A26976:28
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.
London: printed for B. Simons, 1682
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.
2. And the fastening of Nicknames on one another in Controversies of Religion, hath so much caused Schisms, and other mischiefs, that I confess I the less like it about Philosophy. But I must submit.
2. And the fastning of Nicknames on one another in Controversies of Religion, hath so much caused Schisms, and other mischiefs, that I confess I the less like it about Philosophy. But I must submit.
§ 3. My understanding is grown so suspicious of ambiguity in almost all words, that I must confess that what you say also against those whom ⟨p. 3⟩you call Holenmerians and Nullibists satisfieth me not, unless many terms used in the controversies, were farther explained than I find them here, or in your Metaphysics (your Books against Judge Hale I have not seen.) But I may take it for granted that you know that they who use the saying of [Tota in toto, & tota in qualibet part] ordinarily tell us; 1. That they use the word Tota relatively, and improperly; seeing that which hath no parts is improperly called Tota. 2. That they mean it but negatively, viz. That the Soul is not in the parts of the body, per parts, part in one part, and part in another, but indivisibly. And one would think this should suit with your own hypothesis.
§ 3. My understanding is grown so suspicious of ambiguity in almost all words, that I must confess that what you say also against those whom ⟨p. 3⟩you call Holenmerians and Nullibists satisfieth me not, unless many terms used in the controversies, were farther explained than I find them here, or in your Metaphysicks (your Books against Judge Hale I have not seen.) But I may take it for granted that you know that they who use the saying of [Tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte] ordinarily tell us; 1. That they use the word Tota relatively, and improperly; seeing that which hath no parts is improperly called Tota. 2. That they mean it but negatively, viz. That the Soul is not in the parts of the body, per partes, part in one part, and part in another, but indivisibly. And one would think this should suit with your own hypothesis.