The Reduction of a Digresser, Section 9 – Section 13
§. 9.
R. B. TO feign a wrong end to a mans speeches, is usually the way to fasten on them a false and alien sense. I therefore who am better acquainted with my own End and meaning then M…. K. is (as well as he knows me, by looking through his Prospective, Glass from Cornwell to Kidderminster) shall better acquaint others what was my meaning in the words, which he fastens on. And this is the true and plain Analysis of my words.
Having affirmed Justification to be a transient act, and that therefore the Inception of it argueth no mutation in God, I was fore't to meet with the opinion of Dr Twiss, who takes it to be an Immanent Act, and therefore if it should begin de novo, it would argue a change in God. (Not speaking of that in fore Conscientiae.)
These two Conclusions therefore I took as certain, and necessary to be held of every knowing Christian.
1. That God doth not change.
2. That God doth not pardon or justifie men from Eternity; (no nor from the time of Christs death) and therefore that he doth in time justifie and forgive men, even when they believe. These two Conclusions being Certain and necessary, I take the later as assaulted by D. Twiss; who thereby would make them seem inconsistent.
His Argument is, Justification and Remission are Immanent Acts, therefore from Eternity. To this I answer, 1. By denying the Antecedent: For I had before shewed, that they are Transient acts, and what Transient acts they are. 2. Having premised, that no acts are Immanent in God Positively but onelyonly Negatively (as Schibler speaks;) I answered, That many doubt whether Immanent acts are any further Eternal then Transient acts (which I will open anon when we come to it:) and therefore that this is not a matter of such Certainty as the Proposition opposed is: and therefore Uncertainties must be reduced to Certainties, and not Certainties to Uncertainties: q. d. I am sure God doth not pardon and Justifie from Eternity from plain Texts of Scripture: But you are not sure that all Immanent acts are Eternal any more then Transient are; Therefore if these two Propositions were as inconsistent as you imagine, yet I would rather hold the former, and let go the later, then hold the latter and let go the former. Here I supposed it objected, that it is not to be endured that any should argue God of mutability: but the foresaid Doctrine doth so: Therefore, &c. To which I answered, that there is no change in God: and they that do hold this opinion, do yet hold it is consistent with Gods Immutability: and I gave two or three short touches of their reasoning: If you ask me, whom I mean, I answer, I mean Lychetus, Pennottus, Franciscus a Sancta Clara, and in part Suarez and Burgersdicius, in the words which I shall anon cite in his Metaphysicks. And mark that I do not say, that these plead for the Inception or Cessation of Immanent acts: but that Immanent acts are new as Transient are; that is, not quoad substantiam actus, but transitionem in objectum extraneum. For here it is supposed, that it is not those Immanent acts, whose object is God himself, which is spoke of, but only those that are about the Creature; Note also, that I never thought of owning this opinion; but had ever owned the opinion of the Eternity of all Immanent acts; and so farre as the matter is discernable, do hold to it still: but I take the point in Question to be past our reach; and therefore not of such Certainty, as to encourage us to reject a plainly revealed truth, upon supposition of their inconsistency.
After this I returned to my first Position, and made it my full, final Answer, that Remission and Justification are Transient acts, and not Immanent, and that in this I had most Divines on my side, though they did not ordinarily explain the Nature of this Transient Act: which thereupon I more fully explain'd.
Thus, Reader, I have given the true Analysis of all these words about Immanent acts, which Mr. K. makes the occasion of his quarrel with me: and which he layeth such a heavy charge on. And, I think, if I had said no more to him, but onelyonly given you this true Analysis, it had been enough to satisfie the impartial, and Judicious, and to free my words from that sandy incoherence and senslesness, which (not understanding them) he doth fasten on them in his charge; and to vindicate my self from those corrupt intentions and errours which he intimates.
§. 10.
Mr. K. FIrst, saith he, Acts have not the respect of the Adjunct to its Subject, but an effect to its cause: Therefore new Immanent Acts will not inferre an alteration in God: Therefore, &c.
To this antecedent, I answer, that no Act is properly an effect, or relates as such to the Cause: the Act is rather the Causality then the effect, as Mr. Baxter may please to learn from his great Doctors in the Metaphysicks, whom I think enough to name in general, though he useth to quote them so exactly, as it were the Chapter and verse.
§. 10.
R. B. IF I have learning enough to understand your meaning, you endeavour in these words to prove two Conclusions. The first and principal (and I think, the whole scope of your writing) is, that I am Ignorant and unlearned. The second and subordinate is, that Immanent Acts are certainly Eternal, or that the change of them will inferre a change in God. The first you prove by my Pedantick citing of Schibler and Burgersdicius, the Boyes companions, and that as if they were Doctors in the Metaphysicks, and that so exactly, &c. which you think it enough to name. To this I answer, 1. Your Argument labours of two diseases, 1. Obscurity: which may make some, that know you not, conjecture that your design was scarce honest, which you so carry under hand by intimations, when yet it seems the great Cause of this your undertaking: For my part, I think you would never have mentioned my name here, but to this end. 2. Of Needlesness: If you had stooped so low as to consult me in this business, and opened to me your design, I could by three lines have saved you the writing of these leaves: but that's too late: But yet I may prevent your voluminous labour perhaps for the future, if I do it yet. Be it known therefore to all men by these presents that I R. B. do confess my self ignorant and unlearned, especially compared with such as Mr. K. and his Genius. Habetis cons…tentem reum. What need you any more Witnesses? I hope now you may save the main labour of your next writing.
Yet, let me tell you the reason of my crime, a little more fully. I take the common good to be the best. I have about thirty T…actates of Metaphysicks by me (an ill workman, that needs so many tools) and I value these two or three Common ones which I cited before all the rest: and I think so do the Schools that use them most commonly. Nor do I see any great reason hitherto to take Mr. K. for a more learned, authentick, unquestionable Doctor in the Metaphysicks, then Suarez, Schibler or Burgersdicius, as highly as I value him above my self. Nor indeed did I ever before this, hear of his name (to my remembrance;) much lesse of his Metaphysical writings. But as soon as ever Mr. K's Metaphysicks come to my hands, if I do not bow to them, & vestigiatanti Philosophi adorare, then let him call me an unreverent fellow.
Now to your second business: Where, 1. I might better have been understood, if you had not left out the fore-going words; [by Immanent, they must needs mean Negatively, not Positively.] For by this they that see all might have understood that, 2. It is Gods acts that I speak of, 3. And you do out of your own brain, affix the Ergo, as if it were mine, making that an Argument, which I there take as presupposed. The rest we will come to anon.
§. 11.
Mr. K. THus when the fire warms my hands, the heating is not the effect; but the Heat produced in my hand by the fire. This heat now is considerable three manner of wayes. I shall not honour my Papers with the name of Suarez for this, but referre my Reader, if he be a young Scholar, and not satisfied in it, to his Smith and Brerewood.
§. 11.
R. B. YEt again! You will make men believe that I am grown to some Reputation of Learning, when you think it necessary to use so many words, to prove me a freshman. Is not one word of your mouth enough to blast the reputation of such a puny?
§. 12.
Mr. K. EIther, 1. As it encreaseth, and in order to the highest degree of heat, and so it is called Motion, which is nothing else but the Terminus in fieri. Or 2. As tis received into the subject, and so it is called Passion, heating like beating being as well taken in a Passive sense as an active. Or, 3. As it is derived from the Agent, and so it is called action: but this action again is considerable two manner of wayes; Either Physically or Logically. Physically, and so the Patient is the subject of it: the heat which undergoes these several denominations, being in my hand, as was supposed. 2. Logically, and so this action is but an extrinsecal denomination, and the Agent is the subject of it: Now take it how you will, Action is an adjunct, as denominating the agent, no way an effect as an action, &c.
§. 12.
R. B. 1. THe word [Effect] is sometime taken for every thing that hath a Being and a Cause, and so every Action is an Effect, as having a Being dependant on its Cause: sometime it is taken more restrainedly, for that only which is permanent after the Action, or is Effected by it, and so Action is not an Effect. 2. The use of your distribution or distinctions to our business seems to me so small, as that I know not well to what end you bring them forth. 3. The order of your distinguishing I have no great minde to learn. I should rather have distinguished Logical and Physical Action, in the first place, had there been any use for it. 4. But your Logical action we have nothing to say to: Nor did I speak de subjecto praedicationis. 5. Yet I have no great desire of imitating you, in calling the Agent, the subject of the extrinsecal denomination [viz. Action.] It is your Physical Action, which is so denominated: Though of the verbal predication [agit] I would willingly say, that the Agent is the subject. 6. But it is your Physical Action which we have now to do with: and that not as it is in Patiente, for so it is Passion, and not formally Action. Whether Scotus opinion of a Real difference be true or not (which yet may have more said for it then some superficial answerers do take notice of) yet formally its like it will be granted, that they are not the same: And therefore you should speak of Action as Action, Ut dicit egressionem & dependentiam ab agente, and not as it signifieth Passion, that is, Reception of Action, and the effect of it: and so the Patient is not the subject of Action; Nor do I believe it a fit speech to say, that Calefaction is in your hand, though Calor be. But we must hear you further; to how great purpose we shall see.
§. 13.
Mr K. 1. NOw take it how you will, Action is an adjunct, as denominating the Agent, no way an Effect, as an Action. 2. Nor doth it carry that stile in any of these learned Sophies, commonly quoted by Mr. Baxter with so much reverence.