{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40929/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40929","id":"gutenberg_40929","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40929","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian sociology -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600","Eschatology -- History of doctrines","Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\n    Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully\n    aspossible, including some inconsistencies of hyphenation. Some\n    changes of spelling and punctuation have been made.  They are listed\n    at the end of the text.\n\n    Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.\n\n\n\n\n The University of Chicago\n\n THE TRANSFORMATION OF\n EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM\n AN ESCHATOLOGICAL\n TO A SOCIALIZED\n MOVEMENT\n\n A DISSERTATION\n\n SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY\n OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE\n IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF\n DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY\n\n DEPARTMENT OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL\n\n BY\n LYFORD PATERSON EDWARDS\n\n The Collegiate Press\n GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY\n MENASHA, WISCONSIN\n 1919\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n Chapter   I. Political Theories of the Early Christians     1\n\n Chapter  II. The Early Church and Property Concepts        24\n\n Chapter III. The Early Church and the Populace             50\n\n Chapter  IV. Chiliasm and Patriotism                       70\n\n Chapter   V. Chiliasm and Social Theory                    83\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE POLITICAL THEORIES OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS\n\n\nWhen Christianity came into the world it found a number of different\npolitical theories already in existence. These various conflicting\nconcepts; Hebrew, Greek and Roman, influenced Christianity in varying\ndegrees and in varying degrees were influenced by Christianity.\nChristianity as such added no new ideas to the current stock of\npolitical notions. The Hebrew Christian retained his Jewish theory; as\ndid the Greek and the Roman in perhaps a less degree. The development of\nthe Christian conception of the state, the Church, and history generally\nis a process of elimination, selection, adaptation, and synthesis of the\nvarious elements of political theory current in contemporary Hebrew and\npagan thought.\n\nThe characteristic modern separation of Church and State, the divorce\nbetween religion and government, existed as a matter of fact in early\nChristianity. But it was forced upon the Christians by the historical\nsituation. As an idea it was foreign alike to Jews and Christians,\nGreeks and Romans. It was contrary to the whole body of contemporary\npolitical theory. The union of Church and State in the Fourth century,\nwhich has been so deplored by many modern historians and moralists was\nin reality perfectly inevitable. The social mind of the whole ancient\nworld made any other course impossible either to Christians or Pagans\nonce Christianity had developed to the point where it was the most\npowerful religious force in society.\n\nThe theocratic nature of Jewish thought and practice is generally\nrecognized but the close connection of religion and government in the\npagan educational system is not perhaps so much emphasized. To quote\nPollock: \"It costs us something to realize the full importance of\nphilosophy to the Greek or Roman citizen who had received a liberal\neducation. For him it combined in one whole body of doctrine all the\nauthority and influence which nowadays are divided, not without\ncontention, by science, philosophy, and religion in varying shares. It\nwas not an intellectual exercise or special study, but a serious\nendeavor to gather up the results of all human knowledge in their most\ngeneral form, and make them available for the practical conduct of\nlife.\"[1]\n\nIt was this fact which made Christianity's progress among the educated\nclasses so slow. Once it had made its way, however, the taking over of\npolitical control by the Church was both easy and natural.\n\nOne of the most notable characteristics of the New Testament and of all\nearly Christianity in its relation to the existing political system was\nthe doctrine of obedience to the constituted authorities. That a man\nlike St. Paul should advocate submission to a man like Nero seems like\nthe negation of elementary morality. The reasons for this attitude are\nmany. In this paper we are concerned only with one of them--but possibly\nthe most important one. The submissiveness of the early Christians to\ntyranny and despotism was not due primarily to impotence nor yet to\nexcessive mildness of disposition. Many emperors before Constantine were\ndeposed and slain by political groups smaller and feebler than the\nChristians. St. Paul and St. Ignatius, to go no farther, were not by\nnature pacifists. It would be difficult to find a book of a more\nmilitant tone than the Revelation of St. John.\n\nThe main reason for the political non-resistance of the early Christians\nis to be sought in their philosophy; their views of the world. These\nviews were of a very special and very peculiar kind. They were in large\npart either directly inherited from Jewish thought or adapted from it.\nWhile they are in some respects inconsistent with one another, they have\na common element. They are all catastrophic. In all of them the\ncatastrophe is more or less immediately imminent.\n\nThe Old Testament Prophets taught the establishment, in the indefinite\nfuture, of an eternal Messianic kingdom on this present earth. For a\nlong time this hope was cherished by every Jew. But some time before the\nbeginning of the First Century B.C. a change took place. The old\nconception was abandoned, slowly indeed, but at last absolutely. In its\nplace arose a belief which developed into Chiliasm or Millenarianism.\nPerhaps the first clear statement of this new idea is to be found in the\nbook known as I Enoch. In this work which dates from 104-95 B.C., the\nMessianic kingdom is for the first time conceived of as of temporary\nduration. The resurrection and final judgment which in the preceding\nform of belief were the prelude to the everlasting Messianic kingdom on\nearth, are now transposed to the end of the transitory, early kingdom of\nthe Messiah. This temporary earthly kingdom is no longer the final abode\nof the risen righteous. They are to enjoy a blessed immortality in the\neternal heaven.[2]\n\nWe have in this author a practically complete statement of later\nChristian Chiliasm. There is indeed one important feature missing. The\nspecific duration of the Messianic kingdom is not given. The advent of\nthe kingdom also is not pressingly imminent.\n\nIn the Parables 94-64 B.C. we find certain other elements. This writer\nholds to the eternal Messianic kingdom but the scene of this kingdom is\nnot the earth as at present existing but a new heaven and a new earth.\nThe Messiah is no longer a mere man but a supernatural being. Four\ntitles characteristic of the New Testament are for the first time\napplied to him: \"The Christ,\" \"The Righteous One,\" \"The Elect One,\" \"The\nSon of Man.\" He executes judgment on man and enjoys universal dominion.\nThe resurrection is not of the old body but of a body of glory and\nlight, of an angelic nature, in short a spiritual body, though the\nspecific word spiritual is not used.[3]\n\nIn the other eschatological works of this period: e.g. Psalms of Solomon\n70-40 B.C. Judith (circa 50 B.C.) [one reference]; The Sibylline Oracles\nIII 1-62 (before 31 B.C.); The Epitomiser of Jason of Cyrene (between\n100-40 B.C.) and the fragmentary Zadokite Work, 18 B.C., the tradition\nof the temporary kingdom is carried on but without the addition of any\nconcepts essential to our purpose.\n\nIn the first century A.D., still confining ourselves to specifically\nJewish Apocalyptic literature we find various changes taking place. The\neternal Messianic kingdom passes largely out. The temporary Messianic\nkingdom becomes an eternal national one. The interest of the individual\nJew comes to center on his own lot in the future life.[4] We have to\npass a number of writers; Assumption of Moses, Philo, etc., before we\ncome to the specific statement of Chiliasm proper, i.e., the duration of\nthe Messianic kingdom for 1000 years. In the Book of The Secrets of\nEnoch commonly known as II Enoch (1-50 A.D.) we find for the first time\nthe doctrine which was taken over to make the Christian Millennium. The\nwriter of II Enoch was an Egyptian Jew. He says that as the world was\nmade in six days, its course will run for six thousand years. The 6000\nyears will be followed by a Messianic kingdom of rest and blessedness\nlasting 1000 years. After that follows the final judgment, \"The great\nday of the Lord.\"\n\nPassing now to the New Testament, it is only necessary for our purpose\nto enumerate three different concepts of the Messianic kingdom that are\nfound therein. In these concepts contemporaneous Jewish ideas are taken\nwith more or less transformation.\n\nThe first conception perhaps holds the idea of a present world kingdom\nbut puts emphasis on the futurity of the kingdom. Its ultimate\nconsumation is not by gradual, natural development, but by the\ncatastrophic reappearance of Christ. This Second Advent is to be\npreceded by tremendous portents of the most terrible sort.\n\nThe second conception is that the kingdom is already present in Christ's\nappearance as the Messiah. It is to grow by the natural laws of\nspiritual development to its full realization. A considerable length of\ntime is conceived as necessary for the attainment of mature growth. The\nconsumation of the kingdom in the Second Advent is to be unexpected and\nsudden and none but the Father knows when it will take place.\n\nThe third conception, that of Chiliasm, is that the Second Advent of\nChrist is close at hand. Anti Christ and his confederates are to be\ndestroyed at Megiddo. Satan is to be bound for 1000 years during which\nis the Millennium, when the martyrs are raised in the first resurrection\nand reign with Christ at Jerusalem. This conception is found in the\nRevelation and perhaps I Cor. XV, 24-27. All the essential elements of\nit are to be found in pre-existing sources, e.g., the 1000 years in II\nEnoch, the reign of the saints in Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, etc.\n\nThese three conceptions were variously confused in early Christianity.\nAll the New Testament writers hold, for instance, to the immediately\nimminent Second Advent. How many of them were Chiliasts we have no way\nof knowing. The earliest, Christian writing extant outside the New\nTestament, which deals with this subject is perhaps Papias, 70-155 A.D.\nHe is a most materialistic Chiliast and quotes II Baruch as an authentic\nutterance of Christ handed to himself by apostolic tradition.[5]\n\nBarnabas is another apostolic Chiliast. He expressly teaches a\nmillennial reign of Christ on earth. The six days of creation are the\ntype of six periods of 1000 years each. The seventh day is the\nmillennium, since with God \"one day is as a thousand years.\" The\nearthly, millennial sabbath is to be followed by an eighth and eternal\nday in heaven. The Millennium is near at hand. Barnabas does not quote\nRevelation. His views can be drawn equally well or better from II Enoch,\nI Enoch and other Jewish sources.\n\nThe first Chiliast we know of to get into disrepute was the famous\nheretic, Cerinthus, (last part of first century). His heresy had nothing\nto do with his Chiliasm, as it seems to have been a sort of Judaistic\nGnosticism and Gnosticism in general was not favorable to Chiliasm.\nHowever the fact that so abhorrent a heretic held Chiliastic views did\nnot help those views in the judgment of later Christians.\n\nAbout the end of the first century also Chiliasm came into rather\ndisreputable prominence as a leading doctrine of the Ebionites, a sect\nof antitrinitarian Judaistic-Christian heretics. This sect was wide\nspread though not particularly numerous and aroused the bitter\nantagonism of the orthodox. As in the case of Cerinthus, their heresy\nhad nothing necessarily to do with Chiliasm. But here again Chiliasm had\nthe misfortune to get into bad company.\n\nIn the middle of the second century Chiliasm appears to have been the\nbelief of the majority of Christians though it never found formal\nexpression in any creed. Justin Martyn, 110-165 A.D., tells us that\nChrist is to reign with the patriarchs for 1000 years in a rebuilt\nJerusalem. He bases this belief on Rev. XX, 4-5 and says he holds this\ndoctrine as part of the body of Christian faith. He adds, however, that\n\"many good and true Christians think otherwise.\" This later statement is\nthe more notable as it is the only difference between orthodox\nChristians which he mentions. He places the Ebionites outside the\nChristian pale.\n\nThe first non-Chiliasts we meet with in Christian history are the\nGnostics. Of their actual position on Chiliasm we know practically\nnothing except by inference. They did not apparently fight it. They\nsimply tacitly ignored it. In the long and minute descriptions of\nvarious Gnostic systems that have come down to us nothing is said on the\nsubject; but the systems as outlined leave no place for the Chiliastic\ndoctrines.\n\nThe first open enemies of Chiliasm that are to be found in the Church\nare the Alogi, a sect that flourished in Asia Minor about 160-180 A.D.\nAccording to Harnack: \"The representatives of this movement were, as far\nas we know, the first in the Church to undertake a historical criticism,\nworthy of the name, of the Christian scriptures and the Church\ntradition.\"[6] They were rationalisticly inclined, desired to keep\nprophecy out of the Church and denied on essentially the same internal\ngrounds as modern students, the Johannine authorship of the Revelation\nand also of the Fourth Gospel. With less reason they ascribed the\nRevelation to the heretic Cerinthus. Unfortunately we know but little\nabout them. Hippolytus wrote against them and defended the apostolic\nauthorship of Revelation and the Fourth Gospel in two books now lost.\nBut the Alogi are criticised only mildly, and indeed Irenaeus does not\nclass them as heretics at all. Opposition to Chiliasm was manifestly not\nlooked upon as an important matter in the last quarter of the second\ncentury--at least in Rome.[7] To this same period belong the writings of\nGaius of Rome who asserts that the Heretic Cerinthus wrote the\nRevelation, and also those of Bishop Melito of Sardis, a saint of great\nrepute, who was an ardent Chiliast. So that at this period both Chiliasm\nand non-Chiliasm would seem to be perhaps equally wide spread and\ncertainly equally permissable. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 120-202 A.D.,\nwas a strong Chiliast. He describes in minute detail the overthrow of\nthe Roman Empire, the reign of Anti-Christ for 1260 days (three and half\nyears) the visible advent of Christ, the binding of Satan, the joyful\nreign of Christ in the rebuilt Jerusalem with the risen saints and\nmartyrs over the nations of the world for a thousand years. Then follows\nthe temporary raging of Satan, the last victory, the general\nresurrection and judgment, and the consumation of all things in a new\nheaven and a new earth.\n\nThe ascription of genuine divine inspiration to the Sibylline Oracles by\nthe early Church writers is well known. It is a noteworthy fact that the\nChiliasts[8] seem to be much more inclined to quote the Oracles than the\nnon-Chiliasts. The Christians' addiction to the Oracles called forth the\nderision of Celsus.[9] Origen makes no defense and it is at least\npossible to conjecture that the reason is that he disapproved of the use\nmade of the Oracles by the Chiliasts. The Oracles were of course made\nuse of by all sorts of agencies which for any reason wished ill to the\nRoman authority and yet dared not indulge in secular sedition. Some\nenthusiastic Chiliast put forth an Oracle, probably in the reign of\nMarcus Aurelius, which was more definite than prudent. According to this\nprediction the end of Rome and the final consumation of all things was\ndue in the year 195-196 A.D.[10] There is reason to believe that this\nprophecy represented the belief of a considerable number of Christian\nChiliasts. While there is no extant evidence to that effect, it is a\nrational deduction, that when the year 195-196 A.D. passed without any\nunusual occurrences, the prestige of the persons trusting the Oracle\nwould be damaged. So far as these persons were Chiliasts, Chiliasm would\nsuffer in repute. That this was actually the case is as nearly certain\nas any logical conclusion about psychological reactions well can be.\n\nAbout the year 156 A.D. there arose in Phrygia the movement called\nMontanism. Essentially it was a reaction against the growing\nsecularization of Christianity. It spread to the rest of Asia Minor,\nEgypt, Italy, Spain, and especially Carthage and surrounding districts\nin North Africa. It was the strongest movement in favor of a revival of\nprimitive Puritanism that occurs in early Church history. It lasted in\nthe East almost till the Arab Invasion; in the West it did not die out\nuntil the time of Augustine. The Montanists are the most pronounced\nChiliasts we meet with. Not indeed in their theory but in their\npractice. One Syrian Montanist bishop \"Persuaded many brethren with\ntheir wives and children to go to meet Christ in the wilderness; another\nin Pontus induced his people to sell all their possessions, to cease\ntilling their lands, to conclude no more marriages, etc., because the\ncoming of the Lord was nigh at hand.\"[11] The Montanist prophetess,\nPrisca, about 165 A.D. said: \"After me there will come no other\nprophetess but the end.\" A peculiarity of eastern Montanistic Chiliasm\nwas the idea that Christ would reign not in Jerusalem but in Pepuza, a\nsmall town in Phrygia. In accord with this idea Montanus tried to get\nall believers to settle in this town to await the Lord's coming. The\nwestern Montanists however, of whom Tertullian was chief, held to the\nregular belief that the Messianic kingdom would be centered in\nJerusalem.\n\nBecause of certain theological beliefs aside from Chiliasm, the\nMontanists aroused the antagonism of the Church authorities. The\nearliest Church councils to be met with after New Testament times were\ncalled for the purpose of dealing with Montanism which was finally\ndenounced as a heresy and after the triumph of the Church some imperial\nedicts were issued against the sect. For the first time in the attack on\nMontanism at the end of the second and early part of the third Century\nwe find Chiliastic beliefs referred to as 'carnal and Jewish.' There is\nno formal condemnation of Chiliasm as such, but once more, and much more\nseriously than in the case of the Ebionites, Chiliasm suffered from\nbeing associated in the minds of orthodox Christians with heresy and\nschism. It would however be very easy to exaggerate the effect of this\nand it is necessary to bear in mind that while the literature of\nMontanism is fairly considerable, Chiliasm is an entirely subordinate\nmatter in the controversy and indeed seems sometimes to be mentioned\nmerely casually. The Chiliastic writers are perhaps more inclined to\nview Montanism leniently. Irenaeus does not include it in his list of\nheresies.\n\nIts association with Montanism brought Chiliasm into disrepute and\nsuspicion with the Church hierarchy and it is not surprising that\nbeginning with the last years of the second century we find a\ndeliberate system of suppression adopted by certain ecclesiastical\nauthorities--notably in Egypt. As we shall try to show later, the\ndeclension of Chiliasm can be only very imperfectly explained by\nofficial antagonism. But so far as this declension can be ascribed to\nindividuals, the three great Alexandrian divines; Clement, Origen, and\nDionysius have a prominent part. The influence of these men counted the\nmore as it was consistently exercised in the same locality with\nincreasing force during a period of more than half a century. The first\nof these writers, Clement (150-216 A.D.) does not specifically refer to\nthe Chiliasts but there are a number of passages where he evidently has\nthem in mind.[12] However the probability is that this very refraining\nfrom direct attack made his efforts the more successful. He emphasizes\nthe fact that scriptural statements--particularly scriptural\nnumbers--are not to be taken literally but are to be understood as of\nmystical significance. If Clement consciously aimed at the extirpation\nof Chiliasm (which is not absolutely certain) he at any rate took the\nmost effective means for accomplishing that result. The great\npresupposition upon which Christian Chiliasm has been based is that\nof the literal interpretation of Scripture. By attacking that\npresupposition Clement caused the doctrine to be questioned by many\npersons whose attachment to Chiliasm would doubtless have only been\nstrengthened by direct attack upon that tenet in particular. He prepared\nthe way for the open and far more powerful attacks upon Chiliasm made by\nhis great successor in the Catechetical School, Origen (185-254 A.D.).\nThe position of this great theologian is the most equivocal of any\nwriter who has attained eminence in Christian theology. How far anything\nhe wrote is to be considered as orthodox is a most difficult matter to\ndetermine. The fact that Origen opposed Chiliasm, taken by itself, apart\nfrom the subsequent fate of the doctrine, could just as easily be made a\ncommendation as a condemnation of that belief. Almost alone among\nChristian men Origen has been removed from the calendar of Catholic\nsaints after having been duly received as a saint for the space of more\nthan a hundred and fifty years. This unique fact, which is of course of\nfar more importance for theology than for history, has nevertheless a\nbearing on our subject. The condemnation of Origen came too late to save\nthe Chiliastic apologetic in the East but it very possibly may have had\nan indirect influence in the matter of continuing the repute of western\nChiliasm.\n\nOrigen attacked Chiliasm in two vital points: First he insisted even\nmore strongly than Clement upon the figurative or mystical or 'typical'\ninterpretation of Scripture. In this regard he specifically quotes a\nnumber of Chiliastic passages of scripture and definitely says that\ntheir meaning is to be taken figuratively.[13] But more important than\nthat, he definitely substitutes the theory of progressive development of\nthe intellectual and spiritual element of man for the physical and\nsensuous earthly kingdom of the Chiliasts. This was certainly a great\ngain for the anti-Chiliastic theory which for the first time took a\nlogical and comprehensible if a somewhat metaphysical form. However it\nmust be admitted that the argument of Origen though wonderfully clear\nheaded and almost miraculously modern[14] is too purely intellectual and\ncast in too philosophical a form to have any direct influence on\nordinary individuals. It was doubtless quite in place in the\nCatechetical School and among scholars in the great centers of ancient\nlearning but outside those limits its influence--at least directly--must\nhave been very small. Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, answered Origen in a\nbook entitled: \"Refutation of Allegorists.\" This book is lost but we\nknow that it was considered by the Chiliasts to be a work of the most\npowerful and indeed irrefutable sort. In the Arsinoite nome (on the west\nbank of the Nile south of Memphis) the Chiliastic doctrines were held by\nwhole villages together and Dionysius the Great (Bishop of Alexandria\n247-264 A.D.) found it necessary to visit this region and hold a public\nargument and instruction in order to avert a schism. By the tact and\nconciliatory attitude of the Bishop the Chiliasts were either won over\nto the non-Chiliastic view or at least expressed their gratification at\nthe conference. It would appear, however, as if this synod or meeting\nwas not sufficient to destroy the influence of Nepos' book so Dionysius\nwrote in refutation of it two books \"On the Promises.\" Except for a few\nfragments these books have perished. We know merely that the first book\ncontained a statement of the non-Chiliastic view and the second a\ndetailed discussion of the Revelation in relation to Chiliasm and to the\nviews of Nepos.\n\nHowever, Dionysius, who was well aware that as long as the 'Revelation\nof St. John' was received as a genuine work of the Apostle it would be\ndifficult to oppose Chiliasm, gives a very strong argument against the\napostolic authorship while diplomatically saying at the beginning of his\ndiscussion that he is able to agree that the Revelation is the work of\na holy and inspired man.[15] There is no reason to doubt that this\nrefutation of Nepos by Dionysius met with success wherever Christian\nHellenisticism exercised influence. But it by no means extirpated\nChiliasm in Egypt. For many generations after its author's death\nChiliasm was still believed by the monks of the Thebiad. In fact a large\nnumber of Jewish Apocalypses which the early Christians accepted as\ninspired are preserved to us bound up in Coptic and Ethiopic copies of\nthe scriptures. The Alexandrians had, however, succeeded so well that in\nthe subsequent period there are only two defenders of Chiliasm in the\nEastern Church that are worthy of mention. These two are Methodius of\nTyre and Apollinaris of Laodicea.\n\nMethodius 260-312 A.D. was bishop first of Olympus and Patara in Lycia\nand afterwards of Tyre in Phoenicia. He is notable for his opposition to\nOrigen and for his relatively more spiritualized Chiliasm. He maintains\nthat in the Millennium, death will be abolished and the inhabitants of\nthe earth will not marry or beget children but live in all happiness\nlike the angels without change or decay. He is very careful to insist\nupon the literal resurrection of the body, however, and emphasizes the\nfact that the risen saints while like the angels do not become\nangels.[16] He died a martyr at Chalcis in Greece.\n\nApollinaris of Laodicea (300?-390 A.D.) is a notable figure in\nChristological controversy but unfortunately very little that he wrote\nhas come down to us, and of that little the authenticity is not entirely\nunimpeachable. We are constrained to get his Chiliastic views from the\nwritings of his theological opponents and unfortunately there is not\nwanting evidence to the effect that these opponents, Basil the Great and\nGregory Nazianzen, notable Christians as they were, were not lacking in\nbias. Gregory[17] calls the Chiliastic doctrine of the Apolinarians\n'gross and carnal,' a 'second Judaism' and speaks of 'their silly\nthousand years delight in paradise.' Basil[18] calls the Chiliasm of\nApolinaris 'mythical or rather Jewish,' 'ridiculous,' and 'contrary to\nthe doctrines of the Gospel.' This is, so far as the writer is aware,\nthe first instance in which any great theologian goes to such extremes\nand Basil's language, though strong, is not altogether without an\nelement of hesitation and questioning. In short it would seem that he\nasserted more than he felt sure of being able to prove--no rare\nphenomenon unfortunately in certain of the great contraversialists. If\nBasil's statements are to be taken at their face value Apollinaris was\nindeed the most Judaizing Christian in his Chiliasm of any of whom we\nhave record. He would seem to justify Basil's jibe 'we are to be\naltogether turned from Christians into Jews,' for in his Messianic\nkingdom not only is the Temple at Jerusalem to be restored but also the\nworship of the old Law, with high priest, sacrifices, the ashes of a\nheifer, the jealousy offering, shew bread, burning lamps, circumcision\nand other such things which Basil indignantly denounces as 'figments,'\n'mere old wives' fables' and 'doctrines of Jews.'[19] Although\nApollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria as early as 362\nA.D. and Roman councils followed suit in 377 and 378 and the second\nEcumenical Council in 381 and though Imperial degrees were issued\nagainst it in 388, 397 and 428 it persisted for many generations. The\nlast condemnation on record is that of the Quinisextum Synod 691 A.D.\n\nIn this case, as in others mentioned, we see the unfortunate fate of\nChiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had\nnothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris\nas arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged\nChiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter\nand though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more\ninterest for our purpose.\n\nIn the Western Church Chiliasm prevailed until the time of Augustine. It\nseems to have provoked very little discussion or controversy.\nHippolytus, 235 A.D., carries on the Chiliastic tradition of Irenaeus\nbut with a certain degree of assured futurity about the Second Advent\nnot found in the earlier writers. This pushing of the Second Advent into\nthe future is a marked feature of Western Chiliasm. By a weird use of\n'types' Hippolytus proves with entire conclusiveness to himself that the\nSecond Advent is to occur in the year 500 A.D.[20] The overthrow of Rome\nhas a prominent part in his elaborate description of the last times but\nhe veils his statements with a certain amount of transparent\ndiscretion.[21] He has in all other essential respects the same ideas as\nIrenaeus but expressed in a less na\u00efve form. He is a transition figure.\nHis Second Advent is far enough off to allow some considerable latitude\nfor the building up of the ecclesiastical hierarchy which was the\nbusiness of Rome and he emphasizes the point that the \"gospel must first\nbe preached to all nations.\" John the Baptist reappears as the precursor\nof Christ.\n\nCommodianus, a North African bishop, 240 A.D., represents the generation\nafter Hippolytus. His two poems present rather different versions of\nChiliasm. The first is a simple and rather pleasing version.[22] The\nonly notable variation it contains is that the risen saints in the\nMillennial Kingdom are to be served by the nobles of the conquered\nanti-Christ. The second poem is an apologetic against Jews and Gentiles.\n\"The author expects the end of the world will come with the seventh\npersecution. The Goths will conquer Rome and redeem the Christians; but\nthen Nero will appear again as the heathen anti-Christ, reconquer Rome\nand rage against the Christians three years and a half. He will in turn\nbe conquered by the Jewish and real anti-Christ from the East, who,\nafter the defeat of Nero and the burning of Rome, will return to Judea,\nperform false miracles and be worshipped by the Jews. At last Christ\nappears with the lost tribes, as his army, who had lived beyond Persia\nin happy simplicity and virtue. Under astounding phenomena of nature he\nwill conquer anti-Christ and his host, convert all nations and take\npossession of the holy city of Jerusalem.\"[23] This double anti-Christ\nis perhaps the most notable variation. This idea reappears later, as\ndoes the Nero return which would seem to have been current belief.\n\nThere are perhaps only two other writers before Augustine that are\nworthy of mention, Victorinus and Lactantius. Victorinus, bishop of\nPoetovio, i.e., Petair in Austria, martyred 304 A.D., is the earliest\nexegete of the Latin Church. His 'Commentary on the Apocalypse' has come\ndown to us in bad shape. The Chiliasm is of a type which may be\ndescribed as formal and ritualistic in the sense that it is expressed in\na matter of fact way as something not needing explanation, much less\nproof. There are only two new ideas: \"The first resurrection is now of\nthe souls that are by the faith, which does not permit men to pass over\nto the second death\"[24] and \"Those years wherein Satan is bound are in\nthe first advent of Christ even to the end of the age; and they are\ncalled a thousand according to that mode of speaking wherein a part is\nsignified by the whole--although they are not a thousand.\"[25]\n\nLactantius the preceptor of Crispus, son of Constantine, brings us to\nthe Chiliasm of the established Church. The end of the present age and\nthe coming of the millennial kingdom are at the latest 200 years in the\nfuture, probably nearer, but the event instead of being looked toward\nto, is dreaded. The forthcoming destruction of Rome is bewailed. The\nworld is safe as long as Rome stands. Nero is to be anti-Christ. \"They\nwho shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those\nthousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring\nshall be holy and beloved of God; but they who shall be raised from the\ndead shall preside over the living as judges. The nations shall not be\nentirely extinguished, but some shall be left as a victory for God, that\nthey may be the occasion of triumph to the righteous and may be\nsubjected to perpetual slavery.\"[26] The Chiliasm of Lactantius is\nproved from the Sibylline Oracles and from the philosopher Chrysippus, a\nStoic. For the rest Lactantius repeats the traditional Christian and\npre-Christian Jewish Chiliastic concepts with very little variation, but\nit is evident that the fact that the fall of Rome is dreaded will work\nout a change. The Chiliasm of Lactantius is unstable, not that there is\nthe slightest breath of doubt about it, but that the attitude of mind\nwhich looked forward with dread to the Second Advent could be depended\nupon to find a theory for postponing it. Chiliasm is ready for its\ntransformation.\n\nIn the century between Lactantius and Augustine there is no Chiliast of\nnote in the west. It is abundantly evident however, from the works of\nAugustine that Chiliasm was common during that period as well as in the\ntime of Augustine. Indeed Augustine himself was a Chiliast though\nprobably not an exceedingly literal one, during his early period in the\nChurch.[27] It is certain that he never regarded the doctrine as\nheretical. Even in the very book in which he puts forth the doctrine\nwhich eventually superseded Chiliasm he says: \"This opinion would not be\nobjectionable if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that\nSabbath[27] shall be spiritual and consequent on the presence of\nGod.\"[28] We have in this quotation a hint as to the reason why he\nabandoned Chiliasm. He elaborates this in the immediately following\npassage: \"As they say that those who then rise again shall enjoy the\nleisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat\nand drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but\neven to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be\nbelieved only by the carnal.\"[29]\n\nDisgust with this literal interpretation of the scripture was thus one\nof the reasons which drew Augustine away from Chiliasm. A more direct\nreason was that he had an idea of his own as to how the Chiliastic\nScriptural passage[30] should be interpreted.\n\nThe discussion in which he vanquishes the Chiliastic concept is a model\nof contraversial method. It would be difficult to find its superior\neither in sacred or profane polemics. Perfectly conscious of his own\npowers to make Chiliasm appear at once absurd and ridiculous he refrains\nfrom doing so. Abundantly able though he was to refute the Millennians\npoint by point he deliberately foregoes that method of attack. His\nargument which overthrew an ancient, famous, and widespread doctrine of\nprimitive Christianity contains hardly a line either of refutation or\ncondemnation. It is perhaps the finest example in Christian literature\nof the 'positive apologetic.' The Chiliastic literature, even that which\nhas come down to us, contains so much that is fantastic and ludicrous\nthat it would have been very easy for a man of far less power than\nAugustine to hold it up to contempt and scorn. It abounds in the same\nkind of absurdities and incongruities as the pagan myths which provoked\nso many stinging pages from the early apologists and from Augustine\nhimself. The fact that Augustine did not yield to the temptation to make\nhis opponents ridiculous is in the highest degree creditable to his\nhead and his heart. He did not violate the precepts of Christian\ncharity and he obtained a victory greater than would have been within\neven his power had he yielded to the natural temptation of a great\nintellect to show up the mental inferiority of his opponents.\n\nIt is interesting to compare Augustine's treatment of Chiliasm with\nOrigen's. The two men are very comparable as regards extent and variety\nof knowledge, intellectual power, and philosophic insight. They are very\nunlike however, in their treatment of the subject. Origen simply\nexplains away the whole Chiliastic concept or rather so spiritualizes it\nthat nothing resembling the original idea is left. His whole insistence\nis that it must be taken figuratively, and without the least warrant he\nasserts that his interpretation is \"according to the understanding of\nthe apostles.\"[31] He makes the whole subject so subjective, so\nintellectual, so metaphysical that there is left no content for the\nordinary man to hold to in place of that which is demolished. In the\noverthrow of Eastern Chiliasm Origen holds as conspicuous a position as\nAugustine in the overthrow of Western. He did away with a doctrine, too\ncarnal perhaps, but at any rate concrete and comforting, and he\nsubstituted an intellectual abstraction. For instance in explaining, or\nbetter explaining away, the Chiliastic feasts in the New Jerusalem he\nsays:[32] \"The rational nature growing by each individual step, enlarged\nin understanding and in power of perception is increased in intellectual\ngrowth; and ever gazing purely on the causes of things it attains\nperfection, firstly, viz., that by which it ascends to the truth, and\nsecondly that by which it abides in it, having problems and the\nunderstanding of things and the causes of things as the food on which it\nmay feast. And in all things this food is to be understood as the\ncontemplation and understanding of God, which is of a measure\nappropriate and suitable to this nature, which was made and created,\netc.\"\n\nThis kind of thing is the intellectual equivalent of the process in\nphysics by which the scientist takes some tangible solid body and\nproceeds first to liquify it, then to volitilize it and finally to blow\nit entirely away. We strongly suspect that the Eastern Chiliasts felt\nthat the whole thing was a kleptistic legerdemain by which they were\ndeprived of a favorite doctrine without receiving anything in place of\nit.\n\nAugustine's method differs toto caelo from this. While Origen handles\nthe subject like a metaphysician, Augustine handles it like a statesman.\nHis doctrine is just as concrete as the one he displaces. He takes\nnothing away without giving something equally tangible and of better\nquality in its place. The transition from Chiliasm to the Origenistic\nconception of the future, would be, for the ordinary person, an\nincredible and almost impossible intellectual feat. The transition from\nChiliasm to the Augustinian conception of the future is natural, easy,\nand perfectly within the power of a very ordinary and commonplace\nmentality. As a matter of fact it made its way without the smallest\ndifficulty into the religious consciousness of the whole of western\nChristianity. Any person who aims at changing the theological opinions\nof others can find no better manual of method than the twentieth book of\nthe City of God. Augustine was very careful to keep all the symbols,\ncatch words, and paraphernalia of Chiliasm. He was careful not only to\nkeep them all but to keep them all in their literal sense. He explains\naway none of them and allegorizes none of them. By carefully preserving\nthe ancient shibboleths he was easily able to empty them of their former\ncontent. He holds to the millennium, the idea that is, of thousand\nyears, as firmly as any Chiliast but he says the thousand years is to be\nreckoned as dating from the establishment of the Church on earth i.e.,\nthe first coming of Christ. So he is careful to preserve the phrase:\n\"The Reign of the Saints\"; he merely substitutes for the Chiliastic\ncontent of that phase the very comfortable and plausable doctrine that\nthe saints are his own Christian contemporaries. He is very skillful,\nnot to say flattering, in his method of 'putting this across.' So he\nretains similarly the old formula about the two resurrections--but makes\nthe first resurrection out to be the marvelous transformation and\nparticipation in the resurrection of Christ which the Christian\nexperiences by virtue of the sacrament of baptism. More important still\nis his new content for the phrase \"Kingdom of Heaven.\" This instead of a\nstate of future blessedness becomes the already existing church on\nearth. Finally he indulges in a long and apparently straight faced\ndiscussion as to whether the reign of anti-Christ--which he preserves in\nits most literal form with the regulation duration of three years and a\nhalf--whether this is to be reckoned as part of the thousand years or\nnot. This inconsequential detail is labored at length in such a manner\nas to delight the soul of any good Bible reading Chiliast. By preserving\ntill the last this single element of Chiliasm which he leaves untouched\nand then treating it in the good, old, religious fashion of Irenaeus or\nsome other primitive worthy, he very skillfully disarms criticism and it\nis only by a strong effort that the reader realizes what a tremendous\nblow has been struck at the original Chiliastic doctrine.\n\nLet us see what the changes of Augustine amount to. It is not less than\nthe total destruction of Chiliasm, or at the very least the postponement\nof the end of the world till the year 1000 A.D. Augustine's doctrine is\nessentially that of the ordinary, orthodox, Bible Christian today.\nSometime in the future--Augustine said possibly in the year 1000\nA.D.--Christ was to come again to the earth. Then follows the\nresurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and heaven and hell. The\nquestions about the three years and a half of anti-Christ, together with\nGog and Magog--great favorites with the Chiliasts--are held to be\ninsoluble as to the time of their appearance; whether to be reckoned as\npart of the thousand years or immediately succeeding it.\n\nIt is commonly said that Augustine is responsible for the belief that\nthe world was to come to an end in the year 1000 A.D. This is not\nstrictly correct. Augustine nowhere makes that direct assertion. He\nnowhere--so far as the writer is aware--even implies it. What he does is\nto offer it as a possible alternative hypothesis to the idea that the\nthousand years, (since 1000 is the cube of 10,) is to be taken as a\nstatement of the total duration of the world. As the matter is of some\ninterest we give the original passage in Dod's translation:[33] \"Now the\nthousand years may be understood in two ways so far as occurs to me:\neither because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or\nsixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing) as if during\nthe sixth day, which is to be followed by a sabbath which has no\nevening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a\npart under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the\nmillennium--the part that is which had yet to expire before the end of\nthe world--a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an\nequivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of\nperfection to mark the fullness of time. For a thousand is the cube of\nten.... For the same reason we cannot better interpret the words of the\npsalm. \"The word which he commanded to a thousand generations,\" than by\nunderstanding it to mean, \"to all generations.\"\n\nThe above sketch summarizes essentially all that has survived about the\nChiliasm of the early Church. The Chiliastic passages in the Church\nliterature up to and including Augustine, though rather widely\nscattered, are not great in bulk. If printed together they would make\nonly a moderate sized pamphlet. But their importance is by no means to\nbe measured by their size. Chiliasm, better than any other movement of\nthe early period, serves as a standard for measuring the degree of the\nsocialization of Christianity. It comprises the only body of doctrine\nwhich passed from practically universal acceptance to practically\nuniversal repudiation during the period when the Church changed from a\nsmall esoteric cult to a dominant factor of society. Considered from\nthis point of view, the causes of the decline of Chiliasm possess a\nhistorical importance out of all proportion to the importance of\nChiliasm itself. More than any other religious movement of the time\nChiliasm was free from the direct pressure of distinctly religious\ninfluences. Its declension was more nearly a case of unconscious social\nand psychological determinism than any other contemporary theological\nphenomenon. Its chief supporters and opponents are not to be regarded so\nmuch as factors in its history, as points where the socializing forces\noperating in the early Church become for the moment visible.\n\nCertain facts stand out even in the short epitome we have given.\nChiliasm never became powerful in the great cities. It survived longest\nand was most popular in regions[34] comparatively cut off from the great\ncenters of civilization. Hellenizing influences were unfavorable to it,\nRomanizing influences indifferent to it.\n\nThe reasons for this are numerous and most of them have been treated\nsufficiently by previous investigators, but in the writer's judgment\ncertain other important influences have been either slighted or entirely\nignored. We shall consider one or two.\n\nThe supremely important fact in early Christian history is the\ndevelopment of the concept of \"The Church\" as an independent,\nself-existing, metaphysical entity. This metaphysical entity was\nconceived as embodying itself in the whole body of believers; living,\ndead, and yet to be born. The entity was eternal, indestructible, and in\nits essence immutable. Although partially embodied in a visible society\nits essential being was conceived as independently sustained in the\nnature of the universe. It was an idea in the strict Platonic sense. No\nconcept like this is found in the contemporary pagan cults. Even the\nJewish concept of the 'chosen people' is ethnic or national rather than\npurely religious and it has no tinge of that metaphysical existence\nwhich is the most notable element in the Catholic concept of the Church.\nThe elements out of which 'the Church' concept was constructed were\nfour: two Roman, one Greek and one Hebrew. The Roman lawyers, in the\nprocess of fitting a municipal legal system to a world empire, evolved\nthe twin legal entities, 'state' and 'sovereignty.' These entities were\nendowed with divers qualities; eternity, immutability, etc., but\nespecially with the quality of having existential reality apart from any\nindividual embodiment thereof. Greek philosophy contributed the idea of\nthe Cosmopolis, the ideal world-city in which the fullest development of\nhuman personality was to be attained. This concept was as purely\nmetaphysical as the self-existing, absolute 'state' of the Roman law,\nbut unlike the Roman concept it had no concrete existence. The Jewish\ncontribution was that of the 'chosen people,' 'the elect nation.' These\nfour concepts were transferred from their original loci to the Christian\nsociety. The fact that all of these concepts were combined and centered\non the same social group and the further fact that each of these\nconcepts supplemented the others in a remarkable way resulted in the\nformation of one of the most powerful ideas in religious history.\n\nThis Church concept, thus built up, had already become widespread in the\ntime of Augustine and this fact helps us to understand the otherwise\nunintelligible success of that saint in combatting Chiliasm. The real\ntruth is seen to be that Augustine's ideas succeeded because they were\nnot peculiarly his at all--they already existed, implicitly but really,\nin the mind of the generation which he addressed. The elements of the\nconcept 'the Church' being what they were, Augustine's explanation of,\nor rather abolition of, Chiliasm follows of inevitable logical and\nintellectual necessity. It was the genius of Augustine that he\nrecognized and gave formulated, concrete expression to this accomplished\nfact and it is no derogation of his genius to say that had he never\nexisted the accomplished fact would eventually have been given\nexpression to by some one else.\n\nAnother little considered element in Chiliasm is that of masochism, and\nsadism, the two being merely the opposite sides of the same psychical\nphenomenon. This element is found more or less prominently in all the\nChiliastic literature from the early fragment of Papias to the elaborate\ndiscussions of Augustine. The masochistic phenomena are the most\nremarkable characteristics of the early martyrdoms and if a collection\nwere made of the masochistic passages of the writings of the Chiliasts,\nthe bulk of them would be as great as that of the Chiliastic passages\nproper.\n\nIt is necessary to bear in mind that masochism necessarily, in any\nadvanced society, disguises itself under some socially acceptable form\nof sentiment or emotion, i.e., admiration for the constancy of the\nconfessors or martyrs, suffering as a mark of the true Church, etc. It\nis always associated with the reality or idea of struggle. It has a high\n'survival value' in the struggle for existence by heightening individual\npower in conflict. Like other human characteristics it is seen most\nclearly in the exaggerated form it assumes in its crowd manifestations.\nIts most evident expression is in the 'mob mind.' Our problem, then, is\nto discover how the declension of Chiliasm is to be explained by the\ntransfer of the masochistic element in it to other vehicles of\nexpression. The masochistic element was a vital factor in Chiliasm;\nwithout it almost the whole force of 'the thousand years reign of the\nsaints' is lost. The explanation of the transfer is difficult.\nUndoubtedly some of the masochistic values of Chiliasm were taken over\nby the various, previously mentioned concepts that combined to make up\nthe idea of the Catholic Church. 'Extra ecclesia nulla salus' accounts\nfor part of the phenomena previously expressed Chiliastically. It is\nnotable in this connection that there is no word of Chiliasm in Cyprian.\nBut a more important transfer was that which took place in the course of\nthe development of the doctrine of purgatory. It may perhaps seem\nincongruous to say that purgatory took over the values of the millennium\nand from the point of view of formal theology it is so. But the only\npoint we are trying to make here, namely, the fundamental fact of the\nexpression of masochistic impulses, is as evidently shown in the\npurgatory as in the millennium concept. The desire for a heightened\nsense of self-realization, a richer content of experience, is the cause\nof the appearance of both concepts and they are closely allied\npsychologically. This fact comes out in the large part played by the\nChiliasts in the evolution of the purgatory concept.[35] What we find\nhere is a concurrent declension of Chiliasm and development of\npurgatory. For about two centuries the two concepts existed side by\nside; then the superior social value of purgatory asserting itself, that\ndoctrine gradually took over the masochistic values of Chiliasm; the\nsupersession of the later being rendered thereby more rapid and easy.\n\nHowever it is probably that the transfer of the psychological values\nfrom Chiliasm was more to be ascribed to the rising asceticism of the\nearly Church than to the concept of the Church as such, or even to the\nrise of the purgatory concept. Asceticism in some form is a permanent\nelement in any wide spread religion and the values later expressed in\nChristian asceticism were in the earlier period mediated through\nChiliasm. When St. Paul advocated abstinence from marriage 'because the\ntime is short' he was not expressing asceticism. He was expressing a\nsensible idea based on belief in one of the chief Chiliastic doctrines,\nthe immediate imminence of the Second Advent. In the case of such\nteachers as Tertullian the doctrine of marriage is the result of a\ncombination of Chiliasm and asceticism. At a later date asceticism took\nover the doctrine of celibacy as meritorious on its own account but it\nnever outgrew the original Chiliastic view that it was a logical\npreparation for the Second Advent. In other words restriction in\nmatrimony whether Chiliastic or monastic is due to the same inherent\nelement in human nature, i.e., the masochistic. Similarly those good\nPhrygian Chiliasts who abandoned all their possessions and went out into\nthe desert to meet the Lord were moved by the same psychological impulse\nthat actuated the monks of the Thebaid. Historically the one set of\nconcepts imperceptibly gave way to the other. Those same Thebaid monks\nare a good illustration of the fact. Some of them, at least in the\nearlier stages of the movement, were influenced more by Chiliastic\nconcepts than by monastic ones. Many were influenced by both. Here again\nthe superior value of the ascetic concepts for the ecclesiastical\norganization determined the eventual survival of the monastic\ninstitution. But whatever the conceptual images employed to give\nexpression to the masochistic impulse, that impulse was psychologically\nthe same. Organized monachism furnished a more convenient outlet for the\nstronger masochistic impulses than Chiliasm and so superseded it. The\nfact that monachism grew in proportion as Chiliasm declined is in this\nrespect merely a case of trans-shipment. The vehicle was different but\nthe goods carried were the same.\n\nThere are numerous other social and psychological, as well as economic\ncauses for the declension of Chiliasm but they can perhaps be more\nconveniently considered in connection with the socialization of the\nearly Church.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] F. Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, p. 314.\n\n[2] Cf. I Enoch XCI-CIV.\n\n[3] Cf. Parables in I Enoch XXXVII-LXXI.\n\n[4] Cf. Apocalypse of Baruch; 4 Ezra, 4 Maccabees.\n\n[5] Irenaeus Adv. Haer. V 33. II Baruch XXIX.\n\n[6] Hist. of Dogma, Vol. III, p. 19.\n\n[7] Ens. H. E. VI 27-2.\n\n[8] Justin Martyn, Tertullian, Lactantius.\n\n[9] Ad. Celsus LXI.\n\n[10] Sib. Orac. VIII, 148 seq.\n\n[11] Hippolytus, Com. on Daniel.\n\n[12] Strom. VII, 17; VI 16; IV 25; V 6, 14.\n\n[13] De Princ, II, 11.\n\n[14] Cf. e.g., A. R. Wallace, The World of Life.\n\n[15] Eus. H. E. VII 25.\n\n[16] Discourse on the Resurrection, I, 9 seq. See also Conviv. IX, 1, 5.\n\n[17] Ep. CII, 4.\n\n[18] Ep. CCLXIII, 4.\n\n[19] Cp. CCLXV, 2.\n\n[20] Frag. Dan. I, 5, 6.\n\n[21] De Christo et Antic. 50.\n\n[22] Instructions, LXXX.\n\n[23] Schaff Hist., ii, 855. Sec. LXVII of poem.\n\n[24] Comm. XX 4.5.\n\n[25] Comm. XX 1.3.\n\n[26] Div. Ins. Bk. 7 XXIV.\n\n[27] C.D. XX 7.\n\n[28] I.e., the Millennium.\n\n[29] C.D. XX 7.\n\n[30] Rev. XX.\n\n[31] De Prin. II, 11, 3.\n\n[32] De Prin. II, 11, 7.\n\n[33] City of God in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1st Series, Vol. II,\np. 427.\n\n[34] E.g., Lydia, Phrygia, The Thebaid.\n\n[35] Clem. Alex. Paed., iii, Strom. VII. Origen, Hom. on Num., XXV. Hom.\non Ps. XXVI. Lactantius, VII, 20.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE EARLY CHURCH AND PROPERTY CONCEPTS\n\n\nThe Chiliasm of the early Christians had a direct bearing upon their\nattitude toward the property institutions and property concepts of the\ntime. Neither the declension of Chiliasm nor the progressive\nsocialization of the Church can be understood without some consideration\nof the attitude of the Christians toward property, and conversely the\neffect of the existing economic system upon the Christians.\n\nThe early Church made its appearance in a world where the institution of\nprivate property was supreme in fact and very largely unquestioned in\ntheory. It is recognized with perfect clearness by all the ancient\nthinkers who refer to the subject that their civilization was based upon\nthe property rights of man in man. It is not true that slavery was\ninvariably considered part of the unalterable law of nature. Aristotle\nexpressly states that a sufficient development of mechanistic technology\nwould abrogate slavery. But such a technological development was not\nexpected nor indeed wished for. Contempt for mechanical processes of\nindustry was universal, with the dubious exception of the application of\nscience to military engines. There is a similar unanimity in regard to\ncommercial enterprise. Money obtained by ordinary mercantile methods was\nconsidered as dishonestly acquired. It was assumed as self-evident that\nthe merchant had to be a thief. Interest on money was of course\nreprobated as contrary to nature.[1] Return from landed property was\nalmost the only socially reputable form of income--with the exception of\nspoils of war. Free wage labor was so unimportant that the Roman law did\nnot even develop a set of legal principles regarding it.\n\nThe Jewish property system, which originally had some notable\npeculiarities of its own, had by the first century A.D. become of\nnecessity so like the Roman that the differences may for our purposes be\ndisregarded. The more so as Christianity very early came almost\nexclusively under the influence of the Roman institutions and concepts\nin this regard. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that Roman practice in\nregard to property was widely at variance with Roman theory, with the\nresult that serious moral disintegration came over persons engaging in\ncommercial enterprises. The moral lapses of the early Christians are\nlargely to be set down to this cause, on the principle that a\ndestruction of moral integrity in one respect makes other delinquencies\neasy.\n\nWith respect to the attitude of Christ towards contemporary property\ninstitutions, it is unnecessary for our purpose to regard any\nconclusions of modern criticism. The synoptic gospels were uncritically\naccepted by the early Church and we are concerned merely with what was\ncommonly accepted as the teaching of Christ.\n\nPerhaps as convenient a way as any of illustrating the breadth of view\nin Christ's attitude toward property institutions would be to take a\nsingle illustration and apply to it the whole range of property concepts\nfound in the teachings of Christ. No single illustration is so applied\nin the Gospels as we have them, but the principles will be the clearer\nfor the consistent use of the same illustration. We shall take as our\ntype case one which Christ himself used; the case of a thief who steals\na coat. The teachings of Christ about property can conveniently be put\ndown under four heads, each illustrating, by a different way of treating\nthe thief, a different property concept.\n\nFirst: The ordinary or conventional manner of treating the thief, based\non the concept of the morality and sacredness of private property; i.e.,\ncatching the thief, recovering the stolen property and punishing the\ncrime by fine or imprisonment or torture. This conventional standard of\nmorality and attitude towards property is illustrated, e.g., in the\nstory of the man with one talent in the parable. It is very concisely\nsummed up in the expression: \"To him that hath shall be given and he\nshall have abundance and from him that hath not shall be taken away even\nthat which he hath.\"\n\nSecond: What may be called for convenience the socialistic manner of\ntreating the thief--no implications either good or bad being intended by\nthe use of the term socialistic. This treatment would consist of\ncatching the thief, recovering the stolen property but letting the thief\ngo free with merely an admonition to future good behavior. This\ntreatment is based on the concept that the institution of private\nproperty has only a partial validity and that violations of private\nproperty rights are to be blamed not alone upon the violator but upon\nsociety at large in equal degree. This attitude is illustrated in the\ncase of the woman taken in adultery: \"Neither do I condemn thee; go and\nsin no more.\" The illustration is perhaps more apt than appears at first\nglance for female chastity is and was legally possessed of tangible\neconomic value i.e., adultery was viewed as a violation of a property\nright belonging to the husband of the adultress.\n\nThird: What may be termed the anarchistic manner of treating the\nthief--here again no implications either good or bad are intended by the\nemployment of the term anarchistic. This treatment consists essentially\nin pacificism, in Tolstoi's non-resistance. It is purely negative and\nallows the thief to get away with the stolen coat without anyone making\nany move to recover the property. This treatment is based on the concept\nthat private property institutions have no validity at all, but that the\nonly valid property arrangement is that of pure communism. This attitude\ntoward property is illustrated by such sayings of Christ as \"Of him that\ntaketh away thy goods ask them not again;\" \"Resist not him that is\nevil,\" etc.\n\nFourth: What may be distinguished as the specifically Christian manner\nof treating the thief--using the word Christian as appertaining strictly\nto the founder of the Church. This treatment consists of running after\nthe thief not for the purpose of capturing and punishing him; not even\nfor the purpose of recovering the stolen coat but for the purpose of\ngiving him a vest and an overcoat in addition to what he has stolen. It\namounts to the direct encouragement and reward of the thief for doing\nwhat is presumably a meritorious action by stealing. This way of\ntreating a thief is not socialistic, or communistic; it is not even\nanarchistic. It is something as far beyond anarchy, as anarchy is beyond\nsocialism, or socialism beyond ordinary conventional individualism. It\nis specifically and peculiarly and uniquely Christian, using that word\nas above defined. This treatment is not based on any concept of any kind\nof property institution. Its logical, intellectual position is the\ndenial of the validity or worth of any property institutions, private or\ncommunistic. It involves indeed the destruction of the very concept\nproperty as implying possession by right of social agreement. This\nattitude of Christ toward property finds expression in such sayings as:\n\"From him that taketh away thy cloke withhold not thy coat also.\"\n\"Blessed are ye poor.\" \"Woe unto you that are rich.\" It is easier for a\ncamel to go through the eye of a needle, etc. etc. The great bulk of\nChrist's statements about property are to be classified under this\nfourth head. The views are probably connected, with just what degree of\ncloseness it is impossible to say, to the belief in the immediately\nimminent catastrophe of the world. With somewhat less certainty, it may\nbe ventured that certain of Christ's sayings which we have listed as\nanarchistic are perhaps influenced by the same idea.\n\nIt is of course obvious that the above four fold division is not exact\nin the strict scientific sense, or that any teaching of Christ\nconcerning property can be unhesitatingly classified under one head or\nanother. Still less is anything intended to be implied as to the\nexistence or non-existence of any underlying, universal, theological\nprinciple which would reconcile apparent divergencies. Theological\nmetaphysics as such, lie outside the scope of this chapter which is\nintended as an objective study of concepts of property. From an\nobjective point of view it is evident that the four divisions\nimperceptibly shade into one another and form a continuous series,\nnevertheless for the sake of convenience it may be considered as\napproximating a rational organization of the material under distinct\nheads.\n\nImmediately after the time of Christ the Christians in Jerusalem\ndeveloped a communistic organization. \"All that believed were together\nand had all things in common and sold their possessions and goods and\nparted them to all men, as every man had need.\" \"Neither said any of\nthem that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they\nhad all things common. Neither was there any among them that lacked; for\nas many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the\nprices of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet;\nand distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.\"[2]\n\nIt is doubtless true that the participants in this communistic society\nbelieved themselves to be living according to the principles and\nprecepts of Christ. Yet there is some evidence which would lead to the\nconclusion that perhaps this experiment was less a deliberate and\nreasoned out endeavor to organize a permanent society on a new economic\nbasis, than an instinctive movement, entered upon under the influence of\na belief in the immediately imminent second advent of Christ and\ntherefore expected to be of only very limited duration. The collections\nsubsequently taken up in other Christian communities 'for the relief of\nthe poor saints in Jerusalem' would seem to lend color to this view of\nthe matter.\n\nIn St. Paul's teaching about property there is a fundamental\ninconsistency. He makes statements which taken separately are applicable\nto particular situations but which are not in harmony with one another.\nHe loyally supported the established right of private property, even in\nslaves. But at another time he pronounced that property right depended\nupon service rendered. In one place we have: \"Slaves obey your masters\"\nin another: \"If any will not work neither let him eat.\" But if a man's\nslaves obey him he can eat without working. There is no suggestion of\ncommunism in St. Paul's writings. If all the 'property passages' in the\nepistles are collected and read in connection with their contexts two\nfacts come into prominence, First: Property institutions as such have\nonly a relative validity. They are not viewed as ends valuable in\nthemselves but are subordinated to religious ends, and the concept of an\nimmediately imminent second advent lies at the base of this relative\nvaluation.[3] Second: Economic arrangements of the existing social\norder, like similar political arrangements, are to be strictly conformed\nto, in spite of their merely relative validity, for fear of jeopardizing\nthe more important religious movement.[4] St. Paul whether consciously\nor not, is, in regard to social institutions, an evolutionary\nrevolutionist. He would doubtless have been the first to admit that his\ndoctrine of human brotherhood, for example, would eventually overthrow\nhis doctrine of slavery, supposing--as there is no ground for thinking\nhe did suppose--that time enough elapsed for his doctrine of brotherhood\nto permeate the general social consciousness. In so far as property\nconcepts are concerned it would probably be difficult to maintain that\nthere is any essential divergence between the teachings of St. Paul and\nsome at least of the teachings of Christ. St. Paul was by nature an\necclesiastical statesman. He seems to have taken such of Christ's\nproperty concepts as served his purposes and ignored the others.\n\nIn the epistle of St. James are to be found very bitter complaints as to\nthe working of property institutions. These complaints are so serious as\nto suggest the inevitable attempt to make over the institutions and the\nfact that no such attempt is indicated is due to the manifestly lively\nexpectation of the second advent. Yet even so it was necessary for the\nwriter to council patience to his brethren.[5]\n\nIn the Revelation there is a passage, xviii, 12 seq., quite in the\nmanner of the most violent of the ancient prophets or the modern\nanarchists. In this passage property is conceived as evil and the\ndestruction of civilization as it then was, is conceived as a cause of\nrejoicing to saints, apostles, and prophets. On the other hand the New\nJerusalem in the same book[6] is a 'wholesale jewelers paradise' and\ninvolves the property concepts of those cities of Asia Minor who did\nmost of the jewelry manufacturing of the Roman Empire. It is very\ndoubtful how far anything in such a description can be said to embody\nproperty concepts but the ideal put forth is the communistic enjoyment\nof incredible luxury.\n\nThe epistle of Clement of Rome has only incidental references to\nproperty. They can be well summed up in the quotation:[7] \"Let the rich\nman provide for the wants of the poor; and let the poor man bless God,\nbecause He hath given him one by whom his need may be supplied.\" There\nis manifestly no question of tampering with received property\ninstitutions and concepts on the part of the writer of such a sentence.\nIt is equally evident that such an attitude in regard to property is\neminently well calculated to enable the holder to propagate specifically\ntheological opinions with a minimum of interested opposition.\n\nThe Didache holds a na\u00efve and touching communistic creed.[8] \"Thou shalt\nnot turn away from him that hath need but shalt share all things with\nthy brother and shalt not say that they are thine own.\" This passage,\nthe only one on the subject in the Didache, would seem to indicate that\nthe institution of private property existed as a matter of fact in the\nwriter's community, but that the validity of it was not acknowledged.\nThe position may perhaps be called one of conceptual and constructive\ncommunism.\n\nThe Epistle of Barnabas holds exactly the same view in almost exactly\nthe same words:[9] \"Thou shalt communicate to thy neighbor all that thou\nhast, thou shalt not call anything thine own.\"\n\nEarly in the second century we come upon the Ebionites who in the matter\nof property held very strong views.[10] The stricter of them made\npoverty a condition of salvation. They refused to acknowledge the\nvalidity of the concept property--that is in theory. In practice some of\nthem seem to have been influenced by the doctrine and practice of the\nEssenes in regard to communism.\n\nAll through the second century we find a continuous succession of\nheretical sects, Gnostics and others, who held either the doctrine of\nthe wickedness of property-ownership as such, 'holy poverty,' or else\nobjected to individual ownership of property and preached or practiced\ncommunism in such degree as might be possible under the circumstances.\nOf these sects it is sufficient to name the Marcionites 110 A.D. The\nCarpocratians 135 A.D. The Procidians 160 A.D.(?) The Basilidians 138\nA.D. It is evident that there was in progress in the second century an\nascetic movement which later took on the forms of Manichaeism and\nChristian asceticism. The Church consistently opposed all these sects\nand maintained the validity of private property without condemning\ncommunism as such, except in extreme cases, such as that of Epiphanes of\nAlexandria, a Carpocriation, who in a book on Justice, 125 A.D., defined\nvirtue as consisting in absolute communism of goods and women.\n\nTo return to orthodox Christianity, Hermas shows very clearly the\ninconsistencies which beset Christian theory and practice in the first\nhalf of the second century. All who are rich must be deprived of their\nwealth in order to be good Christians.[11] Yet this deprivation of\nwealth must be only relative; there must be wealth enough left for the\ngiving of alms.[12] There is no trace of communism in Hermas and no\npraise of poverty as such. The chief justification for the existence of\nproperty institutions would seem to be that they are social structures\nwhich can be utilized for the giving and receiving of alms. Perhaps one\nparagraph is worth quoting as giving possibly the earliest formulation\nextant of the property concepts that finally became dominant. \"The rich\nman has much wealth but is poor in matters relating to the Lord because\nhe is distracted about his riches and he offers very few confessions and\nintercessions to the Lord and those which he does offer are small and\nweak, and have no power above. But when the rich man refreshes the poor\nand assists him in his necessities, believing that which he does to the\npoor man will be able to find its reward with God--because the poor man\nis rich in intercessions and confession and his intercession has great\npower with God--then the rich man helps the poor in all things without\nhesitation; and the poor man, being helped by the rich, intercedes for\nhim, giving thanks to God for him who bestows gifts upon him. And he\nstill continues earnestly to interest himself for the poor man, that his\nwant may be constantly supplied. For he knows that the intercession of\nthe poor man is acceptable and influential with God. Both accordingly\naccomplish their work. The poor man makes intercession; a work in which\nhe is rich, which he received from the Lord, and with which he\nrecompenses the master who helps him. And the rich man in like manner,\nunhesitatingly bestows upon the poor man the riches which he received\nfrom the Lord. And this is a great work and acceptable before God,\nbecause he understands the object of his wealth and has given to the\npoor of the gifts of the Lord and rightly discharged his service to\nHim.\"[13]\n\nThe inconsistent and irreconcilable nature of the evidence about early\nChristian property institutions is well illustrated in Justin Martyr.\nTwo short extracts are sufficient for the purpose. \"We who valued above\nall things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we\nhave into a common stock and communicate to every one in need.\"[14] \"We\ncarry on us all we possess and share everything with the poor.\"[15]\n\nThe second of these passages would indicate that the first is not to be\ntaken in a too literal and comprehensive sense. It may perhaps be\nventured as an opinion that the truth of the matter, as regards the\nChristians of whom Justin wrote, is that the concept of private property\nwas largely invalidated and that personal possessions were thought of as\nowned in common while the 'common stock' consisted in reality of\ncontributions--it may be large contributions--given for the relief of\nnecessity among the members.\n\nThe account preserved to us in Lucian of the Christian communities of\nJudea in the later half of the second Century would seem to bear out\nthis opinion. Lucian says: \"The activity of these people in dealing with\nany matter that affects their community is something extraordinary. They\nspare no trouble, no expense. Peregrine all this time was making quite\nan income on the strength of his bondage. Money came pouring in. You see\nthese misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they\nare immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and\nvoluntary self devotion which are so common among them and then it was\nimpressed upon them by their original law giver that they are all\nbrothers from the moment that they are converted and deny the gods of\nGreece and worship the crucified sage and live after his laws. All this\nthey take quite on trust with the result that they despise all worldly\ngoods alike, regarding them merely as common property.\"[16]\n\nIn Tertullian we find the same contradiction as regards private\nownership and communism which has already been noted in Justin. The\ncontradiction is more glaring, but possibly the explanation of the real\nsituation is similar. The following two extracts from the same chapter\nbring this contradiction out in high relief: \"Family possessions which\ngenerally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among\nus. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods\nwith one another. All things are common among us but our wives.\" \"On the\nmonthly collection day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but\nonly if it be his pleasure and only if he be able, for there is no\ncompulsion, all is voluntary.\"[17]\n\nTertullian was a Montanist and one of the most serious charges made\nagainst the Montanists was that some of their prophets received interest\non money loaned by them.[18] Tertullian is above suspicion in this\nrespect. He demonstrates by quotations from both the Old and New\nTestaments that it is absolutely contradictory to Christianity. Interest\non money is the only property institution in regard to which the\nteaching of the early Church is consistent. Every reference we have in\nregard to this practice condemns it--not mildly as a venial offense--but\nfiercely and savagely as a heinous crime like incest or murder.\n\"Fenerare est hominem occidere\" is a favorite formula. In this respect\nthe most pronounced apologists of private wealth like Clement of\nAlexandria are in perfect accord with the most pronounced communists\nlike Tertullian. The only difference to be noted is one of emphasis. In\nthe earlier writers there are relatively few references to interest,\nwhich may perhaps be due to the fact that in the earlier time there were\nrelatively few Christians possessed of surplus means requiring\ninvestment. As might naturally be expected, the writers of the period\nafter the establishment of Christianity as a legal religion make more\nfrequent and more bitter reference to the matter. The vehemence of\ndenunciation indulged in by these later writers almost exceeds\ncredibility. The most improbable and strained exegesis is resorted to in\nan effort to explain away the words of Christ in the parables of the\npounds and talents. But this vehemence is by no means confined to the\nNicene and post-Nicene fathers. So statesmanlike a bishop as Cyprian, in\na long railing accusation against certain opposition bishops brings\nforth as their final sin that they had \"multiplied gain by usury.\"[19]\nUsury is not to be taken, of course, in its present sense of excessive\nor burdensome interest and it is evident that Cyprian did not use it in\nsuch a sense. He is simply condemning interest as such. In the minds of\nthe early Christians the difference between taking five percent interest\nor fifty percent was exactly the same as the difference between stealing\none dollar or ten. The sin was essentially the same irrespective of the\nparticular amount involved. Indeed this comparison is scarcely a valid\none; for taking interest was conceived as a much worse sin than plain\nrobbery. It is perhaps worth noting that the moral distinction between\ninterest and usury is of very late development. The credit, if it be\nsuch, of making it, is to be ascribed to Calvin and is not unconnected\nwith the predilection of certain types of pecuniary interest for that\nreformer's system of ecclesiastical polity. The Roman law did indeed fix\na maximum legal rate of interest, varying at different times and even\nat the same time for different forms of commercial risk. During the\nfirst three centuries A.D. it was, for example, consistently twelve\npercent on ships and varied from six to twelve percent on other forms of\ninvestment. But this has little moral connotation.\n\nEarly Christian condemnation of interest on loans was by no means\nconfined to the expression of opinion by church writers. Council after\ncouncil legislated against it with ever increasing severity. The\nforty-fourth Apostolic Canon prohibited the practice to clerics. The\nCouncil of Elvira 310 A.D. forbade it to both clerics and laity. The\nCouncil of Arles 314 A.D. provided that clerics guilty of the practice\nshould be deposed from the ministry. The seventeenth canon of the\nCouncil of Nicea 325 A.D. provided that they should be excommunicated.\nThe penalty is reiterated in the twelfth canon of the First Council of\nCarthage 345 A.D. There is no need to continue the list. It is\nsufficient to say that nearly every council whose canons have come down\nto us has legislation against interest. Again and again it is absolutely\nforbidden to clergy and laity alike under the severest ecclesiastical\npenalties--and it is necessary to remember that after 325 A.D. these\npenalties could, if need be, be enforced by governmental authority.\n\nThis attitude of the early Church toward interest on loans is a matter\nof very considerable historical importance. Although, as we shall\nendeavor to show later, the ecclesiastical laws were frequently and\nlargely evaded, they still had such influence that their contribution to\nthe sum of economic forces which accomplished the overthrow of ancient\ncivilization is by no means an insignificant one. Nor did the influence\nof this attitude cease at the fall of Rome. It rather increased\nthereafter and for several centuries, the so-called \"Dark Ages,\"\ncivilization was strangled by the power of this idea of the sin of\nusury. To this day the Roman Church regards interest on money as a\nreprehensible thing which, however, is not, for practical reasons, to be\nspoken of as sinful by the clergy.[20] This attitude has been no\ninconsiderable factor in the relatively late industrial development in\nCatholic countries.\n\nThe early Christian concept of interest was not an idea original with\nChristianity. It was not derived from Christ at all. It was taken over\nbodily from Old Testament Judaism and contemporary pagan philosophy. It\nis a well known fact that the views of Plato and Aristotle, of Cicero\nand Seneca on interest, correspond in a very astonishing way to the\nviews of Deuteronomy and Isaiah, of the Psalms and Ezekiel. The strength\nof the concept in the early Church was due to this fact. In regard to no\nother concept was there such a unanimity of opinion. The Christian\nconvert found that the sacred scriptures of his new faith confirmed in\nthe strongest language the condemnation of interest which he had become\nfamiliar with from the writings of the noblest pagan philosophers. When\nreason and religion were in accord it is not wonderful that their\njudgment was accepted--as a theory.\n\nIn spite of this union of pagan philosophers and Hebrew prophets, of\nChristian Fathers and Ecclesiastical Canons, the condemnation and\nprohibition of interest on money was a theory only. A very ordinary\nknowledge of classical civilization is sufficient to explain the reason\nof this. More nearly than any other institution, the financial machinery\nof antiquity corresponds to that of modern life. Trusts and millionaires\nwere phenomena of their economic life as of ours. Banks were numerous\nand ubiquitous. They were of all sizes and degrees; from the great\nmetropolitan corporation with correspondents all over the civilized\nworld, to the hated money lender in a shabby office on a side street.\nThe great bankers were men of the first importance in society. From\ntheir number were regularly recruited the officials of the imperial\ntreasury. They were almost without exception men of the strictest\nfinancial integrity. The Roman banking laws protected the depositor more\nsecurely than the laws of any modern nation, and these Roman laws were\nrigidly enforced. Every banking institution had to obtain government\nauthorization in order to do business and this authorization was\nwithdrawn on the discovery of the smallest discrepancy in the accounts.\nThe regular rate of interest on ordinary deposits was four percent;\nunder certain peculiar conditions the rate went as low as two and a half\nand as high as six percent. The rate published by a bank had to be paid\neven though payment swept away the banker's entire private property. The\nbanker lost everything before the depositor lost anything. The banks\nwere used by the government in carrying out such fiscal measures as\ncould not be conveniently handled by the treasury department directly.\nThey played a still more important part in the ordinary commercial life\nof the times. A relatively small volume of business was, or could be,\ncarried on by transfers of specie. The great bulk of commercial\ntransactions were of necessity carried on by checks, drafts, discounts,\nbills of exchange and similar instruments of credit. It was a\nmatter of simple impossibility for any man in ordinary commercial or\nindustrial life to carry on his business for even a single day without\nparticipating directly or indirectly in transactions involving loans and\ninterest.\n\nOur excuse for reciting these commonplace details of Roman commercial\nlife is that their very commonplaceness explains the discrepancy between\nearly Christian theory and practice in the matter of interest. It would\nbe an easy task to convict the early Christians of hypocritical pretense\nin this regard. Nothing more would be necessary than to print their\ntheory in one column and their practice in a parallel one. Yet the early\nChristians were not hypocrites. As regards sincerity of profession they\ncompare very favorably with any religionists of any age. As a matter of\nfact the historians have long ago shown that it is altogether impossible\nand unjust to argue from a sect's opinions to their feelings and\nactions. To quote Macauley[21] \"Only imagine a man acting for one single\nday on the supposition that all his neighbors believe all that they\nprofess or act up to all that they believe. Imagine a man acting on the\nsupposition that he may safely offer the deadliest injuries and insults\nto everybody who says that revenge is sinful; or that he may safely\nintrust all his property without security to any person who says it is\nwrong to steal. Such a character would be too absurd for the wildest\nfarce.\" \"The law which is inscribed on the walls of the synagogues\nprohibits covetousness. But if we were to say that a Jew mortgagee would\nnot foreclose because God had commanded him not to covet his neighbor's\nhouse, everybody would think us out of our wits.\"[22] Yet that Jew is no\nhypocrite in his religion. He is sincerely and honestly devoted to his\nfaith and will sacrifice time and money; will undergo social obloquy and\ncontempt in support of it. So it was with the early Christians. By the\nprocess of abstracting their theory and practice of interest from the\nsocial matrix which alone makes the theory or practice intelligible, it\nis easy to show a logical inconsistency. It would be equally foolish and\nfalse to deduce from this inconsistency any conclusions one way or the\nother as to early Christian morality. It is if course no aim of this\nthesis to attack or defend any religious or moral opinions. It is a\nmatter entirely apart from our present concern to evaluate interest or\nnon-interest in ethical terms. Our purpose is not to explain away the\ninconsistency of the early Christians. Admitting the inconsistency in\nthe fullest degree, our aim is to explain it as natural, and, under the\nsocial conditions then prevailing, practically inevitable. The early\nChristians left funds to care in perpetuity for the family burial\nlot.[23] Under any religious creed; Pagan, Jewish, or Christian, decent\nprovision for the care of graves of relatives was not only admissible,\nit was a positive demand of social reputability; to say nothing of the\ndemand of natural affection.\n\nSimilarly annual agapes were established by bequests as a charity to the\npoor brethren.[24] These agapes were no innovation. As an institution\nthey were perfectly familiar and in universal observance among the\npagans. The agapes were simply ordinary Roman silicernia with the name\nchanged. To the Romans, founding a silicernium was like wearing a toga\nor going to a bath. It possessed the sanction of law and the benediction\nof religion; but its real compulsion lay in social custom. No person\ncould escape this pressure of the mores and retain self respect, to say\nnothing of the respect of others. The pagan silicernium was morally\nrespectable; it perpetuated friendship and promoted good feeling. There\nwas no reason for avoiding it, if avoidance had been possible--as it was\nnot. The Christians not only preserved this pious institution; they\nimproved it. Their annual agapes fed the poor, which the silicernia,\nexcellent as they were, seldom did.\n\nThe explanation we have endeavored to give of the endowment of family\nburial lots and annual agapes is applicable, mutis mutandis, to other\ncases of interest. It therefore is not surprising to learn that\nCallixtus (pope 218-223 A.D.) was a banker previous to his elevation to\nthe papacy; that large numbers of Christians, particularly widows and\norphans--entrusted their money to his bank, and that he had large loans\nout at good interest to Jewish bankers.[25]\n\nThe truth is that the early Christian horror of interest, while\nabsolutely honest and even desperately sincere, was a strictly\nlegalistic, ceremonial, and ritualistic horror. It was purely formal and\nwas not at all concerned with any economic principle. The thing that was\nwicked, was not income from capital invested, but income _in the form of\ninterest on money_. To own a ship and sail it and make profits from\nownership by freight charges was perfectly honest, but to invest money\nin a shipping corporation and receive dividends was wicked. So it was\nhonest to own a building and get money as rent. It was immoral to invest\nmoney in the construction company that erected that building and receive\nincome in the form of interest. Rent, profit, and interest are merely\nthree forms of the same thing, income from invested capital. Any\nendeavor to distinguish between them in this respect is entirely devoid\nof moral or economic justification. The ancient Church fathers were as\nwell aware of this as we are. The real point and importance of their\nconcept of interest was their defense of that concept. That defense was\na curious one and illustrates the difference between ancient and modern\nreasoning on economic matters--and on other matters also. The difference\nin a word is that of mistaking means for ends on the theory of course\nthat we moderns are right and the prophets, philosophers, Christian\nfathers, et al. wrong. According to modern social science, interest is\nmerely a means adopted for the attainment of certain ends--economic,\neducational, religious or whatever. The goodness or badness of interest\nis to be judged strictly and solely by the convenience and economy with\nwhich it serves these ends. If any other property institution can, in a\ngiven situation, serve a given end more easily and more cheaply than the\ninstitution of interest, then, in that situation, the institution of\ninterest--other things being equal--is immoral and should be abolished.\nIf, in the given situation, no other property institution can serve the\ngiven end more easily and more cheaply than the institution of interest,\nthen that institution is moral and should be retained. That is, from the\nmodern sociological point of view, the institution of interest is\ninconceivable except as a means to some end outside itself. As a means\nit is to be judged in a purely objective and pragmatic manner by the\nordinary standards of cost price, economic, social, and other.\n\nThe method of the ancients is entirely otherwise. Assuming still the\ncorrectness of the modern viewpoint, which viewpoint be it said is not\nunassailable and indeed is assailed by divers radicals, socialists and\nothers, but for the most part persons lacking in pecuniary reputability;\nthe mistake then, that the Early Church fathers make is that of taking\nthe means for an end. They have many arguments against interest but all\nthese arguments can be criticised for this one error. The fathers\nelevate interest to the dignity of an end in itself. Interest, qua\ninterest, is condemned. It is taking advantage of a brother's necessity.\nIt is grinding the face of the poor. It is producing pride, luxury, and\nvice. As soon as moral value is attached to anything, it of course, is\nviewed as an end in itself. If it be true that interest is an end in\nitself, then the fiercest diatribes of the fathers are none too severe.\nAssuming their premises, their conclusions follow inevitably. The modern\nman--he is not unknown--who talks about the \"sacred rights\" of private\nproperty is guilty of the same error as the ancient Christians, the\nerror of mistaking means for ends. The early Christians could not see\nthat the property institution of interest is neither good nor bad except\nas it is good or bad _for something_. The _something_ determines the\njudgment. As a matter of historical fact the condemnation of interest\ndeveloped in certain early stages of human civilization and at those\nstages interest was socially detrimental. At those stages, however, it\nwas exceedingly rare and correspondingly infamous. In any country where\nthere is abundance of good, free land the phenomenon of interest on\nmoney will disappear, provided labor is free. So it disappeared in the\nnorthern states of this Union in the later part of the 18th century.\nThese phenomena caused the southerners to adopt slavery though all their\nEnglish traditions had declared it immoral for more than three\ncenturies. The relation of interest to slavery under a condition of free\nland is the relation of cause and effect, i.e., the requirement of\ninterest will produce slavery and the abolition of interest will abolish\nslavery.[26] These social phenomena are of importance in our\nconsideration of the early Christian doctrine of interest. That doctrine\nwas largely evaded and disobeyed but it still had great effect and that\neffect was toward the abolition of slavery. We do not mean that this\neconomic doctrine alone resulted in the abolition of slavery, or even\nthat it was a chief cause in the abolition of slavery, it was not obeyed\nwell enough to be such a chief cause; but so far as it was obeyed, it\ntended in that direction.\n\nThe net result of all Christian teaching together was to prolong the\nexistence of the institution of slavery for two centuries, perhaps for\nthree. The doctrine of the sinfulness of interest however, worked toward\nemancipation and forced slavery in its later end to become almost wholly\nagricultural, i.e., to yield income as rent. Slaves cannot be employed\nin commerce or industry in sufficient numbers to be profitable where the\ninstitution of interest is banned as it was in the 'dark ages.' The\nChristian concept of interest undermined ancient civilization by\nabrogating, slowly but surely, the institution of property by which such\ngangs of 'manufacturing slaves' as made the fortune of Crassus, could\nalone be made profitable. It is an historical curiosity that it\naccomplished this result without any attack on the institution of\nslavery itself.\n\nAs soon as Christian doctrines became widespread enough to produce\nimportant social results we find Christian slave owners manumitting\ntheir slaves in considerable numbers. It is no derogation to the\ninfluence of the doctrine of human brotherhood or to the humanity of the\nChristian slave owners to mention the fact that the doctrine of the\nsinfulness of interest, by tending to make slavery unprofitable, aided\nin the process of bringing to light the real content of the doctrine of\nhuman brotherhood, and of making the humane practice of manumission\neasier by the removal of certain economic impediments.\n\nIn order to understand properly the working of the prohibition of\ninterest and its relation to manumission, it is necessary to carry the\nanalysis one step farther to its ultimate physical basis, which was the\nconditioning factor of actual practice and eventually of theory also.\nThe exhaustion of the soil of western Europe which was the result of\nancient methods of agriculture, together with the rising standard of\nliving and the competition of other more fertile agricultural regions\nlike Egypt and North Africa resulted in the substitution of the\nlatifundi for small landholdings.[27] As the pressure continued the\nlatifundi in turn became economically unprofitable under forced labor\n(slavery) and large tracts of land were abandoned. In order to put this\nland under agriculture again the charge upon it had to be reduced by the\nsubstitution of (relatively) free associated labor, villeinage or\nserfdom. But this change cut off the economic margin upon which the\nstructure of ancient civilization was built and is the ultimate economic\nreason assignable for the fall of Rome. Of course the collapse of the\nempire could, theoretically, have been avoided had the Romans of the\nfirst three centuries A.D. been content to live the toilsome and frugal\nlife of the Romans of the early republic. But this was an utter\nimpossibility in practice. This slowly working and hardly understood\ndecline in the relative and actual ability of ancient agriculture to\nsustain the weight imposed upon it, enables us to see why the sinfulness\nof interest could be steadily indoctrined even though steadily evaded,\nby Christians from the beginning, while manumission was not taught at\nall in the beginning and only worked up to the dignity of a pious action\nrelatively late.[28] It also explains why manumission of household and\npersonal slaves preceded that of agricultural slaves. Of course there is\nnothing peculiarly Christian about this later phenomenon and the\noperation of other causes is discernable, but it is important for our\npurpose to observe that Christian practice, and Christian theory in\nproperty matters in the long run, followed the broad lines of the\nunderlying economic evolution.[29] The application of this to the origin\nof Christian monasticism and to the revival of communistic theories by\nthe later Church fathers lies at the very outside limit of our study but\nwill be briefly touched on after we have considered the final overthrow\nof the communistic property concept as they appear in the earlier\nfathers up to and including Tertullian.\n\nClement of Alexandria 153-217 A.D. has the distinction of being the\nfirst Christian theological writer who clearly expounds the concept of\nprivate property which has held sway without substantial change in the\nChurch until the present time. This statement does not apply to the\ndoctrine of receiving interest on money. In respect to this doctrine\nClement is in perfect accord with all other early Christians both\nbefore and after himself. Indeed he specifically states that the Mosaic\nprohibition against taking interest from one's brother extends in the\ncase of a Christian to all mankind. But in regard to all other property\ninstitutions Clement's attitude is essentially that of any modern\nChristian of generous disposition.\n\nIn all that Clement has to say about property, and the 'bulk' of his\n'property passages' is as great as that of all previous Christian\nwriters together, he speaks like a man on the defensive. Indeed there\nhas come down to us no other Christian writing earlier than his time\nwhich presents his view, with the dubious exception of some passages in\nHermas. The fact seems to be that while Clement is undoubtedly\npresenting an apologetic for the existing practice in the Church of his\nday, that practice was felt to be more or less open to attack in the\nlight of certain scripture passages. Communism as an existential\nreality was gone by the time of Clement--whatever may have been the\nextent--probably a limited one--to which it had existed in the earlier\nages. But while communism as a fact was dead, communism as an idea or\nideal of Christian economy was not dead. Indeed Clement's views about\nthe morality of wealth were so different from those of previous writers\nthat a great modern economist[30] in treating of this subject ventures\nthe opinion, though doubtfully, that the reason why Clement, alone among\nthe great early theologians, was never canonized by the Church was that\nhe ran counter to popular belief on this subject. This opinion is\nprobably erroneous. Clement's theological opinions have a semi-Gnostic\ntinge quite sufficient to explain the absence of his name from the\ncalendar of saints.\n\nClement justifies the institution of private property. He justifies, on\nthe highest ethical and philosophical principles, the possession by\nChristians of even the most enormous wealth. His apologetic is not an\noriginal one. He borrows it bodily from Plato. Indeed he quotes Plato\nverbatim, invocation to Pan and the other heathen gods included.[31] The\noriginality lies in applying this Platonic doctrine to the exposition of\nChristian scripture. Clement's method is strictly that of Biblical\nexegesis. In the well known sermon or essay on: \"Who is the Rich Man\nthat shall be saved\" he takes up practically all of the scriptural\npassages which seem opposed to the institutions of private property and\nexplains them in so modern a spirit that the whole sermon might be\ndelivered today in any ordinary Church and would be readily accepted as\nsound and reliable doctrine. His thesis is that wealth or poverty are\nmatters in themselves indifferent. That riches are not to be bodily\ngotten rid of, but are to be wisely conserved and treated as a\nstewardship intrusted to the owner by God. That charity to the poor\nshould be in proportion to one's wealth and that a right use of wealth\nwill secure salvation to the upright Christian even though he possesses\ngreat riches all his life and leaves them to his heirs. The wealth that\nis dangerous to the soul is not physical possessions, but spiritual\nqualities of greed and avarice.\n\nHis views can be best expressed by himself. We give two characteristic\npassages from the sermon above referred to.[32] \"Rich men that shall\nwith difficulty enter into the kingdom, is to be apprehended in a\nscholarly way, not awkwardly, or rustically, or carnally. For if the\nexpression is used thus, salvation does not depend upon external things,\nwhether they be many or few, small or great, or illustrious or obscure\nor esteemed or disesteemed; but on the virtue of the soul, on faith and\nhope and love and brotherliness, and knowledge, and meekness and\nhumility and truth the reward of which is salvation.\" \"Sell thy\npossessions. What is this? He does not, as some off hand conceive, bid\nhim throw away the substance he possesses and abandon his property; but\nhe bids him banish from his soul his notions about wealth, his\nexcitement and morbid feeling about it, the anxieties, which are the\nthorns of existence which choke the seed of life. And what peculiar\nthing is it that the new creature, the Son of God intimates and teaches?\nIt is not the outward act which others have done, but something else\nindicated by it, greater, more godlike, more perfect, the stripping off\nof the passions from the soul itself and from the disposition, and the\ncutting up by the roots and casting out of what is alien to the mind.\"\n\"One, after ridding himself of the burden of wealth, may none the less\nhave still the lust and desire for money innate and living; and may have\nabandoned the use of it, but being at once destitute of and desiring\nwhat he spent may doubly grieve both on account of the absence of\nattendance and the presence of regret.\"[33]\n\nWe have now come to the beginning of what is in many respects the most\ninteresting period in the history of property concepts. It is a period\nin which everything is upside down and wrong end to. In that strange age\nwe find a famous archbishop, one of the world's noblest orators, a man\nof the most spotless integrity and the most saintly life, publicly\npreaching in the foremost pulpit of Christendom doctrines of property,\nthe implications of which, the most hardened criminal would scarcely\nventure to breathe to a gang of thieves.[34] We find the most learned\nscholar of the century, in the weightiest expositions of Christian\nScripture, penning the most powerful apologetic of anarchy that is to be\nfound in the literature of the world.[35] We find one of the greatest of\nthe popes, a man whose genius as a statesman will go down to the latest\nages of history, setting forth in a manual for the instruction of\nChristian bishops, property concepts more radical than those of the\nfiercest Jacobins in the bloodiest period of the Terror.[36]\n\nStranger still, these incredible performances are the strongest proofs\nof the wisdom and piety of the men responsible for them. These men are\ntoday honored as the saviors of civilized religion and their images in\nbronze and marble and painted glass adorn the proudest temples of the\nmost conservative denominations of Christians. The strange history of\nthese famous men: Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil and Chrysostom in\nthe East; Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome and Gregory in the West, lies\noutside the limits of our study. But the explanation of their desperate\nand uncompromising communism can be given in a word. It was the\ncommunism of crisis: the communism of shipwrecked sailors forced to\ntrust their lives to a frail lifeboat with an insufficient supply of\nprovisions. These great Christian scholars, enriched by all the\naccumulated culture of their civilization, saw that culture falling into\nruin all around them; they felt the foundations of that civilization\ntrembling beneath their feet. To vary the figure, they beheld the rising\ntide of ignorance and barbarism rapidly engulfing the world and with\ndesperate haste they set to work rebuilding and strengthening the ark of\nthe Church that in it, religion, and so much of civilization as\npossible, might be saved till the flood subsided. Their task, perhaps\nthe most important and most urgent, that men have ever had to perform,\nwas of such a nature that they cared not what they wrecked in order to\naccomplish it. They ripped up the floor of the bridal chamber for timber\nand took the doors of the bank-safe for iron.\n\nThese rhetorical figures are violent; but they are less violent than the\nreality they are intended to express. Monasticism was the last desperate\nhope of civilized Christianity and these men knew it. To establish\nmonasticism they degraded the sanctity of marriage and denounced the\nsacredness of property. They conferred the most sacred honors upon the\nlowliest drudgery;[37] they turned princes into plowmen and nobles into\nbreakers of the soil. Some historians, judging them by the different\nstandards of a later age, have pronounced them fanatics led astray by\nvulgar superstition. But judged by the needs of their own age, judged by\nthe inestimable services rendered to the world by the monastic system\nthey instituted, they are entitled to a place far up in the list of the\nwisest and the ablest of the human kind.\n\nSketchy and imperfect as the above study necessarily is, it nevertheless\ngives the primary facts which are essential to an understanding of the\nimportant part played by property concepts and property institutions in\nthe transformation of early Christianity from a predominantly\neschatological to a practically socialized movement.\n\nWe have seen,[38] that the earliest generations of Christians took over\nfrom contemporary Judaism a strongly Chiliastic eschatology. The logical\nconsequence of such an eschatology is an indifference to, or\nundervaluation of, the existing social arrangements including the\nproperty concepts and institutions. One form easily taken by this\nindifference and undervaluation is that of practical communism. We\naccordingly find in the Acts and in such early writings as the Didache\nand the Epistle of Barnabas a distinctly communistic theory and the\ntraces of more or less effort to put this theory into some degree of\npractical effect. Chiliasm and communism in these writers go together\nnaturally.\n\nPari passu with this logical, communistic Chiliasm we can trace the\ndevelopment of an illogical, individualistic Chiliasm in St. Paul,\nClement of Rome and Hermas. It is already manifest even at this early\nstage, that the weight of influence and power of control in the\nChristian societies is on the side of the individualists. This is due to\ntwo causes. In the first place the communists among the Christians\nworked under a great handicap. The underlying economic institutions of\nsociety can indeed be changed. But they can be changed--on any\nconsiderable scale--only very slowly and by enormous effort. At any\nattempt to change them a thousand interested and determined antagonists\nat once arise. It is not too much to say that had all Christians\ninsisted upon communism as an essential element of the Christian faith\nand practice, Christianity in the Roman world could never have developed\ninto anything more than an unimportant sect. The very fact that\nChristianity spread as rapidly as it did in the first century of its\nexistence is proof that the communists in the Church made very little\nheadway. It was hard enough to combat pagan religion and philosophy. Had\nthe property institutions been attacked also, the primary religious\nobjects would have been lost sight of in the conflict.\n\nIn the second place the more practical minded Christian leaders would be\nantagonistic to a doctrine and practice which alienated many persons who\nmight otherwise be won to the Church, and practically minded persons\noutside the Church regarded the individualists with more favor and were\nmore easily influenced by them to become Christians themselves. The\nearly importance attained by the Church of Rome is to be largely\nascribed to the predominance in its councils of such practical\npersons.[39] Communism had no hold there at all and Chiliasm was never\nallowed to interfere with the practical workings of society.\n\nBy the time of Justin the three concepts; Chiliasm, Communism, and\nIndividualism had arrived at a modus vivendi. According to this\narrangement Chiliasm and Communism held sway as theories while\nindividualism ruled in the world of fact. This agreement proved very\nsatisfactory and for more than half a century was the accepted\nthing. It is seen in full force in Tertullian.\n\nThere is a general tendency, due to the natural effects of use and\ndisuse, for theories which do not correspond to realities to become\ndiscredited, even as theories. Conversely realities which at first lack\ntheoretical justification tend to accumulate such justification with\nthe lapse of time. It is therefore not surprising to find by the\nbeginning of the Third Century, a movement to discard theoretical\nChiliasm and communism and to validate by theoretical apologetic the\nactually existing individualism. These two processes in the nature of\nthe case are closely connected with one another and it is not by mere\nchance that they find a common exponent in Clement of Alexandria. That\nfamous opponent of Chiliasm is equally well known as the justifier of an\nextreme individualism. He greatly facilitated the spread of Christian\ntheology by liberating it from the burden of an eschatological theory\nincreasingly hard to reconcile with reality and also by bringing the\neconomic teachings of Christianity into conformity with current\npractice. As noted above, there was one economic doctrine which neither\nhe nor any other early Christian teacher ever attempted to reconcile\nwith the facts, and it is undoubtedly true that the doctrine of the\nsinfulness of interest was alike detrimental to the spread of\nChristianity and to the general well being of society as it then\nexisted. The reasons why this particular reality i.e., interest on\nmoney, was so slow in receiving its theoretical justification are\nnumerous. The only ones that need concern us here are that the\nopposition to be overcome in this case was much more formidable than in\nthe cases of Chiliasm and communism and the fact that this inconsistency\non the part of the Christians did not in reality offer any very serious\nobstacle to the growth of the Church. Communism had no great body of\nBiblical authority at its back. There are indeed some texts in its favor\nbut there are plenty of an opposite nature. The doctrine had no great\npopular prejudice in its favor. In addition it was insuperably difficult\nof realization in fact. It was otherwise with interest. The theoretical\nprejudice against interest was almost as great among the Jews and Pagans\nas among the Christians themselves. The Scriptures were unequivocal in\ntheir denunciation of it. Furthermore the correlative institutions of\nrent and profit offered so many opportunities to disguise the fact of\ninterest that it was exceedingly easy to retain the theoretical\nopposition without ceasing the actual practice. Although Clement's\ncondemnation of interest was probably merely an inherited prejudice it\nis by no means impossible that he considered that an attempt to justify\nit would endanger his defense of the more fundamental institution of\nprivate property. At any rate his course can be defended as a practical\none under the circumstances. Whatever may be said of its consistency,\nthe Christian custom of condemning the theory and winking at the\npractice of interest worked well. The inconsistency which seems so\nglaring to us, was probably very largely unperceived by the ancient\npagans--they had exactly the same inconsistency themselves.\n\nIn regard to Chiliasm and property, practically the same attitude\nprevailed. It worked indeed even more easily. In the West there seems to\nhave been a considerable Chiliastic tradition. So long as this tradition\ndid not result in any practices which interfered with the actual\nprogress of the Church, the Fathers were content to let it alone. It did\nnot, till at least the Third Century, hinder the acceptance of Christian\ndoctrine by the pagans and may even have aided the process among some of\nthe lower classes. Its long survival can be taken as sure proof that it\ndid not effect either the development of the hierarchy or the\ninstitution of property.\n\nAs regards property of man in man, the superior power of the Christian\nreligion to keep slaves in subjection accounts in no small measure for\nits relatively rapid rise to power in the ancient world. The pagan\nreligion was inferior in usefulness to the Christian religion because it\ncould not keep the slave contented with his position. The next world in\nthe pagan theology was only a worse copy of this world. Christianity, in\nglaring contrast to paganism, proclaimed that the despised and afflicted\nwere to sit on golden thrones in the next life. The more they were\nexploited in this life, the brighter their crown in the next one. The\npagan slave was dangerous. The whole pre-Christian literature of\nClassical antiquity shows the ever present fear of a servile outbreak.\nThere were good grounds for that fear. Outbreaks were frequent and of a\nmost ferocious character. On more than one occasion they threatened the\nvery existence of the ancient civilization. Christianity was able to\nmake the slave contented to be a slave. It was economically an enormous\nadvance over paganism. A master whose slaves were Christians was not\nafraid of being murdered by them. Not only was the master's life secure,\nhis property was secure also. The pagan slaves were notorious thieves.\nThe Christian slave did not rob his master. These facts gave\nChristianity an enormous leverage in its efforts to force its way into\nsocial recognition. It went far toward securing a favorable disposition\ntoward the new religion on the part of the influential, wealthy, and\nconservative elements in the population.\n\nInto the general economic changes which began to operate toward the end\nof our period it is not our purpose to enter, but it is worth notice\nthat the efforts made by the Church to save itself in the general ruin\nwhich overtook the ancient world, chiefly the institution of\nmonasticism, were such as to secure more firmly than ever the hold of\nthe Church upon society. The Church rapidly became an economic factor of\nthe first importance. The only secure basis of lasting social influence\nis economic. Christianity by teaching the virtues of honesty, frugality,\nsimplicity, and charity laid the foundations of her subsequent triumph,\nand when she had great societies of men and women working hard and\nliving plainly and adding all their accumulations to institutions\nbelonging to the Church and directly under the supervision and control\nof the ecclesiastical authority, the Church paved the way for her\nsubsequent domination of the civil government. Monastic communism, being\neconomically superior to Chiliastic Communism, inevitably superseded it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Cf. Plato, Laws, V, 742. Aristotle, Politics, 1:X, XI. Cicero, De\nOfficus, II, XXV. Seneca, De Beneficus, VII, X.\n\n[2] Acts IV.\n\n[3] I. Cor. vii 30.\n\n[4] Rom. xiii 3.\n\n[5] Jas. Chap. V.\n\n[6] Chaps. 21-22.\n\n[7] Chap. xxxviii.\n\n[8] Did. IV. 8.\n\n[9] Barn. XIV. 16.\n\n[10] Schaff, Vol. 1.\n\n[11] Past. V. vi. 6.\n\n[12] Past. S. IX. XXX. 5.\n\n[13] Past III. 2.\n\n[14] Apol. I. IV.\n\n[15] Apol. I. xiv.\n\n[16] De Mort. Per. XIV.\n\n[17] Apol. XXXIX.\n\n[18] Eus., E. H., V. 18.\n\n[19] De Lapsis, VI.\n\n[20] See Pronouncement of the Sacred Penitentiary, 11 Feb., 1832.\n\n[21] Sir James Macintosh.\n\n[22] Civil Disabilities of the Jews.\n\n[23] Lourie, Monuments of the Early Church, Chap. II.\n\n[24] Lourie, _ibid._\n\n[25] Cf. Hypolytus.\n\n[26] A. Loria. Cf. Economic Basis of Society. (Int.)\n\n[27] Cf. A. Loria, Economic Foundations of Society. (Int.)\n\n[28] Circa 200(?).\n\n[29] Cf. K. Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1.\n\n[30] F. Nitti in Catholic Socialism.\n\n[31] Phaedus, The Laws, in Strom. II, 6.\n\n[32] Chap. XIV.\n\n[33] Chap. XXXI.\n\n[34] Chrysostom, Sermons Rich Man and Lazarus, etc.\n\n[35] Jerome, Commentaries.\n\n[36] Gregory, Pastoralis Cura.\n\n[37] Laborare est orare.\n\n[38] Chap. I.\n\n[39] E.g., Clement and Hermas.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE EARLY CHURCH AND THE POPULACE\n\n\nThe transformation of early Christianity from an eschatological to a\nsocialized movement was the result of the interaction of three social\ngroups--three 'publics'--the Jewish, the Pagan, and the Christian. It\nwas a single movement, working itself out through these three 'crowds'.\nChristianity, like all other great religions, was in its first\nbeginnings essentially a mob phenomenon--that is to say it was a very\nslow movement which had a long history back of it.\n\nPerhaps no current opinion is more unfounded than the notion that mob\nmovements are sudden and unpredictable. They are almost incredibly slow\nof development. The range of action found in the mob is more narrowly\nand rigidly circumscribed than in almost any other social group. A crowd\nis open to suggestions that are in line with its previous experience,\nand to no others.\n\nThe initial success of Christ with the Jewish crowds was only possible\nbecause for generations the whole Jewish public had been looking forward\nto a Messiah and a Messianic kingdom. In so far as Christ appeared to\nfulfill this preconceived expectation he gained popular support. When he\ndisappointed it, he lost his popularity and his life.\n\nThe early and enormous success of the apostles on the day of Pentecost\nand immediately afterwards was due primarily to the fact that the\nChiliastic expectation preached to the Jerusalem crowds was very closely\nin line with their inherited beliefs. As soon as Christianity began to\ndevelop doctrines and practices even slightly at variance with those\ntraditional to Judaism it lost the support of the Jewish public.\nBeginning as a strictly Jewish sect, it alienated practically the whole\nJewish race within little more than a generation. This alienation was\nthe inevitable effect of an idea of universalism opposed to the\nhereditary Jewish nationalism. This idea of universalism was not a new\nthing. It was to be found in the ancient Jewish scriptures. But it had\nnever become popularized. It formed no part of the content of\ncontemporary public opinion among the Jews. Christianity met with\nsuccess in the great cosmopolitan centers, like Antioch and Alexandria,\nwhere universalism was a tradition and had become a part of the crowd\nsentiment. It succeeded best of all in Rome where universalism reached\nits highest development. Yet even here a limitation is to be noted.\nChristianity was universal in its willingness to receive people of all\nraces and nations. It was not universal in its willingness to\nacknowledge the validity of other religions. This variation from the\ntraditional Greek and Roman universalism had momentous results. It made\nthe propagation of the Christian Gospel much more difficult and involved\nthe church, at least temporarily, in the current syncretism which was a\npopular movement. So e.g., we find Justin calling Socrates a Christian\nand asserting that the stories of Noah and Deucalion are merely versions\nof the same event.\n\nThe main characteristics of crowd psychology are familiar enough. Crowds\ndo not reason. They accept or reject ideas as a whole. They are governed\nby phrases, symbols, and shibboleths. They tolerate neither discussion\nnor contradiction. The suggestions brought to bear on them invade the\nwhole of their understanding and tend to transform themselves into acts.\nCrowds entertain only violent and extreme sentiments and they\nunconsciously accord a mysterious power to the formula or leader that\nfor the moment arouses their enthusiasm.\n\nAny movement in order to become popular, in order to 'get over' to the\ngeneral public, has to operate within the limits set by this psychology.\nThe amount of change, adaptation, and development necessary before a\nmovement can fit into these limitations and express itself powerfully\nwithin them is so considerable that no historical example can probably\nbe found where the required accommodation has been accomplished in less\nthan three generations. It is the purpose of this chapter to trace, so\nfar as the surviving source material permits, the steps of this\naccommodation in the case of early Christianity.\n\nFor some time before Christ the Jewish people had been restless. Their\ndesires and aspirations for national and religious greatness had been\nrepressed and inhibited. The unrest thus generated took various forms;\npatriotic uprisings, religious revivals, etc. Christ was at first\nconsidered merely as another Theudas or Judas of Galilee or John the\nBaptist. In the pagan world the pax Romana produced a somewhat similar\nrestlessness. Travel increased; wandering, much of it aimless,\ncharacterized whole classes of people;[1] there was a marked increase in\ncrime, vice, insanity, and suicide which alarmed all the moralists. This\ncondition of affairs was eminently suitable for the first beginnings of\na crowd movement; indeed no great crowd movement can begin except under\nsuch circumstances. The wanderings of St. Paul and the other Christians\napostles--called missionary journeys--were really only particular cases\nof a general condition. The same organic demand for new stimulation, the\nsame sense of shattered religious and philosophic ideals prevailed in\nthe pagan as in the Jewish world. It would be hard to find a greater\ncontrast of character than Christ and Lucian. Yet the fiery earnestness\nwith which Christ denounces contemporary Jewish religiosity and the cool\ncynicism with which Lucian mocks at the pagan piety of the same age have\na like cause. Economic pressure on the lower strata of society\ncontributed to the unrest. The slave, the small shopkeeper, and the free\nartisan had a hard time of it in the Roman world. Economically oppressed\nclasses are material ready to the hand of the agitator, religious or\nother. In the crowd movements recorded in the Acts we can trace the\nfirst beginnings of the Christian populace.[2] \"In Iconium a great\nmultitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed but the Jews that were\ndisobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles and made them evil\naffected against the brethren. But the multitude of the city was divided\nand part held with the Jews and part with the apostles.\" At Lytra there\nwas a typical case of mob action where the apostles were first\nworshipped and then stoned. In the cases of the mobs at Philippi and\nEphesus we see the economic motive, the threatened loss of livelihood,\nentering along with anger at an attack on the received religion. In the\ncase of the Jerusalem and Athenian crowds we see acceptance, or at least\nacquiescence, on the part of the crowd up to the point where\nChristianity breaks with their tradition. In general we see anger on the\npart of the crowds only after agitation deliberately stirred up by\ninterested parties; priests, sorcerers, craftsmen or the like. Generally\nspeaking the antipathy is no part of the crowd psychology, and on\noccasion the crowd may be on the side of the missionaries of the new\nreligion. In general also the Christians were not sufficiently numerous\nto make a counter crowd demonstration of their own.\n\nIn Pliny's letter to Trojan, although it is a generation later than the\nActs and refers to a region where Christianity had been preached for a\nconsiderable period of time, we find a marked instability in the\nattitude of the public: \"Many of every age, every rank and even of both\nsexes are brought into danger and will be in the future. The contagion\nof that superstition has penetrated not only the cities but also the\nvillages and country places and yet it seems possible to stop it and set\nit right. At any rate it is certain enough that the temples deserted\nuntil quite recently begin to be frequented, that the ceremonies of\nreligion, long disused, are restored and that fodder for the victims\ncomes to market, whereas buyers for it were until now very few. From\nthis it may easily be supposed that a multitude of men can be reclaimed\nif there be a place of repentence.\"[3]\n\nThere seems no reasonable ground for doubting that Pliny's judgment was\ncorrect. While the blood of the martyrs is doubtless the seed of the\nchurch, a continuous, general, and relentless persecution can extirpate\na religion in a given nation; as the history of the Inquisition\nabundantly proves. Still more easily can propaganda for the older\nreligion win back its former adherents of the first and second\ngenerations. It is not, in general, till a generation has grown up\nentirely inside a new religion that such a religion is well established.\nThe generation which at maturity makes the rupture with the older faith\ncan be brought back to it by less expenditure of energy than was\nexpended by them in breaking away in the first place. The success of the\nJesuits e.g., is quite inexplicable on any other hypothesis. The\ngeneration who are children at the time their parents make the break\nwith the old religion are notoriously undependable in the religious\nmatters. It was in all probability these people that Pliny had to deal\nwith. It is at least permissable to hazard the guess that the Laodiceans\nwho aroused the wrath of the author of the Revelation were of this\ngeneration. It is certain that many of the 'Lapsi' who caused so much\ntrouble to Christian apologists and church councils belonged in this\nchronological class.\n\nIn Justin Martyr we have a hint of a further development in the crowd\nattitude toward the Christians. Justin says: \"When you (Jews) knew that\nHe had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven as the prophets\nforetold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness you had\ncommitted, but at that time you selected and sent out from Jerusalem\nchosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the\nChristians had sprung up and to publish those things which all they, who\nknew us not, speak against us. So that you are the cause not only of\nyour own unrighteousness but that of all other men.\"[4]\n\nIrrespective of the exact historical accuracy of this statement, it is\nindicative of the process, technically known as 'circular interaction,'\nwhich is so essential a step in the development of popular opinion and\nthe building up of crowd sentiment. Before any group of people can\nbecome either popular or unpopular there must be a focusing and fixation\nof public attention upon them. Even in the new Testament we find the\nJews sending emissaries from city to city to call attention to the\nChristian propaganda. Prejudice against the Christians was thus aroused\nin persons who had never either seen or heard them. The basis of\n'circular interaction' is unconscious or subconscious emotional\nreaction. A's frown brings a frown to the face of B. B's frown in turn\nintensifies A's. This simple process is the source of all expressions of\ncrowd emotion. By multiplication of numbers and increase in the stimuli\nemployed it is capable of provoking a vicious circle of feeling which\neventually causes individuals in a crowd to do things and feel things\nwhich no individual in the crowd would do or feel when outside the\ncircle. It is to the credit or discredit of the Jews that they first set\nthis 'vicious circle' in operation against the Christians. Of course the\nsame psychological principle operated to produce zeal and enthusiasm and\ncontempt of pain and death in the Christian 'crowd'. By this process of\n'circular interaction' the name, 'Christian,' had already in the time of\nJustin become a mob shibboleth. It seems to have operated precisely as\nthe shibboleth 'traitor' operates on a patriotic crowd in war time, or\n'scab' on a labor group. It became a shibboleth of exactly opposite\nsignificance in the Christian 'crowd'. The way was thus prepared for the\nnext step in the process of developing the ultimate crisis. This\nstep--the disparate 'universe of discourse'--is exhibited in process of\nformation in the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. The account, as\nwe have it, undoubtedly contains later additions, but these additions\neven of miraculous elements, do not necessarily invalidate those\nportions of the story with which we are alone concerned. The\nmartyrologist certainly had no intention of writing his story for the\npurpose of illustrating the principles of group psychology and the\nundesigned and incidental statements of crowd reactions are precisely\nthe ones of value for our purpose. A few brief excerpts are sufficient\nto illustrate the stage reached in the growth of the disparate 'universe\nof discourse.' \"The whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind\ndisplayed by the devout and godly race of Christians cried out: \"Away\nwith the Atheists: let Polycarp be sought out.\"[5] He went eagerly\nforward with all haste and was conducted to the Stadium where the tumult\nwas so great that there was no possibility of being heard.\"[6]\n\n\"Polycarp has confessed that he is Christian. This proclamation having\nbeen made by the herald, the whole multitude both of the heathen and\nJews who dwelt in Smyrna cried out with uncontrollable fury and in a\nloud voice: \"This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians\nand the overthrower of our gods, he who has been teaching many not to\nsacrifice or to worship the gods.\" Speaking thus they cried out and\nbesought Phillip, the Asiarch, to let loose a lion upon Polycarp. But\nPhilip answered that it was not lawful for him to do so seeing the shows\nof beasts were already finished. Then it seemed good to them to cry out\nwith one voice that Polycarp should be burned alive.\"[7]\n\n\"This then was carried into effect with greater speed than it was\nspoken, the multitude immediately gathering together wood and fagots out\nof the shops and baths, the Jews especially, according to custom eagerly\nassisting them in it.\"[8]\n\n\"We afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most\nexquisite jewels and more purified than gold and deposited them in a\nfitting place, whither, being gathered together as opportunity is\nallowed us, with joy and rejoicing the Lord shall grant us to celebrate\nthe anniversary of his martyrdom both in memory of those who have\nalready finished their course and for the exercising and preparation of\nthose yet to walk in their steps.\"[9]\n\nIn the disparate universe of discourse in its complete form common\nshibboleths produce entirely different mental reactions--usually\nantagonistic ones. There is also complete accord as to the shibboleths.\nThe cry here is at one time against the Atheists, then against the\nChristians. But the Christians could and did deny the charge of Atheism.\nThey were as antagonistic to Atheism as the Pagans. An incomplete\ndevelopment of crowd feeling is evident on the part of the pagans. The\nJews are still the inciters and leading spirits of the mob. The very\nstatement that the Jews acted 'according to custom' shows that mobbing\nChristians was still looked upon as a peculiarly Jewish trait. It was\nnot yet entirely spontaneous on the part of the pagan public. Most\nnoticeable of all is the indifference of the mob toward the Christians'\nadoration of relics of the martyrs. No effort was made to prevent the\nChristians from obtaining the bones of Polycarp. Either the cult of\nrelics was not known to the pagans and Jews--though it seems to be\nfirmly established among the Christians--or else, the effect of the cult\nin perpetuating Christianity had not yet had time to make itself\nmanifest to the pagan public--or to the Jewish. In any case we have here\nthe plain evidence of the imperfectly developed condition of the crowd\nmind, owing perhaps to a too short tradition.\n\nOur next evidence is the martyrdoms of Lyons and Vienne preserved in a\nletter quoted by Eusebius. \"They (the Christians) endured nobly the\ninjuries inflicted upon them by the populace, clamor and blows and\ndraggings and robberies and stonings and imprisonments and all things\nwhich an infuriated mob delight in inflicting on enemies and\nadversaries.\"[10]\n\n\"When these accusations were reported all the people raged like wild\nbeasts against us, so that even if any had before been moderate on\naccount of friendship, they were now exceedingly furious and gnashed\ntheir teeth against us.\n\n\"When he (Bishop Pothinus) was brought to the tribunal accompanied by a\nmultitude who shouted against him in every manner as if he were Christ\nhimself, he bore noble witness. Then he was dragged away harshly and\nreceived blows of every kind. Those men near him struck him with their\nhands and feet, regardless of his age, and those at a distance hurled at\nhim whatever they could seize, all of them thinking that they would be\nguilty of great wickedness and impiety if any possible abuse were\nomitted. For thus they thought to avenge their own deities.\"[11]\n\n\"But not even thus was their madness and cruelty toward the saints\nsatisfied. Wild and barbarous tribes were not easily appeased and their\nviolence found another peculiar opportunity in the dead bodies. For they\ncast to the dogs those who had died of suffocation in the prison and\nthey exposed the remains left by the wild beasts and by fire mangled and\ncharred. And some gnashed their teeth against them, but others mocked at\nthem. The bodies of the martyrs having thus in every manner been exposed\nfor six days were afterwards burned and reduced to ashes and swept into\nthe Rhone so that no trace of them might appear on the earth. And this\nthey did as if able to conquer God and prevent their new birth; 'that',\nas they said, 'they may have no hope of a resurrection through trust in\nwhich they bring to us this foreign and new religion.' \"[12]\n\nWe have in this account a marked advance, as regards the development of\nthe mob mind, over what is found in the martyrdom of Polycarp. Many of\nthe 'crowd' phenomena are indeed the same but the differences are even\nmore striking than the similarities. We find in Lyons no body of Jews or\nother especially interested persons leading the mob on by manifestations\nof peculiar zeal and forwardness. When the accounts are compared in\ntheir entirety it becomes at once manifest that there is a consistency\nof attitude, a whole heartedness in the actions of the Lyons mob\nthat is lacking in the case of the Syrmnaens. There is a degree of\nfamiliarity with Christian doctrine--especially the doctrine of the\nresurrection--which denotes a much more thorough permeation of the\npublic mind by Christianity. There may be no difference in the hatred of\nthe two mobs for the new faith, but it had more content in the mind of\nthe Gallic crowd. The degree of thought and pains taken by the Lyonese\npersecutors--the guards placed to prevent the Christians from stealing\nthe relics of the martyrs, the elaborate efforts to nullify the\npossibility of a resurrection--the very extent and thoroughness and\nduration of the persecution are different from anything to be found in\nthe other martyrdom.\n\nThe difficulty to be explained--if it is a difficulty--from the point of\nview of crowd psychology is that there is difference of only eleven\nyears--taking the ordinary chronology--between the two persecutions. It\nis true that the Lyons persecution is the later, but the difference in\nthe mob behavior is such as might well demand the lapse of a generation\nhad the phenomena been exhibited by the public of the same city. There\nmust unquestionably have been a great difference in the demotic\ncomposition of the populations of Lyons and Smyrna; the reference to\nbarbarians in Lyons shows as much, but the behavior of mobs as\ncontrolled by the time needed for the focusing and fixation of attention\nand the development of a disparate universe of discourse is very little\neffected by difference of demotic composition. It has indeed been\nsuggested by one critic,[13] that the persecution at Lyons belongs in\nthe reign of Septimus Severus instead of that of Marcus Aurelius. This\nwould explain away the difficulty, but there seems no necessary reason\nfor adopting this opinion. It would rather appear that there existed\npeculiar conditions in Lyons and vicinity which account for the fact\nthat the persecution, so far as we know, was confined to that locality\nand also for the fact that the mob mind was in a maturer state of\nantagonism to Christianity. Just what these peculiar conditions were, it\nis impossible to say with entire certainty. However there is at least a\nvery suggestive hint in a paragraph by the greatest modern authority on\nRoman Gaul[14] contained in his well known volume on Ancient France.[15]\nThe paragraph is also worth quoting as giving a valuable insight into\nthe psychology of the peoples of the ancient Roman World. \"The Roman\nEmpire was in no wise maintained by force but by the religious\nadmiration it inspired. It would be without a parallel in the history of\nthe world that a form of government held in popular detestation should\nhave lasted for five centuries. It would be inexplicable that the thirty\nlegions of the Empire should have constrained a hundred million men to\nobedience. The reason of their obedience was that the Emperor, who\npersonified the greatness of Rome was worshipped like a divinity by\nunanimous consent. There were altars in honor of the Emperor in the\nsmallest townships of his realm. From one end of the Empire to the other\na new religion was seen to arise in those days which had for its\ndivinities the Emperors themselves. Some years before the Christian era\nthe whole of Gaul, represented by sixty cities, built in common a temple\nnear the city of Lyons in honor of Augustus. Its priests, elected by the\nunited Gallic cities, were the principal personages in their country. It\nis impossible to attribute all this to fear and servility. Whole nations\nare not servile and especially for three centuries. It was not the\ncourtiers who worshipped the prince, it was Rome, and it was not Rome\nmerely but it was Gaul, it was Spain. It was Greece and Asia.\"\n\nWhile no dogmatic assertion is justified, it does not, perhaps, exceed\nthe limits of reasonable inference to suppose that the existence of this\nnoted center of Emperor worship in the immediate neighborhood of Lyons\nmay account, in part at least, for the especial hatred of the populace\nof that city for persons who refused to sacrifice to the Emperor and\nalso for the maturity of their feeling against the Christians, who were\nas far as we are aware, probably the only persons who refused thus to\nsacrifice. This stray bit of evidence is admittedly not conclusive. It\nis offered merely for what it may be worth. There is evidence that by\nthe middle of the second Century popular opinion was sufficiently\ninflamed against the Christians to render the administration of justice\nprecarious because of mob violence. Edicts of Hadrian and Antonius Pious\nspecifically declared that the clamor of the multitude should not be\nreceived as legal evidence to convict or to punish them, as such\ntumultuous accusations were repugnant both to the firmness and the\nequity of the law.[16]\n\nThis attitude seems to have persisted with relatively little change for\nabout a century. During this period the official 'persecutions' were\nneither numerous nor severe. From the very few scattered and incidental\nreferences which have alone survived regarding the mob feeling of the\ntime, we can assert no more than that it was an exasperated one, likely\nto break out upon provocation but under ordinary circumstances more or\nless in abeyance. On the whole it was undoubtedly more violent at the\nend of the period than at the beginning.\n\nFortunately from the middle of the third Century onwards we have a\nfairly continuous history of a single 'public' (Alexandria) which is\nlacking before this time. The Alexandrian populace were noted for their\ntumultuous disposition, but we have no reliable account of their\nbehavior towards the Christians until the time of Severus, 202 A.D. In\nthe account given by Eusebius of the martyrdom of the beautiful virgin,\nPotamiaena, it is stated that: \"the people attempted to annoy and insult\nher with abusive words.\" As however the intervention of a single officer\nsufficed to protect her from the people on this occasion, the public\nsentiment cannot have been inflamed to any alarming extent. If we may\ntrust Palladius, her martyrdom was the result of a plot of a would-be\nravisher and in any case it was not the product of any spontaneous\npopular movement.\n\nIn the period between 202 A.D. and 249 A.D. a well developed tradition\nof hatred and violence grew up in the popular mind. We have no record of\nthe steps in the process but the extant accounts of the Decian and\nValerian persecutions in Alexandria leave no doubt of the fact. These\npersecutions can only be called 'legal' by a violent stretch of verbal\nusage. They were mob lynchings, sometimes sanctioned by the forms of\nlaw, but quite as often without even the barest pretense of judicial\nexecution. They were quite as frequent and as savage in the later part\nof the reign of Philip, as in the time of Decius. They were not called\nforth by any imperial edict--they preceded the edict by at least a year\nand were of a character such as no merely governmental, legal process\nwould ever, or could ever, take on. Mobbing Christians had become a form\nof popular sport, a generally shared sort of public amusement--exciting\nand not dangerous. The letter of Bishop Dionysius makes this very clear.\nTo quote: \"The persecution among us did not begin with the royal decree\nbut preceded it an entire year. The prophet and author of evils to this\ncity moved and aroused against us the masses of the heathen rekindling\namong them the superstition of their country and finding full\nopportunity for any wickedness. They considered this the only pious\nservice of their demons that they should slay us.\" Then follows a long\nlist of mob lynchings of which we take a single specimen: \"They seized\nSerapion in his own house and tortured him and having broken all his\nlimbs, they threw him headlong from an upper story.\"[17] \"And there was\nno street, nor public read, nor lane open to us night or day but always\nand everywhere all them cried out that if anyone would not repeat their\nimpious words, he should be immediately dragged away and burned. And\nmatters continued thus for a considerable time. But a sedition and civil\nwar came upon the wretched people and turned their cruelty toward us\nagainst one another. So we breathed for a while as they ceased from\ntheir rage against us.\"[18]\n\nThe mob broke loose against the Christians again the following year, but\nthere is no object in cataloguing the grewsome exhibitions of crowd\nbrutality. It is evident that what we have in this account is no\nexhibition of political oppression by a tyrannical government, but a\ngenuine outbreak of group animosity which had been long incubating in\nthe popular mind. All the phenomena which are characteristic of fully\nmatured public feeling are found complete; circular interaction,\nshibboleths, sect isolation devices and the rest. When public feeling\nhas developed to such a degree of intensity as this, the accumulated\nsentiment and social unrest must of necessity discharge themselves in\nsome form of direct group action. This direct action however may take\nthe from either of physical violence or, under certain conditions, of\nsome sort of mystical experience; conversion, dancing, rolling on the\nground, etc. In exceptional cases the two forms are combined. An\nillustration of this latter phenomenon is given by Bishop Dionysius in\nthis same letter; \"In Cephus, a large assembly gathered with us and God\nopened for us a door for the word. At first we were persecuted and\nstoned but afterward not a few of the heathen forsook their idols and\nturned to God.\"[19] It is necessary to mention perhaps the largest, and\ncertainly the most dignified and respectable crowd that is to be met\nwith in connection with this persecution--that of Carthage on the\noccasion of the martyrdom of Bishop Cyprian. We find here neither rage\non one side nor unseemly exaltation on the other. Pagans and Christians\nalike behaved with decent seriousness at the death of that famous man\nwho was equally respected by all classes of the population. But martyrs\nof the social eminence of Cyprian were very rare, and orderly behaviour\nin such a vast multitude as witnessed his end was still rarer.\n\nTo return to the populace of Alexandria. The long peace of the Church\nwhich intervened between the persecution of Valerian and that of\nDiocletian witnessed in Alexandria, as elsewhere, a great growth of\nChristianity in numbers, influence, and wealth. It would perhaps be\ngoing beyond the evidence to say that in this interval, the majority of\nthe population of the city were won over to the new faith, but it is\ncertain that the number of Christians became so great as to intimidate\nthe pagan portion of the people. The Alexandrian mob was still very much\nin evidence but it gradually ceased to harrass the Christians except\nunder the most exceptional circumstances. The dangers of such action\nbecame so considerable and the chances of success so problematical that\nwe find a period when a practice of mutual forbearance governed the\nbehavior of the hostile groups.\n\nThe study of crowd psychology presents no more impressive contrast than\nthat exhibited by the people of Alexandria during the Diocletian\npersecution compared with their behavior during that of Decius. In the\nlast and greatest of the persecutions, in the most tumultuous city of\nthe empire, the mob took no part. Like the famous image of Brutus, it is\nmore conspicuous by its absence than it would be by its presence. The\npersecution was a purely governmental measure officially carried out by\njudges and executioners in accordance with orders. In one obscure and\ndoubtful instance we are told that the bystanders beat certain martyrs\nwhen legal permission was given to the people to treat them so. In\nanother case we are told that the cruelty of the punishments filled the\nspectators with fear. These are the only references to the public that\noccur in the long and minute account of an eye witness of famous events\nextending over a considerable number of years. Both before and after\nthis period the mob of the Egyptian metropolis exhibits the utmost\nextreme of religious fanaticism. During this period that mob had to be\nmost carefully considered by the government in other than religious\nmatters. But as a religious power it did not exist. Had the persecution\nof Diocletian happened a generation earlier it could have counted on a\nvery considerable degree of popular support, had it happened a\ngeneration later it would have caused a revolt that could only have\nbeen put down by a large army. Happening at the precise time it did, it\nprovoked no popular reaction at all.\n\nThis strange apathy is not peculiar to Alexandria. Practically without\nexception the authentic acts of the martyrs of this persecution are\ncourt records taken down by the official stenographers in the ordinary\ncourse of the day's work. They are dry, mechanical, and repetitious to a\ndegree. They exhibit, in general, harrassed and exasperated judges\ndriven to the infliction of extreme penalties in the face of a cold and\nskeptical public. One imperial decree ordered that all men, women, and\nchildren, even infants at the breast, should sacrifice and offer\noblations, that guards should be placed in the markets and at the baths\nin order to enforce sacrifices there. The popular reaction in Caesarea\nis thus recorded: \"The heathen blamed the severity and exceeding\nabsurdity of what was done for these things appeared to them extreme and\nburdensome.\"[20] \"He (the Judge) ordered the dead to be exposed in the\nopen air as food for wild beasts; and beasts and birds of prey scattered\nthe human limbs here and there, so that nothing appeared more horrible\neven to those who formerly hated us, though they bewailed not so much\nthe calamity of those against whom these things were done as the outrage\nagainst themselves and the common nature of man.\"[21]\n\nThe one thing to be said of this type of mob mind is manifestly that it\nis transitional. The pendulum has swung through exactly half its arc and\nfor the brief instant presents the fallacious appearance of quiescence.\nHow transitory this quiet was on the part of the Alexandrian mob is\nevidenced by the history of Athanasius. That great statesman conciliated\nand consolidated public opinion in Egypt. Backed by this opinion he\npractically cancelled the power of the civil authorities of the country\nand negotiated as an equal with the emperors. For the first time in more\nthan three centuries the will of the common people again became a power\nable to limit the military despotism which dominated the civilized\nworld.\n\nThe re-birth of popular government in the Fourth century through the\nagency of Christian mobs is the most important preliminary step in the\ngrowth of the political power of the Catholic Church. A study of the\nmobs of Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople and other great cities shows\nbeyond question that the political power of the Church had its origin in\nno alliance with imperial authority, but was independent of and\ngenerally antagonistic to that authority. The history of these Christian\nmobs lies outside the limits of our study but it is worth while in the\ncase of the Alexandrian populace to give two or three brief extracts\nillustrating the final steps of the process which changed a fanatically\npagan mob into an equally fanatical Christian one. What we have to\nconsider is only the last stage of an evolution already more than half\ncomplete at the time of the Nicene Council. Under extreme provocation\nand certain of imperial complacency at their excesses, the pagan mob\nduring the reign of Julian indulged in one last outburst against the\nexceedingly unpopular George of Cappadocia who had been forcibly\nintruded into the seat of Athanasius. To quote the Historian Socrates:\n\"The Christians on discovering these abominations went forth eagerly to\nexpose them to the view and execration of all and therefore carried the\nskulls throughout the city in a kind of triumphal procession for the\ninspection of the people. When the pagans of Alexandria beheld this,\nunable to bear the insulting character of the act, they became so\nexasperated that they assailed the Christians with whatever weapons\nchanced to come to hand, in their fury destroying numbers of them in a\nvariety of ways and, as it generally happens in such a case, neither\nfriends or relations were spared but friends, brothers, parents, and\nchildren imbued their hands in each others blood. The pagans having\ndragged George out of the church, fastened him to a camel and when they\nhad torn him to pieces they burned him together with the camel.\"[22] In\nthis account we see the last expiring efforts of the pagan mob movement.\nAny mob movement collapses rapidly when it turns in upon itself, and the\nevil results of its violence react immediately upon the members of the\nmob. By this time it is evident that the number of Christians in\nAlexandria was so large that any public persecution of them brought\nserious and unendurable consequences upon the populace generally. Then\nthe movement ended.\n\nBut in the two centuries or more that the pagan movement lasted, a\ncontrary Christian mob movement had been developing along the same\ngeneral lines as the other. This movement, being later in its\ninception, came to a head correspondingly later and reached its crisis\nunder the patriarch Cyril. Its violence was first directed against the\nJews whom the Christians appear to have hated even more than they hated\nthe pagans. The Jews were the weaker and less numerous faction opposed\nto the Christians and as the Pagans seem to have liked them too little\nto support them against the Christians, it is not surprising that the\nChristian mob, which had pretty well reduced the political authorities\nto impotence, should vent its rage against the Jews and their\nsynagogues. \"Cyril accompanied by an immense crowd of people, going to\ntheir synagogues, took them away from them and drove the Jews out of the\ncity, permitting the multitude to plunder their goods. Thus the Jews who\nhad inhabited the city from the time of Alexander were expelled from\nit.\"[23]\n\nSometime after the expulsion of the Jews, the Christian mob, now\ndirecting its spite against the rapidly disappearing paganism,\nperpetrated perhaps the most atrocious crime that stains the history of\nAlexandria--the murder of Hypatia. This beautiful, learned, and virtuous\nwoman, 'the fairest flower of paganism' is one of the very few members\nof her sex who has attained high eminence in the realm philosophical\nspeculation. She enjoyed the deserved esteem of all the intellectual\nleaders of her age--Christian as well as pagan--and to the latest ages\nher name will be mentioned with respect by all those speculative\nthinkers whose respect can confer honor. Socrates describes her murder\nas follows: \"It was calumniously reported among the Christian populace\nthat it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the\nbishop. Some of them therefore hurried away by a fierce and bigoted\nzeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning\nhome and dragged her from her carriage; they took her to the church\ncalled Ceasareum where they completely stripped her and then murdered\nher with oyster shells. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her\nmangled limbs to a place called Cinaron and there burned them.\"[24]\n\nChristian crowd sentiment when hardly yet at its full power was deprived\nof its original object of animosity by the collapse of paganism. Being\nunder the psychological necessity of expressing itself, this mob feeling\nhappened to take as shibboleths some current theological catchwords.\nThe subsequent history of Alexandria and other great cities presents\ntherefore the strange scene of rival sects disturbing public order and\nprofoundly agitating vast throngs of people in a struggle over the most\nabstruse and recondite metaphysical concepts. For the sake of clear\nthinking it is necessary for us to remind ourselves that these concepts\nare merely weird garments fortuitously snatched up to cover the\nnakedness of a profound social and economic revolution.\n\nThe above sketch, imperfect as it is and full of lacunae due to the\ninadequacy of the primary source material, is yet perhaps complete\nenough to enable us to summarize the chief steps in the process of the\nsocialization in its aspect of a crowd movement. We have seen that this\ncrowd movement, like all others, had its origin in social unrest due to\nshattered private and community ideals. The customary forms of\nexpression being inhibited or repressed, the balked disposition\nexperienced an organic demand for new stimulation. This new stimulation\nwas sought in various ways; aimless or practically aimless travelling or\nlocal wandering, local disorder and agitation, increase in crime--and\ninsanity. Gradually this unrest focused itself and public attention\nbecame fixed on Christianity. By the process of circular interaction,\nthe so-called 'vicious circle', public sentiment increased in intensity,\nthe name 'Christian' became a shibboleth. When applied to an individual\nit let loose upon him the pent up emotion of the mob--an emotion or\nunreflective rage and anger. By the further process of idealization or\nsublimation, using the terms in their technical sense, the populace came\nto believe that Christianity was the great and superhuman (daemoniac)\nsource of all evils; earthquakes, disease epidemics, famine etc. Seeking\nrelease for psychic tensions which were not understood and largely\nsubconscious, they found it in a reversion to the oldest of the\n'releasing instincts' that of hunting. The primary thing about the\npersecutions is that they were man hunts. The cruelty exhibited, while\nalso serving as a tension release for mob feeling, is psychologically a\nsecondary form of such release--though a very old form. The discharge of\nthe accumulated public sentiment and of the severe social tensions\nproduced group action of two kinds: (a) Direct action: tearing the\nvictim in pieces, gathering wood to burn him, striking him with sticks,\nstones, etc. (b) Expressive action, taking the form of shouts, cries\nand ejaculations which became customary and traditional, 'Christianos ad\nleones.' The very methods of lynching became ceremonial and even\nritualistic. The beasts were first choice, then burning and then other\nforms in descending scale. The narrow range of the mob mind is\nillustrated by the closeness with which it adhered to contemporary\njudicial methods of punishment. The most obvious method of killing, and\none which had the advantage of enabling a great number of people to see\nwhat was going on, the method of hanging, which is in such common use by\nmobs of our day, does not seem to have been employed by the ancient\ncrowds--at any rate its use was rare in the modern form, strangling.\nThere are some cases of hanging naked women by one foot. Expressive\naction also took the form of wild and fantastic legends of cannibalism,\nchild murder and such like. The crisis of this pagan mob movement came\nabout the middle of the third century. The Decian persecution appears to\nhave been 'popular' in the strict etymological sense of that word. The\npersecution of Diolection, though the most severe, seems to have had no\ngreat force of pagan public sentiment behind it. That sentiment was not\nhostile; it was neutral. The populace did nothing to hinder the measures\nof the government and it did nothing to help them. In another generation\nthe pagan movement had spent itself. This analysis of the pagan mob\nsentiment against the Christians is applicable mutatis nominibus, to the\nChristians' mob movement against the pagans and to the movement of the\n'orthodox' Christians against the 'heretics.' Perhaps we should say\nhere, in defense of human nature, that these mob movements were not due\nto human depravity; they were, in strict literalness, diseases,\nepidemics of nervous disorder induced by pathological social conditions.\nBefore any persecuting attitude became habitual to the pagan populace\npagan common sense had exhausted argument, persuasion, expostulation and\nevery other intellectual device. Only after reason and religion (in the\npagan sense) had been employed in vain; only after long exasperation at\na hopeless situation, when absolutely nothing else could be done, was\npopular violence aroused. Social conditions being what they were,\ntraditional mental attitudes common to pagan and Christians alike\nrequired that something be done and mob action was the last desperate\nalternative to the admission of a new intellectual concept.\n\nThe function of Chiliasm in this crowd movement is plain from its\nhistory as previously sketched. It was a Christian shibboleth peculiarly\nvaluable for securing group cohesion, and for arousing individual\nstaying power in times of persecution. Of the numerous characteristics\nof successful 'sect shibboleths' three are perhaps especially note\nworthy: (a) Satisfaction of the demand for mystical experience. (b)\nOperation as an isolating device. (c) Revolt against the prevailing\nmoral order. In the period of greatest need Chiliasm fulfilled these\nrequirements very well. Many a Christian of little education was lifted\nout of himself to endure martyrdom by somewhat crass imaginations of\nparticipation in the reign of the saints in the rebuilt Jerusalem. Many\na little band of sectaries maintained their group solidarity because of\nthe belief that they were the elect people 'chosen of God' for future\nglory in the millennial kingdom. Many a faithful one who would otherwise\nhave given up in despair, must have gained strength and courage from the\nthought of that happy era, soon to come, when the cruel persecutors of\nthe church would be slaves suffered to live only that their servitude\nmight augment the dignity and honor of the saints in the beatific\nkingdom.\n\nThe relation of the Chiliastic expectation to that strange insensibility\nto pain which was so remarkable a characteristic of the early martyrs\ncannot be stated with exactness. It was probably close--at least in\nnumerous cases. We have what seems to be entirely trustworthy evidence\nthat not only strong men but even delicate and sensitive women exhibited\nthe power of inhibiting the normal reactions to the most excruciating\ntorments. This almost incredible power of inhibition can only be\nexplained as the result of the building up of a pathologically intense,\necstatic, mental state. This ecstatic mental state would appear to have\nbeen acquired by a series of psychic changes and organic, neuronic\nadjustments requiring, ordinarily, a fairly considerable amount of time.\nThis peculiar psychological condition had not merely to be built up. It\nmust have attained an extraordinary degree of habituation in order to\nrender its subjects impervious to such extreme sensory excitations. The\nrequisite degree of imperviousness can hardly have been acquired without\nsuch permeation of consciousness by imagination as constituted a\ncomplete subjective universe. Many of the martyrs would seem to have\nlived, more or less habitually, in a mental world of their own which\nshut them off from susceptibility to external stimuli. This condition is\nfrequently found in artists and thinkers, and with the accompanying\ninsensibility to pain, is a common phenomenon in the 'trance' state as\nwell as in some forms of insanity.[25]\n\nIt would go beyond the evidence to claim that Chiliastic concepts\nfunctioned exclusively, or even predominantly, in the production of the\n'martyr psychosis,' but the evidence does point to the conclusion\nthat apocalyptic expectations held a more prominent place in the\nconsciousness of the martyrs than in that of the generality of\nChristians. It is certain that Chiliasm became especially manifest in\ntimes of persecution but Chiliasm must have operated even in ordinary\ntimes to produce the phenomena which persecution brought into\nprominence. Even today, in the entire absence of persecution, Chiliastic\nexcitement among certain groups of secretaries produces types of\nreligious psychosis closely similar to those exhibited by the\nmartyrs.[26]\n\nOn the whole the conclusion appears warranted that the increasing power\nand progressive socialization of the church, which made persecution at\nfirst hopeless and at last impossible, rendered Chiliasm, as a\ncrowd shibboleth, gradually useless and finally pernicious to the\necclesiastical hierarchy. Had further persecutions been possible\nChiliasm would no doubt have been retained longer, but its usefulness\nwas fatally impaired when the majority of people nominally embraced\nChristianity. It was of little or no value in those struggles with\nheretical Christian sects which engaged the activities of orthodox mobs\nfrom the time of Constantine onwards. Other shibboleths such as 'The\nChurch' and 'Catholicism' were more effective in this contest. Similarly\nfor the larger purpose of ecclesiastical polity, agencies like\nmonasticism and missionary enterprise were employed, which conserved the\nshibboleth values of Chiliasm and were free from its defects as an\ninstrument of hierarchical ambition. The aims of the rulers of the\nChurch became increasingly social and political and with such aims\nChiliasm was fundamentally incompatible.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] E.g., the pagan philosophers.\n\n[2] Acts 14:1-6.\n\n[3] Pliny, Ep. xcvi.\n\n[4] Dialogue XVIII.\n\n[5] Mart. Poly. III.\n\n[6] _Ibid._, VIII.\n\n[7] _Ibid._, XII.\n\n[8] _Ibid._, XIII.\n\n[9] _Ibid._, XVIII.\n\n[10] Hist. Ecc. VI.\n\n[11] Hist. Ecc. V, I.\n\n[12] Hist. Ecc. V, II.\n\n[13] Prof. J. W. Thompson.\n\n[14] Fustel de Coulanges.\n\n[15] Hist. des insts. politique de l'ancienne France. Par. II.\n\n[16] Eus. H. E. IV, 26.\n\n[17] Eus. His. Ecc. VI, 41.\n\n[18] Eus. His. Ecc. VI, 41.\n\n[19] His. Ecc. VII, 11.\n\n[20] Eus. Mart. Pal. II.\n\n[21] _Ibid._, Chap. II.\n\n[22] Hist. Ecc. III, 1.\n\n[23] Socrates Hist. Ecc. IIII, 13.\n\n[24] Hist. Ecc. VII, 15.\n\n[25] Cf. E. Underhill 'Mysticism.'\n\n[26] E.g., The Dukhabours.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nCHILIASM AND PATRIOTISM\n\n\nPerhaps the most pronounced characteristic of pre-Christian, Judaistic\nChiliasm is its nationalistic or ethnic patriotism. Of course any\nattempt to rigidly differentiate the nationalistic and religious\nconcepts of the Hebrews of the two centuries preceding the advent of\nChristianity would be foredoomed to failure. Never perhaps were\npatriotism and religion more nearly synonymous than at this period among\nthis people. That their Chiliasm has a strongly nationalistic content is\ntherefore natural and inevitable. The same patriotic animus is to be\nfound in a great number of their other religious tenets and practices.\nThe emphasis is perpetually upon the enhancement of the value of the\nJewish race and nation and the corresponding depreciation of other\nnations and faiths.\n\nBut while it is true, that, owing to the inseparable integration of\nChurch and State in Judea, in the first two centuries before Christ, we\nfind a very considerable proportion of the religious beliefs and\nobservances highly charged with nationalistic patriotism; this is\nperhaps more noticeable in the case of Chiliasm than in the case of any\nother contemporary theological concept. The nature of the Millennial\nbelief was such as qualified it to function with especial ease and\nsuccess in that particular historical situation. For considerably more\nthan half a century before the birth of Christ the dominant fact in\nHebrew history is the increase of the power and influence of the Roman\nstate in the political life of the Jewish people. This increase was\nperfectly natural. Indeed it was inevitable. That the petty Judean state\nwould eventually be absorbed in the world wide republic was a fact\npatent to any reasonably intelligent student of the situation.[1] Under\nthe circumstances it could hardly fail to take place even without any\ndirect provocation to overt action on the part of either Jews or Romans.\nIt is not our purpose to follow the long, hopeless struggle of the Jews\nagainst the inevitable extinction of their political independence. The\nJew was fighting against fate. From the first interference of Rome in\nthe affairs of Palestine to the last execution of Bar Cochba rebels, the\nend was never in real doubt--humanly speaking. The inevitableness of\nthe catastrophe in this long drawn out tragedy is, in the writer's\njudgment, in some measurable degree connected both with the nature and\nsubsequent history of Jewish Chiliasm. Later Hebrew Chiliasm is a very\npeculiar form of belief. It is characterized by what can only be called\na crass and exaggerated anthropomorphic supernaturalism. It would seem\nas if pari passu with the increasing conviction of the futility of\nopposition to the power of Rome, there was an increasing conviction of a\ncatastrophic supernal manifestation, which manifestation in its details\nbecame ever more and more crude and vulgar. The developing knowledge and\nconviction of the invincible power of Rome is sufficient to explain the\nincreasing dependence upon supernatural aid for deliverance--but the\npeculiar crassness of the supernaturalism is the arresting element in\nthe later Jewish Chiliastic writings. When every allowance has been made\nfor the natural exuberance of the Oriental imagination something still\nremains to be accounted for. It is at least possible that the, to our\ntaste, repulsive features of supernalistic vengeance and glory are the\nresult of a long process of selection. In no people of whom we have\nhistorical knowledge is the spirit of nationalistic patriotism more\ndeeply rooted than in the Jew. We may take it that practically all the\nHebrews of the generations under discussion believed in an eventually\ntriumphant Jewish state. Differences of education, and religious faith,\nhowever, conditioned the opinions as to the time when this triumphant\nstate would appear and still more the method by which it would appear.\nThe better educated Jews, who were conversant with the political\nconditions of the contemporary world and whose belief in supernatural\naid was perhaps weakest, appear to have adopted a laissez-faire\nattitude. They seem to have been advocates of a pro-Roman policy; to\nmake the best of the existing Roman supremacy waiting for the\nunpredictable time when Rome should follow the path of Egypt, Assyria,\nand other world powers who in their several ages had subjugated the\nchildren of Abraham. This party would perhaps have been willing to take\nadvantage of any condition of affairs which offered a reasonably safe\nopportunity of successful revolt but under existing conditions they were\nopposed to armed resistance to the mistress of the world.\n\nAt the other end of the scale was a party of bigotedly and fanatically\nzealous patriots obsessed with the idea that immediate supernatural\nassistance would be forthcoming in the event of armed revolt. Between\nthese two parties was another party--if it may be called such--partaking\nin various degrees of the characteristics of these two extremists\nparties. The Apocaliptic and Chiliastic literature of the period was\nextensive. It would be possible to arrange even such fragments as\nremain, according to the preponderance of supernal elements. It would\nseem to be a rational deduction that if we possessed this literature in\nits completeness we should be able (bearing in mind that we are dealing\nwith a relatively considerable period of time) to follow the whole\nprocess of the supersession of more rational Chiliastic concepts in\nfavor of the more crudely supernaturalistic ones. Rome was at once\nstrongly repressive of movements for political liberty and tolerant of\nreligious liberty. Those writings in which Chiliastic expectations took\nthe form of advocating the active preparing for and co-operating with\nthe expected Messiah would suffer extinction. On the other hand those\nChiliastic beliefs which inculcated absolute and entire dependence upon\nsupernatural aid for the achievement of national independence would be\npolitically harmless and exuberance in such imaginings might flourish\nunhindered. The more fantastic and absurd the expectations the less\nlikely they were to be suppressed by the imperial authorities. Whatever\nthe measure of truth in the above conjecture it is certain that Jewish\nChiliasm developed to the last extreme of extravagance. With the\ndoubtful exception of some Hindu legends, there is nothing, which more\nexceeds the bounds of reason and common sense, in the literature of the\nworld. It is perhaps not too much to say that Jewish Chiliasm died of\nexcess development--a method of extinction of which nature makes liberal\nuse.\n\nThe later history of Jewish Chiliasm does not concern us. Under the\nconstantly repeated blows of disappointment it changed its form and\ncontent into the more rational concept of salvation and glorification of\nthe individual human soul after death. What does concern us is that this\nJewish Chiliasm in all but its most extreme form was taken over by\nChristianity. The intellectual background of Hebrew patriotism of course\npersisted in the Christians of the first generation who were largely\nJews or Proselytes. The imminent divine kingdom of Christ does indeed\ntake the place of the lower concept of a rigidly nationalistic kingdom.\nThe kingdom of Christ even to the first generation of Christians must\nhave had a larger content than the previous Jewish belief which it\nfulfilled and supplemented. Yet the essential thing to remember is that\nso far at least as the Jewish Christians were concerned Chiliastic\nexpectations, though somewhat further extended, were still a form of\nexpression for the forces of Hebrew nationalistic patriotism. The\nkingdom of the Jews had been transformed, or perhaps better,\ntransmogrified, into the Kingdom of Christ and his saints[2] but its\nessential content was unchanged and so long at least as a considerable\nproportion of Christians were converted Jews this condition of affairs\npersisted. The constant criticism of Chiliasm by Gentile Christians is\nthat it is Judaizing. It is perhaps not exceeding the limits of\npermissable hypothesis to suppose that one of the reasons why Chiliasm\nfailed to make a permanent place for itself in the belief of the\nuniversal church is to be found in this very fact that it was in essence\na form of political, Jewish, nationalistic patriotism, to which the\nother portions of the Christian world, perhaps unconsciously, but not\nthe less effectively, objected.\n\nThe success of Roman imperialism in denationalizing conquered peoples\nwas truly remarkable. In this most difficult task of practical\nstatesmanship its accomplishments far surpass those of any other empire,\nancient or modern. But this success, great and unparalleled as it was,\nnevertheless was not absolute. Except in particular cases it was never\nreally complete. The measure of its accomplishment was very different in\ndifferent parts of the empire. In Italy, Gaul, Spain, and perhaps\nBritain its success may fairly be considered complete, but these were\ncountries where the proportion of Roman settlers and colonists was\nvery large. They were countries, furthermore, which were early\nconquered--countries, which, at the time of the Roman conquest, had not\nadvanced a great distance toward the attainment of national solidarity\nin politics, religion, art, literature, war or social intercourse. This\nlack of development of local, national institutions and psychology left\nthe ground relatively free for the development of distinctively Roman\ncivilization and habits of thought. The comparative freedom of these\nWestern provinces of the empire from religious heresies at the time\nthat the Eastern provinces were so prolific of them, is commonly\nascribed to inferior aptitude of these Western peoples for metaphysical\nspeculation. We do not attempt to deny such inferiority, though the\nsubsequent development of metaphysical speculation in Western Europe\nduring the time that the reviving sense of nationality first began to be\nfelt in the Middle Ages and Reformation Era, suggests another cause as\noperative.\n\nIf we consider three regions where Chiliasm, and also unquestionable\nheresies, were particularly rife; i.e., Phrygia, Egypt, and Roman Africa\nwe see at once that these regions were seats of old, deeply rooted, and\nthoroughly developed civilizations. To go into the subject merely a\nlittle way we find that a nationalistic tradition existed in Phrygia at\nthe time of the composition of the Iliad.[3] This nationalistic\ntradition was considerably more than a thousand years old at the time of\nthe introduction of Christianity. Roman political power had by this time\nbeen thoroughly established in the country and there is no reason to\nbelieve that political rebellion was contemplated at the time of the\nrise of Chiliasm and the heresies. But while armed revolt may not have\nbeen considered as practicable, or even as desirable, the fundamental,\nnationalistic characteristics of the underlying strata of the population\ndo not seem to have been very greatly altered. Long before the advent\neither of the Roman political power or the Christian religion a\nhomogenous, national psychology had become characteristic of the\nPhrygian population. The Phrygian seems to have put on Christianity very\nmuch as he put on the toga. He wore the toga regularly and easily enough\nit may be, but in gestures and action, in speech and manner, he was\nstill a Phrygian. This typical Phrygian seems to have been commonly\nregarded in the contemporary world as a bucolic sort of individual, much\nperhaps as a Kansan is regarded in the United States, and with perhaps\nas much or as little reason. The fact is that while ancient Phrygia\nwithout question possessed a large rural population, it also possessed\nnumerous cities where the graces and amenities of life were as fully\ndeveloped as in any of the neighboring provinces which did not suffer\nfrom the attribution of rusticity. The human instinct to botanize a\nneighboring people while doubtless adding to the gaiety of nations has\nto be taken _magno_ cum grano salis by the historian.\n\nWhatever may be said of their other cultural institutions it is a fact\nthat the Phrygians at the time of the introduction of Christianity\nhad already developed certain distinctively national, religious\ncharacteristics which marked them off from their neighbors.\n\nThe Phrygian Mysteries while doubtless in certain broad characteristics\nsimilar to the Eleusinian Mysteries had peculiarities of their own and\nwere cherished by the people as something particularly expressive of\ntheir especial form of the philosophy of life. In spite of any decay and\ndegradation which may have overtaken these mysteries in the course of a\nlong history, it is certain that their primary object was the elevation\nand enhancement of life.\n\nThe national religious consciousness of Phrygia was peculiar in the\nprominent place given to women. To this day it is impossible to say with\ncertainty whether the superior place in their religious system is held\nby the male or female concepts of deity. Perhaps on the whole the female\nconcept preponderates.[4] What is true of theology is also true of\ncultus. Priestesses and prophetesses held a position of marked\nprominence and importance. Possibly the most pronouncedly distinctive\nmark of Phrygian religion was the emphasis upon inspiration, immediate\ndivine revelation, exstatic conditions of religious excitation, the well\nknown \"Phrygian Frenzy.\" If now, with even this meagre, historical,\nnationalistic background in view, we examine the expression of Chiliasm\nin Phrygia we see at once how it took the form and color of the national\npsychology. The most pronounced Chiliastic expectations are found in\nMontanism, which was so strongly marked by characteristics of its place\nof origin that it was known throughout the rest of the Christian world\nas the 'Phrygian Heresy.' So strong was the influence of national\nsentiment that a very marked change was introduced in one, most\nimportant particular. Christian Chiliasm, originating as a Jewish form\nof nationalistic patriotism, emphasized the fact that in the Millennium\nChrist was to reign in Jerusalem, which was to supplant Rome as the\ncenter and ruler of the world. In this respect Phrygian Chiliasm makes a\ncomplete break with the Hebrew tradition. Christ was to appear and\nreign, not in Jerusalem, but in Pepuza. An insignificant town of\nPhrygia was to become the capital of the world wide kingdom of Christ on\nearth, displacing both Rome and Jerusalem. Nationalistic patriotism--not\nto say megalomania--could scarcely go farther.\n\nSo too Phrygian Chiliasm is remarkable for the prominence and importance\nof the position of women in the movement. The women, Prisca and the\nothers, seem to have been fully as prominent in the movement as Montanus\nhimself and they exercised a degree of influence to which it would be\ndifficult to find a parallel in contemporary Christian movements in\nother countries.\n\nSimilarly, visions, revelations, inspirations, extraordinary conditions\nof religious excitation are a marked feature of Phrygian Chiliasm. They\nare of course the old 'Phrygian Frenzy' in Christian guise.\n\nNot to pursue this phase of the subject in more detail, it is evident\nthat Phrygian Chiliasm bore in a marked degree the impress of the\nnational, religious psychology. Those bishops of Pontus and Syria who\npersuaded their people to settle all their worldly affairs and go out\ninto neighboring deserts to await the coming of Christ in glory, exhibit\nin a more na\u00efve form the power of local group habits of thought to\ntransform concepts intruded from outside the group.\n\nIn the case of Egypt it is gratuitous labor to dwell upon the fact that\nthe native population at the advent of Christianity had developed a\nnationalistic like-mindedness. This nation even in the year 1 A.D. had\nan historical antiquity greater than any other nation can show\ntoday--with the doubtful exception of China. In no other nation in the\nworld has there been such an opportunity for climatic and geographic\ninfluences to work their full effect in producing psychological\nhomogeneity among a population on the whole remarkably little disturbed\nin demotic composition. It is to be remarked also that the climatic and\ngeographic environments are themselves remarkably homogeneous throughout\nthe whole extent of the nation. The deterministic school of historians\nhave a model made to hand in the history of Egypt--a model of which it\nmust be confessed they have made very skillful use.[5] This is not the\nplace, even if the writer had the requisite knowledge, to enter into any\nextended discussion of the national psychology of the Egyptian populace.\nIt is sufficient to mention one predominating feature of that\npsychology, a feature so persistent and ubiquitous that the study of it\nalone, enables the investigator to obtain a true insight into much that\nis otherwise obscure in almost every variety of social expression among\nthe Egyptians; law, politics, government, art, science, literature, and\nreligion. This predominating feature can perhaps be best defined as a\ncertain low estimate of the value of individuality in the common man, a\ncheap appraisal of the worthwhileness of the life of the ordinary\nperson. It seems to have a relatively slight ethnic element--if indeed\nit can be truthfully said to have any. It makes its appearance\nsubstantially unchanged in all subtropical countries situated in the\nsame general physical environment as Egypt; e.g., Southern China, India,\nMesopotamia, Mexico and Yucatan; in all countries that is, where the\nnatural conditions for sustaining and propagating human life are\nrelatively easy and where the economic surplus of productive physical,\nas opposed to intellectual, labor is unusually great. Nevertheless the\nfact that Egypt is in this category is due to a highly special\ngeographic phenomenon, the overflow of the river Nile. So that by\ncomparison with the nations immediately contiguous to Egypt, this\npsychology may be truly said to be distinctively national in spite of\nits similarity to that of other peoples more remote geographically.\n\nIt is perhaps unnecessary to do more than mention a very few of the ways\nin which this characteristic of Egyptian psychology has affected the\nnational life. It has rendered the population largely passive under the\nsuccessive yolks of Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and\nEnglishmen, to mention only some of the more prominent exploiters. It\nhas made possible the erection of those vast pyramids of stone, devoid\nalike of necessity or use, which remain to this day one of the wonders\nof the world. It has enabled religions at once superstitious and\ndebasing to flourish in the midst of a high degree of material\ncivilization.\n\nFor our purpose it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that this\nmental bias makes any change, even in the acquired concepts of the\npeople, especially difficult of accomplishment. This is very well\nillustrated, in the study of Egyptian Chiliasm. In no other country were\nthe efforts necessary to overthrow Chiliastic concepts so long drawn\nout, so persistent, so futile of immediate success. Indeed they did not\nfinally succeed till long after the period embraced in this study. When\nthe good bishop Dionysius of Alexandria 247-264 A.D., held his\nconference with the village Chiliasts of the Arsinoite nome, some of\nthem were indeed won over, but we are told that 'others expressed their\ngratification at the conference'. It is evident that they were 'of the\nsame opinion still', Dionysius himself[6] was not the first of the\nAlexandrians to oppose Chiliasm. There was much effort, both by him and\nothers, to eradicate the concept before and after this Arsinoite\nconference. Yet we know that later on, villagers from this region became\nmonks in the Thebiad, and manuscripts still surviving from the Thebiad,\nshow that apocalyptic and Chiliastic literature was popular with the\nmonks, generations, and even centuries, after the death of Dionysius. It\nis a notable example of the national character of the Egyptians. They\nlet their aggressive and dominating superiors have their own way in\nappearance--but in appearance only. The underlying currents of thought\nremained essentially unchanged among the commonality. The resistance was\npassive--perhaps almost imperceptible--but it was real and persistent.\nIn the case of Roman Africa--the country north of the Sahara Desert and\nwest of Egypt--the problem is more complicated. In Roman times down to\nthe Vandal invasion, the population of this region, leaving out of\naccount certain small and relatively negligible numbers of Greeks,\nEgyptians and others found mainly in the larger cities, the population\nwas composed of three distinct strata. At the top were the dominant\nRomans, insignificant in point of numbers but having the monopoly of\ngovernment, law, and administration. They were practically undisguised\nexploiters; government officials whose main business was to forward corn\nand oil to Rome and incidentally enrich themselves; agents of the great\nRoman landlords intent on transmitting rents to their patrician\nemployers--already in the time of Nero the Senatorial Province of Africa\nwas owned by as few as nine landlords--absentee landlords living in\nRome,--and finally, the numerous body of inferior agents; lawyers, money\nlenders, and estate managers whose services were indispensable to the\ncarrying on of the vast system of economic exploitation.\n\nBeneath this thin, dominant, Roman upper crust was a vast population of\nartisans, tradesmen, agricultural and other laborers, serfs, and\nslaves. This great body of the commonality was to a remarkable degree\nstill very purely Punic even in late Roman times. They differed\nethnically, linguistically, religiously, and otherwise from their\nrulers.[7] We find St. Augustine, centuries after the Roman conquest,\nwriting a letter in Latin to one of his clergy, but requesting him to\ntranslate it into Punic and communicate it to his congregation. It is\nuseful to remind ourselves of the fact that the population of north\nAfrica in the first centuries of the Christian era was much greater than\nit is now. Centuries of Mohammedan mis-government account for this in\npart but the chief cause is to be found in those profound climatic\nchanges, the origins of which are still obscure, that have reduced to\ndesolate and barren wilderness whole regions which in Roman times\nabounded in populous cities and in rich and fertile agricultural lands.\nThis large population had the cohesion which results from centuries of\nsimilar and essentially unchanged social habits and it had also that\nsense of strength which comes from large numbers, and that pride which\nresults from the inheritance of a proud history. They never wholly lost\nthat spirit which had made their ancestors great. They never forgot that\nin former ages they had competed as the equals of Rome for the lordship\nof the world.\n\nTo the South toward the Desert and the Atlas Mountains dwelt a third\nsection of the population. They were nomads or semi-nomads, troglodytes,\nand mountain peoples. Their manner of life remains essentially the same\ntoday as it was in Roman times and as it was for centuries before Rome\nset foot in Africa. The Romans never succeeded in subduing this\npopulation except temporarily and for short periods. The imperial\ngovernment did what it could, and by means of military posts and patrols\nkept a kind of order, but its success was only moderate.\n\nChristianity in Roman Africa reflects this threefold division of the\npopulation, as is to be expected. Cyprian, in spite of the sincere\nreligious faith and high moral character which elevates him so high\nabove the social class to which he belonged, is still the most typical\nhierarch of his age. In his writings we find the whole philosophy of the\ngoverning class translated into ecclesiastical language. It is highly\nsignificant that in all the numerous and voluminous writings of this\nFather there is not a line about Chiliasm. Ideas of such a nature found\nlittle reception in the minds of men daily engaged in the practical\nduties of making as much as possible out of the management and control\nof a vast population economically and politically subordinated to them.\n\nIt would seem that Chiliasm was in fact very largely confined to the\nPunic commonality. Tertullian is the great representative of this class.\nThe very considerable success of his views can only be ascribed to their\nbeing acceptable to the general body of his local, Christian\ncontemporaries. It is at least imaginable this success was due to the\nfact that the personal characteristics of this great African; his\nimpetuosity, his boldness, his sternness, his pride, his vengeful spirit\nwere truly representative of the psychology of the people whose\nspokesman he was. It is notable that he was perhaps the greatest of the\nChiliasts.\n\nThe reader who has followed the argument thus far may be saying to\nhimself at this point: \"If it be granted that the national characters of\nthe peoples of Phrygia, Egypt, North Africa or elsewhere, conditioned\ntheir acceptance of Chiliastic beliefs and the ways in which these\nbeliefs found expression, what has that to do with the subject of this\nchapter which is Chiliasm and Patriotism?\" It is to that point we shall\nnow direct our attention, but what has been said above is necessary to\nthe proper consideration of the matter. We have endeavored to show that\nin Phrygia, Egypt, and North Africa there existed nationalistic\npsychologies in the commonality. It will be recalled that we have shown\nin an earlier chapter the curious fact that Chiliasm, though originally\na perfectly orthodox doctrine--indeed one of the most important portions\nof the true faith, nevertheless in the course of its historical\ndevelopment, became mixed up with heresies to a degree beyond any\nrational explanation by the law of chance or the rule of average. It\nwould seem almost as though there was some natural affinity between this\nparticular orthodox doctrine and almost any heresy; which finally\nresulted in its being itself condemned as heretical.\n\nThe reason for this was that Chiliasm, like the heresies, was a psychic\nequivalent for patriotism. No stranger or more unwarranted delusion is\nto be found in the whole range of church history than the one still\nunfortunately common, to the effect that for several centuries at the\nbeginning of the Christian era the populace of whole religions were\nobsessed with incredible zeal over the most abstruse, metaphysical\nspeculations. It is indeed true that the ostensible objects of the\nconflict were philosophical ideas but the realities behind these symbols\nwere tangibles of a very genuinely mundane order; economic exploitation,\nsocial inequality, and suppressed national patriotism. This is evident\nenough in cases like the Donatists in Africa, but a little consideration\nof the evidence in the light of the developments of the Freudian\npsychology, will make it clear in almost all of the heresies, and in the\ncase of orthodoxy also, when the imperial government chanced to be\nitself heretical. So far as the writer is aware no study of any great\nlength has been made of this matter, which would richly repay\ninvestigation; but our concern is more directly with Chiliasm and the\nlarger problem must be left to others for solution.\n\nFreud has shown beyond reasonable hope of successful refutation, that\nexperiences which the mind has completely forgotten leave emotional\n'tones' which remain active and are the determining cause of physical\nand mental conditions. A thought 'complex' is a system of ideas or\nassociations with an especially strong emotional tone. A complex may be\nof extreme interest to an individual by reason of his social education\nand hereditary mentality and yet be out of harmony with e.g., security\nof life and property: so a conflict arises in the mind. This conflicting\ncomplex is gotten rid of in various ways; rationalization, repression,\ndisassociation, or what not, but the energy or interest which initiated\nthe complex remains none the less and something must become of its\nforce. This undirected emotional force is the cause of dreams, neuroses,\nand psychic trauma.[8] Such in the most sketchy outline is Freud's idea.\nThe application to the case under consideration is obvious. Patriotism\nwas a repressed 'complex' to the peoples of Phrygia, Egypt, and Roman\nAfrica. The mental conflict brought on by the repression was\nrationalized easily enough, no doubt, so far as the conscious mind of\nthe populace was concerned, but the disassociated emotional energy was\nlet loose on other concepts with which it had no proper connection\noriginally, i.e., problems of philosophical speculation. Chiliasm was a\nspeculative concept of a sort to make an especial appeal under the\ncircumstances. So far as his conscious mind was concerned the Phrygian\nmight be perfectly reconciled to Roman political supremacy. He might\nrationally prove to his own satisfaction that such political supremacy\nwas really to his own advantage in the long run. Any idea of resistance\nwas sure to be repressed by the certainty of losing his property and\nlife. Yet the emotional energy of his patriotism remained and it\nnaturally associated itself with any idea that lay at hand. Chiliasm\nhappened to be at hand. The glorified, divine kingdom of the Saints of\nGod on earth was the psychic equivalent of that Phrygian kingdom whose\nnational existence had been forever extinguished by Rome. Similarly that\nnational patriotism which under other historical circumstances might\nhave found satisfaction in the glory of an independent Egypt now found\nexpression in the borrowed phraseology of Jewish and Christian\napocalyptical literature. The same is true of course of the Punic and\nNomadic strata of the population of Roman Africa. To the new Jerusalem\nwhich was to come down out of heaven from God, these peoples transferred\ntheir now useless and hopeless longing for the Carthage of the days of\nHannibal and for Jugurthan Numidia.\n\nIf, as we have endeavored to show, Chiliasm represented the strivings of\nrepressed, national patriotisms, we can readily understand the\nincreasing opposition it encountered on the part of the great\ndignitaries of the Church. As the Christian hierarchy became\nincreasingly perfected, the desire of the prelates for unity and\ncohesion in the Church became correspondingly greater. But national\npatriotism is essentially a disrupting and disintegrating force to any\nimperialistic organization, civil or ecclesiastical. Chiliasm being\nassociated with this separatist tendency, naturally came to be regarded\nas heretical, and as such, was suppressed.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Cf. R. Charles, Doctrine of a Future Life.\n\n[2] Cf. S. J. Case, The Messianic Hope.\n\n[3] Cf. Il., III, 187.\n\n[4] Cf. W. M. Ramsay., Art. _Phrygians_, Enc. of Religion and Ethics.\n\n[5] Cf. Buckle, Intro. to the Hist. of Civilization in England.\n\n[6] Cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VII, 24 seq.\n\n[7] Cf. Alex. Graham, Roman Africa.\n\n[8] Cf. A. H. Ring, Psychoanalysis.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nCHILIASM AND SOCIAL THEORY\n\n\nWe have seen that in the first generations of the Church's existence the\nrapidly approaching end of the world was a doctrine firmly held by\nalmost all Christians. We have seen how by the fifth century this\ndoctrine, though doubtless still believed by small numbers of\nindividuals and isolated groups, was practically dead. We have\nendeavored to show some of the more important political, economic,\nsocial, and religious effects of this belief and of its declension. The\nchanges which took place almost imperceptibly during the course of more\nthan three centuries in the status of this doctrine make any evaluation\nof its influence very difficult. It is, however, probably well within\nthe truth to say that the transformation of early Christianity from an\neschatological to a socialized movement is, in some respects, one of the\nmost important changes in its history. The change was actual and\nobjective rather than formal and theoretical. It profoundly influenced\nthe practical lives of Christians, but it produced no alteration\nwhatever in the creeds of the Church. As has been shown in the preceding\nchapters it is for these reasons at once more difficult to investigate\nand more troublesome to evaluate.\n\nThe difficulties of the subject itself, considerable as they are; lack\nof adequate source material, doubt as to the authenticity and\nreliability of such sources as we have; and ever present theological\nprepossession, these difficulties after all do not offer such hindrances\nto fruitful investigation as another factor, the present condition of\nsociological methodology. The writer is not learned in the various forms\nof scientific method, but he doubts whether any other science is, in\nthis respect, in such a chaotic condition as sociology. It is reasonable\nto expect of any science that it will have some general rules for the\ninvestigation of the data in its field, and some general principles for\nthe interpretation of the results of investigation. Sociology is no\nexception in this respect. In fact the number of sociological\n'principles,' so called, is almost incredibly great. A mere descriptive\nenumeration of them, and a by no means exhaustive one, fills a\nconsiderable volume.[1] But so far as the writer is aware, no effort\nhas been made to apply these principles or any considerable number of\nthem, systematically, to the elucidation of any movement, contemporary\nor historical. In general each principle has had its own advocates who\nhave applied it to varying ranges of historical phenomena--generally to\nthe total or at least considerable, exclusion of other principles.\n\nThese sociological principles are not only very numerous--they are of\nvery various value. No successful classification of them has thus far\nbeen made. It is very possible that in the present state of the science\nno successful classification can be made. Yet no study of an historical\nmovement can, without loss, dispense with the aid given by these general\nsociological principles. The writer will, therefore, in the briefest\npossible manner, try to show some of the aspects of early Chiliasm as\nthey appear in the light of a few of these principles.\n\nThe list of principles employed is not an exhaustive one. It can not\neven claim to be comprehensive of all the principles which might fairly\nbe said to be important. On the other hand it perhaps includes some\nprinciples which some sociologists would probably consider of minor\nimportance. There is as yet, unfortunately, no considerable agreement on\nthis matter among sociologists of different nationalities and schools.\nThe reason of course, is that the social reality which these principles\nendeavor to explain contains facts which are intellectually incompatible\nbut which nevertheless, do actually exist together.\n\nOne of the most important and one of the most convenient methods of\ninvestigating social phenomena is the statistical method. In all cases\nof social pathology this method is so valuable as to be almost\nindispensable. In other cases its use needs to be more carefully\nguarded. In the problem we have considered the use of the statistical\nmethod has been evidently impossible except in the most incidental\nmanner. We do not know how many Christians expected any particular kind\nof Second Advent to take place within any given length of time. If we\nhad information for each decade to the time of Augustine, of the number\nof 'convinced' Chiliasts and the number of 'adherents' who were inclined\ntoward that belief, together with information as to the number of years\nwithin which each of these groups expected the Second Advent, it is\nneedless to say that such facts would enable us to judge the movement\nwith a considerable approach to historical certainty. Even such\nincidental and fragmentary information as has come down to us in regard\nto the number of Chiliastic believers is most valuable and such use has\nbeen made of it as may be. If the use of the statistical method has not\nbeen more extensive, it is because of lack of data.\n\nPerhaps the most widely known of all sociological principles is that\ncalled Economic Determinism, or the Economic Interpretation of History,\nor Historical Materialism. More and more, of recent years, this\nprinciple has been employed by historians. The classic statement of the\ndoctrine is found in the Communist Manifesto. The Introduction to the\nsecond edition states: \"In every historical epoch the prevailing mode of\neconomic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily\nfollowing from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which\nalone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that\nepoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the\ndissolution of primitive tribal society holding land in common\nownership) has been a history of class, struggles, contests between\nexploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes.\"[2]\n\nIn the application of this principle to our subject we are lead to\nexpect a genuine, though not necessarily direct, connection between the\ndeclension of eschatological expectations, the increase of socialization\nin early Christianity and such broad economic movements as resulted from\nthe soil exhaustion of Western Europe and the decreased productivity of\ncompulsory associated labor. In the substitution of serfdom for slavery\nand in the growth of monasticism we certainly have two movements which\nprofoundly affected the Church, and had a considerable part in altering\nthe attitude of mind which made Chiliastic expectations tenable. It is\nprobably true that what we have here is considerably more than a mere\ncoincidence of time, i.e., that Chiliasm declined as serfdom developed\nand was dead by the time the patronage system was established on the\ngreat estates. Indeed, in the West at least, Chiliasm was dead before\nthe country regions were to any measurable degree Christian at all.\n\nIt is not too much to say that the apologetic used by St. Augustine to\nextirpate primitive, Chiliastic belief was only made plausable, or even\npossible, by profound changes, of an economic nature, in the early\nChurch. The central point of Augustine's apologetic is that the Church,\nas actually existing at the time, was the promised kingdom of Christ and\nthe reign of the Saints on earth. Such an explanation would have been\nabsurd in the days when the Christian Church consisted only of a few,\nsmall companies of sectaries, lost among the lower strata of the\npopulation of the cities on the Mediterranean litoral. But by\nAugustine's time the Church was something quite different. It was\nenormously wealthy; owning farms, orchards, vineyards, olive yards,\nmines, quarries, timberlands, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, slaves and\nserfs, to say nothing of the purely ecclesiastical properties like\nChurches, schools, bishops' residences and similar structures, and the\nland they occupied.\n\nThe possession of this great wealth inevitably brought with it social\nposition, prestige, and political power. The psychical reaction produced\nby wealth, rank, and power was naturally unfavorable to the growth of\nany lively desire for the termination of the existing order of things.\nIndeed it was an active force in displacing and eliminating Chiliasm\nfrom the minds of the hierarchy. On the reverse side we have seen that\nthe times of persecution, when the property of the Church was\nconfiscated and the lives and liberty of Christians endangered or lost,\ncoincided with the recrudescence of Messianic expectations. So that,\nwhichever way the subject is approached, it would seem that the\ncontentions of the advocates of the economic interpretation of history\ncan make out a very good case in the instance of the early Christian\nChurch and Chiliasm. Without raising economic determinism to the rank of\na dogma and while admitting that it has very real limitations, it would\nnevertheless appear from the present study, that the following\ncontention of one of its leading exponents contains an important degree\nof truth. \"The relations of men to one another in the matter of making a\nliving are the main, underlying causes of men's habits of thought and\nfeeling, their notions of right, propriety, and legality, their\ninstitutions of society and government, their wars and revolutions.\"[3]\n\nA principle somewhat allied to the doctrine of Economic Determinism, is\nthat of progress by 'Group Conflict.' Perhaps the most notable exponent\nof this principle is the Austrian sociologist, Ludwig Gumplowicz, who\nstates: \"When two distinct (heterogen) groups come together the natural\ntendency of each is to exploit the other to use the most general\nexpression. This indeed is what gives the first impulse to the social\nprocess.[4]\n\nAccording to this principle we should expect to find the cause of the\ntransformation of early Christianity in the conflicts of various groups\nwithin the Christian community and in the conflicts between the\nChristians as a group, and various other groups in the world of that\ntime. The truth of this is so obvious that it is a mere waste of words\nto point it out. That Christian theology evolved by a series of\nconflicts with various pagan theologies on the one side, and with\nvarious groups within the Church on the other side, which were\nsuccessively branded as heretical, is the most patent fact in the\ntheological history. What is true of the theology in general is true of\nChiliasm in particular. It was very largely during the conflicts with a\nlong series of heretical groups; Gnostics, Ebionites, Alogi, Montanists\nand Apolinarians that the blows were given which finally vanquished\nChiliasm. Its elimination, or at least the rapidity of its elimination,\nwas very measurably due to the fact that it was involved in these group\nconflicts, and as it was almost invariably associated with the losing\ngroup, it suffered the natural fate of the vanquished.\n\nWhile the principle of which Gumplowicz was so able a supporter leads us\nto expect changes in the Chiliastic doctrine wherever it appears in\nconnection with the phenomenon of group conflict, both within and\nwithout the Church, this principle does not, in itself, enable us to\nstate anything definitely concerning the nature of these changes.\n\nThere is, however, another sociological principle which we can call to\nour aid--the principle of Imitation. According to M. Tarde: \"The\nunvarying characteristic of every social fact whatever is that it is\nimitative and this characteristic belongs exclusively to social facts.\nThis imitation however, is not absolute and the various degrees of\nexactness in imitation and the complexes resulting from the various\ncombinations and oppositions of imitations form the dynamic of\nprogress.\"[5]\n\nBy the help of this principle we can in a certain measure estimate the\ngeneral nature of the changes which took place in early Christianity\nduring the process of its socialization. The conversion of the Roman\nEmpire to Christianity is, according to this principle, merely half of\nthe actual occurrence. The other half might be called the conversion of\nChristianity to the Roman Empire. The fact that this second conversion\ntook place; that the Christian Church became a hierarchic, bureaucratic,\nlegalistic, monarchical imperialism is evidence enough that the\nprinciple of Imitation operated powerfully in early Christian history.\n\nWhat is true of the early Church as a whole is true of Chiliasm in\nparticular. There was no very powerful Second Adventist or other\nChiliastic influence in the heathen world with which the early\nChristians were in contact. Their beliefs were, therefore according to\nthis theory, weakened by dilution; vice versa the pagans were gradually\nconverted to an enfeebled eschatological belief by imitation of the\nChristians, but the net result was a compromise, i.e., a far off and\nindefinite eschatology.\n\nThe concrete evidence in support of this contention is not abundant\nbeing confined to a few lines in the Sibylline Oracles, Hippolytus,\nLactantius and Augustine. Such as the evidence is, however, it is\nentirely on the side of the theory of imitation. It is moreover a very\ndefensible position that if we were not dealing with such a stereotyped\nliterary form, the evidence would be much stronger. One arresting\nfeature of the Chiliastic passages that have come down to us, is their\nuniformity. They are repetitions, very often actual, verbal repetitions\nof one another. What is of real interest in this connection however, is\nnot the form of words, used, but the varying degrees of earnestness,\nsincerity, and eagerness with which the beliefs, embodied in the form,\nwere held. This is a thing difficult if not impossible of measurement.\nPractically our only means of arriving at the facts is to compare the\nrelatively slight changes in the _form_ of the Chiliastic tradition.\nThis has already been done[6] and favors the contention which the theory\nof Imitation seeks to maintain. The passage in the Oracles, while\nundoubtedly Chiliastic, is doubtfully orthodox and is found in a context\nshowing the influence of paganism in almost every line. Similarly\nHippolytus and still more Lactantius and Augustine being situated so as\nto be peculiarly susceptible to the pagan environment show a marked\ntendency to make the Second Advent a far off event. St. Augustine, whose\ncontact with the contemporary pagan world was more complete at more\npoints than that of any other Church father, puts the Second Advent out\nof all connection with his own generation.\n\nAnother sociological principle of considerable importance for our\npurpose is that sometimes spoken of as the transfer of the allegiance of\nthe unproductive laborers. The most prominent upholder of this principle\nis probably the Italian economist Achille Loria. According to Loria, the\nhistory of civilization is the history of the struggle for the economic\nsurplus. The existence of an economic margin above the necessities of\nsubsistence at once divides society into three classes: exploiters,\nunproductive laborers,[7] and productive laborers. \"In order to exert\nmoral suasion enough to pervert the egoism of the oppressed classes, the\ncooperation of unproductive laborers is required. The decomposition of\nan established system of capitalistic economy carried with it a\nprogressive diminution of the income from property and consequently\ninvolves a corresponding falling off in the unproductive laborers' share\ntherein. This in turn dissolves their partnership with capital and puts\nan end to their task of psychologically coercing the productive\nlaborers. The bandage is thus suddenly removed from the eyes of the\noppressed and the systematic perversion of human egoism up to this time\nin force, is abruptly brought to an end.\n\n\"But scarcely has the inevitable course of events hounded to its grave\nthe existing order of oppression, when there arises another. Under the\nnew system of suppression the ancient alliance between capital and\nunproductive labor is reestablished and at once inaugurates a new\nprocess better adapted to pervert the egoism of the productive\nlaborers.\"[8]\n\nThe importance of this principle for the understanding of our subject\ncannot easily be overstated. The socialization of early Christianity\nproceeded in almost direct ratio to the number of 'unproductive'\nlaborers coming over to it. If Christianity had had in the First\nCentury, such an array of theologians, philosophers, apologists,\nstatesmen, and intellectuals generally, as it had in the Fourth Century,\nthere can be no reasonable doubt that its triumph would have been much\nmore rapid and complete. On the other hand had the Pagan cults been able\nto show as numerous and as able a body of intellectual defenders in the\nFourth Century as in the First, the success of the Church must have been\nmuch retarded. The declension of the artistic, literary, and general\nintellectual level of ancient, pagan civilization during the first three\nor four centuries of the Christian era is a fact so well known as to\ncall for no remark. What is not perhaps, so well recognized is that\nduring the very time that the pagan world presents an almost incredible\ndegree of intellectual feebleness and sterility, the actual proportion\nof intellectually able men in society was remarkably great. Rome, never,\nperhaps in her whole history, had to her credit so many men of\nstatesman-like ability as at the time her empire was falling to pieces.\nThe explanation is simple. The men of genius and ability were no longer\ninterested in the political fortunes of the pagan empire. They had gone\nover to a new allegiance, and expended in the foundation of the Catholic\nChurch a degree of intelligence and ability which, had it been placed at\nthe service of the Empire, might very conceivably have enabled that\nEmpire to survive to this day.\n\nIt is certain that one of the leading causes of the collapse of the\npagan cults was their increasing inability to command the support of the\nintellectual leaders in society, and it is no less true that the\nincreasing success of the Church was to be ascribed to the ever larger\nnumber of men of intellectual gifts who enrolled themselves in her\nsupport. The fact, of course, is that Christianity offered increasingly\nan outlet for the expression of abilities and capacities of mind and\nsoul such as no pagan cult could provide. The most superficial\ncomparison of the intellectual forces for and against Christianity in\nthe first century, with the corresponding array in the fourth or fifth\ncenturies is sufficient to show the enormous progress made by the\nprocess of socialization in the interval.\n\nOur more particular concern is, however, with the eschatological\nconcepts. A comparison of the supporters and opponents of Chiliasm at\ndifferent periods brings into clear view the rate of its decline.\nWithout repeating what has been dealt with already,[9] it is sufficient\nto recall that in the first century Chiliasm had the support of men like\nSt. Paul and the authors of the Gospels and other New Testament books,\nnotably Revelation. Indeed, as far as we can judge, every intellectual\nleader of the Christian movement for nearly a century supported the\napocolyptic concepts. But as time went on the proportionate number and\nability of its defenders declines. Finally in the person of Origen in\nthe East and Augustine in the West we find the undisputed intellectual\nleaders turning the whole intellectual class against it, and so bringing\nabout its overthrow.\n\nStill another sociological principle of high importance because of its\npervasiveness and ubiquity is that propounded by Prof. Veblen in what is\nperhaps the best known of American works on sociology.[10] This\nprinciple, which may be summed up by the words Conspicuous Honorific\nConsumption, is that beliefs and customs, in order to establish\nthemselves and to survive as socially reputable, must involve their\nholders in purely honorific consumption of time and economic goods. This\nconsumption may be, and in fact very largely is, vicarious. In this case\nthe functionaries of the vicarious extravagance must be distinguished\nfrom their masters by the introduction of the element of personal\ninconvenience into the performance of their functions.\n\nOf the various sociological principles, so far brought to our attention\nthis one of Conspicuous Honorific Consumption gives us what is probably\nthe most useful clew to follow for the understanding of the relatively\nrapid decline and the immediately subsequent social disrepute of the\neschatological elements in early Christianity. No set of theological\nconcepts can be easily imagined which are more antagonistic to the canon\nof honorific, conspicuous consumption than are the eschatological ones.\n\nBut the principle of the reputability of waste is so intercalated into\nevery form of social usage; it plays so large a part in all moral,\nreligious, literary, artistic, political, military, and other judgments,\nthat in a society like that of the Roman Empire where pecuniary\nemulation and invidious comparison were the forms taken by the 'instinct\nof workmanship'--the propensity for achievement--no set of beliefs or\nobservances which ran counter to this principle could, in a prolonged\ncontest, stand the smallest chance of success.\n\nIn this respect, early Christianity was the more unequal to the struggle\nin so much as it was the strongest in the cities. The trend of affairs\nis observable in the Church as early as the appearance of the Epistle of\nJames. Under urban conditions the law of conspicuous consumption works\nwith peculiar power and it tended toward the rapid elimination of those\ndoctrines and observances which operated to keep out of the Church the\nwealthy, powerful, and fashionable elements of society. Within a\nrelatively short time, by the operation of this principle, the\noriginally respectable doctrine of Millenananism was rendered\ndisreputable and even heretical. It was an important agency in bringing\ninto sharp relief the distinction of clergy and laity, while in the\nappearance of monasticism we see the working out of this principle among\nthe strongest (theoretical) opponents.\n\nHad Christianity in the beginning found a considerable proportion of its\nadherents among the laboring classes in the rural regions there can be\nvery little doubt that it would have maintained the purity of its early\ndoctrines for a much more considerable period of time than was actually\nthe case. There is no reason to doubt that, in that event, Chiliastic\nexpectations would have survived in Christian theology far longer than\nthey did. \"Among the working classes in a sedentary community which is\nat an agricultural stage of industry in which there is a considerable\nsubdivision of property and whose laws and customs secure to these\nclasses a more or less definite share of the product of their industry,\npecuniary emulation tends in a certain measure to such industry and\nfrugality as serve to weaken in some degree the full force of the\nprinciple of honorific, and more especially of vicariously honorific\nwastefulness.\" That is to say such conditions tend to conservatism in\ngeneral and possibly to religious conservatism in particular. But for\nthis very reason Christianity made its way only very slowly into the\nrural regions. In the West, indeed, Chiliasm was already dead\nbefore the Church had won any great headway among the agricultural\npopulation--which was not until the sixth and seventh centuries. Had\nChiliasm been able to hold its own until the conversion of the rural\nregions, it would certainly have survived there for generations if not\ncenturies--even if it had died out in the urban centers.\n\nIn the East, where Christianity made its way among the rural population,\nat least in some degree, considerably earlier than was the case in the\nWest, Chiliasm did get a hold in certain agricultural regions of\nPhrygia, Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere, and it was in precisely such\nregions, as we have already seen, that it was held most tenaciously and\nabandoned most slowly.\n\nProf. F. H. Giddings of Columbia University is the sponsor of the last\nsociological principle which will be mentioned in this connection. His\nprinciple is known as the \"Consciousness of Kind.\" According to Prof.\nGiddings: \"Consciousness of Kind is that pleasurable state of mind which\nincludes organic sympathy, the perception of resemblance conscious or\nreflective sympathy, affection and the desire for recognition.\"[11]\n\"This consciousness is a social and socializing force, sometimes\nexceedingly delicate and subtle in its action, sometimes turbulent and\nall powerful. Assuming endlessly varied modes of prejudice and of\nprepossession, of liking and of disliking, of love and of hate, it tends\nalways to reconstruct and to dominate every mode of association and\nevery social grouping.\"[12]\n\nBy means of this very comprehensive principle many otherwise merely\nstray and isolated items of information that have come down to use\nregarding early Christianity can be given a place and a meaning in the\ngraduated series of phenomena which mark the transition from the\neschatological to the socialized movement. Such, for instance, are the\nexhibitions of consciousness of kind according to differences and\nsimilarities of sex, age, kinship, language, political beliefs,\noccupations, rank, locality, wealth, and the like. The very number of\nways in which consciousness of kind exerts influence makes this\nprinciple of very great use when the task is that of forming a general\nconclusion from the investigation of sources which are incomplete,\ninconclusive and sometimes contradictory.\n\nThe different sociological principles mentioned above are intended as\nspecimens only. The list is not in any sense complete. No attention is\npaid to other principles held as coordinates or as correlates of those\nreferred to. Whole classes of principles, the anthropological and\ngeographic, for instance, are consciously omitted. The list is in the\nhighest degree a hit-and-miss selection and the more casual it is, the\nbetter for the purpose in hand. This purpose is to show that any given\nseries of principles elucidated by students of our contemporary modern\ncivilization, will be found to have been operating in discernable\nfashion in the case of an obscure form of theological speculation in the\nfirst centuries of the Christian era. That Chiliasm was the natural\nresult of the heredity and environment of the early Christians, or\nperhaps better, the natural result of the reaction of inherited elements\nin vital contact with the contemporary world, will probably be admitted\nreadily enough by anyone who has followed the discussion thus far. But\nthe aim of this thesis, particularly of this last chapter, is something\nmore than that. Its aim is to uphold the contention that the forces now\noperating in society to shape and reshape beliefs and opinions are the\nvery same in kind as operated in the society of the Roman Empire. In\nshort, any explanation of early Christian Chiliasm which seeks to bring\nin the operation of any social principles which cannot be shown to be\nobjectively operative in contemporary society is to be viewed with a\ncertain measure of doubt, if not of suspicion.\n\nIt may be taken as a safe assumption that all attempts to obtain a\ncomplete explanation of any historical event in terms of one principle\nof one science are foredoomed to failure. The same is true, in less\ndegree, even if we take all the so far discovered principles of any one\nscience. In order to give anything like a really comprehensive\nexplanation of the historical process which forms the subject of this\nthesis there would be required the contributions of the principles of\neconomics, political science, psychology, and the other social sciences.\nSuch a synthesis of principles is beyond the ability of any one\nindividual. The application of them all to our subject would be a task\nrequiring the cooperation of many specialists in many lines for some not\ninconsiderable period of time. The writer's task will not perhaps have\nbeen utterly in vain, if he has, even in the slightest measure, helped\nto bring home to a single reader, this important fact.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] L. M. Bristol, Social Adaptation, _Harvard Economic Studies_, Vol.\nXIV. Cambridge 1915.\n\n[2] Communist Manifesto. Authorized English Translation, Chicago, 1898.\n\n[3] W. J. Ghent, Mass and Class, Chap. 1. New York, 1905.\n\n[4] Grundriss der Sociologie; Moore's Translation, p. 85. Annals Am.\nAcad. Pol. Sci. Phil. 1899.\n\n[5] G. Tarde, Social Laws, p. 41. New York, 1899. The Laws of Imitation,\np. 22. New York, 1903.\n\n[6] See Chap. I.\n\n[7] i.e., The so-called, Intellectuals.\n\n[8] Economic Foundations of Society, pp. 51 seq. New York, 1889.\n\n[9] Cf. Chap. I.\n\n[10] The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York, 1899.\n\n[11] Inductive Sociology, p. 99, New York, 1901.\n\n[12] Descriptive and Historical Sociology, p. 275, New York, 1906.\n\n\n\n\n    Transcriber's notes:\n\n    The following is a list of changes made to the original.\n    The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.\n\n    In all of them the catastrophy is more or less immediately\n    In all of them the catastrophe is more or less immediately\n\n    and final judgement which in the preceding form of belief were\n    and final judgment which in the preceding form of belief were\n\n    is to be preceeded by tremendous portents of the most terrible sort.\n    is to be preceded by tremendous portents of the most terrible sort.\n\n    Thebiad. In fact a large number of Jewish Apocalyses which the\n    Thebiad. In fact a large number of Jewish Apocalypses which the\n\n    He maintains that in the Mellennium, death will be abolished\n    He maintains that in the Millennium, death will be abolished\n\n    Apolinaris was indeed the most Judaising Christian in his Chiliasm\n    Apollinaris was indeed the most Judaizing Christian in his Chiliasm\n\n    indignantly denounces as 'figments,' 'mere old wives fables' and\n    indignantly denounces as 'figments,' 'mere old wives' fables' and\n\n    'doctrines of Jews.'[19] Although Apolinarianism was condemned\n    'doctrines of Jews.'[19] Although Apollinarianism was condemned\n\n    of note in the west. It is aboundantly evident however, from the\n    of note in the west. It is abundantly evident however, from the\n\n    and incongruities as the pagan myths which proviked so many\n    and incongruities as the pagan myths which provoked so many\n\n    Chiliasts--are held to be insoluable as to the time of their appearance;\n    Chiliasts--are held to be insoluble as to the time of their appearance;\n\n    dead, and yet to be born. The entity was eternal, indestructable,\n    dead, and yet to be born. The entity was eternal, indestructible,\n\n    the otherwise unintelligible success of that saint in combatting\n    the otherwise unintelligible success of that saint in combating\n\n    expression to this accomplished fact and it is no derrogation of his\n    expression to this accomplished fact and it is no derogation of his\n\n    words restriction in matrimony whether Chilastic or monastic is due\n    words restriction in matrimony whether Chiliastic or monastic is due\n\n    of the movement, were influenced more by Chilastic concepts than\n    of the movement, were influenced more by Chiliastic concepts than\n\n    [3] Cf. Parables in I Enoch XXXVII-IXXI.\n    [3] Cf. Parables in I Enoch XXXVII-LXXI.\n\n    [4] Cf. Apocalypse of Baurch; 4 Ezra, 4 Maccabees.\n    [4] Cf. Apocalypse of Baruch; 4 Ezra, 4 Maccabees.\n\n    Fourth: What may be distinguished as the specifically Christain\n    Fourth: What may be distinguished as the specifically Christian\n\n    the pupose of giving him a vest and an overcoat in addition to what\n    the purpose of giving him a vest and an overcoat in addition to what\n\n    and rightly discharged his service to Him.[13]\n    and rightly discharged his service to Him.\"[13]\n\n    The inconsistent and irreconciliable nature of the evidence about\n    The inconsistent and irreconcilable nature of the evidence about\n\n    references to interest, which may perhpas be due to the fact that in\n    references to interest, which may perhaps be due to the fact that in\n\n    condeming interest as such. In the minds of the early Christians the\n    condemning interest as such. In the minds of the early Christians the\n\n    prediliction of certain types of pecuniary interest for that reformer's\n    predilection of certain types of pecuniary interest for that reformer's\n\n    system of eccliastical polity. The Roman law did indeed fix a\n    system of ecclesiastical polity. The Roman law did indeed fix a\n\n    or act up to all thay they believe. Imagine a man acting on the\n    or act up to all that they believe. Imagine a man acting on the\n\n    institution they were perfectly familar and in universal observance\n    institution they were perfectly familiar and in universal observance\n\n    It was immoral to invest money in the consrtuction company that\n    It was immoral to invest money in the construction company that\n\n    economic and matters--and on other matters also. The difference in a\n    economic matters--and on other matters also. The difference in a\n\n    As soon as Christain doctrines became widespread enough to\n    As soon as Christian doctrines became widespread enough to\n\n    villange or serfdom. But this change cut off the economic margin\n    villeinage or serfdom. But this change cut off the economic margin\n\n    that of Bibical exegesis. In the well known sermon or essay on:\n    that of Biblical exegesis. In the well known sermon or essay on:\n\n    pyhsical possessions, but spiritual qualities of greed and avarice.\n    physical possessions, but spiritual qualities of greed and avarice.\n\n    that shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom,\" is to be apprehended\n    that shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom, is to be apprehended\n\n    the reward of which is salvation.\" \"Sell thy possessions.\" What is\n    the reward of which is salvation.\" \"Sell thy possessions. What is\n\n    expositions of Christian Scripture, penning the most powerful apologitic\n    expositions of Christian Scripture, penning the most powerful apologetic\n\n    honors upon the lowliest drugery;[37] they turned princes into plowmen\n    honors upon the lowliest drudgery;[37] they turned princes into plowmen\n\n    institutions of society can indeed be changed. But they can be changed--or\n    institutions of society can indeed be changed. But they can be changed--on\n\n    lack theoritical justification tend to accumulate such justification\n    lack theoretical justification tend to accumulate such justification\n\n    the spread of Chriatian theology by liberating it from the burden\n    the spread of Christian theology by liberating it from the burden\n\n    influence is economic. Christianity by teaching the virtues of honesty\n    influence is economic. Christianity by teaching the virtues of honesty,\n\n    Penticost and immediately afterwards was due primarily to the fact\n    Pentecost and immediately afterwards was due primarily to the fact\n\n    began to develope doctrines and practices even slightly at\n    began to develop doctrines and practices even slightly at\n\n    motive, the threatened loss of livlihood, entering along with anger\n    motive, the threatened loss of livelihood, entering along with anger\n\n    of the crowds only after agitation diliberately stirred up by interested\n    of the crowds only after agitation deliberately stirred up by interested\n\n    also the villages and country places and yet it sees possible to stop it and\n    also the villages and country places and yet it seems possible to stop it and\n\n    teaching many not to sacrifice or to worship the gods. Speaking\n    teaching many not to sacrifice or to worship the gods.\" Speaking\n\n    pagan public. Most noticable of all is the indifference of the mob\n    pagan public. Most noticeable of all is the indifference of the mob\n\n    clamor and blows and draggings and roberies and stonings and\n    clamor and blows and draggings and robberies and stonings and\n\n    more through permeation of the public mind by Christianity. There\n    more thorough permeation of the public mind by Christianity. There\n\n    very extent and throughness and duration of the persecution\n    very extent and thoroughness and duration of the persecution\n\n    belongs in the reign of Septimus Severns instead of that of Marcus\n    belongs in the reign of Septimus Severus instead of that of Marcus\n\n    circumstances more or less in obeyance. On the whole it was undoubtedly\n    circumstances more or less in abeyance. On the whole it was undoubtedly\n\n    more violent at the end of the period tham at the beginning.\n    more violent at the end of the period than at the beginning.\n\n    Serverus, 202 A.D. In the account given by Eusebius of the martydom\n    Severus, 202 A.D. In the account given by Eusebius of the martyrdom\n\n    case it was not the product of any spontanious popular movement.\n    case it was not the product of any spontaneous popular movement.\n\n    They were not called forth by any imperial edict--they preceeded the\n    They were not called forth by any imperial edict--they preceded the\n\n    governmental, legal precess would ever, or could ever, take on.\n    governmental, legal process would ever, or could ever, take on.\n\n    persecution among us did not begin with the royal decree but proceeded\n    persecution among us did not begin with the royal decree but preceded\n\n    accumlated sentiment and social unrest must of necessity discharge\n    accumulated sentiment and social unrest must of necessity discharge\n\n    perhaps be going beyong the evidence to say that in this interval,\n    perhaps be going beyond the evidence to say that in this interval,\n\n    away from them and drove the Jews out of the city, permiting the\n    away from them and drove the Jews out of the city, permitting the\n\n    being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore hurrried\n    being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore hurried\n\n    people in a struggle over the most obstruse and recondite metaphysical\n    people in a struggle over the most abstruse and recondite metaphysical\n\n    to the Christians mob movement against the pagans and to the\n    to the Christians' mob movement against the pagans and to the\n\n    experience. (b) Operation as an isolating device (c) Revolt against\n    experience. (b) Operation as an isolating device. (c) Revolt against\n\n    were free from its defects as an instrument of hierarchial ambition.\n    were free from its defects as an instrument of hierarchical ambition.\n\n    town of Phrygia was to become the capitol of the world wide kingdom\n    town of Phrygia was to become the capital of the world wide kingdom\n\n    produced no alternation whatever in the creeds of the Church. As\n    produced no alteration whatever in the creeds of the Church. As\n\n    ever possible, by profound changes, of an economic nature, in the\n    even possible, by profound changes, of an economic nature, in the\n\n    of men to ane another in the matter of making a living are the main,\n    of men to one another in the matter of making a living are the main,\n\n    associated with the loosing group, it suffered the natural fate of the\n    associated with the losing group, it suffered the natural fate of the\n\n    But scarcely has the inevitable course of events hounded to its\n    \"But scarcely has the inevitable course of events hounded to its","title":"The Transformation of Early Christianity from an Eschatological to a Socialized Movement: A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":38436}