Selected quad for the lemma: son_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
son_n	daughter_n	mother_n	sister_n	25,437	5	10.5778	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62861	Anti-pædobaptism, or, The second part of the full review of the dispute concerning infant-baptism in which the invalidity of arguments ... is shewed ... / by John Tombs ...	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1654 (1654)	Wing T1799; ESTC R33835	285,363	340

said to save v. ●6 to win 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert James 5. 20. sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God 9. The word holy is expounded in a sense no where else found nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle ch 1. 13 14 15 16 17. 12. 13. For he expounds holy by are admitted to baptism and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere when there was another term baptized used in the same Epistle and familiar to them 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow even by the endeavour of a Father Mother Brother Sister Companion especially a Preacher of the Gospel So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together because one may bring the other to the faith the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter Son and Mother Brother and Sister Companions Preacher and people to couple or live together because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism Himself pag. 257. saith This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing unless there were some hope that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to t●● saith ' tw●●l● certainly follow their children were unclean that is not admitted to baptism Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted or without hopes or reasonable presumption that he might be won to the faith by the believer It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief And for the other proposition it is a like false that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note as much as hoc posito upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving yoke-fellow and experience of what happened the Corinthian believers yonger children no● deemed yet believers were admitted to baptism or were reasonably presumed to be admitted or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists though I know none that so interpret it I use his own words pag. 257. sect 82. mutatis mutandis Now I demand of this pretended interpretation whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer and the other an unbeliever could it of them be concluded if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers as if the childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer and hopes it should be so It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow and hopes so of theirs 12. Unto all these I add that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any Sure I am Augustin tom 7. de pec● merito remiss c. 26. saith Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo p●ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase Sect. 32. he speaks thus That this is the true importance of the Apostles words and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident First by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English But sayth he It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages even in the Greek though it abound in Tenses above other Languages In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Dr.