Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	lust_n	sin_n	7,244	5	5.0237	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45411	Deuterai phrontides, or, A review of the paraphrase & annotations on all the books of the New Testament with some additions & alterations / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1656 (1656)	Wing H534; ESTC R7800	215,836	321

this notion may well be the forme to introduce it Chap. VII ver 9. Sinne revived and I dyed The sinne of disobeying a promulgate became greater and the disobedient Jew more punishable by reason of the Law and no way the better for it As when a man is sick and doth not know his condition and danger the Physician coming tells him of both and prescribes him a strict diet for the future if he will recover but he observes not his prescriptions continues intemperate and so dyes under the Physicians hand and in spite of his care Ibid. ver 13. Exceeding sinfull Is extreamly aggravated by this that it will not be repressed by the Law Ibid. Note d. Of S. Pauls not speaking of himself in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I knew not Adde So Marcus Eremita de baptism p. 921. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thus do men pervert other Scriptures Read the chapter from the beginning and you shall find that S. Paul speakes not of himself after his baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but assumes the person of unbeleeving Jewes And so Theophylact distinctly affirmes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In his own person he speakes of humane nature and again on v. 15. he speakes of men before Christs coming though he sets it in his own person Ibid. Note f. Of knowing the contrary to what they do Adde As Euripides saith of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is the author of the greatest evils unto men so t is by Plutarch set down for the greatest aggravation c. Ibid. Of the irrationalness and brutishness of this condition mentioned from Plutarch Adde And so Xenophon from Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that considers not the best things but by all means seekes the most pleasant how differs he from the foolish beasts Ibid. vers 23. g Another Law in my members warring against the Law of my mind Note g. For the understanding the sense of the Apostle in this whole chapter 't is usefull to compare this passage with Gal. 5.17 The spirit lusteth against the flesh and the flesh against the spirit c. Which is thought to be parallel and to import the same sense with this Of these two places therefore it must first be remembred that the difference which is between these Texts ariseth not from the distinction between the spirit in the one and the Law of the mind in the other nor consequently is it to be placed betwixt the lusting of the flesh against the spirit simply taken and the warring of the Law in the members against the Law in the mind as that is no more than a warre but betwixt the former simply taken or with the addition of the spirit lusting back again against the flesh or with the circumstances mentioned Gal. 5.17 none of which imply a yeelding to the lusts of the flesh and the latter taken with that addition here mentioned of bringing the man into captivity into the Law of sinne And this indeed is all the difference that can be assigned betwixt a regenerate and unregenerate man that in the one the spirit prevailes in the other the flesh is victorious i. e. the will of the one is led by the spirit chooses and acts the deeds of the spirit the will of God but the will of the other followes the carnal dictates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 performes the will of the spirit and so falls under the condemnation which belongs to such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Dorotheus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● such a state is altogether subject to punishment for every sinne that is acted is under hell and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are all under hell in that they act And if it be suggested that the consequents in the place to the Galath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that what things you would yee do them not seem parallel to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I would that I do not here v. 15 19. and so neither of them signifie this carnal state to this it must be answered that these two are not parallel but on the contrary that passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I would I do not is really equivalent with the captivation to the Law of sinne as by the whole context appears though indeed there is some obscurity in it which till by the context it be explained may mislead one to think otherwise The truth is evident these two things are conjoyned in both those verses what I would that do I not but what I hate that I do v. 15. and the good that I would I do not but the evil that I would not that I do v. 19. And being so conjoyned in the same person the subject of the discourse and but equivalent phrases with those other of captivation to the Law of the members and being carnal and sold under sinne the meaning must be that he neglects to do the good that the Law of God and his own mind dictates to him and doth commit on the contrary the evill that according to his mind and the declaration of Gods will in the Law he disliketh and hateth and so evidently acteth in opposition to conscience commits the sins of the flesh willingly and knowingly non obstante the contrary dictate and sollicitation of conscience But then this is much more than is contained in that lusting of the flesh against the spirit Gal. 5. styled by Nemesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the strife of the reason and lust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dissention and emulation betwixt them For as there the flesh lusteth so the spirit lusteth too and it is not affirmed of either of them that it leads the other captive All the event that is taken notice of is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that what you would that you do not which being the effect of the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lusting must have such a sense proportioned to it as shall be founded in that double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that can be no other than this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to will be taken in the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lust and so not for an act of the elective faculty which to one matter is but one either choosing or refusing but for an act of some kind of woulding or appetite and that is constantly twofold to the same matter the flesh hath one woulding and the spirit hath another the flesh desires and would have a man yeeld to the pleasant proposal the spirit would have him resist it and both these are evidently mentioned in that verse one called the lusting of the spirit and the other of the flesh from the contrariety of which it necessarily followes that whatsoever in matters of this nature good or evil any man doth he doth against one of these wouldings and consequently he doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do what he would whereas if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken for the elective faculty which we ordinarily call the will of man it is evident every voluntary agent doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do what he will his actings follow his will or choice and whensoever he doth not so he acts by violence or rather is acted and to that is required that he be conquered by some other and yet of any such conquest there is no mention in that place of Gal. 5.16 which mentions onely an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lusting equally on both sides and so the result is that Gal. 5.16 there is no more said but this that which way soever a man act he acts against some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desire or lusting of his if he act according to the flesh he acts against the sollicitation of the mind and spirit and if he act according to the spirit he doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but acts contrary to all its importunities and he that doth the latter or these is far from being led captive to the law of sinne which is in the flesh or members being indeed a conqueror over it though he have not eradicated or extirpated it For the yet fuller clearing of this take the plain importance of those two verses and set them severally and then you will soon see how no correspondence there is between them Gal. 5.16 The Apostle sets down this plain Aphorisme that the desires of the flesh and spirit are one contrary to the other and consequently that to whichsoever of them the will of man consents it must needs reject the other But Rom. 7.15 19. the Apostle sets down the state of a particular man which deliberately chooses and acts the evil which he knowes he should not do or which the Law of God in his own mind tells him distinctly he ought not to do as when Nemesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch 33. speaks of an intemperate man that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his election is contrary to his lust yet he is overcome by his lust and acts what that suggests What agreement now is or can there be betwixt these two verses T is true indeed that they which do what they hate and would not may well be said not to do the things which they would and are included Gal. 5.17 but that proves not that those places Rom. 7. and Gal. 5. are parallel because Rom. 7. 't is determined to doing the ill which he hates whereas Gal. 5. the speech lyes open to both parts to the doing the good which the flesh hates as well as the evil which the flesh loves Now this being spoken of men indefinitely is very distant from defining it on one side and applying it to a particular person as it is evidently done Rom. 7. when he saith Non quod volo bonum hoc ago sed quod ●di maelum illud facio and consequently though the fleshes disliking the virtuous actions and liking the vitious be perfectly reconcileable with walking in the spirit and so with a regenerate state and so the place to the Galatians though not spoken particularly of the actions of regenerate men but delivered as an Aphorisme indefinitely appliable to mens actions whether good or evil may be appliable to the actings of such yet the place to the Romans being determined to the facio malum and that evidently against the dictate of the mind the resistence of the conscience is still unreconcileable with that spiritual walking and so with the regenerate state Rom. 8.1 Another notion there is which some of the antients have had of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I hate that I do viz. that it should belong onely to desires or thoughts unconsented to So S. Jerome and S. Augustine l. 1. Cont. 2. Epist Pelag. c. 10. being perswaded by some Doctors and a conceited advantage against the Pelagian heresie to retract in some part what before he had asserted and spoken the most for of any man And of this opinion is Methodius also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he that which I hate I do is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not for the doing that which is ill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but onely of thinking or imagining and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of aliene imaginations which frequently make incursions on us and bring us to phansy things which we would not adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is not wholly in our power to think or not to think absurd things but either to use or not use such thoughts or phansies for we cannot hinder thoughts from coming upon us but we can choose whether we will be perswaded by them or use them And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How did the Apostle do evil if he spake not of absurd thoughts This interpretation of S. Pauls words if it were secure from being any farther extended then the authors of it designed could have no hurt or noxiousness in it it being certainly true that every regenerate man is thus infested with phansies and thoughts which he hates and gives no consent unto Yet if the words of the text be well considered this cannot but appear a strange interpretation For when it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies neither less nor other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do and when that word is varied into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. and both those are directly all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I hate in one place is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I would not v. 16. and that again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the evil that I would not v. 19. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are directly all one t is not imaginable how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I hate I do should not be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of doing evil this being no less than a direct contradiction to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do by not do which neither Methodius nor any other mans authority can prevaile with any reasonable man to receive from him This inconvenience when Methodius foresees his onely answer is that he desires them who make this objection to declare what evil it was that the Apostle hated and would not do and yet did whether when he willed to serve God he yet committed Idolatry But sure the whole force of this answer if there be any is founded in interpreting the words to be spoken by S. Paul in his own person and so is perfectly prevented by him that understands the Apostle not of himself but of an unregenerate man From which process of Methodius and what he there addes in that place of the Apostles pronouncing against Idolators and other such sinners that they cannot inherit the kingdome