Iamblichus: On the Mysteries · 11 of 218 · tr. Thomas Taylor
Chapter VIII-b
Hence, through these things such a corporeal-formed division as you introduce, is demonstrated to be false.
It is, indeed, especially necessary not to propose any thing of this kind; but if this should appear to you to be requisite, yet you must not think, that what is 42 false deserves to be discussed.
For such a discussion does not exhibit a copiousness of arguments; but he wearies himself in vain, who, proposing things that are false, endeavours afterwards to subvert them, as things that are not true.
For how is it possible that an essence, which is of itself incorporeal, and which has nothing in common with the bodies that participate of it, should be distinguished from other things by corporeal qualities?
How can that which is not locally present with bodies, be separated by corporeal places?
And how can that which is not inclosed by the partible circumscriptions of subjects, be partibly detained by the parts of the world?
What, also, is that which can prevent the Gods from being every where?
And what can restrain their power from extending as far as to the celestial arch?
For to effect this, must be the work of a more powerful cause, which is able to inclose and circumscribe them in certain parts.
But truly existing being, and which is essentially incorporeal, is every where, wherever it may wish to be.
And that which is divine, and which transcends all things, would [if what you say were admitted] be transcended by the perfection of the whole world, and, as a certain part, would be comprehended by it.
Hence, it would be inferior to corporeal magnitude.
43 I do not, however, see after what manner these sensible natures could be produced and specifically distinguished, if there was no divine fabrication, and if no participation of divine forms, extended through the whole world.
In short, this opinion wholly subverts sacred institutions, and the theurgic communion of the Gods with men; since it exterminates from the earth the presence of the more excellent genera.
For it says nothing else than that divine dwell remote from earthly natures, and that this our place of abode is deserted by them.
According to this assertion, therefore, neither can we, that are priests, learn any thing from the Gods, nor do you rightly inquire of us, as knowing more than others, since we shall differ in no respect from other men.
No one, however, of these assertions is sane.
For neither are the Gods detained in certain parts of the world, nor are terrene natures destitute of their providential attention.
But the divinities are characterized by this, that they are not comprehended by any thing, and that they comprehend all things in themselves.
But terrestrial natures possess their existence in the pleromas of the Gods; and when they become adapted to divine participation, then 44 prior to their own proper essence, they immediately possess the Gods, which [latently] preexisted in it.
Through these things, therefore, we have shown that the whole of this division is false; that the method [employed by you] of investigating peculiarities is irrational; and that to suppose the government of the Gods is fixed in a certain place, is by no means to apprehend the whole essence and power which is in them.
It would have been proper, therefore, to have omitted the opposite inquiry made by you, about this distribution of more excellent natures, as not contradicting in any respect true conceptions.
Because, however, it is necessary rather to direct the attention to true science, but not to dispute with men, on this account, we also shall adapt the present inquiry to a certain rational and theological apprehension.
A chain of divine beings or principles flowing downward from a single transcendent source (the One or the Father), each level less perfect than the one above.
The distinction between divine and terrestrial natures implies a hierarchical structure of being.
The doctrine of the universe as boundless and without center or circumference, populated by innumerable worlds — Bruno's rejection of the closed Aristotelian sphere; the divine and the cosmos as ontologically infinite.
The divine is described as being every where and transcending all things without limit.
The felt condition of exile from one's divine origin — Rumi's reed flute torn from its bed, Plotinus's 'we have forgotten,' the Gnostic forgetfulness; the affective wound that complements return_to_source and gives the return its motive.
The passage critiques the idea that Gods are remote from earthly natures and that this view subverts sacred institutions.
The doctrine — central to Eastern Orthodox and Maximian theology — that the human person is progressively transformed into a partaker of the divine nature by grace, not merely justified or united in passing ecstasy.
The text describes terrestrial natures becoming adapted to divine participation and immediately possessing the Gods.
Iamblichean ritual practice that engages the gods directly through consecrated material symbols and actions, on the premise that divine power descends into properly prepared matter — distinct from philosophical contemplation alone.
The passage explicitly discusses theurgic communion of the Gods with men and the danger of subverting sacred institutions that rely on this connection.