Looking down from the Acropolis upon the Agora, Paul would distinguish a cloister or colonnade. This is the Stoa Pcile, or "Painted Porch," so called because its walls were decorated with fresco paintings of the legendary wars of Greece, and the more glorious struggle at Marathon. It was here that Zeno first opened that celebrated school which thence received the name of _Stoic_. The site of the _garden_ where Epicurus taught is now unknown. It was no doubt within the city walls, and not far distant from the Agora. It was well known in the time of Cicero, who visited Athens as a student little more than a century before the Apostle. It could not have been forgotten in the time of Paul. In this "tranquil garden," in the society of his friends, Epicurus pa.s.sed a life of speculation and of pleasure. His disciples were called, after him, the Epicureans.[381]
[Footnote 381: See Conybeare and Howson"s "Life and Epistles of St.
Paul," vol. i., Lewes"s "Biographical History of Philosophy;" and Encyclopaedia Britannica, article, "Athens," from whence our materials for the description of these "places" are mainly derived.]
Here, then, in Athens the Apostle was brought into immediate contact with all the phases of philosophic thought which had appeared in the ancient world. "Amongst those who sauntered beneath the cool shadows of the plane-trees in the Agora, and gathered in knots under the porticoes, eagerly discussing the questions of the day, were the philosophers, in the garb of their several sects, ready for any new question on which they might exercise their subtlety or display their rhetoric." If there were any in that motley group who cherished the principles and retained the spirit of the true Platonic school, we may presume they felt an inward intellectual sympathy with the doctrine enounced by Paul. With Plato, "philosophy was only another name for _religion_: philosophy is the love of perfect Wisdom; perfect Wisdom and perfect Goodness are identical: the perfect Good is G.o.d himself; philosophy is the love of G.o.d."[382] He confessed the need of divine a.s.sistance to attain "the good," and of divine interposition to deliver men from moral ruin.[383]
Like Socrates, he longed for a supernatural--a divine light to guide him, and he acknowledged his need thereof continually.[384] He was one of those who, in heathen lands, waited for "the desire of nations;" and, had he lived in Christian times, no doubt his "spirit of faith" would have joyfully "embraced the Saviour in all the completeness of his revelation and advent."[385] And in so far as the spirit of Plato survived among his disciples, we may be sure they were not among the number who "mocked," and ridiculed, and opposed the "new doctrine"
proclaimed by Paul. It was "the philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics who _encountered_ Paul." The leading tenets of both these sects were diametrically opposed to the doctrines of Christianity. The ruling spirit of each was alien from the spirit of Christ. The haughty _pride_ of the Stoic, the Epicurean abandonment to _pleasure_, placed them in direct antagonism to him who proclaimed the crucified and risen Christ to be "_the wisdom_ of G.o.d."
[Footnote 382: Butler"s "Lectures on Ancient Philosophy," vol. ii. p.
61.]
[Footnote 383: "Republic," bk. vi. ch. vi. vii.]
[Footnote 384: Butler"s "Lectures," vol. i. p. 362.]
[Footnote 385: Wheedon on "The Will," p. 352; also Butler"s "Lectures,"
vol. ii. p. 252]
If, however, we would justly appreciate the relation of pagan philosophy to Christian truth, we must note that, when Paul arrived in Athens, the age of Athenian glory had pa.s.sed away. Not only had her national greatness waned, and her national spirit degenerated, but her intellectual power exhibited unmistakable signs of exhaustion, and weakness, and decay. If philosophy had borne any fruit, of course that fruit remained. If, in the palmy days of Athenian greatness, any field of human inquiry had been successfully explored; if human reason had achieved any conquests; if any thing true and good had been obtained, that must endure as an heir-loom for all coming time; and if those centuries of agonizing wrestlings with nature, and of ceaseless questioning of the human heart, had yielded no results, then, at least, the _lesson_ of their failure and defeat remained for the instruction of future generations. Either the problems they sought to solve were proved to be insoluble, or their methods of solution were found to be inadequate; for here the mightiest minds had grappled with the great problems of being and of destiny. Here vigorous intellects had struggled to pierce the darkness which hangs alike over the beginning and the end of human existence. Here profoundly earnest men had questioned nature, reason, antiquity, oracles, in the hope they might learn something of that invisible world of _real_ being which they instinctively felt must lie beneath the world of fleeting forms and ever-changing appearances.
Here philosophy had directed her course towards every point in the compa.s.s of thought, and touched every _accessible_ point. The sun of human reason had reached its zenith, and illuminated every field that lay within the reach of human ken. And this sublime era of Greek philosophy is of inestimable value to us who live in Christian times, because _it is an exhaustive effort of human reason to solve the problem of being_, and in its history we have a record of the power and weakness of the human mind, at once on the grandest scale and in the fairest characters.[386]
[Footnote 386: See article "Philosophy," in Smith"s "Dictionary of the Bible."]
These preliminary considerations will have prepared the way for, and awakened in our minds a profound interest in, the inquiry--1st. What permanent _results_ has Greek philosophy bequeathed to the world? 2d. In what manner did Greek philosophy fulfill for Christianity a _propdeutic_ office?
It will at once be obvious, even to those who are least conversant with our theme, that it would be fruitless to attempt the answer to these important questions before we have made a careful survey of the entire history of philosophic thought in Greece. We must have a clear and definite conception of the problems they sought to solve, and we must comprehend their methods of inquiry, before we can hope to appreciate the results they reached, or determine whether they did arrive at any definite and valuable conclusions. It will, therefore, devolve upon us to present a brief and yet comprehensive epitome of the history of Grecian speculative thought.
"_Philosophy_," says Cousin, "_is reflection_, and nothing else than reflection, in a vast form"--"Reflection elevated to the rank and authority of a _method_." It is the mind looking back upon its own sensations, perceptions, cognitions, ideas, and from thence to the _causes_ of these sensations, cognitions, and ideas. It is thought pa.s.sing beyond the simple perceptions of things, beyond the mere spontaneous operations of the mind in the cognition of things to seek the _ground_, and _reason_, and _law_ of things. It is the effort of reason to solve the great problem of "Being and Becoming," of appearance and reality, of the changeful and the permanent. Beneath the endless diversity of the universe, of existence and action, there must be a principle of unity; below all fleeting appearances there must be a permanent substance; beyond this everlasting flow and change, this beginning and ending of finite existence, there must be an _eternal being_, the source and cause of all we see and know, _What is that principle of unity, that permanent substance_, or principle, or being?
This fundamental question has a.s.sumed three separate forms or aspects in the history of philosophy. These forms have been determined by the objective phenomena which most immediately arrested and engaged the attention of men. If external nature has been the chief object of attention, then the problem of philosophy has been, _What is the ????--_the beginning; what are the first principles_--the elements from which, the ideas or laws according to which, the efficient cause or energy by which, and the reason or end for which the universe exists?_ During this period reflective thought was a PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE. If the phenomena of mind--the opinions, beliefs, judgments of men--are the chief object of attention, then the problem of philosophy has been, _What are the fundamental Ideas which are unchangeable and permanent amid all the diversities of human opinions, connecting appearance with reality, and const.i.tuting a ground of certain knowledge or absolute truth?_ Reflective thought is now a PHILOSOPHY OF IDEAS. Then, lastly, if the practical activities of life and the means of well-being be the grand object of attention, then the problem of philosophy has been, _What is the ultimate standard by which, amid all the diversities of human conduct, we may determine what is right and good in individual, social, and political life?_ And now reflective thought is a PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE. These are the grand problems with which philosophy has grappled ever since the dawn of reflection. They all appear in Greek philosophy, and have a marked chronology. As systems they succeed each other, just as rigorously as the phenomena of Greek civilization.
The Greek schools of philosophy have been cla.s.sified from various points of view. In view of their geographical relations, they have been divided into the _Ionian_, the _Italian_, the _Eleatic_, the _Athenian_, and the _Alexandrian_. In view of their prevailing spirit and tendency, they have been cla.s.sified by Cousin as the Sensational, the Idealistic, the Skeptical, and the Mystical. The most natural and obvious method is that which (regarding Socrates as the father of Greek philosophy in the truest sense) arranges all schools from the Socratic stand point, and therefore in the chronological order of development:
I. THE PRE-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.
II. THE SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.
III. THE POST-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.
The history of philosophy is thus divided into three grand epochs. The first reaching from Thales to the time of Socrates (B.C. 639-469): the second from the birth of Socrates to the death of Aristotle (B.C.
469-322); the third from the death of Aristotle to the Christian era (B.C. 322, A.D. 1). Greek philosophy during the first period was almost exclusively a philosophy of nature; during the second period, a philosophy of mind; during the last period, a philosophy of life.
Nature, man, and society complete the circle of thought. Successive systems, of course, overlap each other, both in the order of time and as subjects of human speculation; and the results of one epoch of thought are transmitted to and appropriated by another; but, in a general sense, the order of succession has been very much as here indicated. Setting aside minor schools and merely incidental discussions, and fixing our attention on the general aspects of each historic period, we shall discover that the first period was eminently _Physical_, the second _Psychological_, the last _Ethical_. Every stage of progress which reason, on _a priori_ grounds, would suggest as the natural order of thought, or of which the development of an individual mind would furnish an a.n.a.logy, had a corresponding realization in the development of Grecian thought from the time of Thales to the Christian era. "Thought,"
says Cousin, "in the first trial of its strength is drawn without." The first object which engages the attention of the child is the outer world. He asks the "_how_" and "_why_" of all he sees. His reason urges him to seek an explanation of the universe. So it was in the _childhood_ of philosophy. The first essays of human thought were, almost without exception, discourses pe?? f?se?? (De rerum natura), of the nature of things. Then the rebound of baffled reason from the impenetrable bulwarks of the universe drove the mind back upon itself. If the youth can not interpret nature, he can at least "know himself," and find within himself the ground and reason of all existence. There are "_ideas_" in the human mind which are copies of those "_archetypal ideas_" which dwell in the Creative Mind, and after which the universe was built. If by "a.n.a.lysis" and "definition" these universal notions can be distinguished from that which is particular and contingent in the aggregate of human knowledge, then so much of eternal truth has been attained. The achievements of philosophic thought in this direction, during the Socratic age, have marked it as the most brilliant period in the history of philosophy--the period of its _youthful_ vigor. Deeply immersed in the practical concerns and conflicts of public life, _manhood_ is mainly occupied with questions of personal duty, and individual and social well-being. And so, during the hopeless turmoil of civil disturbance which marked the decline of national greatness in Grecian history, philosophy was chiefly occupied with questions of personal interest and personal happiness. The poetic enthusiasm with which a n.o.bler age had longed for _truth_, and sought it as the highest good, has all disappeared, and now one sect seeks refuge from the storms and agitations of the age in Stoical indifference, the other in Epicurean effeminacy.
If now we have succeeded in presenting the real problem of philosophy, it will at once be obvious that the inquiry was not, in any proper sense, _theological_. Speculative thought, during the period we have marked as the era of Greek philosophy, was not an inquiry concerning the existence or nature of G.o.d, or concerning the relations of man to G.o.d, or the duties which man owes to G.o.d. These questions were all remitted to the _theologian_. There was a clear line of demarkation separating the domains of religion and philosophy. Religion rested solely on authority, and appealed to the instinctive faith of the human heart. She permitted no encroachment upon her settled usages, and no questioning of her ancient beliefs. Philosophy rested on reason alone. It was an independent effort of thought to interpret nature, and attain the fundamental grounds of human knowledge--to find an ????--a first principle, which, being a.s.sumed, should furnish a rational explanation of all existence. If philosophy reach the conclusion that the ???? was water, or air, or fire, or a chaotic mixture of all the elements or atoms, extended and self-moved, or monads, or t? p??, or uncreated mind, and that conclusion harmonized with the ancient standards of religious faith--well; if not, philosophy must present some method of conciliation. The conflicts of faith and reason; the stragglings of traditional authority to maintain supremacy; the accommodations and conciliations attempted in those primitive times, would furnish a chapter of peculiar interest, could it now be written.
The poets who appeared in the dim twilight of Grecian civilization--Orpheus, Musaeus, Homer, Hesiod--seem to have occupied the same relation to the popular mind in Greece which the Bible now sustains to Christian communities.[387] Not that we regard them as standing on equal ground of authority, or in any sense a revelation. But, in the eye of the wondering Greek, they were invested with the highest sacredness and the supremest authority. The high poetic inspiration which pervaded them was a supernatural gift. Their sublime utterances were accepted as proceeding from a divine afflatus. They were the product of an age in which it was believed by all that the G.o.ds a.s.sumed a human form,[388]
and held a real intercourse with gifted men. This universal faith is regarded by some as being a relic of still more distant times, a faint remembrance of the glory of patriarchal days. The more natural opinion is, that it was begotten of that universal longing of the human heart for some knowledge of that unseen world of real being, which man instinctively felt must lie beyond the world of fleeting change and delusive appearances. It was a prolepsis of the soul, reaching upward towards its source and goal. The poet felt within him some native affinities therewith, and longed for some stirring breath of heaven to sweep the harp-strings of the soul. He invoked the inspiration of the G.o.ddess of Song, and waited for, no doubt believed in, some "deific impulse" descending on him. And the people eagerly accepted his utterance as the teaching of the G.o.ds. They were too eager for some knowledge from that unseen world to question their credentials. Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer, were the ?e??????--the theologians of that age.[389]
[Footnote 387: "Homer was, in a certain sense, the Bible of the Greeks."--Whewell, "Platonic Dialogues," p. 283.]
[Footnote 388: The universality of this belief is a.s.serted by Cicero: "Vetus opinio est, jam usque ab heroicis ducta temporibus, eaque et populi Romani et omnium gentium firmata consensu, versari quandem inter homines divinationem."--Cicero, "De Divin." bk. i. ch. i.]
[Footnote 389: Cicero.]
These ancient poems, then, were the public doc.u.ments of the religion of Greece--the repositories of the national faith. And it is deserving of especial note that the philosopher was just as anxious to sustain his speculations by quoting the high traditional authority of the ancient theologian, as the propounder of modern novelties is to sustain his notions by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures. Numerous examples of this solicitude will recur at once to the remembrance of the student of Plato. All encroachments of philosophy upon the domains of religion were watched as jealously in Athens in the sixth century before Christ, as the encroachments of science upon the fields of theology were watched in Rome in the seventeenth century after Christ. The court of the Areopagus was as earnest, though not as fanatical and cruel, in the defense of the ancient faith, as the court of the Inquisition was in the defense of the dogmas of the Romish Church. The people, also, as "the sacred wars" of Greece attest, were ready quickly to repel every a.s.sault upon the majesty of their religion. And so philosophy even had its martyrs. The tears of Pericles were needed to save Aspasia, because she was suspected of philosophy. But neither his eloquence nor his tears could save his friend Anaxagoras, and he was ostracized. Aristotle had the greatest difficulty to save his life. And Plato was twice imprisoned, and once sold into slavery.[390]
[Footnote 390: Cousin"s "Lectures on the History of Philosophy," vol. i.
p. 305.]
It is unnecessary that we should, in this place, again attempt the delineation of the theological opinions of the earlier periods of Grecian civilization. That the ancient Greeks believed in _one Supreme G.o.d_ has been conclusively proved by Cudworth. The argument of his fourth chapter is incontrovertible.[391] However great the number of "generated G.o.ds" who crowded the Olympus, and composed the ghostly array of Greek mythology, they were all subordinate agents, "demiurges,"
employed in the framing of the world and all material things, or else the ministers of the moral and providential government of the e?? ?e??
????t??--the one uncreated G.o.d. Beneath, or beyond the whole system of pagan polytheism, we recognize a faith in an _Uncreated Mind_, the Source of all the intelligence, and order, and harmony which pervades the universe the Fountain of law and justice; the Ruler of the world; the Avenger of injured innocence; and the final Judge of men. The immortality of the soul and a state of future retribution were necessary corollaries of this sublime faith. This primitive theology was unquestionably the people"s faith; the faith, also, of the philosopher, in his inmost heart, however far he might wander in speculative thought.
The instinctive feeling of the human heart, the spontaneous intuitions of the human reason, have led man, in every age, to recognize a G.o.d. It is within the fields of speculative thought that skepticism has had its birth. Any thing like atheism has only made its appearance amid the efforts of human reason to explain the universe. The native sentiments of the heart and the spontaneous movements of the reason have always been towards faith, that is, towards "a religious movement of the soul."[392] Unbridled speculative thought, which turns towards the outer world alone, and disregards "the voices of the soul," tends towards _doubt_ and irreligion. But, as Cousin has said, "a complete extravagance, a total delusion (except in case of real derangement), is impossible." "Beneath reflection there is still spontaneity, when the scholar has denied the existence of a G.o.d; listen to the man, interrogate him unawares, and you will see that all his words betray the idea of a G.o.d, and that faith in a G.o.d is, without his recognition, at the bottom of his heart."[393]
[Footnote 391: "Intellectual System of the Universe;" see also ch. iii., "On the Religion of the Athenians."]
[Footnote 392: Cousin"s "Hist. of Philos.," vol. i. p. 22.]
[Footnote 393: Id., ib., vol. i. p. 137.]
Let us not, therefore, be too hasty in representing the early philosophers as dest.i.tute of the idea of a G.o.d, because in the imperfect and fragmentary representations which are given us of the philosophical opinions of Thales, and Anaximenes, and Herac.l.i.tus, and Diogenes of Apollonia, we find no explicit allusions to the _Uncreated Mind_ as the first principle and cause of all. A few sentences will comprehend the whole of what remains of the opinions of the earliest philosophers, and these were transmitted for ages by _oral_ tradition. To Plato and Aristotle we are chiefly indebted for a stereotype of those scattered, fragmentary sentences which came to their hands through the dim and distorting medium of more than two centuries. Surely no one imagines these few sentences contain and sum up the results of a lifetime of earnest thought, or represent all the opinions and beliefs of the earliest philosophers! And should we find therein no recognition of a personal G.o.d, would it not be most unfair and illogical to a.s.sert that they were utterly ignorant of a G.o.d, or wickedly denied his being? If they say "there is no G.o.d," then they are foolish Atheists; if they are silent on that subject, we have a right to a.s.sume they were Theists, for it is most natural to believe in G.o.d. And yet it has been quite customary for Christian teachers, after the manner of some Patristic writers, to deny to those early sages the smallest glimpse of underived and independent knowledge of a Divine Being, in their zeal to a.s.sert for the Sacred Scriptures the exclusive prerogative of revealing Him.
Now in regard to the theological opinions of the Greek philosophers, we shall venture this general _lemma_--_the majority of them recognized an "incorporeal substance"_[394]_ an uncreated Intelligence, an ordering, governing Mind_. Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus, who were Materialists, are perhaps the only exceptions. Many of them were Pantheists, in the higher form of Pantheism, which, though it a.s.sociates the universe with its framer and mover, still makes "the moving principle" superior to that which is moved. The world was a living organism,
"Whose body nature is, and G.o.d the soul."
Unquestionably most on them recognized the existence of _two_ first principles, substances essentially distinct, which had co-existed from eternity--an incorporeal Deity and matter.[395] We grant that the free production of a universe by a creative fiat--the calling of matter into being by a simple act of omnipotence--is not elementary to human reason.
The famous physical axiom of antiquity, "_De nihilo nihil, in nihilum posse reverti"_ under one aspect, may be regarded as the expression of the universal consciousness of a mental inability to conceive a creation out of nothing, or an annihilation.[396] "We can not conceive, either, on the one hand, nothing becoming something, or something becoming nothing, on the other hand. When G.o.d is said to create the universe out of nothing, we think this by supposing that he evolves the universe out of himself; and in like manner, we conceive annihilation only by conceiving the Creator to withdraw his creation from actuality into power."[397] "It is by _faith_ we understand the worlds were framed by the _word of G.o.d_, so that things which are were not made from things which do appear"--that is, from pre-existent matter.
[Footnote 394: "??s?a? ?s?at??."--Plato.]
[Footnote 395: Cudworth"s "Intellectual System," vol. i. p. 269.]
[Footnote 396: Mansell"s "Limits of Religious Thought," p. 100.]
[Footnote 397: Sir William Hamilton"s "Discussions on Philosophy," p.
575.]
Those writers[398] are, therefore, clearly in error who a.s.sert that the earliest question of Greek philosophy was, What is G.o.d? and that various and discordant answers were given, Thales saying, water is G.o.d, Anaximenes, air; Herac.l.i.tus, fire; Pythagoras, numbers; and so on. The idea of G.o.d is a native intuition of the mind. It springs up spontaneously from the depths of the human soul. The human mind naturally recognizes G.o.d as an uncreated Mind, and recognizes itself as "the offspring of G.o.d." And, therefore, it is simply impossible for it to acknowledge water, or air, or fire, or any material thing to be its G.o.d. Now they who reject this fundamental principle evidently misapprehend the real problem of early Grecian philosophic thought. The external world, the material universe, was the first object of their inquiry, and the method of their inquiry was, at the first stage, purely physical. Every object of sense had a beginning and an end; it rose out of something, and it fell back into something. Beneath this ceaseless flow and change there must be some permanent principle. What is that st???e???--that first element? The changes in the universe seem to obey some principle of law--they have an orderly succession. What is that ??f?--that form, or ideal, or archetype, proper to each thing, and according to which all things are produced? These changes must be produced by some efficient cause, some power or being which is itself immobile, and permanent, and eternal, and adequate to their production.
What is that ???? t?? ????se??--that first principle of movement Then, lastly, there must be an end for which all things exist--a good reason why things are as they are, and not otherwise. What is that t? ?? ??e?e?
?a? t? ??a???--that reason and good of all things? Now these are all ???a? or first principles of the universe. "Common to all first principles," says Aristotle, "is the being, the original, from which a thing is, or is produced, or is known."[399] First principles, therefore, include both elements and causes, and, under certain aspects, elements are also causes, in so far as they are that without which a thing can not be produced. Hence that highest generalization by Aristotle of all first principles; as--1. The Material Cause; 2. The Formal Cause; 3. The Efficient Cause; 4. The Final Cause. The grand subject of inquiry in ancient philosophy was not alone what is the final _element_ from which all things have been produced? nor yet what is the _efficient cause_ of the movement and the order of the universe? _but what are those First Principles which, being a.s.sumed, shall furnish a rational explanation of all phenomena, of all becoming?_
[Footnote 398: As the writer of the article "Attica," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.]
[Footnote 399: "Metaphysics," bk. iv. ch. i. p. 112 (Bohn"s edition).]
So much being premised, we proceed to consider the efforts and the results of philosophic thought in
THE PRE-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.