ask the reader, when considering that part of his work written from a Gnostic point of view, to bear in mind (1) that in ancient days religions were national; (2) that the Romans tolerated the religion of every nation they conquered; (3) that their persecution of our faith when it was in its infancy was due to the fact that it was non-national, and therefore from their point of view a hateful superstition undermining the religions of all the nations they protected, and subversive of all good rule; (4) that it was probably the first faith ever preached as intended for all nations; (5) that the Gospels “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written after Paul went about preaching his new and non-national creed, as it is clear that he was ignorant of all save one of the many great marvels recorded therein,—the miraculous birth and ascension of Jesus, for instance, not being once mentioned in V his arguments; (6) that while Paul was by his own confession “all things to all men,” Jesus spent much of His time in denouncing the possession of Private-property; (7) that the followers of Jesus had “all things in common”; (8) that it was the followers of Paul who were called Christians; (9) that while Jesus said, “ The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ” (Matt, xxiii. 3), Paul was an apostate as regards Judaism; and (10) that Jesus repeatedly declared that His mission was to, and his “gospel” or “glad tidings” for, the Jews alone.
PART II
FROM A GNOSTIC POINT OF VIEW.
Chapter II.
Christianity in Existence Before Christ.
ARCHBISHOP WHATELY has told us that “Not to undeceive, is to deceive”; that “We must neither lead, nor leave, men to mistake falsehood for truth”; and that “He who propagates delusion, and he who connives at it when already existing, both alike tamper with the truth.”
These sayings are quite as applicable to our religious teachers as to our teachers of science and philosophy.
Let us, for instance, see how matters stand as to what they have taught us concerning the origin of our religion.
If Christians—whether followers of the Greek Church (which, as more or less representative of the primitive Church, essentially a Greek one, sometimes claims to be the Mother Church), or followers of that Church which has succeeded to the priestly powers of the Caesars (and may perhaps be allowed to have the best claim to the title “Catholic”), or followers of the Protestant Churches—if a number of representative Christians were asked the plain question, “Did Christianity exist before the birth of Jesus the Nazarene? ” their answers would be found ultimately divisible into three classes: (1) that of the Christians unable to give a plain and straightforward reply; (2) that of those who would reply “Of course it did not”; and (3) that of those who would reply “Of course it did.”
Those who would not give a plain and straightforward answer need not be considered. Those who would give the reply “Of course it did not,” would give the only plain answer logically possible upon the part of those who stand by the Christian creed as nowadays generally taught. But the few, the very few, who would answer, “Of course it did,” would have very good grounds for their assertion.
Some Christians think that even Civilisation came into the world after, and as a result of, the advent of Jesus. As a matter of fact, however, a high state of civilisation existed, in various countries at various times, thousands of years before our era. And as to the Roman Empire and the countries into which that “world in itself” was ultimately split up, it is well known that as Christianity triumphed so Civilisation died out. Whatever may have been the cause, none can deny the fact that the Dark Ages followed close in the wake of the conquering Church.
It is true that the Monks were for centuries the centres of such light and learning as survived in Europe. And why was this? It was because Constantine the Great having utilised his power, as High Priest of the Gods of Rome and supreme Emperor of the whole Roman world, in favour of Christianity, making it the State Religion, the Christian Church became mistress of the situation, and got Emperor after Emperor not only to increase its power, but also to stamp out of existence the literary evidence against its own version of the nature, origin, and history of the Christian Faith; the Church itself taking possession of all the manuscripts which were to be saved, and, by securing a monopoly of the power to educate, thus safeguarding and perpetuating its powers and privileges.
As to the contention that our present civilisation is due to the monks and to Christianity, it is more than fifteen hundred years since the Sun-God worshipper Constantine laid the whole Roman world at the feet of the Christian Church, and also gave it a monopoly of the right to benefit by endowment; a right still refused to its opponents even in free England. It was in the first half of the fourth century of our era that Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, let us look a century ahead of the date in question, and ask ourselves whether the Christian Church had been employing its immense powers in favour of science and of progress? Was the state of Christendom in the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or even in the sixteenth century, a credit to Christianity ? Was the condition of Christian lands, even in the seventeenth century, anything to boast of?
In every Christian history dealing with the city at the time in question, it is stated that the Caliph Omar, whose forces captured Alexandria in the year A.C. 640, ordered the priceless manuscripts which on the accession to power of the Christian Church were still safely stored in its famous library, to be destroyed; the Caliph saying that if the works in question agreed with the Koran they were superfluous, while if they did not agree with it they were pernicious. It is the mistaken statement of a Christian Bishop. The invaluable manuscripts in question, the sole record of much of the knowledge of the history and wisdom of the ancients, were destroyed in the year A.C. 390 at the request of the Christian Bishop of Alexandria, who, wishing to safeguard the position of the Church, had petitioned the Emperor Theodosius for the requisite authority. And this prelate’s successor in the holy office was the Bishop whose clergy murdered Hypatia A.C. 415.
Then, and thus, were the Dark Ages inaugurated.
As to the libel on the great and magnanimous Omar, this was first given currency among Christians by Bishop Abulfaragius of Guba, in the thirteenth century; and no such statement as his was made by any one of those who during the five hundred years immediately succeeding the capture of Alexandria by Omar, dealt with the history of that city. This silence upon their part is not to be wondered at, seeing that the priceless parchments in question were purposely destroyed by the Christians themselves just two centuries and a half before the army of Omar appeared upon the scene.
The libel in question, which is still given every currency in our schools, our histories, and our books of reference, is the more to be regretted inasmuch as Omar and his followers in the seventh century were more civilised than the Christians even of the eleventh century; as can be seen by comparing the just behaviour of the Moslems, when they captured Jerusalem in the year A.C. 637, with the barbarities which the Crusaders inflicted upon Moslem and Jew alike when they captured the city in the year A.C. 1099. And during all the intervening centuries it was the Moslems, and not the Christians, who had held alight the torches of Science and Civilisation.
Moreover, though it is true that our present knowledge of the old Greek and Latin classics still extant is derived from manuscripts saved by Christian monks—saved, that is, from their own destroying hands—the revival of Science and of Learning in these latter days is due, not to the Christian Church, which to some extent stamped out Science and Learning, but to the Moslems against whom, in crusades begotten of ignorance and bigotry, all the so-called chivalry of Christendom was repeatedly flung in vain.
In vain; for it is not the Banner of the Cross but the Banner of the Crescent which for the last seven centuries has