gious import, which is used by the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew is, or scapegoat. 'Aпоñоμπałοç signifies a victim to be sent away, with solemn religious rites, as an expiation ; and is very similar to ἀλεξίκακος and ἀποτρόπαιος, which are the more common terms in classic Greek. See Leviticus, xvi., 8 : κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ κλῆρον ἕνα τῷ άяопоμяαί; sо, also, in the tenth verse of the same chapter: τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ὥστε ἀποστεῖλαι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ἀποπομπήν. Clemens Alexandrinus uses it in the same peculiar sense: ἐπὶ μόνῃ τῇ διοπομπήσει τῶν κακῶν, Strom., vii., 850.*

Plato could not have selected a stronger word to express his utter abhorrence of atheism. By such language, he represents it as that abominable spirit of all evil (if we may use the word spirit in so strange a connexion), which he had been endeavouring to averruncate, or exorcise, from the souls of the young persons whom he fancies himself so tenderly, yet solemnly, addressing. Some of the expressions used in this passage, and in the parallel place quoted from the ninth book, would almost come up to the Scripture doctrine of demoniacal possession or Satanic influence upon the soul. The word "pоotov, which almost immediately follows, preserves the metaphor contained in ἀποδιοπομπήoaolaι, and is in admirable keeping with the spirit of the whole passage. It suggests here the idea of sudden evil, violently invading, and which can only be prevented by the most speedy and efficacious remedies. Viger and Ast would, most absurdly, substitute πроïòv for πроolov, thereby

* It is thus defined by Timæus in his Lexicon of peculiar Platonic phrases: ἀποπέμπεσθαι καὶ διωθεῖσθαι τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, συμπράκτορι χρώμενος τῷ Διΐ. The latter part of the compound may have the general sense of πέμπω, but more probably has reference to πομπή as significant of a solemn religious procession, or ceremony, by which evil was supposed to be averted, and which is alike common to paganism and a corrupted species of Christianity.

utterly spoiling the metaphor, and weakening the force of the whole declaration. One proof that πрoσiòv is the proper reading here may be derived from the parallel passage in the ninth book, where we have the same image conveyed by a very similar word : ὅταν σοι προσπίπτῃ τι τῶν τοιούτων δογμάτων—" when any such thought shall invade you," &c.

XLI.

Defect of Plato's Theology in regard to the Doctrine of Atonement and the Necessity of Expiation.

PAGE 51, LINE 3. параιтητоùs. The true sense of Plato here, and in the subsequent argument, wherever this word is used, is best given by rendering it easily propitiated, as though it had been evπаρаιтýτoç. In translating an author, we must take into view not only the peculiar circumstances by which he was surrounded, and the peculiar philosophy and theology by which his mind was influenced, but we are bound to consider, likewise, how far modern philosophy and theology have affected certain terms in our own tongue, which otherwise would have been true representatives of his meaning, instead of conveying—as, under such circumstances, they will be very likely to convey-an idea which was never intended. A due regard to this will sometimes require what may, perhaps, seem a paradox, namely, a slight mistranslation of the letter in order to do justice to the spirit; or, in other words, to depart a little from the etymological sense in order to preserve the substance of the writer's thought. Thus, here, for example, we shall certainly do Plato injustice, if we carry our Christian theology along with us in the interpretation, and give to πаρаirηтоùs that sense which, standing alone, it would suggest to a Christian mind. The philosopher knew no

thing of that great atonement which forms the basis of the Christian scheme. His argument is therefore directed against those who held that the Divine displeasure, even for the greatest offences, could be averted by sacrifices, processions, vows, and the mere ritual performances of religion, without repentance, or (which is of still greater mo. ment) without any sense of that need of expiation which was signified by the sacrifices they blindly offered. This feeling of the need of expiation was in some obscure way expressed in all the religions of antiquity. The true and perfect mode forms that peculiar doctrine of Christianity which distinguishes it from all others, and the belief of which, either in the substance or the type, has been, in all ages, the essential element of the righteousness which is by faith.

Could we trace anything of this in the lives or writings of Plato and Socrates, we should indulge more hope of their salvation from it than from any of those moral lessons -truly beautiful and sublime as they are - which have been left to us in their immortal dialogues. We are told, both by Plato and by Xenophon, that Socrates advised his friends to be diligent in offering their sacrifices upon the altars of their country's religion. For this he has been gen erally condemned (at least by Christian writers), as giving a sanction to idolatry; but we have no hesitation in expressing the opinion, that in no part of his philosophy did he come nearer to Christianity and its central truth, and that on no other grounds could we entertain such hopes of his salvation; provided we can only believe that, in giving this advice, he had even the most faint allusion to the great and saving doctrine which all sacrifice was primitively intended to represent.

We find, however, but little reference to this need of expiation in the writings of Plato, except, it might be, in the case of such great and almost incurable sinners as are men

tioned in the passage lately quoted (page 247) from the ninth book of the Laws. A life of ascetic virtue was the remedy which he would in general propose; although, in the pride of philosophy, he was but little aware how utterly defective is any thing which bears the name of human virtue, when laid by the side of that Holy Law which "pierces even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, and is a discerner of all the thoughts and intents of the heart." To a Christian mind this silence in regard to an atonement is the second great fault in Plato's theology. The other is his doctrine of an original independent evil principle. This being closely connected with the dogma of the innate evil of matter, through which the soul was tainted, led him naturally to teach an ascetic mode of purification to the exclusion of any external, forensic, and vicarious atonement. He preached much and most eloquently against the lusts of the flesh as the cause and essence of all depravity; but his philosophy contains but slight recognition of those sins of the spirit in which the much-denounced body has no share, and which may be supposed to belong to a purely spiritual being as well as to one who is enclosed in the grossest robes of matter. Hence it is easy to see how these two errors, although apparently so remote, have a common origin and a common seat in depraved and blinded human nature; and how all, whether out of the Church or in the Church, who have endeavoured to rectify it in a manner different from that pointed out in the Bible, have ever stumbled on this same point, namely, the teaching of an ascetic mode of purification, through the penances and mortification of the flesh, not as auxiliary and disciplinary, but as remedial and saving.

In respect to the doctrine of an atonement, the Greek poets are more often in accordance with the Bible, and those traditions which had come down from a remote antiquity, than our philosopher. Even in the very practices

whose superstitious observances he condemns, and justly condemns, there may be manifested that deep sense of the need of expiation which has been felt in all ages-which has formed a part of all false religions, and of all corruptions of the true and which only finds repose in a believing and intelligent view of the doctrine of the cross. His argument, however, is sound, as directed against some of the practices which prevailed in the Greek religion, and which operated equally with atheism in encouraging the most abominable licentiousness; for their great design was not so much to take away sin, or the consciousness of sin, as to avert its consequences.*

It is the glory of the Gospel that God is παραιτητόςthat he can be propitiated; while the awful sacrifice by which it is accomplished levels in the dust all the pride of human virtue, and all the lofty aspirations of human philosophy. It relieves the penitent and believing spirit from that gloomy sentiment of the Grecian poet, which has ever weighed so heavily on the dark heathen mind

Διὸς γὰρ δυσπαραίτητοι φρένες†

while yet it gives no countenance to that false, presumptuous belief in the Divine placability, against which Plato is here contending, and on which some in our own day would lay so much stress. With such, whether ancient or mod. ern, it is not the Divine mercy which they would exalt— for that has no meaning separate from the Divine justicebut, rather, that idol attribute of their own imaginations, which is so well expressed, in this very argument, by the Greek word pa@vuía; that sluggish indolence, indifference, or good-nature, to use a common expression, which constitutes the prime attribute of the Deity of the ancient Epicurean and the modern sentimentalist.

* See remarks on this distinction, note 1, page 4.

+ Eschylus, Prom. Vinct., 34.