Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	body_n	true_a	word_n	4,161	5	4.6147	4	true

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

their choosing places where there was much Water to Baptize in as I have already shewed so far as they would permit me and should have made it manifest beyond exception if I might have been heard But to answer your Demand I alledge Acts 8. 38 39. And they went both down into the Water both Philip and the Eunuch and by Baptized him And when they were come up out of the Water c. Here we have an account that both the Administrator and the Person to be Baptized went both down into the Water and when they came there he Baptized him And if Philip had not been to put the Eunuch into the Water and cover him with it why should they go down both into the Water A little of it might have been brought up to them into the Chariot if Sprinkling would have served the turn But it appears manifestly that nothing less would serve for to answer the Commission but to Dip the Person Baptized into the Water otherwise they did that which was wholly needless and besides the Rule that was given them to practise by And their coming up again out of the Water doth evidently shew that he was Plunged into it and overwhelm'd with it Mr. Leigh replied That the Greek word signified to go down to and come up from the Water Mr. Williams replied That there was two differing Words as he had been informed in the Greek Text as there are two different Words in the Translation For it is said As they went on their way they came unto a certain Water This was before he proposed for Baptism But when a Grant was given him that he might be Baptized it is then said They went down both of them into the Water and Philip Baptized him there Now as they are different Words in the Translation coming unto and going down into even so they are differing Words in the Greek Dr. Russel said They were two different Words to which Mr. Leigh concessed But after the Meeting was over Mr. Williams the Presbyterian Minister in whose Meeting place the Dispute was told Mr. Williams the Baptist Disputant he was in the right and that they were two differing Words in the Greek one for coming unto the other for going down into Dr. Russel I then farther argue If the Spirit of God doth never use the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Ordinance of Baptism is mentioned but al●ays expresses it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then it was performed by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming only But the Spirit of God doth never use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Ordinance of Baptism is mentioned but always expresses it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo. It was performed by Dipping Plunging or Overwhelming only Mr. Chandler I deny the Sequel of the Major because the Word doth sometimes signify a Washing that is short of Dipping Dr. Russel You must then assign your Instance Mr. Chandler You must know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabal And I will shew that it denotes such a Washing as is short of Dipping And in Dan. 4. 33. where it is said of Nebuchadnezzar His body was wet with the dew of Heaven the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it cannot be understood in your sense Dr. Russel That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the stead of Tabal is true But how do you know that the Word was so Rendred by the Septuagint Mr. Chandler It is so in that Translation that goes in their Name Dr. Russel That I deny for the Word there is Ebaphe and not Baptizo But do you not know what Weemes saith in his Christian Synagogue That the Septuagint Translation was burnt and only some Fragments of it remaining which was made up by others so that neither you nor I know when we read the Septuagint and when we read other men But what doth all this signify That is but a Translation and I think ours to be much better than that if it were as you say and more agreeable to the scope of the place to say his body was wet with the dew of Heaven than to say it was dipt with the dew of Heaven But I pray let Mr. Chandler tell us how it is in the Hebrew which is the Language in which it was written Mr. Chandler The Word in the Hebrew is Tabal Dr. Russel That I deny Whereupon an Hebrew Bible was produced and handed up to Dr. Russel And the Book of Daniel not being placed in its right order as in other Hebrew Bibles he did not readily find it whereupon they cried out They believ'd he could not read it The Dr. answered He could read Hebrew before Mr. Chandler was born and as a demonstration of it he read a Verse or two in the Beginning thereof Upon this Mr. Robinson took the Book and with some difficulty found out the Book of Daniel and then gave it to Dr. Russel again who read the Place by them directed to and told Mr. Chandler that the Word Tabal was not there And then after all this needless trouble Mr. Chandler did confess that it was not and so all his Pretention from thence vanished into Smoak Mr. Chandler also urged for another instance to prove that Tabal signified a Washing less than that by Dipping 2 Kings 5. 10 14. Go and wash in Jordan and be clean And in Verse 14. H● dipped himself in Jordan Now this must signifie a Washing short of Dipping because though Tabal doth express the Act done in Ver. 14. yet the Command is given by Rachatz which signifies to wash Dr. Russel I do allow that the Command is ●xprest by Rachatz and also that it sometimes is used as we● as Cabas to signifie less than Dipping when it is applied to some particular things or parts of things which are to be cleansed from Filth as you know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek is to wash the hands But where Rachatz in the Hebrew is used in the Sence as it 's here exprest namely to wash himself it 's always to be understood of such a Washing as is by Dipping The Jews understood it so and Naaman the Syrian understood the Prophet in that sence for it 's said he dipped himself in Jordan seven times And that he was not mistaken about it is evident for that the Spirit of God hath left it upon Record that what he did was according to the Saying of the Man of God so that the Prophet did not intend by Rachatz any other Washing than what is performed by Dipping of the Person so washed into the Water And had this been a Derivative there might have been some doubt raised about it but seeing Tabal is the Root it self it can signify nothing less than what is the known sence thereof viz. he Dipped He dipped himself in Jordan seven times according to the Saying of the Man of God Thus I have cleared this Text from your Objection

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

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