Answer to Humphreys Second Letter, Letter
An Anſwer to Mr. J. Humphrey's Second Printed Letter, wherein he publiſheth Mr. Lob's Objections againſt Mr. W's. Books.
SIR,
YOUR Firſt Letter miſrepreſents my Judgment in many things, as if you little conſidered my Books, whence you pretend your Objections: This Letter I ſuffer to paſs without further Animadverſion, than to inform you, that my Adverſaries have boldly aſſured the World, that I ſay, The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed only as to Effects; whereas you truly repreſent my words, that beſides the Effects, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt it ſelf, is imputed to us. It's true, you had prevented your Plea againſt it, had you conſulted Man made Righteous, p. 77, 78, 79, 80. Yet have I no reaſon to complain of my Treatment; whilſt ſtruck at by both Extreams, when deeper thoughts would perceive the truth ſtated againſt the exceſs of both?
But your Second Letter neceſſitates a Vindication of my ſelf from the Falſhoods impoſed on you; the Publication whereof is poorly excuſed by ſaying, You have not my Books now to examine the Quotations. Will your Experience allow you to be a Tool to a Man you call learned, becauſe Induſtrious to divide Brethren, under a pretence of Reconciling a Breach, which is made and maintained to ſerve a turn, againſt all the ſelf-denying Methods that were poſſible on our part. This Sheet allows not arguing any Point; my Concern is to ſhew how unjuſtly I am repreſented, by the Objections offered by your Author.
1. Obj. Chriſt, where he is called a Surety, was a Surety of a better Covenant, and therefore not of the Law of Works. It was not a Covenant that obliged us to dye for ſin, or perfectly obey in a way of Merit, that he is called a Surety of. Man made Righteous, p. 102.
Anſ. 1. He leaves out the word here, and ſo changeth the ſenſe. My words are, That the Covenant he is called a Surety of here, viz. Heb. 7. 22.
Anſ. 2. In ſtating the Queſtion that leads to theſe words, I declared what I affirmed concerning Chriſt's Surety-ſhip, and what I did deny. 1. I granted that Chriſt hath undertaken in the Covenant of Redemption, that he would make Satisfaction to Juſtice for us, and obey the whole Will of God, &c. He was a real Sponſor, engaging to do all that belonged to him. Chriſt accordingly died in our Nature, and that not only for our good, but in our ſtead, noſtro loco. We were liable to dye, he ſtept in and died, that we might not dye; who otherwiſe muſt have dyed, but now live by his dying for us. He was a proper foreign. He gave his Life for ours; yea, and this to vindicate the Glory of God, in exempting us from Death, &c. Then I proved that Chriſt did ſuffer properly in our ſtead, was a Sacrifice for us, &c. And concluded, Thus far the Word of God directs us to call Chriſt, either Surety, Sponſor, Repreſentative, &c. p. 90, 91, 92. 2. The thing that I did deny, was, That Chriſt by his Obedience made Atonement, or merited for us, as a proper Pecuniary Surety in the Law of Works. This I confuted by ſeveral Arguments; and the words objected are the ſixth Argument, viz. that in Heb. 7. 22. where Chriſt is called a Surety, it is of the better Covenant; which is not the Covenant of Works. Sir, judge you, whether I affirm not Chriſt to be a Surety, Name and Thing; though I affirm that it's the better Covenant he is called Surety of in Heb. 7. 22. And deny him to be a Money Surety.
2. Obj. Chriſt can be bound by the Covenant, of which he is ſurety, to no more than what we are engaged to do and ſuffer by the Goſpel-Covenant. Man made Righteous, p. 105.
Anſ. My words are, The Covenant Chriſt is Surety of in this place, viz. Heb. 7. 22. is the Goſpel-Covenant; and if ſo, he can even as a Money Surety hereby be bound with us to no more than what we are engaged to do and Suffer by this Goſpel-Covenant. It's true, by the Covenant of Redemption, he was engaged to ſuffer Death in the Humane Nature for Satisfaction, and this in our place, and alſo to obey the whole Law. Sir, can you not ſee that the Objector leaves out, in this place, Money, and hereby. And he alſo makes that to be my Aſſertion, what I only infer from a Suppoſition, which I denyed, and leaves out if ſo. He would ſuggeſt me to ſay, Chriſt is to Repent and Believe for us; which, as I expreſly deny, p. 91. So I oft declare, that his Surety-ſhip, as to the Goſpel-Covenant, conſiſts in his undertaking that the Covenant ſhall be performed on God's, and on the Believers part. And laſtly, he ſtops juſt at the words which confute his whole Imputation, viz. That Chriſt was engaged by the Covenant of Redemption to Suffer, &c.
3. Obj. Though in Gal. 4. 4, 5. it's ſaid, that Chriſt was made under the Law, it is not meant of the Moral Law, but Ceremonial Law.
Anſ. I was proving that though the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, for which we are juſtified, be a Righteouſneſs adequate to the Law, yea, Supra legal, as well as in ſubſtance truly Legal; yet that Righteouſneſs is not a Surety-ſhip Righteouſneſs, that can infer us equally Righteous as Chriſt. Purſuant hereto, I propoſe Gal. 4. 4, 5. as an Objection, to which I made theſe four Anſwers. 1. I might ſhew how the Context confines to the following ſenſe, viz. That Chriſt was made under the Jewiſh Law, delivered Four Hundred Years after the Promiſe, &c. And in this ſenſe it is not the Law of Innocency, as a Proper Covenant of Works, &c. The Objection is pretended hence; but I ſaid the Jewiſh Law, not the Ceremonial Law, which is but part of it: The Moral Law was alſo a part thereof, though not delivered to them as a proper Covenant of Innocency. 2. My next Anſwer, and in the very ſame Page, was, I grant that Chriſt in taking our Nature, became a Servant, and ſubject to the Law of Innocency, to its Precepts, and its Puniſhments, as a Mediator, according to the terms adjuſted in the Covenant of Redemption. Here I affirmed what he ſaith I deny. My Fourth Anſwer was, Chriſt did not then become a Surety, or Undertaker to dye for us, by being made under the Law, but he was made under the Law, becauſe he had undertaken to dye for us. His very being made under the Law of Works, was but a performance of a Previous Engagement to the Law-giver; this being one Article in the Covenant of Redemption, that he ſhould take our Nature, be a Servant under the Law, and make his Soul an Offering for Sin. Ubi ſup. p. 110, 111.
4. Obj. Calling God Creditor, and Sin Debts, is Metaphorical; and uſing ſuch words as proper, hath given Advantage to the Socinians.
Anſ. I acknowledge it, and ſuch as underſtand the way of Confuting the Socinians, are of the ſame mind. And therefore grant, if God were a Creditor, and Sin a Debt, God might forgive without Satisfaction; and if the Idem be paid, it's not a Satisfaction, nor is there room for Pardon, nor for Goſpel-terms. See this urged by Leideker, Synopſis Theol. l. 4. cap. 6. S. 4, 5, 6, 7. 11. 20. 45. B. Stillingfleet, Suff. of Chriſt, Cap. 1. Grotius de Satisf. p. 60. 71. Eſſen. Trium. Crucis, 340. 390. Dr. Owen, of Satisf. 141. ſaith, they are the moſt improper Expreſſions in this matter.
5. Obj. There is no change of Perſon between Christ and the Elect, or between him and Believers. Goſpel Truth, p. 37. 41.
Anſ. 1. If by change of Perſon be meant ſimply a change of Perſons or Men; that is, that Sinners were to dye for their Tranſgreſſions, but Chriſt, by God's Appointment, and his own Conſent, was ſubſtituted to obey, and dye in Sinners ſtead; and Chriſt ſtood obliged ſo to Obey and Suffer what for ſubſtance the Law required. I have hundreds of times aſſerted it in my Books. I have not room to inſtance. See in Man made Righteous, Eight Propoſitions clearing this. In one I ſay, Divine Grace and Soveraignty exert themſelves to anſwer the ends of the Law, by ſubſtituting Chriſt a Saviour of loſt Souls, &c. p. 11, 12, 13.
Anſ. 2. The change of Perſon I there denyed, is only that which Dr. Criſp and Followers aſſert, and which is the ſtrict meaning of a change of Perſon, viz. A mutual compleat change of Condition and Character; and not a transferring a Puniſhment from a Criminal to an Hoſtage. This is evident, 1. By the Error I there confute, i. e. that every Elect Perſon is as Righteous as Chriſt; there is a perfect change of Perſon and Condition between Chriſt and the Elect: He was what we are, and we are what he was, viz. perfectly Holy, &c. Chriſt himſelf is not ſo compleatly Righteous, but we are as Righteous as he; nor we ſo compleatly Sinful, but Chriſt became as ſinful as we, &c. That very ſinfulneſs that we were, Chriſt is made that very Sinfulneſs before God: So that there is a direct change of Perſon. 2. It's plain that I denyed this change of Perſon in Criſp's ſenſe, by what I offer to overthrow it; wherein nothing oppoſeth Chriſt's dying in our ſtead, by God's Subſtitution or Surrogation. My words are, Chriſt was the Saviour, we the ſaved, and not the Saviours. Chriſt was the Redeemer, and not the Redeemed; we are the Redeemed, and never the Redeemers. Chriſt was he who by his Merits forgives us, but never was forgiven; we are forgiven, and never had Merits of our own to forgive our ſelves or others. He was the dying Sacrifice. 3. I do in the very Chapter whence the words are objected, oft aſſert as much, as the Orthodox intend by Chriſt's being ſubſtituted in our place to dye for us. To inſtance a few of many, p. 39. Chriſt's Sufferings were ſo in our ſtead, that God cannot exact from us any other Atonement for Sin, or meriting Price of any Goſpel-Bleſſings. p. 43. The Efficient Merit of Juſtification is in Chriſt, the Effect of the Judicial Abſolution for that Merit is in us. Had not he obeyed, and ſuffered for us, we could not have been abſolved for the ſake of his Obedience and Sufferings. P. 52. Chriſt ſuffered in our ſtead, that the Fruit of his Sufferings might be our deliverance from Sufferings, and our being ſaved at laſt. How many might I add out of that very Chapter? It's worth the Objector's leiſure to conſider, how he lays ſuch ſtreſs on a change of Perſon in Criſp's ſenſe, and yet contends for Chriſt and us being one Legal Perſon. How could Chriſt and we be One Perſon in Law, and yet Chriſt's Perſon and our Perſons be mutually changed in Law, unleſs that both Perſons were changed from what they once were, into a tertium quid, that neither were before?
6. Obj. There is a change of the Penal Sanction of the Law, Pref. Goſpel-Truth. The Goſpel doth not denounce Death for the ſame ſins, and for every ſin, as Adam's Law did. Def. Goſp. Truth, p. 30.
Anſ. 1. The firſt Clauſe is falſe repreſented: I will recite my words, After I had ſaid, the Goſpel includes the Moral Preceptive part of the firſt Law, &c. And that the Goſpel is taken in a large ſenſe, when I ſay, it includes the Moral Precepts. But yet the Goſpel doth ſo, and they are the Commands of a Redeemer, as well as the Law of a Creator. I then added, The Goſpel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law, than the Covenant of Works had: Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty, yet Bleſſings are promiſed to lower degrees of Duties; 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; doth it threaten Damnation, or a continuance therein on any true Penitent, Believing, Godly Man, becauſe he is imperfect? Sir, judge you, 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, as thoſe Precepts are taken into the Goſpel. May not the Law have its own Sanction ſtill as a Covenant of Works? And yet the Goſpel have another Sanction as a Covenant of Grace, though it includes the Moral Precepts as a Rule of Duty? It ſeems the Objector thinks with his Aſſociates, either the Goſpel hath neither Precept, Threatning, nor Conditional Promiſe. Or if it hath a Sanction, it's this, that though a Man be a ſincere Penitent Believer, yet he ſhall dye if he be guilty of one evil Thought; and ſhall not be ſaved, if he be not Perfect.
Anſw. 2. As to the ſecond Clauſe, my words were, The Goſpel Law doth not denounce death for the ſame Sins, as Adam's Law did: That Law threatned Death for the leaſt Sin; yea, for one Sin. The Goſpel doth not bar every Sinner from relief, but the impenitent, unbelieving, and utterly ungodly Hypocrite: And it binds not damnation on us, unleſs we are finally impenitent Unbelievers, But the Objector wiſely leaves out the laſt part, to traduce me by the firſt.
7. Obj. Chriſt purchaſed the Covenant of Grace.
Anſw. I ſpeak not of God's decree or purpoſe, but of the actual promulgated Promiſe to the World, that he that believeth ſhall be ſaved: And I can as ſoon think, God might perform this Promiſe, without reſpect to Chriſt's Merits; as not provide for the Glory of his Juſtice by Chriſt's ſatisfaction, in the making this Promiſe.
8. Obj. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace, is an antecedent condition. Anſw. My words quoted from Mr. Flavel are, An antecedent Condition ſignifies no more than an act of ours; which though it be neither perfect in every degree, nor in the leaſt meritorious of the benefit, nor perform'd in our own natural ſtrength: Yet, according to the conſtitution of the Covenant, it is required of us, in order to the bleſſings conſequent thereupon, by virtue of the Promiſe. Goſpel Truth, p. 54. You ſee I mean only antecedent to ſubſequent benefits by Goſpel Conſtitution, but ſpeak not of Election. Sir, you omit one part of the Objection, viz. That I ſhould ſay, the Conditions are legal, &c. I never call them ſo. Nay, p. 56. I affirmed, That the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace differ from the Conditions of the Covenant of Works, and proved it in five inſtances; one whereof is, that the bleſſings of the Covenant of Grace, are meerly of Grace, they be for anothers ſake, and not our own, &c.
9 Obj. Faith and Repentance are not Covenant Benefits.
Anſw. He pretends to Cite no place out of my Books for this, and I never wrote any ſuch thing. But I have ſaid, God hath promiſed, and Chriſt engaged in the Covenant of Redemption, that the Elect ſhall believe. Goſpel Truth, p. 60. The firſt Grace by which we perform the Condition is abſolutely given, p. 61. Chriſt purchaſed all Grace for us, and by his Spirit worketh all Grace in us, 248. There is a promiſe of the first Grace made to Chriſt, and by virtue of that Promiſe, the Elect conſent to the Covenant, 66. Now Sir, compare all theſe things and judge whether your Author deſerveth ſuch truſt, as to adventure your Publication of theſe things upon his Credit. Sincerity enclineth you to be too credulous for ſome Aſſociates: But I proceed to the other Objections your Author makes, tho he never vouchſafed me a Copy of what he gave to many others privately.
10. Obj. The Father was never diſpleaſed with Chriſt, Goſpel Truth, p. 31. Anſw. I ſaid the Soul of Chriſt endured the effects of God's Wrath, and was amazed thereat; but was never diſpleaſed with Chriſt. It ſeems the Objector would have me ſay with Criſp, that Chriſt was odious to God, hated worſe than a Toad, &c. becauſe of the filthineſs of ſin upon him.
11. Obj. All Communications of Comfort could not be interrupted, whilſt the Perſonal Union remained, p. 33.
Anſw. My words are, This Union could not be diſſolved; nor could all Communications of Comfort or Strength from the Divine Nature be interrupted, while the Union remained. He leaves out, or ſtrength, and changeth a disjunctive Propoſition into an abſolute. I diſtinguiſh between the arbitrary Communications of Comfort, and thoſe which were neceſſary to Chriſt's Hope, Truſt, Peace of Conſcience as to his own Innocency, to his Holineſs, Strength, and the prevention of Deſpair; what degrees of Comfort were neceſſary to theſe, I affirm, were not interrupted.
12. Obj. Chriſt and we are not one in Conſpectu fori, and therefore tells us, that 'tis Blaſphemy to debaſe him among the numbers of Tranſgreſſors. Goſpel Truth, 41.
Anſw. 1. Not one in Conſpectu fori, is not in any of my Books. The words partly Cited, are part of my Argument, againſt the Criſpian Change of Perſon; whereby we are as Righteous as Chriſt, and he as ſinful as we, they are theſe; it is profane Arrogance for us to pretend to Chriſt's Prerogatives, and its Blaſphemy to debaſe Chriſt among Enemies and Sinners, for whom he is the dying Sacrifice: its enough, that he reſerving the peculiars of a Redeemer, ſhould agree to dye for our Sins: its enough, that we are pardoned and adopted for his ſake, who deſerved endleſs Woe; and were never capable of making the leaſt Atonement.
Anſw. 2. If the Objector intends to repreſent me denying the guilt of Sin, being once upon Chriſt; he knows I plainly ſtate and affirm the contrary. P. 7. Our Sins were laid upon Chriſt, with reſpect to the guilt thereof: So that by the Father's Appointment, and his own Conſent, he became obliged as Mediator to bear thoſe Puniſhments, to the full ſatisfaction of Juſtice. And p. 9. Chriſt did bear the guilt of our Sins, which is, that reſpect to the threatning of the Law, whereby there is an Obligation to bear the Puniſhment. Anſw. 3. I Suppoſe the Objector is now offended that I did not ſay with Criſp and his Party, that Sin it ſelf, the filth and fault, the foreign as oppoſed to the guilt, was laid on Chriſt; and that he was in God's eſteem the very murtherer and Idolater. Anſw. 4. I grant God eſteemed Chriſt and Sinners ſo one; as he that freely engageth to dye to redeem Sinners, by dying in their ſtead, and they in whoſe ſtead he ſo dieth, are one. But I ſhall ever deny, that Chriſt and Sinners were ſo one in Conſpectu fori, as that God eſteemed Sinners to dye to make ſatisfaction; tho they, when Believers, are ſaved by Chriſt's Death, as if they had made Atonement. And alſo, That Chriſt was the Sinner in God's Account, when he died, ſuſtaining the Perſon of a Mediator.
13. Obj. Mr. W. differs from himſelf, having in his Writings ſeveral inconſiſtencies and ſelf-contradictions.
Anſw. 1. This is put in for a Proviſion againſt all that occurs in my Books; to debar the falſe Charge againſt me, oh he contradicts himſelf, when he utters things in fulleſt oppoſition to Socinianiſm, &c. Anſw. 2. And wherein do I Contradict my ſelf? The Objector thinks, if I deny the Criſpian change of Perſon, or pecuniary Suretiſhip, and one legal Perſon, in a ſenſe inferring our making Satisfaction, by our own dying in the Laws eſtimate. Then whatever I ſay of Chriſt's Satisfaction, muſt be Socinianiſm; and all I can utter againſt Socinianiſm, is ſelf-contradicting. But if he call me to it, I ſhall demonſtrate, that Chriſt being a Mediator, Sponſor, or ſubſequent Surety ex re geſta, conſtituted ſuch by the Covenant of Redemption, and made under the Law, purſuant to that prior engagement to obey, and ſuffer in our ſtead what anſwered the ends of the Law, that we might be ſaved in a way conſiſtent with God's Glory as our Lawgiver; will argue as great a change of Perſons and Suretyſhip, as will ſolve his feigned Contradictions. And yet ſhall deny ſuch a Compleat Change of Perſon, which argues Chriſt to be the Sinner, and the Redeemed to be as Righteous as Chriſt. And in like manner ſhall deny ſuch a legaloneſs and ſtrict pecuniary Suretyſhip, as argues we paid all our own Debts, we ſatisfied the Law by obeying its Precepts, and enduring its Penalty, and ſo the Law of Works, not the Goſpel abſolves us. You may ſee the point partly ſtatted, in the laſt Leaf of Defence of Goſpel Truth. As to what he ſaith of my pretending an agreement with ſome Modern Divines, who diſagree with me; I am ſure, I have truly recited their own words, which ſo far expreſs my Sentiments, let him prove them ſelf-contradictors if he can.
His flying Charge from the Premiſes, as if Socinianiſm were abetted, deſerves no farther reply, than to call it Slanderous. All my arguments againſt Chriſt's pecuniary Suretyſhip, he never read in any Book; and had a Socinian urged them againſt a Truth, they are not the leſs valid if urged againſt errours deſtructive to Chriſtianity. And what if ſome Socinians uſe ſome Expreſſions in a ſence contrary to that wherein I plainly uſe them? They do alſo own a Commutation of Perſon, and then they muſt be Socinians by as ſtrong a Conſequence, who uſe that phraſe. If I have not in my Books ſaid enough to clear me from all ſuſpicion of that Error, the objector's Malice muſt be the ſtandard of Socinianiſm, and not the fundamental poſitions, which have by all its Celebrated oppoſers, been hitherto confuted. To omit Chriſt's eternal Generation as the Son of God, of one Eſſence with the Father, which I oft aſſert. Could I ſay more as to his Satisfaction, than I have ex profeſſo done, and oft with enforcing Reaſons, See Man made Righteous, p. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 35, to 42, 229, &c. I place the neceſſity of ſatisfaction in God's eſſential juſtice; I deſcribe it by Chriſts perfectly obeying the Law of Works, in its eſſentials and doing much more; as alſo in his ſuffering death in our ſtead. I aſſert his Sufferings to be Puniſhments ſatisfactory to juſtice for our Sins; that Chriſt was a proper Sacrifice, and himſelf the Prieſt that offered it on earth. I make his Obedience properly meritorious of all our ſaving Benefits; himſelf a proper foreign in his death, with much more, which I challenge him to prove conſiſtent with Socinianiſm. But ſome Men think they can gain a point among their Credulous ſilly Admirers, by branding with a ſcandalous name, all they bear an ill will to, if not affright the Perſons injured, or at leaſt their Friends But I bleſs God, I have found more of his defence, and am more aſſured of the goodneſs of my Cauſe, than to be affrighted from my Duty, by ſuch Bug-bears: And ſhould all they of the ſame judgment with me expoſe the truth by little arts, and trimming methods, in pretence of deſigns never ſo plauſible, I ſhall have peace, when my teſtimony is faithfully given, as occaſion ſhall offer, by whatever implacable rage I am purſued. I conclude, Sir, blameing your Credulity in Printing things as mine, before Examination, tho in moſt you declare your ſelf to be of my ſide, and in the reſt farther from my Enemies. Nor perceive I your Author's ſelf-denial, or peaceableneſs, unleſs you think, becauſe I have been ſo injured, therefore I muſt ſtill by farther Suffering, juſtify the injurious; and bear the name of a hinderer of the Union, becauſe they who never were of it, perſecute me for my diligence in making, and care to preſerve that Union, againſt their various and unwearied attempts from the firſt, to break it. And let me tell you, that as they reſted not till by their Errours, noiſe of Doctrines, and other Arts, they had gained ſeveral to make this breach; ſo a Compliance, even to the allowing their Errours, and Sacrificing the truth to their Luſts, would be inſignificant to bring ſuch into the Union, who refuſed it long before any of my Books were written; or firmly reſtore ſuch, who by their influence deſerted it; unleſs God give a Spirit, that ſhall prefer publick good to little deſigns, and encline to Love and Peace, above Diviſion and Wrath. Experience of the unſucceſsfulneſs of many overtures for Peace, (a narrative whereof would amaze the World) induceth this Conjecture: And yet no hardſhips I have endured, ſhall abate a deſire of a ſolid Union upon honeſt Terms. You will find Dr. B's, Mr. H. and Mr. A deſign no more, than what's agreeable to what I affirm, and they hate the Errours I oppoſe. And which, tho ſo dangerous, M. L. for Partyſake, will promote by blaſting my Confutation, and preſſing an implicit diſowning my Books, as a term of Union with thoſe, who rejected it as ſinful, long before my Books were written: Yea, who influenced the dividing of P. Hall Lecture, to break the Fond for poor Miniſters; that both theſe added to their ſtated ſeperate Meeting of Miniſters, (at the ſame hour the United Brethren met) a perfect Breach might be proclaimed. And for a Grave-ſtone over it, the only four Paſtors in London, who never came into the Union, are with two more, the only Lecturers at P. H. Could then the Subſcribes to my Book, be ſo falſe to Truth and their Miniſtry, as to abate their Teſtimony, Will a general Union enſue? No, Unleſs the Diſſenters former Declaration againſt it were a Trick: Why then ſo inſiſted on? It's becauſe it will not be yielded to, and ſo they get an Excuſe long after this Subſcription, why they United not before it, Or if complyed with, then beſides a Countenance to their Errors, Men will judge the Presbyterians cauſe theſe Diviſions; altho they ask nothing of the Diſſenters but to meet with them, and be quiet. And Laſtly, the Engliſh and Foreign Churches would affix the Criſpian dotages to the Presbiterians, for thus revoking their Teſtimony againſt them: A Cenſure of which ſort, on a lighter occaſion, was going into the Preſs, juſt as my Book ſo Subſcribed came out. I am,
Your Brother and Servant … WILLIAMS
End of the text · Daniel Williams, Answer to Humphreys Second Letter (1695)