Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	nature_n	soul_n	unite_v	6,882	5	9.6339	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27015	The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving that popery is against the Holy Scriptures, the unity of the catholike church, the consent of the antient doctors, the plainest reason, and common judgment of sense it self / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1657 (1657)	Wing B1381; ESTC R16189	289,769	704

yet living in mortal bodies where they place them as behind the stage that they may be ready to act their parts in the fable o● Antichrist To the Article of creation is annexed the Article of providence 1. In this the Papists erre in making mans actions not to depend on Gods Providence but on mans Free-will which they make the absolute Lord of its own actions 2. And that they are not determined of God according to whose determinate Council things come to pass Act. 2.30 4.28 but that God rather who worketh all according to the Council of his will doth follow the determination of the will of man 3. And that he foreknows them from eternity only in mans will 4. Also in that they interpret the action of God as judge punishing sin with sin hardening men giving them over to their lusts and to the temptations of Satan to be naked permission as if the judge or Magistrate might not deliver a malefactor to the hangman as executioner of his judgement to be punished but should not onely permit him to be punished that is not hinder it § 3. Of Redemption IN the Doctrine of Redemption and Salvation we must consider 1. Whence we are redeemed to wit from sin and a state of obstinacy 2. By whom to wit by Christ who is the author and foundation of our Salvation 3. By what means the benefit of Redemption and Salvation is applyed to us where of the Covenant of God the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments 4. The effects of Gods Grace in Christ or the degrees of Salvation which are fruits of the Merits of Christ applyed to us In all these the Papists do filthily erre for as to sin which intercedeth between the works of Creation and Redemption as a medium they teach 1. That the blessed Virgin was free from all sin original and actual as being conceived without Original sin and having lived without actual sin 2. Under the name of the flesh which lusteth against the Spirit and is to be mortified among other things they mean the body of man 3. That all sin is not a transgression of the Law John defineth it 1. Jo. 3.4 Gal. 3.10 nor all transgression of the Law is sin 4. That there is no sin but what is voluntary which is not onely false of concupiscence habitual and actual which goes before the wills consent but of other sins also which are done of ignorance or infirmity for though the actions are voluntary by which they are committed yet the sin is not Sin is original or actual The Papists marvailously ●xtenuate original sin and amplifie and set forth the strength of nature 5. For some of them would have original sin to be only the guilt of Adams transgression most will have it to be onely the want of Original righteousness And so that the state of man after Adams fall and in pure naturals doth differ onely as a stript man and a naked man 6. Others would have it to be a very small sin and less then any venial sin and therefore needeth no repentance nor is punished with pain of sense but onely with pain of loss 7. Others deny original sin to be properly sin or that any thing is found in infants that properly hath the nature of sin 8. That we are not by nature dead in sin but sick nor do they acknowledge in us an impotency to spiritual good but a difficulty nor that Free-will to spiritual good is wholly taken from us but hindred and tyed 9. That men are naturally inclined to love God above all 10. They attribute to man a will that is the Ruler and Lord of it self such as belongeth to no creature Yea they say that the will of man is as free from Necessity as the Will of God 11. They deny the will of the unregenerate to be a servant 12. They deny also that all the works of the unregerate are sins or that the unregenerate sin when they do the works that are commanded 13. They say that before all grace a man hath freewill not onely to works natural and moral but also to works of piety and supernatural 14. That there is in mans free will not onely a possibility or passive power but also an active power to spiritural works 15. That the unregenerate can prepare and dispose themselves to justification 16. That a wicked man by doing his best may congruously merit the grace of justification 17. God necessarily giveth grace to him that doth his best 18. That the efficacy of preventing grace dependeth on the freedome of the will 19. That every transgresgression of the Law which yet pronounceth every man accursed that continueth not in all things commanded in the Law to do them deserveth not death But that there are many sins of themselves and of their own nature venial and deserving pardon 20. That charity is not violated by venial sins and that they are not aginst Gods precepts but besides them 21. That the blood of Christ is not necessary to wash them away but that they may be done away by Holy Water knocking the brest Episcopal benediction and other ridiculous means 22. That sin is called mortal because it brings death upon the soul that is depriveth it of Gods grace 23. And they teach that by every mortal sin grace is lost and charity expectorated 24. That this mortal sin is any that shall obtain the wills consent though the act be not performed 25. That the sins of the regenerate are in the same sence mortal even those committed of ignorance and infimity 26. And that it is such a mortal sin to neglect or not observe any Ecclesiastical law or tradition of the Romane Church 27. That the sin against the Holy Ghost is not unpardonable 28. Nor that its impossible for him that commits that sin to be renewed by Repentance § 4. Of Christ. IN Christ are considerable 1. His Person 2. His Office About his Person he erreth who thinks not rightly of his Godhead or of his Manhood 1. About Christs Godhead those Papists erre that deny Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself for that 's as much as to deny him to be Jehovah About the Humane Nature both Soul and Body they erre 2. For they deny that the soul of Christ did increase in wisdom and grace which Luke expresly affirmeth Luk. 2.52 3. Or that he was ignorant of the day and hour of the last judgement which yet himself confesseth Mat. 13.32 4. They seem to give him a phantastick body that neither consisteth of dimensions nor occupieth a place which when he was born did not open the wombe of his mother and when he rose did penetrate the stone of the sepulchre and when he instituted his Supper lay hid under the Species of Bread and Wine 5. Yea that they may stablish that monstrous opinion

present the far purest and renounce communion with them all and proclaim them Hereticks or Schismaticks and sentence them all to the flames of Hell Yea that dare do the like by all ages of Christians that have gone before them yea that dare unchurch and damne to Hell the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years For what do they less when they unchurch and damne all that acknowledge not their new made universal Bishop which the Primitive Church never did And when they make that to be essential to the Catholike Church which the first Catholike Church did never know I know there be some Enthusiasts and Anabaptists and such giddy persons that do as the Papists do condemn all the Churches of Christ except themselves But yet the Schisme that they have made hereby is nothing to that which was made by the Papists who have set the Christian world into a flame of dissention and make it their very business daily to b●ow ●t up and do nourish so many Colledges of Jesuites and other orders to that end What notorious impudency is it then in these men to tell us that we are schismaticks separate from them and aske us how we dare judge all our forefathers to damnation and why we will not be of our forefathers Religion and do not observe how they condemne themselves by all these questions What more evident then that the Papists have separated from all other Christians in the world How dare they condemne the far greatest part of Christians on earth to eternal torment yea and by plain consequence though they will not acknowledge it the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years were it but one soul that they should presume to censure they might well bethink them of an answer to Pauls Question Who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master doth he stand or fall When Paul wrote that to the Church at Rome he knew of none then that would justifie the judging of all the world and say They are my servants or subjects and therefore I must judge them Do the blind Papists think that any sober considerate impartial Christian can be of their mind and damne the most of Christs Church on earth meerly because they will not be subject to the Pope of Rome If this Article be so necessary to salvation Why do not we find it in any ancient Creed Why must we not say I believe in the Pope of Rome as well as I believe in God Or if indeed it be the Pope and Romanists that is meant by the holy Catholike Church why would not the composers of the Creed tell us so And why did none of the ancient Churches understand and expound it so And why did no age add the word Romane and call it the holy Romane Catholike Church 2. And then withal besides the present Schisme which they have made they have laid the ground of a perpetual schisme For they have made a new definition of the Catholicke Church and made it another thing then it was before and they have made a new head and center of its unity so that all the old sort of Christians to the end of the world that cannot change their Church and unite to the new head and center must needs be of a different body from the Romanists And if these men say that it is the rest of the Christian world that first withdraws from them 1. Let them prove that the Greek Abassins the rest of the Christian world that deny subjection to them except these in the West were ever under them 2. And as for the Reformed Churches if they were drawn in heretofore I mean their forefathers to countenance the Romish usurpation tyranny they withdraw only from that usurpation separate from Rome only as it is a faction not as from a Church If we be drawn into a schism separation from all the Christian world by the fraud of Rome is it unlawful for us to repent return to the unity of the Catholike Church and to renounce the Schism that we were guilty of This is our great sin we are schismaticks because we will not continue schismaticks we are Schismaticks by casting off the Schism of Rome because we will not be Schismaticks by continuing to separate from all the Churches else on earth 3. But let us come to the tryal with them who laid the first Schismatical Principle Was it not they that first defined the Catholike Church as equipollent with the Romane and first made the universal Headship of their Pope to be the center Did ever Peter or Paul or any Apostle do so Did they give us such a definition of the Catholike Church Or did the Church do so for many a hundred year after them Prove this well and take all and we promise to turn Papists without delay The plaine truth is this The Catholike Church for many hundred years after Christ was that Body of Christians who were united or centred only in Christ the head and held communion in the fundamentals or great and necessary points of faith and worship and had no mortal head or Center But the worldly greatness of the City of Rome occasioneth the inflation and proud usurpation of her Bishop and he will needs make himself the Center of union and universal head when there was no Center or head but Christ before And is not this the vilest Schisme that men can tell how to be guilty of suppose that the King of Spaine having his Dominions remote one part from another some in Europe and some in the Indies that for five or six hundred years the Indies should acknowledge no other head but the King of Spaine and the Governors of each Province should receive their several Commissions immediately from him and stand in no regimental subordination to one another but onely be bound by the King to have communion and hold correspondence for their mutual safety and the common good If now after so long time the Vice King of Mexico shall by Degrees make himself the sovereign of the rest first claiming onely the first place in their Assemblies because he is Governor of the greatest City and then requiring them to do nothing without him or his consent and at last proclaiming himself the head of the Indies under the King of Spaine and that none are subjects to the King but those that profess themselves also subjects to him but all the rest are rebels and traytors and to be used accordingly exhorting and commanding all to fall upon them and use them as such And all this upon pretence that Spain is so far off that the King there is invisible and inaccessible to them in the Indies and therefore the King hath given him a Commission to be his substitute as being more visible and accessible If now the rest of the Presidents Governors and Provinces shall refuse to acknowledge the Headship of this man and shall declare that they dare

or feel any difference to give them the least cause of doubting I am sure I have the judgement of thousands and millions on my side which in a matter of sense among sound men is certainly enough And if the Papists are so mad as to tell me that it is otherwise with their senses and will seriously profess that their eyes and taste c. do not take these for Bread and Wine but perceive that they are not I will take them for shameless lyars or madmen and I suppose no man in his senses will blame me for so doing Well I its pa●● doubt that all our senses tell us its Bread and Wine as confidently as they tell us any thing is such And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine If our eyes be infallible that read it and our ears that hear it from their own mouthes then this is sure enough and too sure I know they will not deny it I would they would we should then be somewhat neerer a reconciliation What now can be said to avoid the conclusion is past my understanding save onely that it is possible that some of them may come in with some alluding distinction to see if they can blind mens sense and reason and so perhaps they 'l tell them that 1. sense is infallible on supposition of the right constitution of the medium but else not or 2. that sense judgeth but of accidents and not of substances and the accidents of Bread and Wine are here or 3. that sense is infallible in common cases where substances and accidents are not separated as here they be To which if such stuff deserve an answer I reply 1. What medium is here questionable or questioned by you but the accidents themselves which you say are the objects Sure the aire is clear and perspicuous the distance is not too neer or too far off our eyes and taste are sound 2. I think senses judge of substances with their accidents The eye sees substantiam coloratam and the hand feeleth the substantiam qualem quantam and not onely qualitatem quantitatem substantiae But let that controversie go how it will I am sure the substance is objectum s●nsus per accidens though not per se or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of substance by the help of the senses apprehension Otherwise all the forementioned absurdities will follow and still the Pope and Church will be fallible For then the Apostles and others that saw Christs Miracles could be sure onely of the accidents and not of the substance Then no man is certain whether it was Christ himself that lived on earth that was crucified and rose again or onely the accidents of Christ And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome or onely the accidents of a Pope and so of the rest 3. And to the third part of the answer I reply That if sense be infallible when substances and accidents are inseparable then it is alwayes infallible For the accident separated from the subject doth perish Moreover how shall we know whether substances and accidents are separated or not If we be sure of that by sense then sense is still infallible so far if not then sense is fallible because it knows not when it apprehendeth any more then naked accidents But indeed it s a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not subjecti alicujus accidentia Obj. Sense is infallible suppose the right temper of the Organs object Medium till God tell us the contrary but then it is fallible But in the point of Transubstantiation God hath told us the contrary to what common sense apprehendeth Therefore here sence is deceived Answ 1. Sense must in order be first known to be infallible before you can tell any thing that God hath said or wrote of its fallibility or infallibility or else you cannot tell but your eyes in reading or your ears in hearing those words of his did deceive you 2. Sense and Reason are the judging faculties which God hath given to mankind for the discerning of their objects It is not therefore to be imagined that God doth turn the great Deceiver of the world and by supernatural light contradict the Light of Nature even the apprehensions of the sound and general sense of the world Gods supernatural Revalations presupposes his Natural ones and are additions thereto but do not contradict them for then God should contradict himself when both are his Revelations God cannot lye saith the Apostle And what were it for God to lye or say truth but onely to make a deceitful or not deceitful discovery of his mind and will or the effects to us Indeed there may through our imperfection be a deceit of the senses when the Organs are distempered and the medium or object are not conveniently disposed and every such distance impediment or other ill disposure is not as Gods voice to tell us the thing as what to our imperfect sense it seems But if the common senses of men that are sound and not hindred by any such impediments shall yet be all deceived meerly by a contradicting ordinance of God then it would seem that God gave man contradictory lights and guides And their objection seems to be as bad as if they should say so of Gods word That it is alway true except where God tells us the contrary but if it might be false at any time how can you tell that that very word is true which you pretend doth tell you of the falshood of another word so say I here If sense be not alwayes infallible where it hath its requisite assistance then how can you tell that your senses are infallible when you are reading Hoc est corpus meum This is my body which you think contradicteth the infallibility of sense For 2. Is the infallibility of sense a thing that is known by nature or by supernatural Light Not by supernatural Light unless consequentially where doth Scripture or your Tradition say that sense is sometime infallibe and sometime fallible supposit is requisitis And nature tells you no more of the infallibility of any other acts of sence or Receptions then of those same which you pronounce to be fallible 3. We challenge you and all the world to prove that ever God hath revealed in Scripture that the common sences of men are deceived about their proper objects the requisites in Nature supposed Or that ever he made any ordinances for the deluding or contradicting the sences of his Church Or ever said any such thing Cannot Christ say Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body but he must needs proclaim a delusion of the sences of all men that take it to be Bread Then when God saith Hoc est faedus meum This is my Covenant Gen. 17.10 He must proclaim all mens sences deceived because sence faith it was but Circumcision and Bellarmine will confess it was but the sign of