Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	appointment_n	levite_n	42	3	10.1828	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82508	A defence of sundry positions, and Scriptures alledged to justifie the Congregationall-way; charged at first to be weak therein, impertinent, and unsufficient; by R.H. M. A. of Magd. Col. Cambr. in his examination of them; but upon further examination, cleerly manifested to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power. / By [brace] Samuel Eaton, teacher, and Timothy Taylor, pastor [brace] of [brace] the church in Duckenfield, in Cheshire. Published according to order.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.; Taylor, Timothy, 1611 or 12-1681.	1645 (1645)	Wing E118; Thomason E308_27; ESTC R200391	116,862	145

by lifting up thy hand and Barnabas must say to Paul If thou be for him or for any other dielare it by lifting up thy hand a most ridiculous course was ever suffrages so gathered and given when but one man to gather and another to give might not two persons better have gone apart and concluded the businesse by counsell betwixt themselves then to have gone to it by suffrage and stretching out of hands in the presence of so many except there had been some greater plurality of persons There is roome enough without absurdity for Churches though but two or three to go to voting in a businesse that is common to them and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applicative to them but there is no place with any colour of reason why two persons should go to voting when any thing is put to vote or lifting up of hands the end of it is that the businesse may that way be cast but two persons may end it by agreement when as by vote they cannot if they be opposite to one another POSITION X. The particular Congregation This Scripture is alledged by R. M. and W. T. to C. H. answ to 32. q. p. 69. though they want Officers have power and authority to ordain Officers as the children of Israel did put their hands upon the Lovites Numb 8.9 10. That Congregation had Officers Answer Aaron the High Priest and many other Priests Numb 3.4 But you hold not that people may ordain in the presence and plenty of Officers 1. Though they had Officers Reply viz. Aaron and his Sons yet those Officers could not lay their hands upon them for a speciall reason and therfore they were as without Officers the reason was this the Levites were given to God and they were given to Aaron and his sons they were given to Gods service they were given to Aarons service and therefore they must be presented not by Aaron and his sons but before them Numb 8.13 Aaron and his sons must be the person that must as it were receive them therefore not lay their bands on them for that was the work of those that offered them and gave them and not the work of those that must receive them this appeares from Numb 3.6 7. and Numb 8.13 with 19.2 Will it not hold à majore from the greater that if in the old Testament the people did ordain in the presence of Officers then they may in the new much more in the want of Officers All the children of Israel being about 600000 Answer did not probably lay hands on the Levites but some in stead of the rest which were more likely to be the Elders then any other You might have said could not possibly at once do it Reply therefore of necessity some in stead of the rest did it and probably the Elders But what Elders Ecclesiasticall Elders there were none but Aaron and his sans and they did it not as is manifest from the Text and for the reason rendred they were therefore Civill Elders but not as Elders For you hold not that it belongs to Civill Elders as Civill Elders to lay on hands in ordination but as they were the chief and principall men of the Congregation and we hold the gravest and wisest and primest of the Congregation ought to do it on the behalf of the rest when there is a want of Ecclesiasticall Officers All the Congregation Answer and all the Elders of the Congregation are all one Exod. 12.3 with vers 21. 1. It doth not appear from the Text alledged Reply that they are all one but distinguished though they all are one body yet these as Officers those as Members For when God saith speak ye unto the Congregation of the children of Israel he meant really that the Congregation of Israel should be spoken to and not the Elders only for the ordinance was as well appertaining to the Congregation as to the Elders and when Moses vers 21. spake to the Elders only yet it was with reference to Gods command in vers 3. that all the Congregation might be spoken to they fulfill Gods commandement speak to the Congregation but not immediatly but by the Elders Doth this confound Congregations and Elders For if God had meant Elders by the Congregation then the Elders killing the Passeover though the people had not done it yet Gods command had been fulfilled which is untrue 2. Though the Congregation and the Elders should be all one yet is the Congregation and the Ecclesiasticall Elders all one if the Text you alledge prove not that it is nothing to your purpose 3. If the Congregation and the Elders should be all one in some places yet in Numb 8.9 10. they are not all one For Aaron and his sons were the only Ecclesiasticall Elders and they are mentioned distinctly from the Congregation of Israel The Levites were separated to their work Answer an t taken from amongst the children of Israel cleansed and offered before the Lord by Moses and Aaron respectively according to Gods expresse appointment vers 6.7.8.11.13.14 therefore this laying on of hands was either only obedientiall for approbation of Gods election or for oblation of the Levites to God in stead of their first born vers 16.17 18. as they laid hands on sacrifices vers 12. which was a speciall reason and peculiar to those times Obedientiall certainly it was Reply but principally for another reason as we conceive which you omit the service of the Levites was the service of the children of Israel which formerly the first born were wont to perform now God had chosen the Levites in stead of the first born to do that service which Israel should have done by their first born therefore Israel must lay their hands upon them that is put that work upon them which was theirs For as the laying on of the hands on the sacrifice did put the sins on the sacrifice and so upon Christ so the laying on of hands did put the service upon the Levites see Numb 3.7 Numb 8.18 19. and herein there is a parity for the service of the Ministery is the service of the Church and the Officers which the Church hath performs it for the Church and the Church when she puts her hands upon the Officers puts the service upon the Officers and yet this reason would neither have been good then in the presence of the Officers had there not been a speciall reason for it nor is it good now when the Church hath Officers because the Officers are to transact her affaires for her If the people did ordain the Levites Answer I am sure they did not choose them If this be a binding pattern you will loose Election while you contend for popular ordination Such a sleight conclusion will not so soon wring away election from the people Reply We have examples enough in the new Testament for such a priviledge to settle it upon them more firmly then so We need not fly to

ingaged to perform such duties so is any covenant The covenants in Scripture were no such covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and appropriated to them also So that they were a separated people from other Nations by covenant Exod. 12.47 48. the Passeover was a service which all the house of Israel was ingaged to perform together and all that would joyn to them and by circumcision they became one people with them but no stranger might partake with them so that the Jewes by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Pastor is denied for we hold it a consequent priviledge of a Church whether constituted by verball covenant or not to choose their own Pastor therefore the Church is first before it hath a Pastor this is confessed by your self page 13. if it were not so the Church would be dissolved at the death of the Pastor there is a covenant between the Pastor and people but it is emergent and groweth out and proceeds from the Covenant among the people the people must first be one before they can agree in one to choose their Pastor with whom they afterwards enter into covenant There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Egypt before there were any Pastors to be over them therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture without application to Pastors And it was so in the Wildernesse also at the first before Aaron and his sons were chosen To be Gods people Answer and Gods Church is not all one in your sense Forty Believers of no Church or of forty severall Churches are the Lords people but they are not an instituted Church To be one people unto God Reply in a professed solemn way which is done by entring into covenant with God and to be a Church is all one Now this is that which is asserted from Deut. 29.12 13. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God that be may establish thee this day for a people or one people to himself in a professed way So by the Covenant of circumcision for so it was called because it was the seal of it the Seehemites were to become one people to God and to the seed of Jacob Gen. 34.15 16. No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewish Church Answer nor of the Christian Church nor at the adding any members to them neither did they make a Church more truly a Church or politique Society or more truly members but did make them or shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God even as when single persons or families do covenant with God 1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewish church Reply how comes it that all that entred into the Iewish Church of the proselyted Gentiles entred by the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision doth not the way of augmentation of the Church shew the way of the first constitution thereof So it may be spoken of Christian Churches why are converted Heathens and the Infants of Church-members brought into the Church by baptisme which is a Church-ordinance and the seal of the Covenant of grace and of that part of it principally which respects Church-society 2. How do those which were many become one among themselves and distinct from all other bodies of the same kinde as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea for parishbounds were not then on foot so that the members of one were not the members of the other nor the Officers of one the officers of the other if there be nothing that knits them together among themselves and divides them asunder from others and if any thing combine them what can it be but some agreement or covenant expresse or implicit Why must circumcision the seal of the Covenant be used to make the Sechemites one people with Jacobs family if Jacobs family or Isaak's or Abrabam's before that were one unto all holy Church-worships among themselves without covenant 3. Did the joyning of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them no more truly members of the church of Israel then they were before only make them and shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God were they not accounted after circumcision of the Jewes Common-wealth and were invested into all the Jewes spirituall priviledges which they had no right to before though they were converted persons and Gods servants 4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church state and professedly and openly separated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time by a mark in his flesh he was distinguished from all the nations and became Gods houshold if this be so then Church state is founded in Covenant if it be otherwise let it appear that he was in Church state before that time and we shall look out for a Covenant before that time That which induceth us thus to thinke is 1. Because we reade nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people unto God before that time 2. We reade not of any Symbole of Church state by which Abrabam and his family were separated from the rest of the world before circumcision which was a token in their flesh to distinguish them from the nations round about them 3. This distinguished him and his family not from the world alone but from other believers of his time Melchisedeck and Lot which though holy men yet not in his state nor had his priviledges But this Argument from circumcision is encountred with in your answer that followes The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for Gods part of the Covenant Answer or his promise to Abraham Gal. 3.16 17. not for mans part to God While you charge us of mis-interpreting the Scriptures Reply it stands you upon to be wary that your self run not into that error Paul Gal. 3.16 with vers 8. as Peter Acts 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered well there and in thy seed seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant Gen. 12.3 and 22.16.18 The Apostle there had no occasion to speak of the restipulation on Abrahams part and in Gen. 17.1.9 't is manifest that that Covenant was reciprocall as Junius and Pareus do observe upon that place but you check your self as if overbold and therefore say Indeed Answer receiving of circumcision doth import a Covenant on Abrahams part or consent to the Covenant as baptisme also doth but it is held they were in Church state before they had right to circumcision therefore you should shew they made a Covenant before circumcision Circumcision being but the sign and seal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before Reply of