장음표시 사용
41쪽
Proj.-An attributeris that hic the understand- in perceives of the substance a constitutin iis
M olium.-From his it appears that, even is Wo attributes e conceived a reali distinci, that is, ne without the id of the ther, e nevertheles Cannot from that conclude that the constitute tW heingso tWo different substances. For it is of the natur os substance that achis iis attribulesie conceived by means os iiseis inasmuchos ali the attributescit has have alWay been in it together, an no ne Could have been produce by an other; ut ach ne expresses the realit orieing of the substance. It is, therefore, far from absurd to attributerio ne substance severat attributes cindeed, nothinii natur is Clearer tha that ach bein must e conceived unde some
attribute, and that the more realit or eincit has, the more attributes ilicit have expressin both iis necessit or ternit an iis infinit and Consequently, nothiniis cleare tha that a being absolutelyinfinite must necessarii be defines a me ave sata in V. 6. asinaeing that consist o infinite attributes, each of whicli expresses a certain eternat an infinite
shall, be able to teli diversit of substances lethim rea the followin propositions, hic stio 'hat but a single substanc exist in nature, and that it is solutet infinite. ence this mar Wout be ought
in vain. PROP. II. Gogor a substanc consistin os in sinite auribu es, eucis expressin ameterna anae in sinu essenee, necessaria existi.
42쪽
does no involve existence But his et is absurd. Theresore God necessarii exisis Q. E. D.
taine either in the thing's nature or uiside oscit. For example the reason hy a quare circle cloes notexis is indicate byriis ver nature, plainly beCauSei involves a contradiction O the ther and thereason hy substanc exist folio sciro iis naturealone, that is, it involves existence 73. But thereason hy a circle or triangle exisis, o Whni does no exist does no follo from thei nature, hut fromthe disposition o corporea nature a a Whole. Forfrom it, it must folioW either that a triangle necessarilyexi sis, o that it is impossibi it hould exist Thesethings are self-evident. Whenc it follows that that
for hich no reason or cause salven hicli prevenisit existin necessarii exists. An so, is no ause orreason can e ive that revenis God' existing ortha cloes aWay With his existence, e absolutet must conclude that he necessarii exists. ut i there ere Such a reason or cause, it ould have ole either in the ver natureis God o ouiside oscit, that is in omeother substance of another nature For i ii ere of the fame nature, it Would by that Ver fact be Conceded that there is a God But a substance of another natur could have nothin in common illi God a), and ence could not be sed ei ther o prove or todisprove his existence Since, theresore, an reaSOn
43쪽
or cause hic cloes Way ith God' existence cannot he ouiside the divine nature, it must neCessarilybe-is in deed e oes no exist- in his nature iself, whicli, ould involve a contradiction. No to amrmihi os an absolutet infinite an supremel perfectbein is absurd oherefore, ei ther in or ut o Godis there an cause or reason hich does Way With his existence an consequently God necessarilyexisis Q. E. D. A ther Proj.-T be able notri exist is an ofPOWer, and o the ther and to e able to exist ispo Ker ascis selfevident). Is therefore, ni finite be-ings necessarii exist finite eings are more powersulthan the absolutet infinite bein and this ascis set
evident is absurd Theresore either noth in exists, or an absolutely infinite eing also necessarii exi sis. But e exist ither in urseives, o in ome ther, Whic necessarii exist sis axiom I and 73. here-
fore, a bein absolutet infinite, that is def. 63, God,
necessarii exisis Q. E. D. Scholium.-In his last proo Phave istiext showthe existence of God a posteriori, that the proo mighthe the more readii comprehende not ho ever, that the existenc os God oes no solio , priorifrom the fame round For, since the abilit to exist is power, it follo that the more realit properlybelong to the nature o anything the more poWer ithas of itfel to exist and lience, that an absolutelyinfinite being, o God has os himself an absolutet infinite poWer of existing, and e thereiore absolutelyexisis. Stili, many ill perhaps no readit be able tose the evident character of this proos, ecause theyare accustome to Contemplatin oni thos thingstha no from externa causes and of these th se
44쪽
causes, hether the consis of many pari or e , o e Whateve perfectionis realit the have entirelyto the virtve of som externa cause, and thus heirexistence arisesint from the perfectio of the externa Cause, an no from heir own o the therhand Whateve persectio a substanc has, it o esto no externa Causeri herefore even iis existenCemus follo fro iis nature lone, an Consequently is noth in other than iis essen ce. Persection, then,
cloes notio away With the existence of a thing, but onthe contrary, postis it but imperfectio does WayWith it Therefore e cannoti more certain of the existence of anyth in than of the existenc os an absolutet infinite o perfectaeing that is, o God For, insomuch as his essence excludes ali impersection, and involves absolute perfection, it by that ver saci does aWay with alloeason for doubtin his existence, and
45쪽
Proow-The paris into hicli substance thus Conceived ould e divide Will ither retain the natureos substance, o Wil not. Is the former, then 8heachpari ill have to e infinite and 6 iis own cause, and si ill aveo consistis a different attribute, and thus, out o one substanCe, severat couldie made, which 6 is absurd. Ad to this that the paris a)would have nothinii common it their hole, and that it,out be possibi for the whole aeres. 4 and Io)both tot an tot conceived without it paris, Whichno ne an doubi tote absurd. ut i the lalter beaffirmed that the paris illiso retain the nature of Substance, then, i the whole substance ere dividedint equa paris, it ould lose the natur os substancean Would cease orae, hic li 7 is absurd. PROP. I 3. Absolutes in sinu substane is indivisibis. Proow-I it ere divisibie, the paris into hicli twould e divide Will ither retain the natur os absolutet infinite substance or ill not. I the former, there ill then Se severa substances of the fame nature, hichris is absurd. I the lalter be assumed, then as bove it ill e possibi foro substance absolutet infinite to eas to e Whic siet is also
absurd. Corritav.-From this it follows that no substance, an consequently no corporea substance, in sociar asit is substance, is divisibie. Scholium.-That substanc is indivisibi is more simpl apprehende from the mere fac that thenature os substanc cannot e conceived exCeptos infinite, and that by a part os substance nothin cant, meant excepi finite substance, hich 8 involves a manifest contradiction. PROP. I 4. Besides God, o subflance an euher Morde conremeae
46쪽
Proow.-Since God is a ein absolutet infinite, of hom no attribute that expresses the essenCe fsubstanc cani dented defra), an sinceae necessarii exist Irin i there ere an substance besides God i Would have tot explaine by ome attributeos God, and thus there ould exist two substances With the fame attribute, hicli s is absurd There- forem substanc besides God an exist, and Consequently one anno even e conceived For is it could e conceived it ould necessarii have to e
can either e nor e conceived an substance. Q. E. D. Corouar I.-Ηenc it ver clearly follows: rst, that God sine that is deg. 63 that there is in nature butisne substance, and that it is absolutet infinite, a We have jus intimated in the scholium to proposition O.
Corollar a.-It folioWs second that extension and thought are either attributes os God, or axiomo haremodifications of the attributes of God. PROP. I 5. Murer is, is in God, and wishout Godnot in canisu er x orde conceived. Proj.-Besides God there ei ther is nor an e
Modes hoWever dein ), without a substanCe Cannei ther e nor e conceived henc the can beoni in the divine nature, an can e conceived by means of it lone. ut besides substanCes and modes, there is nothinc axiom i). Therefore, Without God noth in ca either e or e Conceived. Q. E. D.
47쪽
Scholium.-There are ome lio sanc God like a man, consistingi bod an mind, an subjectri pas- sions Mo far these re from a true nowledge of ' God is sufficienti evident rom What has atready been proved Butes pas them by For ali ho have to any extent contemplate the divine nature den that God is corporeat; hich also the wel prove romthis that by bod We mea a certain quantity, havingtength breadth, an depili, bounde by ome definitet figure, than hicli nothin more absurd an e saido God, ho is a ein absolutet infinite. Never-theless, Sometimes by ther arguments with hichthe tryo prove his Oint, the clearly ho that the entiret funder corporealis extende substanceitself rom the divine nature, an maintain that it hasbeen create by God B What divine poWer, hoWever, it could have been created the domo knowatali; hicli clearly hoWs that thendo no themselves understand What the say. I, or m part have prove clearly enough, in my Wn opinio at east
Se 6 cor. and 8, schol a , that no substance an e produce or create by another. Furthermore, in Prop. 4,' have hoWn that besides God there cannelther be nori conceived an substancea an hence me have conclude that extende substance sine of the infinite attributes of God. o ever, for the aheo a fuller explanation, I ill refute the arguments of m opponenis, hicli ali come ac to this : In the firs place that corporea substance, in sociar ascit is substanCe, Consisis, a the thin k of part and theytherefore en that it a b infinite, an Consequently that it an pertain to God. An this theyillustrate by an instances, ne orow of hicli I ill quote di the say, corporeat substance is infinite,
48쪽
le it e conceived a divide into tW paris; achpari Will e either finite o infinite. I the former, then is the infinite composed of two finite paris, Whichis absurd. I the lalter, then there is an infinite twiceas greatos nother infinite, hicli is also absurd. Further, i an infinite quantityrae measured by portions a oot in tength, it ili aveo consis of an infinite number os suci portions ascit,il also is it bemeasured by portions an inch in tength and there- fore, ne infinite number illi twelve times a greatas nother infinite. Finalty is fromine Oint of any infinite quantity two lines, as A B, A C, b drawnto infinit at rs at a give determinate distancea part it is certain that the distance belween B and Cincreases Continuously, and that at last, rom eing determinate, it ill ecome in determinabie. Since, therefore, these absurdities ould follow, a theythin k, i infinite quantityae assumed the infer that corporea substance must e finite, and Consequently, that it oes no belon to the essen ce of God Asecon argument is ought also rom the supreme perfection o God For God the say, since e is a supremel perfeci eing, cannot e passive; ut corporea substance, inasmuch ascit is divisibie, an be passive cit follows, then that it cloes no belongrio the essence of God These re ha I find writers
49쪽
bringiniforWard as arguments by Whichahe endeavorto hoW that corporea substanc is unWorth of the divine nature, an cannot elongo it But ii nepay good attention he will discove that I have atready replied to these, nasmuchos these arguments arebased onlympo this that the assume corporea substanc tot compose of paris, hiches have atready ia mitis 13, oro fhown to he absurd. In the secondplace ii ne illiseigh the matter ell, he wil see that ali hos absurdities V indreae, Me are ali amo Dies, hic I am notiso discussing) from hichthe Would conclude that extende substanc is finite, domo in the least solio drom the fac that an infinite quantit is assum eo: ut rom the fac that theyassume infinite quantit tot measurabie, an to Consis o finite paris; herefore, rom the absurdities that folio from that the can infer nothing, exceptilia infinite quantit is no measurabie, and that itCanno consis o finite paris. An this is hat we have Hready prove above Ia, etc. 3. So the weapon Whicli thenaim a us, the reali Cast at themselves. I f thereiore the stili destre to infer rom his absurdit of their that extende substance must befinite, thendo, b Hercules, precisely What ne oes, is fro the fac that he has pretende that the circle has the properties of the quare, e conclude that thecircle has nomenter from hicli line drawn to the circumference Will alli equat For corporeat substance, Whicli cannot e conceived exceptos infinite, exceptas single exceptis indivisibie se 8, 5, anae sa), they, in orde to conclude that it is finite, conceive to Consistis finite paris, to e manifol an divisibie Soalso others, after pretendin that the line is composedo paris, no ho to discove many arguments by
50쪽
whic to ho that the line cannot be infinitet divided And indeed, it is no les absurdo assumethat Corporea substanc is compose of hodie orparis than to assume that bod is composed os planes, planesi lines, and lines, finalty of potnis. An this at whoano that clear reasoniniis infalli ble hould admit, and speciali thos Who den that there is a vacuum. Orci corporea substanc could e so divide that iis paris Ouidie reali distinci, hy thencould notisne part be annihilaled while the thersremain, as hesore, mutuali connected And whymus ali e so fitte together that there an e novacuum Surely, of thing that reali are distinctsrom ne nother, ne an exist an abide in iis own state ithout nother. Since, therefore, there is novacuum in nature of Whicli I shali si ea else here), but ali paris must so run together that there e novacuum, it again follows that the cannot be reatly distinguished oliat is that corporeat substance in Ofar ascit is substance, cannotae divided. f, hoWever, one ask hy e re so incline by nature to divide quantity I answer that quantit is conceived by usin No Way abstractly that is superficiat ly, as sorinstance, e imagine it o as substance, hicli is theac of the understandin alone. f there fore, eexamine the quantit ascit is in the imagination, hichwe osten an easti do it illis found tot finite, divisibie, an compose of paris is, o ever, eexamine i itself, as it is in the understanding, and conceive it in sociar ascit is substance, hicli is very hard o do, then, as e have ali eady sussiciently proved, it ill e sotin to e infinite, single and indivisibie This to ali ho have earne to distinguisti etween imaginatio an understanding, ill