A fundamental principle of the philosophy of Ploti- nus is the identity of the subject and the object, of the cogniscr and thing cognised. The office of philosophy should be to gain '• a knowledge of the One . . . the es- sence and first principle of all things," not by a process of thought or reasoning, but by an immediate intuition.
This One is variously styled by him the Being, the One, the Good (jb uv, to ev, to a'ya^ov). The three ele- ments of being are Uniti/, or the One, described as orig- inal, pure light, pervading space; Intellir/ence, the vuvr, emanating from the One, and contemplating it in order to comprehend it ; the World-Soul, an emanation from the Nous. These constitute the Trinity of Plotinus. The One is exalted above the Nous, as that stands above the soul, which is immaterial and immortal. Plotinus teaches that the One "is elevated above the sphere of the Ideas," wliich are emanations from the One, constituting in their unity the Nous, in which they are immanent and '-substantially existent and es- sential parts." The Soul, being the image (t'lCcoXoi') and product of the Nous, '• turns in a double direction towards the Nous, its producer, and towards the ma- terial, which is its own product." The souls of men, in consequence of their descent into bodies, have for- gotten their divine origin, have become estranged from the Good, or One. Hence the true duty of man is to seek to return to God by means of virtue, philofopliy, and especially by the ecstasy-, or immediate intuit icm of the Deity and union with him. Porphyry states that Plotinus attained to this unification with God four times in the six years he spent with him. This Plotinian view reminds us of the Hindil philosophy. The most emhient of the disciples of Plotinus were Amelius and Porphyr}'.
(8.) Amelius (whose true name wasGentilianus) flour- ished in the latter half of the 3d century after Christ, and, according to Suidas (s. v.), was a native of Apa- mea, in Syria, but according to Porphyry (whose opin- ion is the more probable one), of Ameria or Amelia, in Umbria. Led by the study of the works of Numoniiis, whom he greatly admired, to embrace the principles of the Alexandrian Neo-Platonic school, he became a regu- lar attendant on the lectures of Plotinus at Eomc. and was the means of converting Porphyry to the doctrines of Plotinus, and afterwards, in conjunction with him, of inducing Plotinus to publish his writings. His princi- pal work aimed to show the differences between Nu- menius and Plotinus, and that the latter could not just- ly be charged with plagiarism of the former's doctrines. If he did not himself eventually become a Christian, he appears to have highly approved of St. .John's definition of the Logos, and is supposed to be the Platonist refer- red to by St. Augustine as having declared that the be- ginning of the Gospel by St. John ought to be written in letters of gold, and put in the most conspicuous place in every church. After the death of his master, PJoti- nus, he retired to Apamea, in Syria, and died there. According to Ueberweg, "he distinguished in tlic Nous three hypostases, which lie styled three demiurges, or three kings: top up-a, top txoPTa, top bitwvTa. Of these, the second participated in the real being of the first, and the third in the being of tlie second, enjoying at the same time the vision of the first (Procl. in Plat. Tim. 93 d.). Amelius maintained the theory (opposed by Plotinus) of the unity of all souls in the World-Soul (Jamblichus, Ajy. Stoh. Ed. p. 88G, 888, 898)."
(9.) Porphyry, the greatest disciple of Plotinus, and the famous opponent of Christianity, was born, acconling to some accounts, at Batanasa (the Bashan of Scripture), in Syria, according to others, at Tyre, A.D. 23.'i. and died about A.D. 304, probably at Kome. His proper name was Malchus (same as the Shemitic word Mckk, a kin(j), which his friend Amelius changed to the cor- responding Greek form, Basileus, for which latter term his master, Longinus, substituted the adjective Porphy- rins (II 0 fxpv p 10 c), "clad in purple." He was first a pupil of Origen at Casarea, then of Longinus at Athens, and finally, at the age of thirty, he joined the school of Plotinus at Rome. He wrote a book in opposition to the doctrines of his teacher, to which Amelius replied, and, having convinced Porphyry of his errors, secured a formal recantation of them. Porphyry henceforth was an ardent supporter of Plotinus's views, and gained
NEO-PL AXON ISM
942
XEO-PLATOXISM
so fully his confidence and esteem that he was selected bv him to execute the delicate and responsible task of arraiii^iiii,' and publishing his writings. He also wrote a liicigra|iliy of Plotinus, which is the source of most of our knowledge of the life of that philosopher. His claims to consideration as a philosopher rest less on any originality of thought and research than on his ability and earnestness as an expounder and defender of Plo- tinian doctrines, on a perspicacity of style rare in that age, and also on the extent of his learning. His doctrine was in its cliaracter more practical and religious than that of Plotinus. The end of philosophizing, according to him, is the salvation of the soul. His Syrian origin and Oriental training, as well as his temperament, made him niDre inclined than Plotinus to the tenets of the Xco-Pythagoreansand to the advocacy of thaumaturgy, whether he sincerely believed in it or not. His views on these matters, however, appear to have been modi- tied in his later years. While probably he had little faith in the old (ireek polytheism, he bitterly opposed Christianity, and wrote a work in fifteen books against its duclriiK's, and especially against the divinity of (,'hrist. Tills work, which excited vigorous opposition, and called forth numerous replies from Christian writers, was destroyed publicly bj' the order of the emperor Tlicodosius, A.D. 435. We are consequently indebted for our knowledge of its nature and merits to the no- tices and arguments of its opponents. From these we learn tliat in thejirst book Porphyry set forth what he deemed to be contradictions in the Scriptures, which he claimed were therefore not infalliiile; in the third he treated of the interpretation of Scripture, repudiating Origen's allegorical fancies; in tha fourth he opposed the narrative of Sanchoniathon to th^ iMosaic history; and in the tirelfi/i and thirteenth he maintained that the prophecies of Daniel were written after the events pre- dicted, thus seeking to nullify their force as proofs of the inspiration of the Jewish Scri[)tures. It is much to be regretted by the Christian world that this work, written by one of the most learned and earnest oppusers of Christianity in the age of the Council of Nice, Ins )iot been preserved. It would doubtless throw much liglit on the social and religious condition of the time-, and give us a clearer insight into the causes then at work to promote the triumph of Christianity over pa- ganism. Socrates (flisf. Ecdes. iii, 23) asserts that I'orphyry was an apostate from the Christian faith, and wrote tliis work in revenge for indignities from Chris- tians, but his statement is not generally accepted as correct.