New Gem | No More Learning

Then he tells us rightly, _that we cannot conceive any Act without its
subject_, as _thought_ without a _thinking thing_, for what _thinks_
cannot be _nothing_; but then he subjoyns without any Reason, and against
the usual manner of speaking, and contrary to all Logick, _that hence it
seem to follow, that a thinking thing is a corporeal Being_.

Word:

corporeal

Question:

Why does the author claim that it is against logic and the usual manner of speaking to conclude that a thinking thing is a corporeal being from the premise that we cannot conceive an act without its subject?

Answer (optional):

The author claims that it is against logic and the usual manner of speaking to conclude that a thinking thing is a corporeal being from the premise that we cannot conceive an act without its subject because such a conclusion goes against the common understanding of substance. The author states that the subjects of all acts are understood under the notion of substance or metaphysical matter, but not necessarily under the notion of bodies. Logic and common speech make a distinction between spiritual and corporeal substances, so jumping to the conclusion that a thinking thing is a corporeal being from the premise mentioned would be contrary to this established distinction.