Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	church_n	ordain_v	ordination_n	3,255	5	10.2967	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80765	The disputes between Mr. Cranford, and Dr. Chamberlen. At the house of Mr. William Webb, at the end of Bartholomew Lane, by the Old Exchange: on March 1. 1652, and April 1. 6. 13. / Published for the satisfaction of all that love the truth.	Cranford, James, d. 1657.; Chamberlen, Peter, 1601-1683.	1652 (1652)	Wing C6822; Thomason E666_6; ESTC R206920	19,015	40

Con. 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 confesse and believe All that confesse and believe are saved Said Dr. Chamb. it is the greater truth in being reciprocal according to all the rules of truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With this the Company seemed to acquiesce in continuation of this promiscuous discourse Mr. Cranf used the word Renegado againe and said that baptized Churches baptized such as denyed 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 Dr. Chamb. Ma. They that practise what they neither have command nor example for practise what they should not Mi. But you who sprinkle Infants practise 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 le prove you Renegadoes They that speak Lyes in Hipocrisie are Renegadoes But you speak Lyes in Hypocrisie Here the meeting broke up abruptly The last meeting between Mr. Cranford and Dr. Chamberlen at Mr. Webbs house at Bartholomew Lane end was on the 13. of April 1652. THe Question was still Whether Ministers of London Presbyterian Ministers were the Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Cranf as before Respondent Dr. Chamb. Opponent After Prayer as formerly the Dispute began in writing being so agreed the time before Dr. Chamb. began his Argument thus Ma. They that are Ministers of Jesus Christ are Ordained by Jesus Christ Mi. But Presbyterian Ministers of London are not Ordained by Jesus Christ Con. Therefore they are not Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Cranf Negatur Minor The Ministers are Ordained by Jesus Christ Mediately Dr. Chamb. Ma. They that are Ordained by Antichrist are not Ordained by Jesus Christ Mi. But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by Antichrist Con. Therefore they are not Ordained by Jesus Christ Mr. Cranf Negatur Minor Dr. Chamb. Ma. They that are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares are Ordained by Antichrist Mi. But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Con. Therefore they are Ordained by Antichrist Mr. Cranf Negatur Minor Dr. Chamb. Ma. They that are ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Mi. But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Con. Therefore they are Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Mr. Cranf Negatur Minor Dr. Chamb. Ma. They who were Ordained by the Bishops of England and their Successours within these thousand yeares are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Mi. But Presbyterian Ministers of London are Ordained by Bishops of England and their Successors within these thousand yeares Con. Therefore they are Ordained by those who were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Mr. Cranf Negatur Major Dr. Chamb. Ma. If they were Ordained by the Power or Ministers of the Pope c. then they were Ordained by the Pope c. Mi. But they were Ordained by the Power or Ministers of the Pope within these thousand yeares Con. Therefore they were Ordained by the Pope within these thousand yeares Mr. Cranf Negat Min. Dr. Chamb. Ma. If the Bishops of England within these thousand years were not Ordained by the Power nor Ministers of the Pope within these thousand yeares Then there were some Bishops in King Henry 7. and K. Hen. 8. dayes neither Ordained by the Pope nor Ministers of the Pope within these thousand yeares Mi. But there were no such Bishops in K. Hen. 7. nor King Hen. 8. dayes Con. Therefore they were Ordained by the Power or Ministers of the Pope within these thousand yeares Mr. Cranf Negat Mi. Dr. Chamb. Name any Mr. Cranf do you prove there were none Dr. Chamb. Ma. If there were any such then either they were allowed or disalowed Min. But there were neither any allowed nor disallowed that were such Con. Therefore there were none such Mr. Cranf Negat Minor None of the allowed Ministers were Ordained by the Pope Dr. Chamb. Ma. If the Pope had power at that time to place and displace whom he pleased then they were Ordained by the Pope Mi. But the Pope had power to place and displace whom he pleased Con. 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 Ma. If their placing and displacing were a consequence of their Ordination then the consequence is true Mi. But their placing and displacing was a consequence of their Ordination Mr. Cranf Negat consequentia Dr. Chamb. Ma. If the Pope had power of placing and displacing of Bishops then he had power of their Ordination Mi. 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 Dr. Chamb. Ma. If what the Pope did he did it as an Officer of the Church and it was so publickly acknowledged then the consequence is true Mi. But what the Pope did he did it as an Officer of the Church and it was so publickly 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 Syllogisme interrupted the clear dispute and then Dr. Chamb. followed with this argument to the discourse that was Ma. 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 Dr. Chamb. Ma. If so then Ordination is no part or faculty of the Church Mi. But Ordination is a part Ergo. Mr. Cranf Ne. consequentia Minor etiam est falsa The Church of Rome though it were Ulcerous yet was a true Church of Christ as a man is a man though full of Ulcers Truth came out of the Church of Rome The Scriptures that have been conveyed through the Church of Rome are true Scriptures Dr. Chamb. denyed that Truth came out of the Church of Rome or that the Scriptures were conveyed through the Ulcerous Church of Rome What is of their conveyance is not true Mr. Cranf often acknowledged that the Church of Rome was Ulcerous and Dr.

are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse Conclusion Therefore the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Cranf denyed the Minor to wit That the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse Dr. Chamb. proved it Ma. They that are not formed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse Mi. But the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are not formed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse Con. Therefore the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are transformed as the Ministers of Righteousnesse The Minor was denyed which was thus proved Ma. They that are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist are not formed as the Ministers of Jesus Christ Mi. But the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist Conclus Therefore the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are not formed as the Ministers of Jesus Christ The Minor was againe to be proved Ma. They that are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist Mi. But the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist Con. Therefore the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are formed as the Ministers of Antichrist The Mi. was againe denyed and thus proved Ma. They that are Ordained in the manner succession and power of Antichrist are Ordained as the ministers of Antichrist Mi. But the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are Ordained in the manner succession and power of Antichrist Con. Therefore the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are Ordained as the Ministers of Antichrist Mr. Cranf denyed the Mi. Which containeth three Particulars and therefore three severall Series of Sylogismes First for the manner this Syllogisme was prepared Ma. They that are commonly required to have had their Education in Schooles 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 Mi. But the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are commonly required to have had their education in Schooles 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. Con. 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 Syllogismes for that followeth Ma. They that have their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist are Ordained in Succession of Antichrist Mi. But the Ministers of London Presbiterian-Ministers have their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist Con. Therefore the Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are Ordained in the Succession of Antichrist The Mi. was denyed and thus proved Ma. If they have it by Succession and there were no other Succession but from Antichrist then they have it by Succession from Antichrist Mi. But they had it by Succession and there was no other Succession but from Antichrist Con. Therefore they had their Ordination by succession from Antichrist Here Dr. Chamb. desired to expresse that by Succession he meant publick Succession allowed of by the Powers of the Nation which Mr. Cranf assented to and denyed the Mi. Which was thus proved Ma. They that had their Ordination from the Bishops had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist Mi. But the Ministers of London Prsbyterian-Ministers had their Ordination from the Bishops Con. 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 Ma. If Bishops themselves had their Ordination from Antichrist then they that had their Ordination from Bishops had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist Mi. But Bishops themselves had their Ordination from Antichrist Con. Therefore they that had their Ordination from Bishops had their Ordination by Succession from Antichrist Mr. Cranf Minor Dr. Chamb. If from Rome then from Antichrist But from Rome Therefore from Antichrist Mr. Cranf deny the Consequence Dr. Chamb. replyed If from Rome since Antichrist was Antichrist then if from Rome then 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 yeares 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 Syllogisme against it Ma. That Church which hath not the true Signes and seales of a true Church is no true Church Mi. But the Church of Rome hath not the true signes and seales of a true Church Con. Therefore it is no true Church Mr Cranf said you would faine 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 Errours 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 Ma. If you did separate then either you did separate from their Doctrine or their Power Mi. But you did separate from neither Con. 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 Ma. If no other publick Ordination but from the Pope since separation then from Antichrist by your own confession Mi. But no Ordination but from the Pope Con. 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 owne 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 yeares that is so long as he hath usurped power over all Churches 8 There was a true Ministeriall Church in Rome when we separated from the Papacy Ja. Cranford Dr. Chamb. argued to the last Ma. 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 Mi. But there was no Ministeriall Church in Rome since the Pope was Antichrist but what was from the Power of the Pope Con. Therefore there was no such Church in Rome when you separated Mr. Cranf said That all that the Pope doth is not Antichristian Dr. Chamb. Replied Ma. If the Pope were the root of Antichrist Then all Ministeriall Officers from him were Antichristian Mi. But the Pope was the Root of Antichrist Con. Therefore all Ministeriall 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 Ma. If all power derived from the Pope acknowledged his power as a power over all Churches then they were all Antichristian Mi. But all power derived from the Pope acknowledged the Popes power as a power over all Churches Con. Therefore they were all Antichristian Mr. Cranf then fell into discourse againe and said That the Romane Church at the time when Luther separated was a true Church Dr. Chamb. offered to prove it was then no true Church Ma. Where there were no true Sacraments there was no true Church Min. But in the Church of Rome when Luther separated there were no true Sacraments Con. Therefore then there was no true Church The Minor was denyed That in the Church of Rome when Luther separated there were true Sacraments Which was thus argued against Ma. Where there was no true Baptisme there were no true Sacraments Mi. But in the Church of Rome when Luther separated there was no true Baptisme Con. Therefore in the Church of Rome when Luther separated there were no true Sacraments Mr. Cranf There was a true Baptisme Dr. Chamb. Ma. Where it was not administred on the true subject there was no true Baptisme Mi. But in the Church of Rome when Luther separated Baptisme was not administred on the true subjects Con. Therefore in the Church of Rome when Luther separated there was no true Baptisme Mr. Cranf denyed the Minor which was to affirme That in the Church of Rome when Luther separated Baptisme was administred on the true Subjects Dr. Chamb. p●●●●●ed his argument thus Ma. They that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 red 〈◊〉 no● on Believers and Repenters admi●●●●red 〈…〉 the true subjects Mi. But the Ch●●●h of ●●me when Luther separated did not administer it on Believers and Repenters Con. Therefore they did not administer it on the true subjects Minor was to be proved Ma. They that administer it on Children administer it not on Believers and Repenters Mi. But the Church of Rome when Luther separated administred it to Children Con. Therefore they did not administer it on Believers and Repenters Mr. Cranf denyed the Major Dr. Chamb. asked whether Children could believe and repent Mr. Cranf answered they had Faith and Repentance in their Parents But he denyed the Major because though the Church of Rome did administer Baptisme 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 administred on the true also Hereupon Dr. Chamb. undertook to prove that they did administer it to none but false by the Syllogisme following Ma. They that onely administer Baptisme to no believers or mis-believers to no repenters or mis-repenters administer it onely to the false subject Mi. But the Church of Rome administer it onely to no believers or mis-believers to no repenters or mis-repenters As Children and Romane Proselites Con. 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 Ma. 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 Mi. But Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers doe some or all of these Conclus Therefore Ministers of London Presbyterian-Ministers are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Cranf denyed 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. But Dr. Chamb. proceeded Ma. They that are Fooles are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ Mi. But they that bring the flock into bondage or devoure them or take of them or smite them on the face are fooles Con. Therefore they that bring the flock into bondage or devoure them or take of them or smite them on the face are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ The Major was againe denyed Whereat Dr. Chamb. professeth he was not a little startled that Mr. Cranford should allow fooles to be the Ministers of Jesus Christ For though the Ministers of Jesus Christ may be sometimes accounted fooles yet he could not imagine that fooles should be accounted Ministers of Jesus Christ but this Syllogisme followed Ma. They that are not Qualified as 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. are no Ministers of Jesus Christ Mi. But fooles are not quallified as 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Con. Therefore they are no Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Cranf here was pleased to confirm the Text by way of restraint onely to the wicked foole though the quallifications require a vindication from Idiotisme also As Vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 sence may be said to be the Ministers of Christ in executing his judgments and all the wicked also in such