按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
… Page 58…
ALEXANDRIA AND HER SCHOOLS
they afterwards did leadto confusing the moral with the notional； and
finally the notional with the material； in plain words； to Pantheism。
You find this tendency； in short； in all the philosophers who flourished
between the age of Augustus and the rise of Alexandrian Neoplatonism。
Gibbon； while he gives an approving pat on the back to his pet
〃Philosophic Emperor；〃 Marcus Aurelius； blinks the fact that Marcus's
philosophy； like that of Plutarch； contains as an integral element； a belief
which to him would have been； I fear； simply ludicrous； from its strange
analogy with the belief of John； the Christian Apostle。 What is Marcus
Aurelius's cardinal doctrine？ That there is a God within him； a Word； a
Logos； which 〃has hold of him；〃 and who is his teacher and guardian； that
over and above his body and his soul； he has a Reason which is capable of
〃hearing that Divine Word； and obeying the monitions of that God。〃
What is Plutarch's cardinal doctrine？ That the same Word； the Daemon
who spoke to the heart of Socrates； is speaking to him and to every
philosopher； 〃coming into contact；〃 he says； 〃with him in some wonderful
manner； addressing the reason of those who； like Socrates； keep their
reason pure； not under the dominion of passion； nor mixing itself greatly
with the body； and therefore quick and sensitive in responding to that
which encountered it。
You see from these two extracts what questions were arising in the
minds of men； and how they touched on ethical and theological questions。
I say arising in their minds： I believe that I ought to say rather； stirred up
in their minds by One greater than they。 At all events； there they
appeared； utterly independent of any Christian teaching。 The belief in
this Logos or Daemon speaking to the Reason of man； was one which
neither Plutarch nor Marcus； neither Numenius nor Ammonius； as far as
we can see； learnt from the Christians； it was the common ground which
they held with them； the common battlefield which they disputed with
them。
Neither have we any reason to suppose that they learnt it from the
Hindoos。 That much Hindoo thought mixed with Neoplatonist
speculation we cannot doubt； but there is not a jot more evidence to prove
that Alexandrians borrowed this conception from the Mahabharavata； than
58
… Page 59…
ALEXANDRIA AND HER SCHOOLS
that George Fox the Quaker； or the author of the 〃Deutsche Theologie；〃
did so。 They may have gone to Hindoo philosophy； or rather； to second
and third hand traditions thereof； for corroborations of the belief； but be
sure； it must have existed in their own hearts first； or they would never
have gone thither。 Believe it； be sure of it。 No earnest thinker is a
plagiarist pure and simple。 He will never borrow from others that which
he has not already； more or less； thought out for himself。 When once a
great idea； instinctive； inductive （for the two expressions are nearer akin
than most fancy）； has dawned on his soul； he will welcome lovingly；
awfully； any corroboration from foreign schools； and cry with joy：
〃Behold； this is not altogether a dream： for others have found it also。
Surely it must be real； universal； eternal。〃 No； be sure there is far more
originality （in the common sense of the word）； and far less （in the true
sense of the word）； than we fancy； and that it is a paltry and shallow
doctrine which represents each succeeding school as merely the puppets
and dupes of the preceding。 More originality； because each earnest man
seems to think out for himself the deepest grounds of his creed。 Less
originality； because； as I believe； one common Logos； Word； Reason；
reveals and unveils the same eternal truth to all who seek and hunger for
it。
Therefore we can； as the Christian philosophers of Alexandria did；
rejoice over every truth which their heathen adversaries beheld； and
attribute them； as Clement does； to the highest source； to the inspiration of
the one and universal Logos。 With Clement； philosophy is only hurtful
when it is untrue to itself； and philosophy falsely so called； true
philosophy is an image of the truth； a divine gift bestowed on the Greeks。
The Bible； in his eyes； asserts that all forms of art and wisdom are from
God。 The wise in mind have no doubt some peculiar endowment of
nature； but when they have offered themselves for their work； they receive
a spirit of perception from the Highest Wisdom； giving them a new fitness
for it。 All severe study； all cultivation of sympathy； are exercises of this
spiritual endowment。 The whole intellectual discipline of the Greeks；
with their philosophy； came down from God to men。 Philosophy； he
concludes in one place； carries on 〃an inquiry concerning Truth and the
59
… Page 60…
ALEXANDRIA AND HER SCHOOLS
nature of Being； and this Truth is that concerning which the Lord Himself
said： 'I am the Truth。' And when the initiated find； or rather receive； the
true philosophy； they have it from the Truth itself； that is from Him who is
true。〃
While； then； these two schools had so many grounds in common；
where was their point of divergence？ We shall find it； I believe； fairly
expressed in the dying words of Plotinus； the great father of Neoplatonism。
〃I am striving to bring the God which is in us into harmony with the God
which is in the universe。〃 Whether or not Plotinus actually so spoke； that
was what his disciples not only said that he spoke； but what they would
have wished him to speak。 That one sentence expresses the whole object
of their philosophy。
But to that Pantaenus； Origen； Clement； and Augustine would have
answered： 〃And we； on the other hand； assert that the God which is in
the universe； is the same as the God which is in you； and is striving to
bring you into harmony with Himself。〃 There is the experimentum crucis。
There is the vast gulf between the Christian and the Heathen schools；
which when any man had overleaped； the whole problem of the universe
was from that moment inverted。 With Plotinus and his school man is
seeking for God： with Clement and his； God is seeking for man。 With
the former； God is passive； and man active： with the latter； God is active；
man is passivepassive； that is； in so far as his business is to listen when
he is spoken to； to look at the light which is unveiled to him； to submit
himself to the inward laws which he feels reproving and checking him at
every turn； as Socrates was reproved and checked by his inward Daemon。
Whether of these two theorems gives the higher conception either of
the Divine Being； or of man； I leave it for you to judge。 To those old
Alexandrian Christians； a being who was not seeking after every single
creature； and trying to raise him； could not be a Being of absolute
Righteousness； Power； Love； could not be a Being worthy of respect or
admiration； even of philosophic speculation。 Human righteousness and
love flows forth disinterestedly to all around it； however unconscious；
however unworthy they may be； human power associated with goodness；
seeks for objects which it may raise and benefit by that power。 We must
60
… Page 61…
ALEXANDRIA AND HER SCHOOLS
confess this； with the Christian schools； or； with the Heathen schools； we
must allow another theory； which brought them into awful depths； which
ma