Pacification Touching the Doctrinal Dissent, Part 1

Pacification Touching the Doctrinal Dissent · Part 1

PACIFICATION Touching the Doctrinal Diſſent Among our United Brethren in LONDON. BEING An Anſwer to Mr. Williams and Mr. Lobb both, who have appealed in one Point (collected for an Error) to this Author, for his Determination about it. TOGETHER With ſome other more neceſſary Points falling in: As alſo that Caſe of Non-reſiſtance, which hath always been a Caſe of that Grand Concern to the State, and now more eſpecially, in regard to our Loyalty to King William, and Aſſociation for him, Reſolved, on the Occaſion.

By Mr. JOHN HUMFREY.

They were wont to ſpeak in old time, ſaying, They will ſurely ask counſel at Abel, and ſo they ended the matter,

2 Sam. 20.18.

LONDON, Printed for T. Parkhurſt at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapſide, 1696.

p. 3PACIFICATION.

PART I.

THERE having been ſo little Reaſon for the Interruption of that Union, which was made between the Nonconformiſt Miniſters in London, without diſtinguiſhing Presbyterian and Independent, the Government of both over their particular gathered Congregations being (as the caſe ſtands) coincident as to the main: And our Expectations of ſome more general Meeting of both for Reconciliation, ſuffering hitherto Diſappointment; it does ſeem even neceſſary to me, for ſtirring up the Brethren to this Work, that the Difference between them, which is not healed but ſleeps, ſhould be awakened, and muſt be awakened, and brought again to Agitation, till the matter be compoſed. Muſt I ſay, not in regard to the ſetting a few righter in their Judgments whom I think out (which yet is alſo intended,) but in regard to this more general end of compoſing the Nonconformiſt Body. For which Compoſure then, there muſt be now either an Agreement of All in the ſame Points, which can never be, for the Underſtanding of diverſe Men will be diverſe as their Faces are diverſe, and I cannot approve of any Man's going about a weak and vain obtaining that: Or elſe an Agreement only in Practiſe and Love, leaving every Brother Free to abound in his own Senſe, as to theſe Points wherein we differ, ſo long as they indanger not the Foundation. This is that I count is to be done, to which end, Having printed one Sheet with ſome Animadverſions on certain Exceptions againſt Mr. Williams's Books, Mr. W. thought good to anſwer theſe Exceptions himſelf in another Sheet directed to me; and Mr. Lobb hath anſwered his Sheet in four or five. There is one Point (as appears there) collected for an Error, wherein they have both appealed to me, and I have ſaid ſomething to it: But having not then by me p. 4Mr. W's Books, I referred the Matter to the Brethren when they meet, and to his Books with this Adjuſtment, That if that Error upon Examination was not found in them, Mr. Lobb ſhould ask his Pardon; if it was, then did Mr. W. deſerve rebuke (not becauſe he erred as all do in ſome things, but becauſe he denies the Error to be there) and ſhould very honeſtly confeſs it, that ſo all might be made up. By this means one of them ſhall get Love in ſuch an ingenuous Acknowledgment, and the other Victory. I have ſince been accommodated with Mr. W's Books, and have looked into them, and find it harder than I thought, to tell unto whoſe ſhare the Love and Ingenuity muſt fall.

In the Preface of Mr. W. to his Book of Goſpel-Truth, in the third Leaf are theſe words, The Goſpel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law than the Covenant of Works had. This change of the Sanction ſuppoſeth the Death of Chriſt, and his honouring the Law by his perfect Obedience. Upon theſe words Mr. Lobb collects that Mr. W. holds, that there is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law, which we count an Error.

Theſe are Mr. W's words, and lye together in the ſame Page, and as to the Conſtruction thereof, I being appealed unto do premiſe this. That the Goſpel hath another Sanction than we Covenant of Works, is a Truth on Mr. W's ſide, and Mr. Lobb will grant it: That there is no Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law, is a Truth on Mr. Lobb's ſide, and Mr. W. will grant it. But whether the Goſpel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law, and, There is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law, be the ſame, is the Queſtion.

Unto the Deciſion hereof thus much I have ſaid in Mr. Lobb's Sheets before I examined Mr. W's Books, that a Change of the Sanction, and Another Sanction, is all one. And ſo far I am right, becauſe ſo much is intended by Mr. W. as appears by the words conjoyn'd and urg'd by Mr. Lobb: But whether a Change of the Sanction, or Another Sanction (being all one) to the Preceptive part of the Law, as taken into the Goſpel in Mr. W's Senſe, be a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law in Mr. Lobb's Senſe, is ſtill the Queſtion.

Before I come to the paſſing Judgment, it will be moſt to Edification, in the firſt place, to underſtand and ſtate the Point it ſelf. Some Worthy Divines (ſays Mr. Baxter) ſay, All the Law of Innocency is ceaſed, Precept, Promiſe, and Threatning. Ceſſante capacitate ſubjecti Lex ceſſat. Others ſay that all are ſtill in p. 5force: Himſelf ſaith, the Precept and Threat is; but the Promiſe only, through our Incapacity, does ceaſe. Now let theſe Worthy Divines that ſay, the whole ceaſes, explain their Tenent, and let us ſee what they draw from it, and if there be nothing in the Matter explain'd, but what we can approve in ours, let them, in God's name, enjoy their Scheme of Thoughts, and we our own. God hath aboliſhed the Covenant of Works, by ſubſtituting a new one in room of it, ſays Dr. Owen, as Mr. W. hath quoted him, Def. Goſp. P. 44. Mr. Lobb does not, muſt not ſay, that none but Socinians are of that Opinion. There is ſomething now here accordingly, that Mr. W. holds, and Mr. Lobb thinks to be an Error: But what does Mr. W. ſay upon it? Is there any thing he deduces from thence that is dangerous, or of evil Conſequence, to be reproved? Is there any thing delivered in his Explication but what Mr. Lobb approves, and does himſelf, and his Brethren deliver, and preach, if he preach at all, or preach the Goſpel? If the Deductions he makes from his Truth, and the Deductions Mr. W. makes from that Error, be the ſame Doctrine, and that which is ſound and neceſſary to Salvation, what reaſon is there for all ſuch to be Chid, that cannot bear one with another?

Mr. Lawſon that Judicious Divine (of whom Mr. Baxter ſays ſomewhere, that he learned more of him than any one living) does ſay, that They who hold that the Law remains the ſame, and that God as Rector by Subſtitution transferring the Puniſhment merited by Tranſgreſſions upon Chriſt, and in conſideration of Satisfaction made by him remits Sin, ſo that here is nothing but a Relaxation or Interpretation of it, do Err. In another place he ſays likewiſe, To think that the Promiſe, Threat and Obligation of the Law of Works continue under the Goſpel is an Error. He concludes, that the Law of Works, not Moral Law, is abrogated. This Reſolution I reſt not upon, as ſomething dark and too ſhort, for how ſolidly ſoever he ſpeaks of the Obligation of the Law, yet hath he not fully ventured to determined this Point, and I think could not do it. Mr. Baxter therefore tying not himſelf to Mr. Lawſon's Opinion, is ſingular in his own. The Precept and Threat (ſays he) is of force, but the Promiſe only ceaſes. This is his brief State of the Point, and I think it rare ſo piercing a Man ſhould take up with it. Did Chriſt come from Heaven to Earth, to take on him our Nature, and put himſelf under the Law, to obey it perfectly, and ſuffer the Penalty to Redeem us from it; and is this all that Freedom, that Deliverance we have from it, that the Promiſa…y part ceaſes? p. 6What benefit is there in that? We are uncapable to perform the Condition of the Law (ſays he) and therefore the Promiſe is void. But neither what this excellent Man ſays here is true, nor is it the thing which ſhould be ſaid. It is not the Thing, becauſe the delivery of us from the Law (which the Scripture ſpeaks of as the Purchaſe of Chriſt) is the freeing us from the Curſe and Condemnation of it. To be freed from the Promiſe, what good (I ſay) is that? And it is not true, becauſe the Lord Jeſus, a Man as we are, did perform the Condition, and made the Reward thereby due to him of Debt, or Merit, and accordingly entred into Glory. The Man Chriſt (I ſaid in my Sheet) was obliged to an Obedience of the Moral Law, that he might himſelf have Right, Jure & merito foederis operum, to Life Eternal.

Well then you may ſay, if I be not lead by neither of theſe, what is Mr. Humfrey's own Opinion and State of the Point? I anſwer, The ſecond Opinion which Mr. Baxter counts Extream, and Mr. Lawſon ſays is an Error, I take to be Truth, and own, that the Law of Nature, or Works, continues (wholly as to us) in his Precepts, Promiſe, and Threat unaboliſhed. Do we make void the Law through Faith? God forbid; yea we eſtabliſh it. I have formerly thus explained and ſtated my Judgment. The Moral Law, or Law of Nature, is a Law, or Rule of Life or Manners, in it ſelf conſider'd (I count) without the Sanction, that is not Eſſential to it. The Duty which it requires (ariſing from God's Nature and Ours) in owing to God, if he had made no Promiſe of Reward, or threatned no Puniſhment, for the breach of it; and God's putting a Sanction to it, makes that Law a Covenant. Now in a Covenant there are two Parties, and conſequently there is Our part, and God's part, in this Covenant. On our part the Law I count, being the Law and Covenant of Nature, does and muſt continue unchangeable, and Man not performing perfect Obedience, and yet bound to it, is in the Hand of his Judge (otherwiſe above the Law) to diſpoſe of him as he pleaſes. Every Sin againſt it (though the leaſt) maketh Puniſhment due (the Threat declares and conſtitutes a Debitam, though not Eventum,) that is, deſerves it: But as to God's part, the Caſe is alter'd. Here is the buſineſs. We are by this Law or Covenant, through our Sin (we and all the World) in God's hand, lyable to Wrath and Condemnation, and God as Rector and Judge does ſtand engaged to deal with us according to it: But upon a voluntary and allowed Mediation of his Son, and Satisfaction given in our behalf, which p. 7he might accept, to the fulfilling the Ends of the Law, better than by Man's Puniſhment, he executes not the Law upon him.

There are two Reaſons upon which (when they meet) a Law-giver who is alſo Rector, may forbear the Puniſhing a Criminal. One is, when the Caſe is Pittiable, and requires Commiſeration: And the other, when his Juſtice and Honour can be ſaved alſo, though he ſpare the Perſon. Such is the Caſe here, If God deal with Man according to this Law, all Mankind muſt Periſh, which is Pittiable indeed; and it pleaſed him in his Wiſdom to find out, and in his Goodneſs to permit and appoint, that the Lord Jeſus his Son ſhould interpoſe ſo as by fulfilling the Law exactly for himſelf, and bearing the Puniſhment of it alſo in our ſtead, here is no Diſhonour can be caſt on himſelf, or Law, by his dealing otherwiſe on his part with us than the Covenant required. By this means did God pay its due Reſpect to his Law, ſeeing, as he required at firſt the Performance of it as the Condition of Life, and when it was broke would have his Son re-honour it and fulfil it, ſo he would not pardon the Sinner in point of Juſtice, without an Hoſtage and Satisfaction. But now amends being made him amply by ſuch a Mediator he diſpenſes with the Penalty, as to us, ſo that the Law here becomes not Abrogated nor Ceaſed, but properly Relaxed. It is not an Abrogation or Ceſſation, or an Interpretation (an foreign) but (whatever the Skilful Mr. Lawſon ſays otherwiſe) is a Relaxation or Diſpenſation, ſo as we ſhall not be condemned by it. The ſeparating between God's part and our part in this Covenant, never came into Mr. Lawſon's Mind to ſee this. We are not on our part (I ſay) freed from the Law, that we ſhould no longer obey it, or not be liable to Puniſhment; but we are delivered from it by our Redeemer ſo as to obtain the Mercy, that God will not deal with us, on his part, according to it.

How then (will you ſay) does or will he deal with us? I anſwer, by another Law, which by the Merit of that Satisfaction he alſo purchaſed, a Remedying Law, the Law of Grace, the Covenant of Forgiveneſs, the Law of Faith, in oppoſition to the Law of Works. The Lord Jeſus hath redeeemed us, his Poor Loſt Creatures, from the Sentence of the Law, by which every Mortal elſe muſt have periſhed, but he takes the Redeemed into his hands, and both the Remedying Law and Law of Nature into his Law (the Law of Chriſt) ſo that they ſhall not be Lawleſs for all that. They have the Law ſtill as in the Redeemer's hands, to live by, as well as they can, and as far as Humane Frailty will p. 8permit; but they ſhall be dealt with, in regard to Acceptation, according to the Grace of the Goſpel. The Law then remains in the Precept and Threat as a Rule to Live by, but not as the Rule we ſhall be Judged by; a Rule of Life, but not of Judgment. It is by the Law of Liberty we ſhall be Judged, ſays St. James: and St. Paul expreſly, According to my Goſpel. Bleſſed be God for this Truth.

What Mr. W. and Mr. Lobb will ſay of this Determination I may know if they write again, but I am not ſollicitous about that. I am methinks ſorry for Mr. Williams that he printed his Sheet (when mine alone as a Third Perſon, to let the World know how little they had againſt him, how curious the Difference, what need of bearing with one another, had been enough) becauſe he muſt be forced to agree with me, when he ſhould have differ'd, and is put upon the Defence of a Denial of that which I take to have been advantageous, and the credit of his Books to have owned. It is objected againſt him, that he holds the Penal Sanction of the Law of Works to be changed. What if he had owned this for his Opinion, and ſaid it is no Error, but ſtood to it? As Mr. Baxter hath his, and I my State of the Point, Mr. W. might have his, and we never fall out. Suppoſe then the Point ſtated only with two Diſtinctions:

1. As to the Law, between the Law it ſelf, and its Sanction.

2. As to the Subjects of this Law, between the Believer and Unbeliever.

Let him then ſay, the Law it ſelf is unchangeable, but its Sanction is changed, and that change to be underſtood as to Believers (for he every where ſays, the Unbeliever is under Condemnation:) And let me ſee who he is will be his Opponent? I ſay, let me ſee whether any of our Brethren, out of whoſe Books Mr. Lobb does bring ſome oppoſite Sayings to Mr. W. (and thereby ſhifts himſelf off from being Accuſer or Opponent, ſo as it is not he, but they, are engaged to make them good) that will undertake to Oppoſe, and Mr. W. be Reſpondent? I ſuppoſe the Queſtion to be, Whether the Sanction of the Law be changed, and held affirmatively, being but thus ſtated. This I take to be the very ordinarily preached Doctrine by our moſt Judicious Divines (for to be more exact in Preaching may but amuſe and hurt the People,) and Mr. Lobb does know, and I think Mr. W. too, that trite Determination I mentioned in my Letter to him, which is co-incident with what is here ſaid. The Law is to be conſidered, qua Foedas, and qua Regula. Qua Regula, it binds us to perfect Obedience: Qua Foedus, it binds us to it as the Condition of Life. p. 9Qua Regula then it remains Obligatory: Qua Foedus it does not, Chriſt hath freed us from it.

Let us ſuppoſe this to be Mr. W's Opinion, and then bring Mr. Lobb's Objection. There is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law of Works. Very well, he grants it. The Goſpel doth not denounce Death for the ſame Sins, and every Sin, as the Law doth. Very true, the one follows undeniably from the other. Let us bring then Mr. W's Explanation, Comment, or Confirmation of this Opinion. Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty, yet Bleſſings are promiſed to lower degrees of Duty, and a continuance in a State of Death with a bar to the Bleſſing, are not threatned againſt every degree of Sin, as the Covenant of Works did. Can any doubt this to be the Grace of the Goſpel-Promiſe? Doth it promiſe Life to all Men, however Vile and Impenitent they be? or, Doth it threaten Damnation, or a continuance of it, on any True, Penitent, Believing, Godly Man, becauſe he is imperfect? This change of the Sanction ſuppoſeth the Death of Chriſt, and his honouring the Law by his perfect Obedience; wherein God hath provided for his own Glory, while he promiſes Life by Forgiveneſs to imperfect Man, and yet inſiſts on ſome degree of Obedience, to which of his Grace he enableth us. What can be ſpoken more appoſitely, more judiciouſly, more roundly to the purpoſe, and more ſufficiently, ſuppoſing Mr. W. had but held and ſtood to this Opinion? It is all exactly true, according to the Point thus ſtated.

I cannot blame Mr. Lobb (though I had a mind to do it) to think that this was indeed Mr. W's Opinion, becauſe his Diſcourſe loſes its current upon a contrary Suppoſition. Mr. Lobb ſhews himſelf a more piercing Man than I thought upon that account. I will turn therefore to another place, Goſpel Truth, p. 115. Dr. Criſp oft tells us, that the Sanction of the Law of Works is removed, and the Curſe gone, as to the Elect: This is true, if he mean that ſinleſs Obedience is not now the way of Life, and all bellow it ſhall not bind Death upon us, ſo as to hinder our Relief by the Goſpel. Here Mr. Lobb ſhews me in a Letter that Mr. W. grants, expreſly, that the Sanction of the Law is removed: It is true, that is, he confeſſes it. Very good, all conſonant to himſelf. It is true in this meaning, which he ſets forth juſt in the Senſe (I ſay) the Point is ſtated. By the way let Mr. Lobb note, that when Mr. W. ſays, It is true in … meaning, it implies that if it be meant otherwiſe, It is … true, which anſwers the Quotation.

By this it appears how well, throughly well all would have been, if he had maintained, not denied the Charge of his Brethren. p. 10Hear therefore a little more amply Mr. George Lawſon (with whom neither Mr. W. Mr. Lobb, nor I, are to be compared) for a Concluſion. There is one great Change in reſpect to the Law. Perfect Obedience to it was firſt made the Condition of Life; but afterwards that Promiſe of Life upon thoſe ſtrict Terms, and that ſevere Commination of Death upon Sin were aboliſhed, and Faith was made the only Condition of Life: So that it may be truly ſaid, that the Law of Works is abrogated, but not the Moral Law conſidered by it ſelf.

I would have therefore Mr. W. methinks here ask the Brethren to give him his hand in again, or if he thinks good he may take it: If not, let us come to the Queſtion waved hitherto. Is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Moral Law, the ſame as, The Goſpel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law? For anſwering which Queſtion, by the Sanction of the Law, I underſtand the Penalty under which the Duty is required, and ſo does Mr. Lobb, becauſe when Mr. W. ſays Sanction, he cites Penal Sanction, ſuppoſing, as here ſpoken, nothing elſe by it but the Penalty. Now then when Mr. W. ſays, The Goſpel hath another Sanction (or, a Change of the Sanction) to the Preceptive part of the Law, Mr. Lobb accounts he muſt be underſtood to mean, That the Precepts of the Law being taken into the Goſpel, are not required under that Penalty as they were in the Covenant of Works, and thereupon does collect this as his Error. The Collection is Rational, but Mr. W. denies this to be his meaning. Every Sin out of doubt does deſerve Death, even in the Believer, and therefore the perfect Duty of the Law, is required by the Goſpel, under the ſame Penalty, though that Penalty is remitted (being not remedileſs, as under the Law it was) upon the other Terms of it. Chriſt's Law comprehends (I have ſaid) the Law of Nature, and the Remedying Law both. When the Law of Nature therefore remaineth, it muſt make the Puniſhment due; but the Pardoning Law being conjunct with it, makes the Impunity due alſo: In primo inſtanti, the Puniſhment; in ſecundo, Impunity.

It is neceſſary therefore, I judge, for Mr. W. to explain his Term Sanction, and try if he can make his words ſo intelligible, as one may ſay he gave no occaſion of Mis-conſtruction: But ſeeing by this Phraſe of his (as I call it in Mr. Lobbs Sheets) and much more by that Mr. Lobb hath added from another place [The Goſpel doth not denounce Death for the ſame, and every Sin, as Adam's Law did] there is occaſion given to Mr. Lobb to believe him herein in an Error (if it be one, and the contrary be not,) and p. 11rationally to do ſo, I muſt, in my Judgment on the caſe, ſo far excuſe Mr. Lobb.

Let us conſider again, The words of Mr. W. may be conſtrued, either with Application of his Readers Thoughts to the Law alone, or to the Goſpel alone, or to the Law and Goſpel both together. If the Readers Thoughts be applied to the Law alone, then Another Sanction being the ſame with a Change of the Sanction, and that upon Chriſt's Satisfaction too, he muſt needs underſtand the meaning to be, that the Penal Sanction of the Law is by the Goſpel, or by Chriſt's Death and Obedience, made void; for the ſame Law cannot have two Sanctions, and if its own be changed, it is aboliſhed. If the Readers Thoughts be applied to the Goſpel alone, they muſt recur, for there is no change of Sanction queſtionable as to that. If his Reader conſtrue him with Application of his Thoughts to Law and Goſpel both together, then may the meaning indeed be underſtood, that the Goſpel Sanction is changed from that which was the Law Sanction, ſo as to be another and not the ſame, without making void one or the other, which yet is a perplext Conception. Now of theſe three Applications of a Man's Thoughts to the words (if one did not know that the laſt was the Author's meaning becauſe he ſays ſo) the firſt Application I think likeſt to fall into the Thoughts of another Man as well as Mr. Lobb's, rather than either of the other. So far is he farther to be excuſed.

On the other ſide, when I come to look into Mr. W's Books, and ſee with my Eyes what he hath ſaid, I may excuſe Mr. Lobb in a miſtake of Judgment (if he do miſtake,) but do not, till farther Scrutiny, clear him from wronging Mr. W. I will turn to his laſt Book firſt, Man made Righteous, p. 100. There is hardly a Truth more plain in the Word of God, than that the Wrath of God abides still upon Unbelievers, notwithſtanding Chriſt's Death. Mr. Lobb ſays, he holds the Penal Sanction of the Law abrogated, and how does this place ſtare in Mr. Lobb's Face? I will turn next to his middle Book, Defence of Goſpel Truth, p. 2. That Men while they reject the Goſpel, are not at all under the Curſe of the Law, I abhor. How any ſhould be under the Curſe of the Law, and the Penal Sanction of it be not of Force, I never yet had one thought. Let us look then laſt into his firſt Book from whence the Exception was gathered, Goſpel Truth, p. 5. That the Elect, while Dead in Sin and Unbelief, are Children of Wrath, and condemned by the Law, I affirm. Again, p. 107. The Goſpel denounceth and declareth all condemned till p. 12they believe. It declares they are ſo, and denounceth they ſhall be ſo. John 3.36. He that believeth not on the Son, ſhall not ſee Life, but the Wrath of God abideth on him. And v. 18. He that believeth not, is condemned already. Here is the caſe of all men by the Fall, they are condemned and under Wrath: Here is the way of Relief, a Chriſt believed on, and they that believe their Condemnation is reverſed.

Theſe places at the reading moved me much, and made me write to Mr. Lobb, but I found him aware of ſuch Paſſages, and not moved, anſwering that for all theſe words, Mr. W. meant them only of the Goſpel Denunciation. Mr. W's Opinion he accounts was, that Chriſt by his Death hath taken away the Curſe of the Law; and the Curſe the Unbeliever is under, is only that of the Goſpel, He that believeth not ſhall be Damned. To this purpoſe may be obſerved thoſe picked Terms of Governing Juſtice, and Governing Grace, which Mr. W. uſes as equivalent to the two Governments of Mr. Lawſon (the Creator's Government, and the Redeemer's Government) which muſt be ſuppoſed to have their two Laws, the New vacating the Old. As alſo thoſe Arguments Mr. W. offers to prove a new Law, that do notable fit a Judgment ſo poſſeſt: What kind of Government can we aſſign to Chriſt (ſays he) if there be no Sanction to his Law? But if he hold the Sanction of the Old Law (as taken into Chriſt's) to ſtand good, I pray why ſuch a Neceſſity of it to the New.

Nevertheleſs the words of Mr. W. as I have quoted them, are ſo expreſs, for all Men by the Fall to be under the Curſe (which does imply the Law therefore to be of force) that I cannot give Judgment upon any ſuch bare Reaſoning. Let us therefore ſee another place Mr. Lobb points me to, Defence of Goſpel Truth, p. 23. Adam's Law muſt be altered by the Law-giver to admit of Satisfaction. Here, ſays Mr. Lobb, is plain proof of Mr. W's holding the Law changed: But (though the word altered be unskilfully ſaid, and he ſhould ſay relaxed) that which follows in three lines after, to wit, [The Sentence that condemned Adam, ſeizes on all Men as ſoon as they have being, there needs no other.] does again turn the Scale for Mr. W.

The Truth is, the words I am to judge of between theſe two Brethren, are in Mr. W's firſt Book, and it is that alone muſt ſhew what was his mind then. The Paſſages for him I have mentioned, are not ſo poſitively fixt in that Book, as in the two other, after he was warned. And there are two places not mentioned by Mr. Lobb, but obſerved by me in reading the Book p. 13afreſh quite over, that do put me to a ſtand. One is p. 221. where he hath words to this ſenſe, We are not to preach the Sanction of the Law of Innocency, but may preſs the Goſpel Sanction. The other is in the expreſs words, Is it the Grace of God to leave his Precepts without any Sanction, when he removed the Curſe of the Law? Here is the Curſe of the Law, that is, the Penal Sanction removed, that is, changed, and another brought into its room, as being that (it is like he meant) which lies on all till they believe. There is nothing goes before or after to alieviate this ſenſe, P. 242.

I muſt needs ſay here therefore, that I was ſorry to ſee this place, becauſe I had come to a Judgment and finiſhed my Sheets, and was brought to this paſs within my ſelf. Mr. Lobb (I reaſoned) does verily believe that Mr. W's Opinion was as he notifies it to be: Mr. W. that knows what his own mind was, better than any, complains that he miſtakes, and wrongs him. On one ſide I accounted, here is Confidence, but on the other Knowledge. I had paſſed therefore this Judgment, that Mr. Lobb was to be Excuſed, but Mr. Acquitted. There is Obſcurity not Error I had thought in the words of Mr. W. there is Miſtake not Malice in the Collection of Mr. Lobb. But now I cannot (I muſt confeſs) in Point of Conſcience let this go. I cannot ſay there is Miſtake herein, but rather Sagacity in Mr. Lobb, and I cannot ſay there is no Error of Mr. W. herein, but rather that he was one then not come to any Conſiſtency about the Point, and that it is beſt for him to be in Suſpenſe ſtill, ſeeing that which we three ſuppoſe to be the Error, ſome others more weighty than we take to be Truth. If the Moral Law (ſaid ſuch a one) ſhould be in force as it was to Adam, no Man upon one Act of Diſobedience could be ſaved: Therefore that manner of strict Obligation ceaſeth unto ſinful Man for ever.

This being ſo, that, what Mr. W's Opinion was at his firſt Writing, I am not ſure; inſomuch as I can bring in no Billa vera, but an Ignoramus in my laſt Verdict to the Brethren, that are ſome time to meet about it: And that it is like his Opinion was not then ſo digeſted as that himſelf can tell it: Nay, that it is no matter, or very little matter, whether his Opinion was ſo or otherwiſe, ſeeing the Opinion Pro or Con may be good enough, at leaſt inoffenſive either of them, if but ſtated well: Nay yet, that it may be peradventure in other Differences between our Brethren, no otherwiſe than ſo as it is in this, I muſt come to that Concluſion at laſt, which I came to long ſince, and ſtand to it, that it is not upon a Union in Opinion, or upon certain Theſes p. 14drawn up into ſuch a Latitude of Words as all may ſubſcribe, but upon a Union in forbearing and bearing with one another in all things but what is of neceſſity to Salvation, that our Concord muſt be re-eſtabliſhed.