A26976:88
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.
§ 5. You conclude [We are to deny Self-motion in the matter it self every where as not belonging thereto, but to Spirit]
Ans. No doubt but Materia qua talis est mere passiva: But that God can put no motive inclination in it, or that he cannot give a Spiritual Vitality to any matter, are conclusions fitter for you than for me.
§ 6. To show why I oft neglect the name [Material] (some taking it for the same with Substance, and some only for Corporeit) I said, that the distinction of Natures into Active and Passive, serveth ⟨p. 36⟩as well.] To this you say [Materiality is a Notion more strict, distinct and steady.] Ans. The contrary is commonly known, and before and elsewhere proved; when Materia is not only a very hard ambiguous word (and you have not yet enabled me by all your words, to know what you mean by it) but even such great men as before named make the more general sense (equal to Substance) to be the more proper: Had all used it, as you do, and you made us understand what you mean by it, I would hold to it accordingly.
§ 6. To shew why I oft neglect the name [Material] (some taking it for the same with Substance, and some only for Corporeit) I said, that the distinction of Natures into Active and Passive, serveth ⟨p. 36⟩as well.] To this you say [Materiality is a Notion more strict, distinct and steady.] Ans. The contrary is commonly known, and before and elsewhere proved; when Materia is not only a very hard ambiguous word (and you have not yet enabled me by all your words, to know what you mean by it) but even such great men as before named make the more general sense (equal to Substance) to be the more proper: Had all used it, as you do, and you made us understand what you mean by it, I would hold to it accordingly.