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	servant_n	wife_n	7,379	5	6.5654	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90624	A vindication of The preacher sent, or A vvarrant for publick preaching without ordination. Wherein is further discovered. 1. That some gifted men unordained, are Gospel preachers. 2. That officers sustain not a relation (as officers) to the universal Church; and other weighty questions concerning election and ordination, are opened and cleared. In answer to two books. 1. Vindiciæ ministrij evangelici revindicatæ or the Preacher (pretendly) sent, sent back again. By Dr. Colling of Norwich. 2. Quo warranto, or a moderate enquiry into the warrantableness of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons. By Mr. Pool, at the desire and appointment of the Provincial Assembly of London. With a reply to the exceptions of Mr. Hudson and Dr. Collings against the epistle to the preacher sent. / Published by Frederick Woodal, minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk. Samuel Petto minister of the GospeI [sic] at Sandcraft in Suffolk.	Woodall, Frederick, b. 1614.; Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.	1659 (1659)	Wing P1902; Thomason E1728_2; ESTC R204138	152,808	253

question it must have been Ergo Office is a relation to the work and employment of the Ministry as its Correlate Arg. 2. The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is termniated Vin Revi But the office of the Ministry is terminated pag. 12. in the work Therefore the work is its Correlate Answ 1. An illogicall argument● in the major the subject of the relation is remembred in the Minor it is forgotten and the relation it self put in the place thereof If it were in form it must run thus The Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is terminated But the subject of office relation is terminated in the worke Ergo work is the Correlate Answ 2. If his major be understood universally viz. That the correlate to any relation is any thing wherein the subject is any way terminated we may fairely deny this without denying all Logick If it be taken particularly it is not conclusive against us we grant that the Correlate to any relation is that wherein the subject is so terminated as the essence or being of the relation is introduced by its termination as a Father is so terminated in a Son or Child that he hath his being as a Father in having a Son or Child and therefore a Son or child is Correlate so in other such relations But the Correlate to any relation is not that wherein the subject is terminated as the end of the relation for the ends cannot be attained until the relation it self hath an actuall existence and exist it cannot without a Correlate As the relation of a Father is terminated in the worke of a Father as its end yet there must be a Son or child in being before the doing of that work and the same may be said of other relations as Master and servant Husband and wife c. and thus the work of the Ministry being the end of that relation there must be a Correlate in being before that worke can be performed and so work cannot be the Correlate If this will hold good in relations secundum esse that is enough in this matter to evidence his argument to be false for that runneth generally the Correlate to any relation c. and besides it doth not yet appear that officers are relations secundum dici 2. As to his Minor we say The office of the Ministry is not terminated in the work considered absolutely but respectively as the office of the Mayor of Norwich is not terminated in the work of a Mayor or Magistracy absolutely and so for Justices of the peace or other civil officers if they go out of the city Corporation or county whereunto they are limited they cannot act as officers and therefore their office is terminated in their work in such a place or amongst such a people And thus the office of the Ministry is terminated not in the work in general but with respect and reference unto such a people or such a Church Relata sunt aliorum Dr. Collings proceedeth in a reply to our four arguments which shews that worke cannot be the Correlate to the Office In answer to the two first he saith Ob. 1. Officers are Relata secundum dici not Relata secundum esse nominal relations not those that Logicians call real relations Vind. Revind pag. 14. 15. 16. Answ We suppose Dr. Collings is the first that hath ranked officers who are to be over others amongst those that are Relata secundum dici we have not met with any Logicians that have done in before him the Rules upon which our arguments are built are known by all that are acquainted with Logick to be true in such as are Relata secundum esse Answ 2. Against its being a Nominall Relation we shall offer an argument or two Arg. 1. If the office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation then it is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse or a real relation But the Office of the Ministry hath no absolute being nor doth appertain to any other predicament besides that of Relation Ergo The office of the Ministry is according to Logicians a relation secundum esse The major none that is acquainted with Logick can deny The Minor appeareth because there is no other predicament that it is reducible to let him shew to which if it may be referred We yet adhere to Aristotle in this and Seton who giving an instance of predicamental relation giveth it in the office of Magistracy we suppose the office of the Ministry is in the same predicament with that Arg. 2. If officers qua officers have their whole being in respect and reference unto others then office is a Relation secundum esse but officers qua officers have their whole being in respect reference unto others Ergo office is a relation secundum esse The major he cannot deny The Minor he excepteth against Ob. But the Essence of office lyeth not in its relation but in that authority wherewith the person is cloathed by his ordination Vind. Revind pag. 14. Answ 1. Authority hath no Causal influence into office but floweth from it and followeth after it therefore the essence of Office doth not consist in it The London Ministers say Church Officers are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first recepticle or subject of Church authority Jus. Divin Regim pag. 163. If so then officers are before authority at least prioritate nature and then authority is but an adjunct which though a necessary concequent yet is no constituent consider Master and Scholers a Tutor pupils c. Ans 2 If this were true then it were possible for a relation to hold though every thing in the world should cease which it should stand referred to There might be a relation and yet nothing be related to or else ordination in such a case must be lost It is not proved that a person can stand cloathed with the authority of the Ministerial relation if there be no Church that he standeth related to Ob. 2. Relations exist and perish together as to the same degree of being A man is not actually an officer when he cannot do his Office but the habit remaines Vind. Revind pag. 14. Ans Zabarel whom he mentionethis against him who saith Non est relatio nisi interea que sunt actu non est enim pater nisi qui actu filium habeat quo fit ut semper necessarium sit uno relativorum existente alterum quoque existere Zab. de fac an cap. 3. Consider Job to day he hath children he is a Father consider him to morrow he hath no children he is no Father when he hath none it is possible he may afterward shall we say therefore he is potentially or habitually a father His dividing an officer into actual and potential is as the dividing Ens into Ens non Ens. His instance about the Mayor of Norwich is

nothing to his purpose we grant that though he be sick or in prison and so cannot execute his Office yet he is not only potentially but actually an officer still But suppose the City of Norwich should either by fire or sword or famine or any such sad providence cease to exist if the Mayor should be left alive we ask whither he could be deemed a Mayor or an Officer still when there were no City of Norwich existing to be the correlate to him as a Relate The like we say in the case in hand how can a man remain in the Office of the Ministry if there be no Church as a correlate for him to stand related to Either he must be an Officer or no Officer If there be no Church existing that he is over then no Officer existeth for they exist and perish together as to the same degree of being What he meaneth by habit of Office we know not He intends not we suppose the indelible character which Bellarm. saith is qualitas absoluta as every habit excepting the tenth predicament Office cannot be proved a qualitative habit forasmuch as it is not any thing inherent in body or mind but something adherent onely And now Christian Reader thou mayest see Dr. Collings dealeth not kindly with thee in perswading that Officers are nominal relations Is it not more likely that Office should be such a relation as is between a father and child master and servant husband and wife Magistrate and subject then such a relation as is between scibile scientia a thing to be known and the knowledge of this thing Object But may not a man be in the Office of Colonel though at present he hath neither men to make up a Regiment nor consequently the goverment of them it is his Commission makes him an Officer Vind. Revind pag. 15. Ans This is but a similitude and so proveth nothing and it will serve our purpose as well as his for his Commission doth not make him an habitual Officer nor give him a power in actu primo to act as a Colonel in the goverment of all Regiments in the Army but limiteth him unto one particular Regiment and so will speak as much against a mans being an Officer to any but a particular Church as it may seem to speak for the actual existence of a relation without a correlate 2. Here is a begging another question viz. That Ordination doth Commissionate men to be Officers this being denyed there is no parity in the cases and so no strength in the objection We have proved that Election with acceptation doth make men to be Officers and so the correlate viz. the Church electing doth exist as soon as the Officer 3. We would know whether a Licence given a man from his Prince whereby he is impowered to keep so many servants unto such an end and so to govern them doth make a man a Master when not one servant is engaged by him or related to him 4. A Colonels Commission before he hath a Regiment doth authorize him to raise one giveth him right unto a Colonels pay and so maketh him an Officer nominal and Titular but it is the Assignment or submission of a Regiment unto him that maketh him an Officer reall and actual Many Captains and Colonels retain Commissions and former Titles when Wars are ended and Companies are disbanded yet are no Officers but as is expressed If he will yet contend that a Colonel as is instanced is an officer we say further In ordinary cases a Regiment is Assigned to him and if he hath none he can be but an extraordinary Officer answerable to Apostles having Commission from the General of the Army as the Apostles had their call and Commission immediately from Christ not from men Ergo there is no parity in the cases and so the instance is vain Obj. 3. To our third Argument he saith The Gospel owneth the Church as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry Acts 20. 17. 28. But not alone he saith it owns the work too Ephes 4. vers 11. 12. and Ephes 4. is as much Gospel as Act. 20. 17. Vind. Revind pag. 16. Answ In the Major of our third Argument nothing is wanting not alone or onely for the Church alone or onely is the correlate to a Church Officer should we say a wi●e is the correlate in wedlock not onely but cohabitation c. Or a Son not onely but Education whatever we might be for Logicians yet in this our Logick would not be good In dividing between the correlate and the end non dividimus componenda sed distinguenda which upon second thoughts he will not blame us for That Ephes 4. is Gospel we grant but that it owneth the work as the correlate we deny It owneth the work of the Ministry as one end of Office-gifts not as the correlate to the Office of the Ministry It is said he gave some to be Apostles c. and if it be enquired for what end the answer is for the work of the Ministry Obj. 4. To our fourth Argument he saith It is a feeble Argument Vind. Revind pag. 17. 18. which is drawn from names and titles If we say that all their titles have the Church onely as their correlate he desires to know whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have so 1 Tim. 27. c. He saith every rational creature yea God himself is the correlate and therefore they are called the Ministers of God c. He desireth us to shew one Scripture where a Preaching Minister is called the Minister of the Church he addeth that we speak no Scripture phrase when we call Ministers i. e. preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church c. Answ 1 An Argument from Names and Titles surely is as feeble when our brethr●n use it as when we use it against them doth not D. Collings argue from the name of Officers to their acts and particularly from the title of Teacher Vin. pag. 34. yea in this very book Vind. Revind pag. 89. lin 1 2 3 4. 5. Also to prove the Office of the Ministry of divine institution the London Ministers argue expressely from their Names and Titles Jus. Divin Minst pag. 8. 9. 2 So far as Nomen is notamen rei so far definitio nominis is definitio rei Consider Father in a naturall sense and the definition of the Name is the definition of the thing The names of Pastor Teacher Elder c. Notifie the relation and so are forcibly Argumentative for a Churches being the Correlate 3. The intendment of some names and titles is not to expresse what is the Correlate but some thing else about a relation as Officers may be called Ministers of God and Christ onely to intimate who is the Author and institutor of their office Ministers of the Word to intimate what is the subject of their preaching Cryers or preachers as in the Texts he mentioneth 1 Tim. 2. 7.

not the Office that is in thee So it would follow that either Timothy had the extraordinary gift when not the Office or the Office when not the gift that qualified for it It is a feeble Argument that cannot stand unless there be a receding from the usual signification of divers words and a plain sense of the Texts alleadged for it And himself can find their argument to amount but to an it may be and so we may retort upon him what he groundlesly saith to us pag. 126. all the answer it deserves is it may not be he should not onely have shewed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for Office and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but that they must be so taken here else their Argument is invalid We said one relate gives being to another Object It is true in esse constituto but consider relations in esse constituendo as they are to be constituted and so somewhat else gives being to them the husband gives being to the wife and the wife to the husband but there is something else which legally constitutes them in that relation to wit the act of the Justice or Minister pag. 151. Answ Relata give being one to another in esse constituendo especially if they be voluntary Relations as this between Officer and a Church is thus a mutual Covenant or agreement constitutes one a master and another a servant and so for husband and wife the act of the Magistrate is not constitutive of the relation between man and wife but Declarative What he addeth about Titus was answered before he was not left in Crete to ordain only but to Preach and to perform other acts peculiar to his office CHAP. XIV Concerning the peoples power in some cases to Ordain THat in a Church which hath no officer or officers in it some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain without officers we proved by six Arguments Mr. Pool replyeth to three of them Argu. 1. Else Ordination were unattainable for there is not one precept nor president of an ordinary officers acting in Ordination out of the particular Church he is over Ob. 1. There are divers practices lawfully used which yet we find no president for but such as extraordinary persons are concerned in as excommunication Mr. Pool p. 153. Answ If there be a precept for such practices as there was for excommunication Mat. 18. we do not require a president our Argument was from the want both of precept and president Ob. 2. It is against them if what they say be true then there is neither precept nor president for the ordaining of officers Mr. Pool pag. 153. Ans This is a great mistake also for we did not deny that an ordinary officer hath precept or president for acting in Ordination in the Church he is over but that any of the Texts alleadged for Ordination do warrant his ordaining out of the particular Church he is over this is it which we deny and so if a Church wanteth officers then those Texts warrant none in ordaining and other general Rules authorize no officers of other Churches to do it more then believers without office● And this answereth also what he addeth pag. 153. 154. we grant that some acts of extraordinary officers are presidents for us but not such acts as are of an extraordinary nature or did flow from an extraordinary power In the act it self of ordaining the Apostles are presidents for us but if Ordination was upon the hands of Apostles Ministerially in every Church yet it doth not follow it ought to be so on the hand of every Minister in this the Apostles are not presidents because they were Elders in every Church so are not ordinary officers as we have proved That the proper Elders of every Church should carry on the work in their own Churches is according to the president but it reacheth no further Ob 3. For 1 Tim. 4. 14. we read nothing of them which was extraordinary Mr. Pool pag. 154. Answ 1. It s very probable it was an extraordinary Presbytery For there is not a word to evidence it to consist of ordinary persons Apostles were Presbyters 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. Joh. 1. and Paul one of the Presbytery 2 Tim. 1. 6. we proved before that no office was conveyed 1 Tim. 4. 14. and if it were onely an extraordinary gift no ordinary Presbytery could convey that himself saith the power of conferring such gifts was the priviledge of Apostles and extraordinary officers p. 150. he that will conclude it an ordinary Presbytery must argue a genere ad speciem affirmative and say it was a Presbytery Ergo it was an ordinary one 2. If it were an ordinary Presbytery which yet is not granted the Call to lay on hands was extraordinary by Prophesie as themselves confess Jus Div. Min. p. 167. and this is enough to our present Argument Ar. 2. Our second Argument is taken from believers acting in a Synod Act. 15. and other publick services Ob. 1. If there be Scripture precept or example for the one and not for the other then they may do the one and not the other Mr. Pool pag. 155. Answ Where hath he any Scripture precept or example for provincial National or oecumenical Synods invested with power of censures he must argue from a parity of reason which is no good plea in that case there being no institution for any such Assemblies if they were instituted their being warranted to do some services might by a parity of reason evidence them to be empowered for other services also and thus believers not in office have a warrant to act in other publick and more weighty services as Preaching c. Ergo they may act in this Ob. 2. I deny that the brethren acted in making the decrees thousands consent to acts of Parliament that have no hand in making them pag 155. Answ The acts themselves are ascribed to the brethren Act. 15. the whole Church is said to send ver 22. and the letters did run in their name ver 23. The Apostles and Elders and brethren send greeting c. All in whose name an act of Parliament runneth are not onely consenters but makers of the act so here As to what he saith pag. 156. to Numb 8. 10. we leave it to any unprejudiced Reader to judge whether their Arguments or our answers carry most evidence with them Ob. 1. This was an extraordinary case the Levites and Church officers were not yet instituted c. pag. 156. Ans Though the Levites were not instituted before yet there were other officers the Provincial Assembly tell us Jus Divin Min. pag. 188. Aaron and his sons were present and if it proves any thing it proves that the people may ordain where there are Elders Master Pool saith it is as if a man should argue gifted men may Preach where no Ministers are to be had therefore they may do it where there is plenty of Ministers

Rom. 10. 14. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used to signifie their declaring or publishing their message as Cryers or Heralds use to do Some names and titles are not intended for the discovering what is the Correlate to the Office of the Ministry but for other ends and therefore our Argument is firme though all titles have not the Church onely as their Correlate 4. We judge his first answer which he calleth most proper to this Question To whom are they Officers most improper For it is this to Jesus Christ Should a King passe through a street and it be enquired what or whose King goeth there and one should answer Christs King he should give a very improper answer and leave the enquirer in the dark but he that informeth that he is the King of France c. leadeth into light So for a Mayor its improper to say there goeth the Protectors Mayor but there goeth the Mayor of Norwich is proper 5. Whereas he saith p. 18. every creature is the Correlate to office as well as the Church 1. If so then the Elders of the Church are the Elders of the World Angels of the Churches Angels of the World then Pastors and Teachers set in the Church are set in the World too but where did he ever read of Elders of the world c. 2 We would know what is the foundation of the relation between a pastor and the world is it founded in nature as that of Parent and children or in Will or consent as that of Husband and wife Master and Servant or in some third thing 3. Then it s more proper to call Officers World-Officers then Church Officers as to call the Protector Protector of England rather then of London because of the extent of authority and office-power Nor is that reason in the least cogent viz. Officers are appointed to gather out of the World members unto Christ Suppose an Embassador from England be in France dispatching businesse for his master there he is not thereby related unto France So an Embassador for Christ in the world is not related unto the world as his Correlate but onely to the flock he is ever in the Lord. He saith moreover That God is the Correlate that God is the Author and institutor thereof we acknowledge upon which account there ariseth a Metaphysical respect between Officers and God and they are the Ministers of God but as the Correlate of a King is a subject and only that in predicamental relation he who is to be governed Ruled and not God So the correlate of a Church Officer is the Church and onely that which is to be watched over prayed for instructed by vertue of a special bond in which the Officer is engaged unto it The duty of a relation terminates upon the correlate God were to be governed if he were the Correlate of a Governour 6. Preaching Ministers are expressely called Elders of the Church Acts. 20. v. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church And this is as much as to say The Minister of the Church if not more for Elder is the name of Office They are called by that Church whereunto they are related Revel 2. v. 1. Vnto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus v. 8. Vnto the Angel of the church in Smyrna so v. 12. 18. and this is as much as to say the Ministers of such a church for what is it to be the angel of such a Church but to be the Minister thereof And whereas he beseecheth us not to endeavour to abuse simple Souls with such wofull falacies Vind. Revind pag. 19. Now let the Reader judge who hath gone about to abuse him most Dr. Collings or we Whereas he saith this is no Scripture phrase to call preaching Ministers Ministers of such a Church Our second position is this Posit That Officers stand in relation as Officers to a particular Church onely not to an universall Church Dr. Collings insi●●eth upon an explication of the word Church and some other premises from pag. 19. to pag. 27. or 29. to which we shall not give any further reply at present then he meeteth within the answer to his Epistle Ob. 1. In his reply to our first Argument He complaines of fowl disputing because we take away the subject or suppositum of the question Answ When the question was whether the Pope were the supream Officer of the Universal visible Church Learned Protestants denyed the being of the Universal visible Church disputing fully against the adversary not fowlly as he saith Ob. 2. He tels us Vind. Revind pag. 29. what we say may be granted and yet nothing is proved by it Answ This we confesse we understand not how it was possible that the subject or the suppositum of a question can be taken away so as nothing should be proved if the whole be granted we desire to know of him by the next But what is his reason If the Gospel knowes a Church Vniversall under any notion though not under a Political forme it is enough Vind. Revind p. 29. Ans No Organ is related but to a body Organical hands and feet armes and legs as so are not related to flesh and blood as so but as so formed Rulers are not related unto men as so but as formed in societies and reduced under policy and Government as he referreth us to Mr. Hudson so we may refer him to Mr. Hooker Mr Stone and to our owne Epistle Our second Argument he putteth into a form of his own under a pretence to mend some faults it it and is not satisfied with that forme which himselfe put it into but then putteth it into an other and thus findeth himself work Surely this is not fair dealing he might have shewn us the faults of our argument and lest it to us to mend them and not cast them into his own form and then spend time in answering them we shall onely say this in way of answer Answ 1. As he hath formed the Argument the Office of the Ministry is made the correlate whereas we assert the Church to be the correlate let the Reader now judge whether he doth not wrong himself and us by this way of proceeding 2. Our Argument proceeded upon those Relative names and Titles which the Scripture expresseth Officers by and which they cannot lose without losing their Office and which are used upon the most special occasions and these Titles forbid a Universal Church to be the correlate unto Office as is shewn Preacher sent pag. 10. 11. c. As to Acts 20. 28. It concludeth that an Officer is commanded to feed all the flock that he standeth in the relation of a Bishop or Overseer to and so denyeth a Universal Church to be that flock which he is an Officer or Overseer to for he is not commanded to feed all the Universal Church And this sheweth that the terms Pastor and Teacher when used to expresse Office are