Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	ordain_v	ordination_n	presbyter_n	4,289	5	10.5064	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92774	The diatribē proved to be paradiatribē. Or, A vindication of the judgement of the reformed churches, and Protestant divines, from misrepresentations concerning ordination, and laying on of hands. Together with a brief answer to the pretences of Edmond Chillenden, for the lawfulnesse of preaching without ordination. / By Lazarus Seaman.	Seaman, Lazarus, d. 1675.; Simpson, Sidrach, 1600?-1655.	1647 (1647)	Wing S2174; Thomason E413_9; ESTC R203508	93,768	122

so much as one witnesse to your Thesis of Ordination as it was stated in the beginning As for the English Popish Ceremonies whether one alone composed that Tract or many concurred together by their joint endeavours I know not I take it for no more then a single and in many things for a singular and solitary Testimony What think you of Protestant Estates Is not their Judgement considerable If they do not hold Ordination to be essentiall why have they ever been so strict in urging it You know our Worthies assembled in Parliament are under a Solemn Vow and Covenant to reform according to the Word of God and the Example of the best Reformed Churches and in pursuance thereof they have declared it as a thing manifest by the Word of GOD * Ordinance of Parliament for Ordination pro tempore That no man ought to take upon him the office of a Minister untill he be lawfully Called and Ordained thereunto And that the work of Ordination that is to say An outward solemn setting apart of persons for the Office of the Ministery in the Church by Preaching Presbyters is an Ordinance of Christ This they have since attested unto in the same words in other Ordinances of Theirs giving power to Ordain unto Classicall Presbyteries And that this sense of Theirs might be better taken notice of they have further Ordered as here followeth Die Sabbathi 26 April 1645. IT is this day O●dered and Declared by the Lords and 〈◊〉 in Parliament ●●s●●abled That no ●erson be permitted to Preach who is not O●dained a Minister either in this or some other Re●o●med Church except such as intending the Ministery shall be allowed for the ●●yall of their 〈◊〉 by those who shall be appointed thereunto by bo●h Houses of Parliament It is this day Ordered by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That this Ordinance be forthwith printed and published And that it be forthwith sent to Sir THOMAS FAIRFAX with an earnest desire and recommendation from both Houses That he take care that this Ordinance may be duly observed in the Army and that if any shall transgresse this Ordinance that he make speedy representation thereof to both Houses that the Offenders may receive condigne punishment for their contempts It is further Ordered by the Lords and Commons That this Ordinance be forthwith sent to the Lord Mayor and Committee of the Militia in London to the Governours Commanders and Magistrates of all Garrisons Forces Places of strength Cities Towns ●orts and Ports And to the severall and respective Committees of the severall and respective Counties with the like injunction unto them respectively and that they take care that this Ordinan●e be duly observed in the places aforesaid respectively and that they make speedy representation to both Houses of such as shall offend herein that they may receive condigne punishment Die Jovis 31. Decemb. 1646. A Declaration of the Commons assembled in Parliament Against all such Persons as shall take upon them to Preach or Expound the Scriptures in any Church or Chappel or any other publique place except they be Ordained either here or in some other Reformed Church THE Commons assembled in Parliament do Declare That they do dislike and will proceed against all such persons as shall take upon them to Preach or Expound the Scriptures in any Church or Chappel or any other publique place except they be Ordained either here or in some other Reformed Church as it is already prohibited in an Order of both Houses of 26. April 1645. And likewise against all such Ministers or others as shall publish or maintain by Preaching Writing Printing or any other way any thing against or in derogation of the Church-government which is now established by the authority of both Houses of Parliament And also against all and every person or persons who shall willingly and purposely interrupt or disturb a Preacher who is in the publique Exercise of his Function And all Justices of Peace Sheriffs Mayors Bailiffs and other Head-Officers of Corporations And all Officers of the Army are to take notice of this Declaration and by all lawfull wayes and means to prevent offences of this kind and to apprehend the offenders and give notice hereof unto this House that thereupon course may bee speedily taken for a due punishment to be inflicted on them For the Example of the best Reformed Churches if thereby you understand as some do those of New-England how ever their Elders speak ●● part as you have done yet by their Practise they make it essentiall for why else is it that they put the power and a●t of Ordaining into the peoples hand or some of their deputing when they have no Officers and in their Doctrine they hold it Necessary by Divine Institution * Church Government and Church Covenant discussed pag. 67. For those of the separation these are the words of their Confession Art 23. that every Christian Congregation hath power and Commandment to elect and ordaine their own Ministerie according to the rules in Gods word prescribed And if there be a commandement for Ordination as well as for Election why should not the former be essential● as well as in their account the latter is Whether every congregation have the power is no part of the present question and therefor● as they affirme it I deny it and passe it by Those who are wont to ●e called Non-conformists in that book of Common-prayer which they advised * Print●d at Lon●on by Ro. W●●de-gra●e they speak of the Election and Ordination of Ministers to the Election they call in neighbour-Ministers After that say they he is to be ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Eldership with these words pronounced by the Mi●ister thereunto appointed According to this lawfull calling agreeable to the word of God wherby thou art chosen pastor IN THE NAME OF GOD stand thou charged with the pastorall charge of this people over which the Holy-Ghost hath made thee Overseer to governe this flock of God which he hath purchased with his bloud Among th●m there are two of great eminency whose expressions I shall here adde One the Reverend Mr. Arthur Hildersam who in that letter which Johnson in his Treatise of the Ministry * Page 117. pretends to answer makes a right Ordination into the office a substantiall part of a true Calling to the Ministerie The other Mr. H. Jacob whose old books have furnished those who are known among us by the name of Independents with their new light and all subtilties wherby they would be thought to distinguish themselves from Brownists There are two essentiall parts of Calling to the Ministery these are his words * Attestation ch 8. pag. 299. Election and Ordination And though he make Imposition of hands but a ceremony yet he adds Howbeit I suppose Christs Church offendeth in omitting of it for though it be but a ceremony yet it is Apostolick And howsoever in this place

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But you say the custome was among the Graecians in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lawfull meetings that the people joyned Votes with the Rulers and the Rulers with the people before any act was accounted legall Yea it may be rather referred to the people than to them for the people sometimes voted alone but the Ruler did never Answ For this I think you cite Budaeus and Henry Stephen but at large go and consult them once againe you wrong those learned men while you would have us to beleeve that they were as ignorant of the Greek story as your selfe or that this is to be found in them which is not For what you here assert were it true of some particular Common-wealth in Greece at som● time yet it is far from truth concerning all the Grecians generally The Rulers in Athens often met apart and voted apart nothing was or might bee brought into their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but what the Rulers had first consulted and concluded * Sam. Petitus in comment ad leges Atticas l●b 2. de legibus titulo 1. p. 116. A Law made by the Senate alone stood good for a yeere before the people were consulted with about it And this was one of Solons Lawes sine Senatus praejudicio populus nullâ de re rogator Let the people be consulted with in nothing which the Senate have not predetermined * There were a sort of Rulers among them who voted things amongst themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Senate and the Common Hall * idem p. 123. See more to the clearing of this in Henri Steph. Tom. 4. p. 429. G. But imagine all was as you say of the custome among the Graecians in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawfull civill meetings what is that to binde Christians in their Churches Paul saith we have no such Custome nor the Churches of God T is not said nor the 1 Cor. 11. 16. Churches of Greece as meaning civill Assemblies You must first prove that the government of the Church is Democraticall and that every single Congregation among us is to have the same power which a Common-Hall had among them and that our manner of proceeding is to be regulated by theirs before you argue from the one to the other But to go on And in this sense say you it is to be taken by the Reverend Engl. Pop. cer p. 166. Divine of Scotland his words are But it is objected that Luke saith not of the whole Church but of Paul and Barnabas that they made them by voices Elders in every city Ans But how can we imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to suffrages Election by most voices or the lifting up of the hand in token of a suffrage had place only among a multitude assembled together Wherefore we say with Junius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both a common and particular action whereby a man chooseth by his own suffrage in particular and likewise with others in common one so that in one and the same action we cannot divide those things which are so joyned together Ans The sense you mean as I suppose is this Paul and Barnabas as Rulers together with the People who had interest of authority in this busines by joint suffrage or election made Elders not Paul and Barnabas alone This you call the sense of a reverend Divine of Scotland in other passages you cite the same book as speaking the sense of that Church 1. Though I reverence the Church and the Divine thereof yet I cannot but remember Amicus Plato c. though Junius be heretaken in yet all will not help to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth necessarily refer in this place to any other than to Paul and Barnabas It sufficeth against the Papists that the people are not excluded by the Word but how it shall be proved that they are included by vertue of it I see not The note of Grotius upon the place is worth observing Sol●● quid●m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumi de quavis electione et i●m quae ab ●●● vel pancis fit 2. And be it granted that Paul and Barnabas made Elders with the consent of the people as it is by Grotius himself and Protestants generally their consent is one thing and by their authority another that must be granted not from the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from analogy of the act of making Ministers with that of choosing Matthias Act. 1. or Deacons Act. 6. or from some other ground 3. Neither need it seem strange that a thing should go to suffrage between two if we consider what we read of Barnabas and Paul in the case of John Mark Act. 15. 37 38. and what is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which refers to God alone Act. 10. 42. 4. When Junius saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is both a common and particular action his meaning cannot be that there must be many of divers sorts people as well as rulers or else there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And granting as he doth that it may signifie a particular action it cannot be from the word proved that more joyn in the action then are said to joyn Besides where two alone do joyn there is actus communis particularis simul And as to the Text in ●and only Paul and Barnabas are here expressed to be those who gave suffrage And when two are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it s not necessary to understand twenty or two hundred Two Consuls may be said truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by a common and a particular act when they joyn in any busines belonging to them as Consuls though the whole Senatus Populúsque Romanus do not Vote with them Those Divines among us Protestants as Calvin and Ames * Calvin instit l. 4. c. 3. §. 15. Nempe sic Romani historici non rarò loquntur consulem qui comitia habuerit creasse novos magistratus non aliam ob causam nisi quia suffragia receperit populum moderatus sit in eligendo * Amesius Bellarm. enerv 10. 2. l. 3. c. 2. §. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dicitur qui prae●st 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo sensu tribuitur presbyteri● primariis vel episcopis aliquādo apud Euseb who answer the Papists that Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain because they gave direction and had precedence in this businesse do thereby acknowledge that the action is here expresly ascribed to them alone To that which follows But if the word they ordained be referred to Paul and Barnabas and signifie to create or make an Officer who was nons before yet the power whereby this creation is wrought is not their own only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is creare per suffragia as H. Stephen renders it which is as much as to say they did it not only vertually in the power

of others but they did it by others Ans The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes simply to choose with lifting up of hands or without so as there be some outward expression of the inward consent of the mind it sufficeth and sometimes by choosing to create But how will you prove that it signifies mixtly to create per suffragium proprium alienum or non per proprium sed per alienum as you here suppose or that the plurall suffragia hath any weight to imply a multitude in the Latine tongue They who gave their own suffrage and by giving it created and made or chos● Ministers they had the power Thus did Paul and Barnabas they made Presbyters by suffrage that must be understood of their own suffrage Not they by the people but they that is Paul and Barnabas for them that is for the people to their use and benefit That the people did it in Paul and Barnabas by acquiescing in their vote will not be denied but that the people did it by them as if the power were the peoples and not the Apostles unlesse by delegation from the people is not yet nor can be proved from the word as here used In the close of this Paragraph as your reasoning is weak so your expressions are confused if the answer fall short thank your self Your second argument to prove that Ordination is not essentiall to the calling of a Minister begins thus 2. The end and scope of Ordination is but to solemnize The second Argument inaugurate or publish the Calling of a Minister It is to a Minister as Coronation is to a King it makes him not a King but declares him and sets him forth with glory These are the very expressions and similitudes of Protestant writers both Lutherans and Calvinists in this matter Sicut non coronatio facit regem sed electio Aegyd Hun. ad artic Arturi contra assert 6. Ames Bellarmini enerv tom 2. p. 76. idem Cas cons l. 4. c. 25. sect 28. Boet. disp causa papatus l. 2. c. 20. p. 264. Majorem differentiam comminisci non potest inter duo illa elect ordinat quam inter constitutionem commissionem principis nudè spectatam inter eandem commissionem erbitrariis quibusdam symbolis sceptro coronâ c. insignitam id p. 267. Your margin Aegid Hun. ad artic Arturi contra assert 6. declaratio solennis Ames cas cons l. 4. c. 25. s 28. constitutionis testificatio Croci Antisoci disp 24. s 3. missio solennis in possessionem honoris Jun. testimonium vocati publicum T●●nob de minist l. 1. c. 25. Consecratio manifestatio declaratio promulgatio significatio coram ecclesia solennis testificatio Voet. desp causa Papat l. 2. s 2. c. 20. Ans 1. If there were no other use of Ordination then there is of Coronation to a King it might suffice in some sense to prove it essentiall to the calling of a Minister If coronation among Kings in our time be of like use to them as anointing was to Kings among the Jews or as imposition of hands was unto the Elders and unto Joshua in succession unto Moses Josh 27. 18. 2. Coronation is not of the like nature in all times and places nor in all mens judgements who write of Politicks And though for the most part it suppose some precedent act whereby a King receives title yet such weight is laid on this solemnity even among those who inherit by succession that he who is a King thinks himself not rightly setled till he hath been crowned and from the time of crowning the time of reigning uses to be accounted in the Empire * Althus polit c. 19. num 95. 3. It is not simply right that makes a man to be a King but the solemn declaration of that right in a forensick way which uses to be done by proclamation and some acknowledgement of the right demanded and that 's by coronation All these in the substance of the things must concurre and may be said to be essentiall because though the outward sign be juris positivi yet the thing signified is juris naturalis Apply this to the calling of a Minister and see what follows The consent of those who have power to make him a Minister who otherwise is none is substantially necessary Among those who have that power I hope the Ministers and Elders as such shall be allowed their share And that manner of declaring consent which is approveable by the fundamentall laws of the kingdom of Christ is also necessary the one antecedently the other consequently Let Ordination be in as much request among us for making Ministers as Coronation is for our Kings and it shall suffice for then as we have no Kings but such as are crowned so we shall have no Ministers but those who are ordained Remember that you are now speaking of Ordination as it is an act of Ministers and Elders wherein they are to consent for making of a Minister And if their consent as such h. e. as Ministers and Elders be essentiall though the manner of Declaring it were arbitrary yet that will suffice to prove Ordination in some sense essentiall 4. As for the Protestant writers when they compare Ordination to Coronation though it might suffice to say Comparisons prove nothing Theologica symbolica non est argumentativa yet I answer further They thereby understand for the most part the rite of Ordination or the act of Imposition of hands as distinguished from the foregoing consent of the Ministers and Elders and in that sense it may be admitted that Ordination is declaratio solennis aut constitutionis testificatio missio solennis in possessionem honoris and such like And this will be no advantage to you or prejudice to us You are now to speak of Ordination as distinguished from Imposition of hands for that follows afterward to be considered but how the Protestant writers understand it when they compare it to Coronation is another thing To the testimonies which are cited by you I shall speak more particularly in the close Whereas you say that these expressions and similitudes are agreeable to Scripture for Act. 13. Paul and Barnabas are said to be separated to the work by prayer and fasting and laying on of hands but both of them were Ministers before as appears Act. 12. ult Ans This text Act. 13. compared with Act. 12. makes nothing for proving the former expression and similitudes but it makes much against the scope of your argument because if Paul and Barnabas were Ministers before by a call from God without election and yet the Lord would have them to be ordained it makes much for the necessity of Ordination where it may be had The holy Ghost said Separa●● me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereto I have called them I have called them why might not that suffice but that the Lord would teach us by this extraordinary act and

his words I fram this argument That which is not only lawfull but so necessary about the calling of a Minister that it may not be omitted but only in case of necessity is more then a bare solemnization inauguration or publication and little lesse then essentiall but so it is with Ordination in the judgement of Crotius therfore Crocius makes against you not for you For Iunius he is so far from giving nothing but a bare rite about Ordination to the Presbyterie that he gives all unto it And though in severall respects and a divers kind he ascribes the power of Ordaining both to Christ as the head and Spouse of his Church and to the Church as the Body and Bride yet in a mediate Calling both of them in his judgement make over the power unto Ministers and Elders Sic totum in solidum Ordinatinnis potestatem Christus habet quam cum ecclesia sua communicat uterque verò pro suo jure sponsus inquam sponsa Presbyterio tradit Iure Divino So as al the power of Ordination in ful belongs to Christ which he communicates with his Church and both of them the Bridegroom and the Bride according to the right of each gives it by Divine right unto the Presbyterie * Junius anim in Bellar. con 5 l. 1. c. 3. ar 16. And whereas in the Presbyterie if it be compleat there be two sorts of Elders he distinguisheth after this manner that it may be known what belongs to each Actu presbyterium totum i. e. singuli in corprre presbyterii potestatem ordinandi habet ritu verò soli Presbyteri pascentes verbo i. e. Ministri verbi habent ordinandi potestatem * Art 21. The power of Ordaining in the act of it belongs to the whole Presbyterie consisting of Ministers and Elders as distinguished but in the rite of it it belongs to the Preachers only What can this Act be as thus considered apart from the Rite but something substantiall to the Calling the rather because in the same chapter * Art 3. profectò id legitimū est ut quemadmodum in ministerio absolutè per episcopos it à in ministerio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bujus aut illius ecclesiae per ipsam ecclesiam ordinetur communi ecclesiae nomine he makes the act of the Ministers and Elders to be that whereby a fit person is made a Minister and the act of the Church to be that whereby he is made a Minister of this or that particular Church As for Voetius though of all other he seem most to favour your cause and to ascribe much to election and little to Ordination yet I desire that this may be seriously weighed out of him That he professedly and at large maintains against Iansenius that the first Reformers had an ordinary outward call not only to the work of reforming but also to the office of being Ministers Which cannot possibly be maintained on any other principle but this That as in some cases Election alone sufficeth for he speaks but of Cases as all that is essentiall to a Calling so in their case Ordination alone made them Ministers and that way of Calling conteined all that was essentiall thereunto See to this purpose Desp causa Papatus lib. ● sect 1. à cap. 2. ad ult sec 2. cap. 1. seq usque ad 12. And whereas he sayes Majorem differentiam c. None can imagine a greater difference between these two Election and Ordination then between the Constitution and Commission of a Prince considered nakedly and the same commission adorned with some arbitrary symbols as scepter crown c. It may be answered besides all the premises that Election is that act whereby one is chosen in futurum Presbyterum to be made a Minister and Ordination is that whereby he who is so chosen is actually made a Minister And the reason is cleer Because between Election and Ordination something may intervene to make the choise null in relation to the end and effect whereunto it is intended to wit the making of such a person to be a Minister The designing of a person to be made a King and the act of putting him into the Kingly office as the choise of a meet person to be a wife and that act of mariage whereby she is made a wife de praesenti do very much differ the last is the most formall and constitutive And so it is between Election and Ordination when they are rightly compared and specially when Ordination as in this debate is taken for the substantiall act of Ministers and Elders distinct from the rite of Imposing hands Hitherto of those Calvinists which you cited Now for the Lutherans though you speak big yet you name but two and the one was cited to your hand in the other as Hunnius in Turnovius For the judgement of Turnovius * Paulus Turnovius de S. ministerio l. 1. c. 6. he makes Election to be vocationis initium tantum only the beginning of a call and that it differs from Calling it self which he proves by the instance of those two Act. 1. 23. who were both chosen and yet but one of them was called and by experience because many are chosen and yet upon examination rejected And relating to the judgement of Danaeus that the first suffrage belongs to the Presbyterie though he grants in matter of fact it is sometime otherwise yet he says it would be rectissimum justissimum the most right and just way that no Patron Magistrate Nobleman or Ruler should make any promise to any that they should be taken into this Order of the Ministery before he was satis exploratus sufficiently tryed both for doctrine ability to teach and conversation by the Presbyterie Consistory or Superintendent and Company of Ministers Quòd quoties negligitur hic ordo legitimus non servatur toties ju●a ecclesiae violantur atque utinam ipsa in periculum nunquam praecipitaretur For Hunnius I cannot yet meet with that Tract of his which you cite but you have his judgement out of other writings 4. The use of Ordination take it how you will in the sense of Protestant writers is more then to solemnize inaugurate or publish the calling of a Minister And therefore your but to solemnize is a glosse of your own to corrupt the text of those Authors and others of like kind whom you have quoted Why was not that englished Missio solennis in possessionem honoris The solemn mission into the possession of honour Shew us some reason why a right in the thing should not be essentiall as well as a right unto it or some other Scripture way whereby a Minister is actually made a Minister and put into the possession of Ministeriall power besides that of Ordination Tarnovius in the book and chap. which you have cited pag. 267. assigns a threefold use of it 1. The person chosen is by this ceremony separated from the remaining company of

power to choose themselves a Minister and by that act of theirs to make him one without Ordination who otherwise is none even when there is a way open for his Ordination for that must here be supposed remains yet for you to prove That Prayer alone is a separation of one to the Ministery is but your bare assertion and to cite Act. 13. 2 3. for the proof of this is bold presumption and abuse of Scripture That Deacons were separated with prayer and imposition of hands without fasting for there is no mention of that we read in Act. 6. 6. And that Paul and Barnabas were separated by prayer fasting and imposition of hands we read also Act. 13. 2 3. But what 's this to prove separation by Prayer only and that also by the people alone without Ministers and Elders Adde further Our translators of the Bible take and render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain which signifies properly to choose And where the Scripture speaks expresly of choosing they supply the text with the word Ordain Ans Our translators use the word Ordain for the English of severall words in the Greek as in the Old Testament for that one English word Idols there be many and divers words Elilim Gillu lim Tera●him Baal●m Tsirim c. in the Hebrew This liberty is necessary and almost unavoidable in many places and the more warrantable because the Holy Ghost speaking in divers places of the same thing does often vary in the manner of expressing And this is to be found not only by comparing those places which are cited out of the Hebrew in the Greek of the New Testament but also one place of the Hebrew with another as Ainsworth often observes in his Annotations That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies properly to choose in some places is granted provided that you acknowledge it may signifie sometimes as properly to ordain for it may indifferently be applied as well to Magistrates when by vote or suffrage they constitute which is by way of authority to ordain as to People when they elect or choose by way of priviledge or of power Whereas you say the Scripture speaks expresly of choosing in Act. 1. 22. and yet the Translators supply the text with the word ordain it is a great injury not only to the Translators but to the Scripture it self and to the Holy Ghost who is the author of them The 21. and 22. Verses being taken in together to make up one entire sentence tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One must be made witnesse with us of Christs resurrection Here the Scripture speaks expresly of making not of choosing and of one to be made not by the people but by God Among those who were present there were not people only but those who were greater then Ministers and Elders and they appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presented and nominated two that God might choose one * Non audent unum aliquem certo nomina re sed duos in medium producunt Domin●s sorte declaret utrum ex iis velit succedere Calv. inst l. 4. c. 3. s 13. Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here indeed the Scripture speaks of Gods choosing one and such a kind of choosing may well be called ordaining because it is a constitutive and consummating act whereby the people are bound to receive one as set over them by God But in the making of Matthias an Apostle the people had no such power as in this sense to choose him if they had why were lots used for then they might have pitched on one without using such a means of decision Hen. Stephan calls the act of choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creare magistratum the making of an Officer for it is as he sayes a new-found sense of the word to signifie laying on of hands And if the Apostle Luke should use it for laying on of hands Engl. pop cer p. 155 166. Carth. on Act. 14. 23. it was never used so before his time by any writer holy or prophane And unlesse his purpose was to write that which none should read it must needs be that as he wrote so he meant Election by voyces sayes Cartwright Ans Henry Stephan sayes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a-among other things creare magistratum the making of a Magistrate at cum accusati●o personae creare Sic etiam Act. 14. citing the words of the Text and adds At vetus interpres Quum constituissent But then he tells you Sunt tamen qui ad ritum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. impositionis manum id referri putent quum alioqui novum usum huic verbo hic tribuere minimè necesse videntur Here you discover either negligence or fraud The sense of the word which he approves in that Text Act. 14 is creating or constituting others he sayes understand by it imposition of hands this he calls a new use of the word and sayes it may seem not necessary yet he does not deny but the word may beare that sense because he knew well what he had said before that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 manum portendo attollo manum porrigo and that in Imposition of hands there is a lifting up and stretching out of the hands for what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he also expresses it The Text speaks of constituting and because in constituting Church-officers imposition of hands was the rite used in the Apostles times therefore it should not seem so strange a thing to hold that as the act of Paul and Barnabas in choosing Presbyters so also the consequent act of imposing hands should be comprehended under that one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the etymologie of the word agrees to the latter if the use do not Certain it is that the Greek Fathers and Councels do use the word for imposition of hands most frequently as Bilson instances at large * Of Perp. Government which they would never have done if the nature of the word would Dr. Fulk in locum sayes both election by the Church and Ordination by imposition of hands of the Apostles are comprehended under that one word not have borne such a use And it is as certain that many Greek words are used in the New Testament in such a sense as they are no where else to be found those common words of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are enough to prove it And if you will needs have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie nothing but an act of choice or election by voices as you call it yet Paul and Barnabas were the choosers and this makes nothing for popular election which you would haue to be the unum and unicum necessarium in the Calling of a Minister and yet you cannot prove by this word as there used that the people chose at all and much lesse that