<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2009-01-12</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Emma Leeson Huber</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Corrected 0 illegibles of 6. Converted 6 illegibles To GAP DESC="illegible RESP="oxf".</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A87010">
<STC T="W">H518</STC>
<STC T="T">E424_9</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99862768</BIBNO>
<VID>114944</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A BRIEF VINDICATION OF THREE PASSAGES <HI>IN THE</HI> PRACTICAL CATECHISME, FROM The Cen&s;ures affixt on them by the <HI>Mini&s;ters</HI> of <HI>London,</HI> in a Book <HI>ENTITLED, A Te&s;timony to the truth of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, &amp;c.</HI> By <HI>H. Hammond</HI> D. D.</P>
<P>LONDON. Printed for RICHARD ROYSTON in <HI>Ivy-lane,</HI> 1648.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>A VINDICATION OF THE PRACTICAL CATECHISME.</HEAD>
<P>_SEeing it again appears to me by a <HI>book,</HI> that came to this town on Saturday la&s;t, (en|titled, <HI>A Te&s;timony to the truth of Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. pretending to be &s;ub&s;cribed by 52 <HI>Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t within the Pro|vince of London</HI>) that it is Gods good plea&s;ure to deliver me up to be evill &s;poken of, and ac|cu&s;ed, and to bear a yet deeper part of his bitter cup, then many others of my Brethren have done, I de&s;ire to ble&s;s and prai&s;e his name for this his goodnes and mercy to me, and to embrace all tho&s;e, who have joyn'd their hands to be in&s;truments in this, as tho&s;e whom by <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> command (particularly belonging to me on this occa&s;i|on) I am bound <HI>to love, to ble&s;&s;e, to pray for,</HI> and not to think of any other way of return toward them. This, I
<PB N="2" REF="3">
thank God, I can mo&s;t cheerfully do, and would &s;atisfie my &s;elf to have done it in private, between <HI>God</HI> and my own &s;oul, were there not another occa&s;ion, which makes it a little nece&s;&s;ary for me to &s;ay &s;omewhat publickly; and that is the vindication of the <HI>truth of Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> which they, who are willing to give <HI>te&s;timony</HI> to it, will, I hope, take from me in good part.</P>
<P>The&s;e men <HI>p.</HI> 4. in the beginning of the &s;econd branch of their te&s;timony, (which it &s;eems by <HI>p.</HI> 37. the whole number of the 52 Mini&s;ters have &s;ub&s;cribed) make men|tion of <HI>un&s;ound opinions, e&s;pecially abominable errours, damnable here&s;ies, and horrid bla&s;phemies, which are broa|ched and maintained here in</HI> England <HI>among us, under the notion of</HI> New lights, <HI>and new truths; many of which they have rea&s;on to judge de&s;tructive to the very fundamental truths of Chri&s;tianity,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>All of them utterly repugnant to the &s;acred Scriptures, the occa&s;ion of much grief of heart to all the friends of truth and piety at home, the &s;candal and offence of all the Reformed Churches abroad, the unparalleld reproach of this Church and Nation, totally incon&s;i&s;tent with the Covenant, and the covenanted Reformation, and in a word, the very dregs and &s;pawn of tho&s;e old accur&s;ed here|&s;ies which have been already condemned,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>After this preface and expre&s;&s;ion of their zeal to Gods truth, they conclude the period with a profe&s;&s;ion, that they <HI>more particularly abominate the&s;e infamous and per|nicious errours of late publi&s;hed among us, and hereafter recited in this en&s;uing Catalogue,</HI> viz. <HI>Errours, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>In this Catalogue, three particulars there are recited from the <HI>Practical Catechi&s;me of H. Hammond,</HI> 2. Edit. <HI>London,</HI> 1646.</P>
<P>From which premi&s;es, I &s;uppo&s;e, any Reader will con|clude,
<PB N="3" REF="3">
that tho&s;e three particulars are by the&s;e Mini&s;ters thought guilty of all tho&s;e Charges which they had af|fixt to <HI>All</HI> the un&s;ound opinions, &amp;c. noted by them, <HI>viz.</HI> that they are <HI>utterly repugnant to the &s;acred Scrip|tures, &amp;c.</HI> and in the mode&s;te&s;t of their expre&s;&s;ions, that they are <HI>infamous and pernicious errours.</HI></P>
<P>Upon this &s;uppo&s;ition, I hold it my duty by &s;etting down the&s;e three particulars punctually, to refer it to all impartial Chri&s;tians to judge whether it be <HI>a Te&s;timony to the truth of Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> to pa&s;&s;e &s;uch cen&s;ures on them.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t is recited by them, <HI>p.</HI> 9. and it is this, That <HI>Chri&s;t was given to undergo a &s;hameful death voluntarily upon the Cro&s;&s;e, to &s;atisfie for the &s;in of</HI> Adam, <HI>and for all the &s;ins of all mankind.</HI></P>
<P>This is thus plainly &s;et down in their catalogue of <HI>infa|mous &amp; pernicious errors,</HI> but without the lea&s;t note to di|rect what part of this propo&s;ition is liable to that charge, any farther then may be collected from the title of the <HI>Errours</HI> under which 'tis placed, viz: <HI>Errours touching u|niver&s;al or general redemption.</HI> From whence I pre&s;ume to di&s;cern their meaning to be, that to affirm Chri&s;t to have <HI>&s;atisfied for,</HI> or <HI>redeemed all mankind,</HI> is this <HI>perniti|ous errour</HI> by them <HI>abominated.</HI> And &s;uch I confe&s;&s;e I &s;hould acknowledge it to be, if it had any right to be joyn'd with that other by the&s;e men &s;et under the &s;ame head <HI>[that the damned &s;hall be &s;aved]</HI> but I hope that er|ror hath received no patronage from that <HI>Catechi&s;m,</HI> nor &s;ure from that a&s;&s;ertion of <HI>Chri&s;ts redeeming all mankind.</HI> The&s;e two propo&s;itions being very reconcileable, that <HI>Chri&s;t redeemed all men,</HI> and yet that the whole number of the impenitent, unbelieving, reprobate world &s;hall
<PB N="4" REF="4">
never be <HI>&s;aved</HI> by him. If there were any need of it, I &s;hould ea&s;ily &s;hew the way of reconciling the&s;e two, by adding that the great Benefits of <HI>Chri&s;ts Death,</HI> which I affirm to be general, are given upon <HI>condition,</HI> not <HI>ab&s;o|lutely</HI> (as <HI>Gods love</HI> to the <HI>world,</HI> &amp;, the effect of it, <HI>giving his Son,</HI> is not de&s;igned, that all <HI>ab&s;olutely,</HI> but that all <HI>conditionally,</HI> i. e. <HI>who&s;oever believeth in him, &s;hould not peri&s;h, but have everla&s;ting life</HI>) and that they which do not perform that <HI>condition</HI> (as God knows a great mul|titude doe not) &s;hall never be <HI>&s;aved</HI> by his <HI>death:</HI> To which purpo&s;e is that of <HI>Pro&s;per,</HI> one far enough from all kindne&s;&s;e to the <HI>Pelagians, Redemptor mundi dedit pro mundo &s;anguinem &s;uum, &amp; mundus redimi noluit,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>the Redeemer of the world gave his bloud for the world, and the world would not be redeemed. ad Gall: cap.</HI> 9. But, to confine my di&s;cour&s;e (without con&s;ideration of the <HI>con|&s;equences</HI>) to the a&s;&s;ertion it &s;elf; I de&s;ire it may be ob|&s;erv'd, that this was not crudely &s;et down in that <HI>Cate|chi&s;me,</HI> but with this immediate addition [<HI>to ta&s;t death for every man, Heb.</HI> 2.9.] by that plain te&s;timony of Scripture confirming the truth of what was a&s;&s;erted, as punctually as could be imagined. For &s;ure <HI>[every man]</HI> &s;ignifies all mankind, as that notes <HI>&s;ingulos generis hu|mani,</HI> in the large&s;t notion of the word, and <HI>ta&s;ting death for</HI> them is &s;atisfying for their &s;ins. If this te&s;timony (&s;o 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 <HI>Remon&s;trants</HI>) be not thought &s;ufficient to &s;upport this a&s;&s;ertion, I &s;hall then <HI>ex abundanti</HI> adde the&s;e other plain te&s;timonies; Not only that of <HI>Gods giving his only Son,</HI> mention'd by <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as an effect or expre&s;&s;ion of his <HI>love to the world,</HI>
<PB N="5" REF="4">
(which it would not be, if he did not give him for the <HI>world,</HI> whom he is &s;aid to <HI>love</HI>) but (to prevent all di&s;tin|ctions concerning the notion of the world, as if it &s;igni|fied, only the Elect) more particularly the&s;e two; Fir&s;t that of 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.1. where <HI>the Lord,</HI> i. e. <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is plainly &s;aid to have <HI>bought</HI> (i.e. paid the price, &s;atisfied for) <HI>them, who deny him, and bring upon them&s;elves &s;wift de&s;truction:</HI> to which agrees that of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.11. where the <HI>weake brother,</HI> of whom 'tis &s;aid, that by another mans &s;candal he <HI>&s;hal peri&s;h,</HI> is de&s;cribed to be one <HI>for whom Chri&s;t died.</HI> The other te&s;timony which I &s;hall adde, is that of S. <HI>Paul,</HI> 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.14. which I de&s;ire the intelligent Reader to ob|&s;erve: Where &s;peaking of the <HI>con&s;treining</HI> obliging <HI>love of Chri&s;t,</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead,</HI> that is, &s;urely, <HI>All</HI> in the full latitude, not only the <HI>elect</HI> but <HI>All</HI> others; and this conclu&s;ion the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> inferrs by this <HI>medium,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>one,</HI> i.e. <HI>Chri&s;t died for all,</HI> which being a proof of the other, mu&s;t certainly be as true, and as acknowledged (if not more) as that which 'tis brought to prove; and particularly the <HI>[all]</HI> for whom he <HI>died,</HI> be as unlimited as the <HI>[all]</HI> that were prov'd from thence to be <HI>dead,</HI> or el&s;e the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> could not <HI>judge</HI> (as he &s;aith he doth) or conclude the <HI>death</HI> of <HI>all</HI> in <HI>Adam</HI> by that <HI>medium.</HI> From this arguing of the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> I &s;hall make no que&s;tion to infer, that in S. <HI>Pauls</HI> divinity, <HI>Chri&s;t died for all who are dead in Adam;</HI> and on that occa&s;ion I &s;hall adde, by the way, that the contra|ry doctrine [of <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> not dying for all] was by the <HI>An|tients</HI> affixt on <HI>Pelagius</HI> upon that ground, of his affir|ming that all (i. e. that Infants) were not faln in <HI>Adam,</HI> and &s;o needed not to be redeem'd by Chri&s;t. Thus it appears by <HI>S. Augu&s;t: cont.</HI> 2. <HI>Epi&s;t. Pelag: l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>Pela|giani
<PB N="6" REF="5">
dicunt Deum non e&s;&s;e omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, &s;alvatorem, liberatorem, &amp;c.</HI> and when the <HI>Ma&s;silians,</HI> to vindicate them&s;elves from that charge of S. <HI>Augu&s;tines,</HI> confe&s;&s;e that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> died <HI>for all mankind,</HI> (as it appears by <HI>Pro&s;pers Epi&s;tle</HI>) <HI>Pro&s;per</HI> expre&s;&s;es no manner of di&s;like of that confe&s;&s;ion, but forms other charges again&s;t them. And the truth is, there is &s;carce any antient writer before <HI>Pelagius,</HI> but hath directly a&s;|&s;erted <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> dying for all, The te&s;timonies of <HI>Irenaeus, Clemens, Origen, Macarius, Cyril of Jeru&s;alem, Eu&s;ebius, Athana&s;ius,</HI> and many others might readily be produced, if that were needful. And then let it be gue&s;t al&s;o, which of the two po&s;itions, the affirmative or the negative, be&s;t de&s;erves the charge of being the <HI>&s;pawn of tho&s;e old accur|&s;ed here&s;ies, which have been already condemned, &amp;c.</HI> The &s;ame I could adde from many the learned&s;t <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> which never were thought to be tainted with any antient or modern here&s;ie (though others I know have expre&s;t them&s;elves otherwi&s;e) but I need not &s;uch auxiliaries. To conclude this point, I &s;uppo&s;e in affirming or vindi|cating this po&s;ition, I have born <HI>te&s;timony</HI> to the <HI>truth of Chri&s;t,</HI> from whom, and who&s;e Apo&s;tles I profe&s;&s;e to have learn'd this truth, and to conceive it (for the &s;en&s;e of it) as fully te&s;tified by plain Scriptures, as many Articles of the Creed; and for the expre&s;&s;ion u&s;ed in the <HI>Pract: Catechi&s;me</HI> of <HI>[all mankind]</HI> I mu&s;t acknowledge to have learn'd it from the Church of <HI>England</HI> (of which I do yet with joy profe&s;&s;e my &s;elf an obedient &s;on and member) in tho&s;e words of her <HI>Catechi&s;me,</HI> e&s;tabli&s;ht by <HI>Act of Parliament,</HI> and in&s;erted in the Book of <HI>Liturgy,</HI> where I was taught, [<HI>to believe in God the Father, who created me and all the world, In God the Son, who redeemed
<PB N="7" REF="5">
me and all mankind, and in God the Holy Gho&s;t, who &s;ancti|fied me and all the elect people of God;</HI> where <HI>mankind</HI> as it is of a <HI>narrower</HI> extent on one &s;ide then all the world of creatures, &s;o is it to be under&s;tood of a <HI>larger,</HI> then <HI>all the elect people of God;</HI> and &s;o much for the fir&s;t charge.</P>
<P>The &s;econd is &s;et down <HI>p.</HI> 15. and it is this, <HI>That neither Paul nor James exclude or &s;eparate faithful actions or acts of faith from faith, or the condition of ju&s;tification, but ab|&s;olutely require them, as the only things by which the man is ju&s;tified.</HI> What is thus &s;et down I acknowledge to be <HI>in terminis</HI> in the <HI>practical Catechi&s;me,</HI> but cannot ea&s;ily gue&s;&s;e wherein the error or perniciou&s;ne&s;&s;e is conceived to lie, unle&s;&s;e it &s;hould po&s;&s;ibly be thorow a mi&s;take of the phra&s;e <HI>[the only things by which the man is ju&s;tified]</HI> as if by that &s;peech &s;hould be under&s;tood, either that the <HI>faithful actions or acts of faith without faith it &s;elf,</HI> were the <HI>only things by which we are ju&s;tified,</HI> or el&s;e that all the things there &s;poken of, <HI>Faith,</HI> and <HI>faithful actions,</HI> or <HI>acts of faith</HI> are the only CAUSE, and &s;o &s;ome CAUSE of our <HI>ju&s;tification,</HI> or by which, as by a CAUSE, we are ju&s;ti|fied; either of the&s;e I confe&s;&s;e might pa&s;&s;e for an error, but both the&s;e doctrines I have &s;ufficiently di&s;claim'd; and indeed in this very propo&s;ition 'tis affirm'd that the <HI>faithful actions or acts of Faith are not excluded or &s;epara|ted from Faith</HI> (which they mu&s;t be if they ju&s;tifie with|out <HI>Faith</HI>) <HI>or the condition of ju&s;tification</HI> (<HI>i. e.</HI> from that faith which is con&s;idered as, and affirm'd to be the <HI>condi|tion</HI> of our ju&s;tification) but <HI>by tho&s;e two Apo&s;tles ab&s;olutely required,</HI> to what? why <HI>to faith, or the condition of our ju&s;ti|cation, as the only things</HI> together with it by which as by a <HI>condition,</HI> and only &s;o (as 'tis clearly &s;et down all over that part of the Catechi&s;me, which handles <HI>faith</HI> or <HI>ju&s;|tification</HI>)
<PB N="6" REF="6">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="7" REF="6">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="8" REF="7">
the man is <HI>ju&s;tified.</HI> This I &s;uppo&s;e may give the&s;e men &s;ome light of their mi&s;take, if it were &s;uch: but if they under&s;tand the &s;peech as then and now I do, and yet think it error, and pernicious, I mu&s;t then only prove that what was &s;aid from S. <HI>James</HI> and S. <HI>Paul,</HI> was not by me fal&s;ly impo&s;ed upon them, and then they mu&s;t either maintain my &s;peech, or fall with me in the &s;ame condemnation. That S. <HI>James</HI> doth not <HI>exclude or &s;e|parate faithful actions, or acts of Faith, from Faith, or the condition of ju&s;tification, but require them,</HI> (<HI>i.e.</HI> Faith, and faithful actions, or acts of faith) <HI>as the only things by which, as by a condition, the man is ju&s;tified,</HI> will be clear by the definition of a <HI>condition</HI> in <HI>Logick,</HI> and the plain words of S. <HI>James;</HI> A <HI>Condition</HI> is a qualification of the &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">bject required to make him capable, or a <HI>cau&s;a &s;ine qu&acirc; non;</HI> and &s;o a condition of ju&s;tification is no more, then that without which a man cannot be ju&s;tified; and that as the direct affirmation of S. <HI>James, c.</HI> 2.24. <HI>Ye &s;ee that by works</HI> (<HI>i. e.</HI> faithful actions, or acts of faith) <HI>a man is ju&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">fied, and not by faith only:</HI> and again, <HI>Faith if it have not works,</HI> v. 17. and <HI>Faith without works,</HI> v. 20. <HI>is dead,</HI> and &s;o, &s;ure, not &s;uch as by which we are ju&s;tified. From whence I form this <HI>&s;yllogi&s;me, That, without which, in S. James's opinion, we are not ju&s;tified, and by which joyn'd with faith we are ju&s;tified, not by faith only, is not by S. James excluded or &s;eparated from Faith or the condition of our ju&s;tification, but required together with Faith, as the only things by which</HI> (as by a condition <HI>the man is ju&s;tified;</HI> But <HI>without acts of faith or faithful actions, in S. James's <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="3 letters">mon, we are not ju&s;tified, and by them we are ju&s;tified, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> by faith only,</HI> Therefore <HI>faithful actions, or acts of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="3 letters">th are not by St. James excluded or &s;eparated from
<PB N="9" REF="7">
Faith, or the condition of our ju&s;tification, but required to|gether with faith, as the only things by which</HI> (as by a con|dition) the <HI>man is ju&s;tified.</HI></P>
<P>The fir&s;t propo&s;ition is clear from the nature of a <HI>con|dition;</HI> the &s;econd from the words cited out of S. <HI>James,</HI> and then I hope the conclu&s;ion will neither be <HI>error</HI> nor <HI>pernitious.</HI></P>
<P>Then for S. <HI>Paul</HI> 'tis made evident in the <HI>Pract: Cate|ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;me</HI> that the faith by which according to his doctrine <HI>Abraham</HI> was ju&s;tified (and not by works) <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. was not only a depending on God for the performance of his promi&s;e (which yet was a <HI>faithful action,</HI> or <HI>act of Faith</HI>) but al&s;o a re&s;igning him&s;elf up wholly to him to obey his precepts; or more clearly, was a <HI>Faith,</HI> which, how&s;oever it was tried by promi&s;es or commands, did an&s;wer <HI>God</HI> in <HI>Acts of faith,</HI> or <HI>faithful actions;</HI> and &s;o was accepted by God (without ab&s;olute un&s;inning obe|dience, much more without obedience to the <HI>Mo&s;aical</HI> law, <HI>i. e.</HI> without <HI>works</HI>) all which is clear in the &s;tory of <HI>Abraham,</HI> and I &s;uppo&s;e need not farther be evidenced. And then concerning S. <HI>Pauls</HI> part in the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, my &s;yllogi&s;me &s;hall be this, <HI>He that affirms Abraham to be ju&s;tified by that Faith, which, how&s;oever 'twas tried, did an&s;wer God in acts of faith or faithful actions, doth not exclude or &s;eparate Faithful actions or acts of faith from faith, or the condition of our ju&s;tification, but ab&s;olutely requires them, &amp;c.</HI> But S. <HI>Paul affirms Abraham to be ju|&s;tified by that Faith, which how&s;oever 'twas tried, did an|&s;wer God in faithful actions, or acts of faith,</HI> Therefore <HI>S. Paul doth not exclude or &s;eparate faithful actions, &amp;c.</HI> The fir&s;t propo&s;ition I conceive wants little proving, af|ter that which hath been already premis'd in this matter.
<PB N="10" REF="8">
And for the &s;econd I &s;hall de&s;ire that <HI>Abrahams faith,</HI> as it hath ju&s;tification attributed to it by Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> may be viewed both in the 4 to the <HI>Rom.</HI> and the 11 to the <HI>Heb.</HI> In the former his <HI>faith</HI> was tried by the promi&s;e of a nu|merous &s;eed, &amp;c. and he an&s;wered that with one <HI>act of faith,</HI> or <HI>faithful action, believed in hope, beyond hope,</HI> v. 18. was <HI>&s;trong in Faith,</HI> and <HI>gave glory to God,</HI> v. 20. was <HI>fully per&s;waded, that what God had promi&s;ed, he was able to perform,</HI> v. 21. all which what are they but <HI>acts of faith, or faithful actions;</HI> all, which (when the object of the <HI>faith</HI> is Gods ab&s;olute promi&s;e) the matter is capable of, and for this it <HI>was counted to him for righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e,</HI> or he was ju&s;tified, <HI>ver.</HI> 22. and thence &s;ure I may con|clude, that the&s;e were &s;o required, as the <HI>condition</HI> by which he was, and without which he &s;hould not be ju&s;ti|fied. In the 11 to the <HI>Heb.</HI> many other <HI>acts</HI> of his <HI>faith,</HI> or <HI>faithful actions</HI> are mentioned; v. 8. <HI>by faith he obeyed to go out of his own Country, not knowing whither he went,</HI> and v. 9. <HI>by faith he &s;ojourn'd in a &s;trange land,</HI> v. 10. <HI>by faith he expected a city, that hath foundations,</HI> v. 17. <HI>by faith he offer'd his Son,</HI> and v. 19. <HI>counted that God was able to rai&s;e him up from the dead,</HI> v. 20. <HI>by faith he ble&s;&s;ed I&s;aac concerning things to come.</HI> What are all the&s;e but acts of faith, or faithful actions in all kinds of tryals? And therefore I &s;uppo&s;e all this being out of Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> as the former out of Saint <HI>James,</HI> 'twill be no error or pernitious from their very words to have affirm'd this doctrine, and affixt it on them. I &s;uppo&s;e al&s;o this may &s;erve for the &s;econd propo&s;ition.</P>
<P>The third is &s;et down <HI>p.</HI> 18. from <HI>Pract. Catech. p.</HI> 120. and tis this, That <HI>[thou &s;halt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain] is undoubtedly no more then [thou &s;halt
<PB N="11" REF="8">
not for&s;wear thy &s;elf.]</HI> To this Charge I an&s;wer fir&s;t, that it is a little &s;trange, that a bare explication of a phra&s;e of Scripture, a part of the third Commandement in <HI>Exod.</HI> though it were acknowledged fal&s;e, or forc'd, &s;hould yet be &s;o far improvable by any, as to come under the title of an <HI>infamous pernicious error,</HI> a <HI>&s;pawn of the old accur|&s;ed here&s;ies, &amp;c.</HI> and be capable of all tho&s;e other aggra|vations at fir&s;t mention'd, which being affixt to all the errors in the Catalogue, mu&s;t al&s;o be affixt to this which is &s;et down for one of them.</P>
<P>But then &s;econdly, for the truth, (mo&s;t undoubted certain truth) of this explication, or interpretation thus cen&s;ured, I have formerly at large made it appear, that the words <HI>[to take the name of God]</HI> &s;ignifie to <HI>&s;wear,</HI> and no more, and the <HI>Hebrew</HI> which we render <HI>in vain,</HI> &s;ig|nifies <HI>[fal&s;ly]</HI> and is &s;o rendred in the ninth Commande|ment, and agreeable to that, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 15. <HI>to lift up the &s;oul to vanity,</HI> is to &s;wear by the &s;oul or life <HI>fal&s;ly,</HI> as it there fol|lows, <HI>nor &s;worn to deceive his neighbour,</HI> and be&s;ide my own judgement in this matter, back'd with the con&s;ent of as learned as this age hath, or the Antient Church had any, I conceiv'd that I had a mo&s;t authentick war|rant from <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf, who renders it <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>thou &s;halt not for&s;wear thy &s;elf:</HI> For &s;o we read <HI>Mat.</HI> 5. <HI>ye have heard that it was &s;aid to them of old, thou &s;halt not kill,</HI> and again in the &s;ame manner, <HI>thou &s;halt not commit adultery,</HI> that is, That of the 10 Commandements deli|vered in <HI>Sinai,</HI> and brought down by Scripture, to them his pre&s;ent auditors, one Commandement was, <HI>thou &s;halt not kill,</HI> another, <HI>thou &s;halt not commit adultery,</HI> and &s;o again in the very &s;ame form of words, another, <HI>Thou &s;halt not for&s;wear thy &s;elf,</HI> From which I did a&s;&s;ure my
<PB N="12" REF="9">
&s;elf (and &s;o &s;til do) that <GAP DESC="foreign">, is as directly the in|terpretation (in Chri&s;ts judgment) of the fir&s;t part of the third Commandement, as <GAP DESC="foreign">, or <GAP DESC="foreign"> of the &s;eventh and &s;ixth, and &s;o that it is <HI>undoubtedly no more</HI> the one then the other. And indeed this was the only occa&s;ion of delivering tho&s;e words in the <HI>Pract: Catech.</HI> to &s;hew that Chri&s;t did not mi&s;report the words of the Commandements, nor yet refer to any other place, but that Commandment in tho&s;e words of his. And though I have many other things, that I could &s;ay to that mat|ter, able to free that &s;peech from all imaginable incon|veniences (e&s;pecially when in that place Chri&s;ts prohibi|tion is explain'd to be again&s;t all kind of &s;wearing (by a|ny other as wel as by God) in ordinary conver&s;ation, or in any ca&s;e but wherein it is nece&s;&s;ary to confirm by oath) yet I am very willing to leave the matter here, up|on this account at this time given of it, <HI>i. e.</HI> in my opi|nion on Chri&s;ts &s;core, and not fear what any ingenuous Reader wil charge on me for this interpretation.</P>
<P>I be&s;eech God to forgive them which have brought this unnece&s;&s;ary trouble upon the Reader: and for my &s;elf I have to them the&s;e two only reque&s;ts, 1. That they wil examine them&s;elves &s;incerely, and as in Gods &s;ight, what the motive or de&s;ign was, which per&s;waded them to &s;ingle out me alone (who profe&s;&s;e my &s;elf, and am by all that know me, acknowledg'd to hold no|thing contrary to the Church of <HI>England,</HI> and wil ju&s;ti|fie it to any man that knows what the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI> is) and joyn me with the broachers of all the bla&s;|phemies and here&s;ies of this age: And
2ly, that they wil lay to heart the con&s;equences which may naturally flow
<PB N="13" REF="9">
from hence, if God do not uphold weak Chri&s;tians, who &s;eeing &s;o many doctrines of very di&s;tant natures blended together, with the &s;ame brand of <HI>[here&s;ie and bla&s;phemy, infamous and pernicious]</HI> fa&s;ten'd on them, and no kind of proofs annext, that any are &s;uch (be&s;ide the judgment of the Cen&s;ors) may po&s;&s;ibly find &s;ome of them to be the infallible truths of God, and be tempted (if they have not &s;tronger antidotes then this bare <HI>Te&s;timony</HI> wil afford them) to have the &s;ame thoughts of the other al&s;o; Or if not, whether they wil not be inclined to have the &s;ame &s;everity and condemnation for me, or any other a&s;&s;erter of &s;uch propo&s;itions as the&s;e, as they are taught to have for the authors of tho&s;e other <HI>bla&s;phemous</HI> propo&s;itions, and &s;o be tempted to uncharitablene&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>Having &s;aid thus much, I &s;hall hope it may find &s;ome good &s;ucce&s;&s;e among &s;ome who have &s;ub&s;cribed that <HI>Te&s;timony:</HI> But if I am mi&s;taken in all of them, I &s;hall then de&s;ire that this impro&s;perous Paper may gain me but thus much, that either the fir&s;t &s;ub&s;criber M^r <HI>John Downam</HI> (who did Licen&s;e the Printing of this very Book, from whence all the&s;e pretended Er|rors are cited) or el&s;e D^r <HI>Gouge,</HI> or M^r <HI>Gataker,</HI> who are foremo&s;t of the &s;econd rank, or &s;ome other per&s;on of learning and Chri&s;tian temper wil afford me their patience per&s;onally, and by fair Di&s;cour&s;e, or any o|ther Chri&s;tian way, to debate the truth of our pre|ten&s;ions; and for this I &s;hal wait their lei&s;ure.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>H. HAMMOND.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE>From my Study, Chri&s;t-Ch: in Oxon. <DATE>Jan. 24. Munday.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
<TRAILER>The End.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
