§ II. PHILO.

Alexandria, as we have seen, was the theatre of various struggles of these we are to select one, and that one the struggle of the Neo-Platonists with the Christian Fathers.

Under the name of the Alexandrian School are designated, loosely enough, all those thinkers who endeavored to find a refuge from Skepticism in a new Philosophy, based on altogether new principles. Now, although these various Thinkers by no means constitute a School, they constitute a Movement, and they form an Epoch in the history of Philosophy. We may merely observe that the "Alexandrian School" and the "Neo-Platonists" are not convertible terms: the former designates a whole movement, the latter designates the most illustrious section of that

movement.

Philo the Jew is the first of these Neo-Platonists. He was born at Alexandria, a few years before Christ. The influence of Greek ideas had long been felt in Alexandria, and Philo, commenting on the writings of the Jews, did so in the spirit of one deeply imbued with Greek thought. His genius was Oriental, his education Greek; the result was a strange mixture of mysticism and dialectics.* To Plato he owed much: but to the New Academy, perhaps more. From Carneades he learned to distrust the truth of all sensuous knowledge, and to deny that Reason had any criterium of truth.

Thus far he was willing to travel with the Greeks; thus far had dialectics conducted him. But there was another element in his mind besides the Greek: there was the Oriental or mystical element. If human knowledge is a delusion, we must seek for truth in some higher sphere. The Senses may deceive; Reason may be powerless; but there is still a faculty in man

* St. Paul thus comprehensively expresses the national characteristic of the Jews and Greeks: "The Jews require a sign (i e. a miracle), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (i. e. philosophy)."—1 Corinth. i. 22.

there is Faith. Real Science is the gift of God: its name is Faith its origin is the goodness of God: its cause is Piety.

This conception is not Plato's, yet is nevertheless Platonic. Plato would never have thus condemned Reason for the sake of Faith; and yet he, too, thought that the nature of God could not be known, although his existence could be proved. In this respect he would have agreed with Philo. But, although Plato does not speak of Science as the gift of God, he does in one place so speak of Virtue; and he devotes the whole dialogue of the Meno to show that Virtue cannot be taught, because it is not a thing of the understanding, but a gift of God. The reasons he there employs may easily have suggested to Philo their application to Philosophy.

From this point Philo's Philosophy of course becomes a theology. God is ineffable, incomprehensible: his existence may be known; his nature can never be known; däpa ovdề độ vậ καταληπτός, ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τὸ εἶναι μόνον. But to know that he exists, is in itself the knowledge of his being one, perfect, simple, immutable, and without attribute. This knowledge is implied in the simple knowledge of his existence: he cannot be otherwise, if he exist at all. But to know this, is not to know in what consists his perfection. We cannot penetrate with our glance. the mystery of his essence. We can only believe.

If however we cannot know God in his essence, we can obtain some knowledge of his Divinity: we know it in The Word. This óyos-this Word (using the expression in its Scriptural sense)-fills a curious place in all the mystical systems. God being incomprehensible, inaccessible, an intermediate existence. was necessary as an interpreter between God and Man, and this intermediate existence the Mystics called The Word.

The Word, according to Philo, is God's Thought. This Thought is two-fold: it is λóyos έvdiάesros, the Thought as embracing all Ideas (in the Platonic sense of the term Idea), i. e Thought as Thought; and it is λóyos popopixós, the Thought realized: Thought become the World.

In these three hypostases of the Deity we see the Trinity of Plotinus foreshadowed. There is, first, God the Father; secondly, the Son of God, i. e. the λóyos; thirdly, the Son of the λóyos, i. e. the World.

This brief outline of Philo's Theology will sufficiently exemplify the two great facts which we are anxious to have understood:-1st, the union of Platonism with Oriental mysticism; 2dly, the entirely new direction given to Philosophy, by uniting it once more with Religion. It is this direction which characterizes the Movement of the Alexandrian School. Reason had been shown to be utterly powerless to solve the great questions of Philosophy then agitated. Various Schools had pursued various Methods, but all with one result. Skepticism was the conclusion of every struggle. "And yet," said the Mystics, "we have an idea of God and of his goodness; we have an ineradicable belief in his existence, and in the Perfection of his nature, consequently, in the beneficence of his aims. Yet these ideas are not innate; were they innate, they would be uniformly entertained by all men, and amongst all nations. If they are not innate, whence are they derived? Not from Reason; not from experience: then from Faith."

Now, Philosophy, conceive it how you will, is entirely the offspring of Reason: it is the endeavor to explain by Reason the mysteries amidst which we "move, live, and have our being." Although it is legitimate to say, "Reason is incapable of solving the problems proposed to it," it is not legitimate to add, "therefore we must call in the aid of Faith." In Philosophy, Reason must either reign alone, or abdicate. No compromise is permissible. If there are things between heaven and earth which are not dreamt of in our Philosophy-which do not come within the possible sphere of our Philosophy-we may believe in them, indeed, but we cannot christen that belief philosophical.

One of two things,-either Reason is capable of solving the problems, or it is incapable: in the one case its attempt is phi

losophical; in the second case its attempt is futile. Any attempt to mix up Faith with Reason, in a matter exclusively addressed to the Reason, must be abortive. We do not say that what Faith implicitly accepts, Reason may not explicitly justify; but we say, that to bring Faith to the aid of Reason, is altogether to destroy the philosophical character of an inquiry. Reason may justify Faith; but faith must not furnish conclusions for Philosophy. Directly Reason is abandoned, Philosophy ceases; and every explanation then offered is a theological explanation, and must be put to altogether different tests from what a philosophical explanation would require.

All speculation must originally have been theological: but in process of time Reason timidly ventured upon what are called "natural explanations ;" and from the moment that it felt itself strong enough to be independent, Philosophy was established. In the early speculations of the Ionians we saw the pure efforts of Reason to explain mysteries. As Philosophy advanced, it became more and more evident that the problems attacked by the early thinkers were, in truth, so far from being nearer a solution, that their extreme difficulty was only just becoming appreciated. The difficulty became more and more apparent, till at last it was pronounced insuperable: Reason was declared incompetent. Then the Faith which had so long been set aside was again called to assist the inquirer. In other words, Philosophy, discovering itself to be powerless, resigned in favor of Theology.

When, therefore, we say that the direction given to the human mind by the Alexandrian School, in conjunction with Christianity-the only two spiritual movements which materially influenced the epoch we are speaking of-was a theological direction, the reader will at once see its immense importance, and will be prepared to follow us in our exposition of the mystical doctrines of Plotinus.

14

CHAPTER II.

ANTAGONISM OF CHRISTIANITY AND NEO

PLATONISM.

§ I. PLOTINUS.

WHILE Christianity was making rapid and enduring progress in spite of every obstacle; while the Apostles wandered from city to city, sometimes honored as Evangelists, at other times insulted and stoned as enemies, the Neo-Platonists were developing the germ deposited by Philo, and not only constructing a theology, but endeavoring on that theology to found a Church. Whilst a new religion, Christianity, was daily usurping the souls of men, these philosophers fondly imagined that an old Religion could effectually oppose it.

Christianity triumphed without much difficulty. Looking at it in a purely moral view, its immense superiority is at once apparent. The Alexandrians exaggerated the vicious tendency of which we have already seen the fruits in the Cynics and Stoics-the tendency to despise Humanity. Plotinus blushed because he had a body: contempt of human personality could go no further. What was offered in exchange? The ecstatic perception; the absorption of personality in that of the Deity— a Deity inaccessible to knowledge as to love-a Deity which the soul can only attain by a complete annihilation of its personality.

The attempt of the Neo-Platonists failed, as it deserved to fail; but it had great talents in its service, and it made great noise in the world. It had, as M. Saisset remarks, three periods. The first of these, the least brilliant but the most fruitful, is that of Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus. A porter of Alexandria becomes