HIS EXISTENCE and HIS NATURE
A Thomistic Solution of Certain Agnostic Antinomies

By
The Rev. R. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, O.P.
MASTER IN THEOLOGY,
PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE COLLEGIO ANGELICO, ROME'

MEMBER OF THE ROMAN ACADEMY OF ST. THOMAS AQUtNAS

Translated from the Fifth French Edition
By DOM BEDE ROSE, O.S.B., D.D.
ST. BENEDICT'S ABBEY
MOUNT ANGEL. ORB.

Volume I
"The first indemonstrable principle is that the same thing cannot be at
the same time affirmed and denied; this is based on the notion of being
and non*being, and on this principle all others are based, as is stated by
the Philosopher in the Fourth Book of his Metaphysics, ch. 3.”
(St. Thomas, Summa Theo!., la 2ae, q.94, a.2)

B. HERDER BOOK CO.,
15 & 17 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST. LOUIS, MO.,
AND
33 QUEEN SQUARE, LONDON, W. C.

1949

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Printed in U. S. A.

NIHIL OBSTAT
P. Hieronymus Wespe, O.S.B.,

Censor deputatus
IMPRIMI POTEST

Bernard Murphy, O.S.B.,
Abbas

NIHIL OBSTAT
Sti. Ludovici, die g. Nov., 1934,
F. J. Holweck.,
Censor Librorum

IMPRIMATUR

Sti. Ludovici, die g. Nov., tg34,
P. P. Crane, V.G.

Copyright tgi4
B. HERDER BOOK CO.

Sixth Impression
Vaü-Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton and New York

TO THE HOLY MOTHER OF GOD
THE SEAT OF WISDOM

AS A TOKEN OF GRATITUDE
AND FILIAL OBEDIENCE

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

In a book entitled, Le Sens Commun et la Philosophie de
l'Gtre, we have shown that common sense or natural reason is a
rudimentary philosophy of being, opposed to the philosophy of
ihc phenomenon and to that of becoming; that being and the
principles implied in it constitute the formal, primary and ade­
quate object of common sense.
Here we again take up the study of these first principles, not
m> much as they are concerned with the functioning of the fac­
ulty of common sense, but with reference to the classical proofs
for God’s existence. We have set ourselves the task of demonstrat­
ing the necessity of these principles, their dependence upon the first
principle, and their ontological and transcendent validity. It will
be seen that the proofs for God’s existence rest ultimately upon
the principle of identity or of non-contradiction, their proximate
basis being the principle of sufficient reason, and their immediate
basis the principle of causality. Each of the proofs will establish
clearly the fact that the principle of identity, which is the su­
preme law of thought, must be at the same time the supreme law
of reality; that the reality which is fundamental must be ab­
solutely identical with itself; that it must be to “being” as A is
to A, the self-subsisting Being; consequently, it must be essen­
tially distinct from the world, which on its part is essentially
composite and subject to change. Hence the alternative: either
the true God or radical absurdity.
The fundamental ideas of the first part of this work were set
forth in 1910, in an article entitled “Dieu,” written for the “Dic­
tionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique.” This article has
been revised, recast, and more fully developed on a number of
points. Particularly has the terminology of the Vatican Council’s
definition in reference to the demonstrability of the existence of
V

vi

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

God been explained by the corresponding proposition of the
Antimodernist Oath. The proofs establishing the ontological and
transcendental validity of the primary ideas, as also the various
formulas of the principle of identity, the defence of the absolute
necessity of the principles of sufficient reason, of causality, and
of finality have been presented more clearly and extensively. On
these various questions we have made every effort to answer the
difficulties raised. The proof based on the order prevailing in the
universe has been slightly modified in reference to the question
of chance.
The second part, which treats of the nature of God and of His
attributes is almost completely new. We have made every effort
to solve the antinomies of the Agnostics, basing our argument
upon the Thomistic doctrine of analogy. To set forth the purport
and scope of this doctrine, which is an application of mitigated
realism, it seemed necessary for us to attack, on the one hand, the
Nominalism of the Agnostics, especially that of Maimonides,
and, on the other, the exaggerated Realism which Duns Scotus
did not sufficiently avoid. This was necessary in order to safe­
guard the absolute simplicity of God.
We have devoted the second-last chapter to a critical examina­
tion of certain antinomies very difficult to solve, namely, those
which concern free will. How can we reconcile the freedom of
the will with the principle of sufficient reason, the foundation
upon which the proofs for God’s existence ultimately rest? How
can we reconcile the liberty of God with His immutability
and His wisdom? How the liberty of man with the fact that all
things are set in motion by God?
Our conclusion with regard to God’s ineffability and the ab­
surdity of the unknowable brings out clearly all that we have
maintained both in the theoretical and the practical order of the
inevitable alternative developed throughout this work: either the
true God or positive absurdity.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
The first two editions of this work, printed in 1914 and pub­
lished in 1915, were quickly sold out, in spite of the difficulties
caused by the war. During the four years which have elapsed
since, few works have appeared on this subject, and hence we
have not much to add or to modify in this third edition.
However, for the more difficult questions, we have here and
there quoted more freely from St. Thomas passages which throw
additional light upon the subject. Various pages have been modi­
fied for the special purpose of giving a clearer explanation of
the proper cause of individual and transitory effects as well as
that of universal and permanent effects, and also so as to de­
termine more closely the nature of the free act in God and to
give a more exact demonstration of the possibility of miracles.1
We could have eliminated some abstract discussions, which
refer to the objections of contemporary Agnostics; but our pur­
pose here was not to exhaust the objection, but to establish as
soundly and precisely as possible what are the immediate data
of the intelligence which constitute the basis of our rational cer­
tainty of God’s existence.
Some readers requested us to translate the Latin quotations,
since a good understanding of them is difficult without being
well versed in Scholastic terminology. We have done this in
some cases; but on the whole it was necessary to stick to the
original, which, for the rest, is explained by the context.2
We have been particularly careful in the use of terms. Every
1 These changes are to be found in nos. 9, 50 B, 52 D, 62.
1 In the English translation an attempt has been made to give a faithful render­
ing of these Latin quotations.—Tr.

vii

viii

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

science has its special terminology. We find this to be so in
mathematics, in physics, and in biology; it is the same for philos­
ophy and theology. If we wish to avoid the abuse of circumlo­
cution, we must employ special terms to designate the con­
cepts which are more distinct than those of common experience.
That is why we have retained the technical terms, especially
where, concerning the existence and nature of God, we explain
what it is that distinguishes Nominalism, Conceptualism, and
Pantheistic Realism, from that traditional realism the truth of
which we demonstrate. The fundamental question is, whether
God is merely a name, or an idea, or the universal being of all
things. Is He truly the One who is, infinitely superior by reason
of His absolute simplicity and immutability to the world of cor­
poreal and incorporeal beings—a world which is essentially com­
posite and subject to change?
We have added by way of appendices a critical inquiry into
certain special difficulties, which have been submitted to us since
the publication of the first edition.3 The difficulties follow the or­
der of subjects discussed in this work and refer to such questions
as these:
Concerning the proofs of God’s existence: I. The synthesis of
the Thomistic proofs for God’s existence and the notion of the
proper cause. II. The validity of the principles of inertia and
conservation of energy.
Concerning the distinction between God and the world: III.
The simplicity of the analogical notion of being. IV. The various
forms of Pantheism refuted by St. Thomas.
Concerning Providence and divine causality: V. St. Thomas
and Neomolinism. A synthesis of the teaching of St. Thomas is
given on these questions.
A detailed exposition of these problems would have unduly
impeded the progress of the demonstrations given in the course
• Only the second of these appendices was contained in the first two editions.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

ix

of this work. Moreover, we shall see that the discussion of these
problems serves but to confirm our demonstrations. We would
not have written the last of these appendices, if it had not been
necessary in answer to the criticisms which we received, and this
gave us an opportunity to synthesize the scattered teaching of
St. Thomas on these great problems. May these closing pages, far
from the noise of dispute, cause some souls to understand better
the words of Our Lord: “If thou didst but know the gift of
God.” (John IV, io).
The first two editions lacked an alphabetical index of the sub­
jects discussed and the principal authors quoted. The one now
given, even though not detailed, will enable the reader to group
together the various aspects of the same question, explained in
different parts of the book.
May this book, in spite of its rather abstract character, give to
those who read it that real joy which is the result of having seen
the truth, and cause them to have a greater love for the Author
of all goodness, in whom we must find our happiness. “Blessed
are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.” (Matt. V, 8).

PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION

Two more appendices have been added in this fifth edition.
The first is on “God Determining or Being Determined; there
is no middle course.” It is the conclusion of a controversy waged
between 1925 and 1927, after the publication of my article on
“Predeterminism” in the Dictionnaire Apologétique. The second
is entitled: “The Foundation of the Real Distinction between Po­
tency and Act, according to the Teaching of St. Thomas.” This
was written to answer the objections raised by M. L. Rougier in
a recent book, in which he attacked the Christian faith and
Thomism.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

Preface to the First Edition............................................... v
Preface to the Third Edition.......................................... vii
Preface to the Fifth Edition........................................... ix

PART I
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
CHAPTER

I

What the Catholic Church Teaches About God’s
Existence and His Nature, and the Knowledge
Which We Can Have of Him by Means of the
Natural Light of Reason.................................. 3
1. The existence and nature of God as defined by the
Vatican Council.......................................................... 3
2. The distinction between God and the world, as de­
fined by the Council. The meaning and import of
this definition................................................................ 5

3. Definition of the Vatican Council on the ability of
human reason to know God with certainty. Con­
demned errors: Positivism, Traditionalism, Fideism,
Kantian Criticism.......................................................... 8
4. Explanation of the theological terms employed by the
Council in the antimodernist oath............................ 12
5. The condemnation of Modernist Agnosticism by the
Encyclical “Pascendi”................................................... 33
6. Does the teaching of the Church permit us to main­
tain that the method of immanence is indispensable
and that it precedes all others?................................. 40
xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii
CHAPTER

II

PACT

The Possibility of Proving the Existence of God 61
SECTION I

WHAT genus and what species of demonstration does this
DEMONSTRABILITY DEMAND?

7. We are here concerned with a philosophical or, more
precisely, a metaphysical demonstration. In the
rigor of its proof and its power to convince, it
must surpass the so-called scientific demonstrations
of the present day..................................
62
8. This will not be an a priori demonstration. Insuf­
ficiency of the ontological proof.......................
66

9. The demonstration will have to be a posteriori. For
it to be rigorously exact, it must start with a par­
ticular effect, and trace this effect back to its proper
(»>., to its necessary and immediate) cause ... 71
10. Therefore, it is not in a series of accidentally con­
nected past causes that we must seek for the origi­
nal cause, but in one in which there is an essential
connection between the causes
...
. . 77

11. In this series of essentially connected causes, we even­
tually arrive at one which must be the proper
cause, without any further affirmation
.81

SECTON II
OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE DEMONSTRABILITY OF THE

EXISTENCE OF GOD. EMPIRICAL AND IDEALISTIC AGNOSTICISM

12. The objection of the Empirics against the necessity
and the ontological and transcendental validity of
the principle of causality. This objection and the re­
sulting Agnosticism are derived from Sensualistic
Nominalism................................................................... 84
13. Kant’s objection against the ontological and tran­
scendental value of the principle of causality . . 100
14. The general principle of modern Agnosticism .

.

. 106

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION III
PROOF OF THE DEMONSTRABILITY OF

God’s

EXISTENCE

ARTICLE I
IIIP. ONTOLOGICAL VALIDITY OF FIRST IDEAS AND FIRST PRINCIPLES

viurritn

face

15. The intellectual apprehension of intelligible being and
the intuition of its first principles.............................111
16. How shall we defend the ontological validity of our
intellect and of its first ideas?................................ 117
17. Indirect defence of the ontological validity of first
ideas............................................................................. 118
A. Insoluble difficulties................................................. 118
B. Indirect defence by the method of reductio ad
absurdum.................................................................. 122
18. Direct defence of the ontological validity of primary
ideas..............................................................................126
19. Objections of the Idealists: We cannot start from be­
ing; something corresponding to thought is a neces­
sity. Reply.................................................................. 139
20. Intuition of first principles. They are perceived in the
idea of being, which is the formal object of the in­
tellect. The transcendent principle (principle of
identity) is the ultimate basis of every proof for the
existence of God. Tire affirmation of the objective
validity of this transcendent principle tacitly im­
plies the admission of the existence of the divine
and transcendental being, who is absolutely identi­
cal with himself. In all forms of evolutionary
Pantheism contradiction necessarily is the first
principle........................................................................ 157
21. The anti-intellectualistic objection raised against the
principle of non-contradiction. Solution of the same
by means of the concept of potency, which enters
into all the proofs for the existence of God . . . 163
22. Hegel’s objection (absolute intellectualism) to the
principle of identity................................................. 172

xiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

23. Substance is the determining principle of identity.
What place it holds in the demonstration of the ex­
istence of God............................................................ 176
24. The principle of sufficient reason is the immediate
basis of the proofs for the existence of God. By the
appeal to the impossible it resolves itself into the
principle of identity. In this sense, it is an analytical
principle........................................................................ 181
25. The principle of efficient causality is the immediate
basis of the proofs for the existence of God. The
idea of efficient cause and its ontological validity.
Efficient causality, defined in terms of actual being,
transcends the order of phenomena and is an ac­
cidentally sensible, but essentially intelligible, en­
tity
..............................................................................191
26. All “becoming,” and every composite, necessarily de­
mands a cause............................................................ 194
27. The principle of finality, derived from the principle of
sufficient reason. The knowledge of its absolute
validity, far from presupposing the knowledge of
God’s existence, must be the means by which it be­
comes known to us...................................................... 199

ARTICLE II
THE TRANSCENDENTAL VALIDITY OF FIRST IDEAS AND FIRST PRINCIPLES

28. The objections of modern idealistic and empirical
Agnosticism and those of medieval Agnosticism . 206
29. Direct proof of the transcendental validity of primary
ideas............................................................................. 213
30. Indirect proof of the transcendental validity of pri­
mary notions............................................................ 223
31. The middle term of our demonstration is analogical.
The force of such a demonstration..........................224
32. This analogical knowledge enables the human mind
to grasp the fact of God’s existence, and to perceive
something of His essence; but it is not a quidditative perception, that is, a perception of what prop­
erly constitutes the essence of the Deity .... 228

TABLE OF CONTENTS

χν
PAGE

CU*m*

33. Solution of the objections raised against the tran­
scendental validity of primary notions .... 232

III

Exposé of the Proofs for the Existence of God . 242
34. The five main proofs. Their universality. Their order.
What they are intended to demonstrate .... 245
35. General proof, which includes all the others. Its prin­
ciple is that the greater cannot proceed from the
less. The higher alone explains the lower
. 251
36. Proof from motion. A. The proof.—B. Objections.—
C. Consequences .............................................261
37. Proof by means of efficient causes..........................289
38. Proof based on contingency................................... 293
39. Proof based on the various grades of being.... 302
40. Proof based on the order prevailing inthe world .
. 345
41. These five typical proofs establish five attributes, which
can be predicated only of the self-subsisting being,
who subsists above all things..................................... 372
APPENDIX

THE THOMISTIC PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD IN THEIR RELATION TO THE NO­
TION OF PROPERCAUSE................... 379
First Proof: From Motion...................................................... 381
Second Proof: From EfficientCauses................................. 384
Third Proof: From the Contingency of Beings in the
World....................................................................... 384

Fourth Proof: From the Degrees of Perfection in Be­
ings

................................................................ 386

Fifth Proof: From

the Order Prevailing in the Uni­
verse ............................................................... 387

The One End

to

Which All Five Proofs Converge .

. 390

PART I
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Concerning the knowledge of the existence of God that can be
acquired by human reason we shall consider: i) What die Catholic
Church teaches on this point; 2) That the ontological and tran­
scendental values of our primary ideas establish the possibility of
proving this existence; 3) The principal proofs for the existence
of God.

CHAPTER I
What
and

the

Catholic Church Teaches About God’s Existence

His Nature,
of

Him

by

and the

Knowledge Which We Can Have

Means of the Natural Light of Reason.

i. The existence and nature of God as defined by the Vatican
Council.
“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church,” declares the
Vatican Council (Const. “Dei Filius,” ch. i), “believes and con­
fesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of
Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, incomprehen­
sible, infinite in intellect, in will, and in every perfection; who,
being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual sub­
stance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the
world, of supreme beatitude in and by Himself, and ineffably
exalted above all things which, beside Himself, exist or are con­
ceivable.” (Abbot Butler’s translation; Vatican Council, Vol. II).
The truths of our Catholic faith contained in this paragraph
can be explained more fully by a résumé of the conclusions ex­
pressed by Vacant in his treatise entitled, Etudes théologiques sur
les constitutions du Concile du Vatican, d’après les Actes du Con­
cile.
The Council, having affirmed its belief in the existence of God,
designating Him by the principal names which the Bible gives to
Him, proceeds to discuss the nature of God and the constituent
attributes of the divine essence. His eternity, His immensity, and
1 lis incomprehensibility imply that the Divine Essence is beyond
time, space, and every creatural concept. Eternity means that in
3

4

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

God there neither is, nor can be, beginning, end, or change of
any kind. The exclusion of any idea of succession, admitted by
all theologians as an element included in the concept of eternity,
though apparently not as yet a dogma of the Catholic faith, never­
theless is a certain truth, proximate to the faith.
The divine immensity, as defined by the Council, means that
the substance of God is and must be wholly present to all crea­
tures, conserving them in their mode of being, wherever they are.
The divine incomprehensibility means that God cannot be fully
comprehended by anyone but Himself. The intuitive vision of
God granted to the blessed in Heaven does not include such a
plenitude of knowledge.
In defining that God is infinite in every perfection, the Council
states precisely in what sense we are to understand the term “in­
finite.” The ancient philosophers gave the name infinite to any­
thing which had not yet received its complete determination.
When the Catholic Church declares that God is infinite, she
means, on the contrary, that He possesses all possible perfections,
that there is no limit to His perfection, and no admixture of im­
perfection to be found in them, so that it is impossible to conceive
anything that would render Him more perfect. By this definition
the Council avoided Hegel’s error, that the Infinite Being, com­
prising all possible perfections, is an ideal tending to realize itself,
but incapable of ever becoming a reality. By adding the phrase,
“in intellect and in will,” the Council condemns the materialistic
Pantheism which considers the Divinity as merely a blind and
impersonal necessity, a sort of law of fatality without either in­
telligence or will.
As for the other perfections which may be attributed to God,
and of which the Council makes no mention, they are simply
those which imply no imperfection in their concept. All these
absolute perfections {simpliciter simplices, as they are termed in
theology) are identified in an absolutely simple eminence, of

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

5

which they constitute, as it were, the virtual aspects, and which is
strictly and properly the Deity.
1. The distinction between God and the world, as defined by
the Council. The meaning and import of this definition.

The Council then considers the question of the distinction be­
tween God and the world. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
had condemned the Pantheism of Amaury of Chartres as an
absurdity rather than a heresy. The reappearance and spread
of this error necessitated a more explicit and reasoned definition.
The Council, therefore, defines the distinction between God and
the world and indicates its principal proofs: "Deus, qui cum sit
una singularis, simplex omnino et incommutabilis substantia
spiritualis, praedicandus est re et essentia a mundo distinctus;
God, being one sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual
substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from
the world.”
1) God is unique by nature. This means that the Divine Na­
ture cannot be considered as a common note of any class of
created beings nor be realized anywhere but in Him. The Divine
Being is, therefore, really and essentially distinct from the world,
in which there exists a multiplicity of genera, species, and in­
dividuals.
2) God is absolutely simple. This implies that the Divine Be­
ing is really and essentially distinct from the world, where we
find beings that may be considered either as physical compounds
(/. <?., corporeal beings whose constituent physical parts are really
distinct from one another), or as metaphysical compounds
essence potentially realizable and actual existence) ; or, lastly,
we may view them as forming a logical compound (:. e., as
classified in the order of genus and specific difference).
3) God is immutable. Since everywhere on this earth we find
the process of change in beings or the possibility of the same, the

6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

unchangeableness of the Divine Being is another mark by which
He is really and essentially distinguished from this world. The
Council points out the precise nature of this distinction when it
says: “really and essentially distinct from the world.” It is not a
distinction of the mind, nor a virtual distinction, such as exists
between any two divine attributes; but it is a real distinction, in
virtue of which God and the world are not one reality, but two
separate realities. This distinction is not only real, as that between
two individuals of the same species, but in addition to this it is
also essential: God is distinct from the world by His essence.
The third canon of the Council is even more precise, con­
demning Pantheism in general, which views God as a substance
immanent in the world, and finite things as the accidents of this
substance. The canon reads: “If any one shall say that the sub­
stance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same;
let him be anathema.” Finally, this distinction is infinite. God is
sufficient for Himself; “of supreme beatitude in and by Himself,
and ineffably exalted above all things which, beside Himself,
exist or are conceivable.”
There are four canons that correspond to the doctrine contained
in this paragraph from the Constitution Dei Filius, to wit:
First, the canon condemning atheism: “If anyone shall deny
one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible;
let him be anathema.”
Secondly, the canon condemning Materialism: “If anyone shall
not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists; let
him be anathema.”
Thirdly, the canon condemning the fundamental tenet of Pan­
theism: “If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of
God and of all things are one and the same; let him be anath­
ema.”
Fourthly, the canon condemning the principal forms of Pan­
theism, namely: (i) Emanatistic Pantheism; (2) the essential

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

7

Pantheism of Schelling; (3) the essential Pantheism of the uni­
versal being. “If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal
and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the divine
substance; or that the divine essence by the manifestation and
evolution of itself becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is uni­
versal and indefinite being, which by determining itself con­
stitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera,
species, and individuals; let him be anathema.”
The theories of Rosmini condemned by decree of the Holy
Office (14th Dec., 1887), and the teachings of Ontologism con­
demned 18th Sept., 1861, must be referred to this canon. Two of
these latter propositions read: (1) “What we understand by the
term being as applied to all things and without which they mean
nothing to us, is the divine Being. (2) “Universals, objectively
considered, are not really distinct from God.” (Of. Denzinger,
Enchiridion, nos. 1660 and 1661).
This, then, is the teaching of the Church on the existence of
God, His nature, His essential attributes, and the distinction be­
tween Him and the world. With these doctrinal statements the
Council associates those referring to the creation of the world
and to Divine Providence: “This one only true God, of His own
goodness and almighty power, not for the increase and acquire­
ment of His own happiness, but to manifest His perfection by the
blessings which He bestows on creatures, and with absolute free­
dom of counsel, created out of nothing from the very first begin­
ning of time, both the spiritual and corporeal creature, to wit,
the angelical and the mundane, and afterwards the human crea­
ture, as partaking in a sense of both, consisting of spirit and of
body.”
Concerning the Providence of God we read : “God protects and
governs by His Providence all things which He hath made,
‘reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things
sweetly’ (Wisd. VIII, 1). ‘For all things are bare and open to

8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

His eyes’ (Heb. IV, 13), even those that are yet to be by the free
action of creatures.” (Const. Dei Filius, ch. 1).
It cannot, therefore, be maintained with Abelard that God
cannot prevent evil (Denz., n. 375), or with Eckhard, that He wills
not only what is good, but also somehow what is evil (Denz., n.
514). On this point a later decision tells us that it is impossible for
God to will what is sinful; He can only permit it. (Denz., n.
816).
What the Church teaches about the divine mysteries properly
called supernatural, such as the Holy Trinity, does not concern
us here.
3. Definition of the Vatican Council on the ability of human
reason to knotu God with certainty. Condemned errors: Posi­
tivism, Traditionalism, Fideism, Kantian Criticism.

The Vatican Council has also defined what can be known of
God by the natural light of human reason. “The same Holy
Mother Church,” says the Council, “holds and teaches that God,
the beginning and end of all things, may be known for certain
by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things,
‘for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood from the things that are made’
(Rom. I, 20); but that it pleased His wisdom and goodness to
reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will to mankind
by another, namely, the supernatural way.” Canon I of this
chapter reads: “If any one shall say that the one true God, our
Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural
light of human reason through created things; let him be anath­
ema.” (Dei Filius, Ch. 2, Of Revelation).
To obtain the exact meaning of this definition and of the
corresponding canon, we shall have to review the errors which
the Council had in view. Since the first proposition of the Anti­
modernist Oath contains the same terms as those used in this

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

9

definition of the Council, a comparison of the two paragraphs
will enable us to determine the import of each term in the
definition.
The preliminary memorandum distributed among the Fathers
of the Council, together with the schema prepared by the Deputatio de Fide, included this declaration: “The definition that God
can be certainly known by the light of natural reason, through
the medium of created beings, as well as die canon correspond­
ing to this definition, were deemed necessary, not only because of
Traditionalism, but also because of the wide-spread error that
die existence of God cannot be proved by any apodiede argu­
ment, and consequently that by no process of human reasoning
can the certainty of it be established.” (Cf. Vacant, Etudes sur
les Const, du Concile du Vatican, p. 286, and Document VII, p.
610). Hence it is heretical to maintain, as do the atheists
and the Positivists, that there is no way by which we can arrive
at the knowledge of God, or to assert with the most advanced of
die Traditionalists and Fideists, that we can know God only
through revelation or by some positive teaching received by
tradition.
In the condemnation of Fideism we can see clearly what is
the mind of the Church on this point. Amongst the various
propositions which the Congregation of the Index required the
Abbé Bautain to accept, in 1840, was one which declared that
‘ human reasoning is of itself sufficient to prove with certainty
the existence of God (ratiocinatio Dei existentiam cum certi­
tudine probare valet). Faith, being a supernatural gift, presup­
poses revelation, and hence cannot be consistently invoked to
prove the existence of God against an atheist.” (Denzinger, n.
1622). From Augustine Bonnetty, who was likewise suspected of
I idcism,1 the same Congregation of the Index, on June it, 1855,
1 In the letter sent along with these propositions by Father Modena, the Secrelary of the Congregation of the Index, to Monsignor Sacconi, papal nuncio in

10

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

demanded formal assent to four propositions, the second of which
affirms that “human reasoning has the power to prove the exist­
ence of God with certainty (ratiocinatio cum certitudine probare
valet), as well as the spirituality and liberty of the soul,” while
the fourth proposition declares that “the method employed by St.
Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other Scholastics after them, does
not lead to rationalism, nor can it be blamed for the fact that
the contemporary philosophy of the schools drifted into Natural­
ism and Pantheism. Hence no one has the right to reproach these
doctors and teachers for having employed this method, especially
since they did so with the at least tacit approval of the Church.”
(Cf. Denz., nos. 1650-1652). There is no doubt that the Council
in this definition and its corresponding canon condemned
Fideism. But the question may be asked: “Is the Kantian doctrine
also involved in this definition?”
Kant maintained that the speculative proofs for the existence
of God are not convincing, that metaphysics is an impossibility,
and that there are no other proofs for the existence of God except
those of the practical or moral order, productive of moral faith,
which is sufficiently certain, subjectively considered, but objec­
tively considered, is insufficient. (Critique of Practical Reason, I,
Bk. ii, ch. 5). We shall consider this proof later on. For the pres­
ent we may say that the Vatican Council, in condemning Fideism
and Traditionalism, also had in view the Kantian theory. This
is clearly evident from the fact that the six amendments proposed
for the suppression of the word “certo” in the definition were all
rejected. “You know, very Reverend Fathers,” replied Bishop
Gasser in the report which he presented to the Council in the
Paris, it was stated that Bonnetty's attachment to the Holy Sec and to Catholic
teaching was never suspected. The intention was not to pronounce any judgment
declaring his "opinions erroneous, suspicious or dangerous," but only “to prevent
tlie possible consequences, proximate or remote, which others might deduce from
them, especially in matters of faith.” It may be remarked that Bonnetty gave his
full assent to the propositions submitted to him. [This footnote has been inserted
with the author's permission.—Tr.]

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

II

name of the Deputatio de Fide, “what opinion has become
prevalent in the minds of many through the teaching of the French
encyclopedists and the foremost defenders of the critical philoso­
phy in Germany; this widely spread opinion is none other than
i hat the existence of God cannot be proved with full certainty,
and that the arguments which have at all times been so highly
regarded, are still open to discussion. As a result, religion has
been despised as if it had no foundation. Moreover, in these lat­
ter days attempts have been made in various places to sepa­
rate morality from all religion; this is said to be necessary be­
ta use of the fear that, when a man has reached a certain age and
perceives that there is nothing certain in religion, not even the
existence of God, he may become a moral pervert. But you also
know, very Reverend Fathers, what is the value of this moral
education which does not receive its inspiration from the words
of the Psalmist: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wis­
dom.” (Ps. no, 9). (Cf. Vacant, Const, du Concile, pp. 301 and
657). See also Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis, Tomus VII, p. 130, and the condem­
nation of Hermes2 (Denz., n. 1620), and Frohschammer (n.
1670).
The Scholastics had always considered as erroneous the opin­
ion of those who denied the demonstrability, properly speaking,
of God’s existence. (Opinion of Peter d’Ailly and of Nicholas
d'Autrecourt).3 St. Thomas Aquinas qualifies this opinion as
• Hermes maintained that it cannot be proved that God is anything but an un< hungcable substance, constituting a part of the world, yet distinct and separate
Iront the changes that take place, all these occurring within Him as the sphere of
their operations.
' See De Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, 4th ed., pp. 545-550. The con­
demned theses of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (Denz., n. 553-570) are representative
■ •I the Antischolastic movement of the Middle Ages, in which we detect the inllii' nee exerted by the Nominalism of Ockham, which led to scepticism. The de111.1I of the objective validity of the principle of causality is one of the propositions
< ' mdetnncd. Another is the assertion that the principle of contradiction may be

12

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

erroneous {Contra Gent., I, ch. 12), and manifestly false {De
Veritate, q. 10, art. 12). Duns Scotus {In IV Sent., I, dist. 2, q. 3,
n. 7), Banez, Molina, Suarez, and other theologians express them­
selves in similar terms.

4) Explanation of the theological terms employed by the Council
in the antimodernist oath.
The oath prescribed by the Motu Proprio "Sacrorum Anti­
stitum," of September 1, 1910, is a profession of faith, which re­
produces the same terms as used by the Council on this question,
and defines them so clearly as to remove all possibility of a false
interpretation.
The opening words of this oath are a profession of faith in
God, the beginning and end of all things, whose existence can be
known with certainty and even proved by the natural light of
reason, through the medium of created things, or, in other words,
by the visible works of creation, just as a cause is known and
proved by its effects.
The foregoing is but a paraphrase of the Latin text, which
reads as follows: "Ego----- firmiter amplector ac recipio omnia ac
singula, quae ab inerranti Ecclesiae magisterio definita, adserta,
ac declarata sunt, praesertim ea doctrinae capita, quae hujus
temporis erroribus directo adversantur. Ac primum quidem
Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali rationis
lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis
opera, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci, adeoque
demonstrari etiam posse, profiteor. I [name], firmly hold as
true and accept everything which the infallible teaching au­
thority of the Church has defined, maintained, and declared, es­
pecially those points of doctrine which are directly contrary to
construed hypothetically as meaning that “if something exists, then something
docs exist {si aliquid est, aliquid est)'* (Ct. Dcnz., nos. 554 and 570).

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

13

the errors of the present time. And first of all I profess that
God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known for cer­
tain and proved by the natural light of reason, through the things
which He has made, that is to say, through the visible works of
His creation, just as the cause is made known to us by its
effects.”
That the possibility of proving the existence of God may re­
ceive its due emphasis, the Church distinguishes between: (1)
the object to be known, namely, God, the beginning and end of
all things {Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem} ; (2)
the efficient cause of this knowledge, which is the natural light
of reason {naturali rationis lumine)·, (3) the means by which
this knowledge is acquired, which is “the things which have
been made,” that is to say, the visible works of creation, just as
a cause is known by its effects {per ea quae jacta sunt, hoc est
per visibilia creationis opera tamquam causam per effectus)·,
(4) the degree of certitude in this knowledge is expressed by the
words, “can be known with certainty, and moreover even
proved” {certo cognosci adeoque demonstrari etiam)·, (5) finally,
the possibility of acquiring this knowledge is expressed by the
word "posse."
1) The object to be known: “God, the beginning and end of
all things,” is expressed in practically the same words as are used
by the Vatican Council in Chapter 2 of the Constitution "Dei
Tilius."4 This similarity of expression applies also to the cor­
responding canon, which is the first of the four attached to the
second chapter of the Constitution. Strictly speaking, the opening
words of the canon: “Deum unum et verum, Creatorem et
4 "Eadem sancta mater Ecclesia tenet et docet, Deum, rerum omnium princi­
pium et finem, naturali humanae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci
/•■use: the same holy mother the Church, holds and teaches, that God, the begin­
ning and end of all things, can certainly be known from created things, by the
natural light of human reason." (Denz., n. 1785).

14

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Dominum nostrum: the one and true God, our Creator and
Lord,” read more like a profession of faith in dogmatic form.8
In the doctrinal explanation of this canon, as given by the
spokesman of the Deputatio de Fide, we clearly see that what
is defined is that man, by reason alone, can come to recognize
God as his destined end, and consequently to realize what his
principal obligations are towards Him. But, on the other hand,
in giving to God the title of Creator, it was not the intention of
the Council to define as a dogma of faith that creation in the
strict sense of the term (which means "ex nihilo or from noth­
ing”) can be proved by the power of the reasoning faculty alone.®
The mind of the Council on this point was to retain the same
terms which Holy Scripture employs in designating the "true
God" who is the beginning and end of all things, and especially
of man.
This idea of the true God, which, as the Council states, can
be acquired by human reason—in what precisely does it consist?
On this point we may consult the Council’s definition of the
true God, as given in Chapter i of the Constitution “Dei Filius,"
and also the canons corresponding to this chapter. In explaining
this definition, it was pointed out above that the Council, in
formulating it, had in view not only the refutation of Pantheism
in general, but its various forms. In the enumeration of the
various attributes that denote the true God, it was not the inten­
tion of the Council to define as a dogma of faith that all these
attributes can be proved by reason alone; but the Council wished
it to be understood that these attributes are all implicitly or
“ "Si quis dixerit, Deum unum et verum, Creatorem et Dominum nostrum, per
ea quae facta sunt, naturali rationis humanae certo cognosci non posse: anathema
sit; If any one shall say that the one and true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot
be known for certain through the tilings which have been made, by the natural
light of reason, let him be anathema.” (Denz., n. 1806).
0 See Vacant, op. cil., t. I, p. 309.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

15

virtually7 included in the formula that “God is the beginning
and end of all things.”
If these attributes and the refutation of Pantheism as heretical,
were not implicitly or virtually included in the idea of God as
acquired by reason, then this idea would not be an expression
of the true God. To escape the charge of heresy it is not enough
to admit, as some agnostics do, that by reason alone we can con­
clude with certainty as to the existence of God, but that we
cannot conclude definitely that either transcendence, or im­
manence, or personality,8 or infinity, or finiteness properly be­
long to Him.
Neither is it enough to say that the mind can form a concept
of God in which it is a matter of indifference whether the at­
tributes of transcendence, personality, infinity, or even their con­
traries, are included. We must admit that the human mind is
capable of forming a concept of God which implicitly or virtually
includes the distinctive attributes of the true God and the falsity
of the contrary concepts, just as in argumentation a general
principle includes the conclusions deduced from it. The Pantheis­
tic concept of an immanent and impersonal God, the Panentheistic concept of an immanent and personal God (πάν èv τώ 0eô>),
that of a transcendental but finite God held by some Empirics,
must all evidently be classed among those that are false. In the
formulation of the Antimodernist Oath it was considered suffiT A note accompanying the schema presented by the Deputatio de Fide reads
.r follows: “Although the word Creator has been inserted in the canon, it is not,
therefore, defined that creation in the strict sense of the term can be proved by
reason; but the Council adopted the same word that is found in the Scripture
when recording this revealed truth, but with no added comment to determine the
sense in which the term is used." (Sec Vacant, Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican,
Vol. I, pp. 308 and 610; Vol. II, p. 440).
8 By the personality of God must be understood His subsistence, which is abso­
lutely independent of the world’s existence, His intelligence, His knowledge of
Himself, His liberty.

ι6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

cient if, in combating the errors of the present time, the same
terms were retained as those used by the Vatican Council. Evi­
dently it will not do to admit the possibility of knowing with
certainty the existence of God, if we understand this as William
James does,9 or, as we shall see later on, as Bergson and
Le Roy do.
Is reason able to prove by explicit deduction the distinctive at­
tributes of God, especially that of infinity? This point was not
defined by the Vatican Council, nor is there any reference to it
in the above-mentioned proposition of the Antimodernist Oath.
But the S. Congregation of the Index in 1840 ordered Bautain
to give his formal assent to a proposition which declared that
not only the existence of God can be proved with certainty by
reasoning, but also the infinity of His perfections (ratiocinatio
potest cum certitudine probare existentiam Dei et infinitatem
perfectionum ejus; Denz., n. 1622). If, indeed, human reason,
can know God with certainty, not merely on the testimony of
authority, but by its own light, it must be able to account for
9 On this point William James, in his book entitled, A Pluralistic Universe, writes
as follows: “The theological machinery that spoke so livingly to our ancestors,
with its finite age of (he world, its creation out of nothing, its juridical morality
and eschatology, its relish for rewards and punishments, its treatment of God
as an external contriver, an ‘intelligent and moral governor,’ sounds as odd to
most of us as if it were some outlandish religion. The vaster vistas which scien­
tific evolutionism has opened, and the rising tide of social democratic ideals, have
changed the type of our imagination, and the older monarchical theism is obsolete
or obsolescent. The place of the divine in the world must be more organic and
intimate. An external creator and his institutions may still be verbally confessed
at church and in formulas that linger by their mere inertia, but the life is out of
them, we avoid dwelling on them, the sincere heart of us is elsewhere. . . . The
only opinions quite worthy of arresting our attention will fall within the general
scope of what may roughly be called the pantheistic field of vision, the vision of
God as the indwelling divine.’’ In another passage William James admits with
Hegel that this abandonment of traditional theism demands likewise that we de­
part from that commonly accepted method of reasoning which is based upon the
principle of identity or non-contradiction. (See Pluralistic Universe, p. 198). In
rejecting the objective and universal validity of the principle of non-contradiction,
James proposes “to give up the word ‘rational’ altogether’’ (see p. 320).

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

i7

this truth and for the falsity of the contrary doctrine, and one
can hardly admit the true God, principle and end of all things,
without being persuaded to acknowledge His right to the title of
Creator and to deduce from this the conclusion that He must
possess all the divine attributes enumerated by the Council.
2) What is implied in this principle of knowledge expressed in
the words, “naturali rationis lumine," which are also employed
by the Vatican Council? It is evident that by “reason” the Coun­
cil understands our natural faculty of perceiving the truth. In
chapter 3 of the Constitution "Dei Filius” reason is placed in
contrast with supernatural faith, since whatever we know with
certainty to be true, is due to the intrinsic evidence of things,
"propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem rationis lumine perspec­
tam," as perceived by the reasoning faculty, and not because of
the authority of God, who may have revealed such a truth. The
knowledge of God which can be acquired by the natural light
of reason, is not merely a true knowledge, i.e., conforming to the
reality; but it is also a knowledge of truth for which we are able to
give a reason; hence it is not simply a belief resting on the
testimony of God, or on that of tradition, or on that of the
human race. It is the result of rational evidence.
We must not confound this “natural light of reason” with con­
science, the religious sense, or religious experience, of which the
Modernists speak. The terminology of the Vatican Council, as
well as that of later decrees, has eliminated the possibility of
such confusion. Moreover, the encyclical "Pascendi," as we shall
have occasion to see later on, has given to these words a precise
meaning.
Nor is it enough, as we have already remarked, to understand
by “the natural light of reason” the practical reason of Kant.
Such an interpretation would evidently be contrary to the teach­
ing of the Council, for practical reason, as understood by Kant,
does not adhere to objective truth because it perceives that truth,

i8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

but merely concludes that something is worthy of moral belief,
even though objectively inadequate. (Critique of Practical Rea­
son, I, Book ii, c. 5). The terms which we shall explain further
down, show clearly that it was the intention of the Council to
condemn this error as well as Traditionalism and Fideism.
3) The means by which this knowledge of God can be ac­
quired is made known to us by the words, “per ea quae facta
sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tamquam causam per
effectus (by the things which are made, that is to say, by the
visible works of His creation, just as a cause is made known to
us by its effects”). The canon of the Vatican Council simply con­
tains the words, “per ea quae facta sunt,” whereas in the cor­
responding chapter the words "e rebus creatis” (from created
things) have been added, with the following quotation from St.
Paul: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood from the things that
are made” (Rom. I, 20).
The question might be asked, whether the Antimodernist
Oath adds any new declaration concerning this dogma of the
faith defined by the Council, or whether it merely insists that the
terms of the definition are to be understood in their natural
sense, in order to avoid all danger of sophistry.
Would the words of the Council, “through the things that are
made,” and “from created things,” be interpreted in their natural
sense if they were explained simply as meaning that either cre­
ated things are the occasion of this knowledge of God, or that
on account of the practical demands of morality they appeal to
us in this way, or that sensible or visible things are to be excluded
from those created realities which enable us to conclude with
certainty that there is a God?
The first question is prompted by the attitude of Cartesianism.
It has been asked whether it is sufficient to admit that created
things are the means by which we know God, because they are

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

19

occasional causes, in the sense that they awaken in us an inborn
idea of God, and cause it to become conscious and clear. Some
theologians (<?·£., Vacant in his work above-quoted, p. 296)
held this view, though they admit that “the Council is entirely
favorable to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and the ma­
jority of theologians,” according to which our knowledge of God
is essentially acquired, mediate, and attained by the medium of
created things.10
We upheld the same view as Vacant in our article “Dieu,”
written for the Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique
(col. 947). But after reconsidering the question we came to the
conclusion that no such concession can be made nor is it neces­
sary, as Vacant believed, to save the Cartesian theory of innate
ideas.
Vacant gives their true meaning to the words, "e rebus creatis"
but he concedes too little when he explains this phrase as merely
an “indication.” “The Council,” he remarks, “believed it would
serve a useful purpose to point out created things as the means
by which we are enabled to acquire a natural knowledge of the
existence of God; for it is difficult to see why the Council should
have given this indication, if they were not the means of awaken­
ing in us an idea of God, which is present in the minds of all
men from the time of birth. Moreover, the propositions drawn up
by the Council signify in their natural sense [the italics are
mine], that created things furnish the principles from which the
human mind derives its knowledge of God, and by which it
draws its conclusion, ‘through the things that are made,’ that
God exists.” (See Vacant, op. cit., p. 297). This is indeed the
natural sense of the words, but they seem to be of greater force
than a mere indication. The words, included in a dogmatic
10 In other words, the human mind has direct knowledge only of contingent
beings and of the first principles of reasoning, and does not rise up to God except
by a method of demonstration in which tire first principles arc the major and
created things the minor premise.

20

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

formula that reads like an anathema, form a part of the defini­
tion, and though they may seem to have been added as an after­
thought, yet, if their insertion or omission really modifies the
meaning of the proposition, they must be considered as ex­
pressing a defined truth. If it were not so, we could never refer
with confidence to such definitions; for doubts or evasions would
always present themselves to the mind as possibilities, which
would be foreign to the mind of Holy Church, who instructs her
children simply and sincerely in the truths of the Catholic faith
and demands that they receive them with the same disposition.
That is why the first proposition of the Antimodernist Oath
merely insists upon the natural sense of the words of the Council,
as is shown by the insertion of the phrase: “tamquam causam per
effectus (as a cause [is known] by its effects).” This fact obliges
us to assign to the principle of causality an ontological and tran­
scendental value, for without it reason could never rise from
created things to the existence of God, as from effect to cause.
Thus we see that Kantism is formally condemned, but not
exactly the theory of Descartes. Kantism, as we shall explain
later on, in discussing the word "certo," was certainly included in
the Council’s condemnation, just as Traditionalism and Fideism.
The Kantian theory cannot explain the expressions, "e rebus
creatis" and "per ea quae jacta sunt" by saying that the existence
of God is merely a postulate of practical reason, a practically
necessary supposition, granted that duty is an established fact
and that in this life there is absence of harmony between virtue
and happiness. This false interpretation of the language of the
Council is definitively disproved by the terms of the Antimodern­
ist Oath. But the Cartesian theory of the innate idea of God is not
condemned. Howsoever the origin of this idea and of the prin­
ciple of causality may be explained, it is sufficient to admit that
they have an ontological and transcendental value, enabling reason
to rise from created things to the existence of God. This proof, de­

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

21

rived from the notions of .contingency and causality, was not
rejected by Descartes; nay, he even developed the argument:
"e contingentia mentis’,’ though he strongly insisted upon two
proofs, concerning the validity or non-validity of which the
Council made no pronouncement. One of these was the proof de­
duced from the idea of the infinite and of the necessity of an
adequate cause for this idea. The other proof was that known as
ontological. It is quite certain that the Council never thought of
condemning the ontological proof, which takes as its principle of
argumentation not the works of God, but the very idea of God.
On this point the spokesman of the Deputatio de Fide made the
following observation: “Who among us, in confirming by
his vote the doctrine contained in this proposition, thinks of
condemning the famous argument of St. Anselm, no matter
what his private opinion of the same may be?” (See Vacant, Vol.
I, p. 298). Still less does the conciliar definition mean to exclude
the proof for die eternal truths so often set forth by St. Augustine
and many Catholic philosophers.
It is only Ontologism that was condemned by the Holy Office.
(See Denzinger, nn. 1659—1663, 1891-1930). For the innate idea
of God that the Cartesians say we have, the Ontologists substi­
tuted an intuitive vision of Him, considering that this knowledge
of God, essential to the human mind, is the source of all our other
ideas.
The insertion of the word "visibilia,” and this in italics, in
the first proposition of the Antimodernist Oath, is a sign that
the Church insists upon the literal interpretation of the words of
the Council and of the quotation from St. Paul. To exclude
sensible things from the phrase "e rebus creatis," and to say that
the only certain proofs for the existence of God are those based
upon the intellectual and moral life of man, would evidently be
to depart from the original and plain meaning of these words.
I'rom such an interpretation it would follow that created things,

22

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

as such, do not enable us to arrive at a knowledge of God, as
from effect to cause.
Would it be sufficient to admit that the arguments based on
the principle of causality lead us to acknowledge the fact of a
prime mover, a first cause, a necessary being, an intelligent de­
signer, but that they cannot give us the certainty that there is an
infinitely perfect God, and that to acquire such a certainty, the
ontological argument is absolutely necessary? This is clearly a
Kantian idea. We do not believe that this explanation is ac­
ceptable, since the proposition is concerned with “God, the be­
ginning and end of all things.” It is, indeed, the true God, who
can be known with certainty by the way of causality from sensi­
ble things. Besides, the knowledge of God, thus acquired, must
include, at least implicitly or virtually, along with the various
other divine attributes, absolute perfection. This means, as we
have already pointed out, that this attribute of God is such that
it can be logically deduced therefrom.
4) The kind of knowledge thus acquired is expressed by the
words, "certo cognosci, adeoque demonstrari etiam posse (can
be known with certainty, and therefore also proved).” The Coun­
cil had simply said, "certo cognosci." Here, also, it may be asked:
Does the Antimodernist Oath merely emphasize the natural
sense of the conciliar definition, so as to exclude unjustifiable
interpretations, or does it add a new declaration?
That the words "certo cognosci" mean the same as "demon­
strari," can easily be shown from the fact that “certo cognosci," in
the canon of the Council, signifies: (1) a certainty which is the
result of reasoning {naturali rationis lumine} ; (2) an absolute
certainty; (3) a certainty acquired by indirect reasoning "e rebus
creatis" by "ea quae jacta sunt!’
We have had occasion to note that this certain knowledge
obtained by reasoning is, as the Council says, that which causes
us to adhere to the intrinsic truth of things “because of the in­

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

23

trinsic evidence of such truth, as perceived by the natural light
of reason.” It is a knowledge by means of which we are able to
give an account of what we affirm to be true.
We have seen that this particular knowledge, acquired by
reasoning, is, according to the Council, a mediate knowledge, ac­
quired through the medium of the visible works of God. What
else is a certain and mediate knowledge acquired by reasoning,
but a demonstration? And what else is a certain knowledge
acquired by reasoning "ab effectu" but an "a posteriori" demon­
stration? Being the result of reasoning, it differs from faith; be­
ing mediate, it is opposed to intuition; being certain, it differs
from opinion.
The only difficulty that might present itself is whether the
Council meant to say that absolute certainty could be obtained
by this process of reasoning. There is no possible doubt on this
head. We have already remarked that amongst the comments
which, together with the elaborate schema, were presented to
the Fathers of the Council by the Deputatio de Fide, there was
one to the effect that “the definition that reason can acquire a
certain knowledge of God by means of created things, seemed
necessary, as well as the corresponding canon, not only on ac­
count of Traditionalism, but also because of the wide-spread
error that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated by any
apodictic proof,11 and therefore cannot be known with certainty
by reason.” (See Vacant, Vol. I, pp. 286 and 609). As previously
stated, Bishop Gasser, in the report read by him before the Coun­
cil in the name of the Deputatio de Fide, was somewhat more ex­
plicit, referring to the opinion maintained by the Positivists, or,
as he styled them, “the French Encyclopedists and the foremost
defenders of the critical philosophy in Germany.” “This very
common opinion,” he remarked, “is that the existence of God
cannot be proved with absolute certainty,11 . . . and that the
11 The italics here arc mine.

24

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

arguments which have always been considered so forceful, are
still open to discussion.”
We shall realize more fully the import of the word "certo,” if
we recall that of the six amendments demanding the omission
of this word, and which were rejected by a large majority, one
read as follows: “I approve of the omission of the word certo,
for although the proposition in which it occurs seems to me to be
philosophically true, nevertheless, if the word be included, it
does not seem to me to be sufficiently clear that the proposition
is a revealed truth, so as to have it defined as an article of faith.”
These amendments could not be accepted : for Sacred Scripture
(Wisd. XIII, 1-5; Rom. 1, 20)12 . . . calls vain, foolish, and
inexcusable those persons who could not discover God by means
of reason. It is evident, therefore, that the Council by the word
I2 Wisd. XIII, 1-5:
“Foolish by nature are all men who know not God,
And who cannot from the good things they behold
Soar aloft to contemplate the One Who is.
Nor by a consideration of His works, see net who this workman is.
But they regarded the fire, the wind, the mobile air,
The circle of the stars, the angry waves, the bright and celestial orbs of day and
night,
As the gods that rule the world.
If charmed by their beauty, they took these to be gods,
Let them know how far above these is the Lord of all;
For the Author Himself of beauty made all those things.
And if they admired in these their power and their effects,
Let them understand, that mightier far is He who made them all.
For the grandeur and the beauty of created things,
By comparison make known to us the One Who Their Creator is.”
(Crampon’s paraphrase).—Cfr. Rom. I, 18-20:
Again:
“Verily, the anger of God swiftly descends from the heights of Heaven upon all
the ungodliness and injustice of men, who through their injustice, hold truth
captive, since what can be known of God, they discover that in themselves, God
having made manifest the same. Truly, His invisible perfections, His eternal power
and divinity, since the creation of the world, have been made clear to the mind
through the medium of created things. They arc, therefore, inexcusable, in that
having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, and did not return Him
thanks; but they became vain in their thoughts and their foolish heart was dark­
ened." (Ibid.)
(Crampon.)

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

25

"certo” meant to designate absolute certainty; and since this cer­
tainty is at the same time rational and mediate, i.e., acquired by
an indirect process of reasoning, it must be the result of a
demonstration.
Moreover, the Council, in the chapter which treats of the con­
nection between faith and reason, expressly declares that “right
reason demonstrates the foundations of faith (recta ratio fidei
fundamenta demonstret).” These foundations are, on the one
hand, the existence of God and His veracity; on the other, the
fact of revelation. One of the Fathers of the Council requested
that, since the word "demonstret” implies that the process of
reasoning starts from principles the truth of which has been
perceived by the light of reason itself, the word "probet” should
be substituted for it, as this latter word does not involve such an
inference. The suggested amendment, however, was rejected by
the Council. Monsignor Pie, Bishop of Poitiers, opposed it in
the name of the Deputatio de Fide, for the reason that, “though
the intrinsic truth of the faith cannot be demonstrated, the
foundations of the faith, in a certain sense,13 can be demon*
strated, and bearing this in mind, such expressions as ‘the
demonstration of gospel truth,’ ‘the demonstration of the faith,’
have been of frequent, nay habitual, usage in ecclesiastical tradi­
tion.” 14
13 The phrase, “in a certain sense," does not mean that the demonstration is
not rigorous, but that the foundations of the faith viewed in one sense arc the
object of demonstration, and in another sense arc not demonstrable, but the object
of supernatural belief. The fact of revelation is the object of demonstration if one
considers the supernatural "quoad modum," (as a miraculous divine intervention),
but not if one considers the supernatural "quoad substantiam." From this point
of view, revelation is the formal motive for a faith that is supernatural "quoad
substantiam," and an object of faith. (Sec St. Thomas, Commentary on St. John,
ch. 5, lect. 6, n. 9; Cajetan, in II, Ilac q. I, a. I, η. XI; Salmanticcnscs, De Gratia,
tr. XIV, disp. ΠΙ, dub. Ill, n. 40; consult also on this subject the author’s work,
De Revelatione. I, pp. 498-511 and 527).
14 See Vacant, Constitutions du Concile du Vatican, Vol. II, pp. 258 and 406.
The second proposition of the Antimodernist Oath confirms what has been said
about revelation and faith.

2.6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

If, then, the Council does not hesitate to speak of “demon­
stration” when it is a question of establishing the fact of divine
revelation, even though this fact can be proved but indirectly
by referring to external signs (miracles), which in themselves
directly manifest only the free intervention of divine omnip­
otence: with far more reason does it acknowledge the demon­
stration of the existence of God, since this fact is proved
not only by external signs, but also by effects proceeding directly
from the First Cause, capable of furnishing a direct a posteriori
demonstration.
Therefore, we must conclude that this passage from the Anti­
modernist Oath does but emphasize the natural sense of the
definition, in order to guard against unjustifiable interpretations.
And hence this same proposition of the Oath merely reproduces
in more formal terms the teaching of the Holy See, which on
various occasions, when referring to the existence of God, has
made use of terms equivalent in meaning to “demonstration.”
On this point, see the propositions which Bautain and Bonnetty were compelled to sign (Denz., nn. 1622 and 1650). The
condemnation of Hermes (Denz., n. 1620) and of Frohschammer
(Denz., n. 1670) may also be consulted.
Now that the Church has adopted into her official language
the precise term “demonstration,” and added the phrase, "per
visibilia,’’ and especially, "tamquam causam per effectus,” she
has shown without a doubt, that she officially adopts as her own
the teaching of St. Thomas and of almost all other theolo­
gians on the natural means at our disposal for acquiring a
knowledge of God and accepts as valid the proofs based on
causality, which originate from the world of sense, without
pronouncing on the validity or non-validity of other proofs, as,
for instance, that based upon the ontological order.
5) The possibility of demonstrating the existence of God is
expressed in the Antimodernist Oath by the simple word "posse,”

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

27

which is but a repetition of the term employed by the Council.
Here we must point out that the question is not one of fact,
as a note attached to the schema drawn up by the special com­
mission on Catholic doctrine appropriately remarked: “The ques­
tion is not whether, de facto, individual human beings derive
their rudimentary knowledge of God from this natural mani­
festation, or if they are not rather urged to seek it in the revela­
tion proposed to them, being made cognizant of His existence
through the revealed teaching given to them. The point at issue
is the power of reason.15 The possibility defined is simply the
physical possibility common to all human beings. On this point
the spokesman of the Deputatio de Fide remarked: “The doc­
trine hereby submitted must be considered as generally true,
whether man is viewed in the purely natural state or in that
of fallen nature.”16 Hence it cannot be maintained that, in con­
sequence of original sin, there is no justification for the asser­
tion that reason is assured of the objective validity of its con­
clusions, unless this same faculty is fortified by the superadded
light of an illuminative grace.17
It has not been defined as de fide that there is no difficulty in
the actual exercise of this natural power of reason, but the doc­
trine itself is the commonly accepted teaching of theologians and
is proxima fidei. This does not mean that scientific demonstra­
tion is accessible to all, but that reason, by a simple inference
deduced from the principle of causality, immediately rises to
the certainty that God exists. The sensus communis need not
trouble itself with the difficulties that present themselves from
16 See Vacant, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 28 and 583.
10 Ibid., pp. 29 and 673.
17 It seems difficult to admit what Roussclot has written on this subject in the
Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, art. "Intellectualisme," col. 1074.
At least we should like to know how such a theory can be reconciled with certain
decisions of the Church on this question (see Denz., nos. 1627 and 1670; also
St. Thomas, la Ilac, q. 109, art. I; and Gonct, De Gratia, disp. I, art. I, § II).

28

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the point of view of objectivity or from a consideration of the
transcendental value of the principle of causality. It leaves the
discussion of these problems to the metaphysicians, and con­
tinues spontaneously to avail itself of these principles as often
as these same principles demand it. The reason for saying that
this common teaching of the theologians is proxima fidei is that
the Scripture declares pagans to be unreasonable and inexcusable
for not having any knowledge of God. (Rom. I, 20-21; Wisd.
XIII, x-9). In other words, it was morally possible for them to
acquire a certain knowledge concerning the existence of the
true God. As Petau 18 and Thomassin 19 point out, the Fathers
of the Church all agree in saying that one could not be ignorant
of the existence of God without sin. All theologians deny the
possibility of ignorance or of invincible error on the subject of
God’s existence. This means that speculative atheism is an im­
possibility for any man who has the use of reason and is in good
faith. Good faith, in the sense in which the Church understands
the term, differs considerably from what the world generally
means by it. It implies not only that sincerity which is con­
trary to deceit, but it also denotes that one has made use of all
the means at his disposal in order to arrive at the truth. In the
quest of truth one may fail deliberately, not only in a direct
way, when one does not want to see the truth, but also in an
indirect way, when one does not want to avail oneself of the
means that one ought to use, or when, through a perversion of
the intellect, one agrees to doctrines that he ought to reject.
This remark permits us to acknowledge the portion of truth
contained in the philosophy of human acts. From this point of
view, the Church has condemned as scandalous and foolhardy
the opinion of those who maintain the possibility of a purely
18 De Deo, Bk. I, chapters 1 and 2.
« De Deo, Bk. I.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

29

philosophical sin, which would be a fault against right reason,
but not an offence against God. (Denz., n. 1290). The knowl­
edge of moral obligation involved in the process of reason­
ing, which is the result of using reason in the right way,
could not be explained satisfactorily without tire admission of at
least a confused knowledge of God as the supreme legislator, if
it be true, as the Syllabus of Pius IX affirms against those who
defend the theory of an independent moral code, that all
law derives its binding power from God.20
The idea of God as the primary being, the primary intel­
ligence, the sovereign good, is as indelibly stamped upon the
human conscience as are the first principles of the natural law.
It is only one or the other of the essential attributes of God that
may for a time be unknown. Thus the secondary precepts of the
natural law may be blotted out of the human heart as a result of
bad habits, as is the case with those who do not consider theft
and unnatural vices as sinful. (St. Thomas, la Ilae, q. 94, a. 6).
This common teaching of theologians is being confirmed more
and more by such works as Andrew Lang’s The Malting of
Religion (2nd ed., London, 1900), Msgr. Le Roy’s La Religion
des Primitifs (Paris, 1909), and the articles written by Fr.
Wilhelm Schmidt for the Anthropos (1908-1909).
According to Lang and Schmidt, the idea of God is not de­
rived, as was commonly held since Tylor and Spenser, from
Animism, ancestor worship, and the cult of nature personified,
but antedates all these primitive forms of belief and is the result
of tire natural development of the fundamental principles of
reason, especially that of causality. This rational idea of a su­
preme Being underwent certain modifications through the
20 “Moral laws do not require divine sanction, and it is by no means necessary
that human laws should be in conformity with the natural law, or that they
should derive their binding power from God." (Denz., n. 1756).

30

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

mythical additions of the imagination. Throughout the centuries
there has been opposition between reason and imagination. To
a great extent the history of religions is but an account of the
rivalry existing between these two faculties.21
Some Modernists claimed that the moral impossibility of ac­
quiring a knowledge of God by natural means was beyond any
doubt in view of the Council’s express teaching on the moral
necessity of revelation. We need but to read this particular pas­
sage of the Council attentively to see that there is nothing in it
which contradicts the common opinion of theologians. If revela­
tion is morally necessary, this is the case not solely that we may
know the existence of God and our principal moral and religious
obligations, but also in order that “the truths which among
things divine (fin rebus divinis') are not of themselves beyond the
ken of reason, may, even in the present condition of mankind,
be known by all with facility, with firm assurance, and with no
admixture of error."
All about God that in itself is accessible to reason, or, in other
words, the ensemble of attributes studied in natural theology,
constitutes the subject-matter of that knowledge for which revela­
tion is declared to be a moral necessity. These attributes are: im­
mutability, infinity, immensity, omniscience, absolute liberty, etc.,
etc. Now it is clear that not all persons can by their own powers
of reason acquire a knowledge of this kind that would exclude
both error and doubt. In this particular passage of the Council’s
definition, stressing the moral necessity of revelation, it was pro­
posed to substitute for the words, “things divine,” the phrase,
“God and the natural law.” The comment on this suggested
amendment was, that though the formula was not so restricted in
meaning, it had been chosen for that very reason. (See Acta
21 See Christus, Manuel d’Histoire des Religions, by J. Huby, S.J., 1912; Ou en
est l’Histoire des Religions, by M. Bricout, 1912; La Religion des Peuples non
Civilises, by Abbe Bros, 1908.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

31

Concilii Vaticani, col. 509 and 122, amend. 19, and Chossat, art.
“Dieu,” in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, col. 827).
If there is question of a scientific demonstration of the exist­
ence of God, we must admit that those philosophers who are of
the sensualistic or subjectivistic school of thought can scarcely
appreciate its true value. For them the arguments based on the
theory of immanence will be more convincing, perhaps the only
convincing ones. But it does not follow that this theory is neces­
sarily and universally indispensable, and that we must raise to
the rank of a thesis what, in matter of fact, is but the corollary of
a false philosophy. And these same persons, if they possess super­
natural faith, may by this faith give their assent to the first
proposition of the Oath, without perceiving that what is said is
intrinsically true, just as they give their assent to the supernatural
mysteries of the Trinity or the Incarnation.
It remains for us to decide just what authoritative value is to
be assigned to this particular proposition of the Antimodernist
Oath, which recapitulates the doctrine contained in the dogmatic
definition of the Council. Is this proposition a truth of the Catho­
lic faith, to deny which would be heresy? Or is it to be consid­
ered as a truth of divine faith, not formally defined as such, so
that it would be haeresi proxima to make the contradictory as­
sertion? Or, finally, is it merely a certain truth connected with a
dogma, so that its denial must be considered as erroneous?
First of all, it is clear, and also essential, that this proposition,
taken as a whole, is inculcated by the infallible teaching office
of the Church, for the opening words of the Oath plainly affirm :
“Ego firmiter amplector ac recipio omnia et singula, quae ab
inerranti Ecclesiae magisterio definita, adserta, ac declarata sunt,
praesertim ea doctrinae capita, quae hujus temporis erroribus
directo adversantur.”
If the Church does not teach this first proposition of the Oath

32

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

as contained in divine revelation, then she does not demand of
us that we believe it on the authority of God. But we are obliged
to accept it formally, because of the infallible authority vested in
her, not only in proposing to us what belongs to revelation, but
in declaring whatever is certainly either in harmony with or in
opposition to the revealed word of God. If one were to deny
those truths which the Church teaches with infallible authority,
though not declaring them to be revealed truths, one would not,
on that account, be a heretic, for one would not be formally
denying a doctrine revealed by God. But in the eyes of the
Church one would be suspected of heresy and, practically speak­
ing, would have lost the virtue of faith; for more often than not,
it is difficult to withhold one’s assent to these decisions without
at the same time denying the dogma that the Church is infallible,
or other revealed truths.
But it seems certain that this proposition is inculcated as a
truth of divine faith, and this for the following reasons: (i) be­
cause the proposition forms part of a profession of faith; (2) be­
cause this profession of faith is introduced by the word “pro­
fiteor" which in ecclesiastical terminology signifies an act of
faith;22 (3) because the meaning of this word, "profiteor" is ac­
curately determined by the concluding words of the third propo­
sition, which are: “Firma pariter fide credo." These words cer­
tainly imply a supernatural act of faith, and the adverb "pariter"
shows that the two preceding propositions are also de fide.
There are doctrines which are regarded as belonging to the de­
posit of divine faith in virtue of the almost unanimous consent
or teaching of the Church, though they are not formally defined
as truths of the Catholic faith, and consequently are not imposed
under penalty of heresy. But the case is different with proposi­
tions of other professions of faith which are included in profes­
sions of faith employed by the universal Church. It may be ob22 See the one imposed upon the Greeks. Dcnz., nos. 460, 1083 and 1084.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

33

jected that the Antimodernist Oath was not imposed on all the
faithful, but only on the clergy. The answer to this objection is
that some points of doctrine are certainly de fide and imposed as
such, even by solemn judgments, which, being beyond the men­
tal capacity of most laymen, are not explicitly taught to all the
faithful, though all must implicitly believe them.
Another reason which leads us to conclude that this first propo­
sition of the Antimodernist Oath, taken as a whole, enunciates a
truth of the Catholic faith, is the fact, as we have already re­
marked, that it adds no new declaration to the dogmatic formula
defined by tire Vatican Council, but merely insists upon the natu­
ral meaning of the text, in order to guard against wrong interpre­
tations of the same.
5) The condemnation of Modernist Agnosticism by the En­
cyclical “Pascendi.”
The teaching contained in the Antimodernist Oath may with­
out difficulty be supplemented by what is said on this point in
the paragraph commencing with the words "Atque haec" of the
Encyclical "Pascendi." (See Denz., n. 2081). The Modernists re­
pudiate “all ontological realism as absurd and baneful ... as an
appearance beyond the scope of thought, which by its very defi­
nition denotes something absolutely unthinkable. We shall never
succeed in explaining away this objection, and must therefore
conclude, in agreement with all modern philosophy, that a cer­
tain type of idealism has obtruded itself upon us.” (E. Le Roy,
"Comment se pose le Problème de Dieu" in the Revue de Méta­
physique et de Morale, March and July, 1907, pp. 495 and 488).
Kantian and post-Kantian criticism had almost ruined the foun­
dation of the traditional proofs for the existence of God, namely,
the objectivity of the principles of right reasoning. The Encycli­
cal “Pascendi" condemns this “phenomenalism” and reminds us
that its agnostic consequences have been denounced by the Vati­

34

COD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

can Council. The condemnation reads as follows: “And to begin
with the philosopher, the Modernists posit as the basis of their
religious philosophy the doctrine known as agnosticism. Human
reason, strictly limited in range to ‘phenomena,’ which means to
the appearances of things exactly as they appear, has neither the
power nor the right to go beyond these limits, and is, therefore,
incapable of acquiring any knowledge of God, not even knowl­
edge, by means of created things, of His existence. From this they
infer: (i) that God cannot be the direct object of our knowl­
edge; (2) that His actual intervention in this world of ours can­
not be a historical fact. In the light of such principles, what be­
comes of natural theology, of the motives of credibility, of
external revelation? The Modernists have given them up as be­
longing to intellectualism, a system which, they say, is to be
considered as ridiculous, and long ago obsolete. That the Catholic
Church has publicly condemned these monstrous errors is for
them no deterrent. For the Vatican Council has decreed . . .”
(here the canons of the Council are quoted which refer to the
knowledge of God from the two sources of reasoning and revela­
tion. See Denz., n. 2072).
The agnostic denial of the possibility of demonstrating the
existence of God is, therefore, a heresy.
It would also be heretical to assert that God is not intelligent,
free, just, or merciful, in the literal meaning of these words, but
merely in a metaphorical sense. As a matter of fact, these divine
attributes have been formally defined as of faith by the Vatican
Council. (See Denz., n· 1782).
Neither can it be maintained that, apart from the knowledge
we have of God through the sensus communis, and the proposi­
tions defined as of faith, there can be no question of a scientific
knowledge of His existence and principal attributes; for this
would be to deny the scientific character of natural as well as
supernatural theology, and to maintain that these disciplines,

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

35

whose purpose it is to define more clearly what we know by the
sensus communis, or by faith, becomes hopelessly entangled in
the error known as Anthropomorphism. From this it would fol­
low that it is impossible to defend by any scientific argument
the claim of the sensus communis against the objections of the
Agnostics, Pantheists, Determinists, etc., and to explain satisfac­
torily the apparent antinomies raised against us. The Encyclical
"Pascendi" draws special attention to the formula that “God can
in no way be the direct object of knowledge,” as being an ex­
pression of Agnosticism. (Denz., n. 2072).
Among the Agnostic propositions previously condemned was
Eckhard’s, that “God is neither good, nor better, nor the best;
therefore, I speak incorrectly if I call God good, just as if I were
to call black, white.” (Denz., n. 528). Another condemned propo­
sition is that of the Nominalist, Nicholas d’Autrecourt, disciple of
Ockham, who said that “God is, and God is not, mean exactly
the same thing, although in a different way.” (Denz., n. 555).
St. Thomas rejected as contrary to the faith the Agnosticism of
Maimonides (Rabbi Moses), who said that God is not formally,
but only virtually good, as the cause of goodness found in created
things. (St. Thomas, la, q. 13, a. 5; De Potentia, q. 7, a. 5). We
shall have to recur at length to this error of Maimonides when
we come to discuss the nature of God and His attributes.
The Encyclical likewise condemns the theory of “immanence,
which is the positive side of the Modernist system, just as
Agnosticism is the negative side. Once natural theology is re­
pudiated, ... all external revelation abolished, the explanation
of the fact of religion must be sought in man himself, in vital
immanence and the subconscious self.” (Denz., n. 2074).
Finally, the Encyclical declares inadequate the proof for the
existence of God based upon the theory of immanence, as is evi­
dent from the following paragraph: “If now, passing on to the
believer, we want to know what, according to the Modernist

36

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

view, distinguishes the Modernist from the philosopher, the
first thing to notice is that the philosopher admits the divine
reality as the object of faith, but for him this reality exists only
in the soul of the believer, that is to say, as object of his sentiment
and his affirmations, which are limited to the sphere of phe­
nomena. If God exists as a separate being, apart from individual
sentiments and affirmations, this fact does not interest the
philosopher, and he abstracts from it entirely. Not so with the
believer. For him, God really exists, independently of the be­
liever; he is certain of it, and in this he ditfers from the philoso­
pher. If you ask on what foundation this certainty rests, the
Modernists reply, on 'individual experience.’ In taking this at­
titude, they separate themselves from the Rationalists, only to fall
into an error of the Protestants and certain pseudo-mystics. [See,
e.g., the errors of Michael de Molinos; Denz., n. 1273]. They ex­
plain this process as follows. If we scrutinize the religious senti­
ment, we discover a certain intuition of the heart, by means of
which, and without any intermediate process, man grasps the
reality of God and from it concludes that He exists, with a cer­
tainty that far surpasses the certainty of any of the sciences. And
this is truly an experience, superior to that of any mental process.
Many look upon it with contempt and deny it, as, e. g., the Ra­
tionalists, but that is simply and solely because they refuse to
place themselves into the necessary moral conditions. Therefore,
according to the Modernists, the true and proper explanation
why one believes, is to be sought in this experience. How con­
trary to the Catholic faith all this is, we have already seen in a
decree of the Vatican Council. Further on we shall see that such
a view opens wide the door to atheism.” (Denz., n. 2081). No
one was surprised that Modernism was condemned, except those
who were unaware of the definitions of the Vatican Council
against Fideism.
The words of the Encyclical "Pascendi" concerning the Pan­

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

37

theistic tendencies of Immanentism have been verified in our
own times. We find traces of this error, with slight nuances, both
amongst philosophers and Christian believers. Thus Bergson,
who holds to the principle of Idealism (that there is no such
thing as a reality corresponding to thought), substituting for ob­
jective reality, which admits the ontological value of the princi­
ples of reasoning, what he calls the “direct perception of the es­
sence of life, the flux of experienced duration,” is led to conclude
“that there is nothing but obscurity in the idea of creation, if we
think of things which are created, and a thing which creates, as
we habitually do, as the understanding cannot help doing. This
illusion is natural to our intellect, which functions essentially
in a practical way, constituted as it is to make known to us things
and states, rather than changes and acts. But things and states are
only views taken by our mind of the process of becoming.
Things do not exist, only actions. . . . From this point of view
we must conceive God as a centre from which worlds shoot out
like rockets in a display of fire-works, always with the proviso
that I consider this centre, not as a thing, but as a continuous
projection. God, thus interpreted, has nothing of the already
made; He is unceasing life, action, freedom. Creation, so con­
ceived, is not a mystery: we experience it in ourselves when we
act freely. That new things can be added to those already exist­
ing, undoubtedly is an absurdity, since the thing is the result of a
solidification brought about by our understanding, and there are
never any other things except those which the mind has evolved.
. . . But that action increases, as it goes on, that it creates in the
measure of its advance, is what each of us finds when he watches
himself acting.” {L’Evolution Créatrice, 2nd ed., 1907, p. 270).
What name shall we give to this principle, which is the source
of all life and of all reality? “For want of a better name,” says
Bergson, “we have called it consciousness. But this is not the
narrowed consciousness which functions in each of us.” (P. 258).

38

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

“Consciousness or supra-consciousness,” he says again, “is the
name for the rocket whose extinguished fragments fall back as
matter; consciousness, again, is the name for that which remains
of the rocket itself, passing through the fragments and lighting
them up into organisms. But this consciousness, which is a need
of creation, does not manifest itself to itself except where creation
is possible. It goes to sleep when life is condemned to automatism;
it awakens from slumber as soon as the possibility of making a
choice arises.” {Ibid., p. 283). It is immanent in all that which is
life and freedom.
Clearly this Immanentist philosophy of “becoming” is in direct
opposition to the definition of the Vatican Council asserting a
real distinction between God and the world. God is no longer
“una singularis substantia” (one sole substance); substances or
things do not exist. Neither is God "simplex omnino et incom­
mutabilis” (absolutely simple and unchangeable). He is “a reality
which makes itself in a reality which unmakes itself.” {Evolu­
tion Créatrice, p. 269). He is not "re et essentia a mundo dis­
tinctus” (really and essentially distinct from the world), but “a
continuous projection,” and can neither exist nor be conceived
apart from the world which issues from Him. He is that vital
urge prior to the intellect which reappears in all becoming, but
especially so in that of which our consciousness has experience.
This vital urge is called freedom; but this freedom, which acts
neither intelligently nor according to any law, is a sort of blind
instinct that reminds us very much of the “unconscious” of
Schopenhauer.
This same doctrine, with slight changes in the manner of pres­
entation, was held by the Catholic Modernists. In July, 1907,
Le Roy wrote as follows: “Our life is incessant creation. And the
same is true of the world. It is for this reason that immanence
and transcendence are no longer contradictories; they correspond
to two distinct moments of duration, namely, immanence to

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

39

what has become, transcendence to what is becoming. If we de­
clare that God is immanent, it is because we know what He has
become in us and in the world; but for the world and for us He
always remains an infinite in the becoming, an infinite which
will be creation in the strict acceptation of the term, not mere
development, and from this point of view, God appears as
transcendent, and it is especially in our dealings with Him that
we must treat Him as transcendent, as we pointed out apropos
of the divine personality.” {Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale,
July, 1907, p. 512).
This theory conceives God as incapable of existing apart from
the world in which He is becoming. Nevertheless, it is of faith
that it would have been possible for God not to create and that
He did not create from eternity. (Denz., nn. 391 and 501). The
Modernists, it is true, affirm the divine personality in a pragmatic
sense (that we must behave towards God as towards a person),
but evidendy such a view of the divine personality in no way
implies that independence and metaphysical transcendence which
is defined by the Vatican Council. In a former treatise23 we
pointed out how these Pantheistic conclusions inevitably flow
from the theory of immanence. They are summed up in the first
proposition of the series condemned by the Syllabus of Pius IX,
which reads as follows: “God is identical with the nature of
things, and, therefore, subject to change; He becomes God in
man and in the world, and all things are God and have His very
substance; God is identical with the world, and hence spirit with
matter, necessity with freedom, truth with falsity, good with
evil, justice with injustice.” (Denz., n. 1701).
Immanentism, considered as a doctrine, is therefore absolutely
contrary to the faith of the Church; can we say the same of Im­
manentism considered merely as a method?
28 Le Sens Commun, la Philosophie de l'Être et les Formules Dogmatiques,
Pans, 1900.

40

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

6) Does the teaching of the Church permit us to maintain that
the method of immanence is indispensable and that it pre­
cedes all others?

The new apologetic spoken of so highly by Blondel and
Laberthonnière, though repudiating immanence as a doctrine, ad­
mits it to be indispensable as a method and asserts that this
method is the only one that can succeed in co-ordinating the
various arguments offered by the other methods in such a way
that there results from it a valid demonstration; and that this
method, therefore, holds the first place, because without it the
other methods would be inadequate and ineffective.
Fr. Schwalm, O.P., examined this theory at length from a
philosophical and theological point of view, in a series of
articles written for the Revue Thomiste?* This criticism was re­
sumed by Fr. Chossat, S.J., in the Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique, art. “Dieu” (cols. 799-802 and 859-871). Michelet also
pointed out the dangers of this method in a work entitled, Dieu
et ΓAgnosticisme Contemporain, pp. 246 ff . . . , and, finally,
Fr. Tonquédec, S.J., attacked it in his book entitled, Immanence,
an essay in criticism of Maurice Blondel’s doctrine. It seems diffi­
cult not to accept the conclusions arrived at by these four critics
and several others. It seems that this apologetic by the method of
immanence, thus understood, cannot be reconciled with the defini­
tion of the Vatican Council and it unconsciously revives the error
of Baius and Jansenius.
As a matter of fact, in proportion as this method denies the
validity of the proofs for the existence of God as given by the
schools and traditional theodicy from Plato to Leibniz, it accepts
the Kantian and Positivist thesis of the inability of speculative
reason to know God with certainty.
24 Les Illusions de l’idéalisme et leurs dangers pour la foi, pp. 413 ff.; L'Apolo­
gétique contemporaine, 1897, PP·
&·'>
crise l’apologétique, 1897, pp. 239 ff·;
La croyance naturelle et la science, 1897, pp. 627 ff.; Le dogmatisme du coeur et
celui de l'esprit, 1898, pp. 578 ff.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

41

M. Blondel states precisely what he thinks on this point in his
book, L'Action, page 341, where we read: “A proof which is
merely a logical argument always remains abstract and incom­
plete; it does not lead to being; it does not compel the mind to
admit that such is a real necessity. On the other hand, a proof
based on the total movement of life, a proof which takes in all
action, will compel conviction. If such a proof, following the
logical method of exposition, should have the force of immediate
conviction, it must leave the mind no avenue of escape. It is in­
deed the special function of this action to bring them all to­
gether; by this means all the incomplete proofs are united and
form one synthetic demonstration; considered apart, as so many
units, they are ineffective; united, they have demonstrative value.
It is only on this condition that they will reflect the movement
of life and stimulate the same. Under the dynamic influence of
action, they will lose none of their efficacy.” A few pages further
on he remarks: “The notion of a first cause or of a moral ideal, the
idea of a metaphysical perfection or of a pure act, all these con­
cepts of human reason, vain, false, and idolatrous, if one con­
siders them separately as abstract concepts, become true, vivid,
and effective as soon as they are united, and are no longer a
sport of the understanding, but a practical certainty. . . . The
foundation for this certitude of die ‘one and only necessary’ is,
therefore, to be sought in practice. As far as life in all its com­
plexity is concerned, it is action alone that is by its very nature
complete and expressive of totality. It embraces everything; and
that is why we appeal to this same principle to explain the in­
contestable fact of being and the convincing proof of the exist­
ence of the same. The subtleties of dialectics, no matter how
elaborate and ingenious they may be, are of no more consequence
than would be a stone thrown by a child at the sun.” {Ibid.,
p. 350). On page 428 we read: “To believe that one can arrive
at the idea of being and legitimately affirm whatever reality

42

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

there may be to it, without having gone through the whole
process which originates from an intuitive perception of the
necessity of God and of religious experience, means that one is
the victim of an illusion.” A few pages further on he writes:
“There is no object of which it is possible to think and to affirm
the reality, without having embraced by an act of the mind the
entire series, without in fact surrendering oneself to the demands
made by the alternative. To put it briefly, we may overlook the
main point in which the truth of being shines conspicuously;
that being which enlightens every understanding, and in whose
presence the will without exception must come to a decision. We
have an idea of objective reality, we affirm that external objects
are real; but to do this, we must implicitly place before ourselves
the problem of our destiny, and subordinate to option all that
we are and all that concerns us. We cannot acquire the notion
of being and of beings, except by way of this alternative. It fol­
lows inevitably that, as die decision varies, so does the idea of
being. The knowledge of being implies that option is a neces­
sity, being becomes known, not before, but after this freedom of
choice” (pp. 435-436).
A. Valensin in an article written for the Dictionnaire d’Apolo­
gétique tries his best to bring Blondel’s doctrine into agreement
with the traditional philosophy, and believes that he has inter­
preted him correctly. He says (col. 598) : “The method of im­
manence supposes that attitude of mind in which, as a matter of
fact and right, we distinguish, as it were, two phases in the
knowledge which we have of being: the phase that precedes and
that which follows the intervention of the will. The first kind of
knowledge, that which precedes the exercise of free will, obtrudes
itself on us. It is objective. It also appeals to us. It is for us a
principle of decision and responsibility. We may call it, if we
wish, a conceptual knowledge (per notionem'). It leads one who
makes good use of it into a knowledge that is, as it were, per

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

43

connaturalitatem. This latter knowledge contains within itself the
true germ of perfect intellection and veritable possession.”
From this point of view there would seem to be hardly any
difference between Blondel’s general philosophy and, let us say,
that of Ollé-Laprune, or even of St. Thomas, and it is difficult to
explain the merciless criticism of intellectualism made by the
author of L’Action. Fr. Schwalm and several others who agree
with him must have been seriously mistaken, and the present
writer must have been guilty of the same error in his criticism of
the validity of the proofs for the existence of God proposed by
Blondel. (See Dictionnaire d’Apologétique, cols. 952-956).
Is the knowledge which precedes option objective according
to Blondel, as Valensin affirms, and as must be admitted if one
wishes to defend the validity of the traditional metaphysics of
the Schools?
We find the answer to this question in the author’s work,
Action, where on pages 437-438 we read: "The knowledge
which, before option, was purely subjective and propulsive, after
the choice becomes privative and constitutive of being. . . . The
first [knowledge], which necessarily brings up the problem, and
by which we are given an integral view, although often confused
and condensed, of the order existing in the universe, is but a
mental image of the object in the subject, or, better still, we may
say (so as to impress upon the mind the origin of this subjective
truth), it is merely the production by man of the idea that the
objects of his thought and the conditions of his action are con­
vincingly real. The second kind of knowledge, that which fol­
lows the free choice made in the presence of this reality conceived
as necessary, is no longer merely a subjective state of mind; for
instead of positing the problem in the practical order, this knowl­
edge translates the solution of it into our thought; instead of
confronting us with what has to be done, it directs the attention
to what is an accomplished fact, to that which is. Thus it truly

44

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

is an objective knowledge, even though it is obliged to admit a
deficiency in action.”
This solution savours of metaphysical voluntarism; before free­
dom of choice we have only "subjective truth',' "a subjective state
of mind"; “the will solves the problem presented by the intel­
lect.” {Action, p. 439).
If, then, the knowledge preceding free choice can be called
objective, as Valensin would have it, this word cannot mean, ac­
cording to Blondel, a knowledge which has direct contacts with
being, but merely one which is necessarily engendered by the
movement of our spirit in determining phenomena. This, as has
been said on a previous occasion,25 is the objective reality of an
idea which is the object of knowledge, but not a sufficient means
of acquiring a certain knowledge of reality. When this idea is
ratified by subsequent action, it becomes the principle by which
we get to know not merely phenomena, but being itself. This
implies that, de facto, it corresponded to the reality before it wras
unified and vivified by action, but it did not correspond in its
own right, by virtue of a conformity founded on its intentional
or representative existence in the mind. The Encyclical "Pas­
cendi,” in its criticism of the Modernist doctrine, clearly dis­
tinguishes between these two phases of knowledge.28
25 Revue Thomiste, July, 1913, p. 480.
20 “If now, passing on to the believer, we wish to know what, according to
the Modernist’s view, distinguishes hiin from the philosopher, the main thing to
note is this: that the philosopher admits indeed the divine reality as the object
of faith, but for him this reality exists only in the soul of the believer, that is to
say, as the object of his sentiments and affirmations: and these, after all, do not
transcend die sphere of phenomena. If God exists as a separate being, apart from
individual sentiments and affirmations, this does not interest the philosopher; he
abstracts from it entirely. Not so with the believer. For him, on the contrary, God
really exists, apart from the believer; he is certain of it, and in this he differs
from the philosopher. If you ask what foundation, in the last analysis, there is for
this certainty, the Modernists reply that it rests on individual experience. In this
they separate themselves from the rationalists, but only to adopt the doctrine of
the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. This is how they explain the process. If
we analyze the religious sentiment, we promptly discover in it a certain intuition

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

45

By those who have made only a superficial study of this ques­
tion, the term “objective” will be accepted as expressing the tra­
ditional teaching; but by the defenders of the philosophy of Ac­
tion it will be understood in exactly the opposite sense.
Blondel’s own statements admit of no doubt on this point. On
pages 426f. of L'Action we read: “Finally, even when we feel
the need of determining the idea that has necessarily been germi­
nated in us of a subsistent reality, of affirming the existence of
objects of knowledge, of defining the nature of this objective
existence, we have first of all to consider only the inevitable se­
quence of relations that have been taken as integral by the con­
sciousness: this is the science of the solidarity of appearances, the
integration of which we are concerned in establishing. . . . To
show that we cannot help affirming (whatever may be the value
of this assertion) the reality of the objects of knowledge and of
the motives of action . . . does not mean, despite the change of
perspective, that we have gotten away from phenomenal deter­
minism; it merely shows how, by the very fact that we think and
act, we must of necessity so conduct ourselves as if this order
in the universe were real, and these obligations well founded.”
Again, on page 463 occurs the following statement: “As for
science, what difference could one discover between what any­
thing seems to be, and what it actually is? And how does the
reality itself differ from an invincible and permanent illusion, or,
we might say, from an eternal appearance? If we consider the
practical order, the case is different. In acting as if it were true,
a thing possesses that which is, if it truly is.” This reads like an
abstract from the writings of Hermes.27
of the heart, by means of which, and without any intermediary, man grasps the
fact that God is truly a reality, and from it concludes that He exists, with a cer­
tainty which far surpasses that of science. How contrary to the Catholic faith this
all is, we have already seen in a decree of the Vatican Council” (Denz. 2081).
27 Hermes under the influence of Kant, whom he pretended to refute, wrote
in much the same way. Vacant in his Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican, Vol. I,

46

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

The truth of the knowledge that precedes option, as Blondel
admits, is merely “subjective.” But what is the so-called ob­
jective truth of the knowledge that follows? Blondel replies:
“For the abstract and chimerical notion of truth as a perfect cor­
respondence between thought and thing, we must substitute this
—that it is a real correspondence between mind and life.” 28 We
must “substitute for the question of the agreement between
thought and reality the problem ... of the immanent agree­
ment of ourselves with ourselves?” 29
"Metaphysics," he says, "has its substance in the will when in
operation. Only under this experimental and dynamic aspect has
it any truth; it is not so much a science of what actually is, as of
what is brought into being and becoming: the ideal of to-day
may be the real of tomorrow. But the ideal always survives, and
is ever the same, more or less misjudged, and asserting its
p. 125, writes: “The doctrines of Hermes, taken in their ensemble, received
their inspiration from the philosophy of Descartes, and especially from that of
Kant, whom he thought he was refuting. Thus we may say of him what the
Prologue of our Constitution remarks about all semi-rationalists: that he allowed
himself to be led astray by doctrines which have nothing in common with Catholic
tradition. Influenced by the writings of Kant, he distinguished in an absolute
manner between theoretical reason (that which perceives the necessity of the things
it affirms) and practical reason (that which admits the truth and obligation inherent
in those things that are in conformity with the dignity of human nature). Under
this same influence he concluded that the foundation and pledge of all certitude was
to be sought exclusively in practical reason.” Perrone (Tractatus de Locis Theolo­
gicis, s. I, c. I) writes: “After a series of extensive and subtle researches, Hermes con­
cludes with Kant that theoretical reason can attain only a purely subjective persua­
sion of the objective reality, which, perhaps, is merely phenomenal and apparent.”
It is easy to see how Hermes derived his principal errors from this false thesis. (Sec
Vacant, loc. cit. and Kirchenlexikon, 2nd cd., art. “Hermes”). He concluded that
the proofs advanced in support of revelation, usually drawn from miracles, have
merely the force of probability, but not of certainty; and consequently he refused
to admit that the authority of God revealing truths is the formal motive of theo­
logical faith. These errors were condemned by Pius IX and the Vatican Council.
(Denz., n. 1634).
28 Blondel, Point de départ de la recherche philosophique in the Annales de
Philosophie Chrétienne, 1906, I, p. 235.
20 Blondel, L’Illusion idéaliste, in the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale,
Nov., 1898, pp. 12-18.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

47

presence in proportion as mankind advances to intellectual
maturity. Although the science of metaphysics remains vari­
able, therefore, although it may be merely in a state of tran­
sition, like all the phenomena of life and thought hitherto
studied, we may say that it determines what in the real transcends
the fact. By this is made known to us what is relatively perma­
nent, absolute, and transcendent, what the voluntary action has
necessarily contributed to reality, given for the purpose of es­
tablishing it in the same—in a word, what constitutes the perma­
nent contribution of thought and reason to the world’s knowl­
edge and the organization of human life.” (L’Action, p. 297).
If the objective truth which follows option is nothing more
than the complete agreement between mind and life, since the
life here in question is subject to the law of change, and since
it is not certain that our human nature, as such, is any different
in this respect, I do not see how there can be any such thing as
absolute permanence for any truth. From the last passage just
quoted from Blondel’s Action it follows that truth has only a
relative permanence. Is this opinion not the same as the con­
demned Modernist proposition which reads as follows: “The
truth is no more unchangeable than is man, since it develops
with him, in him, and through him”? (Denz., n. 2058). The new
definition of truth leads directly from Blondelism to Bergsonism.
How do the general principles of Blondel’s philosophy permit
him to maintain the proposition of the Antimodernist Oath con­
cerning the proof for the existence of God?
The Oath says: “I profess that God can certainly be known, and
also demonstrated, by the natural fight of reason . . . through
visible works of His creation, as a cause by its effect.” On page
347 of Blondel’s Action we find the following statement: “I do
not invoke any principle of causality; but I find in this imperfect
knowledge of things and of my own thought, the presence and
necessary action of a perfect thought and power.” From such a

48

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

statement how could one prove that God is essentially distinct
from the world, or that the words do not convey the idea of
an immanent God à la Schleiermacher?
The oath speaks of the rigorous demonstration which leads to
objective certainty of the existence of God—to a knowledge
which is said to be true because it is in conformity with the af­
firmed reality, and not simply because it conforms to human life.
On page 426 of L’Action we read: “In pointing out that this con­
cept I of God], which most certainly originates in the conscious­
ness, forces us to affirm, at least implicitly, the living reality of
this infinite perfection, it was not at all meant that we thence
conclude that God exists. It was a question of stressing the fact
that this necessary idea of God as a real being, leads us to the
supreme alternative, from which it follows that God does or does
not exist for us in a real sense. It is this alone which is of supreme
importance for us.”
Some years ago, in a critical study of Fr. de Tonquédec’s book,
we examined more at length the general principles of Blondel’s
philosophy relative to the three operations of the mind: concep­
tion, judgment, and reasoning. We found in that philosophy a
subjectivistic and nominalistic theory of the concept, which con­
siders it to be purely an “artificial abstraction," rendered neces­
sary for the purpose of visualizing and systematizing the im­
manent appearance, and for the purposes of language. The judg­
ment can have only practical truths, which means conformity of
the thought with human life, and not with the reality affirmed.
Finally, we find in Blondel’s system the nominalistic theory of
reasoning which is a necessary consequence of the conceptual
theory. Like Sextus Empiricus, John Stuart Mill, and Hegel,
Blondel writes: “The syllogism supposes ‘intellectual atomism’;
its apparent rigour rests on the theoretically false and practically
useful hypothesis of partial identities, and is no more than an ap-

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

49

proximation.” From which it follows that logic cannot have more
than a “symbolic” value.
Concerning the proofs for the existence of God, it is not sur­
prising, therefore, to find Blondel writing as follows: “A proof
which is but a logical argument, always remains abstract and
incomplete; it does not lead to being; it does not compel the
mind to admit the necessity of the real.” (L'Action, p. 341).
If, on the contrary, as the Antimodernist Oath declares, “the
existence of God can be proved by the light of reason from visible
things, as cause from effect,” it seems impossible to pretend that
“it is by action that all the incomplete arguments are united into
a synthetic demonstration; taken by themselves,” remarks Blon­
del, “they are sterile; united, the result is a demonstration.”
(L’Action, p. 341). It also seems silly to write: “The notion
of a first cause, or of a moral ideal, the idea of a metaphysical per­
fection or of a pure act—all these concepts of human reason are
vain, false, and idolatrous, if considered separately as abstract
representations, but they become true, vivid, and effective as soon
as they are united, and are no longer a sport of the understand­
ing, but a practical certainty. ... It is in action alone that we
must seek for the incontestable fact of being and the convincing
proof of the same.” (L'Action, p. 350).
But in what sense is this practical certainty an improvement
upon the moral certainty of Kant, which was declared to be
inadequate by the Fathers of the Vatican Council? We might
say that it is, like Kant’s certitude (to borrow his own termi­
nology), “subjectively adequate, but objectively inadequate.” If
there is danger that the knowledge acquired by the senses and
the intellect, when separated from action, may prove to be an il­
lusion, may we not say that this action adds to the figment of
the mind nothing but movement in the order of phenomena,
and following in the wake of this movement, a chimerical joy

52

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

M. Laberthonnière has in mind is no more that of the intellect
which recognizes that it is in agreement with the object it
affirms {veritas per conjormitatem ad rem), but it is that certi­
tude of the intellect which knows itself to be in agreement with
the upright will. As Aristotle {Ethic., VI, c. II) and St. Thomas
{Summa Theol., Ia, IIae, q. 57, a. 5, ad 3), express it: “The
truth of the practical intellect depends on conformity with a
right desire {appetitus).”
In Scholastic circles, this kind of certitude is called “practicopractical,” and has nothing to do with metaphysics, nor with any
of the speculative sciences, nor even with ethics, but belongs to
prudence, a faculty which functions every time the necessity
arises of deciding in the contingent events of life what is the just
mean between the two extremes of excess and defect. This “practico-practical” certitude presupposes a speculative certitude of
those principles by which the will is judged to be upright
or good. This truth of the practical order, which consists in har­
mony with the upright will, may be in conflict with the reality.
Not infrequendy, people who are more sincere than intelligent,
with the best of intentions and in perfect good faith, defend
statements that are theoretically false.
It is easy to see that this kind of experimental certitude is found
also in two of the gifts of the Holy Ghost (wisdom and under­
standing), but these gifts presuppose faith and charity. All Catho­
lic theologians distinguish with St. Thomas between speculative
and experimental wisdom, this latter being the gift of wisdom.
“Wisdom,” says the Angelic Doctor, “implies a rectitude of judg­
ment in conformity with the divine plans. Now this rectitude of
judgment may arise from two causes: (1) it may be the result
of a perfect use of reason; (2) it may be the fruit of a certain
natural conformity which one has with those things about which
one must judge. Take chastity, for example; one who is versed
in the moral law, judges it in the light of reason; but one who is

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

53

habitually chaste, judges this virtue from the conformity of na­
ture (con naturalitas) which he has with it. Therefore, in regard
to divine things, it belongs to wisdom, as an intellectual virtue,
to judge of these things by intellectual research. But if it is a ques­
tion of judging about these same things according to a certain
conformity between nature and them, this belongs to wisdom
in so far as it is a gift of the Holy Ghost. For this reason Denis
the Carthusian (De Div. Nom., c. 2) declared that Hierotheus
had arrived at perfection in the things which pertain to God, not
only because he had acquired a knowledge of them, but also be­
cause he had experienced them in his own life (non solum dis­
cens sed et patiens divina). This sort of passivity, or conformity
of nature with divine things, is the result of charity, which unites
us to God, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. VI, 17) : ‘He who is
joined to the Lord, is one spirit.’ Hence the gift of wisdom has
its cause in the will, which is charity, but its essence in the intel­
lect, which has as its own proper act to judge correctly.” (Ila, IIae,
q. 45, a. 2). This is the true pragmatism, compared with which
the pragmatism of modern philosophers is ridiculous. John of
St. Thomas, in a series of brilliant dissertations on the gift of
wisdom, has given us a full account of the nature of this judg­
ment which operates “by way of connatural inclination.” (See
Cursus Theol., in Ham IIae, disp. 18, a. 4). In this experimental
knowledge of the things that appertain to God, not only does the
will apply the intellect to consider the divine truths in preference
to everything else (liberty of action), but from the fact that the
will, acting under the divine impulse given to it by the virtues
of faith and charity, has been completely transformed, divine
things are considered by the intellect to be in agreement with
one’s aspirations and good for one—all the more as charity in­
creases. Finally, they are held to be true, since they fully satisfy
the desires which have been incomparably regulated by the
divine light of faith, which rests on the authority of God, as pro­

54

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

posed by the Catholic Church. By charity, the object becomes a
colourful reflection of the divine, or, as John of St. Thomas says,
"sic amor transit in conditionem objecti." 33
But let us not mistake this religious experience of the gifts,
which presupposes charity, for faith, which precedes charity,
and, above all, let us not confuse it with the natural knowledge
of God, which precedes supernatural faith. If there is an
analogous experimental certitude in the natural order, it presup­
poses the certitude of the sensus communis or spontaneous
reasoning, which certitude is not experimental and does not dif­
fer from that furnished by the classical proofs, except by the
difference which separates die implicit from the explicit.
We see that, for M. Laberthonnière, the affirmation that
God exists is a free affirmation. We might view in the same way,
as Fr. Chossat, S.J., remarks, our belief in a sense of duty, and
say that it also is a matter of free choice. The will imposes the
obligation. That we are absolutely in need of supernatural as­
sistance before we can be certain of God’s existence, must not,
therefore, surprise us. (Laberthonnière, Essai de Phil. Relig., p.
317). On this point Blondel writes: “It is not because we posi­
tively stand in need of the supernatural, and because it is a ne­
cessity arising from our human nature, but it is because nature
83 The defenders of the philosophy of action maintain that this affective knowl­
edge more closely resembles what St. Thomas calls perfect intellection, which is
not merely the representation of an object in the mind, a consideration of its
essence, but the intellectual mastery of, the intimate union with, the possession of
a being. There is something equivocal in this; for in perfect intellection, which
means the beatific vision, intimate union with the divine essence is effected by
simple vision or intuition, without any intermediary concept; beatific love is but
a consequence of this, and docs not put us into possession of God. Charity plays
quite a different role in the experimental knowledge of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
This new interpretation of the teaching of St. Thomas would result in confound­
ing the Thomist view concerning the essence of the beatific vision with that of
Scotus, which is directly opposed to it. In this life, according to St. Thomas, the
love of God is superior to the knowledge of God, whereas in Heaven, the reverse
is true; for there the knowledge of God is immediate. (See Summa Theol., la Ilae,
q. 3, a. 4; Billuart, De Ultimo Fine, diss. II, a. 2).

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

55

demands this as a necessity and because it is an exigency that
is felt within us.” (Quoted by Laberthonnière, op. cit.). Such
statements are in agreement with the immanent method, which
may be summed up in the sentence that nothing is imposed upon
us from without.
Concerning this method, the Encyclical "Pascendi’’ says: “We
cannot refrain from once more and very strongly deploring the
fact that there are Catholics who, while repudiating immanence
as a doctrine, nevertheless employ it as a system of apologetics;
they do so, we may say, with such a lack of discretion, that they
seem to admit in human nature not only a capacity and fitting­
ness for the supernatural order—both of which Catholic apolo­
gists have always been careful to emphasize—but assert that it
truly and rigorously demands the same.” (Denz., 2103).
The sort of demonstration of the existence of God admitted
by those who adopt the method of immanence—since they hold
that the Scholastic proofs are inadequate—is practically a defense
of the theory that, in our present condition, in order to be sure of
God’s existence (since human nature left to itself is incapable of
this), we have an absolute claim upon the necessary help in the
supernatural order. P. Chossat, S.J. (loc. cit., cols. 864-870) points
out that if some theologians admitted that, in our present condi­
tion, we cannot be certain of the existence of God without super­
natural help, they were considering only the actual fact, or the
conditions under which this natural potency operates, by which
we acquire a knowledge of God; they did not deny this potency,
nor in any way restrict its specification. They distinguished care­
fully between essence and existence, specification and operation,
right and fact. What these theologians meant is that, in our
present state, due to original sin, a supernatural help is required
for the will to apply (operative order) the intellect to the con­
sideration of God in preference to any other object, and also
to eliminate (removens, prohibens, a purely negative process), the

56

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

moral dispositions which prevent us from perceiving the cogency
of the proofs; but they did not maintain the necessity of this
help for the will in the order of specification, so that it might
contribute in some particular way to modify the proofs for the
existence of God. They considered these proofs sufficient just
as they are.
The distinction between specification and operation, between
right and fact, can find no place in this new system of apolo­
getics. The reason for this is that the defenders of this system
have discarded the classical proofs for the existence of God as
unconvincing, and have chosen to adopt the Kantian view, that
reason of itself, by its very nature, cannot prove the existence
of God with a certainty that is objectively sufficient. From this
it follows that the supernatural—no matter what Blondel may
say—not only makes its demands felt, but is also absolutely
required by us. It seems, therefore, that this teaching of the
modern school of apologists can no more be reconciled with
the definition of the Vatican Council than could the views
held by the Traditionalists of Louvain and the Fideists of
Bautain’s school. These apologists, though starting from dif­
ferent points, arrive at the same conclusions as those who held
that the supernatural gifts belonged by right to the first man
in a state of innocence, and who exaggerated the fall from
original justice so as to admit with Luther, Calvin, Baius,
Jansenius, and Quesnel, that reason is incapable of proving the
existence of God.34 The 41st proposition of Quesnel reads as
follows: “All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even
in pagan philosophers, can come only from God; and with­
out grace produces only presumption, vanity, and opposition
to God, instead of fostering acts of adoration, gratitude, and
84 Sec Immanence, by Fr. de Tonquédcc, pp. 149-166, where the author shows
that Blonde! cannot avoid the error of Baianism except by falling into the more
serious error of denying the ontological scope of reason.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

57

love.” (Denz., n. 1391). Abbé Laberthonnière expresses him­
self in almost the same way when, besides what he calls “the
faith of love,” he admits in certain others who reject God, “a
faith of fear.” “But to believe solely out of fear,” he says, “is
to believe and deny at the same time. Such faith is like that
of an enemy believing in the existence of his enemy whilst
hoping to crush him. Faith actuated entirely by fear, therefore,
is not a sincere faith, because it contains within itself the desire
not to believe. With it and by it, one plunges into darkness.”
(Essai de Phil. Relig., p. 80). “They speak and write,” justly
observes P. Chossat, S.J., “as if all the theories evolved on these
questions by Protestants, Jansenists, and even by otherwise ortho­
dox theologians, were tenable at the present day. We ought
not to forget, however, that the notion of tire supernatural,
and especially the question of the possibility of acquiring certain
knowledge about God by the natural light of reason, are not
discussed from the same point of view to-day as they were
forty or 400 years ago. . . . This fact fully explains why the
Essais of Abbé Laberthonnière were put on the Index.” (Diet,
de Théologie, cols. 869-871). In 1913, all the volumes of Les
Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, from 1905 to 1913, were
likewise placed on the Index for ventilating the same ideas as
the Essais.
To present Blondel’s views35 in a more favorable light,
Abbé Rousselot proposed the following interpretation: “In the
most primitive and spontaneous operation of reason, analysis
promptly discloses to us the certain assurance that it is pos­
sible for reason to form a clear notion of being, and also that
one can get into such a frame of mind as to be satisfied with
85 Especially this proposition: “To believe that one can finally arrive at the
idea of being, and legitimately affirm whatever reality there may be to it, without
having gone through the whole process which originates from an intuitive per­
ception of the necessity of God and of religious experience, means that one remains
under an illusion."

58

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

oneself, with the world, and with life in general. This pre­
sumption (I use the word in no disparaging sense) is natural,
essential to the intellect, an a priori condition of its existence,
and, as it were, the vital principle of each of its particular
intentions. Now, in addition to this, in the present state of our
fallen nature, transmitted by Adam to all his descendants, this
presumption, without a special grace of illumination for the
intellect, is unjustified. . . . Without a revelation from above,
without a cure in no wise due to human nature, the intellect
cannot come into possession of the truth concerning its real
destiny. There follows a deordination of the cognitive powers
of the soul, which interferes with the proper functioning of
these powers, and which, without rendering each of them
false or ‘spurious,’ separates them from what ought to be their
means of full development and for which they are truly in­
tended. . . . Viewing things this way, we can understand how
supernatural faith alone, considered as a perfection of the in­
tellect, comes to the aid of natural reason, and gives to the
knowledge that one may have of any object, its full right to
such a claim.” 36
This interpretation recalls that of the older theologians re­
futed by St. Thomas in the Second Book of the Sentences,
dist. 28, q. i, a. 5, and also that of Vasquez, generally com­
bated by the Thomists,37 and may be summed up in this
statement: “Supernatural faith alone gives to the knowledge
that one may have of any object, its full right to such a claim.”
It seems scarcely possible to reconcile this proposition with
that to which Abbé Bautain had to subscribe, to wit: “However
feeble and obscure the light of reason may have become
through original sin, it still retains sufficient clarity and power
to lead us with certainty to the existence of God and to the
86 Dictionnaire Apologétique, art. “Intellectualisme,” col. 1074.
87 See Gonet, O.P., Clypeus Thomist., De Gratia, disp. I, I, § 2.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

59

revelation given to the Jews through Moses and to the Chris­
tians through our adorable God-Man.” (Denz., n. 1627). In
1844, the Abbé Bautain had to promise “never to teach that
reason cannot acquire a true and complete certitude concerning
the motives of credibility, especially such as miracles, prophecies,
and most particularly the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (Denz.,
n. 434). In discussing the definition of the Vatican Council
concerning the power of reason to acquire a certain knowledge
of the existence of God, we pointed out that it was precisely
human nature in its fallen state that was meant.38 This
knowledge, therefore, appears to be fully accounted for with­
out grace.
If one wishes to adopt the method of immanence, one must
not view it as an exclusive or indispensable method, so superior
to all the others as to deserve first consideration. The classical
arguments have demonstrative force without it, though we may
say that it disposes one to consider them and it confirms them.39
This doctrine was commonly admitted by the Fathers of the
Church and by all those who have defended, as we shall do
later on, the proof for the existence of God derived from the
soul’s aspiration towards the absolute and infinite Good. (See
proof from the gradation to be found in things, as applied
to good: the first to be desired, the Sovereign Good, the source
of all our happiness and the ultimate reason of all our obliga88 See Vacant, Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican, Vol. I, pp. 289 and 673. See
also Denz., n. 1670.
so In so far as it prepares or disposes one to consider the arguments set forth
by the other methods, the method of immanence enjoys a priority of time, but
not of perfection or validity. It is natural for it to confirm afterwards what it has
helped to establish. In the same way, we clearly express our ideas by means of
mental images which always precede, and likewise emotion precedes the opera­
tion of the will, and then becomes the means by which we attain the desired end.
St. Thomas remarks: “Just as capacity in the order of things generated precedes,
and is a predisposing cause of, perfection, so also, once this perfection has been
acquired, it remains as a natural effect of the same." (Illa, q. 7, a. 13, ad 2).

6o

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

tions). We shall also see that the argument based on love or on
action would be ineffective and objectively inadequate, if it did
not take into consideration the argument from intelligence, which
presupposes the ontological and transcendental validity of the prin­
ciples of reasoning, and it is precisely this validity that is denied by
the opponents of the classical proofs.

CHAPTER II
The Possibility

of

Proving the Existence

of

God

Our purpose is to point out that the Catholic Church has
sound reasons for believing in the possibility of acquiring a knowl­
edge of God by natural means. We shall, therefore, consider:
(i) The possibility of proving the existence of God; (2) the
proofs for the existence of God, and (3) the proofs for the prin­
cipal attributes of God. Above all we shall strive to show that the
traditional theodicy, conceived entirely from the point of view of
the philosophy of being (an explanation and defense of the sensus
communis'), retains its full validity to-day, and that its arguments
lose none of their force because of the objections made either by
the philosophy of Phenomenalism or that of Becoming; for,
apart from the philosophy of being, these are the only two con­
ceivable theories.
In showing the demonstrability of the existence of God we shall
consider: (1) The genus and species of the demonstration it
demands, (2) the objections raised against, and (3) the proof
given for, this demonstrability.

SECTION I
WHAT GENUS AND WHAT SPECIES OF DEMONSTRATION DOES

THIS DEMONSTRABILITY DEMAND?

7). We are here concerned with a philosophical or, more pre­
cisely, a metaphysical demonstration. In the rigor of its proof
61

62

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

and its power to convince, it must surpass the so-called
scientific demonstrations of the present day.
It seems hardly necessary for us to point out that we do not
claim to give a scientific demonstration for the existence of God,
if by that term is understood, as is often the case nowadays, a
process that does not go beyond the data of observation and ex­
perience. But if reason tells us that beings and phenomena, which
are objects of experience, cannot explain themselves, but of
necessity require the presence of a cause which renders them real
and intelligible; if reason furthermore establishes the fact that
this cause must be sought for beyond the limits of observation and
experience—then we shall have a demonstration, not indeed sci­
entific in the modern acceptation of the term, but philosophical
or metaphysical. (See Zigliara, Summa Philosophica, Vol. I, p.
157). And if we also bear in mind, with Aristotle, that science
does not really differ from ordinary knowledge, and that any
branch of knowledge may be truly termed a science only when
it gives the “why” or the necessary raison d'etre of what is af­
firmed, then we shall see that metaphysics merits the name of
science far more than any of the so-called positive sciences. "Scire
simpliciter est cognoscere causam, propter quam res est et non
potest aliter se habere,” i. e., to know is simply to perceive the
reason why a thing is actually so, and cannot be otherwise.
(Post. Analyt., Bk. I; Commentary of St. Thomas, 4th lesson).
The positive sciences cannot give us this propter quid, this
raison d'etre, that would make intelligible the laws, which, after
all, are but general facts. As Aristotle expresses it, they remain
sciences of the quia, which means that they state the fact without
being able to explain it, without giving the reason why it is so
and not otherwise. The inductive method of reasoning, which can
be traced back to the principle of causality, enables us to conclude
with physical certainty that heat is the cause of the expansion of
iron, but we do not see “why” this effect is to be assigned precisely

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

63

to this cause and not to any other. We account for the antecedent
phenomenon merely by empirical and extrinsic processes of
reasoning, and this is because we do not know why heat and
iron are specifically constituted as they are. When positive science
proceeds from general facts or laws, to explain the reasons for
these laws, it can only provide us with temporary working hy­
potheses, which are not so much explanations as convenient
representations apt to classify the facts. Scientists state that the
distance traversed by all falling bodies through space is propor­
tionate to the square of the time taken. That is a general fact or
law; but what is the nature of the force that causes bodies to fall
in this way? Are they driven towards one another or mutually at­
tracted? If there is mutual attraction, how are we to explain it?
It is a mystery. The laws according to which light travels have
been discovered; but what is light? Is it a vibration of a rarefied
medium, the ether, or is it an extremely rapid current of im­
palpable matter? Neither hypothesis claims to be the true solu­
tion, excluding the other as false. The scientist’s only concern
is to give a more or less convenient classification of the
phenomena.
The intelligible element found in the positive sciences is to
be explained by the fact that they have recourse to the meta­
physical principles of causality, induction, and finality. Since their
objects, as Aristotle has pointed out, are essentially material and
changeable, they reach but the fringe of being, and consequently
of intelligibility. {Phys., Bk. II, ch. 1; Bk. VI, ch. 1). The objects
accessible to our senses are hardly intelligible in themselves. They
belong to the domain of the hypothetical and conjectural, to that
which Plato termed δό£α (opinion). The intelligible world is the
sole object of true science {Ιπίστ^μη). In fact, the certitude prop­
erly called scientific grows in proportion as what one affirms ap­
proaches nearer to those first principles which are, as it were, the
very structure of reason—the principle of identity implied in the

64

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

idea of being, that most simple and universal of all ideas, the
principles of contradiction, causality, and finality. If the principle
of identity and non-contradiction is not only a law of thought, but
also of being, if the other principles (in order to escape the charge
of absurdity) must necessarily be referred to it, then every as­
sertion necessarily connected with such principles will have
metaphysical or absolute certainty, and its negation implies a
contradiction. On the other hand, no assertion relying solely on
the testimony of the senses can possess other than physical cer­
tainty, and, finally, every assertion based on human testimony can­
not have other than moral certainty. That is why, according to
the traditional philosophy, metaphysics—the science of pure
being and of the first principles of being—deserves to be called
"the first of all sciences," for it is more of a science than all
the other sciences. The demonstration of the existence of God
must, therefore, be in itself far more exacting than is usually the
case nowadays with scientific demonstrations. It must not only
establish, by reasons drawn from observation, that the world has
need of an infinitely perfect cause, but also why it needs this
cause and no other. Moreover, the reason given must not be a
mere working hypothesis, but definitive; it must necessarily flow
from the highest principle of our intelligence and from the very
first of all our ideas, namely, that of being.
This demonstration, though far excelling the empirical demon­
strations in point of rigor and certainty, will, however, not be
so readily understood by us, at least when presented in scientific
form. As Ajistotle remarked (Met., Bk. I; Commentary of St.
Thomas, Leet. 2; Met., Bk. II, Leet. 5; Bk. VI, Leet. 1), the re­
alities of sense perception are in themselves not so readily know­
able, because they are material and changeable (the mind must
abstract from material conditions, since they are a hindrance to
intelligibility), but are more readily knowable by us, since they
constitute the direct object of sensible intuition, and we acquire

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

65

our ideas through the senses. Metaphysical truths and realities of
the purely intelligible order, though they are more easily know­
able in themselves, are not so easily known by us, because sensible
intuition cannot reach them. The image accompanying the idea
is extremely deficient, and the idea which we obtain through the
medium of the senses, is but an analogical expression of the
purely intelligible reality.
Between the physical sciences (which abstract only from in­
dividual matter and consider matter in common, such as, for
instance, the sensible qualities, not of any particular molecule
of water, but of water in general), and metaphysics (which ab­
stracts from all matter), is the science of mathematics (which
abstracts from sensible qualities and considers quantity as either
continuous or discrete). It is, to a certain extent, a combination
of the rigorous exactitude of metaphysics and the facility of the
physical sciences, because its proper object, quantity, on the one
hand, may in itself be defined by terms that are intellectual and
fixed, and, on the other hand, it may be adequately expressed
by the ideas we derive from the senses, and made clear by ap­
propriate illustrations. In this way a superficial aspect of being
is presented to us, evidently very different from pure being, which
is the object of metaphysics. We cannot claim to prove the exist­
ence of God by a mathematical demonstration; the nominal
definition of God assures us that, if He exists, He does not belong
to the order of quantity, because He is the first cause and final
end, two aspects of causality with which mathematics is not con­
cerned.
Our demonstration will, therefore, be more exact in itself than
any empirical demonstration could be, but it will not be as easy
to understand as is a mathematical demonstration; to grasp its
full force, a certain philosophical training is required, and con­
flicting moral dispositions can prevent a man from perceiving its
efficacy. “Some there are who do not grasp what is said to them,

66

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

unless it is presented in a mathematical form. Others refuse to
accept anything that does not appeal to the senses. That which is
more according to general custom is better known to us, for
habit becomes second nature. Aristode observes that we must not
expect the same degree of certitude from physics, mathematics,
and metaphysics.” (St. Thomas, Comment, in II Met., Leet. 5).
This difficulty, for the rest, applies only to the scientific form
of the demonstration. Reason spontaneously rises to a certain
knowledge of God’s existence by a very simple inference derived
from the principle of causality. The sensus communis need not
bother itself with the difficulties presented by objectivity and the
transcendental and analogical value of the principle of causality,
but quite naturally arrives at a knowledge of the first cause, one
and unchangeable, of multiple and changeable beings. The
orderly arrangement of things in this world and the existence of
intelligent beings prove that the first cause is intelligent; the
moral obligation made known by conscience necessarily calls
for a legislator; lastly, the principle of finality demands that
there should be a supreme, sovereignly good end, for which we
are made, and which, therefore, is superior to us. The manner
in which we shall present the traditional proofs for the existence
of God, from the point of view of the philosophy of being,
(which in reality is but an explanation and vindication of
the sensus comm unis'), makes it unnecessary for us to treat ex
professo of the problems arising from spontaneous knowledge.
The teaching of Catholic theology on this point will be
found in the Dictionnaire de Théol. Cath., art. “Dieu,” cols.
874-923.

8) This will not he an "a priori” demonstration. Insufficiency of
the ontological proof.
How shall we proceed in the philosophical demonstration of
the existence of God? The Vatican Council tells us that it is

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

67

from created things that God can be known with certainty (e
rebus creatis certo cognosci potest). We do not, therefore, as the
Ontologists contended, come to know of God’s existence and
His attributes by a direct intuition of His essence. This vision is
the ultimate crowning of the supernatural order. The created
intellect, by its unaided natural powers, can by no means rise to
such a knowledge; created and finite as it is, the intellect has for
its proportionate object created and finite being, and possesses
direct knowledge only of creatures. (St. Thomas, Summa Theol.,
la, q. 12, a. 4). By means of created things it can come to know
God, not indeed as He is in Himself, in that which essentially
constitutes Him what He is (quiddilative; see infra, no. 32),
not in the eminent simplicity of His Godhead, as if the intellect
had an intuitive perception of this, but only in so far as there is an
analogical similarity between Him and His works. The great
number of analogical concepts derived from created things, to
which we must have recourse in order to form an idea of God,
is sufficient proof that we have not that immediate intuition of
which the Ontologists speak.
Might not the existence of God be a self-evident truth (veritas
per se nota), which needs not to be proved, as, for instance, is
the principle of identity: “That which is, is,” or the principle of
contradiction: “What is, cannot at the same time and in the
same sense be and not be”? Or at least, might it not be possible
to give an a priori demonstration of the existence of God, ab­
stracting from contingent realities? St. Anselm and the defend­
ers of the ontological argument thought so. St. Anselm points
out that existence is implied in the notion conveyed to the mind
of every man by the word “God.” When one fully realizes what
is meant by that word, he says, one conceives of a being greater
than which none can be conceived. But if such a being does not
exist, then it is possible to conceive of another being, which has
all the qualifications of the former, and which, in addition,

68

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

really exists, and so it would be greater than the being consid­
ered to be the greatest that can be conceived. Therefore, if we
wish to retain the meaning that the word “God” conveys to the
mind, we must affirm that God exists.
The proposition, “God exists” or “the most perfect being that
can be thought of, really exists,” is, according to St. Anselm,
evident in itself and also for us (per se nota quoad nos) ; and in
this respect it does not differ from those other two principles,
“That which is, is,” and, “What is, cannot at the same time and
in the same sense be and not be.”
St. Thomas and many other theologians reject St. Anselm’s
view on this point. Without doubt, they say, in itself (quoad se),
the essence of God implies His existence, since God is the neces­
sary being and cannot but exist; but the proposition, “God
exists,” is not in itselj evident for us (quoad nos). In fact, we do
not know the divine essence such as it is in itself (quidditative)·,
we can reach it only by means of positive analogical concepts
which reveal to us the traits it has in common with created
things; but what it possesses as peculiarly its own, this we know
only in a negative way (non-finite being) or relatively (supreme
being). It follows that we know the Deity just as we know all
other essences, in an abstract way. This abstract idea which the
mention of the word “God” awakens in us, though it differs from
all other ideas in that it implies aseity or essential existence
(existentiam signatam), abstracts, like all other ideas, from
actual or de facto existence (ab existentia exercita).
To the a priori argument of St. Anselm we reply by distin­
guishing the minor. St. Anselm says: If the most perfect being
that can be conceived did not exist, it would be possible to con­
ceive of a being which has all the qualifications of the former,
plus existence, so that this latter being would then be more per­
fect than the most perfect being that can be conceived. I admit
that if this being did not exist, and was not conceived as self-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

69

existing, it would be possible to conceive one more perfect. But
I deny the assertion that if it did not exist, though it was at the
same time conceived as self-existing, then it would be possible
to conceive of a more perfect being. Hence it is not logical to
conclude: “Therefore, God exists”; all that can be logically con­
cluded is: Therefore, God must be conceived as self-existing, and
in truth does so exist, and is entirely independent of any other
being, if He exists. (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 2, a. 1).
Descartes (MAZ., V, rép. aux object.) and Leibniz (Méd. sur
les Idées, ed. Janet, p. 516; Monadologie, § 45) vainly endeavored
to give to this argument, generally known as ontological, that
logical exactness which it lacked. To regard it as conclusive in
the form given it by Leibniz, two propositions would have to be
established a priori: (1) that God is possible, and (2) that if He
is possible, He exists. Now, whatever one may think of the second
of these propositions (that it is possible to argue from logical
possibility to a real intrinsic possibility, in virtue of the principle
that the operations of the intellect have objective validity, and
then from this real possibility to actual existence) the first prop­
osition of Leibniz is certainly not self-evident for us, nor can it
be demonstrated a priori. The only thing that Leibniz, like
Descartes, can demonstrate is, that we cannot perceive the im­
possibility of the existence of God. So long as we have not a
direct knowledge of the divine essence, we cannot give an in­
trinsic reason for this possibility, and never shall be able to do
so. We must recall to mind what St. Thomas wrote against St.
Anselm, and say: “Because we do not know of God what He
is, we cannot know whether it is possible for Him to exist.”
Moreover, the idea of a being, the most perfect that can be con­
ceived, necessarily demands certain absolute perfections, such as
immutability and liberty, which seem incompatible. Herbert
Spencer developed this objection, which is also one of the stand­
ard objections among theologians, at considerable length. Later

70

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

on we shall see that the a posteriori proof is not affected by it.
Leibniz claims to have proved that the infinite being is possible,
because the negative element, being excluded from that idea,
removes from it the presence of contradiction. It was pointed out
to him in reply, that there is nothing negative about the idea
of the swiftest possible movement, which yet involves a con­
tradiction.1
We cannot affirm the possibility of God a priori. We only
know that our ideas of being, goodness, intelligence, liberty, ac­
quired from finite tilings, can be applied by way of analogy to
a reality of another order, and that if a reality of another order
is required to account as cause for the finite beings from which
we derived these ideas, that cause must necessarily have a simi­
larity, at least analogical, to its effects. (St. Thomas, Summa
Theol., la, q. 4, a. 3; q. 88, a. 3; see infra, no. 29).
Fr. Lepidi (Reçue de Philosophie, Dec. 1, 1909) presented the
ontological argument in a new way, which we are sorry we
cannot give in full here. Notwithstanding the skill and profound
learning displayed in this new method, it fails to answer satis­
factorily the objections raised against Leibniz, and merely trans­
forms the ontological argument into an argument based upon
the contingency of finite being. Later on we shall show (nos. 20
and 38 d) that a trained metaphysician could interpret such a
proof in a sort of intuitive sense: in that the intellect, fully under­
standing both the sense and the import of the principle of iden­
tity, the supreme law of thought and of the reality directly
implied in the idea of being, would see "quasi a simultanée" (al­
most simultaneously) that the fundamental reality, the Absolute,
is not this composite and changing universe, but a reality in
every way identical with itself, ipsum esse subsistens, the self1 Sec Revue Thomiste, July, 1904, "Note sur la preuve de Dieu par les degrés des
êtres," by R. Garrigou-Lagrange.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

71

subsisting being, and, therefore, essentially distinct from all that
is by nature composite and subject tc change.
9) The demonstration will have to be a posteriori. For it to
be rigorously exact, it must start with a particular effect,
and trace this effect bacl{ to its proper (i.e., to its necessary
and immediate) cause.

We cannot, therefore, demonstrate a priori that the essence of
God is possible, and even less, that it exists; but there is another
kind of demonstration, known as a posteriori. These two dem­
onstrations, like every process of reasoning, proceed from the
better known to the less known; but when we demonstrate any­
thing a priori, the better known is at the same time not only the
source, but also the raison d’etre of our knowledge. To demon­
strate a priori means to give the reason why (propter quid) the
predicate of the conclusion necessarily belongs to the subject.
This demonstration presupposes that one knows the essence of
the subject, which is the reason for what has been demonstrated
as belonging to that subject. Thus, it is demonstrated a priori
that man is free, because he is a rational being and knows, not
only this or that particular good, but good in general.
The a posteriori demonstration, like the preceding, is a syllo­
gism that results in a necessary conclusion; but here the better
known is not the raison d’être of what we know by it; only in
the order of things known by us does it come first; in the order
of reality it is not dependent upon our knowledge. The knowl­
edge of the effect necessarily leads us to conclude to the existence
of the cause. This a posteriori demonstration does not tell us why
(propter quid) the predicate of the conclusion necessarily be­
longs to the subject; it merely establishes that (quia) the pred­
icate refers to the subject, that the cause exists. It does not give
us the reason for what is affirmed by the conclusion, but only

72

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the raison d'être of the affirmation of the object. Without know­
ing God as He is in Himself, as the ontological argument de­
mands, we nevertheless can know by such a demonstration that
He is. “To be can mean either of two things. It may mean the
act of being, or it may mean the composition of a proposition
effected by the mind in joining a predicate to a subject. Taking
to be in the former sense, we cannot understand the being of
God, nor His essence; but only in the second sense. For we
know that this proposition which we form about God when we
say God is, is true, and we know this from His effects.” (St.
Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 3, a. 4, ad 2um). This a posteriori
demonstration proving that God exists, in itself is superior to
any empirical demonstration; for, as we have already remarked,
it will have to explain just tvhy the world demands a cause
corresponding to the nominal definition of God, and which can­
not be attributed to any other cause. (See supra, no. 7).
This a posteriori demonstration, or demonstration from the
effect, cannot be considered a strictly metaphysical process, unless
it argues from the proper effect to the proper cause, which means
to the necessary and immediate cause of the effect. “From every
effect,” says St. Thomas, “the existence of its proper cause can be
demonstrated; because, since every effect depends upon its cause,
if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist.” (la, q. 2, a. 2).
“Every effect depends upon its cause, in so far as it is its cause.”
(la, q. 104, a. 1).
The proper cause in metaphysics is that which the Scholastics,
following Aristotle, call causa per se primo, i. e., the absolutely
first cause. (See Aristotle, Il Phys., c. iii; V Met., c. ii; St.
Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 45, a. 5; Commentary of Cajetan,
q. 104, a. 1; John of St. Thomas, In lam, q. 44, De Creatione,
disp. XVIII, a. 1 and 4).
These articles of St. Thomas, taken from his treatise on crea­
tion and the divine government of the world (conservation in

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

73

being and divine movement), are the veritable and indispensable
commentary on the proofs for the existence of God as given in
the first part of the Summa Theologica, q. 2, a. 2. Theological
speculation follows the reverse order of philosophical speculation;
it argues from God to created things, and discusses the great
metaphysical problems concerning God and the world, not with
reference to the existence of God, but as presented by creation,
conservation, and divine movement.
Why does St. Thomas say: “Ex quolibet effectu potest demon­
strari propriam causam ejus esse (from every effect the existence
of its proper cause can be demonstrated)”? It is because, if any
other than the proper cause is assigned, the demonstration is not
conclusive. For instance, it would be false to argue: “This man
exists; therefore his father exists also”; and yet the father is in a
certain sense the cause of the existence of his son, who often
survives him. In like manner, every phenomenon presupposes an
antecedent phenomenon; but frequently all trace of the latter is
gone, whereas the former endures. The agnostics also refuse to
acknowledge the principle of St. Thomas just mentioned, but
say that from every effect it can be demonstrated, not that
its cause exists, but that it has existed. Thus, they would argue
that local movement presupposes a certain form of caloric energy
which has disappeared; that another phenomenon preceded this
one, and so on, ad infinitum.
The answer which St. Thomas would give to this would be
that in the principle just mentioned the proper cause means that
cause from which the effect necessarily and immediately pro­
ceeds. Now, if the proper causes of effects, however particular
and momentary they may be, are also particular and transient,
then the proper causes of universal and permanent effects are
likewise universal and permanent, and hence belong to a higher
order. For instance, to say that this particular animal is the direct
cause of this other animal, does not suffice to explain die presence

74

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

of animal life on the surface of the earth, which compels us to
have recourse to more important and general principles, such as
the sun, which is the permanent source of the heat required for
the generation of plants and animals, and for their continuance
in life. In like manner, this particular motor, which was itself
set in motion by something else, truly accounts for the presence
of this movement, but it does not explain the movement in it­
self; and if this movement (wherever it may be found) does not
contain in itself a sufficient reason for its existence, it demands a
universal cause, constantly in action and of a higher order, a
source of energy which does not stand in need of actuation or
conservation, but which produces and conserves all movement in
the universe.
This argumentation is based on Aristotle’s profound analysis
of the notion of the proper cause, which we were able to give
only in a brief note, but which must be studied for a complete
understanding of the demonstrability of God’s existence.2
The principle here invoked, “that the proper effect demon­
strates the existence of the proper cause,” may in the last analysis
be reduced to the principle of causality, which gives us the meta­
physical aspect of being, and may be formulated thus: “That
which exists, but not by itself, exists in virtue of some other
being, which is self-sufficient.” A contingent existence cannot
have its completely sufficient cause in another contingent exist­
ence as dependent as itself; but both equally demand a
necessary existence of a higher order.
The permanent causality which a being of a higher order
exerts upon one of a lower order is called by the Scholastics
equivocal or non-univocal causality, because it produces an effect
which is not of the same nature as the cause. Thus heat is the
proper cause, not only productive, but also preservative, of the
expansion of bodies, of the fusion of solids, and of the vaporiza1 Sec Appendix I at the end of this book.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

75

tion of liquids; electricity also has its own proper effects, which
are, as it were, its properties ad extra.
This causality of the superior over the inferior is, of course,
particularly manifest when in the hierarchy of being we consider
the influence which one order exerts upon another, lower order,
for instance, the influence of a living being upon nutritive min­
erals, which it transforms into organic substances; in the animal,
the influence of sensation and desire upon the action aroused by
this desire; in man, the influence of the intellect upon all the
activities under its direction, and that of the will upon the other
faculties under its control; in the sciences, the influence of prin­
ciples upon conclusions. In all these cases the superior cause
not only produces, but also conserves the effect. The evidence of
principles not only engenders, but also preserves in us the evi­
dence of conclusions; if the first disappears, then the second
vanishes, just as light ceases at the setting of the sun. In the
same way the attraction of the good which we perceive, stirs
up and foments within us a desire for the same; especially is this
the case concerning that good which we propose to ourselves
as the ultimate end. When this idea of good ceases to be for us
a source of attraction, then our desire itself and our activity are
at an end; as long as the attraction lasts, it may buoy us up for
years in our daily labors.
On the contrary, a succession of univocal or specifically sim­
ilar causes, as, for instance, the temporal succession of human
lives or of physical movements in the past, are at bottom but a
series of effects coming from a higher cause; if the movement
as such cannot be explained sufficiently in itself, it demands a
prime mover, who in his turn does not have to be set in motion.
This is the deeper sense of the principle: universal and perma­
nent effects have for their proper cause a cause that is universal,
permanent, and consequently of a higher order. This cause may
truly be called the first principle or highest foundation. Thus

7β

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

we speak of the fundamental truth of philosophy, of the fun­
damental principles of the sciences, of the foundations of moral­
ity. If there is a first cause, it must evidently be a cause in this
profound sense. Empiricism, which accepts only univocal causes,
material or accidental, which denies the superior validity of the
principles of reasoning, which rejects all foundations (the foun­
dation of induction, that of the syllogism, that of morality, and
that of society), must end by denying, or at least not affirming,
the existence of God. For the Empiric, who is necessarily a
Nominalist, as for the ordinary grammarian, the two proposi­
tions, “God is” and “Peter is,” have about the same meaning;
just as the world has no need of Peter, so it can get along with­
out God.
Shall we fall into the other extreme, and return to the “ideas”
of Plato, those supreme types, those “mothers” (see the
Timaeus'), which Goethe, following his natural mysticism, re­
suscitated in the second part of Faustï Shall we admit the selfsufficiency of man? By no means. All the material elements im­
plied in any definition (such as that of man) cannot exist apart
from matter, which is their principle of individuation. (See
no. 39). But it is not so with being, truth, goodness, intellect,
and will; there is nothing material or even imperfect involved
in their formal notions. This will naturally lead us to con­
clude that the proper cause of pure being and of all contingent
realities, is a self-subsistent Being, which, for that very reason, is
the Supreme Truth, the foundation of all truth, the First In­
tellect, which conceives the eternal types of things, the Sover­
eign Good and Supreme Love, and the pre-eminent Source of
every good desire.
This idea of the proper cause of universal effects will assume
concrete shape and thus become clearer in the general proof
for the existence of God, derived from the contingency of existing
things, and which may be summed up by saying that the greater

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

77

does not come from the less, nor the higher from the lower. (Cfr.
no. 35).

10) Therefore, it is not in a series of accidentally connected
past causes that we must seep for the original cause, but
in one in which there is an essential connection between
the causes.
From what was said above we see that the proofs for the
existence of God, if they are to refer the effect back to its ab­
solutely necessary cause, must not get hopelessly involved in a
series of accidental causes. This mistake is frequently made by
those who argue that the hen is the cause of the egg, and the egg
the cause of another hen, and so on, indefinitely. St. Thomas can
see no reason why there should be an end to such a series of
causes. “It is not regarded as impossible to proceed to acci­
dental infinity in efficient causes.” (la, q. 46, a. 2, ad yum).
It is only in the order of necessarily and actually connected
causes, the holy Doctor continues, that we must of necessity ar­
rive at a final cause. If a clock consisted of an infinite number of
wheels, each one depending on another in ascending order,
there would be in fact no principle of movement, and it would
make little or no difference whether this clock were wound up
a hundred times, a thousand times, or ever so many times; for
the one who winds it up is only per accidens the cause of its
movement. So also, in the example which St. Thomas gives, for
the sound of the anvil we ascend first to the movement of the
hammer, then to the movement of die blacksmith’s hand, and,
finally, to some first principle of this local movement. But
it does not matter much whether the blacksmith makes use of
an indefinite number of hammers: “An artificer acts by means
of many hammers accidentally, because one after the other is
broken. It is accidental, therefore, that one particular hammer
acts after the action of another. In like manner it is accidental

78

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

to this particular man, in so far as he generates, to be generated
by another; for he generates as a man, and not as the son of
another man. . . . Hence it is not impossible for a man to be
generated by man in infinitum." (la, q. 46, a. 2, ad yum). If the
blacksmith takes up a different hammer each time he strikes the
anvil, the causal action of each hammer is not necessary in order
that the following one should be able in its turn to strike the
anvil. Similarly, there is no need that the son in his turn should
have children, for him to be dependent on his father, grand­
father, great-grandfather, and others as efficient causes. Neither
does it seem to be metaphysically impossible for the world always
to have been revolving on its axis; in this case there would have
been no commencement of rotation; for, as St. Thomas remarks,
"Quaelibet circulatio praecedentium transtri potuit, quia finita
fuit; in omnibus autem simul, si mundus semper fuisset, nonesset accipere primum., et ita nec transitum, qui semper exigit
duo extrema,” that is, “any of the previous revolutions could
be completed, because it was of finite duration; but in all things
that happen simultaneously, if the world had always existed,
there would have been no beginning, and hence no transition,
since this always demands the presence of the two extremes.”
(C. Gentes, 1. II, c. 38). That there should be an actually infinite
series of phenomena is not in itself an impossibility; for the
series would be infinite "a parte ante" only, and finite "a parte
post.”
Aristotle, who held that the world and movement are eternal,
said that this was an additional reason for assuming that there
must be an eternal and infinite principle of all movement, ca­
pable alone of producing perpetual motion. As for St. Thomas,
he taught that we know for certain only from revelation that the
world had a beginning and is, therefore, not created ab aeterno.
This depends entirely upon the divine will.3 (la, q. 46, a. 2).
8 To say that it is no sufficient reason why the divine will should create at

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

79

That in a series of accidentally connected causes we must
finally arrive at the first of these causes, is not because we under­
stand what is implied by the term causality, but simply for the
reason that an actually infinite multitude is an impossibility. But,
as St. Thomas remarks (la, q. 7, a. 3, ad qum; q. 46, a. 2, ad
6um and ad yum), there can be an actually infinite multitude
only if all the units comprising it coexist simultaneously; but
this is not the case with an infinite series in the past; because
that which is past no longer exists. Moreover, while it is evident
that an infinite number involves a contradiction in terms, it is
very difficult to prove the impossibility of an actually infinite
and innumerable multitude. In his opusculum, "De aeternitate
mundi," St. Thomas about the year 1264 wrote: "Adhuc non est
demonstratum quod Deus non possit jacere ut sint injinita in
actu" that is, “it has not as yet been proved that God cannot bring
it about that there be infinite beings in actu!' In the "Quodlibeta," which he wrote towards the end of his life, he recapitu­
lates (No. 12, q. 2) with greater exactness what he had said
on this point in the Summa Theologica (see la, q. 7, a. 4). The
passage reads as follows: “To make something infinite in actu,
or to bring it about that infinites should exist simultaneously
in actu, is not contrary to the absolute power of God, because
it implies no contradiction; but if we consider the way in which
God acts, it is not possible. For God acts through the intellect
and through the word, which assigns to all things their forms,
and hence it must be that all things are formally made (that is,
determined) by Him.”
Finally, in his Commentary on the Physics of Aristotle (Book
III, Leet. 8), St. Thomas, discussing the Aristotelian proofs for
the impossibility of an actually infinite multitude (proofs which
this particular moment, rather than at any other, is to doubt whether there is
such a thing as freedom. (See injra, Vol. Π, ch. IV).

8o

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

he himself had reproduced in his Summa*), emphatically says:
“It must be observed that these arguments are probable, ex­
pressing the commonly accepted view; they are not, however,
rigorously conclusive: because ... if anyone were to assert that
any multitude is infinite, this would not mean that it is a
number, or that it belongs to the species of number: for by num­
ber a multitude becomes measurable, as is stated in the tenth
book of tire Metaphysics, and, therefore, number is said to be a
species of discrete quantity; but this is not the case with multi­
tude, which is of the nature of a transcendental.”
Among those who admit that an actually infinite multitude is
not an intrinsic impossibility, we must include Scotus, the Nom­
inalists, Vasquez, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. The Jesuits of
Coimbra, and Toletus (in the first part of his Summa, q. 7)
defend as probable the opinion that the actually infinite is a pos­
sibility. Just recently Renouvier’s argument for the finite has
been refuted by Milhaud {Essai sur les Conditions de la Certi­
tude Logique, p. 177). In our day mathematicians versed in the
theory of transfinite ensembles are increasingly less disposed to
accept as valid any of the arguments by which the notion of an
actually infinite multitude is proved to involve an intrinsic con­
tradiction.
It is important to note, therefore, that in any of the classical
proofs for the existence of God, this disputed point must be
taken into consideration. Just why we cannot proceed to infinity,
is because there must be a sufficient reason, a cause. Even if we
could go back to infinity in a series of past accidental causes, as,
for instance, transformations of energy, or of generations of liv­
ing beings, or of human beings: movement, life, the human soul
would still have to be explained. These accidental causes are in
themselves insufficient, and demand a further explanation. To
4 See la, q. 7, a. 4.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

81

carry the series to infinity would not change their nature. As
Aristotle remarked: If the world is eternal, it is eternally in­
sufficient and incomplete; it eternally demands a sufficient reason
for its reality and intelligibility. (Met., 1. XII, c. 6. See also Sertillanges, "Les preuves de l’existence de Dieu et l’éternité du
monde,’’ four articles in La Revue Thomiste of 1897 and 1898).
This remark makes it unnecessary for us to discuss at length
the first Kantian antinomy concerning the eternity of the world.

11) In this series of essentially connected causes, we eventually
arrive at one which must be the proper cause, without any
further affirmation.
The proper cause is that which is necessarily (per se) and
immediately (primo) required. Of course, there are necessary
causes which are not immediate causes (per se non primo). We
can more readily understand the reason why of anything than
we can discern its true cause. Aristotle says that the essence of the
triangle contains the necessary though not immediate reason for
the properties of the scalene triangle. These properties, in fact,
necessarily presuppose that the scalene is a triangle, but they
cannot be said to follow as an immediate deduction from the
definition of a triangle; if such were the case, they would be­
long to every kind of triangle and not to the scalene per se primo
καθ' αυτό και y αυτό (of itself and from its nature). (Post. Anal., I;
( Commentary of St. Thomas, Leet. II). The same holds good for
metaphysical causality: for the proper effect of a cause is, as it
were, one of its properties ad extra, existing by reason of some­
thing else, which is its principle of inherence. The proper effect
bears the same relation to its proper cause, as property does
to the essence upon which it necessarily and immediately de­
pends. It is of this proper cause that Aristotle writes (Post.
Anal., I; Commentary of St. Thomas, Leet. 10: "Quartus modus
dicendi per se": immediate necessity in the order of causality).

82

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

He gives as examples: “the murderer is the cause of death;”
“the doctor cures one,” “the chanter sings.” If one were to say,
“the man sings,” this would not be an example of an immediate
cause. To say, “the doctor sings,” would be an example of an
accidental cause, since it is purely an accident that he who sings
happens to be a doctor.
Other more appropriate examples of the proper cause could
easily be given. St. Thomas frequently refers to the fire which
generates heat; to the light which dispels the darkness; to color
which is the immediately predisposing cause (formal object)
of sight, as sound is of hearing; to being, which is the direct
object of the intellect as goodness is of the will. In matter of
fact, it is by color that we see things, it is by sound that we hear,
and things become intelligible to us according to the degree in
which they participate in being, desirable in so far as they are
good. Thus we may say that the ens realissimum, the absolutely
Real Being, makes all things real, just as fire creates heat, and
light, illumination, in the sense that the self-existing Being is
the proper cause not of this or that mode of being, but of being
in general. (See la, q. 45, a. 5). In like manner, the primary
intelligent Being is the proper cause of our intelligence and of
whatsoever intelligibility there may be in material things. The
sovereign Good is the cause of all goodness, of all attraction to
the same, and of all obligation, founded on the idea of good.
Many authors, in presenting the proof for the existence of
God, argue from a cause which is not immediate, and as a result,
their demonstration is not conclusive. If, for instance, it is a
question of explaining the order in the world, we do not have
to affirm the existence of an absolutely perfect being, but it is
enough if we prove the existence of a primary intelligence dispos­
ing all things, one that is the proper cause of this order. In ex­
plaining local movement it is not necessary to arrive forthwith
at the "Actus Purus," but it is sufficient to show that there is a

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

83

mover which itself is not moved locally, as would be a world­
soul (see Cajetan, In lam, q. 2, a. 2). if this soul is itself moved
by some spiritual force, we must explain the difference in move­
ment (which is movement in general and no longer a particular
kind, such as local movement), by recourse to a prime mover of
a higher order, which does not have to be started in its activity.
But even this would not immediately prove the existence of an
infinitely perfect being. To explain the existence of contingent
beings, all that is required is to show the existence of a neces­
sary being, but it is not necessary to prove immediately the
existence of a personal, intelligent, and free God.
The five classical proofs given by St. Thomas (la, q. 2, a. 3)
ascend per se primo, necessarily and immediately, to five divine
predicates, to wit, (1) that there is a first unmoved mover of all
things; (2) a first efficient cause; (3) a necessary and self-existent
being; (4) the maximum in being; (5) the first of intelligent
beings who directs all things to their predestined end. He then
proceeds to show that these five predicates cannot be affirmed of
anything corporeal (q. 3, a. 1), not even of a being composed
merely of essence and existence, such as we find to be the case
with spiritual beings of the finite order; but that they belong ex­
clusively to the one who is Being itself (ipsum esse subsistens,
q. 3, a. 5). In the fourth article of question 3 of the Summa St.
Thomas finally proves that essence and existence are the same in
( >od. This truth is the keystone of the two theological treatises in
which God and Creation are discussed. Without it, the proofs for
the existence of God cannot be said to be complete. The divine at­
tributes—absolute simplicity, perfection and infinite goodness, im­
mutability, eternity, uniqueness, omniscience, absolute freedom in
regard to creation, omnipotence, universal providence, infinite
beatitude—are all deduced from the single truth that God is the
self-subsistent Being. From this it is also concluded that between
God and the world there is this difference: He is essentially

84

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

simple, immutable, and incapable of further perfection, and
therefore necessarily distinct from the world, which is essen­
tially composite, changeable, and imperfect.
Such, then, is metaphysical causality (causality necessarily and
immediately required), and it is only upon this solid basis that
we can construct the a posteriori proofs for the existence of God:
for, “the proper cause of anything can be demonstrated from any
of its effects.” The foundation of all these proofs is, therefore,
the principle of causality, which may be expressed metaphysically
by saying that “what is not per se or self-existing, necessarily de­
pends upon some other being which is self-existing” (f'quod est
non per se, est ab alio, quod est per se”').

SECTION II
OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE DEMONSTRABILITY OF THE EXIST­

ENCE OF GOD. EMPIRICAL AND IDEALISTIC AGNOSTICISM

Before establishing, by means of a reductio ad absurdum, the
necessity of the principle of causality as well as its ontological
and transcendental validity, it seems preferable to us to state the
objections raised against this thesis by Agnosticism. Empiric
Agnosticism disputes the necessity of the principle of causality
and also its ontological and transcendental validity; idealistic
Agnosticism concedes to this principle merely a subjective neces­
sity.

12) The objection of the Empirics against the necessity and the
ontological and transcendental validity of the principle of
causality. This objection and the resulting Agnosticism are
derived from Sensualistic Nominalism.
Since the time of Hume the Empiric or Sensualist objection
has undergone scarcely any change. The English Positivists, John
Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer, and more recently William

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

85

James, simply repeat the old objection, while the French Posi­
tivists, Aug. Comte, Littré, and their followers, stress its materi­
alistic origin and its antireligious consequences. The Neo­
positivists of the present day are related to Hume and Mill in
much the same way as the Scholastics who lived after the thir­
teenth century are related to St. Thomas. We shall consider first
of all, the leaders of this school of thought, especially John
Stuart Mill, whose Nominalistic logic will enable us to discern
the true sense and purport of the objection.
The Empirics deny: (1) that the principle of causality is a
necessary truth, and (2) that this principle permits us to get
away from the order of phenomena, in order to ascend to the
first cause. Hume, following closely the teaching of the Epicu­
reans, the sceptic Sextus Empiricus, Ockham,1 Hobbes, and Berke­
ley, in reality denies intelligence, reason, or, what amounts to the
same, he reduces it to the senses. According to his view, the idea
expresses nothing more in itself than what is derived from the
1 Sec Denzinger, n. 553-570, for the condemnation of the philosophical errors
of Nicholas of Autrccourt, a disciple of Ockam. Amongst the errors that were
condemned is the denial of the ontological validity of the principle of causality:
("Quod non potest evidenter evidentia praedicta ex una re inferri vel concludi alia
res: that we cannot from the aforesaid evidence evidently infer or conclude to the
existence of one thing from another,”) and the proposition that reduces to a purely
hypothetical formula either the principle of contradiction or that of identity:
("Quod hoc est primum principium et non aliud: si aliquid est, aliquid est, that
there is no other first principle but this: if anything is, it is.”) (Denz., 570). Con­
cerning the external world, Nicholas of Autrccourt defended this thesis, which
was also placed under censure: "Quod de substantia materiali alia ab anima nostra
non habemus certitudinem evidentiae: Apart from our own soul we cannot con­
clude with evident certainty about any material substance.” (Denz., 557). In
short, the only evidence and certainty which he admitted were ot the logical
order. His proposition: "Quod certitudo evidentiae non habet gradus (that evi­
dent certainty admits of no degrees)” was also condemned. (Denz., 556). As for
created causality, his teaching is summed up in the following propositions: "Nesci­
mus evidenter quod alia a Deo possint, esse causa alicujus effectus: quod aliqua
< ausa causet efficienter, quae non sit Deus: we have no direct evidence that any­
thing other than God can be the cause of any effect” and, ‘‘that there should be,
besides God, any other efficient cause.” (Denz., 566). From this we see dial after
the Middle Ages Nominalism ended in scepticism.

86

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

senses and the imagination. It is merely an image under a com­
mon name. This constitutes the very essence of empirical Nomi­
nalism. “All our general ideas,” says Hume, “are in reality but
particular ideas to which a common term is assigned, and this
latter occasionally recalls other particular ideas which correspond
in certain respects to the idea that the mind actually has.” 2 The
idea, according to him, expresses nothing more profound than
what the senses and the imagination furnish—it is solely an
image accompanied by a common name. This is the essence of
Empiric Nominalism. According to this sensualistic principle, if
what the senses perceive is merely a succession of phenomena,
the idea of cause is nothing else but a common image of phenom­
ena that succeed each other, to which the common name of cause
is assigned; all the rest cannot be anything more than verbal
entity. In fact, Hume points out that, by means of the external
senses, we perceive only phenomena followed by other phe­
nomena instead of the causes of phenomena. “One billiard ball
impinges upon another, and this other one moves; the senses
tell us nothing more. ... A single case, a solitary experience,
in which we observed that one thing happened after some other,
does not justify us in formulating a general rule and predicting
what will happen in similar cases. It would be, indeed, unmit­
igated temerity to judge of the whole course of nature from a
simple experience, however exact and certain this might be. But
when we have seen on every occasion, that two mutually related
phenomena follow each other, we have not the slightest hesita­
tion in predicting the one from the appearance of the other. We
call one of these the cause, the other the effect. We take it for
granted that there is some connexion between them. We say
that there is in the first a potver, by which it can produce in­
fallibly the other. . . . How did this new idea, therefore, of a
relationship, originate in the mind? In no other way did this
2 An Inquiry Concerning the Human Understanding, Part II, Section XII, note.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

87

come about but because of the sentiment which we have in our
imagination of the connexion between these facts, and of the
tendency which urges us to foresee the existence of the one from
the appearance of the other.” (Essay on the Human Under­
standing, VII).
But whence comes the idea of this force, of this power attrib­
uted to the cause in producing the effect? Hume explains it by
the contact which is established between inanimate things and
the sentiment of resistance or the feeling of effort that we experi­
ence whenever our body gives rise to, or, on the contrary,
opposes movement. “A living being cannot move external objects
without experiencing the feeling of a nisus, of an effort; like­
wise, every animal receives an impression or feeling of shock
from every external object that is moved. These sensations, which
are exclusively of the animal order, and from which we cannot
a priori draw any inference, we are, nevertheless, inclined to
transfer to inanimate objects and to suppose that these objects
experience feelings somewhat analogous, whenever they impart
or receive movement.” (Ibidi). Are there any grounds for be­
lieving that the relation between cause and effect is anything
more than an invariable succession? Not at all, answers Hume,
for even in the domain of internal experience we have not the
slightest means of knowing whether the voluntary effort that
we experience is really what produces the corporeal movement
which follows. This voluntary corporeal movement is not even
the immediate result of volition. It is separated from it by a long
chain of causes which we have neither known nor willed (move­
ments of certain muscles, of certain nerves, and of animal spirits).
For Hume, therefore, causality, in the final analysis, is but the
succession of two phenomena. We are led to believe that this
succession is invariable; but this belief is merely the result of a
habit. So far as we know, there has always been a succession of
contingent facts; but we have no assurance tliat it must always

88

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

be so. Moreover, granted that causality accounts for, and always
will account for, all the phenomena of the universe, what right
have we to argue from this to a first cause situated beyond the
world of phenomena? Arguing from this Sensualistic principle,
Hume, like Berkeley, is led to deny the existence of matter; his
only realities are sensations, phenomena without a substance. The
same must be said about the mind. By a strange contradiction,
Hume, in the beginning of his 'Natural History of Religion,
esteems and appreciates the proof for the existence of God drawn
from the order found in nature. “The wondrous arrangement in
the whole of nature,” he says, “speaks to us of an intelligent
Designer; and there is no philosophical thinker who can, after
serious reflexion, for one moment suspend his judgment when
he has placed before him the first principles of Deism and of
natural religion.” (Concerning this contradiction, see Hume, His
Life and Philosophy, by Thomas Huxley).
We find the confirmation and development of this same doc­
trine in the works of John Stuart Mill. He starts from the same
principle: that concepts are but concrete images to which a com­
mon name is given. {Philosophy of Hamilton, pp. 371-380; Logic,
I, p. 119). From this is deduced the principle of causality. Mill
premises {Logic, III, ch. 5, § 2) that he does not mean “to speak
of a cause which is not itself a phenomenon. I make no research,”
he says, “into the ultimate or ontological cause of anything. To
adopt a distinction familiar in the writings of the Scotch meta­
physicians, and especially of Reid, the causes with which I con­
cern myself are not efficient, but physical causes. ... Of the
[efficient] causes of phenomena, or whether any such causes exist
at all, 1 am not called upon to give an opinion. . . . The only
notion of a cause which the theory of induction requires, is that
which can be gained by experience. The law of causation, which
is the main pillar of inductive science, is but the familiar truth
that invariability of succession is found by observation to obtain

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

89

between every fact in nature and some other fact which has pre­
ceded it, independently of all considerations respecting the ul­
timate mode of production of phenomena.” From this entirely
empirical point of view “the cause of a phenomenon is an ante­
cedent and invariable phenomenon; or, better still, is the whole
of these antecedents; and we have, philosophically speaking, no
right to give the name of cause to one of them, exclusively of the
others.” Finally, the succession (of facts in nature) must not
only be invariable in the manner that night follows day, it must
also be unconditional. This leads Mill to conclude that the dis­
tinction made between agent and patient is an illusion.3 It is the
principal objection of the Modernists against the traditional
proofs for the existence of God that “the distinction between
mover and moved, movement and the object moved, and the
affirmation of the ascendancy of action over potency, all start
from the same commonly accepted postulate, the postulate of
morcellation.”4 The passage deserves to be quoted, because it
shows clearly how Empiricism leads fatally to Radical Nominal­
ism, since it freely admits that whatever is not immediately
grasped by the senses results in verbal entity. “In most cases of
causation,” says Mill, “a distinction is commonly drawn between
something which acts and some other thing which is acted upon;
between an agent and a patient. Both of these, it would be uni­
versally allowed, are conditions of the phenomenon; but it would
be thought absurd to call the latter the cause, that title being re­
served for the former. The distinction, however, vanishes on
examination, or rather is found to be only verbal: arising from
an incident of mere expression, namely, that the object said to
be acted upon, and which is considered as the scene in which
the effect takes place, is commonly included in the phrase by
3 His own words on this point are: “The distinction is found to be only verbal.”
1 Le Roy, "Comment se pose le problème de Dieu,” in the Revue de Méta­
physique et de Morale, March, 1907.

go

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

which the effect is spoken of, so that if it were also reckoned as
part of the cause, the seeming incongruity would arise of its
being supposed to cause itself. . . . Those who have contended
for a radical distinction between agent and patient, have gener­
ally conceived the agent as that which causes some state of, or
some change in the state of, another object, which is called the
patient. . . . But to speak of phenomena as states of the various
objects which take part in them, is simply a sort of logical fiction,
useful sometimes as one among several modes of expression, but
which should never be supposed to be the enunciation of a
scientific truth.” {Logic, III, ch. 5, § 4).
It is in his Essays on Religion (first part, written in 1868 and
1870), that Mill gives us the conclusions from his Sensualistic
and Nominalistic principles. He begins with the admission that
“there is nothing in scientific experience that is incompatible with
the belief that the laws and the successions of facts should them­
selves be the result of a divine volition” (p. 127). But of what
value is the argument of a first cause? “Experience properly in­
terpreted tells us only this : that all change proceeds from a cause,
and that the cause of all change is a previous change. . . . But
there is in nature an element or rather permanent elements
(matter and force), and we do not know whether these elements
ever had a beginning. Experience affords us no proof, not even
an analogy, which would justify us in asserting that a generaliza­
tion based upon our experience of variable phenomena has estab­
lished for us what seems to be the immutable. . . . Besides, since
all change has its cause in a previous change, our experience, far
from providing us with an argument in favour of a first cause,
seems to militate against it, and make us incline to the view that
the very essence of causality, such as we know it to be according
to our limited capacity, is incompatible with the idea of a first
cause” (p. 133).
Because of his Nominalistic principles, Mill likewise rejects the

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

91

syllogism which, from the fact that there are human intelligences
and consciences, argues by the method of causality that there is a
first intelligence and conscience. On this point he writes: “If we
say from the fact alone that there is such a thing as intelligence,
that this demands as its pre-requisite antecedent the existence of
an Intelligence far greater and more powerful, the difficulty is not
removed by this one regression we have made. The creative in­
telligence, just as much as the created one, demands another
intelligence to explain its own existence” (p. 140). Hence, what
a Nominalist understands by intelligence is not an idea that can
be applied to being, and by which we could identify the self­
subsisting Intelligence with the self-subsisting Being; but it is
merely a common image, with a name assigned to it, which refers
to phenomena and not to being.
Mill plunges even deeper into Empiricism. “What proof have
we,” he asks, “that only the intellectual can produce that which
is intellectual? Have we any other means but experience, for
knowing what thing produces another of its kind, what causes
are capable of producing certain effects? . . . Apart from experi­
ence and especially for what goes by the name of reason, which
is concerned with the self-evident, it seems that no cause can pro­
duce an effect of a higher order than itself. But this conclusion is
entirely different from anything we know about nature. Are not
the vegetables and the superior species of animals far nobler and
more precious, for instance, than the soil and the pastures upon
which they depend and from which they draw their nourishment
for their growth? The purpose of all the researches of modern
science is to convince us completely that the higher forms of life
arc evolved from the lower, and that the more elaborate and su­
perior organization in life must yield to the inferior” (p. 142).
This is the same as saying that the greater comes from the less,
that being springs from non-being, that the intellectual life is the
result of a material and blind fatalism, that the thoughts of the

92

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

man of genius and the charity of the saints originate from a
lump of dirt.
However, Mill acknowledges that there is considerable proba­
bility for the proof of God’s existence drawn from the evidence
of design in nature. In fact, as we shall see later on, this proof,
in his opinion, is an inductive argument corresponding to the
method of congruencies, “a poor argument in most cases, but also
at times a rather forceful one, especially when it concerns the
delicate and complicated dispositions of the vegetative and animal
life” (p. 162). This means that, according to the laws of induc­
tion and the present development of science, the most probable
cause of the organic structure of the eye or the ear is not “the sur­
vival of the fittest,” but a pre-ordaining intelligence.
Mill is thus logically led by the principles of Empiricism to ad­
mit that there are not really any convincing proofs for either
theism or atheism. He strives even to prove that the attributes of
the God of Christians, especially omnipotence and wisdom, can­
not be reconciled; here, too, all his arguments are drawn from
the empirical point of view. According to his theory, our imagina­
tion affords us glimpses of a God who exists, who is just and
good; now it is not unreasonable for anyone who thinks so, to let
himself go still farther and hope that this God exists, provided
he recognizes that, if there are any reasons for hoping that it is
so, there are no proofs (p. 227).
It is from his Nominalistic thesis on causality that John Stuart
Mill draws all these conclusions.
The same thesis, though in a somewhat modified form, was
accepted by Herbert Spencer. Mill, who was an idealist of the
Berkeley type, did not admit the existence of an external world
and believed that the principle of causality, like the other princi­
ples, is established by the repetition of the same psychic phenom­
ena in each individual conscience. Spencer, on the contrary,
admits the world of external things and considers the so-called

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

93

principle of causality as the result of a habit which men have
formed by having witnessed the constant succession of the
same phenomena. He, moreover, invokes heredity, in order to
explain the tendency which we experience from birth to regulate
our conduct and our reasoning in accordance with this principle.
1Ic writes as follows: “Habitual psychical successions entail some
hereditary tendency to such concessions, which, under persistent
conditions, will become cumulative in generation after genera­
tion, and this supplies an explanation of the so-called forms of
thought.” (Principles of Psychology, Part 4, ch. 7, 3rd ed., vol. I,
p. 466). Thus the vast edifice of our judgments is the result of
experimental perceptions, the consolidated accumulations of cen­
turies, just as our continents were formed by the aggregation of
almost imperceptible zoôns. According to Spencer, there is a
difference of degree only between animal sensation and the in­
telligent acts of men. “It is certain,” he says, “that amongst the
automatic acts of the lowest forms of beings and the most highly
developed conscious acts of human beings, we could set forth
an entire series of acts manifested by the divers species of the
animal kingdom, in such a manner diat it would be impossible
to say of any particular stage in the series: here intelligence be­
gins.” 5 Here indeed we find the explanation of the Positivist objection against the demonstrability of the existence of God: it is
the subversion of the foundations of reason. (See solution in nn.
15, 18, 25, 29).
Spencer’s Agnosticism is but a logical consequence of this
Nominalism. “It is impossible,” he writes, “to avoid making the
assumption of self-existence somewhere; and whether that as­
sumption be made nakedly (Theism), or under complete dis­
guises (Pantheism, Atheism), it is equally vicious, equally un­
thinkable. . . . We find ourselves obliged to make certain
assumptions; and yet we find these assumptions cannot be repre0 Quoted by Th. Ribot, La Psychologie Anglaise Contemp., 3rd ed., p. 199.

94

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

seated in thought. We are obliged to conclude that a first cause,
infinite, absolute or independent, does exist; however, the mate­
rials of which the arguments are built, equally with the conclu­
sions based on them, are merely symbolic conceptions of the
illegitimate order.” (First Principles, pp. 30-32). This means that
our ideas are merely common images that go by a certain name
(Nominalism), images which refer directly to sensible phenom­
ena, and which we, without any right, attribute to the absolute.
Taking up the Kantian antinomies, Spencer goes on to say
“that the fallacy of our conclusions becomes manifest through
their mutual contradictions. The absolute, as such, cannot be a
cause; it would be related to its effect. If you say that it exists
first by itself, and afterwards becomes a cause, you are con­
fronted with another difficulty: for how can the infinite become
that which it was not from the first? If you say that this can be
so because it is free, then you again contradict yourself; for free­
dom supposes consciousness, and consciousness, being only con­
ceivable as a relation, cannot belong to the absolute. The funda­
mental conceptions of traditional theology are self-destructive.
The absolute cannot be conceived as conscious, neither can it be
conceived as unconscious; it cannot be conceived as complex,
neither can it be conceived as simple; it cannot be identified with
the universe, neither can it be distinguished from it. There is the
same antagonism manifested between infinite justice and mercy,
between wisdom which knows all that is to come, and freedom,
between infinite power and goodness, and the existence of evil.
Atheism, Pantheism, and Theism are wholly unthinkable.”
(First Principles, pp. 33-37).
But these three systems and the religions diametrically opposed
to them, Polytheism and Monotheism, agree in recognizing that
the facts of experience call for an explanation, and the “belief in
the omnipresence of something which surpasses understanding,
common to all religions, not only becomes more and more distinct

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

95

in proportion as there is further development of thought in the
religions, but it also remains after the various elements have mu­
tually nullified each other; yet, it is this belief that the most
merciless criticism of all religions allows to remain, or rather sets
out in bolder relief” (pp. 37-39).®
Further on we shall show (nos. 29, 39, 70) that these alleged
contradictions pointed out by Spencer are the result of his Nomi­
nalistic Empiricism, which makes it impossible for him to con­
ceive the divine attributes analogically. The univocal and simple
conception that he is necessarily led to form of them, must in­
evitably result in contradiction.
William James has made no new contribution to this subject.
Concerning the traditional proofs for the existence of God he
writes: “I will not discuss these arguments. The bare fact that all
idealists since Kant felt entitled either to scout or to neglect them,
shows that they are not solid enough to serve as religion’s allsufficient foundation. Causation is indeed too obscure a principle
to bear the weight of the whole structure of theology. As for the
argument from design, see how Darwinian ideas have revolution­
ized it. The benevolent adaptations which we find in nature, be­
ing only fortunate escapes from almost limitless processes of
destruction, suggest a deity very different from the one who fig­
ured in the earlier versions of the argument.” {Religious Experi­
ence, pp. 437-438). Of the divine attributes he regards those
known as metaphysical, as meaningless. “Our conception of these
practical consequences,” he says, “is for us the whole of our
conception of the object” (p. 445). A few lines further on he says:
"God’s aseity, his necessariness, his immateriality, his simplicity,
his indivisibility, his repudiation of inclusion in a genus, his in­
finity, his metaphysical personality, his relations to evil, being
permissive and not positive, his self-sufficiency, self-love, and ab" I have been unable to find the exact equivalents of these quotations in the
English edition.—Tr.

96

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

solute felicity in himself :—candidly speaking, how do such qual­
ities as these make any definite connection with our life? And if
they severally call for no distinctive adaptations of our conduct,
what vital difference can it positively make to a man’s religion
whether they be true or false? . . . Verbality has stepped into the
place of vision, professionalism into that of life. Instead of bread,
we have a stone; instead of a fish, a serpent” (p. 445 f.). He even
thinks “that a final philosophy of religion will have to consider
the pluralistic hypothesis [Polytheism] more seriously than it has
hitherto been willing to consider it” (p. 526). As for the moral
attributes, “as spiritual assets they are bound up closely with
pragmatism; for the tree is known by its fruits. But this idea of a
practical fecundity likewise vanishes in the universal flux of
empirical evolution. The moral and religious ideas undergo a
change,” as their insight into nature and their social arrange­
ments progressively develop. “After an interval of a few genera­
tions, the mental climate proves unfavourable to notions of the
deity which at an earlier date were perfectly satisfactory”
(p. 328). From his further comments on this subject we under­
stand James as meaning to infer that formerly the cruel appe­
tites of a sanguinary god were proofs of his reality in the eyes of
his devotees, and that, like us, they judged the tree by its fruits.
What remains, then, of the fabric of religion? Nothing but per­
sonal experience and those direct assertions that we make in its
name. James arrives at practically the same conclusion as Spencer,
when he writes: “What the more characteristically divine facts
are, apart from the actual inflow of energy in the faith-state, I
know not. . . . The whole drift of my education goes to per­
suade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one
out of many worlds of consciousness that exist, and that those
other worlds must contain experiences which have a meaning for
our life also,” ennobling and transforming it (p. 519) .T This un7 The words in italics were added by the French translator of this passage.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

97

knowable transcendental world is none other than the subcon­
scious or subliminal self, and it is this subconsciousness that
James calls God.
The French Positivists, following Comte and Littré, have gen­
erally regarded the investigation of the problem of God not only
as useless, but also as dangerous. For A. Comte, e.g., this problem,
is vain, since the author of the Cours de Philosophie Positive (see
5th ed., Vol. Ill, p. 623) holds “that there is no essential differ­
ence between man and the brute beast, and hence we must say
with Gall, that sensation, memory, imagination, and even judg­
ment, are but various degrees of one and the same phenomenon
that manifests itself in each of the truly elementary functions of
the brain” (ibid., Ill, p. 627). The intellectual and moral phe­
nomena belong properly to animal physiology. This teaching
spells the abandonment of all our metaphysical theories, since
“purely verbal entities would be superseded continually by real
phenomena” (ibid., Ill, p. 616). To be true to his principles,
Comte ought to see in the real simply what corresponds to the
capacity of animals, and nothing more; for what distinguishes the
animal from man, as Rousseau, following Aristotle, remarks, is
precisely “that it cannot attach any meaning to the little word is."
Comte is naturally led to conclude that “the traditional demon­
strations for the existence of God must yield to the attacks of ad­
verse criticism” (ibid., V, p. 590). Moreover, this belief in God is
useless and dangerous. “Artfully to contrive by vain and laborious
methods, first of all to bolster up the religious principles so that,
thus deprived of all intrinsic and immediate force, they may
serve as die basis of the moral order, would not this be, hence­
forth, like arguing in a vicious circle? . . . Beliefs, themselves in­
capable of resisting the universal development of human reason,
could, therefore, serve no truly useful purpose; for, certainly,
reason in its full vigour would not fetter itself again with those
oppressive shackles which in its adolescent stage it had once for

98

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

all completely severed. . . . Most of the time, does not the prac­
tical tendency of religious beliefs in the present condition of so­
ciety chiefly consist in instilling into the hearts of the greater
number of those who still hold somewhat tenaciously to these
beliefs, a certain instinctive and insurmountable hatred for
all those who have liberated themselves from the same, without,
moreover, anything useful accruing to society from this form of
emulation?” 8 The spirit of the present day is to recognize no
other cult but that of Humanism.
Is it necessary for the theologian to have received the gift of
discernment of spirits, in order that he may correctly judge
whether this extract from the writings of August Comte pro­
ceeds from the love of God or from pride?
Littré is of the same opinion. “Science,” he says, “does not de­
clare that there is no God, but that everything happens as if there
were no God. Positive philosophy accepts this declaration, and
refuses to discuss further what can neither be known from ex­
perience nor in any way proved.” {Philosophie Positive, VI, 159).
“Kant and the Nominalists have made of the metaphysical argu­
ments a tabula rasa" {ibid., I, p. 238), “for the metaphysical
entities are purely imaginary, and they can in no way be verified
as facts; the existence of God deduced from them, has no more
reality than they have” {ibid., X, p. 14). Continuing in this strain,
he writes elsewhere: 9 “Why, then, obstinately persist in inquir­
ing whence you came and whither you are going; whether there
be an intelligent, free and good creator? . . . You will never find
out anything at all about that. Give up such vain chimeras. . . .
Man’s perfection and that of the social order consists in paying no
attention to such things. The mind becomes clearer in proportion
as it allows these so-called problems to remain in greater ob­
scurity. These problems are a disease, which is cured simply by
8 Cours de Philosophie Posit., IV, pp. 106-7.
* Revue des Deux Mondes, 1st June, 1865, p. 686.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

99

not thinking of such things.” We find the same ideas expressed
in the writings of the Neo-Comtistes, Lévy-Bruhl and Durk­
heim.
More recently the question of God’s existence has again been
brought up by Le Roy in his defence of the Positivist objections
against the traditional proofs.10 Le Roy adopts the Bergsonian
type of Sensualism or Nominalism. “The general idea,” he says,
“is due to the way in which our nervous system is constituted,
the apparatus of perception being of very different kinds, all
closely related through the medium of the centres with the same
motor phenomena. Abstraction is, therefore, a setting-in-relief due
to a motor phenomenon.” (Matière et Mémoire, pp. 168-176).
“The idea is but a mediating image.” (Evolution Créatrice,
p. 327). “Of becoming in general I have but a verbal knowledge”
(p. 322). From this point of view, Le Roy is drawn to conclude
with John Stuart Mill that “all the proofs for the existence of God
are based upon the purely utilitarian principle of morcellation,
introducing a distinction between mover and moved, movement
and the object moved, potency and act . . . Substances and things
are but verbal entities, by which we ‘objectify’ and mobilize the
universal flux; they are convenient arrangements and simplifica­
tions for the name and action implied. ... If the world is a
vast connected whole of unceasing transformations, one need not
think that this graduated and far-stretching cascade of happen­
ings necessarily demands a first source. ... To affirm the pri­
macy of act is a tacit admission of the same postulates. If causal­
ity is merely the outpouring of a full into a void, the reception by
one object of the communicated contents of another, in one word,
if it is the anthropomorphous operation of an agent, then well
and good! But of what value are these idols of the practical im­
agination? Why not simply identify being with becoming?”
10 "Comment se pose le problème de Dieu," in the Revue de Métaphysique et de
Morale, March, 1907.

ΙΟΟ

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Le Roy also invokes the Kantian objection which shall be dis­
cussed later on in this work: that to arrive at any conclusion, the
traditional proofs must inevitably have recourse to the ontological
argument. God, according to Le Roy, is “a reality in the becom­
ing,” who as yet is not and never will be, and who is transcen­
dental merely in name. “Immanence and transcendence corre­
spond to two moments in duration: immanence to what has
become, transcendence to what is becoming. If we declare that
God is immanent, this means that we consider Him in the light of
what he has become in us or in the world; but for the world and
for us He ever remains an infinite in becoming, an infinite, which
is creation in the true sense, not mere development; and viewed
in this way, God appears to be transcendental. ” 11 We wonder
whether the author grasped the full import of these words, for,
as we have already remarked, his conclusion is manifestly op­
posed to what was defined by the Vatican Council. (See nos. 4
and 5).
We see what this objection of the Positivists against the possi­
bility of proving the existence of God amounts to. Nothing new
has been added to it since the time of Hume, who reduced every
idea to a common image with a name, and causality to a common
image of an invariable succession of phenomena, called by the
name of cause. Everything which is not directly grasped by the
senses and the conscience is but a verbal entity, and as for reason,
there is no such thing. Apart from the phenomenal order, the
principle of causality is valueless; and even here we have no
assurance that it must be always referred absolutely to this order.

13) Kant's objection against the ontological and transcendental
value of the principle oj causality.
The Kantian theory of knowledge likewise undermines the
foundation of the traditional proofs for the existence of God.
11 Rev. de Mét. et Mor., July, 1907, p. 512.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

ιοί

Kant rejects Empiricism, because all idea of necessity is elimi­
nated from this system and for Kant, Newton’s physical laws,
and also the moral law, are a necessity that cannot be doubted.
But in his opinion, Dogmatic Rationalism is wrong in
claiming to have an intuition of the intelligible, and to be able
by a scientific process of reasoning to conclude that causes and
substances exist; he becomes involved in antinomies whenever it
occurs to him to approach these problems. On this point the
Empirics are right, and Kant is wrong. Metaphysics has not suc­
ceeded in establishing itself as a science, and never will do so; for
that is impossible. The only science is that of phenomena and
the Newtonian physics imposes itself upon us as a necessity. How
shall we explain this necessity of scientific knowledge? We know
from experience that a connection exists between facts, but expe­
rience tells us nothing about the necessity for this. It must, there­
fore, be the mind which, by consulting its categories of substance,
causality, reciprocal action, etc., concludes that there is a necessary
connection between phenomena. These categories enable us to
establish a priori contacts between phenomena, or to form what
Kant calls “synthetical a priori judgments.”
The principle of causality, by which metaphysicians claim to
arrive at the idea of a first cause, is only one of these “synthetical
a priori" principles. We must agree with Hume in admitting
that the proposition, “Everything which happens has a cause,” is
not an analytical judgment, for the predicate is not included in
the idea of the subject. Nor is it a purely explicative judgment,
which merely develops the notion of the subject in order to reveal
the presence of the predicate, as, for instance, when we say,
“What contradicts something does not apply to it,” or, “All bodies
are extended.” It is an extensive judgment which really adds to
the sum of knowledge, and therefore, is synthetical, as too is this
other judgment, “All bodies are heavy”; but at the same time we
are compelled to accept it as an a priori judgment, rendered neces-

102

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

sary by the exigency of science. It might be expressed by the fol­
lowing formula: “All changes take place in accordance with the
law of connexion between cause and effect”; it applies only to
the world of phenomena and does not justify us in attributing
all these changes to a cause of another order, which is not itself
also a change. (Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction, § IV;
Transcendental Analytic, II, c. 2, sect. 3, n. 3; Transcendental
Dialectic, II, c. 2, sect. 9, n. 4, 4th antinomy). Such a concept of
the principle of causality always postulates an antecedent phe­
nomenon, never an absolute cause.
From the noumenal point of view, it may still be possible that
there is a first cause. The idea of God is an ideal necessary for
the completion of knowledge, which is irresistibly drawn to ex­
plain the conditioned by the absolutely unconditioned. The nat­
ural tendency of the human mind is to conceive God as the
prototype of all things, the supreme reality, absolutely one, sim­
ple, completely determined, possessing all the perfections which
constitute personality. But this metaphysical demonstration is ab­
solutely insufficient, for want of an intelligible intuition that
would serve as a basis for it; the analysis of the concepts and of
the principles has made this clear in advance. However, Kant
undertakes to establish that the transcendental illusion hidden in
the ontological argument vitiates the proof of God’s existence de­
rived from the notion of contingency, as also that from the
teleological argument. (Transcendental Dialectic, II, c. 3). When
we come to discuss these proofs, we shall consider these special
difficulties.
Likewise, for pure reason, the idea of a personal God is a
hypothesis which invests our ideas with the greatest possible
unity; it is “simply a regulative principle,” which stimulates the
mind in the unification of knowledge.
Practical reason alone leads us to admit the existence of God,
not by any demonstration, but by a free act of faith, a purely

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

103

rational belief, of which “the certitude is subjectively adequate,
although objectively insufficient.” The existence of God and the
future life are two inseparable assumptions that follow inevitably
from the idea of moral obligation. The moral law says: “Do what
may render you worthy of happiness” (happiness and virtue are
necessarily connected by a synthetical a priori judgment). Now
God alone can realize the harmony between virtue and hap­
piness. Therefore, God must exist. The moral unbeliever is the
one who does not admit what, in truth, cannot possibly be known,
but what is morally necessary for one to suppose. This sort of in­
credulity always has its origin in a lack of moral interest. The
greater the moral sentiment in a man, the firmer and livelier
must be his faith in everything he feels himself obliged to as­
sume, from the point of view of practical necessity. {Logic,
Introduction, IX; Critique of Practical Reason, II, c. 5).
Such, then, is Kant’s objection against the demonstrability of
God’s existence. He does not deny, as the Empirics do, the neces­
sity of the principle of causality; but he does dispute its ontologi­
cal and transcendental validity. (See solution in nos. 18, 25, 29).
Kant, as Spencer after him, confirms his thesis by an exposi­
tion of the antinomies with which, in his opinion, speculative
reason clashes, whenever it proposes to go beyond the range of
phenomena. The antinomy which most of all interests us here,
is the fourth, which concerns the necessary being that is the
cause of the world; but it becomes involved with the third, re­
lating to freedom, if it demands that the first cause be a free
cause; and also with the first relating to the eternity of the world
and its extension, and with the second, which concerns the na­
ture of cosmic matter.
It will be sufficient for us to consider the fourth antinomy, at
t he same time briefly commenting on the other two.
According to the thesis of this fourth Kantian antinomy, there
exists either in, or in connection with, the world, a necessary

104

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

being, which is the absolute cause of the universe. Without such a
being, we could not explain the various changes that take place
in the world; for all change presupposes a complete or determined
series of causes or conditions, and therefore, postulates a first
cause or condition, an unconditioned existence, not contingent,
but necessary.
According to the antithesis, an absolutely necessary being does
not exist, either in the world or out of it, as its cause. Granted that
there is in the world a necessary being, this being either consti­
tutes an integral part of the cosmos, or it coincides with the sum­
total of phenomena. But if a part of the cosmos were necessary
and uncaused, it could have no possible reference to the condi­
tioned phenomena that succeed each other in time. If the whole
cosmic series constituted the necessary being, this would be the
same as saying that a hundred thousand idiots can constitute one
intelligent man. Finally, if this necessary being is outside of and
apart from the world, directly it begins to act, it admits a begin­
ning of something within itself, and therefore belongs to time
and is in the world, which is contrary to the hypothesis.
This fourth antinomy is involved with the third, which con­
cerns freedom. Its thesis states that we must admit a free causal­
ity. In matter of fact, there can be no regress to infinity in the
series of causes; for in that case there would be no first cause of
the phenomena about which we are certain, and hence they
would be without sufficient reason for their existence. But to have
a finite series of causes, we must commence with a cause which
does not have to be determined by any preceding cause. In other
words, we must have recourse to a free causality.
According to the antithesis, there can be no such thing as
freedom. A free act would be an act without any assignable rea­
son for its determination as such; the free cause would pass from
indetermination to determination without sufficient reason. (See

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

105

solution of this antinomy in Volume II, of this work, ch. IV,
nos. 59, 61-63).
The two other antinomies relating to time, space and matter,
may be passed over as of less importance in the discussion of this
question of the demonstrability of God’s existence. We have al­
ready remarked (no. to) that the great classical proofs for the
existence of God do not take into consideration the question of
the eternity or non-eternity of the world. It is evidently not im­
possible to establish by an a priori argument that God created
freely from all eternity, just as the sun and its rays of light are
simultaneous. There would, in that case, be an infinite series of
actually completed phenomena, in which there is nothing con­
trary to reason, regardless of what the first Kantian antinomy
may say on the subject; for this series would be infinite only a
parte ante, and completed a parte post. The objection that crea­
tion by God could have had no beginning in time, simply because
no sufficient reason can be given why the world should begin
to exist at a certain moment rather than at any other, again
brings up the same difficulty as that about freedom. If freedom
involves no contradiction, then creation in time is a possibility.
As for the second antinomy, which concerns divisible matter,
or matter which is not infinite in extension, we shall discuss this
problem in connection with the principle of substance (see no.
23).
Kant solves the antinomies of time, space, and matter by reject­
ing both thesis and antithesis. It cannot be said of the world, as
a thing in itself, either that it is finite or that it is infinite in
time and space; neither that it is composed of simple parts or
that it is divisible ad infinitum. Space and time are the a priori
forms of sensibility.
As for freedom and necessary being, they cannot exist in
the phenomenal or sensible order; but Kant sees no reason why

io6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

they could not exist in the noumenal or intelligible order; and
that is all that speculative reason can say about it: for it is unable
to prove that God exists.

14) The general principle of modern agnosticism.

By way of a brief summary, we may say that Kantian Em­
piricism and Idealism are two phases of Agnosticism. As the
Encyclical “Pascendi" remarks, the general principle of Agnosti­
cism is nothing else but Phenomenalism. “Human reason strictly
limited to the sphere of things phenomenal, which means to the
appearances of things, and precisely such as they appear, has
neither the power nor the right to go beyond these limits; hence
it cannot rise up to God, not even so much as know whether
He exists through the medium of created things.” (Denz., 2072).
Human reason can have knowledge only of phenomena and of
the laws by which they are governed. Our ideas, even the very
first ones implied in the first principles, have merely phenomenal,
but no ontological, validity. From them we can form no concept
of the substantial being, if such a being exists under the veil of
these phenomena. With far more reason we may say that they
have no transcendental value; for they do not permit us to know
God, the transcendental Being, supposing that He really exists.12
The first principles include such primary notions as being,
essence, existence, unity, identity, truth, goodness, efficient and
final cause, and, as a consequence, intelligence essentially related
to being, as also volition essentially related to goodness. The cor­
responding first principles are those of identity, contradiction, suf­
ficient reason, causality, finality, to which may be added the fol­
lowing axioms: (1) Whatever is a subject of existence is called
substance; (2) the intelligibility of anything corresponds to the
degree of its participation in being. (Nihil est intelligibile nisi in
12 Medieval Agnosticism, such as we find it, for instance, in the writings of
Maimonides, is of a less radical type.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

107

quantum est in actu) ; (3) only that can be the object of volition
which appeals to one as being good. (Nihil volitum nisi praecog­
nitum ut conveniens').
By ontological validity we understand the inherent aptness of
these first principles to make known to us not only the phenom­
ena previously perceived by the senses or by consciousness, but
also being itself (to bv), the senses revealing the presence of the
same to us by means of these phenomena.
By transcendent validity we mean that these first ideas are in
themselves apt to convey to us a true knowledge of God, consid­
ered as the first transcendental and non-immanent cause. The
principal ideas of this type are called by the Scholastics, transcendentals;13 though the term is used in a different sense, meaning
that such ideas transcend not only created beings, but also the
limits of the genera or the categories and may be found accord­
ing to their various modes in all these genera. Thus, being and
the properties of being, such as unity, truth, goodness, quality,
relation, action, passion, place and time, are found in varying de­
grees in each of them.
This twofold validity, ontological and transcendental, of first
ideas and first principles, is generally rejected by agnostics.
Empirical Agnosticism (such, for instance, as we find in the
writings of Spencer, Mill or W. James) rejects it, since it reduces
first ideas to mere composite ideas, to which a general name is
given. It is the most radical form of Nominalism. These com­
posite images, formed according to the laws of association of
particular images, the residua of sensation, are such that the
similarities between the ideas have a constructive and the differ­
ences between them a neutralizing effect. Just like sensation, they
13 According to Kant, that inquiry "is called transcendental, which is not so
much occupied with objects as with the mode of our cognition of these objects,
in so far as this mode of cognition is possible a priori." (Critique of Pure Reason,
Introd., Ch. VII).

io8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

represent merely sensible phenomena. From this point of view
substance is simply a collection of phenomena, and causality a
succession of phenomena that cannot be said really to have been
produced.
Personality is nothing else but a sequence of interior phenom­
ena mysteriously grouped together by our consciousness of them.
Reason can have knowledge only of phenomena, because between
it and the senses there is no essential difference.
In the idealistic Agnosticism of Kant and his disciples, the neo­
critics, the ontological and transcendental validity of first ideas
finds no acceptance, since these are reduced to purely subjective
forms of thought, the sole purpose of the names being to indicate
the various groups of phenomena. Causality is but a subjective
form, uniting the phenomena which occur successively in time.
Agnosticism, whether empirical or idealistic, as a general rule
confirms its thesis by an exposition of the antinomies in which,
as it claims, reason always ends whenever it seeks to transcend
phenomena. Briefly, they say that, on the one hand, a necessary
and unconditioned being is required to explain this world of
ours; on the other hand, the unconditioned cannot be a cause, for
it would come into relation with its effect. If, to safeguard its in­
dependence, we say that it was first of all self-existent and after­
wards began to act, we find ourselves obliged to admit that it
had a beginning, which is an open contradiction. (Fourth anti­
nomy of Kant and Spencer.)
If we say that it can act when it so wishes, because it is free,
we find ourselves confronted with the special antinomy of free­
dom. The free act, which, on the one hand, seems to be a requi­
site, is, on the other hand, without a determining cause, without
a sufficient reason. (Third antinomy of Kant). We also get in
conflict with the antinomy relating to time; for if the world had
a beginning in time, no cogent reason could be given why it
should have begun at a certain moment in time rather than at

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

109

any other. (First antinomy of Kant). Finally, freedom presup­
poses consciousness, and since we cannot conceive of conscious­
ness except as a relation implying a duality consisting of subject
and object, it cannot be predicated of the absolute, which must
be both one and simple (Spencer, Fichte).
The fundamental conceptions of traditional theology are irrec­
oncilable. The absolute, on the one hand, must be conceived as
absolutely simple, while on the other hand we must attribute to
it a multiplicity of perfections which it cannot formally possess
without their destroying its simplicity. In addition to these anti­
nomies, we have the classical difficulties as to how infinite justice
can be reconciled with infinite mercy, foreknowledge with free­
dom, the omnipotence of an infinitely good God with the exist­
ence of evil.
Thus, these antinomies seem to confirm the general principle
of Agnosticism, which, as we have seen, is nothing else but Phe­
nomenalism, or the negation of the ontological and transcen­
dental validity of reason.
All the objections raised against the demonstrability of God’s
existence can easily be traced to the Empirics or Idealists.
SECTION III
PROOF OF THE DEMONSTRABILITY OF GOü’s EXISTENCE

To prove this demonstrability we shall defend: (1) the onto­
logical validity of first ideas and first principles, and at the same
time show the necessity of these principles; (2) their transcen­
dental validity. The ontological range of first ideas is essentially
presupposed by their transcendental validity. It is clear that if
these ideas have but a phenomenal import, and do not enable us to
detect the substantial being underlying the phenomena, they can­
not be the means of our reaching God, the first transcendental
cause.

no

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Perhaps some may be surprised that so many pages of this book
are taken up with the discussion of the abstractive intuition of
intelligible being and of the first laws of being. The reason is
that it seems to us impossible to reply to the current objec­
tions against the traditional proofs for the existence of God, with­
out recurring to these preliminary fundamentals of general meta­
physics concerning being, identity, becoming, multiple, substance,
causality, and finality. If there are any ideas that are of profound
and permanent significance from an apologetic point of view,
may we not say that it is above all these first notions which de­
mand our serious consideration? From their analysis we obtain
an explanation and justification of the sensus communis or nat­
ural reason.
ARTICLE I
THE ONTOLOGICAL VALIDITY OF FIRST IDEAS AND FIRST PRINCIPLES

The agnostic denial of the ontological validity of first ideas and
their correlative first principles is nothing else but the negation
of the abstractive intuition of the intelligible, commonly called
by St. Thomas and the Scholastics “the simple apprehension of
the intelligible in the sensible,” or "indivisibilium intelligentia." 1
Empirical Nominalism reduces the concept to a composite
image with a common name. According to Kant, the concept is
merely an a priori form of thought, its sole purpose being to unite
phenomena. According to these theories, all intuition of the in­
telligible, no matter how imperfect, is thus suppressed.
We certainly have no intuition of intelligible being considered
in its pure state, as if we were pure spirits. This was the error of
Plato, Spinoza, and the Ontologists. But we have a certain intui1 See St. Thomas, De Anima, Bk. ΠΙ, Leet. 2; Met., Bk. IV, Leet. 6; De Veritate,
q. 14, a. 1.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

in

tion of intelligible being, derived by the process of abstraction
from being as made known to us by the senses.2
"Circa naturas rerum sensibilium primo figitur intuitus nostri
intellectus, qui ratio proprie dicitur. Ex hoc autem ulterius as­
surgit ad cognoscendum spiritum creatum (it is to the natures of
things as presented by the senses that our intellect first of all is
directed, and this act is rightly called reason. From that, how­
ever, it proceeds farther, to acquire a knowledge of the purely
immaterial in creation).” (St. Thomas, De Veritate, q. 15, a. 1,
ad yum). Just because man is not an angel, we must not, like the
Empirics, practically identify him with the beast, nor must we
claim, as Kant does, that his intellectual life is perhaps but a
well-connected dream.
It is this imperfect intuition of the intelligible, united with
abstraction, which we must briefly explain before we defend its
ontological validity.

15) The intellectual apprehension of intelligible being and the
intuition of its first principles.

What is meant by this imperfect intuition, united with ab­
straction, is sufficiently explained by St. Thomas in the First Part
of his Summa Theologica, question 85, article 1. The cognizable
object, he says, is proportional to the cognitive faculty. If this
faculty is, like that of any of the senses, dependent upon some
corporeal organ, it can have knowledge only of that which is ma­
terial and sensible, precisely in so far as it is material and sensible.
In the case of pure spirits, since the cognitive faculty is intrinsi­
cally and extrinsically independent of any corporeal organ, its
proper object is immaterial being, not sensible, but purely intel­
ligible; and if it has any knowledge of material things, this can
2 See Aristotle, De Anima, Bk. ΠΙ, Ch. VII; Leet. 12 of St. Thomas: "To func­
tion intellectually the soul has need of the phantasms—the intellect understands
the natures of things in the phantasms." See also Summa Theol., la, q. 12, a. 4;
q. 84, a. 7; q. 85, a. 1 and 5.

Ill

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

be only because it views them from a higher plane, in that it has
a direct intuition of them in the purely intelligible. Finally, if the
cognitive faculty is, like the human intellect, intrinsically inde­
pendent of any bodily organ, but nevertheless united with the
sensitive faculties, its proper object is intelligible being as existing
in sensible and individual matter, but not precisely as existing in
such matter. Now, to know what happens to exist in sensible and
individual matter, but not just as existing in such matter, is to
abstract the immaterial from the sensible.3
So then, whereas the pure spirit views material things from a
higher plane, in that it knows them through the immaterial: the
human intellect reaches the immaterial from a lower level,
through the immateriality hidden under the veil of things ma­
terial. (For a fuller development of this subject see St. Thomas,
la, q. 85, a. 1.).
Whatever the Agnostics may say about it, this consideration or
imperfect perception of our intellect differs essentially from sensi­
ble intuition, in that it penetrates beyond the sensible phenomena.
“The word intelligence," says St. Thomas (Ila Ilae, q. 8, a. 1)
“signifies a certain intimate knowledge, for it is derived from
intus legere, which means, to read what is within (to read in
anything its sufficient reason for existing). And this is evident
when we observe the difference between the intellect and the
senses. In matter of fact, sensible knowledge is concerned only
with external and sensible qualities. Intellectual knowledge, on
8 "But to know what is in individual matter, not as it exists in such matter, is
to abstract the form from individual matter, which is represented by the phan­
tasms." (la, q. 85, a. 1). “The things which belong to the species of any material
tiling, such as a stone, or a man, or a horse, can be thought of apart from the
individualizing principles which do not belong to the notion of the species. This
is what we mean by abstracting the universal from the particular or the intelligible
species from the phantasms. (Ibid., ad Im.) Not only docs the active intellect
throw light on the phantasms; it docs more; by its own power it abstracts the
intelligible species from the phantasm. ... By the power of the active intellect
we are able to disregard the conditions of individuality, and to consider the specific
nature, the image of which informs the passive intellect." (Ibid., ad 4m.)

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

113

the contrary, penetrates to the very essence of a thing. The proper
object of the human intellect is that essence or quiddity of
sensible things, and of this it has at least a confused knowledge.
[The animal sees the color of the plant, but we know what that
plant is—matter endowed with vegetative life; and we know
enough of the lower forms of life to realize that the smallest
blade of grass, because it has life, is worth more than all the gold
found in the earth. See Aristotle, De Anima, Bk. Ill, c. VI;
St. Thomas, Leet. 11]. The specific nature of a thing is hidden
under its accidents, just as the meaning of anything is contained
in the written or uttered words, just as by means of symbols truth
is expressed. . . . And the stronger is the light df reason, the
better it can penetrate to the innermost nature of things.”
Without a doubt, the natural light of our mind, while united
with the body, is feeble when compared with the angelic, and
above all with the divine intellect; still it is an intellectual light,
and if it does not give us an immediate and distinct intuition of
the essences of things, it at least acquires, in a general and con­
fused manner, from the sensible phenomena, a knowledge of
intelligible being,4 and its most general laws, known as first princi­
ples.
This first knowledge is truly an apprehension, a mental per­
ception, an imperfect intuition, associated with abstraction.5 The
4 See St. Thomas, la, q. 85, a. 3; De Veritate, q. 1, a. 1, and the Prologue to
De Ente et Essentia. Also Cajetan in his commentary on the prologue to De Ente
et Essentia. John of St. Thomas, in his Cursus Phil. Phys., q. 1, a. 3, particularly
in the Dico 20, remarks as follows: "Prima ratio cognoscibilis a nostro intellectu
naturaliter procedente est quidditas rei materialis sub aliquo praedicato maxime
confuso, quod praedicatum est ens, ut concretum et imbibitum in aliqua re de­
terminata, quae tunc occurrit cognitioni. Fere est idem ac cognoscere rem quoad
an est. (What our intellect first of all acquires a knowledge of, is the essence of
sensible things, but in a very confused manner, expressing it by the very general
term of being. Thus it is that we arrive at the notion of being, for the first con­
crete object presents itself as such for our cognition. It is about the same as saying
that we know something actually exists).” Then follows immediately a judgment
about this particular thing. See St. Thomas, la, q. 85, a. 3; q. 86, a. 1.
6 Cajetan, in his commentary on the De Ente et Essentia of St. Thomas (cd. de

114

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

intellect considers, in sensible things, intelligible being and its
most general aspects, without actually considering the sensible
qualities; just as with words it is not the arrangement of the let­
ters that arrests the attention, but the meaning of the words. This
simple apprehension of intelligible being and the intuition of its
first principles enables the mind to acquire a more complex
knowledge by subsequent reasoning, and it judges of the validity
of the same by referring again to those principles by means of
which it obtained such knowledge. (See Ila Ilae, q. 8, a. i, ad i
and 2; la, q. 79, a. 8 and 9; and De Veritate, q. 1, a. 12; q. 15, a. 1,
Whether intellect and reason are different faculties). Hence, all
reasoning starts first from intuition and ends again in this in­
tellectual intuition by a reduction of all things to first principles.
(See la, q. 79, a. 8). Therefore, our reason deserves to be called
intelligence.8
Maria, q. I, p. 20), writes as follows: "Ad conceptum confusum speciei specialis­
simae requiritur et sufficit duplex abstractio: altera per actum intellectus agentis
(illuminantis), scilicet separatio a singularibus; altera per actum intellectus pos­
sibilis, scilicet actualiter intueri speciem, et non actualiter intueri genus. Ita ad con­
ceptum confusum actualem entis duplex est abstractio necessaria. For acquiring a
vague concept of the species infima (specialissimae, as the Scholastics call it),
what is required and is sufficient, is a twofold abstraction: the one is a process of
the intellectus agens (the illuminative faculty), by which the species is separated
from its individualizing traits; the other process pertains to the intellectus pos­
sibilis, in that it actually intues the species, but not the genus. Therefore, to acquire
a vague concept of being, two kinds of abstraction are needed." What is here
called intuition and abstraction, is nothing else but the abstractive process of the
intellectus possibilis. St. Thomas and the Scholastics generally refer to it as simple
apprehension (simplex apprehensio), and the expression, “the intuition of the
first principles of being" is of frequent occurrence in their writings. It must be
noted here that intuition is contrasted, not with abstraction, but with deduction.
6 St. Thomas is very clear on this point. In De Veritate, q. 15, a. I, he says:
“Ratio comparatur ad intellectum ut ad principium et ut ad terminum; ut ad
principium quidem, quia non posset mens humana ex uno in aliud discurrere, nisi
ejus discursus ab aliqua simplici acceptione veritatis inciperet, quae quidem acceptio
est intellectus principiorum. Similiter nec rationis discursus ad aliquid certum per­
veniret, nisi fieret examinatio ejus quod per discursum invenitur, ad principia
prima, in quae ratio resolvit. Ut sic intellectus invenitur rationis principium quan­
tum ad viam inveniendi, terminus vero ad viam judicandi. Unde quamvis cognitio
humanae animae propriae sit per viam rationis, est tamen in ea aliqua participatio

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

115

If our intellect were more powerful, there would be no need of
this investigation, which by a series of judgments and conclu­
sions proceeds from first to more complex ideas, from a confused
knowledge of essences to a more distinct knowledge of them
(definition), and then, by means of this knowledge, deduces the
various properties of a being. By a simple act of intuition the
intellect would then have all at once a perfect knowledge of
things; it would have a direct and distinct perception of their
essences, and in them their properties. It would instantaneously
comprehend the full import of the principles and would immedi­
ately perceive in them the truth of the conclusions. It is in this
manner that the Divine Intellect knows all possible truths by a
simple intuition of the Divine Essence. And the angels are so far
superior to us that they know a greater number of things by
means of fewer ideas, immediately perceiving them in all their
aspects. The angels may be viewed as spheres of intellectual light,
those of the higher orders becoming brighter, the nearer they are
to God; and those of the lower orders gradually flickering and
finally dying out in the obscurity of material things. (See la, q.
85, a. 5; q. 58, a. 3 and 4).
Our power of intuition is feeble, and that is why it is so divided
(morcelated). Nevertheless, it is truly an intellectual intuition, an
illius simplicis cognitionis quae in substantiis superioribus invenitur, ex quo vim
intellectivam habere dicuntur. In referring the reason to intellect we may con­
sider the latter in one sense as the principle, and in another sense as the terminus
of the operations of reason; as the principle indeed, because the human mind
could not argue from one thing to another unless it started the argument by the
simple acceptance of some truth, and this, of course, is the acknowledgment by
the intellect of certain first principles. In like manner, by no process of reasoning
could one know anything for certain, unless what the reason has thus acquired
be again examined in the light of those first principles to which reason submits its
findings. Thus, the intellect assumes the role of principle in the acquisition of
truth and becomes the terminus when it passes judgment on the same. Therefore,
although human knowledge commences with the reasoning faculty, nevertheless
there is inherent in this same faculty some of that simple knowledge possessed by
beings of a higher order, and on this account they are said to have intellectual
power." (See also la, q. 79, a. 8).

il6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

intellection infinitely superior to sensation. It is feeble and can­
not immediately, by its own power, reach the source of all that is
intelligible, namely, the Divine Essence. It cannot perceive things
in the brightness of their pure intelligibility, but only in the ob­
scurity of the senses. The reason for this is that our intellect
is united with a body, and in point of mental vision is, as Aristotle
remarks (II Met., c. i), like the owl, whose power of vision is so
feeble that it is blinded by the light of the sun and can see only
at night. (S. theol., la, q. 76, a. 5).
Because our power of intellectual intuition is feeble, and cannot
grasp the intelligible essences of things except in the obscurity of
sensible qualities, thus slowly deducing their properties, it is of
necessity divided (morcelated). It may be compared with tire eyes
of certain insects, in which the image of things seen resembles a
sort of mosaic, which sufficiently preserves the general outline of
the objects, though no longer clearly distinguished from each
other.
Nevertheless, as soon as we are able to reason, it is only in the
obscurity of things perceived by the senses that we detect in­
telligible being and its fundamental principles. “That being is
what our intellect first of all sees in anything,” is a frequently
recurring statement of St. Thomas. “This is what is more known
for it, and by which it knows everything else; and every idea pre­
supposes the idea of being, just as every demonstration is based
upon the first principles of being.” 7
7 St. Thomas, in De Veritate, q. i, a. i, writes as follows: "Sicut in demonstra­
tionibus oportet fieri reductionem in aliqua principia per se intellectui nota, ita in­
vestigando quid est unumquodque. /Ilias utrobique in infinitum irefur; et sic
periret omnino scientia et cognitio rerum. Illud autem quod primo intellectus con­
cipit quasi notissimum, et in quo omnes conceptiones resolvit, est ens. Just as in
demonstrations there must be a reduction to certain first principles directly known
by the intellect, so also it must be when inquiring into the nature of anything.
Otherwise, in both cases there would be no end to the process; and this would
mean that all scientific knowledge and the cognition of things were completely
hopeless. That which presents itself first of all to the intellect as the best known,

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

117

St. Thomas often mentions also the other first concepts which,
together with that of being, are included in the first principles;
for instance, unity, truth, goodness, etc.8

16) How shall we defend the ontological validity of our intellect
and of its first ideas?
This ontological validity cannot be demonstrated by any direct
method, for, like the necessity of first principles, it is an immedi­
ately evident truth. The immediately connected subject and predi­
cate do not admit of a demonstrative middle term. All that we
can do is to explain the meaning of the subject and the predicate,
what is meant by intellect or the idea of being on the one hand,
and, on the other, what is ontological validity. This explanation
will immediately enable us to see that intelligence essentially
implies a relation to being. This explanation may be presented in
the form of a syllogism; it is not, however, strictly speaking, a di­
rect demonstration, but can at most be called a direct defence.
First evidences can be defended, but, not directly demonstrated;
for an attempt at demonstration would result merely in a vicious
circle, since one would have to assume as true what remains to be
proved, to wit, the ontological validity of first principles.
Even the Agnostics, in spite of their system, as soon as they
cease to philosophize, or even whilst they philosophize, are nat­
urally forced to admit—as their language proves—that the direct
purpose of the intellect is to acquire knowledge, that the idea of
being is the idea of something real, that the principle of contra­
diction is a law of real objects, and not merely of thought, and
is the concept of being, and it is into this concept of being that it resolves all other
concepts."
8 On this point he writes: “There are certain universally known concepts which
are the natural endowments of the human intellect, such as those of being, unity,
goodness, and others of this kind; by means of these concepts the way in which
the intellect comes to know the quiddity of anything is the same as that by which
it arrives at conclusions deduced from first principles.” (St. Thomas, Quodlibet.,
VIII, a. 4).

n8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

that the absurd is as incapable of realization as it is inconceiv­
able. Not one of these propositions can be demonstrated directly;
it is sufficient that the meaning of the terms be understood.
But if the ontological validity of our intellect, and of its first
ideas and its first principles, cannot be directly demonstrated, it
admits of a sort of indirect proof, by the logical process of re­
ductio ad absurdum, by a recourse to the principle of contradic­
tion in so far as this principle is at least the necessary law of
human thought.
We shall set forth, first of all, this indirect defence, which will
enable us to realize more fully the force of the direct defence.
Although the latter is but an explanation of terms, it contains
virtually the solution of the problem of universals, by establishing
the truth of Moderate Realism against Nominalism (or Empiri­
cism), and against Subjectivistic Conceptualism (or Idealism in
the Kantian sense), at the same time avoiding such exaggerated
Realism as that of Plato, Spinoza, or the Ontologists.
17) Indirect defence of the ontological validity of first ideas.
We shall show: (A) that the denial of this validity leads the
Empirical Agnostics or Idealists into insoluble difficulties; (B)
that it leads them to absurdity.

A. Insoluble diffictdties

The primary principles of reasoning are necessary and uni­
versal, and, moreover, cannot be the subject of doubt. How to ex­
plain this fact is an impossibility for Empiricism. We are con­
scious that we consider them as universal and necessary (we are
quite certain that in absolutely all cases what is real cannot be
non-real; that every beginning has a cause); besides, science de­
mands this necessity and this universality. Now, experience,
which is always particular and contingent, cannot account for

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

119

these two characteristics. Concerning the principle of causality,
we all—except the Positivists when they begin to philosophize—
think that what happens must necessarily have a cause, and that
the cause is not only followed by its effect, but produces the effect.
Though we have actual experience of any effect only as the re­
sult of some voluntary effort on our part, we affirm this fact of all
external causes, of the hammer striking the stone, and of the
movement imparted by one billiard ball to another. Evidently,
this universal and necessary principle does not arise from the
recurring experience of phenomena that succeed one another.
Moreover, there are just as many phenomena the causes of which
the majority of men seek for in vain, as those, the causes of which
they think they know. The child wants to know the reason for
many things which cannot be explained to him. Yet, like a
grown-up person, he is convinced that there is a reason for the
phenomena which he cannot understand. Reason, therefore, is
forced to accept the principle of causality as universally true, al­
though experience does not establish the fact of universal causal­
ity. It is of no avail to invoke the principle of heredity, for our
ancestors had no clearer conception of causes than we have. It is,
therefore, contrary to reason for the Empiric to hold that there is
no contradiction in the assertion of the possibility of things hap­
pening without a cause in some world unknown to us.
To deny the necessity and the absolute universality of princi­
ples means the reduction of the syllogism to a mere tautology and
the complete destruction of the basis of induction. As a matter of
fact, the major of a syllogism is but a generalization of particular
cases and ought to include actually, and not merely virtually, the
particular case which it is the purpose of the conclusion to estab­
lish. It presupposes that the case has been verified by experience.
If causality were such as is stated above, then we could not find
any universal principle by means of which we could formulate a
truly general law from particular facts of experience. The prin-

120

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

ciple that “in the order o£ nature the same cause in the same cir­
cumstances always produces the same effect,” would have but the
force of a strong presumption, based upon experience of past
events.
The Kantian theory explains the universality and necessity of
the principles, but denies their objectivity, naturally affirmed by
the intellect with no less certainty than the two preceding char­
acteristics. Philosophical reflection must give the explanation that
is in agreement with nature and not in contradiction to it, and
if one succeeded in showing that it is a “natural illusion,” that our
own intellect deceives us, he would at least have to explain why
it is an illusion. On the other hand, by admitting the abstractive
intuition of the intelligible, as Aristotle and the Scholastics under­
stood it, the objectivity of the principles is explained, as well
as their necessity and universality. The denial of this intuition
led Kant to admit synthetic judgments a priori, i. e. blind judg­
ments for which there is no foundation, intellectual acts for which
there is no sufficient reason. This is tantamount to saying that the
irrational is imbedded in the rational, and that ignorance is of
the very warp and woof of knowledge. The mind cannot by the
verb “to be” affirm real identity between subject and predicate
(that a thing is such), except when it has evident certainty of this
real identity, derived either from the analysis of the ideas (a
priori), or else from a critical inspection of existing things (a
posteriori). But if both of these evidences are wanting, then the
affirmation is irrational, without reason. How can the intellect
blindly assign to the phenomena an intelligibility that they in no
way possess? In fact, as we shall see later on, the principle of
causality and the other principles derived from the principle of
sufficient reason, are analytical in this sense that the analysis of
the ideas which they imply, shows there exists under the logical
diversity of subject and predicate, a real identity, which cannot
be denied without contradiction. As for the principles of Newto-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

121

nian physics, everyone now-a-days admits that they are synthetic a
posteriori. Another difficulty that arises from the preceding is, that
the application of the Kantian categories to phenomena is arbi­
trary. Why is it that certain phenomena are classed under the
category of substance and others under that of causality? Why is
it that all cases of phenomena which succeed one another, such
as that of night and day, may not be explained by the principle
of causality? If, in order to avoid saying that it is arbitrary, we
admit that we recognize the relationship existing in the objects
themselves between substance, causality, etc., is not this the same
as admitting the intuition of the intelligible? In that case, of what
use is the category?9 Finally, as Fichte remarked (and the Em­
pirics repeated, though from an opposite point of view), there is
no proof that the phenomena, if they are external to us, can al­
ways be assigned without the least violence to the various cate­
gories. What guarantee have we that the world of sensation will
always be susceptible of becoming the object of thought, and that
some day it may not exhibit the present spectacle of disorder,
chance, and chaos? 10
From this latter difficulty the only way of escape for the Sub­
jectivist is to maintain with Fichte that these phenomena proceed
from the ego, and that just as God’s knowledge is the measure of
all things, so also is ours; but in that case the human mind could
not be ignorant about anything, a theory which is most certainly
contradicted by the facts of experience.
Thus the denial of the direct perception of the intelligible led
Kant into insoluble difficulties; for he not only refused to con­
cede to the metaphysical principles any force beyond mere phe­
nomena, but even in the phenomenal order he admitted that their
value is merely subjective, consisting in an arbitrary and precari­
ous application of the principles. “In a word, the Kantian theory
9 See Rabier, Psychologie, 2nd ed., p. 282.
10 Rabier, op. cit., p. 387.

122

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

has in no way succeeded in giving to the principles that absolute
and scientific certitude which it promised.” (Rabier, ibid).

B) Indirect defence by the method of reductio
ad absurdum
The denial of the ontological validity of the intellect and of its
primary notions results, moreover, in rendering absurd the es­
sential elements of intellectual cognition, such as (a) the object,
(b) the idea, (c) the principles, (d) the act of understanding, (e)
the faculty of knowing.
a) The object. There is no longer a known object; what we
know is merely an idea. Hence it follows that we cannot distin­
guish the object from the act of direct understanding (e. g., causal­
ity), from the object of reflex understanding (<?. g., the idea of
cause), since de facto the object of direct understanding is
identical with the idea.
Now it is evident that the knowledge of causality and the
knowledge of the idea of cause are two altogether distinct things;
for the reflex act necessarily presupposes the direct act and cannot
be identified with it except by a formal contradiction. (See St.
Thomas, Summa Theologica, la, q. 85, a. 2). In other words, the
intellect cannot reflect on itself as long as it has no knowledge
of any definite object. Before it can reflect upon itself and its own
ideas, it must have had something definite to think of; there is
no such thing as thinking of nothing.
b) The idea. To maintain that in the process of direct intellec­
tion the idea is the object known, and not the means by which
the intellect acquires knowledge of something else, means that we
must admit that there is nothing real corresponding to what is
represented by the idea, which is, therefore, an idea of nothing;
in other words, the idea is an idea and no idea at the same time
and in the same sense. To put it differently—to maintain that the

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

123

idea, being an intellectual impression or expression of the human
intellect,11 corresponds to nothing real, is the same as saying that,
at the same time and in the same sense, it is something relative
and non-relative, which means the destruction of the very concept
of both the idea and the mental expression. Fichte himself is
forced to admit that this duality of representation and represented
object is necessary for acquiring knowledge, and he goes so far
as to conclude from this that if God is absolutely simple, there
can be no knowledge in Him.
To be sure, an idea does not necessarily refer to an actually
existing thing, but it must at least refer to something that is pos­
sible.12 It cannot refer to pure nothingness; for that would in­
volve a contradiction, e. g., a square circle; and in that case we
should no longer have an idea, but conflicting images. Now it is
evident that there can be nothing contradictory in primary ideas,
because of their simplicity. (See la, q. 85, a. 6).
c) The principles. The Agnostic who doubts the ontological
validity of primary ideas, must also doubt that of correlative
principles, especially the validity of the principle of contradic­
tion, which is founded on the notion of being. The Agnostic,
though admitting that the absurd is inconceivable, must doubt
whether it is actually impossible. He concedes that a square circle
is inconceivable, but from his point of view a square circle is not
evidently impossible of realization. It might be possible for some
canny genius to produce something which at the same time and
in the same sense exists and does not exist. Now, this doubt is
11 The idea expressed interiorly, or the internal word (verbum menus'), is es­
sentially “intentional," or relative to that which is expressed. It is not an expression
of itself, or of nothing. The idea of a logical entity (e.g., the predicate of a sen­
tence) is in reality merely the mental form of our thought, but this mental form
is the result of a reflection made by the mind on direct ideas that express cither
possible or actually existing things.
12 It is only through the medium of the senses or of consciousness that the
human intellect in its present state acquires a knowledge of actually existing
being.

124

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

absurd; for a being supposed to exist and not to exist at the same
time, would both correspond and not correspond to our idea of
being, and as this idea is simple, there can be no question of a
partial correspondence. The supposition, even subjectively con­
sidered, is inconceivable.13
d) The act of thinking. The Agnostic from his point of view
cannot be aware of the reality of the act of thinking; all that he
can know is the representation of this act. And even if he were
directly conscious of its reality, he is not absolutely certain of this
fact, for if he doubts the objectivity of the principle of contradic­
tion as a law of being, if the real is in itself susceptible of con­
tradiction, there is nothing to assure him that the action which he
regards as real is actually real. If being is not the primary and
formal object of the intellect, the intellect will never acquire any
knowledge of being; admitting the hypothesis, the Phenomenalists are manifestly in the right. It was thus that the seventeenth­
century Thomist Goudin (Philosophia, ed. i860, t. IV, p. 254)
refuted the claim that "cogito, ergo sum" is the first of all princi­
ples, more certain than the objective principle of contradiction.
Aristotle had shown in his defence of this principle (Meta., Bk.
IV) that anyone who in the cognitive order refuses to start from
the idea of being (as the primary and formal object of the in­
tellect), and from the first principle implied by it, denies himself
the right to affirm anything, either about being, or about the
existence of his own thought, or even his own ego. “In what way,
then, does this or that man differ from the plant, which is entirely
devoid of knowledge? He must imitate Cratylus, who, incapable
of the least assertion, contented himself with moving his finger.”
(Met., Bk. IV, chs. iv and v).
e) The intellect. To doubt the ontological validity of primary
ideas and first principles, ends in making the intellect itself ab13 See St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Bk. 4,
where he defends the principle of contradiction.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

125

solutely unintelligible and absurd. It simply means to doubt that
the intellect and intelligible being are essentially related to each
other. Now this relationship is included in the notion we have of
intellect, and its denial means the denial of the intellect itself;
for in that case there would be no intelligible object corresponding
to the intellect, which is absurd.
The Agnostic of the sensist type classes the operations of the
intellect in their final analysis amongst those which belong to the
senses, the sensible memory and the imagination.
According to the Agnostic of the idealistic type, there are two
ways of viewing the human intellect, and both of them are mean­
ingless. (a) With Kant, the Agnostic may deny to the intellect
all passivity with regard to intelligible being, and admit merely
the passivity of the senses with regard to phenomena; hence, for
the rational and evident principles by which the intellect can
establish contact with being, the Agnostic must substitute syn­
thetic a priori principles, which are blind, unmotivated, and ir­
rational syntheses. Thus, the irrational becomes the essential
structure of reason, and the intellect, deprived of its relation to
intelligible being, which is its formal object, is rendered meaning­
less. (/?) On the other hand, he may, with Fichte, deny abso­
lutely the passivity of the human intellect with regard to phe­
nomena as well as to intelligible being. In that case he must
identify the human with the divine intellect, whose knowledge is
the cause of things, and it would follow that the human mind,
the source of all intelligibility, must be omniscient ab aeterno, and
no ignorance of any kind is possible. (See la, q. 79, a. 2).
The above-mentioned remarks outline the indirect defence of
the ontological validity of primary ideas considered in their gen­
eral aspect. The Agnostics, in denying this validity, are confronted
with the insoluble difficulty of making an absurdity of all the
essential elements of intellectual knowledge. In order to prove the
natural range of the intellect with regard to being, the Ag­

120

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

nostic deprives the intellect of its essential relationship to being.
It is as if one were to break a spring in order to test its elasticity.

18) Direct defence of the ontological validity of primary ideas.
As we have previously remarked, there is no question here of
a direct demonstration. What immediately appeals to one as im­
mediately self-evident cannot be directly demonstrated. All that
one can do is to explain the terms, so that their immediate con­
nection may be more clearly perceived, and then to solve the ob­
jections.
First of all, we shall make a few general remarks upon primary
ideas and their correlative principles. Following the logical order,
we shall consider: (a) the ontological validity of the intellect,
(b) the validity of primary ideas in general; which we shall con­
firm (c) by showing that being constitutes the very basis of judg­
ment and reasoning. Then we shall answer the objections.
a) The intellect. The intellect is a cognitive faculty superior
to the senses. Has it ontological validity? In other words, can it
acquire knowledge not only of the phenomena perceived by the
senses and the consciousness, but also of being itself (to 8v), of
which the phenomena are but the sensible manifestation? A
proper understanding of what is meant by the word “intellect”
will answer this question.
Every faculty, says St. Thomas, must have its formal object, to
which it is naturally ordained, to which it attains first of all, and
by means of which it comes to know everything else. Thus, the
formal object of the sense of sight is that sensible quality known
as color, for nothing is visible except by means of color; sound is
tire formal object of the sense of hearing; consciousness has for
its object the internal impression made upon us by something
external, and good is the formal object of the will, so much so
that we cannot desire evil except in so far as it appears good. The
intellect, too, cannot be conceived except in relation to a formal

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

127

object, and if the intellect is a faculty distinct from the senses or
the consciousness, its formal object must also be different. That
its formal object is the result of a greater penetration 14 than that
of any of the senses is clear from the very meaning of the word
intellect (from intus legere), which implies a reading of what is
within. Now for the intellect and the object to be in due propor­
tion to each other, the latter must be formally intelligible, since
formal sensibility will not suffice. What the intellect immediately
perceives as its formal object, without any process of reasoning,
is intelligible being, of which the phenomena are but the external
manifestation. We cannot conceive of intellect apart from a rela­
tion to intelligible being, no more than we can conceive of sensation
without a relation to sensible phenomena, or of sight without rela­
tion to color. And just as nothing is visible except by color, so noth­
ing is intelligible in any of the three operations of the mind (con­
ception, judgment, and reasoning), except in so far as it has a
relation to being.
Thus the study of the three operations of the mind shows us
a posteriori what we have already seen a priori, namely, that the
intellect is not· in itself intelligible except as a living relation to
being, which is the center of all its ideas, the “soul” of all its judg­
ments and all its conclusions. Thus the intellect appears more and
more as the “faculty of being,” whereas the external and internal
senses stop short at phenomena which constitute the fringe of
reality. On this point St. Thomas remarks: “Just as the sense of
sight naturally perceives color, and the sense of hearing sound,
so the intellect naturally perceives being and all that which di­
rectly pertains to being, considered as such, and on this cognition
is founded the perception of first principles, e.g., that there can be no
affirmation and denial of the same thing at the same time and in
14 St. Thomas in the Ila Ilae, q. 8, a. I, writes: "Dicitur intelligere, quasi intus
legere." Sensitive cognition is concerned about sensible external qualities. Intel­
lectual cognition penetrates to the essence of a thing.

128

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the same sense, etc. Only these principles, therefore, does the in­
tellect know naturally, and by their means, it perceives the con­
clusions, just as sight, by means of color, perceives not only all
those sensible objects susceptible of perception by more than one
of the sensitive faculties, but also what may be inferred from such
perception.” (See C. Gentes, Bk. II, c. 83, §32).
b) Primary ideas. The first operation of the mind, which is
called conception or simple apprehension, directly perceives the
truths expressed by primary ideas. A vindication of the ontologi­
cal validity of these ideas implies that by means of them we can
come to know not only sensible phenomena, but also the being
which they contain, just as written or oral words contain an in­
telligible meaning. It is sufficient for our purpose to show that
there is something which essentially differentiates these intel­
lectual ideas from imaginative and sensitive representations,
which latter are but the direct expression of phenomena.
Our argument may be summed up in the following syllogism,
which is not demonstrative, but merely explanatory:
Ideas which express not sensible qualities, but something which
is in itselj intelligible and accidentally sensible (sensibile per ac­
cidens et intelligibile per se), have not only phenomenal, but
likewise ontological validity.
Now, the primary ideas of being—essence, unity, truth, good­
ness, substance, causality, finality—do not express sensible quali­
ties, but something which is in itself intelligible and accidentally
sensible.
Therefore, these primary ideas possess a validity which is not
only phenomenal, but likewise ontological.
The major of this explanatory syllogism is evident from its very
terms. By ontological validity is meant the aptitude to manifest
the being which lies beyond or beneath the sensible or phe­
nomenal qualities. This validity must, therefore, belong to those
ideas which express, not sensible qualities {sensibile per se), such

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

129

as color, sound, heat, etc., but something more profound, which
in itself or directly can be perceived only by the intellect, and not
by the senses (intelligibile per se). This intelligible object is
sensible only per accidens.15
It is because of the phenomena associated with the intelligible
object, and which declare its presence to the intellect at the very
moment when sensation is experienced, and this without any
process of reasoning, that we say that the intelligible object is
only accidentally sensible {sensibile per accidens).
The minor of our syllogism presents no difficulty. The primary
ideas of being—essence, existence, unity, truth, goodness, sub­
stance, efficient causality, finality, etc., do not express phenomena
or sensible qualities, but something which is per se or directly
intelligible and accidentally sensible.
This is immediately evident from the notion of being, which
does not appeal directly to the senses, as color or sound does, but
is something profounder and more universal. No simple sensi­
ble image, not even a composite one, to which a name is assigned,
is an expression of being, even though the Empiric Nominalists
say that it is. This image can never be anything else but a repres­
entation of phenomena in juxtaposition, and not of their inti­
mate raison d’etre. This intimate raison d’être is not something
which has extension, color, heat, or cold; it implies nothing ma15 St. Thomas (De Anima, Bk. II, Leet. 13) writes: "It must be known, there­
fore, that for anything to be sensible per accidens (accidentally), the first requisite
is, that the quality must be perceived by the sentient being; if what is accidentally
sensible should not be perceived as such, it could not be said to be perceived as
something accidental. It must therefore be known directly (per se) by some other
cognitive faculty of the sentient being. . . . What, therefore, does not belong to
any of the senses as its appropriate object of cognition, if it be something uni­
versal, pertains to intellectual apprehension. Yet, not everything which is possible
of intellectual apprehension in a sensible object can be said to be accidentally
sensible (sensibile per accidens), but only that which is immediately perceived by
the intellect when confronted with the sensible object. We have an example of
this in the fact that the moment anyone is seen speaking or moving, by the intel­
lect one perceives that there is life in such actions and hence one can say that
one sees that someone is living.”

130

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

terial, but itself imparts intelligibility to the various sensible ele­
ments, and is the luminous centre of every idea. Thus, the com­
posite image with a common name, which the parrot has of a
clock, differs essentially from the idea of this clock, for it is the
idea alone which expresses the rationale of the movement of
the clock, and tells us what the clocks is, instead of merely mani­
festing its sensible phenomena in juxtaposition.
Being does not per se appeal to the senses, but to the intellect,
and is the source of intelligibility. In addition it is accidentally
sensible, because it is immediately apprehended by the intellect
whenever a sensible object is presented to this faculty. It is at
once perceived by it, as color is perceived by the sense of sight,
and sound by that of hearing.
If the subjectivistic Conceptualists after the manner of Kant
object that being, though it directly belongs to the intelligible
and not to the sensible order, is perhaps but a subjective form of
the mind, we answer by showing the opposition between the
idea of being and those other ideas which express only imaginary
beings that can exist nowhere but in the mind, i. e., are capable
of conception, but not of realization, as, for example, the logical
notions of universality, species, predicate, etc. Or again, to present
this same truth in a clearer light, we have only to contrast the
ontological formula with the logical principle of contradiction.
The ontological formula states that “a being, viewed under the
same aspect, cannot at the same time exist and not exist.” The
logical formulation of the same principle is “that we cannot affirm
and deny the same predicate of the same subject under the same
aspect.” This latter formula merely declares the inconceivability
of the absurd, whereas the former states that the absurd is objec­
tively impossible. To seek to reduce the idea of being to a sub­
jective form of the mind, and the principle of contradiction to a
purely logical law having no ontological value, is tantamount to
identifying two manifestly distinct ideas: the impossible (or un-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

131

realizable) and the inconceivable; or at least, it means that we
do not dare to affirm the latter and doubt the extra-mental impos­
sibility of the absurd. He who would doubt the ontological va­
lidity of the idea of being and of the principle of contradiction
would have to maintain that a square circle is inconceivable, but
not, perhaps, unrealizable outside of the mind. We have seen in
the indirect defence that this doubt is absurd, even subjectively,
and impossible.
The ontological or ultra-phenomenal validity of the ideas of
unity, truth, goodness, substance, efficient causality, and finality,
can be direcdy defended by referring them back to being as dif­
ferent modes thereof. We will discuss this point but briefly here, but
later on shall demonstrate in particular the necessity and ontologi­
cal validity of each of the principles founded on these ideas.
It is clear that unity, truth, and goodness are directly connected
with being as properties thereof. Unity is undivided being (la,
q. ii, a. 1). Truth is the conformity of being with the intellect
upon which it depends, or the conformity of the intellect with
being of which it is the measure (la, q. 16, a. 1-3). Goodness is
desirable being (la, q. 5, a. 1-2). These ideas, therefore, do not
express sensible phenomena, but something more profound,
which is intelligible in itself, and do not, like being, imply any­
thing material in their formal signification.
It is the same with the idea of substance, which is but a de­
termination of the idea of being. Substance is being capable of
existing in itself and not in something else. The intellect, which
at once perceives being underneath the phenomena (something
which is), observes that these phenomena are many and variable,
while being, on the contrary, is one and the same, and that it
exists in itself, and not as an attribute in another. Being con­
sidered as such is called substance.
Efficient causality is nothing else but the realization or ac­
tualization of something which did not previously exist. It is

132

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

clear that this realization, defined in terms of its immediate re­
lation to potential and actual being, is perceived by the intellect,
the faculty of being, under the appearances of color, heat, etc.,
which are perceived by the senses.
Finality is nothing else but the raison d’être, the why and
wherefore of the means. The intellect immediately apprehends
the purpose of the eye, made for seeing, and that of the ear, made
for hearing; but the senses cannot perceive this why and where­
fore.
Thus the ontological validity of these primary ideas is explained
and can be directly demonstrated by the fact that they denote
the very opposite of what is implied by the sensible elements or
phenomena.
Thus, too, we see that the true solution of the problem of uni­
versals is to be found only in moderate Realism. Empirical
Nominalism abolishes the intellect and intelligibility. Subjectivis­
tic Conceptualism reduces our intellectual life to a coherent
dream. Moderate Realism, on the other hand, as formulated by
Aristotle, St. Thomas, and the traditional philosophy of the
Schools, safeguards our intellectual life and its real validity, with­
out admitting the exaggerated Realism of Plato, Spinoza, and the
Ontologists, who claim to possess, without abstraction, an intuitive
knowledge of purely intelligible realities, and who, in various
degrees, confuse universal being in sensible things with the di­
vine being. We shall return to this subject when we discuss the
principle of substance, and in refuting Pantheism, which is the
logical outcome of this exaggerated Realism.16
10 Various reasons make it clear that absolute realism involves an intrinsic con­
tradiction. Since those who adopt this theory consider the concept of being to be
univocal, they cannot explain the appearance of various modes of being, and, with
Parmenides, must deny all multiplicity. They are prompted, as Spinoza was, to
make of finite substances and their faculties simple verbal entities. This theory
ends in Nominalism, which it originally repudiated, and paves the way for Phe­
nomenalism, which declares that there is but one substance, and in it a succession
of phenomena or modes.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

133

From our previous remarks about the idea of being and the
other primary ideas, we see, in contrast with Nominalism, that
there is a fundamental difference between the image and the
idea. The idea, in matter of fact, differs from the image because
it contains the raison d’être of the object which it represents {quod
quid est, seu ratio intima proprietatum), whilst the common
image of the Nominalists, to which a common name is assigned,
contains only the external notes of the object in juxtaposition, re­
vealing them to us without rendering them intelligible. The idea
and the image are often contrasted by saying that the idea is ab­
stract and universal, while the image is concrete and particular.
In case of a composite image with a common name, the contrast
between it and the idea is not so pronounced. Moreover, the
character of abstraction is merely a property of the idea, and even
a property of the human idea, qua human, derived from sensible
data. Universality is also but a property of the idea, and does not
designate its essence. Whether we consider the human, the an­
gelic or the divine idea, the essence of the idea, qua idea, is that
it contains the formal object of the intellect, qua intellect, that is
to say, being, or the raison d’être.
An example cited by Vacant in his Etudes Comparées sur la
Philosophie de St. Thomas d’Aquin et celle de Scot (Vol. I,
p. 134) will help us to understand what is meant by the intuition
of the intelligible in the most rudimentary kind of intellectual
knowledge. “Place a savage in the presence of a locomotive,” he
writes; “have him walk around it, and give him time to examine
it and other similar machines. So long as he only sees them run­
ning, and is content to observe the various parts of their mecha­
nism, he will have but a sensible and particular knowledge of
them (or, if you wish, a common image, accompanied by a name,
just as a parrot would have). But if he is intelligent, he will
sooner or later come to realize that there must be in such an
object a motive power, which the locomotive either generates or

134

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

applies. ... If he finally learns that it is by the expansion of the
imprisoned vapor that this motive power is obtained, he will
understand what a locomotive is {quod quid est) and will form a
specific concept thereof. . . . The senses perceive only its ma­
terial elements, a black mass of iron, with a special arrangement
of parts. The idea represents something immaterial; it gives the
why and wherefore of this arrangement and of the functioning
of the various parts. Consequently, the idea becomes stamped
with the mark of necessity, and by it we see that every locomo­
tive must move, granted the conditions for which previously we
could find no reason. The idea, finally, is universal, and by means
of it we understand that all machines thus constructed have the
same power and attain the same end.”
The common image of the locomotive contained merely the
common sensible elements in a state of j uxtaposition, and did not
explain their raison d’être nor render them intelligible.
This is what is generally understood by abstractive intuition of
the intelligible element or the raison d’etre of an object. Let us
now take an example from rational psychology, say, the idea of
man. This idea is something more than a merely mechanical
juxtaposition and association of common traits possessed by all
human beings, such as those of rationality, freedom, morality,
religion, sociability, etc. It also renders all these traits intelligible,
by showing that the first of them, rationality, is the raison
d’etre of all the rest; it expresses what man is {quod quid est).
That which constitutes man truly a man, is not liberty, or
morality, or religion, or sociability, or even the power of speech,
but reason; for from reason all the other traits are deduced. The
ability to reason becomes intelligible when the fact is estab­
lished that the raison d’etre of the three operations of the mind
(simple apprehension, judgment, and reasoning) is an essential
relation between the intellect and being, which is its formal
object.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

135

In truth, we must admit that the Nominalists are right in
maintaining that there are but few ideas susceptible of becoming
fully intelligible, namely, those which can be referred to being,
which is the primary objective light of man’s intellectual cogni­
tions. These ideas are principally those which belong to what
Aristotle (Met., Bk. X, c. iii) calls the third degree of abstraction,
i. e., abstraction from all matter; they appertain to the metaphysi­
cal, spiritual, and moral order (ideas of being, unity, truth,
goodness; the idea of intellect, defined in terms of its relation to
being; the idea of will, defined in terms of its relation to good­
ness. In this class must also be included the ideas of the primary
divisions of being, such as potency and act, and the four causes).
In the second degree of abstraction (mathematical abstraction,
which is concerned, not with sensible qualities, but only
with quantity, continuous or discrete), the intelligibility is less,
although the study of these sciences comes easier to man, be­
cause their object is less abstract and nearer to the senses. Finally,
in the first degree of abstraction, we have the natural sciences,
which are concerned with sensible qualities, merely abstract­
ing from individual circumstances; here we can give empirical
and descriptive definitions, but we can never come to know
the intelligible properties of an object, explaining their raison
d’etre by a specific difference. Most of the time we have to be sat­
isfied with a statement of general facts, and the low degree of in­
telligibility found in these sciences—as we have just seen in the
case of the savage and the locomotive—arises from the applica­
tion of the metaphysical principles of causality and finality, which
the intellect spontaneously perceives in being.
Such, then, is the abstractive intuition of the intelligible in the
first operation of the mind, which is denied by the Sensualists
and the subjectivistic Idealists.
c) Confirmation: "Being" occupies the first place in the two
processes of judgment and reasoning. In the second operation of

136

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the mind, that of judgment, we also see the falsity of these two
systems and the truth of traditional Realism. What radically dif­
ferentiates judgment from the association of ideas by which the
Empirics seek to explain this mental process, is that this associa­
tion is merely a mechanical juxtaposition of two images, whereas
judgment by the verb "is" affirms the real identity of the subject
with the predicate of a proposition, which are but logically dis­
tinct. The verb "is" constitutes the very soul of every judgment.
As Aristotle remarks {Met., Bk. V, c. vii), “there is no difference
between these two propositions: ‘this man is in good health,’ and
‘this man is healthy’; nor between these: ‘this man is walking, ad­
vancing on the road,’ and ‘this man walks, advances on the road’;
the same is true of the other cases.” By using the copula “is” we
affirm that the being called man is (i. e., is the same as) the being
that is in good health. Empiricism is sufficiently refuted by this
simple observation. As J. J. Rousseau remarked, “the distinctive
sign of an intelligent being is the ability to give a meaning to
this little word is, which he utters every time he pronounces a
judgment.”
At the same time we perceive the falsity of the subjectivistic
Rationalism of Kant, as proved by Msgr. Sentroul in his thesis,
“L’objet de la Métaphysique selon Kant et Aristote" (Louvain,
1905, a work crowned by the Kantgesellchaft of Halle). “Kant,
maintaining the very opposite of what Aristotle taught,” says this
writer, “failed to realize that all knowledge expresses itself ex­
actly in the verb to be, the copula of every judgment, . . . that
the union of the predicate with the subject by means of the verb
to be, used as the sign of identity between the terms, constitutes
the formal essence of every judgment. . . . The knowledge of
anything consists precisely in perceiving its identity with itself
from two different points of view. (Met., Bk. v, c. vii). To know
what a triangle is, means to know that it is a certain figure, the

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

137

cause, to know that the effect is included in it, the man, to know
that he is endowed with the power of imagination. And to take
a purely accidental judgment, to say of some particular wall that
it is white, is to say of this wall that it is a white wall. ... If the
subject and the predicate refer to each other in such a way that
they can be connected by the verb to be, this is because both
predicate and subject express one and the same reality (either
possible or actual).” Kant acknowledges identity only in what he
calls analytical judgments, pure tautologies in his opinion, and
not in extended judgments, which alone add to the sum of hu­
man knowledge and which he calls synthetical a priori or a pos­
teriori, because they are formed, according to his view, by the
juxtaposition of distinct notions. He thus misunderstood the
fundamental law of all judgment. Msgr. Sentroul (p. 224) truly
remarks that “a judgment formed by the juxtaposition or the
convergence of various notions would be a false judgment, since
it would express identity between two terms which are not identi­
cal, but merely related to each other in some odier way. . . .
Aristotle’s principle of distinction between propositions is not the
identification or non-identification of the predicate with the sub­
ject: he distinguishes them according as the knowledge of this
identity (not logical, but real) is derived solely from the analysis of
the ideas or from the scrutiny of existing things.” Like the soph­
ists of old, Kant must maintain that we have no right to say,
“the man is good,” but only, “the man is the man, the good is
the good;” but this amounts to a denial of the possibility of any
judgment whatever. (Cfr. Plato, Sophist., 251 B.; Aristotle,
Met., Bk. V, c. 29). The reason of this opposition between Kant
and the traditional philosophy is that Kant, starting with the
subject, considers the categories as purely logical, whereas Scholas­
tic philosophy, which starts from being, regards the categories as
partly logical and partly ontological. What was separated by ab-

i38

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

straction from the real is thus reconstructed and restored to it by
the affirmative judgment, and the entire life of the intellect can be
explained by its ordination to being.
As for the necessity of starting from being, we have already
seen that it is mandatory, under pain of rendering absurd all the
elements—the object, the idea, the act of thinking and the in­
tellectual faculty of knowledge.
The third operation of the mind, that of syllogistic reasoning,
like the two preceding ones, cannot be anything else but the act
of a faculty which has being as its formal object. Whereas em­
pirical findings, governed as they are by the laws of the associa­
tion of ideas, are but a series of images in juxtaposition, reasoning ’
gives us the (extrinsic) raison d’être of the less known in that
which is known more explicitly. The demonstration a priori
gives us the extrinsic reason of what has been affirmed by the
conclusion. The demonstration a posteriori gives us the extrinsic
reason why something has been affirmed. Direct or ostensive
demonstrations are founded on the principle of identity, which is
immediately implied in the idea of being (tire syllogistic process
is based upon the principle that two things equal to the same
third thing [middle term] are equal to each other). Indirect dem­
onstrations, also known as reductio ad absurdum, rest on the
principle of contradiction, which is merely a negative formulation
of the principle of identity. Inductive reasoning rests on the prin­
ciple of induction, which is a derivative of the principle of the
raison d'être. If the same cause, in the same circumstances, did not
produce the same effect, the change in the effect, without a previous
change in the cause or the circumstances, would be without a suffi­
cient reason for its existence. For the Empiric, who reduces the con­
cept to a common image with a common name, the syllogism must
be a needless repetition, as Sextus Empiricus, John Stuart Mill, and
Herbert Spencer held. Since the major is not a universal state­
ment, but merely expresses a congeries of individual cases, it

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

139

presupposes that all the particular cases, including the one men­
tioned in the conclusion, have been verified. From this point of
view any rational proof of the existence of God is evidently im­
possible, nor can there be any truly scientific knowledge even of
sensible things, because induction no longer has any foundation
in fact.17
Finally, the first principles which constitute the basis of all
reasoning, are immediately perceived in being, which is the
primary object of abstractive intuition on the part of the in­
tellect. “The intellect naturally knows being, and all which di­
rectly pertains to being, considered as such, and the knowledge of
first principles has its foundation in this cognition of being.” (St.
Thomas, C. Gentes, Bk. II, c. 83, § 32). Λ child does not need to
be taught the principles of identity, contradiction, substance, suf­
ficient reason, causality, and finality. It seeks for the cause of
everything that attracts its attention, and wearies its elders by
constantly asking for the reason why. As Aristotle remarks
(Anal. Post., Bk. I, c. 1), if the child had no knowledge of these
principles, the teacher could not influence its mind; for all in­
struction assumes some previous knowledge in the pupil.19
19) Objections of the Idealists: We cannot start from being;
something corresponding to thought is a necessity. Reply.

i. The subjectivistic Idealist raises this objection: “You al­
ways start from being, and not from the representation of being.
How can you be sure of the validity of this representation, since
you cannot compare it with the object itself, as it exists outside
of the mind, and since it is impossible for you to establish an im­
mediate contact with the object?” Moreover, Le Roy maintains
“that Ontological Realism is absurd and disastrous; an external
something, beyond thought, is by its very nature impossible of
conception. This objection will always remain unanswerable, and
17 Sec Lachelier, Le Fondement de l’induction.

I4O

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

we shall have to conclude, as all modern philosophy does, that we
are under the necessity of admitting some form of Idealism.” 18
This difficulty is not new, for Protagoras and other Sophists
raised it centuries ago, as may be seen from the fourth Book of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics, where it is refuted. St. Thomas (la, q.
85, a. 2) reproduces this objection in the following form: “Noth­
ing is known, except it is in the mind of the knowing subject.
Now, extra-mental realities cannot be in the mind of the know­
ing subject. Therefore, they cannot be known; the ideas in our
mind are all that we can know.”
St. Thomas replies by distinguishing the major: nothing is
known, except it is in the knowing subject, either by itself, or by
its likeness (intentionalis')—this I concede; but if the proposition
means that the object itself must be in the knowing subject, the
statement is false. Now, it is evident that extra-mental realities
cannot be in the mind of the knowing subject per se, but they
can be there by representation. And it is the special purpose of
this representation, which is essentially relative (intentionalis) to
the object represented, to make known the object by a direct act
of the mind, without being known itself. The representation be­
comes known only afterwards by means of reflection. The idea
impressed upon the mind, or the idea expressed by it, are both
the means by which the mind knows the object, and not the ob­
ject which it knows. It is essentially what the Scholastics call "intentionalis,” a term which means that it refers to what is repre­
sented by the idea; and if this idea is a simple one, like that of
being and other such primary notions, it cannot be an artificially
composite notion, which would misrepresent the reality.19
18 "Comment se pose le problème de Dieu," in the Revue de Met. et de Mor.,
July, 1907, pp. 448 and 495.
19 See St. Thomas, S. Theol., la, q. 85, a. 6: "Whether the intellect can err.”
"Properly speaking," he says, "the intellect is not deceived concerning the quiddity
oj a thing. ... It may, however, be accidentally deceived concerning the quid-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

141

To grasp the meaning of this reply, we must fully understand
what is meant by the term representation or idea. The Idealists
declare that “something external to or beyond thought is by
its very definition unthinkable,” because they consider the idea
as an isolated object and not as a manifest relation. They find
fault with traditional philosophy for considering space as be­
longing to the imaginative order. But from the way in which they
view it as external to thought, we may say that they commit
the same error. This concept of the representation is entirely quan­
titative and material. Though this may seem paradoxical, Idealism
has a completely materialistic conception of the idea, which it re­
gards as a material portrait, situated in some point of space and
capable of being itself considered as an object, independently of
the person whom it represents. It is like the effigy stamped on a
coin. In direct contrast to this, the cognitive faculty (the intellect
and, for that matter, even the sense), like the representation by
means of which it knows the object, is a living and immaterial
quality, not something closed, shut up within itself, but essen­
tially relative to something other than itself, which it represents
to itself. This function belongs to it by its very nature {quid
proprium). Therefore, far from a something beyond thought be­
ing unthinkable, thought is not intelligible except as a living re­
lation to something external, which it expresses. We could not
possibly judge of the validity of the idea, if it were in the direct
act, as a material portrait, the very object of knowledge: for in
that case we should have to compare this interior object with an
intangible external object. In matter of fact, however, the idea in
the direct act of knowing is not the object of knowledge, after
the manner of a picture or a statue. It is only the means by which
dity of composite things (on the part of the composition affecting the definition).
. . . As regards simple objects not subject to composite definitions, we cannot
be deceived, unless we understand nothing whatever about them, as is said in
Metaph., IX, c. x.”

142

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the object is known.20 Because it is a vital, immaterial quality,
entirely relative to something other than itself, it reveals the
presence of things without being itself revealed. Afterwards, by
means of reflection, the intellect assures itself of the validity of
this means, of its conformity with the extra-mental object, be­
cause, as St. Thomas remarks,21 “the intellect knows its ideas and
its own direct act by reflection, and it not only knows, like the
senses, the fact of its own activity, but also the nature of its act,
and hence its own nature as an intellective faculty, which is that
it is essentially relative and in conformity with being.” It sees
that if complex ideas can accidentally imply an error in uniting
elements incompatible with the reality, such cannot be the case
with primary ideas on account of their simplicity.
In its ultimate analysis this doctrine implies that the imma­
teriality of the representation is the principle of its power of rep­
resentation. "Cognoscens secundum quod cognoscens differt a
non cognoscentibus prout fit aliud in quantum aliud; et hoc immaterialitatem supponit" (“by the mere fact that a being knows, it
differs from those who do not know, in that it becomes some
other thing, in as much as it has the form of that other thing; and
this presupposes immateriality”) (St. Thomas, Summa Theol.,
la, q. 14, a. 1). Like Aristotle (De Anima, Bk. II, c. xii; Bk. Ill,
c. viii) the Angelic Doctor considers it to be a fact that the ani­
mal, by reason of sensation, in a certain way becomes the other
beings which it sees and hears, whereas the plant is shut up
20 Dunan, in his work entitled, The Two Idealisms (Alcan), has clearly set
forth this traditional conception.
21 “Truth is in the intellect, as following the act of intellection, and as what
is known by the intellect. It follows the operation of the intellect in that the judg­
ment of the intellect deals with the quiddity of the thing. By reflecting upon its
act, the intellect knows not only its own act, but also that its cognition is in con­
formity with the object of cognition. And this can be so only because it knows
the nature of its own act, which it cannot know unless it knows the nature of its
active principle, namely, the intellect itself, which by its very nature postulates
conformity with the object. Therefore, the intellect knows the truth by the very
fact that it reflects upon itself.” (De Veritate, q. 1, a. 9; cfr. also q. 2, a. 2).

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

143

within itself. And, far from denying this fact, under the pretext
that something external to or beyond thought is an impossibility,
he explains it by the immateriality of the cognitive faculty. Why
is it that the animal, by its senses, responds to everything in the
sensitive order, and, so to speak, goes out of itself, beyond the
limits of its corporeity? This sortie would be inexplicable if it
were of the spatial order; but, on the contrary, it presupposes a
certain independence with regard to extended matter, that is to
say, a certain spirituality. The representation in the irrational
animal is of an order superior to tire material bodies which it rep­
resents, because it is the act of an animated organ (and not of the
soul alone), it can be born of the impression gained from these ma­
terial things. It is a quality essentially relative to them, somewhat
like the reflection of an object formed in a mirror, with this dif­
ference, that the eye is a living mirror which sees. Being by its
very nature essentially relative or intentional, the representation
cannot be that which is known first, but in the direct act it makes
known the object which it represents without being known itself
(non est quod cognoscitur, sed quo'). It is not something closed,
but openly in contact with the object to which it essentially refers,
and thus leads us immediately to the object and determines the
cognitive faculty to know the same, like a fire started in a grate,
which essentially refers to the luminous object or to the source
of the heat which it produces.
What has already been realized in the simple form of sensible
cognition in the animal, namely, the spontaneous transition from
the ego to the non-ego (even to the imaginary non-ego), cannot
be explained in any other way. To say that all sensation has a
tendency to become objective, similar to that which we notice in
the case of hallucination, is to explain a primitive fact by a de­
rived fact. Every hallucination presupposes anterior sensations;
one born blind never has visual hallucinations. “One might just
as well explain the sound by the echo.”

144

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Moreover, this tendency towards objectivation would still be
but a fact which must be made intelligible. The reason why we
do not objectivate our emotions, but only our sensations, is be­
cause the latter alone are essentially intentional or representa­
tive.22
Finally, as the contemporary English Neorealists point out,
if Idealism is true, then cerebral perception is just as subjec­
tive as that of the external universe, and consequently the brain
no longer acts as an intermediary which separates sensation from
its objects, and prevents it from coming in contact with them.
Directly the external universe is perceived, either the cerebral
phenomenon is real, though not perceived, which is contrary to
the accepted principle of Idealism, "esse est percipi”; or else this
cerebral phenomenon, not being perceived, is unreal, and in that
case it no longer impedes the immediate external perception of the
universe. Thus one of the principal arguments in defence of
Idealism falls to the ground.23
In the case of intellectual cognition, which is purely imma­
terial, the transition from the ego to the non-ego is not only
spontaneous, but also reflexive, and the ego and the non-ego are
known precisely as such. This is in fact the very first “morcellation” (division) of being into object and subject, into absolute
(entitative) and intentional being. In simple apprehension the in­
tellect obtains a knowledge of being, of something which is, before
it knows itself; for how could it know itself in a state of vacuity
before it has acquired a knowledge of anything? But in this first
apprehension, the intellect knows being without knowing it pre­
cisely as non-ego. Later on, the absolute spirituality of the intel­
lect enables it to reflect fully upon itself, and thus to know not
only that its act is an actual fact, but also what is the nature of
22 St. Thomas, De Anima, Bk. Ill, Leet. 8; ta, q. 85, a. 2, c, ad turn et ad 2um.
23 Cfr. McGilvary, “The Physiological Argument against Realism,” in the
Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Oct. 14, 1907.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

145

that act and thereby to perceive its own immateriality as an
essentially relative faculty in conformity with intelligible being.
The intellect then judges being as something distinct from itself,
i. e., as a non-ego. (St. Thomas, De Veritate, q. 1, a. 9 and q. 2,
a. 2). This division of being into absolute and intentional must be
admitted, otherwise all three operations of the intellect become
meaningless.
Therefore, it is not Ontological Realism which is “absurd and
disastrous,” but Idealism, which is absolutely inconceivable. A
representation which does not represent anything, would be at
the same time and in the same respect both relative and nonrelative. Idealism is as disastrous as it is absurd (cfr. no. 17) ; it
locks up man within himself, as it were, preventing him from
recognizing even the reality of his own action, and thus destroys
all knowledge and reduces man to the condition of the plant, όμοωι
φυτώ (IV Metaph., c. iv). It must be so unless it be claimed that
human thought, like divine thought, is identical with being; but
in that case man must be omniscient and there can be no mystery
for him. (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 79, a. 2). Either God
or the plant—we must choose one of the two.
A close study of the first principles of knowledge makes it in­
creasingly evident that between the traditional philosophy and
Idealism, the question of paramount importance is to know
whether we are at least certain of the objectivity of the principle
of non-contradiction or identity.24
It is evident for us that the absurd is not only unthinkable, but
that it is also really impossible, or in itself impossible of realiza­
tion, even for the Omnipotent Being, if such a one exists. That
which is impossible of realization stands de facto in correlation
to the unthinkable. Now the real impossibility of the absurd is
for us an evident fact, the very first, anterior and superior to
24 This objectivity was subjected to unreasonable doubt by Descartes at the end
of his Discours sur la Méthode.

i46

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

that of Descartes’ "cogito.” We feel ourselves dominated and
regulated by it, that is to say, by evident being, which excludes
non-being or contradiction. In this first of all its acts, that of ad­
herence to being, the created intellect manifests itself as poten­
tial and conditioned.25
This primordial evidence is a fact attested by the reason or the
intellect. By what secret process this fact is established, remains
for us a profound mystery, because it is an entirely immaterial
process, and too dazzling a light in itself for the feeble vision of
our intellect. In this life we have but indirect knowledge of the
immaterial, by way of analogy with material things; and we know
the properties of things only in a negative and relative sense, by
saying that they are not material and that their vitality is superior
to that of the senses. Hence the obscurity of all our theories of
knowledge. But simply because the intrinsic nature of a thing
remains for us obscure, we can neither deny the fact itself of
knowledge nor give an explanation of it, which is tantamount to
a denial of the same by introducing the element of contradiction
into each of its component parts. It is this which Idealism does.
(See no. 17). Philosophical reflection must explain this process of
knowledge in harmony with the nature of things, and not in
opposition to it. The theories must interpret the facts and not
deny them. If the theories are obliged to assume illusions of na­
ture, then they are illusory themselves. In proving the natural
range of the intellect with regard to being, we must not deprive
it of its essential relationship to being; one does not have to
breaks a spring in order to test its strength.
About twenty-five years ago Rousselot wrote on this point :26
“After having assured oneself of the evidence of being and the
fact of its affirmation, it remains to give a satisfactory account of
28 See P. Lepidi, O.P., Ontologia, p. 35.
20 "Métaphysique Thomiste et Critique de la Connaissance,'1 in La Revue
Néoscolastique de Philosophie, Nov. X910, pp. 501-508.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

147

the meaning and validity of this fact. Failure to see or to accept
this duty would be to finish too soon with philosophy and to
mutilate it. . . . To be sure, this explanation can be given only
by the application of some system of metaphysics. Now, if it is
given by means of the metaphysics which starts from the ‘phi­
losophy of being’ and which satisfies dogmatic reason before
any critical question arises, the problem is solved.” On his part
Rousselot believes that we must explain our first affirmation of
being (that being exists or that the reality is intelligible being) by
saying that this affirmation “marks the transition to the act ex­
pressive of that desire for the divine known as intellection;" and
he adds that, according to St. Thomas, “it is God who first
arouses the rational appetite of a creature to action.” {Ibid.,
p. 505).
We never claimed that our first affirmation of being did not
need to be explained; and it is clear that it can be explained by
means of the four causes. On the contrary, we have always ex­
plained it27 by actual immateriality of the intellect, which by
reflection can know not only the fact of its own activity, but
the very nature of its act, and of this act towards its own
self, which essentially refers to being. We have elucidated this
point by giving in substance the argument of St. Thomas in
De Veritate, q. 1, a. 9, and q. 2, a. 2. We admit then, with Rousse­
lot, that the certitude of the objectivity of our knowledge has its
foundation not only in a formulated principle, such as that of
contradiction, but also in the knowledge which the mind has of
its own nature whenever it reflects upon its actions. Criticism
must try to grasp the full meaning and range of this act of re­
flection.
After that, we may consider ourselves as having passed not
only beyond the stage of spontaneous discovery of being and its
27 Sec Le Sens Commun et la Philosophie de l’Étre, p. 100; Dictionnaire Apo­
logétique, article "Dieu," cols. 1002 and 1003.

148

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

principles (in via inventionis'), but also beyond that of critical re­
flection, and to be in possession of those ontological principles by
which the ultimate reasons of things are made known. The reason
or ultimate cause of our certitude may then be discovered a pos­
teriori, and thus the point of departure of the argument for the
existence of a prime intellectual mover will be the fact that our
intellect is itself moved whenever it is in action. (See further on,
no. 36, c). We may also suppose this supreme cause to be already
known and by means of it give an a priori explanation of the
objectivity of our knowledge.28
In this ontological order of the ultimate reasons of things, we
must say that the supreme foundation of the certitude that our
intellect has concerning the objectivity of first principles is to be
found in God, inasmuch as our intellect is a participated like­
ness of the Divine Intellect, which is absolutely identical with
Being itself. Though St. Thomas rejects Platonism and the theory
of the Ontologists that necessary and eternal truths are intui­
tively known by us in God, he admits that, in this life, God is in
a certain sense the source of our knowledge, in that the natural
light of our intellect is a participated likeness of the divine and
uncreated light, and that, in order to operate, the intellect needs
to be illumined by the self-same intelligent and subsistent Being.
“The intellectual light which is in us,” he says, “is nothing else
but a certain participated likeness of the uncreated light, in
which are contained the eternal types.” (la, q. 84, a. 5). Else28 Sec St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 79, a. 8: "Whether reason is distinct
from the intellect. Human reason, by way of seeking and finding, advances from
certain things simply understood, which are tile first principles. And again, by
way of judgment it returns analytically to first principles, in the light of which it
examines what it has found” (critical reflection). In the following article St.
Thomas discusses another via judicii, not critical, but strictly metaphysical, and
by this other method of judgment everything is judged from a higher point of
view by God Himself, who is now actually known: “By way of finding, we come
through knowledge of temporal things to that of things eternal. ... By way of
judgment, from eternal things already known, we judge of temporal things.”

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

149

where he writes that “there must needs be some higher intellect,
by which the soul is helped to understand.” (la, q. 79, a. 4). This
illuminative divine concurrence is required not only for the first
act of our intellect, but for all its acts.29
Pure intellect, containing no imperfection, is identical with
pure being; but an intellect that is imperfect cannot be identified
with imperfect being as its proper object; for otherwise it would
no longer be an intellect at all. And the intellect cannot attain to
such being except by the illuminating guidance of that First In­
tellect, who is the self-subsistent and intelligent Being. This is
the ultimate reason assigned by metaphysics to our primary af­
firmation of being. But this explanation presupposes {quoad nos)
the proofs for the existence of God, and cannot, therefore, be
adduced as their principle; it merely confirms them by giving the
fundamental ontological and ultimate cause of our certitude.
Rousselot goes even farther. “If the soul responds sympatheti­
cally to being as such,” he says, “the final reason for this is be­
cause the soul is capable of communing with God” (Z. c„ p. 504).
The affirmation of being “marks the transition to the act ex­
pressive of the desire for the divine known as intellection” (p.
505). This explanation, which reminds us in certain respects of
that given by Rosmini, in our opinion is wrong, in that it defines
the intellect not in its relation to being, but in its relation to the
divine.30 As a matter of fact, the intellect and being are two
correlative analogues; only the divine intellect refers directly to
29 St. Thomas clearly distinguishes between this divine concurrence and super­
natural grace in the la Ilae, q. 109, a. 1: “Whether without grace man can know
any truth.” We read there: “Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any
truth whatsoever, man needs the divine help, so that the intellect may be moved to
its act. But he docs not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to
know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowl­
edge.” (See Gonet, Clypeus Thomisticus de Gratia, tr. VIII, disp. 1, a. I.)
30 On this point sec the article by Fr. Gardcil, O.P., in the Revue Néo-scolastique,
Nov., 1910, pp. 504 ff., entitled "Faculté du Divin ou Faculté de l'Ètre." See also
Revue Thomiste, 1913, pp. 460—472. Likewise Chronique de Métaphysique by Fr.
Le Rohellec, C.S.S.P.

150

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

divine being, with which it is identical; the created intellect re­
fers to created being,31 and comes to know God by this means.
Moreover, that the intellect knows of the certitude it has ac­
quired, in which intellection more specifically consists, Rousselot
attributes to its natural inclination {appetitus naturalis'), a charac­
teristic of the will and of every other faculty.32
That which belongs to a species as its property cannot be ex­
plained by what is common to all species of the same genus. In
fact, the certitude of our primary affirmation of being is explained
by the objective evidence of being, and by the very nature of our
intellect when influenced by the divine, the former being a par­
ticipated likeness of subsistent intellection, which includes in its
embrace both the subsistent Being and all possible beings of
which the Supreme Being is the exemplar. God has a pure and
absolutely immediate intuition of purely intelligible Being; our
human intellect abstracts the intelligible from its sensible sur­
roundings, and hence has an abstractive intuition of the intel­
ligible.
S1 Created being is the proper or proportionate object of the human intellect.
God, as He is in Himself, is included only in the adequate object of the human
intellect: for it is not within the scope nor is it the natural bent of the created
intellect to know God as He is in Himself, unless reinforced by the essentially
supernatural light of faith. Previous to the reception of this supernatural light
there is in our intellect but an obediential potency or passive capacity of being
raised to the supernatural order. John of St. Thomas (in lam, q. 12, disp. XIV,
a. 2, no. II) points out why the Thomists could not admit, with Suarez, the exist­
ence of an active obediential potency. It would be essentially natural, by reason
of its being a natural property of the intellect, and also essentially supernatural,
in that the intellect would be specified by a supernatural object. This would
virtually mean that the natural and the supernatural order are not essentially and
necessarily distinct, but only actually so. (See also Billuart in lam, q. 12, diss.
IV, a. 5, § HI).
32 “Certainty is always found in one of two ways, either essentially or by partici­
pation. The certitude of the cognitive faculty undoubtedly is essential. But it is
found by participation in everything which is infallibly moved to its end by the
cognitive faculty. When it is said that nature operates with certainty, in that it
is moved by the Divine Intellect, since everything is moved with certainty to its
end by this Intellect, it is certainty by way of participation that is meant." (See
2a zae, q. 18, a. 4, De Certitudine Spei).

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

151

2. Second objection oj the Idealists. Because thought is im­
material, a new difficulty presents itself. The intelligible known
by our intellect is not real unless it is found in the things them­
selves. But how can it be found in the sensible things from which
it is said to be abstracted, since it is not contained in them? As
there can be nothing actually intelligible, immaterial, and uni­
versal in sensible things, the intelligible, the object of our in­
tellectual cognition, is not real.
This is the classical objection against the solution given by Tra­
ditional Realism to the problem of universals. St. Thomas fore­
saw and solved it in his Summa (la, q. 85, a. 2, ad 2um). That
the intelligible, he says, cannot be present in material things in
the abstract, immaterial, and universal mode in which it is found
in the mind, I concede; that it cannot be there without this mode
on account of its nature or essence known by the intellect, I deny.
“In speaking of the intelligible, the universal, the abstract, we im­
ply one of two things—the nature of the thing known, and its
actual intelligibility, universality or abstraction. Nature, e. g., hu­
manity which is intellectually understood, abstracted or considered
as universal, exists only in individuals, while that mode which is
actual intelligibility, universality, abstraction, exists only in the
intellect. We have something similar to this in the senses. For
sight perceives the color of the apple apart from the smell. If it be
asked, where is the color which is seen apart from the smell, the
answer is: in the apple. But that the color is perceived without
the smell, is owing to the sight, since the faculty of sight receives
the likeness of color and not of smell.” 83
3. Third objection. Our concepts cannot express as universal
what the senses perceive as singular. Now, the senses perceive
only sensible phenomena. Therefore, our concepts are valid merely
as representative of phenomena.
33 For an explanation of this passage, which contains a refutation of the Kantian
objections, see Zigliara, Summa Philosophica, Vol. 1; Ontologia, Bk. I, c. I, articles
3 and 6.

152

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

The answer to this objection is included in what has been said
above in connection with Idealism. Our concepts cannot repre­
sent as universal what our senses perceive as individual, whether
what is perceived be directly or only accidentally sensible. That
the senses perceive only sensible phenomena, which do not con­
stitute the direct and proper object of the sensitive faculties, is
true. But it is not true that the senses do not perceive the subject
of phenomena, being and substance, even accidentally. It is not
color in general that is perceived by the sense of sight, but a
colored object, inasmuch as it is colored; the intellect, on the
other hand, perceives being and substance in the object, it reads
in the phenomena (intus legit), at least indistinctly, the prin­
ciple of their intelligibility, the essence of which they are the
property (Cf. St. Thomas, De Anima, Bk. II, Leet. 13; Summa
Theol., la, q. 17, a. 2; q. 78, a. 3, ad 2um).
4. Fourth Objection. After all, the ontological validity of first
ideas and first principles depends upon the validity of sensation.
Now, the knowledge acquired by the senses cannot have meta­
physical, but only physical certainty, derived from experience.
Therefore, we cannot be metaphysically certain of the ontological
validity of first ideas and first principles.
Reply. The ontological validity of first ideas and first prin­
ciples depends upon the validity of sensation—not as if this
latter were the real reason in some formal and intrinsic manner
of that ontological validity; the dependence must be interpreted
as meaning that sensation in some material and extrinsic way is a
predisposing cause and a required condition. The real reason for
the certainty of this ontological validity is not the evidence ob­
tained from sense experience, but belongs to the intellectual
order, and is a vision of the intellect, not of the senses. For this
reason the certitude is metaphysical and superior to that acquired
by the senses. As St. Thomas remarks: “It cannot be said that
sensible knowledge is the total and perfect cause of intellectual

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

153

knowledge, but rather that it is in a way the material cause. . . .
We must not expect the entire truth from the senses. For the
light of the active intellect {intellectus agens) is needed, through
which we achieve the unchangeable truth of changeable things
and discern the things themselves from their likenesses.” (la, q.
84, a. 6, ad rum). “All the certitude of the knowledge that we
have depends upon the certitude of the principles . . . and there­
fore, that anything is known for certain is due to the fact that
man has been divinely endowed with that interior light of
reason by which God speaks in us.” (St. Thomas, De Veritate,
q. ii, a. i, ad 13 et lyum). The intellect, by the light that is in it,
and by means of its own principles, judges of the validity of
sensation, of which it makes use.3'1 Intelligible being and its op­
position to not-being are known by the human intellect before
it judges of the validity of sensation, nay, even before abstraction
is assigned as the reason of this knowledge. Then, by means of
the light of being and certain first principles, it judges of the
validity of sensation and of abstraction. It is in this way that
philosophical reason is able to proceed in the critical discussion of
metaphysical questions, as Aristotle did. (See Metaph., Bk. IV).
It can defend the ontological validity of the notion of being and
of the principle of contradiction, by a simple analysis of the
terms: intellect and idea. This it is able to do even before it solves
the problem of the origin of ideas. Hence a number of contempo­
rary Scholastics, such as Zigliara, in their refutation of Scepti­
cism solved the criteriological problem before they considered the
question of the origin of ideas, which was assigned by them to
rational psychology. A sensation which is the record of no sense
perception would be contrary to the principle of contradiction; a
sensation which is not the effect of a determining external cause
84 What is a cause in one order becomes an effect in another order; but the
formal cause is absolutely prior to the material cause. Our intellection presupposes
sensation in the material order, but formally it passes judgment on sensation.

154

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

would be contrary to the principle of causality. If the purpose of
the senses as such is not to know the realities of sense perception,
then they are contrary to the principle of finality. It may happen
that the senses are deceived, even as regards their proper object,
but this is due to some organic defect. (See la, q. 17, a. 2). On
the other hand, the intellect can never be deceived concerning
primary and simple ideas and first principles. (la, q. 17, a. 3, c.,
and ad 2um). The natural certitude of these principles persists in
spite of the systematic errors by which they are deprived of their
original meaning, or even denied. These errors are like a cloud
of the imagination on the fringe of the intellect, and they cannot
succeed in penetrating the faculty so as to change it completely;
for that would mean the complete destruction of reason itself.
“We do not always have to think as we speak,” was Aristotle’s
remark to those who denied the principle of contradiction. (IV
Met., c. iii).
Thus all our explanations eventually lead us back to those
primary ideas and first principles, and to the intellectual light
which reveals them to us. The object of these ideas and prin­
ciples is evident, since it is being itself, which is evident. With
regard to the intellectual light, it makes known everything to
us, but in this life we do not know it as it actually is, namely,
in its pure immateriality. When we wish to tell what it is, we
are obliged to describe it by analogy, in terms applicable to ma­
terial light and its effects; when we wish to state in what it
formally consists, we make use of negative and relative terms,
by saying that it is a non-material light and a vivid light, emanat­
ing from a faculty superior in vitality to that of the senses. We
describe this light by means of a sensible image, since it is too
brilliant for us to perceive in its pure immateriality. In this life
our intellect, functioning as it does in connection with the
senses, when confronted with this light, resembles an owl look­
ing at the sun; for it is only by reason of the reflection of this

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

155

light in sensible things that the intellect sees it, making known
its dormant intelligibility.3® The fact that we are incapable of
acquiring a direct and precise knowledge of the immaterial na­
ture of our intellectual faculty, is the reason why, in this life,
there will always be an element of obscurity in every theory of
knowledge, no matter how true it may be. But because this ob­
scurity remains even after all diligent inquiries have been made,
we are not justified in rejecting what is undoubtedly certain. It is
a task of critical philosophy not to suppress mysteries, but to
take note of them when and wherever they occur, and to throw
light upon them by means of analogies with things that are more
familiar to us.
The certitude and the ontological validity of primary ideas and
first principles is naturally and logically prior to the theory by
which the philosopher seeks to explain how this certitude is ac­
quired, how our intellect comes into contact with being, and is
determined and measured by it. The theory advanced in explana­
tion of the exact manner by which something comes into exist­
ence, necessarily presupposes the existence of this same thing as
an established fact. The obscurities accompanying any theory ad­
vanced in explanation of the way in which the actualization of
the intelligible hidden in the sensible thing is effected, and how
it is that the intellect gets to know by means of this actualized
intelligible, must not cause us to deny, as the Subjectivists do, the
fact that the intellect does know in this manner. In testing the
35 St. Thomas, la, q. 87, a. I, 2, 3: “The human intellect is merely a potential­
ity in the genus of intelligible things, just as primary matter is a potentiality as
regards sensible things; and hence it is called possible. Therefore, in its essence,
the human mind is potentially understanding. Hence it has in itself the power
to understand, but not to be understood, except as it is made actual. . . . And it
is made actual by the species abstracted from sensible things. . . .” (la, q. 87, a.
1). Cajctan comments on this passage as follows: "Because the active intellect
does not actuate the passive intellect directly as its object, but through the medium
of the denaturalized intelligible species, to which its act is first of all directed, it
follows that it cannot come to know itself by any reflective process, but requires
the intervention of some object as its medium.” (Ib., a. XV.)

i56

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

power of our intellect, we must not strain it to the breaking point.
We must proceed from the more certain to the less certain, and
the obscurity of the latter must not cause us to reject the evidence
of the former, no more than the difficulty of reconciling the
immutability of God with divine freedom is a reason for
doubting the existence of these two attributes, provided each has
been logically deduced. If, in following strictly the rules of rea­
soning, we meet with certain obscurities, we must conclude that
these veil a mystery, but not a contradiction. The classical theory
of knowledge founded on the mutual relationship existing be­
tween being and intellect (considered in their vital aspects), and
between intellect and being (objectively considered), in spite of
its inevitable obscurities, nevertheless is in perfect conformity
with the first principles of reason.36
Having defended the ontological validity of the idea of being,
and of primary ideas in general, we must now take up the de­
fence of the ontological validity of first principles and their ab­
solute necessity, by showing what is their connection with being.
20) Intuition of first principles. They are perceived in the idea
of being, which is the formal object of the intellect. The
transcendent principle (principle of identity') is the ultimate
basis of every proof for the existence of God. The affirmation
36 Concerning this theory, see Aristotle, De Anima, Bk. ΙΠ, c. 5; St. Thomas,
Summa Theol., la, q. 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, and the Commentary of Cajetan;
John of St. Thomas, Cursus Philosophicus, De Anima, q. 4 and q. to; Sanseverino,
Philosophia Christiana cum Antiqua el Nova Comparata, Vols. VI and VII; Libera­
tore, La Conoscenza Intellettuale, 1857; Zigliara, De la Lumière Intellectuelle,
Vol. II, pp. 18-135; Gonzalez, Philosophia Elementaria, pp. 500-542; Vacant,
Etudes Comparées sur la Philosophie de St. Thomas et sur celle de Scot, Vol. I,
pp. 88-107; D. de Vorges, La Perception et la Psychologie Thomiste; Peillaubc,
Théorie des Concepts; P. Gardcil, "Ce qu'il y a de vrai dans le Néo-scotisme" (Rev.
Thomiste, 1900 and 1901); Hugon, Cursus Philosophiae Thomisticac, Vol. IV,
Metaphysica Psychologica, pp. 1-138; Sertillanges, St. Thomas d'Aquin; A. Farges,
La Crise de la Certitude, 1907; H. Dehove, Essai Critique sur le Réalisme Thomiste,
comparé à l'idéalisme Kantien, Lille, 1907; P. Rousselot, L'Intellectualisme de St.
Thomas, Paris, 1908.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

157

of the objective validity of this transcendent principle tacitly
implies the admission of the existence of the divine and
transcendental being, who is absolutely identical with him­
self. In all forms of evolutionary Pantheism contradiction nec­
essarily is the first principle.
By the process of analysis the philosophical reason refers these
principles, which the intellect instinctively perceives in being, to
being itself. We must give a detailed account of this connection,
for it will furnish the answer to the objections of the Empiricists
and of Kant against the necessity and the objective validity of the
principles of sufficient reason and of causality. A critical survey
of the principles of substance and finality will result in remov­
ing many of the difficulties which otherwise would greatly com­
plicate the exposition of the proofs for the existence of God.
What the intellect first of all spontaneously perceives in being,
is the truth of the principle of identity and of the principle of
non-contradiction. For “that which before aught else falls under
apprehension, is being, the notion of which is included in all
things whatsoever a man apprehends. Therefore, the first undemonstrable principle is that the same thing cannot be affirmed
and denied at the same time; this is based on the notion of being
and not-being, and on this principle all others are based as is
stated by the Philosopher in Met., IV, c.6, n. 10.” (St. Thomas, la
Ilae, q. 94, a. 2.)
In the Ila Ilae, q. 1, a. 7, he writes: “The articles of faith serve
the same purpose with regard to revealed truths, as self-evident
principles do with regard to the truths acquired by natural
reason. And in these principles there prevails a certain order, as
some are positively included in others. Thus, all principles are
finally reduced to this one, as to their first: ‘It is impossible for
the same thing to be affirmed and denied at the same time,’ as
is evident from what the Philosopher says in the Fourth Book
of his Metaphysics."

158

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

A truth which has not been sufficiently emphasized is that,
when we set down as an established fact the necessity and the ob­
jectivity of the principle of identity, it means that this principle is
the ultimate basis of every proof for the existence of God, who
is the self-subsisting Being, "ipsum esse subsistens" In explaining
how the principle of identity is the fundamental law of thought
and of reality, we are led to conclude that the fundamental
reality, the Absolute, is in all things one and for all purposes
identical with itself, Being itself, pure actuality, and, therefore,
necessarily distinct from the world, which is composite and
changing.
All the errors of the Empiricists and Subjectivists are refuted
by means of this principle, which, therefore, must be fully dis­
cussed by us here.
St. Thomas, in his Commentary on the fourth book of Aris­
totle’s Metaphysics (Leet. VI), proves that there must be a tran­
scendent principle, by which simple apprehension and judgment,
the first two operations of the mind, are compared. There can be
no such thing as an indefinite series of concepts, for by the analy­
sis of those which are more comprehensive than others we finally
arrive at a first concept, the simplest and most universal of all,
namely, the concept of being—that which exists or can exist. This
idea of being, which is implied in all other ideas, must be abso­
lutely the first for the intellect, which otherwise could form no
concept of anything whatever. If, in the series of concepts, there
is one that is first, then in the series of judgments also, there must
be one that is first. And the first judgment, the simplest and most
universal of all judgments, must depend upon the first idea, and
being must be the subject of the proposition, and what first of all
applies to being must constitute the predicate. By what formula
can this truth be accurately expressed? Aristotle says that “it is
impossible for anything to exist and not to exist at the same time
and in the same sense.” This axiom may be expressed in a sim-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

159

pier form by saying: “That which is, cannot be that which is not.”
It is important to note carefully the order of these primary no­
tions.
Idealistic evolutionism, not distinguishing between being in
general and divine being, starts out, as can be seen in the case of
Hegel, by accepting the idea of being and its opposition to notbeing, but denies that this opposition is absolute. Let us see how
St. Thomas views this question, following, as usual, the teaching
of Aristotle.
Our intellect perceives first of all the idea of being, and after­
wards, by opposition, not-being; it then formulates three affirma­
tive propositions, to which correspond three negative proposi­
tions.37
The first of these propositions is: “Being is being,” and the
negative proposition corresponding to it: “Being is not the same
as not-being.” The second is that: “Everything that is being, is
being,” from which it follows that “no being can be not-being.”
The third is: “Every being either is or is not,” from which it fol­
lows that “Nothing can at the same time be and not be.”
In the first of the negative propositions we have the principle
of contradiction, or rather the principle of non-contradiction, in
its simplest form. Its corresponding affirmative may seem to be
tautological. In matter of fact, however, the accompanying predi­
cate serves a real purpose, as clearly appears if both propositions
are combined into one, after the manner of Parmenides, to wit:
Being is being, not-being is not-being. Such expressions serve a
useful purpose, for when we wish to emphasize the difference be­
tween things we often say, for instance, that “flesh is flesh,” and
“spirit is spirit.” But these two affirmative propositions, which are
in opposition to each other, can be reunited in one negative by
saying: “Being is not not-being.”
It is in this formula, which manifestly excludes tautology, that
87 Sec Javclli, O.P., in IV Metaphysical Aristotelis, q. 6, £ol. 739.

i6o

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

St. Thomas and his school, following Aristotle, recognize the
supreme principle of thought, which they call the principle of con­
tradiction.
As for the principle of identity, it may be formulated thus:
“Being is being, or, every being is being.” Expressed in this
simple, though apparently tautological form, the principle of
identity precedes that of contradiction, and this for the reason
that every negation must be based on an affirmation. But if
we wish to express explicitly the notion of identity contained
in the formula which enunciates the principle of identity, it must
assume the simplest form of the principle of contradiction. In
matter of fact, identity is unity of substance, just as similarity is
unity of quality, and equality is unity of quantity.38 The opposi­
tion between “the same,” and “the other,” and between “identical”
and “different,” presupposes that between “one” and “several.”
And the idea of unity or undivided being presupposes the ideas
of “being,” “not-being,” and “division;”39 and these ideas are
all that we require to enable us to formulate the principle of
contradiction.
If we wish to arrive at a clearer understanding of the explicit
formulas of the principle of identity, we must note, as St. Thomas
did, the order in which the notions of “being” (ens), “thing”
(res), “unity” (unum), “something” (aliquid), “true” (verum),
and “good” (bonum), follow one another. In De Veritate, q. i, a.
i, St. Thomas explains this order as follows: “That which the
intellect perceives first of all, and which is most evidently known
by it, is being (ens), and it is into this concept that the in38 “When we say that things are the same, we mean that they are one in sub­
stance (which, interpreted in its fullest sense, means perfect unity); but the word
like implies unity in quality, . . . and equal means unity in quantity." (St.
Thomas, In X Metaph., Leet. 4).
38 “The first of all notions reached by the human mind is that of simple ‘being,’
and then ‘not-being,’ ‘division,’ and ‘oneness’ follow in logical order; finally, the
mind acquires the notion of ‘multitude,’ in which is implied that of division." (St.
Thomas, In IV Met., Leet. 3).

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

161

tellect resolves all its other concepts. All the other concepts,
therefore, denote something which is added to being. But ‘being’
cannot receive any additions which are extrinsic to it, as is the
case with additions accruing to a genus; for these differences, ex­
ternal to the idea of ‘being,’ would mean nothing; and all nature,
even in that which is specific to it, is still essentially ‘being.’
Therefore, that which is added to ‘being’ cannot be extrinsic to it,
but simply expresses a mode of being not denoted by the term
‘being’ itself. Amongst the modes of being we must distinguish
(i) the particular modes which constitute the various genera or
categories of the real, such as substance, quantity, quality, relation,
action, passion, etc.; (2) the general modes which belong to every
being, to every substantial or accidental reality, and which tran­
scend the categories, and for this reason are called transcendentals.
These general modes are in turn subdivided, according as they
apply to every being, either as considered in itself, or relatively to
something else.
“What applies to every being considered as such, may apply to
it either affirmatively or negatively. Affirmative predication is con­
cerned first of all with the essence, which is expressed by the
word ‘thing’ (res). This name, as Avicenna pointed out, differs
from that of ‘being,’ in that ‘being’ denotes primarily the act
of existing and through it that which exists; whereas the word
‘thing’ (res) primarily denotes the essence or quiddity of that
which is.
“Negatively, what is predicated of every being as such is ‘indi­
vision,’ which is expressed by the word ‘one.’ To say of a being
that it is one, is to say that it is undivided. If a being were ac­
tually divided, it would have no determinate essence. If it is
simple, it is undivided and indivisible; if it is composite, it ceases
to be when it is divided. (See la, q. 11, a. 1).
“Relatively to some other thing than itself the name 'something
applies strictly to every being, precisely for the reason that it is

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

162

distinct from any other thing {aliquid quasi aliud quid'). Hence
every being is one, in so far as it is undivided in itself, and it is
something, in so far as it is divided or distinct from others.
“Finally, every being may be considered relatively as referring
to that which by its nature comes in contact with all things, that
is to say, the soul or the spiritual nature in general, in which we
distinguish a cognitive faculty and a volitional or appetitive
faculty. The relation of being to intellect is expressed by the word
‘true,’ and its relation to appetite by the word good.”
TABULATION OF THE MODES OF BEING.

'General
modes

Affirmative: Essence, expressed
by the word “thing” {res)
Absolute ■
Negative: indivision, expressed
by the word “one” {unum)
to another thing distinct from it
is:—“something” {aliquid)
Relative - to the intellect—“true” {verum)
to the appetitive faculty —
“good” {bonum)

BEING J

Special modes.

The Categories.

The order in which these primary notions are arranged shows
us the order of the formulas, more and more explicit, expressing
the principle of identity. The simplest formula, as we have seen, is
this: “Being is being, not-being is not-being,” and it may be con­
densed into the negative formula of the principle of contradic­
tion: “Being is not not-being.” The identity of being, and of every
being with itself, is expressed by the following formulas: “Every
being is a thing,” or, “Every being has an essence or nature.” Or
we may say: “Every being is one,” and if we wish to emphasize
the perfection of its unity, which means more than similarity or
equality, we may add: “Every being is one and the same,” or
identical with itself. “It is one and the same thing,” is an exprès-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

163

sion frequently heard. Further, in relation to some other thing
distinct from itself, we say that “Every being is something”—
which means that it is some definite thing, some determinate na­
ture, constituted as such by some property of its own, that it is
one tiring and not another.
All these formulas are more or less explicit expressions of the
principle of identity, of which the principle of contradiction is
but the negative formula. Clearly all these formulas are implied in
the notion of being, and in that of not-being. Being is being, notbeing is not-being, flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit, good is good, evil
is evil {est est, non non) ; a square is a square, a circle is a circle;
that a square is a figure with four equal sides is of its very nature
and cannot be otherwise. Peter is a human individual and cannot,
while remaining Peter, cease to be a human individual. Every
being has a definite nature; it is its own self and cannot at the
same time be and not be what it actually is.
This is the first principle of our reason. It forms the basis of all
direct demonstrations, which presuppose the identity of the terms
employed, and rest on the real identity of the extremes with the
middle term, to conclude that the extremes themselves are really
identical. Indirect demonstrations, or those by the method of re­
duction to absurdity, are also based on this principle.
In conclusion, we may say that if, as we have shown, the princi­
ple of sufficient reason has ontological validity, then this must
also be true of the principle of contradiction; it is not only a logi­
cal law of thought, but also the metaphysical law of reality. In
other words, the absurd is not only unthinkable, but it is also
absolutely impossible of realization.
21) The anti-intellectualistic objection raised against the princi­
ple of non-contradiction. Solution of the same by means of
the concept of potency, which enters into all the proofs for
the existence of God.

i64

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

This first principle—whether the formula by which it is ex­
pressed be affirmative or negative—is not tautological; in fact,
there is a certain school of philosophers which denies its truth,
and consequently rejects all the proofs which reason offers for the
existence of God. The philosophy of this school is based on the
theory of “becoming”; it denies the existence of “things,” admit­
ting only “actions”; it defines the real, not as that which is (a
certain determined nature), but as that which becomes and
changes incessantly. Bergson writes in his book on Creative Evo­
lution, p. 270: “There are no things, there are only acts; things
and states are merely modes of thinking, which our mind derives
from the idea of becoming.” Accordingly, this philosopher refuses
to see a real distinction between “a glass of water, water, sugar,
and the process by which sugar is dissolved in water.” {Ibid., pp.
10 and 366). This amounts to saying that everything is what it is,
and what it is not; hence the square is a square and no square,
since it constantly changes and, therefore, has no proper nature.
Likewise, man is rational and irrational, and not having any
proper nature of his own, it was possible for him to have evolved
from pure animality by the process of creative evolution. Every­
thing is in everything.
Le Roy reduces all his objections to the traditional proofs for
the existence of God to this: that they all depend upon the pos­
tulate of morcellation. “The distinctions between mover and
moved,” he says, “between movement and the object moved, be­
tween the affirmation of the primacy of the act over the potency,
rest on the same postulate of common thought. . . . But of what
value are these idols of the practical imagination? Why not
simply identify being with becoming? Since all things are
movement, there is need to ask ourselves what causes them to be
in movement.” 40 Such a view leads one to conclude that God,
40 “Comment se pose le Problème de Dieu,” in the Revue de Métaphysique et
de Morale, March, 1907.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

165

far from being “He who is,” in every respect identical with Him­
self, is but “a reality in the making, ... a continuous projec­
tion,” 41 that He is “an infinite in becoming.” 42 He is no longer
conceived as apart from the world which is projected from Him,
but He is the process of becoming, is always becoming, yet will
never be.
Those who profess this Pantheistic philosophy are fully aware
that the stand which they take is the result of denying the ob­
jective validity of the principle of identity or non-contradiction.
According to Le Roy, “the principle of non-contradiction is not as
universal and necessary as has been believed; its application is
limited; it is restricted and circumscribed in meaning. Being the
supreme law of speech, but not of thought in general, its influence
extends merely to whât is static, morcellated, immobile, in a word,
to the things endowed with identity. But just as there is identity
in the world, so also there is contradiction. Such are those fugitive
fluxes, as becoming, duration, life, which of themselves are not of
the rational order, and which speech transforms so as to incor­
porate them into contradictory schemata.” 43 Our intellect reifies
(objectivâtes) the universal flux for the needs of speech and of
practical life, and in that way pretends to submit all that is real to
the principle of identity.
The moral consequences of this doctrine have been stated by
Jean Weber of the Bergsonian school. It ends in unmorality
of conduct; there is no more a distinction between good and evil
than there is between being and not-being. “Morality, in planting
itself on a terrain from which invention grows in all its vigour,
immediately and full of life; in manifesting itself as the most
insolent encroachment of the realm of the intellect upon spon­
taneity, was fated to encounter the continual contradictions of
41 Bergson, Evolution Créatrice, p. 270.
42 Le Roy, Rev. de Met. et de Morale, July, 1907, p. 512.
43 Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1905, pp. 200-204.

ι66

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

that undeniable reality of dynamism and creation which is our
activity. . . . Confronted with these morals of ideas, we outline
morality, or, more correctly, the unmorality of the act. ... We
call ‘good’ whatever has triumphed. Success, provided it is fierce
and implacable, provided the vanquished are completely defeated,
destroyed, abolished beyond hope—success justifies everything.
. . . The man of genius is profoundly immoral, but for anyone
to be immoral is not the proper thing. . . . ‘Duty’ is nowhere
in particular, and yet it is everywhere, for all actions possess ab­
solute value. The repentant sinner deserves all the anguish of his
contrite soul, because he was not strong enough to transgress the
law, and unworthy to be a sinner.” 44 Hence there is no longer
any difference between Ravachol and a Christian martyr. This
conclusion of “the philosophy of becoming” was clearly con­
demned in the first proposition of the Syllabus of Pius IX.45
This denial of the objective validity of the principle of identity
is of Sensualist origin; it originated in the theory of the perpetual
movement of sensible appearances, and especially in the facts
of consciousness.46 Heraclitus said: “No one goes twice into the
same river, . . . where everything is flowing, proceeding on its
course, without ever stopping.” We can never say of anything
which changes that “it is such and such a thing,” because at the
very moment when we say so, it is something else. In matter of
fact, nothing is, everything is becoming. This argument has been
thrown into logical form by saying that "Ex ente non fit ens,
quia jam est ens," i. e., nothing can come from being, since whatRevue de Mit. et Morale, 1894, ΡΡ· 549~56o.
45 “God is the same as nature, and therefore subject to change. God actually be­
comes in man and in the world; all things are God and have the same divine
substance; God is absolutely identical with the world, and hence there is no
difference between spirit and matter, necessity and liberty, truth and falsehood,
good and evil, justice and injustice.” (Denz., n. 1701).
18 Bergson, Evolution Créative, pp. 2 ff.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

167

ever is, already exists, and what is becoming, before becoming
does not exist; on the other hand, "Ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing
can cqme from nothing) ; if at any given moment nothing exists,
then nothing ever will come into existence. From these two
principles Parmenides concluded that becoming is an illusion,
and the only thing he was willing to affirm was the principle of
identity that: “Being is, non-being is not, and we can never escape
from this thought.” From these same principles Heraclitus con­
cluded that being and non-being are mere abstractions of the
mind, and “becoming” is the only reality, a mobile identity of
contraries. This explains the universal “contradiction” which is
found in all things.47
Aristotle devotes to the defence of the principle of contradic­
tion Book IV of his Metaphysics, from the third chapter to the
end of the fourth. “It is not possible,” he writes, “for anyone ever
to think that the same thing exists and does not exist. Heraclitus,
according to some, is of a different opinion, but a man need not
believe all that he says. This would be an affirmation which
would deny itself. . . . (c. 3). It would mean to deny language
and then to admit that we can speak (c. 4) ; all words would be
synonymous, and all beings would be reduced to one single be­
ing; a galley, a wall, a man would all be one and the same thing
(c. 4). The admission of a becoming without a something which
is becoming, completely destroys substance and forces one to as­
sert that everything is accident, to admit a process of becoming
without a subject which becomes (c. 4). The reason why these
philosophers [of the school of Heraclitus] held such an opinion
is, that they regarded only objects of sense perception as consti­
tuting being, . . . and seeing that all sensible nature is in per­
petual flux, . . . certain ones amongst them, such as Cratylus,
47 See Aristotle, Phys., Bk. I, c. 8; Commentary of St. Thomas, Leet. 16, and
Metaphys., Bk. IV (ΠΙ), cc. 3, 4, and 5.

ι68

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

believed that we must affirm nothing. Cratylus deemed a thovement of the finger to be a sufficient answer (c. 5).” 48
We cannot deny, therefore, as Heraclitus did, the principle of
non-contradiction. It remains for us to refute the objection de­
rived from the idea of movement. Aristotle met this objection by
introducing the notion of potency, as an intermediary between
actual being and pure nothingness. {Phys., Bk. I, c. viii; Met.,
Bk. IX).49 He says that it must be conceded that whatever be­
comes, does not come from actual being {ex ente non fit ens),
and that nothing cannot come from nothing {ex nihilo nihil fit).
And yet, whatever Parmenides may say, there is such a thing as
becoming. To admit this, must we, like Heraclitus, deny being,
the principle of all intelligibility, and say that becoming has its
reason within itself? By no means; for becoming marks the transi­
tion from undetermined being to determined being. We have
examples of this in the difference between one’s capacity for ac48 Aristotle gives eight principal reasons for defending the necessity and real
validity of the principle of contradiction. They are briefly: (1) to deny this neces­
sity and this validity would be to deprive words of their fixed meaning and to
render speech useless; (2) all idea of the reality of an essence, or thing or sub­
stance as such, would have to be abandoned; there would be only a becoming
without anything which is on the way of becoming; it would be like saying that
there can be a flux without a fluid, a flight without a bird, a dream without
a dreamer; (3) there would no longer be any distinction between things,
between a galley, a wall, and a man; (4) it would mean the destruction of all
truth, for truth follows being; (5) it would destroy all thought, even all opinion:
for its very affirmation would be a negation. It would not be an opinion which
Heraclitus had when he affirmed that contradictories are true at the same time;
(6) it would mean the destruction of all desire and all hatred; there would be
only absolute indifference, for there would be no distinction between good and
evil; there would be no reason why we should act; (7) it would no longer
be possible to distinguish degrees of error; everything would be equally false and
true at the same time; (8) it would put an end to the very notion of becoming;
for there would be no distinction between the beginning and the end of a move­
ment; the first would already be the second, and any transition from one state
to another would be impossible. Moreover “becoming" could not be explained by
any of the four causes. There would be no subject of becoming; the process would
be without any efficient or final cause, and without specification, and it would
be both attraction and repulsion, concretion as well as fusion.
48 See F. Ravaisson, Essai sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote, Vol. I, pp. 391-394.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

169

quiring knowledge and the knowledge acquired, between the
embryo and the fully constituted being, between the seed and the
plant, etc. Undetermined being is susceptible of receiving a de­
termination, and this susceptibility we call potency. This potency,
which is not being, cannot pass into actuality, but demands
to be reduced to actuality by an active power, which itself must
be aroused to action by some previous power, and, in the final
analysis, by an active supreme power, which is its own activity,
and hence unmoved, pure actuality, always absolutely the same.
In that way becoming is explained, and the principle of contra­
diction remains intact.
Aristotle even goes so far as to claim that his position alone
entitles us to affirm the process of becoming, just as it permits us
to affirm identity. “This system [of Heraclitus], in which being
and not-being are alleged to exist simultaneously, must lead to
the admission of perpetual repose rather than of perpetual move­
ment. In fact, there is nothing left which beings may become,
since everything is in everything else.” (IV Met., c. v). A becom­
ing without a “subject” which remains unaltered throughout the
process of change, would no longer be a becoming, for at each
instant there would be both annihilation and creation. Later on
we shall see that a causeless and purposeless process of becoming
is no less an impossibility. (See nos. 26 and 27).
Bergson presents the argument of Heraclitus in a new form.
“There is more,” he says, “in a movement than in the successive
positions attributed to the moving object, more in a becoming
than in the forms passed through in turn, more in the evolution
of form than in the forms realized one after another. Philosophy
can, therefore, derive terms of the second kind from those of the
first, but not vice versa; for it is from the first terms that specula­
tion must take its start. But the intellect reverses the order of the
two terms, and on this point ancient philosophy proceeds as the
intellect does. It installs itself in the immutable, it posits ideas,

170

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

and passes to becoming by way of attenuation and diminution.” 60
“A perpetual mobility is possible only if it is backed by an eternity
of immutability, which it unwinds in a chain that has neither
beginning nor end. Such is the last word of Greek philosophy.
It has its roots deep down in the soul of pagan antiquity. It would,
therefore, be useless to try to deduce it from a simple principle.
But if every element derived from poetry, religion, social life, and
a rudimentary system of physics and biology be removed from it,
if we take away all the light materials that may have been used
in the construction of the stately building, a solid framework
remains, and this framework marks the main lines of a meta­
physic which is, we believe, the natural metaphysic of the human
intellect.” 51
Bergson’s philosophy is of the dynamic order, which is the very
opposite of the natural metaphysic of the ancients, for the reason
that such a metaphysic is merely the systematization of dissoci­
ated objects, and of the morcellation to which the universal flux
has been submitted by common opinion, or, in other words, by
the practical imagination and by speech. In Bergson’s opinion
the intellect is made only for considering “inert objects, more
especially solids, where our action finds its fulcrum and our
industry obtains its tools; our concepts have been formed on the
model of solids, our logic is pre-eminently a logic of solids,” in­
capable of representing the real, which is essentially becoming
and life.82
This argument has remained almost unchanged since the time
of Heraclitus, and its Sensualist origin becomes more and more
evident as we go along. If solid bodies constitute the sole object
of the intellect, how are we to explain the verb "to be,” which
is the soul of every judgment, and in what way does man differ60
62
61
60 Evolution Créatrice, pp. 341 f.
61 Ibid., p. 354.
62 Ibid., p. i.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

171

from the animal? If the object of the intellect is not the solid
body, but being and all which has a raison d’être, the Bergsonian
proposition that “there is more in the movement than in the
immobile,” is true only of immobilities viewed by the senses as
actual becoming. But it is false, if interpreted in the sense of an
absolute principle, because in that case it would imply that “what
is as yet merely a becoming, is more of a reality than what actu­
ally is." The senses see in the immobile object something which
is at rest; the intellect, something which is, in opposition to some­
thing which is becoming, just as the immutable is that which it is
and cannot be other than what it is. Bergsonian Sensualism con­
fuses immutability, which transcends all movement, with some­
thing which is inferior to it; namely, the terminus ad quern with
the terminus a quo, actuality with potency. In this way it lowers
the immobile life of the intellect, which contemplates the high­
est eternal laws, to the level of the inertia of inanimate solids.
From this point of view, the vegetative life of the stomach is
superior to the immobile life of the intellect; time is superior to
eternity, for it is life, whereas eternity is death.
Boutroux answers Spencer by remarking that “evolutionism is
the truth envisaged from the point of view of the senses, but as
the intellect considers things, it remains true that the imperfect
does not exist and does not determine itself except by reason of the
more perfect. . . . Moreover, the intellect persistently proclaims
with Aristotle that everything has a reason, and the first principle
must be the ultimate reason of things. Now, to explain means to
determine, and the ultimate reason for the existence of things
must be sought in the completely determined being.”08 “This is
the last word of Greek philosophy,” but it is not, as Bergson says,
“connected by invisible threads with all the fibres of the ancient
soul” and with what constitutes the basis of the human intellect.
It is not true to say that we cannot “deduce it from a simple
63 See Etudes d'Histoire de la Philosophie, p. 202.

vp

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

principle.” It is connected with the intellect by the supreme law
of thought and of reality—the principle of identity, implied in
the very first of all ideas, which is that of being. It is connected
with the intellect, not by a utilitarian division of the sensible
content, imposed by the conventional modes of practical life and
speech; but, if we wish to avoid an absurd conclusion, it rests of
necessity upon the principle of the morcellation of intelligible
being.

22) Hegel’s objection {absolute intellectualism) to the principle
of identity.
The anti-intellectualism of Heraclitus, repeated at the present
day by Bergson, is at the opposite pole of the absolute intellectual­
ism of Hegel, which also denies the objective validity of the
principle of identity. While the Sensualist philosophy of becoming
reduces the rational to experimental reality, to the fact of con­
sciousness, what must be to what actually is, right to the fait ac­
compli, morality to success, necessity to a meaningless and lawless
liberty, to a sort of blind spontaneity resembling the “uncon­
scious” of Schopenhauer; the intellectualist philosophy of becom­
ing, on the contrary, restores experimental reality to the rational
order, that which is to that which ought to be, the fait accompli
to right, success to morality, liberty to necessity. Thus Bergsonism
appears like a reversed Hegelianism.
Hegel’s Pantheism was the result of his denial, from an intel­
lectualist point of view, of the principle of non-contradiction, in
the very name of the idea of being.54 His argumentation, as set
54 Hegel proposes to refute the Pantheism of Schelling, in which the relatively
transcendental absolute becomes the world by a sort of evolution in the descend­
ing order, which reminds one of the emanation theory of the Alexandrian school.
According to Hegel, the transition from this unique Absolute to the multiplicity
of things cannot be logically explained. If this Absolute is perfect in itself, and
incapable of further perfection, how could the world proceed from it? The transi­
tion from the one to many would be irrational, without reason. Knowledge, on
the contrary, presupposes that everything which is real is rational and logical. In

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

173

forth in his Logi^ (French translation by A. Vera, 2nd ed., § 85,
Bk. I, pp. 393-412), is correctly summed up by the historian
Weber in the following words: “Being is the most universal of
all notions, but for this very reason it is also the poorest and the
most negative of notions. To be white or black, to have exten­
sion, to be good, means to be something; but to be without any
determination, is to be nothing, is simply not to be. Pure and
simple being is, therefore, equivalent to not-being. It is at one and
the same time itself and its contrary. If it were merely itself, it
would remain immobile and sterile; if it were mere nothingness,
it would be synonymous with zero, and in this case also com­
pletely powerless and infecund. It is because it is the one and the
other that it becomes something, another thing, everything. The
contradiction contained in the notion of being resolves itself into
becoming, development. To become is at the same time to be and
not to be (that which will be). The two contraries which en­
gender it, namely, being and non-being, are rediscovered, blended
and reconciled in becoming. The result is a new contradiction,
fact, the real is nothing else but the rational. Hegel is thus led to admit the real
idea of being as the principle of all knowledge and of all reality. This idea, by
an internal necessity, and in accordance with a logic superior to that of the
principle of contradiction, gradually determines itself into genera, species, and
individuals, and by this ascending scale of evolution establishes the mineral, vege­
table, and animal kingdoms, until finally, on the appearance of man, it takes
cognizance of its own self. With the evolution of human thought, both individual
and collective, this consciousness of the absolute passes from a confused to a distinct
knowledge, until there appears idealistic evolutionism, the philosophy of the
creative idea, superior to all forms of art, religion, and philosophy. The point of
departure of this philosophy is the identification of the idea of being with the
reality of being in general—an identification which is contrary to the testimony
of conscience and to the principle of contradiction. In the course of its evolution,
it is a constant violation of the principle of contradiction and of the principle of
causality, since the less is the cause of the greater; it also runs contrary to the
principle of mutation, for the change is without a subject which changes, and to
the principle of finality, for there is no orderly connection between the evolution
of the lower forms of life and the higher; this passive ordination presupposes an
active ordination. But, according to this doctrine, there is no original and intel­
ligent designer.

174

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

which will resolve itself into a new synthesis, and thus the process
will continue until the absolute idea is reached.” 55
To perceive the sophism contained in this argument, we need
only cast it into syllogistic form: Pure being is pure indétermina­
tion. But pure indetermination is pure non-being. Therefore, pure
being is pure non-being. The middle term, “pure indétermina­
tion,” is used in two different senses. In the major it means the
negation of all determination, generic, specific, or individual, but
not the negation of (ideal or real) being, which transcends the
generic determinations of which it is susceptible. In the minor,
on the other hand, pure indetermination is not only the negation
of all generic, specific, and individual determination, but also im­
plies the negation of any further determination of which being is
capable. Therefore, the argument amounts to this: that pure being
is undetermined being; but undetermined being is pure nonbeing. The minor is evidently false.58
Besides, there is no apparent reason why becoming should
emerge from this realized contradiction, this identification of con­
tradictories. On the contrary, we must hold with Aristotle that
“to maintain that being and non-being are identical, is to admit
permanent repose rather than perpetual motion. There is in fact
nothing into which beings can transform themselves, because
“everything includes everything.’’ (IV Met., c. v).
Finally, this absolute intellectualism of Hegel is no less destruc­
tive of all knowledge than is the anti-intellectualism of Heraclitus
and Bergson. All reasoning presupposes that every idea employed
in the process represents a reality, the nature of which remains
the same; but for Hegel, the principle of identity is merely a law
of inferior logic, of the mind working with abstractions, and not
a law of superior logic, of reason and reality. “From this it fol­
lows,” as Aristotle remarked (IV Met., c. iv), “that one can with
05 Cfr. also G. Noel, La Logique de Hegel, Paris, 1897, pp. 23-52 and 135-159.
68 Sec Zigliara, Summa Philosophica, Vol. I, Critica, pp. 247-252.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

175

equal right affirm or deny everything of all things, that all men
tell the truth and that all lie, and that each one admits that he is
a liar.”
For the rest, Hegel himself acknowledges “that if it is true to
say that being and non-being are one and the same, it is also true
to say that they differ, and that the one is not the other.” (Logip,
Bk. I, p. 404). It follows from this that, according to Hegel, noth­
ing can be affirmed and everything can be affirmed. If this atti­
tude does not destroy all science, it cannot at least be said to have
more than a relative value, and hence to possess nothing more
than the name of science.
We may rightly conclude, therefore, that the objections raised
against the principle of contradiction in no way affect its validity.
Those of Hegel as well as those of Heraclitus and of Bergson are
mere paralogisms. These philosophers admit that the principle of
contradiction is a law of the reasoning mind and of speech, and
it must also be accepted as the law of being. In other words, the
absurd is not only unthinkable, but also impossible of realization,
because no power, however great, can make it real. For the mind,
this principle is the first of all evident certainties; its ontological
validity is based on that of the notion of being, which has occu­
pied us through so many pages. The objections just examined
are powerless to weaken or depreciate the soundness of this
principle in any way.
Renouvier, as various philosophers before him, in his Dilemmes
de la Métaphysique Pure, p. 2, casts doubt upon the objectivity of
the principle of contradiction. In reference to this it suffices to say,
with Evellin (Congrès de Métaphysique, Paris, 1900, p. 175), that
“if the law of non-contradiction were merely a law of thought,
but not of reality, being would lose precisely that which consti­
tutes it what it is—its identity with itself, and consequently,
being as such would be non-existent. Everything would disap­
pear in an intangible flux. . . . The principle of identity is not

176

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

only an essential requisite of thought, but it also constitutes na­
ture, having thoroughly emancipated it from the tyranny of the
phenomenon.” In fact, as we shall see further on, the principle
of substance is merely a determination of the principle of identity.
The principles of sufficient reason and of causality can also be
traced back to this principle of identity, by showing the absurdity
of the opposite contention; which means that they, too, have
ontological value, i. e., are laws of being.
From the preceding discussion it is evident that, if the princi­
ple of identity and of non-contradiction had no objective value,
evolutionistic Pantheism would be victorious and "becoming"
would be the fundamental reality. If, on the contrary, the absolute
universality and objectivity of this principle are established, the
fundamental reality is necessarily pure identity, or self-subsistent
Being {ipsum esse subsistens), pure being, pure actuality, pure
perfection, a transcendent reality essentially distinct from the
world, which is composite and subject to change.
Hegelianism, Heraclitism, and Bergsonism thus, by their
avowed contradiction, which is an essential feature of their sys­
tems, furnish a proof per absurdum for the existence and transcen­
dental nature of God.
23) Substance is the determining principle of identity. What
place it holds in the demonstration of the existence of God.
It is easy to see that the principle of substance, denied by the
philosophy of becoming, is nothing but a determination of the
principle of identity. It is important to recall this truth here, be­
cause the proofs for the existence of God presuppose the existence
of substances, and of substances distinct from one another. In an
article entitled "La Dernière Idole," which appeared in the Revue
de Métaphysique et de Morale, of July, 1902, M. Hebert wrote:
“The principle of causality, bringing us back to a first extrinsic
cause in accordance with the axiom that 'quidquid movetur, ab

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

177

alio movetur’ [whatever is in motion, is set in motion by an­
other], derives its apparent lucidity from a spatial image which
has been illicitly introduced into a metaphysical problem. It is
based on the supposition that the movers and those moved are
distinct substances, which Pantheism denies.” We have already
had occasion to note that this same objection was developed by
Le Roy in discussing the postulate of morcellation. In his view,
as in Bergson’s, substance is “a position in space,” resulting from
the advantageous morcellation of the continuous in sense percep­
tion. From the empirical point of view, or as far as the senses are
concerned, it is difficult to see how it could be defined otherwise.
But from the intellectual point of view, substance is conceived
as a fundamental reality belonging to a different order than
quantity and sensible qualities. Being present entirely in the
whole and in every part of it, it gives to the object its unity.
It cannot be perceived as such by the senses, but only by the
intellect. (St. Thomas, Illa, q. 76, a. 7). Nevertheless, it is called
a sensibile per accidens (an accidentally sensible object) because
the senses recognize it accidentally as the subject of phenomena
concerning which they have a direct knowledge. As a matter
of fact, the sense of sight perceives, not color in general, but
that which is colored, a colored object perceived precisely as
colored, whereas the intellect, upon the simple presentation
of a sensible object, perceives it as a substance without any in­
vestigation. “What is immediately apprehended by the intellect,
when confronted with the object of sense perception, is called
sensibile per accidens (accidentally sensible).” (Aristotle, De
Anima, Bk. II; Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 13). As soon as
the dominant one of the internal sense faculties has reunited the
data presented by each of the external senses, therefore, the sub­
stance is thus grasped by the intellect.
In its relation to the intellect, substance is but a primary de­
termination of being, necessary for the purpose of rendering in-

i78

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

telligible, in the role of being, a group of phenomena which
presents itself as autonomous. On the first presentation of any
sensible object whatever, such as, e. g., the swaddling-clothes in
which an infant is wrapped, whilst the sense of sight perceives
the color of this object, that of touch its shape and resistance, the
intellect acquires a confused knowledge of its being—that the
object is “something which is.” This first known object of the
intellect becomes more clearly defined as something which is one
and permanent (a substance), after the intellect has noted the
multiplicity of its phenomena and the changes which they un­
dergo. In fact, it is only by reason of this oneness that the multiple
becomes intelligible, just as the permanent or the identical ex­
plain the transitory; for one of the formulas of the principle of
identity is that “every being is one and the same with itself.”
To say of a being that it is a substance, is to assert that it remains
one and the same under its multiple and changing phenomena.
The principle of substance, therefore, is simply a determination
of the principle of identity, and the idea of substance a determina­
tion of the idea of being. In the acquisition of its knowledge
the intellect proceeds from the idea of being—in which that of
substance is de facto implicitly included—to the somewhat con­
fused ideas of the manner of being implied in phenomena, multi­
plicity, and change. It seeks to render these new ideas intelligible
in the light of the idea of being, and comes to recognize the
“something which is” as one and a permanent subject, as a being
in the full sense of the word, as something which exists in itself
or subsists (a substance). The intellect is now in a position to
narrow down the concept of the manner of being implied in the
phenomenon, which cannot be defined except in terms of what
exists in itself, for it is ens entis, “an entity of an entity.” Thus,
the confused concept of the phenomenon adds to the definiteness
of the concept of substance, and is in turn more clearly defined

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

179

by it. (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 85, a. 5). Therefore, the
morcellation which separates being from the phenomenon is not
a utilitarian division of the continuous in sense perception, but a
division of the intelligible, which, by reason of the principle of
identity, is a metaphysical or a priori requisite.
From this point of view, the second Kantian antinomy, which
concerns corporeal substance, presents no difficulty. The continu*
ous is divisible, but not divided indefinitely; 57 the corporeal and
extended substance is not a contradictory collection of unextended
indivisible parts, but its unity is assured by a principle superior to
that of the spatial order, namely, the substantial form, which
exists as a whole in the object as a whole and in each part of the
object, and which demands such extension—the least possible—
as a condition for the subsistence of the composite.
As for the numerical distinction of individual substances of the
sensible order (a distinction presupposed by certain proofs for the
existence of God, but not essential to these proofs), we often have
only physical certitude, derived from experience and the laws
which experimental science has discovered. But the criterion of
the substantial unity of a being is not merely, as Le Roy would
have it,®8 its quantitative unity in space, a unity perceptible to
the sense of touch, for this sort of unity often presupposes only
an accidental union, namely, that of an aggregation of molecules.
The true criterion of the substantial unity of a being is activity,
and “the action which reveals the unity of the whole must be
produced by a single part, and not by the association of parts;
but the influence of the other parts must also be revealed in this
action. A frequently quoted example is that of a mare with a
broken cannon bone, having a colt whose cannon bone looks
as if it were broken but grown together again.” It is by means
57 Aristotle, Phys., Bk. VI.
58 Rev. <ie Met. et Mor., July, 1899, p. 383.

i8o

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

of this principle that the individuality of the higher animals is
established.89 When, in reality, we distinguish between two ani­
mals, or between an animal and its environment, this is not
merely “an arrangement, a simplification convenient to the word
and the action.” Bergson in his Creative Evolution admits that
the living body is isolated by nature itself, even though its indi­
viduality is not perfect.
As for the substantial distinction between human souls, it is
the object of metaphysical certitude and can be scientifically
demonstrated. The intellect, which is the basis of freedom, is
intrinsically independent of the organism when in operation, and
its object is universal being. It presupposes, therefore, a subsistent
and simple principle, intrinsically independent of matter and of
the world of corporeal beings (operari sequitur esse, et modus
operandi modum essendï). This subsistent and simple principle,
which is conscious and master of itself, must be distinct from
similar subsistent principles. St. Thomas proves this in his
Summa Theologica, la, q. 76, a. 2, saying that “it is absolutely
impossible for one intellect to belong to all men; if there were
one intellect for all men, it would not be possible to distinguish
my intellectual action from yours on the basis of one intelligible
object; there would be only one intellectual act.” Finally, it fol­
lows as an evident conclusion that human souls are distinct from
the Absolute, if it is proved that the Absolute cannot harbor
within itself either multiplicity or becoming.
The principle of sufficient reason, which we are about to con­
sider, will show us clearly that whatever is multiple (composite)
and changing, cannot have a sufficient reason for its existence
in itself, but in the final analysis this reason must be sought in a
being which is pure identity, pure being, pure act, pure perfec­
tion. From this point of view, it matters not whether the world
68 De Munnynck, "L'individualité des animaux supérieurs," in the Revue
Thomiste, 1901, p. 664.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

181

from which we start to prove the existence of God is one single
substance, or a number of substances. It is sufficient for our pur­
pose if there be found in it (at least accidental) multiplicity and
becoming. God cannot be conceived as the substance of the world,
for that would mean that Fie is determined and consequently
perfected by the multiple and transitory phenomena superadded
to Him. He would no longer be identified with His being as A is
A, be pure being or pure act.
24) The principle of sufficient reason is the immediate basis
of the proofs for the existence of God. By the appeal to the
impossible it resolves itself into the principle of identity. In
this sense, it is an analytical principle.

The principle of sufficient reason, on which the proofs for
the existence of God are based, is not, like the principle of
substance, a simple determination of the principle of identity,
but resolves itself into this principle by an appeal to the im­
possible. The principle of sufficient reason may be expressed
by the following formula: “Everything which is, has a sufficient
reason for existing,” or, “Every being has a sufficient reason;”
consequently, “everything is intelligible.” This principle is selfevident, and though it cannot be directly demonstrated, it can
be indirectly demonstrated by the indirect method of proof
known as reductio ad absurdum. The direct demonstration
furnishes, by means of a middle term, intrinsic evidence of a
proposition not immediately evident, or not self-evident. The
demonstration by the method of reductio ad absurdum of an
immediately evident principle cannot make this principle in­
trinsically evident for us, but merely proves that he who
denies this principle must also deny the principle of contradic­
tion, and that he who doubts it must also doubt the principle
of contradiction. It is a unanimously accepted doctrine in
Scholastic philosophy, that metaphysics explains and defends

182

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the first principles by the method of reductio ad impossibile,
referring them to the principle of identity, which is immediately
implied in the first of all ideas, that of being.80
“In principles which are knowable in themselves,” writes
St. Thomas, “there is found a certain order, so that some of
them are plainly included in others; just as all principles are
reduced to this one as to their first: that it is impossible to
affirm and deny at the same time, as is evident from what the
Philosopher says in the Fourth Book of his Metaphysics, text. 9.”
(Ila Ilae, q. 1, a. 7).
Let us explain in what this reductio ad absurdum consists.
First of all, we must show what is the exact meaning of the
formula as an expression of the principle: “Everything which is,
has its reason for being.” The reason for being is twofold:
intrinsic or extrinsic. When we speak of the intrinsic sufficient
reason of anything we mean that which constitutes it to be
of such and such a nature, endowed with certain properties and
none other. Thus, there must be something in a square which
makes it to be what it is, a square with certain properties,
rather than a circle with certain other properties. If it were only
a question of the intrinsic sufficient reason, this principle would
merely be a determination of the principle of identity, and
from this point of view, envisage substance as essence. To deny
that every being has in itself that by which it is as it is, when
it is such of itself and by what properly constitutes it as such,
would evidently be tantamount to denying the principle of
60 Cfr. Book IV of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and the Commentary of St. Thomas,
Lcct. 6. Also the Sumina Theol., la, Ilae, q. 94, a. 2; Suarez, Disp. Met., disp. Ill,
sect. 3, no. 9; John of St. Thomas, Cursus Phil., q. 25, a. 2; Goudin, ed. i860,
IV, p. 255; Kleutgen, Phil. Schoi., nos. 293, 294; Zigliara, Ontol., p. 235; De la
Lumière Intellectuelle, t. Ill, p. 255; Delmas, Ontol., p. 642. This point has been
fully discussed by the present writer in the Revue Thomiste, Sept., 1918, in an
article entitled, “Comment le principe de raison d'être se rattache au principe
d'identité, d’après St. Thomas," reproduced in Le Sens Commun, la Philosophie
de l’Ètre et les Formules Dogmatiques (p. 208).

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

183

identity, to deny that red is red in itself and that a square has
in it something which constitutes it as such with certain prop­
erties, rather than a circle with certain other properties.
But the sufficient reason can also be extrinsic. Thus we say
that the properties of a thing have their sufficient reason in the
nature from which they are derived, and in the specific dif­
ference from which they can be deduced, and which gives them
their intelligibility. The investigation of the nature of a triangle,
for instance, reveals its properties, and in the deliberative ca­
pacity of the reason we detect the presence of freedom. Again,
we say that the sufficient reason for the existence of a being
which does not exist of itself, must be found in another being
which exists of itself. This extrinsic sufficient reason of a con­
tingent being is called its efficient cause; it is its realizing or
actualizing raison d'être, i. e., that which makes it a reality or an
actuality. Finally, we say that a means which is not willed
for its own sake, but in view of an end, has its extrinsic suffi­
cient reason in that end. Thus we see that the extrinsic sufficient
reason may be either the efficient or the final cause. Without
going into details, we shall apply the term cause in its generic
sense to this principle, not considering, for the present, the
question of efficiency.
If, therefore, we wish to express concisely the formula of the
intrinsic and extrinsic elements in the principle of sufficient
reason, we may say that “Every being has a sufficient reason,
either in itself or in some other being, for being what it is; in
itself, if what constitutes it as such belongs to it by its very
nature; in another, if what is attributed to it does not belong
to it by its very nature.”
As we have already seen, the first part of this formula, which
concerns the intrinsic sufficient reason, is simply a determina­
tion of the principle of identity. It is the second part which,
by the method of reductio ad impossibile, can be referred back

184

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

to the supreme principle. In other words, it is not only un­
intelligible, as the followers of Kant claim, but also contradictory,
to say that a being which has not in itself a sufficient reason for what
it is, cannot be said to have its raison d'etre in another. That
such is the case can easily be proved. A. Spir’s Pensée et
Réalité61 will help us to present this argument in a convincing
form.
The principle of identity may be stated as follows: “Every
being is by itself constituted in its own specific nature.” Thus
A is A; what is red, is red by its very nature; the square is
by its very nature a square. From this we derive the negative
formula, which is the principle of non-contradiction: “One and
the same being cannot be and not be what it is;” it cannot,
for instance, be round and not-round. A third formula re­
sulting from this, which may be called the principle of con­
traries or disparities, is: “One and the same being cannot be
at the same time and in the same sense determined in two dif­
ferent ways;” it cannot, for instance, be round and square, for
what is square, as such, is the opposite of what is round, and
by its very nature is not-round. This prepares us for a fourth
formula: If it is a contradiction to say that “the square is
round,” it is no contradiction to say that “the square is red,”
since the attribute in this case is of a different order. In a
square it is the form that we are considering, but in a red
object it is the color. The square can be red without ceasing to be a
square. But there is a contradiction in terms if we say that “the
square of itself, and as such, that is to say, by what determines
it in its own nature, is red;” for what determines a square to be
a square is something different than what determines an object
to be red. It cannot be said that it belongs to the essence of a
square to be red. Hence the fourth formula may also be stated
as follows: “That which is predicated of a being, without
61 Translated from the German by M. Pcnjon, Paris, 1896, pp. 146 and 203.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

185

properly belonging to it, as constituting it in its species, does not
have its raison d’être in itself.” This formula, a direct deduction
from the principle of identity, may also be expressed in this way:
“Elements which are different in themselves, do not of themselves
coalesce to form some sort of unity, and cannot of themselves be
united or mutually predicated.”
Finally, the extrinsic principle of sufficient reason in addition
to this affirms that “what is predicated of a being, though not
belonging to it as properly constituting it in its species, has of
necessity its sufficient reason in something external to it.” St.
Thomas puts it thus: "Omne quod alicui convenit non secundum
quod ipsum est*2, per aliquam causam ei convenit, nam quod
causam non habet primum et immediatum est” “whatever a
thing may fittingly have, according to its nature, accrues to this
thing from an extrinsic cause, for what has no cause, is primary
and immediate.” (C. G., II, ch. 15 c. 2). In another of his works
he expresses the same thought more briefly by remarking that
“things in themselves different cannot unite, unless something
causes them to unite” (la, q. 3, a. 7).
This principle enunciates a new truth, not included in the
fourth formula, for it affirms a relation of dependence, the pres­
ence of an external cause, which cannot be deduced from the
principle of identity by a direct demonstration, but is in itself
immediately evident; however, it can be referred to the prin­
ciple of identity by an indirect demonstration, or, in other words,
by the method of reductio ad absurdum.
It has often been disputed whether it is possible to invoke
this particular method of proof against one who would deny
the extrinsic principle of sufficient reason.63 All reductions so
62 This “secundum quod ipsum est” is the equivalent of Aristotle’s καθ' αυτό
καί ή αυτό, which occurs in his Analytica Post., Bk. I, c. 4.
es M. J. Laminnc, in the Revue Néo-scolastique de Philosophie (Louvain, Nov.,
1912) examines this reductio ad absurdum method, which has been fully ex­
plained by the present author in another of his works, entitled: Le Sens Commun et

186

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

far proposed would seem to imply a begging of the question.
Hence it is contended that the negation of the principle of
sufficient reason is unintelligible, but not absurd. In other words,
it is unintelligible, but it is not absurd, that the contingent should
be uncaused. If it were uncaused, it would exist without a
sufficient reason; for it could not be explained by anything in­
trinsic or extrinsic to it.
Those who reason in this manner depart from the principles
of traditional philosophy and can be refuted by the very fact
that several of their own number admit the absolute necessity
of the principle of sufficient reason or causality. That something
should be absolutely necessary and yet not exist, is an absolute
impossibility. Now, the metaphysical principle of sufficient reason
is not simply a necessity of the hypothetical order, such as the
laws of physics, but it is also an absolute necessity. Therefore,
its denial involves an absolute impossibility, or an absurdity,
for the absurd is that which is absolutely impossible. In other
words, all those who are at variance with us on this point must
concede, as Hume and radical Empiricism do, that, absolutely
speaking, a contingent being can be uncaused, which is the
same as denying the absolute necessity of the principles of suffi­
cient reason and of causality, which in this case are nothing
more than empirical laws endowed with a purely hypothetical
necessity. And just as God can miraculously raise the dead to
life and conserve an accident in existence apart from its sub­
stance, so also He could by His absolute power have created
la Philosophie de l'être, p. 230. The conclusion that Laminne came to was this: "To
deny that the contingent being is conditioned or relative, is to affirm that it is non­
conditioned, non-relative, in a word, that it is absolute, and that we should have
to say that what is, though not self-caused, is self-caused.” "Again it must be ob­
served," remarks Laminne, “that this reasoning holds good only on the supposi­
tion that there must be a sufficient reason for everything which exists; otherwise,
to deny that a contingent being is conditioned, would be to affirm its absolute
existence, in the sense that it does not depend upon another, but not in this sense
that it has the reason for its existence in itself, in other words, that it exists per se."

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

187

a world in which there would have been effects without causes,
an absolute beginning of things, uncaused beings springing from
nothing. These absolute beginnings would be incomprehensible
mysteries, but they would no more involve a contradiction than
the Divine Trinity and the Incarnation. These stringent de­
ductions will not be accepted by any one who wishes to conform
to the general principles of traditional philosophy.
In the second place our answer to those who deny the
absolute necessity of the principle of sufficient reason must be
that the reductio ad absurdum method of proof, rejected by
them, can be established without begging the question, in the
following manner:
To deny the principle of sufficient reason is to affirm that
a contingent being which exists, though not by itself, can be
uncaused or unconditioned. Now, what is uncaused or uncondi­
tioned exists by itself. Therefore, an uncaused contingent being
would at the same time exist by itself and not by itself—which
is absurd. This is precisely what St. Thomas means when he
says: “Whatever it is proper for a thing to have, but not from
its nature, accrues to it from an extrinsic cause; for what has no
cause, is first and immediate.” (C. Gentes, Bk. II, ch. 15, §2).
What is uncaused must by itself and immediately be existence
itself. If the unconditioned were not existence itself, there could be
no possible connection between it and existence, and it could not
be distinguished from nothing. An absolute beginning, a being
originating from nothing without any cause, is, therefore, an
absurdity, since it would be both contingent, that is to say, not
caused by itself, and at the same time uncaused, unconditioned,
non-relative, that is to say, absolute or caused by itself. Its
existence would be its own a se and not a se. Therefore, between
unconditioned or uncaused contingency there is a contradiction.
Against this argument Hume objected that an uncaused con­
tingent being is only negatively a se, that is to say, not caused

ι88

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

by another, but not positively, because it has neither within
nor outside itself a sufficient reason for its existence.®4
In answer to this objection we say that what is neither posi­
tively its own reason for existence nor derives this reason from
something else, is not only unintelligible, but also absurd and
impossible, and cannot be distinguished from nothingness. In
fact, intelligibility, like possibility, cannot be conceived except
in relation to being. That is possible which is capable of exist­
ing, and that is intelligible which has reference to being, the
primary object of the intellect. Consequently, what can in no
way refer to being is absolutely unintelligible; likewise, what in
itself excludes the idea of existence as something repugnant to
its nature, what is not susceptible of existence, is absolutely
impossible. Hence it follows, with regard to actual existence,
that a thing cannot actually exist unless it has an actual relation
to existence. Now, an uncaused contingent being could in no
way be said actually to be related to existence. In fact, according
to the previous hypothesis, it is not caused either by itself or by
something else, and consequently cannot be said either of itself
or by reason of something else to be actually related to existence.
But a relation without any foundation is an impossibility.
Yet this answer does not fully solve the difficulty, for we
may say that this actual relation to existence would be indeed
without a foundation, that is to say, without any raison d’etre,
and therefore unintelligible, but not absurd. The answer to the
preceding objection is simply a begging of the question, because
it presupposes the principle of sufficient reason, which it claims
to defend by a reductio ad absurdum.
In reply we may say that this relation without a foundation
is unintelligible only for the reason that it is in no possible way
related to being; it is beyond the sphere of being and of in­
telligibility, just like mere nothing, and consequently, is not only
M This same objection was proposed by Laminae; see footnote to pp. 185 f.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

189

unintelligible, but also absurd and impossible. To make this
point still clearer, we must consider that this relation with­
out a foundation would be a relation denoting an agreement
between actual existence and uncaused contingent being. Now,
a relation which denotes an agreement necessarily presupposes
two terms which have some element in common, by which
the one refers to the other; but in this case actual existence
and uncaused contingent being have nothing in common by
which they could be referred to each other, since the very defini­
tion of uncaused contingent being implies that which exists
neither by itself nor by reason of anything else, and has, there­
fore, nothing by reason of which it could be said to exist. This
relation of agreement consequently is not only unintelligible, but
also absurd, since it would be a relation of agreement between
terms which are in no way related to each other, and have
nothing in common which might constitute a basis of agreement.
Hegel perceived this truth clearly when he admitted that a
becoming which is its own sufficient reason involves a con­
tradiction.
In a word, the uncaused contingent being either is without
any sufficient reason for its existence, in which case it is and is
not distinguished from nothing; or else it is its own sufficient
reason, and then it is and is not distinct from self-existent
Being.
Of course, this indirect demonstration does not pretend to
give the intrinsic evidence of the principle of sufficient reason
—which principle is immediately self-evident and therefore needs
no proof. But it does show that the denial of the necessity of
this principle is not only unintelligible and disastrous, as Kant
maintains, but also contradictory. To deny this principle means
to deny the principle of contradiction; and to doubt it means
to doubt the principle of contradiction. In this sense we say
that the principle of sufficient reason is analytical. For a judg-

190

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

ment to be analytical, it is not necessary that there should be
logical identity between the subject and the predicate, for in
that case the judgment would be purely tautological and convey
no knowledge whatever to the mind. In every affirmative judg­
ment, even in the principle of identity, there is real identity be­
tween subject and predicate, though they differ logically. A
judgment is analytical and a priori or synthetical and a posteriori,
according as this real identity appears from a mere analysis of
the notions implied in the subject and the predicate, or is ac­
quired by observation of existing things. In the present case
the analysis of the terms reveals to us that a real identity under­
lies the logical difference between subject and predicate, which
cannot be denied without absurdity.
However, the principle of sufficient reason is not analytical on
the same grounds as the principle of identity. In fact, the predi­
cate of this latter principle is included in the notion of the
subject, as the elements of a definition are included in the defined
subject; whereas in the case of the (extrinsic) principle of suffi­
cient reason, the predicate agrees with the subject merely as
an immediate property agrees with the essence from which it
derives. Aristotle distinguishes these two different modes of
necessary attribution. (Analytica Post., Bk. I, ch. iv; Comment,
of St. Thomas, Leet. io). In the principle of identity we affirm
that “every being has its own proper essence,” by which it is
defined; thus a man is a man, a lion is a lion, what is necessary
is necessary, and cannot as well not be, the contingent is the
contingent, and can as well not be. We are here concerned
with definitions which, as the Scholastics say, belong to the
first mode of per se predication (in primo modo dicendi per se)
as explained by Aristotle in the above-quoted passage. The
principle of sufficient reason, on the contrary, affirms of a con­
tingent being not that which defines it, but a property which
immediately follows from its nature, and this is known as the

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

191

second mode of per se predication (in secundo modo dicendi
per se). “Though the relation to its cause,” says St. Thomas
(la, q. 44, ad 1), “is not part of the definition of the thing
caused, it follows from its nature; from the fact that a thing
has being by participation, it follows that it is caused by another
being. Hence such a being cannot exist without being caused,
just as a man cannot be a man without having the faculty of
laughing,” which is one of the properties of human nature.
The contingent being can and must be defined without ref­
erence to its relation of dependence upon some other being.
Contingent being is in fact defined as that which can be and
just as well not be. But we cannot deny that a contingent
being is related to some other being upon which it depends,
without at the same time denying its very contingency. This
point has been established by our method of proof showing that
such a view leads to an absurdity or impossibility. To deny to
such a being this relation of dependence is to identify it either
with self-existent Being or with nothing.
The chief difficulty presented by the principle of sufficient
reason is, how to reconcile it with (divine or human) liberty.
For either there is a sufficient reason which determines the free
act as such, and then it is no longer free, or else it has no
determining cause, and tlien its beginning is absolute, which
implies a contradiction. We shall discuss this problem later.
25) The principle of efficient causality is the immediate basis
of the proofs for the existence of God. The idea of efficient
cause and its ontological validity. Efficient causality, defined
in terms of actual being, transcends the order of phenomena
and is an accidentally sensible, but essentially intelligible,
entity.
From the principle of sufficient reason are derived the prin­
ciple of efficient causality, properly so called, of finality, and of

192

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

induction. The sufficient reason of a thing is more general in
scope than its cause. The cause is that upon which something
depends for its existence;65 in other words, it is the sufficient
reason for the existence of its effect, and especially is this the
case with the efficient cause, in that it realizes, or, more correctly,
actualizes the effect; but not every sufficient reason is a cause;
thus, the specific difference is the reason for the properties of a
being, but not their cause.
We shall not investigate, in order to refute the Empirics,
whether this idea of the efficient cause comes to us from ex­
ternal experience (resistance offered by material things with
which we come in contact), or whether it is the result of in­
ternal experience (a consciousness of the effort which we exert
upon these external objects). It would also be futile to inquire,
concerning the knowledge acquired by sense perception, such
as found in animals, whether the effort is merely followed by
a displacement of an external mobile, or whether it produces
or realizes this displacement. Hume and all his followers affirm
that the senses tell us nothing about the effects of causality,
but merely that there is a succession of events. It is certain that
causality cannot be perceived by the senses in the same way
as color or sound; not being directly sensible (sensibile per se)
it is, like substance, a reality of the intelligible order per se (a
noumenon); but it can truly be said to be accidentally sensible
(sensibile per accidens') “because the intellect immediately per­
ceives it when confronted with the object of sense perception.”
(De Anitna, Bk. II; Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 13). The
sensitive faculty perceives the object which is the cause, but
not precisely qua cause. In like manner the intellect perceives
65 All reality and becoming depend for their existence upon various principles:
the formal cause, which intrinsically specifies them; the material cause, which
individualizes them; the efficient cause, which brings them into being, and the
final cause, which denotes the end to which they arc ordained. The exemplary
idea is an extrinsic formal cause.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

193

being as such, just as it alone perceives substance as such,
underneath the sensible qualities of color, sound, and smell,
which are direct objects of sense perception; in the same way
the intellect alone can perceive directly {per se) the realization,
or production, or actualization of that which comes in addi­
tion to existence. In fact, this realization can have no meaning
except in so far as it refers to being, and cannot, therefore, be
perceived as such except by that faculty which has for its formal
object being, and not color, or sound, or the internal act. As
soon as the senses show that a change has taken place, reason
seeks to explain the why and wherefore. Hence it is of little con­
sequence, by what experience, or by what sensible image we
arrive at the idea of cause. This idea does not derive its absolute,
universal, and supra-phenomenal entity from sense perception
(for it could be an innate idea and still have these same traits),
but from its relation to being, which is the formal object of the
intellect. We are absolutely certain that every being which is
indifferent to existence requires an efficient cause, that is to
say, has to be realized (whether in time or from eternity, makes
no difference), because the intellect knows intuitively that this
being does not exist as something which has existence intrin­
sically and primarily as its own {per se primo), but as something
which gets this existence from another {ab alio or per aliud).
Having proved the absolute necessity of the extrinsic principle
of sufficient reason, it is unnecessary to stress the point any
further. So far we have referred only to the principle of efficiency
in support of this principle, but later on we shall see that it
receives additional confirmation from the principle of finality.
This concept of causality, therefore, is by no means anthro­
pomorphic; universal causality is not an externally exerted in­
fluence of an internal experience, of an occurrence in human
life. Causality is not, like universal attraction, a generalized
experience; it is the object of a primary idea of the human

194

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

intellect, considered not as human, but as intellect. In so far
as it is human, our intellect has for its object the essence of
sensible things; in so far as it is intellect, like all intellects, its
formal and adequate object is being. (St. Thomas, Summa
Theol., la, q. 12, a. 4, c and ad 311m). Now, we have just
defined causality as immediately referring to being, and have
thus established its ontological validity and laid the remote
foundation of its transcendental and analogical validity—in other
words of the possibility of attributing it to God. Further on
(nos. 29 and 30) we shall see that being can be attributed to
God, because the notion of being, unlike that of genus, is not
univocal, but transcends all genera. The same must be said of
causality and of certain other notions (such as those of intellect
and will) which are defined by reason of their immediate ref­
erence to being, and not to some particular mode of being.

26) All "becoming,” and every composite, necessarily demands
a cause.

The metaphysical principle of causality, so closely connected
with being, applies to everything which does not exist by itself.
It includes within its scope all becoming, and, on a closer
consideration of the question in its more general aspect, every­
thing composite comes under its influence.
First of all, becoming demands an extrinsic and sufficient
reason, because it is a successive union of diverse elements (for
instance, when what is violet becomes red). Now, the uncondi­
tional union of diverse elements is impossible, for elements that
are different in themselves cannot be united (principle of iden­
tity). This extrinsic reason is an efficient cause. Becoming, which
is a gradual process of realization, must be realized by some
other thing than itself. In fact, as Aristotle points out in his
reply to the arguments of Parmenides and Heraclitus {Phys.,
Bk. I, c. 8; Met., Bk. IX), the origin of becoming presupposes

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

195

an intermediate state between being, which is determined, and
mere nothing; this intermediate state is being as yet undeter­
mined or in potency, for what is already determined, since it is
actually being, cannot be the cause of being as such; from noth­
ing, nothing comes; and yet being becomes. (See no. 21). Hence
becoming is a transition from potency to act; what becomes
hot had a capacity for becoming hot, though it was not actually
hot; the pupil who was capable of becoming a philosopher (a
potency which no dog possesses), but who was not a philosopher,
becomes one. Potency, which of itself is not an act, or is not
actualized, cannot by itself pass from potentiality to act. To
deny this would be to deny the principle of identity. It cannot,
therefore, be actualized, except by something which is in act.
But it is impossible for the same thing in the same sense to be
both in potentiality and in act, and, therefore, the transition
from potentiality to actuality must be accomplished by some­
thing else; and this actualizing or realizing principle is pre­
cisely what we call the efficient cause. “Nothing can be reduced
from potentiality to actuality, except by some being already in
a state of actuality. But it is not possible that the same thing
should be at once actual and potential in the same respect."
(la, q. 2, a. 3).
Becoming is thus rendered intelligible, not by interpreting it
in terms of rest (as did Descartes, who considered it to be a
mechanical and not a metaphysical problem), but by considering
it from the standpoint of being, in accordance with the theory
of potentiality and actuality into which being is divided. As
we have already observed (no. 21), this division of being must
needs be admitted if we wish to defend against Parmenides the
existence of becoming, and against Heraclitus the objective
validity of the principle of identity. The proofs derived from
the theories of movement, efficient causes, and contingency are
grounded on this division of being.

iç6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

From this point of view we not only arrive at a satisfactory
explanation of becoming, but also, in the static order and in
accordance with the ultimate profundities of being, which are
beyond the scope of becoming, we get an explanation of mul­
tiplicity or diversity. In the first place, whether we consider
multiplicity as a plurality of beings having a common element
which establishes their claim to a unity consisting in a certain
similarity, which is either specific, generic, or only analogical;
or whether we view it as a plurality of parts in one and the
same being, by reason of which it claims for them a unity of
composition—all multiplicity demands an extrinsic sufficient
reason. In fact, such a multiplicity is a union of diverse elements.
Now, an unconditional union of diverse elements is impossible.
Elements which are in themselves diverse cannot of themselves
and as such be united, nor even be similar (principle of iden­
tity). ‘‘Multitudo non reddit rationem unitatis" (multitude does
not explain the notion of unity). See further on, in no. 39, the
proof for the existence of God from the degrees of perfection
in being.
This extrinsic raison d'être must be an efficient cause, or, in
other words, a principle of actualization. In fact, multiplicity,
like becoming, is always a composition of potentiality and act,
and not pure actuality. Aristotle showed how Parmenides was
mistaken on this point when he declared all multiplicity, like
all movement, to be an illusion. “Everything external to being
(other than being itself) is non-being,” said the Eleatic philos­
opher; “and what is non-being is non-existent. Therefore, being
is one, and there is only one being; we can conceive of noth­
ing that could be added to being as a differentiating ele­
ment, for anything thus added would also be being. In other
words, if there were two beings, they would have to be dis­
tinguished the one from the other by something other than
being, and what is other than being is non-being. Now, being

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

197

exists, whereas non-being does not exist; and we cannot think
otherwise.” (Aristotle, I Met., Bk. I, c. 5; Comment, of St.
Thomas, Leet. 9). This was practically a denial of the world
as something external to us and its absorption in God, who
alone is absolutely one and immutable. Yet we must be grateful
to Parmenides for so resolutely affirming the supreme law of
thought and reality, i. e., the principle of identity, which is the
basis of every proof for the existence of God. After all, it is a
fact attested by experience that the world exists, and in it we
observe that there is multiplicity. This same multiplicity is
noticeable also in the conceptual order. It must be explained,
without, however, abandoning the first principle of reason.
Plato in his Sophist (241 D, 257 A, 259 E), in order to explain
the notion of multiplicity, does not fear to “incur the risk of be­
ing considered a parricide, by attacking the formula of Parmenides
and affirming the existence of non-being" which is the interme­
diate state between being and mere nothing, the limit with re­
gard to being. In virtue of this very principle of identity, since
the objects of our knowledge all have being as their common ele­
ment, it is only by this common element that they can differ
from one another. We are, therefore, compelled to say that they
differ by something other than being; and what is other than
being, is non-being. We must consequently admit that non-being
is the intermediate state between being and mere nothing, the
limit of being.
Aristotle says that the distinction between various individuals
of the same species cannot be explained except by admitting the
reality of non-being, or matter, as the subject and limit of the
form common to these individuals. Thus matter—inasmuch as it
postulates this particular quantity and not some other—is the
principle of individuation and suffices to distinguish two individ­
uals which, if we were to consider merely their form and quali­
ties, would be as indistinguishable as two drops of water. St.

ig8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Thomas states still more precisely that multiplicity or distinction
between beings in general can be explained only by assuming
the reality of non-being in each of them, or, in other words, a
potency, which is the subject and limit of the existential act com­
mon to all these beings. Hence we say that "actus multiplicatur
et limitatur per potentiam" (act in its recurrence and restriction
depends upon potentiality. (la, q. 7, a. 1; C. Gentes, Bk. II, c. 52).
Minerals, vegetables, animals, men, and angels all have one ele­
ment in common, namely, existence; one principle which differ­
entiates them, namely, an essence susceptible of existence and
which in the scale of beings ranging from stone to pure spirit
receives existence according to its more or less limited capacity
for it. We see that this composite of essence and existence, which
results from a union of diverse elements, demands an extrinsic
raison d'etre, since an unconditioned union of diverse elements
is impossible. This raison d’etre must be the cause of actualiza­
tion, since this composite does not actualize itself and is not, as
such, self-existent. “Every composite has a cause, for things which
are different in themselves cannot unite into one, unless some­
thing causes them to unite.” (la, q. 3, a. 7).
Multiplicity is thus made intelligible by means of being, by the
division of being into potency and act. This division imposes
itself if we wish to maintain that the multiple exists, without
denying the objective validity of the principle of identity. It is
this principle which compels us to distinguish in everything
that is, and can as well not be, non-being (real or potency) and
actual being, essence and existence. This same principle, to­
gether with that of sufficient reason, constrains us to refer all
beings to a self-subsistent Being, “Ipsum esse subsistens," namely,
God, who alone is His own sufficient reason for existing, because
He alone is pure identity. The supreme principle of thought will
then appear as the supreme principle of reality. (la, q. 3, a. 4
and 7).

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

199

27) The principle of finality, derived from the principle of suffi­
cient reason. The knowledge of its absolute validity, far from
presupposing the knowledge of God’s existence, must be the
means by which it becomes known to us.

All becoming and every composite, therefore, demands an effi­
cient cause, and likewise a final cause, and two external raisons
d’être. We shall stress this second point, that of finality, when
we come to discuss the proof for God’s existence derived from
the order observable in the universe. For the present it is suffi­
cient if we show how the principle of finality is connected with
that of sufficient reason, in order to complete the general meta­
physical notions upon which the proofs for the existence of God
ultimately rest.
The idea of an end or purpose is derived from our activity as
reasonable beings; we propose to ourselves certain ends, and act
for the purpose of reaching them. As for the senses, these, if left
to themselves, are no more capable of acquiring the notion of
finality than they are of arriving at the notion of causality, or
that of substance, or that of being. The animal, remarks St.
Thomas, tends by instinct both toward the means and toward the
end of its action, without perceiving the reason why there is a
connection between means and end. Thus the bird picks up
wisps of straw for building its nest, without adverting to the
fact that the nest is the end or reason of its action. (la Ilae, q. 1,
a. 2). Man, on the other hand, endowed with intelligence, which
is a faculty of being, discovers in his own actions the idea of final­
ity, and when he wishes to give an intelligent explanation of
any action as a faculty of being, no matter whether the one
performing the action be intelligent or non-intelligent, animate
or inanimate, perceives that this action just as necessarily postu­
lates a final as it does an efficient cause. And so he formulates
the principle of finality by affirming that “Omne agens agit prop­
ter finem" (every agent acts for an end). (Aristotle, Phys., Bk.

200

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

II, ch. 3; St. Thomas, Summa Th., la, q. 44, a. 4; la Ilae, q. 1,
a. 2; C. Gentes, Bk. Ill, ch. 2).
This principle, which is self-evident to all who correctly under­
stand the terms, is by no means an anthropomorphic extension
of our internal experience, but can easily be referred back to the
principle of sufficient reason.
As soon as we understand what is meant by the word end, this
principle is self-evident. End is not only the terminus or result
of an action, but the reason why the action has taken place; it is
the το ού w«a, id cujus gratia aliquid fit—that for the sake of
which an agent acts. It is a definite perfection, which directly re­
fers to the agent as its own good, and for the sake of which the
agent acts. It will not do to say that the agent has acquired this
end accidentally, by some fortunate chance; it must be the
result of a pre-ordained action on his part.
Now every agent, aside from the accidental effects which result
from its contact with other agents, produces a definite effect ac­
cording to its own natural law, and this effect directly accrues
to it as its own perfection, its own good. It cannot produce this
definite and appropriate effect rather than any other, except on
condition that it has a tendency to produce this particular ef­
fect rather than any other. It is not necessary for the agent to
know the cause of this tendency, but at least that it is by its
nature ordained towards this object. Thus die sense of sight pro­
duces an act which is not indifferent, but determined, and this
act constitutes for it a good, a perfection, which it is natural for
it to have. The reason why the sense of sight perceives colors
instead of hearing sounds is because it is naturally ordained
to seeing and not to hearing, because seeing is its very raison
d’être. This is a self-evident truth, which certainly transcends
the range of sense perception, but is perceived at once by the
intellect, a faculty of being, when it considers such an organ as
the eye or ear. Finality is sensibile per accidens and intelligibile

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

201

per se. No process of reasoning is required to satisfy ourselves
that the eye is made for seeing or that the wings of a bird are
made for flying. Natural reason sees at once that the bird does
not fly because it has wings, but it has wings in order that it may
fly. Flying is of its very nature. The mind has intuitive knowl­
edge of this fact, which is practically an answer to the objection
that it may have happened by some fortunate chance; for chance
is accidental and the fortuitous effect is an accidental result of the
contact of two agencies, whereas vision, on the contrary, is not an
accidental effect of the eye, but the natural exercise of this organic
faculty.
This principle of finality (“every agent acts for an end”) is not
only self-evident as soon as the terms of the proposition are under­
stood, but it can also be proved indirectly by showing that to deny
it leads to the absurdity of denying the principle of sufficient reason,
which latter cannot be rejected without necessarily rejecting the
principle of contradiction.
If every agent produces, not an indifferent effect whatsoever,
but a determined effect which belongs to it by right, though it
does not tend towards this effect, and is not ordained for it; if,
e. g., the acorn produces the oak rather than the poplar, though
it is not ordained for the one rather than for the other; if the
eye sees rather than hears, though it is not naturally predisposed
for the former act instead of the latter—it follows that there is
no way of explaining by the principle of sufficient reason how it
is that the effect is definitely established and essentially refers to
a definite cause. Unless these qualities were somehow present in
the efficient cause, they could not be produced in the effect. Now,
they are there merely in a virtual manner, inasmuch as the efficient
cause tended to produce this particular effect rather than any
other, and inasmuch as it was ordained for this effect. Thus, nu­
trition is virtually contained in the vegetative faculty and in the
food, whereas this nutritive element is not contained in the

202

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

faculty of sight and the object seen. A fine play at the theatre is
not food for the body, nor is the process of digestion accom­
plished with the eyes. The stomach is ordained for that purpose,
just as the eye is ordained for seeing. To deny this order is to
deny the raison d'être of the determination and inherent good­
ness or essential appropriateness of tire effect produced. As St.
Thomas remarks (la, q. 44, a. 4), “Every agent acts for an
end, otherwise one thing would not follow from the action of
the agent more than another, unless it were by chance.” If the
agent did not tend towards its effect, if it did not have at least
a natural intention for it, if it were not naturally ordained to
produce it, it would no more produce this particular effect than
any other, except by accident or chance—which would mean
that it had no natural effect. In other words, action is essentially
intentional, i. e., ord ai ped towards some end. Without this
tendency not only the effect, but the activity itself, would be
without a sufficient cause, i.e., without determination or congruity, or, to put it differently, it could no more be said to be
an attraction than a repulsion, vision than audition, digestion
than respiration. There must be some special reason why the
efficient cause begins to operate, instead of remaining inactive,
and why it produces this particular effect rather than another.
Finally, the principle of activity itself, i.e., potency (active or
passive) cannot be conceived except as something essentially or­
dained towards its act. "Potentia dicitur ad actum," 66 is one of
the formulas expressing the principle of finality. As the imperfect
is to the perfect, the relative to the absolute, so is potency to
actuality. Only the absolute has its own sufficient reason in
itself. That is why the final is the noblest of the four causes.
To say that finality operates after the manner of fortuitous
08 In God, active potency docs not differ from activity; but the transitive in­
fluence of this activity must be directed to some end, not indeed, to that of the
acquisition of the Sovereign Good, which God possesses in Himself, but to the
manifestation of this good or His glory.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

203

chance, does not explain this principle. Chance is, indeed, an
accidental cause (Aristotle, Phys., Bk. II, ch. 8; Leet. 7 to 10 of
tire Commentary of St. Thomas) ; but it explains only accidental
effects and congruities. In digging a grave, one may accidentally
find a treasure. But it cannot be maintained that all the effects
produced in nature are accidental, for it is a philosophical truth
that the accidental presupposes the essential Ç’quod est per ac­
cidens, accidit ei quod est per se’’). It is an accident if a doctor
happens to be a musician, says Aristotle, but that he is a physician
and can cure diseases, is no more accidental than it is for a
musician to be a musician and to possess a knowledge of his
particular art. To relegate the essential to the accidental would
mean the complete destruction not only of all nature, but of
all being. We should then have simply a series of fortuitous
events with nothing to bring them about, which is absurd.
Nor will it do to reject the final and have recourse solely to
the efficient cause; for in that case there would be no raison
d’être for the action produced by the agent. If there is not in it
some good corresponding to the agent’s natural inclination, the
action itself, and the fact that it is directed towards some certain
end rather than another, would both be inexplicable. 67
Therefore, every agent acts for an end. The word for has
a meaning, not only when applied to human activity, in which
the end is known and intended, but also when applied to any
other kind of activity. Whereas the efficient cause is the suf­
ficient reason as a realizing principle (or that by which a thing
is accomplished), the final cause is the sufficient reason for the
thing which is accomplished. The eyes are made for seeing,
and not for hearing. Therefore, the principle of finality, like
that of causality, is an analytical one in the Aristotelian sense.
87 The principle of induction that: “Every natural cause in the same circum­
stances always produces the same effect,” is also derived from the principle of
sufficient reason; for a change in the effect without a previous change in the
cause or in the circumstances, would be without a raison d’etre.

204

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Two agents may come in contact by chance, but the proper
action of each must necessarily have an end in view. Some68
have thought that the knowledge of the absolute validity of the
principle of finality presupposes absolute certainty of the ex­
istence of God as the intelligent cause of the world. They re­
tain the argument based on the order to be found in the world
as a popular proof, but they reject every proof for the existence
of God based upon intrinsic finality, as begging the question.
This finality rests upon the principle that a natural desire cannot
remain unfulfilled. We have just seen that the principle of
finality, on the contrary, is an analytical principle.69
Not only is it self-evident, anteriorly to any knowledge what­
ever of the existence of God, that every agent acts for an end,
but, as we shall see, it can be shown that this end must be
known precisely as an end {sub ratione finis') by this or some
other agent. A means cannot be ordained to an end, except by
an intelligent agent, for only an intelligent being can perceive
this reason for being (“the object of the intellect is being”),
and unite both means and end in one concept. And if intelligence
can be referred as a transcendental relation to being, and does
not imply an imperfection, any more than this is implied in
being, then intelligence can and must be attributed analogically
to the first cause.
This idea of an intelligent designer will be the basic principle
in the proof of the existence of God from the order that exists
in the world (see infra, no. 40).
These are the metaphysical principles70 of the proofs .for
88 P. Janet, for instance, in his work, Les Causes Finales.
89 See further on (no. 40) the quotations from the writings of P. Gardeil, O.P.,
Hartmann, Jouffroy, Ravaisson, and Lachelicr.
70 To these principles may be added that of mutation or change. “Every change
presupposes a subject.” What is actually subject to change, cannot be absolutely
simple; it is not simply what it acquires, but it receives what it acquires. Or, if
this change is a loss, the loss is to be attributed to a subject. This principle is re­
lated to the material cause (the subject of change), just as the principle of finality

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

205

the existence of God. They are connected with each other in
the following manner: First of all we have the proper object of
sensible intuition, which is the phenomenon; then the intellect,
by means of abstractive intuition, acquires a knowledge of being
and its first principles, which it connects one and all with the
principle of identity, which declares what belongs primarily to
being.
Thus we have established the ontological validity of first ideas
and first principles. All that now remains is to defend their
transcendental validity, or their aptitude to enable us to acquire a
certain knowledge of God as the first and transcendental cause.
ARTICLE II
THE TRANSCENDENTAL VALIDITY OF FIRST IDEAS AND
FIRST PRINCIPLES

So far we have defended simply the necessity and the objective
or ontological validity of the metaphysical principles of identity,
sufficient reason, causality, and finality, which serve as the basis
upon which the proofs of God’s existence are proximately and
immediately grounded. We have seen that these principles are
not merely the result of a series of frequently recurring associa­
tions, or simple and necessary laws of thought; for they not only
affect (internal and external) phenomena, but also being itself.
Empiricism and the Subjectivistic Conceptualism of Kant, far
from rendering intelligible those facts which we have proved evi­
dent to natural reason, attempt to suppress them. It is only tradi­
tional Realism or the philosophy of being yvhich upholds and
explains them.
Here a new difficulty arises: Does the principle of causality
is related to the final cause, that of efficient causality to the cause of the same
order, and those of identity and intrinsic sufficient reason to the formal and specify­
ing cause.

2o6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

enable us to rise from finite beings to the existence of that in­
finitely perfect transcendental Being, distinct from the world,
which we have in mind when we utter the word God? Does
the principle of causality entitle us to put the little word is after
the nominal definition of God and say that there is a first cause,
distinct from the world and infinitely perfect?
This constitutes the problem of not merely ontological,
but also transcendental validity, of the notion of efficient cause
and of the principle of causality; and as this notion and its cor­
relative principle presuppose others that are more universal and
simpler, the problem here at issue may be considered in a
general way as that of the transcendental validity of first ideas
and first principles.

28) The objections of modern idealistic and empirical Ag­
nosticism and those of medieval Agnosticism
Modern Agnosticism, whether it be idealistic or empiristic,
denies the ontological validity of first ideas or their bearing
upon being beyond phenomena and, a fortiori, their transcen­
dental validity, or that they lead up to a knowledge of God. It
confirms its negation by a reference to the antinomies, before
which, it claims, reason comes to a halt whenever it seeks to
pass beyond phenomena, and especially when it attempts to prove
the existence of God and His attributes.
Mention has already been made (no. 13) of the Kantian
antinomies, especially the fourth, which directly bears upon the
question of the existence of God. On the one hand, the “thesis,”
which is identical with that defended by the metaphysics of the
Schools, concludes to the existence of a necessary being, a first
cause, in order to explain the manifest changes in the universe.
But the “antithesis” seems to be no less conclusively demon­
strated, namely, that a necessary being and first cause cannot
exist outside of the world, for, directly this cause began to act,

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

207

it would admit that it had a beginning, and would therefore
belong to time and consequently to the world.
Moreover, according to the third antinomy of Kant, the first
cause must be a free cause. For a series of causes, to be finite,
must start with a cause which has no need of being previously
determined and which can determine itself. On the other hand,
however, the free act would be without a determining cause; for
no sufficient reason could be given why the free cause, from be­
ing undetermined, should become determined. (For a solution of
this antimony see the second volume of this work, infra., no. 61).
The other two Kantian antinomies, which refer to time, space,
and matter, are of less importance in the question that con­
cerns us here. With regard to the first, it is questioned whether
the world had a beginning or is caused ab aeterno. On this
point we remarked above, referring to St. Thomas (la, q. 46),
that neither the thesis nor the antithesis of this antinomy can
be demonstrated, and a positive answer can be given only from
revelation, since this question is one of those which depend
solely upon the divine freedom. As for the second antinomy,
which concerns matter or indefinitely divisible corporeal sub­
stance, the difficulty is solved by means of the distinction between
potency and act, as we explained when discussing the principle
of substance. This distinction will also enable us to solve the
third and fourth Kantian antinomies, both of which concern
freedom and the first cause.
We know how Kant solves this fourth antinomy, as well as
the third, by distinguishing between the world of sense or of
sensory phenomena, and the intelligible world or of noumena. On
this point he follows the metaphysics of the Schools. The an­
tithesis (empiristic in scope), is true of the world of sense, which
does not contain a necessary being, and the empirical point of
view does not permit us to ascend to the existence of an uncaused
first cause. So far we are in agreement with Kant. As for the thesis

2o8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

(a metaphysico-dogmatic assertion), inasmuch as it admits, out­
side of the series of sensible objects, a necessary cause in the
intelligible or noumenal order, he says it does not involve a
contradiction, and we can grant the possibility of a first cause.
But does this cause really exist? According to Kant, it can be
affirmed only as the result of an act of moral faith. Practical
reason postulates the existence of God as the supreme guarantee
of the moral order and of the definitive triumph of good, and
thus rational theology is subordinated to an independent mo­
rality. As for the classical proofs of rational theology, Kant took
it upon himself to demonstrate their insufficiency by showing that
they are vitiated by that transcendental illusion which lurks in St.
Anselm’s well-known argument. Reason (Vernunft), relying as
it does upon causality, which is nothing but a category of the
understanding (Verstand), cannot claim to go beyond the order
of phenomena.
We shall see in our exposition of the classical proofs that our
concept of causality is defined, not as Kant defines it, as a
functioning of phenomena, but of being: for causality means the
realization of that which is without being. From this vantage
ground it will be possible to conclude to the existence of the
primary being or first cause, and to answer the objections formu­
lated by Kant against each of the traditional proofs. For our
present purpose it is sufficient to show that the distinction which
Kant draws between reason and understanding is false.
When we explained that in each of its three operations (simple
apprehension, judgment, and reasoning) the intellect has being
for its formal object, we sufficiently proved the falsity of the
Kantian distinction between reason (Vernunjt) and understand­
ing (Verstand)Besides the three degrees of abstraction, there
1 See St. Thomas, la, q. 79, a. 8 and 9: “Whether reason is distinct from
the intellect”; ‘‘Whether the higher and lower reason are distinct powers.” Also
De Veritate, q. 15. a. 1 and 2.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

209

is no other way in which the intellect can be distinguished in its
reference to objects of the sensible and intelligible order.2 The
first degree abstracts solely from individual matter; it is proper
to the experimental sciences, such as chemistry, which considers
not this or that particular molecule of water, but the molecule
of water as such. The second degree abstracts from all sensible
matter, that is to say, from all sensible qualities, but not from
quantity; this kind of abstraction is used in mathematics. The
third degree abstracts from all that is material (space and time),
and only considers being as such and its laws; this abstraction is
that of metaphysics. This third degree corresponds in a meas­
ure to the operations of what Kant calls reason (which strives
to attain the purely intelligible); but the abstractive intuition of
this third degree, though empty of all sensible content, is not, as
Kant claims, devoid of all reality. On the contrary, it arrives at
being, which dominates and transcends all the categories or
predicaments or supreme genera, and also at a knowledge of
everything which in its definition expresses an immediate re­
lation to being, and, like being, abstracts from everything which
is material, from space and time. This degree of abstraction
includes: (1) the primary divisions of being into potentiality
and actuality, essence and existence; (2) the transcendental
properties of being; namely, unity, truth, goodness, and conse­
quently also intelligence (which has a vital relation to being),
and free will (which has a vital relation to goodness); (3) the
four causes conceived as functioning by reason of the potentiality
and actuality into which being is divided.
Kant could not see how the formal reason of causality tran­
scends time as well as space, and how it can have unchanging
eternity for its measure.
2 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. VI, ch. I, Leet. 1 of St. Thomas, and Bk. X, c. Ill;
St. Thomas, Sup. Boëtium de Trinitate, q. 5, a. 1; John of St. Thomas, Cursus
Phil., Logica, q. 27, a. 1; De Distinctione Scientiarum; Zigliara, Summa Phil.,
Vol. I, pp. 296-302.

210

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Modern Agnosticism, in its empirical phase, likewise rejects
the transcendent validity of primary ideas, since it does not admit
that they have an ontological bearing, but holds that their value
is purely phenomenal and empirical. Like the Agnosticism of
Kant, this modern form of Agnosticism confirms its denial by
appealing to the antinomies in which, so it claims, the rational
theology of the Schoolmen becomes hopelessly involved. “On
the one hand,” writes Spencer, “the absolute is required as first
cause, and on the other hand the absolute as such cannot be a
cause; it would be related to its effect. If you say that it exists
first by itself and afterwards becomes a cause, you are con­
fronted with another difficulty: for how can the infinite become
that which it was not from the first? (This would mean that
it acquires a perfection). If you say that this can be so because
it is free: then you again contradict yourself; for freedom sup­
poses consciousness, and consciousness, being only conceivable as
a relation, cannot belong to the absolute,” 3 but implies a duality
of subject and object, which is opposed to the perfect simplicity
of the Absolute. Along with these objections we have certain
well-known classical difficulties, for instance, how can we recon­
cile the divine simplicity with the plurality of perfections which
are formally, and not merely virtually, attributed to God? How
can we reconcile God’s infinite justice with His mercy, His fore­
knowledge with the freedom of the human will, the omni­
potence of an infinitely good God with the existence of evil?
Before concluding our exposé of these objections, a few words
must be said about medieval Agnosticism, whose chief exponent
was Maimonides (Rabbi Moses). In these latter days, certain
Catholic writers have found fault with the Thomistic doctrine of
analogy as scarcely differing from the teaching of Maimonides,
except perhaps in words. In matter of fact there is a very real
and profound difference between the two positions.
8 First Principles, p. 32.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

211

Maimonides did not, Eke the modern Agnostics, deny the
ontological vaHdity of primary ideas, but he so depreciated it that
the only logical consequence for him would have been to re­
ject it altogether. It was beyond his comprehension how ideas
acquired from finite things can express a perfection which is
formally present in the Infinite, and how the plurality of these
perfections can be reconciled with the absolute simplicity of
God.
In his De Potentia (q. 7, a. 5), where he discusses this ques­
tion more fully than in the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas sums
up the opinion of Maimonides as follows: “According to him,
the positive absolute terms (good, wise), when applied to God,
must be understood in two ways: (1) To say that God is wise
does not mean that wisdom is in Him, but that He performs His
works after the manner of a wise man, who ordains all things
to a legitimate end; (2) To say that God is good, or that He
lives, docs not mean that wisdom and life are in Him, but that
He is not like non-wise and non-living beings. Others say that
the expression, 'God is good' simply means that God is the
cause of goodness which is found in things; in other words,
goodness is in God not formally, but solely in a virtual manner,
in so far as He is able to produce it.” (Cfr. S. Th., la, q. 13, a. 2).
In article 7 of the same question of his De Potentia St. Thomas
restates the opinion of Maimonides in the following simple
words: “Some have thought that nothing which can be attributed
to God and the creature belongs to them analogically, but merely
in a purely equivocal sense. This was the opinion of Maimonides,
as is evident from his writings.” “This opinion,” adds the
Angelic Doctor, “cannot be true. ... If it were, the words we
use to express our knowledge of God would be vain, devoid of
meaning, and all the demonstrations of the existence of God
given by the philosophers would be sophistical; for instance, that
based on the principle that whatever is in potentiality becomes an

212

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

act by some active being, would not permit us to conclude that
all other beings depend for their actuality upon God’s being; to
conclude thus would be a fallacy of equivocation, and the same
is true of the other demonstrations referring to God.” The same
judgment is expressed in the Summa, q. 13, a. 5.
This Agnostic opinion, according to St. Thomas, is not only
false, but also contrary to the faith. He says in effect: “This
view is opposed to what the Apostle says: 'The invisible things
of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made.' (Rom. I, 20).” (la, q. 13, a. 5). And in the treatise De
Potentia (q. 7, a. 5) he writes: “If this opinion were true, it
would be just as correct to say that ‘God is angry,’ or that ‘God
is a fire,’ as to say that ‘God is wise;’ but this is contrary to the
teaching of the saints and the prophets when they spoke of
God (hoc autem est contra positionem sanctorum et prophe­
tarum loquentium de Deo')." It is not, therefore, in a merely
equivocal or metaphorical sense that absolute perfections are
attributed to God.
In addition to this St. Thomas remarks (De Potentia, q. 7, a.
5) : “These perfections are not to be taken simply in a negative
sense. To say that God is living, does not merely mean that He
is not non-living, that He is not like inanimate beings. A nega­
tion is always understood on the basis of an affirmation, for
every negative proposition is proved by an affirmative; and
hence if the human intellect could not positively affirm anything
about God, it could not deny anything about Him, and He
would be absolutely unknowable.”
Finally, as St. Thomas remarks (la, q. 13, a. 2), it is not
enough to say that the propositions, "God is good, God is being,
merely signify that God is the cause of goodness and of being
in created things.” It might in like manner be said that “God is a
body, or an animal,” because He is the cause of bodies and of
animals. Corporeity and animality are perfections which by their

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

213

very nature include imperfection; for this reason they are called
mixed perfections, and cannot exist in God except virtually, inas­
much as He can produce them. But on what grounds shall we
claim the same for being, goodness, and intellect, all of which, as
is generally admitted, are predicated formally of God ?
We will now prove the transcendental validity of primary
ideas, first directly, and, secondly, indirectly by showing the
absurdity of the contradictory proposition.

29) Direct proof of the transcendental validity of primary ideas.
Let us present this proof in its simplest form, without as yet
going deeply into the Thomistic doctrine of analogy, as we shall
have to do later, when we come to discuss the nature of God
and how His various attributes can be reconciled with the
divine simplicity.
This proof may be condensed into the following syllogism :4
There is nothing repugnant in the notions of absolute and
analogical perfections expressing analogically, according to their
proper meaning, the absolutely perfect Being; and in matter of
fact they will truly make known this same Being to us, if the
universe demands a first cause which possesses these perfec­
tions.®
Now, the primary notions of being—unity, truth, goodness,
cause, end, intellect, will, etc.—denote absolute and analogical
perfections.
4 See S. Th., la, q. 13, a. 3, c, ad turn; a. 5; and q. 4, a. 2 and 3.
6 It is sufficient to show a priori that there is nothing contrary to human reason
in attributing analogically these absolute and analogical perfections to the su­
premely perfect Being, if such a Being exists. There is no necessity for us to estab­
lish a priori the positive possibility of the analogy of attribution; a posteriori proof
drawn from the notion of causality will establish the validity of its claim to
recognition. (See above no. 8).—Note that the "proper meaning” is understood
to be in opposition to the metaphorical sense, as, for instance, when we speak of
God’s wrath.

214

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Therefore, there is nothing repugnant in holding that these
primary notions should express analogically the supremely perfect
Being; and they will actually and truly make known this Being
to us, if the universe demands a first cause which possesses these
perfections.
The major of this syllogism becomes evident if we advert to
the fact that an absolute perfection {perfectio simpliciter sim­
plex'), in contradistinction to a mixed perfection, is one whose
formal concept includes no imperfection. The notions of these
perfections cannot be said to be unfit to express, after a fashion,
the supremely perfect Being; for it is only the imperfect which is
incompatible with the idea of God. If, moreover, these perfections
arc analogical? or, in other words, capable of existing according
0
("Thus by simple attribution or extrinsic denomiANALOGY OF ATTRIBUTION. -! nation, we say of the air that it is healthy, beLcause it is conducive to health in the animal.

METAPHORICAL-

ANALOGY OF PROPORTION­
ALITY.
PROPER-

See John of St. Thomas, O.P.
Cursus Philosophiae,
Logica, q. 13, a. 3.

Thus the lion is called
the king of beasts, be­
cause as the king is above
his subjects, so is the lion
above other animals.

Thus sensation and intellection
are entitled in a proportionate
sense to be called knowledge;
for sensation is to the sensible
object what intellection is to the
intelligible object. Likewise the
term being may be applied to
substance and accident by reason
of a similarity of proportion be­
tween them:
substance _ accident
its being
its being
or substance as a mode of being
is proportionately related to ac­
cident as a mode of being, in
that each is being.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE. EXISTENCE OF GOD

215

to their essentially different modes, there is no reason for re­
garding it as impossible that they should conform to an in­
finite mode, provided such a mode includes nothing more than
what is implied by the formal concepts of the various per­
fections; consequently, their manner of expressing God will be
analogical, and it is only in a negative and a relative sense that
the mode of the divine Being will be known. The development
of the minor will make this point clearer.
This minor can be based first of all on the absolutely primary
notions of being, unity, truth, and goodness; then, as a corollary
to this, it can be shown to apply to the ideas of cause, end, intel­
lect, and will.
As St. Thomas shows (la, q. 13, a. 3, c, ad turn), the abso­
lutely primary notions of our intellect, such as being, truth,
goodness, do not include in their formal concept any imperfec­
tion, although the limited mode of their realization in created
things is an imperfection. In their formal concept they are in­
dependent of this mode, and every element of imperfection can be
removed from them. In fact, the notion of being does not per se
include such limitations as that of species or genus, but domi­
nates (transcends) the genera, and for that reason is called by
the Scholastics a transcendental;7 though it dominates them, yet
it is predicated of all the genera or categories of being, according
to essentially different modes; such modes are substance, quantity,
quality, action, etc.
Likewise, from a philosophical consideration of the hier­
7 Hence "transcendental" has here a different meaning than in the expression
"transcendental validity"; the former implies that which dominates the genera or
categories of being, while the latter denotes what surpasses created things. The
term "transcendental" is employed by Kant in quite a different sense, namely, of
all knowledge which is not so much occupied with objects as with the mode
of our cognition of these objects, so far as this mode is possible a priori. (Critique
of Pure Reason, Intr., c. vii).

2l6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

archical order in the scale of beings, we perceive that the term
being applies to all things, to the stone, to the plant, to the ani­
mal, to man—though the concept itself of being does not ad­
mit of any of the limitations and imperfections essentially inherent
in the objects of which it is predicated. If the idea of a man who
is infinitely great, powerful, and perfect, manifestly implies a
contradiction, it cannot be said to be an absurdity to speak of
an infinitely perfect being, one without limitations. The term
humanity designates a mixed perfection, which essentially in­
cludes imperfection, whereas the notion of being implies pure or
absolute perfection.
It is the same with unity, truth, and goodness. For unity is
the undividedness of being; truth is the conformity of being with
the intellect, or, conversely, the conformity of the intellect with
the being that measures it; goodness implies the desirability of
being by reason of the perfection inherent in it. There is no
imperfection formally implied by these notions, and if an in­
finitely swift movement is a manifest contradiction, the same
cannot be said of infinite goodness.
Moreover, in the order of finite beings we observe that the
absolute perfections expressed by these primary notions are es­
sentially analogical, that is to say, they are susceptible of formally
existing according to essentially different modes. Being, indeed,
by the very fact that it dominates the genera and is found in
each of them on different grounds, applies to all of them in an
analogical or proportionate sense.8 It embraces everything and
8 See Aristotle, Met., Bk. X, c. i; IV, c. i; Bk. IV, c. i; Bk. XII, c. 4; Anal.
Post., Bk. II, c. 13 and 14; Nicomachean Ethics, I, c. 6. For an understanding of
the Aristotelian doctrine on the analogy of proportion one must read the fifth
book of the Metaphysics, in which Aristotle classifies the different significations of
each metaphysical notion; here he discusses the notions of principle, cause (the
four causes), nature or essence, necessity, unity, truth, being, identity, diversity,
multiplicity, order, perfection, etc. After having enumerated, according to the
order of invention, the various meanings of each of these notions, which are
analogical (except those of the categories and the highest genera), he reduces

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

217

penetrates into the very differentiae of the genera; it is essentially
diversified, according to these diverse modes. We say of sub­
stance that it exists in itself; we also speak of accident as exist­
ing, but in quite a different sense, namely, in another. The
being of accident is not in every respect like that of substance,
but it is both like and unlike; in other words, it is analogous.
On the other Irand, perfect similarity, for instance the similar­
ity between two men who belong to the same human species,
may truly be called univocal;9 whereas mere homonyms, or
the various meanings to a certain unity, which is the unity of proportionality, in
the proper, and not in the metaphorical sense. No better commentary on the gen­
eral principles of analogy and no better application of these principles can be
found than in this fifth book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
8 We will not here insist upon the radical difference between the analogue and
the univocal (genus or species); we shall discuss this point at length when we
come to consider the nature of God and His attributes. It is sufficient to observe
here that in direct contrast with the transcendental notions (which are above the
categories), every genus, no matter how high in the scale of being it may be, is
always univocal; this means that, with regard to each of the objects of which it is
predicated, it denotes absolutely the same thing {rationem simpliciter eandem).
Hence it is that the genus “animal," when predicated of a man and a dog has the
same meaning, namely, a being endowed with vegetative and sensitive life. This
generic notion of animality is a common and basic trait to which, if the extrinsic
differences are added, we have either man (a rational being) or else dog.
Similarly, the higher genus “quality” denotes absolutely the same thing in its
different species (habit, potentiality, sensible quality, figure).
With being {ens et res), unity, truth, and goodness, the case is quite different.
“Being and unity,” says Aristotle, “arc not genera; they cannot be further modified
by the addition of extrinsic differences (as when, for instance, rationality is added
to animality); in fact, it is absolutely necessary that the difference should have
being and unity." {Metaph., Bk. I, c. 1; Bk. IV, c. 1; Bk. XII, c. 4). Hence, being
and unity penetrate tosthe very differences of things, and for this reason are predi­
cated of different beings κατ' àvaXoylav, secundum proportionem, or proportion­
ately. {Anal. Post., II, c. 13 and 14). This means that the idea of being is not
predicated of the various beings in the same sense (as the note of animality ap­
plies in the same sense to all animals); but each participates in being in its own
way {ratio entis in omnibus non est simpliciter eadem, sed eadem secundum quid,
id est secundum proportionem; the idea being, as applied to all things, is not ab­
solutely the same, but only after a fashion, that is, proportionately). Being as such
is by its very nature diversified; it is not a common and basic note to which can
be added the difference proper to substance and that proper to accident; since these
differences are also being, the word being, as applied to substance and accident,

2l8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

words spelled alike, but which otherwise have nothing in com­
mon, are called by the Scholastics equivocal terms; thus the
term dog, as applied to an animal and to a certain astronomical
constellation, is used in what we call an equivocal sense.
The one, the true, and the good are also predicated analogi­
cally or proportionally of all the categories of being. We speak
of a good fruit, a good quality, a good action, etc. When we say
of a fruit that it is good, we refer to its natural quality; but when
we say of a virtuous man that he is good, we use the term in
quite a different sense, for we mean that he has a moral character.
If, therefore, the notion of being is that of an absolute perfec­
tion, it cannot be said to be impossible that it should denote, in
its own proper sense, the absolutely perfect Being, for it is only
the imperfect which is incompatible with the idea of God.
Neither is it an impossibility for this notion of being to be ap­
plied analogically to the Supreme Being, for being is capable of
realization according to its essentially different modes, and there
are no a priori grounds for saying that an infinite mode is in­
consistent with the notion of being. Being, according to its
formal notion, is a pure perfection without any limitations.
The same must be said of unity, truth, and goodness. Why
cannot goodness be realized according to an infinite mode, since
in itself this term implies neither limitation nor imperfection?
Why can we not say of something that it is absolutely and in­
finitely good, since de jacto in the order of created things it is
legitimate to say of things that they are physically or morally
good, though, of course, we use the term in essentially different
senses ?
We cannot, therefore, affirm that these primary notions are
insufficient in themselves to enable us to acquire some positive
knowledge of God, if He exists. But it is only in a negative and
does not denote absolutely the same thing, but proportionally similar things; sub­
stance has its own mode of being, and so has accident.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

219

relative way that the divine mode of being, of unity, truth, and
goodness is known by us, and hence we speak of such goodness
as non-finite or supreme.
This was evidently the conviction of St. Thomas10 when he
opposed Maimonides.
What has just been said of being, unity, truth, and goodness,
must also be said of the notions of efficient cause, end, intellect,
and will. In truth, these latter notions are not classed among the
transcendentals,11 which dominate all the genera of being and
are found present according to their various modes, analogically,
in each of them. The notions of cause, end, intellect, and will
are not in fact found in all the genera, but are defined by
their immediate relation to one of the transcendentals, and thus
in their formal concept transcend the limitations or imperfec­
tions of the genera, and, like the transcendentals to which they
are essentially related, are analogical.
Thus the efficient cause and the final cause are related to
being, for they constitute the sufficient extrinsic reasons why a
thing is not self-existent. To cause or produce implies no imper­
fection, for it means nothing else but the realization of some­
thing. We can see that an all-perfect being cannot be the formal
principle of physical heat or fight, because heat and light, im­
plying limitation, cannot be formally in such a being. But why
cannot an infinitely perfect Being be a realizing principle, just
10 St. Thomas says explicitly: “Whatever good we attribute to creatures, pre­
exists in God, and that in a more excellent and higher way. Hence it does not
follow that God is good, because He causes goodness; but rather, on the con­
trary, He diffuses goodness in things because He is good.” (la, q. 13, a. 2). And
in Contra Gentes, Bk. I, c. 30, towards the end, we read: “The names which
we use to express the supereminent mode in which the aforesaid perfections exist
in God, have either a negative force, as when we say that God is infinite; or else
they express His relation to other beings, as when we say that He is the first
cause or the highest good.”
11 These transcendentals, according to the Scholastics, are six in number: being,
thing, the one, something, the true, and the good. (See St. Thomas, De Ventale,
q. I, a. x; De Potentia, q. 9, a. 7, ad 6um, I3um).

220

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

as it is of the very nature of light to illumine and of fire to
heat? And if this Being can be an efficient cause, it a fortiori
can be a final cause, which is the supreme raison d'etre of the
order we perceive in things.
We can eliminate from the efficient cause that imperfect mode
which is found to be its inseparable accompaniment in finite
causes; for there is nothing in the notion of such a cause which
militates against this; and since, like being, it is analogous, we
cannot say on a priori grounds that it is opposed to an infinite
mode. This mode would explain why the causal or realizing ac­
tion is not an accident, but is identified with the infinite being
of the agent; why it is not transitory and passing, but permanent
and eternal; why it is not formally transitive, but formally im­
manent, though capable of producing an external effect, for
which reason it could truly be called a virtually transitive action.
And this eternal action, which would add nothing to the being
of the primary agent—why could it not have its effect in time,
at a moment previously willed, if it is a free action, and if it
dominates time and its product, like the movement of which it
is the measure? The formal concept of causality does not per se
include any of those imperfections which are found in finite be­
ings. To say that an action is causal, means that it is a realizing
action, but not necessarily accidental, temporal, formally transi­
tory and transitive. These imperfections constitute the created
mode of causality, but this notion, for the sole reason that it
denotes an absolute and analogical perfection, is susceptible
also of another mode.12
12 Substance, i. e., "that which is capable of existing in itself and not in an­
other,” implies no imperfection in its concept. True, it does not seem to be an
analogical perfection, since it constitutes a genus (the first of the categories).
But it is not considered as a genus except inasmuch as it is capable of existing in
itself, though not identified with its existence. And there is nothing to prevent a
substance from existing, not only in itself, but also by itself. (Sec la, q. 3, a. 5,
ad turn).

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

221

As for the notions of intellect and will, the former is defined
by its immediate relation to being, the latter by its immediate re­
lation to goodness. Therefore, like being and goodness, the
notions of intellect and will are analogical, and like them, too,
they imply no imperfection. As we shall see, the same must be
said about the intellectual virtues of wisdom and prudence
(providence) and about the virtues of the will—justice and
mercy.
Undoubtedly, the intellect, like the will, is a faculty or power
capable of acting, and distinct from the numerous acts which
it produces; but this is merely the finite mode of the intellectual
life which, because it is an absolute and analogical perfection,
is susceptible of a higher mode. Since the formal object of
the intellect is being, is there anything repugnant in the notion
that there should be an intellect which is the adequate meas­
ure of being, of all things, both real and possible, and which
is, therefore, omniscient? And since the knowledge of every­
thing that is intelligible would be the constant attribute of such
an intelligence, why could it not be said to be the identification of
absolute intelligence with pure being? Reason cannot prove this
to be an evident impossibility.
The same must be said of the will, which is specified by good­
ness in general, and is free to accept or reject any particular
form of good which may be presented to it. In us, of course, the
will is simply a faculty distinct from its acts of love or the
volitions which it produces. But why should it be unreasonable
to admit an absolutely perfect will, which would be an eternal
act of love identified with the supreme good, the constant object
of this love, and therefore free in its love of finite goods?
Finally, the virtues of the intellect and of the will—wisdom,
mercy, justice—are in us accidents, qualities, acquired habits
which are capable of development. But that is merely their
finite mood of being; the formal concept of these virtues is

222

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

independent of this mode, and implies no imperfection, and as an
analogical concept, it is not incompatible with a higher mode of
being. Wisdom formally denotes knowledge acquired by a
scrutiny of the highest causes, and this knowledge need not
be the result of a transitory act proceeding from an intellectual
habit acquired by study and experience. Why should it be im­
possible to admit an infinite and eternal wisdom which would
exhaust all the possibilities of whatever is knowable?
Our conclusion is that it is not incompatible with reason to
assume that these primary notions express analogically the su­
preme and perfect Being, and that de facto they will truly make
known to us this Being if die universe demands a first cause
possessing these perfections.
Thus far we have shown that it is not contrary to reason to
predicate in an analogical sense these absolute and analogical
perfections of a supremely perfect Being, if such a Being exists.
It is not necessary to establish a priori the positive possibility of
this attribution,13 because it can be proved a posteriori, by way
of causality.
The proofs for the existence of God will plainly show that the
movement which is in the universe demands a mover who does
not need to be moved himself; that contingent beings ultimately
demand a cause necessary in itself; that composite and imperfect
beings demand an absolutely simple and perfect cause, and that,
finally, the order in the universe necessarily presupposes an in­
telligent designer. The first cause thus required must possess
those absolute perfections which are to be found in the world,
for otherwise it could not be said to have caused them, and there
would be no resemblance or analogy between this cause and its
effect—which would be contrary to the very notion of cause
(see la, q. 4, a. 3). To be the cause of another being means, in­
deed, to bring this other being into existence, to actualize or
18 Sec supra, no. 8.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

223

determine it. Now, since a determining cause, as such, is re­
stricted by the limits of its own determination, it follows that
between the cause and its effect there must be a resemblance,
not necessarily generic or specific, but at least analogical. This is
the meaning of the principle: Omne agens agit sibi simile—
every agent produces its own kind—which is derived directly
from the principle of causality.
Before returning to this way of causality, we know that it is
not contrary to reason to state that the absolutely perfect Being,
if it exists, can be expressed analogically by means of the primary
notions. The positive perfections in God will be made known to
us by an analysis of the principle of causality; by the processes of
negation and eminence we shall acquire a negative and relative
knowledge of the divine mode of these perfections.
These considerations constitute the direct defence of the
transcendental validity of primary notions, which may be suc­
cinctly formulated thus: these notions express the absolute and
analogical perfections that the first cause of necessity possesses.
This direct defence can be supplemented by an indirect proof
showing the absurdity of the contrary assumption.

30) Indirect proof of the transcendental validity of primary
notions.

To deny this validity, or even to declare it to be doubtful,
involves the contention that reason left to itself must always at
least remain in doubt concerning the existence of a transcendental
primary cause. What would follow from this?
Such an invincible doubt would refer either to the primary
cause as such, or to its transcendental character.
If the existence of a primary cause must remain forever in
doubt, it follows either that a thing may begin to exist without a
cause, or that the ensemble of things which are not self-existent
may exist without a cause, in which case the principle of causality

224

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

itself is doubtful, and the principle of contradiction is no longer
certain, for then it may be that some things exist neither by
themselves nor are produced by a cause, and consequently do not
differ from nothingness; for it is of the very nature of nothing­
ness to be neither self-existent nor conditioned, and since it is a
non-entity, it is independent of the principle of sufficient reason.
Now, to doubt the principle of contradiction, or the opposition
between being and nothingness, is absurd.
If the invincible doubt is concerned only with the transcend­
ence of the primary cause, it follows that this cause is perhaps
immanent, not really distinct from the world, which is composite
and changing; that it is a creative becoming, a creative evolu­
tion,14 or a creative idea,15 which admits of composition and
change; and in that case we are confronted with the absurdities
of Pantheism and must admit with Hegel that a creative be­
coming, which is its own sufficient reason, implies a contradiction
in terms.
Hence we see that this indirect proof of the transcendental
validity of primary notions is a proof of God’s existence by the
logical method known as reductio ad absurdum.
We have yet to discuss the question how these primary notions
enter into the a posteriori demonstration of the existence of God.
What is the middle term of this demonstration, and how can it
be given transcendental validity?
31) The middle term of our demonstration is analogical. The
force of such a demonstration.
As we have already remarked, it is by means of analogical,
14 According to Bergson (L'Evolution Créatrice), the principle of all things is
a consciousness in process of evolution, a consciousness which has gradually de­
veloped in the intellectual life and is ever seeking to transcend it.
15 See Hegel, Logik.·

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

225

and not by means of univocal concepts that we demonstrate
the existence of God. The middle term, therefore, will have
to be an analogous term, and the proof will assume the follow­
ing syllogistic form: The world necessarily demands a primary
extrinsic cause. Now, we call the primary extrinsic cause of the
world by the name of God. Therefore, God exists.
We here presuppose only the nominal definition of God, the
idea that comes to the mind when the word God is mentioned.
This is the middle term of all the demonstrations which follow
(cfr. la, q. 2, a. 2, ad 2). It is an analogical term, which is all
that is required. Though analogical, it has a sufficient unity, so
that the syllogism does not contain four terms. Cajetan shows
in his treatise, De Nominum Analogia (ch. 10), that a concept
which has unity of proportion can be the middle term in a syl­
logism, provided it has the same extension in the major and
minor. For this condition to be realized, the term must be em­
ployed according to the similarity of proportion which exists be­
tween the analogues, and not according to what properly consti­
tutes this analogue in itself. For instance, the relative concept of
cause, which we shall use as middle term in all our demonstra­
tions, must denote causality, both in the major and in the minor,
causality not precisely as it applies in the order of created things,
but in this that the causality of created things is similar, by a cer­
tain similarity of proportion, to causality of a higher order. What­
ever is predicated of a similar object as such, is predicated also of
that which it resembles (quidquid convenit simili in eo quod
est simile, convenit etiam illi cujus est simile; Cajetan, ibid.'). The
principle of identity, or of contradiction, which assures us of the
formal validity of the argument, must not be restricted to equivocal
notions. “Contradiction consists in the affirmation and negation
of the same attribute of the same subject, and not in the affirma­
tion and negation of the same univocal attribute in the same uni­

220

GOD· HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

vocal subject. The identity between things and their objective
reasons has the force of an identity which is by way of propor­
tion.” (Cajetan, ibid.}.
This is not a logical thesis set up for the purpose of demon­
strating the existence of God, but is clearly expressed by
Aristotle, who was the first to establish the theoretical principles
of demonstration {Anal. Post., II c. xii and xiv; cfr. the Comment,
of St. Thomas, Leet. 17 and 19). After having discussed the
middle term when it is univocal, he remarks: "Etc δ άλλον τρο'ττον
ϊστι κατά το άνάλογον ίκλίγαν (there is another way in which we
say that the concept is common by way of analogy, i. e., by way
of proportion). The comment of St. Thomas on this passage is
as follows: “But when the concept is a common analogue, the
unity of proportion between the analogous objects reveals cer­
tain other characteristics, as, for instance, that they are of the
same generic or specific nature.” 16 This unity of proportion is the
16 John of St. Thomas {Cursus Phil., Logica, q. 93, a. 5), has cast into a con­
cise formula what Aristotle, St. Thomas, Cajetan, and the Thomists generally
teach concerning analogy: “The analogue of proportion, which is intrinsic in its
reference to all that is analogous to it, reunites in a single concept the notions of
one, inadequate, and imperfect. In fact, this concept does not abstract from the
analogues in this sense that it contains potentially only, and not actually, that
which differentiates the analogues, but in this sense, chat it does not denote these dif­
ferences explicitly, although it contains them actually.” This is the same as saying
with Aristotle that being does not admit of differences which are extrinsic to it,
and thus we cannot abstract perfectly the notion of being from its differences, as
we can the notion of genus from that of species. (See infra, Part II, ch. III).—
Later, in discussing the divine attributes, we shall see that St. Thomas, by sub­
mitting the analogue of a genus to the finest of distinctions, holds an intermediate
position between the Agnosticism of Maimonides and that of the Nominalists—
revived by the Modernists—and the exaggerated Realism of Gilbert de la Porréc,
which reappears in the writings of Rosmini and other Ontologists. (See Billuart,
ed. 1857, t. I, pp. 51-62).—These two extreme opinions result from considering
the analogue univocally, whence it follows that, if the analogical concept denotes a
formal attribute in God, it posits in Him a real distinction (Gilbert de la Porrée),
or if it does not admit this distinction in God, it is because this analogical concept
does not denote one of His formal attributes. Like Scotus, Suarez {Disp. Metaph., 2,
sect. I, no. 9; sect. II, nos. 13, 21, 34) seems to have misconceived the important dis­
tinction between the analogue and the univocal. From what he says, one must logi-

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

227

basis of all reasoning in natural theology. Having demonstrated
the existence of God and that He is not dependent upon matter,
this unity of proportion will be our authority for asserting also
of rational beings that immateriality explains why they have in­
telligence (a positive analogical concept), and hence that they
have a will and that this will is free (likewise positive analogical
concepts) ; it is also true, in a proportionate sense, to say of God
that His absolute immateriality is the reason why He knows all
things (la, q. 14, a. 1), and why His will is absolutely free (la.,
q. 19, a. i, 2, 3).
Further on (Vol. II, ch. Ill) we shall explain more at length
that there are not two unknown elements in each of these pro­
portions, but two terms known immediately with their created
mode, one term expressing the uncreated analogue which is
mediately known (the first cause), whence we infer the presence
of the fourth term, which until then remained unknown.
It may be expressed by saying that there is a similarity of
proportion between the creature with its mode of being and
the first cause with its mode of being.
cally conclude that being is diversified, like genus, by extrinsic differences. We fail
to see how being can still be predicated of these differences, and we are once more
confronted with the full force of the arguments of Parmenides against multiplicity.
If the differentiating modes of being arc not themselves being, then the multiplicity
of beings is an illusion, for all things are one. There is only one reply to this ar­
gument, namely, that being is not univocal, but analogical, and implicitly includes its
differentiating modes. (I Met., c. 5; Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 9; ΧΠΙ Met.,
c. 11). Moreover, this logical thesis is closely connected with another, which de­
clares that there is a real distinction between essence and existence in created
beings and which refutes this same argument of Parmenides from the metaphysical
point of view. (See injra, Vol. Π, ch. III). On this question of a real distinction,
whether it was held by St. Thomas, and what is the importance of this doctrine in
the Thomistic synthesis, we are compelled to disagree completely with Chossat
{Diet, de Théol. Cath., art. "Dieu," cols. 889-890). See in the Revue des Sciences
Phil, et Theol., of April, 1909, the article by Garrigou-Lagrange, entitled, "La
distinction réelle entre essence et existence et le principe d'identité." See also what
Chossat, Gardeil, and Mandonnet have written on this subject in the Revue
Thomiste, 1910.

228

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

32) This analogical knowledge enables the human mind to grasp
the fact of God's existence, and to perceive something of His
essence; but it is not a quidditative perception, that is, a
perception of tvhat properly constitutes the essence of the
Deity.
From what has been said it follows that this analogical knowl­
edge cannot be a knowledge of the divine essence such as it is
in itself Çprout est in se) ; nor can we positively define the same
by any definition strictly so-called; however, by means of this
knowledge we can perceive the existence of God and gain some
idea of His essence. This is the common teaching of the School­
men (see St. Thomas in the Summa Theol., la, q. 12, a. 12; q.
13, a. 1; q. 88, a. 3; Cajetan, De Nominum Analogia; Scotus, In
I, Dist., 3, q. 1; Capreolus, In I, d. 2, q. 1, a. 1, 4th to 8th conclu­
sion). True, as Cajetan remarks {Comment, in lam, q. 88, a. 3
§ Adverte), there was some difference of opinion on this point be­
tween the Scotists and the early Thomists. Scotus and his school
admitted that we can acquire a natural knowledge of the divine
essence by reasoning, whereas the Thomists denied this and
maintained that we cannot know naturally tvhat God is {quid
est), but only that He is {quia est), and tvhat He is not {quid
non est). However, as Cajetan observes, in the above-mentioned
treatise and in his De Ente et Essentia (c. VI, q. 14), the dif­
ference between the two schools is merely a matter of words.
“We must distinguish,” he writes, “between knowing an es­
sence {cognoscere quidditatem), and knowing it quidditatively
{cognoscere quidditative). To know an essence, it suffices to ap­
prehend one of its essential predicates, for instance, one that is
generic; to know it according to its quiddity, we must appre­
hend all its essential predicates, down to the ultimate difference.
On the basis of this distinction it must be affirmed that we can
acquire a natural knowledge of the divine essence by reasoning,
and that is what Scotus meant; but we cannot know the divine

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

229

essence according to its quiddity, and that is what the early
Thomists had in mind.” "To know God according to His quid­
dity is the same as to know Him as He is in Himself, and this
knowledge demands that human nature be raised to the super­
natural order. Unaided natural reason alone cannot know what
constitutes the Deity, in which the absolute perfections are identi­
fied. It can acquire positive knowledge only of the analogical
predicates common to God and to creatures (such as being, act,
one, true, good, etc.), and the divine mode of the absolute per­
fections is known only negatively and relatively. Aristotle called
this knowledge derived from common predicates, knowing that
a thing is {Anal. Post., II, c. VIII; Comment, of St. Thomas,
Leet. 7), and that is the reason why the early Thomists said that
we can know of God only that He is, which evidently did not
mean that theodicy was restricted to the mere affirmation of His
existence.
This conclusion, formulated by Cajetan, admitted by Suarez
{Disp. Met., disp. XXX, sect. 12), and unanimously accepted by
the Scholastics,17 can easily be proved. From the fact that we can­
not naturally know God except by His effects, the perfection of
which is necessarily an inadequate expression of the divine
perfection (la, q. 12, a. 12),18 we can affirm but three points:
(1) that these effects necessarily demand the existence of a first
cause which exists of and by itself; (2) that whatever per­
fection there is in the effects must pre-exist in the cause; (3) that
the perfections which formally do not imply any imperfection,
that is to say, of which reason formally abstracts from the created
mode, which is essentially imperfect, must exist in God accord­
ing to a divine mode. We may even say that absolute perfec­
tions, such as being, truth, goodness, intellect, freedom, jus­
tice, mercy, can be found without any admixture of imperfection
17 Cfr. Chossat, Dictionnaire Apologétique, art. "Agnosticisme,” cols. 58-62.
18 See also, la, q. 13, a. 5.

230

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

only in God. “None is good but God alone,” we read in the
Gospel of St. Luke (XVIII, 19), which means that wherever
else they are found, these perfections invariably have an ad­
mixture of imperfection. Therefore, we predicate them formally
of God, according to an intrinsic denomination (see infra, Vol. II,
ch. 3). But we do not positively know the nature of the divine
mode, according to which they are identical with the divine
essence, and hence we say that they exist in God formaliter
eminenter—formally and eminently. “But to express the supereminent mode according to which these perfections exist in God,
only such terms are available which have either a negative mean­
ing, as when we say that God is eternal or infinite, or else express
His relation to creatures, as when He is said to be the first cause
or supreme good” (C. Gentes, I, c. XXX, towards the end).
The error of Maimonides and of some of our own contempo­
raries19 is to apply what St. Thomas said of the mode in
which the perfections are verified in God, to the formal rea­
son of these absolute perfections. If this were correct, the only
knowledge we could have of God would be by means of ex­
trinsic, negative or relative terms, as when we say metaphorically
that He is angry with a sinner. Our knowledge of absolute perfec­
tions is analogical and positive, and we affirm them of God as
expressive of causality (per viam causalitatisf·, “not that God is
good because He causes goodness, but, on the contrary, He
diffuses goodness in things because He is good.” (la, q. 13,
a. 2). The mode in which these perfections exist in God, we ex­
press either negatively, as when we speak of unlimited goodness,
or else in an eminent sense (relatively), as when we speak of
sovereign goodness. Hence we do not positively know in what
precisely the mode consists intrinsically according to which these
perfections are predicated of God; we possess but a negative and
19 See Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, article "Agnosticisme,"
cols. 38, 66.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

231

relative knowledge of this mode, and in this sense we can truth­
fully say that we cannot know what God is {prout est in se seu
quidditative). It is only by means of the common concepts of
analogy that we can acquire a knowledge of God (cfr. Cajetan,
In lam, q. 39, a. 1). Similarly, theodicy can never define the
divine intellect, the divine will, the divine movement, as they
are in themselves; it can conclude that intellect, will, and causal­
ity belong to God, but it cannot give us any other than a nega­
tive or relative knowledge of the divine mode of these at­
tributes.20
Moreover, the created and human mode will enter into the
propositions which we shall formulate concerning God, so that
when absolute perfections are attributed to Him, the attribution
itself will be formal, but not so the mode of attribution. St.
Thomas says in the Contra Gentes (Bk. I, ch. 30) : “Names of
this kind can be both affirmed and denied of God: affirmed on
account of what the name signifies (formal reason); denied be­
cause of the mode of its signification (created mode).” In fact,
he adds, “since our intellect derives its ideas through the senses,
it either conceives of a thing and designates it in the abstract (as
goodness), and then the thing signified is simple, but not sub­
sisting; or else it thinks of a tiling and designates it in the con­
crete (individual good), and then the thing signified is subsist­
ing, but not simple. Such is the mode of created things, whereas
that which pertains to God is both simple and subsisting. Hence
there is always an element of imperfection in the mode in which
we speak of God; when we have stated that He is good, we add
that He is goodness itself, subsisting goodness, not goodness in
the abstract; likewise, having asserted that He exists, we add that
it is not that He has existence, but that He is existence, subsist­
ing existence, ipsum esse subsistens.” (Cfr. Contra Gentes, ibid.).
Such is the knowledge that human reason, when left to its own
20 Sec Zigliara, Summa Phil., Vol. Π, p. 488.

232

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

resources, can acquire of God. It knows that He exists and has
some idea of His essence, but it does not know Him as He is in
Himself (in what properly constitutes Him as God). In a similar
manner we know our friends, but we do not fully enter into
their sentiments, such as they are in themselves.
33) Solution of the objections raised against the transcendental
validity of primary notions.
Marcel Hébert, in an article entitled "Anonyme et Polyonyme,"
in the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1903, p. 241, pro­
posed the following objection against the doctrine which we have
just presented: “This doctrine of analogy presupposes that we
admit the fact of a ‘causal connection’ between God and the
world: between a God who, as a perfect substance, creates a
world of imperfect substances, which participate in varying de­
grees in His infinite perfection. But this causal connection is it­
self an analogy. The theologians say that God is the ‘analogical
cause’ of the world. Now all these analogies are based on a pri­
mary analogy, and the only way in which the theologians avoid
what is known as begging the question, is by assuming the
fact of creation as certain on other grounds. That we have
the certainty of faith on this head is irrelevant to the point in
dispute, since we are here concerned only with that certitude
which is acquired by reasoning. Now, what has reason to say
about this fundamental problem? We know quite well that it is
not content with a series of phenomena, but demands an abso­
lute raison d’être; it does not, however, in any way demand that
there should be a realization of this absolute in any ‘particular
substance,’ transcendent by reason of its relation to the essence
of things.”
Thus M. Hébert, like the Abbé Le Roy, admits that the
principle of causality, leading to an extrinsic cause (whatever is
set in motion, is set in motion by another), “derives its apparent

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

233

lucidity from a spatial image which has been introduced surrepti­
tiously into a metaphysical problem; it supposes that movers and
things movable are distinct substances (so-called postulate of
morcellation), which is denied by Pantheism.” 21 “We cannot,
without having recourse to anthropomorphism, introduce the
idea of causality in the psychological sense, and besides, this
would simply result in the admission of a world-soul.” 22
We answered this objection, though not completely, when we
showed that the sufficient reason for the existence of a contingent
being must be an actualizing or realizing sufficient reason. This
is the principle of causality, in no sense anthropomorphic, of
which we make use in proving the existence of God. It abstracts
from every particular image derived either from external expe­
rience (postulate of morcellation), or from internal experience
(psychological causality); it is conceived as a function of being, ·
which is the formal object of die human intellect, considered not
as human, but as intellect (for the proper object of the human
intellect qua human is the essence of sensible things, and not be­
ing'). Hence anthropomorphism is out of the question. More­
over, as we have already remarked, it matters not whether the
world from which we start to prove the existence of God is a
single substance, or a number of substances, provided only we
can say of it that it has multiplicity and becoming. From what
we know of the principles of identity and of sufficient reason we
must say that the world has not its raison d'etre within itself,
that it is contingent, and that for a reality to be its own sufficient
reason, it must be in every respect identical with itself, that it
must be to being as A is to A; in other words it must be Being
itself (ipsum esse), pure actuality, and hence essentially distinct
from the world, which is multiplex and changing. To deny this
would be to deny that the principle of identity is the fundamen21 Rev. de Met. et de Mor., July, 1902, pp. 398 ff.: "La dernière idole."
22 Ibid.

234

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

tai law of reality as well as of thought, and to admit with Hegel
that the fundamental law is contradictory or absurd. A world­
soul, one in substance and multiple in the phenomena by which
it is determined, would be contingent. From the very fact that it
is capable of receiving a multiplicity and variety of modes, it
follows that it is not pure identity, pure being, absolute perfec­
tion; the very principle of identity itself demands that it have a
cause, since it is by nature composite; for elements in themselves
different cannot of themselves be united. It is not here a question
of any veiled reference to the argument of St. Anselm, but simply
a matter of appealing to the supreme principle which governs
thought.
There is a more serious difficulty than the one presented by
Hébert, namely, that we cannot positively apply to God the
analogical concept of being (and affirm the existence of God),
except by assuming that the concept of cause is one of transcen­
dental validity; but this assumption is not only gratuitous, it is
also unwarranted: for the transcendental validity of the concept
of cause, far from being able to establish the ontological validity
of the concept of being, presupposes the latter, since being is the
most universal of all concepts and implied in every other.
The objection, when cast into syllogistic form, reads something
like this: The transcendental validity of the most universal ideas
cannot, without begging the question, be based upon the validity
of an idea that is less universal in extent. Now, in the preceding
proofs the transcendental validity of the most universal concepts
{being, unity, truth, etc.) is based upon the validity of the less
universal concept of cause. Therefore, the transcendental validity
of the most universal concepts of being, truth, unity, etc., is with­
out sufficient foundation.
For the sake of brevity and clearness, we will give a formal
answer. We distinguish the major as follows: we admit that,
considered in the abstract, the most universal of concepts do not

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

235

depend for their transcendental validity upon that of a less uni­
versal concept; relatively to us, however, it is a different matter.
St. Thomas declares that the proposition, “God exists,” considered
in itself, is self-evident, but not so for us (est per se nota quoad
se, non quoad nos; la, q. 2, a. 1). The sun, for instance, is a
source of light in itself, but not so for the owl, whose vision is
so feeble that it can only see at night.
So far as we are concerned, I draw another distinction : that the
most universal of concepts cannot depend for their transcendental
validity upon that of a concept less universal in extent is true in
the sense that there is nothing these concepts in themselves de­
note, which prevents their being attributed; but if it be a question
of the actual attribution of such concepts, then the reverse is
true, if the less universal concept is essentially relative to the
world of which we have direct knowledge, and by means of
which we rise to a knowledge of hitherto unknown things of a
higher order. Now this is precisely the case with the concept
of cause, for in direct contrast with the most universal con­
cepts of being, unity, etc., which are absolute, that of cause is es­
sentially relative, referring to the effect produced.23
That is why we proved first of all that there is nothing which
the most universal concepts of being, unity, truth, goodness, in
themselves denote that would render it impossible for an in­
finitely perfect being, if such a one exists, to be expressed by
these concepts, because they represent absolute and analogical
perfections, and from this point of view the notion of being is
prior to that of cause. But the actual attribution of these perfec­
tions to God, for us, rests upon this principle: that the world de­
mands a first cause possessing these perfections. Just as the neces­
sity of a first cause, too, depends in its final analysis upon the
analogous concept of being, just as the principle of causality re23 Cfr. Summa Theol., la, q. 13, a. 7: “Whether names which imply relation to
creatures, are predicated of God ex tempore?”

236

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

fers indirectly to the principle of contradiction, so the concept of
cause, not being absolute, but relative to the world which is
caused, may serve as the connecting link between the lower and
the higher, that is, between the finite which is directly known, and
the infinite which we are striving to know.
If we wish to consider the further question, how the concepts
of being and cause are inter-related, and why it is that being
holds the first place, we must bear in mind that there are five
stages in the process of human knowledge, (i) For us the con­
cept of being denotes a perfection without any admixture of im­
perfection; it is an analogical concept, which means that it is
capable of existing according to essentially different modes, and
from this point of view an infinite mode is not beyond the scope
of being. (2) Since the notion of cause is closely associated with
that of being, we conceive of it as a perfection without admixture
of imperfection and one that is analogical. In fact, causality is
defined as a realization. Now, there is nothing of imperfection
implied in the notion that something is realized or comes into
existence; besides, there is nothing to prevent this perfection of
being, which is realized in the present order of things in dif­
ferent modes, from accommodating itself to an infinite mode of
being. (3) All the finite realities of which we have knowledge, in
the multiplicity and becoming that they imply, appear to us as
contingent, and hence of necessity demand an actualizing raison
d'être or a cause. This exigency, expressed by the principle of
causality, is itself based upon being, just as the latter principle de­
pends upon that of contradiction or identity. The contingent be­
ing, since it is not unconditioned, can exist only through or by
something else, which means that it demands a cause. The con­
cept of cause being essentially relative, enables us to transcend
the finite order of things. That which is finite, composite, and
subject to change cannot of itself explain its actuality, and hence
its cause must be sought in something outside of it and above

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

237

it. Here again it is the concept of being upon which the principle
of causality ultimately rests, and which, in conjunction with that
of cause, forces us to rise above the world in seeking the raison
d'être of its existence. (4) By the very fact that finite beings are
composite and subject to change, the cause which they postulate
must itself be free from composition and change, otherwise the
cause would demand another cause of a higher order. Hence we
must conclude that this cause is absolutely simple and immutable,
that it is pure being. In this way we arrive at the supreme ana­
logue of being, and by a negative and relative process we deter­
mine die non-finite and eminent mode of being by which God
is constituted essentially distinct from the world. (5) Finally,
starting not from the notion of being in general (analogous con­
cept), but from the Divine Being (supreme analogue), we
negatively and relatively determine the mode of the divine
causality (the supreme analogue), and perceive that this domi­
nating causality is pure cause, not caused, not pre-moved, that it
is its own activity, its own action, and transcends time, and conse­
quently is the cause of time as well as of movement, of which it
is the measure, though always retaining its freedom of action.
Thus the demands of being in general prepare the way for the
transcendental application of the principle of causality, and by
this means the mind acquires its knowledge of the supreme ana­
logue of being, which, in turn, enables us to determine, though
in an imperfect manner, the mode of the divine causality. In this
way being retains its primacy in the order of invention (in via
inventionis'), and also in the order of judgment by means of the
ultimate causes of things (in via judicii).24
We have already remarked (no. 23), that what the mind first
of all acquires is a confused concept of being before that of the
mode of being or of the phenomenon. By means of this latter
24 Concerning the ascending and descending order in the process of reasoning,
consult St. Thomas, la, q. 79, art. 8 and 9.

238

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

concept the confused concept of being becomes more clearly
defined; being is conceived as a substance, and the notion of sub­
stance thus acquired, acts as a searchlight and clarifies the con­
cept of the mode of being, of accident, or of the phenome­
non.28
Thus the primacy of being is assured and continues to be the
objective light of our intellect, causality being subordinate to
being as one of its modes.
Objection. But to attribute causality to a God who transcends
the world seems to be inconceivable, or at least dubious (fourth
antimony of Kant). In fact, such attribution necessitates that God
be the absolutely immobile first cause. Now, an immobile first
cause which, though not being the principle of its action, would
produce effects that would begin to exist, is inconceivable. There­
fore, the attribution of causality to a God who transcends the
world is inconceivable.
Reply. I distinguish the major as follows: that it is necessary
to admit God to be the absolutely immobile first cause, of which
we shall have positive knowledge, both as to what is formally im­
plied in the concept of cause, and as to the divine mode of cau­
sality—this I deny; that we shall have positive knowledge of what
is formally implied in the concept of cause, but that we shall have
only a negative and relative knowledge of the divine mode of
such causality—this I concede. But it is precisely this imperfect
knowledge of the mode of the divine causality which renders
the problem so mysterious. We may say that no positive concept
can be formed of the mode of this causality, but we speak of it in
negative and relative terms, as when we say that it is an uncaused
cause, or that it is a cause which, by reason of its eminence, tran­
scends time, of which it is the cause as well as of movement,
though still retaining its freedom of action. (See no. 36, proof of
the existence of God by the argument from motion).
2S See St. Thomas, la, q. 85, art. 3 and 5.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

239

Objection. But even if it be granted that the relative concept
of cause is a sufficient basis for the acual attribution of absolute
concepts, it does not seem possible that these same concepts, con­
sidered in themselves, can be predicated of a transcendental God.
In fact, God, if He is transcendental and infinite, differs from the
creature in a far greater measure than the creature differs from
nothingness. Now, between the creature and nothingness there is
no analogy. With far more reason, therefore, must this be the
case between a transcendental and infinite God and the creature.
The major of this objection is undeniable. The distance which
separates the creature from nothingness is but negatively infinite,
since one of the terms is negative, thus enabling creative power
to bridge the gulf. Between the creature and God, on the con­
trary, there is a positively infinite distance, since both terms are
positive, and hence absolutely unapproachable. That omnipotence
itself could transform or transubstantiate a creature into God, is
inconceivable.
Reply. As in the answer to the preceding objection, we dis­
tinguish the major as follows: That a transcendental and infinite
God differs in a far greater measure from the creature, than the
creature differs from nothingness—this I admit, if we consider God
and the creature according to their respective modes of being, for
one of these modes is infinite, whereas the other is finite; but if
we consider being according to its formal aspect, then the propo­
sition must be denied; for this formal aspect is verified both in
the creature and in the transcendental cause which it postulates,
not, however, in nothingness.
Objection. But under this formal aspect being, compared with
God, takes precedence of Him and is more universal than He.
Now, nothing can take precedence of God. Hence the reply is un­
convincing, and the difficulty remains.
Reply. Being in its formal aspect has a priority that is logical
with reference to God and is logically more universal than He,

240

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

according to our imperfect mode of conception. But it has no
real priority, nor any universality of the real order of contain­
ment and causality.26 Since our knowledge is abstracted from
sensible things, we conceive of being in general and the an­
alogue, before we come to know the supreme analogue or
primary Being. But when we realize that this latter is the self­
subsistent Being, infinite plenitude of being, capable of produc­
ing everything than can possibly exist, then we see clearly that
being abstracted from sensible things is truly subsequent to
primary Being.
Objection. Nevertheless, if we consider the absolute perfec­
tions, not as isolated, by themselves, but as interrelated, their co­
existence does not seem possible in one and the same transcen­
dental being. In fact, if they exist formally in God, they posit in
Him a real-formal multiplicity which is incompatible with His
absolute simplicity. If, on the other hand, they are identified emi­
nently in the Deity, they are formally destructive of each other,
and have but a virtual existence after the manner of mixed per­
fections. Then the statement, “God is good,” can have but one
meaning, namely, that God is the cause of goodness. This brings
us back to the opinion of Maimonides. And as God is the cause
of bodily things, we could just as well affirm of Him that He is
corporeal, as to say that He remains unknowable.
Such is the general antinomy of the one and the multiple, with
which reason clashes whenever it seeks to attribute the primary
notions to God. The multiplicity of the absolute perfections at­
tributed to God, not only virtually, but formally, seems to destroy
the divine simplicity, or conversely, to be destroyed by it.
Apart from this general antinomy, other difficulties present
themselves. How, for instance, can we reconcile (a) the divine
simplicity with that duality of subject and object which is an
essential condition of knowledge; (b) the free act of God, which
26 Sec Billuart, De Deo, dissert. V, art. II, § n.

POSSIBILITY OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

241

would seem to imply something contingent and defectible, with
His absolute immutability; (c) the divine life, which seems to
imply a process of becoming, with that same absolute immuta­
bility; (d) the permission of evil with God’s supreme goodness
and omnipotence; (e) infinite mercy with absolute justice?
Reply. We must postpone the solution of these difficulties con­
cerning the reconciliation of the divine attributes until the proofs
have been given for God’s existence. These proofs will be suf­
ficiently established by defending the twofold validity, ontological
and transcendental, of primary ideas in general, and of each one
in particular, especially those of being and cause. After we have
proved the existence of a primary cause which transcends the
created universe, after we have shown that this cause must be
the selj-subsistent Being, and deduced the principal attributes of
that Being, we shall be able to explain why there can be no
conflict between the various attributes, and thus resolve the
alleged antinomies.
Having established the fact of the demonstrability of the ex­
istence of God, we now pass on to the demonstration itself.

CHAPTER III
EXPOSÉ OF THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

To grasp the profound meaning and the metaphysical import
of the traditional proofs for the existence of God, we cannot do
better than study them as set forth in the third article of the
second question of Part I of the Summa Theologica of St.
Thomas, where that learned philosopher and theologian reduces
these proofs to their essential principles. See also Contra Gentes,
Bk. I, cc. 13, 15,16, 44; Bk. II, c. 15; Bk. Ill, c. 44; De Veritate, q.
5, a. 2; De Potentia, q. 3, a. 5; Compendium Theologiae, c. 3;
Physica, Bk. VII, Leet. 2; Bk. VIII, Leet. 9 ff.; Metaphysica, Bk.
XII, Leet. 5 ff.
Our purpose here is not historical, but merely to show that
these proofs are closely connected with the first principles of rea­
son, especially with the principle of non-contradiction or iden­
tity, and with the first of all human ideas, namely, that of being.
The two objections with which St. Thomas opens the abovementioned article of the Summa Theologica are sufficient evi­
dence that he was aware of the difficulties of the problem. They
are the fundamental objections to which all others can easily be
reduced. The first objection voices the opinion of the Pessimists;
the second that of the Pantheists.
i. The first objection may be expressed briefly as follows: Evil
exists; therefore an infinitely good God does not exist. For if
He did exist, how could one account for all those defects, suffer­
ings, and disorders in His work? This objection has been de­
veloped at great length by Schopenhauer. To say with Voltaire
242

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

243

(Third Letter to Memmius), with John Stuart Mill (Essays on
Religion, p. 163), with J. G. Schiller (cfr. Revue de Philosophie,
1906, p. 653), and with several contemporary authors, that it is
a question of a finite God, very wise and very powerful, but not
omnipotent, does not leave us so much as the nominal definition
of God which determines the object itself of our proof.1
The solution of this difficulty belongs to the treatise on Provi­
dence (la, q. 22, a. 2, ad 2um), and we shall recur to it when
we come to consider the harmonization of the divine attributes.
For the present it is enough to indicate the answer of Catholic
theology. St. Augustine has condensed it into a few words, which
are quoted by St. Thomas: “If evil exists, it is not because God
lacks power or goodness, but, on the contrary, He permits evil
only because He is powerful enough and good enough to bring
good out of evil ("Nullo modo sineret aliquid mali esse in operi­
bus suis, nisi esset adeo omnipotens et bonus ut bene faceret etiam
de malo." Enchiridion, ch. 2). In the presence of evil we see
the triumph of the omnipotence and infinite goodness of
God. He allows the death of the gazelle in order that the lion
may live, and causes persecutions and the greatest of sufferings to
redound to the glory of His martyrs. Not only does He enable
souls to triumph over suffering, but He strengthens them by
means of it, inspires them to become ever more serious of purpose
and to attach themselves only to the things that are eternal. He
purifies them by adversity and by the humiliations that He sends
them. He protects them against pride or cures them of it. More­
over, physical evil is as nothing in comparison with moral evil or
sin; and how could this latter make it impossible for Sovereign
Goodness to exist, since sin presupposes it? In matter of fact, there
is but one offence against God, which, like physical evil, He has
permitted only in view of a greater good. It is our misery, which
1 For the development of this objection see Le Divin: Expériences et Hypothèses,
by Marcel Hébert, Paris, 1907, pp. 148-164.

244

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

enables God to be merciful, just as creative power postulates
absolute nothingness (la, q. 21, a. 3). The redemption, effected
by the Incarnation of the Son of God, has made it possible for
us to say "felix culpa.” As for moral evil, which refuses to co­
operate in what is good, it is compelled to do so by the chastise­
ments which it calls down, by the manifestation both of Divine
Justice and of the inalienable rights of Goodness, and it enables
God to show Himself in all His majesty as the Judge (la, q. 25,
a. 5, ad 3um). The small catechisms simply say: “There will be
a general judgement, in order that all the good deeds and all the
sins of men may be made known, and that all men may recognize
the justice of God in rewarding the good and punishing the
tvicked." (See infra, no. 65, B).
Such is the Catholic answer to the problem of evil. In proving
the existence of God, the theologian is well aware of the diffi­
culties upon which the Pessimists insist; nay, he even foresees
others. Far from stopping, as Voltaire did, at such disasters as
the Lisbon earthquake, the theologian foresees that he will have
to explain the rigors of Divine Justice by the very exigencies of
the Sovereign Good. We shall return to this problem of evil in
Part II, chs. 2, 3, and of this book.
2. The second objection mentioned by St. Thomas is against the
existence of God. It is said by the Pantheists that it is sufficient
to admit two principles, nature and spirit; an eternal principle is
not necessary, for: "Quod potest compleri per pauciora principia,
non fit per plura.” To claim, therefore, as Hebert does,2 that
St. Thomas did not know Pantheism, or chose to ignore it, is
beside the question. It is certain that St. Thomas was aware of
the two general types of Pantheism—that which reduces the
multiple to one, becoming to being, and must end in denying the
existence of the world (Acosmism), commonly attributed to
Parmenides {Met., I, Leet. 9 of St. Thomas; Phys., Bk. I, Leet. 3,
2 "La Dernière Idole," in Revue de Métaphysique el de Morale, July, 1902.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

245

4, 5 and 14); and that which, on the contrary, reduces every­
thing to becoming, and inevitably results in a denial of the
existence of God. This is atheistic Evolutionism, which is based
upon Heraclitean principles (Met., Bk. I, Leet. 4). St. Thomas
did not fail to see that Pantheism, in a certain sense, never ex­
isted, because it is absurd. Either the world is absorbed by God
(Acosmism), or God is absorbed by the world and hence does
not exist (Atheism). Against the Materialistic Pantheism of
David of Dinant see Sent., II, dist. 17, q. 1, a. 1, and the Summa
Theol., la, q. 3, a. 8: “Whether God enters into the composition
of other things?” In the la, q. 76, a. 2 (see Cajetan’s Commentary),
and question 79, a. 5, as well as in the treatise entitled De Uni­
tate Intellectus, we find the refutation of Averroism, which ad­
mitted but one intellect for all human beings.
The following proofs contain the solution of this Pantheistic
objection.
34) The five main proofs. Their universality. Their order. What
they are intended to demonstrate.

Before entering upon the classical proofs, it will be useful to
determine the degree of their universality, to explain the order in
which St. Thomas presents them, and to state precisely what each
proof is intended to demonstrate.
These five arguments are typical and universal in range. All
others can be reduced to them. They may truly be called meta­
physical, for they are based on the highest metaphysical princi­
ples (ex summis metaphysicae fontibus sumuntur), in this sense
that any created being whatever can be taken as the startingpoint in the argument, ranging from stone to angel and ending
in those five attributes which can be predicated only of that Be­
ing that subsists above all—Ipsum esse subsistens, subsistent Being
itself, whence flow all the divine attributes. These five proofs
are deduced from the laws of created being, viewed not inas-

246

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

much as they may happen to be of the sensible or of the spiritual
order, but inasmuch as they are created. Every created being is
mobile, caused, contingent, composite, imperfect, and relative.
St. Thomas preferred to select his examples from the objects of
sense perception, but he also applied these same proofs to purely
spiritual things, to the soul and its intellectual and volitional
movements. (See his answer to the second objection in the arti­
cle just quoted; also la, q. 79, a. 4, and la IIae, q. 9, a. 4). Follow­
ing the example of Aristotle, all treatises on general metaphysics
or ontology, devoted to being as such, study the opposition be­
tween being moved and unmoved, conditioned and uncondi­
tioned, contingent and necessary; between being that is composite
and imperfect and being that is simple and perfect; between
relative and absolute being. St. Thomas here considers every
created being (1) as subject to change; (2) as caused; (3) as
contingent; (4) as composite and imperfect; (5) as multiplicity
of design directed to some end. From these he concludes that
there is a being which is (1) not moved; (2) not caused; (3)
necessary; (4) simple and perfect; (5) directing all things to
their proper end—which cannot be other than the Self-subsisting
Being that is above all things, the "Ipsum esse subsistens" (la,
q. 3, a. 4).
The general arrangement of these arguments, both with regard
to their premises and their conclusions, must be carefully noted.
Since God is known by His works (“per ea quae facta sunt")
St. Thomas first of all presents the most evident signs of con­
tingency in the world; for that which did not exist, and suddenly
comes into being, is obviously contingent. The most striking ex­
ample is that of a body which passes from a state of repose to a state
of movement. It is evident that such a body does not set itself in mo­
tion. From local movement we may pass on to qualitative move­
ment (gradual intensification of a quality such as heat and light),
to accelerated movement, in fact, to all kinds of becoming, even

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

247

that form of it which is found in the intellect and the will and
which exists in every finite mind. A thought, a volition arises
in consciousness which was previously non-existent. Clearly it
does not come into existence by itself, nor does the soul possess
it by its own power.
It has been asserted that this first proof given by St. Thomas
applies only to movements of the physical order, especially to
local movement.3 As a matter of fact, local motion is merely
given as the most striking example of movement in the sensible
order. To be convinced of this, one has only to read the article
in the Summa Theologica entitled: “Whether God works in
every agent?” in which St. Thomas presents this argument from
motion, referring to God as die first cause. He writes: “The first
agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act by virtue
of God Himself. . . . God moves things by applying, as it were,
their forms and powers to operation.” (la, q. 105, a. 5). In three
other passages, to which we have had occasion to refer previously,
(la, q. 2, a. 3, ad 211m; la, q. 79, a. 4; la, IIae, q. 9, a. 4), the proof
from motion is expressly applied to movements of the intellect
and the will.
This first argument is designed to establish the fact of a source
of becoming, of a first mover who is immovable, in this sense
that he possesses within Himself the source of His own activity
and has no need of being moved by another. Thence may be de­
duced: the pure actuality of the first mover (la, q. 3, a. 1 and 2);
His aseity (jbid., a. 4); His absolute immutability. (la, q. 9,
a. i and 2); His eternity (la, q. 10, a. 2), etc.
St. Thomas could have established by an a priori proof that
the first mover must be the first efficient cause, the source, not
only of becoming, but also of being. He preferred to give an
a posteriori proof of this, and the second proof is based, not upon
the dependence of becoming on the force which previously set it
’See Chossat in the Diet, de Théologie Calh., art. "Dieu," cols. 931-934.

248

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

in motion, but on that of being (which is the permanently abiding
terminus of becoming) with respect to efficient causes which not
only produce it, but conserve it in being. If we wish to grasp the
full force of this argument, we must read the two articles in
which St. Thomas discusses this question from the opposite point
of view. In the first of these (la, q. 104, a. 1), “Whether creatures
need to be kept in being by God?” he distinguishes clearly be­
tween being and becoming, between fieri and esse. The second
article is entitled, “Whether God preserves every creature imme­
diately?” and arrives at the conclusion that there is a first cause,
the source of being, which is not itself the effect of any cause, nor
preserved in its being by any higher cause. From this follow the
Prime Mover’s aseity (la, q. 3, a. 4), creative omnipotence (la,
q. 25, a. 3; q. 44, a. 1 and 2; q. 45, a. 2 and 5), immensity and
ubiquity (la, q. 8, a. 2), etc.
St. Thomas could have proved a priori that the first mover and
the first cause must be the necessary being. But he proved a
posteriori the existence of a necessary being by a third argument,
which starts out, not from the dependence of becoming or being
on their respective causes, but from the possibility of the non­
existence of a being which is caused; in other words, its con­
tingency. Thus this proof is more general than the preceding
ones, for it can be applied not only to becoming, not only to
being which did not previously exist, but to everything which
has not its sufficient cause in itself. St. Thomas particularly in­
sists on the evidence of the senses attesting to the contingency of
material things; but his point of departure is more universal,
namely, the basic proposition that what can just as well not be,
must have for its cause a necessary being ("quod possibile est non
esse pendet a necessario”). This third proof, universal in its scope,
concludes merely to the existence of a necessary being, which ex­
ists of and by itself (a se). From this fact (aseitas) we argue that

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

249

such a being is self-subsistent, or Being itself (la, q. 3, a. 4),
whence all the absolute perfections can be deduced.
The fourth way seeks for a sign of contingency in the ultimate
profundities of created being. Here we find ourselves placed in
the static order, confronted with beings which we do not neces­
sarily need to have seen coming into existence or ceasing to exist.
To detect their contingency, we have recourse to something which,
on first consideration, appears not so convincing, but is more
profound and more universal than movement, generation or
corruption, namely, multiplicity, composition, and imperfection.
The multiple, the composite, the imperfect—all demand a cause
just as well as becoming does; and this cause must be not only
uncaused, but unique, absolutely simple, and absolutely perfect.
From this we conclude that God is not corporeal (la, q. 3, a. 1),
that He is not composed of essence and existence, but that He is
the self-subsistent Being at the head of creation (la, q. 3, a. 4) ;
that He is not included in any genus (la, q. 3, a. 5) ; that He is
sovereign goodness (q. 6, a. 2); that He is infinite (q. 7, a. 1);
that He is the sovereign truth (q. 16, a. 5) ; that He is invisible
and incomprehensible (la, q. 12, a. 4 and 8). The proof based on
the eternal verities which concludes the existence of a Supreme
Truth, as well as those derived from the notions of absolute
goodness and of the compelling force of what is upright and
good, enable us to conclude to the existence of that Supreme
Good, which is the source of all happiness and the foundation of
all becoming, are but variations of the fourth way.
The fifth proof emphasizes the preceding fourth. It is based
upon the notion of multiplicity—not of any sort of multiplicity,
but of that which gives evidence of design. In other words, the
argument derives its force from the idea of the orderly arrange­
ment of things in the world. It establishes as its conclusion, not
a unity of some kind or other, but a unity of conception, which

2Ç0

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

means that there is an intelligent designer. This argument applies
to every being in which there is a trace of design: whether it be
a case of essence designed for existence, or of intelligence or­
dained to its proper act {potentia dicitur ad actum). Since the
existence of a first cause has already been proved, the fifth proof
reveals this cause to us as a Supreme Intelligence. From this
intelligence, considered as an attribute of the self-subsisting Be­
ing (la, q. 14, a. 1), we conclude to the Wisdom and Foreknowl­
edge (la, q. 14), the Will (q. 19), and the Providence (la, q. 22)
of that same Being. This last and more popular proof, which
seems to be simpler than the preceding one, in reality presupposes
it, and of all the proofs for the existence of God is perhaps the
one which, considered strictly on metaphysical grounds, presents
the greatest difficulty in being referred back to the first prin­
ciples of reason, on account of its complexity. It is probably on
this account that St. Thomas put it in the last place.
Briefly, then, and in a general way, we may say that the con­
tingent (that which, by its definition, may either exist or not
exist), demands a necessary being (third proof); that movement,
which is the simplest example of contingency, demands an un­
moved mover (first proof) ; that conditioned being demands an
unconditioned being (second proof) ; that the multiple presup­
poses the one, the composite the simple, and the simple and im­
perfect presuppose the perfect (fourth proof); that a multiplicity
of design postulates an intelligent designer (fifth proof). Now
the necessary being, the first mover, the first cause, which is
absolutely one, simple, perfect, and intelligent, is that being
which corresponds to the idea that comes to the mind when
one utters the word God (nominal definition). Therefore, God
exists.
From any one of these five divine attributes we may establish
the reality of that Being whose essence is identical with His ex­
istence, and who for this reason is Being Itself (la, q. 3, a. 4).

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

251

The proof for God’s existence is thereby firmly established. The
nature of God is all that remains for us to study, and SelfSubsisting Being becomes the principle from which we can de­
duce the divine attributes. Thus we shall see, as Fr. del
Prado, O.P., shows in his treatise De Veritate Fundamentali
Philosophiae Christianae* that the supreme truth, not in the
analytical order or the order of invention,5 but in the synthetic
or deductive order, that truth which is the final answer to
our questions concerning God and die world, is the identity of
essence and existence to be found in God alone. "In solo Deo
essentia et esse sunt idem," whence the definition of God ex­
pressed in His own words: "I am He who is.”
This will be the last word in reply to such ultimate meta­
physical questions as: Why is there but one being who is un­
created, immutable, infinite, absolutely perfect, sovereignly good,
omniscient, free to create, etc.? Why did all die odier beings have
to receive from Him all that they are, and why must they ex­
pect from Him all that they desire and may become? The treatise
on God thus rests fundamentally on the proposition that “In solo
Deo essentia et esse sunt idem: in God alone are essence and
existence identical.” This same proposition is the terminus in the
inductive order of metaphysical reasoning, by which we conclude
to God’s existence, and it is also the principle from which, by the
method of deduction, we arrive at the same conclusion.

35) General proof, which includes all the others. Its principle is
that the greater cannot proceed from the less. Fhe higher
alone explains the lower.

Before examining each of these five typical proofs in detail,
we shall give a general proof which includes all the others, and
4 Fribourg in Switzerland, 1911.
5 See la, q.79, a. 9. “For by way of finding, we come through knowledge of tem­
poral things to that of things eternal; but by way of judgment, from eternal tilings
already known we judge of temporal things.”

252

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

which, we believe, most aptly illustrates what is commonly ac­
cepted as the essential point in establishing the existence of God.
The principle of this general proof, i. e., that “The greater cannot
proceed from the less,” condenses into one formula the prin­
ciples upon which our five typical proofs are based. These prin­
ciples may be stated as follows: "Becoming depends upon being
which is determined;” “Conditioned being depends upon uncon­
ditioned being;" “Contingent being depends upon necessary be­
ing;" “Imperfect, composite, multiple being depends upon that
which is perfect, simple, and one;” “Order in the universe de­
pends upon an intelligent designer.” The principles of the first
three proofs especially emphasize the fact that the world depends
for its existence upon a cause, while the last two principles stress
the superiority and perfection of this cause. These may then all
be summed up in the formula that “The greater cannot proceed
from the less; only the higher grade of being explains the lower.”
This general proof will have to be scientifically established by
the five other proofs. Though it is in itself somewhat vague, it
becomes strong and convincing when united with the others.
We have here a concrete case of what the theologians teach about
the natural knowledge of God. “Although the existence of God
needs to be demonstrated,” writes Scheeben (Dogmati^, II, n.
29), “it does not follow that its certainty is merely the result of
a scientific proof, one of conscious reflection, based on our own
research or on the teaching of others; nor does it follow that this
certainty is due to the scientific accuracy of the proof. On the
contrary, the proof required so that anyone may arrive at com­
plete certainty is so easy and so clear that one scarcely perceives
the logical process which it involves, and that the scientifically
developed proofs, far from being the means by which man first
acquires certainty of the existence of God, merely clarify and
confirm the knowledge which he already has. Moreover, since
the proof, in its original form, presents itself more or less as an

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

253

ocular demonstration, and finds an echo in the most hidden re­
cesses of the rational nature of man, it establishes a conviction
on this basis which is firmer and less open to attack than any
other, no matter how ingeniously contrived, and cannot be as­
sailed by any scientific objection.” Thus are verified the words of
Scripture when it chides the pagans, not for having neglected
the studies necessary for acquiring a knowledge of God, but for
having violently suppressed the divine truth clearly made known
to the mind of man. (Rom. I, 18; II, 14). To deny the existence of
God is an insult to nature (μάταιοι φύσει; Wisd. XIII, 1) as well
as to reason ("Dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est Deus; Ps.
XIII).
This general proof may be stated as follows, by ascending from
the lower beings up to man:
We know from experience that there are beings and events
belonging to different orders. Certain things in nature are in­
animate (minerals); and there is the vegetative life (in plants),
the sensitive life (in animals), and the intellectual and moral
life (in man). All these things come into existence and disap­
pear again, they are born and they die, which shows that their
activity has a beginning and an end. Evidently they do not exist
of and by themselves. What, then, causes them to come into
being?
If there are things in existence at present, there must have been
some thing in existence always. “If at any particular moment
of time nothing exists, then nothing will ever come into exist­
ence.” "Ex nihilo nihil fit." The principle of causality tells us
that nothing cannot be the reason or cause of actual being. To
say that the series of perishable things had or did not have a be­
ginning, does not solve the problem. If the series is eternal, it
remains eternally insufficient; for the perishable beings of the
past were just as indigent as those now existing, and not in any
sense self-sufficient. How could any one of them, not being able

254

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

to account for its own existence, account for those that follow?
This would be the same as admitting that the greater proceeds
from the less. We must admit, therefore, that above perishable
beings there is a First Being, who owes existence only to Him­
self and can give it to others. (General Proof based on the fact
of contingency; see n. 38).
If living beings exist to-day, and if life is superior to brute
matter, it could not have evolved from the latter, for to assert
this would mean that the greater comes from the less, or, what
amounts to the same, that being comes from nothing. Just as
being, as such, cannot come from nothing, living being cannot
proceed from that which is non-living and of a lower order than
life. The First Being must, therefore, have life (n. 49). This
necessary conclusion becomes practically evident to the senses if
we suppose that it is an established fact of positive science that
the series of living beings had a beginning.
If there is such a thing in the world to-day as intelligence and
knowledge; if intelligence is superior to brute matter, to the
vegetative and the sensitive life; if the most domesticated of
animals can never be trained so as to grasp the principle of
sufficient reason or the first principle of the moral law: intelli­
gence could never have evolved from these lower grades of being,
but it is necessary to admit an intelligent being existing from all
eternity. The intellectuality of this being cannot be, like ours,
contingent; for, not being responsible for its own existence, how
could it account for that of others? This means that the First
Being is of necessity intelligent. If everything originated from
matter, from a lump of clay, how could human reason, or the
mind of man, have evolved? “There is no greater absurdity
than to admit that intelligent beings are the result of a blind and
material fatalism,” says Montesquieu (proof based on the con­
tingency of mind; see infra, n. 39, b). And how could there be

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

255

order in the world without an intelligent designer? (proof from
the evidence of order in the world; infra n. 40).
If the series of rational principles, which dominate our
reason and all reality, actual as well as possible, are necessary,
and consequently superior and anterior to all contingent intellects
and realities which they regulate, then they are independent of
the latter, and there must always have been some intelligent being
reigning supreme in the realm of the possible, the real, and the
intellectual. This supreme intellect must have been in possession
of a first and unchangeable truth. In other words, if the in­
telligible and its necessary laws are superior to the unintelligible
and the contingent, they must have existed from all eternity, for
they could not possibly have originated from that which in no
wise contained them (proof based on the eternal truths; infra
n. 39> c).
If, finally, there are in the world to-day, morality, justice,
charity, if we can attribute sanctity to Christ and Christianity, if
this morality and diis sanctity are of a higher order than what
is neither holy nor moral, there must have been from all eternity
a moral, just, good, and holy Being. The soul of a St. Augustine
or a St. Vincent de Paul, the humblest of Christians for whom
the words of the Pater 'Noster have a message to convey—is
there anything more absurd than to say that these are the result
of a material and blind fatality? Can the desire for God and for
perfect holiness be explained apart from God? Can the relative
be explained apart from the absolute? (Proof based on the con­
tingency of mind, applied to morality and religion in practice).
If the first principle of the moral law, namely, that we must do
good and avoid evil (“Do your duty, let happen what may,”)
forces itself upon us with no less objectivity and necessity than
the principles of speculative reason; if the really good, which is
the object of our will (good in itself, superior to useful and

256

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

delectable good), has a right to be loved and willed apart from
the satisfaction and the advantages to be derived from it; if the
being capable of such an act of the will must so will, in order to
retain its raison d'etre; if the voice of conscience proclaims this
right of the good to be loved, end afterwards approves or con­
demns, without our being able to stifle the feelings of remorse; if,
in a word, the right of good to be loved and practised dominates
our moral activity and that of societies, actual and possible, just
as the principle of identity dominates the real, both actual and
possible, then there must have been from all eternity a founda­
tion for these absolute rights. These necessary and dominant
rights cannot be explained and regulated by any contingent
reality. Since they are above everything except the Absolute Good,
it is only the latter that can explain their existence. (Proof based
on the moral law; n. 39, e). If we are conscious of a moral law
within us which is superior to all human legislation, there must
be a supreme legislator.
Therefore, there must be a First Being, who is at the same
time Life, Intelligence, supreme Truth, absolute Justice, perfect
Holiness, and sovereign Goodness. This conclusion is based on
the principle that “the greater cannot proceed from the less,”
which in turn is merely a formulation of the principle of causal­
ity, already discussed. "Quod est non a se, est ab alio quod est
a se": That which has not its reason for existing in itself, must
derive that reason from another being, which exists by and for
itself (see supra, no. 9). The lower grades of being (lifeless matter,
the vegetative and sensitive life), far from being able to explain
the higher (intelligence), can be explained only by this latter.
The simplest of material elements, such as the atom and the
crystal, far from being the principle of things, can be explained
only by an idea of type or final end. The display in them of
intelligent design can have been caused only by an intelligent

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

257

designer. The physical sciences, if they have any objective valid­
ity, reveal this intelligible law or sufficient reason, but are not
the cause of it. (Proof based on the notion of final causes; n. 40).
This general proof shows us the absurdity of Materialistic Evo­
lutionism, based on an antiscientific and antiphilosophical hy­
pothesis. It is antiscientific, because it presupposes the homo­
geneity of all phenomena, from the physical-chemical up to the
most sublime acts of philosophical and religious contemplation.
Now, science has nothing to adduce in favor of such a homo­
geneity; on the contrary, as Dubois-Reymond remarks in his
work, Les Limites de la Science, science is confronted with seven
baffling problems, namely, (1) the nature of matter and of force;
(2) the origin of movement; (3) the first appearance of life;
(4) the apparent finality of nature; (5) the appearance of sensa­
tion and consciousness; (6) the origin of reason and language;
(7) free will. This is tantamount to saying that science cannot
explain the higher forms of reality by the laws of inanimate mat­
ter. Materialistic Evolutionism is also antiphilosophical. What­
ever the degree of fecundity and however numerous the qualities
which may be ascribed to it, it is always, by its very definition,
blind necessity or a blind contingency (absence of intelligence).
How could a superior intelligence ever have evolved from it?
The physical and chemical laws cannot explain intelligence, but
receive their own explanation from it alone.
This general proof also furnishes a virtual refutation of Ideal­
istic Pantheism. The required First Being, who is entirely in­
dependent of everything not itself, is also endowed with intellect
and will—and these three notes constitute personality. Moreover,
we cannot think of ourselves as modes or accidents of this Being,
for if the greater cannot proceed from the less, the principle of
things must from all eternity possess the plenitude of being, in­
telligence, truth, and goodness. It is not susceptible of further

258

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

perfection, nor can becoming be attributed to it, since becoming
in its final analysis presupposes privation. (See nos. 36, a and
39, a.).
Some Evolutionists (e.g., John Stuart Mill; supra n. 12), make
bold to affirm that the greater does proceed from the less, being
from nothingness, mind from matter. Hegel sees no difficulty in
admitting the same conclusion, since for him the principle of
contradiction has no objective significance, and being and nonbeing are identical.
Many Positivists (Haeckel, for instance) are inclined to accept
the principle that the greater cannot proceed from the less, but
deny the superiority of life, sensation, and thought, which they
regard as merely the result of physical forces in harmonious
combination. Primitive matter, they say, is not only ponderable,
inert, and passive, but also ether, which is imponderable matter
perpetually in motion. The atom which is attracted by another
atom is an example of sensation and inclination in the rudi­
mentary stage; in other words, it is a soul in embryo. The same
must be said of molecules, which are composed of two or more
atoms, as well as of the far more complex compounds of these
molecules. The way in which they combine is purely mechanical;
but by reason of this very mechanism the psychic element of
things becomes complicated and diversified in accordance with
their material elements.6
From this point of view, philosophical or religious contempla­
tion is not essentially of a higher order than the functions of the
liver or the kidneys. These Materialistic Positivists are forced to
conclude that the harmony prevailing in the laws of nature can­
not be ascribed to an intelligent cause, but is the result of chance
or blind necessity. In defence of their thesis they appeal to the
principles of modern physics, especially to the principle of the
8 Sec Haeckel, The Riddles of the Universe, ch. XII, and the criticism of this
system by E. Boutroux, Science et Religion, p. 139.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

259

conservation of energy, which is commonly interpreted as mean­
ing that “nothing is lost and nothing is created.” If nothing is
lost and nothing is created, then a living, rational being can,
strictly speaking, only expend and restore the motive energies
received from outside, not only without any quantitative addi­
tions, but even without modifying the natural tendencies of
these energies by their own spontaneous action; for to change the
direction of a force requires force, and we cannot create force.
The sum-total of available energy in the universe is fixed, either
from all eternity or since the coming into being of things. The
intellectual and moral life is but a reflex of the physical life.
In his thesis on La Contingence des Lois de la Nature (1874),
E. Boutroux replied to this objection by pointing out that the
conservation of energy cannot be advanced as a primordial and
universal necessity which would explain everything else, since it
is itself but a contingent and partial lato in need of a cause. “The
most elementary and the most general of the physical and chem­
ical laws of nature,” he says, “declare what relationships exist
between things so heterogeneous that it is impossible to say that
the consequent is proportionate to the antecedent and results
from it, as the effect from its cause. . . . For us they are merely
a series of connected events which we have experienced, and
no less contingent than experience itself. . . . The quantity of
physical action may increase or decrease in the universe or in
parts of the universe.” (3rd ed., p. 74). This law of the conserva­
tion of energy is not a necessary truth, a supreme law which
nature is compelled to obey; itself contingent, it demands a
cause. Even if it were a necessary law, like the principle of contra­
diction, it would not explain the existence of nature, the existence
of beings in which it is found, and which may be conceived as not
existing. Furthermore, it is but a partial law; man finds it opera­
tive in a special sphere, that of physics and chemistry, and even
in this inorganic sphere its verification is but approximate. “How

200

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

can it be proved that the phenomena observed in physics are not
in any way deflected from their own natural course by some
superior intervention?” 7 The law is true only of a closed system,
removed from all external activities, in which the sum-total of
potential and actual energy remains constant; but how can it be
proved that the physical universe is a closed system? 8
In the biological field the verification of this law is an impos­
sibility, “for we cannot pass judgment on an infinitely large
number of infinitely small forms of life.” 8 As for the extension of
this law to the domain of the spirit, the hypothesis is not only
incapable of verification, but absolutely gratuitous. “Not only is
it unnecessary that the world of the spirit should be governed
by the same laws which regulate the world of bodies, but since
the spiritual is of a different nature from the corporeal, it would
be most extraordinary if it did not have its own laws.” 10
7 Boutroux, ibid., p. 85.
8 See in the Revue Thomiste (Jan., 1905) an article written by the Rev.
R. Hedde on "The Two Principles of Thermodynamics.” We quote from it the
following lines: “The law [of die conservation of energy] is applicable only on the
supposition that the universe is a system closed to all external action; this hy­
pothesis, necessary for the establishment of the law, cannot be the corollary of this
law. If, therefore, spiritual substances intervene in the world of material things,
the demonstration of the law will be defective; for we shall be unable to foresee,
as far as physics is concerned, the consequences of such an intervention. It seems
that certain spiritual philosophers have been entirely wrong in holding that the
principle of the conservation of energy constitutes an objection against human
freedom. Even if human freedom were able to modify the quantity of total energy
in the universe, the physicist would still have the right to proclaim the principle
of the conservation of energy, the only one in which he is interested; for what
concerns him is not to maintain the constancy of a sum about which he knows
nothing, but to know that the phenomena which he studies cannot possibly bring
about a variation of the said principle. Therefore, the law no more affects human
than it affects divine freedom; the objection is valueless against both forms of
freedom." (Revue Thomiste, Vol. XII, p. 726. See also Cursus Philosophiae
Thomisticae, by P. Hugon, O.P., Vol. IV, p. 172; de Munnynck, O.P., "La Conser­
vation de l'Energie et la Liberté Morale in Revue Thomiste, 1897, pp. 115 ff.; and
Sept., 1899, and also Science et Religion, a series of pamphlets. Also Fr.
Couailhac, S.J., La Liberte et la Conservation de l'Energie).
8 Rabier, Psychologie, p. 543.
10 Mgr. d’Hulst, Confer, de Notre-Dame, 1891, p. 396.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

261

Boutroux in his thesis on the Contingency of the Laws of
Nature11 has also established the fact that there is no inherent
necessity with regard to the physical and chemical forces of
nature, in virtue of which they are bound to produce that com­
bination which results in life, sensation, and intelligence. The
actualization of these higher forms of life is contingent, and
hence demands a cause different from that demanded by the
physical and chemical laws. The universe presents itself to us as
a hierarchy of natures, of which the higher forms cannot be con­
ceived as a mere production or development of the lower. Thus
the traditionally accepted general proof is confirmed, and has
lost nothing of its validity.
We shall now explain more fully and defend scientifically, i. e.,
with metaphysical arguments, this general proof by means of the
five typical proofs as formulated by St. Thomas.

36) Proof from motion. A. The proof.—B. Objections.—C. Con­
sequences.
A. The proof. We shall first present this proof in its widest
sense (a) by starting from the notion of motion; then we shall
apply it to (b) physical motion, and afterwards to (c) spiritual
motion. (Concerning this proof, see Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VII,
Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 1 and 2; Bk. VIII, Leet. 9, 12, 13,
23; John of St. Thomas, Cursus Philosophicus; Philosophia Na­
turalis, q. 24, a. 3, and Cursus Theologicus, In lam, q. 2, a. 3).
a). Taken in its widest sense, this proof claims to establish the
existence of a being immovable from every point of view, and,
therefore, uncreated; for in the case of every created being there
11 We shall see later on (n. 40) that the laws of nature are hypothetically neces­
sary. This thesis of Aristotle avoids the excesses of absolute Determinism and those
of Contingentism, which merely rejects necessity in order to rely upon chance or
undisciplined freedom. See the end of this work for a discussion of the relations
between free will and the absolutely necessary principles of reason and being
(n. 61).

202

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

is at least the transition from non-being to being, which con­
flicts with the notion of absolute immutability.
The existence of motion or change is the starting-point of the
argument, without stating precisely whether the change is sub­
stantial or accidental, whether the motion is spiritual or sensible,
local, qualitative or by way of augmentation. When arguing
against Pantheism it is not at all necessary to assume a plurality of
distinct substances, but it suffices to admit the existence of any
kind of motion and to study it as motion. Internal and external
experience confirms the existence of motion. Zeno declared mo­
tion to be impossible, but this declaration was based on the gratu­
itous and false hypothesis that the continuous is composed of in­
divisible parts.12
Starting from motion, we gradually arrive at the conclusion
that there is an absolutely immovable being, and this by means
of two principles: (i) Whatever is in motion, is set in motion by
another; (2) in a series of actually and essentially subordinate
movers, there is no regress to infinity. Hence we must finally
arrive at a first mover which itself is not moved by any kind of
motion.
The first proposition, “Whatever is in motion, is set in motion
by another,” is based on tire nature of motion or becoming. As
we have already shown (see nos. 21 and 26), becoming presup­
poses the absence of identity; it is a successive union of diverse
things (for instance: that which is here, afterwards is there; that
which is white becomes grey; the intellect from a state of igno­
rance gradually acquires a knowledge of things, becomes more
penetrating, etc). This successive union of diverse things cannot
be unconditioned; to deny this proposition would be to deny the
principle of identity and to say that diverse elements, which of
12 See Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VI; on Aristotle's refutation of Zeno, cfr. Baudin,
"L'Acte et la Puissance," in Revue Thomiste, 1899, PP- 287-293.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

263

themselves do not follow one another, do of themselves follow one
another; it would mean to say that ignorance, which of itself is
not knowledge, nor in any way connected with knowledge, nor
the result of knowledge, can of itself be the result of knowledge.
To say that becoming is its own sufficient reason, is to make con­
tradiction the principle of all things (see n. 21).
If we study this becoming more closely, we observe not only
that it is not unconditioned, but also that it requires a determinate
cause, i. e., one that is in act. In fact, if we consider that which
becomes, we are obliged to say that it is not yet what it will be
(ex ente non fit ens, quia jam est ens), and that it is not the
absolute nothing of that which will be (ex nihilo nihil fit)·, at
least, there must be a possibility of its being what it will be; for
instance, that only can be moved locally which is susceptible of
being moved; that only which is susceptible of heat, light, and mag­
netism is susceptible to these influences; the child who as
yet does not know anything, can know something, and this
constitutes the real difference between him and the irrational ani­
mal; finally, that alone will become a reality which is capable of
existing, and which involves no contradiction in terms. (In this
latter case no real power is required, but a possibility is). There­
fore, becoming is the transition from potency to act, from indéter­
mination to determination. But the sufficient reason for this tran­
sition is not to be found in the transition itself, since it is not
unconditioned. Potency does not bring itself into act, and uncondi­
tioned union of diverse things is impossible. Therefore, becoming
demands an extrinsic actualization or realizing raison d’être,
which we called efficient cause (n. 25) when we showed the neces­
sity as well as the twofold validity, objective and transcendental,
of the principle of causality (see n. 25 and 29). This realizing
raison d’être must itself be real before it can realize, must itself
be actual before it can actualize, must itself be determined before

264

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

it can determine anything. This means that it must actually have
that for which becoming is as yet only in potentiality.13 To deny
this is to assert that the greater can proceed from the less, or,
what amounts to the same thing, that being arises out of nothing­
ness. St. Thomas expresses this truth in the formula: “'Nihil
movetur nisi secundum quod est in potentia ad illud ad quod
movetur; movet autem aliquid, secundum quod est actu (noth­
ing is moved except in so far as it is potentially capable of re­
ceiving such motion; only in so far as anything is actually in
motion, does it move anything else”).
Now, if it is impossible that one and the same being can at the
same time and in the same sense be both in potency (undeter­
mined) and in act (determined), it is equally impossible that one
and the same being in the same sense can be both mover and
moved; hence, if it is in motion, it is moved by some other being,
unless it happens to be in motion in a certain sense with respect
to one part of its being, in which case it can be moved by another
part of its being. Such is the case with living beings, and even
more so with sentient and intelligent beings. But since the part
which moves is subject to a motion of another order, it demands
in its turn an external mover. Hence we see that whatever is in
motion, is moved by another.
The second proposition: "There is no regress to infinity in a
series of movers which are actually and essentially subordinate,"
is based upon the principle of causality and in no way upon the
fact that an infinite and innumerable multitude is an impossi­
bility. With Aristotle, St. Thomas, Leibniz, and Kant we do not
see that it is a contradiction to admit a regress to infinity in a
series of movers which were accidentally subordinate in the past.
It cannot be proved that the series of generations in the animal
kingdom or of the transformations of energy had a beginning
18 See Ravaisson, Essai sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote, Vol. I, pp. 391 and 394.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

265

and are not eternal (see la, q. 46, and supra, n. to). It is con­
trary to reason to say that an actually existing motion can have
its sufficient reason, its actualizing raison d'être, in a series of
movers, each one of which is itself moved by some external cause.
If all the movers receive that impulse which they transmit, if
there is not a prime mover which imparts movement without
receiving it, then motion is out of the question, for it has no cause.
“You may conjure up an infinite number of intermediate causes,
but by this process you merely complicate the series, yet do not
establish a single cause. You make the channel longer, but it
has no source. If it has no source, then the intermediate causes
are ineffective, and no result could be produced, or rather there
will be neither intermediate causes nor result, which means that
everything has vanished.”14 To try to dispense with the necessity
of a source is the same as saying that a watch can run without
a spring, provided it has an infinite number of wheels, “that
a brush can paint by itself, provided it has a very long handle.” 15
Such statements are a denial of our first proposition, for they
imply that becoming is its own sufficient reason, that the un­
conditional union of diverse things is a possibility, that the
greater proceeds from the less, being from nothingness, that the
conditioned does not have to be explained by the unconditioned.
But there is no need of stopping anywhere in a series of past
movers, since they exert no influence upon the actual movement
which has to be accounted for; they are merely accidental causes
(see n. 9 and to). The principle of sufficient reason does not com­
pel us to terminate this series of accidental causes, but to get away
from it, in order to rise up to a mover of another order, not pre­
moved, and immobile in this sense, that immobility is not of
potency, which is anterior to motion, but that it is of act, which
14 Scrtillangcs, Les Sources de la Croyance en Dieu, ed. in 8vo, p. 65.
Ibid.

266

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

has no need of being subjected to the process of becoming be­
cause it already exists. {Immotus in se permanens).
By applying these two principles to motion of any kind, we at
last come to admit the existence of a prime mover which is tn no
way set in motion by another. We must draw special attention
to the fact that physical motion, not so much as motion, but
insofar as it is physical, only demands an immobile mover from
the physical point of view, for instance, a world-soul. But is this
soul itself the subject of a spiritual motion, is it the substratum of
a process of becoming? This appearance of something new, this
fieri {becoming) presupposes in the soul the presence of a
potency or faculty which was not its activity, in fact, which was
not even in action, but merely had the power to act. Therefore,
the intervention of a higher cause was necessary to set it in mo­
tion. If this higher mover is itself set in motion, then the question
rests. In a series of essentially subordinate movers we must finally
arrive at one which is its own principle of motion, and which
can explain the entity of its own action. But that alone can ex­
plain the entity of its action, to which the action belongs in­
trinsically, not only as a potency, but also as an act, and which,
consequently, is its own very action, its very activity. Such a
mover is absolutely immobile in this sense that He has by and of
Himself that which the others acquire by motion. Therefore,
He is essentially distinct from all mobile beings, either corporeal
or spiritual. This statement constitutes the first refutation of
Pantheism, as the Vatican Council expresses it (Session III, c. i) :
“Since God is absolutely immutable, He is to be declared as really
and essentially distinct from the world.” The first mover, being
essentially immobile, superior to all motion, is necessarily distinct
from the corporeal or spiritual world, which is by its very nature
subject to change.
Moreover, such a mover must be self-existing; for that alone can

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

267

act of itself which exists by itself; “operari sequitur esse et modus
operandi modum essendi” (action follows upon the nature of a
being, and the mode of its action is according to the mode of its
being); in other words, for a being to contain within itself the
explanation of the entity of its action, it must be self-existing
(la, q. 3, a. 1 and 2; q. 54, a. 1 and 2). Finally, just as A is A, so
it must be with what is self-existing in regard to its existence (la,
q. 3, a. 4). It must be the self-subsistent being, pure being, pure
act, absolute identity, the reverse of that want of identity which
is found in all becoming. This last-mentioned point will be
brought out more clearly a posteriori by the fourth proof for the
existence of God.
From the above remarks we see that the principle of identity
is not only the supreme law of thought, but also the supreme law
of reality. The identity here established is that of immutability,
and the fourth proof will establish the more profound attribute
of simplicity.
b) It may be of help to the imagination to present the proof
for the existence of God drawn from motion by taking an ex­
ample of subordinate causes which appeals to the senses. “A
sailor holds up an anchor on board ship, the ship supports the
sailor, the sea enables the ship to float, the earth holds in check
the sea, the sun keeps the earth fixed in its course, and some
unknown centre of attraction holds the sun in its place. But
after that? . . . We cannot go on in this manner ad infinitum
in a series of causes which are actually subordinate.”16 There must
be a primary efficient cause which actually exists and gives ef­
ficacy to all the other causes. It is useless to appeal to the past
series of transformations of energy, so as to discover the one
which immediately preceded the present condition of our solar
system and of the entire universe; these anterior forms of energy
are not causes; they were, besides, transitory and as indigent as
10 Sec Sertillanges, Sources de la Croyance en Dieu, p. 65.

268

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the actual forms, and just as much in need of explanation as they.
If the series is eternal, it is eternally insufficient. We must neces­
sarily admit the existence of a non-transitory cause, one in itself
permanently immobile (immota in se permanens'), not at the be­
ginning of the series, but above all others, a sort of permanent
source of life in the universe, and the origin of all becoming.
This all-sufficing cause could not be material, even if, accepting
the theory of the Dynamists, we conceived of matter as endowed
with energy and with certain primitive essential powers. The
question here at issue is not physical, but metaphysical. Physics,
a particular science, considers the cause of motion precisely as
motion. We have to consider it from the metaphysical point of
view, insofar as it is a manifestation of being. The question re­
mains, therefore, whether this matter, endowed with energy,
is an agent that can of and by itself explain the being of its ac­
tion: in other words, an agent whose power to act is its very ac­
tion, per se primo agens: intrinsically and immediately operative?
(la, q. 3, a. 2, 3a ratio; q. 54, a. 1). This is impossible, for, as
we have just seen, such an agent cannot be the subject of becom­
ing, and matter is pre-eminently such a subject.
c) This proof from motion may be exemplified in another way
by considering motions of the spiritual order, as St. Thomas has
done in the article of his Summa entitled, “Whether the Will is
Moved by any External Principle?” (la IIae, q. 9, a. 4). Our will
begins to will certain things which it did not will before; in
fact, when striving to attain a certain end, the will, in virtue of
this first volition, moves itself to will the means for attaining that
end. Thus, a sick person wishes to be cured, and as a consequence
decides to see the doctor. But the will was not always actuated
by this superior tendency towards an end. Since to be restored to
health is something good, the will began to wish for this good.
Moreover, this actual willing of what is good is an act distinct
from the faculty of willing. Our will is not an eternal act of lov-

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

269

ing what is good; of itself it does not contain its first act except
in potentia, and when it appears, it is something new, a becoming.
To find the realizing raison d'être of this becoming and of the
being of this act itself, we must go back to a mover of a higher
order, to one that is its own activity, determines itself to act, and,
therefore, is self-existent Being itself. Only self-existent Being
can explain the entity of a becoming which does not determine
itself. “Therefore we must of necessity suppose that the will
advances to its first movement in virtue of the instigation of
some exterior mover, as Aristotle concludes in his Eudemian
Ethics, VII, ch. XIV” (la IIae, q. 9, a. 4). Afterwards the will,
already in action, moves itself to further acts; but in doing so it
functions merely as a secondary cause, always subordinate to
the impulse or motion of the first cause.
St. Thomas also proposes the question (la, q. 82, a. 4, ad 3um),
whether every act of the intellect presupposes an act of the will,
applying the intellect to consider what is presented to it. He
answers that the first act of the intellect does not presuppose an
anterior act of the will, but only that it be moved by the primary
intellect. “There is no need to go on indefinitely,” he says, “but
we stop at the intellect as preceding all the rest. For every move­
ment of the will must be preceded by apprehension, whereas
every apprehension is not preceded by an act of the will; but
the principle of counsel and understanding is an intellectual
principle higher than our intellect, namely, God, as Aristotle
also says (Eth. Eudem., VII, ch. XIV). And in this way he shows
that there is no procedure in infinitum.” See also la, q. 2, a. 3,
ad 2um; q. 79, a. 4; q. 105, a. 5, where St. Thomas explains that
the concurrence of the Supreme Intellect is necessary not only
for the first act of the created intellect, but also for each succes­
sive act, and hence the secondary cause always remains subordinate
to the primary cause, and every movement relating to partici­
pation in an absolute perfection presupposes an intervention of

270

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

God by reason of this same perfection, which is not such by
participation. No created mover acts without the concurrence of
the prime mover; no created intellect without the concurrence
of the primary intellect, and there is no created freedom of ac­
tion without the concurrence of the primary freedom.
B. Objections. Quite a number of objections have been raised
against this proof. The most important of them, which we shall
discuss first, concern the first proposition, namely, that what­
ever is in motion, is set in motion by another {quidquid movetur
ab alio movetur). Then we shall examine those objections which
deny the necessity, in a series of actually subordinate movers, of
finally coming to one that is first. Last of all we shall discuss
those objections which directly attack our conclusion and claim
to prove that a motionless mover is an intrinsic contradiction, or
that such a mover is not to be identified with die true God.
a) The principle, “Whatever is in motion, is set in motion by
another,” is contested, as far as physical motion goes, by
a number of modern physicists, whose philosophy is either (a)
mechanistic or (/?) dynamistic. As far as psychic motion is con­
cerned, the principle is disputed by some Scholastics, including
Suarez (γ). According to certain followers of the philosophy of
becoming,11 it would seem that this axiom derives its apparent
lucidity from a spatial image and rests upon the imaginary
postulate of the substantial distinction of bodies (δ).
In the physical order, various objections have been raised, at­
tacking the principle, both by the Mechanists and the Dynamists.
a) As for the Mechanists, who follow Descartes, and Democ­
ritus amongst the ancients, motion (they mean local motion,
the only kind which they admit), is a reality distinct from ex­
tension, which, always remaining the same, surrounds extended
matter and passes from one body to another. According to
1T For instance, Abbé Le Roy in the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale,
March, 1907.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

271

Democritus, motion, like matter, is absolute. According to
Descartes, God has from the beginning placed in things an inaugmentable quantity of motion, and conserves this motion just
as He conserves the things themselves. This mathematical con­
ception of motion, which has passed into modern physics, rejects
the question of the relations between motion and being, and
consequently also that of the origin of motion, and considers
merely its transformations. Descartes has deduced from it the
principle of inertia in explicit terms: “If a portion of matter is
at rest, it does not begin to set itself in motion; but once it is in
motion, we have no reason to suppose that it will ever be com­
pelled to cease moving itself, so long as it does not meet with
anything that retards or stops its motion.” {Principes, II, 37; Le
Monde, VII). He adds that “Every moving body has a tendency
to continue moving in a straight line.” {Principes, II, 39; Le
Monde, VII). This principle, admitted a priori by Descartes, was
accepted as the result of experience by Galileo. Newton, Laplace,
and Poisson believed in its absolute validity. To-day it is looked
upon as a hypothesis suggested, but not verified, by the facts.18
From his concept of motion Descartes deduced what in our present
terminology is known as the principle of the conservation of
energy. “It is impossible,” he said, “for motion ever to cease, or
even for it to change, except insofar as it passes from one subject
to another;” if it disappears in one form, it reappears in another.
{Principes, II, 36) ,19 Robert Mayer, the originator of thermo­
dynamics, would say that “the totality of energy in a system in
which the bodies are removed from all external influence (the
sum of their actual and potential energy), remains constant.”
From this point of view, anything that is in motion no longer
needs an actual mover whilst it is in motion; it needs him only
when it passes from a state of rest to what since Descartes has
18 Sec H. Poincaré, La Science et l'Hypothèse, pp. 112-119.
18 See E. Naville, La Physique Moderne, and ed., 1890, pp. 86 and 87.

272

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

been called the state of motion {état de mouvement). By local
motion a body would acquire nothing; it would merely pass
from potency to act, it would merely change its position.
Considering this new theory of local motion as an advance in
science, Fr. Bulliot, at a Catholic Congress held in Brussels, in
1894, proposed to use as a basis for the proof of God’s existence
from motion, not motion itself, but the transition from repose to
motion.20
It has been rightly said in answer to this proposal, that the
famous proof in that case is no longer a proof based on motion,
but one based on contingency, and in this hypothesis motion, like
stable and permanent realities, needs only a conservative cause,
but no prime mover. Moreover, many other things are re­
quired before the Cartesian idea of motion can be accepted, either
from the philosophical or from the scientific point of view, and
if it were acceptable for local motion, our proof could still be
based on qualitative motions or augmentation.
From the philosophical point of view it cannot be admitted
that motion, while remaining numerically the same, passes from
one subject into another; neither can it be admitted that energy
is a reality which remains numerically the same, though passing
in different forms from one subject into another. It is a means
by which the imagination of the savant can represent the phe­
nomena, of which all he has to do is to determine what are their
permanent relations. The concept thus formed cannot claim to
express the intrinsic nature of the realities. It belongs to meta­
physics, and not to positive science. Now, from the metaphysical
point of view or that of being, “it is false to assert that local mo­
tion and heat are something external to the bodies which they
affect. Motion and heat are accidents which cannot possibly be
conceived outside of a subject. It is the subject which gives them
their entity; and they are this motion and this heat because they
20 See Revue Thomiste, 1894, p. 578.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

273

are the motion or the heat of this subject. To affirm that mo­
tion is something which, while remaining what it is, can pass
from one body into another, is to affirm a contradiction. Motion
does not leave the moving body, it does not communicate itself,
but imparts motion to another body; heat does not change its
locality, but produces heat within a given circumference.” 21
This Cartesian theory of local motion involves other meta­
physical impossibilities. Thus we cannot speak of a state of mo­
tion. Motion, being essentially a change, is the opposite of a
state, which implies stability. There is no less change in the
transition from one position to another in the course of move­
ment, than in the transition from repose to motion itself; if, there­
fore, this first change demands another cause, the following
changes demand it for the same reason. To deny that the change
which takes place in the course of motion demands a cause,
is tantamount to denying the principle of identity or non­
contradiction. In fact, this change of position is a successive union
of the diverse (of positions A, B, C. . .), and to say that the un­
conditional union of the diverse is possible is to say that elements
of themselves diverse can of themselves be something of a one,
that elements which of themselves are not united can be of
themselves united and succeed each other. Such an admission
involves a denial of the principle of non-contradiction. Gener­
alized and raised to the standard of a supreme principle, this
negation implies Evolutionistic Pantheism of the Heraclitan,
Hegelian or Bergsonian type (cfr. supra, n. 4 and 21), in which be­
coming is its own sufficient reason. All theories which, like that
of Descartes, refuse to study becoming as a function of being,
which alone is intelligible of and by itself, regard it merely as a
function of repose. The state of repose may be inferior to be21 P. Lacome, “Theories Physiques” in the Revue Thomiste, 1894, p. 96. Con­
sult this same article for the other difficulties arising from the Cartesian theory
of local motion, and for the distinction between this latter and qualitative motion
(for instance, increase in the degree of heat).

274

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

coming, that is, to the terminus a quo kind of repose, which means
the point that marks the beginning of motion. Being is always
superior to becoming; that which is, is always more than that
which is becoming, and which as yet is not. Being is the efficient
and final cause of becoming, but of itself postulates neither an
efficient nor a final cause. The Mechanistic theory, which con­
siders motion as local, may well study it as a function of re­
pose; but metaphysics, which considers local motion precisely
as motion, as a process of becoming, must study it as a function
of being, which is its formal object.
Another philosophical impossibility, which arises from the
preceding one, consists in explaining how a finite and minimum
impulsion could produce an infinite effect, i. e., a perpetual mo­
tion, in which there would always be something new, a perpetual
absence of identity. Aristotle was more to the point when he
demanded an infinite potency for a motion which is infinite in
duration. (Cfr. Physics, Bk. VIII; Comment, of St. Thomas,
Leet. 2i ; and Cajetan’s opuscule, De Dei Gloriosi Infinitate Intensiva).
It is true that the Aristotelian idea of motion, which is ap­
plied without difficulty to either qualitative or augmentative
motion, cannot at first glance be easily reconciled with the mo­
tion of projectiles which continues after their impulsion. (Cfr.
Physics, Bk. VII, Leet. 3; Bk. VIII, Leet. 22: “Whether the
Motion of Projectiles can be Continuous?”) The explanation
given by Aristotle is obscure; he has recourse to the propulsive
elasticity of the circumambient air, which would sustain the pro­
jectile in its motion. St. Thomas is much clearer when he states
that there is in the projectile a force or instrumental power im­
parted to it by the principal agent.22 It has been admitted by a
22 “An instrument is said to be moved by the principal agent, so long as it
retains the power imparted to it by the principal agent: hence an arrow continues
on its course so long as it retains the impulsive force imparted to it by the projec­
tor.” De Potentia, q. 3, a. 11, ad sum.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

275

number of Scholastics and some Thomists, Goudin for instance,23
that the initial impulse generates in the projectile an impetus,
a force capable of serving as motor. This explanation safeguards
the universal principle that “whatever is moved, is set in motion
by another.” In fact, as Goudin remarks, “by reason of the im­
pulse given to the projectile it is not at the same time and in
the same sense in potentiality and in act; it actually has this
impetus, but it is in potentia with regard to the position towards
which it is tending.” In other words, the projectile is in act so far
as its dynamic properties are concerned, and in potentia with
regard to its future positions in space. Thus all contradiction is
avoided. This idea of an impetus, which may be mathematically
expressed as a vital force, seems destined to play an essential role
in the metaphysics of local motion, the purpose of which is to
show that the principle of inertia, as to what there is of experi­
mental truth about it, is itself subordinate to the principle that
“there is no change without a cause.” 24
For the rest, the principle of inertia, insofar as it affirms that
an imparted motion continues without a cause, cannot be veri­
fied by experience. H. Poincare, in his work La Science et
l’Hypothèse (pp. mil), has made it clear that this principle is
neither an a priori truth, “susceptible of being deduced from the
principle of sufficient reason,” nor a truth demonstrated from
experience, as Newton thought it was. “Has it ever been proved
from experiments with bodies removed from the influence of
all external force, that these bodies are not influenced by any
force?” This hypothesis was suggested by some particular facts
23 Physica, I, disp. 3, q. 1, a. 6.
24 The principle of inertia is incontestably true, insofar as it affirms that inani­
mate bodies are of themselves incapable of modifying their state of rest; in truth,
only living organisms are able of themselves to act and set themselves in motion.
But that the motion once imparted to a body continues indefinitely, is a con­
venient fiction for representing certain mathematical or mechanical relations of
the astronomical order; from the philosophical point of view it is seriously to
be contested. (See J. Maritain, La Philosophie Bergsonienne, Paris, 1914, p. 143)·

276

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

(projectiles), and “extended without fear to the most general
cases (in astronomy, for instance), because we know that in these
general cases experience can neither confirm nor deny it.” {Ibid.,
p. 119). The same has been said of the principle of the conserva­
tion of energy: “In a system of bodies removed from all external
influence, the total energy of this system remains constant.” It
has never been possible to withdraw a system of corporeal be­
ings from the influence of invisible forces, such as that of God
or of free will,25 and, above all, it has never been and never
will be proved that the whole universe is a closed system.26
Therefore we maintain that the Aristotelian definition of mo­
tion as a transition from potentiality to act is applicable to local
as well as to the other physical motions (either qualitative or
augmentative); in other words, local motion is no more a state
than the other motions; it is a process of becoming. Hence this
proof for the existence of God can start from motion as its
principle.
Against those who refuse to see that there is question of be­
coming in local motion, it would be possible, it is true, with
Fr. Bulliot to take the transition from the state of rest to mo­
tion as the basic principle in the argumentation and say with
Paul Janet,27 that if bodies are equally indifferent with regard
to rest as to motion, there must be some reason to account for
the fact that they are more often in motion than at rest, and this
reason cannot be in the bodies. Moreover, we may argue from
this fact that bodies are contingent. If they are equally indifferent
with regard to rest and to motion (since it is only in one of these
two states that they can exist), we must conclude that they have
26 See Boutroux, De la Contingence des Lois de la Nature, 3rd ed., pp. 75-85;
De Munnynck, "La Conservation de I’Energie et la Uberti Morale" in Revue
Thomiste, 1897, pp. 115 if.
28 See E. Naville, La Physique Moderne, 2nd ed., pp. 35—42.
21 Le Matérialisme Contemporain, p. 51.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

277

not the reason of their existence in themselves, but postulate an
extrinsic cause.
If it is claimed that local motion can be explained by another
form of energy, such as heat, then this is merely delaying the
question. This anterior form of energy is not numerically the
same reality as that which exists in local motion, but it is a
reality of the same kind, likewise transitory, requiring just as
much an explanation as local motion and every preceding form
does. It matters not whether the series of transformations is
eternal, for it would be eternally insufficient. Hence we come
back to our proof, which is that, to account for these trans­
formations, there must be a mover which is not transitory
itself, and which not only can come into action, but which goes
into action by itself, and contains the source of its activity within
itself. Such a mover cannot be anything material, for, unlike
matter, it cannot be the substratum of any becoming, but pos­
sesses primarily and essentially everything that is gradually
acquired in the process of becoming. The principle of the con­
servation of energy is not, therefore, any more in conflict with
the proof from motion than is the old principle that “the cor­
ruption of one thing means the generation of another." The
energy remains the same, but not numerically so; a transforma­
tion has taken place within it, which is the very reverse of what
is permanent and which, lil^e everything that laci^s identity, de­
mands a cause.
Moreover, we know that the principle of the conservation of
energy has its corrective in the principle of the diminution of
energy. Mechanical energy, when transferred into thermic
energy, cannot be restored in equivalent quantity; thus more
mechanical energy is absorbed for the generation of heat than
can be given back by it. Some thought it possible to deduce a
proof for the existence of God from this principle. If the world

278

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

thus approaches a state of equilibrium and final rest, they ar­
gued, it is because motion is not necessary, and therefore, must
have an extrinsic reason, a cause.28
This is an argument ad homtnem,M and is worth just as much
as the principle of the diminution of energy is worth. Accepting
Duhem’s warning at the Brussels Congress, let us not “have
recourse to disputed theories of physics in establishing the laws
of metaphysics.” 30 In matter of fact we need not have recourse
to the principle of the diminution of energy in order to preserve
the true meaning of the proof of the prime mover against the
Mechanists, who, like Descartes, are content with a brief allu­
sion to the origin of things in the past. In all becoming there is
something new, which demands, not a creative evolution, but
the intervention of the Primary Being.
β) Certain Dynamists present an objection which directly con­
tradicts the principle that whatever is moved is set in motion by
something else ("quidquid movetur, ab alio movetur"). They
admit with us against Descartes, that motion is not imparted
ready-made to an object by some external force, but their rea­
son is that they do not see the necessity of admitting an ex­
ternal mover and view the activity of inanimate things after
the manner of living organisms. According to Schiller, “the
proofs based on motion and on causes are possible only if we
accept a Mechanistic hypothesis for the world; in a Dynamic
system of philosophy they are of no value.”31 We ask: Did
Aristotle and St. Thomas teach Mechanism ?
This objection does not affect our principle, which is true even
of living organisms. A living organism cannot, without con­
tradiction, be in the same sense both mover and moved; it is
moved by one part of itself (its members), and another part of it
28 See Hontheim, Theologia Naturalis, n. 336.
29 Chossat in the Diet, de Théol. Cath., art. "Dieu," col. 938.
80 Cfr. Revue Thomiste, 1894, p. 579.
81 See Revue de Philosophie, 1906, p. 653.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

279

(the heart and the nerve centres) acts as mover; but this other
part, being the substratum of a motion, demands an external
mover, and in the final analysis, a mover not subject to any
process of becoming.
y) The Dynamists think they can explain away the force of
this argument by admitting a force which acts as an intermediary
between potency and act, and which can bring itself into action.
This force is the virtuality spoken of by Leibniz and the virtual
act by which Suarez82 believed he could explain how the will
can bring itself into action without a divine impulse. In the
system of Dynamic philosophy this objection ranks as final.83
We can easily answer this objection by saying that the virtual
act is distinct from the action which results from it. Is there, or
is there not, a trace of becoming in this act? Is its action eternal,
or, on the contrary, did it come about in time? This appearance
of something new, this process of becoming, presupposes an
active potency which is not the source of its activity, which did
not even bring itself into action, but which only proves that it
could come into action. And then, how are we to account for the
transition of this virtual act to the second act, which previously
was non-existent? To say that it effects this by its own power is
to posit an absolute beginning, which is contrary to reason. The
greater does not come from the less, nor being from nothingness.
Therefore, the virtual act has been brought into existence by an
external mover, which, in the final analysis, must be its own
activity, and cannot be the substratum of any becoming.3*
We see, then, how false it is to say with Hebert 35 that the
apparent clarity of the principle, “Whatever is moved is set in mo32 Disp., XXIX, sect. 1, n. 7.
33 John of St. Thomas, In lam, q. 2, disp. 3, a. 2, no. 6; Leibniz, Monadologie,
:d. Boutroux, pp. 39-41; Klcutgen, La Philosophie Scolastique, Vol. Ill, p. 329;
Duhem, L'Evolution de la Mécanique, p. 36.
34 See Gardeil, "L'Evolutionisme et les Principes de St. Thomas" in Revue
Thomiste, 1893, PP· 323 ff· See also Revue Thomiste of 1899, p. 293.
36 Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1902, p. 398.

28ο

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

tion by something else, is based upon a spatial image illegiti­
mately introduced into a metaphysical problem;” or to assert with
Le Roy,36 that this axiom rests upon a postulate of the practical
imagination, according to which there are movers and moved
objects substantially distinct. One recalls to mind that famous
postulate of morcellation : “The distinctions between mover
and moved, between motion and its subject, and the affirma­
tion of the primacy of act over potency, all proceed from the
same postulate of common thought. . . . Criticism shows that
this morcellation of matter is but the result of a mental proc­
ess, prompted by the dictates of practical utility and discourse.
. . . If the world consists of an immense continuity of unceasing
transformations, it is no longer a question of a graduated and
innumerable series of beings which necessarily calls for an abso­
lute beginning. ... In affirming the primacy of act, these same
postulates are understood. If causality is but the outpouring of
a fulness into a void, a communication to a receptive term of
that which another term possesses, in a word, if it is the an­
thropomorphic operation of an agency, then well and good! But
what do these idols of the practical imagination amount to? Why
not simply identijy being with becoming? ... As things are
motion, there is no longer any need of asking whence they derive
motion.” 37 Motion not only does not demand an explanation, but
it explains everything else. Nominalistic Sensualism can scarcely
put the case differently.
We may refuse to go beyond the limits of this Empiricism,
and rest with Heraclitus and Bergson in the -πάντα pû or uni­
versal flux of things; but if we wish to find an intelligible inter­
pretation of the real, if we wish, without denying the process of
becoming (as Parmenides did), to conceive this process as a func88 Rev. de Mit. et de Morale, March, 1907.
8T Le Roy, ibid.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

281

tion of being, which alone is intelligible by itself, what other
explanation is there than that given by Aristotle, who declared
that what already is, cannot become; nothing comes from noth­
ingness? Nevertheless, there is such a phenomenon as becoming.
Where does it come from? It comes from a certain milieu inter­
mediary between determined being and pure nodiingness; in
other words, it comes from undetermined being or potency. Now,
potency not being the same as act, it cannot be actualized or
determined except by a being which is in act. The principle,
“Whatever is moved, is set in motion by something else,” there­
fore, far from being based upon a spatial image, is based upon
the very nature of becoming, rendered intelligible not by reason
of corporeal being, but of being itself, which is the formal object
of the intellect. Thus this notion and this principle can be applied
to a becoming which has nothing spatial about it, as in the case
of the will. The division of being into potency and act, which is
necessary in order that becoming may be rendered intelligible,
may well be called a morcellation; but it is not a utilitarian
morcellation of the sensibly continuous, but a morcellation of
intelligible being, which, as we have seen (n. 21), must be ad­
mitted under penalty of making ourselves ridiculous by interpret­
ing, as Heraclitus and Hegel did, the supreme law of the real in
such a way that it becomes an absurdity.
“Why not simply identify being with becoming?" asks Le
Roy.38 For this very good reason that becoming is not, like be­
ing, intelligible by itself. Becoming is a successive union of
diverse elements. This union cannot be unconditional, for
diversity, of itself and as such, cannot be one. Becoming is the
transition from indetermination to determination, and hence pre­
supposes a determinate cause; to deny this is to say that nothing­
ness can be the cause of being, which is a denial of the principle
88 Rev. de Met. et de Morale, March, 1907.

282

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

of identity and a setting up in its place of the principle of
Pantheism.88
89
Our proof, therefore, in no way presupposes the numerical
distinction of substances, which Hébert and Le Roy assert. Even
if the world were but one substance, as long as there is in it such
a thing as becoming, it demands a mover which is not the sub­
ject oj any becoming, and which consequently is distinct from it.
Diversity presupposes identity in things, the changeable presup­
poses the permanent, and the undetermined, the determined. In
this there is no question of spatial imagination nor of anthropo­
morphism (see n. 23). Seek not for the permanence which matter
or force intrinsically calls for; it is too evident that they do not
possess that attribute, since this matter and this force transform
themselves, and this transformation, which is added to their per­
manence, demands a cause which in itself is not the substratum
of the transformations. The principle, "Whatever is moved, is set
in motion by something else” loses none of its validity.
b) Let us now pass on to the objection raised against the prin­
ciple of άι,άγκι; στ^ραι, that we must finally arrive at the first in a
series of movers which are essentially and actually subordinated
to one another. It is clearly not a question of a series of movers
which were accidentally subordinated to each other in the past.
The necessity of coming to an end in this series cannot be demon­
strated, but only that we must terminate the series (la, q. 46).
The objection that arises here is the same as that which Aristotle
88 On this subject consult J. Maritain, La Philosophie Bergsonienne, Paris, 1914,
especially the chapters on the criticism of the intellect, intuition, the duration of
time, God, and Bergsonian evolutionism. The author, a former disciple of Bergson,
gives us the spirit of Bergsonism, and not merely the letter. He sets before us in
bold relief the fundamental principles of this doctrine and shows how they con­
tradict the first principles of reason, the explanation of which constitutes the most
important part of the general metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas. This same
work contains an excellent expose of the Thomistic teaching on intellectual in­
tuition, of the proofs for the existence of God and of free will. M. Maritain later
expressed full agreement with the Thomists on these question».

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

283

proposed to himself, namely, may it not be a case of a vicious
circle in the causes—so that the prime mover would be the
moved in a kind of motion different from that in which it is the
mover? Thus the intellect moves the will in the order of specifi­
cation by placing the good before it, and the intellect is moved by
the will in the practical order by directing the intellect to con­
sider this same good. "Causae ad invicem sunt causae in diverso
genere" i. e., causes mutually interact, though in a different order.
To answer this difficulty it will suffice to show that there can
be no vicious circle here in the same genus of causality. The
cause would have and would not have what is required for
causation. It would and would not presuppose its effect. If the
warmth of the earth depends upon the radiation of solar heat, the
latter cannot depend upon the former. If the intellect is prompted
to act by the will, the latter cannot, from this same point of
view, depend upon the intellect. Now, in the order of efficient
causality the prime mover demands, both for psychic and for
physical movements, that, inasmuch as it is prime mover, it must
be self-existent; for only that acts of itself which is self-existent,
since action presupposes being, and the mode of action follows
the mode of being. It cannot, therefore, be dependent in its being
and action upon any of the subordinate causes, since all these
causes depend for their action upon the being and action of this
same prime mover. In the order of efficient causality all that is
required is that there be no vicious circle to enable us to establish
the existence of a prime and uncreated mover, who, as such, can­
not be dependent ill any other order of causality (objective or
final).
c) We come finally to a consideration of the objections which
directly attack our conclusion that “there is a prime mover not
moved by any kind of motion, whose very action and, conse­
quently, whose very being is unconditioned, and who is none
other than the true God.” Some claim that a motionless mover is

284

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

a contradiction, while others assert that such a mover is not
necessarily transcendental, distinct from the world, or identical
with a personal God.
A motionless mover would be a contradiction; for who says
“mover” says “beginning,” and beginning is opposed to immo­
bility (Kant’s fourth antinomy). This objection is presented in
all its force by Penjon in his Précis de Philosophie. After having
decided with Spir, that the unconditional union of diverse ele­
ments is an impossibility, and that, for this reason, every change
(the successive union of the diverse) demands a cause, he con­
cludes: “There can be no connection between a being identical
with itself and a change which postulates a cause only and pre­
cisely for this reason that there is no point of contact between it
and the absolute and invariable nature of things. Only, from the
fact that a change has taken place, another change must occur to
account for this one, and so on in an indefinite regression.” 40
“Far from positively affirming the existence of a prime mover and
a first or absolute cause, the principle of causality necessarily ex­
cludes it.”41
Aristotle was fully aware of this objection, and even though
he did not go so far as to admit the idea of creation (the pro­
duction of all being or of being as the being of things), and espe­
cially the idea of a free creation, he admitted that the series of
changes is infinite in the regressive order (a parte ante) and that
the world and the changes therein exist from all eternity (ab
aeterno; Physics, Bk. VIII; Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 1
and 2). But for all that he did not deny the fact of a prime mover.
He would have replied to the above-quoted objection by saying
that all these past changes are not the cause of the actual change,
and exert no influence upon it; nay, more, since each of these
changes has not its sufficient explanation in itself, it cannot be the
40 Précis de Philosophie, p. 112.
41 Ibid., p. 471.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

285

reason for subsequent changes. A prolongation of the series does
not change the nature of them: ten thousand idiots do not make
one intelligent man. Since the union of the diverse has not its
sufficient reason within itself, it demands an explanation outside
of itself, and since the union of the diverse cannot be explained
by anything within itself, it presupposes a unity of a higher
order; the multiple brings us back to the one which is intelli­
gible in and by itself. The fact that we regard it as mysterious
that the multiple results from the one, and motion from the mo­
tionless, does not justify us in denying the existence of this
higher cause. It is absolutely required by the principles of our
reason and by the mobile and multiple beings of the lower order
of which we have direct and certain knowledge. Moreover, the
higher cause, which we know only indirectly and inadequately
by its effects, must remain obscure for us, and the proper manner
of its action must escape our detection. We have no positive
knowledge of this mode, as it is in itself, but know it merely in
a negative and relative manner, as when we say that it is an un­
moved mover or the prime mover. What is this divine causality
in itself? It is a mystery. But the obscurity in which it is wrapped,
so far as we are concerned, should not cause us to doubt the
certainties which lead us up to it, especially if these certainties
give us due warning that they can only end in obscurity and that
the mystery will remain.
For the rest, Aristotle did not consider himself dispensed from
the obligation of proving that there is nothing repugnant in the
idea of a motionless mover. He proves this point in his Physics,
Bk. Ill; Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 4; Bk. VIII, Comment,
of St. Thomas, Leet. 9. He even goes so far as to prove that every
mover as such [per re] is immovable, and movable only per acci­
dens, just as it is per accidens that an architect is a musician. To
understand his reasoning, we have but to rise above the imagina­
tion and define the action of the mover as a function of being,

□86

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

and not as a case of local repose. To move means to determine,
to actualize, to realize; it is accidental for that which determines
to have been itself determined (e. g., for that which heats to have
been itself heated). How indeed, could that which is still in the
stage of becoming and as yet is not an actuality, move something
else? The previous changes referred to in the objection are,
therefore, but the accidental cause of the actual change. What is
necessarily demanded of a mover is that it be in act; a thing
must be hot before it can heat something else; in order to teach,
one must actually have knowledge. If, therefore, a being is by
its nature determined and in act, if it not only can act, but if it
is its own action, it will act of its own accord, not having to be
moved by another. From this superior point of view such a being
will be immobile, not with the immobility of inertia, but with
the immobility of supreme activity. There is nothing for it to
acquire, since it has of and by itself, and all at once, everything
which it can have and which can accrue to it from without. Just
as diversity presupposes identity, and as the multiple presup­
poses the one, so also the undetermined presupposes the de­
termined, and the transition from potentiality to act presupposes
the pure act. If the change is that of being in the stage of becom­
ing, it must necessarily have its reason in the being which is
and which has no need of becoming. How could a being in the
act of becoming be the cause of becoming in another? Can the
child which is not yet born, procreate? Penjon has confused the
immobility of potency with that of act; the former cannot ac­
count for motion, because it is inferior to it: the latter, on the
contrary, is superior to motion, and for this reason can explain it.
It is said that while a motionless mover may have been mov­
ing from eternity, as Aristotle held, it could not have begun to
move. We shall reply to this objection by showing that the
“prime mover” by its very definition means that it is eternal,

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

287

and that its action dominates time, which is the measure of
motion.
Thus we see how it is that this prime mover, which cannot
be the substratum of any becoming, is transcendental and es­
sentially distinct from the world, which is by its very nature
changeable. If we note further that this prime mover is not
confined to beings of the material order, but also controls those
endowed with intellect and will, we already have the personal
God, “in whom we live, move, and have our being.” 42 The God
to which the proof from motion leads us, is not, therefore, so far
removed from the God of whom St. Paul speaks and of whom
the liturgy sings:
Rerum Deus tenax vigor
Immotus in te permanens.
(God, powerful sustainer of all things,
Thou who dost remain permanently unmoved.)

C) The results of this proof from motion.—From this argu­
ment we conclude that the prime mover must be: (1) pure act;
(2) infinite; (3) incorporeal and immaterial; (4) intelligent;
(5) omnipresent; (6) eternal, and (7) unique.
(1) The prime mover is pure act, that is to say, there is nothing
potential in him. We have already excluded all potentiality in
the order of action. The prime mover not only can act, but its
action is identical with itself. Also there cannot be any poten­
tiality in its being, for "operari sequitur esse et modus operandi
modum essendi," that is, first comes the nature of a being, and
then its operation; and the mode of operation follows the mode of
being. That which is self-operative must be self-existent. If there
were in this prime mover a transition from non-being to being,
this could be so only in virtue of a higher cause, and then we
42 Acts XVII, 28.

288

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

should no longer have the prime mover (la, q. 3, a. 1, 2, 4). In
considering the fourth proof of God’s existence we shall see that
the self-existent being must be the Supreme Being (see n. 39 a).
(2) The prime mover is infinitely perfect, because pure
actuality without any admixture of potentiality. And this is
equally true whether we consider the essence or the action of
such a being (la, q. 4, a. 1 and 2; q. 7, a. 1). Act means the de­
termination of being in point of accomplishment and perfection;
pure act is, therefore, pure perfection. It is at the same time pure
being; pure intellection, always in act, of pure being always actu­
ally known; pure love, always in act, of the plenitude of being
always actually loved.
(3) The prime mover is immaterial and incorporeal. Imma­
terial because matter is essentially a potential subject, susceptible
of change, pre-eminently the subject of becoming. The prime
mover, on the contrary, is pure act, without any admixture of be­
coming. He is not corporeal, since He is not material. Besides,
a body is composed of parts and depends on its parts, whereas the
pure act excludes all composition and dependency. In Him
there can be no question of more perfect and less perfect, as is
the case with the whole and its parts. Because He is pure act, He is
pure perfection (la, q. 3, a. 1 and 2; Physics, Bk. VIII, Leet. 23).
(4) The prime mover is intelligent. We know this not only
a posteriori, because He moves the intellects (la, p. 79, a. 4), but
also a priori, because immateriality is the basis of intelligibility
and of intelligence (la, q. 14, a. 1). It will be the special task of
the fifth proof of God’s existence to establish the reality of this
attribute (n. 40).
(5) The prime mover is omnipresent, because to move all be­
ings, whether spiritual or corporeal, He must be present, since
these beings do not move themselves, but are moved by Him. “He
works in every agent,” writes St Thomas (la, q. 8, a. 1; q. 105,

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

289

a. 5). The Prophet Isaias proclaims this truth as follows: “Lord,
thou hast wrought all our works for us.” (Is. XXVI, 12).
(6) The prime mover is eternal, for He has always, by and of
Himself, had His own being and action without any change.
His action is not measured by time, since in Him there can be
no succession. It is only the effect of this action which can be
said to occur in time, because it is only this effect which can be
said to be successive. In this there is no contradiction. Since this
eternal action is superior to time, it creates time as a modality of
its effects (see la, q. to, a. 2).
(7) The prime mover is unique, because pure act cannot be
multiplied. Anything which would bring about a differentiation
in pure act, so as to make two or several pure acts, would set a
limit to the perfection of pure act, and thus destroy it.
Moreover, a second pure act could be nothing more than the
first, and would be superfluous. Could there be anything more
absurd than a God who is superfluous? (la, q. 11, a. 3). In the
fourth proof for the existence of God not only this attribute, but
also that of infinite perfection, will be conclusively proved.43

37) Proof by means of efficient causes.
The point of departure of this proof is not becoming, but being,
which is the termination of becoming and which remains after
it. In the article entitled: “Whether Creatures Need to be Kept
in Being by God?” (la, q. 104, a. 1), St. Thomas distinguishes
clearly between becoming {fieri) and being {esse). See also la,
q. 104, a. 2: “Whether God Preserves Every Creature Immedi­
ately?”
Certain agents are the cause of the becoming of their effect,
but not directly of the being of this effect. Thus a father is the
43 On this deduction of the attributes of the Prime Mover sec Aristotle, Meta­
physics, Bk. XII, ch. 6, 7, 9, to.

290

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

cause of the passive generation of his son, but he may die, while
the son continues to live. Other agents are the causes both of the
becoming and of the being of their effect, and any cessation in
their action could only mean that the corresponding effect ceased
to exist. The generation of an animal depends not only upon the
male parent of the species, but also upon the numerous condi­
tions and cosmic influences which are necessary for its conserva­
tion. The effects of atmospheric pressure upon the organism are
a sufficient illustration of this truth. Any notable decrease or in­
crease of this pressure causes great uneasiness in the organism,
due to the lack of equilibrium between the elastic force of the
internal gases and the external pressure. If this pressure were to be
completely removed, the walls of the organism would collapse
under the action of the internal gases. Likewise, if solar heat is
eliminated from animal life, even the most vigorous of animals
will soon die. “Remove the chemical activity from the air which
the animal breathes, or from the food which it assimilates, and it
perishes at once. This animal existence is of such a nature that,
while at first sight it appears to be independent, it is, on the
contrary, at every moment of its existence, actually dependent
upon a vast number of influences.” 44
Such is the basic principle of this second proof. It is no longer
expressed by saying that “It is certain and evident to the senses
that in this world some things are set in motion," but by saying
that "In these objects of sense perception we find that there is
a certain order of efficient causes" For instance, all the cosmic
influences are necessarily subordinated to the production and
conservation of a mere gnat.
But these causes, as St. Thomas remarks, cannot, in their turn,
cause themselves, for before anything can be a cause of some­
thing else, it must be first in existence. As St. Thomas says:
“Non est possibile quod aliquid sit causa efficiens sui ipsius, quia
** Sertillanges, Les Sources de la Croyance en Dieu, p. 70.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

291

sic esset prius seipso, quod est impossibile.” (It is not possible for
anything to be the efficient cause of itself, because in such a case
it would have to exist before it actually exists, which is an im­
possibility). If, therefore, the above-mentioned causes are not selfexistent, their existence depends upon higher causes, and so forth.
But we cannot proceed ad infinitum, but must finally arrive at
a primary cause, itself uncaused, which has being from itself,
which it can give to, and preserve in, others, and without which
nothing that actually exists could continue to exist. “Examine
separately each of the cosmic influences necessary for the con­
servation of an animal, and you will find that it is itself the result
of a series of subordinated causes, either known or unknown, but
of which the existence is certain; and this series will permit
you to ascend from ring to ring, not in the past, but in the
present, until you finally arrive at the primary source of all
activity, without which the animal itself and all vital functions as
well as all causes which condition them could not exist.” 46
What is the validity of this proof? Its basic principle is no less
certain than that of the preceding proof. Just as there is a becom­
ing, so also there are permanent and dependent existences. Start­
ing from this as an established fact, the two principles by means
of which we prove the existence of a first cause are nearly the
same as those by which we conclude that there is a prime mover.
The first principle is that whatever is caused, is caused by some­
thing else; nothing can be its own cause, since for anything to
be a cause, it must first exist. The second is that there can be no
regress to infinity in a series of essentially and actually sub­
ordinated causes. This proof, just like the preceding and suc­
ceeding ones, abstracts from the question whether the world is
eternal or had a beginning in time. The difficulties that might be
raised against it do not differ from those previously examined in
connection with the prime mover. If this argument presupposes
45 Sertillangcs, ibid.

292

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

a morcellation, it is not the utilitarian morcellation of the con­
tinuously sensible, but the absolutely necessary morcellation of
intelligible being. (See n. 21, 23 and 36, B, δ).
We are thus led to the source of being, to a supreme efficient
cause, which has no need of being caused nor of being preserved
in existence. It must, therefore, be identified with the prime
mover, the source of becoming. Like this latter, and a fortiori, it
must be self-operative, nay, it must be its own activity and exist
a se.
In starting from the order of sensible things it was sufficient to
consider the problem from the general point of view of being,
which is common to both the corporeal and the spiritual, and we
shall thus be able finally to arrive at a cause which appears not
only as the primary productive and conservative cause of bodies,
but also as the cause of everything which is not self-existent, of
everything which is not its own activity, but passes from po­
tentiality to act.
In fact, the unconditioned cause must be: (1) pure act; for,
whether we consider it in its being or in its operation, in either
case it is pure act, since it has never been reduced from poten­
tiality to act (la, q. 3, a. 4). By the very fact that it is being
a se, we shall see from the fourth proof that it is the Being it­
self, for that alone is the being a se which is to being as A
is to A. (2) It is one, immaterial, intelligent, like the prime mover,
and for the same reasons, as the following proofs will establish
more clearly. (3) It is omnipresent, since it must come in contact
with all beings, not only to move them, but also to conserve them
in being (la, q. 8, a. x; q. 104, a. 1 and 2). (4) Its creative potver
is all-pervading. The Being a se, the Supreme Being, which is
the direct cause not of some mode of being (such as heat or
light), but of being as such, is the cause of everything which is
not its own cause, and it can be the cause of everything which
is capable of existing. The Being a se endows everything with

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

293

reality and is the direct cause of being, just as fire is of heat, and
light of illumination; it can endow with reality all things which
do not involve a contradiction, just as fire can heat all things
which are capable of being heated (la, q. 25; q. 45, a. 5).

38) Proof based on contingency.
We have just shown that the source of becoming and of being
must be self-existent; but the existence of a necessary being can
be proved a posteriori by starting with the principle, not of the
dependence of becoming or of being on its causes, but of being
considered in itself as contingent.
We observe that some beings are contingent, that is to say,
do not exist forever, but, on the contrary, are born and die.
Of such a nature are the minerals which decompose or form a
constituent part of fresh matter, such as plants, animals, and
human beings. This we know to be a fact. From it we proceed
to deduce the existence of a necessary being, of one which always
existed a se and cannot cease to exist. It is only a self-existent
being that can explain the existence of beings which can either
exist or not exist. The principle upon which this proof is based
is the metaphysical principle of causality in its most general form.
It may be stated as follows: That which has not a sufficient reason
for its existence in itself, must have this reason in something else.
And this other being, in the final analysis, must exist of and by
itself, for if it were of the same nature as contingent beings, far
from explaining the others, it would not be able to explain itself.
And—we say it again—it does not matter whether the series of
contingent beings is eternal or not; if it is eternal, it is eternally
insufficient, and always demands a necessary being.
St. Thomas develops this proof more fully by taking into
consideration the time element. After having established the
existence in the world of beings which begin to exist, and then

294

GOD’- HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

cease to exist—that is to say, of contingent beings—he remarks
that if there were none but contingent beings, it would be impos­
sible for them to have existed always. To exist without a begin­
ning cannot properly be said of any but self-existent beings, and
this could not apply to a series of contingent beings, unless they
received their existence from a self-existent, or, in other words,
from a necessary, Being. Hence, if there were in existence only
contingent beings, there must have been a time when nothing at
all existed. Now, “if at any particular moment nothing actually
exists, then nothing can ever come into existence.” Therefore,
some necessary being must exist, that is to say, one which cannot
not exist; if this being has not its necessity from itself, it de­
rives its necessity from something else. But we cannot continue to
proceed indefinitely in this process of dependence of being upon
being, and hence we must conclude that there exists a Being
which is necessary of and by itself, and which explains the being
and continuance of everything else.
The objection is often raised that this demonstration makes
scarcely any advance towards the solution of the problem, because
it fails to establish conclusively that the necessary being is distinct
from the world and infinitely perfect, but merely proves that
there is some thing which is necessary. Cajetan replies that this
proof may be considered as sufficient in the strictest sense, as the
two preceding proofs established conclusively that the prime
mover and the first cause are distinct from the world (because
the world is subject to becoming, which the prime mover and
the first cause is not), and the succeeding proof will demonstrate a
posteriori the unity, simplicity, and absolute perfection of the
necessary being.
It is now easy to demonstrate a priori that the necessary being,
whose existence has just been proved, is not: (a) either an aggre­
gation of contingent beings; or (b) the law governing such be­
ings; or (c) a becoming underneath the phenomena, or a sub-

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

295

stance common to them; but (d) it is Being itself, pure being,
absolute perfection.
a) The necessary being is not an aggregation of contingent
beings. A series of contingent and relative beings, even if it were
without a beginning, i. e., eternal, could no more result in an
absolutely necessary being, than could a numberless series of
idiots result in an intelligent man. “But,” it may be objected,
“how can it be proved that a being is really and truly contingent ?
Is it not a semblance of reality, which is the result of our having
abstracted it from the continuous whole?”46 The kind of being
here referred to, such as plants and animals, is at least a part of
the continuous whole, but not the whole; moreover, it is a part
which comes into existence and ceases to exist, and, therefore,
is contingent. An aggregation of similar parts, even though in­
finite in time and space, could not constitute a necessary being.
For a thing to have a semblance of reality, it would be necessary
to add to these parts a dominating principle, be it either the law
which governs them, or the process of becoming through which
they must pass (creative evolution), or the substance common
to all the parts.
b) The necessary being cannot be the law which unites con­
tingent and transitory elements. For this law, in order to be the
necessary being, would have to have its sufficient reason within
itself and also contain the sufficient reason for all the phenomena
that it has controlled, now controls, and will control in future.
Now, a law is nothing but a constant relation between various
phenomena or beings, and as every relation presupposes the
extremes upon which it is based, the existence of a law presup­
poses the existence of the phenomena which it unites, instead of
being presupposed by them. It exists only if they exist. Heat ex­
pands iron on condition that there are heat and iron. Energy con­
serves itself if there is energy.
46 Le Roy, Rev. de Met. et de Mor., March, 1907.

296

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

It is objected that while the application of a law indeed presup­
poses the existence of phenomena which it unites, the existence
of a law is independent of its application. We answer that what
is independent of this application is the ideal existence of the
law, its existence in a mind, to which there corresponds a
hypothetically objective truth (for instance, if there are heat and
iron, the heat will expand the iron). But it cannot be claimed
that the actual existence of a law is independent of its applica­
tion and of the existence of the phenomena which it controls.
Now, it is the actual existence which the Pantheists have in mind
when they say that the necessary being, actually existing, is noth­
ing else but the law of phenomena. Eliminate the contingent ex­
istence of phenomena, and this necessary being, which is the
law, is no more than a hypothetical truth, which demands an
existing Absolute for its foundation (proof based on the eternal
verities), but which cannot itself be that Absolute. We have
previously shown (n. io) why heat in itself cannot exist in a
state separated from the subject which it affects; its very concept
implies a common matter, which cannot be realized without at
the same time being individualized.
But the Positivists insist that it is a law which produces the
phenomena that explain its presence, namely, the law of the
conservation of energy, which is a primordial and universal
necessity explaining everything else. If “nothing is lost and noth­
ing is created,” as this law affirms, then the necessary being is
the material world itself, governed by this law. We have already
quoted (see n. 35, towards the end) Boutroux’s answer to this
objection, as given in his thesis entitled, La Contingence des Lois
de la 'Nature. First of all, to repeat briefly, this law, far from being
a primordial necessity, is itself contingent; it does not contain
its own sufficient reason within itself, and because of this, it
demands an extrinsic sufficient reason, or a cause. If this law
were necessary, like the principle of identity, it would not actu-

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

297

ally exist by itself, but, like every other law, would presuppose the
existence of beings in which it is realized—in this case the exist­
ence of energy. Secondly, this law, far from being universal, is
not even susceptible of strict verification in the inorganic world;
biology cannot prove its existence, nor, a fortiori, can psychology.
Thirdly, the laws which govern living beings, such as the sentient
and the intelligent, cannot be deduced from this law. The com­
bination of elements which produces life and sensation appears
as contingent and demands a sufficient reason, which the law of
the conservation of energy cannot furnish.
c) The necessary being cannot be the process of becoming
(creative evolution) through which the contingent elements must
pass, nor can it be their common substance. A well-known objec­
tion runs as follows: “Suppose every being, viewed separately,
were contingent, it would have to be proved that the whole
world, or all beings taken together, were also contingent. Does
the real contingency of the world follow from the fact of its im­
perfection, or from the fact that the idea of its non-existence is
not repugnant to reason? This brings us back to the argument
of St. Anselm, that God really exists because the idea of his non­
existence is repugnant to reason.”47
In the fourth proof we shall establish the conclusion that the
world is really contingent by reason of its imperfection. This
conclusion may also be drawn from the fact that its non­
existence is not repugnant to reason, and because there is no
question here of an unlawful transition from the ideal to the
real, as in the argument of St. Anselm. All that St. Anselm,
starting from the purely nominal definition of God, could say,
was that the most perfect being which can be conceived implies
existence as an essential predicate in its definition, that is to say,
it exists necessarily of and by itself, and not by another, it is its
47 Le Roy, Rev. de Met. et de Mor., March, 1907; Schiller, in La ReVue de
Philosophie, 1906, pp. 653 H.

298

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

own existence—if it exists. This proposition is strictly true, but
it is purely hypothetical. The mistake St. Anselm made was that
he wanted the proposition to be taken as an absolute or categori­
cal one, and concluded from it that God actually exists. On the
other hand, the definition of any finite being (even though in­
finite with regard to time and space, provided that it be not
infinite considered as being, potentiality, intelligence, etc.), of a
plant, for instance, or of an animal, or of matter, or of a spirit,
in no way implies existence in its comprehension. Each of these
beings is defined without regard to existence; its essence is con­
ceived as capable of existing, and there are no grounds for assert­
ing that its concept postulates essential existence or aseity. Hence
we may legitimately formulate the hypothetical conclusion that
if this being exists, its existence is not due to itself. This truth
belongs to the ideal order or that of essences, and St. Anselm
should have kept within this order.
Moreover, we make so profound a study of the subject in
order that we may come to die conclusion that the necessary
being can be neither the becoming which forms the substratum of
phenomena, nor the substance common to them. In fact, it has
been fully established in connection with the proof from motion,
that becoming cannot have its raison d’etre in itself: (r) because
it is a successive union of diverse elements, and to say that an
unconditional union of diverse elements is possible is to assert
that elements, in themselves diverse and not united, can unite
themselves or succeed each other by themselves, which would
mean the denial not only of St. Anselm’s argument, but also of
the principle of identity; (2) becoming is the transition from an
undetermined to a determined state; to deny that it needs a
self-determined cause, is to say that the greater can come from
the less or being from nothingness. The imagination alone can
combine the two words creative and evolution, but that which
comes into being through evolution is not its own sufficient raison

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

299

d’être, and for anything to be created, this must be the case. (See
la, q. 2, a. 3, ad 2um).
Finally, the necessary being cannot be a substance common to
all beings, for such a substance would be the subject of becoming.
Now, the process of becoming, as we have seen, demands a cause
which is not itself subject to that same process. In such a case
the necessary being would at any moment be deprived of that
which, so far, it does not possess, and which it could not give
itself, because the greater does not proceed from the less. The
necessary being, which must be the sufficient reason for every­
thing which now exists or will exist in future, may give, but it
cannot receive; it may determine, but it cannot be determined;
it must have of and by itself and from the start, not only in
potentiality, but also in act, whatever it must and can have,
la, q. 3, a. 6: “Whether there is a Composition of Subject and
Accident in God?”
d) The necessary being is being itself, pure being, absolute
perfection. Kant48 maintains that we cannot argue from the
existence of a necessary being that it is sovereign perfection, ens
realissimum, except by unconsciously reverting to the ontological
proof. He believes that he has proved this point by the simple
conversion of a proposition. Let us, he writes, according to the
rules of formal logic, convert the proposition, “Every necessary
being is perfect,” and it becomes: “Some perfect being is neces­
sary.” But in that case we should have no means of distinguish­
ing between perfect beings, since each of them is ens realissimum.
The converted proposition is, therefore, equivalent to the univer­
sal one that “Every perfect being is necessary,” which is identical
with the thesis of the ontological argument. As the transition
from the first proposition to the second is effected by a process
which is purely logical and according to rule, the truth or false­
hood of the one is dependent upon the truth or falsehood of the
48 Transcendental Dialectic, ch. ΙΠ, section 5.

300

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

other. Such is Kant’s principal objection against the classical
proofs for the existence of God, considered not according to their
basic principle, which is that of causality, but according to that
step in reasoning by which they proceed from die first cause to
the existence of the perfect Being.
This objection is answered sufficiently by stating that St.
Anselm was wrong in concluding that "the perfect being neces­
sarily and actually exists." He ought to have been satisfied with
affirming that “the perfect being is self-existent, if it exists." He
could just as easily have proved a priori the hypothetical contrary,
namely, “if a self-existent being exists, it is sovereign perfec­
tion.” To establish the truth of this proposition is precisely what
remains for us to do, having demonstrated by the argument from
contingency that a necessary being actually exists. That the two
concepts (necessary and perfect), the very definition of which
reveals that they are essentially linked together by their very
definition, are equivalent, is a legitimate assumption for those
who, unlike Kant, admit that necessary realities correspond to
necessary concepts of the mind, and that the unthinkable and the
impossible are correlative terms. (Consult what was said supra
in n. 17, 18, 19, and 21, concerning the objective validity of the
principle of non-contradiction).
It is by the following a priori method of reasoning that the
transition from the necessary to the perfect being is effected.
We will content ourselves with giving a brief résumé of the
teaching of St. Thomas, since the fourth proof will lead us
a posteriori to the same conclusion.
1) The self-sufficient being, recognized as actually existing,
implies existence as an essential attribute, which means that it
must not only have existence, but that it must be its own very
existence (la, q. 3, a. 4).
2) This being, which is its own existence, cannot belong to
any species, nor to any genus; in fact, its genus could not be less

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

301

universal than being itself, since being is essentially predicated of
it. Now, being, which admits of no extrinsic difference, is not a
genus (la, q. 3, a. 5).
3) This being is sovereignly perfect, because a being which is
its own existence must contain within itself the whole perfection
of being totam perfectionem essendi”). “All the created perfec­
tions,” says St. Thomas, “are included in the perfection of being;
for things are perfect precisely in so far as they have being after
some fashion.” (la, q. 4, a. 2). Every perfection (goodness, wis­
dom, justice, etc.) is a mode of being which is capable of existing
—something which can participate in existence (f'quid capax
existendï"). Existence is, therefore, the ultimate act of every
thing which can exist. It is the maxime formale omnium: the
most formal of all things, the final determination placing that
which is capable of existing outside of nothingness and its causes.
But actuality is superior to, and more perfect than, potentiality;
for the former is an absolute, whereas the latter is merely a rela­
tive thing. We must, therefore, conclude that being which is its
own existence, is pure actuality and absolute perfection.
4) This being is one of infinite perfection (la, q. 7, a. 1).
In truth, if self-sufficient being were limited in its being, it would
merely participate in existence and would be a compound of
essence as the limiting and of existence as the limited element.
For this very reason, its essence would cease to be its existence,
and could be conceived apart from its existence, and hence the
latter could no longer be predicated except as something acci­
dental to it. If the essence of the self-sufficient being is in no
wise limited (as the being, the intelligence, and the potentiality
of a finite spirit are limited), it must a fortiori be said that
this being cannot be subject to material and spatial limitations.
It belongs to an order which infinitely transcends both space and
time, the infinity of which, if it were possible, would never
be other than one of quantity, and not of quality, which is the

302

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

kind here in question. From the foregoing we conclude that just
as A is A, so the self-sufficient being must be identical with its
existence. The fourth proof will demonstrate this point a
posteriori.

39) Proof based on the various grades of being.

The purpose of this fourth proof, as we have already remarked,
is to seek for a sign of contingency in the ultimate profundities
of created being, which the proof from motion did not touch.
Approaching the subject now from the static point of view, we
notice that beings happen to come into existence, or else to die.
To prove their contingency, we have recourse to an observation
which, though less convincing at first sight, nevertheless, has a
deep significance and is more universal in its application than
either motion, generation or corruption. We refer to the mul­
tiplicity of these beings, to their composite nature, and to the
fact that they are to a greater or less degree, imperfect. This argu­
ment has been called the henological proof (A = one), because
it proceeds from the multiple to the one, from the composite to
the simple. Kant did not choose to criticize this argument. If he
had studied it closely, he would undoubtedly have been less in­
clined to reproach modern Scholastics for continually falling
back, either unconsciously or insincerely, upon the argument of
St. Anselm. He furthermore did not perceive that this fourth
proof prepares the ground for the fifth, which is that based
upon the multiplicity of purpose in things or design in the uni­
verse. His objections against this last proof, too, are rather super­
ficial.
Quite recently the following objections have been raised against
the argument based upon the various grades of being: (1) The
presence of imperfection in the world cannot be alleged as a proof
of its contingency, for that would be a return to the ontological
argument by combining the idea of necessary existence with that

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

3°3

of a perfect being.49 (2) Strictly speaking, the greater and the
less are predicated only of quantity, for quantity alone is greater
and less. (3) This proof, like the previous ones, is based upon
the postulate of morcellation. (4) It is difficult to conceive a
typical essence for all things.
We shall see that the henological argument contains no feigned
reference to the syllogism of St. Anselm, because this argu­
ment in reality is based upon the fundamental law of thought,
which is the principle of identity. The supposed morcellation
in this case is again that of intelligible being, and not that of
the continuously sensible. Finally, a typical essence, separated
from matter and of a higher order than the individuals which
represent the species and the genera, can be required only for
the transcendentals (being, unity, truth, goodness, intellect, vital
relation to being, etc.),50 which, by their definition, abstract from
everything material, dominate the species and the genera, imply
no imperfection in their formal concepts, and are realized
analogically in various degrees. (See n. 29).
We shall first study: (a) the proof in its general outline, as
sketched by St. Thomas, and we shall show that it leads to a
Primary Being, absolutely simple and perfect, and consequently
distinct from the world, which is composite and imperfect. This
proof will then be more accurately defined by arguing that (b) the
series of human intellects, though imperfect, can always ad­
vance towards perfection, until at last we come to a Primary
Intellect, the source of all the others, (c) From a graduated
series of intelligible beings, from eternal truths, we finally come
to a Supreme Truth, a primary intelligible, which is the fount
48 Le Roy, Rev. de Met. et de Mor., March, 1907.
00 We have previously explained (n. 29), that the intellect and the will are not,
strictly speaking, transcendentals. For the latter dominate the genera and are
verified proportionately in each one of them. Nevertheless, the intellect and the will
are defined in relation to a transcendental, either to being or to goodness, and
consequently, in their formal concepts, they dominate the genera, although, accord­
ing to the created mode of their being, they belong to the genus of quality and
to the species of potentiality or faculty.

304

GOD: I-IIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

of all truth, (d) From the yearning of the human soul for abso­
lute goodness we conclude that there must be a primary de­
sirable object, which is the source of all happiness, (e) From the
fact that we feel morally bound to choose what is good and to
fulfill our obligations, we argue that there must be a Primary and
Sovereign Good, which is the foundation of all duties.
Thus we shall see that the proof based on the various degrees
of being, or upon the actually existing and graduated series of
transcendentals (being, unity, truth, goodness; intellect, vital rela­
tion to being; will, and vital relation to goodness) necessarily im­
plies the proof from the contingency of the mind, based on the
perfection of our intellectual and volitional activity. The abovementioned proof also implies the arguments based upon the
eternal verities, upon the sense of obligation which goodness in­
spires, and upon the yearning of the human soul for the infinitely
good. St. Thomas has given us a detailed account of these proofs
in his treatise on man (la, q. 79, a. 4), at the beginning of the
moral part of his theological Summa, where he discusses sovereign
goodness and beatitude (la Ilae, q. 2), and in his treatise on the
divine and the natural law (la Ilae, q. 91).
Here, at the commencement of his treatise on God, he con­
siders it sufficient to present the proof in its most general aspects
and to conclude from the various degrees of goodness, truth, and
perfection observed in the world, that there is “something which
is the true, the good, the noble, and consequently, being par ex­
cellence." (la, q. 2, a. 3).
a) The proof in its general outline. It is important to deter­
mine exactly the starting point of this argument, which is that
there are various grades of being. As St. Thomas expresses it:
“Among beings there are some more and some less good, true,
noble, and the like.” (la, q. 2, a. 3).
Concerning the point that things can be more or less in a cer­
tain respect, one may profitably read the lengthy first article of

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

3°5

question 52 in the la, Ilae, in which St. Thomas explains and
discusses the opinions of Plotinus, of the Stoics, and of two other
writers quoted by Simplicius. Here, too, he explains how the
“more” and the “less” degrees which are predicated primarily of
quantity, continuous or discrete, are afterwards legitimately ap­
plied to qualities, such as heat and light, which are more or less
intense, just as science itself, which is capable of progressing
either intensively or extensively according as it becomes broader
in its application or penetrates its subject-matter more deeply;
for as science is always able to penetrate more deeply into its
subject-matter, so also are virtues.
We can readily understand that relative qualities, which de­
rive their specification from an object to which they refer (for
instance, science and virtue), are susceptible of the greater and
the less, not only with regard to the subject in which they are
partially verified, but also in themselves more or less closely
approach the term to which they refer.
As for the absolute qualities and characteristics, which bear
their specification within themselves (such as being, unity, sub­
stance, corporeity, animality, rationality) they are not all suscepti­
ble of more or less, even with regard to the subject in which they
are partially verified. The specific difference of any species what­
ever is, indeed, an indivisible. Either one has or has not the
ability to reason, which is the specific difference in man; the rea­
soning faculty, of course, can be used and it can be more or less
developed; but in every human being this faculty has the same
proper object, namely, the essence of sensible things; the same
adequate object, which is being, and the same specific capacity.
Likewise, a genus is not, strictly speaking, realized in various
degrees; for although it is diversified by specific differences, some
of which are more perfect than others, these differences are ex­
trinsic to it. Animality, for instance, or the sensitive life, applies
equally to man and lion, for man is not more of an animal than

3o6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the lion; his animality, as such, is not more perfect, although
he is a more perfect animal. In like manner, too, gold is not more
a body or a substance than copper; a thing is or is not a substance
or a body; it cannot be more or less so.
But when we come to those most general notes known as
transcendental!, because they transcend the species and the genera,
we notice that they are susceptible of greater and less, and it is
these which constitute the basic principle of our proof. These
notes {being, unity, truth, goodness), are not diversified, like the
genera, by an extrinsic specific difference; for they all apply to
that which distinguishes one being from another. We find them
verified in each existing being, each in its own way and in different
degrees, or, as we say, analogically. Thus, while animality (the
sensitive life) applies in the same sense to man and lion; being,
unity, and goodness are predicated of different beings on various
grounds and tn varying degrees. The difference proper to each
of these beings is still, in fact, being, since in its own way it is
something one and good. A stone is good with its own kind of
goodness, in that it does not deteriorate; a fruit is good with its
own kind of goodness, in that it refreshes; a horse is good, be­
cause it can be used for a race or journey; a professor is good,
because he has knowledge and knows how to impart it; a virtu­
ous man is good, because he wills and does what is good; a saint
is better still, because he ardently desires goodness. In like man­
ner, too, what is truly good is of a higher order than what is use­
ful or delectable, and an end is in itself better than a mere means
thereto. Goodness is, therefore, realized in various degrees. The
same is true of perfection or nobility. The plant is of a higher
order than the mineral, the animal is superior to the plant,
and man to the beast. Again unity applies more to the mind than
to the body; for the former is not only undivided in itself, but
also indivisible; one society possesses greater unity than another,
one science more than another. Likewise, truth is susceptible of

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

3°7

various degrees, according to the being on which it is based and
the firmness or necessity of the propositions in which it is
couched. As St. Thomas points out,51 truth, being conformity of
a judgment with reality, does not admit of greater and less in
this respect, for either there is or there is not conformity between
the terms. But if we consider the being that is the foundation of
truth, there are various degrees for, “the things that are greater
in being, are greater in truth”; that which is richer in being is
also richer in truth. From the same point of view a first selfevident principle, necessary and eternal, such as the principle of
non-contradiction, is truer than a necessary conclusion drawn
from it, because it expresses conformity not only with some
mode of being, but also with what is found to be more profound
and more universal in reality, both possible and actual. A nec­
essary conclusion is likewise truer than a contingent one, not only
because it expresses conformity of thought with something transi­
tory, such as the fact that Cæsar is dead, but also because it per­
fectly corresponds with something eternal, such as, for instance,
that man is free.
Apart from any consideration of the scale of beings, we our­
selves, in our own lives, are more or less good, true, or nobleminded, in proportion as we live in the way that we ought to
live. If there is any question of morcellation here, it is evidently
not that of the continuously sensible, and the subtlest criticism
of the physical sciences can in no way affect this basic principle.
The actually existing and graduated series of transcendental
notes of being, therefore, is the basic principle of this proof. From
it reason deduces the existence of a being absolutely simple, abso­
lutely true, absolutely good, a God who is Being itself, Truth
itself, Goodness itself, and, consequently, sovereignly perfect.
Have we here a veiled recourse to the argument of St. Anselm?
Not at all.
61 Quaestiones Disputatae, De Caritate, q. i, a. 9, ad lum.

3o8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

The principle by which we argue from the various grades of
beings to the existence of God is this: “When a perfection, the
concept of which does not imply any imperfection, is found in
various degrees in different beings, none of those which possess it
imperfectly contains a sufficient explanation for it, and hence its
cause must be sought in a being of a higher order, which is
this very perfection.” As St. Thomas remarks: “More and less
are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in
different ways something which is the maximum” (la, q. 2, a. 3).
If we wish fully to understand what is the meaning, the validity,
and the range of this principle, which contains in condensed
form all the dialectics of Plato, it is Plato himself whom we
must consult. The correct meaning which we shall afterwards
give to this principle, will prevent us from following him in his
exaggerated realism. The dialectics of Plato are the method by
which the soul convinces itself of the reality of these transcendentals, or eternal types, which Plato called “Ideas.” There is the
dialectic of the intellect, which is based upon the principle we
have just enunciated, and there is the dialectic of love, which
implies the other, though not demanding the same amount of
reasoning, and is within the reach of every soul eager for that
Goodness which no particular good can satisfy.
This dialectic of love is found towards the end of Plato’s
Symposium. He says there that the soul must learn to love beau­
tiful colors, beautiful forms, a beautiful body; but it must not
stop at any one of these, for they are but a reflection of Beauty.
It must love all beautiful bodies and thence proceed to love the
soul, which is the principle of the life and beauty of the body.
It must attach itself to beautiful souls, beautiful by their actions,
and thence rise to contemplate the beauty of the various kinds
of knowledge which engender beautiful actions, until, having
advanced in knowledge, it finally arrives at that pre-eminent
knowledge which is nothing else but the knowledge of beauty

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

3°9

itself, and it ends by knowing it as it is in itself. The dialectic
of love ends with the natural desire (conditional and inefficacious,
says theology) of seeing God face to face and of contemplating
“that beauty which is without diminution and without increase;
which is not fair in one point and foul in another; which is
beautiful only at one time and not at another, beautiful in one
relation and foul in another, beautiful at one place and foul at
another, fair to some and foul to others; ... a beauty which
does not reside in any other being different from itself, as, for
example, in an animal, or in heaven, or on earth, or in any other
thing; but which exists eternally and absolutely, by and in it­
self, which without diminution and without increase, or any
change, is imparted to the ever growing and perishing beauties
of all other things” {Symposium, 211, C).
This dialectic of love is also discussed by St. Thomas at the
beginning of his la, Ilae, in the Treatise on Happiness, in a series
of articles entitled: “Whether Man’s Happiness Consists in
Wealth, Honors, Fame or Glory, Power, in any Bodily Good, in
Pleasure, in Some Good of the Soul, in any Created Good?” His
answer is always in the negative, and he maintains that it is only
the absolute good 52 which can fully satisfy an appetite con­
trolled by an intellect which knows not only some particular
good, but good in general. This dialectical method is rigorous
and proves apodictically, as we shall see, the existence of the
absolute Good, provided we view this method as a simple ap­
plication of the proof of God’s existence which we are studying,
and which presupposes the objective and transcendental validity
of the first principles of reason.
If, on the contrary, we admit the primacy of the immanent
method, if we maintain that, without it, “the dialectic (specula62 Thus there is natural happiness in God, known by means of His effects,
and naturally loved above all things. There is supernatural happiness in God, in­
tuitively known and loved supcrnaturally above all things.

310

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

tive) subtleties, no matter how long and ingenious, are of no
more consequence than the throwing of a stone at the sun by
a child;” if it is claimed that “the incontestable presence and the
convincing proof of being are the result of action, and of that
alone,” 53 then no more than practical certitude can result from
this dialectic of love, however learned it may be; and this certi­
tude may perhaps be subjectively adequate, but objectively it is
inadequate. (See supra, no. 6, and infra, n. 39 d).
But if it is true that the idea of goodness presupposes the
simpler, more absolute and more universal notion of being; 54
if the will and love presuppose the simpler and more absolute
activity of the intellect, which merely attains not the good, but
also the reason for it; 55 if the intellect alone can receive being into
itself, completely possess it, become one with it; if it is pre­
eminently “the totally intussusceptive faculty,” as explained by
P. Rousselot in his book entitled L'Intellectualisme de St. Thomas,
p. 20; if die will, on the contrary, cannot receive being into it­
self in this manner, completely possess it and become one with
it, but can only tend towards it when it is absent, and take delight
in it when it is made present by an act of the intellect 56—then
the dialectic of love engenders a certitude which is objectively
adequate and absolute, and this by reason of the dialectic of the
intellect which it implies. And the fundamental principle of the
latter is precisely the principle upon which our proof is based:
“When there is a greater or less, when there are degrees in any­
thing, then the perfect also exists; if, then, a certain being is better
than a certain other, there must be one which is perfect, and
this can only be the divine.” It is in this way that Aristotle ex­
presses with admirable precision the fundamental procedure in
68 Blondel, l'Action, p. 350.
54 "Being is prior to goodness"; la, q. 5, a. 2.
85 “The intellect, considered absolutely, is higher than the will,” remarks
St. Thomas; la, q. 82, a. 3.
88 la Ilae, q. 3, a. 4.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

311

the Platonic process of thought, as presented in his treatise Con­
cerning Philosophy,61 in which he gives a résumé of the teach­
ings of his master.58 See also the text of Aristotle quoted by St.
Thomas in his Commentary on the Metaphysics, Bk. II, ch. 4.
This dialectic principle, which constitutes the major of our
proof, includes two other closely connected principles in the
system of Plato. To say that there are various degrees of being
is to say that there is multiplicity, and also that there is a greater
or less degree of either imperfection or perfection. Hence these
two principles: (1) If the same note is found in various beings,
it is impossible that each should possess it in its own right, and
what is not possessed by a being in its own right, is received
from another and, therefore, is held by participation; (2) If a
note, the concept of which implies no imperfection, is found in
a being in an imperfect state, i. e., mingled with imperfection, this
being does not possess this note in its own right, but has it from
another which possesses it in its own right. By means of this
latter principle we argue not only from the multiple to the one,
but also from the composite to the simple, and consequently from
the imperfect to the perfect.
Let us examine these two principles more closely and see
how they are connected with the principle of identity, which is
the supreme law of thought.
1) If the same note is found in various beings, it cannot be said
that each possesses this note in its own right, and what a being
does not possess in its own right, it has from another by partici­
pation.59 Phaedo is beautiful, but beauty is not something which
is proper to Phaedo, for Phaedrus also is beautiful. “The beauty
found in any corporeal being, is sister to the beauty found in all
67 Concerning this treatise of Aristotle consult Ravaisson, Essai sur la Méta­
physique d'Aristote, Vol. I, pp. 53-69.
68 This passage is quoted by Simplicius in his De Coelo (Aid. 6, 67, B); cfr.
Fouillée, La Philosophie de Platon, Bk. I, p. 61.
69 See Plato’s Phaedo, ιοί, A.

312

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

the others.” Not one is beauty, but all merely participate in it,
are a part or reflection of it. Phaedo cannot be the source of his
own beauty any more than Phaedrus; but the beauty of both
must be ascribed to a higher principle, to one to whom beauty
belongs by his very nature, who is beauty itself. It is this point
which St. Thomas emphasizes when he says: "Multitudo non
reddit rationem unitatis” (multitude does not explain the reason
for unity). That unity of similitude which is found in multitude
cannot be explained by it, but presupposes a higher form of
unity. And in his De Potentia (q. 3, a. 5), St. Thomas shows how
this principle is connected with that of identity, which is the
supreme law of thought and reality: “If one of some kind is
found as a common note in several objects, this must be because
some one cause has brought it about in them; for it cannot be
that the common note of itself belongs to each thing, since each
thing is by its very nature distinct, one from the other, and a
diversity of causes produces a diversity of effects.” Phaedo and
Phaedrus cannot possess beauty from themselves; what properly
constitutes them as individuals cannot explain why they are beau­
tiful; for the individualizing traits in each of them are different,
whereas both have beauty in common; the diversity cannot be the
reason of unity. To say that Phaedo and Phaedrus are beautiful
in and by themselves, would be to say that the diverse is of it­
self one with a unity of similitude, in other words, that elements
in themselves diverse and not alike, are of themselves alike by
reason of that which properly constitutes them as individuals.
This would involve a denial of the principle of identity or non­
contradiction. There is no recourse here to the argument of
St. Anselm.
By means of this principle Plato argued from the multiple to
the one, from the multiplicity of individual things to the existence
of eternal types of things, to the idea of eternal Truth, eternal
Beauty, and eternal Justice. But he found that there was still

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

313

a certain diversity, which led him to conclude that there is a
supreme unity, which is the Idea of ideas, the Sun of the intel­
ligible world, which was for him not the Idea of Being, but the
Idea of Goodness, or of the plenitude of being. “In the world of
knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only
with an effort; and when seen, is also inferred to be the universal
author of all things beautiful and right . . 80 St. Thomas con­
cludes in almost the same manner: “There is something which
is the True, the Good, the Noble, and consequently, Being par
excellence, which is the cause of whatever there is of being, good­
ness, and perfection in all things; we give the name of God to
this cause.”
It is objected that we can hardly conceive a typical essence for
each thing. This difficulty embarrassed Plato, because he failed
to distinguish clearly the transcendentals from the genera and
species. It is a disputed question whether he made man out to
be a separate entity, distinct from the idea of the Good, or
whether he considered man to be merely a divine idea. Whatever
opinion he held on this point, we may say with Aristotle,81 that
only those characteristics whose formal reason abstracts jrom
everything material, can exist in a state separated from matter
and individuals. On the contrary, whatever in its concept implies
a combination of material elements, is incapable of existing apart
from matter and from the individual in which it is found. Flesh
and bones, for instance, are implied in the concept of man. Flesh
cannot exist except as this particular flesh; for flesh is something
which is necessarily material and extended, and which has cer­
tain parts and a certain extent, and not any other. Flesh can be
thought of separately (separating, apart from its individualiz60 Republic, VI, 109, B.
61 Met., Bk. I, c. IX, Leet. 14 and 15; Bk. VII, ch. X, Lcct. 9 and 10; cfr. St.
Thomas, la, q. 6, a. 4; q. 65, a. 1, with Cajctan’s commentary; q. 84, a. 7; q. 104,
a. I.

3M

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

ing notes, but it cannot exist apart from them {separata} .®2 The
exemplars of material things can never be anything but ideas,
not real types. This logical precision applied to Plato’s principle
saves us from following him in his exaggerated realism.
But the case is quite different with the characteristics which,
according to what they formally denote, abstract from all that
is material, and which, moreover, transcend the genera and the
species, and for this reason are realized analogically in various
degrees (as is the case with being, unity, truth, goodness, beauty,
intellect. . . .). They can and must exist apart from matter and
from the individuals in which they are found realized, in a being
of a higher order who possesses these characteristics in the highest
degree.
It is precisely for this reason that our proof does not start with
a characteristic found in the same degree in various beings, e. g.,
humanity. Such a characteristic is of necessity caused not in all
save one, but in all.63 One of these beings cannot be the first
cause of the others, since it is of the same nature with them and
just as indigent as they are.
The proof from the degrees of beings does not ascend from
the multiple to the one, without at the same time ascending from
the composite to the simple, from the imperfect to the perfect.
It is not enough to posit as a principle that “if the same character­
istic is found in various beings, it is impossible for each of them
to possess this characteristic in its own right;” but we must add
that “if a characteristic, the concept of which does not imply
imperfection, is found to be present in a being in an imperfect
state, mingled with imperfection, then this being does not possess
it in its own right, but has it from another, to whom it belongs
in its own right.”
2) This second principle, implied with the first in the major
De Anima, Bk. ΙΠ; Comment, of St. Thomas, Leet. 12.
Caietan, la, q. 65, a. 1.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

3’5

of our proof, has been expounded by Plato in his Philebus,
Phaedo, and other dialogues. It cannot be said, he remarks, that
Phaedo is beautiful without restriction, or that Socrates is great
without restriction; 64 that the knowledge which men have is a
knowledge without restriction. In them these qualities (beauty,
greatness, knowledge) are not pure, but mixed with their op­
posites. In fact, Socrates is both small and great. He is great
when compared with Phaedo, small when compared with Simmias, and therefore he has not the greatness which excludes
smallness, but merely partakes of greatness in a measure. A
man has knowledge of a certain thing and is ignorant of cer­
tain other things; his knowledge is mixed with ignorance; it is
not knowledge without restriction, but a participated knowledge.
But how shall we proceed from this to affirm the existence of
absolute beauty and absolute knowledge? The Cartesians often
pass immediately from the imperfect to the perfect; they neglect
to resolve these notions into those simpler and nearer to being,
composition and simplicity, admixture and purity. That is why
the Kantians reproach them for unconsciously having recourse
to the ontological argument; in reality the Cartesians appeal to
the principle of identity, but they fail to establish this fact.
To say imperfection is the same as saying composition or
mixture of a perfection with that which limits it. The limit may
be either the opposite of the perfection, as when Socrates is said
to be great and small from different points of view; or privation,
as when human knowledge which knows certain things, is said
to be ignorant of certain others, which, however, it is capable
of knowing; or negation, as when a human being has knowledge
of certain things and is ignorant of certain others which are inac­
cessible to it. It makes little difference whether the limit which
constitutes the imperfection be contrary, privative, or negative;
what we want to know is, why it affects the perfections known
84 Phaedo, 102, B.

3i6

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

as beauty, goodness, knowledge. . . . Evidently none of these
perfections in themselves imply a limit, least of all such a limit.
In itself, beauty excludes ugliness, knowledge excludes ignorance
or error, and goodness excludes egotism. To say that such is
not the case would be to maintain that the unconditional union
of diverse elements is possible; that the diverse is, of itself, one,
at least with a unity of union; that elements, according to what
constitutes them as individuals, though they do not necessitate
their being united, are of themselves united. This would in­
volve a denial of the principle of identity. If any one of these
perfections does not of itself denote a limit, still less does it
denote of itself a certain fond of limit, since this limit is subject
to variation. There is progress in knowledge, and our goodness
is susceptible to increase and decrease.
The union of a perfection with its limit, not being uncon­
ditional, therefore, demands an extrinsic raison d’etre. “Things
in themselves different cannot unite, unless something causes
them to unite.” (la, q. 3, a. 7). To deny this would be to identify
that which has not its own sufficient reason in itself, either with
what is not self-determined (and has no need of a sufficient
reason) or else with what is self-determined (and has no need
of an extrinsic sufficient reason). To doubt this would be to
doubt the distinction between what is self-determined and not
self-determined. “Everything that is composite, just as every be­
coming, demands a cause.” (See supra, n. 24 and 26.)
But this extrinsic raison d'etre, this realizing principle, or, in
other words, this cause—where shall we seek for it? Could it be
found in a subject possessing a perfection with its limit? Is
Phaedo able to account for that imperfect beauty which he pos­
sesses? It is evident that Phaedo does not possess this perfection
through that which constitutes him an individual, for two rea­
sons. First, as we have already remarked, because what really
constitutes him as an individual, properly belongs to him,

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

317

whereas beauty is found also in other beings. Secondly, that
which properly constitutes him as an individual is something
indivisible, which denotes neither more nor less, whereas beauty,
even in Phaedo, has degrees. “Whatever belongs to a being by
its very nature, and not by reason of any cause, cannot be either
partially or completely taken away.” 65 To say that Phaedo is
beautiful in his own right, admitting at the same time that
what properly constitutes him as an individual is something
different from beauty, would be the same as saying that elements
of themselves diverse are of themselves in some way one; that
the unconditional union of diverse elements is possible—which
would involve a denial of the principle of identity. “Whatever
a thing may fittingly have, if it does not originate from its na­
ture, accrues to it from an extrinsic cause; for what has no cause
is first and immediate.” ee
What is found in a being without properly belonging to it
according to its nature, is something which has been caused in
it. In fact, not possessing this characteristic of itself and immedi­
ately (per se et primo), it can possess the same only in a condi­
tional manner, by reason of another, and, in the final analysis,
from another which possesses the same of itself and immediately,
as something belonging to its nature (“secundum quod ipsum
est"). Wherever there is diversity or composition, it is conditional,
until we finally arrive at pure identity. It is only the latter that
is capable of self-existence, whose existence originates from its
nature, which is to being as A is to A, which is Being itself, or
existence itself, ipsum esse subsistens. Every limitation of an es­
sence would involve positing in it a duality between that which
is capable of existing and existence itself. In such a case, existence
could be attributed to it only as something accidental or con­
tingent, and we should have to seek for a higher cause, continu65 C. Gentes, Bk. Il, c. XV, § 2.
ee C. Gentes, Bk. Il, c. XV, J 2.

3i8

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

ing our search until at last we arrived at pure simplicity and pure
perfection with no admixture of imperfection. Every limit im­
posed upon the supreme attributes of Goodness, Beauty, Knowl­
edge, and Justice would mean the positing in them of a duality,
and, therefore, of contingency. Thus the principle of identity
again appears, not only as the supreme law of thought, but also
as the supreme law of reality, and we have another refutation of
Pantheism. The first of all beings is essentially distinct from the
world, and this not only because he is essentially immutable,
whereas the world is essentially changeable, but also because this
being is by his very nature simple and pure, whereas the world
is essentially mixed and composite. This, as we have already re­
marked, was the argument by which the Vatican Council
refuted Pantheism. “God as being one sole, absolutely sim­
ple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared
as really and essentially distinct from the world.”67 God is pure
Being without any admixture of non-being. St. Augustine ex­
pressed this truth in almost the same words, both in his City of
God (Bk. VIII, ch. 6) and in his treatise De Trinitate (Bk. VIII,
ch. 4), and he combined the proof based on the degrees of being
with the argument from motion, thus rendering his contention
more striking. If a being, he says, is more or less beautiful at
different moments, if its beauty varies, evidently it does not
possess beauty a se. Since it advances from the less to the
greater, it cannot give itself what it does not have, and so “there
must be some being in which immutable, incomparable, and pure
beauty resides.”
This proof drawn from the degrees of being is even more
convincing if we remark, with Aristotle, that the non-being
which limits being is something intermediary between pure be­
ing and pure nothingness, called potency. A perfection which of
itself implies no limit cannot be limited either by itself, or by any
0’ Cone. Vat., Scss. ΙΠ, ch. I.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

319

other perfection, or by pure nothingness, but only by something
intermediary. Knowledge, for instance, is not limited by itself
nor by another perfection, such as holiness, but by the restricted
capacity of man to acquire knowledge, by our potentia for knowl­
edge, which gradually attains to act. Similarly, existence, in which
all beings participate, has various degrees, and is not limited
by itself, but by the essence into which it is received, since es­
sence denotes a capacity for receiving existence, quid capax existendi, and it is all the more perfect in proportion as it denotes
a capacity less subject to restrictions, and susceptible of greater
participation in the act of existence. The mineral and the plant
participate in this existence, subject to the limitations of matter
and extension; the animal, by the knowledge it acquires from
sense perception, participates in the same in a less limited way;
man transcends the limits of matter and extension, of time and
space, since knowledge and desire in him, by reason of the soul,
the spiritual part of his nature, may in some sense be said to be
infinite; with those created beings known as pure spirits, since
they are by nature pure and immaterial forms, limitation in the
existence in which they participate can come only from this
source; but that they are capable of existing is in them something
finite; potentiality is included in the notion of their essence, an
idea of limitation with regard to existence, which is their ultimate
actualization. This composition, this duality, consisting of essence
as limiting and of existence as limited, presupposes a cause, and,
in the final analysis, a cause in which there is absolutely nothing
of composition, which is not a combination of potentiality and
actuality, a cause which is pure actuality, a cause which was al­
ways and in all ways self-determined, pure being to the exclusion
of all non-being, and consequently infinite perfection?3
It is easy to see how St. Thomas was able to conclude that the
First Being is not a body, since He is absolutely simple (la, q. 3,
88 Sec Summa Theol., la, q. 7, a. 1.

320

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

a. i) ; that He is not composed of essence and existence, but
that He is Existence itself (la, q. 3, a. 4); that He is not com­
posed of genus and a difference (la, q. 3, a. 5) ; that He is sov­
ereign goodness, absolute plenitude of being (la, q. 6, a. 2);
that He is infinite (la, q. 7, a. 1); that He is supreme truth
(la, q. 16, a. 5); that He is invisible (la, q. 12, a. 4), and that
He is incomprehensible (la, q. 12, a. 8).
Let us now consider the different applications and more precise
determinations of this general proof, by means of which we
conclude that there is not only a First Being, but also a First
Intellect, a First that is intelligible, a First that is desirable, the
source of all happiness, the First and Sovereign Good, and the
fundamental reason of all our obligations.
b) The first intellect. St. Thomas (la, q. 79, a. 4) applies the
proof based on the degrees of being to the intellect and, like
St. Augustine, combines it with the proof based on motion.®8
“That which participates in a perfection, that which is mobile
and imperfect, necessarily depends upon that which is the essence
of this perfection, upon that which is immovable and perfect.
Now, the human soul participates in the intellectual life, and
is intellectual only in the noblest part of its being. It attains to the
knowledge of the truth only by the gradual process of reasoning.
Finally, it has but an imperfect knowledge of things; it does not
eo
must observe," he says, “that above the intellectual soul of man, it is
necessary to posit a superior intellect, from which the soul obtains the power of
understanding. For what is such by participation, and what is mobile, and what
is imperfect, always requires the pre-existence of something essentially such, im­
movable and perfect. Now, the human soul is called intellectual by reason of a
participation in intellectual power, a sign of which is that it is not wholly intellec­
tual, but only in part. Moreover, it reaches to the understanding of truth by argu­
ing, with a certain amount of reasoning and movement. Again it has an imperfect
understanding, both because it does not understand everything, and because, in
those tilings which it does understand, it passes from potentiality to act. There­
fore, there must needs be some higher intellect, by which the soul is helped to
understand." And this supreme understanding must be the subsistent Intelligence,
ipsum intelligere (la, q. 14, a. 4).

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

321

know everything about them; and it has a confused apprehen­
sion of things known before acquiring a distinct knowledge of
them. Therefore, there must be some intellect higher than that
of any human soul, which is pre-eminently intellection, and
which is immovable and perfect,” and which was always in pos­
session of all knowledge as something distinct from everything
knowable. (See la, q. 14, a. 4; q. 79, a. 4). Such an intellect is de­
manded to explain the origin of human understanding, manifold
and imperfect as it is, and without the concurrence of this intellec­
tual light nothing intelligible could be known by us, just as without
the light of the sun there could be no such thing as the sense
perception of color.
This application of the proof presents no difficulty if we recall
to mind what we previously said (n. 29) concerning the under­
standing. It is a notion which, according to what it formally
implies, does not belong to any genus. Since it is defined by
reason of its relation to being, it is, like being, analogous. That
is why it can be realized in various degrees, and in the highest
degree can exist in a pure state, not subject to any potentiality
or limitation.
Need it surprise us that the supreme intelligence is identified
with being itself? By no means. If there were duality here,
we should have to keep on seeking for a higher cause, until we
finally arrived at pure identity.
Plotinus and Spencer raised the objection that knowledge neces­
sarily implies a duality of subject and object. This objection in
its various forms has been refuted by St. Thomas (see la, q. 14,
a. 1-4). He commences with a consideration of man, in whom
knowledge implies such a duality. Man, he remarks, is intelli­
gent in proportion as he is immaterial, in so much as his form,
which transcends matter, space, and time, enables him to know,
not only this or that particular and contingent being, but being in
general. And since man is not being, the intellectual faculty is

322

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

in him merely a potentiality, which is in relation to being, some­
thing intentional. It is an accident of quality, and the act of
understanding in human beings is merely an accidental act of
this potentiality. The self-subsisting Being must also be intelli­
gent, in proportion as He is immaterial, and since, according to
the definition, He is independent not only of all material and
spatial limitation, but also of every limitation on the part of
essence, He is not only sovereignly intelligent, but the intellect
and its act in Him are identical, that is to say, He is Being itself
in the highest degree of intelligibility, always actually known, a
purely intellectual and eternally subsisting light. Let us not
search here for the duality of subject and object, which is the
result, as St. Thomas remarks, of potentiality (or imperfection),
in fact of both, “because from this only it follows that sense or
intellect is distinct from the sensible or intelligible object, in that
both are in potentiality” (la, q. 14, a. 2). Even in the act of our
intellection, the intellect and its object, insofar as it is known,
are identified; and Cajetan, in his Commentary on the Summa
of St. Thomas (see q. 79, a. 2, no. 19), points out, as Averroes
had done before him, that the intellect does not receive the ob­
ject as matter receives the form, thus constituting a composite
with the latter. No; the intellect becomes intentionally the known
object (“fit aliud in quantum aliud": it becomes that which as
such is something other than itself”). In the act of reflection, the
intellect in the act of knowing is identified with the intellect
knowing this of itself. That this duality still remains is due to
the fact that our intellect is not of itself and always in the act of
knowing and actually being known. In God there is absolute
identity between the pure intellect and pure being, which is the
object of the intellectual act.
We shall see that this conclusion is no less evident if we take
as the basis of our argumentation not the primary intellect, but

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

3*1

the primary intelligible. For a being to be pure act from every
point of view, it must be always intelligible, not only in poten­
tiality, but also in act; in fact, it must be always actually known
(intellectum in actu). Now the intelligible always actually known
is nothing else but eternal intellection.70
What has just been said is as certain as the absolute certainties
of the positive sciences, for this excellent reason that the intellect
perceives it immediately in being, which is its formal object. It
is a fruit of purely intellectual light. This analogical attribution
of intelligence to God is certain in the strictest sense of the term.
The same must be said of the formal reason of existence, which
is independent of its created mode (limited by the potentiality
of the essence into which it is received). In like manner, the for­
mal reason of intellection is independent of its created mode,
which declares such intellection to be the accidental act of a fac­
ulty and assigns it to a category, namely, that of “quality,” which
is distinct from the category of “substance.” In God, intellection
is His very nature, that is to say, Being itself (la, q. 14, a. 2 and
4). This identification of being and intellection is not, therefore,
due solely to the fact that a proof based upon their common traits
(ex communibus') makes it a necessity (for there can be no ques­
tion either of duality or of multiplicity in the Absolute), but this
identity is postulated by the formal reason of each of these two
perfections (ex propriis'). Pure thought, of itself and always in
act, must be pure being actually known; and pure being of itself
and always in act from every point of view, must be the intel­
ligible in act and intellection in act. Wherever there is a duality
of subject and object, the understanding is imperfect and to a
certain extent unsatisfactory. The created intellect would like to
establish an immediate contact with being, without having to
το “ "Εστιν ή voyais voyaeus vôijffcs; its thinking is a thinking on thinking."
Aristotle, Met., ΧΠ, c. ix.

324

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

question itself about the validity of the representation by means
of which it apprehends being. This unsatisfactoriness,71 which
is common to every created intellect, will be dispelled only by
the beatific vision, in which there will be no intermediary idea
between the human intellect and the divine essence (la, q. 12,
a. 2); this condition never existed for God, since it is in Him
alone that intellect is identical with being, because in Him alone
the intellect is in a pure state.
c) The first intelligible, the first truth, source of all truth. The
proof for the existence of God based on the degrees of being,
developed in the la, q. 2, a. 3 of the Summa Theologica of St.
Thomas, ascends not only to a first being, but to a first truth,
which is the ultimate basis of all other truths. “In beings there is
found something more or less true. But more and less are predi­
cated of different things, according as they resemble in different
ways something which is the maximum. There is, therefore,
something which is most true. Now, what is called maximum in
any genus is the cause of all comprised in that genus.” (la, q. 2,
a. 3). Sometimes people are surprised at not finding in the writ­
ings of St. Thomas the proof for the existence of God based on
the eternal verities, which was a favorite one with St. Augus­
tine,72 St. Anselm, Descartes, Bossuet,73 Fénelon,74 Malebranche
and Leibniz.75 Even Kant, in 1763, when he wrote his treatise
on The Only Possible Foundation for the Proof of God’s Ex­
istence, described the argument based on the eternal verities as
71 It is quite compatible with the condition of absolute certitude and merely
denotes the imperfection inherent in the nature of a created intellect, especially of
one which is united with a body.
72 See Contra Academicos, Bk. Ill, c. xi, no. 25; De Trinitate, Bk. XV, c. xii,
no. 21; De Vera Religione, c. xxx to xxxii; De Libero Arbitrio, Bk. II, c. viii, no.
20; c. ix, no. 26; c. xii, no. 24; c. xiii, no. 36. Cfr. Portalié in the Diet, de Thiol.
Cath., art. "Augustin."
73 Connaissances de Dieu et de soi-même, ch. iv; Logique, I, c. xxxvi.
74 Traité de l'Existence de Dieu, Part II, ch. iv.
73 Noue. Essais, Bk. IV, c. ii.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

325

the only rigorously compelling one. The possible, he said, which
is given with thought itself, presupposes being, for “if nothing
exists, nothing is given which may be the object of thought.” He
declared it to be an established fact that the Absolute, which
is the ultimate basis of possible things, is unique and simple,
and confirmed his proof by showing the unity and harmony
which exist in the infinite world of essences or possibles, for
instance, in mathematics. The proportions, the connections, the
unity revealed by these ratiocinative sciences, were for him a
proof that the ultimate basis of the possibles is unique and
infinite, nay more, that it is an intelligence, since these harmonies
are of the intelligible order.
The argument based on the eternal verities is to-day defended
by many Scholastics.76 Its validity was formerly denied only
by the Nominalists,77 who regarded the universal as nothing
but a collection of individuals. If such were the case, and all the
individuals of a species disappeared, it could no longer be said
that there was any real truth in the propositions formulated
about their specific nature.
St. Thomas has often pointed out that, just as in the order of
being and goodness, there is a certain hierarchy also in the
order of truth. Contingent truths or facts are of the lowest
degree; above these rank the necessary conclusions of the
sciences, and in the highest place are the first principles. More­
over, St. Thomas does not hesitate to say that the necessary
76 KJeutgen, Philosophie Scolastique, Bk. IV, Diss., Ch. ii, a. 4; Lepidi, Elementa
Philosophiae Christianae, Onto!., p. 35, Logic., p. 382: Schiffini, Prine. Phil., I,
no. 482; Hontheim, Theologia Naturalis, p. 133; De Munnynck, Praelectiones de
Dei Existentia, p. 23. Sertillangcs has given an admirable exposition of this proof
in an article which appeared in the September number, 1904, of the Revue
Thomiste, entitled, "L'Idée de Dieu et la Vérité" reproduced in the author’s book,
Les Sources de Notre Croyance en Dieu. It was severely criticized by the Revue
Néo-Scolastique. The doctrine propounded in this article is, however, absolutely
in conformity with the teaching of St. Thomas.
77 Cfr. Soncinas, O.P., In V Metaph., q. 30, and In IX Metaph., IV and V.

326

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

truths would remain as objective truths even if all contingent
reality disappeared. If, for example, all human beings ceased to
exist, it would still be true to say that rationality is a specific char­
acteristic of human nature. "Remotis omnibus singularibus
hominibus adhuc remaneret rationabilitas attribuibilis humanae
naturae" St. Thomas says in his Quodlibeta, VIII, q. i, art. i,
ad tum. He repeats the statement in his answer to the third
objection (ibid., ad 3um). It is worth while to read this article,
in which he distinguishes human nature in three ways: (i) as it
exists in individuals; (2) as it is in itself, and (3) as it is in the
divine intellect.78 Concerning these eternal truths, which are
independent of all contingent existence, the following authors
may be consulted: Albert the Great, Tract, de Praedicamentis,
c. ix; Capreolus, I, dist. 8, q. 1, conci. 1; II, dist. 1, q. 2, a. 3;
Cajetan, De Ente et Essentia, c. iv, q. 6 (the real is of two kinds:
the possible real and the actual real; the possible is not merely
the thinkable, or the ens rationis) ; Soncinas, In Met. IX, c. iv and
v; V, q. 30; Ferrariensis, Comment, in C. Gentes, Bk. II, c. 52
and 84; Soto, Dialectica Aristotelis, q. ia, towards the end;
Suarez, Disp. Met., Vol. I, p. 230; Vol. II, pp. 231, 294-298; Bannez, In lam., q. to, a. 3; John of St. Thomas, Logica, q. 3, a. 2;
q. 25, a. 2; Goudin, Logica, p. 256. We now understand how
Leibniz could have written as he did in his Neu/ Essays, Bk. IV,
c. ii, and also in his Theodicy, § 184: “What the Scholastics called
constantia subjecti (permanence of the subject) was very much
i8 Universals may be distinguished in four ways: (1) in se (or considered in
the abstract) ; (2) in re or a parte re! (considered in the concrete or as individual­
ized); (3) ante rem (as apprehended by the divine intellect before they are individ­
ualized); (4) post rem (as apprehended by the human intellect when in­
dividualized). (St. Thomas, Π, d. 3, q. 2, 3, turn; la, q. 85, a. 2, ad 2um; De
Potentia, q. 5, a. 9, ad t6um; Quodl., 8, I. c.) It is the universal secundum se (as
such), apart from the individuals in which it is found, that is here meant. Also,
as Soncinas, Ο. P., remarked, only the Nominalists denied that necessary propo­
sitions arc eternally true. Ockham made their truth dependent upon the divine
liberty.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

J27

discussed by them; what they meant by this phrase was that they
could not see how a proposition formulated about a given subject
can haye any real truth if the subject does not exist.”
Banhez, in his commentary on the First Part of the Summa
Theol. of St. Thomas (q. io, a. 3), formulated this common
teaching of the Schools in three propositions, to wit: (1) The
essences of things signified by those complex concepts are not
eternal as to their existence (this is de fide), nor as to the es­
sence of their being in them, because essence without existence
is nothing actual. (2) That man is an animal is an eternal
truth, if the word is implies that animality is an essential note
of human nature; for it belongs eternally to the essence of man to
be an animal. Note, however, that, with regard to creatures, this
esse is not esse simpliciter, but esse secundum quid, for it is
esse in potentia. (3) That man is an animal is not eternal,
except in the divine intellect, if the word is refers to the truth
expressed by the proposition; for truth resides in the intellect,
but eternal truth resides only in the divine intellect. The few con­
temporary authors who refuse to accept the proof based on the
eternal verities, and who claim that it is foreign to the teaching
of St. Thomas, fail to see that it is according to the tenor of the
third proposition of Bannez that St. Thomas speaks in his
De Veritate (q. 1, a. 4, 5, 6 and Summa Theol., la, q. 16, a. 6, 7,
8), whereas it is in accordance with the second proposition that he
writes in his Quodlibeta, (VIII, q. 1, a. 1, ad turn and ad 3um).
St. Thomas, therefore, admits the final conclusion arrived at by
Bannez, that "from these conclusions it follows that the essences
of things are real beings before they exist, insofar as real being
is distinct from imaginary being [ens rationis, or what is merely
thinkable]; but not insofar as it is distinct from actually exist­
ing being, according to Cajetan’s distinction as given in De Ente
et Essentia, c. iv, q. 6.”
Suarez justly remarks that “certain modern theologians ad-

/

328

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

mit that necessary propositions are not perpetually true, but that
they commence to be true when they become a reality, and cease
to be true when the things cease to exist. But this opinioh is in
direct conflict, not only with that held by modern philosophers,
but also by those of ancient times, and even by Fathers of the
Church. . . .” Then follow quotations from St. Augustine and
St. Anselm.79 The propositions: “Every being is of a determined
nature,” “Everything has its sufficient reason,” “Man is free,” “We
must do what is good and avoid what is evil,” unlike certain
others, e. g.: “Every Frenchman has a right to vote,” have always
been true, from all eternity. The copula is does not denote that
the two extremes are really and actually united in an existing
reality, but merely that the predicate necessarily refers to the
subject, regardless of whether the latter exists or not.
These truths are conditional, so far as existence is concerned,
but they are absolute in the order of possibility and intelligibility,
and consequently dominate the contingent realities and control
the future. They state, as Leibniz remarks, “that if the subject
ever does exist, it will be found to be such.” (Nouv. Essais sur
l’Entend., Bk. IV, ch. ii).
Only consistent Nominalists can deny this conclusion; but
then they must, like the Positivists, end in rejecting the absolute
necessity of the first principles of reason, as if in some unknown
world there could actually be effects without a cause or realized
contradictions.
Starting from this point, can we prove the existence of God?
Leibniz no more doubts than does St. Augustine that “these
necessary truths, being prior in existence to contingent beings,
must certainly have their foundation in the existence of a neces­
sary substance” (ibid.) and as intelligible truths must be known
from all eternity. Bossuet beautifully says that “even if there
were no such thing in nature as a triangle, it would still remain
” Diep. Met., Vol. Π, p. 294.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

329

indisputably true that the three angles of a triangle are equal to
two right angles. What we see of the nature of the triangle is
certainly independent of every existing triangle. Moreover, it
is not the understanding that gives truth to being; even if the
understanding were destroyed, these truths would still remain
immutably the same.” {Logique, I, 36). Again: “If I ask myself
where and in what subject these truths subsist as eternal and
unchangeable, I am obliged to avow that there is a being in
whom truth eternally subsists and is always known; and this be­
ing must be Truth itself and in possession of all truth.” {Con­
naissances de Dieu et de Soi-même, IV, 5). And again: “It is to
this intellectual world that Plato sends us, if we would know
what is truth. If he went too far in his reasoning, if he thought
from these principles that souls have innate knowledge, ... St.
Augustine has shown us how to adhere to these principles with­
out falling into extreme and untenable views.” {Logique, I, 37).
This proof is truly one a posteriori (from intelligible effects),
and not a priori (like the argument of St. Anselm). It does not
start from the notion of God, but from the multiplicity of ra­
tional truths arranged in ascending order, until it finally reaches
the source of all truth. This proof, whatever may have been
said about it, was not unknown to St. Thomas. In C. Gentes,
Bk. II, c. 84, he explicitly states that “from the fact that truths
known by the intellect are eternal with regard to what is thus
known, one cannot conclude that the soul is eternal, but that
the truths known have their foundation in something eternal.
They have their foundation in that first Truth which, as the
universal cause, contains within itself all truth.” 80
Why did St. Thomas not develop this Augustinian argument
in the article which he set aside for a special discussion of the
80 St. Thomas also admits that the immortality of the soul can be proved from
the knowledge we possess of the eternal truths. (See C. G., Bk. II, ch. 84).
Cfr. the Commentary of F^rrariensis and Lepidi’s Examen Ontologisnu, p. 120.

33°

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

proofs of God’s existence? The reason is because this proof can
be referred back to the fourth, which establishes the presence
not only of a Primary Intelligence and of a Primary Being,
but also of a Primary Truth (maxime verum).
In the manifold and necessary verities made known to us by
reason, there is a common element, that of necessary and
eternal verity, which is realized in each in varying degrees. It is
found in a more perfect degree in a first principle than in a
conclusion. How are we to account for this element? Manifestly
it is not to be explained by the contingent realities regulated by
it. Just as Phaedo has not in himself the ultimate reason for his
beauty, so also he cannot be the principle of contradiction which
is found realized in him as in every other being, both actual and
possible. Neither can our manifold and contingent intelligences
account for this common and necessary element, since it regu­
lates all of them, instead of being regulated by them. Shall we
say that the eternal verities subsist apart from one another,
independendy of things and of contingent intelligences? This
would be a reversion to those eternal types which Plato seems
to have admitted, and we have stated why the transcendentals
alone are capable of realization apart from matter and indi­
viduals, and why they are identified ex propriis (that is, intrinsi­
cally) with the primary being and the primary thought. It
suffices to point out here that the eternal verities cannot possess,
each in itself, the ultimate reason of their necessity, since they
are many and constitute a series of an ascending order; they
necessarily presuppose a supreme truth, a primary ens intelligibile,
which is the source of all intelligibility, the maxime verum of
which St. Thomas speaks.
This maxime verum cannot be merely what is potentially in­
telligible; it must be of itself and always intelligible, nay, actually
known by the intellect. For this reason, as we have already
seen, it is identified with the primary intelligence, which is pure

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

33i

understanding. Hence it appears a posteriori that the primary in­
telligence is infinite; in fact, the laws of the intelligible order,
such as, for instance, of geometrical figures, are everlasting.
Moreover, the least of things contains an infinite number of de­
tails, so that we can never know all about anything. This elusive
element is nevertheless intelligible in itself, and its derived in­
telligibility must of necessity come from an intellect that is al­
ways in action. Act always precedes potency. Revelation says
the same, for we read in the prologue of St. John’s Gospel that
“all things were made by Him [the Divine Logos] : and without
Him was made nothing that was made.”
It is impossible to admit with the Pantheists that the principle
of the ideal order is immanent in the world, and would have
no existence apart from the concepts formed of it by the human
mind. If we grant that this principle is necessary and universal,
we must admit that it is independent of our intellects, which
are regulated by it. The contingent, being essentially dependent
upon the necessary, cannot condition the existence of tire latter.
To say that it does, would be the same as saying that the con­
tingent, which is not its own cause, is the cause of the necessary,
which would be absurd. Just as becoming cannot be the cause of
being, so multiplicity cannot be the raison d'etre of unity.
But how can all intelligibles be contained in the primary intel­
ligible—the το πρώτον νοητόν? 81 St. Thomas has explained this in
his treatise on the Divine Knowledge.82 This primary intelligible
is the Divine Essence itself. To know this essence adequately and
exhaustively, is to know everything that it contains virtually and
eminently, which means everything that can resemble it by way
of analogy, that is to say, not only all actual, but also all possible,
realities.
d) The primary and sovereign good, the primary object of
81 Aristotle, Met., XII, c. vii.
82 Sec Summa Theol., la, q. 14, a. 1—16.

332

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

desire. St. Thomas by the via quarta also rises to the maxime
bonum, i. e., Sovereign Goodness. That which is good may be
considered as simply desirable, i.e., capable of attracting our
appetite, of filling a void in us, of making us truly happy, and
also as that which has a right to be loved, and which imperiously
compels our love, and is the basis of duty. The argument which
concludes that there is a first and sovereign good, therefore,
implicitly includes that by which we rise to the primary object of
desire, το πρώτον ορικτόν of (Aristotle), the source of all hap­
piness; 83 and it also includes the argument by which we prove
that there is a sovereign good, the foundation of all duty, to
άγαμόν και το άριστον.84
We may arrive at a knowledge of the supreme good, which is
the source of perfect and unalloyed happiness, by arguing from
the various kinds and degrees of goodness in created things, or
else from the fact that these various kinds of goodness do not
satisfy the natural desire of men.
If we start from the idea of the various kinds of finite good­
ness in beings, such as health, the pleasures of the body, wealth,
power, glory, scientific knowledge, the joys of the mind and of
the soul, we must insist upon their multiplicity and still more
upon their imperfection, i.e., their limitation. Just as the multiple
presupposes the one, the composite the simple, the imperfect
the perfect, so we shall be led by reason to a Supreme Good,
who is Goodness itself, without any admixture of non-goodness
or of imperfection. This is the dialectic of the intellect.
If we start from the natural desire which finite goods cannot
satisfy, then we must emphasize the restlessness which the soul
83 See St. Thomas, la, Ilae, q. 2, a. 8: “Concerning happiness: Whether it Consists
in a Created or in an Uncreated Good ?”
84 See la, Ilae, q. 91, a. I: “Whether There is an Eternal Law?” a. 2: “Whether
There is a Natural Law?” q. 93, a. 2: “Whether the Eternal Law is Known to
All?" q. 94, a. 2: “What Are the Precepts of the Natural Law?”

EXPOSE OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

333

experiences as long as it has not found an infinite good, or a
good free from imperfection. “Restless is our heart, until it finds
its rest in Thee, O Lord,” said St. Augustine.85 The unsatisfied
soul will seek to find its contentment in goods of a higher and
still higher order. This is what is known as the dialectic of love.
Does the unrest resulting from this dialectic prove that there is
an infinite good? Yes and no. It may engender in the mind of
him who experiences it a certitude which is subjectively sufficient
and objectively insufficient, like the moral faith of Kant. The
exclusive method of immanence, however scientific it may be,
cannot go farther than this. Objectively sufficient certitude can
be had only by recognizing the ontological and transcendental
validity of those first principles of reasoning known as the princi­
ples of identity, of sufficient reason, and of efficient and final
causality. (Cfr. supra, n. 6).
Hence the proof may be presented in the following manner:88
Our will, which has for its object the universal good (not this or
that particular good known by the senses or the conscience, but
the good, according to what is implied by this term, and known as
such by the intellect) cannot find its happiness in any finite
good; for however perfect a finite good may be, it is infinitely
inferior to that pure good which has no admixture of non­
good, and which is conceived as such by the human intellect.
An infinity of finite goods cannot satisfy the will, for this could
never be anything but successive and potential, not an actual
infinity of quality and perfection. This impossibility of finding
our happiness in any finite good, thus proved a priori by St.
Thomas, is also proved a posteriori, or by experience, as St.
Augustine has shown in his Confessions. Therefore, the human
will desires naturally (». e., by its very nature) a pure good with86 Confessions, Bk. I.
86 Sec Sl Thomas, Summa Theol., la Ilae, q. 2, a. 7 and 8.

334

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

out admixture of non-good, just as our intellect desires absolute
truth without admixture of error. Can this natural desire be
vain, as if it were merely a product of the imagination?
Certain theologians87 maintain that the principle, “The de­
sire of nature cannot be purposeless,” is not certain for us except
and until we have demonstrated that our nature is the work, not
of chance, but of an intelligent and good God. Thus the proof
based on the aspiration of the soul for the absolute good would
have merely the force of a naturalistic argument, based on this
induction: Throughout the vegetable and animal kingdoms we
see that an object, e. g., a food, corresponds to the natural desire
which calls for it; it must be the same for man, since his natural
desire cannot be frustrated.
We, on the contrary, believe in the absolute validity of this
proof for the existence of God. If the demonstration of God’s
existence were a necessary pre-requisite before we could trust the
natural tendency of our faculties, we might doubt the objective
validity not only of our intellect, but also of the natural desire
of our will. Moreover, previous to any demonstration of the
existence of God we perceive clearly that our intellect and will
cannot be the work of chance, the result of a fortuitous en­
counter. How could a simple principle, a principle of order as
well as of intellect, ever have resulted from a multiplicity with­
out order? To say that it could would be the same as saying that
the greater can proceed from the less, being from nothingness.
Finally, according to Aristotle, St. Thomas, and all the great
intellectualist philosophers, the principle of finality is necessary
and self-evident, like the principle of sufficient reason, from which
it is derived on the same grounds as the principle of caus­
ality. (See supra, n. 27). A natural desire, therefore, cannot
be purposeless, for if it were, it would be without a sufficient
reason, and, as we have seen, for anything to be without a suffi87 De Munnynck, for instance, in his Praelectiones de Existentia Dei.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

335

cient reason for what it is, is a contradiction. Also, by the method
of reductio ad impossibile the principle of sufficient reason re­
solves itself into the principle of identity, (i. Everything which
exists, has its sufficient reason, necessary for it as such, without
which it could not be distinguished from that which is not.
2. Everything which is, but does not exist of itself, has its suf­
ficient reason in something else, without which it could not be
distinguished from that which exists of itself). This extrinsic
sufficient reason is necessarily twofold: the one is a realizing or
actualizing principle, which accounts for the existence of the
thing (efficient cause), while the other explains the purpose of
the action and why it is performed in this way rather than in
any other (final cause). The necessity of die final cause is more
clearly seen in the case of an intentional being, that is to say, a
being whose whole nature is a tendency towards something else.
We find it to be so with the natural desire which we have been
discussing. This something which is relative and imperfect neces­
sarily tends towards something else. Just as the imperfect cannot
exist except by the perfect (efficient cause), so it cannot exist ex­
cept for the perfect (final cause) ; for the relative can exist only
for the absolute. In fact, it is only the absolute which has its own
sufficient reason in itself. "Potentia dicitur ad actum" i. e., a po­
tency cannot contain its own raison d’être within itself. The natu­
ral desire for God, the natural inclination towards God, therefore,
would be absurd if God did not exist; it would be an inclination
tending towards something and at the same time towards nothing.
It was in this sense that Hemsterhuys could say that “a single sigh
of the heart for what is best and perfect is more convincing than a
geometrical demonstration of the existence of God.”
This demonstration does not differ from the via quarta of
St. Thomas, which ascends to the primary good not only by way
of exemplary and efficient causality, but also by way of final
causality. This desire for God, from the very fact that it is some-

336

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

thing imperfect and limited, presupposes the perfect, just as the
relative presupposes the absolute.
In presenting this proof we must bear in mind that there is
question here of a natural and efficacious desire, and not of a
natural desire which is inefficacious and conditional, like that
which has for its object the beatific vision of the divine essence.
The Thomists 88 distinguish two kinds of natural love, one in­
nate, the other elicited. The former precedes all knowledge, and
is identical with the natural inclination of the will; the latter
follows upon the apprehension of good. This elicited love is
necessary, if it results from the simple apprehension of good
without deliberation; in the contrary case it is free. Moreover, it
may be either absolute and efficacious, if our nature furnishes us
with the means of attaining the object desired; or conditional
and inefficacious, if the object desired is beyond the reach of our
natural faculties.
Now, according to St. Thomas (la, q. 60, a. 5), every creature,
each in its own way, by reason of an inborn natural inclination,
loves God more than itself, that is to say, it is more strongly in­
clined towards the author of its nature than towards itself, just
as a part is naturally more strongly drawn to the preservation
of the whole than to its own preservation. Thus it is natural
for the hand to expose itself in order to save the head. Moreover,
every reasonable creature, with a love which is elicited and spon­
taneous, loves above all else the sovereign good which it seeks in
all things, and which can be found only in God. By an elicited
and deliberate act of natural love man can afterwards prefer God
to everything else, and perceive that natural happiness is to be
found only in the knowledge of God derived from His works, and
in the love of God which follows this knowledge, and which im­
plies all the natural virtues.
Finally, man can naturally conceive that it would be a good
88 See Billuart, De Gratia, diss. 3 and 4.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

337

thing to know God, not only through His works, but immedi­
ately as He knows Himself. But it is beyond the scope of our
nature to attain to this intuitive vision; and hence the natural
desire for this object can only be conditional and inefficacious;
e. g., if God were gratuitously to raise me above my natural
powers, so that I could see Him as He sees Himself, this would
make me supremely happy. This velleity does not enter into our
proof for God’s existence, for, strictly speaking, it can be frus­
trated, since it depends upon the free will of God to comply or
not to comply with it.89 We are concerned here with a natural
desire that is absolute and efficacious. The human will, on ac­
count of its universality, which accrues to it naturally from the
universality of the intellect, anteriorly to any act, cannot be satis­
fied with anything less than a complacent love of the principle
of all good, which alone is Goodness itself. This love of tire ab­
solute above all things is also the basic principle, or at least the
crown, of the great spiritual and moral systems of Plato, Aristotle,
Plotinus, Descartes, Malebranche, Leibniz, and others.90 Immedi­
ate intuition of this Good (which is entirely a supernatural gift)
is not necessary to make us love it. It is sufficient for us to know
it through its works and to love it as the author of our nature.
It is this Good which we love when we practice virtue and refer
all our acts to it, and not to ourselves.91
e) The primary and sovereign good as the basic principle of
duty. But the good is not only something to be desired, as ca­
pable of appealing to the appetitive part of our nature and making
us happy; it is also something which must be the object of voli88 See Bannez, In lam, q. 12, a. I.
80 We even find it in the writings of Spinoza, though in a Pantheistic form.
81 On this natural love of God cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 6o, a. 5.
—Concerning this proof for God's existence, cfr. Gardeil’s article, "L'Action, ses
Exigences et ses Resources Subjectives" in the Revue Thomiste, 1898 and 1899;
also Scrtillanges, Les Sources de Notre Croyance en Dieu," and our own recent
works: Le Réalisme du Principe de Finalité, 1932, pp. 260-284, and La Providence
et la Confiance en Dieu, pp. 50-64 (English tr., pp. 39-52).

338

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

tion and has a right to be loved, nay positively demands our love
and constitutes the basis of duty.
St. Thomas expresses himself very clearly on this point in his
treatise on law in the Summa Theologica, la Ilae, q. 94, a. 2:
“Whether Natural Law Contains Several Precepts, or only One?”
He says that there are several precepts included in the natural
law, but that they all refer to the same first principle of practical
reason, which is “that good must be done and evil must be
avoided.” This first principle of conduct, he remarks, is based
upon the notion of good, just as the first principle of the specula­
tive reason, upon which all others of the same order depend, is it­
self based upon the notion of being. “That which first falls under
apprehension, is being, the notion of which is included in all
things whatsoever that a man apprehends. Therefore, the first in­
demonstrable principle is that the same thing cannot be affirmed
and denied at the same time; this is based on the notion of being
and not-being; and on this principle all others are based, as is
stated in the Fourth Book of Metaphysics. Now, as being is the
first thing which falls under simple apprehension, so good is the
first thing which falls under the apprehension of the practical
reason, which is directed to action; for every agent acts for an
end which has the aspect of good. Consequently, the first prin­
ciple of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good”
(q. 94, a. 2).
In truth, it is not this or that good that must be done; it is
that to which our nature by its activity is essentially ordained as
to its proper end. Now, common sense, like philosophical reason,
distinguishes three kinds of good: (1) sensible good, or that
which is merely delectable; (2) useful good, by reason of the
end; (3) virtuous good. The irrational animal finds its content­
ment in the first kind of good, and instinctively makes use of
the second without perceiving the connection between it and the
end in view {non cognoscit rationem finis; la Ilae, q. 1, a. 2).

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

339

It is man alone who, because of his reason, knows the usefulness
or the sufficient reason of the means employed for the end. He
alone knows and can love virtuous good. This latter appears to
him as good in itself, desirable in itself, and this independently
of the joy experienced in its possession and of any advantage
to be derived from it. Such an end is good and desirable pre­
cisely because it is in conformity with right reason and appears
to be the normal perfection of man as man {qua rational and not
qua animal). It is good in itself, apart from the pleasure man
takes in it and the advantages derived from it, such as knowing
the truth, loving it above all things, acting always according to
right reason, prudently, justly, firmly, and temperately. More­
over, this virtuous or rational good appears to us as the neces­
sary end of all our actions and, consequently, as of obligation.02
Every man understands that the acts of a reasonable being must
conform to right reason, just as right reason itself conforms to
the absolute principles of being. Hence it is that duty is ex­
pressed by the formula that “we must do what is good, and avoid
what is evil;” “Do your duty, let happen what may.” Pleasure and
personal interest must be subordinated to duty; the virtuous
must be preferred to the delectable and the useful.08
It is not a question here of something optional, but of some­
thing which is of obligation. In truth, it is by means of the prin­
ciple of finality that reason validates its command; or, what
comes to the same thing (as we have seen in n. 27), it is because
of the division of being into potency and act that the will of a
82 St. Thomas (la Ilae, q. 19, a. 4) explains how our natural reason is the
proximate rule of our will, and how the eternal law is the supreme rule. They arc
related to each other, in the moral order, as the primary and secondary efficient
causes in the physical order. Just as, therefore, one can ascend in the physical
order from secondary causes to the primary cause, so also in the order of moral
causality. As for the supreme good and the various kinds of graduated good of
the rational order, these belong to the order of final causality, and postulate cor­
responding active principles. (Cfr. also la Ilae, q. 87, a. 1).
83 Summa Theol., la, q. 5, a. 6.

340

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

rational creature must tend towards virtuous or rational good,
in regard to which it has a right to be called a potency, because
the very raison d’être of potency is to be found in the act (po­
tentia dicitur ad actum). Potency does not merely come to an
end in the act, it is for the act, just as the imperfect is for the
perfect, and the relative is for the absolute. In truth, it is only
the absolute which contains its own sufficient reason in itself. A
will which is by its very nature capable of willing rational good,
and whose natural tendency is towards this good, cannot refuse
to will it, for that would mean a complete revocation of the very
purpose of its being. The will is for rational good. This good
must, therefore, be realized by that which can make it a reality
and which exists for that purpose. The will considered from this
point of view constitutes the proximate, though not the ultimate,
basis of obligation.
The common opinion of mankind and the spontaneous
promptings of reason confirm the conclusions of philosophy.
Starting from this point, can we construct an argument
for the existence of God? St. Thomas is just as certain as
St. Augustine that we can. According to him, “the natural law,
and especially its first principle, is nothing else but an imprint
made on us by the Divine Light, a participation in the eternal
law, which is in God” (la Ilae, q. 91, a. 2). “This eternal law is
nothing else but Divine Wisdom, which directs all actions and
all movements of creatures” (la Ilae, q. 93, a. 1). “Only God and
the blessed, who see Him in His Essence, know the eternal law
as it is in itself. But every rational creature knows it in its reflec­
tion, which is more or less brilliant. For every knowledge of
truth is a kind of reflection and a participation in the eternal law,
which is the unchangeable truth, as St. Augustine says (De Vera
Relig., c. XXXI.” (la Ilae, q. 93, a. 2).94
04 Comparing this passage with la, q. 84, a. 5, we see that St. Thomas refuted
Ontologism in advance. “Our soul/' he says, “has no objective knowledge of ma-

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

341

If the natural moral law is a participation in the eternal law,
which is in God, why can we not argue from the first to the
second of these laws, and in like manner, from a consideration
of the various kinds of goods which constitute the basis of our
divers obligations, to the Supreme Good, which is our final end ?
If we ascend by a sort of necessity from eternal truths to
a supreme truth, upon which all other truths are based, why
can we not ascend from the first principle of the moral law
to the eternal law? We start here from practical principles, not
from principles of the speculative order. The obligatory character
of that which is good merely adds a new element to the demon­
stration, and this trait, manifested in the proximate foundation
of the obligation, urges us on to seek for the absolute foundation.
As we remarked in the general proof, which includes all the
others, if the virtuous good, towards which our nature is or­
dained, must be loved, apart from the satisfaction or advantages
derived from it; if the being capable of willing it must will it,
or else be purposeless; if our conscience proclaims this to be our
duty, and afterwards approves or condemns without our being
able to stifle remorse; if, in a word, the right of good to be loved
and put into practice, dominates our activity in the moral order
and that of actual and possible groups of human beings, just as
the principle of identity dominates all the actual and possible
realities—then there must have been from all eternity some
foundation for these absolute rights of the good. For these neces­
sary and dominant rights cannot have their raison d’être either
in contingent realities dominated by them, or in those many
kinds of good which, arranged in hierarchical order, are imposed
a priori on human nature. These rights, since they are above
terial things in the eternal types," and it is not in the essence of God that we per­
ceive the first principles, but the eternal types are the source of our intellectual
knowledge, just as the sun is the source of our sense perception. “For the intel­
lectual light which is in us, is nothing else but a certain participated likeness of
the uncreated light, in which are contained the eternal archetypes.”

342

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

everything except the Absolute Good, can have their foundation
only in the latter.
If, then, the proximate foundation of moral obligation is the
essential order of things, or, to be more precise, if it is the rational
good for which we are by nature and by our activity essentially
ordained, then the absolute foundation of this obligation must
be sought for in the Sovereign Good, which is our final objec­
tive. And this obligation could not have received its formal sanc­
tion except from a law of the same order as the Sovereign Good,
that is to say, it could have come only from the Divine Wisdom,
whose eternal law ordains and directs all creatures to their re­
spective ends.
Thus we rise up to the Sovereign Good (maxime bonum), not
only inasmuch as it is the first to be desired, the source of all
happiness, but also inasmuch as it is the first Good in itself, and
the absolute foundation of all duty. And this Sovereign Good, as
we have seen, is identical with the First Being, the First Intel­
lect, which is, therefore, entitled to be called the First Lawgiver.
There is correlation in the order of agencies and ends, and the
ultimate end becomes identified with the First Cause, in the
moral as in the physical order.
The objection is sometimes raised that this demonstration of
the existence of God implies a petitio principii. Strictly speaking,
we are told, there can be no moral obligation without a supreme
lawgiver, and it is impossible to feel oneself bound by a categori­
cal moral obligation, unless one is aware that a supreme lawgiver
exists. Therefore, the proposed proof takes for granted what is
to be proved, and merely expresses in a more explicit manner
that which it implicitly assumes.
In reply we may say that it suffices to show that there is a
moral obligation because of its effects, such as, for instance, the
remorse of conscience, and to prove that it has its proximate
foundation in the essential order of things, or, to be more precise,

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

343

in rational good, towards which our nature is ordained as its
general end. Thence we are led to seek for the absolutely ulti­
mate basis of obligation—on the one hand, in the Sovereign
Good which is our ultimate end, and on the other, in Divine
Wisdom, which ordains all things for the Supreme Good.95
There is a certain connection between this last proof, based on
the moral law, and that drawn from moral sanction. We can
demonstrate a priori that the Supreme Lawgiver, whose existence
we have proved, must also be the Sovereign Judge, the Rewarder
of good and the Avenger of evil. He owes it to Himself, as in­
telligent and good, to give to every being all that is necessary for
it to attain the end which He has assigned to it (la, q. 21, a. 1),
and to give to the just that knowledge of truth and that happi­
ness which they have merited. Moreover, loving the absolutely
supreme Good of necessity and above all else, He owes it to
Himself to make these rights respected and to punish their viola­
tion (la Ilae, q. 87, a. 1 and 3).
But the existence of a Supreme Judge and of an eternal sanc­
tion can also be proved a posteriori, from the insufficiency of all
other sanctions. This proof is the one which, according to Kant,
engenders rational faith in the existence of God—a faith with a
“certitude that is subjectively sufficient, though objectively insuf­
ficient.” Kant’s argument is well known. The existence of God,
he says, and the future life are two inseparable assumptions upon
which moral obligation rests. The moral law can be expressed
by the formula: Do that which can render you worthy of being
95Cfr. Lehu, Ο. P., Philosophia Moralis, 1914, p. 250. “The proximate founda­
tion of obligation consists in the essential order of things. Although it does not
act except as a secondary cause, and dependently upon the first cause, yet it is
truly and properly a cause in its own order, for by its very nature it establishes the
necessary connection between the human act and the ultimate end. . . . The
ultimate formal end, man's own and necessary perfection, may also be said to be
the proximate foundation. But the ultimate foundation is objective happiness. . . .
It is God Himself who is the ultimate foundation upon which obligation rests;
He is the eternal law."

344

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

happy (for virtue and happiness are necessarily connected with
each other by reason of a synthetic judgment a priori). Now,
God alone can realize this harmony between virtue and happi­
ness. Therefore, God must exist. The nobler the moral char­
acter of a man is, the firmer and more lively is his faith in every­
thing which he feels himself obliged to admit from a practically
necessary point of view.9® This proof would possess sufficient
objective certitude if the principle that “the just man must be
perfectly happy,” were self-evident a priori, that is to say, for us
who do not admit that there are any a priori synthetic proposi­
tions, if it were analytic.
Without inquiring into the possibility of satisfying ourselves
of the evidence of this proof before we are certain of God’s ex­
istence, we may rest content in seeing in this proof, based on
moral sanction, an a fortiori argument for the proof from the
prevailing order of the universe, which we have still to discuss.
If there is order in the material world, and if this order demands
an intelligent designer, then, a fortiori, there must be order in the
moral world, which is far superior to the physical. Therefore,
there must be ultimate harmony between the moral law, which
obliges us to practise virtue, and our natural desire for happi­
ness. The just man must some day be perfectly happy.
The proof based on the sanction of the moral law may also be
presented as an a fortiori argument for that proof, based on the
natural desire of the heart for the supreme good. If this natural
desire postulates the existence of this good and the possibility of
attaining it, at least mediately,96
97 just as the relative which is not
its own sufficient reason for what it is, postulates the absolute,
then, a fortiori, a deliberate and meritorious act on the part of
the just man, which is something more than the natural desire
96 Critique of Practical Reason, Bk. II, ch. 5.
•T This means, through the mediation of created things; for the immediate
possession of God cannot be other than supernatural and gratuitous.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

345

common to all rational beings for happiness—must result in the
possession of this (natural') happiness. This can be affirmed with
a certainty which is objectively sufficient even before the ex­
istence of God has been scientifically demonstrated.
40) Proof based on the order prevailing in the world.
The fifth typical proof presented by St. Thomas is that based
on the order prevailing in the world. The way for it has been
prepared by the preceding proof, which concluded from the
multiplicity in things to the existence of a higher unity. The
present proof argues from the orderly arrangement in multi­
plicity to the existence of a unity of concept and an intelligent de­
signer. We shall see that the argument can start not only from
the order prevailing in the physical world, but from every being
in which is found a part ordained towards another, whether it
be the essence which is ordained for existence, or intelligence,
which is ordained for its act (potentia dicitur ad actum). We shall
thus be able to arrive at an intelligence which is its own under­
standing, nay, more, which is the always actually intelligible in
contemplation of itself, that it is, self-subsistent Being. After
a cursory exposé of this proof we shall show that it is rigorously
exact in answering the objections raised against it.
The proof is presented by St. Thomas in this shape: “We see
that things which lack intelligence, such as material beings, act
in a manner conformable to their end, for we perceive that they
always, or nearly always, act in the same way, in order to obtain
the best results. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not
fortuitously, but designedly. Now, whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end unless it be directed by some being
endowed with intelligence, just as the arrow is directed to its
mark by the archer. Therefore, there is an intelligent being which
directs all natural things to their end, and this being we call
God.”

346

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

This can be expressed more briefly if we begin with the
major, thus: “A means cannot be directed to an end except by
an intelligent cause. Now, we find in nature, in the things which
lack intelligence, means directed to ends. Therefore, nature is
the result of an intelligent cause.”
This proof, of which Kant always spoke with respect, proceeds
in a perfectly natural way from the spontaneous reason, when
put in contact with the world, and it is historically one of the
oldest proofs for the existence of God. According to Homer,
Zeus is the designer, who arranges and directs all things, (Iliad,
VIII, 22; XVII, 339). Among the Greek philosophers Xenophanes
says that God “directs all things by the power of the mind.”
Anaxagoras was the first thinker who clearly distinguished
mind from matter and placed intelligence at the source and above
all things, over which it presides (see Aristotle, Met., Bk. I,
ch. iii). Socrates developed the proof from the final causes
(Memorabilia, I, 4; IV, 3; Phaedo, 96, 199). He emphasizes the
admirable disposition of the parts of the human body and the
harmonious connection between means and ends. He sees in na­
ture not only traces of intelligence, but also finds there the proof
of a beneficent power, full of solicitude for men. (Mem., IV, 3).
He does not say that the phenomena come into existence of ne­
cessity, but because it is good that they should. Such at least is
the résumé of the discourse of Socrates as recorded by Plato
(Phaedo, 96, 199). St. Thomas repeats it: “Things which lack in­
telligence act almost always so as to obtain the best result.” Plato
(Phaedo, too) declaims loudly against those who, like Democri­
tus, sought to explain the universe by ascribing it to a material
and efficient cause without intelligence. In the tenth book of the
Laws he argues from the fact that God has arranged all things
in the world even to the smallest detail, and draws the optimistic
conclusion that God ordained all things in view of the greatest
possible perfection. The problem of evil is solved by a considera-

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

347

tion of the whole. Aristotle pointed out, and defended metaphysi­
cally the minor of this syllogism, namely, that “every agent acts
for an end.” 98 Regarding the major, his teaching is not so clear.
According to Zeller, the God of Aristotle had no knowledge of
the world. We do not think that there is anything in his text to
that effect; in fact, several passages rather indicate the contrary.
The controversies which have arisen on this point may be studied
in Kaufmann’s La Finalité dans Aristote, and in Aristoteles
Metaphysi/^, by Eugene Rolfes (Leipsic, 1904). After the time of
Aristotle the Epicureans again took up the doctrine of Democ­
ritus, whereas the Stoics developed the proof based on the final
causes, insisting upon particular happenings in the universe; but
they did not go farther in their reasoning than to establish the
existence of a “world-soul,” or an artistic fire, trip τεχνικόν, as
they called it.
Among modern writers, Descartes, Spinoza, and, following
them, the defenders of Mechanistic Evolution attacked the minor,
which Leibniz defended by insisting upon the contingency of
the order prevailing in the world. Kant attacked also the major,
and was followed by those who, like Hartmann, are satisfied
with explaining finality by an unconscious will.
We shall examine: (1) the principal objections raised against the
minor, that “things which lack intelligence act for an end,” and
then (2) deal with the objections against the major, namely, that
“things which lack intelligence cannot tend towards an end, unless
they are directed by an intelligent being which knows this end.”
1) The minor, as formulated by St. Thomas, concerns the in­
trinsic finality observable in the activity of all beings which,
taken separately, lack intelligence. For instance, the eye is for
seeing, and wings are for flying. Certain philosophers, e.g., the
Stoics, insisted just as strongly on extrinsic finality, which sub88 'Omne agens agit propter finem." (.Phys., 1. II, c. 3).

348

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

ordinates things to one another. Cicero writes : “The fruits of the
earth are for the animals, said the Stoics; the animals are for
man, the horse to convey him, the ox for ploughing the land,
and man for contemplating and imitating the universe.” 99
Descartes objected to extrinsic finality. “It is not likely,” he
says, “that man should be the end of creation: how many things,
indeed, are in the world, or were at one time, but are now
no more, without any man ever having seen them or known of
them, without having been of any use to humanity!” 100 Again:
“It is absurd to claim that the sun, which is several times larger
than the earth, has been made for no other purpose than to offer
light to man, who occupies but a part thereof.”
In answer to this objection we must say that final causes have
been abused, and that the extrinsic finality of things often es­
capes us. But their intrinsic finality is a certainty, as Descartes
himself recognized, saying: “In the admirable purpose assigned
to each part, both in plants and animals, it is proper to admire the
hand of God who made them, and by an inspection of the work,
to know and praise the Author; but we cannot surmise for what
purpose He created each particular thing.” (Principes, I, 28).
We see that the organs of the viper, as well as its actions, are
ordained for its preservation and propagation (intrinsic finality) ;
but it is more difficult to say what purpose vipers serve (extrinsic
finality). We do not know; this ignorance may prove the
limitations of our mind, but it does not prove that there is to
final cause. The ignorance does not prevent us from affirming
with certainty, that eyes are made for seeing and wings for
flying, and that the swallow gathers the straw for making its
nest; the word "for" is not meaningless, but points to something
real, just as the word by expresses efficient causality.
But Descartes goes farther than this. He revives the Epicurean
99 De Natura Deorum, II, 14.
100 Lettre à Elizabeth, ed. Garnier, Bk. 3, p. 210.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

349

doctrine, adopted by the Evolutionists of our day, that the effi­
cient causes explain everything. “Even though we were to believe
in the existence of the chaos of the poets,” he says, “it could al­
ways be proved that, thanks to the laws of nature, this confusion
must gradually resolve itself into the actual order of things. The
laws of nature are such, indeed, that matter must of necessity
take all the forms which it is capable of receiving.”101 Judging
from this passage it would seem that Descartes, like Spinoza
after him, was quite ready to admit with the Epicureans and the
present-day Evolutionists, not that the bird has wings for the
purpose of flying, but that it flies because it has wings: that the
mother has milk not for the purpose of suckling her baby, but
she suckles her baby because she has milk which she wishes
to get rid of. Epicurus considered living things to be the result
of all sorts of combinations, some of which necessarily turn
out to be harmonious. The Evolutionists (Darwin, Spencer,
Haeckel and others) believe that the finality apparent in living
beings can be explained by vital concurrence and natural selec­
tion. Among living beings only those survive and propagate their
species which happen to be adapted to the conditions of existence.
We have already seen that William James maintained that
Darwinism has overthrown the proof for the existence of God
drawn from final causes. “The adaptations which we find in
nature,” he writes, “since they are nothing else but chance suc­
cesses amidst innumerable failures, suggest to us the idea of a
divinity far different from that demonstrated by finalism.” 102
He thinks that “we ought to pay more attention than we have
hitherto done, to the pluralistic or polytheistic thesis.”103
This denial of intrinsic finality conflicts with the findings
(a) of common sense, (b) of science, (c) of philosophical reason.
101 Principes, ΠΙ, 37.
102 Religious Experience, p. 438.
103 Ibid., p. 436.

350

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

a) In the coordination of the parts of an organism, or of some
particular organ such as the eye or the ear; in the coordination
of the actions of an animal when it instinctively builds a nest,
a hive, etc., common sense or spontaneous reason, which has
for its object the raison d'être of things, cannot avoid seeing
precisely a raison d’être which fundamentally differentiates these
organisms and their activity from any aggregation of things in
which the union between the parts is purely accidental. No
objection will ever destroy this certainty, which arises spon­
taneously in, and belongs to the very essence of, our intellect.
Whenever reason comes in contact with the rational, it cannot
help recognizing it, and whenever our intellect discovers an
intelligible element in things, it knows very well that it did not
put them there. If the Evolutionist wishes to assimilate an or­
ganism to an inanimate aggregation, common sense will say with
Ruskin: “The philosopher tells us that there is as much heat,
or motion, or calorific energy, in a tea-kettle as in a Gier-eagle.
Very good; that is so; and it is very interesting. It requires just
as much heat as will boil the kettle, to take the Gier-eagle up to
its nest. But we painters, acknowledging the equality and simi­
larity of the kettle and the bird in all scientific respects, attach,
for our part, our principal interest to the difference in their
forms. For us, the primarily cognisable facts in the two things
are, that the kettle has a spout, and the eagle a beak; the one a
lid on its back, the other a pair of wings; not to speak of the
distinction of volition, which the philosophers may properly call
merely a form or mode of force. The kettle chooses to sit still
on the hob; the eagle to recline on the air. It is the fact of the
choice, not the equal degree of temperature in the fulfilment of
it, which appears to us the more interesting circumstance.”104
b) The negation of intrinsic finality is equally opposed to
science. John Stuart Mill, as we have already seen, recognizes
104 Ethics of the Dust, Leet. X, “The Crystal Rest."

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

351

that, according to the laws of induction and the actual state of
science, the most probable cause of tire organic structure of the
eye or of the ear, is not the “survival of the fittest,” but a de­
signing intelligence. He considers the proof for the existence of
God based on finality to be an inductive argument, which
in its manner of development follows closely the method of con­
cordances. It is a “poor argument in many cases, though at times,
too, it has considerable force of conviction; especially is such
the case with those delicate and complicated adjustments of the
plant and animal life.”105 In fact, from the mere standpoint of ex­
perimental science, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of say­
ing that a structure so complicated and so harmonious as the eye
or the ear, could never be such without an intelligent designer,
any more than the setting up of the type in the printing of the
Iliad could ever be arranged again in the same way without an
intelligent designer. In an organism such as the human body, the
various parts are so interconnected that they are, from different
points of view, causes one of the other, and concur in bringing
about one complete effect. In an organic structure such as the
eye, the act of seeing presupposes the simultaneous presence of
thirteen conditions, and each of these conditions presupposes
many others. Hartmann 108 has shown that, according to the
law of probabilities, without any designing cause, there are
9,999,985 chances against 15 for the possibility of these thirteen
conditions meeting so as to make seeing possible.107 Kant recog­
nized the impossibility of explaining the appearance of a blade
of grass by natural laws in which there is no design, but
thought that an intellect which could penetrate to the very heart
of nature, might perhaps explain the phenomenon without
reference to design. There is nothing to this theory, as we shall
105 Essays on Religion, p. 162.
108 Philosophie des Unbeivussten, Introd., ch. ii.
107 Cfr. Folghcra, Hasard et Providence, p. 25; also the Revue Thomiste, 1895,
p. 64.

352

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

see. The negation of intrinsic finality is just as much opposed to
philosophic reason as it is opposed to common sense and ex­
perimental science.
c) Philosophic reason proves the insufficiency of the two ex­
planations by which it is claimed that intrinsic finality can be
discarded, and rigorously defends the principle of finality. Even
if we grant that Mechanistic Evolutionism explains the survival
of the fittest, it cannot explain why there should be adaptations,
except by ascribing them to chance or necessity—neither of
which offers a sufficient explanation.
Chance is merely the absence of an explanation for those things,
of a raison d’être, of intelligibility in things. Consequently, we
shall see that to try to explain everything by chance is absurd.
Marvelous things do sometimes happen by chance; thus an
archer may by sheer luck hit the target; but experience shows
that such cases are exceptional. Aristotle108 has proved con­
vincingly that reason can see in chance only something which is
accidental. It is the accidental cause of an effect produced without
any intention,108 either natural or conscious, such that it could
be said to have been directly intended. The chance effect is an
accidental effect which happens so as to make it seem that the
action which brought it about was meant for that purpose. One
digs a grave, which is the end intended, and accidentally
finds a treasure. But precisely because it is accidental, chance
cannot be considered the cause, in the natural order, of each
agent which produces its own effect. We cannot claim that all
the effects produced in nature are accidental; for the accidental
necessarily presupposes what is essential. One finds a treasure
108 Physics, Bk. II, ch. viii ; Commentary of St. Thomas, Leet. 7-13.
108 Hence in defining chance, Aristotle restricts himself to the order of secondary
causes, and he is quite right in this; for with regard to the Supreme Intelligence
there is no such thing as chance. Effects by their very nature depend upon their
proximate, and not upon their ultimate, cause, as St. Thomas points out in his
Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book VI, Leet. 3.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

353

in digging a grave, but it is intentionally that one digs the grave,
and previous to this, the treasure was intentionally buried in
the ground. Chance is but the coming together of two actions
which in themselves are not fortuitous, but intentional. Aristotle
says that it is accidental for a doctor to be a musician; but this
accidental union presupposes two terms, which in themselves
are not accidentally constituted as such. It is not an accident
that a doctor is a physician, and able to take care of the sick,
any more than it is accidental for a musician to be proficient
in music. To seek to reduce the whole natural order to chance
would mean, therefore, to reduce the essential to the accidental,
and, consequently, to destroy every nature and every being; for
every being has a nature which is peculiarly its own (principle
of identity). All that we should have left in such a case would
be fortuitous encounters, but not things capable of making such
encounters, which is absurd. Two wisps of straw blown by the
wind accidentally come together; but the motion of each is not
accidental, for it proceeds according to determined laws of
nature. Agents which encounter each other accidentally, have
each his own action, and it is this action which, independently of
their encounter, demands an explanation. To say, as Epicurus
did, and as so many Materialists or modern Positivists have re­
peated after him, that chance is the cause of the natural order,
is not only no explanation of anything, but an absurd hypoth­
esis, for it is making in principle the accidental to be the basis
of the natural or the essential. “Ens per accidens non potest esse
causa entis per se, sed e contra essentialiter dependet ab ente per
se," that is to say, accidental being cannot be the cause of sub­
stantial being, but, on the contrary, essentially depends upon
substantial being.110
But though the accidental, and particularly chance, cannot be
the principle of all things, it has its place in the world. How,
110 Sec Aristotle, Metaph., Bk. VI, De Ente per Accidens.

354

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

then, shall we distinguish fortuitous events from natural effects,
which cannot be explained by chance? We recognize the latter
by their constancy and by their perfection, which is revealed to
us in their harmony, or, in other words, by the fact that there
is unity in diversity, and the more pronounced this unity is,
the more it excludes chance, which is nothing else but the ac­
cidental encounter of two causes or series of causes.
a) What happens always, or nearly always, cannot possibly
be the result of chance. This constancy would be without a suf­
ficient reason, if it were not founded on the very nature of
things, which is the ultimate source of their identity.
β) It is impossible for a great number of causes to combine by
chance, to produce an effect essentially one and perfect in its
bind, as is the case, for instance, with the act of seeing, in which
the various parts of the eye concur. If this act were the effect of
chance, something essentially one would be the result of an
accidental combination {ens per se ab ente per accidens pro­
duceretur), the perfect would be produced by the imperfect,
order would result from the absence of order, and the greater
would proceed from the less. Such being the case, the unity and
perfection of the effect would be without a raison d’être, which is
absurd.
γ) It cannot possibly be ascribed to chance that manifold and
perfectly connected elements come from a germ of which unity
is one of the essential notes, as, for instance, in the case of the
oak, the various parts of which come from the acorn. Evidently
chance is out of the question here, from the very simplicity of
the origin, which cannot be attributed to an accidental combina­
tion of elements.
δ) A fortiori it cannot be by chance that an effect which is
essentially one and perfect comes from a principle that is es­
sentially one, as, for instance, the act of understanding comes
from the intellect. Chance, being an accidental encounter of

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

355

things, is evidently excluded by reason of the simplicity of the
beginning and of the end of this process.111
For the full development of these ideas we must emphasize
the harmony prevailing in the organisms of plants and animals,
or, in other words, the unity in the diversity of causes which
combine and are necessary for life. We must also stress the
permanence, not only in time, but also in space, of the thousands
of species in the plant and animal kingdoms.
We must also insist on the instinct in animals, and note that
the three characteristics just mentioned are to be found in their
operations, (a) The plurality of the elements which enter into
the composition of their works; (Z>) the harmony of the ef­
fect produced, and (c) its constancy. “We see them,” says St.
Thomas, “always or nearly always acting in the same manner so
as to obtain the best result.” 112 The spider works very much
like a weaver, the bee seems to be a perfect mathematician.
(This characteristic of constancy or permanence of type, which
surely is not the result of chance, shows us also, as Aristotle re­
marks in the second book of his Physics [ch. VIII], that the
animal does not act intelligendy; for it cannot, like the architect,
pass judgment on the appearance of its work when completed,
nor can it make any alterations in the same. If one upsets what
an animal is constructing, it often, urged on by instinct, con­
tinues to work in the same way to no purpose).113
Chance, therefore, leaves everything to be explained. To wish
to explain all things by it, to say that it is the cause of order in
the universe, is tantamount to saying that there are effects with111 On this subject cfr. St. Thomas on the 2nd Book of the Physics, Leet. 12; also
De Veritate, q. 5, a. 2; C. Gentes, Bk. I, ch. xiii.
112 Summa Theologica, la, q. 2, a. 3.
113 Concerning these facts, see Folghcra, Hasard et Providence, Paris, 1900,
pp. 27 ff.; Guibert, Les Croyances Religieuses et les Sciences de la Nature, Paris,
1908, pp. 117-118; Louis Murat, L'Idée de Dieu dans les Sciences Contemporaines.
Paris, 1909.

356

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

out causes, that the greater comes from the less, the higher from
the lower; that the accidental is prior to the essential, that the
essential is but a name—a denial of the principle of identity—
that, in consequence, the real is not intelligible. Does this mean
that we deny there is such a thing as chance? Not at all. Things
do sometimes happen by chance, as far as secondary causes are
concerned. But to an intelligence knowing and disposing of the
ensemble of causes and forces, and governing their tendencies,
all the seemingly fortuitous events in life would be predetermined
and foreseen.114 But that does not mean that all these fortuitous
encounters were intended as an end; they could only be the re­
sult of what is desired for its own sake, and they could not be
desired for their own sake except ex consequenti. We merely
affirm that to explain by chance the constant harmony of effects
produced in nature, is no explanation at all, and, moreover, lands
one in absurdity.
Is necessity a sufficient explanation, as Democritus and many
modern Mechanists would have it? In other words, is it enough
to appeal merely to the efficient cause and to the determining
element it carries within itself?
We have yet to explain why this efficient cause acts, instead of
remaining inert. If there is no perfection in its action, a good
corresponding to the natural inclination of the agent, then this
action was taken without a raison d'être. It will not do to say
that this efficient cause acts because it is moved to action by
another, and this in turn by still another, and so on, ad infinitum.
This would be but to postpone, not to answer, the question. We
want to know why it is that every efficient cause acts instead of
not acting.
Moreover, the determination which bears within it the efficient
114 “All things which happen in this world, as far as the first divine cause is
concerned, are found to be pre-arranged and not to exist by accident; although, if we
compare them with other causes, they may be found to be accidental.” (St. Thomas,
In Metaph., Bk. VI, Leet. 3).

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

357

cause, must also be explained. St. Thomas 115 proposes to him­
self this objection: "Illud quod est de se determinatum ad unum
non indiget aliquo regente; quia ad hoc regimen alicui ad­
hibetur ne in contrarium dilabatur. Res autem per propriam
naturam sunt determinatae ad unum, i. e., that which is de­
termined to one line of action, does not need any directive
agency; because a directive agency is given to anything in order to
keep it from acting contrariwise. But things are determined by
their very nature to one line of action.” According to the
Mechanists, things are constituted as follows: fire, by reason of
its nature, must burn; the bird must fly; it must fly, but it
has not wings for flying. In like manner, says Spinoza, the
triangle, by its very nature, must have its three angles equal to
two right angles; but no one will say that it possesses its peculiar
nature for the purpose of having its three angles equal to two
right angles.
St. Thomas answers as follows: “Ista determinatio, qua res
naturalis determinatur ad unum, non est ei ex seipsa, sed ex
alio; et ideo ipsa determinatio ad effectum convenientem provi­
dentiam demonstrat, ut dictum est, i. e., this determination, by
which a thing in nature is determined to one line of action, be­
longs to it, not as coming from itself, but as coming from an­
other; and, therefore, as has been said, this very determination
for a suitable effect demonstrates that there is a providence.” In
other words, if you seek to explain the flight of a bird by the
necessary conformation of its wings, the necessity of this con­
formation has still to be explained, and if it has not its own
raison d’etre within itself, then we must seek this raison d'etre
in something higher. In truth, we can explain such and such a
property of a triangle by showing that it is derived from the
nature of the triangle, and this fully explains it. The nature of
the triangle, as geometry considers it, abstracting from all sensi115 De Veritate, q. 5, a. 2, ad 511m.

358

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

ble matter and from all efficient causality, is something which has
its own sufficient reason for what it is within itself; the triangle
is of itself a triangle. The case is different with a triangular
object; here we may ask why it is triangular. We have a com­
position (a lack of identity), which demands a cause. Likewise,
we may ask ourselves: Why are the bird’s wings so conformed?
St. Thomas says that “this determination, by which a thing in
nature is determined to one line of action, belongs to it, not as
coming from itself, but as coming from another.” And if in an­
swer to this question, the Mechanists appeal to the presence of a
prior efficient cause, and, in the final analysis, to a general law
of physics, such as the law of the conservation of energy, they
merely evade the question. We still ask, why the prior efficient
cause acts, and has such and such a determination and direction,
why the force operates in a certain determined manner, and
why there is conservation of the same.
Descartes and Spinoza sought to reduce physics to mathe­
matics, which latter science excludes the consideration of per­
ceptible matter, of efficient and of final causes, and is concerned
only with the formal cause. They emphatically declared that
the laws of physics are absolute and necessary a priori, like the
laws of mathematics, and hence denied the possibility of miracles.
Spinoza held that God can no more prevent fire from burning,
than He can prevent a triangle from having three angles equal
to two right angles.
We fully understand that mathematics, since it considers
merely quantity, should exclude the efficient cause, and conse­
quently also the final cause, which corresponds to the efficient
cause. But what right has anyone to impose mathematical ab­
straction upon such sciences as cosmology and metaphysics,
which have for their object not only quantity, but also being,
becoming, and action?
Leibniz, recurring to Aristotle, replied to Descartes and

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

359

Spinoza by insisting that the order or laws of nature are contin­
gent. He pointed out that the laws of motion arid of the con­
servation of energy are not necessary, but could have been formu­
lated differently. They were chosen as the most suitable, but
others suggested themselves, and a choice had to be made. Is it
of absolute necessity that the apparent motion of the sun should
take place in a certain way, and not in reverse order? Or that
there should be on earth such a vast number of animal and
plant species? 116 Boutroux has defended this thesis at length
in his book on the Contingency of the Laws of Nature. “The
most elementary and the most general laws, both physical and
chemical, express relations between things so heterogeneous that
it is impossible to say whether the consequent is proportionate
to the antecedent and is truly the result of this latter, as the
effect is the result of a cause. . . . For us they are merely so
many contacts given by experience, and, like it, contingent.”117
The law of the conservation of energy is not a necessary truth, a
supreme law from which nature cannot escape. Neither is there
inherent in the physico-chemical forces any intrinsic necessity
compelling them to produce this particular combination which
results in life, sensation, and intelligence. 118
Therefore, necessity is not sufficient to explain, anteriorly to
the “survival of the fittest,” the origin of adaptations. The neces­
sity of physical laws is merely hypothetical; i.e., it presupposes
something. And precisely what does it presuppose? Finality.
The expression, "hypothetical necessity" is the English equiva­
lent of το Ιξ νποθϊσίω·; άναγκαίον of Aristotle.118 If the end must
exist, then such and such means are necessary. Thus, if a man
116 Cfr. the quotations from Leibniz given by Paul Janet in Les Causes Finales,
pp. 642-650.
117 Boutroux, La Contingence des Lois de la Nature, 3rd ed., p. 74.
118 On this subject see Gardeil’s article in the Revue Thomiste, 1896, pp. 800,
804, 818.
119 Phys., Π, ch. ix.

360

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

has vision, the thirteen conditions for seeing are necessary. This
necessity is not absolute, but always presupposes the means
viewed in relation to the end. Then, too, there might be excep­
tions, as, for instance, monsters. Whereas in metaphysics and in
mathematics the laws are absolute and admit of no exception,
in physics they apply to the generality of cases (<>>s èrî το πολύ,
ut in pluribus}, and the exceptions are all the more numerous,
the more complicated the law is.
Finally, philosophic reasoning establishes the fact that, even if
necessity existed throughout nature, and admitted of no excep­
tion, it mould still presuppose finality. Let us take, for instance,
a principle of operation as simple as possible, such as the force
of attraction, or, better still, the intellectual faculty. There is
nothing in it, no complexity of organization that needs to be ex­
plained, but there is something relative, which can be explained
only by the law of finality. In fact, the principle that “every agent
must act with an end in view,” is derived directly from the
principle of sufficient reason, just as is the principle of causality,
and the principle of sufficient reason itself, as we have observed
(supra, n. 24), referred back to the principle of identity, by a
process of reductio ad impossibile. We have pointed out previ­
ously (n. 27), how the principle of finality is self-evident and
reducible to the principle of sufficient reason. We must stress the
importance of this truth.
Jouffroy, in his Cours de Droit Naturel, where he inquires into
the truths upon which the moral order is based, correctly says
that “the first of these truths is the principle that every being has
an end or a purpose. Like the principle of causality, it has all the
evidence, universality, and necessity which we find in the latter
principle, and we can see no exception to either.” Paul Janet,
in his in other respects so remarkable book on Final Causes, fails
to see that the principle of finality is necessary and self-evident,
because he never discovered its exact formula, but stopped at

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

361

the too general formula, “Everything has an end.” He did not
think it possible to affirm a priori, and before proving the ex­
istence of God, that the various Alpine slopes, for instance, have
their end as well as their efficient cause. The true formula of the
principle of finality is that given by Aristotle, and constantly
quoted by St. Thomas: "Every agent necessarily acts for an
end!'120 The necessity of a final cause is declared to be an im­
mediate necessity, not for every thing, but for every agent. The
encounter of two agents, from which the mountain slopes result,
may be fortuitous, but each of them must of necessity act for an
end. In fact, the final cause is the raison d’être of the efficient
cause. This is what Paul Janet failed to see. He also failed to real­
ize that the principle of finality is a necessary and immediately
evident principle. Ravaisson, on the other hand, was not mis­
taken. “We conceive it as necessary,” he said, “that the cause, to­
gether with the reason for beginning, also includes the end to
which a thing tends.” 121 Lachelier bases the induction just as
much on the final as on the efficient cause.122 Hartmann clearly
explains this necessity of a final cause, by taking for an example
the simplest of all cases, that of the attraction between atoms.
“The attractive force of a corporeal atom,” he says, "tends to ap­
proach every other atom; the result of this tendency is the pro­
duction or realization of this rapprochement. Therefore, we must
distinguish in force between the tendency itself, considered as a
pure and simple act, and the end in view, i. e., the content or
object of the tendency. ... If the motion thus produced were
not contained in the tendency, there is no reason why this latter
should produce attraction rather than something else—repulsion,
for instance, or why it should obey a certain law rather
than some other, in the change which it undergoes during tire
120 “Omne agens necesse est agere propter finem.” {Phys., Bk. Il, ch. iii;
C. Gentes, Bk. Ill, ch. ii; S. Th., la Ilae, q.i, a.2; la, q.44, a.4).
121 Rapport sur la Philosophie en Prance, 2nd cd., § 36.
122 See his Le Rondement de l’induction.

362

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

distance traversed. . . . The tendency would not be towards any
end; it would have no object, and consequently would produce
no result.” 123 This reads almost like a translation of the second
chapter of Book III of the Summa contra Gentes, in which St.
Thomas says: “If the agent did not tend towards some particular
effect, all effects would be indifferent. But that which is indif­
ferent toward many things, no more produces one of these than
any other. Therefore, from whatever is indifferent to one thing
or the other, no effect follows, except by something which is
determined to produce one specific effect, because otherwise it
would be impossible for it to act. Hence every agent tends to
some determinate effect, which is said to be its end.” 124
The principle that “every agency acts for an end,” is selfevident, with an evidence which is not of sense perception, but
of the intellect, provided that the exact meaning is given to the
words: action and end, as we pointed out supra, n. 27. In fact,
the end is a determined perfection which it is fitting for the
agent to have as a good of its own and for the sake of which the
agent acts. Now, every agent, according to the law governing
its nature, produces a determined effect, which belongs to it as
its perfection, and it cannot produce this effect, unless it tends
towards this effect in preference to any other, and unless it is
ordained towards the same.
Thus without reasoning we discover that the eye is made for
seeing, the ear for hearing, the wings for flying, etc. Finality,
which is a necessary raison d'etre of action, applies equally to the
intelligence, because this latter is a faculty of being.
The self-evident principle of finality can be defended by show­
ing that it refers back to the principle of sufficient reason, so that
to deny the former would lead to a denial of the latter.
128 La Philosophie de l'inconscient, Vol. Π, p. 144.
124 C. Gent., Ill, ii; cfr. Gardeil, "L'Evolutionnisme et les Principes de St.
Thomas," in the Revue Thomiste, 1895, p. 581, and 1896, p. 399.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

363

St. Thomas briefly points this out when he says that “Every agent
acts for an end: otherwise one thing rather than another would
not follow from the action of the agent.” 125 If every agent pro­
duces, not any sort of effect indifferently, but a determinate and
suitable effect, and this without tending towards this effect, with­
out being ordained towards this effect rather than towards an­
other; if the acorn produces the oak and not the ash, without
its having a definite tendency for the one rather than for the other;
if the eye sees instead of hearing, without being meant for see­
ing rather than hearing—it follows that the non-accidental de­
termination and appropriateness of the effect are without a
raison d’etre, that determination comes from indetermination,
that order arises from the lack of order, that the perfect originates
from the imperfect, the greater from the less—all of which
statements are absurd. The determination and the perfection of
the effect could not have been realized in it, unless they were
in a certain manner contained in the efficient cause. Now, for
the effect not to be contained in the cause actually, but only
virtually, this could not be, unless the efficient cause tended to­
wards this effect rather than another, unless it were directed to­
wards this effect.
Without this tendency and this order, not only are the de­
termination and the appropriateness of the effect without a
raison d’etre, but even the determination and the appropriate­
ness of the action cannot be explained. Finally, the principle it­
self of action or potency (active or passive) cannot be conceived
except as preordained to the act. Potentia dicitur essentialiter ad
actum (potency essentially refers to act) is one of the formulas
pertaining to the principle of finality, which refers primarily to
action and secondarily to potency, the principle of action.126
120 Summa Theol., la, q. 44, a. 4.
128 In God there is no distinction between active power and action; but the
action which extends to created things is directed towards an end, which is not

364

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Potency does not end merely in the act; this latter is not simply
a result of it, for in that case the act would not be predetermined
and would have no raison d’etre. And how could this sufficient
reason be in the potency, since the act is more perfect than the po­
tency, having more of being in itself? The act is the answer to
the why of potency. It is the το ου ϊνεκα, the id cujus gratia, the
purpose of the potency, just as the imperfect is for the perfect,
and the relative for the absolute. In fact, it is only the absolute
which has its raison d’etre within itself.
So also the act in its actual operation is for the perfection
which is acquired or manifested by it. The immanent actions of
knowing and of loving are ordained for the acquisition of truth
and goodness. The transitive action of any agent is ordained
either for the attainment of some good, or else for the communi­
cation of a good possessed by the agent, so that other beings
may share in it.
Potency is for the act, and action is either for the attainment or
for the communication of some perfection. The word for is not
a meaningless term. Thus philosophical reason reunites with the
sensus communis and justifies it.
Therefore, if there is action in the world, there is finality; for
without it, this action would produce everything or nothing,
but not a determined effect. For this reason we may say that the
proof for the existence of God based on the finality prevail­
ing in the world, may start not only from a consideration of
the marvelous organisms or instincts of animals, but also from a
consideration of any ordained multiplicity of design in things,
even if it be only that which is found in every created being,
whose essence is ordained for existence and whose operative
power is designed for action.
The existence of the internal finality being thus affirmed and
the attainment of the Sovereign Good, which God possesses independently of
others, but the manifestation of His goodness or His glory.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

365

established by the sensus communis, by science and reason, there
may be deduced from it the existence of external finality, as Paul
Janet has demonstrated.127 In fact, we notice in die scale of be­
ings that the. higher mafe use of the lower. Thus the mineral
is utilized by the plant, which in its turn is utilized by the animal,
which in turn is utilized by man. To say that the higher makes
use of the lower is to say that the higher directs the lower to its
own proper (intrinsic) end. Thus the animal for its own preserva­
tion utilizes the plant, which is its internal end; but this preserva­
tion is made possible only by the use of appropriate matter.
Whence it follows that, corresponding to this intrinsic end, there
is an extrinsic end, which is the intrinsic end of the higher be­
ing. St. Thomas says: “The end of the agent and of the patient,
considered as such, is identical, but in a different way, respec­
tively.” 128 The patient, as such, not as a being, has the same end
as the agent. Food is directed to nutrition, just as is the nutritive
power. If the extrinsic finality of things frequently escapes our
notice, and if inexperienced apologists have made too free a use
of this argument, this is no reason why we should deny it. The
same must be said of those cases in which there seems to be
sufficient evidence of finality. Thus by means of the functioning
of the chlorophyll substance in plants they purify the air by
absorbing the carbonic acid in it which comes from the breathing
of animals. During the hours of daylight, by means of this ab­
sorption, the plant decomposes this carbonic acid, restoring the
oxygen necessary to the animal, and absorbing the carbon, with
which it composes the hydrates of combustible carbon, using it
to form other compounds of combustible hydrocarbons, which
serve as food for the animal. But this extrinsic finality need not
always be realized. It is demanded for the higher forms of life,
but not for the lower. During the time when there was as yet
127 Les Causes Finales, p. 497.
128 Summa Theol., la, q. 44, a. 4.

366

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

no animal life on earth, plant life, if it existed, did not attain its
extrinsic end.
It is thus that we prove the existence of finality in the world.
This relation of means to an end seems even more evident in the
organism or the instinctive activity of the animal, but it is also
found in every agent and constitutes the connecting link be­
tween the various beings in the universe, which react mutually
upon one another. The subordination of agents corresponds to the
subordination of ends.129
We can now understand why Aristotle wrote: “Everything in
the universe is subject to a certain order, though this order is not
the same for all beings, for fishes, birds, plants. Things are not
so arranged as if each were unrelated to the other. Far from this
being the case, they are all interrelated and all concur with a
perfect regularity in producing a unique result. Hence the uni­
verse resembles a well arranged house.” 130
In view of what we have said, but little of consequence re­
mains in the objections raised by the Abbé Le Roy against the
minor of the proof for the existence of God from final causes.131
This proof, according to the Abbé Le Roy, is based on ex­
trinsic finality and is contradicted by science and critical phi­
losophy, which admit only intrinsic finality. The principle of
analogy which it establishes between our activity and that of
nature, is contested by psychology. Finally, the argument regards
order as something superadded, as it were by way of an after­
thought, to already existing elements. We have seen that our
minor is directly concerned with intrinsic finality. The affirma­
tion of this intrinsic finality is not an anthropomorphic view, a
sort of projection beyond ourselves of what we experience within
the domain of our own activities, in which we find finality to be
129 See St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, la Ilae, q. 109, a. 6.
180 Met., Bk. XII, c. x.
181 Sec Revue de Mit. et de Mor., March, 1907.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

367

an indisputable fact. But it is quite certain that Empiricism and
Subjectivistic Rationalism cannot conceive finality in any other
way. In systems such as these, finality is almost inevitably a more
or less gratuitous attribution to corporeal things of what we ex­
perience within ourselves. In reality, the principle of finality is
not an experimental truth drawn from internal experience, but
a necessary law of being, derived from the principle of sufficient
reason. We do not content ourselves with asserting, as Stuart
Mill does, that there is an analogy between nature and the
works of human art, but we go farther and demonstrate a priori
that every agent acts for an end. Finally, order is by no means to
be considered as something superadded like an afterthought to
already existing elements, for these elements could not exist or
act without being preordained or predetermined. The end, far
from being something superadded, is the first in intention of
all causes {prima in intentione), even though it be the last in
point of realization {ultima in executione). Before the acorn pro­
duces an oak, it is preordained for this purpose, it is made for
the purpose of producing the oak.
2. Does this relation of means to end, this orderly arrangement
of things, demand an intelligent cause? The major of our proof
says that it does: “Beings which lack intelligence cannot tend
towards an end, unless they are directed to it by an intelligent
cause,” or, more simply, “a means cannot be directed to an end ex­
cept by an intelligent agent.”
This major is often proved by saying that the end which de­
termines the tendency and the means, is none other than the
effect to be realized at some future time. But a future effect is a
mere possibility, which, in order to determine its own causes,
must be real and present in some way, and such a presence is pos­
sible only in a being cognizant of itself.
This argument proves that there must be a being cognizant
of itself, but not that this being must be intelligent. “The ani-

368

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

mais,” says St. Thomas, “have knowledge of that which consti­
tutes the end, (for instance, they go in search of prey), and
they make use of the means which will enable them to attain
that end; but they do not know the nature of an end as such;
they t^now the thing which constitutes the end, but they do
not know it as an end!’132 The id cujus gratia aliquid fit,
that for the sake of which something is done, they do not
know. They cannot perceive the relation of the means to the
end; likewise, they are incapable of appropriating to themselves
the means of attaining the end. Only an intelligent being can
perceive this relation, because a being endowed with intel­
ligence, instead of merely associating or juxtaposing images,
perceives the reasons why things are, and the means is related to
the end as such precisely because it has its raison d’être in the
end. Evidently this raison d’être can be perceived only by that
faculty which has for its formal object being itself, and not color, or
sound, or any of the facts of internal experience. Moreover, the
perception of this raison d’être presupposes that the means and
the end have been reduced to the unity of a single representa­
tion, and it is only the intellectual concept that can effect such a
unity. Just as we rise from the multiple to one in the proof
based upon the various grades of being, so in this proof we con­
clude from the ordained multiplicity of things to an ordaining
unity. “It belongs to reason to direct, because reason has the
faculty of ordaining things to their end.”133 Therefore, the order
prevailing in the world calls for an intelligent designer.
Kant objects that, granted the existence of finality, we cannot
affirm that the proper reason of the order in the world is be­
cause it is the result of an intelligent designer. He says that it is
merely an analogy; we say that it is the result of intelligent de­
sign, because we do not know any other cause.
182 Summa Tbeol., Ia Hac, q. I, a. 2.
183 Ibid., q. 90, a. I.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

369

We say that this order is the result of intelligent design, not
only because chance, blind necessity, instinct, or blind freedom
explain nothing, but also because order presupposes that the
means find their raison d'être in the end, and because it is of the
very essence of intelligence to perceive the raison d'être, which is
its formal object. Moreover, intelligence is a vital and tran­
scendental relation to being, and is, therefore, like being, analo­
gous, and no more implies imperfection in its concept than
being itself; it is an absolute perfection.
It is further objected that there could be several intelligent
designers. In answer to this we would say that we observe all
the forces of nature harmoniously combining for one common
end, which presupposes a common purpose. Against those who
admit several first principles, Aristotle remarks: “The world re­
fuses to be governed badly. ‘The rule of many is not good; one
ruler let there be.’ ” 134 Moreover, these many intelligences would
all have some relation to the intelligible and to being, but they
would not be the being. In each of them there would be a
multiplicity of design, because of its capacity for knowing and its
object. We must continue our search until we arrive at a supreme
intelligence, which is identified with being, and by which all die
minor intelligences are definitely directed to being.
Kant insists that this proof can at most demonstrate the exist­
ence of a mighty and vast, but not of an infinite intelligence. It
leads us to conceive God as the architect of the world, but not as
its creator.
Cajetan had already answered this objection when he
pointed out135 that it is sufficient if this proof leads us to an
intelligence, without going into details, since the four preceding
proofs have demonstrated the existence of a prime mover, of a
first cause, of a necessary being, and of a first being that is
134 Met., Bk. ΧΠ, circa finem. The quotation is from Homer’s Iliad, Bk. ii, v. 204.
135 Comment, in S. TA., la, q. 2, a. 3.

370

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

absolutely simple and of sovereign perfection. But if we look
more closely into this matter, we perceive that the intelligence
claimed by this fifth proof must be pure act. If it were not so,
we should have to say that its essence differed from its existence,
that its intelligence was not its intellection, and that in it intellec­
tion and the intelligible were not identical.138 Now, essence can­
not be directed to existence, nor intelligence to the intelligible
object, except by a higher intelligence which is identical with its
very being, always in the act of knowing itself.
Schopenhauer admits the presence of finality in the world, but
ascribes it to no other cause than an unconscious will, as an
example of which he cites instinct. Bergson upholds more or
less the same doctrine. It has been said in reply that this teach­
ing substitutes zoomorphism for anthropomorphism, which
brings us no farther. But to affirm that there is an intelligence is
not an anthropomofphism, since intelligence, considered as such,
and not merely insofar as it is human, is an absolute perfection
with no trace of imperfection. If it is realized in its pure state
in any being, it is not in man, but in God.
Moreover, in seeking to replace intelligence by instinct, we
again encounter finality, which calls for an explanation. Finally,
the cause which has produced man must be at least of equal
dignity with him. To rest satisfied with an instinctive finality is
to return to the hylozoism of the ancients and to endow matter
with sympathies and antipathies which, far from constituting a
supreme principle by which all things can be explained, need to
be explained themselves. The simplest of material elements, the
atom and the crystal, far from being the principle of things,
cannot be explained except by some idea of a type or end, which
only an intelligence could conceive and endow them with.
Hartmann recognizes that the unconscious will of Schopen­
hauer cannot harbor within itself any principle of determina136 Summa Theol., Ia> q. 54, a. 1-3.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

371

tion, and acknowledges the existence of an intelligence, but
describes it as unconscious. We ask: how could an unconscious
intelligence know the end and meaning of finality, and how
could it adapt means to that end ?
Lachelier 187 comes with an objection taken from Hegel. Let
us suppose, he says, that order originates in God; now order, in
a certain sense, must be prior to God’s intellectual operation.
Therefore, all regularly constituted order does not presuppose
the operation of an intelligence. Hence, why not suppose, in
accordance with the Absolute Idealism of Hegel, that nature is
eternal and bears its own order within itself, that is to say, is
the self-evolving idea? We should then have an unconscious
finality of the logical order, which would ultimately reach the
stage of consciousness in man.
It is easy to answer this objection. The order which demands
a cause, is that which is in process of formation, that which is
becoming, and not that which is. The order which demands a
cause is that which implies an actual multiplicity of parts, and
not that implied in the virtual multiplicity inherent in absolute
unity. Becoming presupposes being, the multiple presupposes one,
the composite presupposes the simple. All these points have been
demonstrated in the preceding proofs. The order which is in
God, and which has a logical priority over the divine thought, is
that which is virtually implied in the very essence of God, whose
perfection is infinite in its possibility of participation and whose
eminent simplicity is fecund with an infinity of virtual mul­
tiplicity.138 How does this supreme indivisible concentrate within
itself this multiplicity? It begins to suggest itself to those who
grasp a whole science in its fundamental principles, or who suc­
ceed, as Mozart did, in hearing a melody not successively, but
all at once in the very law which governed its composition. A
187 Fondement de l'induction, p. 63.
188 C£r. Summa Theol., la, q. 14, a. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12; q. 15, a. 1 and 2.

yji

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

return to the Idealistic Evolutionism of Hegel, on the contrary,
is to posit a becoming which is its own reason for being what it
is, and, therefore, a denial of the objective validity of the prin­
ciple of identity or non-contradiction; it makes the conscious
originate from the non-conscious, or, what amounts to the same
thing, it makes the greater come from the less, and being evolve
from nothingness.
Therefore, the proof based on final causes has lost none of its
validity. Like the preceding proofs, its certainty is not merely
physical, but metaphysical. It is not founded solely on the ex­
perimental or inductive method, as John Stuart Mill maintains.
Its minor is based upon the necessary and self-evident principle
of finality, while its major is derived from the immediate and
analytic relation of the intelligence either to being or to the
raison d'etre of things.

41) These five typical proofs establish five attributes, which can
be predicated only of the self-subsisting being, who subsists
above all things.
We may now summarize the results achieved by the five
typical proofs of God’s existence. They establish in Him five
attributes: that of First Mover, that of First Efficient Cause, that
of First Necessary Being, that of First and Greatest Being
(primum verum, primum intelligens, primum bonum), and,
finally, that of First Intelligent Ruler.139 We have already shown
that each of these attributes can be predicated only of that Be­
ing whose essence is identical with its existence, and which for
this reason is self-subsistent being, ipsum esse subsistens.1™
The proof for the existence of God is completed by a combina­
tion of these five ways.
189 Cajetan, Comment, in S. Theol., la, q. 2, a. 3.
140 Summa Theol., la, q.3, a. 1.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

373

The first mover must be its own activity, and being pure act
in the operative order, it must be the same in the entitative order,
for the mode of operation follows the mode of being. Therefore,
its essence is not merely capable of existing, it is Being itself.
The first cause, to be uncaused, must contain within itself the
reason for its own existence. Now, it cannot cause itself, for it
would have to be in existence before it could cause itself. There­
fore, it has not received existence, but is existence itself.
The necessary being implies existence as an essential predicate,
that is to say, it must not only have existence, but be its very
existence.
The supreme being is absolutely simple and perfect, and hence
could not participate in existence, but must be self-existent.
The first intelligence, which directs all things, cannot be di­
rected to being as to some object distinct from itself. It must be
absolutely the Being always actually known to itself.
The proofs of God’s existence lead up to this as their terminus,
the terminus of ascending metaphysics, which rises from sensi­
ble things up to God (via inventionis}, and is the starting-point in
the metaphysics of the descending order, which judges everything
by the ultimate reasons of things (via judicii).141
Hence we see that in this order of the ultimate reasons of
things the fundamental verity is that “in God alone essence and
existence are identical." 142 This is the supreme principle of the
essential distinction between God and the world. That essential
distinction is at once evident to us, because God is immutable,
whereas the world is subject to change (ist, 2nd, and 3rd ways);
because God is absolutely simple, whereas the world is com­
posite (4th and 5th ways). It finds its definitive formula in the
phrase that God is “He who is,” whereas all things outside of
141 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, q. 79, a. 9.
142 Cfr. Del Prado, De Veritate Fundamentali Philosophiae Christianae, Fribourg,
Switzerland, 1911.

374

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Him are by their very nature merely capable of existing, and
composed of essence and existence.
The sensus communis sees all this implicidy, though it can­
not reduce it to a formula. It does not demonstrate it, but, be­
cause of its instinct for being, it feels it. It has a sort of vague
intuition that the principle of identity is the supreme law of
objective reality, as well as of thought, and that the supreme
reality must be to being as A is to A, absolutely one and im­
mutable, and consequently, transcendental, distinct from the
universe, which is essentially manifold and changeable. We do
not need to be deeply versed in Plato’s Sophist or Aristotle’s
Metaphysics, to find out the meaning of those words which
God spoke to Moses: “I am who am” (Ex. Ill, 14), or of
St. Augustine’s commentary: “In comparison with Him, the
things that are mutable, are as if they were not.” 143
Hence, we see the meaning and the bearing of the proof for
God’s existence based on the universal consent of mankind. It is a
confirmation of the truth. “How are we to explain this universal
belief in God, if not by the persuasive force of the arguments
which we have set forth? ... If faith in the divine were the
result of an unreasonable fear, or if it had been imposed upon
nations by legislators for the purpose of investing their laws with
a sacred authority, it would have disappeared from our midst
along with the causes which gave it birth. On the contrary,
this faith is everywhere maintained with a tenacity which noth­
ing can conquer.”144 Concerning this universal consensus of
mankind we may say with de Quatrefages145 that “nowhere do
we find atheism either among the inferior or the superior races;
we come across it only in individuals or in schools of a more or
less restricted nature.” The recent discoveries in the history of re143 De Civitate Dei, 1. VIII, c. xi.
144 Vacant, Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican, Vol. I, p. 323.
145 L'Espèce Humaine, ch. 35, no. 4.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

375

ligions "show that all religions acknowledge a belief in a supreme
being, a creator, an organizer and master of the world, and in one
who is also a father to men.”148
A final proof of God’s existence may be deduced from su­
pernatural effects such as miracles. Every supernatural effect
which can be known in a natural way, but cannot be explained
except by attributing it to divine intervention, furnishes us with
a proof of God’s existence. Such is the case with every extraor­
dinary event of the sensible order, which surpasses all the forces
of nature, such as the resurrection of a dead man, or the multi­
plication of loaves, as recorded in the Gospel. This proof is not
within reach of the sensus communis, which sees vaguely
(though with certainty), in a miraculous occurrence such as the
resurrection of a dead man, that it bears an immediate relation
to being, its formal object, and to the proper cause of being as
being, i. e., God. Because of this intuition, spontaneous reason
refuses to be influenced by those philosophers who are opposed to
the miraculous, and object that we do not know all the
forces of nature. There can be no doubt about that, but when we
see an effect so profound and universal that it cannot be produced
except by the first and universal cause, we know that this effect
is being itselj.xil
By intuition the intellect spontaneously perceives a miracle to
be an exceptional production of being, like creation, or an imme­
diate modification of being as such, of what there is substantial
about it. Such is the case with the multiplication of loaves and
resurrection from the dead. These events presuppose an agent
with immediate power over being, substance, and matter and
capable of exercising this power without the intervention of
any accidental modifications.148 The substantial reunion of the
146 Le Roy, La Religion des Primitifs, p. 464.
147 Summa Theol., la, q. 45, a. 5; q. 105, a. 6, 7, 8.
148 God alone possesses over the very being of things, over substance and matter,
a power not only mediate (through the intervention of accidents), but also im-

376

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

soul with its body can only be the effect of a cause which
is capable of immediate contact with the very substance of
being. Hence, to see the finger of God in a miracle, it is not
necessary for us to have faith; the innate sense of being, which
is natural reason or the sensus communis, is sufficient for the
purpose.
As Vacant points out,148 “this demonstration of the existence
of God finds its corroboration when it is based upon a group of
facts in which the action of a supernatural providence is man­
ifest.” The vitality and wonderful spread of the Church, its
eminent sanctity, and the fact that it is an inexhaustible source
of all kinds of spiritual benefits, prove that from all eternity
there was a being from whom all justice, goodness, and sanctity
proceeded, and who must be Goodness, Justice, and Sanctity
itself.
The existence of physical and moral evil, as we have already
remarked (n. 34), cannot cause us to doubt the existence of God.
Moral evil, which is far more grave than physical evil, so far from
disproving the existence of God, presupposes His existence, be­
cause, in the final analysis, it is nothing else but an offence
against God. If evil exists, no matter of what kind it may be,
God has permitted it for the purpose of manifesting His power
and His goodness, for, as St. Augustine says,150 “He would not
have permitted it, if He did not have power and goodness enough
to draw good even out of evil.”
mediate. Now, the substantial reunion of the soul with the body, without the
intervention of any predisposing accidental elements, presupposes this immediate
power. Therefore, God alone can make this a reality. Only the Author of life
can restore life to one who is dead. Natural agents cannot produce a living sub­
stance, except by way of generation, which presupposes the presence of the in­
dispensable and accidental predisposing elements. (See la, q. 45, a. 5; q. 105,
a. 1; q. no, a. 2 and 4; Illa, q. 75, a. 4; Supplement to the Summa, q. 75, a. 3).
149 Etudes sur le Concile du Vatican, Vol. I, p. 174.
150 Enchiridion, ch. XI.

EXPOSÉ OF PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

377

Such are the proofs for the existence of God. They engender a
certainty which is neither moral nor physical, but metaphysical
or absolute. It is absolutely certain that God exists, that the great­
est Being which can be conceived, has objective reality. To deny
this statement would be to deny the principle of causality, the
principle of sufficient reason, and, finally, the principle of non­
contradiction. The Hegelian system furnishes historic proof for
this. Having set out with the avowed purpose of denying the
true God, transcendental and distinct from the world, its author
had to admit that contradiction is at the root of all things. The
choice between God and absurdity is inexorable.

APPENDIX
The Thomistic Proofs for the Existence of God in
to the Notion of Proper Cause

their

Relation

St. Thomas defines the notion of proper cause in his Commentary
on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book V, ch. ii, lect. 3, and in the Analytica
Post., Book I, lect. 10, entitled “Quartus Modus Dicendi per se,” i. e.,
the fourth mode of per se predication. His teaching, which constitutes
the basis of the proofs for the existence of God, is summed up in the
following propositions.
1) The proper cause is that which can produce a certain effect by
itself (per se) and immediately as such (primo). It is that cause upon
which the effect per se primo, necessarily and immediately, depends,
just as a property depends upon the essence from which it is derived,
e. g., the properties of a circle from the nature of the circle. The proper
effect is like a property manifested ad extra.
2) The proper cause, inasmuch as it is a necessary requisite, differs
from the accidental cause, just as there is opposition between these
two propositions: a man generates a man; Socrates generates a man.
It is purely accidental for the one who generates to be Socrates, and
still more so for him to be a philosopher. Thus we say that the move­
ments in the universe required a prime mover, but we should be guilty
of precipitation if we at once concluded that this prime mover must
be free.
3) The proper cause, inasmuch as it is an immediate requisite,
differs from every other cause, no matter how strictly it is required.
Thus, to carve a statue requires a sculptor. To say that it requires an
artist would be to designate too general a cause. We must state pre­
cisely the kind of cause required. Similarly, it would not be definite
enough to say that the movements in the universe require a primary
being: what they immediately demand is a prime mover.
4) The most particular causes are the proper cause of the most
particular eÿects. Thus, this animal is die proper cause of the genera379

38ο

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

tion of this living exemplar of the same species; but it does not ex­
plain the existence of animal life on earth, and it stands as much in
need of being explained, as does its proper effect, of which it is said
to be the univocal cause or one which belongs to the same species.
We have here a causality of a very inferior order. St. Thomas writes:
“It is clear that of two things in the same species, one cannot per se
cause the form of the other as such, since it would then be the cause
of its own form, which is essentially the same as the form of the
other; but it can be the cause of this form inasmuch as it is in
matter, in other words, it may be the cause that this particular matter
receives this particular form.1
5) The most universal effects demand as their proper cause a cause
higher than all others.2 This body, which is in motion, may truly be the
cause of this other motion, but if the motion itself, wherever we find
it realized, whether in corporeal or incorporeal beings, has not within
itself its own sufficient reason for what it is, then it must have for its
cause a primary and universal mover of corporeal and incorporeal
beings. Therefore, this cause must be a prime mover, superior to all
motion, of a much higher order, and for this reason the cause is
said to be equivocal and not univocal.
6) Finally, we must distinguish between the proper cause and
becoming, i. e., the apparition of such and such an individual effect;
also, between the proper cause of the being itself and the conservation
of this effect.3 According to Aristotle’s example, the builder is the
proper cause of the construction of the house, and if he stops working
before the house is completed, the house is no longer in course of
construction; but he is not the proper cause of the being of this house;
if he dies, the house will not cease to exist. Likewise, the son survives
his father; the heat of the sun is necessary, not only for the generation
of plants and animals, but also for their preservation. Hence, universal
and higher causes are not only productive, but likewise preservative
of their effects. Their causality is permanent, always in act, and we
affirm the same of God’s causality.
This notion of proper cause illuminates the Thomistic proofs for the
existence of God, so that we can perceive the connection between them.
In each of these a posteriori proofs, St. Thomas starts from a fact
1 Summa Theol., la, q. 104, a. x.
’la, q. 45, a. 5.
’ la, q. 104, a. 1.

APPENDIX

381

known as certain from experience, and from a rational principle,
which is necessary and evident, he proves the existence of God, the
proper and universal cause of the universal effects which originate
from Him. "Oportet enim universaliores eÿectus in universaliores et
priores causas reducere" (for the more universal effects must be re­
duced to more universal and prior causes).4
The order of these five proofs corresponds to the natural process of
the reasoning mind. In fact, St. Thomas begins with the most evident
signs of the contingency of earthly things, such as motion, and then
goes on to consider those which bear a deeper significance, such as the
imperfection and the orderly arrangement of composite things. Like­
wise, in order to arrive at the conclusion of his proofs, he shows step by
step the necessary existence and absolute transcendence of the First
Cause, so as to make it evident that this cause is essentially distinct
from the world, which is changeable, composite, and imperfect, and
that the name of God can be given to it. In fact, what people generally
understand by this name is the prime mover, the first cause, the neces­
sary and supreme being, who has created and ordained the whole
universe.
All these arguments can be summed up in a more general one,
based on the principle of causality, which may be stated as follows:
That which does not exist by itself, can exist only by another, which
is self-existent. Now, experience shows that there are beings endowed
with activity, life, and intelligence, which do not exist of and by
themselves, since they are born and die. Therefore, they received
their existence from another, who must be existence, life, and
intelligence itself. If such were not the case, we should have to say
that the greater comes from the less, the higher form of life from the
lower, and that the plurality of beings comes from a primary being
less perfect than all the others taken together.

First Proof: From Motion

That there is motion in the world is a certainty attested by ex­
perience. There is not merely local motion, but there are also substantial
changes, qualitative movements according to the increasing or de4 la, q. 45, a. 5.

382

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

creasing intensity of a quality, and even spiritual movements of the
intellect and will.8
Notv, everything which is in motion is moved by another. This
principle is a necessary and absolutely universal one. Motion, in fact,
is the transition from potentiality to act, from indetermination to de­
termination. Thus a body which was cold becomes warm, an inert
body is moved locally. Now, nothing can be reduced from potentiality
to act, except by a being which is already in act, and it is impossible
for a being to be at one and the same time and in identically the
same sense, both in potentiality and in act. In living beings, one part
is moved by another; but as this other part is itself set in motion by
a movement of a different order, this can only be the result of the
influence exerted upon it by a mover of a higher order. Therefore,
every being that is in motion, body, soul, or spirit, is moved by another.”
Moreover, there cannot be an infinite series of movers essentially
and actually subordinated one to another. It is not a question here
of a regressive series of movers, such as we find amongst generators
in a series of animals generated; for these movers are but accidentally
subordinated to one another, and none of them exerts an actual
influence upon the other. Also, as St. Thomas says,67 “it is not im­
possible for a man to be generated by a man ab aeterno, that is
to say, without there having been a first in this series of human
generations.” But it is impossible for motion to find its completely
sufficient reason or its first cause in a series of past movers, even
if the series were ab aeterno, since each of these movers was himself
set in motion by another. If this series is eternal, or had no beginning,
it is eternally insufficient, for it has not in itself a sufficient reason for
existing.
Therefore, we are dealing with movers which actually exert an influ­
ence upon one another and which are essentially subordinated one to the
other. Thus the moon attracts the bodies which surround it, and is
itself attracted by the earth; the earth in turn is attracted by the
sun, and the sun has some other center of attraction. We cannot go
on indefinitely in this ascending series. If, indeed, each of these
6 la, q. 2, a. 3, ad 2um; q. 79, a. 4; q. 82, a. 4, ad 311m; q. 105, a. 2, 3, 4,
5; la Ilac, q. 9, a. 4.
6 Cfr. Summa Theol., la, q. 105, a. 5, where St. Thomas considers in inverse
order how the prime mover is related to all motion and created activity.
7 la, q. 46, a. 2, ad yum.

APPENDIX

383

movers essentially subordinated to one another, receives an impetus
which it transmits to another, in such a manner that there is no
prime mover which is the source of motion, which is itself not set
in motion, then there never will be any motion. Thus a clock will
not go without a spring, and multiplying the number of its move­
ments ad infinitum would not give to it a principle of movement.
We must, therefore, conclude that there is a prime mover, who is
not himself set in motion by a mover of a higher order, and whom
we call God. This supreme mover is immobile, not with an im­
mobility of an inferior kind, or the inertia of passive potency, which
implies far more of imperfection than motion itself; but with an im­
mobility of a nobler kind, namely, that of act, which has no need
of being premoved or conditioned so that it may act. In other words,
we must admit the existence of a prime mover, who acts by himself,
who has never been reduced from potentiality to act, but who is his
own activity, his own action,8 and consequently, his very own being,
for action presupposes being, and the mode of action follows the
mode of being.9
The prime and most universal mover of bodies and of spirits must,
therefore, be pure act, without any admixture of potentiality capable
of further determination, and consequendy free from all imperfec­
tion, both with regard to action and with regard to being. In other
words, it (or rather he) must be the self-subsisting Being.10
And so it is evident that this prime and immobile mover is tran­
scendental, being by his very nature infinitely above the world of
corporeal and incorporeal beings, which he moves incessantly.11
This argument refutes the theory of absolute Evolutionism, accord­
ing to which becoming, or the evolution of phenomena, is the prin­
ciple of all things. This is impossible, since the sufficient reason or
cause of becoming cannot be found in this process itself, but becom­
ing involves the presence of an additional element, which calls for
a higher cause, otherwise we should have to say that the greater
comes from the less, being from nothingness, without any cause.
This would not only be a greater mystery than creation, but a man­
ifest absurdity, which, as Hegel admits, must be acknowledged by
8 la, q. 3, a. 6; q. 9, a. 1; q. 25, a. 1, ad 3um; q. 54, a. I.
8 la, q. 25, a. 2.
10 la, q. 3, a. 4.
11 la, q. 3, a. 8.

384

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

all who believe in a progressive evolution, in the course of which
the more perfect is always produced by the less perfect.
Second Proof: From Efficient Causes

We are not here concerned with movements or changes which happen
in the world, but with efficient causes upon which depend such
permanent beings as plants, animals, and men. In other words, this
proof does not start precisely from the principle of motion or from
becoming, but from being, which is the terminus of becoming, and
leads us to admit the existence of a first efficient cause, which is
necessary not only for the production of all things, but also for their
preservation in existence.12
In the world there are efficient causes which are essentially sub­
ordinated to one another, e. g., all those cosmic influences, such as
the chemical action in the air, atmospheric pressure, solar heat, etc.,
which are necessary not only for the production, but also for the
preservation of plants and animals. Thus the ancient philosophers
used to say that “man and the sun cooperate in the generation of
man,” for the sun is necessary both for the production and the preserva­
tion of vegetable and animal life on this earth of ours.
Now, these efficient causes, which are thus subordinated to one
another, presuppose a first cause which is not caused. On the one
hand, it is impossible for a being to cause itself, for in drat case it
would exist before it actually did exist; on the other hand, it is im­
possible to proceed ad infinitum in a series of essentially subordinated
causes, as we have seen above (first proof).
Hence, there exists, above the caused efficient causes, a first cause
which is not caused, which has being from itself, not from another.
This first cause must, therefore, be Being itself (a point which will
be more clearly understood at the close of the next proof) and may
justly be called God.13
Third Proof: From

the

Contingency of Beings in the World

There are beings in the world which are evidently contingent, that
is to say, they can exist or not exist. Thus plants and animals live
12 To understand this demonstration fully, consult the Summa of St. Thomas, la,
q. 104, a. I and 2.
18 la, q. 3, a. 4.

APPENDIX

385

and die, and science assures us that there was a time when there
were neither plants nor animals, nor men on this earth, and when
the stars were not as they are to-day, but in a nebulous state.
Nou>, contingent beings presuppose a necessary and self-existing
being. What is contingent has not its own raison d’être within
itself, nor is it the cause of its own existence. Therefore, there must
be some necessary being. Moreover, if the necessity of this being or
principle is merely relative (for instance, limited from the physical
point of view, so as to account for rhe physico-chemical phenomena
of the lower order), then we must continue our inquiry, until we
arrive at an absolutely necessary being; for, as we have seen, we
cannot proceed ad infinitum in a series of causes which are essentially
subordinated one to another. Consequently, there must be an abso­
lutely necessary Being, the cause of all the others.14
a) This necessary Being is not the sum-total of contingent beings,
even if this series were infinite in space and time; for we may go
on increasing the number of contingent beings, but they will always
be contingent, and can no more constitute a necessary being, than
a countless number of idiots can constitute an intelligent man.
b) Neither is the necessary Being the law of contingent beings,
since this law depends for its existence upon the existence of con­
tingent beings.
c) Finally, the necessary Being is not a substance common to all
phenomena; for this substance would be subject to motion (see First
Proof), and would receive determinations or new perfections, which
it could not have produced itself, since the greater cannot come from
the less. The necessary Being can certainly give, but it cannot receive;
it can determine, but it cannot be determined. It has of itself and
from all eternity, all that it can have.15
Moreover, from the fact that the necessary Being is self-existent,
it follows that its essence is not merely a capacity to exist—which
capacity receives and limits existence—but it is unreceived or sub­
sistent existence, self-subsisting Being.15
14 la, q. 44, a. 1.
16 la, q. 3, a. 6.
10 la, q. 3, a. 4; q. 7, a. I

386

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

Fourth Proof: From the Degrees of Perfection in Beings

The special feature of this proof is the perfection of the First Cause.
It runs as follows: The beings in this world form a hierarchy: some
of them are more perfect than others, in passing through the various
degrees of the vegetative and sensitive life, from the stone up to
man. All beings have their perfection or goodness, but the word
good denotes merely a similitude or analogy in such phrases as:
a good stone, a good fruit, a good house, a good master, a thor­
oughly good man. In like manner, unity is of various degrees, and
the unity of the soul excels that of the body. Thus, also, there is a
greater degree of truth in principles than in conclusions, and in
necessary propositions than in those that are contingent.
Now, we speak* of different things as more or less perfect, according
to the varying degrees in which they approach that which is the
most perfect, and the cause of the others. In fact, as St. Thomas
points out,17 “whatever belongs to a thing by its very nature, and
has not been caused in it, cannot belong to it in an imperfect man­
ner.” A being which has but imperfect goodness does not possess
this quality of and by itself; for if the goodness were not caused in
it, it would demand such limitation by and of itself, and at the same
time it would not demand such limitation by and of itself, since
it is not limited in the same manner. In other words, every im­
perfect being is caused, because it is composite, mixed, and the
perfection which it contains is mingled with imperfection. Now,
as St. Thomas says, “things which are in themselves different cannot
unite, unless something causes them to unite.” 18 Thus, existence,
perfection, and beauty, are limited in different ways in plants, in
animals, and in man. Of themselves they do not imply this or that
particular limitation, and in their formal concepts they do not even
imply any limitation. Therefore, in all these imperfect beings, exist­
ence, perfection, and beauty are the effects of a Supreme Cause,
which must be absolutely perfect, free from all imperfection, and
absolutely simple. Moreover, this Cause must be a self-subsisting
Being, unlimited, infinitely perfect, i. e., Goodness, Truth, and
Beauty itself. Hence it follows that this Supreme Being is absolutely
17 C. Gentes, Bk. II, ch. 15.
18 Summa Theol., la, q. 3, a. 7.

APPENDIX

387

transcendental, really and essentially distinct from the world, which
is always composite and imperfect.19
This proof clearly differs from that of St. Anselm, since it does
not start from the notion of the supremely perfect Being, but from
the actual existence of various degrees of perfection in things. Thus
it ascends by way of causality to the absolutely perfect Being,
because no imperfect being can have its raison d'etre in itself.
It is by this demonstration that St. Thomas establishes the ex­
istence of intelligence,20 of truth,21 of goodness,22*and of the natural
law.28
Fifth Proof: From the Order Prevailing in the Universe

We observe that irrational beings act for an end. Indeed, we notice
that there is a wonderful order prevailing in the regular courses of
the heavenly bodies. The centripetal and centrifugal forces are so
regulated that the heavenly bodies move in their orbits with enor­
mous speed and in perfect harmony. No less striking are the unity
and variety which we behold in the organic structures of plants,
animals, and man. Finality, or the relation to an end, is clearly seen
in the evolution of an egg, which virtually contains a certain deter­
mined organism, and in the case of those organs which are adapted
to certain very special functions, such as the eye, which is for seeing,
and the ear, which is for hearing. Finally, we find the same to be the
case with those animals which act by instinct, for instance, the bee,
which builds its hive.
What particularly manifests this finality, as St. Thomas notes,
is the fact that natural agents of the irrational order “always or
nearly always act in the same way, and in a way designed to obtain
that which best agrees with their nature,” e. g., for their development,
nutrition, reproduction, etc.24*
19 Ibid., la, q. 3, a. 4 and 8; q. 7, a. 1 etc.
20 Ibid., la, q. 79, a. 4.
21 C. Gentes, Bk. II, c. 84.
22 Summa Theol., la Hac, q. 2, a. 7 and 8.
22 la Ilae, q. 91, a. 2.
24 “We see things which lack intelligence, such as material bodies, act for an
end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same
way, so as to obtain the best. Whence it is plain that they achieve their end not
fortuitously, but designedly. Now, whatever lacks intelligence, cannot tend towards

388

<ÿOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

This terminus of their action, precisely because it is something
determinate a<nd in complete conformity with their nature, is entitled
to the name °f end; for the end is the good in view of which an
agent acts.
Moreover, even before the existence of God has been proved, the
necessity anti universality of the principle of finality are evident
truths. The principle may be expressed by the following formula:
"Every agent acts for an end." “Were it otherwise,” says St. Thomas,
“one thing v/oukl not follow from the action of the agent more than
another, excc/Pt by chance. . . . For the natural agent to produce
an effect wD'ch is determinate, it must be determined for some
particular effect, and this is what is meant by the word end." 26
It will not do to have recourse to chance, for chance is an acci­
dental cause (causa per accidens'), and hence is not the cause of
what happen5 always and according to nature. Otherwise, the acci­
dental woulc^ no longer be accidental; instead of being something
which accrues (accidit) to the essence, it would be its foundation,
and in that </a5e tbe essential would be subordinate to the accidental,
which is absv*rcl· The wonderful order existing in the universe would
be the result °f no order, the greater would proceed from the less.
Neither u)dl it do to appeal solely to the efficient cause, and to
reject the final cause. For in that case we could not give any reason
for the actio11 °f an agent: why, for instance, a certain organ has
a certain detcrm*nate tendency; nor could we say why an agent
acts instead °f not acting. There would be no raison d’être for the
action. The active potency or the inclination of the agent is not
without a m^llve> called tendency, because it tends essentially towards
something, just as the imperfect tends towards the perfect. "Potentia
dicitur ad adtum" potency essentially refers to act, or is essentially
of the intentional order. For instance, the faculty of sight is ex­
pressly designed for seeing.2®
Therefore, we cannot doubt the existence of finality in the world,
an end, unless ** be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intel­
ligence; just a# the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some in­
telligent being exists, by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and
this being we
God. (la, q. 2, a. 3).
20 Summa fheol., la, q. 44, a. 4; la Ilae, q. 1, a. 2; C. Gentes, Bk. ΙΠ, c. 2.
2® See Aristide. Physics, Bk. Π, c. 8 ff., and the Commentary of St. Thomas,
lect. 7-14.

APPENDIX

389

the wonderful order of which is nothing else but the suitable ar­
rangement of means in view of an end (apta dispositio mediorum ad
finem'). The bird flies not only because it has wings (efficient cause),
but the wings are for the purpose of flying (final cause). Other­
wise, the particular formation of its wings would be without a
sufficient reason. To affirm that anything is without a sufficient
reason, is to formulate a proposition which is unintelligible and
absurd (see supra, n. 24). St. Thomas would have said: “It would be
foolish to make such an assertion,” just as he said that “David of
Dinant foolishly declared God to be prime matter.” 27 According to
the philosophical acceptation of the word stultitia, namely, the
opposite of wisdom, there is nothing more foolish than Materialism
or Mechanism.
Now, irrational beings cannot tend towards an end, unless they
are directed by an intelligence, as the arrow is shot to the mark by
the archer. In fact, one thing cannot be directed to another, unless
there 1κ· a directing cause, which must, of necessity, be intelligent,
for, “sapientis est ordinare." Why? Because an intelligent being
alone perceives the raison d’etre of things, and the end is the raison
d'etre of the means. “Irrational beings,” says St. Thomas, “tend
towards an end by natural inclination; they are, as it were, moved by
another and not by themselves, since they have no knowledge of
the end as such.” 28 Animals have a sensitive knowledge of the thing
which constitutes their end, but they do not perceive the formal
end as such in this thing. If, therefore, there were no intelligent
designer directing the world, the order and intelligibility existing
in things, which science reveals to us, would be the effect of an
unintelligible cause, and, in addition to this, our own intelligences
would originate from a blind and unintelligent cause, and again we
should have to say that the greater comes from the less, which is
absurd.
There is, therefore, a supreme intelligent Being, who directs all
things to their respective ends. It will not do to say that the universal
Designer has, like ourselves, an intellectual jaculty directed to in­
telligible being, but what is demanded is a designing intelligence of
a higher order. The supreme Designer cannot be designed for any

27 Summa Theol., la, q. 3, a. 8.
28 la Ilae, q. 1, a. 2.

390

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

other purpose. He must be Thought itself, self-subsisting Intellection,
just as he is self-subsisting Being: "ipsum intelligere subsistens." 29
The One End to Which All Five Proofs Converge

We have pointed out that the result of each of these five demon­
strations is to move us to admit the existence of a divine attribute
which can be predicated only of the self-subsisting Being, as St.
Thomas explicitly proves.80 The article referred to serves the double
purpose of pointing out to us what is the terminus in the ascending
process of reason, which rises from sensible things until it reaches
the supreme cause, and it is also the principle in the descending
or synthetic process, by which reason deduces the divine attributes
of the one who is Being itself, and judges of all things by the high­
est cause. These two inverse methods are called by St. Thomas,
respectively, via inventionis and via judicii?1
In fact, as we have seen, the prime and universal mover must be
his own action (suum agere), and, therefore, his own existence (suum
esse), and the same must be said of the first uncaused cause, of the
necessary being, of the sovereignly perfect being, and of the ruler
of the universe. Thus the supreme truth of Christian philosophy,
or the fundamental truth in the synthetical order (in via judicii) is
that in God alone essence and existence are identical. God is "He
who is" (Ex. Ill, 14).
Such are the five metaphysical proofs for the existence of God,
to which all others can be easily reduced. If we study them carefully,
we see, contrary to the assertions of modern Agnostics, that the
existence of God, who is transcendental or distinct from the world,
cannot be denied without denying the principle of causality, namely,
that “every being which is mobile, contingent, composite, imperfect,
and relative, is caused, and in its final analysis requires a primary
and immovable being, one which is absolutely simple, perfect, and
intelligent.” Now, the principle of causality cannot be denied or
doubted without denying or doubting the principle of contradiction,
for “a contingent and uncaused being” would exist neither of itself,
29 la, q. 3, a. 4; q. 14, a. I and 4.
80 la, q. 3, a. 4.
81 Ia> q· 79> a. 9·

APPENDIX

391

nor by reason of another, and consequently, could not be distin­
guished from nothingness, since it would exist without a sufficient
muon d'etre, either intrinsic or extrinsic. This would mean the subvu sion of the principle of contradiction, that “being is not nonbeing,” and of the principle of identity, that “being is being,
non-being is non-being,” and human reason would be lost in ab­
surdity.
If, on the contrary, the principle of contradiction or identity is
the supreme law of reality and of our reason, then the supreme
reality must indeed be the identity of essence and existence, or self­
subsisting Being {ipsum esse subsistens). Thus the five ways which
lea. I to the existence of God, unite in the opposition prevailing
between the principle of identity and the changeableness and com­
position of the world, or the lack of identity displayed in the latter,
b'l’om this opposition it is at once evident that the world is contingent
and depends upon the immutable and pre-eminently simple Being
whose name, as given to Moses, “I am who am,” denotes absolute
identity.
I Icnce, the ancient philosophers used to say that our intellect knows
God in the mirror of sensible things, by means of the broken ray
of light reflected from rational principles. The principle of identity
or of contradiction shows the contingency of this mirror and is
reflected in the image of the principle of causality, which manifests
to us the existence of the supreme Being.
It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to choose between the ex­
istence of the true God, transcendental or distinct from the world,
and the Hegelian denial of the principle of contradiction as the
law of reality. In other words, we must choose between Theism
and Atheistic Evolutionism, which latter maintains that the more
perfect comes from the less perfect, and that contradictories are
identified in a universal process of becoming. Thus we sec in abso­
lute Evolutionism an incontestable proof by the reductio ad absurdum
of the existence of the true and transcendental God, since this ex­
istence cannot be denied without at the same time denying the
validity of the principle of contradiction, and without positing a
fundamental absurdity at the root of all things.
This radical absurdity is expressed in the first of the propositions
condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, which reads as follows:
“There is no supreme Being, who is all-wise, ruler of the universe,

392

GOD: HIS EXISTENCE AND HIS NATURE

and distinct from it; God is identical with the nature of things, and
is, therefore, subject to changes; God really becomes or begins to
be in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the
same substance with Him; thus God and the world, spirit and
matter, necessity and liberty, truth and falsehood, goodness and
evil, justice and injustice are all identified in the one same and only
reality.” 32
To avoid this manifest absurdity, we must affirm the existence of
God, who, according to the Vatican Council, “being one, sole, abso­
lutely simple 88 and immutable 83
84 spiritual substance, is to be declared
as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude
in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist
or can be conceived beside Himself.” 8S
83 Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 1701.
38 See the fourth and fifth proofs of St. Thomas for the existence of God.
84 Sec the first, second, and third proofs of St. Thomas.
88 Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 1782.