The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 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 p
Plato · en
In the next place, it is necessary to observe of the mundane Gods
that they do not obtain the rank which they hold in the universe from
any habitude or arrangement towards bodies; for they are all of them
essentially liberated from body, unrestrained in their energies, and
have no proximity or alliance to a corporeal nature. For bodies are
ministrant to them, and are subservient to the generation of mutable
essences. Hence they are not in bodies, but rule over them externally;
so that they are not changed together with them. Farther still, they
impart from themselves to bodies, every good which they are capable
of receiving, but do not in return receive any thing from bodies; and
consequently they do not receive certain peculiarities from them.
For if indeed they had a subsistence like the habits of bodies, or
like material forms, or were corporeal after any other manner, it
might perhaps be possible for them to be transmuted together with
the differences of bodies. But if they antecedently subsist separate
from bodies, and are essentially unmingled with them, what reasonable
distinction can they derive from a corporeal nature? To which may be
added, that such an hypothesis makes bodies to be better than the
divine genera, if they afford a seat to more excellent causes, and
essentially insert in them characteristic peculiarities. He therefore,
who co-arranges the allotments and distributions of the governors with
the governed, will evidently ascribe authority and dominion to better
natures. For because the presiding powers possess such peculiarities,
on this account they chuse such an allotment, and give it essentially
a specific distinction; but the allotment itself is not assimilated to
the nature of the recipient.