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 heare the Scriptures, if we will be for purity, we must doe it. There hath been in all Ages, a generation, of Pharisaicall men, not without some shew of learning, that have alwayes counter­plotted, to keep Ordinances low, and keep under the power of godlinesse: But if we desire our righteousnesse should exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees (as Christ commands, Matth. 5.20.) we must not be behinde the Scribes and Pharisees,See the [...]oot, [...] whose name signifies, and their practise manifested that they did separate. They separated from the grosse offences of the World. Luke 18.11. They separated from any semblance or society of the grosse sort of people; they would neither be with them, nor like them: Counting the common people (John 7.49. [...], but MOVEABLE Annimals, yea ignorant Ideots, 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 attyred themselves in such a garbe as might have more shew of sanctity (like them of old, Zech. 13.4.) And this Sect of Pharisees were as ancient as diverse 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 neer. Hebrew, [...] Touch me not, according to [Page 3]that of Luke 7.39. And the Publican stood afarr off, because the Pharisee would not joyne in worship with him. So then, not to separate at all, is to be behind a Pharisee; not to separate more then a Pharisee, is not to obey Christ, that our righteousnesse should exceed theirs; nor to obey the generall voice of the Scrip­tures, from Genesis to the Revelation, Gen. 4.16. Caine went out from the PRESENCE of the LORD: that is, Caine was cast out of the Church, otherwise Gods presence is every where. And 'tis mentioned, Gen. 6.2. as a most sinfull mixture, that the Sons of God took to Wives the Daughters of men: And thus wee might goe on step by step thorough every book of the Bible; but the multitudes of businesses command me to be briefe.

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 yee, depart yee, goe out from thence, touch no uncleane thing, goe yee out of the midst of her, be yee cleane. 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 expresse in the Text, that the designe of God is, that we so separate as to keep our selves from pollution with o­thers.
• 4. That the Apostle, 2 Cor. 6.17. doth extend this place further then to the Jewes, or to Babylon, or the like particular place.
• 5. That the Jewes were not now in Captivity.

This duty of separation is commanded likewise in the New Testament, to all Christians: In 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. Be yee not unequally yoaked together with unbeleivers; for what fellowship hath righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse? And what communion hath light with darknesse; and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that beleeveth with an Infidell? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? For yee are the Temple of the living God; as God hath sayd, I will dwell in them, and walke in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Where­fore come out from among them, and be yee separate saith the Lord, and touch not the uncleane thing, and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and yee shall be my Sons and Daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Observe,

• 1. That great famous men for learn­ing and piety, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, &c. doe not thinke this to be restrained to Marriage (as some have dreamed [Page 4]by occasion of the phrase, Ʋnequally yoaked) but of communica­ting or partnership with men in spirituall pollution: Plainely 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. &c.) That the beleeving married person may dwell with the unbeleiving yoakefellow. And the Apostle levels his ex­hortation against all spirituall pollution; and particularly against Idols, and Heathenish Temples, &c.
• 2. That the Corinthians were neither Jewes, nor were they in Babylon.
• 3. That unlesse we thus separate, God will not be a Father to us, &c.

In Revel. 18.4. this duty of separating is commanded to all Beleevers by a voice from Heaven. John saith, I heard a voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her my people, that yee be not partakers of her sins, that yee partake not of her plagues. Observe,

• 1. That this is spoken to John a Jew, when the Jewes (properly so called) were not in Babylon) but in Jerusalem, and Judea, as doe te­stifie the Gospell of John, and of the other Evangelists. And
• 2. tis spoken to all Gods 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 sayd to be crucified in the street of the great City, which is spiritually called SODOM and AEGYPT, Revel. 11.8. Though crucified locally at Jerusalem, yet spiritually in Aegipt and Sodom, because those names signifie filthy pollution, and enmity to purity. So Babylon is put to signifie 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 yee to practice; else why doe you professe purity and pretend to be Gods peculiar people (as Malachie 3.) Tis ad­ded therefore in that 15. of Jer. 19. Let them turne to thee, but doe not thou turne to them: If we Preach otherwise we are not Gods mouth. If you practice otherwise, you act not like Christs members, as we shall shew you presently.

From the generall of separation, let us come to the particular intended. I shewed you before in another discourse, that there is no shew or faire pretence can be held forth, that the Children of Parents, whereof neither can be judged to be a Beleever ought [Page 5]to be baptized till the Childe 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 mixt Communions, where good and badd are admitted. Those that have not true grace, as farr as be­leevers of Minister and People can discerne, ought not to be admitted; those that are to be admitted by the Officers and members of a Church, must be as farr 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 forme: The matter true regenerated persons as farr Beleevers can judge, a man is alive by his breathing, and discerne the tree by his fruits, Jam. 2.26. (the Margin is Breath) Mat. 7.16. Forme 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 Gods glory, and mutuall 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 truely godly. Al this is couched in the inscriptions of Pauls 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 gracelesse people from the Communion, by the Officers and Brethren of a CHURCH is no new Doctrine, or pra­ctice, but ancient; so that in the severall ages of the Churches as they lesse or more degenerated, we have more or lesse print and footstepps of this left us. The very Papists (who before the Councill of Trent, saith learned Polanus, was a true Church, though most impure) had their shrif­tings, examinations, and confessions of people afore they were admitted to their Communions: The Episcopall way had it in forme of a Law in their Rubrick, for the Administration of the Communion, in these words, They that intended to partake of the holy Communion, should signifie their names AFORE to the Curat; and if any of those be an open, and notorious evill liver, so that the CONGREGATION is OFFENDED, or have done any wrong [Page 6]to his NEIGHBOUR, by Word or Deed, the Curat having knowledge thereof, shall call him, and advertise him in any wise not to presume to the Lords Table, untill he have OPENLY DECLARED himselfe to have TRULY REPEN­TED, 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, &c. Not SUFFER­ING them to be partakers of the Lords Table, untill he KNOVV 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 prophane in their conversation. The Congregational way goe higher then this, viz. by conference, by enquiry, and by conver­sation, to discerne what breathings and fruits of true grace appeares 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 perswaded 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, twise out of the New Testament, COME OUT from a­mong them, add Phil. 3.2. Beware of Doggs; Who are they? Evil doers: and the Concision, viz. were not outwardly, and therefore likely not in­wardly pure. How beware? Mat. 15.26. The doggs must not eate of the childrens bread: And Revel. 22.15. the doggs must be WITHOUT, What doggs? Sorcerers, Whoremongers, Idolaters, and whosoever loveth and ma­keth a lye. Accordingly tis sayd, Revel. 21. (a Chapter that cannot be meant of Heaven, as, saith Brightman, and others, every Verse can wit­nesse) in the 27. Vers. thus, INTO the New Jerusalem; that is, the refor­med Church, no uncleane thing, or thing that defileth, or worketh abomina­tion, or maketh a lye shall enter. Which way soever we take this new Jeru­salem, either for a more perfect state of the Church on earth yet to be, then hitherto hath been, or for an absolute perfect state in the highest heavens; sure we can inferr no lesse, then that we should conforme to that patterne 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 sayd to be WITHIN; all others are sayd to be WITHOUT. Now conclude from all, as Doctor Ames doth in his cases of conscience, WITHIN, and WITHOUT, cannot be all one. If onely meet members, Saints, as the Apostle called them, Chap. 1. v. 1. be within, then those that are not, such [Page 7]are to be without: Accordingly the Apostle shewes us in this same, 1 Cor. 5. That not onely Heathens, or odious debaucht 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 walke 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 shews was their duty, and should have been done, afore he needed to have sent to them to doe 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 stil 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 doe their duty, yet not the Apostle, but the whole Church of the Officers and Brethren, even that whole lump that had been soured, must doe the deed of casting that incestuous person out. And they are still levened till they doe it: therefore the duty lay on all, else the sin could not have layne on all. The Brethren should have watch mens walkings, should informe, 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 prophe­sie 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 shew, and not testifying against him) is punished on the whole Camp of Israel, whilst he is unpunished, and the whole Camp is threatned, now Achan is discovered, that God would not be with them, if they did not cast him out; and therefore all in their severall places, as farr as was needfull, were to act in it, Josh. 7. So is it in the busi­nesse 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 onely greater sins as here, but smaller sins, as the World count smaller (we will name them by [Page 8]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 informe 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, soures, pollutes, a whole Church, doth mediately at least, pollute such a particular person as joynes to such a polluted such; yea immediately polluts such a particular person that joyns in that act, that polluted that whol Church: Therfore a man or woman ought not to joyn to such a Church as is polluted by keeping in it such as walk un­worthy, much lesse 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, soures, and pollutes the whole Church. If touching a leprous person, or dead body, in the ceremoniall 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 fellony, or murther, not protesting against it, doth by our Law make a man accessory; surely then there is more then no­thing of guilt to such a soule that shall co-act with a Congregation in mixt Communions, that, according to the Apostle, pollutes them all.

2. 'Tis sayd 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 then must yee needs goe 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 EATE. Observe,

• 1. That the word Company, or keep company, is twise in the Greek, [...] that is, Not to be MING­LED TOGETHER, as striking at unlawfull mixtures in relation to a spiri­tuall pollution.
• 2. That this unlawfull 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 avoyding spirituall polluting mixture, is of such consequence, that he writes twise 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 spirituall polluting company with any one Brother that walks disorderly, as the words are plaine, v. 11. and the exhortation prosecuted, v. 9, 10. in the words you and yee, must needs be understood distributively of any one, keeping company with one another in an unlawfull way, as the 11. Verse ex­plains. For if the unlawful fellowship with one can a pollute many, sure it can [Page 9]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 walke 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 avoyd. This the Apostle saith he doth not forbid. Another companying with disorderly persons, is a voluntary chosen fellowship, society, or accompanying; as to eate with such disorderly walkers; this the Apostle peremptorily forbids *Election of evill company is the great detection of the evill heart of him that chooseth that company. *And to know that others are spiritually in­fected, and that we have the distemper of originall corruption very apt to take infection, and yet voluntarily to thrust into society with them, is to bring upon our selves the guilt of our owne danger and infection.
• 5. Obs. That the Apostle distinguisheth between godly mens going out of the world and godly mens keeping an evil walker out of their company, and out of the Church. You cannot avoid it, saith the Apostle, unlesse you wil goe out of the World, but necessitatedly, upon some unavoydable occasions, you must have civil businesse with men that are covetous, extortioners, fornicators, &c. 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 eate with them.
• 6. Obs. That the Apostle allows expresly that there may be a ne­cessity for temporal things, of having civill fellowship with evil men out of the Church, such as never were Brethren; but he doth not expresse 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 businesse, 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 alwayes were of the World, and never of the Church, then by any necessity (that can be supplyed any where else) to have to doe with men once called Brethren, but now walking disorderly. Obs.
• 7. That the Apostle down right doth declare that as we should avoyd, what may be, all fellowship with worldly men, that are covetous, fornicators, &c. so much more we ought to avoyd all fellowship with covetous, forni­cators, &c. once called Brethren.
• 8. Obs. That the Apostle in reckoning up the sins that must divide fellowship, he doth not onely name greater and grosser sins, as fornication, drunkennesse, extortion, but such as in common account are lesser, and in their nature more mental or aiery. As 1. Idolatry (but to sit in the Idoll Temple, and eate 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. Covetousnesse, which is an heart, sin, a spiritual mental sin in the maine; extortion is the manifestation of it; and [Page 10]by the same proportion great pride may be included, &c. 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 walke in such sins as these, [...], so much as EATE TOGETHER with them. Now if those that are for mixt Com­munions wil say that this is meant of spirituall eating the Lords supper with such afore named; then they yeeld the question of avoyding mixt Communions; that godly men must not receive the Lords supper with co­vetous, railers, &c. If they say it signifies civill eating of our common meales in our houses; then they grant by necessary consequence, that we may not eate at the Communion with such inordinate persons; for if it be a sin to eate our common meat with evil livers, once called Brethren, then much more unlawful to eate at the Lords Table with them. Surely, surely, the A­postle could not mean to be more careful to keep Saints more pure at their owne Tables then at the Lords Table. Of which I leave the consciences of them that are for mixt Communions to judge.

These few, of many things more that might be spoken against mixt Com­munions, wil be sufficient to them that are willing to understand. But the unwilling, wil dispute, though they bring but their owne phantasies to op­pose the plaine Word of God. And therefore I am not very willing to take the paines to follow them with answers: But, least they should persist and be hardned, the rather because we give no answer at al; I shal reply briefly, and the rather because our cause against mixt Communions wil gaine by it, upon the minds of considerate men.

There are, I finde 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 ranck, and appeare, 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 personall offences against our selves. Them we must forgive often, if our Brother repents; but we cannot forgive his sins against God. These two Objections as they are levelled, strike at all Magisterial and Ministerial discipline, evident in the Word of God, even in judgement of all judgements, Papisticall, Episcopall, Presbyteriall, and Congregationall: And therefore these Objections are not rightly mounted. Obj. 3. Obj. 'Tis said, 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate. Answ. This indeed is that thousands of times repeated argument, by the vulgar, to no purpose: For Observe, 1. That one Verse doth not containe all Gods minde; we must compare Scripture with Scripture; and so, Mat. [Page 11]18.15. & 1 Cor. 5. &c. 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 mans selfe as he is a man; a mans selfe as he is an Husband, a mans selfe 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 mans selfe▪ and a man must examine himselfe touching all his sins in all these relations; and so whether he hath done his duty to admonish his neighbor that comes to the Communion with him of his evil life, according to Christs rule, Mat. 18.15. &c. And according to that rule, if in case he doth not so hear thee, or others with thee, as to reforme (so the Greek, [...], that is, though he heard thy words, yet he neglects thy counsel) whether or no hast thou told the Church, til they cast him off, as an Heathen or Publican. Our Sa­viour saith, a mans selfe is concerned so in his Brothers spirituall welfare, that a man must when he is to goe to worship, minde 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 remembrest that thy brother hath ought AGAINST THEE, leave there thy gift before the Altar, and goe thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift: Mark the reason following, Vers. 24. Least he deale with thee, and thou be cast out. Surely the New Testament worshipp is as purely to be kept, as the Mosai­call: And if we must be carefull when we goe to offer to God, that the minde of our Brother be cleer and quiet towards us: we must also be care­full 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, &c. is spoken to Church­members in Corinth, that were Saints, and fit matter for a Church that they might receive in a due manner, and were not men of evill lives habitually. Ad to all that of our Saviour so often repeated, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy SELFE. A mans neighbour is a kinde of selfe. Obj. 4 4. They object, My neighbours sin is not mine, and therefore his sin is upon himselfe, not on me if I come prepared to the Communion. Answ. 1. We have shewed but now thou dost not come prepared, if thou lettest thy Brother alone in his sinn. 2. Though his personal sin of drunkennesse, swearing, &c. is not communi­cated to thee by a transmigration of that evil quality in him into thy soule, to make thee a drunkard or swearer too, like to him; yet it becomes the Congregational and Partnership, or accessory sin of thee and the Church, if thou and they let him alone to goe on in his sin; and the meane while ad­mit him without controll to the Communion. When Adam had disobedi­ently eaten of the tree of knowledg of good and evill, God would not let him eate of the Sacrament of the tree of life, but thrust Adam out of Pa­radise. Adam and Eve both must be soundly schooled unto repentance afore [Page 12]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 eate 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 Lawes of that Corporation, or Company, though they doe 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 thy selfe: 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 evill 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 vilifie him behinde his back, as the phrase, In thine heart, signifies (as Gen. 37.41. Esau sayd 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 rashnesse and suddennesse of admission, before thorough means and tryals 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, &c. I charge thee observe these, &c. With­out preferring one afore another. Lay hands SUDDENLY on no man, neither be partakers of other mens sins. The Prophet Ezekiel chargeth on them that doe not reprove their Brother more then sin; namely, judgement also, Ezek. 3.20. When a RIGHTEOUS man doth turne from his RIGHTEOUSNES and commit iniquity, &c. he shall dye; because thou hast not given him warn­ing, he shall dye in his sin, &c. but his blood will I require at thy hands. You heard afore, rebuking is injoyned People as well as Ministers. Obj. 5. Ob. The theefe repented at last; and an evill liver in his now comming to the Com­munion, signifies, for ought I know, that he doth repent. Ans. 1. The theefe doth not repent by comming to an Ordinance of God, therefore this Obje­ction is impertinently urged. 2. He is now under an heavy judgement of God, which usually more workes on the wicked, then single Ordinances: therefore this Objection doth not suite with the point in hand. 3. Here is God making known to us, that the theefe repented at last; yea, the gra­cious words and confessions of the theefe of his sin, and his justifying of Christ shew as much: But the dumb comming of a wicked man to the Communion, doth no more shew that he repents, then Judas his comming [Page 13]to the last to Christs Sermons and Passover, did shew that he repented of his covetous and trayterous heart. 3. By this Objection we should stil 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 Christs discipline be layd aside and never used. 4. This of the theefe is but an example, which is an inartificial and insufficient argument: and tis but one example of that kinde, 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 Crosse, and that once to shew his pow­er, in that his lowest humiliation to forgive the theefe on the Crosse. 5. But we have an evident rule to goe by, set down for us by Christ, how to deale with one that goes on in his sins; and not for us to goe by guess, that when he comes to an Ordinance, a Communion, &c. he then repents: The rule is, Matth. 18.15. If thy brother shall trespasse against thee, goe 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 reforme is here meant) If he will not heare thee (Greek, to neglect what he heares) 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 heare them (the same Greek word still) tell it unto the Church: But if he neglect to heare the Church (the same Greek word) let him be unto thee an Heathen or Publican. See, a man that walkes disorderly is not to be trusted (for ought this Text al­lows) not one time after any one sees his sin, but that one Brother or Sister must goe tel him of it alone, that so his sinne may goe no further, nor the knowledge thereof, if he reforme. If not, the next time he is discovered a­gaine, two or three must joyne together to admonish him; and so to stop the sin, and the disgrace, if it may be, among them: If he goes on, then these two or three must complaine to the Church, or Congregation where he partakes of Ordinances: If he wil not be reformed at the admonition of the Church, then the Church, as tis a Church of Christ, can doe no lesse then cast him off as an Heathen: But if the Church should be negligent to doe it, the pretence of saying, what can one member doe in this thing, and so of sitting still is easily removed; for if thou hast managed thy businesse 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 prevaile with all the rest to cast him off. If all this will not doe it, thou hast this to doe, namely, to call in for the advise of other Churches, as they did, Acts 15. and until this be reformed, you have another remedy, namely, to withdraw Communion with such a Church, as shal so grosly neglect their duty. For if, as in 2 Thes. 3.6, 14. We must withdraw from every brother that walkes disorderly; then sure we have no warrant to communicate with a whole Church walking dis­orderly, [Page 14]where there is more sin and sinners, with sin upon sin; that offen­ders sins, and their owne, 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 zeale. Yet in the meane 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 complaine, wil allow you that priviledge til things be setled. But it may be, some will say this rule is, If my brother trespasse against me: but his trespasse is not against me. Answ. David tooke it to himselfe, 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 practise. 2. If a Servant of your Family should commit fornication, or drunkennesse 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 generall observation of the Church; the Church without any more adoe, 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 theefe on the Crosse, That men that have been noted to walke disorderly, should first give proofe and experience of their repen­tance, that they have confessed their sins and forsaken them (as the Scripture speakes) afore they should be thought to repent, and be fit to come to the Communion; which we cannot righteously think they doe, who goe on in their old sins, longer then they are at the Ordinances. If the Deacons, whose cheife trust was onely the Churches 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 evill walkings) to partake of the holy things of God. I appeale to you, whether after a Servant hath been found false twise, you would receive him the third time, onely because he comes and offers you his service againe? Shall we deale worse with God, and mens consciences, then with our selves about our e­states, and civil affaires. 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 onely at the Passover, it yeelds no argument for mixt Commu­nions; for from a ceremoniall forme of worship of a Nationall Church un­der the Old Testament, to an Evangelicall forme of worship of Congrega­tional Churches under the New Testament, is no true plumb and level to [Page 15]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 generall. 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 mixt Communions of such as are openly known to walke wickedly, Christ now about to leave sensible rules of a visible processe, 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 mixt Com­munions, then to keep out, and cast out grosse offenders; namely, to have so done by them, as soon as the Church had suspected their hearts had not been right. 3. For certaine (if I doe 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 downe by Luke, Chap. 22. Namely, because first, there is mention of the Lords Supper, v. 20. Then af­ter that, followes the mention of Judas his hand at the Table, v. 21. And therefore as they thinke, Judas was at the Lords 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 Marke, Chap. 14. First in v. 18, 19, 20. Is the Disco­vering of Judas, that he should betray Christ: And then after, in v. 22. &c. is mention of Christs 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 goe forth (according to Saint John, chap. 13.) afore the Communion. And therefore Luke did not intend 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 signifie a new matter, and that a distinct discourse begins there. Namely, that when Christ did discover Iudas, he was at the Table with him (mark it, At the Table, tis not sayd at the Communion) and with this begins the new di­stinct story of Iudas his betraying Christ. But is not a joynt story (in order of doing) knit on to the end or conclusion of the Lords Supper; though [Page 16]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, &c. 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 intend to set down things according to the order of doing, because there is another distinct story annext 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 Christs betraying by Iudas. Yea, further the Evangelists doe 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 baptized, building on that order of words, Mat. 28. Goe teach and baptize; in Mark 1.4. there is a contrary order, Iohn did baptize in the Wildernesse, and Preach: So that bare order of story cannot yeeld any infallible argument that such a thing was done then. 2. We affirme that for certaine (as farr as we can possibly see) Iudas was not at the Lords Supper, upon this argument out of Iohn 13. Christ and his Disciples ate two Suppers afore the institution of the Lords Supper. 1. The Passover Supper. 2. Their owne civill supper. 3. Fol­lowed the Lords 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, Iohn 13.1, 2. (turne to the place, else you will see no­thing) This supper being ended, Christ riseth from the Table, v. 4. layes 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 againe, and sits downe: 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 Iohn asked him whom he meant, Christ plainely 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 Iudas Iscariot: Here you see they were eating againe. This the second Supper, their civil Supper, because of their Sopps. In v. 27. Satan enters after the Sopp into Iudas. And then, sayd Jesus to him, doe 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 Devill was in him, and he might be gone. Christ bids him speedily to end his treason, which he would doe. Then saith the 30. Vers. he having received the Sopp went out, [...], (a keen, a­cute, and punctuall word) Immediately; which can signifie not an Iota lesse then that nothing of action intervened between Iudas his taking the Sopp, and with it the Devil, and Judas his going out. And v. 31. upon his going [Page 17]out, Christ in a laudative manner saith, Now the Son of man is glorified, and God in him; and presently fals 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 stayd 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 Lords Supper which was the last Supper, there was neither Sop nor Sauce; Christ mingled no such thing, or Sippets in Wine, or, &c. 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 wil yet, if it may please, give it you a third way: John expresly mentions that Judas was at the Passover, and the common Supper, but doth not say he was at the Lords Supper, not men­tioning the Lords Supper at all; and the other Evangelists, or Scriptures, doe not affirme Judas was at the Lords Supper; therefore wee have no ground to beleeve Judas was there.

Thus of the plainer sort of Objectors: we come in the second place, to deale with the more cunning disputants, who wil undertake to answer our arguments, and to urge their unanswerable arguments (as their confident manner of disputing imports) against us in the behalf of mixt 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 doe come, yet they doe not prove that wicked mens undue comming 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, wil 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 levening 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 mixt 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 Christs institution, is an undoubted duty; yet it is not [Page 18]an undoubted duty that any should come to take a sin upon them, that they should come to known mixt Communions, where other mens sins, some how (as we have shewed) become theirs. 3. The company of unworthy persons at the Communion is more then 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 forme of the Churches right receiving. But where there is a mixture of evil persons, there is no ground of Scripture to beleeve I do doe wel; nor any vertuous 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 shewed afore, and shal after. There is a mistake at least, or more by your own intimation in them that ha­ving authority, doe 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 wil bring judgement on themselves, I cannot be excused if I may keep my selfe 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 inforce 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 farr off that is free, from that known pollution; in ordinary prudence one would choose pure things afore polluted. Its a stated case in Casuists, as in Doctor Ames cases of conscience, &c. that a man may goe 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 doe their duty. If a Church wil separate from the rule of the Word, what would your conscience troubled at it, doe, in such a case? Would you against conscience offend and transgresse 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 shal sin against consci­ence to doe 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 perswaded I might have done them; and therefore Paul exhorts Brethren not to eate any thing to the offence of a weak Brother, Rom. 14.20, 21. although tis his weaknes to take offence about kinds of meats. And therefore, sixthly, we say, why doe not Churches that use mixt Com­munions more tender the consciences of them that cannot bear these mix­tures? They keeping out the unworthy would prevent all this adoe. Save your words, and Paper and Ink, in writing in behalfe of mixt Communions, what need we plead for rubbish? We cannot be too pure in our practise ac­cording [Page 19]to the Scriptures. If the Church and Officers be they, whom you meane, 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 joynt consent have the immediate proper power) why do not they doe their duty? Why must there such load be layd upon a parti­cular tender conscience, that out of conscience doth abstaine from a mixt Communion; whiles the whole congregation goe 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 onely of one private person, as private. For we put the case as men according to rule ought 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 transgresse, he admonish­eth him of it, &c. according to Matth. 18.15. The matter at last by these two or three Brethren is brought afore the Church. Here is more then one. And in the Church they act as publick persons, fellow members. As three Justices on the Bench are publike persons, though there be twenty more there. If these three brethren, with some other that no doubt will adhere to the rule, cannot prevaile 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 publike a concernment, that other Churches must blame that Church (if they reforme not) and coun­tenance such as withdraw, according to rule (in 2 Thes. 3.6, 14.) because they cannot attaine 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 then is not separation upon separation, but to keep Churches to the rule. But to speak al in a word, Parish congregations, for the most part as in relation to the communion, have so il a constitution, that they cannot tel where to begin to reform; and then they must defend it, seeing they cannot amend it; and so break Christs Commandements, 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 yeares 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 [Page 20]to Church, or gather Churches out of Churches is not unlawfull. 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 Councill of Trent they pronounced an Anathema against all the maine truths of Christ, and so gave him a bill of divorce, yet justly when Luther Preached more light, and holinesse, many Nations, and among them anon England did also sepa­rate from them, and their congregations departed from them in Doctrine in part, and in forme 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, &c. 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 discerne not the Lords body, yet I doe; and if another hath no right to it, yet I have, &c. 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, joyning together, and setling 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 shal not be troubled. No dan­ger of separation. Good mens consciences shall be cherished, and bad men shall be shamed till they repent; the dogs shall not have opportunity to snatch the childrens bread, nor the children afrayd to goe to their meals, lest if they let not the dogs take share with them, they bite and teare them. Is he a wise governour of a Family that will say, ‘Children, Servants, goe to dinner, let the Dogs alone to share with you, though they take of your meat, doe you take your meale?’ 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 goe to mixt Communions, as to in­cite them to goe thither, when tis known that there are many there that have Plague-sores upon them: Sure spirituall infection is worse then cor­poral, and the soule more precious then 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 signifie 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, evill example, if he were not cast out. And that in 1 Cor. 10. cannot signifie 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 [Page 21]of 1 Cor. 5. tis evident that the Apostle speaks in the past time, of things past (not of what in future, that evill example might effect, but of an evill past) that 'twas their sin, all the churches 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 tence of their present condition, that the whol 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 sayd 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 cold not imagin that by example all the church of Corinth could become incestuous persons; but Paul speaks of the danger of the levening 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 then evill example; namely, at evil of Church-communion with unworthy persons; so likewise to the 2^d. place, Viz. 1 Cor. 10. we say that as there is a Anti-federall unholinesse or uncleannesse in chil­dren whose Parents neither of them are beleevers, though these children may be elect, and in time may beleive, 1 Cor. 7.14, And a matrimonial-like, or a tanquam conjugal union between an Harlot and a Christian, whiles that Christian by temptation, &c. fals into that ditch as Solomon speaks, of which union, see 1 Cor. 6.15.16, 18. So there is a confederate onenesse unto spiritu­all pollution, or purity, according to the matter and manner of worship men joyne 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 evill mixture; as we have heard much afore. 2. Let us speak something to their arguments for mixt Communions: a little will serve, because former things have anticipated. Ob. 1 1. They say it is certaine 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 denyed the resurrection, chap. 15. and sundry other greivous offenders, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. yet are they still a Church, though these, uncast out, and he no where blames for comming to the Lords Table, because of them, no not in that 1 Cor. 5. An¦swer. To this our answer is, [...]. That the Church of Corinth might farr better be called and accounted a Church, then the ordinary Parochiall 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 forme, [...], orderly gathered, and united of such, according to the Apostles direction, [Page 22]1 Cor. 11.34. and 1 Cor. 14.40. But Parochiall Churches in the matter, for the generality consist of prophane and ignorant; and their forme and union, is onely 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 spirituall bond, relation, or mutuall owning, or reciprocall watching between Minister and People, or between People and People. So that this Objection doth nothing helpe the now Chur­ches that are for mixt Communion, least of all these defending mixt Communions, which the Church of Corinth did not, If they brake the commandement 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 own'd 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 comming 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 comming to the Communion with them: and if they are told in 1 Cor. 5. that they must not eate with any Brother that was a lesse sinner (then 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 eate with them at the Lords Table. 3. We answer that in 1 Cor. 11. first Paul blames them for comming together to their Church-meetings to their hurt, v. 17. where the Apostle plainly tels them they were the worse for those meetings; and his figurative speech in an Hyperbolicall Meiosis, namely, I praise you not, is a vehement reproofe of them, as the witty Objectors well understand: and this sharp reproofe 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. Againe, 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 Lords institution of his last SUPPER, there is not onely rule but example; that after Judas tooke the Sop, and thereby was discovered (which Sop must of necessity be before the Supper) Christ in cleer effect bids him be gone; and punctually tis said upon the receiving of the Sop, he immediatly 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 [Page 23]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 forme of the great excommunication. Ob. 3 3. They object for mixt communions, That he that eat­eth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or judgment) to HIMSELFE, not to others. An¦swer We answer, first, It should seem that men for mixt Communions will grant gratis, that unworthy communicants may drink damnation or judgement to themselves, rather then 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 sayd to drink their own damna­tion, or &c. 2. Behold what a sophisme and fallacy here is in this Argu­ment: The poore ignorant prophane unworthy wretches in comming to the Communion, drink damnation to themselves; therefore the able gifted Bre­thren and Ministers (and such are the objectors) doe not drink pollution to themselves in comming and drinking with them at the Communion. But tis plaine by that which hath been argued against mixt Communions, that the unworthy receivers drink pollution to the other, and they in communi­cating with them doe pledge them. 3. The Lord, in Ezek. 3.18. teacheth us better Logick, and pertinent to the thing in hand, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousnesse, &c. he shall dye; because thou hast not given him warning, he shall dye 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 reclaime him.

Con∣clusion 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 Pharisaicall Rabbies, and Pro­fessors, who spend their wits and parts, to keep holinesse low, in Doctrine and Practice: Saying, ‘Every man that can say the Creed, the Lords prayer, and the ten Commandements, is a Christian; yea if he doth but confesse 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 unbeleevers, ought to be Baptized: That all the Parishoners offering themselvs, ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper: To Preach spi­rituality, and of the inward power of the spirit of Christ in a soule, are but strange phantasies of mans wit; and that an ordinary man, a faith and troth Professor hath the spirit of God as well as another, whom you cal 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 prophesie falsely, and the Priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so, and what will yee doe 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, &c. How [Page 24]shall we know them? By their laying holinesse low, despising, or bringing into contempt Christ, making the way of truth evil spoken of; through covetousnes making merchandise of mens soules or salvation; leading or leaving people in their riotings and wantonnesse, &c. throughout the Chapter. The Apostle teacheth us better, 1 Cor. 12. v. ult. covet earnestly the best gifts, and I will shew you a more excellent way: and chargeth us, Phil. 1.10. as we wil shew our selves to be syncere, to approve the things that are excellent, and to be without offence. So that if it were lawful to have som 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 mixt Communions are so little reformed, be­cause the Church-rules (Mat. 18.15. 2 Thes. 3.6, & 1 Cor. 5.) are so negle­cted, and in stead thereof, gracelesse men are nuzled up in a self-flattery, be­cause admitted to the priviledges of the best Saints: and the best that par­take of such mixt communions are not so quickned 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, &c. Qu. But may not Con­gregations for all those wayes 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 appeare worse then they were, they are to be cast out, if not reformed, according to rule. * But those assemblies that take in among them those that are apparently bad at first; they cannot with any shew 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 carelesse 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 beleeve they are right, because they pronounce Shibboleth right, I meane 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 lye open to the Law of Churches to be thrown out, because growne worse: And usually unsound hearted Professors doe grow worse, for this reason, because Pharisaically they trusted in their relation and membership, &c.

Lay all to­gether, and consider whether the way we have propounded, or the way of mixt Communi­ons doe most tend to purity and reformation which we professe, and pretend, in opposition to former corrupt times. The Lord give the Reader understanding in all things, Amen.