Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	child_n	freeman_n	trade_v	30	3	16.0557	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50248	A defence of the answer and arguments of the synod met at Boston in the year 1662 concerning the subject of Baptism and consociation of churches against the reply made thereto, by the Reverend Mr. John Davenport, pastor of the church at New-Haven, in his treatise entituled Another essay for investigation of the truth &c. : together with an answer to the apologetical preface set before that essay, by some of the elders who were members of the Synod above-mentioned.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1664 (1664)	Wing M1271; ESTC W19818	155,430	150

know they were brought into membership by Gods own Institution and Appointment and we do not know that they have in any way of God been put from it nor considering the term in the Proposition can be justly judged to deserve any such matter but the contrary and therefore the acknowledging of them to be members can be no such prophaning and polluting as is spoken of The fourth Argument of the Synod to shew that the persons spoken of do still continue members is this Because there is no ordinary way of cessation of membership but by Death Dismission Excommunication or Dissolution of the Society none of which is the case of the persons in question Whereto the Reverend Author answereth That the ennumeration is insufficient there is another ordinary way i. e. Desertion Thus Esau's membership ceased and so many theirs who being adult regard not to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation c. And if forsaking the Church may suffice to deprive those of Church-priviledges who were before in personal and immediate Church-fell●wship 1 Joh. 2.19 how much more those who never had such membership c. What can the mediate membership which such had in infancy advantage them for continuing in membership when being adult they live in the breach of that Covenant whereby they were left under engagement in their infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church Ans. If the Ennumeration were not sufficient but that that of Desertion were needful to be added yet this would not avail to prove the contrary to what the Synod here saith but the membership of the persons in question may still continue for all this for being qualified as the Proposition expresseth they are farre from being guilty of such Desertion or forsaking of the Church of God and therefore it is not this though it were added to the Particulars in the Argument that can hinder their still continuing to be Members Nor can they be justly charged as guilty of such things as are here expressed viz. Not regarding to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation nor to fit themselves for it but to despise the Church of God not desiring nor endeavouring after spiritual fitness but living in the breach of that Covenant c. These things we cannot see how they can justly be imputed to the persons qualified as the Proposition expresseth but they may still continue to be members as not being culpable of any such things as these here mentioned to un-Member them Here also it may be observed how the Reverend Author doth again acknowledge That the sins of adult persons who were admitted in infancy are a breach of that Covenant in which they were then comprehended and which left them under engagement unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church which sheweth that they are still in the Covenant though now they be adult for otherwise how could their sins be breach of covenant and if they be still in Covenant then they still continue members and their membership did not cease with their infancy which is the thing here affirmed by the Synod For that of Esau whose membership is said to cease by Desertion the Reverend Author may remember that he hath more then one told us of invalidity of Proofs from the Old Testaments for things 〈◊〉 Gospel-times which Proofs though we cannot say but they may b● valid yet why should himself use them against us for this of Esau is from the Old Testament if his apprehension be right that such Proofs are not valid But for the thing it self of the cessation of membership by a mans own act this hath been spoken unto before pag. 34.35 in Defence of the first Argument for this fifth Proposition Where also was considered that Text 1 Ioh. 2.19 which is here alledged again To which former place we refer the Reader onely adding thus much that the cessation of membersip which the Synod here speaks of is such cessation as is ordinary but if Esau ' were by his own act alone why may we not say that there was something in it extraordinary Though it is not any where said that it was by his own act if any afffirm that it was it stands upon them to prove it for affirmanti incumbit probatie And though it be not said that the Church had any hand in it yet negative Arguments in matter of Fact are not cogent though in matters of Faith they be but for matter of Fact we know many things were done that are not written Ioh. 20.30 21.25 and therefore though this be not written that there was any Church-proceedings against Esau for his departing from the Church and therefore we do not say there was yet they that say there was not must prove there was not because the meer not mentioning that there was is no sufficient Proof that there was not And for any further Proof that Esau's falling off from his Church-membership was by his own act alone any further Proof for this then meerly the not expressing of any Church-proceedings against him we finde none The fifth Argument of the Synod for confirming this Particular That the persons spoken of do still continue Members is this Because otherwise a person admitted a member and sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving so to be may the Church whereof he was still remaining become a Non-member out of the Church and of the unclean world which the Scripture acknowledgeth not Whereto the answer in sum is this That as a Freemans childe of some Corporation is free-born and may in his minority trade under his father yet being grown up must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen or else may not trade for himself but is a Non-freeman by his own default and hath lost his Freedom by not entring in his own person into the common Engagement c. So and much more justly an adult person makes himself to become a Non-member by not covenanting personally as his father did Ans. It may be justly questioned whether this Comparison do suit the case in hand For 1. All the priviledge of this Freemans childe that is mentioned is this that he may in his minority trade under his Father which priviledge doth not at all arise from his being the childe of a Freeman and the reason is because one that is not a childe but onely a servant of such a Freeman may trade under the Freeman as his Master This being the priviledge of such Freemen that their Servants and others belonging to them though they are not free yet may trade for them and in their names which is upon then atter no priviledge at all to the childe or servant but onely to the Freeman himself under whom they trade But will any say that to be a childe of a Church-member is no priviledge at all to a childe but onely to the Father or will any say that the childe hath no more priviledge