HAving ended the Predicaments, which are Ranks of things; in the next place, we will speak of Causes, Op­position and Motion, which we will make our Post Predicaments, or things belong­ing to the Predicaments.

There is but one thing without Cause, and that is God. For he being the Cause of things, was not made or caused by any thing.

A Cause is that of which, or by which, or for which a thing is made.

There are Four Causes of things, the Material, the Formal, the Efficient, and Final, which are in Latine thus Named, Materia, Forma, Efficiens, Finis. The Mat­ter [Page 13] is the Cause out of which a thing is made; as the Matter of an House is Tim­ber and Stone: the Form is the very Fashi­oning and Joyning together of the Mat­ter: the Efficient is the Carpenter: the Final cause is Habitation; for an House is made to dwell in.

Thus the Material Cause or Matter of a Man is his Body, which is made of the Four Elements, Earth, Water, Air, Fire: the Form is his Soul: the Prime Efficient Cause of a Man is God, though the Second Cause be his Parents: the End or Final Cause is Gods Glory; for God made Man for his own Glory.

OF things in the World, some do a­gree the one with the other: some do dis-agree, & are opposite one to the other, as Heat and Cold, Black and White, which are contrary; Light and Darkness, Seeing and Blindness. Blindness is the Absence or Privation of Seeing. Now there is a double Privation of Seeing, the one in [Page 14] part, which is Privation only of the Act of Seeing; as when you Sleep, you do not absolutely See: the other is whole or to­tal, viz, a Privation of Act, Power, and Possibility. Such a Privation of sight is in a Blind Man, who neither actually Sees neither can he See.

If it be demanded whether or no a Stone be Blind; I answer, It neither Seeth nor yet is Blind, for albeit there is an Ab­sence of fight in a Stone, yet there is no Privation; because that Privation is an Ab­sence of a thing which ought to be in: but Sight ought not to be in a Stone, therefore it wants it not.

MOtion or Mutation which are in La­tine called Motus, is nothing but a change of things one thing from ano­ther. Now things may suffer a change ei­ther in Nature or Substance, or else in Accident or Quantity, Quality or Place.

Hence Logicians make mention of Six [Page 15] kinds of Motions or change, Generation, Corruption, Augmentation, Diminution, Al­teration, Local Motion.

Generation, is a Motion or change from not being to being: as when that which was not a Man is now made a Man.

Corruption, is a change from being to not being: as when a Man dies he changes his being and becomes Dust and Earth.

Augmentation, is a change from a lesser to a greater Quantity; as when a Man grows bigger and bigger.

Diminution, is a change from greater to lesser Qauntity; as when a Man goes lesser and lesser.

Alteration, is a change from one Quali­ty to another; as when Water is changed from hot to cold.

Local Motion, is a change from one Place to another; as when a Man goes from his Chamber to the Hall, from Ox­ford to Londan. In every one of those Mo­tions [Page 16] there are Two bounds: the First where the Motion begins, which we call terminus a quo; the other where the Mo­tion ends, which we call terminus ad quem: as if you go from Oxford to London, the Terminus a quo is Oxford, the Terminus ad quem is London.

A Syllogism is a form of Argumenta­tion, wherein certain Premisses or Propositions being set down and granted, 'tis necessary another Proposition; ( i.e.) the conclusion should follow, see Breerwoods Elem. Leg. p. 25.

[Page 18] Of Syllogisms some be Categorical, and absolute as thus,

Others are Hypothetical or Conditio­nal as thus,

These are more imperfect than the o­ther, and therefore may be reduced unto them as thus,

In every Categorical Syllogism, there are Thee plain Categorical Propositions, the First whereof we call the Major, the Second the Minor, the Third the Con­clusion. Breerwood ut supra.

Nov an Indicative speech is Congru­ous, perfect, signifying truth or falshood, [Page 19] without ambiguity. Breerwood Log. §. 1.

Of Propositions some be plain and Ca­tegorical as thus, Homo est Animal.

Some Hypothetical made by way of Supposition as thus.

Which Proposition consists of two Ca­tegorical ones, the former whereof is called the Antecedent, the other the Consequent; both which in the former instance are joyned together by the Con­junction or Copula (tum) Breerwood §. 22.

A Categorical Positive Proposition is that which consists of a Subject, Predicat and Copula as thus, Homo est Animal, where Homo is the Subject, est the Copu­la, Animal the Predicat, See Breerwood §. 5. Note that not every Verb may be a Copula to a Proposition, but only a Verb Substantive, as for example Plato legit librum, the Verb ( legit) is not a Copula, but the Verb est understood, for thus it should be, Plato est legens librum, whence note that the Copula may be put two waies in a Proposition, either implicity as [Page 20] thus, ( Plato legit librum) or expressly as thus, ( Plato est legens librum) See Breer­wood §.

There be two parts of a Proposition, Noun and Verb, the Subject is a Noun, the Predicat is a Verb.

A Noun is a word signifying ad placitum without time, finite, right or of the No­mininative case.

'Tis said to signifie ad placitum, or by Institution, because no true word signifieth naturally; it signifieth without time ( i.e.) it signifies no Difference of time, past, present, or to come; wherein it is distin­guished from a Verb, whose proper na­ture is to denote some Difference of time; 'tis said to be finite because it signifieth some thing certainly, as the word Homo, wherein it is distinguished from infinite, or indefinite words, as ( non Homo) which signifies any thing before a Man.

Lastly all Nouns in Logick, are Voces Rectae ( i.e.) of the Nominative case, as Homo, Animal, whence it follows that hominis, hominem, &c. are not Nouns with the Logicians, See Breerwood [...]. 3. 4.

THe Subject, Predicat, Copula, are the parts, or matter of which a Pro­position is made; now the parts may be joyned together, either Necessarily, Im­possibly, or Contingently: Necessarily, as thus; Homo est Animal, for 'tis necessary for a Man to be a living Creature; Im­possibly as thus, Home est Asinus, for 'tis impossible a Man should be an Ass: Con­tingently as thus, ( Home est doctus) for 'tis Contingent for a Man to be learned; See Breerwood §. 4.

HAving spoken of the Substance of a Proposition, let us descend to it's Ac­cidents, which are commonly Five, Quantity, Quality, Opposition, Aequi­pollencly, Conversion.

First, The Quantity of a Proposition is Foure-fold, Universal, Particular, Inde­finite and Singular.

[Page 22] An Universal is that whose Subject is a common word, amplifyed by an Universal Sign, such Universal Sings are Omnis qui­libet, nullus, Un [...]quodque, &c. as thus, Omnis Homo est Animal. A particular Pro­position is that, whose Subject is a com­mon word restrained by a particular Sign, such as are quidam, aliquis, &c. as thus, Aliquis Homo est Animal.

An Indefinite Proposition, is a Propo­sition without an express Sign of Quanti­ty, but 'tis Implicitely, Universal or Par­ticular.

If the Predicate be necessarily affirmed of the Subject, then 'tis Universal, as thus, Homo est Animal, is as much as Omnis Homo est Animal; if the Predicate be but Contingent in respect of the Subject, then 'tis Particular, as thus. Homo est Doctus (i.e.) Aliquis Homo est Doctus.

A singular Proposition, Differs little from a Particular one, as thus Socrates est Doctus; His Homo Currit, Breer. §. 8.

Secondly, The Quality of a Propositi­on is either Real or Vocal, the former is [Page 23] two-fold, truth or falsity, as this is a true Proposition, Homo est Animal, this fals, Homo est Brutum, See Breerwood §. 10.

The Vocal Quality called Qualitas Vo­calis is either Negation or Affirmation, thence some Propositions are Negative as thus; Homo non est equus, or nullus Homo est equus, See §. 11.

From the Substance, Quantity, and Quality, of a Proposition a three-fold Question, according to this Verse may a­rise.

That is if one demand, quae est Proposi­tio? of what kind is the Proposition? you must answer 'tis either Categorical or Hypothetical, if one demands, Quan­ta est? you must reply, 'tis either, Uni­versal, Particular, Indefinite or Singular; if one asketh qualis est? you must answer 'tis either Negative or Affirmative, See Breerwood §. 12.

Thirdly, The Opposition of Propositi­ons [Page 24] is Different in Quantity, or Quality, or both: There be Four kinds of Oppo­site Propositions, Contraries, Subcontraries, Contradictories, Subalterne, or Subordi­nate; Contrary Propositions are Two, Universal ones Differing only in Quality, as thus.

Subcontrary Propositions, are Two Par­ticular ones, Differing in Quality, only as [...].

Contradictory Proposition, are Two Differing both in Quantity, and Quality, one being Universal, the other Particular, one Affirmative, the other Negative, as thus.

[Page 25]

Subaltern Propositions are such which Differ only in Quality, one being Univer­sal, the other Particular as thus.

4. Aequipollencie is the reconcile­ing of Two opposite Propositions, by placeing the word ( non) before or after the Sign, of one of those opposite Propositions, according to this verse.

( i) in Contradictory Propositions, ( non) must be placed before as thus;

Put ( non) before omnis and these Two Propositions are reconciled, for non om­nis homo currit is as much as aliquis homo non currit.

In Contrary Propositions ( non) must be placed after the Sign; In Subaltern before and after, Breerwood §. 77.

5. Conversion is an apt Change of the Subject into the place of the Predi­cate, & è contra as thus.

There be Three kinds of Conversion; First, Simple, Secondly per Accidens: Thirdly pur contra positionem.

Simple Conversion is a meer change, of the Subject into the place of the Predi­cate, [Page 27] without changing either Quality, or Quantity, only an Universal Negative, and Particular Affirmative, may this way be converted.

Conversion Per Accidens, is a change of the Subject into the place of the Predi­cate, & contra, keeping the same Qua­lity, but changing of Quantity; only a Universal Negatives and Universal Affir­matives, may this way be converted

Conversion by contra positionem, is a changing of finite terms into infinite, this belongs only to Universal Affirmatives, and particular Negatives, this Distick contains all.

By ( A) I ogicians understand an Uni­versal Affirmative, by ( E) an Universal Negative, by ( I) a particular Affirma­tive, by ( O) a particular Negative, whence these Verses.

Bre [...]. §. 20.

THus much of the Material part of Argumentation, (viz.) of Propositi­ons, let us return again to Argumentation it self.

Argumentation is the joyning together of two or more Propositions, by a Con­junction Illative, that one may follow from the other thus.

Wherein observe three parts; the An­tecedent Homo est Animal, the Conse­quent Homo est sensibilis, the note of Illa­tion. Ergo.

There be four forms of Argumentation, a Syllogism, an Fnthymem, an Inducti­on, an Example.

In an Enthymen there be but two Pro­positions, as thus, Homo est Animal, Ergo Homo est Corpus; In a Syllogism three, [Page 29] and in every one of them a Subject and a Predicate, which we call Terms, which are put twice in every Syllogism; so that Albeit there be in every Syllogism, three Propositions and in every Proposition two Terms, yet is there but three Terms in every true Syllogism, which we call the Major, the Minor, and Medius; the Major Terms is put in the Major Proposition, and Conclusion, the Minor. in the Minor and Conclusion, the Middle Term in the Major and Minor, never in the Conclu­sion.

According to the three Different waies, wherein the middle Term may be placed in a Syllogism, there is a three-fold Figure.

In the first Figure, the middle Term is the Subject in the Major, and Predicate in the Minor; In the second 'tis Predicate in both Major and Minor; In the third 'tis Subject in them both, whence this vers.

That the Quantity and Quality of Pro­positions in a Syllogism, may the better be [Page 30] observed, the Logicians use certain words, which they call Moods, or Forms: some set down 19. as Breerwood §. 15. some 14. as Smith, The names of the Moods, be­longing to the first Figure are, Barbara, Caelarent, Darii, ferio; to the second bo­long Caesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco; to the third Darapti, Felapton, Disamis, Datisi, Bocardo, Ferison, as in those fol­lowing verses.

In every one of those Moods, there are three Vowels, the first whereof stands for the Major Proposition, the second for the Minor, the third for the Conclusion, as in Ferio, (E) denotes the Major to be an Universal Negative, ( I) the Minor to be particular Affirmative, ( O) the Conclusion to be a particular Negative.

No [...] because Syllogisms made in the second or third Figure, are not so perfect as those in the first, therefore they may be denyed unless we can reduce them unto the first Figure.

[Page 31] The manner of Reduction, is that Syl­logisms of the second and third Figure, are to be reduced to those Moods of the first Figure, that begin with the same let­ter, as Bocardo to Barbara, Festino to Ferio, Caesar to Caelarent, furthurmore for the manner of Reduction; we must note that in these Moods there be four Consonants, C. M. P. S. which express the manner of converting, or transposing the Propositi­ons, according to these Veses.

That is S. denotes the Proposition de­signed by the preceeding vowel, to be con­verted simply, as in Caesare, S. shews how the Major must be turned simply; P. shews the Proposition designed by the Precedent vowel, to be converted per Ac­cidens; as in Darapti the Minor.

M. notes a Transposition of the preceed­ing Proposition, as in Camestres, the Ma­jor must be put in the place of the Minor.

C. in Bocardo notes the Contradiction of the Conclusion to be made the Major, [Page 32] and its Contradiction the Conclusion, the Minor remaining.

There are four general rules to be ob­served in every Figure, 1. Both Major, and Minor, must not be particular, for, ‘Syllogizari non est ex particulari.’

2. Both Major and Minor must not be Negative, for, ‘Neve Negativis recte concludere si vis.’

3. If either Major or Minor be particu­lar, the Conclusion must be particular. ‘Si qua praeit partis sequitur Conclusio partis.’

4. If either be Negative, the Conclu­sion must be Negative.