PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)


All maine Arguments on both ſides, are largely Canvaſed.

Many difficulties demonſtratively cleared, as that JUDAS was not at the Lords Supper, &c. When, and how was the Originall of Pariſhes in ENGLAND.

Severall Caſes of Conſcience reſolved. As in caſe un­worthy ones thruſt into the Lords Supper; what ſin­gle Chriſtians ſhould doe, and what the Congrega­tion ſhould doe.

A diſcovery what is the Originall, and riſe of all theſe Diſputes, and how a faire end may be put to all.


LONDON, Printed by Thomas Roycroft, and are to be ſold by William Raybould at the Unicorne, neere the little North Doore in PAULS Church yard, 1650.


The Miſcheife of MIXT COMMVNIONS.

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 theoot,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but MOVEABLE Annimals, yea ignorant Ideots, and ſo accurſed. Therefore their common phraſe of the Commonalty, was,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Touch me not, according to3 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 dreamed4 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 ought5 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 wrong6 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, ſuch7 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 by8 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 can9 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; and10 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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. 1118.15. & 1 Cor. 5. &c. ofaſting 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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. 44. 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 afore12 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 comming13 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,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. 66. 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 to15 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; though16 our Engliſh BUT, at 21. Verſe may ſeem to ſome to look that way. But in the Greek it is not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which infallibly had ſignified BUT; but it is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (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 going17 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•…•…­plyBut 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 not18 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 ac­cording19 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 Church20 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 that21 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 2d. 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. 11. 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, orderly gathered, and united of ſuch, according to the Apoſtles direction,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 Epiſtle23 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. 33. They object for mixt communions, That he that eat­eth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (or judgment) to HIMSELFE, not to others. An ¦ ſwerWe 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 cluſionThe 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. How24 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 trutis, 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. 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.


About this transcription

TextThe mischeife of mixt communions, fully discussed. All maine arguments on both sides, are largely canvased. Many difficulties demonstratively cleared, as that Judas was not at the Lords Supper, &c. When, and how was the originall of parishes in England. Severall cases of conscience resolved. As in case unworthy ones thrust into the Lords Supper; what single Christians should doe, and what the congregation should doe. A discovery what is the originall, and rise of all these disputes, and how a faire end may be put to all. / By Doctor Nathanael Homes.
AuthorHomes, Nathanael, 1599-1678..
Extent Approx. 81 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 13 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
SeriesEarly English books online.
Additional notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A86500)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 117349)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 93:E607[8])

About the source text

Bibliographic informationThe mischeife of mixt communions, fully discussed. All maine arguments on both sides, are largely canvased. Many difficulties demonstratively cleared, as that Judas was not at the Lords Supper, &c. When, and how was the originall of parishes in England. Severall cases of conscience resolved. As in case unworthy ones thrust into the Lords Supper; what single Christians should doe, and what the congregation should doe. A discovery what is the originall, and rise of all these disputes, and how a faire end may be put to all. / By Doctor Nathanael Homes. Homes, Nathanael, 1599-1678.. 24 p. Printed by Thomas Roycroft, and are to be sold by William Raybould at the Unicorne, neer the little north doore in Pauls Church yard,London :1650.. (Annotation on Thomason copy: "July. 8.".) (Reproductions of the originals in the British Library (Thomas Tracts) and Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery (Early English books).)
  • Lord's Supper -- Early works to 1800.

Editorial statement

About the encoding

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial principles

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database ( The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

Publication information

  • Text Creation Partnership,
ImprintAnn Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2011-04 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2).
  • DLPS A86500
  • STC Wing H2569A
  • STC Thomason E607_8
  • STC ESTC R205868
  • EEBO-CITATION 99865112
  • PROQUEST 99865112
  • VID 117349

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.