Letters Between Humfrey and Clark, Appendix
AN APPENDIX, With reſpect to the Reverend. Mr. Williams.
THere is one thing in Mr. Williams Books remarkable (as to me) above any other, becauſe it is altogether de proprio, and concerns me and Mr. Baxter, and that is a laborate (I may not ſay elaborate) endeavour or contrivance for making good ſome Words of his to this Senſe, That the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to a Believer otherwiſe, or more than in the effects, which is Mr. Baxter's Explanation of that Phraſe. And having wrote what I have ſaid, by way of Oppoſition, in one or two Places in theſe Sheets, ſuppoſing that Mr. Williams might write, and then be engaged to take notice of it, ſo as to yield, or Anſwer to it, I let it ſtand: But leſt he ſhould not, I will my ſelf ſay ſomething to it. The Original Words of Mr. VVilliams are theſe: Goſp. Truth. P. 39. Beſides the Effects being made ours, the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to true Believers, as what was deſigned for their Salvation: Tea, is pleadable by them as their Security, and uſeful as if themſelves had done and ſuffered what Chriſt did. Not that God looks upon the Believer, as having done in Chriſts Perſon what Chriſt did, he never thought ſo, but that it is as good, or for his uſe, as much as if he had. The very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to the Believer! Here I muſt ask firſt what he means by Imputed? And I ſuppoſe he means, Being made ours, as he ſays of the Effects, or Reckoned of God as ours, for elſe he muſt underſtand by himſelf, till we know what he means. I ask ſecondly, How is the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt Ours, or reckoned to us as Ours? And I anſwer, It is ours in the Effects, and can be no otherwiſe. The Effects are ours Really, and his Righteouſneſs ours Relatively, only in regard to thoſe Effects. Mr. Williams ſays ſomewhere, The Effects are not imputed: Very true; There is no Man ſaid they are, but that Chriſts Righteouſneſs is imputed, or made ours, in the Effects. I ask thirdly, When Mr. Baxter, and I and he ſay thus much, does Mr. Williams ſay more? And ſeeing he does, What is that more? Does he account that Chriſts very Righteouſneſs is made ours ſo as God does account us righteous in his Righteouſneſs, and that to be our Juſtification, according to the Common Proteſtant? No ſure, he does not, for Gods Judgment being according to Truth, he cannot look on that which is a Quality or Accident in Chriſt to be alſo in us, for that is ſuch an Imputation as the Antinomian himſelf is not to be ſuppoſed (without wrong) to believe: But it is conceived that he looks on us as having obeyed and ſuffered in Chriſt, as our Legal Perſon, and ſo to have his Righteouſneſs reckoned to us as Ours, in Law Senſe, for our Juſtification. This is the Notion of the Common Proteſtant, and Mr. Lobb, as undertaking their Cauſe, underſtandingly baulks it not: But does Mr. Williams by his Imputation own this? Certainly, by all his Books, he ſets himſelf to beat this down, as that which is, or muſt lead to the Antinomian Error. This being ſo, I muſt begin here to open my Eyes, and ſee that in this ſaying of Mr. Williams, there lyes not any Oppoſition to Mr. Baxter or me, and that therefore I may attend to what he offers to make it good, and be glad if he can come off well in it. That which he ſays, we have in the Book and Place before quoted, and in his Anſwer to the Report. p. 87. The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt he diſtinguiſhes into his Performance of the Conditions of Redemption, and into his Right (or Jus adjudicatum) by that Covenant to the Believers Pardon and Salvation. As to the one, which is that our Divines all underſtand and ſpeak of, as including the Obedience of his Life and Death, he ſays that it is imputed only Mediately, which is all one, as imputed only in the Effects, with Mr. Baxter, for he explains it by the very ſimile Mr. Baxter does. The Redeemed Captive hath the Ranſom or Money only in his Liberty. But as to the other Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which with him conſiſts in his Right to his Reward, he ſays it is imputed Immediately, that is, imputed in ſe, in our phraſe, and upon that account makes good this ſaying, that Beſides the Effects being ours, the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to Believers.
God promiſes Chriſt, that if he perform theſe Conditions, he ſhall ſee his Seed, and by his Knowledge (or Faith in him) ſhall many be juſtified. Mr. Williams now phraſes this, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as it is his adjudged Right, to the Believers Pardon, and Salvation, and this Right of Chriſts, the very Right is alſo (as he counts) the Believers. They have (ſays he) Chriſts Right; They are inveſted in Chriſts Right to the Benefits. By all which, he muſt intend an Imputation in ſe; for I argue for him upon this Suppoſition, that if this Right of Chriſt is an Effect of his Performance, and his Right be ours, the Effects, we all agree, are ours in ſe; ours really, when the Performance it ſelf is not ours, but relatively in thoſe Effects. If his Invention then here be ſound, he hath brought himſelf clear off as to me and Mr. Baxter, and this ſaying of his not hurting us, I will ſay ſomething in its behalf, in anſwer to my own Objections.
One and the firſt is, that Chriſts Righteouſneſs is a perfect Righteouſneſs, and anſwered the Law: If that be imputed in ſe, for our Juſtification, then we are judged and juſtified by the Law, and not the Goſpel. The anſwer to this is, that according to the Hypotheſis of the Common Proteſtant, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is imputed to us, is his fulfilling the Law in our behalf, and Mr. Williams agrees with us, that this Righteouſneſs of his is imputed only Mediately, that is only in the Effects. But it is the other Righteouſneſs which is it ſelf an Effect of Chriſts Perfor mance that is imputed to us in ſe; ſo that upon the account thereof he hath affirmed, that the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to the Believer. We have not Chriſts own Performance, which is a Real Righteouſneſs, but we have his Right, which is a Relative Righteouſneſs, to be ours (he counts) for our Juſtification.
A ſecond Objection is, that the Brethren are hereby deceived in him, who may think he means the ſame Righteouſneſs as they and others do, when it is another. The Anſwer to this is, It is true, they are, or may be deceived in him, but not by him, ſeeing he hath made his Explanation in ſix or ſeven Pages, in the Book mentioned, whereby he hath acquitted himſelf of this Accuſation, as to me and Mr. B. very well; whether it be ſo well to them, let themſelves judge.
A third Objection is, that the Right of Chriſt, and the Right of the Believer cannot be one. The Right of the Believer can be no more the very Right of Chriſt, than the Believers Perſon can be Chriſt. This is from my Pacification; the anſwer to it is this. It is true, that Chriſts Right and the Believers Right, cannot be the ſame Phyſically, that is indeed impoſſible; but they may be the ſame Legally, (as our Divines underſtand the Imputation of Chriſts Obedience to us) and that is plainly Mr. Williams meaning here, as appears by his Simile, of a Man buying Part of a Purchaſe, the Purchaſers Right to the whole is in Law his Right for that Part he hath of it.
A laſt Objection is from the Argument here offered, That Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to us for our Juſtification, which is the Meritorious Cauſe of it. It is not this Right of Chriſt to his Reward, but his Performance, was that. The anſwer to this, which as to the Common Proteſtant, that knows no other Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, but this Performance, is unanſwerable, muſt be left to him to anſwer, who hath found out another, and the Major muſt be denyed. It is true, that Righteouſneſs which is Meritorious, is imputed, but not that alone, but Chriſts Right alſo. This Immediately, that Mediately; but both together, I ſuppoſe he intends it.
It muſt be ask'd therefore after this, what we are indeed to judge of this Hypotheſis of Mr. Williams, as to the Reality and Truth of it? Here is a prudential ſober ſort of Notion propoſed, not ariſing from any Scripture or Senſe thereof, conſtraining it, but invented rather (I ſay) for the retaining that Phraſe, the gratifying the prepoſſeſſed, and ſubſcribing ſuch Confeſſions as the Savoyes, yet without forſaking any of the Doctrines, which he owns after Mr. Baxter; which being not an ordinary attempt, but ſhewing a Perſon that ſtudies Men what they can bear, as well as Scripture what that enjoyns, I cannot but in Intereſt approve, and in Sincerity declare my ſuſpicion of it.
It muſt be granted, that there is a Covenant (as our Divines conceive) made between Chriſt and God, as there is one made with us in the Goſpel, That there was a Promiſe of God to Chriſt, as a Promiſe to us, upon his Performance, as upon ours, and that a double Security may he had and pleaded from thence, that upon believing we ſhall be pardoned and ſaved, Mr. Williams may make as much of this as he pleaſes, as a greater matter of Security than others, who truſt to the Goſpel-promiſe only, without more concernment, for ſuch Doctrine is innocent, harmleſs, affecting perhaps to ſome, and unexceptionable, ſo as to be received without Queſtion: But whether the Right to his Reward, which Chriſt had by his Performance of the Commandment given him by his Father, is communicable with the Believer? That is, Whether Chriſts Right to have a Seed, and ſuch as ſhall believe on him, can poſſibly be the Believers? Or, whether the Promiſe that Chriſt ſhall have ſome to believe in him, and ſo be ſaved, be of the ſame import with that which ſays, He that believes ſhall be ſaved? Again Whether there be any Imputation by God, of Chriſts Performance to the Believer as there is, or may be an Application of it, by the Believer, for his ſecurity, in regard to the Benefits? And, Whether ſuch an Imputation (if there be ſuch) of Chriſts Performance for the Believers Security, be of the ſame import as the Imputation of it for his Juſtification? Theſe and the like, are Queſtions which require the ſecond thoughts of Mr. Williams.
In fine, there is one Conſideration, eſpecially the Conſideration of what confuſion it muſt make in the minds of moſt, to underſtand by the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, another Righteouſneſs than that our Divines hither to have underſtood, and to draw their Words to a Senſe they never thought, which is to make them all equivocate or lie, is a matter of ſuch dangerous Conſequence, that I muſt come to a Reſolution and Anſwer to my Reverend Brother; which is, that omitting the Reply, that this Right of Chriſt, he inſiſts on, is it ſelf one Effect of his Performance, and if that become Ours, the Righteouſneſs of his performance here is imputed (or made ours) ſtill in regard to the Effects only: And omitting the queſtionableneſs of this Right being ours, already mentioned, I muſt ſay plainly, that this Talk of his, (in his Anſwer to the Report) that there is a Judicial Imputation of this Right of Chriſt (which is one Effect) immediately, intervening between the Imputation of his Performance, which is Mediate, in order to the Effect of our Juſtification and Pardon (which he muſt intend, or all is nothing to the Point) I ſay, is to me a Figmentum, a Fiction, an Imaginary and Operoſe ſomething, which indeed is nothing, even according to himſelf, who tells us that The effects are not imputed. Alas! when it is ſo hard to take in what our Divines ſay of the Imputation of Chriſts Performance for our Juſtification (for how much eaſier is it of underſtanding to ſay, that for the ſake of what Chriſt hath done, God does forgive and ſave us on the Terms of the Goſpel, or does accept of Faith inſtead of perfect Obedience, than to talk of Imputation, which is a Phraſe, as applyed to Chriſts Righteouſneſs, invented by Man, though as applyed to Faith expreſs Scripture?) to come to the multiplying and doubling theſe Imputations, of Chriſts Right, as well as of his Performance, is a matter of ſo troubleſom a Notion, ſo clutterſom an invention (Eutia non ſunt multiplicanda ſine neceſſitate) ſo turning and over-turning what hath been ſaid by our Divines, as it were topſie turvy, and indeed ſo preſumptuous (as well as untrue, according to his own Axiom) upon that account, that if it were not that by this means he gets a Liberty of Compliance, to uſe the Phraſe with the Brethren (who the moſt of them never concern'd themſelves as to his Explanation) it would not be endured.
Be it therefore known to all Men, by theſe preſents, that I J. Humfrey do acquit Mr. Williams, of the Inconſiſtency I ſuppoſed in his Doctrine, which concerns me and Mr. Baxter, upon this Notion or Invention, if this invention of his be good: but if it be found not good, but upon further Conſideration, a piece of humane Wiſdom only and a Shift, I do yet conjure him to retract it.
But to offer ſomething before I have done moreover, for ſatisfaction to my Friend Mr. Lobb. There is a Compact, it is conceived by him, of Chriſt with the Father, that he will come under the Law, both in regard to the Precept and Sanction, and that the Sanction thereupon takes hold on him, his voluntary Sponſion Anteceding not Intereeding, the laying the Penalty on him. This now cannot be. That Chriſt entred not our Bond at firſt with us, Mr. Lobb ſees, and ſays. The Bond ran not, that if we, or our Surety performed it, the Obligation ſhould be void, for then upon Chriſts keeping the Law there could be no Puniſhment due to him or us: but he entred our Bond when we had broken it, he entred into the Obligations of the violated Law of Works (he ſays) and ſo the Law taking him as under that Violation, and Conſequently as under its Sanction, it laid the Puniſhment immediately on him, as the Perſon to be puniſhed, and in that regard, even in regard to the Sanction, it was (he acconnts) a proper Puniſhment. This I take to be the Error of the Common Proteſtant, and ſo Mr. Lobbs upon that account. It is true, that Chriſt voluntarily undertook or compacted to come under the Precept of the Law (unto which yet it ſelf, as a Divine Perſon (Actiones being Suppoſitorum) he could not have been obliged otherwiſe, ſay Divines) and to undergo the Curſe, or Puniſhment due to us, but not to come under the Sanction, that being impoſſible, becauſe the Sanction (as to the Comminatory Part, we underſtand) does puniſh only him that breaks the Precept, which Chriſt never did, but we do, ſo that it is the Puniſhment, not the Fault, or Merit thereof that he took on him, which conſequently aroſe not from the Sanction but his Undertaking, and that Undertaking being to ſuffer in our room, it could not be a proper Puniſhment in Mr. Lobb's Senſe of Proper, which is Ariſing from the Sanction, but a Vicarious Puniſhment, as Mr. Baxter over and over does tell us.
If Chriſt came under the Sanction of the Law, ſo as the Puniſhment was due to him Ex obligatione Legis, which Mr. Lobb holds (but as pleading only the Common Proteſtants Cauſe, I will ſuppoſe) then muſt he be accounted of God as a Sinner, nay, as the greateſt of Sinners, and be puniſhed as ſuch, which hath indeed been formerly affirmed by great Divines, and ſo taken up by the Antinomian, accounting that our ſins was laid on him in the Merit, as well as in the Puniſhment, which my Friend ſeeing, that here indeed is the Gulph, he makes his ſtand, and comes off in an Approbation of the Biſhop, for his oppoſing Antinomianiſm, and particularly in this Point, that there is ſuch a Change of Perſons, which implies a Tranſlation of the Perſonal Guilt (or Merit of their ſins, which is all one) of the Believer on Chriſt, which he confutes as the Doctrine of the Antinomian, and which Mr. Lobb diſclaims, as heartily as any. O thou my Friend therefore, Mr. Common Proteſtant, be it known to all, that Chriſt ſuffered not as a Sinner, but as an Interceder, and not from the Obligation of the violated Law of Works (which he violated not) but of his Fathers Commandment, which was proper to him, or of the Law of Redemption, as Mr. Williams after Mr. Baxter does ſtedfaſtly teach. Chriſt indeed took on him the Obligation to ſuffer for our ſins, but not Our Obligation: He bare the Puniſhment of our ſins (let me ſay), yet Perſonally not Our Puniſhment. When Chriſt is ſaid to be made under the Law (Gal. 4.4.) I underſtand it of the Law of Moſes, as a Jew born, for redeeming the Jews from it: Yet as one of Mankind was he alſo under the Law of Works as to the Precept, and fulfilled it for freeing us from that perfect Performance, as the Condition of Life, and from its being to us the Rule of Judgment: but he was not under the Penal Sanction, nor could be, being innocent. He was foreign (Gal. 3.13.) made a Curſe, but not foreign (Gal. 3.10.) under the Curſe, which none but the Tranſgreſſor is. And ſeeing Mr. Lobb is come already to ſee he muſt part with the Common Doctrine, ſomewhere, or fall into Antinomianiſm, he is ſo rational and fair a Man (I believe) as his own Genius (when once he can be cool and conſider) will ſuggeſt to him, that it is better not to ſet out at all, than to halt by the way, and not to go quite home. If he be convinced that the Perſonal Guilt of our ſins could not be tranſlated on Chriſt, ſo as to make him a Legal Sinner (which is all that the Criſpian, as well as the Common Proteſtant Doctrine, ever meant), then will he ſee that the Perſonal Righteouſneſs of Chriſt cannot be tranſlated neither on us, ſo as that we ſhould be Legally Righteous in him; and conſequently agree with Mr. Baxter and me (leaving Mr. VVilliams, if he wont come on, behind) in the Doctrine both of Satisfaction, and Juſtification.
I muſt add as a Corollary, that the Phraſes (my Friend does ſtand ſo much upon) of Chriſts ſuffering in our Perſon, or in our ſtead, if they be uſed as the ſame, and ſignifie no more but that Chriſt being a Divine Perſon, did ſuffer a Temporal Death, as an Equivalent to ſave us from ſuffering Eternal Damnation, they are equally to paſs: But if either of them be made to bear ſuch a Senſe, as that Chriſt did Legally perſonate us, ſo as we are to be accounted to have done or ſuffered in him, that which he did or ſuffered, or what may ſeem leſs, that this Commutation of Perſons, did put Chriſt under Our Obligation of the violated Law of VVorks, ſo making him to be accounted of God a Sinner, and dealt with as a Sinner, to the end that his ſufferings may be maintained to be a proper Puniſhment, the Phraſe, or Phraſes are ſtretch'd beyond the Staple, become dangerous, the Senſe Antinomian, and to be diſallowed.
And now to diſmiſs Mr. VVilliams and Mr. Lobb both. The ſumm of Mr. Lobb's Appeal comes to this Syllogiſm. That Perſon who holds that the ſufferings of Chriſt was not a Proper Puniſhment, but a Vicarious Puniſhment; Not Formally, but Materially Puniſhment; That our Sins were not the Proximious Meritorious Cauſe, but the Remote, the Pro-meritorious Cauſe, or Occaſion of them; That they aroſe not from the Obligation of the Law, or from the Sanction of the Law of VVorks (which includes with Mr. Lobb that Commutation of Perſons, as makes Chriſt Guilty, taken, judged, and executed in our Perſon) but from his voluntary Sponſion, or ſubmiſſion to his Fathers Commandment proper to him (which implies with Mr. Lobb, that the inflicting of Sufferings on Chriſt, could be no act of Gods Rectoral Juſtice, but of Dominion, when I take it to be an act of God both as Rector, and Supra Leges together, and ſuch a Relaxation of his Law as Zaleucus Fact was); That conſequently the Law (in the Threat) was not fulfilled by him, ſuch a Perſon is a Socinian, and denies the Doctrine, or denies that which is neceſſary to explain the Doctrine, of Chriſts Satisfaction. But Mr. VVilliams is ſuch a Perſon. Ergo Mr. VVilliams is one that denies that which is neceſſary to this Explanation.
Here Mr. Lobb makes it his buſineſs to prove the Minor, which he hath effectually done in quoting Mr. Baxter in many places (and many more might be added) ſaying theſe things, and then producing Conſiderations and Paſſages out of Mr. VVilliams to prove that he muſt be of the ſame Opinion. Now if Mr. VVilliams denies the Minor, and goes to vindicate himſelf as to that, he may be aſhamed, for Mr. Lobb has done his Work. But Mr. VVilliams, I ſuppoſe, as well as I, will deny the Major. And what hath Mr. Lobb to ſay for that, but all Gratis? Why here is a Suppoſition preſumed that the Satisfaction Chriſt made for our ſins, was to be ſuch and ſuch as they have fancied, or elſe it muſt be no ſatisfaction, when the miſtake is ſo great, that if all that were neceſſary thereto, which they pretend, the Lord Chriſt was a Perſon uncapable to make it, and ſo there muſt be none, and we be all Socinians. I have therefore two Anſwers to give Mr. Lobb.
The Firſt ſhall be from himſelf, who when Mr. Williams is arguing, That if we may very properly be ſaid to be puniſhed in Chriſt for our ſins, then muſt it be granted, that we made ſatisfaction in Chriſt, and are our own Redeemers, He anſwers, No, becauſe the ſatisfaction aroſe not (ſays he) from our ſufferings in Chriſt, nor indeed from Chriſts Sufferings, conſidered abſolutely and in ſe, but from the Fathers acceptation of the Sons ſufferings. This is judiciouſly ſaid, The words he adds, as they were Ex obligatione Legis, and an Equivalent to the demerit of our ſins are Petitio Principii, for he might put in … well; as our ſins were the Proximous Meritorious Cauſe of them, and as they were a proper Puniſhment.
I anſwer him therefore accordingly, That ſeeing the Satiſfaction Chriſt made was not indeed a Satisfaction of the Law it ſelf but of the Law-giver, who though Rector, is alſo Supra Leges (the Law indeed which requires Supplicium delinquentis, being not executed, but Satisfaction made, that it might not be fulfilled on the Sinner) and ſeeing the Satisfaction lay Fundamentally in the Acceptation of the Father, or as perform'd according to the Will of both; What if it pleaſed God to appoint and accept of a Vicarious Puniſhment, inſtead of a proper Puniſhment, who is there can have any more to ſay againſt it.
I will add in regard to ſome freſh Sheets of Mr. Lobb come out, called, A further Defence, which in ſetting forth Mr. Baxters Doctrine as oppoſite to that which is commonly Received (according to Dr. Edwards, and others) has done Mr. Baxter Right and Honour, as I account; That for as much as God acts (according to him, and Truth) both as Rector and Lord alſo Supra Leges, and the great Ends of Government in general, ſuch as the Demonſtration of Gods Righteouſneſs, his hatred to ſin, the deterring the Sinner by exemplary Puniſhment, and even his greater Glory, might be attained in the way which God took, without fulfilling the direct end of the Law in a proper puniſhment, on the Sinner, (or on Chriſt, as a Sinner) It is ſuch a Satisfaction as Mr. Baxter offers (that is, a Satisfaction of the Law-giver) and not that Mr. Lobb ſtands upon (a Satisfaction of the Law) which is to be maintained: For this being Socinus fundamental Errour, That True Satisfaction lies only in a full payment of the Debt, and Eternal Death being due to every Sinner, the Doctrine of Satisfaction ſeems to him apparently Falſe, Chriſt ſuffering not that Puniſhment; and thoſe Divines now that fall in with him into that Conception, have not an Anſwer to give Socinus: whereas Mr. Lobb hath ſet out Mr. Baxter's Doctrine in the ſeveral branches, to be ſo tight and uniform, that the light thereof (though wrapt in his Clouds of Blame about it) does appear moſt …onvictive and irreſiſtible; and I cannot but think that Mr. Lobb himſelf, when he can be cool, and lay by oppoſition, muſt be ready to embrace it. It is Mr. Baxter's Satisfaction, which can be juſtified againſt Socinus. Mr. Baxter's Doctrine is ſuch as does force even the Socinians to yield, and acknowledge themſelves overcome by it. This is ſuch Doctrine as needs no more but the ſame more friendly diſplay of it (See Mr. Baxter's own 18 Determinations together) for Mr. Baxter's Vindication, and Mr. Lobb's Reduction.
The Second Anſwer I have, is made already in theſe Sheets, and that is, that there is one Word, and that taken from Grotius himſelf, which hath done it. The word [Imperſonaliter] does reconcile Grotius and Baxter, Mr. Williams and Mr. Lobb, the Biſhop and us all; and that word therefore, without any thing more, is enough to ſolve the difficulty; and conſequently to explain and make good this Great Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
PAg. 9. line 27. my read your. p. 14. l. 21. r. exiſtimare. p. 22. l. 9. Premium: r. Praemiant. p. 74 in the Margin, deliti, r. debiti.
THE BOOKSELLER TO THE READER.
Reader,
THeſe Letters and Animadverſions, put thus together by my Appointment, were intended to come out aſunder; the Animadverſions as a ſecond Part of the Friendly Interpoſer, and the Letters as the finiſhing Work to that Doctrine propoſed by Mr. H. in his Middle Way, and confirmed in his Righteouſneſs of God; unto which Book he would have had them annex'd alone by themſelves: But in regard that the ſeveral Papers of his, concerning the late Difference among the Nonconformiſts in Doctrinals (whereof the Point of Juſtification is the chief) will come with theſe to forty Sheets, I have thought beſt my ſelf (and have found good Cauſe ſo to do) to bind the whole in one handſom Book, that any that will (ſo long as each of a ſort holds out) may have it.
T. P.
End of the text · John Humfrey, Letters Between Humfrey and Clark (1698)