distinguished, and that extended substance in so far as it is
substance cannot be divided.
If anyone asks me the further question, Why are we naturally
so prone to divide quantity? I answer, that quantity is
conceived by us in two ways ; in the abstract and superficially,
as we imagine it ; or as substance, as we conceive it solely by
the intellect. If, then, we regard quantity as it is represented
in our imagination, which we often and more easily do, we shall
find that it is finite, divisible, and compounded of parts ; but
if we regard it as it is represented in our intellect, and
conceive it as substance, which it is very difficult to do, we
shall then, as I have sufficiently proved, find that it is
infinite, one, and indivisible. This will be plain enough to all
who make a distinction between the intellect and the imagination,
especially if it be remembered, that matter is everywhere the
same, that its parts are not distinguishable, except in so far as
we conceive matter as diversely modified, whence its parts are
distinguished, not really, but modally. For instance, water, in
so far as it is water, we conceive to be divided, and its parts
to be separated one from the other ; but not in so far as it is
extended substance ; from this point of view it is neither
separated nor divisible. Further, water, in so far as it is
water, is produced and corrupted ; but, in so far as it is
substance, it is neither produced nor corrupted.
I think I have now answered the second argument ; it is, in
fact, founded on the same assumption as the first-namely, that
matter, in so far as it is substance, is divisible, and composed
of parts. Even if it were so, I do not know why it should be
considered unworthy of the divine nature, inasmuch as besides God
(by Prop. xiv.) no substance can be granted, wherefrom it could