Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	soul_n	10,399	5	5.2639	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27162	The Resurrection founded on justice, or, A vindication of this great standing reason assigned by the ancients and modern wherein the objections of the learned Dr. Hody against it, are answered : some opinions of Tertullian about it, examined : the learned doctor's three reasons of the Resurrection, inquired into : and some considerations from reason and Scriptures, laid down for the establishment of it / by N.B. ...	Beare, Nicholas.	1700 (1700)	Wing B1564; ESTC R38679	58,906	162

in keeping it clean swept and garnished a fit Receptacle and Mansion for the Holy Spirit in a ready Compliance and Conjunction with the Soul in all the Offices of Religion This most evidently appears to be the Doctrine of our Church when we are admitted to the highest and nearest Communion with God in the Eucharist by that Clause which is inserted and repeated in both Forms of Administration when the Priest delivers the Bread He prays That it may preserve thy Body and Soul unto Everlasting Life and again he uses the same Form when he gives the Cup The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto Everlasting Life Now to reason fairly Unless our Bodies are capable of Everlasting Life I know not what sense we can make of the Prayer And if our Bodies are capable of Everlasting Life as must be allow'd they are necessarily imply'd subject to Everlasting Death and by unavoidable Consequence must be allow'd capable of doing good or evil To conclude this St. Paul was so throughly convinced of Both as that he rallies together a multitude of Arguments to prevent the one and engage us in the other First In 1 Cor. 6. 13. The Body is for the Lord i.e. 'T was made by him and therefore ordain'd and devoted to his Service Secondly The Lord for the Body i.e. He redeemed and sanctified it and so has a farther and improved Right to it Thirdly God will raise our Bodies v. 14. i.e. The Resurrection lays a farther Obligation upon us Fourthly Our Bodies are the Members of Christ and therefore they ought not to be the Members of an Harlot We ought to keep them clean and pure for his sake as Parts of that Society whereof he is the Head Fifthly He that committeth Fornication sinneth against his own body i.e. Though there are some Sins without the Body yet the Sins of Vncleanness are properly Sins of the Body Sixthly Our Bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost ver 19. The Sins of our Bodies turn this Holy Guâ—st out of doors and admit another Master making them the Devil's Brothel-Houses and Styes Lastly Our Bodies are bought with a price ver 20. Therefore not to glorifie God in own Bodies as well as Souls since by a manifold Right they are both his is not simply Sin but Sin of an high Degree and deep Dye no less than the Sin of Sacrilege After all this to corroborate the Argument I might here expatiate upon the great Cost and Expence which the Primitive Christians bestowed in Embalming their dead Bodies of which Tertullian St. Augustine and others give us a large Account which comes home fully to the Point in hand and can be apply'd to no other purpose By this Practice of theirs 'tis plain they look'd upon their Bodies as perfumed with their Graces here smelling sweet in their Dormitories deposited as in a Bed of Spices and resting in full Hope of a Glorious Retribution But I conceive I have no need of it and therefore it may suffice only to have noted it CHAP. IX I Pass to the Examination of the Third and last Objection which as a Bar lies in our way and ought to be removed If it be Injustice in God to punish the Soul alone without the Body in Conjunction with which she committed the Sin then all the Matter which constitued the Body when the several Sins were committed must be raised again and reunited to the Soul for if some why not all But what Monsters of Men should we be in the Resurrection if all the Substance of which our Bodies consisted from our Childhood to our Deaths should be gathered together and formed into a Body Without taking notice of the Severity of the Objection I shall endeavour to give satisfaction to it And First I Answer That the Resurrection depends upon an All-sufficient and Omnipotent Power and though I cannot tell with what Matter the Bodies shall arise yet every good Man ought to rest satisfy'd in this That a God of infinite Abilities will take care to make good his Word For there are an hundred things as the Learned Author has asserted p. 221. both in NATURE and DIVINITY the Existence of which we cannot doubt and yet the Reason of them we cannot comprehend Of which he there gives us a multitude of Instances whereunto I refer the Reader and at last resolves the Resurrection into God's good Pleasure as the Highest Reason 'T is altogether surprizing how he came to be so positive here and in this difficult point impossible to be understood or resolved by the wisest of Men to be so magisterial especially considering that unlucky Passage which drops from his Pen in the Words immediately following p. 222. I fansie my self Philalethes talking to a bold Refiner on the Promises and Decrees of Almighty God and one of those little Nothings that call themselves Philosophers that form to themselves Notions and Idaea's then deal with Revelation as the Tyrant did with the poor Innocents on his Bed either violently stretch it beyond its natural Reach or chop off a part to make it commensurate to their Intentions I will make no Animadversions here though I have a fair Opportunity but I cannot forbear to say that the Learned Author has made Monsters of all Men at the Resurrection if it be founded on Justice contrary to his own Reasoning in the places foregoing where he professes his Ignorance and challenges the World to give an account of as supposing it impossible And yet boldly asserts here That all the Matter which was of the Body of the Man from his Childhood to his Grave must be rallied together at the Resurrection or else there can be nothing of Justice in the Case But Secondly I answer This Assertion runs Counter to the Doctrine of the Schoolmen and Ancients who have with one Mouth determin'd That the Child shall not arise a Child nor the Corpulent Man with his great Bulk nor he who sunk under a Marasmus peep out of his Grave a Skeleton Nor the Old Man appear at the Resurrection with his Grey Hairs or any Symptomes of Age but all shall arise inter Incrementum Decrementum humanae naturae about the Age of 33 in a perfect State staturaÌ„ quam habuit vel habiturus est as Lombard Sent. 4. Dis 44. Aug. Civ Dei Lib. 22. Cap. 14. Thirdly I answer That this is altogether beside the Question We are to consider the Body fallen and to prove the Resurrection of that same Body to be joined to the same Soul in order to a Judgment And this is all that in Reason can be expected We are no ways concerned to look back to its various and different States from his Childhood to his Death if we can produce the same Prisoners before the Supreme Tribunal there can be no Injustice in the Thing for the Learned Author has granted and proved that our Bodies from our Childhood to our Graves notwithstanding

of Confession that the Body properly speaking is not capable of Sinning or of doing well considered in its own Nature abstractively in its self 't is a passive principle and can pretend to no Life Energy Sense or Motion in a single state 'T is likewise granted that the Body without the Soul is a Dull Stupid Senseless Clod of Earth a Stinking Carcass a Sink of Rottenness and Corruption uncapable of Acting Doing Suffering Injoying all whatsoever or more than the Doctor can suggest but in a state of Conjunction with the Soul 't is far otherwise so that it injoys Life Sense and Motion shares and ingages with it in all its concerns So that in the two first Reasons there is a manifest Fallacy of Division which runs through every part visible to every common Eye and is no sooner deâ—â—rted but the whole Fabrick of his subtile Argumentation sinks and falls even with the dust Though the Body alone cannot yet in conjunction with the Soul it may When a Noble Lord takes to Wife one of the meanest Extraction who has no pretensions of her own to any thing that is great yet upon her Marriage she is Dignified and Indowed with all the Privileges of her Right Honourable Spouse This as near as I can represent it is the Case of the Soul and Body The Heaven-born Bridegroom stoops to the Earth for a Partner Advances Exalts the Beggar confers Life Sense Motion on her admits her to Bed and Board allows her a share in all his Dignities and Injoyments The Body without the Soul can neither Sin nor do Well But the happy wedlock has ennobled this piece of Clay and empowered it in conjunction to act with it So that I fancy the Doctor to be under a mistake when he calls the Body only the Instrument of the Soul Certainly 't is more 't is an essential Part and the Man can as well be without the Soul as without the Body to call the Body therefore an Instrument is too low a Term when 't is manifestly the Collegue and Companion of the Soul and together with it constitutes the Great Prince and Lord of the Creation I shall challenge the most Acute of Philosophers to give me the definition of a Man without a Body Nec caro sine anima Homo quae post exilium Cadaver est saith Tertullian The Soul without the Body is no more the Man than the Body without the Soul If then it must be acknowledged a Physical Indispensible Principle of his constitution the one half of the Man What a disparagement is it to call it an Instrument only Now that it is so the Learned Doctor himself expresly tells us Pag. 218. 'T is a great mistake to imagine that the Identity or Sameness of Man consists wholy in the Sameness of the Soul if Euphorbus Homer and Ennius had had one and the same Soul yet they would not have been one and the same but three distinct Men. It seems then it is the constituting the essential and most distinguishing Principle it can make three Men of one Soul and so by consequence threescore And how worthily 't is called an Instrument only let the World judge I confess 't is often by Philosophers and Divines set out by this Expression The Instrument of the Soul to denote as I suppose the transcendent excellency of the Soul above it and all that Life Sense and Activity it can pretend to as derived from the Soul and dependent on it yet That it is more than an Instrument is acknowledged by the Learned Author who calls it pag. 198. The Collegue and Companion of the Soul and pag 204. Her old Acquaintance and is undeniably proved from 1 Cor. 6. 18. He that comitteth Fornication Sinneth against his own Body Here it is manifestly a Party and so interpreted and understood by Commentators on the place The like might be observed of other sins as of Gluttony Drunkenness c. which are properly called the Lusts or Sins of the Flesh But 't is farther Objected That the Arm that stabs sins no more than the Sword Here then is a good plea for Criminals at the Bar and 't is much it has never been made use of but I believe the Homicide suspects that it would do him no kindness it would be received by the Court with Laughter and rejected with Scorn and Indignation and reason good for the Sword is a Tool in its self Innocent and Harmless 't is the Arm that weilds it that impresses it that ' gives it Force and Vigour to destroy so that if to gratifie the Objection we allow the Arm to be an Instrument yet that it is no more concerned in the Matter than the Sword is notoriously false because the one is a dead the other a living Instrument and there must be a vast difference between these The Arm considered a-part is no more able to kill than the Sword nay less able because that has not so fit a disposition to pierce thro' the Bowels as the other being made acute for that purpose But the Arm united to the Body has Strength Vigour Motion in every part and must be allowed the true efficient Cause of the Murther whereas the other is the Means the Weapon to effect it And here also the Fallacy of Division is very plain and visible CHAP. VI. BUT the Objector adds 'T is the Soul only that is the Murtherer If it be so I wonder then what the Judge Jury and Executioner the Gaol or Gallows have to say or do to the Body if it be so there is an horrible Scene of Injustice all the World over if so Delirant Reges plectuntur Achivi was not the single Case of the poor Grecians who went to pot for the Miscarriages of their Generals but the common and deplorable Fate of all Mankind Certainly if the Soul only be the Murtherer the Body is free ought not to be touch'd is by all Laws whatsoever discharg'd both from the Guilt and Punishment of that Crime in which it had no hand For as 't is Injustice on one side not to punish the Guilty so 't is no less on the other to punish the Innocent If this quaint Notion of the Philosopher could be made good before the Bench it would bring him in more Gain than all the Preferments beside But alas this nail will never drive He will never be able to perswade the World of the truth of it And indeed it does exceedingly labour For 't is not the Soul but 't is the Man that is the Murderer And here also is a manifest Tang of the old Sophism True indeed the Soul is the first chief and principal Actor in the Tragedy but we can by no means excuse the outward Part. 'T is the Soul that bestows on the Body Life and sense without which it could not possibly lay claim to either and even here 't is Ridiculous to imagine that the more Spiritual and noble Part uses the Terrestrial and earthy as a

Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Text snippets containing the quad