“Alas, alas! How little has the divine seed, scattered broadcast by the hand of the meek Judean philosopher, thrived or brought forth fruit. He, who himself had shunned hypocrisy, warned against public prayer, showing such contempt for any useless exhibition of the same, could he but cast his sorrowful glance on the earth, from the regions of eternal bliss, would see that this seed fell neither on sterile rock nor by the wayside. Nay, it took deep root in the most prolific soil; one enriched even to plethora with lies and human gore!
“For, if the truth of God hath more abounded, through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner”, naively inquires Paul, the best and sincerest of all the apostles. And he then adds: “Let us do evil, that good may come!” (Romans 3:7-8). This is a confession which we are asked to believe as having been a direct inspiration from God! It explains, if it does not excuse, the maxim adopted later by the Church that “it is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the Church might be promoted.” A maxim applied in its fullest sense by that accomplished professor in forgery, the Armenian Eusebius; or yet, that innocent looking bible-kaleidoscopist – Irenaeus. And these men were followed by a whole army of pious assassins, who, in the meanwhile, had improved upon the system of deceit, by proclaiming that it was lawful even to kill, when by murder they could enforce the new religion.
Theophilus, “that perpetual enemy of peace and virtue”, as the famous bishop was called; Cyril, Athanasius, the murderer of Arius, and a host of other canonized “Saints”, were all but too worthy successors of Saint Constantine, who drowned his wife in boiling water; butchered his little nephew; murdered, with his own pious hands, two of his brothers-in-law; killed his own son Crispus, bled to death several men and women, and smothered in a well an old monk. However, we are told by Eusebius that this Christian Emperor was rewarded by a vision of Christ himself, bearing his cross, who instructed him to march to other triumphs, inasmuch as he would always protect him!
It is under the shade of the Imperial standard, with its famous sign, “In hoc signo vinces”, that “visionary” Christianity, which had crept on since the days of Irenaeus, arrogantly proclaimed its rights in the full blaze of the sun. The Labarum had most probably furnished the model for the true cross, which was “miraculously”, and agreeably to the Imperial will, found a few years later. Nothing short of such a remarkable vision, impiously doubted by some severe critics – Dr. Lardner for one – and a fresh miracle to match, could have resulted in the finding of a cross where there had never before been one.
Still, we have either to believe the phenomenon or dispute it at the risk of being treated as infidels; and this, notwithstanding that upon a careful computation we would find that the fragments of the “true Cross” had multiplied themselves even more miraculously than the five loaves in the invisible bakery, and the two fishes. In all cases like this, where miracles can be so conveniently called in, there is no room for dull fact. History must step out, that fiction may step in.”
H. P. Blavatsky