Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	able_a	king_n	prince_n	336	4	5.3382	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88947	A modest & brotherly ansvver to Mr. Charles Herle his book, against the independency of churches. Wherein his foure arguments for the government of synods over particular congregations, are friendly examined, and clearly answered. Together, with Christian and loving animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said booke. All tending to declare the true use of synods, and the power of congregationall churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne officers, and censuring their offendors. By Richard Mather teacher of the Church at Dorchester; and William Tompson pastor of the Church at Braintree in New-England. Sent from thence after the assembly of elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about church-government.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.; Tompson, William, d. 1666.	1644 (1644)	Wing M1274; Thomason E37_19; ESTC R16954	50,642	62

argues not any want at all of authority or right In which respect they might be independent notwithstanding their imperfection in the other regard Suppose a father of children or master of a family through want of wisdome or courage be not able to rule his own children and houshold as Eli or suppose a King that is a child as Salomon speaks Eccles. 10. or Princes that are babes as the Prophet termeth them Isai. 3. be not able to govern their own subjects as Rehoboam 2 King 12. would you think this want of sufficient ability a sufficient argument to prove that such a Father or Master had no authority or right to rule his own children or houshold nor such a Prince any right to rule his subjects but that the families of the one must depend upon other families and the common-wealth of the other upon other common-wealths We suppose you would not say so And yet you may as well say it as say as here you doe that if Churches had been independent Antioch had been able her selfe sufficiently to have ended the cause Antioch finding her selfe not able may send to Jerulem for help and yet this sending neither proves right of jurisdiction in them of Jerusalem who are sent unto nor want of jurisdiction in them of Antioch who so doe send Yes say you An obliging the Churches by decrees laid on them as a burden is a use of the keyes in which use of them Ephesus is commended Pergamus and Thyatyra reproved pag. 25. Answ. But if this be a use of the Keyes may it not be of the Key of Doctrine as well as the Key of Discipline sith the burdens laid on them were not burdens of penalty but burdens of duty not punishments to be suffered for offence given but rules of practice to be observed lest offence should be taken as is plaine if the particulars be considered pag. 29. And therefore it seems the imposing these burdens was not so properly an act of jurisdiction and discipline as an act of Doctrine As for Ephesus the use of the Keyes for which they are commended is not as you affirme for imposing decrees as burdens upon one another nor is Pergamus or Thyatyra reproved for neglect of so doing but trying and detecting counterfeit Apostles which was a matter of doctrine and not bearing with them that were evil which was matter of discipline are the things for which Ephesus is commended and suffring them which were evill which was a neglect of Discipline is that for which the other are reproved Rev. 2. 2. 14. 20. But neither is the one commended for imposing decrees nor the other reproved for neglecting so to doe But you will prove that the Synod had jurisdiction and power of the Keyes of discipline because say you This Decree is it self a Rule given wherein and whereby to use the keyes upon such as shall prove stubborn in defending the contrary of what is here decreed and that authority which can give the rule can a fortiori back and punish its breach p. 25. Ans. But is this certain and clear that whoever hath authority by way of doctrine to impose a rule hath also authoritie by way of discipline to punish its breach we propose to consideration these instances for the contrarie First of all the Prophets in Israel Isaiah Joel Amos and the rest had authoritie by way of doctrine as being sent of God for that purpose to deliver the wil of God as a rule to be observed not onely by all the Princes and people but even by the Priests and Levits also for so we read they many times did and yet not being Priests themselves nor Levites they had not authority to punish by way of Discipline such as disobeyed their doctrine and those holy rules which they delivered from the Lord Nextly any one Minister who is truely sent of God may in his doctrine deliver the rules of Gods word to the people he is sent unto and impose those rules as burthens and necessary things to be observed and yet one Minister alone cannot punish the breach of those rules in a way of discipline because Church-discipline is to be dispenced by a Church Matth. 18. 17. and one man alone we are perswaded you will not say can be a Church Further any Minister or Ministers of one Church be it Congregationall or Nationall may upon occasion being desired thereto preach the word of God in another the like Church and so impose burdens of Christian duties to be observed by them that they thus occasionally preach unto yet it would not follow they might by discipline punish such as should walke contrary to those rules because the power of jurisdiction which they have when they are at home in their owne Church doth not reach so farre as unto that other Church where now they are called to preach the doctrine of the word Lastly there is no doubt but any Minister or Ministers of the Gospel if occasion served thereunto might by way of Doctrine deliver rules of faith and obedience unto Pagans and such as are no members of any Christian Church at all and might command them in the name of the Lord to observe those rules and yet it would not therefore follow that they might punish those Pagans in a way of discipline for the breach of those rules because the Apostle saith plainly What have I to doe to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea there are sundry good Writers in reformed Churches who do hold that Doctors in the Church have authority by their office to deliver sound wholsome doctrine from the Scriptures and yet may not meddle with dispensation of Sacraments nor Discipline See among others for this Calvines Instit. lib. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. And if this be so this may be another instance for the same purpose as the rest and by all this we suppose it is clear that some men may have authoritie by way of doctrine to impose rules that must be observed as necessary things and yet not have authoritie by way of discipline to punish those that shall disobey those rules And therefore though the first of these were granted to be within the power of a Synod yet that they have power to do the other also is not proved thereby CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to your fourth Argument taken from 1 Tim. 4. 14. laying on of the hands of the Presbytery HEnce I argue thus Such as are for independency admit of no other rule in Church-government but the Scripture practise or institution but where in all the Scripture read we of any ordination of Pastors but by Presbyters Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Titus was for this very cause left at Creet that he should ordain Elders in every City pag. 26 27. Answ. All that is here said is onely about ordination of Officers which at the most is but one part of the Ecclesiasticall government or jurisdiction And