ho　hold　to　fewer　Principles　must　hold　the　identity　of　either　Intellectual…Principle　and　Soul　or　of　Intellectual…Principle　and　The　First；　but　we　have　abundantly　shown　that　these　are　distinct。　　　　　It　remains　for　us　to　consider　whether　there　are　more　than　these　Three。　　　　　Now　what　other　＇Divine＇　Kinds　could　there　be？　No　Principles　of　the　universe　could　be　found　at　once　simpler　and　more　transcendent　than　this　whose　existence　we　have　affirmed　and　described。　　　　　They　will　scarcely　urge　upon　us　the　doubling　of　the　Principle　in　Act　by　a　Principle　in　Potentiality。　It　is　absurd　to　seek　such　a　plurality　by　distinguishing　between　potentiality　and　actuality　in　the　case　of　immaterial　beings　whose　existence　is　in　Act…　even　in　lower　forms　no　such　division　can　be　made　and　we　cannot　conceive　a　duality　in　the　Intellectual…Principle；　one　phase　in　some　vague　calm；　another　all　astir。　Under　what　form　can　we　think　of　repose　in　the　Intellectual　Principle　as　contrasted　with　its　movement　or　utterance？　What　would　the　quiescence　of　the　one　phase　be　as　against　the　energy　of　the　others？　　　　　No：　the　Intellectual…Principle　is　continuously　itself；　unchangeably　constituted　in　stable　Act。　With　movement…　towards　it　or　within　it…　we　are　in　the　realm　of　the　Soul's　operation：　such　act　is　a　Reason…Principle　emanating　from　it　and　entering　into　Soul；　thus　made　an　Intellectual　Soul；　but　in　no　sense　creating　an　intermediate　Principle　to　stand　between　the　two。　　　　　Nor　are　we　warranted　in　affirming　a　plurality　of　Intellectual　Principles　on　the　ground　that　there　is　one　that　knows　and　thinks　and　another　knowing　that　it　knows　and　thinks。　For　whatever　distinction　be　possible　in　the　Divine　between　its　Intellectual　Act　and　its　Consciousness　of　that　Act；　still　all　must　be　one　projection　not　unaware　of　its　own　operation：　it　would　be　absurd　to　imagine　any　such　unconsciousness　in　the　Authentic　Intelligence；　the　knowing　principle　must　be　one　and　the　selfsame　with　that　which　knows　of　the　knowing。　　　　　The　contrary　supposition　would　give　us　two　beings；　one　that　merely　knows；　and　another　separate　being　that　knows　of　the　act　of　knowing。　　　　　If　we　are　answered　that　the　distinction　is　merely　a　process　of　our　thought；　then；　at　once；　the　theory　of　a　plurality　in　the　Divine　Hypostasis　is　abandoned：　further；　the　question　is　opened　whether　our　thought　can　entertain　a　knowing　principle　so　narrowed　to　its　knowing　as　not　to　know　that　it　knows…　a　limitation　which　would　be　charged　as　imbecility　even　in　ourselves；　who　if　but　of　very　ordinary　moral　force　are　always　master　of　our　emotions　and　mental　processes。　　　　　No：　The　Divine　Mind　in　its　mentation　thinks　itself；　the　object　of　the　thought　is　nothing　external：　Thinker　and　Thought　are　one；　therefore　in　its　thinking　and　knowing　it　possesses　itself；　observes　itself　and　sees　itself　not　as　something　unconscious　but　as　knowing：　in　this　Primal　Knowing　it　must　include；　as　one　and　the　same　Act；　the　knowledge　of　the　knowing；　and　even　the　logical　distinction　mentioned　above　cannot　be　made　in　the　case　of　the　Divine；　the　very　eternity　of　its　self…thinking　precludes　any　such　separation　between　that　intellective　act　and　the　consciousness　of　the　act。　　　　　The　absurdity　becomes　still　more　blatant　if　we　introduce　yet　a　further　distinction…　after　that　which　affirms　the　knowledge　of　the　knowing；　a　third　distinction　affirming　the　knowing　of　the　knowledge　of　the　knowing：　yet　there　is　no　reason　against　carrying　on　the　division　for　ever　and　ever。　　　　　To　increase　the　Primals　by　making　the　Supreme　Mind　engender　the　Reason…Principle；　and　this　again　engender　in　the　Soul　a　distinct　power　to　act　as　mediator　between　Soul　and　the　Supreme　Mind；　this　is　to　deny　intellection　to　the　Soul；　which　would　no　longer　derive　its　Reason　from　the　Intellectual…Principle　but　from　an　intermediate：　the　Soul　then　would　possess　not　the　Reason…Principle　but　an　image　of　it：　the　Soul　could　not　know　the　Intellectual…Principle；　it　could　have　no　intellection。　　　　　2。　Therefore　we　must　affirm　no　more　than　these　three　Primals：　we　are　not　to　introduce　superfluous　distinctions　which　their　nature　rejects。　We　are　to　proclaim　one　Intellectual…Principle　unchangeably　the　same；　in　no　way　subject　to　decline；　acting　in　imitation；　as　true　as　its　nature　allows；　of　the　Father。　　　　　And　as　to　our　own　Soul　we　are　to　hold　that　it　stands；　in　part；　always　in　the　presence　of　The　Divine　Beings；　while　in　part　it　is　concerned　with　the　things　of　this　sphere　and　in　part　occupies　a　middle　ground。　It　is　one　nature　in　graded　powers；　and　sometimes　the　Soul　in　its　entirety　is　borne　along　by　the　loftiest　in　itself　and　in　the　Authentic　Existent；　sometimes；　the　less　noble　part　is　dragged　down　and　drags　the　mid…soul　with　it；　though　the　law　is　that　the　Soul　may　never　succumb　entire。　　　　　The　Soul's　disaster　falls　upon　it　when　it　ceases　to　dwell　in　the　perfect　Beauty…　the　appropriate　dwelling…place　of　that　Soul　which　is　no　part　and　of　which　we　too　are　no　part…　thence　to　pour　forth　into　the　frame　of　the　All　whatsoever　the　All　can　hold　of　good　and　beauty。　There　that　Soul　rests；　free　from　all　solicitude；　not　ruling　by　plan　or　policy；　not　redressing；　but　establishing　order　by　the　marvellous　efficacy　of　its　contemplation　of　the　things　above　it。　　　　　For　the　measure　of　its　absorption　in　that　vision　is　the　measure　of　its　grace　and　power；　and　what　it　draws　from　this　contemplation　it　communicates　to　the　lower　sphere；　illuminated　and　illuminating　always。　　　　　3。　Ever　illuminated；　receiving　light　unfailing；　the　All…Soul　imparts　it　to　the　entire　series　of　later　Being　which　by　this　light　is　sustained　and　fostered　and　endowed　with　the　fullest　measure　of　life　that　each　can　absorb。　It　may　be　compared　with　a　central　fire　warming　every　receptive　body　within　range。　　　　　Our　fire；　however；　is　a　thing　of　limited　scope：　given　powers　that　have　no　limitation　and　are　never　cut　off　from　the　Authentic　Existences；　how　imagine　anything　existing　and　yet　failing　to　receive　from　them？　　　　　It　is　of　the　essence　of　things　that　each　gives　of　its　being　to　another：　without　this　communication；　The　Good　would　not　be　Good；　nor　the　Intellectual…Principle　an　Intellective　Principle；　nor　would　Soul　itself　be　what　it　is：　the　law　is；　〃some　life　after　the　Primal　Life；　a　second　where　there　is　a　first；　all　linked　in　one　unbroken　chain；　all　eternal；　divergent　types　being　engendered　only　in　the　sense　of　being　secondary。〃　　　　　In　other　words；　things　commonly　described　as　generated　have　never　known　a　beginning：　all　has　been　and　will　be。　Nor　can　anything　disappear　unless　where　a　later　form　is　possible：　without　such　a　future　there　can　be　no　dissolution。　　　　　If　we　are　told　that　there　is　always　Matter　as　a　possible　term；　we　ask　why　then　should　not　Matter　itself　come　to　nothingness。　If　we　are　told　it　may；　then　we　ask　why　it　should　ever　have　been　generated。　If　the　answer　comes　that　it　had　its　necessary　place　as　the　ultimate　of　the　series；　we　return　that　the　necessity　still　holds。　　　　　With　Matter　left　aside　as　wholly　isolated；　the　Divine　Beings　are　not　everywhere　but　in　some　bounded　place；　walled　off；　so　to　speak；　if　that　is　not　possible；　Matter　itself　must　receive　the　Divine　light　＇and　so　cannot　be　annihilated＇。　　　　　4。　To　those　who　assert　that　creation　is　the　work　of　the　Soul　after　the　failing　of　its　wings；　we　answer　that　no　such　disgrace　could　overtake　the　Soul　of　the　All。　If　they　tell　us　of　its　falling；　they　must　tell　us　also　what　caused　the　fall。　And　when　did　it　take　place？　If　from　eternity；　then　the　Soul　must　be　essentially　a　fallen　thing：　if　at　some　one　moment；　why　not　before　that？　　　　　We　assert　its　creative　act　to　be　a　proof　not　of　decline　but　rather　of　its　steadfast　hold。　Its　decline　could　consist　only　in　its　forgetting　the　Divine：　but　if　it　forgot；　how　could　it　create？　Whence　does　it　create　but　from　the　things　it　knew　in　the　Divine？　If　it　creates　from　the　memory　of　that　vision；　it　never　fell。　Even　supposing　it　to　be　in　some　dim　intermediate　state；　it　need　not　be　supposed　more　likely　to　decline：　any　inclination　would　be　towards　its　Prior；　in　an　effort　to　the　clearer　vision。　If　any　memory　at　all　remained；　what　other　desire　could　it　have　than　to　retrace　the　way？　　　　　What　could　it　have　been　planning　to　gain　by　world…creating？　Glory？　That　would　be　absurd…　a　motive　borrowed　from　the　sculptors　of　our　earth。　　　　　Finally；　if　the　Soul　created　by　policy　and　not　by　sheer　need　of　its　nature；　by　being　characteristically　the　creative　power…　how　explain　the　making　of　this　universe？　　　　　And　when　will　it　destroy　the　work？　If　it　repents　of　its　work；　what　is　it　waiting　for？　If　it　has　not　yet　repented；　then　it　will　never　repent：　it　must　be　already　accustomed　to　the　world；　must　be　growing　more　tender　towards　it　with　the　passing　of　time。　　　　　Can　it　be　waiting　for　certain　souls　still　here？　Long　since　would　these　have　ceased　returning　for　such　re…birth；　having　known　in　former　life　the　evils　of　this　sphere；　long　since　would　they　have　foreborne　to　come。　　　　　Nor　may　we　grant　that　this　world　is　of　unhappy　origin　because　there　are　many　jarring　things　in　it。　Such　a　judgement　would　rate　it　too　high；　treating　it　as　the　same　with　the　Intelligible　Realm　and　not　merely　its　reflection。　　　　　And　yet…　what　reflection　of　that　world　could　be　conceived　more　beautiful　than　this　of　ours？　What　fire　could　be　a　nobler　reflection　of　the　fire　there　than　the　fire　we