Plato, however, proceeds to another principle entirely exempt from intellect, more incorporeal and ineffable, and from which all things, even though you should speak of such as are last, have necessarily a subsistence. For all things are not naturally disposed to participate of soul, but such things only as are allotted in themselves a more clear or obscure life. Nor are all things able to enjoy intellect and being, but such only as subsist according to form. But it is necessary that the principle of all things should be participated by all things, if it does not desert anything, since it is the cause of all things which in any respect are said to have a subsistence. Plato having divinely discovered this first principle of wholes, which is more excellent than intellect, and is concealed in inaccessible recesses; and having exhibited these three causes and monads, and evinced them to be above bodies, I mean soul, the first intellect, and a union above intellect, produces from these as monads, their proper numbers; one multitude indeed being uniform,' but the second intellectwd, and the third psychical. Forevery monad is the leader of a multitude ^ Whirever this word occurs in this translation^ it signifies that which is cbaractedzeil by unity.
8 ON THE THEOLOGY BOOK I.
coordinate to itself. But as Plato connects bodies with souk, so likewise he connects souls with intellectual forms, and these again with the unities of beings. But he converts all things to one imparticipable unity. And having run back as far as to this unity, he considers himself as having obtained the highest end of the theory of wholes; and that this is the truth respecting the Gods, which is conversant with the unities of beings, and which delivers their progressions and peculiarities, the contact of beings with them, and the orders of forms which are suspended from these unicar hypostases.
But he teaches us that the theory respecting intellect, an^ the forms and the genera revolving about intellect, is posterior to the science which is conversant with the Gods themselves. Likewise that the intellectual theory apprehends intelligibles, and the forms which are capable of being known by the soul through the projecting energy of intellect; but that the theological science transcending this, is conversant with arcane and ineffable hyparxes, and pursues their separation from each other, and their unfolding into light from one cause of all: whence, I am of opinion, that the intdlectual peculiarity of the soul is capable of apprehending intellectual forms, and the difference which subsists in them, but that the summit, and, as they say, flower of intellect and hyparxis, is conjoined with the unities of beings, and through these, with the occult union of all the divine unities. For as we contain many gnostic powers, through this alone we are naturally capable of being conjoined with and participating this occult union. For the genus of the Gods cannot be apprehended by sense, because it is exempt from all bodies; nor by opinion and dianoia,* for these are divisible and come into contact with multiform concerns; nor by intelligence in conjunction with reason, for knowledge of this kind belongs to true beings; but the hyparxis of the Gods rides on beings, and is defined according to the union itself of wholes. It remains, therefore, if it be admitted that a divine nature can be in any respect known, that it must be apprehended by the hyparxis of the soul, and through this, as far as it is possible, be known. For wo > i. e. Of the nature of the one.
* U e. The diKjorsive energy of reason, or the power of the soul that reasons scientifically.
CHAP. 11. OF PLATO. g say tkat every where things similar can be known by the similar; vi2. the sensible by sense^ the doxastic' by opinion, the dianoetic by dianoia, and the intelligible by intellect So that the most unical nature must be known by the one, and the ineffable by that which is ineffable.
Indeed, Socrates in the [First] Alcibiades rightly observes, that the soul entering into herself will behold all other things, and deity itself. For verging to her own union, and to the centre of all life, laying aside mill* litude, and the variety of the all manifold powers which she contains, she ascends to the high<»t watch-tower of beings. And as in the most holy of the mysteries, they say, that the mystics at first meet with the multi^. form, and many-shaped* genera, which are hurled forth before the Gods, but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved, and guarded by the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom divine illumi* nation, and divested of their garments, as they would say, participate ot a divine nature; — ^tlie same mode, as it appears to me, takes place in the upeculatioo of wholes. For the sou) when looking at things posterior to herself, beholds the shadows and images of beings, but when she converts herself to herself she evolves her own essence, and the reasons which she contains. And a;t first indeed, she only as it were beholds herself; but, when she penetrates more profoundly into the knowledge of herself, she finds in herself both intellect, and the orders of beings. When however, she proceeds into her interior recesses, and into the adytum as it were of the soul, she perceives with her eye closed, the genus of the Gods, and the unities of beings. For all things arp in us psychically, and through this we are naturally capable of knowing all things, by exciting tiba powers aqd thp images of wholes which we contain.
And this is the best employment of our energy, to be extended to a divine nature itself, having our powers at rest, to revojve harmoniously round it, to excite 9II the multitude of the soul to this union, and laying jaside all such things as are posterior to the one^ to beconie seated and conjoined with that which is inefikble, and beyond all things. For it is lawful for the squI to ascend, till she tern^inates her flight in the principle / i. e. Tlie object of opimotif * i, e. EtU dacmonf, Proc. Vol. I. B 10 ON THE THEOLOGY BOOK T.
of things; but arriving thither, beholding the place which is there, de- scending thence, atid dfrecting her course through beings.^ likewise, evolving the multitude of forms, exploring their monads and their numbers, and apprehending intellectually how each is suspended from its proper unity, then we may consider her as possessing the most perfect science of divine natures, perceiving itt a uniform manner the progressions of the Gods into beings, and the distinctions of beings about the Gods. Such thenr according to Plato's decision is our theologist j and theology is a habit of this kind, which unfolds the hyparxis itself of Ihe Gods, se* parates and speculates their unknown and unical light from the peculia-^ rity of their participants, and announces it to such as are \fortby.of this energy, which is both blessed and comprehends all things at once.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER IV.
After this all-perfect comprehension of the first theory, we mi;st deliver the modes according to which Plato teaches us mystic conceptions of divine natures. For he appears not to have pursued every where the same mode of doctrine about these; but sometimes according to a deific energy, and at other times dialecti(ially» he evolves the truth concerning them. And sometimes he symbolically announces their inefiable pecu- liarities, but at other times he recurs to them from images, and discovers in them the primary causes of wholes. For in the Phaedrus being inspired by the Nymphs, and having exchanged human intelligence for a better possession, fury, he unfolds with a divine mouth many arcane dogtpas concerning the intellectual Gods, and many concerning the liberated rulers of the universe, who lead upwards the multitude of mundane Gods to the monads which are intelligible and separate from [mundane] wholes. But relating still more about those Gods who are allotted the world, he celebrates their intellections, and mundane fabrications, their unpolluted providence and government of souls, and whatever else Socrates delivers entheastically [or according to a divinely-inspired energy] in that dialogue.
CHAP. IV. OF PLATO. n as he clearly asserts, ascribing at the same time this fury to the deities ol the place.
But in the Sophista, dialecticaily contending about being, and the separate hypostasis of the one from beings, and doubting against those more ancient than himself, he shows how all beings are suspended from their cause, and the first being, but that being itself participates of the unity which is exempt from the whole of things, that it js a passive one, but not the one itself being subject to and united to the one^ but not being that which is primarily one. In a similar manner too, in the P)^r* menides, he unfolds dialectically the progressions of being from the one^ and the transoendancy of the /me^ through the first hypotheses, and this, as he asserts in that dialogue^ according to the most perfect division of this method. And again, in the Gorgias, he relates the fable concerning the three demiurgi [or fitbricators] and their demiurgic allotment, whidi indeed is not only a fable, but a true narration. But in the Banquet, he speaks cooceming the union of Lore. And in the Protagoras, about the distributiooi of mortal animals from the Gods; in a symbolical manner concealing the truth respecting divine natures, and as fietr as to mere in* dication unfolding his mind to the most genuine of bis hearers.
If likewise, you are willing that I should mention the doctrine deli-^ vered through the mathematical disciplines, and the discussion of divine concerns from ethical or physical discourses, of which many may be con- templated in the Timseus, many in the dialogue called the Politicus, and many may be seen spattered in other dialogues; here likewise to you who are desirous of knowing divine concerns through images, the method will be apparent. Foi" all these shadow forth the powers of things divine. The Politicus, for instance, the fabrication in the heavens. But the- figures of the five elements delivered in geometrical proportions in the TimsBUS,' represent in images the pecuharities of the Gods who ride on the parts of the universe. And the divisions of the psychical essence in that dialogue shadow forth the total orders of the Gods.
I omit to mention that Plato composes polities, assimilating them to t ' ty TifAaif is omitted in the Greek.
Qigitized by Google 12 ON THE THEOLOGY BOOK V divine natures, and to the whole world, and adorns them from the powers which it contains. All these therefore, through the similitude of mortal to divine concerns, exhibit to us in images, the progressions, orders, and fabrications of divine natures. And such are the modes of theologic doc- trine employed by Plato.
It is evident however, from what has been already said, that they are necessarily so many in number. For those who treat of divine concerns in an indicative manner, either speak symbolically and fabulously, or through images. But of those who openly announce their conceptions, some frame their discourses according to science, but others according to inspration from the Gods. And he who desires to signify divine con* cerns through symbols is Orphic, and in short, accords with those who iinrite fables concerning the Gods; But he who does this through images is Pythagoric. For the mathematical disciplines were invented by the Pythagoreans, in order to a reminiscence of divine concerns, at which, through these as images they endeavour to arrive. For they refer both numbers and figures to the Gods, according to the testimony of their his- torians. But the entheastic character, or he who is under the influence of divine inspiration, unfolding the truth itself by itself concerning the Oods, most perspicuously ranks among the highest initiators. For these do not think proper to unfold the divine orders, or their 'peculiarities to their familiars, through certain veils, but announce their powers and their numbers, in consequence of being moved by the Gods theniselves. But the tradition of divine concerns according to science, is the illustrious prerogative of the philosophy of Plato. For Plato alone, as it appeaii to me, of all those who are known to us, has attempted methodically to divide and reduce into order, the regular progression of the divine genera, their mutual diflFerence, the common peculiarities of the total orders, and the distributed peculiarities in each. But the truth of this will be evi. dent when we frame precedaneous demonstitttions about the Parme* nides, and all the divisions which it contains* At present we shall observe that Plato does not admit all the fabulous figments of dramatic composition, but those only which have reference ^to the beautiful and the good, and which are not discordant with a di- CHAP. IV. OP PLATO. IS vine essence. For that mythological mode which indicates divine con^ cems through conjecture is ancient, concealing truth under a multitude ofveils^ami proceeding in a manner similar to nature, which extends sensible figments of intelligibles, material, of immaterial, partible, of im- partible natures^ and images, and things which have a false being, of things perfectly true. But Plato rejects the more tragical mode of my- thologi^g of the ancient poets, who. thought proper to establish an arcane theology respecting the Gods, and on this account devised wan- derings, sections, battles, lacerations, rapes and adulteries of the Gods, and^any other such symbols of the truth about divine natures, whidi this theology conceals; this mode he r^ects, and asserts that it is in every respect most foreign from erudition. But he considers those my- thological discourses about the Gods, as more persuasive, and more adapted to truth and the philosophic habit, which assert that a divine nature is the cause of all good, but of no evil, and that it is void of all mutation, ever preserving its own order immutable, and comprehending in itself the fountain of truth, but never becoming the cause of any de- ception to others^ For such types of theology, Socrates delivers in the Republic.
All the fables therefore of Plato^ guarding the truth in concealment, have not even their externally apparent apparatus discordant with our undisciplined and unperverted anticipation respecting the Gods. But they bring with them an image of the mundane composition, in which both the apparent beauty is worthy of divinity, and a beauty more di- vine than this, is established in the unappmrent lives and powers of the Gods. This therefore, is one of the mythological modes, respecting di- vine concerns, which from the apparently unlawful, irrational, and inor- dinate, passes into order and bound, and regards as its scope the com- position of the beautiful and good.
But there is another mode which he delivers in the Phaedrus. And this consists in every where preserving theological fables, unmixed with physical narrations, and being careful in no respect to confound or exchange theology, and the physical theory with each other. For, as a divine essence is separate from the whole of nature, in like manner, it is 14 ON THE THEOLOGY BOOK L perfectly proper tliat discourses sespecting the Gods should be pure from physical disquisitions. For ia mixture of this kind is, says he, laborious: and to make physical passioiis the end of mythological conjecture, is the employment of jlo very good man;.such for iniktance,^ as considering through his [pretended] wisdom, Chimttra, Gc^goo, and things of a simi* lar kind» as the same with physical figments. Socrates, in the Phsedrus, reprobating this mode of mjrthblogizing^ fepresents its patrons as saying under the figure of a fable, that Orithya sporting with the wind Boreas, and being thrown down the rocks, means nothing more, than that Orithya who was a mortal, was ravished by Boreas through love. For it appears to me, that fabulous narrations about the gods, should always have their concealed meaning more venerable than the apparent So that if certain persons introduce to us physical hypotheses of Platonic fables, and such as are conversant with sublunaiy afiaiirs^ we piust say that they entirely wander from the intention of the philosopher, and that those hypotheses alone, are interpreters of the truth contained in these fables, which have for their scope, a divine, immaterial, and separate hypostasis, and which looking to this, make the compositions and analyses of the fables, adapted' to our inherent anticipations of divine concerns.
CHAPTER V.
' As we have therefore enumerated all these modes of the Platonic theology, and have shown what compositions and cmalyses of fables un adapted to the tmth respecting the Gods, let us consider, in the next place, whence, and from what dialogues principally, we think the dogmas of Plato concerning the Gods may be collected, and by a spe- culation of what types or forms we may be able to distinguish hts genuine writings, from those spurious compositions which are ascribed to him. The truth then concerning the Gods pervades, as I may say, through ' For QtKitausf it is necessary to read oixiio^.
CHAP. ¥. OF PLATO. 15 all the Pktbnic dialogues, and. in all of them conceptions of the first philosophy, venerable, clear, and stipernatural, are disseminated, in some indeed, more ohBcurel J, but in others. more * coti^picuously; con- ceptioBs Which excite those that are in any respect able to participate of thein, to the immaterial and separate essence of the Gods.. Acid, us in each part of the universe, and in nature herself, ihe^ demiurgus of all that the world contains, establi^ed resemblances of. the.unknown hyparxis of the Gods, that all things might be converted to a divine na- ture; through their alliance with it, in like manner. I am of 1 opinion, that the divine intellect of Plato weaves conceptions about theiQ^ods in all his Writings, and leaves nothing deprivediof the meptidn of divinity, that from the whole of them, a reminiscence of wholes may be jobtained, and imparted' to the genuine lovers of divine concerntf^,.
If however, it be requisite to lay before the readtr thosedialogues out of niiany, which principally unfold to us the mysstic discipline about the gods, I should not err in ranking among this number,, the Phaado and Phaedrus, the Banquet, and the Philebus, and together with these, the So(Aista and Pbliticus,. the Cratylus and IheTimaeus* For all these are full through the whole of themselves, as I may say, of. the divine science of Plato. But I should place in the second rank after these, the fable in the Gorgias, and that in the. Protagoras; likewise; the assertions about the providence of the Gods in the Laws, and such things as are delivered about the Fates, or the mother of the Fates, or the circulations of the universe, in the tenth book of the Republic- Again, you may, if you {^ease, place in the third tank those Epistles, through which we. may be able to arrive at the science about divine natures. For in these, mention is made of the three kings; and y&y many other divine dogmas worthy the Platonic theory are delivered. It.is necessary therefore, looking to these, to explore in these each ord^ of the Gods.
Thus from the Philebus, we may receive the science respecting, the one good^ and the two first principles of things, together with the triad^ which is unfolded into light from these. For you will find all these 16 ON THE THEOLOGY BOOK I.
distinctly delivered to us by Flato in that dialogue. But from tkeTiu SMeus, you may obtain the theory about intdUgibles, a divine narration about the demiurgic monad: and the most full truth about the mundane Gods. But from the Phsedrus, [you may acquire a scientific knowledge ot]all the intelligible and intellectual genentt and of the liberated ordeiis of Gods, which are proximately established above the celestial circuk* tions. From the Politicus, you may obtain the theory of the fabrica-t tion in the heavens, of the uneven periods of the universe, and of the intellectual causes of those periods. But from the Sophista, the whole sublunary generation, and the peculiarity of the Gods who are allotted the sublunary region, and preside over its generation^ and corruptions. But with respect to each of the Gods, we may obtain many concepfion& adapted to sacred concerns from the Banquet, many from the Cratylus, and many from the Phaedo. For in each of these dialogues, more or less mention is made of divine names, from which it is easy for those who are exercised in divine concerns to discover by a reasoning process the peculiarities of each« It is necessary however, to evince that each of the dogmas accords with Platonic principles, and the mystic traditions of theologists. For all the Grecian theology is the progeny of the mystic tradition of Of* pheus; Pythagoras first of all learning from Aglaophemus the orgies of the Gods, but Plato in the second place receiving an all-perfect science of the divinities from the Pythagoric and Orphic writings. For in the Philebus referring the theory about the two species of principles [bound and infinity] to the Pythagoreans, he calls them men dwelling with the Gods, and truly blessed. Philolaus therefore, the Pythagorean, has left us in writing many admirable conceptions about these principles, cele* brating their common progression into beings, and their separate fabri«^ cation of things. But in the Timaeus, Plato endeavouring to teach u^ about the sublunary Gods, and their order, flies to theologists, call? them the sons of the Gods, and makes them the fathers of the truth about those divinities. And lastly, he delivers the orders of the siiblti^ pary Gods proceeding from wholes, according to the progression deli-j vered by them of the intellectual kings. Again, in the Cratylus he fql?
CHAP. ▼!. OF PLATO. jy lows the traditions of theologists, respecting the ordet* of t)ie drrine pm^ oessiom. But in tlie Gorgias, he adopts the Homeric dogma, redpeo^ log the triadic hypostasis of the demiurgi. And in short, he ^ver^ where discourses concerning the Gods agreeably to the princif^ of theologists; rejecting indeed, the tragical part of inythological fictioiH but establishing first hypotheses in common with the authors of hbVa.
CHAPTER VI.
Perhaps, howerer, some rtie may here object to us, that We do riot m a proper manner exhibit the every where dispersed theology of IMato, and that we endeavour to heap together diiFerent particulars from difierent -dia- logues, as if we were studious of collecting together many things into one mixture, instead of deriving them all from on6 and the same ibuntahi/ For if this were the case, we might refer different dogmas to different treatises of Plato, but we shafl by no means have a precedaneous doc* trine concerning the Gods, nor will there be any dialogue which presents ns with an all-perfect and entire procession of the divine genera, and their co-ordination with each other. But we shall be similar to those whaen« deavour to obtain a whole from parts, through the Want of a whole prior to parts, and to weave together the perfect from things imperfect; when, bn the contrary, the imperfect ought to have the first cause of its genera* tion in the perfect. For the Timaeus, for instance, will teach us the theory of the intelligible genera; and the Phsedrus appears to present us with a methodical account of the fir^t intellectual orders. But where will be the co-ordination of intellectuals to intelligibles? And what will be the generation of second from first natures? In short, after what manner the progression of the divine orders takes place frbta the one principle of all things, and how in the generations of the Gods, the orders between the onc^ and all-perfect number, are filled tip, we shall* be unable to evince.