ABSTRACT
This author [i.e. Berkeley] takes occasion from hence to say, That it was indeed a current opinion in the schools, that even being or existence itself, should be attributed analogicaly to God and the creatures. 1 But surely not according to His singular notion of analogy between things the very same in kind, and differing only in degree; so that a lower degree of existence should be analogous to a higher degree. No; but as he himself is obliged to own, That they supposed not God to exist in the same sence with created beings; not that he exists less realy and truly than they; and he adds less properly and formaly than they. 2 But to exist properly and formaly is a phrase of his own here, and not of the Schoolmen; who hold that tho’ God doth exist realy and truly, yet the term existence is not to be applyed to him in the same proper and formal sence in which it is applyed to man. The ratio formalis of any thing in the sence of the schools is, what is so peculiarly essential to it as such, that thereby only it becomes what it is, and different from all other kinds of things whatsoever: and accordingly when a word is applyed to any thing so as to include and signify that intrinsic, peculiar, distinguishing essence or property of it; it is said to be applyed in a formal sence, and in its strict and literal propriety. Thus it is they say existence is applyed to God in a sence actualy true and real, but not formaly and properly and literaly as it is applyed to man; of whose existence and the manner of it we have a direct and immediate conception. This is what our author should have confuted; and not have blended his absurd notion together with it in one sentence, by slipping into it two words of his own utterly destructive of the Schoolmen’s real meaning. Till he does confute it, it must be acurrent opinion among all men. For surely we are as far from any direct idea or conception of the true divine existence, as we are of the divine substance; or at least as we are of those real intrinsic divine attributes which exist: and consequently the manner of God’s existence, than by analogy with our own and that of other men whereof we have an immediate perception and consciousness; nor any other way of expressing it than by a word borrowed from thence. And tho’ nothing is more true than that God doth not exist in the same sence with created beings; or that he hath not the same kind or manner of existence, but a kind and manner infinitely different from them all; yet we can affirm that God is or exists, with as much truth and reality as that we our selves exist.
