[361] _Holy Bible_, Revised Version, St. Matt. xi. 14-15; cf. St. Matt.
xvii. 10-13, St. Mark ix. 13, St. Luke vii. 27, St. John i. 21.
[362] Tertullian"s conclusion is as follows:--"These substances ("soul and body") are, in fact, the natural property of each individual; whilst "the spirit and power" (cf. Mal. iv. 5) are bestowed as external gifts by the grace of G.o.d, and so may be transferred to another person according to the purpose and will of the Almighty, as was anciently the case with respect to the spirit of Moses" (cf. Num. xii. 2).--_De Anima_ c. x.x.xv; cf. trans, in _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_ (Edinburgh, 1870), xv. 496-7.
[363] Origen says:--"But that there should be certain doctrines not made known to the mult.i.tude, which are [revealed] after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric" (_Origen against Celsus_, Book I, c. vii).
[364] How Tertullian almost literally accepted the re-birth doctrine is shown in his _Apology_, chapter xlviii, concerning the resurrection of the body. It is the corrupted form of the doctrine, viz. transmigration of human souls into animal bodies, which he therein, as well as in his _De Anima_ and elsewhere, chiefly and logically combats, as Origen also combated it. He first shows why a human soul must return into a human body in accordance with natural a.n.a.logy, every creature being after its own kind always; and then, because the purpose of the Resurrection is the judgement, that the soul must return into its own body. And he concludes:--"It is surely more worthy of belief that a man will be restored from a man, any given person from any given person, but still a man; so that the same kind of soul may be reinstated in the same mode of existence, even if not into the same outward form" (_The Apology of Tertullian for the Christians_; cf. trans. by T. H. Bindley, Oxford, 1890, pp. 137-9).
[365] British Museum MS. Add. 5114, vellum--a Coptic ma.n.u.script in the dialect of Upper Egypt. Its undetermined date is placed by Woide at latest about the end of the fourth century. It was evidently copied by one scribe from an older ma.n.u.script, the original probably having been the _Apocalypse of Sophia_, by Valentius, the learned Gnostic who lived in Egypt for thirty years during the second century. See the translation of the Schwartze"s parallel Latin version of _Pistis Sophia_ and its introduction, both by G. R. S. Mead (London, 1896).
[366] The chief pa.s.sages are as follows, Jesus being the speaker:--"Moreover, in the region of the soul of the rulers, destined to receive it, I found the soul of the prophet Elias, in the aeons of the sphere, and I took him, and receiving his soul also, I brought it to the virgin of light, and she gave it to her receivers; they brought it to the sphere of the rulers, and cast it into the womb of Elizabeth.
Wherefore the power of the little Iao, who is in the midst, and the soul of Elias the prophet, are united with the body of John the Baptist. For this cause have ye been in doubt aforetime, when I said unto you, "John said, I am not the Christ"; and ye said unto me, "It is written in the Scripture, that when the Christ shall come, Elias will come before him, and prepare his way." And I, when ye had said this unto me, replied unto you, "Elias verily is come, and hath prepared all things, according as it is written; and they have done unto him whatsoever they would." And when I perceived that ye did not understand that I had spoken concerning the soul of Elias united with John the Baptist, I answered you openly and face to face with the words, "If ye will receive it, John the Baptist is Elias who, I said, was for to come"" (_Pistis Sophia_, Book I, 12-13, Mead"s translation).
[367] "The Saviour answered and said unto his disciples:--"Preach ye unto the whole world, saying unto men, "Strive together that ye may receive the mysteries of light in this time of stress, and enter into the kingdom of light. Put not off from day to day, and from cycle to cycle, in the belief that ye will succeed in obtaining the mysteries when ye return to the world in another cycle""" (_Pistis Sophia_, Book II, 317, Mead"s translation).
[368] Cf. Bergier, _Manicheisme_, in _Dict. de Theol._, iv. 211-13.
[369] The _Refutation of Irenaeus_, until quite recently, has been the chief source of much of our knowledge concerning Gnosticism. It was written during the second century at Lyons, by Irenaeus, a bishop of Gaul, far from any direct contact with the still flourishing Gnosticism.
But now with the discovery of genuine ma.n.u.scripts of Gnostic works: (1) the _Askew Codex_, vellum, British Museum, London, containing the _Pistis Sophia_ (see above, p. 361 n.) and extracts from the _Books of the Saviour_; (2) the _Bruce Codex_ (two MSS.), papyrus, Bodleian Library, Oxford, containing the fragmentary _Book of the Great Logos_, an unknown treatise, and fragments; and (3) the _Akhmim Codex_ (discovered in 1896), papyrus, Egyptian Museum, Berlin, containing _The Gospel of Mary_ (or _Apocryphon of John_), _The Wisdom of Jesus Christ_, and _The Acts of Peter_, we are able to check from original sources the Fathers in many of their writings and canons concerning Gnostic "heresies"; and find that Irenaeus, the last refuge of Christian haeresiologists, has so condensed and paraphrased his sources that we cannot depend upon him at all for a consistent exposition of Gnostic doctrines, which with more or less prejudice he is trying to refute. It is true that the age of these ma.n.u.scripts has not been satisfactorily determined; in fact most of them have not yet been carefully studied.
Very probably, however, as appears to be the case with the _Pistis Sophia_, they have been copied from ma.n.u.scripts which were contemporary with or earlier than the time of Irenaeus, and hence may be regarded as good authority in determining Gnostic teachings. (Cf. all of above note with G. R. S. Mead, _Fragments of a Faith Forgotten_, London, 1900, pp.
147, 151-3.)
Many unprejudiced scholars are now unwilling to admit the rulings of the Church Councils which determined what was orthodox and what heretical doctrines among the Gnostic-Christians, because many of their dogmatic decisions were based upon the unscholarly _Refutation of Irenaeus_ and upon other equally unreliable evidence. The data which have acc.u.mulated in the hands of scholars about early Christian thought and Gnosticism are now much more complete and trustworthy than the similar data were upon which the Council of Constantinople in 553 based its decision with respect to the doctrine of re-birth; and the truth coming to be recognized seems to be that the Gnostics rather than the Church Fathers, who adopted from them what doctrines they liked, condemning those they did not like, should henceforth be regarded as the first Christian theologians, and mystics. If this view of the very difficult and complex matter be accepted, then modern Christianity itself ought to be allowed to resume what thus appears to have been its original position--so long obscured by the well-meaning, but, nevertheless, ill-advised ecclesiastical councils--as the synthesizer of pagan religions and philosophies. Some such view has been accepted by many eminent Christian theologians since Origen: i. e. the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More, openly advocated the re-birth doctrine in the seventeenth century; and in later times it has been preached from Christian pulpits by such men as Henry Ward Beecher and Phillips Brooks.
[370] See A. Bertrand, _La Religion des Gaulois, les Druides et le Druidisme_ (Paris, 1897); H. Jennings, _The Rosicrucians_ (London, 1887); the Work of Paracelsus; H. Cornelius Agrippa, _De Occulta Philosophia_ (Paris, 1567); H. P. Blavatsky"s _Isis Unveiled_, and the _Secret Doctrine_ (London, 1888); and _Hermetic Works_, by Anna Kingsford and E. Maitland (London, 1885).
[371] Cf. Bergier, _Purgatoire_, in _Dict. de Theol._, v. 409. A Celt, a professed faithful and fervent adherent of the Church of Rome, whom I met in the Morbihan where he now lives, told me that he believes thoroughly in the doctrine of re-birth, and that it is according to his opinion the proper and logical interpretation of the doctrine of Purgatory; and he added that there are priests in his Church who have told him that their personal interpretation of the purgatorial doctrine is the same. Thus some Roman Catholics do not deny the re-birth doctrine. And such conversations as this with Catholic Celts in Ireland and Brittany lead me to believe that to a larger extent than has been suspected the old Celtic Doctrine of Re-birth may have been one of the chief foundations for the modern Roman Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory, whose origin is not clearly indicated in any theological works. For us this probability is important as well as interesting, and especially so when we remember the profound influence which the Celtic St. Patrick"s Purgatory certainly exerted on the Church during the Middle Ages when the doctrine of Purgatory was taking definite shape (see our chapter x).
[372] _Barddas_ (Llandovery, 1862) is "a collection (by Iolo Morganwg, a Bard) of original doc.u.ments, ill.u.s.trative of the theology, wisdom, and usage of the Bardo-Druidic System of the Isle of Britain". The original ma.n.u.scripts are said to have been in the possession of Llywelyn Sion, a Bard of Glamorgan, about 1560. _Barddas_ shows considerable Christian influence, yet in its essential teachings is sufficiently distinct.
Though of late composition, _Barddas_ seems to represent the traditional bardic doctrines as they had been handed down orally for an unknown period of time, it having been forbidden in earlier times to commit such doctrines to writing. We are well aware also of the adverse criticisms pa.s.sed upon these doc.u.ments; but since no one questions their Celtic origin--whether it be ancient or more modern--we are content to use them.
[373] _Barddas_, i, 189-91.
[374] _Barddas_, i, 177.
[375] Preface to _Barddas_, xlii.
[376] One of the greatest errors formerly made by European Sanskrit scholars and published broadcast throughout the West, so that now it is popularly accepted there as true, is that Nirvana, the goal of Indian philosophy and religion, means annihilation. It does mean annihilation (evolutionary trans.m.u.tation of lower into higher), but only of all those forces or elements which const.i.tute man as an animal. The error arose from interpreting exoterically instead of esoterically, and was a natural result of that system of western scholarship which sees and often cares only to examine external aspects. Native Indian scholars who have advised us in this difficult problem prefer to translate _Nirvana_ as "Self-realization", i. e. a state of supernormal consciousness (to be acquired through the evolution of the individual), as much superior to the normal human consciousness as the normal human consciousness is superior to the consciousness existing in the brute kingdom.
[377] _De Bel. Gal._, lib. vi. 14. 5; vi. 18. 1.
[378] Book V, 31. 4.
[379] _De Situ Orbis_, iii. c. 2: "One point alone of the Druids"
teaching has become generally known among the common people (in order that they should be braver in war), that souls are eternal and there is a second life among the shades."
[380] i. 449-62.
[381] Lucan, i. 457-8; i. 458-62.
[382] Cf. _Le Cycle Myth. Irl._, pp. 345, 347 ff.
[383] _Folk-Lore_, xii. 64, &c.; also cf. Eleanor Hull, _The Cuchullin Saga in Irish Literature_ (London, 1898), Intro., p. 23, &c.
[384] What is probably the oldest form of a tale concerning Conchobhar"s birth makes Conchobhar "the son of a G.o.d who incarnated himself in the same way as did Lug and Etain" (cf. _Voy. of Bran_, ii. 73).
[385] See _Leabhar na h-Uidhre_, 101{b}; and _Book of Leinster_, 123{b}:--"_Cuchulainn mc dea dechtiri_."
[386] We have already mentioned the belief that G.o.ds having their abode in the sun could leave it to a.s.sume bodies here on earth and become culture heroes and great teachers (see p. 309).
[387] From _Wooing of Emer_ in _Leabhar na h-Uidhre_; cf. _Voy. of Bran_, ii. 97.
[388] _L"epopee celt. en Irl._, p. 11.
[389] Cf. _Voy. of Bran_, ii. p. 74 ff.
[390] In the _Leabhar na h-Uidhre_, 133{a}-134{b}; cf. _Le Cycle Myth.
Irl._, pp. 336-43; cf. _Voy. of Bran_, i. 49-52; cf. O"Curry, _Manners and Customs_, iii. 175.
[391] Cf. Stokes"s ed. _Annals of Tigernach, Third Frag._ in _Rev.
Celt._ xvii. 178. In the piece called _Tucait baile Mongain_ in the _Leabhar na h-Uidhre_, p. 134, col. 2, "Mongan is seen living with his wife the year of the death of Ciaran mac int Shair, and of Tuathal Mael-Garb, that is to say in 544," following the _Chronic.u.m Scotorum_, Hennessy"s ed., pp. 48-9. As D"Arbois de Jubainville adds, the Irish chronicles of this epoch are only approximate in their dates. Thus, while the _Four Masters_ (i. 243) makes the death of Mongan A. D. 620, the _Annals of Ulster_ makes it A. D. 625, the _Chronic.u.m Scotorum_ A.
D. 625, the _Annals of Clonmacnoise_, A. D. 624, and _Egerton MS._ 1782 A. D. 615 (cf. _Voy. of Bran_, i. 137-9).
[392] J. O"Donovan, _Annals of Ireland by the Four Masters_ (Dublin, 1856), i. 121.
[393] Cf. _Le Cycle Myth. Irl._, pp. 336-43; O"Curry, _Manners and Customs_ iii. 175; _L. U._, 133{a}-134{b}; and _Voy. of Bran_, i. 52.
[394] _Voy. of Bran_, i. 44-5; from _The Conception of Mongan_.
[395] Meyer"s version, _Voy. of Bran_, i. 73-4.
[396] Cf. _Voy. of Bran_, i. 137.
[397] _Voy. of Bran_, i. 22-8, quatrains 48-59, &c.
[398] In _L. U._; cf. _Le Cycle Myth. Irl._, pp. 311-22; and _Voy. of Bran_, ii. 47-53.
[399] In the Irish conception of re-birth there is no change of s.e.x: Lug is re-born as a boy, in Cuchulainn; Finn as Mongan; Etain as a girl. But it seems that Etain as a mortal had no consciousness of her previous divine existence, while Cuchulainn and Mongan knew their non-human origin and pre-existence.
[400] Some time after this, according to one part of the tale, Eochaid stormed Midir"s fairy palace--for the purpose localized in Ireland--and won Etain back, but the fairies cast a curse on his race for this, and Conaire, his grandson, fell a victim to it. Such a recovering of Etain by Eochaid may vaguely suggest a re-birth of Etain, through the power exerted by Eochaid, who, being a king, is to be regarded in his non-human nature as one of the Tuatha De Danann himself, like Midir his rival.
[401] Cf. _The Gilla decair_, in _Silva Gadelica_, pp. 300-3.
[402] Cf. _Voy. of Bran_, ii. 76 ff. The Christian scribe"s version fills up the s.p.a.ce between Tuan"s death and re-birth by making him pa.s.s eighty years as a stag, twenty as a wild boar, one hundred as an eagle, and twenty as a salmon (ib., p. 79). In this particular example, the uninitiated scribe (evidently having failed to grasp an important aspect of the re-birth doctrine as this was esoterically explained in the Mysteries, namely, that between death and re-birth, while the conscious Ego is resident in the Otherworld, the physical atoms of the discarded human body may transmigrate through various plant and animal bodies) appears to set forth as Celtic an erroneous doctrine of the transmigration of the conscious Ego itself (see p. 513 n.). In other texts, for example in the song which Amairgen (considered the Gaelic equivalent or even original of the Brythonic Taliessin) sang as he, with the conquering Sons of Mil, set foot on Ireland, there are similar transformations, attributed to certain heroes like Taliessin (see the _Mabinogion_) and Tuan mac Cairill during their disembodied states after death and until re-birth. But these transformations seem to echo poetically, and often rationally, a very mystical Celtic pantheism, in which Man, regarded as having evolved upwards through all forms and conditions of existence, is at one with all creation:--
I am the wind which blows o"er the sea; I am the wave of the deep; I am the bull of seven battles; I am the eagle on the rock; I am a tear of the sun; I am the fairest of plants; I am a boar for courage; I am a salmon in the water; I am a lake in the plain; I am the world of knowledge; I am the head of the battle-dealing spear; I am the G.o.d who fashions fire in the head; Who spreads light in the gathering on the mountain?
Who foretells the ages of the moon?
Who teaches the spot where the sun rests?