Chapter 5: Concerning the Infinity of God
1. All the Fathers and Theologians up till now taught that God, according to his substance and substantial perfection, is infinite. Only the Calvinist Vorstius denies this not less impiously than rashly. For, he writes this on page 234: “God is not actually simply infinite, whether in his essence or in his working.” And on page 235: “Indeed, God is pure act, but this does not preclude him from being at the same time finite in himself.”
2. He attempts to prove this new atheism by these five arguments. First, Scripture does not call God infinite, therefore he is not infinite. Second, the substance of God is observed from the angels. Therefore, he is not infinite. Third, there is no material, number, magnitude, nor any other creature which is infinite. Therefore, neither is God. Fourth, the power of God is not infinite because it is not extended to impossible things. Therefore, neither is his essence infinite. Fifth, to be actually infinite and to be actually something are contradictory. But God is actually something. Therefore, he is not actually infinite. These are the arguments of Vorstius, which he thinks have overturned the common belief of all Christians about God’s infinity of essence and substance. But this renegade wildly errs. I will easily show this destroying each of his points and by screwing his head back on.
3. He first says that Scripture does not call God infinite. This is false. For Scripture thus says in Psalm 144:3: “Great is the Lord, exceedingly praiseworthy, whose magnitude has no end.” And Baruch 3:25: “It is great and has no bounds, immeasurable and highly-exalted.” These witnesses are not able to be interpreted as about magnitude of mass or quantity, which is not in God. But [it must be interpreted] as respecting his magnitude of perfection or virtue. Therefore, this is the sense: God is so great in virtue and perfection that he does not have an end or terminus of his virtue and perfection. From this, I reason thus: just as the end in virtue and perfection is that which has an end or terminus of its virtue and perfection, so on the opposite side, an infinite in virtue and perfection is that which does not have an end or terminus of its virtue and perfection. But God does not have an end or terminus of his virtue and perfection. Therefore, he is infinite in virtue and perfection. What shall Vorstius say at this point? The major premise is per se known by implication. The minor premise is openly expressed in Scripture. The conclusion is legitimately inferred. But I continue.
4. Secondly, he says that the substance of God is seen by way of Angels and thus is not infinite. At this point, he plainly shows himself to be a cowardly disputer unprepared for battle, who, in order to avoid the common difficulty which arises from a clear and intuitive vision of God, dares not to protect the infinity of God. But this is the difficulty: The substance of God is infinite: Therefore, by a finite intellect, as is the intellect of men and angels, God’s substance is not able to be clearly and intuitively seen. All other authors, both Latins and Greeks, concede the antecedent and only dispute about the consequent, which the Catholics deny and the Armenians concede. For the Catholics think that these two things rightly cohere—that the substance of God is infinite and that, nevertheless, it is able to be seen by finite intellect, not indeed by the sole power of nature, but the illuminating supernatural help of God. The Armenians, although they deny this coherence, and hence think the latter should be denied, still they do not deny that God is infinite, but instead, seeing that he is infinite, he is not able to be seen by finite intellect. Among both of these positions, Vorstius is the most stupid and cowardly. For he is neither able to understand the coherence which the Catholics establish, nor does he dare to defend or protect the infinity of God which all others defend.