daughter of heaven and goddess of corn, by nailing a boy or girl to a cross, and after they had been so suspended for awhile piercing them with arrows shot from a bow. The Muyscas, less sanguinary than the Mexicans in sacrificing to the god of the waters, extended a couple of ropes transversely over some lake or stream, thus forming a gigantic cross, and at the point of intersection threw in their offerings of food, gems, and precious oils.
Quetyalcoatl, god of the winds, bore as his sign of office a mace like the cross of a bishop; his robe was covered with the symbol, and its adoration was connected throughout with his worship.
There is, of course, no doubt whatever that the Spaniards took the cross with them to America, and scattered it about so much in such varied directions that their own became so intermingled with the native ones as to make it difficult to distinguish one from the other; but the fact remains that what there was of cordiality in the reception they met with from the aborigines, was due in no small degree to their use of the same emblem on their standards; when this became apparent the astonishment was mutual. Many travellers have told us of these ancient crosses, and some of them while expressing doubts as to their antiquity, have yet supplied us with evidence of the same. Mr. Stephens is one of these. In his Incidents of Travel in Central America, he supplies us with some wonderful Altar Tablets found at Palenque, the principal subject in one of which is the cross. It is surmounted by a strange bird, and loaded with indescribable ornaments. There are two human figures, one on either side of the cross, evidently of important personages; both are looking towards the cross, and one seems in the act of making an offering. The traveller says:—“All speculations on the subject are of course entitled to little regard, but perhaps it would not be wrong to ascribe to those personages a sacerdotal character. The hieroglyphics doubtless explain all. Near them are other hieroglyphics which remind us of the Egyptian mode of recording the name, history, office, or character of the persons represented. This tablet of the cross has given rise to more learned speculations than perhaps any others found at Palenque. Dupaix and his commentators, assuming for the building a very remote antiquity, or at least, a period long antecedent to the Christian era, account for the appearance of the cross by the argument that it was known and had a symbolical meaning among ancient nations long before it was established as the emblem of the Christian faith.”
Near Miztla, “the city of the moon,” is a cavern temple excavated from the solid rock in the form of a cross, 123 feet in length and breadth, the limbs being about 25 feet in width.
Other relics have been found in abundance in the same part of the world, proving how well known this emblem was before the advent of Christianity. In the Mexican Tribute Tables, we were told a few years ago by a writer in the Historical Magazine, small pouches or bags frequently occur. Appendages to dress, they are tastefully formed and ornamented with fringe and tassels. A cross of the Maltese or more ordinary form (Greek or Latin) is conspicuously woven or painted on each. They appear to have been in great demand, a thousand bundles being the usual Pueblo tax.
The practice of marking the cross on their persons and wearing it in their garments was once common with some if not with all the occupants of the Southern Continent. The Abipones of Paraguay tatooed themselves by pricking the skin with a thorn. They all wore the form of a cross impressed on their foreheads, and two small lines at the corner of each eye, extending towards the ears, besides four transverse lines at the root of the nose, between the eyebrows, as national marks. What these figures signified no one was able to tell. The people only knew this, that the custom had been handed down to them by their ancestors. Not only were crosses marked on their foreheads, but woven in the red woollen garments of many of them. This was long before they knew anything of the Christian religion.
The “hot cross bun,” eaten in this country on Good Friday, is supposed by many to be exclusively Christian in its origin; whereas it is no more than a reproduction of a cake marked with a cross which was duly offered in the heathen temples to such living idols as the serpent and the bull. It was made of flour, honey and milk, or oil, and at certain times was eaten with much ceremony by both priests and people.
There was also used in the Pagan times the monogram of a cross upon a heart, the meaning of which was according to Egyptologists, “goodness.” “This figure,” says Sir G. Wilkinson, “enclosed in a parallelogram, in which form it would signify ‘the abode of good,’ was depicted or sculptured upon the front of several houses in Memphis and Thebes.”
A very ancient Phœnician medal was found many years ago in the ruins of Citium, on which were inscribed the cross, the rosary, and the lamb. An engraving of this may be seen in Higgins’ Celtic Druids and in Dr. Clark’s Travels.
The connection of the cross with Paganism originally, and its ultimate assumption by the Christian church, is curiously and strikingly brought out by Tertullian in his Apologeticus and Ad Nationes. These treatises, we may observe, are so much alike that the former has sometimes been regarded as a first draft of the latter, which is nearly double the length. Probably, however, they are entirely different productions, one being addressed to the general public and the other to the rulers and magistrates.
Charged with worshipping a cross, he says:—“As for him who affirms that we are the priesthood of a cross, we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is in its material a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same; the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this point, what, let me ask, is the difference between the Athenian Pallas or the Pharia Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by a rough stock without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The truth however, after all, is that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards and the back takes a straight direction and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands out-stretched, you will make the general outline of a cross. Starting then from this rudimental form and prop, as it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually completes the limbs and forms the body, and covers the cross within with the shape which he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or metal, or whatever the material be of which he has determined to make his god. This then is the process: after the cross-shaped frame the clay; after the clay the god. In a well-understood routine the cross passes into a god through the clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it the consecrated deity begins to derive its origin. By way of example let us take the case of a tree which grows up into a system of branches and foliage, and is a reproduction of its own kind, whether it springs from the kernel of an olive, or the stone of a peach, or a grain of pepper which has been duly tempered under ground. Now if you transplant it or take a cutting off its branches for another plant, to what will you attribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not be to the grain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because as the third stage is attributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so the third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the mean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since by a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its growth to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its primal cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing produced. Since then, in the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates