dination of this life to an impartible nature; but by the word self, its permanency in the impartible, and a life at the same time abiding in and proceeding from itself. But Aristotle being accustomed to give the name of motion to that nature alone which is partible, and is numbered according to continuity, conformably to the common use of the word, not only denies motion of the psychical essence, but does not appear to admit that the soul is in any way moved by itself. Thus too, Plato calls the transition which is produced through the energy of the soul motion, such as is to consider and consult; and, indeed, he denominates the regression of the soul from an intelligible and impartible essence, motion. But Aristotle alone calls that transition motion which is successive and continued. It is evident, therefore, that here also the difference between the two philosophers is in names only, and not in things.

Again, it was usual with the Pythagoreans to philosophize symbolically through the mathematics, about things supernatural, those pertaining to the soul, and such as are physical. Plato also assuming the person of the Pythagorean Timæus, as he exhibits him ascribing the five right-lined solid figures to simple bodies, so likewise, he represents him unfolding the essence of the soul of the universe, through right and circular lines; in order that he may, at the same time, indicate its middle nature, between an essence indivisible, and that which is divisible, about bodies; just as a line, also, is the middle of a point, and of solids; and its proximate subordination to intellect. And farther still, that he might indicate by this its undeviating progression, proceeding from itself, which a right line signifies, and through a circular inflexion, the conversion to itself; just as through the habitude of one right line to two, and again, of a more inward habitude to seven, he indicates the causal comprehension of the celestial spheres, according to an appropriate middle. For this comprehension does not subsist like intellect impartibly, but after the manner of soul with evolution, of which circular lines are a symbol, just as the motion of these lines is a symbol of psychical life; for, though intellect moves the heavens, yet it is in conjunction with soul, which, through its peculiar evolved life,

as

as a middle, produces the impartible, motive, energy of intellect, into the continued and partible energy of the heavens; which energy alone Aristotle denominates motion, and opposes Timæus, as attributing to the soul an energy divisible, and attended with interval, lest we, following the accustomed use of names, and, conformably to this, receiving what is asserted by Plato, should form an opinion, that the soul is either a certain magnitude, or is corporeally moved. It is evident, also, that the connexion of the soul with the body must not be considered locally, but according to the proximate and essential presence of it through the whole of the body. But the composition of it from the elements, manifests its completion from essence, sameness, and difference, and, in short, its possession in common of the constitutive peculiarities of beings, so far as beings; this, likewise, being appropriately assumed in the soul; for all beings consist from all such things as are common, but each appropriately according to the order which it is allotted. Again the division, according to harmonic numbers, indicates the hypostasis, or subsistence of all reasons in the soul, and the mode of the subsistence, viz. declining to separation, and being collected into the impartible, and, on this account, divided according to the harmony of numbers ; for harmony, through the collection of symphony, is indicative of reasons established according to different peculiarities; for numbers are significant of peculiarities. The Soul of the World, however, by her inherent reasons, moves the heavens with an harmonious lation, and knows the harmony which subsists in natures superior to, and subordinate to herself; because these reasons are conjoined to superior natures, according to continuity, and are the causes of subordinate natures, so that the celestial circulations are produced through the evolved life of soul. Aristotle, therefore, demonstrating that the soul is incorporeal, and that she has an energy not divided according to continuity, confutes the assertion, that she is moved circularly after the manner of corporeal magnitudes; for such a motion is adapted to bodies, as being essentialized according to interval, but, by no means, to soul, and especially to the soul of the universe.

CHAP.

CHAPTER III.

AGAIN, Aristotle in his treatise On the Heavens, (Book II.) apparently opposes what is asserted by Plato in the Timæus respecting the dissolution of the world. For Plato says in that dialogue, that every thing which is bound is dissoluble; but to be willing to dissolve that which is beautifully harmonized, is the province of an evil artificer. And again the demiurgus is represented saying to the celestial gods, "You are not indeed entirely immortal, yet you shall never be dissolved, nor become subject to the fatality of death." Apparently therefore Plato seems to say, that the world is naturally dissoluble, mortal and corruptible, yet will not be corrupted. But Aristotle opposing the apparent meaning of such an assertion says, it is impossible that any thing which is of its own nature corruptible, should not some time or other be corrupted. For if it is possible, it will at the same time be corruptible and incorruptible; i. e. the same thing will be perpetual and corruptible; and it will be both in energy, and not only corruptible in capacity; but as perpetual, so likewise it will be corruptible, which is evidently absurd. For it is possible for the same thing to have the power of opposites, though it should have them perpetually; but it is impossible that it should possess the energies of opposites at one and the same time. Hence, Aristotle very properly adds, in energy.

But that Aristotle objects to the apparent and not to the real meaning of what Plato says, is evident. For Plato does not say that the world was generated from a certain time, since he asserts that time was generated together with the world. But that which is generated from a certain time, has time existing prior to its generation. Plato, however, says that the world was generated, in consequence of its being sensible and corporeal, and as falling off from real being, and having its exist

ence

ence in becoming to be. But he says, that it is dissoluble and not entirely immortal, but generable in its own nature; just as Aristotle also shows, that a finite body has in its own nature a finite power. Both Plato and Aristotle however show that the world is incorruptible and immortal, on account of its proximate production from divinity; the former saying, as from the demiurgus, "Yet you shall never be dissolved, nor become subject to the fatality of death; my will being a much greater, and more excellent bond than the vital connectives with which you were bound at the commencement of your generation;" but Aristotle asserting, that an immoveable cause, moves perpetually, and on this account that which is proximately moved by it, though in its own nature, as being finite, it possesses a finite power, yet is moved perpetually, in consequence of being moved by that which perpetually

moves.

In the next place let us see according to what signification of the generable, Aristotle denies generation of the heavens, hastening to show that it is without generation; and again, according to what signification Plato says, that heaven and the world are generable. That Aristotle, therefore, calls the mutation from non-being to being that generation, to which corruption entirely succeeds, is evident from those arguments by which he shows that the heavens are not only without generation,, but also that they are incorruptible. And this is still more evident, when he clearly shows that what is generated, is corruptible in every way, and that what may be corrupted is generated. Hence, demonstrating that there is a certain other fifth essence besides the sublunary elements, viz. the essence of a celestial body, and which is naturally more perfect than these, he likewise denies of this essence gravity and levity and motion in a right line, which are the peculiarities of sublunary bodies Thus also he denies of this fifth essence the generation and corruption of sublunary natures. And this indeed may be considered as indubitable, both from his calling generation and corruption a certain mutation, one thing being generated and corrupted after another, and from his showing, in contradiction to those who assert that the world was generated but is incorruptible, that what is generable is

always

2

always corruptible. Nor is it at all wonderful that Aristotle always wishes to assume things obvious to every one, and to call that generable which participates of every kind of generation, and clearly appears to be generable and corruptible in a part of time. But Plato knew indeed this generation of sublunary natures which is opposite to corruption, as is evident from the tenth book of his Laws, in which he says, "The generation of all things is effected, when a certain passion becomes apparent; for instance, when the principle receiving an increase by' transition arrives at the first, and from this to that which is next, and having arrived as far as to three things, it possesses sense in sentient natures. By transition, therefore, and transitive motion, every thing is generated but it is true being when it abides. When, however, it is changed into another habit, it is perfectly corrupted." He also knew another kind of generation, according to which a thing arriving at corporeal interval, is no longer able to produce itself, but alone subsisting from some other cause, is called generable, receiving a division opposite to true being, as to its proximate cause. For it is necessary that what is generated, and receives its subsistence externally, should derive its existence from true being, and that which is self-subsistent; or there must be a procession to infinity, and the generable must always be admitted prior to the generable. But defining this generable after true being, in the Timæus, he says, that according to it the world is generable. And the definition indeed of both being produced from the gnostic powers in us, is as follows: "What is that which is always being, but which is without generation, and what is that which is becoming to be indeed, but is never being? That which may be comprehended, therefore, by intelligence in conjunction with reason, and which always possesses an invariable sameness of subsistence, is being; but that which is apprehended by opinion in conjunction with irrational sense, is that which is generable and destructible, and is never truly being." According to this kind of generable, therefore, Plato says, that the world was generated by true being; for he thus writes about the

That is, when from length it has arrived at breadth, and afterwards at depth;