The Two Babylons
Deification of the Child Alexander Hislop
Chapter II
Section II
Sub-Section V
* Zero--in Chaldee, "the
seed"--though we have seen reason to conclude that in Greek
it sometimes appeared as Zeira, quite naturally
passed also into Zoro, as may be seen from the change of Zerubbabel
in the Greek Septuagint to Zoro-babel; and hence Zuro-ashta, "the
seed of the woman" became Zoroaster, the well known name of the head
of the fire-worshippers. Zoroaster's name is also found as
Zeroastes (JOHANNES CLERICUS, De Chaldoeis). The reader
who consults the able and very learned work of Dr. Wilson of Bombay,
on the Parsi Religion, will find that there was a Zoroaster long
before that Zoroaster who lived in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. In
general history, the Zoroaster of
Bactria is most frequently referred to;
but the voice of antiquity is clear and distinct to the effect that
the first and great Zoroaster was an Assyrian or Chaldean (SUIDAS),
and that he was the founder of the
idolatrous system of
Babylon, and therefore Nimrod. It is
equally clear also in stating that he perished by a violent death,
even as was the case with Nimrod, Tammuz, or Bacchus. The
identity of Bacchus and Zoroaster is still further proved by the
epithet Pyrisporus, bestowed on Bacchus in the
Orphic Hymns. When the primeval promise
of Eden
began to
be forgotten, the meaning of the name Zero-ashta was lost to all
who knew only the exoteric doctrine of
Paganism;
and as "ashta" signified "fire" in Chaldee, as well
as "the woman," and the rites of Bacchus had much to do
with fire-worship, "Zero-ashta" came to be rendered "the seed of
fire"; and hence the epithet Pyrisporus, or Ignigena, "fire-born," as
applied to Bacchus. From this misunderstanding of the meaning of the
name Zero-ashta, or rather from its wilful perversion by the priests, who wished to establish one
doctrine for the initiated, and another for the profane vulgar,
came the whole story about the unborn infant Bacchus
having been rescued from the flames that consumed his
mother Semele, when Jupiter came in his glory to visit her. (Note to
OVID'S Metam.) There was another name by which Zoroaster was
known, and which is not a little instructive, and that is
Zar-adas,
"The only seed." (JOHANNES CLERICUS, De
Chaldoeis) In WILSON'S
Parsi Religion the name is
given either Zoroadus, or Zarades. The ancient Pagans, while they
recognised supremely one only God, knew also that there was
one only
seed, on whom the hopes of the world were founded. In almost
all nations, not only was a great god known
under the name of Zero or Zer, "the seed," and a great goddess under the name of
Ashta or Isha, "the woman"; but the great god Zero is frequently
characterised by some epithet which implies that he is
"The only
One." Now
what can account for such names or epithets? Genesis 3:15 can account
for them; nothing else can. The name Zar-ades, or Zoro-adus, also
strikingly illustrates the saying of Paul: "He saith not, And to
seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is
Christ." It is worthy of notice, that the
modern system of Parseeism, which dates
from the reform of the old fire-worship in the time
of Darius Hystaspes, having rejected the worship of the
goddess-mother, cast out also from the name of their Zoroaster the
name of the "woman"; and therefore in the Zend, the sacred language of the
Parsees, the name of their great reformer is Zarathustra--i.e.,
"The Delivering Seed," the last member of the name coming from Thusht (the
root being--Chaldee--nthsh, which drops the initial n), "to loosen or set
loose," and so to free. Thusht is the infinitive, and ra appended to it is, in
Sanscrit, with which the Zend has much affinity, the well known sign
of the doer of an action, just as er is in English. The Zend
Zarathushtra, then, seems just the equivalent of Phoroneus, "The
Emancipator." The patriarchs, and the
ancient world in general, were perfectly acquainted with the grand
primeval promise of Eden, and they knew
right well that the bruising of the heel of the promised seed implied
his death, and that the curse could be removed
from the world only by the death of the grand Deliverer. If the promise about the bruising of the
serpent's head, recorded in Genesis, as made to our first parents,
was actually made, and if all mankind were descended from them,
then it might be expected that some
trace of this promise would be found in all nations. And such is the fact. There is hardly a people
or kindred on earth in whose mythology it is not shadowed forth. The
Greeks represented their great god Apollo as slaying the
serpent Pytho, and Hercules as strangling serpents while
yet in his cradle. In Egypt, in India, in Scandinavia, in Mexico, we
find clear allusions to the same great truth. "The evil genius," says
Wilkinson, "of the adversaries of the Egyptian god Horus is
frequently figured under the form of a snake, whose head he is seen
piercing with a spear. The same fable occurs in the religion of
India, where the malignant serpent Calyia is slain by Vishnu, in his
avatar of Crishna (Fig 23); and the Scandinavian deity "The origin of this," he adds, "may
be readily traced to the Bible." In reference to a similar belief among the
Mexicans, we find Humboldt saying, that "The serpent crushed by the
great spirit Teotl, when he takes the form of one of the subaltern
deities, is the genius of evil--a real Kakodaemon." Now, in almost
all cases, when the subject is examined to the bottom, it turns out
that the serpent destroying god is represented as enduring hardships
and sufferings that end in his death. Thus the god Thor, while
succeeding at last in destroying the great serpent, is represented
as, in the very moment of victory, perishing from the venomous
effluvia of his breath. The same would seem to be the way in which
the Babylonians represented their great serpent-destroyer among the
figures of their ancient sphere. His mysterious suffering is thus
described by the Greek poet Aratus, whose language
shows that when he wrote, the meaning of the representation had been
generally lost, although, when viewed in this light of Scripture, it
is surely deeply significant:-- "A human figure, 'whelmed with
toil, appears; The constellation thus
represented is commonly known by the name of "The Kneeler," from this very
description of the Greek poet; but it is plain that, as
"Eugonasis" came from the Babylonians, it must be interpreted, not
in a Greek, but in a Chaldee sense, and so interpreted, as the action
of the figure itself implies, the title of the mysterious sufferer is
just "The Serpent-crusher." Sometimes, however the actual crushing of the serpent
was represented as a much more easy process; yet, even then, death
was the ultimate result; and that death of the serpent-destroyer is so
described as to leave no doubt whence the fable was borrowed. This is
particularly the case with the Indian god Crishna, to whom Wilkinson
alludes in the extract already given. In the legend that concerns
him, the whole of the primeval promise in Eden is very strikingly
embodied. First, he is represented in pictures and images with his
foot on the great serpent's head, and then, after destroying it, he
is fabled to have died in consequence of being shot by an
arrow in
the foot;
and, as in the case of Tammuz, great lamentations
are annually made for his death. Even in Greece, also, in the classic
story of Paris and Achilles, we have a very plain allusion to that
part of the primeval promise, which referred to the bruising of the
conqueror's "heel." Achilles, the only son of a goddess, was
invulnerable in all points except the
heel, but there a wound was deadly. At
that his adversary took aim, and death was the result. Now, if there be such evidence still, that even
Pagans
knew that it was by dying that the
promised Messiah was to destroy death
and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil, how much more vivid
must have been the impression of mankind in general in regard to this
vital truth in the early days of Semiramis, when they were so much
nearer the fountain-head of all Divine tradition. When, therefore,
the name Zoroaster, "the seed of the woman," was given to him who had
perished in the midst of a prosperous career of false worship and
apostacy, there can be no doubt of the meaning which that name was
intended to convey. And the fact of the violent death
of the hero, who, in the esteem of his partisans, had done so
much to bless mankind, to make life
happy, and to deliver them from the
fear of the wrath to come, instead of being fatal to the bestowal of such a
title upon him, favoured rather than otherwise the daring design.
All that was needed to countenance the scheme
on the part of those who wished an excuse for continued apostacy from
the true God, was just to give out that, though the great patron of
the apostacy had fallen a prey to the malice of men, he had freely
offered himself for the good of mankind. Now, this was what was
actually done. The Chaldean version of the
story of the great
Zoroaster is that he prayed to the
supreme God of heaven to take away his life; that his prayer was
heard, and that he expired, assuring his followers that, if they
cherished due regard for his
memory, the empire would never depart
from the Babylonians. What Berosus, the Babylonian historian, says of
the cutting off of the
head of the great god Belus, is plainly to the
same effect. Belus, says Berosus, commanded one of the gods to cut
off his head, that from the blood thus shed by his own command and
with his own consent, when mingled with the earth, new creatures might be
formed, the first creation being represented as a sort of a failure.
Thus the death of Belus, who was Nimrod, like that attributed to
Zoroaster, was represented as entirely voluntary, and as submitted to
for the benefit of the
world. It seems to have been now only when the dead
hero was to be deified, that the secret Mysteries were set up. The
previous form of apostacy during the life of Nimrod appears to have
been open and public. Now, it was evidently felt that publicity was
out of the question. The death of the great ringleader of the
apostacy was not the death of a warrior slain in battle, but an act
of judicial rigour, solemnly inflicted. This is well established by
the accounts of the deaths of both Tammuz and Osiris. The
following is the account of Tammuz, given by the celebrated
Maimonides, deeply read in all the learning of the Chaldeans:
"When the false prophet named
Thammuz
preached to a certain king that he should worship the seven stars and the twelve signs of the Zodiac, that
king ordered him to be put to a terrible death. On the night of his death all the
images assembled from the ends of the earth into the temple of
Babylon,
to the great golden image of the
Sun, which was suspended between heaven
and earth. That image
prostrated itself in the midst of the
temple, and so did all the images around it, while it related to them
all that had happened to Thammuz. The images wept and lamented all the night long, and then in the morning they flew away, each to his own
temple again, to the ends of the earth. And hence arose the custom every year, on the
first day of the month Thammuz, to mourn and to
weep for Thammuz." There is here,
of course, all the extravagance of idolatry, as found in the Chaldean
sacred books that Maimonides had consulted;
but there is no reason to doubt the fact stated either as to the
manner or the cause of the death of Tammuz. In this Chaldean legend, it is stated that it
was by the command of a "certain
king" that this ringleader in apostacy was
put to death. Who could this king be, who was so determinedly opposed
to the worship of the host of
heaven? From what is related of the
Egyptian Hercules, we get very valuable light on this subject. It
is admitted by Wilkinson that the most ancient Hercules, and truly
primitive one, was he who was known in Egypt as having, "by the power
of the gods" * (i.e., by the SPIRIT) fought against and overcome
the Giants. * The name of the true God (Elohim)
is plural. Therefore, "the power of the gods," and "of God," is
expressed by the same term. Now, no doubt, the title and character of
Hercules were afterwards given by the Pagans to him whom they
worshipped as the grand deliverer or Messiah, just as the
adversaries of the Pagan divinities came to be stigmatised as the
"Giants"
who rebelled against Heaven. But let the reader only reflect who
were the
real Giants that rebelled against Heaven. They were Nimrod and his party; for
the "Giants" were just the "Mighty
ones," of whom Nimrod was the leader.
Who, then, was most likely to head the
opposition to the apostacy from the primitive worship? If Shem was at
that time alive, as beyond question he was, who so likely as he? In
exact accordance with this deduction, we find that one of the names
of the primitive Hercules in Egypt was "Sem." If "Sem," then, was the
primitive Hercules, who overcame the Giants, and that not by
mere physical force, but by "the power of God,"or the influence of
the Holy Spirit, that entirely agrees with his character; and more
than that, it remarkably agrees with the Egyptian account of the
death of Osiris. The Egyptians say, that the grand enemy of their god
overcame him, not by open violence, but that, having entered into a
conspiracy with seventy-two of the leading
men of Egypt, he got him into his power, put him to death, and then
cut his dead body into pieces, and sent the different parts to so
many different cities throughout the country. The real meaning of
this statement will appear, if we glance at the judicial institutions
of Egypt. Seventy-two
was just the number of the judges, both civil and
sacred, who, according to Egyptian law, were required to determine
what was to be the punishment of one guilty of so high an offence as
that of Osiris, supposing this to have become a matter of judicial
inquiry. In determining such a case, there were necessarily two
tribunals concerned. First, there were the ordinary judges, who had
power of life and death, and who amounted to thirty, then there was,
over and above, a tribunal consisting of forty-two judges, who, if
Osiris was condemned to die, had to determine whether his body should
be buried or no, for, before burial, every one after death had to
pass the ordeal of this tribunal. * * DIODORUS. The words of Diodorus,
as printed in the ordinary editions, make the number of the judges
simply "more than forty," without specifying how many more. In the
Codex Coislianus, the number is stated to be "two more than forty." The
earthly judges, who tried the question of burial, are admitted both
by WILKINSON and BUNSEN, to have corresponded in number to the judges
of the infernal regions. Now, these judges, over and above their
president, are proved from the monuments to have been just forty-two.
The earthly judges at funerals, therefore, must equally have been
forty-two. In reference to this number as applying equally to the
judges of this world and the world of spirits, Bunsen, speaking of
the judgment on a deceased person in the world unseen, uses these
words in the passage above referred to: "Forty-two gods
(the number composing the earthly
tribunal of the dead) occupy the
judgment-seat." Diodorus himself, whether he actually wrote "two more
than forty," or simply "more than forty," gives reason to believe
that forty-two was the number he had present to his mind; for he
says, that "the whole of the fable of the shades below," as brought
by Orpheus from Egypt, was "copied from the ceremonies of the
Egyptian funerals," which he had witnessed at the judgment before the
burial of the dead. If, therefore, there were just forty-two judges
in "the shades below," that even, on the showing of Diodorus,
whatever reading of his words be preferred, proves that the number of
the judges in the earthly judgment must have
been the same. As burial was refused him, both tribunals would
necessarily be concerned; and thus there would be exactly seventy-two
persons, under Typho the president, to condemn Osiris to die and to
be cut in pieces. What, then, does the statement account to, in
regard to the conspiracy, but just to this, that the great opponent
of the idolatrous system which Osiris introduced, had so convinced
these judges of the enormity of the offence which he had committed,
that they gave up the offender to an awful death, and to ignominy
after it, as a terror to any who might afterwards tread in his steps.
The cutting of the dead body in pieces, and sending the dismembered
parts among the different cities, is paralleled, and its object
explained, by what we read in the Bible of the
cutting of the dead body of the Levite's
concubine in pieces (Judges 19:29), and
sending one of the parts to each of the twelve tribes of Israel;
and the similar step taken by Saul,
when he hewed the two yoke of oxen asunder, and sent them throughout
all the coasts of his kingdom (1 Sam 11:7). It is admitted by commentators that both the
Levite and Saul acted on a patriarchal
custom, according to which summary
vengeance would be dealt to those who failed to come to the gathering
that in this solemn way was summoned. This was declared in so many
words by Saul, when the parts of the slaughtered oxen were sent among
the tribes: "Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel,
so shall it be done to his oxen." In like manner, when the
dismembered parts of Osiris were sent among the cities by the
seventy-two "conspirators"--in other words, by the supreme judges of
Egypt, it was equivalent to a solemn declaration in their name, that
"whosoever should do as Osiris had done, so should it be done to him;
so should he also be cut in pieces." When irreligion and apostacy again arose into
the ascendant, this act, into which the constituted authorities who
had to do with the ringleader of the apostates were led, for the
putting down of the combined system of irreligion and despotism set up by
Osiris or Nimrod, was naturally the object of intense abhorrence to all
his sympathisers; and for his share in it the chief actor was
stigmatised as Typho, or "The Evil One." * * Wilkinson admits that different
individuals at different times bore this hated name in Egypt. One of
the most noted names by which Typho, or the Evil One,
was called, was Seth (EPIPHANIUS, Adv.
Hoeres). Now Seth and Shem are
synonymous, both alike signifying "The appointed one." As Shem was a
younger son of Noah, being "the brother of Japhet the elder" (Gen 10:21), and as
the pre-eminence was divinely destined to him, the name Shem, "the
appointed one," had doubtless been given him by Divine direction,
either at his birth or afterwards, to mark him out as Seth had been
previously marked out as the "child of promise." Shem, however, seems
to have been known in Egypt as Typho, not only under the name of
Seth, but under his own name; for Wilkinson tells us that Typho was
characterised by a name that signified "to destroy and render
desert." (Egyptians) Now the name of Shem also in one of its meanings
signifies "to desolate" or lay waste. So Shem, the appointed one, was
by his enemies made Shem, the Desolator or Destroyer--i.e., the
Devil. The influence that this abhorred
Typho
wielded over the minds of the so-called "conspirators," considering
the physical force with which Nimrod was upheld, must have been
wonderful, and goes to show, that though his deed in regard to Osiris
is veiled, and himself branded by a hateful name, he was indeed none
other than that primitive Hercules who overcame the Giants by "the
power of God," by the persuasive might of his Holy Spirit.
In connection with this character of Shem, the
myth that makes Adonis, who is identified with Osiris, perish by the
tusks of a wild boar, is easily unravelled. * The tusk of a wild boar
was a symbol. In Scripture, a tusk is called "a horn"; among many of the
Classic Greeks it was regarded in the very same light. ** * In India, a demon with a "boar's face"
is said to have gained such power through his devotion, that he
oppressed the "devotees" or worshippers of the gods, who had to hide
themselves. (MOOR'S Pantheon) Even in Japan
there seems to be a similar myth. ** Pausanian admits that some in his day
regarded tusks as teeth; but he argues strongly, and, I think,
conclusively, for their being considered as "horns." When once it is known that a tusk is regarded
as a "horn" according to the symbolism
of idolatry, the meaning of the boar's
tusks, by which Adonis perished, is not far to seek. The bull's horns
that Nimrod wore were the symbol of physical power. The boar's tusks
were the symbol of spiritual power. As a
"horn" means power, so a tusk, that is, a horn in the mouth, means "power
in the mouth"; in other words, the power of persuasion; the very
power with which "Sem," the primitive Hercules, was so signally
endowed. Even from the ancient traditions of
the Gael, we get an item of evidence that at once illustrates this
idea of power in the
mouth, and connects it with that great
son of Noah, on whom the blessing of the Highest, as recorded in
Scripture, did specially rest. The Celtic Hercules was called
Hercules Ogmius, which, in Chaldee, is "Hercules the Lamenter."
* * The Celtic scholars derive the name Ogmius
from the Celtic word Ogum, which is said to denote "the secret of
writing"; but Ogum is much more likely to be derived from the name of
the god, than the name of the god to be derived from it. No name could be more appropriate, none more
descriptive of the history of Shem, than this. Except our first
parent, Adam, there was, perhaps, never a mere man that saw so much
grief as he. Not only did he see a vast apostacy, which, with his
righteous feelings, and witness as he had been of the awful
catastrophe of the flood, must have deeply grieved him; but he lived
to bury SEVEN GENERATIONS of his descendants. He lived 502 years after the flood, and as the
lives of men were rapidly shortened after that event, no less than
SEVEN generations of his lineal descendants died before him (Gen
11:10-32). How appropriate a name Ogmius, "The Lamenter or Mourner,"
for one who had such a history! Now, how is this "Mourning" Hercules
represented as putting down enormities and redressing wrongs? Not by
his club, like the Hercules of the Greeks, but by the force of
persuasion. Multitudes were represented as following him, drawn by
fine chains of gold and amber inserted into their ears, and which
chains proceeded from his mouth. * * Sir W. BETHAM'S Gael and Cymbri. In
connection with this Ogmius, one of the names of "Sem," the great
Egyptian Hercules who overcame the Giants, is worthy of notice. That
name is Chon. In the Etymologicum
Magnum, apud BRYANT, we thus read:
"They say that in the Egyptian dialect Hercules is called Chon."
Compare this with WILKINSON, where Chon is called "Sem." Now Khon
signifies "to lament" in Chaldee, and as Shem was Khon--i.e.,
"Priest" of the Most High God, his character and peculiar
circumstances as Khon "the lamenter" would form an additional reason
why he should be distinguished by that name by which the Egyptian
Hercules was known. And it is not to be overlooked, that on the part
of those who seek to turn sinners from the error of their ways, there
is an eloquence in tears that is very impressive. The tears of
Whitefield formed one great part of his power; and, in like manner,
the tears of Khon, "the lamenting" Hercules, would aid him mightily
in overcoming the Giants. There is a great difference between the two
symbols--the tusks of a boar and the golden chains issuing from the
mouth, that draw willing crowds by the ears; but both very
beautifully illustrate the same idea--the might of that persuasive
power that enabled Shem for a time to withstand the tide of evil that
came rapidly rushing in upon the world. Now when Shem had so powerfully wrought upon
the minds of men as to induce them to make a terrible example of the
great Apostate, and when that Apostate's dismembered limbs were sent
to the chief cities, where no doubt his system had been established,
it will be readily perceived that, in these circumstances, if
idolatry was to continue--if, above all, it was to take a step in
advance, it was indispensable that it should operate in secret. The
terror of an execution, inflicted on one so mighty as Nimrod, made it
needful that, for some time to come at least, the extreme of caution
should be used. In these circumstances, then, began, there can hardly
be a doubt, that system of "Mystery," which, having Babylon for its
centre, has spread over the world. In these Mysteries, under the seal
of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, and by means of all the
fertile resources of magic, men were gradually led back to all the
idolatry that had been publicly suppressed, while new features were
added to that idolatry that made it still more blasphemous than
before. That magic and idolatry were twin sisters, and came into the
world together, we have abundant evidence. "He" (Zoroaster), says
Justin the historian, "was said to be the first that invented magic
arts, and that most diligently studied the motions of the heavenly
bodies." The Zoroaster spoken of by Justin is the Bactrian Zoroaster;
but this is generally admitted to be a mistake. Stanley, in his
History of Oriental
Philosophy, concludes that this mistake
had arisen from similarity of name, and that from this cause
that had
been attributed to the Bactrian Zoroaster which properly belonged to
the Chaldean, "since it cannot be imagined that the Bactrian was the
inventor of those arts in which the Chaldean, who lived contemporary with him,
was so much skilled." Epiphanius had evidently come to the same
substantial conclusion before him. He maintains, from the evidence
open to him in his day, that it was "Nimrod, that established
the sciences of magic and astronomy, the invention
of which was subsequently attributed to (the Bactrian) Zoroaster."
As we have seen that Nimrod and the Chaldean
Zoroaster
are the same, the conclusions of the ancient and the modern inquirers into
Chaldean antiquity entirely harmonise. Now the secret system of the
Mysteries gave vast facilities for imposing on the senses of the
initiated by means of the various tricks and artifices of
magic.
Notwithstanding all the care and precautions of
those who conducted these initiations, enough has transpired to give
us a very clear insight into their real character. Everything was so contrived as to
wind up the minds of the novices to the highest pitch of excitement,
that, after having surrendered themselves implicitly to the priests,
they might be prepared to receive anything. After the candidates for initiation had passed
through the confessional, and sworn the required oaths, "strange and
amazing objects," says Wilkinson, "presented themselves. Sometimes
the place they were in seemed to shake around them; sometimes it
appeared bright and resplendent with light and radiant fire,
and then again covered with black darkness, sometimes thunder and
lightning, sometimes frightful noises and bellowings, sometimes
terrible apparitions astonished the trembling spectators." Then, at
last, the great god, the central object of their worship, Osiris,
Tammuz,
Nimrod or Adonis, was revealed to them in the way most fitted to
soothe their feelings and engage their blind affections. An account of such a manifestation
is thus given by an ancient
Pagan, cautiously indeed, but yet in
such a way as shows the nature of the magic secret by which such
an apparent miracle was accomplished: "In a manifestation which one
must not reveal...there is seen on a wall of the temple a
mass of light, which appears at first at a very great distance.
It is transformed,
while unfolding itself, into a visage
evidently divine and supernatural, of an aspect severe, but with a
touch of sweetness. Following the teachings of a mysterious religion,
the Alexandrians honour it as Osiris or
Adonis." From this statement, there can hardly be a
doubt that the magical art here employed was none other than that now
made use of in the modern phantasmagoria. Such or
similar means were used in the very earliest periods for presenting
to the view of the living, in the secret Mysteries, those who were
dead. We have statements in ancient history referring to the very
time of Semiramis, which imply that magic rites were practised for
this very purpose; * and as the magic
lantern, or something akin to it, was
manifestly used in later times for such an end, it is reasonable to
conclude that the same means, or similar, were employed in the most
ancient times, when the same effects were
produced. * One of the statements to which I
refer is contained in the following words of Moses of Chorene in his
Armenian History, referring to the answer made by Semiramis to the
friends of Araeus, who had been slain in battle by her: "I have given
commands, says Semiramis, to my gods to lick the wounds of Araeus,
and to raise him from the dead. The gods, says she, have licked Araeus, and
recalled him to life." If Semiramis had really done what she said she
had done, it would have been a miracle. The effects of magic were sham
miracles; and Justin and Epiphanius
show that sham miracles came in at the very birth of idolatry. Now,
unless the sham miracle of raising the dead by magical arts had
already been known to be practised in the days of Semiramis, it is
not likely that she would have given such an answer to those whom she
wished to propitiate; for, on the one hand, how could she ever have
thought of such an answer, and on the other, how could she expect
that it would have the intended effect, if there was no current
belief in the practice of necromancy? We find that
in Egypt, about the same age, such magic
arts must have been practised, if
Manetho is to be believed. "Manetho says," according to Josephus,
"that he [the elder Horus, evidently spoken of as a human and mortal
king] was admitted to the sight of the
gods, and that Amenophis desired the
same privilege." This pretended admission to
the right of the gods evidently implied the use of the magic art referred to
in the text. Now, in the hands of crafty, designing men,
this was a powerful means of imposing upon those who were willing to
be imposed upon, who were averse to the holy spiritual religion of
the living God, and who still hankered after the system that was put
down. It was easy for those who controlled the
Mysteries, having discovered secrets that were then unknown to the mass of
mankind, and which they carefully preserved in their own exclusive
keeping, to give them what might seem ocular demonstration,
that Tammuz, who had been slain,
and for whom such lamentations had been made, was still alive, and
encompassed with divine and heavenly glory. From the lips of one so gloriously revealed, or
what was practically the same, from the lips of some unseen priest,
speaking in his name from behind the
scenes, what could be too wonderful or
incredible to be believed? Thus the whole system of the secret
Mysteries of Babylon was intended to glorify a dead man; and when once the worship of one dead man was
established, the worship of many more was sure to follow.
This casts light upon the language of the 106th
Psalm, where the Lord, upbraiding Israel for their apostacy, says:
"They joined themselves to Baalpeor, and ate the
sacrifices of the dead." Thus, too, the way was paved for bringing in all the abominations and crimes of which the Mysteries became the scenes;
for, to those who liked not to retain God in
their knowledge, who preferred some visible object of worship,
suited to the sensuous feelings of their
carnal minds, nothing could seem a more
cogent reason for faith or practice than to hear with their
own ears a
command given forth amid so glorious a
manifestation apparently
by the very divinity they adored. The scheme, thus skilfully formed, took effect.
Semiramis gained glory from her dead and deified husband; and in
course of time both of them, under the names of Rhea and Nin, or "Goddess-Mother
and Son," were worshipped with an enthusiasm that was incredible, and
their images were everywhere set up and adored. * * It would seem that no
public
idolatry was ventured upon till the reign of the grandson of
Semiramis, Arioch or Arius. (Cedreni
Compendium) Wherever the Negro aspect of Nimrod was found an obstacle to
his worship, this was very easily obviated. According to the Chaldean doctrine of the
transmigration of souls, all that was needful was just to teach that
Ninus had reappeared in the person of a posthumous son, of a
fair complexion, supernaturally borne by his widowed
wife after the father had gone to glory. As the licentious and dissolute life of
Semiramis gave her many children, for whom no ostensible father on
earth would be alleged, a plea like this would at once sanctify sin,
and enable her to meet the feelings of those who were disaffected to
the true worship of Jehovah, and yet might have not fancy to
bow down before a Negro
divinity. AND Miriam and
Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had
married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. Numbers 12:1 And they said, Hath
the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?
And the Lord heard it. Numbers 12:2 Kuwsh (h3568) koosh; prob. of for. or.; Cush
(or Ethiopia), the name of a son of Ham, and of his territory; also of an Isr.: - Chush,
Cush, Ethiopia. From the light
reflected on Babylon by Egypt, as well
as from the form of the extant images of the Babylonian child in the
arms of the goddess-mother, we have every reason to believe that this
was actually done. In Egypt the fair Horus, the son of the
black Osiris, who was the favourite object of worship, in the
arms of the goddess Isis, was said to have been miraculously born in
consequence of a connection, on the part of that goddess, with Osiris
after his death, and, in point of fact, to have been a new
incarnation of that god, to avenge his death on his murderers.
It is wonderful to find in what
widely-severed countries, and amongst what millions of the human race
at this day, who never saw a Negro, a Negro god is worshipped.
But yet, as we shall afterwards see, among the civilised nations of
antiquity, Nimrod almost everywhere fell
into disrepute, and was deposed from
his original pre-eminence, expressly ob
deformitatem, "on account of his ugliness." Even in Babylon itself, the posthumous child,
as identified with his father, and inheriting all his father's glory,
yet possessing more of his mother's complexion, came to be the
favourite type of the Madonna's divine
son. This son, thus worshipped in his
mother's arms, was looked upon as invested with all the attributes,
and called by almost all the names of the promised Messiah. As
Christ, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, was called
Adonai,
The Lord, so Tammuz was called Adon or Adonis. Under the name of
Mithras,
he was worshipped as the "Mediator." As Mediator and head of the
covenant of grace, he was styled Baal-berith, Lord of the
Covenant (Fig 24) (Judges 8:33). The Hindoo sacred writings teach
that this mysterious offering before all creation is the
foundation of all the sacrifices that
have ever been offered since. *
* In the exercise of his office as the
Remedial
god, Vishnu is said to "extract the thorns of the three worlds."
(MOOR'S Pantheon) "Thorns" were a symbol of the curse--Genesis
3:18. Do any marvel at such a statement being found
in the sacred books of a Pagan mythology? Why should they? Since sin
entered the world there has been only one way of salvation, and that
through the blood of the everlasting covenant--a way that all mankind
once knew, from the days of righteous Abel downwards. When Abel, "by faith," offered unto God his
more excellent sacrifice than that of Cain, it was his faith "in the
blood of the Lamb slain," in the purpose of God "from the foundation
of the world," and in due time to be actually offered up on Calvary,
that gave all the "excellence" to his offering. If Abel knew of "the
blood of the Lamb," why should Hindoos not have known of it? One
little word shows that even in Greece the virtue of "the blood of
God" had once been known, though that virtue, as exhibited in its
poets, was utterly obscured and degraded. That word is Ichor. Every
reader of the bards of classic Greece knows that Ichor is the term
peculiarly appropriated to the blood of a divinity. Thus Homer refers
to it: As Servius tells us that the grand
purpose of the Bacchic
orgies "was the purification of souls,"
and as in these orgies there was regularly the tearing asunder and
the shedding of the blood of an
animal, in memory of the shedding of the
life's blood of the great divinity commemorated in them, could this
symbolical shedding of the blood of that divinity have no bearing on
the "purification" from sin, these mystic rites were intended to
effect? We have seen that the sufferings of the
Babylonian Zoroaster and Belus were expressly represented as voluntary, and as
submitted to for the benefit of the world, and that in connection
with crushing the great serpent's head, which implied the removal of
sin and the curse. If the Grecian
Bacchus was just another form of the
Babylonian divinity, then his sufferings and blood-shedding must have been
represented as having been undergone for the same purpose--viz., for
the "purification of souls." From this point of view, let the well
known name of Bacchus in Greece be looked at. The name was Dionysus or Dionusos. What
is the meaning of that name? Hitherto it has defied all
interpretation. But deal with it as belonging to the language of that
land from which the god himself originally came, and the meaning is
very plain. D'ion-nuso-s signifies "THE
SIN-BEARER," * a name entirely
appropriate to the character of him whose sufferings were represented
as so mysterious, and who was looked up to as the great "purifier of
souls." * The expression used in Exodus 28:38, for
"bearing iniquity" or in a vicarious manner is "nsha eon" (the first
letter eon being ayn). A synonym for eon, "iniquity," is
aon (the
first letter being aleph). In Chaldee the first letter
a becomes
i, and
therefore aon, "iniquity," is ion. Then nsha "to bear,"
in the participle active is "nusha." As the Greeks had no sh, that
became nusa. De, or Da, is the demonstrative pronoun signifying
"That" or "The great." And thus "D'ion-nusa" is exactly
"The great sin-bearer." That the classic
Pagans had the very idea of the
imputation of sin, and of vicarious suffering, is proved by what Ovid
says in regard to Olenos. Olenos is said to have taken upon him and willingly to
have borne the blame of guilt of which he was innocent. Under the
load of this imputed guilt, voluntarily taken upon himself, Olenos is
represented as having suffered such horror as to have perished, being
petrified or turned into
stone. As the stone into which Olenos
was changed was erected on the holy mountain of Ida, that
shows that Olenos must have been regarded as a sacred person. The real
character of Olenos, as the "sin-bearer," can be very fully
established. (see note
below) Now, this Babylonian god, known in Greece as
"The sin-bearer," and in India as the "Victim-Man," among the
Buddhists of the East, the original elements of whose system are
clearly Babylonian, was commonly addressed as the "Saviour of the
world." It has been all along well enough known that the Greeks
occasionally worshipped the supreme god under the title of "Zeus the
Saviour"; but this title was thought to have reference only to
deliverance in battle, or some suck-like temporal deliverance.
But when it is known that "Zeus the Saviour" was only
a title of Dionysus, the "sin-bearing
Bacchus," his character, as "The
Saviour," appears in quite a different light. In Egypt, the Chaldean
god was held up as the great object of love and adoration, as the god
through whom "goodness and truth were revealed to mankind." He was regarded as the
predestined heir of all things; and, on the day of his birth, it was
believed that a voice was heard to proclaim, "The Lord of all the earth is born." In this character he was styled "King of kings, and Lord of lords," it being as a professed representative of this
hero-god that the celebrated Sesostris caused this very title to be
added to his name on the monuments which he erected to perpetuate the
fame of his victories. Not only was he honoured as the great
"World King," he was regarded as Lord of the invisible world, and
"Judge of the dead"; and it was taught that, in the world of spirits, all
must appear before his dread tribunal, to have their destiny assigned
them. As the true
Messiah was prophesied of under the
title of the "Man whose name was the
branch," he was celebrated not only as
the "Branch of Cush," but as the "Branch of God," graciously given to
the earth for healing all the ills that flesh is heir to. *
He was worshipped in
Babylon
under the name of El-Bar, or "God the
Son." Under this very name he is
introduced by Berosus, the Chaldean historian, as the second in the list of Babylonian
sovereigns. ** * This is the esoteric meaning of Virgil's
"Golden Branch," and of the Mistletoe Branch of the
Druids. The proof of this must be reserved to the Apocalypse of the Past. I
may remark, however, in passing, on the wide extent of the worship of
a sacred branch. Not only do the Negroes in Africa in the
worship of the Fetiche, on certain occasions, make use of a sacred
branch
(HURD'S Rites and
Ceremonies), but even in India there
are traces of the same practice. My brother, S. Hislop, Free Church Missionary
at Nagpore, informs me that the late Rajah of Nagpore used every
year, on a certain day, to go in state to worship the branch of a
particular species of tree, called Apta, which had been planted for
the occasion, and which, after receiving divine honours, was plucked
up, and its leaves distributed by the native Prince among his nobles.
In the streets of the city numerous
boughs of the same kind of tree were sold, and the leaves presented
to friends under the name of sona, or "gold."
** BEROSUS, in BUNSEN'S Egypt. The name "El-Bar"
is given above in the Hebrew form, as being more familiar to the
common reader of the English Bible. The Chaldee form of the name is
Ala-Bar, which in the Greek of Berosus, is Ala-Par, with the ordinary
Greek termination os affixed to it. The change of Bar into Par in Greek is
just on the same principle as Ab, "father," in Greek
becomes Appa, and Bard, the "spotted
one," becomes Pardos, &c.; This
name, Ala-Bar, was probably given by Berosus to Ninyas as the
legitimate son and successor of Nimrod. That Ala-Par-os was really
intended to designate the sovereign referred to, as "God the Son," or
"the Son of God," is confirmed by another reading of the same name as
given in Greek. There the name is Alasparos. Now Pyrsiporus, as
applied to Bacchus, means Ignigena, or the "Seed of Fire"; and
Ala-sporos, the "Seed of
God," is just a similar expression
formed in the same way, the name being Grecised. Under this name he has been found in the
sculptures of Nineveh by Layard, the name Bar "the Son," having the
sign denoting El or "God" prefixed to it. Under the same name he has
been found by Sir H. Rawlinson, the names "Beltis" and the
"Shining Bar" being in immediate juxtaposition. Under the name of
Bar he was worshipped in Egypt in the earliest times, though in later
times the god Bar was degraded in the popular Pantheon, to make way
for another more popular divinity. In Pagan Rome itself, as Ovid
testifies, he was worshipped under the name of the "Eternal Boy." * Thus
daringly and directly was a mere mortal set up in Babylon in
opposition to the "Son of the Blessed." * To understand the true meaning of
the above expression, reference must be had to a remarkable form of
oath among the Romans. In Rome the most sacred form of an oath was
(as we learn from AULUS GELLIUS), "By Jupiter the STONE." This,
as it stands, is nonsense. But translate "lapidem" [stone] back into
the sacred tongue, or Chaldee, and the oath
stands, "By Jove, the
Son," or "By the son of Jove."
Ben, which
in Hebrew is Son, in Chaldee becomes Eben, which also
signifies a stone, as may be seen in "Eben-ezer," "The stone of help."
Now as the most learned inquirers into antiquity have admitted that
the Roman Jovis, which was anciently the nominative, is just a form
of the Hebrew Jehovah, it is evident that the oath had originally
been, "by the son of Jehovah." This explains how the most solemn and
binding oath had been taken in the form above referred to; and,it
shows, also, what was really meant when Bacchus, "the son of Jovis,"
was called "the Eternal Boy." (OVID, Metam.)
Note * Sometimes he
is said to have devoured only his
male children; but see SMITH'S (Larger)
Classical Dictionary, "Hera," where it will be found that the female as well
as the male were devoured. In the exoteric story, among those who knew not
the actual fact referred to, this naturally appeared in the myth, in
the shape in which we commonly find it--viz., that he devoured them all as soon as they were
born. But that which was really couched
under the statement, in regard to his devouring his children, was
just the Scriptural fact of the Fall-- viz., that he destroyed them by eating--not by eating them, but by eating the
forbidden fruit. When this was the sad and dismal state of
matters, the Pagan story goes on to say that the destruction of the children of
the father of gods and men was arrested by means of his wife,
Rhea.
Rhea, as we have already seen, had really as much to do with the
devouring of Saturn's
children, as Saturn himself;
but, in the progress of
idolatry and
apostacy,
Rhea (Zoe), or Eve, came to
get glory at Saturn's
expense. Saturn, or Adam, was represented as a morose divinity;
Rhea, or
Eve,
exceedingly benignant; and, in her benignity, she presented to her
husband a stone bound in swaddling bands, which he greedily devoured,
and henceforth the children of the
cannibal father were safe. The stone bound in swaddling bands
is, in the sacred language, "Ebn Hatul"; but Ebn-Hat-tul
* also signifies "A
sin-bearing son." *
Hata,
"sin," is found also in Chaldee, Hat. Tul is from Ntl, "to support."
If the reader will look at Horus with his swathes (BRYANT);
Diana with
the bandages round her legs; the symbolic bull of the Persian swathed in like manner, and even the shapeless log of
the Tahitians, used as a god and bound about with ropes (WILLIAMS);
he will see, I think, that there must be some important mystery in
this swathing. This does not necessarily
mean that Eve, or the mother of mankind, herself actually brought forth the promised
seed (although there are many myths
also to that effect), but that, having received the glad tidings
herself, and embraced it, she presented it to her husband, who
received it by faith from her, and that this laid
the foundation of his own salvation and that of his posterity.
Now Rhea, as Ceres, in Hymn XIV, is called 'brass-sounding' and 'drum-beating'. This has reference to the mystical results of certain sounds and rhythm, part and
parcel of what the Hindus call Mantravidyâ. Music and Mantras, therefore, were used by the Orphics to
attract, or call down, the influence of the Mother of the Gods, who at the same time was the 'Store-house of Life',
of Divine Nature. Thus Proclus in his Commentary on Euclid (ii) tells
us that 'the Pole of the World is called by the
Pythagoreans the Seal of
Rhea' (Myst. Hymns, p.
63). The devouring on the part of Saturn of the swaddled stone is just the symbolical expression
of the eagerness with which Adam by faith received the good news of
the woman's seed; for the act of faith, both in the Old Testament and
in the New, is symbolised by eating. Thus Jeremiah
says, "Thy words were found of me,
and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me
the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (Jer
15:16). Thy words were found, and I did
eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord
God of hosts. Jer 15:16 I sat not in the
assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for
thou hast filled me with indignation. Jer 15:17 Mockers are musical
idolaters: Sachaq (h7832) saw-khak'; a prim. root; to
laugh (in pleasure or detraction); by impl. to play: - deride, have
in derision, laugh, make merry, mock (-er), play, rejoice, (laugh to)
scorn, be in (make) sport. Shachaq
(h7833) shaw-khak'; a prim. root; to comminate
(by trituration or attrition): - beat, wear. And they rose up early on the
morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and
the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to
play. Exod 32:6 And David said unto Michal, It
was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all
his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over
Israel: therefore will I play
before the Lord. 2S.6:21 Sachaq
(h7832) saw-khak'; a prim. root; to laugh (in
pleasure or detraction); by impl. to play: - deride, have in
derision, laugh, make merry, mock (-er), play, rejoice, (laugh to)
scorn, be in (make) sport. And it came to
pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for
Samson, that he may make us sport. And they called for Samson out of the prison house;
and he made them sport:
and they set him between the pillars. Jud.16:25 This also is strongly shown by our Lord Jesus
Christ Himself, who, while setting before the Jews the indispensable
necessity of eating His flesh, and feeding on Him, did at the same
time say: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth;
the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto
you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63).
That Adam eagerly received the good news about
the promised seed, and treasured it up in his heart as the life of his
soul, is evident from the name which he gave to his wife immediately
after hearing it: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the
mother of all living
ones" (Gen 3:20). The story of the swaddled stone does not end
with the swallowing of it, and the arresting of the ruin of the children of Saturn. This swaddled
stone was said to be "preserved near
the temple of Delphi,
where care was taken to anoint it daily with oil, and to cover it
with wool" (MAURICE'S Indian
Antiquities). If this stone symbolised the
"sin-bearing son," it of course symbolised also the Lamb of God,
slain from the foundation of the world, in whose symbolic covering
our first parents were invested when God clothed them in the coats of
skins. Therefore, though represented to the
eye as a stone, he must have the appropriate covering of
wool. When
represented as a branch, the branch of God, the branch also was wrapped in wool (POTTER,
Religion of Greece). The daily anointing with oil
is very significant. If the stone represented the "sin-bearing son,"
what could the anointing of that "sin-bearing son" daily with oil
mean, but just to point him out as the "Lord's Anointed," or the
"Messiah," whom the idolatrous worshipped in
opposition
to the true Messiah yet to be revealed? One of the names by which this swaddled and
anointed stone was called is very strikingly confirmatory of the above
conclusion. That name is Baitulos. This we find
from Priscian, who, speaking of "that stone which Saturn is said to have
devoured for Jupiter," adds, whom the Greeks called "Baitulos." Now,
"B'hai-tuloh" signifies the "Life-restoring child."
* * From Tli, Tleh, or Tloh, "Infans puer" (CLAVIS STOCKII,
Chald.),
and Hia,
or Haya,
"to live, to restore life." (GESENIUS) From
Hia (Zoe),
"to live,"
with digamma prefixed, comes the Greek "life." That
Hia, when
adopted into Greek, was also pronounced Haya, we have evidence in
the noun Hiim, "life," pronounced Hayyim, which in Greek is
represented by "blood." The Mosaic principle, that "the blood was the life,"
is thus proved to have been known by others besides the Jews.
Now
Haya,
"to live or restore life," with the digamma prefixed, becomes B'haya: and so in
Egypt, we find that Bai signified "soul," or "spirit" (BUNSEN), which is the
living
principle. B'haitulos, then, is the
"Life-restoring child." P'haya-n is the same god. See the Sophia-Eve-Zoe connection. The female instructor principle called
the beast or Lucifer. The father of
gods and men had destroyed his children
by eating; but the reception of "the swaddled stone" is said to have
"restored them to life" (HESIOD, Theogon.). Hence the name
Baitulos;
and this meaning of the name is entirely in accordance with what is
said in Sanchuniathon about the Baithulia made by the Phoenician god
Ouranos:
"It was the god Ouranos who devised
Baithulia, contriving
stones that moved as having
life." If the stone Baitulos
represented the "life-restoring child," it
was natural that that stone should be made, if possible, to appear as
having
"life" in itself. Now, there is a great analogy between this
swaddled stone that represented the "sin-bearing son," and that
Olenos
mentioned by Ovid, who took on him guilt not his own, and in
consequence was changed into a stone. We have seen already that
Olenos, when changed into a stone, was set up in Phrygia on the holy
mountain of Ida. We have reason to believe that the stone which was
fabled to have done so much for the children of Saturn, and
was set up near the temple of
Delphi, was just a representation of
this same Olenos. Phemonoe, they say, was the first prophetess of
Apollo at
Delphi, but the
Delphian poetess Boeo says that the Hyperboreans Pagasus, Olen and
Agyieus established the oracle of Apollo at Delphi and that Olen was
Apollo's first prophet. As the prophets and priests generally bore the
names of the gods whom they represented (Hesychius expressly tells us
that the priest who represented the great god under the name of
the branch
in the mysteries was himself called by the name of Bacchus), this indicates
one of the ancient names of the god of
Delphi. If, then, there was a sacred stone on Mount Ida
called the stone of Olenos, and a sacred stone
in the precincts of the temple of Delphi, which Olen founded, can
there be a doubt that the sacred stone of Delphi represented the same
as was represented by the sacred stone of Ida? The swaddled stone set up at Delphi
is expressly called by Priscian, in the place already cited,
"a god."
This god, then, that in symbol
was divinely anointed, and was celebrated as having restored to life the
children of Saturn, father of gods and men, as identified with the Idaean
Olenos,
is proved to have been regarded as
occupying the very place of the
Messiah, the great Sin-bearer, who came
to bear the sins of men, and took their place and suffered in their
room and stead; for Olenos, as we have seen, voluntarily took on him
guilt of which he was personally free. While thus we have seen how much of the
patriarchal faith was hid under the
mystical symbols of Paganism, there is
yet a circumstance to be noted in regard to the swaddled stone,
that shows how the Mystery of
Iniquity in Rome has contrived to import this swaddled stone of Paganism
into what is called Christian symbolism. The Baitulos, or swaddled stone, was a round or
globular stone. This globular stone is frequently represented swathed
and bound, sometimes with more, sometimes with fewer bandages. In
BRYANT, where the goddess
Cybele is represented as
"Spes Divina," or Divine hope, we see the foundation of this divine
hope held out to the world in the representation of the swaddled
stone at her right hand, bound with four different swathes. In
DAVID'S Antiquites
Etrusques, we find a goddess
represented with Pandora's
box, the source of all ill, in her
extended hand, and the swaddled globe depending from it; and in this
case that globe has only two bandages, the one crossing the other.
And what is this bandage globe of Paganism but just the counterpart
of that globe, with a band around it, and the mystic
Tau, or cross, on the top of it, that is called "the type
of dominion," and is frequently represented in the hands of the
profane representations of God the Father. The reader does not now need to be told that
the cross
is the chosen sign and mark of that very God
whom the swaddled stone represented; and that when that God was born,
it was said, "The Lord of all the earth is born" (WILKINSON). As the
god symbolised by the swaddled stone not only restored the
children of Saturn to life, but restored the lordship of the earth to
Saturn himself, which by transgression he had lost, it is not to be
wondered at that it is said of "these consecrated stones," that while
"some were dedicated to Jupiter, and others to the
sun," "they were considered in a more
particular manner sacred to
Saturn," the Father of the gods
(MAURICE), and that Rome, in consequence, has put the
round stone into the hand of the image, bearing the profaned name
of God the Father attached to it, and that from his source the
bandaged globe, surmounted with the mark of Tammuz, has become the
symbol of dominion throughout all Papal Europe. 
Yet still with name uncertain he remains;
Nor known the labour that he thus sustains;
But since upon his knees he seems to fall,
Him ignorant mortals Engonasis call;
And while sublime his awful hands are spread,
Beneath him rolls the dragon's horrid
head,
And his right foot unmoved appears to rest,
Fixed on the writhing monster's burnished crest."
Such stream as issues from a wounded god,
Pure emanation, uncorrupted flood,
Unlike our gross, diseased terrestrial blood."