Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	body_n	raise_v	sow_v	6,220	5	12.4203	5	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

the putting on the New Man is nothing else but the putting off the Old Man and so at this rate the Scripture is vain and false which doth distinguish them as much as betwixt the putting off a filthy Garment and the putting on a new clean Garment But if on better consideration he be ashamed of his rash Assertion and come to acknowledg that the Soul by Regeneration not only is purified from Sin but wonderfully changed and transformed from Natural or Animal to Spiritual from Earthly to Heavenly and yet the same in Substance let him acknowledg that the mighty Power of God through Christ that thus hath changed the Soul retaining the same substance can and will change the low Body of a Saint and fashion it like the Glorious Body of Christ as the Scripture plainly Testifieth Phil. 3. P. 34. But nothing will satisfy him unless I can demonstrate how a Natural and Corruptible Substance can be turned into a Spiritual one Well if I can demonstrate that this actually was done will that satisfy him I fear his unbelief will still harden his Heart against this excellent Doctrine of holy Scripture But however I will try a little more to Convince him The Food which our Saviour received into his Body was it not before he received it corruptible or to use his Phrase a Corruptible Natural Substance Yea surely it was and what part of that Food became part of his Body and Flesh it was turned or changed into incorruptible for as his Flesh saw no Corruption so without all doubt it is at present an incorruptible Substance which G. W. after his former wrangling hath acknowledged Malice of the Indepen Agent p. 17. P. 34. His wrangling and quibling from his own gross misunderstanding of some places of Scripture helps him nothing as that David slept with his Faethers and saw Corruption Acts 13. 36. And that of Job I have said of Corruption thou art my Father If he will take these Scriptures strictly and literally he must as much contend against the Immortality of the Soul as the Resurrection of the Body the Mortal Body of Man is truly said to be Corruptible because it consists of two heterogeneous parts the one Noble the other ignoble to wit the Husk Dross or Cortex and after the Separation of the Noble from the Ignoble it is not corrupt but pure yet at the Resurrection it is raised up to an higher Dignity and made immortal and incorruptible as it neither shall nor can return to be united with that drossy part again and so is truly incorruptible as well as immortal But he will not leave off until as the Man-Eater or Anthropophagus eateth Mans Flesh he Eat or swallow up with his devouring Throat thereby thinking to destroy it the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body And he joyneth with Atheists and Sadducees here in arguing against the Resurrection of the Body being the same in Substance from the Man-Eaters And to my Answer to their Objection from the Man-Eaters he Replyeth first Repeating some of my words but omitting the Explanatory part I shall therefore cite them as they are in my Book p. 118. Truth Adv. I say Allowing there is a great change or renewing of the gross material and visible Parts of Mans Body yet the Radical Body or Radix and Principal Substance of the Body remaineth the same and is of a durable and lasting Nature and tho it may be encreased in Man while he liveth yet it is not diminished nor the parts of it separated asunder and tho Man-Eaters may Eat the gross part of Man's Body yet that more subtil and invisible part they cannot nor can that which belongeth to one be given to another hence by way of Allegory and Metaphor it is called Bone in Scripture Isa 66. 14. From this most nonsensically he infers That I affirm the Man-eaters Eat the Accidents of Man's Body but not the Substance and will needs have it the same or equally absurd with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But this sort of quibling comes partly from his gross ignorance and partly from the perversion and prejudice of his Spirit for I neither said nor thought that the Man-Eaters eat only the Accidents but I distinguished betwixt the Radix and principal Substance of Man's Body and that which was but the drossy part which is also a substance and if he deny it to be a substance to wit the Dross or Drossy part of any Body which is frequently separated from the Noble Volatile part by Chimical Operations and otherwise he is guilty of the Popish false Notion of Transubstantiation and not I for the Dross is frequently separated from that more Noble Substance that it was mingled with and if he says that Dross is not a Substance but an Accident then here is the Popish Doctrine affirmed by him with a witness But let this Miller-Philosopher who as the Shooemaker goeth beyond his Last so goeth beyond his Sphere of Knowledge in all his undertaking against these great Truths of the Christian Faith tell me doth he think that a Man-eater can properly speaking eat Iron Silver Gold Lead if he swallow it down will it not go forth at the draught with the Excrement and yet is no part of the Excrement This is a thing usually known that some to save their Gold from Robbers have swallowed it down but did they eat it If he say nay then I say to him no more can a man-eater eat that radical and principal substance of a Saints body to make it a part of his body for as every body has a distinct seed so the Radix of every body is a distinct Radix P. 36. But behold the man's great hypocrisie after all his so much contending against the Resurrection of the Body and charging the Scripture it self with inconsistency and contradiction yet he has the impudence to say we firmly believe there shall be a Resurrection both of the Just and Unjust And again he saith We do not think it a necessary business to be curiously prying into the manner of it Neither saith he do we find the Primitive Christians come to any Result about what their Bodies should be But this is a plain Contradiction to the holy Scripture That the Primitive Christians believed and all true Christians do now believe which saith This corrrptible shall put on incorruption and this mortal shall put on immortality Now what is this mortal It is not the Soul which he thinks I suppose is not mortal therefore it must be the Body And concerning the manner of it the Scripture is very plain and express It is sown natural it is raised spiritual it is sown in corruption it is raised in incorruption it is sown in weakness it is raised in power it is sown in dishonour it is raised in honour P. 36. But he goeth on still querying 1. If it was the common belief of the Primitive Christians that the very same matter and substance of this corruptible

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

body should be the body that is raised why should any among themselves especially have asked such a needless question as with what Body do they come I answer Such who asked that Question were such among them that said there was no Resurrection of the Dead as such there were 1 Cor. 15. 12. How say some among you there is no Resurrection of the Dead And therefore Paul thought it not needless to propose their Question on purpose to answer it and that he might take occasion thereby the more fully and amply to declare it His second Question is Would not the Apostle have answered more to the matter I answer He answered very well to the matter after he had reproved them as Fools for querying from their unbelief and their ignorant manner of arguing against it as many do at this day he proceeds to show the manner how it is raised having in the foregoing Verses proved the Truth of the Thing he doth next show the manner of it and the Question which he answers is not concerning what is raised or who are raised but how are the Dead raised and with what manner or with what quality of body do they come so the truest and best Translation out of the Greek which hath it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not quo corpore sed quali corpore not with what but with what quality of body do they come But this their querying was a sort of arguing against the thing it self of the Resurrection And by an Argument which they thought to take from the manner of it they argued against the thing it self even as the Sadducees argued with Christ against the Resurrection from the false conceit of the manner of it that they had as if the Body were to be raised up in the same manner as it is now so as to be fit for generation and the use of marriage which Christ confuted so many at this day and especially this Sadducy Caleb Pusie and his Sadducean Fraternity in Pensilvania and here in England and elsewhere they argue against the Resurrection of the Body it self from the manner of it as thus If the same body for substance shall be raised then it must be raised for manner such as it is now but that is impossible Now the Apostle answers by donying that it shall be raised in the same manner but it shall quite be changed and transformed not transubstantiated from mortal and corruptible and Natural or Animal to immortal incorruptible and spiritual Oh say they this connot be this would be a Transubstantiation like that of the Papists But I say this Caleb Pusie and his Fraternity that profess to hold a Resurrection of the body but not of that same substance fall in with the Popish Transubstantion for Transubstantiation is a change of a thing from one substance to another as the Papists say and therefore Caleb Pusie and his brethren who deny that the body is the same in substance but changed from one substance to another are clearly one with the Papists in their absurd Doctrine of Transubstantiation And thus the Pit he and his Saddueean brethren have digged for me he and they are fallen into both together And it is manifest Hypocrisie in Caleb Pusie and his brethren for him and them to say they think it not necessary to be curiously prying into the manner of it when they are most absurd in determining the manner of it contrary to all Scripture and Reason For they will needs have it that the change is a change of the substance and not of the Quality and Condition The Body say they that the dead are raised with is another body in substance so they will needs have it But then let him tell us when the deceased Saints get this other body that is another in substance I suppose he will say with his brethren in the same ignorance and unbelief G. W. and W. P. that they get it immediately after Death for they both argue against the deceaed Saints expecting any Resurrection of the body that this implies the Soul to be in a kind of Purgatory or Disquietness till the supposed Resumption of the body Page 41. He chargeth G. K. to be guilty of belying the Magistrates at Philadelphia Printing That the Magistrates not only countenanced the hiring men to fight but also gave them a Commission so to do signed by Three Justices of Peace whereof one was a Preacher citing Appeal from the 28 c. And from thence he justifieth their Persecution against G. K. in fining him Five Pounds But now how he proves this to be false first he saith it was more than they had power to do being Civil Magistrates But this is no Proof for ignorant men such as they were might go beyond their power However he grants if it was not a Commission it was a Warrant of a Hue and Cry signed but by Two Justices of Peace and neither of them a Preacher But what Proof brings he for this None but his bare Affirmation But so it was that some of them who received the Commission told us it was a Commission signed by Three Justices whereof one of them was a Preacher And when this very matter was debated before the Yearly Meeting at London 3d mo 1694. Samuel Jennings pretending it was not a Commission but a Hue and Cry Thomas Lower contradicted it in my hearing and the hearing of many others saying it could be no Hue and Cry for no Hue and Cry had any power to extend beyond dry Land but this was to go to the Water which I leave to men better skill'd in Law to determine However whether a Commission or Hue and Cry which is but a Nicety of Phrase in Politicks and worldly Government it confirms the substance of what was affirmed That some Quakers signed a Paper commanding and giving power to men by Force of Arms to retake a Sloop which is sufficiently known to be against the professed principles of the Quakers here in England who have witnessed by divers Printed Books and Testimonies That they are against all use of Carnal Weapons so much as in self-defence and have declared against Ship-masters that were Quakers their carrying Arms so much as in self-defence Page 41. Another falshood he chargeth on G. K. is That he said the Ministers there viz. in Pensilvania bad ingrossed the Worldly Government And this he offereth to prove to be false for there were many that were not Ministers nor Quakers neither then in the Government But this he only saith and it is a notorious Falshood well known to them that lived there for on the contrary very few but Quakers were Magistrates and for most part Preachers and these few that were not Quakers nor Ministers they were but as meer Cyphers the Ministers ruled all and did all and the small number of the rest signified nothing in that properly called the Province of Pensilvania and Ministers were not only