Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	feel_v	foot_n	great_a	47	3	2.1572	3	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19857	A suruey of certaine dialogical discourses: vvritten by Iohn Deacon, and Iohn Walker, concerning the doctrine of the possession and dispossession of diuels VVherein is manifested the palpable ignorance and dangerous errors of the discoursers, and what according to proportion of God his truth, every christian is to hold in these poyntes. Published by Iohn Darrell minister of the gospell.	Darrel, John, b. ca. 1562.	1602 (1602)	STC 6285; ESTC S109295	85,966	179

is the argument of our Sauiour firme The disciples might haue replyed that howsoeuer spirits haue not flesh and bones naturally yet they assume humane bodies for a time visible and palpable therefore the iudgment of sence could not be sufficient warrant to put away their feare For answer heerevnto Thomas Aquinas other of the Schoole men think our Sauiours argument to be of small strength except some other addition be made vnto it But herein the scholemen were deceaued as also many others in that they frame the argument from part only of our Sauiours words and not from the whole Our Sauiour doth not meerely reason thus A Spirit hath not flesh and bones But I haue flesh bones and therefore am no spirit as I see the argument is vulgarly taken but more fully in this sort A Spirit hath not flesh bones as you see me haue which wordes afford this syllogisme A Spirit hath not in a true humane body pearced hands pearced feete as mine were lately on the crosse But I heere present haue in a true humane body â—earced hands and peirced feeâ—e as they were a few dayes since vpon the crosse whereof be your selues witnesses in seing and feeling me and therefore I heere present am no spirit but verily your Lord and Maister who was lately crucified And this is strengthened by the words precedent to the aforesaide Scripture and subsequent Behould saith Christ my hands and my feete for it is I my selfe handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh bâ—â—es as ye see me haue And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feete As if the Lord had said You suppose this bodie that stands thus on the suddaine before you is not mine but the phantasticall body of a spirit But you are deceaued for it is I my selfe And that you may be cut of doubt looke vpon me and handle me A spirit hath not a true naturall body consistinge of flesh bloud and bone c. but only the similitude of these things and therefore this my true humane body you may easily discerne from such if care and circumspection be vsed by you View me therefore well and handle me The softnesse of my flesh the hardnesse of my bones that vitall and sweete warmnesse that is perceaued in a liuing body and is proper vnto it which you may feele doe witnesse that it is my body you doe behould and not a spirit But certaine may you be hereof if you looke vpon my hands and feete which you know according to the scripture were lately peirced Heere I shew you them Doe you not see the marks there of and the hoales which the nayles haue made in them we may add heerevnto the exceeding great ioy which did heerevpon arise in the disciples For it followeth And while they beleued not for ioy that the Lord was risen wondred thereat c. This excessiue ioy nothing caused somuch as the behoulding and handling of the visible and palpable markes of his peircing Had not Christ shewed they beheld and handled these bloudie markes and certaine marks of Christs owne bodie they had not vndoubtedly so abounded in ioy but rather continewed still troubled and in their former doubt at least in part and some of them if not all Hereby it is plaine that this scripture maketh for apparitions and not against them If the reason drawne from this scripture were of any validity agaâ—Ì„st apparitions then could not the holy angels assume bodies neither had there euer bene apparition of them which we knowe is ouer thrown by many places of scripture For the rest of the Dialogue we are behoulding to Lycanthropus which hath kept so good Dâ—â—â—rum in all the former Diâ—courses that he neuer howâ—ed fâ—â—th like a woâ—â—e tiâ—â— now Your â—aâ—â—â—ty is merueilous in speedy curing his â—â—â—ease If you proceeâ—e with â—â—â—e successe in this kinde you wiâ—l quickly surpaâ—se the Exâ—rcâ—i at Maâ—gnâ—tton Lycaâ—thâ—â—pus was but a â—oâ—le that he complaineâ— not himselfe at your first meeting It seemeth he might haue had present he pe But take heede M. Haâ—sâ—â—â—t be not sent from his Lord with Coâ—ission to exam ne the matter of soâ—e Legerdemaine And thus hauing run the race of this Dialogue you make a passage to the next comming now to Actuall Pâ—ss ssion which is the opposite member to Reall VVhereby it will that neither the â—iuell hath any reall power without For whatsoeuer he doth exerâ—isâ— outwardly it is actuaâ—ly onely saith your goodly diuision and so by your account he shaâ—l be reallâ— no where A Suruey of thâ— Sixt Dialogue page 166. The sixt Dialogue handleth Actuall poss ssion which they describe to be an extraordinary affliction vexation or toâ—ment that Sathan doth effectiuely inflict vâ—on mâ—n fâ—r a time And this actuall affliction and toâ—ment very vnfâ—â—ifully they oppose to that is generally called possâ—ssâ—â—n Whereas whosoeuer is possessed according to that we define possession the same iâ— actually effâ—ctiu ly as they speaâ— afflicted vexed or tormâ—nted by Sathan Where therefore either the spirit of god in the sacred Scriptures speaking of Demonâ—acks mentioneth only their vexation by the spirit Mâ—th 15 2â— Actâ—â—â— â— or any learned writer that maketh not at all against vs or for you as you very â—illily pretend The question and controuersy is whereof we haue spoken alredâ— whether the diuel thus vâ—xing a Demoniack be within him definitiuely as we affirme or without him as you auouch and not whether Demoniacks be effâ—ctiuely vexed by Sathan whâ—ch vâ—xatiâ—n you opposing to that we call pâ—ss ssi n see pag 38 3â— â—â—3 and by it going about to disproue reall possessiâ—n doe therein like vnto him that should deny a man to haue a soule because he hath a body and that by prouing he hath a body will proue that he hath no soule There be 2. parts of possession 1. The diuel his inherencie in the body of man 2. the diuel his vexing of that bodie This pâ—ssâ—ssion of diuâ—ls yâ—u acknowledging to haue bâ—ne in the daies of Christ pag. 168. doe flatly deny any further continuance thereof now in tâ—is time of the gospell In the doctrine pag. 27 28. Doctrine pag 31 The contrary herevnto to wit the perpetuity of possession I haue heretofore proued by Scripture by reason naÌ„ely thus All the diseases that sinne made the body of man subiect vnto doe or may remaine so long as sinne remaineth in man But possession is a disease that sinne made the body of man subiect vnto Therefore possession doth or may remaine so long as sinne remaineth in man And so at this day nay vntil the end of the world This argument hath as yet receiued no answer from you pag 174 nor I trust neuer shall Instead thereof you haue fathered as absurd an argument vpon me as euer I read sending the Reader to the 31. page of the Doctrine to secure him it is mine

voice and therein by practise she was verie expert I answer you may tell vs also that the moone is made of a greene cheese but we may chuse whether we will beleue you Yea I for my part will as soone beeleue this as that For how could this silly woman with all her cunning and craft foretell first the ouerthrow of the Israelites 2. that it shoude be on the morrow 3. that in that ouerthrow Saul and his sonnes should be slaine Neither is it credible that she was able to make knowne to Saul the true cause of this feirce wrath of the Lorde ready to be executed vpon him and that his kingdome being rent from him should be giuen to Dauid all which be mentioned in this conference Moreouer if the witch did vse a meere cosinage and that she herselfe did see nothing it should seeme this art of sorcery consisteth only in the opinion of men and that in very deede witches can doe no more by Spirits neither haue any greater familiarity with theÌ„ then all others haue But then wherefore doth the scripture condemne them for counselling with spirits Deut 18 11 1 Sam. 28 7 8. and mention theire hauing of familiar spirits For these reasons I thinke it stands better with reason to ioyn with the vniuersall consent of all the learned then to follow M. Skott his singuler opinion though the discourse be priuiledged Hitherto for your refutation The shutting vp of this Dialogue alleadgeth some authorities for Not assuming bodies none of all which make to the purpose Peter Lumbard propoundeth a double question pag. 127 128. Mag. sent lib 2 distinct 8. first whether diuels do substantially enter into the bodies of men the second whether they essentially slip into their mindes To the first he answers doubtfully but doth not deny it as these Discoursers doe To the second negatiuely Then you produce the testimony of Gennadius Beda Augustine which likewise deny an essentiall entrance into the minde But what is this to essentiall entring into the body These are two things distinct and if you had not purposed fraud you would not haue alleadged authorityes denying an essentiall entrance into the mindes to disprooue essentiall entrance into the body Touching the rest of your testimonies I am ashamed to spend time in rehearsing them I graunt with Chrisostome the diuel cannot compell to sinne but suggest with Lyra that he is not formally in any as the forme of that body wherein he is with Musculus That he hath no absolute authority but a subiected seruitude with Gregory that the power of Sathan is neuer vâ—iust though his will be alwaies wâ—ckâ—d with Tâ—lsâ—egistus that aâ— humanâ— soule cannot receauâ— any other to makâ— one peâ—sâ—n with iâ— excepted only the sonne of god then an humane bâ—â—â—â— I graunt you a l which theâ—e testimonies â—uâ—uâ—n but what game you therby for strengthening your cause It is great folly to trouble your Reader with such impertinent wordes in the last place comes Reig Skâ—t to make all â—ure Inâ—eede â—is testimony is pregnant for you page 129. But in the wordes you cite out of him be conteyned two infamous sentences That the Diuâ—ls cannâ—t by any meanes make them selues seene that to assume a boâ—y for appeaâ—ance oâ— other seruice is all one aâ— if the spirit leaving the â—ssence of a spirâ—t sh uld become coâ—porall For so is the meaning of his wordes And what is his reason why forsooth the diuel by his nature is a spirit and therefore invâ—â—ible insensible and so this is contrarie to his nature By this reason there was neuer apparition of holy angels for they be likewise spirits inviâ—â—ble insensible c. Surely they which made trees in times past to call parliaments spake with as great probabillity as M. Skot hath aâ—â—irmed this as is apparant by that already set downe A Suruey of the Fift Dialâ—gue The fift Dialogue treateth of Transformation the second speciall of Corporall poss ssio As if either by assumptioÌ„ of bodies or chaunge of forme aâ—l corporall possession were wrought as the nature of generals doth require to be fully comprehended in the whole sume of their specials And as if all transformation were bodely possessioÌ„ which is as vntrue as the former distribution vnskilfull The conclusion propounded is That Spirits diuells cannot essentially transfâ—rm them selues into any true naturall bâ—die In which sentence these Discoursâ—rs vnderstand Transformation to be a perfect change of one â—ssence into an other as if a spirit vtterly chaunging his nature ceaâ—â—ng to be a spirit should be made in verie essence a man or some such other thing or else that he not transforming himâ—elfe but transforming an other should change the essence of a man into the essence of a woâ—fe or some like nature In which is to be nâ—ted a double absurdity First that they diâ—pute as a â—oubt which neuer entred into any man for anâ— thing I can finde to maâ—e any questiâ—n of to wit whâ—t h r sâ—irits mâ—ght pâ—rfâ—ctly leaue their â—wnâ— nature throughly change thâ—mseluâ—s into an othâ—â— beeing Indeed this were a happy Transformation for them if they could cease to be diuels and so escape theire condemnation But neither wiseman nor foole I thinke euer dreamed of such a thing Secondly that they confâ—und all apparitions aâ—d appeaâ—ances with their transformation as if the diuel could not cast sensible shewes of things before vs yea and true bodies themselues without either transforming himselfe or some other thing into them And thus by this occasion they runne iâ—to their former question againe sometimes making their Transformation to be nothinge else but an assuminge of bodies eyther in truth or in shew Concerning which sufficient hath bene said in suruey of the former dialogue And what the spirits power is in this behalf is apparant by the Egiptian sorcerers rods turned at least in shewe into serpents by the froggs and the waters turned into blood by the apparition of Samuels bodie Wisd 17 Math. 14.26 by those fearefull sights which troubled the Egiptians yea by the disciples of our Sauiour Christ theÌ„ selues which fearing they had seene a spirit when they beheld our Sauiour walking on the waters declare what the iudgment of the Church was then concerning apparition of spirits in sensible forms neither doth our Sauiour reproue that opinion but only shewes there was no cause of feare he beinge no such as they imagined Therefore I neede not trouble the Reader with discussing How the diuell is transformed into an angel of light or how Nebuchadnezzar became an oxe or in ripping vp any of that discourse following onlie let vs consider that which is alleadged from our Sauiour Christes speach pag 156. 157 Luk. 24 38. A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue VVhich wordes seeme to make against this assuming of bodies by spirits humane that is like to mans For if they doe take vppon them sensible humane bodies how

bring First you will proue Actuall Possession cannot be because as great or greater workes are done by nature Art page 202. Sicknesse Surely this cannon makes a foule battery not onely ouerthrowing this possession at Nâ—ttingham but all other elswhere in the world yea those that are mentioned in the scripture It behooues vs therefore to fortefy what we can against so daungerous a shot or else all is like to goe to ruine What then are the workes of nature Diuers are reckoned out of Pliny Strabo and others whereby you would conclude that if the boy at Maâ—gnitton had breathed out flames of fier it had bene no worke of actuall possession because Aetna doth so If he had bene able to draw yron vnto him in somuch that if your selues had come in place because your faces are of this mettall you should haue sowled foreheads with him yet this had bene no wonder because the Magnes doth so If by his imbracing one A. Walkâ—r he should so violently haue detayned him that he could not possibly make one step forward towards Ireland this had bene no maruaile at all because the little fish Echâ—cis is able to stay a ship of great burthen neuer so fleete vnder sayle VVhy you Discoursers things are not maruelous except to the ignorant wheÌ„ they worke according to kinde but when they goe beyond their naturall abillity though the actions be not comparable to others in nature they are wonderfull It is no strange thing for the Sunne to lighten the whole opposite face of the earth and yet if Moses face shine the people are afraid page 205 Aug ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ â—â—ui ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 24 ca â—3 You remember out of Augustine other workes of nature very strange done by men But what of them I pray you Were Somers actions also naturall Naturall actions shew themselues from the cradle to the graue whereas Somers before the time of his first vexation by Sathan could neuer doe any of theÌ„ But you will say that which is done naturally by one by art and practise may be done by an other It would be hard for you to proue that those workes which Augustine mentioneth could be imitated by any art though I confesse strange things may be done by cosening and practise Euseb de pr. Euang. lib. 4 caP 1 Chry. ad popul Antioch hom 20 as Eusebius and Chrisostome doe both teach notwithstanding they both acknowledg Actuall possession which easely may be discerned from artificiall workinges for in these be teachers long exercise some end of glory or gaine with diuers other circumstances whereas the possessed respect neither profit nor credit but fall into strange passions in a moment without schoolemaisters or any former exercise The Pharises were wiser then to vse this silly shift to discredit our Sauiour his miracles by which was ready at hand if it had bene of any force Further say you stanger actions often arise from meere naturall diseases pag 206. It is true but because you shew not these things in Somers to haue proceeded from naturall disease you abuse your Reader with idle wordes It might be apparant to you they came not from disease for that he was deliuered from his vexation in a moment without any ordinary meanes of phisick as likewise Darling of Burton was and the seauen in Lancashire Moreouer if their strange effects came from some naturall disease then did they not counterfeyt If they counterfeited then had they no disease but were in good health I trust Reconcile thes togither I pray you and if you will contend still for counterfeiting giue ouer your prating of naturall diseases for shame Secondly you reason from the naturall power of the Diuel that he cannot effect such things as are reported to be done by Somers therefore there was no actuall possession And wherefore coulde he not effect such things page 208 Because say you the diuel cannot doe workes vnpossible in nature Heere we must demaund of you what you meane by workes impossible in nature whether impossible to the nature of a diuell and nature generally or impossible to the nature of the man in whome he worketh In the former sence we know the Diuell hath a restraint Marke 5 4 in the second he may inable a man to breake chaynes which by his owne naturall strength he cannot possibly doe that is as vnpossible to be done by man as any of the things we report by Somers Now whether of these two meanings doe you follow forsooth both In the Maior the first and in the Minor the second Therefore I answer you because you shoote in a bow with two strings I will stand out of your way as most perrilous archers able to kill the man in the moone Againe say you in all sound Diuinity there is an impossibillity of such actioâ—s bâ—cause the Diuel is no Creatâ—r of substances no transfâ—rmâ—r of natures no worker of miracles If you would haue distinguished your tearmes and then haue speÌ„t some wordes to make plaine that in these actions there was such a creatiâ—n such a transformation such a miraculous working as coulde not be incident to the power of the diuel I would haue shaped you an answer if I could but because you make a confused noyse as if you were ringing of bees you shall swarme them vpon what bough you will for all me Nay but say you if the diuel did such things once page 209. he can dâ—e them againe It may be he can and would too if he were at any mans commaund like an ape to shew tricks It may be also that somtimes he doth them though all the world heare not therof That which you bring of his being too weake an Agent pag 210 for that he is not Omnipoteâ—t as if an Omnipotencie were required in these actions is miserable beggery still crauing that which will not be graunted you If you will not be answered you would like importunate beggars be set in the stocks pag 211 Touching the aptâ—esse you deny to be in the yoâ—g man at Mahgnitton to those supernaturall actions I answer There is little aptnesse in a stone or in a man to fly aloft in the â—er yet violence doth make them doe that vnto which they be not naturally fit But what are those actions which could not and haue not bene wrought by spirits in mens bodies Haue you forgotten how you would make vs beleue that greater workes then any was done in Somers are vsually done by nature by art by sicknes Are mens bodies not capable of such workes of Sathan as practise disease or nature effecteth in them For your application of matter forme we haue spoken sufficiently in the question of assuming bodies Surely your faculty in logick is exceeding great which contrary to the iudgment of sence in proper obiects and other things requisite rightly disposed will force reason to a Non plus O that you had liued in those daies when they disputed whether Snow

Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Text snippets containing the quad