An Answer Made to an Open Challenge, Commentary
Animadverſions upon the preceding Sermon, wherein the Reader may diſcover how weakely Mr. Boatman that day (though with incredible confidence) (maintained that Admonition, and preaching of the Goſpell was the utmoſt meant in Mat. 7.6. and Mr Collings is vindicated from preaching Ʋntruth in pleading there was no juſt reaſon to exclude the Sacrament from the number of Pearles and holy things there ſpoken of.
Reader,
THou haſt had now a Copy of the confuting-Sermon. I durſt truſt it to any learned and judicious Reader to judge how my Argument is anſwered and doubt not but a ſmall competency of Learning in any will be enough to make him cry out, multa dicit, nihil reſpondet. But as our Saviour ſaith, all men have not faith, ſo in regard all men have not ſuch a quickneſſe of Judgement, I will help their eyes by an Animadverſion or two: In the firſt place Reader, I deſire thee to obſerve the force of my Argument, it lies thus: The Text containing a generall prohibition without any reſtriction, not ſaying this or that holy thing, or this or that pearle, it ſeems to be a great boldneſſe in any to reſtraine it. It is therefore moſt conſonant to reaſon, that it ſhould be underſtood of all thoſe holy things which God hath hetruſted man with the giving out, which he forbids to be given out to ſuch perſons, as for their vicious qualities are in Scripture language called dogs or ſwine. Nor is it to be reſtrained but by Scripture elſewhere diſpenſing with the giving out of ſome holy things to ſome ſuch kinds of ſinners. This I thinke is an equitable interpretation, and ſo candid, that it cannot be liable to any exception. Remembring that golden obſervation of Auguſtines, Locum unum ſacrae Scripturae exponere per alium, ejuſdem Scripturae clariorem optima interpretatio. Aug. de Doct. Chriſt. c. 26.That it is the beſt interpretation of Scripture to expound it by it ſelfe. And if this be true, it neceſſarily follows: Either that the Sacrament is not an holy thing; or elſe ſecondly, That there is plaine allowance in Scripture for that to be given to dogs, though ſome holy things muſt not; Or elſe thirdly, (what I inferred) In the belly of this generall prohibition, is an evident injunction for us unto giving out the Sacrament to any ſuch as the Scripture calls dogs or ſwine.
I would faine know whether this propoſition may not naturally be drawn from thoſe words, Mat. 7.6.
Holy things, and Pearles, muſt not be given to dogs or ſwine.
The propoſition is indefinite, and reducible to an univerſall or particular; we plead it is to be reduced to an univerſall, becauſe the materia is neceſſaria. It is a divine precept which we have nothing to do to limit without expreſſe warrant from other Scriptures. Mr Boatman thinks it is particular, and the ſenſe this, Some holy things, and ſome pearles are not to be given to ſome dogs, &c. And theſe holy things here meant, he ſaith, are only 1. Admonition. 2. Preaching the Goſpell. I hope he hath good grounds for what he ſaith. Let us now examine; I have divided this Sermon into two ſeverall Paragraphs, (marked in the Margine to guide my Readers eye) I will begin with the firſt Paragraph, where he prefaceth to his worke, and (after a faſhion) analyzeth his Text.
Paragraph. 1 He comes out like a man of war, and makes a Trumpet to ſound before him, that he is come forth to redeeme a captive Text, ſuch a one as is led about, and (he may ſay with holy reverence) almoſt by the Noſe, to aſſert that which Chriſt never intended, as we ſhall preſently ſee. Thus the Trumpet ſounds, (whether a braſen, or ſilver one, judge anon.) Let not him who puts on his barneſſe boaſt like him who puts it off; I am afraid Mr Boatman's force of Reaſon and Learning will be found too weake to reſcue it, if it be ſuch a Captive; and if it be led by the Noſe, (as he irreverently ſaith) I hope to prove that it is reſcued but by the tongue. But we ſhall preſently ſee what he will do.
The Text is without any Connexion at all, (he ſaith) it ſeemes neither to have reference to what goes before, nor what follows after.
Here he hath caſhiered at firſt the beſt force he hath, for thoſe who expound the Text of Admonition (though none I have met with reſtraines it to that) have no colour for their expoſition, but a pretended connexion of theſe words with the former. Mr Boatman confeſſeth the words are nothing of kin to the former; this makes me thinke his Sermon was made in ſo much haſte that he could not conſult with his friends, for ſurely they would have adviſed him, ſeeing there could be ſo little ſaid for his opinion, not at firſt to diſclaime what was moſt conſiderable.
He reſolves the words into a Proverbiall admonition, and conſiders in them:
1.The Propoſition is, You are not to give holy things to dogs. Q What is the ſubject of this Axiom? A dehortation under a double notion: Give not, &c. Caſt not, &c. Therein he ſaith is conſiderable, 1. The Subject, that which is holy and pearles; The Object laid down negatively and expreſly under a double notion: Dogs and Swine.
He that runs may read here a ſufficient want of Logick. But I ſhall not be Criticall with him; only it were well, that except he were happier at the uſe of Logicall termes, he would uſe plainer phraſes, which not only the Vulgar, but the Learned too would better underſtand than they do theſe ſo made uſe of.
The ſecond part of the Text he ſaith containeth the reaſons of the Dehortation. But I ſhall paſſe over that Paragraph, not containing in it any thing towards the delivering of the Noſe of the Text (as he pleaſeth to phraſe it) which he conceits ſo captivated.
2.Animadv. on Paragraph 2. In the beginning of his ſecond Paragraph he ſpeakes great words; he tels us, we ſhall have the plaine ſcope and intention of the Holy Ghoſt without winding or wreſting; and ſo plaine it ſhall be, that he who runs may read it; in ſhort it is this:
Sect. 1 1. That by holy things and pearles are meant ſacred truths, and holy reproofes, and that is the utmoſt the Text reacheth; and there he runs a vagary to tell us why theſe are called holy. But Reader! how ſhall he that runneth read this? Or how ſhall this confident magiſteriall dictate of Mr Boatmans be beleeved to be the plaine meaning of the Holy Ghoſt? How doth it appeare to thee, or to Mr Boatman, that theſe are the holy things and pearles here meant? Theſe, and theſe only. To prove this not a word, only an impertinent diſcourſe to prove that theſe are holy things, becauſe 1. They come from God. 2. Becauſe they tend to make men holy.
1. Doth not the Sacrament alſo come from God, did not he inſtitute it?
2. Doth it not alſo tend to make us holy?
So that by Mr Boatman's own Argument the Sacrament is meant here too, and not preaching, and admonition only, or elſe he muſt give us better reaſon than this to reſtraine it. Doth Mr Boatman think we have ſuch a reverend opinion of him as to beleeve that what he barely ſaith is the meaning of the Holy Ghoſt, that, and none but that? But Mr Boatman ſets a face on it, and he ſaith it; that's enough for his Diſciples (poſſibly) but not for others. The foreign muſt be more conſiderable, to whoſe foreign we will ſubmit. I thinke, Reader, I gave thee a conſiderable reaſon to induce a perſwaſion in thee that our Saviours meaning was to forbid the giving out of all holy things (not elſewhere diſpenſed with) to be given out to dogs; where the Law doth not limit we ſhould not, but Mr Boatman limits and gives thee nothing pretending to a reaſon for it.
Sect. 2 In the next place he comes to tell us who are meant by dogs and ſwine. I told thee, that it being granted a metaphoricall expreſſion, and it being ſo dangerous to put our interpretations upon ſuch expreſſions, I conceived it would be equitable to determine that ſuch wicked men are here meant as the Scripture elſewhere expreſſeth under theſe Notions; I thinke this was a fair foundation for finding out the meaning of the Metaphor. Mr Boatman tels us, none but obſtinate and irreprovable men are meant; yet he grants, that by ſwine are meant the luxurious, (who are not alwaies obſtinate.) But how doth he prove this? Becauſe he promiſed us to make it ſo plaine that he who ran might read it.) Not a word for that, if you will take Mr Boatman's word you may, but he hath no reaſon for to convince you if you refuſe. Thus he doth not only preach placentia, but Placets too. Surely he doth pretend ſomething to an Enthuſiaſtick ſpirit, he could never elſe ſet off meere ſaies with ſuch a confidence.
Sect. 3 In the next place he comes to tell what is meant by trampling; This he ſaith, ſpeakes the ineffectualneſs of ſuch holy and ſavoury truths. So then our Saviours Reaſon is this, Give not holy things to dogs and ſwine, becauſe they will prove uſeleſſe and ineffectuall to them. From whence I argue, If then the Sacrament will be uſeleſſe and ineffectuall to profane men, that holy thing muſt not be given to them. The reaſon holds as much for that as any Ordinance, if not more.
In his third Paragraph he comes to ſum up his fancies,Animadv. on Paragr. 3. (which he calls) the ſum of the Text: That it is to no purpoſe to deale with men of irreprovable and dog-like ſpirits, they are not capable of reproofe, and divine admonition, and holy counſell. You may (ſaith our Saviour) do it, but it will be very uſeleſſe, it will do no good, it is a folly, it is very dangerous, you will be loſers, and neither God the Goſpell, the truth, or your ſoules will have gaine. You may have a reward in heaven, not only when you do, but when you ſuffer for Chriſts ſake, yet however take heed of the perſons, and labour to do it in ſuch a way as may not make ſinners ſeeme dogs and ſwine to you.
Here is a meſſe of ſtuffe now which doubtleſſe was never well boyled by premeditation. He makes our Saviour Chriſt ſpeake ſtrange things here, or I am miſtaken. Our Saviour Chriſt ſaith, 1. You may do it; but where I wonder? is do not give, do not caſt, capable of ſuch an interpretation as you may do it.
2. Chriſt (according to Mr Boatman) ſaith, you may do it, but it is to no purpoſe, it is a folly, it is dangerous, you will be loſers, and neither God, the Goſpell, the truth, nor your ſoules gaine; Where I wonder doth Chriſt tell his people they may play the fooles, and do things to no purpoſe? Nay, ſuch things as neither ſhall redound to Gods glory, nor their good? Is not this learned Divinity thinke we? nay, is it not next dore to blaſphemy? But marke what follows immediately: You may have a reward in heaven, not only, &c. Juſt before, Chriſt is brought in, telling them, their ſoules could have no gaine by it; but here (as if the Lord could ſo ſoone forget himſelfe) he is brought in againe, telling them, They ſhould have a reward in heaven, in doing and ſuffering, &c. But beſides, Chriſt muſt alſo ſay, Take heed how you do it in ſuch a way as may not make ſinners appeare dogs and ſwine, &c. But where is this in the Text I wonder? Chriſt ſaith, Give not, caſt not, he doth not ſay, you may give, but take heed how you give. And is that man ever worthy to take the holy word of God into his mouth againe, that hath ſo ſhamefully and ſimply perverted a Text as he hath done this? For which I appeale to any to judge.
Now he hath ordered his forces, he comes to give us battell, and to that purpoſe tels us, He reads of ſome that wreſt this Scripture, and amongſt many divers of the Romiſh Church. They (ſome of them) expound it thus, and tell us, it may by conſequence be reduced to the Sacrament; and tell us, they are not fit to come to the Sacrament that will not make auricular Confeſſion, (and it is a fond trick that ſome have got up againe in our daies, and ſome would bring into the Church.) But it had no relation at all to that holy Ordinance; for though wicked men (which the Scripture cals dogs and ſwine) unfit Receivers, may tremble when they dare put their hand to the body and bloud of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, yet notwithſtanding to preach ſuch a thing from this Text is little better than to ſpeake untruth in the Pulpit, &c.
Either here is a great deale of ignorance, or malice, or both diſcovered.
1. Here are pretty odde termes me thinks: he reads of ſome, by and by they are many; divers of the Romiſh Church, then ſome of them, againe expound it, &c. the truth is, I beleeve he doth not know either how many, or how few, if he had he would have ſpoken more modeſtly.
2. He would baſely inſinuate, that they are generally Papiſts who thinke this Text may be interpreted by conſequence of the Sacrament, and that they do it to bring in Anricular Confeſſion. Both which charges are as notoriouſly falſe as can be. I wonder who Mr Boatman thinkes Proteſtants? I thinke I have already made it good by teſtimonies enough, that we have ſome Proteſtants are of this mind. Surely Urſin, Chemnitius, wollebius, Wendelin, Zepperus, with a multitude of others, were no Papiſts, yet they all thinke an Argument may be brought from this Text for Auricular Confeſſion, (which he ſeemes ſo afraid of) either he knows not what it is, or hath a mind to beſpatter holy and Reverend men with falſhoods, and ſcandals.
I am very apt to beleeve Mr Boatman knows ſo much of Auricular Confeſſion as to know:
1. That the Romiſh Church requires it to be only made to their Prieſt; and if there be any endeavour to bring ſuch a thing now into the Church, of all men in the world Mr Boatman, and men of his ſtraine ſhould hold their peace, for they are the men bring it in; we plead for an open triall of Communicants before the Presbytery, they ſay no, they will try them alone; this comes nearer Auricular Confeſſion.
2. But ſecondly, we do not require any confeſſion of ſecret or more open ſins, but only that they being proved ſo guilty, they ſhould be unwilling to teſtifie their humiliation or repentance before they are admitted to the Lords Table; ſo that this whimzie amounts to no more than a gird at the godly Miniſters of the Goſpell, who would bring ſinners to a ſenſe of their ſins before they are admitted to the Lords Table, and it ſmels ranke enough either of ignorance or malice, and ſignifies nothing. But Mr Boatman tels us, the Text hath no relation to the Sacrament. How doth he prove that? Is not the Sacrament an holy thing? How proves he it is not here meant?Dr Hammond ad locum. Dr Hammond ingenuouſly grants an analogicall relation.
Now he chargeth me to the purpoſe. To preach ſuch a thing from this Text is little better than to ſpeake untruth in the Pulpit. It is not truth, but truth to the purpoſe that men muſt ſpeake from ſacred Texts of the holy Word of God, elſe they faſten that on the Holy Ghoſt which he never meant or dreampt; and it is a dreadfull account which a great many men in the world have to give, vainly to attempt to lay any foundation on a Text which is either too weake for it, or which it doth not at all concerne; It is an eaſie matter to wring a Text ſo long by the Noſe as to make it bleed againe, and all to little purpoſe; Take notice whatſoever may be urged about this Sacred Ordinance from another place, and at another time, it is not meant here, to ſpeake of it here is to ſpeake to no purpoſe, not worth the ſpeaking, it is not the ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt.
Here he ſpeakes loud enough, and falls upon me pell-mell, but with no other weapons than his tongue; he charges me with preaching untruth; how doth that appeare? Mr Boatman ſaies ſo, and that is all. He tels us of faſtning ſomthing upon the Holy Ghoſt which he never dreampt of. (No Sir, the Holy Ghoſt doth not uſe to dreame, though fraile man may, he carries no ſleepy body about with him;) he tells us, It is an eaſie matter to wring a Text about by the Noſe; he is much taken, it ſeemes, with that phraſe, but if he will be metaphoricall, he ſhould do well to uſe handſomer than theſe, the Holy Ghoſts not dreaming, and the Texts Noſes, are phraſes Divines have not been wont to uſe, and which ſpeaketh in the heart of him that uſeth them ſmall reverence of an holy God, or his holy Word. Againe, we muſt take notice, that whatever may be urged about the Sacrament from other places it is not meant here, &c. And for all this you have Mr Boatman's word. I thinke I may ſafely ſay, I ſpend as many houres in my Study, and about my Sermons, as Mr Boatman doth, and conſider as much, and conſult with as many Commentatours, before I deliver the ſenſe of a Text, as he well can do; nor (bleſſed be God) am I without ſome naturall advantages to helpe me. Yet Reader, I deſire thee to be of Hierom's mind, Give that honour to the Word of God only, to beleeve it becauſe it is his word; and for Mr Boatman and me about any Text, lay our Reaſons in the ballance of the Sanctnary, provided thou forbeareſt his light gold the allowance of faction, and particular affection, and let the Scale that is heavieſt carry it, I aske no other favour; I profeſſe I never read ſuch an imperious, magiſteriall pack of Sentences without a dram of reaſon for his own ſay ſince I knew what belonged to a book.
Now he is come to his Doctrine,Animadr. on Paragr. 4. which he delivers thus.
It is the duty of every Chriſtian, eſpecially of every Miniſter, to take heed to whom, and how they deliver divine truths, leſt, delivering them to obſtinate and irreprovable men, they labour in vaine, and they trample upon them.
1. If this be the truth, yet I conceive it is not the whole truth of the Text.
2. Mr Boatman ſhould have done well to have kept the termes holy things, and Pearles, except he had proved by Scripture or Reaſon that divine truths are the only holy things and pearles here meant.
3. I hope Mr Boatman will tell us how we ſhall know a man to be ſo irreprovable, that we may be juſtified in not preaching to him, nor admoniſhing him.
But I find it otherwiſe, he is loath to meddle with that nice Point; but he undertakes, 1. To prove that there are ſome to whom we muſt not deliver divine truths.
2. He undertakes to give us reaſons:
Firſt, he will prove that there are ſome ſuch; this he thinks he can prove from Pſal. 39.2. where David ſaith, He kept his mouth with a bridle while the wicked was before him. — he held his peace even from good.
Mr Boatman told us even now, that it muſt be truth to the purpoſe a man muſt deliver, as the ſenſe of the Holy Ghost. That which Mr Boatman hath to prove is, that the Children of God ſhould not deliver to wicked men, who are irreprovable, divine truth; to this purpoſe he brings that of David, who held his peace from good; what good? What, from admoniſhing them? There is no ſuch thing in the Text. Mollerus expounds it of his own juſt and righteous cauſe the defending of that; Others expound it in generall of good that he was altogether ſilent, not in reference to the wicked; in reſpect of whom he reſtrained his paſſions, ver. 1. but in reference to his trouble of ſpirit, which was ſuch as ſtupified him.
In the next place he tels us how wary the Prophets were when people were incorrigible, but he that reads them will find they never left reproving them. He tells us God bids them not pray for them, that is true, Jer. 7. but in the ſame Chapter he is bid to preach to them and reprove them, ver. 2.
He hath but one inſtance more, and that is of our Saviour Chriſt, who, he ſaies, would ſometimes make them no anſwer; but what is this to the purpoſe? did our Saviour ever forbeare reproving them, or preaching to them. Thus, Reader thou ſeeſt how well he hath proved his Doctrine, not one inſtance holds. Let us come to his Reaſons.
He tells us,Animadv. on Paragraph. 5. he will inſtance in thoſe in the Text: 1. Becauſe they will trample upon them. So he ſaies they did upon John Baptiſts Doctrine, and our Saviour Chriſts, and Pauls.
There needs no more than this to prove that preaching the Goſpell, and admonition is not here meant only; for firſt, the ſame reaſon will hold to the Sacrament, wicked men will trample on that too ſurely. 2. Though they trampled on John Baptists, and our Saviours, and the Apoſtles preaching to them, yet none of them left preaching the Goſpell, nor admoniſhing them.
The ſecond Reaſon is: They will turne againe and rend you, that is, (as Mr Boatman expounds it) you will endanger your ſelves. I anſwer, this againe proves the preaching the Goſpell is not the only thing here meant; for who knows not that the Apoſtles conſtantly preached the Goſpell to the apparent hazard of their lives? Paul fights with beaſts at Epheſus, is whipped, ſtoned, impriſoned, at other places, yet he preaches; and the Apoſtles durſt not leave preaching to any upon any a count.
In the next large Paragraph Mr Boatman makes a digreſſion to take away the wonder of the world,Animadv. on Paragraph. 6. that there ſhould be any Chriſtians ſo bad. Some he thinks there are, but he hath none of them; and he feares they are moſt amongſt them who have their mouths fulleſt of ſuch termes. The termes are our Saviour Chriſts own, I know none uſeth them with reference to any particular perſons, but only to ſhew, ſuch ought not to be admitted to holy things. Mr Boatman poſſibly is angry that our Saviour ſhould ſo characterize thoſe whom he, it may be, hath a more reverend opinion of; Whining Chriſtians, Squeaking out Jeſus Chriſt, The Noſes of Texts, the dreamings of the Holy Ghoſt, I thinke are more Apocryphall termes than dogs and ſwine, applied to ſuch as returne (after Baptiſme) with the Dog to the vomit, and the Swine to wallow in the mire.
I do not well underſtand how this came into his Sermon, yet it is a third part of it to ſhew how men by degrees come to be ſo wicked as not to endure reproofe; (Any ſchollar muſt judge that it came in as the man brought in Hercules.) It is true, had Mr Boatman done his maine worke, to prove that Admonition was the only thing, or Preaching the only thing here meant, he might have been borne with, recreating himſelfe with ſuch a digreſſion, which yet had been more proper for the Application.
I am apt to beleeve, that Pride, and Ignorance, and love of luſts, are the three great cauſes of mens not enduring wholſome reproofe; but what was this to Mr Boatman's purpoſe, who ſhould have ſpent his time to prove:
1. That Admonition, and Divine truths are the only holy things and pearles here meant; And when he had done what he could for that, I would have had ſome body whiſpered him in the eare, and told him, ſurely he was not aware what he ſaid, for if Dogs muſt not be admoniſhed, nor preached to, ſurely they muſt not have the Sacrament given them.
2. He was to prove, that Divine truths and admonition muſt not be given to dogs, and there he ſhould have deſcribed the dogs to whom the Goſpell muſt not be preached, and who muſt not be admoniſhed, and have given good warrant from Scripture, or Scripturall reaſon for the Expoſition, and when he had done that, I would have had him anſwered theſe two Objections.
Object. 1. If Admonition muſt not be given to dogs, what is the meaning of that of the Apoſtle, 2 Theſ. 2.14, 15.
And if any man obey not our word by this Epiſtle, note that man, and have no company with him that he might be aſhamed; yet count him not as an enemy; but admoniſh him as a Brother. An excommunicate perſon muſt needs be a dog in the higheſt ſence; he muſt be ſo really, viz. a very profane flagitious perſon, and judicially adjudged ſo in Court, and ſo turned out of the houſe for his dog-like diſpoſitions, he muſt be pertinacious, and irreprovable, for till he hath refuſed the admonition of the Church he ought not to be caſt out; yet when he is caſt out, though private Chriſtians muſt have no private Communion with him, nor the Church any fellowſhip with him, yet they ought to admoniſh him to repent, &c. Excommunication it ſelfe being in order to reformation of the perſon, not to his deſtruction.
Secondly, Did not the Apoſtles preach the Goſpell to perſecutors, and irreprovable men? Acts 3. Ch. 7. and in many other places.
Mr Boatman tels us that Pride is the cauſe of irreprovableneſſe in men, and he proves it well enough from the inſtance of the falſe Apoſtles in the Church of Corinth, Pharaoh, the Heathen, Pſal. 2. thoſe who oppoſed our Saviour Chriſt, the enemies of the Prophets of old; yet it is to be obſerved, that Moſes ſtill admoniſhed Pharaoh till God tooke him off; Paul Paul ceaſed not to reprove the falſe Apoſtles; nor did Iſaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, our Saviour Chriſt ceaſe to reprove their Adverſaries.
He tels us, that love of Luſts is a ſecond cauſe of mens irreprovableneſſe; this he proves from our Saviour, John 3.19. Jer. 5. ul. the inſtance of John Baptiſt. This is true enough, but it is as true, that for all this, neither our Saviour Chriſt, nor Jeremiah, nor John Baptiſt ceaſed to preach to, or to admoniſh theſe wretches who loved their luſts.
He tells us right, that Ignorance is a third cauſe, Joh. 1.9. 1 Cor. 2.14. yet ſurely ignorant perſons muſt be admoniſhed and inſtructed.
Thus thou ſeeſt, Reader, how little all this is to his purpoſe.
Now he is come to the Application:Animadv. on Paragraph. 7. His firſt uſe is (as he cals it) of admonition to perſwade his people that they would not be dogs and ſwine though men called them ſo, but endure admonition. — but he ſaies not that from all men they ſhould beare it patiently; — they may be laden with the impertinent, unſeaſonable, giddy reproofes of haire-brain'd men.
1. Here he doth inſinuate, that ſome called his particular people dogs and ſwine; he ſhould have done well to have told them who do ſo; we ſay, ſuch as turne with the dog to the vomit, ſuch as wallow in beaſtly luſts are ſo; this I hope is true in theſi; but we ſay not in hypotheſi, this and that man is ſo; No, we leave that to the reflexion of every mans conſcience, and the Judgement of the Church. This was but a meere trick to create animoſities in profane men againſt thoſe who preach the truth of God to them. I wonder who ſaid, thoſe of Peters Pariſh are dogs and ſwine.
For the maine of the Exhortation it was good, but I thinke he might have ſpared telling them, he did not ſay, they ſhould beare patiently admonitions from any, for I thinke the perſon is not conſiderable, but the thing, and cauſe of it. Now they have enough to ſay to juſtifie their ſtopping their eares againſt reproofe. The reproofe was impertinent, unſeaſonable, he was a giddy hair-brain'd man that reproved me, and our Paſtor told us, we need not beare his reproofes patiently.
The laſt Paragraph containes his ſecond and laſt uſe directed to reprovers:Animadv. on Paragraph. 8. to perſwade them ſo to order their reproofes, that they may not make men dogs nor ſwine.
Here he tells us honeſtly, that though men expreſſe themſelves raſhly, and inadviſedly, yet if it be truth they ſpeake, it is ſad men will not endure it; but he had told them before, He did not ſay they ſhould beare it patiently, here he doth ſay, It is ſad they will not; how do theſe two agree?
Though I do not thinke this Uſe proper to any Doctrine can be raiſed from this Text, and ſo is not truth to the purpoſe (as Mr Boatman lately taught us we ſhould preach from Texts) yet I eaſily yield that admonition is a tender thing, and muſt be managed with prudence, and he muſt be allowed all he ſaith upon that point.
At laſt he comes to bleſſe himſelfe, and to bleſſe his Congregation, that he had never a dog in it, (an happy houſe!) or rather he had met with none; that may be: There may be dogs enough in the Town, yet I may meet with none of them, it may be I never regard whether they be ſo; but he puts in
Unleſſe it be ſome ſelfe-conceited Phariſees that cannot endure any body ſhould be accounted holy as themſelves.
Who Mr Boatman meanes is ſufficiently known, ſuch as through tenderneſſe of conſcience, and conſcience of Gods Ordinances, cannot ſwallow promiſcuous Sacraments. Theſe are the only dogs Mr Boatman hath in his Congregation.
The Lord make him aſhamed with a godly ſhame.