Chapter VI.—The Falsity of the General Opinion respecting Fate 3389 is proved by the Consideration of Human Laws, and by the Works of Creation, the Course of which is not Fortuitous, but according to an Orderly Arrangement which evinces the Design of the Creator.
The great majority, however, in their folly, ascribe the regulation of the universe to nature, while some imagine fate, or accident, 3390
to be the cause. With regard to those who attribute the control of all things to fate, they know not that in using this term they utter a mere word, but designate no active power, nor anything which has real and substantial existence. For what can this fate be, considered in itself, if nature be the first cause of all things? Or what shall we suppose nature itself to be, if the law of fate be inviolable? Indeed, the very assertion that there is a law of fate implies that such law is the work of a legislator: if, therefore, fate itself be a law, it must be a law devised by God. All things, therefore, are subject to God, and nothing is beyond the sphere of his power. If it be said that fate is the will 3391
of God, and is so considered, we admit the fact. But in what respect do justice, 3392
or self-control, 3393
or the other virtues, depend on fate? From whence, if so, do their contraries, as injustice and intemperance, proceed? For vice has its origin from nature, not from fate; and virtue is the due regulation of natural character and disposition. But, granting that the varied results of actions, whether right or erroneous in themselves, depend on fortune or fate: in what sense can the general principle of justice, 3394
the principle of rendering to every one his due, be ascribed to fate? 3395
Or how can it be said that laws, encouragements to virtue and dissuasives from what is evil, praise, blame, punishment, in short whatever operates as a motive to virtue, and deters from the practice of vice, derive their origin from fortune or accident, and not rather from that of justice, 3396
which is a characteristic attribute of the God of providence? For the events which befall men are consequent upon the tenor of their lives. Hence pestilence or sedition, famine and plenty, succeed in turn, declaring plainly and emphatically that all these things are regulated with reference to our course of life. For the Divine Being delights in goodness, but turns with aversion from all impiety; looks with acceptance on the humble spirit, but abhors presumption, and that pride which exalts itself above what becomes a creature. And though the proofs of these truths are clear and manifest to our sight, they appear in a still stronger light, when we collect, and as it were concentrate our thoughts within ourselves, and ponder their causes with deep attention. I say, then, that it becomes us to lead a life of modesty and gentleness, not suffering our thoughts to rise proudly above our natural condition, and ever mindful that God is near us,
For a full discussion of various definitions and usage of the word Fate (ἡ εἰριαρμένη) in Greek philosophy, compare Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (Lond. 1880), p. 170–171, notes.
564:3390αὐτόματον. The usual word for chance or accident is τύχη. These may be here, as is often the case, simple synonyms, but both words are used in the same phrase later in such way as to suggest that τύχη is parallel with “fate” rather than “chance” in the author’s mind. αὐτόματον seems to be used of “self-originating,” τύχη of originating from some unknown cause or without any cause. The former is the modern, self-energized, “lift-yourselves-by-your-own-boot-straps” evolution. The latter is a form of agnosticism. Aristotle (Metaph. 10. 8) defines chance (τύχη) as a “cause by accident” (συμβέβηκος), or more literally “coincidence,” which is substantially what Janet (Final Causes, 1878, p. 19) means by defining chance as the coincidence of causes. At the end of the same chapter Aristotle uses αὐτόματον in contrast with τύχη—“τύχη or even αὐτόματον,” which has been rendered (M’Mahon) “chance or even spontaneity.” In modern phrase those who hold these three various views of the universe might be characterized as “material evolutionists,” “transcendental idealists,” and “philosophical (or perhaps ‘agnostic’) evolutionists.”
564:3391 564:3392δικαιοσύνη, better “righteousness,” “correctness of thinking, feeling, and acting” (Thayer, Lex. p. 149). So its opposite mentioned below (ἀδικία) is better “unrighteousness,” as generally in the revised English version of the N.T., “mammon of unrighteousness” (Luke xvi. 9, e.g.). The word means more than our “just,” “more,” as Socrates said (Plat. Rep. 1. 331), “than to speak the truth and pay your debts.” Righteousness is the better translation, but we are met with the difficulty that it has generally been rendered justice in translations of the philosophers.
564:3393σωφροσύνη, temperance, vs. ἀκολασία, intemperance, below; soundness of mind vs. insanity (cf. use in Acts 26:25, Mark 5:15, Luke 8:35Acts xxvi. 25, and of verb in Mark v. 15; Luke viii. 35; also use in Plato, Rep. 332, &c.); self-control vs. unbridled desire. This same contrast of σωφροσύνη and ἀκολασία is found in Aristotle, Eth. 2, vii. 3; 7, vii. I; and especially 7, ix. 5.
564:3394 564:3395This is very free, and follows translation of Valesius and 1709 text. 1709 marg. translates more literally, “But either crimes, or, on the other hand, brave performances, which are [the property] of a good and right purpose of mind, if they happen sometimes one way, at others another,” and Molz. somewhat similarly. It is possible that it should read: “Granted that either evil actions proceeding from a good and upright will, or contrariwise, good actions [from an evil will] which issue directly contrary [to their own nature or to just expectation] may be ascribed to chance or fate, how can the right,” &c.
564:3396 565:3397 565:3398 565:3399νόος was not narrowed to the mere intellectual functions. “Intellectual” is not to be taken of brain function only, but of brain and heart,—real knowing, as against the “intellectuation” which men nowadays try to force the word “know” to mean.
565:3400 565:3401The “λόγος ἐνδι€θετος” of Philo, frequent in Alexandrian theologians. It is the unuttered thought vs. the expressed word.
565:3402 565:3403