The Trinity and Egyptian Belief by James Bonwick F.R.G.S. 1878

The Trinity and Egyptian Belief by James Bonwick F.R.G.S. 1878

See also The Pagan Origin of the Trinity - 60 Books on CDrom

For a list of all of my digital books (PDF and Amazon) click here

THOUGH it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic, yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions.

Egypt is no exception; only, strange enough, as Lenormant observes, "no two cities worshipped the same triad." The one remarkable feature in nearly all these triads is that they are father, mother, and son; that is, male and female principles of nature, with their product. Mariette Bey has several remarks upon this curious subject:—

"According to places, the attributes by which the Divine Personage is surrounded are modified; but in each temple the triad would appear as a symbol destined to affirm the eternity of being. In all triads, the principal god gives birth to himself. Considered as a Father, he remains the great god adored in temples. Considered as a Son, he becomes, by a sort of doubling, the third person of the triad. But the Father and the Son are not less the one god, while being double. The first is the eternal god; the second is but the living symbol destined to affirm the eternity of the other. The father engenders himself in the womb of the mother, and thus becomes at once his own father and his own son. Thereby are expressed the uncreatedness and the eternity of the being who has had no beginning, and who shall have no end."

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

The Tract Society's work on Egypt, remarking the clearly defined Trinity idea of the ancient Egyptians, and yet the silence or obscurity of the Hebrew Scriptures upon it, has the following explanation: "It does not appear probable that men, to whom the doctrine of tri-unity of God was unknown, could have framed such a system as this; their purpose appears to have been to hide that truth, so that it should not be lost, but yet to conceal it from the many."
The conceptions of this Trinity must have varied through the thousands of years of Egyptian belief, as they have among Christians themselves. At first, as far as may be seen, there was less mysticism than grew round the idea afterwards. Even "in ancient Osirianism," as Stuart-Glennie writes, "the Godhead is conceived as a Trinity; yet are the three gods declared to be only one god." In Smith's "History of the East," it is stated, "In all these triads, the Son is another impersonation of the attributes of the Father."

It must not be imagined that the mass of the people understood the mystery of the tri-unity of the Godhead, any more than the ruder class of Christian populations do now. A traveller tells the story of some Spaniard laughing at an uncouth idol found in the ruins of Central America, when a Mexican civilly but apologetically exclaimed, "It is true we have three very good Spanish gods, but we might have been allowed to keep a few of those of our ancestors."

Among the Egyptian triads, the following may be mentioned; Osiris, Isis and Horus, in one form or other, universal in the land; Amoun, mother Maut, and son Chons, of Thebes; Noum, Sate, and Anucis, or Anouke, of Ethiopia ; Month-ra, Reto, and Harphre" of Hermonthis; Seb, Netphe or Nout, and Osiris, of Lower Egypt; Osiris, Isis and Anhur of Thinnis; Ptah, Pasht and Month, of Memphis; Neph, Neboo, and Hake of Esne; Seb, Netpe and Mandooli, of Dabad; Savak, Athor, and Khonso, of Ambos; Horket, Hathor, and Horsenedto, of Edfou. Among others may be included, Ptah, Sekhet and Neferatom; Aroeris, Tsontnofre, and Pnebto; Sokaris, Nephthys and Thoth, etc. The Tract Society's book judiciously mentions that the triad of Amoun-Ra, Maut and Chons has many intermediate triads till it reaches the incarnate triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus. But that work admits the fact that three are blended into one.

Mr. Samuel Sharpe, a prominent Egyptologist, observed an admirable representation of this tri-unity, more expressive than the shamrock of St. Patrick. He thus describes the picture of this Osirian deity; "The horns upon his head are those of the goddess Athor, and the ball and feathers are the ornaments of the god Ra; thus he is at once Osiris, Athor, and Ra." With reason, then, did he add: "The doctrine of Trinity in Unity already formed part of their religion;" alluding to the high antiquity of this representation.

But there are male trinities, and female ones. The existence of the latter excited the wonder of the compiler of the Tract Society's book, and he thus records his thoughts: "A remarkable point which we notice, without presuming at all to trespass beyond the exact letter of that which is written. The female impersonation of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, i. 9, is a remarkable circumstance in this connection."

The Greek writers, full of the old philosophy and Platonic Trinity, perhaps saw more than the Egyptians intended, or they mystified the notion. Damascius talks of Eicton, Emeph or Cneph, and Ptha, and that, "according to the Egyptians there is one principle of all things praised under the name of the Unknown Darkness, and this thrice repeated." Jamblichus notifies "Ammon the generator, Ptha the perfector, and Osiris the producer of good." One quotes an inscription: "One Bait, one Athor, and one Akori; Hail, Father of the world! Hail, triformous God!" Proclus says, "The demiurgical number does not begin from a trinity, but from a monad." Plutarch recognizes their Trinity as a right-angled triangle; of which Osiris is the perpendicular, Isis is the base or receptacle, and Horus is the hypothenuse. But they are all imbued with the Trinity idea of Plato,—Agathos, Logos, and Psyche; the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.

Jamblichus, who quotes from the Egyptian Hermetic Books, has the following definition of the Egyptian Trinity:—

"Hermes places the god Emeph, as the prince and ruler over all the celestial gods, whom he affirmeth to be a Mind understanding himself, and converting his cogitations or intellections into himself. Before which Emeph he placeth one indivisible, whom he calleth Eicton, in which is the first intelligible, and which is worshipped only by silence. After which two, Eicton and Emeph, the demiurgic mind and president of truth, as with wisdom it proceedeth to generations, and bringeth forth the hidden powers of the occult reasons with light, is called in the Egyptian language Ammon; as it artificially affects all things with truth, Phtha; as it is productive of good, Osiris; besides other names that it hath according to its other powers and energies."

The Rev. Dr. Cudworth, whose translation is given above, adds this comment:—

"How well these three divine hypostases of the Egyptians agree with the Pythagoric or Platonic Trinity of,— first, Unity and Goodness itself, secondly, Mind, and thirdly, Soul,—I need not here declare. Only we shall call to mind what hath been already intimated, that Reason or Wisdom, which was the Demiurgus of the world, and is properly the second of the fore-mentioned hypostases, was called, also, among the Egyptians by another name, Cneph; from whom was said to have been produced or begotten the god Phtha, the third hypostasis of the Egyptian Trinity; so that Cneph and Emeph are all one. Wherefore, we have here plainly an Egyptian Trinity of divine hypostases subordinate, Eicton, Emeph or Cneph, and Phtha."

Other interpretations have been named. Phallic advocates, as Payne Knight, have contended that the male symbol of generation in divine creation was three in one, as the cross, etc., and that the female symbol was always regarded as the Triangle, the accepted symbol of the Trinity. "The number three" says he, "was employed with mystic solemnity, and in the emblematical hands above alluded to, which seem to have been borne on the top of a staff or sceptre in the Isiac processions, the thumb and two forefingers are held up to signify the three primary and general personifications." This form of priestly blessing, thumb and two fingers, is still acknowledged as a sign of the Trinity.

The popular Trinity of Egypt,—Osiris, Isis, and Horus, —must have made a profound impression, when we find Babylonian Jews endorsing it in the Talmud, and early Christian sects adopting it. Not content with generally speaking of the Holy Spirit as feminine, some, as the Melchites at the Council of Nice, put the Virgin Mary in the place of Isis, and established the Trinity, as of old, Father, Mother, and Son. It is a popular Protestant error to suppose that the thought of this exaltation of Mary was a modern one.

The Phoenicians, or old Canaanites, had one grand Trinity: "Baal Hammon, male; Tanith-Pen-Baal, female; and Iolaus or Eloim. Dunbar I. Heath goes so far as to say of the ancient time, "Every Semitic town of weight sufficient to erect its own temple appears to have had its own name for its Trinity." Another Trinity was of Baal, Ashtaroth, and Asherah. The Gnostic triad was Bythos, Ennoia and Pneuma.

The Assyrians had several triads. In the most ancient, that of the Accadian, one member is called Salman, the Saviour. The leading triad was Ana or Anu; Bil, Bel or Belus; and Hea or Hoa. There was another of Sin or Hurki; Shamas, San, or Sansi; and Iva. The great female triad consisted of Anat or Anaites; Bilit, Beltis, or Mylitta, and Daokina. Another was of The Great Lady; Gula or Anuit; and Shala or Tala.

In Babylon the prominent triad was of Anu Sin, Shamaz, and Iva. Shamas was the sun, as Sin was the moon; the Chaldeans put the moon before the sun.

For a list of all of my digital books click here

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

The Romance of the English Language by Logan P Smith 1921

The Romance of the English Language by Logan Pearsall Smith 1921

See also The Best Victorian Literature, Over 100 Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

There are few of us so learned that we can afford to dispense with the aid given by the small volumes in the Home University Library in any subject, and Mr Pearsall Smith's philological book is one of the most informative and interesting of the series.

Here we learn of the tendency in English to put the accent on borrowed French words on the first syllable when we decide to pronounce them in our own way: later borrowings are accented according to what we imagine the native pronunciation to be: so we get gentle, dragon, gállant, baron, button and mutton of old time against the newer words genteel, dragoon, gallânt, buffoon, cartoon, balloon. In like manner words like message and cabbage show their antiquity when compared with massage, mirage and prestige. Police has kept its English accent only in Ireland and Scotland.

Mr Pearsall Smith, like Professor Wyld, has much to say against the pedants, and shows us how letters like the b in debt, the l in fault, the p in receipt, the d in advance and advantage, the c in scent and scissors have been inserted incorrectly by English scholars who ought to have known better.

In the course of an enthusiastic defence of a mixed language as against a pure national home-bred speech he makes the valuable point that we are richer than most nations in that we can express subtle shades of difference of meaning, of emotional significance between such pairs of words as paternal and fatherly, fortune and luck, celestial and heavenly, royal and kingly by reason of this intermixture of foreign elements.

One of the most interesting chapters in the book is on "Makers of English Words," which gives us yet another avenue of approach to the study of the language.

Not only interesting, but surprising, are some of the results gleaned from this: that Sir Isaac Newton was the first to use centrifugal and centripetal; that Jeremy Bentham coined international; Huxley was responsible for Agnostic; cyclone was created in 1848 by a meteorologist, but anti-cyclone had to wait for Sir Francis Galton. Whewell invented scientist and Macaulay was responsible for constituency. Other words created in the nineteenth century are Eurasian, esogamy, folklore, hypnotism, telegraph, telephone, photograph and a host of other scientific terms. To go back to the classics: we owe the formation of many new words to Sir Thomas Browne, among them hallucination, insecurity, retrogression, precarious, antediluvian. Milton coined infinitude, liturgical, gloom, pandemonium, echoing, rumoured, moonstruck, Satanic. Shakespeare coined more than all the rest of the poets put together. To Coverdale and Tindale we owe a great number of new compounds, like loving-kindness, long-suffering, broken-hearted. It is delightful to think that we owe irascibility to Doctor Johnson, persiflage and etiquette to Lord Chesterfield, bored and blasé to Byron, colonial and diplomacy to Burke, and pessimism to Coleridge. After Keats (whose creations are miniature poems in themselves) there is a remarkable decline in word-creation.

Two valuable chapters are devoted to "Language and History," in which we find how far the evolution of our race and civilisation is embodied in our vocabulary—"A contradiction between history and language rarely or never occurs"—and a further chapter on "Language and Thought" is of extraordinary interest in showing us what words we must delete from our vocabulary if we wish to enter into the spirit and popular consciousness of the Middle Ages, that world of supernatural purposes and interventions. All sense of past and future would drop from us. Our thoughts would be absorbed entirely by immediate practical considerations. We should feel imprisoned, though we might feel more dignified. With the Renaissance we should expand enough to observe our fellows: a century later we should turn to the study of ourselves.

"The change of thought from one generation to another does not depend so much on new discoveries as on the gradual shifting, into the centre of vision, of ideas and feelings that had been but dimly realised before. And it is just this shifting—this change, so important and yet so elusive—which is marked and dated in the history of language."

There was once an American writer who said: "You commend or condemn yourself by your regular choice of words ... don't use such commonplace words as grab, bet, awful, says, worst, boss, monkeying, job, ain't, tackled, floored, bicker, rumpus, shindy, hunk, fellow, drub, henpecked, blubber, spout, pickings, croak, swipe, swap, handy, fluster, nasty, hankering, flabbergasted, highfalutin.... Are you familiar with such desirable words as lassitude, flamboyant, nascent, legendary, perennial, Nemesis, cryptic, brooding, imperturbable, disenchanted, belated, cleavage, august, clarity, demarcation, indigenous, cloistered, malevolent?"

Well, if you agree with him (and there are people who do) it's quite time you started to read some books on the English Language, and if you don't it means that you already understand the delights of philology and you will need no further encouragement to read the four books I have mentioned, if you have not already done so.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

The Origin of the Christmas Tree by Dr. Kaygorodoff 1891

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

For a list of all of my digital books click here

The Origin of the Christmas Tree by Dr. Kaygorodoff 1891

THE custom of the Christmas tree is a very recent institution. It is of a late date not only in Russia, but also in Germany, where it was first established and whence it spread everywhere, in the New as well as in the Old World. In France the Christmas tree was adopted only after the Franco-German war, later therefore than 1870. According to Prussian chronicles, the custom of lighting the Christmas tree as we now find it in Germany was established about a hundred years ago. It penetrated into Russia about 1830, and was very soon adopted throughout the Empire by the richer classes.

It is very difficult to trace the custom historically. Its origin belongs undeniably to the highest antiquity. Fir trees have ever been held in honour by the ancient nations of Europe. As ever-green plants, and symbols of never-dying vegetation, they were sacred to the nature-deities, such as Pan, Isis and others. According to ancient folklore the pine was born from the body of the nymph Pityst (the Greek name of that tree), the beloved of the gods Pan and Boreas. [Pitys: A nymph beloved by the god Pan and changed into a fir tree.] During the vernal festivals in honour of the great goddess of Nature, fir trees were brought into the temples decorated with fragrant violets.

The ancient Northern peoples of Europe had a like reverence for the pine and fir trees in general, and made great use of them at their various festivals. Thus, for instance, it is well known that the pagan priests of ancient Germany, when celebrating the first stage of the sun's return toward the vernal equinox, held in their hands highly ornamented pine branches. And this points to the great probability of the now Christian custom of lighting Christmas trees being the echo of the pagan custom of regarding the pine as a symbol of a solar festival, the precursor of the birth of the Sun. It stands to reason that its adoption and establishment in Christian Germany imparted to it a new, and so to speak, Christian formt. Thence fresh legends-as is always the case-explaining in their own way the origin of the ancient custom. We know of one such legend, remarkably poetical in its charming simplicity, which purports to give the origin of this now universally prevailing custom of ornamenting Christmas trees with lighted wax tapers.

Near the cave in which was born the Saviour of the world grew three trees-a pine, an olive, and a palm. On that holy eve when the guiding star of Bethlehem appeared in the heavens, that star which announced to the long-suffering world the birth of Him, who brought to mankind the glad tidings of a blissful hope, all nature rejoiced and is said to have carried to the feet of the Infant-God her best and holiest gifts.

Among others the olive tree that grew at the entrance of the cave of Bethlehem brought forth its golden fruits; the palm offered to the Babe its green and shadowy vault, as a protection against heat and storm; alone the pine had nought to offer. The poor tree stood in dismay and sorrow, vainly trying to think what it could present as a gift to the Child-Christ. Its branches were painfully drooping down, and the intense agony of its grief finally forced from its bark and branches a flood of hot transparent tears, whose large resinous and gummy drops fell thick and fast around it. A silent star, twinkling in the blue canopy of heaven, perceived these tears; and forthwith, confabulating with her companions-lo, a miracle took place. Hosts of shooting stars fell down, like unto a great rain shower, on the pine until they twinkled and shone from every needle, from top to bottom. Then trembling with joyful emotion, the pine proudly raised her drooping branches and appeared for the first time before the eyes of a wondering world, in most dazzling brightness. From that time, the legend tells us, men adopted the habit of ornamenting the pine tree on Christmas Eve with numberless lighted candles.

My Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

Pigs and their Criminal Trials 1877

Pigs and their Criminal Trials - article in All the Year Round 1877

See also Notorious Criminals, Crimes & Criminology - 100 Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my digital books on disk click here

Is a pig a responsible being? Has he a moral sense? If he commit a crime, does he know it to be a crime? If he be tried as a criminal, found guilty, and sentenced, would he know what it is all about, and form an opinion on the justice or injustice of the proceedings? And whatever be the answers to these questions, do they equally apply to other four-footed creatures, and to the lower animals generally? We leave this as a "widdle" to be solved by Dundreary and other moral philosophers. It is, meanwhile, a fact that animals have really passed through some such ordeal in bygone ages; and the reader may not be unwilling to know a little of the evidence in support of this statement. But, first, it may be well to notice a curious narrative relating to a judicial combat between a man and a dog, and a controversy to which it has led touching the possibility of such a thing taking place, without an undue degradation of man as a responsible being, or an equally undue elevation of a dog as presumably irresponsible.

Many of us remember the time when a sensational melodrama was performed at some of the London theatres, under the title of The Forest of Bondy; or, The Dog of Montargis. It has been revived occasionally, when a particular exhibitor or performer had a dog which he had trained to fill a part or routine of action. The story runs thus: Aubry de Montdidier, a gentleman of the royal court, had, in Chevalier Macaire, an archer of the guard, a deadly enemy, who envied him the favour of the king. One day Montdidier was walking in the forest of Bondy, attended only by a favourite hunting-dog. Macaire came upon him stealthily and suddenly, stabbed him to the heart, dug a hole in the ground, and buried the body. The poor dog, bewildered and distressed, remained at the spot all day and all night, and so long afterwards that he became nearly famished. Hurrying home, he whined for food, devoured it ravenously, and returned to the spot where his murdered master lay. This he did again and again, quitting the fatal heap of earth only when hunger compelled him to seek for food. The singularity could not fail to attract notice. The mysterious absence of Aubry de Montdidier had become a source of anxiety to his friends; the visits of the dog, his whines and howls, and the gestures denoting a wish that someone would accompany and aid him, led to a determination to ferret out the truth. Messengers were sent, who were led by the dog to the spot, where the lately-disturbed earth was dug up, and the murdered body found. It was properly interred with Christian rites; and the dog, quiet but saddened, became attached to the friends of his poor master. One day, in a public place, he suddenly espied Chevalier Macaire, rushed upon him, seized him by the throat, and was with difficulty dragged away. This occurred more than once, and suggested to some of the courtiers the recollection that Macaire was known to have been on ill terms with Montdidier. The king, hearing of these things, ordered Macaire to attend with the other archers of the guard, and caused the dog to be brought to him. No sooner did the dog see Macaire, than he sprang on him just as before. The king thereupon questioned the suspected man closely, but could not obtain from him any confession that he was privy to the murder of Montdidier. Upon this—and herein lies the pith of the story—the king resolved upon a trial by battle. It was one of the usages of that age to cause two men to fight, when doubt existed concerning the truth of an accusation brought by one of them against the other, in reliance on the belief that God would defend the right. An arena was prepared, seats were arranged for the king and his courtiers, Macaire was provided with a heavy bludgeon, and the dog with an empty cask into which he might retire to breathe awhile. The combat began; the dog rushed round and round Macaire, avoiding the blows as well as he could, watched his opportunity, and at last, with a spring and a gripe, brought him to the ground. The king accepted this as conclusive proof, and condemned Macaire to the death of a murderer.

Some French writers believe the story; others regard it as a legend resting on no trustworthy foundation. The story appeared in La Colombiere's Theatre d'Honneur et de Chevalerie, from whence it was copied by Bernard de Montfaucon. The event is said to have occurred in the year 1371; the king was Charles Quint, or Charles le Sage. The place of combat was the Ile St. Louis, or Ile Notre Dame, a small island in the Seine, the real nucleus of the city of Paris. Over the mantelpiece of a saloon at the chateau of Montargis, a favourite country residence of the king, is, or was, an old picture representing the combat. The king, the princes and princesses, and the courtiers, are seated around the arena, in the middle of which the dog is represented as seizing Macaire by the throat, despite the formidable bludgeon. The dog is called the Dog of Montargis, so far as is known, only because of this picture in the chateau of that name. Research has, however, brought to light a Latin poem, older than the time of Charles le Sage, in which such a trial by combat is described as having taken place in the days of Charlemagne, more than a thousand years ago. Hence, in the opinion of many critics, the story was probably an invention of some troubadour in the eleventh or twelfth century.

Besides this, the story has been gravely attacked because it compromises the dignity of man, ignores the relative importance of reasoning and unreasoning beings, confounds those who are responsible for their actions with lower animals, unconscious of responsibility in a moral point of view. It is right, say these censors, to respect animals as works of the Creator, but wrong to exaggerate the sentiment. If we raise beasts in estimation we must raise human beings also; if we cannot do this latter, then we must allow every beast to retain his inferior position, to keep his distance, as it were, from that superior being man. (Query: A man sometimes beats his wife, does Mr. Hog ever beat or bite Mrs. Sow?) Unreasoning and irresponsible animals fill all grades down to the very lowest forms of organisation, little better than plants or minerals; while man is capable of rising from his present level almost up (we are fain to hope) to equality with the angels. It is not compatible with Christian doctrine for a man to fight with a dog; not consistent with moral responsibility to test a question of guilt or innocence by such an ordeal. If (they are Frenchmen who discourse thus) King Charles le Sage had ordered one of his attendants—whether the Chevalier Macaire or any other — to submit to such a degradation, would his honour as a Frenchman have permitted him to do so? A murderer he may have been, but could he consent to make himself a beast, or the equal of a beast? No; he would have preferred death, with or without a trial. No man in his own rank of life would have associated with him after he had fought a combat with a dog, whether he had been victorious or not; the dog-fight would damn him. When a lady, in the days of chivalry, selected a champion to fight for her, she chose a man of knightly honour, or at any rate one equal in rank to his antagonist, in order that it might be no degradation to either to combat with the other. It is also urged, in refutation of the Bondy narrative, that no animals below the rank of man have any clear idea of death; they do not discriminate between it and a prolonged sleep; the passing away of a spirit from the silent body would be beyond their powers of conception. Even children can with difficulty bring themselves to understand what death means. The dog of Montargis did not know that his master was dead, whatever else he may have known; and he could not deem it a moral retribution to spring upon the throat of Macaire. Thus argue the critics who dispute the story on moral grounds.

And now we come to our pigs. The story or legend just treated of depends, if true at all, on a belief in something—be it what it may—above mere brute nature in brutes, above mere bestiality in beasts. And it will be interesting to show, by evidence of quite a different kind, that the French did at one time really adopt a course towards the lower animals, which we in the present day should consider absurdly beneath the dignity of man, absurdly above the comprehension or responsibility of the brute creation.

A learned jurisconsult, M. Berriat St. Prix, examining the archives of the old French criminal courts, found more than sixty accounts of trials in which swine or other animals were placed at the bar— as we should call it—as criminals, or offenders accused of crime. These occurred at various dates, from the twelfth century down far into the seventeenth— the later centuries of the Middle Ages and the earlier of the modern. The Church had been accustomed to pronounce anathemas, on some occasions, against certain noxious vermin, such as field-mice, May bugs, caterpillars, snails, and others hurtful to the farms and gardens. But the criminal trial of animals was a different thing altogether. The instances ferreted out by M. Berriat St. Prix related mostly to offenders of the porcine genus, but some applied to bulls or cows and other animals.

One of the trials took place in the year 1266. The officer of justice of the Monastery of Sainte Genevieve brought to trial a hog that had killed and partly devoured a poor little infant, at Fontenay aux Roses, near Paris. The culprit, found guilty, was sentenced to the punishment of being roasted to death—an example of roast pork which will probably be rather new to most English readers.

Again, in the year 1386, a magistrate of Falaise, in Normandy, after a formal examination into the facts, condemned a sow to be mutilated in the leg and the head, and then to be hanged, for having killed and partly devoured an infant. Of course the prisoner at the bar was neither asked nor expected to give evidence in her own defence. The executioner was furnished with new gloves on the occasion.

Again, the judicial officer of the Abbey of Beaupre, near Beauvais, instituted a formal enquiry into a charge brought against a bull, of having viciously killed a maiden thirteen years of age, in the Seigneurie of Cantry, a dependency of the Abbey. The facts were investigated, the animal found guilty, sentence passed, and the bull put to death by hanging. So far as appears, the four-footed beasts condemned after these curious trials were not put out of the world in the usual way; they suffered the more ignominious death of felons.

Just before the close of the fifteenth century, in the time of our Henry the Seventh, a zoological trial—if the term may be used—was held, concerning which M. Berriat St. Prix gives us some of the technical records of procedure. It was held before the bailli or judicial officer of the Abbey of Josaphat, near Chartres: "Monday, April 18, 1499, an enquiry was held before us, at the request of the procureur of Messieurs the Monks of the Abbey of Josaphat, against Jehan Delalande and his wife, prisoners in the jail of this abbey, by reason of the untimely death of a child named Gilon, about a year-and-a-half old, which child had been duly nursed and nourished by its mother. The child was murdered by a pig, about the age of three months, belonging to the said Delalande and his wife. Considering the charge brought, and the evidence taken, we have condemned and do hereby condemn the said pig, for the reason and facts established, to be hanged and executed by our executioner, in the jurisdiction of Messieurs our Superiors, and by virtue of our definitive and lawful power. Given under the countersign of the said bailliage, the year and day above named. Signed, O. Briseg." There is no statement that Delalande and his wife bore any part of the punishment inflicted on their porcine property.

One instance, noted by the authority above named, is additionally curious, in so far as it lets us into the knowledge of a few facts, connected with the technical details of bringing the four-footed culprit to justice. It is an attestation made by the bailli of Mantes, dated March 14th, 1413, concerning the execution of a sow for having killed and partly devoured a little child. The approximate English of the old French forms of expression may be presented thus: "To all whom it may concern: Simon de Baudemont, lieutenant at Meullent of the noble Sieur John, Seigneur de Maintenon, Chevalier-chamberlain of the King our Sire, and his bailli at Mantes and the said Meullent, greeting. We hereby make known that in bringing to justice a sow that had killed and partly devoured a little child, we have become chargeable for the following expenditure, namely: Expenses incurred for the said sow in jail, six Paris sols [An old French coin worth 12 deniers]. To the maitre des hautes-oeuvres, who came from Paris to Meullent to perform the said execution, by command and ordonnance of our said master the bailli and procureur of the king, fifty-four Paris sols. For the cart which brought the said sow to justice, six Paris sols. For cords to tie and secure her, two sols eight deniers. For gloves, two deniers. The which items make; a sum total of sixty-nine sols eight deniers Parisian. All the which we hereby certify to be true by these presents. Sealed with our seal. Signed, De Baudemont."

There seems some reason to believe that the executioner wore gloves on the occasion, as if to save his hands from the contamination of touching the condemned brute. If so, they were perhaps hired for each occasion; they could not, even making allowance for the great difference in the value of money in those days and the present, have been purchased for so trifling a sum as two deniers.

Does it follow that the Middle Ages, as typified by these strange judicial proceedings, lowered human nature to the level of brute nature, by subjecting both alike to the same ordeal and punishments? Not necessarily. It was only when human life was sacrificed by animals that they were thus tried, sentenced, and punished. The principle of legislation which seems to have been accepted and adopted was that all violence to human life and human nature are punishable, by whomsoever and whatsoever committed. A state of society which sanctioned this maxim is not unlikely to have sanctioned also the style of judicial combat indicated by the story of the Dog of Montargis, whether that particular story is true or legendary—provided there was strong presumptive evidence that the accused person had really committed murder.

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

Join my Facebook Group

A Review of William Starr Myers' Socialism and American Ideals 1919

Download a copy of this book for a limited time here.

A Review of William Starr Myers' Socialism and American Ideals 1919 [William Starr Myers, Ph.D., was Professor of Politics, Princeton University]

See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and American History & Mysteries, Over 200 PDF Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my digital books click here

This modest and unpretentious volume does not purport to contain an exhaustive study of the theory and practice of socialism, but it presents a remarkably keen, clear-cut, and withal good-tempered argument to show that the basic principles of socialism, and of its precursor, paternalism in government, are diametrically opposed not only to the American plan of government and the ideals out of which it grew, but also to the very spirit of democracy itself, and even to the foundations of the religion which most of us profess. The genius of American institutions is in permitting and encouraging individual effort and initiative. It is not universal happiness which is promised by our constitutions, but the right to pursue it, and this means equality of opportunity for each individual to seek and achieve the destiny which suits him best. The theory of socialism, on the other hand, represses individuality, allocates activity, professes to help all the members of the body politic, but does so in spite of themselves, and so, as Professor Myers aptly says, “inevitably pauperizes and atrophies human character.” For the result of socialism as a permanent policy, as he states, “means the substitution of government or official judgment and initiative for that of the individual. The whole process would be one to deaden and atrophy the powers of the people in general, with the result that there would follow a leveling down to a plane of mediocrity rather than a leveling up according to individual capacities and ambitions, exercised through equality of opportunity.” Nor is this all. For “in a socialistic state, inevitably there would be formed a bureaucracy of selfish office holders. Although, owing to the impetus of our previous free democracy, the first socialist officials might be men of ability who had gained their places through successful experience, yet a close corporation of officials would follow them and retain the exercise of power. The people gradually would sink to a level of servile conformity.”

Visit my Econ blog at http://fredericbastiat1850.blogspot.com/

And although socialism dons the shining armor of democracy, and cries aloud in the name of the “plain people,” the “common people,” the “toiling masses,” and so on, it is but a pretender and is false to the very standard it holds aloft. For socialism “is essentially undemocratic. A democracy means a government by public opinion and this opinion is the result of the co-operative impulse or community feeling of the people of a free country—a people who are given the opportunity to think for themselves, and are not thought for by a divinely constituted government. As Thomas Jefferson maintained, liberty is not a privilege granted by a government, but government is a responsibility delegated to its officers by the people. And on this distinction hangs all the philosophy of democracy.”

The first step in practical socialism would be the assumption and operation by the government of the most important public utilities, particularly the agencies of transportation and communication and some of the processes of production. The results of such a policy are no longer a matter of surmise or even of argument. The experiment has been tried in various countries of Europe, and Professor Myers points out in one of his most interesting chapters that the invariable consequences are disastrous inefficiency, waste, extravagance, and deterioration of service. For that matter, the experiment has been tried in the United States; and if the American people have not read the lesson which is written plainly across the face of governmental operation of the railroads, telegraphs, and telephones, then they would not give heed though one spoke to them from the dead.

But society is not static, and undoubtedly we are faced with new problems and must devise new processes. Professor Myers believes that the better way, or, as he calls it, the true antidote to socialism, lies in the direction of the free and successful use of cooperation, not only in the new relation of capital and labor, but in the processes of production and in the purchase and distribution of commodities. "Cooperation" is a term which the socialist especially likes, but one to which he has no manner of right. For "cooperation is a social movement, the impulse for which comes from within the human heart, while socialism is essentially a working together only as the result of outward direction and dictation. The first is the act of a free man; the latter results from the obedience of a political and mental slave."

For a list of all of my digital books click here

Superstitions that Folks Have About Christmas by Clifford Howard 1907

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

For a list of all of my digital books click here

Superstitions that Folks Have About Christmas - Some of the Queer Beliefs in Different Countries: By Clifford Howard (Ladies' Home Journal 1907)

CHRISTMAS would not be Christmas without its legends and its time-hallowed customs — and, I was about to add, its superstitions; but this is no longer true for the great majority of us. We cling devotedly to our endearing legends and customs, but the bonny superstitions of Christmastime are fast fading away in the sunset of the world's illusions. Indeed, the modern, progressive world is forgetting all about them. It is only when we peep into the earth's nooks and corners that have not yet been swept of their cobwebs of folklore and primitive faiths that we find these quaint beliefs in the supernatural still forming a part of the Christmas celebration. But however remote they may seem at first thought, we need but turn aside from the highways of the Christmas season to find these superstitions thriving in simple faith among our neighbors and fellow-beings, and lending to this merry tide a mysterious and fairylike romance which makes us almost sorry that we have not retained our hold upon them along with our sainted Santa Claus and mythful mistletoe. They are not confined to any one race nor to any one locality. Wherever we go, whether it be along the byways of our own domain or those of foreign lands, we encounter these innocent Christmas superstitions holding sway among good and lowly folk.

The Cocks Crowing for Christmas

MOST common and most familiar are those relating to the behavior of the animals at Christmastime. Perhaps the oldest among them is the still-popular belief that the chickens know when Christmas is coming, and that at this season of the year the cock may be heard crowing in the middle of the night. It is said he is crowing for Christmas, and that his object in so doing is to frighten off evil spirits. Those who are familiar with the play of “Hamlet” will recall that Shakespeare refers to this ancient superstition, when Marcellus says to his companions upon the disappearance of the ghost:

“It faded on the crowing of the cock. 
Some say that ever 'gainst that season comes 
Wherein our Savior's birth is celebrated, 
The bird of dawning singeth all night long; 
And then, they say, no spirit can walk abroad, 
The nights are wholesome; then no planets strike, 
So hallow’d and so gracious is the time.”

CLOSELY akin to this superstition is one that still prevails in certain parts of rural England. This is the belief that if on Christmas Eve any one cautiously approaches a hive of bees in the stillness of the night he will hear the bees singing. They know that the joyous festival is at hand and, awaking from their winter slumber, they join with mankind in celebration of this holy anniversary. And on the stroke of midnight the attentive listener will hear their subdued humming resolve itself into the melodious singing of the hundredth Psalm:

“Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
“Serve the Lord with gladness; come before His presence with a song.”

Animals Kneeling in Adoration

THE belief that animals are inspired with a knowledge of the advent of Christmas and are given the power of expressing adoration at midnight is very widespread. In many places it is believed that the sheep at this hour awake and go in procession, in commemoration of the visit of the angels to the shepherds on the hills of Bethlehem. The cattle, too, are said to celebrate the birth of the Savior by kneeling in their stalls.

It is commonly believed among the peasants of Europe that this actually takes place on Christmas night, but it is a sight seldom witnessed by human eyes, owing to the condition that only those who are free from sin are permitted to behold the miracle.

This superstition early found its way to America, and in modified form still lingers among some of the Indians. Howison, in his “Sketches of Upper Canada,” relates that one moonlight Christmas Eve he was surprised to see an Indian creeping cautiously through the woods. When asked what he was doing he replied: "Me watch to see the deer kneel. Christmas night all the deer kneel and look up to Great Spirit."

Animals Gifted with Speech

IN THE German Alps there is a superstition that the cattle not only kneel in their stalls on Christmas night, but that they are also gifted with the faculty of speech at this time. It is regarded as a sin, however, for any one to listen to them. Only on penalty of speedy death may any one venture to hear the words spoken by the animals.

As a warning to those who might be inclined to allow curiosity to override their good sense, it is related that many years ago a farmer's servant hid in the stable on Christmas Eve to hear what the horses and cows would say when the clock struck twelve. Exactly at midnight one of the horses lifted up his head and spoke, saying in a distinct voice, "We shall have hard work to do a week from today." "Yes," answered one of the cows; "the farmer's servant is heavy." "And the way to the churchyard is long and steep," remarked another horse. Then silence fell again, and the servant, quaking with mortal fright, fled to the house, and dying a few days later was hauled to the churchyard by the two horses on the day they had prophesied.

The “Human Wolves” in Norway

Even more tragic than this, and, strangely enough, having about it no element of sacredness, is the old and one-time popular superstition still to be found in certain parts of Norway. This is the belief that on Christmas night men may change themselves into wolves. Those who take advantage of this uncanny opportunity become the most savage sort of beasts, and, forming themselves into packs, rage against their fellow-mortals and do more harm than the wildest of natural wolves. They attack houses and, breaking down the doors, get into the cellars and wantonly destroy the winter provisions, besides drinking up all the wine and beer they can discover.

Only by special prayers can a house be insured against a visitation from these werewolves; and so farreaching is their power for evil that if any one during the following month should chance to come upon the spot where the transformation of these creatures took place he will die within the year.

My Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

 Visit here for a description

Holy Straw and Bread

BUT if the Norse folks have this unhappy superstition associated with the joyous Christmastime, they have also one of a different character, peculiar to themselves, which is truly in keeping with this hallowed season. In Sweden, particularly, it is customary for the peasants to scatter straw about their houses and their churches during the Christmas holidays. This is done in commemoration of the circumstance that the Christ-Child was laid upon a bed of straw at His birth. The straw thus used on these holy days is supposed to become possessed of miraculous properties and is carefully gathered up by each household at the close of the holiday season. If given to the cattle when they are first sent out to pasture in the spring this holy straw is believed to insure them against sickness; and if it is desired to have the field or garden yield abundantly during the coming year it is only necessary to scatter some of this straw upon the ground at planting-time.

In Denmark a similar superstition obtains with reference to bread baked on Christmas Day. If this bread is kept until the spring and then crumbled and mixed with seed it will make the harvest abundant. Eaten by men and animals it both cures and prevents disease.

The peasants of Lombardy believe that bread baked on Christmas Day and kept untouched for a month is a charm against serpent bites, while in Germany it is believed that if the crumbs of this holy bread fall upon the earth they spring up as little plants bearing a starlike flower and possessing miraculous healing powers.

Closely allied to these beliefs is another German superstition, that barley left out in the open air on Christmas night and moistened with the dew becomes imbued with special curative virtues, and if planted will produce in extraordinary abundance.

In Austria and certain parts of Germany it is believed that the Virgin and the Christ-Child pass through the villages on Christmas night while the people are asleep. In many of the houses the tables are spread and the lights left burning during the entire night, in order that the holy wanderers may find rest and refreshment. In other homes the candles are placed in the windows, so as to illumine the otherwise darkened streets, in order that the Christ-Child may not stumble, and that by this token He may know of the love that abides for Him in these lowly dwellings.

The belief that Christ comes again as a little child and that other Biblical events are repeated at Christmastime is not uncommon. In Poland there is a popularly accepted belief that on Christmas night the scene of Jacob's ladder is reenacted, the angels descending to earth and scattering abroad the influence of peace and good will.

Subterranean Christmas Bells

IN SEVERAL countries there is a superstition that if one goes to a certain valley in the early morning of Christmas Day and puts his ear to the ground he will hear the ringing of church bells deep down in the earth. The valley is supposed to have been caused by a great earthquake that occurred many centuries ago and which swallowed up a whole village one Christmas morning while the bells were ringing, and ever since then these bells can be heard on the anniversary of that day.

In England this mysterious valley is in Nottinghamshire. For a great many years it was the custom for the people to assemble in this valley on Christmas morning and listen reverently to the muffled chimes of the buried church. Even now, though this ancient custom is no longer observed, the old men and women will tell the young folks that if they go to the valley and put their
ears close to the ground they will hear the Christmas bells ringing as in olden times.

This superstition suggests one that is peculiar to the Tyrolese peasants, who listen at the bake-ovens on Christmas Eve. If they hear music it signifies an early wedding; but if the ringing of bells is heard it forebodes the speedy death of the listener.

The Foretelling of Events

THIS superstition on the part of the Tyrolese peasants is but one of many that relate to the foretelling of events at Christmastime. In certain parts of Swabia it is customary on Christmas Eve for the young women to draw sticks from the woodpile. As the stick is, so will be the man who is to marry the maiden. If it is long he will be tall; if it is thick he will be stout; if crooked he will be deformed, and so on. In order to determine also what his trade or profession will be the interested maid pours molten lead into a bucket of water, and the shapes thus produced furnish the desired clew. If the hardening metal resembles a boot the future husband will be a cobbler; if a hammer, a carpenter; and if a rod, a schoolmaster. And to ascertain which of the maidens will be the first to marry, during the coming year the party forms a circle around a blindfolded goose, and the one whom the goose first approaches is the lucky damsel.

That the events of the coming year can be prognosticated at Christmas is a very old and very widespread belief. There are many who hold that the day of the week on which Christmas falls determines the kind of a year we are to have in respect to harvests and weather and conditions generally. Other superstitions of a like character are based upon the phases of the moon and the state of the weather on Christmas Day. In an old book, intended to enlighten the public on various matters, and written in all seriousness, we read:

“When Christmas Day cometh while the moon waxeth it shall be a good year, and the nearer it cometh to the new moon the better shall that year be. If it cometh when the moon decreaseth it shall be a hard year, and the nearer the latter end thereof it cometh the worse and harder shall the year be. When on Christmas night it is very fair and clear weather, and it is without rain and wind, then it is taken that in this year will be plenty of wine and fruit. But if the contrariwise—foul weather and windy—so shall it be very scant of wine and fruit. But if the wind arise at the rise of the sun, then it betokeneth great dearth among beasts and cattle this year. But if the wind arise at the going down of the sun, then it signifieth death to come among kings and other great lords.”

The Planting of Saint Barbara's Grain

AQUAINT custom associated with the superstition relative to the foretelling of the coming harvest is to be found among the good people of Southern France. There, on Saint Barbara's Day, the fourth of December, every devout housewife fills two plates with grains of wheat and pours enough water upon them to cause them to float. She then places them in the warm ashes of the fireplace or on a sunny window-ledge. This is called the planting of the blessed Saint Barbara's grain. The water and the warmth cause the wheat to sprout by Christmastime, and the anxious watchers are then able to tell what the harvest of the ensuing year will be; for as Saint Barbara's grain grows well or ill, so will the harvest be good or bad. And in symbolization of the life that has come into the world these plates with their tiny sprouts of green are placed in the centre of the table on Christmas Day when the festal meal is served.

The Original Halcyon Days were at Christmastime

THE days at Christmastime are the original “Halcyon Days.” They were so called because the halcyon, an ancient name for the kingfisher, was fabled to build its nest upon the waters at this season of the year. It was popularly believed that this bird, through the influence of the holy season, had the power of charming the winds and waves, so that the weather was then calm and peaceful and enabled the halcyon to lay its eggs within its floating nest and brood upon them in perfect safety.

In olden days the faith of men declared that all Nature testified in various ways to a recognition of the great event commemorated in the celebration of Christmas. The winds and seas, as well as the animals and the plants and all other living things, gave evidence of an innate knowledge of the advent of this glorious anniversary and became imbued with the prevailing spirit of joy and peace and adoration.

Tradition says that at the moment of Christ's birth a universal peace reigned throughout the earth and heavens; that a profound silence rested upon the world; that the birds stopped in their flight, the cattle ceased to feed, and men became motionless with sudden awe in the midst of their labors, and that the stars glittered with added lustre, and the sun twice bounded for joy.

From this tradition came the superstitions of the Middle Ages relating to the miraculous phenomena supposed to occur each year at Christmastime, and many of which, surviving through the centuries, still find devout acceptance among lowly followers of Christ.

Whatever may be our attitude toward these Christmas-born legends and superstitions, we know that there comes upon the world at this jubilant season a spirit of peace and of good will, a spirit of poesy and of romance, unknown and unfelt at any other time, and which lends a reasonableness and a glamour to these enduring superstitions which we are loath to disturb by any reference to logic or science. For these are the Halcyon Days, and all that is, is good; and our hearts become as those of little children, unquestioning the joy and the faith inspired by this holiest of all seasons.

For a list of all of my digital books click here

The Mystery of the Trinity by Eugene A. Skilton 1901

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

Visit a description of this book here.

The Mystery of the Trinity by Eugene A. Skilton 1901

See also The Pagan Origin of the Trinity - 60 Books on CDrom

For a list of all of my digital books click here

Since the primeval man was forced to fear the superhuman, in the raging of the elements, the mind of man has sought vainly, an intuition of the Idea of the Spirit that rules all.

The Hebrews grasped the idea of Unity, of Monotheism, and in the simplicity of their belief, there is much more to obtain credence, than in the incomprehensive tangle of dualisms and tritheisms. Yet all through the Hebrew theology there runs a vein of semi-polytheism, a mystic adoration of angels and archangels, a mysterious and innumerable host of heaven, also a dualism of Jahveh and Satan. Throughout the Psalms, Prophets and Talmud, there are many veiled references to these mysterious beings, and Christianity has assumed that many of these passages refer to the Hypostases or persons of the Trinity.

The Iranians saw two elements of divinity in the Universe and their theology partook of a dualism of good and evil, in eternal conflict. The many blendings of opposites, dualisms of contrasts in the laws of nature, all seem to token a di-theism of opposing yet dual forces—an I and a Not I, a Being and a Not-Being, a Law and a Not-Law, a Good and a Not-Good. Conditions force upon man the ideas of justice, recompense and punishment and in this system, it is a dualism that presents itself as the immutable condition of the Universe.

As to the triune idea, no one can trace its origin; we know that the Egyptians conceived of a trinity, of which the Theban was Amen-ra, Maut and Khousu, while the Hindu conceived of a Creator, Preserver and Destroyer. The Babylonian worship was to Anu, an abstract idea of Deity, Hea the God of the under-world and Bel—the demiurgus, or Lord of the visible universe. These conceptions, however, contain more tri-theism than unity. Plato, by some called "Moses atticising," conceived of a system undoubtedly more closely resembling the Christian Trinity than any other. He assumed a triad of Supreme God (PATHR) a divine understanding (LOGOS or SOFIA) and a world-soul. Though many assert this is the origin of the Logos doctrine, yet it notably lacks the ideas of unity and personality expressed in the Nicene creed.

Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, contemporary with, but probably not conscious of Christ's advent or teachings accepted the Platonic trinity. The Jews, dreading the mere mention of the awful name Jehovah, often designated Him by His attributes. Philo taking up the Greek cult blended it with these Hebrew expressions— "Word," "Wisdom," "Lord," etc., and personified Plato's Logos as the expected Messiah. Plato did not personify his abstract Logos while Philo did. Philo represented Him as a created being, yet creator of the worlds; an intermediate between God and his children. Thus the Platonism of Philo was, in the main, very similar to the heresy condemned at Nicaea, 325 A. D. Philo said, "This sensible world is the junior son of God; the senior is the Idea or Logos." "God is not to be grasped by human knowledge, but the Word is."

From its very inception, the Christian Church believed in the divinity of Christ. The disciples who walked and talked with Christ kept this impression above all others. The great question of the world's salvation and the kingdom of heaven overshadowed all else. No doubt some of the disciples may have had tritheistic ideas as well as trinitarian. They had little time to philosophize on the nature of God's substance; His mercy sufficed.

As the Church advanced (though still persecuted), the proselitizing influence reached the hearts of many of the Grecian philosophers and then the metaphysical minds began to search for the secret of the mystery. The word Triad was first used in about the middle of the second century in reference to the Christian Godhead. While the abstract word had been employed in the philosophy of Plato, yet it was not until this time that the mystic unity gave it an ambiguity that incented the whole Christian world to solve the mystery.

Various creeds had been promulgated before the full meaning of the word Trinity had been established. Irenaeus in Gaul 170 A. D., Tertullian in Northern Africa 200, Origen in Alexandria 230, Cyprian in Carthage 250 and Novatian in Rome, 250, all submitted creeds to their churches that their communicants might have a plain statement of their belief and confession; but these creeds contained no phrase of express unity and the confessor might be orthodox and yet be unitarian or tritheistic.

Many different sects, from the middle of the first century held various conceptions of the character of Christ. The Docetic belief was that Christ's advent was merely a phantasm, a deception of God. The Manicheaus, the Ebionites and all the various Gnostics, each held a different idea of the person of the Saviour— some believed him to be merely human, some, wholly divine, others that he was but a spiritual manifestation of the Deity, and very few of the early sects professed what we to-day would call an Athanasian belief in the Trinity. The general belief was in three distinct substances or Beings, or in only one Person, or two, but not in a unity of the Three.

The sect that first commanded the attention of the Church Fathers and caused them to build their doctrine around the theology or Logos doctrine of John, was the Monarchians or Unitarians. They were first called the Alogi. Theodotus, however, was the first to give the theory a systematic exposition. He denied Christ's divinity and claimed that Jesus was influenced by the Holy Spirit just as others were. Tertullian called Praxeas the first Patripassian, because he denied the Godhead of the Three; according to Praxeas, the One God became incarnate in Christ voluntarily; the flesh, he called the Son and the Son thus enveloped the Father; Christ was at the same time Father and Word. When Praxeas was accused by Tertullian of having crucified the Father, he referred him to Isaiah 45:5, John 10:30 and 14:9.

Sabellius believed in the Three, but as different manifestations of the One God. He held the essence of the Monad Father evolved Himself in the Son and Spirit; while Pope Calistus I., 218-223, called trinitarians ditheists, saying "The Father took flesh, made it God and uniting it to Himself becoming one God, and therefore cannot be two." Paul of Samosata believed the Logos merely a power of God, more developed in Christ than in any other human prophet, evolving through its help, his divinity and thus becoming by his own effort the Saviour of the world. It was the opposition to these Monarchian theories that developed the tritheism of the Arians and compelled the Church to promulgate the Nicene creed of the Trinity.

Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, was the originator of a theory which, in the early part of the fourth century, was generally accepted by the laity of the whole Christian Church, and even many years after the council of Nicaea, about 361, was almost universally accepted. Arius believed that there was one God, who was truly God and God alone, uncreated, unoriginate, alone everlasting, eternal and unchangeable forever. At one time, He was the Sole Essence, all else was non-existent. Before all the ages and the worlds, Christ was created by the Father, the first of all creatures and all things, but not as other creatures. His glory was immeasurably above the archangels, who worshipped him. He was perfect God, but of a substance like the Father's, but not the same, therefore not one with the Father; the only begotten Son, the Saviour of the world; perfect visible image of invisible Deity, but not Supreme.

This doctrine aroused the fiery spirit of Athanasius a very young but brilliant ecclesiast of Alexandria, and the influence of the Arian heresy was brought to the attention of the Bishops. The emperor Constantine, endeavoring to concilliate both factions called a council at Nicaea 325, to forever make plain the authorized belief of the Church and anathematize all other heresies. It was wise to call a convention in the incipiency of the heresy while all the Bishops accepted the Eternal Logos doctrine of John.

Athanasius, though only twenty-nine, assumed at the very beginning, the leadership of the session, both in offensive operations against Arianism and in defending the unity of the Trinity. Arius asserted that "Christ is not God by Nature, but merely by Adoption and Participation." Athanasius replied by quoting Isaiah 40:28, "The everlasting God, the Lord Creator of the ends of the earth." When Athanasius said "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God," Arius finished the quotation, "And the Word was with God," laying special emphasis on "with." In quoting Hebrews 1:3, "The express image of His Person," and John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am," Athanasius did not controvert Arius. Arius had as much foundation for his belief as Athanasius could find in the Old Testament in justification of his own. In all of Athanasius' authorities, there was a subtle mystery, which Arius could as well use himself. Thus nothing in Jeremiah 1:5, even if applicable to Christ could establish his co-eternity with God; nor would Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and forever" be asserted by Athanasius with more vehemence than by Arius.

Thus Arius, by agreeing to so much, was considered deceptive in what he did believe. Yet when Athanasius cited Isaiah 7:14, why should Arius object? Many of us to-day will think that Athanasius anticipated Arius in quoting Hebrews 1 :3, "When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels, as he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than they." Athansius declared the foundation of the Trinity in John 14:10, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." To this Arius could not voluntarily subscribe, as he maintained that the Logos was homoeusion, like in substance, but not homoousion, the same substance, and here the controversy waged the fiercest. There was only the difference of one letter, yet on that one letter depended the belief in the unity of the Trinity.

Athanasius asserted that Christ was "Very God of very God;" "The Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." "'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.'"

Arius could not answer Hebrews 10:11, "Creations shall perish," and if created, then Christ shall perish, except to say, "Then all men shall perish." Nor could he reply to Athanasius' citation of John 1:3, "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made," except to feebly assert that Christ was the First Creation and all else was the second creation. While Arius could reconcile his belief to Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man," Proverbs 8:27-30, "When he prepared the heavens, I was there" * * * "I was by him, disposing and adjusting as a Master Workman;" yet there were some extracts that Athanasius could not confute, Isaiah 45:8, "Salvation have I brought forth. I have created it;" Isaiah 45:11, "Thus saith the Holy One of Israel and His Maker." Arius maintained that Son implied birth, the only-begotten then had an origin of existence; therefore once the Son was not; therefore He is created out of nothing. Some of Arius texts were Proverbs 8:22; Matthew 19:17; 20:23; Mark 13:32; John 5:19; 18:28; 1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:15; Hebrews 1:5; Romans 1:4.

Of the 318 Bishops at the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., but five or six were with Arius and these were compelled to publicly recant, while Arius was banished. Though since, the Creed of this Council has been declared infallible, it was not until the fifth century that the heresy of Arianism was effectually stamped out. The Athanasian Creed is now almost universally accepted by all Christian denominations, with very few exceptions, but to show that it was not always so, a short account of the rise and fall of Arianism follows.

In 326, Athanasius was elected Bishop of Alexandria; two years after, Eusebius was in favor with Constantine and two years later Constantine recalled Arius from exile, but Athanasius declined to restore to Arius the communion of the Church. In 334, sixty Bishops, the Council of Caesarea, condemned Athanasius who refused to attend. In 335, at the Council of Tyre and Jerusalem, Athanasius and Arius were both admitted. Athanasius was deposed from the See of Alexandria and Constantine banished him to Treves.

The Council of Constantinople, in 336, recognized Arius and on the same day that he was to take communion, he died. His opponents claimed his death a miraculous punishment, although Gibbon suggests that those who press the narrative of his death might find that orthodox saints contributed more efficaciously with poison (his bowels suddenly bursted) than by their prayers to rid themselves of their most formidable rival.

In 337 Constantine died. Constantius, a semi-Arian, became Emperor of the East and Constans, an orthodox Christian, Emperor of the West. The following year saw Athanasius recalled from exile. The Council of Alexandria, 340, defended Athanasius and the Council of Rome the following year proclaimed him innocent. In the same year the Council of Antioch, over ninety Bishops, superseded Athanasius with an Arian, condemned consubstantialists and adopted a great many creeds antagonistic to the Nicene.

In 345, at the Council of Antioch, the word homoousion was suppressed in the Macrostich Creed, while in 347, the Council of Sardicia vindicated Athanasius. The Council of Sirmium, 351, dropped the all-important controversial word homoousion and the Council of Aries, two years later, condemned Athanasius, while only one Bishop stood up for Nicene Creed and was banished for so doing. In 355, at the Council of Milan, three hundred Bishops of the West, almost unanimously condemned Athanasius. In 357—359, Arians and Semi-Arians drew up creeds at Sirmium. In 357, Hosius, the President of the Council of Nicaea, held communion with Arians. In the same year Liberius, the Pope, condemned Athanasius. In 357, the Creed of Ancyra against homoousion was signed by Liberius. In 358, Liberius signed the Third Sirmium Creed (Semi-Arian). The Council of Constantinople, 359, and the Council of Antioch, 360, were both anti-Athanasian. Jerome, in 361, said "Nearly all the churches of the world, under the pretence of peace and of the Emperor, are polluted with the communion of Arians." The edict of the Council of Constantinople, 381, however, killed Arianism forever.

During the fourth century, almost every city and village of Christendom was either a fortress of Arianism or Trinitarianism. It was not an uncommon occurrence for a stranger to be halted and challenged as to his belief, whereupon, after a short discussion, the mob would divide and a pitched battle would ensue.

With all these varying assumptions of Councils, the Christian of the twentieth century, though mainly believing in the Athanasian Creed, may well believe as he interprets; that Christ is very God of very God, one with the Father, that the Godhead is One in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, or as we wish. But if we assume that there is efficacy in Christ's life and death and that He is divine, it would be judicious to believe that Christ is not a created being, but co-eternal with the Father, not of like substance with the Father, but the same substance, He in the Father and the Father in Him. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

For a list of all of my digital books click here

Socialism - Is it American? by William Starr Myers 1919

Socialism - Is it Americanism? by William Starr Myers 1919 [Professor of History and Politics, Princeton University]

See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my digital books on disk click here

It is rather interesting and curious to find that a great many of the people who have taken literally President Wilson’s declaration that we must make the world safe for democracy are also making it their business to spill a sort of altruism over the entire world. They are so busy attempting to spread democracy that they are not always certain in their own minds, it seems, as to what you mean by democracy. In fact, many of their confreres are extremely active just at the present time in trying to so transform their own country that they go to prove that they have very little confidence in the brand of democracy that we usually have known as American. In other words, they are trying to change our government from a democratic government into an autocratic one, from an American government into one modeled on European paternalism. That is, they are trying, whether by fair means or foul, whether openly or secretly, whether in an acknowledged way or tacitly, to put us upon a socialistie basis. And socialism, to my mind, is not only un-American, but it is undemocratic.

Of course, in discussing such a thing as socialism, the first difficulty we have is to get a definition of socialism. I know a great many socialists, and seldom do you find them agreeing upon what socialism is. It is just about as hard as trying to define religion. But, by talking with a number of socialists, we work out a definition which they are willing to accept, and it is this: that socialism is the government ownership of manufacture and distribution of all forms of wealth; and by that they mean the manufacture and distribution, that is, the production and transportation, of all forms of wealth; not merely in the sense of money, but in the sense of anything that is for the economic good of man or his welfare and enjoyment.

If we are going upon that basis, where the state takes over the means of manufacture, distribution, transportation and such, it means inevitably that we are going to substitute a government judgment for the individual emulation and competition, and it will become the duty of the government to decide how people shall be happy and what their measure of happiness shall be. Now, it seems to me that just as soon as you undertake to substitute a government judgment for the individual judgment, you are on ground that is anything except American, because if the Government is to decide as to the happiness of the individual, of course it first relieves him of all responsibility. In a socialistic state there is not the same responsibility of citizenship as you find in democracy, like America.

It seems to me that after all ambition is not only right, but it is one of the most valuable attributes of the human mind. Because what is ambition? Is not ambition just like any other thing—the greater the value of it the greater is the wrong when it is wrongly used, the greater is the abuse? Is not ambition, after all, the desire for greater service? And, mark you, what is every business man trying to do in order to increase his business? He is trying to appeal to the service of the public, public service, in order that, by serving the public, he may increase his business. Ambition is not only one of the most valuable but one of the most necessary human attributes.

What is the object of the American government? It is to give equality of opportunity. As the Declaration of Independence said, men are born free and have equal rights to the pursuit—not to the gift of happiness but to the pursuit—of happiness. The object of our Government is common equality of opportunity for each individual to work out his own salvation. To have to work it out in the business sense, the economical sense, and the spiritual sense. You cannot legislate men's happiness.

Again, socialism is essentially un-Christian. I bring this up because I have a great many friends who call themselves Christian Socialists. To my mind Socialism and Christianity are mutually exclusive terms. The whole appeal of the Christian religion is to individual impulse and to individual responsibility. We hear in church that it is more blessed to give than to receive. Giving is democratic. Sitting back and receiving the results of somebody else's work is socialism. I defy any socialist to show how the socialist state will call forth love from the human heart, because that comes from the well spring of the heart and not by outward direction. Parents who are successful in training their children usually do it by appealing to the love in their hearts, and not by outward direction.

Socialism is also opposed to the Jewish religion, which is the foundation on which the Christian religion is based. It is the fact that the Christian and Jewish religions, which are the same in essence, appeal to the individual responsibility; that, to my mind makes them the highest form of religion; and it is not socialism.

Democratic government is a government of cooperation, the working together of individuals. The socialists are strong on cooperation. There is one thing they are extremely fond of, and that is cooperation, but it is a word they have no right to use, because cooperation is the working together, the result of individual impulse. Socialism is working together as the result of government and outward direction. That is the difference between socialism and the cooperation with which men worked together in the Liberty Loans. Democracy is working together through an inward impulse; socialism, through an outward direction.

I hold no brief for the labor man, but I have learned this, that if you take the average labor man, and talk to him, he will say that he likes certain things in socialism; but, to come right down to facts, you will find that he likes working together, cooperation. And when you say to him, “Are you willing to go on the socialistic basis, where the state determines each wage and job and so on?" he will say, “No!” He will say he wants to cooperate. It is the word cooperation that catches his imagination.