of these counterparts.
------------

In the Aryan records of India are similar traditions of the Hiranya

or Golden Age of righteousness, in which was no labor or sorrow, no
priests or sacrifices, and but one God and one Veda. The Yasna, or
Book of Worship of the Parsis, also describes the happy reign of
Yima, in which there was neither cold nor heat, neither decay nor
wasting disease, nor malice inspired by the devas;* father and son
walked forth each like the other in the freshness of fifteen years.
"Men enjoyed the greatest bliss in the Garden which Yima made."
Akin to this legend is that of the Garden or Park of Eden
depicted in the Book of the Genesis in Hebrew story, copied
apparently from that of the Grove or Park of the Gods in Babylonia.
We may perceive a striking resemblance in the outcome. The
serpent came; Yima beginning to desire the wrong, the celestial light
withdrew. Long ages of evil followed, ages of silver and copper and
iron, full of trial and calamity. Yet the Divine One has by no means
wholly abandoned the children of the Earth. Here and there along the
succession of ages, the "kingly majesty," or radiance unites itself with
heroic men and gifted sages, till the circuit shall be completed. "That
which hath been is that which shall be," and not absolutely new. The
Golden Age, the Treta Yug, that preceded all, comes again as the
cycle returns upon itself. "Now comes again the Virgin Astraea, the
Divine Justice," sings the poet Vergil; "the reign of Saturn returns,
and there is now sent down a new-born child from on high." The
"kingly splendor," the light of the ages, now attaches itself to the new
prophet Sosianto, the greatest of the sages and to all who are with
him, in order to accomplish the restoration of all things. "The world
will now continue in a state of righteousness; the powers of evil will
disappear and all its seed pass away." (Zamyad Yasht)
A very similar culmination is set forth by early Christian
teachers. It is related that the Apostle Paul was brought before the
court of the Areopagos at Athens, by several Stoic and Epikurean
philosophers, to explain certain of his doctrines which they accounted
strange and alien, He protested that he was simply describing a
Divinity whom they were worshiping without due intelligence of his
character. He is the Creator and Disposer of all things, the apostle
declared; and does not dwell in temples or depend upon offerings
from his worshipers. Nor, is he far from any one of us, for in him we
live and move and are, as several of the poets have affirmed: "We
likewise are children of God." The former want of intelligence,
however, is not regarded, but now a superior way of life and truth* is
announced to all mankind everywhere: inasmuch as he has set a
day or period in which the habitable earth will be ruled with justice
and the Right hold sway thereafter.
This expectation has been a significant feature in subsequent
history. It was not confined to any single religion. Not only was it
general in the Eastern world, but it was also current in the new
Continent of the West. The natives of Mexico greeted the coming of
Cortes as the promised return of the "Fair God," Quetzalcohuatl,
which would be followed by the establishment of a new reign of
peace. The Mayas of Yucatan exhibited a similar confidence. These
illusions were speedily dispelled when the Spaniards began to
manifest their insatiable rapacity and merciless cruelty, but the belief
is still cherished in many parts of that country that Motzuma himself,
who was in some unknown way, adopted in place of the other, as the
primitive hero of the people, is now living in a celestial abode, and will
yet come and restore the Golden Era. The Peruvians had also a
tradition that Viracocha will come from the region of the Dawn and set
up his kingdom. Other cities and tribes have similar beliefs.

-------------
* Greek, [[script]], metanoein. This term is translated "to
repent," in the authorized version of the New Testament, but I have
taken the liberty to render it as a noun, by the phrase here given,
considering it as meaning etymologically, to go forward to a higher
moral altitude, or plane of thought.
-------------

Christianity began with a like conception of a happier era for

mankind. The epistles of the Apostle Paul mention it as an event
near at hand, and even in the Evangelic writings are many sentences
affirming the same thing. The prediction is recorded in them that "this
gospel of the reign of heaven shall be proclaimed in the whole world
for a testimony to all the various nations, and then the end will come."
The Apostle supplements this by the emphatic statement that it had
been proclaimed in all the created world beneath the sky, and thus
gives his sanction to the general expectation. The unknown author of
the Apocalypse seems to have been somewhat less catholic than
Paul and covertly denounces him. He sets forth the concept of a new
Jerusalem, which he describes as the holy city, complete in every
respect, with the names of the tribes of Israel inscribed on its
foundations and of twelve apostles on its gates, descending out of the
sky from God, and illuminating the Gentile nations with its light.
The beatific vision failed of being realized but the expectation
remained all through the Middle Ages as an important element of
Christian doctrine. At the beginning of the Tenth Century this
appeared in conspicuous form. This was a period of calamity almost
unparalleled, war unceasing, years of famine, frequent earthquakes,
and pestilence rapidly supervening upon pestilence, as though the
human race was doomed.
The belief was general throughout Europe that the present
order of the world was about to be dissolved. The augurs of ancient
Etruria had predicted that the time of national existence for their
country would be a thousand years and it had been verified. The
duration of Christendom it was supposed would be for a like period.
The coming judgment was at once the hope and the terror of that
time. Under this conviction the Crusades and wars of extermination
against heretics and unconverted peoples, were undertaken in rapid
succession. The Pontiff at Rome claimed divine authority over the
nations. The Emperor of Germany followed by assuming to be Prince
of the Holy Empire to whom all kings and rulers owed allegiance, and
the attempt was made by force of arms to plant peace perpetually in
the world. Frederick Barbarossa perished in a crusade, but his
faithful people continued for hundreds of years firm in their belief that
he was only sleeping in the tomb, and would yet awake to realize the
hope of the nations.
In these days of repression and violence it did not seem
possible to divest men's minds of the persuasion that the expected
reign of justice would be a dominion of external state and
magnificence, and to show them instead that it was to be a
brotherhood of charity, in which the pure thought, pure word and pure
deed are prominent.
Yet several writers in the New Testament appear to have
declared this very distinctly. Paul affirms that the reign of God
consists in justice, peace and joyfulness in a holy spirit. It is also
recorded that Jesus himself described it as not of this world to be
supported by war and violence, or to make its advent with external
manifestation, "Lo, the reign of heaven is within you" - such is the
explicit statement. But men looked for the star, not in the sky over
their heads, but rather in the pools that were beneath.
Some juster conception, however, was possessed by clear-
seeing Mystics who flourished during the Middle Ages. There were
gifted men, devoted to the profounder knowledge, who sought to
escape persecution by the use of a secret speech with a covert
meaning intelligible only to one another. Perhaps they were a
fraternity like other sodalities. Some thought them illuminated from
above; others, that they were dabbling in forbidden arts. What was
not easily understood was accounted as magic. When the
Renaissance came, the dense cloud began to dissipate, and men
began to apprehend more clearly. The early Reformers had some
distincter perception, but the obscurity was still too dense for open
vision.
And thus the centuries passed.
It is said to be darkest just before daylight. This figure is
employed to indicate the woeful period that often precedes a happier
one. The Sixteenth Century was characterized by crime and
calamity. From that time has been a steady bettering. It was as the
slow coming of morning. There were no changes to be considered
marvelous, no miracles except as every event about us, if we might
but see more deeply, is a miracle. There was, however, a gradual
unfolding of higher principles of action, and a broadening
dissemination of knowledge. For those whose eyes were open there
was much to be descried; and those who had ears to hear caught
the sounds of the harbingers of the new day. Emanuel Swedenborg,
the Swedish Illuminate, looking into heaven like the Martyr Stephen,
beheld it opening to reveal the winding up of the former order of
things, and the evolution of the new. We may interpret him as we are
best able, but the intrinsic verity of his revelation may not he denied.
The world of thought is enlarging itself as never before during
the historic period. There is no Holy Office or Star Chamber with its
tortures to repress and punish dissenting beliefs. There is greater
freedom in regard to religious faith, and a wholesome increasing
independence of formal creeds and dominating teachers. Yet while
perhaps drifting more widely apart in speculative opinion, there is
evidently an approximating to a closer unity of sentiment and a higher
standard of duty.
We are nearing the end of the period when conquest, slaughter
and rapine are honored as glorious war. There is a public opinion
maturing among the "plain people" that all controversies can be
determined justly without such recourse. In this the self-interest of
the selfish and the conscience of the conscientious concur as one.
The reign of God is the reign of justice, and the reign of justice is the
reign of peace.
Nevertheless, we may not expect any speedy developing of
Eutopia, or an ideal commonwealth of nations. There is an infinitude
of preparation necessary, not merely in teaching, but in doing. The
mills of the gods grind slowly, and there are hundreds of millions that
people the earth that are not in condition to realize a very hopeful
development. They require other discipline than that described by
the Zulu chief: "First a missionary, then a consul, and then an army."
The century that is about to open has in store for us, we trust, better
things than have marked the long array of ages in the historic past.
It is not enough that scientific learning is widely extended, and
mechanic arts developed to greater perfection. Civilization, properly
understood, means something more vital and essential. It embraces
life as a whole, a knowing how to live. In it the strong uphold the
weak, the greatest serve the humblest, the wisest are those who
dispense the most benefits. It implies a moral development, aiming
to realize a perfect society.
The century now about to close, despite its shortcomings, made
a long advance in that direction. In many respects it has also
retrograded toward the former estate, both in ethics and legislation;
but the Twentieth Century taking up its work will doubtless set out
anew toward the ideal civilization.

(Un. Brotherhood, June, 1898)

------------