1It is true indeed, the one of the words is derived from the other: But yet the Apostle useth them here in such a different phrase, or manner of speech, as putteth a manifest difference in the sense, and signification of them. For when he saith, the unbelieving yoke-fellow is sanctified, he doth not leave it so without a limitation or restriction, but saith, he or she is sanctified in the believer, or to the believer, and that limiteth the sense, to the believers use. But when he speaketh of children, he doth not speak with such limitation, they are holy to the believer, but positively, they are holy. Now the difference is manifest and great between these two, to be sanctified to a believer and to be holy: for example. It may truly be said, all afflictions and Persecution it self, are sanctified to a believer: but it cannot therefore be said, that affliction, yea persecution is holy, yea, we may be bold to say, that even the falls of Gods children are sanctified unto them, I mean their falls into sin: yet we may not say, that their falls into sin, are holy. No scripture language alloweth any thing to be called holy, but that which is holy, either by imputation from Christ, or regeneration from the Spirit, or separation unto God, from uncleanness to his holy worship. Search the Scripture, you will not find it otherwise, neither is it otherwise in this place. For else the Apostle might as well have said thus; The children by the unbelieving wife, are sanctified in the believing husband: and the children by the unbelieving husband, are sanctified in the believing wife, else were your unbelieving yoke-fellows unclean: but now they are holy. But do you think the holy Spirit of God would ever call infidels & Idolaters holy? But suppose, (as some of your books would have it) that the Apostle did acknowledge unbelieving yoke-fellows to be holy, is there not then a two-fold holiness mentioned in the Text: the one, not in the thing it self, but to another's use: the other of the thing in it self: Is it not then sin to confound these two for all one which God hath distinguished?
1It is true indeed, the one of the words is derived from the other: But yet the Apostle useth them here in such a different phrase, or manner of speach, as putteth a manifest difference in the sense, and signification of them. For when hee saith, the unbeleeving yoak-fellow is sanctified, hee doth not leave it so without a limitation or restriction, but saith, hee or shee is sanctified in the beleever, or to the beleever, and that limiteth the sense, to the beleevers use. But when hee speaketh of children, hee doth not speake with such limitation, they are holy to the beleever, but positively, they are holy. Now the difference is manifest and great betwene these two, to bee sanctified to a beleever and to bee holy: for example. It may truely bee said, all afflictions and Persecution it selfe, are sanctified to a beleever: but it cannot therefore bee said, that affliction, yea persecution is holy, yea, wee may bee bold to say, that even the falls of Gods children are sanctified unto them, I meane their falls into sinne: yet wee may not say, that their falls into sinne, are holy. No scripture language alloweth any thing to bee called holy, but that which is holy, either by imputation from Christ, or regeneration from the Spirit, or separation unto God, from uncleannesse to his holy worship. Search the Scripture, you will not finde it otherwise, neither is it otherwise in this place. For else the Apostle might as well have said thus; The children by the unbeleeving wife, are sanctified in the beleeving husband: and the children by the unbeleeving husband, are sanctified in the beleeving wife, else were your unbeleeving yoak-fellows uncleane: but now they are holy. But do you thinke the holy Spirit of God would ever call infidells & Idolaters holy? But suppose, (as some of your books would have it) that the Apostle did acknowledge unbeleeving yoak-fellowes to bee holy, is there not then a two-fold holinesse mentioned in the Text: the one, not in the thing it self, but to anothers use: the other of the thing in it selfe: Is it not then sinne to confound these two for all one which God hath distinguished?
- 1Silvanus.
