he see the inuention it is a fallace and a preposterous course So argumentū is artificiale or inartificiale they breake this rule that will giue testimony of a thing whose artificiall arguments they haue not seene so do the Papists in their implicite faith when they beleeue as the Church beleeues not knowing what the Church beleeueth So schollers that take any thing that their authors deliuer them without any examination at all of the things they reade Kickerman saith an inartificiall argument may be receiued before an artificiall I doe not deny it but yet you must examine it afterward Gods testimonies onely are vndenyable because he cannot lye but no mans Artificiale est primum aut ortum We are farther to looke at this glue whereby a thing is put to another thing in artificio rei it is there firstly or secondly this affection or going to the act is there at the first hand or at the second hand now it is the same still but is looked at as it is originally or as it is arising from the first as to make vp me there goes a soule and a body and of the formes of the foure elements is the forme of my body made and of their matter the matter of my bodie made now the elements are firstly there as making my body and secondly my body is in me as a part in me so a man is first consisting of body and soule and then is animall now this wisedome of God is wonderfull to consider how he makes things first of causes effects c and then ranketh them vnder a generall head And if we goe to the Creation we shall see them euidently first he made a first matter then the first formes and then mists that had their complements and did differ one from another then they might be compared together then they had names and were ranked vnder generall heads as a part to a whole c. and then they might be defined and their limits shewed how farre they reach for here our Author leads vs to see euery thing there and to see how it is there the reason of this distribution we shall see in euery thing whatsoeuer as in an inke-horne there must be the matter of it then it selfe and it must haue his adiuncts c. and then will it hold your inke then when it is this it is not a tree or a stone though it may be compared and be equall or vnequall like or vnlike so that first we see what is in it firstly then we may call it round deepe made of horne then range it vnder a head then lay it out in it limits and then giue testimony of it Primum quod est suae originis This definition doth somewhat stick in my teeth before it come out for it is a far fetched trope and onely one is suae originis namely God but he meanes this clamminesse or glue that is suae originis is first there the ortum is not as the son hath the nature of his father but is another thing then his father but first argumentum est quod affectum est ad arguendum then artificiale est affectum ex sese so primum is argumentum artificiale primitus so that we must look at the argument as it doth argue not as it is suae originis but quod originaliter arguit he meanes that is there first as we shall see by the nature of the thing as homo iustus here iustitia is firstly in homine as an adiunct for he must first haue that vertue before he can be denominated iustus then secondly it is in him as he is denominated from it so a chest is made of wood here is the cause and effect and this is firstly then from hence I may say a woodden chest and this is secondly arising from the first Quod est suae originis As if he should haue said that hath this affection to argue ex se primitus now then we may goe wonderfull deep if we will goe by these degrees what may we not see if we would make a breefe Argumentum est quod ad aliquid arguendum affectum est artificiale ex se primum primitus The fallacians are many as they that thinke they are coniugates that are in name as he hath vertue ergo he is studiosus so homo dormit quia somnit here is nothing but causes and effects and so synonimies for coniugata are nomina so againe when orta are taken for prima or taught before aut contra so do the common Logicians in the predicables when they teach genus species differentia proprium accidens First see the orta containe the prima whence they arise symbolicè as it were in a cognizance Here we learne this we must first looke at the affection of an argument then we must be ex se then primitus now ortum containes the same nature that primum doth and some say the effect ariseth from the causes and the subiect and adiunct from the effect But doth the effect argue with the affection of causa it doth not or doth the subiect or adiunct argue with the affection of an effect No. Estque simplex aut comparatum We haue heard what the end of Logick is and all shoots at this marke to reason well that is that we may handle our reason well now that we may doe thus we must haue inuention first afterward iudgement Inuention teacheth vs to finde out simples Iudgement teacheth vs how to lay them together we may compare inuention or arguments to the hookes and nayles in a thing iudgement to the fastning of them together Now inuention beholds arguments Argumentum in Logick is a concrete as the Schools call it signifying the thing together with the affection that is in it to argue another thing as a Taylor is a Taylor quatenus he hath that affection in him to make a garment so that inuention intends immediately the affection and mediately the thing for ens quatenus ens is generall to ars quatenus ars but ens quatenus it is affected ad arguendum so it belongs to Logicke alone and thus we goe by degrees for the Lord doth not let vs see any thing immediately now the very name inuention tells vs what we must doe namely seeke out it tells vs the Lord hath hid things secret in nature and we must labour for the simples and so finde them now we seeke argumentum which we heard to be of two sorts artificiale or inartificiale artificiale is that which is in artificio rei whereas the inartificiale doth but cary to vs what other men haue seene by the artificialls and because none can testifie of a thing before he haue seen it himselfe ergo artificiale is before inartificiale and also because he that seeth inartificialiter can but testifie so farre forth as he sees the thing which is not at all ergo they that giue testimony of that thing whose artificiall arguments they haue not seene are
reason quite through as we had in Dialectica So that this name deliuers also to vs very fitly the very soule of Logicke for as in mans body there is a soule or a forme per quam res est id quod est à caeteris rebus distinguitur so there is of this art or rather of the subiect of it reason and as in other things the Lord hath wrought so cunningly that wee cannot see their forms but onely the next acts to the formes so here our author desireth to giue to vs the forme of reason which because he cannot do therfore he deliuers it by the finall cause the next act to the forme so that when he saith dialectica est ars bene disserendi he meanes it is such an art that hath such a forme that doth bene disserere therefore I conclude thus If this be the happinesse the act and foule of reason then it is defined fitly Ars bene disserendi at ergo Bene. Here it is an aduerbe for Grammar here doth declare some controuersie and an aduerbe is a part of speech ioyned to the verbe to shew his signification therefore bene is here added to make perfect the act of this disserere ergo bene disserere is not two things but one thing this is a cōmendation in defining arts to break the forms of them as little as we can because the forme is but one argument and if wee put two or more words into the forme wee breake it into so many peeces Now for the reason of bene in a Art this it is Art is the rule of the frame of Ens à primo so Logicke is the rule of reason as it is Gods creature ergo as it is good ergo bene is here put in well to shew the Act of the goodnesse of this reason Now since the fall of man his reason is weakned and darkned and so there is a bona ratio and a mala ratio though mala ratio is not ratio indeed but the errour of ratio and this act is to guide reason as it doth bene disserere not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disserere ergo it is well put in to seuer them For if Dialectica be ars rationis bene agentis then it is ars bene disserendi onely and not malè disserendi at ergo So Grammar is the Art onely bene loquendi though it discrie malèe loqui now here among the Logicians are many questions and controuersies against our Author As some except against the name dialectica and makes it more speciall then here Ramus takes it and they distribute reason into three parts Dialectica Sophistica and Apodictica which was the distribution of the Aristotelians not of Aristotle himselfe but Simplicius that chiefe fellow was the first man that brought it vp and afterward it was generally receiued in Schooles from him By Dialectica they vnderstand al probable reason and probality in Schooles is taken in two significations sometime it is taken for a contingent true axiome ergo it belongs to one little particle of the doctrine of axioma Sometimes it is taken for axioma dubium or quaestio and then it belongs to the doctrine of Syllogismes so that we shall find probabilitie in these two places but to make Dialectica so special is to make a Camel go through the eie of a needle is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more generall then so doth it not goe though all iudgement yea and inuention too Againe for Apodictica which is de necessarijs that belongs to a necessary axiome for no syllogismes are are necessary but the axiomes which they consist of but the syllogisticall iudgement is the same both of necessary and contingent axiomes and a syllogisme of contingent propositions is necessary as well as that which is of necessary axiomes Now for Sophistica that is shut out for if I see the truth what need I looke farther and wheras they alleadge that it is of the apparencie of truth what care I for that yet it is counterfeit so that they would haue al Logick to consist in a necessary and a contingent axiome for no syllogismes are so and that is the reason that Ramus denies that demonstration for their necessary that they speake of is in axiom not in syllogisme Againe Sophistica is generall to all arts and not speciall to Logick for all arts haue their errors Now the Schooles distribute Logicke into Dialectica Grammatica and Rhetorica which sauours of a notorious equiuocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed signifies ratio and oratio but this is onely a distributing of the name not of the thing as if they should say Logica signifies ratio or speech many also there are that finde fault with Ramus for the reason of this name some say it come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 colloquor but that is not because of their collocutio but because of their reasoning in their speech together but again what hath Logick to doe with words and to name Logick from speech hath no reason at all for it may be without it There is also a great question whether Dialectica be Ars as Scaliger will haue it because saith hee opus post se reliquit or if it be facultas as Craelius holds or whether it bee scientia as others say These are bables we haue heard that the wisedome of God is Ars in the thing it is called scientia by a metonimy of the adiunct for the subiect which is properly the iudgement of a rule of art so that here is a double trope first a metonimy of the adiunct for the subiect the knowledge of the art for the art it selfe then a synecdoche of the part for the whole the rule for the whole art for facultas that is the subiect ratio ergo Craelius speaks by metonimy of the subiect for the adiunct for the faculty is reason it self so that dialectica est ars as for their distribution in Schooles that ars doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scientia onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contemplare it is a bable wee see scientia is the knowledge of the art and ars is rei as Arithmetick is of number Geometrie of magnitude c. and Logicke of reason so that the scientia or Theorie of art is fallacia accidentis to take it for the art it selfe and is as if wee should say a painted man is a true man ergo when we say a man is a good Logician we meane a man hath that knowledge of reason and so for other arts so that our knowledge of an art is no more of the essence of it then my knowledge of a man is of the essence of the man Againe when I say the knowledge of an art I say two things knowledge and art which are subiect and adiunct ergo knowledge is but accidentall to the art For bene disserendi there are many aduersaries and one grand enemie some say it is rather ars bene vtendi ratione but
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an adiunct to art and it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not artis as for example we cannot say the Merchant or Mariner vseth the shipwrights art but his work but this is the chiefe absurdity that it breaks the forme into peeces Kickerman cries out against Ramus for this definition and sayes it is a trope ergo ought not to bee in art he forgets his rules for Rhetorick is a generall art ergo it may be euerie where but saith he is it not better to teach with proper words then with tropicall they are fit for simple men not for iudicious I will confesse it and Ramus too for Grammar is before Rhetoricke ergo should be preferred yet Tropes may bee as plaine and as significant as other words sometimes but I make no doubt but that disserere is euer vsed in other sense then this Logical signification but if it bee let him giue me a better word but he cannot because he doth not but sayes logica est ars dirigendi mentem in cognitione rerum and so breakes all in peeces Againe what doth dirigere here It belongs to art in generall for dirigere is as large as regere and regere as regula and regula as praeceptum so that here he cannot bee content to horse me vp to art in generall for the genus onely but for the forme too Againe for mens he cannot abide Tropes but what meanes he by mens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly the diuine part of the soule of man and sometimes it is taken for the faculties of the soule but here he must take it for reason ergo here are two Tropes first a metonimy of the subiect for the adiunct the faculties for the soule it selfe Secondly a synecdoche of the part for the whole reason for the soule For cognitio it comes of con and notio to see things laid together and it is the iudgement of an axiome and belongs to it which is but a little particle of Logick Lastly for res that is as generall as ens which is as generall as ars ergo thus he hoists me vp and downe first to ars in generall then downe againe to naturall Philosophy for mens belongs thither then to one peece of Logick then againe vp to ars and thus much for the explanation of the rule the practise of it stands in this God hath made all things for man therefore he must haue an eye to see them and all of them must be lyable to it ergo this rule tels vs first if we would looke at any thing we must take it with vs for it is ars bene disserendi and so we shall see it so that if wee would doe anie thing with reason this puls vs by the eare and sayes it is the art to reason well so that here wee may see the commendation of this art not onely in respect of the generall vse of it but in that it teacheth vs how to worke by it as God hath done before vs so that it first teacheth vs Gods will and pleasure in things and then what he would haue vs to doe in the managing and gouerning of them and here we may see that all things at the first were made for one man Eodemque sensu Logica dicta est We haue heard what Dialectica is and haue seene the reason of euery word therein Now Ramus doth commorari vpon this rule and tells vs that eodem sensu Logica dicta est the reason of it is because here he tells vs of a controuersie betwixt him and Aristotle which I preuented before when I spake of their distribution of Logicke into Dialectica Apodictica and Sophistica Now Ramus onely sets downe the rule according to truth for thus it stands if Dialectica deliuers the Art of reason then Logicke and it are all one but this is the Art that appertaines to reason and that is but one ergo so then if Logica signifie the same that Dialectica doth therefore there is the same definition of them both for they are one in indiuiduo as the Schooles speake ergo in forme ergo but two names signifiyng the same thing Dicta est Meaning that that name of Aristoles is the same with that Socrates gaue and whilst Plato doth interpret Logica to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Aristotle saith it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they grant it to be the same with Dialectica and for the distinction of Logicke into those three they must needes hold that those parts containe as much as the whole but they doe not by their owne confession so that this distribution was made by Simplicius which did not vnderstand Aristotle or at leastwise Logicke otherwise let them tell me any thing in Logicke that is not in Dialectica according to our authors definition of it For Ramus will not denie but Dialectica and Logica are taken specially in Aristotle as ratio is sometimes vsed for argumentum but that is by a Synecdoche for hee wanting speciall names calls things by generall words as an exhalation he calls a fume whereas a vapour is also a fume and often hee vseth it in his Politickes Eodemque sensu c. that is Logicke is so define ars bene disserendi euen as Dialectica is and whatsoeuer other conceits men haue had concerning Dialectica they are out of the way for if they will say there is a necessary a probable and a sophisticall argument as many doe speake that belongs to an axiome not to an argument and wheras they say syllogismus is necessarius that is Apodicticus contingens and sophisticus if wee looke at a necessary syllogisme in Barbara why there may bee a contingent syllogisme that is a syllogisme consisting of contingent axioms for so they meane nay I will make a false syllogisme in Barbara that shall be true and good as omnis homo est lapis omnis asinus est homo ergo omnis asinus est lapis and a demonstratiue syllogisme as omne animal rationale est visibile omnis homo est animal rationale ergo omnis homo est visibilis so that these lie not in the syllogisme for then a dialecticall syllogisme would not be an apodicticall or sophisticall aut contra but these lie in the axiome for why whatsoeuer is necessary is true and a contingent axiome doth pronunciare aliquid esse verum though it may bee false ergo whither truth belongs thither they belong now truth and falshood follow vpon affirmation and negation and they arise from an axiom neither doth a man say aliquid esse aut non esse when he meanes an argument alone till there be a disposition ergo those that make a distribution of syllogismes by their matter deceiue vs so that here we see it is true that our author tels vs that eodem sensu Logica dicta est CHAP. 2. Dialecticae partes duae sunt inuentio et dispositio NOw we come to the second rule hauing heard that
predominant in the mist so much more the neerer you shall come to see the forme ingenerated if wee speake of the formes of the elements they were extrinsice and were ingenerated in the matter againe if we shall speake of the soule of man this is extrinsice infused but the formes of other things are within and are educed out of the matter but there is nothing new in this for the matter is so too Ingeneratur True thus farre as the forme is not made but by composition of the elements when the formes are not made but in nature there is that misture or in Art that composition that there is a new forme as in a stone by the misture is made one forme arising from the formes of the foure elements by their action and passion So in artificiall things the forme is a compound forme made of the formes of the parts and because that thing is now that which it was not ergo this forme must needs be that now which it was not ergo ingeneratum and the whole worke of the efficient whilst he doth dolare or hew a thing is nothing but his preparing of it together with the rest of the matter to make a new thing Forma is diuersly ingenerated if it be by composition then it is composed if it be of simples then it is made by shauing or cutting it Now whilst he saith simul at once it may seem by this that the forme and effect are together he meanes not together in nature for the forme must bee before the effect because it constitutes the effect and the constituter is before the thing constituted therefore how are they simul he meanes forma simul ingenerat thus I suppose two goe together yet one of them goeth before the other here is a priority and simul too he that is before goeth first the other followeth yet both moue together and as two hands laid together doe moue together and yet one before the other so is it with the formall cause and effect the formall cause moues and the effect also but the effect followes it in euery step and the finall cause followes the forme as the shadow followes the body and the effect comes last againe this is a property ergo an adiunct ergo is after the subiect for the forme is an effect before it be a subiect so that the efficient doth as it were make the forme and the effect still followes as we may see in artificiall things so that so farre forth as the forme is ingenerated so far forth the effect is accomplished Anima rationalis est forma hominis c. Here our author doth commorari and stay vpon the doctrine of forma for it is so deepe and subtill as that it can hardly bee perceiued This example is not true because anima rationalis may subsist from the bodie now as there can be no matter without a forme so there can bee no forme without a matter therefore this example will not serue his turne yet he brings that hee could get many in Schooles haue stumbled at this and haue gone about to mend it but indeed they haue marred it Some say ratio belongs to Angels ergo it is not the proper forme of homo and therefore they haue added mortale and say homo is animal rationale mortale Now if they ioyne mortale to ratio it is not mortalis Againe animal ratione mortale doth detract from man vnlesse we speake of his bodie Et distinguitur a caeteris omnibus naturis That is not so for the Angels though they bee animae and so haue not animam rationalem yet they haue rationem againe doth not the body of man distinguish him from other things so I suppose we admit of the Pythagorians metam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A mans soule in a bird will not make it a man Geometricarum figurarum in triangulis quadrangulis sua forma est He brings such examples as hee could finde and those whereof greatest question might be made it hath beene a question among Logicians that this forma is peculiar to substances not accidents and hence haue made a distincti of forma to be substantialis or accidentalis but they are deceiued for Logicke is a generall Art and euery thing that is made hath causes ergo may be defined ergo hath matter and forme for otherwise wee could not haue a perfect definition in Grammar Rhetoricke and Arithmeticke or in any other Arts that haue accidents for their subiects ergo accidents behold a forme as well as an efficient ergo he saith in Geometry take a triangle it consists of three lines with three angles which by their vnition in their angles make vp one forme as well as one matter Phisicarum rerum coeli terrae arborum piscium sua forma est He doth commorari here long for two causes first in respect the forme is deepe and needes illustration Secondly to confute other Logicians that say accidents haue no formes vnde praecipua rerum vt natura est c. if it be causa per quam res est id quod est then it is praecipua rerum natura Nature properly is res nata that is that springeth principijs that is matter and forme so that the whole nature consisteth of them and this is the proper signification of it afterward it comes to signifie the principia themselues hence is materia and forma called naturae so that in naturall Philosophy when you read of nature they tell you commonly some tale of materia or forma then againe by a metonimie of the adiunct for the subiect it signifieth the qualities naturall in things all this shewes forma to be praecipua rei natura Praecipua first because it makes the thing to be id quod est so doth not the matter againe forma why it is principium actus from whence the qualities principally arise for as the Philosophers teach though not truly in euery point materia is principium passionis forma actionis and actio is better then passio ergo the forme more excellent then the matter but both matter and forme doe agere for they are causae yet the formes begin and the matter is but the sustentation of it and the formes act is the stronger by the matter not onely as it acts internally but when it acts vpon externall things by resistance by the way Now as it hath chiefe interest in esseficating the effect so it is praecipua rei natura so also there is of it praecipua rei explicatio si possit inueniri Si possit inueniri He saith it neither can be found out nor that it cannot be found out Si possit inueniri sure it is findable I proue it thus it is lyable to Logicke if it be obiected to the eye then the eye may see it it may but hardly be found because it doth not descry it selfe to the outward senses by qualities as bodies doe againe the forme in nature is so subtill
whom I defend then I may accuse him whom he defends Quod cùm fateantur satis magnam c. If vice make miserable shall not vertue make happy Contraria enim contrariorum sunt consequentia c. This rule holds not when it is genus but when it followes from it then it will be true as I cannot say the father is good ergo the sonne is euill because goodnesse and euilnesse doe not follow from fatherhood and sonnehood for consequentia is here as arising from contrarie causes or from causes in the thing or as adiuncts Dic quibus in terris eris mihi magnus Apollo c. This is a common argument among the common sort One propounds a riddle and the other not being able to answer propounds another and this also is common when one sayes giue me this and I will giue you that Paria vero ficta sunt illa c. Now we come to ficta paria As Zenophons wife would not rather haue her neighbours husband then her owne so she should not rather desire his garment or gold c. and as Zenophon would not rather haue his neighbours wife then his owne so hee should not rather desire his neighbours horse or ground rather then his owne and here we see the vse of the third propertie CAP. 19. De maioribus Imparia sunt quorum quantitas non est vna Impar est maius aut minus Maius est cuius quantitas excedit WE haue heard how things may be compared with things and this comparison was either in quantity or quality which quantity was a logicall quantity not a geometricall quantity for it was of things where Geometry cannot be considered Again this is generall to euery thing not speciall to Geometry and the reason hereof we heard to be because there are more things in nature then there are degrees in quantity it was parium or imparium Paria were payres matches and equalls and imparia are such as agree not in any one of these three but the aliquid here as it is greater to one so is it lesse to another Imparia therefore are such as are not paires but the one is greater then the other Quorum quantitas non est vna We haue heard concerning quantity that paria were quorum vna est quantitas imparia sunt quorum non est vna quantitas that is as parity was the quantity of paria so imparity is the quantity of imparia Non est vna Because the ones quantity is called maius and the others minus so that as paria had but one quantity so imparia haue two one maius and another minus Impar est maius aut minus Hauing shewed what imparia are here he distributeth them into maius and minus as if he should say imparitie is either in maiority or minority and here is all logicall quantity and they that will make a predicament of quantity should indeed bring in this quantity and not the table of Arithmeticke and Geometry the reason why this quantity is generall is because all things whatsoeuer are finite in essence ergo in quantity Maius goes before minus because it containeth in it the quantity of the minus and exceedeth it so that the maius giues light to the minus not contra Maius is so called because it is euermore considered in comparison of one thing to another and therefore is not called magnum aut paruum maximum aut minimum Maius est cuius quantitas excedit Here maiority is the quantity of maius and this maiority exceedeth because that the maius is actiue in comparison of the minus for the stronger acts vpon the weaker rather then contra Propriae notae sunt c. Our Author doth commorari vpon this doctrine because others haue taught them confusedly therefore to keepe vs in order that we may not be mistaken hee pleaseth to set downe these notes for our further helpe Tollitur è medio c. Verbosa simulatio prudentiae which is the third argument is argued à maiori domina illa sapientiae There is not onely contempt of the babbling Orator which is the aliquid but of the good Orator Hinc sumitur Logica quaedam gradatio c. That is as a modus belonging hither is that logicall gradation c. as the people and the Senate are compared the Senate and the publique garisons and they and the Generalls c. so that here is a climbing vp the maius in one respect being made the minus in another respect It is better to be the sonne of Thirsites and an Achilles then contra the maius is before the reason is this that that is of his progenitors is not his owne but that which hee hath of himselfe Aeneas perswades his fellowes to stay and beare these because they haue borne greater Thou openest thy fountaine to thy enemies giue vs leaue to open our little springs to our friends She gaue thee great thankes yea as big as great mountaines Now the maius is quam abs te esse datum Ficta vero maiora etiam plurimum valent As wee heard before generally that ficta comparata might argue vera so here ficta maiora may argue ficta minora If a Duke should loue her he could not keepe her much lesse canst thou If Iupiter should doe it I could not hope to doe it much lesse if Aeneas should bid me CAP. 20. De minoribus Minus est cuius quantitas exceditur MInus is a logicall quantity that may bee in euery thing as I haue said before of maius and minority is the quantity of minus ergo it is exceeded by the maius because the maius containes the minus and much more double treble c. Minus autem saepè indicatur c. As maiority hath beene abused by Authors so hath minority ergo he would helpe vs by notes lest we should be deceiued Saepe not alwaies as we shall heare afterward Nemo non modo Romae c. Rome is compared with euery corner of Italy and the argument is drawne à minore Catilin had sought out all the rascalls in Rome and all in euery corner of Italy which is the minus Catilin would faine haue beene Consull to trouble the State here Consul is the maius and exul the minus Ouid. 1. Reme amoris Here the body and soule are compared the body is minus the soule maius If thou wilt labour for the good of the body much more for the good of the soule Atque huius eiusdem speciei sunt hae formulae quae fiunt negatione parium Hither we referre those manner of speeches which are made by deniall of equalls Omnes ex omni aetate c. If all the Lawyers of the common wealth were here they are not comparable to Seruitius Sulpitius who is the maius Aliquando nota nulla est He was so farre from finishing his worke which is the maius that he had not laid so much as the foundation
and the parts here constitute the whole againe a whole the very name doth deny a distribution for if it be whole it is not distributed but the parts shew a whole ergo wee must apply distribution to the parts hence distributio ex causis is not when the cause is a whole but when the causes are parts hence a distributio ex integro is before a distributio ex genere because there the parts are effects Distributio ex causis is here the first inuention in that he saith ex causis the second inuention in that he saith distributio Againe there is the first inuention when he saith quando partes sunt causae the second inuention when hee saith quando partes sunt causae totius so that take the common effect and make it a whole the causes and make them parts and this is the second inuention Hîc distributio integri in sua membra praecipuè laudatur This now is a speciall modus of distributio ex causis there may be a distribution of the effect by the efficients by the materialls by the formalls and from the end but he doth not stay vpon them but presently comes to the distributio integri in membra because it is of greater vse and of more practise Hic That is in the distributio ex causis so that membra are parts but all parts are not membra and integrum is totum but euery totum is not integrum Praecipuè laudatur Why first because it is of so great vse secondly because it is more secret the other more familiar Integrum est totum cui partes sunt essentiales The integrum the entire as wee call it is totum that is quod continet partes ergo the membra must be contained of the integrum giuing thereunto both portion of matter and portion of forme hence nailes and hayres are not membra of a mans body because they giue not a portion of matter and forme to it Cui partes sunt essentiales So then if the members be essentiall to the whole they giue essence to it that is they afford causa now essentia stands principally in the matter and forme ergo he meanes these parts giue matter and forme to the whole Membrum est pars integri Therefore it is contained of the whole ergo giues essence but how giues it essence thus which few Logicians shew as for example in a mans body euery member hath his owne matter and forme and all the members together make vp a common matter and a common forme of the whole so that a man is made of a soule and a body then the soule is made of matter forme the body also is made of organicall parts and they giue matter and forme to it then the simular parts containe the matter and forme of the organicall and the simular parts are made of a portion of the matter and of the formes of the elements so that we may see the forme of mans body ariseth from a manifold comparison now the integrum is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc aliquid yet is it totum though it be alwayes singular Why is integrum before membrum seeing it giues essence to it Answer Integrum is made of the parts and is a totum ergo must goe before Againe it is here before in this new inuention because it doth here continere partes ergo is the agent againe when wee consider distributio because the whole doth distribute the parts are distributed ergo it is requisite that we first see the whole hence it is rather called distributio then inductio because it is more frequent to dispute from the whole to the parts then from the parts to the whole Now if integrum be cui partes sunt essentiales and membrum be pars integri then whatsoeuer is true of a part is true of the whole not contra because membrum is essentiale toto non contra And by this rule it stands that Christs sufferings are to be giuen to him as he is whole Christ both God and man then againe by this rule we see that that which he hath felt being head the whole hath felt which if we consider well we may see how Christs righteousness is made ours because he is the head and that which the head suffers the whole suffers ergo that is the wholes that the head hath done Sic Grammatica in etymologiam syntaxin c. For why Grammatica is the whole Art Etymology and Syntax are the parrs thereof Dialectica in inuentionem iudicium diuiditur Kickerman cannot away with this example for saith he Dialectica is the habit inuention and iudgement are Arts now the parts must be of the same nature with the whole because they constitute the whole Alas poore man this it is the rule of Logicke is the rule of mans reason ergo the rule must run along not according to the nature of reason for that belongs to naturall Philosophy but according to the act of it Now by inuention and iudgement I doe not meane the act but the rule of the act that teacheth me inuenire inuenire is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this part of inuention now Dialectica is the whole ergo inuention and iudgement must consist of precepts containing the matter and forme of the whole Bene disserere is the end of Logicke ergo these two parts must shoot at this marke then againe the forme of Dialectica bene disserere ariseth from the parts so that as our author teacheth them they containe a portion of the matter and a portion of the forme of Logicke This it is Logicke lookes at the motus of reason and inuention and iudgement containe the motus ergo they are the parts Haec distributio principalis est cum rei longioris explicatio suscipitur You haue heard what is required in a perfect definition of the integrum into the members and here are many yea most fallaces of any arguments as if wee leaue out any part in a distribution againe in distributione ex integro if the parts doe not containe a portion of the matter and forme of the whole againe when we distribute in Grammar vox est litera aut syllaba it is not a perfect distribution because these parts are not dissentany inter se for a letter containes portion of the matter and forme of a syllable and so is essentiall to it Haec distributio principalis est si rei longioris c. if you meane to make any long discourse of any thing diuide it for it giues great light and helpe to your owne memorie and to the people hence distributions are the chiefe things in Art hence many call their bookes partitions Kickerman calls his systema which belongs to distributio and the respect of a distribution is but from a part of the Art ergo his name is to strait ergo remember this rule by any meanes for it is of great vse both for the good of the teacher and
if any in distributing shall make any part as large as the genus as Logicians distribute genus into perfectum and imperfectum they make species totum and not genus so ens is substantia or accidens will not come into any Art for the parts are consentanies inter se being subiectum and adiunctum Partibus Pars est quae continetur non in toto sed à toto totum est quod continet as being the common punctum wherein the parts meet together he saith also partibus non parti Species est pars generis Pars we heard before generis so that as membrum was pars integri not generis so species est pars generis not integri so that they which diuide parts into integrall or simular vnderstand not Logicke for a part simular is nothing but species which is pars generis as a pan of water and a drop of water is genus and species a bone and a part of a bone is also genus and species now they call it simular because they haue the same denomination why so genus doth predicarere nomine as they say pars generis here obserue that species hath reference onely to genus and so genus to species euen as causa is effecti causa and subiectum adiuncti subiectum for they are relates ergo can repeat no other thing but one another so againe genus is totum not speciei but specierum ergo when we giue a double face to him we make him like Ianus with a double forehead for they make the same species to be species to two things species therefore is generis species as one sonne is but sonne of one father Now this is their trouble that they cannot distribute a species into indiuidua because say they indiuidua doe but differre numero what is that differre numero is properly to reckon vp or make an induction of the indiuidua to make vp the species againe when we distribute that species into all his indiuidua there is a distribution for there is a totum and parts distributed Obiection But in a distribution we should haue but two species Answer Why is it not requisite that there should alwayes be a dicotomie for indeed if we could finde it out euery thing is dicotomised but the Lord hath not reuealed it vnto men but hath kept it secret to himselfe Obiection Singulars haue no differences but are distinct onely by a conflux of common accidents Answer Then singulars should not differ in essence ergo I should be the same with you and you with me the first matter indeed was imperfect but euery thing else is an effect ergo hath all the causes ergo the forme If they aske me what it is I answer them that my soule is my forme as they hold or else thus as my members are not anothers mans members so my forme arising from the parts of my body is not another mans forme but is really distinct from it Obiection But say they the reasonable soule is generall to all men Answer There indeed may be some scruple but when we consider that the formes of the body and the soule make vp the forme of a man we shall see euery man to haue a distinct forme by which wee shall know them each from other Sic animal genus hominis bestiae dicimus He meanes that genus is a generall totum and comprehendeth the species vnder it for as a henne couereth her chickens with her wings so genus couereth the species with his essence then againe make an axiome as homo est animal and you shall see the species to be the subiect more often then the genus ergo he saith subiecta Genus est generalissimum aut subalternum Here he distributes genus vnto vs shewing vs that there are two kinds thereof the one is generalissimum for so indeed euery genus is generall and hath his subsistencie onely in singularibus and because all genera doe subsist in singularibus ergo all but singularia are genera hence it is that they say in Schooles ens and vnum confunduntur Species subalterna aut specialissima Genus generalissimum cuius nullum est genus Generalissimum is so called because it is most genus because that can be nothing but genus Subalternum genus is genus but not onely genus nor alwaies genus Cuius nullum est genus There must needs bee an end for as there is a lowest whereat we must begin so there must be an highest aboue which we cannot go for there cannot be an infinitus motus in creatures so the Lord hath in great wisedome ranged things in their order So the common Logicians haue made ten predicaments or genera generalissima but the first foure haue Logicks vse in them the rest are arguments but if we would know the genera generalissima euery Art will tell vs them best now we may ascend to ens too so that ens is the definitum indeed God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in Logicke argumentum is genus generalissimum vox in Grammar c. and all these are species of ens Nullum genus Here he denies any genus to stay our reason that so wee may not goe too farre for since genus ariseth from the matter we shal at last come to that which is no genus but a matter onely ergo we must distribute this into his matter and forme Subalternum genus vt subalterna item species quod species huius illius autem genus est Subalternum genus may also be subalterna species so that these being one and the same onely differing in respect therefore one definition may serue for them both Species specialissima quae est indiuidua in species alias vt materia forma singulares Species as before signifies firstly a singular thing and other species are called species at the second hand but indiuidua are properly called species quae speciuntur Now hee saith specialissima that is indeed and properly as generalissimum had no genus aboue it so species specialissima hath no species vnder it indiuidua is here an adiunct to species specialissima now he saith indiuidua because he speakes of diuision ergo here he tells vs that we can goe no further to finde any inferiour species wee may onely diuide it into members if we will Genus vero species notae sunt causarum effectorum He doth commorari here because the Schooles haue not commonly receiued that genus containes the matter and common forme of the species but we know a perfect definition layes out the quiddity of a thing that is the matter and the forme now the forme is there but where is the matter why the genus containes the quiddity the essence the causes ergo it is an argument vnanswerable that the genus containes the matter Hinc vniuersale est insigne ac praestabile quia causam declarat The common Logicians neuer lookt after any distribution but of the integrum