View of Some Exceptions to the Practical Catechism, Text
A VIEW OF SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRACTICALL Catechiſme: FROM The Cenſures affixt on them by the Miniſters of London, in a Book ENTITULED, A Teſtimony to the truth of Jeſus Chriſt, &c. BY H. HAMMOND D. D.
LONDON, Printed for Rich: Royſton at the Angel in Ivie-lane.
A view of ſome Exceptions to the Practicall Catechiſme, &c.
SEeing it again appears to me by a book, that came to this town on Saterday laſt, (entituled, A Teſtimony to the truth of Jeſus Chriſt, &c. pretending to be ſubſcribed by 52 Miniſters of Chriſt within the Province of London) that it is Gods good pleaſure to deliver me up to be evil ſpoken of, and accuſed, and to bear a yet deeper part of his bitter cup, then many others of my Brethren have done, I deſire to bleſſe and praiſe his name for this his goodneſſe and mercy to me, and to embrace all thoſe, who have joyn'd their hands to be inſtruments in this, as thoſe whom by Chriſts command (particularly belonging to me on this occaſion) I am bound to love, to bleſſe, to pray for, and not to think of any other way of return toward them. This, I thank God, I can moſt cheerfully doe, and would ſatisfie my ſelf to have done it in private, between God and my own ſoul, were there not another occaſion, which makes it a little neceſſary for me to ſay ſomewhat publickly; and that is the vindication of the truth of Chriſt Jeſus, which they who are willing to give teſtimony to it, will, I hope, take from me in good part.
Theſe men pag. 4. in the beginning of the ſecond branch of their teſtimony, (which it ſeems by pag. 37. the whole number of the 52 Miniſters have ſubſcribed) make mention of unſound opinions, eſpecially abominable errors, damnable hereſies, and horrid blaſphemies, which are broached and maintained here in England among us, under the notion of New lights, and new truths; many of which they have reaſon to judge deſtructive to the very fundamentall truths of Chriſtianity, &c. All of them utterly repugnant to the ſacred Scriptures, the occaſion of much grief of heart to all the friends of truth and piety at home, the ſcandal and offence of all the Reformed Churches abroad, the unparalleld reproach of this Church and Nation, totally inconſiſtent with the Covenant, and the covenanted Reformation, and in a word, the very dregs and ſpawn of thoſe old accurſed hereſies which have been already condemned, &c.
After this preface and expreſſion of their zeale to Gods truth, they conclude the period with a profeſſion, that they more particularly abominate theſe infamous and pernicious errours of late publiſhed among us, and hereafter recited in this enſuing Catalogue, viz. Errours, &c.
In this Catalogue, three particulars there are recited from the Practical Catechiſme of H. Hammond, 2. Edit. London, 1646.
For which premiſes, I ſuppoſe, any Reader will conclude, that thoſe three particulars are by theſe Miniſters thought guilty of all thoſe Charges which they had affixt to All the unſound opinions, &c. noted by them, viz. that they are utterly repugnant to the ſacred Scriptures, &c. and in the modeſteſt of their expreſſions, that they are infamous and pernicious errours.
Upon this ſuppoſition, I hold it my duty by ſetting down theſe three particulars punctually, to referre to all impartiall Chriſtians to judge whether it be a Teſtimony to the truth of Jeſus Chriſt to paſſe ſuch cenſures on them.
The firſt is recited by them, p. 9. and it is this, That Chriſt was given to undergoe a ſhamefull death voluntarily upon the Croſſe, to ſatisfie for the ſin of Adam, and for all the ſins of all mankinde.
This is thus plainly ſet down in their catalogue of infamous and pernicious errors, but without the leaſt note to direct what part of this propoſition is liable to that charge, any farther then may be collected from the title of the Errors under which 'tis placed, viz: Errors touching univerſall or generall redemption. From whence I preſume to diſcern their meaning to be that to affirm Chriſt to have ſatisfied for, or redeemed all mankinde, is this pernicious error by them abominated. And ſuch I confeſſe I ſhould acknowledge it to be, if it had any right to be joyn'd with that other by theſe men ſet under the ſame head [that the damned ſhall be ſaved] but I hope that errour hath received no patronage from that Catechiſm, nor ſure from that aſſertion of Chriſts redeeming all mankind. Theſe two propoſitions being very reconcileable, that Chriſt redeemed all men, and yet that the whole number of the impenitent, unbeleiving, reprobate world ſhall never be ſaved by him. If there were any need of it, I ſhould eaſily ſhew the way of reconciling theſe two, by adding that the great Benefits of Chriſts death, which I affirm to be generall, are given upon condition, not abſolutely (as Gods love to the world, and, the effect of it, given his Son, is not deſigned, that all abſolutely, but that all conditionally, i. e. whoſoever beleiveth in him ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life) & that they which doe not perform that condition (as God knows a great multitude doe not) ſhall never be ſaved by his death: To which purpoſe is that of Proſper, one farre enough from all kindneſs to the Pelagians, Redemptor mundi dedit pro mundo ſanguinem ſuum, & mundus redimi noluit, &c. the Redeemer of the world gave his blood for the world, and the world would not be redeemed. ad Gal: cap. 9. But, to confine my diſcourſe (without conſideration of the conſequences) to the aſſertion it ſelf; I deſire it may be obſervd, that this was not crudely ſet down in that Catechiſm, but with this immediate addition [to taſt death for every man, Heb. 2. 9.] by that plain teſtimony of Scripture confirming the truth of what was aſſerted, as punctually as could be imagined. For ſure [every man] ſignifies all mankind, as that notes ſingulos generis humani, in the largeſt notion of the word, and taſting death for them is ſatisfying for their ſins. If this teſtimony (ſo clear, that it alone hath, to my knowledge, convinc'd one as learned a man as doth in this Church of ours maintain the doctrines contrary to the Remonſtrants) be not thought ſufficient to ſupport this aſſertion, I ſhall then ex abundanti adde theſe other plain teſtimonies; Not onelyonly that of Gods giving his onelyonly ſonne, mentioned by Chriſt as an effect or expreſſion of his love to the world, (which it would not be, if he did not give him for the world, whom he is ſaid to love) but (to prevent all diſtinctions concerning the notion of the world, as if it ſignified, onelyonly the Elect) more particularly theſe two; Firſt that of 2 Pet. 2. 1. where the Lord, i. e. Chriſt, is plainly ſaid to have bought (i. e. paid the price, ſatisfied for) them, who deny him, and bring upon themſelves ſwift deſtruction: to which agrees chat of 1 Cor. 8. 11. where the weak brother, of whom 'tis ſaid, that by another mans ſcandal he ſhall periſh, is deſcribed to be one for whom Chriſt died. The other teſtimony which I ſhall adde, is that of S. Paul, 2 Cor. 5. 14. which I deſire the intelligent Reader to obſerve: Where ſpeaking of the conſtreining obliging love of Chriſt, he ſaith, we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead, that is, ſurely, All in the full latitude, not only the elect but All others; and this concluſion the Apoſtle infers by this medium, becauſe one, i. e. Chriſt died for all, which being a proof of the other, muſt certainly be as true, and as acknowledged (if not more) as that which 'tis brought to prove: and particularly the [all] for whom he died, be as unlimited as the [All] that were prov'd from thence to be dead, or elſe the Apoſtle could not judge (as he ſaith he doth) or conclude the death of all in Adam by that mediū. From this arguing of the Apoſtle I ſhall make no queſtion to infer, that in S. Pauls divinity, Chriſt died for all who are dead in Adam; and on that occaſion I ſhall adde, by the way, that the contrary doctrine [of Chriſts not dying for all] was by the Antients affixt on Pelagius upon that ground, of his affirming that all (i. e. that Infants) were not faln in Adam, and ſo needed not to be redeem'd by Chriſt. Thus is appears by S. Aug: cont. 2. Epiſt. Pelag: l. 2. c. 2. Pelagiani dicunt Deum non eſſe omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, ſalvatorem, liberatorem, &c. and when the Maſſilians, to vindicate themſelves from that charge of S. Auguſtines, confeſſe that Chriſt died for all mankinde, as it appeares by Proſpers Epiſtle) Proſper expreſſes no manner of diſlike of that confeſſion, but formes other charges againſt them. And the truth is, there is ſcarce any antient Writer before Pelagius, but hath directly aſſerted Chriſts dying for all, The teſtimonies of Irenaeus, Clemens, Origen, Macarius, Cyrill of Jeruſalem, Euſebius, Athanaſius, and many others might readily be produced, if that were needfull. And then let it be gueſt alſo, which of the two poſitions, the affirmative or the negative, beſt deſerves the charge of being the ſpawn of thoſe old accurſed hereſies, which have been already condemned, &c. The ſame I could adde from many the learnedſt Proteſtants, which never were thought to be tainted with any antient or modern hereſie (though others I know have expreſt themſelves otherwiſe) but I need not ſuch auxiliaries. To conclude this point, I ſuppoſe in affirming or vindicating this poſition, I have born teſtimony to the truth of Chriſt, from whom, and whoſe Apoſtles I profeſſe to have learn'd this truth, and to conceive it (for the ſenſe of it) as fully teſtified by plain Scriptures, as many Articles of the Creed; and for the expreſſion uſed in the Pract: Catechiſme of [all mankind] I muſt acknowledge to have learn'd it from the Church of England (of which I doe yet with joy profeſſe my ſelf an obedient ſon and member) in thoſe words of her Catechiſme, eſtabliſht by Act of Parliament, and inſerted in the Book of Lyturgie, where I was taught, [to beleive in God the Father, who created me and all the world, In God the Son, who redeemed me and all mankinde, and in God the holy Ghoſt, who ſanctified me and all the elect people of God; where mankinde as it is of a narrower extent on one ſide then all the world of creatures, ſo is it to be underſtood of a larger, then all the elect people of God; and ſo much for the firſt charge.
The ſecond is ſet down pag. 15. and it is this. That neither Paul nor James exclude or ſeparate faithfull actions or acts of faith from faith, or the condition of juſtification, but abſolutely require them, as the only things by which the man is juſtified. What is thus ſet down I acknowledge to be in terminis in the Practical Catechiſme, but cannot eaſily gueſſe wherein the errour or perniciouſneſſe is conceived to lie, unleſſe it ſhould poſſibly be thorow a miſtake of the phraſe [the only things by which the man is juſtified] as if by that ſpeech ſhould be underſtood, either that the faithfull actions or acts of faith without faith it ſelf, were the only things by which we are juſtified, or elſe that all the things there ſpoken of, Faith, and faithfull actions, or acts of faith are the only CAUSE, and ſo ſome CAUSE of our juſtification, or by which, as by a CAUSE, we are juſtified; either of theſe I confeſſe might paſſe for an errour, but both theſe doctrines I have ſufficiently diſclaim'd; and indeed in this very propoſition 'tis affirm'd that the faithfull actions or acts of Faith are not excluded or ſeparated from Faith (which they muſt be if they juſtifie without Faith) or the condition of juſtification (i. e. from that faith which is conſidered as, and affirm'd to be the condition of our juſtification) but by thoſe two Apoſtles abſolutely required, to what? Why to faith, or the condition of our juſtification, as the only things together with it by which as by a condition, and only ſo (as 'tis clearly ſet down all over that part of the Catechiſme, which handles Faith or Juſtification) the man is juſtified. This I ſuppoſe may give theſe men ſome light of their miſtake, if it were ſuch: but if they underſtand the ſpeech as then and now I doe, and yet think it error, and pernicious, I muſt then only prove that what was ſaid from S. James and S. Paul, was not by me falſly impoſed upon them, and then they muſt either maintain my ſpeech, or fall with me in the ſame condemnation. That S. James doth not exclude or ſeparate faithful actions, or acts of Faith, from Faith, or the condition of Juſtification, but require them, (i. e. Faith, and faithfull actions, or acts of faith) as the only things by which, as by a condition, the man is juſtified will be clear by the definition of a condition in Logick, and the plain words of S James; A Condition is a qualification of the ſubject required to make him capable, or a cauſa ſine quâ non; and ſo a condition of juſtification is no more, then that without which a man cannot be juſtified; and that is the direct affirmation of S. James, c. 2. 24. Ye ſee that by works (i. e. faithful actions, or acts of faith) a man is juſtified, and not by faith only: and again, Faith if it have not works, v. 17. and Faith without works, v. 20. is dead, and ſo ſure, not ſuch as by wch we are juſtified. From whence I form this ſyllogiſme, That, without which, in S. James's opinion, we are not juſtified, and by which joyn'd with faith we are juſtified, not by faith only, is not by S. James excluded or ſeparated from Faith, or the condition of our juſtification, but required together with Faith, as the only things by which (as by a condition) the man is juſtified. But without acts of faith or faithfull actions, in S. James's opinion, we are not juſtified, and by them we are juſtified, and not by faith only, Therefore faithfull actions, or acts of Faith are not by S. James excluded or ſeparated from Faith, or the condition of our juſtification, but required together with faith, as the only things by which (as by a condition) the man is juſtified.
The firſt propoſition is clear from the nature of a Condition; the ſecond from the words cited out of S. James, and then I hope the concluſion will neither be errour nor pernitious.
Then for S. Paul 'tis made evident in the Pract: Catechiſm that the faith by which according to his doctrine Abraham was juſtified (and not by works) Rom. 4. was not only a depending on God for the performance of his promiſe (which yet was a faithfull action, or act of Faith, but alſo a reſigning himſelf up wholly to him to obey his precepts; or more clearly, was a Faith, which, howſoever it was tried by promiſes or commands, did anſwer God in Acts of faith, or faithfull actions; and ſo was accepted by God (without abſolute unſinning obedience, much more without obedience to the Moſaicall law, i e. without works) all which is clear in the ſtory of Abraham, and I ſuppoſe need not farther be evidenced. And then concerning S. Pauls part in the buſineſſe, my ſyllogiſme ſhall be this, He that affirms Abraham to be juſtified by that Faith, which, howſoever 'twas tried, did anſwer God in acts of faith or faithfull actions, doth not exclude or ſeparate faithfull actions or acts of faith from faith, or the condition of our juſtification, but abſolutely requires them, &c. But S. Paul affirms Abraham to be juſtified by that faith, which howſoever 'twas tried, did anſwer God in faithfull actions, or acts of faith, Therefore S. Paul doth not exclude or ſeparate faithfull actions, &c. The firſt propoſition I conceive wants little proving, after that which hath been already premiſed in this matter. And for the ſecond I ſhall deſire that Abrahams faith, as it hath juſtification attributed to it by S. Paul, may be viewed both in the 4th to the Rom. and the 11th to the Heb. In the former his faith was tried by the promiſe of a numerous ſeed, &c. and he anſwered that with one act of faith, or faithfull action, beleived in hope, beyond hope, v. 18. was ſtrong in faith and gave glory to God, v. 20. was fully perſwaded, that what God had promiſed, he was able to perform, v. 21. all which what are they but acts of faith, or faithfull actions; all, which (when the object of the faith is Gods abſolute promiſe) the matter is capable of, and for this it was counted to him for righteouſneſſe, or he was juſtified, v. 22. and thence ſure I may conclude, that theſe were ſo required, as the condition by which he was, and without which he ſhould not be juſtified. In the 11th to the Heb. many other acts of his faith or faithfull actions are mentioned, v, 8. By faith he obeyed to goe out of his own country, not knowing whither he went, and v. 9. by faith he ſojourn'd in a ſtrange land, v. 10. by faith he expected a city, that hath foundations, v. 17. by faith he offered his Son, and v. 19. counted that God was able to raiſe him up from the dead, v. 20. by faith he bleſſed Iſaac concerning things to come. What are all theſe but acts of faith, or faithfull actions in all kinds of tryals? And therefore I ſuppoſe all this being out of S. Paul, as the former out of S. James, 'twill be no errour or pernicious from their very words to have affirm'd this doctrine, and affixt it on them. I ſuppoſe alſo this may ſerve for the ſecond propoſition.
The third is ſet down p. 18. from Pract: Catech: p. 120. and Edit. IIꝪ. but p. 136. Edit. VꝪ. An. 1649.'tis this, That [Thou ſhalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain] is undoubtedly no more then [thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf.] To this Charge I anſwer firſt, that it is a little ſtrange, that a bare explication of a phraſe of Scripture, a part of the third Commandement in Exod. though it were acknowledged falſe, or forc'd, ſhould yet be ſo farre improvable by any, as to come under the title of an infamous pernicious errour, a ſpawn of the old accurſed hereſies, &c. and be capable of all thoſe other aggravations at firſt mentioned, which being affixt to all the errours in the Catalogue, muſt alſo be affixt to this which is ſet down for one of them.
But then ſecondly, for the truth, (moſt undoubted certain truth) of this explication, or interpretation, thus cenſured, I have formerly at large made it appear, that the words [to take the name of God] ſignifie to ſwear, and no more, and the Hebrew which we render in vain, ſignifies [falſly] and is ſo rendred in the ninth Commandment, and agreeable to that, Pſal. 15. to lift up the ſoul to vanity, is to ſwear by the ſoul or life falſly, as it there followes, nor ſworn to deceive his neighbour, and beſide my own judgment in this matter, back'd with the conſent of as learned as this age hath, or the Antient Church had any, I conceived that I had a moſt authentick warrant from Chriſt himſelf, who renders it foreign, thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf: For ſo we read Mat. 5. Ye have heard that it was ſaid to them of old, thou ſhalt not kill, and again in the ſame manner, thou ſhalt not commit adultery, that is, that of the ten Commandments delivered in Sinai, and brought down by Scripture, to them his preſent auditors, one Commandment was, thou ſhalt not kill, another, thou ſhalt not commit adultery, and ſo again in the very ſame form of words, another, Thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf, from which I did aſſure my ſelf (and ſo ſtill doe) that foreign, is as directly the interpretation (in Chriſts judgment) of the firſt part of the third Commandment, as foreign, or foreign of the ſeventh and ſixth, and ſo that it is undoubtedly no more the one then the other. And indeed this was the only occaſion of delivering thoſe words in the Practical Catech: to ſhew that Chriſt did not miſreport the words of the Commandements, nor yet referre to any other place but that Commandment in thoſe words of his. And though I have many other things, that I could ſay to that matter, able to free that ſpeech from all imaginable inconveniences (eſpecially when in that place Chriſts prohibition is explain'd to be againſt all kind of ſwearing (by any other as well as by God) in ordinary converſation, or in any caſe but wherein it is neceſſary to confirm by oath) yet I am very willing to leave the matter here, upon this account at this time given of it, …. e. in my opinion on Chriſts ſcore, and not fear what any ingenuous Reader will charge on me for this interpretation.
I beſeech God to forgive them which have brought this unneceſſary trouble upon the Reader; and for my ſelf I have to them theſe two only requeſts, 1. That they will examine themſelves ſincerely, and as in Gods ſight, what the motive or deſign was, which perſwaded them to ſingle out me alone (who profeſſe my ſelf, and am by all that know me acknowledged to hold nothing contrary to the Church of England, and will juſtifie it to any man that knows what the Church of England is) and joyn me with the Broachers of all the blaſphemies and hereſies of this age: And 2ly, that they will lay to heart the conſequences which may naturally flow from hence, if God doe not uphold weak Chriſtians, who ſeeing ſo many doctrines of very diſtant natures blended together, with the ſame brand of [hereſie and blaſphemy, infamous and pernicious] faſtned on them, and no kind of proofs annext, that any are ſuch (beſide the judgment of the Cenſors) may poſſibly find ſome of them to be the infallible truths of God, and be tempted (if they have not ſtronger antidotes then this bare Teſtimony will afford them) to have the ſame thoughts of the other alſo; Or if not, whether they will not be inclined to have the ſame ſeverity and condemnation for me, or any other Aſſerter of ſuch propoſitions as theſe, as they are taught to have for the Authors of thoſe other blaſphemous propoſitions, and ſo be tempted to uncharitableneſſe.
Having ſaid thus much, I ſhall hope it may find ſome good ſucceſſe among ſome who have ſubſcribed that Teſtimony: But if I am miſtaken in all of them, I ſhall then deſire that this improſperous Paper may gain me but thus much, that either the firſt ſubſcriber Mr John Downam (who did Licenſe the Printing of this very Book, from whence all theſe pretended Errours are cited) or elſe Dr Gouge, or Mr Gataker, who are foremoſt of the ſecond rank, or ſome other perſon of learning and Chriſtian temper will afford me their patience perſonally, and by fair Diſcourſe, or any other Chriſtian way, to debate the truth of our pretenſions; And for this I ſhall wait their leiſure.
From my ſtudy, Chriſt-Ch: in Oxon. Jan. 24. Munday. H. HAMMOND.
THE END.
End of the text · Henry Hammond, View of Some Exceptions to the Practical Catechism (1650)