Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	lord_n	servant_n	service_n	5,597	5	7.0128	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85777	A contention for truth: in two several publique disputations. Before thousands of people, at Clement Dane Church, without Temple Barre: upon the 19 of Nevemb. [sic] last: and upon the 26 of the same moneth. Betweene Mr Gunning of the one part, and Mr Denne on the other. Concerning the baptisme of infants; whether lawful, or unlawful.	Gunning, Peter, 1614-1684.; Denne, Henry, 1606 or 7-1660?	1658 (1658)	Wing G2234; Thomason E963_1; ESTC R202279	30,275	53

minor Infants are no Church members Oppo The minor is thus proved If Infants belong to the body of Christ as members of his body then are they Church members But Infants belong to the body of Christ as members of his body therefore Infants are Church members Res I deny the consequence though they be members of Christ body yet are they not to be accounted Church members Opp. If all the body of Christ be Church members then if they be of the body of Christ then are they Church members But all the body of Christ are Church members therefore Infants are Church members Res I deny the minor All the body of Christ are not Church members Oppo The minor is proved Ephe. 1. 23. And hath given him to be head over all things to the Church which is his Body The Father hath given Christ to be head over all things to the Church or in the Church which is his body Res You do now dishonour me in seeking to deceive my understanding the thing you were to prove was that all that did belong to the body of Christ are Church members And you bring me a TEXT to prove that all the Church is the body of Christ Oppo Where lyes the difference of these two propositions Res The difference is very great between these two propositions All the Church is his body and All his body is the Church As much as if I should say All that are in this place are Freemen of London and all Freemen of London are in this place If you have a TEXT that sayth All that belong to his body are Church members Let us hear that Oppo I will prove that Infants are Church members All that are called are Church members but Infants are called therefore Infants are Church members Res I deny the minor Infants are not called Oppo All that are Predestinated are called But Infants are Predestinated therefore Infants are called Res I deny the Major All that are Predestinated are not called Opp. The major is proved Rom. 8. 29 30. VVhom he did foreknow them he did Predestinate to be conformed to the image c. that he might be the first-born among many brethren Moreover whom he did Predestinate them also he called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified Out of this TEXT it follows that if Infants be Predestinate then they are called for whom he did Predestinate them also he called Res The Apostle speaks of such and to such to whom he Wrote this Epistle Here cannot be proved that all the Predestinate are Called neither do you your self beleeve it He hath Called the Predestinate Romans to whom he Wrote But he hath not Called all the Predestinate Oppo I will prove that Infants are Gods servants and that he owns them for his servants and calls them his servants and therefore they must necessarily be Baptised in regard they can do him no service at all but by being Baptised The proof of this is Levit. 25. 42. They are my servants which I brought forth of the Land of Egypt That is the Children as well as Men and Women for here the Lord renders a reason of his command viz. that in the Year of Jubile the Bondman should go free himself and his Wife and Children also And this reason is rendred for they are my Servants whom I brought out of the Land of Egypt He speaks of reall service such as Bondmen do perform towards their Masters now if it be required in a servant to do his Master service and Infants can do no other service Then it will follow that Infants must and ought to be Baptised Res I pray you produce your Syllogisme Concluding what you ought to conclude and I shall give you answer Oppo Thus I argue All Gods servants may Lawfully be Baptised Children are Gods servants Therefore they may Lawfully be Baptised Res I deny the major all Gods servants may not Lawfully be Baptised Oppo If a servant be one who doth service and they can do him no other service then either they may be Baptised or else they can do God no service at all yet God calls them servants Res I answer in two propositions First Infants do not perform any service to God by being Baptised Secondly Infants are Gods servants though Unbaptised or before they come to be Baptised Oppo What service do Unbaptised Infants do to God Give an instance Res They are very faithfull servants performing all things that God requireth of them to be performed by them Oppo That is just nothing they Eat and Drink and Sleep this is all they perform and all the service they can do Res It is good service for a servant to be quiet and do nothing when and where nothing is required it is disservice to be busy and doing when the Master requires nothing whereas you say they Eat and Drink c. I say therein they are Gods servants and that is the service God requires of them Oppo God speaks of real service such as Bondmen require from servants will any imagin a Bondman serves his Master that Eats and Drinks and doth nothing else This is strange service Kes Surely Eating and Drinking by Infants is a reall service such as Masters do require and all that they do require of their infant-Infant-servants and this proveth very advantageous for the Masters profit Suppose I buy a servant an Infant for Ten shillings this Infant Eats and Drinks and thereby grows in stature and I sell him for Ten pound was not his Eating and Drinking reall service Doth not the Ox in the pasture do the Master as reall service though he do nothing but Eat and Drink as the Ox that laboureth dayly at the Plough There will not be any thing gained by this Argument untill you can make it appear that the Eating and Drinking which is performed by Infants is no service of God Oppo I will proceed to another argument 2. Cor. 5. 14 15. If one dyed for all then were all dead And that he dyed for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves But unto him who dyed for them and rose again It is plain from hence that all Infants were dead if Christ dyed for them for thus the Apostle reasons If Christ dyed for all then were all dead But he dyed for all and therefore for Infants as well as others Therefore Infants were dead as others Res I confess all were dead But what this makes to the purpose to grant unto you that Infants were dead I do not perceive as yet Oppo If Infants were dead and it be the will of Christ they should be made alive again then may they lawfully be baptised But Infants were dead and it is the will of Christ they should be made alive again therefore they may lawfully be baptised Res I deny this consequence Though they were dead and it be the will of Christ they should be made alive again yet may

do not overcome the World Therefore they are not born of God Res Every thing in the TEXT must be extended no further then to such to whom the Apostle wrote Oppo I say the same thing this answers not the force of the argument at all I will prove by another argument that Children cannot be born again c. If Infants be born of Water and of the Spirit then are they Church members and Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant But Infants are not Church members nor Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant Therefore they are not born again of Water c. Res The minor is denyed Infants are Church members and Sons of the New Covenant Opp. If Infants be Church members and Sons of the New Covenant then they so know the Lord as not to need any teacher But Infants do not so know the Lord as not to need a teacher therefore Infants are not Church members nor Sons of the New Covenant Res The consequence is denyed Oppo If all the Church members and Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord then the Consequence is true But all Church members and the Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord Therefore the consequence is true Res The minor is denyed all the Church members and Children of the new Covenant do not so know the Lord as not to need to be taught to know the Lord Oppo The minor is proved Heb. 8 8 9 10 11. verses Jer 31. 33 34. verses This is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their mind and write them in their Hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People and they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest Res They shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every one his Brother that is they shall not be all Teachers James 3. My Brethren be not many Masters {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is Teachers every one should not be a Teacher to run before he be sent and intrude into the Office without a Lawfull call for no Man taketh this Office upon him but he that is called of God Again we know that not only Children but Beleevers Men and Women need teaching Oppo I am ashamed of your Interpretation of this TEXT so far from the truth and I am perswaded from your own Conscience Would you not have Christians to teach and exhort and edifie one another What manner of Spirit is this You say all need teaching so say I also But there are some things that the Children of the new Covenant need not be taught Ye need not that any Man teach you 1. John 2. 27. and that is to know the Lord which is rendred a reason of the first words they shall all know me from the least to the greatest Res This word All doth not include Children Infants Oppo I do not say it doth but it includes all Church members and Children of the new Covenant from the least to the greatest Least and greatest and middle and all Church members Res You insist much upon the word All All When the word All hath his restriction in many places of Scripture 1. Cor. 15. 27. It is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him Oppo I do not marvil that you so much except against me for insisting upon the word All and whereas you say the word All hath restriction in Scripture I do not deny it but to prevent a restriction in this place there is added from the Least to the Greatest I leave this to consideration and proceed If Children be born of Water and of the Spirit and be made Church members then are they Disciples But Children are not nor cannot be Disciples therefore they cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. Res The minor is denyed Infants may be Disciples and are Disciples Oppo If all Disciples must hate Father and Mother and Life for Christ and take up their cross and follow Christ then Infants who are not able to do these things cannot be Disciples But all Disciples must hate Father and Mother and Life for Christ and must take up their cross and follow Christ Therefore Infants cannot be Disciples Res The minor is denyed It is not required in every Disciple to hate Father and Mother and Life or to take up his cross and follow Christ but of such Disciples as are of years Oppo The minor is proved in every part of it by plain TEXT of Scripture Mat. 16. 24. Luke 14. 26 27. If any Man come unto me here is your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} so often alledged and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his own Life also he cannot be my Disciple and whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my Disciple Many TEXTS of the like kind there are Res If any One and Whosoever doth not include Children But the multitudes that went with him to whom he spake vers. 25th and in the 28th vers. Which of you intending to build a Tower c. he speaks of all them that are Capable to hear him and to understand him Oppo Take notice that this is a weapon of your own that I do oppose you with and consider how strange a thing you presented it to the People that I should restrain that place of the third of John Except any one be born again And you your self are forced to restrain this where the very same word is used I demand whether the proposition laid down in the TEXT be true Res You did restrain it but you gave no reason of your restraining it But I have good reason in the Context why it should be restrained Do you shew as good reason as I have done already Oppo I have shewed reasons equal with yours You say Christ spake to the multitudes which followed him I say Christ spake to Nicodemus who come to him to enquire of the wayes of God for himself Besides be pleased to remember that the restraint of the word was not my sole answer But I gave you answer taking it in the largest sence I gave you three answers you give only this Another argument If it be a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for or in the behalf of their Infants then the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull But it is a sin in Parents to require Baptisme in the behalf of their Infants Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull Res It is not a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants But a thing Commendable and good Opp. If Parents