Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	natural_a	spiritual_a	4,171	5	6.7902	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36551	A synopsis of Quakerism, or, A collection of the fundamental errors of the Quakers whereof these are a taste, viz. 1. That there are not three persons in the God-head, 2. That Christ did not make satisfaction for the sin of man, 3. That justification is not by imputed righteousness, 4. That our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, 5. That a state of freedom from sin, is attainable in this life, 6. That there is a light in every man, sufficient to guide him to salvation, 7. That the Scripture is not the word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life, 8. That there is no resurrection in the body, 9. That there's no need nor use of ordinances, baptisme, Lords Supper, &c. : collected out of their printed books : with a brief refutation of their most material arguments, (and particularly, W. Pens, in his late Sandy foundation shaken) and an essay towards the establishment of private Christians, in the truths opposed by those errors / by Tho. Danson ...	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1668 (1668)	Wing D218; ESTC R8704	44,296	95

Resurrection are Arg. From Eccles 3. 19 20 21. Whence he concludes the fleshly Bodies of Men rise not again for if the fleshly Bodies of Men rise again and not the flesh of Beasts then Mens Bodies have a preheminence over a Beasts Body and to affirm the Bodies of Men shall rise again were to give Solomon the lie Answ Men are said to be Beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply but in a certain respect viz. in respect of the mortality of the Body which being composed of the same materials with bruit Beasts is as lyable to a dissolution In respect of the immortality of Mans Soul and the Resurrection of his Body He hath preheminence above a Beast As for Verse 21. if they be the Atheists words personated by Solomon they note the Reason of his Opinion because the difference between Man and Beast as to their future state is not visible as their agreement in their dissolution is If they be Solomon's own words he cannot be supposed to mean any more than that the different disposal of the spirits of Man and Beast is not visible to the eye of sence and but dimly to the eye of reason and faith and so may be an occasion of the Atheists conceit that that difference in their future state is but talk and uncertain conjecture For Ch. 12. 7. Solomon tells us that The Spirit of Man returns to God that gave it viz. to be disposed of as Justice or Mercy shall see meet Arg. 2. From Job 7. 8. The Fye of him that bath seen me shall see me no more But if all rise again then the Eye that hath seen him may see him again which Opinion giveth Job the lie Answ The meaning of Job can be but that the Eye that had seen him should after his death see him no more in statu quo not with such worldly comforts about him as now he had Verse 10. he instances in a return to his House They that had seen him and Inhabitant in the Land of Vz should never see him there again in that capacity Vers 7. He says his Eye should see no more good compare that passage with this in hand and they amount to this that Job should after death no more in joy the accommodations of this life and therefore no Eye could be witness of any such in joyment That Job did not intend a denial of the Resu●●●ction of his Bod● unless we will make Job give himsel● the lie is evident by Chap. 19. 26 27. And though after my Skin worms destroy this body yet in my Flesh shall I see God whom I shall see for my self and mine Eyes shall behold and not another though my Reins be consumed within me Of which place he that would see a full explication let him read the Learned Caryl Comm on Job All that I shall infer from the summe of the words discernable by an ordinary judgment is that if Job had the same body after the Resurrection that he had before then he was as visible after as before it Arg. 3. From 1 Cor. 15. 50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God then not the body of Man says the Quaker for that is flesh and in it is blood Answ The latter Clause of this Verse explains the former Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption where the Apostle gives us to understand that a corruptible Body shall not inherit a state of immortality the adjunct being put for the subject in both words And the Quakers interpretation crosses the whole drift of the Apostle in a great part of the Chapter which is to shew that the same Body shall rise but with so different qualities that it shall be as unlike to what it was before as the standing Corn to the Seed p●t into the Earth or as one Star is to another in brightness and lustre Vers 37 38 41. And the Apostle enumerates those qualities Vers 42 43 44. The sum whereof is that that body which was before mortal i. e. liable to death natural i. e. supported by food rest c. dishonoured by being used as an Instrument of sin and by weaknesses blemishes the fruits of sin shall become immortal i. e. not liable to death spiritual i. e. not needing nor using its former props glorious neither subject to sin or the punishment of it I might have been much larger on these points but I know great Books finde sew buyers and fewer Readers and therefore I resolved not to exceed Six Sheets I wish what I have done may prove profitable If my Answers seem not so cleer as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a mystery so high that it re●ates the sharpest edge of humane understanding I desire the Reader to ponder upon this grave saying of a learned Man It is easier to oppose than to defend the Christian Religion for it having something in it above the capacity of Man's understanding 't is no hard matter by reason to oppose such a Religion Villeroy in his Counceller of State FINIS AN ADVERTISEMENT ONe of W. Pens Arguments against the Trinity I had almost omitted it being out of its proper Place in his Book viz. that in p. 10. If the God-head subsist in Three distinct Manners or Forms then one of them cannot be a compleat Subsistence without the other two and so parts and something sinite would be in God or if in finite then Three distinct in finite Subsistences and by consquence Three distinct Gods Answ Not to Quarrel at the Impropriety of Pens Phrase nor at the Coincidence in effect of this with his Third Arguments I answer by denying the consequence For as every Person is compleat In esse quid ditativo per Essentiam i. e. is truly God by having the Divine Nature So is every Person compleat In esse Personali per Subsistentiam as the Schools speak i. e. is a compleat Subsistent or Person by his proper manner of Subsisting And I wonder he should not see that his Argument may be retorted upon him thus If the God-head be in Three Manners or Forms then the God-head in one manner must needs be a compleat Subsistent and distinct from the God-head in the other two manners Or more plainly thus If the same God-head be in Father Son and Spirit then they must needs be distinct one from another and any one compleat without the other two God the Father cannot be God the Son nor can God the Son be God the Father Though both Father and Son are one God For the Persons are formally Constituted by their relative Properties and so the God-head considered with its Three relative Properties admits of a Three-sold distinction from it self absolutely considered If any shall wonder at the Distance of Time between the Date of the Epistle and Publication he may please to know that the Whole Book except the Advertisement was flnished before the Epistle but by reason of some intervening Accidents not needful nor altogether Convenient to be mentioned could not get through the Press till now ERRATA Title page dele Collected Ep. to Reader p. 1. l. 15. for referd r. refin'd l. 19. for charitably devout r. charitable and devout p. 4. l. 4. for and like this r. as in this instance Book p. ● l. 3. dele or p. 14. l. 4. dele the properties of and after attributes r. among themselves and with their Subjects p. 17. l. 7. for of Persons in the nature Three r. Three Persons in the nature p. 24. l. 1. far counterpriae r. counterprice p. 35. l. 8. dele had The Literal Faults may easily be seen and amended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gratis immerito without sufficient Cause

Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the Dead but ●f the Living And t is added Luke 20. 38. For all ●●ve unto him To be a God to Abraham notes a Covenant●elation and so an Obligation to confer all the Blessings of the Covenant among which E●ernal Glory is though the last yet not the least Not the God of the Dead that might be meant ●ither of them who are dead simply or of them ●hat are so dead as that they shall never return ●o life Not in the former sence for God pro●laimed himself the God of Abraham c. long ●fter he was dead therefore in the latter sence ●ut of the living that is of them whom God in●ends to restore to Life or whose bodies live Po●entially not only of them whose Souls live ●ctually For all live to him that Clause seems to ●mport a reason of that Denomination living given to those that were truly dead viz. That God calls the things that are not as if they were Rom. 4. 19. Because of his Omnipotency and Immutability of his Counsel Concerning the Scope of these Words the● are different apprehensions some conceive tha● Christ hereby proves the Immortality of th● Soul which the Sadduces denied as appears by Acts 23. 8. For if there be no Soul of a Spiritu●● Nature in man it must needs be Mortal as hi● body and by consequence only the Resurrection of the body The Sadduces denying the Resurrection 〈◊〉 the body because they denyed the Immortali●● of the Soul as these Interpreters conceive others that Christ intends only to prove th● Resurrection of the body so Calvin Other● that Christ intends both directly so Be● Diodati And hence the Argument of our Lor● is somewhat differently framed Either thus They whose God God is shall rise from the Dea● God is Abraham's Isaac's and Jacob's God Therefore they and upon the same ground all other Believers shall rise again The consequence he proves because God is the Go● only of the Living and so seeing they live i● Soul they shall live in Body too Or else thus They whose God God is after death shall rise again But God is the God of Abraham c. an● consequently of all Believers after death therefore Abraham c. shall rise again The reason of the consequence is because otherwise God were not the God of Abraham's Isaac's and Jacob's and so other Believers persons but of their Souls only whereas to be ●he God of their Persons is to be under a Co●enant to give them as other things so Glo●y and so their bodies must be glorified as ●ell as their Souls their Persons being con●●ituted or made up of those two Essential ●arts or the Argument may be framed more ●lainly thus in the sence of Christs Words If God be under a Promise to glorifie the Persons of Abraham Isaac and Jacob then ●heir bodies must rise again But God is under such a Promise therefore their bodies must rise again The antecedent is evident by the Explication of the Terms above The consequence depends upon a double ground partly Gods Fidelity in making good his Promise and partly because Abrahams c. body is uncapable of the benefit of the Promise of Glory made to it without 〈◊〉 Resurrection And the Argument thus phrased suggests a fuller answer to the Exception made against it as first laid down viz. That God might be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob after death if there were no Resurrection because their Souls live in respect of which God were their God Answ First God is said to be the God of Abraham that is of his Person for his Soul is but part of his Person not the whole and to be the God of the Person includes the glorifying of the whole Person not only of a part 2. God were not fully Abraham's God o● did not fully make good his Promise if h● glorified one part of Abraham and not another 3. Nor were the Promise to glorifie Abraham ●● Soul made good without glorifying his body too for the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the body it 's dear and belove● Companion the Soul having a strong desi●● and Inclination to a re-union to the body a● the Schools not without good ground determine Vid Calvin Harm Evang. in Mat. 22. 31 32. Luc. 20 38. 4. It whole Abraham be not the correlate i● the Cōvenant or party Covenanted with ho● is any thing as in the Text a Resurrection attributed to him in respect of a part of him There cannot be a ground for a Limitation i● respect of a part as here that ●braham shou'd rise as to his body unless the Whole be in Being either Actually as to his Soul or Potentially as to his Body in respect of the Decree and Covenant of God Vid. Vedel Rationale Theolog●cum l. 2. c. 6. To apply the sum of Christs Argument for the proof of the antecedent and consequent o● my Argument for the Resurrection which was this If the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their Reward accordingly then the same bodies must rise again c. That the bodies that have done good must receive their reward is evident because God is under a promise to reward them And rise again they must because else God's Promise to the bodies must either not be made good at all or not to t●e same body to which it was made which is contrary to the whole Scope of Christ's Argument If any shall say that Christ's Argument and my Application of it proves but the Resurrection of the good and their Reward in their bodies I answer two things 1. That the Sadduces and Quakers Proposition being That there is no Resurrection from the dead which is an universal Negative therefore a particular Affirmative that some the good shall rise again is contradictory thereto and overthrows their Negative and therefore to prove that all shall rise again is not strictly needful for that were Oppositio contraria not Contradictoria as the Logicians speak Yet Ex abundanti I answer 2. Christs Argument suggests another to us for the proof of the Resurrection of the ba● For by the same Reason that the good must ●ise because of God's Promise to Glorifie their Bodies the wicked also must rise because of God's threatning to torment their Bodies For God is not more bound to fulfill his Promises than his threats when they have some stamp or character upon them as an Oath for instance Heb. 3. 18. Chap. 7. 21. whereby they may be known to be signa beneplaciti discoveries of God's secret will or decree Which limitation I add because 't is evident that some promises and threats have a tacite condition upon which though not the act of Divine will ye● the things willed depend as 1 Sain 2. 30. Jonah 3. 4 10. and in the non-performance of them God does not cross but comply with his secret will Turner's Argument against the