Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Section 1 – Section 2
SECT. I. Of our Knowledge of God, as here attainable.
THough it be about the Knowledge, Will and Decrees of God, that our Controverſies are agitated, yet becauſe the conſequent Verities are ſcarce ever well underſtood, without the underſtanding of the Antecedents, out of which the Conſequents ariſe, and without the juſt order, place and reſpect which the later have unto the former, and unleſs things be underſtood in their true Method; I will therefore expoſe my ſelf to the obloquy of thoſe, who will call it Over-doing, ſo far as to premiſe ſomewhat of the Deity it ſelf; But not what is neceſſary to the full explication of the Divine Attributes (as we are capable) as muſt be in a Method of Theologie (which I have attempted elſewhere); but only ſo much as lyeth under our Controverted Subject: And when I have done that, I ſhall leave the reſt.
Theſ. 1. To Know the only true God and Jeſus Chriſt whom he hath ſent, is Life Eternal.*John 17. 3. Bradward. l. 1. c. 11. p. 198. The firſt neceſſary incomplex Principle is God, and the firſt complex ſimply is of God, Deus eſt, &c. But yet it is not to us the primum cognitum.
2. To †Exodus 20.know GOD is to know his Being, Nature, and Relations: For though thoſe Relations that are to Man be not eſſential to his Divine Nature, yet are they eſſentially contained in the ſignification of the name [GOD] as he is the object of our Faith, and Religion. For to be OUR GOD doth ſpeak his Relations to us, as well as his Nature; As the name KING and FATHER doth among men.
3. We neither have, nor can have here in fleſh any one proper formal Conception of the Divine Nature, that is formally ſuited to the truth in the object: But only Metaphorical or Analogical Conceptions; borrowed from things better known.
4. Yet nothing beyond ſenſe (at leaſt) is ſo certainly known as GOD, ſo far as we can reach, though nothing be leſs perfectly or more defectively known, or leſs comprehended. Even as we know nothing Viſible more certainly than the Sun, and yet comprehend nothing Viſible leſs.
5. It is not true which many great Metaphyſicians aſſert, that the Quiddity of God is totally unknown to us: For then it could not be life eternal to know him; nor would a meer Negative knowledge cauſe in us a ſufficient Poſitive Love, or Joy or Truſt, &c. But to know that we cannot know him, would but inferr that we cannot Love him: For we Love not an unknown Good.
6. Nor is it true that Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza (in fine Diſput.) and ſome others ſay, that the Notions of Life and Intellect are all that we have of the Quiddity of God, and that the Divine Will is not a Quidditative notion.
7. God is here ſeen in the Glaſs of his Works, with the Revelation of his Word and Spirit. And from theſe works we muſt borrow our conceptions.*The doubt is, How Imperfect works can notifie the perfect God: And the Schoolmen manage it as an inſuperable difficulty, Whether God could have made the World, or any thing better than it is? If you will pardon me for making that eaſie, which they make ineffable, I anſwer, Goodneſs is Primitive (that is, God) or Derivative, which only is in Creatures: This laſt is formally Good, as it is Related as Conform to Gods Will, the Prime Good, as its Rule: To be à Deo Volitum is the formal notion of Created Good. And ſo the world is perfect, and can be no better, becauſe it is as God willeth it: And yet God can make particular creatures better to themſelves, and to one another; He can make any man more wiſe, more holy, &c. But bonum ſibi is no further properly bonum, than it is Volitum à Deo: Therefore God can make the world far otherwiſe than it is; and yet then it would be no Better. For ſtill it would be but as God willed it to be: So that the matter and private Goodneſs might alter; but the true form of Goodneſs would be ſtill juſt the ſame as now.
8. Therefore though the Thing intended when we ſpeak of God, be tranſcendently and only in Him, and not in the Creature, yet the firſt uſe of the words is to ſignifie ſomething in the Creature. And therefore the Creature is the famoſius analogatum, though Nothing to God.
9. In the uſe of theſe notions we muſt ſtill profeſs that we apply them to God no farther than to ſignifie his perfections: And all words muſt be as little as may be uſed of him in ſtrict diſputes, which imply imperfection, when better may be had; But the higheſt are to be preferred.
10. And we muſt ſtill profeſs, that we take none of theſe words to be formal proper univocal terms, leſt the concealed Metaphor or impropriety occaſion falſe conceptions of God, and unworthy of Him; and alſo tempt men to run them further by falſe inferences.
11. Gods Nature is moſt ſimple, undivided: And ſo muſt an adequate conception of Him be: But Man can have no ſuch conception of Him; but muſt know what he can know of this One GOD by many partial inadequate conceptions.
12. Yet muſt we be very careful that theſe inadequate analogical Conceptions be Orderly, and not as (I will not ſay how commonly) it is done by ſome, a confuſed heap: For the Mind that ſo conceiveth of Him, greatly injureth it ſelf and Him, and the Tongue and Pen that ſo deſcribeth Him, diſhonoureth Him: And though the Ignorant, for whom Catechiſms are written, cannot lay together a full Scheme of the Divine Attributes in juſt method; yet thoſe few which they can underſtand and remember, they would as well and better underſtand and remember in the true method, were they taught it, than in an heap. For Method is a great help to underſtanding and memory. We would not give a Prince his Titles ſo confuſedly; nor draw his Picture monſtrouſly, with the arms where the ſeet ſhould be, and the ſeet where the arms, or the back before, and the face behind, unleſs we expoſed him purpoſely to ſcorn. Every man knoweth the difference between a Clock or Watch in order, and the ſame in confuſed parcels on a heap; and between an Army and a Rout, &c. Shall Order be the beauty of the World and every Creature in it; and ſhall we deny it only to the God of Order? I crave the pardon of Divines for intreating them to amend this in their Doctrine, but eſpecially in their Catechiſms, yea, in their Underſtandings firſt.
SECT. II. Of mans Soul as the Glaſs in which we muſt ſee God.
13. THe principal Glaſs in which we muſt ſee God, in his Nature; among all his Creatures here, is the Soul of man; which is ſaid to be made after the Image of God; And which being our ſelves, we can beſt perceive.
14. The Soul of Man beareth Gods Image in three parts of it, or reſpects: 1. In its Nature it is the Image of the Divine Nature: 2. In its Rectitude it is the Image of the Divine Holineſs and perfection: 3. In our Dominion over the inferiour Creatures, and eminently, in Superiours over Subjects, it hath the Image of his Majeſty and Supereminence.
15. I We have no one adequate Conception of the Nature of our own ſouls; but muſt think of them by partial inadequate Conceptions. And that by many (not feigned or forced, but) real and neceſſary Trinaries in Unity.
16. And firſt the Three Inadequate Conceptions of its Being are the Generical, the Differencial, and the Proper-inſeparable Accidental, viz. that it is, *1. Subſtantialitas Generica, is loco materia: Aegid. Rom. ſaith Quodl. 1. q. 9. p. 18. Non eſt materia in Angelis: bene tamen eſt aliquid loco materia: quia non ſunt Actus purus, ſed habent aliquam potentialitatem admixtam: Unde in li. de Cauſis ſcribitur, quod Intelligentia habtant ſuam foreign, i. e. ſuum materiale. Et hoc forte volunt illi qui in Angelis Materiam ponunt; Cum ipſi dicant materiam illam non eſſe ejuſdem rationis cum materia corporalium: Solùm ergo in verbis videntur diſcordare à nobis: Quia & nos ibi aliquod materiale ponimus. (N. B.)foreign, Vita, Proprietatibus ſuis praedita. The firſt notion is ſubſtantia abſtractè à forma concepta: The ſecond is the Conceptus formatis: The third its Accidents, not acquired, but natural. By LIFE I underſtand not Relatively only, that it is the Life of the body or Compoſitum; But eſſentially as in its nature it is Life it ſelf, or a Living ſubſtance formally, as well as the Living Principle in the man. The word [Spirit] as commonly uſed by us, comprehendeth all this; but what a Spirit is, we know but by theſe partial Conceptions.
17. To paſs by the Three Vital Faculties, Vegetative, Senſitive and Intellective, (becauſe I deſcribe it but as the Speculum Deitatis). 2. This One Formal Principle, LIFE, as it is mans ſoul, muſt be it ſelf known by us by theſe Three inadequate Conceptions, as making up the Form of the ſoul, 1. Vital Activity (or Power), 2. An Intellect, 3. A Will.†See Aureolus in 2. d. 9. that in ſeparated ſubſtances (Angels) there is a Motive power beſide the Intellect and Will; with whom Suarez and many others do agree.
18. 3. And the EXISTENCE of theſe Formal Principles cannot juſtly be underſtood by us, but in theſe three gradual inadequate or partial Conceptions, 1. As in Potentia-activa ſeu Virtute: 2. As in Actu immanente: 3. As in Actione tranſeunte: (Not as it is in Paſſo, but as it is Status vel Modus Agentis.)
19. II. The Moral or Holy Image of God on the ſoul, is the Holy Perfection or Qualification of theſe Faculties, as they are In Virtute by Holy Diſpoſitions; As in Actu immanente, by Holy Intrinſick Acts and Habits; And as to Action ad extra, by a Holy Rectitude: And this Image conſiſteth in the ſouls Holy Vivacity or Activity, and its Wiſdom and Goodneſs, or its Holy Livelineſs, Light and Love.
20. III. The Image of Gods Majeſty or Supereminence conſiſteth in 1. The Sub-propriety which we have in Inferiour Creatures; 2. The Sub-government; 3. That we are under God Their End (and Benefactors).