mously compared by infidels to our Saviour, and who him. self exhibited, in a most remarkable degree, this abominable combination of transcendental sophistry, mystic pantheism or disguised atheism, and Satanic magic. Whether this last was wholly pretended, or to what extent it may have been real, it is very difficult now to determine. LXXIII. The Nightly Conference, or Areopagus, of Plato's State. The Athenian Areopagus. PAGE 79, LINE 7. οἱ τοῦ νυκτερινοῦ ξυλλόγου κοινω VOUVTEC. As far as we can recollect, no description of this body, styled The Nightly Conference, is given in any of the preceding books of this dialogue. The reader, however, will find its composition and offices subsequently set forth in the twelfth book of The Laws, 961, A., B. It was to be formed by a careful selection from the body of the magistrates, and of those who had travelled abroad for the purpose of learning the morals and legislation of foreign lands, together with some of the more choice young men who might be thought worthy of so distinguishing an honour. This court, which he styles the anchor of the state, was to assemble very early, either at, or just preceding, daybreak; a season which, besides presenting the most leisure from other necessary employments, was also most favourable to clear thought, and calm, impartial deliberation. In a subsequent part of the twelfth book (968, B.) it is again spoken of under the same title. It is not expressly mentioned, we think, in the Epinomis, or Appendix to the Laws, and yet the whole of that obscure book seems to be intended to point out a peculiar mode of education for the members of this conference, and a certain higher philosophy, into which, as into sacred mysteries, they were to be initiated before they could enter upon this most responsible trust. Perhaps in this Plato hoped to realize one of the dreams of the Republic, namely, that union of the characters of the statesman and the philosopher, in the combination of which he found the perfection of the political structure. This body was intended to unite civil with religious and spiritual functions. It was to be the high ecclesiastical court of equity and conscience. The members were not only to perform the duties of judicial magistrates, but also of public censors. They had, besides, the still more sacred and spiritual office of counsellors and instructers to those who were undergoing the discipline of the Sophronisterion, but had not yet been sent to the prison of the incurable; thus acting, in short, not only as judges, but also as chaplains and ghostly advisers of the wretched criminals, especially of such despisers of God and blasphemers of Providence as the characters treated of in this book. In addition to all this, they were intrusted with the censorship of the laws themselves. In this court or conference, Plato seems to have had in his mind the Athenian Areopagus, which, in like manner, was the guardian of the laws and public morals. It was also of a religious nature, and was regarded with so much religious awe that, as Æschines informs us, it was not allowed for any one to laugh within its precincts. LXXIV. Common Law against all Private Religions. Examination of Plato's Doctrine in respect to Changes in the Public Worship and Religion of the State. PAGE 81, LINE 5. κοινὸν δ' ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσι νόμον, κ. T. 2. The law here set forth was intended not only for the three kinds of offenders which have been mentioned, but for all the people of the state. It was to be a law of prevention, intended to reach the origin of the evil, namely, that private superstition which led weak men and women (γυναῖκας καὶ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας πάντας) to have private chapels and rites of their own, while they neglected the administrations of the public temples and altars. This seems, in Plato's time, to have been carried to a great extent, and to have produced, and been produced by, the very class of atheists against whom he has been legislating; especially those of the third division, who held that God was easily propitiated by peculiar rites and offerings. These men were also interpreters of dreams, expounders of omens, and, in short, the priesthood of a private superstition, which became more extensive and more iniquitous in proportion as it shunned the notice of the legal guardians of the public religion. To prevent this evil, with its irreligious and demoralizing consequences, this law was to be established for the common weal—ἱερὰ μηδὲ εἰς ἐν ἰδίαις οἰκίαις ἐκτήσθω. The same law is given by Cicero in his treatise De Legibus, lib. ii., 8, as cited from the twelve tables: Separatim nemo habessit Deos; neve novos, sed ne advenas, nisi publice adscitos, privatim colunto. Clemens Alexandrinus refers with approbation to this law of Plato,* although there can be no doubt that the similar statute in Rome was the proximate, if not the remote, exciting cause of the cruel persecution Christianity had to undergo as, at first, a foreign, and, in a great measure, a private religion. There was, however, one most beautiful species of family religion, which Plato not only allowed in his scheme of legislation, but even encouraged by the warmest commendation. We allude to the sacred domestic altar, which he would have dedicated to the paternal and filial affections, and to the worship of the aged living parent or grandparent, as the * Stromata, lib. v., 584, D. best representation of the invisible God. See remarks on the passages referred to, Dissertation I., pages 88, 89. PAGE 81, LINE 15. ἱερὰ καὶ θεοὺς οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἱδρύεσθαι, μεγάλης δὲ διανοίας τινὸς ὀρθῶς δρᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον—“ It is no easy thing, or it is no small matter, to establish (or consecrate) chapels and Divinities. Such a work requires no ordinary intelligence.” The phrase ἱδρύεσθαι ἱερὰ καὶ θεoùs may be taken generally for the introduction of new religious rites and the adoration of new Divinities. The primary reference is to private innovation, but it has respect, likewise, to all changes attempted in the public worship, either by private individuals or by magistrates. We may compare with this a passage from the fifth book of The Laws, 738, D.: περὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἱερῶν ἅττα τε ἐν τῇ πό λει ἑκάστοις ἱδρύσθαι δεῖ, οὐδεὶς ἐπιχειρήσει κινεῖν νοῦν ἔχων, ὅσα ἐκ Δελφῶν, ἢ Δωδώνης, ἢ παρ' Αμμωνος, ἤ τι νες ἔπεισαν παλαιοὶ λόγοι, φασμάτων γενομένων, ἢ ἐπιπνοίας λεχθείσης θεῶν—“ In respect to the Gods and sacred things and places, &c., no one who has reason should attempt to change or unsettle anything which has come from Delphos, or Dodona, or Ammon, or which ancient traditions have recommended to us on the authority of supernatural appearances, or of a Divine afflatus or inspiration." In another place (Laws, vi., 772, D.) he condemns all innovation in religion, or in any of the fundamental laws of the state, unless there shall be the threefold consent, first, of all the magistrates; secondly, of all the people (by which he means, at least, a large majority); and, thirdly, of all the oracles of the Gods : πάσας μὲν τὰς ἀρχὰς χρὴ ξυμβούλους, πάντα δὲ τὸν δῆμον, καὶ πάσας θεῶν μαντείας ἐπελθόντας· ἐὰν συμφωνῶσι πάντες, οὕτω κινεῖν, ἄλλως δὲ μηδέποτε μηδαμῶς. When we regard Plato as without any special revelation from Heaven, or any Divine commission to change the religion of his country, we cannot severely condemn his solicitude in this matter. He may have wished to preserve all the forms of religion, and yet have been influenced by a sincere and earnest desire to introduce a thorough reformation into its spirit. He had not the experience of a thousand years, such as is now spread before us in the history of the Christian Church, to convince him that this thing was impossible. We, however, with such a special revelation in our hands, cannot approve the doctrine or the law here laid down, however much we may respect the motive which gave rise to it in his peculiar circumstances.* The Oxford theologians would hail Plato as inculcating here their favourite dogma of authority and tradition. Professor Sewal, of that University, has made every effort to turn his language to such a use, sometimes with a tolerable degree of fairness, and sometimes by giving to Plato a sense of which he never dreamed; although we do not think that the professor has ever referred to the passage before us. Every attempt, however, to bring to their aid the divine philosopher of Greece must fail them, when it is remembered that to him tradition was all the revelation he possessed, and that when this tradition became corrupted, he had no higher standard (such as we possess) by which he might correct it. How much he would have prized such a special written revelation, and how joyfully he would have put away from him any inferior guide, may be learned from his famous declaration in the second Alcibiades: "That we must wait patiently until some one, either a God, or some inspired man, teach us our moral and religious duties, and, as Pallas, in Homer, did to Diomed, remove the darkness from our eyes”—ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὴν ἀχλὺν ἀφελεῖν. Αlcibiades, ii., 150, D. A like inference may be drawn from that most remarkable passage in the Republic, where he indulges the * See a more extended discussion of this subject, Diss. v., p. 102, X., 116, and Note 13, page 6. |