The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 1 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning — Plato — John Shaqi
The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 1 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning
Plato · en
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians likewise, chap. viii. v. 5.
Paul expressly asserts that there is a divine multitude. For he says,
“Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be Gods many and Lords many;)” 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: “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.” And he
afterwards adds, “that this was in a transcendent manner understood
by Paul, who was the leader both of him and his preceptor, to divine
illumination,” in the above cited verse. And, “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 unical.”[23] 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 ανεκφοιτητος του ενος, 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, “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 one_. For as trees by their summits (i.e. their
roots) are fixed in the earth, and through these are earthly, after the
same manner also divine natures are rooted by their summits in _the
one_, and each of them is unity and one, through unconfused union
with _the one itself_.” Ην γαρ αν τουτων λαβῃς, την αυτην ταις
αλλαις λαμβανεις, διοτι δη πασαι και εν αλληλαις εισι, και ενερριζονται
τῳ ενι. Καθαπερ γαρ τα δενδρα ταις εαυτων κορυφαις ενιδρυνται τῃ γῃ,
και εστι γηινα κατ’ εκεινας, τον αυτον τροπον και τα θεια ταις εαυτων
ακροτησιν ενερριζωνται τῳ ενι, και εκαστον αυτων ενας εστι, και εν, δια
την προς το εν ασυγχυτον ενωσιν.