when he goeth up to the Table of the Lord He neither approveth of them nay is greeved for the dis-order Whether is he defiled To this I answer Negatively It is not alway sinfull for a private Christian to receiv the Sacrament in the company of them that are unworthy Communicants nay worthy of Excommunication Not alway I say Because I list not to plead the cause of them who for some private respects do voluntarily chuse the Society of some wicked persons when it is in their liberty to make a better choice But where it is not As it is not in the choice of Parishioners to refuse their Parish Church to which by the just law of the Magistrate they are bound for Order sake Now that in this case it is not sinfull I prove by these Arguments The first Argument VVHat no text of Scripture hath manifested to be unlawfull that is not sinfull For in as much as Sin is the Transgression of the law what is not unlawfull that is not sinfull And if the text of Scripture doth not manifest a thing unlawfull who shall dare to do it That no â—ext of Scripture hath manifested it unlawfull for a private Christian in this case to come in the company of the unworthy it is evidenced by this That ther is neither any text of Prohibition to forbid it nor any text of Reprehension that hath blamed those that have done it Consequent-ly it is not by text of Scripture manifested to be unlawfull and therfore not sinfull As we conclude that lawfull that by text is either commanded or commended So that unlawfull that is either prohibited or reproved 1. No text of Scripture hath forbidden it Not that of Cor. 5.11 No not in that new translation which some put in capitall letters as if ther were some great mystery in it NOT TO BE MIXT TOGETHER Truth it is ther is a Prohibition directed to the Church of Corinth and it pertaineth to all the members ther-of The Prohibition is to them Not to keep company with scandalous Christians no not to eat with such a one But it is manifest that this Prohibition is not touching Sacred but civill Society That company-keeping is in the Citty not in the Church That eating is at their own Table not at the Table of the Lord. Th' Apostle had written to them a former Epistle Not to keep company with Fornicators and other scandalous persons Fain he would that Christians should not only forbear such sinfull courses but even the company of them that were therwith-all defiled This his Epistle and his charge in it he doth now interpret shewing That he did not intend to forbid them all company or society with those of that ill-name which were not of the Church This had been to have shut them up in a cloister to have banished them out of the world to have imposed upon them an impossibility so St. Chrysostome you must seek another world to live in seeing the â—ase of Gods people in this world is as of Roses among thorns they cannot but live among the wicked But that if ther were any professed Christians that yet had not reformed those evill courses but still lived in the usuall practise of them with such a one they must have no familiarity No not to eat with them So then The eating forbidden is such as is not forbidden in Relation to men of the world Now with the men of the world they never had any company at the Table of the Lord Consequent-ly the text doth not respect that sacred Communion nor their joining with the scandalous in that sacred Action This phrase Eat not with him is the same in effect with that of 2 Joh. 10. Receiv him not into your House It was altogether unlawfull for the Corinths to invite such a scandalous Brother to their houses or to shew him any courtesie yea I suppose the phrase doth reach further even to refuse his invitation q. d. Neither invite him to eat with you nor accept of any invitation to eat with him that so all shew of Familiarity betwixt him and you may be avoided Add this It cannot be understood of that holy Society which is among Christians at the Lords Table beâ—ause that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No not to eat intimateth the least familiarity that may be For so is the Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to keep company no nor to eat But in that Holy society which Christians have one with another in the House of God this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To eat together is the greatest Whence it is that the aggravation of the Punishment of obstinate persons doth runn in a contrary course 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are first shut out from the Table of the Lord and afterward from the Houses and Tables of Christians So then this text of Cor. 5. not respecting the familiarity and company of them that come to the Lords Table cannot be alledged to prove it unlawfull and sinfull for a Christian to be found in company and to go along with the wicked to the Table of the Lord. Nor that of 2 Thess 3.14 The words are these If any man obey not our word by this Epistle Note that man and â—ave no company with him that he may be ashamed Here it is forbidden to have company with a brother that walketh disorderly So in vers 6. viz. He speaks of them that were idle and busi-bodyes vers 11. The Christians of Thessalonica were most of them Artisans and Labourers and for those to live idly out of a Calling was a dis-orderly walking and those the Apostle would have to be punished The punishment is set down ver 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To withdraw themselves from him and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To keep no company with him Now this company cannot be understood of the holy Communion because it is subjoined to the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Note that man Calvin Beza Bullinger Marlorat which by divers Godly and Learned is interpreted the Act of Excommunication q. d. Excommunicate him and have no company with Him Put him out of the Church yea out of all Civill familiarity Neither invite him to house nor willingly be yee found in his company Which is yet more manifest if we consider that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to set such a note upon Him as may make him ashamed Now that could not be by forbearing to communicate in his company In very deed who should forbear Is not the Precept directed to the whol Church Should they all forbear the Communion and leav him alone at it Ridiculum No they must all perform their duty each in his place The Church-officers must set a note upon him i. e. Denounce him as an unworthy member of the Church unfit to be admitted not only to the Table of the Lord but even unfit to be admitted to any familiarity and society with them The church-Church-members must do accordingly i. e. forbear all
Donatists afterward who upon such grounds made a separation from the Church of God Against the Donatists doth St. Augustin dispute as did St. Cyprian before him against the Novatians Note here that often in his books De Bapt. contra Donatist contra Crescon Gram. lib. 2. cap. 15. doth St. Austin cite an Authority out of Cyprian lib de lapsis to prove the conclusion that we have in hand Nos non communicare peccatis aliorum etiamsi cum iis in Sacramentorum communione maneamus and set up select Congregations of their own utterly condemning those Churches and Assemblies who admitted of any such to the Communion of the Church whom they accounted fit to be suspended from the Sacrament and the society of the faithfull That it doth necessarily cast many Christians upon inextricable difficulties and discomforts is evident in this That if it be unlawfull to receiv the Sacramant in a mixt Assembly Then it may fall out that some Christians may for ever be deprived of that Ordinance and so want that comfort both in life and death which they might have by it For why some have not liberty nor means of separation and seeking elsewhere ex gr Wives children servants which are under the Covert and command of their Husbands Parents Masters Some again are shut up in prison others banished or confined to such a place where this Doctrine is not beleeved nor is that Sacrament any where to be had but in the Parochiall Assemblies of that Place and People Now for all such to be deprived of the Sacrament and of the comfort which cometh by it is a matter of such inconvenience that it cannot in any probability be allowed as an Order and Appointment of Christ Consequently I conclude That the Opinion which denyeth it lawfull for a Christian to communicate in a mixt Assembly is in all probability erroneous and not to be received This also may be cast in to make up full weight and measure That we find in the Gospel our Blessed Saviour not excluding Iudas from the Passover even when he knew that he had conspired with the Priests to betray him Nor do any of the Disciples when our Saviour told them Yee are not all clean One of you shall betray me not any of them do call upon Christ to turn out the Traitour no not when by the Sopp given to Judas Christ had manifested him to be the man Wher-in if the Apostles were to blame so it may be these men may think as not sufficiently at that time carefull to have an Holy Communion by separating the pretious from the vile yet certainly our blessed Saviour did not at all transgress the Rule of Holiness Nor would he have permitted Iudas to sit so neer them if any of them might therby fail of Receiving the Benefit that might upon self-preparation be justly expected from that Sacrament Nor do I know what can be excepted against this unless any would deny the Necessity of morall cleanness to the preparing and fitting of the Jews for the worthy receiving of the Passover or boldly avouch that nothing more was required of them but a care of Ceremoniall purity and legall purifications of the Flesh which I suppose is an opinion so gross and absurd that none of understanding would own it and avouch it We read Hezekiah urging the Preparation of the Heart as an Argument to prevail with God to pardon the neglect of Ceremoniall purification which had been of no force at all if those Purifications had not been required only in the way of signification and commonefaction to put them in mind of that spirituall and morall duty the Preparation of Heart If God took any pleasure in washing the hands and scouring the flesh why doth our Saviour blame the Pharisees who were but too diligent and observant of their Ceremonies No no Evident it is that Sacrifices and Ceremonies were acceptable only as Institutions and Admonitions of Morall Duties As at other times So in their Preparation of themselves to the Holy Sacrament Nor was it enough for Iudas that he was clean as farr as the water could reach no not enough that his feet were washed if washed they were by Christ Since the Heart was full of covetousnes and divelish intentions Whose uncleanness might it be an hinderance to the Residue in receiving the Benefit of the Sacrament Can we with reason beleev that our Saviour would not have shutt him out and so have taught them upon such an occasion the Necessity of what these men call for with so much importunity I close up all in a word Since neither Scripture nor Reason do conclude it unlawfull Nay since the Scripture being silent in the cause neither prohibiting nor reprehending Reason doth draw us to conclude against the opinion of these men I conclude It is not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Appendix Extracted out of a Responsary Letter To your two Questions propounded in the close of the Letter I return this breef Answer for your satisfaction To the first viz. Whether it be not a sinn in the Minister to deliver the Sacrament to him that is scandalous i. e. to him who having been such hath not as yet reconciled himself to God and the Church by publik evidences of his Repentance I cannot admit the Affirmative for a Truth viz. It is sin in him except with these limitations 1. When ther is power in the Hand of the Minister to keep such men off and to bring them to the Testification of their Repentance 2. Where it is evident to the Minister that the man hath not reconciled himself to God and the Congregation 3. When the man is indeed scandalous i. e. notoriously known to have given offence But the case is otherwise when either the Minister hath not power in his hand or when he is not certain of the Mans Non-Repentance and Non-Reconciliation Or thirdly when the man is not indeed scandalous I say Not indeed Because some men account some things to be scandalous which indeed are not Ther is a scandal to a weak brother in the want of a charitable use of Christian Liberty Ther is a scandal to them that are without This latter is only that scandal that deserveth repulse from the Communion Not the other To the second viz Whether it be not a sinn in the People to communicate with any such i. e. To receiv the Communion in the Society of such a Minister and such a scandalous Brother I say as before I cannot affirm it sinfull except with these limitations 1. When it is evident to the Christian that such a person is indeed scandalous and hath not reconciled himself 2. When it is in the liberty of the Communicant to chuse or refuse such company But the case is otherwise when it is not evident to him that the other hath not reconciled himself or when it is not in the liberty of the Comunicant to refuse Now as it is not in the liberty of the Christian saving the Duty that he oweth to God to abstein altogether from the Sacrament So neither is it in his liberty saving his duty that he oweth to the Magistrat to abstain from that Congregation wher-of by vertue of his house and Habitation he is known to be a Member At the Communion of the sick peradventure he may forbear from joining in society with such if they should desire Not so from the publick Congregation FINIS Imprimatur CHARLES HERLE
be admitted to the Table of the Lord. This is evident enough No uncircumcised person might eat of the Passover Nor any person unbaptised be admitted to the Lords Supper how morally righteous soever he bee The Reason her-of is Because None may be received into the Communion and fellowship of the Church till he have professed himself one of them that desire to lay hold on the Hope of Eternall life by the Mean and Mediation of Christ in whom alone is founded the Covenant of Grace Now this Profession is by submitting himself to the Sacrament of Baptism Hence it is that our Blessed Saviour hath joined these two together He that beleeveth and is baptised As none unbaptised So not all that are baptised Children so soon as they be able to learn must be taught and by teaching be fitted to discern the Lords Body before they be admitted to it Of old Israel must instruct their children in the Rites of the Passover Exod 12 26 13.14 In imitation wher-of Christians receiv a charge touching their children to bring them up in the knowledge and practise of their holy Profession Yea and by an Apostolicall Ordinance as it is probable from that of Heb. 6.2 The Pastours of the Church in all ages according to the trust committed to them have taken an account of what the Parents have done in this Education of their children examining them in the Articles of their Beleef and the points of the Catechism And ther-upon have approved those whom they found Proficients and by their Benediction have confirmed and comforted them in these their happy Beginnings This Order of solemn Confirmation is acknowledged by the Godly learned to be of merveilous good use in the Church And reason giveth it so to be That so when children are come to a perfect Age and in some measure able to understand the matters of Religion and to give an account of their Faith they may then make an open profession of their Beleef and an open promise of their Obedience to the laws of God and so ther-upon in a solemn maner be admitted to the holy Communion And till they be thus confirmed I should yeeld it altogether unfitting at least for Orders sake that any be admitted to the Table of the Lord. 2. Some are to be shutt out and sequestred No doubt of this Adam was thrust out of Paradise that he might not tast of the Tree of life and feed himself with a vain hope of immortality The Leprous were to be shut out of the Camp They that were unclean by a dead body Num. 9.6 could not keep the Passover on the day The Refractary and Obstinate is to be accounted as an Heathen Mat. 18.17 The incestuous person must be delivered to Satan and Scandalous Christians excluded from civill much more from sacred Communion Cor. 5. Such order must be taken also with in-ordinate walkers 2 Thess 3. and with unreformable Heretiks Tit. 3.10 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ i. e. if any walk in a manifest Profession of Dislike and Detestation of Christ and his Gospel He must be pronounced Anathema This is the Discipline of the Church and good is the Reason ther-of 1. In respect of the Persons Delinquent That by the destruction of the Flesh the Spirit may be saved This was an wholsome severity a Church-punishment inflicted as a means appointed of God to reduce and reclaim those who were not desperately given up to a reprobate sense 2. In respect of the Congregation that others might hear and fear That others might shun familiarity wi h them for fear of infection by them 3. In respect of them that are without the Church That the name of the Lord might not be blasphemed by them but that they might see and know that as the Profession so the practise of the Church is a constant care of holines Nor will the Church of God indure it that any of their Society shall say one thing and do another talk holines and live profanely If any do forget himself and conform to the Men of the World in exorbitant courses he shall be shutt out from among them and cut off from their Communion that so the whol Assembly may even in the ey of the world be found in some measure conformable to the Holiness of Christ their Head For these Reasons some are to be shutt out and sequestred The first and second Reasons are perpetuall and press the Execution of this point of Discipline at all times The third was more urgent in the times of the first Plantation of the Church And in that respect it was as I conceiv that the Primitive Churches were so severe and rigid even to an over-great measure of extremity till experience taught them the Necessity of some more mildnes and moderation But yet alway ther is use of this point of Discipline to seperate and cut off scandalous persons that so the members of the Church may be secured from infection and the whol Body from scandal and imputation 3. The Neglect of the Church-Officers in doing their duty is a sinn that may expose the whol Congregation to the judgements of God Their office it is to watch over the Holy things of God that they be not laid open to contempt either by admitting them that are not fitted or by not sequestring them that ought to be sequestred And their Negligence is a provoking sinn was it not upon this ground that the Congregation doth smart in the case of Achan The Elders and officers were not so carefull as they should have been To which if ther be added also the Neglect of inferiour persons in doing what they ought it is their part to be eys and ears to the Governours informing them of what is amiss yea and in a dutifull way to admonish them of their duty and intreat their diligent circumspection which if they do not much more if they do approve of their slackness and like of them the better because they are not so officious What wonder if this Neglect of the Governour prove the destruction of the whol Congregation understand this in respect of temporall judgements God to shew his just indignation against sin and to teach all and every one to have a care of others both to greev for them and to admonish them doth for the sin of some one especially if an eminent person cause the whol to smart under the Rodd of some common Calamity This also is not denyed These things being premised as things granted and not at all questioned The Scruple doth ly in this one particular Whether the sinn of the unworthy and wicked person intruding himself into the company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord and the sinn of the Church-officers who should but do not exclude him whether this sinn of theirs defile the Conscience of Him a private Christian who hath no further communion with them save only that he is in their company and they in his
commerce and communion with him they must shun him as a Pest and a Plague-sore So then neither of these two texts relating properly and directly to the Table of the Lord can be understood as prohibiting private Christians to communicate in the company of them that ought not to be admitted Sublato subjecto quaestionis colluntur accidentia Much less those other texts which are by some added ex abundanti to fill up room rather then to confirm that cause viz. Act. 2.40 Eph. 5.11 Thess 5.22 2. Tim. 3.2.5 For why When St. Peter saith Save your selves from this untoward generation Doth he speak of misbehaviour'd Christians or rather of misbeleeving Jews And is it a work of Darkness Is it an Appearance of evill to attend on Gods ordinance If it be not so well performed by these wicked ones as it ought yet is it not to be accounted evill Surely it is rather a work of light and an Appearance of good how-soever to the wicked and unprepared nothing profitable is ther no difference betwixt what is evill in the Substance of the Act and what is so only by Accident viz. through some desert of the Actor From such turn away saith the Apostle What then Must I therfore turn away from the Communion if they come to it No but in the course of my conversation I must have nothing to do with them Nay more that text doth not necessarily prove that I must turn away such from the Holy Communion much less doth it prove that I must turn away my self because of them None of those texts do speak home to the point least of all that of 2 Cor. 6.17 This text doth indeed call for separation but from whom Collect this out of the Coherence In ver 14. Be not saith he un-equally yoked with un-beleevers Not yoked sc in society and partnership of the shop and stock in Cohabitation and company of the Bed and Bord Thus to be joined in society with Infidels he counteth a yoke an unequall yoke and would have them take heed of it His Argument is taken from the unequall condition of them To do this is to couple Righteousnes with Unrighteousnes Light with Darkness Christ with Belial the Temple of God with Idols things that can have no commerce together nor communion And then inferreth Wherfore come out from among them and be yee separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing c. The Church of Corinth lived in the midst of Infidels No wonder therfore if the Apostle call upon them to separate from such to take heed of communion with them especially in that which he had taxed under the name of Idolatry and here under that phrase Touch not the unclean thing sc their presence at the Idolatrous feasts This in speciall would he have them forbear Now I pray what is this to the presence of the worthy receiver in the company of unworthy Communicants at the Table of the Lord Is not he blind that seeth not a large difference and that the one doth not draw on the other to be unlawfull Will it follow that because the Corinthians who were present with Idolaters at their Idol-feasts are said to have communion with Idolaters that therfore he who is in the company of wicked men in their approaching to the Table of the Lord doth partake with them in their wickednes If so Then as the Corinths by so doing are said to touch the unclean thing So also these Receivers of whom wee speak by so doing do also touch the unclean thing And shall we call the Table of the Lord an unclean thing Is it also an Idol Ther is a text in Hagg. 2. ver 12 14. which had wont to be alledged to prove that wicked men defile the Ordinances of God But if so it is but to themselves not to others As wholsom meat received into a corrupted stomack turns into noxious humours and the same word that is to some the savour of life is to others in whom it is not mixed with faith the savour of Death to these but not to others in their company Ther is an errour in these mens understanding They conceiv that meerly to be in company with the wicked is to communicate with them in their wickedness They are deceived To communicate in wickedness is to join fellowship in the pursuit of wicked intentions ex gr When wicked men take in hand a wicked purpose to honour an Idol to set up profaness to act in the works of darknes murther adultery theevery perjury c. Then to join society with them wittingly is to communicate with them in wickednes Wittingly I say For those 200. that in the simplicity of their heart went along with Absalom to Hebron did not communicate with him in his treason tho they went in company But now Will any man of wit or reason say That these wicked men and these scandalous Brethren who come to the Table of the Lord unworthily that they go about a wicked purpose and intention surely what faultines soever is in them by which they barr themselves from the Benefit of the Lords Table yet the thing that they go about in it selfe is good a duty enjoined yea so acknowledged by them in which respect it is that they address themselves unto it And therfore they that go with them to this do communicate with them in Good because they do willingly join their company in the prosecution of those good intentions So then none of these texts do speak to the point Object But it will be replyed That tho the letter of the text doth only look upon civill society prohibiting that as unlawfull yet by consequence it will follow That if the one yea that which is the less be unlawfull then the other yea much more that that is the greater is unlawfull If no Civill much less any sacred Society True but then you must presuppose the same power of Admitting and separating If I may not admit him to mine house much less may I admit him to the Table of the Lord supposing me to have the power of Admitting I grant that for them that have power to keep him out the Argument holdeth The Church-officers of Corinth and Thessalonica were bound to make that inference upon the text of St. Paul And if they did not I acknowledge them to have sinned But the case is other wise in this matter This doth not prove that every particular Christian in either of those Churches did sinn in comming to the Table of the Lord while these were not removed if not they then neither is it sinn in any of our Church-members to present himself at the Holy Table to partake of those holy Mysteries in the company of them that are unworthy For why The Table is the Lords it is he that maketh the feast that inviteth the guests and bids them welcome Shall any that is invited and prepared yet abstain because of anothers unpreparednes Tell mee I pray you
Did that text of the Apostle Cor. 5.11 forbid any Christian to eat at another mans table supposing that this other man hath also invited a scandalous Christian I trow not By vertue of that text I may not as before was said invite the scandalous brother I may not accept of his invitation But if a third man invite us both this text doth not bind me to refuse my friends curtesie because of such company If not so much less to refuse the invitation of God calling me to feast at his holy Table Did any of those guests in the Parable Mat. 22. turn back when they saw the Man who had not on his wedding garment and consequently in the state of manifest unworthines and unpreparednes Did they I say turn back or is any of them checked for coming in his company Which brings on the second part of the first Argument viz. That as this case is not prohibited so neither is it reprehended 2. No text of Scripture hath reprehended it Not that in Cor. 5.1.2 Ther indeed he taxeth the Church of Corinth that they suffered the incestuous person still to remain in Communion with them He blameth them that they were puffed up i. e. they sought to hide and excuse the fault glorying in the excellency of the mans gifts for it is conceived that he was a Teacher among them and that for the eminency of his gifts they were unwilling to separate him from the Congregation This he chargeth upon them and that they had not mourned What is meant by this mourning is not easily to determine That is not to be doubted which some say viz. That ther is good reason why we should mourn for the sin of others as did those in Ezek. 9.4 who are ther-upon marked in the forehead to be preserved from the common destruction good reason I say both because hereby there groweth a scandall upon the Congregation as also because the sinns of others do indanger us except we mourn for them in respect of temporall things both goods and life and all This I say is not doubted yet I rather lean to the opinion of them who understand this mourning of the indicting a solemn day of Fasting and mourning for the excommunication of that incestuous person The custom then was to denounce the sentence of Excommunication in a solemn maner with the generall mourning and lamentation of the whol assembly invited ther-unto by appointing a time for that Action So much the learned do observ out of this text Cor. 5.2 2 Cor. 12.0 And this is that that I conceiv the Apostle meaneth in saying Yee have not mourned that he might be put away from among you And was this the Duty of every particular person in the Congregation The Epistle indeed is written to the whol Church of Corinth respecteth every particular person in the Congregation But I suppose that St. Paul doth not intend to accuse every particular member either of being puffed or of not mourning much less to injoin every man to put on that solemn maner of mourning by indiction of the day and denouncing the sentence of Excommunication against him To beleev that whatsoever is spoken to the whol Congregation may be executed by every particular member ther-of is in effect to take away distinction of Orders and officers in the Church and Common-wealth When God saith Deut. 13. That intisers to Jdolatry must be stoned to death Doth he intend to put every man in Authority to see the execution done immediately Nay in case the Magistrate neglect his office doth this warrantise every man to put the law in execution Doth not this law of God rather intend that execution pass on legally by the hand of the Officers deputed to hear and determin of such matters When St. Paul writing to the Collossians Col. 4.17 putteth in this exhortation And say to Archippus Take heed to the Ministry which thou hast received in the Lord that thou fulfill it Doth he hereby authorise every Collossian to lay this charge upon the Minister Or is it not rather to be presented to him by the hands of them that were in place and authority So neither in Cor. 5. He that was not puffed up was not guilty of communicating in that sin And suppose that the Church-officers had not done their duty in removing the incestuous person as perhaps they did not remove some other scandalous brethren from the Church-society ther is nothing in the text to lead us to beleev that St. Paul intended a reproof to them that were not puffed but indeed mourned privately in their devotions to see such disorder a reproof I say to them for that they did not with-draw themselves from the Communion of the Church in their approaching to the Table of the Lord. Cor. 10. He reprehendeth them who held Communion with Idolaters in their Idol-feasts and in Cor. 11. them who profaned the Table of the Lord by their unreverent carriage and behaviour at it using many Arguments to diswade them from that evill and to perswade them to a reformation yet doth he not either mention this as a motive that they did bring sin upon others or admonish others to forbear communion with them till these things were reformed least ther-by their conscience should be defiled and the ordinance of God become unprofitable to them Yet this had been a very powerfull Argument of persuasion both to the one to the other and doubtless had ther been truth in it St. Paul would not have forgotten it The unworthy receiver saith the Apostle eateth and drinketh damnation to himself He saith not to himself and others I grant it doth not follow from the silence of the Apostle that his sin cannot hurt another beside himself But this doth follow That if to him that hath prepared himself ther had been any danger at all from the presence of others who are unworthy this had been a fit place for St. Paul to have mentioned it Which since he hath not we conclude that he who hath examined himself hath done enough to secure him from the danger of eating and drinking damnation to himself When the Apostle doth set down the causes of that plague that was among the Corinths doth he mention any such thing as their presence with the wicked in the Duty of Receiving Or doth the text any wher at all imply it We find in Ezek. 22.26 a complaint of the Priests that they had violated and offered violence to the law that they had profaned the Holy things of God that they put no difference between the Holy and Profane nor shewed difference between the clean and unclean And in Jer. 15.9 the Lord by shewing the Prophet what he would have him to doe intimateth a Reprehension of the fals-prophets who had not done their duty viz. To separate the pretious from the vile But if we look upon the places and weigh them well we may observ that both texts have reference to the Duty of
Teachers and Officers in the Church They must indeed put a difference betwixt things holy and profane they must separate the precious from the vile pronouncing mercy to the one denouncing judgement to the other admitting the one to the Holy things keeping of the other This must they do and if not they deserve a just reproof But what is this to the cause in hand Doth this countenance the course of such who condemn those that do not put themselves from the Holy things of Gods because those be admitted which ought not Is not this rather to make sad the Heart of the righteous That of Esay 65.11 Yee are they that forsake the Lord that prepare a Table for the Troup and furnish a drink-offering for the number This I say hath been alledged to tax the negligence of them who admit the promiscuous multitude to the Table of the Lord As if the Prophet had blamed Israel for the like carelesness in their Passover and Peace-offering wheras the text doth blame their Idolatry not their profaness Idolatry in sacrificing to Jupiter and Mercury to the Host of Heaven But admit it as a tax of negligence and profaness yet must it not fall upon every particular person Apply it to the Church officers and spare not but blame not them who because the promiscuous multitude are not turn'd away do not turn away themselves from the Table of the Lord. And so much for the first Argument c. The second Argument NO man may neglect either the Duty that he oweth to God or the Benefit which God reacheth forth to Him upon pretence that another man doth not perform his Duty or is not fitted to receive the Benefit with Him Shall not the Husband pray or Hear and Receiv because the wife of his Bosome is passionate and irreconciliable Shall not Lot make hast out of Sodome because his son-in-laws do not prepare to go with him That it is a Duty to receiv the Sacrament is plain enough by that precept Do this in Remembrance of mee That ther is a Benefit reached forth to us in it is as evident by that word of our Saviour This is my Body This is my Blood He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Nay more This Benefit cannot be had without this duty Except yee eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you Joh. 6.53 You will perhaps reply That Duties must be performed in a right manner otherwise we may provoke God Israel must eat the Passover yet not in their uncleanness nor with the unclean say the same of Christians I grant the Proposition for sound and good The instance of Israel doth not reach home to the point in hand It doth not appear by any text of Scripture That if the Master of the familie did neglect to exclude such as were unclean that therupon the children or servants did or might lawfully forbear the Passover Add this also To bring home the Argument more particularly to the cause in hand where a prepared Heart may comply with the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament ther ought he not to absent himself for want of the secondary Reason giveth it That wher ther is a Duty to be done a Benefit to be expected If ther be divers Ends of doing that duty some more some less principall No reason to neglect that by which the Principall end may be obtained because we cannot obtain thâ— sâ—condary Now then As God hath appointed and ordained this Sacrament 1. To hold forth the Benefit of Christs death to the worthy Receiver that by partaking of Christs flesh and blood the Christian may be more neerly united to Christ himself in the first place and then to the members of Christ 2. To call for and cause in the Society of the faithfull a publick Testification of their mutuall love and charity one to another as members of the same mysticall body So the principall end of Receiving is to continue the Union and Communion with Christ and all good Christians the living members of Christ which was begun in Baptism And the secondary is to make profession of it by joining with this and that Assembly of Christians Now then since the primary end of Receiving is our Union with Christ and our union with Christians is but the secondary For we are not united to Christ by being received into the Congregation but indeed received into the Congregation because first united to Christ Nay since the primary end is Union and our Profession or Testification therof is but the second or third end of Receiving Therfore where the Primary end may be obteined why should the want of the second or perhaps the third be accounted any just barr to keep us off Now howsoever the mixture of bad with the good or the scandalous courses of over-many in the Assembly might seem a just barr to our Profession of Communion and Fellowship with this or that Congregation yet since it cannot hinder us in obtaining our desire of Union with Christ and his mysticall Body why should this mixture be any barr to the Duty enjoined In very deed if that Profession of our selves to be of the Number of them who hold of Christ and his Church if this I say were the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament Then were there some shew of Reason to forbear joining with a mixt Assembly But now it is otherwise It were indeed to be wished that the whole Congregation were such as that we might affectionatly desire to continue in Communion and Fellowship with them But if it fall out otherwise through the fault of other men Can that be a sufficient reason to hinder us from the Sacrament The prime fruit and Benefit wher-of we may partake of even in the mixt Assembly Add this also That it is charitably supposed ther be some Saints in the Congregation and in our address to the Sacrament we do profess our desire of Union and Communion with them if others intrude themselves we came not thither to meet with them Now the Question is whether we may neglect the good and godly Christians and that Duty which we ow to God in respect of them because of the bad and wicked whom finding ther we have not power to remove The third Argument TThat Opinion which in the best Ages of the Church hath been condemned of errour And that which necessarily casteth Christians upon inextricable difficulty's and discomforts is in all probability erroneous and therfore not to be embraced Such is the opinion of them who hold it sinfull for a Christian tho well-prepared for the holy Sacrament by self-examination according to the Doctrine of the Apostle to draw neer to the Table of the Lord in the company of them that are unjustly permitted to come to that holy Ordinance That it hath been condemned as erroneous in the best ages of the Church is evident by the story of the Novatians first and the