Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	church_n	part_n	visible_a	1,675	5	9.3112	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63577	A true narrative of the Portsmouth disputation, between some ministers of the Presbyterian, and others of the Baptist, persuasion, concerning the subjects and manner of baptism held in Mr. Williams's meeting-place there on Wednesday, Feb. 22. 1698/9. The managers for the Presbyterians were, Mr. Samuel Chandler of Fareham. Mr. Leigh of Newport in the Isle of Wight. Mr. Robinson of Hungerford in Berks, moderator. For the Baptists were, Dr. William Russel of London. Mr. John Williams of East Knoyle in Wiltshire. Mr. John Sharp of Froome in Somersetshire, moderator. Transcribed from two copies taken at the dispute; the one by Mr. Bissel Town-Clerk of Portsmouth, and the other by Mr. Samuel Ring. Revis'd and publish'd by Dr. William Russel.	Bissel, Mr.; Ring, Samuel.; Russel, William, d. 1702.	1699 (1699)	Wing T2806A; ESTC R215290	67,061	90

fell a laughing at Mr. Leigh and his Countenance changed pale and he was under some seeming Consternation of Mind so that he could not presently recover himself but at last his Spirits rallied again and then he spake to this effect Mr. Leigh Our Discourse was grounded on the Commission Now was this before the Commission or after it Dr. Russel It is a mistake Mr. Leigh we were not now upon the Commission but upon your Question And I think Mr. Williams hath given you a pertinent Answer every way suitable to your Question and the Challenge you made us and you are bound to take it Upon this he made no Reply But Addressed himself to us after this manner Now if you please I will become Opponent Our Answer was You may if you think fit we are contented Mr. Leigh Then I Argue thus If Infants are visible Church-Members then they are to be Baptized But Infants are visible Church-Members Ergo They are to be Baptized Dr. Russel This Argument doth not include the Point in question for you ought to put in these words according to Christ's Commission Mr. Leigh refused so to do Upon which Dr. Russel asked him this Question Are you of Mr. Chandler's mind in this Matter He says That Baptism is an Initiating Ordinance Mr. Leigh answered Yes I am Dr. Russel Then make Sense of your Argument if you can For it will run thus If Infants are already visible Members of the Church then they are to be Baptized that they may be made so It is as if I should say That because such a Man is in this House already therefore there must some Act pass upon him to bring him in when he is actually in the House before Make Sense of this if you can However I will deny the Minor and say they are not visible Church-Members before they are Baptized Mr. Chandler If there be no Precept or Example in all the Word of God to warrant us to make any other Initiating Ordinance into the Church but Baptism then visible Church-Members ought to be Baptized But there is no other Initiating Ordinance into the Church besides Baptism Ergo Visible Church-Members ought to be Baptized Dr. Russel What doth not Mr. Chandler know the difference between the Major and Minor I deny the Minor and his Argument is to prove the Sequel of the Major which I had confute● before But if this be true that Mr. Chandler says it is a full Answer to Mr. Leigh's Minor For then it runs thus If there be no other way to bring Persons into the visible Church but by Baptism then they were not visible Church-Members before they were Baptized Which is directly opposite to what Mr. Leigh hath affirmed Mr. Robinson This Argument was brought to prove that visible Church-Members are to be admitted to Baptism Mr. Williams I deny that Infants are visible Church-Member in their Infancy Mr. Leigh I will prove that some are so from Matth. 19. 14. Suffer the little Children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Dr. Russel Do you bring this to prove that these Children were Baptized Mr. Leigh No I do not pretend to any such thing Dr. Russel What then do you bring it for Mr. Leigh I bring it to prove that Infants are visible Church-Members Dr. Russel If you had brought it to prove that Infants had a right to the Kingdom of Glory I should have thought you had brought it to a better purpose and more agreeable to the scope of the Place Mr. Leigh I Argue thus upon it Those that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven that is the visible Church of Christ are visible Church-Members But the Kingdom of Heaven that is the visible Church of Christ is in part made up of little Children Ergo Little Children are visible Church-Members Dr. Russel I might here object against the form of your Argument But to pass that by I do deny your Minor Mr. Leigh I shall prove my Minor by an Induction of Particulars There are divers Acceptations of the Kingdom of Heaven in Scripture As 1. It signifies the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom 2. The Graces of the Kingdom whereby we are enabled to observe those Laws And thus it is set forth by a grain of Mustard-seed by Leaven and the like 3. It sometimes signifies Jesus Christ his Management of his Subjects on Earth 4. And sometimes it signifies the happiness of the Saints in Glory 5. And many times it is taken for the visible Church Militant And in no other Sense but this last can it be taken in this Scripture to make good Sense of it which I shall prove by an Argument of Induction If it be Nonsense to say Of such is the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom If it be Nonsense to say Of such is the Graces of the Kingdom If it be Nonsense to say Of such is Christ's Management of his Subjects on Earth If it be Nonsense to say Of such is the Happiness of the Saints in Glory and it be good Sense to say Of such is the visible Church then the visible Church is in part made up of little Children But it is Nonsence to apply it to all the other and it is good Sense to say of such to the visible Church Ergo The visible Church is in part made up of little Children Dr. Russel There is so much Nonsense in this Argument I know not well how to make Sense of it It seems to me little to the purpose But however I will deny your Minor and say It is good Sense to say that little Children belong to the Kingdom of Glory I pray observe by the way what sort of Subjects Mr. Leigh ' s Church must consist of if they have no Interest in the Graces of the Kingdom nor yet in the Glory of the Kingdom Mr. Leigh I say it's Nonsense to understand it otherwise And upon this he desired that all those who were satisfied with what he had said should hold up their hands And of that great Multitude there was but a very few that did it So that it was manifest they were not satisfied with what he had said Mr. Williams Is it Nonsense then to say that any Infants belong to the Kingdom of Glory Mr. Leigh Yes while they are in their Infant State for when arrived to Glory they are perfect as grown Men whatever they were on Earth Otherwise we must say that there are Infants of two foot long poor weak ignorant things in Glory Therefore it must be thus taken for we must make good Sense of Scripture Mr. Williams I deny you Minor and shall form an opposite Argument thus If Infants are neither Members of the Universal visible Church nor yet of a particular Constituted Church then they are not Members of the visible Church at all But they are neither Members of the Universal visible Church nor yet of a particular Constituted Church Therefore they are not Members of the

hath signified to the People in his preaching that there are plain Scriptures to be brought for the proof of Infant Baptism and now is the time for him to produce them I urge it upon him to assign but one Instance and you will not suffer him so to do Mr. Leigh 'T is not Mr. Chandler's Sermon it is the Question before us that you must regulate Dr. Russel If you say you have no Scripture proof for Infants Baptism I have done But why must you prevent Mr. Chandler I hope here are some Honourable Persons and others that understand Nature of this Controversie and they may reasonably expect that those who have made such a Noise about it can give some tolerable Instance for it and if they will do that we will proceed to examine it Mr Robinson There are many here know how that Mr. Chandler hath asserted and proved that Infants are the Subjects of Baptism but you are not to call on him for that now You did by your Friends undertake to prove the contrary and it rests upon you so to do Dr Russel I have already proved the contrary and my Argument will stand good till you give your Instance Mr. Robinson If you will change Sides Mr. Chandler you may admit this Trick Dr. Russel Can you at other times boast of so many plain Scriptures for your Practice and now you are brought to the Test about it you are not able to produce one what will the People think of you Mr. Leigh I will undertake in any Dispute Philosophical or Divine in this manner immediately to turn the Opponency upon the Respondent When I cannot prove the Assertion I will presently say If you can bring any solid Proof for your Practice it is true if not false And I appeal to the Moderator whether it be not his Business to keep the Disputants to the Rules of Dispute Mr. Robinson The Moderator is to regulate them if they transgress Bounds but you have grossly transgressed I appeal to any that understand Logick whether this be sufferable for him thus to turn the Opponency upon Mr. Chandler Then Dr. Smith stood up and said If I must speak then by your Leave according to what I always understood He that asserts must prove Dr. Russel Then they having asserted that Infants are the Subjects of Baptism they are to prove their Practice especially when they are forc'd upon it by an Universal Negative We desire but one single Instance and they will not assign it Mr. Robinson No you are to prove your Argument Dr. Russel I have done that already and therefore if Mr. Chandler will confess he hath no Instance to give I will proceed to a new Argument This Mr. Chandler refused to do and yet would not give his Instance Dr. Russel If Mr. Chandler can give no Instance here are divers other Ministers Gentlemen of Parts and Learning Have none of them an Instance to produce If you thus refuse to produce it the People will think you have none to give Notwithstanding this none of them could be prevailed upon to do it although they were called upon and challenged to give any one Instance where it was so written if they could Whereupon Dr. Russel spake to this effect Gentlemen It may be you think I have but one Argument if you will say no more to this I am not willing to tire out the Auditory I will therefore proceed to a New Argument But take notice by the way that my first Argument stands good till you give your Instance to the contrary Arg. 2. If Infants are not capable to be made Disciples of Christ by the Ministry of Men then they cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission But Infants are not capable to be made Disciples of Christ by the Ministry of Men. Ergo They cannot possibly be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission Mr. Chandler repeats the Argument and then saith Here if you mean by being made Disciples Actual and Compleat Disciples I deny your Major But if you mean such as are entered into a School and given up to Instruction then I deny your Minor Dr. Russel Repeats his Major and desires Mr. Chandler to tell him what he denies in it For saith he my Words are plain to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Mr. Robinson Mr. Chandler distinguishes between Compleat and Incompleat Disciples Dr. Russel But what then doth he mean by denying my Major Mr. Robinson He denies that they that cannot be made Compleat Disciples are not intended in the Commission I hope the Reader will observe how often Mr. Chandler was at a loss and Mr. Leigh and Mr. Robinson were forced to help him out with their Distinctions and equivocable Expressions Here Dr Russel seeing they would not be brought to give any direct Answer turns his Hypothetical into a Categorical Syllogism Whosoever are uncapable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men they cannot be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission But Infants are uncapable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men Ergo They cannot be the Subjects of Baptism intended in Christ's Commission Now let Mr. Chandler tell me what he means by being made Compleat or Incompleat Disciples by the Ministry of Men according to my Argument if he can Mr. Chandler I mean by Compleat Disciples such as are actually capable of Learning By Incompleat such as are entered in such Places in order to be taught We send Children to School before they know a Letter Dr. Russel My Argument speaks not of such but of those who have understanding and are capable to be made Actual Disciples which Infants are not Mr. Chandler That such as are so capable are the only Subjects of Baptism you are to prove it Dr. Russel Then you deny the Major Mr. Chandler Yes as to your Hypothetical Argument Dr. Russel If you had done this before you had saved your self and me much trouble Then I prove it thus If our Lord in that Commission given for Holy Baptism hath commanded his Apostles that were Men to make Disciples by their Ministry and after that to Baptize them then the Consequence of the Major is true But our Lord in that Commission given for Holy Baptism hath commanded his Apostles that were Men to make Disciples by their Ministry and after that to Baptize them Ergo The Consequence of the Major is true Mr. Leigh I distinguish thus They may be entered into the Church in Order for Learning and so they are Disciples before Baptism Yet in a more visible Sense they are made Disciples by Baptism Dr. Russel Then you suppose Infants not capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Mr. Chandler Not solemnly invested Dr. Russel We are not talking of that the Question betwixt us is Whether they are capable to be made Disciples by the Ministry of Men. Will you assert that Mr. Leigh We assert they are Disciples as Children of

to signify and profess that your Old man or fleshly Lust is dead and buried with him and you rise thence to signify and profess that you rise to Newness of Life In his third Argument against Mr. B●ake he saith quoad modum with respect to the Manner It is commonly confest by us to the Anabaptists as our Commentators declare that in the Apostles time the Baptized were Dipt over head in Water And though we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of Dipping yet we presume not to change the Use and Signification of it Dr. Cave In his Primitive Christianity pag. 320. saith That the Party baptized was wholly immerged or put under Water which was the almost constant and universal Custom of those times whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great End and Effects of Baptism for as in Immerging there are in a manner three several Acts the putting the Person into Water his abiding there for some time and his rising up again thereby representing Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection c. Dr. Nicholson late Lord Bishop of Glocester In his Exposition of the Church-Catechism saith in pag. 174. And the ancient manner in Baptism the putting the Person Baptized under the Water and then taking him out again did well set out these two Acts the first his dying the second his rising again And in the same Page upon Col. 2. 12. he saith Into the Grave with Christ we went not for our Bodies were not could not be buried with his but in our Baptism by a kind of Analogy or Resemblance while our Bodies are under the Water we may be said to be buried with him Dr. Fowler present Lord Bishop of Glocester In his Scope of the Christian Religion upon Rom 6 4. saith Christians being pl●nged into the Water in Baptism signifieth their undertaking and obliging themselves in a spiritual sense to die and be buried with Jesus Christ that so answerably to his Resurrection they may live a holy and godly Life Dr. Tillotson late Archbishop of Canterbury In his Sermon upon 2 Tim. 2. 19. saith Anciently those who were Baptized put off their Garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immersed and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their Entrance upon a new Life And to these Customs the Apostle alludes Rom. 6. 4. Dr. Jer. Taylor late Lord Bishop of Down In his Ductor dubitantium lib. 3 cap. 4. saith The Custom of the ancient Church was not Sprinkling but Immersion in pursuance of the sence of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the Commandment and Example of our Blessed Saviour And this agrees with the Mystery of the Sacrament it self for we are buried with him in Baptism saith the Apostle The Old-man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under Water and when the Baptized Person is lifted up from the Water it represents the Resurrection of the New-man to Newness of Life The Learned Joseph Mede In his Diatribe on Titus 3. 5. saith There was no such thing as Sprinkling used in Baptism in the Apostles time nor many Ages after them Mr. Daniel Rogers None of old were wont to be Sprinkled and saith he I confess my self unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for Infants Sprinkling It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution which is Dipping And he betrays the Church whose Officer he is to a disorder'd Error if he cleave not to the Institution which is to Dip. Rogers's Treatise of the two Sacraments part 1. chap. 5. The famous Reformer Luther Luther de Baptismo tom 1. fol. 71. in the Latin Edition printed at Wittemburgh saith Baptism is a Greek word it may be translated a Dipping when we dip something in Water that it may be covered with Water And although it be for the most part altogether abolished for that they do not Dip the whole Children but only Sprinkle them with a little Water they ought nevertheless to be wholly dipt and presently to be drawn out again And in Tome 2. fol. 79. concerning Babylon's Captivity The other thing saith he which belongs to Baptism is the Sign or the Sacrament which is the dipping it self into the Water from whence also it hath its Name Nam baptizo Graece mergo Latinè Baptisma mersio est For Baptizo in Greek is in Latin Mergo to dip and Baptisma is dipping And a little after speaking of Rom. 6. 4. he saith Being moved by this Reason I would have those that are to be Baptized to be wholly dipt into the Water as the Word doth sound and the Mystery doth signifie And when Complaint was made to him and other Divines at Wittemburgh That a Child had been Sprinkled at Hamburgh and their Advice desired upon it he wrote to Hamburgh to acquaint them that their Use of Sprinkling was an Abuse which they ought to remove Ita mersionem Hamburgi restitutam esse So Dipping was restored at Hamburgh Author Joannes Bugenhagius Pomeranius in his Book printed Anno 1542. He was Contemporary with and a Successor of Luther at Wittemburgh The Learned Grotius On Matth. 3. 6. Mersatione autem non perfusione agi solitum hunc ritum indicat vocis proprietas loca ad eum ritum delecta John 3. 23. Acts 8. 38. Et allusiones multae Apostolorum quae ad aspersionem referri non possunt Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. Mr. John Calvin On John 3. 23. Baptism was performed by John and Christ by dipping of the whole Body in Water And in his Institutions lib. 4. cap. 15. sect 19. he saith thus Caeterum mergaturne totus qui tingitur idque ter an semel an infusa tantum aqua aspergatur minimum refert sed id pro regionum diversitate Ecclesis liberum esse debet Quanquam ipsum baptizandi verbum mergere significat mergendi ritum veteri Ecclesia observatum fuisse constat Here you may see that although he thinks it a thing indifferent whether it be done by Dipping or Sprinkling and that thrice or once only and that it 's left to the Churches Liberty according to the diversity of Countries yet he comes in at last with his Quanquam notwithstanding the word Baptism signifies to Dip and it is evident that the Rite of Dipping was observed by the Old Church The Case is so clear as a learned Writer hath noted that Calvin up and down his Works doth often confess that the ancient manner of Baptism in the Primitive times was by Dipping the whole Body under Water Piscator On John 3 23. saith That Baptism was performed by Dipping the whole Body under Water The Dutch Translators Matth. 3. 1. Joannes de Dooper John the Dipper Vers 6. Gedoopt in de Jordaen Dipt in Jordan Vers 16 Ende Jesus gedoopt zynde epgeklommen uyt het water And Jesus being Dipt he climbed or came up out of the