Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	soul_n	true_a	7,689	5	4.8842	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54842	An impartial inquiry into the nature of sin in which are evidently proved its positive entity or being, the true original of its existence, the essentiall parts of its composition by reason, by authority divine, humane, antient, modern, Romane, Reformed, by the adversaries confessions and contradictions, by the judgement of experience and common sense partly extorted by Mr. Hickman's challenge, partly by the influence which his errour hath had on the lives of many, (especially on the practice of our last and worst times,) but chiefly intended as an amulet to prevent the like mischiefs to come : to which is added An appendix in vindication of Doctor Hammond, with the concurrence of Doctor Sanderson, Oxford visitors impleaded, the supreme authority asserted : together with diverse other subjects, whose heads are gathered in the contents : after all A postscript concerning some dealings of Mr. Baxter / by Thomas Pierce ...	Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.	1660 (1660)	Wing P2184; ESTC R80	247,562	303

confession of Learned VOSSIUS That the greatest part of the Amients do so speak as if they thought Original sin to be som●thing positive to wit either a Habit or some other Quality I call it the confession of GERARD VOSSIUS because I find it is none of his own opinions that Original sin is something positive whatever he speaks of actual sins And I think his confession to be of the greater consideration because of his being so very conversant in Antient writers and because or his abilitie to understand their true meaning and lastly of his unwillingness to understand them against himself Nay when he speaks of those Antients who were otherwise minded he takes their meaning to have been not so much that this sin was a meer defect of Original Righteousnesse as that it was rather an habitual aversion from God proceeding from the defect of Original righteousness They that held it to be a quality could not otherwise hold it in his opinion then by holding also that the soul was begotten with the body and sin begotten with the soul or that the spirit being created was at least infected by the flesh some thought that the soul was as it were kindled by the soul in generation and that the Leprosie of sin in childrens souls was by infection from the leprosy with which their parents had been infected Of which Opinion was TERTVLLIAN APOLLINARIVS and the greatest part of the Eastern Fathers Quomodo corpus ex corpore sic animam nasci ex animâ TERTVL Apoll. maxima pars Orientalium autumavit uti scribit Hieronymus ad Marcellinum Anapsychiam Epist. 45. RUFFINUS also and AUGUSTIN are cited for it But because of the latter t is said by VOSSIUS that he durst not publickly avow what was privately his opinion His words are the worthier to be observed For thus he writeth to OPTATVS se neque legendo neque orando neque ratiocinando invenire potuisse quomodo cum animarum Creatione peccatum Originis defendatur And for more to this purpose the Reader is referred to other places as Epist. 28. ad Hieronymum Lib. 10. in Genes ad lit cap 23. lib. 1 Retract c. 1. Nay even then when he is doubtful of the souls extraction whether created or begotten he still adheres to his opinion that it is infected by the flesh with some positive Quality as wine grows sowre by being put in a sowre vessel And VOSSIVS himself doth so explain him Haec enim mens est verborum Augustini profecto aut utrumque vitiatum exhomine trahitur aut alterum in altero tanquam in vase vitiato corrumpitur ubi occulta justiti● divinae legis includitur Quid autem horum sit verum libentius disco quàm dico ne audeam dicere quod nescio It seemes he doubted whether the soul were ex traduce or not although unlesse it were ex traduce he knew not how to defend Original sin But that he concluded it had a positive entity appears as by all that hath been spoken so by the motus bestialis bestialis Libido by which he expresseth the sin of Adam § 4. As the most of the Antients so the most eminent of the MODERNS have held the soul to be ex traduce and Original sin a positive entity two of which number are commended by learned Vossius but just now cited for men of Excellency and Renown And Vossius himself in divers places doth sufficiently ass●rt the positivity of sin not so much when he saith of Original sin that it inclines the minde to vitious acts so that it may and is wont to be called a Habit as when he saith of its effects which ar● Actual sins that they are grown over the soul as a spiritual Rust that carnal Concupiscence is wholy vitious as being a deflextion of the appetite from the Law of its Creation from whence ariseth a disposit●on and propensity to R●bellion that Morally vitious Acts are freely drawn out from that propensity that by the custom of such a●ts there is ingendered in the sinner a vitious Habit. Cùm affectus sic effraenis lascivit ut rationis imperium antevertat plurimùm adversus rationem insurgat ac nisi diligenter à ratione valletur facile aurigam rationem curru excutiat In graviori tentatione semper sit superior nisi ratio speciali juvetur Dei Judicio 2. And as they who affirme the propagation of the soul so also they who deny that God doth concur to the act of sin do eo ipso hold sin to have a positive being such as LOMBARD BONAVENTVRE ALEXANDER ALENSIS ASOTO DVRAND AVREOLVS the learned ARMACHANVS and others cited by Dr. STEARN in his Animi Medela p. 256 257. And though the Master of the sentences doth seem to some not to define which is truest the negative or the affirmative of G●ds concurrence to acts of sin but leaves the Reader to judge of both tenets to Dist. 37. yet he is cited by CAMERACENSIS l. 1. q. 14. for the defence of the Negative Because according to his opinion God doth only permit those evils which are sin as saith our learned Dr. FIELD p. 128. 3. HEMMINGIVS the Scholar of Melanehthon and known to be of his minde defineth sin in general by disobedience against God and affirmes Disobedience to import four things in holy writ Defect corruption inclination and action Original sin he defines to be a propagated corruption of humane nature in which there is a material and formal part The Material saith he containeth both a defect in the intellect and a concupiscence in the heart In the fal of Adam there was a concurrence of these 8. sins 1. A doubting the truth of Gods word 2. A loss of faith or incredulity 3. Curiosity 4. Pride 5. Contempt of God 6. Apostacy 7. Ingratitude 8. A murdering of himself and his posterity And is expressed in Scripture by divers names Concupiscence Flesh the old man the Law of sin sin dwelling in us Rebellion the law of the members and sometimes sin without any epith●t Actuall sin he defines to be something done omitted said or thought fighting with the law of God Or as he puts it in other tearmes Actual sin is every action committed against the Law both in the Intellect and the will and in the heart and the outward members Thus that Regius Professor famous for learning and moderation 4. GREGORIE MARTIN of Silesia stating the sin of our first parents begins to expound the word Lapsus which he saith importeth a vitious act with which a man does any thing ill and is the same with peccatum Then coming to speak of the term originall sin he professeth to take the word for the positive act of eating the fruit which was forbidden And so the expression of Original sin he faith doth also include an actual From the importance of the word he comes to speak of the thing signified Which first he

of the Gospel being positive is very good and from God which yet he must or he must sing his Recantation In a word It can no more be proved that sin is a privation and nothing else from the saying of St. Iohn that sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3.4 then that Christ himself is not positive from the tropical saying of St. Paul that Christ was made sin 2. Cor. 5.21 or that darknesse is as positive as iron because the Angels were delivered to chaines of darknesse 2 Pet. 2.4 And whether it is not indeed a sin without any such figure or catachrestical way of speaking to ravish Virgins and lye with beasts to hate God and to love the Devil which are confessedly as positive as any actions that can be named I appeal to the usage of the word Sin in the common experience of all mankind § 16. His last argument as he calls it is very rare Original sin is not positive ergo sin as sin is not positive p. 8● First for the manifold Absurdities as well as guilt into which he falls by his reduplication sin as sin I briefly refer to every part of my second chapter especially § 8 9 10 11 12 c. Next for what he saith of Original sin I refer to all I have produced from the Antient Fathers and learned modern Divines who held it to be a posi●ive quality in the third and fourth Sections of the fifth Chapter of this Book and also in the 3. Ch § 23. But thirdly as I never yet said so neither a● I concerned to say that all sins are positive It is enough that some are and those the worst to be imagined Nay Mr. H must be concluded a strange kinde of Blasphemer in saying all things positive are either Gods Creatures or God himself although there were but one sin that had a positive being such as was the Angels pride and the Divels hatred of God Almighty or the lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44 Yet now to speak more of Original sin as that doth signifie the proneness of the will to evil after the image of Adams will from after the time of his Depravation it must needs be also positive to wit a conversion to the creature And why might not Adam acquire by his sin the image of Satan unto himself and offspring too as well as sin-away the Image of God But this is not that upon which I am obliged to lay a stresse Nor shall this be the subject of new disputes whether a man doth beget a man as much as a Horse begets a Horse It may be argued for ever on either side but I believe with greatest force for that part of the question to which St. Austin was most inclined and all that is said by Mr. H. doth but help to disprove Original sin for which Pelagians and Socinians may chance to thank him I know St. Paul held that the whole of man doth consist of three things Body Soul and Spirit concerning which Dr. Hammond hath a most profitable Discourse with a Reference to which I will shut up this Section see his Annotation upon 1 Thess. 5.23 § 17. Having seen his Reasons let us see what he saith to some few of mine or rather how guiltily he sneaks from the whole duty of a respondent p. 90. For though he knew what I had said to wit that Sins in Scripture are called works works of Darknesse works of the flesh works of mens hands and works of the Devil as it were on purpose to shew that they are positive things yet he passeth by that as if the word works had been of no consideration and onely nibbles at my saying That that was positive that Christ came to destroy concealing also from his Reader what I had cited from St. Iohn of Christs being manifested in the flesh that he might destroy the works of the Devil 1 Iohn 3.8 nor taking notice of what I said about vacuum vacui implying locatum as the privation of a privation implyeth position by all confessions I shewed it implyes a contradiction to say an habit is a privation because it is called by a Catachresis the privation of a privation when after a losse it is recovered from hence I argued that if the works of the Devil which are also called the Lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44 had been meere privations the destruction of them could have been none But Mr. H's very weaknesse doth serve him here instead of strength for not considering that Death is said to be capable of destruction 1 Cor. 15.16 by the same catachrestical way of speaking whereby it is said in other places to have a body and a sting and so I might prove it at least to him to have a positive entity he urgeth his ignorance for a proof that of a meer privation there may be properly a privation How much better might I prove that death it self hath a positivity from Rev. 21.8 where to be burning in a lake of fire and Brimstone is expressed by the name of the second death But the work of the Devil is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called and therefore positive The words of St. Iohn are even litterally true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 3.4 and lusts are qualities Iohn 8.44 § 18. To the Argument which I urged from sins habitual or habits of sin such as Drunkennesse in a man who is seldom sober it seemes he knew so exactly that no good answer was to be given as to resolve to supply it with meer scurrility and impertinence p. 91. He is fain to say that I intended a Sori●es or rather seemed to intend it that he might seem to have something at which to nibble But no such thing as a Sorites was any more in my thoughts then in my mention And therefore this is so vile a practice as may be used by any Atheist who hath a minde to calumn●ate any passage of any writer It i an easy thing to say that such an Author makes a face as if he intended this or that which we have reason to believe he could not possibly intend But what saith the Rhapsodist to my Argument that vices are habits as well as vertues and therefore positive Qualities as well as Vertues He doth not deny that some sorts of vices indeed are Habits for he cannot think that an act of Drunkenn●ss is a vice and that an habit of Drunkennenss is none at all nor can he think it impossible to be habitu●lly drunk and that an habit is a thing positive he is so far from denying that he affirmes it he pr●fesseth not to doubt of it p 92. so that now there is no question whether Drunkennesse when an habit is positive or not But whether or no it is a sin or whether it is not from God in Mr. Hickman's judgement one of the two we are assured by hims●lf is his

then the Scripture meanes when it saith the old man and the body of sin thereby expressing most briefely all the works of the flesh all unhallowed desires and vitious habits which are contrary to the law or spirit of God For so I gather from Dr. I. p. 3039. where he also gives notice that Illyricus his book was commended to him upon very high termes by the Reverend Dr. Field then Dean of Gloucester § 25. Next for the Reverend DOCTOR HAMMOND who ever occurs to my Remembrance when I hear or speak of judicious Hooker or Dr. Iackson he hath prov●d as well as taught that the Act of sin is not separable from the obliquity of that act the act of Blasphemy from the obliquity or i●regularity of blasphemy the least evil thought or word against an infinite good God being as crooked as the rule is straight consequently he that predetermins or makes the act must needs predetermine or make the obliquity so far is the act of sin which is granted by all to have a positive being from being one of Gods Creatures as Mr. Hickman feareth not to say that ●o all acts of sin saith Dr. Hammond God doth not so m●ch as incline and the Devil can do no more then perswade any man For his demonstrating of these and other things as that the men of that way which Mr. Hickman walks in do unavoidably make God the Author of sin confu't the latter part of his 16 Chapter of Fundamentals And now for the Reverend Dr. SANDERSON he hath abundantly inferred the positive entity of sin even in that very Sermon which he preached in his younger years before he changed his judgement as to the 5. points in cont●oversie I mean that Sermon which Mr. Hickman would have wrested to serve his turn For the Doctor there teacheth as St. Paul doth to Timo●hy 1 Ep. c. 4. v. 4. that every creature of God is good And therefore to hate God wich is an action intrinsecally evil can be none of Gods creatures in his opinion though it hath in the Devil a positive being and existence for that there is goodness in hating God is the sole opinion of Mr. Hickman and his Instructers 2. Common reason taught the Maniches saith Dr. S. that from the good God could not proceed any evil thing no more then Darkness from the Suns Lustre or gold from the scalding of the fire But the pos●●ive act of hating is wholly evil and so a sin notwithstanding its having a positive entity 3. God hath imprinted some steps and footings of his goodness upon the Creatures saith Dr. S. but in hating God there cannot be any such therefore he hold● it to be a sin though a positive entity 4. Look upon the workmanship and accordingly judge of the workman saith Dr. S. but we cannot judge of God by the positive being of hating God therefore he holds it to be a sin although it hath a positive being 5. Doctor S. saith we must not blame Gods creatures or say why was this made or why thus what good doth this or of what use is that it had been better if this or that had never been or if it had been otherwise But there are many positive entities which we may blame as Blasphemy pride hypocrisy hating of God and we may very well say why did David contrive the murder of Uriah and why thus treacherously what good did that murder of so loyal a subject of what use is the Divels hating God it had been better there had been no such thing therefore those are all sins as well as positive entities in the opinion of Dr. SANDERSON § 26. VASQVEZ inquiring into the formal part of sin divides his Disputation into thirteen Chapters The subject of the first is the opinion of Cajetan that the moral obliquity doth consist in ratione positivâ The subject of the third is the opinion of sundry modern Writers that it consists of a privation and something positive besides The subject of the fifth is to shew how they vary and disagree among themselves who are against its positivity about the assigning of that privation in which they suppose it to consist In the tenth he gives the judgement of subtil Scotus that obliquity sometimes is positively contrary to Rectitude Then adds his own in these words Ego tamen existimo omne peccatum commissionis sive fiat defectu circumstantiae debitae sive habeat circumstantiam contrariam semper esse peccatum ex relatione extrinsecâ oppositionis inconvenientiae cum Naturâ rationali Vtroque autem modo actus contrarius est In the eleventh Chapter he answers t● the Authorities alledged for its consisting in mere privation In the twelfth he answers to the Reasons offer'd for that opinion In the thirteenth he considers what was the Judgement of Aquinas in this affair which though at first he seemingly conceives to be somewhat doubtful Aquinas speaking in diverse places as if he had been of diverse minds too yet he proves his true Judgement to have been this That sin according to its Formality hath a positive being Affirmat malum in moralibus esse differentiam Actus moralis non quâ ratione est privatio debiti finis sed quatenus est entitas quaedam positivum cui privatio conjungitur Idem docuit 3. contra Gent. c. 9. Praeterea in hac primâ secundae q. 18. art 5. ad 2. q. 72. art 1. affirmat species peccatorum non ex priva●ione sed ex ordine ad objecta desumi Eo quod privatio per accidens se habeat cum peccato objecta vero per se. Cùm igitur supra q. 19. art 1. dixit malum bonum esse per se differentias actus in ratione actus Intelligi debet non de malo quod in privatione consistit quia privatio non potest essentialiter per se in actu aliquid constituere sed de malo positivo Quare ex hac parte aut nostrae aut Cajetani sententiae favet Our late Apologist for Tilenus who is very much consider'd by knowing Readers hath so far asserted the positivity of sin and so baffled M. Hickman even upon some of his own Grounds that instead of some Answer which M. Hickman by promise had obliged himself to give he hath given no more then a Tergiversation That MEDINA held sin to have a real positive absolute Entity And that Vasquez would have it to be a positive Relation M. Barlow did acknowledge in his dissent from both Exer. 2. p. 53 54. Timplerus held sin to have an efficient cause per se and so by consequence a positive being Reprehending Suarez for allowing it no more then an efficient per accidens Durandus A Dola are acknowledged by Churchman as Mr. Hickman is conceived to stile himself in that Pasquil to deny Gods concurrence to sinful acts and by consequence to hold the positive entity

Idolatry or Perjury or the denying of Christ himself that can make him otherwise then a sanctified and Godly man Now Mr. Baxter it seems resolving not to Answer my Book and yet not able to let it alone hath rather chosen once or twice to gnash upon me with his teeth and to shew he was cut unto the heart and to fling some stones Railing and Calumny at my Head than to be thought by his Disciples to have offended or so little stomachful as to Repent § 3. For first in his Pamphlet of Self-denyal a Pamphlet properly so called he saith a Rogers a Stubb a Pierce not for any other end that I am able to conceive then to give himself Ease by a little vent To express a sharp Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a Rogers a Stubb a Pierce can amount to no more then the bare shewing of his Teeth when besides his own Lip there is nothing Bitten From this he could not abstein in his very Dedicatory Epistle p. 11. Nor waded he farther into his Praeface then p. 17. when another sharp pang did thus inspire him If Fits-Simon and other Iesuites and Bp. Bancroft and Dr. Peter Heylin Mr. Thomas Pierce and other such among us are to be believed what an abominable odious sort of people are they the Puritans and especially the Presbyterians who are the greatest part of them intolerable hypocritical bloody men Now to what purpose was all this not so much against Me whom he ranked with Bishop Bancroft as against that excellent Archbishop whom he ranked with the Iesuites but to discover to all the world whereabouts his shooe wring'd him Archbishop Bancroft was a most wise and a most pious Metropolitan whose learned Books have been rayld at but never answered Certainly He and Dr. Heylin are as eminent for the Truth of their several Narratives as any humane Historians that ever writ I have vindicated the Former beyond the power of a Baxter to contradict me The Later hath vindicated Himself in his Certamen Epistolare by which Mr. Baxter was too much baffled to think of making a Reply Fitz-Simons was a Iesuite with whom Mr. Baxter doth too much cotton Nor doth he answer one word to my Allegations Concerning the Puritans I spent a whole Chapter not a Line of which hath ever been answered by Mr. Baxter wherein I shewed they were as Odious to King Iames and Bp. Andrews Dr. Sanderson and the like as to Arch-Bp. Bancroft or Mr. Pierce And whatsoever he saith of Me for speaking severely of the Puritans doth plainly reflect upon the King and upon all the greatest Persons both for piety and learning Archbishops and Bishops and Reverend Iudges of the Land whose pungent Characters of the Puritans I fairly cited § 4. But suppose Bp. Bancroft and Dr. Heylin and Mr. Pierce are three Iesuites or as little deserving to be believed yet Dr. Sanderson is confessed by Mr. Baxter himself to be both a Moderate and learned Protestant And He hath so preached against the Puritans as well from the Presse as from the Pulpit that I cannot think of any person unlesse King Iames or Bp. Andrews who hath branded that Faction with deeper marks Not only in his Preface to the Second Edition of his Sermons where he placeth us in the middle betwixt the two extremes Papists and Puritans and shew's how the Puritans have extremely promoted the Popish Interests nay how Libertinism it self had overspread the whole Face of the Land by the means of Fiery Turbulent Presbyterians But in the latest of all his writings set out indeed by Dr. Hammond yet with his own speciall likeing and Approbation He sharply speaks of some books against the Liturgy and Ceremonies by giving them the Name of Puritanical Pamphlets with a juster Epithete than which he could not easily stigmatize them And the most Learned King Iames in his Meditations on the Lords Prayer doth piously give a special caveat that we do not make God the Author of sin as certain Puritans are wont to do Of this his Majesty was minded by that Acute and Learned Frenchman Daniel Tilenus in his excellent Epistle to that wise King after their happy valediction to the Calvinian Doctrines Those I hope were no Jesuites Fellows and may deserve to be Believed if they affirmed of the Puritans which Mr. Baxter happily confesseth to have been mostly Presbyterians that they were Hypocritical and Bloody men Only here Mr. Baxter must be taught to distinguish of Presbyterians For with them that are Moderate I have ever had communion and very affectionate commerce as many of them can witness for me But I am ready to consent to what I find said by Dr. Sanderson Such is the Obstinacy and Madness of the Rigid Scotized through-paced Presbyterians that it is vain to think of doing any good upon them by Arguments till it shall please God to make them of more humble and Teachable Spirits These are pungent but very True yea very Necessary expressions They could not else have proceeded from that Exemplary Divine whom hardly any hath ever excelled if we behold him in his latest and ●ipest years for Piety Meekness and Moderation Had Baxter railed at Me alone for my impartiality to the Puritans I might have passed it over in peace and silence But since t is apparent he wreaks his malice upon the Reverend Dr. Sanderson and the Right Reverend Bp. Andrews and all the other great persons whose words I used striking really at Them although through Me as Darius in Horodotus was bid to run at Patizitham through Gobrias sides I could not in Conscience let him escape without some usefull Animadversions § 5. He adds in the Margin of the same page That I had answered his Expectation and from his own Confession not knowing him my self had drawn his picture that he is proud lazy false an Hypocrite unjust c. But why for this am I called Bolsec in the words nex● after since I was only his Echo and did but resound his own Confessions Not his Auricular confessions for he had made none to me but his Confessions even in print and in words at length Mr. Owen had framed a charge against him that he was proud selfish and Hypocritical Mr. Baxter sub dio in open Court pleaded Guilty to the inditement It was not certainly my Fault that I cited his Pages as well as Words that all his favourers might find I had neverwrong'd him Nor could I possibly know him better then by an abundance of his Own both words and works Of which how faithfull an accompt I have given the Reader I leave to be judged of by them who will compare my citations as well as read them Never should I have taxt him either with pride selfishness and Hypocrisie but when he had owned all three I had nothing to do to contradict him I could never have thought him lazy whom I found a Polypragmatick nor