Thought and religion : or, The mutual contributions of philosophy and theology

Front matter

Sao Ss

Z seek - - ia a I Set seit

Twist ees a Serer

Contents

TRTRODUOTION He see cu es Tue CONTRIBUTION OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY OCD LE EPE AHEM AMIN Uh cole Canoe AU Tce nua The Pre-Socratic Philosophy—Socrates —Plato—Aristotle Tur ContTRIBUTION OF ROMAN PHILOSOPHY To THEOLOGY. . iO Re RN NAN aI?

Section One: The Philosophy of the Stoics in Rome. Sayings of the Stores Section Two: Epicureanism in Rome Section Three: Eclecticism in Rome THE CONTRIBUTION OF NEOPLATONISM TO Boru PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY.......

Tur CONTRIBUTION OF SCHOLASTICISM TO Boru PuHitosopHy AND THEOLOGY.......

Introduction

The purpose of this work is to show the mutual contributions of philosophy and theology. The history of philosophy and the history of theology have much in common, and if the theologian will study the history of philosophy it may be the means of saving him from many extremes and many errors. Philosophy has made 1mportant contributions to almost every department of theology. In the following departments it has certainly made important contributions: The Nature of God; The Nature of Man; God’s Revelation to Man; Man’s Duties " God; Man’s Duties to Man; The Doctrine of a Future

tate.

Philosophy is the highest and truest science, for it specially pertains to effects, causes and principles; it has for its object the investigation of those fundamental principles upon which all knowledge and all being ultimately rest. Various definitions have been given by philosophers of the science of first principles. According to Ueberweg, one of the most full and complete writers on the history of philosophy, philosophy is the science of first principles; it is included under the general name of science, but differs from the remaining sciences in that it is not occupied with a limited province of things, but with the nature and laws of whatever actually exists. Lord Bacon confines philosophy to that part of human learning which specially pertains to the reason. Sir William Hamilton substantially accepts the Aristotelian view of philosophy, that it is equivalent to a knowledge of things in their origin and causes.

The word philosophy, which means a love of wisdom, is first found in the writings of Herodotus. It is attributed to Pythagoras, who selected it as a more modest title than sophist or wiseman. The word was appropriated and first popularized by Socrates. He preferred it as more modest than the arrogant designation of the Sophists.

Strictly speaking, philosophy took its origin among the Greeks. It is true that the Orientals philosophized, but their philosophy is altogether blended with their mythology. There are also mystic cosmogonies of the Greeks, belonging to the Homeric age, that we do not include in philosophy. ‘They belong to Greek mythology. The writings of Homer may be called the Bible of the Greeks. Although the Orientals had a high culture, philosophy could not have originated with them, because they held this culture too much in a passive state. We cannot look to the North for philosophy. Although the Northmen were eminent for strength and courage, philosophy could not have originated with them, for they were devoid of culture. But the Hellenes combined wonderful culture with extraordinary courage. ‘There was no lack of activity on the part of the heroic Greeks.

The great philosophic center among the Greeks was the City of Athens. It was really the university of Greece. The greatest of all the monuments of Athens which have survived the waste of time is her philosophy. The Parthenon, of Minerva, and all the beautiful gems of Grecian architecture, are now in ruins. The works of Phidias, which adorned the temples of the gods and goddesses, and crowned the platform of the Acropolis, are now no more, except a few fragments which have been taken to other countries, and remain as relics of the departed greatness of the once proud city. While the fingers of time have destroyed the glorious work of art the philosophic thought of Athens, which culminated in the dialectics of Plato, still remains. The criticism of more than two thousand years has not improved much upon the method of Plato. As a great writer truly says, “Platonism is immortal, because the principles are immortal in the human intellect and heart.”

Greek philosophy has received various classifications. In view of the prevailing spirit and tendency of the different schools, Cousin, one of the greatest of the more recent French philosophers, has classified them as the sensational, the idealistic, the skeptical and the mythical. Preceding the Socratic school, we find in Greece, the Ionian, which tended to the sensational; the Italian, which tended to the idealistic; and the Sophistic, which tended to both the skeptical and the mythical. There is a tendency in the human mind to extremes; and it is only the greatest and best balanced minds that can avoid them. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the greatest of Greek philosophers, very largely avoided extremes. In another work, I have called them the Golden Mean Philosophers.

Roman philosophy was largely derived from the Greek, but the practical nature of the Roman mind gave a practical tendency to its philosophy. All the leading Greek schools were represented at Rome; but nearly all were largely comprehended in the Epicurean, Stoic and Eclectic schools. Lucretius was the most noted of Roman Epicureans, and he certainly produced one of the greatest poems in the Latin language. Stoicism appeared well suited to the Roman mind, and many of her greatest thinkers and even rulers were Stoics. But in Cicero and others Stoicism took an Eclectic tendency. This could not well be otherwise under the all-embracing empire of Rome.

Neo-Platonism has wielded a very powerful influence upon Theology. In fact, it was, in many respects, more of a Theology than a Philosophy. It wa s a complete triumph of the spiritual over the material; and it triumphed over all other philosophies. It entirely rejected materialism, and combined all other systems into a universal philosophy. Augustine declared that it was more like Christianity than any other system of philosophy. It has influenced Theology through German Philosophy; and it is not going too far to say that it has also affected English Philosophy. Hamilton and his school taught a number of things that had been emphasized by Plotinus. Even Herbert Spencer’s doctrine of the Unknowable had been taught by Plotinus and his disciples. Neo-Platonism was an extreme, but it taught much truth. The Golden Mean Philosophy not only accepts the truth it taught; but it also accepts the truth it rejected, and combines all in harmony with true science and philosophy. All truth after all is a unit, whether found on Christian or on heathen land.

No man can understand the progress of human thought who rejects the study of Scholasticism. It concerned itself with philosophy and religion, which have been the great themes of all ages. In the contentions of the Scholastics over realism and nominalism we have substantially the modern problems of realism and idealism. The author believes that both positions were extremes and that the problems involved in their discussion can only be solved by the True Golden Mean Philosophy. Victor Cousin was right in the high estimate in which he held the Scholastics; and we may add that Scholasticism produced in Dante one of the greatest poets of all ages.

French Philosophy has had both a materialistic and an idealistic tendency. Both philosophies have had a very important influence upon Theology. Both systems were extremes, and the truth is found in the Golden Mean. In fact, nearly all error is partial truth pushed to an extreme. The Golden Mean Philosophy comprehends the truths contained in both extremes. German Philosophy has largely tended to idealism, and it has had a powerful influence upon a Mystic Theology. The Germans have been great investigators, and their philosophical conclusions have had ‘de-spread influence upon all modern philosophy. English Philosophy has had a practical tendency, and John Locke, the greatest of Englishmen, has probably influenced modern thought as much as any other philosopher. He was an earnest Christian, and his philosophy has had much influence upon modern Theology. The Scotch School fought a very important battle with the fearfully materialistic tendencies of the eighteenth century, and its success was such that it placed unanswerable arguments in the hands of Theologians with which to meet their materialistic and atheistic foes.

The influence of Philosophy upon the great Theologians of the Reformation is indeed an interesting study; and it fully illustrates the fact that a man’s Theology is much the same as his 1 hilosophy. If you find a man a materialist in philosophy, he is certain to be a materialist in religion; and if you find him an idealist in philosophy, he is certain to be a mystic in religion. The influence of

Philosophy was very great upon the Theology of Martin Luther. His doctrine of trans-substantiation was a philosophical dogma; yet he held to it with such a tenacity that he would not, under any circumstances, give the hand of fellowship to Zwingle. The Stoicism of John Calvin caused him to imprison men who could not believe with Zeno. It must not be thought that Philosophy has always been the source of error in religion; on the other hand, it has made many contributions to the truth. John Wesley, Alexander Campbell and other great Reformers have been influenced by Philosophy as well as Luther and Calvin.

Philosophy has greatly contributed to the New Theology and the Higher Criticism. The sources of the New Theology are largely the Hegelian Philosophy and the Philosophy of Evolution. The New Theology contains much truth and it also contains much error. Christ, himself, taught development in religion—first the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the ear. The Patriarchal, the Jewish and the Christian Dispensations are a perfect illustration of this fact. The New Theology has greatly stimulated investigation as to the origin and nature of all the great religions of the world, and it is making the Science of Religion one of the most interesting studies. Philosophy is also the source of the Higher Criticism. The Higher Criticism has become a science and none but the ignorant write against it. One difficulty is the fact that some confound the Higher Criticism with Destructive Criticism. They are very different; the Higher Critic is usually a Christian and the Destructive Critic is usually an infidel.

Christology is the Ultimate Philosophy and Theology. The philosopher Hegel properly makes Christ the terminal point of all ancient history and the point of departure for all modern history. All the great problems with which philosophy has ever concerned itself can be solved from the standpoint of Christology. The existence of God, the creation of the universe, the relation of man to the divine government, the triumph of good over evil and the final destiny of man, can all be solved by Christology as by no other system of philosophy. Robert Browning was right in his position that the acknowledgment of God in Christ, accepted by man’s reason, solves for him all problems in this world and out of it. Christology is certainly the Untimate Theology. It really comprehends the truths contained in all others. It proves all things, and holds fast to the good. Christ is the center of all true Theology, and those who fully comprehend his nature and his mission will be fully able to settle all the great problems of this world and the world to come. In the Christ, thought and religion harmonize; and they become one, as the Father and Son are one, and this unity continues forever and ever. Christology holds to the truths contained in both Realism and Idealism, and strictly avoids their errors.

Chapter I The Contribution Of Greek Philosophy To Theology

The Pre-Socratic Philosophy

The Ionian school was realistic in its tendency, and the Italian school was extremely idealistic. Thales, who was born at Miletus, B. C., 636, was the founder of the Ionian school. He was doubtless influenced by the theology of Egypt in his fundamental doctrine in reference to the origin of things. The Egyptians believed that the river Nile was the source of all life, and it was consequently one of their principal objects of worship. It is a characteristic of all philosophical minds to reduce all diversities to one fundamental principle. In studying the constitution of the earth he found moisture everywhere. His position also appeared to have the support of Greek Theology. Homer and Hesiod represented Oceanus and Thetis as the parents of all the gods that had any relation to nature. Dr. Draper thus speaks of the position of Anaximenes, who was a disciple of Thales, and held that air was the fundamental substance: “‘“And since it is seen from the results of breathing that the air is the life giving principle to man, nay, even Is actually his soul, it would appear to be a just inference that the infinite air is God and that the gods and goddesses have sprung from it.”

Thales taught that the soul is incorporeal, self-active, and intelligent. Aristotle in De Anima says, “If we may rely on the notices of Thales, he too would seem to have conceived the soul as a moving principle.”” This was an important contribution to Theology. The following is a

ll statement of Thales according to Diogenes Laertius, “‘God is the most ancient of all things, for he had no birth; the world is the most beautiful of all things, for it is the workmanship of God.” Cicero in De Natura Deorum says, “Thales said that water was the first principle of all things, but God was that mind which formed all things out of water.”? The Ionial school not only made a contribution to Theism, but its philosophers largely taught God’s immanence in nature.

Pythagoras of Samos, born B. C., 605, was the founder of the Italian school. He travelled extensively in Egypt and was greatly influenced by the Theology of that country. Like Moses he was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians. The fundamental ideas of his philosophy was that beneath the fleeting forms and successive changes of the universe there is some permanent principle of unity. The Ionian school sought this principle in the physical elements, and the Italian school sought it in the relation of things. Pythagoras taught that the soul was a self moving number or Monad, the copy of that Infinite Monad which unfolds from its own essence all the relations of the universe. He taught that the soul has three elements, Reason, Intelligence, and Passion. The last two, man has in common with the brute, but the first is his grand and peculiar characteristic.

Xenophanes, one of the greatest philosophers of this school plainly taught Theism. He said: “There is one God, of all beings, divine and human the greatest.” He taught that God has no parts, no organs, as men have, being “All sight, all ear, all intelligence, wholly exempt from toil. He sways all things by thought and will.” The following language from the Principia of Newton will show how much the great English Natural Philosopher was dependant upon Xenophanes: “The Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence, also, he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act, but in a manner not at all human, not at all corporeal; in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so we have noi dea of the manner by which the all wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched, nor ought to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not.”

Socrates

At the completion of the first epoch of philosophy when the thinkers of Greece, in despair, went into skepticism, Socrates appeared upon the stage. He was born near Athens, 469 B. C., and was the son of Sophroniscus, a sculptor. He followed for a time the occupation of his father, and tradition claims that he produced some interesting works. His personal appearance was decidedly against him. It is said that he had a flat nose, thick lips, prominent eyes, and a bald head. He had, however, a powerful constitution, and trained himself to great endurance. While a soldier he won the admiration of all; for there were none more brave and self-sacrificing than was he. He loved his country, and when it became necessary he was ready to fight for it.

It is strange that the Athenians should condemn to death the man who had been their greatest friend. Such, however, has been the history of the world. The nations have not usually appreciated their greatest benefactors. There is no business more thankless than that of a critic. Men do not usually like to be told their faults, especially when they do not intend to forsake them. Socrates was pre-eminently a critic. There was not an evil in Athens about which he did not have something to say. As the Jews became tired of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, so the Athenians became tired of their preacher of righteousness. ‘They were determined to silence him in some way, and they thought the certain way was to put him to death.

Socrates produced an era in philosophy. He saw the evil tendencies in the preceding schools, and was anxious to make his system more practical. He thought that men and society were the proper objects of study. Like Dr. Johnson, he was not an admirer of external nature, and thought that all wheat fields looked alike. He preferred to give his time to the study of man. He created ethical science, and his teachings in that department have seemed marvelous even to the greatest thinkers of modern times.

Socrates had invincible faith in truth; he made her the mistress of his soul, and patiently toiled after perfect communion with her. He felt as did Jesus, that truth alone would give freedom. On one occasion, when he came in contact with the public authorities, his language was almost identical with that used by Peter and John when forbidden to preach by the Sanhedrim: “ Whether it be right in the sight of the gods to hearken unto you rather than to the gods, judge ye; but as for me, I have sworn to obey the laws, and I can not forswear myself.”’ This great Greek philosopher felt that he had a divine mission, and that nothing should get in the way of it. The faithful monitor, which he called the Daimon, was evidently the voice of conscience. He felt that it was a divine voice, and always heeded its warning. It would be well for the world if all men would listen to the words of caution which that monitor that God has placed in the bosom of each is constantly sending forth.

This great Greek moralist was eminently a religious man. He taught that we can only know God in his works, thus recognizing the doctrine of divine providence. His religion was strictly humanitarian, as he declared the well-being of man to be the end of the universe. He loved to study final causes, and gave to them more attention than to efficient causes. While he did not deny inferior deities, he looked upon them very much as we look upon angels—as infinitely below the Supreme Being. I believe that Socrates was a monotheist, but he did not entirely ignore the polytheism of his day.

The Christian fathers have almost universally taught that the Socratic philosophy was a preparation for Christlanity. Socrates taught that religious duties are three: reverence , gratitude, and obedience. Where these things were taught the people could not otherwise than be better prepared for Christianity. The tendency of the Socratic philosophy was to free the mind from polytheistic notions, and bring before it prominently the theistic idea... While Socrates did not definitely reject polytheism, the tendency of his philosophy was to undermine it. He recognized beyond its gods the Supreme Being, and when the people learned to worship Him, they would gradually give up the worship of inferior deities. While others among the Greeks, even before Socrates, believed in one Supreme Being, the tendency of the Socratic philosophy was to spiritualize the theistic conception. He not only taught that there is one God, but that God is spirit. Obedience to God, who is spirit, he also taught, and this purified the moral sense, and prepared the Greeks for something better. The Socratic philosophy has certainly made important contributions to Theology.

The Socratic philosophy very definitely taught a future life, which was in itself an important preparation for Christianity. Just before his death the great philosopher conversed with his friends on the subject of a future state. Crito asked him how he wanted to be buried. The philosopher told him any way he liked, if he could only get hold of him. He then turned to his friends and said: “TI cannot persuade this good Crito that I who am talking to him, and marshaling the heads of my arguments, am the veritable Socrates; but he persists in thinking that Socrates is this body which he will see by and by stretched out on the floor, and he asks how he is to bury me.”” Socrates insisted that after death he would leave them and go to the land of the blest. The fact cannot be questioned that man has an instinctive anticipation of a future state; and Socrates studied the inward man so thoroughly that he was satisfied on that point. The resignation of Socrates at the hour of death is an interesting subject for reflection for even those who live in the light of a high Christian civilization. For a fuller discussion of this subject, see Chapter on “‘The Socratic Philosophy and Christianity,” in the author’s “Struggles and Triumphs of the Truth.”

16 THOUGHT AND RELIGION Plato

Plato, in many respects, the greatest of Greek philosophers was born in the city of Athens, about 429 B. C., and died about 348 B. C. He was born the very year of the death of Pericles, the second year of the Peloponnesian War, which was so fatal to the fortunes of the Athenians. His writings are all the middle Attic, the purest and richest dialect of the most perfect and classic language among all the members in the great Indo-European family of languages. When Plato first came to Socrates he was skeptical for the philosophy of his age was not sufficient to satisfy such a gigantic mind. In the school of Socrates he found breathing room, and got rid of his doubts by seeking more truth. Socrates directed his attention to the study of Ethics, and in this department he became the most distinguished philosopher in the world. Much of the reputation of Socrates was due to Plato; for he placed his own greater developed philosophical system in the mouth of his master. Socrates is made the center of his dialogues, and the leader of all his discourses.

Plato’s religious ideas are largely comprehended in the department of physics. In favor of the immortality of the soul, Plato in his Phaedo presents the following arguments: (1) from the principle that contraries spring from contraries, death from life, and consequently life from death; (2) from the soul’s independence of the body; (3) from its nature, which renders it incapable of dissolution; (4) from its superiority to the body; (5) God does not will the destruction of that which he has put together in such a beautiful manner, and endowed with such high aspirations. All will agree with Addison that Plato reasoned well; and even modern philosophers can present no stronger arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul than are presented in the Phaedo of Plato.

Plato rose above the polytheism of his age to a knowledge of the Supreme Being. The following are his arguments to prove the existence of God: (1) Beneath the changeable there is an unchangeable Being, who is the nurse and protector of the universe. (2) Beneath the phenomena of mind there is a permanent mind, who is the great rational Being, antedating and creating the universe. (3) Beneath all finite existence there is an Infinite existence, the first principle of all principles, the Ruler and Lawgiver of the universe. Plato taught the absolute perfection of the Infinite Being; that he is the fountain of all law and justice, the beginning and end of all things. The divine beauty is the formal cause, the divine power the efficient cause, and the divine goodness the final cause of all existences.

Plato presented to the world a very high system of Ethics. He taught that justice and equity are founded in the very nature of God, hence eternal. The true, the beautiful and the good were never created, but are inherent in the very nature of things. The object of revelation is to make known to man the true, the beautiful and the good. Right existed from eternity, and philosophy and religion have for their object the influence of man in conformity to the right. Plato taught that no man willingly does evil; that is, that no man does evil for evil’s sake. He is very careful to guard this point against misunderstanding. While a man may choose evil voluntarily as a means, he does not choose it as an end. How, then, do men become evil? Plato answers that man is restless, and seeks change; he indulges his desires and passions to excess. He gets tired of the good, and tries the bad. Plato taught that man has the power of changing his moral character. He was a believer in the freedom of the will. Man was made in the image of God, and as God is a free moral agent, man must of necessity also be a free moral agent. Man has the ability to choose the right or the wrong.

Plato gives the following reasons why men choose the wrong: (1) The soul is connected with the sensible world by means of a body, and is thus influenced to sin. (2) The passions prevail over the soul and disorder it. (3) Society is corrupted by bad forms of civil government, and bad education effects the ruin of the soul. Thus the soul is changed and fallen from what it was when it came from the hands of its Creator. The object of life is to purify it, and prepare it for a restoration to its original sinlessness.

The Platonic philosophy has certainly made very important contributions to Theology. Emerson certainly goes to a great extreme, when he says that Christianity is found in the Phaedo of Plato; but it is evident that the Platonic philosophy has had a very great influence upon Christianity. It did much towards perfecting the Greek language, which was an important preparation for Christjianity. In Alexandria, the Old Testament was translated into Greek; then the writings of Plato were diligently studied, and Philo endeavored to unite the Platonic philosophy with Judaism. From this union there arose a class of Jews who, when converted to Christianity, were very beneficial in allaying the prejudice of Jewish Christians against the Gentiles. Stephen, the first martyr, belonged to this class.

Aristotle

In the history of Greek philosophy, Socrates was the man of action, Plato, the man of literature, and Aristotle, the man of science. They were, of course, all great philosophers, but in the progress of culture they specially represented the phases mentioned. Socrates went about as a preacher of righteousness; Plato handled language so artistically as to become a general favorite; but Aristotle came with the dissecting knife in his hand, and addressed himself to those who were willing to make special dissections for the sake of knowledge. He was pre-eminently a man of science, and has left us the means of presenting our ordinary thoughts. When we say that a man is in an unfortunate predicament, we are using the nomenclature of Aristotle. Had it not been for this great Greek thinker, modern science would be compelled to express many of its thoughts differently.

Aristotle, the greatest of the world’s philosophers and scientists, was born in Stagira, a Greek colony of Macedonia, in 384 B. C., and died at Chalcis, in 322 B. C. The name of his birthplace always clung to him in the title by which he was called—the Stagirite philosopher. The father of this great philosopher was a physician at the court of the Macedonian king. This is thought to have exercised great influence over the studies of his illustrious son. The boy’s thirst for knowledge was such that at an early age he repaired to the city of Athens, and became a pupil of the distinguished Plato. His progress was such that Plato called him the intellect of his school. He remained a student of this school for twenty years, and might have remained longer had it not been for the death of its master. This ought to be a lesson for those who claim to acquire a university education in three or four years. While Aristotle greatly loved his world-renowned teacher, his mental characteristics greatly differed from those of Plato. Plato was poetic and ideal; Aristotle was prosaic and systematic; Plato was intuitive and synthetical Aristotle was logical and analytical. Such are some of the mental characteristics of the two men, and it is natural to suppose that Aristotle would develop a new system, and give a different direction to philosophic thought.

In the Aristotelian organon, we have exactly the reverse of the Platonic. Plato by logical analysis drew from the depth of consciousness certain fundamental! ideas inherent in the mind. ‘These he takes as starting points from which to pass beyond the sensible world to God himself. After having attained to universal and necessary ideas by abstraction, he descends to the sensible world, and from these ideas he constructs the intellectual theory of the universe. Aristotle reverses the process; he commences with sensation, and proceeds by induction from the known to the unknown. According to Aristotle, the repetition of sensations produces recollection, recollection produces experience, and experience produces science. It is only by means of experience that men can be scientists and artists. While experience is the knowledge of individual things, art is the knowledge of universals. Aristotle taught that there are principles in the mind not derived from experience, and his teachings on the subject are much more philosophic and truthful than the one-sided views of many modern utilitarians.