As for his statement:

‘And since, as we shall explain, He is the principle of every existent, He apprehends through His own essence that of which He is the principle. He is the principle of complete beings in their individual identities, and of things subject to generation and corruption primarily in their species and, through these, in their individuals’—

this is true and is not rejected. For He apprehends and perceives in every mode of intellection and every manner of perception. He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing; in short, He perceives, knows, and is wise, ordaining and governing. His knowledge encompasses everything, unseen and manifest, before, during, and after.

As for his statement:

‘He cannot apprehend these changing things as they change, such that at one time He apprehends them as existent and not nonexistent, and at another as nonexistent and not existent. Each of these two states has a distinct intelligible form, and neither form remains when the other is present. The Necessary Existent would thus undergo change in His essence’—

we have answered this in our reply to Aristotle’s argument. That was not so long ago as to warrant repeating it.

As for his statement:

‘Furthermore, if corruptible things are apprehended through their abstract essence and its non-individuated concomitants, they are not apprehended as corruptible. If, however, they are perceived as conjoined with matter and the accidents of matter, they are not objects of intellection, but of sensation or imagination’—

this is open to dispute. It has already been discussed in the study of the soul, along with the objections raised