A41335:64
Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the…
Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the work of the ministry be necessary?, II. Whether it be essential to the right constitution of a particular church, that the teaching elders and the members meet always in one place? : whereunto is added a prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, minister in Essex, long before the beheading King Charles I and Arch-Bishop Laud, foretelling that they should not dye a natural death / by Giles Firmin ...Weighty questions discussed I. Whether imposition of hands in separating a person to the work of the ministry be necessry?, II. Whether it be essential to the right constitution of a particular church, that the teaching elders and the members meet alwayes in one place? : whereunto is added a prediction of Mr. Daniel Rogers, minister in Essex, long before the beheading King Charles I and Arch-Bishop Laud, foretelling that they should not dye a natural death / by Giles Firmin ...
London : Printed for the author, 1692
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Who are meant by the Sons of Israel in the 10th. verse, is the Question. Mr Pool saith, the First-Born, or chief of the Tribes. The same Persons I presume, might be both, and most probable it was so.
First, Chark•ni [as Mr. Ainsworth Quotes him, and agrees with him in it] saith, They were the First-Born. In this case he may be credited as soon as any Christian Writer.
Secondly, We read in the three next verses, 16, 17, 18 the Lord tells Moses three times, that he had taken the Levites instead of the First-born: Hence 'tis, most probable, the First-born were they who imposed Hands on the Levites.
Thirdly, By this Act, saith Mr. Pool, they signified their transferring that Right of Ministering to God, from the First-born, in whose hands it formerly ⟨p. 3⟩