Skip to content

A26976:200

Of the immortality of mans soul, and the nature of it and other spirits.…

Of the immortality of mans soul, and the nature of it and other spirits. Two discourses, one in a letter to an unknown doubter, the other in a reply to Dr. Henry Moore's Animadversions on a private letter to him, which he published in his second edition of Mr. Joseph Glanvil's Sadducismus triumphatus, or, History of apparitions by Richard Baxter.

Richard Baxter 1615–1691London: printed for B. Simons, 1682

[8], 3-72 p. · 38k words · Wing B1331 · Wing B1333 · ESTC R5878

Title page: Princeton Theological Seminary Library copy, digitized by the Internet Archive (opens the Internet Archive in a new tab)

OF THE NATURE OF SPIRITS: › Section 29-31: Ad SECT. XXIX, XXX, XXXI.

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.

[ Earlier:197–212 of 413

:197p. 84–85

2. I suppose there is no such thing as Spirit (or Active Nature) which is not some species of Spirit: Therefore I give no definition of [Spirit] or Active NaNature ⟨p. 85⟩in general, for where there is no form and no species there is no proper definition. And all Spirit being actually Mental, Sensitive or Vegetative, and every thing having but one univocal form, I name no form but of each species, but as in compounds, so in simples we mentally distinguish the materia (vel substantia) Dispositio & forma.

:198p. 85

Therefore defining only the species, I define, Naturam Mentalem to be [substantia Purissima Virtuosissima, Virtute scilicet Formali Vitaliter-Activa, Intellectiva, Volitiva (una-trina:) I define Naturam Animalem seu sensitivam, to be [substantia Purior Virtuosior, scilicet, virtute Vitali-Activa sensitiva, Perceptiva-sensitiva, Appetitiva-sensitiva.

:199p. 85

I have told you oft enough why I say Purissima, including as much of your [Immaterial, Penetrable, Indiscerptible] and more, as is really the substantiae dispositio; and if you will call it as some do forma dispositiva, I quarrel not: But I use [Purissima] 1. to avoid many words, and 2. To avoid pretending to more distinct conceptions of spiritual consistencies than I find any idea of in my mind.

I have told you oft enough why I say Purissima, including as much of your [Immaterial, Penetrable, Indiscerpible] and more, as is really the substantiae dispositio; and if you will call it as some do forma dispositiva, I quarrel not: But I use [Purissima] 1. to avoid many words, and 2. To avoid pretending to more distinct conceptions of spiritual consistencies than I find any idea of in my mind.

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

Position

Cited: :200
On this page: :197–212
Section: :184–207
Whole work: 413 passages

Cite

Richard Baxter, Of the immortality of mans soul, and the nature of it and other spirits.… (London, 1682), sect. 29-31, pp. 85–86. EEBO-TCP A26976.

Or select words in any passage to make an image of them.

The book

Title as printed: Of the immortality of mans soul, and the nature of it and other spirits. Two discourses, one in a letter to an unknown doubter, the other in a reply to Dr. Henry Moore's Animadversions on a private letter to him, which he published in his second edition of Mr. Joseph Glanvil's Sadducismus triumphatus, or, History of apparitions by Richard Baxter.
Author: Richard Baxter 1615–1691
Place: London
Bookseller: B. Simons
Year: 1682
Size: [8], 3-72 p.
Words: 38,499
Catalogue: Wing B1331 · Wing B1333 · ESTC R5878
Text: EEBO-TCP A26976

Passages: 413
Sections: 29

The author

Richard Baxter 1615–1691

PuritansEngland

Pastor at Kidderminster and prolific nonconformist author.

Transcription key

:204p. 87–89

Who can doubt but God being all in all things, he is as intimate to us as our Souls to our bodies, and more: And tho the Schools commonly say, that God hath no Accidents, pardon my dissent who doubt not he hath the accidents of Relations, and dare not say that all the world is not Dei Accidens, while in him we live, and move, and have our being: for I will not, and I do not think that it is Pars Dei, as if he were but Anima mundi, and yet I will not say that the world hath no entity or substance; nor yet that the entity of God and the world, is more than the entity (or substance) of God alone; for to be Minor or Pars is below God. But Accidents though no parts are substantiae accidentia. And though I think the Fryar (Benedictus de Benedictis) in Regula Perfectionis speaketh fanatically when he taketh ⟨p. 88⟩it to be perfection to suppose we see and know no being but God; yet we must know nothing quite separate from God, and that hath not some dependent union with him. And yet while all things are in God, and so inseparable from him that nothing but annihilation can totally separate them, yet they are multitudes in themselves, and wicked Men and Devils are separated from the influx of his Grace and Glory. And the human nature of Christ hath some nearer union with God than other Creatures have. And so I doubt not but every Creature is so united to the universe, that nothing but annihilation can totally separate it from the rest; and yet this is consistent with individuation. I remember when I told him whom you so oft mention of Augustines words de Anima, in which he seemeth to favour the saying that [All Souls are one, and yet many] rather than that [All Souls are one and not many] or [many and not one] he seemed much taken with it: all which I mention to infer that there is a separability (from God and the universe) which is no way possible but by annihilation; and in compounds some separation of parts will change the species; and if it were provable which Aquinas holds, that no ⟨p. 89⟩two Angels are not of distinct Species, then every alteration of the individual might alter the Species; but yet it would be a Spirit.

Who can doubt but God being all in all things, he is as intimate to us as our Souls to our bodies, and more: And tho the Schools commonly say, that God hath no Accidents, pardon my dissent who doubt not he hath the accidents of Relations, and dare not say that all the world is not Dei Accidens, while in him we live, and move, and have our being: for I will not, and I do not think that it is Pars Dei, as if he were but Anima mundi, and yet I will not say that the world hath no entity or substance; nor yet that the entity of God and the world, is more than the entity (or substance) of God alone; for to be Minor or Pars is below God. But Accidents though no parts are substantiae accidentia. And though I think the Fryar (Benedictus de Benedictis) in Regula Perfectionis speaketh fanatically when he taketh ⟨p. 88⟩it to be perfection to suppose we see and know no being but God; yet we must know nothing quite separate from God, and that hath not some dependent union with him. And yet while all things are in God, and so inseparable from him that nothing but annihilation can totally separate them, yet they are multitudes in themselves, and wicked Men and Devils are separated from the influx of his Grace and Glory. And the human nature of Christ hath some nearer union with God than other Creatures have. And so I doubt not but every Creature is so united to the universe, that nothing but annihilation can totally separate it from the rest; and yet this is consistent with individuation. I remember when I told him whom you so oft mention of Augustines words de Anima, in which he seemeth to favour the saying that [All Souls are one, and yet many] rather than that [All Souls are one and not many] or [many and not one] he seemed much taken with it: all which I mention to infer that there is a separability (from God and the universe) which is no way possible but by annihilation; and in compounds some separation of parts will change the species; and if it were proveable which Aquinas holds, that no ⟨p. 89⟩two Angels are not of distinct Species, then every alteration of the individual might alter the Species; but yet it wo'd be a Spirit.