Chapter I: Introduction (1)

I rejoice in the opportunity which is afforded me of presenting the _truly_ philosophic reader, in the present work, with a treasure of Grecian theology; of a theology, which was first mystically and symbolically promulgated by Orpheus, afterwards disseminated enigmatically through images by Pythagoras, and in the last place scientifically unfolded by Plato and his genuine disciples. The peculiarity indeed, of this theology is, that it is no less scientific than sublime; and that by a geometrical series of reasoning originating from the most self-evident truths, it developes all the deified progressions from the ineffable principle of things, and accurately exhibits to our view all the links of that golden chain of which deity is the one extreme, and body the other.

That also which is most admirable and laudable in this theology is, that it produces in the mind properly prepared for its reception the most pure, holy, venerable, and exalted conceptions of the great cause of all. For it celebrates this immense principle as something superior even to being itself; as exempt from the whole of things, of which it is nevertheless ineffably the source, and does not therefore think fit to connumerate it with any triad, or order of beings. Indeed, it even apologises for attempting to give an appropriate name to this principle, which is in reality ineffable, and ascribes the attempt to the imbecility of human nature, which striving intently to behold it, gives the appellation of the most simple of its conceptions to that which is beyond all knowledge and all conception. Hence it denominates it _the one_, and _the good_; by the former of these names indicating its transcendent simplicity, and by the latter its subsistence as the object of desire to all beings. For all things desire good. At the same time however, it asserts that these appellations are in reality nothing more than the parturitions of the soul which standing as it were in the vestibules of the adytum of deity, announce nothing pertaining to the ineffable, but only indicate her spontaneous tendencies towards it, and belong rather to the immediate offspring of the first God, than to the first itself.

Hence, as the result of this most venerable conception of the supreme, when it ventures not only to denominate the ineffable, but also to assert something of its relation to other things, it considers this as pre-eminently its peculiarity, that it is the principle of principles; it being necessary that the characteristic property of principle, after the same manner as other things, should not begin from multitude, but should be collected into one monad as a summit, and which is the principle of all principles. Conformably to this, Proclus, in the second book of this work[1] says, with matchless magnificence of diction: “Let us as it were celebrate the first God, not as establishing the earth and the heavens, nor as giving subsistence to souls, and the generation of all animals; for he produced these indeed, but among the last of things; but prior to these, let us celebrate him as unfolding into light the whole intelligible and intellectual genus of Gods, together with all the supermundane and mundane divinities----as the God of all Gods, the unity of all unities, and beyond the first adyta,[2]--as more ineffable than all silence, and more unknown than all essence,--as holy among the holies, and concealed in the intelligible Gods.”

The scientific reasoning from which this dogma is deduced is the following: As the principle of all things is _the one_, it is necessary that the progression of beings should be continued, and that no vacuum should intervene either in incorporeal or corporeal natures. It is also necessary that every thing which has a natural progression should proceed through similitude. In consequence of this, it is likewise necessary that every producing principle should generate a number of the same order with itself, viz. _nature_, a natural number; _soul_, one that is psychical (i.e. belonging to soul); and _intellect_, an intellectual number. For if whatever possesses a power of generating, generates similars prior to dissimilars, every cause must deliver its own form and characteristic peculiarity to its progeny; and before it generates that which gives subsistence to progressions far distant and separate from its nature, it must constitute things proximate to itself according to essence, and conjoined with it through similitude. It is therefore necessary from these premises, since there is one unity the principle of the universe, that this unity should produce from itself, prior to every thing else, a multitude of natures characterized by unity, and a number the most of all things allied to its cause; and these natures are no other than the Gods.

According to this theology therefore, from the immense principle of principles, in which all things causally subsist, absorbed in superessential light, and involved in unfathomable depths, a beauteous progeny of principles proceed, all largely partaking of the ineffable, all stamped with the occult characters of deity, all possessing an overflowing fulness of good. From these dazzling summits, these ineffable blossoms, these divine propagations, being, life, intellect, soul, nature, and body depend; _monads_ suspended from _unities_, deified natures proceeding from deities. Each of these monads too, is the leader of a series which extends from itself to the last of things, and which while it proceeds from, at the same time abides in, and returns to its leader. And all these principles and all their progeny are finally centered and rooted by their summits in the first great all-comprehending one. Thus all beings proceed from, and are comprehended in the first being; all intellects emanate from one first intellect; all souls from one first soul; all natures blossom from one first nature; and all bodies proceed from the vital and luminous body of the world. And lastly, all these great monads are comprehended in the first one, from which both they and all their depending series are unfolded into light. Hence this first one is truly the unity of unities, the monad of monads, the principle of principles, the God of Gods, one and all things, and yet one prior to all.

No objections of any weight, no arguments but such as are sophistical, can be urged against this most sublime theory which is so congenial to the unperverted conceptions of the human mind, that it can only be treated with ridicule and contempt in degraded, barren, and barbarous ages. Ignorance and priestcraft, however, have hitherto conspired to defame those inestimable works,[3] in which this and many other grand and important dogmas can alone be found; and the theology of the Greeks has been attacked with all the insane fury of ecclesiastical zeal, and all the imbecil flashes of mistaken wit, by men whose conceptions on the subject, like those of a man between sleeping and waking, have been _turbid and wild_, _phantastic and confused_, _preposterous and vain_.

Indeed, that after the great incomprehensible cause of all, a divine multitude subsists, co-operating with this cause in the production and government of the universe, has always been, and is still admitted by all nations, and all religions, however much they may differ in their opinions respecting the nature of the subordinate deities, and the veneration which is to be paid to them by man; and however barbarous the conceptions of some nations on this subject may be when compared with those of others. Hence, says the elegant Maximus Tyrius, “You will see one according law and assertion in all the earth, that there is one God, the king and father of all things, and many Gods, sons of God, ruling together with him. This the Greek says, and the Barbarian says, the inhabitant of the Continent, and he who dwells near the sea, the wise and the unwise. And if you proceed as far as to the utmost shores of the ocean, there also there are Gods, rising very near to some, and setting very near to others.”[4] This dogma, too, is so far from being opposed by either the Old or New Testament, that it is admitted by both, though it forbids the religious veneration of the inferior deities, and enjoins the worship of one God alone, whose portion is Jacob, and Israel the line of his inheritance. The following testimonies will, I doubt not, convince the liberal reader of the truth of this assertion.

In the first place it appears from the 32d chapter of Deuteronomy, v. 8. in the Septuagint version, that “_the division of the nations was made according to the number of the angels of God_,” and not according to the number of the children of Israel, as the present Hebrew text asserts. This reading was adopted by the most celebrated fathers of the Christian church, such as, among the Greeks, Origen, Basil, and Chrysostom, and among the Latins, Jerom and Gregory. That this too, is the genuine reading, is evident from the 4th chapter of the same book and the 19th verse, in which it is said, “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon, and the stars, _even_ all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, _which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven_.” Here it is said that the stars are divided to all the nations, which is equivalent to saying that the nations were divided according to the number of the stars; the Jewish legislator at the same time, considering his own nation as an exception, and as being under the government of the God of Israel alone. For in the following verse it is added, “But the Lord hath taken you (i.e. the Jews), and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, _even_ out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as _ye_ are to this day.” By the angels of God therefore (in Deuteron. 32. v. 8.) the stars are signified; and these in the same book (chapter 17. v. 3.) are expressly called Gods; “And hath gone and served other Gods, and worshipped them, _either the sun or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded_.” In the 3d chapter also, and the 24th verse, it is implied in the question which is there asked, that the God of the Jews is superior to all the celestial and terrestrial Gods: “For what God is there _in heaven, or in earth_, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might?” As the attention of the Jews was solely confined to the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they but little regarded the powers whom they conceived to be subordinate to this God, and considering all of them as merely the messengers of their God, they gave them the general appellation of _angels_; though as we shall shortly prove from the testimony of the Apostle Paul, they were not consistent in confounding _angels_ properly so called with _Gods_.

But that the stars are not called Gods by the Jewish legislator as things inanimate like statues fashioned of wood or stone, is evident from what is said in the book of Job, and the Psalms: “Behold even the moon and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm, and the son of man which is a worm?” (Job. xxv. v. 5. and 6.) And, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him.” (Psalm viii. v. 3. and 4.) It is evident therefore from these passages, that the heavens and the stars are more excellent than man; but nothing inanimate can be more excellent than that which is animated. To which may be added, that in the following verse David says, that God has made man a little lower than the angels. But the stars, as we have shown, were considered by Moses as angels and Gods; and consequently, they are animated beings, and superior to man.

Farther still, in the Septuagint version of verse the 4th of the 19th Psalm, God is said _to have placed his tabernacle in the sun_, (εν τῳ ηλιῳ εθετο το σκηνωμα αυτου) which is doubtless the genuine reading, and not that of the vulgar translation, “In them (i.e. the heavens) hath he set a tabernacle for the sun.” For this is saying nothing more of the sun than what may be said of any of the other stars, and produces in us no exalted conception of the artificer of the universe. But to say that God dwells in the sun, gives us a magnificent idea both of that glorious luminary, and the deity who dwells enshrined, as it were, in dazzling splendor. To which we may add in confirmation of this version of the Septuagint, that in Psalm xi. v. 4. it is said, “The Lord’s _throne_ is in _heaven_.” And again in Isaiah lxvi. v. 1. “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” If therefore the heavens are the throne, and the sun the tabernacle of deity, they must evidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact with divinity without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius,[5] “That it is connascent with the human soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially evident from those, (the Jews) who look to these bodies through preconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the heavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are alone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those who are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?”

Indeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence of deity, is also evident from the assertion in the 19th Psalm, “That the heavens _declare_ the glory of God.” For R. Moses, a very learned Jew, says,[6] “that the word _saphar_, to _declare_ or _set forth_, is never attributed to things inanimate.” Hence he concludes, “that the heavens are not without some soul, which, says he, is no other than that of those blessed intelligences, who govern the stars, and dispose them into such letters as God has ordained; declaring unto us men by means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence, this same writing is called by all the ancients _chetab hamelachim_, that is to say, _the writing of the angels_.”

The Gods therefore, which were distributed to all the nations but the Jews, were the sun and moon, and the other celestial bodies, yet not so far as they are bodies, but so far as they are animated beings. Hence the Hebrew prophets never reprobate and prohibit the worship of the stars as things which neither see, nor hear, nor understand, as they do the worship of statues. Thus in Deuteron. iv. and 28. “And there ye shall serve Gods the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.” And the Psalmist, “They have a mouth but speak not, &c.” These, and many other things of the like kind are said by the prophets of the Jews against the worship of images and statues, but never of the sun and moon, and the other stars. But when they blame the worship of the heavenly bodies, they assign as the cause that the people of Israel are not attributed to them as other nations are, in consequence of being the inheritance of the God that brought them out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. This is evident from the before cited passage in the 4th chapter of Deuteronomy, in which it is said that the stars are divided unto all nations under the whole heaven but the Jews.

Indeed, as the emperor Julian[7] justly observes, “unless a certain ethnarchic God presides over every nation, and under this God there is an angel, a dæmon, and a peculiar genus of souls, subservient and ministrant to more excellent natures, from which the difference in laws and manners arises,--unless this is admitted, let it be shown by any other how this difference is produced. For it is not sufficient to say, “God said, and it was done,” but it is requisite that the natures of things which are produced should accord with the mandates of divinity. But I will explain more clearly what I mean. God, for instance, commanded that fire should tend upward, and earthly masses downward; is it not therefore requisite, in order that the mandate of God may be accomplished; that the former should be light, and the latter heavy? Thus also in a similar manner in other things. Thus too, in divine concerns. But the reason of this is, because the human race is frail and corruptible. Hence also, the works of man are corruptible and mutable, and subject to all various revolutions. But God being eternal, it is also fit that His mandates should be eternal. And being such, they are either the natures of things, or conformable to the natures of things. For how can nature contend with the mandate of divinity? How can it fall off from this concord? If, therefore, as he ordered that there should be a confusion of tongues, and that they should not accord with each other, so likewise he ordered that the political concerns of nations should be discordant; he has not only effected this by his mandate, but has rendered us naturally adapted to this dissonance. For to effect this, it would be requisite, in the first place, that the natures of those should be different, whose political concerns among nations are to be different. This, indeed, is seen in bodies, if any one directs his attention to the Germans and Scythians, and considers how much the bodies of these differ from those of the Lybians and Ethiopians. Is this therefore, a mere mandate, and does the air contribute nothing, nor the relation and position of the region with respect to the celestial bodies?”

Julian adds, “Moses, however, though he knew the truth of this, concealed it; nor does he ascribe the confusion of tongues to God alone. For he says, that not only God descended, nor one alone with him, but many, though he does not say who they were. But it is very evident, that he conceived those who descended with God to be similar to him. If, therefore, not the Lord only, but those who were with him contributed to this confusion of tongues, they may justly be considered as the causes of this dissonance.”

In short, that the heavens and the celestial bodies are animated by certain divine souls, was not only the opinion of the ancient poets and philosophers, but also of the most celebrated fathers of the church, and the most learned and acute of the schoolmen. Thus for instance, this is asserted by Jerom in his exposition of the 6th verse of the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. And by Origen in his book On Principles, who says that the heavenly bodies must be animated, because they are said to receive the mandates of God, which is only consentaneous to a rational nature. This too is asserted by Eusebius in his Theological Solutions, and by Augustine in his Enchiridion. Among the schoolmen too, this was the opinion of Albertus Magnus in his book De quatuor Coæquævis; of Thomas Aquinas in his treatise De Spiritualibus Creaturis; and of Johannes Scotus Super Secundo Sententiarum. To these likewise may be added, the most learned Cardinal Nicolaus Cusanus. Aureolus indeed strenuously contends for the truth of this opinion, and does not even think it improper to venerate the celestial bodies with outward worship (duliæ cultu) and to implore their favour and assistance. And Thomas Aquinas says, that he has no other objection to this than that it might be the occasion of idolatry. Hence, though it may seem ridiculous to most of the present time, that divine souls should be placed in the stars, and preside over regions and cities, tribes and people, nations and tongues, yet it did not appear so to the more intelligent Christians of former times.

I had almost forgotten however the wisest of the ancient Christians, but as he was the best of them, I have done well in reserving him to the last; and this is no other than the Platonic bishop Synesius. This father of the church therefore, in his third hymn, sings as follows:

Σε, πατερ κοσμων,
πατερ αιωνων,
αυτουργε θεων,
ευαγες αινειν.
σε μεν οι νοεροι
μελπουσιν, αναξ,
σε δε κοσμαγοι,
ομματολαμπεις,
νοες αστεριοι,
υμνουσι μακαρ,
ους περι κλεινον
σωμα χορευει.
πασα σε μελπει
γενεα μακαρων.
οι περι κοσμον,
οι κατα κοσμον,
οι ζωναιοι,
οι τ’ αζωνοι
κοσμου μοιρας
εφεπουσι, σοφοι
αμφιβατηρες,
οι παρα κλεινους
οιηκοφορους.
ους αγγελικα
προχεει σειρα
το, τε χυδηεν
γενορ ηρωων,
εργα τα θνητων
χρυφιαισιν οδοις
διανισσομενον,
εργα βροτεια.
ψυχα τ’ ακλινης,
και κλινομενα
ες μελαναυγεις
χθονιους ογκους.

viz. “Thee, father of the worlds, father of the æones,[8] artificer of the _Gods_, it is holy to praise. Thee, O king, the intellectual Gods sing, thee, O blessed God, the _Cosmagi_, those fulgid eyes, and starry intellects, celebrate, round which the illustrious body [of the world] dances. All the race of the blessed sing thy praise, those that are about, and those that are in the world, the zonic Gods, and also the azonic,[9] who govern the parts of the world, wise itinerants, stationed about the illustrious pilots [of the universe,] and which the angelic series pours forth. Thee too, the renowned genus of heroes celebrates, which by occult paths pervades the works of mortals, and likewise the soul which does not incline to the regions of mortality, and the soul which descends into dark terrestrial masses.”

In another part also of the same hymn, he informs us that he adored the powers that preside over Thrace and Chalcedon.

Ικετευσα Θεους,
δρηστηρας οσοι
γονιμον θρῃκης
κατεχουσι πεδον,
οι τ’ αντιπεραν
χαλκηδονιας
εφεπουσι γυιας.

i.e. “I have supplicated the ministrant Gods that possess the Thracian soil, and also those that, in an opposite direction, govern the Chalcedonian land.”

And in the last place he says (in Hymn I.)

Νοος αφθιτος, τοκηων
Θεοκοιρανων απορρωξ,
ολιγα μεν, αλλ’ εκεινων
ολος ουτος, εις τε παντη
ολος εις ολον δεδυκως,
κυτος ουρανων ελισσει·
το δ’ ολον τουτο φυλασσων,
νενεμημεναισι μορφαι,
μεμερισμένος παρεστη·
ο μεν, αστερων διφρειαις,
ο δ’ ες ἀγγελῶν χορειας,
ο δε και ρεποντι δεσμῳ,
χθονιαν ευρετο μορφαν.

The substance of which is, “that incorruptible intellect which is wholly an emanation of divinity, is totally diffused through the whole world, convolves the heavens, and preserves the universe with which it is present distributed in various forms. That one part of this intellect is distributed among the stars, and becomes, as it were, their charioteer; but another part among the angelic choirs; and another part is bound in a terrestrial form.”

I confess I am wholly at a loss to conceive what could induce the moderns to controvert the dogma, that the stars and the whole world are animated, as it is an opinion of infinite antiquity, and is friendly to the most unperverted, spontaneous, and accurate conceptions of the human mind. Indeed, the rejection of it appears to me to be just as absurd as it would be in a maggot, if it were capable of syllogizing, to infer that man is a machine impelled by some external force when he walks, because it never saw any animated reptile so large.

The sagacious Kepler, for so he is called even by the most modern writers,[10] appears to have had a conception of this great truth; but as he was more an astronomer than a philosopher, he saw this truth only partially, and he rather embraced it as subservient to his own astronomical opinions, than as forming an essential part of the true theory of the universe. But from what I have of the writings of Kepler, I have no doubt, if he had lived in the time of the Greeks, or if he had made the study of the works of Plato and Aristotle the business of his life, he would have become an adept in, and an illustrious and zealous champion of their philosophy. Kepler then (in Harmonices Mundi, lib. 4, p. 158) says, “That he does not oppose the dogma, that there is a soul of the universe, though he shall say nothing about it in that book. He adds, that if there is such a soul, it must reside in the centre of the world, which, according to him, is the sun, and from thence by the communication of the rays of light, which are in the place of spirits in an animated body, is propagated into all the amplitude of the world.”[11] In the following passages also he confidently asserts that the earth has a soul. For he says, “That the globe of the earth is a body such as is that of some animal; and that what its own soul is to an animal, that the sublunary nature which he investigates will be to the earth.”[12] He adds, “That he sees for the most part every thing which proceeding from the body of an animal testifies that there is a soul in it, proceeds also from the body of the earth. For as the animated body produces in the superficies of the skin hairs, thus also the earth produces [on its surface] plants and trees; and as in the former lice are generated, so in the latter the worms called erucæ, grasshoppers, and various insects and marine monsters are produced. As the animated body likewise produces tears, mucus, and the recrement of the ears, and sometimes gum from the pustules of the face, thus also the earth produces amber and bitumen. As the bladder too produces urine, thus likewise mountains pour forth rivers. And as the body produces excrement of a sulphureous odour, and crepitus which may also be inflamed, so the earth produces sulphur, subterranean fires, thunder, and lightning. And as in the veins of an animal blood is generated, and together with it sweat which is ejected out of the body, so in the veins of the earth, metals, and fossils, and a rainy vapour are generated.”[13] And in cap. 7, p. 162, after having shown that there is in the earth the sense of touching, that it respires, and is subject in certain parts to languors, and internal vicissitudes of the viscera, and that subterranean heat proceeds from the soul of the earth, he adds, “That a certain image of the zodiac is resplendent in this soul, and therefore of the whole firmament, and is the bond of the sympathy of things celestial and terrestrial.”[14]

Bishop Berkeley also was by no means hostile to this opinion, that the world is one great animal, as is evident from the following extract from his Siris, (p. 131).

“Blind fate and blind chance are at bottom much the same thing, and one no more intelligible then the other. Such is the mutual relation, connection, motion, and sympathy of the parts of this world, that they seem, as it were, animated and held together by one soul: and such is their harmony, order, and regular course, as shows the soul to be governed and directed by a mind. It was an opinion of remote antiquity that the world was an animal. If we may trust the Hermaic writings, the Ægyptians thought all things did partake of life. This opinion was also so general and current among the Greeks, that Plutarch asserts all others held the world to be an animal, and governed by providence, except Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. And although an animal containing all bodies within itself, could not be touched or sensibly affected from without; yet it is plain they attributed to it an inward sense and feeling, as well as appetites and aversions; and that from all the various tones, actions, and passions of the universe, they supposed one symphony, one animal act and life to result.

“Iamblichus declares the world to be one animal, in which the parts, however distant each from other, are nevertheless related and connected by one common nature. And he teaches, what is also a received notion of the Pythagoreans and Platonics, that there is no chasm in nature, but a chain or scale of beings rising by gentle uninterrupted gradations from the lowest to the highest, each nature being informed and perfected by the participation of a higher. As air becomes igneous, so the purest fire becomes animal, and the animal soul becomes intellectual, which is to be understood, not of the change of one nature into another, but of the connection of different natures, each lower nature being, according to those philosophers, as it were, a receptacle or subject for the next above it to reside and act in.

“It is also the doctrine of Platonic philosophers, that intellect is the very life of living things, the first principle and exemplar of all, from whence, by different degrees, are derived the inferior classes of life; first the rational, then the sensitive, after that the vegetable, but so as in the rational animal there is still somewhat intellectual, again in the sensitive there is somewhat rational, and in the vegetable somewhat sensitive, and lastly in mixed bodies, as metals and minerals, somewhat of vegetation. By which means the whole is thought to be more perfectly connected. Which doctrine implies that all the faculties, instincts, and motions of inferior beings, in their several respective subordinotions, are derived from, and depend upon intellect.

“Both Stoics and Platonics held the world to be alive, though sometimes it be mentioned as a sentient animal, sometimes as a plant or vegetable. _But in this, notwithstanding what has been surmised by some learned men, there seems to be no atheism. For so long as the world is supposed to be quickened by elementary fire or spirit, which is itself animated by soul, and directed by understanding, it follows that all parts thereof originally depend upon, and may be reduced unto, the same indivisible stem or principle, to wit, a supreme mind; which is the concurrent doctrine of Pythagoreans, Platonics, and Stoics._”

Compare now the Newtonian with this theory, that the heavenly bodies are vitalized by their informing souls, that their orderly motion is the result of this vitality, and that the planets move harmonically round the sun, not as if urged by a centripetal force, but from an animated tendency to the principle and fountain of their light, and from a desire of partaking as largely as possible of his influence and power. In the former theory all the celestial motions are the effect of violence, in the latter they are all natural. The former is attended with insuperable difficulties, the latter, when the principle on which it is founded is admitted, with none. And the former is unscientific and merely hypothetical; but the latter is the progeny of the most accurate science, and is founded on the most genuine and unperverted conceptions of the human mind.

I have said that I should prove from the testimony of the Apostle Paul, that the Jews were not consistent in confounding _angels_ properly so called with Gods. And this appears to me to be evident in the first place from the following passage in Hebrews ii. v. 3. πιστει νοουμεν κατηρτισθαι τους αιωνας ρηματι θεου, εις το μη εκ φαινομενων τα βλεπομενα γεγονεναι. This in the English version is erroneously rendered; “Through faith we understand, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.” I say this is erroneously translated, because in the first place, _the worlds_ is evidently a forced interpretation of αιωνας; and even admitting it is not, leaves the passage very ambiguous, from the uncertainty to what worlds Paul alludes. If we adopt _ages_, which is the general sense of the word in the New Testament, we shall indeed avoid a forced and ambiguous interpretation, but we shall render the meaning of the Apostle trifling in the extreme. For as he has elsewhere said, “that all things were framed by the word of God,” what particular faith does it require to believe, that by the same word he framed the ages?

In the second place, from the definition of faith, given in the first verse of this chapter, that it is “the evidence of _things not seen_,” it is clear, that Paul is speaking in this passage of something _invisible_. Since then αιωνας is neither _worlds_ nor _ages_, what shall we say it is? I answer, the _æones_ of the Valentinians. And agreeably to this, the whole passage should be translated as follows: “By faith we understand, that the _æones_ were framed by the word of God, in order that things which are seen, might be generated from such as do not appear (i.e. from things _invisible_).” Every one who is much conversant with Greek authors, must certainly be convinced that εις το means _in order that_; and Bishop Pearson translates as I have done the latter part of this verse.

Now we learn from the second book of Irenæus against the heretics, that according to the Valentinians, all created things are the images of the _æones_, resident in the _pleroma_, or _fulness_ of deity. And does it not clearly follow from the above version, that according to Paul too, the æones are the exemplars of visible or created things? To which we may add, that this sense of the passage clearly accords with the assertion that “faith is the evidence of things not seen.” For here the things which do not appear are the _æones_; these, according to the Valentinians, subsisting in deity. So that from our version, Paul might say with great propriety, that “we understand by faith, that the _æones_ were framed by the word of God, in order that things which are seen, might be generated from such as do not appear,” for this naturally follows from his definition of faith.

I farther add, that among these _æones_ of the Valentinians were νους, βυθος, σιγη, αληθεια, σοφια, i.e. _intellect, a profundity, silence, truth, and wisdom_, which as Gale well observes in his notes on Iamblichus de Mysteriis, &c. prove their dogmas to be of Chaldaic origin. For these words perpetually occur in the fragments of the Chaldaic oracles. And the middle of the Chaldean intelligible triad is denominated αιων _æon_,[15] i.e. _eternity_, and is also perfectly conformable to the theology of Plato, as is very satisfactorily shown by Proclus in the third book of the following work. According to the Chaldeans therefore, the æones are Gods; and considered as the exemplars of the visible universe, they are analogous to the ideas of Plato, which also are Gods, as is evident from the Parmenides of that philosopher.[16] According to Paul too, as the _æones_ are the fabricators of the visible world, they must be beings of a much higher order than angels, and consequently must be Gods; productive power being one of the great characteristics of a divine nature.

Again, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. i. v. 21. Paul says that God has exalted Christ “far above every principality, and power, and might, and dominion,” υπερανω πασης αρχης και εξουσιας, και δυναμεως και κυριοτητος. And in the 6th chapter and 12th verse he conjoins with principalities and powers, _the rulers of the world_, i.e. the seven planets, προς τας αρχας, προς τας εξουσιας, προς τας κοσμοκρατορας. Augustin[17] confesses that he is ignorant what the difference is between those four words, (principality, power, might, and dominion,) in which the Apostle Paul seems to comprehend all the celestial society. “Quid inter se distent quatuor illa vocabula, quibus universam ipsam cœlestem societatem videtur Apostolus esse complexus, dicant qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt; ego me ista ignorare fateor.” Ignatius also (in Epist. ad Trallianos) speaks of the angelic orders, the diversities of archangels and armies, the differences of the orders characterised by might and dominion, of thrones and powers, _the magnificence of the æones_,[18] and the transcendency of Cherubim and Seraphim,” και γαρ εγω ου καθ’ ο, τι δεδεμαι, και δυναμαι νοειν τα επουρανια, και τας αγγελικας ταξεις, και τας των αρχαγγελων και στρατιων εξαλλαγας, δυναμεων τε και κυριστητων διαφορας, θρονων τε και εξουσιων παραλλαγας, αιωνων δε μεγαλοτητας, των τε χερουβιμ και σεραφιμ τας υπεροχας.

The opinion of Grotius[19] therefore, is highly probable, that the Jews obtained the names of Powers, Dominations, and Principalities, from their Babylonic captivity; and Gale in his notes on Iamblichus[20] says, that certain passages of Zoroaster and Ostanes cited by the author of Arithm. Theolog. confirm this opinion of Grotius. Indeed, the appellation of αρχαι _principles_, which are the first of the four powers mentioned by Paul, was given by the Chaldeans to that order of Gods called by the Grecian theologists _supermundane_ and _assimilative_, the nature of which is unfolded by Proclus in the sixth book of the following work; and Proclus in the fourth book of his MS. Commentary On the Parmenides of Plato shows that the order of Gods denominated νοητος και νοερος, _intelligible and at the same time intellectual_, is according to the Chaldean oracles[21] principally characterized by _domination_. In proof of this, the two following oracles are cited by him, the first, concerning the empyrean, and the second concerning the material Synoches.[22]

Τοις δε πυρος νοερου νοεροις πρηστηρσιν απαντα
Εικαθε δουλευοντα, πατρος πειθηνιδι βουλῃ.

i.e. “All things yield ministrant to the intellectual presters of intellectual fire, through the persuasive will of the father.” And

αλλα και υλαιοις οσα δουλευει Συνοχευσι.

i.e. “But likewise such as are in subjection to the material Synoches.”

Farther still, Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. viii. v. 38, says, “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor _angels_, nor _principalities_, nor _powers_, nor things present, nor things to come, nor _height_, nor _depth_, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, &c.” From this arrangement therefore, it is evident that principalities and powers are not the same with angels; and as according to Paul they are beings so exalted, that in his Epistle 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_ (υψωμα και βάθος) with principalities and powers; and βυθός is one of the _æones_ 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, “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.

This Dionysius, who certainly lived posterior to Proclus, because he continually borrows from his works, barbarously confounding that scientific arrangement of these deiform processions from _the one_, which is so admirably unfolded by Proclus in the following work, classes them as follows. The first order, according to him, consists of Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones. The second of the divine essences characterized by dominion, might, and power. And the third of Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. Hence he has transferred the characteristics of the intelligible triad of Gods to Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones. For symmetry, truth, and beauty, which characterize this triad, are said by Plato in the Philebus to subsist _in the vestibule of the good_; (επι μεν τοις του αγαθου νυν ηδη προθυροις εφεσταναι) and Dionysius says[24] of his first order that “_it is as it were arranged in the vestibules of deity_.” Goodness, wisdom, and beauty also, are shown by Proclus in the third book of the following work to belong to the intelligible triad; _goodness_ to its summit, _wisdom_ to the middle of it, and _beauty_ to its extremity. And Dionysius says, that according to the Hebrews, the word Cherubim signifies _a multitude of knowledge, or an effusion of wisdom_, την δε χερουβιμ εμφαινειν, πληθος γνωσεως, η χυσιν σοφιας. The characteristics of the Gods called νοητοι και νοεροι _intelligible and at the same time intellectual_, and of the Gods that are νοεροι _intellectual_ alone, he appears to have transferred to his middle triad which is characterized by _dominion, might, and power_. And he has adapted his third triad consisting of _Principalities_, _Archangels_, and _Angels_, to the _supermundane_, _liberated_, and _mundane_ orders of Gods. For the supermundane Gods are called by Proclus in the sixth book of the following work αρχαι _Principalities_, or _rulers_, which is the word employed by Dionysius and Paul. And the mundane Gods are said by Proclus (in Parmenid.) to be the sources of a _winged_ life, and angels are celebrated by Dionysius as having _wings_. Hence it is evident that Dionysius has accommodated the peculiarities of the different orders of Gods to the nine orders which he denominates _celestial powers_; and his arrangement has been adopted by all succeeding Christian theologists.

Vestiges therefore of the theology of Plato may be seen both in the Jewish and Christian religion; and in a similar manner, a resemblance in the religions of all other nations to it might be easily pointed out, and its universality be clearly demonstrated. Omitting however, a discussion of this kind for the present, I shall farther observe respecting this theology, that the deification of dead men, and the worshipping men as Gods form no part of it when it is considered according to its genuine purity. Numerous instances of the truth of this might be adduced, but I shall mention for this purpose, as unexceptionable witnesses, the writings of Plato, the Golden Pythagoric verses,[25] and the treatise of Plutarch On Isis and Osiris. All the works of Plato indeed, evince the truth of this position, but this is particularly manifest from his Laws. The Golden verses order, that the immortal Gods be honoured first as they are disposed by law; afterwards the illustrious Heroes, under which appellation, the author of the verses comprehends also angels and dæmons properly so called: and in the last place the terrestrial dæmons, i.e. such good men as transcend in virtue the rest of mankind. But to honour the Gods as they are disposed by law, is, as Hierocles observes, to reverence them as they are arranged by their fabricator and father; and this is to honour them as beings superior to man. Hence, to honour men, however excellent they may be, as Gods, is not to honour the Gods according to the rank in which they are placed by their Creator, for it is confounding the divine with the human nature, and is thus acting directly contrary to the Pythagoric precept. Plutarch too in his above-mentioned treatise most forcibly and clearly shows the impiety of worshipping men as Gods, as is evident from the following extract:

“Those therefore, who think that things of this kind [i.e.
fabulous stories of the Gods as if they were men] are but so
many commemorations of the actions and disasters of kings
and tyrants, who through transcendency in virtue or power,
inscribed the title of divinity on their renown, and afterwards
fell into great calamities and misfortunes, these employ the
most easy method indeed of eluding the story, and not badly
transfer things of evil report, from the Gods to men; and they
are assisted in so doing by the narrations themselves. For the
Egyptians relate, that Hermes was as to his body, with one
arm longer than the other; that Typhon was in his complexion
red; but Orus white, and Osiris black, as if they had been by
nature men. Farther still, they also call Osiris a commander,
and Canopus a pilot, from whom they say the star of that name
was denominated. The ship likewise, which the Greeks call Argo,
being the image of the ark of Osiris, and which therefore in
honour of it is become a constellation, they make to ride not
far from Orion and the Dog; of which they consider the one as
sacred to Orus, but the other to Isis.

“I fear, however, that this [according to the proverb] would
be to move things immoveable, and to declare war, not only,
as Simonides says, against a great length of time, but also
against many nations and families of mankind who are under the
influence of divine inspiration through piety to these Gods;
and would not in any respect fall short of transferring from
heaven to earth, such great and venerable names, and of thereby
shaking and dissolving that worship and belief, which has been
implanted in almost all men from their very birth, would be
opening great doors to the tribe of atheists, who convert divine
into human concerns; and would likewise afford a large license
to the impostures of Euemerus of Messina, who devised certain
memoirs of an incredible and fictitious mythology,[26] and
_thereby spread every kind of atheism through the globe, by
inscribing all the received Gods, without any discrimination,
by the names of generals, naval-captains, and kings, who
lived in remote periods of time_. He further adds, that
they are recorded in golden characters, in a certain country
called Panchoa, at which neither any Barbarian or Grecian ever
arrived, except Euemerus alone, who, as it seems, sailed to the
Panchoans and Triphyllians, that neither have, nor ever had a
being. And though the great actions of Semiramis are celebrated
by the Assyrians, and those of Sesostris in Egypt; and though
the Phrygians even to the present time, call all splendid and
admirable actions Manic, because a certain person named Manis
who was one of their ancient kings, whom some call Masdes, was
a brave and powerful man; and farther still, though Cyrus among
the Persians, and Alexander among the Macedonians, proceeded
in their victories, almost as far as to the boundaries of the
earth, yet they only retain the name of good kings, and are
remembered as such, [and not as Gods.]

“But if certain persons, inflated by ostentation, as Plato says,
having their soul at one and the same time inflamed with youth
and ignorance, have insolently assumed the appellation of Gods,
and had temples erected in their honour, yet this opinion of
them flourished but for a short time, and afterwards they were
charged with vanity and arrogance, in conjunction with impiety
and lawless conduct; and thus,

Like smoke they flew away with swift-pac’d fate.

And being dragged from temples and altars like fugitive slaves,
they have now nothing left them, but their monuments and tombs.
Hence Antigonus the elder said to one Hermodotus, who had
celebrated him in his poems as the offspring of the sun and a
God, ‘he who empties my close-stool-pan knows no such thing
of me.’ Very properly also, did Lysippus the sculptor blame
Apelles the painter, for drawing the picture of Alexander with
a thunder-bolt in his hand, whereas he had represented him with
a spear, the glory of which, as being true and proper, no time
would take away.”

In another part of the same work also, he admirably reprobates the impiety of making the Gods to be things inanimate, which was very common with Latin writers of the Augustan age, and of the ages that accompanied the decline and fall of the Roman empire. But what he says on this subject is as follows:

“In the second place, which is of still greater consequence, men
should be careful, and very much afraid, lest before they are
aware, they tear in pieces and dissolve divine natures, into
blasts of wind, streams of water, seminations, earings of land,
accidents of the earth, and mutations of the seasons, as those
do who make Bacchus to be wine, and Vulcan flame. Cleanthes also
somewhere says, that Persephone or Proserpine is the spirit or
air that _passes through_ (φερομενον) the fruits of the
earth, and is then _slain_, (φονευομενον.) And a certain
poet says of reapers,

Then when the youth the limbs of Ceres cut.

For these men do not in any respect differ from those who
conceive the sails, the cables, and the anchor of a ship, to
be the pilot, the yarn and the web to be the weaver, and the
bowl, or the mead, or the ptisan, to be the physician. But
they also produce dire and atheistical opinions, by giving the
names of Gods to natures and things deprived of sense and soul,
and that are necessarily destroyed by men, who are in want of
and use them. For it is not possible to conceive that these
things are Gods; since, neither can any thing be a God to men,
which is deprived of soul, or is subject to human power. From
these things however, we are led to conceive those beings to be
Gods, who both use them and impart them to us, and supply them
perpetually and without ceasing. Nor do we conceive that the
Gods who bestow these, are different in different countries, nor
that some of them are peculiar to the Barbarians, but others to
the Grecians, nor that some are southern, and others northern;
but as the sun and moon, the heavens, the land, and the sea, are
common to all men, yet are differently denominated by different
nations; so the one reason that adorns these things, and the
one providence that administers them, and the ministrant powers
that preside over all nations, have different appellations and
honours assigned them according to law by different countries.
Of those also that have been consecrated to their service, some
employ obscure, but others clearer symbols, not without danger
thus conducting our intellectual conceptions to the apprehension
of divine natures. For some, deviating from the true meaning of
these symbols, have entirely slipt into superstition; and others
again flying from superstition as a quagmire, have unaware
fallen upon atheism as on a precipice. Hence, in order to avoid
these dangers, it is especially necessary that resuming the
reasoning of Philosophy as our guide to mystic knowledge, we
should conceive piously of every thing that is said or done in
religion; lest that, as Theodorus said, while he extended his
arguments with his right hand, some of his auditors received
them with their left, so we should fall into dangerous errors,
by receiving what the laws have well instituted about sacrifices
and festivals in a manner different from their original
intention.”