On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
10. Thus the Pre-existent is the Beginning and the End of all things: the Beginning as their Cause, the End as their Final Purpose. He bounds all things and yet is their boundless Infinitude, in a manner that transcends all the opposition between the Finite and the Infinite! For, as hath been often said, He contains beforehand and did create all things in One Act, being present unto all and everywhere, both in the particular individual and in the Universal Whole, and going out unto all things while yet remaining in Himself. He is both at rest and in motion,1 and yet is in neither state, nor hath He beginning, middle, or end; He neither inheres in any individual thing, nor is He any individual thing.2 We cannot apply to Him any attribute of eternal things nor of temporal things. He transcends both Time and Eternity, and all things that are in either of them; inasmuch as Very Eternity3 and the world with its standard of measurement and the things which are measured by those standards have their being through Him and from Him. But concerning these matters let that suffice which hath been spoken more properly elsewhere.
D. attributing to Clement (perhaps fictitiously) the view that generic forms can in themselves—i.e. in their created essence—be properly called Exemplars, maintains that this is not strictly accurate. Properly speaking, he says, they are Exemplars only as existent in God, and not as projected out from Him. If, by a licence, we call them Exemplars, yet we must not let our minds rest in them, but must pass on at once to find their true being in God. This apparent hair-splitting is really of the utmost practical importance. D. is attacking the irreligious attitude in science, philosophy, and life. We must seek for all things (including our own personalities) not in themselves but in God. The great defect of Natural Science in the nineteenth century was its failure to do this. It was, perhaps, the defect of Gnosticism in earlier days, and is the pitfall of Occultism to-day.
1 i.e. He gives each thing its distinctness while yet containing infinite possibilities of development for it.
10. Thus the Pre-existent is the Beginning and the End of all things: the Beginning as their Cause, the End as their Final Purpose. He bounds all things and yet is their boundless Infinitude, in a manner that transcends all the opposition between the Finite and the Infinite.1 For, as has often been said, He contains beforehand, and created, all things in One Act, being present to all and everywhere, both in the particular individual and in the Universal Whole, and going out to all things while still remaining in Himself.
He is both at rest and in motion,1 and yet is in neither state; nor has He beginning, middle, or end. He neither inheres in any individual thing, nor is He any individual thing.2 We cannot apply to Him any attribute of eternal things or of temporal things. He transcends both Time and Eternity, and all things that are in either of them, inasmuch as Very Eternity3 and the world with its standard of measurement, and the things measured by those standards, have their being through Him and from Him. But concerning these matters let what has been spoken more properly elsewhere suffice.
D., attributing to Clement (perhaps fictitiously) the view that generic forms can in themselves—i.e. in their created essence—be properly called Exemplars, maintains that this is not strictly accurate. Properly speaking, he says, they are Exemplars only as existent in God, and not as projected out from Him. If by a licence we call them Exemplars, we must still not let our minds rest in them, but must pass on at once to find their true being in God. This apparent hair-splitting is really of the utmost practical importance. D. is attacking the irreligious attitude in science, philosophy, and life. We must seek all things (including our own personalities) not in themselves but in God. The great defect of Natural Science in the nineteenth century was its failure to do this. It was perhaps the defect of Gnosticism in earlier days, and it is the pitfall of Occultism today.
1 I.e. He gives each thing its distinctness while still containing infinite possibilities of development for it.