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.