to the one being, on which account also it is intelligible. But another is analogous to the third order, in which there wns the one, and the duad which generates inBnite multitude. Such is the connective triad, which Parmenidcs exhibits to us through these things. The one therefore, is one and many, whole and parts, finite and infinite multitude. Let no one however, be disturbed that Plato calls the one or being infinite mul- titude. For he calls the one and being when they have proceeded and are divided, infinite in multitude. For all multitude indeed, is referred to the intelligible infinity. But divided multitude, and which has pro- ceeded perfectly, is most signally infinite.
Since therefore, all the primary causes of intellectuals are in this triad, and all things are disseminated in its bosoms, the first Synocheus indeed, comprehends these causes as multitude, being himself an intelligible unity, and the flower as it were of the triad. But the second comprehends indeed secondarily these causes, but co-arranged and co-multiplied with them. And the third, together with all-perfect division, connects the multitude, comprehended in himself. Each of them also is connective, but one as bounding, another as giving completion to a whole, and ano- ther as uniting. Plato therefore made, and makes as he proceeds his demonstrations of the one. For the whole theory is concerning the one. But it is evident that being is co-divided with the one. For universally, it has been before observed, that every deity proceeding thence is parti- cipate, und that every portion of being participates of deity. It is ne- cessary however, not to stop in the one alone, but to consider the same peculiarity * as imparted to being in a secondary degree, since Plato also produces the one itself ' by itself according to the differences of the divine orders ; which occasions me to wonder at those who think that all the conclusions of the second hypothesis are concerning intellect, and do not perceive that Plato omitting being surveys the one itself by itself, as pro- ceeding and generated, and receiving different peculiarities. For how in discoursing concerning intellect could he omit being, according to which intellect has its subsistence, power, and energy. For the one is beyond
' For M&i«ngr*c, h is necessary tofead iSionjTo;.
Digitized by Google
CHAP. XXXVI.
the nature of intellect; but being gives hyparxis to intellect, and intellect is nothing else than being. This opinion however of these men may be confuted by many other arguments. But if the three connective Gods are divided after the above-mentioned manner, and the intelligible con- nective deity is one many, but the intelligible and at the same time intel- lectual deity is whole and parts, and the intellectual is finite and infinite, each of them is very properly called much. For each of the Synoches according to his own peculiarity is a multitude. For the first about the many, receives many Synoches of a more partial nature. The second receives these according to parts. And the third, according to infinites. If therefore, there are certain partial Gods who are allotted this peculia- rity, they are comprehended in this first triad.
Mo r bo v En, it is easy for every one to sec how these things accord with what is written in the Phaedrus. For the connective one accords with the back of the heaven that comprehends these. For the one and the back are the same, comprehending according to one simplicity the whole circulation. But whole is the same with the profundity of the heaven, and with as it were the bulk of it. For the celestial profundity is a whole extended from the back as far as to the arch. And end is the same with the arch. This therefore, is evident beyond every thing, and each of the other conclusions, is to be referred to the same concep- tions. Hence from what has been said, it may be collected, that these three things pertain in a remarkable degree to the Synoches, viz. theoney whole, and the end [or the finite]. For what is so able to connect multi- tude as the one which is co-arranged with it ? What is so connectedly- compreheusive of parts as whole ? And how is it possible that the end
Digitized by Google
{or bound,] should not be the cause of binding together things which arc borne along to in6nity. It terminates therefore, their progression, and brings back their dispersed section to the one essence of connection. And thus much concerning the connective triad.
CHATTER XXXVII.
But the third, as they say, to the saviour, and let us also following Plato in what remains celebrate the perfective order of the Gods. Because, therefore, the end of the connective order was the finite, [or the bounded] the perfective order has extremes. For the end [or bound] is the extremity. There however indeed the one was said to be the finite, but here it is said to have an extremity, as receiving according to participation that which has the power of terminating many things. And there indeed, the one was end or bound, which also connectedly contains the infinite ; but here having an extremity, it will also have a middle and beginning, and will be perfect. For that which receives its com- pletion from all these, is perfect. Here, therefore, the perfection which consists of parts is apparent. For the consummation of the parts, produces the perfect. Moreover, because such a one as this has a middle and extremes, it will have the figure of a circumference, or it will be rectilinear, or it will be mixed (jfroui the right and circular line]. For all these require a middle and extremes ; some indeed with sim- plicity, but others with connexion. Three peculiarities, therefore, again present themselves to our view ; the first, indeed, being that which we said was to have extremes ; the second, being according to the perfect ; and the third, according to figure. And there are also three perfective
Digitized by Google
Chap. Xxxviii. of Plato. 305
leaders of wholes ; one indeed being intelligible ; another, intelligible and intellectual ; and the third, intellectual.
The intelligible leader, therefore, is said to have extremes, as being directly arranged under the end of the connective Gods, and in the boundaries of himself intelligibly comprehending all the intellectual orders. But the intelligible and intellectual leader, is defined according to the perfect, comprehending in himself the beginnings, middles, and ends of beings, and giving completion to the middle bond of the whole perfective triad. And the intellectual leader proceeds according to triadic figure, being the cause of bound and divine perfection ; and imparting termination to things indefinite, but intellectual perfection to things imperfect. And this triad indeed is produced according to the connective triad. For the end in them is the cause of the possession of the extremity. But it is also produced from itself. For that which has extremes, having become a whole, constitutes the perfect through end [or bound]. But the perfect comprehending beginnings, middles and ends, unfolds figure. And thus the perfective triad proceeds supernally, as far as to the last of things, pervading to all things, and perfecting both whole and partial causes.
And do you not see how each of the triads conjoins the summit of itself with the ends placed above it? For the one many was the end of the collective and unknown triad ; and the same is the beginning of the connective triad. The end of the connective triad was the finite; and this again is the beginning of the perfective triad. For to have extremes manifests that which consists of ends or bounds. And thus the whole Proc. Vol. I. 2 Q
Digitized by Google
ON TlllS THEOLOGY
middle order is connected with and united to itself, and is truly the bond of total orders, itself establishing an admirable communion with itself; but conjoining intellectuals to intelligibles, and convolving them to one impartible union ; above indeed, having the intelligible and unknown triad, but in the middle producing the triad which is connective of progressions, and at the end, the convertive empire, through which it proximately converts the intellectual to the intelligible Gods.
For on what account does intellect look to itself, and is in itself? Is it not because it is on all sides finite or bounded, converges to itself, and convolves its appropriate energies about itself? But why is it perfect,, and full of intellectual goods ? Is it not because it first participates of the perfection [of the above mentioned] leaders, and subsists according to them, possessing a self-perfect essence and intellectual perception? After what manner likewise, is it Baid to be a sphere, both by Plato, and other theologiste? Is it not because it is the first participant of figure, and is intellectually figured according to it? All conversion, therefore, all perfection, and every intellectual figure, accede to the intellectual Gods, from the perfective triad. For the intelligible leader of perfection, gives perfection to the ends and summits and hyparxes of" wholes. But the intelligible and intellectual leader terminates their progressions which extend from on high as far as to the last of things. And the intellectual leader comprehends in his own perfection, the conversions of all the Gods, and bounds and perfects through figures their progressions to infinity.
Looking therefore to this division, we may be able to survey causally many things which are to be found among other theologiste. For why
Digitized by Google
is one of the deities of tbe unknown triad carried in the first of the worlds, but another in the middle breadth, and another in the extremity ? It is because the first of these was uniform, but the second proceeded according to difference, and the third, according to the infinite number of beings. But why of the three connective Gods, is the first empyrean, the second etheria], and the third material ? It is because the first indeed subsists according to the one, and connectedly contains the one world. But the second subsists according to whole, and divides the etherial world. And the third according to the finite, and rules over material infinity. But why again, are the Teletarchs co-divided with the Synoches? Because the first having extremes governs like a charioteer the wing of fire. But the middle comprehending beginnings, ends and middles, perfects ether, which is also itself triple. And the third, which comprehends according to one union, the orbicular, the rectilinear, and the mixed* figure, perfects unfigured and fbrmlcM matter; giving form indeed (/^wp«(r«f) to the inerratic sphere, and the first matter, by the orbicular ; but to the planetary sphere, and the second matter, by the mixed figure. For the spiral is there. And it gives form to the sublunary region, and the last matter by the rectilinear. For the motions according to a right line are in this region. Hence, the first triad is uniformly the cause of the division of the worlds. But the second has a more abundant representation of section, and of progression into parts ; yet does not exhibit to us tbe multitude of the worlds. And the third unfolds the seven worlds, and the monad together with two triads. So great is the divine conception of Plato, that from these things we may survey the causes of what after his time became apparent.
For this, indeed, from what has been said appears to be very admir- able* that according to each of the triads, the middle is characteristic of the whole triad. Thus for instance, in the unknown triad, difference is established as the middle between the one and being. But in the connective triad whole is the characteristic, which is the middle of the one, and the finite. And in the perfective triad, the perfect is the
' r* ftixror is omitted in the origitut.