to Plutarch, a man of vast erudition, whose knowlege CENT was various, but indigested, and whose philosophical taste was corrupted by the sceptical tenets of the academics. There were, likewise, in all the more considerable cities of the Roman empire, rhetoricians, sophists, and grammarians, who, by a variety of learned exercises, seemed zealous in forming the youth to their arts of eloquence and declamation, and in rendering them fit, by their talents and their acquisitions, to be useful to their country. But the instruction, acquired in these schools, was more specious than solid; and the youth who received their education in them, distinguished themselves, at their entrance upon the active stage of life, more by empty declamation, than by true eloquence; more by pompous erudition, than by wisdom and dexterity in the management of public affairs. The consequence of this was, that the rhetoricians and sophists, though agreeable to the corrupt taste of the time, which was incapable, generally speaking, of perceiving the native charms of truth, yet fell into contempt among the prudent and the wise, who held in derision the knowlege and education acquired in their auditories. Beside the schools now mentioned, there were two public academies in the empire; one at Rome, founded by Adrian, in which all the sciences were taught ; and the other at Berytus in Phoenicia, which was principally destined for the education of youth in the science of law".

III. Many philosophers of all the different sects Stoics. flourished at this time, whose names we do not think it necessary to mention. Two, however, there were, of such remarkable and shining merit, as rendered them real ornaments to the Stoic philosophy; which

See the Meditations of Marcus Antoninus, book i. sect. 7, 10.

Justin Mart. Dialog. cum Tryphone, op. p. 218, &c. We find also many of these philosophers mentioned in the meditations of Marcus. Antoninus.

Platonics.

CENT. 11. the meditations of Marcus Antoninus and the manual of Epictetus abundantly testify. These two great men had more admirers than disciples and followers; for, in this century, the Stoical sect was not in the highest esteem, as the rigor and austerity of its doctrine were by no means suited to the dissolute manners of the times. The Platonic schools were more frequented for several reasons, and particularly for these two, that their moral precepts were less rigorous and severe than those of the Stoics, and their doctrines more conformable to, or rather less incompatible with, the common' opinions concerning Epicureans. the gods. But, of all the philosophers, the Epicureans enjoyed the greatest reputation, and had undoubtedly the greatest number of followers, because their opinions tended to encourage the indolent secu→ rity of a voluptuous and effeminate life, and to banish the remorse and terrors that haunt vice, and naturally incommode the wicked in their sensual pursuits *.

The rise of the new

IV. Toward the conclusion of this century, a new Platonists in sect of philosophers suddenly arose, spread with Egypt, amazing rapidity through the greatest part of the Roman empire, swallowed up almost all other sects, and proved extremely detrimental to the cause of Christianity. Alexandria in Egypt, which had been, for a long time, the seat of learning, and, as it were, the centre of all the liberal arts and sciences, gave birth to this new philosophy. Its votaries chose to be called Platonists, though, far from adhering to all the tenets of Plato, they collected from the different sects such doctrines as they thought conformable to truth, and formed thereof one general system. The reason, then, why they distinguished themselves by the title of Platonists, was, that they thought the sentiments of Plato, concerning that most noble part of philosophy, which has the Deity and things invisible for its objects, much more rational and sublime than those of the other philosophers.

k Lucian's Pseudomant. p. 763, tom. i. op.

V. What gave to this new philosophy a superior CENT. IL air of reason and dignity, was, the unprejudiced spirit of candor and impartiality on which it seemed to be founded. This recommended it particularly to those real sages, whose enquiries were accompanied with wisdom and moderation, and who were sick of those arrogant and contentious sects, which required an invariable attachment to their particular systems. And, indeed, nothing could have a more engaging aspect than a set of men, who, abandoning all cavil, and all prejudices in favor of any party, professed searching after the truth alone, and were ready to adopt, from all the different systems and sects, such tenets as they thought agreeable to it. Hence also they were called Eclectics. It is, however, to be called also observed, as we hinted in the former section, that Eclectics. though these philosophers were attached to no particular sect, yet they preferred, as appears from a variety of testimonies, the sublime Plato to all other sages, and approved most of his opinions concerning the Deity, the universe, and the human soul,

t

proved by

ians.

VI. This new species of Platonism was embraced Their disciby such of the Alexandrian Christians as were desirous pline apof retaining, with the profession of the Gospel, the the Christtitle, the dignity, and the habit of philosophers. It is also said to have had the particular approbation of Athenagoras, Pantænus, Clemens the Alexandrian, and of all those who, in this century, were charged with the care of the public school which the Christians had at Alexandria. These sages were of opinion, that true philosophy, the greatest and most salutary gift of God to mortals, was scattered in various portions through all the different sects; and that it was, consequently, the duty of every wise man, and more especially of every Christian doctor, to gather it from

The title and dignity of philosophers delighted so much these honest men, that though they were advanced in the church to the rank of presbyters, they would not abandon the philosopher's cloke. See Origen, Epist. ad Eusebium, tom. i. op. edit. de la Rue.

!

GENT. IL the several corners where it lay dispersed, and to employ it, thus re-united, in the defence of religion, and in destroying the dominion of impiety and vice. The Christian Eclectics had this also in common with the others, that they preferred Plato to the other philosophers, and looked upon his opinions concerning God, the human soul, and things invisible, as conformable to the spirit and genius of the Christian doctrine.

The new method of teaching

VII. This philosophical system underwent some changes, when Ammonius Saccas, who taught, with philosophy the highest applause, in the Alexandrian school about introduced the conclusion of this century, laid the foundations nius Saccas. of that sect which was distinguished by the name of

by Ammo

the New Platonists. This learned man was born of Christian parents, and never, perhaps, gave up entirely the outward profession of that divine religion in which he had been educated m. As his genius was

m

Porphyry, in his third book against the Christians, maintains, that Ammonius deserted the Christian religion, and went over to Paganism as soon as he came to that time of life, when the mind is capable of making a wise and judicious choice. Eusebius, on the other hand, denies this assertion; maintaining, that Ammonius persevered constantly in the profession of Christianity; and he is followed in this opinion by Valesius, Bayle, Basnage, and others. The learned Fabricius is of opinion, that Eusebius confounded two persons who bore the name of Ammonius, one of whom was a Christian writer, and the other a Heathen philosopher. See Fabric. Biblioth. Græca, lib. iv. cap. xxvi. The truth of the matter seems to have been, that Ammonius Saccas was a Christian, who adopted with such dexterity the doctrines of the pagan philosophy, as to appear a Christian to the Christians, and a Pagan to the Pagans. See Brucker's Historia Critica Philosophiæ, vol. ii, and iii. Since the first edition of this work appeared, the learned Dr. Lardner has maintained, not without a certain degree of asperity, which is unusual in his valuable writings, the opinion of Fabricius, against Eusebius, and particularly against Dr. Mosheim. See his Collection of Heathen and Jewish Testimonies, vol. iii. Dr. Mosheim was once of the same opinion with Fabricius, and he maintained it in a Dissertation, de ecclesiâ turbatâ per recentiores Platonicos; but he afterwards saw reason to change his mind. His reasons may be seen in his book, de rebus Christianorum' ante Const. Mag. p. 281, &c. They indeed weigh little with Dr. Lardner, who, however, opposes nothing to them but mere

vast and comprehensive, so were his projects bold CENT. IP. and singular. For he attempted a general reconciliation or coalition of all sects, whether philosophical or religious, and taught a doctrine which he looked upon as proper to unite them all, the Christians not excepted, in the most perfect harmony. And herein lies the difference between this new sect and the Eclectics, who had, before this time, flourished in Egypt. The Eclectics held, that, in every sect, there was a mixture of good and bad, of truth and falsehood; and, accordingly, they chose and adopted, out of each of them, such tenets as seemed to them conformable to reason and truth, and rejected such as they thought repugnant to both. Ammonius, on the contrary, maintained, that the great principles of all philosophical and religious truth were to be found equally in all sects; that they differed from each other only in their method of expressing them, and in some opinions of little or no importance; and that, by a proper interpretation of their respective senti ments, they might easily be united into one body. It is farther to be observed, that the propensity of Ammonius to singularity and paradox, led him to maintain, that all the Gentile religions, and even the Christian, were to be illustrated and explained by the principles of this universal philosophy; but that, assertions, unsupported by the smallest glimpse of evidence. For the letter of Origen, which he quotes from Eusebius, is so far from proving that Ammonius was merely a Heathen philosopher, and not a Christian, that it would not be sufficient to demonstrate that there was ever such a person as Ammonius in the world, since he is not so much as named in that letter. But allowing with Valesius that it is Ammonius whom Origen has in view, when he talks of the philosophical master from whom he and Heraclas received instruction, it seems very whimsical to conclude from this circumstance, that Ammonius was no Christian. The coalition between Platonism and Christianity, in the second and third centuries, is a fact too fully proved to be rendered dubious by mere affirmations. The notion, therefore, of two persons bearing the name of Ammonius, the one a Heathen philosopher, and the other a Christian writer, of which Dr. Lardner seems so fond, rests upon little more than an hypothesis formed to remove an imaginary difficulty.