Defense of the Report, Part 2 · Section 3
III. A Commutation or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, is Denyed.
The Paper ſent by ſome Presbyterian Brethren unto the Congregational, intimating, that the Author of Goſpel Truth Stated, had denyed a Commutation or Change of Perſons between Christ and us; the Reverend Brethren, who meet at Little St. Hellens, delivered their Oppoſite Senſe thus, It is manifeſt, that when Mr. Williams uſeth the Phraſe [of no Change of Perſons between Christ and us] it could not be intended, as a denyal of a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, in the general Senſe.
But what thinks my Reverend Brother of this? It appears clear enough to me, that he is of Opinion, That Mr. Ws. doth deny a Change of Perſons between Christ and us, in every Senſe. And yet on the other hand, he ſeems to argue, as if Mr. Ws. held a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, in ſome Senſe, which is Evident from what he ſaith of a Change and no Change; [tho' he had little Reaſon to ſpeak of no Change, ſeeing he is the man that is given ſo much to Change] and his falling ſo ſeverely upon the Reporter, for ſuggeſting, that Mr. Ws. Denyed a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, in every Senſe? For he very triumphantly tells us,
Faithful Rebuke.
Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Perſon, ſimpliciter, ſed ſecundum quid; not univerſally, but reſtrictively; for the moſt univerſal Terms are not always univerſally to be underſtood. pag. 38.
Reply.
1. This Paragraph of my Reverend Brother, in Connection with what precedes, and follows it, doth, I confeſs, look as if he held, that Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, in the general ſenſe: And for once we will ſuppoſe it, and ſee how agreeable this Notion is with his way of arguing on this occaſion, which is thus,
2. Mr. Ws. did not deny a Change of Perſon ſimpliciter, ſed ſecundum quid, not univerſally but restrictively. Well then; on this ſuppoſal, what follows? Becauſe Mr. Ws. did nor deny a Change of Perſon, ſimpliciter, and univerſally, therefore muſt he be for a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, ſecundum quid, & restrictively? Yes; It muſt be ſo. How then ſhall we Conciliate this Notion with what is in pag. 9. in which place he thus expreſſeth himſelf; Where lies the neceſſity, that becauſe there was a Change of Christs Perſon for ſinners, there muſt be a Change of Perſon between Chriſt and ſinners? This Paſſage makes it evident, that in the Judgment of my Brother, theſe two Phraſes [A Change of Chriſts Perſon for ſinners;] and [a Change of Perſon between Chriſt and ſinners] are ſo very different, and in their Meaning ſo Remote from each other, that from the Aſſerting the one, the other cannot be neceſſarily inferred. How then can, ſay I, theſe two Paſſages be Conciliated? Mr. Ws. muſt hold a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, ſecundum quid, becauſe he doth not ſimply and univerſally deny a Change of Christs Perſon; and yet there lyes no neceſſity, that becauſe there is a Change of Christs Perſon for us, there must be a Change of Perſons between Christ and Us? How ſhall we ſet theſe things together? Or, find in our Brothers Arguings a Defence of the Brethren at Little St. Hellens? It muſt be thus or not at all, that I can ſee. Mr. Ws. doth not deny a change of Christ's Perſon Simply and Univerſally, therefore in ſome reſpect he muſt be for a change of Perſon between Chriſt and Us. That is to ſay, tho' a Man may hold a change of Christ's Perſon, without holding a change of Perſons between Christ and Us, in any ſenſe; yet Mr. Ws. muſt be for a change of Perſons between Christ and Us, in ſome ſenſe, becauſe he doth not deny a change of Christ's Perſon ſimply, and in every ſenſe. He muſt own that the Apoſtle Peter was a good man, in ſome reſpect, becauſe he doth not ſay, that St. Paul was Evil in every reſpect. The Connection between a change of Christ's Perſon, and a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, is, in the Judgment of my Brother, no other than what is between the Piety of the one Apoſtle, and the Infirmities of the other. But,
3. My Brother is in good earneſt, only for a change of Chriſt's Perſon, without a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Ʋs, as I will ſoon prove, ſo that all this noiſe about a change of Chriſt's Perſon ſecundum quid, and Reſtrictively, is nothing to the purpoſe. The queſtion is not, whether there be a change of Chriſt's Perſon for Sinners? No Socinian will deny thus much. But, whether there be a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Sinners? The Brethren at St. Hellens ſay, There is a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us; at leaſt in the general ſenſe, and they thought, that Mr. Ws. held ſo too. But, if we may Judge of Mr. Ws. by his Defender, its notorious, that Mr. Ws. doth not hold a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, in any ſenſe. That this phraſe is of a late contrivance, and muſt have a Blaſphemous ſenſe, as I will ſhew from my Brothers own words.
Faithful Rebuke.
The Controverſie lieth in ſome School Terms, or Jargons of Art, of a very late Contrivance, ſuch as a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Ʋs. p. 30.
Reply.
1. This contemptuous Treatment, with which my Brother entertains this phraſe, (which as it has been long ago uſed by the Church of God; ſo is it moſt apt to expreſs that great Truth, delivered in the Holy Scriptures, where it's ſaid, Chriſt died for us) can indicate nothing leſs than that He Believes not a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us.
2. He ſaith, that it is a phraſe of a very late contrivance, and a School Term, whereas the learned Dr. Owen hath prov'd it to have been uſed by the Fathers, ſuch as St. Auſtin, St. Chryſoſtome, Gregory Nyſſen, and Juſtin Martyr, long before the Schoolmen had their riſe. Owen of Juſtif. p. 41, &c. and Witſius proves it too.
My Brother goeth on to aſſure us, that this phraſe, of a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, muſt have a Blaſphemous ſenſe.
Faithful Rebuke.
Let us Examine the phraſe: A change of perſons between Chriſt and Us; If I underſtood Grammar, the ſenſe muſt be, that Chriſt was changed for us; and we for Chriſt, the change muſt be mutual, and Interchangeable. But though Chriſt Redeemed us; we never Redeemed Chriſt: Chriſt ſtood in our place, as our Redeemer, we never ſtood in his place, nor were his Redeemers: He Died for us, for our ſins; we nenever Died for him, for his ſins. p. 9.
Reply.
1. That my reverend Brother hath delivered himſelf, 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 Blaſphemy. 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 circumſtances, 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 naturam, non ſecundum accidentalem; from whence it appears, 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 Debtor, 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 denied 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 explain it, he is miſerably confounded.
Faithful Rebuke.
This phraſe, the Change of the Perſon of Chriſt, may have, and truly has an Honeſt, and ſound ſenſe, in which it may be of ſome good Uſe to Explain the Doctrines of Satisfaction, and Juſtification; and it is that which the R. R. the Biſhop of Worceſter, with Grotius againſt Crellius do put upon it, Reaſ. of Chriſt's Suffer. Edit. 1. p. 144. viz. The Substitution of One Perſon in the room of another, &c. p. 44.
Reply.
1. There is, ſaith he, an Honeſt ſenſe of this phraſe, [the change of Chriſts Perſon] hath, and it is that, which the R. R. the Biſhop of Worceſter, with Grotius againſt Crellius put upon it. He ſhould have ſaid what Grotius, with the Biſhop of Worcester againſt Crellius put upon it; for, tho' Crellius▪ wrote againſt Grotius, and the Biſhop againſt Crellius, yet Grotius never wrote againſt Crellius.
2. What ſenſe did theſe great Men put upon this phraſe, of a change of Chriſts perſon? I can't conceive how they ſhould put any ſenſe upon it, for, 'twas not known, when they wrote on Chriſt's Satisfaction; nor ever invented till the Gentleman, who engaged my Brother to enter upon this ſorrowful Undertaking, ſtarted it. And to ſpeak the Truth, 'tis a phraſe only adjuſted to expreſs no more than what the Socinians do conſtantly grant; for they ſay it again and again, that Chriſt, tho' he ſuffered not the Puniſhment due to us for ſin, yet he endured Grievous and Dolorous Pains, which is aptly enough expreſſed, when it's ſaid there was a change of Chriſt's Perſon for us, for he was, ſay theſe Hereticks, Changed from Eaſe to Pain for our Good. However,
3. My Brother will have it, that the Biſhop hath put a ſound ſenſe upon this phraſe, viz. It is the Subſtitution of one Perſon into the room of another. Doth the Biſhop give this Interpretation of the phraſe of a change of Chriſt's Perſon? Or, doth he not rather think, that there can be no Subſtitution of one Perſon into the room of another, without a change of Perſon between that One, and the other? Thus much undoubtedly he holds. But to Inſinuate, that this great Man and Grotius are for a change of Chriſt's Perſon, without a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, and make that change of Chriſt's Perſon to ſignifie a Subſtitution of Chriſt in our room, is to repreſent 'em to be ſuch Self-contradictors, as indeed, my Brother and his Principal are. A change of Chriſt's Perſon, without a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, muſt be a Change without a Subſtitution, for a Subſtitution there cannot be without a change of Perſons between one, and another. To affirm that Chriſt was Subſtituted into our Place and Room, and at the ſame time to deny a Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt and Us, is to Say, and Unſay.
That I may therefore clear the Truth in this Inſtance, and Vindicate theſe learned Men from the charge of denying a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Ʋs, and of affirming a Subſtitution of Chriſt into our room, I will give you their own words on this Subject, and add to them what the great Turretine ſaith of the phraſe of a change of Perſons between Chriſt and Us.
1. That Grotius is for a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, I mean ſuch a Change of Perſons between the one and the other, as is more than only a Change of a Perſon. For, 1. Grotius his word is Commutation, which imports, that what is changed hath an eſſential reſpect to the Change of another, whether it be meant of Things or Perſons, the Commutation muſt ſignifie more than the Change either of one thing, or of one Perſon, it muſt be between Thing and Thing; or between Perſon and Perſon; Or, as Crellius ſaith, between a Thing and a Perſon: Tho' there may be a Change of one thing only, or of one Perſon; yet, a Commutation of one thing; or of one Perſon only is an Implication. 2. The Change, Grotius ſpeaks of, is ſuch a Change, as is per ſucceſſionem, where one goeth out of the place and another comes into it, which cannot poſſibly be, if the Change be only of one. As often (ſaith Grotius) as the Praepoſition foreign, [For] is applied to Perſons, it ſignifieth the coming of one into the room and place of another by Succeſſion. Thus Archelaus is ſaid to Reign foreign [For Herod] That is, He Succeeded Herod in the Throne. — Socinus, when preſſed, dares not deny, that foreign [For many] doth ſignifie a Commutation. — We were Debitores mortis, from this debt we were diſcharged by Chriſts giving ſomewhat, to give ſomewhat, that by it, we may be diſcharged, is to Pay or Satisfie. This Phraſe therefore, foreign [To give for many] doth always ſignifie a True Commutation; not a Metaphorical One, as Socinus without any Preſident affirms. — foreign, For, doth neceſſarily denote a Commutation. Grot. de Satiſ. Cap. 9.
Here's not a word of the Change of one Perſon only; it being a Commutation, which is a Change between one Perſon and another, that Grotius ſpeaks of, where he, who owed nothing, is come into the place of the Debtor, and paying the debt, the Debtor is diſcharged, and thereby brought into a ſtate of Liberty and Freedom. Here is, I ſay, a Commutation, or Change of Perſons, which in ſome reſpect is mutual, but not in all reſpects ſo; It is, as the Learned Dr. Owen has it, a Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, as to ſin and Righteouſneſs, whence Chriſt is made our ſin, and they, who believe, are made the Righteouſneſs of God in Chriſt, 2 Cor. 5.21.
2. The Right Reverend the Biſhop of Worcester, who, in his Defence of Grotius, againſt Crellius, hath very Clearly ſtated the Controverſie between the Orthodox and the Socinians, and given the true ſenſe of Grotius: is very particular and diſtinct in his Aſſerting and Explaining the Doctrine of a Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt and us, in theſe words, In the matter of Redemption, or where foreign is uſed, Crellius will by no means yield, that there was a Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt and us; but all the Commutation he will allow here, is only a Commutation between a Thing or a Price and a Perſon; which he therefore aſſerts, that ſo there may be no neceſſity of Chriſts undergoing the Puniſhment of ſin, in order to Redemption, becauſe the Price that is paid, is not ſuppoſed to undergo the Condition of the Perſon Delivered by it; which will evidently appear to have no force at all, in caſe we can prove, that a Proper Redemption may be obtained by the Puniſhment of one in the room of another; for that Puniſhment then comes to be the foreign, or Price of Redemption, and he that pays this, muſt be ſuppoſed to undergo Puniſhment for it: ſo that the Commutation being between the one and the other, Redeemed by it, here is a Proper Commutation of Perſons implied in the Payment of the price. Diſc. of Chriſts ſuffer. Ed. 2. pag. 325.
In theſe words the Learned Biſhop is very full in aſſerting a Proper Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt and us; That whereas Crellius denied a Commutation of Perſons that there might be no neceſſity of Chriſts undergoing the Puniſhment of ſin, in order to Redemption, the Biſhop doth with clearneſs detect his ſubtilty; and Learnedly Confute him, making it to appear, that thoſe places of Scripture, where foreign, and foreign are joyned together, do prove a Commutation, not of a price for a Perſon, but of one Perſon for another; or which is the ſame, a ſubstitution of one Perſon in the room of another; for, theſe Phraſes, [a Commutation of one Perſon for another] and [a ſubſtitution of one Perſon into the room of another] as the Biſhop and all others, acquainted with this Controverſie, apprehend, do ſignifie ſo much the ſame thing, that whoever yields the one, can't in reaſon deny the other.
The Biſhop, diſcourſing of Expiatory Sacrifices, clears it, that the Jews themſelves underſtood foreign, Capar, to import ſuch an Expiation as is made by the ſubſtitution of one in the Place of another, telling us, that Buxturf has collected many Inſtances, wherein Capara is taken by the Rabinical Writers for ſuch an Expiation, whereby one was to undergo a Puniſhment in the place of another; And (ſaith the Biſhop) I inſiſt on theſe things, only to let us underſtand, that the Jews never underſtood Capar in the ſenſe our Adverſaries contend for, when applyed to an Expiatory Sacrifice, but as implying a Commutation and a Subſtitution of one in the place of another, ſo as by the puniſhment of that, the other in whoſe room he ſuffers, may obtain deliverance. Of Chriſts Suffer. p. 359, 360. Here you ſee a Commutation and a Subſtitution do go together, and as the Biſhop adds, Which is the ſenſe we plead for.
The thing is ſo very clear, that my Brother could never have miſ-repreſented theſe Great Men thus, nor indeed have himſelf fallen into this miſtake, if he had not uſed the word, without framing in his Mind an Idea of its Import. If he had taken the Phraſe of a Subſtitution of one Perſon into the Room of another, in the Common Senſe of the Words, he could not but obſerve, a Commutation, or Change of Perſons between the one and the other, and that if the Change had been but of one, of the Subſtituted Perſon only, there could be no room for him to be placed in, that is, there could be no Subſtitution.
In a word, from what I have inſiſted on it's manifeſt, that the Learned Biſhop is moſt expreſs in aſſerting a Proper Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us: So that my Reverend Brother, when he ſuggeſts the contrary, doth really miſ-repreſent and abuſe the Biſhop. But
3. The Learned Turretine, who is acknowledged by all to have written of Chriſts Satisfaction with as much clearneſs, and ſtrength as moſt Men, is very large in his Defence of a Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, againſt Socinus and Crellius, For (ſaith he) ſeeing our Salvation may be conſidered under a fourfold Reſpect; (1.) With reſpect to God, Judging. (2.) As to Chriſt, Redeeming, and ſo there is a Permutation, becauſe Chriſt is made ſin, and a Curſe for us, that we might be the bleſſed of God in him. De Satiſ. par. 1. Diſp. 3. § 29. And in the following Diſputation, § 5. When it's ſaid Mat. 20.28. Chriſt gave himſelf a Ranſom for many, the praepoſition foreign Communiſſimè, & maximè propriè ſubſtitutionem, & Commutationem deſignat; this praepoſition [For] doth moſt frequently and properly denote a Subſtitution and Commutation: And this Great Man adds, Crellius againſt Grotius, inſinuates, that we are deceived in thinking, that there is a Commutation between Chriſt and us, in the controverted Places, as if, when we were to give our ſouls, Chriſt in our Place gave his Soul, the Commutation is only between a Thing and a Perſon; between a Price, that is, the Soul and Life of Chriſt, and us, as Captives and Slaves, but who did ever ſay, that Chriſts blood m… ſubrogated for us, and came into our Place▪ To th… of Crellius, Turretine thus anſwers, That whilſt he endeavours to deceive others, he himſelf is moſt ſhamefully deluded, for theſe are not our words ſed verba Scripturae, but it is the Scripture, quae Commutationem illam inter Chriſtum & nos ſtatuit, dum expreſſè dicit Chriſtum ſeipſum dediſſe pro multis, which direct to this Commutation, or Change between Chriſt and us; when it's ſaid ſo expreſly, that Chriſt gave himſelf for many, Mat. 20.28, &c.
This Phraſe of a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, is, in the Judgment of the Learned Turretine, a Scripture Phraſe, intended by Chriſt himſelf when it's ſaid, He gave himſelf [For] many. I might give a large Catalogue of other Authorities, but, that this is the Doctrine, commonly received by Proteſtants, is ſo manifeſt, that whoever hath any tollerable Acquaintance with their Writings, cannot but be convinced of the Truth of what I do herein affirm, much more ſhould he, who has received a Commiſſion from all the Systematical Divines of Germany, the Voluminous Tigurines and Bulky Low-Dutch, and with thoſe few that are left in England, be ſufficienty inſtructed in the Knowledge of ſuch a Plain and Common Truth.
Theſe things then have been cleared that my Rebuker doth untruly repreſent the Phraſe of a Change of Perſons between Christ and us, to be a Jargon of Art; of a very late Contrivance; that can't bear a ſound ſenſe, but muſt ſignifie Blasphemy; That he, or his guide, has invented a New Phraſe of a Change of Chriſts Perſon; that he has Unrighteouſly Charged Grotius and the Biſhop of Worceſter, for uſing it, that the ſenſe he feigns them to put upon it is inconſiſtent with his denying a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us; And, do he what he can, he muſt ſplit either on a Contradiction; or on Blaſphemy, or both.
Thus you ſee whither my Brothers Heats, or ſomewhat elſe has hurryed him.
But it's urged, that tho' a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, is denyed; yet ſo long as it's owned, that the Lord Chriſt ſuffered in our Place and Stead, the Truth is ſecured.
Faithful Rebuke.
I would a thouſand times ſooner chuſe to adhere to this Phraſe, Chriſt ſuffered, and dyed in our Stead and Place [Loco noſtro, vice noſtrâ] than to that other; In the ſufferings of Chriſt, there was a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us; for the former has had its ſignification ſtrongly fixed, and ſettled by long Uſage, and Praeſcription: Whereas this latter is but of Yeſterday, and ſcarce two Perſons, no, not the Inventors agreed amongſt themſelves, what ſenſe to ſtamp upon it. Again, the plaineſt Chriſtians have a tolerable underſtanding of the former, whereas the other does but Amuſe and Confound them. p. 37.
Reply.
1. If Mr. Ws. had taken this Phraſe [in our place and ſtead] in it's Antient and Genuine Senſe, it would have argued, that he was ſound in the Faith, and that his rejecting the Phraſe of a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, would have been only an evincement of his want of Learning, and that he underſtood not the Controverſie he wrote of.
2. That, if this had been the Caſe, the Reverend Brethren, at Little St. Hellens, would have been in the Right, when they ſaid, Mr. Ws. cannot be underſtood to deny a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, in the general ſenſe becauſe he uſes the Phraſe of Chriſts ſuffering in our place and ſtead, which doth ſignifie a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us. But
3. He who wrote the Report, had, it's like, ſome Reaſons, moving him to ſuſpect Mr. Ws. that as he did (whether in ignorance or knowingly, I ſay not) concur with Socinus and Crellius, in denying a Proper Commutation, or Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us; ſo he did with ſome high Arminians, and the Engliſh Ʋnitarians, impoſe a wrong ſenſe on the Phraſe of Chriſts ſuffering in our Place and Stead, who intend by it no more than that Chriſt ſuffered for our good, in which ſenſe it doth not, I confeſs, imply a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us; nor can the Uſe of it be ſufficient to prove, that he who doth expreſly deny a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, doth hold a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, which was the thing the Reporter preſſed. And now the Rebuker has made manifeſt.
4. That the Phraſe of Chriſts ſuffering in our place and ſtead, is not taken by them in the ſenſe of the Reformed, for as it's ſet up in contradiſtinction to a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and us, ſo it's made to ſignifie no more than for our good, for which reaſon the next Charge is,