were accustomed to employ the allegoric method in the interpretation of their own religious traditions, and to transmute base images and repulsive tales into sublime conceptions and the history of ideas. Even the solemn confession of Jesus Christ was so expressed by philosophical bishops that it sounded like a brief philosophical dissertation.

Strictly speaking, there were only three points on which Christian dogma differed essentially from the neo-Platonic which was then in the ascendant; the former taught the creation of the world in time, the incarnation of the Logos, and the resurrection of the flesh; the latter rejected all these three. doctrines. Nevertheless the pupils of Origen conceived of these theological propositions in such wise that the assertion was very like a denial, and they made common cause with the neo-Platonists in their contest with the dualistic-pessimistic school of philosophy. Christian philosophy was in the midcurrent of the intellectual movement, and it was therefore a singular anachronism that the state could not as yet bring itself to place those who professed it upon the same footing as other citizens.

(4) The literature produced and read by Christians was by this time hardly to be distinguished from literature in general. It differed only in name; the spirit was the same, if we leave out of consideration the texts of Scripture which the Christians interwove in their books. The legends of Apostles and Martyrs took the place of the old stories of gods and heroes, and adopted from the latter whatever element of fiction they could make serve their turn. The forms of epistolary and literary correspondence had already won full acceptance among Christians; their dedications, plots, titles, and headings were those of pagan literature. In this last connection we note particularly how ceremonious the "brethren" have become. Finally, educated Christians were familiar with the whole body of profane scholastic literature, derived their culture from it and used it for example and quotation. The shoot of Christian literature had been grafted on the stock of Hellenism, and the sap of it streamed through the new branch.

(5) With regard to public worship we note the following changes during the sixty years before the time of Constantine. In the first place the ritual became more solemn and mysterious; the prayers more studied and rhetorical; symbols and symbolic acts were multiplied: and secondly, there was an increased tendency to meet halfway the polytheistic leanings which swayed the Christian masses. This is indicated, on the one hand, by the constantly increasing importance attached to "intercessors" (angels, saints, and martyrs) both in public worship and in private life; and, on the other, by the "naturalisation" and differentiation of religious rites after the manner of pagan ceremonials. An observer watching a Christian religious service about the year 300 would hardly have realised that these Christians were monotheists, and in words proudly professed their monotheism and spiritual worship. Except the bloody sacrifice, they had adopted almost every part and form of pagan ritual cermonial; and, in fact, the bloody sacrifice was not lacking, for the death of Christ and the celebration of the Lord's Supper were dealt with in materialistic fashion as bloody sacrifices. They were fond of appealing to the Old Testament to warrant the innovations, and in virtue of this appeal nearly the whole pagan system of worship could be dragged into the church.

Chapels were dedicated to angels, saints, and martyrs and decorated on their festivals; a habit grew up of sleeping in churches or chapels in the expectation of holy dreams or miraculous cures; holidays were multiplied and differentiated more and more; superstitious ceremonies, usually asso

ciated with the holy cross or consecrated bread, were woven into the tenor of ordinary life; nor were charms in the name of Jesus or of holy men, nor even amulets wanting; wakes and banquets for the dead were celebrated; the relics of saints were collected and adored, etc. What more was lacking to complete the analogy with heathen cults? Was not a sagacious Roman statesman bound to confess that this church, with the form of divine worship it had adopted, met every religious need? And how then could he fail to wish that the senseless state of war that prevailed between state and church should come to an end? A monotheistic form of doctrine, combined with a worship so diversified, so adapted to every need-no better device could possibly be invented.

(6) In considering the church's estimate of the state there are two points of importance to be observed. In the first place we note that Christians now began to profess that those emperors who had not shown active hostility towards the church, or whose personal piety had borne a certain kindred likeness to that of Christians, had really been Christians in secret. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (about 260 A.D.) merely repeats an opinion widely received when he states that Alexander Severus and Philip the Arab were Christians; of Philip it was even reported that he had on one occasion done penance at the bidding of a bishop.

Such legends are eloquent; they disclose the daring wishes of the Christians and show that they no longer thought the empire and Christianity incompatible. This is likewise evident from the fact that this same Dionysius does not shrink from applying a Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament to the emperor Valerian. Gallienus had cancelled his father's writ for the persecution of Christians, and Dionysius therefore applies to him the prophecy of Isaiah, and styles him, moreover, "our sanctified emperor, well-pleasing in God's sight." This is the very language which Christian bishops used of Constantine sixty years later. Secondly, it is a significant token of change that Origen, in his great work against Celsus, written towards the end of his life, in the reign of the emperor Philip, expressed the hope that by gradual advances Christianity would attain to victory in this world. This is the exact opposite of what primitive Christians had believed and hoped. Origen could not have put the anticipation into words, unless, in spite of all the differences which still subsisted between state and church, these two great powers had drawn considerably nearer to each other. At bottom the only question was that of the removal of "misunderstandings”; in actual fact, nothing blocked the way to the conclusion of peace except the church's demand not for mere toleration but for exclusive recognition.

IV

In the foregoing pages we have shown how the church, as it developed, drew nearer to the state; all that now remains to be done is to point out how, in the second century, and still more in the third, the state, on its part, drew nearer to the Christian religion and to the church. I will confine myself to a few suggestive indications.

(1) During the imperial period the Roman state wielded no real influence upon the religious life of the citizens of its domains, except by means of the worship of the emperors; the other Roman cults were of local importance only, and were perpetually being thrust into the background by alien religions. Under these circumstances the state had made an attempt to develop emperor worship into the actual universal religion of the empire. Sagacious

statesmen and religious politicians were, however, constrained to own that this cult, the adoration of the secunda majestas, was not enough. The state accordingly had recourse to the expedient of officially recognising as many alien religions as it possibly could (indeed, it was in a manner forced to accord them recognition), in order that these alien religions might not constitute a barrier between it and its subjects. By this means there gradually arose a medley and diversity of religions in the empire which was bewildering and rendered a sound religious policy impossible.

A single, new, universal religion was the crying need of the hour. It seemed that this need might be met in various ways. Elagabalus, Alexander Severus, and Maximinus Daza were the emperors who tried to strike out a fresh line before the time of Constantine. Elagabalus wished to do this by exalting one Syrian divinity to the position of Supreme God of the empire and giving a subordinate place to all other cults; Alexander, by endeavouring to discover the common element in all religious doctrines and forms of worship and uniting them in peaceful conjunction (as all, at bottom, meaning the same thing); Maximinus Daza by making regulations for the administrative union of all the religions and cults of a single province under one high priest appointed by the state, and for the control of these priests by the civil government. These were all attempts to create a new church, and an established church to boot, and must all be regarded as preliminaries to Constantine's achievement.

A certain bias towards monotheism was involved in the case of Elagabalus and Alexander; towards an oriental monotheism in the former. Diocletian, indeed, attempted once more to make the old Roman religious system serve the purpose; but as he had placed the political administration and government of the empire on an entirely new basis, and introduced a new oriental and despotic system after the dissolution of the ancient state, his reactionary religious policy was a grave error. It was foredoomed to utter failure the new state could not possibly rest upon the scanty foundations of the old cults; and Constantine, who witnessed its collapse, drew from it the only correct inference. The new basis of the state must be a monotheistic religion - an oriental monotheism. So much the third century had taught.

(2) The Roman state approximated to Christianity and the church by a steady process of levelling up from within and by its transformation from a Roman state into a state of provinces. Caracalla bestowed the rights of Roman citizenship on the inhabitants of all the provinces; the influence of the old Roman aristocracy steadily declined, the state became really cosmopolitan. But the church was cosmopolitan likewise; indeed, Christianity was at bottom the only really universal religion. It was not bound up with Judaism, like the religion of the Old Testament; nor with Egypt, like Isis-worship; nor with Persia, like Mithras-worship; it had shaken itself free from all national elements. Hence every step by which the state lost something of its exclusively Roman character brought it nearer to the church.

(3) The legislation begun by Nerva and Trajan and continued by the Antonines and the emperors of the first half of the third century under the guidance of great jurists marked an enormous advance in the sphere of law. The Stoic ideas of the "rights of man" and the leavening of law by morality were introduced into legislation and operated by countless wholesome ordinances. By this means the state met halfway the feeling which prevailed in the church as a matter of principle. By the beginning of the fourth century there were but few points in Roman civil law to which

H. W. — VOL. VI. 2 T

the church (which, it must be owned, had somewhat lowered its moral standard) could fairly take objection, and many, on the other hand, which it hailed with joyful assent. Thus the development of Roman law must be recognised as a preliminary step to the amalgamation of state and church.

(4) At first sight it seems as though after the middle of the third century the state had met the church in a far more hostile spirit and had therefore been far less capable of appreciating it than in the preceding epoch. But although it is true that the systematic persecution of the church first began under Decius, yet the conclusion that therefore the state cannot have appreciated the church does not hold good in fact. Rather, the persecutions of Decius and Valerian prove, as has been suggested before, that these emperors realised the danger the old political system implied in the existence of the church more clearly than their predecessors had done. They accordingly endeavoured to extirpate the church, as Diocletian's co-emperor did likewise. But these attempts must be regarded as desperate and (with the exception of the last named) short-lived experiments. During the early years of the reign of Valerian and from 260 to 302 the church enjoyed almost absolute peace within the empire; and, above all, the imperial government recognised the importance of the bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is proved not only by the persecutory edicts, but, as has been said above, by peaceful acts. Gallienus and Aurelian wrote letters to the bishops, and the latter even tried by peaceful means to use their influence to strengthen Roman dominion; nay, Maximinus Daza actually attempted to copy the constitution of the church and to organise the pagan system of worship in similar fashion. Under the circumstances it was much simpler to ally the hierarchy of the church itself with the state than to make any such attempt. That the strength of the church lay in the hierarchy the despots had long recognised. Accordingly as soon as he had decided in favour of Christianity, Constantine joined hands with the bishops. He not only joined hands with them, but he honoured them and bestowed privileges upon them, for he was anxious to secure their power for the state. His success was immediate; the hierarchy put itself - unreservedly, we may say at his disposal when once he had set the cross upon his standard. Thus the state within the state was abolished; the strongest political force then existent, to wit, the church, was made the cornerstone of the state. Both parties, the emperor and the bishops, were equally well pleased; history seldom has a conclusion of peace like this to record, in which both contracting parties broke forth into rejoicings. And both were fully justified in their rejoicing, for a thing for which a way had been slowly made ready now had come to light; the empire gained a strong support and the church was delivered from an undignified position, in which she could not avail herself freely of the forces at her disposal. The church of the fourth century not only accomplished much more than the church of the period between 250 and 325, but she brought forth men of greater distinction and more commanding character.

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter a is reserved for Editorial Matter.]

CHAPTER XXIX. THE EMPIRE AND THE PROVINCES (15 B.C.-14 A.D.)

GEORG WEBER, Allgemeine Weltgeschichte. - VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN, Augustus und seine Zeit. JOACHIM MARQUARDT (in collab, with Theodor Mommsen), Römische Staatsverwaltung CHARLES MERIVALE, A History of the Romans under the Empire.

-e

CHAPTER XXX. THE GERMAN PEOPLE AND THE EMPIRE (16 B.C.-19 A.D.)

F. C. SCHLOSSER, Weltgeschichte für das Deutsche Volk. - GEORG WEBER, op. cit.d EDUARD MEYER, Untersuchungen über die Schlacht im Teutoberger Walde. - CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, Compendium of the History of Rome (translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson). FLORUS, Epitome of Roman History (translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson). 9 CORNELIUS TACITUS, Annales.

CHAPTER XXXI: THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS: ASPECTS OF ITS CIVILISATION (30 B.c.-14 A.D.)

b VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN, op. cit. - GEORG WEBER, op. cit. -d KARL HOECK, Römische Geschichte vom Verfall der Republik bis zur Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin.— • Monumentum Ancyranum. - JOHANN HEINRICH KARL FRIEDRICH HERMANN SCHILLER, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit bis auf Theodosius den Grossen. - CHARLES MERIVALE, op. cit. B. G. NIEBUHR, The History of Rome (translated from the German by J. C. Hare, C. Thirlwall, W. Smith, and L. Schmitz), H. TAINE, Essai sur Tite Live.

CHAPTER XXXII. THE LAST YEARS OF AUGUSTUS (21 B.C.-14 A.D.)

GEORG WEBER, op. cit. - CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, The Lives of the Twelve Cæsars (Translated from the Latin by A. Thomson). d THOMAS ARNOLD, History of the Later Roman Commonwealth. - VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN, op. cit.

CHAPTER XXXIII. THE IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS OF AUGUSTUS: TIBERIUS, CALIGULA, AND CLAUDIUS. (14–54 a.d.)

b VICTOR DURUY, Histoire Romaine jusqu'à l'invasion des barbares. — © CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, op. cit. - d CORNELIUS TACITUS, op. cit. - THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, The History of Rome to the End of the Republic. - CHARLES MERIVALE, op. cit. — CAIUS VALLEIUS PATERCULUS, op. cit. h FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, The Works of Josephus (translated from the Greek by William Whiston). — HERRENIUS BYBLIUS PHILON, ПIepi Tŷs Baσiλeías. — DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, Ρωμαϊκὴ ἱστορία. - PLINIUS SECUNDUS, Historia Naturalis. - LUCIUS ANNEUS SENECA, Apocolocyntosis. -m G. F. HERTZBERG, Geschichte der Römer im Alterthum. " TARVER, Tiberius.

CHAPTER XXXIV. NERO: LAST EMPEROR OF THE HOUSE of Caesar (54–68 a.d.) b VICTOR DURUY, op. cit. — CORNELIUS TACITUS, op. cit. d CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, op. cit. - CHARLES MERIVALE, op. cit. - THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, op. cit.

-e

CHAPTER XXXV. GALBA, OTHO, VITELLIUS, and the Three FLAVIANS (68-96 a.d.) OLIVER GOLDSMITH, History of Rome. - CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, op. cit. d F. C. SCHLOSSER. op. cit. THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, op. cit. — DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, op. cit. - PLINIUS, op. cit. — WILLIAM GELL (in collab. with John P. Gandy), Pompeiana; the Topography, Edifices, and Ornaments of Pompeii.- CORNELIUS TACITUS, Historia.-ARTHUR MURPHY, in the Appendix to Book V of his translation of The Works of Cornelius Tacitus. * CHARLES MERIVALE, op. cit. — Flavius JosePHUS, op. cit. —m G. W. BOTSFORD, A History of Rome. -" V. DURUY, op. cit.

CHAPTER XXXVI. THE FIVE GOOD EMPERORS: NERVA TO MARCUS AURELIUS (96-180 A.D.) OLIVER GOLDSMITH, op. cit. VICTOR DURUY, op. cit. -d J. ERNEST RENAN, Histoire des origines du Christianisme. - EDWARD GIBBON, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. - F. C. SCHLOSSER, op. cit. 9 DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, op. cit.. * XIPHILINUS, Επιτωμή τῆς Δίωνος Νικαέως ρωμαϊκῆς ἱστορίας. - R. W. BROWN, History of Roman Classical Literature. PLINIUS MINOR, Epistolæ. - R. BURN, Old Rome: a Handbook to the Ruins of the City and the Campagna.-CHARLES MERIVALE, op. cit. —m G. F. HERTZBERG, op. cit.-n J. B. BURY, Student's Roman Empire.