A26880:540
Catholic communion defended against both extremes, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ...…Catholick communion defended against both extreams, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ...…
Catholic communion defended against both extremes, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ... / by Richard Baxter ...Catholick communion defended against both extreams, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ... / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1684
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.
§ 19. The Doctor proceeds, [Nor does his similitude help him out, which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application, that I cannot let it pass: His words are these, [As in the constitution of man, 1. The rational soul is the real form, which is principium motus; The organized body is the constitutive matter. That there be Heart, Liver, Stomach, is but the bodies organization: That these parts be duly placed and united, is forma corporis (non hominis), and make the body but materia disposita. 3. The union of soul and body is that nexus (like the copula in a proposition) which may be called the relative form, or that which maketh the soul become forma in actu].
§ 19. The Doctor proceeds, [Nor does his similitude help him out, which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application, that I cannot let it pass: His words are these, [As in the constitution of man, 1. The rational soul is the real form, which is principium motus; The organized body is the constitutive matter. That there be Heart, Liver, Stomack, is but the bodies organization: That these parts be duly placed and united, is forma corporis (non hominis), and make the body but materia disposita. 3. The union of soul and body is that nexus (like the copula in a proposition) which may be called the relative form, or that which maketh the soul become forma in actu].
Reader, Dost thou know, as a Philosopher, what a man is? and dost thou doubt of ever a word of this? If this Doctor be ignorant of it, had he not been a Doctor, and overgrown Humility and Learning, I might have expected either thanks or silence from him: But what saith the Man to it?
Had this Philosophy been known in St. Paul's days, I should not much have wondered that he warns men against vain Philosophy, (was not Aristotle known in Paul's days?) Aures erigite. The Confutation will come anon.) I shall avoid disputing with Mr. B. as much as I can (too late Sir) and therefore will not quarrel with him for saying, The Soul is Principium motus — to the Body, though it may be some Cartesians will not like it, (Hitherto