 |  |
did counsel self-control, but, failing to take into account the sinful nature of man, his
teaching could lead to nothing better than irresponsible lawlessness.
The third school was founded by Euclid, who taught that in true Being was found the
one Good, and that evil was non-existent. None of these men rightly understood the
teaching of Socrates; this was reserved for Plato.
The idea of making "pleasure" a criterion of virtue goes back to the time of Adam:
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to
the eye . . . . ." (Gen. 3: 6).
Centuries before the birth of Socrates Ecclesiastes tells us that he had experimented
along these same lines:
"I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy
pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity" (Eccles. 2: 1).
He tells us that he set out on this quest "till I might see what was that good for the
sons of men" (Eccles. 2: 3). Accordingly he pursued pleasure, great works, houses,
gardens, possessions, "the peculiar treasure of kings", music and art--"and whatsoever
mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy"
(Eccles. 2: 10). Yet his solemn verdict is that all is vanity. Ecclesiastes saw what none
of these philosophers seems to have weighed sufficiently, that "the one event" that
happens to all robs all earthly pleasure of any true value.
As we pursue the teaching of the book of Ecclesiastes, our eyes are directed onward
and upward. The key to the problem lies "there", not "here" (Eccles. 3: 17; 5: 8;
7: 18; 12: 13, 14). The Cynic denied all pleasure. The Cyrenaic endorsed it strongly.
Ecclesiastes does neither. He sets aside pleasure in chapter 2:, but commends it in
8: 15; 3: 12; 5: 18; and 9: 7-10. A patient balancing of his findings will, however,
show that there is no contradiction. In most chapters "the one event" is in view, and
when that is kept in mind, and the world and its ways seen in their true perspective,
the innocent pleasures of life are commended.* (* - The interested reader will find a
fuller exposition of these points in the series of articles on Ecclesiastes, published in
Volumes X-XIII).
Socrates lived out, in measure, his own doctrine, and died a martyr's death; but he
was a sinful man and needed a Saviour. His life and death could be nothing more than an
example. They could neither bring deliverance from sin, nor give the blessed assurance
of victory over the grave. How far Socrates "felt after" the Lord, we cannot say. Happily
all judgment has been committed into the hands of Him who knew what Tyre and Sidon,
and Sodom and Gomorrha would have done in more favourable circumstances
(Matt. 11: 20-24), and we gladly leave Socrates and all such in His hands. For ourselves,
can we ever be too grateful for One Who taught the Truth, Who lived and died for the
Truth, and Who by His life and death delivers us from sin, places our feet in the path of