The logicians school-master: or, A comment upon Ramus logick.: By Mr. Alexander Richardson, sometime of Queenes Colledge in Cambridge. Whereunto are added, his prelections on Ramus his grammer; Taleus his rhetorick; also his notes on physicks, ethicks, astronomy, medicine, and opticks. Never before published.

CHAP. X.

De subjecto. Argumentum modo quodam consentaneum succedit ut subjectum & adjunctum, &c.

VVE have heard of the essential parts of a thing, and so have seen the thing in his essence, and we see how Logick doth direct the eye of our reason, to see the most inmost thing in it. Now we come to see the complemental things, that belong to a thing, not belonging or concurring to the existere of it: so that the causes were as it were the simular parts, these are as it were the blood in the sinews, &c. to make them full, and complemental: Modo quo∣dam consentaneum, as if he should say, the causes were required ad esse rei, these are but required ad bene esse rei: so that the causes looked at the inside of the thing, and now we come to look at the outside of it.

Argumentum modo quodam, &c.

This is an imperfect transition containing onely the proposition of that which follows, modo quodam: as if he should say, if they be there it is well, notwith∣standing if they be wanting it is no prejudice to the essence of the thing, for they are but circumstances, whereas argumenta absolute consentanea are penetralia; again, argumenta modo quodam consentanea come after the being of the thing, for accidens inseparabilis, as ho∣mini risus aequo hinnitus, are but acts of the soul work∣ing in the bodies of their subjects,

Succedit.

Why? because they are after those that agree ab∣solutely: we have heard that the effect ariseth from all the causes, and cannot existere without them, ergo, it must be a thing of necessity before it be subject, or adjunct, or before it can have a subject, or adjunct, for that which hath adjuncts is a subject, & contra.

Ʋt subjectum, & adjunctum.

A subject is by nature before an adjunct, and a thing is first a subject before it be an adjunct, and there must be a thing subjected to an adjunct before a thing can be adjoyned to a subject: again the sub∣ject is more general than the adjunct, not that there are more subjects to one adjunct, for it is quite con∣trary, for there may be twenty adjuncts to one sub∣ject, but I mean it is more in use, and argues more strongly than the adjunct doth, As when I say the King is there, ergo, the Guard is there, is stronger than to say the Guard is there, therefore the King, and here we see as before, priority and posteriority. Now our reason is to behold things according to the course of God, for whatsoever we see it was first in God, and when he hath made a thing then it is a subject, and it is capable of adjuncts before it have them, ergo, sub∣jectum is before adjunctum in the practise of God, and also of man. Now subjectum as it is first, so must it be taught first. The name subjectum tels me it is a thing laid undermost in regard of the adjunct, and it doth support it, and yet it is not of the essence of it, but onely laid under it, and adjunctum is to ride on it as a pack-horse: now as the efficient was most inmost, then the other three, or the ef∣fect, so is subjectum here, ergo it is by nature before adjunctum.

Subjectum est cui aliquid adjungitur.

He omits the genus, and the reason why he doth not teach the genus namely argumentum modo quodam consentaneum is because it is a definition it self, as absolute consentaneum was, for there is no definition of a definition, but if he had defined it, he had brought a definition to a definition, he wanted a word to name the thing, and therefore gives me a description instead thereof, cui aliquid, this aliquid is that ens we heard of in Art; so that this aliquid is any thing, not simply, but quatenus it hath an affection to be joyned. A thing being an effect, is fit to receive outward things; and subjectum is defined by his relate ad∣junctum, for it is cui aliquid adjungitur, and what∣soever is subjected to another thing is his ad∣junct, as whiteness is an adjunct to a wall that is white.

Adjungitur.

Adjungitur, so that subjectum is the argument, and adjunctum the aliquid, adjungitur, so that here he tels us that the adjunct is adjoyned to the subject, th at which is must needs be after the thing to which it is tyed, ergo, subjectum is before adjunctum, he saith it is but adjunctio, not entring into the essence of it, but that it may be taken away: so that as subjectum doth intimate a thing laid underneath, so the adjunct doth intimate a thing laid upon it: so that the ad∣junct doth depend, and hang upon the subject as up∣on a hook; or as one thing tyed to another: thus have we heard the subjects argument to be so, as if his adjunct be removed from him, or he from his ad∣junct, yet he stands firm in his causes. Now for the manners.

Anima est subjectum scientiae, ignore antiae, virtutis, vitii, quia haec praeter essentiam accedunt.

Anima is a spiritual thing, so are these adjuncts, sci∣entia, ignorantia, &c. of the same kind too, now these take hold one of another quodam modo, ergo, if they be removed, yet the soul remains intire, ergo, it is but sub∣jectum of them, scientia, &c. Now are but adjoyned to it, the anima his esse is not of their esse, aut contra. Some are of opinion (as Scaliger) that the Angels and mens souls esse, and agere, are the same, but then their actus should be perpetual: again then they have no adjuncts, then no causes, then God, ergo, they have their qualities. Again, it is a most sound, and sure argument that they are creatures, not God, be∣cause they are finite, ergo, have causes, ergo, are effects, ergo, have adjuncts.

Object. But how are these joyned to the soul? it hath two faculties; reason and will, now the facul∣ties of the understanding are the intellectual vertues, when it can promptly, and readily perform its act, as when it is prompt and ready in inventing, then it is inteligentia, when it is prompt in seeking out truths, then it is sci••ntia, when it is ready in discoursing, then it is sapientia, &c. so that these intellectual vertues are habits of the faculty of reason, and lye in the promptness of its act: so by vertues he meanes moral ve••tue, not intellectual, and that is of the will. For when the will can promptly perform the act of boun∣tifulness, or justice, then it is in like sort liberality, or justice, and so for the rest, and the contrary makes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ergo, these are but adjuncts, quia praeter essentiam accident, that is, these come over, and above the es∣s••••ce. The soul is tanquam tabula abrasa, and these vertues come afterward.

Corpus sanitatis, morbi, roboris, infirmitatis; pul∣chritudinis, deformitatis.

The soul had his spiritual adjuncts, the body hath his proper adjuncts also, and this definition of his teacheth us to look at the proper adjuncts of things. So sanitas is a proper adjunct to the body, for there ariseth an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and thence comes sanitas, and morbus: robur ariseth principally from the bones and sinews, beauty ariseth from the fresh∣ness of blood, and the analogie, and proportion of the parts, for if there be comely visage, and not blood, it is not beauty, we call it good favour, but not fair, but here it is opposed to deformity, and contains not onely well favour, which stands in the symmetry of the parts one to another, which belongs to Physick, but colour which belongs to blood.

Homo, subjectum est divitiarum, paupertatis, honoris, infamiae, vestitus, comitatus.

Here homo hath his adjuncts general both to soul, and body; now here we see that subjects and ad∣juncts are not as the common Schools take them namely, onely substances to be subjects, and acci∣dents adjuncts: for accidents may be subjects, & contra, ergo, that distribution of ens into substantia, and accidens, will not follow in any Art, but here, and they a••e special kinds of subjects and ad∣juncts.

Locus est subjectum rei locatae.

Locus is a modus of subjectum, the Schools both ancient and of latter time have maintained locus to belong to natural Philosophy, because (say they) it ariseth from every thing in nature. Now first true it is, that there is nothing, but it is res naturalis, even reason, speech, quantity, &c. are res naturales,

and it doth not therefore follow because it is res na∣turalis, ergo it belongs to nature, for it is a meer af∣fection, and it is taken away, if we take away the lo∣catum: and as causa may be no causa, effectum no effectum; so may locus be no locus. Again, cannot things in Art be in place, as well as things in nature? are not Angels finite and terminated? and locus, if we take it properly, is nothing but subjectum rei loca∣tae: as in causa there was the thing causa, as it cau∣seth: so there is locus as there is the thing receiving: as when I say such a one is in my chamber: here I consider my chamber not as it is in his building, but as it is receiving him. Again, if it should not be in Logick, it should rather be in Geometry than in Na∣ture, for limitation of place is next and immediately from the limitation of quantity, and there we hear of locus, as there is repletio loci: locus here is put for the space of that place, by a metonimy of subject for the adjunct.

Est subjectum.

Here that which we heard of in adjuncts is res loca∣ta: because it doth apply that special kind of ad∣junct that answers to this subject locus. Now it is not essential to the thing, ergo is but complemental: again, that which is now in one place may remove to another place, ergo is not absolutely consenting to the thing: and thus we see it must needs belong to Lo∣gick, as being but in respect: they say onely corpus is in loco descriptive, and not spirits, they are but in ubi, or in loco designatione: but what is this but a rule of Geometry? where we hear of completio loci by corpus: and therefore Aristotle brings locus to quantity. Then again they question whether the space that contains a thing be locus or no.

Answ. Space belongs to nature, and is nothing but the measure that doth fill the place, and is nothing but that quadrangula sex complent locum, or a pint will receive a pint: and therefore to receive is to measure the space. I confess you may name it in Na∣ture, but not define it.

Sic Philosophi divinis entibus, licet parte, & magnitu∣dine carentibus attribuunt locum.

So the Philosophers give place to the intelligences, whereas he making them to move the heavens, saith they are on the superficies of them.

Licet parte, & magnitudine carentibus.

Here he speaks according to the common conceits in Schools, but I marvel how he or any other can say so. Scaliger saith, they are in divine predicament of quantity, but not in this gross predicament of quan∣tity, and they have a figure. In what figure were Angels first created? An. In what figure was water first made? they can take any figure as water can; but I think they were first made in the figure of roundness. So Aristotle saith they were made as puncta. So is fire round, for that is figura capacissima, ergo, perfectissima. I have thought also that the Ark was made for all the world like a man, and there was the proportion of length proportionable to a mans breadth, and the heighth proportionable to a mans thickness. Now for the wanting of parts it is not so; for Angels may be divided, though their parts be si∣mular: so are the elements parts; and as some write, the wicked spirits may be struck, and so the Sun light; but it will too quickly return into it self: and as the light may be divided, so may they. And whereas they say, anima is tota in toto, and tota in qualibet par∣te, they wrong God, and the creature, for what is the

reason? God can have no parts, ergo no causes; other things whatsoever must needs have causes, ergo must have membra, ergo we cannot say they are all in every part. Yes, the reasonable soul is in my little finger? Content, but is that very portion of it that is in my head also in my little finger? There is a dis∣continuance, and the same thing should be here, and not there, which is flat contradiction: but God is not in this or that finger, but also between them. The Papists absurdity appears notably in this, in that they will have Christs body to be really in the Sacrament in the bread, and in heaven also, and yet not in the air, but make a discontinuance: ergo it is in the bread, and not in the bread; in heaven, and not in heaven; for if it is in heaven, there it is shut up, and so in the bread.

Sic Geometrae locum, locique differentias in rebus geometricis.

That is, above, and below, angle, and base, &c. At prius ignotum ferro quum scindimus aequor, &c.

Here he appoints several places to several things, and here locus is but subjectum, and they adjuncta.

Sensilia sensuum, & res virtutibus, ac vitiis propo∣sitae, subjecta vitiorum, & virtutum hoc modo nominantur.

Here are objecta, as the common Schools teach, because the sense is cast upon them: so vertues and vices; though they have their subjects themselves in one kind, yet here they are adjuncts, rebus virtutibus ac vitiis propositae. Now it is a fallace of non subje∣ctum, when we give that to subjectum which is not subjectum. As Tully jested with Piso his little son, and said, who hath hanged my son to yonder sword?

Ejusmodi subjecto Cicero 2. Agrar. disputat, inter Campanos nullam contentionem esse, qui nullus sit honor.

Non gloriae cupiditate (ait) afferebantur, &c.

Honour is the subject of ambition; the Campani had no honour among them, ergo no ambition: where there is no honour there is no ambition, but inter Campanos there is no honour, ergo no ambition. Here the proposition contains the subject, and adjunct, and by removing the subject, he removes the ad∣junct.

Eodem argumento a Propertio dictum est.

Navita de ventis, de tauris narrat Arator, &c.

The Mariner he tels of the winds whereabout he is occupied, and vulnera are adjuncts to Souldi∣ers; yet here as he talks of them he is adjunctum: and thus have we heard of the first complement of a thing, namely, to be a subject, or to have a subject.