Mystery and darkness are the fitting accompaniments of "the kingdom of darkness." This, then, was the ultimate character of the god revealed in the Mysteries, and the way for this revelatiou was prepared by identifying him with the Sun and powers of Nature, by representing him as the god of the Phallus, and by adoring him as an actual beast of the field; for by these means the minds and consciences of his worshippers were blinded and degraded, for they directed them to that which was wholly earthly and sensual, and the sanction of religion was given to the things of the world and the lusts of the flesh. At the same time, in order to quiet their scruples, the god, in his superficial aspect, was made to appear as "an angel of light," I by calling him "the pure and holy Osiris," "the Manifester of Good, full of grace and truth," by representing him as the promised seed of woman, the Overcomer of the Spirit of Evil, and by pretending that his rites were "for the purification of souls!" It has been shown in the earlier chapters of this book that the originals of the gods of Paganism were human beings, which gave them the attractiveness consequent on their supposed human sympathies, and served as a basis. on which to build up their ultimate development as Sun and Nature gods. It was natural, however, that Sir G. Wilkinson, regarding only the superficial and pretended goodness of the Egyptian gods, should reject the evidence in proof of the fact that the original of Osiris was a human being;2 for to have admitted this would have denied the view that Osiris represented the goodness and truth of the true God. Here again he rejects the evidence of the ancient authors which oppose his view, and only accepts those which support it. Thus Plutarch relates the story of the capture and death of Osiris by Typhon, the cutting up of his body and search after, and collection of, the pieces, except the Phallus, which, in consequence, was specially consecrated, etc. But the Pagan author, in defence of his religion and in order to repudiate the death of Osiris, attempts to allegorise the story. He says Osiris, who in other places he called "the first creative cause,” represents the Nile The conspiracy of Typhon, who the Egyptians identified with the ocean, he says represents the force and power of drought ! Isis, the irrigated land; Horus, the offspring of Osiris and Isis, who overcame Typhon, he represents as the exhalation from the irrigated land! The box in which the body of Osiris was placed, the banks of the Nile! His death on the seventeenth day of Athyr (the seventeenth day of the second month) as the time when the moon begins to wane; which of course is not the case, as it varies from month to month, etc., etc. Other allegorical interpretations are given by Plutarch,3 but one and all are so puerile, absurd and contradictory, that it is surprising that anyone could give them any consideration. But Wilkinson, rather than admit that Osiris may have been an actual 2 Cor. xi. 14. 2 Wilkinson, by Birch, vol. iii. p. 73. 3 Ibid., iii. human king, regards them with approval, in spite of the fact also that they represent Osiris as a sort of minor Nature god, and therefore contradict the assumption that he represented the true God!! It was natural that the Pagan priesthood in later times, after it had served its purpose, should endeavour to conceal from the vulgar the human origin of their gods, which, if admitted, would then have diminished their aspect of importance and power. Augustine refers to the care taken by the Egyptian priesthood in later times to conceal or deny the human origin of Serapis or Osiris. He says, "They made a law that whoever should say he had been a man should die the death. And because that in all the temples of Isis and Serapis there was an image with the finger laid upon the mouth as commanding silence-this was, says Varro, to show them that they must not say that those two were ever mortal." The secret was only revealed to the initiated, and, as shown by the letter of Alexander to his mother, was kept until a late period, but the testimony of facts and the statements of ancient authors are conclusive evidence of its being eventually the recognised belief.3 Sir G. Wilkinson, however, asserts that "no Egyptian deity was supposed to have lived on earth and to have been deified after death as with the Greeks and other people." He alludes to the statement made to Herodotus by the Egyptian priests, that no god had lived upon the earth as a man.+ But he totally ignores the reason for this statement and what the priests afterwards told Herodotus. The account of Herodotus is as follows: The Greek historian Hecatæus when he visited the Egyptian priests on a previous occasion had claimed to be descended from a god. The priests regarded the Greeks as mere children compared with themselves, and this claim on the part of a Greek they therefore refused to admit, and in support of their argument they denied that a man could be born from a god. Nevertheless they were perfectly aware, as shown by Wilkinson himself, that the gods had not only wives and children like other men, but that every Egyptian king, who was also Pontifex Maximus and head of the priesthood, was believed to be descended from the gods, that their particular title was "Sons of the Sun god," and that they were in consequence worshipped as gods. Moreover, Plutarch, whom Sir G. Wilkinson extensively quotes, says that the Egyptian priests expressly taught that all their principal deities were once mere men who had reigned upon earth.5 This is also in exact accordance with what the priests afterwards admitted to Herodotus, viz., that their gods had once been kings of Egypt and that the last God king was Horus, the son of Osiris, who had deposed Typhon. In addition to this there is the plain fact that Ham, the son of Noah, was worshipped in Egypt under his own It is a question whether the attempted allegorisation of the story of Osiris by Plutarch does not belittle him more than the admission of his human origin. 2 The Citie of God, translated by J. Healey (1642), vol. ii. p. 165. 3 Ante, chap. ii. pp. 13-20. 5 See ante, chap. ii. p. 14. 4 Wilkinson, by Birch, vol. iii. p. 68; Herod., ii. 142, 143. Herod., ii. 144. name as Ammon, the Sun god, and as Khem, the god of generation. Set or Typhon is also referred to in the reign of Rameses II. as a former king of Egypt. The conclusions of Sir G. Wilkinson are often self-contradictory, and they are at variance with the facts which he himself furnishes. His arguments are, in most cases, little more than assertions, and, at the most, rest upon these ascriptions of good and truth by which the Egyptian priesthood sought to give their idolatry, and their gods, a superficial veneer of righteousness. In this respect he is a fair illustration of many other writers, who, fascinated by the art and magnificence which is the unfailing accompaniment of idolatry, are ready to give credence to every assertion and excuse made by its adherents in its defence, and to ignore or reject the evidence which reveals its true nature. APPENDIX B OANNES AND THE ANNEDOTI IT WILL be observed that, throughout creation, every living creature has its own proper body, which is the manifestation and expression of its own particular character. The law of "expression" is uniform. Cunning, ferocity, courage, generosity, loyalty, love, hatred, etc., have all their proper forms of expression, which all mankind, and even some of the higher animals, instinctively, and at once, recognise. Physical characteristics are also expressed by distinctive form and shape. The elephant, the tiger, the ox, the horse, the snake, and the various forms of birds and reptiles, have each their distinctive form which enable us at once to determine their distinctive characteristics. The outward form of each, from the noblest of mankind to the lowest animal, is the exact expression of its individual spiritual, or physical, capacity and characteristics. As is the spirit of each, so is the flesh which clothes it. So absolute is this law, that changes in the moral and intellectual characteristics of races of men, and even of individuals during their lifetime, are reflected in their bodily form and expression. Hence we must conclude that spirit is the determining cause of all material form. Between the embryo of the man and the embryo of the lowest animal there is no outward difference, and yet it is impossible for the embryo of the man to become anything else but a man, or for the embryo of the animal to become anything but the one particular animal of which it is the seed. There is manifestly a spiritual principle in each which determines the growth and development of each, and the particular form which each minute accretion of matter shall take during that growth. This has all the appearance of being one of those essential laws which have their origin in the very nature of things and of God. If, then, there is no exception to this law, it would appear that spiritual beings, like the angels, if they took a material form, would be obliged to take one expressive of their true character. What, then, would be the form of a fallen angel? "Greater in power and might" than man, their material form would probably express that power and might; but in every moral respect they have fallen far below the level of man, who is made in the image of God. We are told that men who, after they have received the knowledge of the truth, have rejected it, are incapable of repentance, or change of mind, and therefore incapable of redemption. The same would appear to be the case with fallen angels, who, as purely spiritual beings, have the power of perceiving the truth at once without the necessity, as in the case of men in the flesh, of going through the process of gradually learning it. Therefore, if they fall, they fall irredeemably, because they sin against the full knowledge of the truth. Hence it is written that "God spared not the angels who sinned." They had no longer any moral principle, or moral capacity, but having wilfully separated themselves from, and rejected, righteousness and truth, they were for ever cut off from God, and were morally on the same level as the animals, who are ungoverned, and uninfluenced, by moral considerations. Hence we may conclude that Satan and the first angels which fell, being wholly separated from God, and without conscience, or the recognition of righteousness as that which is good, and of wickedness as that which is evil, would become like ferocious animals, solely governed by the desire to assert and manifest their power in the destruction of others; as we see in the case of such animals as the tiger, to whom the sufferings and cries of its victim seem to afford the keenest pleasure, because they are a tribute to, and expressive of, its superior power. If, then, it be asked, Why did not Satan, when he tempted Eve, take the form of a man, which would certainly have been far the fittest to have obtained her confidence?—the reply is that it was probably because he could not take the form of man, which is declared to be the image of God, the expression of the wisdom and righteousness of God. Instead thereof, he had to take the form of a serpent, which most perfectly expressed his true character of malignity and subtlety. Similarly, in the case of those angels who left their first estate in order to co-habit with the daughters of men. They being actuated merely by sensual, or animal, lust, the forms which would best express their characteristics would be that of animals; and it is possible that this may explain the statements so constantly met with in the Greek mythology, which are otherwise inexplicable, that the gods (i.e., the demons), in their amours with mortal women, invariably assumed the form of some bird, beast or reptile. On the other hand, if fallen angels, or Satan himself, wished to draw fallen men yet farther from God and induce them to worship themselves (i.e., the daimonia), and made use of all the resources of natural knowledge in order to recommend their teaching, then they might well be represented by the form of the annedoti, combining that of a man with that of a voracious fish. In short, if Satan once took the form of a serpent in order to deceive man, so might he, or other fallen angels, take the form of an annedotus for a similar purpose. It would indeed have been strange if, in those early days, he did not take some such measures for the purpose of communicating to mankind the principles of that idolatry by means of which he would be enabled to carry on and complete the ruin he had commenced. In connection with this subject it may be worth while to allude to another statement of Berosus. Reference has been made to the various traditions of a former world which was destroyed by fire, and the records of geological research have many evidences of a former world, in which those mighty Saurians and sea monsters, some of the skeletons of which exist in our museums, flourished and were lords of creation, but all, or nearly all, of which have been destroyed. By what means this destruction was effected geological science does not determine; but as these inhabitants of the sea could hardly have been destroyed by water, it may have been by great heat, which, while obliterating all trace of many, left the remains of some, as records of their existence. It is certain that some were suddenly destroyed, for, like the antediluvian mammoth, individuals have been found with undigested food in their stomachs.' Now Berosus, in his history, speaks of such a former world, inhabited by sea monsters, and the shapes of these monsters he describes. But, no doubt, by that time, tradition and imagination had greatly exaggerated and altered their form. He says they were presided over by a woman named "Omoroca," or "Thalath," which means "the sea"; in other words, they were inhabitants of the sea, and many appear to have been amphibious, which was the case with many of the extinct Saurians. But the point to be observed in his statement is that representations of all of them were preserved and portrayed on the walls of the Temple of Belus at Babylon. This implies that they were either objects of worship, or of religious veneration, by the Babylonians, and therefore, in some way, allied to the gods, or daimonia, whom they worshipped. Is it possible, then, that these mighty Saurians were the bodily forms which the first angels who rebelled against God were condemned to take, in order that, in them, they might manifest their true characteristics, and that this was known to those who first worshipped and sought intercourse with the Nephilim? This is but a suggestion, but it receives some support from |