Chapter IV: Pre-Imperial Career of Theodora: the Consort of Justinian (6)

[947] It appears that of late years a dearth of candidates for orders in every religious denomination of Christendom has been experienced, but this may be due merely to the usual poverty of the career. The Church should fall to principle not to poverty. And here we may catch a glimpse of the process by which the various Protestant sects may ultimately die out naturally: that young men of high character, ambitious of honourable distinction, will avoid a profession which entails an attitude of disingenuous reserve towards those whom they are deputed to instruct. On the other hand it may be foreseen that the Romish and Orthodox churches, upholding as they do a gross superstition and instituting the members of their priesthood almost from childhood, will retain their power over the masses for a much longer period, until at last they have to face suppression by force. Those who at the present time are engaged in impressing a belief in obsolete mythologies on the community should realize that they are doing an evil service to their generation instead of exerting themselves for the liberation and elevation of thought. However brilliant their temporary position, they deserve, much more than the oblivious patriot, to go down

To the vile dust from whence they sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured, and unsung.

[948] Grotius has made a large collection of those passages in classical and other ancient writers, which seem to support the creation-myth of Genesis; De Veritate Relig. Christ., i, 16. For the Chaldaean or Babylonian variations, and some earlier associations of Adam, see King’s Seven Tablets of Creation, Lond., 1903. It appears that the protoplast in the original account was created by Marduk, the tutelary deity of Babylonia, out of his own blood, a circumstance which the “priestly” redactor of Genesis has suppressed, together with many other interesting details; cf. Radau, Creation Story of Genesis i, Chicago, 1903. Margoliouth’s attempt to show that Abraham’s Jehovah was the male moon-god of Ur is interesting; Contemporary Review, 1896.

[949] In this country the subject of comparative mythology and the origin of theistic notions has been exhaustively treated by Herbert Spencer, Andrew Lang, J. G. Frazer, and others. Nevertheless, it cannot be determined whether the fear of ghosts or the innate bent of the human mind to speculate as to casuality is the germ of religious systems. Their development has, no doubt, always been much indebted to the ascendancy to be gained as the reward of successful imposture in such matters.

[950] Avowed atheists were rare among the Greeks, as there was always some personal risk in ventilating opinions which clashed with the popular superstitions. Some, however, incurred the odium of holding such views. Of these the most noteworthy was Diagoras, who is said to have impiously chopped up his image of Hercules to boil his turnips; Athenagoras, Apol., 4. The jaunty impiety of Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse (_c. 400_ B.C.), was celebrated in antiquity. After pillaging the temple of the Locrian Proserpine, he sailed back home and, finding the wind favourable, remarked to his companions, “See what a fine passage the gods are granting to us sacrilegious reprobates.” He seized the golden cloak from the shoulders of Jupiter Olympus, observing that it was “too heavy for summer and too cold for winter, whereas a woollen one would suit him well for all seasons.” Noticing a gold beard on Æsculapius at Epidaurus, he removed it, saying, that it was “improper for him to wear it, since his father, Apollo, was always represented beardless.” Whenever in the temples he met with statues proffering, as it were, jewels and plate with their projecting hands, he took possession of the valuables, asserting that it “would be folly not to accept the good things offered by the gods.” The pious were aghast at the example of such a man enjoying a long and prosperous reign and transmitting the throne to his son; Cicero, De Nat. Deor., iii, 34; Lactantius, Div. Instit., ii, 4, etc. With a view to such instances, Plutarch wrote a treatise to prove that “the mills of God grind slow, but very sure.” Euhemerus and Palaephatus transformed mythology into history by a rationalizing process, assigning the origin to popular exaggeration of common occurrences.

[951] A system of verbal trickery originated with the Eleatics, of which Zeno (_c. 400_ B.C.) was the chief exponent. Their catches were generally ingenious; that disproving the reality of motion is best known—“If a thing moves, it must do so in the place in which it is, or in a place in which it is not; but it cannot move in the place in which it is, and it certainly does not move in a place in which it is not; therefore there is no motion at all;” Diogenes Laert., Pyrrho, 99, etc. See Plato’s Euthydemus for a sample of ridiculous word-chopping.

[952] There were six principal sects which achieved a sort of permanency and retained their vitality for several centuries. They may be characterized briefly: Academics (Plato), sceptical and respectable; Peripathetics (Aristotle), inquisitive and progressive; Stoics (Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus), ethical and intense; Cynics (Antisthenes, Diogenes), squalid, morose, and sententious; Epicureans, tranquil enjoyment and indifference; Cyreneans (Aristippus), pure hedonism with discretion. In general the Epicureans are wrongly associated with the last conception.

[953] Aristotle (_c. 350_ B.C.) was the first to perceive the importance of collecting facts and disposing them into their proper groups. Thus zoology, botany, anatomy, physiology, mineralogy, astronomy, meteorology, etc., began to take form in his hands, each being relegated to a separate compartment for consideration as a concordant whole and to receive future additions.

[954] Even with his limited outlook Aristotle had sufficient astuteness to divine that nature might become the “slave of man,” and expresses himself clearly to that effect; Metaphysics, i, 2. Such a claim may provoke a smile from the modern who reviews the mild conquests of the embryo science of his day.

[955] A few of their utterances may be quoted:

Ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμως Αἰδᾶο πύλησιν,
Ὅς χ’ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ἄλλο δὲ εἴπῃ.
_Iliad_, ix, 312.
Ἔργον δ’ οὐδὲν ὄνειδος, ἀεργίη δέ τ’ ὄνειδος.
_Op. et Dies_, 311.
Μὴ κακὰ κερδαίνειν, κακὰ κέρδεα ἷσ’ ἄτῃσιν.
_Ibid._, 352.

[956] From the Golden Verses of Pythagoras; Epictetus, iii, 10.

[957] Hence Socrates would not save his life by flight from Athens after his condemnation, although his friends had made everything secure for his escape; see the Crito.

[958] Plato, Gorgias, 55, etc.; Protagoras, 101, etc.

[959] Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem, 61. This maxim, in slightly differing forms, has been attributed to Confucius and many others. Pythagoras enjoined his disciples to love a friend as oneself; see Bigg, Christian Platonists, London, 1886, p. 242. “Love your fellow men from your heart,” says Marcus Aurelius, viii, 34.

[960] Cicero, De Officiis, iii, 8. In this treatise the author is for the most part merely voicing the sentiments of the Stoic Panaetius.

[961] Epictetus, ii, 2.

[962] _Ibid._, i, 18.

[963] Marcus Aurelius, xii, 12.

[964] Seneca, Epist., 47; De Beneficiis, 18, etc. To a master who ill-treats his servants Epictetus addresses himself: “Slave! can you not be patient with your brother, the offspring of God and a son of heaven as much as you are”; i, 13.

[965] Tuscul. Disp., ii, 17.

[966] Epist. 7.

[967] Lucian, Demonax.

[968] It was, however, prohibited early at Thebes; Aelian, Var. Hist., ii, 7.

[969] Pand., XXV, iii, 4; see Noodt’s Julius Paulus, etc., 1710. Aristotle upheld the custom without scruple; Politics, viii, 16.

[970] Then Valentinian proscribed it with a penalty, but the legislation was tentative, and the practice was scarcely suppressed until modern times; Cod. Theod., V, vii; Cod., VIII, lii, 2; cf. Lactantius, Div. Inst., vi, 20. It was palliated by the institution of the brephotrophia; see p. 82.

[971] Odyssey, xx, 55.

[972] See Lysias, Orat., Ὑπερ τοῦ ἀδυνάτου, etc., Plutarch, Aristides _ad fin._

[973] See p. 81.

[974] Trajan appears to have established orphanages and homes for the children of needy parents; see Pliny, Panegyric., 27, etc. The fact is also indicated by coins (ALIMENTA ITALIAE), and a sculptured slab found in the Roman forum; Cohen, ii, p. 18; Middleton, Rome, etc., Lond., 1892, p. 346. Faustina, wife of Antoninus Pius, also busied herself in a similar way, as is evidenced by well-known coins (PUELLULAE FAUSTINIANAE); Cohen, ii, p. 433.

[975] Isis and Serapis, after a stormy career which lasted more than a century, became finally seated in the city under Vespasian; see “Isis” in Smith’s Classical Dictionary and similar works. But the greatest run was on Mithras, a sun-god extracted from the Persian mythology, who grew in favour from the time of Pompey until his worship reached even to the north of Britain. Quite a literature exists under his name at present; see Cumont, Mysteries of Mithras, Lond., 1903. For the account of a regular invasion of Syrian deities see Hist. August., Heliogabalus.

[976] Polybius complains of the rising scepticism at Rome in his time; vi, 56. I need not reproduce the oft-quoted lines of Juvenal (ii, 149), but the following are not generally brought forward:

Sunt, in fortunae qui casibus omnia ponunt,
Et nullo credant mundum rectore moveri, etc.
xiii, 86.

Such unbelief, however, did not penetrate beyond the upper social stratum; and even at Athens in the second century those who scouted the ancient myths were considered to be impious and senseless by the multitude; see Lucian, Philopseudes, 2, etc. The voluminous dialogues of Cicero are sufficient to prove how practised the Romans had become in tearing the old mythology to pieces. But the pretence of piety was kept up in the highest places. “The soul of Augustus is not in those stones,” exclaimed Agrippina in a moment of vexation when she found Tiberius sacrificing to the statues of his predecessor; Tacitus, Ann., iv, 52.

[977] There were many grades of charlatans from Apollonius of Tyana, who seems to have been a genuine illusionist or mystic, to Alexander Abonoteichos, an impudent impostor, and Marcus, an infamous rascal; Philostratus, Vit. Apol.; Lucian, Pseudomantis; Irenaeus, i, 13.

[978] But he never left Rome and the duties were performed by Pomponius Flaccus; Tacitus, Ann., ii, 32; vi, 27, etc. Jn. Malala mentions one Cassius, p. 241.

[979] That is, sufferers from epilepsy, St. Vitus’s dance, mania, etc., diseases which might be cured by hypnotic suggestion, neuroses of various kinds. This popular fallacy was not held universally, but was derided by the more educated, including the medical faculty; see Philostorgius, viii, 10.

[980] Thus a century later, when a true messianic note was struck, half a million of Jews rushed frantically to destruction in the wake of Barcochebas, the leader of their revolt under Hadrian, though not without the satisfaction of dragging 100,000 Gentiles to their doom at the same time. Some exegetes are tempted to see in John, v, 4, an allusion to this war, and hence to find a date for that gospel (the bridge, via Philo Judaeus, between Judaeism and Hellenism), _c._ 140.

[981] Rufus (or Fufius) and Rubellius are probably meant; Lactantius, De Morte Persec., 2. See the differing statements in the Chronicles from Jn. Malala onwards; also articles on biblical chronology in recent encyclopaedias, Chron. of Eusebius, Consular Fasti appended to Chron. Paschal., etc. By the synoptical gospels the ministry of Jesus seems to have lasted one year only, but two, three, and even four years have been assumed from the later composition of John, _e.g._, in Jerome’s chronicle, _sb._ A.D. 33.

[982] It is, however, improbable that any Christian could have given a consecutive account of the life of Jesus prior to 120 or thereabouts. The newly-discovered Apology of Aristides seems to be the earliest evidence for the existence of gospels. It was presented to Hadrian, perhaps, _c._ 125. On the other hand First Clement, moored at 95, but with an incorrigible tendency to rise to 140, is clearly by a writer who possessed no biography, but merely Logia of Jesus.

[983] They were coated with inflammable matter, pitch, etc., and used for torches to illuminate the public gardens at night (Nov., 64); Tacitus, Ann., xv, 44; Suetonius, Nero, 16, etc.

[984] Dion Cass., lxvii, 14; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., iii, 18, _et seq._; cf. Lactantius, De Morte Persec., 3; Suetonius, Domitian. Clement, a cousin of this emperor, appears to have been put to death for being a Christian, and has been claimed by some as one of the first popes.

[985] Pliny, Epist., x, 97, 98. This correspondence and, indeed, the whole book which contains it has been stigmatized as a forgery by some investigators; see Gieseler, Eccles. Hist., i, 33, for refs. The same suspicion rests, in fact, on every early allusion to the Christians. It certainly seems strange that they should be such unfamiliar sectaries to Trajan and Pliny if they were well known at Rome under Nero and Domitian. Much less can we believe that in the destruction of Jerusalem Titus was actuated chiefly by a desire to extinguish Christianity, or that he had weighed the differences in theological standpoint between Jews and Christians; Sulp. Severus, Hist. Sacr., ii, 30. Such is history “as she was wrote” at that epoch. The whole evidence that Christians were popularly known and recognized politically during the first century is scanty and unsatisfactory. Trajan achieved a great reputation, which never died out even among the Christians, perhaps on account of the tolerant attitude attributed to him on this occasion. He was prayed out of hell by one of the popes along with one or two other noted pagans whom the Church was anxious to take under its wing.

Quivi era storiata l’alta gloria
Del roman prince, lo cui gran valore
Mosse Gregorio alia sua gran vittoria:
Io dico di Traiano imperadore; etc.
Dante, Purg., x; Parad., xx.

[986] Hence the anti-Christian philosopher Celsus (_c._ 160) exclaims: “You say that no educated, wise or intellectual person need approach you, but only those that are ignorant, silly, and childish. In fact you are able to persuade the vulgar only, slaves, women, and children”; Origen c. Celsum, iii, 44.

[987] Minucius Felix, Octavius, 12, etc. Their gloomy austerity is strongly brought out by Tertullian in his tract De Spectaculis.

[988] Tertullian, De Idololatria, 17, _et seq._; De Corona Militis, 11; Origen c. Celsum, viii, 55, 60, _et seq._ Not only did they refuse the quasi-divine honours to the Emperor, but they would not even join in the illumination and floral decoration of their houses required of all loyal citizens during imperial festivals; Tertullian, De Idololatria, 13, _et seq._; Ad Nationes, i, 17; Theophilus, Autolycus, i, 11, etc. The causes of the unpopularity of the Christians can be studied very completely with the aid of Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., i, 41), who has brought together numerous extracts and references bearing on the subject. As was natural under the circumstances, atrocious libels began to be spread abroad against them, such as that they worshipped an ass’s head, that the sacrifice of new-born infants was a part of their ritual, etc.; Tertullian, Apology, 16; Minucius Felix, 9, etc.

[989] Origen c. Celsum, viii, the latter half especially. As early as 500 B.C. Xenophanes had said “God is the One,” but this was recondite philosophy which could not penetrate to the masses, and, if preached openly, would have aroused popular fanaticism; Aristotle, Metaphysics, i, 5.

[990] The prohibitive campaign was almost confined to Lyons and Vienne in Gaul; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., v, 1, _et seq._ The animus against the Christians was so intense that slaves were even allowed to inform on their owners, ordinarily a criminal act; Pand., XLVIII, xviii, 1, 18, etc. The Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp (_c._ 155-161), after holding their ground so long, are now at last beginning to be classed as spurious; see Van Manen in Encyclop. Biblica, _sb._ Old Christ. Literat.

[991] See Tertullian’s Address to the Martyrs; also Cyprian’s restrained efforts to modify the reverence paid to them; Epist., 22, 83, etc.; cf. Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine; Lactantius, De Morte Persec.; Neander, Church Hist., ii.

[992] Ten persecutions were reckoned by those who wished to make up a mystic number to accord with the ten plagues of Egypt, Revelat., xvii, etc., but the specification of them does not correspond in different writers. After a certain date, which cannot be accurately fixed, there was always local animosity against the sect, the practical issue of which varied relatively to the temper of the populace and the provincial governor; see Gieseler, i, 56.

[993] Lactantius, De Morte Persec., 48; Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., x, 5. Advanced critics, however, are now beginning to doubt the authenticity of this decree as presented by the Fathers of the Church; see Seeck, Gesch. d. Untergangs d. antiken Welt, 1895, ii, pp. 457, 460.

[994] At present it appears that some nourish a hope of the reality of miracles being still believed in by supposing them to have occurred as an “extension of the natural.” In this way it may become credible that cartloads of baked bread and cooked fish—vertebrate animals with all their physiological parts—suddenly sprang into existence out of the air. A travesty of the ridiculous, not an extension of the natural, is the more proper description of such assumptions. Natural phenomena, observed, but so far ill understood, lie in quite a different plane from contradictions of natural law in which consists the essence of legendary miracles.

[995] The more timorous critics still cling to one or two of the Epistles grouped together under the name of St. Paul, but the advanced school has decided to reject them in their entirety; see Van Manen, Encycl. Biblica, _sb._ “Paul.” I may exemplify the general discrepancy of views still prevailing in this field of research by a single illustration: “It has now been established that the latter (Epistles of Ignatius) are genuine”; Encycl. Britan., _sb._ “Gospels” and “Ignatius”: “certainly not by Ignatius”; Encycl. Biblica, _sb._ “Old Christ. Lit.” Such opposing statements will continue to be put forward as long as we have Faculties of Divinity at Universities filled by scholars who are constrained to treat historical questions in conformity with the requirements of an established ministry; and so long shall we be edified by the spectacle of men engaged in balancing truth and error in such a manner as to pretend not to be refuting the latter, so that in perusing their treatises we must either suspect their candour or distrust their judgement. Yet in not a few instances the men may be observed exulting amid the ruins of the fortress which they had entered to hold as an invincible garrison.

[996] A. D. Loman decided in 1881 that Jesus had not been a real personage, but he now thinks he went too far; Encycl. Biblica, _sb._ “Resurrection.” Edwin Johnson, author of _Antiqua Mater_, 1887, has marshalled the evidence against his existence very fully and fairly, but in some of his later work he has gone too far, and such exaggerated scepticism, while it may often amuse, can scarcely succeed in convincing. Jn. M. Robertson, author of A Short History of Christianity, 1902, and previous works of some magnitude from similar studies, argues on the same side. Havet says, “Sa trace dans l’histoire est pour ainsi dire imperceptible”; Le Christianisme, iii, 1878, p. 493. Bruno Brauer concludes that “the historic Jesus becomes a phantom which mocks all the laws of history”; Kritik d. evang. Geschichte, 1842, iii, p. 308; see also Frazer’s Golden Bough, 1900, iii, p. 186, _et seq._ Disregarding the Gospels, a form of narrative which could not be accepted by us as historical in connection with any other religion, the slight allusions to Jesus in known writers (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius), are evidently mere hearsay derived from the Christians themselves. Hegesippus, a lost church historian (_c._ 170), gives some details as to the death of “James, the brother of the Lord,” and also states that some poor labourers of Judaea, for whom a descent from the Holy Family was claimed, were brought before Domitian and dismissed as of no account; fragments in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., iii, 20. Remarkable is the silence, in his voluminous writings, of Philo Judaeus, a philosophico-theological Jew of Alexandria, a prominent citizen, and a man of middle age at the time of the Crucifixion. So close to the scene itself he could scarcely have failed to have heard of any popular agitation centring round a Messiah at Jerusalem. When Augustus was told that Herod had executed two of his sons he observed that “it was better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” In ignorant repetition at a later date this remark was construed into an allusion to the slaughter of the innocents; Macrobius, ii, 4. Several (non-extant) Jewish historians, Justus Tiberiensis for example, made no mention of Jesus. Still worse is the case for the Apostles; they are not noticed outside the N. T. unless in Acts conceded on all hands to be apocryphal. Most singular is it that no descendants of theirs were ever known. Towards the middle of the second century when the Christians loom into view as a compact body of co-religionists we should assuredly expect to find relations of the Apostles, direct or collateral, moving with extraordinary prestige among the Saints on earth. But, beyond a vague allusion to two daughters of Philip (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., iii, 39), there is no trace of any such individuals. The descendants of Mahomet alone were numerous a century after his death, but the Twelve proved as barren of progeny as if they had never existed. With respect to the canon of the N. T. it is known that it was formed almost as at present before the third century, a great many similar works being put aside as apocryphal or unsuitable. Those selected were altered to some extent to meet the requirements of doctrine; Origen c. Celsum, ii, 27; Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius, _op. cit._, iv, 23, etc. They were, in fact, edited from time to time in the interests of orthodoxy or heresy, interchangeable terms, as is shown by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome; see Nestle’s Textual Criticism, Lond., 1899. Much of the Apocrypha remains to this day, including circumstantial accounts of the childhood of Jesus; see Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library, in which Tatian’s Diatessaron (_c._ 170, an Arabic version only remains), shows the absence of texts now found in the Gospels, especially that relating to the Church being founded on a rock (Peter). The striking likeness between the legend of Buddha (_c._ 500 B.C.), and the life of Jesus has been set forth by several Orientalists; see Seydel, Die Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu, 1884. The resemblance to early Egyptian folklore may be seen in Griffith’s High Priests of Memphis (story of Khammuas), 1900 (from recent demotic papyri). Some interesting questions are raised in Mead’s Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? (on Talmudic legends or libels). It must be borne in mind that scarcely a MS. of a classical author (excepting some scraps recently recovered in Egypt) exists, which has not passed the pen of monkish copyists. Hardouin taxes them with having forged nearly all patristic literature, both Greek and Latin. They had, he says, suitable materials for various ages, parchments, inks, etc., and executants who practised various styles of writing. In recording his conclusions he deprecates the accusation of insanity. Such is the deliberate verdict of a Roman Cardinal whose learning is indisputable, and whose discrimination in other matters has not been impugned; Ad Censur. Vet. Script. Prolegomena, Lond., 1766. At any rate the acknowledged forgeries make up an enormous bulk, Gospels, Acts, Epistles, laws, decretals, etc. It seems scarcely possible that the question as to the existence of Jesus and the Twelve can ever be definitely disposed of; and it must take its place beside such problems as to whether there was ever a Siege of Troy, a King Arthur, etc. In the cases of Pope Joan and William Tell, local and contemporary records were obtainable sufficiently comprehensive to prove a negative; but no evidence is likely to come to hand close enough to exclude the credible details of the Gospel narrative from the possible occurrences at Jerusalem during the period. The English reader now possesses in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, a repertory in which Biblical investigations are treated in a manner as free from bias and obscurantism as is attainable at the present time. Such a work has long been needed in English literature, and marks a national advance. But much more remains to be done, and within a score or two of years we may see such discussions take up a stable position between the advanced critics who still feel obliged to entertain some illogical propositions, and the rather wild free-lances who would dissipate all marvel-tainted evidence by their uncompromising scepticism, in which they sometimes do more harm than good by their disregard of critical sanity. By that time a liberal application of the critic’s broom will have swept many documents now held up to public respect into the limbo to which they properly belong.

[997] Previous to the overthrow of Biblical and other ancient cosmogonies by the extension of natural knowledge the historic inquiry as to the truth of supernatural religion was paramount. As recently as the fifties of the last century a sceptic, if asked to give reasons for his disbelief, might have answered that it was due to the absence of witnesses of known position and integrity to attest the occurrences; and that if such evidence were forthcoming he should certainly consider that Christianity rested on foundations which could never be shaken. Let us see whether it is in our power to prove that if a religion based on miracles could pass such an ordeal it would not necessarily even then hold an impregnable position. In 1848 certain phenomena, termed the “Rochester knockings,” occurring at a place in New England, impelled a wave of credulity as to spiritual manifestations throughout Christendom, which has not wholly subsided up to the present date. Prof. Robt. Hare, an eminent chemist and electrician, was attracted to investigate the matter with the firm intention of exposing the folly. But he became convinced instead, and by the aid of a lady who could produce “raps,” apparently unconnected with her person, he devised a code of signals from which resulted a couple of bulky volumes devoted by the professor to explicit details of the doings in, and the beauties of, the spirit-land, the whole recounted by deceased relations of his own; Spiritualism Scientifically Demonstrated, New York, 1855. But the spirits did not for long restrict themselves to merely audible signs; they responded generously to the attention paid to them and soon began to reveal their hands, faces, and even their whole persons for physical observation, often pelting the audience with flowers, presenting them with bouquets, and showing themselves to be accomplished musicians in the negro mode by performances on unseen instruments. Although their deeds were never dark, yet they always insisted on darkness as indispensable for the perpetration of them. In 1852, after the craze reached England, many men of academical and scientific repute observed and attested incredible phenomena, of which Prof. Challis of Cambridge said that, if the statements had to be rejected, “the possibility of ascertaining facts by human testimony must be given up.” Mr. A. R. Wallace, the congener of Darwin, became a convert, and bore witness to the miracles of Mrs. Guppy, her floral materializations, etc.; Modern Miracles and Spiritualism, 1874, etc. (I cannot omit to mention that this author, at one time at least, was an anti-vaccinationist). Sir W. Crookes, the celebrated scientist, had séances in his own house, where he walked and talked with a young lady from the Orient, dead a century before, subjected her to a quasi-medical examination, and possessed himself of a lock of her hair; Researches on the Phenomena of Spiritualism, 1870. The professors of Leipzig University received the celebrated medium, Dr. Slade, in their private study on several occasions, when he satisfied them of his ability to perform the impossible by producing untieable knots, passing matter through matter, and causing writing to appear on slates from invisible correspondents; Transcendental Physics, by Prof. Zöllner, Lond., 1883. Other observers who upheld the reality of spiritual achievements are Sir R. Burton, Mr. Cromwell Varley, F.R.S., Dr. Lockhart Robinson, Lord Lindsay, etc. The list of veracious witnesses is, in fact, a long one and a weighty. Yet all these eminent men have been deceived by cunning impostors. See the Reports of the Societies for Psychical Research, English and American, which have been issued regularly for nearly twenty years. Hallucinations, ghost-stories, and hypnosis have been exhaustively investigated, but no spirits have ventured to materialize themselves whenever conclusive tests were insisted on. At the most it has been demonstrated that telepathy, a kind of wireless telegraphy between brain and brain, may occur under favourable but rare conditions. Whenever trickery was excluded the pretended mediums were invariably unsuccessful. The redoubtable Dr. Slade, when he found that dupes failed him, retired from the profession, and shortly after, on meeting a friend who challenged him, replied, “you never believed in the old spirits, did you?” The absurdities which were effective among the credulous when their superstitions were appealed to were often a ludicrous feature. A stone picked up by the wayside and ejected adroitly from the medium’s pocket during a dance is looked upon as a supernatural occurrence. See Truesdell’s ridiculous exposure of Slade and other charlatans of that class; Bottom Facts of Spiritualism, N.Y., 1883. The career of an English impostor has been unveiled throughout by a confederate in Confessions of a Medium, Lond., 1882. The literature on both sides is very large and is still accumulating. Several spiritual journals are published with the support of thousands of believers in Europe and America, etc. This modern illustration teaches us very conclusively: (1) That had the Gospels come down to us as the acknowledged writings of some of the best known and trustworthy men of antiquity, their contents would still have to be discredited as originating in fraud or illusion: (2) That devotion to a branch of science, or even to science generally, is not essentially productive of any critical insight into matters theological or professedly supernatural: (3) That phenomena of cerebration, normal, aberrant, and perhaps supranormal (exalted sensitiveness), may easily be utilized for purposes of imposture; and are a proper subject for methodized psychical study. Since a contemporary religion, supported by a mass of direct and definite evidence thus collapses before a strict scrutiny, we must ask what truth could reside in those generated in the womb of Oriental mysticism, for which no solid foundations can be perceived? When we see that even scientists do not always succeed in persuading themselves that nothing is credible but fact, _quod semper, quod ubique, quod omnibus demonstrabile sit_, how little reliance can be placed on popular reports and unauthentic tracts. Even if we had not spiritualism to hand, a practically similar lesson might be taught from a consideration of Shakerism, Mormonism, Harris’s Brotherhood of the New Life, the Zion Restoration Host, with its reincarnated Elijah, etc. See Oxley’s Modern Messiahs, 1889, for many interesting details as to popular illusionists who have assumed the prophet’s mantle.

[998] Timaeus, 9, _et seq._ Plato is not here inventing, but for the most part merely co-ordinating previous notions, especially those of the philosopher whose name is affixed to the dialogue. Reference to some other dialogues is necessary to complete the picture of his religion and theology.

[999] Parmenides; Republic, vi, 19; Plotinus, Enneads, vi, 9.

[1000] That is fire, air, water, and earth; not our chemical elements.

[1001] The original (?) Trinity here invented consists of: 1. The ποιητής, πατήρ, or δημιουργός. 2. Νοῦς. 3. Ψυχή. From the spurious Epinomis Νοῦς may be equaled with Λόγος.

[1002] Phaedo, 19, 25, etc.

[1003] Thus the period of eclecticism was entered on, for an account of which see Zeller’s Eclectics, Lond., 1883. It began about the age of Cicero, but a definite system did not crystallize out of it till the time I am treating of.

[1004] Born at Lycopolis in 205; died in Campania, 270.

[1005] There was no creed in Neoplatonism, and, therefore, what was believed has to be deduced from a study of the Enneads of Plotinus, so-called as consisting of a series of books, six in all, each containing nine treatises. The logical germ of the conception is that the One emits continually the Nous or intelligence; and the latter the Soul. The Soul animates the world, but becomes lost should it allow itself to coalesce with matter by yielding to sin. The subject has been treated exhaustively by Vacherot, L’école d’Alexandrie, Paris, 1846; and by Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, iii, Leipzig, 1881. Neither of these works has been translated, but there is an excellent summary by Bigg (Neoplatonism, Lond., 1892), who has dealt with some phases of the movement at length in his Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886. According to Bigg’s expression, the Christian Father, Clement Alex. (_c._ 190), “separated the thinker from the thought, and thus founded Neoplatonism.” Numenius, who was, perhaps, a Jew, made some advances in the definition of the Platonic trinity; and Plotinus was accused of borrowing from him; see Bigg’s latter work, pp. 64, 250, etc. Ammonius Saccas, a porter of Alexandria, was the teacher of Plotinus, and is considered to be the immediate begetter of Neoplatonism.

[1006] Philo Judaeus (_c._ 20) is the first known to have taught this doctrine of ecstasy, but it is not certain that the Neoplatonists utilized his works. He also was the first to corrupt the rigid monotheism of the Jews by assuming the Platonic (?) Logos as a necessary mediator between Jehovah and the world; see Harnack, History of Dogma, Lond., 1892, i, p. 115, etc.; also Bigg as above, and the Histories of Philosophy by Zeller, Ueberweg, etc.

[1007] The details of the life of Plotinus are due to Porphyry, who gives the most succinct account of his doctrine, and describes his excursions into the higher sphere by means of self-hypnosis. The whole field of modern spiritualism seems to have been cultivated by the Neoplatonists, and, indeed, by other mystics long before; allusions by Plotinus himself will be found in Enneads, v, 9; vi, 7; iii, 8, etc. Porphyry relates that during the six years of his intimacy with him, his master attained to ecstatic union on four occasions. It will be seen, therefore, that Plotinus was very abstemious in indulging in such a luxury; he would have much to learn from modern improvements under which Mrs. Piper and other trance-mediums enter the vacuous realm regularly day by day; see the Psychical Society’s Reports; cf. Bigg, Christian Platonists, etc., p. 248; also Myers’ Classical Essays, 1883, p. 83, _et seq._

[1008] “Only the cultured,” he remarks, “can aspire to the summit and upwards; as for the vulgar crowd, they are bound down to common necessaries”; Enneads, II, ix, 9.

[1009] The Stoics began this allegorizing of the ancient books; see Zeller (Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, Lond., 1892) for an account of their conceits. Philo Judaeus performed a similar service for the Pentateuch, of which the Jews do not seem to have believed much literally in his day; nor, in fact, did the early Christian Fathers; see Origen, Comment. in Genesim, etc. He notices, amongst other things, the difficulty which arises from the production of light before the sun was created; Gen., i, 3, 16. Porphyry’s treatise on the Cave of the Nymphs (Odyssey, xiii, 102) remains to show the method of exegesis adopted by the Neoplatonists in order to demonstrate the divine inspiration of the old Greek poets. Kingsley’s novel, “Hypatia,” gives a good picture of Neoplatonism in some of its popular aspects.

[1010] A treatise emanating from the school of Iamblichus is extant, viz., The Mysteries of the Egyptians, an exposition supposed to be written by Abamon in answer to a sceptical letter from Porphyry to Anebo, assumed characters apparently. It includes a whole system of Neoplatonic magic and theurgy, and describes the various appearances of daemonic phantasms with the accuracy of one accustomed to be familiarly associated with them. Objectively the series descends from the celestial light which defines the personality of a god to a turbid fire indicative of the form of a lower daemon, perhaps of malignant propensities. There is a recent edition of this work in English, probably a venture addressed to spiritualistic circles.

[1011] Irenaeus, i, 23; Hippolytus, vi, 7, etc. His contests with St. Peter were a favourite subject in early Christian literature; see Ordericus Vitalis (ii, 2), who has extracted some amusing incidents as to their rivalry at Rome, etc. In the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, which form a kind of religious novel, at the time put forward as genuine, he fills the stage as the villain of the piece, but is considered to be merely a pseudonym for St. Paul, a name which typified a policy to which the author of the composition was opposed. See the article on Simon in any comprehensive encyclopaedia of recent date.

[1012] Mansel’s Gnostic Heresies (1875) supersedes to a great extent the larger treatises of Matter and others, as it embodies a discussion of details more recently derived from Hippolytus, etc. Their sects increased rapidly in number, from the thirty-seven dealt with by Irenaeus (_c._ 185), to the eighty refuted by Epiphanius (_c._ 350). There were two main schools of Gnostics, the Syrian and the Alexandrian. The former was frankly dualistic, but the Egyptian assimilated Buddhistic notions, which saw in matter the essence of evil; only, however, when vitalized by the celestial emanations after they had become impoverished, as the result of their descent to an infinite distance from the throne of light. In general the attitude of Gnostics towards Christianity was rejection of the Jewish creator as an evil demiurge, and the acceptance of Jesus as an emissary from the god of love to rescue the world from sin and darkness. Their Christology was docetic; that is, the Saviour was merely a phantom who appeared suddenly on the banks of the Jordan, in the semblance of a man of mature age. Their greatest leader, though not a pure Gnostic, was Marcion of Pontus. His bible consisted of the Pauline Epistles, and a Gospel said to be Luke mutilated, but more justly recognized as an independent redaction of the primitive tradition. Marcion’s Jesus said, “I come not to fulfil the law, but to destroy it”; see Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, iv, 7, 9. The modern Christian might imagine that his faith is dualistic, owing to the power and prominence given to the devil, but such a view would be inexpiable heresy. Satan and his crew are merely rebellious angels, whose relations to Jehovah are similar to that of sinful men in general, so much so that some of the Fathers in the early Church held that Christ would descend into Hell to be crucified there a second time for the salvation of devils; see Origen, De Principiis, I, vi, 2, 3; Labbe, Concil. (1759), ix, 533, can. 7, etc.

[1013] Unless it should be maintained that Christianity germinated in Gnostic soil, the most vigorous growth which overshadowed and in the end annihilated its weaker associates, a not untenable hypothesis.

[1014] The two portly folios devoted to the history of Manichaeism (Amst., 1734), by Beausobre, must now be supplemented by more recent, though less extensive, works, owing to the activity of modern scholars among Oriental sources. St. Augustine was a Manichaean for eight years, and the most reliable details are to be collected from his writings after he became a Christian, and issued diatribes against his former teachers. Socrates gives a short life of Mani, fabulous in great part most likely; i, 22; the latest researches are those of Kessler. The best summary will be found in Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, iii, p. 317, to which is appended a bibliography of the subject.

[1015] An old Persian notion; see Xenophon, Cyropaedia, vi, 1.

[1016] “Not the devilish Messiah of the Jews, but a contemporaneous phantom Jesus, who neither suffered nor died”; Harnack, Encycl. Brit., _sb._ “Manichaeism.”

[1017] The text of his edict, with references to the sources, is given by Gieseler, Hist. Eccles., i, 61. The enactment, however, is regarded with suspicion, and is never mentioned unless accompanied by a query as to its genuineness. See also Haenel, Cod. Theod., 44^*.

[1018] See the laws against mathematicians, etc., for so were sorcerers and witches designated at the time, from the Antonines onwards; Cod. Theod., IX, xvi; Cod., IX, xviii.

[1019] As Harnack remarks (_loc. cit._), it commended itself successfully to the partly Semitic inhabitants of North Africa, among whom was Augustine. But it permeated Europe as well, and in a more Christianized form flourished among such comparatively modern sects as the Cathari, Albigenses, Bogomils, etc. Its fate in these quarters is traced out by Gieseler and other church historians. But the Manichaean pedigree of these sects is not now accepted so freely as formerly; see Bury’s Gibbon, vi, p. 543. At one time all heretics were stigmatized as Manichaeans in the vituperation of the orthodox, especially when their views approached the docetism held by all Gnostics, as in the case of the Monophysites; Labbe, Concil., v, 147, etc.

[1020] Justin. Apol., i, 11; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., v, 16; see Gieseler, _op. cit._, i, 41, 48, etc. The belief in the Millennium was, doubtless, the most potent influence in segregating the first Christians from their fellow subjects. It was conceived by some that as the world was created in six days it would last for six thousand years, and the seventh thousand would be distinguished by the reign of Christ on earth; see the Church Histories and Harnack’s article “Millennium,” in Encycl. Brit., etc. As the chronology was uncertain the critical transition might be revealed at any moment. Christian writers now began to date from the creation of the world as per Genesis; some made it about 5500 B.C., so that the Millennium should have been entered on during the reign of Anastasius. But according to others it should have begun under Nero or Trajan. Michael Melit. (Langlois); Jn. Malala, p. 428, etc.

[1021] See Apostolical Constit., ii, 25; Hatch, Early Church, pp. 40, 69, etc. The Emperor Julian was rather exasperated at finding that the Christians took the wind out of his sails by their indiscriminate charity, and so cultivated the good will of all the lower classes; Epist. (frag.), p. 391 (H). He seems to be addressing some Pagan priest.

[1022] See The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 11, _et seq._; Gieseler, _op. cit._, i, 30. It is uncertain whether the first assemblies were convened after the pattern of the Jewish synagogue or the guild meetings of the Empire; probably after one or the other according to local affinity.

[1023] It may be imagined that this transformation was not effected without a conflict when parties with opposed views found themselves at the parting of the ways. This rupture was called Montanism, from Montanus, a Phrygian who, with two “prophetesses,” proclaimed a renewal of the original dispensation. The movement spread to the West, where the celebrated Tertullian became one of its most ardent advocates. See Gieseler, _op. cit._, i, 48, etc., or Harnack in Encycl. Brit., _sb. nom._

[1024] Origen c. Celsum, iii, 9.

[1025] Some details of the catechetical course are known. The student was first taken through the “science” of the period until, like Socrates, he found that he knew nothing. Then the current of Jewish-Christian legend and mythology was allowed to flow, and everything was lighted up instantly as by an electric illumination; Gregory Thaumaturgus, Panegyr. in Origen, 5, _et seq._ Almost the strongest argument the Fathers found for the acceptance of their creed was the failure of Greek philosophical speculation to explain the universe. Many of them dwell at great length on this subject; see Tatian, Athenagoras, Lactantius, etc. One of the best summaries of ancient metaphysics is given by Hippolytus in his first book against heresies. But Clement and Origen were more concerned to correlate the two, thinking there was something divine in both. Eusebius is on similar ground in his Praep. Evang., etc.

[1026] As late as 160, or so, the Christians were taunted with having no visible places of worship; Origen c. Celsum, viii, 17, 19, etc.; Minucius Felix, 10. About a century later the handsome churches began to be erected; Apostolic Constit., ii, 57; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., viii, 1; x, 4, etc. An inventory of the actual contents of a church at Cirta, in N. Africa, _c._ 300, is extant; Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, ii, p. 100.

[1027] See the account of Hierocles, the hostile proconsul, in Lactantius, Div. Inst., v, 2; De Morte Persec., 16. He and the Emperor Galerius appear to have been the prime movers of the Diocletian persecution in 303; cf. Eusebius, _op. cit._, viii, 2, etc. After several years, however, Galerius found the task of stamping out Christianity beyond him, and issued an edict of toleration. Hence there was really no call for Constantine to legislate anew. This Hierocles was one of those who set up the idealized Apollonius of Tyana as an avatar of the Deity, and tried to exalt him as an object of adoration above Jesus. But the attempt failed; Apollonius was a real personage with a familiar name; Jesus was a dream; see the controversial tract of Eusebius against Hierocles.

[1028] Cod. Theod., XVI, vii, 1; x, 1, 7, etc., and Godefroy _ad loc._ About this time (380) Gratian discarded the dignity of Pontifex Maximus, which the previous Christian emperors had continued to assume; Zosimus, iv, 36.

[1029] A civil war was opened throughout the East by many bishops, who proceeded to demolish the temples at the head of gangs of monks and other enthusiasts. On both sides infuriated mobs fought zealously for their religion, and much slaughter resulted. The most violent commotion was occasioned by the destruction of the great temple of Serapis at Alexandria (389); see the ecclesiastical historians: Socrates, v, 16; Sozomen, vii, 15; Theodoret, v, 21, etc. Such doings became official under Arcadius; Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 16 (399); cf. Gieseler, i, 79.

[1030] In 367 Damasus and Ursinus fought a battle in one of the Roman churches for the papal seal; 137 corpses were removed next day from the pavement of the sacred edifice. “I am not surprised at the contention,” says Ammianus, “when I consider the splendour of the dignity. The successful aspirant is enriched by the offerings of matrons, rolls about in his chariot sumptuously apparelled, and surpasses the profusion of royalty in his banquets”; xxvii, 3. As the Vicar of God, bishops professed to stand above temporal princes; Apostol. Constit., ii, 34. The Bishop of Tripolis declared to the Empress Eusebia (_c._ 350) that he would not visit her unless she descended from the throne to meet him, kissed his hands, and waited his permission to reseat herself after he had sat down, etc.; Suidas, _sb._ Λεόντιος. St. Martin of Tours (_c._ 370) was waited on at table by the Empress; he handed the cup to his chaplain, thus giving him precedence over the Emperor; Sulp. Severus, Vita St. M., 20; Dial., ii, 6. See further Gieseler, _op. cit._, i, 91.

[1031] See the original church historians. Theodoret’s account is the most definite and satisfactory; i, 2, _et seq._ Recently Arianism has been treated by Gwatkin in a separate work. Harnack’s exposition of it is, as usual, most lucid and interesting; Hist. Dogma, iv. This is the great controversy in which the celebrated words _Homoousios_ and _Homoiousios_ were combined to distinguish the contending theories:

D’une syllabe impie un saint mot augmenté
Remplit tous les esprits d’aigreurs si meurtrières,
Et fit de sang chrétien couler tant de rivières, etc.
Boileau, Sat. xii.

_Homoean_ and _Anomoean_ denote Arian sub-sects who differed more or less from orthodoxy. In fact, the Arian heresy has never really died out, and is now represented by Unitarianism.

[1032] “Tradendi ratio sicca est, memoriaeque potius, quam intelligentiae accommodata”; Mosheim, Eccles. Hist., IX, ii, 3. The first great theological debates concerned the mutual relations of the persons of the Trinity in their celestial abode; and were decided against those who confounded the persons (Sabellians, Monarchians) or divided the substance (Arians). Such momentous matters being settled as finally registered in the so-called Athanasian Creed, the Fathers descended to earth and busied themselves in analyzing the mystic conjunction of the Godhead with the flesh, viz., the Incarnation of Jesus. These controversies were determined by the ejection from the fold of Orthodoxy of those who maintained the existence of but one nature or one will in the God-man (Monophysites, Monotheletes), and also of a small party who propounded the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus (Aphthartodocetae). The erection of this fabric of dogma was essential to Orthodoxy, the underlying conception of which was that God became man so that man might become God; ii Clement, 9; cf. Bigg, _op. cit._, p. 71. Hence if the Saviour were made out to be merely a sham human being the whole scheme of redemption must fall through at once. The last step led them to consult about the mundane relatives of Jesus, and ended in the dogma that Mary’s was an asexual birth, the Immaculate Conception, and that, as she could never have been sullied by any carnal conversation, the brothers of Jesus, as represented, must merely have been his cousins. But the Church did not approach some of these latter considerations till a later age.

[1033] His laws have already been referred to. For the result as represented by an educated Pagan, see Libanius, De Templis. This Council enacted that the Bishop of CP. should hold the next rank to the Roman Pontiff; Socrates, v, 8 (Concil., can. 3). About this time the title of Patriarch began to be restricted to the higher bishops; _ibid._ Constantine’s pagan temples at CP. were now ruined; Jn. Malala, p. 345.

[1034] The chief source for the Council of Chalcedon is Evagrius, ii, 1, _et seq._ By Canon 21 the equality of the Byzantine Patriarch with the Pope was affirmed; Labbe, Concil., vii, 369; cf. Cod. Theod., XVI, ii, 45, etc.

[1035] Evagrius, iii, 13, _et seq._ It was composed by Acacius, the Patriarch of the capital.

[1036] See pp. 104, 180. To the Monophysites, Anastasius is, of course, “the pious and orthodox Emperor”: see John of Nikiu (Zotenberg); Zachariah of Mytilene (Hamilton), etc.

[1037] Cod., I, v, 12; Codinus, p. 72; Procopius, De Aedific, i, 4. See Ducange, CP. Christ., _sb. nom._, for a collection of passages relating to St. Mocius.

[1038] In 423 Theodosius II considered that Paganism was virtually extinct, so little in evidence were those who still adhered to the old religion; Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 22. But subsequent events proved that his confidence was premature. I have anticipated the use of the word “Pagan” (_paganus_, rustic, villager) as a term of reproach to those who had not been illuminated by Christianity. In this sense it is first found in a law of Valentinian I: Cod. Theod., XVI, ii, 18 (365). It arose at a time when the urban population exhibited a sharp contrast to the country people in the matter of religion. Long after the former had been converted _en masse_, polytheism lingered in the rural districts, the scattered inhabitants of which did not come into touch with the Christian propagandists and their new creed for a considerable time. Hence the idea of a country fellow became synonymous with that of a worshipper of the gods long since despised.

[1039] The history of their migration and subsequent activity at the local source of their inspiration will deserve our attention in a future chapter.

[1040] Valentinian I and the succeeding emperors legislated definitely against them; Cod. Theod., XVI, v, 3, 18, 40, 43, 59; cf. Cod., I, v. The whole title against heretics contains sixty-six laws, a monument of Christian bigotry and intolerance. The novelty of the Christian doctrines and the constant dissensions of ecclesiastics as to the proper mode of apprehending them, caused all classes to be infected with a mania for drawing theological distinctions, _ex. gr._, “If you require some small change, the person you address will begin to argue about ‘begotten and unbegotten’; should you ask the price of bread you will hear that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; or in reply to an inquiry whether your bath is prepared, the attendant will define for your benefit that the Son was made out of nothing”; Gregory Nys., Orat. De Deitate, etc., 2 (in Migne, i, 557). Yet sometimes a prelate would assume a jocular tone in the pulpit when speaking on these grave questions. Thus Eudoxius, Bishop of CP., began his discourse one day with the assertion, “The Father is impious, but the Son is pious.” The congregation seemed awe-struck, but he at once continued, “Be not alarmed; the Son is pious because he worships the Father, but the Father worships no one”; Socrates, ii, 43. Marrast has devised some scenes to bring out the absurd way in which theological hair-splitting disturbed everyday social relations at this period; _op. cit._, p. 89.