To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same that forma is in Latine, there is but a transposition of the letters, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly sig∣nifies the face; and fas and facies in Latine comes of facio, because when it is made it hath the face of a
thing: so a thing when it hath its form, it hath a face, it will seem something: so that the efficients esse is not facies rei, nor the matters esse, for they might be otherwhere, ergo the efficient and matter are com∣mon causes: this is a particular one, which is one reason why the efficient and matter go before, being more general: so that when once he hath the face of a man, then is he a man; this word forma both in La∣tine and Greek is taken abusive for the outward fi∣gure of a thing; it is a metonimy of the subject for the adjunct; for figuration is not forma; as we may see in water put in a round glass, or in a square glass, the same water having the same form will have a round figure, or square figure, according to the glass where∣in it is: now because the figure is adjoyned to the form, ergo they say it is forma, and in Schooles they call it forma accidentalis: now the figure follows the form, but it is not so essential, but it may be changed, and yet the water is the same, because the water is va∣riable into divers figures, as we heard before in water. The Schooles say, that no artificial thing hath any o∣ther form, ergo ask them in what predicament any ar∣tificial thing is, and they will answer in quality: but thus they will make Geometry to give the formes of things. Figura is a quality, ergo to make quality a form is very absurd: again, as before one and the same thing had divers figures, and onely one form that makes the thing one: again, is the figure of a table the form of it? then the table belongs to Geo∣metry, not to the Joyners Art: again, whether doth the matter of the table belong to substantia? ergo the form too, or else it is in divers predicaments: again, figura is an accident, but forma is a cause, and gives essence to the thing.