The Reduction of a Digresser, Section 16 – Section 17
§. 16.
R. B. IS this all the proof that we have waited for [Immanent actions have their terms too?] 1. Either you mean it of all Immanent acts, or but of some, if but of some, then it is a learned Argument: [some Immanent acts have their terms: Therefore there can be no new Immanent acts in God.] But I suppose you mean it of All: But then by [terms] do you mean [objects] which sometime are called termini? Or do you mean, the form to which the action tendeth, and which by it is produced or induced? If the first, then the Terminus of these Divine acts which we are speaking of, is oft Without, (as we use to say;) as when God knoweth, Approveth, Willeth, Loveth the Creature. And therefore some few will not call these Immanent acts, but onelyonly those whose object is God himself. But I suppose you mean the later, and then, 3. You might easily foresee, that though I had yielded all that you say of the Creatures acts, yet I would deny it of Gods: And blame me not for it, if I be lesse bold then you: and if I dare not imagine that there is in God either Motus or Terminus ad quem, or effect, or form acquired, when he Knows, Willeth, Approveth or Loveth the Creature. I am in hope that you believe no such thing your self, when the disputing itch is a little allayed. But however, could you possibly think it so obvious and easie a point as to need no proof? Why have we never a word here to that end, who need so many? I love not these Happy Disputers that can prove that by silence, which neither themselves nor any other can prove by Argument. If you will flie to your Analogy, and say [There are Termini actionum Immanentium in man: Therefore there are so in God] I should tell you that you may as wisely say [There are Accidents, Effects and Mutations in man: Therefore there are such in God.] At least I should importune you for the proof of your consequence. 4. But for the Terms of Immanent Actions you say [The said Sages say it] and [he that hath a minde to look it, may soon finde it in Suarez, and his Scapula Schibler] Truly, Sir, I have hitherto hinted your faults in Ironies: but I think it fit to ask you now (seeing it is not once or twice, nor a slip of your pen) how you dare put such things in print, and set so light by honest Truth-telling, and leave such things on record against your self? You that do tanto fastu referre us to Schibler as our Scapula, sure know his Doctrine: or at least, if you know it not, you should not take on you to know it, and say, we may soon finde that in him, which he so largely and purposely disputes against. He saith indeed, that some Immanent acts have terms, as Syllogizing: but that cannot be your meaning: for you well know it will do nothing to inferre your Conclusion: But doth not Schibler (l. 2. c. 10. Tit. 3. art. 3. punct. 1, 2.) largely dispute it, that many Immanent acts have no terms, no not Vision or Intellection! and answer the Objections against him? and conclude that Acti… ut sic non dicit respectum ad terminum? And if Intellection have no Term, then Decree, and the rest that we were mentioning in the beginning, can have none in agente. 5. Nay what a great part of the great Philosophers and School-Divines do deny, that Immanent acts are true acts? Scotus takes them to be qualities, and not in the predicament of Action. Soncinus, Ferrariensis (and saith Schibler Thomistae frequenter ita docent) deny them to be true acts. And if so, then sure they have not the terminos of true acts.
And I before told you at the beginning of your Discourse, that we do not all agree with you in your Description of an Immanent act, if you mean that it is such as is not only negatively, but Positively terminated in the Agent, as your words import: You may see Schibler denying it (when you shall condescend to look it in him) in Met. l. 2. c. 10. Tit. 3. n. 54. & Tit. 5. art. 1. n. 64. But let this be how it will in man, I do very confidently deny that there is any such act in God, either of Knowledge or Will, as is either in the predicament of Action, or hath any Terminus in himself, further then as himself is the object of any act. And therefore you should first prove, that such Acts are in God at all, before you dispute whether they may be in him de novo.
§. 17.
Mr. K. COnsider we what follows: [Whether all such Immanent acts are any more eternal then transient acts, is much questioned] saith Mr. Baxter. By whom I pray? A clear difference between them as between heaven and earth▪ transient acts as I told you but now, being in the Patient, Immanent in the Agent.