Transmigration is often regarded as an integral part of Platonic teaching and it is, of course, an undisputed fact that the idea of rebirth occurs very often in the Platonic dialogues; it holds an especially prominent position in most of his expositions of future life. Yet on closer examination it may be doubted whether Plato really considered the question of rebirth capable of or worthy of a serious and formal treatment. Metempsychosis is most often mentioned in the so-called Platonic myths, and almost regularly these are preceded by a cautious warning that what will follow is a myth, or a tradition, which may be true, but, obviously, cannot be presented as capable of proof. Even when metempsychosis is mentioned outside the myths, it is frequently, if not always, referred to as a “tradition.”

Sooner or later every study of the New Testament must deal with the problem of its eschatology. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, the center of the New Testament is the messiah whom the earliest preachers identified as Jesus. While the term itself simply means, “the Anointed One,” by the time of the New Testament it had come to be inseparably associated with eschatological hopes. That these hopes were expressed in varied and often contradictory forms only adds to the problem. In any case, it is clear that the proclamation that the messiah is Jesus is inevitably an eschatological proclamation.

The cosmic imagery whereby Innocent III likened the Papacy to the sun and the Empire to the moon has been traced before. The purpose of the present inquiry is to examine Gregory VII's scarcely less striking comparison of the sacerdotium to gold and the regnum to lead in three letters, two to Bishop Hermann of Metz and one to William the Conqueror. The comparison is made in its simplest form in the first letter to Hermann in 1076, wherein Pope Gregory in reference to Henry IV and his counsellors writes as follows:

Perchance they imagine that the royal dignity is higher than that of bishops; but how great the difference between them is, they may learn from the difference in their origins. The former came from human lust of power; the latter was instituted by divine grace. The former constantly strives after vain glory; the latter aspires ever toward the heavenly life. Let them learn … how St. Ambrose in his pastoral letter distinguished between them. He said: “If you compare the episcopal dignity with the splendor of kings and the crowns of princes, these are far more inferior to it than the metal lead is to splendorous gold.”

A small scrap of papyrus from Antinoopolis has been edited and commented on by C. H. Roberts and treated in a very learned paper by A. Delatte. I print the text with a few remarks due to these scholars.

There are several well known commentators who hold that Plato “identifies” God with good, or goodness, or the good, or the Idea of the good. And there are several others who come very close to saying this. I should like to show not only that this interpretation is wrong, but also the weaker or perhaps more plausible one that Plato holds that the ground of value or obligation is what God approves or commands.