Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	part_n	universal_a	2,451	5	9.1017	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86891	A second vindication of a disciplinary, anti-Erastian, orthodox free-admission to the Lords-Supper; or, The state of this controversie revised and proposed: for the fuller understanding of the most, as to the grounds whereon it stands; and more especially for the ease, and clearer proceeding of those, that shall write about it, whether for it, or against it. / By John Humfrey, min: of Froome.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1656 (1656)	Wing H3710; Thomason E1641_2; ESTC R209066	63,290	161

oppose me be more fully stated and some prejudice avoided I must crave pardon to use some more words it may be some more than enough upon this particular In my Vindication of Free-admission my first little book p. 33. for the explaining my conceptions I have laid down a distinction between discipline and worship The exercise of the keys as acts of discipline I would have accounted one thing and the use of the ordinances as acts of worship to be another Discipline to be in one element Worship in another I know if some list to be contentious they may confound these but docendi gratiâ at least for the expressing my self no equitable man can deny me thus to distinguish for my purpose Now there are two extreames I conceive concerning Free-admission to the Lords Supper On the one hand of such who are too large for it and the other of such as are too strict against it There are some then as hath been touched before that plead for free admission not only in regard of Worship but also in regard of Discipline disclaiming all exclusion from any of the publick Ordinances of God by the censures of the Church and indeed denying all Ecclesiastical government distinct frō the civil where the Magistrate is Christian There are others that plead against free admission not only in point of Discipline but also in point of Worship herein advancing the Sacrament above all other Ordinances that those who have a granted right to all other parts of Gods worship and Church-communion as baptised members are deni-to have any right unto the Sacrament though they be yet under Church-indulgence and not censured The Sacrament say they requires truth of grace in the receivers unlesse a man be regenerate on his own part he is forbidden to come and consequently unlesse upon trial and examination there be some evidence that he is visibly or probably such on the Churches part he must not be admitted In the middle between these extreames my opinion and the truth as I think without engaging others does lie Affirming against the former who are the Erastians that the Lord Jesus Christ hath set up a power of the keys in the Church as I have said before and that the Scripture is manifest for an exclusion of some persons to wit the scandalous and obstinate from Christian communion in general and so consequently from the Lords Supper as a part thereof Neverthelesse I doe assert likewise against the latter that there is no Scripture for the exclusion of any from this Sacrament without discipline but that administring and receiving the Lords Supper is as free and universal in the nature thereof to our members as other parts of Church-communion The same qualifications are required to effectual prayer and other parts of Gods worship as to the Sacrament and as the want hereof puts no barre to the one no more does it to the other It shall never be proved I believe that the Scripture hath advanced this difference between the Sacrament and other ordinances that herein alone it must be better to omit the matter and manner both than to do the matter if it be not done in such manner as it ought directly contrary to all other duty In short then neither the Erastian nor rigid Suspensioner must have their wills In point of Discipline Free-admission is to be denied against the one In point of worship Free-admission is to bee maintained against the other It is a thing very considerable in the holding any point upon what grounds it is we hold it Those that oppose me in my opinion are very hot for an exclusion from the Sacrament and I for my own part doe allow and uphold the same An exclusion it self neither of us do deny the very difference between us is upon what grounds or arguments we hold it Now all those arguments for this exclusion against Free-admission may be reduced to these two heads Either to such as do arise from the nature of the Sacrament as distinct herein from all other parts of Church-communion Or to such as do arise from the nature of discipline that respects the communion of the Church in general and so this Sacrament in common with the other parts thereof Arguments of the latter sort are those and those only which are from such texts Let him be to thee as an heathen Keep no company with such Pu●ge out the old leven Avoid withdraw from them Put away from your selves such a person with the like The summ whereof comes to this briefly The Scripture commands Excommunication that is an exclusion from the Church and society in general therefore from the Sacrament also These arguments now I conceive are firm Free-admission as Erastus holds it I maintain not Arguments of the former sort are such as these The Sacrament is appointed only for the regenerate It is a seal of Faith and set to a blank if given to any others Every one else does but necessarily eat and drink damnation in the Apostles sense with the like Now these arguments I conceive are to be satisfied taken off as such as are both invalid and doe hurt Free-admission will stand for all them Alas were all such arguments conclusive and true what will become of the poor doubtfull Christian How shall he act in faith How shall the Minister himself act What will become of the Churches unitie and peace the command of Christ and the foundation of discipline If it be from the nature of the Sacrament and these grounds upon which men are to be excluded then must they be excluded if there were no discipline then must the keeping away of such not be an act of vindicative but distributive Justice As a godly Father shuts his stubborn son from prayers in his family and from his presence So does the Church as I conceive exclude her refractory children It is not because the coming to prayer is not the duty of such a child and is not a means to do him good No but because indeed it is so the Father would make him sensible hereby how highly he hath offended him and how much the more hainous is his evil to reclaim him A man hath enjoyed those priviledges and means of grace which should have done him good so long and he grows but the worse Well now the Church in her exclusion does as it were say thus to him I will teach you Friend 1 Tim. 1.20 to make better use hereof when I again admit you to them If the Sacrament were not a mans priviledge before and for his benefit then could not as I say Suspension be a judicial proceeding It were not a punishment but a deliverance That cannot be in way of punishment that is onely to preserve a person from that which is noxious and can be no wayes any good to him It is not upon such grounds therefore wee must stand the Scripture knows no such advancement whatsoever humane prudence may make of this Ordinance above her

and they shall be my people And as that is extended to the whole Jews Lev. 26.12 13. So are the whole Gentiles Is 55.4 5. Is 11.10 Is 60.1 2. All Nations Isa 2.1 2. All flesh Is 66.23 Is 40.5 Psal 65.2 All the kinreds of the earth Ps 22.26 27. The Kingdoms of the world Rev. 11.15 From the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof Mal. 1.11 to wit even as many of them as the Lord our God shall call Act. 2.39 said to become the people of God under the New Testament SECT 2. I Know indeed for all these many and arge expressions every where in Scripture some eminent Divines do conceive the Church and Covenant ought to be restrained to the regenerate only and that none else are really but nominally aequivocally Church-members And so I remember Arminius expresses it for them Disp pub Thes 18. Sec. 15. Vocati et non electi ad ecclesiam visibilem pertinere judicantur quanquam Aequivocè quum ad invisibilem non pertine an t This doctrine enforces them to distinguish between what gives right as to a mans own part unto Church-membership and the Ordinances and that which gives right to be admitted whereas the truth is these are Relata quorum posito sublato uno ponitur tollitur alterum Besides there is this grievous inconvenience it runs do●nright into that the Minister shall be bound to administer the Ordinances particularly the Sacrament unto people when they are bound upon pain of damnation not to take them Upon this arises inextricable difficulties which as they encline men to separations so they leave the doubtfull Christian in such a case that he can hardly ever act in faith upon such foundations It is my opinion therefore that the Covenant may be considered in the special grace thereof and in ernal administration and thus it belongs only to the elect and regenerate Or in the general grace and external administration of the Ordinances and thus it belongs to the whole Church as visible and to the several members alike whether regenerate or not My reasons for this latitude are these 1. It is manifest that the whole Nation of the Jewes Deut. 29. were Gods peculiar people in covenant with him by the texts fore-quoted and this is amply proved by Mr. Blake Treat Cov. p. 189 190. but that most of them were only aequivocally so is by others assumed gratis 2. It is plain that the Gentiles are ingrafted into the Olive of the Jews Rom. 11.24 that is into their external covenant which covenant must be the covenant of grace for else it could be no prejudice for any of them to be broken off nor priviledge for any of us to be ingrafted in And it must be as to the external administratiò for else neither could any of them be broken off not any of us ingrafted in 3. It appears that the Promise or covenant of Grace in the external administration belongs to all that the Lord our God shall call Acts 2.39 To those that are afarr off that is the Gentiles and their children when the Lord should call any of their parents as it did for the present to the Jews and theirs 4. The called no doubt are many more than the elect many are called but few chosen The called are such as Mr. Blake phrases it as are brought in covenant The chosen such as are brought up to the terms of it Now it is to be considered The called contain the chosen As there is an outward vocation and an effectual vocation yet that outward is real as well as the other So there is an outward being in covenant and effectual as we speak for distinctions sake Yet that outward is real not aequivocally only 5. The Scripture puts a real difference between the Nation of the Jews as being in covenant Rom. 3.1 and 9.4 and others that were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel without hope without God in the world Eph. 2.12 but if none but the regenerate are in covenant there is no such difference externally between a Jew and Gentile Christian and Heathen but aequivocally onely in which manner methinks the Scripture should not be made to speak so abundantly 6. For this latitude as to Obligation and priviledge of Ordinances it is evident Gen. 17.10 This is my covenant ye shall keep between me and you every man-child among you shall be circumcised Here I note that the waiting on Gods ordinance is the keeping the covenant it self in the external administration And surely there is so much plain strength in the instance of circumcision Gen. 17. Jud. 5. from this large right of Ordinances from covenant-relation that it alone will hold against all can be said against it 7. Excellent Mr. Baxter in his Inf Bap p. 224. mihi Ed. 3. highly commending Mr. Blakes opening of the conditional covenant and affirming that he hath fully proved that the reprobate meaning of professors is within the verge of it he adds And doubtlesse this imerest in the covenant is afruit of Christs death Now if it be so how can it be aequivocal only that is an interect or priviledge which will become a lie and dissimulation for those that have it to assume and can that be a fruit of Christs death 8. If no unregenerate Christian be in covenant but aequivocally then must not such a one bring his child to baptism nor partake himself of Christian communion but it is a meer mockery of Christ as some seem to me here to speak harshly to avoid which he must tenounce his profession and never come to the Supper and to the other Ordinances but only as an Heathen and Infidel 9. Then those that are disciples of Christ for so was Judas must not be caught to doe all things Christ hath commanded Mat. 28.20 10. The Scripture as Mr. Blake urges speaks of dealing falsly in covenant breaking and not being stedfast in it but if the regenerate only be in covenant there can be no such thing really but nominally only 11. Christ said expresly to the twelve Doe this Drink you all of it that was a command and yet one of them was unregenerate From whence it follows that receiving the Sacrament is a duty of a disciple though unregenerate and so the covenant as to priviledge of ordinances belonging to such For my part I cannot but think those titles of Disciples Beleevers Christians Saints by calling and the like given to all within the Church are titles of right and not nominal only We must distinguish saies Timson of beleeving in a large sense and of beleeving in a strict sense both to be accounted true beleeving in Scripture sense The denomination of a beleever and so Saint Christian is as well derived from a right object beleeved on as from the holiness of the subject beleeving Answ to Mr. Col p. 153. It is in my apprehension appositely spoken 12. The covenant is founded upon grace Gratia saies Bullinger Decad. 5. Ser 6.

Cameroes authority is here quoted but that grave and pious man Mr. Blake hath made it his businesse to confute this difference in the 27 28 and 29 Chapters of his Treatise of the Covenant wherein as I find Mr. Anthony Burgesse particularly in this point commending that Tract as solid and judicious in his second part of Justif after he had seen what hath been put in against it likewise Mr. Vines and others So doe I humbly judge his labours therein are worthy to be attested as very serviceable to the Churches peace SECT 3. VNto the Church under that notion as his Church or people the Lord hath vouchsafed his ordinances by way of priviledge and distinction from the world He shewed his word to Jacob his statutes and his judgements unto Israel he hath not done so to any nation as for his judgements they have not known them Ps 147.19 20. Ps 78.5 6 7. What advantage then hath the Jew Much every way chiefly because that unto thē were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.12 To them pertaineth the adoption the convenants and the service of God Rom. 8.4 with Eph. 2.12 Upon this account do our Divines solidly as I think make the Ordinances the right administration of the Word and Sacraments under which a profession of the doctrine of Christ prayer and other worship is comprehended to be the notes or marks of the visible Church It is true indeed that the Gospel is to be preached unto every creature to bring men in unto the Church as the Jewes no doubt might use the Word to make proselytes neverthelesse the word of God as other ordinances cannot be said to pertain unto any out of the Church in the sense of the Scriptures now mentioned until they receive the doctrine thereof and externally subject themselves to the same For this same priviledge of ordinances or this donation of ordinances by way of priviledge to the Church in distinction from others is a thing to be stood upon as a matter very considerable both because if we let this advantage fall we shall presently level a Christian with an Heathen the Church of Christ with the Pagan world and also because the Lord hath appointed these his ordinances whereby the advantage of them does appear to be the ordinary means of bestowing his effectual grace which he hath indefinitely promised in the use thereof SECT 4. VPon this latitude of the convenant and this priviledge of ordinances belonging thus to the Church as a proprium quarto modo or an essential mark thereof it must follow that every member in statu quo must have a right ●evolved on him or flowing to him from that relation as a member Only here wee must observe two distinctions 1. We must distinguish between a Right unto the effectual benefits of Christ held forth in an ordinance as particularly the Lords Supper and a Right to the external ordinance The former right indeed belongs to none but the regenerate but the latter belongs to all within the Church to all alike that are Members Aliqui induunt Christum says Austin usque ad Sacramentorum receptionem aln ad vitae sanctificationem I know some chuse to distinguish here between an active ●ight in the Church to conferre the Seals and a passive right in a visible Member to receive a right in foro Ecclesiae and in foro Dei But for my part I think this former plain distinction of mine respecting an active and passive right in foro Dei Ecclesiae alike is rather for these two reasons see Sect. 2. to be used and in other terms may if you please be expressed thus The Sacraments may be considered either Complexly with the entire fruits and benefits of the Covenant unto which truth of Grace is necessarily required to the obtaining thereof Or precisely in the Ordinance it self and so it is Church-membership alone or external covenant-relation denominating the subjects Saints Beleevers Disciples Christians that gives men right unto the same See reverend Dr. Worths Inf Bap p. 16. It is one thing what is required of the receiver in his coming or that comes to the Sacrament as of the hearer and him that prays in their hearing and prayer and another thing what is requir'd to receiving so that else he must not come 2. We must distinguish between a Right and use of that right Though this right unto all the ordinances be in common It must be acknowledged for the use and actual partaking of some ordinances particularly the Lords Supper there is a difference to be put between such as are not of age or capacity but want the use of reason as Infants Idiots Distracted with the like and other members the direct and immediate ground hereof lying herein in that the use of a right is not of so large extent as the right is A man may have a right to a thing or to do a thing when it is impossible for him to use the thing or to doe it and the impossibility does disoblige and excuse him from the doing It is thus with infants and distracted persons in point of the Lords Supper it is not for want of a right they are not admitted any more than the infectious or sick they have a right nay a full plenary right let others use their own terms as they will as appears convincingly by the other Sacrament of baptisme where there being only a passive reception which they are capable of they do and must receive it But it is because they cannot use the same right here where such an activity is required as they are not capable of Even as in their estates they have a right to them but they do not manage them An heir in his infancy is Lord of all in respect of the one and yet differs not from a servant in respect of the other Gal. 4.1 SECT 5. FRom this concession of mine about Infants and the Distracted it cannot be argued à pari by my opposers for an exclusion of all ignorant unregenerate and scandalous persons 1. Because in the one they stand wholly on the point of Right but in the other we look only on the use of that tight The unregenerate say they have no right to the Sacrament and if they be visibly so through ignorance or scandal they must be excluded We say Infants and the distracted have a right but only they have not reason to manage their right as the other have so here is no parity The truth is it is membership as before that alone gives right so that though a person be unregenerate he may have a right to the ordinance and whether he be Infant Distracted Ignorant or Scandalous it is all one for that if he be a member this external right is the same in the one as in the other Now the right being the same in the use of the right must lie all the difference which between these is plain enough the one have the exercise of reason and are thereby

pastor can have to the following them with instruction for the good of their souls which is that I suppose they only aim at in this matter and if it were any thing else it is fit they should never obtain it Only I must adde here that I suffer not in my principles It is not because I think receiving is no duty unto such for this I conceive were evil to hold Nor because I think it not appointed for edification unto such for those arguments that reverend Mr. Blake hath put in to prove the Sacrament a means of grace to the unregenerate within the Church Cov. Seal ch 7. sect 13. must needs reach and be cogent for these also as they are Church-members although he would not have them Nor because I think that such are in an utter incapacity to be edified by it as infants and the distracted are wherein the formentioned learned man places his whole ground of dissent he hath from me in this point seeing the Sacrament through the word and the word goes along with it doth teach as for the one and convince of sin as for the other as is said before and granted by him That it is a teaching Ordinance mediante verbo even at the present for the ignorant I pray let me but propose this one thing Were not those words of our Lord to his disciples This is my body broken for you This is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for remission of sinnes teaching words informing forming them of his death and mystery of our redemption Who can deny this And were not the disciples ignorant at that time of his death and mystery of our redemption Compare Mar. 9.31 32. Lu. 9.44 45. with Lu. 24. 7 8. Io. 20.9 and what then will follow for the ignorant is cleer That it is a sin-aggravating Ordinance and so a soul-humbling heart-breaking Ordinance for the sinner Mr. B. and I so well agree Rejoynd p. 235 236. with Cov. Seal p. 204. that it needs no argument and then what follows for the scandalous is as clear likewise It is not therefore I say for these causes that I allow thus much but it is indeed because I think that no lesse can be denied to belong to the Minister upon the score of prudence only That there is a possibility upon what is said of edification unto all intelligent Church-members though scandalous Cov. Seal p. 240. or ignorant p. 233. Mr. B. cannot ingenuously deny and that there is not that moral probability or likelihood hereof as upon their further instruction and preparation I do grant From both which then the plain reason will arise why such may in prudence be advised to forbear the Sacrament at present when yet it must be held fast that there is no necessity on the conscience simpliciter for the ir exclusion To speak a little more my thoughts freely I conceive it to be a Magnale in the wisdom of the Church which hath ever kept up some more solemn times for the putting in mind of her members to shrift or addresse their souls to God in a more peculiar manner at some seasons above others to make use of the Sacrament to this end insomuch that though the primitive Christians broke bread every week and sometimes daily yet hath it been the use of after Ages to celebrate this Ordinance more rarely that the solemnity and rarity those expressions in 1 Cor. 11. giving help hereunto might have this desired work upon the people Upon this same score I do conceive this condescension may take place in allowing that a forbearance of the Lords Supper be advised many times to unprepared unfit persons when we judge it in Christian prudence conducible through a more solemn address thereunto towards a farther improvement thereof for their souls And so may the same be asserted happily as I judge of it Ex quadam conveniontia Ob majorem reverentiam as the School-men speak in some other cases about this Sacrament When as I am perswaded otherwise there is the same outward priviledge aed the same inward qualifications held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances And this for my first concession SECT 16. SEcondly then for some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condescension in the latter question that the excommunicate person may not be so turned out from all the Ordinances though he be turned out from them and that alike too from one as well as the other in a sort but that he may have admittance to some of them upon an account which may be justifiable for the gaining of his soul and yet without the introducing of this lesser censure of suspension into the discipline of man which is not in the discipline of Christ or the Scripture I have spoken more at large in my Rejoynd part 2. sect 1. See particularly p 87. 149. Where having shewn that Church-censure or Excommunication does reserre to Church-communion in general and consequently that a person excommunicate is cast out from every part thereof and so from all the Ordinances as well as the Sacrament I do humbly offer this distinction of a Real and Relative exclusion A real exclusion is an exclusion of a man from a thing so that he cannot by any means participate of the thing A relative exclusion is the exclusion of a man from his relation to a thing or his right of priviledge in it whether he yet otherwise possesses the thing or not Now that which we admit Heathen to in receiving them into the Church I think we cast them out from in excommunicating them But we admit not persons to an actual hearing the Word or participating such ordinances as they did and might attend before but we admit them into a state and relation whereby the ordinances belong to them with a difference of priviledge from the world and as they partook of them while they were without They were then indeed admitted to the Word and it may be Prayer to bring them in as they ought yet neither one nor the other Ordinance did belong to them by way of advantage Rom. 3.2 or propriety as externally in covenant in Christ redeemed sanctified c. as they doe being members Consequently therefore my thoughts are that though Excommunication cuts off a person Relatively from all the Ordinances from one alike as well as the other in the sense now spoken and does cut off a man really from that Ordinance the actual participation whereof is peculiar to that relation as the Sacrament Yet this Relative exclusion does not necessarily inferre a Real exclusion of a man from those other Ordinances as the Word and Prayer which may be partaken of out of that relation And so here will arise that which may give contentment to wit that upon this it shall be left in the Churches hands by way of Mitigation to admit the Excommunicate hereunto whether one or more or none of them as she sees it fit to use severity or

indulgence to bring the sinner to repentance It is manifest that the Primitive Christian Church was wont to permit an Heathen or those that were without to be present in their assemblies at the Word if not at Prayer and some other Ordinances for their conviction as appears 1 Cor. 14. According to this president it is my opinion then in short that a person excommunicate may be admitted to an Ordinance or Ordinances as an Heathen into which condition he is expresly cast Mat. 18. when yet he is cut off from all his priviledge and interest in them as a member And this I suppose will even serve the turn of my very adversaries and yet be no dishight or prejudice to that latitude of Excommunication which the truth dictates and must be maintained according to my opinion In fine two things are objected against me by my Opposers which methinks do even quite take off one another In the former question it is objected that my doctrine is loose in that it admits of every intelligent Church-member to the Sacrament before censure To which I answer That doctrine about admission that maintaines Excommunication in point of offending cannot be loose towards the offender and if a man have not offended I mean so far as to deserve censure the Minister can but admonish and advise he can go no further and here how much I allow upon the score of pastoral discretion is declared And why should any more be desired In the second question it is objected my doctrine is too severe bloody and cruel in that those persons which it cuts off from the Sacrament it cuts off from all other parts of Church-communion also To this I answer It is true it does do thus indeed according to the Scripture but let this be understood aright and candidly of this Relative exclusion here declared likewise and then I hope all will be reconciled and satisfied And thus I have now finished my purpose endeavouring to keep in a way of moderation that I might avoid the extremities of others I have not in any thing I suppose departed from the Scripture as my Guide and yet in every thing come up as near as I can to those that are against me to content them I do not know how it may be taken but it shall suffice me that I have in the sincerity of my intention so far as I can judg of my own heart proposed my thoughts leaving others to their own The Churches peace is the thing I have aimed at without hindring but happily furthering her reformation If I have done well and as is fitting to the matter it is that I desired if I have done but slenderly and meanly it is what I could attain unto Deo gloria J. H. FINIS A POST SCRIPT Courteous Reader THere are yet some things I shal make bold to trouble thee to read in this place because I would not have the Discourse it self to swel any bigger thā it has don If thou thinkst thē long thou mayest let them alone if thou wilt I know well that this controversie is not about any fundamental but that as brethren we may bear well enough with one another that differ in it nevertheless in regard of practice it is even necessary at least for most that are of the Ministry to be establisht concerning the same or else perhaps it might have been long enough before some should have thought it fit to meddle any more with it What I have done here in this last book I offer to them chiefly and thee that hast studied the point what I have done in my first book to the many 1. Whereas in my undertaking this Subject I chose those words Doe this Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it in that text Mar. 14. 23. for my ground which many think might have been more soundly chosen I desire the strength thereof may be laid in those two things which have been touched Sect. 10. but I am not satisfied without speaking a little farther thereof with thy leave to have it noted by such The first is that we have here as in the other Evangelists the institution of the Sacrament wherein there is a direct precept to the Church Doe this with the extent thereof expressed Drink ye all of ir The words are directed in general to the disciples as disciples and consequently all that are disciples suppose them in a capacity of reason to use it come under a right of Obligation to use the same It is objected By all is meant no more than All present But this is too overly the precept I hope does so concern the disciples present as that St. Paul makes these very words of the institution obtigatory to the Church of Corinth and to us all as a standing Ordinance till Christ come 1 Cor. 11. 26. It is manifest then that these words as the precept of Christ are delivered to the disciples in bebalf of the Church whereof themselves were a representative part Now then I ask whether as Representatives of the Church invisible or visible if you will say of the Church invisible to make the command only to the regenerate and elect it is unreasonable for all the Ordinances are delivered to the Church as visible Heb. 9.19 Rom. 3.2 and we suppose Judas was amongst them But if they were here Representatives of the Church as visible it must follow that all those who are of the visible Church and in capacity of the obligation are berchy obliged to this Ordinance It is not argumentative to say here none of these disciples were ignorant or scandalous which yet I think is untrue because they were representatives of the Church not as men unspotted with ignorance or scandal any more than as Apostles but as they were members thereof visible members disciples Christians Id veiò concedimus saies Bezs De Presb. Ex. p. 27. with 23. quòd Christus inter suos discipulos coenam instituens manifestè oftendìt coenae celebrationem illis convenire which is inciuded in solis illis qui Christi se discipulos profiteantur and Mr. Perkins Case cons B. 2. c. 10 laies this down for his first rule Every man of years living in the Church and being baptized is bound in conscience by the commandement to use the Supper Now whiles my adversaries are forced to fly off here and confine the precept to the regenerate only we may easily see both where our bottom lies and also how firm it is The second thing I build on in this text is That together with the precept we have the example of Iudas who is sat down with the twelve Mat. 26.20 and his hand at the table Luke 22.21 It is objected that Judas was a close hypocrite his villany secret and unknown and so this president will make nothing to our purpose But under favour such as say so are mistaken for though this answer should suffice which I think it does not as to the part of the