hence thither. I say, therefore, that the unindigent is naturally prior
to the indigent. For that which is in want of another is naturally
adapted from necessity to be subservient to that of which it is indigent.
But if they are mutually in want of each other, each being indigent of
the other in a different respect, neither of them will be the principle.
For the unindigent is most adapted to that which is truly the principle.
And if it is in want of any thing, according to this it will not be the
principle. It is however necessary that the principles should be this
very thing, the principle alone. The unindigent therefore pertains to
this, nor must it by any means be acknowledged that there is any thing
prior to it. This however, would be acknowledged if it had any connection
with the indigent.

Let us then consider body, (that is, a triply extended substance,) endued
with quality; for this is the first thing effable by us, and is, sensible.
Is this then the principle of things? But it is two things, body, and
quality which is in body as a subject. Which of these therefore is by
nature prior? For both are indigent of their proper parts; and that also
which is in a subject is indigent of the subject. Shall we say then that
body itself is the principle of the first essence? But this is impossible.
For, in the first place, the principle will not receive any thing from that
which is posterior to itself. But body, we say is the recipient of quality.
Hence quality, and a subsistence in conjunction with it, are not derived
from body, since quality is present with body as something different. And,
in the second place, body is every way, divisible; its several parts are
indigent of each other, and the whole is indigent of all the parts. As it
is indigent, therefore, and receives its completion from things which are
indigent, it will not be entirely unindigent.

Further still, if it is not one but united, it will require, as Plato