The Non-Christian Cross - An Enquiry into the Origin and History of the Symbol Eventually Adopted as That of Our Religion by John Denham Parsons
page 38 of 159 (23%)
page 38 of 159 (23%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
consequently one straight line superimposed upon another at such an
angle that both could be seen; in other words, a cross of some description or other. It is evidently probable that this was the real reason why the figure of the cross originally came to be adopted as the Symbol of Life. But, of course, whatever the original reason, as time rolled on other reasons for the veneration of the cross were pointed out; nothing being more natural than that primitive Man should, or more certain than that he did, find pleasure in connecting with other objects of his regard than Life itself, that which as the Symbol of Life was pre-eminently a symbol of good omen. The most notable instance of this is the way in which, or rather the different ways in which, the figure of the cross was connected with the Sun-God. A good example of the last named fact, is the declaration of the philosophers of ancient Greece that the figure of the cross was the figure of the "Second God" or "Universal Soul," the _Ratio_ as well as the _Oratio_ of the All-Father, which they called the _Logos_ of God; a term badly translated in our versions of the Gospel of St. John as the _Word_ of God, as if it signified the _Oratio_ only. It was this Logos or "Second God" whom Philo, who was born before the commencement of our era, described as the "Intellectual Sun," and even as God's "First Begotten" and "Beloved" offspring, and the "Light of the World"; terms afterwards made use of by the writers of our Gospels in describing the Christ. And, as will be shown in a chapter upon the subject, the reason the philosophers, among whom was Plato, gave for |
|