INTRODUCTION.
It was at Athens, “the school of the world,” that the first and only contact of Christianity with Gentile Philosophy, recorded in the New Testament, took place. In “the learned city” the mightiest efforts of the human mind had been made to grasp eternal truth. But the contradictions in the teachings of the master-minds of Greece and the consequent doubt and unbelief so prevalent, at the same time, with the most abject superstition, proved that the effort had been vain to arrive at a full comprehension of the Infinite from a consideration of the finite—to rise from man toGod. In this same city, about half a century after the birth of the Redeemer, there was unveiled to human souls which had been longing for the knowledge of the unseen, “the mystery of Godliness,” that “God” had been “manifest in the flesh.” The eyes which had been long looking for the day might now behold the day-star from on high who had visited and blessed the world with light and salvation. Now there could be found repose of soul and certainty of belief, because the Truth had come down from heaven, fromGodto man, that He might raise man toGod. Heavenly wisdom at length encountered human wisdom and pride of intellect in their stronghold.
By this I do not mean that beforeStPaul came toAthens there had been no contest of the religion of Christ with mere human conceits. Philosophy is only the endeavor to reduce the thoughts of men to a system, to find a grammar for the language of the mind, or rather, perhaps, to find a language as well as a grammar. Wherever there is mind there will be thought, either with, or without a system. So that Christianity, in winning its way, had met with opposition of human thought before the great Apostle of Jesus reached the metropolis of thought. Indeed the very sects of philosophy, which sneered at the revelation of heavenly truth on its introduction into Athens, had their counterparts in Judæa, and especially at Jerusalem. We have the testimony of a Pharisee, that the “sect of the Pharisees bore a strong affinity to that called Stoic among the Greeks[2].” We are led to perceive, also, from the accounts we have of the free-living Sadducees, who claimed absolute freedom for the human will, that the Epicureans were represented in some degree by them. They were sceptics as to the providence ofGod, “believed in neither angel, nor spirit[3];” “they took away all fate, and would not allow it to be anything at all, nor to have any power over human affairs, but put all things entirely into the power of our own free will[4].” Both Pharisees and Sadducees, though disagreeing in other respects, yet were united in their efforts against the spread of the truth. From the earliest preaching of the doctrines of the Gospel, the same spirit of self-seeking and pride of human naturewhich animated the Epicureans and Stoics, showed themselves adverse to the humbling views which Jesus set forth. And we cannot forget thatStPaul, immediately after his conversion, having been in great danger at Damascus and at Jerusalem from the rage of the Jews because of his becoming a Christian, dwelt some time in quiet at Tarsus, his native city. We have no record of how he spent his time there on that occasion. But doubtless, as at other places so there, he would proclaim the conviction which he so strongly felt of the excellence and truth of the Gospel. If so, it is probable that he met with the same kind of coldness and contempt for his message from the philosophers of Tarsus, as afterwards from those of Athens. The native city ofStPaul was noted for the eagerness for learning displayed by its people. Strabo tells us “the men of this place are so zealous in the study of philosophy and all other subjects of education that they surpass the inhabitants of Athens and Alexandria, and every place that one could mention where schools of philosophy are found. The difference is in this respect. Here they are all natives who are eager after learning, and strangers do not choose a residence here. They themselves (the Tarsians) do not stay, but finish their course of training abroad. Few return home again. Whereas, in the other cities which I have named, except Alexandria, there is a contrary practice; for many come to them and live willingly there: but you will see few of those born there either going to other places for the sake of philosophy, or caring to study it at home. The Alexandrians combine both descriptions, for they receive many strangers, and send abroad not a few of their own people.” We learn also from other sources that from Cilicia, and especially from Tarsus, a great many of the most celebratedStoics came, and it appears therefore extremely probable thatStPaul would meet with such in his visit to that city. If he met with them, they would hear the truth from his lips. His heart would prompt him, as it did afterwards at Athens, to proclaim glad tidings of salvation to all; and to those who professed to seek the knowledge of deeper mysteries than the ignorant mass cared to inquire about, he would declare “the mystery which” had “been hid for ages,” but was now “revealed to the sons of men by Jesus Christ.”
Of these meetings between the Apostle and the philosophers of his native city, if they took place, we have no record. The first account we have of the contact of the religion of Christ and the wisdom of men is given us by the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, in the seventeenth chapter of the history. We are told that, whileStPaul waited at Athens for Silas and Timotheus, “his spirit was stirred within him when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews and with the devout persons; and in the market (τῇ ἀγορᾷ) daily with them that met him. Then certain of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him. And some said, ‘What will this babbler say?’ Other some, ‘He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods;’ because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.” It seems necessary in passing, to notice here the two sects of philosophers who encountered the Apostle. They were then the two most prominent in Greece; one might say they divided between them the adherence of all thoughtful minds. The Epicureans were advocates of the doctrine of the absolute freedom of the human will to choose what is agreeable to it. They denied the providence ofGod, or that he concerns himself at all about human affairs.According to them, the universe was neither formed, nor created, by an intelligent being; but was merely the fortuitous concourse of infinite atoms. They taught that happiness consisted in the pursuit of pleasure, and, as all wish to be happy, all should seek after the greatest amount of pleasure to be obtained. Although Epicurus was fiercely assailed by the disciples of the opposite school, and “the garden,” where he taught, was held to be a hot-bed of sensuality, there was probably much exaggeration in the reports that were spread. Epicurus meant by his teaching, perhaps, not that men should seek after every momentary gratification, but for the greatest enjoyment of a whole life. Yet as this doctrine left man to be his own judge, it is not to be wondered at if the moderation of the founder of the sect was little imitated by his disciples. Men took pleasures as they came, not knowing what pleasure might be in the future, and not caring for the morrow; so vice and profligacy were the result, instead of virtue and contentment and true enjoyment.
The Stoics, on the other hand, were absolute fatalists, and taught that virtue consists in following the decrees of nature and acting according to the dictates which ruled all things. We shall not now enter fully into their doctrines, as these will require careful attention and full development in accordance with the purpose of this essay. We shall see, bye and bye, that the principles of their school were of such a nature as to produce in some respects the strongest, in others, the weakest of men. Stoicism and Epicureanism both left man practically to himself. They agreed in looking at self-cultivation and self-interest as the chief good. The controversy between the two systems was what it has continued to be since among ethical philosophers, a controversy as to the sources ofmoral rules. Epicurus was an advocate of what has been called “the selfish system of morals.” Zeno and the Stoics advocated the contrary system. It seems, however, that though the conflict between them has been so long, and often so fierce, the two systems are not incompatible one with the other. Indeed in the word ofGodboth motives are set before us to urge us to right conduct, the loveliness of virtue in itself, and the combined happiness and blessedness to be gained from a certain course of life. This view has been put in a few forcible words by an eminent writer of the present day, who says, “Some moralists employ themselves mainly in deducing the rules of action from considering the tendencies of actions to produce pleasure or pain, as Paley and Bentham. Others take pains to show that man has a faculty by which he apprehends a higher Rule of action than the mere tendency to produce pleasure, as Butler. But though these two sources of morality are thus separate, they are not really independent; and it is, as I conceive, important to present them in a mode which shows their connexion and relation[5].” One of these springs of action does not necessarily counteract the other. Doubtless, there is in man an innate appreciation of the beauty of virtue. Though the temple of the human soul has been laid in ruins by the touch of sin, yet does it still retain marks of its primeval glory. It was not created for anything but the abode of purity. Hence we perceive naturally the excellence of virtue. When I say naturally, I mean as man is at all times enabled to see byGod’s help. We must remember that, by virtue of the Redeemer’s merits, all men are blessed with a certain degree of enlightenment. Speakingof the Eternal Logos,StJohn says[6], “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” Only because men in their obstinacy close their eyes, the light which is given them often becomes darkness. SoStPaul, speaking of those without Revelation, says[7], “They are a law to themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or else excusing one another.” In order to this they must appreciate the beauty and excellence of virtue. So Justin Martyr declares[8], “Every race of men participated in the Logos.” When we speak of man by nature then, we mean man with the aid of this light given to him by Christ. And we must perceive great force in the statement of Berkeley, that “There is an idea of beauty natural to the mind of man. This all men desire. This they are pleased and delighted with for its own sake, purely from an instinct of nature. A man needs no argument to make him discern and approve what is beautiful; it strikes at first sight and attracts without a reason. And as this beauty is found in the shape and form of corporeal things, so also is there analogous to it a beauty of another kind, an order, a symmetry and comeliness in the moral world. And as the eye perceives the one, so the mind doth by a certain interior sense perceive the other: which sense, talent, or faculty, is even quickest and purest in the noblest minds. Thus, as by sight I discern the beauty of a plant, or an animal, even so the mind approves moral excellence, the beauty and decorum of justice and temperance. And as we readily pronounce a dress becoming, or an attitude graceful, we can, with the samefree, untutored judgment, at once declare whether this or that conduct or action, be comely or beautiful.”
We cannot deny, on the other hand, that men act from a feeling of self-interest. To obtain pleasure or escape pain is motive enough to make men pursue a certain course instinctively, without weighing accurately, or even caring at all for the motives which prompt them. When men see that virtue brings in its train present blessing and eternal hopes, shall we deny that this is a strong reason why they should pursue it? Doubtless such a reason weighs with many and draws them to a right course, without a question arising in their minds as to the motives by which they are actuated.
Then the enquiry naturally occurs, since virtue commends itself to us as both lovely and beneficial, shall we reject the loveliness as a motive, because our self-interest moves us also? On the other hand, shall we reject hope of benefit, because the innate loveliness of the object commends itself to us? May we not be moved by the double influence? Certainly the word ofGodseems to sanction such a double motive to religion and virtue.
Yet here we are brought to the humbling conviction of the weakness of man without Christianity. Men had this combined motive for ages. What was the result on the heart and the life? What effect had even the teaching of the wisest? The masses were still sunk in superstition and sin. The farthest advanced were only looking at a height which they could not hope to reach. The most acute thinkers were often in doubt. We see the extremes meeting. Superstition, in its most debased and enthralling forms, stands boldly in the front of the most exalted teachings of philosophy. What could mere philosophy do? She could perhaps find employment for theminds of a few of the most gifted. But what had she to give as food for the hungry souls of the multitude? The starving spirits asked for bread, and she gave them the stone of an unattainable moral excellence. They asked for fish, and she gave them the stinging serpent of pleasure and self-enjoyment[9]. In Athens the human mind reached its zenith, yet could not rise to happiness or peace. How unspeakably was the world blessed, therefore, when the cross of Christ was raised as the means whereby man might reach heaven. Never before was such life-giving truth offered to the Athenians, as the good news which was now brought by the Apostle who “preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.” This was the subject ofStPaul’s daily discourses in the Agora. Instead of blind theories and abstract ideas, he placed before them a person;—a divine person, who had left an example of how to act and how to suffer;—a Saviour, who had died to open the way to happiness for others; who had risen again to show that his sacrifice was complete and sufficient. The Epicureans wondered and yet were unbelieving, while they heard of one who was Lord of all, that he thought of men’s lives and cared for their needs. It was strange and unwelcome to them, who held that happiness was enjoyment and freedom from pain, to hear one proclaimed as worthy of their admiration and trust, who was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” who even gloried in His sufferings and death; and who had bid those that would be his disciples, take up their cross and follow him, by resisting and subduing self and pride. The Stoics heard the tidings (for “the porch” was in the Agora), and they, stern and self-reliant, were surprised,yet not pleased, to hear of one who led a life of self-sacrifice for others’ sake; who was meek and lowly; and who had sent his messenger to declare to those very self-satisfied philosophers, that the only way to real virtue for them, as for the rest of mankind, was by trusting in the merits of another, and by a change of heart through His divine power. “The resurrection” was also equally strange and equally contrary to the ideas of the one sect, who regarded death as annihilation; and of the other, who looked on it as the absorption of men into universal nature of which they were component parts. To some the preacher seemed a mere babbler, a picker up of trifles, and therefore contemptible. To others, he was a setter forth of strange gods. But because they are all desirous of hearing anything newer than what they already are acquainted with, they bring the Apostle to Mars’ Hill, and desire him more fully to expound to them the strange things which he had brought to their ears. The locality chosen was more suitable than the busy market-place. The associations of the place were solemn and deeply interesting. The subject then brought before the people in the Areopagus was worthy of those associations,—far more important and of more momentous consequences than had ever been deliberated on there in times that were gone by. The place, the speaker, the hearers, the subject, all appeal to our sympathies and interest us most deeply. The discourse of the Apostle was admirably suited to the place and the hearers. He appealed to their deepest convictions, while at the same time the message which he brought thwarted many of their cherished ideas,StLuke has given us a report of this speech, so eloquent, so worthy of the admiration of all time, so well calculated to show how far Christianity coincided with Gentile, andespecially Stoic, philosophy, and how it excelled. This was whatStPaul said, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all respects you are extremely devout[10]. For as I passed through your city and beheld the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar on which was this inscription, ‘To the unknownGod.’ Him, therefore, whom you worship though you know him not, I set before you.God, who made the world and all things therein, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is he served by men’s hands as being in need of any, seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things. And hath made of one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the whole earth; having ordained (to all) their appointed seasons and the bounds of their habitations, that they might seekGod, if haply they would feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. For in Him we live and move and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ We, therefore, being the offspring ofGod, ought not to think the Godhead to be like gold, or silver, or stone graven by art or man’s device. Howbeit those (past) times of ignoranceGodhath overlooked; but now he commandeth all men everywhere to repent. Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all, in that he raised him from the dead[11].”
There is much, in connexion with the purpose of our essay, that requires careful consideration in this discourse.If we want to understand the influence which Christianity and Stoicism exercised, one on the other, and on the souls of men, we must notice them side by side at this their first public encounter. When we have observed how far the Christian teacher agreed with the Stoic philosopher, and in what he differed and excelled, we shall have a fair starting-place for investigating the mutual consequences which resulted. In order properly to grasp our subject, it will be necessary to place before our minds what Stoicism was as it came from its founder, and how far it was modified at this time. I purpose therefore in another chapter to give a sketch of the life and teaching of Zeno of Cittium, and of the modifications of his system by Cleanthes and Chrysippus. The way will then be clear to compare the Apostle’s teaching with theirs, and to appreciate the peculiar excellence of the good news preached byStPaul on Mars’ Hill.