", nus of lieing, as some think it is, such lor iiist me,* as ,*ssenee, or |H inianency, or sameness, lor all these are parts of animal itself; and ea. h of them has that to which it is as it were opposed. Thus for ills! mce, t sseiice is opposed to non- 1 M*iiitr, to pennant in \, motion, and to sameness, ilith reiie. But to eternity nothing is opposed. All these then lore, are similarly it, rual, vu. sameness, dif- fereiiee, pel uianeiiev and motion. i his however, would not lie the case, if eternity was one of these. F»r uuitimi and p. rinaueni y are not similarly eternal with eteruitv. But all intelligible* are similarly perpetual and cleinal beings. Fteruitv therefore is not opposed to any one, , itlu r ol these or ol the things posterior to it. For time, which may s, i in to subsist dissimilarly with reference in it, m the first plaei is not convolved about the same things as eternity, but about thing* which do not receive eoiuievioii from eternity. In the in vt pbae, it in an image, and not the opposition ot it, as we have already ohscived, and shall demon-irate. .Neither therefore, will eternity be one genus of being, nor the whole collection ol the g, uera ot it. I-»*r again multitude l». mg in tt, it would Im in want of the union of that which abides in one. But eteruitv is that vvlrnli abides 111 one. So tli.it it would both abide, and not abide in on< , It woe d abide indeed, as , ternitv, and a- tin cause ot union to beings. But it would not abide, as consisting of multitude. In addition to all that has Ims n said hktvvisi, it is intellect vvliuh consists ot 1 th»s, genera, ami perceives then i oiismimiation. The conception however, of intellect, |n dilfeieiit from that of eternity, just as the conception ol soul, is diliennt Iroiu that ol tune, lor the t'lia gv of nihlltil, is wlraiiMtiic in/t lh'j,i hit, hut of . In nth/, imjmrtihtc JitrJu tutf i/. And alter this man¬ ner indeed, the things are distinguished from i nch other. But those who mingle all things into the same, and assert that tin re is only one inti Heel between soul and the guinl, arc compelled to acknowledge that intellect and eternity aie the same.
\\ hat then will eternity be, if it is neithi r one of the genera ol being, nor cou- 1 The w nils niuvrurm t, appear to lie Mauling in thi* place in I hi" original.
Jikok 1 \ .1
TiM.ia;s or n. vro.
ius
sNts of all the five', mikt all these .|ir eternal, ami • temity' is above these I V\ e reply, ulial rUe* ran it b ■ than tin- compo-ln-iisiem 1 of tin; intelligible unities ? Hut 1 mean hy tin* unit h*^. tin* uh is of iutrlli^ihlr annuals, ami tin- jjcnmi of all these* intrlli'^ihl* 1 idea**. Tin* om* comprehension therefore; of llu-sr, ami of tin* summit of their multitude, ami tin* cause of tin* immiitahlr pi rinam nry of all of tin in is rtrrnitv, not »■ \i~tintr in thr multitmlr of intelli^ibh.-s, nor rollrrtnl from them ; hut hritiLT pre-si at with thrill exempt ly, disposing ami as it werr forming thrui hy it si-If, ami making this vrry tiling to hr at thr sanir tiun* a whole*. J or thr ill I- varions iilra of intrlli^ihlrs is not produced iiunirdialrly aftrr the "ood, which is entirely without anv rrpic-c-ntalion of multitmlr, hut thrrr arr rrrtain intermediate unturrs, which arr imirrd morr united than all perfect multitude, hut « \hihit the parturii , ncy and representation of thr progeny of wholes, and of e-onnrete ally ~e-on- tainiuir power in tlu-msrli« s. Tin- numher however and nature ol these, the < iods know divim lv, hut the mv-lie- tradition of the Parmenides teaches us in a human manner, and philosi phicallv, to which we refer tin* ri ader for the accurate discus¬ sion of these particulars. Hut now we shall demonstrate through tin* words thrmsi hes of the philosopher, that e ternity i> alioM* all pertret animal, and tint it is proximate l\ almte* it. lor I realise animal itself is said to lie eternal, it will In* secondary to * tern it v. iiut In cause there is no eternal nature prior to it, it will In pro\imat« ii posterior to eteruitv. Y\ In ner there¬ fore, is tins ci ide nt * \\ e ri ply, hei nnsr in itln r is there an\ tiling temporal prior to [linn j the linage ot eternity, hut the world priuiarilv participates of time, and animal itsi It, <»I et« mity. 1 or it as eteruitv is to time, so is animal its* If to
the world, llit'ii alternately, a* ^etimctriciuiis would sav, ns ete rnity is to animal itsi It, so is tune t<► tin* world, ihit time is fust participated hy* the world ; for it had no existence* what.wer. prior to the orderly distribution of the uuiierse. Htcrnily therefore-, is first participated hy animal itself. It like-wise, time is not the sensible- animal whic h e-ompreln nels m itsi || all either sensible animals [i. e. if it is m»t the uniiersej; fur it is generate d together with it; hut tiiat which is jrene*- rate-d with it is not that with which it is generated ; it this In; tin* case, licitIn-r will eternity In- tin- int< lliuihle animal, llmcc neither will il lie- an animal, lest tin re should he two [all comprehending] iute-lli^ihle animals. For it has lie-i-n he*- fon; demonstrated hy Plato, that animal itself is onlv begotten. So that m short, e'termty will not he an animal. J ; or it it were, it would either he an animal elitlc- rent from, or the same with animal itself. It is not however, possible to assert
1 For mwiot lien- it i« ncr«-»<:ir\ to r<-a*l
1 The tvnril rrpiryj oinilUil in-ri- mi tin- original, bill from wli.it fellows, tallur tins word, or mrni -ir fwrrn nr rivTit ought cviiiently to In; iii«rrlril.
Tun. rial. \ ol. II. 2 A
Jhh
I'HOCLl’S ON THE
[liOOK IV.
cither of these, as n<; have shown ; pirtly indeed, beeause animal it*>flf »->* only be- potion, ami part I v liecattse linn-, ami ilia! vvhit li is t, ni|>oial, an* not the sanic. Hut if it is participated, and does not participate o! intelligible animal, it will Ik a < *od prior to animal itself, ni(< Hii^ililc imh ed, lml not yet an animal ; since animal itself also is a (hill. \ml tins l>< cause the w m id likew i*e is a (hid. [’or that wliicli is partic i pa ted tlnre, Imt dm s not p trticipate of a p irticipati d nature, is cn- tiri lv more tot d.
It is e\ ideiit lioweier, tliil I In- participation is not eipial in liotli. I'm da iw«i- viuHioH and ttMott of inti l/ig tblen, u /iii It HtiU t iiipluifiiig Ut < till [Hirtu ‘Jniluiii, i.v ilif/cixnl from t/uit of miim/’/c iiiihtn s. I( appears therefore, that tin order nl eternity, is mi- penor to that ol animal its, If, and is provimati !v sU|H iior, and that it is the cause to iutelligibh s of an i ii \ a rial ih ■ sameness ol siib'ishuee. I leiice some mu may cun- sidi r it as the same with Jn I'nui/h /a i/. I his how • ur, is a » o-ordinated cause, and lather imp alls a sameness ot subsistence about i lier^V. Ihit i trrin/if Is .in exempt t aiise. It also appi ais, that < leimlv is lh< » ompn hei|s|oii ami union ol many in¬ telligible unities. I (i m i ills said h\ I lie |' bald a ail j Ol aeles to In Jiithei-begotten huh l, b< « aiise it illuiniuati s all things w it Ii unit) inn buhl. ** I ol - this alone, [says tlii’Oracle] bv plucking abundantly from th< strength ol the lather, the (lower ol intellect is enabled l»v nit* lied ion 1 to impart a paternal intellect to all the fountains and principles; together with intellectual eiiei gv, and a |m rpetual permanency, according to an imsluggish revolution I’or In urn lull ol paternal deity, which the < bade calls the (lower ol inti Ih i t, it illuminates all tliinus with int< licet, and with intellectual perception invariably tin - same, and also with tin* ability ul revol¬ ving and * nergi/ing hi an amatory mailm r, about tin* pi inciple ol all things. 1 liese tliinns however, 1 , volvo in the inaccessible recesses ol the reasoning power.
.Vnain however, on all sides investigating the roneeplioiis of (In- philosoplu-r about eternity, let Us consider vvliat is meant by etcrmtij abiding in one. l or we ask ill what one? Is it in the "vud, as appeared to In- tin- case, to the must theo¬ logical of the interpret rs ? ltut the good, does not ev, n abide in itsell, on account of its simplicitv, as we mav learn in the first hypothesis ol the Parmenides, and as he admits. .Much less therefore, cun any thing else abide in it. Pur in short, no¬ thin:; is in it,'nothin;; subsists together with it, on account ut its Ising exempt from a co-ordination with any thin" whatever. To which may Im* added, that it is not usual to call it cithei "nod, or one, but the garni, and the one, in order that we mav form a conception of its monadic transcendency, vyhich is beyond
1 for ro nm ln-ri-, ir.nl ry i i.rii.
1 All things .ire coiupn litiiili il h> l/o nut, lint u< lliing Milnnls fircuhtirty iu it. Ami I he comprr- liiioiuii dull tilings tiv it, ii m.limit; ninie I lino llic intflahle uuiuu which it imparts to all ihingc, ainl liuoiigli which all tilings latolnt bounded hy it
tinoii i\.]
TIM.FIS or PLATO.
every known nature. .Now however, eternity is not said to abide in the one, lint m uric ; so tli.it it does not abide in the gwtl. J)oo>. therefore, tin* abiding of eter¬ nity in one, signify tlio united nature as it w* re fit’ it, ami the abidim: of it in it" ow n one; and manili ^t that it is one multitude 1 < >r, in short, does it indicate the nmulx-r ot that w hich does not proceed, in order that it may lie the cause of union to tii* multitude f»f intelli^ihles * This imh'ed, we also sav is true, in tinier that it may impart to itself tin stuhlo, and the whole, prior to eternal natures. For tins i> to uhuk in one ; \i/. to have the whole at once present, and the same im¬ mutable hyparxis. Fvery divine nature therefore, lu pins its eniT^v from itself; so that eternity will establish itself in one, and connectedly contain itself after the sain*' manner, prior to eternal beings. Hence it is not In-in::, as Stralo the physiologist says, which is the cause of permanency, 1 but eternitv. And it is tin; cause of a permanency,* n*it always in veneration, or becoming to In*, but which immutably exists in one, as TimaMis s.ivs.