Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A25449
|
Animadversions upon a sheet of Mr. Baxters entituled An appeal to the light, printed 1674 for the farther caution of his credulous readers.
|
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing A3202; ESTC R34208
|
9,926
|
18
|
Pecc c. 6. Seminarium the source and seminary of all vices and in the very next denyes it to be either culpa or aliquid culpabile i. e. to be a fault or to have any thing faulty in it an absurdity which Bellarmine Himselse has sufficiently refuted De statu Pecc L. 4. c. 3. T is plain however from the front of his 5. ch ibid. that his concerne there is only in the Cause of Original Sin and how it is transmitted where He appeals to Galen and his Disciples and determines it to be conveigh'd by a Seminal infection with which neither you nor I have any thing to do as to our present particular contest For let it be conveigh'd this way or the tother I am not now concern'd t is still Original Sin and still but one and so this Quotation is of no waight at all Let the soul of man if you please be ex traduce by generation as well as his Body for which you so earnestly contend it will never contribute any thing to your new Original Sin except you can show us some either habitual or Actual Vices which are not rooted in the OLD and when you have done that we will add it to the wonders of the world Your own Parisiensis with his Scaturigo seminarium will never allow of This. But now we come out of the thick darkness of Parisiensis his Age into the light of the Reformed writers Of whom good P. Martyr makes the Foreman of the Jury And what saies that worthy Person why Pag. 28. the utmost I can find is this that Sin pollutes both Soul and Body and that some infection of the Soul may be deriv'd from the seminal contagion of the Body whereupon He advises the Parents to a Holy life ne animos suos corpora polluant c. lest they pollute both their Souls and Bodies and consequently infect both in their children which at the highest He never understood but of bad seminal Dispositions which every one knows can necessarily effect nothing and so He tells you a little after notandum hee esse contingens non necessarium But good Sr you might have minded that in your very Quotation He denyes all Sins of neerer Progenitors to be of the same kind and nature with Original Sin and proves it too and consequently is point blanke against you Pag. 29 30. which if you heeded no better lookes like an Oversight and if you knew it you deale not fairly with your English Reader by hiding it from Him You injure Walaus and so abuse your Reader when you make Him reprove Corvinus Pag. 31. without taking notice of any of his explanations for asserting with the Pelagians that the Imputation of Adams Sin and that of our neerer Progenitors is alîus planè rationis of no kindred or likeness at all Whence you would inferr the parity or resemblance at least of your new Original Sin with the Old one as if the difference were little or none But pray Sr tell me did you transscribe from others or read it your self in Walaus what you quote out of his 9. chapt p. 263 264 Did you read both those Pages not to mention the 268th If you did not we have no cause to commend your diligence if you did we wish better proofes of your syncerity For there He interprets his meaning of no alliance with yours in as plain words as a Schollar would desire Corvinus denyes the Imputation of Adams Sin to be true and Real and asserts it to be only dispensative as He tells you there to make way for the Covenant of Grace Wal. p. 264. as if God were not angry in earnest with mankind for that Original Sin c. but grants the Imputation of neerer Progenitors Sins to be indeed true and proper Waleus blames Him justly for the former in making no Body knows what of the Imputation of Adams Sin which is no part of our present controversie so that in effect He speaks in all your Quotation no more then This that the Sin of Adam was really and properly imputed to his Posterity not only by Corvinus his imaginary Dispensation Whereas you no doubt would have your Reader believe that Walaus holds the Imputation of Adams Sin and our neerer Parents to be in the main ejusdem rationis of the same kind and Genius which as to the Reality of Imputation we grant they are but not as to any thing else you aim at so that I suppose you have enough of your Walaeus Neither does Vrsin speak a word for you but in the close of that Quotation Pag. 31. against you so farr as I have any thing to do with you He tells us indeed that non foret absurdum c. There would be no absurdity if God for the multiplyed Sins of Progenitors should make the burden of Them heavier upon their children and that 's All and who ever quaestiond this no more is to be fish'd out of Mr Gatakers words nothing to a new Original Sin Nay me thinks you have somthing like a forc'd offer to a Recantation p. 33. where telling us of your aboundance of Protestant Writers on your side and generally all the Expositors on the second Commandment all I can find you would make of them is in your own words that Temporal Judgments and some spiritual are oft inflicted by God on children for their Fathers Sins And have you not now brought all to a doughty conclusion in which you have none to oppose you may not you sit down and plume your selfe over your incomparable performance and the rout you have given me But however all this shall not hinder me from an Act of Charity to you For seeing you seem not at all to understand your own Quaestion nor to know well how to set about your worke give me leave though unworthy to hint you a few directions how to manage this unwieldy business you have undertaken You may use or reject them as you please t is at worst but a little good Counsel lost Sr if you are for a new Secondary Original Sin I conceive with your pardon you have these three great works to doe 1. To prove what you have asserted that this Novel Original Sin is not deriv'd from our Original Father no line of Communication between them a Sin besides that which is deriv'd from Adam as you plainly and positively affirme For if indeed it derive in a direct Line from the first Transgression and have its whole Root fastned there to talke of a new Secondary Original Sin is not in my Judgment the best sense that may be spoken 2. To make good against Austin * Pag. 25. in your own Quotation that your new Original does mutare naturam change the Nature of Man as the Old one does to our Cost and sorrow 3. You have also to prove against Peter Martyr and in the words you have * Pag. 30. cited too that the derivation of Progenitors Sins be what they will to their children is constant and necessary not uncertain or Contingent When you have prov'd the first and baffled your own witnesses in the other two I care not if I promise you to be your Proselyte but till then I much feare that all you can say will be but Trifling and Impertinence The words that should have followed are these p. 20. I have now done with that part of your Preface c.
no more then This that God upon that execrable Imprecation most justly requir'd the Sins of the Bloody Parents at the Hands also of their children who have generally approv'd that wickedness unto this day You will have a knotty peece of work to hew out another Original Sin from any such Testimonies as these Pag. 23. Next comes the Martyr Cyprian who discoursing the mischief which children are subject to from ill education and especially from the bad Example of their Parents aggravates the matter in a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia where He brings in the poor children with this sad complaint we have found our Parents our Murtherers They have denyed for Vs the Church our Mother and God our Father c. He speaks there of the Lapsi who out of Fear offer'd unto Idols and by their Example taught their Children to doe the like and so were instrumental to their Guilt and calamity It must be some Delian Diver can fetch out your new Original Sin from hence for the old and only one came in at another door then that of Pelagian Example and besides we should make as many Original Sins yea as many Fathers as we have prevailing Examples in the world which I know you will not grant Your whole Quotation out of Leo unto the bottom of p. 24. is the same verbatim with S. Austins Pag. 23 24. where you quote His Enchiridion But however that happen'd both living in the same Century t is no barr to Him as another witness if He have any Evidence for You. The greatest force of that Consort-Testimony lyes I thinke in the close where it speaks thus quia in illo uno quod in ownes Homines pertransivit c. that is because in that ONE Sin which passed upon All men and which was so great that it changed the nature of man into a necessity of Dying there are many Sins to be found with other Sins of Parents which though they cannot alter Nature yet involve and bind the children in the Guilt unless the Free grace mercy of God relieve them Those Holy Fathers are there interpreting that passage Psal 51.4 Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother bring me forth Which they think fit to render with the Vulgar In iniquitatibus in peccatis and thence inferr that David has respect unto some other Sins wherein Children may be involv'd besides that of the first and common Father But besides that They suggest an Answer to the Inference when they tell us of many Sins in that ONE Original it appears they either had not consulted or were not skill'd in the Hebrew which S. Austin somwhere confesses of Himself nor was the want of that convenience any way scandalous in that Age though Jeroms industrie had rescued Him from it For in the Original all runs in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that nothing can be concluded thence But take what those Pious Fathers say De bene esse and as we find it they will do you no service seeing all their Evidence amounts to no more then This generally Confessed Truth that God if He pleases may reckon with wicked children for their wicked Parents as well as their own Personal Sins This will not rise up to a new Original Sin which those venerable Doctors sufficiently distinguish from the Sins of neerer Progenitors when of these they tell you non possunt mutare naturam i. e. they can worke no change upon Nature as the true and only Original Sin has done to such a sad degree And whereas you tax Bellarmines accomodation for a shift and a meer violence when He interprets them to mean of the punishment and not of the fault Pag. 27. upon this ground that there can be no punishment without a Fault I wish you had consider'd it better For allowing your Proposition in Se that Punishment supposes a fault it follows not that the contagion of the Parents Personal Faults are deriv'd unto their children seeing they have Sin enough of their own for which at any time they are responsible to the Soveraign Justice of God And when that Justice is pleas'd to visit the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children 't is indeed the wicked Fathers deserved punishment but not their Posterities eatenus and upon that account save only when they tread in the same forbidden Paths Themselves and then every one will pronounce them inexcusable After Leo comes Gregorie the Great who indeed seems at first view to favour you more then any of the Rest Pag. 25. especially in that one clause dum pro culpa parentis Ex originali Peccato anima polluitur Prolis i. e. for the fault of the Parent the Soul of his Child is polluted by Original Sin But 1. here is no mention of any Original Sin but one no Secondary Originals 2. He saies not the soul of the child is polluted by any personal actual in of the Parent but ex Originali peccato from Original Sin from that one in the singular number we All derive from Adam I can make no more of it and that 's nothing to your purpose for ex culpâ Parentis is there interpreted to be Original Sin of which every Father as well as Adam is guilty and so derives His own Original Sin as well as Adams to his Children Here is nothing of any personal actual Sin to be rationally inferr'd as you would have it For S. Austin whom you place after Gregory Pag. 25. though almost 200 years before Him you told me in another place I knew not He was of your Judgment No more I do to this day He has nothing of your new Original Sin of any more Originals in specie then one Only He moves a quaestion whether Children be not guilty of all their Progenitours both Actual and Individual Original Sins transmitted successively from Adam and in the upshot leaves it undetermin'd with a non immeritò disceptari potest it may justly be disputed temere affirmare non audeo I dare not saies He affirm any thing Call you this his Judgment for you where He pronounces nothing and tells you He dares not define A praegnant evidence indeed that speakes not one positive syllable in your Cause But this is to be in Hast You tell us you would trouble your self and the Reader with more of the Ancients words if you thought it worth the Cost Pag. 27. But truly I think you have given sufficient trouble to both already and ought upon that account to pay both Costs and Dammages to your Reader Now for your Gul. Parisiensis Pag. 27. whom Trithemius I grant adorns with the Title of Eruditus in Scriptaris a man well vers'd in the Scriptures let every one believe of that as much aa He pleases what shall we say to Him who tells us in one chapter that Original Sin is a Pest Scaturigo vitiorum De vit