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