Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	king_n	read_v	write_v	2,895	5	5.5794	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45127	The friendly interposer, between the authors of those papers, the one called a report, the other, a rebuke of that report in order to a sound reconciliation between the Presbyterians and Independents in doctrinals, by the proposal of a third way, when both of them in their own, are out / by John Humphrey.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1698 (1698)	Wing H3678; ESTC R16381	26,728	32

For the Question now I have to ask you Mr. Report it is this That granting you to be in the right as to the Phrase Change of Persons which these two chief Learned Men Bishop Stillingfleet for a Conformist and Dr. Owen for a Nonconformist do use and warrant I must demand only what is your sense of it You must tell me such a sense of this Change as that the Sinner must come in the room of Christ as well as Christ in the room of the Sinner If you have thought on such a sense before you wrote as to be fixed in it you are a Man of Judgment and if you can maintain it when fixed you are a Man of Might If you can fetch that sense out of Stillingfleet that most Learned Bishop is alive and will make it good and it is like to be received if you fetch it out of Owen that excellent Doctor is dead and you must make it good your self And I would have you take heed of that for you see Eight Arguments you must encounter which if they be enlarged and drawn out in Battle their Strength will be great I must also yet tell you that in my Apprehension verily Grotius whatsoever you imagine does verge to Mr. Rebuke rather than you because in his shewing that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to Persons does import this Commutation and instances in Archelaus's coming in the room of Herod I cannot believe that Grotius ever once thought of Herod's coming in the room of Archelaus so that the Point between you must come to this that whereas you both are agreed that Archelaus came in the room of Herod you are to shew in what Sense Herod came also in Archelaus's room or you are gone In short Mr. Rebuke grants you such a Commutation of Persons as the comeing of one in the room of the other but not such as the coming of both in the room of one another To be more clear in respect to Mr. Rebuke and Mr. Williams in the Notion before I will take Liberty to express my self in my own Terms There is a Threefold Person a Natural Person a Qualitative Person and a Representative Person The Natural Person is that we call in Metaphysicks suppositum rationale such as John Peter You and I which every one knows The Qualitative Person is the State or Condition of the Natural Person whatsoever it is as one Man is a Justice another a Constable another a King If a Prince says Barclay shall go to destroy his People Si regnum alienet si Rem publicam evertere conetur he does exuere Personam Regis and he ceasing to be King our Subjection ceases This I bring only to shew you what a Qualitative Person is A Representative Person is one that in what he does or suffers represents another or does it in his stead and this Representative Person is twofold Real or Histrionical A Real Representative Person is that we call a Legal or Civil Person who is one that Acts so in another's Room that the Person for whom he Acts is to be accounted to have done it in his Person it being valid and as good in Law as if himself had done it As what an Atturney at Law does for his Client or a Guardian for his Pupil it is accounted in Law to be done by Client and Pupil so that they may in those Acts be said to sustain their Persons Thus a Parliament is the Representative of the Nation An Histrionical Fictitious or feigned Person is one that Acts the Qualitatives Person or imitates his Qualities as the Man on the Stage that Acts a King or Porter does Personate or put on the Person of a King or Porter when he is neither Now when Mr. Williams in his Book denies a change of Person between Christ and the Sinner or the Elect for the Elect are Sinners yet grants a change of Persons he must be so understood That he denies Christ took on him the Qualitative Person of a Sinner or was so accounted of God and likewise that he did not Act the Part of Sinners or do what they do which is certainly true and yet that there is a change of Persons is regard to our Natural Persons betwixt Christ and us for Christ in his natural Person came in the room of our Natural Persons and suffered for our Deliverance Thus much must be undoubtedly so but as for the Real Representative now there is the Question Whether Christ took on him our Legal or Civil Person so that we are to be look'd on as having done and suffered in him as our legal Person what he did and suffered whereby his very Righteousness must be ours in Law-sense for our Justification This I take to be the Common Opinion of the Protestant and which you have received But this I deny This Mr. Baxter denies whether Mr. Williams does or no consult his Books My Reasons for the denial are those eight Thens already said unto which more may be added They do heinously erre says Mr. Baxter and subvert the Gospel who say that Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as that God reputeth Christ to have been perfectly Holy and suffered though not in our Natural yet in the Legal or Civil Person of the Sinner or Believer as their strict and proper Representer and so to have our selves fulfilled all Righteousness in him or by him and thereby be justified There are more Words by Way of Aggravation which I fill up with and thereby be justified I know you have cited formerly some Passages and may again out of Dr. Bates against Mr. Williams but I pray consider how they are more opposite to Mr. Baxter and I will therefore say thus much about them I remember in Reading Luther against King Henry who had wrote a Book against him how in one or two places upon the King 's urging some Arguments of little weight he distinguishes thus upon him Such a thing I have forgot what may be taken says he Dupliciter these either Revera or Henericaliter I must answer so here that if those Passages or the like of Dr. Bates be taken Henericaltter as the Words of that beloved Dr. they must pass because he hath said them but if they be taken Revera the Expressions being Elegant and not heeded the Sense of them must be rightly understood according to Mr. Baxter As for the Term Surety which you farther stand upon there are many sorts of Sureties Mr. Baxter tells you and what kind a one Christ is which you know well enough Cath. Theol. Part II. p. 66. so that you must not take the Word and use it in so gross a Sense as it hath been commonly as if Christ and we were in the same Bond and the Debt being paid by him the whole Obligation is to be presently cancelled all one as if we had paid it our selves Such a Surety in effect is the same thing as to be our Legal Person and a

Law and so to be in him Legally righteous and justified by his Righteousness Formaliter according to the Law of Works then must his Righteousness be ours so that in a Legal sense we must be as righteous as he or God must look on us in him as righteous as he and then can God see no sin in the Believer and the Believer have no need of Repentance or other Righteousness with the like Inferences which we utterly condemn however by the most pious of them mitigated in the Antinomian The Consequence really is not to be denied unless by outfacing it with number or shifting Mr. Anthony Burgesse acknowledges if we be formally justified by Christ's Righteousness then are we as righteous as he and therefore he will have his Righteousness to be the Matter not the Form of our Justification And Amesius being put to it by this Objection from Bellarmine apprehends the Consequence so irrefragable that he recedes from the Doctrine Haec non est noctra sententia says he hereupon though Davenant you see before does stoutly affirm the contrary And when it becomes necessary to recede from this Doctrine it is fit we find out another that will hold better together If in good earnest you will maintain this Doctrine of Commutation so that you understand no less by it than this That Christ hath obey'd and suffer'd in our Person that the Law is obeyed and satisfied by us in him or we Legally righteous in him which is all one I argue farther as in my Pacification and who shall answer it If this were so Then should we not our selves obey at all Then should we not suffer at all for he that hath perfectly obeyed can be punished for nothing Then should we need no forgiveness Then would Christ's Suffering for us having obey'd be needless Then must he be look'd on by God as a sinner Then must the Culpa as well as the Poena be imputed to him Then could not Christ be our Mediator because he is look'd on as the Offending Party and a Mediator is a third Party between the Offender and the Offended in which Person he obeyed and suffered for us Then lastly should Impunity and Life be due to us immediately by a meer resultancy from his Obedience and Sufferings and not be given by the interposition of a new Law or Covenant upon Terms as they are according to the Gospel which is subverted therefore by this Opinion I pray then Mr. Report will you sit down a little with me and consider what you would have by this Commutation of Persons and see if it will hold There are two Points according to you depend upon it which are the principal Points in the Christian Religion to wit Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification But here it is that you are out with the Brethren and the excellent Dr. Owen who all of you do build this Commutation of Persons upon that Union with Christ which we call the Mystical Vnion between Christ and the Elect Believer by vertue whereof and not otherwise Christ's Righteousness you count becomes theirs for their Justification But Sir this cannot be for if Christ's Righteousness be ours as thus One with him then must it be one and the same Righteousness and we righteous as he as before in God's Eye or in the Eye of the Law which is all one His Righteousness is imputed in se and we justified by the Law with his Righteousness as I have said as the Form it self or Formal Cause of our Justification That being observed as you will yet see more and those Arguments contained in the Eight Then 's unanswerable it is your mistake therefore here with others to suppose such a Commutation as is built upon this Mystical Vnion when there is none but what is founded on his Hypostatical Vnion which concerns all Mankind as well as the Elect and answers this full sense of Grotius mentioned before Of which point in particular I will forbear saying more because I have endeavoured to make this out in a Chapter I have in my Peaceable Disquisitions on Purpose against Dr. Owen which Book I presented to the Doctor while living and he never writ against it See my Pacif. also Pag. 16 and there is some Epitomy of it One thing yet I will tell you in regard to those two great Points mentioned that however commodious and proper you think these Phrases be for the making out the Doctrine of Satisfaction if you use them in no other sense than that of Grotius in regard to Socinianism they are as much incommodious and dangerous I fear for the making out the Doctrine of Justification if hey be used according to the common Protestant in regard to Antinomianism They are not equally applicable I must say to both for it is sufficient that Christ took on him our Nature and so put his Natural Person in our room in suffering for us to make out the one but he must be mystically put into our and we into his Legal Person to make out the other Before I leave this Phrase there are two Questions I must ask One of you and the other of Mr. Rebuke or else your two Altercations about it will signifie nothing The Question I would ask Mr. Rebuke is this Whether he did designedly intend a Difference between a Change of Person and a Change of Persons Which he seems to have done by some express Words and his meaning then must be That tho' Christ came into the room of Sinners to suffer for them and may be accordingly said to sustain their persons or to put on their Persons yet the Sinner does not come into the room of Christ's Person or sustain his Person or take on him his Person and consequently that there is a change of Person but not of Persons between them If this be his sense and not spoke out of a present Sagacity or Wit but upon a deliberate Resolution it is a great matter I have touched upon this in my Pacif. and in an Half-sheet printed by it self But here it may be required of Mr. Rebuke to shew some Author of note for such a distinction which would fix it but he will find none I doubt only Mr. Williams and here is the mischief of that Mr. Williams denying that there is a Change of Person between Christ and the Elect does account himself wrong'd to have that interpreted no Change of Persons so that he holds a Change of Persons and denies only a Change of Person when Mr. Rebuke directly contrary allows a Change of Person but denies a Change of Persons and yet both intend the same sense I on purpose noted this in that Half-sheet mentioned and told there Mr. Williams's Sense and I know Mr. Rebuke had that Half-sheet and he would have done well to have quoted it because when many Hands are required to a Work it is better accept any meaner Hand than * This Half-sheet therefore shall be Printed at the end none at all

it were sound at the bottom or no I would have you both after my notice of its being forsaken of our latter more considerate Divines to exercise that Talent which that Brother has something above others in looking into those Consequences how far they do go and then I will conceive there is one of these two things he must come to Either he will judge them maintainable and the Doctrine good and if so let him go on and see if he can make the Antinomian White Or he will see the Consequences such that he cannot come to that conclusion and then he must reflect back on the Premises and come to another that the Doctrine must be changed and if so then retaining his Honesty that will not abide daubing the Doctrine I offer in the room of his having nothing of that kind in it and nothing I seek by it but Truth for Truth 's sake may happily stand fair with him for the making a Convert more likely of one most extream from me than of the Moderate and Wise and consequently the Cold that unless it came into vogue will never concern themselves about it And for that Noted Brother you two have wrote against as differing from you in several things especially in a sound Explication of some Scriptures opposing the Sentiments of your Brethren which as in gave them high offence so it stir'd up this Brother of yours to write vehemently against him as a Perverter of the Protestant Doctrine and verging towards Socinianism But he therein innocent being not concern'd so much about that as about the Doctrine he taught that it might not offend he did endeavour so to temper it with Complyance and over yielding that made me write against him as like to yield away our Cause I must instance in what particular The Independent Brethren accused him for holding that Christ's Righteousness was not imputed to us but only in the Effects when he had expresly said That besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a Believer According to the Doctrine he otherwise maintain'd he should have held and owned that which the Brethren accused him for but his Words were otherwise and he thought I believe that his Words and Doctrine were consistent the Reason indeed being because he had not and fundamentally could not have considered what Justification is that is he knew not then what the Form of it is nor could my self being the first Protestant that have ventured here to speak out when yet it was to be known If Christ's Righteousness be imputed in se which those Words say then must God look upon us as Legally Righteous in him and we Formally Justified by his Righteousness which with the Consequence following must drive him from his own Opinion and to come over to yours and lead him farther even to that Party he hath wrote so well against in the First of his deservedly commended Books So that I have more than hopes from him when I have hopes from you that he will because he must if he writes again come over to me or rather to the Apostle in the point To this end came I into the World says our Saviour that I might bear Witness to the Truth And here I will say something to the Quick in regard to Mr. Williams that considerable Brother and you too for I think both more worthy Men than you do of one another I have told you before That I believe if Mr. Williams had not seen my last Book or those Sheets or my Half-sheet forementioned and I had ask'd him or you the Question What is the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification It is like he and you would have ingeniously acknowledged both that you had not thought so much upon it or that it was scarce so pertinent as to be ask'd But seeing it is like to prove otherwise to him I must after all I have writ and his Thoughts on it ask the Question What is the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification I say our Justification which once for all I must tell you does denote Justification Passively taken as it must be taken and is by Papists and Protestants in their Dispute about it and by the Apostle when he disputes That it is by Faith and not Works that Abraham was and we are justified If one say here Justification hath no form he is beaten plainly off the Stage Justification it is true Actively taken is an Act of God a Judicial Act of him as the Efficient by the Gospel as his Instrument whereby he constitutes the sound Believer Righteous and thereby gives him a Right to Impunity and Glory As Justification then taken thus Actively being an Act of God Mr. Williams and you know I suppose that ex parte Agentis it can be nothing but God's Will and that his Will is his Essence and that God acts only by his Essence and that there can be no cause of nor any new Act in God's Essence and that it is in regard therefore to the Effect as that Act is terminated on its Object that God's Will hath that Denomination so that it is of the Effect our being justified there are Causes and a formal there must be as well as others Whereas our Protestants now do maintain against the Papists That it is the Righteousness of Christ imputed is this Formal Cause I ask again of that Reverend Brother Mr. Williams Whether according to the common Doctrine he does hold That the Righteousness of Christ imputed and received by Faith alone is the Form formal cause or reason of our Justification yea or no Here is a Question which is Joseph's Divining Cup that must tell Whether Mr. Williams be a True Man or a Spy If he answers Categorically either one or the other he is a True Man if he shuffles he is a Spy If then he says yea according to his Assertion that Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer then does he come to you as the Maintainer of the commonly received Protestant Doctrine and you will be pleased I hope with such a Proselite If he says No then must he retract that saying as the good Saint Austin did Many and come over to Mr. Baxter and me and be welcome to the Truth as I judgé As for you then Mr. Report I must ask also the same Question but not to have an Answer till you see I desire it Whether you do really joyn with the common Protestant in this point as to the Formal Cause of our Justification If you say you do you see the Consequences Take them all draw out their Strength try if you can answer them One and an Elder Brother of yours forementioned is so openly Honest as when he sees to avow them but if you begin to shrug and must leave him I pray consider where you can stop unless you come to a Third Opinion for you and Mr. Williams to reconcile in when you

procatarcticae and Materialis also with Mr. Baxter per modum Meriti and no otherwise What is then let any one of them tell me That wherein the Formal Cause or Reason of Justification is to be placed or can Justification be or * Justificationis formam justitia constare certum est A Middle Way therefore here between Protestant and Papist desideratur constare without Any For this Advice now which according to my Natural Genius I should have given to Mr. Williams See 1 Pet. iii. 15. I apprehend not prejudicial to Gospel Truth if his Sence is upheld that is the Truth of his Book while the Quarrel about the Word be compos'd It is plain that Mr. Williams and I and They hold the same thing for he is no Socinian but holds Christ died for us in the Sence of in our stead That he was our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing a Surrogation of Christ's Person in our room when he became a Sacrifice for us which is as much I say again as Grotius to whom they appeal did intend It is nothing therefore in my esteem for Mr. Williams to withdraw an Expression in that sence which offends seeing in the Antinomian sense wherein he denies a Change of Person the Brethren agree in the Negative with him and in the Orthodox sence which they own Mr. Williams agrees in the Affirmative with them It is not Base here but Generous and to be Victor to give way it being enough that they both have declared themselves Besides if the Brethren be in earnest to search into the Matter and would order their Words so as we might come to Concord both in Words and Sence I have chalked out here from my late Book this Accommodation I will allow them a Change of Person in the Orthodox sence of the Word so as to grant Christ did sustain our Person in what he did and suffer'd And they shall allow to me that there is not a Change of Persons so as God did look on us to have done in Christ's Person what he did tho' he did it in our behalf and they shall henceforth frame their Words accordingly And that our Brethren may bend to some Reconciliation in this Proposal I do find since I wrote my Pacification the same Conception in Dr. Owen We do not say that God judgeth or esteemeth that we did and suffer'd in our Persons what Christ did and suffer'd but only that he did it and suffer'd it in our stead Of Justis pag. 295. As for the latter Passage That the Father was never displeased with Christ thus much must be premised and understood from what is said on the former That in the sence he sustain'd our Persons he was made Sin for us as the Apostle speaks though he knew no Sin that is to be understood Effectivè He was not made Sin or a Sinner formaliter but I say effectivè in regard to the Effect of Sin that is the bearing our Punishment as before Our Saviour therefore may be consider'd as bearing our Persons according to these Brethren and so our Sins or in his own Person God could not be displeased with him in the one no nor in the other Consideration because it was of his own appointment God in the Punishment on his Son not of his Son was displeased with the Sin and Sinners whose Person he bare but he was never displeased with the Person of his Son and much less now when he was fulfilling the Command of his Father in giving himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice of a sweet-smelling Savour unto him He must have a witty Invention I think that can find any thing to make himself differ from Mr. Williams in this Point And what when they and he agree in Sence would our Brethren have Mr. Williams retract these Words Nay it is They must withdraw here or they may bid him next go contradict the voice of God from Heaven This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased J. H. FINIS These Books written by the Reverend Author Mr. John Humfrey And to be Sold by Tho. Parkhurst c. are as follow SEveral Papers about Four or Five Sheets apiece called the Middle Way of Election of Redemption of Justification of the Covenants Law and Gospel of Perfection with indifferency between the Orthodox and Quaker As also Peaceable Disquisitions which treat of the Natural and Spiritual Man of Praying by the Spirit of Preaching by Demonstration of it of Assurance of the Arminian Grace of the Possibility of Heathens Salvation of the Reconciliation of Paul and Jamos of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness with other incidental Matters One of which middle Papers viz. That of Justification was Reprinted two Years since with the Quotation of what concerns that Subject out of the other and since that one Sheet so called and his Six Sheets last Year called Pacification in which there is the Case of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience stated and resolved the Doctrine whereof abjured in the two former Reigns is here in this Kings Reign Recorded for a Memoriae Sacrum to those which are to come 4to's The Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel or an impartial Enquiry into the genuine Doctrine of St. Paul in the great but much controverted Article of Justification To which is prefixt the Epistles of the Right Reverend the Bishops of Ely Worcester and Chester 4to A Private Psalter or Manual of Devotion composed by a Minister under the Apprehension of the Stone 8to The Axe laid to the Root of Separation or the Churches cause against it 8to