Selected quad for the lemma: child_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
child_n	lord_n	offer_v	offering_n	2,073	5	10.7484	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88948	A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1647 (1647)	Wing M1275; Thomason E386_9; ESTC R201478	144,474	133

peruse this chapter Numb 8. may easily finde that this word the children of Israel is used therein no lesse then fifteen or sixteen severall times and sometimes foure or five times in one verse and yet of all these I think here is not so much as one where it can be understood of the Elders and Officers as such but is used to signifie all the Congregation And therefore to give such a singular interpretation of this word in v. 10. so far different from the sense of the same word in all the rest of the verses both before and after and those being not only one or two but so very many this kind of practise and interpretation had need to be builded upon very plain and pregnant very cleare and cogent reason and demonstration or else our brethren may excuse us if we be not over hasty and forward to receive it Again the ninth and eleventh verses tell us plainly that these Levites were to be offered to the Lord for an offering not of the Elders alone but of the children of Israel even of all the assembly of the children of Israel and other scriptures tell us as plainly that all offerings were to be presented with the imposition of his hands whose the offering was Levit. 1. 3 4 and 4. 24 29 33. whereby it seems evident that these children of Israel who imposed hands on these Levites at this time when they were offered for an offering were the whole Congregation or some in your name and stead sith these Levites were an offering of the whole Congregation Wee grant the magistrates laid not on hands but they who laid on hands did it as Ecclesiasticall Elders Reconcile this with that pag. 188 l. 1. where t is said the Princes and heads of tribes laid hands on them now what were these Princes and heads of tribes but magistrates and if they were Princes and Magistrates how could they be considered in this act as Ecclesiasticall Elders The reasons against this conclude not The first reason concludeth not Ans Here again our meaning is presented amisse to the reader for those three reasons of ours were given by us to prove another point and not this to which Mr. Rutherford applyes therein as is plainly to be seen in answer pag. 46 47. where the reader may perceive that those reasons were brought to shew that when the children of Israel imposed hands if these children of Israel were not all the Congregation yet what they performed herein was for the Congregation and not for themselves onely And if those reasons prove this as I hope they doe it is no great disparagement to them not us if they prove not another point for which they were never intended But let us hear the answer The first reason concludeth not because those who laid on hands were the first born who by office were Church-men Answ How shall we be sure that those who laid on hands were the first born though I deny it not yet a bare affirmation proves not Again suppose what here is affirmed were also sufficiently confirmed how is the point in question proved hereby for say they were the first born they might notwithstanding do what they did for all the people and not for themselves above The other two reasons proves nothing Answ Let them be applyed to the thing whereto they were intended and applyed by us and then let the reader judge The position was that those who imposed hands on the Levites did it for the Congregation or in their stead The first of the two reasons is that the Levites were the Congregations offerings and all offerings were to be presented with the imposition of his hands whose the offering was The other is this that it was an usuall thing when the Congregation were to present an offering that the Elders should impose hands on the Congregations offering in the Congregations stead Levit. 4. vers 14 15. Now let the Prophets judge whether these reasons prove what they were brought to prove to wit that they who imposed hands on the Levites did it for or in stead of the Congregation or whether it be as our reverend brother affirms that these two reasons proves nothing yet let us hear why they prove nothing Because these who laid on hands did lay on hands as representing the whole Congregation Alas it doth no wayes conclude that they laid not on hands as it is a worke peculiar to them 〈◊〉 Elders Ans If it doe not yet if our reasons do conclude that they did it instead of the Congregation we have our intent But to follow Mr. Rutherford a little in digressing from the point why do not our reasons conclude this other The High-priest offered sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the peoples Heb. 7. v. 27. and so did represent the people but I hope it followeth not that therefore the Priest did not sacrifice as a Priest and by virtue of a peculiar office but only as a principall member of the Congregation Answ Mr. Rutherford himself gives us a distinction which may be sufficient for answer to this passage A representer saith he standeth for another either objectively or subjectively The former of these is he that doth a busines for another or in rem ejus for his behalf and good as the eye seeth and the eare heareth for the whole body and thus objectively the Presbytery doth represent the people that is for your good and salvation of the people The other representing another subjectively is when the representer hath its power from that which it representeth as he who carrieth the room and person of a King as an Ambassadour but thus saith he the Presbytery or Eldership doth not represent the People Due right of Presbyt p. 316 317. Now as the Presbytery represents the people so may it be said of the Priest viz. that he represented the people only objectively for their good but not subjectively in their room and stead and therefore the cases are not alike for we think that what was done by those who imposed hands Numb 8. was not only done for the good of the children of Israel but also in their room and stead which he will not say of the Priest sacrificing for the people having already said the contrary of the Presbytery Pag. 493. You will say in a Church in an Iland one may be a Pastor without any ordination if the people elect him and there be no Elders to ordain I answer it is true Answ If this be true then what becomnes of that which was said in the precedent page That though imposition of hands be not so essentiall as that a Minister can be no Minister without it yet for Ordination it is otherwise this being the authoritative calling of a Minister and the other but a rite annexed to the calling In which place he counts ordination so essentiall as that a Minister can be no Minister without it and yet in the very next page confesseth

and his sonnes and those Levites now ordained which reason Mr. Rutherford never mentions but mentions another speech as our reason which was delivered by us for another purpose The like measure doth he afford to us in the second branch of the sentence by him expressed For whereas we give two reasons of the main thing in question that this example of the children of Israel imposing hands on the Levites doth prove that in some cases non-officers may impose hands upon Church officers the one because what these children of Israel did they did it not as Elders the other that what they did they did it not for themselves alone but for all the Congregation Mr. Rutherford applies not these two reasons to the thing in question as they were applyed by us but instead thereof makes one of them to be a reason of the other which was no part of our meaning nor could justly be gathered from our words This being said for clearing this passage of ours from his manifold mistakes let us now heare his answer Pag. 49● These who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders because the Elders were a part of the first borne who by office were Elders and in whose stead the Levites were assumed Numb 3. 40 41. Answ If the Elders were but a part of the first born then how could all the first born be Elders by office or if all the first born were by office Elders then how could the Elders be but a part of the first born These things seem not to be here But be it so that the Elders were a part of the first born as here is affirmed how doth this prove that they who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders Is there any necessary or clear consequence in such a proposition For my part I see it not but on the contrary I suppose it is certaine that the Elders might be part or all of the first born and yet they who did the work of imposing hands might neither impose as Elders nor of necessity be Elders Though in the sense expressed in the answer I will not deny but there might be Elders that is chiefe and principall members of the Congregation But if this were granted in the sense expressed must it needs follow that they imposed hands as Elders and as Elders by office too Can a man sustain no relation but all his actions must be actions of that relation Cannot a man be an husband or a parent c. but his actions of plowing sowing c. must needs be performed by him as he is a husband or parent Cannot a minister pray in his family instruct his children or receive the bread and wine in the Lords supper in the Congregation but all these things must be performed by him as a Minister I suppose that none will say that this doth follow and if not then suppose that these who imposed hands were Elders how doth it follow that when they imposed hands they did impose as Elders Else the Church of Israel being a constituted Church before this time wanted officers which is against all truth Answ Else else what let the antecedent or ground of this inference be taken from the words preceding or from any of them and whence else to take it I cannot tell and no necessity of consequence I think will appear The words preceding are no more but these These who laid on hands did it as a worke peculiar to the Elders because the Elders were a part of the first born who by office were Elders and in whose steed the Levites were assumed and then comes in this inference else the Church of Israel wanted officers Now how this must needs follow upon any or all of those preceding I see not Not that I deny the truth of all those preceding words for of some of them I think otherwise but supposing that were all true which is more then doth yet appeare yet here is that which I am doubtfull in whether this inference must needs follow upon the same For ought I see the Church of Israel might have officers and yet the particulars here mentioned not be all true but some of them false notwithstanding At least wise if they were true yet the reason here used would not inferre so much For to consider a little of the particulars The Church of Israel had officers ergo the Elders were a part of the first born which is one of the particulars The Church of Israel had officers ergo the first born were Elders by office which is another The Church of Israel had officers Ergo the Levites were assumed instead of the first born which is another of them is there any necessity of consequence in any of these For my part I see it not but suppose they were in themselves true yet the medium here used doth not proove them so to be And for that which is the first and as I conceive the cheif to wit that these who imposed hands did it as a work peculiar to Elders must this needs be granted if it be granted that the Church of Israel was not without officers I see no necessity of granting this neither but the contrary to me seems possible enough that thee might be officers afore this time in that Church and yet what was now done by them who imposed hands not be done by them as Elders by office but as prime and principall members of the Congregation For the clearing whereof a little further we may observe that they who imposed hands on the Levites are not here called Elders nor rulers nor officers nor first born nor any such like but the term whereby they are expressed is this the children of Israel The children of Israel saith the Lord shall put their hands upon the Levites Numb 8. 10. Now this term being used in the 9. verse imediately preceding and in the 11. vers imediately following yet in neither of both can it be meant of Elders and officers alone but in both verses is undoubtedly meant of all the body of the Congregation and therefore if the context and circumstances of the place be regarded these children of Israel who imposed hands on the Levites v. 10. cannot in that act be considered under the not●on of officers Sure it is when the verse before tells us that the whole assembly of the children of Israel must be gathered together and the verse following tells us that Aaron must offer the Levites for an offering of the children of Israel in neither of these can the children of Israel be understand of the officers alone but the whole Congregation is meant hereby in both verses reason therefore requires that this tenth verse standing in the midst between the other two the word children of Israel being used therein should be taken in the same sense in this verse in which it is taken in the verse before and in the verse that comes after Nay and further he that shall

A REPLY TO Mr. Rutherfurd OR A defence of the Answer to Reverend Mr. Herles Booke against the Independency of Churches VVherein such Objections and Answers as are returned to sundry passages in the said Answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd a godly and learned Brother of the Church of Scotland in his Booke Entituled The Due Right of Presbyters are examined and removed and the Answer justified and cleared By RICHARD MA●HER Teacher to the Church at Dorchester in New ENGLAND 1646. LONDON Printed for J. Rothwell and H. Allen at the Sun and Fountaine in Pauls Church-yard and the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1647 The Authors Preface to the Reader Christian Reader HAving published some yeares agoe a small Treatise in way of a brotherly Answer to reverend Master Herle I now present unto thy view a defence thereof against such objections and answers as have been returned to sundry passages therein by reverend and learned Master Rutherfurd In which undertaking it hath been farre from my intention to increase or uphold the differences that have appeared of late yeares in England amongst the servants of the Lord about matters of Church government For I had much rather bring Prayers and teares for the quenching of such fires then fewell or oyle for the increasing thereof neither shall the same I hope be any thing at all increased by what here I present now thy view At the least this I may say that I intended no such thing but the contrary even the promoting of truth and peace if it were the will of God so to blesse my desires and endeavors True it is I have taken the liberty to consider and try some things delivered by that reverend brother whom here I have to doe withall but this I trust cannot be justly offensive in as much as the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 32. and the doctrine of the Apostle himselfe was examined by those noble Bereans whom the holy Ghost commendeth for searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 17. 11. It is also true which our reverend brother saith in his Epistle to the Reader before his Peaceable Plea that there is great cause of sorrow that all the Lords people should not minde one thing and sing one song and joyne in one against the Children of Babel Neverthelesse this may be some comfort against this sorrow that by the providence of the Lord this diversity of opinions and disputes if it be Christianly carried as it may may occasion and produce in the issue the further clearing up of truth For as our author well observeth from the Collision of opinions resulteth truth and disputes as stricken flints cast fire for light Due Right of Presbyt Epistle to the Reader The desire and hope whereof together with the advice of such brethren as I consulted withall was that which chiefely prevailed with me for the publishing of this reply wherein the reader will finde sundry Scriptures and questions controverted in these times discussed and considered so farre as the nature of a Reply or defence did lead thereto and I hope some or other through Gods blessing may receive some profit thereby And if the humble Christian who desires to know and love and practise the truth shall receive any benefit or help for attaining these ends by meanes of this labour of mine it is that which I intended and aimed at and for which I desire that God alone may have the praise and glory If any shall still remaine otherwise minded yet in due time I hope God shall reveale even this unto them In the meane time diversity of apprehensions in these points ought not to bred any alienation of affection amongst those that are otherwise Orthodoxe and sincere It were a thousand pitties if it should For my part I cannot but approve what this reverend brother sometime professeth that he doth both love and dispute contradict and reverence at once Peaceable Plea Epist Yea he counts himselfe a debtor for love charity honour and all due respect in Christ Jesus and a seat and lodging in his heart and highest esteeme to all those that be godly lovers of the truth and sufferers for the truth against Prelacy though possibly they like not well of Presbyteriall government ibid. In answer whereto for I would be loth that such love should be lost upon us without due returne of the like I would for my part professe the like deare and due respect to all those that are qualifyed as here he doth describe of which sort I know there are many though possibly they may like better of the way that is called Presbyteriall then of the Congregationall For those that give apparent Testimonies that they are the Lord's and so that they must live together in heavens I know not why they should not love one another on earth what ever differences of apprehensions may for the present be found amongst them in some things As for bitternesse of spirit and tartnesse of contests I never thought that to be Gods way of promoting truth amongst brethren and therefore I have endevoured in this discourse to avoid the same For I beleeve there is more hope of doing good by solidity of argument with a spirit of meeknesse and love then by sharp and tart language the fruit of bitternesse of spirit wherein for the most part right of reason is wanting the passions being there most vehement and stirring where the intellectuals are most ●eeble and weake Now if any aske why this defence hath been so long deferred it being now two yeares and more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came forth such may be pleased to consider that New England being as 't is counted 3000 miles distant from old therefore many Books may be extant in England a long time afore we that are so remote can so much as heare any sound thereof and those few that come to our knowledge are commonly extant in England a matter of a yeares space afore and sometimes longer In which respect many things may be spoken and Printed against us whereto it cannot be expected that we should returne any speedy Answer And though it be now twelve moneths agoe or more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came to my hands yet at that time my few spare houres from my constant and ordinary employments were wholly taken up otherwise so that I could not attend this businesse any sooner which I desire may be accepted as a just apologie for the late coming forth of this Reply which as it may seeme late so it is more large then in some respect I could have desired by reason that I doe usually transcribe those words of Master Rutherfurd whereto I d●e apply my Answer which course I confesse I did not unwillingly in some respects chuse partly to save the Reader a labour of turning to the place in Master Rutherfurd which I am speaking too which else he must have done or

alledged do abundantly and plainly prove the point in hand And therefore Mr. Rutherford should bear with us if we somtimes argue from examples of the Old Testament As for that which followeth where he saith But our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different as the officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Churches are different the answer is that I do not remember that we have spoken one word of this matter either one way or other nor doth he mention any place where we have spoken ought of these things And for the thing it selfe though many differences may be assigned between the Levites and Pastors of the New Testament and between the Jewish and Christian Churches yet I know no such difference between them but that in things which are of generall and common nature concerning them both in those we may lawfully argue from them and their times unto our selves and our times If Mr. Rutherford know we have given any such difference as will not suffer us thus to argue when he shall expresse the same we may consider further thereof Our brethren grant pag. 49. that it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands Answ And we have also in the same pag. 49. rendred the reason hereof viz. because Elders then were not wanting Why then did not our brothers ingenuity so farre prevaile with him as to mention this when he mentioned the other however yet this he may be pleased to observe that as we grant the thing he speaks of so themselves I think must grant also that it wanteth all example in the New Testament where ordinary Elders do Impose hands on ordinary Elders for my part I remember none nor do I remember that themselves have yet produced any These who laid on hands on the Levites Numb 8. were Elders and our brethren say it is like they were but 1. They did not as Elders 2. But as representing the people not as Elders Civill for that belonged to Aaron and his Sonnes Levit. 8. else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands there the Church may doe it Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiasticall Elders because what these which laid on hands did they did as from the Congregation For 1. these Levites were taken in stead of the first born of Israel and not instead of the first born of the Elders only Numb 3. 40 41. 2 They were presented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of Israel not of the Elders onely 3. When the multitude brought an oblation the Elders put their hands on the heads of the sacrifice Levit. 4. 15. instead of all the multitude Answ In relating this passage our meaning is exceedingly mistaken and both our meaning and our words represented farre amisse unto the reader the particulars which in this respect may be excepted against are such as these 1. That reporting us to say it is like they who laid on hands were Elders he there breaks off the speech and so suppresseth that which follows wherein we first of all do give an explication in what respect they might be said to be Elders viz. as being the chiefe and principall members of the Congregation and next of all we do adde that neverthelesse therein example doth prove the point if two things be considered which there we do expresse But both these particulars I mean both the explication and the addition or exception are wholly suppressed by Mr. Rutherford and so the concession It is like they were Elders is left standing alone by it selfe 2. He reports us to say they did it not as Elders civill for that belonged to Aaron and his Sons wherein he fathers on us a palpable errour of accounting Aaron and his sonnes to be Elders civill or magistrates which never came into our thoughts nay it was so farre from us that we plainly said the contrary in that very place to wit that they were Elders Ecclesiasticall Our words are these If they that is the children of Israel did it as Elders then either as Elders and governours ecclesiasticall or as civill governours but not the first for that charge belonged to Aaron and his sonnes Levit. 8. and these Levites now ordained In which words we plainly ascribe to Aaron and his sonnes the charge of Elders and Governours Ecclesiasticall but not of civill governours as Mr. Rutherford is pleased to report 3. In these words Else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands there the Church may do it our words are so miserably mangled that no tolerable sence can appeare for here is expressed an inference or consequence that must follow and yet no ground or antecedent at all from which it should follow which is to represent us to the world as men that were loesi cerebro For men that were in their right wits I conceive would scarcely ever argue in this fashion as here we are reported to do But our words are these If the second be said viz. that the children of Israel did lay on hands as civill governours then it will follow that civill magistrates though no Church-officers may Impose hands in Ordination of Church-officers and so the point is gained viz. that Church-officers may be ordained by those that are no Church-officers which we do further manifest in the following words in this manner If the magistrate may doe it then it will follow that a Church that hath no magistrate may perform this action by other the fittest instrument● she hath For which we there give this ground for that this is not a work properly tyed to the magistrates office because then the Church in the Apostles times wanting magistrates could not have had officers the contrary whereof we say is manifest in the Scriptures Act. 14. 13. Tit. 1. 5. This is our manner of arguing in the place alledged which is farre different from that which Mr. Rutherford reporteth as ours 4. Whereas he reports us to say Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiasticall Elders because what these which lay on hands did they did as from the Congregation in this he also reports us to speak quite besides our plain meaning and expresse words For whereas he so sets down this sentence as that the latter clause or branch therein is made the reason of the former the truth is this that these clauses in the answer have no dependance the one upon the other at all but the former hath another reason given for it which here is not mentioned and the latter which is here mentioned as the reason of the former is not so mentioned by us but for another end and purpose Touching the former of these two when we said that the children of Israel did not impose hands on the Levites as ecclesiasticall Elders the reason we give for this saying is this because that charge was onely belonging to Aaron

relation of Luke true Ergo Election is prior by order of nature it followeth not Answ The place cannot be so satisfied for the text is very plain that these seven were elected by the multitude afore the Apostles laid their hands on them yea and not onely afore in respect of priority of nature but also in respect of time for otherwise how could the Apostles say as they doe unto the multitude brethren look out seven men among you whom we may appoint over this busines Can any man imagine they would thus have spoken if themselves had already found out the men and likewise had imposed hands upon them for my part I see no reason for such an apprehension but think it is undenyably plain in the text that the election of these seven by the people was prior to their Ordination by Imposition of the Apostles hands not onely in the relation of Luke as Mr. Rutherford would have it but also in nature and time and that the contrary cannot be said without violence to the text and injury and wrong unto the Apostles who by Mr. Rutherfords exposition are made to have bidden the multitude to look out for the men amongst them of honest report c. with a profession that when the multitude had so done they would then appoint the men to the businesse when as by this exposition they had already appointed them thereunto and had imposed their hands on them which kinde of dealing had been such that I think that Apostles were farre from it It cannot be that Election of the people is the whol calling of a man to the Ministery and Ordination only a supplement a consummatory rite or a benedictory sign which may be spared Answ Take Ordination as we do and why cannot this be himself told us p. 492. That he thinks not Imposition of hands so essentiall but that a Minister may be a Minister without it and that to him it is but a rite annexed to the calling which is just the same that we hold and yet when it comes from us it cannot be accepted Again he told us pag. 186 187. That there are true and lawfull pastors who have no call but peoples election Which if it be so doth it not then follow that the election of the people with the mans acceptance thereof is his whole calling For if ●●ey be true and lawfull pastors who have no more but this election it seems it must needs be that this is the whole and yet here this is denyed But let us hear the reasons of this denyall 1. Because by the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery Timothy was made a Minister 1 Timothy 4. 14. Answ The text is not by the Imposition of their hands but with it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as was noted afore out of Didoclavius Altare Damascen p. 161. who also sheweth in the same place at large that this Imposition of hands upon Timothy was onely for a testimonall of the approbation of his calling and for a ceremony used in commending him to God in their Prayers And in asmuch as the office of Timothy was the office of an Evangelist how could an ordinary Presbytery giving him either the gifts or the power belonging thereto When Mr. Rutherford hath satisfied Mr. Calderwood in these things a man of his own nation for I suppose Mr. Calderwood to be the authour of that treatise of Altare Damascen then if we require more may be said of this place In the mean time I proceed to the next By this Imposition of hands Paul and Sylas were separated to preach to the Gentiles Acts 13. 1 2 3. Answ Paul and Sylas are not once mentioned in that place but Paul and Barnabas But not to insist upon this mistake let M. Calderwood answer for us concerning this scripture Litigent saith he inter se pontifieii utrum impositio ista manuum fuerit ordinativa c. that is let the Papists contend amongst themselves whether this imposition of hands was for Ordination or onely for Prayer we hold that it was for Prayer and Comendatory for they commended them to the grace of God as it s said Act. 14. 26. yet as they could not ord●●n them and call them to this Ministery they being Apostles who were called extraordinarily so neither could they appoint them to any certain imployment or place for the holy Ghost did direct the Apostles in their troubles and here it is expresly said that they were sent forth by the holy Ghost Altare Damascen pag. 160. and then speaking of certain words of Spalato who saith this Imposition of hands was a pious ceremony and used at that time as a certain part of an efficatious Prayer he addeth Rectius diceret fuisse c. he might more rightly say it was a rite and gesture of one that prayed shewing the person for whom he did implore grace rather then to call it an efficacious part of prayer Where we plainly see that he counts this Imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas no ordaining of them to the office as some Papists and it seems Mr. Rutherford would have it but onely a rite or gesture used when the Presbytery commended Paul and Barnabas to God by Prayer This authour of Altare Damascenam also addeth Cum assumendi erant Levitae c. That is when the Levites were to be taken from amongst the Children of Israel the Lord commands that they should be brought before Jehova● and that the Children of Israel should lay their hands upon the Levites Numb 8. 9 10. Although the Lord had commanded to consecrate these Levites unto the Ministery yet he commands the Israelites to lay their hands upon the Levites as if they had of their own accord in their name given them up to the Ministery as Junius in his Analysis doth fitly interpret it Thus far Mr. Calderwood whose judgement of this scripture Numb 8. whether it be not the same with ours which was formerly expressed let Mr. Rutherford himself be judge Mr. Rutherford addeth that by Imposition of hands the Deacons were ordained Act. 6. and that this is enjoyned with the right manner of acting it to Timothy 1 Tim. 5. 22. and 2. 2. 2. as a ministeriall act Answ Whereas he saith it cannot be that laying on of hands should be onely a consummatory rite or benedictory signe and brings the example of these Deacons Acts. 6. for proof I desire no more but that he would accept his own words for answer Now in pag. 169. his words are these It is not said that the Deacons were ordained with Fasting and Prayer as hands are laid upon Paul and Barnabas Act. 13. 3 4. but simply that the Apostles prayed and laid their hands on them which seems to me to be nothing but a signe of praying over these Deacons and no Ceremony or Sacrament conferring on them the holy Ghost Now if it was nothing but a signe of Praying over these Deacons then