A26976:85
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
OF THE NATURE OF SPIRITS: › Section 3-4: Ad SECT. III. & IV.
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.
§ 3. When I say [I consent not to Campanella de sensu rerum, or Dr. Glisson, that would make all things alive by an Essentiating Form in the very Elements.] Here you talk of foul play, to make one part fish, and the other flesh; one part of Matter self-moved, and other not.]
Ans. But, worthy Sir, the foul play is yours, that seem to tell your Reader that I do so, which I never do: That is scant fair play. I said not that Spirits are Matter, and I do but say I am ignorant whether Gravitation be from the Motion of a Spirit thrusting down the Stone, &c. or from an Essential Principle in the Matter. May not one be ignorant where he cannot choose? I cannot but much difference the motus aggregativus, such as Gravitation causeth, which is only the tendency of the parts to the whole, that they may there rest from motion, from the natural motion of known Life, which abhorreth cessation: I take Motus to be no Entity, but a mode of Substance; to be in motion or quiescence, are several modes of it; and that mode which is most stated, most showeth nature. I see no contradiction in it, that a Stone should fall without Life: I dare not say, that God cannot make a Rock or Clod to fall by an intrinsic Principle of Gravitation, without vital motion. And yet I am most inclined to your Opinion: But the stream of Dissenters obligeth such a one as I am to more modesty than must be expected from one of your degree.
Ans. But, worthy Sir, the foul play is yours, that seem to tell your Reader that I do so, which I never do: That is scant fair play. I said not that Spirits are Matter, and I do but say I am ignorant whether Gravitation be from the Motion of a Spirit thrusting down the Stone, &c. or from an Essential Principle in the Matter. May not one be ignorant where he cannot chuse? I cannot but much difference the motus aggregativus, such as Gravitation causeth, which is only the tendency of the parts to the whole, that they may there rest from motion, from the natural motion of known Life, which abhorreth cessation: I take Motus to be no Entity, but a mode of Substance; to be in motion or quiescence, are several modes of it; and that mode which is most stated, most sheweth nature. I see no contradiction in it, that a Stone should fall without Life: I dare not say, that God cannot make a Rock or Clod to fall by an intrinsick Principle of Gravitation, without vital motion. And yet I am most inclined to your Opinion: But the stream of Dissenters obligeth such a one as I am to more modesty than must be expected from one of your degree.