Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	adam_n	body_n	death_n	5,454	5	5.9970	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26655	Jesuitico-Quakerism examined, or, A confutation of the blasphemous and unreasonable principles of the Quakers with a vindication of the Church of God in Britain, from their malicious clamours, and slanderous aspersions / by John Alexander ...	Alexander, John, 1638-1716.	1680 (1680)	Wing A916; ESTC R21198	193,704	258

straight contradicts the Apostle Secondly Adam is not to be considered as a single Person in the matter in hand but as the Scriptures last cited proves as a Common undertaker for and representative head of all mankind and so his deed in Law was the deed of all men albeit they did not personally consent even as the Publick transactions and deeds of the representatives of a Kingdome State or City are in Law the fact and deed of all Thirdly George Keith who as I am informed did dispute once for a Professors place should have remembred whatever be said of primo primi that there are motus secundo primi in us preceeding our actual consent which when towards evil are sinful as when a temptation is tampered with or somewhat listened unto though in end it be rejected and the consent not given Fourthly gracious Principles and gracious Inclinations are truly grace or else a man is not gracious though he be graciously principled and inclined therefore sinful principles and inclinations that is principles and inclinations bending to sin and evil must be sin by the rule of Contraries yea the worst of sin being the bitter Fountain and Source of all the rest Fifthly George Keith grants in the pages of his Book cited that this natural Concupiscence in men is an evil thing and inclines to evill and sin and so by a Metonymie he allowes it to be called Sin Therefore it must be properly and formally sinful and not by a Motonymie only seeing if it were not properly sinful it would not incline so for grace cannot incline to sin nor can that which is neither good nor evil or sinful incline more to evil than to good That which he says of our natural Concupiscence it s not indwelling without our actual consent and kindly reception I cannot but think he was in a strange mixture when he dropt it from his ill-inspired pen. For I am sure St. Paul says in a Text often handled and by George Keith abused too as shall after appear that there was sin and corruption dwelling in him when he hated it disallowed it and gave no consent thereunto nor kindly reception Rom. 7 Chap. from Ver 15 to 23. and certainly our natural Concupiscence which George Keith denys not to be in us but there confesses that it is and it would be repugnant to be otherwise as is clear though he deny it to indwell in us or to be our sin till we actually consent to it being an accident must indwell into and have union with some subject of dependence seeing it cannot exist without some vehicle nor move one nails-breadth by it self In whom then dwels it when it is not consented unto If he says in the Devil and he can say no other thing then when he does not consent unto it he has the Devil and it both to lodge seeing if it be Subjected and dwels in the Devil it cannot be in him without its Subject with it And in my opinion he had better lodge it alone as it and the devil too for two such Devils are worse together then any of them it self These are the dictats of a witty Inspirer However George here objecteth from Ezekiel 18 Chap Ver 4. where its said the Soul that sinneth it shall die To prove that without an actual consent unto our natural Concupiscence we are not held guilty of death Ans The whole Chapter is concerning the sins of nearest Parents as is clear by reading it and so makes nothing against original sin derived from our first Parent Adam Secondly the manifest scope of the Chapter is to give assurance to every man of mercy upon his repentance and turning to God whatever his Parents or himself have been before But will that infer that such a man who findes mercy upon his Repentance never had original sin O brave consequence again there is not the same reason of Adam and of our other nearer Parents for he was our common representative not they and therefore we may be involved into his sin though not into theirs before we were capable actually to consent for we do not stand and fall in any of them but in him we did as the Scriptures cited plainly proves But having dispatched George Keith albeit I will not stand upon all the objections here which are commonly brought seeing this Controversie hath been much handled betwixt our Writers and the Papists where it may be seen they have one great Objection which I must answer and that is That if our Nature be Originally sinful that sin must either be propagated by the Soul or by the Body or by both Not by the Soul for seeing God alone creats that so God should be the Author of Sin which cannot be Not by the Body for so the Soul should be free of it seeing the Body being a dull thing cannot propagate it into the Soul Not by both for the first reason given especially Ans Whatever way it be propagated I have shewed from the Scripture that it is propagated and therein we ought to acquiesce though we could no ways comprehend the manner how it is propagated Secondly I answer that there is not a sufficient Enumeration of the Parts for our Natural Corruption is neither Originally propagated into the Body by the Soul nor into the Soul by the Body but by our Impure Natural Generation into both which is evident seeing abstracting from and laying aside our Natural Generation and our dependence thereby upon Adam neither our Souls nor our Bodies had been naturally infected with that Plague It descends therefore most clearly by our Natural Generation not unto the Soul alone or the Body alone but unto the whole Compound consisting of both united which is the direct Effect of Generation seeing it is not Souls or Bodies separated but Men consisting of both united that Men begets in their generative actions In the following part of the Query they begin to use Grammar against their Profession Original say they signifies the beginning and therefore Original Sin must be the Devil forsooth A brave Consequence indeed which must stand upon the verity of this proposition viz. the beginning is the Devil which if they hold for truth then they must say that God Created Heaven and Earth in the Devil Gen. 1.1 and let them see to these Texts Colos 1.18 Revel 1.8 where the beginning is attributed to Christ but I never heard it ascribed Intransitively as they call it and in the Nominative Case unto the Devil till now Origo for I have learnt my Latin signifies a Root Birth Fountain as well as a beginning why then may it not signifie when the term Sin is joyned with it the Sin which we have from our Root of Mankind Adam or the Sin we are born in or which is the Fountain and source of the rest But let it only signifie a beginning why may not Original Sin signifie the Sin of our beginning to come into the World or that Sin in us

Ministers with a sutable maintenance and if ye please ye may see 1 Cor. 9 chap. How the Apostle at large proves that Ministers have a jus personae that is a right in Law and Reason unto a competency to live by and that decently for it reflects upon the Gospel and their Master to see them beggars and brings contempt upon their Ministery But Sir it s suspected ye have more Incouragement under hand then others have above board Your Ninth parallel of our Popish principles alleadged by you wherein ye divide parties of the same Religion and state them as it were into factions I do not incline to meddle with for I would rather be ambitious to heal or hide than to enlarge or widen these differences which are to wide already Tenthly ye alleadge we are Popish because we affirm that men should not delay their worshiping of God till they be Actually Influenced thereunto by the Spirit Ans I have shewed your Atheism in this point already at my preface and how ye hereby overturn almost the duty of all men both to God and man and I am sure we shall never be Papists for opposing you in that Doctrine of Hells broatching Eleventhly twelfthly and thirteenthly ye say we are Popish in affirming Baptism with Water Infants-Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Ordinances of the Gospel of a standing Nature Ans We affirm they are and have proved above that they are from the Scripture and therefore no Popery here to be found Fourteenthly ye alleadge we are Popish because we hold it lawful for Christians to Swear Ans But in this we are no more Popish then the Scriptures are which shew it to be a duty being duely Circumstantiated see Isai 19 18 and 65 16. Jer. 12 16. nor do I think that Abraham was Popish when he swore to Abimelech and caused his own servant to swear to him Genes 21.24 and 24.3.9 And I wonder if Paul was so Popish 2 Cor. 1.18.23 or was the Angel Popish that swore by him that liveth for ever and ever Revel 10.6 Nay what think ye when God himself swears Isai 54.9 and 62.8 Heb. 6.17 Will ye impute Popery unto God too But you will say we are forbidden to swear at all Matt. 5.34 Jam. 5.12 Ans We are there forbidden to swear by creatures whereof both places speaks and enumerats several of them and all idle and rash swearing is there also forbidden no doubt but we are not forbidden there to swear Holy oaths Oaths in judgment when called thereunto or Oaths upon necessity for vindicating truth as the Apostle Pauls was And that no more is meant in these two Texts is both clear in the very places themselves and likewise from the Scriptures and examples which I have brought for swearing as is explained Fifteenthly You alleadge we are Popish because we hold it lawful for Christians to fight and kill there opposits in the quarrel Ans Truly I do not think any offensive war lawful where any Prince or people Invades another without just cause But when a Prince or his People are unjustly abused by their evil neighbours of whom they can have no legal redress because they can get no Court that they will answer to on Earth then I am sure it is lawful nay necessary for him and his subjects to redress their abuses by Arms. There are so many Instances of this in Scripture that I will not cite one of them only I shall propose a case which may and does often fall out betwixt neighbouring Princes What if any neighbouring Christian Prince should invade unjustly the Isle of Britain should our King and his subjects sit still and let him take it and not resist him All the World then might call us both fools and cowards I assure you George I would both fight in the quarrel and kill all I could till we were once masters of them what ever ye would do and judge it my duty thus to serve my King and save my Countrey from slavery Sixteenthly ye alleadge we are Popish because we say the civil Magistrate may punish men for their errours in doctrine and worship Ans Do you think that these are not punishable when a man must be hang'd for stealing a horse what shall he deserve for murthering of a Soul by Damnable Heresies is not a Soul more worth then a horse think ye Are not false Prophets ordained to be even put to death who lead people away from the worship of the true God Deut. 13.5 And I am sure ye do not worship the true God seeing ye acknowledge no person in the Deity and so can not worship any of them The Magistrate bears not the sword in vain but is to be a revenger of wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13.4 which soul-destroyers are highly guilty of contradict if ye dare and therefore he is bound to punish them Lastly Ye alleadge we are Popish in affirming it lawful for men to kneel bow and take off their hats to one another Ans Seeing ye think it unlawful then we see ye place worship into it and count it a duty to keep on your hats c. which I must think the heighth of Superstition and Folly till you produce scripture-precept for it which I can never expect to see When two horses meet they will neigh to one another What! will you not be so civil as a horse Sir But I shall say no more to this here having in my Preface in touching the fifth Commandment proved that external reverence in the general what ever is the custom of the Country in these things if they hold of Divine worship is thereby enjoyned For that which ye tell us Eighteenthly concerning peoples ornaments and recreations I thought it not worthy to be numbred For Albeit I know these things are too often abused and I am sure we are sorrier for it than you are yet seeing all the gifts of God have a lawful use and these ornaments are such they may be lawfully used and were used when Popery was not known And as for games though some may be unlawful and others unfit yet others of them are very lawful and healthful too And as for sporting and Comedies I am sure ye may suffer me to break a jest upon you without thinking me Popish and school-boyes for putting them to diligence to act an innocent comedy which only we allow You say Sir you could have instanced several other particulars of our Popishness But none of these that ye have instanced holds good And I doubt nothing of your willingness but that if ye could have found any thing to charge us with of that nature it would soon have been laid to our door especially seeing ye have libelled so many Popish principles against us which we see clearly do not hold good and ye are therein found a traducing calumniator greatly allied to the Devil the accuser of the brethren I say not this for your hurt Sir but that you may consider what state