A01760:439
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our own arguments [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.
Leiden: printed by W. Christiaens, 1637
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other Divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the humane nature. But this distinction is no better, then if a man should say: by blackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who ever confounded abstractum and Concretum, before that in Fields field they were made to stand for one? It is the Tenet of the School, that though in God Concretum and abstractum differ not, because Deus and Deit as are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ, is one,) they are really differenced. For lConcretum signifieth aliquid completum subsistens, and abstractum (such as humanity,) signifieth something, non ut subsistens, sed ut quo aliquid est, as whiteness doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then, that Field makes humanity in the abstract to have a subsistence. mAntonius Sadeel censures Turrianus, for saying that albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus: his reason is, because albedo dicitur esse, non cum pariete, sed in pariete. An abstract is no more an abstract, if it have a subsistence.
By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other Divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the humane nature. But this distinction is no better, then if a man should say: by blacknesse sometimes we understand blacknesse, and sometimes whytenesse. Who ever confounded abstractum and Concretum, before that in Fields field they were made to stand for one? It is the Tenet of the Schoole, that though in God Concretum and abstractum differ not, because Deus and Deit as are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ, is one,) they are realy differenced. For lConcretum signifieth aliquid completum subsistens, and abstractum (such as humanity,) signifieth something, non ut subsistens, sed ut quo aliquid est, as whitenesse doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then, that Field makes humanity in the abstract to have a subsistence. mAntonius Sadeel censures Turrianus, for saying that albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus: his reason is, because albedo dicitur esse, non cum pariete, sed in pariete. An abstract is no more an abstract, if it have a subsistence.