Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	death_n	separation_n	20,420	5	10.8447	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26882	Catholick communion doubly defended by Dr. Owens, vindicator, and Richard Baxter and the state of that communion opened, and the questions discussed, whether there be any displeasure at sin, or repentance for it in Heaven : with a parallel of the case of using a faulty translation of Scripture, and a faulty lyturgy.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1684 (1684)	Wing B1208; ESTC R11859	46,778	44

of the Case Men in flesh have sin and danger and Bodies lyable to sensible commotion of Spirits and so to grief Those in Heaven are not such They have no cause of grief and yet have renewed faculties of mind and will which disgust sin and hate it and are turned from it to a contrary love and life Even here if a man by his own sin and folly had shut up himself twenty years in a Dungeon or put out his Eyes and never seen the light suppose this man suddenly delivered into the light and he would not stay to mourn for his former state but the sudden joy would exclude sorrow And yet his change would be a true Repentance for what he did But as you have wronged all Protestants by fathering your Errour on them you have made it my duty to vindicate them with my self But I am grown such a Prodigal of my Reputation with Men of such a judging disposition that I will cast away a little more of it on your Censure The Scripture speaketh so much more of our Glory after the Resurrection then before and purposely keepeth us so low in our knowledge of the particular state of Souls before and Calvin whom I suppose you take not for an Heretick for all his Treatise against the sleep of Souls did think the difference was so great between the state of the separated Souls and that at the Resurrection that I must profess my ignorance to be so great that I am uncertain whether this first state do set all the blessed so high as that no thought is consistent with it that hath the least degree of suffering For 1. I know that all Creatures are Passive 2. If felicity be imperfect till the Resurrection it must be privatively or positively or both If privatively how can I prove that nothing positive may concur when privation is as bad 3. I think that Protestants mostly agree that Christs own Soul while his Body was in the Grave was in Paradise in Joy and yet in a state that was partly Penal as it was a separation from the Body by death And that all Souls in Heaven are happy and yet in a state partly Penal in Heaven itself as they are separated from the body and short of the Resurrection For not only the minute of dying but the state of death is Penal to a Soul that desireth a return to the body And yet Heaven may be to it unconceivable felicity I only hence conclude that we must not take on us to know more than we do of separate Souls nor to make a measure or manner of blessedness for them of our own heads nor to apply every Text to them that is spoken of the state after the Resurrection There is enough besides to feast our joyful hopes IV. Some few other practical Doctrines we differ about as where pag. 30. you say I doubt not to affirm that doing that which a Law requires so far as the intention is moved by the Law is a justifying of it And submitting to any Law on the consideration of its Penalties is so far a justifying its preceptive part as not so great an evil as the Penal Ans. I first premise that this is little or nothing to the Cause I pleaded for For whereas you say None that I know of say it is a duty simply or without any dependence or human Sanction I have largely told you that taking publick Communion to be but do facto what it is and the Lyturgy as commonly used I take it to be a duty to hold such Communion where no better at least is though there were no human Sanction but voluntary Concord and this by vertue of Gods great Commands of glorifying him with one mind and mouth in Unity Love and Peace not an immutable duty but a duty rebus sic stantibus It is in obedience to Gods Commands more than Mens that I have gone to the Parish Churches and would have gone as much if the Law had not commanded it but only had deprived me of better But as to your undoubted affirmation I am as much past doubt that it is not true as you unlimitedly express it The intention may be moved by a Law for the effects or consequents sake and not justify the Law but only justify the Act of the Subject Yea it may be moved by the formal Authority of the Law-giver exprest by his Law and yet not justify the Law Ioseph and Mary were Taxed with others by Augustus Law They were moved by that Law and its effects to pay the Tax And yet justifyed not the Law nor decided the Case whether it were by Right or Usurpation All Conquered People by unjust War may obey a Taxing Law The Israelites might obey the Philistines that forbad them Smiths and Swords c. They may labour and Travel and pay Taxes moved by unjust Laws and yet not justify the Law but only their own Acts. When Christ sent Peter to take a Fish with Money in his Mouth and pay Tribute the Law moved his intention because of the offence that would follow the breaking of it And yet his answer intimateth that he justified not the Law If he carried his Cross at their Command that justified not their Command If he bid us give our Coat to him that sueth us for our Cloak if the Law be against us it proveth not he bids us justify the Law If a Confessor go to Prison or Banishment or to the Gallows or fire without resistance to do this as moved by the Law is no justifying of the Law If the Protestants in France should pay each man a yearly Tribute for liberty of Conscience or the Christians under the Turk pay Pos●-mony moved by the Law this justifieth not the Law I am persuaded your Church would gladly pay somewhat for liberty of Worship and yet not justify the Law that required it If the Law required us to meet for Gods Worship at an inconvenient place or time or to use a version of Psalms in Meeter or a Translation of Scripture that is not the best he that useth these in obedience to this because Concord in these according to Law is better then a better Version Translation Hour Place with Discord and because Obedience may do more good then better circumstances would without it yet doth not hereby justify the Law If the Law bid you appear before Justices or Judges that are bad men and unjust you may obey the Law and not justify it Dear Brother I will not aggravate your Errour by its ill Consequences But you and I tell the world what need all men have of pardon in our mistakes even when we are most confident 2. And as to your second affirmation it is not true without limitation That submitting to a Law on consideration of the Penalties is so far a justifying its preceptive part as not so great an evil as the Penal This is confused work The pr●ceptive part of the Law is actus

will upon Good as Good before it come to Election of Compared Goods which is usually de Mediis Displicence is its contrary and its object is Evil as Evil. One is called Volition or Willing the other Nolition or Nilling As Pleasedness and Displeasedness are in the Passions and signify Ioy and Trouble we have nothing here to do with them having expresly excluded sorrow but as they are in the Will I thought till now that all sober Divines had been agreed Protestants and Papists that not only in Saints and Angels and Christ as Man but in God himself who is most remote from imperfection there is Complacence and Displicence Willing and Nilling which though in Creatures that have Accidents they really differ as Acts yet in God who is most simple they are say the subtiler part of the School Doctors but the Essence of God by extrinsick denomination from relation of the effects differenced from the Essence simply considered and from each other or as the Scotists formaliter or as the Thomists ratione ratiocinata but none deny these to be in God I suppose that Volition or Complacence you deny not As to Displicence or Nolition answering the Judgments dislike I prove that it is in Heaven in God and Creatures 2. If the will of God Angels and Spirits have any Act about Evil it is Displicence But some Act about Evil they have Ergo c. For the Major if they have any Act it is Displicence or Complacence for the will hath no other primary Acts before Election even frui intendere presupposing this Complacence But God and good Spirits have no Complacency in sin or evil as such Ergo they have a Displicence Aut placet aut displicet being the first in nature That God or Spirits at least have some Act of will about evil as such is commonly agreed Else all the sin and evil in the world would come to pass without any Act of God or good Spirits in Heaven about it Sure they that for Predetermination have written so many Volumes and one against me are not of that mind They say this is to feign God and all in Heaven asleep or having nothing to do with Earth I have my self proved indeed with others that God hath no Volition or Complacency of Evil as such but a Displicence I have proved 2. If God have no Displicence as to sin then there is no effectual impediment to it but all the world would be drowned in wickedness For the Creature would presently run into evil But sin is restrained If any in excess of subtilty say that Nolitions are not in God but Volitions of the Good are instead of Nolitions of Evil this is bold and at least the language unfit and reductively these Volitions are Nolitions of their Contraries And however none of this can be feigned of Souls 3. If God be not disp'eased with sin then his prohibitions are no signs of his displeasure any more than his Commands But c. 4. Then his Judgments and Execution in Hell are no effects of his displeasure 5. Then Christ came not to reconcile us to a displeased God nor is he any more displeased with Persecutors then Saints nor with Cursing than with Blessing nor with any man for doing it 6. If the subtilty which I have taken notice of in my Catholick Theology asserting Volitions without Nolitions in God were defensible it would as I said be of no truth as to Creatures if Souls in Heaven have no displicence against sin how is their will holy in the Image of God that hateth Iniquity Devils love sin Stones and Brutes neither love nor hate it Saints in Heaven hate it and love it not meerly not-loving it is not their full holiness 7. If Saints there are not displeased with sin how can they glorify Christ for dying for it or God for punishing it 8. Or how can they be everlastingly thankful to Christ for saving them from it 9. What a change must they impute to Christ that came so low and suffered as in a sort forsaken to destroy the works of the Devil and now hath not so much as the least displeasedness with sin 10. Then Christ and Saints there are no more displeased at Persecution Prophaneness Murder Adultery then at Piety and Love 11. Then it no more displeaseth Souls there that they here sinned then that they did well Pauls mind is much changed then about his Persecution The best is though you and yours are offended with me it is not displeasing to Dr. O. if he know it But if your reason be because that all displeasedness hath some suffering of the mind or trouble 1. As to my meaning you know I excluded sorrow 2. And it is not true that you suppose Pure Displicency of the will in God and the blessed hath no trouble It is not exercised in a body that hath a Heart or Head troubled by commotion of the Blood and Spirits nor yet in an imperfect Soul that hath hurting passions It is the pure perfection of the will and nothing but its Aversation from sin and contrary to Love Love and Hatred are names that may well here be used but Complacence and Displicence being the same sound as less to signify Passion And if there be Passion in Heaven which you cannot disprove it might be without diminution of felicity II. But I am not hopeless that you will deny none of all this as to the matter but turn all into a quarrel at words and say that the name of Displeasure is not fit for any Act of God or Saints or Angels in Heaven If that be the worst which is bad enough let us next try that wordy Controversy I. By Scripture II. By School Divines III. By common practical Divines I. Scripture use of words in Sacred Things is our best Dictionary He that is our great Teacher knoweth how to speak If you dislike his words methinks you should not accuse Men of Errour and that against the common sense of all that you meet with for imitating God and speaking as he doth And that at the same time when you are defending one that would have no Mode or Accidentals in Worship used which God prescribeth not If by my words I must be Justified or Condemned I hope God will not condemn me for speaking as he taught me no more then for doing as he bid me though all your party should do it And I can bear their Condemnation The Hebrew phrase which we translate by Displeasing God or Man is oft It was Evil in his Eyes which speaketh a positive Act of the Understanding de malo And that there was no answerable Act of the Will let him say that dare Prov. 24. 17 18. Rejoyce not when thy Enemy falleth and let not th● heart be glad when he stumbleth lest the Lord see it and it displease him No say you fear not that any in Heaven should be displeased Gen. 38. 10. The thing that he did displeased the