"Tout n"est que relatif, disions-nous tout a l"heure; il faut ajouter maintenant: tout n"est que relation. Verite importune pour l"homme qui, dans le fatal courant ou il est plonge, voudrait trouver un point fixe s"arreter un instant, se faire illusion sur la vanite des choses! Verite feconde pour la science qui lui doit une intelligence nouvelle de la realite, une intuition infiniment plus penetrante du jeu des forces qui composent le monde. C"est ce principe qui a fait de l"histoire une science et de toutes les sciences une histoire. C"est en vertu de ce principe qu"il n"y a plus de philosophie mais des philosophies qui se succedent, qui se completent en se succedant, et dont chacune represente avec un element du vrai, une phase du developpement de la pensee universelle.
Ainsi la science s"organise elle-meme et porte en soi sa critique. La cla.s.sification rationnelle des systemes est leur succession, et le seul jugement equitable et utile qu"on puisse pa.s.ser sur eux est celui qu"ils pa.s.sent sur eux-memes en se transformant. Le vrai n"est plus vrai en soi.
Ce n"est plus une quant.i.te fixe qu"il s"agit de degager, un objet rond ou carre qu"on puisse tenir dans la main. Le vrai, le beau, le juste meme se font perpetuellement; ils sont a jamais en train de se const.i.tuer, parce qu"ils ne sont autre chose que l"esprit humain, qui, en se deployant, se retrouve et se reconnait."-E. Scherer, (article on Hegel in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Feb. 15, 1861.)
Lecture II.
Note 10. p. 46. Neo-Platonism.
On the nature and history of Neo-Platonism, see Ritter"s _History of Philosophy_, E. T. vol. iv. b. xiii; Creuzer"s _Prolegomena to Plotinus_; Tennemann"s _Manual of Philosophy_, -- 200-222; Hase"s _Church History_, -- 50, with the references which the two latter supply; Jules Simon"s and Vacherot"s works on the _Ecole d"Alexandrie_; B. Constant"s _Du Polytheisme_, b. xv. Among English works, see Archer Butler"s _Lectures on Philosophy_, vol. ii. 348 seq.; Lewes" _History of Philosophy_; Maurice"s _History of Philosophy_ (part ii.); Donaldson"s _History of Greek Literature_, ch. 53 and 57; and an essay in R. A. Vaughan"s _Essays and Remains_, 1858.
The mystic and oriental tendency which Neo-Platonism embodied is seen as early as Philo in the middle of the first century; but it was Ammonius Saccus (A.D. 163-243) who developed the new system about A.D. 200. The chief teachers of it were Plotinus (born 203), who introduced it at Rome; Porphyry (233-305), who however manifested more of the mystic Pythagorean spirit and less of the dialectical Platonic; Iamblichus, a generation later, who also inclined to theurgy; and in the fifth century Hypatia, killed 415; and Proclus (412-485), who taught at Athens. A growth of thought is perceptible in the successive members of the school. The sketches of several of the above-named writers in Smith"s _Biographical Dictionary_ are full of information, and furnished with useful references.
Note 11. p. 47. The Pseudo-Clementine Literature.
The Pseudo-Clementine literature consists of Homilies and Recognitions; the latter being in a Latin translation by Rufinus. It is published in Cotelerius"s _Sancti Patres_, 1698, vol i.
A n.o.ble Roman, hara.s.sed by his doubts and eager for truth, travels to the east, and there learns Christian truth, which makes him happy. It is the former part of the narrative, viz. the doubts of Clemens before becoming a Christian, which is alluded to in the text, and is adduced by Neander, _Kirchengeschichte_, i. pp. 54-56, as an instance of the preparation for the reception of Christianity made by a sense of want in many hearts. But it is the latter part which is valuable in a literary point of view, on account of the light which the exposition of Christian doctrine contained in it throws upon the Judaizing Gnostics, being an attempt to reconcile Ebionitism with the teaching of St. Paul. Its interest in this point of view has caused it to be made the subject of several monographs by German theologians. A list of them, with an account of the phases of doctrine described, is given in Kurtz"s _Church History_, E. T. -- 48, and in Hase"s _Church History_, -- 35, 75, and 80. One of the most important of them is Schliemann"s _Die Clemetinen_, 1844.
Note 12. p. 48. The Absence Of References To Christianity In Heathen Writers Of The Second Century.
Tzchirner has investigated this subject in an interesting dissertation, _Graeci et Romani Scriptores cur rerum Christianarum raro meminerint_; Opusc. Acad. p. 283. Lips. 1829, (translated in the _Journal of Sacred Literature_, Jan. 1853;) and has discussed the pa.s.sages where mention is made of Christianity. The following is the substance of his inquiries.
Though the notices concerning Christianity in heathen writers are scanty, the silence of Eusebius gives good ground for inferring, that not many further notices existed concerning it in the works which are lost, than have been preserved to us. Perhaps a few pa.s.sages may have been erased in which Christianity was blasphemed, even in that which is preserved.
The silence concerning Christianity during the first century is not surprising; because the Christians, if known at all, would be regarded as a Jewish sect, as in Acts xviii. 15; xxiii. 29; xxv. 19. In the third century they are both noticed and attacked. The inquiry therefore with regard to the silence about them, refers only to the period from about A.D. 80-180.
During this period, among the Greek writers who omit all mention of Christianity, are Dio Chrysostom; Plutarch (for the pa.s.sage, _Quaest._ iv, 4. -- 3, about happiness consisting in hope, probably does not refer to them); nomaus, who wrote expressly to ridicule religion; Maximus Tyrius; and Pausanias: and among Latin ones, Juvenal, who several times mentions the Jews, but only indirectly refers to the Christians (_Sat._ i. 185-7), Aulus Gellius, and Apuleius; (for the opinion of Warburton, _Div. Leg._ b.
ii. -- 4, that an allusion is intended, is now rejected,(1063) unless one perhaps exists in _Met._ ix. ed. Panck. ii. 195.)
Among those who name Christians we find,-
In Trajan"s reign, Tacitus, who describes their persecution by Nero (_Ann._ xv. 44); Suetonius, who names them, _Vit. Neron_. ch. 16, and describes them as seditious, _Vit. Claud._ 25, if indeed the word _Chresto_ in the paragraph is intended for _Christo_; and Pliny the younger, in the well-known letter to Trajan (_Ep._ x. 96).
In the reign of Hadrian we find, in a fragment of Hadrian"s works in Vopiscus"s Life of Saturninus (ch. viii.) a mention of them, comparing them with Serapid worshippers; and one quoted by Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._ iv. 9, addressed to a proconsul of Asia. Also Arrian names them in two pa.s.sages, in one describing them as obstinate, _Diss. Epictet._ b. iv. ch.
vii. and in the other speaking either of them or of the Jews as apt?sta?
(b. ii. ch. ii.)
In the reign of the Antonines we find Galen stigmatising them for obstinacy (_De Pulsuum Diff._ b. iii. ch. iii.), and for believing without proof (b. ii. ch. iv.); and Marcus Aurelius himself inquires (_Comment._ b. xi. ch. iii), what can be the cause of their inflexibility. His two epistles which contain allusions to Christianity, one of them attributing his victory over the Marcomanni to the thundering legion, and the other stating that it is the business of the G.o.ds and not men to punish, are rejected as spurious.
In the same reign we find Crescens and Fronto, who are treated of elsewhere, Lect. II. p. 48; and Lucian (p. 49). Tzchirner denies the allusions supposed to lurk in many pa.s.sages of Lucian examined by Krebsius and Eichstadt; but, independently of those in the Peregrinus, ch. xi-xiv, on which see Lect. II and Note 13, there remains one where Alexander the magician is said to exclude Christians and Epicureans from his magical rites. In the same reign we meet with Celsus; after which time the notices of Christianity are frequent; the account of which will be found in Lardner"s Works, vol. viii.
If now we pa.s.s from the facts to the cause, and ask why the notices are so few, Tzchirner very properly answers, that the silence in the first century is explained, partly by the general poverty and retirement of the Christians, and partly by the circ.u.mstance named above, that they were included among Jews. But in the second century, when Christianity was so far known that several learned men abandoned heathenism for it, such as Quadratus, Melito, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix; Tzchirner refers the silence chiefly to the fact that the opinions and position of the Christians prevented them from being considered worthy of attention by members of any of those schools of philosophy whose probable opinions in reference to it have been already explained in Lect.
II. Celsus alone had the far-sightedness to apprehend danger from them, both philosophically and politically.
Note 13. p. 49. The Peregrinus Proteus Of Lucian.
The question of Lucian"s intention to injure Christianity has been discussed and maintained by Krebsius in a Dissertation, _De Malitioso Luciani Consilio Religionem Christianam scurrili dicacitate vanam et ridiculam reddendi_, Opusc. Acad. p. 308 seq. The contrary view is maintained by Eichstadt in a dissertation, _Lucia.n.u.s num scriptis suis adjuvare voluerit Religionem Christianam_, Jena, 1822. Krebsius is extravagant in interpreting many unimportant references in Lucian as relating to Christianity. See Tzchirner, _Opusc. Acad._ p. 290. Neander also states his opinion on the question, _Kirchengesch._ i. 269 seq.
The same subject has been discussed with great care and learning by Adolph Planck, dean of Heidenheim in Wurtemburg, _Lucian und Christenthum_, a contribution to the church history of the second century; originally published in the _Studien und Kritiken_, 1851, and translated in the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_, April and July, 1853. He there studies Lucian"s tract, _the Peregrinus_, (1) in the character which it offers of Peregrinus as a Cynic, for the purpose of examining the probability of his death being a parody on Christian martyrdom; (2) in his character as a Christian, in order to exhibit Lucian"s opinion of Christianity and of the traits of Christian life brought out; (3) with a view to ascertain the sources and amount of Lucian"s knowledge of Christianity; discussing fully, by means of quotations, the evidence of Lucian"s acquaintance with the early Christian literature.
The a.n.a.lysis of the Peregrinus Proteus is as follows: It professes to be a letter from Lucian to Cromius narrating Peregrinus"s death. Peregrinus had gone to Olympia, with the pompous design of displaying his death before the a.s.sembly at the games. Lucian lets us hear the speeches, descriptive of Peregrinus"s life, delivered before the decisive act. A certain Theagenes, an admirer of Peregrinus, delivers a bombastic eulogy, -- 3-7, repelling the charge of vanity imputed to him, and comparing his proposed death with that of Hercules, &c. Lucian opposes to this some invectives delivered by another, whose name he professes to have forgotten, which refer, -- 7-30, to the history of Peregrinus to which Theagenes had alluded; tracing his crimes, his journeys from land to land, his turning Christian in Syria, his expulsion for disobedience, his subsequent wanderings and crimes, and the universal contempt which he had brought upon himself. Theagenes replies to this speech; but Lucian preferred to go to see the wrestling-match. Afterwards however he heard Peregrinus p.r.o.nounce his own eulogy, and boast of his sufferings on behalf of philosophy. Then, after most of the guests had left Elis, -- 35, &c.
Peregrinus proceeded to erect his own funeral pile, and consumed himself on it. Lucian after seeing the end went away, and added a legend about the appearance of a hawk; which story he soon afterwards found had already gained credence. The moral which he draws is, that Cromius ought to despise such people, and impute their conduct to love of fame.
The pa.s.sages of the work which have specific reference to Christianity are, -- 11-13, which describe Peregrinus"s intercourse with the Christians; and -- 35-41, which describe his martyrdom. The references are to Dindorf"s ed. Paris 1840.
Note 14. p. 51. The Work Of Celsus.
It is difficult to obtain an exact conception of the work of Celsus. This is due partly perhaps to its original form; for Origen himself complains (Cont. Cels. i. 40) of the want of order in Celsus; and partly to the fact that a mind like that of Origen did not follow his opponent step by step, but frequently grasped a general principle which enabled him to meet a group of objections dispersed through different parts of Celsus"s work.
As it was desirable for the object of the lecture to present Celsus"s views rather than a.n.a.lyse Origen"s treatise, the writer endeavoured, when preparing it, to select materials from Origen for drawing out a sketch in systematic form, somewhat in the manner of Neander"s remarks (_Church History_, i. 274), of Celsus"s views, concerning (1) G.o.d and creation; (2) man"s moral state; (3) the Hebrew and Christian religions in their sacred books and doctrines. But on the publication of Pressense"s work (_Hist. de l"Eglise_, 2e serie, ii. pp. 104-142), he perceived the plan of arrangement there suggested to possess so much more life, that he adopted it in the text. Pressense considers that, by a careful study of the fragments of Celsus quoted by Origen, he is able to reproduce a picture of the whole work, as well as to gather his opinions. Such an arrangement must necessarily be hypothetical, like Niebuhr"s treatment of Roman history, though extremely probable. It will be observed however, by noticing the references to Origen"s work in the foot-notes of Pressense"s text, and of Lecture II. in this volume, that the arrangement suggested for Celsus"s treatise does not always coincide with the order in which Origen has quoted the parts of it. Also the references to the later books of Origen will be seen to be fewer than to the earlier; a circ.u.mstance which arises from the quotations from Celsus"s work being fewer in those books, and from the thoughts of Origen in them being a continuation of those presented earlier. Pressense"s arrangement has the disadvantage too of leaving out many of the critical difficulties which Celsus alleges in the scriptures; but he rightly points out that they are all corollaries from a philosophical principle. The reader may accordingly consult Neander for a systematic view of Celsus"s opinions, and Pressense for a theory of the arrangement of his work.
It may be useful to give a brief statement of the order in which Celsus"s objections occur in Origen"s treatise, so as to show the manner in which the subject is there developed.
The first half of book i. is prefatory (ch. i-xl.); the second half, together with b. ii. contains the attack by the Jew on Christianity given in Lect. II. The early part of b. iii. (1-9) contains Origen"s refutation of the Jew. The subsequent parts and remaining books give Origen"s refutation of Celsus"s own attack on Christianity. First, Celsus attacks the character of Christians in the remainder of b. iii. In b. iv. he returns to his attack on Judaism, and on the scriptures of the Old Testament, especially on many of the narratives; either regarding them as false, or as borrowed; and objecting to their anthropomorphic character; also objecting to the account of man"s place in creation, and of divine interference. In b. v. he continues his attack on the doctrines of both religions, chiefly so far as he considers them to be untrue; and in b. vi.
so far as he considers them to be borrowed, dragging to light the difference which existed between Judaism and Christianity. In b. vii. the subject of prophecy and some other doctrines, as well as the ethics of Christianity, are examined; and in b. viii, when the attack on Christianity is mainly over, a defence of paganism is offered by Celsus.
A detailed a.n.a.lysis of Origen"s treatise, which is intricate, will be found in Schramm"s _a.n.a.lysis Patrum_, vol. iv. 1782. Pressense"s view of Origen"s arguments is given, _Hist._ vol. 2e Serie, t. ii. pp. 281-361.
See also Lardner"s Works, viii. 19. Hase (_Church History_, -- 51) refers to several German works which relate to Celsus.
Note 15. p. 56. The Charges Against Christians, And Causes Of Persecution, In The Second Century.
The learned Kortholt, Professor at Kiel, in his work, the _Paga.n.u.s Obtrectator, sive Liber de Calumniis Gentilium in Veteres Christianos_ (1703), has carefully collected references to the objections raised by the Pagans against Christianity. He has arranged them according to the subjects, irrespective of the chronological order in which they were respectively suggested; viz. (1) those which relate to the origin and nature of Christianity, such as its novelty, its alleged want of originality, &c.; (2) false charges about public worship; (3) false charges about life and morals. If we exclude on the one hand those charges which are gathered out of Celsus (in Origen), and on the other those from apologists later than the date of Porphyry, the charges between these limits, which are learned from the apologists Minucius Felix, Theophilus (ad Autolyc.u.m), and Tertullian, exhibit the objections which were encountered in Rome, Syria, and North Africa, respectively. They chiefly belong to the prejudices adduced in the second and third of the cla.s.ses made by Kortholt. Among the more intelligible objections which belong to his first cla.s.s, are found the charges of the novelty of Christianity (ch.
i. in his book), the superst.i.tious character of it (ix. and x.), and the want of cultivation in its supporters (xi.). Among the prejudices about public worship (cla.s.s 2) in his work, we meet with the charge of a.s.s-worship (in Tertullian and Minucius Felix, ch. xi.); sky and sun worship (ii. and iii.); priest and cross worship (iv, and vi.); and secret sacred rites (ix.). Among the false charges about life and morals (which form cla.s.s 3), we meet with that of private and nocturnal meetings forbidden by law, and the Agapae (v.); Thyestean banquets (Theoph. and Tertull. ix.); secret insignia (xvi.); treason (vii.); and hatred of humanity (viii.).
All these charges will be seen to be such as mark the transition from a state of indifference to Christianity to that more distinct comprehension of its nature which afterwards existed. Their character indicates a moment when the new religion was forcing itself on public attention as a secret organization ramifying through the Roman world. In the main they resolved themselves into two heads; (1) the vulgar prejudices arising from ignorance; and (2) the alarm at the political danger arising from a vast secret society. The latter charges reappear in the works of later apologists; but the former are peculiar to this special period, between the time of Celsus and of Porphyry.
Among the vulgar prejudices thus named, the only two that need further mention are the charges of priest-worship and a.s.s-worship. The former charge, named by Minucius Felix, ch. ix, and thus described here by a euphemism, may be seen in Kortholt, b. ii. ch. iv. p. 319; it probably arose from the homage paid to the bishop on bended knee at ordination. The latter, taken out of Minucius Felix (ch. ii.), and Tertullian (Apol. 16), is more singular and puzzling even after the discussions by older authors which Kortholt cites, b. ii. ch. i. p. 256, &c. But the fact of the charge has been corroborated by the recent discovery in excavations made in some substructions on the Palatine hill, of a _graffito_ or pencil-scratching, in which a person is worshipping toward a cross, on which hangs suspended a human figure with the head of a horse, or perhaps wild a.s.s, and underneath is the inscription "Alexamenus is worshipping G.o.d," ??e?ae???
seete [sic for seeta?] Te??. It can hardly be doubted that it is a pagan caricature of Christian worship, embodying the absurd prejudice which Minucius names. A brief account of it may be seen in the _Edinburgh Review_, No. 224, for October, 1859, p. 436, and more fully in _Un Graffito Blasfemo nel Palazzo dei Cesari (Civilta Cattolica_, serie iii.
vol. iv. Roma, 1856). The difficulty that the inscription is in Greek, will be explained by the fact that the church of Rome was Greek as late as the time of the writings of the so-called Hippolytus.