A26883:357
Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who,…Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who,…
Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,
London: printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
116. But their next doubt is greater, Whether the Creatures have from eternity an esse intelligibile & cognitum distinct from Gods essence? What the esse Cognitum is, whether it be ens real or rationis or quid medium? Scotus is the Author of this notion of esse cognitum as an esse formale & proprium quod creatura habet distinctum ab esse suae Causa; in quo in Divino intellectu creaturae ipsae per intellectionem producuntur; e. g. Lapid•m in esse cognito producit, sicut intellectus noster secundas intentitiones ⟨p. 18⟩facit, & ita rebus ipsis esse cognitum tribuit: nam sicut lapis visus per visionem habet esse visum, ita lapis cognitus per cognitionem esse cognitum habet—sed ut primum ejus esse, per quod esse formale habent—Imo esse rerum Possibile in esse cognito fundatur. Who can read such 1presumptuous assertions of the unknown mode of Divine Intellection without dread? And what a dance and show is here made of mere words, while a Creature that is no Creature, is said to have an esse which is no esse (of them) and so confessed? For (though Cajetan and others mistook him,) Scotus confesseth that this esse congnitum non est ens reale, nec medium 2inter ens reale & rationis, sed est ens rationis purum, & omnino nihil, contra ens reale distinctum, ita, quod nullatenus aliquid realit at is habet. And is not here then a presumptuous play with words? Scotus thus explaineth it. If Caesar were annihilated, and the statue of him remained, 3Caesar would have an Esse repraesentatum in the statue, which is neither an esse essentiae vel existentiae total or partial. And saith Rada, Ex his manifeste colligitur esse cognitum Creaturae in Deo secundum Scotum esse 4omnino nihil, prout nihil opponitur enti reali sive essentiae sive existentiae,—& non magis esse nihil Chimaeram quam hominem in esse cognito, quia utrique inest negatio totius entis. And indeed the esse repraesentatum Caesaris is nothing but the modus statuae, which per modum signi is apt to bring the shape of Caesar to the beholders imagination. And 1. Can they prove any such Modifications of God? 2. And if they can, should they so abuse words as to call that modus Intellectus Divini, an esse primum formale creaturae distinct from God?