constant struggling after righteousness, he can follow after the virtues of the Father in heaven who begat him.” Then said I, “All this have I done; for I have now these many years observed not only the words of the Law, but also the Traditions of the Elders; yet have I not attained peace.” But he said, “Thou puttest first that which should come second; first aim after the virtues that have to do with men; afterward shalt thou attain the virtue that hath to do with God.” “It would seem therefore,” said I, “that thou dost not advise thy disciples to withdraw themselves from the world, after the manner of hermits.” “Yea, but I do advise them,” said Philo; “only first men should attain to the lower step before aiming at the higher. For first, they should study truthfulness, striving to love their neighbours, and to be helpful and gentle to all; for man should be gentle, and not savage, being fitted by nature for fellowship and concord. But after that thou hast attained to this lower stage, my counsel is that thou forsake thy home and thy friends, and thy wealth, and all that thou hast, and that thou abstain from business of state, and from all traffic, and that thou give thyself entirely to the contemplation of the divine essence.”
Then said I, “Methinks, many of our Scribes in Galilee would not please thee; for they seek after righteousness by other ways, observing the smallest matters of the Law, and afflicting the flesh.” “Tell such an one from me,” said Philo, “when thou shalt see him perchance abstaining from food or drink at the times of eating, or disdaining the bath and the use of oil, or tormenting himself with a hard couch or with night-watchings, deceiving himself with this show of abstinence, that he is not in the true way to continence, and that all his labour is in vain.”
“But what,” asked I, “is this highest revelation of the essence of the Supreme (blessed is He) to which the soul shall at last attain?” Philo paused a moment and then answered, “Thou shalt attain to the knowledge of God, as mere being or existence.” But I, not understanding him aright, said, “Thou sayest ‘existence:’ dost thou mean ‘holy existence’?” But Philo answered with a smile, “How can we call Him holy who is holier than all holiness? But by ‘mere existence,’ I mean that which is known as existence and in no other way.” Then I said, “May we not therefore call Him good? or loving?” “Call Him so,” replied Philo, “if thou dost not believe that He is better than all goodness, more loving than all love.”
Hereat my heart sank within me; for such a God as this “mere existence” seemed to me not a being able to love me nor to be loved by me, no more than if it had been a triangle or a circle. But presently I called to mind that Moses had named God the Father of the spirits of all flesh: and the prophets also had named God Father. Therefore said I to Philo, “And the name Father also? May we not give this name to God?” “No,” said Philo, “except in order to teach the common folk; as when the Scripture saith that God chasteneth those whom He loveth, like as a father chasteneth his son. For God cannot change; neither can He feel anger, nor love, nor joy. But when the Scripture sayeth such words as these, it speaketh for the common multitude, even as when it saith that God spake or heard; or that He smelled a sweet savour; or that He awaked from sleep; or that He repented of that which He had done.”
When I heard this, it seemed to me that I had come to Philo for naught; but I said to him, “Thou speakest of that revelation of God, which thou callest mere existence, as being the highest revelation. Is there then a lower revelation?” “Certainly,” he replied, “for just as there is, in human life, the thing and the word that revealeth the thing, even so is there also on the one hand God, the true God, THAT WHICH IS, and on the other hand the Word of God, which revealeth God to the minds of men.” Then I questioned him concerning this Word of God, or Logos (as he called it, using a Greek name): and he answered me fully, yet not so that I could altogether understand him. But this I gathered, that the Word or Logos was a second divine being, inseparable from the Father; and that by the Word was the world made. But sometimes he said that the world, as conceived by the intellect, was the Word, (“for,” said he, “as a city, not yet being, is in the mind or reason of the architect thereof, so the world, albeit not being, was in the mind or reason of God”;) and with these exact words he made an end of this part of his discourse, for I set them down at the time: “If any one should desire to use still plainer terms, he would not call the world (regarded as perceptible only to the intellect) as anything else but the Reason of God busied with the creation of the world; for neither is a city, while only perceptible to the intellect, anything else except the reason of the architect.”
Then said I, “But how do men attain to the revelation of the Word?” “By the exercise of the divine Word or Reason within them,” said Philo; “for all men have in themselves a ray of light from the archetypal Light, the Word of the Supreme Being. For no mortal thing is framed, nor could have been framed, in the similitude of the Supreme Father; but only after the pattern of the second deity, the Word. Now this Word can be received of all them that will live according to it. For the race of mankind is twofold, the one being the race of them that live by the Divine Spirit and reason; the other, of such as live according to the pleasures of the flesh. The universe therefore, apprehended by the reason of man, conveyeth the revelation of the Word. And this revelation, this heavenly food of the soul (which Moses calleth manna), the Word of God meteth out in equal portions among all them which are to use it. For the blessed soul proffereth her own reason as the holy goblet of true joy. But who can pour forth the wine of life, save only the Cup-bearer of God, the Master of the Feast, the Word? And indeed the Cup-bearer differeth in no wise from the draught. For the Word is the draught itself, pure and unpolluted.”
Then it was borne in upon my mind, that in all his discourse (which inforced attention by reason of the beauty of his sayings, and because of his exceeding earnestness) he had left no place for the Messiah or Redeemer of Israel, whose coming had been prophesied by John, the son of Zachariah. Therefore I questioned him of this matter. But he smiled and said, “Trouble not thyself on this matter; for it is likely that no Messiah is to come. But it will come to pass, in the day of Redemption, that the children of Israel, which be now scattered over the earth, will be led from all parts back to the Sacred Land, by the light of a great light invisible to all others, but visible only to such as are to be saved.” Then, seeing that I was of a sad countenance, he added, “Dost thou not perceive that the revelation of a Messiah would be as much inferior to the revelation of the Word, or Logos, as the revelation of the Logos is itself inferior to the revelation of mere existence, τὸ ὄν, or THAT WHICH IS? For the revelation of the Logos (that is of God known by creation) is through hope and fear; but the revelation of τὸ ὄν (that is God in itself) is through love. And the revelation of a Messiah must needs be a poor and low thing as compared with either of these. But thou shouldst aspire towards the highest revelation of all, even the Father of all, with a divinely inspired passion not inferior to the enthousiasmos wherewith the worshippers of the gods of the Gentiles celebrate their inferior rites.”
The day was now far spent: so my uncle arose to bid Philo farewell. I thanked him with my whole heart: for righteousness and goodness breathed in his presence; and my spirit was refreshed while I heard him speak. For the very voice of the Lord seemed to sound from him when he said that to afflict the flesh was of no avail without afflicting the spirit, and that the practice of virtue with men should go before the practice of virtue with God. But when I was departed from him, musing as I returned home, then I saw that the philosophy of Philo could in no wise give me peace. For it was not possible that I should feel that enthousiasmos, or divine passion, whereof he made mention, for such a being as Mere Existence: and methought I could feel this enthousiasmos for none save a man, or some similitude of a man.
Therefore my heart went back to that lower revelation whereof he spake, to wit, to God revealed through the world; that is, the Word: and this seemed to me more likely to give peace. But as for Mere Existence, albeit Philo called it the Father of all, yet had he plainly told me he meant this only for the unlearned multitude. And whereas he used one word, God, to signify two things, one thing for the learned, and another for the unlearned; herein, to say truth, his doctrine brought to my mind a certain tale of the poet Homer, which my uncle had but yesternight related unto me; how a certain mighty man of valour, and a wise counsellor among the
