The Non-Christian Cross Part 3

What, then, does this important witness have to say, which bears upon the points at issue? As a matter of fact, very little.

There are, however, two pa.s.sages in the works of Irenaeus which it would not be right to altogether ignore.

In the first of these pa.s.sages Irenaeus mentions that some Christians believed that Simon of Cyrene was executed instead of Jesus, owing to the power of Jesus to metamorphose himself and others having been exercised with that object in view.[31] This power is referred to more than once in our Gospels, for instance in the account of the so-called "Transfiguration" upon the Mount; the Greek word rendered in our Bibles as "transfigured" being the word which in translations of the older Greek cla.s.sics is rendered "metamorphosed."

Even if we pa.s.s by this belief of certain of the early Christians that Jesus was never executed, a question here arises which should at least be stated, and that is the question how, if Jesus was metamorphosed upon the Mount, as the Gospels tell us, he can be said to have died as a man at Calvary? For if upon the Mount of Transfiguration, or at any other time previous to the scene at Calvary, Jesus was metamorphosed, the form which was the result of the process of re-metamorphosis necessary to make him recognisable again cannot be said to have been born of the Virgin Mary, and can have been human only in appearance.

The other pa.s.sage in the writings of Irenaeus which deserves our notice, is neither more nor less than an emphatic declaration, by Irenaeus himself, that Jesus was not executed when a little over thirty years of age, but lived to be an old man. Explain it away how we will, the fact remains; and it certainly ought not to be ignored.

At first sight this statement of Irenaeus would decidedly seem to support the theory advanced by some, that, as the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate admittedly did not want to carry out the extreme penalty in the case of Jesus, though he reluctantly consented to do so in order to pacify the Jews and allowed Jesus to be fixed to a stauros and suspended in public view, he took care to manage things so that Jesus should only appear to die. The idea of course is that if Pilate wished to preserve the life of Jesus he could easily have had him taken down while in a drugged condition, have had the farce of burial carried out at the earliest possible moment, and then have had him resuscitated and removed to some region where he could dwell in safety.

What Irenaeus says concerning Jesus is that

"He pa.s.sed through every age, becoming an infant for infants. . . . So likewise he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as regards the setting forth of the truth but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also and becoming an example to them likewise.

Then, at last, he came on to death itself. . . . From the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a Teacher; even as the Gospel and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in Asia with John the disciple of the Lord affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them moreover saw not only John but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the statement. Whom, then, should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"[32]

The reader must decide for himself or herself whether Irenaeus believed that Jesus was never executed; or that he was executed but survived; or that he was born when we suppose, but executed thirty years or so later than we suppose; or that, though executed when we suppose, he was then an old man, and was born, not at the commencement or middle or end of the year A.C. 1, or B.C. 4, or whenever the orthodox date is, but thirty years or more before what we call our era began. Anyhow he mentions neither cross nor execution, and here seems to a.s.sume that Jesus died a natural death. And in any case the fact remains that, however mistaken he may have been, Irenaeus stated that Jesus lived to be an old man; and stated so emphatically.

Even granting that Irenaeus must have been mistaken, his evidence none the less affects one of the most important points debated in this work.

For it is clear that if even he knew so little about the execution of Jesus, the details of that execution cannot have been particularly well known; and the affirmation that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a transverse bar attached may have had no foundation in fact, and may have arisen from a wish to connect Jesus with that well-known and widely-venerated Symbol of Life, the pre-Christian cross.

CHAPTER V.

ORIGIN OF THIS PRE-CHRISTIAN CROSS.

Having in the foregoing chapters demonstrated that it is possible, if not indeed probable, that the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed was otherwise than cross-shaped; and having also shown that it was not mainly, if indeed even partially, that the early Christians signified that instrument by the sign of the cross; it is now desirable that, as a preliminary to an enquiry into the circ.u.mstances under which the cross became the symbol of Christianity, we should enquire into the origin of the _pre_-Christian cross.

That there was a pre-Christian cross, and that it was, like ours, a Symbol of Life, is generally admitted.

The authorities upon such subjects, however, unfortunately differ as to the reason why the Cross came to be selected by the ancients as the Symbol of Life. And not one of their suggestions seems to go to the root of the matter.

Let us therefore in thought go back tens of thousands of years, and conceive the genus h.o.m.o as a race gradually awakening to reason but as yet unfettered by inherited traditions and creeds. Let us imagine Man ere he began to make G.o.ds in his own image. Let us remember that what would strike him as the greatest of all marvels would of necessity be Life itself, and that far and away the next greatest marvel must have been the glorious Sun; the obvious source of earth life, and Lord of the Hosts of Heaven.

Let us bear in mind, too, that though the Nature Worship of our remote ancestors had other striking features, the facts mentioned would lead to the predominance of the phallic idea, and to its a.s.sociation with Sun-G.o.d worship. And as Life, the greatest marvel of all, must have had a symbol allotted to it at a very early date, let us ask ourselves what the untutored mind of Man would be most likely to select as its symbol.

To this question there is, so far as the author can see, but one reasonable answer:--the figure of the cross.

And the author conceives this to be the real solution of the difficulty for this reason:--because the figure of the cross is the simplest possible representation of that union of two bodies or two s.e.xes or two powers or two principles, which alone produces life.

For the ancients cannot fail to have perceived that all life more immediately proceeds from the _union_ of _two_ principles; and the first, readiest, simplest, and most natural symbol of Life, was consequently one straight line superimposed upon another at such an angle that both could be seen; in other words, a cross of some description or other.

It is evidently probable that this was the real reason why the figure of the cross originally came to be adopted as the Symbol of Life. But, of course, whatever the original reason, as time rolled on other reasons for the veneration of the cross were pointed out; nothing being more natural than that primitive Man should, or more certain than that he did, find pleasure in connecting with other objects of his regard than Life itself, that which as the Symbol of Life was pre-eminently a symbol of good omen.

The most notable instance of this is the way in which, or rather the different ways in which, the figure of the cross was connected with the Sun-G.o.d.

A good example of the last named fact, is the declaration of the philosophers of ancient Greece that the figure of the cross was the figure of the "Second G.o.d" or "Universal Soul," the _Ratio_ as well as the _Oratio_ of the All-Father, which they called the _Logos_ of G.o.d; a term badly translated in our versions of the Gospel of St. John as the _Word_ of G.o.d, as if it signified the _Oratio_ only.

It was this Logos or "Second G.o.d" whom Philo, who was born before the commencement of our era, described as the "Intellectual Sun," and even as G.o.d's "First Begotten" and "Beloved" offspring, and the "Light of the World"; terms afterwards made use of by the writers of our Gospels in describing the Christ. And, as will be shown in a chapter upon the subject, the reason the philosophers, among whom was Plato, gave for declaring the cross to be the figure of the Logos, was that the Sun creates this figure by crossing the Equator.

An even better ill.u.s.tration can be seen in the fact that in days of old almost every civilised race held feasts at the time of the Vernal Equinox, in honour of the Pa.s.sover or _Cross_-over of the Sun.

The fact that the ancients were thus at special pains to connect the symbol of Life with the Sun-G.o.d, and also, as we know, spoke of him as the "Giver of Life" and the only "Saviour," was doubtless due to their perceiving, not only that life is the result of the union of the two principles distinguished by the t.i.tles male and female, but also that the salvation of life is due to the action of the sun in preserving the body from cold and in producing and ripening for its use the fruits of the earth.

As the Giver of Life, the Sun-G.o.d was of course considered to be bi-s.e.xual. But when the two great lights of heaven, the Sun and the Moon, were a.s.sociated with each other, as was often and naturally the ease, the Sun was considered to be more especially a personification of the Male Principle, and the waxing and waning moon, as represented by the Crescent, a personification of the Female Principle. Hence the worship of the G.o.d a.s.sociated with the radiate sun, as of that of the G.o.ddess a.s.sociated with the crescent moon and called the Sun-G.o.d's mother or bride, was phallic in character; and their connection is repeatedly symbolised upon the relics which have come down to us from antiquity by the sign of the crescent containing within its horns either a disc or what we should consider a star-like object, which latter was almost as favourite a mode with the ancients of representing the sun as it is with us of representing a star or planet, as will be shown further on.

Returning, however, to the symbol of the cross, as the first and simplest representation of that union of the Male and Female Principles which alone produces what we mortals call life, it is extremely curious that the selection of the figure of the cross in comparatively modern times as the simplest and most natural symbol both of addition and of multiplication, should have led no one to perceive that, being for these very reasons also the simplest and most natural symbol of Life, a probable solution of the mystery surrounding the origin of the pre-Christian cross as a symbol of Life, as it were stared them in the face. As to the contention of not a few authorities, apparently founded upon the mistaken a.s.sumption that the _Svastika_ was the earliest form of cross to acquire importance as a symbol, that the pre-Christian cross was originally a representation of the wheel-like motion of the sun or a reference to the wheel of the Sun-G.o.d's chariot; it need only be remarked that evidence exists to show that the cross was a symbol of Life from a period so early, that it is doubtful if the Sun-G.o.d had then been likened to a charioteer, and not certain that either chariots or wheels had been invented. It is true that the Solar Wheel became a recognized symbol of the Sun-G.o.d, and that additional veneration was paid to it because the figure of the symbol of Life was more or less discoverable in the spokes allotted to the Solar Wheel; but it is putting the cart before the horse to suppose that the cross became the symbol of Life because its form was so discoverable.

It only remains to be added that there undoubtedly was a connection, however slight, between the pre-Christian Cross as the Symbol of Life, the Solar Wheel as a symbol of the Sun-G.o.d, and the Cross as the symbol of the Christ. And whatever the date at which the cross was first adopted as a Christian symbol, or whatever the reason for that adoption, there is no doubt that, as will be shown further on, our religion was considerably influenced by the facts that the Gaulish soldiers whose victories enabled Constantine to become Sole Emperor venerated the Solar Wheel, {image "solarwheel1.gif"} or {image "solarwheel2.gif"}, and that their leader, who was anxious to obtain the support of the Christians, allowed a loop to be added to the top of the vertical spoke so that the Christians might be able to interpret the victorious symbol as {image "monogram1.gif"} or {image "monogram2.gif"}, {image "monogram3.gif"} or {image "monogram4.gif"}; _i.e._, XP or XPI, the first two or three letters of the Greek word XPI{sigma}TO{sigma}, _Christos_, Christ.

CHAPTER VI.

ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN CROSS.

As has already been to some extent pointed out, it is evident that our beloved Christendom more or less owes its existence to the fact that Constantine the Great when only ruler of Gaul, himself a Sun-G.o.d worshipper at the head of an army of Sun-G.o.d worshippers, seeing how greatly the small but enthusiastic bodies of Christians everywhere to be met with could aid him in his designs upon the attainment of supreme power, bid for their support. For to this politic move, its success, and Constantine's perception that only a non-national religion whose followers sought to convert the whole world and make their faith a catholic one, could really weld together different races of men, we owe the fact that when he became Sole Emperor he made Christianity the State Religion of the world-wide Roman Empire.

This act and its far-reaching effects, are not all we owe to Constantine, however. It should be remembered that even our creed was to some extent decided by him. For it was this Sun-G.o.d worshipper--who, though he advised others to enter what he wished should become a catholic and all-embracing religion, refused to do so himself till he was dying--who called together our bishops, and, presiding over them in council at Nicaea, demanded that they should determine the controversy in the ranks of the Christians as to whether the Christ was or was not G.o.d, by subscribing to a declaration of his Deity. It is even recorded that he forced the unwilling ones to sign under penalty off deprivation and banishment.

From these and other incidents in his career it would appear that, either from policy or conviction, Constantine acted as if he thought the Sun-G.o.d and the Christ were one and the same deity.

The probability of this is more or less apparent from what we are told concerning the part he played in connection with what, thanks, as we are about to see, to him, became our recognised symbol.

Our knowledge of the part played by Constantine in connection with the symbol of the cross, except so far as we can gather it from a study of ancient coins and other relics, unfortunately comes to us solely through Christian sources. And the first that famous bishop and ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we owe so large a proportion of our real or supposed knowledge of the early days of Christianity, tells us about Constantine and the cross, is that in the year A.C. 312--a quarter of a century before his admission into the Christian Church--Constantine and the Gaulish soldiers he was leading saw at noon _over the Sun_ a cross of Light in the heavens, bearing upon it or having attached to it the inscription EN TOYT{omega} NIKA, _By this conquer_.

The words of the Bishop, who is reporting what he states the Emperor in question to have told him personally, are:--

"He said that at mid-day when the sun was beginning to decline he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the Sun, bearing the inscription EN TOYT{omega} NIKA; he himself, and his whole army also, being struck with amazement at this sight."[33]

Though this marvellous cross, declared by Christian writers of that century to have been the so-called Monogram of Christ {image "monogram1.gif"} or {image "monogram3.gif"} or {image "monogram2.gif"} or {image "monogram4.gif"}, appeared to an army of Sun-G.o.d worshippers, Constantine himself--as can be seen from his coins--remaining one for many years afterwards if not till his death, it is put before us as a Christian cross.

It is also noteworthy that no material representation of a cross of any description was ever held aloft by adherents of the Christian Church, until after Constantine is said to have had this more or less solar cross so represented as the standard of his Gaulish army.

Mention should therefore be made of the fact that, upon the coins he struck, the symbol {image "monogram1.gif"} is perhaps the one which occurs the most frequently upon representations of the famous _Labarum_ or Military Standard of Constantine; but that the symbol {image "monogram1.gif"}, the {image "monogram3.gif"} and {image "monogram4.gif"} without the circle, and the {image "solarwheel1.gif"} and {image "asterisk.gif"}, are also to be seen.

Now the Gauls led by Constantine specially venerated the Solar Wheel.

This had sometimes six and sometimes four spokes, {image "solarwheel1.gif"} or {image "solarwheel2.gif"}, and the warriors of their native land had long been in the habit of wearing a representation of the same upon their helmets. It is therefore not improbable that even before the date of the alleged vision when marching upon Rome, some such symbol formed the standard of Constantine's army.

Anyhow, that the worthy Bishop Eusebius was, like other enthusiasts, liable to be at times carried by his enthusiasm beyond the limits of veracity, or else was the victim of imperial mendacity, is evident. For Eusebius tells us in the _Life of Constantine_ he wrote after the death of his patron, that the night after this miraculous "cross" and motto were seen in the sky above the Sun, the Christ appeared to Constantine, and, showing the Gaulish general the same sign that had been seen in the sky, directed him to have a similar symbol made, under which his army--an army, be it remembered, of Sun-G.o.d worshippers--should march conquering and to conquer![34]

All that is really likely to have happened is that Constantine, wishing to encourage his troops, bade them rally round a standard on which was represented the sacred Solar Wheel venerated by the Gauls; and that as with this as a rallying point Constantine and his Gauls became masters of Rome, the symbol we are discussing became a Roman--and therefore, later on, upon the establishment of our faith as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, also a _Christian_--symbol. And a loop seems to have been sooner or later added to the top of the vertical spoke of the Gaulish symbol, so that Christians could accept it as a Monogram of Christ; as has already been hinted, and as will be demonstrated further on.

A noteworthy point is that we have two accounts of Constantine's alleged vision of the Christ, and that they do not quite agree. The Bishop of Caesarea's account is, that the night after the Emperor--then only ruler of Gaul--and all his soldiers saw the "cross" and motto above the meridian sun, the Christ appeared to Constantine

"With the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies."[35]