Christianity and Greek Philosophy Part 6

1. It is highly improbable that truths so important and vital to man, so essential to the well-being of the human race, so necessary to the perfect development of humanity as are the ideas of G.o.d, duty, and immortality, should rest on so precarious and uncertain a basis as tradition is admitted, even by Mr. Watson, to be.

The human mind needs the idea of G.o.d to satisfy its deep moral necessities, and to harmonize all its powers. The perfection of humanity can never be secured, the destination of humanity can never be achieved, the purpose of G.o.d in the existence of humanity can never be accomplished, without the idea of G.o.d, and of the relation of man to G.o.d, being present to the human mind. Society needs the idea of a Supreme Ruler as the foundation of law and government, and as the basis of social order. Without it, these can not be, or be conserved.

Intellectual creatures.h.i.+p, social order, human progress, are inconceivable and impossible without the idea of G.o.d, and of accountability to G.o.d. Now that truths so fundamental should, to the ma.s.ses of men, rest on tradition _alone_, is incredible. Is there no known and accessible G.o.d to the outlying millions of our race who, in consequence of the circ.u.mstances of birth and education, which are beyond their control, have had no access to an oral revelation, and among whom the dim shadowy rays of an ancient tradition have long ago expired? Are the eight hundred millions of our race upon whom the light of Christianity has not shone unvisited by the common Father of our race? Has the universal Father left his "own offspring" without a single native power of recognizing the existence of the Divine Parent, and abandoned them to solitary and dreary orphanage? Could not he who gave to matter its properties and laws,--the properties and laws through whose operation he is working out his own purposes in the realm of nature,--could not he have also given to mind ideas and principles which, logically developed, would lead to recognition of a G.o.d, and of our duty to G.o.d, and, by these ideas and principles, have wrought out his sublime purposes in the realm of mind? Could not he who gave to man the appetency for food, and implanted in his nature the social instincts to preserve his physical being, have implanted in his heart a "feeling after G.o.d," and an instinct to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d in order to the conservation of his spiritual being? How otherwise can we affirm the responsibility and accountability of all the race before G.o.d? Those theologians who are so earnest in the a.s.sertion that G.o.d has not endowed man with the native power of attaining the knowledge of G.o.d can not, on any principle of equity, show how the heathen are "without excuse" when, in involuntary ignorance of G.o.d, they "wors.h.i.+p the creature instead of the Creator,"

and violate a law of duty of which they have no possible means to attain the barest knowledge.

2. This theory is utterly inadequate to the explanation of the _universality_ of religious rites, and especially of religious ideas.

Take, for example, the idea of G.o.d. As a matter of fact we affirm, in opposition to Watson, the universality of this idea. The idea of G.o.d is connatural to the human mind. Wherever human reason has had its normal and healthy development[87], this idea has arisen spontaneously and necessarily. There has not been found a race of men who were utterly dest.i.tute of some knowledge of a Supreme Being. All the instances alleged have, on further and more accurate inquiry, been found incorrect. The tendency of the last century, arbitrarily to quadrate all the facts of religious history with the prevalent sensational philosophy, had its influence upon the minds of the first missionaries to India, China, Africa, Australia, and the islands of the Pacific. They _expected_ to find that the heathen had no knowledge of a Supreme Being, and before they had mastered the idioms of their language, or become familiar with their mythological and cosmological systems, they reported them as _utterly ignorant of G.o.d_, dest.i.tute of the idea and even the name of a Supreme Being. These mistaken and hasty conclusions have, however, been corrected by a more intimate acquaintance with the people, their languages and religions. Even in the absence of any better information, we should be constrained to doubt the accuracy of the authorities quoted by Mr. Watson in relation to Hindooism, when by one (Ward) we are told that the Hindoo "believes in a G.o.d dest.i.tute of _intelligence_" and by another (Moore) that "Brahm is the one eternal _Mind_, the self-existent, incomprehensible Spirit". Learned and trustworthy critics, Asiatic as well as European, however, confidently affirm that "the ground of the Brahminical faith is Monotheistic;" it recognizes "an Absolute and Supreme Being" as the source of all that exists.[88] Eugene Burnouf, M. Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, Kppen, and indeed nearly all who have written on the subject of Buddhism, have shown that the metaphysical doctrines of Buddha were borrowed from the earlier systems of the Brahminic philosophy. "Buddha." we are told, is "_pure intelligence_" "_clear light_", "_perfect wisdom_;" the same as Brahm. This is surely Theism in its highest conception.[89] In regard to the peoples of South Africa, Dr. Livingstone a.s.sures us "there is no need for beginning to tell even the most degraded of these people of the existence of a G.o.d, or of a future state--the facts being universally admitted.... On questioning intelligent men among the Backwains as to their former knowledge of good and evil, of G.o.d, and of a future state, they have scouted the idea of any of them ever having been without a tolerably clear conception on all these subjects."[90] And so far from the New Hollanders having no idea of a Supreme Being, we are a.s.sured by E. Stone Parker, the protector of the aborigines of New Holland, they have a clear and well-defined idea of a "_Great Spirit_," the maker of all things.

[Footnote 87: Watson, "Theol. Inst.," vol. i. p. 46.]

[Footnote 88: Maurice, "Religions of the World," p. 59: _Edin.

Review_,1862, art "Recent Researches on Buddhism." See also Muller's "Chips from a German Workshop," vol. i. ch. i. to vi.]

[Footnote 89: "It has been said that Buddha and Kapila were both atheists, and that Buddha borrowed his atheism from Kapila. But atheism is an indefinite term, and may mean very different things. In one sense every Indian philosopher was an atheist, for they all perceived that the G.o.ds of the populace could not claim the attributes that belong to a Supreme Being. But all the important philosophical systems of the Brahmans admit, in some form or another, the existence of an Absolute and Supreme Being, the source of all that exists, or seems to exist."--Muller, "Chips from a German Workshop," vol. i. pp. 224,5.

Buddha, which means "intelligence," "clear light," "perfect wisdom," was not only the name of the founder of the religion of Eastern Asia, but Adi Buddha was the name of the Absolute, Eternal Intelligence.--Maurice, "Religions of the World," p. 102.]

[Footnote 90: "Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa," p.

158.]

Now had the idea of G.o.d rested _solely_ on tradition, it were the most natural probability that it might be lost, nay, _must_ be lost, amongst those races of men who were geographically and chronologically far removed from the primitive cradle of humanity in the East. The people who, in their migrations, had wandered to the remotest parts of the earth, and had become isolated from the rest of mankind, might, after the lapse of ages, be expected to lose the idea of G.o.d, if it were not a spontaneous and native intuition of the mind,--a necessity of thought. A fact of history must be presumed to stick to the mind with much greater tenacity than a purely rational idea which has no visible symbol in the sensible world, and yet, even in regard to the events of history, the persistence and pertinacity of tradition is exceedingly feeble. The South Sea Islanders know not from whence, or at what time, their ancestors came. There are monuments in Tonga and Fiji of which the present inhabitants can give no account. How, then, can a pure, abstract idea which can have no sensible representation, no visible image, retain its hold upon the memory of humanity for thousands of years? The Fijian may not remember whence his immediate ancestors came, but he knows that the race came originally from the hands of the Creator. He can not tell who built the monuments of solid masonry which are found in his island-home, but he can tell who reared the everlasting hills and built the universe. He may not know who reigned in Vewa a hundred years ago, but he knows who now reigns, and has always reigned, over the whole earth. "The idea of a G.o.d is familiar to the Fijian, and the existence of an invisible superhuman power controlling and influencing nature, and all earthly things, is fully recognized by him."[91] The idea of G.o.d is a common fact of human consciousness, and tradition alone is manifestly inadequate to account for its _universality_.

[Footnote 91: "Fiji and the Fijians," p. 215.]

3. A verbal revelation would be inadequate to convey the knowledge of G.o.d to an intelligence "_purely pa.s.sive_" and utterly unfurnished with any _a priori_ ideas or necessary laws of cognition and thought.

Of course it is not denied that important verbal communications relating to the character of G.o.d, and the duties we owe to G.o.d, were given to the first human pair, more clear and definite, it may be, than any knowledge attained by Socrates and Plato through their dialectic processes, and that these oral revelations were successively repeated and enlarged to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament church. And furthermore, that some rays of light proceeding from this pure fountain of truth were diffused, and are still lingering among the heathen nations, we have no desire, and no need to deny.

All this, however, supposes, at least, a natural power and apt.i.tude for the knowledge of G.o.d, and some configuration and correlation of the human intelligence to the Divine. "We have no knowledge of a dynamic influence, spiritual or natural, without a dynamic reaction." Matter can not be moved and controlled by forces and laws, unless it have properties which correlate it with those forces and laws. And mind can not be determined from without to any specific form of cognition, unless it have active powers of apprehension and conception which are governed by uniform laws. The "material" of thought may be supplied from without, but the "form" is determined by the necessary laws of our inward being.

All our cognition of the external world is conditioned by the _a priori_ ideas of time and s.p.a.ce, and all our thinking is governed by the principles of causality and substance, and the law of "sufficient reason." The mind itself supplies an element of knowledge in all our cognitions. Man can not be taught the knowledge of G.o.d if he be not naturally possessed of a presentiment, or an apperception of a G.o.d, as the cause and reason of the universe. "If education be not already preceded by an innate consciousness of G.o.d, as an operative predisposition, there would be nothing for education and culture to act upon."[92] A mere verbal revelation can not communicate the knowledge of G.o.d, if man have not already the idea of a G.o.d in his mind. A name is a mere empty sign, a meaningless symbol, without a mental image of the object which it represents, or an innate perception, or an abstract conception of the mind, of which the word is the sign. The mental image or the abstract conception must, therefore, precede the name; cognition must be anterior to, and give the meaning of language.[93] The child knows a thing even before it can speak its name. And, universally, we must know the _thing_ in itself, or image it by a.n.a.logies and resemblances to some other thing we do know, before the name can have any meaning for us. As to purely rational ideas and abstract conceptions,--as s.p.a.ce, cause, the infinite, the perfect,--language can never convey these to the mind, nor can the mind ever attain them by experience if they are not an original, connate part of our mental equipment and furniture. The mere verbal affirmation "there is a G.o.d"

made to one who has no idea of a G.o.d, would be meaningless and unintelligible. What notion can a man form of "the First Cause" if the principle of causality is not inherent in his mind? What conception can he form of "the Infinite Mind" if the infinite be not a primitive intuition? How can he conceive of "a Righteous Governor" if he have no idea of right, no sense of obligation, no apprehension of a retribution?

Words are empty sounds without ideas, and G.o.d is a mere name if the mind has no apperception of a G.o.d.

[Footnote 92: Nitzsch, "System of Christian Doctrine," p. 10.]

[Footnote 93: "Ideas must pre-exist their sensible signs." See De Boismont on "Hallucination," etc., p. iii.]

It may be affirmed that, preceding or accompanying the announcement of the Divine Name, there was given to the first human pair, and to the early fathers of our race, some visible manifestation of the presence of G.o.d, and some supernatural display of divine power. What, then, was the character of these early manifestations, and were they adequate to convey the proper idea of G.o.d? Did G.o.d first reveal himself in human form, and if so, how could their conception of G.o.d advance beyond a rude anthropomorphism? Did he reveal his presence in a vast columnar cloud or a pillar of fire? How could such an image convey any conception of the intelligence, the omnipresence, the eternity of G.o.d? Nay, can the infinite and eternal Mind be represented by any visible manifestation?

Can the human mind conceive an image of G.o.d? The knowledge of G.o.d, it is clear, can not be conveyed by any sensible sign or symbol if man has no prior rational idea of G.o.d as the Infinite and the Perfect Being.

If the facts of order, and design, and special adaptation which crowd the universe, and the _a priori_ ideas of an unconditioned Cause and an infinite Intelligence which arise in the mind in presence of these facts, are inadequate to produce the logical conviction that it is the work of an intelligent mind, how can any preternatural display of _power_ produce a rational conviction that G.o.d exists? "If the universe could come by chance or fate, surely all the lesser phenomena, termed miraculous, might occur so too."[94] If we find ourselves standing amid an eternal series of events, may not miracles be a part of that series?

Or if all things are the result of necessary and unchangeable laws, may not miracles also result from some natural or psychological law of which we are yet in ignorance? Let it be granted that man is _not_ so const.i.tuted that, by the necessary laws of his intelligence, he must affirm that facts of order having a commencement in time prove mind; let it be granted that man has _no_ intuitive belief in the Infinite and Perfect--in short, no idea of G.o.d; how, then, could a marvellous display of _power_, a new, peculiar, and startling phenomenon which even seemed to transcend nature, prove to him the existence of an infinite _intelligence_--a personal G.o.d? The proof would be simply inadequate, because not the right kind of proof. Power does not indicate intelligence, force does not imply personality.

[Footnote 94: Morell, "Hist. of Philos." p. 737.]

Miracles, in short, were never intended to prove the existence of G.o.d.

The foundation of this truth had already been laid in the const.i.tution and laws of the human mind, and miracles were designed to convince us that He of whose existence we had a prior certainty, spoke to us by His Messenger, and in this way attested his credentials. To the man who has a rational belief in the existence of G.o.d this evidence of a divine mission is at once appropriate and conclusive. "Master, we know thou art a teacher sent from G.o.d; for no man can do the works which thou doest, except G.o.d be with him." The Christian missionary does not commence his instruction to the heathen, who have an imperfect, or even erroneous conception of "the Great Spirit," by narrating the miracles of Christ, or quoting the testimony of the Divine Book he carries along with him.

He points to the heavens and the earth, and says, "There is a Being who made all these things, and Jehovah is his name; I have come to you with a message from Him!" Or he need scarce do even so much; for already the heathen, in view of the order and beauty which pervades the universe, has been constrained, by the laws of his own intelligence, to believe in and offer wors.h.i.+p to the "????st?? Te??"--the unseen and incomprehensible G.o.d; and pointing to their altars, he may announce with Paul, "this G.o.d _whom ye wors.h.i.+p_, though ignorantly, him declare I unto you!"

The results of our study of the various hypotheses which have been offered in explanation of the religious phenomena of the world may be summed up as follows: The first and second theories we have rejected as utterly false. Instead of being faithful to and adequately explaining the facts, they pervert, and maltreat, and distort the facts of religious history. The last three each contain a precious element of truth which must not be undervalued, and which can not be omitted in an explanation which can be p.r.o.nounced complete. Each theory, taken by itself, is incomplete and inadequate. The third hypothesis overrates _feeling_; the fourth, _reason_; the fifth, _verbal instruction_. The first extreme is Mysticism, the second is Rationalism, the last is Dogmatism. Reason, feeling, and faith in testimony must be combined, and mutually condition each other. No purely rationalistic hypothesis will meet and satisfy the wants and yearnings of the heart. No theory based on feeling alone can satisfy the demands of the human intellect. And, finally, an hypothesis which bases all religion upon historical testimony and outward fact, and despises and tramples upon the intuitions of the reason and the instincts of the heart can never command the general faith of mankind. Religion embraces and conditionates the whole sphere of life--thought, feeling, faith, and action; it must therefore be grounded in the entire spiritual nature of man.

Our criticism of opposite theories has thus prepared the way for, and obviated the necessity of an extended discussion of the hypothesis we now advance.

_The universal phenomenon of religion has originated in the a priori apperceptions of reason, and the natural instinctive feelings of the heart, which, from age to age, have been vitalized, unfolded, and perfected by supernatural communications and testamentary revelations_.

There are universal facts of religious history which can only be explained on the first principle of this hypothesis; there are special facts which can only be explained on the latter principle. The universal prevalence of the idea of G.o.d, and the feeling of obligation to obey and wors.h.i.+p G.o.d, belong to the first order of facts; the general prevalence of expiatory sacrifices, of the rite of circ.u.mcision, and the observance of sacred and holy days, belong to the latter. To the last cla.s.s of facts the observance of the Christian Sabbath, and the rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be added.

The history of all religions clearly attests that there are two orders of principles--the _natural_ and the _positive_, and, in some measure, two authorities of religious life which are intimately related without negativing each other. The characteristic of the natural is that it is _intrinsic_, of the positive, that it is _extrinsic_. In all ages men have sought the authority of the positive in that which is immediately _beyond_ and above man--in some "voice of the Divinity" toning down the stream of ages, or speaking through a prophet or oracle, or written in some inspired and sacred book. They have sought for the authority of the natural in that which is immediately _within_ man--the voice of the Divinity speaking in the conscience and heart of man. A careful study of the history of religion will show a reciprocal relation between the two, and indicate their common source.

We expect to find that our hypothesis will be abundantly sustained by the study of the _Religion of the Athenians_.

CHAPTER III.

THE RELIGION OF THE ATHENIANS.

"All things which I behold bear witness to your carefulness in religion (de?s?da???est?????). For as I pa.s.sed through your city, and beheld the objects of your wors.h.i.+p, I found amongst them an altar with this inscription--'TO THE UNKNOWN G.o.d.' Whom therefore ye wors.h.i.+p...."--ST.

PAUL.

Through one of those remarkable counter-strokes of Divine Providence by which the evil designs of men are overruled, and made to subserve the purposes of G.o.d, the Apostle Paul was brought to Athens. He walked beneath its stately porticoes, he entered its solemn temples, he stood before its glorious statuary, he viewed its beautiful altars--all devoted to pagan wors.h.i.+p. And "his spirit was stirred within him," he was moved with indignation "when he saw the city full of images of the G.o.ds."[95] At the very entrance of the city he met the evidence of this peculiar tendency of the Athenians to multiply the objects of their devotion; for here at the gateway stands an image of Neptune, seated on horseback, and brandis.h.i.+ng the trident. Pa.s.sing through the gate, his attention would be immediately arrested by the sculptured forms of Minerva, Jupiter, Apollo, Mercury, and the Muses, standing near a sanctuary of Bacchus. A long street is now before him, with temples, statues, and altars crowded on either hand. Walking to the end of this street, and turning to the right, he entered the Agora, a public square surrounded with porticoes and temples, which were adorned with statuary and paintings in honor of the G.o.ds of Grecian mythology. Amid the plane-trees planted by the hand of Cimon are the statues of the deified heroes of Athens, Hercules and Theseus, and the whole series of the Eponymi, together with the memorials of the older divinities; Mercuries which gave the name to the streets on which they were placed; statues dedicated to Apollo as patron of the city and her deliverer from the plague; and in the centre of all the altar of the Twelve G.o.ds.

[Footnote 95: Lange's Commentary, Acts xvii. 16.]

Standing in the market-place, and looking up to the Areopagus, Paul would see the temple of Mars, from whom the hill derived its name. And turning toward the Acropolis, he would behold, closing the long perspective, a series of little sanctuaries on the very ledges of the rocks, shrines of Bacchus and aesculapius, Venus, Earth, and Ceres, ending with the lovely form of the Temple of Unwinged Victory, which glittered in front of the Propylaea.

If the apostle entered the "fivefold gates," and ascended the flight of stone steps to the platform of the Acropolis, he would find the whole area one grand composition of architecture and statuary dedicated to the wors.h.i.+p of the G.o.ds. Here stood the Parthenon, the Virgin House, the glorious temple which was erected during the proudest days of Athenian glory, an entire offering to Minerva, the tutelary divinity of Athens.

Within was the colossal statue of the G.o.ddess wrought in ivory and gold.

Outside the temple there stood another statue of Minerva, cast from the brazen spoils of Marathon; and near by yet another brazen Pallas, which was called by pre-eminence "the Beautiful."

Indeed, to whatever part of Athens the apostle wandered, he would meet the evidences of their "carefulness in religion," for every public place and every public building was a sanctuary of some G.o.d. The Metroum, or record-house, was a temple to the mother of the G.o.ds. The council-house held statues of Apollo and Jupiter, with an altar to Vesta. The theatre at the base of the Acropolis was consecrated to Bacchus. The Pnyx was dedicated to Jupiter on high. And as if, in this direction, the Attic imagination knew no bounds, abstractions were deified; altars were erected to Fame, to Energy, to Modesty, and even to Pity, and these abstractions were honored and wors.h.i.+pped as G.o.ds.

The impression made upon the mind of Paul was, that the city was literally "full of idols," or images of the G.o.ds. This impression is sustained by the testimony of numerous Greek and Roman writers.

Pausanias declares that Athens "had more images than all the rest of Greece;" and Petronius, the Roman satirist, says, "it was easier to find a G.o.d in Athens than a man."[96]

[Footnote 96: See Conybeare and Howson's "Life and Epistles of St.

Paul;" also, art. "Athens," in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, whence our account of the "sacred objects" in Athens is chiefly gathered.]

No wonder, then, that as Paul wandered amid these scenes "his spirit was stirred in him." He burned with holy zeal to maintain the honor of the true and only G.o.d, whom now he saw dishonored on every side. He was filled with compa.s.sion for those Athenians who, notwithstanding their intellectual greatness, had changed the glory of G.o.d into an image made in the likeness of corruptible man, and who really wors.h.i.+pped the creature _more_ than the Creator. The images intended to symbolize the invisible perfections of G.o.d were usurping the place of G.o.d, and receiving the wors.h.i.+p due alone to him. We may presume the apostle was not insensible to the beauties of Grecian art. The sublime architecture of the Propylaea and the Parthenon, the magnificent sculpture of Phidias and Praxiteles, could not fail to excite his wonder. But he remembered that those superb temples and this glorious statuary were the creation of the pagan spirit, and devoted to polytheistic wors.h.i.+p. The glory of the supreme G.o.d was obscured by all this symbolism. The creatures formed by G.o.d, the symbols of his power and presence in nature, the ministers of his providence and moral government, were receiving the honor due to him. Over all this scene of material beauty and aesthetic perfection there rose in dark and hideous proportions the errors and delusions and sins against the living G.o.d which Polytheism nurtured, and unable any longer to restrain himself, he commenced to "reason" with the crowds of Athenians who stood beneath the shadows of the plane-trees, or lounged beneath the porticoes that surrounded the Agora. Among these groups of idlers were mingled the disciples of Zeno and Epicurus, who "encountered" Paul. The nature of these "disputations" may be easily conjectured, The opinions of these philosophers are even now familiarly known: they are, in one form or another, current in the literature of modern times. Materialism and Pantheism still "encounter" Christianity.

The apostle a.s.serted the personal being and spirituality of one supreme and only G.o.d, who has in divers ways revealed himself to man, and therefore may be "known." He proclaimed that Jesus is the fullest and most perfect revelation of G.o.d--the _only_ "manifestation of G.o.d in the flesh." He pointed to his "resurrection" as the proof of his superhuman character and mission to the world. Some of his hearers were disposed to treat him with contempt; they represented him as an ignorant "babbler,"

who had picked up a few sc.r.a.ps of learning, and who now sought to palm them off as a "new" philosophy. But most of them regarded him with that peculiar Attic curiosity which was always anxious to be hearing some "new thing." So they led him away from the tumult of the market-place to the top of Mars' Hill, where, in its serene atmosphere, they might hear him more carefully, and said, "May we hear what this new doctrine is whereof thou speakest?"

Surrounded by these men of thoughtful, philosophic mind--men who had deeply pondered the great problem of existence, who had earnestly inquired after the "first principles of things;" men who had reasoned high of creation, fate, and providence; of right and wrong; of conscience, law, and retribution; and had formed strong and decided opinions on all these questions--he delivered his discourse on the _being_, the _providence_, the _spirituality_, and the _moral government_ of G.o.d.

This grand theme was suggested by an inscription he had observed on one of the altars of the city, which was dedicated "To the Unknown G.o.d." "Ye men of Athens! every thing which I behold bears witness to your _carefulness in religion_. For as I pa.s.sed by and beheld your sacred objects I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the Unknown G.o.d;'

whom, therefore, ye wors.h.i.+p, though ye know him not [adequately], Him declare I unto you." Starting from this point, the manifest carefulness of the Athenians in religion, and accepting this inscription as the evidence that they had some presentiment, some native intuition, some dim conception of the one true and living G.o.d, he strives to lead them to a deeper knowledge of Him. It is here conceded by the apostle that the Athenians were a _religious people_. The observations he had made during his short stay in Athens enabled him to bear witness that the Athenians were "a G.o.d-fearing people,"[97] and he felt that fairness and candor demanded that this trait should receive from him an ample recognition and a full acknowledgment. Accordingly he commences by saying in gentle terms, well fitted to conciliate his audience, "All things which I behold bear witness to your carefulness in religion." I recognize you as most devout; ye appear to me to be a G.o.d-fearing people,[98] for as I pa.s.sed by and beheld your sacred objects I found an altar with this inscription, "To the Unknown G.o.d," whom therefore ye wors.h.i.+p.