He heard it, but he heeded not-his eyes All this rush'd with his blood-Shall he expire, Most of the gladiators were barbarian slaves or captives purchased by contractors for public and private exhibitions of these sanguinary spectacles. No war was ever so destructive to the human race as these sports. The principal magistrates, the candidates for office, and the heirs of any great and rich citizen lately deceased, gratified the populace with these sights during the republic; but the emperors, whose policy it was to court the mob as their surest support against any confederation of the nobles, exhibited them on almost every occasion. Julius Cæsar, in his ædileship, diverted the people with three hundred and twenty couple of gladiators; and Trajan, in a solemnity of more than a hundred days, exhibited no less than a thousand couple. Besides the torrents of blood which flowed at the funerals, in the amphitheatres, the circus, the forums, and other public places, gladiators were introduced at feasts, and tore each other to pieces amidst the supper tables, to the great delight and applause of the guests. Authors have been found who have attempted to palliate or even justify these barbarous sports on the same ground that bull-baiting, bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and man-fighting were defended in England; it was said that they kept alive the manly and martial spirit of the people. Experience has shown that even this miserable excuse is destitute of foundation; so far is a taste for sanguinary sport from being an incentive to courage, that it was quite a proverb with our soldiers during the last war, that the most cruel were the most cowardly. The Spanish bullfights are the nearest approximation to the gladiatorial combats which can be found in modern Europe, and assur edly the Spaniards are far from being the bravest people in Christendom. Amusements of blood and cruelty may, and do inculcate assassination, treachery and murder; but they never did, and they never can inspire the courage and firmness that constitute a hero. They only served to brutalize the Roman populace, already demoralized by a vicious administration; and if they did not accelerate the fall of the empire, they at least stripped fallen greatness of all its claim to pity, and caused the ruin of Rome to be hailed as the triumph of humanity. CHAPTER VII. ON THE DECLINE OF POLYTHEISM. HAVING in the two preceding chapters examined some of the leading moral influences which the Polytheism of Greece and Rome exercised over the social condition of Europe, it is proper to take a view of the effects produced by the decline and fall of their religious systems, before we enter on any examination of the new principles of civilization developed by the Christian system. This is an inquiry of considerable difficulty and importance; but we shall be greatly aided in the examination if we first direct our attention to the more general question-the circumstances that mark the decay and termination of a dogma or an opinion. No opinion or dogma, totally and absolutely false, ever held dominion over mankind; a prevalent creed must, in the outset, have won its way by giving prominence to some great truth, and by keeping in the back-ground the portion of falsehood with which it was united. The Hellenic system of polytheism prevailed over the elementary mythology of Asia, principally by attributing human sympathies to its deities, and thus bringing forward the great truth-that a religion of love is more desirable for mankind than a religion of fear. The falsehood combined with the dogma was, that sympathies for humanity could only be expected from beings having human shape.* The false part of the creed was that from which its substantial forms were derived; and the more these forms were multiplied and extended, the farther was the spiritual truth removed from observation, until at length no trace remained of the creed but an unintelligible ritual and inexplicable observances. Religious truth is peculiarly exposed to the danger of being absorbed thus in forms, but at the same time it would be a most perilous experiment to present it always to mankind as a vague abstraction: an opinion that has not been embodied in form, rarely influences life or conduct; it is a speculation, and nothing more. It is true that the form of religion may exist without the substance, but it is equally true that the substance rarely exists without the form. The peril of forms results from the natural indolence of the human mind. During the struggle necessary for the establishment of an opinion, the truth on which it is based remains pure and perfect; but when the victory is won, triumph produces apathy, and the conquerors trust to formularies for the memory, instead of proofs for the understanding. Two great evils necessarily result: the grounds of belief are shifted from argument to authority, and from reason to credulity ;† while the forms are the more easily * This may, perhaps, have been derived from a previous falsehood; the attribution of any form to the Deity, and then the anthropomorphism of the Greeks, though still a falsehood, was an approximation to truth; in one form it was a truth, namely, the necessity of uniting divinity with humanity, "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God." + I use the word credulity, not faith; for according to the apostolic definition, faith is "belief grounded on evidence." St. Paul says, "Faith is the subsistence or existence (vπusтasis) of things hoped for; the demonstration (ro eλeyxos) of things not seen." An existence can only be proved by evidence, and a demonstration without argument is a contradiction in terms, corrupted as their proper signification sinks into oblivion. Even if human depravity did not corrupt formularies, symbols, and ceremonies; the lapse of time, the changes of circumstances, fashions, language and modes of expression, divert formularies from their original meaning, and obscure the truth they were intended to shadow forth.* The first advocates of the opinion, or the first reformers as they may be called, for every introduction of new opinion is reform-generally increase the danger, by making no distinction between the forms which ought to be permanent, and those which are designed for a temporary purpose. Indeed they generally give most strength and prominence to the institutions designed to meet some pressing evil, peculiar to their own times. They do not reflect, that a correction continuing to exist after an abuse has disappeared, like taking medicine after a disease is cured, is almost certain to become an abuse itself. Take, for example, some of the creeds to be found in ecclesiastical history; these were prepared to check some heresy prevalent at the time of their adoption, and consequently greater prominence is given to the articles that contradict cotemporary errors than to those which form the foundation of the common faith; * It is to be feared that to some extent this has taken place in the language of our venerable Liturgy; and though a change in its form may not be advisable, I think that it would be highly desirable for clergymen to deliver lectures on the liturgy to the less educated part of their congregation, explaining it word by word, and paragraph by paragraph, and taking particular care to explain, when necessary, their own explanation. As a proof of the want of such a system, I may mention that I have many times heard dissenters object to the General Absolution,-that in the sentence," He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe His holy gospel," the word "He" meant the minister; and I have known members of the church, and these not of the lowest rank, acquiesce in the interpretation. |