Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the…

3dly. Paul knew how Imposition of Hands in separation to Office, came into the Jewish Church, by the positive Command of God, and how it continued in that Church. Secondly, He know the Practices of the Apostles. Now, Thirdly, He knew how he himself was separated. Fourthly, He can tell Timothy how he, i. e. Timothy, was separated, and charge him that he take care how he laid Hands upon others. Can any rational Man think, that Paul now would in these Churches, separate Man to Office without Imposition of Hands? I think no Rational Man will believe it. Why then is this Text abused?

For my part I am for the Peoples Election, provided it be carried on regularly; and look upon this Imposing of Ministers by Patrons upon the People against their Consent, as cursed Tyranny.

But for my own part (giving honour to these worthy Men, far more learned than my self) I am not satisfied, that this [Greek or Hebrew] in this Text, whatever the Etymology of the word was at first, must necessarily note the Act of the People listing up their Hands in Election of their Officers. I rather consider how the word is used, in that Age or Time when Men write. 'Tis well known that words in time do vary in their signification from what they did at first. Among divers others, we have one in Scripture, ¹[Greek or Hebrew], Ephis. 5.4. Aristotle tells us how the Word was first used, and who was [Greek or Hebrew], a Man that was facetious, pleasant, Witty, but withal cleanly in his Discourse: But afterwards in his time, if a Man did seem to be Witty, tho' Scurrilous and base, he now was [Greek or Hebrew]. Divers such words we have in the Latin, and English Tongue. Philo and Paul were Contemporaries, ²