Selected quad for the lemma: child_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
child_n	aaron_n	israel_n	levite_n	2,899	5	11.9722	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90932	The preacher sent: or, A vindication of the liberty of publick preaching, by some men not ordained. In answer to two books: 1. Jus divinum ministerii euengelici. By the Provincial Assembly of London. 2. Vindiciæ ministerii euangelici. By Mr. John Collings of Norwich. / Published by Iohn Martin, minister of the Gospel at Edgfield in Norfolk. Sam. Petto, minister of the Gospel at Sand-croft in Suffolk. Frederick Woodal, minister of the Gospel at Woodbridge in Suffolk.	Martin, John, 1595 or 6-1659.; Petto, Samuel, 1624?-1711.	1658 (1658)	Wing P3197; Thomason E1592_2; ESTC R208851	240,824	381

pray for them for the very same ends that such a set day is intended for we find not And by this we see cause to think that the Apostles had no such low esteem or account of the prayers of the people as some have Heb. 13. ver 18. Pray for us hence one well observeth that the greatest Apostle hath need of the prayers of the meanest Christian and may be helped thereby Act. 12. ver 5. Peter therefore was kept in prison but prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for him ver 12. many were gathered together praying Not the officers onely but the Church prayed and not distributively but collectively many prayed together here is publike prayer by the Church for an officer under persecution and why may not believers as well pray together for an officer at his Admission into his work By this it appeareth that the people may perform the substantial act of Ordination viz. Prayer and that for the very same end that it serveth to in Ordination 3. That imposition of hands if still continuing may be used by believers we might wave this because it is so questionable whether by the will of Christ it be still to continue or not but if it be of use about Ordination then believers may lay on hands also This appeareth 1. Because imposition of hands at the utmost can be but an Adjunct to Ordination our brethren in their Arguments for it yet do not assert it to be any more then an Adjunct neither is there any Scripture evidence that it was any more in the Primitive times And therefore the people may lay on hands for our brethren tell us that they see no reason why they that give the Essence should not also give the Adjunct The people as we have proved may give the Essence of Ordination viz. Prayer Ergo They may give the Adjunct viz. Imposition of hands 2. Because the people did with Gods allowance lay on hands in old Testament dayes Num 8. ver 10. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites This Argument will be of the more weight because as our brethren assert imposition of hands is not a proper Gospel duty never used but in the new Testament but is a Rite and ceremony borrowed from the old Testament c. from hence we infer that we have more reason in this then in other matters to look to the old Testament for a warrant about the use of it especially in a case where the new Testament doth not clearly direct us as must needs be the case when a Church wanteth officers because it was borrowed from the old Testament neither can a National Church or other old Testament orders be inferred from our using this Argument because it cannot be proved that National Churches c. are by Christ made Gospel institutions as imposition of hands is if it be continuing Saith Master M●●ther An example in the old Testament of a Mr. Mather of the power of Synods p. 95. practice not abolished in the new as Ceremonial typical or of some peculiar reason specially concerning those time and 〈◊〉 but of moral equity and reason such an example we think a sufficient warrant unto us for the like practice upon the like occasion in these dayes c. And they that were appointed to say hands on the Levites were the children of Israel as the Text expressely saith And as Master Mather also observeth this term is used in the ninth verse immediately preceding and in the eleventh verse immediately following and fifteen or sixteen several times in this Chapter Num 8. and yet of all these 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 as he rightly thinketh The people might lay hands on officers in old Testament dayes from whence the Rite is borrowed Ergo The people may lay hands on officers in new Testament dayes if the Rite be still of use in case a Church hath no officers in it Our Brethren object several things against this which we shall briefly answer Objeb 1. Here Aaron and his sons were present and if it proves any thing it proves that the people may Ordain where there are elders Answ If it will prove that the people may impose hands when elders are present then much more when they are wanting This is not against our assertion but more for it and much against our brethrens principles Object 2. The children of Israel were commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites But in the new Testament we meet with no such command laid upon the people We read that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery are to lay on bands but not a word of command for the people Answ 1. The command was immediate to Moses but not immediate to the children of Israel Num. 8. ver 5 6. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying take the Levites c. vers 10. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites The command was mediate to the children of Israel i. e. by Moses Thus whosoever the persons be whether officers or the people that in new Testament dayes are to ordain and lay on hands they are commanded by God to do it as immediately as the children of Israel were here to lay on hands upon the Levites for the Lord gave forth those commands immediately to the Apostles as he did this to Moses and therefore this objection will as much deny that officers may ordain or impose hands on officers as that the people may do it 2. If the children of Israel had been commanded by God immediately to lay on hands upon the Levites yet seeing this was the first institution of the Levites office it would not deny it to be a pattern For the institution of a new office must be given forth by the Lord immedediately to some persons or other 3. If imposition of hands was used in old Testament days by the people and in new Testament dayes there can be shewn no repeal of that Rule by which they did it then they may still use it Let any shew a repeal in the new Testament if they can We read that Timothy and Titus and the Presbytery laid on hands but at the utmost that can onely prove an enlargement of the power or that more persons may do it it doth not prove that the persons who formerly did it now may not do it It can onely shew that some officers may lay on hands it doth not shew that the people who formerly might now may not lay on hands Object 3. When it is said that the children of Israel laid on hands it is not imaginable that all the Israelites did put on hands but it was done by some chief of them in the name of rest c. Answ

That is sufficient to our purpose for so some of the chief men in a Church some of the most eminent believers may lay hands on Officers in the name of the rest we do not say that every member in a Church must lay on hands Obj. 4. The Levites were taken by God in stead of the first-born as appears Numb 8. 16 17. and hence it was that the children of Israel that is the first born of Israel were to lay on hands upon them for the Levites gave an atonement for them and were offered up to the Lord in their stead and as the Rabbins say every first born laid on hands on the Levite that was for him which if it be so will afford us two other answers to this Text. 1. The children of Israel had not onely a special command but a special reason also for what they did And wherefore this example cannot be made a pattern for New Testament practice 2. That this laying on of hands upon the Levites was not for them to set them apart for the service of the Lord but rather a setting them apart for a sacrifice unto the Lord. It was the command of God that the children of Israel must put their hands upon the sacrifices they did offer unto the Lord c. Answ 1. That the first-born onely did lay hands on the Levites is not proved It is true they were taken instead of the first-born but it was the Lords command that warranted the persons to lay hands on the Levites Numb 8. 10. and that runs in general to the children of Israel and therefore did not authorize the first-born more then any other persons to do it Hence 2. If the first-born did lay hands on the Levites it was not by vertue of any office but in the name and by the appointment of the children of Israel for the command did run to them in general 3. If the children of Israel had laid their hands upon the Levites upon the account of that command of God which required their putting hands upon the sacrifices they did offer then every man of them must have laid hands on them for so that command injoyneth Levit. 1. v. 2. When any man of you shall offer c. V. 4. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering c. Not a substitute not another for him but he every one to whom the offering belonged ought to impose hands upon it himself and this would overthrow their third objection which saith It is not imaginable that all the Israelites did put on hands c. and also this denyeth that it was onely the first-born that did impose hands and so destroyeth a great part of this fourth objection 4. It is not proved that this laying on of hands upon the Levites was a setting them apart for a sacrifice unto the Lord and therefore the objection is altogether groundless we do not read that hands were to be imposed on all sacrifices or offerings no not on the first-born in whose stead the L●vites were taken neither do we remember that the people were to impose hands on any but the burnt-offering Levit. 1. v. 4. He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him other Sacrifices Aaron and his Sonnes or the Elders c. imposed hands on when that ceremony was used about them at all And that the Levites were not such a sacrifice the very name burnt offering will truly evidence Nay it is plain that the end of their offering before the Lord was that they might execute their office Numb 8. v. 11. And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering not of the first-born onely as our brethren would have it but of the children of Israel not as their propitiation and atonement or as a sacrifice but that they may execute the service of the Lord so v. 15 16. They were indeed to make atonement for the children of Israel but not by offering sacrifices for the peoples sins for that was done by the Priests onely nor by being a sacrifice to make atonement for them because no such end of Aarons offering them up is proved and another end is mentioned v. 13 14 15 16 21. but by their other service in the Text and this the words following do confirm That there be no plague among the children of Israel when the children of Israel come nigh unto the Sanctuary Their making atonement was after they were offered not by being offered for an offering unto the Lord And by many verses it is plain that their setting apart was for the service of the Lord v. 11 15 19 21 22. and therefore the objection vanisheth Our brethren observe That notwithstanding this imposition of hands the Levites were not thereupon invested into their office it was Aarons waving of the Levites and separating them from among the children of Israel that did constitute and make them Church-officers If this be fully granted nothing is gained against us for we are far from thinking that Ordination doth constitute or make Church officers much less do we imagine that imposition of hands doth it But from hence we gather thus much That it was not the intendment of imposition of hands in Old Testament dayes to confer an office and therefore seeing the ceremony was borrowed thence it is very unlikely that in New Testament dayes it should be intended for such an end And thus we have proved the first part of the Minor of our sixth Argument viz. That believers may undoubtedly perform all the acts which Ordination so far as any man acteth in it doth confist in or is made up of The second part of the Minor viz. That these acts are not limited in their use upon the occasion of Ordination to Officers onely we prove thus because none of the Texts which speak of Ordination do limit it to Officers onely let our brethren prove any such limitation and unlesse they can do that which we suppose they never can it will necessarily follow That in a Church which hath no Officers some believers may lawfully or warrantably ordain without Officers If they may perform the same acts upon other occasions and they be not limited and confined to Officers upon this occasion then they may perform them here also And for the clearing of this that there is no such limitation we shall examine briefly our brethrens Arguments against Ordination by the people without Ministers They tell us That they might argue from what is recorded by Jewish Jus Divin Min. p. 184. Writers concerning the custom of creating men members of their great Council or Sanhedrin and they tell us That when a Successor was to be provided for Moses God commands him to take Joshua and lay his hands upon him c. and accordingly it was done Numb 27. 18. And so for those seventy Elders it is certain from the Jewish Writers that the succession

they grant Jus Div. Minist pag. 80. that in cases of necessity men out of Office may preach and instance in Aedesius and Frumentius two private men by whose means the Indians were converted to the Christian faith c. Now the case of Saul was extraordinary the Philistims were ready to assault him he had not made his peace with God Samuel delayed his coming the people began to scatter from him whereupon he constrained himself and offered a sacrifice all these things our Brethren reckon up Jus Divin Minist pag. 81. and then call it a necessitated act So in the case of Uzza what greater necessity could there be then this when the Ark was in danger 2 Sam. 6. 6. The oxen shook it 1 Chron. 13. 9 10. The oxen stumbled If the Ark had fallen or had been broken how exceedingly Israel had suffered by it the use of it will evidence and that dolefull complaint 1 Sam. 4. 17. The Ark of the Lord is taken and ver 22. The glory is departed from Israel for the Ark of God is taken Either our Brethren must say That none may preach in a case of necessity without Ordination or being designed to Office and so cross themselves and that none must preach as probationers for that is designation to Office but they must ordain men before they hear them preach and so before they know their fitness to preach or else they must grant that these examples of Saul and Uzza are impertinent and no proofs of the Argument Let them prove that these acts might be performed so much as once by any before they were actually in such Offices as the works did belong to upon any account whatever 2. These acts were expresly forbidden and some of them threatned with death to any person that did them besides the Officers designed for the doing of them as Numb 4. ver 15. The Sons of Kohath shall come to bear it bu● they shall n●t touch any holy thing lest they dy They are forbidden so much as touching of any of the holy things upon pain of death Uzzah breaking such a command he suffered the penalty was punished with death So Numb 16. ver 40. That no stranger which is not of the seed of Aaron come neer to offer incense before the Lord that he be not as Korah and his company c. All Israelites or Levites save Aarons sons only are counted strangets in this case of Priest-hood None might Offer incense Ainsw but they lest they be as Korah in sin and punishment Numb 1. 51. Numb 18. 22 23. Neither must the Children of Israel henceforth come nigh the Taberbernacle of the Congregation lest they bear sin and dy Let any shew where the preaching of gifted Brethren is thus forbidden else these examples are nothing to their purpose And besides the matter of these works as well as the manner of performing them was not allowed to any but those Officers whereas the matter of this work of preaching is allowed undenyably to such as are no Officers they may exhort and reprove privately by our Brethrens own grant but might not privately burn incense or offer sacrifice which sheweth a further difference between those acts Object 3. This practise doth make voyd or at best unnecessary and insufficient those Officers which God hath appointed What needs a peculiar Officer to be set apart to a common work Answ 1. It is common but to such as are gifted not to all Christians as they suggest 2. It is not performed in the same manner by gifted men or under such a relation as in case of Office it is Officers preach to their Churches as to those that they are over in the Lord that are committed to their charge for such ends but gifted men stand not under any such relation to those they preach unto Some Churches have no Officers and those that have yet need the gifts of other Members In some places there are no Churches to be Officers to the people having never had the Gospel preached to them It will hardly be proved that Officers must leave their Churches to preach to these and if not they must either finde some Officers who have no Churches which is to finde a shepherd without a flock a relate without a correlate or else they must say that none must preach for the conversion of such or else that men not in Office may preach and this doth not make Officers either voyd unnecessary or insufficient Officers are necessary and sufficient to the end that Christ hath appointed them unto to be over and take charge of his Churches under him but they are not sufficient to undertake the whole worke of preaching in all places and to all persons 3. This Objection lyeth as strongly against Officers being designed to admonish exhort or reprove at least in private for what need a peculiar Officer to be set apart say they to a common work other Christians may exhort and reprove and will our Brethren say therefore there is no need that Officers should be designed to this work Obj. 4. This practise doth confound disturb that order which God hath set in his Church therefore it must needs be sinful God is the God of order and not of confusion 1 Cor. 14. and hath commanded that every one should do his own work 1 Thes 4. Rom. 12. And abide in his own calling 1 Cor. 7. he hath condemned those that walk disorderly 2 Thes 3. and are busie-bodies he hath placed in his Church different orders some shepherds some sheep some Teachers of the word some to be taught as their places so their works are distinct This takes away the distinction between shepherds and flock Pastor and people c. Ans 1. We have proved that the preaching of gifted Brethren is a part of that order which Christ hath appointed therefore doth neither confound nor disturb that order which God hath set in his Church If Christ hath allowed their preaching then it is their work and in doing of it they walk orderly We have shewn before that it doth belong to their place and calling to preach and thither we refer the Reader 2. The preaching of persons not designed to Office doth not take away the distinction between shepherds and flock Teachers and some Taught because they do not act under such a relation towards them as Officers do A Father may reach and instruct his children as a Father another man may instruct and teach the same children as a School-master yet these relations are not destroyed or confounded hereby though both doe the same work Here are Fatherly teachings and yet the distinction between the Master and Scolar is not taken away and the same may be said if a friend Teacheth them who stands in no such relation to them It is a common practice in Schools for some youths of ripe wits and wel learned by the appointment of the School-master to be often set to teach fellow-scholars and yet the