Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	heart_n	know_v	soul_n	7,408	5	4.7811	4	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

How els shoulde we haue knowne you to be great linguists Secondly if possession signifye no substantiall in being to what end is your tedyous discourse that the word Possâ—ssion is no where found in thi argumeÌ„t either in the olde Sâ—râ—pture or in the new you would make vs beleeue in your first dyalogue against me it might probably be disputed that til a little before the comming of Christ there were no essential possâ—ssions at all iâ— Israâ—ll In Christ his time then it should seeme that there were essentiall possessions Thus vnawares you destroy that you build But to let this goe Would you then finde possession there descrybed where was no vse of any such thinge Surely you were sick of a superfluity of Hebrewe and except you had Timely vented it in thys place you had certainly dyed for it Where you say No true Interpretour did ever translate Daemonizomenos men essentially possessed with divels inherently in them pag 38 Indeed men vsually are loath in translation to render so many words for one But neyther say you is it so vnderstood of the most iudiciall soundest divines You might haue donne well to haue produced the authorities of some and to haue spared your former ydle and vnsauory florish with your greeke and hebrew Calvin saith in Luc 4 33 in Math 12 43 When Demoniacks doe speake the divels speak in them by them Againe It foloweth that the divel hath an habitation in men because he is thence driuen out of the sonn of God Beza termeth the dispossession of diuells A casting of them out of the bodies of men Now then whether these wordes in Mat 12 26. To haue dyuells speake in them and by them the diuell to haue an habitation in men to haue diuels cast out of the bodyes of men sounde rather a real inherency or the contrary Let any indifferent man iudge Peter Martyr speakes thus Christ the Apostles commaunded the divels that they should go out of the bodies possessed Piscator affirmeth Loc com class 1 cap. 10. sect 30 math 8 28 mar 9 that god somtime permitteth vncleane spirits to dwel in man He saith further The misery of the childe is set forth by the inhabiting of the diuel And Zanchius proues this inherency by sundry reasons It were long to alleadge all and we shall haue more occasion afterwards Therefore eyther shewe vs the words of the most Iudiciall Divines by which it may either expresly appeare or at least be soundly gathered that there is no substantiall inbeing of divels in Demoniacks or els be ashamed to face out an vntruth thus impudently in the open view of the world The second generall poynt disputeth whether it be necessary Sathan should first enter essentially into the possessed mans mind pag 42 before he caÌ„ possibly bring the body into his slavish subiection which poynt you determine negatiuely making to your selfe an aduersary of straw to fight withall I neuer hauing affirmed any such thing For my part I knowe the body may most violently be tormented by Sathan when the minde the meane while vphelden by the grace of god doth not yealde vnto him yet you proceede in this needelesse businesse and frame an obiection out of theis words And after the sopp Sathan entred into him Iohn 13 27 This entrance say you is only an effectuall thrusting of the intended treason into Iudas his heart de consensâ— Evang lib 3 cap. 3 I will not dispute whether this entrance was substantiall or no Augustine is of opinion it was not but only a further degree of efficacy moving Iudas whereto I consent for this makes little to the matter in hand Iudas is no where termed a Demoniack of whome only our question is neyther in truth may be counted one For Iudas betrayd not his maister ignorantly or vpâ—n meere compulsion but through the voluntary mailice of his owne hart inflamed by the power of Sathan actes 5â—3 So concerning Ananias of whome it is said the divâ—l had fillâ—d his heart Though this entrance were not reall yet this cause is neuer the worse considering the question is not how the diuel doth enter by suggestion but by possession in which state Ananias was not Therefore cease to encomber your Reader with vnnecessary talke and either bring somthing to purpose or houlde your peace Next comes Physialogus in and reasons very properly but that he beates the anvile not once striking the hot yron The conclusion is The bodie may be in slavish subiection to Sathan pag 43 before the minde it self be subdued which if it be vnderstood of violent subiection I haue alreadie graunted but Phisialogus will needes also haue it true in voluntary subiection as if there could be a willing obedience without the commaund of the will But what is his reason The bodie may be tempted externally before the minde be subdued And this poynt because we doubted not of it is proued by two whole pages But what Is all temptation before the minde be subdued a slauish subiection Heere Phisialogus is altogither mute he spent all his goates wooll in makinge his other web and hath not left himself one locke to worke vp this peece with pag 45 The third generall poynt is whether the divel doth essentially enter into any mans mind which question I might well let passe as little perteyning to this cause of ours VVe only haue witnessed Gods greate goodnes towards certaine his servants in deliueringe them from the greuous rage of sathan but whether this vexation proceeded from his reall dwelling in the minde or no we haue not taken vppon vs to discusse It was ynough for vs to behould the flame and the Lord in mercy quenching it although we be not priuy from what fornace yt arose Yet because you haue propounded it and that it is worthy consideration so we conteine our selues within the boundes of christian sobriety I will say somthinge in regarde both of the Reader and my selfe desyrous rather to learne and to finde out the truth then presuminge to conclude any thing peremptorily for what nede we saith Augustine define any such thing with danger Aug. enchi ad Laurent cap. 59 whereof we may be ignorant without blame I answer therefore the diuel doth not enter essentially into the minde that reasonable faculty of the soule which comprehendeth the vnderstanding and will The Lord only knoweth the harts of al the children of men 1 kings 8 39 Neither yet doe I affirme that spirits doe really enter into the soules inferior powers and operations as Quickning Sense Affection only this I say that after an hydden and vnâ—erchable manner they doe apply and ioyne themselues to these her inferiour workes Gennadâ—us câ—nsentinge with Bernard Augustine Beda that the diuel doth not essentially enter into the minde yet affirmeth that by an effectual application Bernard Ser. 5. super Can Aug de SP et Anima cap. 27 Beda in Act 5

3 Gennad in definit ecclesie dogmat Bernard Ser 5 Super cantic Aug de divinat doemonâ— cap 5 and a violent oppression he is nerely vnited vnto it VVhat els is this application neere vnion vnto the minde but the ioyning of himselfe to the phantasy and affections the next neighbors to the vnderstandinge will So Bernard requireth the entercourse of some instrument wherby created Spirits might be applyed to the minde that is the Imagynations affections which be instrumentall and by which they doe exceedingly worke vpon the highest powers in our nature And Augustine is most plaine avouchinge that Divels perswade by marueilous and inuisible meanes by their subtilty pearcing into the bodies of men not at all perceaving theÌ„ mingling themselues with their cogitations by certain imaginarie sights whether they be waking or sleeping But this is principally coÌ„firmed by the scriptures theÌ„selues for that angels making their apparitions in sleepe performe their operatioÌ„s immediatly The outward sences at such time are all bound so that by them they cannot conuey any thing from without to the powers within Example we haue in Ioseph Math 1 20. to whome an angell appeared in sleepe bidding him not feare to take Mary his wife And as this Angell did speake in Ioseph Zach 1 9 2 3 Zach 1 8 so it might seeme the Angell which talked with Zachary did speake in Zachary as the naturall force of the word doth signify And the Angell saith he which talked in me This visyon made to Zachary was in the night for so he saith I saw by night And this manner of speach to see by night Dan. 7.13 Dan 7 1 or to see night visions is all one to see a dreame For so Daniell speaketh I sawe saith he by night visions when as before he had declared it was by dreame Daniell saw a dreame and there were visions in his head hee lying vpon his bed Therefore Augustine had good reason to dispute of this place of Zachary as he did considering Night apparitions the force of the originall word and the greeke interpretors so care fully expressing it pag 59 notwithstaÌ„ding whatsoeuer these men say to the coÌ„trary Besides experieÌ„ce also giueth no small light to this matter It must needes be that wicked horrible cogitations such as make a man euen to tremble for feare should eyther arise frâ—m the corruption of the flesh or from some outward cause or else from the reall presence of some wicked spirit mouing the phantasy But the flesh is no author of such horrour which by all meanes it escheweth affording rather all flattering and intising allurements to perswade the minde by neither is there any outward cause or occasion wherby the thoughts should be so greuously assaulted as is apparant in diuers so afflicted It remayneth then they be stirred vp by the personall presence only of him which if he be manfully withstood by faith will fly away Iam 5 This I take to be the truth in this poynt warranted both from the scriptures and from consent of cheifest interpretors If these things now be so though you should demonstrate the diuell doth not enter really into the minde yet if he be so nere the phantasie other inferiour parts he will be found to be within a mile of him whome he doth possesse and you to haue powred forth a great company of big wordes to small purpose If I desired to shew how when you haue a good cause you handle it full yll I might fitly doe it heere That there is no mentall possession you proue thus The divells as also mans minde are created of god for other more speciall ends pag. 46 47 As if things destinated to some principall end may not in meane season be vsed to other inferiour purposes Mat 25 34 Rom. 8 36 The elect are appointed to be heires of the kingdome yet in this world they be as the sheepe of the slaughter Indeede if you had shewed that god neuer purposed any such thing you had said somewhat Againe say you The reall entrance into the spirits of men doth obscure the peculiar office of the holy ghost which is replâ—tiuely to inhabite in our harts for ever If any sholde affirme such entraÌ„ce he would not be so mad as to say that spirits were there repletiuly Seeing then there is no equality of their inbeing supposing such a thing it doth no more obscure his office then the light of a candle the cleare sun-shine Further you say whereas there be three maners only of inbeeing essentially none of all these doth agree to the inbeing of wicked spirits I answer to admit this inherency for this present dispute they be there definitiuely Then say you they are only there in conceit what say you are diuells in the Aer but only in conceyt are they any other waies there then definitiuely This conceyt of yours makes diuells but a meere fancy I thought you had ment good footh in your first dialogue but such counterbuffs as this would make one beleeue you are priuately of other iudgment whatsoeuer there you pretend Notwithstanding these and other such like reasons of yours which for breuity I omit the diuel may possesse the soule of man as well as his body Such acute disputers are ye It is no maruaile though you maintayne your bad cause as you doe when you mannage a good no better A Survey of the third Dialogue The third Dialogue handles two conclusions The first That spirits diuels doe not enter essentially into the possessed mans bodie The second That they haue no true naturall bodies for this purpose culiar to themselues importing a necessity of naturall bodies for a reall entrance A thing most absurd That spirits doe enter really into mens bodies we haue partely heard but it is more euident by that which followeth Math. 1 20 Heb. 1 14. They present themselues to the phantasy without mediation of any outward sence not by way of influence themselues being absent as the sune abidinge in the heauens pearceth with his beames to the earth by personall presence therefore which is required in their actions For which cause they be Angels that is Râ—porters sent forth to the ministerie as the example of Gabriel sent to Daniel Mary declare Againe they which dealt with familiar spirits are tearmed by the 70. Interpretours Engastrimythi that is such as speake after an extraordinary manner out of their bellies not as if they had a drum by their sides but from a reall being of a spirit in them For so it is said concerning them in Leviâ— 19 21 Engastrumeni Aristoph in uespis If a man or a woman haue a spirit of diuination or southsayinge in them c. Of whome Theodoret speaketh thus Some by certaine divels being swollen in th ir bellies deceiued many of the simple as fâ—retelling forsooth things to come which the Grecians tearme Bowel-prophets fâ—r that the diuel seemed to speake from with

of bodyes Arg. 2 page 70 75. 76. and 341. Answ. Thus might one reasoÌ„ against that saving of the Apostle 1. Cor. 6.15 Also against the torment the bodies of the damned shall endure in hell Doe you imagine the Lord euer propounded to hiÌ„selfe any such end in the creation of bodies They will answere the Lord did not propound any such end but man brought them vpon him by sinne Euen so doe I Man by his sinne bringeth sometimes that body of his to be a receptacle and habitation for the vncleane spirit which otherwise should be the habitation of God and temple for the holy ghost to dwell in But goe to saith he What becomes of the soule Argu. 3 Pag 70 all the while the diuel is in the body Romaines the soule stil in that body or is it vtterly expelled thrust out of the same It remaines still in the body Answere In a swound the soule is in the body though it doe not shew it selfe in her animall and organicall operations Euen so in this case the soule is in the Demoniacks bodie though in his fits not his spirit but the vncleane spirit shew it selfe by the effects This naturalist goeth on thus If there be a reall possession Arg. 4 pag 73 74 341. then the soule during the time of the possession shall not be accomptable for any those peculiar actions of the bodie which it neuer directed the bodie vnto nor gaue consent vnto This is cunninglie done of you Ans that in the last iudgment you can diuide the bodie the soule asunder that each may giue account for their seuerall actions apart Secondly your proposition is very childish VVhat if the diuel force the tongue to blasphemy what if he abuse the other members to all villany Shall not the creature which hath bene deseruedly yealded vp into the power of the aduersary be guiltie that it hath bene an abused instrument to the creators dishonour We may remember heere Gen 3 14. that the diuels instrument in deceauing Euah receaued therefore punishment from the Lord. If you had weighed these thinges you had brideled your selues from much idle talke Their fyft argument followeth Arg. 5 pag 55 The diuel needeth no reall possession in any mans bodie therefore he doth not really possesse any mans bodie I answer your friuolous argument with the like Answere The diuell needeth none of your actuall possession therefore he neuer possessed any actually which you say sometimes he did The diuel needeth not to tempt men therefore he doth not tempt any But you say Argu. 6 pag 75 The diuell neuer receaued larger commission against any mans bodie then against Iobs yet was not he essentially possâ—ssed therefore there was neuer any possessed essentiallie This argument halteth on the right leg and is like to this Ans Iob had not that we reade the palâ—y the stone the collick therefore therâ— are no such diseases If you will haue this an argument let this be your proposition and heereafter prooue it All the diseases infirmities the body of man is subiâ—ct vnto by Sathan thâ—se had Iob. Iob. 2.6 God permitted the diuel to asslict Iob in his bodie which before he had denyed him doth it therevpon follow that he might dâ—e to the body of Iob what he would The kilinge of him eâ—cepted which he was expresslye for bid to doe Mat. 4.5.8 To the diuel great power likewise was graunted ouer the blessed bodie of our Sauiour He tooke carried it in the ayre out of the wildernesse vnto Ierusalem and sett it on a pynacle of the temple and from thence he had it to an exceeding high mountaine Had Sathan because of this leaue and permission absolute and full power ouer Christs Iobs bodies not a limyted power Againe were this so yet it may well be that though the diuel could yet he would not enter into Iob. Because the marke the diuell aymed at was to draw Iob from his fearing of God and eschewing of euill to the committing of euill and blaspheminge of God to his face Iob. 2.3 5 wherevnto possession serued not somuch as other kinde of afflictions Physialogus goes on and powres out other arguments of like liquor Arg. 7 pag. 76 What possession saith he the diuell hath in any the same hath be in all the posterity of Adam yea in Adam himselfe This proposition it were fit the Maisters of Bedlam might resolue you in Yet go on what then But there is no reall possession in all the posterity of AdaÌ„ Though I wil not striue with you in this point but willingly yeilde it Yet the reason you render of it is verie siâ—ly to wit for that the image of God is yet essentially in man As if the Lord could not doth not preserue that little rubbish of his image left in his creature though he suffer Sathan to enter really into it The Diuel entred in to paradise before mans transgression yea the aer carries a stampe of Gods wisedome and power yet the diuel hath an essentiall beiÌ„g in it But to come to the argument it selfe Adam was not essentiallie possest and with him all his posterity therefore there is no essential possession Such an argument for all the world is this All men haue not the gowt therefore none haue the gowt I maruaile how Physialogus could make it without the help of Orthodoxus Although this argumeÌ„t deserue rather to be hissed at then answered yet I returne that the consequence is faultie Answere It followeth not that none of Adams posteritie be really possest if all be not because Adam and euerie one of his posterity are not by the appointment of god to tast of euery infirmity that they by their sinnes haue brought themselues in daunger of and made themselues subiect vnto Adam and euery sonne of his are subiect to the leprosie palsy stone gowt c. yet is not euery one a leper euery one hath not the palsie stone c. But goe to Physialogus open your packe to the bottome Then take this with you Arg. 8 pag 77. If an humane bodie be capable onely of an humane soule then is it vncapable of an essentiall diuel but the first is true therefore also the latter If this proposition of yours Physialogus be vndoubtedlie true Ans as you doe tell vs I maruel how you Orthodoxus doe liue whether you two breath draw aire whether also you receiue any sustenance For if you breath or receiue susteaÌ„nce into your bodies then seeing aer meat drincke be not an humane soule but other substances either you two haue no humane soules or your two bodies be capable of other substances beesides your soules You proceede Sathan so possesseth as Christ inuadeth his house Argu 9 that is dispossesseth him of his house for so appeareth your meaning Ans to be Arg 10 This you say indeede but proue it not Againe Physialogus pag 78 will make

Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Text snippets containing the quad