according to participation, as always projecting common conceptions
without distortion. It must however be observed, that the extreme are
that which is capable of being perfectly separated, such as the rational
form, and that which is perfectly inseparable, such as corporeal quality,
and that in the middle of these nature subsists, which verges to the
inseparable, having a small representation of the separable and the
irrational soul, which verges to the separable; or it appears in a
certain respect to subsist by itself, separate from a subject; so that
it becomes doubtful whether it is self-motive, or alter-motive. For it
contains an abundant vestige of self-motion, but not that which is true
and converted to itself, and on this account perfectly separated from
a subject. And the vegetable soul has in a certain respect a middle
subsistence. On this account to some of the ancients it appeared to be
a certain soul, but to others, nature.

Again, therefore, that we may return to the proposed object of
investigation, how can a self-motive nature of this kind, which is
mingled with the alter-motive, be the first principle of things? For
it neither subsists from itself, nor does it in reality perfect itself;
but it requires a certain other nature, both for its subsistence and
perfection: and prior to it is that which is truly self-moved. Is
therefore that which is properly self-moved the principle, and is it
indigent of no form more excellent than itself? Or is not that which
moves always naturally prior to that which is moved; and in short does
not every form which is pure from its contrary subsist by itself prior
to that which is mingled with it? And is not the pure the cause of the
commingled? For that which is coessentialized with another has also an
energy mingled with that other. So that a self-moved nature will indeed,
make itself; but thus subsisting it will be at the same time moving and
moved, but will not be made a moving nature only. For neither is it this