{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_73570/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_73570","id":"gutenberg_73570","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73570","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity and other religions -- Greek","Civilization, Modern -- Classical influences","Stoics"],"text":"The Mutual Influence of Christianity and the Stoic School\n\n\n\n\n       THE MUTUAL INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE STOIC SCHOOL.\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                        JAMES HENRY BRYANT, B.D.\n\n                     ST JOHN\u2019S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,\n                   INCUMBENT OF ASTLEY, WARWICKSHIRE.\n\n\n                       \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n                         SOPH. _\u0152d. Col. 1080._\n\n\n                         London and Cambridge:\n                           MACMILLAN AND CO.\n                                 1866.\n\n\n\n\n                               Cambridge:\n\n                       PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY M.A.\n                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n\n\n\n\n                             TO HIS GRACE,\n\n                WILLIAM, DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, K.G., LL.D.\n               CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE,\n\n                       THE FOLLOWING ESSAY, BEING\n\n                        THE HULSEAN DISSERTATION\n\n         IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, FOR THE YEAR 1865, IS\n\n                    BY HIS GRACE\u2019S KIND PERMISSION,\n\n                        RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n       Introduction . . .      1\n\n\n       CHAPTER I.\n       The Stoic School of Philosophy . . .     13\n\n\n       CHAPTER II.\n       Stoicism in comparison with Christianity . . .      27\n\n\n       CHAPTER III.\n       The Influence of Christianity on Stoicism . . .     48\n\n\n       CHAPTER IV.\n       The Influence of Stoicism on the Christian Church . . .     74\n\n       Conclusion . . .      91\n\n\n\n\nCLAUSES _directed by the_ FOUNDER _to be always prefixed to the_ HULSEAN\n                             DISSERTATION.\n\n\n    CLAUSES from the WILL of the Rev. JOHN HULSE, late of Elworth, in\n    the County of Chester, clerk, deceased: dated the twenty-first day\n    of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and\n    seventy-seven; expressed in the words of the Testator, as he, in\n    order to prevent mistakes, thought proper to draw and write the same\n    himself, and directed that such clauses should every year be\n    printed, to the intent that the several persons, whom it might\n    concern and be of service to, might know that there were such\n    special donations or endowments left for the encouragement of Piety\n    and Learning, in an age so unfortunately addicted to Infidelity and\n    Luxury, and that others might be invited to the like charitable,\n    and, as he humbly hoped, seasonable and useful Benefactions.\n\nHe directs that certain rents and profits (now amounting to about a\nhundred pounds yearly) be paid to such learned and ingenious person, in\nthe University of Cambridge, under the degree of Master of Arts, as\nshall compose, for that year, the best Dissertation, in the English\nlanguage, on the Evidences in general, or on the Prophecies or Miracles\nin particular, or any other particular Argument, whether the same be\ndirect or collateral proofs of the Christian Religion, in order to\nevince its truth and excellence; the subject of which Dissertation shall\nbe given out by the Vice-Chancellor, and the Masters of Trinity and\nSaint John\u2019s, his Trustees, or by some of them, on New Year\u2019s Day\nannually; and that such Dissertation as shall be by them[1], or any two\nof them, on Christmas Day annually, the best approved, be also printed,\nand the expense defrayed out of the Author\u2019s income under his Will, and\nthe remainder given to him on Saint John the Evangelist\u2019s Day following;\nand he who shall be so rewarded, shall not be admitted at any future\ntime as a Candidate again in the same way, to the intent that others may\nbe invited and encouraged to write on so sacred and sublime a subject.\n\nHe also desires, that immediately following the last of the clauses\nrelating to the prize Dissertation, this invocation may be added: \u201cMay\nthe Divine Blessing for ever go along with all my benefactions; and may\nthe Greatest and the Best of Beings, by his all-wise Providence and\ngracious influence, make the same effectual to His own glory, and the\ngood of my fellow-creatures!\u201d\n\nSubject proposed by the TRUSTEES for the Year 1865:\n\n    _The mutual Influence of Christianity and the Stoic School._\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  By the new Regulations, the four Divinity Professors were appointed as\n  additional Adjudicators.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIt was at Athens, \u201cthe school of the world,\u201d that the first and only\ncontact of Christianity with Gentile Philosophy, recorded in the New\nTestament, took place. In \u201cthe learned city\u201d the mightiest efforts of\nthe human mind had been made to grasp eternal truth. But the\ncontradictions in the teachings of the master-minds of Greece and the\nconsequent doubt and unbelief so prevalent, at the same time, with the\nmost abject superstition, proved that the effort had been vain to arrive\nat a full comprehension of the Infinite from a consideration of the\nfinite\u2014to rise from man to GOD. In this same city, about half a century\nafter the birth of the Redeemer, there was unveiled to human souls which\nhad been longing for the knowledge of the unseen, \u201cthe mystery of\nGodliness,\u201d that \u201cGOD\u201d had been \u201cmanifest in the flesh.\u201d The eyes which\nhad been long looking for the day might now behold the day-star from on\nhigh who had visited and blessed the world with light and salvation. Now\nthere could be found repose of soul and certainty of belief, because the\nTruth had come down from heaven, from GOD to man, that He might raise\nman to GOD. Heavenly wisdom at length encountered human wisdom and pride\nof intellect in their stronghold.\n\nBy this I do not mean that before St Paul came to Athens there had been\nno contest of the religion of Christ with mere human conceits.\nPhilosophy is only the endeavor to reduce the thoughts of men to a\nsystem, to find a grammar for the language of the mind, or rather,\nperhaps, to find a language as well as a grammar. Wherever there is mind\nthere will be thought, either with, or without a system. So that\nChristianity, in winning its way, had met with opposition of human\nthought before the great Apostle of Jesus reached the metropolis of\nthought. Indeed the very sects of philosophy, which sneered at the\nrevelation of heavenly truth on its introduction into Athens, had their\ncounterparts in Jud\u00e6a, and especially at Jerusalem. We have the\ntestimony of a Pharisee, that the \u201csect of the Pharisees bore a strong\naffinity to that called Stoic among the Greeks[2].\u201d We are led to\nperceive, also, from the accounts we have of the free-living Sadducees,\nwho claimed absolute freedom for the human will, that the Epicureans\nwere represented in some degree by them. They were sceptics as to the\nprovidence of GOD, \u201cbelieved in neither angel, nor spirit[3];\u201d \u201cthey\ntook away all fate, and would not allow it to be anything at all, nor to\nhave any power over human affairs, but put all things entirely into the\npower of our own free will[4].\u201d Both Pharisees and Sadducees, though\ndisagreeing in other respects, yet were united in their efforts against\nthe spread of the truth. From the earliest preaching of the doctrines of\nthe Gospel, the same spirit of self-seeking and pride of human nature\nwhich animated the Epicureans and Stoics, showed themselves adverse to\nthe humbling views which Jesus set forth. And we cannot forget that St\nPaul, immediately after his conversion, having been in great danger at\nDamascus and at Jerusalem from the rage of the Jews because of his\nbecoming a Christian, dwelt some time in quiet at Tarsus, his native\ncity. We have no record of how he spent his time there on that occasion.\nBut doubtless, as at other places so there, he would proclaim the\nconviction which he so strongly felt of the excellence and truth of the\nGospel. If so, it is probable that he met with the same kind of coldness\nand contempt for his message from the philosophers of Tarsus, as\nafterwards from those of Athens. The native city of St Paul was noted\nfor the eagerness for learning displayed by its people. Strabo tells us\n\u201cthe men of this place are so zealous in the study of philosophy and all\nother subjects of education that they surpass the inhabitants of Athens\nand Alexandria, and every place that one could mention where schools of\nphilosophy are found. The difference is in this respect. Here they are\nall natives who are eager after learning, and strangers do not choose a\nresidence here. They themselves (the Tarsians) do not stay, but finish\ntheir course of training abroad. Few return home again. Whereas, in the\nother cities which I have named, except Alexandria, there is a contrary\npractice; for many come to them and live willingly there: but you will\nsee few of those born there either going to other places for the sake of\nphilosophy, or caring to study it at home. The Alexandrians combine both\ndescriptions, for they receive many strangers, and send abroad not a few\nof their own people.\u201d We learn also from other sources that from\nCilicia, and especially from Tarsus, a great many of the most celebrated\nStoics came, and it appears therefore extremely probable that St Paul\nwould meet with such in his visit to that city. If he met with them,\nthey would hear the truth from his lips. His heart would prompt him, as\nit did afterwards at Athens, to proclaim glad tidings of salvation to\nall; and to those who professed to seek the knowledge of deeper\nmysteries than the ignorant mass cared to inquire about, he would\ndeclare \u201cthe mystery which\u201d had \u201cbeen hid for ages,\u201d but was now\n\u201crevealed to the sons of men by Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\nOf these meetings between the Apostle and the philosophers of his native\ncity, if they took place, we have no record. The first account we have\nof the contact of the religion of Christ and the wisdom of men is given\nus by the writer of the Acts of the Apostles, in the seventeenth chapter\nof the history. We are told that, while St Paul waited at Athens for\nSilas and Timotheus, \u201chis spirit was stirred within him when he saw the\ncity wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue\nwith the Jews and with the devout persons; and in the market (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7)\ndaily with them that met him. Then certain of the Epicureans and of the\nStoics encountered him. And some said, \u2018What will this babbler say?\u2019\nOther some, \u2018He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods;\u2019 because\nhe preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.\u201d It seems necessary in\npassing, to notice here the two sects of philosophers who encountered\nthe Apostle. They were then the two most prominent in Greece; one might\nsay they divided between them the adherence of all thoughtful minds. The\nEpicureans were advocates of the doctrine of the absolute freedom of the\nhuman will to choose what is agreeable to it. They denied the providence\nof GOD, or that he concerns himself at all about human affairs.\nAccording to them, the universe was neither formed, nor created, by an\nintelligent being; but was merely the fortuitous concourse of infinite\natoms. They taught that happiness consisted in the pursuit of pleasure,\nand, as all wish to be happy, all should seek after the greatest amount\nof pleasure to be obtained. Although Epicurus was fiercely assailed by\nthe disciples of the opposite school, and \u201cthe garden,\u201d where he taught,\nwas held to be a hot-bed of sensuality, there was probably much\nexaggeration in the reports that were spread. Epicurus meant by his\nteaching, perhaps, not that men should seek after every momentary\ngratification, but for the greatest enjoyment of a whole life. Yet as\nthis doctrine left man to be his own judge, it is not to be wondered at\nif the moderation of the founder of the sect was little imitated by his\ndisciples. Men took pleasures as they came, not knowing what pleasure\nmight be in the future, and not caring for the morrow; so vice and\nprofligacy were the result, instead of virtue and contentment and true\nenjoyment.\n\nThe Stoics, on the other hand, were absolute fatalists, and taught that\nvirtue consists in following the decrees of nature and acting according\nto the dictates which ruled all things. We shall not now enter fully\ninto their doctrines, as these will require careful attention and full\ndevelopment in accordance with the purpose of this essay. We shall see,\nbye and bye, that the principles of their school were of such a nature\nas to produce in some respects the strongest, in others, the weakest of\nmen. Stoicism and Epicureanism both left man practically to himself.\nThey agreed in looking at self-cultivation and self-interest as the\nchief good. The controversy between the two systems was what it has\ncontinued to be since among ethical philosophers, a controversy as to\nthe sources of moral rules. Epicurus was an advocate of what has been\ncalled \u201cthe selfish system of morals.\u201d Zeno and the Stoics advocated the\ncontrary system. It seems, however, that though the conflict between\nthem has been so long, and often so fierce, the two systems are not\nincompatible one with the other. Indeed in the word of GOD both motives\nare set before us to urge us to right conduct, the loveliness of virtue\nin itself, and the combined happiness and blessedness to be gained from\na certain course of life. This view has been put in a few forcible words\nby an eminent writer of the present day, who says, \u201cSome moralists\nemploy themselves mainly in deducing the rules of action from\nconsidering the tendencies of actions to produce pleasure or pain, as\nPaley and Bentham. Others take pains to show that man has a faculty by\nwhich he apprehends a higher Rule of action than the mere tendency to\nproduce pleasure, as Butler. But though these two sources of morality\nare thus separate, they are not really independent; and it is, as I\nconceive, important to present them in a mode which shows their\nconnexion and relation[5].\u201d One of these springs of action does not\nnecessarily counteract the other. Doubtless, there is in man an innate\nappreciation of the beauty of virtue. Though the temple of the human\nsoul has been laid in ruins by the touch of sin, yet does it still\nretain marks of its primeval glory. It was not created for anything but\nthe abode of purity. Hence we perceive naturally the excellence of\nvirtue. When I say naturally, I mean as man is at all times enabled to\nsee by GOD\u2019s help. We must remember that, by virtue of the Redeemer\u2019s\nmerits, all men are blessed with a certain degree of enlightenment.\nSpeaking of the Eternal Logos, St John says[6], \u201cThat was the true light\nwhich lighteth every man that cometh into the world.\u201d Only because men\nin their obstinacy close their eyes, the light which is given them often\nbecomes darkness. So St Paul, speaking of those without Revelation,\nsays[7], \u201cThey are a law to themselves, which show the work of the law\nwritten in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and\ntheir thoughts between themselves accusing, or else excusing one\nanother.\u201d In order to this they must appreciate the beauty and\nexcellence of virtue. So Justin Martyr declares[8], \u201cEvery race of men\nparticipated in the Logos.\u201d When we speak of man by nature then, we mean\nman with the aid of this light given to him by Christ. And we must\nperceive great force in the statement of Berkeley, that \u201cThere is an\nidea of beauty natural to the mind of man. This all men desire. This\nthey are pleased and delighted with for its own sake, purely from an\ninstinct of nature. A man needs no argument to make him discern and\napprove what is beautiful; it strikes at first sight and attracts\nwithout a reason. And as this beauty is found in the shape and form of\ncorporeal things, so also is there analogous to it a beauty of another\nkind, an order, a symmetry and comeliness in the moral world. And as the\neye perceives the one, so the mind doth by a certain interior sense\nperceive the other: which sense, talent, or faculty, is even quickest\nand purest in the noblest minds. Thus, as by sight I discern the beauty\nof a plant, or an animal, even so the mind approves moral excellence,\nthe beauty and decorum of justice and temperance. And as we readily\npronounce a dress becoming, or an attitude graceful, we can, with the\nsame free, untutored judgment, at once declare whether this or that\nconduct or action, be comely or beautiful.\u201d\n\nWe cannot deny, on the other hand, that men act from a feeling of\nself-interest. To obtain pleasure or escape pain is motive enough to\nmake men pursue a certain course instinctively, without weighing\naccurately, or even caring at all for the motives which prompt them.\nWhen men see that virtue brings in its train present blessing and\neternal hopes, shall we deny that this is a strong reason why they\nshould pursue it? Doubtless such a reason weighs with many and draws\nthem to a right course, without a question arising in their minds as to\nthe motives by which they are actuated.\n\nThen the enquiry naturally occurs, since virtue commends itself to us as\nboth lovely and beneficial, shall we reject the loveliness as a motive,\nbecause our self-interest moves us also? On the other hand, shall we\nreject hope of benefit, because the innate loveliness of the object\ncommends itself to us? May we not be moved by the double influence?\nCertainly the word of GOD seems to sanction such a double motive to\nreligion and virtue.\n\nYet here we are brought to the humbling conviction of the weakness of\nman without Christianity. Men had this combined motive for ages. What\nwas the result on the heart and the life? What effect had even the\nteaching of the wisest? The masses were still sunk in superstition and\nsin. The farthest advanced were only looking at a height which they\ncould not hope to reach. The most acute thinkers were often in doubt. We\nsee the extremes meeting. Superstition, in its most debased and\nenthralling forms, stands boldly in the front of the most exalted\nteachings of philosophy. What could mere philosophy do? She could\nperhaps find employment for the minds of a few of the most gifted. But\nwhat had she to give as food for the hungry souls of the multitude? The\nstarving spirits asked for bread, and she gave them the stone of an\nunattainable moral excellence. They asked for fish, and she gave them\nthe stinging serpent of pleasure and self-enjoyment[9]. In Athens the\nhuman mind reached its zenith, yet could not rise to happiness or peace.\nHow unspeakably was the world blessed, therefore, when the cross of\nChrist was raised as the means whereby man might reach heaven. Never\nbefore was such life-giving truth offered to the Athenians, as the good\nnews which was now brought by the Apostle who \u201cpreached unto them Jesus\nand the resurrection.\u201d This was the subject of St Paul\u2019s daily\ndiscourses in the Agora. Instead of blind theories and abstract ideas,\nhe placed before them a person;\u2014a divine person, who had left an example\nof how to act and how to suffer;\u2014a Saviour, who had died to open the way\nto happiness for others; who had risen again to show that his sacrifice\nwas complete and sufficient. The Epicureans wondered and yet were\nunbelieving, while they heard of one who was Lord of all, that he\nthought of men\u2019s lives and cared for their needs. It was strange and\nunwelcome to them, who held that happiness was enjoyment and freedom\nfrom pain, to hear one proclaimed as worthy of their admiration and\ntrust, who was \u201ca man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,\u201d who even\ngloried in His sufferings and death; and who had bid those that would be\nhis disciples, take up their cross and follow him, by resisting and\nsubduing self and pride. The Stoics heard the tidings (for \u201cthe porch\u201d\nwas in the Agora), and they, stern and self-reliant, were surprised, yet\nnot pleased, to hear of one who led a life of self-sacrifice for others\u2019\nsake; who was meek and lowly; and who had sent his messenger to declare\nto those very self-satisfied philosophers, that the only way to real\nvirtue for them, as for the rest of mankind, was by trusting in the\nmerits of another, and by a change of heart through His divine power.\n\u201cThe resurrection\u201d was also equally strange and equally contrary to the\nideas of the one sect, who regarded death as annihilation; and of the\nother, who looked on it as the absorption of men into universal nature\nof which they were component parts. To some the preacher seemed a mere\nbabbler, a picker up of trifles, and therefore contemptible. To others,\nhe was a setter forth of strange gods. But because they are all desirous\nof hearing anything newer than what they already are acquainted with,\nthey bring the Apostle to Mars\u2019 Hill, and desire him more fully to\nexpound to them the strange things which he had brought to their ears.\nThe locality chosen was more suitable than the busy market-place. The\nassociations of the place were solemn and deeply interesting. The\nsubject then brought before the people in the Areopagus was worthy of\nthose associations,\u2014far more important and of more momentous\nconsequences than had ever been deliberated on there in times that were\ngone by. The place, the speaker, the hearers, the subject, all appeal to\nour sympathies and interest us most deeply. The discourse of the Apostle\nwas admirably suited to the place and the hearers. He appealed to their\ndeepest convictions, while at the same time the message which he brought\nthwarted many of their cherished ideas, St Luke has given us a report of\nthis speech, so eloquent, so worthy of the admiration of all time, so\nwell calculated to show how far Christianity coincided with Gentile, and\nespecially Stoic, philosophy, and how it excelled. This was what St Paul\nsaid, \u201cYe men of Athens, I perceive that in all respects you are\nextremely devout[10]. For as I passed through your city and beheld the\nobjects of your worship, I found among them an altar on which was this\ninscription, \u2018To the unknown GOD.\u2019 Him, therefore, whom you worship\nthough you know him not, I set before you. GOD, who made the world and\nall things therein, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in\ntemples made with hands; neither is he served by men\u2019s hands as being in\nneed of any, seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things. And\nhath made of one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the\nwhole earth; having ordained (to all) their appointed seasons and the\nbounds of their habitations, that they might seek GOD, if haply they\nwould feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one\nof us. For in Him we live and move and have our being; as certain also\nof your own poets have said, \u2018For we are also his offspring.\u2019 We,\ntherefore, being the offspring of GOD, ought not to think the Godhead to\nbe like gold, or silver, or stone graven by art or man\u2019s device. Howbeit\nthose (past) times of ignorance GOD hath overlooked; but now he\ncommandeth all men everywhere to repent. Because he hath appointed a day\nin which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he\nhath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all, in that he\nraised him from the dead[11].\u201d\n\nThere is much, in connexion with the purpose of our essay, that requires\ncareful consideration in this discourse. If we want to understand the\ninfluence which Christianity and Stoicism exercised, one on the other,\nand on the souls of men, we must notice them side by side at this their\nfirst public encounter. When we have observed how far the Christian\nteacher agreed with the Stoic philosopher, and in what he differed and\nexcelled, we shall have a fair starting-place for investigating the\nmutual consequences which resulted. In order properly to grasp our\nsubject, it will be necessary to place before our minds what Stoicism\nwas as it came from its founder, and how far it was modified at this\ntime. I purpose therefore in another chapter to give a sketch of the\nlife and teaching of Zeno of Cittium, and of the modifications of his\nsystem by Cleanthes and Chrysippus. The way will then be clear to\ncompare the Apostle\u2019s teaching with theirs, and to appreciate the\npeculiar excellence of the good news preached by St Paul on Mars\u2019 Hill.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n   \u1f2a \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u1fc7\n  \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03advy\u1fc3.\u2014Jos. _in vita su\u00e2_.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Acts xxiii. 8.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  \u03a4\u1f20\u03bd \u03bc\u1f10v \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f04\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\u2014Jos. _Ant. Jud._ XIII. 5.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Whewell\u2019s _Elements of Morality_, Preface to the 4th Edition.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Chap. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Rom. ii. 15.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  _Apol._ 1. 46.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  See our Lord\u2019s words, Matt. vii. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  There can be no doubt that \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 = valde religiosos.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Acts xvii. 22-31.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n                    THE STOIC SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY.\n\n\n    \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n    \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2...\n    \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03a3\u03c4\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u0396\u03b7\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n    Diog. Laert. _vit. Phil._ Lib. VII. 6, 7.\n\n\nZeno was born at Cittium, a small city in the island of Cyprus, founded\nby Ph\u0153nicians, but inhabited by Greeks. His father, who was a merchant,\nfinding his son attracted to the study of philosophy, allowed him to\nfollow his bent. From Athens, whither he had often occasion to go for\ncommercial purposes, the father frequently brought home for his son many\nwritings of the Socratic school of philosophers. Zeno read these with\ngreat eagerness and was enchanted with the views which they unfolded.\nWhen he was about thirty years of age he made a voyage, probably of\nbusiness and pleasure combined, to the city which was at once the home\nof the philosophers who had so delighted him by their works, and a great\ncentre of trade. The story goes that he was shipwrecked on the coast and\nlost a valuable cargo of Ph\u0153nician purple which he had brought with him.\nOthers say he did not lose his property when he first came to Athens,\nbut was, on the contrary, abounding with wealth. The former version of\nthe story would account to those who questioned the disinterestedness of\nhis conduct, for his having attached himself to a sect that professed to\ndespise riches. On his first arrival, having read, at a bookseller\u2019s\nstall, a few pages of Xenophon\u2019s _Memorabilia_, he formed a high opinion\nof the author of a work which so pleased him, and asked the bookseller\nwhere such men were to be found. Crates, the Cynic, happened to pass at\nthe time, and the bookseller replied, \u201cFollow that man.\u201d Zeno acted on\nthe advice, placed himself under the Cynic philosopher\u2019s instruction,\nand enrolled himself among his disciples; but he did not long remain so.\nHe became disgusted with the manner of the sect, which he found too\ngross and unrefined for his taste; though at the same time he highly\nadmired their general principles and spirit. Besides, the activity of\nhis mind forbad him to abstain from all scientific enquiry, and\nindifference to science was a marked characteristic of the Cynics. He\nbecame a disciple of the Megaric doctrine, and thought to learn the\nnature and causes of things. He attended the school of Stilpo, the chief\nteacher of practical philosophy among the Megaric succession, who\ndeclared that the sovereign good was impassivity (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1). Zeno was\npleased with the teaching of this school. To Crates, his former master,\nwho, being angry at his desertion, endeavoured to draw him by force from\nhis new teacher, he exclaimed, \u201cYou may seize my body, but Stilpo has\nlaid hold of my soul.\u201d Becoming tired of this teacher after some years,\nhe turned to Diodorus Cronus, who taught him Dialectics, and to Philo;\nboth of these being contemporary Megarics with Stilpo. He also studied\nunder Xenocrates and Polemo, who were expositors of Platonic philosophy;\nand from the Academics he learnt much, for we can perceive a germ of\nStoicism in the Platonic philosophy. But he found much in their teaching\nalso contradictory to his own theories. When he came to Polemo, that\nteacher, with an insight into his disposition, said to him, \u201cI am no\nstranger to your Ph\u0153nician arts, Zeno; I see that you intend slily to\ncreep into my garden and steal my fruit.\u201d\n\nBeing now, after twenty years\u2019 study, well informed as to what others\ncould teach him, as he was either dissatisfied with all, or moved by\nambition, he determined to found a new school. The place chosen for his\nteaching was a public portico, adorned with the paintings of Polygnotus\nand other masters. Hence it was called \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ac (the painted porch);\nmore commonly, as it was the most famous in Athens, it was simply called\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ac. From this arose the name of the Stoics. As a teacher, Zeno was\ncelebrated for subtle reasoning and for enjoining strict morality of\nconduct. As a man, his conduct corresponded with his teaching. His\ndoctrines and manner of life teach us that he gathered much from various\nsystems. He gathered from Pythagoras and Plato and Aristotle by the\nteaching of Xenocrates and Polemo, from the Megaric school by the\nteaching of Stilpo, Diodorus Cronus, and Philo. Cicero, in his _Academic\nQuestions_, tells us that the doctrines of the old Academy were changed\nby Zeno only in name. He adhered too to the Cynic doctrines, slightly\ntinged by subsequent training perhaps, especially by Stilpo\u2019s teaching\nthat the perfection of wisdom consisted in impassivity. But he did not\nshare in Cynic grossness, insolence, and affectation. He obtained the\napplause and love of numerous disciples, among whom was Antigonus\nGonatas, king of Macedon, Cleanthes, and perhaps Chrysippus; though the\nlast may have been the disciple of Cleanthes only. To these two we must\nrefer again. The Athenians are said so to have respected Zeno that they\ntrusted to his keeping the keys of the citadel. This may be questioned;\nbut there is no reason to doubt that they honoured him with a golden\ncrown, that they gave him a public burial in the Ceramicus when he died,\nand erected to his memory a statue of brass. By Cyprians and Sidonians,\nto whom he was allied by descent, he was also held in reverence. He is\ndescribed as having been a thin withered man, of dark complexion, and\nwith his neck bent. He preserved his health, though naturally feeble, by\nabstemious living. His diet, even when honoured by noble guests, as he\noften was, consisted only of figs, bread, and honey. His brow, furrowed\nwith thought, and his look stern and hard, showed his Cynic education;\nbut, in contrast to his first teachers, he was neat and careful in his\ndress and person. Frugal in his expenses, he was without avarice. He\nconversed freely, with poor as with rich. He had only one servant;\nSeneca says, none at all.\n\nThough he was proverbially sober and chaste, he was assailed by various\nenemies in his lifetime. Arcesilaus and Carneades of the New Academy,\nand in his latter years, Epicurus, who disliked the philosophy and pride\nof Zeno, were his powerful antagonists. Little credit is due, however,\nto the abuse which passed on both sides. He lived to old age. When he\ndied is matter of doubt. He is said to have been alive in the 130th\nOlympiad. In his 98th year, as he was leaving his school, he stumbled\nand fell, and broke one of his fingers in the fall. Pain so affected him\nthat he exclaimed, striking the earth, \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03b0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; \u201cI come,\nwhy dost thou call me?\u201d He went home and strangled himself, about the\nyear B.C. 260.\n\nIn trying, at the present day, to estimate the teaching of Zeno, it is\nnecessary for us to consider the circumstances of the age in which he\nlived and taught, and to remember also that it is difficult to find out\nhow much of the later Stoic philosophy really came from him. His\nwritings were numerous[12], but they are lost. His teaching seems to\nhave been modified, and sometimes even changed altogether, by\nChrysippus. Indeed the later professed disciples of the school seldom\nwent back to the works of the first Stoic. Let us, as well as we can,\nhowever, lay hold of the circumstances in which he was placed as a\nphilosopher, and the alterations he introduced.\n\nHe began his course at a time of decay in Greece, and when the mind of\nmen was become sceptical as to all things in heaven and earth.\nPhilosophers had so quarrelled with one another\u2019s dogmas, and proved one\nanother wrong so often, that men began to doubt if there were any\nfoundation on which to rest. GOD was educating the world for the\nreception of the great truths of revelation. He did this by showing men\nhow helpless they were in divine things by their own unaided nature, how\ncontradictory their speculations, how far short of the truth the highest\nattainments of human intellects, how uncertain it was which was truth of\nthe various theories proposed, so that men doubted about all truth. Zeno\nunder these circumstances did a great work in educating the world still\nfurther, and preparing it for the great Truth. He was to the people of\nhis day in some degree what Socrates was to the men of his age. He\nbrought back the influence of reason and common sense, rescuing them\nfrom the Pyrrhonists, as Socrates did from the Sophists. Like the son of\nSophroniscus, also, the founder of the Stoics turned men from mere\nspeculation to action. Socrates taught men to look within themselves,\nand created a desire to live as became them. He was an ethical reformer,\nand so turned men away from the guesses of a so-called philosophy, and\nfrom the scepticism consequent on failure. Victor Cousin has well said,\n\u201cLa philosophie Grecque avait \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019abord une philosophie de la nature;\narriv\u00e9e \u00e0 sa maturit\u00e9 elle change de caract\u00e8re et de direction et elle\ndevient une philosophie morale, sociale, humaine. C\u2019est Socrate qui\nouvre cette nouvelle \u00e8re et qui en repr\u00e9sente le caract\u00e8re en sa\npersonne.\u201d Plato followed him in this. His fundamental problem was how\nman might live like GOD. Aristotle turned men\u2019s thoughts back again to\nphysics and metaphysics; and then came a period of systematic\nscepticism, by which the vanity of the guesses of philosophy was exposed\nand derided. Zeno and Epicurus, so different in other respects, yet both\nbrought men back to a better mind by teaching them that philosophy was\nthe art of living aright rather than merely thinking aright; the former,\nbecause living aright was in accordance with nature,\u2014the latter, because\nit made men happy, and happiness was the great end to be sought by\nall[13]. Zeno and Epicurus both had thus their share in training men to\nreceive the great Truth of GOD; for they both proved that man of himself\ncan do nothing but conceive of perfections that human nature alone\ncannot reach: while the believer in divine love and mercy learns to say\nwith St Paul, \u201cI can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth\nme.\u201d\n\nI have before intimated that Zeno has been said to have borrowed much of\nhis philosophy from former masters, giving the truths new names. The\nvarious schools which at different times prevailed in Greece, amidst\nmuch contradiction, yet contained some germs of truth, and therefore so\nfar had some agreement one with the other. But the truth was cumbered\nwith so much rubbish that it was overpowered and hidden. These various\nschools of thought endeavoured to grasp the same object from different\nstandpoints, and opposed all others. The Ionics looked around them, and\nfrom external objects tried to make one natural law for all subjects and\ncombinations. They wished to reduce all things to accord with a settled\nphysical law. They aimed at discovering a principle, a substance, of\nwhich every thing that exists is a combination. The Mathematical school\nreasoned from within themselves. As Thales looked on the external\nuniverse and thence turned within, so Pythagoras reasoned on external\nobjects from within himself, from mental harmonies to physical. Then\ncame the Eleatics, contradicting even reason itself. Zeno, the Eleatic,\nargued against motion and sensible unity. Parmenides declared that\n\u201cthought and being are the same;\u201d that \u201cthought and that for which\nthought exists are one.\u201d Indeed the great maxim of the school was \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f15\u03bd. They taught that the sensible universe was purely phenomenal\nand accidental: that it was apparent, not real. The Megaric school,\nwhich Zeno Citticus attended soon after he came to Athens, taught\nsomewhat similar doctrines, but in a dialectic form. Their tenets, Pliny\ntells us, produced in daily life, \u201crigorem quendam torvitatemque natur\u00e6\nduram et inflexibilem.\u201d I have already said that Stilpo placed the\nheight of wisdom in impassivity. These doctrines, so various, so\ncontradictory to reason oftentimes, made many men professedly sceptics.\nPyrrho and his followers, having proved the impossibility of a science\nsuperhuman in its height being reached by unaided man, supposed they had\ndestroyed all knowledge and certainty whatever. The state of Athens then\nwas particularly unsatisfactory. Old creeds were tottering. The\nspiritual life of Greece was decaying, as was its national. Men wanted\nsome refuge from the distractions of their minds. Their spiritual\nnature, their soul, began to exert its power, to speak in tones that\nwould be heard. The mind had been trying to still its craving with the\nnoble but unsatisfying theories of Plato, or the subtleties of\nAristotle. But the soul, the inner life, had been uncared for. Now it\nclaimed its share of attention and new schools arose to satisfy, as far\nas they could, the newly felt longings.\n\nAt such a time, Zeno founded his system. When Greece was tottering and\nfalling into ruin, out of materials which I have shown to be so\ncontradictory, he built up a structure which outlasted Greece, and was\nremoved (altered a little, but in the main the same), to the new centre\nof the civilization and power of the world. His system lasted from his\nday to the time of Marcus Aurelius. It was embraced by the Romans with\neagerness, as being congenial with their nature, before they became\ncorrupted by their unrivalled prosperity. When at length it had done its\ndestined work in the world, it yielded to a mightier and holier\ninfluence; leaving, however, its impress on the souls of men, even as,\nbefore its own decay, it received some of the rays of divine light which\ncame from heaven with the Son of GOD, though it did not acknowledge the\nboon.\n\nIt would be beside the purpose of the present essay to enter into all\nthe specialities of the Zenonic doctrines; or to enquire at large, how\nfar Zeno differed from Plato, or how nearly he agreed with Aristotle, in\ndefining the manner of perception by the mind. We need not discuss \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, which Sextus Empiricus alleges to have been held\nby Zeno and his successors as the one means of judging true from false;\nrespecting which even Cleanthes and Chrysippus differed[14]. An outline\nof the main features of the system will be sufficient. As I have before\nsaid, the first Stoic fixed his thoughts chiefly on moral conduct. His\nphilosophy was eminently practical. It referred to the daily life. In\norder to stem the torrent of scepticism and sensuality, he taught men\nthe value, the absolute necessity, of virtue. They were to apply his\ndogmas to their daily experience. They were not to speculate, but to\nact; not to doubt, but to dare. He taught them also that what Socrates\nhad said was true, that the knowledge and practice of good was virtue\nand wisdom, that vice was therefore error in its worst form. In order to\ninduce men to conform to this knowledge in their way of life, he\nunfolded to them how they were related to the universe.\n\nEvery rational theory respecting the universe admits of an Absolute\nBeing of some sort. The difference begins, when the relation of the\nuniverse with the Absolute Infinite is explained and unfolded. One\ntheory would distinguish the Infinite from the universe, but make him\nact from a kind of necessity. A second theory would allow him to act\nwith perfect freedom of will. A third theory would make the universe\nitself to be the Absolute Infinite; and a fourth would insist that the\nInfinite Being is matter, of which the universe is only a modification.\nZeno seems to have taught the third of these theories; though in after\nwriters we see traces of the first. According to him, there existed from\nall eternity a chaos, a confused mass, \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7, which contained the\ngerm of all future things. Gradually, order supervened and creation\nassumed forms of various kinds, resulting in the universe as it is now.\nThe universe is one whole, which comprises all things; yet contains a\npassive principle, matter, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, and an active principle, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, which is reason, or GOD. The soul of man is part of this divine\nnature, and will be reabsorbed into it and lose its individual\nexistence. The Deity in action, if we may so speak, is a certain active\n\u00e6ther, or fire, possessed of intelligence. This first gave form to the\noriginal chaos, and, being an essential part of the universe, sustains\nit in order. The overruling power, which seems sometimes in idea to have\nbeen separated from the Absolute Being, was \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, fate, or absolute\nnecessity. To this the universe is subject, both in its material and\ndivine nature. Men return to life totally oblivious of the past, and by\nthe decrees of fate are possessed of a renovated existence, but still in\nimperfection and subject to sorrow as before. The tenets of the later\nStoics may have been tinged with Christian truth on this point, as on\nothers; but they had none of the noble hope of the Christian \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\nIndeed, respecting their dogma, Seneca said, \u201cThis renewal of life many\nwould reject, were it not that their restored existence is accompanied\nwith utter forgetfulness of the past.\u201d\n\nOn their physical principles, the moral principles of the Stoics\ndepended. Conceiving themselves to be part of universal nature, that\ntheir souls were part of the divinity which actuated matter, they held\nthemselves in some measure to be gods. In human life therefore they must\nfollow nature, of which they formed part. But then this _nature_ was not\nthis or that man\u2019s natural leaning, but the laws of fate and the\nuniversal course of things, from which resulted the unsuitableness of\ncertain courses, and the excellence of others. To be conformed to the\nlaws of the universe, of which they formed an essential part, was the\nultimate end of life. Every man conforming to these laws is happy,\nnotwithstanding external evils. Every man\u2019s happiness, then, is in his\nown power; he is a god to himself in some measure. To live according to\nhis true nature is to live godly; godly life is virtue. This is itself\ntrue happiness, independently of pleasure in the common acceptation of\nthe term; because the supreme good is to follow what the law of nature\npoints out as being good. Virtue having its seat in the soul, outward\ncircumstances cannot reach the good man. As he can distinguish good from\nevil, he is wise; and this suffices for him. External things, forasmuch\nas they cannot reach him, can neither increase his happiness or cause\nhim misery. Even torture cannot move him, because it cannot reach his\ninner, true nature. There is no distinction between different virtues as\nto degree, because they owe their existence to their accordance with\nnature. All vices are equal in degree, because they run counter to the\none law of virtue. These seem to have been the principal features of\nZeno\u2019s teaching. His morality partook of the evil of its origin. It was\nessentially artificial. Little regard was paid to real nature in the\npursuit of what was called natural law: there was little common sense,\noftentimes, in the ideas set forth under pretence of philosophy.\n\nWe cannot lose sight of the fact, however, that Stoicism, as it came in\ncontact with Christianity, was a system that owed much to Cleanthes, and\nstill more to Chrysippus. Indeed, regarding the latter, we are told[15]\nthat it was said, \u0395\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f02\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ac. The former was\nthe earnest Stoic; the latter the philosophical and dialectic setter\nforth of the system. Under his hands, in his various and most copious\nwritings, the system was probably not merely developed, but materially\nmodified in some respects, and systematized. Cleanthes has left few\nrecords of his opinions behind him: but his Hymn to Jupiter will ever\nstand as a marvellous memorial of his worth and intellect. It bears\nstrong evidence to the Monotheism of the system which he espoused. It\nhas been a matter of controversy whether the Stoics were monotheists, or\npolytheists. The hymn to which I have just referred, and to which I\nshall refer again in another chapter, bears strong evidence, on the face\nof it, to the belief in one absolute supreme being. Yet other passages\nin many Stoic writers would seem to convey a different idea. But it will\nbe well for us not to forget that the system was founded on a notion of\nthe divine nature totally different from our conception of a divine\nbeing. The monotheism of some of the Stoic writers may have been the\nresult of previous education. The fact may be that one, or two, rose to\nhigher conceptions of the Eternal, than others were privileged with.\nThis may have resulted from their having come of a different stock[16],\nand having had a different early bent\u2014a deeper intuition, as it were, by\nnature\u2014a purer speculation as to the unseen\u2014than those with which others\nof the sect were endowed. Those who were of a stock which deified almost\nall things, might carry their phantasies into the system itself. And\nindeed it is possible that the same persons, under different influences,\nmay have had rather varied views of the hidden world. The system was one\nof ethics and not of speculative philosophy. And if Christianity, with\nall its divine testimonials and influences, does not bring all minds\ninto one accord about all things\u2014even those who are of one school of\ntheology varying in opinion on certain points\u2014how very probable it is\nthat men of the same school of philosophy, with merely the authority of\none man, neither possessing, nor claiming a divine mission as founder,\nshould have somewhat different shades of thought. How possible it is\nthat they should, while viewing things from different points of view, be\nalmost inconsistent with themselves. This kind of inconsistency was\nurged again and again against Chrysippus, the most voluminous writer and\nchief dialectician of the Stoics. Cleanthes has left few memorials\nbehind him, but his earnest pursuit of knowledge, his struggles to\nobtain the time and means of study, show the pre-eminent zeal of the\nman. This zeal was the great motive of his life. Possessed of a strong\nframe, of great powers of endurance, we are told that he earned by night\nwhat enabled him to live in study by day. His determination was so\nstrong that he even made use of potsherds and bones as his note-tablets.\nSuch a man would impress his earnestness on the system he espoused. His\ndisciple, Chrysippus, does not seem to have possessed his earnestness of\npurpose to find out the truth, so much as to establish the system and\nwage war in its favour against all adversaries. We have remarked that\nsome inconsistencies of doctrine were alleged against him. These appear\nto have been owing to his desire to reconcile irreconcilable things; as,\ndivine sovereignty with human freedom in any respect:\u2014universal goodness\nin the ordering of nature with the presence of moral evil in the world.\nSuch subjects must always remain mysteries. He who will explain them\nwill be inconsistent either with himself or with truth.\n\nI shall proceed, in another chapter, to place the system of Zeno,\nCleanthes, and Chrysippus (that is, Stoicism as it came, in its\nperfected condition, into contact with divine truth) side by side with\nthe doctrines and precepts taught us in the religion of Christ. We shall\nsee much to admire, much to lament in the sect that wished to raise the\nindividual almost to the level of the deity, and yet showed, by the\nsuicides of the first two of its founders, and by other proofs of human\nerror, the fallacy on which the system was built, that man himself is\npart of the divinity, and so has only to act on his own influence to\nrise to perfection.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Diog. Laert. enumerates and quotes many of his writings.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  \u201cLe caract\u00e8re commun de Sto\u00efcisme et de l\u2019Epicur\u00e9isme est de r\u00e9duire\n  presque enti\u00e8rement la philosophie \u00e0 la morale.\u201d\u2014V. COUSIN.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Cleanthes said that it was \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc7, an impression made on the\n  soul, similar to that of a stamp on molten wax, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd:\n  while Chrysippus said it was a \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or modification of the soul\n  itself.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  By Diog. Laert. Lib. VII. c. VII. \u00a7 V.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  I cannot refrain from quoting here the following excellent remarks on\n  the origin of many Stoic philosophers who had great influence on the\n  system, from the article, \u201cThe Ancient Stoics,\u201d in the _Oxford Essays_\n  of 1858, by Sir Alexander Grant, Bart.: \u201cIf we cast our eyes on a list\n  of the early Stoics and their native places, we cannot avoid noticing\n  how many of this school appear to have come of an Eastern and often of\n  a Semitic stock. Zeno, their founder, was from Cittium, in Cyprus, by\n  all accounts of a Ph\u0153nician family. Of his disciples Pers\u00e6us came also\n  from Cittium; Herillus was from Carthage; Athenodorus from Tarsus;\n  Cleanthes from Assos, in the Troad. The chief disciples of Cleanthes\n  were Iph\u0153rus of the Bosphorus, and Chrysippus from Soli in Cilicia.\n  Chrysippus was succeeded by Zeno of Sidon, and Diogenes of Babylon.\n  The latter taught Antipater of Tarsus; who taught Pan\u00e6lius of Rhodus;\n  who taught Posidonius of Apamea in Syria. There was another\n  Athenodorus, from Cana, in Cilicia; and the early Stoic Archedemus is\n  mentioned by Cicero as belonging to Tarsus. When we notice the\n  frequent connexion of Cilicia with this list of names, we may well be\n  reminded of one who was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia, a citizen of no\n  mean city; and we may be led to ask, is there not something in the\n  mental characteristics of the early Stoics analogous to his?\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n               STOICISM IN COMPARISON WITH CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\n    \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n    1 _Ep. ad Cor._ 1. 21.\n\n\nOur way is now plain to compare this system of philosophy, which has\nthus been sketched, with the teaching of Christianity. We shall see, if\nwe place the address of St Paul on Mars\u2019 Hill as the foundation of our\nthought, how much the Christian Apostle had in common with the Stoic\nteachers. As we go further and ask ourselves the foundations on which\nthe tenets of the religion of Jesus, and those of the philosophy of\nZeno, rest, we shall see that herein they widely differ. It will be our\nwork, in order to distinguish the two things to be compared, again to\nrefer to the address to the Athenians: and although an exhaustive\ncommentary on that address would be out of place here; yet the subject\nseems to claim that we refer to certain parts somewhat minutely.\n\nWe cannot fail to be struck with the fact that, first of all, the\nApostle wished to draw the minds of his hearers, from themselves and all\nsurrounding objects, to one great and supreme Creator and Governor of\nthe world. This infinite Being he shows to be a distinct personal\nexistence, separate from and superior to all things; yet one who\nconcerns Himself intimately with the affairs of men. He is not a\nsomething vivifying and permeating all things, and forming part of the\nessence of all things. He is the great first cause of all, and existed\nbefore and independently of all. The Apostle implies that none of the\nguesses of the wisest among his hearers had reached the truth. Yet they\nhad been feeling after Him, as men in the dark try to feel their way to\nlight. They had shown their conviction that there was a great GOD, to\nthe knowledge of whom they were strangers. To Him they had erected an\naltar calling him by his title of Unknown. Thus St Paul appeals to deep\nconvictions impressed on their minds. At the same time, he does not\nshrink from showing that GOD does not require men\u2019s help, nor love the\nworship of idolators; though the announcement ran counter to strong\nprejudices, deeply seated in the minds of his hearers. Men, he told\nthem, are the offspring of GOD. They should therefore render him the\nintelligent and loving service due from children to a wise and\nbeneficent parent. Now in this great view of truth there was presented\nto the Stoic much that he could agree with, and yet a great deal opposed\nto, or in advance of, his preconceived notions. The idea of the\nphilosopher had been of a supreme power which was a principle rather\nthan a person. Looking at himself, in connexion with the universe, he\nhad not thought it impious to consider himself a very part of this\ndivine essence, rather than a creature made by the divine power. Hence\nhe had not a humbling sense of his nothingness in comparison with the\nEternal. His philosophy rather gave him a feeling of pride, from the\nconviction of his individual worth and greatness, as an essential part\nof the great supreme. He did not see that there was a mighty Being, a\nself-existent _Person_, infinitely removed in power and nature from all\nthat he has made; and that by Him men are cared for and loved, as the\nmembers of a vast family, of which he is the Creator and Father. And in\nsaying this, I do not lose sight of the fact that some of the Stoics, at\ntimes, seem to have risen superior to their own doctrines, and to have\nlistened to the inner voice which whispered to them of the everlasting\nFather. Whether it was from Aratus, or Cleanthes, that St Paul quoted,\nin his address to the Athenians, yet we are forcibly reminded, by his\nwords, of the noble hymn of the second in the Stoic succession, a song\nof praise almost unparalleled among the writings of heathen antiquity\nfor nobility of utterance and purity of thought. Addressing the chief of\nthe gods, who, he says, has many names and is the omnipotent prince of\nnature, he sings:\n\n\u201cWe are Thy offspring; and of living things we alone have the gift of\nspeech, the image of reason. Therefore I will for ever sing thee and\ncelebrate thy power. All this universe revolving round the earth obeys\nthee, and willingly pursues its course at thy command. In thine\nunconquerable hands thou holdest such a minister as the two-edged,\nflaming, vivid thunderbolt. O King, most high, nothing is done without\nthee, either in heaven, or on the earth, or in the sea, except what the\nwicked do in their foolishness. Thou makest order out of confusion, and\nwhat is worthless becomes precious in thy sight; for thou hast fitted\ntogether good and evil into one, and hast set up one law that is\neverlasting. But the wicked, unhappy ones, fly from thy law, and though\nthey desire to possess what is good, yet do they not see, nor do they\nhear the universal law of GOD. If they would follow it with\nunderstanding they might have a good life. But they go astray, each\nafter his own devices, some vainly ambitious of fame, others turning\naside after gain avariciously, others after riotous living and\nwantonness. Nay, but, O Zeus, giver of all things, who dwellest in dark\nclouds and rulest over the thunder, deliver men from their foolishness;\nscatter it from their souls. Grant them also to obtain wisdom, for by\nwisdom thou dost rightly govern all things; that being honoured we may\nrepay thee with honour, singing thy works without ceasing, as is right\nfor us to do. For there is no greater thing than this, either for mortal\nmen, or for the gods, to sing aright the universal law.\u201d\n\nOne cannot fail to be struck with the marvellous insight into the\nholiest truths revealed in these lines. A candid mind must acknowledge\nwith thankfulness how graciously GOD was training the mind of man for\nthe reception of the mystery of godliness unfolded in the Gospel. This\nfact St Paul acknowledged. He told the Athenians that he was come to\nbring them further intelligence of a Being, whom they, as the words of\nsome of their poets proved, acknowledged as the Lord and Father of all;\nwhom they were desirous of knowing more fully. Yet if we read the\nwritings of the Stoics we cannot but be saddened by the reflection that\nsuch views of God were exceptional; that such desires to know more of\nhim were evanescent, if they existed at all in the minds of some. These\nfeelings were the work of some inner power, not the result of their\nsystem of philosophy. The theory of the universe which this system\ntaught was one that did not bow down the human soul in humble obedience\nand in abasement before the Almighty; but rather caused a sense of pride\nand self-dependence at variance with this feeling. Hence we meet with\nsuch expressions as we find urged against the sect by Plutarch[17], who\ninforms us that Chrysippus said that \u201cthe sage is not less useful to\nZeus than Zeus is to the sage.\u201d Similarly, how often are there recurring\nin various forms such a sentiment as we find, for instance, in Marcus\nAntoninus[18], \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5. While this\nwas a cause of pride, it was also one of sadness. Each man felt, in a\ngreat measure, left to himself. He was an atom broken off from a vast\nwhole, and would, bye and bye, be restored to his former union. But he\ndid not feel in this life that there was an intimate personal loving\nunion with a wise and holy being, who was his personal friend and\nfather.\n\nThis brings us to another point in which Christianity and Stoicism were\na contrast, yet at first sight not very far removed one from the other.\nBoth allowed and taught an universal law, by which all nature and all\nevents are regulated; but while the one teaches that this universal law\nis the wisdom of an infallible Lord constantly superintending and\nordering all things well, the other held that all things were arranged\naccording to the decrees of a blind and unalterable fate. The Apostle of\nChrist taught the Athenians that there was no truth in the wild\nspeculation of the Epicurean, who held that all things happened by\nchance: but he brought before them, as a ruler, a being full of\nintelligence and constantly superintending the course of events; not\nsome inexorable fate. He told them of one who, having created of one\nblood all nations that dwell on the face of the earth, arranged the\nperiod of their existence and fixed the bounds of their habitation. And\nHe did this all in wisdom, with the intention that all men might seek\nHim, and find their happiness in the knowledge of His goodness and by\nparticipating in His love. Contrasted with this was the doctrine of\nfatalism which the Stoics taught. All things proceeded, they said, from\ndestiny, which was omnipotent. To its decrees both gods and men must\nbow. From its power not the highest even were exempt. This destiny was\n\u201cthe law according to which what has been, has been; what is, is; and\nwhat shall be, shall be[19].\u201d Instead of an overruling Providence\nconstantly superintending the affairs of the universe, there was a law\nbinding the highest God, as well as the lowest in creation. So we read\nin Seneca (_De Providentia_, cap. VI.): \u201cEadem necessitas et Deos\nalligat. Irrevocabilis divina pariter atque humana cursus vehit. Ille\nipse omnium conditor ac rector scripsit quidem Fata, sed sequitur.\nSemper paret, semel jussit.\u201d The Stoical doctrine then was that GOD\nhimself is a servant to the necessity of the material scheme; that He is\nbound by eternal decrees; that he could not have created an atom\ndifferent from what it is, and cannot change anything merely according\nto what He may will in the future. So Cicero quotes a Greek poet, and\nputs these words as his meaning, \u201cQuod fore paratum est, id summum\nexuperat Jovem.\u201d Indeed the first Stoics adopted this fatalism as their\nbelief, and seem to have held firmly as a truth, what Herodotus states,\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2. We shall see that this necessitarian scheme had an\ninfluence, of no small extent, on certain parts of the Church of Christ\nin after ages.\n\nI must proceed here, however, to point out another aspect in which,\nthough they seem to have had the same end before them, namely, the\nraising man to moral excellence, yet Christianity and Stoicism differed\nentirely\u2014the means whereby human perfection is to be attained.\nChristianity pointed men to the way of humility and self-renunciation.\nStoicism pointed them to the perfectibility of man by his own exertion,\nwithout trusting on divine aid. St Paul preached Jesus to the enquiring\nminds of Greece; Jesus, as a Saviour\u2014Jesus, as an Example to those who\nwould attain holiness of life\u2014as a pattern of a perfect man. Now no\nlesson is more plainly taught in the Gospel of Christ, than the truth\nthat penitence and humility are the necessary precursors of holiness and\ntrue glory. The Stoic would look on repentance as a confession that he\nhad failed in his philosophy. It was no part of his scheme to lower\nhimself in order to rise. Much less had he any idea of trusting in\nanother\u2019s merits, and in another\u2019s self-sacrifice, in order to have any\nchance at all of becoming perfect for ever. But then, his idea of\nperfection was perfection as a philosopher in this life. The glorious\nhope of an eternal future, in which he would take part as a purified\nbeing, freed from all sin and defilement by the power of the omnipotent\nFather, and by the furnace through which he had to pass in struggling\nduring a lifetime with temptation and with affliction, was no part of\nhis creed. Like the Christian, he had a lofty purpose, but his purpose\nwas confined to this life; to be conformed to the course of nature; to\nrise by his philosophy to a region of indifference about outward things.\nHis end was attained, he thought, if he subdued his own nature; if he\nlearnt to bear, without flinching, whatever might cause him pain or\ninconvenience; if what men commonly call natural feelings and affections\nwere done violence to, without compunction, that he might thus attain to\nconformity with the rule of universal nature. All this he did, or\nprofessed to do, of his own power. He did not require a power from on\nhigh, to forgive his errors, and to give him strength to be virtuous.\nRather, he was to be virtuous as a means of making GOD propitious. Just\nas Seneca says[20], \u201cInter bonos viros ac Deum amicitia est, conciliante\nvirtute.\u201d So that between this system and the Christian doctrine, though\nthey both professedly inculcate a life of virtue and self-denial, there\nis an impassable gulph. Stoicism raised pride in human excellence into a\npart of its teaching. Indeed, the Stoic was, as has been justly\nobserved, a Pharisee among heathens. He prided himself upon being not as\nothers around him; upon being better and more exalted in virtue than\nthey; and therefore upon being nearer GOD, and more worthy of the love\nof the Most High. Now Christianity goes on exactly the opposite\nprinciple to this. She teaches men that they must obtain the divine\nfavour and aid, not by means of their innate superiority, but as the\nmeans of rising to holiness and virtue. We cannot take any steps at all\nin true moral excellence, till we are possessed of the love of GOD. This\nis the foundation of Christian truth. The divine life must have its\nbeginning in repentance and renunciation of self, in deep humility and\nconsequent trust in divine aid, given to all who ask it for Christ\u2019s\nsake; because GOD is love. We shall see, nevertheless, that the views of\nmany Christians have been tinged with the Stoic belief, that by\nself-mortification, and even by trying to uproot natural affections and\nfeelings, planted in man by GOD himself for wise ends, the human soul\nrenders herself worthier of the friendship of heaven. We hear St Paul,\nhowever, setting before the Athenians this great duty, first of all,\nthat they feel and acknowledge themselves in error, in order to\namendment of life; and that they trust in the merits of another, in\norder to atone for their own demerits. \u201cHe commandeth all men everywhere\nto repent.\u201d This was the testimony of the messenger of the true GOD.\nFrom the mention of the resurrection of Jesus, immediately after this,\nand the manner in which that resurrection is spoken of, it would seem\nthat St Paul gave the Athenians some particulars of the Redeemer\u2019s life\nand death either on Mars\u2019 Hill or in the Agora. Now the life of Christ\nwould teach the Stoic, that true philosophy is not trying to eradicate\nhuman feelings and instincts, but controlling them. Nothing is so\nstriking and so lovely in the divine life of the Son of GOD, as its\n_humanity_. He is a \u201cman with men,\u201d in every sense of the word. He is\nnot ashamed to show ordinary human feelings. He was truly noble, yet not\nthe less meek and lowly. He was truly brave, yet did not think it\nunworthy of himself to show how intensely he suffered. He was truly\nresigned to the will of Heaven, yet thought it not contrary to right to\nexpress his sorrow when he was bereaved. He dignified human sympathy by\neven weeping with those that wept. How incomparably does this true\nnobility rise above the Stoic apathy, which condemned such feelings, and\nled Seneca, in an Epistle to Lucilius, to deprecate the indulgence of\ngrief for a friend\u2019s loss. \u201cI myself,\u201d says he, \u201cwept so immoderately\nfor Ann\u00e6us Serenus, ... that I must, against my will, be reckoned among\nthe examples of those whom grief has overcome. Nevertheless, to-day I\ncondemn my error[21].\u201d The last days of our Saviour\u2019s life gave the\nworld a perfect example of true dignity; yet, we can see, he counted it\nonly fit, as a man, to show that he felt keenly reproach and pain. But\nit was the Saviour\u2019s death, and the reason for which his death was\ndeemed necessary by eternal justice, that took away for ever any\nfoundation for Stoic pride and self-dependence. Nothing less than this\nwas sufficient to atone for human error, and make it possible for man to\nobtain pardon, and be restored to the divine image which he had lost. It\nis thus he can become truly wise and lead a life worthy of himself as a\nman. And by the divine aid he will be able to rise to greater heights of\nself-control, than any to which pride of philosophy could raise him. The\nStoics claimed for the wise man that he is infallible and impassive,\nthat he is unmoved by outward events, with his mind ever in an even\nstate[22]. That which the Stoic dreamed of, the Christian may become,\nbut in a spiritual and far higher sense. There were those in the early\nChurch, and there have been many since, who showed themselves\nphilosophers indeed, \u201cin honour and dishonour, in evil report and good\nreport: as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as\ndying, and, behold, they lived; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as\npoor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all\nthings[23].\u201d The great Christian Apostle was able to say, \u201cI have\nlearned, in whatever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both\nhow to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all\nthings, I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound\nand to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which\nstrengtheneth me[24].\u201d In this last sentence is the real secret of all\ntrue heroism. Christ is the source of true philosophy. He alone gives\ntrue strength of mind: He can render the believer omnipotent for good.\n\u201cI can do all things,\u201d says the Apostle; the power is from above,\nhowever. Without GOD, the strongest becomes a child. This fact, that GOD\nprepares the heart for virtue, and gives us strength to resist evil and\ndo good, takes away all cause for boasting from even the most advanced\nin moral excellence. Whereas, the Stoic system, beginning and ending in\nself, with nothing else to trust to, caused man to become proud of his\nsupposed advances. He thought even to become equal to the Most High.\nIndeed, so far was this feeling carried, that we have from a disciple of\nthe system, such a boastful and (to our feeling) profane assertion as\nthe following. Seneca, writing to Lucilius, after persuading him to\ndiligently cultivate philosophy, says, then \u201cThou wilt excel all men,\nnor will the gods much excel thee.... To the wise man his own age lies\nopen, as much as every age to GOD. There is one respect in which the\nwise man may be said to excel GOD; the latter is fearless by the gift of\nnature, the wise man by his own merits[25].\u201d\n\nWe have one other point that requires attention in connexion with St\nPaul\u2019s speech, and that is the future state. He laid before the Stoics,\nwho heard him, the great fact of the existence of men, as individuals,\nafter death; and not merely their existence, but their having to appear\nat the judgment seat of Christ, after being raised from the dead. The\nwhole of this was foreign to the Stoic system. They had nothing, in\ntheir wisest speculations, approaching to these grand ideas, which the\nApostle unfolded to them as divine mysteries. The early Stoics held that\nthey would, after death, return to union with the universe. Their plan\nfor getting rid of evil and regenerating all things, was one of\nperiodical conflagrations. The Christian _anastasis_ was something which\nunaided human intellects could not reach. Moreover, the future judgment\nof men, if it could have been received by the Stoics, would have\nmodified their system in many respects. They would have had different\nviews of the deity, if they had felt that, after all, they were to stand\nat his bar, to give an account of their words and works. They would have\nhad a different view of life and of death, if they had known that when\nthey ceased to live on earth, they would begin a new existence, in which\nthey would be happy, or miserable, according as they submitted to, or\nrejected the will of GOD here. For the want of this great truth, their\nsystem was shortsighted and, in some respects, evil. If death were the\nend of man, as a separate person, why should it not be also held to be\nunder the control of each? In fact the great lesson to learn was to\nbecome master in the last act, as well as in others. The system was not\na training for immortality. This life was the scene of battle and of\nvictory, to the Stoic. To the Christian, this life is the battle-field.\nHe is contented to wait till another state of existence, for victory and\npeace. He can understand the meaning of the words of St Paul, \u201cIf in\nthis life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most\nmiserable[26].\u201d With the hope of the future before him, however, he is\ncontent to suffer. He can bear suffering with fortitude, and can even\ntriumph over it. For him, \u201cthis light affliction, which is but for a\nmoment, worketh out a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,\nwhile he looks not at the things which are seen, but at the things which\nare not seen.\u201d The restoration of the body and soul to a state of\nperfection opens before the mind a treasure in future, for which present\npoverty is lightly borne. But to this glorious hope the Stoic was a\nstranger. He lived for this world. His sufferings, his trials, must all\nbe borne unflinchingly, because only here would he bear them; only here\nwould he, an offshoot of the deity, dwell as such. Therefore it was\nbeneath him to say he suffered. He lived for himself, to raise himself\nabove others. He must despise what lowered his existence. He must\ntrample on pain. When the conflict was too severe, then the end also was\nat his command, and he might leave a scene which he could adorn no\nlonger. Then there was an end to the whole matter[27]. The sublime\ndoctrines of the Gospel, however, which open a splendid future to the\nvirtuous soul, teach men a far different lesson. Moreover, the certainty\nof a just judgment leads them to be careful, how they pass through a\nscene, which is to them the only state of probation. They know that the\nfuture will be pregnant with evil to them, if they neglect, or abuse the\ntime given to them for preparation. They look forward with no less\ncertainty to a reward for well doing. They are sure there will be no\nmistake in the final adjudication. All these thoughts tend one way; to\nthe promotion of holiness of life, and to those acts of kindness and\ncharity, which are evidences of the love of GOD in the heart. These acts\nthe great Judge has promised to reward, as though they were done to\nHimself. He says that, in that day, he will declare respecting each of\nthese deeds of love, \u201cInasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least\nof these my brethren, ye have done it unto me[28].\u201d\n\nI have thus endeavoured to point out the distinctive features of the two\nsystems, where they came in contact. In the Christian religion, there is\npresented to the mind a God of holiness and purity and almighty power, a\nbeing who rules over all and works in man\u2019s heart. In the Stoic\nphilosophy, the Supreme Being is rather an idea than a person; a part of\nthe universe, just as the soul is part of man. In the Christian system,\nthe Lord of all is represented as constantly exercising a wise and\njudicious superintendence over all creation, blessing His works, and\nwith unerring foresight, arranging all things by His providence. In the\nStoic system, all things in heaven and earth were the subjects of an\nunalterable fate. Christianity teaches men that moral excellence is to\nbe attained only by divine aid, and this aid is given to those who are\npenitent and humble; who seek GOD first, and show their love to Him in\ntheir lives. Stoicism taught that moral excellence was attainable by man\nalone, and that he might, unaided, raise himself to perfection, and make\nhimself worthy of GOD. In the religion of Jesus, men are furnished with\nglorious views of a future life. The world to come is presented to the\nfaithful, as a reward for virtue and piety. The resurrection of man, and\nthe final setting in order of the universe at the great day of\nregeneration, when just judgment will be passed on good and evil angels\nand men, are held out as the great facts of future ages. In the Stoic\nphilosophy, there is no future personal existence promised; and the\nregeneration is to be by fire consuming, at certain cycles, the works of\nthe universe. Christianity had an influence on the later Stoics.\nWhere-ever we see, in the works of these philosophers, clearer views of\nGOD, His providence, His work in the spirit; wherever we see clearer\nperceptions of human depravity and need for divine aid; where we\nperceive dawnings of hope of a future life for the soul; there we see,\nif not the direct influence, yet at least the spirit of Christianity\nmaking itself felt. On the other hand, if, in the Christian church, we\nsee the necessitarian theory taking possession of men\u2019s belief; if we\nperceive human pride asserting itself in raising moral virtues, or works\nof self-denial, or self-imposed austerities, into the place of Christ\u2019s\nsacrifice, as the means of obtaining the divine favour; we shall not be\nmistaken, if we say that, in these respects, the Church has borrowed\nfrom the Porch, and departed from the simplicity of the Gospel.\n\nBefore I proceed to investigate the influence which the two systems have\nexerted one on the other, I purpose to devote a few pages to the\nconsideration of the relative influence they have exerted on the world\nat large. Let us compare what Stoic philosophy did for those nations\namong whom it exerted an influence, with the effect which Christianity\nhas wrought on those who have embraced its tenets and acknowledged its\npower. If we look at Athens, and ask ourselves what result the doctrines\nof the Stoic school had there, we shall find that, after centuries of\neffort, very little was effected for the benefit of our race. Doubtless\na strong impression was made on certain minds; but, as far as the masses\nwere concerned, the influence of the sect seems to have been small, and\nthe beneficial result very insignificant indeed. With regard to the\nadherents of the system, we have little trustworthy information as to\nwhether, in private life, their practice corresponded with their public\nprofessions. One is almost led, from their declarations that their\nphilosophy raised them above the law of conduct binding the common herd,\nto suppose that, for some, the profession of being a Stoic was only a\ncloak. There seem to have been among them, men of similar feelings to\nthe Antinomians of the Christian church. If a man were a philosopher, he\nwas out of the ordinary pale, and might be almost what else he liked.\nThe early Stoics were doubtless men of purer life than the masses around\nthem, yet, from the remarks of those who have written very favourably of\nthem, one is led to perceive that they were looked on more as professors\nof a system of excellent ethical philosophy, than as strict adherents to\nits precepts. Their principles were considered rather as intellectual,\nthan heartfelt. As an instance, we may notice what Diogenes Laertes\nreports concerning Zeno. He says[29], \u201c\u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03c2,\n\u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u1f22 \u03b4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\u201d Now one\nmust see that, if the record be true, then the purity of the Stoic was\nnot thorough, though he was better than others perhaps. If the report be\na myth, we perceive that in the writer\u2019s opinion, gathered probably from\nobservation, the precepts of philosophy were not so very binding, but\nthat a professor of it might be none the less esteemed as a philosopher,\nfor acting, now and then, as an ordinary man. He evidently thought that\nZeno was not to be blamed, but rather commended, for showing,\noccasionally, that he did not wish to be thought too austere. The dogmas\nof this philosophy were public professions, but did not alter the heart,\nand control the whole life. It was powerless, as a moral lever, to raise\nthe people. The masses remained idolatrous and deeply superstitious.\nIndeed the philosophers themselves conformed to the prevailing worship,\nand were not free from the prevailing superstitions. As ethical\nreformers, they seemed to have despaired of raising men, except in small\nnumbers, to a better state. We look in vain for evidences of a\nwide-spread philanthropy. In fact, the system was one of ego\u00efsm; and\nbeginning in self, inculcating trust on self, it had no wide grasp of\nthe duty and love, which men owe one to another, as children of a common\nFather.\n\nIf from Athens we go to Rome, and notice the effect produced when Stoic\ninfluence was at its highest point and most wide-spread, we are saddened\nby a similar absence of evidence that it effected any great\namelioration. We are led to see the truth of Niebuhr\u2019s remarks[30]\nrespecting the state of the community, upon which Stoicism had exerted\nall its power. \u201cViewed as a national, or political history, the history\nof the Roman Empire is sad and discouraging in the last degree. We see\nthat things had come to a point, at which no earthly power could afford\nany help: we now have the development of dead powers instead of that of\na vital energy.\u201d The age of the greatest fame of Rome, when Augustus\nruled her destinies, and her power and wealth and wide-spread influence\nwere so vast, was not a happy one for the people. There was no\nfellowship between men, uniting them in feeling and for mutual benefit.\nPerhaps half the people were slaves and degraded, in the midst of\nsurrounding splendour. Arnold[31] has well described the moral\ndeficiency; \u201cThere were no public hospitals, no institutions for the\nrelief of the infirm and poor, no societies for the improvement of the\ncondition of mankind, from motives of charity. Nothing was done to\npromote the instruction of the lower classes, nothing to mitigate the\nevils of domestic slavery. Charity and general philanthropy were so\nlittle regarded as duties, that it requires a very extensive\nacquaintance with the literature of the time to find any allusion to\nthem.\u201d As long as it had an influence, Stoicism taught men rather to\nbear the evils of life with indifference, than to get rid of the evils\nthat were in the world, by schemes for the social happiness and moral\nelevation of the people. So that superstition and grossest idolatry were\nrampant, and vices of the most lamentable kind were indulged in, almost\nwithout producing any shame.\n\nIn proportion as Christianity won its way, these things disappeared; and\nin proportion to the purity of the Christian religion, and its freedom\nfrom admixture of extraneous principles and influences, has been its\nsuccess in raising a fallen world. Whatever power Stoicism possessed for\ngood, the religion of Jesus also possessed, and in a higher degree. In\naddition, it brought into play enormous and superhuman resources; high\nand holy motives; and doctrines which originated in heaven, and partook\nof the purity of their origin. The consequence has been marvellous. The\nprogress of this religion in face of opposition was such as to afford\nample proof of its divinity. And as it progressed, it proved its mission\nby raising the fallen, blessing the wretched, despising not even the\nmost lowly, seeking the most sinful; that by miracles wrought in the\nsouls of men, it might show that it was fitted for the high mission\nwhich it claimed. Men were no longer left to grovel in idolatry, and\nconsequent imitation in their lives of the conduct of the unholy beings\nwhom they worshipped. Like St Paul on Mars\u2019 Hill, every true herald of\nthe cross has set before men a holy GOD, as the sole object of the\nreverence and obedience of their hearts. They have been taught love to\nGOD, as the highest duty of the creature; and as a consequence, love to\ntheir fellow-men. Mutual kindness and charity have done marvels, in\nremoving the various calamities of this life; and where these have been\nirremoveable, the efforts of the disciples of the Crucified One have\nbeen put forth, to make them weigh less heavily on the sons of\naffliction. The poor have been cared and provided for. To them the\ngospel of mercy has been preached, and they have been taught to have\nfaith in a future life, in which the wrongs of this will be set right.\nChristianity has brought civilization in its train. The marvellous\nprogress of men in these latter days may be traced to the exalting\ninfluence of this noble creed, which builds again the ruins of the human\nsoul; and has nothing less for its object than man\u2019s restoration to the\nimage of GOD. No one that reflects on the wonders it has produced; on\nthe efforts it has put forth for the regeneration of our race; on the\nenergy it still displays, in trying to give blessing and help to those\nwho sit in darkness, and are in need; on the success that has crowned\nthe efforts of the past, inciting to fresh ones for the future; can fail\nto see the finger of GOD. We gratefully acknowledge that all praise is\ndue to Him for the gift of such grand means for raising a fallen world;\nfor a system, which \u201chas the promise of the life which now is, as well\nas of that which is to come.\u201d\n\nBy these remarks, I am far from wishing to imply that there is not much\nto lament in Christian countries, or that since Christianity has been\nacknowledged and professed by a great part of the world, she has\nsucceeded in making even the noblest of her sons faultless and sinless.\nOnly one such man has ever trod our earth, and He was more than man, and\nshewed His divinity in the midst of human weakness and pain. All others\nare liable to error. And we must confess that, when we see the evils\nstill remaining in Christendom, there is room for sadness; but there is\nnone for despair.\n\nMoreover, no one would depreciate the Stoic system, because its\ndisciples did not act up to its precepts, in every respect. Epictetus\ndeclared[32], there were many who were philosophers in name, far from\nbeing so in deed; and Seneca assures us[33], that Stoic philosophers\n\u201cdid not say how they themselves lived, but how men ought to live.\u201d Yet\nI quite agree with Gataker[34], that there were well-attested instances,\nin almost every age, of adherents to the system, who, by their faithful\nobservance of their principles in the conduct of their lives, might put\nto shame many professors of Christianity, and cause them to blush.\n\nBut I have been speaking of the effect of each system, as a whole, on\nnations and masses of men, and on individuals. And we see that Stoicism,\nafter centuries of effort, proved itself unequal to the regeneration of\nmen, and as completely failed as any other merely human scheme, in this\nrespect. We should keep in mind, that systems are not relatively\nsuperior in proportion to the adherence of their disciples. Unwavering\nobedience, on the part of certain of its followers, does not necessarily\nimply the excellence of a system; it simply proves that some of its\ndisciples are faithful. On the contrary, the excellence of a system is\nseen, when it does a great work and raises a fallen world, in spite of\nthe apparent inadequacy of its means; in spite of the luke-warm\nattachment and want of consistency, often displayed by its followers. In\nthis way, the more than human perfection of Christianity has been shown.\nIf her children had been as faithful to her, as many of the Stoics were\nto their school, she had, ere this, made our earth a paradise. Even as\nthings are, notwithstanding the introduction, into her midst, of\ndoctrines and practices, foreign to her in origin, and opposed to her\nprinciples; notwithstanding the many shortcomings of her friends, and\nthe unceasing opposition of her foes, and the resistance ever offered by\nthe pride of man\u2019s heart to her humbling doctrines; she carries on her\nglorious work successfully, and proves herself equal to her destined\npurpose.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  _Adversus Stoicos_, 33.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Lib. XII. Cap. 26, collat. quoq. v. 10.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Plutarch, _De Placitis Philosophorum_, I. 28.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  _De Providentia_, Cap. 1.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  \u201cH\u00e6c tibi scribo, is qui Ann\u00e6um Serenum, carissimum mihi, tam immodice\n  flevi, ut quod minime velim, inter exempla sim eorum quos dolor vicit:\n  hodie tamen factum meum damno,\u201d &c.\u2014_Ep._ LXIII. 12.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014Diog. Laert. VI. 1. 64.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  2 Cor. vi. 8-10.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Phil. iv. 11-13.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  \u201cOmnes mortales multo antecedes, non multo te dii antecedent....\n  Tantum sapienti sua, quantum Deo, omnis \u00e6tas patet. Est aliquid, quo\n  sapiens antecedat Deum: ille natur\u00e6 beneficio non timet, suo\n  sapiens.\u201d\u2014_Ep._ LIII.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 19.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  On this part the following words of Cousin are worthy of attention:\n  \u201cLe Sto\u00efcisme est essentiellement solitaire: c\u2019est le soin exclusif de\n  son \u00e2me, sans regard \u00e0 celles des autres; et comme la seule chose\n  importante est la puret\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me, quand cette puret\u00e9 est trop en\n  p\u00e9ril, quand on d\u00e9sesp\u00e8re d\u2019\u00eatre victorieux dans la lutte, on peut la\n  terminer, comme l\u2019a termin\u00e9e Caton. Ainsi la philosophie n\u2019est plus\n  qu\u2019un apprentissage de la mort, et non de la vie; elle tend \u00e0 la mort\n  par son image, l\u2019apathie et l\u2019ataraxie, et se r\u00e9sout d\u00e9finitivement en\n  son ego\u00efsme sublime.\u201d\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  St Matt. xxv. 40.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Lib. VII. c. 1. \u00a7. XIII.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Lect. v. 194.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  _Later Roman Commonwealth_, II. 398.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Quoted by Gataker from Gellius,\n  _Noct. Attic._ 17, 19.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  \u201cNon dicebant, quemadmodum ipsi viverent, sed quemadmodum vivendum\n  esset.\u201d\u2014Seneca, _de Vit. Beat._ c. 18.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  The words of Gataker, in the Preface to his _Marc. Anton._, are:\n  \u201cVeruntamen ex eis qui sect\u00e6 hujus in disciplinam serio seduloque sese\n  dederunt, per singulas quasque fere \u00e6tates reperti sunt, qui fide\n  dignorum scriptorum suffragiis consensu consono attestantibus, ita\n  dogmata sua factis consentaneis consignata, decretaque vit\u00e6 instituto\n  \u00e6quabili fere comprobata exhibuerint, ut nominis etiam Christiani\n  professoribus plerisque pudorem incutere, ruborem suffundere merito\n  queant.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n               THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ON STOICISM.\n\n\n    \u201cVicti victoribus leges dederunt.\u201d\n\n    SEN. quoted by St Aug. in _Civ. Dei_.\n\n\nThere is nothing unreasonable in the supposition, that when two systems\nsuch as Christianity and Stoicism came into contact, they would\nnaturally exert considerable influence, one on the other. We perceive,\nif we trace the history of the religion of Christ, that it felt the\neffect of the philosophy of the Gentile world, and especially of the\nGreeks, in various ways. Platonism proved itself so powerful as to cause\nthe rise of the Alexandrian school, with its vast influences. In other\ncases, we see Christianity so strongly impregnated with notions drawn\nfrom heathenism, that various baneful heresies arose, which sometimes\nthreatened the very existence of the truth. Tertullian[35] complains\nthat \u201cphilosophy furnished the arms and the subjects of heresy.\u201d During\nthe middle of the life of Christianity in the world, so evil were the\nresults, to the Church, of principles external to it in origin, and\nantagonistic to purity, that we look back on those centuries with deep\nsorrow, and call them \u201cthe dark ages.\u201d\n\nAmong other systems of philosophy Stoicism made itself felt by the\nChurch of Christ. In allusion to this Tertullian says, \u201cOur training is\nfrom the porch of Solomon.\u201d Again he says, \u201cLet those take care who help\nforward a Stoic, a Platonic, a dialectic Christianity. We have no need\nof curious enquiries about the coming of Jesus Christ, nor of\ninvestigation after the gospel.\u201d But though Stoic philosophy made itself\nfelt, yet, being practical rather than speculative, it did not produce a\ndistinct school, such as resulted from the Academic system. Still it\nleft its impress on after times, as I shall endeavour to point out in\nfuture pages.\n\nChristianity also made a great impression on Stoicism, while the latter\ncontinued to exist as a system of philosophy. We do not find its power\nand principles acknowledged in the writings of any of the school. Yet,\nfrom certain expressions in Epictetus and M. Antoninus, we perceive they\nwere fully aware how nearly allied Christian virtue was to their high\naspirations; how closely those who were disciples of Christ approached\nto their own standard. But they were displeased at the principles from\nwhich the Christian excellence proceeded; and probably also at the\nliving protest which these men afforded against the philosophy which\ncould not produce results such as their religion produced among the\npeople. So Epictetus[36] in B. IV. Ch. 7, speaking of fearlessness,\nallows by implication that it was possessed by the Galileans, but puts\ndown their fortitude to _habit_, and commends much more that coming from\nreason. So Antoninus[37] allows that Christians are ready to die, but\nsays that, whereas this readiness should proceed from personal judgment,\nresulting from due calculation, the readiness of the Christians to die\ncame of mere obstinacy. In other words, they had so strong a faith in\nthe gospel that they would rather die than give it up. Such passing\nnotices as these show decisively that the religion of Jesus was doing a\ngreat work of which philosophers became jealous. This work was of the\nsame kind as that which the Stoics professed to have as their object;\nyet what they failed in achieving was wrought out successfully on\nprinciples which they despised. They were vexed and annoyed, and would\nnaturally ignore any influence which the Christian doctrines might have\nin modifying their opinions. I shall proceed to point out in this\nchapter that this influence was nevertheless remarkable. What changes\noccurred in the views of the sect at Athens we do not know: there are no\nrecords of the Stoics at Athens at that time. The only writers to whom\nwe can refer, in order to come to any correct estimate as to the\ndevelopment of thought among the sect, of a nature to show Christian\ninfluence, were Romans. They are only three in number\u2014Seneca, Epictetus,\nand the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. I shall refer to the writings\nof each in this, their proper order.\n\nWhen I speak of Seneca as a Roman, I do not forget that he was born in\nSpain; but being a Roman in thought and feeling, as well as by residence\nand by birth-right, he is rightly reckoned among Roman philosophers. It\nis not my business, however, to give even a sketch of his life; nor\nshall I refer to his voluminous writings, except as they show the\ninfluence which Christianity seems to have exerted on the Stoic sect in\nhis day. He lived at the same time that St Paul laboured for the truth,\nand there have been traditions of his having been taught the precepts of\nthe Gospel by the great Apostle himself. These are probably without\nfoundation, but their being so does not prove that Christianity had no\ninfluence on his speculations. Their very existence serves to show how\napparent that influence was to various readers, so as at least to make\nthe intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher seem to them not\nan improbable thing. We must remember that Judaism was the pioneer of\nChristianity at Rome, as well as elsewhere. Possessed of much divine\ntruth, it necessarily exerted considerable influence there on the world\nof thought; and so prepared the way for the fuller light which the\ngospel furnished. Christianity also had now a firm hold on many. Its\ninfluence, as we learn from different sources, was beginning to be felt\nin various ways, and even in the imperial court were found some who\nacknowledged its power. It is likely therefore that Seneca would study\nits teaching, or at least would be moved by its presence in the very\ncentre of the world, to listen, even though without conscious sympathy,\nperhaps with contempt, to what was told him respecting its tenets. We\nsee in his writings that he had many clearer views of truth than the\nStoics who preceded him[38]. For instance, with reference to the Deity,\nhis providential care avowed as being exercised over men not merely\ncollectively but individually; his sovereignty, his power and glory, not\nas a mere part of universal nature, but as a being, fully set forth; his\nwork in the human soul recognized as a truth and a necessity for man\u2019s\nwell-doing; these and various other enlarged views of the Lord of all\nshow a vast advance on past Stoicism in the direction of Christian\ndoctrine. Then again, with regard to man, we perceive how clearly he saw\nthat necessary and primary truth, that man is by nature depraved and can\nonly lead a holy life by divine aid. We notice also how he inculcates\nthe duty of love to God and to man, of forgiveness of injuries and of\nthe cultivation of other graces, which have a Christian likeness, if not\na Christian parentage. It is doubtless true that these doctrines were\nthe strong and approved opinions of one who was, as Gataker calls him,\n\u201chome exterior, nec nomini Christiano favens:\u201d but when we read, \u201ccum\nnec mysterii nostri gnarus esset, nec fidei rationes assequeretur,\u201d the\nwords must be taken in a qualified sense. Experimentally, he was\nignorant of the glorious mystery of redemption; but of the religion of\nJesus, and of Judaism which prepared the Roman mind for Christianity, he\nwas at least informed, if only by rumour. And we see, from the effect of\nthe religion of the cross at the present time, that its doctrines of\npurity and mercy may mightily influence even those nations and\nindividuals who do not acknowledge its authority.\n\nLet us look at some of the passages in the writings of Seneca, which\nserve to bear out the views above expressed; and first, with regard to\nthe divine being and his care of man, we find such expressions as the\nfollowing: \u201cGOD comes to men, yea, what is nearer still, he comes into\nmen[39]. No mind is good without GOD. Seeds (of good) are sown in human\nbodies. And if a good husbandman receives them, there are produced\nfruits like the original and equal to those from which they sprung: but\nif a bad husbandman receives them, the ground, not being otherwise than\nbarren and marshy, kills them and thence creates rubbish instead of\nfruit.\u201d One cannot fail to be struck with the likeness this passage\nbears to our Lord\u2019s words recorded by St Matt. xiii. 18-23. Again, in\nthe 41st Epistle, we read, \u201cGod is near thee, is with thee, is within.\nSo I say, Lucilius, the holy spirit has his seat within us, the observer\nand guard of the evil and the good of our lives: as he is treated by us,\nso he treats us.\u201d Intimately connected with this view of an indwelling\nGod, was the theory which Seneca held, that man could not be good and\nperfect without His help. The view which he had of human weakness by\nnature and of the depravity of the human heart was a great advance in\nthe direction of Christian truth, from Stoic principles, which held so\nmuch to the idea of man\u2019s unaided progress to perfection. Yet the views\nwhich Seneca entertained were not unmixed with the old speculations.\nIndeed his mind was evidently struggling to reconcile old doctrines with\nsome new light which was dawning on his mind. Hence he is often\napparently contradictory, as men are when in a transition state, or\nrather when they are endeavouring to graft doctrines of a totally\ndifferent type on the old stock. We see, in the passage first quoted\nabove, how plainly he says that no mind is good without GOD, who sows\nthe seeds of all virtues in the soul, and by his blessing enables a\nwilling heart to bring forth fruit. Again, in the 41st Epistle, he\nwrites, \u201cThere is no good man without GOD. Can any one rise above\nfortune, unless aided by Him? He inspires grand and upright designs. In\nevery good man he dwells.\u201d But he adds, as if to show the struggle going\non within, that He whom he had in the former part of the letter called\nthe holy spirit was to him, as to the Athenians, an \u201cunknown GOD.\u201d \u201cQuis\ndeus incertum est,\u201d he says of the deity who dwells in every good man.\nWith regard to man\u2019s moral nature requiring the aid of one who is strong\nenough to purify it, he speaks very clearly. He sees the need of a\nchange from evil to good in order to become what man should be. Yet he\ndoes not mention the need of pardon for sin that is past. In _De\nClementia_, I. 6, this passage occurs: \u201cReflect, in this city, in which\na crowd pours through the widest street without intermission, and like a\nrapid stream dashes against any obstacle that impedes its course; where\naccommodation is required in three theatres at the same time; where is\nconsumed whatever grain is produced in all lands; what a solitude and\ndesolation were the result, if nothing were left but what a severe judge\nwould pronounce free from fault.\u201d A little further on he adds, \u201cWe have\nall sinned[40]; some deeply, others more lightly; some from design,\nothers driven by chance impulses, or borne away by wickedness not their\nown; others of us have shown little steadfastness in sticking to our\ngood resolutions, and, against our will and in spite of our endeavours,\nhave lost our innocence. Nor is it only that we have erred, but to the\nend of time we shall err[41]. Even if any one has so purified his mind\nthat nothing can shake, or seduce him any more, yet he has arrived at\ninnocence through sin.\u201d These are remarkable expressions, and show how\nmuch advanced the views of the philosopher were in the direction of the\ntruth, even though it was by the path of self-humiliation. The writer of\nthe article on \u201cThe Ancient Stoics\u201d in the Oxford Essays, remarks:\n\u201cThose who have been anxious to obtain the authority of Aristotle for\nthe doctrine of human corruption, will find on consideration that this\nidea, which was historically impossible for a Greek of the fourth\ncentury B.C., came with sufficient vividness into the consciousness of\npersons in the position of Seneca; but not till much later than\nAristotle, probably not before the beginning of our era. On the other\nhand, we are not to fancy that the thoughts of Seneca received any\ninfluence from Christianity.\u201d With this last sentence I do not agree. It\nseems scarcely reasonable to ignore the power of a system which we know\nwas already exercising attention at Rome; a system of high and holy\nprinciples, presenting much for the Stoic mind to admire. That similar\nthoughts struck Paul the Apostle, and Seneca the philosopher, at the\nsame era, is certain. It was a remarkable coincidence, but it was\nsomething more. We know that those thoughts in the mind of the converted\nJew were the result, not of self-reflection, nor of communing with his\nown heart, merely, but of a power outside of himself, more mighty and\nconvincing than any inner influence; but still, acting on a strong mind,\nalready trained in many uncommon and elevating doctrines by Judaism;\nwhich had also been training the Roman world to look for something purer\nand higher than the superstition and vain guesses at truth, which were\nso prevalent heretofore. When Christianity supplied all the demands of\nthe soul, and gave to the Roman world a divine system of doctrine and\nmorals, it soon commanded the attention which it deserved[42]. This\nbeing so, there would seem to be no reason for saying that it had no\ninfluence direct or indirect on the mind of the Stoic philosopher:\nespecially when, on the very face of it, the inconsistency of his\nwritings shows that he owed his conclusions to two distinct sources;\none, the old Stoic system\u2014the other, a new class of thoughts which might\nat least be supposed to have a Christian origin. There is no doubt that,\namong the Romans at the time of Seneca, Christianity was not\ndistinguished from Judaism, but reckoned a part of that system. We see,\nin the 95th letter of the philosopher, plain reference to Jewish forms\nand prohibitions. The word sabbath[43] is used; and the whole of the\nexpressions show how conversant the writer must have been with the\ntenets of the people brought from Palestine. We are struck too with the\nlessons of piety and charity which he deduces from his reflections. He\nsets forth the necessity of having, as the end of our endeavours, the\nattainment of the highest good; and to this we should have respect in\nevery act and word, \u201cas sailors direct their course to some star.\u201d When\nwe read the words, \u201cnon qu\u00e6rit ministros Deus: quidni? Ipse humano\ngeneri ministrat: ubique et omnibus pr\u00e6sto est:\u201d how naturally our minds\nrecal the words of St Paul to the Athenians: \u201cneither is He served by\nmen\u2019s hands, as being in need of any; seeing He giveth to all life, and\nbreath, and all things[44].\u201d We see too that Seneca had clearer notions\nthan his predecessors of the personal existence of the deity and of his\nintimate care of each individual, as well as of the whole race of men.\nHe perceived the need of knowing and believing GOD and of offering him\nspiritual worship; that mere sacrifice and outward homage were vain. In\nthe following passages from the same letter these views are clearly\nexpressed; as is also the great truth which the Saviour taught, that to\nlove GOD with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and our\nneighbour as ourselves, is the essence of religion and virtue: that it\nis indeed \u201cmore than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices[45].\u201d He\nwrites, \u201cHe who knows GOD, worships Him.... A man should learn how to\nconduct himself in offering sacrifices, to recoil very far from disquiet\nof mind and superstitious observances: never will he be advanced enough\nunless he conceive in his mind what kind of a being GOD must be,\npossessing all things, bestowing all things, freely giving His\nbenefits.... The beginning of the worship of the gods, is to believe the\ngods[46]; then, to ascribe to them their majesty; to ascribe to them\ntheir goodness, without which there is no majesty; to know that they who\nrule the world, who control the universe, who are guardians of the human\nrace, are also at the same time full of care for each man.... Look at\nanother question, our proper conduct towards men. How do we deal with\nthis matter? What instructions do we give? That there be a sparing of\nhuman life? How small a matter it is not to hurt him to whom you owe\nbenefits. Truly it is great praise if man is gentle to man. Shall we\nteach that he stretch out his hand to the shipwrecked, that he show the\nright way to the erring, that he divide his loaf with the hungry? When\nshall I declare all things which are to be performed, or avoided, since\nI can furnish in few words this formula of human duty? All this that you\nsee, in which divine and human affairs are included, is comprised in one\nfact, as a foundation for our rule of action\u2014we are members of one great\nbody. Nature has made us all akin, since she begat us from the same\noriginals and for the same destinies. She has indued us with mutual\nlove, and made us companionable: she has arranged what is equitable and\njust: by her institution, it is more wretched to hurt, than to suffer\ninjury: and by her command, the hands are ready for the assistance of\nothers. That verse should be in the breast, as well as in the mouth.\n\n    \u2018Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.\u2019\n\nWe should hold it as a common bond, that we have been born. Our\nfellowship is most like an arch of stones; which will fall, if each in\nturn do not afford support, one sustaining the other[47].\u201d In the 47th\nletter (to Lucilius), he speaks of the value of kindness even to slaves:\n\u201cI have gladly learnt from those who have come from you, that you live\nfamiliarly with your slaves. This is worthy of your wisdom and of your\nlearning. Are they slaves? Yes, but they are also men. Are they slaves?\nYes, but they are also comrades. Are they slaves? Yes, but they are also\nhumble friends.\u201d\n\nHe also shows how advanced his feelings were by depicting the wickedness\nand debasing nature of revenge and cruelty. He paints in beautiful\nlanguage the opposite virtue. Yet, lest he should seem to forget his\nStoicism altogether, he draws a nice distinction between clemency\n(clementia) and compassion (misericordia). He ascribes to the former,\nhowever, nearly all that we ascribe to the latter, except the outward\nmanifestation of sympathy. There must be an apparent Stoicism veiling\nreal humanity. He calls cruelty proceeding from revenge \u201cAn evil in no\ndegree human, and unworthy therefore of a gentle mind. It is a madness\nlike that of wild beasts, to delight in blood and wounds, and, manhood\nbeing laid aside, to change into a brute.\u201d (_De Clem._ I. 24.) \u201cAs he is\nnot the large minded man, who is liberal of another\u2019s property; but he\nwho deprives himself of what he gives to another: so I will call him\nclement, not who is easy under another person\u2019s wrong, but who does not\nbreak out, when spurred on by his personal feelings; who understands\nthat it is the attribute of a great mind to suffer injuries though\npossessed of the fullest power to avenge them.\u201d (_De Clem._ I. 20.) \u201cI\nknow that the Stoic sect are in bad repute among the inexperienced, as\nbeing too harsh, and inclined to give advice which is far from good to\nprinces and kings. It is objected against the sect that it says the wise\nman should not be compassionate, should not forgive. These, if taken by\nthemselves, are hateful doctrines; for they seem to leave no hope to\nhuman errors, but to bring every fault to punishment. But if this be a\ntrue report, what is this system of knowledge but one which commands us\nto unlearn humanity, and shuts a most certain door against mutual help\nin misfortune? Yet there is no sect kinder or more gentle, none more\nloving of men, and more attentive to the common good: as it is a\nprinciple with us to provide for being of use, or to afford help, not\nonly where self is concerned, but to all and to each. Compassion\n(misericordia) is an unquiet of the mind (\u00e6gritudo animi) from the sight\nof others\u2019 miseries; or a sadness contracted from the misfortunes of\nothers, which one believes to have fallen on those who did not deserve\nthem. Now unquiet does not come to the wise man; his mind is calm, nor\ncan anything happen to overthrow it: and nothing but magnanimity becomes\nhim. But the same man cannot be magnanimous whom fear and sorrow assail,\nwhose mind these feelings overthrow and contract. To the wise man this\ndoes not happen even in his own calamities; but he will, on the\ncontrary, beat back all the anger of fortune and break it before him. He\nwill always preserve the same countenance, calm and undisturbed; which\nhe could not do, if he gave way to sadness. Therefore he is not\ncompassionate, because this cannot be without misery: all other things\nwhich those do who are compassionate, he does willingly and in another\nframe of mind. He will succour the tears of others; he will not give way\nto them. He will give a helping hand to the shipwrecked, shelter to the\nexile, alms to the needy; he does not do this disdainfully, like the\ngreater part of those who wish to seem compassionate, who disdain those\nwhom they help and fear to be touched by them: but he will give as an\nequal, a man to a man. He will give the son to his mother\u2019s tears, and\nwill command the fetters to be loosened; he will redeem from the arena\nthe man condemned to fight, and he will even bury the noxious dead body.\nBut he will do this with a peaceful mind and a countenance worthy of\nhimself. Therefore the wise man will not pity, but he will help; he will\nbenefit, as one born for mutual help and the public good; from which he\nwill give each his share; even to the troublesome, in due proportion\u2014to\nthose who are to be disapproved of and reformed, he shows kindness. But\nhe much more willingly comes to the help of the afflicted, and heavily\nladen.\u201d (_De Clem._ II. 5, 6.)\n\nWith regard to the life of the soul in a future world as a separate\nbeing, Seneca\u2019s mind seems, from his different writings, to have been in\nan undecided state. Sometimes, however, he rises superior to his doubts\nand to his Stoic bias, and rejoices in the hope of real immortality. We\nsee the uncertainty under which he laboured in his book written to\nconsole Polybius for the loss of his brother. He tells him that, if he\nlamented, it was either on his own account, or on account of the\ndeparted. If on his own account, then he was not wisely submissive to\nthe wisdom which ruled all things. If he lamented for his brother\u2019s\nsake, then he should reflect that one of two events must have occurred;\neither that his brother by death had lost consciousness and\nindividuality; or, he was still sensible and conscious. In either case\nPolybius should reason himself out of grief. He should reflect in this\nway: \u201cIf there remain no sense to the departed, then he has escaped all\nthe inconveniences of life, and is restored to that place where he was\nbefore he was born: and, free from all evil, fears nothing, desires\nnothing, suffers nothing. What madness is it then for me not to cease\ngrieving for him, who never will grieve any more?\u201d In this hypothesis,\nwe see a reference to the ancient Stoic belief respecting the dead. But\nSeneca proceeds to point out to Polybius a nobler reason for ceasing to\nmourn. He bids him think, \u201cIf there be any consciousness in the dead;\nnow the mind of my brother, as though released from a long imprisonment,\nat length acts according to its own reason and will; and enjoys the\nspectacle of the universe, and from a higher place looks down on all\nhuman affairs; yet has a nearer insight into those divine mysteries, the\ndesign of which he had so long sought in vain to understand.\u201d He adds,\n\u201cDo not then grieve for your brother; he is at rest. At length he is\nfree, at length he is safe, at length he is immortal. Now he enjoys an\nopen and free heaven; he has ascended from a low and sunken place to\nthat, whatever it be, which receives those souls that are released from\ntheir fetters into its happy bosom: and now he wanders freely, and\nbeholds with highest delight all the treasures of the universe. You are\nwrong; your brother has not lost his life; but has attained to one more\nsecure. He has not left us, but has gone before.\u201d (Ch. 28.) To this idea\nof a happy future existence for the soul, he sometimes recurs in other\nparts of his writings. In his 102nd letter he complains of having been\ndisturbed by a letter from Lucilius, in his happy thoughts of this\nnature. \u201cJust as he is a troublesome fellow who wakes one that has a\npleasant dream, so did your letter injure me. It called me back when\nindulging in suitable thought and about to venture further, if one\nmight. I was delighting myself with enquiring respecting the immortality\nof souls, yes and more than that, with believing in it. I gave my belief\nreadily to the opinions of great men, who rather promised this most\nwelcome thing, than proved it. I gave myself up to so great a hope.\nAlready I was disdainful of my present self, already I despised the\nfragments of my broken existence, about to pass, as I was, into that\nimmense duration and into the possession of eternity: when suddenly I\nwas awakened by the receipt of your letter, and lost my beautiful dream.\nBut I will seek it again, when I have sent you away, and try to get it\nback.\u201d In the latter part of the same letter he compares our present\nlife to the period of gestation. When we cast off our skin and bones and\nsinews at death, we shall be like infants escaping from what has\nenfolded them previously to their birth. When we die, then we shall be\nborn to a nobler life. We need not mourn over our dying bodies. \u201cThe\ncoverings always perish of those who are born. Therefore look hence to\nsomething more lofty and sublime. Hereafter the mysteries of the\nuniverse shall be revealed to you, the darkness shall be dispelled, and\nclear light shall break upon you from every side. Imagine within\nyourself how great will be that brightness, so many stars commingling\ntheir light. No cloud will disturb the peaceful scene. The whole expanse\nof heaven will shine with equal splendour. Then you will say you have\nlived in darkness, when you shall have full vision of that perfect\nlight. This thought allows nothing filthy, nothing low, nothing cruel to\nfind place in the mind; and he who has embraced this doctrine, dreads no\nhosts, trembles not at the trumpet\u2019s blast, fears no threats.\u201d\n\nNo one would pretend to say that there are definite traces of Christian\ninfluence in these lofty thoughts. Indeed one\u2019s mind naturally turns\nfrom them to similar musings in the _Somnium Scipionis_ of Cicero, and\nelsewhere. We remember too the noble surmises of Plato respecting the\nsoul\u2019s immortality; and how Cato, the Stoic, improved on his Stoicism,\nby indulging in lofty views of a future life, drawn from this source,\nbefore his suicide. Yet one cannot but feel that Seneca, at times,\nnearly reached the truth, and owed to the influence of the religion of\nJesus on the age in which he lived, much of the peculiar excellence of\nhis philosophy.\n\nIf from him we turn to Epictetus, we see one still more steadily\napproaching the light. He seems almost more than a pagan philosopher,\nbut less than a Christian disciple. His discourses preserved to us by\nthe care of Arrian, who wrote in Greek what he heard as the disciple of\nthe philosopher, show a pious spirit and a disrelish for the harsher\ndoctrines of the Stoic system. They bear in some parts a striking\nlikeness to the teachings of the Gospel. Just as our Saviour taught that\nhe who humbleth himself shall be exalted, and that the soul needed His\ncare, as a sick man needs a physician: so we read in Epictetus, \u201cThe\nbeginning of philosophy is, according to those who enter, even as they\nought, through this gate to her, a perception of their weakness and\npowerlessness in necessary matters ... Does the philosopher beseech men\nto listen to him? What doctor asks that any one should suffer himself to\nbe healed by him? Although I hear that at Rome now, doctors call\npatients to them, yet in my time, they were called to their patients. I\ninvite you to come and hear that you are ill; that you take care of\nanything rather than what is worthy of care; that you are ignorant of\ngood and evil; that you are unhappy and wretched. The school of the\nphilosopher is a doctor\u2019s shop, from which one should go away, not\njoyful, but suffering: for you did not come to it whole, but sick, one\nwith a dislocated shoulder, another afflicted with a tumour, another\nwith an ulcer, and another with headache[48].\u201d We find also how clearly\nhe saw the necessity for divine aid in doing right, and the need for\nsubmission to the divine will, self-will being cast aside. He says,\n\u201cCall to mind, man, what is said about tranquillity, liberty,\nmagnanimity. Lift up your head now, like one freed from slavery. Dare at\nlength, with eyes raised to GOD, to say, \u2018Henceforth deal with me as\nthou wilt: Thy thought is my thought; Thy will the same as mine; I\nrefuse nothing that seemeth good to Thee. Lead me whither Thou wilt.\nClothe me as Thou wilt. Dost Thou wish me to lead a public life, to live\nin private, to remain, to flee, to be in need, to abound with wealth? I\nwill defend Thee as to all these dispensations of thy providence before\nmen: I will show what is the nature of each. Cleanse Thou Thine own. Of\nThine own will cast out thence grief, and fear, and avarice, and envy,\nand ill-will, and covetousness, and effeminacy, and intemperance.\u2019 These\nthings cannot be cast out except you look to GOD alone, and cleave to\nhim alone, and sacrifice yourself to his commands[49].\u201d At another\nplace, we find Epictetus acknowledging that the change of his life from\nsin to virtue was due to divine mercy, and called for grateful\nacknowledgement. \u201cI observe what men say and by what they are\ninfluenced; and I do this not malevolently, nor that I may find\nsomething to blame, or ridicule, but I turn it to myself, lest I also\nsin in the same way. How then shall I cease from sin? Once I also\nsinned, but now do so no longer, _thanks be to GOD_[50].\u201d Of the\nprovidence of GOD, some of the most elevated, reverent, and grateful\nrecords are contained in the Dissertations. For instance, we have the\nfollowing noble passage in B. I. c. 16: \u201cWhat language will be\nsufficient to praise and set forth these works of Providence towards us.\nFor, if we are mindful, what else does it behove us to do, both in\npublic and private, than to praise and bless the Deity, and to utter\nthanksgivings? Ought we not both while we dig, and while we plough, and\nwhile we eat, to sing this hymn to GOD? \u2018Great is GOD who hath provided\nsuch implements for us, by which we work the ground: great is GOD, who\nhath given us hands; and the power of swallowing our food, as well as a\nplace for its digestion; who hath caused us to grow without our own\ncare, and to breathe even while we sleep.\u2019 These things should be sung,\none by one; even the grandest and holiest hymn should be sung, because\nHe has given us a power of attending to these things and making use of\nthem by a proper method[51]. What then? Since ye, the multitude, are\nblinded to this, ought not one to be found to fulfil this part and sing,\nin place of all, the hymn to GOD? For what other duty can I, a lame old\nman, discharge, except sing the praises of GOD? If I were a nightingale,\nI would fulfil my part like the nightingale; if a swan, like the swan.\nBut now, since I am possessed of reason, I ought to sing the praises of\nGOD. This is my work, I do it: nor will I leave this post, so long as\npower is given me to hold it, and I exhort you to join in the singing of\nthis same song[52].\u201d He speaks also of the freedom of the human will to\nperform certain acts, and dwells on the acts that are within the power\nof the will. He shows the folly of valuing too highly what is beyond our\npower, and the necessity of submitting our will to the divine will. But\nthough he speaks of the freedom of the human will, he is a firm believer\nin fatalism; so that his idea of the true freedom of man was limited. \u201cI\nhave one whom it behoves me to please, to whom I must submit, whom I\nought to obey\u2014GOD, and those who hold a place near him. He has committed\nme to myself and placed my free will in subjection to myself alone,\ngiving me rules for its right use: and when I follow these in my\nreasonings, I do not care what else any one says[53].\u201d \u201cRemember this,\nthat if you esteem every thing that is beyond your choice, you lose the\npower of choosing[54].\u201d He tells us we are the children of GOD, and that\nthis relationship should lead us to act worthily of Him. \u201cIf any one\nwill embrace this truth as he ought, that we are especially the children\nof GOD, and that GOD is the Father, as well of men, as of the gods, I\nthink he will allow no ignoble or low thoughts about himself.... On\naccount of this relationship, those of us who fall away become, some\nlike wolves, faithless, and cunning, and baneful; others, like lions,\nfierce, savage, and uncivilized; more of us still become foxes and\nwhatever else among beasts are monstrous. For what else is an\nevil-tongued and depraved man than a wolf, or whatever besides is more\nwretched and debased? See, then, and take care lest you fall away into\none of these monsters[55].\u201d Nothing is more remarkable in Epictetus than\nhis earnest piety. \u201cI esteem what GOD wills as better than what I will.\nI cleave to him as a servant and follower; with him, I go eagerly\nforward; with him, I stretch myself out: in short, what he wishes, I\nwish[56].\u201d But we find that he does not rise to any glorious hopes of a\nfuture separate existence for the soul. Instead of this, he cleaves to\nthe Stoic idea, of the distribution of man, at death, into his component\nparts. \u201cWhat was fire in thee,\u201d he says, \u201cwill return to fire; what was\nearthy, to earth; what belonged to the wind will return to the wind;\nwhat was watery, to water[57].\u201d He was not, however, without some\nknowledge of the power of Christianity, on those who embraced it, to\nmake them brave all things for the gospel\u2019s sake. He speaks of the\n\u201cGalileans braving the tyrant, his satellites, and their swords, from\nmadness and custom.\u201d He says he prefers reason to this influence which\nsustained them. Yet, though he remains without the personal knowledge of\nthe power of Christ, what I have produced from his works serves to show\nthat there was a work going on in the world, by means of the gospel,\nwhich extended further than the Church, and gave to the Stoic purer and\nholier views of the truth. He felt himself an erring being in need of\ndivine aid. He felt that he was under the care of a loving Father, to\nwhom he turned for aid. And he strongly brings before us the need all\nmen have by self-abasement to seek the love of the supreme being, and to\nrise by his help to perfection. This was a great advance on old Stoic\npride and self-dependence. Moreover, others began to have a share of\nattention. All mankind were recognized as justly entitled to the love\nand support of each other. Indeed, Stoicism came down from the height of\nits self-sufficiency. Its disciples learnt to mistrust themselves and to\ntrust in GOD. They were making progress in true wisdom. Plutarch had\nurged against the sect their belief, that \u201cGOD does not give men virtue;\nbut that goodness is in their own power: that He gives riches and\nhealth, without virtue; and does not afford assistance for their\nbenefit[58].\u201d They had to learn the lesson, that man is incapable of\ngoodness without divine aid; and, as we have seen, Epictetus did learn\nit in some degree. Yet we shall perceive, from what Marcus Aurelius\nwrote, that the old leaven remained mightily at work, and the advance\nwas not thorough. In proportion as the sect felt their need of divine\naid, they came also to give up some of their selfishness and\nexclusiveness. Epictetus urges the propriety of mingling with men and\nhelping them. He would do them good, teach them their need of humility,\nand of a cure for their mental maladies. \u201cWill you not,\u201d he says, \u201cdo as\nsick people do, call the physician? \u2018Lord, I am sick, help me; see what\nI ought to do; it is for me to obey thee.\u2019 So also again, \u2018What to do I\nknow not; I have come to thee to learn.\u2019\u201d (_Diss._ B. II. 15.) He wished\nto benefit the multitude, and had imbibed some of the spirit of that\nlesson so full of truth, that \u201che who loves GOD will love his brother\nalso.\u201d\n\nThese remarks will be applicable, but not in so high a degree, to Marcus\nAurelius Antoninus, the Emperor. He was the last of the Stoics who has\nleft a memorial behind. With him the sect ceased as a sect of\nphilosophy. If we read his meditations we perceive that while much of\ntheir doctrines remained unchanged, many were considerably modified. The\nmodification was in a direction similar to that noticed in the previous\npages, which we should expect to find, if Christianity exercised a\ncollateral influence. Antoninus claims the care of the supreme being for\nmen, and shows the duty of men to believe in the goodness of the gods.\n\u201cIt behoves thee so to do and think about every thing, as to be able to\ndepart out of life now. But to depart from among men is nothing\ndreadful, if there be gods, for they will lay no evil on thee. If, on\nthe other hand, there be no gods, or if they do not concern themselves\nabout human affairs, what good is it to me to live in a world without\ngods, and without a Providence? But there are gods, and they concern\nthemselves about human affairs.\u201d (B. II. ch. 11). \u201cThe soul, when it\nmust depart from the body, should be ready to be extinguished, to be\ndispersed, or to subsist a while longer with the body.\u201d (B. XI. 3). Yet\nhe would have this readiness to proceed from similar feelings to his\nown. He knew the bravery and resignation of Christians. Alas! he had not\nlarge-heartedness enough to tolerate what seemed an opposing influence\nto his favourite philosophy, and tried by persecution to extirpate the\nfaith of the cross. The faith, however, proved itself stronger than\nphilosophy; Christ crucified was to the Greek foolishness, but was\nmightier than the wisdom of men, and \u201cthe weakness of GOD was stronger\nthan men.\u201d Antoninus could not but see the inability of persecution to\ncheck the religion of Jesus; yet he put down the earnest faith and\ndetermination of its disciples to obstinacy. So after the words just\nquoted from his work, on the propriety of being ready for whatever may\ncome, he adds, \u201cBut this readiness must proceed from the soul\u2019s own\njudgment, and not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians; it must\nbe arrived at with reflection and dignity, so that you could even\nconvince another without declamation.\u201d\n\nThere is a resemblance in the description of the nature of man given by\nthis Stoic, to that given by the Apostle Paul. This is noticed in the\nEssay by Sir A. Grant, to which reference has already been made. He\nsays, \u201cwe find in him (Antoninus) the same psychological division of man\ninto body, soul, and spirit, as was employed by St Paul.\u201d A similar\nobservation was made by Gataker in a note which I shall presently quote.\nAntoninus writes in this way (B. II. c. 2), \u201cWhat I am, consists\nentirely of the fleshly (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1) and spiritual (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), and the\nchief part (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd). But now, as being about to die, despise thou\nthy fleshly parts; gore, and bones, and a network woven of nerves,\nveins, and arteries. Look also at thy spiritual part of what nature it\nis; a breath of air which is never the same, but continually breathed\nout and drawn in again. The third remaining is the principal part. Thou\nart old, no longer shouldst thou suffer this to be enslaved.\u201d Again, in\nB. III. 16, his words are, \u201cBody (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1), soul (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74), mind (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2). To\nthy body belong senses; to thy soul, affections; to thy mind, opinions.\u201d\nAgain, (XII. 3), \u201cThere are three things of which thou art composed,\nbody (\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), spirit (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), mind (v\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2). Of these the first\ntwo are thine, so far as the care of them is concerned. But the third\nalone is really thy own.\u201d On the first of these quotations, Gataker has\nthe following note[59]. \u201cAlmost the same thing, in other words, the\nApostle writes to the Thessalonians in the first Epistle, ch. 5, v. 23,\nwhere he says, \u2018\u03a4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1:\u2019 in which place \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 is what Marcus here calls \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1; \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 is here \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; and \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is here \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\u201d We may notice, in addition, that this\nlast is called \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 in B. III. 16, and B. XII. 3. We read in Epictetus,\nB. III. 7, \u201cThat three things belong to man no one will deny\u2014soul\n(\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74), and body (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1), and things without\u201d (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2). The \u201c\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\u201d\nhere include the \u201c\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u201d of Antoninus, which he says is \u201c\u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\u201d\nand is \u201cbreathed out and drawn in continuously.\u201d\n\nWith regard to a future existence for the soul, freed from sin and pain\nat death, though Aurelius denies the hope in some places, yet in others\nthe light of the truth seems to stagger him. So when he says, B. XII. 1,\n\u201cHow comes it to pass, that the gods, who order all things well and\nlovingly for the human race, have overlooked this alone, namely, that\nmen innately good, and who have had, as it were, frequent communions\nwith the deity, and by holy deeds and sacred services have become\nfriends of the deity, when once they die, no longer have any being, but\ngo away to be absorbed in the universe?\u201d He shows his doubts by adding,\n\u201cif this be the fact,\u201d concerning them; and, further on, \u201cif the fact be\notherwise.\u201d Evidently he wavered in his belief.\n\nAntoninus was ascetic in his views. He was fond of retirement and\nseclusion, thinking his mental progress furthered thereby. He does not\nseem so intensely earnest, nor so pious and nobly gifted as Epictetus:\nyet his aspirations were noble. \u201cOh, my soul!\u201d we hear him saying[60],\n\u201cwilt thou ever be good, and simple, and one, and naked, and more\ntransparent than the body which clothes thee?\u201d Though philosophy with\nhim was all in all, yet the cause of truth was advancing; the light from\nheaven was beginning to penetrate the darkness. One cannot put down his\nrecord of self-communings without feeling sad, and wishing he had opened\nhis eyes to the perfection of that gospel which he professedly rejected\nand despised.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  _Pr\u00e6s. H\u00e6r._ 7.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n  \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  \u03a4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014_Com._ XI. 3.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  The remarks of Gataker with reference to Seneca are so apposite that I\n  quote them here: \u201cCerte qu\u00e6cunque Dominus ipse Christus in concionibus\n  collationibusque suis Histori\u00e6 Evangelic\u00e6 insertis, intextisque; de\n  mali cogitatione etiam abstinenda; de affectibus vitiosis\n  supprimendis; de sermone otioso non insuper habendo; de animo\n  cumprimis excolendo, et ad imaginem divinam effingendo; de\n  beneficenti\u00e2 simplicissime exhibend\u00e2; de injuriis \u00e6quanimiter\n  ferendis; de admonitione et increpatione cum moderatione cautioneque\n  accurat\u00e2 exercendis; de rebus quibuslibet, adeoque vit\u00e2 ips\u00e2, ubi res\n  ratioque poscit, nihili habendis; de aliis denique plerisque pietatis,\n  caritatis, \u00e6quitatis, humanitatis officiis quam exquisitissime\n  obeundis exequendisque, pr\u00e6cepta dedit; apud nostrum hunc eadem,\n  perinde ac si illa lectit\u00e2sset ipse, in dissertationum\n  commentationumque congerie inspersa passim, nec sine vehementia et\n  vivacitate insigni, qu\u00e6 in pr\u00e6cordia ipsa penit\u00f9s penetret, atque in\n  animo infixos altius relinquat aculeos inculcata subinde, Lector\n  quivis sedulus advertet, ingenuus agnoscet.\u201d\u2014Proel. _Marc. Ant. Com._\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  \u201cDeus ad homines venit, immo, quod proprius est, in homines venit,\u201d\n  &c.\u2014Sen. _Ep._ 73.\n\n  I do not think it necessary to give the original of these passages,\n  except in special cases.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  \u201cPeccavimus omnes, alii graviora, alii leviora,\u201d &c.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  \u201cNec delinquimus tantum sed usque ad extremum \u00e6vi delinquemus.\u201d\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  We find from Seneca\u2019s observation respecting the Jews, which St\n  Augustin quotes, \u201cvicti victoribus leges dederunt,\u201d how strongly he\n  was impressed with the power the Jews exercised spiritually. The\n  Satires of Juvenal and the complaints of Tacitus present us with\n  similar views on their part. That Christianity was supposed to be a\n  part of Judaism is seen from the words of Suetonius (_Vit. Claud._):\n  \u201cJud\u00e6os, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Rom\u00e2 expulit.\u201d\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  \u201cAccendere aliquem lucernam sabbathis prohibeamus,\u201d &c.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Acts xvii. 25.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Mark xii. 33.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Compare this with the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, xi. 6:\n  \u201cHe that cometh unto GOD must believe that He is.\u201d\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Sen. _Ep._ 95.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  _Diss._ III. 23. Compare our Lord\u2019s words, Matt. ix. 12. \u201cThey that be\n  whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I am not come to\n  call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.\u201d\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _Diss._ II. 16.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  _Diss._ \u0392. III. c. 4. \u03a0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f21\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7\n  \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Gataker has the following apposite and judicious remark on this\n  passage, \u201cEt qu\u00e6 sequuntur his gemina, homine Christiano quovis non\n  indigna, Christum modo donatum nobis adjecisset.\u201d\u2014Pr\u00e6loq. _M. Ant.\n  Com._\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  _Diss._ B. II. c. 16.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  _Diss._ B. IV. c. 12.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  _Diss._ B. IV. c. 4.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  _Diss._ B. I. c. 3.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  _Diss._ B. IV. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  _Diss._ B. III. c. 13.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  E\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03b3\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6. Plut.\n  _de Stoic. cont._ c. 27.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  \u201cIdem fere, aliis verbis, Apostolus ad Thessal. \u0395p. I. c. 5. v. 23,\u201d\n  &c.\u2014Gat. _not. in M. Ant_. B. II. c. 2.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  M. Aur. _Com._ x. 1.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n           THE INFLUENCE OF STOICISM ON THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\n\n                          \u1f30\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n                          \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ac.\n\n                          Soph. _Antig._ 1261, 2.\n\n\nHaving in the previous chapter described the influence which\nChristianity had in modifying the tenets of the Stoic school, we come\nnow to the consideration of the influence which the latter exercised on\nthe Christian Church. Beyond the bounds of the sect a widespread\nimpression was made by the force of Stoic principles: and by these\nChristianity became affected in no small degree. There was so much about\nthem which was real, and they appealed so strongly to the sympathies and\npride of human nature, that even where their influence was unperceived\nand unacknowledged, it was nevertheless deep and lasting. The Stoic\nspirit gradually spread within the Church, and found there a new home\nfor itself after the destruction of the school of philosophy to which it\nhad given life. Even to the present day it has continued to exist, and\nstill manifests undiminished energy.\n\nThe early Fathers, who came into contact with the Stoic system in its\nstrength, saw its many excellences as well as its many defects. Being a\nwonderful advance on merely speculative philosophy, drawing men to the\ncultivation of the moral sense instead of indulging in wild dreams,\nthere was much for the Christian to admire in its purpose. Still he\nwould naturally be discontented with a great deal that it contained, as\nwell as disappointed at the absence of much that it omitted. There was\nsomething to commend the system to many minds, in the fact that it\ntaught the duty of cultivating the nobler part, of self-denial, of\nbringing the appetites into subjection to the will. There was a great\ndeal of pretension also in the outward appearance of the philosophers\nand of their disciples, and this had an influence on many Christians,\nwhich became stronger as time wore on.\n\nIn endeavouring to decide how the Church was affected by this spirit, we\nperceive that there were two principal dangers to which the religion of\nJesus was liable from Stoicism. These dangers were lest the purity of\nthe Gospel should be overridden by the asceticism born of the Stoic\nspirit; and lest the foreknowledge and providential care of the great\nFather should be confounded with the fatalism which was so marked a\nfeature of the Stoic belief. These dangers include others which will be\nnoticed as we proceed.\n\nThere is a great proneness in many minds to look on self-imposed\nausterities as in themselves a mark of virtue. Hence men who have been\ndiscontented with the ordinary duties of life and attempted to find\nhigher walks of excellence, have been looked on as superior to others.\nThis spirit has shown itself in all countries and systems. Those who\nhave yielded to it have generally affected a superiority over the rest\nof the world, and a peculiarity in their garb and manners. The Stoics\nwere greatly influenced in this way. We read of their long robes, just\nas we read of the long robes of the Pharisees. Horace and Persius, in\ntheir Satires, bring before us the assumption of superiority by \u201cthe\nwise man.\u201d\n\nThis spirit of asceticism found its way into the Christian Church.\nPerhaps jealousy lest the Stoic philosophy, or Jewish Pharisaism, should\nseem to have a more marked influence than Christianity, produced a\ndesire to make a display of asceticism. Or it might be that a persuasion\nof the excellence of this, for its own sake, led Christian men to adhere\nto it. Whatever the motive, there was soon manifested, in the Church, an\nexaggeration of self-restraint. Men began to withdraw from the ordinary\nwalks of Christian life. They began to despise the performance of merely\ncommon duties; and to sketch out new ways to perfection, which they\nthought better than those taught by the Saviour. They began to do\nviolence to their natures. In fact they became Stoical, as if they\nthought the being so was an advance on being Christian.\n\nChristianity is a religion eminently suited for the daily life of men.\nIt teaches us to do our duty in the world. We are taught that the\nhighest degree of piety is consistent with, and indeed implies, the\nperformance of one\u2019s proper part, as belonging to a great family, which\nhas a right to the energy and service of each of its members. To do our\nduty amongst men, wisely and bravely, is taught us too by the example of\nthe divine founder of our religion. A man\u2019s interests and desires may\noften lie in the direction of his ordinary duties. There can be no true\npiety in relinquishing the post GOD has given him merely because his\ninterest would induce him to retain it. On the other hand, our duties\nmay often be difficult and distracting. In that case, we have no right\nto leave them. There is often greater victory in doing our work in the\nworld than in fleeing into solitude for the exercises of devotion. He\nwho makes his religion to consist of care for self only, who for selfish\nends neglects the duties which every man owes to his fellow-men, has a\nvery unsatisfactory sense of the doctrines of the Gospel. Yet we find\nearly mention in the records of the Church, of men who cut themselves\noff from intercourse with their fellow-Christians, leaving their place\nin the human family vacant, their work undone. They assumed the air of\npeculiar sanctity, clad themselves in coarse garments, slept on the\nhardest of couches, often on the ground, covered only by a sheepskin, or\nsome similar coverlet, lived on the humblest fare, and many of them\nthought it a peculiar virtue to forego the joys of the marriage-life.\nWhen we look at this state of things with the eye of reason, we see that\nit has really no claim on the veneration of mankind. If it was good for\none, why not for another? If certain persons, by means of their\nseclusion and mortification of the flesh, as they termed it, made\nthemselves peculiarly the loved of GOD, then might all men do so; for we\nare told, \u201cthere is no respect of persons with\u201d Him[61]. But, if all\nwere to adopt this system of living, what would become of human society?\nThe earth would soon cease to be the scene of busy industry, commerce\nwould die, and religion would be a bane instead of a blessing. If one\nman makes himself peculiarly the favourite of heaven by forswearing\nmarriage, then of course all men might make themselves so by the same\nmeans. But if celibacy were universal, what would become of the human\nrace? Yet it is the duty of every man to make himself as much like what\nGod would approve as he can. And if celibacy is peculiarly acceptable to\nheaven, all should be celibates. This, however, would make it to be\nagreeable to the wishes of the Most High, that the race of man should\ncome to an end. As this cannot be GOD\u2019S will, so neither can celibacy be\nthe state in which a man must be holiest and most approved by his maker.\nThe fact is that Christianity does not teach any such an idea as this\nmistaken one, to which I have referred. This has its origin in the\nspirit to which Stoicism gave birth. The religion of Jesus is one of\nfaith in another\u2019s merits, as the first step of all; and then, from the\nloyalty to GOD which this produces, the believer is anxious to do the\nutmost he can to show his gratitude. He tries his best to please his\nKing and Lord, by whatever means. He counts no sacrifice too great if\ncalled on to make it. But he is not to mark out a way different from the\nrule of the Gospel. He must be content to do GOD\u2019S work in the place and\nby the means which His providence may point out. Since the Most High has\nimplanted certain feelings and affections in all our natures, though it\nmay be Stoical, it is hardly Christian to try to uproot them. The Gospel\ndoes not teach us to destroy natural affections, but to control them. It\nis true our appetites are not to be our masters; yet they are not evils;\nthey are sent to be our servants, and are good gifts of heaven, if used\naright. We are nowhere taught by GOD, that, to be His peculiar people,\nwe must go out of the world, and live selfish and unsocial lives. The\nword of GOD lays it down as a mark of evil to be \u201cwithout natural\naffections.\u201d Our blessed Lord, in His prayer for His disciples and the\nfuture Church of all ages, said[62], \u201cI pray not that Thou wouldest take\nthem out of the world, but that Thou wouldest keep them from the evil.\u201d\nThe noble duty laid upon us is to show in our daily life the excellence\nand power of virtue.\n\nYet we find that very early in the history of the Church there were\ngreat numbers of persons leading lives of selfish seclusion, and\nclaiming peculiar sanctity because of this. Their solitude, and the\nlonely places in which they chose to live, gave rise to the name of\nMonk, Hermit, and Anchorite. Very soon these men occupied the same\nposition in the religious world that the Stoics held in the heathen. And\nbecause Christianity gave woman her proper place, as an heir of\nimmortality, and did not neglect her as philosophy had done, the same\nrules of living became also common with that part of the Christian women\nwhich aimed at superiority, as prevailed with regard to the men. They\nseparated themselves, were placed under peculiar discipline, and bound\nby special vows.\n\nIt is surprising to observe how soon the notion became widespread, that\nthese men and women were worthy of more reverence than others. Religion\nbecame divorced, in thought at least, from the daily life, and began to\nbe considered as a system apart; as if it inculcated the excellence of\ncertain courses, which were impracticable to ordinary men. This divorce\nof Christianity from its duty of raising the world by permeating all\nclasses, and imparting to all its life-giving influence, had a most\ndisastrous result on the souls of men. They who were obliged by the\nnecessity of things to devote themselves to the affairs of time, almost\nceased to care about being religious, since they thought religion to be\nthe peculiar possession of others, who performed certain acts and\nsubmitted to austerities, to which they could not devote their time.\nThose who neglected their worldly duties, at the same time that they\nforewent certain advantages, arrogated to themselves the name of piety,\nand monopolised the right to the title of religious. So, pure, vigorous\nChristianity decayed before a hybrid system born of superstition and\nasceticism. Those who devoted themselves to the monastic life became so\nmuch esteemed because of their pretensions, that they acquired more\ninfluence than the ministers of GOD\u2019S holy word and sacraments. The\nunscriptural merit attached to celibacy caused people to reckon those\nwho embraced it as better than those who did not. Hence the clergy, to\nretain their influence, gave in to the idea. As early as the Council of\nNice, we find that it was the custom for those who were unmarried when\nthey were ordained, to continue single. Not only so, but an attempt was\nmade, at that Council, to order all married clergy to separate from\ntheir wives: and this decree would probably have been carried, but for\nPaphnutius, an African Bishop, who was himself, however, a celibate.\n\nWe are reminded by the hermits of the Christian Church of those Stoic\nanchorites from whom they differed but little. We see in the work, which\nM. Aurelius has left as the record of his self-communings, the following\nobservation on the fondness for seclusion among his fellow-philosophers.\n\u201cThey seek places of retreat for themselves, lone dwellings in the\ncountry, and the sea-shore, and the mountains.\u201d Then he goes on to say\nto himself, \u201cAnd thou thyself art wont most earnestly to long for such\nretreats[63].\u201d This spirit of abstraction found, in the Church of\nChrist, more and more adherents as time wore on, and exacted a more\nabsolute attention. We find from the writings of SS. Chrysostom,\nCyprian, Jerome, Pachomius and Basil, how fast a hold it obtained of the\nminds of men. Basil was a student at Athens from A.D. 351 to A.D. 355,\nwith Gregory Nazianzene and at the same time as the Emperor Julian.\nPhilosophy doubtless still flourished there. We find Julian renouncing\nChrist altogether, for its sake. Basil, probably from the education\nwhich he received at the old home of Stoicism, was peculiarly in love\nwith asceticism. He places before us the secluded life in its best\nlight. We see how his ideas of piety were warped, however, by this\nspirit of asceticism. We hear him saying to a young monk, his disciple,\n\u201cHast thou left thy cell? Thou hast left there thy virtue.\u201d \u201cShun the\nsociety of those of thine own age; yea, flee from it as from a burning\nflame.\u201d \u201cIt is the devil\u2019s craft,\u201d he says (_Mon. Con._ Cap. XX.), \u201cto\nkeep alive in the mind of the monk a recollection of his parents and\nnatural relatives, so that under colour of rendering them some aid, _he\nmay be drawn aside from his heavenly course_.\u201d He tells us that some\nobjected to this, because the Apostle declared, \u201cIf a man provide not\nfor his own, and specially for those of his own kindred, he hath denied\nthe faith, and is worse than an infidel.\u201d But he gives the Antinomian\nreply that a monk, being one of a peculiar class, was virtually dead to\nthe world and to his duty in it; \u201cAs dead thou art free from all\ncontributions for the benefit of thy natural relatives, and, as utterly\na pauper, thou hast nothing which thou canst bestow.\u201d\n\nThis same spirit has continued to animate many parts of the Christian\nChurch to this day. It has given rise to a vast variety of bodies, bound\ntogether by various rules, all more or less austere and unnatural. Among\nthe Roman Catholics it has developed itself in the Trappists, the\nJesuits, and other societies; and even in the English Church we have\nseen movements which tend to show that this spirit is confined within no\ncertain limits, but exists in all quarters.\n\nIt is not my purpose to pursue the subject further in this direction.\nBut there is one view of it to which I shall slightly allude. I would\ngladly pass over this, only it serves to show the influence exerted by\nthe ascetic spirit on certain members of the Church, and therefore seems\nto claim a passing notice, I allude to the practical Antinomianism of\nthe ancient ascetics. Respecting those who have followed in their steps,\nin more recent ages, I will be silent. When we turn to the writings of\nthe ancient Fathers, however, we are struck with the testimony they bear\nto the fact that just as among the Stoics the long robe covered very\noften gross licentiousness; just as the sanctimonious look and the\nformality and pretension were thought enough by some[64] to take away\nthe sinfulness of sin; so it was too much the case also with the\nChristian anchorites. They fell into grievous sins which were a disgrace\nto their natures. Epiphanius informs us that when Nicolaus affected to\nlive a celibate life, he did not, either from want of power or will,\nrestrain his lusts, but rushed into promiscuous intercourse, urging\nothers to follow his example. The descriptions which this writer, and\nIren\u00e6us, and others have given of the failings of those who professed\nextraordinary sanctity among the early heretics is such as forbid their\nbeing produced for public perusal. The Christian Fathers complained of\nsimilar conduct among the professed ascetics of the orthodox Church in\nthe first ages. St Cyprian describes the iniquity of their conduct in\nhis reply to Pomponius: among men and women who had devoted themselves\nto the monastic life great disorders prevailed. There can be no mistake,\nas he enters into minute particulars. Allusions were made to these by\nwriters before his time. Monks had professed virgin sisters of the\nChurch, under vows of perpetual chastity, living with them. These were\ncalled \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 by the Greeks, _mulieres subintroduct\u00e6_ by the\nLatins. With these the single men lived, lodging in the same cell by\nday, and even sleeping on the same couch by night. But they called their\nmarriage that of the soul and not of the body. They pretended to have\nreached such a height of excellence and self-control, as to be able to\ndespise temptation, and to brave moral dangers with impunity. St\nChrysostom, who was a great admirer of the ascetic life, thus bewails\nthe evil result[65]. \u201cAlas, my soul! Well may I exclaim, and repeat the\nlamentable cry with the Prophet, Alas, my soul! Our virginity is fallen\ninto contempt; the veil that parted it off from matrimony is rent by\nimpudent hands: the holy of holies is trodden under foot, and its\nweighty and awful sanctities have been profaned and thrown open to all;\nand that which was once held in reverence, as far more excellent than\nmatrimony, is now sunk so low, as that one should call the married\nblessed, rather than those who profess celibacy. Nor is it the enemy\nthat has effected all this, but the virgins themselves.\u201d St Basil\u2019s\nworks show even more plainly the evils resulting from the system. St\nJerome also intimates the same facts. There is indeed nothing wonderful\nin all this. Men and women were fighting against human nature, common\nsense, yea, even against Christianity itself, possessed by an evil\nspirit; which was of Stoic birth, but assumed the garb of preeminent\nsanctity.\n\nOther vices, besides those hinted at above, were the necessary offspring\nof the system. St Jerome tells us that men who wore the garb of poverty\nand wished to excite admiration as avowedly poor, were gathering wealth\nwithin their ragged sleeves. But I need go no further in this\ndisagreeable direction, and shall content myself with having said what\nthe subject seemed to demand.\n\nAnother phase of the same ascetic bias in the human mind is what we\nunderstand by Puritanism. This turn of religious sentiment led men, and\nleads men still, to forego pleasures and to look with suspicion on\nenjoyments, however innocent in themselves. It is a persuasion of the\nsame kind as that which led the Stoic to exclaim[66], \u201cThou wilt despise\nthe pleasant song, the dance, the \u2018pancratium,\u2019 if thou dividest the\nharmonious strain into each of its notes, and askest thyself am I\novercome by that? For thou wouldst blush to confess as much. Having done\nthe like with regard to dancing, and considered each separate motion and\naction, thou wouldst come to the same conclusion, with respect to it:\nand the same also about the \u2018pancratium.\u2019 In short, except virtue and\nthe things relating to virtue, remember in all things to consider the\nparts of which they consist, one by one, that by their dissection thou\nmayest learn to despise them.\u201d The closely cut hair, which Persius gives\nus[67] as a characteristic of the Stoic youth, has had its counterpart\namong those whom the Cavaliers for this cause called Roundheads. And we\nfind that these men were animated by a zeal for what they considered the\ncause of GOD, which led them to defy danger, and apparently to court\ndifficulties. Yet there was often an exaggeration of feeling and\nsentiment in many, similar to that which led to the asceticism of the\nfirst ages of the Church; and which leads men still to seek the monastic\nlife. Among the Puritans, though distinguished from them in history, in\nname, and in many peculiarities, we see the Quakers standing prominently\nforth. In fact, they were more puritanic than the Puritans, and seem the\npersonification of Stoicism among Christian people.\n\nAnother feature of Stoicism which has exerted great influence on the\nChurch of Christ is its fatalism. This has been developed into a system\nof Christian doctrine, which we shall designate sufficiently, when we\ncall it Calvinism; though it existed, in a considerable degree, before\nCalvin; and though, in the system, the necessitarian element is a\nvariable quantity. The Supralapsarians carry their belief so far as to\nhold that GOD decreed man\u2019s fall into sin, with all the dreadful\nconsequences. Others, with less of this fatalism in their faith,\nrestrict the decrees of the Almighty to the disposal of man after the\nfall. St Augustin was considerably influenced by doctrines bearing a\nresemblance to certain phases of Calvinism: but he argued stoutly for\nman\u2019s freedom of will. He was essentially a Latin in his scholarship,\nand did not draw his information from the Hebrew and Greek. His views\nwere tinged with the fatalism of the Stoical philosophy which had widely\ninfluenced those with whom he came in contact in early life. With these\nviews he came to the perusal of the Epistle to the Romans, and thought\nhe read there a confirmation of them. Respecting the 9th chapter of that\nEpistle, Dodwell says[68], \u201cSt Paul, being bred a Pharisee, spake there\nand is to be interpreted according to the doctrine of the Pharisees[69]\nconcerning fate, which they had borrowed from the Stoics.\u201d St Augustin\nand Prosper and Fulgentius understood St Paul to mean almost the same\npredestination that the Stoic belief would imply. Yet they did not\ncontradict and explain away other parts of Scripture, nor utterly ignore\nreason and common sense. The same difficulty met them that had occurred\nto the Stoic Chrysippus. How was this absolute predestination to be\nreconciled with human freedom? Cicero tells us (_De Fato_, VII. 11) that\nChrysippus laboured painfully to show how all things were ordered by\nfate, and yet that there was something in ourselves; and tried to\nreconcile the inconsistencies of the system by saying that while fate\npredisposed, the human will determined. So, naturally the reasoning\nwould occur that, if GOD has predestined us to be saved, there is no\nneed for striving; if he has not, there is no use in any effort we can\nmake. St Augustin, however, does not seem to set before men such\nabsolute fatalism as this; at least, he strongly impresses on us the\nfact, that GOD is willing to receive every sinner coming to Him; and\ngives us our choice of good and evil. The Jansenists adopted and upheld\nsimilar views to these on predestination. So did Luther and Beza. Calvin\nadvanced more decidedly necessitarian views, and many of his followers\nto the present day have set out with eternal fate as the foundation of\ntheir creed, and have interpreted all other doctrines so as to harmonize\nwith this. The essential tenet of Calvin was that GOD, from no other\nmotive than His good pleasure and freewill, has predestinated from all\neternity certain members of the human family to everlasting happiness,\nand the rest to endless misery. Calvin says[70], \u201cMany indeed, as if\nthey wished to avert odium from GOD, admit election in such a way as to\ndeny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because\nelection itself could not exist, without being opposed to reprobation.\nWhom GOD passes by therefore he reprobates, and from no other cause than\nhis determination to exclude them from the inheritance which he\npredestines for His children.\u201d Such a doctrine as this requires that\nother doctrines, such as \u201cThe Lord is not willing that any should\nperish; but that all should come to repentance[71],\u201d be taken in a\nqualified sense. Moreover, since salvation is entirely independent of\nthe individual, there can be no danger to one predestinated, whatever he\nmay do or neglect. He cannot fall and be lost. Again, as Christ would\nnot die for men whom he reprobated, his death was not for the sins of\nthe whole world, but for the elect only. The first five of \u201cthe Lambeth\nArticles\u201d thus set forth that part of the Calvinistic doctrine which is\nnecessary for our present purpose. 1. \u201cGOD hath from eternity\npredestinated some persons to life; others he hath reprobated to death.\n2. This predestination to life proceeds not from the faith,\nperseverance, good works, or any other quality in the predestinated, but\nfrom the sole will or pleasure of GOD. 3. The number predestinated is\nlimited before, and cannot be increased, nor lessened. 4 Those not\npredestinated to life will of necessity be damned. 5. True faith and\nsanctification in the elect never fails either in part, or totally.\u201d The\nninth Article stated, \u201cIt is not in every one\u2019s will, or power, to be\nsaved.\u201d The Synod of Dort, A.D. 1618, reduced the system under five\nheads, which it is not necessary to produce here, as they are a\nreiteration of what I have adduced above. The Puritans were firm\nadherents to the doctrines of Calvinism, and rejoiced in the belief that\nthey were the peculiar people of GOD; so that in their doctrine, as well\nas discipline, they partook of the spirit which animated, though in a\ndifferent manner, the Stoic sect. Of the Church party, at the same time,\nmany held a mitigated form of Calvinistic doctrine, though others\nrejected it altogether.\n\nFrom Calvinism, carried to its extreme limits, resulted violent\nAntinomianism. In this also Stoicism repeated itself. Just as the Stoics\ndeclared that nothing could be a crime which the wise man did; so the\nbelievers in Antinomian doctrines declare there can be no sin in those\nwho are the elect; that Christ obeyed the law and fulfilled all\nrighteousness in their stead, and that his righteousness being imputed\nto them, whatever their conduct may be, they are righteous still. Hence\nthey call observance of the will of GOD, and a sense of the duty of\nobeying his law, \u201cthe bondage of legality.\u201d. They cry down morality, as\na worthless thing in the sight of GOD. The Stoics divided the world into\nthe wise and fools. These two classes included all mankind. They called\nordinary men, who did not come up to their standard, fools and mad. \u201cThe\nschool and sect of Chrysippus,\u201d says Horace[72], \u201cdeem every man mad,\nwhom vicious folly, or the ignorance of any truth, drives blindly\nforward. This definition takes in whole nations, yea, even great kings\nthemselves, the wise man alone being excepted.\u201d When once a man was a\n\u201cwise\u201d man, however, they held that all things, even the most revolting\ncrimes, were indifferent to him. So, if mankind be divided into two\nclasses, the elect and the reprobate, not one of whom can ever change\nfrom either class to the other, \u201cthen,\u201d some men argue, \u201cdo what I will\nit does not matter.\u201d The Antinomian claims to be free from the law of\nGOD, and believes that whatever he does, he cannot bring himself under\nthe condemnation which it denounces against the transgressor. Hence have\nresulted fatal mistakes. We see how evil was the result in the case of\nthe Anabaptists in Germany. They were men who called themselves, and\nperhaps believed themselves, the elect of GOD; and, as such, despised\nall law, human and divine. The excesses which they committed, their\ncrimes and subsequent misfortunes, have left a fearful record behind\nthem of the height to which this spirit may be carried, and how it may\nbereave men of their reason and virtue. The sixth of the Lambeth\nArticles declares, that \u201can assurance of having justifying faith is\ncertain of remission of sins, and of eternal salvation through Christ.\u201d\nOne cannot but see how possible it is that men may be deceived in such a\nmatter as this, and how fatal such self-deception may be in its\nconsequences. Indeed, it may lead a man on in false security and\nunfounded presumption till he is undone.\n\n\n\n\n                              CONCLUSION.\n\n\nWe have now examined the several parts of the subject which claimed our\nconsideration. In the course of our investigation we have seen that,\nwhile Christianity and Stoicism have many things in common, all that\nwhich is excellent in the Stoic system is contained in the Christian.\nThere is in philosophy this irremediable defect, that though it may\npoint out man\u2019s duty, it does not give him power to fulfil it. It shows\nhim a height of excellence which he cannot reach. Christianity also\npoints man to noble and exalted paths. She gives him lessons of the\nhighest wisdom, and furnishes him with an example of a perfect life. She\ndoes more. She furnishes him with the power to obtain what she pictures\nto him of excellence. Stoicism is like the dry bones which Ezekiel saw\nin his vision, the frames of men without the life. Christianity is like\nthose bodies after they had been endowed with beauty, and strength, and\nvital energy, by His power, to whom alone it belongs to pronounce the\ndecree, \u201cCome from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these\nslain, that they may live[73].\u201d\n\nNothing is more marked in our holy religion than its reality. It enters\ninto the every-day life of men, preparing them for their duty, and\nhelping them to perform it. It would extend its blessed influence to\nall. Not like philosophy, which separated a distinct class from their\nfellow-men, and considered the mass of mankind as far removed from any\nhope of their becoming wise; this divine system seeks the lost, and the\nlowly, and the foolish of this world, and raises them so that in their\nseveral spheres they may be holy and happy. We are warned in strong\nlanguage against allowing our souls to be surfeited with the cares and\npleasures of this world. We are to be spiritual, thoughtful, and earnest\nin our purely religious exercises. Yet we must guard against the mistake\nthat religion is merely an abstract thing. It does not end when our\nordinary duties begin: but follows us from the mercy-seat, when we have\nfinished our communions with GOD and go about those duties which his\nProvidence has laid upon us. It does not deny us innocent pleasure,\nthough we are forbidden to waste time in pursuit of even harmless\namusement. The sentiment which would divorce religion from the burdens\nand joys of ordinary men, is more of Stoic, than of Christian birth. If\nwe read the history of the Saviour, we see him presenting a marked\ncontrast to John the Baptist, the ascetic and solitary. \u201cThe Son of man\ncame eating and drinking,\u201d and mingling as a man with men so freely as\nto scandalize the Pharisees, the Stoics of the Jewish Church. Our place\nalso is in the world, doing the will of GOD. Not choosing our own path,\nor our own will, we are to resist the temptation to separation and\nspiritual pride which sometimes assails us. GOD has given us life,\nspiritual as well as bodily life, that it may be used in his service;\nnot to serve our own selves. Yet many a man has served self and has\nfollowed a false light, that has deceived him and led him into bye-ways;\nwhile the deceived one thought he was doing GOD service, and practising\nself-denial. We want no special circumstances made for us, no\nextraordinary opportunities granted: for each man has by infinite wisdom\nbeen placed in his position, whatever it may be; and has, every day and\nall day long, opportunity for honouring GOD, and helping on His designs\nin the world. This St Paul felt when, writing to the Corinthians, he\nsays (2 Ep. v. 14), \u201cThe love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus\njudge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died\nfor all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves,\nbut unto Him who died for them, and rose again.\u201d The great lesson to\nlearn is real self-sacrifice. We shall not fail in learning this lesson\nif, depending on divine aid, we study to conform ourselves to His\nexample, whose life was summed up in a few words by the Apostle Peter,\nwhen he described Him as \u201cJesus of Nazareth, who went about doing good.\u201d\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Rom. ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  St John, xvii. 15.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  M. Aurelius uses the very word from which the anchorite took his name,\n  \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014B. IV. c. 3.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Juvenal, in reference to this says, _Sat._ II. 8:\n\n              \u201cFrontis nulla fides, quis enim non vicus abundat\n              Tristibus obsc\u0153nis?\u201d\n\n  So _Sat._ III. 105, he has the following:\n\n                                 \u201cAudi facinus majoris aboll\u00e6.\n               Sto\u00efcus occidit Baream, delator amicum,\n               Discipulumque senex.\u201d\n\n  Respecting this man (P. Egnatius), Tacitus says (_Ann._ XVI. 32):\n  \u201cCliens hic Sorani, et tunc emptus ad opprimendum amicum, auctoritatem\n  Stoic\u00e6 sect\u00e6 pr\u00e6ferebat, habitu et ore ad exprimendam imaginem honesti\n  exercitus, ceterum animo perfidiosus, subdolus, avaritiam ac libidinem\n  occultans.\u201d He goes on to say we should be on our guard against those\n  \u201cspecie bonarum artium falsos.\u201d\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  Chrysostomi, _Opera_, Tom. I. p. 309. Ed. Ben. 8vo. Paris, 1834.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  \u1f68\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. M.\n  Aurelii Ant. _Com._ XI. 2.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n               Haud tibi inexpertum curvos deprendere mores\n               Qu\u00e6que docet sapiens braccatis illita Medis\n               Porticus, insomnis quibus et _detonsa_ juventus\n               Invigilat, &c.\n\n  _Sat._ III. 52-4.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  Proleg. ad J. Stearn, _de Obstin._ Sect. 41, p. 147.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  \u201cEx mente Pharis\u00e6orum.\u201d\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Calv. _Inst._ III. 25. 1.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  2 Peter iii. 9.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n               Quem mala stultitia, et qu\u00e6cunque inscitia veri\n               C\u00e6cum agit, insanum Chrysippi porticus et grex\n               Autumat. H\u00e6c populos, h\u00e6c magnos formula reges,\n               Excepto sapiente, tenet.\n\n               Hor. _Sat._ II. 3.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Ezekiel xxxvii. 9.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"The mutual influence of Christianity and the Stoic school","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":29016}