Chapter XV: Part 15

(_b_) It must be understood, that when we pass here from a division of the inquiries concerning the mind to a supposed division of the mind itself, we imply only a division of states of consciousness or mental functions, not an absolute and real division of the mind itself. Distinctness of structure is only the inference; distinctness of function is a fact, given in the act of consciousness.

(_c_) The distinctness of the Will, as a faculty, from the emotions will be disputed by many. It is maintained by Maine de Biran, and the Eclectic school of France. Mr. Mill, _Logic_, vol. ii. b. vi. ch. ii, implies the contrary, and regards Will to be a particular state of feeling.

(_d_) The difference of the presentative from the representative consciousness is now generally understood, since the arguments of Sir W. Hamilton have been commonly known. See his edition of Reid, note B. p. 804; _Discussions_, Ess. ii. and _Lect. on Metaphysics_; Mansel’s work above cited, p. 560, 584; Morell’s _Phil. of Relig._ ch. ii.

(_e_) The separation of Intuition from Perception is a point much disputed. It is maintained by Schelling and by Cousin, and made familiar by Coleridge, _Aids to Reflection_, i. p. 168 seq. See also Morell’s _Philos. of Relig._ ch. ii; _Hist. of Phil._ ii. p. 487 seq. Among English psychologists however, intuition is identified with perception; or if slightly distinguished, as by Mr. Mansel, it is made synonymous with every “presentative” act of consciousness, and thus includes the consciousness of our own minds, as well as the sensational consciousness usually denoted by the word “perception.” With reference to the view intended on this subject in these lectures, see a note on p. 28.

(_f_) With reference to these schools, see Morell’s _Hist. of Philosophy_ (vol. i. Introduction); and Cousin’s _Cours de la Philosophie_ du 18me Siècle.

(_g_) This subdivision of the subject matter of Ontology is well stated by Mansel in the _Encyc. Britann._ above cited, 603, 613 seq. This work of Mr. Mansel is on the whole the clearest exposition of Psychology, studied from the side of consciousness, which has appeared. Mr. Morell’s recent work on Psychology presents a view different from his former ones, and unites the physiological treatment of the inquiry; being borrowed partly from the recent speculations which the teaching of Herbert has induced in Germany. See Note 41.

Note 8. p. 28. Quotation From Guizot On Prayer.

The following eloquent remarks seem worth quoting, as illustrative of the instinct in the soul of man to perform the act of prayer; the natural outgoing of the human soul after the infinite Being. They are taken from Guizot, _L’Eglise et la Société Chrétienne_, 1861.

“Seul entre tous les étres ici-bas l’homme prie. Parmi ses instincts moraux, il n’y en a point de plus naturel, de plus universel, de plus invincible que la prière. L’enfant s’y porte avec une docilité empressée. Le vieillard s’y replie comme dans un refuge contre la décadence et l’isolement. La prière monte d’elle-même sur les jeunes lèvres qui balbutient à peine le nom de Dieu et sur les lèvres mourantes qui n’ont plus la force de le prononcer. Chez tous les peuples, célèbres ou obscurs, civilisés ou barbares, on rencontre à chaque pas des actes et des formules d’invocation. Partout où vivent des hommes, dans certaines circonstances, à certaines heures, sous l’empire de certaines impressions de l’âme, les yeux s’élèvent, les mains se joignent, les genoux fléchissent, pour implorer ou pour rendre grâces, pour adorer ou pour apaiser. Avec transport ou avec tremblement, publiquement ou dans le secret de son cœur, c’est à la prière que l’homme s’adresse, en dernier recours, pour combler les vides de son âme ou porter les fardeaux de sa destinée; c’est dans la prière qu’il cherche, quand tout lui manque, de l’appui pour sa faiblesse, de la consolation dans ses douleurs, de l’espérance pour sa vertu.” (p. 22.)

“Il y a, dans l’acte naturel et universel de la prière, une foi naturelle et universelle dans cette action permanente, et toujours libre, de Dieu sur l’homme et sur sa destinée.” (p. 24.)

“ ‘Les voies de Dieu ne sont pas nos voies:’ nous y marchons sans les connaître; croire sans voir et prier sans prévoir, c’est la condition que Dieu a faite à l’homme en ce monde, pour tout ce qui en dépasse les limites.” (p. 25.)

Note 9. p. 31. On The Modern View Of The Historical Method In Philosophy.

It has been implied in the text, at this place, and also in the preface, that the “historic method of study” is the great feature of this century. The term is ambiguous. The meaning of it however is, that each problem ought to be approached from the historic side. Whether the problem be a fact of society, or of thought, or of morals, in each case the questions are asked—What are its antecedents? how did it happen? How came it that men accepted it?—This is a method exactly the reverse of that which was common in the last century. The question then was, Is a thing true? The question now is a preliminary one, How came it that it was thought to be true? It is probable that in many minds there is a slight tendency to pantheism in this method of study. The universe is looked at as ever in course of development; evil as “good in the making;” no fact as wholly bad; no thought as wholly false. But, without involving such a tendency, whatever is true in the method may be appropriated. It starts only with the assumption that the human race is in a state of movement; and that Providence has lessons to teach us if we watch this movement. It is the method of learning by experience of the past, a lesson for conduct in the future.

The method thus explained, however, is used for two different purposes. Either it is intended to be the preliminary process preparatory to discovery, or it is designed to take the place of discovery. In the former case, we ask why men have thought a thing true, for the purpose of afterwards discovering, by the use of other methods, what is true; in the latter we rest content with the historical investigation, and consider the attempt to discover absolute truth to be impossible; and regard the problem of philosophy to be, to gather up the elements of truth in the past. In the former case truth is absolute, though particular ages may have blindly groped after it; in the latter it is relative. In the former, the history of philosophy is the preliminary to philosophy; in the latter it is philosophy. In the former, philosophy is a science; in the latter it is a form of criticism. The former view is held by the school of Schelling and Cousin; the latter is an offshoot of that of Hegel. The former marked French literature until recent years; the latter is expressed in it at the present time; and is stated by no one so clearly as by Renan and Soberer. Most English writers will justly prefer the former view; but the explanation of the latter, given in the two passages which follow, is expressed with such clearness, and will be of so much use in explaining subsequent allusions in these lectures (especially Lect. VII. and VIII.), that it is desirable to print it here.

“Le trait caractéristique du 19e siècle est d’avoir substitué la méthode historique à la méthode dogmatique, dans toutes les études relatives à l’esprit humain. La critique littéraire n’est plus que l’exposé des formes diverses de la beauté, c’est à dire des manières dont les différentes familles et les différentes âges de l’humanité ont résolu le problème esthétique. La philosophie n’est que le tableau des solutions proposées pour résoudre le problème philosophique. La théologie ne doit plus être que l’histoire des efforts spontanés tentés pour résoudre le problème divin. L’histoire, en effet, est la forme nécessaire de la science de tout ce qui est soumis aux lois de la vie changeante et successive. La science des langues, c’est l’histoire des langues; la science des littératures et des philosophies, c’est l’histoire des littératures et des philosophies; la science de l’esprit humain c’est, de même, l’histoire de l’esprit humain, et non pas seulement l’analyse des rouages de l’âme individuelle. La psychologie n’envisage que l’individu, et elle l’envisage d’une manière abstraite, absolue, comme un sujet permanent et toujours identique à lui-même; aux yeux de la critique la conscience se fait dans l’humanité comme l’individu; elle a son histoire. Le grand progrès de la critique a été de substituer la catégorie du _devenir_ â la catégorie de _l’être_, la conception du relatif à la conception de l’absolu, le mouvement à l’immobilité. Autrefois, tout était considéré comme étant; on parlait de philosophie, de droit, de politique, d’art, de poésie, d’une manière absolue; maintenant tout est considéré comme en voie de se faire....... A ce point de vue de la science critique, ce qu’on recherche dans l’histoire de la philosophie, c’est beaucoup moins de la philosophie proprement dite que de l’histoire.”—(E. Renan, Pref. to _Averroes_, p. vi.)

“Tout n’est que relatif, disions-nous tout à l’heure; il faut ajouter maintenant: tout n’est que relation. Vérité importune pour l’homme qui, dans le fatal courant où il est plongé, voudrait trouver un point fixé s’arrêter un instant, se faire illusion sur la vanité des choses! Vérité féconde pour la science qui lui doit une intelligence nouvelle de la réalité, une intuition infiniment plus pénétrante du jeu des forces qui composent le monde. C’est ce principe qui a fait de l’histoire une science et de toutes les sciences une histoire. C’est en vertu de ce principe qu’il n’y a plus de philosophie mais des philosophies qui se succèdent, qui se complétent en se succèdant, et dont chacune représenté avec un élément du vrai, une phase du développement de la pensée universelle. Ainsi la science s’organise elle-même et porte en soi sa critique. La classification rationnelle des systèmes est leur succession, et le seul jugement équitable et utile qu’on puisse passer sur eux est celui qu’ils passent sur eux-mêmes en se transformant. Le vrai n’est plus vrai en soi. Ce n’est plus une quantité fixe qu’il s’agit de dégager, un objet rond ou carré qu’on puisse tenir dans la main. Le vrai, le beau, le juste même se font perpétuellement; ils sont à jamais en train de se constituer, parce qu’ils ne sont autre chose que l’esprit humain, qui, en se déployant, se retrouve et se reconnait.”—E. Scherer, (article on Hegel in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Feb. 15, 1861.)

Lecture II.

Note 10. p. 46. Neo-Platonism.

On the nature and history of Neo-Platonism, see Ritter’s _History of Philosophy_, E. T. vol. iv. b. xiii; Creuzer’s _Prolegomena to Plotinus_; Tennemann’s _Manual of Philosophy_, § 200-222; Hase’s _Church History_, § 50, with the references which the two latter supply; Jules Simon’s and Vacherot’s works on the _Ecole d’Alexandrie_; B. Constant’s _Du Polytheisme_, b. xv. Among English works, see Archer Butler’s _Lectures on Philosophy_, vol. ii. 348 seq.; Lewes’ _History of Philosophy_; Maurice’s _History of Philosophy_ (part ii.); Donaldson’s _History of Greek Literature_, ch. 53 and 57; and an essay in R. A. Vaughan’s _Essays and Remains_, 1858.

The mystic and oriental tendency which Neo-Platonism embodied is seen as early as Philo in the middle of the first century; but it was Ammonius Saccus (A.D. 163-243) who developed the new system about A.D. 200. The chief teachers of it were Plotinus (born 203), who introduced it at Rome; Porphyry (233-305), who however manifested more of the mystic Pythagorean spirit and less of the dialectical Platonic; Iamblichus, a generation later, who also inclined to theurgy; and in the fifth century Hypatia, killed 415; and Proclus (412-485), who taught at Athens. A growth of thought is perceptible in the successive members of the school. The sketches of several of the above-named writers in Smith’s _Biographical Dictionary_ are full of information, and furnished with useful references.

Note 11. p. 47. The Pseudo-Clementine Literature.

The Pseudo-Clementine literature consists of Homilies and Recognitions; the latter being in a Latin translation by Rufinus. It is published in Cotelerius’s _Sancti Patres_, 1698, vol i.

A noble Roman, harassed by his doubts and eager for truth, travels to the east, and there learns Christian truth, which makes him happy. It is the former part of the narrative, viz. the doubts of Clemens before becoming a Christian, which is alluded to in the text, and is adduced by Neander, _Kirchengeschichte_, i. pp. 54-56, as an instance of the preparation for the reception of Christianity made by a sense of want in many hearts. But it is the latter part which is valuable in a literary point of view, on account of the light which the exposition of Christian doctrine contained in it throws upon the Judaizing Gnostics, being an attempt to reconcile Ebionitism with the teaching of St. Paul. Its interest in this point of view has caused it to be made the subject of several monographs by German theologians. A list of them, with an account of the phases of doctrine described, is given in Kurtz’s _Church History_, E. T. § 48, and in Hase’s _Church History_, § 35, 75, and 80. One of the most important of them is Schliemann’s _Die Clemetinen_, 1844.

Note 12. p. 48. The Absence Of References To Christianity In Heathen Writers Of The Second Century.

Tzchirner has investigated this subject in an interesting dissertation, _Græci et Romani Scriptores cur rerum Christianarum raro meminerint_; Opusc. Acad. p. 283. Lips. 1829, (translated in the _Journal of Sacred Literature_, Jan. 1853;) and has discussed the passages where mention is made of Christianity. The following is the substance of his inquiries.

Though the notices concerning Christianity in heathen writers are scanty, the silence of Eusebius gives good ground for inferring, that not many further notices existed concerning it in the works which are lost, than have been preserved to us. Perhaps a few passages may have been erased in which Christianity was blasphemed, even in that which is preserved.

The silence concerning Christianity during the first century is not surprising; because the Christians, if known at all, would be regarded as a Jewish sect, as in Acts xviii. 15; xxiii. 29; xxv. 19. In the third century they are both noticed and attacked. The inquiry therefore with regard to the silence about them, refers only to the period from about A.D. 80-180.

During this period, among the Greek writers who omit all mention of Christianity, are Dio Chrysostom; Plutarch (for the passage, _Quæst._ iv, 4. § 3, about happiness consisting in hope, probably does not refer to them); Œnomaus, who wrote expressly to ridicule religion; Maximus Tyrius; and Pausanias: and among Latin ones, Juvenal, who several times mentions the Jews, but only indirectly refers to the Christians (_Sat._ i. 185-7), Aulus Gellius, and Apuleius; (for the opinion of Warburton, _Div. Leg._ b. ii. § 4, that an allusion is intended, is now rejected,(1063) unless one perhaps exists in _Met._ ix. ed. Panck. ii. 195.)

Among those who name Christians we find,—

In Trajan’s reign, Tacitus, who describes their persecution by Nero (_Ann._ xv. 44); Suetonius, who names them, _Vit. Neron_. ch. 16, and describes them as seditious, _Vit. Claud._ 25, if indeed the word _Chresto_ in the paragraph is intended for _Christo_; and Pliny the younger, in the well-known letter to Trajan (_Ep._ x. 96).

In the reign of Hadrian we find, in a fragment of Hadrian’s works in Vopiscus’s Life of Saturninus (ch. viii.) a mention of them, comparing them with Serapid worshippers; and one quoted by Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 9, addressed to a proconsul of Asia. Also Arrian names them in two passages, in one describing them as obstinate, _Diss. Epictet._ b. iv. ch. vii. and in the other speaking either of them or of the Jews as βαπτισταί (b. ii. ch. ii.)

In the reign of the Antonines we find Galen stigmatising them for obstinacy (_De Pulsuum Diff._ b. iii. ch. iii.), and for believing without proof (b. ii. ch. iv.); and Marcus Aurelius himself inquires (_Comment._ b. xi. ch. iii), what can be the cause of their inflexibility. His two epistles which contain allusions to Christianity, one of them attributing his victory over the Marcomanni to the thundering legion, and the other stating that it is the business of the gods and not men to punish, are rejected as spurious.

In the same reign we find Crescens and Fronto, who are treated of elsewhere, Lect. II. p. 48; and Lucian (p. 49). Tzchirner denies the allusions supposed to lurk in many passages of Lucian examined by Krebsius and Eichstadt; but, independently of those in the Peregrinus, ch. xi-xiv, on which see Lect. II and Note 13, there remains one where Alexander the magician is said to exclude Christians and Epicureans from his magical rites. In the same reign we meet with Celsus; after which time the notices of Christianity are frequent; the account of which will be found in Lardner’s Works, vol. viii.

If now we pass from the facts to the cause, and ask why the notices are so few, Tzchirner very properly answers, that the silence in the first century is explained, partly by the general poverty and retirement of the Christians, and partly by the circumstance named above, that they were included among Jews. But in the second century, when Christianity was so far known that several learned men abandoned heathenism for it, such as Quadratus, Melito, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix; Tzchirner refers the silence chiefly to the fact that the opinions and position of the Christians prevented them from being considered worthy of attention by members of any of those schools of philosophy whose probable opinions in reference to it have been already explained in Lect. II. Celsus alone had the far-sightedness to apprehend danger from them, both philosophically and politically.

Note 13. p. 49. The Peregrinus Proteus Of Lucian.

The question of Lucian’s intention to injure Christianity has been discussed and maintained by Krebsius in a Dissertation, _De Malitioso Luciani Consilio Religionem Christianam scurrili dicacitate vanam et ridiculam reddendi_, Opusc. Acad. p. 308 seq. The contrary view is maintained by Eichstadt in a dissertation, _Lucianus num scriptis suis adjuvare voluerit Religionem Christianam_, Jena, 1822. Krebsius is extravagant in interpreting many unimportant references in Lucian as relating to Christianity. See Tzchirner, _Opusc. Acad._ p. 290. Neander also states his opinion on the question, _Kirchengesch._ i. 269 seq.

The same subject has been discussed with great care and learning by Adolph Planck, dean of Heidenheim in Würtemburg, _Lucian und Christenthum_, a contribution to the church history of the second century; originally published in the _Studien und Kritiken_, 1851, and translated in the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_, April and July, 1853. He there studies Lucian’s tract, _the Peregrinus_, (1) in the character which it offers of Peregrinus as a Cynic, for the purpose of examining the probability of his death being a parody on Christian martyrdom; (2) in his character as a Christian, in order to exhibit Lucian’s opinion of Christianity and of the traits of Christian life brought out; (3) with a view to ascertain the sources and amount of Lucian’s knowledge of Christianity; discussing fully, by means of quotations, the evidence of Lucian’s acquaintance with the early Christian literature.

The analysis of the Peregrinus Proteus is as follows: It professes to be a letter from Lucian to Cromius narrating Peregrinus’s death. Peregrinus had gone to Olympia, with the pompous design of displaying his death before the assembly at the games. Lucian lets us hear the speeches, descriptive of Peregrinus’s life, delivered before the decisive act. A certain Theagenes, an admirer of Peregrinus, delivers a bombastic eulogy, § 3-7, repelling the charge of vanity imputed to him, and comparing his proposed death with that of Hercules, &c. Lucian opposes to this some invectives delivered by another, whose name he professes to have forgotten, which refer, § 7-30, to the history of Peregrinus to which Theagenes had alluded; tracing his crimes, his journeys from land to land, his turning Christian in Syria, his expulsion for disobedience, his subsequent wanderings and crimes, and the universal contempt which he had brought upon himself. Theagenes replies to this speech; but Lucian preferred to go to see the wrestling-match. Afterwards however he heard Peregrinus pronounce his own eulogy, and boast of his sufferings on behalf of philosophy. Then, after most of the guests had left Elis, § 35, &c. Peregrinus proceeded to erect his own funeral pile, and consumed himself on it. Lucian after seeing the end went away, and added a legend about the appearance of a hawk; which story he soon afterwards found had already gained credence. The moral which he draws is, that Cromius ought to despise such people, and impute their conduct to love of fame.

The passages of the work which have specific reference to Christianity are, § 11-13, which describe Peregrinus’s intercourse with the Christians; and § 35-41, which describe his martyrdom. The references are to Dindorf’s ed. Paris 1840.

Note 14. p. 51. The Work Of Celsus.

It is difficult to obtain an exact conception of the work of Celsus. This is due partly perhaps to its original form; for Origen himself complains (Cont. Cels. i. 40) of the want of order in Celsus; and partly to the fact that a mind like that of Origen did not follow his opponent step by step, but frequently grasped a general principle which enabled him to meet a group of objections dispersed through different parts of Celsus’s work.

As it was desirable for the object of the lecture to present Celsus’s views rather than analyse Origen’s treatise, the writer endeavoured, when preparing it, to select materials from Origen for drawing out a sketch in systematic form, somewhat in the manner of Neander’s remarks (_Church History_, i. 274), of Celsus’s views, concerning (1) God and creation; (2) man’s moral state; (3) the Hebrew and Christian religions in their sacred books and doctrines. But on the publication of Pressensé’s work (_Hist. de l’Eglise_, 2e série, ii. pp. 104-142), he perceived the plan of arrangement there suggested to possess so much more life, that he adopted it in the text. Pressensé considers that, by a careful study of the fragments of Celsus quoted by Origen, he is able to reproduce a picture of the whole work, as well as to gather his opinions. Such an arrangement must necessarily be hypothetical, like Niebuhr’s treatment of Roman history, though extremely probable. It will be observed however, by noticing the references to Origen’s work in the foot-notes of Pressensé’s text, and of Lecture II. in this volume, that the arrangement suggested for Celsus’s treatise does not always coincide with the order in which Origen has quoted the parts of it. Also the references to the later books of Origen will be seen to be fewer than to the earlier; a circumstance which arises from the quotations from Celsus’s work being fewer in those books, and from the thoughts of Origen in them being a continuation of those presented earlier. Pressensé’s arrangement has the disadvantage too of leaving out many of the critical difficulties which Celsus alleges in the scriptures; but he rightly points out that they are all corollaries from a philosophical principle. The reader may accordingly consult Neander for a systematic view of Celsus’s opinions, and Pressensé for a theory of the arrangement of his work.

It may be useful to give a brief statement of the order in which Celsus’s objections occur in Origen’s treatise, so as to show the manner in which the subject is there developed.

The first half of book i. is prefatory (ch. i-xl.); the second half, together with b. ii. contains the attack by the Jew on Christianity given in Lect. II. The early part of b. iii. (1-9) contains Origen’s refutation of the Jew. The subsequent parts and remaining books give Origen’s refutation of Celsus’s own attack on Christianity. First, Celsus attacks the character of Christians in the remainder of b. iii. In b. iv. he returns to his attack on Judaism, and on the scriptures of the Old Testament, especially on many of the narratives; either regarding them as false, or as borrowed; and objecting to their anthropomorphic character; also objecting to the account of man’s place in creation, and of divine interference. In b. v. he continues his attack on the doctrines of both religions, chiefly so far as he considers them to be untrue; and in b. vi. so far as he considers them to be borrowed, dragging to light the difference which existed between Judaism and Christianity. In b. vii. the subject of prophecy and some other doctrines, as well as the ethics of Christianity, are examined; and in b. viii, when the attack on Christianity is mainly over, a defence of paganism is offered by Celsus.

A detailed analysis of Origen’s treatise, which is intricate, will be found in Schramm’s _Analysis Patrum_, vol. iv. 1782. Pressensé’s view of Origen’s arguments is given, _Hist._ vol. 2e Serie, t. ii. pp. 281-361. See also Lardner’s Works, viii. 19. Hase (_Church History_, § 51) refers to several German works which relate to Celsus.

Note 15. p. 56. The Charges Against Christians, And Causes Of Persecution, In The Second Century.

The learned Kortholt, Professor at Kiel, in his work, the _Paganus Obtrectator, sive Liber de Calumniis Gentilium in Veteres Christianos_ (1703), has carefully collected references to the objections raised by the Pagans against Christianity. He has arranged them according to the subjects, irrespective of the chronological order in which they were respectively suggested; viz. (1) those which relate to the origin and nature of Christianity, such as its novelty, its alleged want of originality, &c.; (2) false charges about public worship; (3) false charges about life and morals. If we exclude on the one hand those charges which are gathered out of Celsus (in Origen), and on the other those from apologists later than the date of Porphyry, the charges between these limits, which are learned from the apologists Minucius Felix, Theophilus (ad Autolycum), and Tertullian, exhibit the objections which were encountered in Rome, Syria, and North Africa, respectively. They chiefly belong to the prejudices adduced in the second and third of the classes made by Kortholt. Among the more intelligible objections which belong to his first class, are found the charges of the novelty of Christianity (ch. i. in his book), the superstitious character of it (ix. and x.), and the want of cultivation in its supporters (xi.). Among the prejudices about public worship (class 2) in his work, we meet with the charge of ass-worship (in Tertullian and Minucius Felix, ch. xi.); sky and sun worship (ii. and iii.); priest and cross worship (iv, and vi.); and secret sacred rites (ix.). Among the false charges about life and morals (which form class 3), we meet with that of private and nocturnal meetings forbidden by law, and the Agapæ (v.); Thyestean banquets (Theoph. and Tertull. ix.); secret insignia (xvi.); treason (vii.); and hatred of humanity (viii.).

All these charges will be seen to be such as mark the transition from a state of indifference to Christianity to that more distinct comprehension of its nature which afterwards existed. Their character indicates a moment when the new religion was forcing itself on public attention as a secret organization ramifying through the Roman world. In the main they resolved themselves into two heads; (1) the vulgar prejudices arising from ignorance; and (2) the alarm at the political danger arising from a vast secret society. The latter charges reappear in the works of later apologists; but the former are peculiar to this special period, between the time of Celsus and of Porphyry.

Among the vulgar prejudices thus named, the only two that need further mention are the charges of priest-worship and ass-worship. The former charge, named by Minucius Felix, ch. ix, and thus described here by a euphemism, may be seen in Kortholt, b. ii. ch. iv. p. 319; it probably arose from the homage paid to the bishop on bended knee at ordination. The latter, taken out of Minucius Felix (ch. ii.), and Tertullian (Apol. 16), is more singular and puzzling even after the discussions by older authors which Kortholt cites, b. ii. ch. i. p. 256, &c. But the fact of the charge has been corroborated by the recent discovery in excavations made in some substructions on the Palatine hill, of a _graffito_ or pencil-scratching, in which a person is worshipping toward a cross, on which hangs suspended a human figure with the head of a horse, or perhaps wild ass, and underneath is the inscription “Alexamenus is worshipping God,” Αλεξαμενος σεβετε [sic for σεβεται] Θεον. It can hardly be doubted that it is a pagan caricature of Christian worship, embodying the absurd prejudice which Minucius names. A brief account of it may be seen in the _Edinburgh Review_, No. 224, for October, 1859, p. 436, and more fully in _Un Graffito Blasfemo nel Palazzo dei Cesari (Civiltà Cattolica_, serie iii. vol. iv. Roma, 1856). The difficulty that the inscription is in Greek, will be explained by the fact that the church of Rome was Greek as late as the time of the writings of the so-called Hippolytus.

The other great class of objections to Christianity, which consisted in imputing the charge of treason, expressed itself in deeds as well as words, and was made the ground of the public persecution of them.

We cannot wonder that the profession of Christianity exposed persons to the suspicion of treason. When we add the fact that Christians declined obstinately to conform to the practice which had grown up, of performing sacrifice to the honour of the reigning emperors as the impersonation of the dignity of the state; and when we consider the organization among Christians, the league of purpose which was evident among them, we can understand how fully they laid themselves open to the charge of treason, the “crimen læsæ majestatis.” Perhaps too at particular moments they were in danger of giving real ground for suspicion in reference to this point. The warnings of St. Paul and St. Peter give ground for inferring that there was danger of this even in their times. (Rom. xiii. 1 seq.; 1 Pet. ii. 13 seq.)

A greater difficulty than discovering plausible grounds which may have created the suspicion of treason is, to find the causes why a people so tolerant as the Romans should exhibit so persecuting a spirit against Christianity; but we must remember, first, that the idea as distinct from the practice of toleration was unknown; and secondly, that the practice of toleration was only supposed to be obligatory when the particular religion had been licensed.

The idea of man’s universal rights, of universal religious freedom and liberty of conscience, was alien to the views of the whole ancient world. Indeed it is of quite modern introduction. It was not known even in Christendom, not even in the protestant part of it, till the seventeenth century. It was Milton who first enunciated the principle in its breadth. The idea of individualism, though long in spreading, was created in germ by two causes; viz.. the free spirit of independence introduced by the Teutonic system; and the idea of the sacredness of the individual soul introduced through Christianity. If the highest end of man be to live for eternity, not to live for society, the individual is invested with a new dignity; and we feel the impropriety of trespassing upon the sphere for which each man is personally responsible. In the ancient world however, where this idea was unknown, all the elements of life, religion, and morals, were made subordinate to the political. The state was supreme. Looked at accordingly from the ancient point of view, a defection from the religion of the state could not appear otherwise than as a crime against the state. The Romans did certainly exercise religious toleration to the religions of nations which they conquered; and in this way the religion of the Jews was a tolerated creed, a _religio licita_; but it was such for the Jews alone; and deviation from the state religion was, as we know from the great lawyers, unlawful. Though doubtless from the abundance of foreigners who crowded to Rome, many foreign religious practices became common, yet a special decree of the senate was necessary before any Roman citizen could be allowed to join in the observance of any such foreign rites. When we consider the free use made by the Christians, for the purposes of worship and burial, of the catacombs, by which the plain in the neighbourhood of Rome is honeycombed, we may conjecture that the vigilance of the imperial police cannot have been strictly exercised; yet occasionally severe laws were passed to repress the evil of the introduction of foreign sacred rites. We may thus accordingly understand the causes of the persecution of Christians, as we before understood the grounds of the prejudice against them.

Note 16. p. 61. Modern Criticism On The Book Of Daniel.

Some account of the modern criticism on the book of Daniel has been introduced into the text of Lect. II. (see pp. 60, 61,) and the chief recent writers on it have been enumerated (p. 60, note). Also the refutation of one argument used against the authenticity of the book, viz. that drawn from the occurrence of Greek words in it, was given in a note on p. 60.

The other arguments which have been advanced against it, in addition to those there named, are, (1) that the angelology and ascetic doctrines are too recent to be of the time of Daniel; (2) that the miracles are of a “grotesque” character, like those which belong to the apocryphal books; (3) that the measure of the golden statue of Dura, sixty cubits by six, is irreconcileable with any theory of proportion suited to the human figure, and still more so with the canon of Assyrian art, as seen in their sculpture, and can apply only to an obelisk; (4) that Daniel has made honourable mention of himself; (5) that the position of the book in the third part of the Jewish canon, the Cethubim or Hagiographa, shows that it was written later than the captivity.

The replies made to these objections are as follows: In reference to No. (1), it is denied that the angelology and asceticism necessarily prove a late period, by referring to traces of them in earlier Hebrew literature: No. (2) that the difficulty which has reference to the character of the miracles is only one of degree; and that the greatness of a miracle is no absolute ground for disbelief if miracles be once admitted: (3) the inferences about the statue are conceded, but reconciled with the text. As the word עלם (iii. 1) does not necessarily mean a statue (see Buxtorf’s _Lexicon, sub voc._), it is possible to conceive it to apply to an obelisk, the existence of which in Assyria is confirmed by recent excavations. (4) Daniel’s honourable mention of himself is not improper when taken in its connexion. (5) The argument which relates to the third division of the canon is a difficulty common to several other books, and depends on the theory that the principle of arrangement of the three parts of the canon was founded on the date of composition, and not on the subject matter, which is disputed.

In reference to the definite character of the predictions in the book of Daniel, the difficulty stated in the text (p. 61), reply is easy. If the miraculous character of prophecy be admitted, the definite character, though a peculiarity, cannot be a difficulty. The definiteness too in this instance does not differ in kind, hardly even in degree, from the case of other prophecies, but must be admitted to be paralleled elsewhere, if the objector does not assail those equally by the same process. The pretence that the definite character ends at the reign of Antiochus is shown to be incorrect, by proving (1) that the prophecy about the Messiah (ix. 24-26) cannot refer to the Maccabean deliverers; and (2) that the fourth empire predicted is the Roman, which thus would be equally future even to a writer of the Maccabean era.

The further argument used in defence of the book, that the New Testament authenticates the authorship of Daniel, is necessarily only of value to those who admit, first, the authority of the New Testament, and who, secondly, allow that the New Testament writers never accommodate themselves on questions of criticism to the mental state of their hearers. The opponents of this view on the contrary assert, that the quotations in the New Testament only affirm the predicate, not the subject; the truth of the theological sentiment quoted, not the literary question of the authorship of the book from which it is quoted.

An instructive paper on the book of Daniel by Mr. Westcott appeared in Smith’s _Biblical Dictionary_, from which a few of the references to authors on Daniel (p. 60, note) were taken; and another in Kitto’s _Biblical Encyclopædia_ by the lamented Hävernick.

Note 17. p. 64. The Reply Of Eusebius To Hierocles.

In his book against Hierocles, Eusebius states (b. i.), that he refutes only that portion of the work which related to Apollonius of Tyana; referring to Origen’s answer to Celsus for a reply to the remainder of it; and discusses only the parallel of Apollonius and Jesus Christ. In b. i. he gives an outline of the argument of his opponent, with quotations, and states his own opinion about Apollonius; throwing discredit on the veracity of the sources of the memoirs; and proceeds to criticise the prodigies attributed to him, arguing that the statements are incredible, or borrowed, or materially contradictory. Discussing each book in succession, he replies in b. i. to the statements respecting the early part of Apollonius’s life; in b. ii. to that which concerned the journey into India; in b. iii. to that which related to his intercourse with the Brahmins; in b. iv. to his journey in Greece; in b. v. to his introduction to Vespasian in Egypt; in b. vi. and vii. to his miracles; and in b. viii. to his pretence to foreknowledge. He adds remarks on his death, and on the necessity of faith; and repeats his opinion respecting the character of Apollonius.

Note 18. p. 67. The Philopatris Of The Pseudo-Lucian.

This dialogue was held to be genuine by Fabricius; but Gesner disproved it, _De Philopatride Lucianeo Dialogo Dissertatio_, 1730. See also Neander’s _Church History_, E. T. (Bohn) iii. 127, note.

The work hardly merits an analysis. Critias, looking ill, is met by Triepho. After a little banter, in which Triepho makes fun of the gods by whom Critias swears, and of their history (§ 2-18), Critias confesses that the cause that has made him pale is the hearing bad news at an assembly of Christians. Having first heard two Christian sermons, the one by a coughing preacher, who was proclaiming release from debt, the other by a threadbare mountaineer preaching a golden age, he had afterwards been persuaded to go to a private Christian meeting; and it was the prediction which he there heard of woes to the state which had so much frightened him, § 20-27. Triepho has not patience to hear him narrate the particulars. Another person enters, and the curtain falls.

The theology of the dialogue is, if viewed on its negative side, the ridicule of heathen mythology and of Christian doctrines and habits; and on its positive, the proclamation of one God as the object of worship. The work exhibits internal evidence of a knowledge of Christian practices, § 20, &c., and Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, § 12; uses Christian phraseology, § 18; and calls Christians by the name given by Julian, Galilæan, § 12.

Note 19. p. 87. The Work Of Julian Against Christianity.

It has been already stated that our knowledge of the contents of Julian’s lost book is obtained from Cyril’s reply to it; the text of which is accordingly given in Spanheim’s edition of Julian. It is supposed to have consisted of seven books; but Cyril replies only to three.

In the brief account given in the text of Lect. II. no attempt was made to form a hypothetical restoration of Julian’s work from the fragments, such as that which Pressensé has attempted with regard to Celsus; but only a few of Julian’s principles were presented concerning the following subjects: (1) on God; (2) on the Hebrew, and (3) the Christian religion. A few hints however toward such a scheme, may not be uninteresting. If, as seems probable, Cyril took the statements of Julian in the order in which they stood in the now lost work, the plan of Julian’s work may have been somewhat as follows.

He proposed to institute a comparison between the Hebrew and Christian religions and literature on the one hand, and the Greek on the other. If we may judge from the purport of b. i. of Cyril’s work, Julian laid himself open to an attack by maintaining the superior antiquity of heathenism, forgetting that the Hebrew system was older than the Greek. At least Cyril establishes this elaborately, and argues the direct derivation of many parts of the heathen system from the Jews. The argument on Julian’s part seems to have been conducted by an examination of successive points in the Hebrew history and system. In the beginning the Hebrew cosmogony suggested an argument for the superiority of the Platonic theory over the Mosaic. (_Cyril._ b. ii.) Next he successively attacked the account of Paradise as a fable; entering upon both the probability of the story (_Id._ b. iii.) and the moral features of the Deity brought out in the narrative. He seems also to have passed from the idea of creation to that of providence, and to have dwelt on the inferiority of the Hebrew scheme as a theory of providence, in having an absence of inferior deities beneath the supreme one; and resists the idea of the obligation of all men to embrace one creed, inasmuch as they do not possess one character. (_Id._ b. iv.) Next, turning to the Mosaic moral law, he argued against its originality, except in relation to the sabbath; and passing through several of the narratives of Jewish history, he pointed out characteristics of anger in the Jewish conception of Deity; and compared by instances the Greek legislators and kings with Jewish. (_Id._ b. v.) Next he seems to have passed from Judaism to Christianity, and attacked the miracles, and the Christian morals and practices; challenged the reasons for prophecy; and rallied the Christians on accepting a religion derived from so insignificant a nation as the Jews. (_Id._ b. vi.) He seems next to have returned to the comparison of Greek and Hebrew warriors, and of Greek and Jewish science, and the educational value of the two literatures; and reverted to the subject of Christianity, by representing it as a deviation from the very religion on which it depended. (_Id._ b. vii.) He continued this argument by the special example of prophecy, examining several instances wherein he contended that Christians had abandoned the Jewish sense of them. (_Id._ b. viii.) Next he seems to have continued a similar argument with regard to the Jewish typical system, and the utter dissimilarity of the Christian ideas from its purpose (_Id._ b. ix.); next to have assailed Christianity, by trying to show that there had been a similar development in Christianity itself, and a departure from its primitive form analogous to that which Christianity bore to Judaism, alleging, incorrectly, that St. John was the first to teach the divinity of Christ; and instanced examples, objectionable in practice, such as the worship of martyrs’ tombs; and alleged against Christianity an eclectic spirit which had appropriated parts of the Jewish system but not the whole. (_Id._ b. x.)

The reader must however be apprised that the above scheme is entirely hypothetical. The objections of Julian are facts; the _lacunæ_ are filled up by conjecture.

The general spirit of Cyril’s answer is the _argumentum ad hominem_; showing that the same faults, even if true, are equally true of the Greek scheme of religion.

Lecture III.

Note 20. p. 89. On The Legendary Work, Entitled “De Tribus Impostoribus.”

Full particulars concerning the chapter in literary history which relates to this work, will be found in Prosper Marchand’s _Dictionnaire Historique_, 1758 (vol. i. pp. 312-319), and more briefly in F. W. Genthe’s _De Imposturis Religionum breve Compendium_, 1833. Both give lists of the earlier writers who have treated of the subject; among which the most useful will be found to be B. G. Struve, _Dissertatio de Doctis Impostoribus_, 1703 (§ 9-23); De La Monnaie, _Lettre sur le Prétendu Livre_; and Calmet, _Dictionnaire_, article _Imposteur_.

The rumours concerning the existence of a book with the title “De Tribus Impostoribus” commence in the thirteenth century. About the sixteenth, more definite but still unsatisfactory statements appear respecting its existence. Its authorship has been attributed to above twenty distinguished persons; such as Frederick II, Boccaccio, Pomponatius, Bruno, Vanini, &c.; the reasons for which in each case are explained in Marchand. De La Monnaie however wrote, questioning the existence of the book. A reply to his letter respecting it was published in French at the Hague in 1716, which pretended to offer an analysis of the ancient work; the falsehood of which however is shown by the Spinozist philosophy contained in it. Genthe in his tract, besides a literary introduction in German, republishes the French tract just named; and also a second tract in Latin, equally a fabrication, bearing a slightly different title, _De Imposturis Religionum_, Lucianlike in its tone, which, by an allusion to Loyola (§ 20), cannot be older than the sixteenth century, and is probably of German origin. Both writers conclude that the existence of the book in the middle ages was legendary. Renan (_Averroes_, pp. 280, and 272-300), and Laurent (_La Reforme_, pp. 345-8), coincide in this conclusion. The title was a _mot_, not a fact.

It is hardly necessary to state that the numerous writers who, like Kortholt, have adopted the title “De Tribus Impostoribus” for their books, have merely used the name in irony, and do not profess to give transcripts of the old work.

Lecture IV.

Note 21. p. 118. On Some Technical Terms In The History Of Unbelief.

There are a few terms, which are frequently used in reference to unbelief, of which it would be interesting to trace the meaning and history. A few notes in reference to this subject may both prevent ambiguity and throw some light on a chapter in the history of language. The words alluded to are the following: 1. INFIDEL; 2. ATHEIST; 3. PANTHEIST; 4. DEIST; 5. NATURALIST; 6. FREETHINKER; 7. RATIONALIST; 8. SCEPTIC.

1. INFIDEL.—This word began to be restricted as a technical term, about the time of the Crusades and throughout the middle ages, to denote Mahometan; as being _par excellence_ the kind of unbelievers with which Christians were brought into contact. Perhaps the first instance of its use in the more modern sense, of disbeliever generally, is in the Collect for Good Friday, “all Jews, Turks, _infidels_, heretics;” which words were apparently inserted by the Reformers in the first Prayer Book (1547); the rest of the prayer, except these words, existing in the Latin Collect of the ancient Service-book from which it is translated. Ordinarily however, during the sixteenth century, it is found in the popular sense of _unfaithful_; a meaning which the increasing prevalence of Latin words was likely to bring into use. In writers of the seventeenth, the use of it in the sense of _unbeliever_ becomes more common: an instance from Milton is cited in Richardson’s Dictionary. In the beginning of the eighteenth century it becomes quite common in theological writers in its modern sense; and toward the end of the century was frequently appropriated to express the form of unbelief which existed in France; a use which probably arose from the circumstance that the French unbelievers did not adopt a special name for their tenets, as the English did, who had a positive creed, (Deism,) and not merely, like the French, a disintegration of belief.

2. ATHEIST.—This word needs little discussion. In modern times it is first applied by the theological writers of the sixteenth century, to describe the unbelief of such persons as Pomponatius; and in the seventeenth it is used, by Bacon (Essay on Atheism), Milton, (Paradise lost, b. vi.), and Bunyan (Pilgrim), to imply general unbelief, of which the disbelief in a Deity is the principal sign. Toward the end of the same century it is not unfrequently found, e.g. in Kortholt’s _De Tribus Impostoribus_, 1680, to include Deism such as that of Hobbes, as well as blank Pantheism like Spinoza’s, which more justly deserves the name. The same use is seen in Colerus’s work against Spinoza, _Arcana Atheismi Revelata_. Tillotson (serm. i. on Atheism); and Bentley (Boyle Lectures) use the word more exactly; and the invention of the term Deism induced, in the writers of the eighteenth century, a more limited and exact use of the former term. But in Germany, Reimannus (_Historia Univ. Atheismi_, 1725, p. 437 seq.) and Buddeus (_De Atheismo et Superstitione_, 1723, ch. iii. § 2), use it most widely, and especially make it include disbelief of immortality. Also Walch, _Bibliotheca Theol. Selecta_, 1757, uses it to include the Pantheism of Spinoza, (vol. i. p. 676, &c.) This transference of the term to embrace all kinds of unbelief has been well compared with the extension of the term βάρβαρος by the Greeks.(1064) The wide use of the term is partly to be attributed to the doubt which Christian men had whether any one could really disbelieve the being of a God,—an opinion increased by the Cartesian notions then common concerning innate ideas; and whether accordingly the term Atheist could mean anything different from Deist. Compare Buddeus’s _Isagoge_, p. 1203, and the chapter “An dentur Athei” in his work _De Atheismo_. (ch. i.) By the time of Stapfer’s work, _Instit. Theol. Polem._ 1744, the two terms were distinguished; see vol. ii. ch. vi. and vii. and cfr. p. 587.

The term was subsequently applied to describe the views of the French writers, such as D’Holbach, who did not see the necessity for believing in a personal first Cause. In more modern times it is frequently applied to such writers as Comte; whose view is indeed atheism, but differs from that of former times, in that it is the refusal to entertain the question of a Deity as not being discoverable by the evidence of sense and science, rather than the absolute denial of his existence. The Comtists also hold firmly the marks of order, law, mind, in nature, and not the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, as was the case with the atheists of France.

3. PANTHEIST.—One of the first uses of this word is by Toland in the _Pantheisticon_, 1720, where however it has its ancient polytheistic sense. It is a little later that it passes from the idea of the worship of the whole of the gods to the worship of the entire universe looked at as God.

This exacter application of it is more modern. It is now used to denote the disbelief of a personal first Cause: but a distinction ought to be made between the Pantheism like that of Averroes, which regards the world as an emanation, and sustained by an _anima mundi_; and that which, like the view of Spinoza, regards the sum total of all things to be Deity. This distinction was noticed and illustrated in p. 107. The account of the word in Krug’s _Philosoph. Lexicon_ is worth consulting.

4. DEIST.—One of the first instances of the use of this word occurs in Viret, _Epistr. Dedicat. du 2. vol de l’Instruction Chrétienne_, 1563, quoted by Bayle, _Dictionnaire_, (note under the word Viret.) It is appropriated in the middle of the seventeenth century by Herbert to his scheme, and afterwards by Blount (_Oracles of Reason_, p. 99), to distinguish themselves from Atheists. In strict truth, Herbert calls himself a _Theist_; which slightly differs from the subsequent term _Deist_, in so far as it is intended to convey the idea of that which he thought to be the true worship of God. It is theism as opposed to error, rather than natural religion as opposed to revealed: whereas deism always implies a position antagonistic to revealed religion. But the distinction is soon lost sight of; and Nichols (1696) entitles his work against the deists, _Conference with a Theist_. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, and in the beginning of the eighteenth, the Christian writers sometimes even use Deist as interchangeable with Atheist, as shown above. It is also used as synonymous with one of the senses of the word _Naturalist_. See below, under the latter word; and cfr. Stapfer, _Inst. Polem._ vol. ii. p. 742, with p. 883.