Page:ProclusPlatoTheologyVolume1.djvu/21

Rh to the Ephesians, he could not find any thing more magnificent to say of Christ, than that he is raised even above them, it follows that they must be Gods, since they are superior to the angelic order. It is remarkable too, that he coarranges height and depth (&#965;&#968;&#969;&#956;&#945; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#946;&#965;&#952;&#959;&#962;) with principalities and powers; and &#946;&#965;&#952;&#959;&#962; is one of the &aelig;ones according to the Valentinians.

In the first Epistle to the Corinthians likewise, chap. viii. v. 5. Paul expressly asserts that there is a divine multitude. For he says, &#8220;Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many and Lords many;)&#8221; in the parenthesis of which verse, it is incontrovertibly evident that he admits the existence of a plurality of Gods, though as well as the heathens he believed that one God only was supreme and the father of all things. Nor am I singular in asserting that this was admitted by Paul. For the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the second chapter of his treatise On the Divine Names observes concerning what is here said by Paul as follows: &#8220;Again, from the deific energy of God, by which every thing according to its ability becomes deiform, many Gods are generated; in consequence of which there appears and is said to be a separation and multiplication of the one [supreme] God. Nevertheless, God himself, who is the chief deity, and is superessentially the supreme, is still one God, remaining impartible in the Gods distributed from him, united to himself, unmingled with the many, and void of multitude.&#8221; And he afterwards adds, &#8220;that this was in a transcendent manner understood by Paul, who was the leader both of him and his preceptor, to divine illumination,&#8221; in the above cited verse. And, &#8220;that in divine natures, unions vanquish and precede separations, and yet nevertheless they are united, after the separation which does not in proceeding depart from the one, and is uncial.&#8221; Paul therefore, according to this Dionysius, considered the Gods, conformably to Plato and the best of his disciples, as deiform processions from the one, and which at the same time that they have a distinct subsistence from, are profoundly united to their great producing cause. Dionysius also employs the very same expression which Proclus continually uses when speaking of the separation of the Gods from their source; for he says that the divine multitude &#945;&#957;&#949;&#954;&#966;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#965; &#949;&#957;&#959;&#962;, i. e. does not depart from, but abides in ''the one. Hence Proclus in the fifth book of his MS. Commentary On the Parmenides of Plato, speaking of the divine unities says, &#8220;Whichever among these you assume, it is the same with the others, because all of them are in each other, and are rooted in the''