Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	adam_n	cause_n	sin_n	5,393	5	5.7654	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55678	The prerogative of man: or, The immortality of humane soules asserted against the vain cavils of a late worthlesse pamphlet, entituled, Mans mortality, &c. VVhereunto is added the said pamphlet it selfe.	Overton, Richard, fl. 1646.	1645 (1645)	Wing P3220A; ESTC R203203	29,475	38

to the judgement of the wisest doe appertaine unto it For first what is the wealth and treasure of man but the dignity and value of his actions of this he hath long since beene plundered His eyesight whereby his steps were to be guided was his knowledge but this divers have laboured to extinguish by denying with the old Academickes and late Socinians that there is any certainty in it and by becoming so witty as to know nothing His crowne and life was the immortality of his better part as therein cheifely being superiour to beasts and all other living things irrationall but behold here a privy but a dangerous traitor endeavours to despoile him of it so that in fine if all these treacherous assailants might have their wills he shall be wholly mortall poore feeble blinde and miserable dethroned from his wonted dignity and cast downe unto the lower classe of Beasts Profectò plurima homini ex homine mala as Pliny justly complaineth though he himselfe be one of the Authors of these eevills Was it not enough that all inferiour creatures doe rebell against us but we must basely and treacherously conspire against our selves The man that going from Jerusalem to Jericho fell amongst theeves had hard measure offered him for he was despoiled and wounded by them and left onely halfe alive but those theeves amongst whom we are now fallen be farre more cruell for they would kill us outright both in soule and body and with lesse then this will not be contented But now it is time we examine what urgent reasons what killing arguments there were that moved this new author unto so extravagant a course of rigour against all mankinde for if these be not very urgent and invincible we must conclude this man guilty not onely of much folly but also of heinous malice and temerity against the rights and prerogatives of man CHAP. II. His first Classe of arguments examined and refuted HIs first arguments be drawen from mans creation fall restitution and resurrection the principall is this That what of Adam was immortall through Innocency was to be mortalized by transgression But whole Adam quatenus animal rationale was in Innocency immortall Ergo all and every part even whole man liable to death by sinne Upon this bungling argument or syllogisme the weight of all his cause must leane which as I perceive by the posture it should have been a syllogisme if the Author could have cast it into that forme but since that might not be we will be contented to take it in grosse as it lies rather then passe it over without an answer We grant then that indeed all Adam for example by sinning became mortall and all and every part of him that is to say he was after so much of his age expired to yeild up to death and be totally corrupted or which is all one he was to have his two essentiall parts disunited and after that untill the resurrection neither he nor any of his parts thus dissevered disunited to be Adam or a man any longer All which might be without that either the matter of his body or substance of his soule should perish or be destroyed And forasmuch as concernes the matter of his body it is an evident case because matter is a thing both ingenerable and incorruptible and so neither produced by his generation nor destroyed by his corruption and as by generation onely fashioned and united so againe by corruption or death onely defaced and disunited or dissolved And as for the soule the other part there is no more necessity death should destroy it then there was it should destroy the matter there being no more reason for the one then for the other Wherefore Saint Paul wishing death that so he might be with Christ did not desire to be destroyed as this silly authours doctrine would inferre but to be dissolved for surely if his soule by act of mortality was to have beene destroyed he could not thinke to be with Christ during the time of that destruction or dissolution which he wished and so his words and wishing would have beene very vaine seeing according to this Author he should by his being dissolved come never the sooner to be with Christ because according to this Author neither alive nor dead he was to come unto him before the Generall resurrection nay further his wish would have made against himselfe and his owne ends because he knowing Christ a little in this life might in some small measure injoy him in it but if by death his soule be killed as well as his body he should have no knowledge at all nor comfort of Christ but be cast farther off then he was before Now as all agree that matter throughout all mutations remaineth incorrupted so also according to the judgement of sundry knowing men and diligent inquirers into the workes of nature and transmutation of naturall compounds naturall and materiall formes themselves also doe not perish at their parting from their matters but onely are dissolved and dissipated lying after that in their scattered atomes within the bosome of nature from whence they were before by force of the seed extracted the result of whose union was the forme So that the entity of the forme remaines after corruption though not in the essence and formality of a forme or totally and compleatly Thus teacheth the learned author of Religio medici and exactly declares himselfe of the same minde is the famous late Physitian Daniel Sennertus in his Hypomnemata though sometimes not so fully as for example when he ascribes to formes precedent the full production of the subsequent assigning a vis prolifica in every forme for multiplying of it selfe by which doctrine he seemes to recede from his former principles of Atomes and not to sticke constantly to them yea and besides to deliver a conceit which is hardly understood and which moreover seemes to be improbable for who can explicate what one forme does when it multiplies another or what kinde of causality it doth then exercise or by what strange influence that effect is wrought and the forme made up of nothing This same doctrine of Religio Medici and that also which we deliver here touching the Origination of formes was the doctrine of old Democritus expressed by him in his constitution of Atomes or minima naturalia not that every Atome did conteine a forme as Sennertus seemes to thinke but rather severall peeces for the composition of it as every simple or ingredient of Diacatholicon for example is not Diacatholicon but conteines something in it of which it is to be made up and from which as from differing heterogeneall parcells collected and united by an artificiall mixtion it results and for want of putting this difference or restraint Sennertus his owne doctrine and explication of Democritus may seeme defective This also was taught by Anaxagoras when he affirmed all to be in all or every thing and to have a preexistence in the bosome of nature

before such time as by the operation of seminall causes formes be accomplished and made to appeare in their owne likenesse upon this theater This is also the judgement of Athanas Kircherius a late learned writer l. 3. de magnete part 3. c. 1. where he shewes how rich compounds earth and water be as Chymique industries for seperation have discovered insomuch as in them as he noteth is conteined a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or generall magazine the common matter being from the first creation not leane and hungry but faeta and praeseminata with formes partiall and incompleate This also is the inchoations of formes and the rationes seminales praeëxistent which many learned men have often favoured and which being thus explained and in which this sence of ours can suffer nothing from the objections of Gandavensis or Durandus This lastly is nothing else but in a good sence an eduction of formes ex potentia materiae which is Aristotles and his Disciples Doctrine for it cannot be thought that Aristotle ever intended to presse or squeeze any formes out of the dry skeleton of materia prima which matter is a principle onely receptive and no promptuary out of which to educe a forme by virtue of any naturall agent whatsoever for in such a spare entity as that what fecundity is imaginable And so much touching the originall of formes which is one of the abstrusest and nicest points in all philosophy and that which by vulgar authors is meanliest handled and by the wisest is knowne but by conjecture Thus his maine argument is answered after which all the rest will fall downe headlong with any light touch though but of a finger Immediately after this he argueth out of Gen. 3. 19. where Adam is told that for his disobedience he must turne into that dust of which he was made out of which he concludes that all and every part of Adam must be converted into dust which if it be so as he sayeth then not only his earthly particles but his aiery watry and fiery partes must to dust also and not only his body but his soule if he have any must be turned into the same matter See what fine conclusions follow out of this mortall soules philosophy It sufficed then that so much of his body or of the whole man was to returne to dust as had beene made up of it And by this alone the commination of God is fullfilled without any more adoe After this he comes upon us with his false Latin saying as followeth Death reduceth this productio entis ex non ente ad Non-entem returnes man to what he was before he was that is not to be c. and by and by citing impertinently two or three places of Scripture falls to another argument drawen from the resurrection As for the Latine word Non-entem whether it be right or no we will not examine but apply our selves to the consideration of the sense which is as faulty as the Latine can be know therefore in breife that death did not reduce Adam to non ens but to non Adam it did not cause him absolutely not to be but onely not to be man or Adam any longer And forasmuch as concernes his body it is confest and certaine that it was not turned by death or mortality into nothing or non ens but into dust which is an ens or something that is to say his body was not annihilated but corrupted and to dye is not wholly to be destroyed but partially only which act is all one with dissolution Now if to the totall mortalizing of man it be not necessary that his body be destroyed then can it not be needfull that his soule should be so and thus our adversaries stout argument is more then mortalized for it comes to nothing which man by dying does not We will not deny him but that the soule of man did die and die againe as much as it was capable of death for first it dyed by the being seperated from the body secondly by being subjected unto damnation which as we know is called in scripture a second death But as for the annihilation of it or of the body that is it which we deny and so to doe we have just reason In fine as generation is nothing but the union of the parts and not the creation or absolute production of them so againe Death and Corruption is nothing but the disunion or dissolution of them and in no wise the annihilation according as this wise Author would perswade us As for the article of the Resurrection it proves nothing against the perpetuity of the soule for we never read of any resurrection besides that of the body wherefore to averre a resurrection of soules were a grand foolery and a doctrine never debateable or heard of amongst Christians till this silly Author came to teach it And so much for his first chapter CHAP. III. Scripture no way a favourer of the soules mortality HIs places cited out of scripture in favour of his errour are so impertinent as that it were no small peice of folly to examine them one by one They all of them signifie that man shall dye or sometimes that Joseph or Simeon is not as Gen. 42. 36. all which how they are to be expounded and understood may sufficiently appeare by that which hath beene said in the precedent chapter and how againe they make nothing at all against the soules immortality Touching the words of Ecclesiastes c. 3. the answer is that they were no determinations or resolves but a history or an account given of what sometimes came into his thoughts and what obscurities and desolations of soule he had and what lastly was one of the first difficulties that troubled him and stirred him up unto a sollicitous enquiry for certainely this one verity of the mortality of mans soule is that which is to order his designes to regulate his actions and to put life and vigour into them this being a truth most fundamentall We see this one was it which moved Clemens Rom. if he be the true Author of that which passeth under his name to a serious inquiry and care Clem. l. 1. recogn for the finding out what he was to do whom to consult what to esteeme most and in fine what to feare or hope most and how to order all the passages of his life This is the question that usually troubles men first of all and till a resolution be had suffereth their hearts not to be at quiet every man at first suspiciously as Solomon did asking of himselfe as Seneca gallantly expresseth saying Senec. in Troade Verum est an timidos fabula decipit Vmbras corporibus vivere conditis Cum conjux oculis imposuit manum Supremusque dies Solibus obstitit Et Tristes cineres urna coërcuit Non prodest animam tradere funeri Sed restat miseris vivere longius An toti morimur nullaque pars manet Nostri cum profugo spiritus