Of religious emblems R. P. Knight says that one of the most
remarkable among them is a cross in the form of the letter T
which was used as an emblem of creation and generation before the
church adopted it as a sign of salvation. To this representation
of male reproductive power "was sometimes added a human head,
which gives it the appearance of a crucifix, as it has on the
medal of Cyzicus."
Originally the figure of a dead man on a cross typified creation
and destruction or the operations of the creative forces in
Nature. Everything dies only to live again. Although man dies,
and although the individual man becomes but a dead branch on the
tree of life, still the tree lives. Through the cross- phallus
idea, or through man's power to create, existence on the earth
continues. Although the sun dies in winter, in spring it revives
again to quicken and enliven Nature and make all things new.
There is much evidence to show that a dying figure on a cross was
no new conception at the advent of Christianity. Crishna, whose
history as we have seen is almost identical with that of Christ,
and Ballaji, from whom the thorn-crowned figures of Jesus have
doubtless been copied, are illustrations of this mythical figure
of a crucified savior in India.
It seems altogether probable from the facts at hand that the
Romans worshipped a cross with a dying figure of a man upon it.
Minucius Felix, a Christian father, in defense of his religion,
has the following passage:
"You certainly, who worship wooden gods, are the most likely
people to adore wooden crosses, as being parts with the same
substance as your deities. For what else are your ensigns,
flags, and standards but crosses gilt and purified? Your
victorious trophies not only represent a simple cross, but a
cross with a man upon it. When a pure worshipper adores the true
God with hands extended, he makes the figure of a cross. Thus
you see that the sign of the cross has either some foundation in
Nature, or in your own religion, and therefore not to be objected
against Christians."
Higgins says that it is proved as completely as it is possible to
prove a fact of this kind that the Romans had a crucified object
of adoration, and that this could be no other than an incarnation
