Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	adam_n	original_a	sin_n	4,215	5	5.6070	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67875	Laudensium apostasia: or A dialogue in which is shewen, that some divines risen up in our church since the greatness of the late archbishop, are in sundry points of great moment, quite fallen off from the doctrine received in the Church of England. By Henry Hickman fellow of Magd. Colledg Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1660 (1660)	Wing H1911; ESTC R208512	84,970	112

their nature and no more a punishment then to be a child is Unum Necess p. 371 372. Pacif. This is such Divinity as I should never have expected to hear from any but a Socinian for though in a sense Adam might be said before his fall to be mortal in regard he was compounded of matter the princeiple and root of corruption yet that power of corruption was so remote and God gave him such an excellent temper of body that the remote power could never be brought into a proxime and immediate disposition much less into actual death that death could enter any other way then by sin or that ever any one dyed without some respect to sin is so strange that none who reads the Scripture without prejudice can bear it or count it worth confuting Laud We cannot guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before the fall certainly if he had had so great a knowledge it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge Unum Necess p. 372. Pacif. That man though now become like to the beasts that perish was at first made for knowledge little inferior to the Angels is easily proved his being tempted through a desire to get more knowledge doth not argue him to have been created with little knowledge but with much for who more desirous to gain knowledge than they who have a great deal already Laud If man had not before the fall had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things by what could he have been tempted and how could it have come to pass that he should sin Unum Necessar 373. An evil there is upon us and that is concupiscence this also is natural but it was actual before the fall it was in Adam and tempted him p. 374. Pacif. To say there was a rebellious appetite in man before the fall or an inclination to forbidden things is too bold a reflection on the most holy and wise Creator of man nor can there a Protestant be instanced in that hath so spoken except we call the Remonstrants Protestants who make the rebellion of the sensitive appetite to the rational to arise from the very constitution of man insomuch that one of them is not afraid to say that it was in Christ himself because a man Nothing is more easie to conceive then that these inclinations though divers yet are not contrary unless it be where sin hath made an ataxy The Angels did fall though there was in them no sensitive appetite at all and therefore sure it is not impossible that the creature should fall though there be no rebellion in the inferior appetite to the superior But it may be you and I agree not about the nature and effects of Original sin Laud The evil of death descending upon Adams posterity for his sake went no further then till Moses Unum Necess p. 367 Pacif Would you have me think that what you say is agreeable to those words in the second Sermon of the Passion p. 184. Is not sin think you a grievous thing in Gods sight seeing for the trausgression of his precept in eating of one Apple he condemned all the world to perpetual death and would not be pacified but only with the blood of his own Son Land Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically i. e. it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin 2. It doth not destroy our liberty which we had naturally 3. It doth not introduce a natural necessity of sinning 4. It does not damn any Infant to the eternal pains of Hell Fur. p. 475. In Scripture there is no signification of any corruption or depravation of our souls by Adams sin Vn. Necess p. 392. Pacif. Either I understand not Grammar or this is expresly contradictory to the 9th Article Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the off-spring of Adam whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness and is inclined to evil so that the flesh lusteth against the spirit and therefore in every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation and this infection of nature doth remain yea in them that are regenerated whereby the lust of the flesh called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affections some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the Law of God And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of it self the nature of sin And I pray you Sir do you not think seeing you say that Original sin is not properly a sin that a man is under no obligation to repent of it Laud Our share of Adams sin either being in us no sin at all or else not to be avoided or amended it cannot be the matter of repentance As Adam was not bound to repent of the sins of all his posterity so neither are we tyed to repent of his sins Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or Form of Prayer publick or private any Prayer of Humiliation prescribed for Original sin they might deprecate the evil consequent but never confess themselves guilty of the formal sin Unum Necess p. 425 426. No man ever imposed pennance for it So God himself in Nature never did for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin and why the Conscience should be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scare him with an impertinent proposition Why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any probable conjecture save this only That it is not Properly a sin but Metonymically and Improperly Deus Justis p. 128 129. Pacif. That no Form of Lyturgy takes notice of Original sin so as to confess it or be humbled for it you will never perswade him who hath the Administration of Baptism in our own Common-Prayer-Book and is it not great pride or uncharitableness or both to say that no mans Conscience did ever afflict him for Original sin never any groaned for it or under it Have all those eminent Protestant Divines that have so often in their Prayers before their Sermons bewailed the corruption that we brought into the world with us been scared with impertinent propositions or did they play the Hypocrites so as to groan where they felt no burden But if you really think that all the Disputations and Questions about Natural Sin and Corruption

Expiations were appointed for small sins but none for great ones 't is a notion borrowed from the Socinians but hath nothing of truth in it forif we look into Levit. 6. 1 2 c. We shall find a trespass-offering appointed for sins done wittingly for a mans lying in that which was delivered to him to keep and swearing falsely which sure are not small sins And in the Feast of Expiation of which mention is made Levit. 16. we find very general tearms used v. 16 21 30 34. and therefore God promising to his people the remission of their sins that were very grievous Isai. 1. 18. useth a metaphor say the Rabbins taken from that which hapned in the Feast of Expiation when the thread by which the Scape-goat was led into the Wilderness did miraculously change its colour and become white Every great sin say you brought death infalibly What death do you mean temporal or eternal All men were not cut off by death temporal who did fall into soul gross sin much less did they all suffer the vengeance of eternal death witness David who scaped notwithstanding adultery and murder whereas Volkelius saith this was not by vertue and efficacy of Sacrifices but by the singular mercy of God he 's well answered by Maresius among others that he makes a faulty opposition betwixt that pardon which was by the typical efficacy of Sacrifices and that which proceeded out of the singular mercy of God whereas that pardon of sin which was obtained by any Expiatory Sacrifice whether typical or real was ever to be ascribed to the special mercy of God and indeed seeing it cannot be denyed but that some very enormous crimes were pardoned under the Law it seems very irrational to deny that such pardon was signified to those who were guilty by some Sacrifices if not particular yet common and universal especially seeing David himself being about to ask the pardon of his sin expresseth himself in terms taken from Ceremonies and legal Sacrifices Psal. 51.4 5 7. Purge me with hysop But I pray you tell us more of your mind about Moses his Law Laud As it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward Obedience But this would not do it the Promises were temporal and that could not secure Obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by Repentance the Law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal only it was brought in as a paedagogy for the present necessity Unum Necess p. 3. Pacif. How to make sense of those words the Law did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal I know not but I suppose your meaning in the whole that you said is this That under the Law the Promises were temporal not of matters Spiritual or Eternal Now if you mean that the Law considered barely as a law had no promises of Eternal life I cannot gain-say but in that sense neither had it any promises temporal for a law as a law promiseth nothing but only declareth what is to be done or avoided but if you should mean that God under Mos s his Law did not encourage his people to Obedience by promises of Eternal life as well as of a Temporal our Divines against the Socinians and Papists have said enough to confute you and you plainly contradict the 7th Article of our Church in which the words are these The Old Testament is not contrary to the New for both in the O d and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Jesus Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man wherefore they are not be heard which fain that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises Laud At first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertained but with the promise of good things temporal which to some men were performed by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for Repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made Unum Neces p. 2. Pacif. Either I understand you not or this is uncouth Divinity you say at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil what mean you by at first if while Adam was innocent Can any one think that the most holy and merciful Creator should threaten death to Adam upon his disobedience and not promise him life and happiness on condition of obedience if by the first you mean that time in which the world consisted of Adam and Eve Abel and Cain and some few other sure you cannot think that in that period of time there was no promise of good things there was the promise of the seed of the woman and God tells it Cain as a thing well known to him that if he did well he should be accepted the Hebrew word there used cometh from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a root saith Pagnin of very vast and comprehensive signification if any other in all the Hebrew tongue it may carry these three significations in that place 1. If thou do well shalt thou not be pardoned 2. Shalt thou not lift up thy count nance i. e. have access to God with boldness 3. Shalt thou not receive i. e. receive the things thou askest and standest in need of How any of these were or could be performed to any by the pleasures and rewards of sin I wot not But what may one think of the faith of them who lived before Christs Incarnation Laud That both the Patriarchs and the Jews did rely on God for the accomplishment of his promise touching their salvation I do nothing doubt but that they were acquainted with the means and method which God did purpose to make use of in so great a work or did rely on Christ to come for their justification as the Scripture no where saith it for ought find so is there no reason to believe it for ought I can see Dr. Hey Fid. Apost. p. 96. after a long discourse to that purpose Pacif. The Writers of our Homilies seem to be of another mind for Part. 1. p. 25. we find these words All these Fathers Martyrs and other holy men had their faith surely fixed in God when all the world was against them they did not only know God to be the Lord Maker and Governor of all men in the world but also they had a special confidence and trust that he was and would be their God their Comforter Aider Helper Maintainer and Defender This is the Christian Faith which these holy men had and we also ought to have And although they were not named Christian men yet was