Questions Preparatory

Questions preparatory to the better, free, and more Christian Administration of the Lord's Supper.

WHether this be a good reason; Because [ I] the Priests under the Law, did by GOD's command keep Lepers and unclean persons out of the Temple; Therefore the Ministers under the Gospel, may without Christ's command keep and suspend whom they themselves judge unworthy Receivers from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Whether is such judgment of the Ministers infallible, and when was it given them? And whether is the Institution, Function, Rule and Authority of Ministers under the Gospel, or ought it to be, equal or like unto that of the Priests under the Law?

Whether, when Christ by shedding His most precious [ II] blood hath utterly abolished and taken away the very Office of Levites, Priests and Priesthood itself, it be not deceitful and unchristian to allege the practice of Levites and Jewish Priests as a guide for us under the Gospel? And whether S ^t Paul saith true, that he that submitteth to a part of the Law is bound to keep the whole Law, renounceth the benefits of Christ, and is fallen from grace? Galat. 5. v. 2, 3, 4.

Whether the power of binding and loosing was not [ III] given to the Church, and not to any particular person or Church-Officer? And, whether Suspension from the Sacrament be not a branch of that power? And if so; Then whether it be not a sinful usurpation and an high presumption for any man under the fictitious Title of Church-Officer (of which Title we read not in the Scripture) to take upon him the Churches Authority of binding and loosing?

Whether this be a good consequence; Because the [ IV] Church of Corinth, the Church of Ephesus, and other Churches did Excommunicate and cast out of their Churches notorious scandalous Offenders and Heretics; Therefore the Minister may Suspend whom his conscience pleaseth from the Lord's Supper?

Whether in the 1 Corinth. 11. v. 28. we should not [ V] read thus; Let every man examine himself, and so let him go to the Minister and know of him whether he be fit to eat of this bread, and drink of this cup? And if so; Then whether the Assembly of Divines ought not to amend this Text?

Whether, if no example or precept of Scripture can be [ VI] brought for the Ministers power of Suspending from the Sacrament, the conscience of that Minister who exerciseth this power be not secretly guided by some other Rule than the Word of GOD? And whether the true Rule be not pride, profit, and an ambitious desire to exercise authority over their Brethren, which Christ hath forbidden? Matth. 20. v. 25, 26.

Whether it doth reasonably follow; Because GOD's [ VII] renewing of Circumcision in the time of Joshua , which Circumcision had been long before Instituted by GOD himself, was no Innovation in the Jewish Church; Therefore the bringing in of the Ministers power of Suspension from the Sacrament, which power Christ never ordained nor did the Churches of Christ ever approve or practice, is no Innovation in the Christian Church?

Whether in Matth. 7. v 6. Christ spake not those [ VIII] words to the people as well as to his Disciples; and therefore Ye in the Text must be understood as spoken to all Christians? And whether those words are not thus to be expounded; Give ye not that which is holy unto dogs, that is, Offer not, teach ye not my Gospel unto froward obstinate men, who render themselves unworthy of so great salvation; Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, that is, Neither declare ye my precious and glorious Doctrines, which ye have received, unto sottish regardless men, who delight in their iniquities; Lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you, that is, Lest they despise my Doctrines, and set themselves to do you all manner of mischief? And if so; Then whether such Ministers as limit the word Ye unto themselves only, contrary to the express Text; and by that which is holy and your pearls will have meant the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and by Dogs and Swine, unworthy Receivers, without Scripture-proofs and even contrary to reason, for that Sacrament was not instituted till near two years after this Exhortation; be not impudent Wresters of GOD's holy Word, false prophets, and deluders of the people?

Whether, when three Evangelists, recording the Institution [ IX] of the Lord's Supper, do most expressly testify, that Christ then sat at Table with his 12. Disciples, amongst whom particularly is named Judas Iscariot; and that Christ gave the bread and cup to them all, and that they all did eat of the bread and drink of the cup; Nay, when Christ himself saith in the very time and act of celebration, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the Table; are they not unworthy to be accounted Christ's Ministers, who shall openly question and deny the truth of Judas his being there and his partaking of the Sacrament? Would not such Ministers for their own ends deny the whole Scriptures?

Whether did not Christ three several times to His [ X] Disciples affirm, that one of them should betray him: The First was, as they were eating the Passover; and is mentioned by S. Matthew and S. Mark, when the Disciples one by one said unto Christ, LORD, is it I? Unto which Christ replied in General terms, He it is that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish: The Second time was, as they were celebrating His Supper; and is mentioned by S. Luke, when the Disciples inquired only among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing? The Third time was, after His Supper; and is mentioned by S. John, when (saith the Text) the Disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake, till at length Peter beckned to John, and John thereupon said unto Christ, LORD, who is it? Unto which Christ replied in Special terms, He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it; and when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot. And if so; Then whether such Expositors do not miserably confound as well the Gospel as themselves, who distinguish not these times, but make them all one; and without warrant of Scripture talk of Christ's Institution of His Supper after the Sop given to Judas?

Whether to teach that the giving of the Sacrament [ XI] to an unworthy Receiver is all one as to put a knife into a man's hand to cut his own throat, be not to reproach the Institution of Christ and to make themselves His Reformers? And whether to teach that the unworthy Receiver eateth and drinketh the Ministers damnation, be not repugnant to S. Paul, who saith, that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation? 1 Cor. 11. v. 29.

Whether to call and adjudge those to be Dogs, Swine, [ XII] Hypocrites, Heathens, and unworthy Receivers, who submit themselves to Christ's Doctrine and Ordinances, who do openly witness to the world their true and earnest repentance of their sins, their love and charity with their neighbors, and their intention to lead a new life according to GOD's Commandments; be not a rash, vain, uncharitable censure, neither agreeable to Scripture nor reason? And whether to term Infants, Fools, and Madmen, Dogs, can be warranted by Scripture? And whether to teach that Christ, as he was man, knew not that Judas was an Hypocrite; yet that the Suspending Ministers may discern an Hypocrite, be not to advance their knowledge above Christ's? And whether such doctrine be not blasphemy?

Whether to call Ministers Fathers, Pastors, and Shepherds, [ XIII] be not Tropicall expressions? And whether may sound and forcible Demonstrations be deduced from Tropes and Figures? Whether is this a good reason; Because it is the Duty of Fathers to require an accompt of their Children, and of Pastors and Shepherds to know the state of their flock; Therefore Ministers may Suspend whom their conscience shall judge unfit, from the Lord's Supper? Whether are they Fathers and Shepherds to Christ's Flock, who account His Children Dogs, and refuse to give them the Food appointed by Christ?

Whether the Design of these Suspending Ministers in [ XIV] preaching up the excellency, worth, and necessity of receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and withal their power of keeping the unworthy from it, be not the higher to advance their persons and authority amongst the people? And whether the Ministers Authoritative Examination of the Receiver, be not a Ground and Inlet to that tyrannical-unchristian yoke of Popish Private Confession?

Whether the Givers of the Sacrament ought not to be [ XV] qualified as well as the Receivers? And whether they be fit Givers thereof, who apparently to the whole World are swollen up ready to burst with avarice, pride, uncharitableness; Who make it a light matter to wrest GOD's Holy Word, and (when they please) to deny it; Who reject the testimony, practice, power and authority of the Holy Catholic Church, & by consequence have renounced their very Creed; Who, if ancient, are notoriously perjured in the manifold breach of their Ministerial Oaths; and if Novices, they preach before they be sent, unless without President of Scripture and contrary to the Practice of all Apostolic Churches, the Ministers of six or eight Parishes, met together of their own heads, may lay on hands and devoutly Ordain, whom and as many as their Wisdomes think fit? And by the same reason, why may not the Constables of six Parishes meet together, and there gravely elect a Constable for the seventh Parish, or for as many Parishes as their Wisdomes please? Are Constables so elected Lawfull Constables? And are such Ministers as these Lawfull Ministers? Whether are such Ministers as these fit Givers of Christ's most Holy Sacrament? Let Conscience, let Reason, let even Turks and Indians speak.