The Theology of Plato, in six books — trans. Thomas Taylor

ith altars, and images, and sacrifices, and hymns, and prostrations, and such like ; but it it by no meant fitting, says he, for U4 to confound thete things, either by lifting up nun to the honours of the Gods, or depressing the Gods to the honours of men. For neither would Alexander suffer any man to usurp his royal dignity by the votes of men ; how much more justly may the Gods disdain for any man to take their houonra to himself. And it appears by Plutarch,1 that the Greeka thought it a mean and base thing for any of them, when sent on an embassy to the kings of Persia, to prostrate themselves before them, because this was only allowed among them in divine adoration. Therefore, says he, when Pelopidas and Ismenias were sent to Arlax erics, Pelopidas did nothing unworthy, but Ismeniaa let fall bis ring to the ground, and stooping for that was nought to make his adoration ; which was altogether as good a shift as Use Jesuits advising the crucifix to be held in the Mandarin*' hands while they made their adoration* in the Heathen temples in China.

" Conon* also refused to make his adoration, ns n disgrace to his city; and Isocrates' accuses

' Answer to Catholics no Idolaters Lond. 1876. p. tit.
1 Arrian.de Exped. Alex. I. 4. et Curt. lib. 8.

• Viu Aruxen. /Elian. Var. hist. lib. 1. c. tl.

♦ Justin, lib. 6. > Paaegyr.

:

IXTROBUCTIO M.

the Persians for doing it* because hertin they shewed, that they despised the Gods rather than men, by prostituting their honours to their princes. Herodotus* mentions Sperchius and Brdis, who could not with the greatest violence bo brought to give adoration to Xerxes, because it was against the lavs of their country to give divhie honour to men.' And Valerius Maximus* says, the Jthe- . mans put Timagorat to death for doing it ; so strong an apprehension had possessed them, that . the manner of worship which the) used to their Gods, should be preserved sacred and inviolable." The philosopher Sallusl also in his treatise On the (Jods and the World says, " It is not unreasonable to suppose that impiety is a species of punishment, and that those who bave had a knowledge of the Gods, and yet despised ineni, will in another life be deprived of this knowledge.

n his treatise On the (Jods and the World says, " It is not unreasonable to suppose that impiety is a species of punishment, and that those who bave had a knowledge of the Gods, and yet despised ineni, will in another life be deprived of this knowledge. And it is requisite to make the punisliment of those who have honoured their kings as Gods to consist in being expelled from the Gods."'

When the ineffable transcendency of the first God, whith was considered as the grand principle in the Heathen theology, by iu most ancient promulgators Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato, was forgotten, this oblivion was doubtless the principal cause of dead men being deified by the Pagans. Had they properly directed their attention to this tram cendency they would have perceived it to be so immense as to surpass eternity, infinity, self-subsistence, and even essence itself, and that these in reality belong to those veiu-rable natures which are as it were first unfolded into light from the unfathomable depihsof that truly mystic unknown, about which all kuowledgc is refunded into ignorance. For as Simplicius justly observes, " It is requisite that he who ascends to the principle of things should investigate whether it is possible there cau be any thing better than the supposed principle : and if something more excellent is found, the same enquiry should again be made respecting that, till we arrive at the highest conceptions, Uian which we have no longer any more venerable. Nor should we stop in our asceiit till we find this to be the case. For then- is no occasion to fear that our progression will be through an unsubstantial void, by conceiving something about the first principles which is greater and more transcendent than their nature. For it is not possible for our conceptions to take such a mighty leap as to equal, and much less to pass beyond the dignity of the first principles of things." He adds, '« This therefore is oue and the best extension [of the soul] to [ihe highest] God, and is as much as possible irreprel.enrille ; viz. to know firmly, lliat by ascribing to him the n,o.-t venerable excellencies we can couceive, and the mmt holy and primary names and things, we ascribe nothing to hi.n which is suitable to bis dignity.

' r.ib.T.

' l.:h. 6 Cap. 3.

INTRODUCTION.

xixiii

It is sufficient however, to procure our pardon [for the attempt,] that we can attribute to him superior.'" If it is not possible therefore to form any idea, equal to tbe dignity of the : progeny of the ineffable, i. e.

zed by Google

INTRODUCTION.

xixiii

It is sufficient however, to procure our pardon [for the attempt,] that we can attribute to him superior.'" If it is not possible therefore to form any idea, equal to tbe dignity of the : progeny of the ineffable, i. e. of the first principle* of things, how much less can our conceptions reach that thrice unknown darkuess, in the reverential language of the Egyptians,1 which is even beyond these? Had the Heathens therefore considered as they ought this transcendency of the supreme God, they would never have presumed to equalize the human with the divine nature, and consequently would never have worshipped men aa'Gods. Their theology, however, is not to be accused as the cause of this impiety, but their forgetfolness of the subof its dogmas, and tbe confusion with which this oblivion wa r i lu the last place, I wish to adduce a few respectable testimonies to prove that statues were not considered nor worshipped by any of the intelligent Heathens as Gods, but as the resemblance* of the Gods, as auxiliaries to tbe recollection of a divine nature, and tbe means of procuring its assistance and favour. For this purpose, I shall first present the reader with what the philosopher Sallust says concerning sacrifices and the honours which were paid to the divinities, in his golden treatise On the Gods and the World. " The honours, says he, which we pay to the Gods are performed for the sake of our advantage ; and since the providence of the Gods is every where extended, a certain habitude or fitness is all that is requisite in order to receive their beneficent communications. But all habitude is produced through imitation and simiUtude. He imitate the heavens, but altars die earth ; statues resemble life, and on this account to animals; prayers imitate that which is intellectual; but characters superior ineffable power* ; herbs and stones resemble matter ; and animals which are sacrificed the irrational life of oar souls. But from all these nothing happens to the Gods beyond what they already possess ; for what accession can be made to a divine nature ? But • conjunction with our souls and the Gods is by these

" I think however, it will be proper to add a few things concerning sacrifices. And in the first

■ Kat xf rn l¥' ni "fX*! »»fimmrm ^v>'», »• Ivwit "w *> *f*m m s/mitunt «fX'r "f* ,l,f**ft ■»«•» fittir, live *' "C T*r lmt*f <x9atpn, mv ovxjti rift»oT<paf »x«fAn'nai pi mm TV rnmfinrtt, Ovti J*f niMfiirm /a* xm^JSaTwpuf, ntu *** V9i^fi*tmrm r»; 9fmc *fxa( T'M •vfwr nrnmnn;.