Part 24 (1/2)
That whereby the Doctor either was deceived, or would deceive, appeareth to be this: That he taketh everything which agreeth to an individual thing to agree to it _quo ad individuum_, as if to speak of Peter _quatenus est h.o.m.o_, and to speak of him _quatenus est individuum signatum_, or _res singularis sub specie hominis_, were all one thing. Even so, to say of my individual action of hearing the word, that it is necessary because of the commandment of G.o.d (and in that respect remunerable), is not to speak of it _quo ad individuum_, but as the specifical nature of that action of hearing the word (which G.o.d hath commanded) is found in it; for if we speak of this individual action, _quo ad individuum_, we cannot consider it otherwise than _respectu adjecti modi_, because, in moral actions, _modus adjectus_ is _principium individuationis_, and nothing else doth individualise a moral action.
_Sect._ 4. Thus shall my position stand good, namely, that those individual actions which the Doctor calleth necessary, because their species is commanded of G.o.d, and those individual actions which he calleth indifferent, because their _species_ is not commanded, both being considered _quo ad individuum_, the former hath no other remunerable good in them than the latter, and the whole remunerable good which is in either of them standeth only _in objecto modo_; which being so, it is all one when we speak of any individual moral action _quo ad individuum_, whether we say that it is good, or that it is remunerable and laudable, both are one. For, as is well said by Aquinas,(1177) _Necessarium est omnem actum hominis, ut bonum vel malum, culpabilis vel laudabilis rationem habere_.
And again: _Nihil enim est aliud laudari vel culpari, quam imputari alicui malitiam vel bonitatem sui actus_; wherefore that distinction of a twofold goodness, _causans_ and _concomitans_, which the Doctor hath given us, hath no use in this question, because every action is laudable and remunerable which is morally good, whether it be necessary or not. Now moral goodness, saith Scalliger,(1178) _est perfectio actus c.u.m recta ratione_. Human moral actions are called good or evil, _in ordine ad rationem, quae est proprium principium humanorum actuum_, saith Aquinas,(1179) thereupon inferring that _illis mores dic.u.n.tur boni, qui rationi congruunt; mali autem, qui a ratione discordant_. Dr Forbesse doth therefore pervert the question whilst he saith,(1180) _in hac c.u.m fratribus quaestione, hoc bonum est quod necessarium_. Nay, those actions we call morally good which are agreeable to right reason, whether they be necessary or not. Since, then, those actions are laudable and remunerable which are morally good, and those are morally good which are agreeable to right reason, it followeth, that forasmuch as those actions which the Doctor calleth indifferent, are agreeable to right reason, they are, therefore, not only morally good, but also laudable and remunerable, and so not indifferent. Yea, those actions which he calleth necessary, being considered _quo ad individuum_, are no otherwise laudable and remunerable than those which he calleth indifferent, being considered in like manner _quo ad individuum_, as hath been showed.
_Sect._ 5. And besides all this, we have somewhat more to say of the Doctor's speculation about the nature of things indifferent.
For, 1. The Doctor maketh that which is indifferent to be opponed to that which is necessary, and yet he maketh both these to be morally good. Now albeit in natural things one good is opponed to another good, as that which is hot to that which is cold, yet _bonum bona non contrariatur in moralibus_.(1181) The reason of the difference is, because _bonitas physica_, or _relativa est congruentia naturae quaedem_, saith Scalliger;(1182) and because two natures may be contrary one to another, therefore the good which is congruous to the one may be contrary to the good which is congruous to the other; but _bonum virtutis_, saith Aquinas(1183) _non accipitur nisi per convenientiam ad aliquid unum, scilicet rationem_; so that it is impossible for one moral good to be opponed to another.
2. Since divines take a thing indifferent to be _medium inter bonum et malum morale_; and since (as the very notation of the word showeth) it is such a means as cometh not nearer to the one extreme than to the other, but is alike distant from both, how comes it that the Doctor so far departeth both from the tenet of divines and from the notation of the word, as to call some such actions indifferent as have a moral remunerable goodness, and yet not evil in them? or where learned he such a dialect as giveth to some good things the name of the things indifferent?
3. Why doth he also waver from himself; for he citeth(1184) out of the Helvetic Confessor Jerome's definition of a thing indifferent, and approveth it. _Indifferens_, saith he, _illud est quod nec bonum nec malum est, ut sive feceris sive non feceris, nec just.i.tiam habeas nec injust.i.tiam._ Behold the goodness which is excluded from the nature of a thing indifferent is not only necessity but righteousness also, yet hath the Doctor excluded only the good of necessity from things indifferent, making the other good of righteousness to stand with them; for things which are done in faith, and done for the right end (such as he acknowledgeth these things to be which he calleth indifferent), have righteousness in them, as all men know.
CHAPTER III.
WHETHER THERE BE ANYTHING INDIFFERENT IN ACTU EXERCITO.
_Sect._ 1. For our better light in this question I will premit these considerations, 1. When we measure the goodness or the badness of a human action, we must not only measure it by the object and the end, but by all the circ.u.mstances which accompany it. Fed. Morellus,(1185) upon those words of Seneca, _Refert quid, cui, quando, quare, ubi,_ &c., saith, that without those circ.u.mstances of things, persons, times, places, _facti ratio non constat_. Circ.u.mstances sometimes _const.i.tuunt rerum earum quae aguntur speciem_, say our divines,(1186) meaning that circ.u.mstances do make an action good or bad. _Humani actus_, say the schoolmen,(1187) _non solum ex objectis, verum ex circ.u.mstantiis boni vel mali esse dic.u.n.tur_.
It is not every man's part, saith one of our opposites,(1188) to judge _de circ.u.mstantia, quae reddit actionem vel bonam vel malam_. ”Some circ.u.mstances, saith another of them,(1189) are intrinsical and essential to actions, and specially making up their nature.” The princ.i.p.al circ.u.mstances which here we speak of, are comprehended in this versicle:-
Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur quomodo, quando.
The first circ.u.mstance which maketh an action good or bad is _quis_, which designeth the person: If a magistrate put to death a malefactor, the action is good; but if a private person put him to death, it is evil.
The second is _quid_, which noteth the quality or condition of the object: If a man take _sua_, the action is good; if _aliena_, it is evil.
The third is _ubi_: If men banquet in their own houses, the action is good; if in the church, it is evil.
The fourth is _quibus auxiliis_: If men seek health by lawful means, the action is good; if by the devil, or his instruments, it is evil.
The fifth is _cur_: If I rebuke my brother for his fault, out of my love to him, and desire to reclaim him, the action is good; if out of hatred and spleen, the action is evil.
The sixth is _quomodo_: For he who doth the work of the Lord carefully doth well; but he who doth it negligently doth evil.
The seventh is _quando_: To do servile work upon the six days of labour, is good; but to do it upon the Lord's Sabbath, is evil.
2. There is another consideration which followeth upon the former; and it is this: The goodness or badness of a human action may be considered two ways, viz., either _in actu signato_, and _quo ad speciem_; or _in actu exercito_, and _quo ad individuum_; for an action is said to be specificated by its object, and individuated by its circ.u.mstances; so that, when an action is good or evil in respect of the object of it, then it is called good or evil _quo ad speciem_: when it is good or evil in respect of the circ.u.mstances of it, then it is said to be good or evil _quo ad individuum_.
3. Human actions, whether considered _quo ad speciem_, or _quo ad individuum_, are either such as proceed from the deliberation of reason, or from bare imagination only. To this latter kind we refer such actions as are done through incogitancy, while the mind is taken up with other thoughts; for example, to scratch the head, to handle the beard, to move the foot, &c.; which sort of things proceed only from a certain stirring or fleeting of the imagination.
4. Let it be remembered, that those things we call morally good, which agree to right reason; those morally evil which disagree from right reason; and those indifferent which include nothing belonging to the order of reason, and so are neither consonant unto nor dissonant from the same.
5. When we speak of the indifferency of an individual action, it may be conceived two ways: either _absolute et sine respectu ad aliud_; or _comparate et c.u.m respectu ad aliud_. In the free-will offerings, if so be a man offered according as G.o.d had blessed and prospered his estate, it was indifferent to offer either a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat; but if he chose to offer any of them, his action of offering could not be indifferent, but either good or evil. When we speak of the indifferency of an action _comparate_, the sense is only this, that it is neither better nor worse than another action, and that there is no reason to make us choose to do it more than another thing; but when we speak of the indifferency of an action considered absolutely and by itself, the simple meaning is, whether it be either good or evil, and whether the doing of the same must needs be either sin or evil doing.
6. Every thing which is indifferent in the nature of it, is not by and by indifferent in the use of it. But the use of a thing indifferent ought evermore to be either chosen or refused, followed or forsaken, according to these three rules delivered to us in G.o.d's word: 1. The rule of piety; 2. The rule of charity; 3. The rule of purity.
The first of these rules we find, 1 Cor. x. 31, ”Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of G.o.d;” and Rom.
xiv. 7, 8, ”For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:” where the Apostle, as Calvin noteth,(1190) reasoneth from the whole to the part. Our whole life, and, by consequence, all the particular actions of it, ought to be referred to G.o.d's glory, and ordered according to his will. Again, Col. iii. 17, ”And whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In the expounding of which words Dr Davenant saith well, that _Etiam ille actiones quae sunt sua natura adiaphorae, debent tamen a Christianis fieri in nomine Christi, hoc est, juxta voluntatem Christi, et ad gloriam Christi_.