A01760:942
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.
But I reply, what means he by these words, in se? means he the individual nature of the action? Nay; then the sense shall be no other then this, quo ad individuum, etiam quo ad individuum, And besides the D. can not define to us, any other nature in a individual thing, then the nature of the species or kind.
But I reply, what meanes he by these words, in se? meanes he the individuall nature of the action? Nay; then the sence shall bee no other then this, quo ad individuum, etiam quo ad individuum, And besides the D. can not define to us, any other nature in a individuall thing, then the nature of the species or kinde.
*Is it not holden individuum non posse definiri, nisi definitione speciei? Sure, a perfect definition expressing the nature of the thing defined, can not be given to any individual thing, other then the definition of the species. Needs therefore must the D. by in se, understand the specific nature: and indeed when Divines speak of things indifferent in se, per se, or, sua natura; they mean only things indifferent quo ad speciem. Yet thus also the D. hath said none sense. For so should we take his words, quamvis quo ad speciem sit media & libera, etiam quo ad individuum.
*Is it not holden individuum non posse definiri, nisi definitione speciei? Sure, a perfect definition expressing the nature of the thing defined, can not be given to any individuall thing, other then the definition of the species. Needs therefore must the D. by in se, understand the specificall nature: and indeed when Divines speake of things indifferent in se, per se, or, sua natura; they meane onely things indifferent quo ad speciem. Yet thus also the D. hath said none sence. For so should we take his words, quamvis quo ad speciem sit media & libera, etiam quo ad individuum.
- *Quaestio, quid est? de quolibet individuo contento sub spe cie, non petit quidditatem ejus singularem, sed communem totius speciei, saith P. Fonseca, come. in Metaph. Arist. lib. 7. cap. 15 quest. unic. sect. 2.