[The division of Substance.] We have already shown that in Nature there is nothing but substances and their modes. So one should not here expect us to say anything about substantial forms and real accidents, for these and things of this type are plainly absurd. We then divided substances into two general kinds, extension and thought, and we divided thought into created thought (i.e., the human mind) and uncreated thought (i.e., God). The existence of God we have demonstrated more than adequately both a posteriori, from the idea we have of him, and a priori, from his essence as being the cause of his existence. But because we have treated certain of his attributes more briefly than the importance of the subject requires, we have decided to return to them here, to explain them more fully and also to provide answers to some problems.
[Duration does not pertain to God.] The principal attribute that must be considered before all others is God’s eternity, whereby we explicate his duration; or rather, to avoid attributing any duration to God, we say that he is eternal. For, as we noted in the first Part, duration is an affection of the existence of things, not of their essence; but we cannot attribute any duration to God, whose existence is of his essence. For whoever attributes duration to God is distinguishing his existence from his essence. There are some, however, who ask whether at this moment God has not been in existence longer than when he created Adam; and it seems to them quite clear that this is so, and thus they hold that duration must in no way be denied to God. But they are guilty of petitio principii, in assuming that God’s essence is distinct from his existence. They ask whether God, who existed up to the time of Adam, has not existed over more time between the creation of Adam and our time. Thus they are attributing a longer duration to God as each day passes, and they assume that he is, as it were, continuously created by himself. If they did not distinguish God’s existence from his essence, they could not possibly attribute duration to God, because duration can in no way pertain to the essences of things. For no one will ever say that the essence of a circle or a triangle, insofar as it is an eternal truth, has lasted longer at this moment than at the time of Adam. Furthermore, because duration is conceived as longer or shorter, or as consisting of parts, it clearly follows that no duration can be attributed to God. For because his being is eternal, that is, there cannot be in it any before or after, we can never attribute duration to God without at the same time destroying the true conception we have of him. That is to say, by attributing duration to him we would be dividing into parts that which of its own nature is infinite and can never be conceived except as infinite.2
[The reasons why writers have attributed duration to God.] Now the reasons why writers have thus erred are: (1) They have attempted to explain eternity without giving their attention to God, as if eternity could be understood without consideration of the divine essence, or were something other than the divine essence. And this again has arisen because, through poverty of language, we are in the habit of attributing eternity even to things whose essence is distinct from their existence, as when we say that no contradiction is implied in the world having been in existence from eternity; and again when we attribute eternity to the essences of things while we conceive the things as not existing; for we then call the essences eternal. (2) They have been attributing duration to things only insofar as they held them to be subject to continuous variation, and not, as is our practice, in accordance as their essence is distinguished from their existence. (3) Finally, they have distinguished God’s essence from his existence, as is the case with created things.
These errors, I say, have led them astray. By reason of the first error they have failed to understand what eternity is, taking it rather to be some kind of duration. The second error made it difficult for them to see the difference between the duration of created things and God’s eternity. Finally, because duration is only an affection of existence and they have made a distinction between God’s existence and his essence, the third error has led to their attributing duration to God, as we have already said.
[What is Eternity.] But for the better understanding of what eternity is, and how it cannot be conceived without the divine essence, attention must be given to what we have said already, namely, that created things—that is, all things besides God—always exist solely by the force or essence of God, and not by their own force. Hence it follows that the present existence of things is not the cause of their future existence. Only God’s immutability is the cause, which compels us to say that when God has created a thing in the first place, he will thereafter continuously preserve it, that is, he will continue the same action of creating it. From this we conclude:
1. That a created thing can be said to enjoy existence, on the grounds that existence is not of its essence. But God cannot be said to enjoy existence, for God’s existence is God himself, just as is his essence. Hence it follows that created things enjoy existence, but this is not so with God.
2. That all created things, while enjoying present duration and existence, are entirely lacking in future duration and existence, because this has to be continuously attributed to them, whereas nothing of the sort can be said of their essence. But because God’s existence is of his essence, we cannot attribute future existence to him. For the same existence that he would then have must even now be attributed to him in actuality; or, to speak more properly, infinite actual existence pertains to God in the same way as infinite actual intellect pertains to him. Now this infinite existence I call eternity, which is to be attributed to God alone and not to any created thing, even though, I say, its duration is without beginning or end.
So much for eternity. Of God’s necessity I say nothing, there being no need now that we have demonstrated his existence from his essence. Let us proceed, therefore, to his unity.
We have often wondered at the futile arguments with which writers attempt to prove the unity of God, arguments such as: If one could have created the world, others would have been superfluous; if all things work together to the same end, they have been produced by one maker, and other arguments like these, drawn from the relationship of things or their extrinsic characteristics. So, dismissing all these arguments, we shall here set out our proof as clearly and as briefly as possible, as follows.
[God is unique.] Among God’s attributes we have also listed the highest degree of understanding, adding that he possesses all his perfection from himself and not from any other source. If you now say that there are more than one God, or supremely perfect beings, these must all necessarily possess understanding in the highest degree. That this may be so, it is not enough that each should understand only himself; for because each must understand all things, he must understand both himself and the others. From this it would follow that the perfection of the intellect of each one would depend partly on himself and partly on another. Therefore no one of them can be a supremely perfect being, that is, as we have just noted, a being that possesses all its perfection from itself, and not from any other source. Yet we have already demonstrated that God is a most perfect being, and that he exists. So we can now conclude that he exists as one alone; for if more than one God existed, it would follow that a most perfect being has imperfection, which is absurd.3 So much for the unity of God.
[How God is called infinite, and how immeasurable.] We have previously shown that no being can be conceived as finite and imperfect (i.e., as participating in nothingness) unless we first have regard to the perfect and infinite being, that is, God. So only God must be said to be absolutely infinite, in that we find him to consist in actual fact of infinite perfection. But he can also be said to be immeasurable or boundless insofar as we have regard to this point, that there is no being by which God’s perfection can be limited. From this it follows that the infinity of God, in spite of the form of the word, is something most positive; for it is insofar as we have regard to his essence or consummate perfection that we say that he is infinite. But measurelessness is attributed to God only in a relational way; for it does not pertain to God insofar as he is considered absolutely as a most perfect being, but only insofar as he is considered as a first cause that, even though it were most perfect only in relation to secondary beings, would nevertheless be measureless. For there would be no being, and consequently no being could be conceived, more perfect than he by which he might be limited or measured. (For a fuller discussion, see Axiom 9 Part 1.)
[What is commonly understood by the immeasurableness of God.] Yet writers on all sides, in treating of the immeasurableness of God, appear to attribute quantity to God. For from this attribute they wish to conclude that God must necessarily be present everywhere, as if they meant that if there were any place where God was not, his quantity would be limited. This same point is even more clearly apparent from another argument they produce to show that God is infinite or measureless (for they confuse these two terms) and also that he is everywhere. If God, they say, is pure activity, as indeed he is, he is bound to be everywhere and infinite. For if he were not everywhere, then either he cannot be wherever he wants to be, or else (note this) he must necessarily move about. This clearly shows that they attribute immeasurableness to God insofar as they consider him to be quantitative; for it is from the properties of extension that they derive these arguments for asserting the immeasurableness of God. Nothing could be more absurd.
[Proof that God is everywhere.] If you now ask how, then, shall we prove that God is everywhere, I reply that we have abundantly demonstrated this when we showed that nothing can exist even for a moment without being continuously created by God at every single moment.
[God’s omnipresence cannot be explained.] Now, for God’s ubiquity or his presence in individual things to be properly understood, we should necessarily have to have a clear insight into the inmost nature of the divine will whereby he created things and continuously goes on creating them. Because this exceeds human capacity, it is impossible to explain how God is everywhere.4
[Some hold, wrongly, that God’s immeasurableness is threefold.] Some claim that God’s immeasurableness is threefold—that of his essence, his power, and his presence. But this is nonsense, for they seem to distinguish between God’s essence and his power.
[God’s power is not distinct from his essence.] Others, too, have said the same thing more openly, asserting that God is everywhere through power, but not through essence, as if God’s power were distinct from all his attributes or his infinite essence. But in fact it can be nothing else; for if it were something else, it would either be some creature or something accidental to the divine essence without which the divine essence could be conceived. Both of these alternatives are absurd; for if it were a creature, it would need God’s power for its preservation, and this would give rise to an infinite progression. And if it were something accidental, God would not be a most simple being, contrary to what we have demonstrated previously.
[Nor is his omnipotence.] Finally, by the immeasurableness of his presence they again seem to mean something besides the essence of God, through which things have been created and are continuously preserved. This is surely a great absurdity, into which they have fallen through confusing God’s intellect with human intellect, and frequently comparing his power with the power of kings.
[What change is, and what transformation.] By ‘change’ we here understand all the variation that can occur in a subject while the essence of the subject remains as it was. But this term is also commonly taken in a broader sense to mean the corruption of things—not an absolute corruption, but such as also includes generation following on the corruption, as when we say that peat is changed into ashes, or men into beasts. But to denote this latter meaning philosophers use yet another word—transformation. Here we are speaking only of that change in which there is no transformation of the subject as when we say that Peter has changed his color, or his character, etc.
[In God there can be no transformation.] We must now see whether such changes are applicable to God, for there is no need to say anything about transformation, now that we have shown that God exists necessarily, that is, that God cannot cease to be, or be transformed into another God. For then he would both cease to be, and also there could be more than one God at the same time. Both of these possibilities we have shown to be absurd.
[What are the causes of change.] However, for a clearer understanding of what here remains to be said, we must take into consideration that all change proceeds either from external causes, with or without the subject’s consent, or from an internal cause and the subject’s free choice. For example, that a man becomes darker, falls ill, grows, and the like, all proceed from external causes, the first two against the subject’s will, the last in accordance with it. But that he wills, walks, displays anger, etc., proceed from internal causes.
[God is not changed by something else.] Now the first-named changes, those that proceed from external causes, cannot possibly apply to God; for he alone is the cause of all things and is not acted on by anyone. Moreover, nothing created has in itself any force to exist, and so far less can it have any force to act on anything outside itself or on its own cause. And although there are many places in Holy Scripture where God has been angry, or sad, etc., because of the sins of men, in these passages the effect is taken as the cause, just as we also say that the sun is stronger and higher in summer than in winter, although it has not changed its position or renewed its strength. And that such is often the teaching even of Holy Scripture is to be seen in Isaiah; for he says in chapter 59, verse 2, when he is rebuking the people: “Your iniquities separate you from your God.”
[Nor again by himself.] Let us therefore proceed and ask whether any change can come about in God from God himself. We do not grant that there can be such a change in God; indeed, we deny it completely. For every change that depends on the will is designed to change its subject to a better state, and this cannot apply to a most perfect being. Then again, there can be no such change except for the purpose of avoiding something disadvantageous or of acquiring some good that is lacking. In the case of God there can be no place for either of these purposes. Hence we conclude that God is an immutable being.5 Note that I have here deliberately omitted the commonly accepted divisions of change, although we have also in a sense covered them. For there was no need to deny them individually of God because in Prop. 16 Part 1 we have demonstrated that God is incorporeal, and those commonly accepted divisions refer only to changes in matter.
[The threefold distinction between things: real, modal, and a distinction of reason.] Let us proceed to the simplicity of God. In order that this attribute of God may be rightly understood, we must recall what Descartes said in Princip. Philosophiae Part 1 Arts. 48 and 49, to wit, that in Nature there is nothing but substances and their modes, whence in Arts. 60, 61, and 62 he deduces a threefold distinction between things—real, modal, and a distinction of reason. What is called a real distinction is that whereby two substances, whether of different or of the same attribute, are distinguished from one another; for example, thought and extension, or the parts of matter. This distinction is recognized from the fact that each of the two can be conceived, and consequently can exist, without the help of the other. Modal distinction is of two kinds, that between a mode of substance and the substance itself, and that between two modes of one and the same substance. The latter we recognize from the fact that, although either mode can be conceived without the help of the other, neither can be conceived without the help of the substance of which they are modes. The former distinction we recognize from the fact that, although the substance can be conceived without its mode, the mode cannot be conceived without the substance. Finally, what is termed a distinction of reason is that which arises between a substance and its attribute, as when duration is distinguished from extension. And this is also recognized from the fact that such a substance cannot be understood without that attribute.
[How all composition arises, and how many kinds there are.] All composition arises from these three kinds of distinction. The first composition is that of two or more substances either of the same attribute, as is the case with all composition of two or more bodies, or of different attributes, as is the case with man. The second composition results from the union of different modes. The third composition is not a composition, but is only conceived by reason as if it were so, in order that a thing may thereby be more easily understood. Whatever is not a composition of the first two kinds must be said to be simple.
[God is a most simple Being.] It must therefore be shown that God is not a composite thing, from which we can conclude that he is a most simple being; and this we shall easily accomplish. Because it is self-evident that component parts are prior at least by nature to the composite whole, then of necessity those substances from whose coalescence and union God is composed will be prior to God by nature, and each can be conceived through itself without being attributed to God. Again, because they are necessarily distinct from one another in reality, then necessarily each of them can also exist through itself without the help of the others. And thus, as we have just said, there could be as many Gods as there are substances from which it was supposed that God is composed. For because each can exist through itself, it must exist of itself, and therefore it will also have the force to give itself all the perfections that we have shown to be in God, as we have already explained fully in Prop. 7 Part 1, where we demonstrated the existence of God. Now because nothing more absurd than this can be said, we conclude that God is not composed of a coalescence and union of substances. That there is also no composition of different modes in God is convincingly proved from there being no modes in God. For modes arise from an alteration of substance—see Princ. Part 1 Art. 56. Finally, if someone wishes to imagine another kind of composition, from the essence of things and their existence, we by no means oppose him. But let him remember that we have already sufficiently demonstrated that these two are not distinct in God.
[God’s Attributes are distinguished only by Reason.] Hence we can clearly conclude that all the distinctions we make between God’s attributes are nothing other than distinctions of reason, and that they are not distinct from one another in reality. Understand these distinctions of reason to be such as I have just referred to, namely, distinctions that are recognized from the fact that such-and-such a substance cannot be without that particular attribute. Hence we conclude that God is a most simple being. So now, disregarding the medley of distinctions made by the Peripatetics, we pass on to the life of God.
[What philosophers commonly understand by Life.] For the correct understanding of this attribute, the life of God, it is necessary to explain in general terms what in the case of each individual thing is meant by its life. We shall first examine the opinion of the Peripatetics. By life they understand ‘the continuance of the nutritive soul, accompanied by heat’—see Aristotle De Respirat. Book 1 Chapter 8.6 And because they imagined there to be three souls, the vegetative, the sensitive, and the intellective, which they attribute exclusively to plants, animals, and men, it follows, as they themselves acknowledge, that all else is devoid of life. Even so, they did not venture to say that minds and God are without life. Perhaps they were afraid of falling into the contrary view, that if these were without life, they were dead. So Aristotle in his Metaphysics Book 11 Chapter 7 gives yet another definition of life, applicable only to minds, namely, that life is the operation of the intellect, and in this sense he attributes life to God, as one who understands and is pure activity.7
However, we shall not spend much effort in refuting these views. For as regards the three souls that they attribute to plants, animals, and men, we have already sufficiently demonstrated that these are nothing but fictions, having shown that in matter there is nothing but mechanical structures and their operations. As to the life of God, I do not know why in Aristotle it should be called activity of intellect rather than activity of will, and the like. However, expecting no reply to this, I pass on to explain, as promised, what life is.
[To what things life can be attributed.] Although this term is often taken in a figurative sense to mean the character of a man, we shall briefly explain only what it denotes in a philosophical sense. It should be noted that if life is also to be attributed to corporeal things, nothing will be devoid of life; but if only to those things wherein soul is united to body, then it must be attributed only to men, and perhaps also to animals, but not to minds or to God. However, because the word ‘life’ is commonly used in a wider sense, there is no doubt that it should also be attributed to corporeal things not united to minds and to minds separated from body.
[What life is, and what it is in God.] Therefore by life we for our part understand the force through which things persevere in their own being. And because that force is different from the things themselves, we quite properly say that things themselves have life. But the force whereby God perseveres in his own being is nothing but his essence, so that those speak best who call God ‘life.’ There are some theologians who hold the opinion that it is for this reason—that God is life and is not distinct from life—that the Jews when they swore an oath used to say “by the living Jehovah,” and not “by the life of Jehovah,” as Joseph, when swearing by Pharaoh’s life, said “by the life of Pharaoh.”8
[God is omniscient.] We previously listed among the attributes of God omniscience, which quite obviously pertains to God because knowledge implies perfection, and God, as a most perfect being, must not lack any perfection. Therefore knowledge must be attributed to God in the highest degree, that is, a knowledge that does not presume or posit any ignorance or privation of knowledge; for then there would be some imperfection in the attribute itself, that is, in God. From this it follows that God’s intellect has never been merely potential, nor does he reach a conclusion by reasoning.
[The objects of God’s knowledge are not things external to God.] Furthermore, from God’s perfection it also follows that his ideas are not defined, as ours are, by objects that are external to God. On the contrary, the things created by God external to God are determined by God’s intellect. (N.B.: From this it clearly follows that God’s intellect, by which he understands created things, and his will and power, by which he has determined them, are one and the same thing.) For otherwise these objects would have their own nature and essence through themselves and would be prior, at least by nature, to the divine intellect—which is absurd. And because some people have failed to take careful note of this, they have fallen into gross errors. Some have maintained that external to God there is matter, coeternal with him and existing of itself, and that God, understanding this matter, has, according to some, merely reduced it to order, and according to others, has in addition impressed forms on it. Others again have maintained that things of their own nature are either necessary or impossible or contingent, and so God knows the latter also as contingent and is quite ignorant as to whether they exist or not. Finally, others have said that God knows contingent things from their relation to other things, perhaps because of his long experience. Besides these errors I could here mention others of this kind, did I not consider it to be superfluous, because from what has already been said their falsity makes itself apparent.
[The object of God’s knowledge is God himself.] Let us therefore return to our theme, that outside God there is no object of his knowledge, but he is himself the object of his knowledge, or rather, he is his own knowledge. Those who think that the world is also the object of God’s knowledge are much less discerning than those who would maintain that a building constructed by some distinguished architect is the object of the architect’s knowledge. For the builder is forced to seek suitable material outside himself as well, whereas God has not sought any material outside himself. Things have been constructed by his intellect or will, both with regard to their essence and their existence.
[How God knows sin, entities of reason, etc.] The question now arises as to whether God knows evil or sin, entities of reason, and things of that kind. We reply that God must necessarily know those things of which he is the cause, especially so because they cannot exist even for a moment except with the divine concurrence. Therefore, because evil and sin have no being in things but only in the human mind when it compares things with one another, it follows that God does not know them as separate from human minds. Entities of reason we have said to be modes of thinking, and it is in this way that they must be understood by God, that is, insofar as we perceive him as preserving and continuing to create the human mind, in whatever way that is constituted. But we are not saying that God has such modes of thinking in himself in order that he may more easily retain what he understands. And if only proper attention is given to these few points we have made, no problem can arise concerning God’s intellect that cannot quite easily be solved.
[How God knows particular things, and how universals.] But meanwhile we must not pass over the error made by certain people who maintain that God knows nothing but eternal things such as angels and the heavens, which they suppose to be by their own nature not subject to generation and corruption, but that of this world he knows nothing but species, these being likewise not subject to generation and corruption. Such people do indeed seem set on going astray, contriving utter absurdities. For what can be more absurd than to cut off God’s knowledge from particular things, which cannot even for a moment be without God’s concurrence? Again, they are maintaining that God is ignorant of really existing things, while ascribing to God knowledge of universals, which have no being nor any essence apart from that of particular things. We, on the other hand, attribute to God knowledge of particular things and deny him knowledge of universals except insofar as he understands human minds.
[In God there is only one simple idea.] Finally, before bringing this discussion to a close, we ought to deal with the question as to whether there is in God more than one idea or only one most simple idea. To this I reply that God’s idea through which he is called omniscient is unique and completely simple. For in actual fact God is called omniscient for no other reason than that he has the idea of himself, an idea or knowledge that has always existed together with God. For it is nothing but his essence and could have had no other way of being.
[What is God’s knowledge concerning created things.] But God’s acquaintance with created things cannot be referred to God’s knowledge without some impropriety; for, if God had so willed, created things would have had a quite different essence, and this could have no place in the knowledge that God has of himself. Still, the question will arise as to whether that knowledge of created things, properly or improperly so termed, is manifold or only single. However, in reply, this question differs in no way from those that ask whether God’s decrees and volitions are several or not, and whether God’s omnipresence, or the concurrence whereby he preserves particular things, is the same in all things. Concerning these matters, we have already said that we can have no distinct knowledge. However, we know with certainty that, just as God’s concurrence, if it is referred to God’s omnipotence, must be no more than one although manifested in various ways in its effects, so too God’s volitions and decrees (for thus we may term his knowledge concerning created things) considered in God are not a plurality, even though they are expressed in various ways through created things, or rather, in created things. Finally, if we look to the whole of Nature by analogy, we can consider it as a single entity, and consequently the idea of God, or his decree concerning Natura naturata, will be only one.
[We do not know how God’s essence, his intellect by which he understands himself, and his will by which he loves himself, are distinguished.] God’s will, by which he wills to love himself, follows necessarily from his infinite intellect, by which he understands himself, but how these three are distinguished from one another—his essence, his intellect by which he understands himself, and his will by which he wills to love himself—this we fail to comprehend. We are acquainted with the word ‘personality’, which theologians commonly use to explain this matter. But although we know the word, we do not know its meaning, nor can we form any clear and distinct conception of it, although we firmly believe that in the most blessed vision of God, which is promised to the faithful, God will reveal this to his own.
[God’s will and power, as externally manifested, are not distinguished from his intellect.] Will and power, as externally manifested, are not distinguished from God’s intellect, as is now well established from what has preceded. For we have shown that God has decreed not only that things should exist, but also that they should exist with a certain nature; that is to say, both their essence and existence must have depended on God’s will and power. From this we clearly and distinctly perceive that God’s intellect and his power and will, whereby he has created, understood, and preserves or loves created things, are in no way distinct from one another save only in respect of our thought.
[It is improper to say that God hates some things and loves other things.] Now when we say that God hates some things and loves other things, this is said in the same sense as when Scripture tells us that the earth will vomit forth men, and other things of that kind. But from Scripture itself it can be sufficiently inferred that God is not angry with anyone, and that he does not love things in the way that is commonly believed. For this is in Isaiah, and more clearly in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 9: “For the children being not yet born (that is, the sons of Isaac), neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger, etc.”10 And a little farther on, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt then say unto me, ‘Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?’ Nay but, O man, who art thou that replieth against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him who formed it, ‘Why has thou made me thus?’ Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? etc.”11
[Why God admonishes men, why he does not save without admonition, and why the impious are punished.] If you now ask why, then, does God admonish men, to this there is a ready answer: The reason why God has decreed from eternity that he would warn men at a particular time is this, that those whom he has willed to be saved might turn from their ways. If you go on to ask whether God could not have saved them without that warning, we reply that he could have done so. “Why then does he not so save them?” you will perhaps again ask. To this I shall reply when you have told me why God did not make the Red Sea passable without a strong east wind, and why he does not bring about all particular motions without other motions, and innumerable other things that God does through mediating causes. You will again ask, why then are the impious punished, since they act by their own nature and in accordance with the divine decree. But I reply, it is also as a result of the divine decree that they are punished. And if only those ought to be punished whom we suppose to be sinning from free will alone, why do men try to destroy poisonous snakes? For they sin only from their own nature, and can do no other.
[Scripture teaches nothing that is opposed to the natural light.] Finally, whatever other passages there are in Holy Scripture that cause uneasiness, this is not the place to explain them. For here the object of our enquiry is confined to what can be attained most certainly by natural reason, and to demonstrate these things clearly is sufficient to convince us that the Holy Book must be teaching the same. For truth is not opposed to truth, nor can Scripture be teaching the nonsense that is commonly supposed. If we were to find in it anything contrary to the natural light, we could refute it with the same freedom with which we refute the Koran and the Talmud. But far be it from us to think that something can be found in Holy Scripture opposed to the light of Nature.
[How God’s omnipotence should be understood.] That God is omnipotent has already been sufficiently demonstrated. Here we shall attempt only to explain in brief how this attribute is to be understood; for many speak of it without proper piety and not according to truth. They say that, by their own nature and not from God’s decree, some things are possible, some things impossible, and some things necessary, and that God’s omnipotence is concerned only with the possible. We, however, who have already shown that all things depend absolutely on God’s decree, say that God is omnipotent. But having understood that he has decreed some things from the mere freedom of his will, and then that he is immutable, we say now that he cannot act against his own decrees, and that this is impossible simply because it is at variance with God’s perfection.
[All things are necessary with respect to God’s decree. It is wrong to say that some things are necessary in themselves, and other things with respect to his decree.] But perhaps someone will argue that some things we find necessary only while having regard for God’s decree, while on the other hand some things we find necessary without regard for God’s decree. Take, for example, that Josiah burned the bones of the idolaters on the altar of Jeroboam.12 If we attend only to Josiah’s will, we shall regard the event as a possible one, and in no way having necessarily to happen except from the prophet’s having predicted it from God’s decree. But that the three angles of a triangle must be equal to two right angles is something that manifests itself.
But surely these people are inventing distinctions in things from their own ignorance. For if men clearly understood the whole order of Nature, they would find all things to be equally as necessary as are the things treated in mathematics. But because this is beyond the reach of human knowledge, certain things are judged by us as possible and not as necessary. Therefore we must say either that God is powerless—because all things are in actual fact necessary—or that God is all-powerful, and that the necessity we find in things has resulted solely from God’s decree.
[If God had made the nature of things other than it is, he would also have had to give us a different intellect.] Suppose the question is now raised: What if God had decreed things otherwise and had rendered false those things that are now true? Would we still not accept them as quite true? I answer, yes indeed, if God had left us with the nature that he has given us. But he might then, had he so wished, have also given us a nature—as is now the case—such as to enable us to understand Nature and its laws, as they would have been laid down by God. Indeed, if we have regard to his faithfulness, he would have had to do so. This is also evident from the fact, as we have previously stated, that the whole of Natura naturata is nothing but a unique entity, from which it follows that man is a part of Nature that must cohere with the rest. Therefore from the simplicity of God’s decree it would also follow that if God had created things in a different way, he would likewise have also so constituted our nature that we could understand things as they had been created by God. So although we want to retain the same distinction in God’s power as is commonly adopted by philosophers, we are nevertheless constrained to expound it in a different way.
[The divisions of God’s power—absolute, ordered, ordinary, and extraordinary.] We therefore divide God’s power into Ordered and Absolute. We speak of God’s absolute power when we consider his omnipotence without regard to his decrees. We speak of his ordered power when we have regard to his decrees.
Then there is a further division into the Ordinary and Extraordinary power of God. His ordinary power is that by which he preserves the world in a fixed order. We mean his extraordinary power when he acts beyond Nature’s orders—for example, all miracles, such as the ass speaking, the appearance of angels, and the like.13 Yet concerning this latter power we may not unreasonably entertain serious doubts, because for God to govern the world with one and the same fixed and immutable order seems a greater miracle than if, because of the folly of mankind, he were to abrogate laws that he himself has sanctioned in Nature in the best way and from pure freedom—as nobody can deny unless he is quite blinded. But we shall leave this for the theologians to decide.
Finally, we pass over other questions commonly raised concerning God’s power: Does God’s power extend to the past? Can he improve on the things that he does? Can he do many other things than he has done? Answers to these questions can readily be supplied from what has already been said.
That God is the creator of all things we have already established; here we shall now try to explain what is to be understood by creation. Then we shall provide solutions as best we can to those questions that are commonly raised regarding creation. Let us then begin with the first subject.
[What creation is.] We say that creation is an operation in which no causes concur beyond the efficient cause; or that a created thing is that which presupposes nothing except God for its existence.
[The common definition of creation is rejected.] Here we should note that: 1. We omit the words ‘from nothing’, which are commonly used by philosophers as if ‘nothing’ were the matter from which things were produced. This usage of theirs arises from the fact that, being accustomed in the case of generated things to suppose something prior to them from which they are made, in the case of creation they were unable to omit the preposition ‘from’. The same confusion has befallen them in the case of matter. Seeing that all bodies are in a place and surrounded by other bodies, when they asked themselves where matter as a whole might be, they replied, “In some imaginary space.” So there is no doubt that they have not considered ‘nothing’ as the negation of all reality but have imagined or pictured it as something real.
[Our own definition is explained.] 2. I say that in creation no other causes concur beyond the efficient cause. I might indeed have said that creation denies or excludes all causes beyond the efficient cause. However, I have preferred to say ‘concur’ so as to avoid having to reply to those who ask whether God in creation did not set before himself an end on account of which he created things. Furthermore, for better explanation, I have added this second definition, that a created thing presupposes nothing but God; because if God did set before himself some end, then obviously that end was not external to God. For there is nothing external to God by which he may be urged to act.
[Accidents and Modes are not created.] 3. From this definition it clearly follows that there is no creation of accidents and modes. For these presuppose a created substance besides God.
[There was no time or duration before creation.] 4. Finally, neither time nor duration can be imagined before creation; these began along with things. For time is the measure of duration; or rather, it is nothing but a mode of thinking. Therefore it presupposes not just some created thing, but, in particular, thinking men. As for duration, it ceases when created things cease to be and begins when created things begin to exist—created things, I say, because we have already shown beyond doubt that to God there pertains not duration but eternity. Therefore duration presupposes, or at least posits, created things. Those who imagine duration and time prior to created things labor under the same misconception as those who suppose a space outside matter, as is self-evident. So much for the definition of creation.
[God’s action is the same in creating the world and in preserving it.] Again, there is no need for us to repeat here what we have demonstrated in Axiom 10 Part 1, namely, that the same amount of force is required for the creation of a thing as for its preservation; that is, God’s action in creating the world is the same as in its preservation.
Having noted these points, let us proceed to what we promised in the second place. First, we must ask what is created and what is uncreated; and second, whether what is created could have been created from eternity.
[What created things are.] To the first question we reply, in brief, that the created is every thing whose essence is clearly conceived without any existence, and which is nevertheless conceived through itself: for example, matter, of which we have a clear and distinct conception when we conceive it under the attribute of extension, and which we conceive just as clearly and distinctly whether it exists or not.
[How God’s thought differs from ours.] But perhaps someone will say that we perceive thought clearly and distinctly without existence, and that we nevertheless attribute it to God. To this we reply that we do not attribute to God such thought as is ours, subject to being acted on and confined by the nature of things, but such as is pure activity and thus involving existence, as we have already demonstrated at sufficient length. For we showed that God’s intellect and will are not distinct from his power and his essence, which involves existence.
[There is not something external to God and coeternal with him.] So because every thing whose essence does not involve existence must, in order to exist, necessarily be created by God and be continuously preserved by the creator as we have already abundantly explained, we shall spend no time in refuting the opinion of those who have maintained that the world, or chaos, or matter stripped of all form, is coeternal with God and thus independent of him. Therefore we must pass on to the second question and enquire whether what has been created could have been created from eternity.
[What is here denoted by the phrase ‘from eternity’.] For this to be rightly understood, we must examine this phrase ‘from eternity’, for by this we here mean something entirely different from that which we explained previously when we spoke of God’s eternity. Here we mean nothing other than duration without any beginning, or such duration as, even if we were to multiply it by many years or tens of thousands of years, and this product again by tens of thousands, we could still never express by any number, however great.
[Proof that there could not have been something created from eternity.] But that there can be no such duration is clearly demonstrated. For if the world were to go backward again from this point of time, it could never have such a duration; therefore neither could the world have reached this point of time from such a beginning. You will perhaps say that for God nothing is impossible; for he is omnipotent, and so can bring about a duration other than which there could be no greater. We reply that God, being omnipotent, will never create a duration other than which a greater cannot be created by him. For the nature of duration is such that a greater or lesser than a given duration can always be conceived, as is the case with number. You will perhaps insist that God has been from eternity and so has endured until the present, and thus there is a duration other than which a greater cannot be conceived. But in this way there is attributed to God a duration consisting of parts, which we have abundantly refuted when we demonstrated that there pertains to God not duration, but eternity. Would that men had thoroughly considered this truth, for then they might very easily have extricated themselves from many arguments and absurdities, and have given themselves up with the greatest delight to the blessed contemplation of this being.
But let us proceed to answer the arguments put forward by certain people, whereby they try to show the possibility of such an infinite duration stretching from the past.
[From the fact that God is eternal, it does not follow that his effects can also be from eternity.] First, then, they assert that the thing produced can be contemporaneous with its cause; but because God has been from eternity then his effects could also have been produced from eternity. And then they further confirm this by the example of the son of God, who was produced by the father from eternity. But from what has already been said, one can clearly see that they are confusing duration with eternity, and they are attributing to God merely a duration from eternity, as is also clear from the example they cite. For they hold that the same eternity that they ascribe to the son of God is possible for creatures. Again, they imagine time and duration as prior to the foundation of the world, and they seek to establish a duration without created things, just as others seek to establish an eternity outside God. Both these assertions are already shown to be quite remote from the truth. Therefore we reply that it is quite false that God can communicate his eternity to his creatures, nor is the son of God a creature, but he is, like his father, eternal. So when we say that the father has begotten the son from eternity, we mean simply this, that the father has always communicated his eternity to the son.
[If God acted necessarily, he would not be of infinite potency.] Secondly, they argue that, when God acts freely, he is no less powerful than when he acts necessarily; but if God acts necessarily, being of infinite potency he must have created the world from eternity. But this argument, too, can be readily met if we examine its basis. These good people suppose that they can entertain quite different ideas of a being of infinite potency. For they conceive God as of infinite potency both when he acts from the necessity of nature and when he acts freely. We, however, deny that God would be of infinite potency if he were to act from the necessity of nature; and this we may well deny—and indeed they have also necessarily to concede it—now that we have demonstrated that the most perfect being acts freely and can be conceived only as unique. Now if they retort that, even if it is impossible it can nevertheless be posited that God, in acting from the necessity of nature, is of infinite potency, we reply that it is no more permissible to suppose this than to suppose a square circle so as to conclude that all the lines from the center to the circumference are not equal. Not to repeat what we said at an earlier stage, this is well established from what we have just said. For we have just demonstrated that there can be no duration whose double, or whose greater or lesser, cannot be conceived, and therefore a greater or lesser than a given duration can always be created by God, who acts freely with infinite potency. But if God were to act from the necessity of nature, this would in no way follow, for only that duration, which resulted from his nature, could be produced by him, not an infinite number of other durations greater than the given.
Therefore we thus argue in brief; if God were to create the greatest duration, one so great that he could not create one greater, he would necessarily be diminishing his own power. But this latter statement is false, for his power does not differ from his essence; therefore, etc. Again, if God were to act from the necessity of nature, he would have to create a duration such that he himself cannot create a greater. But God, in creating such a duration, is not of infinite potency, for we can always conceive a duration greater than the given. Therefore if God acted from the necessity of nature, he would not be of infinite potency.
[Whence we have the concept of a duration greater than that which belongs to this world.] At this point someone may find some difficulty in seeing how, since the world was created five thousand years ago (or more, if the calculations of chronologers are correct), we can nevertheless conceive a greater duration, which we have asserted is not intelligible without created things. This difficulty will be easily removed if he takes note that we understand that duration not simply from the contemplation of created things but from the contemplation of the infinite power of God for creation. For creatures cannot be conceived as existing and having duration through themselves, but only through the infinite power of God, from which alone they have all their duration. See Prop. 12 Part 1 and its Corollary.
Finally, to waste no time here in answering trivial arguments, these points only are to be noted: the distinction between duration and eternity, and that duration is in no way intelligible without created things, nor eternity without God. When these points have been properly perceived, all arguments can very readily be answered; so we think it unnecessary to spend any more time on these matters.
Little or nothing remains to be said about this attribute, now that we have shown that God continuously creates a thing as if anew at every moment. From this we have demonstrated that things never have any power from themselves to affect anything or to determine themselves to any action, and that this is the case not only with things outside man but also with the human will. Again, we have also replied to certain arguments concerning this matter; and although many other arguments are frequently produced, I here intend to ignore them, as they principally belong to theology.
However, there are many who, accepting God’s concurrence, interpret it in a sense quite at variance with what we have expounded. To expose their fallacy in the simplest way, it should here be noted, as has previously been demonstrated, that present time has no connection with future time (see Ax. 10 Part 1), and that this is clearly and distinctly perceived by us. If only proper attention is paid to this, all their arguments, which may be drawn from philosophy, can be answered without any difficulty.
[How God’s preservation is related to his determining things to act.] Still, so as not to have touched on this problem without profit, we shall in passing reply to the question as to whether something is added to God’s preservation when he determines a thing to act. Now when we spoke about motion, we already hinted at the answer to this question. For we said that God preserves the same quantity of motion in Nature; therefore if we consider the nature of matter in its entirety, nothing new is added to it. But with respect to particular things, in a sense it can be said that something new is added to it. Whether this is also the case with spiritual things is unclear, for it is not obvious that they have such mutual interdependence. Finally, because the parts of duration have no interconnection, we can say that God does not so much preserve things as continue to create them. Therefore, if a man has now a determinate freedom to perform an action, it must be said that God has created him thus at that particular time. Nor can it be objected that the human will is often determined by things external to itself, and that all things in Nature are in turn determined to action by one another; for they are also thus determined by God. No thing can determine the will, nor again can the will be determined, except by the power of God alone. But how this is compatible with human freedom, or how God can bring this about while preserving human freedom, we confess we do not know, as we have already remarked on many occasions.
[The common division of God’s attributes is nominal rather than real.] This, then, I was resolved to say about the attributes of God, having as yet made no division of them. The division generally given by writers, whereby they divide God’s attributes into the incommunicable and the communicable, to speak the truth, seems a nominal rather than a real division. For God’s knowledge is no more like human knowledge than the Dog, the constellation in the sky, is like the dog, the barking animal, and perhaps even less so.
[The Author’s own division.] Our division, however, is as follows. There are some of God’s attributes that explicate his essence in action, whereas others, unconcerned with action, set forth the manner of his existing. Of the latter kind are unity, eternity, necessity, etc.: of the former kind are understanding, will, life, omnipotence, etc. This division is quite clear and straightforward and includes all God’s attributes.
We must now pass on to created substance, which we have divided into extended and thinking substance. By extended substance we understood matter or corporeal substance; by thinking substance we understood only human minds.
[Angels are a subject for theology, not metaphysics.] Although Angels have also been created, yet, because they are not known by the natural light, they are not the concern of metaphysics. For their essence and existence are known only through revelation, and so pertain solely to theology; and because theological knowledge is completely other than, or entirely different in kind from, natural knowledge, it should in no way be confused with it. So let nobody expect us to say anything about angels.
[The human mind does not derive from something else, but is created by God. Yet we do not know when it is created.] Let us then return to human minds, concerning which few things now remain to be said. Only I must remind you that we have said nothing about the time of the creation of the human mind because it is not sufficiently established at what time God creates it, because it can exist without body. This much is clear, that it does not derive from something else, for this applies only to things that are generated, namely, the modes of some substance. Substance itself cannot be generated, but can be created only by the Omnipotent, as we have sufficiently demonstrated in what has gone before.
[In what sense the human soul is mortal.] But to add something about its immortality, it is quite evident that we cannot say of any created thing that its nature implies that it cannot be destroyed by God’s power; for he who has the power to create a thing has also the power to destroy it. Furthermore, as we have sufficiently demonstrated, no created thing can exist even for a moment by its own nature, but is continuously created by God.
[In what sense the human soul is immortal.] Yet, although the matter stands so, we clearly and distinctly see that we have no idea by which we may conceive that substance is destroyed, in the way that we do have ideas of the corruption and generation of modes. For when we contemplate the structure of the human body, we clearly conceive that such a structure can be destroyed; but when we contemplate corporeal substance, we do not equally conceive that it can be reduced to nothing.
Finally, a philosopher does not ask what God can do from the full extent of his power; he judges the nature of things from those laws that God has imparted to them. So he judges to be fixed and sure what is inferred from those laws to be fixed and sure, while not denying that God can change those laws and all other things. Therefore we too do not enquire, when speaking of the soul, what God can do, but only what follows from the laws of Nature.
[Its immortality is demonstrated.] Now because it clearly follows from these laws that substance can be destroyed neither through itself nor through some other created substance—as we have abundantly demonstrated over and over again, unless I am mistaken—we are constrained to maintain from the laws of Nature that the mind is immortal. And if we look into the matter even more closely, we can demonstrate with the greatest certainty that it is immortal. For, as we have just demonstrated, the immortality of the soul clearly follows from the laws of Nature. Now those laws of Nature are God’s decrees revealed by the natural light, as is also clearly established from the preceding. Then again, we have also demonstrated that God’s decrees are immutable. From all this we clearly conclude that God has made known to men his immutable will concerning the duration of souls not only by revelation but also by the natural light.
[God acts not against Nature but above Nature. How the Author interprets this.] Nor does it matter if someone objects that God sometimes destroys those natural laws in order to perform miracles. For most of the wiser theologians concede that God never acts contrary to Nature, but above Nature. That is, as I understand it, God has also many laws of operating that he has not communicated to the human intellect; and if they had been communicated to the human intellect, they would be as natural as the rest.
Hence it is quite clearly established that minds are immortal, nor do I see what remains to be said at this point about the human soul in general. Nor yet would anything remain to be said about its specific functioning, if the arguments of certain writers, trying to make out that they do not see and sense what in fact they do see and sense, did not call upon me to reply to them.
[Why some think the will is not free.] Some think they can show that the will is not free but is always determined by something else. And this they think because they understand by will something distinct from soul, something they look on as a substance whose nature consists solely in being indifferent. To remove all confusion, we shall first explicate the matter, and when this is done we shall easily expose the fallacies in their arguments.
[What the will is.] We have said that the human mind is a thinking thing. From this it follows that, merely from its own nature and considered only in itself, it can do something, to wit, think, that is, affirm and deny. Now these thoughts are either determined by things external to the mind or by the mind alone, because it is itself a substance from whose thinking essence many acts of thought can and must follow. Those acts of thought that acknowledge no other cause of themselves than the human mind are called volitions. The human mind, insofar as it is conceived as a sufficient cause for producing such acts, is called the will.
[There is will.] That the soul possesses such a power, although not determined by any external things, can most conveniently be explicated by the example of Buridan’s ass. For if we suppose that a man instead of an ass is placed in such a state of equilibrium, he would have to be considered a most shameful ass, and not a thinking thing, if he were to perish of hunger and thirst. Again, the same conclusion is evident from the fact that, as we previously said, we even willed to doubt all things, and not merely to regard as doubtful but to reject as false those things that can be called into doubt. See Descartes’s Princip. Part 1 Art. 39.
[The will is free.] It should further be noted that although the soul is determined by external things to affirm or deny something, it is nevertheless not so determined as if it were constrained by the external things, but always remains free. For no thing has the power to destroy its essence, and therefore what it affirms or denies, it always affirms or denies freely, as is well explained in the “Fourth Meditation.” So if anyone asks why the soul wills or does not will this or that, we reply that it is because the soul is a thinking thing, that is, a thing that of its own nature has the power to will and not will, to affirm and deny. For that is what it is to be a thinking thing.
[The will should not be confused with appetite.] Now that these matters have been thus explained, let us look at our opponents’ arguments.
1. The first argument is as follows. “If the will can will what is contrary to the final pronouncement of the intellect, if it can want what is contrary to its good as prescribed by the final pronouncement of the intellect, then it will be able to want what is bad for it as such. But this latter is absurd; therefore so is the former.” From this argument one can clearly see that they do not understand what the will is. For they are confusing it with the appetite that the soul has when it has affirmed or denied something; and this they have learned from their Master, who defined the will as appetite for what is presented as good.14 But we say that the will is the affirming that such-and-such is good, or the contrary, as we have already abundantly explained in our previous discussion concerning the cause of error, which we have shown to arise from the fact that the will extends more widely than the intellect. Now if the mind had not affirmed from its very freedom that such-and-such is good, it would not want anything. Therefore we reply to the argument by granting that the mind cannot will anything contrary to the final pronouncement of the intellect; that is, the mind cannot will anything insofar as it is supposed not to will it—for that is what is here supposed when the mind is said to have judged something to be bad for it, that is, not to have willed it. But we deny that it absolutely cannot have willed that which is bad for it, that is, cannot have judged it to be good; for that would be contrary to experience. We judge many things that are bad to be good, and on the other hand many things that are good to be bad.
[The will is nothing other than the mind.] 2. The second argument—or, if you prefer, the first, for so far there has been none—is as follows: “If the will is not determined to will by the final judgment of the practical intellect, it therefore will determine itself. But the will does not determine itself, because of itself and by its own nature it is undetermined.” From this they go on to argue as follows: “If the will is of itself and by its own nature uncommitted to willing and not willing, it cannot be determined by itself to will. For that which determines must be as much determined as that which it determines is undetermined. But the will considered as determining itself is as much undetermined as is the same will considered as that which is to be determined. For our opponents suppose nothing in the determining will that is not likewise in the will that is either to be determined or that has been determined; nor indeed is it possible for anything to be here supposed. Therefore the will cannot be determined by itself to will. And if it cannot be determined by itself, it must be determined by something else.”
These are the very words of Heereboord, Professor of Leiden, by which he clearly shows that by will he understands not the mind itself but something else outside the mind or in the mind, like a blank tablet, lacking any thought and capable of receiving any picture, or rather like a balance in a state of equilibrium, which can be pushed in either direction by any weight whatsoever, according to the determination of the additional weight. Or, finally, like something that neither he nor any other mortal can possibly grasp. Now we have just said—indeed, we clearly showed—that the will is nothing but the mind itself, which we call a thinking thing, that is, an affirming and denying thing. And so, when we look only to the nature of mind, we clearly infer that it has an equal power to affirm and to deny; for that, I say, is what it is to think. If therefore, from the fact that the mind thinks, we infer that it has the power to affirm and deny, why do we seek extraneous causes for the doing of that which follows solely from the nature of the thing?
But, you will say, the mind is not more determined to affirm than to deny, and so you will conclude that we must necessarily seek a cause by which it is determined. Against this, I argue that if the mind of itself and by its own nature were determined only to affirm (although it is impossible to conceive this as long as we conceive it to be a thinking thing), then of its own nature alone it could only affirm and never deny, however many causes may concur. But if it be determined neither to affirm nor deny, it will be able to do neither. And finally, if it has the power to do either, as we have just shown it to have, it will be able to do either from its own nature alone, unassisted by any other cause. This will be obvious to all those who consider a thinking thing as a thinking thing, that is, who do not separate the attribute of thought from the thinking thing. This is just what our opponents do, stripping the thinking thing of all thought and making it out to be like the prime matter of the Peripatetics.
Therefore I reply to their argument as follows, addressing their major premise. If by the will they mean a thing deprived of all thought, we grant that the will is from its own nature undetermined. But we deny that the will is something deprived of all thought; on the contrary, we maintain that it is thought, that is, the power both to affirm and to deny; and surely this can mean nothing else than the sufficient cause for both operations. Furthermore, we also deny that if the will were undetermined (i.e., deprived of all thought), it could be determined by any extraneous cause other than God, through his infinite power of creation. For to seek to conceive a thinking thing that is without any thought is the same as to seek to conceive an extended thing that is without extension.
[Why philosophers have confused mind with corporeal things.] Finally, to avoid having to review more arguments here, I merely point out that our opponents, in failing to understand the will and in having no clear and distinct conception of mind, have confused mind with corporeal things. This has arisen for this reason, that the words that they are accustomed to use in referring to corporeal things they have used to denote spiritual things, which they did not understand. For they have been accustomed to apply the word ‘undetermined’ to those bodies that are in equilibrium because they are impelled in opposite directions by equivalent and directly opposed external causes. So when they call the will undetermined, they appear to conceive it also as a body in a state of equilibrium. And because those bodies have nothing but what they have received from external causes (from which it follows that they must always be determined by an external cause), they think that the same thing follows in the case of the will. But we have already sufficiently explained how the matter stands, and so we here make an end.
With regard to extended substance, too, we have already said enough, and besides these two substances we acknowledge no others. As for real accidents and other qualities, they have been disposed of, and there is no need to spend time refuting them. So here we lay down our pen.
The End
1 [In this section God’s existence is explained in a way quite different from that in which men commonly understand it; for they confuse God’s existence with their own, with the result that they imagine God to be something like a man, and they fail to note the true idea of God that they possess, or are quite unconscious of possessing it. And so it comes about that they can neither prove nor conceive God’s existence either a priori (i.e., from his true definition or essence) or a posteriori, from the idea of him insofar as it is in us. Therefore in this section we shall try to show as clearly as we can that God’s existence is completely different from the existence of created things.—P.B.]
2 [We are dividing his existence into parts, or conceiving it as divisible, when we attempt to explicate it through duration. See Part 1, 4.—P.B.]
3 [Even though this proof is quite convincing, nevertheless it does not explain God’s unity. I therefore suggest to the reader that we conclude the unity of God more correctly from the nature of his existence, which is not distinguished from God’s essence, or which necessarily follows from his essence.—P.B.]
4 [Here it should be noted that when ordinary folk say that God is over all, they are depicting him as the spectator of a play. From this it is evident, as we say at the end of this chapter, that men are constantly confusing the divine nature with human nature.—P.B.]
5 [Note that this can be much more clearly seen if we attend to the nature of God’s will and his decrees. For, as I shall show in due course, God’s will, through which he has created things, is not distinct from his intellect, through which he understands them. So to say that God understands that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles is the same as to say that God has willed or decreed that the three angles of a triangle should be equal to two right angles. Therefore, for us to conceive that God can change his decrees is just as impossible as to think that the three angles of a triangle are not equal to two right angles. Furthermore, the fact that there can be no change in God can also be proved in other ways; but, because we aim at brevity, we prefer not to pursue this further.—P.B.]
6 [The reference may be to De respiratione 474a25, but see also De anima 415a23–25.]
7 [This is probably a reference to Metaphysics XII, vii (1072b27–29).]
8 [The reference is to Genesis 42:15–16.]
9 [From what is demonstrated in the next three chapters in which we treat of God’s intellect, his will and his power, it follows quite clearly that the essences of things and the necessity of their existing from a given cause is nothing other than God’s determinate will or decree. Therefore God’s will is most apparent to us when we conceive things clearly and distinctly. So it is ridiculous that philosophers, when they are ignorant of the causes of things, take refuge in the will of God. We constantly see this happening when they say that the things whose causes are unknown to them have come about only from God’s good pleasure and absolute decree. The common people, too, have found no stronger proof of God’s providence and guidance than that which they draw from their ignorance of causes. This clearly shows that they have no knowledge whatever of the nature of God’s will, attributing to him a human will that is truly quite distinct from our intellect. This I consider to have been the basic cause of superstition, and perhaps of much roguery.—P.B.]
10 [Romans 9:11–12.]
11 [Romans 9:18–21.]
12 [1 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 23:16, 20.]
13 [Numbers 22:28–31.]
14 [Their “Master” is, of course, Aristotle: see Rhetoric 1369a1–4; De Anima 433a21–433b5.]