181
tions, should have a knowledge of what is future? For what has passion in itself adapted to the theory of beings? And is it not rather an impediment to the more true intellection of things? Farther still, therefore, if the things contained in the world were constituted through passions, in this case passions, through their similitude, would have a certain alliance to them. But if they are produced through reasons and through forms, there will be another foreknowledge of them, which is liberated from all passion. Again, passion alone perceives that which is present, and which now has a subsistence; but foreknowledge apprehends things which do not yet exist. Hence, to foreknow is different from being passively affected.
Let us, however, consider your arguments in support of this opinion. That "the senses are occupied," therefore tends to the contrary to what you say; for it is an indication that no human phantasm is then excited. But "the fumigations which are introduced," have an alliance to divinity, but not to the soul of the spectator. And "the invocations" do not excite the inspiration of the reasoning power, or corporeal passions in the recipient; for they are perfectly unknown and arcane, and are alone known to the God whom they invoke. But that "not all men, but those that are more
