(10:11) I think the cause for such confusion
is mainly, that they do not keep to the proper order of philosophic
thinking. (12) The nature of God, which should be reflected on first,
inasmuch as it is prior both in the order of knowledge and the order
of nature, they have taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and
have put into the first place what they call the objects of sensation;
hence, while they are considering natural phenomena, they give no
attention at all to the divine nature, and, when afterwards they apply
their mind to the study of the divine nature, they are quite unable to
bear in mind the first hypotheses, with which they have overlaid the
knowledge of natural phenomena, inasmuch as such hypotheses are no help
towards understanding the Divine nature. (10:13) So that it is hardly to
be wondered at, that these persons contradict themselves freely.
(10:14) However, I pass over this point. (15) My intention here was only
to give a reason for not saying, that that, without which a thing cannot
be or be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing: individual
things cannot be or be conceived without Glod, yet God does not appertain
to their essence. (16) I said that "I considered as belonging to the
essence of a thing that, which being given, the thing is necessarily given
also, and which being removed, the thing is necessarily removed also; or
that without which the thing, and which itself without the thing can
neither be nor be conceived.
Pages:
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85