You and I are enquiring of the different Forms of Matter and Spirit: You say that Impenetrability, and Divisibility are the ⟨p. 13⟩Form of Matter, and the contrary of Spirit: I say, that 1. Substance as Substance, (and Matter taken for Substance, which Dr. Crakenthorpe thinketh is the properest sense) as such hath no Form, that is, in conceptu primo. 2. That substance distinguished by subtlety & crassitude, visibility and invisibility, quantity, shape, motion, &c. doth herein differ Modally: And this Mode may well enough be called the Form, before it have another Form: And as the divers foresaid Elements thus differ, so the substance of Spirits no doubt hath some Modal Excellency above all Bodies or Matter strictly or narrowly so called: And if you will call this a Form, I contend not about the word, but it is but equivocally so called, Spirits having another nobler sort of Form. 3. Nothing hath two Forms univocally so called: But Spirits have all that Virtus formalis, which I oft described▪ which is their very form: There is no Spirit without it: It's not a Compounding part, but the form of a simple substance. Vital Virtue, Vis, Potentia activa, signifieth not the same thing with Penetrability, and Indiscerpibility; Therefore both cannot be the Form univocally so called: And how you could put both these your self into one definition, ⟨p. 14⟩as a kind of Compounded Form I wonder. Yea, your two words themselves signify not the same thing: Penetrable and Indiscerptible are not words of one signification. And surely you will grant that these two, Penetrable and Indiscerptible can be no otherwise a Form to Spirits, than Impenetrable and Discerpible are a Form to Matter. And it's apparent that the first is but a modal conceptus, and the latter a relative notion of Matter, and neither one nor both are contrary to Virtus Vitalis in a Spirit (or Virtus activa:) Mere passive potentiality is rather the contrary difference here.
You and I are enquiring of the different Forms of Matter and Spirit: You say that Impenetrability, and Divisibility are the ⟨p. 13⟩Form of Matter, and the contrary of Spirit: I say, that 1. Substance as Substance, (and Matter taken for Substance, which Dr. Crakenthorpe thinketh is the properest sense) as such hath no Form, that is, in conceptu primo. 2. That substance distinguished by subtilty & crassitude, visibility and invisibility, quantity, shape, motion, &c. doth herein differ Modally: And this Mode may well enough be called the Form, before it have another Form: And as the divers foresaid Elements thus differ, so the substance of Spirits no doubt hath some Modal Excellency above all Bodies or Matter strictly or narrowly so called: And if you will call this a Form, I contend not about the word, but it is but equivocally so called, Spirits having another nobler sort of Form. 3. Nothing hath two Forms univocally so called: But Spirits have all that Virtus formalis, which I oft described▪ which is their very form: There is no Spirit without it: It's not a Compounding part, but the form of a simple substance. Vital Virtue, Vis, Potentia activa, signifieth not the same thing with Penetrability, and Indiscerpibility; Therefore both cannot be the Form univocally so called: And how you could put both these your self into one definition, ⟨p. 14⟩as a kind of Compounded Form I wonder. Yea, your two words themselves signify not the same thing: Penetrable and Indiscerpible are not words of one signification. And surely you will grant that these two, Penetrable and Indiscerpible can be no otherwise a Form to Spirits, than Impenetrable and Discerpible are a Form to Matter. And it's apparent that the first is but a modal conceptus, and the latter a relative notion of Matter, and neither one nor both are contrary to Virtus Vitalis in a Spirit (or Virtus activa:) Meer passive potentiality is rather the contrary difference here.
