alexandria and her schools-第17章
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！
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 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 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 confess this； with the Christian schools； or； with the Heathen schools； we must allow another theory； which brought them into awful depths； which may bring any generation which holds it into the same depths。
If Clement had asked the Neoplatonists： 〃You believe； Plotinus； in an absolutely Good Being。 Do you believe that it desires to shed forth its goodness on all？〃 〃Of course；〃 they would have answered； 〃on those who seek for it； on the philosopher。〃
〃But not； it seems； Plotinus； on the herd； the brutal； ignorant mass； wallowing in those foul crimes above which you have risen？〃 And at that question there would have been not a little hesitation。 These brutes in human form； these souls wallowing in earthly mire； could hardly； in the Neoplatonists' eyes； be objects of the Divine desire。
〃Then this Absolute Good； you say； Plotinus； has no relation with them； no care to raise them。 In fact； it cannot raise them； because they have nothing in common with it。 Is that your notion？〃 And the Neoplatonists would have； on the whole； allowed that argument。 And if Clement had answered； that such was not his notion of Goodness； or of a Good Being； and that therefore the goodness of their Absolute Good； careless of the degradation and misery around it； must be something very different from his notions of human goodness； the Neoplatonists would have answered indeed they did answer〃After all； why not？ Why should the Absolute Goodness be like our human goodness？〃 This is Plotinus's own belief。 It is a question with him； it was still more a question with those who came after him； whether virtues could be predicated of the Divine nature； courage； for instance； of one who had nothing to fear； self… restraint； of one who had nothing to desire。 And thus； by setting up a different standard of morality for the divine and for the human； Plotinus gradually arrives at the conclusion； that virtue is not the end； but the means； not the Divine nature itself； as the Christian schools held； but only the purgative process by which man was to as
