[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:
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.
[1041] Chrysostom mentions the fact with exultation. Objectors fear that the race may die out as the result of the widespread celibacy, but the Saint knows better; the women who remain will be rendered more fecund by the Deity, and thus the numerical complement of mankind will be maintained. He also knows that there is a countless host of heaven, asexual, who are propagated in a passionless manner by divine ordination; In Epist. Rom. Hom. xiii, 7 (in Migne, ix, 517); De Virginitate, 14, et seq. (in Migne, i, 544); cf. Ambrose, De Virginitate, 3; Rufinus, Hist. Monach., 7 (in Migne, 413).
[1042] Monks are enjoined by Theodosius I “deserta loca et vastas solitudines sequi atque habitare”; Cod. Theod., XVI, iii.
[1043] The literature of early monkish life, descriptive and laudatory, is very extensive; see Gieseler, Eccles. Hist., i, 95, 96, etc. The most striking picture will be found in Evagrius, i, 21; iv, 33, etc. He is lost in admiration of them; they suppressed their natural appetites so rigidly that they looked like corpses wandering away from their graves. Some lived in dens and caves where they could neither stand nor lie. Some dwelt in the open air almost naked, exposed to excessive heat or cold. Others rejected human food and took to grazing like cattle, shunning human beings as if they were wild beasts. Both sexes embraced such lives of unremitting castigation. Some of the males made a practice of repairing from time to time to the cities in order to demonstrate their sexual frigidity by bathing in the public baths amongst nude women. They applied themselves to prayer, of course, until they brought themselves to the verge of exhaustion; cf. Sozomen, vi, 28, et seq. One Apelles had a conflict with the devil similar to that related of the English St. Dunstan.
[1044] The celebrated Simeon Stylites was the inventor of this sublime method of serving the Deity. From 420 he lived on columns near Antioch for thirty-seven years; Evagrius, i, 13; see Gieseler, i, loc. cit., for reference to fuller accounts, separate biographies, etc.
[1045] He was contemporary with Athanasius, who wrote an extant life of him; see Sozomen, i, 13, etc.
[1046] Sozomen, iii, 14.
[1047] Socrates, iv, 23; Sozomen, i, 12, et seq. Previous to Christianity there were at least two communities of Jewish ascetics in the near East, the Essenes, who dwelt west of the Dead Sea, and the Therapeutae, who lived by Lake Moeris, near Alexandria. The first have been described briefly by Pliny (Hist. Nat., v, 15) and the second by Philo Judaeus in a separate tract (De Vita Contemplativa) respecting the authorship and date of which, however, opinion continually fluctuates; I do not know whether at present it is on the crest of the wave or in the trough of the sea. These solitaries consisted of males and females, and were recruited regularly by persons who became sick of the world and determined to fly far from the madding crowd. About them generally see Neander, Church Hist., Introd.
[1048] Socrates, iv, 21; Gregory Nazianz., Laud. Basil (in Migne, ii, 577).
[1049] Nicephorus, Cal., xv, 23; see p. 78. Not psalmody, however, says Card. Hardouin, but restless application to work. Manufacture of fictitious documents he insinuates, doubtless.
[1050] Cod., XII, i, 63; Orosius, vii, 33; Jerome, Chron., an. 375; cf. Socrates, iv, 24.
[1051] The histories of monachism are numerous and voluminous, especially those composed some two or three centuries ago. Helyot’s Hist. des Ordres Mon., Paris, 1714, etc., in 8 vols., may be read for amusement as well as instruction.
[1052] Epicurus, the unavowed disciple of Leucippus and Democritus, the earliest atomists, conceived the coalescence of the particles to result from their rushing onwards always under the influence of a certain natural deflection which led to their meeting continually so as to become conjoined. As an Academic, and, therefore, a sceptic, Carneades could not accept this or any other theory, but in criticizing its fortuity, he remarked that it might have been perfected, or, at least, made more intelligible if Epicurus had conferred some faculty of will or intention on his atoms; Cicero, De Finibus, i, 6; De Fato, 11. With our increased knowledge of physics, we may now venture to supply the deficiency in accordance with the suggestion of Carneades. Not even in the process of crystallization can the motion of the atoms or molecules be considered as fortuitous, since they seem to be borne towards each other under the influence of some irresistible desire. The recent investigators strongly uphold the vitality of the process.
[1053] The question of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, remains still indeterminate. Substances in transitional stages between the vital and the non-vital state have not been observed; perhaps because such matter is too inconspicuous to have been discovered so far and recognized, or, it may be, that the swarm of germs by descent is now so great, that the incipiently organic at once becomes their prey, and forms, perhaps, their constant pabulum. If identical atoms underlie all kinds of matter, and the recent début of electrons brings the proof appreciably nearer that it is so, we are still at a loss to explain why they should at one time, by their association, exhibit vital phenomena, and at another reveal to us their versatility in aggregating under the species of gold, sulphur, etc. The statement in the text might run that the chemical compounds combine with each other in greater complexity to form the elements of protoplasm.
[1054] That the effective origin of evolution consists in will capable of responding to a stimulus, being an essential attribute of matter, is a conclusion to which we are led necessarily by a consideration of the subject. When an amoeba protrudes a process, incited from within or without by some desire, it is already on the way to evolve itself into a higher form; and when a hygienist essays to preserve or prolong life by his studies in bacteriology, etc., in his immeasurably higher sphere, he literally does no more. The earlier evolutionists, Huxley, for example, were inclined to hold that the potency of cosmic evolution became evanescent progressively with the elaboration of purposive intelligence and social institutions, but such a view is manifestly erroneous, and would not now, I presume, be maintained by any contemporary scientists.
[1055] Our means of astronomical research are not sufficiently definite to enable us to explain conclusively the appearance of previously unobserved stars (e.g. Nova Persei, 1901), but there is good reason to suppose that these new lights sometimes signal to us the catastrophe of millions of beings more or less similar to ourselves. We are, however, well acquainted with the convulsions of nature, which often bring swift destruction to thousands of those dwelling on this small globe; for instance, the Mont Pelée eruption of 1903, which claimed some 40,000 victims. It might indeed be imagined from the occurrence of such disasters that animated nature is merely a kind of surface disease of the earth, which undergoes a spontaneous cure from time to time by means of earthquakes, floods, volcanic action, etc. Certainly, if we are the only result of the activities of this solar system, there would seem to be much superfluous expenditure of power and materials. The conception of God, when cleared of all irrelevancy, is merely that of a perpetual source of energy; and that we must find in the medium we exist in or nowhere. It is nugatory to talk of beginnings and endings when dealing with the infinite, unless as regards phases of phenomena; if there had to be an end of the universe, there would never have been a beginning.
[1056] Amongst some follies, the Stoic philosophers, in their pantheistic conception of nature, reached the highest level which has yet been attained in the expression of theocratic dogma. With them, the universe is the very body of the divine essence, and the good and wise man is in no way inferior to the sublimest manifestation of it. He is rightly called a god upon earth, and his intellect is an efflux of the Deity. “Back to the Porch for your ideas of God and nature,” the modern philosopher may cry to his age. “You are gods yourselves, and nature is your realm to conquer and hold in subjection.” The religion of the future will be more akin to Stoicism than to any other doctrine which has been formulated by thinkers in the past—a high ethical code upheld by a pride of race and a devotion to the evolution of humanity. The Stoic would not now be ready to make his own quietus with a bare bodkin should the currents turn awry. He would stand to his post till the last hour, working for the advancement of science. “Les stoiciens n’étaient occupés qu’a travailler au bonheur des hommes, à exercer les devoirs de la société: il semblait qu’ils regardassant cet esprit sacré qu’ils croyaient être en eux-mêmes, comme une espèce de providence favorable qui veillait sur le genre humain”; Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, xxiv, 10. See Plutarch, De Stoic. Repug., 13; Adv. Stoicos, 33; Seneca, De Provid., 1; Epist., cvi; cxvii, etc.; Epictetus, ii, 8, 9; Lactantius, Div. Inst., i, 5, 27, etc.
[1057] Accepting the identity of the evolutionary process at all grades of its prepotency, we may suppose that future advancement will be the result of deliberate effort; and that the more determinate such effort, the more rapid must be the progress. While the aptitude of our faculties must be increased by their being constantly exercised in study and research, the knowledge attainable by such work may ultimately win for us some controlling influence over our physiological constitution. The wild dreams of mediaeval alchemists now seem to us less unreal since we have had experience of the properties of radium; and the vision of an elixir vitae, which illuded those investigators, appears more realizable in the light of recent research. The arrest of senility may come within the range of the future therapeutist; and a new Demeter may subject the modern Triptolemus to some alchemical fire, to render him proof against mortality. Less remotely, the systematic administration of sexual associations would exert a powerful influence over mental and bodily development; and it would be physiologically correct if famous stallions should stand to cover brood mares in the human as well as in the equine world. The Spartans realized something of this in practice; Plutarch, Lycurgus. The tendency to equalization of the sexes which has been growing of late years, is undoubtedly a forward movement on the path of evolution. The possibility of man in the future being endowed with greatly increased intellectual power must not be lost sight of. Exceptional gifts of genius, in some cases uniquely manifested, and the occurrence of “prodigies,” especially in relation to mathematics, music, and art, teach that the mental faculties of the human race may yet be evolved in a much higher degree. The limitations imagined by Greg, which are, perhaps, generally entertained, must now be contemplated with suspended judgement: “Two glorious futures lie before us: the progress of the race here, the progress of the man hereafter. History indicates that the individual man needs to be translated in order to excel the past. He appears to have reached his perfection centuries ago.... What sculptor has surpassed Phidias? What poet has transcended Homer?” etc.; Enigmas of Life, 1891, p. 177. This is an evident misconception of the pace at which evolution moves; such short periods count for nothing. In evolutionary time, Homer and Phidias are our contemporaries. We know nothing of the final state of such beings as ourselves after they have passed through some millions of years, to which most probably the life of this planet must extend. They may well attain to some condition resembling that of the “gods” of Epicurus, who existed with a “quasi corpus, quasi sanguis,” etc. The chemist and biologist have a wide field before them in which they will yet make many conquests.
[1058] Compare the account of the soldier Ammianus with those of the church historians; Socrates, iii; Sozomen, v; Philostorgius (an Arian), vii; Theodoret, iii, etc. These are honest writers and, although they often relied on mere hearsay, most of the matter they bring forward is historical. On the other hand the Church History of Eusebius, who was infinitely above them in abilities and learning, contains little but popular report and legend. It is improbable that Julian inflicted any physical persecution on the Christians, but no doubt his subordinates did so on the strength of his attitude towards them and he afterwards got all the credit of it.
[1059] It is generally suggested that the constant immigration of barbarians and their wholesale collocation in the army must have gradually undermined the civilization of the Empire. But a great state is able to digest an enormous quantity of such accretions; and in the pride of their recent elevation such new citizens would have become more Roman than the Romans themselves. The great Transatlantic Republic has been built up during three centuries by the immigration of alien barbarians. For a good summary of the peaceful settlement of barbarians in the Roman territories see Bury, op. cit., i, p. 31.
[1060] See Gieseler (op. cit., i, 99), where the assimilation of heathenism is well summarized and instanced. Augustine (c. 400) draws a striking picture of the impostors, who, in the garb of monks, tramped the country selling sham relics, phylacteries, etc.; De Op. Monach., 28, 31, etc.; Epist. ad Jan. (118). Jerome, in his diatribe against Vigilantius, unwittingly makes a display of the gross superstition which that earnest reformer sought to suppress. Bayle’s article on Vigilantius (Dictionnaire, etc.) is a full and interesting account of the subject, but there is more still in Gilly’s V. and his Times, Lond., 1844.
[1061] The first victims of ecclesiastical rancour were the Priscillianists, who arose in Spain about 380. They were tainted with Manichaeism, and two bishops persuaded the tyrant of Gaul, Maximus, to put several of them to death in 385. Generally the Fathers of the Church were shocked at this execution, but the utility of subjecting heretics to the capital penalty was soon perceived and the practice thenceforward became an intrinsic part of Christian discipline. The result is well known to students of Church history and the religious wars waged against the Paulicians, Albigenses, Huguenots, etc., and the horrors of the Inquisition are familiar subjects in popular literature. During three centuries in Spain (1471-1781), the first and the last scene of the judicial slaughter of heretics, nearly 250,000 persons were dealt with by the Inquisitors, a circumstance which Galton considers to have been equivalent to the suppression of national genius and to account for “the superstitious and unintelligent Spanish race of the present day”; see Hereditary Genius, 1869, p. 359. The same reasoning would, of course, apply to any process, such as is occurring in Russia at the present day, by which the more active and effective members of a community are being constantly weeded out. Paganism was not, of course, absolutely free from intolerance; and the cases of Socrates, Anaxagoras, etc., will occur to every one. Even Cleanthes, the Stoic, denounced Aristarchus of Samos for running counter to the popular religion when he put forth some astronomical anticipations of the Copernican system; Plutarch, De Facie in Orbe Lunae, 6. Even Cicero in his “Laws” (ii, 8) decidedly proscribes nonconformity with the state religion. Polytheism was tolerant because it was comprehensive and could easily assimilate all kindred beliefs. Thus a hospitable reception was ensured to any new arrival who was fairly accredited as a member of the Olympian family.