THE MISCHIEF Of Mixed COMMUNIONS, FULLY DISCUSSED.  
All main Arguments on both sides, are largely Canvased.  
Many difficulties demonstratively cleared, as that JUDAS was not at the Lords Supper, etc. When, and how was the Original of Parishes in ENGLAND.  
Several Cases of Conscience resolved. As in case unworthy ones thrust into the Lord's Supper; what single Christians should do, and what the Congregation should do.  
A discovery what is the Original, and rise of all these Disputes, and how a fair end may be put to all.  
By Doctor NATHANAEL HOMES.  
LONDON, Printed by Thomas Roycroft, and are to be sold by William Raybould at the Unicorn, near the little North Door in PAUL'S Church yard, 1650.   

The Mischief of MIXED COMMUNIONS.  
INstead of such mixturs, Professors are called upon by the word to Separation. This separation, both name and thing, hath a very ill name and opinion in the World. But if we will hear the Scriptures, if we will be for purity, we must do it. There hath been in all Ages, a generation, of Pharisaical men, not without some show of learning, that have always counterplotted, to keep Ordinances low, and keep under the power of godliness: But if we desire our righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (as Christ commands, Matth. 5.20.) we must not be behind the Scribes and Pharisees, 
See the ●oot, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whose name signifies, and their practice manifested that they did separate. They separated from the gross offences of the World. Luke 18.11. They separated from any semblance or society of the gross sort of people; they would neither be with them, nor like them: Counting the common people (John 7.49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but MOVABLE Animals, yea ignorant Idiots, and so accursed. Therefore their common phrase of the Commonalty, was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 People of the Earth. They separated from the common sort of people in habit, garments, or attire; contemning the bravery of the World, they attired themselves in such a garb as might have more show of sanctity (like them of old, Zech. 13.4.) And this Sect of Pharisees were as ancient as divers hundred years afore Christ.) 'Twas their common phrase (as R. Sophon testifies) to say, The garments of the people are the trampling of the Pharisees. And they separated in their washings, and purifyings, to keep themselves undefiled with worldly things, Matth. 15.2. Mark 7.3, 4, 5. And in many other things they separated from the common people. But that which is most pertinent to our purpose, is, they separated from their company as much as possibly they could, Luke 7.39. like them of old, Isa. 65.5. Come not near. Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Touch me not, according to that of Luke 7.39. And the Publican stood afar off, because the Pharisee would not join in worship with him. So then, not to separate at all, is to be behind a Pharisee; not to separate more than a Pharisee, is not to obey Christ, that our righteousness should exceed theirs; nor to obey the general voice of the Scriptures, from Genesis to the Revelation, Gen. 4.16. Cain went out from the PRESENCE of the LORD: that is, Cain was cast out of the Church, otherwise God's presence is every where. And 'tis mentioned, Gen. 6.2. as a most sinful mixture, that the Sons of God took to Wives the Daughters of men: And thus we might go on step by step through every book of the Bible; but the multitudes of businesses command me to be brief.  
In 1 Kings 8.53. Solomon urgeth it to God in prayer for a blessing on Israel, that they were a people separated from all the people of the earth. In Ezra 10.11. they are commanded to separate themselves from the people of the Land, as well as from their strange Wives. Isa. 52.11. the precept runs thus, Depart ye, depart ye, go out from thence, touch no unclean thing, go ye out of the midst of her, be ye clean. Observe, 

1. That here is no expression of Babylon.  
2. That the intimations of the Chapter extend it to a separating from all Nations, as to a polluting mixture.  
3. That 'tis express in the Text, that the design of God is, that we so separate as to keep ourselves from pollution with others.  
4. That the Apostle, 2 Cor. 6.17. doth extend this place further than to the Jews, or to Babylon, or the like particular place.  
5. That the Jews were not now in Captivity.   This duty of separation is commanded likewise in the New Testament, to all Christians: In 2 Cor. 6.14. etc. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbeleivers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness; and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? For ye are the Temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my Sons and Daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Observe, 

1. That great famous men for learning and piety, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, etc. do not think this to be restrained to Marriage (as some have dreamt by occasion of the phrase, Unequally yoked) but of communicating or partnership with men in spiritual pollution: Plainly the Apostles bidding them Come out from among them, cannot relate to Marriage once plighted. For he states the question contrary (1 Cor. 7.12. etc.) That the believing married person may dwell with the unbeleiving yoke-fellow. And the Apostle levels his exhortation against all spiritual pollution; and particularly against Idols, and Heathenish Temples, etc.  
2. That the Corinthians were neither Jews, nor were they in Babylon.  
3. That unless we thus separate, God will not be a Father to us, etc.   In Revel. 18.4. this duty of separating is commanded to all Believers by a voice from Heaven. John saith, I heard a voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, that ye partake not of her plagues. Observe, 

1. That this is spoken to John a Jew, when the Jews (properly so called) were not in Babylon) but in Jerusalem, and Judea, as do testify the Gospel of John, and of the other Evangelists. And  
2. 'tis spoken to all God's people, in opposition to all Nations that had been polluted, Vers. 3. And  
3. that it is meant of all fellowship with such as use a polluted worship, with enmity against purity. As Christ is said to be crucified in the street of the great City, which is spiritually called SODOM and EGYPT, Revel. 11.8. Though crucified locally at Jerusalem, yet spiritually in Egypt and Sodom, because those names signify filthy pollution, and enmity to purity. So Babylon is put to signify the same in this 18. of Revel.  
4. And to come out from Babylon is by the same proportion to separate from polluted worship, and worshippers that hate, and to their power persecute them that stand for purity. And that pollution, and those kinds of men are elsewhere then in Babylon. You see then a separation commanded. Thus we ought to Preach, Jer. 15.19. If you take the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth. And thus ought ye to practice; else why do you profess purity and pretend to be Gods peculiar people (as Malachi 3.) 'tis added therefore in that 15. of Jer. 19 Let them turn to thee, but do not thou turn to them: If we Preach otherwise we are not God's mouth. If you practise otherwise, you act not like Christ's members, as we shall show you presently.    
From the general of separation, let us come to the particular intended. I shown you before in another discourse, that there is no show or fair pretence can be held forth, that the Children of Parents, whereof neither can be judged to be a Believer ought to be baptised till the Child grows up to manifest his own Faith, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9 Acts 2.39, 40, 41. Acts 16.31, 32, 33. 1 Cor. 7.14. Now I come to demonstrate that we ought to separate from mixed Communions, where good and bad are admitted. Those that have not true grace, as far as believers of Minister and People can discern, ought not to be admitted; those that are to be admitted by the Officers and members of a Church, must be as far as they can judge, true members of the true Christ, and of his true Church, 1 Cor. 10.16. The Cup and Bread are the communion of the body and blood of Christ. For we being many are one bread and one body. For we are all partakers of THAT ONE BREAD. And where the Church is rightly constituted by and according to divine Gospel-institution, God is specially with them, to give them a spirit of discerning, 1 Cor. 2.10, 15. By right constitution, to give you but a word now, I mean, A Church of a due matter and form: The matter true regenerated persons as far Believers can judge, a man is alive by his breathing, and discern the tree by his fruits, Jam. 2.26. (the Margin is Breath) Mat. 7.16. Form an agreement, making known to one another their Faith and holiness, that they will walk together according to the Gospel-rules and examples touching Churches in the use of Ordinances for God's glory, and mutual edification; and in order thereunto, to receive none unto the Communion with them, but such as are manifested to the generality of them in the judgement of charity to be truly godly. All this is couched in the inscriptions of Paul's Epistles, calling the companies of godly ones in those places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gathered or selected Congregations, or Churches; and Saints, 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.1. Gal. 1.2. Ephes. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Colos. 1.1. And is amplified in the patterns of Churches, Acts 2.41. to the end of the Chapter, Acts 4.32. And Paul chargeth it as a duty on all the Brethren of the Church of Corinth to cast out the unworthy person, 1 Cor. 5. and therefore by the rule of contraries, he that is received in, should be so received by the approbation of all; but of that more after.  
This keeping out of graceless people from the Communion, by the Officers and Brethren of a CHURCH is no new Doctrine, or practice, but ancient; so that in the several ages of the Churches as they less or more degenerated, we have more or less print and footsteps of this left us. The very Papists (who before the Council of Trent, saith learned Polanus, was a true Church, though most impure) had their shrifting, examinations, and confessions of people afore they were admitted to their Communions: The Episcopal way had it in form of a Law in their Rubric, for the Administration of the Communion, in these words, They that intended to partake of the holy Communion, should signify their names AFORE to the Curate; and if any of those be an open, and notorious evil liver, so that the CONGREGATION is OFFENDED, or have done any wrong to his NEIGHBOUR, by Word or Deed, the Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him, and advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table, until he have OPENLY DECLARED himself to have TRULY REPENT, and AMENDED his former naughty life; that the CONGREGATION may thereby be SATISFIED, &c, And the same order shall the Curate use with those, betwixt whom he perceiveth malice, etc. Not SUFFERING them to be partakers of the Lords Table, until he KNOW them to be reconciled: Or if one be penitent to admit him, but not the other, remaining obstinate. As for the Presbyterial way you know that by their Directory, and Laws annexed, they must not receive any to the Communion that are ignorant or scandalous, or profane in their conversation. The Congregational way go higher than this, viz. by conference, by enquiry, and by conversation, to discern what breathe and fruits of true grace appears in a person, before the Church admit him to their fellowship and Communions. And this is one of the great quarrels of these times, that particular Churches of the Congregational way, as men think, are too precise in their admissions; that they must be persuaded there is some grace in a man, and that" all the Congregation present at his admission must be satisfied, that there" is nothing to the contrary known to them, but that he hath grace. Therefore to keep out those from the Communion, of whom the contrary to true grace is known, may be easily granted, it being an evident truth of God. You heard before, twice out of the New Testament, COME OUT from among them, add Phil. 3.2. Beware of Dogs; Who are they? Evil doers: and the Concision, viz. were not outwardly, and therefore likely not inwardly pure. How beware? Mat. 15.26. The dogs must not eat of the children's bread: And Revel. 22.15. the dogs must be WITHOUT, What dogs? Sorcerers, Whoremongers, Idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Accordingly 'tis said, Revel. 21. (a Chapter that cannot be meant of Heaven, as, saith Brightman, and others, every Verse can witness) in the 27. Vers. thus, INTO the New Jerusalem; that is, the reformed Church, no unclean thing, or thing that defileth, or worketh abomination, or maketh a lie shall enter. Which way soever we take this new Jerusalem, either for a more perfect state of the Church on earth yet to be, than hitherto hath been, or for an absolute perfect state in the highest heavens; sure we can infer no less, then that we should conform to that pattern all we can, strive towards perfection. Add according to all these places, that in the 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. The Church and its members, are said to be WITHIN; all others are said to be WITHOUT. Now conclude from all, as Doctor Ames doth in his cases of conscience, WITHIN, and WITHOUT, cannot be all one. If only meet members, Saints, as the Apostle called them, Chap. 1. v. 1. be within, than those that are not, such are to be without: Accordingly the Apostle shows us in this same, 1 Cor. 5. That not only Heathens, or odious debauched men are without, v. 9 but a Brother walking disorderly, is to be cast OUT, v. 2. v. 5. And such a one that continues so to walk to be kept out; and they to carry themselves towards him as one without, v. 11.  
More particularly, 1. In 1 Cor. 5.2, 4, 6, 7, 8. 'tis said. That the Corinthians should have mourned that the incestuous brother might have been taken away from among them. This the Apostles shows was their duty, and should have been done, afore he needed to have sent to them to do it, because they had neglected it. The Apostle goes on telling them that such a one must be cast out by them all. Purge out therefore the old leaven: likely that, Delivering up to Satan, might be more immediately the Apostles sentence: But the duty of all the Brethren, as well as of their Officer, or Officers, was to cast him out, to take him away from among them, to purge him out, afore the Apostle sent to them: For before he sent to them, they all, the whole lump was leavened, soured, polluted, because they had not done it; but had admitted him to their feast, and still now that the Apostle by their negligence is forced to take Cognizance of it; though as an Apostle, according to the just nature of that office, he calls upon this (as other Churches) to do their duty, yet not the Apostle, but the whole Church of the Officers and Brethren, even that whole lump that had been soured, must do the deed of casting that incestuous person out. And they are still levened till they do it: therefore the duty lay on all, else the sin could not have laid on all. The Brethren should have watch men's walkings, should inform, should protest, should vote a disorderly Brother out, though an Officer be to regulate the meeting and debate, and to pronounce the sentence. All the brethren must have a hand in it (Women being forbidden to vote or prophesy in the Church, 1 Cor. 14.34.) I say an hand in it to cast our the incestuous person, or the like offender, else the Apostle could not justly have charged the sin upon all, without limitation. As their Women also might be guilty if they did not give information, and testimony, against such a one in case they first knew of it. As the sin of Achan (some others of necessity being privy to it, as circumstances show, and not testifying against him) is punished on the whole Camp of Israel, whilst he is unpunished, and the whole Camp is threatened, now Achan is discovered, that God would not be with them, if they did not cast him out; and therefore all in their several places, as far as was needful, were to act in it, Josh. 7. So is it in the business of a Church against an offending member.  
From all, conclude these three rules, 

1. That which may cast out, after admittance, may keep out afore admittance. But not only greater sins as here, but smaller sins, as the World count smaller (we will name them by and by) may cast out; therefore they may keep out.  
2. Rule, Those that may cast out after admission, may keep out afore admission; but the whole lump, all the Brethren of the Church of Corinth, as well as their Officer, are to cast out, and any other might inform and give testimony; therefore all these are to be satisfied afore any one be received in, if they declare they are unsatisfied. Quod tangit omnes (saith the rule of equity) ab omnibus faciendum.  
3. That which levens, sours, pollutes, a whole Church, doth mediately at least, pollute such a particular person as joins to such a polluted such; yea immediately polluts such a particular person that joins in that act, that polluted that whole Church: Therefore a man or woman ought not to join to such a Church as is polluted by keeping in it such as walk unworthy, much less may a man or woman act with them in communicating with unworthily persons, which is the very thing that (as the Apostle saith here) levens, sours, and pollutes the whole Church. If touching a leprous person, or dead body, in the ceremonial Law, did pollute a Jew, and render him unmeet, for the present, to meddle with holy things; and to stand by the company that commit a felony, or murder, not protesting against it, doth by our Law make a man accessary; surely then there is more than nothing of guilt to such a soul that shall co-act with a Congregation in mixed Communions, that, according to the Apostle, pollutes them all.    
2. 'Tis said in that 1 Cor. 5. v. 9, 10, 11. I Wrote unto you in an Epistle, not to COMPANY with fornicators. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this World, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with Idolaters; for than must ye needs go out of the World: But now I have written to you not to keep company; if any man that is called a BROTHER be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, NO NOT TO EAT. Observe, 

1. That the word Company, or keep company, is twice in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, Not to be MINGLED TOGETHER, as striking at unlawful mixtures in relation to a spiritual pollution.  
2. That this unlawful mixture is forbidden upon occasion of fellowship, and keeping the feast with the leven of wicked ones among them, as to keep all of them for future from such pollutions at the greatest distance that might be.  
3. That this business of avoiding spiritual polluting mixture, is of such consequence, that he writes twice about it, and that in two several Epistles, though the former of them be perished. And that therefore every single person (as well as the whole Church) is to beware of spiritual polluting company with any one Brother that walks disorderly, as the words are plain, v. 11. and the exhortation prosecuted, v. 9, 10. in the words you and ye, must needs be understood distributively of any one, keeping company with one another in an unlawful way, as the 11. Verse explains. For if the unlawful fellowship with one can a pollute many, sure it can and will pollute one, unwarrantably accompanying such a one.  
4. Observe, that the Apostle doth distinguish of a double companying, or fellowship with those that walk disorderly; one so necessitated, as to buy and sell, or the like, that whiles a man is not gone out of the World, he cannot avoid. This the Apostle saith he doth not forbid. Another companying with disorderly persons, is a voluntary chosen fellowship, society, or accompanying; as to eat with such disorderly walkers; this the Apostle peremptorily forbids * Election of evil company is the great detection of the evil heart of him that chooseth that company. * And to know that others are spiritually infected, and that we have the distemper of original corruption very apt to take infection, and yet voluntarily to thrust into society with them, is to bring upon ourselves the guilt of our own danger and infection.  
5. Obs. That the Apostle distinguisheth between godly men's going out of the world and godly men's keeping an evil walker out of their company, and out of the Church. You cannot avoid it, saith the Apostle, unless you will go out of the World, but necessitatedly, upon some unavoidable occasions, you must have civil business with men that are covetous, extortioners, fornicators, etc. But there is no necessity you should have a fellowship with such in eating, or at your feast, or among you in your Church. For you must cast them out from among you, or you must withdraw from such, 2 Thes. 3.6. and not eat with them.  
6. Obs. That the Apostle allows expressly that there may be a necessity for temporal things, of having civil fellowship with evil men out of the Church, such as never were Brethren; but he doth not express so much of men in the Church, or of such as were once called Brethren, now walking disorderly: As if the Apostle would have us conclude, that if we are necessitated to have business, and for that time fellowship, with men of evil conversation, it would be safer for us to supply that our necessity, in, or among the company of them that always were of the World, and never of the Church, then by any necessity (that can be supplied any where else) to have to do with men once called Brethren, but now walking disorderly. Obs.  
7. That the Apostle down right doth declare that as we should avoid, what may be, all fellowship with worldly men, that are covetous, fornicators, etc. so much more we ought to avoid all fellowship with covetous, fornicators, etc. once called Brethren.  
8. Obs. That the Apostle in reckoning up the sins that must divide fellowship, he doth not only name greater and grosser sins, as fornication, drunkenness, extortion, but such as in common account are lesser, and in their nature more mental or airy. As 1. Idolatry (but to sit in the Idol Temple, and eat or drink with the company, chap. 8. and chap. 10.) And there is the same reason proportionably in all unwar-ranted worship in matter or manner. 2. Covetousness, which is an heart, sin, a spiritual mental sin in the main; extortion is the manifestation of it; and by the same proportion great pride may be included, etc. 3. Railing, which is a verbal sin; and by the same proportion, all swearing and lying, as 'twas mentioned afore, is of the same nature.  
9 Obs. That the Apostle saith, that godly men must not with such as walk in such sins as these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so much as EAT TOGETHER with them. Now if those that are for mixed Communions will say that this is meant of spiritual eating the Lords supper with such afore named; then they yield the question of avoiding mixed Communions; that godly men must not receive the Lords supper with covetous, railers, etc. If they say it signifies civil eating of our common meals in our houses; then they grant by necessary consequence, that we may not eat at the Communion with such inordinate persons; for if it be a sin to eat our common meat with evil livers, once called Brethren, then much more unlawful to eat at the Lords Table with them. Surely, surely, the Apostle could not mean to be more careful to keep Saints more pure at their own Tables then at the Lords Table. Of which I leave the consciences of them that are for mixed Communions to judge.    
These few, of many things more that might be spoken against mixed Communions, will be sufficient to them that are willing to understand. But the unwilling, will dispute, though they bring but their own fantasies to oppose the plain Word of God. And therefore I am not very willing to take the pains to follow them with answers: But, lest they should persist and be hardened, the rather because we give no answer at all; I shall reply briefly, and the rather because our cause against mixed Communions will gain by it, upon the minds of considerate men.  
There are, I find abroad, two sorts of opposers; some more ignorant, others more cunning. To the first in the first place more briefly. Obj. 1. Objection, The Wheat and the Tares must grow together till the harvest. Answer, Such tares, and so long, as are so like the wheat, that there may be danger in plucking up them, to pluck up the wheat also, Matth. 13.29. But tares when they grow rank, and appear, they must be weeded from among the wheat, as we have heard afore. Obj. 2. Obj. Thou must forgive thy Brother to seventy times seven. Answ. True of private personal offences against ourselves. Them we must forgive often, if our Brother reputes; but we cannot forgive his sins against God. These two Objections as they are leveled, strike at all Magisterial and Ministerial discipline, evident in the Word of God, even in judgement of all judgements, Papistical, Episcopal, Presbyterial, and congregational: And therefore these Objections are not rightly mounted. Obj. 3. Obj. 'Tis said, 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat. Answ. This indeed is that thousands of times repeated argument, by the vulgar, to no purpose: For Observe, 1. That one Verse doth not contain all God's mind; we must compare Scripture with Scripture; and so, Mat. 18.15. & 1 Cor. 5. etc. of ●asting off & out from the fellowship of one that persists in evil ways, especially after admonition. 2. Self is a comprehensive word, there is a man's self as he is a man; a man's self as he is an Husband, a man's self as he is a Father, a Master, a Magistrate, a Minister, a fellow-member and fellow-Communicant of such a Congregation; all these are a man's self▪ and a man must examine himself touching all his sins in all these relations; and so whether he hath done his duty to admonish his neighbour that comes to the Communion with him of his evil life, according to Christ's rule, Mat. 18.15. etc. And according to that rule, if in case he doth not so hear thee, or others with thee, as to reform (so the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, though he heard thy words, yet he neglects thy counsel) whether or no haste thou told the Church, till they cast him off, as an Heathen or Publican. Our Saviour saith, a man's self is concerned so in his Brother's spiritual welfare, that a man must when he is to go to worship, mind and consider how 'tis with his Brother afore he worship: Study the fifth of Matthew 23. If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remember'st that thy brother hath aught AGAINST THEE, leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift: Mark the reason following, Vers. 24. Lest he deal with thee, and thou be cast out. Surely the New Testament worship is as purely to be kept, as the Mosaical: And if we must be careful when we go to offer to God, that the mind of our Brother be clear and quiet towards us: we must also be careful that our consciences, troubled at the sins of our brother which we have against him, may be discharged, and thereby quieted afore we communicate with him. 3. Obs. That this Let a man examine, etc. is spoken to Church-members in Corinth, that were Saints, and fit matter for a Church that they might receive in a due manner, and were not men of evil lives habitually. Ad to all that of our Saviour so often repeated, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy SELF. A man's neighbour is a kind of self. Obj. 4 4. They object, My neighbour's sin is not mine, and therefore his sin is upon himself, not on me if I come prepared to the Communion. Answ. 1. We have showed but now thou dost not come prepared, if thou lettest thy Brother alone in his sin. 2. Though his personal sin of drunkenness, swearing, etc. is not communicated to thee by a transmigration of that evil quality in him into thy soul, to make thee a drunkard or swearer too, like to him; yet it becomes the Congregational and Partnership, or accessary sin of thee and the Church, if thou and they let him alone to go on in his sin; and the mean while admit him without control to the Communion. When Adam had disobediently eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God would not let him eat of the Sacrament of the tree of life, but thrust Adam out of Paradise. Adam and Eve both must be sound schooled unto repentance afore they shall have any Sacrament allowed them, or types of sacrifices importing the same thing. And so in the New Testament, the Church of Corinth must cast out the incestuous person, and must not eat with an inordinate brother, so long as unreformed; because (mark the reason to the point in hand) if they do, they all, the whole lump is levened and soured. His sin became the sin, some how, of the rest of the Communicants. If a member of a Corporation, or Company be unjust, contrary to the Laws of that Corporation, or Company, though they do not the same injustice, yet 'tis their injustice not to punish that member. 3. Thou that lettest thy brother alone in his sin, dost contract a particular sin to thyself: namely, the sin of hating thy Brother, Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt not HATE thy Brother IN THINE HEART. Thou shalt IN ANY WISE rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 1. Thou dost hate him in not loving him so as to reprove him. So this Text makes that love and hate immediate contraries. 2. He growing bad, if thou be good, thou canst not but hate him in his evil way; and this hate is because thou dost suffer his sin upon him, as 'tis plain also in the Text. 3. Hereupon secretly thou dost hate him, and so, as to vilify him behind his back, as the phrase, In thine heart, signifies (as Gen. 37.41. Esau said in his heart, that is, in secret) and all because thou hast not done thy duty, in reproving him. 4. Giving consent to receive into a Church office, or into the Church as a member, such as are unworthy, if but through rashness and suddenness of admission, before through means and trials be used to know such, is a partaking of their sins that are so admitted, 1 Tim. 5.20, 21, 22. Them that sin rebuke, etc. I charge thee observe these, etc. Without preferring one afore another. Lay hands SUDDENLY on no man, neither be partakers of other men's sins. The Prophet Ezekiel chargeth on them that do not reprove their Brother more than sin; namely, judgement also, Ezek. 3.20. When a RIGHTEOUS man doth turn from his RIGHTEOUSNESS and commit iniquity, etc. he shall die; because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, etc. but his blood will I require at thy hands. You heard afore, rebuking is enjoined People as well as Ministers. Obj. 5. Ob. The thief repent at last; and an evil liver in his now coming to the Communion, signifies, for aught I know, that he doth repent. Ans. 1. The thief doth not repent by coming to an Ordinance of God, therefore this Objection is impertinently urged. 2. He is now under an heavy judgement of God, which usually more works on the wicked, then single Ordinances: therefore this Objection doth not suit with the point in hand. 3. Here is God making known to us, that the thief repent at last; yea, the gracious words and confessions of the thief of his sin, and his justifying of Christ show as much: But the dumb coming of a wicked man to the Communion, doth no more show that he reputes, than Judas his coming to the last to Christ's Sermons and Passover, did show that he repent of his covetous and traitorous heart. 3. By this Objection we should still conceive a wicked man to repent at every Communion, though between Communions he lives wickedly all his life long; and so never any Church discipline should be executed upon him, but Christ's discipline be laid aside and never used. 4. This of the thief is but an example, which is an inartificial and insufficient argument: and 'tis but one example of that kind, from the beginning of the world, never the like to be again; as there was to be but one Christ, and to suffer but once on the Cross, and that once to show his power, in that his lowest humiliation to forgive the thief on the Cross. 5. But we have an evident rule to go by, set down for us by Christ, how to deal with one that goes on in his sins; and not for us to go by guess, that when he comes to an Ordinance, a Communion, etc. he than reputes: The rule is, Matth. 18.15. If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him ALONE; if he shall hear thee, thou hast GAINED THY BROTHER (see by this an hearing to obey and reform is here meant) If he will not hear thee (Greek, to neglect what he hears) take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them (the same Greek word still) tell it unto the Church: But if he neglect to hear the Church (the same Greek word) let him be unto thee an Heathen or Publican. See, a man that walks disorderly is not to be trusted (for aught this Text allows) not one time after any one sees his sin, but that one Brother or Sister must go tell him of it alone, that so his sin may go no further, nor the knowledge thereof, if he reform. If not, the next time he is discovered again, two or three must join together to admonish him; and so to stop the sin, and the disgrace, if it may be, among them: If he goes on, than these two or three must complain to the Church, or Congregation where he partakes of Ordinances: If he will not be reform at the admonition of the Church, than the Church, as 'tis a Church of Christ, can do no less than cast him off as an Heathen: But if the Church should be negligent to do it, the pretence of saying, what can one member do in this thing, and so of sitting still is easily removed; for if thou hast managed thy business according to this rule, there are two or three of you to call upon the Church, and to quicken at least, the better party in it, to prevail with all the rest to cast him off. If all this will not do it, thou hast this to do, namely, to call in for the advice of other Churches, as they did, Acts 15. and until this be reform, you have another remedy, namely, to withdraw Communion with such a Church, as shall so grossly neglect their duty. For if, as in 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. We must withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly; then sure we have no warrant to communicate with a whole Church walking disorderly, where there is more sin and sinners, with sin upon sin; that offenders sins, and their own, in not punishing him, and disobeying the command of Christ, pressed upon them by those two or three; and the judgements of Christ hang over the heads of such a Church, as over the Church of Pergamos, and Thyatira, for not proceeding against the Balaamites, Nicolaitans, and Jezabelians: Yea, as over Ephesus, and Laodicea, for being cold in their zeal. Yet in the mean while, there is no necessity for you two or three that have thus justly withdrawn, for a time, to be without that precious Ordinance of the Communion, seeing other Churches, more pure, to whom you complain, will allow you that privilege till things be settled. But it may be, some will say this rule is, If my brother trespass against me: but his trespass is not against me. Answ. David took it to himself, that the dishonour that was done to God by men of evil life, was in some sort against him, Psal. 119. Psal. 139. And therefore he there lamented the sin, and abhorred the practice. 2. If a Servant of your Family should commit fornication, or drunkenness with strangers, not of the Family, you would soon charge it upon him or her, that they had offended against you, and all the Family. 3. If the offence doth not, or will not fall under the orderly admonition, first of one, then of two or three, so that thy brother goes openly on in his sin in the general observation of the Church; the Church without any more ado, seeing his obstinacy, may cast him out; as 'twas the very case of the incestuous person, 1 Cor. 5. Lastly, we answer to this objection about the thief on the Cross, That men that have been noted to walk disorderly, should first give proof and experience of their repentance, that they have confessed their sins and forsaken them (as the Scripture speaks) afore they should be thought to repent, and be fit to come to the Communion; which we cannot righteously think they do, who go on in their old sins, longer than they are at the Ordinances. If the Deacons, whose chief trust was only the Church's stock of contributions, must first be proved, afore they be admitted into office, 1 Tim. 3.10. how much more should the evil liver be first proved afore he be trusted (after his evil walkings) to partake of the holy things of God. I appeal to you, whether after a Servant hath been found false twice, you would receive him the third time, only because he comes and offers you his service again? Shall we deal worse with God, and men's consciences, then with ourselves about our estates, and civil affairs. Obj. 6 6. They object as their grand plea, that Judas was at the LORDS SUPPER, and out of doubt at the PASSOVER. Answ. 1. If he were only at the Passover, it yields no argument for mixed Communions; for from a ceremonial form of worship of a Nationall Church under the Old Testament, to an Evangelicall form of worship of Congregational Churches under the New Testament, is no true plumb and level to pitch the due height of the purity of the worship under the Gospel. We see evidently all along the old Testament, that if men were but ceremoniously cleansed, and not guilty of capital crimes, they were admitted to all Ordinances for the general. But we see the New Testament rules are more exact about the partaking of the Lords Supper, as we have largely heard afore. 2. If Judas were at the Passover, and at the Communion also, afore he was openly discovered, it makes nothing for mixed Communions of such as are openly known to walk wickedly, Christ now about to leave sensible rules of a visible process, as might suit to his office, as he was a Mediator, would not now anticipate as a God and searcher of the heart, to keep out Judas from the Passover, because he knew his heart was naught. This had been to have left us a pattern that would have been more against mixed Communions, then to keep out, and cast out gross offenders; namely, to have so done by them, as soon as the Church had suspected their hearts had not been right. 3. For certain (if I do not grossy mistake) Judas was not at the Lords Supper. 1. That which makes many mistake that he was there, is the order of the story of the Gospel, as set down by Luke, Chap. 22. Namely, because first, there is mention of the Lords Supper, v. 20. Then after that, follows the mention of Judas his hand at the Table, v. 21. And therefore as they think, Judas was at the Lord's Supper: But we answer, that we have but the sum of the history of the Gospel; and the holy Ghost is not curious in observing the order of all things; and therefore the order is quite contrary in Matth. 26. Namely, first there is mention of Judas his hand at the Table, that should betray Christ, v. 21, 22, 23. And then after is the mention of the institution of the Lords Supper; but no more mention of Judas till he came with the Officers to apprehend Christ. So, that same order is observed by Mark, Chap. 14. First in v. 18, 19, 20. Is the Discovering of Judas, that he should betray Christ: And then after, in v. 22. etc. is mention of Christ's institution of the Lords Supper; and no more mention of Judas till he comes with the Officers, v. 43. to apprehend Christ. So that we have two to one, for this order, that Judas was discovered afore the Communion, and therefore Judas might well go forth (according to Saint John, chap. 13.) afore the Communion. And therefore Luke did not intent to set down those things, according to the accurate order of the doing of things. Your most ancient mark in your Bibles, ¶ at v. 21. of that 22. of Luke, is used by the learned (afore we had any Verses) to signify a new matter, and that a distinct discourse gins there. Namely, that when Christ did discover judas, he was at the Table with him (mark it, At the Table, 'tis not said at the Communion) and with this gins the new distinct story of judas his betraying Christ. But is not a joint story (in order of doing) knit on to the end or conclusion of the Lords Supper; though our English BUT, at 21. Verse may seem to some to look that way. But in the Greek it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which infallibly had signified BUT; but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Truly, or moreover, etc. which may well fit to begin a new distinct story. And there is this further in that 22. of Luke, to prove, that Luke in that Chapter did not intent to set down things according to the order of doing, because there is another distinct story annexed to that of the institution of the Lords Supper, namely of the Disciples contention about Supremacy, v. 24. set down with that ¶ afore it, which Matthew in chap. 18. 1. and Mark in chap. 9 34. set down long before Christ's betraying by judas. Yea, further the Evangelists do not regard acuratenesse of order (sometimes) in speaking the same matter in one and the same Verse. For whereas many cry, all men must be first taught before they are baptised, building on that order of words, Mat. 28. Go teach and baptise; in Mark 1.4. there is a contrary order, john did baptise in the Wilderness, and Preach: So that bare order of story cannot yield any infallible argument that such a thing was done then. 2. We affirm that for certain (as far as we can possibly see) judas was not at the Lords Supper, upon this argument out of john 13. Christ and his Disciples eaten two Suppers afore the institution of the Lords Supper. 1. The Passover Supper. 2. Their own civil supper. 3. Followed the Lord's Supper. For in this we all agree (I think) that the Lords Supper was the last of all, according to all the Evangelists, that relate the institution thereof. The first Supper, namely, the Passover, we have it, beginning, and ending, john 13.1, 2. (turn to the place, else you will see nothing) This supper being ended, Christ riseth from the Table, v. 4. lays aside his Garments, takes a Towel, and water, and washeth the Disciples feet, v. 5. to the end of v. 11. In v. 12. he takes his Garments again, and sits down: In v. 18. he saith; He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me. In v. 21. he saith, One of you shall betray me. In v. 26. the Disciples having by john asked him whom he meant, Christ plainly saith, He it is to whom I shall give a Sopp, when I have dipped it; and when he had dipped the Sopp he gave it to judas Iscariot: Here you see they were eating again. This the second Supper, their civil Supper, because of their Sops. In v. 27. Satan enters after the Sopp into judas. And then, said Jesus to him, do that thou dost QUICKLY (Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Comparitive degree, more speedily) wherein, in effect (now Judas was discovered) Christ bids him be gone from amongst them: the Devil was in him, and he might be gone. Christ bids him speedily to end his treason, which he would do. Then saith the 30. Verse. he having received the Sopp went out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (a keen, acute, and punctual word) Immediately; which can signify not an jota less than that nothing of action intervened between judas his taking the Sopp, and with it the Devil, and Judas his going out. And v. 31. upon his going out, Christ in a laudative manner saith, Now the Son of man is glorified, and God in him; and presently falls to Preaching, and last to Praying in that high sublime and transcendent spiritual manner, Chap. 13. & 14. & 15. & 16. & 17. as never before, while Judas was with them. The Evangelist John doth not mention the Lords Supper, which was the third and last, for reasons best known to the holy Ghost. But doth most punctually tell us, Judas went out immediately after the Sop, which clearly was at their second Supper, Viz. their common civil Supper. And therefore stayed not at the Lords Supper, which was last of all, according to the other Evangelists. For if Judas had stayed at the Lords Supper after his receiving the Sop, he had not according to the text, gone out immediately. But the text must be true: therefore Judas was not at the Lords Supper. If this argument be too long, I will give it you another way in a shorter manner: At the Lord's Supper which was the last Supper, there was neither Sop nor Sauce; Christ mingled no such thing, or Sippets in Wine, or, etc. that we read of: But Judas went out immediately when he had received the Sop; for being then discovered, and filled with Satan, Christ, in effect, bid him be gone. Therefore Judas was not at the Lords Supper. I will yet, if it may please, give it you a third way: John expressly mentions that Judas was at the Passover, and the common Supper, but doth not say he was at the Lord's Supper, not mentioning the Lords Supper at all; and the other Evangelists, or Scriptures, do not affirm Judas was at the Lord's Supper; therefore we have no ground to believe Judas was there.  
Thus of the plainer sort of Objectors: we come in the second place, to deal with the more cunning disputants, who will undertake to answer our arguments, and to urge their unanswerable arguments (as their confident manner of disputing imports) against us in the behalf of mixed communions. To speak briefly to both: First, to their answers to our Objections. 
The●… Rep●…  1. They reply, that though out arguments prove, that wicked persons ought not to come; and that they ought not to be admitted, by them that have power to keep them away, in case they do come, yet they do not prove that wicked men's undue coming should keep a good Christian away. An undoubted duty omitted, is not excused by my mistake concerning some circumstances. And if the impediment be real, I must know it to be so; my thinking it in my conscience to be an impediment, will not excuse my omission of that duty, &c Our duply to take off this, is, 1. Plain sin must keep one away. 
Ou●…●…ply  But to communicate with unworthy persons is a sin, a leavening and souring, 1 Cor. 5.6. To disobey that command, 2 Thes. 3.6.14. a sin: and 1 Cor. 5.11. a sin if we be secure, and not humbled for such mixed Communion, and keeping of the spiritual feast, 1 Cor. 5.2. 2. Though to come to the Lords Table, if it may be had according to Christ's institution, is an undoubted duty; yet it is not an undoubted duty that any should come to take a sin upon them, that they should come to known mixed Communions, where other men's sins, some how (as we have showed) become theirs. 3. The company of unworthy persons at the Communion is more than a circumstance; for the contrary, namely, Saints meeting in faith and charity to partake of the Communion, is of the essence, i. e. of the matter and form of the Churches right receiving. But where there is a mixture of evil persons, there is no ground of Scripture to believe I do do well; nor any virtuous object in such unworthy persons for me to love them, as fellow Communicants. 4. To except against unworthy persons; and because they are admitted, for me to forbear the Communion is not a mistake; that cause is just, as we have showed afore, and shall after. There is a mistake at least, or more by your own intimation in them that having authority, do not keep unworthy ones away; and in those unworthy ones, that they keep not themselves away. And if the former will bring a defilement on themselves, and the latter will bring judgement on themselves, I cannot be excused if I may keep myself free from both, and will not. Distinction of Parishes in England were made by Pope Honorious, about 1200. years since, and so of no divine institution, nor enforce any divine obligation for me to receive only in mine own Parish. The Scriptures send me to a true Church, not to a Parish. If one Church be polluted, and there is another not far off that is free, from that known pollution; in ordinary prudence one would choose pure things afore polluted. It's a stated case in Casuists, as in Doctor Ames cases of conscience, etc. that a man may go from a polluted Church to a pure Church: and yet here is no danger in such a particular person of separation upon separation, as you after object, if Churches will do their duty. If a Church will separate from the rule of the Word, what would your conscience troubled at it, do, in such a case? Would you against conscience offend and transgress with the rest. For fifthly, If a matter about religious things be against my conscience, though by mistaking; the godly Casuists resolve, that till I be informed, I shall sin against conscience to do it. So Doctor Ames, and study, Rom. 14.22. Yea so Saint Paul, Rom. 14.23. whatsoever is not of faith is sin: For the Apostle speaks of things indifferent, and so of matters that I might have done, and 'twas my ignorance that I was not persuaded I might have done them; and therefore Paul exhorts Brethren not to eat any thing to the offence of a weak Brother, Rom. 14.20, 21. although 'tis his weakness to take offence about kinds of meats. And therefore, sixthly, we say, why do not Churches that use mixed Communions more tender the consciences of them that cannot bear these mixtures? They keeping out the unworthy would prevent all this ado. Save your words, and Paper and Ink, in writing in behalf of mixed Communions, what need we plead for rubbish? We cannot be too pure in our practice according to the Scriptures. If the Church and Officers be they, whom you mean, have authority to keep out unworthy ones from the Communion (so had the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. And I know none else but the particular Church, by joint consent have the immediate proper power) why do not they do their duty? Why must there such load be laid upon a particular tender conscience, that out of conscience doth abstain from a mixed Communion; whiles the whole congregation go on in their sin of admitting sinful mixtures and suppose against conscience, and against admonition. For sure no Minister and People more or less in any congregation, but could wish, that unworthy persons were kept out. And the case here, as before touched, is not only of one private person, as private. For we put the case as men according to rule aught to act (in case they were so imprudent as to incorporate to a congregation that shunned not such mixtures) a godly man sees a neighbour that came to the Communion transgress, he admonisheth him of it, etc. according to Matth. 18.15. The matter at last by these two or three Brethren is brought afore the Church. Here is more than one. And in the Church they act as public persons, fellow members. As three Justices on the Bench are public persons, though there be twenty more there. If these three brethren, with some other that no doubt will adhere to the rule, cannot prevail against the Officers or major vote, to cast out the unworthy; a withdrawing from such a congregation is not upon so private a consideration: Yea, the matter is of so public a concernment, that other Churches must blame that Church (if they reform not) and countenance such as withdraw, according to rule (in 2 Thes. 3.6, 14.) because they cannot attain the end of that rule, Matth. 18.15. Sure if we must withdraw from any one Brother, walking disorderly contrary to rule, as 'tis in that 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. then much more from a whole Congregation of Brethren walking contrary to rule, and so offending Christ, and the consciences of his Lambs. The design than is not separation upon separation, but to keep Churches to the rule. But to speak all in a word, Parish congregations, for the most part as in relation to the communion, have so i'll a constitution, that they cannot tell where to begin to reform; and then they must defend it, seeing they cannot amend it; and so break Christ's Commandments, and teach men so, But if it be separation upon separation, or a taking Churches out of Churches, 'tis a thing, I think, not contrary to all rule, 2 Cor. 6.14. to end, Revel. 18.14. (explained afore) and the best Saints generally in all ages have practised, and they also (I mean the Presbyterians) that cry out against it. There was a true Jewish Church, and particular Jewish Synagogue-congregations, among which Christ Preached, for three years and an half; yet, Acts 2. and thence forward out of them was a separation, and a gathering of Christian Churches: Therefore simply and absolutely, to go from Church to Church, or gather Churches out of Churches is not unlawful. Again, the Romish Church was a true Church, as famous Polanus proves (though a most polluted one) it was essentially a true Church, till in the Council of Trent they pronounced an Anathema against all the main truths of Christ, and so gave him a bill of divorce, yet justly when Luther Preached more light, and holiness, many Nations, and among them anon England did also separate from them, and their congregations departed from them in Doctrine in part, and in form of worship. Many corruptions remaining among the Lutherans, partly in Doctrine, namely that of Consubstantiation, and partly in ceremonies; many Christians gathered themselves into purer Churches at Geneva, etc. And here in England of late, the Presbyterian Churches were a little refined in some things out from the Episcopal congregations. So then to tell me there must not be separation upon separation; and that if another discern not the Lord's body, yet I do; and if another hath no right to it, yet I have, etc. these are all contrary, as well to former practice, as well as rule, and are impertinent to our point in hand. Churches that will be called and counted Churches, must be constituted as Churches, and act as Churches: they must be godly persons, joining together, and settling their officers among them, with one unanimous consent to keep out unworthy persons; and upon due complaint and proceeding, as aforesaid, to cast out unworthy persons. So the dispute is at an end. Consciences shall not be troubled. No danger of separation. Good men's consciences shall be cherished, and bad men shall be shamed till they repent; the dogs shall not have opportunity to snatch the children's bread, nor the children afraid to go to their meals, lest if they let not the dogs take share with them, they by't and tear them. Is he a wise governor of a Family that will say, Children, Servants, go to dinner, let the Dogs alone to share with you, though they take of your meat, do you take your meal? When he may far easier, by help of his Family, shut the Dogs out, if they be so unruly: And 'tis at least as unwise an exhortation to stir up godly men to go to mixed Communions, as to incite them to go thither, when 'tis known that there are many there that have Plague-sores upon them: Sure spiritual infection is worse than corporal, and the soul more precious than the body.  
But in your second Reply to our Objections you say, 
●…ir se●…d Re●…  that that 1 Cor. 5. about Leven, and that 1 Cor. 10. of one bread doth not signify any spriritual pollution, by reason of society at the Lords Supper. But that in 1 Cor. 5. only signifies that the Church of Corinth might be corrupted by the incestuous persons, evil example, if he were not cast out. And that in 1 Cor. 10. cannot signify that either the wicked man can become a true member with me, 
●…r Du●….  or I a false member with him, by reason of fellowship at the communion.  
To which we duply, and answer thus, to both places distinctly. 1. To that of 1 Cor. 5. 'tis evident that the Apostle speaks in the past time, of things past (not of what in future, that evil example might effect, but of an evil past) that 'twas their sin, all the church's sin, that they had not been humbled for letting such a one abide a member amongst them, v. 2. Secondly, That he speaks in the Present tense of their present condition, that the whole lump of them was now at present levened by that person being one of them; though they were unlevened in their persons, in regard of regeneration, or else they could not be said to be levened, but rather to be very leven; yet levened in their actions in regard of polluting mixture, and polluted worship. 3. For future, 1. The Apostle could not imagine that by example all the church of Corinth could become incestuous persons; but Paul speaks of the danger of the leavening the whole lump. 2. He speaks of keeping the feast purely; and of not eating with a Brother walking disorderly: Therefore from all its plain the Apostle drives at more than evil example; namely, at evil of Church-communion with unworthy persons; so likewise to the 2d. place, Viz. 1 Cor. 10. we say that as there is a Antifederall unholiness or uncleanness in children whose Parents neither of them are believers, though these children may be elect, and in time may believe, 1 Cor. 7.14, And a matrimonial-like, or a tanquam conjugal union between an Harlot and a Christian, whiles that Christian by temptation, etc. falls into that ditch as Solomon speaks, of which union, see 1 Cor. 6.15.16, 18. So there is a confederate oneness unto spiritual pollution, or purity, according to the matter and manner of worship men join in. If in the due partaking of the Lords Supper; 'tis the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. If in eating and drinking at the Idolatrous feasts, they that did so, though Christians, are said to partake of the cup of Devils, v. 20. And by the same proportion, a compound of good and evil, doth make the partners in the same to share in that evil mixture; as we have heard much afore. 2. Let us speak something to their arguments for mixed Communions: a little will serve, because former things have anticipated. Ob. 1 1. They say it is certain that there were great offenders at this time in the Church of Corinth, some that made themselves drunk at their love feasts, at the Sacrament, chap. 11. some that even denied the resurrection, chap. 15. and sundry other grievous offenders, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. yet are they still a Church, though these, uncast out, and he not where blames for coming to the Lords Table, because of them, no not in that 1 Cor. 5. An ¦ swear. To this our answer is, ●. That the Church of Corinth might far better be called and accounted a Church, than the ordinary Parochial Churches here among us: 1. Because Corinth, for the generality were in matter a Church, of such as were called to be Saints, and sanctified in Christ Jesus, chap. 1. v. 2. And they were altogether a Church in form, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, orderly gathered, and united of such, according to the Apostles direction, 1 Cor. 11.34. and 1 Cor. 14.40. But Parochial Churches in the matter, for the generality consist of profane and ignorant; and their form and union, is only by the Gutters and Stones, and Posts of the Precincts of the Parish, making them to belong to that congregation of that Parish. But when they move house but over the Gutter into another Parish, they are no more of that Parish Church. Here is no spiritual bond, relation, or mutual owning, or reciprocal watching between Minister and People, or between People and People. So that this Objection doth nothing help the now Churches that are for mixed Communion, lest of all these defending mixed Communions, which the Church of Corinth did not, If they broke the commandment of God, yet they did not teach men so. So that in many respects it was safer to call Corinth a Church, and more tolerable to communicate with it, then with the Parish Churches now extant. The Church of Corinth, however at a time negligent, yet the rule was known and owned among them, to keep out, and cast out, the unworthy. 2. We answer, That it" is not true, that the Corinthians are not blamed for coming because of" them uncast out, no not in the 1 Cor. 5. For we argue thus, if they are blamed for not casting out unworthy persons, but let them abide as members with them, in 1 Cor. 5. they must needs be blamed there, for coming to the Communion with them: and if they are told in 1 Cor. 5. that they must not eat with any Brother that was a less sinner (than any named in the Objection) namely, a railer, or a covetous person, then sure the blame of the breach of this command in 1 Cor. 5. is upon them, if after this, they did eat with them at the Lords Table. 3. We answer that in 1 Cor. 11. first Paul blames them for coming together to their Church-meetings to their hurt, v. 17. where the Apostle plainly tells them they were the worse for those meetings; and his figurative speech in an Hyperbolical Meiosis, namely, I praise you not, is a vehement reproof of them, as the witty Objectors well understand: and this sharp reproof is the Preface to all the Apostle would Declare to them, both the first and second part of his Declaration against them; which two parts should seem by the Apostles therefore, in v. 20. did unhappily depend. Their disorderly communicating, sprang from their divisions. Again, in that 1 Cor. 11. the Apostle bids them examine themselves, whether this were right receiving? And brings them to the institution, just as Christ reproved sins against marriage. And in the Lord's institution of his last SUPPER, there is not only rule but example; that after Judas took the Sop, and thereby was discovered (which Sop must of necessity be before the Supper) Christ in clear effect bids him be gone; and punctually 'tis said upon the receiving of the Sop, he immediately went out, John 13. Fourthly, We answer, as full to all the great offenders mentioned in the whole Epistle afore, and objected here in the present Objection, Paul concludes his Epistle with this direction to the Church of Corinth, If ANY MAN love not the Lord Jesus, LET HIM BE (he doth not say I pronounce him so) but let him be ANATHEMA MARANATHA; which is the form of the great excommunication. Ob. 3 3. They object for mixed communions, That he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or judgement) to HIMSELF, not to others. An ¦ swear We answer, first, It should seem that men for mixed Communions will grant gratis, that unworthy communicants may drink damnation or judgement to themselves, rather than they will by the rule, Matth. 18.15. keep them from so drinking. For if they were kept from the Communion, they could not be said to drink their own damnation, or etc. 2. Behold what a sophism and fallacy here is in this Argument: The poor ignorant profane unworthy wretches in coming to the Communion, drink damnation to themselves; therefore the able gifted Brethren and Ministers (and such are the objectors) do not drink pollution to themselves in coming and drinking with them at the Communion. But 'tis plain by that which hath been argued against mixed Communions, that the unworthy receivers drink pollution to the other, and they in communicating with them do pledge them. 3. The Lord, in Ezek. 3.18. teacheth us better Logic, and pertinent to the thing in hand, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, etc. he shall die; because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sins, but his blood will I require at THY hands. You see here that there is danger to the sinner, and to him also that did not endeavour to reclaim him.  
Conclusion The rest of the Objections are not worthy the considering: therefore let me conclude with bewailing these times which succeed and exceed former times of false Prophets, false Teachers, and Pharisaical Rabbis, and Professors, who spend their wits and parts, to keep holiness low, in Doctrine and Practice: Saying, Every man that can say the Creed, the Lords prayer, and the ten Commandments, is a Christian; yea if he doth but confess Christ is come in the flesh, and come to Church (as they call it) he is a Christian: that all Infants whatsoever, although both the Parents be apparently unbelievers, aught to be Baptised: That all the Parishioners offering themselves, aught to be admitted to the Lords Supper: To Preach spirituality, and of the inward power of the spirit of Christ in a soul, are but strange fantasies of man's wit; and that an ordinary man, a faith and troth Professor hath the spirit of God as well as another, whom you call a Saint. With many the like holinesse-depressing doctrines; and suitably (as needs must) the people practice. Thus, as in Jer. 5. v. ult. The Prophets prophesy falsely, and the Priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so, and what will ye do in the end thereof? Thus in 2 Pet. 2.1. There were false Prophets among the people, as there shall be false Teachers among you, etc. How shall we know them? By their laying holiness low, despising, or bringing into contempt Christ, making the way of truth evil spoken of; through covetousness making merchandise of men's souls or salvation; leading or leaving people in their riotings and wantonness, etc. throughout the Chapter. The Apostle teacheth us better, 1 Cor. 12. v. ult. covet earnestly the best gifts, and I will show you a more excellent way: and chargeth us, Phil. 1.10. as we will show ourselves to be sincere, to approve the things that are excellent, and to be without offence. So that if it were lawful to have some unworthy at the communion, but it were best, or more excellent to have none, we should choose the best way, and that which is most excellent. You see, notwithstanding all objections, that this truth stands firm; that persons known to walk unworthily, and unbeseeming an ordinary true Christian, should not be admitted to the Lords Supper, nor should true Christians communicate with such unworthy ones, in case others will admit them. And the trut● is, to speak my conscience, therefore ordinary partakers of mixed Communions are so little reform, because the Church-rules (Mat. 18.15. 2 Thes. 3.6, & 1 Cor. 5.) are so neglected, and in stead thereof, graceless men are nuzzled up in a self-flattery, because admitted to the privileges of the best Saints: and the best that partake of such mixed communions are not so quickened and comforted, because polluted Ordinances are not so blest to men, that by neglect of rule pollute them. Study that place, Ezek. 22.26.28.31. and that in Mat. 15.3, 6.  
Qu. How should a Congregation know what a Communicant is? Ans. By conference, by enquiry, by conversation: In other things men would be inquisitive, by those means to know exactly, as in matters of Marriage, servants, Partnership, etc. Qu. But may not Congregations for all those ways by them used, be deceived in admission of some. Ans. 

1. Not ten for one.  
2. In observing the rule to their power, they keep themselves from sinning against knowledge, and through negligence.  
3. If any such break out and appear worse than they were, they are to be cast out, if not reform, according to rule. * But those assemblies that take in among them those that are apparently bad at first; they cannot with any show of Justice, according to their principles cast out such, whiles such, because they are as good at last as at first, Viz. naught all along.  
4. In careless Congregations receiving all to the Communion, men come in openly bad, because no stop is made, and so continue, because no orderly admonition is exercised: but in Congregations that are exact, to look well to the Gates of the Church, and yet some make the Church believe they are right, because they pronounce Shibboleth right, I mean they make a laudable confession, and are unblamable in their conversation, and so creep in, and at last appear to be naught, it is the sin of the received, not of the receivers; and they lie open to the Law of Churches to be thrown out, because grown worse: And usually unsound hearted Professors do grow worse, for this reason, because Pharisaically they trusted in their relation and membership, etc.   Lay all together, and consider whether the way we have propounded, or the way of mixed Communions do most tend to purity and reformation which we profess, and pretend, in opposition to former corrupt times. The Lord give the Reader understanding in all things, Amen.  
FINIS.