7. SIMILARITIES APPLIED DIFFERENTLY.
This comparison of philosophy would have been much stronger had we added thereto the following points in which we find similar terms and ideas, but which are applied differently. The soul is indissolubly united to intelligence according to Plotinos, but to its source with Numenius.[658] Plotinos makes discord the result of their fall, while with Numenius it is its cause.[659] Guilt is the cause of the fall of souls, with Plotinos,[660] but with Numenius it is impulsive passion. The great evolution or world-process is by Plotinos called the "eternal procession," while with Numenius it is progress.[661] The simile of the pilot is by Plotinos applied to the soul within the body; while with Numenius, it refers to the logos, or creator in the universe,[662] while in both cases the cause,—of creation for the creator,[663] and incarnation for the soul[664]—is forgetfulness. There is practically no difference here, however. Doubleness is, by Plotinos, predicated of the sun and stars, but by Numenius, of the demiurge himself,[665] which Plotinos opposes as a Gnostic teaching.[666] The Philonic term "legislator" is, by Plotinos, applied to intelligence, while Numenius applies it to the third divinity, and not the second.[667] Plotinos extends immortality to animals, but Numenius even to the inorganic realm, including everything.[668] While Numenius seems to believe in the Serapistic and Gnostic demons,[669] Plotinos opposes them,[670] although in his biography[671] he is represented as taking part in the evocation of his guardian spirit in a temple of Isis.
We thus find a tolerably complete body of philosophy shared by Plotinos and Numenius, out of the few fragments of the latter that have come down to us. It would therefore be reasonable to suppose that if Numenius's complete works had survived we could make out a still far stronger case for Plotinos's dependence on Numenius. At any rate, the Dominican scribe at the Escoreal who inserted the name of Numenius in the place of that of Plotinos in the heading of[672] the fragment about matter, must have felt a strong confusion between the two authors.