The Reduction of a Digresser, Section 13 – Section 16
§. 13.
R. B. 1. SAy you so! is it an adjunct as denominating the Agent, take it how I will? What if I take it, [as it is received into the Subject, and called Passion] which is your second sense? Why said you that your Logical Action was an extrinsecal denomination of the Agent, if your Physical Action be so too? When you seemed by this to difference them? 2. I marvel that my Reverence to these Sophies should be the matter of so many of your lines, and you should think it necessary to rehearse it so oft: Sure you are jealous that your Reader will be very unobservant of your weighty observations▪ But, Sir, is not Reverence a sign of Lowliness? Why then are you offended at it? You should rather applaud me, and say, If R▪ B. do so much Reverence a Suarez, a Schibler, a Burgersdicius, if he knew me, how much more would he reverence me! But, to deal more plainly with you, the further I go in perusal of your learned Labours, the more I perceive my Reverence to aba…e. Let any man except your self judge by the next passage, whether you deserve more reverence then these Rabbies and Sophies (as you have honourably be-Titled them.) You boldly and flatly affirm, That Action [is no way an Effect, as an action, nor doth it carry that stile in any of these learned Sophies, &c.] Either this Assertion is True or False. If True, Mr. K. hath got little: but I am false, if this be true. If it be false, either Mr. K. knew it to be so, or he did not. If he did, and yet spoke it, and that so confidently, then he must pardon me for Reverencing these childish Authors before him. If it be false and he knew it not, then, 1. He is one that will speak boldly what he knows not, and accordingly to be believed. 2. And then it seems he knows not what he supposeth his Boyes to know, and he looks at as his A. B. C. I will finde out a Tertium to salve his credit as soon as I can. If there be no other, I'le lay it on a defect of memory, conjunct with a certain audacity, to tell the world in print, that those things are not written which he read when he was a boy, and hath since forgotten.▪
Let us try the truth of his Assertion. I must not …ell him of some Schoolmen or any other Philosophical Writers, that call [action] an effect, for then he will say, Those are not the Sophies in Question: It must therefore be the very same men. Let Schibler speak first Met. l. 2. c. 10. Tit. 3. Punc. 2. p. 54. Quod ad actionem immanentem attinet; dicitur ea Immanens ab iramanendo, quod scilicet in agente maneat, Existimo tamen eam non esse intelligendam Positivè, sed Negativè. Nam actio Immanens quâ talis est, est in Agente, hoc sensu, quia non transit ad Patiens. In ipso autem agente non est per modum Adjuncti, sed simpliciter ad ipsum comparatur ut ad Causam. Unde haec Propositio, Homo intelligit, vel disputat, non est ut adjuncti de subjecto, sed ut Effecti de Causa: Et patet: Nam Actio transiens nullum habet subjectum, ne quidem ipsum patiens, ut visum est. Ergo etiam actio Immanens à fortiori non postulat subjectum. Consequentia firma est, quia actio transiens magis est ex subjecto, & magis postulat subjectum, quam actio Immanens. Sed actio Transiens in esse Actionis, nullum habuit subjectum, &c. Ergo & confirmatur, quod Actio ut sic, non dicit nisi egressum à virt…te activa alicujus agentis. Egressus autem opponitur foreign esse in. Et hinc relinquitur generatim loquendo de actione ut sic, eam non postulare subjectum. Ne{que} enim Genus debet habere Naturam repugnantem suis speciebus, &c.
Yet more, that you may be past doubt of Mr. K's Veracity and Ingenuity, lib. 1. cap. 22. Tit. 28. Art. 1. Caeterum vox effecti ambigua est, &c. Primò Propriè & Adaequatè significat causatum specialiter, nempe cum conn…tato respectu ad causam efficientem, &c. Deinde effectum sumitur generalius & per Synecdochem sp…ci…i pro genere, quomodo dicitur aequipollenter ad Causatum, quomodo jam Cicero loquebatur, &c. Iam praeterea 3o effectum (sicut & Causatum) aliquando specialiter accipiuntur; prout significant esse stans & permanens post actionem: In quo distinguuntur contra effectionem vel actionem, vel motum: atque ita aliqui aiunt Actionem non esse effectum: sed id quo producitur effectus. Hic tamen communius Effectum & Causatum sumuntur, Diciturque id omne Causatum quod habet esse per dependentiam ab aliqua Causa sive sit Actio, sive Res per Actionem facta. Atque ita etiam Ramus in Logic. l. 1. c. 9. Huc, inquit, in doctrina Effecti, pertinet motus & res motu facta, &c. Vid. ult. 11. Et Art. 3. De effecto specialiter dicto. Nihil autem occurrit hic explicandum praeter specialia nomina effectorum; qualia sunt foreign & foreign. Igitur foreign hoc loco nihil aliud est quam ipsa Actio, Damasc. lib. 3. de Orthod. fid. c. 15. eam definit, quod sit efficax & substantialis naturae motus. De hoc effectus genere, hoc est, de Actione, intelligendus est iste Canon, Cessante causa cessat effectus: Effectus inquam qui est foreign: Cessante Patre cessat, (non Filius sed) Generatio Filij: Cessante Architecto cessat (non domus sed) aedificatio. foreign autem opus est post actionem manens, &c. foreign quando{que} generatim significat operationem, sicut & Latina vox Actionis, &c. Vid. reliq.
So in his Compend. Philos de Logic. l. 1. §. 1. c. 5. p. 17. Ad effectum tanquam exemplum ejus pertin…t motus, & res motu facta.
And Metaph. l. 2. c. 3. Tit. 17. n. 630. he saith, Resp. Esse ambiguitatem in voce creati entis: Creatum enim Ens quandoque dicitur id solum quod per Actionem creativam incipit esse, quodque est quasi Creationis terminus: Et sic Creatio non est aliquid creatum: Quandoque vero Creatum Ens dicitur omne illud quod▪ dependenter est ab Ente increato, sive id sit per modum Actionis, sive per modum rei factae per actionem. Et hoc modo Creatio est quid Creatum. Callovius Metaphys. Divin. saith, p. 524. In genere causatum est operatio, & foreign, vel opus & foreign.Simile quid est in voce Effecti vel Effectus: Dicitur enim quandoque effectum pro eo quod est quasi Actionis Terminus, quomodo domus, v. g. est effectum. Aliquando vero sumitur communiùs ut dicatur effectum quicquid à Causa est, sive id sit per modum Actionis seu motus, sive per modum rei per motum factae; Et sic etiam ipsae Actiones dicuntur effecta, &c. Atque ita sicut nostrae Actiones sunt effecta, ipsae tamen non postulant, ut per alias actiones siant, &c.
So lib. 2. cap. 10. Tit. 3. Art. 3. n. 31, 32. Nam & ipsae Actiones dicentur effectus praecise, & in se, quia habent esse dependens aliunde, &c. So n. 41, 42. & n. 49, 50, 51. Et confirmatur per Aristot. l. 3. Phys. T. 20. Ʋbi ait, eundem Actum esse Agentis tanquam à quo, & patientis tanquam in quo, hoc est, ibi habet respectum effecti; hic vero habet respectum adjuncti.
Again, l. 2 c. 3. Tit. 14. n. 418. Potentia ad suum Actum comparatur ut effectum illius, Ʋnde Intellectio, v. g. esset effectus potentiae intellectivae, &c.
Now let Mr. K's auditors consider the next time he ascendeth his Chair, how farre their great Master is to be credited, and with what Cautions his most confident Assertions must be received. Let a man speak never so many Doctrinal untruths, we may modestly and handsomly confute them without offensive language: but when men speak such palpable untruths in matter of fact, I love not to dispute with them, seeing a man hath no answer for them, beseeming their errour, but a plain desideratur veritas, which seems so unhandsome language that it is usually ill taken what ever be the cause.
But let us hear another of the Sophies, viz. Suarez. Metaph. disp. 18. Sect. 10. n. 8. Quod si nomine Effectus comprehendamus non solum rem productam, sed quicquid à virtute agentis manat, sic concedimus actionem esse aliquo modo effectum agentis, cum sit dependens vel potius ipsamet dependentia ab illo: Esse autem Effectum hoc lato modo, non repugnat causalitati: quin potius in omnibus causis quas hactenus tractavimus, Causalitas est effectus causae, &c.
It were no hard matter to produce more Reverend Sophies for Mr. K. who use the same language and call Actions Effects; but being about so small a matter, I think it is not worth the labour. In thisVid. Alting. Problem. Theolog. part. 1. p. 55. much the Reader may perceive to what a loss of time he may be lead in reading such Controversies, where men leave the Things, and fall upon Persons and Words, out of an earnest desire to finde out some way to cast Contempt upon their Brethren.
§. 14.
Mr. K. VVHat was wont to be more common in horse-fair then An Actio sit in Agente, which with the knack of this hackney distinction, every dull J…de could turn at their pleasure, and hold sometimes affirmatively, sometimes negatively. So then thus farre little is said to the prejudice of that truth, that there is no new Immanent act in God?
§. 14.
R▪ B. YOur horse-fair, and hackney distinction, and dull Jade, are passages so profound that I must pass them as unanswerable by any that hath not attained to your Degrees.▪ But doubtless you knew also how common it is to maintain the Negative on other grounds, and to say, that Actio est Agentis, non in Agente: and this is the language that I have hitherto thought fittest: and your contrary judgement alone will scarce move me to change. As for the safety of your Conclusion, I must tell you, it is no such glorious Atchievement for you to vindicate it against one that never opposed or denied it.
§. 15.
Mr. K. BUt 2. Though this should be granted to Mr. Baxter to be true in acts transient, yet an immanent act is questionless an Adjunct, and not onelyonly denominate the Agent, but inhere in it. For I ask, Is Knowing or Willing a Substance or Accident? an Accident questionlesse. If an Accident; In what Subject? Out of the Agent, you will finde no place where it may set the sole of its foot. Therefore it is in the Agent, and so an Adjunct: and if so, sure Immanent acts in God must needs infer …n alteration. For
§. 15.
R. B. I Confess your first on-set (so sudden, so causless against a feigned Adversary) made me suspect you to be some pugnacissimum animal (as Dr. Twiss cals his Adversary) but your prosecution puts me out of doubt. 1. Had you confined these speeches of yours only to the Creatures Acts, you had said but as many others have done before you: But it is Gods acts that you speak of, as you ascertain us in your application [and if so, sure Immanent acts in God must needs inferre an alteration.] But indeed do you believe that God is compounded of Substance and Accident? Yea doth the contentious disposition so potently carry you on, that you dare speak in such confident language, as to say that it is [an accident questionless] which you attribute to God? What could Vorstius have said more? I thought you had concurred in opinion with your Brethren, that use to call Gods Immanent acts, as diversified and as distinct from his Essence, only Extrinsick Denominations: But it seems you think otherwise (for a little time, while your hast doth hurry you that way per modum naturae.) 2. If you say, That you meant onelyonly this much [Immanent acts are Accidents inherent in man: Therefore they inferre an alteration in God] You might so easily foreknow that I would deny your Consequence, that me thinks so great a Disputant should not so drily have passed over the proof. I do not stick on the strangeness of the Conclusion it self, that [Immanent acts in God must needs inferre an alteration;] which is against your self and all Divines, who maintain that there are Immanent acts in God. For I doubt not but your haste which the disputing itch provoked you to, caused you to put [Immanent acts] for new Immanent acts.] 3. But its strange, that you could bethink you of no answer that might be made to your Question [If an Accident, in what Subject?] when you know it is so common to deny that Inhesion is necessary to every Accident; And when you know that in this case an esse ab, or a dependant Egresse, is affirmed sufficient by so many. I cited the words of Schibler to that sense even now, where he purposely opposeth that which you asserted, lib. 2. cap. 10. Tit. 3. n. 54, 55. I will not trouble you to rehearse them, it being a Book so farre below you. Now to your Proof.
§. 16.
Mr. K. FOr, 3. Though Action as Action logically considered, be but an …xtrinsecal Denomination, and so only denominate the Agent, not inhere in it, as much of Reality as there is in all Transient Actions being in the Patient, even Physically, or rather Metaphysically considered; yet these Immanent astions have their Terms too, say the said Sages, and those in the Agent; he that hath a minde to look it, may soon finde it in Suarez, or his Scapula Schibler, in the predicament of Action. Thus then the first bol… hath done little execution against this truth▪ that there can be no new Immanent Acts in God.