Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	beast_n	body_n	spirit_n	3,997	5	5.4285	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44156	Adam's condition in paradise discovered wherein is proved that Adam had right to eternall life, in innocency, and forfeited it, for him and his : also, a treatise of the lawful ministry, and the manner of Sion's redemption opened, in answer to a book of George Hammond ... / by Hezekiah Holland ...	Holland, Hezekiah, fl. 1638-1661.	1656 (1656)	Wing H2424; ESTC R20188	38,977	52

the water Dulcius ex ipso sonte c. Fideliuns fili sanctitatis candidati sancti ex seminis praerogativâ And indeed I believe the cause why you complain against them is not for want of ignorance of their worth and abilities I could produce the testimony of Tertullian for Infant-Baptisme who lived in the same Century with Irenaeus who calles Children holy in respect of their Prerogative in Generation to wit because of believing Parents and federally holy Tert. 〈◊〉 de Anima but I refer the judicious Reader to Dr. Hammonds Treatise of baptizing Infants pag. 213. And I will wait upon what you say concerning Adam's sin What punishment Adams sin brought on his Posterity THat Adam's sin brought more on him and his than temporall death Habuit vitam aeternam partim promissione spe Paraeus in cap. 2. Gen. p. 348. with sorrows sicknesses c. I prove 1. because Adam forfeited eternall life which I thus prove what the second Adam restored the first lost but the second Adam restored eternall life 2 Tim. 1.10 who brought life and immortality to light intimating it to have had some kinde of being before to wit in Adam at least in an inclusive promise in feeding on the Tree of life c. The Tree of life was the representer of eternall life and of Christ Jesus the means to bring it about upon the Fall Rev. 2.7 Hence Paraeus In Gen. 1.3 Arbor vitae est Christus paradisus terrenus symbolum erat caelestis gratiae ejectio è paradiso signum aeternae abjectionis à Deo nisifuerit reconciliatus ibid. Paradise typed out glory the Tree of Life Christ the ejecting man Contemplation on Paradise signified mans rejection without reconciliation Hence Dr. Hall O infinite mercy Man saw his Saviour before him ere he had need of one he saw him in whom he should recover eternall life Ephes 2.12 Pag. 130.131 In Gen. Cap. 2. Pag. 345. ere he lost it Now that Adam was not promised eternall life in Paradise has been the opinion of many Mr. Love thought so Mr. Wotton in his Sermons on John 1. v. 11. whose Arguments prevailed with me to be once of that judgement Paraeus brings in 7. Arguments to prove Et sanè multis ne contemnendis rationibus nititur haec sententia Idem Ibid. that Adam had not promise of eternall life in Paradise but refutes them proving because we lost eternal life in him therefore he had promise of it and the Image of God in him was the earnest of it the Tree of life a symbolum of it and Christs restoring life proves it lost in the first Adam Here observe how differing Hereticks have been about this matter Pelagius held and Socinus after him that Adams sin brought onely eternall Death Trelcat de Orig peccato Pag. 169. and that temporall Death was by nature not the wages of sin because not removed by Christ Pighius denies any to be guilty of eternall death till they have actually sinned the very Opinion of George Hammond mark how he agrees in part with a Papist Mark how Hereticks dissent among themselves but consent as Pilate and Herod against truth That place in the Romans Chap. 5.12.14 proves Death raigned over all who had not sinned actually as Adam because we all sinned in Adam of which at large anon Now Christ was to remove onely eternall Death from Elect and not temporal onely its bitterness And though it may be objected that Adam had principles of mortality within him before the Fall yet he had never died had he not sinned which made Paraeus say he was in some sence mortal in some immortal L. 2. distinc 19. p. 368. and Lombard gives the distinction how mortall in respect of body immortall in respect of his Creator whose will it was had he not sinned to have preserved him from Death by feeding on the Tree of Life but after the Fall Contemplation on Paradise spirituall meat was not fit for a mortall stomack sayes Dr. Hall But let us consider the first Argument What Christ restored that Adam lost but Christ restored eternall life Hence Adam was called the figure or Type of Christ Rom. 5.14 therefore some similitude between Adam's losse and Christs restauration that as Adam lost eternall life once so Christ restored it This I prove further because Judgement came by one viz. Adam to condemnation Rom. 5.16 Here is damnation on all by Adam not onely temporall Death Now that condemnation there is damnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read the same Greek word in Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are c. that is no damnation read John 5.24 This may be proved further because we were all in Adam Rom. 5.12 and sinned all in him Now the grounds are just had Adam stood we all had stood and lived for ever therefore since he fell we fell all in him he being our representative or Parliament as I may say a common person the root of mankind But you say Our souls could not sin in Adam Page 15. because they were not in him being not in being To which I answer We were in him enough to be guilty with him of his Sin I l'e shew you the most acute judgements of learned men on that place of Rom. 5.12 to give satisfaction to any indifferent man but give me leave a little to play the Scholar with you were not all souls and bodies in Adam then did not Adam beget a perfect or compleat Creature Gen. 5.3 as the Beasts do in their kinde How did he beget a Son in his own likeness meaning in sin was Adam onely a body-can a body beget without a soul Du Moulin ag Armin. p. 66. c. 10. was a sinfull body his likeness can a body be well sinful without the soul Adam's soul did first sin there was the wills consent before the hand took the fruit Sin comes not chiefly by the body Magister hîc non approhatur nor a body can't sin not beget alone If Adam were onely a body how got he a Childe in his own likeness Indeed Peter Lomb. l. 2. dist 31. affirms sin to be onely from the body but Peter Du Moulin onely or chiefly from the soul I believe from both in some sort For the body who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean Creando infunditur c. For the soul it is created though holy yet destitute of its former Original righteousness which deficiency to it is sin nay That we call original Amesius med Theol. c. 17. Pag. 70 The learned Amess tells us that the want of Original righteousness may be considered as a punishment or sin As from God a soul is created in the body without it 't is a just judgement from God but as that originall righteousness should be in our nature and is not ipsa deficientia est animae peccatum Read his

book pag. 15. That deficiency is sin Thus in jesting with my Antagonist I have almost answered the Question unless he oppose that souls are from God not Adam Zach. 12.1 Eccless 12.7 the soul returns to him that gave it It may be answered God gave it in giving Adam at first a power to get it If that of Heb. 12.9 where Fathers of flesh are opposed to Father of spirits and so Fathers of flesh there are not Fathers of spirits It may be answered that by Father of spirits Read Paraeus in Gen. c. 2. v. 7. p. 338. Du Monlin ag Ar. p. 67. may be understood Father of Regeneration because sanctifying our spirits And we know Augustine was almost of this judgement to his dying day who was mallens Hereticorum Who doth desire more satisfaction faction let him read the most elegant and learned reasoning of Mr. Nathaniel Culverwel Pag. 106. in the eleventh Chapter of the light of nature who would almost perswade that as materia oritur ex materiâ so forma ex formâ one soul may produce another one doth print another with the same stamp of immortality that it self had engraven first upon it one person of the sacred Trinity produced another one Candle lights another c. but I forbear Heb. 1. because my Pareus calls it bruta pecuina opinio and so Du Moulin Otherwise if any had questioned how an immateriall being had or could have conveyance in a seminall way let them shew us the way how 't is united to the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer as Virg. has it hominum sator atque deorum we will as easily tell them how it entered into it but le ts not look for soul's Parentage on earth We are of the off-spring of God Acts 17.28 Prometheus stole fire from Heaven to quicken bodies as the Poets fabulize Yet we were all in Adam and sinned in him Rom. 5.12 How did Levi pay Tithes in Abraham Heb. 7. did his body and not soul just so friend Hammond you pay Tithes now without any consent of the soul when God said to Adam the day thou eatest thou shalt die spake God to Adam's body without the soul Omnes erant in Adamo peccarunt non actualiter sedvertualiter incurrendo originale peccatum quod iis imputatur is culpam in quantum aliquo modo erant in primo parente idem cum ipso as Dion Carthas in loc Rom. cap. 5. on as Lyra 92. futura erant membra ipsiu● in Rom. 5. I am so charitable to your self friend Hammond to pay for all you will eat be the meat never so costly when your soul has left your body or was soul and body both in Adam and forbid eating surely what God spake to Adam he spake to all mankind in him as he spake to him well he sinned in soul and body and we in his loyns therefore his sin is imputed to our whole man But mark one heresie of yours worse then that of Pelagius You deny that Children were lost or endangered to be eternally lost in Adam how came they saved what without Christ no sure Acts 4.12 will deny that But did Christ save them then they were lost in Adam for he came to save what was lost Matth. 18.11 and that Chapter speaks of little Children verse 2.3 whom the world offends verse 6 I believe in denying Church-priviledges to them Let your Needle-ship well consider this Wollebius tells us that Adam must be considered not as a private person so you esteem him making our souls no way engaged in his but as the Parent Persona Adae infecit naturam natura personas nostras Wolleb l. 1. c. 9. head and root of all Mankind So what he received for himself and his as the Image of God and promise of Eternal Life upon his obedience he lost for him and his But you 'l say How were our soules in Adam I answer with the learned Trelcatins the soul is not † out of Adam or we in him De Orig. pec pag. 154. Trelcat according to its essence but according to its subsistence sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for though it be created of God yet it is not created but in the body neither has it subsistence before the body You 'l never be able to deny upon any good grounds but that we were all in Adam according to what is here said God promited a soul to each one of Adams Posterity just such as he by obedience or disobedience should make them capable of so by vertue of Covenant or Promise we were all in Adam which Promise might some way be included in that Command Increase and multiply a Dion Carthusian in Rom. 5.12 As many members are in one Body or Individuals in one Species so we in Adam b Bulling in Heb. 7. As Levi was in Abraham so we in Adam Levi was in the Loyns of his Father Vti in arbore malum nondum enatum sayes Bullinger as an apple in the Tree before Fruit-time And so was our Saviour both in Adam and Abraham In Adam the Nature sinned which he took In Heb. 7. ver 10. Joh. Diodati but it was not sinfull in his person because conceived by the Holy Ghost In Abraham Christ in his servant-like condition may be said to have paid Tythes to Melchizedeck the type of himself though the learned Diodate thinks Christ was not to be comprehended amongst the Tithe-payers though in Abrahams Loyns because as Son of God he was Priest in whom his humane nature subsisted The same Author tells us In Rom. 5.12 All were in Adam as in the main stock of all Generation being the head and root of mankind And the Assemb Annot. use the same words on that place In Gen. 2. pag. 409. Paraeus sayes we were all in Adams loyns as part of him and so his sinne was properly ours The Syriac translation of Tremellius reads it By the hand of one man sinne entred as if Totus homo totum hominem naturaliter fundit nec est peccatum materiae out partis hominis sed totius suppositi homo generans communicat quod materiale materialiter quod immateriale causa liter lucas Trel pag. 153. when Adam took of the fruit we all stretched out our hands in his and are when he are † Coucludimus nec in substanstià animae out carmis hanc contagionem habcre causam sed quia a Deo fuit ordinatum c. vide Calvin nist l. 2. c. 1. A learned Protestant Divine tells us that the whole man begets the whole man naturally the materiall part he begets materially the immateriall causally as being the cause of it's subsistence in the body And Gorrhanus expounding how we were in Adam sayes we were in Adam as in the matter not onely sinning by Adams example as the Pelagians affirm but we were in him as in the cause because his sinne was the cause of ours