The Reduction of a Digresser, Section 26 – Section 27
§. 26.
R. B. DIsputatore nimium foelici, nihil infoelicius; & nimium sapiente quis minus sapiens? If I spill as much Logick upon all occasions, as you do words, sure I am a voluminous Logician, and make up in number what I want in weight. You wanted an opportunity to multiply words, for ought I know to no purpose, unless to acquaint the unobservant world with your well-furnished Intellect, that they may be assured, that you have all those things at your fingers end, as trivial punctillio's, which I am so ignorant of; and these few words of mine have occasioned the opening of your pack, and the expansion of your wares.
But, 1. You are fain to use the old artifice of putting my words but as the ground of your paraphrase, and then dealing with that paraphrase of your own. This is not so innocent as common a trick. I speak of a change [of the glass] and you put [a change in it:] Had not you newly risen up as the final decider, I should have said, it is yet sub Judice, whether the Intentional or Spiritual Being, in question, be indeed Res or not? And so whether it make any Real change in the glass. I confess you easily dispatch the business, which makes me think of Gorlaeus words, Exercit. Philos. 7. §. 2. p. 108. Quid species sint visibiles inquirendum est: Tam enim earum natura intellectui est ignota, quam ee sensibus notae. Peripateticis tamen & hic, sicut & alibi facilis expeditio. Qualitates aiunt esse spirituales, & corporis esse objectivum, quod habet in speculo vel simili corpori. Nobis hoc non est satis: qui quaerimus porrò, quid qualitas spiritalis, aut quomodo corpus objective possit esse in speculo? Nam hae videntur contradictionem quandam implicare, corporis dari qualitatem spiritalem, & rem extra speculum existentem esse in speculo, &c.
2. But see what unreverent thoughts such Ignorants as I, are apt to have of learned men! I am confidently perswaded, that you, who are so fully acquainted with Gods Nature and Immanent Acts, as to be at a certainty where I am at a loss, for all that do not know what that is that you see with your eyes; nor whether it be in the glass or not! And therefore the Lecture that you have read me of Ens intentionale hath been lost labour as to me!
3. And you had done but your part if you had observed that I speak not of the meer Reception of the agents action, but of the Representation to us of the species: which should not be confounded.
4. Are you sure that it is from the object, that the glass receives that variation that you imagine? If it be, Rocks and stones are more active creatures then some dull souls will easily believe; when at the same time the same Rock or mountain may perform 100000 actions upon so many eyes or glasses. Yea if in the midst of the Action of this stone or Rock, you do but give your glass a knock, and break it into a hundred pieces, it will multiply the action of the Rock an hundred fold; and that without touching or coming near the Agent! Is it not pretty sport to see the activity of these nimble Rocks and Mountains? I am one of those Hereticks, that think these works of God must be the matter of our admiration, but cannot be comprehended by us here: and that it is no good consequence, that because you and your fellows nakedly affirm the contrary (yea notwithstanding all your proofs) therefore Des Cartes, Sr K. Digby. White, Hobbes, besides all the old Adversaries, are certainly in errour. I shall acknowledge more action of the Light, or air on the glass, then of the object, which seems but sine qua non. But withall I suspect, that the same Light or air doth perform the same action in the glass when you stand not before it, or when the object is absent; and yet no species is then seen; no nor visible. And I think that there is the same action on every glass-window, yea on every wall, or stone, or other body, as is on your speculum; and yet you see nothing on them as you do on it. And Hobbes saith, That it is in the eye and not in the glass, which you think you see in the glass (his reproaching of our Doctrine of visible species, I pretermit:) and if so, then there is not so much alteration in the glass, as you imagine. And indeed, you say little to prove it. If your Argument from sight would prove any thing, it would prove that the face is a foot or a yard (or more if you draw back) behinde the glass, and not in the glass: And yet if you go behinde you shall see nothing: Will you believe your eyes that things change into such various colours, and shapes, and quantities as some glasses by small mutations of posture do represent them? Will you believe your eyes that a strait staff is crooked in the water? I can tell you by my observation when I was a Boy, that if you will kill a Fish in a River with a Gun, you must allow much to the fallacy of your medium. If then either it be the action of the light or air, or something else, and not the object, then it is nothing to me, who spoke only against a change by variation of objects: Or if the foresaid action being supposed to be the same on the glass, when several objects, or no objects are before it, that which is superadded from the object is nihil reale, this is nothing against me: Or if the species which seems a foot behinde the glass be not in the glass, but in the eye or some where else, and so the glass be more truly an Agent by Reflection, then a Recipient of that species which I see, still this is nothing against what I said. So that laying aside all that Reception of the action of light, or any thing else, which the glass receives when there is no object present, and laying aside all that which is Received into the eye and air, and not in the glass, and whereof the glass is but a Causa sine qua non; then call the rest an Ens intentionale or spirituale, or what you will; but prove it to be quid reale altering the glass, and do not nakedly affirm it.
You say, that my great Logick and Metaphysick Masters say, That Ens intentionale, is opposed to Reale & Materiale: and yet you say that the species in the glass is not opposed to Ens reale. It is, and it is not, seem reconcilable to you then without a distinction. Indeed as Real is opposed to [feigned] I doubt not it is Real, but as it is opposed to Modes and Relations, and such like, that some place between Ens and Nihil, it must better be known what it is, then the name of Ens intentionale or spirituale will acquaint us, before we can conclude for certain that it is Real.
As for your Material Accident, it will require more ado to prove, that there is any such thing in the world, as an Accident depending on the Subject alone for support, especially a quality, as you instance in: Sure you intend not the withdrawing of the influence of every efficient, but of some lower or instrumental: I think, at least, Gods efficiency is necessary to be continued, for the Continuation of the being of every Accident, and ordinarily some lower efficiency too.
As for the Logick and Metaphysicks which on all occasions I spill, I take the charge as unfit to be answered, as not coming from your head or heart, but from your Naturals, your spleen and gal.
My Ignorance in comparison of you, I am so easily brought to acknowledge, that I wonder you should think so many words necessary to evince it: (yet you should have done it in intelligible language, and not abrupt expressions, defective of sense, almost such as Hierom describeth in his lib. 1. cont. Jovin. initio.) But how did you prove my Ignorance or Incogitancy of Ens intentionale? Deep silence! Because I did not mention it, or else who knows why? By that reason I am ignorant that Mr K. is an honest man, because I do not mention it; But by what is said, you may see its possible to have heard talk of Ens intentionale, and yet to think this similitude tolerable.
And what if you obtain all that you contend for? viz. That the similitude is faulty! Alas, I shall easily grant it of any similitude whereby we illustrate the Nature or Acts of God. Suppose then that this glass did make the same Representations sine receptione specierum: Or because these …nanimates are more remote, use the similitude of the Oeulus Ʋniversalis, which I mentioned even now. I am troubled that you force me to weary the poor Reader with so many words on so poor and unprofitable a business: But there's no remedy.
§. 27.
Mr. K. NOw whereas Mr. Baxter addes, That whatsoever some say, he doth not think, that the beholding of ten distinct colours at one view, doth make ten distinct acts of the sight, or alterations on it; I do not think that ever rational man said they do, for it were strange there should be but one view, and yet ten distinct acts of sight; but the question is, Whether the change of one of these objects doth not change the species in the eye, and so occasion another view or sight? Or rather it is beyond all question that they do▪ and yet whether they do or no need not be questioned neither; the point that lies before us, is, Whether distinct or new acts do not Cause an alteration? Which is that that we have just Cause to affirm with confidence, can have no place in God; and consequently no new immanent Act; so then there being nothing produced by Mr. Baxter which may suggest a suspition that there may new Immanent Acts be admitted in God, or any but such as are Eternal, Come we to the—