Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	seed_n	sow_v	word_n	3,227	5	5.0642	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47121	The anti-Christs and Sadduces detected among a sort of Quakers, or, Caleb Pusie of Pensilvania and John Pennington, with his brethren of the second days meeting at London called Quakers, proved antichrists and Sadduces out of a said book lately published by them called A modest account of the principal differences in point of doctrine betwixt George Keith and those of the people called Quakers in Pensilvania &c. : being an answer to the said book ... : with some few remarks on John Pennington's late book entitled The people called Quakers cleared &c. and Geo. Whitehead his postscript ...: and a postscript ... / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing K138; ESTC R179313	54,978	49

his time in the City of Leichfield as he declareth in his Journal and how he went in Blood a great way and was commanded to pull off his Shoes c. This and some other like passages has occasioned some to think G. F. favoured the Revolutions but I do not say he did And whether the Disciples did not hold that Doctrine that said Master who hath sinned this Man or his Servants that he was born blind and many other places of Scripture there are on which he might as much and much more query concerning the Revolutions as any expressions he hath mentioned of mine as well as he might query concerning the Revolutions all Friends generally who hold That God hath given to every one a day of Visitation wherein he may be saved and that a Time of God's long suffering is extended to every one wherein he may repent and be Converted seeing many Dye in the Morning as it were of their Age without all signs of Conversion and have had but little Time given them between their Birth and Death wherein to Repent And as to his Question If an honest Indian or Poor infant dye without that outward Knowledg c. He quite misseth the matter I never affirmed the absolute necessity of an outward Knowledg universally to Salvation besides that properly all knowledg is inward and not outward the subject of it being the mind and understanding that is inward And seeing it is certain that there are honest men both among Indians and them called Christians that are not born again I return his own Query upon him to Answer what becomes of them when they dye seeing without being born again there is no entring into the Kingdom of God and what becomes of many called Quakers and others that before they dyed had no signs that they were arrived at that high state of a sinless perfection for tho Friends have earnestly contended for the Doctrin of Perfection as attainable by the Grace of God in this Life yet they have generally acknowledged that many in whom the work of Sanctification is begun have not as yet arrived to that state but have many sinful imperfections remaining in them and the Flesh lusting against the Spirit now let him tell me or any for him what becomes of such when they Dye and I may give him the like Answer or some better what becomes of honest Indians when they Dye if he or they say they who are in measure Sanctified but not Perfected in Sanctification before they Dye are made perfect in Holiness at the instant of Death tho this Answer Friends have blamed when given by those against whom they have contended yet if they think fit to allow of it as current now as it will in great part end the Dispute about Perfection and Answer the great Objection about the Popish Purgatory so it is as valid to Answer that Question What becomes of honest Gentiles that before they Died had no Knowledg nor Faith of Christ Crucified to wit that it is given them at the instant of Death by the internal Operation and illumination of the Holy Spirit But if any say this Answer is more alledged than Proved I reply it hath the same probability in the one case as in the other P. 30. To prove my inconsistency and contrariety with my self in the Doctrine of the Resurrection with a most blasphemous presumption he finds fault with Scripture Doctrine it self and like a scoffing Sadducy or rather Atheist goeth to fix a contradiction on the Scripture it self for thus he brings me in contradicting my self that which riseth is the mortal that puts on immortality and the corruptible which puts on incorruption citing my Book called A Testimony against that absurd Opinion p. 3. But in another place p. 10. he citeth me saying The Flesh that is mortal and corruptible is not that Flesh that shall be raised up immortal and incorruptible And citing my Book called Truth Advanced he brings me saying of that which riseth That it is a pure noble part that consumeth not nor corrupteth And then he querieth If that which riseth be the corruptible p. 31. how is it that that which riseth is incorruptible and corrupteth not again Now Reader I desire thee to notice how he quarrels not so much with me as with the Scriptures to prove a contradiction in them for my saying That which riseth is the Mortal that puts on Immortality and the Corruptible that puts on Incorruption this is plain Scripture 1 Cor. 15. 53. For this Corruptible must put on Incorruption and this Mortal must put on Immortality And for the next Citation which he makes a contradiction to the former it is also most plain and evident in the Scripture The Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible is not that Flesh that shall be raised up Immortal and Incorruptible for the Scripture saith Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. And surely that is the Flesh that is Mortal and Corruptible And p. 37. That which thou sowest thou sowest not that Body that shall be And v. 42. It is sown in Corruption it is raised in Incorruption c. And to his question which implyeth a negation and opposition to plain Scripture I answer That which riseth is incorruptible and corrupteth not again because it is made incorruptible and immortal by the mighty Power of God and to question the immortality and incorruptibility of the Bodies of the Saints after they are raised from the Dead is to suppose that they shall dye again and has this necessary consequence that they shall sin again for the wages of sin is Death But this contradicts the Testimony of Christ and all his Holy Prophets and Apostles and is a plain Introduction to Epicurism and Atheism And that I said in my Book Truth Advanced which he findeth fault with as being a contradiction that that which riseth is a pure noble part that consumeth not nor corrupteth This I say still and is no contradiction for in my Book in that very place cited by him p. 113. I bring a similitude of a grain of Corn which very Similitude the Scripture bringeth to demonstrate the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 37. Now all but fools and idiots know that as there is a Grain of Corn that corrupteth and turneth to Earth or Dust so there is another part in it that is more Noble that corrupteth not but by the corruption and dissolution of the other part is as it were set out of Prison and gets a new Life and Multiplication and as true Philosophy and right Reason and Ocular Experience teacheth that the generation of one thing followeth the corruption of another yet there is something in the new generated thing that was in the old corrupted thing so every Husbandman that has common sense knoweth that his Seed which he soweth doth not all perish or rot in the ground but a part remaineth in every Grain that multiplieth except in some extraordinary

case of immoderate Rains and Colds that altogether destroy the Seed in the ground as sometimes happeneth and then he expects no Crop unless he sow again And that this man will needs meddle with Philosophical matters to confirm himself by false Notions in gross Sadducism and opposition to the plain Doctrine of Holy Scripture is a lamentable case and that he hath got the Second Days Weekly Meeting at London to approve his book in order to disperse it all over the Meetings of the People called Quakers to corrupt and leaven them more and more into Sadducism and unbelief who have been in any degree formerly corrupted as I find too many are and to spoil and defile the minds of young People is yet more lamentable Page 32. He goeth on not so much in contending with me as against the Scripture it self But that which seemeth mightily to vex and disquiet his Thoughts is that he cannot conceive how there can be an incorruptible part lodged or placed in the corruptible body and how the body can have any incorruptible part in it before the Resurrection for then he thinks it would be both corruptible and incorruptible at once and also it needs not be changed from an incorruptible body to an incorruptible body And what change is that I question if any Sadducee did ever argue so ignorantly against the Resurrection of the body as this bold ignorant doth Shall I send him to his Mill or own Trade of grinding or sawing Timber for further instruction Doth he not know that Corn hat● two parts in it the one Husk the other Meal And hath not a Tree in it two parts the one Wood the other Bark And is not the one more Noble than the other And when a man eateth Corn with the Husk and swalloweth down at least a good quantity of the Husk or Bran together with the Food that is mixed with it doth the Husk become any part of his body or rather doth it not belong to the Excrement with other gross parts of the food Is there not in all food one more Noble part that becometh not Excrement but is transmuted into real flesh in man And did not what our Saviour eat turn into his real flesh and become incorruptible seeing his flesh saw no corruption And was not his body of flesh that did not see corruption yet further changed after his Resurrection and Ascension from a lower degree to a higher degree of Glory Bus if it were not for the sake of others to whom I hope this may be serviceable I should think my time lost to trace this ignorant man that is so stubborn and presumptuous in his ignorance and it might seem like casting Pearl before Swine that so dares to tread under his dirty feet such precious Truths of Scripture But I hope what he arrogantly treads under and his ignorant Sadducean Fraternity with him others will gather up and value for the worth of them And besides the Scripture Similitude of Corn I brought another Similitude in that same Page of my book p. 113. comparing the mortal and corruptible body of man to a Mass or Mixture that hath both Gold and Dross in it which Mass is an Heterogeneous body and is not pure Gold And though Gold is not in the highest or strictest sense incorruptible yet it is the most incorruptible of all Metals or Minerals or other such visible bodies and therefore in comparison of many other bodies it may be said to be incorruptible Now why may it not be said of a Mass that hath both Gold and Dross in it it is a corruptible body for all Heterogeneous bodies are corruptible and yet it hath that in it which in a certain respect is incorruptible for we know not any thing that can corrupt it seeing it endureth the hottest fire that can be put to it P. 33. My Similitude taken from the Soul of Man that remains the same in substance after its sanctification that it was before when unsanctified and defiled with sin he saith is short of the matter for such a change is surely rather a purification than a transmutation even as the washing of a body besmeared with dirt when cleansed is a purification and not a transmutation But still this ignorant presumptuous man runs himself rashly upon the sharp pricks Formerly he hath laboured in vain to destroy the felicity of the body of a Saint and now he laboureth as much in vain to destroy the felicity of his Soul that he makes the work of Regeneration in the Soul of Man to be nothing else but a purification from sin as when a Body besmeared with dirt is cleansed that is a Purification and not a Transmutation I never heard nor read a more ignorant and nonsensical Assertion This is like that other most nonsensical Assertion of one of their great Preachers here at London Jacob Talner and a Member of their Second Days Meeting who said in a publick Conference at Turner's Hall London 28. 3d. month 1696. desired by himself That Adam before his Fall was neither Holy nor Righteous nor Wise and from this False Assertion he brought an Argument That Spiritual Death could not be an effect of Adam's Sin Both which Assertions are flatly contrary not only to Scripture but to the common manner of Preaching among the People called Quakers and this he boldly affirmed in the hearing of some hundreds many of which were his own Party What is this but to make the Souls of the Saints nothing but as so many Tabulae Rasae washed Tables without any Beautiful Colours or lively Portraiture on them Is then the Image of God in the Saints no positive thing but a Freedom from sin or a Negation of it Is Holyness nothing but a Negation of unholiness Is the ardent Love of God in the Saints nothing but a meer negative of hatred of God Doth not the Scripture plainly distinguish betwixt the finishing Transgression and bringing in everlasting Righteousness O wrerched ignorance And O lamentable shame that falls upon the Second Days weekly Meeting of the People called Quakers for approving such Antichristian Doctrine worse than Heathenism for I never heard that ever any Heathen Philosopher said or taught That Virtue in the Soul of a Man was nothing but the absence of Vice The Holy Scripture doth not only Teach us That the Saints are washed but Sanctified and Transformed Rom. 12. 2. And what is now become of G. Foxes frequent Doctrine in his Preaching and Printed Epistles That Christ the Second Adam brings up them that follow him not only to the state of the First Adam that fell but unto his Image that never fell and is the Holiness of the Second Adam nothing but a freedom from sin and unholiness he may as well say Heat is nothing but the absence of cold Sweet is nothing but the absence of Sower or Bitter Light is nothing but the absence of Darkness and that the best things are meer Negatives and nonentities and

knowledge of And but that it would be too tedious a digression and not so proper here I could easily shew how weak their Arguments are against it as it is common to them as well as others to use weak Arguments to defend Truth and oppose what they call Errour And let them make the worst of it they can suppose that twelve Years ago most of which time since they have owned me in Unity with them I was in an Error in holding the Revolutions will that prove I hold them still And seeing they judge me changed greatly in my Principles of late Years why may they not judge me also changed in that Or what ground have they to think I am not If they say because I have not cleared my self of the Charge I say I have done it sufficiently several times in Print and oft by Word of Mouth That I hold it not either as any Article of the Christian Faith or as any positive Dogma in Philosophy yet I dare not nor will not positively condemn it universally until I see better and stronger Arguments than they have as yet brought against it And if it be so great and dangerous an Error why do they not refute it in Print and Answer to all these things brought in favour of it as a probable Hypothesis in the 200 Queries which hath been in Print upwards of 12 Years For they have Scribled and Printed many Books on Matters far less material than this is But since G. Whitehead hath Printed that which I committed to him as a Secrecy without my Consent it s well it was no such Matter as might have brought any real Infamy on me it s too probable if he could have revealed any Secret that would have taken away my Life he would have done it But I had no such Secret to impart to him or any that I need be afraid or ashamed for their revealing it Pag. 33. In their Head on the Glorified Bodies of Christ and the Saints they are Guilty of such gross Perversions as none but Men infatuated would be They infer That I have very Carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection at present like those Sadduces Matth 22 29. And why Because I say in Truth Adv. pag. 11. Paul distinguisheth between the Belly and the Body saying God will destroy the Belly but he doth not say he will destroy the Body for seeing after the Resurrection of the Dead Men shall need none of the Meats of this corruptible World nor shall they need a Belly to put them in as Guts and Draught or any gross parts as Men have now Let the Reader observe these mens Infatuation and Nonsense Do these Words prove that I have Carnal Conceptions of the Resurrection like those Sadduces Did not the Sadduces altogether deny the Resurrection But doth my saying that after the Resurrection of the Dead they shall need neither Belly Guts nor Draught nor any gross parts prove that they shall have them O astonishing Blindness And they are again guilty of the same Perversion or rather downright Forgery in their pag. 34. ad finem by their most false insinuating against me as if I did hold That the Resurrection-Bodies of the Saints shall have Belly Guts and Draught For say they had G. K. retained these Sentiments of Spiritual Bodies when he wrote his bulky Book stiled Truth Advanced he needed not have told us of Belly Guts and Draught But how did I tell them that Men after the Resurrection shall have them By no means but that they should not have them because they shall have no need of them and surely what they need not they shall not have as not to need in Scripture-phrase is not to have Rev. 21. 23. But that I remain in my Ancient Faith of the Resurrection-Body as formerly is clear from that very Book cited by them to wit That the Body that is raised shall be a Spiritual Body not gross material Flesh but wonderfully changed in manner and condition yet retaining the same Substance the Husk or drosly part excepted see particularly pag. 113 and 119. ad finem And that this was my Faith thirty Years ago is evident from my Answer to the 30 Queries of the Bishop of Aberdene above-mentioned and particularly noticed in the Collection of R. Barclay's Books called Truth Triumphant pag. 2. In which Answer that was extant thirty Years ago I expresly say in answer to the Bishop's Question which was Shall that same Body in Substance which dyeth be raised again at the last Day Answer Yea as far as a Natural Body and Spiritual Body is the same It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body Where it is plain I both believed and declared it shall be the same Body in Substance that dyeth and shall be raised though wonderfully changed in Condition and Quality from Natural to Spiritual And this Answer was given in the Year 1666. being the third Year after I came among the Quakers and which I gave conform to John Crooks Words in his Truths Principles wherein I judged him before ever I saw him to be of the same Mind and Faith with me in that great Article of the Christian Faith as well as in others and since that I have spoke with him and had it from his own Mouth Pag. 35. As to their 5th Head concerning Water-Baptism and the Supper whereon they spend seven pages reciting some Passages in my former Books with their Uncharitable Observations and they are at great pains to show an Inconsistency and Contradiction betwixt my former Books and my late Book called Truth Advanced in reference to Water-Baptism and the Supper and that from some few Queries I proposed at the end of that Book only proposed by way of Query and not as Positive Conclusions for I expresly distinguish them from the Positive Conclusions going before being each ten in number And as to the Ten Positions I judge many or most called Quakers of the more intelligent sort will stand by them and may well enough own them without any Inconsistency to their former Principles And here I appeal to the Impartial Readers whither it be not great disingenuity in them to charge these Queries simply proposed by me as Queries but plainly distinguished from Positions upon me as plain Positions when to some of their unsound Assertions expressed as Queries but whose plain Sense did import them to be Positions they have made that excuse They did but Query as lately at Turners-Hall some of G. Whitehead's Advocates did plead in his behalf Is this to do as they would be done by And how extreamly Uncharitable they show themselves not to me only but to all Christendom in so severely accusing me for my Charitable Title to these Queries saying tending to Love Peace and Unity among all the Sincere Professors of the Lord Jesus Christ who hold the Head and build on the true Foundation and yet differ in some lesser matters they so severely tax me for this as