Christianity and Greek Philosophy Part 10

[Footnote 147: "Republic," bk. ii. ch. xx. Much more to the same effect may be seen in ch. ii.]

[Footnote 148: "Republic," bk. ii. ch. xxi.]

[Footnote 149: Max Muller, "Science of Language," 2d series, p. 433.]

It is an obvious truth, attested by the voice of universal consciousness as revealed in history, that the human mind can never rest satisfied within the sphere of sensible phenomena. Man is impelled by an inward necessity to pa.s.s, in thought, beyond the boundary-line of sense, and inquire after causes and ent.i.ties which his reason a.s.sures him must lie beneath all sensible appearances. He must and will interpret nature according to the forms of his own personality, or according to the fundamental ideas of his own reason. In the childlike subjectivity of the undisciplined mind he will either transfer to nature the phenomena of his own personality, regarding the world as a living organism which has within it an informing soul, and thus attain a _pantheistic_ conception of the universe; or else he will fix upon some extraordinary and inexplicable phenomenon of nature, and, investing it with _super_natural significance, will rise from thence to a religious and _theocratic_ conception of nature as a whole. An intelligence--a mind _within_ nature, and inseparable from nature, or else _above_ nature and governing nature, is, for man, an inevitable thought.

It is equally obvious that humanity can never relegate itself from a supernatural origin, neither can it ever absolve itself from a permanent correlation with the Divine. Man feels within him an instinctive n.o.bility. He did not arise out of the bosom of nature; in some mysterious way he has descended from an eternal mind, he is "the offspring of G.o.d." And furthermore, a theocratic conception of nature, a.s.sociated with a pre-eminent regard for certain apparently supernatural experiences in the history of humanity, becomes the foundation of governments, of civil authority, and of laws. Society can not be founded without the aid of the Deity, and a commonwealth can only be organized by Divine interposition. "A Ceres must appear and sow the fields with corn." And a Numa or a Lycurgus must be heralded by the oracle as

"Dear to Jove, and all who sit in the halls of the Olympus."

He must be a "descendant of Zeus," appointed by the G.o.ds to rule, and one who will "prove himself a G.o.d." These divinely-appointed rulers were regarded as the ministers of G.o.d, the visible representatives of the unseen Power which really governs all. The divine government must also have its invisible agents--its Nemesis, and Themis, and Dike, the ministers of law, of justice, and of retribution; and its Jupiter, and Juno, and Neptune, and Pluto, ruling, with delegated powers, in the heavens, the air, the sea, and the nethermost regions. So that, in fact, there exists no nation, no commonwealth, no history without a Theophany, and along with it certain sacred legends detailing the origin of the people, the government, the country itself, and the world at large. This is especially true of India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Their primitive history is eminently _mythological_.

Grecian polytheism can not be otherwise regarded than as a poetico-historical religion of _myth_ and _symbol_ which is under-laid by a natural Theism; a parasitical growth which winds itself around the original stem of instinctive faith in a supernatural Power and Presence which pervades the universe. The myths are oral traditions, floating down from that dim; twilight of _poetic_ history, which separates real history, with its fixed chronology, from the unmeasured and unrecorded eternity--faint echoes from that mystic border-land which divides the natural from the supernatural, and in which they seem to have been marvellously commingled. They are the lingering memories of those manifestations of G.o.d to men, in which he or his celestial ministers came into visible intercourse with our race; the reality of which is attested by sacred history. In all these myths there is a theogonic and cosmogonic element. They tell of the generation of the celestial and aerial divinities--the subordinate agents and ministers of the Divine government. They attempt an explanation of the genesis of the visible universe, the origin of humanity, and the development of human society.

In the presence of history, the substance of these myths is preserved by _symbols_, that is, by means of natural or artificial, real or striking objects, which, by some a.n.a.logy or arbitrary a.s.sociation, shall suggest the _idea_ to the mind. These symbols were designed to represent the invisible attributes and operations of the Deity; the powers that vitalize nature, that control the elements, that preside over cities, that protect the nations: indeed, all the agencies of the physical and moral government of G.o.d. Beneath all the pagan legends of G.o.ds, and underlying all the elaborate mechanism of pagan worship, there are unquestionably philosophical ideas, and theological conceptions, and religious sentiments, which give as meaning, and even a mournful grandeur to the whole.

Whilst the pagan polytheistic worship is, under one aspect, to be regarded as a departure from G.o.d, inasmuch as it takes away the honor due to G.o.d alone, and transfers it to the creature; still, under another aspect, we can not fail to recognize in it the effort of the human mind to fill up the chasm that seemed, to the undisciplined mind, to separate G.o.d and man--and to bridge the gulf between the visible and the invisible, the finite and the infinite. It was unquestionably an attempt to bring G.o.d nearer to the sense and comprehension of man. It had its origin in that instinctive yearning after the supernatural, the Divine, which dwells in all human hearts, and which has revealed itself in all philosophies, mysticisms, and religions.[150] This longing was stimulated by the contemplation of the living beauty and grandeur of the visible universe, which, to the lively fancy and deep feeling of the Greeks, seemed as the living vesture of the Infinite Mind,--the temple of the eternal Deity. In this visible universe the Divinity was partly revealed, and partly concealed. The unity of the all-pervading Intelligence was veiled beneath an apparent diversity of power, and a manifoldness of operations. They caught some glimpses of this universal presence in nature, but were more immediately and vividly impressed by the several manifestations of the divine perfections and divine operations, as so many separate rays of the Divinity, or so many subordinate agents and functionaries employed to execute the will and carry out the purposes of the Supreme Mind.[151] That unseen, incomprehensible Power and Presence was perceived in the sublimity of the deep blue sky, the energy of the vitalizing sun, the surging of the sea, the rushing wind, the roaring thunder, the ripening corn, and the cl.u.s.tering vine. To these separate manifestations of the Deity they gave _personal names_, as Jupiter to the heavens, Juno to the air, Neptune to the sea, Ceres to the corn, and Bacchus to the vine. These personals denoted, not the things themselves, but the invisible, divine powers supposed to preside over those several departments of nature. By a kind of prosopopia "they spake of the things in nature, and parts of the world, as persons--and consequently as so many G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses--yet so as the intelligent might easily understand their meaning, _that these were in reality nothing else but so many names and notions of that one Numen,--divine force and power which runs through all the world, multiformly displaying itself._"[152] "Their various deities were but different names, different conceptions, of that Incomprehensible Being which no _thought_ can reach, and no _language_ express."[153] Having given to these several manifestations of the Divinity personal names, they now sought to represent them to the eye of sense by _visible forms_, as the symbols or images of the perfections of the unseen, the incomprehensible, the unknown G.o.d. And as the Greeks regarded man as the first and n.o.blest among the phenomena of nature, they selected the human form as the highest sensible manifestation of G.o.d, the purest symbol of the Divinity. Grecian polytheism was thus a species of _mythical anthropomorphism_.

[Footnote 150: The original const.i.tution of man is such that he "seeks after" G.o.d Acts xvii. 27. "All men yearn after the G.o.ds" (Homer, "Odyss." iii. 48).]

[Footnote 151: "Heathenism springs directly from this, that the mind lays undue stress upon the bare letter in the book of creation; that it separates and individualizes its objects as far as possible; that it places the sense of the individual part, in opposition to the sense of the whole,--to the _a.n.a.logia fidei_ or _spiritus_ which alone gives unity to the book of nature, while it dilutes and renders as transitory as possible the sense of the universal in the whole.... And as it laid great stress upon the letter in the book of nature, it fell into polytheism. The particular symbol of the divine, or of the G.o.dhead, became a myth of some special deity."--Lange's "Bible-work," Genesis, p.

23.]

[Footnote 152: Cudworth, "Intellect. System," vol. i. p. 308.]

[Footnote 153: Max Muller, "Science of Language," p. 431.]

A philosophy of Grecian mythology, such as we have outlined in the preceding paragraphs, is, in our judgment, perfectly consistent with the views announced by Paul in his address to the Athenians. He intimates that the Athenians "thought that the G.o.dhead was _like unto_ (? ?a?

?????)--to be imaged or represented by human art--by gold, and silver, and precious stone graven by art, and device of man;" that is, they thought the perfections of G.o.d could be represented to the eye by an image, or symbol. The views of Paul are still more articulately expressed in Romans, i. 23, 25: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible G.o.d into the _similitude of an image_ of corruptible man,.... and they worshipped and served the thing made, pa??--_rather_ than, or _more_ than the Creator." Here, then, the apostle intimates, first, that the heathen _knew_ G.o.d,[154] and that they worshipped G.o.d.

They worshipped the creature besides or even more than G.o.d, but still they also worshipped G.o.d. And, secondly, they represented the perfections of G.o.d by an image, and under this, as a "_likeness_" or symbol, they indirectly worshipped G.o.d. Their religious system was, then, even to the eye of Paul, a _symbolic_ worship--that is, the objects of their devotion were the _????ata_--the similitudes, the likenesses, the images of the perfections of the invisible G.o.d.

[Footnote 154: Verse 21.]

It is at once conceded by us, that the "sensus numinis," the natural intuition of a Supreme Mind, whose power and presence are revealed in nature, can not maintain itself, as an influential, and vivifying, and regulative belief amongst men, without the continual supernatural interposition of G.o.d; that is, without a succession of Divine revelations. And further, we grant that, instead of this symbolic mode of worship deepening and vitalizing the sense of G.o.d as a living power and presence, there is great danger that the symbol shall at length unconsciously take the place of G.o.d, and be worshipped instead of Him.

From the purest form of symbolism which prevailed in the earliest ages, there may be an inevitable descent to the rudest form of false worship, with its accompanying darkness, and abominations, and crimes; but, at the same time, let us do justice to the religions of the ancient world--the childhood stammerings of religious life--which were something more than the inventions of designing men, or the mere creations of human fancy; they were, in the words of Paul, "a _seeking after G.o.d_, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, who is not far from any one of us." It can not be denied that the more thoughtful and intelligent Greeks regarded the visible objects of their devotion as mere symbols of the perfections and operations of the unseen G.o.d, and of the invisible powers and subordinate agencies which are employed by him in his providential and moral government of the world. And whatever there was of misapprehension and of "ignorance" in the popular mind, we have the a.s.surance of Paul that it was "_overlooked_" by G.o.d.

The views here presented will, we venture to believe, be found most in harmony with a true philosophy of the human mind; with the religious phenomena of the world; and, as we shall subsequently see, with the writings of those poets and philosophers who may be fairly regarded as representing the sentiments and opinions of the ancient world. At the same time, we have no desire to conceal the fact that this whole question as to the origin, and character, and philosophy of the mythology and symbolism of the religions of the ancient world has been a subject of earnest controversy from Patristic times down to the present hour, and that even to-day there exists a wide diversity of opinion among philosophers, as well as theologians.

The princ.i.p.al theories offered may be cla.s.sed as the _ethical_, the _physical_, and the _historical_, according to the different objects the framers of the myths are supposed to have had in view. Some have regarded the myths as invented by the priests and wise men of old for the improvement and government of society, as designed to give authority to laws, and maintain social order.[155] Others have regarded them as intended to be allegorical interpretations of physical phenomena--the poetic embodiment of the natural philosophy of the primitive races of men;[156] whilst others have looked upon them as historical legends, having a substratum of fact, and, when stripped of the supernatural and miraculous drapery which accompanies fable, as containing the history of primitive times.[157] Some of the latter cla.s.s have imagined they could recognize in Grecian mythology traces of sacred personages, as well as profane; in fact, a dimmed image of the patriarchal traditions which are preserved in the Old Testament scriptures.[158]

It is beyond our design to discuss all the various theories presented, or even to give a history of opinions entertained.[159] We are fully convinced that the hypothesis we have presented in the preceding pages, viz., _that Grecian mythology was a grand symbolic representation of the Divine as manifested in nature and providence_, is the only hypothesis which meets and harmonizes all the facts of the case. This is the theory of Plato, of Cudworth, Baumgarten, Max Muller, and many other distinguished scholars.

[Footnote 155: Empedocles, Metrodorus.]

[Footnote 156: Aristotle.]

[Footnote 157: Hecataeus, Herodotus, some of the early Fathers, Niebuhr, J.H. Voss, Arnold.]

[Footnote 158: Bochart, G.J. Vossius, Faber, Gladstone.]

[Footnote 159: To the English reader who desires an extended and accurate acquaintance with the cla.s.sic and patristic literature of this deeply interesting subject, we commend the careful study of Cudworth's "Intellectual System of the Universe," especially ch. iv. The style of Cudworth is perplexingly involved, and his great work is unmethodical in its arrangement and discussion. Nevertheless, the patient and persevering student will be amply rewarded for his pains. A work of more profound research into the doctrine of antiquity concerning G.o.d, and into the real import of the religious systems of the ancient world, is, probably, not extant in any language.]

There are two fundamental propositions laid down by Cudworth which const.i.tute the basis of this hypothesis.

1. _No well-authenticated instance can be furnished from among the Greek Polytheists of one who taught the existence of a multiplicity of independenty uncreated, self-existent deities; they almost universally_ _believed in the existence of_ ONE SUPREME, UNCREATED, ETERNAL G.o.d, "_The Maker of all things_"--"_the Father of G.o.ds and men_,"--"_the sole Monarch and Ruler of the world_."

2. _The Greek Polytheists taught a plurality of_"GENERATED DEITIES,"

_who owe their existence to the power and will of the Supreme G.o.d, who are by Him invested with delegated powers, and who, as the agents of his universal providence, preside over different departments of the created universe_.

The evidence presented by Cudworth in support of his theses is so varied and so voluminous, that it defies all attempts at condensation. His volumes exhibit an extent of reading, of patient research, and of varied learning, which is truly amazing. The discussion of these propositions involves, in fact, nothing less than a complete and exhaustive survey of the entire field of ancient literature, a careful study of the Greek and Latin poets, of the Oriental, Greek, and Alexandrian philosophers, and a review of the statements and criticisms of Rabbinical and Patristic writers in regard to the religions of the pagan world. An adequate conception of the varied and weighty evidence which is collected by our author from these fields, in support of his views, could only be conveyed by transcribing to our pages the larger portion of his memorable _fourth_ chapter. But inasmuch as Grecian polytheism is, in fact, the culmination of all the mythological systems of the ancient world, the fully-developed flower and ripened fruit of the cosmical and theological conceptions of the childhood-condition of humanity, we propose to epitomize the results of his inquiry as to the _theological_, opinions of the Greeks, supplying additional confirmation of his views from other sources.

And first, he proves most conclusively that Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod,[160] who are usually designated "the theologians" of Greece, but who were in fact the depravers and corrupters of pagan theology, do not teach the existence of a mult.i.tude of _unmade, self-existent, and independent deities_. Even they believed in the existence of _one_ uncreated and eternal mind, _one Supreme G.o.d_, anterior and superior to all the G.o.ds of their mythology. They had some intuition, some apperception of the _Divine_, even before they had attached to it a sacred name. The G.o.ds of their mythology had all, save one, a temporal origin; they were generated of Chaos and Night, by an active principle called _Love_. "One might suspect," says Aristotle, that Hesiod, and if there be any other who made _love_ or _desire_ a principle of things, aimed at these very things (viz., the designation of the efficient cause of the world); for Parmenides, describing the generation of the universe, says:

'First of all the G.o.ds planned he _love_;'

and further, Hesiod:

'First of all was Chaos, afterwards Earth, With her s.p.a.cious bosom, And _Love_, who is pre-eminent among all the immortals;'

as intimating here that in ent.i.ties there should exist some _cause_ that will impart motion, and hold bodies in union together. But how, in regard to these, one ought to distribute them, as to the order of priority, can be decided afterwards.[161]

[Footnote 160: We do not concern ourselves with the chronological antecedence of these ancient Greek poets. It is of little consequence to us whether Homer preceded Orpheus, or Orpheus Homer. They were not the real creators of the mythology of ancient Greece. The myths were a spontaneous growth of the earliest human thought even before the separation of the Aryan family into its varied branches.

The study of Comparative Mythology, as well as of Comparative Language, a.s.sures us that the myths had an origin much earlier than the times of Homer and Orpheus. They floated down from ages on the tide of oral tradition before they were systematized, embellished, and committed to writing by Homer, and Orpheus, and Hesiod. And between the systems of these three poets a perceptible difference is recognizable, which reflects the changes that verbal recitations necessarily and imperceptibly undergo.]

[Footnote 161: "Metaphysics," bk. i. ch. iv.]

Now whether this "first principle," called "_Love_," "the cause of motion and of union" in the universe, was regarded as a personal Being, and whether, as the ancient scholiast taught, Hesiod's love was "the heavenly Love, which is also G.o.d, that other love that was born of Venus being junior," is just now of no moment to the argument. The more important inference is, that amongst the G.o.ds of Pagan theology but _one_ is self-existent, or else none are. Because the Hesiodian G.o.ds, which are, in fact, all the G.o.ds of the Greek mythology, "were either all of them derived from chaos, love itself likewise being generated out of it; or else love was supposed to be distinct from chaos, and the active principle of the universe, from whence, together with chaos, all the theogony and cosmogony was derived."[162] Hence it is evident the poets did not teach the existence of a multiplicity of unmade, self-existent, independent deities.

[Footnote 162: "Cudworth," vol. i. p. 287.]

The careful reader of Cudworth will also learn another truth of the utmost importance in this connection, viz., _that the theogony of the Greek poets was, in fact, a cosmogony_, the generation of the G.o.ds being, in reality, the generation of the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the various powers and phenomena of nature. This is dimly shadowed forth in the very names which are given to some of these divinities. Thus Helios is the sun, Selena is the moon, Zeus the sky--the deep blue heaven, Eos the dawn, and Erse the dew. It is rendered still more evident by the opening lines of Hesiod's "Theogonia," in which he invokes the muses:

"Hail ye daughters of Jupiter! Grant a delightsome song.

Tell of the race of immortal G.o.ds, always existing, Who are the offspring of the earth, of the starry sky, And of the gloomy night, whom also the ocean nourisheth.

Tell how the G.o.ds and the earth at first were made, And the rivers, and the mighty deep, boiling with waves, And the glowing stars, and the broad heavens above, And the G.o.ds, givers of good, born of these."

Where we see plainly that the generation of the G.o.ds is the generation of the earth, the heaven, the stars, the seas, the rivers, and other things produced by them. "But immediately after invocation of the Muses the poet begins with Chaos, and Tartara, and Love, as the first principles, and then proceeds to the production of the earth and of night out of chaos; of the ether and of day, from night; of the starry heavens, mountains, and seas. All which generation of G.o.ds is really nothing but a poetic description of the cosmogonia; as through the sequel of the poem all seems to be physiology veiled under fiction and allegory.... Hesiod's G.o.ds are thus not only the animated parts of the world, but also the other things of nature personified and deified, or abusively called G.o.ds and G.o.ddesses."[163] The same is true both of the Orphic and Homeric G.o.ds. "Their generation of the G.o.ds is the same with the generation or creation of the world, both of them having, in all probability, derived it from the Mosaic cabala, or tradition."[164]

But in spite of all this mythological obscuration, the belief in one Supreme G.o.d is here and there most clearly recognizable. "That Zeus was originally to the Greeks the Supreme G.o.d, the true G.o.d--nay, at some time their only G.o.d--can be perceived in spite of the haze which mythology has raised around his name."[165] True, they sometimes used the word "Zeus" in a physical sense to denote the deep expanse of heaven, and sometimes in a historic sense, to designate a hero or deified man said to have been born in Crete. It is also true that the Homeric Zeus is full of contradictions. He is "all-seeing," yet he is cheated; he is "omnipotent," yet he is defied; he is "eternal," yet he has a father; he is "just," yet he is guilty of crime. Now, as Muller very justly remarks, these contradictions may teach us a lesson. If all the conceptions of Zeus had sprung from one origin, these contradictions could not have existed. If Zeus had simply and only meant the Supreme G.o.d, he could not have been the son of Kronos (Time). If, on the other hand, Zeus had been a mere mythological personage, as Eos, the dawn, and Helios, the sun, he could never have been addressed as he is addressed in the famous prayer of Achilles (Iliad, bk. xxi.).[166]

[Footnote 163: Cudworth, vol. i. pp. 321, 332.]

[Footnote 164: Id., ib., vol. i. p. 478.]

[Footnote 165: Max Muller, "Science of Language," p. 457.]

[Footnote 166: Id., ib., p. 458.]