Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	church_n	heaven_n	lord_n	7,488	5	3.7030	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31663	An impartial account of the Portsmouth disputation with some just reflections on Dr. Russel's pretended narrative : with an abrigdment of those discourses that were the innocent occasion of that disputation / by Samuel Chandler, William Leigh, Benjamin Robinson.	Chandler, Samuel.; Leigh, William.; Robinson, Benjamin, 1666-1724.	1699 (1699)	Wing C1933; ESTC R24745	96,620	125

Commission And that the Apostles never did baptize any other than adult believers L. Then I hope we may argue from Christs own Words Did he speak pertinently or impertinently If pertinently how comes he to say of such is the Kingdom of Heaven unless he meant the visible Church which alone makes sense of the Text. But is this an Answer to my Question to say that Adult believers are only intended in the Commission Rus. Yes if your question relate to water baptism L. If the Kingdom of Heaven in part consists of Infants then Infants ought to be baptized But c. Therefore c. Rob. Pray Mr. Russel which of Mr. Leighs propositions do you deny L. Give me an Answer directly Rus. I demand an Exposition What do you mean by the Kingdom of Heaven L. I mean the Church and Kingdom of God here on Earth Rus. I deny your Minor L. I prove it from the forecited Scripture If by the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. is signified the Church visible here on Earth Then Infants do in part make up the Church But c Therefore c. Rus. I deny your Minor L. If we must make good sense of Scripture then it must so signify But c. Rus. I deny the Consequence of your Major L. If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken in any other signification to make good sense of it in that place then it must so be taken But it cannot c Therefore Rus. I deny your Minor L. If you can produce no other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture Then c. Rus. I deny the Consequence of your Major It doth not follow because I cannot do it that therefore it cannot be done L. Then I say if neither you nor any other person can produce any other good Interpretation that can make good sense of that Scripture Then c. Rus. Is this a good way of arguing If it be then it was so in me as well as you Rob. Mr. Leigh It was not fair therefore not allowed them You must not put the Proof upon the Respondent Leigh I was not driving them to Proof but going to prove my Assertion by an Induction of Particulars as I have already done and that I shall do again If the Kingdom of Heaven here signifys neither the Laws nor Promises of the Kingdom nor Graces by which these Laws and Promises are observed and embraced nor Jesus Christ's Management of his Kingdom nor the Glory of Heaven nor the Subjects of Glory then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth But it signifys neither of the former Therefore the last Rus. I deny the Minor L. I prove it by a Recapitulation of those Particulars Of such little Children are the Laws and Promises of the Kingdom of such are the Graces by which we observe and embrace them of such is Christs Management of his Kingdom of such is the Kingdom of Glory of such is the Happiness or Subjects of Glory Now is there any good sense in all this Rus. It s meant of the Kingdom of Glory L. By the Kingdom of Glory you must mean either the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom If it be taken for the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory then I ask whether little Children are the Happiness of Heaven If for the Subjects then I ask whether of such consists the Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory when every one belonging to that Kingdom i.e. as distinct from the Church-Militant immediately upon his expiring is compleat even an Infant 3 days old Rus. This is very uncharitable to exclude Infants from Heaven I would rather incline to say and I am sure the contrary to it Mr. Leigh can never prove that all Infants belong to the Kingdom of Glory than that none do L. Yes we know your Judgment of that matter well enough But you wilfully misrepresent my sense I do not say that none who dy Infants go to the Kingdom of Glory but that none are Infants when they come there But the Text says Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven This therefore is what I assert that it is absurd to say that the Kingdom of Glory is in any part of it made up of weak imperfect things as little Infants are And therefore that the Kingdom of Heaven here spoken of must mean the Church-Militant here on Earth which is in part made up of such Here Mr. Russel was silent for a considerable time Rob. What Mr. Russel have you no reply to make to all this Pray if you have any thing to say let us hear it Otherwise be so kind as to tell the People you can give no Answer that we may go on to some what further Rus. My Answer is this That whereas you have undertaken to prove that Infants are the Subject● of Baptism according to Christs Commission you bring a Text for it that hath neither the word Baptism in it nor the Commission of our Lord. L. Very well then If we prove from any Text of Scripture the right of Infants to Baptism it must not be allowed unless we find it in the close of the Evangelists where is what you call the Commission or unless the word Baptism be in it Rob. Mr. Russel They are not obliged to have the mention either of Baptism or the Commission of our Lord in the conclusion of every Syllogism They had it in the first They then told you That such as were Members of the Church-Militant on Earth were to be Baptiz'd according to the Commission of our Lord. And this was the case of some Infants You denyed any Infants were Members of Christs Kingdom or Church-Militant here on Earth and to prove this they brought that Text. And I suppose the whole company was satisfy'd that it doth sufficiently prove what it was produced for And now you dare not deny the Major if you do I doubt not but they are ready to prove it VVill. If Church Members have been denyed Baptism then Church-Membership is not the ground of Baptism but c. L. I deny the Minor VVil. If Church-Members came to Iohn to be Baptized and were denyed then Church-Membership is is not the Ground of Baptism But c. L. I deny the Minor VVill. I prove it Mat. 3. When he saw the Multitude and many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism he said to them O Generation of Vipers c. L. I deny that they were de jure Church Members whatever they were de facto Their being a Generation of Vipers is sufficient to prove they were not Church Members De jure And we are speaking of rightful Church Members VVill. I have proved that Church Members were denied baptism L. I deny it and distinguish between Church Members De jure De facto Will. I will not meddle with your distinctions Rob. And can you think that the word Church-Members cannot possibly admit of more senses than one L.

we have a rule Now Mr. Chandler if you please you may take the Part of an Opponent And prove our practice to be agreeable to Scripture Mr. Chandler turns Opponent Arg. 1. Chand Visible Church Members ought to be baptized But some Infants are visible Church Members Therefore some Infants c. Rus. Adult believers may but not Infants Rob. What 's this to the purpose we are upon Which of Mr. Chandlers propositions do you deny Rus. Let him repeat his Argument Chand Visible Church Members ought to be baptized according to Christ's Commission But some Infants are visible Church Members Therefore c. Rus. I deny the Major Chand That all visible Church Members are to be baptized according to Christs Commission I prove thus If there be no Precept or Example in all the Word of God since Christ ordain'd baptism that makes any other ordinance the visible means of encring a Person into the visible Church then visible Church Members ought to be baptized But there is no c. Therefore Rus. This is to say Because they are Members therefore they are to be made Members Chand No. Because they are Members they ought to be solemnly Recogniz'd as Members Like the Coronation of a King He is a King before he is Crown'● but he is Crown'd that he might be own'd as King VVill. If baptism be the initiating ordinance into the Church then they were not Church Members before Chand I say baptism is the solemn investing sign Rus. That baptism is an initiating ordinance I grant Rob. This Argument was brought to prove that visible Church Members ought to be baptiz'd VVill. I deny that Infants are visible Church Members in their Infancy L. I 'll prove that some Infants are Church-Members in their Infancy Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 Hence I argue Those that belong to the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. the Church-Militant here upon Earth are visible Church-Members But some Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven i e. The Church-Militant here on Earth Therefore Will. I deny the Minor That text proves it not L. If the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be taken any otherwise in this Text to make good sense of the Text then it must be so taken i. e. For the Church-Militant here on Earth But it cannot be taken any otherwise to make good sense of the Text. Therefore c And this I prove by an Induction of particulars There are various acceptations of this Expression The Kingdom of Heaven in the Word of God Sometimes it signifys The Laws and Promises of the Kingdom it doth also signify the Graces by which we observe those Laws and believe those Promises Thus it 's represented by a grain of Mustard-seed Sometimes the Kingdom of Glory And sometimes it signifies the Church-Militant Hence therefore I thus argue If in this place it can neither signify the Laws and Promises of Gods Kingdom nor the Graces by which we observe those Laws and Embrace those Promises nor the Kingdom of Glory then it must signify the Church-Militant here upon Earth But it cannot signify either of the former Therefore it must signify the last viz. the Church-Militant Will. I deny the Minor I say it signifys the Kingdom of Glory L. If it be nonsense so to understand the words then they are not so to be understood But its nonsense c For then the Kingdom of Glory must consist in part of poor little weak things such as Infants are Whereas after Death all are perfect in the Kingdom of Glory whatever they are here on Earth Will. I thought it had been to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven Chand Mat. 19.14 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven L. That is of such it consists in part If we mention the Kingdom of England or France and say of such is the Kingdom c. It 's to be understood In part it consists of these Will. I deny that the Visible Church in part consists of these If they are neither Members of the Universal Church nor of a Particular Church then the Church doth not in part consist of these But c Therefore c. L. I Answer Now you relinguish my Medium But farther If they are Members of the Church at all then they are Members of the Universal Church visible But they are Members of the Church Therefore c. VVill. I deny the Minor i. e. That they are visible Members of the Church L. There are two sorts of Members of the Universal Church There are Members in foro Ecclesiae and Members in foro Caeli In which of these senses do you deny they are Members of the Church VVill. If by the Church you mean the visible Church I deny your Minor Here for about four or five lines there is great confusion in what our scribes have written But this I take to be the sense of it L. If they are Members of the Church in any sense then they are Members of a Particular or the Universa● Church and if of a Particular then of the Universa● which includes it and therefore they are Members of the visible Church But they are Members of the Church in some sense and for Proof hereof I return to my Argument which you have not been able to Answer Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. The Church Militant VVill. I distinguish as to the Kingdom of Heaven It 's there meant of the Kingdom of Glory L. If of the Kingdom of Glory then it 's nonsence But by the way the Kingdom of Glory either is put for the Happiness or Subjects of the Kingdom of Glory If the Happiness then the words must run thus Of such little Children is the Happiness of the Kingdom of Glory If the subjects then thus Of such little Children are the subjects of the Kingdom of Glory Now neither of these is sense Therefore cannot be meant but my first interpretation stands good still VVill. I distinguish between a right Title and Possession Here is a vacancy Three things It 's true faith gives a right to baptism according to the Commission a profession of that faith gives a right to the Administration of that ordinance and it 's the Commission that authoriseth the Administrators Rus. This Text you produce hath no Relation at all to the Commission nor is Baptism in the least intended in the Text. L. Mr. Russel I 'll propose this question to you Whether both what Christ said and did together with what the Apostles said and did be the best explication of Christs Commission And then whether I may not argue from Christs own Words For visible Church Membership and so for baptism Rus. I do allow that what Christ said and did and what the Apostles said and did is a very good interpretation of the Commission of our Lord. And I do say that only adult Persons are intended in the

words All Nations Rus. I prove it against you that Infants are not included in the words All Nations For if Infants then all Infants would be so But you only allow Infants of believing parents Leigh The force of this Argument is this That unless we will Baptize all of all Nations we must Baptize none of any Nation Rus. No it it is not Leigh I say they are included in the words All Nations you must prove that they are not And first of all Gentlemen I will appeal to you Is it in a Religious sense improper to say the whole Nation suppose of Palestine are Mahumetans and so consequently that their little Children are Young Mahumetans Chan. You must prove that all Infants are excluded from the words All Nations Rus. Would you have me then shew you that there is a Limitation in the words All Nations Leigh The Point ly's here If he will invalidate my Answer he must shew that because all Nations are to be Baptized and infant are included in the words All Nations therefore it follows that all Infants are to be Baptized Rus. Therefore if I shew there is a Limitation I take away the force of the Argument and this I do by Mr. Chandler's confuting himself Leigh I deny your Minor That Christ hath not included Infants in this Commission Rus. If those that Christ hath commanded to be Baptized must be disciples then Infants are not included in this Commission But those c. Therefore Leigh I deny your Consequence Rus. I prove it thus If there are no others Express'd in this Commission then they are not included But no others are Express'd Therefore Leigh They are implyed The good consequence of the Commission I insist upon I say there is no Necessity for all the Subjects included in this Commission to be Disciples in the fullest and compleatest sense Rus. All those that are required to be Baptized by Christs Commission are Disciples But Infants are not capable to be made Disciples Therefore c. Leigh I deny your whole Argument and first your Major Rus. If there are no other express'd in Christs Commission Then my Major is true Leigh They are imply'd You know you allowed good consequence but now Rus. We are talking of a Commission good Sir Leigh I hope we are talking of good consequence from a Commission That which I assert is this That all are not to be Compleat Disciples before Baptized or That they are not to be actually taught Rus. I know not what you mean by Compleat Disciples A Person may be a Disciple twenty years before he be a Compleat one If our Lord requires none to be Baptized by the Commission but such as he commands to be made Disciples before he commands them to be Ba●●●zed then what I say is true But our Lord requires 〈◊〉 c. Therefore Leigh I deny your Minor Rus. I 'll read the Commission Mat. 28.18 〈◊〉 And Jesus came and spake to them saying All Powe●'s given unto me in Heaven and Earth ●o ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Teaching them to observe all things c. This Commission is very solemnly given c. In this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare the great Power that was c. Here the Dr. was going on with a large harangue Rob. Pray Mr. Russel do not Preach us a Sermon but bring us an Argument from the Words Rus. I thought Mr. Leigh had brought the Commission for an instance we are now coming to examine c. Leigh Pray form your Syllogism Chand Pray do Rus. I say in this Commission our Lord doth first of all declare c. He is going on again with his harangue Rob. It 's not a Sermon but an Argument from the Commission c. Rus. What will you not allow me to read my Masters Commission Here in spight of us all he would go on with his tedious dictates Rus. I argue thus from this Commission If there be an express command for the Baptizing some Persons in Christs Commission and there be no express command neither there nor elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures for the Baptizing of Infants then the Baptism of Infants is not contain'd in this Commission But there is an express command c. Therefore Leigh Pray observe it whereas good Consequence was but now allowed with great difficulty now it 's deny'd He requires an express command To this I answer If Nations do include Infants then there is a plain command Chand We deny the Consequence of your Major and then we deny your Minor Rus. My Argument was this If there be an express command in Christs Commision c. They deny the sequel of my Major and by thus denying do say that notwithstanding there be no express command for the Baptizing of Infants neither in the Commission nor any where else in the Holy Scripture yet they do tell us by this denial that they may be included in the Commission Rob. Here is a sophism says he if it be neither in the Commission nor any where else in the Holy Scriptures then it is not in the Commission Rus. If there be an express command for the Baptizing of some Persons in Christs Commission and there be no express command for the Baptizing of Infants then Infants are not at all intended in Christs Commission But c. Therefore c. Leigh First I deny the sequel of the Major and then I deny the Minor Rus. It seems very strange that you do deny this and I will endeavour to prove it Here is an express command for some Persons to be Baptized here is no express command for the Baptizing of Infants is it not then a necessary consequence that they are not included in the Commission Leigh I deny both Parts and first your Major Rus. I shall prove it thus That there is an express command for Baptizing some Persons the Commission it self proves Leigh It 's the sequel of the Major I deny Pray prove that Rus. Then you do say That notwithstanding our Lord hath expresly commanded some Persons to be Baptized in the Commission and hath not expresly commanded Infants yet they may be some of the Number Hath Christ two sorts of Subjects one that he doth expresly command to be Baptized and another that he doth not command Leigh Put your Proof of the sequel of the Major into a Syllogism Rus. We are upon the Commission Leigh I say Prove the consequence of your Major Rus. If no person be to be baptiz'd but what is expresly required to be so by Christ's Commission then the consequence of the Major is true i. e. That the Baptism of Infants is not contained in the Commission But no person is to be baptized c. Therefore Leigh I deny your Minor Rus. That which I am to prove is this That there are no persons to be baptized but what are expresly required in the Commission I prove it thus If the