A defence of the report, concerning the present state of the differences in doctrinals, between some dissenting ministers in London, in reply to a book, enbtitled, A faithful rebuke of that report.

Reply.

1. That my reverend Brother hath delivered him∣self, in a point of this Importance so hastily, doth greatly lessen him in the Esteem of some of his truest Friends. For he is positive, that the phrase of a change

of Persons between Christ and Us, must signifie, that we Died for Christ's sins, to Redeem him; Now, seeing this must be the sense of the phrase, I desire to know, whether we did, in any sense, General, or Special, Die for Christ's Sins? If this must be the sense of the phrase; except my Brother believes, that in some sense, we did Die to Redeem Christ, he can't hold a change of Persons between Christ and Us, in any sense, and whatever my reverend Brethren in Little St. Hellens did charitably hope, it's now manifest from this Rebuker, that Mr. Williams by the phrase [of no change of Persons between Christ and Us] did intend the denial of a change of Persons between Christ and Us in the General sense. Yea farther,

2. That seeing my reverend Brethren at St. Hellens are for a change of Persons between Christ and Us, they must, in the Opinion of the Rebuker, hold, that We Died for Christ's Sins, and Redeemed him, which is Blasphemy. I wish my Brother would think a little on what he Asserts, when he so boldly avers, that the sense of a change of Persons between Christ and Us, must be, that we were Chang'd for him, so as to Die for his Sins: Never did a Socinus, a Crellius, or any rash English Unitarian charge this phrase, and the generality of the Reformed, with more than Blas∣phemy. But,

3. Where is the man, that ever gave such a sense of this phrase? The learned Witsius is persuaded, That never any one, who understood Divinity, no, not a Man in his Wits, did ever Dream of such a Permutation of Persons, as that, which places the Saviour amongst the saved. Iren. Animad. cap. 2. §. 8. And sure I am, that Crellius, tho' he fastned a wrong sense upon the word Surrogation, 'twas not such a Blasphemous one. For, when he saith, There is not a proper Surrogation in Christ's Dying for us, It is (saith he) because a proper Surrogation must be such a

Commutation of Persons, that the substituted person is, in all respects, to be in the same place, and state, wherein the other was, and if it refers to Sufferings, then it is when one suffers the very same, which the other was to suffer, he being immediately delivered by the others suffering. But in answer unto Crellius it's cleared, That to endure the same Punishment in all respects, is not necessary to a proper Surrogation. That, if David, (as the Bishop of Worcester has it) had obtain'd his wish, that he had Died for his Son Absolom, it had not been necessary in order to his Sons Escape, that he had hanged by the Hair of his Head, as his Son; but his Death, tho' in other cir∣cumstances, had been sufficient. And therefore, when the Lawyers say, subrogatum sapit naturam ejus, in cujus Locum subrogatur: Coverruvias tells us, it is to be understood secundum primordia••em natu∣ram, non secundum accidentalem; from whence it ap∣pears, that all circumstances are not necessary to be the same in Surrogation, but that the Nature of the Punishment remain. Discours. of Christ's suff. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 324. But where is the man, who at any time ••••••∣cied that a Commutation of Persons between Christ a•••• Us, must signifie, that as Christ suffered for us, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we suffered for Christ. There is a Commutation between a Surety and the Debtor, which is when the Surety, sustaining the Person of the Debtor, pays his Debts for him; but must this phrase of a change of Persons between the Surety and the Deb∣tor, signifie, that the Debtor pays the Debts of his Surety? Is it not sufficient, that it signifieth, that on the Sureties coming into the same Bonds with the Debtor, and Paying the Debt he owed, the Debtor be thereby delivered? The same may be truly said of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he being our Surety, took on him our Person, so that there was a change of Persons between him and us, He paid the Debt

we owed, that we might be delivered. Not that we Paid any Debts for Christ, for he owed none. But the Term Surety is also rejected, as what can't bear a sound sense; which may further assure us, That a Change of Person between Christ and Us, is de∣nied in the general sense. Once more,

4. As the phrase of a change of Persons between Christ and Us is entirely denied, in like manner a New Phrase of a Change of Christs Person is invented, and put into its place, Tho' what to make of it my Brother is at a loss; and when He goes about to ex∣plain it, he is miserably confounded.