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 Gods good pleasure to deliver me up to be evill 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 bless and praise his name for this his goodnes 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 [Page 2] thank God, I can most cheerfully do, 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 p. 4. in the beginning of the second branch of their testimony, (which it seems by p. 37. the whole number of the 52 Ministers have subscribed) make men­tion of unsound opinions, especially abominable errours, 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 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 zeal 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.

From which premises, I suppose, any Reader will con­clude, [Page 3] 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 refer it to all impartial 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 undergo a shameful death voluntarily upon the Crosse, to satisfie for the sin of Adam, and for all the sins of all mankind.

This is thus plainly set down in their catalogue of infa­mous & 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 Errours under which 'tis placed, viz: Errours 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 perniti­ous errour 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 er­ror 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, unbelieving, reprobate world shall [Page 4] 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 general, are given upon condition, not abso­lutely (as Gods love to the world, &, the effect of it, giving his Son, is not designed, that all absolutely, but that all conditionally, i. e. whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life) and that they which do 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 far enough from all kindnesse to the Pelagians, Redemptor mundi dedit pro mundo sanguinem suum, & mundus redimi noluit, &c. the Redeemer of the world gave his bloud for the world, and the world would not be redeemed. ad Gall: cap. 9. But, to confine my discourse (without consideration of the con­sequences) to the assertion it self; I desire it may be ob­serv'd, that this was not crudely set down in that Cate­chisme, 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 only that of Gods giving his only Son, mention'd by Christ, as an effect or expression of his love to the world, [Page 5] (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 that of 1 Cor. 8.11. where the weake brother, of whom 'tis said, that by another mans scandal he shal 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 inferrs 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 medium. 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 it appears by S. August: cont. 2. Epist. Pelag: l. 2. c. 2. Pela­giani [Page 6] 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 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 antient writer before Pelagius, but hath directly as­serted Christs dying for all, The testimonies of Irenaeus, Clemens, Origen, Macarius, Cyril 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 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 do 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 Liturgy, where I was taught, [ to believe in God the Father, who created me and all the world, In God the Son, who redeemed [Page 7] 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, then all the elect people of God; and so much for the first charge.

The second is set down p. 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 Catechisme, but cannot easily guesse wherein the error 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 faithful 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 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 confesse might passe for an error, but both these doctrines I have sufficiently disclaim'd; and indeed in this very proposition 'tis affirm'd that the faithful 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 justi­cation, 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) [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8] 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 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 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 Logick, and the plain words of S. James; A Condition is a qualification of the s [...]bject 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 as 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 just [...]fied, 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 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 faithful actions, in S. James's [...]mon, we are not justified, and by them we are justified, and [...] by faith only, Therefore faithful actions, or acts of [...]th are not by St. James excluded or separated from [Page 9] 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 pernitious.

Then for S. Paul 'tis made evident in the Pract: Cate­ch [...]sme 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. 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 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 premis'd in this matter. [Page 10] And for the second I shall desire that Abrahams faith, as it hath justification attributed to it by Saint Paul, may be viewed both in the 4 to the Rom. and the 11 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 perswaded, 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 Gods absolute promise) the matter is capable of, and for this it was counted to him for righteousnesse, or he was justified, ver. 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 11 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 sojourn'd in a strange land, v. 10. by faith he expected a city, that hath foundations, v. 17. by faith he offer'd 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 tryals? And therefore I suppose all this being out of Saint Paul, as the former out of Saint James, 'twill be no error or pernitious 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 tis this, That [thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain] is undoubtedly no more then [thou shalt [Page 11] 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 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 mention'd, which being affixt to all the errors 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 Commande­ment, 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 fol­lows, nor sworn to deceive his neighbour, and beside my own judgement in this matter, back'd with the consent of as learned as this age hath, or the Antient Church had any, I conceiv'd that I had a most authentick war­rant from Christ himself, who renders it [...], 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 10 Commandements deli­vered in Sinai, and brought down by Scripture, to them his present auditors, one Commandement 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 [Page 12] self (and so stil do) that [...], is as directly the in­terpretation (in Christs judgment) of the first part of the third Commandement, as [...], or [...] 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 Pract: Catech. to shew that Christ did not misreport the words of the Commandements, 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 Christs prohibi­tion is explain'd to be against all kind of swearing (by a­ny other as wel 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, i. e. in my opi­nion on Christs score, and not fear what any ingenuous Reader wil 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 wil 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, acknowledg'd to hold no­thing contrary to the Church of England, and wil 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 wil lay to heart the consequences which may naturally flow [Page 13] 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 [heresie and blasphemy, infamous and pernicious] fasten'd 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 wil afford them) to have the same thoughts of the other also; Or if not, whether they wil 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 M ^r John Downam (who did License the Printing of this very Book, from whence all these pretended Er­rors are cited) or else D ^r Gouge, or M ^r Gataker, who are foremost of the second rank, or some other person of learning and Christian temper wil 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 shal wait their leisure.