Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	catholic_n	church_n	visible_a	2,907	5	9.9387	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62918	A defence of Mr. M. H's brief enquiry into the nature of schism and the vindication of it with reflections upon a pamphlet called The review, &c. : and a brief historical account of nonconformity from the Reformation to this present time.	Tong, William, 1662-1727.	1693 (1693)	Wing T1874; ESTC R22341	189,699	204

the World see his Talent in Controversie he should have taken up the true Question as it was laid before him VVhat is that which the Scripture calls Schism and should have proved in all those Instances where mention is made of it that there was not only Alienation of Affection but diversity of Communion and when he had done this it had been time enough to have boasted that he had answered Mr. H's Enquiry till then his Labour is impertinent and his Triumphs ridiculous But instead of observing this Proper and Necessary Method which by all the Laws of Argument he was bound to he ranges from the Point and Chimes upon those decantate terms Church Unity Communion Obedience Succession c. and is wonderfully pleased with the melodious Sound of words he does not understand for though he should from these Topicks prove the Practice of Dissenters to be sinful yet he cannot prove it to be that Sin which in Scripture is called Schism unless he can discover in it that Uncharitableness and want of Christian Affection which is the very thing called by that Name in sacred Writ This would be sufficient for the Defence of Mr. H's Enquiry without ever entring upon the Lawfulness or Fault of Nonconformity but since the Valiant Man has challenged us into that Field of Argument we have gone along with him into it and endeavoured to justifie our Practice not only from the Crime of Schism but any other of which it has been accused and how far we have succeeded in this Affair is with all possible respect referred to the Censure of the Learned and Moderate of both Perswasions The grand Impertinencies exposed in the Gentleman's first Paper he has endeavoured to defend in the latter but through the Common Misfortune of a Man that meddles with what he does not understand he is more bewildred and confounded than before and indeed of all things that ever set up for a Defence of so Learned a Party as the Episcopal I never saw any thing comparable to this for Stile and Argument unless it were the famous Works of Mrs. Eleanor James to which this Gentleman's Reply bears such a marvellous resemblance that a man would almost conclude it to be the issue of some Friendly Conference betwixt our Citizen and that renowned Heroine I wonder why he should be so much disturbed that the Vindicator has concealed his Name especially when he did not think fit to discover his own for T. W. Citizen of Chester is a Cypher so general as remits us to conjecture and common fame and leaves him room to escape if any such danger should happen as he portends concerning his adversary but what great matter is it who is meant by T. W. or what that mans name is that has adventured to encounter him it is not names but things that we have to examine and yet by his little contemptible menaces it is very apparent that he would gladly betake himself to their former way of Confuting Dissenters as that which was always found to be the most easie and effectual He Triumphs in the Effects of his former Paper one of which was few believed but that it was done by some Clergy-man who had prevailed with him to Print it in his Name That is to say they thought it beyond the longth of T. W. to write such a Book a shrewd sign that his Neighbours have no great Opinion of his Abilities if they thought such stuff was above him but as his Name is capable of giving little Reputation to another mans work so I dare say no Clergy man in Chester will grudge him the Honour of his own He would not be thought to have acted beneath himself in his Reply and therefore he magnifies the Stature of his Adversary and transforms the Vindicator into a Ship and by all means it must be one of the first Rate that was chosen to Attack and Fire all its Guns at his mighty Self so happy a thing it is to have Gazetts and News Letters always at hand where a man can never fail of being furnished with Admirable Metaphors but if we must needs speak in such Bombardick Language though the Vindicator was size enough for the Service assigned him yet there was no need of chusing a Man of War of the first Rate to engage a disabled Frigat Venus arta Mari. whose Mast and Tackling had suffered miserably in some hot Sea-fights heretofore But 't is no part of my design to vye with him in his Bantering Dialect I shall therefore apply my self in good earnest to the matter in Hand and in the Remainder of this Preface defend some lesser Passages in the Vindication which this Gentleman either does not understand or will not seem to do so and afterwards proceed to the more material parts of the Controversie In his first Paper he pretends to tell us of the Origination and first Existence of the Church which he dates only from the time of Pentecost mentioned Acts 2. The Vindicator thought there was Reason to find fault with that Account of the Matter not only because it excludes the Angels which but a few Lines before this Gentleman had told us were members of the Church but especially because it shuts out the Jewish Church as it stood in Old Testament Times but he has a Salvo ready such as it is and he that can content himself with such a one will never be at want for 〈…〉 ●oes The Church was never called Catholick before that 〈◊〉 ●ost the Wall of Partition not being broken down But if I mistake not he promised to shew us when the Church had its first Existence not when it acquired a new Title it 's an odd way of arguing The Church was first called Catholick at Pentecost therefore it had its first Existence then a miserable Consequence and yet as good as the Antecedent for it is not true that the Church was called Catholick at that time nor do we find it once so called in all the Scripture that I know of and the Wall of Partition was broken down at Christs Death when the Vail of the Temple was rent in sunder and if in spight of all Reason the Existence of a Church must needs commence with its acquest of a new Title he must still fix his Epocha much lower and yet I know not why the Name Catholick may not if men please be attributed to the Jewish Church which was before its Apostacy the whole and the true Visible Church of God upon Earth The Vindicator told him nothing could be proved from the bare Name of Bishops in Scripture-times to favour our English Prelacy till the Power of those Bishops the Extent of their Dioceses the Quality of their Under-Officers the Modes of their Worship and Terms of Communion be proved to be the same with ours or liable to the same Exceptions To this the Gentleman replies I cannot understand this last Sentence or liable to the same Exceptions unless he would make