LiTERATiTRE.— S. D. F. Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Iiiinwrtaliti/, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 64!) ff. ; G. B. Stevens, Tfieol. of iST, do. 1899, p. 224 ff., Cliristian Doctrine of Salva- tion, do. 1905, p. 526 f. ; Expositor, 1st. ser. vii. [1878] 405-424, Srd. ser. vL [1887] 274-286, vii. [1888] 266-278 ; EBi ii. [1901]
1108- J. C. Lambert.
ETERNAL FIRE.— See Fire.
ETERNAL LIFE.— See Eternal and Life and Death.
ETHICS. — It is proposed in the present article not to discuss the vast subject of ethics in genei'al, but to attempt to ascertain what Avere the most striking points in which the ethical ideas of the Christians of the Apostolic Age diflered from those of earlier speculators on the subject.
1. Sources of information. — All our first-hand information is contained in the writings of the NT and of the Apostolic P'athers. Indirectly the works of later Christian authors, who treated the subject more systematically, may throw some light bj' way of inference on the conceptions of the Apos- tolic Age : for instance, if the treatment of the cardinal virtues by St. Augustine and others shows a marked difi'erence from the treatment found in pre-Christian writers, it may perhaps be rightly inferred that the difi'erence is due to ideas which already prevailed in the first generation of Chris- tians. But inferences of this sort are precarious, for it is hardly possible to ascertain accurately how far the other influences which contributed to the thought of the later writers were operative in the earliest age ; and in any case it is probable that later writings would not add anything of great importance to the general outline, which is all that is being attempted here. Attention will therefore be confined to the contemporary documents. And with respect to these, critical questions may be ignored. The accuracy of the historical narrative is not in question, and whatever may be the authorship or the precise date of the documents reviewed, they are all sufficientlj' early to reflect ethical ideas which belong to the Apostolic Age, and not those which belong to a later period.
2. General characteristics of ethical thought. — (1) Absence of systematic treatment. — Ethical ques- tions are constantly touched upon in the NT, but always more or less in connexion with particular cases as they arise, and never in connexion with a complete and thought-out system. Here there is a striking contrast with Greek philosophy. The
f)hilosophers tried to find a rational basis for human ife in all its relations. In ethics they discussed the question of the supreme good^whether it was knowledge, or pleasure, or virtue ; they classified the virtues, and discussed in the fullest manner their various manifestations. There is nothing of this sort in the NT. The morality of the Jews, again, was very different from that of the Greeks, for the Jews took little interest in purely philo- sojihical problems ; but they also had a system, and a very elaborate one, of law and of ceremonial observance, with which their morality was closely bound up. Although the Christians inherited so much from the Jews, this system, after being, as it were, raised to its highest power in the Sermon on the Mount, was definitely set aside in the Ajjostolic Age. And in the place of a system we find an overpowering interest in certain historical facts. The Synoptic Gospels are occupied with a fragmentary narrative of the life of Christ, in which a good deal of moral teaching is contained. But it is such as arises incidentally from the facts recorded in the narrative, and it is not jn-esented as part of a scheme of etliics. In the Fourth Gosjiel there is something more nearly resembling- systematic moral discussion, but even here the discourses arise out of a historical framework, and the prevailing interest is not ethical but spiritual and mystical. The Acts contains little but narra- tive, and the teaching recorded in it centres almost monotonously around facts. In the Epistles ethical questions are constantly dealt with, but the pro- blems are practical, and arise out of the circum- stances of the time. This is not to say that in these writings there is no new point of view, but that ethics is nowhere treated in a comjjlete and systematic way, and that there apjiears to be no
ETHICS
ETHICS
371
consciousness on the part of the writers that they are in possession of a new ethical theory or philo- sopliy. Tlie difference, therefore, between pre- Cliristian and Cliristian ethics does not consist in a new theory or system. The subject was treated in the Apostolic Age from the practical point of view.
(2) The moral ideal. — A new element is, however, introduced into ethics by that very concentration upon a single historical life which has been noted above. The ideal man had figured largely in earlier ethical systems, but the ideal man of philo- sophy had been entirely a creation of the imagina- tion, and his actual existence never seems to have been thought of as a jjractical possibility. Now, liowever, an actual human life is put forward as a model of perfection, and it is assumed without dis- cussion that all ethical questions, as they may happen to arise, may be, and must be, tested by this.
(3) The new life. — There is, moreover, in the consciousness of the Apostolic Age something more potent than belief in a historical example. There is a sense which pervades every writing of this time that a new force has come into existence. It is not necessary to insist ujion the prominence in early Christian teaching of the belief in the Ilesurrection. The continued life and activity of the Person who is the centre of all their thought were the greatest of all realities to the early Christians. \Vith it was combined the belief in the continual indwelling and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And this seems to exjilain the apparent indifference to ethical theory which has been noted. For to the early Christians 'outward morality is the necessary ex- pression of a life already infused into the soul ' (Strong, Christian Ethics, p. 69). It is in this respect that the Christian conception presents the most marked contrast to pre-Christian thought. There was a note of hopelessness in the moral speculation of the Greeks. Even a high ideal was a thing regarded as practically out of reach for the mass of mankind. Plato looked ujDon the ideal State as a necessary condition for the exercise of the highest virtue, and its conception was a wonderful effort of the philosophical imagination ; Imt it was not considered possible. Even the aj)parently practical conceptions of Aristotle re- quire a complete reconstruction of society. The Stoic philosophers abandoned this dream, and could suggest nothing better than the withdrawal of the wise man from all ordinarj' human interests. The Neo-Platonist went further, and sought complete severance from the world of sense. Jewish thought was on different lines, but there was an even keener sense of sin and failure, although this was redeemed from despair by the hope of a Messianic Age which would redress all the evils of the existing order. Above all there was no sufficient solution, and among the Greeks little attempt at a solution, of the problem of how the human will was to be sufficiently strengtliened to do its part in the realization of any ideal. In the writings of the Apostolic Age, on the other hand, there is found not only a belief in a perfect ideal historically realized, but also a belief in an indwelling power sufficient to restore all that is weak and depraved in the human will.