SUBSECTION III.
Thus much for Egypt. Coming into Greece, not only do we find evidence
there to the same effect, but increase of that evidence. The god
worshipped as a child in the arms of the great Mother in Greece, under
the names of Dionysus, or Bacchus, or Iacchus, is, by ancient inquirers,
expressly identified with the Egyptian Osiris. This is the case with
Herodotus, who had prosecuted his inquiries in Egypt itself, who ever
speaks of Osiris as Bacchus. * To the same purpose is the testimony of
Diodorus Siculus. "Orpheus," says he,
"introduced from Egypt the greatest part of the mystical
ceremonies, the orgies that celebrated the wanderings of Ceres, and the
whole fable of the shades below. The rites of Osiris and Bacchus are the
same; those of Isis and Ceres (Demetra) exactly resemble each other,
except in name." * Now, as if it identify Bacchus with Nimrod,
"the Leopard-tamer," leopards were employed to draw his
car; he himself was represented as clothed with a leopard's skin; his
priests were attired in the same manner, or when a leopard's skin was
dispensed with, the spotted skin of a fawn was used as a priestly robe
in its stead. This very custom of wearing the spotted fawn-skin seems to
have been imported into Greece originally from Assyria, where a spotted
fawn was a sacred emblem, as we learn from the Nineveh
sculptures; for there we find a divinity bearing a spotted fawn, or
spotted fallow-deer , in his arm, as a symbol of some mysterious import.
* The origin of the importance attached to the spotted fawn and its skin
had evidently come thus: When Nimrod, as "the
Leopard-tamer," began to be clothed in the leopard-skin, as
the trophy of his skill, his spotted dress and appearance must have
impressed the imaginations of those who saw him; and he came to be
called not only the "Subduer of the Spotted one" (for
such is the precise meaning of Nimr--the name of the leopard), but to be
called "The spotted one" himself. We have distinct
evidence to this effect borne by Damascius, who tells us that the
Babylonians called "the only son" of the great
goddess-mother "Momis, or Moumis." * Now, Momis, or
Moumis, in Chaldee, like Nimr, signified "The spotted one."
Thus, then, it became easy to represent Nimrod by the symbol of the "spotted
fawn," and especially in Greece, and wherever a pronunciation
akin to that of Greece prevailed. The name of Nimrod, as known to the
Greeks, was Nebrod. * The name of the fawn, as "the spotted
one," in Greece was Nebros; * and thus nothing could be more
natural than that Nebros, the "spotted fawn," should
become a synonym for Nebrod himself. When, therefore, the Bacchus of
Greece was symbolised by the Nebros, or "spotted fawn,"
as we shall find he was symbolised, what could be the design but just
covertly to identify him with Nimrod?
We have evidence that this god, whose emblem was the Nebros, was
known as having the very lineage of Nimrod. From Anacreon, we find that
a title of Bacchus was Aithiopais * --i.e., "the son of
AEthiops." But who was AEthiops? As the AEthiopians were
Cushites, so AEthiops was Cush. "Chus," says
Eusebius, "was he from whom came the AEthiopians." *
The testimony of Josephus is to the same effect. As the father of the
AEthiopians, Cush was AEthiops, by way of eminence. Therefore Epiphanius,
referring to the extraction of Nimrod, thus speaks: "Nimrod,
the son of Cush, the AEthiop." * Now, as Bacchus was the son
of AEthiops, or Cush, so to the eye he was represented in that
character. As Nin "the Son," he was portrayed as a
youth or child; and that youth or child was generally depicted with a
cup in his hand. That cup, to the multitude, exhibited him as the god of
drunken revelry; and of such revelry in his orgies, no doubt there was
abundance; but yet, after all, the cup was mainly a hieroglyphic, and
that of the name of the god. The name of a cup, in the sacred language,
was khus, and thus the cup in the hand of the youthful Bacchus, the son
of AEthiops, showed that he was the young Chus, or the son of Chus. In
the accompanying woodcut , * the cup in the right hand of Bacchus is
held up in so significant a way, as naturally to suggest that it must be
a symbol; and as to the branch in the other hand, we have express
testimony that it is a symbol. But it is worthy of notice that the
branch has no leaves to determine what precise kind of a branch it is.
It must, therefore, be a generic emblem for a branch, or a symbol of a
branch in general; and, consequently, it needs the cup as its
complement, to determine specifically what sort of branch it is. The two
symbols, then, must be read together; and read thus, they are just
equivalent to--the "Branch of Chus"--i.e., "the
scion or son of Cush." *
There is another hieroglyphic connected with Bacchus that goes not a
little to confirm this--that is, the Ivy branch. No emblem was more
distinctive of the worship of Bacchus than this. Wherever the rites of
Bacchus were performed, wherever his orgies were celebrated, the Ivy
branch was sure to appear. Ivy, in some form or other, was essential to
these celebrations. The votaries carried it in their hands, * bound it
around their heads, * or had the Ivy leaf even indelibly stamped upon
their persons. * What could be the use, what could be the meaning of
this? A few words will suffice to show it. In the first place, then, we
have evidence that Kissos, the Greek name for Ivy, was one of the names
of Bacchus; * and further, that though the name of Cush, in its proper
form, was known to the priests in the Mysteries, yet that the
established way in which the name of his descendants, the Cushites, was
ordinarily pronounced in Greece, was not after the Oriental fashion, but
as "Kissaioi," or "Kissioi." Thus,
Strabo, speaking of the inhabitants of Susa, who were the people of
Chusistan, or the ancient land of Cush, says: "The Susians are
called Kissioi," * --that is beyond all question, Cushites.
Now, if Kissioi be Cushites, then Kissos is Cush. Then, further, the
branch of Ivy that occupied so conspicuous a place in all Bacchanalian
celebrations was an express symbol of Bacchus himself; for Hesychius
assures us that Bacchus, as represented by his priest, was known in the
Mysteries as "The branch." * From this, then, it
appears how Kissos, the Greek name of Ivy, became the name of Bacchus.
As the son of Cush, and as identified with him, he was sometimes called
by his father's name--Kissos. * His actual relation, however, to his
father was specifically brought out by the Ivy branch, for "the
branch of Kissos," which to the profane vulgar was only "the
branch of Ivy," was to the initiated "The branch of
Cush." *
Now, this god, who was recognised as "the scion of Cush,"
was worshipped under a name, which, while appropriate to him in his
vulgar character as the god of the vintage, did also describe him as the
great Fortifier. That name was Bassareus, which, in its two-fold
meaning, signified at once "The houser of grapes, or the
vintage gatherer," and "The Encompasser with a
wall," * in this latter sense identifying the Grecian god with
the Egyptian Osiris, "the strong chief of the buildings," and
with the Assyrian "Belus, who encompassed Babylon with a
wall."
Thus from Assyria, Egypt, and Greece, we have cumulative and
overwhelming evidence, all conspiring to demonstrate that the child
worshipped in the arms of the goddess-mother in all these countries in
the very character of Ninus or Nin, "The Son," was
Nimrod, the son of Cush. A feature here, or an incident there, may have
been borrowed from some succeeding hero; but it seems impossible to
doubt, that of that child Nimrod was the prototype, the grand original.
The amazing extent of the worship of this man indicates something
very extraordinary in his character; and there is ample reason to
believe, that in his own day he was an object of high popularity. Though
by setting up as king, Nimrod invaded the patriarchal system, and
abridged the liberties of mankind, yet he was held by many to have
conferred benefits upon them, that amply indemnified renown. By the time
that he appeared, the wild beasts of the forest multiplying more rapidly
than the human race, must have committed great depredations on the
scattered and straggling populations of the earth, and must have
inspired great terror into the minds of men. The danger arising to the
lives of men from such a source as this, when population is scanty, is
implied in the reason given by God Himself for not driving out the
doomed Canaanites before Israel at once, though the measure of their
iniquity was full (Exod. xxiii. 29, 30): "I will not drive them
out from before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the
beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will
drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased." The
exploits of Nimrod, therefore, in hunting down the wild beasts of the
field, and ridding the world of monsters, must have gained for him the
character of a pre-eminent benefactor of his race. By this means, not
less than by the bands he trained, was his power acquired, when he first
began to be mighty upon the earth; and in the same way, no doubt, was
that power consolidated. Then, over and above, as the first great
city-builder after the flood, by gathering men together in masses, and
surrounding them with walls, he did still more to enable them to pass
their days in security, free from the alarms to which they had been
exposed in their scattered life, when no one could tell but that at any
moment he might be called to engage in deadly conflict with prowling
wild beasts, in defence of his own life and of those who were dear to
him. Within the battlements of a fortified city no such danger from
savage animals was to be dreaded; and for the security afforded in this
way, men no doubt looked upon themselves as greatly indebted to Nimrod.
No wonder, therefore, that the name of the "mighty
hunter," who was at the same time the prototype of "the
god of fortifications," should have become a name of renown.
Had Nimrod gained renown only thus, it had been well. But not content
with delivering men from the fear of wild beasts, he set to work also to
emancipate them from that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of
wisdom, and in which alone true happiness can be found. For this very
thing, he seems to have gained, as one of the titles by which men
delighted to honour him, the title of the "Emancipator,"
or "Deliverer." The reader may remember a name that
has already come under his notice. That name is the name of Phoroneus.
The era of Phoroneus is exactly the era of Nimrod. He lived about the
time when men had used one speech, when the confusion of tongues began,
and when mankind was scattered abroad. * He is said to have been the
first that gathered mankind into communities, * the first of mortals
that reigned, * and the first that offered idolatrous sacrifices. * This
character can agree with none but that of Nimrod. Now the name given to
him in connection with his "gathering men together," and
offering idolatrous sacrifice, is very significant. Phoroneus, in one of
its meanings, and that one of the most natural, signifies the
"Apostate." * That name had never likely been given him
by the uninfected portion of the sons of Noah. But that name had also
another meaning, that is, "to set free;" and
therefore his own adherents adopted it, and glorified the great "Apostate"
from the primeval faith, though he was the first that abridged the
liberties of mankind, as the grand "Emancipator!" *
And hence, in one form or other, this title was handed down to his
deified successors as a title of honour. * All tradition from the
earliest times bears testimony to the apostacy of Nimrod, and to his
success in leading men away from the patriarchal faith, and delivering
their minds from that awe of God and fear of the judgments of heaven
that must have rested on them while yet the memory of the flood was
recent. And according to all the principles of depraved human nature,
this too, no doubt, was one grand element in his fame; for men who will
readily rally around any one who can give the least appearance of
plausibility to any doctrine which will teach that they can be assured
of happiness and heaven at last, though their hearts and natures are
unchanged, and though they live without God in the world.
How great was the boon conferred by Nimrod on the human race, in the
estimation of ungodly men, by emancipating them from the impressions of
true religion, and putting the authority of heaven to a distance from
them, we find most vividly described in a Polynesian tradition, that
carries its own evidence with it. John Williams, the well-known
missionary, tells us that, according to one of the ancient traditions of
the islanders of the South Seas, "the heavens were originally
so close to the earth that men could not walk, but were compelled to
crawl" under them. "This was found a very serious
evil; but at length an individual conceived the sublime idea of
elevating the heavens to a more convenient height. For this purpose he
put forth his utmost energy, and by the first effort raised them to the
top of a tender plant called teve, about four feet high. There he
deposited them until he was refreshed, when, by a second effort, he
lifted them to the height of a tree called Kauariki, which is as large
as the sycamore. By the third attempt he carried them to the summits of
the mountains; and after a long interval of repose, and by a most
prodigious effort, he elevated them to their present situation." For
this, as a mighty benefactor of mankind, "this individual was
deified; and up to the moment that Christianity was embraced, the
deluded inhabitants worshipped him as the 'Elevator of the
heavens.'" * Now, what could more graphically describe the
position of mankind soon after the flood, and the proceedings of Nimrod
as Phoroneus, "The Emancipator," * than this
Polynesian fable? While the awful catastrophe by which God had showed
His avenging justice on the sinners of the old world was yet fresh in
the minds of men, and so long as Noah, and the upright among his
descendants, sought with all earnestness to impress upon all under their
control the lessons which that solemn event was so well fitted to teach,
"heaven," that is, God, must have seemed very near to
earth. To maintain the union between heaven and earth, and to keep it as
close as possible, must have been the grand aim of all who loved God and
the best interests of the human race. But this implied the restraining
and discountenancing of all vice and all those "pleasures of
sin," after which the natural mind, unrenewed and
unsanctified, continually pants. This must have been secretly felt by
every unholy mind as a state of insufferable bondage. "The
carnal mind is enmity against God," is "not subject to His
law," neither indeed is "able to be" so. It
says to the Almighty, "Depart from us, for we desire not the
knowledge of Thy ways." So long as the influence of the great
father of the new world was in the ascendant, while his maxims were
regarded, and a holy atmosphere surrounded the world no wonder that
those who were alienated from God and godliness, felt heaven and its
influence and authority to be intolerably near, and that in such
circumstances they "could not walk," but only
"crawl,"--that is, that they had no freedom to "walk
after the sight of their own eyes and the imaginations of their own
hearts." From this bondage Nimrod emancipated them. By the
apostacy he introduced, by the free life he developed among those who
rallied around him, and by separating them from the holy influences that
had previously less or more controlled them, he helped them to put God
and the strict spirituality of His law at a distance, and thus he became
the "Elevator of the heavens," making men feel and
act as if heaven were afar off from earth, and as if either the God of
heaven "could not see through the dark cloud," or did
not regard with displeasure the breakers of His laws. Then all such
would feel that they could breathe freely, and that now they could walk
at liberty. For this, such men could not but regard Nimrod as a high
benefactor.
Now, who could have imagined that a tradition from Tahiti would have
illuminated the story of Atlas? But yet, when Atlas, bearing the heavens
on his shoulders, is brought into juxtaposition with the deified hero of
the South Seas, who blessed the world by heaving up the superincumbent
heavens that pressed so heavily upon it, who does not see that the one
story bears a relation to the other? * Thus, then, it appears that
Atlas, with the heavens resting on his broad shoulders, refers to no
mere distinction in astronomical knowledge, however great, as some have
supposed, but to a quite different thing, even to that great apostacy in
which the Giants rebelled against Heaven, * and in which apostacy
Nimrod, "the mighty one," * as the acknowledged
ringleader, occupied a pre-eminent place. *
According to the system which Nimrod was the grand instrument in
introducing, men were led to believe that a real spiritual change of
heart was unnecessary, and that so far as change was needful, they could
be regenerated by mere external means. Looking at the subject in the
light of the Bacchanalian orgies, which, as the reader has seen,
commemorated the history of Nimrod, it is evident that he led mankind to
seek their chief good in sensual enjoyment, and showed them how they
might enjoy the pleasures of sin, without any fear of the wrath of a
holy God. In his various expeditions he was always accompanied by troops
of women; and by music and song, and games and revelries, and everything
that could please the natural heart, he commended himself to the good
graces of mankind.
|
