Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	son_n	word_n	4,740	5	4.9419	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90870	A serious exercitation upon, or an impassionate vindication of 1 John 5.20. This is the true God--in reference to a printed conference between Mr. Samuel Eaton, and Mr. John Knowles for the beating out of the truth concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ. / By Thomas Porter M.A. Minister of the Gospel at Whitchurch. Decemb. 26. 1650. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Porter, Thomas, d. 1667.	1651 (1651)	Wing P2998D; Thomason E621_9; ESTC R206411	19,159	28

De Scripturae sensu l. 5. c. 1. 2 It. Rivet Isagog ad Scripturam sacram c. 14. There is but one sense of Scripture I know several men give several meanings of one and the same place of Scripture and its difficult to determine which is the genuine but this is to be imputed to the Reliques of darknesse in mans understanding since the fall of Adam The Scripture sure is no Nose of wax But to the Authority of Erasmus and Tindal I oppose with g Zanch. detribus clohim pars altera l. 3. c. 6. Zanchius the Authority of all the Fathers almost and of the Church of God who read and understand the words as we do For if that of Erasmus be currant it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through not in his Son To the Authority of Piscator I oppose the Authority of Oecumenius who hath collected the Fathers sentences and sense too on the text making the latter clause exegetical to the former Neither can you with reason consent with Hierom I suppose you mean the old Latine Translation which is doubted nay denied by the learned h Rivet Isag c. 11. Chamier de vulg Lat. editione l. 24. c. 4. s 7. c. to be Hieroms for if of two Prepositions one is redundant i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then of two articles one is redundant also which is somewhat uncouth and perhaps the Relative too or else miserably perverted for it s not in THIS Son but in HIS Son 3. It s either an untrue or an improper expression to say in the precedent words there is mention made of the Father for the word MENTION doth not signifie an implicit intimation but an explicit nomination k You say p. 10. no mention made of any other nature in the man Christ But I say it s implyed in Isa 46. Review also your p. 15. Pos 1. p. 39. e. g. Heb. 11. 22. Joseph made MENTION of the departing of the children of Israel what kind of mention that was you may read Gen. 50. 24 25. Therefore elsewhere the term BY NAME is added exegetically Iosh 21. 9. 1 Chron. 4. 38. I grant the Father is implyed because of the Relative Son but the Father is not mentioned to speak properly and truly in the precedent words but this by the By let it go 4. Compare head and foot of this your answer and I Petitio Principii idem per idem am much mistaken if you do not shamefully beg the question and too confidently assert the Apostle intends the Father Sir is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing controverted and to be proved But because this assertion the Apostle intends the Father only Mr. Knowles Sect. 3. is contrary to many mens interpretation take for the backing of it these few reasons Sir you might have said EVERY mans interpretation Reply saving old and new Opposers of Christs Deity I hope you are not like Ishmael l Gen. 16. 12. whose hand will be against every man not like those Jews mentioned 1 Thes 2. 14. 15. who were contrary to all men There is a singularity which is a shrewd signe of Arrogancy 2. If your Assertion be contrary to ALL MOST or MANY mens interpretation you have need not only of many but strong reasons for the backing of it and flanking of it too 3. No matter I confesse how few but how strong reasons are I would not take reasons m Nonnumero sed pondere by number but by weight Let it therefore appear what strength or weight is in your reasons as you call them Reas 1. Because the text will Grammatically bear it for Mr. Knowles Sect. 4. the words may be thus rendred That is the true God and so the Antecedent to the Relative is not the person immediately foregoing which is Iesus Christ but another spoken of at a further distance to wit the Father 1. Sir your skil in Grammar is not so great as your Reply skill in Logick seems to be Calvin saith n Relativum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad PROXIMAM Personam restringi solet Calv. loc the Relative THIS is wont to be restrained to the next person i.e. To the person immediately foregoing which is Iesus Christ and not to another spoken of at a further distance to wit the Father Beza saith o Pronominis istius propria significatio postulat ut ad Christum hoc referatur Beza Annot. in loc The proper signification of this Pronoun requires that THIS be referred unto Christ Zanchius saith p Ad PROXIMUM membrum referendum esse Pronomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grammatica docet Zanch. loc praedict GRAMMER teacheth that the Pronoun THIS is to be referred to the next number To name no more I suppose these or any of these eminent Ministers of the Gospel were as good Grammarians as Master KNOWLES 2. You alledge not one place of Scripture wherein the Relative THIS is rendred THAT If you could you would not I suppose have left it so naked without armes in the open field What must we take again your word for proofe I wish a better for there is no goodnesse in that I hope Sir you will take the language which you bestow on Mr. Eaton p. 51. 3. It s more then probable it ought not to be rendred THAT for even in this Epistle it s an eleven times translated THIS beside this text in hand and so always to my best observation in the Gospel of Iohn Now if this be the proper signification of the Relative THIS and so used constantly by the Apostle in his Gospel and Epistle ought it not to be so rendred here 4. It s said Iohn 1. 20. This is he of whom I said c. Also 1 Iohn 5. 6. This is he that came by water and bloud Would it not be a silly shift to say the Apostle intends the Father because the text will Grammatically bear it For may not the words be thus rendred THAT IS c. when he that hath but half an eye may see that not the Father but Iesus Christ is the Antecedent to the Relative 5. You say the words MAY be thus rendred THAT IS the true God If you mean De posse who denyes it your subtil but unsound wit can do it and hath done it If de jure I deny it on the former grounds 6. What an absurd illogical and Atheological argument is this If the words may be thus rendred then the Apostle intends the Father But the words may be thus rendred Therefore Sir you may perceive the weaknesse of the Minor by weighing the Premises Your Major or Consequence I deny for the translation of the words can never sufficiently prove the intention of the Apostle Reas 2. Because Iesus Christ nowhere in Scripture is Mr. Knowles Sect. 5. called the true God and therefore is it the more questionable whether he