Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	blood_n	body_n	vital_a	2,040	5	10.4566	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61522	The Bishop of Worcester's answer to Mr. Locke's letter, concerning some passages relating to his Essay of humane understanding, mention'd in the late Discourse in vindication of the Trinity with a postscript in answer to some reflections made on that treatise in a late Socinian pamphlet.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5557; ESTC R18564	64,712	157

the Vindication of his Leviathan he saith That his Doctrine is that the Soul is not a separated Substance but that the Man at his Resurrection shall be revived And he answers that place Fear not them which kill the Body but cannot kill the Soul thus Man cannot kill a Soul for the Man killed shall revive again I think he might as well have said That Man cannot kill the Body for that shall be revived at the Resurrection But what is all this to you I hope nothing at all But it shews that those who have gone about to overthrow the Immortality of the Soul by Nature have not been thought to secure the great ends of Religion and Morality And although we think the separate State of the Soul after Death is sufficiently revealed in Scripture yet it creates a great difficulty in understanding it if the Soul be nothing but Life or a Material Substance which must be dissolved when Life is ended For if the Soul be a Material Substance it must be made up as others are of the Cohesion of solid and separate Parts how minute and invisible soever they be And what is it which should keep them together when Life is gone So that it is no easie matter to give an account how the Soul should be capable of Immortality unless it be an Immaterial Substance and then we know the Solution of the Texture of Bodies cannot reach the Soul being of a different Nature And this is no more than what the wisest and most intelligent Philosophers have asserted merely from the consideration of the Nature and Properties of the Soul as you very well know and I need not for your sake run into such a Digression or as you call it step out of my way any farther then you give occasion for it in what follows For you tell me You have great Authorities to justifie your using a Spiritual Substance without excluding Materiality from it And for this you refer me to two great men indeed among the Romans Cicero and Virgil. I was surprized at what you say out of Cicero having been no stranger to his Writings about these matters and I have consulted the place you refer to where you say that he opposes Corpus to Ignis and Anima i. e. Breath and that the Foundation of his distinction of the Soul from the Body is because it is so subtle as to be out of Sight It is a very easie matter to multiply Citations out of Cicero where Spiritus and Anima are both taken for Breath but any one who will but read the very beginning of his Tusculan Questions may understand his meaning For in the Entrance of that Dispute he takes Animus for the Soul and neither Anima nor Spiritus and he tells us there were two opinions about it at Death Some held a Discessus Animi à Corpore a departure of the Soul from the Body others said that the Soul never departed but was extinguished with Life and the several opinions he sets down at large Ch. 9 10. and then Ch. 11. he summs up the different opinions and saith he If it be the Heart or Blood or Brain because it is a Body it will be extinguished with it If it be Anima the Vital Breath it will be dissipated if it be Fire it will be extinguished It is true he distinguishes here the Vital Breath from the Body and no one questions such a distinction of the Animal and Vital Spirits from the grosser parts of the Body but all this proceeds upon the Supposition of those who held nothing to survive after Death but then he goes on to those who held the Souls when they are gone out of their Bodies to go to Heaven as their proper Habitation And here he plainly supposes the Soul not to be a finer sort of Body but of a different Nature from the Body which it leaves Nam Corpus quidem saith he quasi vas est receptaculum Animi C. 22. and elsewhere he calls the Body the Prison of the Soul C. 30. and saith That every wise Man is glad to be dismissed out of the Bonds and Darkness of it and his business in the Body is secernere Animum à Corpore to draw off the Soul from the Body which the Philosophers called Commentatio mortis i. e. a Continual Exercise of Dying therefore saith he Disjungamus nos à Corporibus id est consuescamus mori Is it possible now to think so great a Man look'd on the Soul but as a Modification of the Body which must be at an end with Life Instead of it there are several things very remarkable in this very Book concerning the Immortality of Souls by Nature 1. He extremely despises those who made the Soul a mere Mode of Matter which was extinguished with Life and he saith they were Plebeii Philosophi Ch. 23. a mean sort of Philosophers and in another place minuti Philosophi De Senect c. 23. who held there was no Sense after Death But he represents Cato there as weary of the Noise and Filth of this World and longing to go to far better Company O praeclarum diem cum ad illud Divinum Animorum Concilium Coetumque proficiscar atque ex hâc turbâ colluvione discedam Did these men look on the Souls of Men as mere Modifications of Matter 2. He urges the general Consent of Nations for the Permanency of Souls after Death c. 16. and he affirms Nature it self de Immortalitate Animorum tacitè judicare c. 14. And I do not think the general Consent of Mankind in this Matter so uncertain or so slight an argument as some have made it even since the late Discoveries as I think it were no hard Matter to prove but I shall not here go out of my way to do it 3. The most ancient Philosophers of Greece held the same opinion as he shews from Pherecydes Pythagoras Socrates Plato c. c. 16 17 c. and they went upon far better Reasons than the other as he proves at large c. 21 22 23. 4. That the Bodies and Souls of Men have a different Frame and Original Our Bodies he saith c. 19. are made of Terrestrial Principles but the Souls he saith are of a divine Original and if we could give an account how they were made we should likewise how they were dissolved c. 14. as we may of the Parts and Contexture of Bodies but saith he Animorum nulla in terris origo inveniri potest nihil est enim in animis mixtum atque concretum aut quod ex terra natum atque fictum esse videatur c. 27. So that here he plainly makes a Difference between our Bodily Substance and that of our Souls which have no bodily Texture and Composition because there is no material Substance which can reach to the wonderfull Faculties and Operations of the Soul and therefore he concludes in these words Singularis est igitur quaedam natura atque vis