Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine. Volume I. September 1887-February 1888.Various
Religion
Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine. Volume I. September 1887-February 1888.
Various
Theosophy -- Periodicals
Piously inclined readers may argue that “Lucifer” is accepted by all the
churches as one of the many names of the Devil. According to Milton’s
superb fiction, Lucifer is _Satan_, the “rebellious” angel, the enemy of
God and man. If one analyzes his rebellion, however, it will be found of
no worse nature than an assertion of free-will and independent thought,
as if Lucifer had been born in the XIXth century. This epithet of
“rebellious,” is a theological calumny, on a par with that other slander
of God by the Predestinarians, one that makes of deity an “Almighty”
fiend worse than the “rebellious” Spirit himself; “an omnipotent Devil
desiring to be ‘complimented’ as all merciful when he is exerting the
most fiendish cruelty,” as put by J. Cotter Morison. Both the
foreordaining and predestining fiend-God, and his subordinate agent are
of human invention; they are two of the most morally repulsive and
horrible theological dogmas that the nightmares of light-hating monks
have ever evolved out of their unclean fancies.
They date from the Mediæval age, the period of mental obscuration,
during which most of the present prejudices and superstitions have been
forcibly inoculated on the human mind, so as to have become nearly
ineradicable in some cases, one of which is the present prejudice now
under discussion.
So deeply rooted, indeed, is this preconception and aversion to the name
of Lucifer—meaning no worse than “light-bringer” (from _lux_, _lucis_,
“light,” and _ferre_ “to bring”)[1]—even among the educated classes,
that by adopting it for the title of their magazine the editors have the
prospect of a long strife with public prejudice before them. So absurd
and ridiculous is that prejudice, indeed, that no one has seemed to ever
ask himself the question, how came Satan to be called a _light-bringer_,
unless the silvery rays of the morning-star can in any way be made
suggestive of the glare of the infernal flames. It is simply, as
Henderson showed, “one of those gross perversions of sacred writ which
so extensively obtain, and which are to be traced to a proneness to seek
for more in a given passage than it really contains—a disposition to be
influenced by sound rather than sense, and an implicit faith in received
interpretation”—which is not quite one of the weaknesses of our present
age. Nevertheless, the prejudice is there, to the shame of our century.
-----
Footnote 1:
“It was Gregory the Great who was the first to apply this passage of
Isaiah, “How art thou fallen from Heaven, Lucifer, son of the
morning,” etc., to Satan, and ever since the bold metaphor of the
prophet, which referred, after all, but to an Assyrian king inimical
to the Israelites, has been applied to the Devil.”
-----
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account