Ethics, part 1 | Page 7

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.
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.
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.
<<<< 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.
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.
<<<<
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.).
<<<< attributes of God or (by Ax. i.) accidents ("affectiones") of the
attributes of God.
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 (Cor. Prop. vi., and