SATISFACTION CONCERNING Mixed Communions: In Answer to the Doubts of some, who abstain from the SACRAMENT OF The Lord's Supper; BECAUSE Wicked persons are present.  

I Approve this Book, entitled Satisfaction concerning mixed Communions, as sound in doctrine, and profitable in use for these times.  
john Downame.   
LONDON Printed by John Raworth for Samuel Gellibrand, and are to be sold at his Shop in Paul's Churchyard, at the Brazen Serpent. 1643. July 8.   

Satisfaction concerning Mixed COMMUNIONS.  
BEfore I proceed to answer your Doubts, I must premise a word or two, that I be not mistaken, and supposed to maintain that which I oppose. 1. I say not that wicked persons ought to come. 2. Nor, that they ought not to be kept away: For in this I agree with you, that they ought not to come (unfit) though they might be admitted; neither ought they to be admitted (by those who have power to keep them away) though they would dare to come. 3. But I say, their undue coming, is no sufficient ground for me or you to keep away.  
Again, I propose it to be well considered; That the Omission of an undoubted Duty, is not excused by my mistake concerning some circumstances. And therefore, the Celebration and Participation of the Lords Supper being undeniably my Duty, which I may not decline (at least, constantly, or even for any long time) without a just impediment: It is not a sufficient excuse for Omission, that I think myself bound in Conscience to abstain, because of such an Impediment, unless that Impediment be really sufficient. For it is not a Supposed Impediment, but a Real Impediment, that will warrant my Omitting a Duty commanded. Uzzah, no question, thought himself bound in Conscience to stay the Ark, rather than to let it fall: But yet his thinking himself bound in Conscience, did neither excuse the Action from being a Sin, nor the Person from being Punished. The like must be said, in case a man should abstain from Prayer, from Hearing, from Confessing his Sins to God, from Humiliation for sins, from Sanctifying the Lords Day, or the like, because he thinks himself bound in conscience not to do it (as suppose, he think himself bound in Conscience not to hear such a Minister, whom he conceives to be a wicked man, and therefore rather than hear him, he will never come to Church at all; or that he think himself bound in Conscience not to Pray daily, but only as the Spirit moves; that he ought not confess his Sins, or be humbled for them, because he thinks there is no use of such Duties in the time of the Gospel; or the like:) I say, his thinking himself bound in Conscience not to perform such Duties, doth not make these cease to be Duties, nor excuse his Omission of them. For if my Conscience be in an Error in so judging, it is a Sin in me to Omit the Duty, whether I think it so or no. Ignorantia juris non excusat; Ignorance doth not absolve from Duty. This I propose, because people are so apt to be satisfied presently in abstaining from the Sacrament, if they can say, They think themselves bound in Conscience not to come, (for such and such reasons) as if they were then out of all danger of sinning in staying away, and bound in Conscience so to do; And never consider in the mean time, that, if their Conscience be in an Error, they sin notwithstanding. For it is not my Opinion, (or what I think myself in Conscience bound to) but the Truth of the thing, that makes an Action Lawful or Sinful. And therefore, though I think myself bound in conscience to stay away, yet (if I think amiss) I sin in so doing. This being premised, I proceed to answer your Doubts.  
We may not, you say, Communicate at the Lords Table, with profane persons. Your reasons. 1. They discern not the Lord's Body. 2. Nor have right to it. 3. It's a Spiritual Banquet only for the Saints. 4. Christ said, It is not meet to take the children's Bread and give it to Dogs. Answer. All this concludes well, that Profane persons ought not to come; or if they do come, they ought not to be admitted, by them that have power to keep them away; But it doth not prove, that another private person, in such a case, ought not to receive. They discern not the Lord's Body. What then? Therefore they ought not to come. True; But ought not I to come neither? Must not I partake of the LORDS Table, because another discerns not the Lords Body? They have no right to it. True; And therefore ought not to intrude. We grant it. But because another hath no right, may not I challenge mine? It's a Spiritual Banquet only for Saints. True; But what follows? Therefore the wicked should be kept away. I grant it; But in case I cannot keep Them away, must I stay away myself? It is not meet to give the children's Bread to Dogs. True; (though doubtless Christ, when he spoke it, never intended to restrain that speech to the case of receiving the Sacrament) and therefore the Dogs ought to be kept away: But in case the Dogs be not shut out of the room, but catch a piece, must the Children therefore leave their Bread? If Dogs be suffered to snatch some of the children's Bread, yet the Children must not leave their parts and run from the Table; much less forbear to come to their meat, because there be some Dogs in the room who will catch a part, or some will be given them. The Arguments conclude well, That profane persons, if known, aught to be kept from it, by those that have authority: Which if the people should have together (which I do not now dispute) yet certainly, not every private man (or woman much less) alone. The sin of their Admission is theirs, and only theirs, who have authority, if they know them such; or theirs who can prove them such, and do not: which is hard to do, though one be certain of it in his own mind: Even Authority must not censure without just proof. This then is nothing to private persons; who are no otherwise guilty of the neglect of Ecclesiastical Authority, omitting to Censure, than they may be guilty of the neglect of Civil authority omitting to Punish; and yet none hold themselves bound to departed out of Civil Society, merely because some evil doers are not duly punished: No not a Justice of Peace to go off the Bench, because some of his fellow-Justices are corrupt.  
Besides, the business is first to worship God and Christ, and to remember and show forth his Death. How dare I forbear this, when his Children are met to do it, because some others thrust themselves in, who pretend to worship him too? and join rather with me (though unwarrantably, in regard of their sinfulness) than I with them. Mark this difference, it is very material. You say, and say truly, That the Sacrament is a spiritual Banquet only for Saints, that is, Christ will only bid them welcome. I say it also. And the Saints honouring of Christ so at the time appointed, I and you (as Saints) are called by Christ, and cannot answer it, if we come not, not having some outward hindrance, and that more than supposed too. It is our Business, our Homage, our Banquet; If now others, that have no right to it, thrust in (as Satan among the sons of God, Job 1. & 2 who did not therefore run away) they join with me, I join not with them. I desire not their company, (as such) I approve of none of their sins, nor join in any of them. If S. Paul, though it were against himself, rejoiced that Christ was preached; not that it was not sin in them to do it out of envy and strife, supposing to add affliction to his Bonds: So, that God is worshipped, is a matter of joy, though their failings, which do it amiss, be sinful. There is some Honour to Christ in the public profession of his Death, by those who yet sin grievously in the manner of performance; yea what greater sin, then to malice the Apostle in Bonds for the Gospel? If then they outwardly profess Christ, though not to their own good, yet is it so much comfort at least, that they bear outward witness, that Christ's servants must do as we do; and so pretending (though falsely, to their own hurt only) themselves to be such, and come to do so too, these join with me then, not I with them; they profess to join in that true Service to God that I perform; I do not profess (but disclaim) to join in that sinfulness which they bring. They should not do it, if I had authority: Now I can but be sorry for them, and pray.  
But you offer to prove, that these persons do defile the Communion of Saints. 1. By the example of Achan. 2. That Ordinance is a joint act, We being many are one Bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. 3. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5.6, 11. 4. And all Scriptures are written for our learning, and example. This last is true, but we must look for right understanding.  
1. Therefore I answer to the first. 1. Achans sin was secret. If you will have it parallelled; it makes Hypocrites to defile as well as profane, and then you can never be secure that we may come to the Sacrament, for there may be a secret Achan, to defile all. 2. It was a singular case of which God had forewarned, Josh. 6. with threatening; Joshua and the governor's should have searched all places and tents, which they did not. 3. And every man we know is liable to Judgements for the offence of Governors, or their neglect to search out offenders. 4. Yet for all that, not every man guilty of sin. God may and doth punish temporally, upon the occasion of others Sins (as Israel for David's numbering the people, of which they were not guilty) because every one hath sin in himself, which is the rooted cause, though not the Occasion. 5. But God never punisheth spiritually for another's sin; therefore it is quite contrary to the Inference. A Civil Body may be politicly guilty by one (as in War, by one breaking a Truce) but in the conscience, thousands cannot defile one, no where, and least of all in the Ordinances of God; which is my Sanctuary, and so every faithful man's.  
2. For the place, 1 Cor. 10.17. You both mistake the sense, and stretch it too far however. If my communicating with a profane person make me spiritually one body with him, then either he becomes a true member of Christ's Body, or else I cease to be a true member, and become a member or limb of Satan, as he is yet. The former, I am sure, you will not hold; nor yet the latter, because such an act, how sinful soever you suppose it to be, nor any act indeed, nor acts, nor any thing else, cannot make a true member of Christ to become a limb of Satan.  
Besides, if his guilt defile me, it is either in the nature of the sin, and then even secret guilt would defile, and so there would be (as I said before) no security: or because I consent to it, which I do not; or at least, consent that he should come to the Sacrament, which I do not neither. I may not forbear, because God calls me as his servant, so to honour him and his Son, and to benefit my soul. If I be sorry any that thrusts in is not prepared, I can do no more, nor did God ever bid any leave his Ordinances for the presence or intrusion of a sinner.  
But I have not yet told you the meaning of the place you appeal to. The phrase of being one bread is obscure, and I know not whether I can give a right reason why it is used, not finding it neither cleared by Expositors: But the sense is, That all true Christians partaking together of the Sacrament, are one Body with Christ, and so one with another, of which their partaking of one Bread is a pledge. Hypocrites may partake outwardly, and so profane.; but the sentence concerns not them, more than to tell them what they lose while they pretend to partake of it: But even the outward partaking binds them, and all true partakers much more, not to partake of Satan's sacrifices, vers. 20. And this is all the Apostles drift in these words, and not to signify any Spiritual Conjunction with all that partake of that Sacrament outwardly.  
3. Your third place, 1 Cor. 5. seems most to your scope, yet comes not home to it. The words you mention verse 6. A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump, is a proverbial speech, and figurative, and so must not be strained beyond their scope; That was to show the necessity of the incestuous (and such like persons) excommunication, because of the danger of infection by example (as one root of bitterness springing up, endangers to defile many, Heb. 12.15.) even of the whole multitude, who are apt to follow the same, or the like wickedness. (Grex totus in agro, Unius scabie pcrit, & porrigine porci; Uvaque conspectâ livorem ducit ab vuâ. Horat.) not that every one would be infected, much less that every one was already guilty by his sin, even before infection, but because there was danger of infection, in case he were not punished: As that, 1 Cor. 15. Evil communication corrupts good manners, doth not show what will certainly be, but what there is danger of; yet this sufficeth that it should be put away: So here. More than this it cannot signify (unless you would also interpret it, of making the whole Church liable to some outward judgement; but that will scarce agree to the Metaphor, and however not reach to your supposal.)  
You point also to verse 11. where the faithful are forbidden so much as to eat with a scandalous brother: whence you would infer (as some do) Much less at the Lords Table. I answer; There can be no such consequence drawn thence: For first, the Apostle forbids not all converse with all heathens, because than they must go out of the world: So I say; not all Sacramental communion with every wicked brother, because than they must go out of the Church, and join with no Church in the world after a while, but make separation upon separation, and so no Communion of Saints, or participation of Sacraments at all; as experience hath showed more than once, and more would, if the Separatists had public liberty and room; or else they would renounce their own Principles in many cases of practice, as in the Low-Countries of late, and at this day. But secondly, As in the case of Natural or Civil necessity they might eat with such. As if of the same Family, if together in a Ship, or in an Inn (where the diet is common, as in many other Countries) a faithful person was not bound to fast because of them. So for Spiritual necessity; You are not bound to fast from your Spiritual food because of them, and leave off all, or forbear the public serving and honouring of God which he calls you to in the Sacrament. They might fight together as Soldiers, work together as servants, lodge together, if husband and wife, be friendly, if brothers and sisters, or kindred: But not unnecessarily show friendship, or entertain familiarity with those that they were not otherwise bound to, then by the bonds of Christianity, they behaving not themselves as Christians. So then, all that can be gathered hence toward the Sacrament, is, That those who have Authority, should not admit such; so vers. 5. & 13. But this (I say everlastingly) it is impossible every private man should have alone. Christ bids such only tell the Church; and if they that offend hear not the Church, repute them as heathens, withdraw as much as may be (and as the Church directs) from them: But he saith not, If the Church heareth not you, count it Paganish or profane; much less, Forbear to worship me, or come to my Sacrament, as defiled or profaned by their presence: which certainly is a matter of so great importance, as that there need be a clear and peremptory command to secure a conscience refraining, or else they will have but small thanks one day from Christ.  

Arguments against this Opinion of the unlawfulness of Mixed Communions.  On the contrary, see briefly what may further be said against this conceit:  
First, It is certain Christ admitted Judas to the Passeover: And S. Luke, Chap. 22.21. telling us of Christ's warning of judas his Treason, The hand of him that betrays me, is with me on the Table, immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament, bids me believe he received the Lords Supper also. However, it is all one for the Passeover; Christ knowing him, and as man (for he designed him to john, as he had also told of him generally before) yet he sends him not out before he had eaten and communicated with them in this Sacrament, and none of his disciples say, Master, Thou hast told us a Satan is amongst us, a Traitor, send him out, else he will defile us. To know that there is such an one certainly, is all one in sense and effect, as to know who he is, for that matter. Say, Would you not startle (upon your grounds) if one should tell you, I know certainly that one of your company that is coming to the Sacrament with you is an adulterer, or a whore, and lives in such wickedness, could you choose but forbear? But so did not the disciples.  
Secondly, It is no less certain 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 others 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 fifth Chapter which you mention.  
Thirdly, No such word of forbearing for another's sake, when he speaks of right receiving, ch. 11.  
Fourthly, He bids examine themselves every one (not others) and so bids every one come.  
Fifthly, He saith the unworthy Communicant eats and drinks damnation (or judgement) to himself, not to others. Weigh these things well in the fear of God (as I trust you will) and then I trust you will see that God never meant to debar his servants from their comfort in his Ordinances, nor excuse them from his service, for others faults. Every one (in this sense) must bear his own burden, Gal. 6.5.  
Sixthly, Add hereunto, That whereas to the just debarring of any one from the Sacrament, there must go a great deal of examination often times about the fact, and whether the party be indeed guilty; of some there is a great and strong suspicion: It were a very torture to consciences, to think, That another's wickedness, which according to the news that is brought them, is certain, or near it, should debar from God's Ordinances, and yet there is not sufficient proof to convince such, or a neglect in others to cast him out. So one, or some few, shall sin, and another shall be punished, and that spiritually, deprived of the Sacrament, and (if I may so say with reverence) God is punished by it, and Christ wants that honour his servants should give him in coming to his Table.  
Seventhly, Divines use to give three Rules to judge of Doctrines; The Glory of God, The humbling of man, and The Comforting of poor souls: If these stand for good ways of trial, the judgement will be on my side. First, it is for God's glory, that I come to worship him, and that others faults should not keep me from performing my homage. 2. It is also for the humbling of man, when his goodness or illness makes the Ordinances of God no more, nor no less effectual to others. We abhor the Popish Doctrine, That the Ministers intention is necessary to the Sacrament for the People's right Receiving; and that if he wickedly have no intention to consecrate it, let him speak never so well in words of prayer, etc. it is no Sacrament. This Opinion of yours is but too near it; That even a private wicked man's formerly showed wicked mind, though he behave himself outwardly never so well at the Sacrament, now defiles it to other Receivers. 3. It is greatly to my comfort, that another's sin cannot hinder me of that pledge of my Spiritual Union with Christ. I remember I have heard some malicious people threaten, To keep others from the Sacrament, because themselves would refuse reconciliation. But I have taught such, that their wickedness did not reach so far; and that if the comers did seek reconciliation, and offer satisfaction when it is fit, they should be welcome. It were lamentable else, and I might be kept back from the Sacrament all my life when it were administered, and I called to it by the Church, to whom yet perhaps I cannot prove the others malice if they deny it; when yet as soon as they and I were alone, they will say the same to me again, and so both vent and conceal their malice. If their wickedness thus known defile, woe is me to be Spiritually defiled, and deprived of the Sacrament without my fault. If a whole town were Traitors, a King that knows one to bear him a loyal heart, would accept him, notwithstanding the enmity of all the rest: And shall one Traitor, joning in an outward act of homage, make all a company of loyal subject's offenders even in doing their homage▪ It cannot be. Object. If now you say, Being known a Traitor, he should now be thrust out of loyal subjects company▪ Answ. He should; But by those that have authority: If they neglect it, they indeed offend, but yet this disparageth not the service of those that cannot help it: Unless the King had expressly said, I will rather have none of you come at all, than that one Traitor come among you: Which (as I touched before) Christ our King is so far from saying, that he admitted a Traitor to the like, to the same homage, when he first ordained it. In sum then, Christ having required the performance of such a service, not only as a means for our own good and comfort, but also as a duty of homage to him, to show forth his death till he come, we may not dare omit this service, this homage, in such cases as wherein we have not a clear dispensation from God for not performing it; which dispensation can never be shown by any private person, in case only that those who have power shall neglect to keep back some unworthy COMMUNICANT.  
FINIS.