PART I. CONCERNING GOD.

Produced by Tom Sharpe. HTML version by Al Haines.

The Ethics

(Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata)

by

Benedict de Spinoza

Translated from the Latin by R. H. M. Elwes

PART I. CONCERNING GOD.

DEFINITIONS.

I. By that which is self--caused, I mean that of which the

essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only

conceivable as existent.

II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be

limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a

body is called finite because we always conceive another greater

body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a

body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is

conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a

conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as

constituting the essence of substance.

V. By mode, I mean the modifications[1] of substance, or that

which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than

itself.

[1] "Affectiones"

VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a

substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each

expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

Explanation--I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its

kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite

attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite,

contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves

no negation.

VII. That thing is called free, which exists solely by the

necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is

determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is

necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by

something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of

existence or action.

VIII. By eternity, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is

conceived necessarily to follow solely from the definition of

that which is eternal.

Explanation--Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal

truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be

explained by means of continuance or time, though continuance may

be conceived without a beginning or end.

AXIOMS.

I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in

something else.

II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be

conceived through itself.

III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows;

and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is

impossible that an effect can follow.

IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the

knowledge of a cause.

V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the

one by means of the other; the conception of one does not

involve the conception of the other.

VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.

VII. If a thing can be conceived as non--existing, its essence

does not involve existence.

PROPOSITIONS.

PROP. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications.

Proof.--This is clear from Deff. iii. and v.

PROP. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have

nothing in common.

Proof.--Also evident from Def. iii. For each must exist in

itself, and be conceived through itself; in other words, the

conception of one does not imply the conception of the other.

PROP. III. Things which have nothing in common cannot be one the

cause of the other.

Proof.--If they have nothing in common, it follows that one

cannot be apprehended by means of the other (Ax. v.), and,

therefore, one cannot be the cause of the other (Ax. iv.).

Q.E.D.

PROP. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from

the other, either by the difference of the attributes of the

substances, or by the difference of their modifications.

Proof.--Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in

something else (Ax. i.),--that is (by Deff. iii. and v.), nothing

is granted in addition to the understanding, except substance and

its modifications. Nothing is, therefore, given besides the

understanding, by which several things may be distinguished one

from the other, except the substances, or, in other words (see

Ax. iv.), their attributes and modifications. Q.E.D.

PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more

substances having the same nature or attribute.

Proof.--If several distinct substances be granted, they must

be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of

their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications

(Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of their attributes, it

will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an

identical attribute. If by the difference of their

modifications--as substance is naturally prior to its

modifications (Prop. i.),--it follows that setting the

modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is

truly, (Deff. iii. and vi.), there cannot be conceived one

substance different from another,--that is (by Prop. iv.), there

cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only.

Q.E.D.

PROP. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proof.--It is impossible that there should be in the universe

two substances with an identical attribute, i.e. which have

anything common to them both (Prop. ii.), and, therefore (Prop.

iii.), one cannot be the cause of the other, neither can one be

produced by the other. Q.E.D.

Corollary.--Hence it follows that a substance cannot be

produced by anything external to itself. For in the universe

nothing is granted, save substances and their modifications (as

appears from Ax. i. and Deff. iii. and v.). Now (by the last

Prop.) substance cannot be produced by another substance,

therefore it cannot be produced by anything external to itself.

Q.E.D. This is shown still more readily by the absurdity of the

contradictory. For, if substance be produced by an external

cause, the knowledge of it would depend on the knowledge of its

cause (Ax. iv.), and (by Def. iii.) it would itself not be

substance.

PROP. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substances.

Proof.--Substance cannot be produced by anything external

(Corollary, Prop vi.), it must, therefore, be its own cause--that

is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence

belongs to its nature.

PROP. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proof.--There can only be one substance with an identical

attribute, and existence follows from its nature (Prop. vii.);

its nature, therefore, involves existence, either as finite or

infinite. It does not exist as finite, for (by Def. ii.) it

would then be limited by something else of the same kind, which

would also necessarily exist (Prop. vii.); and there would be

two substances with an identical attribute, which is absurd

(Prop. v.). It therefore exists as infinite. Q.E.D.

Note I.--As finite existence involves a partial negation, and

infinite existence is the absolute affirmation of the given

nature, it follows (solely from Prop. vii.) that every substance

is necessarily infinite.

Note II.--No doubt it will be difficult for those who think

about things loosely, and have not been accustomed to know them

by their primary causes, to comprehend the demonstration of Prop.

vii.: for such persons make no distinction between the

modifications of substances and the substances themselves, and

are ignorant of the manner in which things are produced; hence

they may attribute to substances the beginning which they observe

in natural objects. Those who are ignorant of true causes, make

complete confusion--think that trees might talk just as well as

men--that men might be formed from stones as well as from seed;

and imagine that any form might be changed into any other. So,

also, those who confuse the two natures, divine and human,

readily attribute human passions to the deity, especially so long

as they do not know how passions originate in the mind. But, if

people would consider the nature of substance, they would have no

doubt about the truth of Prop. vii. In fact, this proposition

would be a universal axiom, and accounted a truism. For, by

substance, would be understood that which is in itself, and is

conceived through itself--that is, something of which the

conception requires not the conception of anything else; whereas

modifications exist in something external to themselves, and a

conception of them is formed by means of a conception of the

thing in which they exist. Therefore, we may have true ideas of

non--existent modifications; for, although they may have no

actual existence apart from the conceiving intellect, yet their

essence is so involved in something external to themselves that

they may through it be conceived. Whereas the only truth

substances can have, external to the intellect, must consist in

their existence, because they are conceived through themselves.

Therefore, for a person to say that he has a clear and

distinct--that is, a true--idea of a substance, but that he is not

sure whether such substance exists, would be the same as if he

said that he had a true idea, but was not sure whether or no it

was false (a little consideration will make this plain); or if

anyone affirmed that substance is created, it would be the same

as saying that a false idea was true--in short, the height of

absurdity. It must, then, necessarily be admitted that the

existence of substance as its essence is an eternal truth. And

we can hence conclude by another process of reasoning--that there

is but one such substance. I think that this may profitably be

done at once; and, in order to proceed regularly with the

demonstration, we must premise:----

1. The true definition of a thing neither involves nor

expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From

this it follows that----

2. No definition implies or expresses a certain number of

individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature

of the thing defined. For instance, the definition of a triangle

expresses nothing beyond the actual nature of a triangle: it

does not imply any fixed number of triangles.

3. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a

cause why it should exist.

4. This cause of existence must either be contained in the

nature and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated

apart from such definition.

It therefore follows that, if a given number of individual

things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the

existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. For

example, if twenty men exist in the universe (for simplicity's

sake, I will suppose them existing simultaneously, and to have

had no predecessors), and we want to account for the existence of

these twenty men, it will not be enough to show the cause of

human existence in general; we must also show why there are

exactly twenty men, neither more nor less: for a cause must be

assigned for the existence of each individual. Now this cause

cannot be contained in the actual nature of man, for the true

definition of man does not involve any consideration of the

number twenty. Consequently, the cause for the existence of

these twenty men, and, consequently, of each of them, must

necessarily be sought externally to each individual. Hence we may

lay down the absolute rule, that everything which may consist of

several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has

been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of

substance, existence must necessarily be included in its

definition; and from its definition alone existence must be

deducible. But from its definition (as we have shown, notes ii.,

iii.), we cannot infer the existence of several substances;

therefore it follows that there is only one substance of the same

nature. Q.E.D.

PROP. IX. The more reality or being a thing has, the greater the

number of its attributes (Def. iv.).

PROP. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must be

conceived through itself.

Proof.--An attribute is that which the intellect perceives of

substance, as constituting its essence (Def. iv.), and,

therefore, must be conceived through itself (Def. iii.). Q.E.D.

Note--It is thus evident that, though two attributes are, in

fact, conceived as distinct--that is, one without the help of the

other--yet we cannot, therefore, conclude that they constitute two

entities, or two different substances. For it is the nature of

substance that each of its attributes is conceived through

itself, inasmuch as all the attributes it has have always existed

simultaneously in it, and none could be produced by any other;

but each expresses the reality or being of substance. It is,

then, far from an absurdity to ascribe several attributes to one

substance: for nothing in nature is more clear than that each

and every entity must be conceived under some attribute, and that

its reality or being is in proportion to the number of its

attributes expressing necessity or eternity and infinity.

Consequently it is abundantly clear, that an absolutely infinite

being must necessarily be defined as consisting in infinite

attributes, each of which expresses a certain eternal and

infinite essence.

If anyone now ask, by what sign shall he be able to

distinguish different substances, let him read the following

propositions, which show that there is but one substance in the

universe, and that it is absolutely infinite, wherefore such a

sign would be sought in vain.

PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes,

of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,

necessarily exists.

Proof.--If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God

does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence.

But this (Prop. vii.) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily

exists.

Another proof.--Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason

must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its

non--existence--e.g. if a triangle exist, a reason or cause must be

granted for its existence; if, on the contrary, it does not

exist, a cause must also be granted, which prevents it from

existing, or annuls its existence. This reason or cause must

either be contained in the nature of the thing in question, or be

external to it. For instance, the reason for the non--existence

of a square circle is indicated in its nature, namely, because it

would involve a contradiction. On the other hand, the existence

of substance follows also solely from its nature, inasmuch as its

nature involves existence. (See Prop. vii.)

But the reason for the existence of a triangle or a circle

does not follow from the nature of those figures, but from the

order of universal nature in extension. From the latter it must

follow, either that a triangle necessarily exists, or that it is

impossible that it should exist. So much is self--evident. It

follows therefrom that a thing necessarily exists, if no cause or

reason be granted which prevents its existence.

If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the

existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must

certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist. If such a

reason or cause should be given, it must either be drawn from the

very nature of God, or be external to him--that is, drawn from

another substance of another nature. For if it were of the same

nature, God, by that very fact, would be admitted to exist. But

substance of another nature could have nothing in common with God

(by Prop. ii.), and therefore would be unable either to cause or

to destroy his existence.

As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine

existence cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine

nature, such cause must perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn

from God's own nature, which would involve a contradiction. To

make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and

supremely perfect is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of

God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be

assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore, God

necessarily exists. Q.E.D.

Another proof.--The potentiality of non--existence is a

negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence

is a power, as is obvious. If, then, that which necessarily

exists is nothing but finite beings, such finite beings are more

powerful than a being absolutely infinite, which is obviously

absurd; therefore, either nothing exists, or else a being

absolutely infinite necessarily exists also. Now we exist either

in ourselves, or in something else which necessarily exists (see

Axiom. i. and Prop. vii.). Therefore a being absolutely

infinite--in other words, God (Def. vi.)--necessarily exists.

Q.E.D.

Note.--In this last proof, I have purposely shown God's

existence à posteriori, so that the proof might be more easily

followed, not because, from the same premises, God's existence

does not follow à priori. For, as the potentiality of existence

is a power, it follows that, in proportion as reality increases

in the nature of a thing, so also will it increase its strength

for existence. Therefore a being absolutely infinite, such as

God, has from himself an absolutely infinite power of existence,

and hence he does absolutely exist. Perhaps there will be many

who will be unable to see the force of this proof, inasmuch as

they are accustomed only to consider those things which flow from

external causes. Of such things, they see that those which

quickly come to pass--that is, quickly come into existence--quickly

also disappear; whereas they regard as more difficult of

accomplishment--that is, not so easily brought into

existence--those things which they conceive as more complicated.

However, to do away with this misconception, I need not here

show the measure of truth in the proverb, "What comes quickly,

goes quickly," nor discuss whether, from the point of view of

universal nature, all things are equally easy, or otherwise: I

need only remark that I am not here speaking of things, which

come to pass through causes external to themselves, but only of

substances which (by Prop. vi.) cannot be produced by any

external cause. Things which are produced by external causes,

whether they consist of many parts or few, owe whatsoever

perfection or reality they possess solely to the efficacy of

their external cause; and therefore their existence arises

solely from the perfection of their external cause, not from

their own. Contrariwise, whatsoever perfection is possessed by

substance is due to no external cause; wherefore the existence

of substance must arise solely from its own nature, which is

nothing else but its essence. Thus, the perfection of a thing

does not annul its existence, but, on the contrary, asserts it.

Imperfection, on the other hand, does annul it; therefore we

cannot be more certain of the existence of anything, than of the

existence of a being absolutely infinite or perfect--that is, of

God. For inasmuch as his essence excludes all imperfection, and

involves absolute perfection, all cause for doubt concerning his

existence is done away, and the utmost certainty on the question

is given. This, I think, will be evident to every moderately

attentive reader.

PROP. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived from which

it would follow that substance can be divided.

Proof.--The parts into which substance as thus conceived would

be divided either will retain the nature of substance, or they

will not. If the former, then (by Prop. viii.) each part will

necessarily be infinite, and (by Prop. vi.) self--caused, and (by

Prop. v.) will perforce consist of a different attribute, so

that, in that case, several substances could be formed out of one

substance, which (by Prop. vi.) is absurd. Moreover, the parts

(by Prop. ii.) would have nothing in common with their whole, and

the whole (by Def. iv. and Prop. x.) could both exist and be

conceived without its parts, which everyone will admit to be

absurd. If we adopt the second alternative--namely, that the

parts will not retain the nature of substance--then, if the whole

substance were divided into equal parts, it would lose the nature

of substance, and would cease to exist, which (by Prop. vii.) is

absurd.

PROP. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proof.--If it could be divided, the parts into which it was

divided would either retain the nature of absolutely infinite

substance, or they would not. If the former, we should have

several substances of the same nature, which (by Prop. v.) is

absurd. If the latter, then (by Prop. vii.) substance absolutely

infinite could cease to exist, which (by Prop. xi.) is also

absurd.

Corollary.--It follows, that no substance, and consequently no

extended substance, in so far as it is substance, is divisible.

Note.--The indivisibility of substance may be more easily

understood as follows. The nature of substance can only be

conceived as infinite, and by a part of substance, nothing else

can be understood than finite substance, which (by Prop. viii)

involves a manifest contradiction.

PROP. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.

Proof.--As God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no

attribute that expresses the essence of substance can be denied

(by Def. vi.), and he necessarily exists (by Prop. xi.); if any

substance besides God were granted, it would have to be explained

by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the same

attribute would exist, which (by Prop. v.) is absurd; therefore,

besides God no substance can be granted, or, consequently, be

conceived. If it could be conceived, it would necessarily have

to be conceived as existent; but this (by the first part of this

proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides God no substance can be

granted or conceived. Q.E.D.

Corollary I.--Clearly, therefore: 1. God is one, that is (by

Def. vi.) only one substance can be granted in the universe, and

that substance is absolutely infinite, as we have already

indicated (in the note to Prop. x.).

Corollary II.--It follows: 2. That extension and thought

are either attributes of God or (by Ax. i.) accidents

(affectiones) of the attributes of God.

PROP. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can

be, or be conceived.

Proof.--Besides God, no substance is granted or can be

conceived (by Prop. xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing which

is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by Def.

v.) can neither be, nor be conceived without substance;

wherefore they can only be in the divine nature, and can only

through it be conceived. But substances and modes form the sum

total of existence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing

can be, or be conceived. Q.E.D.

Note.--Some assert that God, like a man, consists of body and

mind, and is susceptible of passions. How far such persons have

strayed from the truth is sufficiently evident from what has been

said. But these I pass over. For all who have in anywise

reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body. Of this

they find excellent proof in the fact that we understand by body

a definite quantity, so long, so broad, so deep, bounded by a

certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to predicate

such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite. But meanwhile

by other reasons with which they try to prove their point, they

show that they think corporeal or extended substance wholly apart

from the divine nature, and say it was created by God. Wherefrom

the divine nature can have been created, they are wholly ignorant;

thus they clearly show, that they do not know the meaning of

their own words. I myself have proved sufficiently clearly, at

any rate in my own judgment (Coroll. Prop. vi, and note 2, Prop.

viii.), that no substance can be produced or created by anything

other than itself. Further, I showed (in Prop. xiv.), that

besides God no substance can be granted or conceived. Hence we

drew the conclusion that extended substance is one of the

infinite attributes of God. However, in order to explain more

fully, I will refute the arguments of my adversaries, which all

start from the following points:----

Extended substance, in so far as it is substance, consists,

as they think, in parts, wherefore they deny that it can be

infinite, or consequently, that it can appertain to God. This

they illustrate with many examples, of which I will take one or

two. If extended substance, they say, is infinite, let it be

conceived to be divided into two parts; each part will then be

either finite or infinite. If the former, then infinite

substance is composed of two finite parts, which is absurd. If

the latter, then one infinite will be twice as large as another

infinite, which is also absurd.

Further, if an infinite line be measured out in foot lengths,

it will consist of an infinite number of such parts; it would

equally consist of an infinite number of parts, if each part

measured only an inch: therefore, one infinity would be twelve

times as great as the other.

Lastly, if from a single point there be conceived to be drawn

two diverging lines which at first are at a definite distance

apart, but are produced to infinity, it is certain that the

distance between the two lines will be continually increased,

until at length it changes from definite to indefinable. As

these absurdities follow, it is said, from considering quantity

as infinite, the conclusion is drawn, that extended substance

must necessarily be finite, and, consequently, cannot appertain

to the nature of God.

The second argument is also drawn from God's supreme

perfection. God, it is said, inasmuch as he is a supremely

perfect being, cannot be passive; but extended substance,

insofar as it is divisible, is passive. It follows, therefore,

that extended substance does not appertain to the essence of God.

Such are the arguments I find on the subject in writers, who

by them try to prove that extended substance is unworthy of the

divine nature, and cannot possibly appertain thereto. However, I

think an attentive reader will see that I have already answered

their propositions; for all their arguments are founded on the

hypothesis that extended substance is composed of parts, and such

a hypothesis I have shown (Prop. xii., and Coroll. Prop. xiii.)

to be absurd. Moreover, anyone who reflects will see that all

these absurdities (if absurdities they be, which I am not now

discussing), from which it is sought to extract the conclusion

that extended substance is finite, do not at all follow from the

notion of an infinite quantity, but merely from the notion that

an infinite quantity is measurable, and composed of finite parts

therefore, the only fair conclusion to be drawn is that:

infinite quantity is not measurable, and cannot be composed of

finite parts. This is exactly what we have already proved (in

Prop. xii.). Wherefore the weapon which they aimed at us has in

reality recoiled upon themselves. If, from this absurdity of

theirs, they persist in drawing the conclusion that extended

substance must be finite, they will in good sooth be acting like

a man who asserts that circles have the properties of squares,

and, finding himself thereby landed in absurdities, proceeds to

deny that circles have any center, from which all lines drawn to

the circumference are equal. For, taking extended substance,

which can only be conceived as infinite, one, and indivisible

(Props. viii., v., xii.) they assert, in order to prove that it

is finite, that it is composed of finite parts, and that it can

be multiplied and divided.

So, also, others, after asserting that a line is composed of

points, can produce many arguments to prove that a line cannot be

infinitely divided. Assuredly it is not less absurd to assert

that extended substance is made up of bodies or parts, than it

would be to assert that a solid is made up of surfaces, a surface

of lines, and a line of points. This must be admitted by all who

know clear reason to be infallible, and most of all by those who

deny the possibility of a vacuum. For if extended substance

could be so divided that its parts were really separate, why

should not one part admit of being destroyed, the others

remaining joined together as before? And why should all be so

fitted into one another as to leave no vacuum? Surely in the

case of things, which are really distinct one from the other, one

can exist without the other, and can remain in its original

condition. As, then, there does not exist a vacuum in nature

(of which anon), but all parts are bound to come together to

prevent it, it follows from this that the parts cannot really be

distinguished, and that extended substance in so far as it is

substance cannot be divided.

If anyone asks me the further question, Why are we naturally

so prone to divide quantity? I answer, that quantity is

conceived by us in two ways; in the abstract and superficially,

as we imagine it; or as substance, as we conceive it solely by

the intellect. If, then, we regard quantity as it is represented

in our imagination, which we often and more easily do, we shall

find that it is finite, divisible, and compounded of parts; but

if we regard it as it is represented in our intellect, and

conceive it as substance, which it is very difficult to do, we

shall then, as I have sufficiently proved, find that it is

infinite, one, and indivisible. This will be plain enough to all

who make a distinction between the intellect and the imagination,

especially if it be remembered, that matter is everywhere the

same, that its parts are not distinguishable, except in so far as

we conceive matter as diversely modified, whence its parts are

distinguished, not really, but modally. For instance, water, in

so far as it is water, we conceive to be divided, and its parts

to be separated one from the other; but not in so far as it is

extended substance; from this point of view it is neither

separated nor divisible. Further, water, in so far as it is

water, is produced and corrupted; but, in so far as it is

substance, it is neither produced nor corrupted.

I think I have now answered the second argument; it is, in

fact, founded on the same assumption as the first--namely, that

matter, in so far as it is substance, is divisible, and composed

of parts. Even if it were so, I do not know why it should be

considered unworthy of the divine nature, inasmuch as besides God

(by Prop. xiv.) no substance can be granted, wherefrom it could

receive its modifications. All things, I repeat, are in God, and

all things which come to pass, come to pass solely through the

laws of the infinite nature of God, and follow (as I will shortly

show) from the necessity of his essence. Wherefore it can in

nowise be said, that God is passive in respect to anything other

than himself, or that extended substance is unworthy of the

Divine nature, even if it be supposed divisible, so long as it is

granted to be infinite and eternal. But enough of this for the

present.

PROP. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow

an infinite number of things in infinite ways--that is, all things

which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect.

Proof.--This proposition will be clear to everyone, who

remembers that from the given definition of any thing the

intellect infers several properties, which really necessarily

follow therefrom (that is, from the actual essence of the thing

defined); and it infers more properties in proportion as the

definition of the thing expresses more reality, that is, in

proportion as the essence of the thing defined involves more

reality. Now, as the divine nature has absolutely infinite

attributes (by Def. vi.), of which each expresses infinite

essence after its kind, it follows that from the necessity of its

nature an infinite number of things (that is, everything which

can fall within the sphere of an infinite intellect) must

necessarily follow. Q.E.D.

Corollary I.--Hence it follows, that God is the efficient

cause of all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite

intellect.

Corollary II.--It also follows that God is a cause in himself,

and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III.--It follows, thirdly, that God is the

absolutely first cause.

PROP. XVII. God acts solely by the laws of his own nature, and

is not constrained by anyone.

Proof.--We have just shown (in Prop. xvi.), that solely from

the necessity of the divine nature, or, what is the same thing,

solely from the laws of his nature, an infinite number of things

absolutely follow in an infinite number of ways; and we proved

(in Prop. xv.), that without God nothing can be nor be conceived

but that all things are in God. Wherefore nothing can exist;

outside himself, whereby he can be conditioned or constrained to

act. Wherefore God acts solely by the laws of his own nature,

and is not constrained by anyone. Q.E.D.

Corollary I.--It follows: 1. That there can be no cause

which, either extrinsically or intrinsically, besides the

perfection of his own nature, moves God to act.

Corollary II.--It follows: 2. That God is the sole free

cause. For God alone exists by the sole necessity of his nature

(by Prop. xi. and Prop. xiv., Coroll. i.), and acts by the sole

necessity of his own nature, wherefore God is (by Def. vii.) the

sole free cause. Q.E.D.

Note.--Others think that God is a free cause, because he can,

as they think, bring it about, that those things which we have

said follow from his nature--that is, which are in his power,

should not come to pass, or should not be produced by him. But

this is the same as if they said, that God could bring it about,

that it should follow from the nature of a triangle that its

three interior angles should not be equal to two right angles;

or that from a given cause no effect should follow, which is

absurd.

Moreover, I will show below, without the aid of this

proposition, that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's

nature. I know that there are many who think that they can show,

that supreme intellect and free will do appertain to God's nature;

for they say they know of nothing more perfect, which they can

attribute to God, than that which is the highest perfection in

ourselves. Further, although they conceive God as actually

supremely intelligent, they yet do not believe that he can bring

into existence everything which he actually understands, for they

think that they would thus destroy God's power. If, they

contend, God had created everything which is in his intellect, he

would not be able to create anything more, and this, they think,

would clash with God's omnipotence; therefore, they prefer to

asset that God is indifferent to all things, and that he creates

nothing except that which he has decided, by some absolute

exercise of will, to create. However, I think I have shown

sufficiently clearly (by Prop. xvi.), that from God's supreme

power, or infinite nature, an infinite number of things--that is,

all things have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite number of

ways, or always flow from the same necessity; in the same way as

from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity and for

eternity, that its three interior angles are equal to two right

angles. Wherefore the omnipotence of God has been displayed from

all eternity, and will for all eternity remain in the same state

of activity. This manner of treating the question attributes to

God an omnipotence, in my opinion, far more perfect. For,

otherwise, we are compelled to confess that God understands an

infinite number of creatable things, which he will never be able

to create, for, if he created all that he understands, he would,

according to this showing, exhaust his omnipotence, and render

himself imperfect. Wherefore, in order to establish that God is

perfect, we should be reduced to establishing at the same time,

that he cannot bring to pass everything over which his power

extends; this seems to be a hypothesis most absurd, and most

repugnant to God's omnipotence.

Further (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the

will which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain

to the eternal essence of God, we must take these words in some

significance quite different from those they usually bear. For

intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God,

would perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human

intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common with

them but the name; there would be about as much correspondence

between the two as there is between the Dog, the heavenly

constellation, and a dog, an animal that barks. This I will

prove as follows. If intellect belongs to the divine nature, it

cannot be in nature, as ours is generally thought to be,

posterior to, or simultaneous with the things understood,

inasmuch as God is prior to all things by reason of his causality

(Prop. xvi., Coroll. i.). On the contrary, the truth and formal

essence of things is as it is, because it exists by

representation as such in the intellect of God. Wherefore the

intellect of God, in so far as it is conceived to constitute

God's essence, is, in reality, the cause of things, both of their

essence and of their existence. This seems to have been

recognized by those who have asserted, that God's intellect,

God's will, and God's power, are one and the same. As,

therefore, God's intellect is the sole cause of things, namely,

both of their essence and existence, it must necessarily differ

from them in respect to its essence, and in respect to its

existence. For a cause differs from a thing it causes, precisely

in the quality which the latter gains from the former.

For example, a man is the cause of another man's existence,

but not of his essence (for the latter is an eternal truth), and,

therefore, the two men may be entirely similar in essence, but

must be different in existence; and hence if the existence of

one of them cease, the existence of the other will not

necessarily cease also; but if the essence of one could be

destroyed, and be made false, the essence of the other would be

destroyed also. Wherefore, a thing which is the cause both of

the essence and of the existence of a given effect, must differ

from such effect both in respect to its essence, and also in

respect to its existence. Now the intellect of God is the cause

both of the essence and the existence of our intellect;

therefore, the intellect of God in so far as it is conceived to

constitute the divine essence, differs from our intellect both in

respect to essence and in respect to existence, nor can it in

anywise agree therewith save in name, as we said before. The

reasoning would be identical in the case of the will, as anyone

can easily see.

PROP. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause

of all things.

Proof.--All things which are, are in God, and must be

conceived through God (by Prop. xv.), therefore (by Prop. xvi.,

Coroll. i.) God is the cause of those things which are in him.

This is our first point. Further, besides God there can be no

substance (by Prop. xiv.), that is nothing in itself external to

God. This is our second point. God, therefore, is the

indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. Q.E.D.

PROP. XIX. God, and all the attributes of God, are eternal.

Proof.--God (by Def. vi.) is substance, which (by Prop. xi.)

necessarily exists, that is (by Prop. vii.) existence appertains

to its nature, or (what is the same thing) follows from its

definition; therefore, God is eternal (by Def. viii.). Further,

by the attributes of God we must understand that which (by Def.

iv.) expresses the essence of the divine substance--in other

words, that which appertains to substance: that, I say, should

be involved in the attributes of substance. Now eternity

appertains to the nature of substance (as I have already shown in

Prop. vii.); therefore, eternity must appertain to each of the

attributes, and thus all are eternal. Q.E.D.

Note.--This proposition is also evident from the manner in

which (in Prop. xi.) I demonstrated the existence of God; it is

evident, I repeat, from that proof, that the existence of God,

like his essence, is an eternal truth. Further (in Prop. xix. of

my "Principles of the Cartesian Philosophy"), I have proved the

eternity of God, in another manner, which I need not here repeat.

PROP. XX. The existence of God and his essence are one and the

same.

Proof.--God (by the last Prop.) and all his attributes are

eternal, that is (by Def. viii.) each of his attributes expresses

existence. Therefore the same

attributes of God which explain his eternal essence, explain at

the same time his eternal existence--in other words, that which

constitutes God's essence constitutes at the same time his

existence. Wherefore God's existence and God's essence are one

and the same. Q.E.D.

Coroll. I.--Hence it follows that God's existence, like his

essence, is an eternal truth.

Coroll. II--Secondly, it follows that God, and all the

attributes of God, are unchangeable. For if they could be

changed in respect to existence, they must also be able to be

changed in respect to essence--that is, obviously, be changed from

true to false, which is absurd.

PROP. XXI. All things which follow from the absolute nature of

any attribute of God must always exist and be infinite, or, in

other words, are eternal and infinite through the said attribute.

Proof.--Conceive, if it be possible (supposing the proposition

to be denied), that something in some attribute of God can follow

from the absolute nature of the said attribute, and that at the

same time it is finite, and has a conditioned existence or

duration; for instance, the idea of God expressed in the

attribute thought. Now thought, in so far as it is supposed to

be an attribute of God, is necessarily (by Prop. xi.) in its

nature infinite. But, in so far as it possesses the idea of God,

it is supposed finite. It cannot, however, be conceived as

finite, unless it be limited by thought (by Def. ii.); but it is

not limited by thought itself, in so far as it has constituted

the idea of God (for so far it is supposed to be finite);

therefore, it is limited by thought, in so far as it has not

constituted the idea of God, which nevertheless (by Prop. xi.)

must necessarily exist.

We have now granted, therefore, thought not constituting the

idea of God, and, accordingly, the idea of God does not naturally

follow from its nature in so far as it is absolute thought (for

it is conceived as constituting, and also as not constituting,

the idea of God), which is against our hypothesis. Wherefore, if

the idea of God expressed in the attribute thought, or, indeed,

anything else in any attribute of God (for we may take any

example, as the proof is of universal application) follows from

the necessity of the absolute nature of the said attribute, the

said thing must necessarily be infinite, which was our first

point.

Furthermore, a thing which thus follows from the necessity of

the nature of any attribute cannot have a limited duration. For

if it can, suppose a thing, which follows from the necessity of

the nature of some attribute, to exist in some attribute of God,

for instance, the idea of God expressed in the attribute thought,

and let it be supposed at some time not to have existed, or to be

about not to exist.

Now thought being an attribute of God, must necessarily exist

unchanged (by Prop. xi., and Prop. xx., Coroll. ii.); and beyond

the limits of the duration of the idea of God (supposing the

latter at some time not to have existed, or not to be going to

exist) thought would perforce have existed without the idea of

God, which is contrary to our hypothesis, for we supposed that,

thought being given, the idea of God necessarily flowed

therefrom. Therefore the idea of God expressed in thought, or

anything which necessarily follows from the absolute nature of

some attribute of God, cannot have a limited duration, but

through the said attribute is eternal, which is our second point.

Bear in mind that the same proposition may be affirmed of

anything, which in any attribute necessarily follows from God's

absolute nature.

PROP. XXII. Whatsoever follows from any attribute of God, in so

far as it is modified by a modification, which exists necessarily

and as infinite, through the said attribute, must also exist

necessarily and as infinite.

Proof.--The proof of this proposition is similar to that of

the preceding one.

PROP. XXIII. Every mode, which exists both necessarily and as

infinite, must necessarily follow either from the absolute nature

of some attribute of God, or from an attribute modified by a

modification which exists necessarily, and as infinite.

Proof.--A mode exists in something else, through which it must

be conceived (Def. v.), that is (Prop. xv.), it exists solely in

God, and solely through God can be conceived. If therefore a mode

is conceived as necessarily existing and infinite, it must

necessarily be inferred or perceived through some attribute of

God, in so far as such attribute is conceived as expressing the

infinity and necessity of existence, in other words (Def. viii.)

eternity; that is, in so far as it is considered absolutely. A

mode, therefore, which necessarily exists as infinite, must

follow from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, either

immediately (Prop. xxi.) or through the means of some

modification, which follows from the absolute nature of the said

attribute; that is (by Prop. xxii.), which exists necessarily

and as infinite.

PROP. XXIV. The essence of things produced by God does not

involve existence.

Proof.--This proposition is evident from Def. i. For that of

which the nature (considered in itself) involves existence is

self--caused, and exists by the sole necessity of its own nature.

Corollary.--Hence it follows that God is not only the cause of

things coming into existence, but also of their continuing in

existence, that is, in scholastic phraseology, God is cause of

the being of things (essendi rerum). For whether things exist,

or do not exist, whenever we contemplate their essence, we see

that it involves neither existence nor duration; consequently,

it cannot be the cause of either the one or the other. God must

be the sole cause, inasmuch as to him alone does existence

appertain. (Prop. xiv. Coroll. i.) Q.E.D.

PROP. XXV. God is the efficient cause not only of the existence

of things, but also of their essence.

Proof.--If this be denied, then God is not the cause of the

essence of things; and therefore the essence of things can (by

Ax. iv.) be conceived without God. This (by Prop. xv.) is

absurd. Therefore, God is the cause of the essence of things.

Q.E.D.

Note.--This proposition follows more clearly from Prop. xvi.

For it is evident thereby that, given the divine nature, the

essence of things must be inferred from it, no less than their

existence--in a word, God must be called the cause of all things,

in the same sense as he is called the cause of himself. This

will be made still clearer by the following corollary.

Corollary.--Individual things are nothing but modifications of

the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God

are expressed in a fixed and definite manner. The proof appears

from Prop. xv. and Def. v.

PROP. XXVI. A thing which is conditioned to act in a particular

manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned by God; and that

which has not been conditioned by God cannot condition itself to

act.

Proof.--That by which things are said to be conditioned to act

in a particular manner is necessarily something positive (this is

obvious); therefore both of its essence and of its existence God

by the necessity of his nature is the efficient cause (Props.

xxv. and xvi.); this is our first point. Our second point is

plainly to be inferred therefrom. For if a thing, which has not

been conditioned by God, could condition itself, the first part

of our proof would be false, and this, as we have shown is

absurd.

PROP. XXVII. A thing, which has been conditioned by God to act

in a particular way, cannot render itself unconditioned.

Proof.--This proposition is evident from the third axiom.

PROP. XXVIII. Every individual thing, or everything which is

finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be

conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and

action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite, and

has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in

its turn exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be

conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also

is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to

infinity.

Proof.--Whatsoever is conditioned to exist and act, has been

thus conditioned by God (by Prop. xxvi. and Prop. xxiv.,

Coroll.).

But that which is finite, and has a conditioned existence,

cannot be produced by the absolute nature of any attribute of God;

for whatsoever follows from the absolute nature of any

attribute of God is infinite and eternal (by Prop. xxi.). It

must, therefore, follow from some attribute of God, in so far as

the said attribute is considered as in some way modified; for

substance and modes make up the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.

and Def. iii., v.), while modes are merely modifications of the

attributes of God. But from God, or from any of his attributes,

in so far as the latter is modified by a modification infinite

and eternal, a conditioned thing cannot follow. Wherefore it

must follow from, or be conditioned for, existence and action by

God or one of his attributes, in so far as the latter are

modified by some modification which is finite, and has a

conditioned existence. This is our first point. Again, this

cause or this modification (for the reason by which we

established the first part of this proof) must in its turn be

conditioned by another cause, which also is finite, and has a

conditioned existence, and, again, this last by another (for the

same reason); and so on (for the same reason) to infinity.

Q.E.D.

Note.--As certain things must be produced immediately by God,

namely those things which necessarily follow from his absolute

nature, through the means of these primary attributes, which,

nevertheless, can neither exist nor be conceived without God, it

follows:--1. That God is absolutely the proximate cause of those

things immediately produced by him. I say absolutely, not after

his kind, as is usually stated. For the effects of God cannot

either exist or be conceived without a cause (Prop. xv. and Prop.

xxiv. Coroll.). 2. That God cannot properly be styled the remote

cause of individual things, except for the sake of distinguishing

these from what he immediately produces, or rather from what

follows from his absolute nature. For, by a remote cause, we

understand a cause which is in no way conjoined to the effect.

But all things which are, are in God, and so depend on God, that

without him they can neither be nor be conceived.

PROP. XXIX. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all

things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular

manner by the necessity of the divine nature.

Proof.--Whatsoever is, is in God (Prop. xv.). But God cannot

be called a thing contingent. For (by Prop. xi.) he exists

necessarily, and not contingently. Further, the modes of the

divine nature follow therefrom necessarily, and not contingently

(Prop. xvi.); and they thus follow, whether we consider the

divine nature absolutely, or whether we consider it as in any way

conditioned to act (Prop. xxvii.). Further, God is not only the

cause of these modes, in so far as they simply exist (by Prop.

xxiv, Coroll.), but also in so far as they are considered as

conditioned for operating in a particular manner (Prop. xxvi.).

If they be not conditioned by God (Prop. xxvi.), it is

impossible, and not contingent, that they should condition

themselves; contrariwise, if they be conditioned by God, it is

impossible, and not contingent, that they should render

themselves unconditioned. Wherefore all things are conditioned by

the necessity of the divine nature, not only to exist, but also

to exist and operate in a particular manner, and there is nothing

that is contingent. Q.E.D.

Note.--Before going any further, I wish here to explain, what

we should understand by nature viewed as active (natura

naturans), and nature viewed as passive (natura naturata). I say

to explain, or rather call attention to it, for I think that,

from what has been said, it is sufficiently clear, that by nature

viewed as active we should understand that which is in itself,

and is conceived through itself, or those attributes of

substance, which express eternal and infinite essence, in other

words (Prop. xiv., Coroll. i., and Prop. xvii., Coroll. ii) God,

in so far as he is considered as a free cause.

By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which

follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the

attributes of God, that is, all the modes of the attributes of

God, in so far as they are considered as things which are in God,

and which without God cannot exist or be conceived.

PROP. XXX. Intellect, in function (actu) finite, or in function

infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the

modifications of God, and nothing else.

Proof.--A true idea must agree with its object (Ax. vi.); in

other words (obviously), that which is contained in the intellect

in representation must necessarily be granted in nature. But in

nature (by Prop. xiv., Coroll. i.) there is no substance save

God, nor any modifications save those (Prop. xv.) which are in

God, and cannot without God either be or be conceived. Therefore

the intellect, in function finite, or in function infinite, must

comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God,

and nothing else. Q.E.D.

PROP. XXXI. The intellect in function, whether finite or

infinite, as will, desire, love, &c., should be referred to

passive nature and not to active nature.

Proof.--By the intellect we do not (obviously) mean absolute

thought, but only a certain mode of thinking, differing from

other modes, such as love, desire, &c., and therefore (Def. v.)

requiring to be conceived through absolute thought. It must (by

Prop. xv. and Def. vi.), through some attribute of God which

expresses the eternal and infinite essence of thought, be so

conceived, that without such attribute it could neither be nor be

conceived. It must therefore be referred to nature passive

rather than to nature active, as must also the other modes of

thinking. Q.E.D.

Note.--I do not here, by speaking of intellect in function,

admit that there is such a thing as intellect in potentiality:

but, wishing to avoid all confusion, I desire to speak only of

what is most clearly perceived by us, namely, of the very act of

understanding, than which nothing is more clearly perceived. For

we cannot perceive anything without adding to our knowledge of

the act of understanding.

PROP. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but only a

necessary cause.

Proof.--Will is only a particular mode of thinking, like

intellect; therefore (by Prop. xxviii.) no volition can exist,

nor be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned by some cause

other than itself, which cause is conditioned by a third cause,

and so on to infinity. But if will be supposed infinite, it must

also be conditioned to exist and act by God, not by virtue of his

being substance absolutely infinite, but by virtue of his

possessing an attribute which expresses the infinite and eternal

essence of thought (by Prop. xxiii.). Thus, however it be

conceived, whether as finite or infinite, it requires a cause by

which it should be conditioned to exist and act. Thus (Def.

vii.) it cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary or

constrained cause. Q.E.D.

Coroll. I.--Hence it follows, first, that God does not act

according to freedom of the will.

Coroll. II.--It follows, secondly, that will and intellect

stand in the same relation to the nature of God as do motion, and

rest, and absolutely all natural phenomena, which must be

conditioned by God (Prop. xxix.) to exist and act in a particular

manner. For will, like the rest, stands in need of a cause, by

which it is conditioned to exist and act in a particular manner.

And although, when will or intellect be granted, an infinite

number of results may follow, yet God cannot on that account be

said to act from freedom of the will, any more than the infinite

number of results from motion and rest would justify us in saying

that motion and rest act by free will. Wherefore will no more

appertains to God than does anything else in nature, but stands

in the same relation to him as motion, rest, and the like, which

we have shown to follow from the necessity of the divine nature,

and to be conditioned by it to exist and act in a particular

manner.

PROP. XXXIII. Things could not have been brought into being by

God in any manner or in any order different from that which has

in fact obtained.

Proof--All things necessarily follow from the nature of God

(Prop. xvi.), and by the nature of God are conditioned to exist

and act in a particular way (Prop. xxix.). If things, therefore,

could have been of a different nature, or have been conditioned

to act in a different way, so that the order of nature would have

been different, God's nature would also have been able to be

different from what it now is; and therefore (by Prop. xi.) that

different nature also would have perforce existed, and

consequently there would have been able to be two or more Gods.

This (by Prop. xiv., Coroll. i.) is absurd. Therefore things

could not have been brought into being by God in any other

manner, &c. Q.E.D.

Note I.--As I have thus shown, more clearly than the sun at

noonday, that there is nothing to justify us in calling things

contingent, I wish to explain briefly what meaning we shall

attach to the word contingent; but I will first explain the

words necessary and impossible.

A thing is called necessary either in respect to its essence

or in respect to its cause; for the existence of a thing

necessarily follows, either from its essence and definition, or

from a given efficient cause. For similar reasons a thing is

said to be impossible; namely, inasmuch as its essence or

definition involves a contradiction, or because no external cause

is granted, which is conditioned to produce such an effect; but

a thing can in no respect be called contingent, save in relation

to the imperfection of our knowledge.

A thing of which we do not know whether the essence does or

does not involve a contradiction, or of which, knowing that it

does not involve a contradiction, we are still in doubt

concerning the existence, because the order of causes escapes

us,--such a thing, I say, cannot appear to us either necessary or

impossible. Wherefore we call it contingent or possible.

Note II.--It clearly follows from what we have said, that

things have been brought into being by God in the highest

perfection, inasmuch as they have necessarily followed from a

most perfect nature. Nor does this prove any imperfection in

God, for it has compelled us to affirm his perfection. From its

contrary proposition, we should clearly gather (as I have just

shown), that God is not supremely perfect, for if things had been

brought into being in any other way, we should have to assign to

God a nature different from that, which we are bound to attribute

to him from the consideration of an absolutely perfect being.

I do not doubt, that many will scout this idea as absurd, and

will refuse to give their minds up to contemplating it, simply

because they are accustomed to assign to God a freedom very

different from that which we (Def. vii.) have deduced. They

assign to him, in short, absolute free will. However, I am also

convinced that if such persons reflect on the matter, and duly

weigh in their minds our series of propositions, they will reject

such freedom as they now attribute to God, not only as nugatory,

but also as a great impediment to organized knowledge. There is

no need for me to repeat what I have said in the note to Prop.

xvii. But, for the sake of my opponents, I will show further,

that although it be granted that will pertains to the essence of

God, it nevertheless follows from his perfection, that things

could not have been by him created other than they are, or in a

different order; this is easily proved, if we reflect on what

our opponents themselves concede, namely, that it depends solely

on the decree and will of God, that each thing is what it is. If

it were otherwise, God would not be the cause of all things.

Further, that all the decrees of God have been ratified from all

eternity by God himself. If it were otherwise, God would be

convicted of imperfection or change. But in eternity there is no

such thing as when, before, or after; hence it follows solely

from the perfection of God, that God never can decree, or never

could have decreed anything but what is; that God did not exist

before his decrees, and would not exist without them. But, it is

said, supposing that God had made a different universe, or had

ordained other decrees from all eternity concerning nature and

her order, we could not therefore conclude any imperfection in

God. But persons who say this must admit that God can change his

decrees. For if God had ordained any decrees concerning nature

and her order, different from those which he has ordained--in

other words, if he had willed and conceived something different

concerning nature--he would perforce have had a different

intellect from that which he has, and also a different will. But

if it were allowable to assign to God a different intellect and a

different will, without any change in his essence or his

perfection, what would there be to prevent him changing the

decrees which he has made concerning created things, and

nevertheless remaining perfect? For his intellect and will

concerning things created and their order are the same, in

respect to his essence and perfection, however they be conceived.

Further, all the philosophers whom I have read admit that

God's intellect is entirely actual, and not at all potential; as

they also admit that God's intellect, and God's will, and God's

essence are identical, it follows that, if God had had a

different actual intellect and a different will, his essence

would also have been different; and thus, as I concluded at

first, if things had been brought into being by God in a

different way from that which has obtained, God's intellect and

will, that is (as is admitted) his essence would perforce have

been different, which is absurd.

As these things could not have been brought into being by God

in any but the actual way and order which has obtained; and as

the truth of this proposition follows from the supreme perfection

of God; we can have no sound reason for persuading ourselves to

believe that God did not wish to create all the things which were

in his intellect, and to create them in the same perfection as he

had understood them.

But, it will be said, there is in things no perfection nor

imperfection; that which is in them, and which causes them to be

called perfect or imperfect, good or bad, depends solely on the

will of God. If God had so willed, he might have brought it

about that what is now perfection should be extreme imperfection,

and vice versâ. What is such an assertion, but an open

declaration that God, who necessarily understands that which he

wishes, might bring it about by his will, that he should

understand things differently from the way in which he does

understand them? This (as we have just shown) is the height of

absurdity. Wherefore, I may turn the argument against its

employers, as follows:--All things depend on the power of God.

In order that things should be different from what they are,

God's will would necessarily have to be different. But God's

will cannot be different (as we have just most clearly

demonstrated) from God's perfection. Therefore neither can

things be different. I confess, that the theory which subjects

all things to the will of an indifferent deity, and asserts that

they are all dependent on his fiat, is less far from the truth

than the theory of those, who maintain that God acts in all

things with a view of promoting what is good. For these latter

persons seem to set up something beyond God, which does not

depend on God, but which God in acting looks to as an exemplar,

or which he aims at as a definite goal. This is only another

name for subjecting God to the dominion of destiny, an utter

absurdity in respect to God, whom we have shown to be the first

and only free cause of the essence of all things and also of

their existence. I need, therefore, spend no time in refuting

such wild theories.

PROP. XXXIV. God's power is identical with his essence.

Proof.--From the sole necessity of the essence of God it

follows that God is the cause of himself (Prop. xi.) and of all

things (Prop. xvi. and Coroll.). Wherefore the power of God, by

which he and all things are and act, is identical with his

essence. Q.E.D.

PROP. XXXV. Whatsoever we conceive to be in the power of God,

necessarily exists.

Proof.--Whatsoever is in God's power, must (by the last Prop.)

be comprehended in his essence in such a manner, that it

necessarily follows therefrom, and therefore necessarily exists.

Q.E.D.

PROP. XXXVI. There is no cause from whose nature some effect

does not follow.

Proof.--Whatsoever exists expresses God's nature or essence in

a given conditioned manner (by Prop. xxv., Coroll.); that is,

(by Prop. xxxiv.), whatsoever exists, expresses in a given

conditioned manner God's power, which is the cause of all things,

therefore an effect must (by Prop. xvi.) necessarily follow.

Q.E.D.

APPENDIX:

In the foregoing I have explained the nature and properties

of God. I have shown that he necessarily exists, that he is one:

that he is, and acts solely by the necessity of his own nature;

that he is the free cause of all things, and how he is so;

that all things are in God, and so depend on him, that without

him they could neither exist nor be conceived; lastly, that all

things are predetermined by God, not through his free will or

absolute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power.

I have further, where occasion afforded, taken care to remove the

prejudices, which might impede the comprehension of my

demonstrations. Yet there still remain misconceptions not a few,

which might and may prove very grave hindrances to the

understanding of the concatenation of things, as I have explained

it above. I have therefore thought it worth while to bring these

misconceptions before the bar of reason.

All such opinions spring from the notion commonly

entertained, that all things in nature act as men themselves act,

namely, with an end in view. It is accepted as certain, that God

himself directs all things to a definite goal (for it is said

that God made all things for man, and man that he might worship

him). I will, therefore, consider this opinion, asking first,

why it obtains general credence, and why all men are naturally so

prone to adopt it? secondly, I will point out its falsity; and,

lastly, I will show how it has given rise to prejudices about

good and bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and

confusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like. However, this is

not the place to deduce these misconceptions from the nature of

the human mind: it will be sufficient here, if I assume as a

starting point, what ought to be universally admitted, namely,

that all men are born ignorant of the causes of things, that all

have the desire to seek for what is useful to them, and that they

are conscious of such desire. Herefrom it follows, first, that

men think themselves free inasmuch as they are conscious of their

volitions and desires, and never even dream, in their ignorance,

of the causes which have disposed them so to wish and desire.

Secondly, that men do all things for an end, namely, for that

which is useful to them, and which they seek. Thus it comes to

pass that they only look for a knowledge of the final causes of

events, and when these are learned, they are content, as having

no cause for further doubt. If they cannot learn such causes

from external sources, they are compelled to turn to considering

themselves, and reflecting what end would have induced them

personally to bring about the given event, and thus they

necessarily judge other natures by their own. Further, as they

find in themselves and outside themselves many means which assist

them not a little in the search for what is useful, for instance,

eyes for seeing, teeth for chewing, herbs and animals for

yielding food, the sun for giving light, the sea for breeding

fish, &c., they come to look on the whole of nature as a means

for obtaining such conveniences. Now as they are aware, that

they found these conveniences and did not make them, they think

they have cause for believing, that some other being has made

them for their use. As they look upon things as means, they

cannot believe them to be self--created; but, judging from the

means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they

are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe

endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted

everything for human use. They are bound to estimate the nature

of such rulers (having no information on the subject) in

accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that

the gods ordained everything for the use of man, in order to bind

man to themselves and obtain from him the highest honor. Hence

also it follows, that everyone thought out for himself, according

to his abilities, a different way of worshipping God, so that God

might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course

of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and

insatiable avarice. Thus the prejudice developed into

superstition, and took deep root in the human mind; and for this

reason everyone strove most zealously to understand and explain

the final causes of things; but in their endeavor to show that

nature does nothing in vain, i.e. nothing which is useless to

man, they only seem to have demonstrated that nature, the gods,

and men are all mad together. Consider, I pray you, the result:

among the many helps of nature they were bound to find some

hindrances, such as storms, earthquakes, diseases, &c.: so they

declared that such things happen, because the gods are angry at

some wrong done to them by men, or at some fault committed in

their worship. Experience day by day protested and showed by

infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall to the lot of

pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their

inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such

contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were

ignorant, and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of

ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning

and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an axiom, that

God's judgments far transcend human understanding. Such a

doctrine might well have sufficed to conceal the truth from the

human race for all eternity, if mathematics had not furnished

another standard of verity in considering solely the essence and

properties of figures without regard to their final causes.

There are other reasons (which I need not mention here) besides

mathematics, which might have caused men's minds to be directed

to these general prejudices, and have led them to the knowledge

of the truth.

I have now sufficiently explained my first point. There is

no need to show at length, that nature has no particular goal in

view, and that final causes are mere human figments. This, I

think, is already evident enough, both from the causes and

foundations on which I have shown such prejudice to be based, and

also from Prop. xvi., and the Corollary of Prop. xxxii., and, in

fact, all those propositions in which I have shown, that

everything in nature proceeds from a sort of necessity, and with

the utmost perfection. However, I will add a few remarks, in

order to overthrow this doctrine of a final cause utterly. That

which is really a cause it considers as an effect, and vice versâ:

it makes that which is by nature first to be last, and that

which is highest and most perfect to be most imperfect. Passing

over the questions of cause and priority as self--evident, it is

plain from Props. xxi., xxii., xxiii. that the effect is most

perfect which is produced immediately by God; the effect which

requires for its production several intermediate causes is, in

that respect, more imperfect. But if those things which were

made immediately by God were made to enable him to attain his

end, then the things which come after, for the sake of which the

first were made, are necessarily the most excellent of all.

Further, this doctrine does away with the perfection of God:

for, if God acts for an object, he necessarily desires something

which he lacks. Certainly, theologians and metaphysicians draw a

distinction between the object of want and the object of

assimilation; still they confess that God made all things for

the sake of himself, not for the sake of creation. They are

unable to point to anything prior to creation, except God

himself, as an object for which God should act, and are therefore

driven to admit (as they clearly must), that God lacked those

things for whose attainment he created means, and further that he

desired them.

We must not omit to notice that the followers of this

doctrine, anxious to display their talent in assigning final

causes, have imported a new method of argument in proof of their

theory--namely, a reduction, not to the impossible, but to

ignorance; thus showing that they have no other method of

exhibiting their doctrine. For example, if a stone falls from a

roof on to someone's head, and kills him, they will demonstrate

by their new method, that the stone fell in order to kill the man;

for, if it had not by God's will fallen with that object, how

could so many circumstances (and there are often many concurrent

circumstances) have all happened together by chance? Perhaps you

will answer that the event is due to the facts that the wind was

blowing, and the man was walking that way. "But why," they will

insist, "was the wind blowing, and why was the man at that very

time walking that way?" If you again answer, that the wind had

then sprung up because the sea had begun to be agitated the day

before, the weather being previously calm, and that the man had

been invited by a friend, they will again insist: "But why was

the sea agitated, and why was the man invited at that time?"

So they will pursue their questions from cause to cause, till at

last you take refuge in the will of God--in other words, the

sanctuary of ignorance. So, again, when they survey the frame of

the human body, they are amazed; and being ignorant of the

causes of so great a work of art, conclude that it has been

fashioned, not mechanically, but by divine and supernatural

skill, and has been so put together that one part shall not hurt

another.

Hence anyone who seeks for the true causes of miracles, and

strives to understand natural phenomena as an intelligent being,

and not to gaze at them like a fool, is set down and denounced as

an impious heretic by those, whom the masses adore as the

interpreters of nature and the gods. Such persons know that,

with the removal of ignorance, the wonder which forms their only

available means for proving and preserving their authority would

vanish also. But I now quit this subject, and pass on to my

third point.

After men persuaded themselves, that everything which is

created is created for their sake, they were bound to consider as

the chief quality in everything that which is most useful to

themselves, and to account those things the best of all which

have the most beneficial effect on mankind. Further, they were

bound to form abstract notions for the explanation of the nature

of things, such as goodness, badness, order, confusion, warmth,

cold, beauty, deformity, and so on; and from the belief that

they are free agents arose the further notions of praise and

blame, sin and merit.

I will speak of these latter hereafter, when I treat of human

nature; the former I will briefly explain here.

Everything which conduces to health and the worship of God

they have called good, everything which hinders these objects

they have styled bad; and inasmuch as those who do not

understand the nature of things do not verify phenomena in any

way, but merely imagine them after a fashion, and mistake their

imagination for understanding, such persons firmly believe that

there is an order in things, being really ignorant both of things

and their own nature. When phenomena are of such a kind, that

the impression they make on our senses requires little effort of

imagination, and can consequently be easily remembered, we say

that they are well--ordered; if the contrary, that they are

ill--ordered or confused. Further, as things which are easily

imagined are more pleasing to us, men prefer order to

confusion--as though there were any order in nature, except in

relation to our imagination--and say that God has created all

things in order; thus, without knowing it, attributing

imagination to God, unless, indeed, they would have it that God

foresaw human imagination, and arranged everything, so that it

should be most easily imagined. If this be their theory, they

would not, perhaps, be daunted by the fact that we find an

infinite number of phenomena, far surpassing our imagination, and

very many others which confound its weakness. But enough has

been said on this subject. The other abstract notions are

nothing but modes of imagining, in which the imagination is

differently affected: though they are considered by the ignorant

as the chief attributes of things, inasmuch as they believe that

everything was created for the sake of themselves; and,

according as they are affected by it, style it good or bad,

healthy or rotten and corrupt. For instance, if the motion which

objects we see communicate to our nerves be conducive to health,

the objects causing it are styled beautiful; if a contrary

motion be excited, they are styled ugly.

Things which are perceived through our sense of smell are

styled fragrant or fetid; if through our taste, sweet or bitter,

full--flavored or insipid; if through our touch, hard or soft,

rough or smooth, &c.

Whatsoever affects our ears is said to give rise to noise,

sound, or harmony. In this last case, there are men lunatic

enough to believe, that even God himself takes pleasure in

harmony; and philosophers are not lacking who have persuaded

themselves, that the motion of the heavenly bodies gives rise to

harmony--all of which instances sufficiently show that everyone

judges of things according to the state of his brain, or rather

mistakes for things the forms of his imagination. We need no

longer wonder that there have arisen all the controversies we

have witnessed, and finally skepticism: for, although human

bodies in many respects agree, yet in very many others they

differ; so that what seems good to one seems bad to another;

what seems well ordered to one seems confused to another; what

is pleasing to one displeases another, and so on. I need not

further enumerate, because this is not the place to treat the

subject at length, and also because the fact is sufficiently well

known. It is commonly said: "So many men, so many minds;

everyone is wise in his own way; brains differ as completely as

palates." All of which proverbs show, that men judge of things

according to their mental disposition, and rather imagine than

understand: for, if they understood phenomena, they would, as

mathematicians attest, be convinced, if not attracted, by what I

have urged.

We have now perceived, that all the explanations commonly

given of nature are mere modes of imagining, and do not indicate

the true nature of anything, but only the constitution of the

imagination; and, although they have names, as though they were

entities, existing externally to the imagination, I call them

entities imaginary rather than real; and, therefore, all

arguments against us drawn from such abstractions are easily

rebutted.

Many argue in this way. If all things follow from a

necessity of the absolutely perfect nature of God, why are there

so many imperfections in nature? such, for instance, as things

corrupt to the point of putridity, loathsome deformity,

confusion, evil, sin, &c. But these reasoners are, as I have

said, easily confuted, for the perfection of things is to be

reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not

more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human

senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to

mankind. To those who ask why God did not so create all men,

that they should be governed only by reason, I give no answer but

this: because matter was not lacking to him for the creation of

every degree of perfection from highest to lowest; or, more

strictly, because the laws of his nature are so vast, as to

suffice for the production of everything conceivable by an

infinite intelligence, as I have shown in Prop. xvi.

Such are the misconceptions I have undertaken to note; if

there are any more of the same sort, everyone may easily

dissipate them for himself with the aid of a little reflection.