A26976:78
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.
§ 4. But you magnify our difference, saying [In this you and I fundamentally differ, in that you omit, but I include, Penetrability and Indiscerpibility in the Conceptus formalis of a Spirit. Ans. I think you mean better than you speak, and err not fundamentally. 1. I do not think that your two hard words are fundamentals, nor that one or both are Synonyma to Immaterial. 2. I do not think but Purissima includeth all that is true in them, and so leaveth them not out. 3. I do not leave them out of the Dispositio vel modus Substantiae, though I leave them out of the Conceptus formalis. 4. Your self affirm the vital Virtue to be the Conceptus formalis. ⟨p. 31⟩And hath a Spirit more forms than one! You know of no existent Spirit in the World that hath not its proper specific form: And if your two words had been a Generical Form, that's no form to the species, but a Substantiae dispositio. Doth he fundamentally err that saith Corpus humanum organicum is not forma hominis? Or that the puritas vel subtilitas materiae is not forma •gnis vel solis, but only the materiae dispositio? If our little self made words were so dangerous on either side, I should fear more hurt by making the form of a Spirit 1. To be but the Consistence or mode of the Substance, 2. And that to consist in divers accidents conjunct, 3. And those uncertain in part, or unintelligible, 4. And Spirits to have two Forms, or one made up of divers things, 5. And to place the form in a Negation of Matter. What a jumble is here, when the true definition of a Spirit is obvious?
§ 4. But you magnifie our difference, saying [In this you and I fundamentally differ, in that you omit, but I include, Penetrability and Indiscerpibility in the Conceptus formalis of a Spirit. Ans. I think you mean better than you speak, and err not fundamentally. 1. I do not think that your two hard words are fundamentals, nor that one or both are Synonyma to Immaterial. 2. I do not think but Purissima includeth all that is true in them, and so leaveth them not out. 3. I do not leave them out of the Dispositio vel modus Substantiae, though I leave them out of the Conceptus formalis. 4. Your self affirm the vital Virtue to be the Conceptus formalis. ⟨p. 31⟩And hath a Spirit more forms than one! You know of no existent Spirit in the World that hath not its proper specifick form: And if your two words had been a Generical Form, that's no form to the species, but a Substantiae dispositio. Doth he fundamentally err that saith Corpus humanum organicum is not forma hominis? Or that the puritas vel subtilitas materiae is not forma gnis vel solis, but only the materiae dispositio? If our little self made words were so dangerous on either side, I should fear more hurt by making the form of a Spirit 1. To be but the Consistence or mode of the Substance, 2. And that to consist in divers accidents conjunct, 3. And those uncertain in part, or unintelligible, 4. And Spirits to have two Forms, or one made up of divers things, 5. And to place the form in a Negation of Matter. What a jumble is here, when the true definition of a Spirit is obvious?