THE EARLY CHURCH

New Zealand Tablet, 8 April 1920, Page 9

THE EARLY CHURCH

(A Series of Lectures by Rev. P. J. Sheehy, Manly College)

% ' VI.THE ATTACK OF PHILOSOPHY ON EARLY CHRISTIANITY. •- Before I come .to speak of the systematic persecution of the Christian Faith ■ organised throughout ; the vast extent of the Roman Empire, and lasting till the opening of the fourth century, I must bring before you a brief sketch of the intellectual attack against Christian doctrines on the part of the philosophers. It synchronised, of course, with the physical attack and was no less dangerous. In brief, it was a determined effort to paint the Christian religion as something vulgar, fanatical, nonsensical, not to be compared with the sublime body of doctrines brought together in an eclectic scheme of philosophy. . , Philosophy was a Greek creation which from ■ the second century B.C. had come to make its way to Rome and to the West, and, in spite of attempts made to check it, to make considerable progress.. In the days immediately pre-Christian, Cicero employed the last years of his enforced leisure in rendering accessible to Roman readers, in a popular form, the most important results of post-Aristotelian philosophy, and thus formed the nucleus of the philosophical literature of Rome. It was only very gradually, however, that the Roman mind took' to philosophy. That mind was essentially practical and regarded this pursuit of ideas as futile and enervating. Moreover, the bands of philosophical preachers and lecturers that swarmed over the Empire were suspected by the Roman Government. They were friends to the mobs nbo came to hear them, they were' ever throwing mud at the Government, praising democracy, stirring up the masses to the overthrow of the existing order of things; and, so on occasions we find the Roman authorities expelling the more remarkable .of these philosophers from the city of Rome as dangerous to the established order. But by the close of the first Christian century this temper of the Roman Government had completely changed ; philosophy was no longer regarded as hostile to the civil authority, and was in fact encouraged. Thus, for instance, Pliny in one of his letters expresses his delight at the glorious revival of intellectual life in Rome and praises the Emperor Trajan for taking special interest in education and for highly honoring teachers of rhetoric and philosophy. The Emperor Hadrian sought the society of philosophers and appointed public lecturers on philosophy in Rome. The Emperor Antoninus Pius appointed such lecturers in all the provinces with public salaries and with many immunities, chief amongst them being immunity from taxation. In the reign of the philosopher Emperor Marcus Aurelius, philosophy became the fashion even amongst the women. In -subsequent reigns, one had to study, or make a pretence of studying philosophy in order to get on in the Empire. The philosophers received State salaries when appointed to schools; they were allowed much freedom of speech oven when they criticised the Emperors ; they were sometimes given the honor of statues after’ death. From the end of the first century on to the close of the third century of the Christian era, then, despite the practical character of the Romans and despite the scandal brought on philosophy by the lives and conduct and avarice of a great part of the teachers thereof, it is certain that the larger part of cultured Roman society throughout the Empire regarded philosophy as the best guide to the highest morality. It was regarded as an essential part of the training of the young and was taken up after the conclusion of the grammatical and rhetorical course. Logic, physics, and especially ethics were studied and had assumed that function of forming the inward .life which nowadays we assign to religion. It was the age of philosophy. The number of philosophers and pseudo-philosophers throughout the Empire was very great, greater than that of the shoemakers or fullers or jesters or the followers of any other profession. The philosopher’s robe was everywhere to be seen. Epictetus says that in the seething crowd the number of true philosophers was very small; spurious philosophers abounded, wandering about the Empire from town to town, vulgar, abusive, vicious, and each school or sect of philosophy abused every other. But this must not make us lose sight of the consideration and respect given to true philosophy. Without going into the various schools of philosophy we may mention the three relations in which the better philosophers were exercised. First, there was the house philosopher. - It became the fashion of the great Roman families to have such an official resident in their midst. He was the educator of the

young, the counsellor, and , guide of the . elders, ll and wo find him acting as a kind of pagan confessor.' They interfered in every detail of private life even c tor,the most trivial and as a rule exercised, as teachers and mentors, greater authority over even grown U P pupils than do teachers at and ’TcTofflcTal.. “ a ‘ the ° OUrtS of th 6 E " 1 » <,rOTS r Secondly , at the more important centres of the EmPublic chairs of philosophy were set up, where teachers might influence the lives and morals of the flower of Grecian and Roman youths drawn from all the Imperial Provinces. To such an office a large salary was attached, ■ fi ? 6 fi ® ld for the spreading of philosophical ideas and theories of life and conduct. The great public schools of the Empire had philosophers to lecture on retended Ahlm” 1 — 1 — aiKl conduct to the youths who atcalledll?!, 6 r aS • a tll 1 class of Philosophers— generally % Cymcs-who gave themselves out as general teachers of morality to the human race, and were to be „?r d pandering from place to place throughout the Empire. Generally they bore an evil name in that their lives

j,., , —i .~-z- «" cvij. name in mat. tneir lives did not square with their exhortations. But the harsh criticisms upon them are rather a proof of the lofty claims put forward on behalf of philosophy as the moral elevator of the contemporary world, and show, too, at least implicitly, that the best philosophical teachers made these claims good and exercised an enormous effect. x . r h ??L in'my . last lecture I was speaking of the extrinsic difficulties m the onward path of early Christianity I said that it had to contend with a world long since strongly entrenched in paganism. This pagan philosophy 1 have just described as organised throughout the Empire was no small part of that mighty anti-Christian bulwark. For from the great public chairs of philosophy in the cities of the Empire, from the forums of the great public schools, in the houses of the wealthy and in the Imperial Court circles, from the platforms of the market places and the parks, you have one united chorus of the ablest men of the age declaiming for two centuries against the Christian Faith as absurd, fanatical, nonsensical. Were there but this difficulty, alone, not to speak of the others I mentioned and not.to take at all into account the persistent and almost diabolical persecutions involved in martyrdom of the early Church for well-nigh three centuries, it would, I think, be no great exaggeration to sav that any other system of thought besides one divinely protected and assisted would have gone down in face of this organised philosophy. Add to this, too, that when in the second and third centuries philosophy came to a death struggle with Christianity, it had shed many of the absurdities and crudities of its earlier schools. It "had become polished into a few eclectic systems or schools—mainly. Neo-platonism and Neo-pythagorianism— votaries and teachers had gathered together into a more or less consistent whole, what they considered the very best and most attractive intellectual elements in the various systems of pagan philosophy. This eclecticism was the best.and last effort of pagan thought; this was the vigorous polished, well-armed intellectual foe that Christianity had to meet; and though supported with all the power, wealth, and prestige of the greatest of Empires, Christianity conquered it. A victory like that is not for human power. If anywhere there be a miracle in the intellectual moral order, this is surely one. And now I must bring before you a sample of this philosophical attack. It i s a work of a pagan philosopher of Rome, Celsus, written in Greek with the title of Alethes Logos, or A True Discourse. As far as we know, .it is the first thorough-going attack upon the whole Christian position. It belongs to the middle of the second century—very orobably soon after IGO A.D. Unfortunately, the work as a whole is lost, but Ave are able to reconstruct it fairly well from the reply written in the year 248 A.D. by the "reat Egyptian Christian scholar Origen, a work in eight books which is regarded by modern as well as ancient Christian scholars as the most perfect apologetic work of the primitive Church. ,

The mental attitude of Celsus towards the question of religion in general is very modern. All sensible men he seems to say, are of the same religion; they believe in the existence of one supreme and good god, who rules the world through inferior spirits. This is the fundamental philosophy of the wise— basic truth of natural reason As for other dogmas—well, the vulgar must have their myths and illusions. But he compares the pagan myths with the Christian, and he finds the latter gross,, immoral far inferior to the former. In his treatment of the theme he is clever, harsh, scornful. But it is the cleverness of an official rather than of a man of books. The Roman Empire is beginning to be in straits. The barbarians are already hammering : at its frontiers , on the east and the

Emperor Marcus Aurelius has to bring a Roman army to - the - marshes of the Dobru ja- along i the n Eastern Danube to keep - out these savage invaders. Celsus is _ah ardent imperialist; at such a time as this it was monstrous, to his way of thinking, to have a growing sect in the Empire, hostile to its | peace, disloyal to its } most cherished traditions, switched off from its civic life; - He is thoroughly honest in his desire to see them give up this separate r life ;, he argues, implores, he'threatens in every page. He would put a sharper edge on the law against'Christians. there is a ring of menace in his words. Like, many a severe magistrate of these days, he condescends o argue with and preach to the Christian body in the Empire, but he holds a naked sword in his hand all the

( -Before taking up his pen lie had studied his subject. tJ know all about it, he says, and indeed he knew much. He had read the four; Gospels, the Books of Genesis and Exodus; he had dipped into some of the Old Testament Prophets and some of the Gnostic heretical literature. He , neW /. the distinction between the “Great” or the Cathoic Church and the heretical bodies standing beside it, though he sometimes confounds their teaching. He had travelled _ extensively and conversed with learned Christians or does he mean to be unjust. He pours out equal scorn on the mountebank priests of the popular religions; he acknowledges the purity of Christian morality, and he does not lay emphasis on the gross charges against Christian practices, though he knows them. He is content to charge Christians with sorcery, want of patriotism, disloyalty to the Empire; every Christian assembly is to him an illicit college of conspirators, and persecution is the only way of dealing with them. • ✓ r . - The work falls into two divisions. The first part is put into the mouth of a Jew; in the second Celsus himself speaks. The division was clever. It gives him the advantage of being able to attack the character of Christ from under cover; he is able to shift from himself the odium of the very offensive things he wants to say about the saviour. In the second part he is more conciliatory. Hie y Jew of this True Discourse insists on the baseness and failure of the life of Jesus Christ. He was in reality the Son of Mary by a wandering Gentile soldier. He was not foretold by the prophets; they • had spoken of the coming of a great prince, Lord of the earth with its nations and armies, not a pestilential fellow like this. Look at Him in His Passion and on His Cross. Why did He not save Himself from this shame and punish those who outraged Him and His Father. Were He a true God He would have done so. King Pentheus, who dared imprison the god Bacchus, was torn in pieces; Pontius Pilate suffered nothing. On the Cross He lacked fortitude, craving for drink, not able to bear thirst. Do not blame us, therefore, if we cannot take Him as God, nor believe that He died for us. During his lifetime He persuaded nobody, not even His own Disciples; and being unable to do anything with men, He marched off to Hades to persuade the people there. As for the Resurrection, His witnesses are half-crazy women, and a band of charlatans who dreamed it, or thought they saw it, or more likely wanted to astonish people with this piece of nonsense and thus prepare the way for other dishonest impostors. In the third book of the refutation by Origen, Celsus begins to speak himself. Man has reason, he . argues, and the systematic expression of reason is philosophy, the only and sufficient guide for life. Hence revelation is imposSlbl( h unnecessary. An Incarnation—a “coming down of God”—is just as incredible as a Resurrection of the body These ideas are merely blundering attempts to express iii coarse figures what is far better expressed in the heathen myths. _ Celsus is specially irritated with the impudence of Christian teachers. They are for ever saying: “Do not bother spending your life enquiring only believe ” They gather together all that are ignorant, foolish, untaught fools, baseborn, dullards, slaves, silly women and children, wool-carders, cobblers, fullers, the rudest" and most ignorant fellows they can lay hands on. “The priests of other mysteries cry ‘Come, ye that are clean of heart and discreet of tongue, ye that are pure of all stain, whose spirit knows no guile, whose life has been just and good.’ But whom do these questions invite? The sinner, the foolish, the childish, the unhappy. These the Kingdom of God will admit. The sinner; that is, the unjust, the thief, the burglar, the prisoner, the robber of temples and tombs. Why, it is a robber’s, invitation; God sent to sinners, not to the sinless. . . . The unjust man, then, if he brings himself low through his wickedness, God will receive,* but He will not receive the; just, the man who practises virtue,.and looks up to God from the first.” ' ■ «■■• r: * si v

/He says at the'Catholic ~ doctrine of penance and divine pity: "Men who rightly administer justice! com-

pel the prisoner to cease from wails and laments, ' lest justice should be warped by pity. But God, as it seems, is guided in His judgments not by truth, but by flattery.” Ij Most insolent is the . way in which 7 the Christian priests speak of ; the pagan teachers and philosophers. They say - to ■ their dupes: “Do not listen I to your father or • your tutor, but to us. They talk nonsense they are dotards, SO; stuffed up with idle prejudices that they neither know nor do anything right. We alone know how one ought to live. Listen to us, and you will be happy and your house will prosper.” '% Yes! Persecution is the only way to deal with these misguided fanatics. The very helplessness and defencelessness of the Christians against the heathen law is a proof that Jesus is not a God who can save. The police are everywhere after His followers, hunting them out. The martyrs are suffering not for conscience, but out of sheer obstinacy. Give up, then, “this impostor,” this dead man,” and listen to common sense. Christ is not God. Nor are we idolaters, as you say, for our statues only represent God, as the pro-consuls represent Caesar. It is right to show them honor. True, God is to be worshipped above all, but He permits and requires that due and reasonable honor be paid to His agents, just as Caesar expects men to reverence his own majesty in the person of his pro-consuls. And so, Celsus concludes with ah almost pathetic exhortation to the injured Christians to have pity on their country, to rally round Caesar’s eagles against the common foe, to swear by the genius of the Emperor as the dispenser of all temporal blessings, as the God of all the spiritual. It cannot at all be supposed that the Empire will abandon its tried and ancient faith for a barbarous novelty such as is Christianity. “He who thinks this knows nothing.” If you were to convert the whole Empire we would all be ruined, and you with us. Your God could not protect us. Why, He does not protect you, for the police are daily bringing you to book. And if unity were to be established in religion your Christ will have to leave His exclusive throne and take a place on equal terms with the other gods of Rome. Hence, give up your life apart, join us, kiss hands to the deities of Empire, join our feasts and sing a hymn to Athena, the bright goddess of the sun. _ Such was the attack of the pagan philosopher Celsus. It is typical it is modern in its mentality. There were other remarkable attacks of the same kind, but I cannot do more than mention one or two of them here. Lucian; a Syrian philosopher of the early second century* who travelled everywhere, in a work of fiction which has come down, represented Christians in an odious light. They are foolish, superstitious; their mutual love and charity are but artful sectarianism. Their well-known contempt for death is but childish obstinacy. “These poor men believe that their souls and bodies will afterwards be immortal, hence they frequently present themselves to torture.” Early in the third century a pagan philosopher named Porphyry, down in Sicily, wrote an attack on Christianity in 15 books which the heathens regarded as a divine book. It is on the lines of Celsus, and the rationalists of the Continent are not able even in our day to improve much on it. Another kind of attack took its rise from Roman literary circles. Instead of disparaging the character of Christ, these writers were compelled to admire it. Hence they took the line of opposing to Christ similar characters belonging to paganism, and thus they would try to get for paganism the lustre shed on the Christian* religion by its Founder. Numbers of such lives were written as rivals to Christ. As a rule, the New Testament was the model followed. Two such lives — of the philosopher Pythagoras and of the wandering teacher Apollonius of Tyana—are the most remarkable and successful of these attempts. They try to go better than Christ of the Gospel narrative, especially in the narrative of His Passion and Death, in which the pagans saw weakness unbecoming a God. The humility and low lines of the Saviour was a scandal to them. These works suggest the compromise the Roman authorities would make with Christianity. The terms are better than those of Celsus. Let there be one supreme ruler in heaven, and one on earth —the Emperor. One transcendental God for higher minds, for the mob the lower gods suffice; Christ to be accepted as an inspired teacher on the same footing as the pagans Pythagoras and Apollonius. How far these works attacking the Christian Faith influenced the public mind it is hard to say. It was polemical, ephemeral literature, and most of it has perished. Christian writers in their replies regarded these works as shallow and creating no real intellectual difficulty to the Christian system. Thus Origen, ;in his reply,

moves along a. plane altogether superior to Celsus. It is like the reply of a trained apologist of the Faith to the vaporings of a pot-house philosopher. Anyhow, this transient heathen literature gives us the intellectual view of its day regarding Christianity- view, scornful, hostile, or indifferent, but gradually changing to one of moderate admiration which would place Jesus amongst the philosophers deified for their virtue and wisdom.. . V