Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45472
|
A view of some exceptions to the practical 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.
|
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
|
1650
(1650)
|
Wing H611; ESTC R34933
|
8,095
|
12
|
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 't is 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 't is 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 't is 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
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 't is 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 onely that of Gods giving his onely 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 onely 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 't is