A26880:560
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.
Ans. Do you not understand what it means? What if I had so accused you? Whether it be long of your Tutor, or You, I know not; But 1. If you know not the difference between forma Corporis, and forma Hominis, some body is too blame. Forma dat esse & nomen: The Soul giveth Being and Name to a Man: He is no Man without it. Do you think it gives Being and Name to the Body? What if Lazarus his Body in the Grave were without its Soul; is it not Corpus a Body? What if such a Body as M•ns had only the Soul of a Brute, were it no Body? What if Dr••elius made his Engines move constantly by the Sun, or Fire? Is it not an Engine materially organized, before the Sun or Fire move it? Hath not a Wind ••ll, or Water mill its mechanical form? which is but the Organization o• d•e matter, when Wind or Water, move it not. But to what purpose is it to talk to one that tells us, he cannot understand it?
2. But the addition is shameful misunderstanding; Doth he that saith, Organization is forma Corporis, say, that one may be a m•n without it? This is below puerility? Did I not maintain, that (as Aristotle ha•h his three principles, Matter, Privation, and Form, and by Privation meaneth the Dispositio receptiva of the matter; so) Politic Bodies by similitude to natural, have: And that Organization is that Dispositio receptiva sine qua Materia non recipit formam: And now this famous Doctor cannot understand me when I assert it's Necessity to humanity, unless I mean that one may be a man without it.
2. But the addition is shameful misunderstanding; Doth he that saith, Organization is forma Corporis, say, that one may be a m•n without it? This is below puerility? Did I not maintain, that (as Aristotle ha•h his three principles, Matter, Privation, and Form, and by Privation meaneth the Dispositio receptiva of the matter; so) Politick Bodies by similitude to natural, have: And that Organization is that Dispositio receptiva sine qua Materia non recipit formam: And now this famous Doctor cannot understand me when I assert it's Necessity to humanity, unless I mean that one may be a man without it.