Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

 

 

Commentary on Oahspe

by John Newbrough

Originally published with the 1882 Oahspe edition.

.....Two kinds of literature have been before the world for several thousand years. They are called sacred, and profane. Their chief characteristic differences are, that the former is as if it came from another to this world, and the latter as if it were the work of man looking outward, searching.
.....These sacred books, so-called, do not come often, but they live very long. The profane books come all the time, but, for the most part, die out very soon after coming.
.....Sacred books of any great account come only once every two or three thousand years, and they come at a time when they are wanted. They drop down upon us with fear­lessness. Our former doctrines and philosophies are ignored by them. They seem to consult nothing especially, neither men nor books, but make an orbit of their own.
.....Their favorite themes are history, and the affairs of Gods and angels. Our dates and chronology are ignored. One might say of these bibles, they are like a judge that has come and settled a case. The world goes on for two or three thousand years with its countless thousands of authors writing books, but all is confusion. No one knows what to think, or what has been proved, nor what is to be believed. Then comes the sacred book, like a judge, and settles matters, or purports to.
.....Here, lately, we had a profane eye-opener from Darwin, searching for something he could not find; trying to prove something, which, if proved, proved nothing. He chased the origin of man a little further back, and there left him. He failed utterly to grapple with the cause of different species. Progression was known before his time by some thousands of years. He changed the word creation into evolution, and there left it. The origin of life, he left where it had always been.
.....In this bible, however, the same questions purport to be settled. The Book of Jehovih, and Book of Sethantes, give us no proofs worth mentioning as such. The doctrine of one species of animals being changed into another, is squelched in one single verse. The low condition of the first race of man is stated, but still he was a man, and not a monkey, nor any other animal. The angels coming to him, and dwelling with him, requires of us to understand spiritualism before we can understand what is in these two books. I have myself seen angels take on corporeal forms, to all appearance, by the side of mortals. But, rather than boast of my own experience, I here introduce two well-known men of indisputable integrity, Rev. Francis Monck, a natural sar’gis, and the Rev. Archbishop Thomas Colley, M. A. (formerly of the Royal Navy, England), Mr. Colley says:
.....“Standing forth thus plainly before us, the psychic or spirit-form was seen to grow out of his left side. First, several faces, one after another, of great beauty, appeared, and, in amazement, we saw, and as I was suffered to stand close up to the medium, even touching him, I saw most plainly, several times, a perfect face and form of exquisite womanhood partially issue from Dr. Monck about the region of the heart. Then, after several attempts, a full-formed figure, in a nebulous condition at first, but growing solider as it issued from the medium---left Dr. Monck and stood, a separate individuality, two or three feet off, bound to him by a slender attachment as of gossamer, which, at my request, ‘Samuel,’ in control, severed with the medium’s left hand; and there stood embodied a spirit-form of unutterable loveliness, robed in attire spirit-spun, a meshy web-work from no mortal loom, of a fleeciness inimitable, and of transfiguration whiteness truly glistening.“But Dr. Kennedy was now invited to draw equally near and realize more closely with me the marvel of the separate identity of the spirit-form from the medium, and as we stood, looking with all our soul upon the mighty fact of spirit-birth from mortal man, Dr. Monck, still entranced, placed the lovely visitant from the inner world between us, and, affording it the support, each of an arm, we advanced with our sweet spirit-companion some steps further into the room. Meanwhile, holding the hand of the spirit-arm that rested on mine, I felt the wrist, palm, fingers and finger-nails; it was in every respect a living hand, answering to my touch, yielding to pressure, having natural weight and substance, and all things pertaining to humanity, but it was damp and stone-cold; and the thought passed through my mind, how, like steam, first invisible, congealed, is then seen as cloudy vapor, which, precipitated, may finally take solid form in ice, this figure at my side had, by a somewhat analogous process, been rendered visible and tangible from the vital force, viewless and imponderable of the medium, being, under the chemistry, not yet understood of the higher life, congealed into the nebulous condition instanced of the form’s first appearance, further to solidify into the lovely creature we supported and wistfully beheld.
.....“Then, after a few minutes further stay, sliding back into the medium, the angel gradually disappeared.
.....“The next form was none other than Dr. Monck’s old earth-friend, fellow-student, brother minister, and chief spirit-control, ‘Samuel Wheeler.’ When he in like manner issuing forth, first stepped from the medium into separate being, Dr. Monck was unconscious, under control of ‘Lily,’ and her voice through him contrasted very markedly with the voice of the materialized form---it, to the very syllable, being the voice of ‘Samuel’ as when speaking through the medium. But this did not satisfy our spirit-friend, for the marvel of the night’s effort had yet to culminate. Conditions being so good, ‘Samuel’ thought he might dematerialize and awake Dr. Monck, and then be able to rematerialize with the medium in his normal state, fully alive to all that transpired, and conscious of the astounding fact we were to witness; and successful, beyond all conception of the mystery, was this most unique experiment, for, after the first alarm of Dr. Monck had passed away, and after the pain and nervous snatchings he felt in the process of his friend’s evolution from himself had subsided, medium and spirit-form conversed naturally together, and the astonishment and glee of the former was only equalled by our profound sense of inability adequately to grasp at first the vast significance of this amazing demonstration of occult power. Equally with the child-form did ‘Samuel Wheeler’ show all the attributes of humanity; and, in his case, reason and ripe manhood, as in hers, girlishness and simplicity. He was not unlike the medium in stature, form and bearing; and one of our company having intimately known ‘Samuel’ in the earth-life (being frequently one of his congregation when our spirit-friend was, as our medium also was, a Baptist minister), unhesi­tatingly declared that this ‘Samuel Wheeler’ was that Samuel Wheeler, and none other.”
.....“And now a new sensation was in store for us. A spirit-form, eight inches taller than. Dr. Monck, grew from him by degrees, and building itself up into giant proportions, with muscular limbs developed like statuary of bronze, and of the colour, there came into disconnected, independent, vigorous life, apart from the medium, an ancient Egyptian. From its general aspect, dress and manner, I addressed it as such at once, without a moment’s doubt or hesitation. For Ancient Egypt has been a favorite study with me, and in modern Egyptians I have, when in the East, endeavored to trace the ancient masters of Israel and the sciences, and have dreamed amid the ruins of the Temple of Isis, and sketched the blue tuniced and turbaned descendant of the Pharaohs, and have pleasant recollections of an Egyptian Fellah, Zozab, who used to accompany me through the bazaars, and pioneer me through the intricacies of Suez; and, if ever Bulwer’s Arbaces the Egyptian, in the ‘Last Days of Pompeii,’ had existence other than in the mind of the author, it was here embodied in the materialized form I handled and closely scrutinized last night.
.....“The vitality and power of this spirit were remarkable; it walked with manly step and dignified carriage round and about the room, before and behind us, without fear or hesitation; appeared curious about, and leisurely inspected, the furniture and ornaments of the room; took up a chair and placed it on the table; brought us books and other things, and then, taking the chair from the table, placed it close to mine and sat down at any side. Meanwhile I closely introspected it, and felt its anatomy, the medium standing at my left side while ‘Mahedi’ (the Egyptian) was seated at my right. I now got the spirit to measure hands, placing its palm on mine. The hand (stone-cold, while the medium’s was burning hot) was small, like all Easterns, and the wrist was also small, but the arm was massive, muscular, bronzed and hairy. Its eyes were black and piercing, but not unkindly; its hair lank and jet, and moustaches and beard long and drooping; its features full of life and expression, yet Sphinx-like. Its head-dress was very peculiar, a sort of metal skull­cap with an emblem in front, overhanging the brow, which trembled and quivered and glistened. I was suffered to feel it, but, as I did so, it seemed to melt away like a snow­flake under my touch, to grow solid again the moment after.”
.....I have witnessed these things more than three hundred times; and there are to-day tens of thousands of people who have done so also. Any person who has not had this experience could not understand, and much less realize, the order of creation as set forth in the Book of Jehovih.
.....As to the historical part of Oahspe up to the Book Of Cοsmogονy, I pass that by, save to say that it corresponds to the mythology and legends of the ancients. The story of the flood has been preserved all over the world. The submersion of a continent, as set forth in Book of Aph, gives us an easy interpretation of the similarity in characteristics in language and rites between the Hebrews, Chinese, East Indians and North American Indians.
.....Τhe Book Of Cοsmogονy is the boldest challenge ever given to science and philosophy. It overthrows a great part of our planetary philosophy, as we are still teaching in our public schools.
.....Before saying anything of the succeeding books, I now introduce freely from Godfrey Higgins’ Anacalypsis, bearing upon all these matters:
Vol. I., pp. 41, 42: “The oldest philosophy or mythology of which we have any certain history, is that of the Buddha of the Eastern nations, in which are to be found the various doctrines to which I have just alluded. From the Metempsychosis arose the repugnance among the Buddhists to the slaughter of animals,---a necessary consequence of this doctrine uncorrupted and sincerely believed. From this circumstance in the first book of Genesis, or book of Wisdom, which is probably a work of the Buddhists, the slaughter of animals is prohibited or not allowed. After a time the mild doctrines of Buddha came to be changed or corrupted and superseded by those of Cristna. Hence in the second book of Genesis, or the book of the Generations, or Re-generations of the planetary bodies, which is, I think, a Brahmin work, they are allowed to be used for sacrifice. In the third book, or the book of the Generations, or Re-generations of the race of man, the Adam, they are first allowed to be eaten as food.
.....“How long a time would elapse before man would arrive at the point I here contemplate---the knowledge of the doctrines which I have described---must evidently depend, in a great measure, upon the degree of perfection in which he was turned out from the hand of his Creator. On this point we are and we must remain in ignorance. I argue upon the supposition that man was created with only sufficient information for his comfortable existence, and, therefore, I must be considered to use merely a conditional argument. If any person think it more probable that man was turned out of his Creator’s hand in a state of perfection, I have no objection to this; but my reasoning does not apply to him. If he will condescend to reason with me, he must conditionally admit my premises.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 45, 46: “Proclus says of the religion, [G]---Jove is the head and middle of all things; all things were made out of Jove.
.....“According to Timotheus, in Cedrenus, Orpheus asserted the existence of an eternal, incomprehensible Being, [G],the Creator of all things, even of the aether itself, and of all things below that aether. According to him, this [G] is called [G], Light, Counsel, Life. And Suidas says, that these three names express one and the same power, [G]:and Timotheus concludes his account by affirming that Orpheus, in his book,declared, [G]:That all thingswere made by one Godhead, in three names, and this God is all things.”
.....Vol. I., p. 56: “It is probable that the Memnon here spoken of, if there ever were such a man, was the leader of the Shepherds, who are stated by Manetho and other historians to have come from the East, and to have conquered Egypt. The learned Dr. Shuckford thinks, that the troubles caused in Egypt by the shepherd kings appear to have happened about the time the Jews left it under Moses. He places these events between the death of Joseρh and the birth of Moses. Αnd he supposes that the Jews left the country in consequence of the oppressions of these shepherd kings. It is very clear that much confusion has arisen in this part of ancient history from these eastern shepherds having been con­founded with the Israelites, and also from facts relating to the one having been attributed to the other. Josephus takes the different accounts to relate to the same people. This is attended with great difficulty. The shepherds are said by Manetho, after a severe struggle with the old inhabitants, to have taken refuge in a city called Avaris or Abaris, where they were a long time besieged, and whence at last they departed, two hundred and forty thousand in number, together with their wives and children, (in consequence of a capitulation,) into the deserts of Syria.”
.....Vol. I., p. 61: “In the first verse of the first book of Genesis, the Aleim, which will be proved to be the Trinity, being in the plural number, are said by Wisdom to have formed, from matter previously existing, the [H], smim, or planetary bodies, which were believed by the Magi to be the rulers or directors of the affairs of men. This opinion I shall examine by and by. From this it is evident, that this is in fact a Persian, or still more Eastern, mythos.
.....“The use of animals for food being clearly not allowed to man, in chap. i. vers. 29, 30, is a circumstance which bespeaks the book of Buddhist origin. It is probably either the parent of the Buddhist religion, or its offspring. And it is different from the next book, which begins at the fourth verse of the second chapter, and ends with the last verse of the fourth; because, among other reasons in it, the creation is said to have been performed by a different person from that named in the first,---by Jehovah Aleim, instead of Aliem. Again, in the first book, man and woman are created at the same time; in the second, they are created at different times. Again, in the first book, the fruit of All the trees is given to the man; in the second, this is contradicted, by one tree being expressly forbidden. These are in fact two different accounts of the creation.”
.....Vol. I., p. 62: “But before I proceed, I must point out an example of very blameable disingenuousness in every translation of the Bible which I have seen. In the original, God is called by a variety of names, often the same as that which the Heathens gave to their Gods. To disguise this, the translators have availed themselves of a contrivance adopted by the Jews in rendering the Hebrew into Greek, which is to render the word [H], Ieue, and several of the other names by which God is called in the Bible, by the word [G], or Lord, which signifies one having authority, the sovereign. In this the Jews were justified by the com­mandment, which forbids the use of the name Ieue. But not so the Christians, who do not admit the true and evident meaning adopted by the Jews---Thou shalt not take the name of Ieue, thy God, in vain. And, therefore, they have no right, when pretending to give a translation, to call God by any other name than that in the original, whether it be Adonis, or Ie, or Ieue, or any other.
..... “In the second book of Genesis the creation is described not to have been made by Aleim, or the Aleim, but by a God of a double name---[H], Ιeue Aleim; which the priests have translated Lord God. By using the word Lord, their object evidently is to conceal from their readers several difficulties which arise afterward respecting the names of God and this word, and which show clearly that the books of the Pentateuch are the writings of different persons.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 64, 65: “Perhaps there is no word in any language about which more has been written than the word Aleim; or, as modern Jews corruptly call it, Elohim. But all its difficulties are at once removed by considering it as a representation of the united God­head, the Trinity in Unity, the three Persons and one God. It is not very unlike the word Septuagint---of which we sometimes say, it gives a word such or such a sense, at other times they give such a sense, etc. A folio would be required to contain all that has been said respecting this word. The author believes that there is no instance in which it is not satisfactorily explained by considering it, as above suggested, as the representation of the Trinity.
.....“Τhe root [H], al, the root of the word Aleim, as a verb, or in its verbal form, means to mediate, to interpose for protection, to preserve; and, as a noun, a mediator, an interposer. In its feminine it has two forms, [H], ale, and [H], alue. In its plural masculine it makes [H], alim, in its plural feminine [H], aleim. In forming its plural feminine in [H], im, it makes an exception to the general Hebrew rule, which makes the plural masculine in [H], im. But though an exception, it is by no means singular. It is like that made by [H], ozim, she­-goats, [H], dbim, she-bears, etc. In the second example in its feminine form, it drops the u or vau, according to a common practice of the Hebrew language.
.....“A controversy took place about the middle of the last century between one Dr. Sharpe and several other divines upon the word Aleim. The Doctor was pretty much of my opinion. He says, ‘If there is no reason to doubt, as I think there is none, that [H], ale, and [H], alue, are the same word, only the vau is suppressed in the one, and expressed in the other, why may [H], aleim, be the plural of one as well as of the other? If it be said it cannot be the plural of [H], alue, because it is written without the vau; I answer, that [H], qrbim, [H], rhqim, [H], gbrim, [H], gdlim, etc., are frequently written without the vau; are they not, therefore, the plurals of [H], qrub,’ etc.? Again, he says,
.....“ ‘When, therefore, Mr. Moody tells us that [H], aleim, may be the plural masculine of [H], ale, as [H], adnim, and [H], adni, are also plurals of [H], adun, Lord, so may [H], aleim, and [H], alei, be plυral of [H], Alue, God.’
.....“In the course of the controversy it seems to be admitted by all parties, that the word has the meaning of mediator or interposer for protection, and this is very important.
.....“I cannot quite agree with Mr. Moody, because, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, it is much more in character for [H], aleim, to be the plural feminine of [H], ale, a feminine noun, than the plural masculine; and for [H], alim, to be the plural masculine, of the masculine noun [H], al.”
.....Vol. Ι., p. 67: “The God Baal was both masculine and feminine, and the God of the Jews was once called Βaal. The learned Kircher says, ‘Vides igitur dictas Veneris Uraniam, Nephtem, et Μomemphitam, nihil aliud esse quam Isidem, quod et vaccae cultis satis superque demonstrat proprius Isidi certe hanc eandem quoque esse, quae in historia Thobiae Dea Βaal dicitur quae vacca colebatur; sic enim habetur, C. i. 5, [G]. Sci­licet faciebant sacra [G]juvencae seu vaccae, quod et alio loco videlicet L. iii. Reg. C. xix. ubi Βaal legitur feminino genere; [G]---non incurvaverunt genu Βaali. Hesychius autem [G] inquit, [G], Belthes, Jιιno sive Venus, est cuicum juven­cam sacrificarint Phoenices, veresimile est, eandem esse cum Venere Aegyptia, seu Iside, seu Αstarthe Assyriorum, sicut enim Βaal est Jupiter, sic Βaalis seu Belthis est Juno seu Venus, cui parallela sunt, Adonis seu Thamus, et Venus seu Astaroth; (quorum ille Βaal Assy­riorum haec eorum Beltis est;) quibus respondent Osiris et Isis, Jupiter et Juno seu Venus AΕgyptiorum; eternum secuti [G], Βaal samin, est Jupiter Olympius, ita [G], Baalet samain, est Juno Olympia, scilicet; Domina coeeli seu Regina: quemadmodum Jerem. vii. 44, eam vocant Septuaginta Interpretes, quod nomen Isidi et Astarthi et Junoni Venerive proprie convenit: uti ex variis antiquarum inscriptionum monumentis apud Janum Gruterum videre est.’ ”
.....Vol I., p. 70: “From what I may call the almost bigoted attachment of the modern Jews to the unity of God, it cannot for a moment be supposed, that they would forge any thing tending to the proof of the Trinity of the Christians; therefore, if we can believe father Kircher, the following fact furnishes a very extraordinary addition to the proofs already given, that the Jews received a trinity like all the other oriental nations. It was the custom among them, to describe their God Jehovah or Ieue, by three jods and a cross in a circle. Certainly a more striking illustration of the doctrine I have been teaching can scarcely be conceived; and it is very curious that it should be found accompanied with the cross, which the learned father, not understanding, calls the Mazoretic Chametz. This mistake seems to remove all suspicion of forgery; for I can hardly believe that if the Christian priests had forged the symbol, the learned father would not have availed himself of it to support the adoration of the Cross, as well as of the Trinity.”
.....Vol. I., p 72: “As all the ancient Heathen nations had their mysteries or secret doctrines, which the priests carefully kept from the knowledge of the vulgar, and which they only communicated to a select number of persons whom they thought they could safely trust; and as the Jewish religion was anciently the same as the Persian, it will not be thought extraordinary, that, like the Persian, it should have its secret doctrines. So we find it had its Cabala, which, though guarded like all ancient mysteries, with the most anxious care, and the most solemn oaths, and what is still worse, almost lost amidst the confusion of civil brawls, cannot be entirely hidden from the prying curiosity of the Moderns. In defiance of all its concealment and mischances, enough escapes to prove that it was fundamentally the same as that of the Persian Magi; and thus adds one more proof of the identity of the religions of Abraham and of Zoroaster.
.....“The doctrine here alluded to was a secret one---more perfect, the Jews maintain, than that delivered in the Pentateuch; and they also maintain, that it was given by God, on Mount Sinai, to Moses verbally and not written, and that this is the doctrine described in the fourth book of Esdras, ch, xiv, 6, 26, and 45, thus:
.....“ ‘These words shall thou declare, and these shalt thou hide.
.....“ ‘And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou show secretly to the wise.
.....“ ‘. . . the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and the unworthy may read it: but keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom.’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 82: “In Genesis xiv. 20, we read, that when Abraham returned from the pursuit of the five kings who were smitten by him as far as Hobah and Damascus, he received gifts from Melchizedek, King of Salem, and paid him tithes of all he had taken from his enemies. The situation of this Salem has been much disputed, and concerning it I shall have much to say hereafter; but it was evidently somewhere West of the Jordan, in the country of the Canaanites. Now this king and priest is said to have been a priest of the most high God. And as the Canaanites were then in the land (Gen, xii. 6,) or were then its inhabitants, it is evident that he could be no other than their priest. There is nothing in the sacred history which militates against this in the slightest degree. It is quite absurd to suppose that there should be priests without a people, and there were no others beside the Canaanites. There is no expression which would induce us to believe that they were idolaters in the time of Abraham. The covenants and treaties of friendship which Abraham entered into with them, raise a strong presumption that they could not then have been so wicked as they are represented to have been in the time of Moses, five hundred years afterward. As the history supplies no evidence that the Canaanites were idolaters in the time of Abraham, the fact of a priest of the true God, and this priest, a king, being in the midst of them, almost proves that they were not idolaters. The conduct of Abimelech (Genesis xx.), in restoring Sarah to her husband, as soon as he found her to be a married woman, and his reproof of Abraham for his deceit, show, whatever his religion might be, that his morality was at least as good as that of the father of the faithful. But several circumstances named in the context, prove him of the same religion.”
.....Vol. I., p. 85: “Dr. Hyde observed also, that a marked similarity was to be found between Abraham and the Brahma of the Hindoos, but I reserve that point for another chapter.
.....“The Persians also claim Ibrahim, i. e. Abraham, for their founder, as well as the Jews. Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians, are descendants of Abraham.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 86, 87: “No person who has carefully examined will deny, I think, that all the accounts which we have of Zoroaster are full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Plato says, he lived before him 6000 years. Hyde or Prideaux and others, make him contemporary with Darius Hystaspes, or Daniel. By some he is made a Jew; this opinion arose from the observation of the similarity of many of his doctrines to those of the Jews. Now, what is the meaning of the complicated word Zoroaster or Zoradust? Of the latter I can make nothing; but of the former, which is the name by which he was generally called in ancient times, Mr. Faber (I think) has made Astre, Zur, or Syr. Here is the star or celestial body Syr or Sur, which we shall presently find, is, without any great violence, the celestial body, the Bull or the Sun. Hence we arrive at an incarnation of the Deity, of the Sun, or of Taurus---a renewed incarnation. This accounts for the antiquity assigned to him by Plato, and for the finding of him again under Darius Hystaspes. In short, he is a doctrine, or a doctrine taught by a person. He was the founder of the Magi, who were priests of the religion of the Sun, or of that Being of whom the Sun was the visible form or emblem.”
.....Vol. I., p. 93: “They contain many of the Psalms, called by the Jews and Christians, absurdly enough, the Psalms of David, and nearly the same account of Adam and Eve, the deluge, etc. The creation is stated, as already mentioned, to have taken place in six periods, which together make up a year; and Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Solomon, are all spoken of in the same manner as in the Jewish Scriptures. In these books are inculcated similar observances about beasts, clean and unclean,---the same care to avoid pollution, external and internal,---the same purifyings, washings, etc., etc. Zoroaster called his book, the book of Abraham, because he pretended that, by his own reformation, he had only brought back the religion to the state in which it was in the time of Abraham. Can any one, after this, doubt the identity of the two religions? If they were not the same, what would make them so?
.....Vol. I., p. 101: “Treating of the religion of Persia, Sir W. Jones says, ‘The primeval religion of Iran, if we may rely on the authorities adduced by Mohsani Fani, was that which Newton calls the oldest (and it may justly be called the noblest) of all religions; a firm belief that ‘one Supreme God made the world by his power, and continually governed it by his providence; a pious fear, love, and adoration of him; and due reverence for parents and aged persons; a fraternal affection for the whole human species; and a compassionate tenderness even for the brute creation.’ ’ ”
.....Vol. I., pp. 107, 108: “The word Om is always prefixed in pronouncing the words which represent the seven superior worlds, as if to show that these seven worlds are manifestations of the power signified by that word. In an old Purana we find the following passage: ‘All the rites ordained in the Vedas, the sacrifices to the fire, and all other solemn purifications, shall pass away; but that which shall never pass away is the word Om---for it is the symbol of the Lord of all things.’ M. Dubois adds, that he thinks it can only mean the true God. (p. 155.)---The sacred monosyllable is generally spelled OM; but, being triliteral, it seems better expressed by AUM or AOM or AWM, it being formed of the three Sanscrit letters that are best so represented. The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer.
.....In the Greek, [G] signifis divina vox, responsum a Deo datum consulenti. [G]or [G] by itself, according to Scapula, has no meaning, but is merely a paragogic syllable, as is also the word [G]; but [G] is the root of [G], to speak or pronounce, and of [G],to say. I, therefore, go to the parent language, the Hebrew, and I find the word [G] or [G], [H], pe, or [H], pi, to be a noun in regiminie, and to mean an opening, a mouth, a measure of capacity. Then the literal meaning will be, the mouth, or the opening, of Om. This is not far from the divina vox of the Greek. Hesychius, also Suidas in voce, interprets the word [G] to be [G], the sacred voice, the holy sound---and hence arose the [G], or place of Omphe. But its real meaning is still further unravelled by explaining it as [G], the enunciation of the mysterious OM of Hindoo theology, the sacred triliteral AUM, but often written as it is pronounced, OM. The Greeks often call the oracles, or places where the oracles were delivered, the [G]or, as it is interpreted, the navels of the earth. These [G], (so Euripides, in Medea, calls Delphi,) are by the scholiasts said to be the navels or centres of the earth; now, as Delphi could not be considered the centre by the Greeks, and as they had many [G]or centres, it is evident that the true meaning of the word was unknown to them.”
.....Vol. I., p. 121: “In the doctrines of the Hindoos and Persians, as it has already been stated, the third person in the Trinity is called both the Destroyer and the Regenerator. Although in the Christian Trinity the Destroyer is lost sight of, yet the Regenerator is found in the Holy Ghost. The neophite is said to be regenerate, or born again, by means of this holy spiritus or mind. Plutarch says, that Mithras or Oromasdes was frequently taken for the [G], or whole deity, and that Mithras is often called the second mind. ‘Whereupon he observes, how great an agreement there was betwixt the Zoroastrian and the Platonic Trinity, they differing in a manner only in words!’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 126: “This has led many to imagine that the Pagans did fundamentally worship the true God, and that even from the most remote antiquity they venerated the Trinity in Unity.
.....“Thus it is evident, from the Rev. Mr. Faber’s admission, that a Being called a Trinity, three persons and one God, was worshiped by all the ancient nations of the earth. He very properly says, to the same class we must ascribe the triads of the Orphic, Pythagorean, and Platonic schools.”
.....Vol. I., p. 127: “From the caves of Upper India, Persia, and Egypt, the doctrine of the Christian Trinity was undoubtedly drawn. But though these countries were the places where this doctrine flourished many ages before Christianity; yet it has been supposed that it was from the Platonists of Greece, who had learned it from these three nations, that the Christians immediately drew their doctrine.”
.....Vol. I., p. 134: “Eusebius informs us, on the authority of Porphyry, ‘That the Egyptians acknowledged one intellectual Author or Creator of the world, under the name of Cneph; and that they worshiped him in a statue of human form and dark blue com­plexion.’ Plutarch informs us, ‘That Cneph was worshiped by the inhabitants of the Thebaid; who refused to contribute any part towards the maintenance of the sacred animals, because they acknowledged no mortal God, and adored none but him whom they called Cneph, an uncreated and immortal being.’ The temple of Cneph, or Cnuphis, was in the island of Elephantine, on the confines of Egypt and Ethiopia.
.....“ In the Evangelical Preparation of Eusebius, is a passage which pretty well proves that the worship of Vishnu or Cristna was held in Egypt, under the name of Kneph: [G]. ‘The Egyptians, it is said, represented the Demiurgos Kneph, as of a blue colour, bordering on black, with a girdle and a sceptre.’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 143: “In the Classical Journal will be found an attempt, by Dr. Adam Clarke, to invalidate what M. Maurice has said respecting Cristna treading on the serpent’s head, and, in return, the serpent biting his heel. He seems to have rendered it doubtful whether there were pictures, or icons, of the serpent biting the heel, but the biting of the foot, I think, is admitted by the learned Doctor. It is of little consequence: but the reader must observe that, since gentlemen of the Doctor’s warmth of temper and zeal have con­sidered this to be inimical to their system, the same cause which prevents our finding any icons or pictures of Wittoba, probably prevents our finding exemplars of the biting serpent. It seems perfectly in keeping with the remainder of the system, particularly with the doctrine of Original Sin, which is known to be one of the Hindoo tenets, and for this and other reasons, I confess I believe Mr. Maurice, although I thereby become, according to the Doctor’s expression, an Infidel and a viper. The following passage is from Sonnerat, and I think it must be regarded as fully justifying Mr. Maurice: C’est en mémoire de cet événement que dans les temples de Vichnou, dédiés a cette incarnation, on représente Quichena le corps entortillé d’une couleuvre capelle, qui lui mord le pied, tandis qu’il est peint, dans un autre tableau, dansant sur la tete de cette meme couleuvre. Ses sectateurs ont ordinairement ces deux tableaux dans leurs maisons.”
.....Vol. I., p. 149: “In many of the most ancient temples of India, the Bull, as an object of adoration, makes a most conspicuous figure. A gigantic image of one protrudes from the front of the temple of the Great Creator, called in the language of the country, Jaggernaut, in Orissa. This is the Bull of the Zodiac,---the emblem of the sun when the equinox took place in the first degree of the sign of the Zodiac, Taurus. In consequence of the precession of the equinoxes, the sun at the vernal equinox left Taurus, and took place in Aries, which it has left also for a great number of years, and it now takes place in Aquarius. Thus it keeps receding about one degree in 72 years, and about a whole sign in 2160 years. According to this calculation, it is about 2500 years by the true Zodiac, before the time of Christ, since it was in the first degree of Aries, and about 4660 before the time of Christ, since it was in the same degree of Taurus. M. Dupuis has demonstrated that the labors of Hercules are nothing but a history of the passage of the sun through the signs of the Zodiac; and that Hercules is the sun in Aries or the Ram, Bacchus the sun in Taurus or the Bull. From this it follows that the worship of Jaggernaut must have been instituted, and his temple probably built, near 6500 years ago, and that the temple and worship of Cristna, or the Indian Hercules, must have taken place at least, but probably about 2160 years later. This brings the date of Cristna to about 2500 years before Christ.”
.....Vol. I., p. 153: “Buddha is variously pronounced and expressed Boudh, Bod, Bot, But, Bad, Budd, Buddou, Boutta, Bota, Budso, Pot, Pout, Pota, Poti, and Pouti. The Siamese make the final T or D quiescent, and sound the word Po; whence the Chinese still farther vary it to Pho or Fo. In the Talmudic dialect the name is pronounced Poden, or Pooden; whence the city, which once contained the temple of Sumnaut or Suman-nath, is called Patten-Sumnaut. The broad sound of the U or Ou or Oo, passes in the variation Patten into A, pronounced Ah or Au; and in a similar manner, when the P is sounded B, we meet with Bod, Bat, and Bhat. All these are, in fact, no more than a ringing of changes on -the cognate letters B and P, T and D. Another of his names is Saman, which is varied into Somon, Somono, Samana, Suman-Nath, and Sarmana. From this was borrowed the sec­tarian appellation of Samaneans, or Sarmaneans. A third is Gautama, which is indifferently expressed Guatemeh, Godama, Godam, Codam, Cadam, Cardam, and Cardama. This per­petually occurs in composition with the last, as Somono-Codom or Samana-Guatama. A fourth is Saca, Sacya, Siaka, Shaka, Xaca, Xaca-Muni or Xaca-Menu, and Kia, which is the uncompounded form of Sa-Kia. A fifth is Dherma, or Dharma, or Dherma-rajah. A sixth is Hermias, Her-Moye, or Heri-Maya. A seventh is Datta, Dat-Atreya, That-Dalna, Date, Tat or Tot, Deva-Tat, or Deva-Twasta. An eighth is Jain, Jina, Chin, Jain-Deo, Chin-Deo, or Jain-Eswar. A ninth is Arhan. A tenth is Mahi-Man, Mai-Man, or (if Om be added) Mai-Man-Om. An eleventh is Min-Eswara, formed by the same title Min or Man or Menu joined to Eswara. A twelfth is Gomat or Gomat-Eswara. A thirteenth, when he is considered as Eswara or Siva, is Ma-Esa or Har-Esa; that is to say, the great Esa or the Lord Esa. A fourteenth is Dagon or Dagun, or Dak-Po. A fifteenth is Tara-Nath. And a sixteenth is Arca-Brandhu or Kinsman of the Sun.”
.....Vol. I., p. 154: “The word Buddha has been taught, by some Hindoo authors, to be a general name for philosopher; by others it has been supposed to be a generic word, like Deva, but applicable to a sage or philosopher; but still it is allowed to mean, excellence, wisdom, virtue, sanctity.
.....“In Sanscrit we have, Sanscrit Root, Budh, to know, to be aware; Budhyati, he knows, is aware; Bodhayami, I inform, I teach.
.....“Buddhi, wisdom; Buddha, sage, wise; Bodha, wisdom.”
.....Vol. I., p. 155: “Mr. Whiter says, ‘Through the whole compass of language the element B D denotes Being: hence we have the great Deity worshiped all over the east---Budda.’ Then Buddha will mean the existent, or self-existent wisdom, self-existent as an integral part of the Trinity. He then informs us that, in Persian, Bud-en Bud, signifies, to be. The same as is, est, existo. Bud is clearly the I am that I am of our Bible; or, in the original, which has no present tense, the I shall be, or the I have been; or what, perhaps, this celebrated text may mean, That which I have been, I shall be---Eternity, past and future.”
.....Vol. I., p. 159: “In my Celtic Druids I have observed, that the word Creeshna, of the old Irish, means the Sun. Now, in the Collectanea of Ousley, we find Budh, Buth, Both, fire, the sun; Buide lachd, the great fire of the Druids. We also find in Vallancey’s ancient Irish history, that they brought over from the East the worship of Budh-dearg, or king Budh, who was of the family of Sacasa, or bonus Saca. In the Hindoo Chronology there is a Buddha Muni, who descended in the family of Sacya: and one of his titles was Arca-bandu, or Kinsman of the Sun. If my reader will look back a little, and observe that the Hindoo Buddh was of the family of Sakya, he will, I think, believe with me that here we have the Hindoo Buddha in Ireland.”
.....Vol. I., p. 170: “Dr. Adam Clarke maintains, that the prophecy of Isaiah---A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel, does not mean Christ.
.....“Dr. Clarke says, ‘It is humbly apprehended that the young woman usually called the Virgin is the same with the prophetess, and Immanuel is to be named by his mother, the same with the prophet’s son, who he was ordered to name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.’
.....“I think no one will deny that Dr. Adam Clarke, the annotator on the Bible, is a very learned man, and he is here an unwilling witness, and he comes to this conclusion in the teeth of all the prejudices of his education, after having read all the laboured attempts of our divines to make the prophecy of Isaiah a prophecy relating to Jesus Christ.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 175, 176: “In Usher’s Chronology, the death of Shem, when he was exactly the age of Neros or 600 years old, took place 502 years after the flood: this we shall find of consequence. One of the Hindoo systems makes the Cali Yug begin 3098 years B.C., at which time some Brahmins maintain that the flood happened. This shows the same mythos as that relating to Shem. 98 + 502 = 600 + 3000 = 3600 – [minus] 600 = 3000 or 5 Neroses.
.....“To effect this, they doubled the precessional period for one sign, viz. 2160 years, thus making 4320, which was a tenth of 43,200, a year of the sun, analogous to the 360 natural days, and produced in the same manner, by multiplying the day of 600 by the dodecans 72 = 43,200. They then formed another great year of 432,000, by again multiplying it by 10, which they called a Cali Yug, which was measureable both by the number 2160, the years the equinox preceded in a sign, and by the number 600. They then had the following scheme:

A Cali Yug, or 600 (or a Neros, as I will call it) Age

432,000

A Dwapar, or Duo-par Age

864,000

A Treta, or tres-par Age

1,296,000

A Satya, or Satis Age

1,728,000

Altogether 10 ages, making a Maha Yug, or Great Age

4,320,000

[ Note that the four ages added together equals a Maha Yug. –ed. ]

.....These were all equimultiples of the Cycle of the Neros 600, and of 2160, the twelfth, part of the equinoctial precessional cycle: and in all formed ten ages of 432,000 years each.”
.....Vol. I., p. 179. “Again Volney says, ‘It is, moreover, worthy of remark, that the Egyptians never admitted or recognized in, their chronology, the deluge of the Chaldeans, in the sense in which we understand it; and this, no doubt, because among the Chaldeans themselves it was only an allegorical manner of representing the presence of Aquarius in the winter solstical point, which presence really took place at the epoch when the vernal equinoctical point was in Taurus: this carries us back to the thirty-first (3100) or thirty-second century before our era, that is, precisely to the dates laid down by the Indians and Jews.’ ”
.....“Besides the Neros of 600 years, and the great Neros of 608 years, which were both sacred numbers, the ancients had also two other remarkable and sacred numbers---650 and 666. Sir William Jones, I have before observed, has stated that the Hindoos at a very early period must have believed, that the precessionel year consisted of 24,000 years. ‘They computed this motion (the precession of the equinox) to be at the rate of 54 min. a year: so that their annus magnus, or the times in which the stars complete an entire revolution, was 24,000 years.’ ”
.....Vol. I., pp. 180, 181: “General Vallancey gives the following proof:

[Hebrew Numerology –ed.]

Proof

S–[H]–                        300

360

A–[H]–                  +     70

x 18

R–[H]–                  +   200

=   6480

V–[H]–                  +       6

 + (6 months)   180

S–[H]–                  +     90

=   6660

=    666

222

x 10

x 30

=   6660

=   6660

.....“The Irish had a festival called La Saora, always kept in the night; and many persons have derived Serapis, from Sor or Soros Apis, meaning the entombed Apis; Soros being the name of a stone coffin. All this tends to support my idea, that this number of the beast was only an exploded or heretical cycle. The year of the Apocalypse being calculated at only 360 days, I must maintain is a decisive proof of its extreme antiquity.
.....“The cycle of 19, a common number of the Irish stone circles, is called, in the Irish language, Baise-Bhuidin. I confess I can read this no other way than Bud-base or Buddhist foundation---it being the foundation, in one sense, of the famous Neros. The temple in Cornwall, called Biscawoon, said to be a corruption of Baise-bhuidin, contains in its circle 19 stones. The meaning of this can scarcely be doubted.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 182, 183: “The following is the description of the Chaldean kings given by Berosus, which again proves the system of very great antiquity. I give along with it the system of Moses:

Antediluvian Patriarchs According to Genesis

Index

Names

Ages

In Years

1

Adam

930

2

Seth

912

3

Enos

905

4

Cainan

910

5

Mahalaleel

862

6

Jared

895

7

Enoch

365

8

Methusalah

969

9

Lamech

777

10

Noah

950

 

[total]

 

[8475]

 

Chaldean Antediluvian Kings According to Berosus

Index

Names

Ages

In Years

1

Alor

10

36,000

2

Alaspar

3

10,800

3

Amelon

13

46,800

4

Amenon

12

43,200

5

Matalar

18

64,800

6

Daon

10

36,000

7

Evidorach

18

64,800

8

Amphis

10

36,000

9

Otiartes

8

28,800

10

Xisuthrus

18

64,800

 

[totals]

120

432,000

.....“This proves that one, and the most important, of the immensely-extended cycles of the Hindoos was in existence long before the Christian era, and of itself entirely overturns Mr. Bentley’s doctrine. It also raises a very strong presumption, that the Hindoos and Chaldeans had an intimate connection in the time of Berosus, for the identity of these large numbers cannot have been the effect of accident. 

.....“I will now endeavour to point out the truth of my theory in another way. We will take for granted the truth of the millenary period of 6000 years as an age---the age of iron: the ages are supposed to be in the proportion of 4, 3, 2, 1,---the same as those of the Grecian Hesiod. Now, if we take the last to be 6000, and count backwards, we shall have:

 

Years

P*

Present Iron Age or Cali Age

6,000

1

Brass Age

+   12,000

2

Silver Age

+   18,000

3

Gold Age

+   24,000

4

[Together make] Ten Periods

=   60,000

10

Multiply this by **see note

x  72

 

[Showing  multiplication, i.e., (2 x 60,000) + (70 x 60,000) :]

120000

 

+  4200000

 

Year of Brahma or whole system

= 4,320,000

 

* Periods
** as we formerly multiplied the Dodecans by 72 to compose a common solar year, and we shall have a year of Brahma or of the whole system.

.....Vol. I., pp. 184, 185: “The commentary on the Surya Siddhanta says: ‘The ayanansa (equinoctial point) moves eastward thirty times twenty (= 600) in each Maha Yug,’ 600. Again, ‘By the text, the ayana bhagana (revolution) is understood to consist of 600 bha­ganas (periods) in a Maha Yug : but some persons say the meaning is thirty bhaganas only, and accordingly, that there are 30,000 bhaganas.’ Again, ‘The Sacalya Sanhita states, that the bhaganas (revolutions) of the cranti pata (point of intersection of the Ecliptic and Equator) in a Maha Yug are 600 eastward’ (4,320,000 years). Again, ‘The bhaganas (revolutions) of the ayanansa (equinoctial points) in a Maya Yug are 600 (4,320,000), the saura years in the same period 4,320,000: one bhagana of the ayanansa, therefore, contains 7200 years.’ Here the Neros and the origin of the famous 432,000* are very clear, where it is shown that, according to the Hindoos, the equinoxes have a libration.”
.....[ * Note that 3 x 144,000 years = 432,000 years. 144,000 years being one cube, the first dividend of the third space in which there is no variation in the earth’s vortex. –ed.]
.....Vol. I., p. 197: “In the annals of China, in fact of the Chinese Buddhists, in the reign of the Emperor Yau, (a very striking name, being the name of the God of the Jews,) it is said, that the sun was stopped ten days,* that is, probably, ten degrees of Isaiah, a degree answering to a year, 360 degrees and 360 days.”
.....[ * Most likely this means they adjusted the calendar 10 days to reconcile the calendar to the precession of the equinoxes. –ed.]
.....Vol. I., p. 244: “The Vedas of the Brahmins have hitherto been attended with several difficulties. According to the received Brahmin tradition, they were originally, after being revealed by Brahma, transmitted by oral tradition to the time of Vyasa, who collected them and arranged them into books. And this Vyasa, which word it is said means compiler, has been thought to be merely an epoch in the history of the literature of India. The number of the Vedas is also a matter of dispute; some making them in number only three, some four, and some add to them the collection of books called the Pouranas, of which they make a fifth Veda. From these circumstances it seems probable that the Brahmin Vedas were first collected or remodelled, after the great division between the followers of Buddha and Cristna. They are said to contain internal evidence of being composed at different times. The Pouranas are eighteen in number; they are also the work of Vyasa. Each has a particular and a characteristic name. For instance, one of the lotus, another of the egg of the world, and the last is that of Cristna, called Bhagavad­---Baga-veda.”
.....Vol. I., p. 246: “The forgeries of the early Christians are so numerous as to be almost incredible; but they bear no proportion to what, if we are to believe Mr. Bentley, has been taking place in India in modern times. In the history of Buddha, as well as of Cristna, are to be found many of the stories which are supposed to be forged; so that two sects. hating one another, and not holding the least communication, must have conspired over all the immense territories east of the Indus, to destroy and to rewrite every old work, to the amount almost of millions; and so completely have they succeeded, that all our mission­aries have not, in any of the countries where the Brahmins are to be found, or in which there are only Buddhists, been able to discover a single copy of any of the works uncor­rupted with the history of Cristna. Buddha is allowed by Mr. Bentley to have been long previous to Cristna, and he is evidently the same as Cristna, which can only arise from his being the sun in an earlier period.”
.....Vol. I., p. 255: “The opinion of Sir W. Jones and Mr. Maurice, that a nation of blacks formerly ruled over all Asia, and the other circumstances where the black colour occurred in various ways: and now I think he will be prepared for a few questions, for which I have been from the beginning paving the way: May not this nation have been a nation of black Buddhists? May not the peaceable religion of the curly-headed Buddha have pervaded and kept in peace for many generations, of which we have no history, the whole of Asia? May not the people professing it, have been the Palli or Pallestini of Mr. Maurice and Sir William Jones, or the shepherd kings or Cushites, of whom so much has been said? Sir W. Jones thought the seat of this empire may have been Sidon.”
.....Vol. I., p. 265: “The pretended genealogy of the tenth chapter of Genesis is attended with much difficulty. It reads like a genealogy: it is notoriously a chart of geography. It is exoterically genealogical, esoterically geographical. I have no doubt that the allotment of the lands by Joshua was astronomical. It was exactly on the same principal as the nomes of Egypt, which every one knows were named astronomically, or rather, perhaps, I should say, astrologically.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 293, 294 : “That several floods have taken place cannot be doubted; ocular demonstration as well as tradition prove this. Like what has been called early history, the fact was seized on by the priests, and made subservient to the secret religion which every­where prevailed. Thus we have a story in India, or Eastern, Syria, Mesopotamia or Chaldea, of the germ or seed of all nature preserved in a ship fastened to the mount of Nau-band-a, or the ship-banded or cabled mount; in Western, Syria or Mesopotamia or Chaldea, the story of the ark of Noah and his eight sailors. But because the fact was thus converted into a parable, and used for the purpose of preserving a mythos, and the same mythos in both countries, it does not, therefore, follow that there was not a flood.
.....“The account of the flood, taken from our common version, is plain and unaffected; and has probably been misunderstood from its too great simplicity. It is as follows: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the moun­tains were covered. (Gen. vii. 19, 20.) Now I take the liberty of asking, of what earth, and of what mountains or hills, does the author speak? I answer, most clearly not of those of the new, but of those of the old world, of the height of which we know nothing. All that we know of them is, that there were hills, or mounts, or mountains; but we have many reasons for believing that they were not at that time very high; besides, the text certainly implies that they were not more than fifteen cubits high, for the water haying risen fifteen cubits, covered them. Now, if we consider the history in this simple point ofview, which is the only way the words will fairly bear to be considered, because the whole context relates to the old world, it is by no means improbable that the same convulsion which covered the highest land of the old world with water only fifteen cubits or less than thirty feet deep, might also throw up Mont Blanc and Chimborazo.
.....“But I must make another observation. The text does not say, that the surface of the whole globe was covered. The word [H], e-arz, does not necessarily include the whole surface of the globe: for this observation I am indebted to my friend Cooper, the learned Professor of Columbia College, in America. It may mean nothing more than the surface of the old land, and have nothing to do with the Americas, for it often means countries as well as the earth. When a word has clearly two meanings, it is a most unwarrantable proceed­ing to adopt that which gives an impossible sense, instead of that which is consistent with reason and probability. Professor Cooper observes, ‘If the acknowledged facts cannot be explained without a miracle, we must admit the miracle: if they can, we ought not to resort to supernatural interposition, when the known action of secondary causes will suffice.’ If this reasoning be adopted, we have nothing in sacred writ respecting the deluge merely, at variance with possibility. For, if the hills of the old world were not very high, there is ten times as much water in the ocean as would cover the land to thirty feet deep; and no one can say, that the cause which forced up Mont Blanc was not powerful enough to cause a proportionate concussion of the waters.”
.....Vol. I., p. 322: “Bacchus was called [G]. This is the [G], or Yahouh, the same as the IE on the temple of the Delphian Apollo. Bacchus was also called a Bull, and a Son of God. When the Prince of Thebes forbade his mysteries, neglected his miracles, and denied his divinity, he put on the appearance of man, and submitted to be bound and led to prison. He was exposed by his grandfather, king Cadmus, was preserved in an ark, and nursed in a cavern by Rhea, the mother of God. Bacchus was twice born, was repre­sented at the winter solstice as a little child, born five days before the end of the year. On his birth a blaze of light shone round his cradle. The Romans had a god called Quirinus; he was said to be the brother of Bacchus. His soul emanated from the sun, and was restored to it. He was begotten by the God of armies upon a virgin of the blood royal, and exposed by order of the jealous tyrant Amulius, and was preserved and educated among shepherds. He was torn to pieces at his death, when he ascended into heaven; upon which the sun was eclipsed or darkened. Bacchus’s death and return to life were annually celebrated by the women of Delphi; his return was expected by his followers, when he was to be the sovereign of the universe. He was said to sit on the same throne as Apollo. He was three nights in hell, whence he ascended with his mother to heaven, where he made her a goddess. He killed an amphisbaena which bit his leg; and he, with several other gods, drove down the giants with serpents’ feet, who had made war against heaven. The same general character is visible in the mythoses of Hercules and Bacchus. Hercules was called a Saviour: he was a son of Jove by the virgin Prudence. He was called the Universal Word. He was reabsorbed into God. He was said by Orpheus to be self-produced, the generator and ruler of all things, and the father of time.”
.....Vol. I., p. 323: “The God [G], [H], ieue, IHS, Jehovah, was the son of the celestial virgin, which she carries in her arms; the [H], aur, Horus, Lux, of the Egyptians; the Lux of St. John. It is from this infant that Jesus took his origin; or at least it is from the ceremonies and worship of this infant, that his religion came to be corrupted into what we have it. This infant is the seed of the woman who, according to Genesis, was to bruise the head of the serpent, which, in return, was to bite his foot or heel, or the foot or heel of her seed, as the figure of the Hindoo Cristna proves. From the traditionary stories of this god Iao, which was feigned annually to be born at the winter solstice, and to be put to death and raised to life on the third day at the vernal equinox, the Romish searchers after the evangelion or gospel, made out their Jesus.”
.....Vol. I., p. 330: “Adrian Reland, Do Nomine Jehovah, says, ‘It is plain that the Latins formed the name of their god Jupiter, whom they called Jovis, from the name Jehovah.’ Mr. Maurice says, `From this word, [H], Ieue, the Pagan title of Jao and Jove is, with the greatest probability formed.’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 349: “The Romans and Etruscans had a god called Janus: of his origin they were perfectly ignorant. He was absolutely unknown in Greece. Of the different circumstances connected with these recondite subjects, there is none more surprising and unaccountable than the complete state of ignorance in which the best-informed persons were of the meaning and origin of their Gods. Janus was not one of what they called their twelve great Gods, but he was said to be the father of them all. He had twelve altars erected to him. He held in one hand letters denoting 365, and in the other the keys of heaven, which he opened to the good and shut to the wicked. The first month of the year, Januarius, was dedicated to him. He was represented sometimes with two, and sometimes with four faces; the reason of which is unknown. He was called Junonius from the Goddess Juno, whose name Mr. Bryant resolves into Juneh, which signifies a dove, and is in the Hebrew language [H], iune, and is the same as the Yoni or Yuni, the female principle, as observed by Col. Wilford. On his coins are often seen a boat and dove, with a chaplet of olive leaves, or an olive branch. Gale, after observing that Juno was the same as Jana, and that Janus came from [H], Jah of the Hebrews, and that Diana was Di-va Jana, or Dea Jana, says also, that she was the same as Astarte or Asteroth of the Sidonians, and had the head of a Bull. He also says, that she was the Belisama of the Hebrews. In Sanscrit Di-Jana is the Goddess Jana.”
.....Vol. I., p. 350: “ ‘One of the names of Buddha is Jain or Jain-Esa: and it has been clearly shown by Sir W. Jones, that the mythology of Italy was substantially the same as that of Hindostan,’ and I have proved their ancient languages the same. ‘Such being the case, it seems highly probable that the oriental Jain ought to be identified with the Western Janus, whose worship, like that of Suman, the Romans apparently borrowed from the Etruscans or ancient Latins. To this opinion I am equally led by similarity of appellation, and by unity of character.’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 358: “Gale says, ‘[H], dhln, is often used in the Chaldee paraphrases for the Gentile gods; so Exod. xx. 23; wherefore the Phoenicians called Delos [H], Dhl, Deel; that is, the island of the god Apollo; or, in the plural, [H], dhln, of the gods Diana and Apollo, for the birth of whom this place was famous. Thence Inopus was called by the Phoenicians [H], aub, [H], oin, the fountain of Python, being a river in the same island, derived by secret passages under the earth from Nilus, as supposed, and Cynthus, the mountain of Delos, where Latona brought forth Apollo, from [H], hnt, to bring forth; whence the Phoe­nician [H], hnta, and the Greek [G], [H] being put for [G], as in Cadmus’s alphabet.’ The circumstance of the Nile having a subterraneous passage to the famous mountain and temple, is exactly parallel to the Ganges and Nile coming to the Ararat of Armenia; but still more curious and striking is the name of the mountain Cyn or Cunthus, being exactly the same as the Hindoo name of the goddess of the generative power, Cunti, and the name of the membrum foemineum in Britain. The name of the membrum virile, god of genera­tion, in Hebrew, is [H], altuld, al tolad. In the north of England, by boys at school, it is called sometimes Tally, at other times Tolly. Is there any one so blind as not to see here the identity of the ancient languages of India, Syria, and Britain?”
.....Vol. I., p. 375: “It is very certain the old traditions agreed that Rome was built on the site of a former city. The chronicle of Cuma (which Niebuhr calls modern and worthless, but, query?) says, that the name of the first city was Valentia, and that this name was synonymous with Roma. Now, there was a Valentia in Italy, and one in Britain; there is one in Ireland, and one in Spain. There was also a Brigantia in England, and there is one yet in Spain. There was Umbri in England, (North-umberland and river Umber,) and Umbri in Italy. The Hindoo Gods by the same names are all found in Ireland, as well as the Etruscan. Now, I ask, have these singular names of people descended from a people from Upper India, speaking the Sanscrit language before it was brought to its present perfection? How can the singularity be otherwise accounted for? The early history of Rome is most certainly a mythos, its real history is absolutely unknown. The Greeks also, namely Lycophron and Aristotle, state, that there was a city in old time before that of Romulus, called Roma or [G].
.....“I suspect with Nimrod, that Rama, so common both in India and Syria, was the same as Roma; that it was a noun adjective appellative, and meant, in one sense, strong. Thus Balarama, the powerful or potent Bal. He says, ‘I believe that Roma is radically the same word as Rama, the Romans being Pelasgi, and here we have the vowel E concurrent with A and 0, for Remus is always in Greek [G], and the name Romulus, on the contrary, was sometimes expressed Remelus. Livy gives me further confirmation by deriving Ram-nenses a Romulo.’ Nimrod says, ‘For the flatterer of Octavius, the pretended Aenead prince, freely owns that when Aeneas landed, Evander the Arcad, Evandrus Romanae conditor arcis, was already established at mount Palatine: nay, even he displayed to Aeneas the ruins of yet an older city. And Antiochus, an authority far elder and graver than Virgil makes Rome an established city in the time of Morges.’ Nimrod then compares the Cloacae to the Labyrinths of Egypt, etc., and the Caves of Ellora, and observes, that these things are inconceivable and mark an astonishing state of society. This is, indeed, very true, and the history and date of it, is that of which we are in search.”
.....Vol. I., p. 387: “Christians and Jews will find no difficulty in accounting for the insulated state or the singularity of the Jews. They will say the Israelites were singular because they were the elect of God---God’s chosen people. But philosophers will not be so easily satisfied, and perhaps they may reply, that this is an assumption made by the priests of almost every nation in its turn. A wish may also exist on their parts to discover the cause of this singularity combined with the general family likeness which, notwithstanding their peculiarity, may be perceived in their ceremonies and doctrines to those of the other nations. This wished-for cause I shall now proceed to show may be found in the probable fact, that they were a tribe of Hindoo or Persian nomades or shepherds, for a wandering tribe they certainly were---one of the sects of the Hindoo religion after it divided into two, i.e. those of the Linga and loni, or Buddha and Cristna, or perhaps of the sect of the Linga after the separation, but before the reunion of the two. I think this theory will account for most of the difficulties with which we meet, and that there will not be a disagreement from the Hindoo religion, in its probable original purity, greater than may be expected to have arisen from the lapse of time, the change of place, revolutions, and other circumstances. I incline to the opinion that it was of the religion of the followers of the Linga after the separation. Thus they were the followers of the God le-pati or law, in opposition to the Goddess Parvati or Venus, Astarte or Asteroth, etc. They were the followers of the male Io, in opposition to the female Io, of Syria; for the Io, as we have seen, was of both sexes,. The Io of Syria, was nothing more than the [G]or [G] of Moses, with the peculiar Syriac dialect, which changed the E into the 0.
.....We are told that Terah, the father of Abraham, originally came from an Eastern country called Ur, of the Chaldees or Culdees, to dwell in a district called Mesopotamia. Some time after he had dwelt there, Abraham, or Abram, or Brahma, and his wife Sara or Sarai, or Sara-iswati, left their father’s family and came into Canaan. If the letter A be changed, by metathesis, from the end of the word Brahma to the beginning, as is very often practised in the oriental languages, we shall have correctly Abrahm; or the A might be only the emphatic Chaldee article, making the Braham to Brahmin. The word Iswati, in the second name, is now said to be merely a term of honour, like Lady Sara. The identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first [pointed out by the Jesuit missionaries.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 390, 391: “Although the ancients of the West do not seem to have known much of the doctrines or sacred books of the Jews, yet Abraham was well known to them; several persons, both Greek and Oriental, having written respecting him. They all agree that he was not a native of Syria, but that he came hither from the East. If we can believe Mr. Faber and the Desatir, which must, I think, be genuine, (however much it may have been corrupted by Moshani in rendering it out of the old language into Persian,) the adora­tion of the Bull and Buddhism first prevailed in Persia; but this, there is reason to believe, was succeeded by Cristna and the Lamb which might have come in with Gemschid. The ancients would say that from Brahma, who came into Persia, came Brahminism, and the Brahmins, but yet there would have been no Brahma. Thus, when the Israelitish tribe, who were a sect of Brahmins, came into Syria, they would merely say that Abram came. The whole history of Abram or Abraham, that is [H], Abrm, or [H], Abrem, has a most mythological appearance. The reason given for changing his name in Gen. xvii. 5, is very unsatisfactory, and I am induced to think that it looks very like the reason of a person writing and not understanding the meaning of the name; or, which is still more likely, not choosing to give the meaning of it, under the change of which some mystery was probably concealed. The word [H], em, means multitude, and the word [H], ab, may mean father: but [H], abr, never means father. Now suppose the letter [H], a, after the manner of the Chaldee to be emphatic, to mean the, and the word [H], brm, to mean the same as the Brahm of India, whatever that might be: and suppose this [H], br, the first syllable of the Brahme-Maia to mean, as Mr. Whiter says it does mean in all old languages, creator or former, giver of forms; then, by adding to it the word [H], em, we get the meaning given by the author of Genesis, and this in a way in perfect keeping with the remainder of the book, though perhaps mystical enough. I again repeat, that according to the common idiom of the Hebrew, Abraham cannot mean father of a multitude. Dr. Hales says, that Ab-ram meant ‘a high father,’ and Abraham ‘a father of a multitude of nations’: from [H], ab, ‘a father,’ [H], rb, in Chaldee ‘great,’ and [H], em, the abridgment of [H], emun, ‘multitude.’ It has been thought that the word Abraham had the meaning of stranger. This will apply to the Brahmins as well as to Abraham, because they are considered to have come into India from the North. The reader must remember that I am supposing Moses to have written many hundred years after the arrival of the tribe from the East, and that, in the course of the events of which I treat, time enough had passed for the languages to have materially changed---an event which we know to have taken place. Then I think there is nothing against our going back to a language common to both for the origin of the word: for the farther back we go, the nearer, of course, all the languages would be to one another.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 429, 430: “If I be right in my idea that the religion of the Jews came from India, it is natural to expect that we should find their famous God Jehovah among the Hindoos, and this is, indeed, the fact. But my reader must divest his mind of the barbarous corruption of the word Jehovah, and restore the God to his true name, [H], Ieue, [H], Ie, as we call it Jah, and as it is called in Sanscrit, that is, in meaning, the self-existent, but often denominated the God of victory. Among the Hindoo Gods there is scarcely one who has not a name which contains, in some way or other, the elements of the le, or God of the Jews. Col. Tod, in his treatise on the religion of Mewar, the very country whence the tribe of Ioudi must have come, has given a list of the eight principal Gods of the country. He gives the names and abodes of seven of them; but the eighth, whose abode he does not give, except as God of the mount, he says, is above all---and he calls him Nat’h-Ji, Nat’h meaning God.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 438, 439: “I must now make a few observations respecting a certain person called Pandion; but whether there ever was such a person, or the stories told respecting him were mythoses, it is extremely difficult to determine. His residence at the birthplace of Cristna, where lhe reigned, is very suspicious. Mr. Maurice says, ‘But superior to both, in grandeur and wealth; in this southern division of India, soared the puissant sovereign, named Pandion, whose kingdom extended quite to the southern point of Comaria or Comarin, and who was probably of the ancient race of the renowned Pandus. He also is said, about this time, to have sent an embassy to Augustus, but no particulars of that embassy have descended to us. The residence of this monarch was at the city of Madura, and the extent of his power is evident from the whole of that district being denominated from him Pandi-Mandalam, literally the circle or empire of Pandion. Arrian expressly says, that the Indian Hercules (Cristna) worshiped at Mathura, on the Jobares, (Jumna,) left many sons, but only one daughter, Pandaea, to whom he gave a vast army and kingdom, and ordered, that the whole of her empire should be called by her name. In this and a few other instances do the classical confirm and illustrate the native accounts.’ In not a few, I think, my reverend old friend Maurice. But I beg to observe that Pan-di-Man-dalam means, the circle or district of the holy Pan, or the district sacred to the catholic God.
.....The temple of the Ionians of Asia Minor, built by the twelve tribes, at the place called Pan-Ionium, would mean, temple of the universal or catholic Ioni, or the Ioni-an Pan. The Indian palace of one of the great kings or Gods---Pandion, i.e. Pandu---was at Madoura, i.e. Mat’hura. Here I think we have the female principle in Asia, and the male in India., at the birthplace of Cristna. Cunti or Prit’ha was the wife of Pandu, and mother of the Pandavas, and she was the daughter of Sura, king of the Surasenas. Sura, the most illustrious of the Yadus, was the father of Vasudeva. Here is Pandu, the universal God, having for wife Cunti, the female generative power, etc. Can any one doubt the mythos here? Bishop Heber says, ‘King Pandoo and his four brethren are the principal heroes of the celebrated romance of the Mahabarat; and the apparent identity of his name with that of the Pandion, of whose territories in India the Greeks heard so much, is too remark­able to be passed unnoticed.’ Pliny says, there was a Panda---ultra Sogdianos, oppidum Panda: and Solinus ultra hos (Bactros) Panda, oppidum Sogdianorum, The same author­ities mention a gens Panda or Pandea gens, whom Pliny places low down on the Indus. Ptolemy fixes the Pandions in the Punjab. There is at the South point of India a Madura Pandionis, and a Regio Pandionis.
.....“Pandion was king of Athens, whose son, by the famous Medea, was called Medus, and became king of the Medes. Perseus was the cousin of Medus, and the nephew of Pandion.
.....“When I consider all the circumstances detailed above respecting the Pans, I cannot help believing that, under a mythos, a doctrine or history of a sect is concealed. Cunti, the wife of Pandu (du or God, Pan), wife of the generative power, mother of the Pandavas or devas, daughter of Sura or Syra, the Sun---Pandaea only daughter of Cristna or the Sun---Pandion, who had by Medea a son called Medus, the king of the Medes, who had a cousin, the famous Perseus---surely all this is very mythological---an historical parable!
.....“I think Pandeism was a system; and that when I say the country or kingdom of Pandaea, I express myself in a manner similar to what I should do, if I said the Popish kingdom, or the kingdoms of Popery.”
.....Vol. I., p. 440: “Many persons have thought that this Pan related to what has been called Pantheism, or the adoration of universal nature, and that Pantheism was the first system of man. For this opinion I cannot see a shadow of foundation. As I have formerly said, it seems to me contrary to common sense to believe, that the ignorant half-savage would first worship the ground he treads upon,---that he would raise his mind to so abstruse and so improbable a doctrine as, that the earth he treads upon created him and created itself: for Pantheism instantly comes to this.”
.....Vol. I., p. 447: “The authorities on which my explanation of the history of the Jews is founded I think cannot be impugned; they are chiefly unwilling witnesses,---the admis­sions of such men as Eusebius, Bryant, Faber, etc., all very learned, but most unwilling supporters to my cause. But their admissions are confirmed by circumstances which admit of no other explanation. Can any one doubt the existence of the Jewish mythos in India? The same names of God, of men, and of places? The two Ararats, the two Moriahs, two Sions? And, above all, the various Soleimans or Solomons---the mountains of Solomon­---the Tucti Solumi of Cashmere and of Northern India---and of Persia, and of Syria and of Telmessus?”
.....Vol. I., pp. 448, 449: “Before I proceed, I think it necessary to examine the history of the written sacred language of the Brahmins of India, called the Sanscrit. It will not be denied that this is the most perfect and beautiful language which has ever been known. It is in my opinion certain that, in its present state, it is not like most, perhaps all, other languages, the child of accident or circumstance; but that, on the contrary, it is entirely the product of very great and systematic labour of learned and highly-civilized men. I believe it is not at present, and that probably it has never been, the vernacular language of any nation, but has been confined to one, or at most two, elevated or learned classes of the Brahmin religion in India.
.....“The origin of the Sanscrit is unknown, but it is said to have been invented by the ancient Richees. It is called Sanscort, or Sanskroutan; that is, clearly, the Sanctum Scriptum. A person called Anoubhout or Sarasvat, Goddess of speech, is said to have made the first grammar. This is evidently the nymph Anobret of Sanchoniathon and of Western Syria, or Sarah, the wife of Abraham or the Brahmin. See John Cleland’s attempt at the revival of Celtic Literature. This seems to point to the Chaldaeans, from whose country Abraham came, as the inventors of it.
.....“A gentleman of the army, of the name of Van Kennedy, has lately written a long treatise respecting it. If what he says be true, that ‘the roots of this language have not any meaning,’ I think I may venture to say that, in this respect, it probably differs from every other, and in this will be found what will be nearly a proof, that it is artificial. In what languages or where the Colonel sought without success for the meaning of the roots, I do not know. But it is evident that if it be founded on several other tongues, where the roots of the words of the respective tongues are found, in each particular case will the root of the Sanscrit word be found. But it will make little or no difference whether it be founded on several tongues, or on only one, if the several tongues be founded on one original language.
.....“In every written language, (unless I except the Chinese,) however varied in shape its letters may be, the Cadmaean must be admitted to be its system; in the same manner as the Greek was the Cadmaean, although each letter had two or three forms.
.....“There is not one written language in which several words of every written language may not be found; and they are at least so numerous as, upon Dr. Young’s doctrine of chances, to reduce the fact that they are all originally one language to so high a probability, as. to amount, in effect, to certainty. Then surely, under these circumstances, when I find a word in two ancient languages having the same letters and the same meaning, I am justified in considering them to be the same.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 450, 451: “Supposing the Sanscrit to have been brought to perfection, or completed to its present state by the Brahmins after their division from the Buddhists, (which if it had not, the Buddhists would have generally used it, but this they do not,) and to have been founded upon the language at the time of the division common to both, this would be a sufficient reason why numbers of the roots of Sanscrit words should be found in all the Western nations, where Buddhism has prevailed. The vernacular language of the Brahmins before the division would probably, if the new language were founded upon it, have been constantly improving, until it arrived at a very considerable degree of perfection---but yet not to such a high degree as would serve to render it almost a dead language, and entirely a dead language in a few years, as it actually became when it was improved into Sanscrit. The sacred and dead language of books in the temples which admitted no change, it being in this respect like the Hebrew of the Synagogue, would remain as it was, but the language of the numerous countries into which the country of the Brahmins became divided, would be perpetually changing, until the parent language would be in them almost entirely lost, and numbers of new ones would be formed. But in all those new ones, some traces of the parent would remain, as we find them. Now, except the Sanscrit, we have only one known unspoken sacred language in the world; and that is the Synagogue Hebrew. From the time of the Babylonish captivity there is no reason to believe, that the Synagogue Hebrew has, as a language, materially changed. I speak not of several wilful corruptions of the text by the Jews, which may be perceived in the Pentateuch; for, if they interpolated, they would imitate the old style as much as possible. Then, under these circumstances, the great age of the Hebrew Pentateuch, viz. since the time when Ezra changed its letters from the Samaritan to the Hebrew, or Chaldee; or, since it was, after being destroyed, remanufactured by Ezra, (whom our priests disguise by the name of Esdras,) being considered, we ought to find the Hebrew spoken language possessing many striking marks of similarity to the Sanscrit, if this theory be true: and these we do find. The Mazoretic or pointed Hebrew is, in fact, a new language.”
.....Vol. I.; p. 452: “I confess I am astonished when I hear learned men declare, that there is no similarity between the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. But my surprise, in some degree, ceases when I find them listening to the corruptions of the modern Rabbies, that is to the modern language of the Mazorites, called, by an old name, Hebrew. After much consideration, I think I perceive several other reasons for a circumstance which, at first view, appears so astonishing: one is, that they give into the absurd system of the modern Jews in their mode of representing the Hebrew letters by the English. As an example of which, among many others, I have only to instance the vowel O, which they render NG, and thus of such a simple word as [H], bobr, they make begneeber, etc. The next is, that they never consider or make allowance for the very extraordinary and unnatural change which must have taken place between the old language and the artificial Sanscrit that was built upon it, or formed out of it, which would evidently tend to render the new language dissimilar to the Hebrew. But notwithstanding this change, when we compare the Sanscrit words, as given in our letters by Sanscrit scholars, particularly proper names and names of Gods, with the unsophisticated, uncorrupted Hebrew of the Synagogue, the likeness is very strong. As I have observed in my last book, for one example take Jaya-deva. The first word here is clearly [H], ieie, or [H], ieue,---the second, the Latin deva, deity, I need not notice. How striking is the likeness, but how unlike the corrupt Jewish Jehovah! How unlike is the word of four letters, all vowels, to the word of seven, three of which are consonants! Again, for another example: the Hindoos chaunt in their ceremonies the word Yeve, Yeve. Here we have the same word repeated; and there are many others, as we shall occasionally observe.”
.....Vol. I., p. 457: “The surprising and close affinity between the Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin, cannot for a moment be doubted. Is it not, then, almost a necessary consequence, that the Greeks and Latins would have had the Sanscrit number of letters or some signs of them if the Sanscrit system had been perfected before the connection between the two countries ceased? The most striking mark of similarity between the two that I know of, and it is very striking and decisive, is that before noticed, as having been pointed out by Col. Wilford, that when the Sanscrit system of letters or alphabet is stripped of the double letters and those peculiar to that language, it is reducible to the sixteen letters of the Pelasgi or of Cadmus. The example which I have produced in my Celtic Druids shows, that the two (or rather the one or united) systems must have been brought as languages to considerable perfection when they came to Italy.
.....“Sir W. Jones has observed, that the inscriptions of Canarah, in the island of Salcette, are compounded of Nagari and Aethiopic characters, which bear a close analogy to one another, not only in the singular manner of connecting the vowels with the consonants, but in the very striking fact that they are both written from the left hand to the right. Thus, in fact, the ancient system of letters of India and Ethiopia may be considered the same, notwithstanding their great distance and the intervention of so many other nations lying between them.
.....“Bardisanes Syrus gives this account of the Indians: ‘Among the Indians and Bactrians there are many thousand men called Brachmanes. These, as well from the tradition of their fathers as from laws, neither worship images nor eat what is animate: they never drink wine or beer: they are far from all malignity, attending wholly on God.’ Philostratus says, ‘that in his time the chief of the Brahmins was called Iarch, and Jerom Contra Jovin says, the head of the Gymnosophists was called Buddas.’ Mr. Bryant says, ‘Nilus the Egyptian tells Apollonius Tyannaeus, that the Indi of all people in the world were the most knowing, and that the Ethiopians were a colony from them, and resembled them greatly.’ Philostratus says, ‘The Indi are the WISEST of all mankind. The Ethiopians are a colony from them, and they inherit the wisdom of their forefathers.’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 469: “In a paper of the first volume of the Madras Transactions, the names of the planets from the Sanscrit are given, with the Greek and English names. The author says, ‘The scholar will immediately perceive that the Greek names of the planets are distinctly to be traced in Varaha’s enumeration thus:

[Engish]

[Sanscrit]

[Greek*]

[Latin**]

The Sun

Heli

[G]

Helius

Mercury

Hema

[G]

Hermes

Mars

Ara

[G]

Mars

Jupiter

Jyok

[G]

Jupiter

Saturn

Konah

[G]

Saturn

Venus

Asphujit

[G]

Venus

[* Helios, Hermes, Ares, Zeus, Cronus, Aphrodite]
[** Apparently very early Latin, for Helius became Sol; and Hermes became Mercury.]

.....This arrangement is far from fanciful. Moreover Idya, a name of Jupiter, is the Idaeus, a title of that God with the Latins: Angiras seems to be Anxurus, another title of the same. Even Jupiter and Diespiter appear the same with Dynpatih and Divaspatih formed on true grammatical principles, from Dyo, the athmosphere, dium, and diva, which has the same meaning, united with patih, a Lord or Ruler: the compound being the ‘Lord of atmos­phere.’ ’ ”
.....Vol. I., pp. 474, 475: “As I have just now observed, Dr. Pritchard shows, that the Zend, the old language of the Magi, bears a close affinity to the Sanscrit; that the Zend, the Pali, and the Pracrit, are three cognate dialects of the Sanscrit; that Dr. Leyden also, on careful examination, believed the Zendish alphabet to be derived from the Deva-nagari, to which the arrow-headed inscriptions of Persepolis were nearly allied; that the Pali or Pahlavi, in which the work of Zoroaster was written, was a branch of the Chaldaic stock, and that, therefore, a branch of the Chaldaic stock had at one time been used by the priests of Persia; that the Zend being a modification of the Sanscrit, of which the Parsi or modern language of Persia is a dialect, the former may be considered as the parent of the latter. I think from the above observation of the Chaldaic or, Hebrew and Arabic (for the three are all one) being in use in Persia, we are brought to about the time in which I suppose the Jews may have come from India. In fact, Dr. Pritchard makes the Zend---the same as the Pracrit or old Sanscrit---to have been the common language of Persia, and to have been a branch of Chaldaic. This brings the Chaldaic to India, to which, by other arguments, I have traced it. Indeed, I cannot doubt that all these languages were nearly the same at the time to which Dr. Pritchard alludes; but this was before the perfecting of the Sanscrit. I know I shall have all the philosophers against me, because they will not condescend to look at the old Jewish books: for they are in those respects almost as prejudiced as the devotees. But I think the Chaldee-Hebrew-Arabic-Ethiopic-Pali-Pahlavi-Pracrit-Zend lan­guage was the oldest language of Asia which we know of, and that they were all one. After the time when this was the case, the Sanscrit was formed. This I think may be fairly deduced from what Drs. Pritchard and Leyden, and Sir W. Jones have shown. To this, however, the philosophers will not listen, because the priests will be pleased with it, and triumphantly make a handle of it, in order to show that the Hebrew is the oldest language of the world, as a means of supporting their dogmas. But I do not trouble myself whether they be pleased or grieved. Truth is my object; and there is evidently sufficient reason to be assigned why the Hebrew language should be the oldest, (without having recourse to the nonsense of priests,) in the circumstances which I have detailed respecting the Pentateuch, and the migration of the tribe of Ioudi from India.”
.....Vol. I., p. 478 : “When I consider the nature of the Sanscrit, as I learn it from scholars, it appears to be, nearly in all respects, what might be expected of an artificially-formed learned language. It is nowhere found to be a vernacular tongue; but it is found strikingly similar to two languages, (the Greek and Latin,) situated at a very great distance from its home; in certain artificial peculiarities which can on no account be attributed to accident; though it has occasionally such affinities to native Indian words, as for one dictionary to serve both it and a native tongue, the Hindostanee.”
.....“I will now add a few more observations respecting the celebrated Semiramis, or the Indian Sami-Rama-Isi. Nimrod says, ‘the name of Semi-Ramis will occur to every reader; she was both a queen of unrivalled celebrity, and also the Goddess mother, worshiped under the form of the Dove that accompanied Noah into the Ark.
.....“ ‘Her name signifies the supreme Dove, and is of precisely the same value as the Peleias or Pleias of the Greeks, and Iona of the Syrians, Babylonish Chaldees, and Culdees or Hebridean Chaldees. The learned Lycophron calls Helen a dove by two names of that bird, Peleias (which has been explained) and Oinas or the Bacchic dove. Helen was born out of a waterfowl’s egg, and that which Hyginus relates evinces fully that she was the Babylonian Venus and the Dea Syria.’ She was the daughter of Dercetis, of Ascalon, of the Philistines. She was also said to have been nursed by the river Simois. This connects her with the Helen of Troy. If she were the same as Diana, like Diana, she would, of course, be black.
.....“Helen, like Semiramis, was supposed to have been born from an egg; and she is said to have been deceived by a phantom, substituted by Juno, in the likeness of Menelaus; and, according to some accounts, she must have been ninety or one hundred years old at the siege of Troy. She is called [G]and [G]. I think her identity with Semiramis will scarcely be doubted, or the identity of their mythological characters. It is probable that the Greek name had its origin from the Asiatic [H], al, with its dialectic variations, [H], el, [H], ol, [H], ale, etc., and [H], nh, the anima. The Holy Ghost was generally female.
.....“In the Syrian temple of Hierapolis, where between the statues of Jupiter and Juno stood the statue of Semiramis with the dove on her head, it was the custom of the priests to emasculate themselves, and to wear the dress of women. The same practice prevailed in the temple of Cybele in Phrygia. Mr. Knight knows not how to account for this. I believe it was done in honour of the female principle, the lonism, which prevailed in these places in a peculiar manner. Lucian de Dea Syria says, that between the statues of Jupiter and Juno in the temple of Hierapolis, in Syria, was a statue of a God, which had not the shape of any of the other Gods, on which stood a dove. This must have been a plain stone pillar, probably of great antiquity. He says there are two Priapuses in front of the temple 300 fathoms high, on which devotees went at certain seasons and remained seven days. From this we see that the pillar saints were not peculiar to Christianity and that they preceded it many generations. Lucian also says, the temple at Hierapolis, or the sacred city, resembles the temples of Ionia.”
.....Vol. I., p. 500: “The [G]of the wheel is elsewhere described by Pindar as a punishment of the accursed, the eternal crucifixion of Ixion.
“Who is the Ixion crucified, but the second person of the Hindoo Trinity, called Ixora?
.....“In both Grecian and Hindoo histories this mystical queen Semiramis is said to have fought a battle on the banks of the Indus, with a king called Staurobates, in which she was defeated, and from which she flew away in the form of a dove. On this Nimrod says, ‘The name Staurobates, the king by whom Semiramis was finally overpowered, alludes to the cross on which she perished.’ ”
.....Vol. I., p. 505: “The text says man was formed after the image of God; but God him­self was believed to be androgynous. The text of Genesis (ii. 21) is [H] which means either, one from his sides or one from his ribs; but the latter is inconsistent with the con­text, which says in the 23rd verse, that the woman was made not only from the bones, but from the flesh of the man. The double being, out of which it is said God formed the man and the woman, is nothing but the Amazon of the ancients; and the Amazon is nothing but the Venus Hermaphrodite---the same as that described in plate 31, figure 8, of the Supple­ment to Montfaucon’s Antiquity Explained. They appear to be both the same in one respect, being both one half male, the other half female. The Isis sitting on the lotus, with the solar glory, is another example of this kind of double being, divided in various ways­--- sometimes crossways, and sometimes lengthways, as shown in Montfaucon. Speaking of the worship of Artemis, by the Amazons, Creuzer says, ‘On I’adorait dans le royaume de Pont, avec l’epithete significative de Priapina.’ ”
.....Vol. I., pp. 546, 547, 548: “The following passage of the book of Enoch, ch. xxiv., is so clearly descriptive of Mount Meru, that it cannot be mistaken, and proves the author to have been intimately acquainted with the Hindoo doctrines:
“ ‘1. I went thence to another place and saw a mountain of fire flashing both by day and night. I proceeded towards it; and perceived seven splendid mountains, which were all different from each other.
“ ‘2. Their stones were brilliant and beautiful; all were brilliant and splendid to behold and beautiful was their surface. Three mountains were towards the East, and strengthened by being placed one upon another; and three were towards the South, strengthened in a similar manner. There were likewise deep valleys, which did not approach each other. And the seventh mountain was in the midst of them. In length they all resembled the seat of a throne, and odoriferous trees surrounded them.
“ ‘3. And among these there was a tree of an unceasing smell: nor of those which were in Eden was there one of all the fragrant trees which smelt like this. Its leaf, its flower, and its bark, never withered, and its fruit was beautiful.
“ ‘4. Its fruit resembled the cluster of the palm. I exclaimed, Behold! this tree is goodly in aspect, pleasing in its leaf, and the sight of its fruit is delightful to the eye. Then Michael, one of the holy and glorious angels who were with me, and one who presided over them answered,
“ ‘5. And said, Enoch, why dost thou inquire respecting the odour of this tree?
“ ‘6. Why art thou inquisitive to know it?
“ ‘7. Then I replied to him and said, Concerning every thing I am desirous of instruction, but particularly concerning this tree.
“ ‘8. He answered me saying, That mountain which thou beholdest, the extent of whose head resembles the seat of the Lord, will be the seat on which shall sit the holy and great Lord of glory, the everlasting King, when he shall come and descend to visit the earth with goodness.
“ ‘9. And that tree of an agreeable smell, not one of carnal odour, (of flesh,) there shall be no power to touch, until the period of the great judgment. When all shall be punished, and consumed for ever, this shall be bestowed on the righteous and humble. The fruit of this tree shall be given to the elect. For towards the North life shall be planted in the holy place, towards the habitation of the everlasting King.
“ ‘10. Then shall they greatly rejoice and exult in the holy one. The sweet odour shall enter into their bones; and they shall live a long life as their forefathers have lived: and neither in their days shall sorrow, distress, trouble, and punishment, afflict them.
“ ‘11. And I blessed the Lord of glory, the everlasting King, because he had prepared this tree for the saints, formed it, and declared that he would give it to them.
.....“I think the reader must see in verse 4, in the Palm the Phoinix tree of Meru; and in v. 9, the mount of God in the sides of the North mentioned by Isaiah, ch. xiv. 13.
.....“When I reflect upon this tree, I cannot help suspecting it is connected with the allegory of the trees of life and of knowledge in Eden, whose branches are words, whose leaves are letters, etc., etc.
.....“In chap. xxxi. he again gives a description of seven mountains of the North with odoriferous trees.
“There are many passages which have a close resemblance both to the Hindoo books and to the Jewish prophets. Of the former is the allegory of the mountains of various metals; of the latter, the comparison of the heavens to a book. The lunar period of 28 days is distinctly named, chap. lxxvii.
.....“In chapters lxxxvii. and lxxxviii. is a very clear allegorical description of the deluge: and a star is said to have fallen from heaven. This is all closely connected with animals of the Beeve race in which a cow is distinctly marked as of the masculine gender. The allegory is carried on through several chapters, in which the personages named in the Pentateuch are supposed by Bishop Laurence to be described---till it comes to a being who is called a white cow, and who, in ch. lxxxviii. v. 18, is said to have brought forth a black wild sow and a white sheep. With the production of the sheep, the allegory of the bull or beeve ends: and although many other animals are named continually, the beeve is never once named afterward, till the conclusion, when the bull is said to return; but the sheep, which was never once named before, takes the lead. The white cow, supposed by the Bishop to be Abraham, introduces it, although almost every other domestic animal is named distinctly many times. The distinction between the beeve and the sheep is marked in a way that is most extraordinary, and cannot possibly have been so marked without a clear and distinct meaning. The change from the Bull Taurus to the Ram Aries, is so clear that it cannot be mistaken.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 569, 570: “Justin Martyr is the earliest Christian author of whom we have any undisputed works entire, and the very best authority in the Christian Church. In his first Apology he calls the Christians [G]. On that passage Ben David (that is, Dr. John Jones) says, ‘To this meaning of [G], Justin Martyr in his first Apology thus alludes, [G]. i.e.from the mere name which is imputed to us as a crime, we are the most excellent.’ On this passage Thirlby has the following note: [G], Allusio est ad vulgatam eo tempore consuetudinem, qua Christus ignorata nominis ratione nominabitur Chrestus. (Sylburgius.) Here is another decisive proof that in the time of Justin the Christians were commonly called Chrestians. In the next page Justin calls the Christians [G], and he adds, [G]---‘To hate what is good, chreston, is not just.’ On this Thirlby in a note says [G] legendum haud immerito conjectavit Sylburgius, ex mente scilicit seu potius voce adversari­orum. (Grabe.) And certain it is, that Sylburgius conjectured very truly. For it cannot be doubted -that the [G]of Justin is a corruption, and a very absurd corruption. If he has been corrupted in one place he may in others.
.....“Again Justin Martyr says, ‘For we are indicted by the name of Christians, but now [G]is a word for kind or good; and such a word cannot surely be a just foundation for hatred.’ It is impossible not to see that here the word [G]or Christians is a corruption, and that it ought to be [G]or Chrestians. Without this emandation the passage is nonsense, as every Greek scholar must see. In many other places, where Justin Martyr is made to speak in the Greek of Christ and Christians, his page is evidently corrupted; but an attentive observation of the above passage will show the reader why the word [G]is excepted in it, namely, because it was impossible, consistently with the sense of the context, to do it. Therefore it is half corrupted; the word [G]could not be corrupted. Certainly Justin would not have called them [G]if [G] had not been the common name by which Christ was known: and when, in other places, he calls him [G],this being in opposition or contradiction to the former, one of the passages must have been corrupted. But it is absurd to suppose the [G]to be the corrupted orthography, because the corruption must have been made by the advocates for the [G] not for the [G]---the work of Justin having always been in possession of the followers of the [G].
.....“Tertullian says, Christianus quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur a vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benignitate compositum est. Oditur ergo in hominibus innocuis etiam nomen innocuum.
.....“Bingham says, the Christians were not called Christians, i.e. Christiani, till the time of St. Ambrose. I suppose this was because they were called Chrestians.
.....“Lucian, in a book called Philopatris, makes a person called Triephon answer the question, whether the affairs of the Christians were recorded in heaven, ‘All nations are there recorded, since Chrestus exists even among the Gentiles;’ [G]. Thus it is perfectly clear that they were called Chrestians by the Gentiles, as well as by Justin Martyr, the first of the Christians in his day.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 679, 680: “The expression which the Mohamedans say has been expunged from the Romish Gospels, is as follows: ‘And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, O children of Israel, verily I am the apostle of God sent unto you, confirming the law which was delivered before me, and bringing good tidings of an apostle who shall come after me, and whose name shall be Ahmed.’ Chap. lxi. This is correctly as foretold by Haggai.
.....“On this Sale says, ‘Whose name shall be Ahmed. For Mohammed also bore the name of Ahmed: both names being derived from the same root, and nearly of the same signification. The Persian paraphrast, to support what ishere alleged, quotes the following words of Christ: I go to my Father, and the Paraclete shall come; the Mohamedan doctors unanimously teaching, that by the Paraclete (or, as they choose to read it, the Periclyte or Illustrious), their prophet is intended, and no other.’ Mr. Sale in page 98, of his Preliminary Discourse, distinctly admits that Periclyte, in Arabic, means illustrious, the meaning of the name of Mohamed.
.....“Bishop Marsh has observed that this word Paraclete must have been the Syraic or Arabic word [H], prqlit, translated into Greek. I apprehend the whole argument between the Mohamedans and Christians will turn upon the question, whether the word [H], prqlit, ought to be, when translated into Greek, rendered by the word [G]or [G]. Now I maintain, that if, as Bishop Marsh says, the word prqlit was the word used by Jesus, and that it means illustrious, it is a gross mistranslation to render it by [G], which means comforter.
.....“The passages in John, ch. xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, and in Luke xxiv. 49, are those which we translated from the Greek [G], comforter, and which the Mohamedans say ought to be [G], illustrious. This Comforter is said by Christians to have come, as de­scribed in the book called the Acts of the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, in a tongue of fire settling on each apostle. The Mohamedans say this is ridiculous as the sending of a Comforter; and it could not have been necessary to enable them to work miracles, because, if the Gospel histories can be believed, Jesus had given them this power before, as appears from the first verse of the tenth chapter of Matthew; and that with respect to the mere en­dowment with the Holy Ghost, it could be as little needful, since it appears from the twenty­-second verse of the twentieth chapter of John, that he had endowed them with this gift prior to his ascension, not two months before.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 731, 732: “In the Vogees or Fakeers of India we have dervises of Mohamedism, and the Hermits and Friars of Christianity. The dervises of Mohamedism are copies either from the Christians or Hindoos, and, in fact, corruptions of Mohamedism. Mohamed declared that he would have no monks in his religion, and it had none for the first two hundred years. It is evident from Arrian and Porphyry that these orders of men were well known in their time; and that they were found in India in the time of Alexander. They existed in different orders before the times of Jesus in Egypt, Syria, etc., as Essenes, Coenobites, etc.; and those on Carmel, described by Pliny, became Carmelites. We may find in the schools of the prophets [G], zupim, in 1 Sam. i. 1, the city of the Sophim or learned, and again 1 Sam. x. 10, 11, and xix. 18-24. Samuel and David dwelt in the city of [H], nuit, Naioth, that is, the city of Neith or of wisdom, and in the country of Rama [H], rme. The Ras of India is the Raz of Genesis, and means secret wisdom or knowledge. It is the mistur of the Hebrews. The head or chief was a ras or raised person; the first emanation or Raj was wisdom, therefore wisdom was the first or head or [G]. He was the first existence or hypostasis in time. The head, the seat of wisdom, was ras: the head ruler was the same: so the seat of the ras was the sofa or divan, sop-aia, place of wisdom. The Hebrew word for a sopha or oriental divan, is [H], nte, as often written nthe, the neith. The sopha is the divan in eastern countries, used solely by the Ras or prince or divine incarnation of wisdom. Divan is Div-ana, place of the holy one. Our word raise comes from the word Ras, in the sense of head, as head or chief of the clan. The way in which we have found the words Ras and Sophia used as a title of honour for the kings of Persia and Abyssinia is very curious, and I think it will not be thought surprising if the same system be found carried a little farther. Adonis, as I have shown, has the meaning of Wisdom. It is [H], a-dun, the wisdom. From this come the title of the Dons of Spain and Portugal, of the Welsh Adon for Lord, and the title of O’Connor Don of Ireland. The Rossi, or Rosy-crucians, with their emblematic red cross and red rose, probably came from the fable of Adonis (who was the Sun, whom we have seen so often crucified) being changed into a red rose by Venus. Rus in Irish signifies a tree, knowledge, science: this is the Hebrew Ras. Hence the Persian Rustan.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 767, 763: “After I had, from various sources and by various means, added to reasoning, nearly arrived at a conviction, that the ancient order of Freemasons arose in India, and was established there, as a mystery, in the earliest periods, my conviction acquired wonderful strength from a knowledge of the fact which I shall now mention. I shall be censured for stating facts in this way; but I write truly and for the truth, and for this purpose alone. The style or order in such a work as this is not worth naming. At the time that I learned from Captain _____, the gentleman who was named in my last chapter, the particulars respecting the tomb of St. Thomas, I was also told by him that he was in the strictest intimacy with the late _____ Ellis, Esq., of the Madras establishment; that Mr. Ellis told him, that the pass-word and forms used by the Master Masons in their lodge, would pass a person into the sanctum sanctorum of an Indian temple; that he, Mr. Ellis, had, by means of his knowledge as a Master Mason, actually passed himself into the sacred part or adytum of one of them. Soon after Mr. Ellis told this to my informant he was taken sud­denly ill, and died, and my informant stated, that he had no doubt, notwithstanding the mistake which his friends call it in giving some medicine, that he was poisoned by his ser­vants for having done this very act, or for being known to possess this knowledge. Now, when this is coupled with the fact of the Masonic emblems found on the Cyclopean ruins of Agra and Mundore, I think, without fear of contradiction, I may venture to assume, that the oriental origin of Free-masonry cannot be disputed---and that I may reason upon it accord­ingly. Every person, at all conversant with inquiries of this kind, knows that our ancient cathedrals were built by societies or fraternities of men supposed to be monks from Spain, to which country they are said to have come, along with the Saracens from the East. These people were monks, but probably all monks were not Masons. But the two societies, if separated in some things, were very closely connected in others. They were Culdee or Calidei monks, from Calida. They were Saracens from Surasena, or the Jumna in India.
.....“After I had been led to suspect, from various causes, that the Culdees, noticed in the Notitia Monastica and in the last chapter, and there stated to have been found in the Cathedral at York, were Masons, I searched the Masonic records in London, and I found a. document which upon the face of it seemed to show that that Lodge, which was the Grand Lodge of all England, had been held under the Cathedral in the crypt, at York. In conse­quence of this I went to York, and applied to the only survivor of the Lodge, who showed me, from the documents which he possessed, that the Druidical Lodge, or Chapter of Royal-­Arch Masons, or Templar Encampment, all of which it calls itself, was held for the last time in the crypt, on Sunday, May 27, 1778. At that time the Chapter was evidently on the decline, and it is since dead. From the books it appears to have claimed to have been founded by Edwin, in the year 926. From a curious parchment document, formerly belonging to the Lodge, and restored to it by Francis Drake, author of the Eboracum, as appears by an indorsement on the back of it signed by him, stating that it came from the Castle at Pontefract, it seems probable that, according to the tradition to that effect, the ancient records of the Lodge had been sent to that place for safety in the Civil Wars, as it is well known that many of the title-deeds of Yorkshire families at that time were, and on its destruction were, like them, destroyed or dispersed.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 774, 775: “I must now call my reader’s attention to another fact of very great importance. We have heard much about Daniel and the Chaldeans of Babylon, and about the rendering of the law of Moses by Ezra or Esdras into the Chaldee language, at the gate of the temple, after the captivity. But there is another book extant, said to be written by Esdras, which declares that the book of the law was burnt, and that it was rewritten by him under the influence of divine inspiration. This, for very obvious reasons, is now denied to be of divine authority, by the united sect of Jews and Christians---for in this case they must be considered one. But it seems to stand upon as good ground as the other books, and in some respects upon better. But this observation is rather from my argument, though it strikes a blow at the credibility of the fact of the explanation of the law at the gate of the temple: for how could Ezra explain the law, if it were burnt? unless, indeed, it were the new law revealed to Esdras.
.....“The fact to which I have to draw my reader’s attention, and from which I have digressed, is this, that though we are told that the Jews brought the Chaldee language and letters back with them from Babylon, yet that among the great numbers of inscriptions of different kinds found in the ruins of that city, one in the Chaldee letter and language has never been found. This seems clearly to prove, that if the Chaldean language and letter were the language and letter of Daniel and the magi or astrologers with whom he is classed in the Bible, they were not the letter and language of the Assyrians. The letter must have been a secret of the Jewish priests, and their language, their sacred language at least, probably different from that of Assyria. This all tends to prove the tribe of Abraham a distinct tribe from India, of comparatively speaking recent date.
.....“On the most mature consideration I have come to the opinion, and it is very important, that the similarity between the Chaldaic, or Hebrew, and the other languages noticed by Sir W. Jones, is the nearest approximation to identity which can be expected, and indeed, more than could be expected, or would have been found, if the copy of the Pentateuch in the Jewish temple had not arrested the Hebrew Chaldee in its progress of change. Under these circumstances it is evidently incredible, that the original from which all these languages sprung can now exist. It is pretty clear that the mythos of Moses has existed from very old time. This, I think, the numbers of temples, houses, or mounts, (all the same,) of Solymi prove. And this is confirmed by the Sibyls, each of whom refers to this mythos, though the variation among them is so great as to show that they cannot have copied from one another. If we go to the African Ethiopians we find, in the descent from Solomon, in the Ioannes, Butta, Deus, and the use of the Chaldee language, remains of the same mythos. We find the same both in North and South India. When I consider the little, obscure, mountain tribe of Jews in Western Syria, and I again contemplate the Judaea in the mighty cities of Agra, Oude, Mundore, etc., I cannot doubt that North India must have been the birth-place of the mythos; and the mistake of all these people in supposing themselves descended from the Jews of Western Syria, is easily accounted for; it is the natural effect of the loss by them of their real history, and of the stories told them by proselyting Christians, that they must have come from Western Syria. To these causes of mistake may be added the account of these people retailed and misrepresented to us by the same Christians, who, from prejudice, overlook important facts, (such, for instance, as that of the existence of an old temple of Solomon in Cashmere,) and who misrepresent others to make them suitable to their own superstitions and creeds. Thus, to believe them, all the Jews or Youdi, scattered in ancient times over the world, and forming great nations, were part of the mountain tribe of Western Syria, which Herodotus did not observe, or, in his search for nations, discover; the capital of which, with its temple, would not now have been in existence, had it not been preserved by Helena and the Christians.”
.....Vol. I., pp. 780, 781: “The fathers make the languages seventy-two, by adding Cainan and Elishah, according to the LXX, who are not mentioned in the Hebrew. This is thought to be supported by Deut. xxxii. 8. The text says, the Most High set the bounds of the people according to the number of the tribes of Israel---that is, seventy-two, the number which went down into Egypt. This is confirmed by the Targum of Ben-Uzziel. Horapollo teaches that the world was divided into seventy-two regions. Clemens Alexandrinus and Epiphanius both say, that there were seventy-two tongues at the dispersion. Josephus and the fathers of the church fix the languages at the confusion to seventy-two.
.....“Enfield says, ‘The Jews had seventy-two names of God.’
.....“The Rabbis maintain that the angels who ascended and descended Jacob’s ladder were seventy-two in number.
“Lightfoot, on the Temple Service, states the dress of Aaron to have had upon it seventy-two bells. This conveys with it the consequence that it must have had seventy-­two pomegranates.
.....“If Bishop Wilkins can be depended on, there are seventy-two kinds of animals in the Ark.
.....“In Numbers xi. 16, it is said, that Moses was ordered to take seventy men of the elders of Israel. But the number was seventy-two, six out of each tribe.
.....“The Cabalists find seventy-two names of God in three verses--the 19, 20, and 21, of the fourteenth chapter of Exodus.
.....“In Exodus xv. 27, we read of seventy palm trees. Of course the number ought to be seventy-two.
.....“In the book of Enoch is an allegory, in which seventy shepherds are said to super-intend the flock, and the seventy are divided in three classes, 37, 23, and 12; but these make seventy-two. Here is an example of the common Jewish expression of seventy for seventy-two, which cannot be disputed, except the reader be disposed, with Bishop Laurence, to throw out two of the kings, because they reigned only short periods; and, in addition, to have recourse to confound the numbers of the shepherds with the periods of time; in short, to corrupting the text in two different ways. From the account which the Jews of Cochin gave to Dr. Buchanan, he infers that they were governed by a council of seventy-two persons. This is evidently meant for an intimation of the Sanhedrim of the Jews of Judea; and strongly confirms what I have said that by seventy, almost always seventy-two are meant.”
.....Vol. II., p. 23: “The similarity between the Jews, Christians, and South Americans, is sufficiently striking; but there is yet something to me still more so, which is, that several of the doctrines which I have advocated in this work, unknown to the vulgar Jews and Christians of this day, are to be found in Mexico. Their Triune God, their Creator, is called by the names Yao and Hom. Lord Kingsborough says, ‘Hom-eyoca, which signifies the place in which exists the Creator of the universe, or the First Cause, to whom they gave the name Hom-eteuli, which means the God of three-fold dignity, or three Gods, the same as Ol-om-ris.....; and by another name, Hom-eican, that is to say, the place of the Holy Trinity, who, according to the opinion of many of their old men, begot, by their word, Cipatenal, and a woman called X-umio.’
.....“In the Hom-eyo-ca, when joined with the other circumstances, I cannot but recognize the Om and Ai---[H], om-ia, place of Om. And again, in Hom-ei-can the Aom-iao-ania, the place or country of the Self-existent ([H], ie,) Hom, who is called the Trinity.”
.....Vol. II., p. 25: “In p. 216, Mr. Humboldt treats of a nation called Xochimileks. This must be Xaca-melech, or, I should rather say, (considering all the other circumstances which we have seen relating to the Rajahpoutans and Royal Shepherds,) Royal Saxons, for I much suspect they were all the same people. The Marquess Spineto, in his Lectures, has quoted a person called Carli as having deeply studied the origin of nations and languages, and who, he says, has asserted that the Egyptians peopled America. He particularly notices a word as being held sacred among the Egyptians and in the Pacific Ocean,---it is Tabou. But this is nothing but Bou-ta read anagrammatically, or, in fact, in the old Hebrew fashion. The High Priest of the North American Indians was called Sachem. I think we have here both the Saga and the Akme, and also the Sciakam, which we have not before noticed in Thibet. The dignity of sacrificer was supreme and hereditary, like a feudal title. His title was Papa, his dress scarlet, with fringes as a border. This exactly answers to the Sagart and Rex Sacrificulus of the ancients. The fringes of the Mexicans were fixed to the four quarters of their garments, as a sacred ordinance, precisely like those of the Jews; and it is only fair to suppose, as they were similar in one respect they should be so in another, and have been descriptive of the number 600.
.....“One of their periods is 4008 years B. C., another 4801. Their fourth age, the editor says, according to the Mexican symbols, lasted 5206 years, and the early Christian converts made it out 5199 years. This was evidently the computation of 5200 years of Eusebius. The period of 4801 is the sum of the eight ages of the correct Neros, 8 x 600 = 4800. The Mexicans are said to be great astrologers.”
.....Vol. II., pp. 26, 27, 28: “Lord Kingsborough says, ‘Christians might have feared the return of every period of fifty-two years as being nearly the anniversary of the age which Christ had attained when he was crucified, and of the great eclipse which sacred history records, and which (since profane history is silent respecting it) it is very remarkable how the Mexicans should have become acquainted with.’
.....“The first pair were called Huehue. Quecalcoatle disappeared at the end of fifty-two years, at the great festival in Cholula. Here is the Aphanasia.
.....“Mr. Humboldt gives nearly the same account. He says, ‘At the end of the fifty-two years they had a grand festival, when all lights were extinguished, and after crucifying a man, they kindled a fire by the friction of the wood of the Ivy on his breast, from which they were all relighted. It was their belief that the world would be destroyed at the end of one of these cycles, and as soon as this fire was kindled and the critical moment past, which assured them that a new cycle was to run, they indulged in the greatest joy.’ He shows that they new-cleaned and furnished all their houses and temples, precisely as was done by the ancient Egyptians, and, he might have added, as is also done by the Romish church at every jubilee. He shows that the Mexicans had convents of Monks precisely like the Thibetians and the Romish church. After this, Humboldt states, that M. La Place, from a careful examination, had come to the conclusion, that the Mexicans knew the length of the Tropical Year more correctly than Hipparchus, and almost as correctly as Almamon; and he shows, from various astronomical circumstances, that they must have had a close connexion with Eastern Asia and its cycles.
.....“Humboldt says, ‘This predilection for periodical series, and the existence of a cycle of sixty years, appear to reveal the Tartarian origin of the nations of the new continent.’ He then states, that the cycle of sixty years was divided into four parts. ‘These small cycles represented the four seasons of the great year. Each of them contained 185 moons, which corresponded with fifteen Chinese and Thibetian years, and consequently with the real indictions observed in the time of Constantine.’ Here we see the identity accounted for of the chronological periods stated above by Lord Kingsborough, with those of the old world, as corrected by the two Caesars with the assistance of the Chaldaens of the East.
.....“Mr. Niebuhr says, `What we call Roman numerals are Etruscan, and frequently seen on their monuments. But these signs are of the hieroglyphic kind, and belong to an earlier mode of symbolical writing, in use before the introduction of alphabetical characters. They resemble the Aztekan in this, that they represent objects individually. They were of native origin, at the time when the West, with all its primitive peculiarities, was utterly unknown to the East, at the same period when the Turdetani framed their written characters and literature.
.....“ ‘Here also a phenomenon presents itself, which fills us moderns with astonishment, viz. exceedingly accurate measurement of time, and even in the cyclical year, quite in the spirit in which the early Mexican legislators conducted the chronology; portions of time measured off from periods of very long duration, determined with astronomical precision, and without regard to the lunar changes. Besides these, the Etruscans had a civil lunar year, which the cyclical only served to correct.... But there is something remarkable, and not to be lightly disregarded, in the affinity between the wisdom of the ancient West and the science, at one time perhaps more widely diffused over that hemisphere, and of which the Mexicans still preserved the hereditary, though probably useless possession, at the time when their country was destroyed. This deserves more attentive consideration, since the dis­covery of an analogy between the Basque and American languages, by a celebrated scholar, Professor Vater.’ In these observations we surely have a very extraordinary confirmation of my theory. If the Romans calculated by a period or saeculum of 120 years, they would come to the same conclusions as if they took the 60 or 600, and in this we see why the Mexican and Roman periods agreed in the time of Constantine and Eusebius. They would not have agreed before the time when the solstice was corrected by Sosigenes the Chaldaean. They would have varied more than 500 years.
.....“Humboldt says, the Mexicans hold that, before the flood, which took place 4800 years after the creation of the world, the earth was inhabited by giants. ...( * Note that Oahspe says the flood took place 48,000 years after the creation of man (I’hin), that is, 16 cycles.)... One of them, after the flood, called Xelhua or the architect, built an immense pyramidical tower which was to reach heaven---but the Gods [who were] offended destroyed it with lightning. Here is a complete jumble of the ancient mythology: the 4800 are the eight cycles before Christ. The architect is the Megalistor or the name of God made into the giant, and is X-al-hua, the self-existent X. The tower is the exact model of the tower of Babel, as given in our old histories. After its destruction it was dedicated to Quetzalcoatl, the God of the Air. This is Saca, or Indra, whom we found crucified in Nepaul. (See Vol. I., p. 230.) The Mexicans chaunted the word Hululaez, which belonged to no Mexican dialect, to the honour of their Gods. This is evidently the Allelujah of the Greeks and Hebrews, and the Ullalo of the Irish.
..... “It is said that after the deluge sacrificing commenced. The person who answers to Noah entered an Ark with six others, and that soon after the deluge his descendants built the tower of Tulan Cholula, partly to see what was going on in heaven, and partly for fear of another deluge, but it was destroyed by thunder and lightning. The story of sending birds out of the Ark, the confusion and dispersion of tribes, is the same in general character with that of the Bible. His Lordship says, ‘In attempting to explain how the Indians could have become acquainted with events of such remote antiquity, coeval with the foundation of the earliest monarchies, it would be absurd to suppose that their annals and native tra­ditions extended backwards to a period unknown to Egyptian, Persian, Greek, or Sanscrit history.’ Absurd as it may be to suppose this, their hieroglyphic annals evidently do thus extend backwards.
..... “His Lordship says, ‘The difficulty of comprehending the plan of the tower of Belus, given by Herodotus, vanishes on inspecting the plans of the Mexican temples. The turrets in the great temple, described iii p. 380, were 360 in number.’ Up to the temple Ceolula were ciento y veinte gradas. The brick base of the tower of Chululan, which remains, and was built in order to escape another flood if it should come, is eighteen hundred feet in cir­cumference. It is said to have been destroyed by a stone from heaven. It is pyramidical. Humboldt says it is hollow. I have little doubt that the word Chol has been XL = 650---a monogram, which it may be remembered is found in the oldest catacombs at Rome.
..... “Teocalli is the name of the temple of Cholula; this is said to be the house of Teocalli. This is evidently teo or God Cali. House of God is precisely the Hebrew style.
..... “The word Cholula is thought by Lord Kingsborough to be a corruption of the word Jeru-salem. He thinks the same of a place called Churula; but I suspect that they were identical. At Cholula is the very large temple, with the very celebrated pyramid, which is said to be a very close imitation of the temple of Belus or tower of Babel. A room in one of the pyramids of Cholula had its ceiling formed like the temple at Komilmar, of over-hanging stones.”
.....Vol. II., p. 34: “The founder of the Peruvian nation was called Bochica, the son and emblem of the Sun. He was high priest of Soga-Mozo (here we have the Saga). His wife was called Chia, (Chia is nothing but Eva corrupted,) Isis, or the Moon: he was described with three heads. Here, I think, are the Buddha and Trimurti of India. His priests were called Xeques and Zaques. (These are Xacas, or Sagas, or priests of Wisdom.) Humboldt says, ‘The form of Government given by Bochica to the inhabitants of Bogota, is very remarkable, from its analogy with those of Japan and Thibet. The Incas of Peru united in their person the temporal and spiritual powers. The children of the sun were both priests and kings…….The Pontiffs or Lamas, the successors of Bochica, were considered as heirs of his virtue and sanctity. The people flocked in crowds to offer presents to the high priests, visiting those places which were consecrated by the miracles of Bochica.’ In a very particular and pointed manner this Bochica is said to be white or albus. This reminds me that the Sibyl pronounces the white sow of Alba to be black. Alba means white: was Bochica Alb or LB = L = 50, B = 2 = 52? He had a peculiar cycle of 13 years, and another of four thirteens or 52. This looks as if there was some reference to our astrological instrument, called playing cards, which certainly came from North India. This does not seem so wonderful when we consider that we have just found their cycles the same as the indictions of Constantine. What is the Romish Alb?
..... “The Peruvians believed in one Supreme Being, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, called Virachocha and Pachacamack, who had revealed to them his religion. The Mexicans called their great God Yao ineffable; and represented him by an Eye in a Triangle. The cross was everywhere adored.”
.....Vol. II., p. 139: “Columella, says, ‘The 17th of December the sun passes into Capricorn ; it is the winter solstice, as Hipparchus will have it. The 24th of December is the winter solstice, as the Chaldaeans observe.’
..... “Now it is well known that Caesar, with the assistance of a celebrated Chaldean astron­omer from Egypt, called Sosigenes, ascertained the winter solstice to take place on the 25th of December, at thirty minutes past one o’clock in the morning. And it is a striking circumstance that he appears, from the expression of Columella, to have availed himself of the reckoning of the Chaldeans, whom my reader will recollect I have shown to have come, with Abraham, or the Brahmin, from India, and whom our historians affect to treat with contempt, as having, in the time of Caesar, become mere charlatans or conjurors; but who were as appears front the facts above-named, in reality the only persons who had a sufficient knowledge of astronomy to correct the calendar, which had fallen into the utmost confusion. This any one may see by looking at our common globes, where he will find the Vernal equinox fixed to the 30th of Aquarius, which makes the equinox to fall on the 25th of Pisces, or March, 1800 years ago, by calculating back the precession 25 degrees, at 72 years to a degree. Now, from the 17th of December (the solstice, according to Hipparchus) to the 25th, according to the Chaldeans, there is a space of 8 days, which answers to 8 degrees, and as the solstice precedes a degree in 72 years, it makes in time, calculated on these data, an error of 576 years: 8 x 72 = 576. The Brahmins at this day, as we have formerly shown, fix the entrance of the equinoctial sun into the sign Aries and their Cali Yug, 3101 years before the time Usher fixed for the birth of Christ; in which he made a mistake of four years. Now, if we allow for this error of Usher’s of four years, the time to the date of the Cali Yug is 3096 years B. C., and the error of the Brahmins is exactly 576 years. For, from the 25th of Pisces, reckoning back to the first of Aries, there are not 43 degrees, as the Brahmin calculation would require, but 35 degrees only; which number, multiplied by 72, gives 2520; and this sum added to 576 makes 3096 + 4 = 3100. This proves that the present Brahmins, when they fix their Cali Yug by back calculation, are exactly in the same error as Hipparchus, the Greeks and the Romans were, as to the time of the solstice.”
.....Vol II. pp. 215, 216, 217: “The first Chinese written letters were formed of right lines, and were called Ukim and Yekim, this is the emphatic article of the Sacae I and the [H], hkm, Wisdom---letters of the Wisdom or Wisdom of IE. Their invention is ascribed to Fo-hi, whom we have formerly shown to be Buddha. Bailly has observed, that from their division into fives, they appear to have been originally numerals, and the system founded on the number of the fingers on the hand repeated. The least attention to the Latin or Greek numerals will show how applicable the observation is to them, I. V. X. XV. XX. The Ogham letters, or Ogum Craobh or branch-writing, of Ireland, have this peculiar character of division into fives, as well as the Runes of Scandinavia, that is, of the Saxae or Xim or Sinenses, for the Chinese are nothing but the Sin, or Saxons, or Buddhists, having the whole mythos of the immaculate conception, the tree of knowledge, of life, the crucifiction, resurrection, etc., according to M. Paravey; all which had been previously related by Bergeron and De Guignes. ‘Bayer observes, that the Chinese letters consisted of nine simple characters, five of which were plain lines, and the other four are two or three of them joined together.’ This is the exact description of the Roman numerals. The Irish Ogham is most unquestionably the Scandinavian or Saxon Rune, and they are all here identified with the Chinese and Eastern Xacae, Saxae, Xin, or Xin-di. Here we have the numerals and the letters identified in Runic letters.”
..... “Ency. Brit. Art. Philology, Sect. 117.---Dr. Morrison, in his Chinese Miscellany, p. 1, thus confirms this striking fact: ‘The Chinese language is now read by a population of different nations, amounting to a large proportion of the human race, and over a very extensive geographical space,---from the borders of Russia on the north, throughout Chinese Tartary on the west, and, in the east, as far as Kamschatka; and downwards through Corea, and Japan, in the Loo Choo Islands, Cochin China, and the islands of that Archi­pelago, on most of which are Chinese settlers, till you come down to the equinoctial line at Penang, Malacca, Singapore, and even beyond it on Java. Throughout all these regions, however dialects may differ, and oral languages be confounded, the Chinese written language is understood by all. The voyager and the merchant, the traveller and the Christian missionary, if he can write Chinese, may make himself understood throughout the whole of Eastern Asia.’---Gutzlaft’s Journal of Three Voyages along the Coast of China, in 1831, 1832, 1833, p. xxii.”
..... “As Fohi is said to have founded his kingdom 200 years after the deluge, perhaps we should be nearer the truth in supposing a more recent inventor,---‘The written language of China, alike unique and ancient, is, from the singularity of its structure, and the extent to which it is employed, one of the most remarkable that has been used amongst mankind. The knotted cords, originally employed as the record of events by them as well as many other nations, in the first stages of their social existence, were superseded, at an early period in their history, by symbolic records. The founder (Veng-Vang) of letters lived about 1100 years before the Christian aera, and the art of printing has been in use among them for 800 years.’---Gutzlaff’s Journal, ut sup. p. xiv.  See Vall. Coll. Hib. Vol. p. 102.”
..... “Of all the follies of Europeans, none has been more common than their abuse of the Chinese for not adopting the literal syllabic style of writing. We know very little of the Chinese; but the little we do know gives one reason to believe, that they are the wisest people in the world, and, perhaps, in nothing more wise than in keeping European pirates from their shores as much as possible. When they look to the conduct of all the European nations in India---the Dutch, the Portuguese, the French, and the English, and at their repeated attempts, by means of missionaries, to create disturbances in China, they can only consider them as pirates. The wisdom of their government is sufficiently marked by the fact, that their immense empire has been at peace from foreign war for more than two thousand years, with little or no intermission, except when they were attacked and conquered by the Tartars. But in this, more than in all other matters, their wisdom was conspicuous; for their institutions and their conduct were such, that they, in fact, conquered their conquerers, and instead of becoming a province of Tartary, Tartary instantly became, and yet continues, a province of China; their enemies disappeared, and their celebrated wall became no longer of any use. Thus, by this despised system of writing, the Emperor’s proclamation is intelligible in all the diversity of languages of his immense empire.”
..... “It appears to me that in China, in India, and, in short, wherever the Jesuit missionaries went, they were at first encouraged by the governments of those countries---who must have seen that the religion of the Europeans was only their own religion, which, in some respects, was in a less corrupted state than it was in their own country; and the encouragement con­tinued till the missionary fools, acting under the instruction of the rogues at home, showed clearly that the object was to bring those countries under subjection to a foreign power. The object was probably first exposed by the claim of tithes---a claim which the church never surrenders on any account, though it may permit it to be in abeyance.”
.....Vol. II., pp. 404, 405, 406: “I am not certain that the stadium, in strict analogy to the above, was not considered, in mensuration, as the standard or chain placed in the midst, which tied the world together. The ancients divided the globe in the following manner:

 

 

360,000,000 palms

divided by     2

=  180,000,000

divided by     3

=  120,000,000

divided by      4

=    90,000,000

divided by    12

=    30,000,000

divided by    36

=    10,000,000

divided by    72

=      5,000,000

divided by  360

=      1,000,000

“Again,

 

 

 

 

360,000,000 palms

divided by     5

=    72,000,000

divided by    10

=    36,000,000

divided by    15

=    24,000,000

divided by    30

=    12,000,000

divided by    40

=      9,000,000

divided by    60

=      6,000,000

divided by  120

=      3,000,000

divided by  360

=      1,000,000

 

 

 

360,000,000 palms

divided by     2

= 180,000,000

divided by     3

= 120,000,000

divided by      4

=    90,000,000

divided by    12

=    30,000,000

divided by    36

=    10,000,000

divided by    72

=      5,000,000

divided by  360

=      1,000,000

“Again,

 

 

 

 

360,000,000 palms

divided by     5

=    72,000,000

divided by    10

=    36,000,000

divided by    15

=    24,000,000

divided by    30

=    12,000,000

divided by    40

=      9,000,000

divided by    60

=      6,000,000

divided by  120

=      3,000,000

divided by  360

=      1,000,000

.....“Thus the man is the fathom or stadium or standard by which all measurements were made; and all temples, and parts of temples were built in equal numbers of this measure, or some equimultiples of this measure. In the same manner, the circle of the heavens, and the circle of the earth, were divided into equimultiples of this measure. I think, as I have before intimated, that all temples were anciently believed to be microcosms of the world. Whiston, on the Old Testament, p. 85, says, ‘It may not be amiss to set down here the exact length of the old Egyptian and Jewish cubit, as our great Sir I. Newton has determi­ned it from the measures of the Pyramids of Egypt, taken by the learned Greaves; and as I have found it also most agreeable to the measures of the sepulchres of the house of David, still remaining at Jerusalem, in Maundrel’s Travels; and to the measure of the table of Shew-bread [Showbread] upon Titus’ Arch at Rome, in Relend’s discourse thereon. I mean, that in inch-measure it was = 20.7936 inches, and in foot measure =1.7325 feet, or 1 ft. 8.79 in.’ The reason why Mr. Whiston and Sir Isaac Newton did not come to the same conclusion as Mr. Gabb, with respect to the length of the Jewish and Egyptian measure, the fathom, the stadium, and the foot, was because they took the account from Mr. Greaves’ measurement of the Pyramid, which was taken, where only he could take it, from the side, and not from where the French took it, at the foundation or widest part of the triangle. But the identity of measurement shown by Mr. Gabb in the length of the base of the Pyramid, with the construction of the Nilometer of Cairo, with the temples at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Athens, and Rome, furnishes a proof very superior to the theories of Greaves and Newton---indeed, they leave no room for any doubt on the subject. The discovery had been made by the French Savans before it was observed by Mr. Gabb, and it is astonishing that they failed to make it useful. One of them says, ‘The monuments of Egypt have something mysterious, which betrays ideas worthy of our admiration. Each side of the base of the great Pyramid 500 times multiplied gives 57,075 toises, which complete a geographical degree. The cube of the Nilometer 200,000 times multiplied gives exactly the same result.’ ”
        Mr. Higgins is the highest light we have had on the foregoing subject. There are many books, written by Christian clergymen and priests, in reference to the sacred books of India and China; but they display so much unfairness in their translations I cannot introduce them here. The aim of Christian authors to prove that the Jewish bible is the oldest book in the world is based on the supposition that Moses wrote some of it. The fact is, however, it was written many hundred years after his time. In my own researches, of some twenty years, I come to the conclusion that there is no reliable history older than twenty-five hundred years in any part of the world. There is nothing extant to prove the date of Zarathustra, or Abram and Brahma. They may have been cycles as set forth in Oahspe. I cannot agree with Mr. Higgins that Brahma and Abraham were the same person. It is probable though that they were contemporaneous.
.....In the Book of Jehovih we are introduced to something new in the philosophy of creating the living, that is, the se’muan age, and the raining down of se’mu on the earth.
.....This gelatinous condition precedes the quickening into life. Is this the protoplasm of Darwin?
.....Of the origin of man, Book of Jehovih, p. 9, v. 11, Jehovih shows that He was there. The term A’su and the term Adam are equivalent, as we learn from Saphah, and means a spirit quickened in earth, that is, a, earth, su, spirit, combined. In the succeeding verses we find the origin of man as he now is, to be the result of the cohabitation of angels with A’su. Modern spiritualism has demonstrated the coming out of the side of the sargis, the angel appearance. All the sacred books in the world which deal with the subject of the origin of man give nearly the same account. In the Jewish bible, it is said Eve was made out of a rib. She was tempted by the earth. The other sacred books say the same. Oahspe corroborates them, but gives a much fuller philosophy.
.....Of the story of the flood, I will say, I have traveled the world over, and dwelt with nearly all kinds of people everywhere, and they all, save the Australians and New Zea­landers, have a legend of the flood. The account given in Oahspe, of a submerged continent in the Pacific Ocean, is the most feasible interpretation. It explains to us many of the problems in relation to the tribes of people and to their similar words of speech. I, there­fore, accept the account of the submerged continent as a true story.
.....In reference to language, the Book of Saphah clears up many heretofore inexplicable mysteries. An earth-language (Panic) would most naturally come to man, to call everything by the name it utters. We have this illustrated in Chinese today; the serpent, the sheep, cow, horse, and, in fact, many things are named as they name themselves; as, hiss, ba-bah, gowh, neigh-h, and so on. When man began to write, making arbitrary pronunciations, he began to lose the original names. The Yi-haic language was another extreme; to combine monosyllabic words, because of the combinations of things themselves. We do that our­selves, as, nitro-glycerine, oxy-chloride, and so on, with a distinct meaning for every syllable.
.....Out of these two languages have come all the languages in the world.

THE END

 

Click Here to download this commentary in PDF format.