Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	church_n	invisible_a	4,247	5	10.9779	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30896	Robert Barclay's apology for the true Christian divinity vindicated from John Brown's examination and pretended confutation thereof in his book called Quakerisme the pathway to paganisme in which vindication I.B. his many gross perversions and abuses are discovered, and his furious and violent railings and revilings soberly rebuked / by R.B. Whereunto is added a Christian and friendly expostulation with Robert Macquare, touching his postscript to the said book of J.B. / written to him by Lillias Skein ...	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Skein, Lillias. An epostulatory epistle directed to Robert Macquare.	1679 (1679)	Wing B724; ESTC R25264	202,030	218

at hand if he dare charge me in this with the asserting of a falshood in matter of fact I will give evidence for proof the persons being yet alive but untill he do that my knowing the thing to be true gives me ground enough to assert it To my argument shewing that without Grace a man can not be a member of Christ's Body which is the Church far less a Minister in stead of answer after he has accused me as not understanding the difference betwixt the Visible and Invisible Church he tels Christ is an Head to both which I deny not that I apply Epb. 4 7. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 12. solely to the Invisible Church so as to exclude the Visible is his mistake not my ignorance Then he goeth about to shew the difference betwixt Gift and Grace but that any had the gifts there mentioned who were altogether void of Grace remains for him to prove Besides what is mentioned he is not sparing of his calumnies in this chapter as where he saith pag. 382. that I deny that about the time of Reformation there was a Christian World which is false in respect of Profession in which sense I only here understood it and pag. 385. albeit he find me calling the heresy of Arius horrid yet upon the trust of his Author Mr. Clapham he affirmeth the Quakers to be in this erroneous but sure I have better reason to be acquainted with the Quakers doctrins than any of his lying Authors Another of his calumnys is pag 386. that we lay-aside all means in coming to the Saving knowledge of God's Name and albeit his railing in this chapter be thick enough that the Reader may easily observe it yet for his more particular direction let him observe 380 381-385 386. And whereas pag. 386. n. 11. he enumerateth several particulars wherein he affirmeth we agree with Papists he may find them refuted and answered in G. K's book called Quakerism no Popery And in the last two sections of that book written by me he may find himself and his Btethren proved far more guilty of that crime than we which because the Professor Iohn Menzies against whom it is written found not yet time to answer he as having more leasur may assume that province If the increase of our number be as he saith a clear verification of 2 Thess. 2 9 10 11 12. that we are of the deluded ones there spoken of then it must be a clearer verification of it as to them that they are of that deluded company since they are more numerous than we and also encreased more suddenly As for his exhortations and wishes in the end because I will be so charitable as to suppose they come from some measur of sincerity I do not wholly reject them only I must tell him that nothing has more conduced of an external mean to confirm me in the belief of the verity of the principles I hold than his treatise because of the many gross calumnys manifest perversions and furious railing in it since I know the Truth needed no such method to defend it and I can not believe one in the Truth would use it since lying is contrary to the Truth therefore if he will lay-aside all this falshood and passion he may have a more sure ground of hope to see the truth manifested to the dispelling of Error ¶ 4. He beginneth his 19 chapter of the Ministerial Office with supposing that their Order is according to Scriptur and that what we plead for is quite contrary and so ushereth himself into a rant of railing with which he concludeth this paragraph saying that the evil Spirit that acteth us is such an Enemy to all Gospel Order that it cryeth up only Paganish and Devilish Consasion More of this kind the Reader may observe pag. 388. 389. 391 392-394 His calumnies and perversions are also very frequent in this chapter as pag. 387. where he saith We cast-away all Order and in stead thereof bring-in the confusion of Babel and pag. 388. because we are not for the shaddow without the substance therefore he saith we make a repugnancy betwixt them which is also false and again in the same page N. 4. because I say it was never the mind of Christ to establish the shaddow of Officers without the power and efficacy of the Spirit therefore he concludes that the Quakers think that men can establish the Spirit which silly perversion will easily be manifest to every intelligent Reader And after the like manner pag. 389. n. s. because I say that upon setting up meer shaddows where the Substance was wanting the work of Antichrist was erected in the dark night of Apostasy he concludes that then according to me Christ and his Apostles wrought the work of Antichrist and mystery of iniquity accusing me thence of blasphemy But who can be so blind as not to see this manifest perversion And again pag. 390 he saith I will that every man according as his own spirit falsty called the Spirit of God moveth him setting to this work meaning that of the Ministery which is a false calumny never said by me who deny all false motions of man's own spirit however called And pag. 391. he saith that malice prompteth me to charge them with owning the distinction of Clergy and Laïty though I know they do not where the man supposeth that what I write is only written against the Presbyterians while he can not but know that I write against others since in his first chapter he charges me with writing against all the Christian World so it is his malice to say I charge them with it if any of those I write to be guilty of it it is enough albeit I doubt whether the Presbyterians can free themselvs of it ¶ 5. Having thus far discovered his perversions I come to the main business pag. 388. he saith they plead not for shaddows but own the Ordinances as Christ hath appointed to remain and continue for the perfecting of the Saints c. Eph. 4 11 12 13. And pag. 389. n. 6. he asketh whether the primitive Church was not instituted by Christ and gathered by God in whose assemblys he was Ruler and Governour asking were there no distinct Officers particular individual Persons set apart for the work of the Ministery in the Apostles days And p. 391. n. 7. he argueth against my saying that these mentioned 1 Cor. 12 28 29. Rom. 12 6. were not distinct Officers but only different operations of the same Spirit and against this also he pleadeth p. 393. n. 11. 394. To all which I answer distinctly and particularly that they can plead nothing from Eph. 4. unless their Church had all the Officers there mentioned which it has not yea and which themselvs affirm are ceased such as Prophets Apostles which are said to be given for the work of the Ministery and perfecting of the Saints nothing less than the other and by what authority do they then turn these by and

renounced all Christianity and every thing that looketh like serious Religion It seems bowing and taking-off the hatt and complemental rules is this man's Christianity and serious Religion which the Quakers have renounced I will next examin how he proves it ¶ 2. Pag. 536. He tels that honour is to be rendered to whom honour is due but this we never denied The question is Whether honour may not be rendered without bowing or taking-off the hatt The Scripturs he brings here to prove this are so far from doing it that most of them are egregiously impertinent as will appear for as to Abraham's and Lot's bowing there mentioned I shew in my Apology how their practice in that was not to be a Rule to us But he brings Act. 14 15. where Paul and Barnabas are said in our English translation to say Sirs and Act. 27 v. 10. where Paul saith Sirs to the Mariners to prove they gave a title of honour as if Sirs did infer the plural number of what usually Sir to one imports with us but if he had looked the Greek he would have found in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Men. I would willingly know if the man will be so void of ingenuity as not to acknowledge his folly here for as for the Jaylour's practice he will have much ado to prove it a Rule to Christians Neither is he less impertinent when ge brings the instance of Mary saluting Elizabeth Paul the Church of Corinth Christ desiring his Disciples to salute the house and Paul in his epistles desiring such as he wrot to to salute others in his name for who will not condemn him of folly in imagining that the Apostle by these Christian salutations desired them to take-off their hats and bow to one another in his name or that this was the way Christ willed his Disciples to salute the houses they came to He must remember to prove this next time and know we deny neither Salutations nor Civility but have not yet heard him prove that they consist in such practices He confesseth pag. 537. that several of the titles used may be granted not to be lawfull to Christians but thinketh that makes nothing for our blunt and rustik as he terms it Thou and Thee with which we speak to Magistrates and great Persons no otherwise than we would do to our foot-boys But since he confesseth they use this Thou and Thee which he thinks so blunt and rude when speaking to God I desire he may acquaint me next time why they speak to God no other ways than they would do to their foot-boys to whom I hope he will say they owne greater respect than to any Magistrates or great Personages whatsoever and this shews it was no rudeness in me to address my self thus in my epistle to the King besides that what he quarels being written in Latine shews his folly since it is usual for themselves writing in that language to use the Singular number even to Kings And forasmuch as he thinks this so absurd that in a silly scoff he saith under favour of my Thouship and Pag. 540. he accounts this in us singularity contempt pride yea and to proceed from a more stinking root I will desire of him to know how it comes that the Bishop of Canterbury in the coronation of this present King in most of his addresses to him during that solemnity terms him Thee and Thou as Philips in his history relates printed at London Anno 1670 pag. 764 765. But if he think this of little weight as being the practice of a proud Prelat in his esteem what will he say of his reverend Brethren the Assembly of Divines at Westminster who teach us in their Directory to use this Thee and Thou as in the forme prescribed for Marriage in these words I I. N. dotake thee to be my Wife c. He must say that either they had a reason for this or they had none if none he must conclude them to have been an irrational pack which I think he will hardly do if they had when he gives it let him free them of pride contempt and singularity or something more stinking to use his own phrase and find us guilty of it For his proverb of being as proud as a Quaker we think he has hardly authority to make this pass for one though by coining this it seems he affects to be a Proverb-monger but if vulgar proverbs were of any great weight I could tell him of more antient and authentik long ago ascribed to his brethren Pag. 537. he saith the terms of Grace and Eminenty are not given because of personal enduements corresponding thereunto but because of Place and Power But he should prove that to do so where these vertues are absent is ether proper or lawfull since in addressing our selvs to any in saying Your Grace or Your Eminency we suppose them to have these enduements which if they have not we speak a lye and that is not lawfull to Christians To prove the lawfulness of the compellation of Majesty to Kings he telleth that the Lord bestowed upon Solomon royal Majesty and Nebuchadnezzar saying Dan. 4 26. that Excellent Majesty was added unto him in both which places it imports no more than an outward glory but where finds he that any addressing themselvs to Kings use the compellation of Excellent Majesty as is usual now adays he will read his Concordance often over ere he can find this As for his jeering me about my Concordance and saying I cite Scripturs at random for that Psal. 29 4. Majesty is ascribed to the Thunder he but declares his own folly Majesty is there ascribed to GOD for what is ascribed to God's voice is ascribed to him he may say also then that Powerfull in the same verse is not ascribed to God but to the thunder if he resolve to be ridiculous What he saith pag. 540. n. 11. that we salute no man is false but the question is Whether there can not be salutations without the uncovering of the head or bowing the body this he should have proved He saith Abraham's bowing was against no Law of the Creation but so was Abraham's practice in the matter of Hagar which I brought to shew that Abraham's practice was not to be our Rule But since Abraham's practice in the matter of Hagar and the like practice of Jacob and the Iews was permitted to them and yet thence we are not allowed to do the like that shews that argument deduced from Abraham's simple practice is of no weight He thinks it silly to say that bowing of the body and knee and uncovering of the head are only external signes of our adoration of God because it may as wel be inferred that a man must never bow his body to tie his shoes or uncover his head to have his hair cut But this his answer is silly since men do not these things as a signification of honour which is the end of