God's Will

[We do not know how God’s essence, his intellect by which he understands himself. and his will by which he loves himself. are distinguished. ]

God’s will, by which he wills to love himself, follows necessarily from his infinite intellect, by which he understands himself, but how these three are distinguished from one anotherhis essence, his intellect by which he understands himself, and his will by which he wills to love himself- this we fail to comprehend.

We are acquainted with the word ‘personality’, which theologians commonly use to explain this matter. But although we know the word, we do not know its meaning, nor can we form any clear and distinct conception of it, although we firmly believe that in the most blessed vision of God, which is promised to the faithful, God will reveal this to his own.

[God’s will and power, as externally manifested, are not distinguished from his intellect. ]

Will and power, as externally manifested, are not distinguished from God’s intellect, as is now well established from what has preceded. For we have shown that God has decreed not only that things should exist, but also that they should exist with a certain nature; that is to say, both their essence and existence must have depended on God’s will and power. From this we clearly and distinctly perceive that God’s intellect and his power and will, whereby he has created, understood, and preserves or loves created things, are in no way distinct from one another save only in respect of our thought.

[It is improper to say that God hates some things and loves other things. ]

Now when we say that God hates some things and loves other things, this is said in the same sense as when Scripture tells us that the earth will vomit forth men, and other things of that kind. But from Scripture itself it can be sufficiently inferred that God is not angry with anyone, and that he does not love things in the way that is commonly believed. For this is in Isaiah, and more clearly in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 9: “For the children being not yet born (that is, the sons of Isaac), neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger, etc.“l0 And a little farther on, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt 10 [Romans 9· 1 1-12 j Appendix Containing Metaphysical Thoughts, Part 2, Chapter 9 20 I then say unto me, ‘Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?’

Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that replieth against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him who formed it, ‘Why has thou made me thus?’ Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? etc,“ll [Why God admonishes men, why he does not save without admonition, and why the impious are punished.] If you now ask why, then, does God admonish men, to this there is a ready answer: The reason why God has decreed from eternity that he would warn men at a particular time is this, that those whom he has willed to be saved might turn from their ways. If you go on to ask whether God could not have saved them without that warning, we reply that he could have done so. “Why then does he not so save them?” you will perhaps again ask. To this I shall reply when you have told me why God did not make the Red Sea passable without a strong east wind, and why he does not bring about all particular motions without other motions, and innumerable other things that God does through mediating causes. You will again ask, why then are the impious punished, since they act by their own nature and in accordance with the divine decree. But I reply, it is also as a result of the divine decree that they are punished. And if only those ought to be punished whom we suppose to be sinning from free will alone, why do men try to destroy poisonous snakes? For they sin only from their own nature, and can do no other. [Scripture teaches nothing that is opposed to the natural light. ] Finally, whatever other passages there are in Holy Scripture that cause uneasiness, this is not the place to explain them. For here the object of our enquiry is confined to what can be attained most certainly by natural reason, and to demonstrate these things clearly is sufficient to convince us that the Holy Book must be teaching the same. For truth is not opposed to truth, nor can Scripture be teaching the nonsense that is commonly supposed. If we were to find in it anything contrary to the natural light, we could refute it with the same freedom with which we refute the Koran and the Talmud. But far be it from us to think that something can be found in Holy Scripture opposed to the light of Nature.