5.28 I answered that the Apostles were immediatly called Gal. 1. 1. You reply Pag. 6. That the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times did so as wel as the Apostles and Pag. 7. That the warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatness of the commission but from the truth and reality of it I rejoyn 1 You should produce those ordinary Pastors and teachers which did so and prove it by scripture which proof the reader may expect as being only able to satisfy conscience your selves dis-allow many things reported in Ecclesiastical history 2. You cannot make out so true and real a Commission for gathering Churches amongst us as the Apostles had amongst the Jews and Gentiles as hath bin largely shewed Cap. 1. If you could yet surely had you as immediate a commission now as they then had you might more boldly imitate them therein which is the thing I asserted 3. Mr. Weld a Congregational man calleth this an opposition to Magistracy yea saith he what pen can express a greater latitude of opposition as you acknowledg in your last P. 22. And promise to annex a more pertinent answer Sect. 2. When I assert that you hold not that ministers deposed by their Churches ought to preach or that Mr. Ward deposed by the Church at Roterodam was hound to officiate there before his restauration you reply P. 7. That Ministers censured by a lawful power where ever it lyes whether in their own Congregational Churches or in a Presbytery whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly ought to submit and forbear the execution of their Ministry in that place til they be restored c. But what say you makes this against the position Rejoynder 1. Then you plainly intimate that either the Presbytery or the Congregational Church hath lawful power to depose their Minister 2. Your grant here makes much against the Position as it relateth to the Apostles For 1. The Apostles immediate Commission could no more be called in or curbed by the Church then by the Magistrate 2. Nor had the Churches power to silence them as they had ordinary Elders you confess no more then the Magistrate 3. Those whom Peter and Iohn refused to obey if they were not meerly an Ecclesiastical Court yet there was amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons Acts 4.5 6 23. Acts 5.17 24 27. 4. That they had lawful power is not denyed nor questioned by the Apostles but granted rather Acts 4.8 And you assert it was a true Church then and if these things be so and you do hold up to your rule it wil follow as wel that Ministers deposed specially if unjustly by lawful Ecclesiastical judges ought not to desist from their Ministry but say to them as wel as to the Magistrate as the Apostle said to the high Priest Acts 5.20 We ought to obey God rather then man Ecclesiastical judges being but men no more then civil which would tend to the undermining and subverting of the Government by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it and disturb the Churches peace as you ingenuously acknowledg Sect. 3. When Iurge that the Apostles had infallible direction of the holy Ghost you reply nothing at all to it though you know 1. That he which is infallible may more safely resist the laws of the Magistrate then he that is not 2. That opposition made by men so infallibly inspired is rather made by the holy Ghost then by them 3. The points which the Apostles were forbidden to preach were of themselves of more absolute necessity and undoubted certainty as your selves wil acknowledg then your tenets of discipline and therefore the Magistrate is not to be so peremptorily disobeyed in the one as in the other When I further answer That the case of living under a Christian Magistrate Intending indevouring I might now add and having in measure effected Reformation and of living under an Heathen Magistrate and a professed publike enemy of the Church is much different you reply That the case is not different in my sense for the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity for Reformation cannot take any person or persons off their duty which they would be bound unto if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway The Magistrate Minister and the people stand ingaged each for himself to Iesus Christ unto the work of his own place The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge to any Rejoynder but. 1. The question is whether it be private mens duty to set up Churches or to make publike Reformation can a precept or president be shewed in Gods Book for such a practise we must keep within the compass of our callings 1 Cor. 7.17 When things were amiss in Israel the people made no Reformation nor did the Prophets call them to it or blame them for not doing it when they were opposed by soveraign authority the Iews omitted to build the Temple and the City being forbidden by the Kings of Persia yea Christ and his Apostles shifted from place to place and left the execution of their Ministry in places where they were persecuted at least to avoyd offence or to escape danger 2. It is the right and dury of every Magistrate to be the Churches nursing Father and to reform it if there be need as also it is the duty of every family-governer to reform his family Now a godly Christian Magistrate and houshholder have both jus and aptitudinem the right as also Heathens may have and fitness so to do A wife may be more bold to order the family if her husband be distracted then if he be solidwitted for though he be an husband stil and it is his duty to do it yet he wants fitness to do it It is not orderly for some companies of an army to engage while their faithful and valiant General and Councel of war are consulting and deliberating how they may best do it yea possibly have determined another course shal no more respect be shewed nor obedience in matters of God yeelded by a wife child servant to a conscionable Christian husband Father Master then if they were professed Heathens you would not take it wel if you should catechize your children command them to come to family-family-duties and to keep the way of the Lord. Gen. 18.19 And they should answer an Heathen father is as truly a father as you and you are no more to be obeyed in matters of Religion then he 3. The General Court civil in N. England hath made a law that no Church should be set up there without the consent of the Magistrate T. W. to W. R. and were you in N. E. I suppose you durst not preach or print that that law is against Gods law or that any ought to set up Churches there against the consent of the Magistrates And hath not the civil Magistrate in old England from whence theirs is but derived as much power there being the same or greater occasion to make a law to the same
such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinful before If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were members and with the rest made such Churches Rejoynder 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances as you might 2 I am informed and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments they aimed not principally it at all at a purer Church but a better Ministry they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches or a bad one and it may be dwelling neerer to those then to their own parochial assemblies and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant and I suppose also they wanted subscription and signals of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings and if they had had such Ministers there and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places it may be thought they would not have sought else where 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates and that it was then lawful too can you thence infer that it is still lawful though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech if you mean That the separation which then was used by them that used it and possibly by some others was approved I contend not but that no godly man accounted it sinful ordinarily to frequent another assembly especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety I cannot think As for your separation many godly did account it sinful yea the most eminent non-conformists yea they which did best affect congregational government yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren That you are free in your judgment to baptize my child or the children of any godly Minister or member of our Church or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you now if you would act according to your own Principles which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case and would inform your Churches of their duty herein your separation would be less offensive but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal of it not sinful I see not Sect. 5. Reply P. 3. Fifthly are not some parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent wil be granted of all Rejoynder 1. What then wil you thence conclude that the Apostles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others c Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches is this the common acceptation of the words Gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches Did your selves dream that was my meaning or the thing I put you to prove Doth remooval from one parish to another imply the forsaking of or separating from the communion of the former parish and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish If not how doth it can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies And yet you argue thus remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest therefore your separation is pious and honest and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men but what is so judged by the spirit of God Truly I might as well argue some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful as that of the Papists Brownists c. Therefore yours is so And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material for it is sinne to consent sent to such a separation and sinne to separate whatsoever consent you have shew that your gathering of Churches with consent or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles and it shal serve your turn Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redress and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witness against such corruptions unless they wil be accounted factions and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members what must they now do Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evil give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evil Church-membership is for edification of the members not for destruction Rejoynder 1. These passages and your practise of gathering seperating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation a censure so void of truth and charity that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members plead with the Church Hose 2.2 Bear witness against her sinnes and errors and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation both by exciting quantum inse the power of that particular Congregation and complaining to superior judicatories but not presently to separate The Apostle Paul notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church and they were
ask who hath read or heard I answer Mr E. and Mr T. have I suppose read the N. E. Elders apology for Church-covenant out of which that phrase and most part of the sentence is taken why do you quarrel with me or rather with the Elders of N. E. beating them on my back 2. Your selves wil say A covenant to serve God to endeavor after the enjoyment of all Gods ordinances A covenant to perform church-Church-duties is not a Church-covenant except they covenant to enjoy Gods ordinances and perform church-Church-duties together a man promiseth to marry a woman promiseth to marry this doth not make them many and wife except they promise to marry one another and do so Surely you do not think these expressions ridiculous 3. I speak as you might discern by my phrase of the Churches and people of the new testament not of the old and so did the Elders of N. E. for they speak of distinguishing one Church from another a speech proper to the new testament 4. Suppose there had bin before Christ some other Church which had worshipped God as purely and enjoyed God as fully as the Jewish Church did would such a covenant as this you speak of Deut. 29. have bound all that took it to be of the Iewish Church and not of the other I think you wil not say it I dare say you cannot prove it 5. However we yet want a solemn verbal express covenant by which the Jews and Gentiles converted bound themselves to be all of one Church though they were one Church and did not want any thing necessary to the strength and purity of the Church for Mr. Cotton himself saith that God propoundeth and giveth a covenant to a people and they accept it though not in express words yet in silent consent and he cites Gen. 17.7 Deut. 29 10. ad finâ—m Cap. 30. Way of the Churches p. 3. Sect. 3. Reply p. 40. There is a covenant between Pastor and people but it groweth out of the covenant amongst the people who must first be one before they can agree in one to choose a Pastor There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Aegypt before there were Pastors over them and it was so in the wilderness before Aron and his sonnes were chosen Rejoyn My speech was dis-junctive if a Church-covenant imply appropriation either to this or that people or to this or that Pastor or both the speech is true 2. That the covenant between Pastor and people is emergent from a covenant amongst the people is gratis dictum and so stands til you shew a people covenanting to be a Church together before they had officers 3. That Israel was the Lords people before they had any Pastors over them is a gross untruth The first born until Aaron and the sonnes of Levi were separated for that work were unquestionably Priests and Pastors yea Adam was a Priest to himself and family and therefore it is said that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground viz. he brought to his father that he might offer it to the Lord so both ancient and modern Interpreters do expound it and they had Priests before the giving of the law which questionless came with them out of Aegypt Ainsworth in Exod 19.22 and those young men Gen. 24.5 are interpreted to be the first born of the several families and these continued til the Levites were substituted in their places Sect. 4. Reply p. 40. To be one people to God in a professed solemn way by entering covenant with God and to be a Church is all one and this is asserted Deut 29.12.13 Rejoyn Neither the text Deut. 29.11.12 nor my answer had the words one people in them but a people you force in the word one that you may have some pretence for a covenant The Scripture shews us not that a people or a people of God is equivalent to one people 2. England Scotland and Ireland are or may be the Lords people in a professed solemn way by entering into covenant with God wil you hence conclude that they thereby are all made one Church God foretels that many nations shal be joyned to the Lord and be his people Zach. 2.11 The Christian Gentiles are called Gods people and that by covenant Hose 2.23 The Jews scattered in Pout us Asia Cappadocia and Bithinia are called a poculiar people 1 Peter 2.9 And therefore by your logick they are all one Church Sect. 5. Reply p. 41. To prove there was a covenant at the founding of the Iewish Church and so of Christian Churches you urge That all the Proselyted Gentiles entered into the Church by the seal of the covenant which was Circumcision and converted Heathens and the infants of Church-members are brought into the Church by baptism which is the seal of the covenant of grace and especially of that part of it which concerns Church society Rejoyn 1. You know my meaning was not that there was no covenant at all but that there was Church-covenant no solemn express verbal covenant which you assert to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church The Jewish Church qua Church if not qua Jewish was founded first in Adams family then again in Noahs hence your selves argue from their families that 7 or 8 may make a Church so it continued in Shems family who as some most probably think was Mâ—lâ—hisâ—dâ—ck who being a Priest must needs be within the Church and yet all this while you have no colour for a Church-covenant 2. If the bringing in of converted Heathens and the infants of Church members into the Christian Church by baptism of Circumcision we shal speak afterward be a sufficient evidence that the Church is founded by covenant then the Reformed Churches are founded in covenant as wel as yours yea as wel as the Primitive Apostolick Churches for the same argument you bring why they were founded in covenant suits fits all the Churches for ought I know Gentiles converted and infants of Church-members being brought into them all by baptism and consequently they that forsake the Reformed Churches are coeteris paribus covenant-breakers as wel as they which forsake your Churches 3. That Congregational society is a part and a principal part of the covenant of grace I understand not For if it were so then 1. It would follow that Adam and Eve While alone til they were so many as would make a Church were not wholly partakers of the covenant of grace 2. That a true beleever excommunicated though for the name of Christ is deprived in part of the covenant of grace Yea that every one that is not a Church-member wants a part of the covenant of grace and a principal part too 4. Nor do I beleeve Paptism to be a seal of Congregational communion principally Because 1. The Apostles as you say p. 56. might baptize in all the world and not only in the Church 2. Paul himself was baptized
government are Congregational men and Independents and neither Presbyterians nor Prelatists but some of them members of your Churches 3. I read in one that is meerly a Congregational man viz. Mr. B. that our Ministers and those that are converted by them do deny Christs Kingly Government and that a main thing is wanting viz. Christs Kingly Office and that they refuse Christ for their only King and other words to that effect 4. That this is a doctrine devised by my selfe and Scriptures fixed to it to make you odious as you say in your last is a most uncharitable ungrounded surmise yet you are as peremptory in i◠as if you infallibly knew that never any one of the Congregational way had ever in speech or writing vented such a thing I will not bring against you a rayling accusation only I say you know not of what spirit you are it is well if your selves bee not guilty of such practises 5. You own the Position in terminis and do I doubt not apply it to your society but as it is by mee controverted you say you own it not what do ye not hold that a Congregational Church rather than a Presbyteriall doth acknowledge Christ to bee the only King c. You say little lesse when you say that our way as you conceive is not suitable to the will of God delivered by Christ as a Prophet nor to the Lawes of Christ as King and yours is conformed to that will and lawes but I asked you what Scripture doth so witnesse and you returne no answer I dare say you cannot make your speech good 6. Your selves in your last p. 36. do complain of me for such divulging to the world the doubts of brethren wanting light and addressing themselves to mee for satisfaction and say it will make them tender how they seek satisfaction from mee for the future and yet you often call upon mee to name my authors but as the brethren were not displeased but some of them desirous of the publishing of the first book so I will notwithstanding all your provocations bee tender of their names as of mine own and bee willing to spend and be spent for them humbly hoping that as heretofore I have been hereafter I more fully may be Gods Instrument for their settlement and satisfaction in the way of God CHAP. XXXIII Whether 1 TIM 6.13 14. proves the unchangeablenesse of the Discipline of Christ Sect. 1. WHen I say it seems by the words Thou O man of God I give thee charge that thou keep this commandement viz. which immediately precedes concerning faith holinesse in the Ministrie of the Word to be directed to Timothy himselfe or if to his successors then it must be to the ordinary Elders for Evangilists which succeeded him wee know none not to the churches for example not to the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul writes nothing of government though in his Epistles to Tymothy hee writes almost of nothing else and chargeth the Elders to take heed to the flock and look to the wolves Act. 20.28 You Reply p. 107. Doe these words Ephes 4.11 12. nothing concern Church-Government Rejoind Yes in generall termes but they are not spoken to the Church as the proper subject or party to act in or manage government which was the sense I spake in nor do they tend to invest any but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers with Church-power only they make the Church the object about which and for the good whereof that power is to bee used whom the Apostle would stir up to a good esteem and profitable enjoyment of the ministeriall power but not to assume or challenge it to or execute it by Non-elders Reply p. 107. If you will acknowledge that the things written to Timothy concerne Elders Deacons beleevers out of office according to their severall capacities then we will grant that all the things contained in the whole Epistle are directed to Timothy himselfe but not for his own personall use but for the use of the Church Rejoynd I expressly excluded that large and laxe sense which you here mention in saying not to the Churches not to the Church of Ephesus in opposition to that hint which I had good reason to suspect was in the position that churches in your sense and not the Elders only are the subjects actors executors in the rules given and so you should mean speaking to purpose nor can I admit it for some things in this Epistle are meerly and solely for his personall use I mean in opposition to the Church and all ordinary persons in it as these cap. 1.2 3 4.18 cap. 4.14 and cap. 5 23. and some things are for the use of some and not of others in the Church cap. 2.9 10. and cap. 3.2 3. and 8.9 and cap. 5.2 3 4 5. and cap. 6.1 2. and 17. 2. If you mean that the things in the whole Epistle are not for Timothies personall use but for the use of the whole Church objectivè or finaliter for the good and benifit of the whole Church in their severall capacities in and about which they are exercised you say the truth but what is this to prove that all the commandements concerning Timothy are directed to the whole Church to bee executed by her and not by Timothy or the officers only Sect. 2. Reply p. 107. If by these words to be directed to Timothy himselfe you mean that the commandement immediately preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy you beat upon a harsh string for must none flee these things fight the good fight of faith lay hold on eternal life by vertue of this Text but only Timothy or if to his successors then it must be the ordinary Elders not the Church you mend non the matter must Elders only and not beleevers follow after godlinesse righteousnesse faith c Rejoynd 1. I might without any harshnesse or absurdity argue that the commandement preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy himselfe or if any else his successors the ordinary Elders and that none are to performe the duties of v. 11 12. in the sense here used by vertue of this Text but hee or they for what harshnesse and absurdity cannot it bee to say that Bishops only are to bee blamelesse to have but one wife to bee vigilant sober c. by vertue of cap. 3. v. 2 3 4. or that Deacons only must bee grave not double-tongued not given to much wine c. by vertue of v. 8 9. and that their wives should bee grave v. 13. though other men besides Bishops are to be blamelesse the husband of one wife c. for that which is spoken in Scripture to or of one particular person is sometimes appliable to others 1. When the subiect matter is of common concernment and a generall duty as Mark 13.37 or secondly when there is a parity of persons as what is commanded to one as a father Magistrate Minister
supposeth and you should make to appeare to be a mathematical invisible and imaginary line Sect. 5. Reply p. 109. Now lest these things should be conceived of a temporary nature he saith v. 13 14. I give thee charge c. that thou keep this commandement without spot to the comming of Christ i.e. keep them thy self and deliver them in charge to the Church and principally to the Elders to be kept till Châ—ist his second comming And so Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus urgeth it Rejoind 1. This clause till the appearing of Jesus Christ extends in some places as annexed to duty no further then the parties term of life 1 Cor. 11.26 and so far as this command either pointeth at the office of an Evangelist or otherwise obligeth Timothy it can extend no further for Timothy cannot keep that commandement either by doing it himself or by charging others any longer then his own naturall life 2. What if this charge be taken in your extension of this clause so far as by it any perpetuall office in the church or duty is commanded and further you contend not to lengthen it yet if the commandment take not in the body of the Epistle as I have I hope sufficiently and shall yet more evidently evince it nothing serves your turn 3. The expounding of this clause so extensively will make against you and help to prove that by this commandment v. 14. cannot be understood all the rules of discipline in Gods word no not all the rules in this Epistle For. 1. in this Epistle many things concern Timothy's person and office as he was an Evangelist which office you will grant is not now in the Church Now if this commandement is to be kept in the Church in all ages then those many things must remain out of the verge of this commandement and by consequence it extends not to all particulars of discipline in the Epistle 2. There are some things in the Epistle about Discipline of a temporary nature besides as the office of widows and their washing feeâ— c. 5.9 10. I conceive you dare not assert that either of these are perpetually necessary unto the second comming of Christ and of such unchangeable obligation as you make the words to import 3. Some things in this Epistle are either incompetible or unsuitable to Timothy himself to whom this commandement and all contained in it is given as the Womens duty c. 2.9 10. the Wives duty c. 3.11 the Widows duty c. 5.4.9 the Servants lesson c. 6.1 2. though these things he might give in charge to them they concern yet he could not keep them in person as you even now paraphrased on keeping nor can it be conceived that such things should be imposed on Timothy with such a deep obtestation either as the onely or as a principal or as a representative subject of them 4. The word this commandement might me thinks be enough to have kept you in from such a wide acception Can so many things as are packed up in this Epistle so miscellaneous in nature so manifold in form of speech commands prohibitions declarations assertions admonitions exhortations instructions consolations all be reduced to this one word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially if the observation of severall authors David Heinsius exercit sa in Ephes 6.1 Critica sacra Graeca in vocab apud illum alii do hold viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only an affirmative precept not a negative of which sort besides those things which are not precepts at all there are divers in the Epistle Sect. 6. Reply p. 110. You define or describe Discipline to be the whole System of and comprehension of Divine rules precepts or presidents for the externall order of the Church which are not of a temporary but of perpetuall use and equity till the appearing of Christ and by essentials we mean such particulars included in this System as if any thing be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel But your definitions of Discipline and of Essentials are throughout one and the same and although you make the genus of Essentials some particulars included in the systeme of Discipline importing there are other particulars non-Essentials yet in the speciall forme and differences ye make Discipline and Essentials equipollent for if Essentials be such particulars of the System of divine rules for the order of the Church as if any of them be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel and if Discipline be the whole system of divine rules for the externall order of the Church which are of a perpetuall use and equity Are not these two of equall limits That which will admit of no detraction from the perfect order is as comprehensive as the whole system of such orders 2. In these your definitions you implicitely contradict the Position which you pretend to defend for it saith The essentials of Discipline are unchangeable importing both that some things in Discipline are not Essentials and that Non-essentials are changeable but your definitions do make all things in Discipline essentiall and of perpetuall use and equity You further say That onely persons rightly qualified should be admitted to society in the Church is an essential Isa 56.6 7. 1 Cor. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 This in the generall is not in controversie yet whether this or that be a right qualification is in controversie and so an error in an essential is contended for and made by the erring party either by taking in visibly false or excluding visibly true matter Rejoynd 1. You say whether this or that but you should have named the right qualification and shewed it to be such else we are as far to seek as before For if it be not a right qualification which you do not affirm but a suppositious one an Essentiall is not in controversie the attributing essentiality to that which it belongs not to makes not that which is truly essentiall to be indifferent so that we are never the neerer for this instance 2. You cite three Scriptures in your margent to prove that onely persons rightly qualified to be admitted to Church-society is an Essential To which I answer 1. to Isa 56. It is questionable whether it speak of Church-communion for 1. The Eunuchs doubtles were already in Church-communion 2. The sonnes of the stranger are said to be joyned to the Lord already and joyning to the Lord you usually interpret of being in Church-communion by covenant Act. 5.14 11.24 Jer. 50.5 6. Zach. 2.11 3. The Proselytes which were already in the Church are called Levim copulati adhaesores to the Lord the very term here given to the sonnes of the stranger 2. If Church-communion were unquestionably one of the things yet your selves dare not say that it is the principall thing here promised for which those qualifications are required the chief things are To be made joyfull in Gods house to have