In the _De Deo seu Homine_, however, the correspondences are much greater and more definite between Spinoza and Bruno, showing that the former passed through a phase of Neoplatonism, in which his pantheism was much less formal or abstract than it afterwards became. Thus the predicates applied in the _Ethics_ to God are applied here to nature, as by Bruno also:--Nature is infinite in the sense of "without limits or bounds," containing no parts in itself, and therefore not a whole over against other wholes; there cannot be two infinites, or boundless worlds.[643] The parallelism between outward nature and the thought or understanding of God is also more after Bruno's mode of expression (ch. ii. § 11, 19). "Neither substance nor qualities can be in the infinite understanding of God, which are not _formaliter_ in nature (1) because of the infinite power of God--there is no cause or ground in Him why He should create one thing rather than another, hence He creates all; (2) because of the simplicity of His will; (3) because He cannot refrain from doing what is good." The thesis, and the first and third of the arguments by which it is supported, are all verbally close to Bruno's argument in the _Infinito_ and in the _De Immenso_. So the effort of all finite things after self-conservation,[644] and their consequent movement, are explained not mechanically, through the action of one material thing upon another, but rather spiritually, through the unity of nature in which all share. Thus even that possibility of an action of thought upon matter (extension) is allowed, which in the _Ethics_ is, formally at least, denied. In the _Tractate_ also there is more emphasis laid upon the _goodness_ of God, as the source of the infinite world of finite beings, whereas in the _Ethics_ a logical, mechanical necessity takes its place. It is in the second, more mystical and ethical part, of the treatise, however, that the influence of the Nolan philosopher is most apparent, and here it is the _Summa Terminorum_ or _Heroici Furori_ that seems to have formed the direct or indirect source of many of the conceptions--such, for example, as the distinction between _Ratio_ and _Intellectus_. _Ratio_ is discursive thought, building up knowledge by successive steps; _Intellectus_ "intuitive thought," direct and simultaneous perception of the whole of the object--the only adequate or complete form of knowledge, for which reasoning is merely a preparation in us. Our knowledge of God, so far as it is possible at all, is of the second type: we cannot know Him as he is, through His effects, His creation: it is only the few to whom He reveals Himself that can know Him as He is, by direct contact with Him. Yet this revelation is constantly open to all men; for each and all God is, always, intimately present, "more intimately than each is to himself."[645] Other ideas which Sigwart has found common to the _Short Tractate_ and the writings of Bruno, are those of the Love of