Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	effect_n	soul_n	2,030	5	5.3068	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19332	A warning for worldlings, or, A comfort to the godly, and a terror to the wicked set forth dialogue wise, betweene a scholler and a trauailer / by Ieremie Corderoy, student in Oxford.	Corderoy, Jeremy, b. 1562 or 3.	1608 (1608)	STC 5757; ESTC S123358	95,926	364

Aristotle himselfe confesseth therefore this position of Aristotle VVhatsoeuer hath a beginning hath an end maketh nothing against the immortalitie of the soule albeit it hath a beginning Your second reason is this Euery natural forme is corruptible with that wherof it is a forme But the soule of man is the naturall forme of man therefore when man dyeth the soule dieth also To this I answeare that the resonable soule of man may be considered 2. waies either according to his essence or according to his operations powers and faculties his operations also are of 2. kindes whereof some are such as the soule exerciseth without any instrument of the bodie as his intellectuall powers as for example the soule of man iudgeth of truth and falshood discourseth of the naturall causes of thinges and by the effects of thinges searcheth into the causes of things it discourseth of celestiall matters and things inuisible these and the like operations the soule vseth without any ayd or helpe of the body and these remaine still with the soule though the body perish other faculties the soule exerciseth in the body and by the ayd of the bodie In the bodie when it giueth life vnto the bodye by his sensible and vegitable faculties and in respect of these his faculties and operations the soule is truely said to bÃ©e the naturall forme of man and these sensible and vegitable operations of the soule dye with the bodye True therefore is your Maior Proposition that euery naturall forme dyeth with the wherof it is the forme but this is nothing against the immortality of the soule because the soule is not properly the naturall forme of man in respect of his substance but only in respect of some of his faculties because by his faculties it giueth life to man But if you respect his essence it is a spirituall substaÌ„ce separable from the body without impeachment to his being and in this respect it is not the naturall forme of man Arist. lib. 2. de anima c. 1. vlt. verb. capitis as Aristotle himselfe doth confesse so that Aristotle being your iudge your argument is of no force Your thirde reason is this The soule or life of man in his childhood differeth nothing froÌ„ the life of beasts but the liues of beasts are not immortall Ergo. I confesse both the Maior and Minor to be most true in that sence as Aristotle speaketh them but not in the sence whereunto you wrest them Aristotle speaketh in that place not of the essence of the soule Li. 8. de nat anim ca. 1. whether it bee corruptible or immortall but only of the operation of mans soule in his childhood which as hee saith differeth then nothing from beasts which is most true Nay I say further in this respect beasts are to be preferred before children ChildreÌ„ know not what is good or euil for theÌ„ but beasts naturally knowe what is good for them what is ill for them and they chuse the one and refuse the other But this assertion maketh nothing against the immortality of the soule Neither had Aristotle any intent to speake of it in that place Lib. 1. diuinarum as the circumstaÌ„ce of it will manifest vnto you if you looke into it Your fourth reason is this No eternall thing can be a part of a mortal Lib. 2. de anima ca. 1. or a corruptible thing but the soule of man is a part of man therefore it cannot be immortall Both Maior and Minor are Aristotles I confesse I distinguish therefore of the soule if you respect his owne nature as a thing subsisting by himselfe it is not a part of maÌ„s body but if you consider his operation in giuing life to the body it is a part of mans body is as Aristotle saith actus corporis and the forme of the body Now that the soule according to his essence is not a part of the body of man but only in respect of his faculties and operations Aristotle himselfe plainely confesseth in many places as in his first booke de anima he saith that the intellectuall life or soule of man is contayned in no part of mans body and that he is separable from the body without any diminutioÌ„ or hurt to his essence This affirmeth he also in his second booke de anima in diuers places And in his third booke de anima he saith that the intellectuall part of the soule of man procÃ©edeth not froÌ„ the matter of the body as all naturall formes doe and therefore by consequent it is eternall and not subiect to corruption Aristotle therefore himselfe being iudge the intellectuall soule is not a part of the body but only in some respect as by his operatioÌ„ it giueth life vnto man with he not only affirmeth but also explayneth his meaning by fit examples by the example of a Marriner which giueth motion to the Shippe and directeth it but is no part of the Shippe and by the example of a seale which causeth a certaine forme in the waxe but is no part of the waxe You may bruse the waxe together and marre the forme imprinted by the seale without any hurt at all to the seale so may the body of man turne to corruption whereunto the soule giueth a naturall forme by his operation yet without the hurt of the essence of the soule because it is a diuine substance subsisting by it selfe separable from the body by the confession of Aristotle himselfe Thus you see your reason is of no force by the opinion of Aristotle on whome only you relie Now because I will not be beholding to you for your foure reasons out of Aristotle against the immortality of the soule I will requite you with foure more out of Aristotle to prooue the immortality of the soule and if nÃ©ede were I could double them since in this point you relie so much on him My first reason out of Aristotle is this God and nature saith he maketh nothing in vaine but the soule of euery man naturally desireth to be immortall to liue continually in euerlasting happinesse therefore is it immortall else this naturall desire of the soule of being euerlastingly in happinesse is made in vaine which Aristotle denyeth Other liuing creatures appetites runne on those things which presently they loue and like their imaginations runne not on pleasure to come they conceaue not of any felicity after this life much lesse do they desire it for they know it not God hath giuen to euery creature such seuerall appetites and desires as are agrÃ©eable to their seuerall natures the Horse desireth not to flie as God hath not giuen him meanes to flie the fish desireth not to walk on the land or liue on the land as God hath not giuen him meanes to walke neither is able to liue out of the water neither beasts fowles or fishes desire to abound in riches gold or siluer sith they haue no vse of it Generally God indueth no creature with any naturall desire

of the whereof he is not capable Now then sith God hath indued the soule of euery man with a naturall desire of continuing immortally in euerlasting hapines therfore he is capable of it according to the opinion of Aristotle who holdeth this as a sure ground that God and nature hath made nothing in vaine My second ground out of Aristotle for the immortality of the soule is this Whatsoeuer substaÌ„ce is not coÌ„posed of the foure elements is not corruptible for as he saith the cause of corruption procÃ©edeth from the contrariety of the elements whereof they are made but the soule is not composed of the foure elements therefore the soule is not corruptible but immortall Both the Maior and Minor are Aristotles therefore according to Aristotle the soule is immortall My third reason which I take out of Aristotle is this The intellectuall and reasonable soule of man is a diuine substance which hath his being separable from the body whose essence is not contayned in any part of the body may be separated from the body as a thing incorruptible saith Aristotle whence I make this sillogisme whatsoeuer is a diuine substance separable from the body and incorruptible Howsoeuer the body of man perisheth is immortal but Aristotle saith that the soule is a diuine substance contayned in no part of the body separable from the body as an incorruptible thing froÌ„ a corruptible Therefore according to Aristotle the soule is immortall My fourth reason which I take out of Aristotle is this That substance whose operations depend not of the body his essence dependeth not of the body but the operations of the soule of man dependeth not of the body but of the spirituall and diuine substance whose essence is separable froÌ„ the body therfore it perisheth not with the body Both the Maior Minor are Aristotles which Aristotle proueth by the example of the eyes of old men If saith he an old man had the eye of a child hee would sÃ©e as clÃ©erely as a child hereby signifying that the soule of man doth not impaire with the body as in diuers diseases it is manifest When as the body is most weake the faculties of the mind are most stronge then the minde and soule of man most sharply vnderstaÌ„deth any thing and is most iuditious then his desires are most vehement and his loue to goodnesse mislike of sinne is most ardent then that naturall inclination and desire of being euerlastingly in felicity doe most shew it selfe Which naturall affection and appetite of the soule were in vaine if the soule of man were not capable of immortality which is a thing flatly denyed by Aristotle that God should giue any naturall desire to any thing in vaine Besides these and many more arguments with I could bring out of Aristotle there are diuers other reasons which might be brought for the proofe of this point as that it cannot stand with the iustice of God that the soule of man should perish with his body because as there are many who haue seriously worshipped him and haue passed their liues agrÃ©eable to his will yet worse hath betide them then hath happened vnto those that haue dishonoured him so contrariwise many in this life haue liued most lewdly yet haue spent all their daies in great prosperity inriched with great wealth dignified with great honours Wherefore necessarily it followeth that there must be a life to come wherein the one is to be punished and the other rewarded It cannot stand with the mercy of God that the soule shold perish with the body since he made man the excellentest creature in the world whom he loueth aboue all creatures for whose sake hee made all the world and indued him with more speciall graces then all creatures euen in a manner equal to Angels and when he fel from the excellency wherin he created him spared not his only begotteÌ„ Sonne to redÃ©eme him from misery and yet for all this if you consider man in this life onlie whether you respect the manifold diseases incident to his body or the infinite vexation of his mind hee is of all creatures in the world Diuels excepted the most miserable Now sith it so fareth with him in this life it cannot stand with the mercy and goodnes of God but to appoint a better place and better life where his goodnesse and mercy to man may bee shewed It cannot stand with the honour glorie of God that that creature shold euer perish the which hÃ©e hath made to behold and consider his euerlasting and maruailous workes to participate of his euerlasting goodnesse as to this purpose he hath made men and Angels And therefore of all the creatures vnder heauen hath made the countenance of man to looke vpwards his eyes rowling fit to turn euery way his necke flexible to looke round about that with facility ease he might contemplate behold all the works of God both aboue him about him and vnder him He hath indued him with reason to consider discourse on the excelleÌ„cy of them and only vnto man a tongue to expresse the power wisdome and goodnesse of God and to glorifie him for the goodnesse which he imparteth to his creatures Now if the reasonable soule of man made to glorifie God should perish then the chiefest instrument of Gods glory should perish but it cannot stand with the glory of God that the chiefest instrument of his glory should perish Therefore it is against al reason that the soule of man should perish with the body It cannot stand with naturall reason that the soule of man should perish with the body because the soule of man hath not his beginning from the substance of the body as the liues of beasts haue their beginning out of the matter substaÌ„ce of their bodies therefore it dyeth with their bodies because the beginning thereof came from a corruptible cause Their bodies are corruptible because they are composed of coÌ„trary qualities as your frend Aristotle confesseth But it is not so in the soule of man The soule of man is not made out of the matter of his body as Aristotle also confesseth but is a diuine substance which came froÌ„ God And here by the way suffer me to shew you that your Aristotle agreeth in this point with the Scripture When as God made the beasts sowles and crÃ©eping things hee said Let the earth bring forth euery liuing thing according to his kinde Genes 1.24.25 and in the words following it is said Gâ—d made the beasts of the earth But when God commeth to make man he speaketh after another manner saying Let vs make man where the holy Ghost speaking to the weaknes of our capacitie signifieth that man is of that excellencie that that God euen the Trinitie tooke consultation in making man Let vs make man When hee made other creatures hee saith only let this or that bee and it was done but when he commeth to make maÌ„ he sheweth to what

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad