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	use_v	word_n	4,528	5	4.4470	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94730	An antidote against the venome of a passage, in the 5th. direction of the epistle dedicatory to the whole book of Mr. Richard Baxter teacher at Kederminster in Worcestershire, intituled, The saints everlasting rest, containing a satyricall invective against Anabaptists / by Iohn Tombes B.D. Lately teacher at Bewdley in the same county.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1650 (1650)	Wing T1797; Thomason E602_20; ESTC R206421	26,378	40

sense so as that it may be verified of the infants he meanes Jt is true God saith the Corinthians children were holy but he doth not say they were holy as separated to God as Mr. Baxter would have it Jn what sense it is there taken J conceive can be gathered no way but by analysing the Apostles words and finding out of what holinesse his speech can be true which J have already in my Examen of Mr. Marshalls sermon and my Apology and post script proved to be only legitimation and may yet more fully prove in my review of the dispute about infant-baptisme if ever it be published against all that Mr. Marshall Mr. Geree Mr. Blake Mr. Cobbet Mr. Church or any other I have met with reply to my examen Nor is it unusuall with interpreters to take a word in a sense in which it is used no where else when the matter ' scope and other circumstances of the Text lead to that sense as in that Epistle 1 Cor. 11. 10. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which every where else signifies power or authority there confessedly signifies a veile and the phrase of due benevolence is used 1 Cor. 7. 3. in a sense in which it is used no where else and the like may be said of the word forme Phil. 1. 6 of the word Church Math. 18. 17. and many more As for Mr. Baxters exposition I conceive it not right 1 Because if the sanctification be understood as Mr. Baxter would have it in that sense the unbeliever is said to be sanctified only to the true real believer before God who by prayer doth sanctifie the other party to his or her use for of such only it is true to them every thing is sanctified by Prayer sith they only can pray and to them only all things are pure not to them who though they professe they know God yet in works deny him Tit 1. 16. This then is Mr. Baxters sense For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the use of a believing wife who is truly and really a believer before God and not only by profession before men unto whom by vertue of her true faith and prayer her Husband is sanctified to her use and pure to her But if this were the sense then the reason of the Apostle had reached only to the resolution of such to live with their unbelieving yoke-fellowes the rest were not to continue with them because they were not sanctified to them whereas the doubt was concerning any visible believer or brother and accordingly the Apostles resolution Besides supposing any true reall believers doubted of the truth of their owne faith they would be deterred by the Apostles reason so understood from living with their unbelieving yok-fellowes as being not sanctified to them Againe the Apostle had resolved them of the lawfullnesse of their continuing together by a reason taken from a thing only known to God and their own conscience whereas his intent was to resolve all concerning the lawfullnesse of living together with their yoke-fellowes in disparity of Religion by a reason taken from a thing obvious to them all 2. Mr. Baxters sense supposeth that the cause of the sanctification of the unbeliever is the faith of the believer but if so then doubtlesse the Apostles would have expressed it thus to or in the believing wife or husband whereas it is only said in or to the husbnnd or wife without adding the terme believing which manifestly shews the Apostle placed not the Emphasis in it For who will leave out the word in which the Emphasis is put and not rather expresse it remarkably 3. If the sense be as Mr. Baxttr would have it then this proposition is true as being included in the Apostles reasoning The Children whereof one of the Parents is not a reall true believer before God are none of them holy as separated to God But it is false take the separation to God what way and to what use he will the child of professed unbelievers much more the child of professed believers though not really such before God may be and perhaps is separated to God Now that these Propositions All the Children whereof one parent is not sanctified to the other are uncleane none of the children whereof one of the Parents is not sanctified to the other are cleane or holy are included in the Apostles consequence is confessed by Chamier Mr. Blake and others as I shew in my Examen Postscript and other writings nor do I know any that deny it and if they should it might easily be evinced to any that is acquainted with the rules of reasoniug and therefore according to Mr. Baxters explication the Apostle must assert that all the Children whereof one of the Parents is not sanctified to the others use being a true reall believer before God are unclean none holy as separated to God which being manifalse Mr. Baxters exposition is apparently erroneous Lastly if his sense were allowed him then the baptizing any Infant but such whereof one of the next parents is a reall believer before God would be unlawfull for such only are holy in his sense and the rest uncleane But it being knowne only to God that one of the Parents is a true reall believer before God it will follow no Ministers ought to baptize any infant at all without revelation from God that one of the Parents is a true real believer otherwise we shall baptize the uncleane or unholy who have not a right to be baptized To tel us as Mr. Baxter did in private conference with mee that by a judgement of Charity a professed believer is to be taken to be a reall believer I answer be it granted yet that is not sufficient to justifie the baptizing the child of such a one according to Mr. Baxters exposition sith as he expounds the Apostle it is requisite that the parent be a true believer before God or else the child is uncleane that is in his sense unbaptizable Besides the judgement of Charity is not that by which persons are to proceede in Baptizing but the certaine judgement of Verity arising from Ministeriall Skill and Prudence to know what is the true Profession and from sense that the Person to be Baptized maketh such Profession Mr. Baxter himself in his Appendix to his Aphorismes Pag. 58. dare not you to dispence Gods Seales upon your conjectures of the probability or improbability of Mens sincerity These things being true though I should be mistaken in my sense yet Mr. Baxters arguments were answered yet ex abundanti I shall answer Mr. Baxters Exceptions against my interpretation which according to my memory and the Notes which I could procure of the Disputation between us were these The sense is not right which thus interpreteth the Apostles Speech The Vnbelieving Wife is sanctified to the Husband that is in respect of lawfull use of Marriage is as if he were Sanctified else were your Children uncleane that is bastards but now they are holy

the Christian Church however it did in the Jewish Church there being a different Church state or frame in the Christian Church which was gathered by the preaching of the Gospell from the Israelites Church state frame made by the Authority of Abraham Moses without teaching of the persons gathred 4. Be it that the Covenant were to establish them to be a people to God and that he may be a God to them yet this doth not prove the Covenant to be a pure Gospel Covenant not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish Nation For there is a plaine restriction in the words as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworne unto thy Fathers to Abraham to Isaac to Iacob which undoubtedly comprehended their settling in Canaan which was proper only to them as Israelites which may be proved out of many passages following as Deut 29 21. 28. Deut. 30. 1. 4. 5. 9 c. Yea Ainsworth v. 15. notes that the Covenant was made with their posterity with exception of the new Covenant in Christ so that by him this Covenant and the Covenant in Christ are not all one As for that which is alleaged out of Deut. 30. 14. that it is the Gospell Covenant because it is said Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach I Answer the words v. 8. 10. 11. speak expressely of the word of Command v. 14. the word is nigh to thee that thou mayst do it which is not meant of a promise but a command of the Law nor will it prove that then the Appostle allegeth it inpertinently for it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them as Rom. 10. 18. c. Lastly if it did containe promises purely Evangelical yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot be meant of all and every of the Israelites that God would be a God to them that is sanctify justifie adopt them to be Heirs of eternall life For then Gods promise to them should not be true For with many of them God was not well pleased 1 Cor. 10. 5. Heb. 3. 17 19. but only of the elect As for that Deut. 30. 6. I confesse it is a promise of spirituall grace but to the Jews after their captivity upon condition of obedience and to them indefinitely which was never performed to all their seed but only to the elect among them and therefore must be so limited as the promise Isai. 54. 13. is by our Lord Christ Iohn 6. 45. and the promise Gen. 17. 7. is by the Apostle Rom. 9. 6. 7. 8. SECT. 6. Of the text Acts 15. 10. alleaged to prove our Infants Disciples of Christ THe next Text alleaged by Mr. Baxter is Acts 15. 10. where he would have it thought that God sayes that our Infant Children are Disciples and therefore to be baptised according to the institution Math. 28. 19. To which I answer 1. By putting Mr. Baxter in mind of his own objection against my interpretation of the words 1 Cor 7. 14. but now are they holy that it is more likely the word should be taken in a sense in which it is 600. times taken for separated to God then in my sense in which it is no where else taken signifying legitimate For if this reason be good it holds against himselfe who takes the word Disciples in a sense applicable to Infants in which sense it is no where else taken though it be used for one that is a follower of a Tencher 300. times in the Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles of which either 100. or very neare it is used by Luke 2. Mr. Baxters interpretation will apaeare to be manifestly wrested to any that will but consider that the putting the yoak on the necks of the Disciples is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren and v. 5. they said that it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses and v. 24. certaine which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your soulis saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law Now if any man so sencelesse as to think they did these things to Infants 3. The Text v. 1. 23. calls them brethren sayes v. 9. their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word which none but those that are resolved to outface a plaine truth would averre to be meant of Infants 4. Lastly Mr. Baxter confessed in privat conference with mee that the putting the yoak was by teaching and indeed it may easily be evinced that their act was not to take a knife or sharp stone and therewith in their owne persons cut off the little skin of male Infants but that they made it their businesse to subvert the soules of converted Gentiles to hold it necessary that they should be circumcised themselves if the putting the yoak had been actuall circumcision it had not been put on their necks but elsewhere Besides actuall circum●tion that is the losse of a little skin was and might be borne and is at this day by many people whereas it is said the Yoak they put was such as neither the present Iewes nor their Fathers were able to beare From all which I inferre that none are there meant by the terme Disciples but they that were taught by the false Teachers nor the yoak any other then the Doctrine or opinion of the necessity of circumcision and keeping of Moses his Law In like manner Christs Doctrine is called his yoak Math. 11. 29. 30. Pisc. in his Scholie on Acts 15 10. Iugum {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nempe legem Mosis ex collatione v. 5. Grot. amot ad Actor 15. 10. Rabbini usurpant de doctrina quae aliquid omnino faciendum inculcat And in like manner the yoak of bondage Gal. 5. 1. is the Law Gal. 4. 21. And is generally by Divines handling the Doctrine of Christian liberty made to be the teaching and holding circumcision and Moses Law as the necessary way to justification and salvation and that the Habassine Christians who are circumcised yet are not intangled with the yoak of bondage because their consciences are free and so it is to be understood v. 2. whosoever is circumcised that is who is circumcised willingly out of the opinion of its necessity and sufficiency to salvation Christ shall profit you nothing yea but saith Mr. Baxter it is circumcision as obliging to Moses Law and if it be not meant of circumcision circumcision is not condemned in that Councel I answer All the Colour Mr. Baxter hath from this Text to prove Infants disciples is by conceiving the yoak to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin but to say it is circumcision as obliging to Moses Law is to say the samewhich I say that it is not circumcision as

that is legitimate For 1. The word Sanctified signifies somewhat more then lawfully used Pagans actions may be said to be lawfull not Sanctified 2. It is no good consequence your Marriage continues lawfull in the use in opposition to Fornication therefore you may dwell together lawfully in opposition to Piety 3. The argument is taken a notiori but it could not be more known to them that their Children were legitimate then that their Marriage was lawfull 4. If it were better known that their Children were legitimate then that their Marriage were lawfull because of the change of Religion then they should doubt of their Childrens legitimation who were borne since their conversion and not of those that were borne before which were an irrationall Fancy To this I answer 1. It is not said the Unbelievers action is sanctified but the Unbeliever and Unbelieveing Medes are said to be Gods Sanctified ones Isai. 14 3. But be the word taken so as not to be applied to a Pagan in its proper acception yet the sence I give alters not the usuall sense onely it supposeth the meaning of the word to be taken with some diminution by a Catachresis or acytology that is abuse or impropriety of speech which is a very frequent thing as 1 Cor. 10. 2. were Baptized that is quasi baptizati sunt as Grotius rightly notes on that place they were as if they had been baptized the Cloud and Sea were to them as baptisme to us And so here the unbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified that is to his Wife in respect of the use of him as if he had been Sanctified which is a plaine and easie Exposition 2. The Corinthians doubted of the lawfulnesse of living with the Unbelieving yokefellow by reason of the unholiness of the Unbeliever which they questioned whether it did not necessitate a divorce or departure though they doubted not of their Childrens legitimation either borne afore or after their conversion they yet living with the Unbeliever The Apostles answer I conceive to be thus You may lawfully continue together notwithstanding the unbelief of the yokefellow for he being a Husband though an Unbeliever is as if he were Sanctified in respect of Marriage use else were your Children you have borne in this estate uncleane that is illegitimate which you do not conceive Though the occasion of the doubt were the Impiety of the one party yet the doubt was onely whether divorce were necessary which is rightly answered by telling them they might lawfully continue in Marriage use As in like case if a Papist doubt whether she must not be divorced from her Lutheran Husband lately converted to it the answer is right by telling her no for the Marriage relation continues though her Husband be an Heretique else should her Children borne since he was made a Lutheran be illegitimate of which she doubts not 3. It might be more known to them that their Children were legitimate then that living with the Unbeliever continued lawfull because there was not such occasion of doubt concerning the Children as of the Professed Unbeliever and for some other reasons perhaps through meere incogitancy of the connexion between the unlawfulnesse of their living together and the illegitimation of their Children as it happened to them 1 Cor. 15. 12. and is incident to men and women as rationall as they 4. According to the interpretation I give there is no intimation of doubt concerning the Childrens legitimacy either borne before or after conversion nor needs there be to make good the Exposition I give As for else were your Children unclean the consequence of the Apostle might be good in my sense if it be meant either of the Children borne before or after conversion of the one party it is true of either that if the Unbelieving husband were not as if he had been sanctified to his Wife in respect of lawfull conjugall use their Children were illegitimate but I think upon mature consideration it is the most cleer Exposition to understand it of those borne since the conversion of one Party Upon this Answer to Mr. Baxter I presume the Reader will perceive my Exposition no irrationall fancy which is the interpretation of Ambrose Hierome Anselme Aquinas Melanchthon Camerarius Osiander Gagnaeus Musculus Suarez Mariana and many others who have been conceived men able to discerne between reason and irrationall fancies as actuely as Mr. Baxter though I conceive of his abilities as excellent However still the Christian that would not delude his conscience me thinks should feare to goe against the plaine Institution of Christ and Practise of the Apostles and first Ages of the Church in which Infant-baptisme was neither appointed nor Practised upon such uncertaine Expositions and Consequences as Mr. Baxter hath brought and I may now freely say however they seemed somewhat at the first hearing yet now upon exact consideration for the consequences from his three first Scriptures here brought frivolous and I doubt urged more like a Sophister then a lover of truth The rest of Mr. Baxters Passage hath with it a manifest tincture of reviling little of reason yet because such speeches too easily take with People who are of all others most prejudiced against those they call Anabaptists and who I thinke are as unequally dealt with as any men I will make an answer to it SECT. 8 Of Gods speaking by judgements from Heaven against Anabaptists MAster Baxter goes on thus I cannot digresse to fortify you against these Sects you have seene God speak against them by judgements from Heaven what were the two monsters in new England but miracles Ans. He is pleased to stile Antinomians Socinians Arminians Separatists Independents Anabaptists falsly so called Sects Those whom he calls Independents disclaim the Title and deny themselves to be a Sect and so doe Antipaedobaptists Let reason be heard why should men be any more called a Sect for denying that it is of Divine appointment that a Synod of many Churches should have power to excommunicate then others called Presbyterians for holding it why should Antipaedobaptists be called a Sect for denying that Infants are appointed by Christ to be Baptized rather then Paedobaptists for affirming it If for their Tenet they are called a Sect surely they that so plainly turne aside from the expresse institution Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 5. 16. which almost all Expositors and not a few Paedobaptists even in their writings for Paedobaptisme do acknowledge to appoint onely the Baptizing of Disciples made by Preaching and from the manifest Practise of the Apostles are more worthy the Name of a Sect or Sectaries if for non-Communion with others of a contrary judgement I wish each man would lay his hand on his heart and examine whether he hath not been the maker of the breach For my own part I am assured I can better aquit my selfe from it then the chief of my Antagonists Surely Mr. Baxter in this his Invective chiefly in his rash and hasty reckoning me