*****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. Cor.).  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.

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., Cor.), 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., Cor. i., and Prop. xvii., Cor. 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.

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., Cor. 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.

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.

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.

<<<<>>>>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., Cor. 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
would 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 versa.  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.

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 Cor.).  Wherefore the power  of God, by
which he and all things are and act, is identical with his
essence.  Q.E.D.

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.

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., Cor.); 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
versa:  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  onto 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 or 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 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 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.





END OF PART I