The Reduction of a Digresser, Section 8 – Section 9
§. 8.
R. B. IF I had once done with you, I would take heed of dealing with a Chairman again in haste, for your sake: for I finde I run upon a great disadvantage. For the credit of such mens understandings is so great with themselves at least, that they need no Argument, but their bare affirmation to carry the Cause. Your sole Argument [sic dico] doth put me harder to it, then if you had many: For what to say to this, I do not well know. Dispute against it, I cannot: and to set my Negation against your affirmation, will not do, till we stand on even ground.
1. Aquinas de verit. and many another Schoolman (and Zanchy out of them) might have helpt you to more cogent Arguments, against meer aequivocal denomination. When you speak of Gods fore-knowing, as [truly] that word [truly] is either opposed to feigned and false, or to improperly: that in God which the term [fore-knowledge] doth denote, is Truly in him, and him alone, but that which the word [fore-knowledge] doth properly and primarily signifie, is not in God.
2. Our Rabbi▪s (as you call them ab alto with a smile) do seem to us punies, to make a fuller distribution then you; as I have before shewed: and therefore we take yours to be defective, and consequently your reasoning void: I have told you of divers that please me better.
3. How greedily did I reade on, and follow you at the heels, to see how you proved that it is not spoken of God Metaphorically? and when I come to the businesse, What's the proof? Why you say [surely much lesse may God be onelyonly metaphorically said to fore-know.] You passe your word on it: And this is the knotty Argument that I cannot answer, because I am not of your standing in the University: A little more of the University would have done me no harm (as you say) when I am to deal with this kinde of Argument.
4. Our Tutor Burgersdieius told us, I remember, that in caetoris tropis non minus est homonymiae locus, quam in Metaphora. And therefore Metaphorical and Metonymical, are not a sufficient enumeration.
5. Do not think ever the worse of your self for using the Boyes instance: for (as you have partly salved your credit by intimating that you are above it, so) Aquinas, Scotus, and most of the Schoolmen that I have read, besides Zanchius, and many another of our great Divines, do make use of the same instance: And to play with this bigger sort of Boyes, is no such disgrace to you.
6. Here I meet with a thing that runs in the form of a Reason: [for he is the Author of our fore-knowledge] therefore he fore-knoweth not onelyonly Metonymically. I confesse the Conclusion is true; but I see not the reason of the consequence. As I remember a Metonymy of the effect is, when the efficient is signified by the name of the effect, either by a Verb, as pallet pro metuit, or an Adjective, as mors pallida; or a Substantive, as scelus pro scelesto (I purposely choose the Boyes examples, as best beseeming me.) And I have heard men often call Mr. Nath. Ward, Discolliminium, and the simple Cobler: And the Author of that Comedy, by the name of Ignoramus. I confesse it is a good Argument [He is the Author of our fore-knowledge, therefore he hath fore-knowledge eminenter, or somewhat that is more excellent then fore-knowledge.) But I dare not say, that God hath formally in himself whatsoever he is the Author of. For he is the Author of Nutrition, Augmentation Composition, of Sorrow, of Fear, of Hell, of Worms, Toads and Vipers. But it was the former (the Metaphorical Denomination, and also that of strict proportion, which some distinguish from the Metaphorical) which I had hoped you would have disproved. But I must take what will be had.
7. You think you plead for the Glory of the Divine Majesty, when you tell us he need not be beholden to a poor Trope. As if we should dispute, whether the Sunne do creep as reptilia do? and I say, Yes, Metaphorically: and you will stand up for the honour of the Sun, and say, we debase it; and that it doth creep without being beholden to a poor Trope for it: Or if the Question were, Whether the Sunne be a Vegetative, or sensitive creature? and I say, Yes, Metonymically: for it causeth Vegetation and sense. And you will say, It is Vegetative without being beholden to a Trope. What a Patron is he of the honour of mankinde, that will prove that he is a Worm, a Beast, Nothing, and his life a shadow, a dream, a Weavers shuttle, without being beholden to a poor Trope! Yet are these unspeakably nearer, then the names of man and his acts, to God: for inter finitum & infinitum nulla est proportio.
8. You conclude that the famosius Analogatum, is Gods fore-knowledge, your proof is [Questionless it is so:] As strong as the rest. But, when I look further I finde somewhat like a Reason: [there being Infinitely greater cause to set the Crown on Gods fore-knowledge, &c.] My dread of Gods most sacred Majesty, forbiddeth me to set on him such a Crown of Vanity. As if the Sun must be the famosius Analogatum inter Reptilia, because the Crown of [Creeping] must be set on its head! What if we should yield to you, that the term [Knowledge, Will, Action, &c.] being first Metaphorically applied to God, that yet it is partly Analogical quoad inaequalem Generis attributionem, the term expressing (though improperly as to one) a Nature common to both? It would not yet follow, that here the more noble sort, even Divine Knowledge, &c. were the famosius Analogatum: For though it be most excellent and unexpressibly glorious in it self, yet the term agreeing first with the lower, even humane Knowledge, therefore that is the famosius Analogatum, as being the thing most famously and notoriously meant by that term. If you ask, Whether the Sunne do glissen (as Glowworms, or rotten wood) or do Rutilare or Candere? If you say, Yea; yet I think the Sunne here is not the famosius Analogatum, though the light which this word intendeth be more eminently in the Sun, then in the other things.
You conclude, that [true fore-knowledge mentioned by it self, must alwayes be understood of the fore-knowledge of God.] Is that so indeed?
1. Why then do the Schoolmen generally acknowledge, that the names are all first applicable to the Creature, though the thing be most excellently in God?
2. Then, it seems, it is not a strictly proper speech to say [Man knows, or fore-knows, or Wils, or acteth:] for none of the Homonyma, are spoken of both, in strict propriety. But if you would undertake to prove, that God may in as strict propriety be said to Know, Will or Act, as man is, there are many that would undertake to prove the terms Univocal: which in most Divines Judgement, would be to prove, that man is God: an opinion, which our new world in the Moon (in Anglia lunatica) have very confidently imbraced of late years.
In a word, Sir, my thoughts of man, and his Acts, Knowing, Willing, are so low, and my thoughts of the Infinite God, so high, or at a losse, when I go about to have any positive, true apprehensions of his Nature, that I conceive you and I can no more tell what that is in God which we call Knowing, Willing, Acting, then my Horse can tell what Reasoning or Discourse is in me, or thereabouts. And yet I believe that the Knowledge of God is eternal Life too, viz. Now (as to the beginning) to know that there is a God, and that there is somewhat in Him which mans Knowledge, Will, Goodness, Justice, &c. have some exceeding, low, distant resemblance of, and which we cannot better apprehend or express then under such notions, and by such terms; it being yet in it self of more unconceivable excellency. And though I know the Schoolmen are confident (without proof) that Scire, Velle, &c. do express no Imperfection, but only Modal, and therefore may be applied to God (which I conjecture will also be your Argument) yet I do not believe that Assertion. Comparatively to lower or equal Creatures, it may be said, that it is not Imperfection, which they express. But absolutely or comparatively as to God, it is Imperfection: Not only some accident or Modus, but the very thing exprest by these terms, is Imperfect: Else the Creature shall have something equal to God, and so be God. And if it were but a Modal Imperfection; yet when the term doth strictly and properly expresse that Imperfect Modus it self, as well as the Thing, then that term cannot be applied to God any nearlier then Tropically. Knowledge, Will, Action, and all the terms fitted to man, are so strictly fitted to express the humane Mode, as well as that which you separate in your Intellect, and call perfect, that it cannot be applied to one without the other, but abusively or tropically; No more then [c…e…ping] is applicable to the swift motion of the Sun, when the term doth intimately signifie the slowness and Mode of the motion, with the motion it self.
God forbid that I should doubt, whether that in God be Perfect, which we call Knowledge, Will, Action: But what it is that under these names of infinitely remote similitude we do express, what earthly man can tell? Because I believe Gods Immanent acts to be perfect, therefore I believe them not to be the same thing that man apprehendeth under these terms.
Oh that frail man were more acquainted with his Nothingness! then would he not dare so to lift up himself in comparison with his Maker! Then would not the Christian world for so many hundred years have been filled with quarrels about unsearchable Mysteries; and the great Divines of the Church, be the great Dividers of the Church by voluminous contentions, and censo…ious, uncharitable, zealous emulations about Gods secrets: They would not have fastened upon utter uncertainties, and things unrevealed, and then have stiled their fancies [the Orthodox Doctrine] and reproached or quarrelled with those that were dissenters. The world would not have been altogether by the ears about things that they know no more then a beast knows what is the soul of man; such as many of the Schoolmens writings are, and most of those points in which the Controversies between the Arminians and anti-Arminians, the Jesuites and Dominicans, are untimately resolved: Yea, and your Academ cal Chairs would have been better imployed: and then God would not have been so provoked against them: Nor should I have needed to fear that your Chair is coming down, while I reade here that you are coming down; nor have cause to salute you so sadly at your descent, as fearing a future vacancy of your resigned place.
§. 9.
Mr. K. Pag. I Shall now see what Mr. Baxter saith, though not to answer this Argument, or any other, yet to detract somewhat from the Reputation of the Conclusion, that there can be no new Immanent act in God, but all are Eternal.