Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

of positive or special defect, but to awaken the inquisitive faculties, and lead to the rational comprehension of vice and virtue, as referable to determinate general principles.

Now, this latter side of the master's physiognomy, which Xeno phon records distinctly, though without emphasis or development, acquires almost exclusive prominence in the Platonic picture. Plato leaves out the practical, and consecrates himself to the theoretical Sokratês, whom he divests in part of his identity, in order to enrol him as chief speaker in certain larger theoretical views of his own. The two pictures, therefore, do not contradict each other, but mutually supply each other's defects, and admit of being blended into one consistent whole. And respecting the method of Sokrates a point more characteristic than either his precepts or his theory-as well as respecting the effects of that method on the minds of hearers, both Xenophon and Plato are witnesses substan tially in unison; though here again the latter has made the method his own, worked it out on a scale of enlargement and perfection, and given to it a permanence which it could never have derived from its original author, who only talked, and never wrote. It is fortunate that our two main witnesses about him, both speaking from personal knowledge, agree to so great an extent.* Similar opinions might easily be multiplied, e. g., "For the personal history and customary manners of Socrates, I need not inform you that you are to refer to Plato and to Xenophon, and to form your estimate from both."+ To fill up the blank which Xenophon has manifestly left, we are driven back to the Socrates of Plato." "The Memorabilia,' which of all the works of Xenophon have most of an historical value, with respect to Socrates personally, are in the samé degree unsatisfactory as to his doctrines, since the author... was but ill-qualified to form a due estimate of the Socratic philo sophy. The Platonic writings, in their scientific portions, arei equally unavailable as guides in this inquiry; since, with the excep tion of a few unconnected remarks, they do not furnish us with any means whereby we might distinguish the Platonic from the Socratic." §

66

Even on this subject, however, we find striking differences of opinion expressed by men well qualified to judge; e. g., it has been said that In the Socrates of Plato we find both the Aristophanic and the Xenophontic Socrates, -the mere humourist and debater, and the mere moralist, uniting to form the real man."{\ Again, in direct opposition to this, it has been asserted that,

* 66 History of Greece," vol. viii., chap. 68, pp. 347-352.

† W. A. But'er's "Lectures on Ancient Philosophy," vol. i., lect. vii., p. 367. Schleirmacher, "On the Worth of Socrates as a Philosopher," ""Berlin Transactions, 1815, and translated by Bishop Thirlwall in "The Philological Museum," vol. ii., 1832.

[ocr errors]

§ Ritter's History of Ancient Philosophy," vol. ii., Morrison's translation. "Oxford, Talboys," p. 41.

Maurice's "Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy. Ancient Ency. Met.," p. 122

"We are not to look in the Socrates of Plato for the real, living Socrates." *

We have already given in our adhesion to the decision of Grote. We defer, for the present, the inquiry regarding the Socratic element in Plato's works, because that will naturally require careful consideration in our subsequent paper on "Plato; his Life and Writings:" though we need not here hesitate to express the general conviction that there are genuine Socratic elements in the Apology' of Socrates, the "Crito," and the "Phædo;" and probably in the "Hippias," major and minor, "Phædrus, &c." As Xenophon can only turn up again incidentally, it may be advisable here to give a brief notion of the contents of his "Memorabilia" of Socrates.

[ocr errors]

It was during the absence of Xenophon, while engaged in the celebrated expedition of the Ten Thousand (B.c. 401-399), for the dethronement of Artaxerxes, and the enthronement of Cyrus, that Socrates was accused, condemned, and perished, by the unjust decree of the restlessly jealous and capricious population of Athens. In an undeserved exile,-perhaps in great part owing to his having been a disciple of Socrates, and while superintending the education of his two children at Sparta, the warrior-historian penned the defence of his master in the "Memorabilia,"'-a book which commences with the following naïve statement:-"I have often wondered by what arguments the accusers of Socrates persuaded the Athenians that he deserved death from the state." In the first book he examines and disproves, by facts known and patent, the accusation made; shows his piety to the gods, and the morality of his life. In the second book, the various branches of personal duty which were enforced by Socrates are mentioned, and insisted on, in the terms which his master used, as proofs of his innocency. In the third book, the opinions of Socrates on public duty, civil and military virtues, justice, &c., are reported and defended; and in the fourth book, the religiousness of Socrates is argued, maintained, and exemplified. There is contained in the "Memorabilia," therefore, a cumulative defence, viz.-a direct negation of both parts of the accusation, with exemplifications and facts in proof of his thesis,—the innocence of Socrates. Then there follow elaborate confutations, arising from the practices and tenets of the noblest of Athenian controversialists, with regard to self-government, or personal duty; justice, or public duty; and religion, or duty to the gods. Xenophon lived long in terms of close and observant intimacy with Socrates; he had no pretensions to originality of thought on philosophic topics; his own mind was essentially poetical; and he was but slightly skilled in the perceptive faculties to comprehend the larger and wider-the exotic-teachings of his master. The full sense and spirit of Socrates are not, therefore, likely to be exhibited in Xenophon. We are on this account, however, far more likely to have a genuine and unadulterated outline of such part of Socratic

* Sewell, "On the Dialogues of Plato," p. 78.

thought as he reports upon, and was able to appreciate and expound. Plato again interpenetrated the Socratic tenets with the finer issues of his own original mind, and we cannot be sure that we have the thoughts of Socrates, though we may have his method and much of his expression. Xenophon appealed to the Athenians as fellowwitnesses with him of the truthfulness of his report. Plato appears to have indulged in a sort of dramatic idealization of his master; but then he would have destroyed the vraisemblance essential to his purpose, had we not in his dialogues much of the cast, tone, style, thought, mannerisms, &c., of his representative man. From both we gain much; from neither all. We must still construct, by critical thought, a Socrates for ourselves, and do that as honestly as we can. If we wish to comprehend the philosophy of Socrates," we must rely greatly, it is evident, upon the vigorous Attic commander, as well as upon the Ionic thinker, whose grace, wit, and dramaticism have so much more captivated the world.

66

This question of authorities has really carried us much farther than we at first intended, and we must now resolutely turn aside from this criticism, and endeavour to bring before our mind's eye some clearly intelligible account of the peculiar tenets and opinions, practices, and personal beliefs, which enabled Socrates to take a place in the erudite city of Athens as one of the most remarkable citizens, and in history as an Epoch Man.

[ocr errors]

was

In philosophy, what constitutes an epoch? A method. "A method," says Lewes, with his usual emphatization of idea, his all in all..... Previous philosophies had shown the futility of speculation; certitude was nowhere to be had; all theories were but the conceit of knowledge. The method which he taught was that by which alone man could become wiser and better. Socrates thought explicitly, teaching no method or mode of searching for truth; he was himself consciously possessed of a system, a plan of procedure, a logic of investigation. This is evident, not only from the sameness of the course adopted by him in all his conversational exercitations, but also from the genuine impression made upon his pupils, that science-knowledge-was the result of a process not so much of education as of eduction;—it was not taught, it was drawn out. Even when ignorant of the peculiarities and processes of his method, they were never at a loss to comprehend the special aim he kept constantly before him, viz.,-to make each man capable of thinking for himself. He sought by controversy to excite the mind to thought, in perfect confidence that, if it worked honestly, it would attain to truth, or something near it. Socraticism was, in fact, a cross-examining controversialism; a turning of thought against thought, "not to contradict nor to believe, but to weigh and to consider." His style of thought was a realization of the Miltonic maxim, "Let truth and falsehood grapple. Who ever knew truth to be worsted in a fair and open encounter ?"

* "Biographical History of Philosophy," second edition, p. 134.

Religion.

IS THE CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-IV.

THERE is an old story which I dare say most of the readers of the British Controversialist have heard, over and over again, to the effect that when the celebrated Royal Society was in its infancy, the merry monarch, Charles II., who loved a good joke, proposed to the members the following question, "How can the fact be explained, that when a large fish is thrown into a tub quite full of water, the water will, nevertheless, not overflow the brim ?" Many learned papers were read on the subject, and many were the theories devised to account for the extraordinary fact, until, at length, one of the members proved to the rest by actual experiment, that the singular fact which they had been trying to explain was, after all, no fact at all. I do not know whether any of my Protestant readers have noticed it, but I think they will find upon examination that the conduct of the negative writers in the present debate has been very similar to that of the members of the learned Society to which I have alluded. A great deal has been said which has not the slightest bearing upon the question at the head of these pages, we have had many answers to arguments which no one has advanced; we have been treated to long dissertations to show that certain texts do not prove the infallibility of the Catholic Church, when no one has said that they did; and, instead of showing that the Catholic Rule of Faith, as laid down by the Catholic Church herself, is "not true, our opponents have confined themselves to refuting some imaginary theory of their own, which they dignify with the name of the Catholic Rule of Faith. They have "set up a man of straw, for the pleasure of knocking him down."

Now, in the first article, "Ignatius" very properly commenced by explaining the nature of the Catholic Rule of Faith, and gave the definition of the Rule in the very words of the Council of Trent, the highest authority with Catholics. The definition which, to avoid, I suppose, all disputes about mere words, was given also in the original Latin, was elucidated from the comments of our best divines. Why have our opponents not attempted to show the falsity of the rule there laid down? Why are Montgomery" and "Lex Scripta," and especially the latter, so angry with Ignatius for "stating" the Catholic Rule of Faith in the words of the highest Catholic authority? Simply because it is different from the imagi nary rule against which their articles are directed, and they find it impossible to attack the Catholic theory without (unintentionally, perhaps,) distorting it. Where have our opponents found out that

[ocr errors]

the Catholic Rule of Faith is the priest of the parish? (page 164) where have they found out that the traditions of the Catholic Church are merely "old wives' fables"? (page 25) where have they found out that infallibility means exemption from sin? (page 168.)

66

66

[ocr errors]

You shall know

Theophylact says in the first article, that the principal passage to which Catholics appeal to prove the infallibility of the Church is the text, "Thou art Peter," &c. Now, although part of this passage may be used for the purpose, it is not the principal text. The principal texts have been quoted by other writers on the affirmative side; and neither Theophylact nor any other writers have attempted to evade their force. I will venture to repeat them. 'And Jesus came and spake unto his apostles, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. him, because he shall abide with you and in you: but when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." "My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, from henceforth and for ever.' "He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me." Before our opponents can disprove the infallibility of the Catholic Church, they must show that Christ has failed in his promise to be with His church till the end of the world; they must prove that the Spirit of truth has not abided with the church; they must prove that the Holy Ghost, who teaches through the church, does not teach truth; they must prove that the "words which Christ has put in the mouth of the church" have departed; they must maintain that Christ himself teaches error, for He has said to His church, "He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me."

Theophylact, after informing us that "the Romish Church has no Scripture authority for the doctrine of infallibility," breaks off into a line of reasoning which would be much more appropriate in a debate on the supremacy of the Pope. All I can tell him is, that to give his theory even a semblance of plausibility, he would have to prove that our Lord was in the habit of speaking in the Greek tongue to a few illiterate Galilean fishermen. Almost every eminent Biblical scholar will tell Theophylact that the language in which our Lord conversed with his apostles was the Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular language of the country. This is the language of the very few passages in which the very words of our Lord have been preserved; such as "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!" Now, in the Syro-Chaldaic language the words for Peter (or Cephas) and for rock are identical. The word which expresses both is KIPHON,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »