An Answer Made to an Open Challenge, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Containing the firſt Argument, from Mat. 7.6. From whence is proved, that this Ordinance is an holy thing, and ſo not to be given to Dogs, nor caſt before Swine.
Argument 1 My firſt Argument is this; Holy things may not lawfully be given to Dogs, nor Pearles lawfully caſt before Swine.
But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an holy thing, and a Pearle, and there may be ſome in the Church, who in Scripture phraſe, are Dogs and Swine.—Ergo.
THis is no new Argument; Eraſtus pretends to anſwer it, ſo doth Mr Prinn, and Mr Humfry.
The ſumme of all I meet with anſwered to it, is this;
1. Say ſome, The Sacrament is none of the holy things there ſpoken of.
2. All ſorts of ſinners that are ſcandalous, are not the Dogs and Swine there meant: ſo that the Argument as they ſay is a fallacy, à dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter: To reinforce it againſt all their weake Cavils, two or three things muſt be opened.
1. What holy things are here ſpoken of.
2. Who are the Dogs and Swine here ſpoken of.
3. To whom this precept is directed.
Let us examine all theſe three a little.
1 Q. What holy things are here ſpoken of.
It is a good rule, Where the Law doth not diſtinguiſh, we ſhould not. Our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt ſpeakes not of this or that Holy thing; but ſayes foreign and foreign; and it is a bold preſumption in us to reſtraine it without Scripture-warrant.
I think therefore every ſober Chriſtian will grant me theſe two things.
1. That all thoſe holy things and Pearles are here forbidden to be given to Dogs, and caſt before Swine, which the Scripture doth not elſwhere plainly allow to be given to Dogs or Swine: elſe they will be obliged to ſhew us another ground of reſtraint.
2. I hope it will eaſily be granted to concorne ſuch holy things as God hath betruſted us to give out: for it is to men Chriſt ſpeakes.
Things are called holy in Scripture, upon a fourefold account.
1. In reſpect of conſecration, when a thing is ſet apart for Gods ſervice.
2. In reſpect of inherent purity. Thus God is holy, and his grace as holy.
3. In reſpect of a divine ſignature and impreſſion upon them. Thus every command and every Ordinance of God is holy.
4. In reſpect of a deſignation, and ſubſerviency of it to an holy uſe or end; in this ſence alſo are all the Ordinances of God holy. And doubtleſſe, theſe are the holy things here ſpoken of: and ſo all grant.
Upon the two laſt accounts, (ſaith Chemnitius) the Ordinances of God are rightly called holy. Now the Ordinances of God are of two ſorts.
1 Private. 2 Publick.Chemnit. harm. cap. 51.
Private Ordinances are inſtitutions of Chriſt to be performed by private perſons, either in order to Gods glory, or our brethrens good, ſuch are private inſtructions and exhortations each of other. Private prayer; private admonitions, frequently commanded by God in Scripture. The publike Ordinances are, publike preaching and expounding Scripture before the Church, performed by perſons in Office to it, publike Prayer, Church cenſures, &c. It is without all queſtion, that the Ordinances of God, are the Holy things here forbidden to be given to Dogs, or caſt before Swine. But the queſtion is, whether all theſe Holy things be forbidden here to be ſo caſt, or onelyonly ſome?
I ſay there is no reaſon, but we ſhould underſtand all thoſe Ordinances, which in other places of Scripture, are not commanded to be given to all. My reaſon is this; becauſe it is boldneſſe in us to reſtraine what God hath not limited.
And hence I perceive, that ſome, who have been inclined to thinke, that ſome one Ordinance is eſpecially meant here; yet dare not exclude others.
So Mr Jeanes, Mr Ieanes, p. 125, 126. 2 ed. of his bank entituled, The want of Church Government, &c.though he thinkes admonition and reproofe are chiefly meant; (ſuppoſing the words not to be a compleat precept in themſelves, but to relate to the precedent words) yet he tels us, he will not deny, but it may be extended, and applied to the giving of the Lords Supper.
And Chemnitius determines it an unjuſt reſtriction to reſtraine it to reproofe. Beſides that, admonition may be given to Dogs, yea to ſuch Dogs as are ſhut out of the doores of the Church. 2 Theſ. 3.15. He is not to be counted as an enemy, but admoniſhed as a Brother; with whom we ought to have no company that he may be aſhamed.
I know Thomas Eraſtus tels us it muſt be meant of Preaching the word.Eraſt. Explic. Graviſſ. quaeſt. theſ. 94. But beſides that, there is no ground in the Text for this, there is leſſe in other places of Scripture. For the Word muſt be preached to Heathens, Mat. 28. and much more to them who are but as Heathens; and to ſcandalous ſinners; Nor is there any reaſon to appropriate this foreign to the word onelyonly.
It ſeemes to me, that our Saviour had an eſpeciall eye to Sacramentall Ordinances, not onelyonly becauſe in other Scriptures there is an expreſſe command, to admit the moſt ſorts of Dogs to heare the word: but alſo becauſe if any one Ordinance may be called more holy then other, it is this of the Supper; which is, The new Teſtament in his blood, The Communion of the body and blood of Chriſt. But to ſay this Ordinance is excluded, is not onelyonly to ſpeake contrary to Scripture, but to common ſenſe too. Which made Eraſtus in the ſame theſis, thinke it ſafer to inſiſt upon a diſtinction of Dogs, then adhere to his firſt diſtinction of holy things.
This Scripture therefore uſing a generall terme, which is not reſtrained by any preceding or ſubſequent words, and no other Scripture plainly allowing of the holy thing of the Lords ſupper to be given to Swine and Dogs, I conceive he that deſires his words, may goe along with the truth, and beare a proportion to his owne reaſon, (if he be endued with ſo much as an humane ſoule, doth intitle all but mad men and fooles unto) will not ſay but that the Lords Supper is here couched at leaſt in the number of the holy things and pearles here ſpecified.
Eſpecially when I ſhall have made it evident, by the different applications of this Scripture amongſt the Ancients, and large expoſitions of it, by Moderne ſober Writers; That they thought not the holy things here ſpoken of, were Admonition or Preaching onelyonly, but other holy adminiſtrations alſo.
Clemens Alexandrinus expounds it generally for all the flowings out of living water. foreign;foreign. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. ex edit. Lutes. 1619 p. 368. foreign Athanaſ. in dial. 1 de Trin. ſub initio. p. 138. t. 2. impr. 1606 in offic. Commetiana. Tertul. 9. l. 2 de matrimonio cum Gentilibus. c. 5. lib. de praeſcrip. contra haeretices. cap. 26. lib. de Baptiſmo cap. 17. which ſurely are in all divine Ordinances.
Athanaſius makes uſe of this Text to juſtify himſelfe, in not giving an account of his faith to enemies of the Truth. In his firſt Dialogue concerning the Trinity, inter Orthodoxum, Anomoeum, & Arrianiſtum. In the beginning of it, Anomoeus asking Orthodoxus whether he was a Chriſtian or no? hee tels him, yes, he was. Anomoeus going on, and asking him what Chriſtianity was, he tels him, it was neceſſary for him to tell him the firſt, but not ſafe for him, to tell him the latter. Anomoeus asking him why? he anſwers him, that if he did not know who he was that askt, he might give Holy things to Dogs, and caſt Pearles before Swine.
Tertullian in his ſecond Book concerning the marriage of Heathens with Chriſtians, applyeth this place, as forbidding Chriſtians to marry with Heathens, becauſe their converſation was an holy thing which muſt not be caſt unto Dogs. Yet it is plaine he doth not reſtraine it; for in his Book de praeſcrip: contrae haereticot, he plainly applyes it to the Preaching of the Goſpell; and in the 17 Chap. of his Book de Baptiſme, he applies it to Baptiſme. By which it is plaine, hee underſtood it in generall of all holy things.
Moyſes and Maximus and Ruffinus, in their Epiſtle to Cyprian, underſtand it of abſolution, and all divine Ordinances. Cyprian himſelfe makes uſe of this Text, to juſtify his not writing to Demetrianus, v. Cypt. opera ep. 26. lib. contra Demetrianum ſub mitio l. 3. Teſtim. ad Quirinum. Chryſoſt. in 1. Hom. in cap. 7. Math. in prologo ad expoſ. Iohannis. Homil 20. in 10 cap. Heb. lib. de compunctione cordis. Immundis impuritatibus, ſacra conſortia non impertiendaa wretched enemy of the Truth; and how he uſeth it elſewhere, may be ſeen in l. 3. Teſt. ad Quirinum, where he brings it to prove this head, Sacramentum fidei non eſt profanandum. Baſil (the Great) applies, but doth not reſtrain it, to preaching the Goſpel. Chryſoſtome in his firſt Homily, on the ſeventh Chapter of Matthew, applies it to the Preaching of the Word, to warrant him (if he ſaw his hearers negligent) to ſhut up his book. So he doth in his Prologue to his Expoſition of the Goſpell of St Iohn. And againe in his Homily de oruce dominicâ. But in his twentieth Homily upon the tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes, he applies it to the Lords Supper. And in his Book de compunctione cordis, to all the myſteries of our Salvation, and from this Scripture takes occaſion to chide thoſe Miniſters, who gave out the Sacrament promiſcuouſly; and ſaies this was the reaſon why they were trampled upon, and rent by the wicked (according to this Text.) Hierom cals the holy things: the childrens bread, and the Goſpell Pearls. I might alſo weary my ſelfe and the Reader, with many quotations out of Ambroſe, Gregor. Mag. Origen; which plainly ſhew their expounding this Text in a latitude, not reſtraining it to this or that holy thing.Iſid. Peluſ. l. 4. n. 181. ep. ad Hicr…cem & l. 1. ep. 143. Aug. in Serm. in momte l. de ſide, &c. Hieron. in Mat. 7. Chemnit. harm. c. 51. c. 66. n. 3. Alex. Halenſis ſum. theol. p. 4. q. 11. art. 1. ſect. 4. The judgement of Iſidorns Peluſiota, and Anguſtine, may be read in many places, the latter of which (though once he applies it to fraternall correption) yet hath many different applications of it. Chemnitius in his Harmony upon the place tels us, that the Word and Sacraments are the holy things here meant; And in the 66 Chapter of his Harmony, n. 3. tels us that wicked men are to be kept from the Lord's Table, upon the command in this Text. Alexander Halenſis, brings this Argument to prove that our Saviour did not give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Indas, becauſe he ſhould have then have acted contrary to his owne precept in this place, where he forbad holy things to be given to Dogs; whether that Argument be good or no, I doubt he anſwers it; but it is plaine, hee thought that by holy things, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was meant in part.Rutherfords divine right, c. 5 q. 1. Gilleſpy Aarons rod. l 3. cap. 15. Learned Rutherford makes an Argument of this Text, for this very purpoſe, and vindicates it from Eraſtus his Cavils. Gilleſpy ſtands upon the ſame Argument, and vindicates it from Eraſtus and Mr Prin. By all this is plaine, in what ſence the eminent ſervants of Chriſt have in all ages underſtood this Text, though ſome of them, as Piſcator, Gualther, Bucer, and others,Piſcater ad loc. Gualther ad loc. Pareus ad loc. Rutherford ib. ut prius. thinke that admonition is chiefly meant; and Pareus, that the Preaching of the Goſpell is chiefly meant, yet none of them durſt exclude the other; nor was there any reaſon, when (as Learned Rutherford obſerveth) the word was ordained to be preached unto Dogs and Lyons, to make them Lambes and Converts, Iſ. 11.4.5, 6. Iſ. 2.3, 4. And Chriſt himſelfe commanded the Word to be preached to Phariſees and Sadduces perſacutors, who had ſinned againſt the Holy Ghoſt. Mat. 12.31, 32. Iohn 9.39, 40, 41. Iohn 7.28. Iohn 8.21.
I have done with the firſt thing, and ſhewed that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is amongſt the holy things which are there forbidden to be given to Dogs: But the next queſtion will be
Queſt. Who are Dogs and Swine?
1. That by Dogs and Swine here are not meant thoſe Beaſts we call ſo. I ſuppoſe will eaſily be granted me by any, that conſiders how needleſſe ſuch a prohibition would have been.
2. We muſt therefore acknowledge a Metaphor, and that the creatures to whom (in this place) holy things are here forbidden to be given, are ſome perſons, men and women, who propter vitia canina (as Muſculus ſaith) for ſome morall depravations of mind, which have transformed them into the reſemblance of Dogs and Swine, in their naturall diſpoſitions are ſo called here by our Saviour. All the queſtion will be, what thoſe vitious qualifications are upon which our Saviour cals ſome here Dogs and Swine.
3. Every one knowes how dangerous it is to ſtraine Metaephors, therefore it will be moſt ſafe to keep to a Scripture interpretation of them; and ſay, thoſe are here meant by Dogs and Swine, whom the Scripture either here characterizeth by ſome vitious qualifications, bearing a proportion to ſome naturall diſpoſitions in thoſe beaſts; or whom the Scripture elſewhere expreſſeth under this notion.
4. If we can find them ſufficiently characterized here,Reſpondeo Chriſtum de illis loqui qui Margaritas contemnunt, ac pedibus cale… & converſi nos laniant, hee eſt, de Evangelij hoſtibue, de quibus nequaquam agimus. —Praetereae loquitur hic Chriſtus non de ſacramentis, ſed de doctrinâ Evangeliſ canibus, & porcis, hoc eſt nolentibus & conculcantibus non proponenda. Explic. Graviſs. quaeſt. theſi. 64. we need not ſeeke elſewhere, if we cannot, we muſt either ſay all ſuch wicked men are here called Dogs and Swine, as the Scripture expreſſeth by that Metaphor, or onelyonly ſome of them.
5. If we ſay ſome of them onelyonly, ſurely ſome ſufficient reaſon muſt be given for it.
Theſe things therefore premiſed, let us now come to a ſtrict enquiry for the meaning of this place.
Eraſtus thinks, that the Dogs are ſufficiently characterized in the Text.
To this purpoſe he tels us, that Chriſt ſpeaks of them who deſpiſe Pearles, and trample them under their feet, and turning againe teare us; that is of the enemies of the Church. For whom he ſaith he pleadeth not to the ſame purpoſe I perceive. Thoſe reverend men alſo ſpeaking, who underſtand this Text chiefly of the preaching the Goſpel, and of Admonition.
But I ſhall propound a few conſiderations.
1. That perſecutors are Dogs and Swine, none will deny; but the queſtion is, whether they be the only Dogs here ſpoken of.
2. According to Eraſtus; if there be in the Church then, one that is an enemy of it, one who contemnes the Ordinances, and perſecutes the ſervants of Chriſt, he ought to be ſuſpended the Sacrament, (though not excommunicate) Then according to Eraſtus, there is ſuch a thing as ſuſpenſion.
3. Though Perſecutors be properly called Dogs for their rending and tearing, yet for this they are not properly called Swine, for Swine doe not uſe to teare, but we muſt not caſt Pearles before Swine. Who are the Swine ſaith Mr Rutherford, and his learned Countryman.
4. If they be deſcribed in the Text, it is by a double character. Firſt, trampling upon the holy things. Gilleſpy. Aarons rod. c. 15.Secondly, turning againe, and rending the givers. The firſt is proper to Swine, the ſecond to Dogs. So then we are not to give holy things any more to ſuch, that will trample them under their feet, then to them who will turne againe and teare us.
5. We deſire no more ſhould be ſuſpended, then wil come under theſe two notions; ſuch as will but trample the Ordinance under their feet, or ſuch as will turn againe and rend us. All unbeleevers will doe the firſt, we are ſure.
Laſtly, There are thoſe that doubt whether the latter part of the Text be Exegeticall of the former, and ſay, the terme leſt doth infer a commination or threatning to thoſe who give holy things to Dogs and Swine, wherein the Lord threatens, that if they doe it, the iſſue will be, 1. Thoſe perſons contempt of the Ordinance. 2. Turning their Miniſters enemies, and tearing them, being (through the juſt judgement of God) the Avengers of his holy Ordinance upon them. Who ſhall ſo preſume to proſtitute it.
I confeſſe I did not ſo much value this interpretation of the words,Chryſoſt. in Homil. de compunctione cordit. (though I know they will beare it) till I found Chryſoſtome expreſſing ſo much as if he had ſome ſuch thoughts of them, and fetching a reaſon from this Text; why the Miniſters of the Goſpell in his time, were ſo lamentably deſpiſed and perſecuted, becauſe they had given the holy Sacrament to profane perſons; and while I had this Notion in my head, A Revered Brother in this Country was with me, and told me he had found it true in his owne experience, in a woman of the Pariſh, of which he was Miniſter, who lately dying in a ſad condition, and under much (ſuppoſed) guilt, charged his adminiſtration of the Sacrament to her, at the great meanes of her hardning in ſinne, which was no little wound to this godly mans ſpirit. Since, A Merchant of London hath told me of Mr Simmonds (ſometimes of Iron-mongers Lane in London) going to viſit one that was ſick, and to whom he had a little before given the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and queſtioning with her, about her eternall Salvation; ſhee askt him upon what account he came now to queſtion her upon that, whereas himſelfe a little before had aſſured her that the body of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt was broken for her; which (ſaith my Author (as I remember from Mr Simmond's mouth) ſo wounded him, that he had almoſt ſuncke downe in the room, (which two ſtories may anſwer that one which Mr Humfry hath borrowed from Mr Fairclough, and printed in his rejoinder to Dr Drake) we need not go ſo far. What makes the profane and looſe party in moſt of the congregations of England this day, ſo hate & revile their godly Miniſters this day, and endeavour to get them out, (becauſe they dare no more give the Sacrament to them) But this their former ſin in giving the holy thing of the Sacrament to theſe Dogs and Swine formerly. I would faine know ſaith Mr George Gilleſpy, what fruit godly Miniſters find of their former promiſcuous adminiſtrations, but a goneral hardning of heart amongſt their people, and a bleſſing of themſelves in a ſuppoſed good condition, becauſe they are adminiſtred to all the priviledges of Saints, &c.
7. This we ſee, if theſe Dogs and Swins be to be interpreted by the following words of the Text, they are ſuch, as can or will make no other uſe of the Ordinance, then to trample upon it, and who will teare the Miniſters who give them unto them; If the laſt ſence of the words be admitted, we muſt ſeek for the interpretation of the Metaphor in other places of Scripture, where theſe termes are uſed to expreſs wicked men or women.
8. I find men and women in Scripture, calling themſelves, or others Dogs; and the Holy Ghoſt calling ſome dogs upon ſix accounts.
1. Upon an account of worthleſneſſe, and inconſiderableneſſe. In this ſenſe Goliab ſaith to David, am I a Dog? &c. 1 Sam. 17.43. David cals himſelfe a dead Dog. 1 Sam. 24.14. Abner askes if he were a Dogs head. 2 Sam. 3.8. Mephiboſheth cals himſelfe a dead Dog, becauſe unworthy to ſit at David's Table. And Abiſhai cals Shimei a Dog. 2 Sam. 16.9.
2. Upon an account of cruelty; either cruell actions, in which ſenſe, Hazael ſaith, Am I a Dog that I ſhould doe this? 2 Kin. 8.13. And David prayes to be delivered from the Sword and the Dog. Pſal. 22.20, 16. and ſaith ver. 16. Dogs had compaſſed him about. So Jer 15.3. or cruell words and threatnings: So the wicked are ſaid to barke and make a noiſe like a Dog. Pſal. 59.6, 14.
3. The falſe Prophets are called dumbe and greedy Dogs, becauſe they were greedy of filthy lucre, and could not ſpeake the Lords word. Iſa 56.10, 11.
4. Wicked men are both in the old Teſtament, Pró. 26.11. and in the New. 2 Pet. 2.22. called dogs, becauſe as the Dog filthily licks up his vomit; ſo when they have made ſome ſeeming confeſſion of ſins, or pofeſſion of faith and holineſſe, they forſake it and returne to their old wickedneſſe.
5. Heathens are called Dogs by our Saviour. Mat. 7.27. becauſe they were none of Gods Family, or Children, but aliens to the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and becauſe they abounded with filthy luſts, as the Apoſtle tels us. Rom. 1.
6. Sinners in generall are called Dogs. Phil. 3.2. Beware of Dogs, Muſculus ad loc.where he meanes falſe Teachers, rightly called Dogs, ſaith Muſculus. For firſt, their greedineſſe of filthy lucre, Iſa 56.11. 2. For their barking againſt the true Apoſtles. 3. For their returning to their old vomit, becauſe they barkt onelyonly to get food for their bellies,Caelv. ad loc. ſaith Mr Calvin. So Rev. 22.15. Without are Dogs, &c. That is, all ſinners, (at leaſt all not enumerated afterward)
For the terme Swine; I remember it but once more in Scripture. (taken Metaphorically) 2 Pet. 2.22. where wic…ed men are compared to Sows, for wallowing in the mire and filth of ſin.Ravanella in verbo Porcus. Ravanella tels us that by Swine here are meant Infideles, impij, homines deſperata malitiae, & impuritatis, quibus ſordet verbum Dei, Epicurei profani.
We have heard how the Scripture uſeth the metaphor; now to apply it.
9. I conceive, except ſufficient ceaſon can be ſhewed to the contrary, by Dogs and Swine here muſt be meant, all ſuch wicked perſons as the Scripture elſewhere expreſſeth under that notion.
10. If it may be expounded according to the firſt, or ſecond, or ſixth acceptation, we deſire no more, then that holy things might not be given. 1. To any ſcandalous ſinners. 2. To any unworthy perſons. 3. To any who after profeſſion in Baptiſme, returne with the Dog to the vomit, to their old wickedneſſe. For the third uſage there is no colour; for it is not ſaid, give not holy things to dumbe Dogs or greedy Dogs.
11. If any ſay that by Dogs here are onelyonly meant perſecutors, according to the ſecond uſage. 1 They will be bound to ſhew reaſon why this Text ſhould be expounded rather by David Pſal. 22.16, 20. Pſal. 59. then Solomon. Pro. 26.11. or Peter. 2 Pet. 2.22. (which will be hard to aſſigne) 2. I have proved before, that the word (which they ſay is the holy thing) ought to be preached to them. 3. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, if that muſt be denied to perſecutors not excommunicated, then there is ſuſpenſion diſtinct from excommunication, as to ſuch yielded.
12. If they ſay that by Dogs are meant Heathen, as Mar. 7.27. 1. Then either thoſe onelyonly, or thoſe amongſt others. (2) If they ſay to thoſe and ſome others we yield it, but it is nothing to the purpoſe. (3) If they ſay that the Heathen are the onelyonly Dogs, to whom holy things ſhould be denied, then they ought to be given to perſecutors, and excommunicate perſons. (4) The Word ought to be preached to Heathens, therefore the Word cannot be the holy thing then. (5) There was no great probability of Chriſts Diſciples giving the Sacrament to Pagans. (6) The Heathen are called Dogs, not onelyonly becauſe they were aliens to the Commonwealth of Iſrael, but for their (vitia canina) beaſtly luſts, which others may have, and therefore by a parity of reaſon meant here in this generall terme.
Indeed I find expoſitors, who would reſtraine the holy thing, and pearles to ſome one Ordinance; as admonition or preaching, generally loſt in ſeeking the Dogs or Swine to whom they muſt not be given. Chemnitius who (though he grants the Word and Sacraments to be the holy things here meant) yet ſeems to encline to think this Text chiefly forbids the preaching of the Word to ſome here characterized by the metaphor of Dogs and Swine; yet is miſerably loſt, in determining who thoſe Dogs and Swine, to whom the Word ought not to be preached;Chemn…t. harm cap. 51. Pareus in 7 of Matthew. and I doubt whether what he and Pareus at laſt determine, concerning refuſing to preach the Goſpell to ſome, be truth, and beleeve it may be proved, that Chriſt and his Apoſtles preached the Goſpell to ſome ſuch, as they determine againſt; and I thinke the ſame of what Gualther determines,Gualther ad loc. who expounds the place, as chiefly meant of admonition: The excommunicate Dog, muſt be admoniſhed as a Brother; who yet if he would have heard the Church admoniſhing, ſhould not need have been excommunicated.Bullinger ad loc. Nor doth Bullinger, who preceded Gualther, better ſatisfie, who ſeems to underſtand it of private admonition, yet dates not determine whether it may be denyed to any, as a Dog. And Bucer concludes that the ſpirit of God muſt guide the Miniſter in ſuch caſes, Bucer ad loc.to whom to preach, and to whom to refuſe to preach the Word of God. But ſurely we muſt find the Dogs determined in Scripture, before our conſciences will be warranted to juſtifie our practice in denying the Goſpell to them. Theophylact ſaith,Theoph. ad loc. foreign, that Heathens are Dogs, and Chriſtians, that live filthy lives, are Swine, Chemnitius ſaies, We are all by Nature Dogs and Swine. Bucer and Gualther both confeſſe, that ſinners of impure lives, and unclean converſations, are Dogs and Swine; ſo ſaith Bullinger. But the Word, or admonition muſt not be denied to all ſuch I am ſure, and I know no ground for their reſtriction. The Lords ſupper indeed muſt, which makes me think, that that Ordinance is chiefly here meant, though not ſingly. It is the onelyonly Ordinance is to bee denied to all knowne Dogs; and herein I agree with my Learned Rutherford. Rutherford divine right. 254.(ſinon major ſit quam ut mens dici poſſit, as he uſeth to ſay of our incomparable Twiſs.) Brentius in his Commentary on the place, telleth us,Brentiu… ad loc cum autem in oculis eccleſiae ſit poenitens non eſt vel miniſtri, ut eum contumelioſè a coena re…iciat, &c. ib. Conrad. Pellicanus in loc. Muſc. in loc. the Word and Sacraments are the holy things, and that wicked and impure men are Dogs and Swine, though he rightly concludes, that the Word is not to be denied to all Dogs, nor any (though Dogs in Gods ſight) to be kept from the Sacrament, (if penitent) Conradus Pellicanus expounds it with Muſ…ulus, of all Goſpell myſteries,—Nolim Evangelicae ſapientiae myſteria ſine delectu tradi dignis & indignis, and tels us that thoſe are Dogs who abhorre holineſſe, and thoſe are Swine who wallow in filthy pleaſures; he ſeemes to think the Goſpell chiefly to be meant; but pinching himſelfe with the perplexing queſtion, what Dogs thoſe are to whom Chriſt would not have his Goſpell preached, he concludes with Bucer darkly—Nemo ſine ſpiritu patris recte intelliget. Salmeron tels us,Salmeron l. 5. trac. 60. that this Text teacheth us how we ſhould preach the Word, and Adminiſter the Sacraments, and that by Dogs and Swine are meant Infidels, H…reticks, and carnall Chriſtians, and (though a Papiſt) yet determines honeſtly, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be given to none but him who hath duly tried himſelfe, and proved himſelfe, and ſales, it is thought by many Judas was not at the Sacrament of the Supper, if he were, he was a ſecret ſinner, not ſcandalous. Which is alſo Alex: Halenſis his anſwer. But I have ſaid enough to prove both from Scripture, Reaſon, and the conſent of Learned men, that as the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of the holy things here meant; ſo, if we may either from Scripture or Reaſon, or the judgement of Holy men, conclude any thing; impure ſinners are here meant by Dogs.
After all this, what Mr Humfry ſaith,Mr Humfry's vind frce admiſſion. is not worth taking notice of.—He will have thoſe onelyonly to be Dogs and Swine, who are ſo in the publick eſteeme of the Church, viz. Juridically conſured. So that with him; Give not holy things to Dogs and Swine, is, Give not holy things to excommunicate perſons and this ſeemes to be Mr Boatman's ſenſe too, who excepts only excommunicate Chriſtians from the Lords Supper, and it is likely he plowed with his Heifer, not only by his commending of that looſe Pamphlet to his Diſciples, but by his bold cenſure of Suſpenſion, as a Phariſaicall dreame, which amounts to Mr Humfrie's non eſt invent a in balivâ noſtrâ p. 82 which made me merry when I read it, (that being the uſuall returne that Sherriffs make, who have never looked for the party, no more then I beleeve Mr Humfry hath done for this Ordinance or elſe, when they have lookt for him, with a reſolution to overlook him.)
The truth, is both Mr Humfry, and Mr Boatman, had it from Eraſtus, or the ſame ſpirit at leaſt.Eraſt theſis. 64. He was the firſt worker in this ſort of Braſſe; and what they ſay amounts to the ſame with his—Quos eccleſia …ta judicavit. But let us ſee to how little purpoſe this is ſaid.
1. The Text is plaine, that holy things are not to be given to Dogs or Swine. Now, I never knew that the ſhutting of a Dog out of the houſe, made him a Dog, I had thought he muſt have been a Dog firſt, before he had been ſhut out of the houſe, but this Mr Humfry grants, onelyonly not uſed like Dogs before.
2. Our queſtion is, what are thoſe Dogs here ſpoken of, whether theſe who have vitia canina, the beaſtly qualities of Dogs, or thoſe onelyonly who have the ill hap of Dogs, to be turn'd out of doors.Petitio principij I had thought that this Text had been brought to have proved, that thoſe who have the nature and beaſtly qualities of Dogs, ſhould be uſed like Dogs, and not have childrens bread given to them.
3. If excommunicate perſons be meant here, ſurely this Text, or ſome other muſt juſtify the uſage of this Metaphor, in that ſence. But let Mr Humfry ſhew us but one Text of Scripture, where this terme Dogs is uſed to expreſſe excommunicate perſons, or let him ſhew us any thing in the Text to enforce it here, otherwiſe we muſt tell him the Scripture cals all prophane ſinners Dogs, thoſe who returne with the Dog to the vomit, and with the Swine to wallow in the mire, are Dogs and Swine in the Scripture ſenſe; but I find excommunicate perſons call'd ſo no where upon the account of their excommunication.
4. Nor is there any one Author on his ſide, that ever I met with, ſo that his interpretation is contrary to Scripture, Reaſon, and all Expoſitors.
But yet we ſay, though the Sacrament be denied to Dogs and Swine, becauſe they are ſo, not becauſe they are ſhut out of the houſhold of God by excommunication, yet in regard that man can judge but according to the out ward appearance, they muſt firſt appeare to be ſo, before the Ordinance can be denied to them. Secret things belong to God. But to ſay that by Dogs here are only meant perſons actually excommunicate, is a meer ſhift to avoid a ſtrong argument, and but an idle dreame, which hath no reality of truth in it, and is juſtifiable neither from this Text nor any other Scripture.
But theſe men who are ſo zealous for the profanation of an Ordinance, are obſerved very lazy as to the preſerving the purity of Ordinances. They muſt be excommunicated, before you keep them from the Sacrament, (ſaith Mr Boatman) ſo ſaies Mr Humfry, but why doe not theſe tender men then, take a courſe to declare ſuch to be Dogs and Swine, as are ſo, and to caſt them out? Mr Boatman hath an Elderſhip eſtabliſhed in his congregation, why did he not firſt call them together, and inquire the ſtate of his ſlock, and caſt out ſuch as might have been found Dogs or Swine? if he thinks they muſt be excommunicated firſt, (we are not ſo haſty in that dreadfull ſentence.) What is Mr Humfries caſe I cannot tell, but their principles (and the practiſe of one of them at leaſt) makes ſome think that they will never take any courſe to find out who be Swine or Dogs, and declare them ſuch: (except ſuch Dogs as have loſt their tailes, and cannot fawne enough on them) But very zealous they are to declare that all Dogs (that are not hang'd by excommunication) muſt be ſed with the childrens bread. The Lord forgive them this iniquity.
3 We have ſeen what is meant by holy things, and have proved, that there is no reaſon to exclude the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. We have alſo ſhewed, who are meant by Dogs. There remaines onelyonly to be conſidered, to whom this precept is given. Surely all will grant me; To thoſe who have holy things to give, thoſe whom God hath be truſted with the diſpenſation of his Ordinances unto others. I ask no more, and will not enter into a debate here, who theſe are; whether the Miniſter alone, or the whole Preſbytery, &c.
So then the ſenſe of this place is this;
You whom I have betruſted with the diſpenſation of my holy Ordinances, take heed you doe not diſpenſe any of them out to impure ſinners, who will but trample upon them, and teare you, excepting onelyonly ſuch of my Ordinances as I (appointed them as proper meanes for their converſion) have other where expreſly commanded you to give unto them. Nor is that any unjuſtifiable interpretation for that precept, thou ſhalt not kill, muſt be underſtood with exception of thoſe, whom as Magiſtrates executing Juſtice, or Souldiers fighting Gods Battles, are commanded to kill, and the whole Word of God is his Law, no piece of which contradicteth other.
So that the Argument from this Text will hold, till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman doe ſhew us ſome other Scriptures, where God hath commanded this Sacrament to be given to all but excommunicated perſons; which will be hard to find.
Learned, and Reverend Gilleſpy hath obſerved,Eraſt. l. 3. cap. 5 Gilleſpy Aarons rod. p. …51. that this Argument gained ſo much upon Eraſtus, that he reſtricted himſelfe to the admiſſion of ſuch onelyonly to the Sacrament, as acknowledge and confeſſe their ſins, and promiſe amendment, and deſire to uſe the Sacrament rightly with the reſt, ſo far as we are able to judge; which conceſſion (as he ſaith rightly) will goe very far. And I find as much in another place of Eraſtus, Tertium eſt nos de illis ſolis loqui, qui doctrinam intelligunt, probant, amplectuntur, peccata ſua ſe cognoſcere verò ajunt, & Sacrament is ſecundum inſtitutionem Chriſti, cum eccleſiâ uti cupiunt. il …d. Eraſt. confirm. the ſium, in praefat.where hee tels us, that he onelyonly ſpeakes for ſuch ſinners who underſtand, and approve of, and imbrace the doctrine of the Goſpell, who affirme, that they doe truly acknowledge, and abominate their ſins, and deſire to enjoy the Sacraments with the Church, according to Chriſts inſtitution. We deſire but one thing more; for let it but appeare to us, that any doe thus much, and let them be content further, (if their ſin have been ſcandalous) to give us ſome proofe by a better converſation, that this profeſſion is in truth. And none of thoſe I plead for, will ſuſpend him from the Ordinance.
But Erastus his Scholers, are ſomething more looſe then their Maſter; Mr Humfry doth not know what to ſay for ignorant perſons, becauſe of Heb. 5.2. (but the Apoſtle could determine thoſe unworthy, 1 Cor. 11. who diſcerned not the Lords body.) And for the ſcandalous, they muſt be admoniſhed twice or thrice firſt. (Oh how tender the good man is, leſt he ſhould offend Jeſus Chriſt in not giving his blood to one who profanes it by ſwearing by it every day!) Mr Humfry's vindicat. p. 81.But it would be enquired whither Mr Humfry be as carefull to enquire into the ſtate of his flock, and to admoniſh ſcandalous ſinners, as he is to plead for the Lords Supper for thoſe,) be they what they will, who are not firſt admoniſhed twice or thriee. Conſcience is uniforme, and will oblige him ſure, as well to the latter, as the former. I neither know him nor his people, and have no reaſon either to judge them ſcandalous, or him negligent; but it is uſually obſerved, that thoſe who pretend a great deale of tenderneſſe of Conſcience in this point: Oh they durſt not keep any from the Sacrament, except they were excommunicated: (which they know they cannot be as our Church ſtands at preſent) But theſe men durſt be in company with ſcandalous ſinners, and heare, ſweare and ly, and jeor at Godlineſſe, and yet never admoniſh them, (no, there they muſt uſe Chriſtian prudence) admonition is an holy thing muſt not be given to Dogs; but the Sacrament (is none belike) that may. There are two ſorts of men in the world, are very large in their principles, as to admiſſions to this Ordinance.
1. Such as pretend conſcience againſt thoſe Officers in the Church, whom the Scripture cals ruling Elders.
2. Such as profeſſe their judgement for them.
1. Some profeſſe their judgement againſt ruling Elders; as Judges of communicants fitneſſe with the Miniſter. (though Deane Nowell tels them they were Officers in the Primitive Church, uſed to that purpoſe in his Catechiſm. Gr. Lat. of old Edit. as is yet to be ſeen in many Copies, and eſpecially in the Latine Copies of it, in 4to; though ſome have unworthily left it out in the late Edit.) Now, would theſe men themſelves, take upon them the ſtrict inſpection of their flock, and make it their buſineſſe to goe from houſe to houſe, and take account of their peoples knowledge, and ſtrictly to obſerve their lives, and admoniſh them for their miſcarriages, and not admit any notorious ſinners to the Sacrament, before publick ſatisfaction in cauſes of publick ſcandall, either taking upon them themſelves, (according to the old Rubrick) to put them by, or finding ſome other courſe to have them debarred? though my judgement would condemn them as neglecting an Ordinance of Chriſt, yet my charity would beare with them, till they were further convinced.
2 Others profeſſe their judgements to ſtand for Preſbyteries, but they know not how to got any; yet they think they are bound to adminiſter the Ordinance. Would theſe men firſt doe what in them lies, to ſet up the Government of Chriſt in the hands of his proper Officers, and in the meane time: 1. Not onelyonly in the Pulpit exhort, &c. but indeavour to be acquainted with all in their flock, going from houſe to houſe and taking account of their ſpirituall eſtate, and obſerve (and enquire concerning) their converſations; and 3. Paſtorally admoniſh thoſe that they find ignorant of that great ſin of Affected ignorance, and unprofitableneſſe under the meanes of grace, and this not only in the Pulpit generally, but foreign perſonally, and particularly, I could ſay ſomething to excuſe them at leaſt à tanto, for adminiſtring the Ordinance without a Presbytery, and they might have a little plea made for them, though they kept away none, (as the ſtate of our Church ſtands) though for my owne part, I durſt undertake to juſtifie them in withholding the Sacrament, from known ſcandalous ſinners, who after paſtorall admonition, (where no more can be) ſhall yet preſume to intrude.
But I heare Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman cry they muſt be excommunicated firſt, and the latter cry, he knows none ignorant nor ſcandalous, if they were, yet they both agree, that they muſt be juridically excommunicated. But doe theſe tender men ſet up this ſame Court, in which the ſcandalous and ignorant ſhould be firſt judged? or doe they by enquiry of others, or obſervation or examination, firſt endeavour to know ſuch as they invite to the Lords Table, and not adminiſter the Ordinance, till they have done what in them lies, to know whether there be none in their congregations that are ignorant, or excommunicate de jure. For one of them I can ſay ſomething, though nothing, to perſwade me or any other, that it is from a tenderneſſe of conſcience he is ſo free.
I ſhall now ſhut up this firſt Argument, it amounts to thus much.
The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is one of thoſe holy things which our Saviour Chriſt in Mat. 7.6. forbids us to give unto Dogs, or to caſt before Swine. They have the nature of holy things, there is no reaſon to exclude them; Expoſitors generally have ſo judged.
Men of impure lives and converſations, are Dogs and Swine in Scripture phraſe, and ſuch as will trample upon the Ordinance.
It will be an eaſie concluſion. If God hath required thoſe whom he hath betruſted with his holy things, not to give them out to ſuch as his word deſcribes to be Dogs and Swine, then (though there may be ſome in the Church not yet excommunicated) yet they ought not to have the holy thing of the Sacrament given to them. But I have proved this to be the will of Chriſt from this Text —Ergo
If Mr Boatman can finde out a medium betwixt not giving the Sacrament to them, and denying it to them, I ſhall liſten to him, otherwiſe (by his leave) here is a Scripture-prohibition for ſome to be kept away, who are neither Turks nor Jewes, nor Heathens, nor excommunicated perſons, and he needed not have challenged all the Miniſters on the earth, to this task.