The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com
Similarly in another way. If the immediate mover of the substance is infinite, the motion of the substance is infinite. But it is impossible for the motion of the substance to be infinite, since its substance is finite. Therefore it is impossible for the immediate mover of this substance to be infinite. Next we shall add to this conclusion the following proposition: The First Author is infinite. Therefore it is impossible for the First Author to be the immediate mover of the substance.
The motion of the substance that supports the categories cannot but be either natural or voluntary. If it is natural, the First Author is not its immediate mover, for the First Author does not cause a natural effect without an intermediary. And if it is voluntary, and the substance in itself has no will, it is necessary for the substance to depend on another substance, that gives it a will to move. Now it is impossible that this substance should be the First Author, for the First Author is not mobile. Therefore this substance that gives motion to the substance that supports the categories is different from the First Author. Therefore the First Author is not the immediate mover of the substance.
The substance that moves the substance supporting the categories must be either mobile or immobile. If it is immobile, it cannot move the substance that supports the categories, for this substance either can move or cannot. If it can move, it would be mobile. If it cannot move in itself, it could not possibly move another thing.
The proof of the impossibility for the mover of the substance to be able to move it, since it cannot
move itself, is as follows: Let us assume that that which moves the substance cannot move itself. Now everything that cannot move itself cannot move anything else. Therefore what we have assumed as the mover of the substance cannot move it. Therefore it is impossible for the mover of the substance to move it and not be mobile in itself. Therefore the mover of the substance is mobile.
And the proof that the mover of the substance that gives the substance the faculty of moving is mobile is demonstrated thus: The mover of the substance gives the substance the faculty of moving. Now whatever gives a thing to another thing is more worthy of possessing the thing given than that which receives it. Therefore the mover of the substance that gives the substance the faculty of moving is more worthy of possessing the faculty of moving than the substance that receives it. Therefore the immediate mover of the substance is mobile. I take this conclusion and assert: The substance that moves the substance without an intermediary is mobile. Now the First Author is not mobile. Therefore the First Author is not the immediate mover of the substance.
The substance that supports the categories is a body. Now every body in itself is at rest. Therefore the substance that supports the categories in itself is at rest. Now everything that is at rest depends on a mobile end. Therefore the substance that supports the categories depends on a mobile end. Now all that depends on a mobile end has a mobile anterior to it. Therefore the substance that supports the categories has a mobile anterior to it. But everything mobile is substance. Therefore the substance that supports the categories has another mobile substance anterior to it.
The substance that is the object of the action by
the First Author must be either mobile or immobile. Now it is impossible for it not to be mobile, for the First Author is a mover; and if the object of his action were not mobile, he himself would not be a mover. It is therefore necessary for the object of the action by the First Author to be mobile.
Hence it moves either in time or beyond time. Now it is impossible that it should be mobile in time, for its mover is a mover beyond time. This is the form of the argument: The first mover moves beyond time. Now what is moved by a mover beyond time is moved beyond time. Therefore that which is moved by the first mover moves beyond time. Now the substance that supports the categories does not move beyond time. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not moved by the first mover.
It is necessary that if there exists something that moves in time, there should exist also something beyond time, for if nothing moved beyond time, the first mover would not be a mover beyond time, but he would move in time. Therefore the first mover would move in time and at the same time would move beyond time: which is impossible.
If the First Author is not mobile, it is necessary that the substance that he moves should be mobile beyond time, because if the substance were mobile in time, it would be necessary that there should exist anterior to it a mobile beyond time. But there is nothing anterior to it except the first mover. Therefore the first mover would move beyond time. But the first mover is not mobile in any manner. Therefore the substance that he moves does not move in time. Now we take this proposition and we assert: That which is moved by the first mover does not move in time. Now the substance that supports the categories
moves in time. Therefore that which is moved by the first mover is not the substance that supports the categories.
The motion that is in the substance that supports the categories is variable. Now everything variable is passive. Therefore the motion that is in the substance that supports the categories is passive. But the essence of the First Author is not passive. Therefore the motion that is in the substance supporting the categories does not come from the essence of the First Author. Therefore it comes from the essence of another substance.
Everything by means of which something that is moved is passive will have a passive essence. Now the motion that is in the substance supporting the categories is passive. Therefore the substance that causes its motion is passive. Similarly, I assert: The substance that causes the motion of the substance supporting the categories is passive. Now the First Author is not passive. Therefore the First Author does not cause the motion of the substance supporting the categories.
The diffused motion in the substance supporting the categories must be either a substance or an accident. If it is an accident, its author is a substance; and this substance is either finite or infinite. Now it is impossible that it should be infinite, for it is conjoined to a finite substance. But if it is finite, it is not the First Author.
And if the motion is a substance, what is proper to the creative substance is proper to it, that is finiteness or infinitude. If it is finite, it is impossible that it should be the First Author. And if it is infinite, it cannot unite with a finite substance and cannot produce a finite work. Now the moving substance is
united to a finite substance and produces a finite work, for all the motions that are found in the substance are finite. Therefore the substance that moves the substance supporting the categories is not infinite. Now the First Author is infinite. Therefore the substance that moves the substance supporting the categories is not the First Author.
All that moves in an infinite place cannot possibly traverse this place in a finite time. The substance that supports the categories traverses the place in which it moves in a finite time. Therefore the substance supporting the categories cannot possibly move in an infinite place. Then I postulate this proposition and assert: The substance supporting the categories does not move in an infinite place. Now the First Author is an infinite place. Therefore the substance supporting the categories does not move in the First Author.
Similarly in another way. The substance that supports the categories traverses the place in which it moves in a finite time. Now whenever a thing traverses the place in which it moves in a finite time, the place in which it moves is finite. Therefore the place in which the substance supporting the categories moves is finite. And when we add to this conclusion the affirmation that the First Author is not finite, the conclusion is that the place in which the substance that supports the categories moves is not the First Author.
The substance that supports the categories is finite. Now a finite substance cannot move in an infinite substance. Therefore the substance that supports the categories cannot possibly move in an infinite substance. To this conclusion I shall add this proposition: The First Author is infinite. Therefore the substance that supports the categories cannot possibly move in the First Author.
Every simple substance that unites by itself with another substance is finite; being terminated where it unites with the other substance. Now whenever a thing is terminated in another thing, its essence is finite. Therefore every simple substance that unites with another substance has a finite essence. I now take this proposition and assert as follows: Every simple substance that unites by itself with another substance has a finite essence. Now the essence of the First Author is infinite. Therefore the essence of the First Author is not united with any one of the simple finite substances. Similarly I take this conclusion and add the following proposition: The essence of the substance that supports the categories is finite. Therefore the essence of the First Author is not united to the substance that supports the categories. If between the essence of the First Author and the substance that supports the categories there were no intermediary, the essence of the First Author would be united to the substance that supports the categories. But the essence of the First Author is not united to the substance that supports the categories. Therefore between the essence of the First Author and the substance that supports the categories there is an intermediary.
Everything that is simple or compound and finite in essence is united to another thing only by its extremity. Now whenever a thing unites with another by its extremity, inversely the other thing unites with the first thing by its extremity. Therefore whenever a thing is of finite essence, whatever unites with it is finite; and everything that follows the finite that unites with it is of finite essence. Now the substance that supports the categories is of finite essence. Therefore the substance that follows it is of finite essence.
If the substance that supports the categories is
created independently of another thing, there exists nothing else more perfect and stronger than it. Now there exists a substance more perfect and stronger than this one. Therefore this substance is not created independently by another thing.
Similarly in another way. If there exists a substance more perfect than the substance supporting the categories, then the substance supporting the categories proceeds from it. All that proceeds from another thing is posterior to the power from which it proceeds; and all that is posterior to some power is not so perfect as the principle of the power from which it proceeds. Therefore everything that proceeds from another thing is not so perfect as the principle of that from which it proceeds. Then I take this proposition and assert: All that proceeds from something else is not so perfect as the principle of that from which it proceeds. Now all that is not so perfect as the principle of that from which it proceeds is imperfect. Therefore all that proceeds from something else is imperfect. Similarly I take this proposition and assert: All that proceeds from something else is imperfect. Now to everything imperfect corresponds something more perfect. Therefore to everything that proceeds from something else corresponds something else more perfect than it.
Next I shall take the converse of this proposition: Everything to which a more perfect thing corresponds proceeds from something else. To this we add the following proposition: There exists another substance more perfect than the substance that supports the categories. Therefore the substance that supports the categories proceeds from something else. Similarly, from this point on: The substance that supports the categories proceeds from something else. Now all that proceeds from something else is of the same genus as
that from which it proceeds. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is of the same genus as that from which it proceeds. Similarly from this point on: The substance that supports the categories is of the same genus as that from which it proceeds. Now the substance that supports the categories is a substance. Therefore that from which it proceeds is also a substance. Therefore this is the substance superior to the substance that supports the categories from which it proceeds.
The substance of the intelligence has every form. Now everything that has every form must be anterior to that which has only some forms and is more subtle than it. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is anterior to that which has only some forms and is more subtle than it. Then to this conclusion I shall add this proposition: The substance that supports the categories has some forms only. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is anterior to the substance that supports the categories and is more subtle than it.
The substance of intelligence suffers beyond time. Now everything that suffers beyond time is anterior to that which suffers in time and is more subtle than it. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is prior to that which suffers in time and is more subtle than it. To this conclusion I add the following proposition: The substance that supports the categories suffers in time. Therefore the substance of the intelligence is anterior to the substance that supports the categories and is more subtle than it.
If there existed a substance anterior to the substance that supports the categories and more subtle than it, the substance that supports the categories would not be the immediate object of the action of the First Author. But the substance of the intelligence is
anterior to the substance that supports the categories and more subtle than it. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is not the immediate object of the action of the First Author. And the converse of this proposition: If the substance that supports the categories is the immediate object of the action of the First Author, there is no other substance more subtle than it and anterior to it. But the substance of the intelligence is anterior to it and is more subtle than it. Therefore it is not the immediate object of the action of the First Author.
The form that subsists in the substance that supports the categories is in it accidentally. Now what is in something accidentally is essentially in its cause. Therefore the form that subsists in the substance that supports the categories accidentally is essentially in its cause. Then I take this proposition and I assert: The form borne accidentally by the substance that supports the categories is essentially in its cause. Now whatever is essentially in its cause is a proper accident for its cause. Therefore the form borne by the substance that supports the categories is a proper accident for its cause. Then I take this proposition and I add another: There is no accident in the essence of the First Author. Therefore the form borne by the substance that supports the categories is not in the essence of the First Author. Then I take this proposition and I assert: The form borne by the substance that supports the categories is essentially in its cause. Therefore the First Author is not the essential cause of the form. Therefore there is another substance that is the essential cause of this form, and this form has existence in this substance through creation by the First Author.
The First Author is the origin of things. Now whatever
is the origin of things has as a contrary the extremity of things. Therefore the First Author has an extremity that is contrary to him. Then I take this proposition and I add: The substance that supports the categories is the extremity of things. Therefore the substance that supports the categories is the extremity that is opposed to the First Author. Then I take this proposition and I add: Whenever there is a last term for a first term, there is an intermediary between them. Therefore between the substance that supports the categories and the First Author there is an intermediary.
Whatever begins to exist, before existence, is possible of existence. Now whatever is possible before existence is necessary after having been possible. Then I take this proposition and I assert: Whatever is possible before it existed is necessary after having been possible. Now whatever is necessary after having been possible has now passed from possibility to necessity. Therefore whatever is possible after not having existed has now passed from possibility to necessity. From this conclusion we draw what it has in potentiality and we say: The possibility of being that which did not exist changes into necessity. Now whatever changes into something is of the same genus as the thing into which it changes. Therefore the possibility is of the same genus as the necessity.
Next we assume the following observation and we assert: The substance that supports the categories presents in place parts that were not there previously; it is found to be draped in some form in which it had not previously been draped. Now whatever is after not having been, was possible. Therefore the substance supporting the categories is said to be possible. Similarly: The substance supporting the categories is said
to be possible. Now all that is defined as possible must necessarily have something anterior to it that is defined by necessity, for necessity is anterior to possibility. Therefore the substance supporting the categories defined as possible must have anterior to it something defined by necessity. Similarly I take this proposition as a premise: The substance supporting the categories defined as possible must have anterior to it something that is defined by necessity. Now the possible and the necessary are of the same genus, as has been stated. Therefore the substance supporting the categories is of the same genus as the substance anterior to it.
Similarly in another way: The necessary substance is anterior to the possible substance. Now the substance that supports the categories is possible. Therefore the necessary substance is anterior to the substance that supports the categories. Similarly: The necessary substance is anterior to the substance that supports the categories. The necessary substance is of the same genus as the possible substance. Therefore the substance anterior to the substance supporting the categories is of the same genus as the possible substance. Now the substance supporting the categories is possible. Therefore the substance that is anterior to the substance supporting the categories is of the same genus as it.
We have now advanced all that it was possible to advance regarding the proofs to demonstrate that the substance supporting the categories is not moved by the First Author without an intermediary; and it is clear that there exists another substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance supporting the categories.
Pupil: Certainly the proofs that you have adduced
are an excellent demonstration for me. But I should like you to summarize what you have already said on this subject and to postulate a general rule relating to the investigation of the existence of the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories.
Master: You must know that the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance supporting the categories is not one substance, but many. Now we can investigate in two ways the existence of those substances that are intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories. One of these ways is to consider the properties of the First Author and the properties of the substance that supports the categories; and it was according to this method that we established all the proofs that we have adduced up to this point. The second method is based on an investigation of the existence of the substances intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories according to the effects and actions of these substances and according to the emanation of their powers from each other. I call actions and effects of these substances the figures that appear in the substance that supports the categories and which it receives from the action on it of the simple substances, and the passions that, in each of the simple substances, are the effects of these substances upon each other. The difference in these methods consists in this, that the first leads us to the knowledge of the absolute existence of the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories. The second method leads us to a knowledge of what the intermediary substance is, how it is, and why it is.
Pupil: I should like to be convinced of the truth of the proofs that we have established by the first method before we undertake to establish the proofs by the second method. And I ask you to remove the doubt that I have on this matter; for I know that all the terms of the propositions advanced in the proofs are defined, for it is necessary that there should be either genera, or species, or differences, or individuals, or properties or accidents; I know also none of these things applies to the First Author. How then can the proofs that you have adduced be true?
Master: Our intention in regard to the definition of the terms of the propositions advanced in the proofs was merely to know the terms, and now we have in some manner a knowledge of the First Author according to his properties, although he is not defined. Therefore there was no need for us, since we know something of him, to treat of the definition of the terms of the proposition adduced in the proofs in regard to him. But the definitions that are predicated from the terms of these proofs are taken either from the properties of the essence of the First Author, or from the effects that are attributed to him, or from the properties of those things that are inferior to him and that are not attributed to him. When we describe him by properties that are said to be his, what is achieved thus is an affirmative proposition. And when we take away from him some property not attributed to him, what is thus achieved is a negative proposition, and it will constitute in the proofs a true proposition.
If both propositions adduced in the syllogisms are theological, their affirmative and negative connection will depend on the affirmative and negative connection of the two terms of each of the propositions.
[paragraph continues] And if one proposition is theological and the other not, their negative connection depends on the two terms of the negative theological premise—negative, I assert, that is by taking away from God the blessed, the non-divine property; and their connection cannot be affirmative, since it is impossible for God to be described by a non-theological property.
Pupil: What your words imply is that the propositions are of two kinds: divine and not divine. But I doubt whether the divine proof is a proof, since it contains neither genus nor species nor any of the logical terms.
Master: Since you are convinced of the connection of the terms of the theological propositions, although the case is not the same as in the case of the non-divine proposition, yet each of the propositions is similar to the other in order and arrangement, that is, in the position of the terms considered according to the rules of the logical figures.
It is therefore not inappropriate, it is even necessary, that it should be called a divine proof, since the non-divine proof is the conjunction of true propositions and their arrangement according to the rules of the logical figures, and the divine proof is similar to it. Also, the propositions adduced in the divine proof are either first or second. If they are first, then they will be equal to the first propositions that are adduced in the non-divine proof. If they are second, they must have been drawn from the source of the second propositions advanced in the non-divine proof; and since this is so, they are equal to them. Therefore the divine proof and the non-divine proof, in so far as their truth is involved, are equal. And since this is the case, it is not inadmissible, it is even necessary that the divine proof should be called a proof.
Pupil: Why did the one who said this say that in divine knowledge there is no proof?
Master: The one who said this, if he meant that in divine knowledge there is no proof whatever, was wrong. If he meant that in divine knowledge we do not use the non-divine proof that is composed of logical terms, he was right, and I do not contradict him.
Pupil: Now I know clearly the existence of the intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories according to the method of considering the properties of the First Author and the properties of the substance that supports the categories. This is evident to me from the proofs that you have presented according to this method. Thanks to them the doubt that I entertained is gone and it is now evident to me that they are true. Show me now the existence of the substance intermediary between the First Author and the substance that supports the categories, according to the effects and the results and according to the emanation.
Master: Do you consider it necessary or not to grant the actions of things upon each other?
Pupil: Why should I not grant it, when the evidence of the thing and due reflection demonstrate the existence of these actions? But I do not know what this action is, or why it is, or how it is.
Master: What the action is, is this, that a thing gives its form to another thing when both things are apt for this. Now as to how, there is either a conjunction without an intermediary, or a conjunction with an intermediary, or there is a change and diminution of the form of the agent; or, on the contrary, there is no diminution of the quality of the agent; or there is an impression of the power of the agent upon the
passive thing beyond time; or there is an opinion or an imagination, like the action of a loved object on the lover. But as to why there is this action of things upon each other, this occurs through the sublime universal cause, because the power that is the author of all things and moves all things by itself operates as long as it finds something to receive its action.
Hence it is necessary that the universal form, made by this power, should also act by itself. It is therefore a maker and an agent. Similarly it is also necessary that the first universal matter should receive the action by itself. Now it is the property of the universals that their nature should be in their parts. And since the parts receive their nature from the essence of the universals, they also give it to themselves. It is therefore necessary that they should receive it from their universals. And it is consequently necessary that all forms should be active and all matters passive. In regard to the form, the argument is as follows: The universal form acts necessarily. Now whenever a universal thing acts necessarily, its parts act necessarily. Therefore the parts of the universal form act necessarily. The argument for matter is as follows: The universal matter receives the action of the form. Whenever a universal thing receives the action of the form, all its parts receive it also. Therefore all the parts of the universal matter receive the action of the form.
Pupil: Why is the universal form said to act necessarily?
Master: Because the First Author, sublime and holy, dispenses the abundance that he has with him, for all that exists flows from him. And since the First Author is the dispenser of the form that is with him, he does not prevent it from flowing out; he is therefore the source that maintains, envelops, and comprehends
everything that is. Hence it is necessary that all substances should obey his action and imitate him in giving their forms and bestowing their energies, as long as they find a matter ready to receive them. Now by the emanation of substances is understood their motion and desire to communicate the action, wherein they imitate the First Author. But they differ in this according to their perfection and imperfection, for some of them flow beyond time, and others in time; and the different superior substances, in the emanation of their flow, are in relation to the inferior substances just as the First Author is to the superior and inferior substances in regard to his emanation over them, although their flow is different in each case. Similarly the superior substances are in relation to the First Author, in their passivity in regard to him, just like the inferior substances in relation to the superior substances in their passivity in regard to them. In short, the first emanation, that embraces all substances, makes it necessary that the substances emanate into others. And in this regard take an example from the sun that does not emanate by itself and does not communicate its rays except for the reason that it falls under the first emanation and obeys it.
When we study the cause of the emanation of substances from each other, we shall find still other causes for this phenomenon. One of these is that the form is more subtle than the matter. And since the subtle penetrates and traverses that which is before it and opposes it, it follows necessarily that the form penetrates and traverses all that is before it and opposes it.
Furthermore, it is the nature of the form to unite with the matter, when the matter is ready to receive it. Now all that unites with something that is ready
to receive it gives itself to this thing and also gives it its form. It is therefore necessary that the form should give itself and its form to that which is prepared to receive it. And this is a very evident proof that the form proceeds from the First Author and obeys him, because it is forced by its nature to give itself and to give its form when it finds a matter to receive it. Furthermore, because there was a first effect and a first action, it was necessary that this effect and this action should penetrate everything until there was nothing left to receive them.
Pupil: Now I know what action is, how it is, and why it is. Now show me also how many passive things there are.
Master: Since the active thing is either matter or form, its action must be similar either to itself and the form, or to the form only; and the form must be either a force, or a corporeal form, or a motion. Since this is the case, know that the passive thing is either a formed essence or a force, or a corporeal form, or a motion.
Pupil: I now know from what has preceded that everything that has a form acts by itself and its species, when it finds a matter to receive it.
Master: If there are simple substances apart from the substance that supports the categories, is it not necessary that they should act by themselves and their forms?
Pupil: Yes: since we have discovered that things communicate their energies and their lights, it is necessary also that simple substances should do so.
Master: Furthermore, it is necessary that the essences and the forms of these substances communicate with each other more than those of other substances, on account of their force and subtlety and their light.
[paragraph continues] For we find that the more the substance is subtle, strong, and luminous, the stronger its action will be, and the more capable to penetrate into another substance beyond time.
Pupil: What proof of this is there?
Master: The emanation comes from the impulsion: and the impulsion comes from the force. The proof that the force and the subtlety cause the emanation is that the quantity and the figure do not imprint their image on what is before them, when it can receive it; and this on account of the weakness of the quantity and its thickness for penetration. Similarly with the accident, for the stronger, more subtle, and more luminous it is, the more penetrating it is. We conclude therefore from these six proofs that it is necessary that the simple substances should give themselves and communicate their forms. Further, the fact that the energies and the rays that emanate from the body are spiritual is a proof that the spiritual substance must also emanate. Further, although we have found that the corporeal substance is prevented from communicating itself on account of the thickness of the quantity and its obscurity, yet the quantity communicates its shadow to the bodies that are before it, so that, when it meets a luminous body, it gives it its form: all the more necessary, according to this consideration, is it that the spiritual substance, which is exempt from quantity, should emanate its essence and its force and its light.
Pupil: How well you have proved the active and penetrating character of simple substances!
Master: The more subtle, the stronger and better they are, the more apt they are to act and to communicate themselves with what they have. This is evident from the absence of the penetrating power in the
corporeal substances, for when you consider these substances one after the other, some are the testimony and the proof of the others. For when you postulate that the corporeal substance is prevented from communicating itself on account of its thickness and its obscurity, and that the more remote it is from thickness and obscurity, the nearer it is to communicating itself, you necessarily assume thereby that the simple substances communicate themselves, their energies and forms. For, since the quantity prevents the substance from communicating itself, there is nothing that prevents the spiritual substances from giving their forms and bestowing their energies. And when you assume that the simple substances communicate themselves and their forms, you necessarily assume that the corporeal substances are prevented from communicating themselves and their forms. And when you observe that the essence of the simple substance has no end, when you consider its force, when you think of its faculty of penetrating into a thing that is before it and that is prepared to receive it, when you compare it with the corporeal substance, you will find that the corporeal substance is powerless to be everywhere and too feeble to penetrate things; and you will find that the simple substance, the substance of the universal soul, is diffused through the entire universe and that it sustains it in itself on account of its subtlety and simplicity: and you will find similarly that the substance of the universal intelligence is diffused through the entire universe and that it penetrates it. The cause of this is the subtlety of the two substances, their force and their light: and on account of this the substance of the intelligence is diffused into the interior of things and penetrates them. Therefore according to this view all the more ought the power of
the holy God to penetrate all things, exist in all things, and act in all things beyond time.
Pupil: Now it is clear to me that every simple substance communicates itself and gives its form. But what follows from this?
Master: From this it follows that the simple substances communicate themselves and give their forms to the substance that supports the categories, for each spiritual substance causes through itself, as we have said, its proper effect on the thing that is before it, and that because it emanates and dominates all substances when it finds a subject to receive its action. For this reason, it is necessary that the simple substance that follows the compound substance should cause in the compound substance what it must cause. And because this substance is a sensible compound body, it necessarily follows that the action of the spiritual substance in this body should be sensible also: except that this action is not corporeal absolutely nor spiritual absolutely, but is intermediary between the two extremes, like the growth and the sensibility, the motion, and the colors and the figures that are in the compound substances the effects of the simple substances. For these effects are not corporeal absolutely nor spiritual absolutely, since they are perceived by the senses.
Therefore, according to what we have said, all the sensible forms in the corporeal substance must come from the action of the intelligible spiritual substance. And these forms are sensible only because the matter that receives them is very close by its nature to corporeality; and these sensible forms exist in the intelligible spiritual substance more simply than in the matter.
An example of this is the emanation or the issuance
of the form from the simple spiritual substance and of its action in the corporeal matter, like the light of the sun, that is diffused in the air, penetrates it and yet does not appear visible on account of the subtlety of the air, until it meets a solid body, like the earth: then the light becomes sensible because it cannot penetrate the parts of this body and be diffused through them, but stops on the surface of the body, and its essence is concentrated so that its emanation becomes brighter. In a similar manner the lights of the simple substances penetrate and flow through each other without the perception of the senses, on account of the subtlety and the simplicity of these substances. But when the lights penetrate to the corporeal matter, then the light becomes visible and is revealed to the senses on account of the thickness of the corporeal matter.
And in this manner we rise to the concept that every form borne by the universal matter exists in the essence of the power that gives it, that is, in the essence of the will, more simply than in the essence of the first matter that receives it. And as the first matter differs by its nature from the essence of the will and resembles the body in relation to the will, it is necessary that the action of the will in the matter should be perceptible, as the action of the intelligible substances is perceptible in the body. It is also necessary that the will should extrude what it has in its essence and give it to the matter, just as the intelligible substances effect the extrusion of what they have in their essence and give it to the body: except that the will acts beyond time, without motion, without organ, and beyond space, while the intelligible substances do the very opposite. That is why the simple substances and in general all the substances in all their actions act
according to the first action that moves and penetrates everything. And in this way we shall realize the diffusion of the first power and of the first action in all beings, for the energies of the simple substances, and in general the energies of all beings spread and penetrate through everything; so, with greater reason, with the power of the First Author—may his name be exalted. That is why it is said that the First Author is in all beings and that nothing can exist without him.