The Equinox (Volume I, Number VI)

THE BIG STICK exalted opinion of the book, and says that it has much of mystery therein; possibly he saw it with the same eyes as Mr Pryse. Even both Luther and Erasmus were doubtful as to its acceptance. The “ Encyclopaedia Britannica " argues that its allusions are οι” the 4th or 5th century. It may be mentioned here, that Dom John Chapman, D.O.S,, has made an examination of the question this year, and argues, with doubtful success, that John the Presbyter and John the Apostle were the same person, and accepts both the Gospel and the Apocalypse as the works of the Apostle John, and accounts for the difference in style as that of the amanuensis whom the Apostle John employed. Two noticeable, but irreconcilable, attempts have in recent years been made to interpret the book, theologically and historically, The learned Dr E. V. Kenealy made senseout of it, but overdid the subject. He believed it to represent the Apocalyptic church of Adam, and found in its addresses to the “Seven Churches” the existence of agreat Asian hierarchy of the seven temples of the “twenty-four Ancients," and further, in its various characters, the acts of the twelve divine incarnations, or messengers, who follow each other at periods of 600 years, as taught in regard to the manifestations 01 Vishnu. Then, in (906, we have a book of the astronomer, Nicholas Marazofi‘, verified by the astronomers Ramin and Lanin, who attempt an astrological View, grounded on the state of the heavens at Patmos on the 30th September 395, at 5o’clock at night. Jupiter—the white horse—«was then in Sagittarius; whilst Saturn—the pale horse-was in Scorpio ; the sun in Virgo, and the moon under her feet. John Chrysostom was then in Patmos, and immediately after 395 was called to Rome to become a presbyter; but Rome findingthat the " Second Coming ” did not take place, it is argued that he was deprived and banished as a “false prophet.” Against this we have the fact that Chrysostom does not mention the book, but the date assigned agrees with criticisms as the book now stands. We must defer to the superior knowledge of this modern “ Unveiler,” though personally I am inclined to accept the views of those early Fathers who assign the authorship to Cerinthus, and also the later German critics, who believe that the first three chapters and the last have been added by a later hand, and other portions altered to agree with the Scriptures held to be orthodox. Οι’ course this, if it were so, does not effect in any way the views of Mr Pryse, but rather strengthens them, as I look upon the imagery of the book as essen- tially that of the earlier and pre-Christian Gnostics. Though we may not have absolute proof of the great antiquity of the Gnosis, such as Mr Pryse unveils, yet it is clearly Aryan, dating from the time of Momu—the thinker; then again the development 01 the Kundalini—serpent fire—world’s mother, also termed rousing the Brahm—is said to be shown as issuing from the foreheads of early 165