That the so-called efficient cause of this universal medicine is the very great spirit of which Genesis 1 says: “And the Spirit of God hovered upon the water.”

Namely, the holy air, in which all living and growing things stir and move. It continually penetrates all their substantial parts and makes channels within them, so that radical moisture may flow after it and convey food and nourishment into the members of all living and growing things. It refreshes, revives, and preserves everything in life, and advances each thing toward its appointed end. Without it nothing in the world can stir or move or possess life; indeed, the other elements themselves would perish: fire could not endure, earth would fall apart, and water would congeal if they were deprived of this spirit.

Likewise, it is animal in animals, vegetable in plants, and mineral in minerals. Although in itself it is an entirely uniform spirit and always retains that uniform being, it is nevertheless capable of every kind of power, operation, and property. This is what the philosophers call the Spiritus Mundi, the spirit of the world, universal matter, and so forth. Yet, as they also rightly write, it cannot be obtained in its bare and simple spiritual form. Almighty God, in his inscrutable wisdom, has nevertheless enclosed it in all visible and tangible creatures; it can therefore be found within them and drawn from them for a universal medicine.

At this point one might ask, first, how we should understand the statement that no nature acts, when this same spirit is nevertheless called the efficient cause of the universal medicine. It has also been said that the philosophers call it universal matter, and that it cannot be obtained in its bare and simple spiritual form but must be extracted from the visible creatures in which the Most High has enclosed it in his inscrutable wisdom. All visible and tangible creatures are mentioned; yet above it was maintained that preparing a universal medicine requires a catholic subject, and all other things, as particulars, were excluded.

Second, it has been said that this spirit is entirely uniform in being and always preserves that uniformity, yet is capable of every kind of power and property. This too is difficult to grasp. The answer is that all this must be understood philosophically, not sophistically. In particular, it remains true that, speaking properly and without qualification, there is no nature that acts. Yet this spirit may here, and elsewhere, be called in its own manner and in a qualified respect—namely, as regards mineral nature—the efficient cause; and likewise, with Basilius, a supernatural spiritual Mercury. This will also be mentioned in the Second Part, to which the reader is again referred.

Moreover, I wished to use this common and familiar term, “efficient cause,” so customary in ordinary philosophy, precisely so that my meaning might be better understood. Through this spirit the body is opened; it is also the uniting agent through which the soul is joined to the body again. Enough of that for now. We must also distinguish here between the concrete and the abstract. Speaking abstractly, this spirit may—especially here, in the mineral kingdom—be called the efficient cause, to use the term again. But speaking concretely, when the other principles and elements are included with it, it is universal matter. Besides, no element exists without another, as the ensuing discussion will explain more fully.

As for my statement that this spirit cannot be obtained in its bare and simple spiritual form but must be drawn from visible creatures in which God has enclosed it in his inscrutable wisdom, observe what the author of the Revelation of Divine Majesty reports: water was at first invisible, and God afterward covered it with a shell so that it acquired a visible appearance. Now this shell is twofold, substantial and accidental; likewise the philosophers describe two kinds of separation. One they call opening and resolving, or dividing and cutting away contrary and superfluous things that have no natural bond with the substance: a separation of the subtle from the gross, a removal and rejection of elemental superfluities and wastes.

The other kind of separation is called merely a distinction between parts unequal in position and form, but related in substance and powers. Nuysement also discusses this very well. The first kind belongs especially here, since our work begins with it; through it the accidental shell mentioned above is removed, after our subject has first been reduced to prime matter. Here I cannot avoid noting that the Hermetic philosophers sometimes take as prime matter what ordinary philosophers regard as secondary matter; and conversely, what the latter call prime matter the former commonly take as secondary matter. Thus reduction to prime matter must here be understood partly in that sense; yet it also occurs in itself, although, as said above, it can by no means occur in particular things.

Concerning the other kind of separation, the Proem of this First Part stated that the Hermetic art imitates and follows the great work of creation. In creation God the Lord did not actually separate the elements; he left each within the others, so that all the rest are found in each one. They are distinguished only by position—by being higher or lower—and are by no means severed or divided from one another. Hence the late Arndt rightly says that all nature is linked together. Homer too, who according to Nuysement was no less a philosopher than a poet, says with particular significance that earth is fastened to heaven by a golden chain.

It is the same in our art. We do indeed extract and separate individually the three principles called Mercury, Sulfur, and Salt. Yet Mercury is not without Sulfur and Salt, Sulfur not without Salt and Mercury, and Salt not without Mercury and Sulfur. Our philosophical dry water, which does not wet the hand, is at the same time the shell and vehicle through which we bring this threefold or triangular spirit within reach of hand and sight, presenting it to the eyes in three different forms and treating it according to our art. This shell can no more be separated from the other elements than they can from it. Anyone who imagines and boasts that he separates the elements will deceive himself and others.

As for the subject of the art: although this discussion has mentioned all visible and tangible creatures and the presence of this spirit within them, it nevertheless remains true that a universal medicine requires a universal and catholic subject. For, as already mentioned, the spirit is animal in animals, vegetable in plants, and mineral in minerals. This will be clarified in the ensuing solution and answer to the second question or doubt, and repeated in the Second Part. So much for the first question raised here. The second question is also readily resolved if we distinguish universal potentiality from particular potentiality. In respect of universal potentiality, this spirit retains its entirely uniform being; in respect of particular potentiality, however, it is, as said repeatedly, animal in animals, vegetable in plants, and mineral in minerals.

Therefore, once again, it cannot be drawn from such particular things for a universal medicine. Although the spirit preserves its uniform being within them in respect of its first potentiality, it has already been specified in respect of its second potentiality and is therefore no longer universal. Returning to our chief purpose, there remains the objection raised under Theorem IV: that we can no longer partake of or obtain the matter first created by God, from which all other things were made. Yet the foregoing thorough and sufficient argument has already strongly refuted it. That argument makes it clear enough that we can indeed obtain the matter God first created, otherwise called remote matter, as will again be mentioned in the Second Part.

I therefore think it unnecessary to dwell further on this separately, and conclude once again that a universal medicine may likewise be produced from rainwater. Beyond this, and in conclusion, a question arises: since this spirit is called a spirit of God and the holy air, yet is also said to have arisen and been created from water, is it a created spirit or God the Holy Spirit? Perhaps I ought to refrain from this question, lest I be accused of stepping into another’s place and forestalling the learned theologians.