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

ularly revolves round the whole of heaven.1 Since, however, a corporeal worship cannot even be paid to these, because they are naturally unindigenl, a third kind of statues was devised on the earth, by the worship of which we render the Gods propitious to us. For as those who reverence the images or kings, who are not in want of any such reverence, at the same time attract to themselves their benevolence ; thus also those who venerate the statues of the Gods, who are not in want of any thing, persuade the Gods by this veneration to assist and be favourable to them. For alacrity in the performance of tilings T in our power is a document of true sanctity ; and it is very evident that he who accomplishes the former, will in a greater degree possess the latter. But he who despises things in his power, and i pretends to desire impossibilities, evidently does not pursue the latter, and overlooks the For though divinity is not in want of any thing, it does not follow that on this account ; is to be offered to him. For neither is he in want of celebration through the ministry of words. What then I (Is it therefore reasonable that he should be deprived of this ? By no means. Neither therefore is he to be deprived of the honour which is paid him through works; which honour has been legally established, not for three, or for three thousand years, but in all preceding ages, among all natiotis of the earth.

" But [the Galilssans will say,] O ! you who hai whom, though according to you tbey are formless and unfigured, you have fashioned in a corporeal resemblance, it is not fit that honour should be paid to divinity through such works. How, then, do not we [heathens] consider as wood and stones thaw statues which are fashioned by the hands of men* O more stupid than even stones themselves ! Do you fancy that all men are to be drawn by the nose at you are drawn by execrable dwmont, so as to think that the artificial resemblances of the Gods are the Gods themselves* Looking therefore to the resemblances of the Gods, we do not think them to be either stones or wood ; for neither do we think that the Gods are these resemblances; since neither do we say that royal images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that tbey are the kings themselves, but the images of kings.

ds, we do not think them to be either stones or wood ; for neither do we think that the Gods are these resemblances; since neither do we say that royal images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that tbey are the kings themselves, but the images of kings. Whoever, therefore, loves his king, beholds with pleasure the image of his king ; whoever loves his child is delighted with his image ;

loves his father surveys bis image with delight* Hence also, he who is a lover of at bodies the celestial orbs, which in const quence of participating a divine life from the corporeal powers from which they are suspend* * Dt. Sullingteet quotes this part of the extract, in his i

INTRODUCTION.

divinity gladly surveys the statues and image* of the Gods; at the i with a holy dread the Gods who invisibly behold hint.'

The Catholics have employed arguments similar to these, in defence of the reverence which they pay to the images of their saints. Indeed, it is the doctrine of the Church of England,* that the

1 " Dio Chrysostome (says Dr. Stillingfleet in the before-cited work, p. 414) at large debates the case images, in bis Olympic Oration; wherein he first show*, thmt all me a have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the father of all things; and that this Cod was represented by the statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius, for so he said *«f' r mnpnt btfert n-aom ire note art; and then describe* him to be the ting, ruler, and father of all, both Gods and men. This image be calls the roost blessed, the most excellent, the most beautiful, the most beloved image of God. He says there are four ways of comiug to the knowledge of God, by nature, by the instructions of the poets, by the laws, and by images; but neither poets, nor lawgivers, nor artificers were the best interpreters of the deity, but only the philosophers who both understood and explained the divine nature most truly and perfectly. After this, he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an image of God, as unworthy of him; when Iphitus, Lycurgus, and the old Eleans, made none at all of him, as being out of the power of man to express his nature. To this Phidias replies, that no man can express miud and understanding by figures, or colours, and therefore they are forced to By to that in which the soul inhabits, and from thence they attribute the *«»t of wisdom and reason to God, having nothing better to represent him by.

, that no man can express miud and understanding by figures, or colours, and therefore they are forced to By to that in which the soul inhabits, and from thence they attribute the *«»t of wisdom and reason to God, having nothing better to represent him by. And by that means joining power and art together, they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted, to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible. But it may be said, we had better then have no image or representation of him at all. No, says be ; for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distauce, but to come near and feel him, and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him. Like children newly i their parents, who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present; so do i of the sense of God's goodness and their relation to him, love to have him represented as present with them, and so to converse with him. Thence have come all the 'representations of God among the barbaruus nations, in mountains, and trees, and stones."

The same conceptions also about statues are entertained by the Brachmans in Benares on the Ganges. For Monsieur Bernier when he was at their university, and was discoursing with one of the most learned men among tbem, proposed to him the question about the adoration of their idols, and reproaching him with it as a thing very unreasonable, received from him this remarkable answer : " We nave indeed in our temples many different statues, as those of Brahma, Mahadeo, Genick, and Gavani, who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas (or Deities) ; and we have also many others of less perfection, to whom we pay great honour, prostrating ourselves before them, and presenting them flowers, rice, oylcs, saffron, and the like, with much ceremony. But we do not believe these statues to be Brahma or Becben, Arc. themselves, but only their images lions, and we only give them that honour ou account of the beings they represent. They are in our because it is necessary in order to pray well, to have something before our eyes that may fix the mind. And when we pray, il is not the statue we pray to, but be that is represented by it." The Brahmans have also another way of defending their worship of statues, of which the same author gives the following account: " That God, or that sovereign being whom they call Achar (immutable) has produced or drawn out of his own substance, not only souls, but also whatever is material and corporeal in the universe, so that all things in the world are but one and the