History of Free Thought in Reference to The Christian Religion Part 25

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

We cannot wonder that the profession of Christianity exposed persons to the suspicion of treason. When we add the fact that Christians declined obstinately to conform to the practice which had grown up, of performing sacrifice to the honour of the reigning emperors as the impersonation of the dignity of the state; and when we consider the organization among Christians, the league of purpose which was evident among them, we can understand how fully they laid themselves open to the charge of treason, the "crimen laesae majestatis." Perhaps too at particular moments they were in danger of giving real ground for suspicion in reference to this point.

The warnings of St. Paul and St. Peter give ground for inferring that there was danger of this even in their times. (Rom. xiii. 1 seq.; 1 Pet.

ii. 13 seq.)

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

The idea of man's universal rights, of universal religious freedom and liberty of conscience, was alien to the views of the whole ancient world.

Indeed it is of quite modern introduction. It was not known even in Christendom, not even in the protestant part of it, till the seventeenth century. It was Milton who first enunciated the principle in its breadth.

The idea of individualism, though long in spreading, was created in germ by two causes; viz.. the free spirit of independence introduced by the Teutonic system; and the idea of the sacredness of the individual soul introduced through Christianity. If the highest end of man be to live for eternity, not to live for society, the individual is invested with a new dignity; and we feel the impropriety of trespa.s.sing upon the sphere for which each man is personally responsible. In the ancient world however, where this idea was unknown, all the elements of life, religion, and morals, were made subordinate to the political. The state was supreme.

Looked at accordingly from the ancient point of view, a defection from the religion of the state could not appear otherwise than as a crime against the state. The Romans did certainly exercise religious toleration to the religions of nations which they conquered; and in this way the religion of the Jews was a tolerated creed, a _religio licita_; but it was such for the Jews alone; and deviation from the state religion was, as we know from the great lawyers, unlawful. Though doubtless from the abundance of foreigners who crowded to Rome, many foreign religious practices became common, yet a special decree of the senate was necessary before any Roman citizen could be allowed to join in the observance of any such foreign rites. When we consider the free use made by the Christians, for the purposes of wors.h.i.+p and burial, of the catacombs, by which the plain in the neighbourhood of Rome is honeycombed, we may conjecture that the vigilance of the imperial police cannot have been strictly exercised; yet occasionally severe laws were pa.s.sed to repress the evil of the introduction of foreign sacred rites. We may thus accordingly understand the causes of the persecution of Christians, as we before understood the grounds of the prejudice against them.

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

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

that drawn from the occurrence of Greek words in it, was given in a note on p. 60.

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

The replies made to these objections are as follows: In reference to No.

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

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

The further argument used in defence of the book, that the New Testament authenticates the authors.h.i.+p of Daniel, is necessarily only of value to those who admit, first, the authority of the New Testament, and who, secondly, allow that the New Testament writers never accommodate themselves on questions of criticism to the mental state of their hearers.

The opponents of this view on the contrary a.s.sert, that the quotations in the New Testament only affirm the predicate, not the subject; the truth of the theological sentiment quoted, not the literary question of the authors.h.i.+p of the book from which it is quoted.

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

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

In his book against Hierocles, Eusebius states (b. i.), that he refutes only that portion of the work which related to Apollonius of Tyana; referring to Origen's answer to Celsus for a reply to the remainder of it; and discusses only the parallel of Apollonius and Jesus Christ. In b. i.

he gives an outline of the argument of his opponent, with quotations, and states his own opinion about Apollonius; throwing discredit on the veracity of the sources of the memoirs; and proceeds to criticise the prodigies attributed to him, arguing that the statements are incredible, or borrowed, or materially contradictory. Discussing each book in succession, he replies in b. i. to the statements respecting the early part of Apollonius's life; in b. ii. to that which concerned the journey into India; in b. iii. to that which related to his intercourse with the Brahmins; in b. iv. to his journey in Greece; in b. v. to his introduction to Vespasian in Egypt; in b. vi. and vii. to his miracles; and in b. viii.

to his pretence to foreknowledge. He adds remarks on his death, and on the necessity of faith; and repeats his opinion respecting the character of Apollonius.

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

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

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

The theology of the dialogue is, if viewed on its negative side, the ridicule of heathen mythology and of Christian doctrines and habits; and on its positive, the proclamation of one G.o.d as the object of wors.h.i.+p. The work exhibits internal evidence of a knowledge of Christian practices, -- 20, &c., and Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, -- 12; uses Christian phraseology, -- 18; and calls Christians by the name given by Julian, Galilaean, -- 12.

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

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

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

He proposed to inst.i.tute a comparison between the Hebrew and Christian religions and literature on the one hand, and the Greek on the other. If we may judge from the purport of b. i. of Cyril's work, Julian laid himself open to an attack by maintaining the superior antiquity of heathenism, forgetting that the Hebrew system was older than the Greek. At least Cyril establishes this elaborately, and argues the direct derivation of many parts of the heathen system from the Jews. The argument on Julian's part seems to have been conducted by an examination of successive points in the Hebrew history and system. In the beginning the Hebrew cosmogony suggested an argument for the superiority of the Platonic theory over the Mosaic. (_Cyril._ b. ii.) Next he successively attacked the account of Paradise as a fable; entering upon both the probability of the story (_Id._ b. iii.) and the moral features of the Deity brought out in the narrative. He seems also to have pa.s.sed from the idea of creation to that of providence, and to have dwelt on the inferiority of the Hebrew scheme as a theory of providence, in having an absence of inferior deities beneath the supreme one; and resists the idea of the obligation of all men to embrace one creed, inasmuch as they do not possess one character.

(_Id._ b. iv.) Next, turning to the Mosaic moral law, he argued against its originality, except in relation to the sabbath; and pa.s.sing through several of the narratives of Jewish history, he pointed out characteristics of anger in the Jewish conception of Deity; and compared by instances the Greek legislators and kings with Jewish. (_Id._ b. v.) Next he seems to have pa.s.sed from Judaism to Christianity, and attacked the miracles, and the Christian morals and practices; challenged the reasons for prophecy; and rallied the Christians on accepting a religion derived from so insignificant a nation as the Jews. (_Id._ b. vi.) He seems next to have returned to the comparison of Greek and Hebrew warriors, and of Greek and Jewish science, and the educational value of the two literatures; and reverted to the subject of Christianity, by representing it as a deviation from the very religion on which it depended. (_Id._ b. vii.) He continued this argument by the special example of prophecy, examining several instances wherein he contended that Christians had abandoned the Jewish sense of them. (_Id._ b. viii.) Next he seems to have continued a similar argument with regard to the Jewish typical system, and the utter dissimilarity of the Christian ideas from its purpose (_Id._ b. ix.); next to have a.s.sailed Christianity, by trying to show that there had been a similar development in Christianity itself, and a departure from its primitive form a.n.a.logous to that which Christianity bore to Judaism, alleging, incorrectly, that St. John was the first to teach the divinity of Christ; and instanced examples, objectionable in practice, such as the wors.h.i.+p of martyrs' tombs; and alleged against Christianity an eclectic spirit which had appropriated parts of the Jewish system but not the whole. (_Id._ b. x.)

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

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

Lecture III.

Note 20. p. 89. On The Legendary Work, Ent.i.tled "De Tribus Impostoribus."

Full particulars concerning the chapter in literary history which relates to this work, will be found in Prosper Marchand's _Dictionnaire Historique_, 1758 (vol. i. pp. 312-319), and more briefly in F. W.

Genthe's _De Imposturis Religionum breve Compendium_, 1833. Both give lists of the earlier writers who have treated of the subject; among which the most useful will be found to be B. G. Struve, _Dissertatio de Doctis Impostoribus_, 1703 (-- 9-23); De La Monnaie, _Lettre sur le Pretendu Livre_; and Calmet, _Dictionnaire_, article _Imposteur_.

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

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

Lecture IV.

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

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

NATURALIST; 6. FREETHINKER; 7. RATIONALIST; 8. SCEPTIC.