The Disputes Between Cranford and Chamberlain

But Paul was a Tent-maker, and did continue so, notwithstanding his Preaching. Act. 18.1, 2, 3. and 20.34. and 1 Thes. 2.9.

Therefore Tradesmen Ordained Ministers, or Ordained Ministers, may Work.

Mr. Cranf. answered, that though Paul might, it was not lawful for other Ministers to Work.

But the Elders of Ephesus, (Act. 20.17.) ought to Work, Vers. 35.

Therefore Ministers Ordained, may Work.

There was no Answer by Negation, or Distinction, but a miscelaine of Discourses, therefore Dr. Chamb. proceeded as followeth:

If Paul being Ordained to Preach, and more privileged from Working then others, might Work, then others less privileged might work also.

But Paul being Ordained to Preach, and more privileged from working then others might Work,

Therefore others less privileged from Work, might Work also.

Mr. Cranf. affirmed, that Paul was not more privileged from Work.

Dr. Chamb. proved it from 1 Cor. 9.6. Have not we power to forbear working, &c. The whole scope of the place is to set forth Paul and Barnabas 's privilege above Others.

Which being denied by Mr. Cranf. Dr. Chamb. referred it to the Auditory.

Whereupon Mr. Cranf. affirmed, That the privilege to Paul and Barnabas was not more, but was common to others. Dr. Chamb. then replied.

If Paul, who was like privileged as others, might Work, then others might Work also.

Here Mr. Cranf. made a long discourse, in the close whereof, upon some words interposed by Dr. Chamb. Mr. Cranf. by way of consent affirmed, That whosoever hath an immediate Call by Christ, may Preach, anywhere without Ordination.

They who are immediately called by Christ, may preach anywhere without Ordination.

But some Tradesmen are immediately called by Christ,

Therefore some Tradesmen may preach without Ordination.

They who are immediately called by the Word of Christ, are immediately called by Christ.

But some Tradesmen are immediately called by the Word of Christ,

Therefore some Tradesmen are immediately called by Christ.

They who are gifted by the immediate reading of the Word of Christ, are immediately called by the Word of Christ:

But some Tradesmen are gifted by the immediate reading of the Word of Christ,

Therefore some Tradesmen are immediately called by the Word of Christ.

All that are gifted are gifted by Christ, ( Ephesians. 4.8. 1 Peter 4.10.

But they that are gifted by the Word, are gifted.

Therefore they that are gifted by the Word are gifted by Christ. Rom. 1.12. and 1 Cor. 12. was also instanced.

They that are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness; are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ:

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness,

Therefore the Ministers of London, (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Minor, to wit, That the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness.

They that are not formed as the Ministers of Righteousness are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness.

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not formed as the Ministers of Righteousness,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness.

They that are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist, are not formed as the Ministers of Jesus Christ,

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist.

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not formed as the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

They that are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist, are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist,

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist.

They that are Ordained in the manner, succession, and power of Antichrist, are Ordained as the ministers of Antichrist:

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are Ordained in the manner, succession, and power of Antichrist,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Mi. Which containeth three Particulars, and therefore three several Series of Sylogismes.

First for the manner this Syllogism was prepared.

They that are commonly required to have had their Education in Schools, to be furnished with Antichristian Titles, to have Approbation from men of such Titles, and sent from them, to be over a flock (oftentimes) whether the flock will or no: are Ordained in the manner of Antichrist. (For the Pope likewise dispenseth sometimes with Education, and Titles, and some flocks are not unwilling to receive Antichristians.)

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are commonly required to have had their education in Schools, to be furnished with Antichristian Titles, and approved by men of such Titles, and by them sent out to be over a flock (oftentimes) whether the flock will or no.

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are Ordained in the manner of Antichrist.

But the Succession was desired to be proved, and therefore the Syllogisms for that followeth.

They that have their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist, are Ordained in Succession of Antichrist:

But the Ministers of London (Presbiterian-Ministers) have their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are Ordained in the Succession of Antichrist.

If they have it by Succession, and there were no other Succession but from Antichrist: then they have it by Succession from Antichrist.

But they had it by Succession, and there was no other Succession but from Antichrist.

Therefore they had their Ordination by succession from Antichrist.

Here Dr. Chamb. desired to express, that by Succession he meant public Succession, allowed of by the Powers of the Nation: which Mr. Cranf. assented to, and denied the Mi.

They that had their Ordination from the Bishops, had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist.

But the Ministers of London (Prsbyterian-Ministers) had their Ordination from the Bishops,

Therefore they had it by Succession from Antichrist.

Here the Dispute grew into some disorder, but the thing to be proved was they that had their Ordination from Bishops, had it from Antichrist. As thus,

If Bishops themselves had their Ordination from Antichrist, then they that had their Ordination from Bishops, had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist.

But Bishops themselves had their Ordination from Antichrist,

Therefore they that had their Ordination from Bishops had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist.

If from Rome, then from Antichrist.

But from Rome,

Therefore from Antichrist.

But from Rome since Antichrist was Antichrist,

Therefore if from Rome, then from Antichrist.

Here Mr. Cranf. made a long digression concerning the Church of Rome, and a Church in Rom • : and said, That

1 The Church of Rome was a true Church, till our separation from it.

2 The Pope of Rome was Antichrist these thousand years.

3 A true Church in Rome till this day.

Which when Dr. Chamb. read over, there were exceptions taken, that he had not read as Mr Cranf. spake. For they affirmed he said, there might be a true Church in Rome till this day; Nempe Fidelium,

So Dr. Chamb. formed a Syllogism against it.

That Church which hath not the true Signs and seals of a true Church, is no true Church,

But the Church of Rome hath not the true signs and seals of a true Church.

Therefore it is no true Church.

Mr, Cranf. said you would fain draw me to believe it, but you shall not draw me to it with Horses. The Church of Rome might be a true Church, though full of Errors: as a man may be a true man, though full of sores and Ulcers. And though the Church were Erroneous, yet the Ordination might be true. As many other things may be true which the Church of Rome did hold. And that Ordination was not Antichristian, till Protestants separated from them.

Dr. Chamb. then said, they separated from a true Church: and so the separation made it false.

Mr. Cranf. said, they separated from them, when they began to be false.

Dr. Chamb. offered to prove, they were not yet separated from them.

If you did separate, then either you did separate from their Doctrine or their Power.

But you did separate from neither,

Therefore you did not separate.

The complaint was that now the Question was lost, and they were gone to new Questions. So Dr. Chamb. returned to the Question thus.

If no other public Ordination but from the Pope since separation, then from Antichrist by your own confession.

But no Ordination but from the Pope.

Therefore from Antichrist.

Mr. Cranf. said, The Church of Rome was a true Church still. But because Mr. Cranf. in his discourse did either let fall sometimes what he would not own, or Dr. Chamb. was supposed to mistake what Mr. Cranf. spake, it was desired that Mr. Cranf. woud write down his own Words, and Positions, which he did, as followeth.

1 The Church of Rome was once a true Church of Christ.

2 In the Church of Rome there happened many corruptions in Doctrine.

3 The Bishop of Rome, sometimes a true Minister of the Church, usurping a universal power over all Churches, became Antichrist.

4 After his usurpation, there wanted not many (both Bishops and other Teachers) that opposed this usurpation of the Pope till the Protestants departed from it.

5 There remained, oppressed by the Papacy, a true Church of Christ in Rome, till our separation from them.

6 From this true Church (I say not pure Church) in Rome, our first Reformers had their Ordination, which was in the essentials true, and from Christ.

7 The Pope of Rome, hath been Antichrist, I believe about a thousand years, that is so long as he hath usurped power over all Churches.

8 There was a true Ministerial Church in Rome, when we separated from the Papacy.

Ja. Cranford.

If no Ministerial Church in Rome, since the Pope was Antichrist, but what was from the power of the Pope, then there was no such Church in Rome when you separated.

But there was no Ministerial Church in Rome since the Pope was Antichrist, but what was from the Power of the Pope,

Therefore there was no such Church in Rome when you separated.

If the Pope were the root of Antichrist, Then all Ministerial Officers from him were Antichristian.

But the Pope was the Root of Antichrist.

Therefore all Ministerial Officers from him were Antichristian as Branches.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Consequence. Though the Pope were the Root of Antichrist, yet all Ministerial Officers under him were not Antichristian.

Dr. Chamb. then mentioned Mat. 7.16, 17, 18. But there being a disorderly discourse, he argued thus:

If all power derived from the Pope acknowledged his power, as a power over all Churches, then they were all Antichristian.

But all power derived from the Pope, acknowledged the Popes power as a power over all Churches.

Therefore they were all Antichristian.

Mr. Cranf. then fell into discourse again, and said, That the Roman Church at the time when Luther separated, was a true Church.

Dr. Chamb. offered to prove, it was then no true Church.

Where there were no true Sacraments, there was no true Church.

But in the Church of Rome when Luther separated, there were no true Sacraments.

Therefore then there was no true Church.

The Minor was denied. That in the Church of Rome when Luther separated, there were true Sacraments.

Where there was no true Baptism, there were no true Sacraments.

But in the Church of Rome, when Luther separated there was no true Baptism.

Therefore in the Church of Rome, when Luther separated, there were no true Sacraments.

Where it was not administered on the true subject, there was no true Baptism.

But in the Church of Rome, when Luther separated, Baptism was not administered on the true subjects.

Therefore in the Church of Rome, when Luther separated, there was no true Baptism.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Minor, which was to affirm, That in the Church of Rome when Luther separated, Baptism was administered on the true Subjects.

They that a 〈7 letters〉 red 〈◊〉 no • on Believers and Repenters, admi •••• red 〈…〉 the true subjects.

But the Ch ••• h of •• me when Luther separated, did not administer it on Believers and Repenters.

Therefore they did not administer it on the true subjects.

They that administer it on Children, administer it not on Believers and Repenters:

But the Church of Rome, when Luther separated, administered it to Children,

Therefore they did not administer it on Believers and Repenters.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Major.

Dr. Chamb. asked whether Children could believe and repent.

Mr. Cranf. answered they had Faith and Repentance in their Parents.

But he denied the Major, because, though the Church of Rome did administer Baptism on Children supposing them a false subject, yet they might administer it on others also: And might administer it both on true and false, and the administration on the false, did not hinder, but it might be administered on the true also.

Hereupon Dr. Chamb. undertook to prove, that they did administer it to none but false, by the Syllogism following.

They that only administer Baptism to no believers or mis-believers, to no repenters or mis-repenters, administer it only to the false subject.

But the Church of Rome administer it only to no believers or mis-believers, to no repenters or mis-repenters. As Children and Roman Proselytes.

Therefore to none but false subjects.

Here Dr. Chamb. was desired to return to the first Question, and so he proceeded to this Argument following out of 2 Cor. 11.20.

They that bring the flock into bondage, or devour them, or take of them, or exalt themselves, or smite them on the face, are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) do some or all of these,

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. denied both, but desired Dr. Chamb. rather to prove the Major. Wherein Mr. Cranf. was to hold, that they who brought the flock into bondage, or devour them, or take of them, or exalt themselves, or smite them on the face, are the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

This was thought somewhat strange, being the Major were the very words of the Text.

They that are Fools are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ:

But they that bring the flock into bondage, or devour them, or take of them, or smite them on the face are fools:

Therefore they that bring the flock into bondage, or devour them, or take of them, or smite them on the face, are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Whereat Dr. Chamb. professeth he was not a little startled, that Mr. Cranford. should allow fools to be the Ministers of Jesus Christ. For though the Ministers of Jesus Christ may be sometimes accounted fools, yet he could not imagine that fools should be accounted Ministers of Jesus Christ, but this Syllogism followed.

They that are not Qualified as, 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. are no Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But fools are not qualified as, 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1.

Therefore they are no Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. here was pleased to confirm the Text by way of restraint only to the wicked fool, though the quallifications require a vindication from Idiotisme also. As (Vers. 2.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and Vers. 4. and 6. of 1 Tim. 3. and Vers. 9. of Tit. 1.

And therefore Mr. Cranf. affirmed, that men may be wicked, yea false, and yet the true Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Whereupon Dr. Chamb. said, it was true that the Devils themselves in some sense may be said to be the Ministers of Christ in executing his judgments, and all the wicked also in such a large sense, which if that were it which Mr. Cranf. contended for, it were granted him. Whereupon Mr. Cranford ( • ronically) put off his hat, and made a leg, and said, we thank you Mr. Doctor, we thank you. Dr. Chamb. with the same pleasantness bad him, much good might it do him.

But said he, do you allow wicked men to be Presbyterian-Ministers?

No, said Mr. Cranf, we would hinder them, and forbid them.

Then you would forbid the true Ministers of Jesus Christ, (said Dr. Chamb. ) by your own saying.

I said no such matter, (said Mr. Cranf. )

You said, that true Ministers of Christ might be wicked (said Dr. Chamb. )

Said Mr. Cranf. They cease to be Ministers of Christ when we forbid them.

Then, till then (said Dr. Chamb. ) you affirm they are so.

Yea, (said Mr. Cranf. )

Then Dr. Chamb. appealed to the Auditory.

But (said Dr. Chamb. ) why do you not forbid them?

That is our grief, (said Mr. Cranf. ) we would, but have no power.

Ministers of Christ want not Power.

But Presbyterian-Ministers want Power,

Therefore they are no Ministers of Christ.

Mr. Cranf. answered, Habent Potestatem, non Potentiam, which was left to those that could cut a thread between them.

The third Argument was from Mark, 9.39. and Luke 9. verse. 49

They, who forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden, are no true Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden,

Therefore the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are no true Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Major, which was to affirm, that they, who forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden, are the true Ministers of Jesus Christ: and instanced Gal. 2. and Act. 11. Which Dr. Chamb. referred to the Auditory. Whereupon Mr. Sute was pleased to side with Mr. Cranf. in the Quotations. But Dr Chamb. asked, where any command of Christ was there forbidden? For though Peter were reproved in both places: yet neither Peter, nor the Apostles, did there forbid any of the commands of Christ. The Apostles (indeed) did examine Peter about his going unto the Gentiles, but upon Peters Relation, were so far from forbidding, that they held their peace, and glorified God. Act. 11. verse. 18.

The time being somewhat late, that meeting broke up, ending in Prayer. And Mr. Cranf. appointed the next meeting on the sixth of April, 1652.

They that forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden, are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But the Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden,

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian-Ministers) are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. said the Major was Nonsence.

Dr. Chamb. appealed to the Auditory.

Then Mr. Cranf. denied the Major and Minor. The Major if it were affirmed, that Presbyterian Ministers, did purposely and maliciously forbid, what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden.

The Minor, if with restrictions mentioned, to wit, that Presbyterian Ministers do not forbid any one in Ecclesia constituenda or coufusa.

Dr. Chamb. would not urge the Major, as that Presbyterian Ministers did purposely and maliciously, therefore, forbid anything because it was the command of Christ, though ignorance itself doth not excuse a toto, sed a tanto. For 2 Thes. 1.8. the vengeance is on them also that knew not God. And divers other places.

They that forbid Preaching by true Ministers of Jesus Christ in a true Church, forbid what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) forbid Preaching by true Ministers of Christ in a true Church

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) forbid, what Christ hath commanded not to be forbidden.

Saith Mr. Cranf. you shall never prove the Minor whilst your head is on your shoulders.

Dr. Chamb. replied, I hope my head may continue on my shoulders without offense to any, and yet I shall prove the Minor.

They that forbid gifted men Ordained by a true Church to Preach in a true Church, forbid Preaching by true Ministers in a true Church.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) forbid gifted men, Ordained by a true Church, to Preach in a true Church.

Therefore Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) forbid Preaching by true Ministers, in a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Major, if in Ecclesia Fidelium:

The Minor, if in Ecclesia Organica.

Dr. Chamb. here took the liberty to make a short discourse concerning a Church, and that both in regard that Mr. Cranf. did constantly run into divers discourses between several Syllogysmes, therefore Dr. Chamb. might take that liberty once, and because that now there was such an occasion given to explain that word which hath occasioned so many great controversies, and did now necessarily require an explanation, as might appear by Mr. Cranford 's distinguishing upon the word.

Therefore in the first place Dr Chamb. shown, that the word ought to be explained from 1 Cor. 14.11. And that for want of explaining this word, and the word Bishop, and Presbyter, and Deacon, and the like, so many Barbarous Warrs and Actions have been in the world.

The word Church is from the Saxon, Kirk, as the Scots yet pronounce it. It is thought to be derived from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a derivative from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (Lord) as dedicated to the Lord. And the place where the Lord's of the Senate did meet in Athens, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (a Court Comitia. ) But Church amongst us, is supposed the translation of the Original word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So that Church should signify to us, what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signify to the Grecians. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (to call forth) doth signify a company of People called together from among other People and so, any Assembly whatsoever, that are called together, as the Interpreters themselves have plainly declared, by interpreting the word in Act. 19.25. an Assembly, though it were not to the worship of God. And whether it were a lawful assembly, ( verse. 39.) or unlawful ( verse. 32 41.) But by way of excellency, because no Assembly so worthy as that which is called together to the worship of God: Therefore it is ordinarily taken for such, wherein we must also distinguish between the Church of Christ, and a Church of Christ. The Church comprehends all the faithful Saints from the beginning of the World to the end. As Ephes. 1.22. and 3.21. and 5.23. &c. Col. 1.18.24. and 1 Cor. 12.28. Heb. 12.23.

A Church of Christ also is taken for any Church of Christ respectively, as Mat. 18.17. and 1 Cor. 14. and 4.17. &c. 1 Cor. 7.17. and 11.16.15.9. Philip. 3.6.

And it hath also several other Appellations, as House, City, Body, Spouse, and Family, or definitively either: And that an uncertain providential Assembly or meeting; as Mat. 18.20. Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ. In which sense Mr. Cranf. distinguisheth it, Ecclesia Fidelium. Or more settled and constant, which likewise are distinguisted, by Times, Nations, or Places.

Distinguished by Times, we read, Act. 7.38. the Church in the Wilderness.

And, by Nations, Rom. 16.4. all the Churches of the Gentiles.

By Places, as Countries, (α) Kingdoms, (β) Provinces. (γ)

By Countrys, (α) 1 Cor. 16.19. Church of Asia.

And, by Kingdoms, (β) 2 Cor. 8.1. of Macedonia.

And, by Provinces, (γ) as Galatia. 1 Cor. 16.1. Gal. 1.2. and Judea. Gal. 1.22.

Citys of Corinth, 1 Cor. 12. and 2 Cor. 1.1. Ephesus. Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. Revel. 1.11.

And Houses, as Aquila and Prisscilla, 1 Cor. 16.19. Rom. 16.3, 5. and Nymphas, Col. 4.15.

The Church of Christ is then, and so long, the Church of Christ, as she saith, and doth, what Christ gave her to say and do, even as Christ himself, John, 7.17. and 8.26, 28. and 12.5. and 14.10, 24. and 5.19.30. And when she saith, or doth otherwise, she speaketh, or playeth the Harlot in that particular.

By Organical was meant a definite settled Church of Christ, completed with Officers, as a body with members 1 Cor. 12.12.

Here Dr. Chamb. being called upon to prove, that Presbyters did forbid Ministers of a true Church.

He proved it by this Syllogism.

They that forbid Ministers Ordained by the Presbytery of Baptized Churches forbid Ministers of a true Church.

But Ministers of London (Presbyterian Ministers) forbid Ministers Ordained by the Presbytery of Baptized Churches.

Therefore Ministers of London (Prebyterian Ministers) forbid Ministers of a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Major, because no true Presbytery, and because no true Church: but desired that the last should be proved.

They that have the true Marks of a true Church, are a true Church.

But Baptized Churches have the true Marks of a true Church,

Therefore they are a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Minor, which was thus proved.

They that have true Preaching of the Word, and true Administration of the Sacraments, have the true Marks of a true Church:

But Baptized Churches have true Preaching of the Word, and true Administration of Sacraments.

Therefore they have the true Marks of a true Church.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Minor. That they neither had true Preaching of the Word, nor true Administration of the Sacramets.

Dr. Chamb. asked which he should prove?

Mr. Cranf. bad him prove the true Administration of Sacraments.

They that have the true Administration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, have the true Administration of Sacraments.

But Baptized Churches have the true Administration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:

Therefore Baptized Churches have the true Administration of the Sacraments.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Mi. but bad him prove Baptism.

They that have the Administration of Baptism in the true manner, and on the true Subject, have the true Administration of Baptism.

But Baptized Churches have the Administration of Baptism in the true manner and on the true Subjects.

Therefore Baptized Churches have the true Administration of Baptism.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Mi. Dr. Chamb. asked whether he should prove first the manner, or the subject? Mr. Cranf. said any, which he would. Then (said Dr. Chamb. ) First I will prove the manner and then the Subject.

They that Administer Baptism in the same Manner as it was Administred unto Christ Matth. 13.16. And as Philip Administred it to the Eunuch, (Act. 8.38.) have the true manner of Administration of Baptism.

Mr. Cranf. cried out, and some with him, prove the subject for that is desired by some here.

They that Administer Baptism on Believers and Repenters, Administer Baptism on the true Subjects.

But Baptized Churches Administer Baptism on Repenters and Believers.

Therefore Baptized Churches Administer it on the true Subject.

They that Administer Baptism upon those that confess their Sins, and profess their Faith, Administer Baptism on the true Subject.

But Baptized Churches Administer it upon those that confess their Sins, and profess their Faith.

Therefore Baptized Churches Administer Baptism on the true Subject.

Mr. Cranf. denied the Minor, and said, they do not Baptize such as do confess their Sins, and profess their Faith.

Dr. Cham. said, that might be attested by any that ever were present at their Baptism. Besides it were against their very Principles if they should not do so.

Saith Mr. Cranf. I say they do not Baptize Believers and Repenters.

Saith Dr. Chamb. now you go back to the former Syllogism.

Mr. Cranf. said, they do not Baptize Believers and Repenters, but Renegadoes.

Dr. Chamb. said, I gave no ill language, but used the words of the Scripture, and I hope you will not be angry with the language of the holy Ghost, when I must use it in argument.

Renegado is language of Scripture saith Mr. Cranf.

Where said Dr. Chamberlen? Mr. Cranf. said because it signified Apostate. Said Dr. Cha. Then why did you not rather use that Word.

The debate here made Dr. Chamb. forget to take notice how in denying the Baptism of Believers and Repenters, Mr. Cranf. denied the Conclusion. But he proceeded to prove that they did Baptize Believers and Repenters.

They that baptize such as shall be saved, baptize believers and repenters.

Therefore they baptized believers and repenters.

Mr Cranf. denied the Major.

Dr. Chamb. urged Mark, 16.16. Whosoever believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.

Mr. Cranf. denied it.

Dr. Chamb. replied, Contra Principia negantem, non est disputandum. Saith Mr. Cranf. you are to prove it.

They that baptize such as confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised him from the dead, ( Rom. 10.) baptize such as shall be saved.

But baptized Churches, baptize such as confess with their mouth, the Lord Jesus, and believe with their heart that God hath raised him from the dead.

Therefore baptized Churches baptize such as shall be saved.

Mr. Cr. and some of his Party began to deride and say this was in gyro, idem, per idem. All that are saved, confess and believe. All that confess and believe, are saved.

Said Dr. Chamb. it is the greater truth in being reciprocal, according to all the rules of truth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

With this the Company seemed to acquiesce, in continuation of this promiscuous discourse. Mr. Cranf used the word Renegado again, and said, that baptized Churches, baptized such as denied the Faith, not such as professed the Faith, therefore we were all Renegadoes.

Dr. Chamb. replied I shall prove you so.

Mr. Cranf. bid him do.

They that practice, what they neither have command nor example for, practice what they should not.

But you who sprinkle Infants, practice what you neither have command nor example for.

Mr. Cranf. cried out, is this to prove us Renegadoes. Make your Conclusion.

Said Dr. Chamb. I was loath to use words of provocation, and that are not written. but Mr Cranf. continuing in derision, Dr. Chamb. said then I will prove you Renegadoes.

They that speak Lyes in Hipocrisie, are Renegadoes:

But you speak Lyes in Hypocrisy.

Here the meeting broke up abruptly.

They that are Ministers of Jesus Christ, are Ordained by Jesus Christ.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are not Ordained by Jesus Christ:

Therefore they are not Ministers of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Minor.

The Ministers are Ordained by Jesus Christ, Mediately.

They that are Ordained by Antichrist, are not Ordained by Jesus Christ.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by Antichrist.

Therefore they are not Ordained by Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cranf Negatur Minor.

They that are Ordained by the Pope, within these thousand years, are Ordained by Antichrist.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

Therefore they are Ordained by Antichrist.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Minor.

They that are ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years, are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London, are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

Therefore they are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Minor.

They who were Ordained by the Bishops of England, and their Successors within these thousand years, are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by Bishops of England and their Successors within these thousand years.

Therefore they are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

Mr. Cranf. Negatur Major.

If they were Ordained by the Power, or Ministers of the Pope, &c. then they were Ordained by the Pope &c.

But they were Ordained by the Power, or Ministers of the Pope within these thousand years.

Therefore they were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand years.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. Min.

If the Bishops of England within these thousand years, were not Ordained by the Power nor Ministers of the Pope, within these thousand years. Then there were some Bishops in King Henry 7. and K. Hen. 8. days neither Ordained by the Pope, nor Ministers of the Pope, within these thousand years.

But there were no such Bishops in K. Hen. 7. nor King Hen. 8. days.

Therefore they were Ordained by the Power, or Ministers, of the Pope within these thousand years.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. Mi.

Mr. Cranf. do you prove there were none.

If there were any such, then either they were allowed, or disallowed.

But there were neither any allowed, nor disallowed, that were such.

Therefore there were none such.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. Minor. None of the allowed Ministers were Ordained by the Pope.

If the Pope had power at that time to place, and displace whom he pleased, then they were Ordained by the Pope.

But the Pope had power to place and displace, whom he pleased.

Therefore they were Ordained by the Pope.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia, & Minor est falsa.

Dr. Chamb. Power of Ordination, you grant, is Approbation and Imposition of hands.

If their placing and displacing, were a consequence of their Ordination, then the consequence is true.

But their placing and displacing, was a consequence of their Ordination.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia

If the Pope had power of placing and displacing of Bishops, then he had power of their Ordination.

But the Pope had power, of placing and displacing of Bishops.

If placing and displacing of Bishops, be greater then their Ordination, then the Pope who did place and displace did also Ordaine.

Mr. Cranford, Negatur consequentia.

The Civil Magistrate may remove or displace Ministers, but may not Ordaine Ministers.

To place and displace, is not greater then to Ordaine.

If what the Pope did, he did it as an Officer of the Church, and it was so publicly acknowledged, then the consequence is true.

But what the Pope did, he did it as an Officer of the Church, and it was so publicly acknowledged.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia.

Though the Pope had power to do it, he did not do it.

Some discourses, as betwwen all the rest of the latter Syllogism, interrupted the clear dispute, and then Dr. Chamb. followed with this argument to the discourse that was.

If all the particular parts and faculties of the Church of England, were under the power and Ministry of the Pope of Rome, then Bishops were Ordained by the power of the Pope of Rome.

Mr. Cranf. Negat. consequentia.

If so, then Ordination is no part or faculty of the Church.

But Ordination is a part.

Ne. consequentia, Minor etiam est falsa.