Stoicism and Ciikistianitv. The Stoics and Epicureans, who are mentioned together in Acts xvii, 18, represent the two ojiposite schools of practical phi- los()])hy which survived the fall of higher speculation in (Jreece. See Piiii.osoi'hv. (Jiskkk.
1. Jiiblical Connection. — The principles of these sects require notice under this head only in so far as they are related to the teaching of the a[)ostle, who, we arc told, was rcg;irded as •■ a setter-forth of strange gods, because he ])reached to them .lesns aii<l the resurrection." The doctrine of the resurrection of the body, or even of the innnortality of the soul, would indeed be fundamentally at variance both wiih the materialism of the Epicureans and with the pantheism of the Stoics.
The former, considering the soid to be. like other sub- stances, a body composed of atoms, naturally concluded that it was resolved by death into its constituent ele-
STOICISM
1037
STOICS
ments; and even more rapidly than the body, as consist- ing of finer and more volatile particles (Lucret. iii, 178 sq., 4'26 sq. ; Diog. Laert. x, G3-t57). The doctrine of the dissolution of the soul was even valued by these philos- ophers on account of its consolatory character, as ena- bling men to despise the terrors of the invisible world, and to look forward without fear to a release from the evils of life in the annihilation of their personal exist- ence (Lucret. iii, 84'2, 850-854 ; coinp. iii, 37 ; Diog. Laert. x, 124, 125). See Epicukean I'hii.osoimiv.
The Stoics, on the other hand, from very opposite premises, arrived at a similar conclusion. With them the soul of man was regarded as a portion and fragment (if the divine principle of the universe (Epictet. JJiss. i, 14, 6 : ai xj^vxai • • • ovvcKpttQ T(iJ Bnpi utb avTov fiopux oixrai Kcil anoaTTaajiaTa ; M. Antonin. De Rebus sirin, ix, 8: eIq to. XoyiKci /.lict I'otpa i^i/y)) fifiiiptnrai; ibid. xii, 30: )^ua voipa ipvx'lr "^'t*' ^"|^:^Kplff^al ^okij), sidi- ject to that necessity bj' which the universe is governed, having no independent existence or action of its own, and destined, not indeed to perish with the body, but, when a certain cycle of duration was accomplished, to be absorbed back again into the source from which it came (Seneca, Consol. ad Mareiam, c. 26 : " Nos quoque, felices animas et aeterna sortitiB, quum Deo visum erit iterum ista moliri, labentibus cunctis, et ipsa; parva ruiniB ingentis accessio, in antiqua elementa vertemur" [see Zeller, Philos. der Griechen, iii, 105]). It was a maxim of the Stoical philosophy that whatever has a beginning must also have an end (Cicero, Tusc. I)hp. i, 32 : Vult enim [Panietius] quod nemo negat, quidquid iiatum sit, interire; nasci autem aiiimos). They ac- Icnowledged but one real existence, which, regarded from different points of view, was both matter and (iod ; on its passive side an original substance, on its active side an original reason ; an unformed material substance, the basis and substructure of all definite phenomena, and a ]iervading active power by which that substance was supposed to develop itself into every variety of individ- ual form (see Zeller, Philos. der Griechen, iii, 69 sq.). In this doctrine " the one remains, the many change and pass;" the Deity, or active power of the universe, produces all things from himself, and again, after a cer- tain period of time, draws them back into himself, and then pro<luces a new world in another cycle, and so on forever (Laert. vii, 137: Kiyovm St Konfiov . . . tov SiEiiv ... Of Ct) diji^apTOQ iftri icai ayei'Vtjroc, ^rffitovp- yog Ciiv TriQ EiciKonfxijrfnoQ, Kara j^^i'u'oii' notiit; nrpto- Sovg civaXiaKcov ti't' lavTuv n)v liiranav oimiav Ka'i ■jTciKiv tK iavToxi ytrt'wv). The result of this theory, as regards the immortality of the human soul, may be given in the words of Cicero: "Stoici autem usuram no- bis largiuntur, tanquam cornicibus; diu mansuros aiunt animos ; semper negant" ( Tnsc. Disp. i, 3 1 ). The utmost duration that could be allotted to any individual soul was till the termination of the current workl-cycle ; and it was a disputed point among the philosophers of this sect -whether this extent of existence was conceded to the souls of all men or only to those of the wise (Diog. Laert. vii, 157). See Stoics.
Thus the same conclusion which the Epicureans de- duced from the assumption of the nndtiplicity of matter was deduced by tlie Stoics from that of its unity: both alike recognised no real distinction between matter and spirit, and both alike inferred the impossibility of an immortal existence for any dependent being.
2. Scriptural Analogies.— 'V\\e ethical system of the Stoics, nevertheless, has commonly been supposed to have a close connection with Christian morality (Gata- ker, Antoninus Prerf. ; Meyer, Stoic. Kth. c. Christ. Corn- par. [1823]): and the outward similarity of isolated pre- cepts is very close and worthy of notice, as may be seen from a few examples whicli we here give:
Seneca, De Clem. § .'J: " Pecciivimus omiies . , . iiec de- liqnimus lantiim sed ad extiemum asvi delinquenius." Eom. iii, 23: "I'eccaverunt onines" . . .
Kp. i : "Qnem mihi dabis . . . qui intelligat se qiwHaxe morif" Rom.xv, 31 : "Quotidie luorior." .
De Vit. Beata, 5 12 : " Linidnnt enim rRpieureil ea quibns erubescebaniet vitin gldiiamnr." I'liil. iii, I'J: "Quonnu . . . {iliiiia hi confiisione eoruni."