SATISFACTION Concerning mixed Communions Vnsatisfactory: OR, Some short Animadversions upon the most material passages of a late book, entitled, Satisfaction concerning mixed Communions.  1 Cor. 5.11. 
But now have I written unto you, 〈◇〉, NOT TO BE mixed TOGETHER: If any 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.  Jer. 15.19. 
If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them.  Ezech. 22.26. & chap. 44.23. 
Her Priests have broken my Law, and have defiled my holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, &c.  
LONDON Printed for Henry Overton in Popes-head-Alley. 1643.   

To the Christian Reader.  
benign Reader, I here present thee with these brief Animadversions, as so many demonstrations of my desire to receive( if it may be given) better Satisfaction for mixed Communions; That Satisfaction offered being to me( and perhaps to others, weighing that discourse in an even Scale) as yet unsatisfactory. And that thou mayest see faire dealing on both sides, that entitled Satisfaction &c. is put in a smaller Letter, with the Copy entire: and mine, showing mine unsatisfiednesse, in a larger.  
As for my name, I purposely suppress it, till the Author of the Satisfaction express his.  
Farewell,   

Satisfaction concerning mixed Communions unsatisfactory.  
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. First, I say not that wicked persons ought to come. Secondly, Nor that they ought not to be kept away: For is this I agree with you, 
Here is a contradiction, that unfit ought not to come, yet might be admitted; yet ought not to be admitted: so here is a fault on both sides, Minister and People. And 3. is not such undue coming sufficient ground, if a real impediment,( as you confess over the leaf) for others to abstain? or a just impediment,( as a little below) lest one partake of the others sin.  that they ought not to come( unfit) though they might bee admitted; neither ought they to be admit●ed( by those who have power to keep them away) though they would dare to come. Thirdly, 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 consence to abstain, because of such an impediment, unless that impediment be really sufficient. For it is not a Supposed impediment, 
Then a real impediment is really sufficient to bind a man in conscience to abstain.  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 then 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 then hear him, he will never come to Church at all; or that he think himself bound in conscience not to pray daily, but onely 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 suming 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 Lords Body. 2. Not have right to it. 3. It is a spiritual banquet onely for the Saints. 4. Christ said, It is not meet to take the Childrens Bread and give it to Dogs. Answer. All this concludes well, that profane persons ought not to come; or if they do come, 
Here is another confession, that profane persons ought not to come, for the reasons here alleged well.  they ought not to bee 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 Lords 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: Wee grant it: But because another hath no right, may not I challenge mine? It is a spiritual banquet onely for Saints. True: but what follows? Therefore the witked should bee 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 childrens bread to the Dogges. True,( though doubtless Christ, when he spake it, 
Suppose Christ intended it not, yet doubtless the Sacrament is one of those holy things not to be cast to dogs. Or how prove you it doubtless that he intended not the Sacrament? Yea( say we) rather the Sacrament then other holy things: For profane persons are admitted( yea such as are excommunicate) but not so to the Sacrament: and Christ saith, It is not good to take the childrens bread, and give it unto dogs.  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 childrens bread, yet the children must not leave their parts, and run from the Table; much less forbear to come to their meat, because there bee some dogs in the room, who will catch a part, or some will bee given them. The Arguments conclude well, That profane persons, if known, ought to be kept from it 
(a) The Author might do well to deal plainly, and tell us who bee those that have authority.  by those that have authority: Which if the people should have together,( which I do not now dispute) yet certainly 
(b) Yet the Officers entrusted by the People, together with their approbation, may they not debar upon just cause from the Communion?  not every private man( or woman much less) alone: 
(c) What need all these words where there is no discipline at all, as in most Parishes? No difference put between the holy and profane? No cognisance, no inspection used over the people? where many Ministers know not so much as the faces of all their people? They may be what they will for all the Minister: And is this nothing to godly and understanding conscientious Christians, trow you? If a Minister, and most of the Congregation, go blindly to work, and so sin, in doing they know not what,( as in such promiscuous Communions) doth it not concern those, whose conscience is persuaded that is a sin, to see they do not partake of it? Or must my conscience be blind for company? Or what must I do in this case? You will say, I must come and inform the Minister. I should then find enough to do; for if he will give me liberty to look or convince me, it is my duty to tell him of all that by Gods Word I see to be amiss, both in him, and in his Congregation: What if I, or some other, should tell him, that a right Calling is required in a Congregation rightly gathered; Ordinances rightly administered, right Discipline exercised, and the like? But he will say, he hopes to see shortly a Reformation. Well: but in the mean time, till abuses be redressed, what hast to force the conscience to communicate with you, before he see you reformed according to the Word of God. This Books birth was too forward, to put forth his hand, till his elder Brother, Reformation, were born; which when it is, it will bee time enough to coat your Arguments. As for your comparison between ecclesiastical and Civill Authority, they will not herein svit together; nor need neglect of ecclesiastical Authority be name, where the Authority either is not at all, or not at all rightly constituted and exercised.  the sin of their Admission is theirs, & 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, then they may be guilty of the neglect of Civill authority omitting to Punish; and yet none hold themselves bound to depart out of Civill 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-Iustices are corrupt.  
Besides, the business is first 
(a) But to worship God after an undue manner, or to join with such, is a sin against the second Commandement. And such is the ordinary manner of this kind of worship in the usual Assemblies, wherein the worship is much after the Commandements of men, both imposed forms, and Rites of mens devising.  to worship God and Christ, and to remember and show forth his death. How dare I forbear this, when his Children are me to do it, because same others thrust themselves in, who pretend to worship him t●o? and join rather with me,( though unwarrantably, in regard of their sinfulness) 
(b) And you as well join with them, as they with you, while you show no dislike of them, but by Communicating with them do countenance and confirm them in their sin. For so you confess it to bee a sin; and if so, the difference is not so material, or remarkable, but that yourself do as well sin in joining with him, as he with you, saving onely that your sin of the two is the greater.  then I with them. mark this difference, it is very material, you say, and say truly, That the Sacrament, is a spiritual banquet onely for Saints: that is, Christ will onely 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 then supposed too. It is our business, our Homage, our Banquet: 
(c) This is a poor comparison if not an abusing of Scripture.  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. 
(d) Yes, you join with them in their sin of coming, and though you neither desire their company, nor approve of their sins; yet in not showing your dislike, and not at least reproving, or so, you do in that partake of their sins as Ezech. 3.30. Levit. 19.17. 1 Tim. 5.22. And the godly knowing such disorder are to show their grief for it and if no reformation be, to beware of a sinful communicating.  I desire not their company,( as such) I approve of none of their sins, nor join in any of them. If 
(e) Pauls rejoicing there, is no warrant for your rejoicing in such mixed Communions Christ was preached savingly to the hearers, but is exhibited destructively to the Communion in the Sacrament, to the godly with scandal; to the profane, to seal up their damnation, 1 Cor. 11.27.29.  Saint 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 
(f) And what honour is that to Christ, when the sacred Symbols of his body and blood( 1 Cor. 10.16, 17.) are profaned and abused, and that willingly. For the Minister either knows it to be so, or else dissembles it, or goes altogether blindly to work.  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 
(g) But though the wicked by communicating, and so professing Christ, get no good, yet some comfort, say you. What comfort, I pray you? Any true solid comfort? red jer. 23.14. and abhor such strengthening of the hands of evil doers, that none doth return from his wickedness. For what more strengtheners such profane persons in their evil courses, then the admitting them promiscuously to communicate with godly persons? They now think they are as holy as the best, when with them they are made equal partakers of those holy things: Thus while they profess to know Christ, they do in works deny him, being abominable, and unto every good work reprobate: and what pitiful enterfeerings be here? what hypocritical daubing of whited Walls? O that these wretched times should produce such discoveries and unmaskings of hypocrites, as if wee wanted other sins to hasten our Lands ruin. You do not profess but disclaim, and yet you join.  Christ, though not to their own good, yet is it so much comfort at least, that they bear outward witness, that Christs Servants must do as wee do; and so pretending( though falsely, to their own hu●t onely) 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, 
(h) But you want Authority. Thats pitty. What are you, I pray you? A Minister or Pastor of a Congregation rightly gathered, and you rightly called? Otherwise what talk you of your Authority, if you had it? But Authority from the Congregation or Church which you are over, you will have none.  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, Wee being many are one Bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.3. A little Leaven leaveneth the whose lump. 2 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. 
(i) 1 Achans sin being once discovered, was no longer secret. 2. How singular soever a case, yet it is exemplary enough: and it was preached by Ioshua and the Elders. 3. How liable then to Judgements are most Ministers, for their foul neglect to search out the offenders in their Assemblies. 4. foul sins, such as that of Achan, ought( when found out) to be a bar from the Communion, till repented of.  1. Achans sin was secret. If you will have it parullelled; it makes Hypocrites to defile as well as profane, and then you can never be s●… re that we may come to the Sacrament, for there may be a secret Achan to desile all. 2. It was a singular case, of which God had forewarned, Josh. 6. with threatening; Joshua and the Governours should have preached all places and tents, which they did not. 3. And every man we know is liable to Judgments for the offence of Governours, or their neglect to search out effendors. 4. Yet for all that, not every man guilty of sin. God may and doth pumsh temporally, upon the occasion of others sins,( as Israel for Davids 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. 
(d) God threatens to depart from his Church for the sin of one, unless he were put away from among them, Josh. 7.12. neither will I bee with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.  But God never punisheth spiritually for anothers sin; therefore it is quiter contrary to the inference. 
(e) The case between a civill and ecclesiastical body in point of guilt, or defilement, is very different: And the case here concerns not the conscience, but known sins, which in Gods Ordinances make others guilty as before.  A civill 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 mans.  

(f) This place, 1 Cor. 10.17. is neither herein mistaken, nor too far stretched. And to the Authors inference the like may be retorted thus, 1 Cor. 6.16. know you not that he which is joined to an harlot, is one body? If then a member of Christ be joined to a harlot, he becomes one body with the harlot; So saith the Holy Ghost. What say you to this? And though a true member of Christ cannot cease so to be, yet such for the time by sinful coupling becomes the member of an harlot, and so Christs member is defiled.  2. For the place, 1 Cor. 10.17. you both mistake the sense, and stretch it too far bowever. If my communicating with a profane person make me spiritually one body with him, then either he becomes a true member of Christs 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 
(g) But by your favour, do you not in act consent, though against your conscience,) which greatly aggravates) while you actually communicate with rotten and leprous members.  I consent to it, which I do not; or at least, consent that be should come to the Sacrament, which I do not weither. I may not forbear, because 
(h) God calls you not to that, which ye ought not to do, nor are you his servant in so doing. To communicate is a duty, but not to communicate unduly. A man may eat flesh, but it must not be with offence.  God calls me as his servant, so to honour him and his Son, and to benefit my soul. 
(i) And can you do no more, but sorrow? will that excuse, when you should do more; especially if you be a Minister? 
And doth not God forbid you to eat with such a one? If you say, this is a common Table: then I infer, much more at a Communion Table. When Gods Ordinance is profaned, he forbids you to do that, whereby the profanation is continued, countenanced, and maintained.   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, 
(k) Seeing you know not, you might be silent in the sense, and not peremptorily to tell us, But the sense is.  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. 
(l) Between close hypocrites, and open profane persons, there is a vast difference in point of Communion. For Hypocrites, while undetected, being members, cannot be debarred the Communion, they are reckoned in mans account, all of one body with true Saints: but not so open profane persons. These ought not at all to bee admitted, and if they intrude, they ought to bee debarred.  Hypocrites may partake outwardly, and so profane; but the sentence concerns not them, more then to tell them what they lose while they pretent to partake of it: But even the outward partaking binds them, and all true partakers much more, not to partake of Sathans sacrifices, vers. 20. And this is all the Apostles drift in these words, and not to signify any 
(m) And in excluding any spiritual conjunction in your Sense, you extremely weaken the binding of partakers not to partake of Satans sacrifices: Even carnal Protestants would the more abhor the Masse-Idol, if they had a better opinion of the holinesse of the Lords Supper; which they would have, if once they were excluded, till they became reformed.  spitituall conjunction with all that partake of that Sacrament outwardly.  
3. 
(n) 3. For 1 Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. This( say you) seems most to our scope, yet comes not home to it. And why, I pray you? It is a proverbial speech and figurative. But is it not a true proverb? Or will you cast a figure, to conjure down its true sense, or fetch up some strange spirit, to fright us out of our five wits? And truly your circled is too narrow, that it will contain no more vicious persons then the incestuous. Or is none to be excommunicate, but such an horrible monster as this? What say you to vers. 11? 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 an one, no not to eat. Are not these also to bee excluded from the Lords Table, with whom we may not so much as eat at our own? Is not each of these a root of bitterness, whereby( if not removed) many may bee defiled? Yea, each of these are more dangerous poison then incest, it being more abhorring to nature, and which all men generally detest. What indulgence is given to drunkenness, to a Fornicator, to covetousness, to an Extortioner, and many other sins, which custom hath made currant, and mixed Communions confirmed for virtues? Is not each of these, being welcome guests at the Lords Table, at least a little leaven, which leaveneth the whole lump?  Your third place. 1 Cor. 5. seems most to your scope, yet comes not home to it. The words you mention vers. 6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, is a proverbial speech and figurative, and so must not bee strained beyond their scope; That was to show the necessity of the incesluous( 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 perit, & porrigine porci, Uvaque conspecta ●… vorem ducit ab uva, Horat) not that every one would be infected, much less that every one was already guilty by his sin, even before infection, but 
(o) Thus you destroy the Apostles demonstration, from the comparison of Leaven: For you put onely a danger of infection, when the Apostle makes it as certain, as a little Leaven will in a few houres leaven the whole lump.  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 then 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 ver. 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; 
(p) That this is no less untrue then peremptory, is apparent both by the Apostles argument, and by this Authors weak inferences: For with such an one 〈◇〉, no not to eat, is an expression very emphatical, importing a Much less at the Lords Table. And because necessity of commerce with men of the world enforceth conversing with them in a civill way sometimes, it doth not thereupon follow, that we should at any time communicate with notorious profane persons at the Lords Table. And whereas you say, then they must go out of the Church: here of necessity you must distinguish between a common parochial Church, and a truly reformed Church: For as for common and ordinary parochial Congregations, consisting of good and bad, without difference, without order, without discipline, where there is no sacramental Communion but with every wicked brother, can you blame godly men for going out of such Churches, which can hardly come within the definition of a true Church of Christ, as being compounded( or rather confounded) of such members, as make up( for the greatest part) rather the body of an harlot, then of Christs Spouse?  There can be no such consequence drawn thence: For first, the Apostle forbids not all converse with: all Heathens, because then they must go out of the World: So I say; not all Sacramental Communion with every wicked brother, because then 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 shewed more then once, and more would, if the Separatists had public liberty and room; or else they would renounce their own Principles in many cases of practise, as in the Low-Countries of late, and at this day. But secondly, As in the case of natural or Civill necessity they might eat with such; us 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 
(q) God calls us not to serve him in an undue manner: that service is no honour to God, which is not according to his Word and commandement Math. 15.9. and wherein the conscience rightly informed is scandalised, and so defiled.  serving and honouring of God, which he calls you to in the Sacrament. They might fight together as Souldiers, work together as Servants, lodge together, if Husband and Wife, bee friendly; if Brothers and Sisters, or Kindred: But not unnecessarily show friendship, or entertain familiarity with those that they were no 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, 
(r) And who( all this while) are those who have authority? Not the Church, or Congregation, or her Officers for her? No, say you. But every private person? No, say we. And where this Church order is not so much as established, not onely universally neglected, though every private man takes not upon him to exclude such yet being justly offended for the confused admitting of them, should they not protest against it, and if not reformed can he with a good conscience join with such a Congregation? And( say it as everlastingly as you will) if he tell your Church, and it will not hear, but stiffly maintain such an habitual disorder, what privildege hath it, more then a refractory Delinquent, that will not be admonished, from being judged as heathenish? A multitude, or society, doing evil, and persisting in it, being as bad( or rather much worse) then one single impenitent person. You know that saying. Jer. 51.9. to which answereth Rev. 18.4. And perhaps you will call Babylon a Church.  That those who have Authority should not admit such; so v. 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, repate them as Heathens, withdraw as much as may be( & as the Church directs) from them; But be saith not, If the Church heareth not you, count it Paganish or profane; much less, For bear 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 bee 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 unlawfullnes of mixed Communions.  

(s) And that this is a conceit, is but your conceit: A clear truth it is, as hath been proved.  On the contrary, see briefly what may further he said against this conceit:  

(t) But, first, you will overthrow this by the example of Christs admitting of Iudas to the Passover: This is certain, say you: And so say we. Ergo is it certain he received the Lords Supper? How prove you that? Christ( say you) after the institution of the Sacrament, saith, The hand of him that betrays me is with me on the Table. Now to clear this, wee must entreat you to compare this Scripture with the other Evangelists, and you shall find that Iudas received not the Lords Supper. For first, all the other three Evangelists set this, concerning Iudas, before the institution of the Sacrament, or the Lords Supper: so as we are to take Lukes relation to be by a hysteron proteron often used in Scripture, putting that afterward; which went before. And secondly, John tells us expressly, that when Iudas had received the sop, which was of the Passeover, he went out 〈◇〉, immediately: so as 'tis clear Iudas after the sop stayed not the Lords Supper. 
again, admit it were granted,( which yet ought not) that Iudas received the Supper, yet this makes no way for admitting notorious offenders to the Sacrament: For Iudas was not yet noted to the Assembly of the Apostles for the Traitor; and till the crime be made openly known, the man is not cut off from the Communion.  
And thirdly, though the Traitor was by Christ secretly intimated unto his bosome-disciple, yet he was not yet actually the Traitor, but was onely signified de future; and a fin that is not yet actually committed, doth not debar a man from the Sacrament de praesenti.  
Lastly, the Church censure had not yet passed upon Iudas, and therefore if Iudas had received the Sacrament, it had been no warrantable precedent for mixed Communions, or admitting notorious profane persons.   First, It is certain Christ admitted Judas to the Passeover: And Saint Luke, chap. 22.21. telling us of Christs 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, sand 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 comparry 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.  

(v) 2. For the Church of Corinth, as some drunk, others grievous offenders, &c. it remained a true Church still, but corrupt, and to be reformed and reduced to Christs rule. It had the right frame and institution of a Church, yet now in some part out of frame. And what is this to a Church( as your common Parochials) that never had any right frame or institution of a true Church, like that of Corinth, and other apostolical Churches, who had Christs full power within themselves?  Secondly, It is no less certain there were great offenders at this time he 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 no where blames for coming to the Lords Table because of them, no not in that fifth Chapter which you mention.  

* 3. And whereas you say, that neither 1 Cor. 5. nor 1 Cor. 11. any are either forbidden to come, or blamed for coming to the Sacrament, for others sins: it is clearly answered before, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and chap. 11. the Apostle requireth an universal reformation.  Thirdly, No such word of forbearing for anothers sake, when he speaks of right receiving, chap. 11.  

(x) 4. And this he doth by way of every mans examining himself; which is spoken of such as were members of a true Church, who for their fitness had formerly been examined by the Church-officers before admission; so as selfe-examination in such being neglected, and some found still to bee notorious offenders, the Church must proceed to censure; for the lump must not be fowred with such Leaven.  Fourthly, he bids examine themselves every one( not others) and so bids every one come.  

(y) And fifthly, whereas he saith the unworthy Communicant eats and drinks damnation to himself, not to others, that is meant of such as are conscious to themselves of such sins, whereof others cannot detect them; and which being openly known were sufficient matter to debar them from the Communion. But he that eats and drinks unworthily, being a profane liver, and so an open offendor, eats and drinks judgement, not onely to himself, but also to the Congregation, when they do witting and willingly communicate with him, countenancing him in his sin, while they take no course eitherto reclaim and reduce him, or otherwise to exclude him from the Communion, 1 Cor. 11.29.30.  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.  

(z) sixthly, the question is not about persons suspected, where there is no just proof, who yet are to be admonished, but not out of suspicion presently to be cast out; but of such as are known offenders and ill livers.  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 bee indeed guilty; of some there is a great and strong suspicion: It were a very torture to consciences, to think, that anothers wickedness, which according to the news that is brought them. is certain, or near it, should debar from Gods 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.  

(a) 7. For your 3. Rules, 1. It is not Gods glory, but dishonour, if I worship him in another way then he hath prescribed. But to worship him by hardening others in sin,( as in usual communicating with wicked persons) is forbidden of God, as ler. 23.14. To communicate with known profane persons, to strengthen them in their sin, and to sow pillows nuder their elbows, as Ezech. 13.20. which the Lord is against. And this is to bring in an universal confusion, while no difference between the clean and unclean. between the holy and profane, Ezech. 44.22. ler. 15.19. And the more godly and knowing a man is, he doth in this case sin the more, for he emboldeneth not onely the wicked in his way, but also the weak Christian, who otherwise is offended by communicating with such profane companions. As 1 Cor. 8.20.  Seventhly, Divin ause 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 Gods 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. Wee abhor the Popish Doctrine, That the Ministers intention is necessary to the Sacrament for the peoples right receiving; and that if he wickedly have no intention to consecrate it, let him speak never so well in words of Prayer, &c. It is no Sacrament. This opinion of yours is but too near it; 
(b) 2. For your second Rule, Mans humbling, you know there is an humbling even to hell, Esa. 57.9. and a voluntary humility in a false worship, or false way of true worship. Col. 2.23. 2. And though even a profane person may at the Sacrament behave himself mannerly and demurely enough for his outward demeanour, yet it is but as the Whores wiping of her lips, which for all that defiles him that hath to do with her. Nor is this mans profaneness hidden from the Commanicants( at least as many as know him) as the Priests intention is from the people, which himself onely is privy unto. 
3. Rule, If you speak this as a Minister, with what comfort can you communicate with profane notorious Drunkards, and the like, whom you witting and willingly admit to the Lords Table, and( contrary to Christs charge) give these holy things to dogs? And how sin you against the godly, when you make the profane equal with them? And is this so greatly to you comfort? And to the godly what comfort can it be to be so yoked?   That even a private wicked mans formerly shewed wicked mind, though he behave himself outwardly never so well at the Sacrament, now desiles it to other Receivers. 3. It is greatly to my comfort, that anothers 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. 
(c) For what you have taught, in this 'tis true, touching the two at difference, and the one irreconcilable, the other desiring it, and tendering satisfaction: This may be received, but not the other: or if he presume to come, you sin in admitting him; and if you should receive him, the other must complain to the Congregatio of you both, in whose power it is to examine the cause, and without amendment to cast you both out; and the other, without thus doing his best, should by communicating partake both of your sin and his.  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 knows defile, woe is me to be spiritually defiled, and deprived of the Sacrament without my fault. If a whole Town 
(d) For your comparison, of one loyal 〈◇〉 whole town of Traitors, it is very impertinent, as you put it: It should be thus: If 〈◇〉 one be loyal, and the King come against the town, and this one man will not part from his neighbour, so as they all perish together, is he not reckoned among those Traitors? And one Traitor makes a whole company of true men guilty, in case they countenance him in his treason, by giving their tacit consent, that they are no better then he, or that he is as good as they. And thus the comparison holds pretty well with our case of Communion, although it come not home to it, there being a fatre nearer relation between Communicants at the Lords Table, being all of one body( whereof one leprous member shots out the whole;) then between inhabitants, among whom if there be one Traitor onely, the rest being loyal are no way guilty, unless by countenance, or consent, as before. 
And in sum, when wee perform to God either such a service, or in such manner, as he requires not, God will con us little thanks; as Esa. 1.12. Who required these things or your hands? And for a conclusion: If a whole town be Traitors, and one, or two, or three, be honest men, will you not allow those three to quit themselves from the rest, as those from Corabs company, left they all perish together as Rebells? So in your mixed Congregations, where the most are very profane, or ignorant, and some few godly or conscientious, will you not allow the good so to provide for themselves, as they may inoffensively both to Christs Ordinance, and to their own conscience, communicate together in the purest way of Reformation? Is there a necessity that old vicious customs should be as the laws of the Medes and Perstans, which might not repealed? No removing us from our Lees? And if your mixed Communions be not reformed, what Reformation will you have? or what shall we expect, when in a time of a Reformation, expected public abuses and disorders. are thus opened, I wot not by what Authority is maintained.   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, joining in an outward act of homage, make all a company of loyal subjects, offendo s, even in doing their homage: It cannot be. 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, them 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 onely 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 onely that those who have power shall neglect to keep back some unworthy Communicant.    

Octob. 5. 1643.  
Imprimatur,  
John bachelor.  
FINIS: