Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	body_n	soul_n	spiritual_a	4,457	5	6.8571	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27059	Two disputations of original sin I. of original sin as from Adam, II. of original sin as from our neerer parents : written long ago for a more private use, and now published (with a preface) upon the invitation of Dr. T. Tullie / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1675 (1675)	Wing B1439; ESTC R5175	104,517	242

which it hath not go Adam could not convey to Cain or Abel by generation a nature that was innocent and holy when he had none but a guilty sinful nature himself As when Adam had sinned each part of his body did bear its part in the guilt and if a leg or an arm had been cut off from him that cutting off would not make it become innocent but at the resurrection it shall bear its share of penalty so the embrio and the seed blood and spirits that caused it were as real parts of the Parents once as a leg or arm and when they were parts they could not be innocent otherwise you may as well say that the hand or foot was innocent and go they could not meerly by birth become innocent It is not the separation of the infant from the mother that can put away the guilt that once it had If any say that a leg or arm themselves have no sin or guilt but all is in the will they must then make the body to be no part of the man and must deny its pain and its resurrection to everlasting pain or joy It 's granted that the will is the first and chief seat of moral good or evil but from thence the whole man doth participate thereof and go it is the man that is condemned or justified punished or rewarded and not the will only Obj. But the soul was no part of the Parent though the body were no nor the body neither for it is in a continual flux and we have not the same body at seven years old which we received from our Parents Answ 1. This argument as to the body is it by which our novel Infidels do think to reason us out of the belief and hopes of a resurrection of these same numerical bodies and by the same reason you may as effectually prove that the body that committeth murder or adultery this year and dies seven years after shall not be condemned or punished for it because it is not the same body that committed the sin but this ingenious folly will save none from punishment nor prove them guiltless of original sin So much is permanent as doth essentially constitute and identify the body And for the soul 1. It is certain that it is essential to the man and certain that man begets a man and go certain that man begets the soul And though it be not by partition of the Parents soul yet is it a true generation and go the man begotten can be no better than he that begat Obj. If you say that the soul is ex traduce you will make it material and so mortal and a compound of two communicated souls conjoyned viz. the Fathers and the Mothers c. Answ If by materia be meant substantia quae potentia corpus est or substantia incompleta in potentia ad omnes formas which is Aristotle's materia prima or if any element or any body be hereby meant so we deny that the soul is material or that it is hence inferred to be such But if material be extended as far as substantial or so far as to comprehend spirits improperly then it is granted on both sides that the soul is material But supposing it taken in the usual sense I answer that God can cause spiritual substances to propagate their kind and go such propagation proveth neither their materiality or mortality no more than the creation of the first animals proved their immortality nor is it any inconvenience to grant that two souls do joyn in the communicative generation of a third as long as it is not by partition or deperdition of any of their substance no more than that two candles conjoyned should light a third But the large handling of this would require more time and words than we shall now spare I refer the Reader therefore to those that have handled this subject on purpose and particularly to Micraelius in his Ethnophronius It is not a Traduction e potentia materiae that we maintain The materiale seminis is but as the oyle to the flame to which the soul is conjunct The semen containeth quid immateriale the soul is in it not only in potentia but in actu as it is in the leg or arm of a man If you object that then the soul is divided and part of it dieth quum semen ejicitur moritur I answer Not so no more than it is divided when a man is beheaded or dieth when a leg or arm dieth that is cut off In brief we must not argue ab ignotiore nor deny a plain and certain truth that man begets man because we are uncertain of the manner of the propagation As men do in the controversy about Grace and Free-will so do they in this they divide what are to be conjoyned for fear of giving too much to the other side As one denieth special ascertaining Grace and another denieth Free-will when that Grace worketh by this Free-will so some deny God's part in the causing of the soul and some deny man's part because they are unskilful in discerning the concourse God doth as much in it as if man did nothing and is as fully the cause as if it were by a meer creation and man were no cause and yet he causeth it by man even in the way of natural procreation which by a stablished Law he appointed in the beginning and then gave man a living soul that might propagate living souls And more than so it is the soul that is the principal in procreating and being procreated and that spark of immortal life that is in semine doth by due cherishing of the further causes fabricate its own body and the soul as Scaliger saith ex Themistio sui domicilii non inquilina tantum est sed architecta under God And we are most certain that our knowledge of the way or manner of God's influx into and concourse with second causes is so much above our reach that we are unfit from presumptions about such a mystery to argue against a revealed truth Nay when we have conjectured at the manner it is our wisest course to confess we know it not But as the wind bloweth where it listeth and we hear the sound of it but know not whence it cometh or whither it goeth so is it in the out-goings of the spirit of God for the new birth and in like manner of his causation of the natural birth But of these things we are certain 1. That the Parents beget the child man begets man by virtue of the nature first given them with the law or blessing annexed Increase and multiply and God's continued influence 2. That man's soul is not debilitated in its vegetative and sensitive operations by being rational 3. That go man begetteth not less than bruits He that saith the soul as vegetative and sensitive is not begotten makes man to beget less than bruits 4. Yea he makes him to beget nothing for the body or meer matter

while they were in their loins may justly follow go there guilt did go before The major is proved in that all punishment is for some fault whereof the person punished was some way guilty Obj. It sufficeth that another were guilty of it Answ One mans sin deserveth not another mans punishment further than that other doth some way participate in the guilt Only we must distinguish between guilt by personal commission or omission and guilt by moral and reputative or by natural participation Only Adam or other Parents were guilty by personal commission or omission as to those particular sins but we are guilty by natural participation in that we derive all our nature and personal being from persons so guilty And we are guilty by reputative participation of the sins of mankind in Adam and of the Societies that we are members of quoad nudum meritum still in that we are justly reputed to consent to partake of the benefits or penalties of such Societies when we voluntarily become and continue members of them Obj. Christ himself was justly punished and yet was not guilty of our sin Answ He was not guilty by commission or by natural participation but he had an analogical guilt by reputative participation that is by his own voluntary sponsion putting himself quoad poenam in the room of finners but mark the limitation it was but quoad poenam that he undertook this task viz. that though he were not properly guilty yet he consented to suffer as if he were guilty for the sakes of them that were So that his own consent was a just cause of the derivation of the penalty to his own person which did not commit the sin and so that analogical guilt was instead of proper guilt It may well he said that Christ was guilty ad poenam as obliged to punishment in that his own consent was sufficient to induce an obligation to punishment Obj. May not God's pleasure bring on us a reputative guilt of Adam's sin and not of our neerer Parents seeing he hath absolute power over us and therefore his will may serve instead of our consent as the will of a Parent may be instead of the infants will Answ God bringeth not guilt on any by efficiency or making them such as deserve punishment but by imputation and adjudication Otherwise God should be the cause of sin as sin for so to make guilty is to make a man really a sinner Our Parents may will sin and so may do it for us because we are seminally in them but God cannot will sin Our Parents by willing it do first become sinners themselves and then convey the guilt to us but so cannot God It being therefore but by reputation and adjudication that he judgeth men so guilty of sin it is apparent that his judgment must have some ground in the nature of the thing and the man must be guilty before God judge him so for his judgment is according to truth And therefore it must needs be that there must be some reason in our selves why Adam's sin should be judged ours or why we should be judged liable to punishment for it and that must be because we derive our natures from him And then there is the same reason for our guilt of neerer Parents sin save only that God hath since more freed us from the danger of that suffering which by such sins we might have undergone as he pardoneth to us Adam's imputed sin also The minor of the Argument will be anon cleared in the following Arguments Obj. It is indeed a punishment that is due to children for their Parents sins but it is only to the Parents that it is formally punishment and to themselves it is but materially so and so but affliction because the sin and so the guilt was only the Parents though the child be the subject of the suffering Answ 1. If this were granted it would still hold good that God may justly lay that suffering which is materially punishment upon children for the sins of immediate Parents 2. If this were so then it will equally follow that we may not be formally but materially punished for Adam's sin seeing the reason is manifested to be the same 3. I have shewed that there must be some reason on the part of the sufferer why he should suffer for another mans sin Now with us in the present case it is evident that the reason is because we are their seed and have our natures from them go this is a less-perfect or analogical guilt Obj. God doth inflict sufferings on the beasts for mans sin without any cause on their part go he may do so by infants Answ 1. God is not the Rector of Beasts in a moral proper sense but only in a natural improper sense as a Pilot ruleth a Ship or an Herdsman Cattel And therefore he hath made no Law for them nor hath engaged his fidelity to them concerning the conditions of their happiness or misery as he hath done to man And therefore bruits are not capable of sin or punishment though they be of suffering So that childrens case and theirs do differ 2. Yet when the bruits suffer for mans sin it is because of their relation to man And therefore children must suffer because of their relation which is natural and so neer that it makes them truly capable of guilt So that according to the subject the same suffering receives a various form and denomination and so doth the obligation In the personal committers of the sin there is guilt and punishment due to them in the primary fullest and most proper sense on the children that were then in their loins it is guilt and punishment more imperfectly as by analogy of attribution in the bruits when sacrificed or destroyed for their Masters sin it is but equivocally guilt and punishment I shall proceed to some Texts of Scripture Arg. 9. Deut. 28. 18. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body Children are cursed for the sins of immediate Parents go punished Obj. It is only to the Parents that it is a punishment Answ True in the primary sense but as the children participate of their nature so also of the nature of guilt and punishment It is a threatning of natural evil to a rational creature because of a moral evil which he hath some participation of go it is by participation a true punishment Obj. You may as well say that the bruits and inanimates are punished for they are here cursed too Answ This was answered even now The same evil threatned against a bruit is no punishment which threatned against a reasonable creature is a punishment because of their different capacities Obj. The meaning of the Text is but this Thou shalt be denied the desired fruit of tby body i. e. your women shall be barren Answ That may be part of the meaning but as that is not the full proper sense of the words so is there no reason from the Text for limiting it to