From Reformation to Reformation

ε. Finally, the Attributes are distinguished into Communicable and Incommunicable. Thus we speak improperly, and this distinction is able easily to be drawn unto harmful sense: but if you understand Communicability very broadly of a certain very obscure similitude, even certain things that are commonly called Incommunicable are able to be called Communicable: thus the Most Illustrious WITTICH in his Theologia Pacifica, § 194. But we ourselves do not think that this distinctio

Descartes δ. Into Internal and External, which division was accommodated to the Philosophy of Descartes, according to which the whole nature of God is mere Thought, to the exclusion, as we were hearing Poiret say above, § 16, of all other things that are able to be conceived of besides thought. From this principium it is deduced that there are only two internal Attributes of God, Intellect and Will, because there are only two general modes of thought, perception or the operat

γ. Into Absolute and Relative, which imply a Relation to the creatures with Himself, and are founded in Absolutes. Thus an Absolute Attribute of God is Goodness, but a Relative Attribute is Mercy, which pertains to the Goodness of God, but additionally involves a regard to a miserable creature. Immensity is an Absolute Attribute, but Omnipresence is Relative, because it indicates a relation to created things, in all which it asserts the presence of God. Vindictive Justice is

β. Into Negative and Positive: thus Infinity, Immensity, Independence, Invisibility, etc., are called Negative: Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, etc., are called Positive. We form a conception of the Negative Attributes by way of Negation; of the Positive Attributes by way of Eminence. But the Negative Attributes for the most part are so called in relation, not to the very Attributes of God, but to the Mode of our Conception and the Names by which they are expressed; while Infinity

The Attributes of God are divided in various ways: α. Into Proper and Metaphorical. Unto the Metaphorical Attributes human Affections ought to be referred; it will be demonstrate below in § 26 that such do not properly apply to God. Unto the Metaphorical Attributes are also referred other metaphors from created things, under which God comes, when He is called a Rock, a roaring Lion, a consuming Fire. But the Proper Attributes are expressed concerning God in a proper sense, wh

But, that thus God in a manner agreeing with Himself possesses an Infinity of Perfections, and is not merely called and conceived of by us as Infinite according to our impotence, while actually He is not such in Himself, as Hobbes maintains, see COCQUIUS’ Anatomen Hobbesianismi, locus VI, chapter XII, page 125; our AUTHOR proves, α. From the enumeration of the individual Perfections made in the Scripture; β. And from the exclusion of all Imperfections. γ. Especially from the

[Of all the divine Attributes or Perfections there is a certain Complex/ Inclusion in Infinity, as it is stated negatively, or with Consummate Perfection, as it is stated positively:] Indeed, this is not so much to be called an Attribute, as rather a certain Complex of all the Attributes, whereby as a brief compendium, as it were, but a conception less distinct and obscure enough, our mind strives to apprehend whatever comes to be understood concerning God. Now, although Infi

After the Nature of God, His Attributes ought to be regarded, so called because they are attributed by us to God: which same things are called Perfections, since they not only remove any Imperfection from God, but also denote in Him positive and real predicates; even if often, from the poverty of our conceptions and vocabulary, they be represented by a negative notion, expressed by a negative word. Those divine Perfections are also pure perfections, which have no mixture of t

γ. The Faculty of Power operative externally is added, which independently, and with all Passive Power excluded, is applicable to God. That is, this is the Perfection of the Living God, whereby out of the abundance of His Omnisufficiency it belongs to Him with perfect ease externally to ordain whatever involves no contradiction. From this Perfection God has not only the Name אֵל/El from its more common derivation, see § 5,[1] but also אֲבִ֖יר יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל, the Mighty One of Is

β. The next Spiritual Faculty of the divine Essence is Will, or that Perfection of the Living God whereby in a most perfect manner He is pleased with Himself in Himself, and with all things that are not opposite to Him. Now, Will is not able to be denied to God, because He is Spirit, neither is it separated from Intellect in a Rational Being. Indeed, it is easily the first Perfection among all, to be the lord of their own actions through supreme αὐτεξουσίαν, free will, withou

3. α. The first Spiritual Faculty, with which God, as a Living Spiritual Substance, is furnished, is Intellect, which is expressly attributed to God in Sacred Scripture, Psalm 139:2; 147:5; and which is supposed in Knowledge, in such a way that Intellect better expresses the power of understanding, Knowledge the exercise of understanding; while the Eyes, Ears, and Nostrils ascribed to God are often emblems of of this Faculty of Intellect also. Neither is the first cause to be

2. God is Living Substance, just as Life is attributed to God everywhere in the Sacred Scriptures, both by Himself, John 5:26, and by others, Psalm 84:2; Matthew 16:16, so also He is distinguished from dead Idols, Jeremiah 10:10, 11; Acts 14:14, 15. Neither is rational Life able to be denied to the very Father of rationally living Spirits. The fount and origin of all Life is not able to be without Life. Indeed, the inanimate things themselves, by their singular craftsmanship

1. We saw above in § 13, that it is better to call God a Spirit than a Substance, when it is asked, What is God with respect to Essence or Nature? But when it is now further asked, what is that Spirit? what then do we assign to God when we pronounce Him to be Spirit? Our AUTHOR responds, that He is a Living Substance, furnished with the faculties of Intellect, Will, and Power. Now, from those things that we observed on § 13, it is proven that God is not to be referred to the

What things occur at this point are without difficulty. The Papists here imitate the Jacobites, so called after one Jacob, a Syrian, an obscure man, who lived with Anastasius ruling during the Sixth Century,[1] and gave his name to the Jacobites in Syria and in the East constituting a peculiar family of Eutychians[2] thereafter. Now, concerning these Jacobites NICEPHORUS[3] has noted in addition, Historia Ecclesiastica, book XVIII, chapter LIII, column 1165, as absurd in the

They are Practical Anthropomorphites, whoever think that the Essence of God is able to be represented by Images: or even represent God to themselves in prayer in a corporeal form, like a King sitting upon a throne in the heavens. The Objections of the Anthropomorphites, enumerated by our AUTHOR, are trifling: 1. That human Members are attributed to God. I respond that this is done ἀνθρωπομορφῶς/anthropomorphically, but it is to be explained θεοπρεπῶς, in a manner suitable for

Spinoza DITTON,[1] in his Dissertatione de Materia non cogitante, chapter XIII, pages 592, 593, etc., observes against Spinoza, that these truths are indubitable, 1. That from all eternity some consummately necessary Being has existed, subsisting of itself, independent, and infinitely perfect. 2. That the same Being is infinite, intelligent, prudent, and wise. From these principles he derives the following Conclusions. If that necessary Being be infinite, and essentially inte

Baruch Spinoza As far as Spinoza is concerned, the Most Eminent NIEUWENTYT observes, Gronden van Zherheid, part IV, chapter III, pages 250-255, that he only puts in his Definition, what he understands by God, not what He actually is, writing in his Ethics, part I, Definition VI, “By God I understand a Being absolutely infinite, that is, substance consisting in infinite attributes, each one of which express eternal and infinite essence:” and at the same time the Most Eminent M

Among the more recent Anthropomorphites, our AUTHOR names theoretically Vorstius, who in his notis on Disputation III de Deo, pages 199-203, thinks that in the future age, when we shall no longer be flesh and blood, but ἰσάγγελοι, angel-like,[1] and spiritual, we are going to see God; which opinion he sets over against that of others, who speak here of the vision of the mind only, not of the eyes, or of an internal, not external, and true contemplation. And he believes that t

The Anthropomorphites state the contrary, called Anthropomorphites after their error, because the attribute to the highest God μορφὴν ἀνθρώπου, the form of a man; of which sort were the Ancient Audian Monks, followers of Audius or Audæus; they lived in the fourth Century, originating in Mesopotamia.[1] AUGUSTINE, in his de Hæresibus, chapter L, relates concerning them: “Those that they called Audians (and Epiphanius maintains that they appeared to be schismatics, not heretics

The Rationale of Scripture is added, with an argument sought from the highest Perfection of God, which by no means admits corporeal Extension; but pronounces God to be without all matter. For, since all matter is extended, and every extended thing has parts, is composite, divisible, liable to change, which is not able to conceive motion unless impelled by another, nor to restrain motion, but is necessarily moved according to the manner of the external impulse; Body and matte