A VIEW OF SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE practical catechism: FROM The Censures affixed on them by the Ministers of London, in a Book entitled, A Testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, &c. BY H. HAMMOND D. D.  
LONDON, Printed for Rich: Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane.   

A view of some Exceptions to the practical catechism, &c.  
SEeing it again appears to me by a book, that came to this town on Saturday last, (Entitled, 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 God's good pleasure to deliver me up to be evil spoken of, and accused, and to bear a yet deeper part of his bitter cup, than many others of my Brethren have done, I desire to bless and praise his name for this his goodness and mercy to me, and to embrace all those, who have joined their hands to be instruments in this, as those whom by Christ's command (particularly belonging to me on this occasion) I am bound to love, to bless, to pray for, and not to think of any other way of return toward them. This, I thank God, I can most cheerfully do, and would satisfy myself 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 publicly; 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 fundamental 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 unparalleled 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 zeal to God's truth, they conclude the period with a profession, that they more particularly abominate these infamous and pernicious errors of late published among us, and hereafter recited in this ensuing Catalogue, viz. errors, &c.  
In this Catalogue, three particulars there are recited from the Practical catechism 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 affixed 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 errors.  
Upon this supposition, I hold it my duty by setting down these three particulars punctually, to refer to all impartial Christians to judge whether it be a Testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ to pass such censures on them.  
The first is recited by them, p. 9 and it is this, That Christ was given to undergo a shameful death voluntarily upon the cross, to satisfy for the sin of Adam, and for all the sins of all mankind.  
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 than may be collected from the title of the Errors under which 'tis placed, viz: Errors touching universal or general redemption. From whence I presume to discern their meaning to be that to affirm Christ to have satisfied for, or redeemed all mankind, is this pernicious error by them abominated. And such I confess I should acknowledge it to be, if it had any right to be joined with that other by these men set under the same head [that the damned shall be saved] but I hope that error hath received no patronage from that Catechism, nor sure from that assertion of Christ's redeeming all mankind. These two propositions being very reconcilable, 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 show the way of reconciling these two, by adding that the great Benefits of Christ's death, which I affirm to be general, are given upon condition, not absolutely (as God's 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 do not perform that condition (as God knows a great multitude do not) shall never be saved by his death: To which purpose is that of Prosper, one far 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 itself; I desire it may be observed, that this was not crudely set down in that Catechism, but with this immediate addition [to taste 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, convinced 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 add these other plain testimonies; Not only that of God's giving his only son, 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, only 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 man's scandal he shall perish, is described to be one for whom Christ died. The other testimony which I shall add, 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 proved 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 medium. From this arguing of the Apostle I shall make no question to infer, that in S. Paul's divinity, Christ died for all who are dead in Adam; and on that occasion I shall add, by the way, that the contrary doctrine [of Christ's not dying for all] was by the ancients affixed on Pelagius upon that ground, of his affirming that all (i. e. that Infants) were not fallen in Adam, and so needed not to be redeemed 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. Augustine's, confess that Christ died for all mankind, as it appears by Prospers Epistle) Prosper expresses no manner of dislike of that confession, but forms other charges against them. And the truth is, there is scarce any ancient Writer before Pelagius, but hath directly asserted Christ's 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 needful. 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 add from many the learnedst Protestants, which never were thought to be tainted with any ancient or modern heresy (though others I know have expressed 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 profess to have learned 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: catechism of [all mankind] I must acknowledge to have learned it from the Church of England (of which I do yet with joy profess myself an obedient son and member) in those words of her catechism, established by Act of Parliament, and inserted in the Book of liturgy, where I was taught, [to believe in God the Father, who created me and all the world, In God the Son, who redeemed me and all mankind, and in God the holy Ghost, who sanctified me and all the elect people of God; where mankind 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, than 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 faithful 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 catechism, but cannot easily guess wherein the error or perniciousness is conceived to lie, unless it should possibly be thorough 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 faithful actions or acts of faith without faith itself, were the only things by which we are justified, or else that all the things there spoken of, Faith, and faithful 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 confess might pass for an error, but both these doctrines I have sufficiently disclaimed; and indeed in this very proposition 'tis affirmed that the faithful actions or acts of Faith are not excluded or separated from Faith (which they must be if they justify without Faith) or the condition of justification (i. e. from that faith which is considered as, and affirmed 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 catechism, 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 do, 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 falsely 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 faithful 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 logic, 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 which we are justified. From whence I form this syllogism, That, without which, in S. James' opinion, we are not justified, and by which joined 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 faithful actions, in S. James' opinion, we are not justified, and by them we are justified, and not by faith only, Therefore faithful 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 error nor pernicious.  
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 faithful 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 faithful actions; and so was accepted by God (without absolute unsinning obedience, much more without obedience to the Mosaical 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. Paul's part in the business, my syllogism 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 faithful actions, doth not exclude or separate faithful 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 faithful actions, or acts of faith, Therefore S. Paul doth not exclude or separate faithful 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 Abraham's 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 faithful action, believed in hope, beyond hope, v. 18. was strong in faith and gave glory to God, v. 20. was fully persuaded, that what God had promised, he was able to perform, v. 21. all which what are they but acts of faith, or faithful actions; all, which (when the object of the faith is God's absolute promise) the matter is capable of, and for this it was counted to him for righteousness, 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 faithful actions are mentioned, v, 8. By faith he obeyed to go out of his own country, not knowing whither he went, and v. 9 by faith he sojourned 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 faithful actions in all kinds of trials? And therefore I suppose all this being out of S. Paul, as the former out of S. James, 'twill be no error or pernicious from their very words to have affirmed this doctrine, and affixed 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. Jiꝫ. 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 than [thou shalt not forswear thyself.] 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 commandment in Exod. though it were acknowledged false, or forced, should yet be so far improvable by any, as to come under the title of an infamous pernicious error, a spawn of the old accursed heresies, &c. and be capable of all those other aggravations at first mentioned, which being affixed to all the errors in the Catalogue, must also be affixed to this which is set down for one of them.  
But than 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] signify to swear, and no more, and the Hebrew which we render in vain, signifies [falsely] and is so rendered 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 falsely, as it there follows, nor sworn to deceive his neighbour, and beside my own judgement in this matter, backed with the consent of as learned as this age hath, or the ancient Church had any, I conceived that I had a most authentic warrant from Christ himself, who renders it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, thou shalt not forswear thyself: 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 thyself, from which I did assure myself (and so still do) that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is as directly the interpretation (in Christ's judgement) of the first part of the third Commandment, as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the seventh and sixth, and so that it is undoubtedly no more the one than the other. And indeed this was the only occasion of delivering those words in the Practical Catech: to show that Christ did not misreport the words of the commandments, nor yet refer 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 Christ's prohibition is explained 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 Christ's 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 myself I have to them these two only requests, 1. That they will examine themselves sincerely, and as in God's sight, what the motive or design was, which persuaded them to single out me alone (who profess myself, and am by all that know me acknowledged to hold nothing contrary to the Church of England, and will justify it to any man that knows what the Church of England is) and join 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 do not uphold weak Christians, who seeing so many doctrines of very distant natures blended together, with the same brand of [heresy and blasphemy, infamous and pernicious] fastened on them, and no kind of proofs annexed, that any are such (beside the judgement 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 than 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 uncharitableness.  
Having said thus much, I shall hope it may find some good success 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 licence the Printing of this very Book, from whence all these pretended errors 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. Monday. H. HAMMOND.  
THE END.