Correspondence by Rev. T. G. Healey | Editor’s Note by H.P.B.
The Devil! Who is He? Jesus, or the Priest? (John viii. 52; x. 20.)
There are two persons (allegorical impersonations of good and evil), called Jesus and the Devil, who hate one another exceedingly; but whilst Jesus would expose and condemn the sin and spare the sinner that he might live to repent and reform, the Priest would and did condemn Jesus, the good and just one, to be slain as a blasphemer and devil, whose blood ought to be shed for an atonement, in order to escape and save himself from being exposed as the very incarnation of Pride seeking to obtain the Almighty power and supremacy of God upon earth; even though the exalting of himself to the lofty position as our Father in God and God’s vicegerent, necessitated the slaying of thousands and tens of thousands of men, women and children, who either dared to oppose him, or refused to worship him, by refusing to profess to accept and believe his creeds and doctrines and to utter his Shibboleth.
But as condemning the blood of the good and the just one to be shed as a blasphemer on the testimony of false witnesses and without a cause, revealed the trail of the Serpent and indelibly marked the Priest as a man of blood, and a murderer; and as all the oceans of blood that he shed to exalt himself and blot out the name of Jesus utterly failed to stamp out the people’s love for Jesus, and only helped to publish throughout the whole world that the Priest was a man of blood and a murderer; therefore the Priest changed his policy. He shifted his tactics by using himself the very name of Jesus as an authority for a deep plan or scheme of salvation, by means of the blood of Jesus being offered and presented by himself as a sacrifice.
And this doctrine of the Mass the Priest has established, as necessary to be believed, by means of bribery, corruption, intimidation and violence, until there are thousands who have not only been imposed upon and enslaved to believe this doctrine to be true, but even good and noble persons have enlisted as teachers and preachers to pass it on as necessary to be believed, under fear of the Church’s wrath here, and God’s wrath hereafter, although neither they nor any human being can reconcile it to be either good or true.
And as the Priest, 1800 years ago, condemned Jesus to be crucified as a blasphemer and devil, and now use his name to condemn as infidels all who do not believe him to have been God, therefore the world is oftentimes made to blaspheme the name of Jesus through its being used as an authority for doing and teaching evil in God’s service, as of old men were made to blaspheme the name of God, because it was also used as an authority for doing evil.
And therefore it is our duty to deliver the name of Jesus from being thus unjustly used, because Jesus left nothing undone that love could do or suffer to deliver the name of God from being similarly used. And to be offended for this with the name of Jesus would be to be like to those who were offended with the name of God because unjustly used.
There are some persons who would dethrone Jesus from being looked up to as the Christ and Son of God, because they do not see their way to dethroning the spread of Romanism, except by dethroning Jesus; but Jesus and the Scriptures tell us that they were murderers who conspired to put Jesus to death (John viii. 37–59; Acts vii. 52; Acts xiii. 27; 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8). Therefore let God be manifested to be good and true, even though the truth dethrones the Priest by requiring him to confess that his doctrine of the Mass is opposed to the teaching of Jesus, and must be reformed, because Jesus taught God would have mercy and not sacrifice. If in the mind of Jesus we have seen the mind of God, then in Christ’s adversaries and slanderers, we have seen those whom we were pledged at our baptism to resist as the Devil (John xv. 24).
Rev. T. G. Headley.
Manor House, Petersham S.W.
Editors’ Note. [H.P.B.]
Amen! It is quite true that there are not a few such illogical persons who seek to dethrone Romanism and Protestantism by destroying the innocent cause of these—Jesus. But no theosophist is among that class. Theosophists, even those who are no longer, as those who never were, Christians, regard, nevertheless, Jesus, or Jehoshua as an Initiate. It is not, therefore, against the “bearer” of that name—in whom they see one of the Masters of Wisdom—that they protest, but against that name as travestied by pseudo-Christian fancy and clad in the pagan robes borrowed from heathen gods, that they have set their hearts. It is those “priests” whom our reverend correspondent denounces as “murderers” and “devils”—at the risk of finding himself confounded with them in the ungodly crowd he himself belongs to—that every true theosophist ought to be ever ready to rise against. Few of them refuse to see in Jesus a Son of God, as well as Chrestos having reached by suffering the Christos condition. All they reject is, the modern travesty of the very, very old dogma of the Son becoming one with the Father; or that this “Father” had ever anything to do with the Hebrew androgyne called Jehovah. It is not Jesus’ “Father,” who “will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” in whose nostrils the blood of even a slain animal used as a burnt offering could have ever smelt sweet. How then could the human sacrifice offered by the allegorical Christ, and described in the Epistle to the Ephesians as one that had “a sweet smelling savour,” be regarded otherwise than with horror? Theosophists can discriminate—to say the least, as much as the reverend gentleman who signs himself T. G. Headley.