Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	according_a	body_n	spirit_n	5,891	5	5.2175	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30491	Third remarks upon An essay concerning humane understanding in a letter address'd to the author.	Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715.	1699 (1699)	Wing B5955; ESTC R20274	20,916	28

monstra sub aequore Pontus This you see takes in both rational and irrational Creatures Georg. 4. as he had done before in a like Description but our concern is only for rational Natures and the Soul of Man And if the Soul of Man be nothing but an influx from another Principle not a distinct permanent Substance and the Principle of its own Actions whosoever goes upon this Principle I do not wonder if he cannot allow innate Idea's or practical Principles in the Soul For there is no permanent Soul or distinct Substance to imprint them upon They are the Operations of another Being and exerted according to the Dispositions of the Body or may be wholly intermitted when the Body is asleep This I think they speak coherently with the former Position Moreover upon that Hypothesis The Soul cannot be said to be Immortal or to act and operate after the dissolution of the Body for the Body then is no further capable of those Influences Furthermore in consequence of this Principle of Deism and the Mortality of the Soul great Doubts and Difficulties must needs arise to them about the Resurrection How it can be the same Man or the same Person that rises again when both the Body and the Soul are new And this would bring on nice Disputes about the Notions of Identity and Diversity Which accordingly we find discuss'd at large in the Essay for their Satisfaction I suppose that go upon those B. 2 c. 27 Principles I will mention another Doubt or Dispute which arises from that Principle viz. That the Soul is not a Substance distinct from God and Matter From this Position a Question springs up concerning the Powers of Matter or whether Matter be not capable of Cogitation If the Soul be not a Substance distinct from God and Matter then all our Cogitations are either the Operations of God or the Operations of Matter there being no third Substance to be the Subject of them This being the case They chuse as of two inconveniences the less to make Matter the Subject of them rather than God adding this temperament That Matter hath not this Power of Cogitation from it self but as impress'd or communicated to it from God Neither do they positively assert so far as I know this Power of Cogitation in Matter either innate or impress'd but leave that as a floating Problem which they will not determine either way But seeing this Controversie takes its Original only from their Principles they are bound to decide it or declare which part they will take I have noted those Doctrines you see which chiefly relate to the Soul of Man and are found agreeable to or consequential upon the Principles of the Deists If they be further try'd upon the Idea of God as you have given it without Moral Attributes only as a Supreme Being Eternal All-knowing most Powerful no Deist of one sort or other will be excluded by this Idea nor any party of Men except meer Atheists if yet there be any such Monsters amongst Men. So that still in all these Principles and these are the chief Principles to be depended upon in reference to Morality and Religion there is nothing so far as I can observe higher than Deism neither do I know the scope or occasion of some Discourses in this Essay upon any other Suppositions than those we have mentioned But I speak this with due regard always to better Information and must take it at present for a kind of Rationale to that learned Work to see the dependence of one part upon another However I will take the liberty to say that the Author cannot upon those Principles give us as is pretended a Demonstrative Morality as clear as Mathematicks He may give us a sett of Prudential Maxims for the Conveniences of Life or a kind of Political Righteousness but will never reach what is most Sacred and Divine either in Morality or Religion I wish him however good success that it may not be said Parturiunt Montes SIR If you please to declare your Thoughts more freely concerning these things especially as to the Nature of God and the Soul of Man you may state the case more distinctly and bring it to an issue which is all I desire I shall only give it a Friendly Consideration and accordingly I request that you would manage it with calm Reason without Wrath or Bitterness Diis proximus ille est Quem Ratio non Ira movet I am SIR Your Humble Servant POSTSCRIPT THE Epicurean Philosophers have given us a Method of Science without any other Principles than what are collected from Sense and Experience which I take to be the same in effect with your Method And it may be useful indeed within its Sphere to make Men attend to their Evidence that it be real and to beat out of the Schools some empty Notions or Notionalities But as it does not reach the first Criterion or the first Discriminations we make of True and False so also in reference to Good and Evil those Principles fall short and will not bear when they come to lay a Foundation for Morality and Religion They can carry us no higher than Epicurus's Ethicks still within the compass of a Temporal Felicity and provision for it These Authors must either go upon a Principle of Private Self-Preservation for the Basis of their Morals or of the Preservation of Society They have no higher Principle that I know seeing they make no Intrinsick and Essential Distinction of Good and Evil nor include Goodness Justice and other Moral Attributes in the Idea of the Divine Nature Nor can prove the Immortality of the Soul or a future state of Punishments and Rewards And their Notion of Conscience of Vertue and Vice Good and Evil without distinction of Natural and Moral are so lax and general and have so little Sacred in them that they seem to me to stand upon the very same level with the rest But if others can deduce better things from those Principles I should be glad to see it done Yet I do not account the Epicurean Philosophers to be Atheists but rather a sort of Deists for there are several sorts of Men under that denomination Those that are meer Materialists and own no Deity distinct from Matter are the very worst Deists and scarce deserve that name or title tho' they pretend to it Others that own an Immaterial Deity and that Matter is not the only Substratum of all things are yet distinguishable into different Parties beth in respect of their natural Principles and Religious Some of them will own not only an immaterial Deity but also particular finite immaterial Spirits distinct Substances from the Deity but will not own Reveal'd Religion Others on the contrary will own both natural and reveal'd Religion but not that the Soul of Man or any finite Spirits are permanent Substances distinct from the Deity But think them only transient Irradiations or Effluxes of the Deity in certain

of Vertue and Honesty And if those Rules be neglected more or less by Men or appear little amongst some People this is no good Proof that there are no such Principles As it is no sufficient Argument that there is no Sun in the Firmament because his Light is obscured in Cloudy Days or does not appear in Foggy Regions 'T is enough to prove there is such a Luminary if he shine clearer in other Climates or by fits though he be subject to Clouds and Eclipses as well as the Light of Nature So I do not see any necessity of Universal Consent or Universal Uniformity to declare a Principle to be Natural How many are there amongst all sorts of Men who say they can make no distinction of Musical Sounds or of Concords and Discords They say all Compositions for Voices or Instruments are equal to them as to Pleasantness or Unpleasantness only some are more Noisie than others or of quicker or slower Time Yet I think no Man will deny the Sense of Musick to be Natural to Mankind without Ratiocination So also for Beauty I do not mean that of Faces only or Colour but of Order Proportion Uniformity or Regularity in general This is very different in different Persons and some scarce appear at all affected with it Yet who does not think that some Notion or Idea of Order and Regularity and of their Difference from Confusion or Disorder is Natural to us Even the Power of Reason several Passions a propension to Laugh at ridiculous Objects or Actions are more and less and appear sooner in some than others And this may be observ'd in Children of whose Weakness you make great use and frequent mention If you allow these other Principles to be Natural and born with us I know not why you should make so much a-do about the word Innate I should be glad to know if you allow any Powers or Principles to be Innate in your sense of the word If you allow none at all not these last mention'd nor so much as willing or nilling this or that the Controversie will be chang'd and I desire to know what Idea you can form of a Soul or of a Spirit without any Powers or any Action I wish that may not be the Supposition that lies at the bottom of your Philosophy That the Soul of Man is no distinct Substance from God or the Body but either a Divine Influence or the Power of the Body This hypothesis I confess may lead you to deny both innate Idea's and practical Principles To proceed a little further you have an odd Exception in your 12th Paragraph to show that the Dictates of natural Conscience are not Truths because they are not form'd into Propositions And to make them capable of being assented to as Truths they must have the word Duty join'd to them But say you what duty is cannot be understood without a Law nor a Law be known or supposed without a Law-maker or without Rewards and Punishments This to me is but Chicanry about words But let us see how far these things make for you or against you Do we not preserve our selves Do we not make use of Reason without the formality of a Law telling us 'T is our Duty to do these things Or in the case of natural Conscience have we not the Marks and Sense of our Duty and of the Will of our Maker from an inward Testimony approving or disapproving our Actions according as we obey or disobey that Principle in the distinction of Moral Good and Evil On the one hand Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum On the other Hic murus aheneus esto Nil conscire sibi These were both the Sayings of Heathens that had no other Law than the Law of natural Conscience And so their Apostle says They were a Law to themselves by help of that Principle When you offer a Child Bitter instead of Sweet he turns away his Head and makes grimaces when he has no Law or Duty prescrib'd to him nor any other Logick than what was born with him or what he suck't from the Breasts of his Mother Then as to Punishments and Rewards there is a Presage of them from natural Conscience and they are furthermore deducible from the Nature of God if you allow him Moral Attributes as we do Indeed in your way upon your Idea of God and your uncertainty of the Immortality of the Soul I do not see how possibly you can prove future Rewards and Punishments without a Revelation nor consequently give us a Foundation for Morality and natural Religion I must tell you again that you bring such Arguments against Natural Conscience as you might bring against Christian Religion In your next Paragraph put but Christianity in th● room of innate Principles and your Argument will be as good §. 13. or as bad against either of them The sum of your Argument is taken from the Topick of Universal Practice as conformable or not conformable to the Rule You say it is impossible that Men should without shame or fear confidently break a Rule which they could not but evidently know that God had set up and would certainly punish the breach of Which they must if it were innate Put in this place Which they must if they were Christians to a degree to make it a very ill Bargain to the Transgressor Does not this hit the Christians as well and as manifestly as those that abuse natural Conscience Then you say again But let any one see the Ibid. fault and the Rod by it and with the Transgression a Fire ready to punish it A Pleasure tempting and the Hand of the Almighty visibly held up and prepared to take vengeance For this must be the case where any Duty is imprinted upon the Mind Put here For this must be the case where our Duty as Christians is manifestly known and acknowledged and then tell me whether it be possible for People with such a prospect such a certain knowledge as this wantonly and without scruple to offend againct a Law which they carry about with them in indelible Characters and that stares them in the face whilst they are breaking it Might not this to our sorrow be urg'd against Christians Or to prove that the Law of Christianity is not known to them or believed Neither ought you to be offended that we transfer your Argument to Christians seeing you your self to prove that there is no Natural Conscience in our sence have argued before from the Practice of Christians as well as Heathens You alledge the Practice of the Mengrelians You instance in Duels and bloody Wars c. amongst Christians You might have applied all these things particularly to Christians but still we should have thought it no good Proof that there is no Christian Law no more than it is that there is no Natural Conscience Do we not see Men every day in spite of Laws External or Internal Divine or Humane pursue their Lusts