Metaphysical Thoughts

Concerning the definition of knowledge (Scientia) I shall say nothing, not even of the knowledge of the things here discussed. I shall only attempt to explain some obscure points in those authors who write on Metaphysics.

We shall begin, therefore, with Being, by which I mean, all of that which, when it is clearly and distinctly conceived is found to exist necessarily, or at least to be able to exist.

From this definition, or, if you prefer, from this description, it follows that chimeras, fictitious being and being of the reason can in no way be called real. For chimeras [1] by their nature do not exist. Fictitious being precludes any clear and distinct concept, because man by his mere power of Freedom, not unknowingly as in false concepts, but advisedly and intelligently, connects what he wishes to connect, and dissociates what he will. Finally, being of reason is nothing except a mode of thought which pertains most properly to the intellect, viz., to retention, to understanding, and to the imagination. It should here be noted that by mode of thought we mean, as was explained in Schol. Prop. Pt. I., all forms of mental states as understanding, joy, imagination, etc.

[1] By chimera is understood a being which by nature involves a contradiction as is clearly shown in Chapter III.

That there are certain modes of thought which serve the purpose of retaining objects firmly in the mind, and of recalling them when we wish, is evident to all who use the well-known rule of memory; viz., that by which, for retaining anything in memory and impressing it upon the mind, it is associated with some other thing familiar to us, either by name, or because of its contiguity with that object. In this way philosophers have reduced all natural objects to certain classes called genera, species, etc., and to these they refer all new objects as they are met.

Then, for explaining things we have also modes of thought derived by comparing one object with another. Such modes as these are time, number, measure, etc. Of these time serves for explaining duration, number for discrete quantities, and measure for continuous quantity.

Finally since we have become accustomed to picture all of those things which we understand, even the images of our fancy at times, it happens that we imagine non-being positively, as an image of some real being. For mind considered as a thinking being has no more power to affirm than to deny. And since to imagine is only to perceive the traces in the brain produced by the movement of the spirits, which in turn are caused by the stimulation of the senses by an external object, such a sensation can only be a confused affirmation. Hence we imagine all the forms of thought which the mind uses for denying as blindness, the limits or termini, the end, shade, etc., are beings.

It is thus evident that such modes of thought are not ideas of things, nor can they, in any possible way be so considered. They have no object, which necessarily exists, as the source of the idea, nor could such an object possibly exist. The reason such forms of thought are so often held for ideas of things is that they arise so directly from real things, that those who do not very carefully attend to their thought readily confuse such forms of thought with the things themselves. For this cause also, they give names to these ideas as if they signified some real extra-mental object, which being, or rather non-being, they call beings of the reason.

It is easy to see how inapt is the division which divides Being into real being and being of the reason. For they divide Being into being and non-being or into being and a mode of thought. However, I do not wonder that philosophers sometimes fall into these verbal or grammatical errors. For they judge objects from the names and not names from the objects.

Those who say that being of the reason is nothing, however, are not less in error. If you seek for some meaning for these terms apart from the mind you find nothing; but if we understand by the term a mode of thought, then it signifies something real. For if I ask what a species is, I only inquire for the nature of that form of thought as something real and to be distinguished from other modes. These modes of thought, moreover, cannot be called ideas, nor can they be said to be true or false, just as love, e. g., cannot be called true or false but only good or evil. So when Plato said that “man is a biped without feathers,” he did not err more than if he had said that man is a rational animal. For Plato knew that man was a rational animal as well as he knew the other. He merely put man into a certain class, so that when he wished to reflect upon man by recurring to the class in which he had been classified he would come immediately to recognize certain characteristics as belonging to his nature. Aristotle, indeed, made a grave mistake if he thought that Plato in this definition attempted to express the essence of human nature. Whether Plato did well we may question, but this is not the place to discuss that.

From all that has been said above it appears that there is no conformity between real being and being of reason. Therefore, it is easily seen how seduously we must be on our guard lest we confuse the two. For it is one thing to inquire into the nature of things and quite another to inquire into the nature of the modes of thought under which they are perceived. If we do not keep this distinction clear we will be unable to understand modes of perception, or the nature of things in themselves. But what is more important, since this affects so many things, is that this is the reason we often fall into such great error.

It should be noted also that many confuse being of reason and fictitious being. They think that the one is equal to the other because neither has an extra-mental existence. But if they would consider the definitions of each, great and important differences would be found, not only in respect to their cause, but in their nature apart from their cause.

For we affirm that fictitious being is nothing but two terms connected by the mere act of volition without any dependence upon reason. Being of reason does not depend upon the will alone nor is it formed by terms, as is evident without a rational connection between them, from the definition itself. If one should ask, therefore, whether fictitious being, or being of reason is real it should be answered that it is wrong to divide all being into real being and being of reason. The question is fundamentally wrong for it presupposes that all being is divided into real being and being of reason.

But to return to the proposition from which we seem to have digressed. From the definition of Being or, if you prefer, from its description, it is now easily seen that Being should not be divided into Being which, because of its own nature necessarily exists, or Being whose essence involves existence, and into Being whose essence involves only a possible existence. This last is divided into Substance and Modes, the definitions of which are given in the Principles of Phil., Pt. I., Articles 51, 52 and 56. We need not, therefore, repeat them here. In regard to this, however, and I say it deliberately, I wish it to be noted that Being is divided into Substance and Modes, not into Substance and Accidents. For Accident is nothing but a mode of thought and exists only in regard to this. For example, when I say that a triangle is moved the motion is not a mode of the triangle but of the body moved. Therefore, in respect to the triangle motion is only an accident but in respect to the body it is real being or mode; for motion cannot be conceived without a body but it may without a triangle.

Further, in order that we may the better understand what has been said and what is to follow, we will attempt to explain briefly what is meant by the terms essence, existence, idea, and power. We are the more urged to do this by the ignorance of those who do not recognize the distinction between essence and existence, or if they do recognize it still confuse the terms essence with the terms idea or power. Therefore, in order to help them and to make the matter plain we attempt to explain this as clearly as possible.

In order that it may be known what content to give to these four terms, it is necessary that we should understand clearly what may be said of uncreated substance, or God. Namely:

1. That God eminently contains all that is formally contained in created things, that is, God has certain attributes in which these created things are more eminently contained than in the things themselves. (Vid. Pt. I. Ax. 8, and Coroll. I. Prop. 12). For example, we can clearly conceive of extension without existing objects, and thus, since it has no power of existence in itself, we have shown that it was created by God (Prop. 21, Pt. I.). And, since there must be as much perfection in the cause as there is in the effect, it follows that God contains all the perfection of existence. But since we find later that extended matter is divisible, that is, that it contains a mark of imperfection, we cannot, therefore, attribute extension to God. We are thus compelled to admit that God has some attribute more excellent than all the perfection of matter and thus contains (Schol. Prop. 9, Pt. I.) what the defects of matter cannot supply.

2. God understands Himself and all other objects; that is, He holds all things objectively, in Himself (Pt. I. Prop. 9)

3. God is the first cause of all things, and works from an absolute freedom of will.

From these things it is evident what we must understand by these four terms. In the first place Essence in nothing else than that mode by which created objects are comprehended in the attributes of God; an idea is Idea so far as all things are objectively contained in the idea of God; Power is so called in respect to the power of God, by which, by an absolute freedom of will He was able to create everything that exists; finally, existence is the essence of things apart from God, and, considered in itself alone, is attributed to things after they have been created by God.

From this it is evident that these four terms are not to be distinguished except in created objects; in God, in no way can they be differentiated. For we cannot conceive that God is in the power of another, and His existence, and His understanding are not to be separated from His essence.

From what has been said we can readily reply to certain questions which have been asked. Such, for example, are the following: Whether essence is different from existence; and if different, is it something diverse from idea; and if different from idea, does it comprehend something extra-mental; which last follows from necessity. To the first in regard to distinction we would reply, that essence in God is not different from existence, indeed the one cannot be conceived without the other. In other things essence differs from existence, for the one may be conceived without the other. To the second point we respond, that things which can be clearly and distinctly conceived as extra-mental are something different from idea. But then it is asked, whether that which is extra-mental exists in itself alone, or whether it has been created by God. To this we reply, that formal essence does not exist by its own power, nor even when created. These two conditions presuppose that the object exists in fact; but they depend upon the divine essence alone, in which all things are contained. So far we would assent to the opinion of those who affirm that the essence of things is eternal. Again it may be asked, How can we understand the essence of things, when God’s nature is not yet known; for all things, as we have just said, depend upon the nature of God. To this I reply that it is possible from the fact that things are now actually created. For if things were not yet created I would concede that it would be impossible until we had an adequate knowledge of God’s nature. In the same way it is impossible, indeed more impossible then for us to know the orderly nature of the applications of a parabola whose nature is not yet known.

Although the essence of non-existing modes is comprehended in the substance of these modes, and their real essence is these substances, nevertheless we desire to refer them to God in order to explain the essence of modes and of substances in general terms, and because the essence of modes was not in substance prior to creation and we are seeking for an eternal essence.

I do not think it worth while to refute those authors who think differently from us, or even to examine their definitions or descriptions of essence and existence; this would only make what is clear more obscure. What, indeed, is better known than the meaning of essence or existence? How can we give a definition of anything which does not at the same time explain its essence?

Finally, if any philosopher is yet in doubt whether essence and existence are distinguishable in created objects, he need not take much trouble to remove that doubt. For if he will merely approach some statue or object of wood, he will see how he conceives of the object not yet existing in a certain manner, and how he knows that it is really existing.

The nature of being as being having been explained we would next consider some of its affects. It may be remarked here, that by affects we understand what Descartes termed attributes (Pt. I. Prin. Phil. Art. 52). For being, considered merely as being does not affect us as substance. Wherefore it must be explained by some attribute which is recognized only by reason. Wherefore I cannot wonder enough, at the extreme subtlety of those who, not without deleterious consequences to truth, try to find some middle ground between being and nothing. But I will not delay to refute this error, seeing that it fades into their own vain subtlety when they attempt to give a definition of the affects.

We then take up the matter at once and say: The affects of being are certain attributes under which we come to understand the essence or existence of every single thing, which attributes, however, are only distinguishable by reason. I shall attempt here to explain certain things about these (for I do not assume that all understand this thoroughly) and to separate by proper terms those things which are not the affects of being. First I shall discuss what is meant by necessary and impossible.

There are two ways in which a thing may be said to be necessary or impossible, viz., in respect to its essence or its cause. In respect to His essence we know that God necessarily exists. For His essence cannot be conceived without existence. From the implicated essence of chimeras they cannot exist. In respect to their cause, things, i. e., materials, are either impossible or necessary. For if we merely regard their essence, it is possible to clearly conceive of that without their existence. Therefore, they cannot exist by the power and necessity of their own essence but only by the power of their cause, viz., God the creator of all things. If, thus, it is the divine decree that something should exist, it exists from necessity, or if less than this, it will be impossible for it to exist. For it is a self-evident fact that that which has no cause, internal or external, for its existence, cannot possibly exist. And an object under this hypothesis is so conceived that it cannot exist by the power of its own essence, by which I mean an internal cause, nor by the divine decree, the one external cause of all things. Whence it follows that objects under such condition cannot exist at all.

It should be noted: 1. A chimera because it exists neither in the intellect nor in the imagination is rightly called a mere verbal being; for we can only express this idea in words. For example, we use the words “a square circle,” expressing it in words, but we are by no means able to imagine it, much less to understand it. Therefore chimera is only a word and cannot be numbered among the affects of being.

2. We must remember that not only does the existence of all created things depend upon God’s decree, but their essence and nature as well. This will be clearly shown in Part II. below. Whence it follows that created objects have no necessity in themselves, for their essence is not self derived. No more do they exist by their own power.

3. Finally, it should be noted that the necessity of created objects, such as we find there from the power of the cause, is either in respect to their essence or to their extension. These two must be distinguished in created objects. The one depends upon the eternal laws of nature, the other upon the series and the order of its causes. In God whose essence and existence are the same, necessity of essence is equivalent to necessity of existence. Whence it follows that if we conceive of the whole order of Nature we will find that many things cannot exist whose nature we conceive clearly and distinctly, that is, whose nature is such of necessity. For we find that it is equally impossible for such things’ to be, as for example we know that it is impossible for a great elephant to pass through the eye of a needle. Nevertheless the nature of each is clearly conceived.

Therefore things of this nature do not exist except chimeras, which we are able neither to imagine nor to understand.

So much concerning necessity and impossibility; to which it seems best to add a few remarks concerning what is possible and what is contingent. For by some, these two terms are considered affects of things, although, in truth, they are nothing more than defects of our intellect. This I shall clearly show after I have explained what should be understood by these terms.

A thing is said to be possible when we understand its efficient cause, but do not know whether it is determined. Therefore, we may consider that to be possible which is neither necessary or impossible. If now we attend merely to the essence of a thing and not to its cause, we say it is contingent; that is, when we consider any things between the extremes God and chimeras. This is true, for from a part of their essence we find no necessity of existence in these things as in God, nor impossibility of existence as in chimeras. If any one wishes to call that contingent which I call possible and possible what I call contingent I shall not contradict him. For I am not accustomed to dispute about mere names. It will be sufficient if it is only admitted that these arise not because of something real, but only because of defects of our perception.

If any one chooses to deny this his error may be pointed out with little trouble. For if he will consider Nature and how it all depends upon God, he will find nothing contingent. That is, he will find nothing, which, from a part of the object is able to exist and not exist, or, as it is generally expressed, the contingent is the real. This is evident, also, from what was said in Ax. 10, Pt. I. namely, that no more power was needed to create the world than to conserve it. Therefore no created object does anything by its own power for the same reason that it did not begin to exist by its own power. From which it follows that nothing has been created except by the power of the Cause which has created all things, namely, the power of God, who by His concurrence procreates everything every single moment. And since nothing exists except by divine power alone, it is easily seen that the world as produced by God’s decree is such as he wished it to be. So, too, since there is no change or inconstancy in God (per Prop. 18 and Coroll. Prop. 20, Pt. I.), those things which He now produces, He has decreed from eternity that they should be produced. Then since nothing more is needed for their existence than God’s decree that they should exist, it follows that the necessity of the existence of all created things has existed from eternity. Nor can we say that these things are contingent since God might have decreed otherwise. For since in eternity there are no effects of time neither a future nor a past, it follows that God did not exist before that decree, so that he was able to decree something else.

Whatever pertains to the freedom of the human will, which we have said is free (Schol. Prop. 15, Pt. I.), that also is conserved by the concurrence of God. Nor is there any man who wishes or does anything who does not do as God has decreed from eternity that he should choose or act. In what way this is possible, human freedom being preserved, man is unable to understand. Since we clearly conceive this, our ignorance of how it can be should not lead us to reject this truth. For we clearly and distinctly understand, if we consider our nature, that we are free in our actions, and we deliberate about many things simply because we choose to do so. And on the other hand if we consider the nature of God in the way we have indicated, we see clearly and distinctly that all things depend upon Him and that nothing exists except as it has been decreed from all eternity. In what way the human will can be thus procreated by God so that it retains its freedom, we do not know. Indeed, there are many things which surpass our comprehension, and yet we know that they are so ordained by God; as for example, that there is a real division of matter into indefinite parts, which was sufficiently proven in Proposition 11, Part II. although we do not understand how such a division can be. These two motions, viz., possible and contingent, which we use in place of the thing known, only signify a defect of our knowledge about the existence of the given object.

Because above, we have divided being into being whose essence involves existence, and being whose essence involves only a possible existence, there arises the distinction between eternity and duration. Concerning eternity we will speak at length below. Here we would only say that it is an attribute under which we conceive the infinite existence of God. Duration is an attribute under which we conceive the existence of created objects so far as they persevere in their own actuality.

From which it clearly follows that duration is distinguished from the whole existence of an object only by the reason. For, however much of duration you take away from any thing, so much of its existence do you detract from it. In order to determine or measure this we compare this with the duration of those objects which have a fixed and a certain motion, and this comparison is called time. Therefore, time is not an affect of things but only a mode of thought or, as we have said, a being of reason; it is a mode of thought serving to explain duration. It should be noted under duration, as it will be of use when below we are discussing eternity, that it is conceived as greater or less, as it were, composed of parts and then not only as an attribute of existence but as the very essence of existence.

Because we compare objects one with another, there are certain notions that arise, which, however apart from the things themselves are only modes of thought. This is very evident, since, when we attempt to consider them as objects apart from forms of thought we hold the one for the other and render clear concepts obscure. Such notions are the following, viz., Opposition, Order, Relation, Diversity, Connection, Conjunction, and other similar ideas. These, I say, are perceived by us with sufficient clearness provided we do not conceive of them as something in the essence of things, but only as modes of thought by which we can more easily retain these objects in memory and imagine them. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to speak further of this but pass to those terms commonly called transcendental.

By almost all metaphysicians these terms are held to be affects of being. For, they say, all being is one, true and good, although no one knows about this. By examining each one of these terms separately we shall be able to understand their proper use.

We will begin with the first, viz., Unity. This term, they say, signifies some extra-mental reality. But what this adds to reality they are unable to say. Which sufficiently shows that they confuse being of reason with real being, so that what is perfectly clear becomes obscure. We, on the other hand, would say that unity is in no way to be distinguished from the thing itself, and that it adds nothing to being. But it is only a mode of thought by which we separate one thing from another, when they are similar or for some reason occur together

To the term Unity we oppose the term Plurality, which clearly adds nothing to things but is only a mode of thought which assists us in understanding the objects of our experience.

Nor do I see that anything remains to be said concerning a matter as self-evident as this. We may add, however, that God so far as we separate Him from other objects may be said to be one. But so far as we think of His nature as many-sided He cannot be called simple Unity (unum et unicum). If we examine the matter more accurately, we can show that God is improperly called simple unity. But this is not of sufficient importance to make it worth the discussion; it is a matter that affects not the reality but the names. Therefore we pass to the second point and explain what we mean by ‘false.’

In order to properly understand the terms true and false we will begin with their signification from which it will appear that they are not names of qualities in the things themselves nor attributes at all except rhetorically. Since general usage first fixed their meaning, and they were only used afterward by philosophers, it seems best to inquire for their primary significance. Especially is this necessary since other sources from the very nature of language, are wanting. The significance of true and false seemed to have first arisen from narration. That narration was true which was in accord with the facts which it concerned; that was false which was not in accord with the facts of the case. This use of these terms was then borrowed by philosophers for denoting the correspondence of the idea with the thing it represents, and the contrary. Therefore, that idea is said to be true which represents the thing, as it is in itself. That idea is false which does not so represent its object. For ideas are nothing else than mental narratives or histories of nature. Afterward these are metaphorically applied to other things. As for example, that gold is true or false, as if we thought that gold which we perceive might tell us what was in itself, or what is not.

Wherefore those who believe that true is a transcendental term, or an affect of being, are plainly deceived. For we only apply this term to things improperly, or if you prefer, rhetorically.

If you inquire further what truth is but a true idea, you do the same thing as to ask what whiteness is except a white object.

Concerning the cause of the true and the false we have already spoken; therefore nothing remains to be noted which would be worth the while, if writers, “seeking a knot in the bulrushes,” did not so far entangle themselves in similar folly that they are unable to extricate themselves.

The properties of truth or of a true idea are: 1. That it is clear and distinct. 2. That it is beyond all doubt, or, in a word, that it is certain. Those who seek for certainty in the things themselves are deceived in the same way as when they seek there for truth. Although we say a thing is uncertain, we rhetorically take the object for the idea, and in the same way we say that a thing is doubtful. Unless, perchance, we understand by uncertainty, contingency or the thing which makes us uncertain or doubtful. But there is no need to delay about this point. Therefore we proceed to the third point and will explain what is meant by this term and its opposite.

An object considered in itself is neither good nor evil, but only in respect to another being, which it helps to acquire what is desired, or the contrary. Indeed, the same thing at the same time may be both good and evil in respect to different things. For example, the council of Ahithophel to Absalom is called good in the Sacred Scriptures. But it was the worst possible to David, whose destruction it would have caused. So there are many things which are good, but not good for all. Health is good for man, but neither good nor evil to senseless matter or to plants, to which it does not apply. God is called perfectly good because He preserves all things. He conserves all things by His concurrence, and no greater mark of goodness could be found than this. Nor is there any absolute evil, as is also evident in itself.

Those who seek for some metaphysical good which shall be free from relativity are laboring under a misapprehension of the case. They confuse a distinction of Reason with a distinction of Reality or Modality. They distinguish between the thing itself, and its conatus, by which each object is conserved, although they do not know what they mean by the term conatus. For these two things, although they are distinguished by reason, or by words, which fact deceives them, are not to be distinguished in the thing itself.

In order to understand this we will notice a very simple example. Motion has the power of preserving itself in statu quo; this power clearly is nothing else than the motion itself, i. e., it is in the nature of motion to do so. If I say that in A there is nothing else than a certain amount of motion, it follows that as long as I consider only this body A, I must consider it as moving. For if I should say that it has lost its power of motion, I necessarily attribute something else to it than that which, from the hypothesis, it possessed, and through this, it has lost its power of motion. If this reason seems obscure — well then we will concede that this conatus of self-movement is something more than the laws and nature of motion. If, therefore, you suppose this conatus to be a metaphysical good, from necessity you must suppose that this conatus will have in it a conatus of self-preservation, and this another, and so on to infinity, than which I do not know anything more absurd. The reason some distinguish between the conatus of an object and the thing itself is this, namely, because they find in themselves the desire of conserving themselves, they imagine the desire is present in everything.

Moreover, it is asked whether God could have been called good before creation. From our definition it would seem that we could not predicate such an attribute as belonging to God, for we said that a thing considered in itself alone can neither be said to be good or evil. This will seem absurd to many; but for what reason I do not know. We attribute many things of this kind to God, which, before creation, could not exist except potentially; as for example, when He is called Creator, Judge merciful, etc. Wherefore similar arguments should be allowed us here.

And further, as good and evil are only relative terms, so also is perfection, unless we take perfection for the essence of the thing; in this sense, as we have said before, God has infinite perfection, that is, infinite essence, and infinite being.

It is not my intention to say much more. For the remaining remarks, which pertain to general metaphysics, I believe, are sufficiently well known. It is not worth while, therefore, to carry the discussion further.

Wherein are briefly explained some points concerning God and His Attributes, and concerning the Human Mind.

We have said above that in Nature nothing is given except substance and modes. Therefore it will not be expected that we shall say here anything about substantial forms, or real qualities; for these terms, as well as other similar ones, are plainly inapt. We divide substance into two general heads, namely, Extension and Thought. Thought is either created, the human mind, or uncreated, i. e., God. God’s existence we have above demonstrated a posteriori, that is, from the idea which we have of God, and a priori, or from His essence as the cause of His being. But, although we have already briefly considered His attributes, as the dignity of the argument requires, we will here repeat these and explain them more fully, and at the same time endeavor to answer certain questions bearing upon the subject.

The chief attribute, the one to be considered before all others, is the Eternity of God. This term we employ to explain His duration. Or, rather, as we cannot predicate duration of God, we say He is eternal. For, as we noted in the first part of this discussion, duration is an affect of existence not of the essence of things. And since God’s existence is His essence, we cannot say that duration belongs to Him. For whoever predicates duration as one of God’s attributes differentiates between His existence and His essence. Nevertheless, there are those who ask if God has not existed longer than from the time of Adam, and this seems to them to be perfectly evident since they believe that duration in no way is derived from God. But these persons beg the question; for they assume that God’s essence is to be distinguished from His existence. They demand to know whether God, who existed before the creation of Adam, has not existed for a longer time than from the creation to the present. They attribute, therefore, a longer duration to God than to individual objects, as if they suppose that He is continually created by Himself. Did they not distinguish between God’s essence and His existence, they would never attribute duration to God, since duration does not correspond to the essence of things. No one would say that the essence of a circle or a triangle, so far as it is eternal truth, has endured for a longer time than from the creation of Adam. Further, since duration is constantly conceived of as greater or less, or as consisting of parts, it clearly follows duration cannot be attributed to God. For as His being is eternal, i. e., there is no past or future to His nature, when we find that we cannot attribute duration to Him we have shown that our concept of God is true. If we attribute duration to God, we separate into parts what is infinite by nature and cannot be conceived except as infinite.

The reason some authors attribute duration to God, is: 1. Because they attempt to explain eternity without considering the nature of God; as if eternity could be understood apart from the divine essence, or, indeed, as if it was anything except this. This error arose from the fact that because of a defective terminology, we have been accustomed to attribute eternity to things whose essence is different from their existence. As, for example, when we say that the world has existed from eternity, although this is not implied; and also that the essence of things is eternal, although we do not think of the things as even existing. 2. Because they do not attribute duration to things except so far as they are conceived to be under continual change, and not as we do, only so far as their essence is to be distinguished from their existence. 3. Finally, because they distinguish between God’s essence and His existence just as in the case of created objects. These mistakes are at the basis of their error. The first error was a misapprehension of the nature of eternity, which was thought to be some form of duration. In the second, they could not easily distinguish between the duration of created objects and the eternity of God. Lastly, they distinguished between God’s essence and His existence, and attributed duration to God, as we have said, as though it were an affect of existence.

In order to better understand what eternity really is and why it cannot be conceived apart from the essence of God, we should remember what has already been said, viz., that all created objects or all things except God Himself exist by the power and essence of God, not by virtue of their own essence. Hence the present existence of objects is not the cause of their future existence, but rather the immutability of God. So when we say that God has created an object we are compelled to believe that He will conserve it or continue His act of creation. From this we conclude: 1. That created objects are said to exist because existence is not a part of their essence. We cannot affirm existence of God, for the existence of God is God Himself. So, also, concerning His essence. Hence, while created objects have duration, God does not. 2. Created objects, while they have a present duration and existence, do not have in themselves a future duration or existence, for this must be continually given to them. This, however, is not true of the essence of created objects. Indeed, since His existence and His essence are one, we cannot attribute a future existence to God. For we must attribute to Him now what He has always had. Or, to speak more properly, an infinite existence pertains to God in the same way as an infinite intelligence. This infinite existence I call eternity, This can be attributed to God alone, not to created objects, even though they have no end. So much concerning eternity. I shall say nothing of the necessity of God’s being, for after we have demonstrated His existence from His essence this would be useless. Hence we proceed to unity.

We have often wondered at the futile arguments by which some have sought to establish the unity of God. For example, such as the following: “If one being is able to create the world, more than one would be superfluous; and, if all things work toward some end, they must have a common source.” Other similar arguments might be mentioned where proof is sought from relative or extrinsic elements. Since such ideas are sometimes held, we shall, in the following order, and as clearly and as briefly as possible, give our demonstration.

Among the attributes of God we enumerate perfect knowledge, and add that His perfection all arises from His own being. But if you say that there are many Gods or perfect beings, all of them must be omniscient. It would not be sufficient for each one merely to know himself. For as each is omniscient he must understand all other beings as well as himself. From which it would follow that the omniscience of each depends partly upon himself and partly upon another. Therefore such a being would not be absolutely perfect. That is, God would not be a being who derives all of his perfection from Himself. But we have already shown that God is in every way perfect and that He exists by virtue of His own power. From which we conclude that God is one being. For if there were many gods it would follow that the absolutely perfect being would have an imperfection, which is absurd. So much concerning the unity of God.

We said above that finite or imperfect being cannot be conceived, except we first have some concept of infinite and perfect being, i. e., of God. Therefore God alone can be said to be absolutely infinite, since He alone possesses an infinite perfection. He may be called great, however, or interminable, so far as we think that there is no being able to impose limitations upon Him. From which it follows that the infinity of God — an inapt expression — is something essentially positive. For, so far as we conceive Him to be infinite, so far we have reference to His essence or His absolute perfection. The greatness of God is but a relative term; it is not used when we consider God as an absolute or perfect being, but only so far as He is considered as a “first cause.” Here, although He may not be perfect except in respect to the creation of the world, nevertheless He is to be considered great. For no being can be conceived, and consequently there is no being more perfect than God by which He can be limited or measured. (Concerning this see Ax. 9, Pt. I.).

There are some authors who, when they speak of the greatness of God, seem to attribute quantity to Him.

They do this because from this attribute they wish to conclude that God is everywhere present. As if they thought that, were God not in every place He is limited. This is even more apparent in the reasons they adduce to show that God is infinite or great (for they confuse these terms). If God, they say, is actus purus, as from necessity He is, He is everywhere present and infinite; for if He is not in every place either He is not able to be wherever He wishes or from necessity (N. B.) He must be moved. From this it is evident that they attribute greatness to God under the concept of quantity. From the properties of extension they look for their arguments for affirming the greatness of God, which is absurd.

If now you ask us how we prove that God is everywhere present, we respond that this has already been clearly proven above, when we showed that nothing could exist even for a single moment unless procreated continually by the power of God.

Before we can fully understand the omnipresence of God, we must understand the nature of the divine Will. For by this all things have been created, and are continually preserved. Since this is beyond the limits of human knowledge, it is impossible to explain His omnipresence.

There are some who think that God’s greatness is three-fold, namely, He is great in His essence, in His power, and in His efficacy. But this is nonsense, for they distinguish between God’s essence and His power.

Others affirm the same thing more openly when they say that God is everywhere in power, but not in essence. As if God’s power could be distinguished from His other attributes or from His infinite essence, when it is nothing else but this. For if it were anything but this it would either be something created or some accident of the divine essence, without which He could still be conceived. But these suppositions are both absurd. If it were something created it would need God’s power to be conserved, and so a progression to infinity would be given. But if it were some accident of His being, God would not be a simple being, which is contrary to what was demonstrated above.

Finally, by the greatness of His efficacy they wish to understand something beside the essence of God by which all things are created and conserved. Which is clearly a great absurdity, and one into which they fall, because they confuse the divine intellect and the human, and compare God’s power with the power of kings.

By the term change we here understand all that variation which can be given, the essence of the object remaining the same. In general, this signifies the disintegration of the object, not absolutely, but at least incipiently; as when we say that turf is changed into ashes, or that men are changed into beasts. Philosophers have been accustomed to use another term for signifying this, viz., transformation. But we are here speaking of a change which is not a transformation, as when we say the rock has changed its color, character, etc.

We must ask now whether there is any changeableness in God. For concerning transformation it is not necessary to say anything more than that God exists necessarily; that is, God cannot be limited in any way, or be transformed into another God. For as soon as He is limited there must be other gods, which proposition we have shown to be absurd.

In order that we may understand more fully what has just been said, we should remember that all change arises from some external cause, the subject being willing or unwilling, or from some internal cause, viz., from the choice of the subject itself. For example, men are black, or they grow older and stronger, etc. In the former case the subject is unwilling, in the latter the subject himself desires it. To desire to walk, to show oneself angry, etc., come from internal causes.

Changes of the former kind, namely, those produced by some external cause, are not found in God, for He alone is the cause of all things, and is not changed by anything He has made. Beside, created objects have in themselves no power of existence, and so much less of causality over other objects. And although in the Scripture it is said that God is angry and sad on account of the sins of men, the effect is here taken for the cause. In the same way we say that the sun is stronger and higher in summer than in winter, although it has not changed its position or increased its power. That such things are often taught in the Sacred Scriptures is seen in Isaiah when he says, ch. 52:2, accusing the people: “Your iniquities have separated you from your God.”

We continue, then, and ask whether there is any self-caused change in God. This also we at once deny, for all change that arises from volition is made in order that the subject may pass to a better state, which is impossible with a perfect being. Such a change only arises as a means of avoiding something unpleasant or to acquire some good which is wanting. But neither of these conditions is possible with God. Therefore we conclude that God is immutable.[2]

[2] Note.— It will be evident, also, that God is immutable, when we have shown that His volition and His understanding are the same. This might be proven by other arguments also.

It will be noted that I have deliberately omitted the ordinary forms of change, although to some degree we have also considered them. For there is no need to show the impossibility of change in God in respect to every point, since we have demonstrated in Prop. 16, Part I., that God is incorporeal and that these ordinary forms of change apply only to matter.

We proceed to the simplicity of God. In order to correctly understand this attribute of God we should recall what Descartes said in the “Prin. of Phil.,” Part I., Arts. 48 and 49, viz., that in nature we know only substances and their modes. From this comes the distinction, Arts. 60, 61, and 62, of things as real and modal, and rational. That is called real which distinguishes two substances from one another, whether two different substances, or attributes of the same substance; as for example, thought and extension or different parts of matter. These we know are different because each may be conceived apart from the other, and consequently may so exist. Modal distinctions are of two kinds, namely, that between a mode of a substance and the substance itself, and that between two modes of one substance. The first we recognize because while one mode may be conceived without another, neither can exist apart from the substance whose modes they are; the second because while substance can be conceived without its modes, modes cannot be conceived apart from substance. Finally, a rational distinction is that arising between substance and its attributes, as, for example, when duration is distinguished from extension. We recognize this distinction because substance cannot be understood without that attribute.

From these three forms of things all forms of combination arise. The first form is that made by the combination of two or more substances, the attributes being the same, as the combination of bodies, or the attributes being different, as in man. The second class is made by the union of different modes. The third is not made in reality, but only conceived as made in order to better understand objects. What does not come under the first two of these heads is not composite, but simple in its nature.

From this it may be shown that God is not composite, but simple being.

For it is a self-evident fact that the component parts of a composite object are prior in nature to the object itself. Then those substances from which God is composed are necessarily prior in their nature to God Himself. Each could then be conceived in itself apart from the concept of God. Each part, therefore, could exist per se and we would have as many gods as there are substances from which God is supposed to be composed. For when each part can exist per se it must exist by its own power. Under these conditions (as we have shown in Prop. 7, Pt. I., where we demonstrated the existence of God) it will have the power of giving to itself all the perfection of God. As nothing could be more absurd than this, we conclude that God is not composite, that is, made by the coalition and union of substances. The same conclusion is also evident from the fact that there are no modes in God’s being; for modes arise from the change of substances (vid. Principles, Pt. I., Art. 56). Finally, if any one wishes to conceive of some other combination of the essence and of the existence of things, we will not say him nay. Only he should remember that there are not two separate things in God.

We may conclude, therefore, that all the distinctions we make in regard to the attributes of God are not real but rational distinctions. Let it be understood that such distinctions as I have just made are distinctions of reason, which may be known from the fact that such a substance could not exist without this attribute. Therefore, we conclude that God is simple being. We do not care for the other minor distinctions of the Peripatetics, and proceed, therefore, to the life of God.

In order that we may rightly understand this attribute of the life of God, it is necessary that we explain in general what is meant by this term. Here we may examine first the opinion of the Peripatetics. They understood by life the continuance of support to the soul by means of heat (Vid. Aristotle, Bk. I., de Respirat. 8). And, because they had three classes of minds, viz., vegetative, sensative and intellectual, which they attribute to plants, animals and men respectively, it follows that they assume that other objects do not have life. But they did not dare to say that minds and God do not possess life. They feared perhaps lest if they denied life to them they must also deny death as well. Therefore, Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. II., chap. 7, gives another definition of life peculiar to minds, namely: “Life is the operation of the intellect.” In this sense he attributes life to God who is a cognitive being and is pure activity. We will not be delayed long to refute these conceptions, for what pertains to these three kinds of life which they attribute to plants and animals and men, we have already shown to be mere fiction. For we showed that there is nothing in matter except mechanical form and action. Moreover, what pertains to the life of God relates no more to an act of the understanding than to an act of will or any other faculty. But since I expect no response to what I have said, I pass on and endeavor to explain what life really is.

Although this term life, by a transference of meaning, is often taken to signify the customs of a people or of an individual, we shall briefly explain its correct philosophical use. It should be noted that if life is attributed to corporeal things, then nothing is void of life; but if only to those objects where spirit is united to body, then only to men or perhaps also to the lower animals, but not to minds or to God. In truth, since the term is a broad one, it should doubtlessly be attributed to corporeal objects, to minds united to, and to minds separated from corporeal body.

Therefore we will understand by this term life, the power through which an object preserves its own being. And although that power in different objects is very different, we still very properly say that those objects have life. Moreover, the power by which God preserves His being is nothing else than His essence. Therefore they speak most truly, who say that God is Life. Nor are there wanting theologians who believe that it was for this very reason that the Jews when they made a vow swore by living Jehovah, not by the life of Jehovah, as did Joseph when he swore by the life of Pharaoh and said the “life of Pharaoh.”

Among the attributes of God we have enumerated omniscience as necessary to His being. For knowledge is an element of perfection, and God, who is in every way perfect, must possess this attribute. Therefore knowledge to the highest degree must be attributed to God, a knowledge so complete that it allows no ignorance or defect of intelligence. Were it not so we would have an imperfection in the attributes of God and so in God Himself. From this it follows that God’s knowledge is immediate, and that He does not reason by logical processes.

And further, from God’s perfection, it follows that His ideas are not limited like ours to objects apart from Himself. On the contrary, God by His own power has created objects existing apart from Himself, but they were determined by His understanding.[3] Otherwise they would have their nature and essence in themselves and would be by nature prior to God, which is absurd. Certain ones, because they have not remembered this, have fallen into egregious blunders. There are some who think that matter exists in its own power apart from God, and yet co-eternal with Him, and that God, knowing this, has merely set it in a reproducing order and impressed other forms on it from without. Then others believe that things are by nature necessary, or impossible, or contingent, and so far as God knows them as contingent is ignorant whether they exist or not. Finally, others say that God recognizes contingent being from its environment because, perchance, He has had a long experience. Beside these, there are other errors of like nature, to which I might refer were it not useless to so do. For from what has been said, the falsity of these is evident.

[3] It clearly follows, therefore, that the understanding of God by which he knows all created objects, and His will and power which determined them are one and the same thing.

We revert now to our proposition, namely, that independent of God there are no objects of His knowledge, but that He Himself is the object of His Knowledge, indeed He is that knowledge. Those who think that the world is the object of God’s knowledge are far less wise than those who wish some building planned by a great architect to be considered the object of their knowledge. For the artificer is compelled to seek for suitable material outside of himself; but God sought no material outside of Himself, but things, in essence and in existence, were made by His understanding or will.

It may be asked, then, whether God knows evil and sin, and distinction of reason, etc. We reply that God necessarily must know those things of which He is the cause. Especially since nothing can exist for a single moment except by the concurrence of the divine will. Therefore, since evil and sin are nothing in things, but only in the human mind as it compares things with one another, it follows that God does not know these independent of the human mind. Distinctions of reason we have said are only modes of thought, hence they, too, should be known so far as He conserves the human mind. Not, however, that God has such modes of thought in order that He may the more easily retain what He knows. Provided one carefully attends to these few remarks, there is no question that can be asked about God’s understanding which cannot easily be answered.

But meanwhile, we must not overlook the error of those who think that God knows nothing except eternal truth, e. g., angels and the heavens which they think are by nature without beginning and without end. Beside, in this world nothing but ideas are without a beginning and unchanging. They seem to err from choice and to wish to keep up some obscurity. What, indeed, is more absurd than to deny God’s knowledge of individual things, which cannot exist for a single moment without His sustaining power! Then they maintain that God is ignorant of things which actually exist, but knows universals which do not exist or have any essence apart from these individual objects. On the contrary, we would attribute to God a complete cognition of individual things, but deny the knowledge of universals except so far as He understands the human mind.

Finally, before ending this discussion, it seems necessary to give some answer to those who inquire whether God has many ideas or only one simple idea. To this I respond that the idea of God because of which He is called omniscient is one and simple. For God is called omniscient only because He has an idea of Himself. This idea, or knowledge, since it exists with God, is nothing else than His essence, nor, indeed, could it possibly be anything but this.

God’s cognition of created objects cannot properly be said to be knowledge. For if God so chose, these objects might have some other essence which has no place in His cognition of them. Nevertheless, it is often asked whether His cognition of objects is manifold or simple. To this we would reply, that this question is like those which inquire whether God’s decrees and acts of will are one or many; and whether God is omnipresent, or whether His concurrence, by which separate objects are preserved, is the same for all things. Concerning such questions, as I have already said, we have no certain knowledge. Yet, in the same way, we very certainly know that this concurrence of God, if it is correlated with his omnipotence, must be unitary, although its effect is manifested in various ways. So also the voluntary acts and decrees of God (for we may so call His cognition of the world), considered as in God, are not many although through created objects (or better in created objects), they are variously expressed. Finally, if we consider the analogy of nature as a whole, we are able to consider it as one being, and consequently the idea or decree of Natura naturata will be but one.

The will of God, by which He chooses to love Himself, follows necessarily from His understanding, by which He knows Himself. But we do not know how His essence and His understanding, by which he knows Himself, differ from His will, by which he chooses to love Himself. Nor does the term personality, which theologians use to explain this, escape our notice. Although we are not ignorant of the term, we are ignorant of its significance, and unable to form any clear and distinct concept of its content. Nevertheless, we consistently believe in the beatific vision of God, which is promised to faithful ones that this would be revealed to them.

As is sufficiently clear from the preceding, God’s will and power considered objectively cannot be distinguished from His understanding. For we have made it clear that God has not only decreed that things should exist, but also what character they should have, i. e., their essence and existence depend upon the will and power of God. From this we see that God’s understanding and power, and will, by which He created and understands, and conserves or loves the world, cannot be distinguished from one another except in respect to our understanding.

Moreover, when we say that God holds certain things in disfavor, and loves others, this is spoken figuratively, as when the Scriptures say that the earth shall bring forth men. That God is not angry with any one, nor loves any one in the sense that people ordinarily believe, is evident from the Scriptures themselves. So Isaiah says, and more clearly the Apostle to the Romans, chapter 9: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purposes of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, that the older shall serve the younger, etc.” And a little below: “Therefore, hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me: Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor?” etc.

If then, you ask: Why, then, does God admonish men? To this it may be responded, that God has decreed from eternity to admonish them at a given time in order that those whom He wished to save might be converted.

If you inquire further: Whether God was not able to save them without this admonishment, we respond that He was. Why, then, does He not thus save them, you might inquire. To this I will reply after you have told me why He did not make the Red Sea passable without a strong east wind, and why He does not make things to move without the agency of other things, and an infinite number of other things which He does by means of mediating causes. Then you will ask: Why are the wicked punished, since, because of their nature, they clearly fulfill the divine decree? I respond that it is also according to the divine decree that they should be punished. And if only those whom we believe to sin from choice should be punished, why do men attempt to exterminate venomous serpents? for they only act according to their nature, nor are they able to do otherwise.

Finally, if there are other things which occur in the sacred Scriptures which may be mentioned as points worthy of examination this is not the place to explain them. Here we would merely inquire into those things which we are able to deduce with certainty from Natural Reason, and it is sufficient if we make it evident that the Sacred Pages ought to teach the same things. For truth is not at variance with truth, nor do the Scriptures teach the nonsense that the multitude believe. For if we find anything in them contrary to the laws of Reason we should refute that with the same freedom that we refute such statements in the Koran or the Talmud. However, there is no reason to think that the Sacred Writings contain anything opposed to the Natural Reason.

We have demonstrated above that God is omnipotent. Here we will only briefly explain in what terms this attribute shall be understood. There are many who discuss this that do not speak with sufficient fullness. They say certain things are possible from God’s nature not from His decrees, and that some things are impossible, others necessary. God’s omnipotence has a place only in regard to possible things. But we, since we have already shown that all things depend absolutely upon the decrees of God, say that He is really omnipotent. And, since we know that He has decreed certain things from His freedom of will and is immutable, we conclude that nothing can happen contrary to His decrees, and that nothing is impossible except that which is opposed to the perfection of God.

But perhaps some one will argue that we find some things necessary from the decrees of God and others for some other reason. For example, that Josiah should burn incense upon the altars of the idols of Jeroboam. For if we consider merely the will of Josiah, we will adjudge the thing to be merely possible; nor can it be said to have been necessary in any other sense than that the Prophet had commanded it as being the decree of God. But that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles is self-evident. It is only on account of man’s ignorance that these distinctions are made. For if men clearly understood the whole order of Nature they would find all things as determined and as necessary as Mathematics. But as this is beyond human power we conceive some things to be merely possible, others necessary. Therefore, we must either say that God is powerless, since all things are determined, or that He is all powerful, and that all necessity rests upon the decrees of God.

If now, it is asked if God had created the world different from its present order, and what is now truth were error, would we still believe the same things to be true? We would if God left our nature as it is. But it would also be possible, if He wished to give us such a nature, as He has indeed done, for us to understand the nature and laws of things just as they are planned by God. Indeed, if we consider God’s veracity He ought so to create us. This is also evident from what we have said above, namely, that Natura naturata must be considered as unitary. Whence it follows that man is a part of Nature, and ought to be in accord with the world about him. Therefore, from this simplicity of God’s decrees it follows that if God had created things in some other way He would have so made us that we would understand them as they were created. So while we desire to retain this distinction which philosophers in general lay down, viz., the power of God, we are compelled to explain it differently.

We, therefore, divide God’s power into two classes. His regulative power, and His absolute power.

God’s power is called absolute when we consider His omnipotence without regard to His decrees. We call it regulative when we have regard to His decrees.

We also say God’s power is natural or supernatural. That is natural by which the world is preserved in its fixed order. That is called supernatural which causes something outside of the order of Nature, as for example, all miracles, such as various appearance of angels, etc. Concerning the latter point there is evidently some room for doubt. Still it would seem to be a greater miracle if God should always govern the world by the same fixed and unchanging laws, than if at times, on account of the foolishness of men, He should interrupt the laws and order of Nature which He from free choice has ordained. (This no one, except he be mentally blind, can deny.) But we leave this for theologians to discuss. Finally, there are some other questions often asked concerning the power of God: For example, whether God’s power extends to events already past; or whether He might not have created more objects than he did? We do not answer these, however, for their answer is easily seen from what has been said.

It has already been said that God has created the world. We shall only attempt here, therefore, to explain what is meant by the term creation, after which some opinions on the subject will be carefully examined. We will begin at the beginning.

We say, therefore, that creation is an operation in which no causes except an efficient one concur. Or, a created object is one which presupposes for its existence nothing except God.

It should be noted (1) that we have here omitted those words which philosophers insert in their definition, viz., ex nihilo, as if nothing were some matter from which things are produced. Because they are accustomed to speak in this way, and to think always of something preceding the given objects, they are not able, in speaking of creation, to omit this particle ex. The same thing is true concerning matter. Because all bodies are seen in some position, and surrounded by other objects, when they are asked where matter is, they reply, that it is in some imaginary space. Therefore, it is clear that they do not consider nothing as a mere negation of all reality, but believe or imagine it to be a something real.

2. It should be noted also, that I said in creation no causes concur except one efficient one. I might have said that creation negates or excludes all causes except this one. I did not choose to do this, however, lest I should be compelled to respond to those who ask whether God had no predetermined end in Himself for the sake of which He created the world. To make the definition clearer I added that the created object presupposes nothing except God. For, if God had predetermined some end it evidently was not independent of Him, for there is nothing apart from God by which His decrees are influenced or changed.

3. It follows from this definition that accidents and modes were not created, for they presuppose some created substance beside God.

4. Finally, it should be noted that before creation time or duration did not exist, nor can they even be imagined. For time is a measure of duration, or rather it is only a form of thought. Therefore, it not only presupposes the created world, but it depends especially upon human thought. Moreover, duration is limited by the existence of created objects, and hence began when the world began. I say limited by the existence of created objects for eternity alone relates to God as we have shown sufficiently above. Hence, duration presupposes that the world has been created or at least that it exists.

It is evident that they who think duration and time existed before the world was created, are laboring under the same prejudice as they who conceive of space apart from matter. So much for the definition of creation.

There is no need to repeat what is given in Axiom 10, Part I. viz., that no more power is needed to create than to preserve the world. God’s work in creating and preserving the world is the same.

Having recalled this point, we proceed to inquire first, what is created and what uncreated, and second, whether what is created has existed from eternity.

To the first inquiry we respond briefly, that everything has been created whose essence is clearly conceived even without existence, and yet is conceived per se; as e. g., matter of which we have a clear and a distinct concept when we conceive it under the attribute extension, whether we think that it exists or not.

But perhaps some one may say that we have clear and distinct knowledge even when the object does not exist, and yet attribute this knowledge to God. To this we reply that we do not say that God’s knowledge is like ours, limited by nature, but is pure activity involving existence, as we have shown over and over. For we have shown that God’s understanding and will cannot be distinguished from His power or from His essence which involves existence.

Since everything, the essence of which does not involve existence, has been created in its existing form and continually conserved by the power of God, we will not pause to refute the opinion of those who think that the world as chaos, or as matter devoid of form, is co-eternal with God, and so far independent of Him. Therefore we pass on to the second point, and ask whether what has been created could have existed from eternity.

In order to understand the point just raised we must consider the expression from eternity. For we wish to signify by these words something different from the eternity of God. By this expression we now mean duration from the beginning of duration, or such a duration that although numbers were multiplied through thousands of years, and this product again by millions of millions, we would still be unable to express its magnitude.

It is evident that such duration is impossible; for if the world could have begun at any fixed time then its duration were too short to satisfy these conditions. Therefore, the world cannot have endured from such a beginning to the present. But perhaps you say since God is omnipotent nothing is impossible, and He could have given to the world a duration than which no longer can be conceived. We reply that God, because He is omnipotent, would never have given such a duration to the world. For the very character of duration is that it can always be conceived as greater or less, as in the case of number. You may insist, however, that God has existed from eternity, and since He has perdured all this time there is a duration given, so great that no greater is conceivable. But in this way a duration composed of parts is attributed to God, which idea has been refuted sufficiently when we demonstrated that eternity, not duration, belongs to God. Would that men might remember this! For then they could easily extricate themselves from many arguments and absurdities, and would turn with the greatest delight to the blessed contemplation of God. Nevertheless we proceed to respond to the arguments of those who attempt to show the possibility of such an infinite duration from some fixed time in the past.

In the first place it is said that the thing produced must be co-existent with its cause. And since God has existed from eternity the effects of His being ought to be eternal. This argument is supported by reference to the Son of God, who has existed with the Father from eternity. It is evident that they confuse eternity with duration, and only attribute to God a duration from eternity. This is shown, too, in the example cited. The same eternity which they attribute to the Son of God they think can be attributed to created objects. They imagine time and duration to have been instituted before the world began, and think of duration apart from created objects as some think of eternity as independent of God. That both opinions are wrong is now evident. So we respond that it is not true that God was able to communicate His eternity to the world. Neither was the Son of God created, but was eternal like the Father. When we say that the Father had begotten the Son from eternity we only mean that the Father has always shared His eternity with the Son.

In the second place it is argued that when God acts from choice, He is not less powerful than when He acts from necessity. But if God acts from necessity, since He is infinite in virtue, He must have created the world from eternity. It is easy to reply to this argument if we consider its basis. For these same good men presume that they may hold conflicting ideas concerning a being of infinite virtue. They conceive of God, a being of infinite virtue, as acting both from necessity and from choice. But we deny that God, if He acts from necessity, is a being of infinite virtue. Which action is justified, indeed, and must of necessity be conceded even by those same men when we have shown that a perfect being must be free, and can only be conceived as unitary. Should they reply that it is possible to suppose that God acting from necessity is still infinite in His virtue, we would reply that we are not at liberty to suppose this, any more than we are at liberty to suppose a square circle in order to conclude that all lines drawn from the center to the circumference are not equal. And this, we repeat, is sufficiently proven from what has been said above. We have proven that there is no duration that may not be conceived as greater or less or even double as great. If God acts from free choice it may be created as greater or less. But if God acts from necessity this by no means follows. Under the latter supposition only those things which follow from His nature can be realized, not an infinite number of hypothetical results. Therefore, it may be argued in a few words: If God should create a duration so great that no greater could be given He necessarily diminishes His own power. And this is impossible for His essence and His power are one and the same thing. Therefore, etc., and further, if God acts from necessity, He must have created a duration, than which no greater can be conceived. But had God created such a duration He would not have been of infinite virtue. For we are always able to conceive of a duration greater than the one given. Therefore, if God acts from the necessity of His nature He is not of infinite virtue.

A point which may be a difficulty to some here presents itself, viz., that although the world has only been created some five thousand years, if our chronology is correct, we are nevertheless able to conceive of a much greater duration, and this notwithstanding we have said above that duration depends upon created objects. The difficulty will disappear if we remember that our ideas of duration arise not only as we contemplate created objects, but from reflection upon God’s infinite power, in creating them. For we do not think of objects existing per se, but only through the infinite power of God. Vid. Prop. 12, Pt. I. and Coroll.

Finally lest we consume too much time with these futile arguments, but two things need to be kept in mind: (1) The distinction between duration and eternity, and (2) that the former without created objects, and the latter without God are non-intelligible. These things being kept in mind it is easy to answer all these arguments. So we need delay no longer upon this point.

About this attribute of God little or nothing remains to be said after we have shown that each single moment God creates things as if anew. From this we have shown that objects have no power of self determination or of operation in themselves. And this holds true in the human will as well as in all other objects. Then we replied to certain arguments pertaining to this. And, although many other objections are often raised, since these relate more especially to Theology we shall not discuss them here.

Nevertheless, since there are many who admit and believe in this conserving power of God, but in a different sense from us, we shall recall what has already been proven in order that we may detect this fallacy. We have already clearly shown that present time has no connection with future time (Vid. Ax. 10, Pt. I.). Provided we consistently remember this, we shall be able without difficulty to reply to all the objections of these philosophers.

But lest we take up this subject without result we will reply in passing to the inquiry whether an additional element of God’s power is needed to begin some action in things. When speaking of motion this same question appeared and we then gave our answer. For we said that God constantly preserves the same amount of motion in nature. If, therefore, we consider the total amount of matter in motion nothing is added. But in respect to particular things there is an additional element given. It does not seem, however, that the same thing can be said of mental phenomena. For it does not appear that they are related the one to the other in this way. Then, finally, since the parts of duration do not have a casual connection, we speak more truly to say then that God continually procreates than to say that he conserves them. Therefore, if man at a particular moment is free to choose some course of action it must be said that God at the present time so creates him. To this it is no objection that the human will is often determined by external influences, and that all nature is inter-related and mutually determining. For this also is so ordained of God. Indeed, nothing determines the will nor does the will determine anything except through the power of God. We confess that we are ignorant of how this may not be opposed to human freedom, or how God can ordain this and still preserve the freedom of man. This we have already admitted.

These are the things I had decided to say concerning the attributes of God. No satisfactory division of them has yet been made. The division given by some, who divide God’s attributes into incommunicable and communicable attributes seems more nominal than real. For the knowledge of God is no more like human knowledge than the Dogstar is like a barking dog, and perhaps it is even less similar.

We would offer this classification: There are some attributes which explain God’s essence, and others that tell nothing of His reality but only explain the modes of His existence. Of the latter kind are Unity, Eternity, Necessity, etc.; of the former Understanding, Volition, Life, Omnipotence, etc. This division is clear and perspicuous and comprehends all the attributes of God.

We pass now to created substance which we classify as extended and as thinking substance. By the former we understand matter or corporeal substance. By thinking substance we understand only human minds.

Although angels are also created, since they are not known by our nattural powers, they should not be regarded in Metaphysics. For their essence and existence are only known through revelation and so far they pertain only to Theology. Since the cognition of these beings is so entirely different from our ordinary form of knowledge the two should not be confused or classed together. No one should expect us, therefore, to discuss angels in this connection.

We turn, therefore, to the human mind concerning which a few things remain to be said. It will be noted that we say nothing concerning the time of its creation, for it is not clear just when it is created since it can exist without the body. But it is evident that it does not arise by traduction for it would then have a place only in things already created, namely in modes of some substance. But substances, as we have plainly showed above, can be created only by the power of omnipotence.

We shall add a few words concerning immortality. It is evident that we cannot say of any created object that its nature implies that it cannot be destroyed by the power of God. For he who has the power of creating an object has also the power of destroying it. Beside, as we have sufficiently shown above, no created object has in itself the power to exist, even for a moment, but in every case is continually procreated by God.

Although this is all true we all know that we have no concept of a destroyed object, as we have of an object disintegrated or of a generation of modes. For we can conceive clearly enough of the human organism being destroyed but not of the annihilation of its substance. Then philosophy does not inquire what God by His omnipotence is able to do, but seeks to determine from nature itself what laws God has really given to the world. Therefore, what it concludes is rational and fixed it concludes is so from the laws of nature. However we would not deny that God is able to change these laws and all other things as well. Therefore, when speaking of the soul we do not inquire what God is able to do but what follows from the laws of nature.

Since it is true, as we have abundantly proven, that substance cannot be destroyed either by its own power, or by the power of any other created substance, unless I am mistaken, it follows that we are compelled to believe from the laws of nature that the soul is immortal. And if we choose to investigate further, we can very clearly demonstrate that it is so. For as we have just shown, it follows from the laws of nature that the mind is immortal. And these laws of nature are the decrees of God, appointed by his will, as we have already made evident. Then beside, these laws are unchangeable. From all of this we conclude with certainty that God has revealed His immutable will concerning man’s immortality, not only by revelation, but also by natural reason.

It is no objection to this opinion, if some one should say that at times God sets aside these natural laws in working miracles. For there are many thoughtful theologians who concede that God does not act contrary to, but above the laws of nature. That is, God has many laws of action which He has not made known to man; and these if revealed to man would seem equally natural with the ones he already knows. Therefore it is evident that minds are immortal. I do not see that anything remains to be said concerning its nature. Nor, indeed, concerning its specific functions is there anything to add unless I respond to the argument of certain authors who attempt to show that our sense of perception is not to be accepted as true.

There are some who think they can show that the will is not free but always determined by something from without. They believe this because they think of the will as something distinct from the mind, a substance whose sole nature it is to be indifferent. In order to remove all confusion on this subject we will explain the matter in such a way as to easily detect the fallacy of their arguments.

We have said that the human mind is a thinking object. Whence it follows that from its nature, and that alone considered, it is able to do something, viz., to think; that is, to affirm and to deny. These forms of thought are determined either by something extra-mental or by the mind itself. But since the mind is a substance itself whose essence it is to think, it follows that thought can and should arise from the mind itself. Those mental acts which know no other cause than the mind itself, are called volitions. And the human mind so far as it is considered as a sufficient cause for producing these thoughts is called Will.

That the mind, though excited by no external object has power to act, is sufficiently proven by the example of the ass of Buridanus. For were a man instead of the ass placed in such a condition of equilibrium he would be regarded not as a thinking being but as a most stupid ass if he perished with thirst or hunger. Then this is evident also from the fact mentioned above, that we have willed to doubt everything, and not only to hold as doubtful those things which can be called in question, but also to expose what is false. (Vid. Principles of Descartes, Part I. Art. 39).

Further, it should be remembered that, although the mind is influenced by external objects to affirm or deny, it is not compelled even here but retains its freedom. For nothing has the power of destroying its essence. What it affirms or denies it is always free to affirm or to deny as was shown by Descartes in the fourth Meditation. Therefore, if any one asks why the mind wills this or that, we reply that it is because the mind is a thinking being whose very nature it is to wish, or to affirm or to deny. This is what it means to be a thinking being.

Having stated our position we will notice some arguments opposed to such a view. (1) Such is the argument: If the will can choose contrary to the last judgment of the understanding, if it is able to choose contrary to that which is best as determined by the understanding, it is able to choose evil for the sake of its evil. But this conclusion is absurd. Therefore in the first place it is evident that they do not understand what the will is. They confuse it with the desire the mind has after it affirms or denies something. They were taught this by their teacher who defined the will as desire for the sake of some good (appetitum sub ratione boni). We would say on the contrary that the will is the affirming that this is good or bad, as we plainly showed when discussing the cause of error, and found that this arises because the will extends further than the understanding. If the mind did not affirm this or that is good, thus exercising its freedom, it would not desire it. Therefore we would reply to this argument by conceding that the mind cannot choose anything contrary to the last judgment of the understanding, that is, it cannot choose anything so far as it is unwilling; as is here supposed when we say that this thing is evil or that the mind does not choose it. But we deny that it is impossible for evil to be chosen or be considered good, for this would be contrary to all experience. For many evil things are thought to be good and many good things are considered evil.

2. The second argument is (or the first if you prefer, since the other amounted to nothing): “If the will is not determined by the last practical judgment of the understanding it is self determined. But the will does not determine itself because in itself and from its nature it is indeterminate.” From this they proceed to argue: “If the will by nature is indifferent to acting it cannot be determined by itself. That which determines anything must be determined, and that which is determined must be indeterminate. But the will considered as determining itself would be considered both as determinate and indeterminate. For these opponents presuppose nothing in the determining will that is not the same in the will either as determined or as about to be determined. Nor indeed can anything be affirmed. Therefore, the will cannot be determined by itself. But if not by itself then otherwise.” These are the words of Professor Heereboordius of Leyden, in which he clearly shows that he understood by volition not the mind itself, but something else outside of the mind, a tabula rasa, as it were, free from all forms of thought and capable of receiving images upon itself. Or rather as a weight in equilibrium, which, as much as it is determined at all, from without, may be inclined to one side by another weight. Or finally as something which cannot be understood by the cognition of any mortal. We have just said, and indeed shown, that the will is nothing but the mind itself. That is, it is the thinking being, a being who affirms and denies. So we find when we consider the nature of mind that it has an equal power of affirming and denying. For this, as I have said, is the meaning of thought. We conclude, therefore, that the mind thinks, that it has this power of affirming and of denying. Why then should we seek extra-mental reasons for doing what is sufficiently explained by the nature of the mind itself? But you say, “the mind is not determined more to affirm than to deny; hence some extra-mental cause for volition is necessary.” But I argue the contrary; if the mind were by nature only capable of affirming (although such a conception is impossible as long as we conceive of the mind as thinking being) so that, however many causes concur, it is impossible for it to deny anything. Or if it could neither affirm or deny, it would be able to do neither. Or, finally, if it had the power, as we have shown it has, it would be able to do both from its nature alone, no other cause assisting. This is evidently the case for all who really give to a thinking being the power of thought. Those who separate the attribute of thought from the thing itself from which it is only distinguished by the reason, denude the thinking being of all thought and regard what remains as the fundamental substance of the Peripatetics. Therefore, I respond that if they understand by will something independent of thought, we will concede that their will is indeterminate. But we deny that the will is something void of understanding; on the other hand, we believe that it is thought, i. e., it is the power of affirming and of denying. Certainly nothing else will satisfy the conditions. Then, too, we deny that even if the will is indeterminate it is therefore despoiled of thought, and can be determined by any external object except God’s infinite power. For to conceive of a thinking being without thought is the same as to conceive of an extended body without extension.

Finally, there is no need to consider other arguments, but I shall only say that opponents of this view confuse the mind with corporeal objects because they do not understand the will, or have a clear and a distinct concept of the mind. As has been said, this error arises from the fact that words properly used only to describe corporeal objects have been applied to spiritual things. For they have been accustomed to call those bodies indeterminate which are acted upon by two equivalent external forces acting in opposition to one another. Therefore, since they think that the will is indeterminate they seem to think of it as a body in equilibrium. And, because those bodies have nothing except what they receive from external causes (from which it follows that they are always determined by an external cause), they think that the same thing is true concerning the will. But as we have already made sufficiently clear why these things are so, we shall say no more.

Concerning extended substance we have already spoken sufficiently and beside these two forms of created substance we know no others. What pertains to real accidents and to other qualities has also been sufficiently criticised nor is there need to take any further time in refuting them, so we take our hand from the table.