BEfore I proceed to answer your doubts, I must premise a word or two, that I be not mistaken, and supposed to maintaine that which I oppose. First, I say not that wicked persons ought to come. Secondly, Nor that they ought not to be kept away: For is this I agree with you,Here is a contradiction, that unfit ought not to come, yet might be admitted; yet ought not to be admitted: so here is a fault on both sides, Mini­ster and People. And 3. is not such undue comming suffici­ent ground, if a reall impedi­ment, (as you confesse over the leafe) for others to abstaine? or a just impediment, (as a lit­tle below) lest one partake of the others sinne. that they ought not to come (un­fit) though they might bee admitted; neither ought they to be admit [...]ed (by those who have power to keepe them away) though they would dare to come. Thirdly, But I say, their undue comming is no sufficient ground for me or you to keep away.

Again, I propose it to be well considered, That the omission of an undoubted duty, is not excused by my mistake concerning some circumstances. And therefore the Celebration and participation of the Lords Supper being unde­niably my duty, which I may not decline (at least constantly, or even for any long time) without a just impediment; it is not a sufficient excuse for Omission, that I thinke my selfe bound in consence to abstaine, becaus of such an impe­diment, unlesse that impediment be really sufficient. For it is not a Supposed impediment,Then a reall impediment is really sufficient to binde a man in conscience to ab­staine. but a Reall impediment, that will warrant my omitting a duty commanded. Vzzah, no question, thought himselfe bound in conscience to stay the Arke, rather then to let it fall; but yet his thinking himself bound in con­science, did neither excuse the Action from being a Sinne, nor the Person from being Pu­nished. The like must be said, in case a man should abstaine from Prayer, from Hearing, from confessing his Sins to God, from humiliation for sins, from sanctifying the Lords Day, or the like, because he thinkes himselfe bound in conscience not to doe it, (as suppose hee thinke himselfe bound in conscience not to heare such a Minister, whom he conceives to be a wicked man, and therefore rather then heare him, he will never come to Church at all; or that hee thinke himselfe bound in conscience not to pray dayly, but onely as the Spirit moves; that hee ought not confesse his sins, or be humbled for them, because he thinkes there is no use of such Duties in the time of the Gospel, or the like.) I say, his thinking himselfe bound in conscience not to performe such duties, doth not make these cease to be duties, nor excuse his omission of [Page 2]them. For if my Conscience be in an errour in so judging, it is a Sin in me to omit the duty, whether I thinke it so or no. Ignorantia juris non excusat, Ignorance doth not absolve from duty. This I propose, because people are so apt to be satisfied presently in abstaining from the Sacrament, if they can say, They thinke themselves bound in conscience not to come, (for such and such reasons) as if they were then out of all danger of suming in staying a­way, and bound in conscience so to doe; and never consider in the meane time, that if their conscience be in an errour, they sin notwithstanding. For it is not my Opinion, (or what I think myself in conscience bound to) but the Truth of the thing, that makes an action law­full or sinfull. And therefore though I thinke my selfe bound in conscience to stay away, yet (if I thinke amisse) I sin in so doing. This being premised, I proceed to answer your doubts.

We may not, you say, communicate at the Lords Table, with profane persons. Your reasons, 1. They discern not the Lords Body. 2. Not have right to it. 3. It is a spirituall banquet onely for the Saints. 4. Christ said, It is not meet to take the Childrens Bread and give it to Dogs. Answer. All this concludes well, that pro­fane persons ought not to come; or if they doe come,Here is another confession, that profane persons ought not to come, for the reasons here alledged well. they ought not to bee admitted by them that have power to keep them away; But it doth not prove that another private person, in such a case, ought not to receive. They discern not the Lords Body. What then? Therefore they ought not to come. True; But ought not I to come neither? Must not I partake of the LORDS Table, because another discernes not the LORDS Body? They have no right to it. True: And therefore ought not to intrude: Wee grant it: But because another hath no right, may not I challenge mine? It is a spiri­tuall banquet onely for Saints. True: but what followes? Therefore the wit­ked should bee kept away. I grant it; but in case I cannot keep them away, must I stay away my selfe? It is not meet to give the childrens bread to the Dogges. True, (though doubtlesse Christ, when he spake it,Suppose Christ intended it not, yet doubtlesse the Sacrament is one of those holy things not to be cast to dogs. Or how prove you it doubtlesse that he intended not the Sacrament? Yea (say we) rather the Sacrament then other holy things: For profane persons are admitted (yea such as are ex­communicate) but not so to the Sacrament: and Christ saith, It is not good to take the childrens bread, and give it unto dogs. never intended to restrain that speech to the case of receiving the Sacrament) and therefore the Dogs ought to be kept a­way: But in case the Dogs be not shut out of the roome, but catch a piece, must the children therefore leave their bread? If Dogs be suffe­red to snatch some of the childrens bread, yet the children must not leave their parts, and run from the Table; much lesse forbeare to come to their meat, because there bee some dogs in the roome, who will catch a part, or some will bee given them. The Arguments conclude well, That profane persons, if known, ought to be kept from itThe Author might doe well to deale plainely, and tell us who bee those that have authority. by those that have authority: Which if the people should [Page 3]have together, (which I doe not now dispute) yet certainlyYet the Officers intrusted by the People, together with their approbation, may they not debar upon just cause from the Com­munion? not every private man (or woman much lesse) alone:What need all these words where there is no discipline at all, as in most Parishes? No diffe­rence put between the holy and profane? No cognisance, no in­spection used over the people? where many Ministers know not so much as the faces of all their people? They may be what they will for all the Minister: And is this nothing to godly and under­standing conscientious Christi­ans, trow you? If a Minister, and most of the Congregation, goe blindly to worke, and so sinne, in do­ing they know not what, (as in such promiscuous Communions) doth it not concerne those, whose conscience is perswaded that is a sin, to see they doe not partake of it? Or must my conscience be blinde for company? Or what must I do in this case? You will say, I must come and inform the Minister. I should then find enough to doe; for if he will give me liberty to look or convince me, it is my duty to tell him of all that by Gods Word I see to be amisse, both in him, and in his Congregation: What if I, or some other, should tell him, that a right Calling is required in a Congregation rightly gathered; Ordinances rightly administred, right Discipline exercised, and the like? But hee will say, he hopes to see shortly a Reformation. Well: but in the meane time, till abuses be redressed, what haste to force the consci­ence to communicate with you, before he see you reformed accor­ding to the Word of God. This Books birth was too forward, to put forth his hand, till his elder Brother, Reformation, were borne; which when it is, it will bee time enough to coate your Arguments. As for your comparison betweene Ecclesiasticall and Civill Authority, they will not herein suit together; nor need neglect of Ecclesiasticall Authority be named, where the Authority either is not at all, or not at all rightly constituted and exercised. the sin of their Admission is theirs, & only theirs, who have authority, if they know them such; or theirs who can prove them such, and doe not; which is hard to doe, though one be certaine of it in his owne minde: Even authority must not censure without just proofe. This then is nothing to private persons, who are no otherwise guilty of the neglect of Ecclesiasticall Authority, omitting to censure, then they may be guil­ty of the neglect of Civill authority omitting to Punish; and yet none hold themselves bound to depart out of Civill Society, meer­ly because some evill doers are not duly puni­shed. No not a Justice of Peace to go off the Bench, because some of his fellow-Iusti­ces are corrupt.

Besides, the busines is firstBut to worship God after an undue manner, or to joyn with such, is a sinne against the second Commandement. And such is the ordinary manner of this kind of worship in the usuall Assemblies, wherin the worship is much after the Commandements of men, both imposed Formes, and Rites of mens devising. to worship God and Christ, and to remember and shew forth his death. How dare I forbear this, when his Children are mee to do it, because same others thrust themselves in, who pre­tend to worship him t [...]o? and join rather with me, (though unwarrantably, in regard of their sinfulnesse)And you as well joine with them, as they with you, while you shew no dislike of them, but by Communicating with them doe countenance and confirme them in their sin. For so you confesse it to bee a sin; and if so, the diffe­rence is not so materiall, or re­markable, but that your selfe doe as well sin in joyning with him, as he with you, saving onely that your sin of the two is the greater. then I with them. Marke this difference, it is very materiall, you say, and say truly, That the Sacrament, is a spirituall Banket onely for Saints: that is, Christ will onely bid them welcome. I say it also. And the Saints honouring of Christ so at the time appointed, I and you (as Saints) are called by Christ, and cannot an­swer it, if we come not, not having some outward hinderance, and that more then sup­posed too. It is our busines, our Homage, our Banquet:This is a poor comparison if not an abusing of Scripture. If now others, that have no right to it thrust in, (as Satan among the Sons of God, Job. 1. & 2. who did not therefore run away) they join with mee, I join not with them.Yes, you joine with them in their sin of comming, and though you neither desire their company, nor approve of their sins; yet in not shewing your dislike, and not at least reproving, or so, you do in that partake of their sins as Ezech. 3.30. Levit. 19.17. 1 Tim. 5.22. And the godly knowing such disorder are to shew their grief for it and if no reformation be, to beware of a sinfull communicating. I desire not their company, (as such) I approve of none of their sins, nor join in any of them. IfPauls rejoicing there, is no warrant for your rejoicing in such mixt Communions Christ was preached savingly to the hearers, but is exhibited destructively to the Communion in the Sacra­ment, to the godly with scan­dall; to the profane, to seal up their damnation, 1 Cor. 11.27.29. Saint Paul. though it were against himself, rejoy­ced that Christ was preached, not that it was not sin in them to do it, out of envie and strife, supposing to adde affliction to his Bonds. So that God is worshipped, is a matter of joy: though their failings, which do it amisse be sinfull. There is some And what honour is that to Christ, when the sacred Symbols of his body and blood (1 Cor. 10.16, 17.) are profaned and abused, and that willingly. For the Minister either knowes it to be so, or else dis­sembles it, or goes altogether blindly to worke. Honour to [Page 5]Christ in the publique profession of his Death, by those who yet sin grievously in the manner of performance; yea what greater sin, then to malice the Apostle in Bonds for the Gospell? If then they outwardly professe But though the wicked by communicating, and so professing Christ, get no good, yet some comfort, say you. What comfort, I pray you? Any true solid com­fort? read Ier. 23.14. and abhorre such strengthening of the hands of evill doers, that none doth re­turn from his wickednesse. For what more strengthens such pro­fane persons in their evill courses, then the admitting them promis­cuously to communicate with godly persons? They now thinke they are as holy as the best, when with them they are made equall partakers of those holy things: Thus while they professe to know Christ, they do in works deny him, being abominable, and unto every good worke reprobate: and what pittifull enterfeerings be here? what hypocriticall daubing of whited Walls? O that these wretched times should produce such discoveries and un­maskings of hypocrites, as if wee wanted other sins to hasten our Lands ruine. You do not professe but disclaime, and yet you join. Christ, though not to their owne good, yet is it so much comfort at least, that they bear outward witnesse, that Christs Servants must doe as wee do; and so pretending (though falsly, to their own hu [...]t onely) themselves to be such, and come to do so too, these join with me then, not I with them; they professe to join in that true Service to God that I performe; I do not pro­fesse (but disclaim) to join in that sinfulnesse which they bring. They should not doe it,But you want Authority. Thats pitty. What are you, I pray you? A Minister or Pastor of a Congregation rightly gathered, and you rightly called? Other­wise what talke you of your Au­thority, if you had it? But Au­thority from the Congregation or Church which you are over, you will have none. If I had authority: Now I can but be sorry for them, and pray.

But you offer to prove, that these persons doe defile the Communion of Saints 1. By the example of Achan. 2. That Ordinance is a joint act, Wee being many are one Bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.3. A little Leaven leaveneth the whose lump. 2 Cor. 5.6.11.4. And all Scrip­tures are written for our learning and example. This last is true, but we must look for right understanding.

1. Therefore I answer to the first.1 Achans sin being once disco­vered, was no longer secret. 2. How singular soever a case, yet it is ex­emplary enough: and it was searched by Ioshua and the Elders. 3. How liable then to Judgements are most Ministers, for their foule neglect to search out the offendors in their Assemblies. 4. Foule sins, such as that of Achan, ought (when found out) to be a barre from the Communion, till repented of. 1. A­chans sin was secret. If you will have it pa­rullelled; it makes Hypocrites to defile as well as profane, and then you can never be s [...]re [Page 6]that we may come to the Sacrament, for there may be a secret Achan to desile all. 2. It was a singular case, of which God had forewarned, Josh. 6. with threatning; Joshua and the Governours should have searched all places and tents, which they did not. 3. And every man we know is liable to Judgments for the offence of Governours, or their neg­lect to search out effendors. 4. Yet for all that, not every man guilty of sin. God may and doth pumsh temporally, upon the occasion of others sins, (as Israel for Davids numbring the people, of which they were not guilty) because every one hath sin in himselfe, which is the rooted cause, though not the Occasion. 5. God threatens to depart from his Church for the sinne of one, unlesse hee were put away from among them, Josh. 7.12. neither will I bee with you any more, except yee destroy the accursed from a­mong you. But God never punisheth spiritually for anothers sin; therefore it is quite contrary to the inference.The case betweene a civill and ecclesiasticall body in point of guilt, or defilement, is very diffe­rent: And the case here concerns not the conscience, but knowne sins, which in Gods Ordinances make others guilty as before. A civill body may be politickly guilty by one (as in Warre, by one breaking a Truce) but in the conscience, thousands cannot defile one, no where, and least of all in the Ordinances of God, which is my Sanctuary, and so every faithfull mans.

This place, 1 Cor. 10.17. is nei­ther herein mistaken, nor too far stretched. And to the Authors inference the like may be retorted thus, 1 Cor. 6.16. know you not that hee which is joyned to an harlot, is one body? If then a member of Christ be joyned to a harlot, he becomes one body with the harlot; So saith the Holy Ghost. What say you to this? And though a true member of Christ cannot cease so to be, yet such for the time by sinfull coupling becomes the member of an harlot, and so Christs member is defiled. 2. For the place, 1 Cor. 10.17. you both mistake the sense, and stretch it too far bowever. If my communicating with a pro­fane person make mee spiritually one body with him, then either hee becomes a true member of Christs body, or else I cease to be a true member, and become a member or limbe of Sathan, as he is yet. The former, I am sure, you will not hold; nor yet the latter: because such an act (how sinfull soever you suppose it to be) nor any act indeed, nor acts, nor any thing else, cannot make a true member of Christ to become a limbe of Sa­than.

Besides, if his guilt defile me, it is either in the nature of the sinne, and then even secret [Page 7]guilt would defile, and so there would be (as I said before) no security: or becauseBut by your favour, doe you not in act consent, though against your conscience,) which greatly aggravates) while you actually communicate with rotten and le­prous members. I consent to it, which I doe not; or at least, consent that be should come to the Sacrament, which I do not weither. I may not forbear, because God calls you not to that, which ye ought not to doe, nor are you his servant in so doing. To communicate is a duty, but not to communicate unduly. A man may eate flesh, but it must not be with offence. God calls me as his servant, so to honour him and his Son, and to benefit my soul.And can you doe no more, but sorrow? will that excuse, when you should doe more; especially if you be a Minister? And doth not God forbid you to eat with such a one? If you say, this is a common Table: then I inferre, much more at a Commu­nion Table. When Gods Ordi­nance is prophaned, hee forbids you to doe that, whereby the prophanation is continued, coun­tenanced, and maintained. If I be sorry any that thrusts in is not prepared, I can doe no more, nor did God ever bid any leave his Ordinances for the presence or intrusion of a sinner.

But I have not yet told you the meaning of the place you appeale to. The phrase of being one bread is obscure,Seeing you know not, you might be silent in the sense, and not peremptorily to tell us, But the sense is. and I know not whether I can give a right reason why it is used, not finding it neither cleared by Expo­sitors: But the sense is, That all true Chri­stians partaking together of the Sacrament, are one body with Christ, and so one with another, of which their partaking of one bread is a pledge.Between close hypocrites, and open prophane persons, there is a vast difference in point of Communion. For Hypocrites, while undetected, being members, cannot be debarred the Communi­on, they are reckoned in mans account, all of one body with true Saints: but not so open prophane persons. These ought not at all to bee admitted, and if they intrude, they ought to bee debarred. Hypocrites may partake outwardly, and so profane; but the sentence concernes not them, more then to tell them what they lose while they pretent to partake of it: But even the outward parta­king bindes them, and all true partakers much more, not to partake of Sathans sacrifices, vers. 20. And this is all the Apostles drift in these words, and not to signifie anyAnd in excluding any Spirituall conjunction in your Sense, you extremely weaken the binding of partakers not to partake of Satans sacrifices: Even carnall Protestants would the more abhorre the Masse-Idol, if they had a better opinion of the holinesse of the Lords Supper; which they would have, if once they were excluded, till they became reformed. spi­tituall conjunction with all that partake of that Sacrament outwardly.

[Page 8] 3. 3. For 1 Cor. 5.6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. This (say you) seems most to our scope, yet comes not home to it. And why, I pray you? It is a proverbiall speech and figurative. But is it not a true Proverbe? Or will you cast a figure, to conjure downe its true sense, or fetch up some strange spirit, to fright us out of our five wits? And truely your circle is too narrow, that it will contain no more vicious persons then the incestuous. Or is none to be excommunicate, but such an horrible monster as this? What say you to vers. 11? If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat. Are not these also to bee excluded from the Lords Table, with whom we may not so much as eat at our owne? Is not each of these a root of bitternesse, whereby (if not re­moved) many may bee defiled? Yea, each of these are more dan­gerous poyson then incest, it being more abhorring to nature, and which all men generally detest. What indulgence is given to drun­kennesse, to a Fornicator, to covetousnesse, to an Extortioner, and many other sins, which custome hath made currant, and mixt Com­munions confirmed for virtues? Is not each of these, being welcome guests at the Lords Table, at least a little leaven, which leaveneth the whole lump? Your third place. 1 Cor. 5. seemes most to your scope, yet comes not home to it. The words you mention vers. 6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe, is a proverbiall speech and figurative, and so must not bee strained beyond their scope; That was to show the necessity of the inceslu­ous (and such like persons) excommuni­cation, because of the danger of infection by example, (as one root of bitternesse springing up, endangers to defile ma­ny, Heb. 12.15.) even of the whole multi­tude, who are apt to follow the same, or the like wickednesse. (Grex totus in agro, Unius scabie perit, & porrigine porci, Uvaque conspecta [...]vorem ducit ab uva, Horat) not that every one would be in­fected, much lesse that every one was alrea­dy guilty by his sinne, even before infection, butThus you destroy the Apostles demonstration, from the com­parison of Leaven: For you put onely a danger of infection, when the Apostle makes it as certaine, as a little Leaven will in a few houres leaven the whole lumpe. because there was danger of in­fection, in case he were not punished: As that 1 Cor. 15. Evill communication corrupts good manners, doth not shew what will certainly be, but what there is dan­ger of; yet this sufficeth that it should be put away: So here. More then this it cannot sig­nifie (unlesse you would also interpret it, of making the whole Church liable to some out­ward judgement; but that will scarce agree to the Metaphor, and however, not reach to your supposall.)

You point also to ver. 11. where the faith­full are forbidden so much as to eat with a scandalous brother, whence you would infer (as some do) Much lesse at the Lords Ta­ble. I answer;That this is no lesse untrue then peremptory, is apparent both by the Apostles argument, and by this Authors weake infe­rences: For with such an one [...], no not to eat, is an ex­pression very emphaticall, im­porting a Much lesse at the Lords Table. And because necessity of commerce with men of the world enforceth conversing with them in a civill way sometimes, it doth not thereupon follow, that we should at any time com­municate with notorious pro­fane persons at the Lords Table. And whereas you say, then they must goe out of the Church: here of necessity you must distin­guish between a common Paro­chiall Church, and a truely re­formed Church: For as for com­mon and ordinary Parochiall Congregations, consisting of good and bad, without difference, without order, without disci­pline, where there is no Sacra­mentall Communion but with every wicked brother, can you blame godly men for going out of such Churches, which can hardly come within the definiti­on of a true Church of Christ, as being compounded (or rather confounded) of such members, as make up (for the greatest part) rather the body of an harlot, then of Christs Spouse? There can be no such consequence drawne thence: For first, the Apostle forbids not all converse with: all Heathens, because then they must goe out of the World: So I say; not all Sacra­mental Communion with every wick­ed brother, because then they must goe out of the Church, and join with no Church in the World after a while, but make separa­tion upon separation, and so no Communion of Saints, or participation of Sacraments at all; as experience hath shewed more then once, and more would, if the Separatists had publique liberty and room; or else they would renounce their own Principles in many cases of practice, as in the Low-Countries of late, and at this day. But secondly, As in the case of Na­turall or Civill necessity they might eate with such; us if of the same Family, if to­gether in a Ship, or in an Inne, (where the di­et is common, as in many other Countries) a faithfull person was not bound to fast be­cause of them. So for Spirituall necessity; You are not bound to fast from your Spiri­tuall food because of them, and leave off all, or forbear the publiqueGod calls us not to serve him in an undue manner: that service is no honour to God, which is not according to his Word and commandement Math. 15.9. and wherein the conscience rightly enformed is scandalized, and so defiled. serving and ho­nouring of God, which he calls you to in the Sacrament. They might fight together as Souldiers, worke together as Servants, lodge together, if Husband and Wife, bee friendly; if Brothers and Sisters, or Kindred: But not unnecessarily shew friendship, or entertaine familiarity with those that they were no otherwise bound to, then by the Bonds of Christianity; they behaving not themselves as Christians [Page 10]So then, all that can be gathered hence toward the Sacrament, is,And who (all this while) are those who have authority? Not the Church, or Congregation, or her Officers for her? No, say you. But every private person? No, say we. And where this Church order is not so much as establi­shed, not onely universally neg­lected, though every private man takes not upon him to exclude such yet being justly offended for the confused admitting of them, should they not protest against it, and if not reformed can he with a good conscience joine with such a Congregation? And (say it as everlastingly as you will) if he tell your Church, and it will not hear, but stiffely maintaine such an habituall disorder, what privildege hath it, more then a refractory Delinquent, that will not be admoni­shed, from being judged as heathenish? A multitude, or society, do­ing evill, and persisting in it, being as bad (or rather much worse) then one single impenitent person. You know that saying. Jer. 51.9. to which answereth Rev. 18.4. And perhaps you will call Babylon a Church. That those who have Authority should not admit such; so v. 5. & 13. But this (I say everlastingly) it is im­possible every private man should have alone. Christ bids such only tell the Church; and if they that offend hear not the Church, re­pate them as Heathens, withdraw as much as may be (& as the Church directs) from them; But be saith not, If the Church heareth not you, count it Paganish or profane; much lesse, For bear to worship me, or come to my Sacrament, as defiled or profaned by their presence: which certainly is a matter of so great importance, as that there need bee a clear and peremptory command to secure a conscience refraining, or else they will have but small thanks one day from Christ.